The only thing I am certain of is that I want as many checks and balances on government as possible. Majorities are dangerous things, and unchecked rule by majority even more so. Chuck party machinery in there, making the elected representatives beholden to the party rather than the people, and the whole situation gets even worse.

(Are your Telegraph bosses aware that you like the Chartists and are anti-monarchy, by the way? I know it’s been all change there in recent years, but surely they haven’t gone so far as to allow THAT? Heh…)

Julien – true, to an extent this is all largely meaningless theory, but still. Oaths like these are still meant to mean something – and the question of whose interest the Commissioners are working towards, the EU’s as a whole or that of their own nations of origin, is a vital one for the entire Union.

Please note, for example, the current EU reaction to Italy’s clampdown on the Roma – very slow to do anything at all, because the last Justice Commissioner (an Italian mate of Silvio Berlusconi) deemed it all OK. Was he acting as a independent European or a partisan Italian? I strongly suspect the latter. As long as this remains the case, the independence and impartiality of the Commission – which is vital for it to work effectively as long as it remains in its current form – is deeply compromised.

Ken – I always start to worry when we’re in agreement about this sort of thing… Heh!

Bruno – I’m actually quite a fan of including non-democratic elements in governmental systems to provide a check on factional/party interest. It’s got me into a fair amount of trouble in the past – especially when I argued against an elected House of Lords as part of an event organised by the Elect the Lords campaign – all sorts of accusations of elitism, etc. (especially as I’m loosely pro-EU).

Semi-relatedly, I see no real problem in creating someone a peer so that they can become a minister as long as they remain accountable to the Commons – and as long as they are a) demonstrably more qualified for the job than anyone in the Commons, and b) haven’t previously brought a high office into disrepute. Which kind of discounts Mandelson. I also don’t like the massive hypocrisy of going on about making the House of Lords more democratic while continuing to appoint political buddies to the Upper House – whatever happened to leading by example? But still, it’s not really that different to the US Cabinet situation (something I tried arguing one time in relation to the Commission).

When it comes to the Commission, I likewise see no fundamental problem with it being unelected – especially now that the EP has proved that it can boot them out. There still needs to be more democratic accountability and greater transparency, though (and it’s worth noting that the highly secretive Council is a far worse offender). The logistics of electing the Commission would also be tricky – just as would electing the US Cabinet (or the UK Cabinet, for that matter). It’s something I’ve been meaning to do a lengthy series of posts on for ages, but have never quite got around to it.

On the question of Baroness Ashton I see no problem that is not also evident with any other British EU commissioner, the person she is replacing (Peter Mandelson) epitomises the problem, he firstly took an oath to the Crown, then an oath to the EU and now as he is once again in government and has been raised to the Lords, one assumes another oath to the Crown.

But Mandelson will also be collecting a large financial handout from the EU for the next three years, whilst he is a serving member of the British government and will eventually be paid an EU pension just like all other ex – Commissioners in the Lords, where do their loyalties lie?

It would seem that taking an oath and loyalty to ones own country have no meaning whatsoever and are a redundant hangover from a nationalistic past. Because on one level the question of loyalties cannot be answered, yet on another level the answer is so simple as to not need stating.

Mr Blair was correct when he described the situation with the EU

Basically you have a choice: co-operate in Europe (EU) and you betray Britain; be unreasonable in Europe, be praised back home, and be utterly without influence in Europe (EU). It’s sort of: isolation or treason.

When it comes to the life peer issue, I don’t see much problems, at least not in terms of substance. Maybe even the Queen could release her from her formal duties for the time she is serving in the Commission…?!