Talk:Democratic legitimacy of the European Union

As an explanation for the creation of this article, it was created after some concerns about the "democratic deficit" article being dominated by the issue of the European Union. I created it therefore to relieve that article and also to give a more detailed account of the arguments related to the EU. This is one of the key debates in the literature on European integration and I felt it merited its own article. I am not an expert and this involves numerous theories some of which I know and some of which I don't, so I've done the best I can - hopefully this can have some more contributions in the future. blankfrackis 17:35, November 18, 2006

Tidying up

I tidied up the introduction to this article, this - "after the first energy transition from coal to gas in 1963 (Gasunie) as the world's root cause for globalization" is rather confusing and wasn't needed for a simple reference to the European Union. The last sentence was also very meandering and imprecise - "due to the overall complexity resulting in a fundamental lack of overview and direction of the democratic process being overshadowed by international institutional conduct and strategic behavior under market pressure". If anyone is unhappy with the edit then feel free to post something here. Jason - 19:20, December 6, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by blankfrackis (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

neutrality

i don't see whats wrong with the neutrality of this article, it seems fine to me Theglobeismyeye 01:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it mentions a large number of "arguments", but very little is verifiably attributed to specific groups or individuals. This is against Wikipedia policy, see WP:WEASEL. Junes 09:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"the idea that the governance of the European Union in some way lacks democratic legitimacy" from the outset, this is carefully worded to cast doubt on the suggestion of democratic deficit. If you want to make this page impartial, you could start by rephrasing this sentence to: "some argue there is a democratic deficit, others contest it, or say that the phrase is misleading". As it stands, it is all too clear where the sympathies of the writers lie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.47.144 (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

??? the empty core

This topic defines the European Union, so why is it so ... Never mind. Does anyone know how to stick a tag on it to label it as Important and Worthy of Immediate Expansion and attract the attention of the obsessives? Vinny Burgoo (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a guide

Articles on wikipedia shouldn't be shaped as a guide to arguments of pros and cons. What individual scholars think/claim/have found out, can never be part of a good article (because one can always find people who claim the opposite on this subject). See Wikipedia:Pro and con lists. - SSJ ☎ 00:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Bias

This article is biased, because it presents rebuttals against arguments of "democratic deficit" before or without even presenting the arguments that the topic of the article is based on.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.74.195.92 (talk) 2009-11-12

That would appear to suggest that the title itself is biased.--Boson (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia, so hope this is in the right place. This article is biased. Rather than presenting arguments that suggest the EU is in some way undemocratic (and there are many) it simply gives reasons why the EU is in fact democratic. The section on the European parliament simply says it is 'claimed to be powerless due to its recent past', then goes on to argue that it is democratic with quotes from a very pro-EU lib dem. 'Transparency and judicial review' just says why the EU is supposedly more transparent than national government without even bothering to outline the criticism. The 'European executive' simply outlines why the EU has increased democracy. Overall, the bias is astonishing and this really needs to be completely rewritten. The article as it stands is simply criticism of the argument for a democratic deficit. -Steven — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.108.207 (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you suggest some sources for the claims that are rebutted, so that the criticisms can be inserted ? I agree that the article should not state, for instance, that the EU is democratic; it should state what positions are held (and by whom) regarding the alleged "democratic deficit". In my view, this article should be restricted to claims that specifically mention a democratic deficit (or its absence). This article is not the place for us to debate whether the EU is democratic; it is the place to say what arguments are put forward by others. In my view, it does this correctly (though perhaps too briefly) for the arguments put forward by the German Constitutional Court. --Boson (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, just agreeing with the above. This reads more like a one-sided rebuttal of any criticism on the 'democratic deficit'. Reading this one would imagine that there is no concern whatsoever about such issues, which is patently not the case.

I get the impression one favourable to the EU is behind most of the comments. I invite anyone who is qualified to please rectify the article in the interests of balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.11.157 (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about what you think is wrong? Perhaps you could point to a few sentences, or at least say which sections you are thinking of. --Boson (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This article does sound very pro-EU. I'm not qualified enough to make changes, but it doesn't mention any of the specific criticisms of European institutions. In 2014, it's a bit out of date to compare European Parliament and US Presidential elections from the late 1990s. US turnout in 2012 was about 58% and EU turnout in 2014 was 42%. Insert90 (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to add some of the criticisms, along with some more detailed information on how it actually works, some of the facts among what is being critisised. All that was removed. Will the remover please tell me why. If I don't come to agree on things that needed to be removed, I will revert the text to my version Onkel a (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

German article

The German article is differently structured. I translated a section from it:

Federalist Arguments:

A considerable criticism from a federalist perspective is the absence of a referendum to the Lisbon treaty; generally, federalists have encouraged a common, Europe-wide vote instead of multiple national referenda for the ratification of the treaty.

