Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Secret Federalists
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
The Corinthian wrote: »I won't say that it'll never happen, but with the present process of integration it won't.
Ultimately, there is absolutely no way that countries such as Germany, the UK or France (let alone the rest) would gleefully allow their national identity to be overridden by a supernational entity such as the EU. For something like that, we would require a serious socio-economic shock to the system, such as a war, to make it viable.
The best and closest historical example of something like this is Switzerland. Up until Napoleon, the old Swiss Confederation was very a loose one of independent sovereign states. While they tended not to go to war against each other (at least since the Reformation), they would often send mercenaries to fight on opposing sides in Europe's other wars, and thus had no coherent common foreign policy. Indeed, no real common policies to speak of. Not even a common currency.
In 1798 Napoleon invaded and easily overran the independent, sovereign and ultimately completely uncoordinated states of Switzerland and established the Helvetic Republic (and introduced the first Swiss Francs). Ultimately, Napoleon and the Helvetic Republic fell and things returned to business as usual, however the experience of the Helvetic Republic and Napoleon's easy conquest remained and eventually the Swiss decided to adopt many aspects of a centralized state by 1848 - forming what is now the modern Switzerland.
The point to the above history lesson, is that pre-Napoleonic Switzerland was composed of numerous fiercely independent states that while happy to have a loose series of treaties with each other, had no interest in allowing their national identities to be overridden by any supernational entity - just like the EU - and they probably would have continued with this view indefinitely, were it not for extraordinary events imposed upon them that caused them to re-evaluate their position.
And the EU will almost certainly do the same - will never become a federal state, unless some extraordinary event convinces the member states that it is in their self interest to do so.
That's an interesting parallel. I am a big admirer of the Swiss democratic setup (even if it's not without its flaws). I really do hope the EU evolves much more in this direction. And yes I can't see the EU going down a federal route for now. There's really no proper European demos yet anyway.
But the governments in Europe are quite keen on more integration. They either don't want to or can't (due to their electorates) go down a federal route. Therefore integration seems to be mostly going down a route where more power is being given to primarily intergovernmental EU institutions. Lisbon certainly gives the council more power. Most of the other EU institutions other than the parliament are primarily intergovernmental in nature as well. The commission is composed of the appointees of the national political leaders. Even the judges of the ECJ are appointed by the national governments.
I'm uncomfortable with this trend. I consider politicians to be something of a necessary evil. We couldn't function without them. But that doesn't mean we should entirely trust them. They need careful watching!
Something I don't really like about the current EU setup is its lack of proper checks and balances. That was the primary reason for my no vote yesterday. I must admit to being disappointed at the result but anyway that's how the people voted.
The US federal system is well constructed: Senate v Congress v Executive. Supreme court justices have to go before the Senate before being appointed. The primarily intergovernmental nature of the EU means the national leaders collectively have far more power than they would have individually. I think this power is poorly counterbalanced by a weak and incoherent European parliament and a fragmented body of national parliaments (already likely to be in the pocket of their corresponding ministers/prime ministers). I think this is where the perception about the unaccountability of EU institutions arises.
I think a stronger European Parliament would be a good idea. I don't think it would be any more populist than existing national parliaments. I don't feel the increased codecision powers are anyway near enough. It could be potentially a far more coherent and powerful check on the other intergovernmental institutions. The extra powers to the national parliaments are more symbolic than real. I really don't like the commission. It's even less accountable than the council. It's potentially too prone to lobbying. To be honest I feel the commission should just be merged with the parliament.
The EU tries to balance the principles of equality of states versus equality of individual citizens. Currently the intergovernmental council tries to do both at the same time. I'd rather that the council be the institution that just embodies equality of states. Germany would have the same vote as Malta. Maybe requiring 2/3 of countries to agree to a proposal for it to pass would be about right. I'd prefer the parliament to embody the equality of citizens principle (and get rid of degressive proportionality). And allow it to also propose legislation. Maybe just a simple majority would be required here. And allow the parliament a veto on all appointments to the ECJ.
The Swiss federal government is deliberately kept to a minimum. The Cantons have whatever powers not given to the federal institutions. I'd also rather wish this minimalist approach was much more strongly incorporated into the EU treaties.
I'm not sure the current rush towards giving more power (especially population based QMV type voting) to the council is the right approach for the European project to take. I would have prefered the powers of the parliament were gradually increased first. Allow it to block council proposals in more areas with a simple rather than an absolute majority. Allow it to block ECJ appointments. And allow it to propose legislation in its own right by merging it with the commission. That would have been much easier to do if more unanimity had been kept in the council. And then if a European demos had gradually developed it would have been much easier and more palatable for the requirement for unanimity in the council to be lowered to 2/3 of countries or whatever. And this would have been even more palatable if strong restrictions were placed on how much power the central EU institutions could take on relative to the national parliaments.
