As a brit I have to say I honestly never felt any connection to the EU, I didn't even know it existed until my late teens, it was never talked about in school or anything & I never knew the names of the commission presidents or felt any connection to them either.
I don’t think there is anyone in the EU that feels a strong connection with the commissioners et cetera. That might also not be entirely necessary but knowing who they are and what they do, should be common knowledge considering the influence it has on our lives.
That will turn the EU into a federation. The problem is that a stronger EU government means weaker national governments. And no national government wants that.
It depends on your definition of 'weaker'. One could argue that without the EU the Member States would have lost a lot more autonomy against major powers like China and the US. So it will 'cost' something, but the alternative is worse, wouldn't you agree?
@@Ciceroni1 I said that the national governments would have less power. Not the countries themselves. I support globalization, but it's the will of the people to decide. If Hungarians and Germans would like to be in the same country or not.
I think you should not promote a federalist pov without saying it out loud. Maybe do a video with a group from the EU Parliament that do not want more integration. Good topic, but a bit too biased according to me
@@zptl4523 This video is indeed clearly biased towards a more federal system. A video highlighting the other side would indeed also be interesting in the future. Any particular programme/party that has a well written out plan for this that we could use?
I really do hope that the future of representative democracy results in a system of electing politicians who are just bureaucrats at heart. Those who have a passion for using government to make society better, and actually have the experience and knowledge to implement it. And to ensure their beliefs are generally agreed on people would elect them to ensure that no particular view is imposed on others if it doesn't have public support.
Very interesting video! Would Single Transferable Vote with multi-member districts not be a better voting system for a reformed European Parliament though? Standard Mixed-Member Proportional Representation is fine, but if the idea is to craft a pan-European standard, why not aim for something better?
@@Ciceroni1 Thank you for your response to my comment! In my opinion, the main reason Single Transferable Vote is better than Mixed-Member Proportional representation is because of the single-member constituencies in MMP. MMP is a good system, so long as the single-member constituencies are not gerrymandered and the elections are not run by First-Past-the-Post. I particularly worry about gerrymandering, as while it can ostensibly be solved by having an independent redistricting commission, that depends on mustering enough political will to form and support such a body. Single Transferable Vote with multi-member (4-5) districts has the same advantages as MMP in terms of combining both regional and proportional representation. But the larger, multi-member districts are a bit more immune to gerrymandering than single or even dual-member constituencies due to their size. Depending on demographics, it is still theoretically possible that a 5-member district could be gerrymandered to favour a particular party, but it is not as easy as with single-member districts. In my mind, it is better to make it more difficult to gerrymander. I admit, however, that STV can be complicated to implement. At least in the case of the EU, the Irish already use it, so their institutional experience with the system can help guide the implementaiton of STV for the European Parliament. I may also have misunderstood some of the mathematical models behind STV and MMP (mathematics is not my strongest subject). European-wide MPP (with the single constituencies elected under Instant-Runoff Voting or some other decent system) would be fine, but I think European-wide STV would be even better :)
I like the Irish STV system :) But Reinier wants to use the only system He actually know: the Dutch one. He wants to ditch all constituencies to make way for one big one. Basically the system of the Netherlands which lacks local representation. It makes the Netherlands way more right wing and populistic than it should be because the whole debate is far away from the people. Lies are repeatedly not punished because framing is more important. So transnational lists are a terrible idea in this age of social media.
So The Netherlands receives for its €10+ annual contribution to the EU: political stability freedom for citizens to live, study or work anywhere in the EU increased trade via access to the single market increased funding and investment higher social, environmental, and consumer standards So how do you calculate a tangible return on this investment? I still fail to see how more government is better?
amazing video! Sadly im pretty pessimistic about these aspects of the eu being changed. In my opinion any of those proposals would just be blocked by member countries
Very likely in the current state of things. But it does not have to be a short term project. These changes might take a while but would be worth it right?
3:46 The Netherlands is basically the only country with one district. And this system is failing us terribly at the moment. Don't make the mistake to push this flawed system to a European level. This would make the EU more right wing and populistic than it should be. 99% of the people are used to the fact that they cannot vote on everyone in their country. They vote for someone in their district. And The Netherlands should want that system also before populists swallow our system for breakfast. To cut short: transnational lists are a terrible idea that make Europe less democratic. Reinier doe je huiswerk (vraag politicologen vanuit de gehele EU) voordat je ons verschrikkelijke ééndistrictenstelsel opdringt aan Europa. In Nederland doen we er zelfs goed aan om kiesdistricten in te voeren om onze democratie te versterken. Bij gebrek aan lokale volksvertegenwoordigers grijpen demagogen op beeldschermen ver van de burgers de macht.
