you’re expecting representatives from 28 different member nations sitting on a Directorate to agree 100%?
I am an EU outsider, but one need only look at the US Congress, or any of the state assemblies for that matter, to realize that getting a group to agree 100% on anything is near impossible.
Individuality is usually what drives change. Democracy is a nice concept when voting on a new school park, but a Republic allows for an individual to challenge the majority; rule by majority never gives the minority position/viewpoint air to breathe. Changing to panel discussions, by nature subject to corruption, seems more an exercise in futility.
“you’re expecting representatives from 28 different member nations sitting on a Directorate to agree 100%?”
NO, NOT AT ALL.
And thus, unless they can agree, they won’t get any more nutty demands by the EU executive telling the sovereign EU states what they MUST do.
My proposal is exactly counter to what you seem to think is necessary - greater ease of EU rule creation. When is not needed is to avoid EU writs that the members do not have actual consensus on. Fewer rules = fewer demands written purely by the EU executive the others must simply follow.
NATO works fine, in spite of some problems it has, and other than operational command decisions, all major policy decisions by NATO are made by consensus, or not at all; leaving prior decisions on policy in place.
As an organization of independent sovereign states, the NATO model works fine, and it is the model the EU should have adopted; not the “holy writ from Brussels” model.
My proposal, given the EU organization so far, does not other than put a bridle on the horse; a bridle of direct representatives of the sovereign states.
They would still have an EU executive staff that might formulate or recommend policy, but without the ability of that bureaucracy and its own head to dictate if their recommended policy would be approved or not. The EU executive reps would have to approve it, by consensus. NATO does it all the time.