Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Which raises the question of how to increase democratic control of the EU in a confederacy to which many but all confederation members have surrendered their economic sovereignty.

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.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Jul 20th, 2012 at 06:54:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"to which many but all" ...

... 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.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Jul 20th, 2012 at 07:16:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There should then be a mechanism to insure that the two or more non-cabinet representatives may not necessarily belong to the majority.

The last sentence is not very clear despite the typo "from" "form?"

by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Sat Jul 21st, 2012 at 01:54:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, proportionally. Say, each MP gets one vote, quota is is number of MP's divided by number of Parliamentary reps plus one.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Jul 21st, 2012 at 09:49:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
29 votes. 29/3=9rem2. So Parliament elects 8 members on a proportional basis, with 3 votes each, and the PM is the ninth member with 5 votes.

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.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Jul 21st, 2012 at 06:15:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Useless, because power comes down to money. And those decisions are subject to ratification and informal mechanisms.
by oliver on Sat Jul 21st, 2012 at 02:49:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, without organized movements to push for reform, vested interests will rule. Democratizing institutions only opens up a chance, they don't deliver results without a fight.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Jul 21st, 2012 at 09:52:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The power in the council is not determined by numbers of votes. It depends on the economy behind the members.
by oliver on Sat Jul 21st, 2012 at 03:22:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But the entire economy of each nation speaking with one voice, that voice being the government of the day, that is an artificial construct of the Council.

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.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Jul 21st, 2012 at 06:12:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
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.

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.

by oliver on Sun Jul 22nd, 2012 at 03:07:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
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 BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Jul 22nd, 2012 at 05:54:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series