6 ms·

Except in many ways the EU was conceived by US planners to eliminate popular control and provide a negotiating partner for the US that could be dealt with as a

Except in many ways the EU was conceived by US planners to eliminate popular control and provide a negotiating partner for the US that could be dealt with as a whole. The EU is far less democratic and more friendly to corporations and neo-liberalism than ~50% of the national parties in Europe, which often contain a significant democratic-socialist block.

touristtam 10y ago
As much as I understand this narative, it makes sounds like the europeans have not been in control of their own destiny since the fatal events of the last century. But that is giving way too much credit to USA's federal government, where in fact this should be recognized as the triumph of corporation control over states.
doikor 10y ago
> The EU is far less democratic All the people in the controlling bodies (well at least the places that should be voted for. Voting for judges etc. is madness) in EU are appointed by the member nations (either by vote or appointed) European Council: Heads of state of the member nations (president chosen by vote within) European Commission: One member appointed by each country (so usually someone from the ruling coalition within each country). Sworn to represent the benefits of EU as a whole and not single countries. President proposed by the Council and voted on by the Parliament European Parliament: Members chosen by vote from each country. President (speaker) voted within. So both executive and legislative levels are voted in or representatives of a democratically chosen government. Looks like democracy to me.
- richmarr 10y ago
  I'm pro-EU but there's plenty to be unhappy about. For example the European Parliament can't introduce legislation... that power is reserved for the European Commission, which seems to use it in a particularly pro-lobbyist manner.
  - candiodari 10y ago
    You forgot to mention that the commission can also bypass the parliament to get laws approved, in the emergency procedure the commission and the council approve legislation.
    - doikor 10y ago
      But both are still filled by people appointed by democratic governments of member states. And still that only applies to handling "a financial crisis" by giving aid to member state(s) and needs qualified majority (85% in this case so 24 out of 28 votes in both the Council and Commission). Basically how the Council has been setup is that you usually need a unanimous or 20 out of 28 votes to get anything done.
      - candiodari 10y ago
        I don't think that's true. It applies to everything they consider emergency unless I'm misreading. Also: they decide what constitutes an emergency. They could use this for any reason, for anything. They ARE using it, as a threat, for the econimic crisis. Those votes are only necessary for things like new member additions (which are indeed mostly what the council is for). I think this requires a mere majority, which presumably is equivalent to having a majority in the commission in practice. But even if it were true, and the only power they have is to fund or defund member states' governments ... that's not a real limitation to their power. And lastly, if all the power is in the hands of the executive, as it is in Europe, that does not constitute a modern democratic state.
- zmb_ 10y ago
  > President proposed by the Council and voted on by the Parliament Since the previous election, the Council does not pick the candidate itself. Rather it automatically proposes the Presidential candidate of the party that won the European Parliament elections. And each party selects their candidate before the election, and they also campaign and have debates.
  - doikor 10y ago
    That kind of makes sense. As for anything to become a law/directive at the end it has to pass in the parliament and thus needs to have a majority coalition there behind it. So it is a bit useless to have the guy running to Council (and thus having a huge say on its agenda) who is against the platform of the majority coalition in the Parliament.