In substance, the Treaty of Lisbon (from a federalist perspective) has muiltiple advantages. Most crucially is the renewed expansion of the competencies of the European Parliament. The co-decision procedure (henceforth: "Orderly Legislative Procedure") will then be applied in more areas of policy, particularly in the (previously strictly intergovernmentally-organized) areas of police and judicial co-operation in criminal cases. Additionally, the Lisbon Treaty removes the differentiation between "obligatory" and "non-obligatory" expenditures; the parliament has full rights of co-determination [representative participation?] over all EU allocations, including agricultural expenditures [I'm assuming they mean farm subsidies].

Furthermore, the Lisbon Treaty should increase the transparency of decisions in the [European] Council of Ministers: they must, when legislatively active, meet publically.

-Ich (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Do we have reliable sources for the statements about federalist criticisms of the Lisbon Treaty. The idea of not having referendums in the constituent states would appear to be a somewhat novel interpretation of federalism. --Boson (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The EU Democratic deficit and the Fiscal Compact Treaty

Hi - I am new to contributions/edits on Wikipedia so excuse my naivety and please bear with me... I believe, there is an issue concerning the ratification criteria for the Fiscal Compact treaty and the democratic deficit. I have touched briefly on this elsewhere - http://startledearwig.blogspot.com/2012/03/irish-referendum-on-eu-fiscal-compact.html

Now before anyone reads that and goes off on let my stress I am pro-European, not a vote 'NO' rabble rouser who would vote no, no matter what, type.In fact my principal objection to the EU Fiscal Treaty referendum in Ireland is my own interpretation of how far this democratic deficit is now entrenched in the EU, that in order to to implement the agenda being pursued, the EU is prepared to structure the rules for future treaty ratification so that a country rejecting a treaty change would no longer prevent that same treaty being ratified. There are other aspects of the treaty I do not like but that is not the issue here.

Is my opinion shared sufficiently, that a balanced contribution could be made here to that effect? I do not feel it appropriate to raise this on pages relating directly to the treaty, or on any of the other EU/EU structures related articles I have read to date.

Thanks

Max Maxwellsh (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Myth of the democratic deficit (recent edit)?

While there are, doubtless, unsubstantiated claims made about the extent of the democratic deficit of the EU, we should not exaggerate in the other direction. The cited source for the statement

• "The academic consensus is that there is no democratic deficit in the EU ... ", an article by by Andrew Moravcsik in a journal section entitled Forum, starts off with
• "One hears everywhere today that the European Union suffers from a"democratic deficit" ...and argues
• "The empirical evidence for the existence of a "democratic deficit" is unpersuasive. Certainly, Europe is, overall, no worse off than its constituent member states."

Here and elsewhere, Moravcsik hedges his claims with various qualifications. He seems to be actually arguing that the democratic deficit of the EU is no worse than that of a lot of other places. Elsewhere, he asks "why, then, is there such public and scholarly concern about the "democratic deficit"? All this makes it clear that there is a debate. The German Constitutional Court seems to be on the other side.

As for the edit summary

• "The Myth of Europe's Democratic Deficit" I mean it's in the title guys, it's legitimate to say that empirically there is no democratic deficit, although it's important to highlight that the concern exists.",

it is, indeed, legitimate for Moravcsik to argue this, but it is not legitimate for us to state it as fact or consensus. Moravcsik does call his article

• "The Myth of Europe's Democratic Deficit", but there is also an article somewhere that includes
• "the Myth of Wikipedia" in the title.

There is also an article

• "Why we Should not Believe every Lesson Andrew Moravcsik Teaches Us".

--Boson (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Democratic deficit in the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090527031742/http://europa.eu:80/scadplus/glossary/democratic_deficit_en.htm to http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/democratic_deficit_en.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090131055002/http://www.consilium.europa.eu:80/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=1279&lang=EN to http://www.consilium.europa.eu/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=1279&lang=EN

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

EU Parliament

The article currently says a source of democratic legitimacy is "the European Parliament, directly elected by the people of the European Union as a whole". The phrase "as a whole" is misleading. A little later in the same section, the US Senate is said to represent the "peoples of the individual states". In addition, the widely used party list system means that most members of the EU parliament are selected by the parties while the voters simply vote for a party. I propose changing the quoted phrase to "the European Parliament, chosen by the electorates of the individual EU countries." Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Concept

.. concept of a democratic deficit within the European Union ..? Let's look to the term Concept : Quote A concept is instantiated (reified) by all of its actual or potential instances, In contrast to this definition, the alleged deficit is just only one opinion among many others, according to that what is understood by the term democracy.

So even the title is not WP:NPV. bkb (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 15 April 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Democratic deficit in the European Union → Democratic legitimacy of the European Union – I think the title Democratic deficit in the European Union is a descriptive title which is not neutral. It implies the existence of a democratic deficit. I'm not making any claim here about whether a democratic deficit exists or not. However, the existence or non-existence of a democratic deficit is a matter of opinion. I suggest we rename the article as Democratic legitimacy of the European Union. Thoughts? Krubo (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Reminiscent of the "when did you stop beating your wife?" trope. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with the nominator's rationale. It also just seems like a more natural-sounding title than the current one. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wiki Education assignment: Open Democracy

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2022 and 7 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vijay.p.pathak (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Rayyan Valaydon.

— Assignment last updated by Rayyan Valaydon (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)