Display:
What I would like to see is
  1. A directly elected President of the Commission - by instant runoff voting in an EU-wide popular vote
  2. A Common Foreign and Security Policy, and the European Defence Agency taking over from NATO - also, "force projection" is not "defence"
  3. Enhanced cooperation - i.e., a qualified majorities of states doing more things like the Euro or Schengen. As this is already in the treaties, countries should lose their qualms about it.


"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 07:26:02 AM EST
Why the President?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 07:26:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Because currently they're chosen by the States, which just put one of them in charge. Because I am beginning to think that the European Parliamentary systems lack separation of powers between legislative and executive, and I wouldn't want the EP to be too closely tied to the Commission, politically. Also symbolically, it would allow people to identify more with "Brussels".

In other words, I think the Codecision procedure is great in the way it balances the three institutions (Commission, Council and Parliament). The Commission needs to be separated from the Council more than it is, and it would be a step in teh wrong direction to link it too closely with the Parliament.

I just remembered that currently Solana is both the Council Secretary General and the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. It's possible that that's a good thing: for the foreseeable future the Member States won't want to give up their foreign policy to the Commission, the most one can hope for is a true commitment to a collegiate foreign policy.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 07:33:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Because I am beginning to think that the European Parliamentary systems lack separation of powers between legislative and executive,

Why do you think that's bad? It at least makes it relatively easy to unseat an executive that gets out of control. I'm not convinced the US model of limited temporary kingship is a great one.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 07:35:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The European Commission is not a Kingship, no matter what the eurosceptics say. The Codecision procedure is a better system of checks and balances. Also, I'm not bothered by the fact that Directives take 2 years or more to go through it. The quality of a legislative machine is not measured by the speed with which it can churn new laws.

I would also give the Council and the Parliament, not just the Commission, legislative initiative. But I wouldn't take it away from the Commission.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 07:40:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I was referring to the separation of powers thingy.

The parliament definitely needs legislative initiative. It's the main deficiency with EU democracy that I can see.

The EU's core problem is that it doesn't really deal with people's day-to-day concerns in a way they can understand. It deals with them at at least one remove most of the time.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 07:43:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think having the executive come out of the largest parliamentary faction is good for separation of powers. The failure of the national parliaments to investigate the CIA prison/flight scandal is just the best and most recent example of this.

So, codecision and making the Commission President not owe their place to either Parliament or Council sould be a good thing.

Also, how the President is selected has nothing to do with how they are removed. One could still allow the EP to impeach them, to confirm the appointments of the commissioners, etc.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 07:46:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You sound a bit like a thirties US neoliberal :-)

What makes you think that a directly elected President would be more likely to act on an issue like the CIA prison/flight scandal than a directly elected Parliament?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 08:44:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, I'm saying that a parliament tied to the executive is even less likely to act.

The less the people in the various institutions owe their seats to each other (or to the same outside agent) the better.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 08:51:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The EU's core problem is that it doesn't really deal with people's day-to-day concerns in a way they can understand.

You want the EU to take on the job of strengthening local government?

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 07:49:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, it's pretty much an intrinsic problem of a supra-national organisation.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 07:52:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So let's stop worrying about it.

Subsidiarity is a great thing. Higher instances of government should concentrate on setting minimum standards and facilitating coordination. Day-to-day concerns should not be the province of the national governments either. I'd strengthen both the EU and the local governments.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 07:56:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem is that it's not just a practical issue. It's also a PR issue. If local-level support happens - and of course it does - but it remains invisble, it's far too easy for old fashioned nationalisms to pretend that the EU isn't doing much anything except spending money on parliaments, doughnuts and bratwurst.

The EU is wretchedly bad at is promoting itself. This is partly because it's not unified ideologically, but also because there's no mechanism which links people's experience of the benefits to their source.

