I feel like most people perceive it as a "unelected bureaucracy" because they don't understand it, despite the eu spending a huge amount of resources trying to educate people (there is a huge amount of free Hotlines and information material in all languages of the eu).

The European pairlament is even elected directly with direct appointment of the parliamentarians, which is more direct than in a lot of eu countries where you only elect parties which in turn propose concrete politicians. While all the other bodies are elected indirectly in the national elections.

The problem is that people neither understand nor care for the elections of the pairlament, and thus they think that "they did not vote for this".

In the UK there is virtually no coverage of the European parliament. It's not televised on any channel, you don't hear coverage on the radio or read it in the papers like the UK parliament. People don't know who their who their elected representative is. It's really no surprise that people think they have no representation, despite the UK having significant influence.

Well, when asked to vote for representation "The People" elect Nigel Farage who campaigns purely on a platform of "I will do nothing except vote against everything", which I believe his record supports.

It's voting for non-representation.

Well yes, but I don't think people even realise that there are actually representatives from the UK there who don't do nothing.

There was a Scottish MEP who made an impassioned speech in contrast to Farage's nonsense. a) I only saw it due to it showing up in my relatively pro-EU Facebook echo chamber; b) I'd never heard of him before.

As Daniel Hannan [1] (Conservative MEP for 17 years) says : "Uniquely, we have managed to create a system that is anti-democratic - you only get to go there when you have lost an election. Only when, like: Chris Patten, Neil Kinnock, and Jean-Claude Junkers, you have been expressly rejected by voters are you invited to sit as an MEP" [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Hannan

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJcuKfcxo9w#t=6m50s

Which is because you can always have more power by becoming a leader of a member state than a leader of some part of the EU machine. Becoming a MEP or commissioner/MEP is not exactly a move towards power. Therefore it's usually a path taken by those whose time in the national spotlight have passed or those who have had to adjust their ambitions.

It's not anti-democratic that the players for the lower-rang positions are of lower rang.

There is plenty of coverage, it's nearly all negative rather than factual though.

My biggest worry now is we are likely to go through a difficult period in the UK and all those politicians and journalists that told us our problems are the fault of those foreigners will continue to do so.

Exactly - the EU is more complicated than the UK parliament, and I honestly think that most people who call it democratic have no idea how it works (or have thought whether the equivalent institutions in the UK are just as 'undemocratic').

Someone on my facebook feed actually stated, in a patronising tone, that it was clearly undemocratic because the president chose the council directly, and the council then chose the president - so they just all vote for each other - and that the president was the only person on the Ballot when the MEPs were asked (obviously they view the MEPs as an entirely useless institution to make the process 'appear' legitimate to the easily fooled).

I mean clearly a little of the functionality has got through, but in such a garbled way that they really have no idea how it works, but think that they do.

One of the complains about the EU is that the parliament have not the powers of a real parliament.

Proof of that is how the EU parliament is used to 'park' politicians that are not relevant in their own countries.

When the European Parliament is the place where the politicians want to be, we will know that we have an Europe not controlled by unelected bureaucrats (for better or worse).

Interestingly there is lots of politicians that want to be there.

Those from parties that would have little chance to get elected into a national government because of 1 3-5% hurdle.

The pirate party is a prime example for this, even though they hold no seats in germany they hold 1 seat as a representative from germany.

Italian expat here (moderately anti-EU, so you know my bias from the start).

It does not help that (in my country, cannot say about others) parties seems to see a seat in the EU parliament as a place you can give to end-of-career candidates or as a sort of consolatory prize to people that would not get much use in national politics.

Italy currently holds 73 seats on the EU parliament. That puts their vote on the top 5 on influential countries on EU policy ruling (Germany, France, UK, Italy, Spain).

If the public was educated enough to know how important their vote is on EU policies maybe the parliament wouldn't be such an elephant's graveyard.

Well, we can only vote for candidates. If the main parties select these from the dead wood pile what can we do?

One option would be to follow what the MEPs are up to at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/map.html , which of course is not perfect, since politics is exactly about the contrary. We vote so we can offload the task of decision making.

The other is to not vote for candidates on parties that select their MEPs from the dead wood pile. The main parties will either be part of EPP or S&D, so it will be a dead vote anyway.

So, in other words, you are confirming that my vote as an (Italian) citizen is basically worthless.

This was precisely my point.

It is as worthless as the candidates one votes for.

More education on the importance of what gets discussed on the EP would make people demand more from the candidates they vote for.

Politics and media have an incredible adaptation to mass-demands, because they either live of their vote or their audience. It is a graveyard because nobody cares about it being a graveyard, and for the same reason it's not on newspapers or the TV, because the majority does not care (or, alternatively, the majority is already busy enough with internal politics).

We have the House of Lords[1] for that in the UK.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords

The EU is undemocratic. The EU constitution was rejected by national referenda in two countries, France and the Netherlands. A few others had pledged to hold their own, the UK for example. When it was rejected the constitution was renamed into the Lisbon Treaty and then was voted on again. Now most countries decided to not ask the public but just sign it anyway. Ireland managed to hold a referendum, which rejected it. They were then forced to vote again to get the correct answer. Now the constitution is in place despite it being rejected in three national referenda. A giant "fuck you" to democracy.

Democracy means the majority vote wins. Clearly the majority wanted a european constitution.

I live in the Netherlands so I'm sorry to say this, but they hold way to much power in the eu. Their population is ridiculously tiny and they only have so much money because they act as a soft tax haven.

These referendums should be held EU wide and decided upon based on a total count of all votes from all eu members, where each person holds one vote. Not by asking every state individually and then having a all or nothing ruling.

Then it would be truly democratic.

Yes, the referenda should be held EU wide (I doubt the EU would ever allow something as low class as a popular vote) but that is not what the rules said at the time. It needed to be ratified by each country. It wasn't so the bureaucrats decided to ignore their own rules, rename it, and say "this is totally not the constitution". Oh and both remove that pesky need for unanimity agreement among the nations.

Further, having an EU wide referendum would require acknowledging that the EU is the supreme governing body in Europe and that all national parliaments are subservient to it. The nations are not ready for that yet and the EU elite know it.

> something as low class as a popular vote

you may consider the Brexit was democratic. In a sense, it was, but it was also one of the most stupid collective acts I ever witnessed. Most people who voted didn't understand what they were actually voting for or against. Welcome to the rule of the uninformed. We elect people so they can make informed decisions for us. Asking an imbecile about something extremely complicated is not helpful. Asking millions of them is equally useless.

Thank you for this explanation. I'm an Australian in Japan, I had no idea how it all worked in Europe(admittedly I should have looked it up a long time ago)