RON Hill (Letter: Is the EU undemocratic? 13 September) seems to be unacquainted with how the EU actually works. What I set out below, can be easily verified by internet search.

The Commission President is selected by representatives of all the EU members’ (democratically elected) governments. Each member government proposes one Commissioner (usually a political figure – the UK in the past proposed Roy Jenkins and Leon Brittain etc), although once appointed they are required to act for the EU as a whole and not as representatives of their own countries. The portfolios of each commissioner are decided by the Commission President in consultation with the member governments and the EU parliament (democratically elected by proportional representation of citizens of all EU states). Each candidate is interviewed by the EU parliament and the whole commission must be approved by the (democratically elected) EU parliament.

The overriding objective of the Commission is the implementation of the various treaties agreed (unanimously) by the (democratically elected) governments of the member states.

Each year the commission, after consultation with the (democratically elected) member states governments and the (democratically elected) EU parliament, produces a Work Plan for the following year, which is subject to consultation and approval by the (democratically elected) member states parliaments and members of any (democratically elected) devolved assemblies (Scottish Parliament etc.).

Usually, any item which is highly objectionable to a member state is quietly withdrawn from the Work Plan. Approximately 7 years ago a proposed trade deal with India was withdrawn after objection by the UK Home Secretary, (a Mrs May !), on the grounds that the required easing of visa restrictions demanded by India would lead to an undesirable increase in immigration to the UK. (I note that the UK will face the same dilemma, post Brexit).

Once the Work Programme is agreed between everybody, the European Commission is tasked with producing the EU legislative proposals agreed in the Work Programme. This process is broadly comparable to the role of the UK civil service which does much the same thing; Bills (draft Acts of Parliament) are drafted by the civil service and then sent to Parliament where the proposal will go through the UK legislative process.

The Commission identifies political priorities, agrees legislative priorities with the European Parliament, the Council of the EU, the European Council and national parliaments, and agrees a timeline for proposals to be introduced. Before the work programme is finalised , it runs public consultations on the main ideas being put forward, and asks NGOs, the public and other interested parties for their views. Even an individual can register on-line with the Commission for these consultations.

Once it has prepared an EU legislative proposal, the Commission sends the proposed regulation or directive to the European Parliament (elected) and the Council of the EU (ministers of our elected governments) who then discuss the text of the Commission proposal and either agree to it or not.

Contrast, the UK, where the (Queen’s Speech) programme of the government (elected in most cases by less than 45% of the votes cast and in some cases by as little as 35%) is determined without consultation with parliament or consultation with other parties, unless you happen to be rich and/or powerful or the proprietor of certain newspapers.

It seems plain to me which institution is the more democratic. The labeling of the EU as undemocratic is yet another of the Leave campaign’s lies.

I propose to deal with Mr Hill’s other delusions about Referendum Campaign lies in a further letter.

Peter Redman

Dorchester