In my (UK based) experience, when money becomes available, it's discussed in very remote terms. Someone in a country far away decides to offer money... and local people are happy to take it. But there doesn't seem to be any feeling of relationship with the source of the money. It might as well be the tooth fairy or Santa Claus.

This is very, very bad, because it enforces an assumption of non-participation. Us vs them is much less coherent than us here vs us there.

So the feeling of local intervention and interest matters a lot. If handled properly, it could do a lot to create political and social coherence.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 08:45:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
sounds like you're saying we should phase out the middlemen of state government.

since that's where the majority of the corruption is, i agree.

local government is also often corrupt and inefficient, but the damage is less catastrophic.

hopefully accountability will improve with growing awareness, stimulated by blogs like this.


~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 04:12:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, local government is pretty corrupt too. The media spotlight shines more often on the national government. After all, it's smaller.

In Spain the biggest source of corruption are land reclassifications and infrastructure building contracts. Most of this is politically under local government, except for the big national infrastructure like high-speed rail.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 04:39:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
interesting your comment started with a 'no', then repeated something i said!

idem with italy and the land reclassifications and infrastructure building contracts, not receiving media attention.

the corruption i was referring to is around military-industrial spending and secret service shenanigans, rendition policies etc.

~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 08:04:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I lik e it for the symbolic stuff.

there was a great article in the Guardian by T Ash about this lack of common politics arena...

A king without a lot of power (less than the parliament) will joing the european pshcyhe at the level of the Eurocup.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 02:08:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why are number 1 and number 3 good ideas?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 07:32:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
  1. see my reply to DoDo.
  2. after 15 years of wringing our hands over how a "variable-geometry", "two-speed" or "a la carte" Europe would weaken the union, I see that what weakens the union politically is the small number of Eurosceptic countries who have not become any more cooperative after these 15 years. I see no reason to expect the UK, Denmark, Poland, Sweden, Austria to be very cooperative in setting up bold new initiatives at the EU level.


"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 07:36:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I see that what weakens the union politically is the small number of Eurosceptic countries who have not become any more cooperative after these 15 years.

That doesn't mean that a two-speed Europe won't also weaken it politically.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 07:37:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My concern is that many of the initiatives you might want to put in place incur a cost that wouldn't be borne by opting out countries who could then compete unfairly against other members of the Union, exploiting the free-trade aspect of it. I believe that the UK is already doing this by opting out of the Social Charter. This is only going to get worse.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 07:41:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What is better? To accept the uK as free rider, or to do nothing?

The cost of some countries opting out would need to be factored into the decision to go ahead, but since the EU already doesn't prevent member states from entering bilateral or multilateral arrangements, all I'm saying is that those should be made part of the EU structure.

Also, new applicants for membership don't get to opt out of anything.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 07:43:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The UK stopped opting out of the social charter in 1997 (effective in 1999).
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 12:38:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't see it as any worse than the current gridlock.

Your problem is that Ireland is prevented by the UK from taking advantage of a certain enhanced cooperation (though you are in the Euro)

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 07:41:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Also, let the EU raise its own taxes.

The EU budget is just 1% of GDP, right? If people saw they pay a few hundred € in taxes to the EU, and several thousand to their national government, they would stop complaining that the EU is too expensive.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 07:58:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think you misunderestimate the Anglo-Saxon horror of both the EU and of taxes. What both have in common is the pernicious and dangerous idea of sharing - which is something the Anglo-Saxon mindset is against on principle.

So your suggestion would be met by slobbering cries of 'Taxes bad! Bad! Bad!' from people whose idea of being balanced is an ability to drool on an even keel. (And I don't just meant the ones who write for the FT and the Economist.)

In fact I'd add the influence of Anglo-Saxon-ism to Nanne's list, because ideologically it's the only thing that has the potential to tear apart the EU.

The infection is already running deep. Wwhile I'm sure there's an immune system of sorts in place, I'm not so sure it's strong enough to nurse the patient back to rude health without the need for a more serious intervention.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 08:33:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series