Will Democracy Succeed in the EU?

[Adam's Apple]

The Next Democratic Revolution: The EU
By Dick Morris for FrontPageMagazine.com
March 24, 2005

The undemocratic ways of the European Union are finally catching up with it as many of its member states — especially the United Kingdom and France — consult with their voters over whether to approve the new federal constitution prepared by the Brussels bureaucrats.

Voters in France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland, the Czech Republic and, most notably, Britain are leaning toward rejection of the document which confers vast new powers to shape foreign policy and regulate all aspects of European life on the EU.

Of course, Germany and a majority of the EU nations are simply skipping any consultation with their voters and ratifying the constitution in their national parliaments. When I asked one German Christian Democratic Union leader why the party does not insist on a referendum, I got the reply: “We had referenda in the ’30s, and they didn’t work out so well.”

The entire bias of the EU is toward socialism on an economic level and government by bureaucratic fiat on an administrative and political level. It really represents a European effort to mimic the kind of bureaucratic control that Japan is struggling, unsuccessfully, to shake off.

Government by those who think they know better is the common denominator here and the major threat to freedom in our post-fascist, post-Communist era. EU regulators have injected themselves into every bit of minutia in the economies of each of their countries, and popular frustration with their meddling is growing.

All this would be fine if the growth of bureaucracy and government intervention were matched by a concomitant expansion of democracy, but it is not. The bureaucracy in Brussels is unchecked by any elected body. The Council of Ministers — the member-nation presidents or premiers — is too unwieldy to exercise any real influence, and the members of the European Parliament are so hamstrung by the bureaucracy that members are not even allowed to introduce legislation. They must content themselves with voting on bills proposed by the bureaucracy.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17474

 

[Zhukov]

Marx would be so proud.

It really is amazing that after waging and winning a 45 year war of blood, sweat, and nerves with Communism, the Europeans have more or less decided Communism (economic socialism and government by bureaucratic fiat by any other name....) is the way to go.

Maybe we should have let Stalin have it all. It sure would have saved alot of time, effort, and money.

Would we really have been any worse off without half of Germany and all of France on our side?

I guess it was nice to have Werner, but other than that.........

 

[Adam's Apple]

I agree with your assessment, Zhukov. MOST of the European countries, along with large majorities of their populations, are today firmly entrenched in socialism.

 

[padisha emperor]

Of course, Germany and a majority of the EU nations are simply skipping any consultation with their voters and ratifying the constitution in their national parliaments. When I asked one German Christian Democratic Union leader why the party does not insist on a referendum, I got the reply: “We had referenda in the ’30s, and they didn’t work out so well.”

I believe that referendum is forbidden in the german constitution, the "Grundgesetz".
So, the ratification of an international treaty is ther parliament way.
They can't follow an other way.

The Council of Ministers — the member-nation presidents or premiers — is too unwieldy to exercise any real influence, and the members of the European Parliament are so hamstrung by the bureaucracy that members are not even allowed to introduce legislation. They must content themselves with voting on bills proposed by the bureaucracy.

Wrong.

First, there is here an confusion between 2 things :
- the EUROPEAN COUNCIL, which NOT a communautary institution (in the Treaty of Roma modified), and which is composed by the chiefs of State and of governements (so, Pres. and premiers) of the 25 member-States.

- the COUNCIL of the EUROPEAN UNION, it is an institution (from articles 202 to 210, Treaty of European Community). He 's called also COUNCIL OF MINISTERS, because here are the ministers (not the presidents or premiers) of the member-States, and his composition depends of the subject : if the discussion is about environnement, then would be here the 25 ministers of environnement of the States. But the most often there are the ministers of the Foreign Affairs.

The first, the EUROPEAN COUNCIL, is an impulsion organ, he gives the push, the impulsion for the developpement of the EU.
The second, the COUNCIL OF E.U., is a legislative organ : he was before the only legislator, but since the Treaty of Maastricht, of 1992, and the procedure of co-decision, the European Parliament is co-legislator, with the Council (when the word "Council" is mentionned alone, it is the Council ot the E.U.)
So, the Council is a legislative organ, but also an executive organ.
He has also an important role for the vote of the budget.
It is a real important institution, with a real real power.

