25 ms·

> The EU isn't a super-state and EU law isn't applied by some overarching entity Yes-and-no: the EU Commission serves as the "executive branch" (Americanisms..

> The EU isn't a super-state and EU law isn't applied by some overarching entity Yes-and-no: the EU Commission serves as the "executive branch" (Americanisms...) of the EU, and while the EU isn't a true federal superstate union yet, but there's enough similarities that the EU Commission probably does 80% of the work it would be doing if the EU were. While the majority of EU directives are enforced by member states, the EU can enforce itself via several routes (e.g. there is now an EU public prosecution, and the EU parliament can vote to apply sanctions on its own members for non-compliance (e.g. Hungary).

tpm 3y ago
> there is now an EU public prosecution That only prosecutes the misuse of EU funds (and perhaps the EU VAT border regime?) and even then only with cooperation with local prosecutors. In addition, the EU prosecutors are from the participating member states - several EU members are not yet participating. > EU Commission probably does 80% of the work it would be doing if the EU were. It's very far from that; notably health-and-safety enforcement is largely in the jurisdiction of members states.
oblio 3y ago
> Yes-and-no: the EU Commission serves as the "executive branch" (Americanisms...) of the EU That's not an "Americanism". It's a principle of the separation of powers and I imagine it dates back to the "Europeanianist" Englightenment.
- DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
  EDIT: I'll admit I overlooked the US system's origins origins and concepts in France - but even though these concepts are not American in origin, the US is where all the mentions lead-to today. --- It is an Americanism because the term implicitly assumes two things: 1. That the government is split into branches, following how the US system evolved. 2. That executive power must be confined to a single branch, also how the US is organized. Then, consider that other-countries-that-are-not-the-US do exist, many of those are liberal democracies that arguably function better than the US for various scores - and of those very few (if any?) of those are modelled on the US’ system. While some other countries have a US system but score poorly overall (e.g. Liberia). It is demonstrable that deep separation between the agents of the government - and the state - is unnecessary for a functioning liberal-democracy today: many countries using the Parliamentary system have an executive cabinet and an executive PM role which, under the US system, is considered part of the legislature - and the US is hardly the best example of “separation” of the judiciary when you consider how explicitly political the judge appointment process is - and the volume of politically-motivated and arbitrary SCOTUS rulings over the past 120+ years. ——— I understand that (non-crackpot) political-scientists would agree that judicial independence alone is far more important to a functioning democracy than a system that constantly pits an executive President against the legislature whenever their political party affiliation differs. Don’t get me wrong: accountability is of paramount importance; I just want to communicate that having “separate but co-equal branches of government”, “separation of powers” (and other thought-terminating-cliches from middle-school civics class) is both unique to the US - and is demonstrably unnecessary for a functioning liberal democracy.
  - oblio 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#Montesquieu's_separation_of_powers_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#Montesqui... The origin of the principle is literally European, but all right, you have an agenda, have fun :-)
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - seszett 3y ago
    > It is an Americanism because the term implicitly assumes two things: > 1. That the government is split into branches, following how the US system evolved. > 2. That executive power must be confined to a single branch, also how the US is organized. I'm pretty sure these principles are originally French. The American system was built around these principles as well, but calling them American is a whole new level of Americentrism. Separation of powers into three branches is basically a prerequisite for belonging to the EU, as it is considered a basic requirement for a democracy. For that matter, the US and France are probably two of the modern democracies that have the least separation between these powers (on paper).
    - DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
      > I'm pretty sure these principles are originally French. The American system was built around these principles as well, but calling them American is a whole new level of Americentrism I'll concede that - certainly. > Separation of powers into three branches is basically a prerequisite for belonging to the EU, as it is considered a basic requirement for a democracy The EU is concerned more with judicial independence, not constitutional separation-of-powers: most EU countries (and especially its founding and early members) do not have separation strictly along judicial/legislative/executive boundary lines: The UK, Germany, Spain, and others all have an executive parliament; France and the US are in the minority here.
      - tpm 3y ago
fdfdfdf55 3y ago
[flagged]
- toyg 3y ago
  You missed your chance then - treaties already require member countries to defer to European rules where conflicting.
  - fdfdfdf55 3y ago
    My country has a supreme law written in 1978. Any other law that conflicts with this one is illegal and must be repelled. Anyone who wants to overturn our 1978 law is effectively declaring war to us.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
      - fdfdfdf55 3y ago
        [flagged]
    - toyg 3y ago
      I guess this is why geeks are largely not involved in political processes. People seeing all topics as 1s and 0s are called maximalists and typically laughed out of the room.
      - fdfdfdf55 3y ago
        [flagged]
      - fdfdfdf55 3y ago
        [flagged]
    - kaba0 3y ago
      Laws are to be interpreted by the courts.
closewith 3y ago
The EU is not and never (on human time scales) will be, as there is no appetite for a federal union in many member states and unanimity would be required.
- toyg 3y ago
  Anything can happen in the same way as it happened with Maastricht and the Euro: cooperating countries would just go forward with new entities that inherit the previous institutions, dissolving or mothballing old entities. In the long run, the hard core inevitably wins. Anything that includes France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, will inevitably drag everyone else one way or another.
  - closewith 3y ago
    > Anything that includes France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, will inevitably drag everyone else one way or another. Maybe so, but whatever it became wouldn't be the EU and wouldn't include most of the current members states. It's obviously still an impossibility, as there is no appetite in any of those four countries for a federal EU.
    - toyg 3y ago
      You're making up your "obvious" reality there. EU federalism was born in France and remains strong in the other three countries I mentioned - it might not be a clear majority at the moment, but it's definitely a popular idea among large swaths of the population. The evolution of EU structures undeniably goes in that direction year after year, with stronger and stronger federal institutions.
      - closewith 3y ago
        > You're making up your "obvious" reality there. There has never been even a hint of a popular federal movement in any of the countries which you mentioned, so I don't think I am. > EU federalism was born in France and remains strong in the other three countries I mentioned - it might not be a clear majority at the moment, but it's definitely a popular idea among large swaths of the population. That's a bold claim that I'm sure you'll be able to back up? Honestly, I think you've allowed your own preferences and wishful thinking to cloud your judgement here.