Actually the idea is not to have one constituency like in The Netherlands but rather a similar system to the German national elections. As we say in the video: half the seats are proportional and the other half are directly elected in the constituencies.
@@Ciceroni1 As a Volt member I'm very critical on this subject since we only have one chance to do it right. Like Reinier said himself: the German system is too complex because of its double vote. I can image Germany is dominant in the discussion because of its size. But we sometimes have to look at the small miracles right next to our doorstep. Currently Denmark is nr one in the electoral democracy index with only one vote. Denmark elects 80% of its seats via districts and 20% are national leveling seats. To give it a Dutch flavour: not rewarding overhang seats is worth a discussion. If we want to make European democracy more visible we can decide to stop using national party names. Furthermore instead the most common sense thing to do is to reserve 20% of the seats as leveling seats that are rewarded to the European factions based on the popular vote. I would not suggest to use closed (transnational) lists for this, but to let the voters decide who'll make it to parliament. Together with more federal central media this would be a great boost to the European democracy.
This would negatively impact sovereignty inside the country, and reduce differences between nations, would it not? I do not want to live in the country Europe.
@@Ciceroni1 Same laws, thus less options for individual choice in where I want to live. Loss of national autonomy because laws can be forced down the throat of a nation. Further loss of border control for things and people. Potential replacement over time of national governments with the european government. We need to set strict rules and boundries for the EU powers. Something like this?
This video definitely shows the huge difference in thinking between most people and Mr van Lanschot, which from the video makes it seem like he fails to realise it. Most people are their own nationality first, region second, and European third. There's a lot of mention in the video about it being crazy if national governments were organised in the way the European one is, but the European institutions are not national ones. To most people, being part of the EU is something we do because it benefits our country, not because we identify as European. Changing the EU so that a 5% quota would be needed for 50% of seats would mean that small countries would effectively lose 50% of their political power to parties who don't have much incentive to focus on the smaller countries. EP parliamentarians do act on national interests, the same way national parliamentarians act on regional interests since they represent the region of the people who voted for them. That doesn't mean that they always oppose each other because they always want more, they just work together to find the best solution for all regions(and countries). The video doesn't really explain why much of these would actually help with democracy, is grounded on the fact that we should be European first, and also that there aren't many national differences. I'm open to changing my mind on this issue, but I'd love a more foundational explanation of why I should be European first.
@@Ciceroni1 "At large" mean there is no specific country, province or county that the candidate or elected person represents. I have never heard of such an approach.
@@acfalk3 The proposal would be to have a system similar to the German national elections. In the EU this would translate to around half the seats being elected directly in constituencies. These seats make sure that all regions of the EU are represented and that all perspectives are present in the EP. The other half would be filled with people who are elected from a Europe wide list. If a party gets 5% of the votes in all of Europe, they also get 5% of these Europe wide seats. These seats make sure the overall division of seats among parties is representative of the total votes given in a country (it counters the problems the UK has for example with their first past the post constituencies). As a voter you would cast 2 votes on the same ballot. 1 for a representative in your constituency and 1 for a party that is running in all of Europe. Bit of complicated explanation, but it seems like a very good system for these elections. What do you think?
Liberal democratically elected government is a golden calf, it still has all the inefficiencies of undemocratic government. More government is not the solution, less government is.
@@Ciceroni1 Universally minimize economic regulation and subsidies; regulation isn't something you can trust the government with. Then society should be reoriented to a totally market driven system wherein clients pay for services rather than having the government do them through taxes.
Well, that causes inequality and lower Gini coefficient. Sure, the country as a whole would be slightly richer, but the average citizen would be poorer.
Great video - especially important before the European elections coming up!
Thanks:)
As a brit I have to say I honestly never felt any connection to the EU, I didn't even know it existed until my late teens, it was never talked about in school or anything & I never knew the names of the commission presidents or felt any connection to them either.
I don’t think there is anyone in the EU that feels a strong connection with the commissioners et cetera. That might also not be entirely necessary but knowing who they are and what they do, should be common knowledge considering the influence it has on our lives.
That will turn the EU into a federation. The problem is that a stronger EU government means weaker national governments. And no national government wants that.
It depends on your definition of 'weaker'. One could argue that without the EU the Member States would have lost a lot more autonomy against major powers like China and the US. So it will 'cost' something, but the alternative is worse, wouldn't you agree?