And the European Council has a power : it is not a "real institution" of the Community, but as an impuslion organ, his decision are often followed, because it is important. So, this organ has not no power. And the Treaty of the 10/29/2004, about the European Consitution, makes of this European council one of the 5 actual institutions. So it is a consecration of the European Council's role.

Then, the first sentence is not correct, about the role of the institution, but also about the name : there is a mistake.

Now : second part of the message :

and the members of the European Parliament are so hamstrung by the bureaucracy that members are not even allowed to introduce legislation. They must content themselves with voting on bills proposed by the bureaucracy.

They can't introduce legislation, yes, the initiative of the laws is the monopole of the European COMMISSION.
The parliament votes the laws, with the Council. But :

This journalist go not really deep in his investigation :

The Parliament can vote a resolution, to ask to the Commission the introdiction of a law, so the Parliament will vote for it.
The Council can too.
This power of "suggestion" of the Parliament is often followed by the Commission, because :
The Commission is responsible in front of the Parliament >> the Parliament gives the investiture of the Commission's president, and after he makes the investiture of the whole Commission. He has a strong power of investigation, of audit for the members designed by the President and the Council.
For the Barroso's Commission, the Parliament rejected 2 members, and Barroso changed them.

The Parliament can also vote a censure motion for the Commission, like a national parliament can do with the governement, in the parliamentary regime (France, UK....in fact everybody or not far, except USA). After that, the government, so here the Commission, is "destroyed" (you understand what I mean, a little bit like the US impeachement) It was the case for the Commission lead by Jacques SANTER, ex-Prime minister of Luxembourg : the Parliament did only the beginning of the procedure, and the Commission left. (1999)

So, the Parliament, lke said the article, can not introduce the laws becasue only ther Commission has the initiative power, but he has a such importance for the Commission, that this one follow often his advice, his proposition....
he is not struggled by the bureaucracy...

That' all !

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Too many useless bureaucracies. See? Useless complexity that achieves nothing. Too bad the germans are forbidden from referendums. Too bad they've internalized white guilt to this extent. Is worse to kill people for being jewish than it is for being part of the bourgeiouse?

 

[padisha emperor]

Is worse to kill people for being jewish than it is for being part of the bourgeiouse

?

reference to the communists ?

why ? you can't compare the EU and the communists.

And the EU is not so complex you know.
Not a lot more than some other political system.

It is like a giant political system :
-European council : as President (chief of State, like Bush or Chirac)
-E.U. Council : high chamber of the Parliament* - Senate -
-European Parliament : low chamber of the Parliament - like your Repres. Chamber, or the french Assemblée Nationale -
-Commission : Governement

in a parliamentary regime (like in France)

 

[Merlin1047]

?
why ? you can't compare the EU and the communists.

Finally! Something on which we can agree. No, the EU cannot be compared to communism. It can only be compared to the Napoleonic Empire. At least that's what it will be if our "friend" Jacques C. has his way in the matter.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

why ? you can't compare the EU and the communists.

Oh yeah? Watch me!

The EU Oligarchs are like communists!

 

[nosarcasm]

I have problems with the lack of true democracy in the EU now
that it gets more and more power.

To call them a communist, marxist or socialist tool is laughable
because the EU is supported by big business all over Europe.

It started as the steel coal union and it tries to make it easier
to trade across nation state boundaries.

It is like the US establishing legal gurantees across state lines.

So if you are a conservative you might dislike the bureaucratic
setup that runs the EU due to political compromise.

But their goal is closer to American style capitalism.

IF you look where the EU spends most of its funds it is not
in supporting egality it is most about encouraging industrial growth (with the
examption of the agrarian sector an national security issue)

While I demand more democracy and want the German people
to vote on the constitution it still is a good tool to advance
a pro business atmosphere.

 

[padisha emperor]

The "European Constitution" has a lot of dispositions about the European Parliament, and makes stronger him.
It also makse stronger the role of the nationals Parliaments, with a procedure of "early warning", when they think that the EU does an intervention in a domain for whom the EU is not competent.

