The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
I think we've reached a stage where EU state building in the sense of more transfer of powers from nations to the EU is no longer viable, politically or morally.
Two things are needed, IMO:
The political significance of the European government and Parliament will only increase once they are clearly more important than national governments and parliaments.
Unfortunately the chance of any member state agreeing to my modest proposals is about zero.
Step 1: Get a Parliament elected that cares about grabbing power.
Step 2: Elect Parliament presidents that agree.
Step 3: Hold vote on who parliament wants to see elected as President of Commission.
Step 4: Refuse to appoint anyone else.
This is more or less how parliamentarian systems evolve in the first place. The crux is step 1.
Then the Parliament and its elected Commission can confront the Council. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
There is simply no majority in Europe to give the EU that much power over money.
If you want to change it, you need to abolish the Euro.
That exactly is the problem. Democracy and policies required to hold the Eurozone together have become mutually exclusive.
Therefore, what you claim there is a popular majority implies rolling back to before the Maastricht Treaty. If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
However, both leaving the Euro and introducing different legal tender from the Euro would break a number of EU laws. If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
The ECB move, which analysts said was aimed at stepping up pressure on Athens to adhere to the commitments of its EU/IMF bailout, will force Greek banks to turn to their national central bank for Emergency Liquidity Assistance (ELA) funds. Those funds will be more expensive than funds available in the ECB's regular liquidity operations. The ECB said the collateral exclusion was due to the expiration of a temporary 35 billion euro scheme agreed with Greece and euro zone leaders whereby the ECB would continue to accept Greek bonds after they went into default this year. ... European and IMF officials are due to visit Athens next week to decide whether Athens merits another tranche of aid from its latest bailout package and analysts said the ECB move was designed to step up pressure on Greece ahead of the visit.
The ECB said the collateral exclusion was due to the expiration of a temporary 35 billion euro scheme agreed with Greece and euro zone leaders whereby the ECB would continue to accept Greek bonds after they went into default this year.
...
European and IMF officials are due to visit Athens next week to decide whether Athens merits another tranche of aid from its latest bailout package and analysts said the ECB move was designed to step up pressure on Greece ahead of the visit.
One question, if one member-state were to retire from the euro, how legitimate would be the claim that euro-denominated debts are in its own currency, and that a change first of name, then of value, would not imply a revaluation of the foreign debt in euros?
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
As far as power over the ECB is concerned, you need to remember that the member states still hold the ultimate weapon. They can leave the Euro.
There is a popular majority that will force a regression to the pre-Maastricht state, but not a popular majority that desires this. As usually the voters want to eat and keep the cake.
That is a very peculiar definition of sovereignity. One which the general public does not share.
The general public is not ready to hand over power of budgets, taxes, health care and pensions to the EU.
It would take that to make EU institutions more powerful than the member states.
As for leaving the Euro we are approaching a very ugly area. The EU has quite limited means to enforce its treaties. If a member state insisted on leaving the Euro, the EU probably could make it leave the EU altogether. However, it is doubtful that the EU as a political project would survive that. The lawyers would be told to find some way and nobody would look closely at it. A bailout was also supposed to be strictly forbidden once.
You can tell the voters that an earlier generation of politicians screwed everyone. Or you can tell them that other political parties screwed everyone. That's what happened in Greece with Syriza and his 30-something-year-old leader eating PASOK's lunch. If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
This is the second most consistent historical experience in economics (the first one being that no, this time is not different).
If the European Council presently holds pre-eminent power, then moves toward democratizing the European Council would give leverage to the process. For instance, each state could send three members, head of government and at least two non-cabinet Parliamentary representatives. Council representatives limited to no more than three votes each and heads of government limited to no more than five votes would from 2 to 7 Parliamentary Representatives in addition to the Head of Government. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
... to which many but not all have surrendered their economic sovereignty. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
The last sentence is not very clear despite the typo "from" "form?"