I fear under the current system the bigger countries will be reluctant to ever give up their stronger voting weights in the council. And the parliament may therefore never be allowed to become a more effective and powerful check on the council. In my opinion the council is being given too much power too quickly in a way that is not particularly accountable, and I really don't feel European citizens are being brought along entirely willingly either. I feel it's all happening a bit too much too fast and I'm not entirely convinced the best structures are in place.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
I think a stronger European Parliament would be a good idea.
I do too, which is why I voted Yes yesterday. Lisbon increases the EU Parliaments oversight on legislation from 80% of legislation to 95%. It increases the oversight on the EU budget from 20% to 100%. Surely this is the kind of thing you desire?
Thats not the only check or balance. Lisbon gives national parliaments a bigger say. Yes, you are right in saying that in many cases the council of ministers will control parliament back home. But that doesn't change the fact that if theres legislation you disagree with you can now lobby both your MEP and your TD. And try and make them vote against their party-colleague who is on the CoM.
And then theres the citizens initiative. I concede its weak but it has to be otherwise extreme fanatics like Coir would start getting a hold of Europe. Your bound to find 1 million nutcases across Europe. But the commission is forced to consider it.
The charter of fundamental rights enhances your position under the ECJ. If you feel EU law goes against your rights you can now, after Lisbon, take a case to the courts arguing same.
I just dont see how you could be for checks and balances and yet against Lisbon. 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
I do too, which is why I voted Yes yesterday. Lisbon increases the EU Parliaments oversight on legislation from 80% of legislation to 95%. It increases the oversight on the EU budget from 20% to 100%. Surely this is the kind of thing you desire?
It does gain some powers. The gain of full rather than partial control of the budget is good. It can amend legislation and has some oversight powers. But it's still easily the weakest of all the EU bodies. In some ways it's somewhat like our Seanad in terms of relative power to the Dáil.
It's a weak power. National parliaments can only object on grounds of subsidiarity. If a third object the commission may consider it, but is not obliged to give more than an explanation. A very high bar is set for definitely blocking anything: a majority of national parliaments and either 55% of the council or a majority in the EP.Thats not the only check or balance. Lisbon gives national parliaments a bigger say. Yes, you are right in saying that in many cases the council of ministers will control parliament back home. But that doesn't change the fact that if theres legislation you disagree with you can now lobby both your MEP and your TD. And try and make them vote against their party-colleague who is on the CoM.
Anyway, it's rare a prime minister and parliament are going to disagree! I'd be happier if a third of parliaments could actually block any legislation. But even there I'd wonder if that would really ever happen. I'd doubt that national parliaments could ever really be a good counterbalance to the power of the council.
The citizen's initiative is one of the most attractive parts of Swiss democracy. The Swiss have a nice sprinkling of direct democracy in their system. It's something I'd really love to see in the Irish constitution. I wouldn't say there's no downsides. Switzerland was one of the very last places in Europe to give the vote to women. Swiss men just kept refusing in referenda to give them the vote! The sexist pigs!And then theres the citizens initiative. I concede its weak but it has to be otherwise extreme fanatics like Coir would start getting a hold of Europe. Your bound to find 1 million nutcases across Europe. But the commission is forced to consider it.
But otherwise it has worked very well there.
The problem with the citizen's initiative in Lisbon is that the European treaties certainly aren't yet on a secure enough basis to allow European citizen's to tinker with them in such a way. You'll notice they aren't allowing European referenda on such initiatives! Even holding European wide referenda would require alternations to the constitutions of a number of countries. I can't see any way such initiatives could be made mandatory. It'll always be at the discretion of the commission. I'm sure they'll get lots of wacky initiatives. I think this provision may become something of a joke. It's likely some Europhile groups will propose some initiatives the commission likes which will then be made into law. The rest will be ignored. My cynical side says this is mostly just window dressing to cover over accountability issues in Lisbon.
The Charter will increase the power of the ECJ and the its judges which are appointed by the leaders of the EU countries (who probably with their own political agendas for the EU in mind when selecting these). I've mixed feelings about this. In the US states can have widely differing laws and stances on marriage, social issues, the death penalty, gun control etc.. Some have gay marriage, some don't. There's quite a bit of diversity. I hope the ECJ won't use the Charter to try to overly homogenize laws across the Union in some kind of expansionary drive.The charter of fundamental rights enhances your position under the ECJ. If you feel EU law goes against your rights you can now, after Lisbon, take a case to the courts arguing same.
The European parliament becomes marginally more powerful. The council becomes much more powerful and less gridlocked through the removal of vetoes in many areas and the rejigging of QMV. European prime ministers and ministers (particularly in the bigger states) can exercise more power with minimal censure from their own parliaments. And the European parliament ermains still too weak and incoherent to act as a check on them either.I just dont see how you could be for checks and balances and yet against Lisbon.
The council has an interesting structure. It would be as if all the governors of the US states jointly sat on a single federal institution which simultaneously combined most powers of the Senate (representation by state), Congress (representation according to population) and President (executive) into one body, with perhaps a secondary (EP like) chamber with certain blocking and oversight powers. I'm still not convinced this is a good idea.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
What in the world is going through peoples minds :eek: Advertisement