5 ms·

It would already help a lot if the European commission was democratically elected and if the European parliament was given the power to make laws. (It sounds li

by Hermel 10y ago

It would already help a lot if the European commission was democratically elected and if the European parliament was given the power to make laws. (It sounds like a joke, but the European parliament cannot propose new laws - even though that's the usual purpose of a parliament. It is the commission that proposes new laws in the EU.)

LoSboccacc 10y ago
It would also help if richer nation wouldn't be able to poison the parliament votes by baiting and switch poorer countries (in the form of give us votes, well'send financial aid - see Germany Greece and for the next episode, Germany Turkey)
vidarh 10y ago
For that to happen, Europe would need to go federal. You can't have a legislative parliament in the current system because it'd violate the constitutions of a large proportion of the member states to delegate sovereignty somewhere else. This is the big challenge. People complain about the lack of powers for the EU Parliament, but largely aren't willing to support a model that'd make it possible. This is also why the EU does not pass laws, and the Commission does not propose laws. It proposes directives, which can then be passed. It is still the national parliaments that passes laws, implementing the directives. This is because no EU organ has the power to legislate directly - to give them that power would require constitutional changes all over the place.
- sievebrain 10y ago
  This sort of argument is merely playing with words and has no intellectual merit. The EU's directives MUST be passed into law due to the treaties involved. A country cannot simply refuse to implement directives it does not agree with, without also leaving the EU. Failure to obey the rules is met with fines and other forms of punishment. Whilst a handful of lawyers may pretend this is not a transfer of sovereignty, nobody else does, not even Juncker.
  - toyg 10y ago
    > A country cannot simply refuse to implement directives it does not agree with As long as it can afford the resulting fines, it absolutely can. I believe this is what happened with milk quotas, which were widely criticised: a lot of countries kept paying fines until related directives were changed with more amenable rules. Talking of Italy, they've been floundering EU rules on TV markets for some 20 years, paying fines and eventually side-stepping the problem by changing technology. I wouldn't be surprised if they were still technically afoul of those rules. They've taken judgements and fines on the chin and just kept going, because local political classes had no will to basically hit Berlusconi's interests in that market. Good ol' Joseph Jughashvili would have said "how many armoured divisions does the EU Commission or Parliament control?", and he would have been right. Enforcement mechanisms in the EU are really weak; which is why the dominant culture in Bruxelles is about reaching consensus, all the time and with all sorts of horse-trading if necessary. Because what are you gonna do when a country gives you the finger, send in the police? There is no police. The military? There is no military. So, what are you actually "sovereign" on, if you have no way of imposing your sovereignty? Lawyers get a bad rep but sometimes they're actually pretty right.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    The larger difference is that the member state is free refuse to implement the law and choose to leave - the directive can not be imposed. You may consider that just playing with words, but it makes the difference between being legal, and being a violation of constitutional law of a large number of member states, and as a result it makes a substantial difference in how the EU can be legally structured.
    - Hermel 10y ago
      Are you saying the EU is basically a clever hack to get around constitutional restrictions?
      - xorcist 10y ago
        Not really. Countries have different juridical systems, with governing bodies based on completely different principles. UK law text would be gibberish in a German context, for example. (Or Chinese, or Brazilian.) So international law is made by treaties to be implemented nationally. An EU directive specifies certain limits but the corresponding law differ from country to country.
- AlgorithmicTime 10y ago
  That's high order sophistry.
liotier 10y ago
> if the European parliament was given the power to make laws Yes - so you might like this petition I proposed: https://www.change.org/p/empower-european-parliament-with-legislative-initiative-and-pan-european-electorate https://www.change.org/p/empower-european-parliament-with-le...

by Hermel 10y ago

LoSboccacc 10y ago

It would also help if richer nation wouldn't be able to poison the parliament votes by baiting and switch poorer countries (in the form of give us votes, well'send financial aid - see Germany Greece and for the next episode, Germany Turkey)

vidarh 10y ago

For that to happen, Europe would need to go federal. You can't have a legislative parliament in the current system because it'd violate the constitutions of a large proportion of the member states to delegate sovereignty somewhere else. This is the big challenge. People complain about the lack of powers for the EU Parliament, but largely aren't willing to support a model that'd make it possible. This is also why the EU does not pass laws, and the Commission does not propose laws. It proposes directives, which can then be passed. It is still the national parliaments that passes laws, implementing the directives. This is because no EU organ has the power to legislate directly - to give them that power would require constitutional changes all over the place.

sievebrain 10y ago
This sort of argument is merely playing with words and has no intellectual merit. The EU's directives MUST be passed into law due to the treaties involved. A country cannot simply refuse to implement directives it does not agree with, without also leaving the EU. Failure to obey the rules is met with fines and other forms of punishment. Whilst a handful of lawyers may pretend this is not a transfer of sovereignty, nobody else does, not even Juncker.
- toyg 10y ago
  > A country cannot simply refuse to implement directives it does not agree with As long as it can afford the resulting fines, it absolutely can. I believe this is what happened with milk quotas, which were widely criticised: a lot of countries kept paying fines until related directives were changed with more amenable rules. Talking of Italy, they've been floundering EU rules on TV markets for some 20 years, paying fines and eventually side-stepping the problem by changing technology. I wouldn't be surprised if they were still technically afoul of those rules. They've taken judgements and fines on the chin and just kept going, because local political classes had no will to basically hit Berlusconi's interests in that market. Good ol' Joseph Jughashvili would have said "how many armoured divisions does the EU Commission or Parliament control?", and he would have been right. Enforcement mechanisms in the EU are really weak; which is why the dominant culture in Bruxelles is about reaching consensus, all the time and with all sorts of horse-trading if necessary. Because what are you gonna do when a country gives you the finger, send in the police? There is no police. The military? There is no military. So, what are you actually "sovereign" on, if you have no way of imposing your sovereignty? Lawyers get a bad rep but sometimes they're actually pretty right.
- vidarh 10y ago
  The larger difference is that the member state is free refuse to implement the law and choose to leave - the directive can not be imposed. You may consider that just playing with words, but it makes the difference between being legal, and being a violation of constitutional law of a large number of member states, and as a result it makes a substantial difference in how the EU can be legally structured.
  - Hermel 10y ago
    Are you saying the EU is basically a clever hack to get around constitutional restrictions?
    - xorcist 10y ago
      Not really. Countries have different juridical systems, with governing bodies based on completely different principles. UK law text would be gibberish in a German context, for example. (Or Chinese, or Brazilian.) So international law is made by treaties to be implemented nationally. An EU directive specifies certain limits but the corresponding law differ from country to country.
AlgorithmicTime 10y ago
That's high order sophistry.

liotier 10y ago

> if the European parliament was given the power to make laws Yes - so you might like this petition I proposed: https://www.change.org/p/empower-european-parliament-with-legislative-initiative-and-pan-european-electorate https://www.change.org/p/empower-european-parliament-with-le...