13 votes. 13/3=4rem1. So Parliament elects 3 members on a proportional basis, with 3 votes each, and the PM is the fourth member with 4 votes.
3 votes. Minimum 3 members, so Parliament elects 2 members on a proportional basis, with 1 vote each, and the PM is the third member with one vote. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Using the existing votes to determine how many members the parliament will send on a proportional basis is because those existing votes have already been hammered out and are enshrined in treaty, so leaving them alone makes sense ... precisely because the exact number of votes of each member is not the primary source of the problem. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
You may want the EU as a whole to act. But it lacks the money. Either you give it much more taxes or the money comes from the ECB. But for either extension of EU power there is no majority.
But the money has to be authorized. That needs a parliamentary majority. As long as the member nations act, they need to speak as one.
What does this mean to say?
If it means to say that there would be a structural tension of it was possible to form cross-national coalitions in Council with ensuring the authorization of the money to carry out the program of the Council majority ... why, yes, there would be.
A proposed reform that would be sufficient to solve the structural problems of the EU is by its nature the most difficult type of structural reform to get through.
But contrast, if a proposed reform doesn't set up a structural tension with the status quo, there's no point to pursuing it, since its just a paint job.
So what is required are structural reforms that establish arenas in which it is possible to make substantial progress. And any such reform will be a source of structural tensions if its worth anything at all. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Or was the intended reading A swedish kind of death:
Then the Parliament and its elected Commission can confront the Council.
Then you'd discover the unfortunate truth. They who pay the bill call the shots. There is simply no majority in Europe to give the EU that much power over money.
But my comment applies to the normal decision making process (where much of the Councils real power stems from the collaboration of the Commission). Today we get a Council+Commission proposal that with the narrowest of margins has to pass the Parliament, with a Commission appointed in real terms by the Parliament we would get a Parliament+Council proposal that has to pass the Council. It changes the dynamics within the current treaties.
I suspect what you are refering to is the crisis managment that falls with the ECB and the member countries - in and outside Council meetings. That will not change until we get the Parliament to appoint a majority in the ECB board or a federal treasury or something like that. This would take treaty changes that currently would never be proposed, never mind accepted. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
As we have seen from the Merkel-Sarkozy meetings, even the Council is not all that important, it is just the member states (with budget powers and the guns to back up an exit) and the ECB. This makes it a seperate structure from the EU legislative process (which can be important, ACTA for example sure appears to have caught the interest of many).
I struggle to find anything to compare it to, but perhaps there are times in the process of parliaments gaining power over the kings in catholic Europe where the church held a similar untouchable position of power outside legislative, executive and judicial power. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
We know this because the ECB is too thoroughly infested with quacks to reform itself from the inside, and it is key to resolving the present crisis. Ergo, the crisis can only be resolved when a power group external to the ECB seizes control of it. The most obvious group to do so is the Commission.
And once you have the printing press, you have the power of the purse, with the added pleasure of exercising it over the pitiful wailing of the gold bugs and deflationists.
The Commission is also thoroughly infested with quacks, also known as "mainstream economists trained after 1980". If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
How do we start getting the Parliament elected on the basis of European parties, rather than national ones?
For that we need an issue that can be the dominant electoral issue in all member states.
I think the fastest route would be if PES decided who they want for President (of the Commission) and push their candidate against who they want EPP to nominate (our guy vs Berlusconi or something...). If they need a legal figleaf for the media, the Lisbon treaty says that the Council shall take into account the results of the Parliametn election - clearly this means that the biggest group gets their candidate.
