• More accountable to all citizens

    Its not an argument it just makes sense , after all we state our democratic ways to other countries and in fact at times invade other countries because we don't like the way they do things "un democratic" we say ! And if there is a referendum and the people speak then the mandarins in the EU should listen , and forget about re runs ..........EU LISTEN to the people , before its to late .

  • Break up the Oligarchy

    If we are to be a true democracy then the people should have the proper say. Let,
    's get rid of the "dear old pals system" Perhaps we could lead the way in UK
    ? No more having one MP from 4,000,000 votes. And no more Blah de Blah de Blah

  • A Publicly elected president would keep people more in touch with Europe, put less focus in regional and national politics.

    The EU has a population, economy, culture and social structure that can already move the USA and China into second and third place globally. A strong more unified EU would dominate the 21st century. If a president was elected by the people, it straight away would bring a sense of belonging to the people on a EU level. They would see faith be restored as they elected the most powerful man/woman in Europe along with member state leaders. A federalised Europe is inevitable. Although the USA would be reluctant to see such a change they would back it in the end. A strong USA and Federal EU would ensure western dominance for another century, ensuring a strong stance against the rising superpowers of India and China. The world needs balance. The EU federalised wouldn't be as unified as America . Rather it would have a central government in Brussels who would control international relations and budgets etc. While the member states would continue to run local issues from their state capitals. Culture would mix as it already is but the the states would maintain a sense of individuality. It would be a country more like the UK than the USA. A country made of countries. A publicly elected president would ensure this is accepted by the public as fair and would allow them to be in Control of it's future. Brussels would be our Washington DC. But London, Berlin, Madrid, Rome, Warsaw and Dublin etc would continue and important playing.

    It's even possible the UK and other monarchies would be allowed to keep their royal families as they have no political powers and are only a figure head. A tourist attraction almost.

    I'm Irish but also a citizen of the UK by inheritance.

    I already tell people I'm Irish European or British European.

    What I've discussed would all occur in the 10-15 years after a directly elected president. 2030 and Europe will be a lot differnt.

  • Removes confusion, increases confidence

    Combining the Commission and Council Presidents into one directly elected leader would decrease confusion surrounding the Union's structure and facilitate political engagement. This could be furthered by combining the Parliament and Council of Ministers into a single bicameral legislature and the Commission and Council into a two tier executive, with both tiers chaired by the President. The President would be accountable to both the Executive and the Legislature with a Vice-President elected alongside him to take office in the event he is removed. This would be a streamlined EU, and national sovereignty could be retained by maintaining the power of the national heads of government.

  • True Democracy = Accountability! Visibility! Transparency!

    I believe the EU at present is under threat as never before from a malaise of disinterest and even disaffection in places like Britain and Greece. A directly elected President would be just one step of many that are urgently needed to revitalise the EU and ensure its healthy future for all of us across Europe. I believe such a President would have a mandate to develop a set of policy objectives which could help to create a sense of us all belonging to and engaging with the EU. A highly visible EU wide advertising campaign would be essential. However, I agree with some of the comments made by others here that the actual mechanics of delivering an elected President will be a challenge. At the moment it's a bit rich when we criticise Putin's Russia for being a 'partial' Democracy when we have a somewhat opaque situation ourselves in the EU!

  • The freedom of choice!

    The question is; what was the point with EU at all? Was it a union set up to make it easier to trade goods and services between the member states or was it to limit the influence of the people, to centralise power and to make it easier for the elite to control the masses? The latter seems to be the case!

  • A directly elected President would increase the office's legitimacy in the eyes of the voters.

    The EU Presidency is seriously deficient in the general voting public's eyes of any notion of accountability, transparency, engagement, DEMOCRACY!!! Let's face it, most citizens don't know who the current President is - well, that's certainly the case in the UK. I for one am a strong supporter of the EU. It is just so frustrating watching from the sidelines. Sometimes it feels like all sides are just willing it to fail, the PR for the organisation is so inadequate. A directly elected President would certainly help, tortuous though the process in electing him/her might be.

  • Investment in the future of the European Union

    Speaking as a citizen of the European Union, I feel that it is imperative for the future of Europe that we integrate further both socially and democratically and I believe that an elected president of the EU can do that; the mandate that such a figure would carry would perfectly symbolise the interests of the community and act as a figure head to strengthen the bond between the Union and its member states. In my opinion the election of a president of the European Union should be part of a larger group of reforms giving Europe further sovereignty.

  • Democracy for the European people

    The democratic way is to vote for those who you want to elect. Europe was a way for democracy and stability. With more countries wanting in and some wanting out, it makes sense that all people should be involved.

    Would be interesting to see what countries voted for which people. However you may get countries supporting one another a bit like Eurovision, not that I am comparing the EU to Eurovision!

  • A directly elected president would increase transparency.

    At the moment, the parliament decides who will be president of the Commission behind closed doors. The media has no idea what is going on and has to rely completely on leaks to give the public information. The EU has no knowledge of the negotiations happening behind the scenes. People elected president would equal more transparency.

  • No, because having an elected president of the EU would accomplish nothing in particular.

    Until and unless a European government is established, an elected EU president would be only a figurehead, and, no doubt, an expensive one, costing a great deal of money and accomplishing nothing. If there is anything wrong with government, no matter the philosophical underpinnings of a specific government, it is the inevitable desire to spend money, whether or not it does anyone any good at all.

    Posted by: N0thingRaIPh
  • The EU should not have a directly elected president, as this would largely be a waste of resources ending in nationalistic squabbles.

    The European Union should not waste its time and resources on electing a President through a popular vote by the public. Just arranging and counting the ballots would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. This money would be put to better use balancing the budgets of EU member states such as Greece, Spain and Italy.

    Posted by: C0n5tGet
  • The EU should not have a directly elected president, because then populous nations would have an unfair advantage.

    The EU is comprised of many nations, some large, others small. Would a candidate from a smaller country, like Austria, have a chance against someone from Germany or the United Kingdom? Tiny states, like Lichtenstein, Andorra, or San Merino would have no chance whatsoever at running anything other than a fringe candidacy. If the goal is unification and equal playing field across the continent, then crowded nations should not be allowed further advantages than they already have.

    Posted by: FlakyHerb64
  • The EU should have a panel of presidents.

    The EU should not have a president elected directly by the people. Instead, representatives from each country should elect either one person or a panel of people to serve as leaders. Because of the vast differences in the countries' populations, allowing the people to elect a president would results in unfair advantages by larger countries. They should adopt a policy where 20 people from each country elect a person or persons to lead.

    Posted by: TedieDelight
  • I oppose having the EU president elected by people; public representatives are sufficient to make the election.

    I believe there is no need for the EU president to be elected by general public. Conducting general elections does cost a lot of tax payers' money. According to me, state representatives or elected members of individual states are sufficient enough to make the representation for a section of population.

    Posted by: SaroM0vi3
  • I think that the countries that are not part of the EU would be negatively effected by this.

    Personally I think the idea of a democratic election is a great idea. What I don't agree with is that the EU should have a president elected by the people since it isn't technically a country. Countries in Europe that haven't obtained EU acceptance would be likely to be negatively effected by this type of election, especially if they were accepted in after the election!

    Posted by: MariaR
  • The EU president should be elected in a Republican way, with votes coming in through countries so that all voices can be heard.

    The European union is made up of many countries, all of which have people with different needs and whose needs tend to line up collectively. If the different peoples can form unions, they all can be heard. There's no need to put the population through a blender, if done by region the needs and potentials of all the different cultures can shine through.

    Posted by: groovybox

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.