@@Ciceroni1
I said that the national governments would have less power. Not the countries themselves. I support globalization, but it's the will of the people to decide. If Hungarians and Germans would like to be in the same country or not.
@@AduckButSpain That is true. Let's see what developments we have in the next few years and how the people respond :)
I think you should not promote a federalist pov without saying it out loud. Maybe do a video with a group from the EU Parliament that do not want more integration.
Good topic, but a bit too biased according to me
@@zptl4523 This video is indeed clearly biased towards a more federal system. A video highlighting the other side would indeed also be interesting in the future. Any particular programme/party that has a well written out plan for this that we could use?
I really do hope that the future of representative democracy results in a system of electing politicians who are just bureaucrats at heart. Those who have a passion for using government to make society better, and actually have the experience and knowledge to implement it. And to ensure their beliefs are generally agreed on people would elect them to ensure that no particular view is imposed on others if it doesn't have public support.
That would be great. Do you think the changes we propose would help us get there?
Very interesting video! Would Single Transferable Vote with multi-member districts not be a better voting system for a reformed European Parliament though? Standard Mixed-Member Proportional Representation is fine, but if the idea is to craft a pan-European standard, why not aim for something better?
Why would you say it would better?:)
@@Ciceroni1 Thank you for your response to my comment! In my opinion, the main reason Single Transferable Vote is better than Mixed-Member Proportional representation is because of the single-member constituencies in MMP.
MMP is a good system, so long as the single-member constituencies are not gerrymandered and the elections are not run by First-Past-the-Post. I particularly worry about gerrymandering, as while it can ostensibly be solved by having an independent redistricting commission, that depends on mustering enough political will to form and support such a body.
Single Transferable Vote with multi-member (4-5) districts has the same advantages as MMP in terms of combining both regional and proportional representation. But the larger, multi-member districts are a bit more immune to gerrymandering than single or even dual-member constituencies due to their size. Depending on demographics, it is still theoretically possible that a 5-member district could be gerrymandered to favour a particular party, but it is not as easy as with single-member districts. In my mind, it is better to make it more difficult to gerrymander.
I admit, however, that STV can be complicated to implement. At least in the case of the EU, the Irish already use it, so their institutional experience with the system can help guide the implementaiton of STV for the European Parliament. I may also have misunderstood some of the mathematical models behind STV and MMP (mathematics is not my strongest subject). European-wide MPP (with the single constituencies elected under Instant-Runoff Voting or some other decent system) would be fine, but I think European-wide STV would be even better :)
I like the Irish STV system :) But Reinier wants to use the only system He actually know: the Dutch one. He wants to ditch all constituencies to make way for one big one. Basically the system of the Netherlands which lacks local representation. It makes the Netherlands way more right wing and populistic than it should be because the whole debate is far away from the people. Lies are repeatedly not punished because framing is more important. So transnational lists are a terrible idea in this age of social media.
we missed your videos !!!!
Thanks! More are coming :)
So The Netherlands receives for its €10+ annual contribution to the EU:
political stability
freedom for citizens to live, study or work anywhere in the EU
increased trade via access to the single market
increased funding and investment
higher social, environmental, and consumer standards
So how do you calculate a tangible return on this investment? I still fail to see how more government is better?
Very insightful!
Glad you enjoyed it!:)
Alhamdulillah... He has risen...
Been waiting for a new vid...
Hahaha thanks. More to come!:)
1:10 - The voiceover suddenly gets much louder here
Thanks for the feedback. We did not notice before we published…
amazing video! Sadly im pretty pessimistic about these aspects of the eu being changed. In my opinion any of those proposals would just be blocked by member countries
Very likely in the current state of things. But it does not have to be a short term project. These changes might take a while but would be worth it right?
Thank you for this video!
You’re very welcome. Glad you like it
Interessantissimo! Grazie per il nuovo video, Ciceroni 😊
Grazie!
Cool video!
Thanks!
3:46 The Netherlands is basically the only country with one district. And this system is failing us terribly at the moment. Don't make the mistake to push this flawed system to a European level. This would make the EU more right wing and populistic than it should be. 99% of the people are used to the fact that they cannot vote on everyone in their country. They vote for someone in their district. And The Netherlands should want that system also before populists swallow our system for breakfast.
To cut short: transnational lists are a terrible idea that make Europe less democratic.