Unfortunately I doubt PES is willing to risk the safe seats on the Commission they get under current arrangement for a grab on all of it. Lacking a will to power, they do. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
From the very beginning of the credit crisis and the ensuing recession, it has become conventional wisdom that "no one saw this coming". Anatole Kaletsky (2008) wrote in the The Times of "those who failed to foresee the gravity of this crisis - a group that includes Mr King, Mr Brown, Alistair Darling, Alan Greenspan and almost every leading economist and financier in the world." Glenn Stevens (2008), Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, said:"I do not know anyone who predicted this course of events. This should give us cause to reflect on how hard a job it is to make genuinely useful forecasts. What we have seen is truly a `tail' outcome - the kind of outcome that the routine forecasting process never predicts. But it has occurred, it has implications, and so we must reflect on it".We must indeed. ... In Bezemer (2009), I document the models that got it right. The important question for economists is - how did they do it? What is the underlying model? ... The most detailed of these models, which has also been used to construct public projections and analyses, are "Flow of Funds" models of the US developed by Wynne Godley and associates at the Levy Economics Institute. These may serve as pars pro toto for the class of "Flow of Funds" models of real-financial interactions (e.g. also Werner, 1997; Graziani, 2003; Hudson, 2006; Keen, 2009). A simplified (closed-economy) representation in Godley (1999) consists of stocks and flows of a number of asset classes between four sectors (explicitly separating out the financial sector), with their properties and interrelations represented in over 60 equations (Table 1; see Godley 1999 for all symbols).
"I do not know anyone who predicted this course of events. This should give us cause to reflect on how hard a job it is to make genuinely useful forecasts. What we have seen is truly a `tail' outcome - the kind of outcome that the routine forecasting process never predicts. But it has occurred, it has implications, and so we must reflect on it".
In Bezemer (2009), I document the models that got it right. The important question for economists is - how did they do it? What is the underlying model?
The most detailed of these models, which has also been used to construct public projections and analyses, are "Flow of Funds" models of the US developed by Wynne Godley and associates at the Levy Economics Institute. These may serve as pars pro toto for the class of "Flow of Funds" models of real-financial interactions (e.g. also Werner, 1997; Graziani, 2003; Hudson, 2006; Keen, 2009). A simplified (closed-economy) representation in Godley (1999) consists of stocks and flows of a number of asset classes between four sectors (explicitly separating out the financial sector), with their properties and interrelations represented in over 60 equations (Table 1; see Godley 1999 for all symbols).
At what point does the answer become, "okay, maybe we'll try to build the EU a bit later as the current governements will only produce a dangerous institutional setup"?
The problem with "exit" is that we'd exit with the same national politicians that are the problem at the European level. If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
But then I don't get the impression that the Greek government would have the stomach to continue its class war without the Troika behind them. They look quite demoralized. Von überall könnte das Volk, Urbrut alles Undemokratischen, Zelle des Terrors, über die gewählten Hüter von Wachstum und Wohlstand® kommen. - flatter
I used to be very pro EU but now I just find that it's another useless and expensive level of bureaucracy.
If the EU advances, it will advance under the current rules; if it does not advance, it will disappear.
Without answering these numerous previous questions, there will be no substantial changes in the building of a legitimate EU.
So without reform there will be no refocusing. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
by DoDo - May 20 16 comments
by Nomad - May 10 14 comments
by JakeS - May 15 7 comments
by Metatone - May 14 85 comments
by ARGeezer - May 16 14 comments
by gmoke - May 17 2 comments
by DoDo - May 12 11 comments
by Migeru - May 6 100 comments
by DoDo - May 2016 comments
by gmoke - May 172 comments
by ARGeezer - May 1614 comments
by JakeS - May 157 comments
by Metatone - May 1485 comments
by DoDo - May 1211 comments
by Nomad - May 1014 comments
by Migeru - May 78 comments
by marco - May 782 comments
by Migeru - May 6100 comments
by Ted Welch - May 35 comments
by afew - May 340 comments
by ceebs - May 26 comments
by gmoke - Apr 301 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 3067 comments
by joelado - Apr 2954 comments
by Metatone - Apr 2854 comments
by ATinNM - Apr 275 comments
by ceebs - Apr 265 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 2686 comments