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.
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).
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
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.
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 31 2 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22 3 comments
by Cat - Jan 25 56 comments
by Oui - Jan 9 21 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 13 28 comments
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Feb 214 comments
by Oui - Feb 13 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 312 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Oui - Jan 2731 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 263 comments
by Cat - Jan 2556 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 223 comments
by Oui - Jan 2110 comments
by Oui - Jan 21
by Oui - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 1841 comments
by Oui - Jan 1591 comments
by Oui - Jan 145 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1328 comments
by Oui - Jan 1221 comments
by Oui - Jan 1120 comments
by Oui - Jan 1034 comments