Growing Plot to Unite the EU under one non-elected President

[Leoreth]

Of course banks deserve their share of the blame. But reducing every criticism of Greek spending politics to "you just think in stereotypes" is not very constructive either. I'm tired of this kind of monocausal world view.

 

[Hehehe]

I didn't say people blame banks or elites or whatever. People blame each other. Germans blame Greeks. Greeks blame Germans. (Some) Finns blame either Greeks or Germans or both. Some people are beginning to question if the EU is unified enough to ever become a real political union, given the distrust between member states.

Don't get me wrong, I could support EU-federalism in a perfect world, but the EU has some fundamental issues that remain unsolved. There can't be an effective union without political control. There can't be political control if member states aren't ready to give up at least some of their sovereignty. People aren't ready to give up sovereignty because of the distrust between member countries. And, as I'm sure you know, the distrust has only gotten worse because of this crisis. AFAIK the Greeks believe Berlin is trying to humiliate Greeks and take away their sovereignty. A lot of countries participating the bailouts believe they're being forced to foot other people's bills.

As for the Greeks, yes their spending policies were irresponsible. That's what they have always been doing. Doesn't make it right, but I'm just saying. Greece has defaulted plenty of times, and it wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for the banks' stupidity.

 

[Leoreth]

I didn't say people blame banks or elites or whatever. People blame each other. Germans blame Greeks. Greeks blame Germans. (Some) Finns blame either Greeks or Germans or both.

If this is what was happening, it would be stupid, no matter who's blaming whom.

Blame is useless. Blaming large hetergenous groups is even more useless.

Criticising decisions doesn't mean to blame the country in which these decisions were made.

 

[Tahuti]

Why not. Perhaps if ordinary citizens saw on their pay slips how little they actually give to the EU they'd stop being so sceptical. EU is very cheap in the great scheme of things, but people only hear about it in connection with obscene lump sums of money that someone gives to someone else.

The EU is very cheap (as in spend little) because it doesn't have a lot to spend and it doesn't have a lot to spend because it doesn't have any tax collecting capabilities (because it isn't an actual country, yet). The EU basically is a stack of agreements between its members to do certain things the same way, with mixed amounts of enforcement, since its member states are also act as institutions that see to it that EU policies are being executed.

Now if the EU would gain a permanent source of income by taxation, it would fundamentally change the character of the EU. The taxation itself would require institutions able to enforce it and would quite possibly be able to enforce EU regulations as well. I don't have anything against European Federation (nor do I feel any reason welcome it either), but such a move would require preperation and right now the EU is ill-prepared to justify such change.
The EU Parliament should always be able to block EU legislation (right now Parliament is mostly a consultative organ) and all the members of the European commission ought to be responsible to and elected by Parliament instead of the Council of the European Union. Now, you'll probably want to see these things happen anyway, but I stress these because it is vital that these things come before the EU is to gain any power to collect taxes, or do any other things only sovereign states can do, for that matter.

 

[Benefactor]

The EU Parliament should always be able to block EU legislation (right now Parliament is mostly a consultative organ) and all the members of the European commission ought to be responsible to and elected by Parliament instead of the Council of the European Union. Now, you'll probably want to see these things happen anyway, but I stress these because it is vital that these things come before the EU is to gain any power to collect taxes, or do any other things only sovereign states can do, for that matter.

The Parliament can block almost every piece of legislation, it also frequently amends legislation brought to it. The most major thing that it is missing is legislative initiative.

 

[Dachs]

US Christian fundamentalist eurosceptics believe the EU to be the latest incarnation of the Roman Empire that, according to the Book of Revelations, heralds the coming Apocalypse. Antichrist should be born here, but they don't agree whether it's Sarkozy, Merkel, Barroso, or some other European politician.

In my anecdotal experience, the Revelation stuff comes up much less frequently than more petty things such as "Europe should be made up of a bunch of small states just because", "Particularism is a Good Thing", and "the US already has a way to keep Europe militarily organized for its benefit, we don't need another one to gum up the works".

