Maybe the USA should join the EU. There already are federated states in the EU (Germany), so it wouldn't be too different. :P
That's exactly what the EU is.
I suppose this will be downvoted, but please take the time and explain where I am factually wrong. Because I can give you many examples why there is no freedom of speech in the EU and why particularly the EU commission is unaccountable.
Any proposal by these bureaucrats has to be approved by (a) the directly-elected European Parliament and (b) the national governments, who are legitimized via their national rules (some are directly elected, some by their parliaments).
The bureaucrats themselves are appointed by their national governments, in much the same way that national ministers are usually appointed by that nation's head of government (i. e. the British Prime Minister). They also have to go through confirmation & hearings in the EU Parliament – something that goes beyond the standard in most EU states.
The last European elections also saw the rise of the 'Spitzenkadidat' system, meaning voters had a very direct idea of who they're supporting as President of the Commission.
Note that the head of government is directly elected in only a handful of European nations, namely France among the larger ones. Judging by your name, you're German, where the head of state is also elected indirectly by Parliament and government ministers are appointed. Exactly as it is in the EU. Same, by the way, for Britain.
So – examples?
Yeah, they had an idea, but there wasn't anything mandatory about that meaning that there's no binding law that makes sure that the vote is relevant for who is appointed to this position.
I doubt that a controversial politician like Trump would be appointed voluntarily to this position if his party would have won. (they would have said something along the lines of he's a Nazi or he's like Hitler. End of discussion) In the end Junker was appointed because Merkel and Hollande said so, they usually get their way.
> So – examples?
1) Commission members are not appointed but instead nominated in consultation with the Commission President. If the President doesn't like the candidate he is free to give him a weak portfolio. Aside from that this process has too many layers that obfuscate who and how ends up in a certain position. For me this isn't democratic.
2) Recently the Eurogroup simply excluded the Greek finance minister in a meeting to prevent him from voting against their decision during the ongoing Greek financial crisis. Very democratic and accountable. If they don't like how some countries representative might vote they just exclude him.
3) Or how about the Treaty of Lisbon which was rejected by both the French and the Dutch. These governments decided to reinstate the treaty without letting their population vote on it again after some minor changes. Then 2008 the Irish voted against it and the EU simply decided to let them vote again until they had the result they wanted.
Edit: As I can't reply in a comment I'll do it here, sorry (apparently Hacker News admins limit my ability to post because they don't like my opinion):
> Neither the Dutch nor the French electorate ever voted on the Treaty of Lisbon.
This constitution that was voted down by the French and the Dutch was the precursor to the Treaty of Lisbon. They simply renamed the thing and placed most of the provisions from the original constitution into the Treaty. Yes, there was no vote on it for the French/Dutch after the whole renaming.
That's why I criticise all these layers of obfuscation that they have created. Simply saying that the French/Dutch should do something about it if they don't like what was shoved down their throats isn't productive. In the end it creates resentment towards the EU as many people understand that the EU institutions will just do whatever they like.
> Nor is there for the head of state and head of government position in most European countries. To the other points:
Well then don't explain to us how we can democratically elect the President of the Commission as we simply can't. It's only by the good will of some very powerful politicians that Juncker was appointed. This might change the next time if they don't like the result.
> As far as I know no official vote was conducted during the meeting in which Varoufakis was excluded nor was this an official meeting as described in the treaties.
They excluded him from all future meetings. When asked about the basis of this decision he got this official statement:
"The Eurogroup is an informal group. Thus it is not bound by Treaties or written regulations. While unanimity is conventionally adhered to, the Eurogroup President is not bound to explicit rules."
http://www.businessinsider.com/yanis-varoufakis-eurogroup-st...
Do you understand what this means? There's an informal group that decides on important matters which isn't bound by any treaties or written regulations. So when unanimity is "conventionally adhered to" (lawyer speak for: just if we like to), they can just as well exclude someone that has a different opinion for no reason whatsoever. This is completely ridiculous.
> The commission's president needs to agree to each and every filled position. That's how it works in basically every government, by the way. The whole commission needs to be voted in by the European parliament. The MEPs have refused to approve commissions with undesirable members in the past. On the other hand, as a German I have no direct say in my own country's ministers. They can be appointed without asking the parliament at all.
Well, to solve this issue the EU could introduce 3 new layers of obfuscation to make sure that definitely no one understands anymore how someone is appointed into a position. Let's also make it informal so no one is bound by any treaties or written law, but the best thing would be that they don't tell anyone.
Nor is there for the head of state and head of government position in most European countries. To the other points:
1) The commission's president needs to agree to each and every filled position. That's how it works in basically every government, by the way. The whole commission needs to be voted in by the European parliament. The MEPs have refused to approve commissions with undesirable members in the past. On the other hand, as a German I have no direct say in my own country's ministers. They can be appointed without asking the parliament at all.
2) As far as I know no official vote was conducted during the meeting in which Varoufakis was excluded nor was this an official meeting as described in the treaties. If you know differently please tell me. This is similar how many government negotiations in other democratic systems work. But I'm not saying everything went fine here, far from it.
3) Neither the Dutch nor the French electorate ever voted on the Treaty of Lisbon. The voted on the proposed European constitution which is not the same. The whole symbolic meaning is different just as a start. For the Irish, they voted only one second time and significant concessions were made. The EU can't prescribe how member states decide whether to accept a treaty. The French, Dutch, Irish, and all others should blame their own government and their own constitutional system if they think they didn't have enough say in it.
There are certainly a lot of opportunities to make the whole thing better. But the current situation is not worse than the democratic systems in the member states.
Or Germany got a free pass on the Maastricht treaties provision for GDP debt in the past, but other smaller countries were punished.
That's just as if you decided to implement a new law whereby citizens with more than 1 million Euro on their bank accounts are above all law while the poor will be punished if they do the same thing.
PS: just to mention a few, as you seem to be German: is the Bundeskanzler directly elected? Is that undemocratic? Are the ministers elected? Is it undemocratic that Bavaria has more influence than Bremen via the Bundesrat? Is it undemocratic that Bremen has many more votes per population in the Bundesrat than Bayern? Is it undemocratic that both California and Alabama have the same number of senators?
Seems to me it doesn't even matter what is written in treaties.
Merkel just says into a camera that everyone is welcome and then millions from the Middle East and Africa start to migrate into the EU. No questions asked, she can decide this for all of us without even consulting her own population, let alone the people of other EU members.
And when countries like Hungary and Poland refuse to take them in based on the fact that the EU ignores its own laws to protect the borders and prevent illegal immigration what does the EU do? It discusses creating new ways to punish these countries for the inhumane act of wanting to uphold what is written in the EU treaties regarding border control. The EU laws are apparently quite flexible as long as you are Merkel or Hollande.
Oh and of course the prime ministers of Hungary and Poland are now both like Hitler. Seems like everyone is like Hitler these days. Orban, Kaczynski, Trump, Putin - all of them are Hitler clones. That's a great way to prevent having any discussions about issues.
> PS: just to mention a few, as you seem to be German
No, I'm Austrian. But all of these examples seem undemocratic to me. I want more freedom and more democracy and there's a lot we can do to improve our own governments. Maybe we can take some cues from the US/Switzerland in this regard even though both are far from perfect. Let's start with freedom of speech which doesn't even exist here.