Reinier doe je huiswerk (vraag politicologen vanuit de gehele EU) voordat je ons verschrikkelijke ééndistrictenstelsel opdringt aan Europa. In Nederland doen we er zelfs goed aan om kiesdistricten in te voeren om onze democratie te versterken. Bij gebrek aan lokale volksvertegenwoordigers grijpen demagogen op beeldschermen ver van de burgers de macht.
Actually the idea is not to have one constituency like in The Netherlands but rather a similar system to the German national elections. As we say in the video: half the seats are proportional and the other half are directly elected in the constituencies.
@@Ciceroni1 As a Volt member I'm very critical on this subject since we only have one chance to do it right. Like Reinier said himself: the German system is too complex because of its double vote. I can image Germany is dominant in the discussion because of its size. But we sometimes have to look at the small miracles right next to our doorstep. Currently Denmark is nr one in the electoral democracy index with only one vote. Denmark elects 80% of its seats via districts and 20% are national leveling seats. To give it a Dutch flavour: not rewarding overhang seats is worth a discussion.
If we want to make European democracy more visible we can decide to stop using national party names. Furthermore instead the most common sense thing to do is to reserve 20% of the seats as leveling seats that are rewarded to the European factions based on the popular vote. I would not suggest to use closed (transnational) lists for this, but to let the voters decide who'll make it to parliament. Together with more federal central media this would be a great boost to the European democracy.
This would negatively impact sovereignty inside the country, and reduce differences between nations, would it not?
I do not want to live in the country Europe.
Why do you think it would reduce differences in a negative way?
@@Ciceroni1 Same laws, thus less options for individual choice in where I want to live.
Loss of national autonomy because laws can be forced down the throat of a nation.
Further loss of border control for things and people.
Potential replacement over time of national governments with the european government. We need to set strict rules and boundries for the EU powers.
Something like this?
Great video!
Glad you enjoyed it!
This video definitely shows the huge difference in thinking between most people and Mr van Lanschot, which from the video makes it seem like he fails to realise it. Most people are their own nationality first, region second, and European third. There's a lot of mention in the video about it being crazy if national governments were organised in the way the European one is, but the European institutions are not national ones. To most people, being part of the EU is something we do because it benefits our country, not because we identify as European. Changing the EU so that a 5% quota would be needed for 50% of seats would mean that small countries would effectively lose 50% of their political power to parties who don't have much incentive to focus on the smaller countries.
EP parliamentarians do act on national interests, the same way national parliamentarians act on regional interests since they represent the region of the people who voted for them. That doesn't mean that they always oppose each other because they always want more, they just work together to find the best solution for all regions(and countries).
The video doesn't really explain why much of these would actually help with democracy, is grounded on the fact that we should be European first, and also that there aren't many national differences. I'm open to changing my mind on this issue, but I'd love a more foundational explanation of why I should be European first.
It is difficult to conceive how this could be successful. Are you saying that all EU parliamentary members would be elected "at large" ?
What do you mean ‘at large’?
@@Ciceroni1 "At large" mean there is no specific country, province or county that the candidate or elected person represents. I have never heard of such an approach.
@@acfalk3 The proposal would be to have a system similar to the German national elections. In the EU this would translate to around half the seats being elected directly in constituencies. These seats make sure that all regions of the EU are represented and that all perspectives are present in the EP. The other half would be filled with people who are elected from a Europe wide list. If a party gets 5% of the votes in all of Europe, they also get 5% of these Europe wide seats. These seats make sure the overall division of seats among parties is representative of the total votes given in a country (it counters the problems the UK has for example with their first past the post constituencies).
As a voter you would cast 2 votes on the same ballot. 1 for a representative in your constituency and 1 for a party that is running in all of Europe.
Bit of complicated explanation, but it seems like a very good system for these elections. What do you think?
great video, but bro, the audio mixing is trash >///
Thanks, and yes, stuff went wrong there…
Liberal democratically elected government is a golden calf, it still has all the inefficiencies of undemocratic government.
More government is not the solution, less government is.
How would you propose to do it?
@@Ciceroni1 Universally minimize economic regulation and subsidies; regulation isn't something you can trust the government with.
Then society should be reoriented to a totally market driven system wherein clients pay for services rather than having the government do them through taxes.
Well, that causes inequality and lower Gini coefficient. Sure, the country as a whole would be slightly richer, but the average citizen would be poorer.
@@aktuellyattee8265 ahh but each member state having it's own regulations, subsidies and interests is so much more effective. LOL
@@transparent6842 No, that's dumb. No regulations or state subsidies is by far the best.
Eu is fine , it has advantages and disadvantages over the USA.
Very true. What are the most important differences according to you?