 

[Winner]

In my anecdotal experience, the Revelation stuff comes up much less frequently than more petty things such as "Europe should be made up of a bunch of small states just because", "Particularism is a Good Thing", and "the US already has a way to keep Europe militarily organized for its benefit, we don't need another one to gum up the works".

Yeah, but that isn't necessarily conspiracy theory material. Just watch some of their YT videos, it is very amusing.

In real politics, it seems that Democrats favour European integration more than the Republicans, who are more in favour of "divide-and-rule" kinds of strategy in Europe. Of course, the Americans don't really care and their say in what happens on this front is actually pretty low, barring the occasional spat over emissions, data sharing, aircraft industry subsidies, etc.

 

[Leoreth]

In real politics, it seems that Democrats favour European integration more than the Republicans, who are more in favour of "divide-and-rule" kinds of strategy in Europe. Of course, the Americans don't really care and their say in what happens on this front is actually pretty low, barring the occasional spat over emissions, data sharing, aircraft industry subsidies, etc.

The Republicans just want to save us from the oppression of Big Government.

 

[Tahuti]

The Parliament can block almost every piece of legislation, it also frequently amends legislation brought to it. The most major thing that it is missing is legislative initiative.

It should be able to block all legislation it doesn't approve off. I was aware that it lacked legislative iniative, though, which is a major flaw for a legislative organ.

 

[Flying Pig]

I was aware that it lacked legislative iniative, though, which is a major flaw for a legislative organ.

Depends how active it's supposed to be in making the laws. For example, the British House of Lords (according to convention) does not have the right of initiative, because (being unelected) it's supposed to be a checking stage rather than a law-maker in its own right. I imagine the same concerns (most of its constituents have no influence over the occupancy of most of its seats) apply to the European Parliament.

 

[Leoreth]

Well, by comparing the European Parliament to the House of Lords you have quite succintly described the problem.

 

[chad187]

The Soviet union was the best chance Europe ever had to be united.

 

[innonimatu]

Depends how active it's supposed to be in making the laws. For example, the British House of Lords (according to convention) does not have the right of initiative, because (being unelected) it's supposed to be a checking stage rather than a law-maker in its own right. I imagine the same concerns (most of its constituents have no influence over the occupancy of most of its seats) apply to the European Parliament.

No, the european parliament is the only portion of the EU bureaucracy to be elected. I wouldn't have much of an issue with them, apart from fears of capture by lobbying groups. Where I have a huge issue with the lack of democratic credentials of the whole EU project is in their history of their directing elites repeatedly, consistently ignoring referendum results against the EU and forcing their new rules and institutions upon people anyway, sometimes (only sometimes) with cosmetic changes to pretend they're not the same thing. Not to mention doing absolutely everything they could to prevent any such referendums in the first place.

 

[Winner]

Depends how active it's supposed to be in making the laws. For example, the British House of Lords (according to convention) does not have the right of initiative, because (being unelected) it's supposed to be a checking stage rather than a law-maker in its own right. I imagine the same concerns (most of its constituents have no influence over the occupancy of most of its seats) apply to the European Parliament.

That's a typically British perspective based on your majority-voting mindset. In party-lists, proportional voting systems the relationship between a representative and his constituency is different. European Parliament isn't much different from most continental parliaments in this sense.

What I see as the two biggest problems are:

1) there is simply too bloody many of the MEPs. I don't think representative democracy works well with too big parliaments, and it doesn't matter how big the country they're representing is.

2) the composition of the EP doesn't affect the political orientation of the European Commission (the "government" of the EU). If it was the EP who chose the Commission, and if the Commission really depended on a majority in the EP, then the significance of the EP would grow rapidly.

Also, the EU council has too much power, it should be reduced and delegated to the EP.

 

[Benefactor]

2) the composition of the EP doesn't affect the political orientation of the European Commission (the "government" of the EU). If it was the EP who chose the Commission, and if the Commission really depended on a majority in the EP, then the significance of the EP would grow rapidly.

Isn't this de facto coming into effect next EU election though? If I recall correctly the major political groups announced plans to put forward candidates for President of the Commission and basically refuse to support anyone else but their guy. The Commission requires the approval of the majority of Parliament (and the Council) to be selected so I could see it working.

