3 ms·
For the first part: you're pretty much rephrasing what I said. E.g. to quote you: > The President, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and
by rbehrends 11y ago
For the first part: you're pretty much rephrasing what I said. E.g. to quote you:
> The President, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the other members of the Commission shall be subject as a body to a vote of consent by the European Parliament. On the basis of this consent the Commission shall be appointed by the European Council, acting by a qualified majority.
As I said, the entire Commission is voted for by the European Parliament, not just the President, as you originally claimed.
> > The president is nominated by the council, and confirmed by the parliament.
> Again not correct see Article 17 above.
You realize that you are disagreeing with yourself? Or is your quoting just totally messed up?
> The Council isn't the upper house of the EU Parliament it's a completely separate body.
The Council isn't the upper house of the European Parliament; it is the upper house of the EU legislature, the European Parliament is the lower house of the EU legislature. Of course they're separate bodies, silly [1].
> They can jointly and separately adopt laws however only laws that are adopted by the council are actually turned into EU directives which is required for laws to have any effect on member states.
The ordinary legislative procedure requires the consent of the European Parliament AND the Council of the EU. The consultation procedure is largely limited to Art. 103 and Art. 115 TFEU (aspects of competition law and the internal market).
Yes, of course the consent of the Council of the EU as the upper house of the legislature is required. Never said otherwise.
[1] http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/european-parliament http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/european-parliament
- dogma1138 11y agoThe EU parliament doesn't elect, if you don't understand the difference between appointment and confirmation I can't help you. The EU council and commission can issue directives, decisions and regulations without involving the EU parliament, the EUP is mostly for show it's opinions and recommendations are shafted there's a good reason why it looks like a circus filled with Neo-Nazi's/Fascists and Marxists (or at least that's how the extreme right and left like to call each other) with representation which is completely skewed from the geo-political reality within each member state. The EUP still haven't degraded to the point of being a utter kangaroo court like the UNGC but it's not that far. If you think otherwise there's no point of continue to discuss it but if you follow EU politics you can easily see where the power lies and how and by whom pan-European policy is driven: hint it's not the greens, the pirates and the golden dawns in the EUP.
- rbehrends 11y ago> The EU parliament doesn't elect, if you don't understand the difference between appointment and confirmation I can't help you. You're making a distinction without a difference (and you're muddying the waters between a proposal to appoint and the actual appointment; without the European Parliament, the European Council can only propose, not appoint). If the European Parliament says yes, the Commission is elected and can get to work. If the Parliament says no, it isn't and it can't do a thing. Same for how plenty of parliamentary democracies elect their head of government or cabinets. Lack of a write-in option does not make it not an election. I note also that for all practical purposes, the "spitzenkandidat" system has factually replaced the power of nomination (not appointment). > The EU council and commission can issue directives, decisions and regulations without involving the EU parliament This is factually false, the codecision procedure (= what is now called the ordinary legislative procedure) applies to practically all legislative acts and requires the Parliament to vote for them. Legislative acts can include framework decisions with the legislature delegating implementing measures to the Commission (for example, the ecodesign directive, where the exact wattage for vacuum cleaners was then set by the Commission according to the guidelines of the directive), similar to how legislative acts in the US generally leave it to the administration to enact the necessary regulations. Note that even there, some implementation measures may be subject to parliamentary approval via the examination procedure.
- dogma1138 11y agoYou over estimate or intentionally over represent the power of the EUP in the confirmation of the council, for the most part it's a formality. The power to nominate is by far more important than a approval. As far the the legislation goes again you are mixing the various types of legislation codified within EU law, Regulations and Directives can only come from the council, Decisions and Recommendations can only come from the commission, Opinions like well the old saying says can be made by all 3 bodies. For the most part outside of mostly formal proceeding the EUP only issues opinions nothing more, Directives are the most common issue of EU law as they leave room for member state to decide how to "interpret" and implement them, the only really binding EU law is Regulations which can only be adopted by the Council the EUP doesn't get to vote on it. You need to understand that for the most part no one gives a flying fuck about the EUP what matters is the council the council is the one that represents the Governments of each of the member states they are the ones that make the decisions. The EUP is full of people who are non-electable in state level politics and no serious politician actually wants to get involved with the EUP there's no glory, no power, and no money in play there. You can continue arguing about semantics but you need to understand that there's much more to politics than de-jure agency if you look at every political system in the world you'll find that often the majority of the power tends to fall into the hands of positions and bodies that might not or should not have power at all on paper, the US politics are a great example for it. As far as the EU goes the only thing that matters in terms of de-facto policy is what the Governments of the member states want no some yahoos that got elected in elections that no one really cares about with 40% or some times less turn out, and the treaties that the EU is based on leave gaping holes to ensure that member states keep their sovereignty and agency because outside of a very few or well actually one state with so far suicidal social and political tendencies most member states still value their sovereignty over unity and considering the Euro-skepticism within most state level political systems these days it is not going to change any time soon. Have a nice day. P.S. ai16 Special legislative procedures Special legislative procedures replace the former consultative, cooperation and assent procedures. The objective is to simplify the EU’s decision-making process by making it clearer and more effective. As their name indicates, these procedures derogate from the ordinary legislative procedure and therefore constitute exceptions. In special legislative procedures, the Council of the EU is, in practice, the sole legislator. The European Parliament is simply associated with the procedure. Its role is thus limited to consultation or approval depending on the case. Unlike the ordinary legislative procedure, the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU does not give a precise description of special legislative procedures. The rules of special legislative procedures are therefore defined on an ad hoc basis by the Articles of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU that provide for their implementation. And no there isn't much limit on the "special legislative procedure" for the most part the council can enact it at any point which is why even when the ordinary legislative procedure is used the role of the parliament is much more formal and official. This is one of those many many loopholes I've talked about that pretty much allow the Governments of the member states to have full control over the union and not vice-versa. If you still want to argue, well have a nice day again!