The European Communities Justice Court (ECJC, in french CJCE) is able to sanction the Council or the Commission when they abuse of their power.
And the excercice of the competences on the Eu scale is rule by some principes, the most important are proportionality and subsidiarity : the Community can not makes intervention more than necessary and more than the treaty says, and in some domain, it can only legifer when the dimension or the effects of the action do that the EU will be more able to act than the States (ex : for the protection against terrorism).

And : the Commission has initiative power, only it can introduce laws. Sometimes after European Parliament's or E.U. Council 's demand. The Commission is composed of people proposed by the States. The Parliament has here a control. The E.U. Council is composed by ministers of the antional governments.
So, in fact it is democratic, the powers are not isolated, there are interferenes, and then more democracy than it appears.

And the European Constitution has also a disposision for a "citizen law", 1,000,000 of citizens of EU, from a representative number of States can askl the Commission for thr introduction of a law.
This disposition and the reinforcement of the Parliament role, elected at the universal suffrage by the European gives more democracy.


For the question about EU and communists, nosarcasm answer perfectly : the comparaison is laughable.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The "European Constitution" has a lot of dispositions about the European Parliament, and makes stronger him.
It also makse stronger the role of the nationals Parliaments, with a procedure of "early warning", when they think that the EU does an intervention in a domain for whom the EU is not competent.

The European Communities Justice Court (ECJC, in french CJCE) is able to sanction the Council or the Commission when they abuse of their power.
And the excercice of the competences on the Eu scale is rule by some principes, the most important are proportionality and subsidiarity : the Community can not makes intervention more than necessary and more than the treaty says, and in some domain, it can only legifer when the dimension or the effects of the action do that the EU will be more able to act than the States (ex : for the protection against terrorism).

And : the Commission has initiative power, only it can introduce laws. Sometimes after European Parliament's or E.U. Council 's demand. The Commission is composed of people proposed by the States. The Parliament has here a control. The E.U. Council is composed by ministers of the antional governments.
So, in fact it is democratic, the powers are not isolated, there are interferenes, and then more democracy than it appears.

And the European Constitution has also a disposision for a "citizen law", 1,000,000 of citizens of EU, from a representative number of States can askl the Commission for thr introduction of a law.
This disposition and the reinforcement of the Parliament role, elected at the universal suffrage by the European gives more democracy.


For the question about EU and communists, nosarcasm answer perfectly : the comparaison is laughable.

Sounds like a crappy convoluted bureaucratic mess.

The comparison to communists is accurate.

 

[padisha emperor]

What ?

why do you see everywhere a bureaucracy who block the system ?

the EU is not a State !
The laws adopted at the EU scale are adpoted by the members of the governement of the member-States, at the EU Council, and the European Parliament's members elecetd by the people like for national elections, or by the people named by the national governements at the EU Commission, (initiative power).

So, in fact, the people who had a decision power are the elected people of the countries, directly (euro-deputies) or not (governements).

Of course there is a big bureaucracy : how can you lead and control and make a good gestion of a such giant organisation ?
Is there no bureaucracy in the USA ?
And the EU is more complex than a simple federation, like USA or Germany.

But this bureaucracy has no decision power.
At least they help for the preparation of some acts and decisions, but their advices are not obligatory.
Maybe there is the Comity of the Permanent Representatives (in french COREPER), but the members of it, the permanents representatives (representants ? what is the correct word ?) do a big job before the EU Council examination, so here you can think that there is a too strong bureaucracy. but in fact no, becasue these guys are named by the national governements, they are like ambassadors at the EU in Brussels, and have rank of ambassador (theycome from the ambassador administration).

why do you sau that it is a giant and awful bureaucracy ? give me some arguments, guy !

and why do you say that the EU is a communist organisation ?
Lke said nosarcasm :

At the beginning, 1951, CECA (in french) for steal and coal.
Between France and Germany, and also Italy Luxembourg belgium and Netherlands.
1957 : Treaty of Rome, birth of the Economic european community (EEC)
1992 : Treaty of Maastricht : European Union.