 

[ParkCungHee]

In my anecdotal experience, the Revelation stuff comes up much less frequently than more petty things such as "Europe should be made up of a bunch of small states just because", "Particularism is a Good Thing", and "the US already has a way to keep Europe militarily organized for its benefit, we don't need another one to gum up the works".

Am I the only one who opposes it due to Anglophobia?

 

[Winner]

Isn't this de facto coming into effect next EU election though? If I recall correctly the major political groups announced plans to put forward candidates for President of the Commission and basically refuse to support anyone else but their guy. The Commission requires the approval of the majority of Parliament (and the Council) to be selected so I could see it working.

Really? I must have missed that in the news. Of course, I fully approve - nation states won't give the EP any more power unless it seizes it. It's about time the composition of the EC reflected the political realities in EP.

 

[Tahuti]

No, the european parliament is the only portion of the EU bureaucracy to be elected. I wouldn't have much of an issue with them, apart from fears of capture by lobbying groups. Where I have a huge issue with the lack of democratic credentials of the whole EU project is in their history of their directing elites repeatedly, consistently ignoring referendum results against the EU and forcing their new rules and institutions upon people anyway, sometimes (only sometimes) with cosmetic changes to pretend they're not the same thing. Not to mention doing absolutely everything they could to prevent any such referendums in the first place.

Would you have a problem with the EU if it was parliamentary democratic federation?

1) there is simply too bloody many of the MEPs. I don't think representative democracy works well with too big parliaments, and it doesn't matter how big the country they're representing is.

Actually, parliaments large in the amount of members do have the advantage of being less susceptible to lobbyism.

Also, the EU council has too much power, it should be reduced and delegated to the EP.

Do you the mean the council of the European Union, which is the EU's collective head of state (consisting of the heads of governments of the EU states + Herman van Rompuy) and appoints the members of the Commission or do you mean the European Council, the EU's upper house? In case you mean the former, I'd like to say it should be abolished and all its powers redelegated to the EP and Commission.

 

[Winner]

Actually, parliaments large in the amount of members do have the advantage of being less susceptible to lobbyism.

I wouldn't trust that. Large parliaments produce a sort of "elitism" among its members - a relatively small group of MPs usually holds the real influence, while the rest are just good-for-nothing backbenchers without any real influence.

A lot in politics still depends on personal relations. It's much easier to have a good culture of face-to-face politics if your parliament is a small affair (100-200 MPs). That's my opinion, I admit it isn't really substantiated.

Do you the mean the council of the European Union, which is the EU's collective head of state (consisting of the heads of governments of the EU states + Herman van Rompuy) and appoints the members of the Commission or do you mean the European Council, the EU's upper house? In case you mean the former, I'd like to say it should be abolished and all its powers redelegated to the EP and Commission.

The latter. I agree with you that the European Council should be abolished. However, since the EU is still essentially an inter-governmental organization, it ain't happening any time soon.

 

[Leoreth]

No, the european parliament is the only portion of the EU bureaucracy to be elected. I wouldn't have much of an issue with them, apart from fears of capture by lobbying groups. Where I have a huge issue with the lack of democratic credentials of the whole EU project is in their history of their directing elites repeatedly, consistently ignoring referendum results against the EU and forcing their new rules and institutions upon people anyway, sometimes (only sometimes) with cosmetic changes to pretend they're not the same thing. Not to mention doing absolutely everything they could to prevent any such referendums in the first place.

The problem was that they tried to force progress unto those who refused it, instead of just progressing without them.

Do you the mean the council of the European Union, which is the EU's collective head of state (consisting of the heads of governments of the EU states + Herman van Rompuy) and appoints the members of the Commission or do you mean the European Council, the EU's upper house? In case you mean the former, I'd like to say it should be abolished and all its powers redelegated to the EP and Commission.

I don't think no upper house would be good for the EU. It needs some institution that's dedicated to represent the interests of its constituents in a non-proportional manner like the US Senate, because then we could abolish the awful non-proportional principles of the European Parliament, throw the national governments themselves out of the EU decision making and scrap the ridiculous 1 member = 1 commissioner rule.