 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
Maybe it's cause I'm an American but I can't figure out what the hell is the EU. Is it just one big bureaucracy cause it sure don't seem to be supported by the people of Europe. Didn't the German people not want to replace the Mark yet somehow, Germany's using the Euro? Do the EU leaders even get elected? I thought Europe would turn into some sort of Articles of Confederacy or maybe even the early Constitutional US but it sure seems like the EU is one big bureacracy trying to circumvent democratic principals.
thanks
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:19
|
|
EU is an absolute anti democratic bureaucracy
I study the right in the Community, so here are some facts :
Decisions are taken by 3 actors : the Commission, the Council, the Parliament.
The Commission has ~ 20 Comissioners, who are decided by the states. Big states have 2 commissioners, while small states have 1. These commissioners are not elected by the people, but chosen by the PMs or Presidents. These commissioners have a bureaucracy behind them : advisors, administrators etc. The commission must represent the interests of the Union, not of a particular member.
The Council represents the national governments. In a Council meeting, the states can be represented by ministers (when the question is important), but at most by administrators who represent the interest of their State. They decide most often at "qualified majority" (each country has more or less votes than others, to imperfectly reflect demography). When a minister votes on behalf of his country, it's considered the entire country is coherent and votes unanimously like the adminstrator did. Again, the Council is not elected.
The Parliament is the only democratic instance of the EU. Its members are elected for 5 years. Every country holds the elections the same day, even if the functionment of the election can vary from one country to another. Number of representatives per country reflects almost perfetly the demographics. The parliament can vote defiance towards the Commission, and it has almost been done once (the former, corrupt, Comission resigned before this).
Now, how are the decisions taken ?
The Commission elaborates a law (with an extreme pressure from the lobbies). Only it can elaborate and propose a law. Commissioners -or their representatives for that matter- have to vote if their work is worthy or not. If they agree, the project is transferred to the Council.
The Council discusses the articles presented in the law. After much bargaining, an agreement may be found between the bureaucrats, and the articles get voted one by one. When an article is voted, it cannot be cancelled. When bureaucrats cannot find an agreement among them, true politicians have to decide. When the law is approved by the Council, it then goes to the Parliament, in some cases only.
The parliament studies the law, and votes amendments if necessary. If the representatives agree on some amendments, it is then transferred to the Council, and a bargaining between the Parliament and the council begins, with the moderation of a specialized institution. In most cases, the moderation is a success and the law is a bit amended. If the moderation is an utter failure, the law fails to pass.
This procedure is very long : it can take less than 6 months if it's about something unimportant (the max. height of garden dwarves for example), but it can last up to 8 years for very difficult and political subjects, such as the opening of national monopoles.
What we can see is that the only Democratic institution has almost nothing to do : it has no initiative of elaborating a law, it can slightly modify an existing project, it must wait for the COmmission and the Council to do something before it can do anything by itself. National parliaments are often simply ignored, and they often know what's going on too late, when agreements between governments have been reached. The lobbies have an important role, esp. those with much money, because they can influence directly the work of the Comission (which will influence dearly the rest of the law).
The powers of the parliament slowly progress as time passes by, but it is still unsignificant. It come from the philosophy of the EU : after WW2 and the failed attempts to unite Europe between the 2 world wars, it was decided to create economic bounds first, and political bounds after, when the solidarities were concrete and true.
Edit : by the way, as Propotkin said it, you'd need a Phd in political sciences... I almost have this 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:19
|
|
in the OT
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:19
|
|
we did it in '71
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Buck Birdseed
|
 |
Khoon Ki Pyasi Dayan (1988)
Nov 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
Quick history of the European Union in case it clarifies things somewhat:
What later became the EU was formed in 1952 as a sort of OPEC-equavilent but of Steel and Coal, a producting countries' union which would be useful to co-ordinate pricing and whatnot, incorporating six european countries (France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries). Except that it also crucially regulated the internat steel and coal market between these countries, removed tarriffs and so on. This was all rather successful so they decided (in 1957) to extend the free-market idea to a larger scope, which became the EEC. In 65 they joined the Coal and Steel community together with the EEC to form the EC. By this time various legal decisions had made sure that the supernational portion of the EC was extremely strong- the European court could overrule national courts, etc. on free-trade and customs-union matters. Then basically nothing happened except for a bunch of consolidation of this still essentially economic-regulatory union for about twenty years. Well, six more countries joined. And a set exchange-rate mechanism was introduced to stop too many fluctuations in exchange rates. But anyway, in 1986 the finally decided to get rid of all market barriers between the countries, to create a single market where goods could be moved around freely. And then in 1992 they decided to extend co-operation to Justice/Security issues, and to Foreign Affairs/Military issues, thus forming the EU. The EC, with the econonomic co-operation, was still the main focus.
In about 1999, the single market was finally converted into a Common Market, with true free movement of labour, capital and services between all EU countries. This january 11 EU countries also joined a single currency, again to make the Common Market even more viable.
As you can see it is not a political or particuarly socialist idea in any way. It's basically a supergovermental Free Trade union extended into a common market with basically no practical borders between countries when conducting business.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-04-2002 21:11
|