- orbifold 10y ago
  Except that what really happens is that the people that get appointed to the EU Commission are usually political hacks that either never had popular support in their country or lost it (see Günther Oettinger for example, that guy has been commissioner for three different things by now, is totally incompetent and can't even speak proper English). They are usually appointed through party politics not by competence and people care so little that literally anyone could be appointed anyways. The elections for EU Parliament are not taken seriously in most countries and have had extremely low turnout, by now it is full of right wing idiots from various countries. You conveniently left out the various side channels that don't even formally exist as European institutions, such as the Troika that decided on the fate of Greece, or the regular meetings of the finance ministers of the Euro Zone, which have had tremendous influence on the fiscal politics of smaller member states. Not to mention the various measures to deal with the Euro crisis by the ECB with the approval of a few large member nations, that cleverly bypassed and sidestepped many treaties and the additional European financial institutions that were created.
  - doikor 10y ago
    It is the government of your country that appoints their member for the Commission. If they appoint shitty ones blame them. For example the current Finnish representative is Jyrki Katainen who is the previous prime minister and his party (Kokoomus) is still a member in the ruling coalition. Even though he probably isn't the most liked person anymore (his prime minister era didn't go that well) he is still well liked within his own party and they probably traded some minister seat for getting him into the Commission. Shit is politics like always but I wouldn't go as far as say that the EU is undemocratic. Also the ability to speak English isn't that important in EU level. All the big EU institutions are in Luxembourg or Brussels which pretty much makes French and German the main languages. Still there is plenty of translators available when needed. If Germany wants to keep sending Günther Oettinger as their Commissioner then the only people you can blame are Merkel and her party. Again democracy. If it matters to you make it a point in your elections. I know most people don't as in my experience most people don't have a clue how the EU works. Many of my friends think the Commissioners are just appointed by some elite instead of being each country sending their own just like the head of state is in the Council. Still you can't call a system undemocratic just because people choose not to engage in the process.
sergiosgc 10y ago
The EU suffers from typical problems of federal governments. It feels distant and disconnected from the population. It compounds this with a democratic disconnect, where lots of officials aren't directly elected. However, having said this, governance is actually quite good. In my opinion, EU central powers actually correct many of the blunders that national politicians do. Not that it couldn't be better, but one must acknowledge EU institutions are net positive, and not bad at all. Europe is much much better with the EU than with disparate national governments
bogomipz 10y ago
>"Except in many ways the EU was conceived by US planners to eliminate popular control and provide a negotiating partner for the US that could be dealt with as a whole." What are you referring to specifically, the Marshall Plan? Because that would be quite a conspiracy theory. A Federalist Union in Europe was conceived of by an Italian named Altiero Spinelli. The Marshall Plan was signed in 1948 and the Treaty of Maastricht in 1993. https://www.brugesgroup.com/media-centre/papers/8-papers/803-godfather-of-the-european-union-altiero-spinelli https://www.brugesgroup.com/media-centre/papers/8-papers/803...