The first aim of the CECA was an economic cooperation to rebuilt the countries after the war (the economy was very dammaged).
The EEC is a liberal - economy sens - organisation.
The aims of EEC, and then EU, are numreous : political cooperation and construction, protection of Rights, and above all economical cooperation.
and be sure it is not a communist organisation. I know that , I'm in.
Why do you believe that the two main ennemies of the european construction are the extrem right, with ultra nationalists (in France, like Jean-Marie Le Pen, in Netherlands Geert Wilders....), because they don't like the attribution of the competences to EU - lost of sovereignity - ; and otherside the Communists ? The communists are against the EU, in general, because they think that it is a capitalist organisation, a liberal economical organistation. And it is a liberal economical organisation.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What ?

why do you see everywhere a bureaucracy who block the system ?

the EU is not a State !
The laws adopted at the EU scale are adpoted by the members of the governement of the member-States, at the EU Council, and the European Parliament's members elecetd by the people like for national elections, or by the people named by the national governements at the EU Commission, (initiative power).

So, in fact, the people who had a decision power are the elected people of the countries, directly (euro-deputies) or not (governements).

Of course there is a big bureaucracy : how can you lead and control and make a good gestion of a such giant organisation ?
Is there no bureaucracy in the USA ?
And the EU is more complex than a simple federation, like USA or Germany.

But this bureaucracy has no decision power.
At least they help for the preparation of some acts and decisions, but their advices are not obligatory.
Maybe there is the Comity of the Permanent Representatives (in french COREPER), but the members of it, the permanents representatives (representants ? what is the correct word ?) do a big job before the EU Council examination, so here you can think that there is a too strong bureaucracy. but in fact no, becasue these guys are named by the national governements, they are like ambassadors at the EU in Brussels, and have rank of ambassador (theycome from the ambassador administration).

why do you sau that it is a giant and awful bureaucracy ? give me some arguments, guy !

and why do you say that the EU is a communist organisation ?
Lke said nosarcasm :

At the beginning, 1951, CECA (in french) for steal and coal.
Between France and Germany, and also Italy Luxembourg belgium and Netherlands.
1957 : Treaty of Rome, birth of the Economic european community (EEC)
1992 : Treaty of Maastricht : European Union.

The first aim of the CECA was an economic cooperation to rebuilt the countries after the war (the economy was very dammaged).
The EEC is a liberal - economy sens - organisation.
The aims of EEC, and then EU, are numreous : political cooperation and construction, protection of Rights, and above all economical cooperation.
and be sure it is not a communist organisation. I know that , I'm in.
Why do you believe that the two main ennemies of the european construction are the extrem right, with ultra nationalists (in France, like Jean-Marie Le Pen, in Netherlands Geert Wilders....), because they don't like the attribution of the competences to EU - lost of sovereignity - ; and otherside the Communists ? The communists are against the EU, in general, because they think that it is a capitalist organisation, a liberal economical organistation. And it is a liberal economical organisation.

Yes. A lot of crap with no decision power, hence no accountability. Perfect for do nothing libs.

 

[Zhukov]

the extrem right, with ultra nationalists (in France, like Jean-Marie Le Pen, in Netherlands Geert Wilders....)

Geert Wilders is an ultra nationalist? I think Europe needs more ultra nationalists then. I mean, this guy's hair is awesome....

Besides, I tend to think anyone the Islamofascists publically announce they want to behead is probably more right than wrong.

 

[padisha emperor]

Geert Wilders is an ultra nationalist? I think Europe needs more ultra nationalists then. I mean, this guy's hair is awesome....

A lot of crap with no decision power, hence no accountability. Perfect for do nothing libs.

Are you stupid ?

Where am I saying that EU has no power ? I only said that the bureaucracy is not so extend as you mean.
The EU Insitutions have a real decision power.
Do you know how many laws in the member-States come from EU and the EC ?

There is a good compromise between the real power of the EU and the sovereignity of the States. One side, the decision is taken by the reunion of the governments' member, or by the elected deputies.
And they have otherside an autonomy (the insititutions).

So, real power. it is not the UNO.

and for your obsession of the Communists....

Jose Manuel Barroso, the actual President of the Commission, is aconservative.
the most important politic party in the Parliament is the PPE (in french), the christians/democrats.


I think I'm the best-placed to speak of the EU, here, or one of the best-placed. So trust me.