touristtam 10y ago

As much as I understand this narative, it makes sounds like the europeans have not been in control of their own destiny since the fatal events of the last century. But that is giving way too much credit to USA's federal government, where in fact this should be recognized as the triumph of corporation control over states.

doikor 10y ago

> The EU is far less democratic All the people in the controlling bodies (well at least the places that should be voted for. Voting for judges etc. is madness) in EU are appointed by the member nations (either by vote or appointed) European Council: Heads of state of the member nations (president chosen by vote within) European Commission: One member appointed by each country (so usually someone from the ruling coalition within each country). Sworn to represent the benefits of EU as a whole and not single countries. President proposed by the Council and voted on by the Parliament European Parliament: Members chosen by vote from each country. President (speaker) voted within. So both executive and legislative levels are voted in or representatives of a democratically chosen government. Looks like democracy to me.

richmarr 10y ago
I'm pro-EU but there's plenty to be unhappy about. For example the European Parliament can't introduce legislation... that power is reserved for the European Commission, which seems to use it in a particularly pro-lobbyist manner.
- candiodari 10y ago
  You forgot to mention that the commission can also bypass the parliament to get laws approved, in the emergency procedure the commission and the council approve legislation.
  - doikor 10y ago
    But both are still filled by people appointed by democratic governments of member states. And still that only applies to handling "a financial crisis" by giving aid to member state(s) and needs qualified majority (85% in this case so 24 out of 28 votes in both the Council and Commission). Basically how the Council has been setup is that you usually need a unanimous or 20 out of 28 votes to get anything done.
    - candiodari 10y ago
      I don't think that's true. It applies to everything they consider emergency unless I'm misreading. Also: they decide what constitutes an emergency. They could use this for any reason, for anything. They ARE using it, as a threat, for the econimic crisis. Those votes are only necessary for things like new member additions (which are indeed mostly what the council is for). I think this requires a mere majority, which presumably is equivalent to having a majority in the commission in practice. But even if it were true, and the only power they have is to fund or defund member states' governments ... that's not a real limitation to their power. And lastly, if all the power is in the hands of the executive, as it is in Europe, that does not constitute a modern democratic state.
zmb_ 10y ago
> President proposed by the Council and voted on by the Parliament Since the previous election, the Council does not pick the candidate itself. Rather it automatically proposes the Presidential candidate of the party that won the European Parliament elections. And each party selects their candidate before the election, and they also campaign and have debates.
- doikor 10y ago
  That kind of makes sense. As for anything to become a law/directive at the end it has to pass in the parliament and thus needs to have a majority coalition there behind it. So it is a bit useless to have the guy running to Council (and thus having a huge say on its agenda) who is against the platform of the majority coalition in the Parliament.
orbifold 10y ago
Except that what really happens is that the people that get appointed to the EU Commission are usually political hacks that either never had popular support in their country or lost it (see Günther Oettinger for example, that guy has been commissioner for three different things by now, is totally incompetent and can't even speak proper English). They are usually appointed through party politics not by competence and people care so little that literally anyone could be appointed anyways. The elections for EU Parliament are not taken seriously in most countries and have had extremely low turnout, by now it is full of right wing idiots from various countries. You conveniently left out the various side channels that don't even formally exist as European institutions, such as the Troika that decided on the fate of Greece, or the regular meetings of the finance ministers of the Euro Zone, which have had tremendous influence on the fiscal politics of smaller member states. Not to mention the various measures to deal with the Euro crisis by the ECB with the approval of a few large member nations, that cleverly bypassed and sidestepped many treaties and the additional European financial institutions that were created.
- doikor 10y ago
  It is the government of your country that appoints their member for the Commission. If they appoint shitty ones blame them. For example the current Finnish representative is Jyrki Katainen who is the previous prime minister and his party (Kokoomus) is still a member in the ruling coalition. Even though he probably isn't the most liked person anymore (his prime minister era didn't go that well) he is still well liked within his own party and they probably traded some minister seat for getting him into the Commission. Shit is politics like always but I wouldn't go as far as say that the EU is undemocratic. Also the ability to speak English isn't that important in EU level. All the big EU institutions are in Luxembourg or Brussels which pretty much makes French and German the main languages. Still there is plenty of translators available when needed. If Germany wants to keep sending Günther Oettinger as their Commissioner then the only people you can blame are Merkel and her party. Again democracy. If it matters to you make it a point in your elections. I know most people don't as in my experience most people don't have a clue how the EU works. Many of my friends think the Commissioners are just appointed by some elite instead of being each country sending their own just like the head of state is in the Council. Still you can't call a system undemocratic just because people choose not to engage in the process.

sergiosgc 10y ago

The EU suffers from typical problems of federal governments. It feels distant and disconnected from the population. It compounds this with a democratic disconnect, where lots of officials aren't directly elected. However, having said this, governance is actually quite good. In my opinion, EU central powers actually correct many of the blunders that national politicians do. Not that it couldn't be better, but one must acknowledge EU institutions are net positive, and not bad at all. Europe is much much better with the EU than with disparate national governments

bogomipz 10y ago

>"Except in many ways the EU was conceived by US planners to eliminate popular control and provide a negotiating partner for the US that could be dealt with as a whole." What are you referring to specifically, the Marshall Plan? Because that would be quite a conspiracy theory. A Federalist Union in Europe was conceived of by an Italian named Altiero Spinelli. The Marshall Plan was signed in 1948 and the Treaty of Maastricht in 1993. https://www.brugesgroup.com/media-centre/papers/8-papers/803-godfather-of-the-european-union-altiero-spinelli https://www.brugesgroup.com/media-centre/papers/8-papers/803...