tpm 3y ago

> there is now an EU public prosecution That only prosecutes the misuse of EU funds (and perhaps the EU VAT border regime?) and even then only with cooperation with local prosecutors. In addition, the EU prosecutors are from the participating member states - several EU members are not yet participating. > EU Commission probably does 80% of the work it would be doing if the EU were. It's very far from that; notably health-and-safety enforcement is largely in the jurisdiction of members states.

oblio 3y ago

> Yes-and-no: the EU Commission serves as the "executive branch" (Americanisms...) of the EU That's not an "Americanism". It's a principle of the separation of powers and I imagine it dates back to the "Europeanianist" Englightenment.

DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
EDIT: I'll admit I overlooked the US system's origins origins and concepts in France - but even though these concepts are not American in origin, the US is where all the mentions lead-to today. --- It is an Americanism because the term implicitly assumes two things: 1. That the government is split into branches, following how the US system evolved. 2. That executive power must be confined to a single branch, also how the US is organized. Then, consider that other-countries-that-are-not-the-US do exist, many of those are liberal democracies that arguably function better than the US for various scores - and of those very few (if any?) of those are modelled on the US’ system. While some other countries have a US system but score poorly overall (e.g. Liberia). It is demonstrable that deep separation between the agents of the government - and the state - is unnecessary for a functioning liberal-democracy today: many countries using the Parliamentary system have an executive cabinet and an executive PM role which, under the US system, is considered part of the legislature - and the US is hardly the best example of “separation” of the judiciary when you consider how explicitly political the judge appointment process is - and the volume of politically-motivated and arbitrary SCOTUS rulings over the past 120+ years. ——— I understand that (non-crackpot) political-scientists would agree that judicial independence alone is far more important to a functioning democracy than a system that constantly pits an executive President against the legislature whenever their political party affiliation differs. Don’t get me wrong: accountability is of paramount importance; I just want to communicate that having “separate but co-equal branches of government”, “separation of powers” (and other thought-terminating-cliches from middle-school civics class) is both unique to the US - and is demonstrably unnecessary for a functioning liberal democracy.
- oblio 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#Montesquieu's_separation_of_powers_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#Montesqui... The origin of the principle is literally European, but all right, you have an agenda, have fun :-)
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- seszett 3y ago
  > It is an Americanism because the term implicitly assumes two things: > 1. That the government is split into branches, following how the US system evolved. > 2. That executive power must be confined to a single branch, also how the US is organized. I'm pretty sure these principles are originally French. The American system was built around these principles as well, but calling them American is a whole new level of Americentrism. Separation of powers into three branches is basically a prerequisite for belonging to the EU, as it is considered a basic requirement for a democracy. For that matter, the US and France are probably two of the modern democracies that have the least separation between these powers (on paper).
  - DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
    > I'm pretty sure these principles are originally French. The American system was built around these principles as well, but calling them American is a whole new level of Americentrism I'll concede that - certainly. > Separation of powers into three branches is basically a prerequisite for belonging to the EU, as it is considered a basic requirement for a democracy The EU is concerned more with judicial independence, not constitutional separation-of-powers: most EU countries (and especially its founding and early members) do not have separation strictly along judicial/legislative/executive boundary lines: The UK, Germany, Spain, and others all have an executive parliament; France and the US are in the minority here.
    - tpm 3y ago

fdfdfdf55 3y ago

[flagged]

toyg 3y ago
You missed your chance then - treaties already require member countries to defer to European rules where conflicting.
- fdfdfdf55 3y ago
  My country has a supreme law written in 1978. Any other law that conflicts with this one is illegal and must be repelled. Anyone who wants to overturn our 1978 law is effectively declaring war to us.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
    - fdfdfdf55 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - toyg 3y ago
    I guess this is why geeks are largely not involved in political processes. People seeing all topics as 1s and 0s are called maximalists and typically laughed out of the room.
    - fdfdfdf55 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - fdfdfdf55 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - kaba0 3y ago
    Laws are to be interpreted by the courts.

closewith 3y ago

The EU is not and never (on human time scales) will be, as there is no appetite for a federal union in many member states and unanimity would be required.

toyg 3y ago
Anything can happen in the same way as it happened with Maastricht and the Euro: cooperating countries would just go forward with new entities that inherit the previous institutions, dissolving or mothballing old entities. In the long run, the hard core inevitably wins. Anything that includes France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, will inevitably drag everyone else one way or another.
- closewith 3y ago
  > Anything that includes France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, will inevitably drag everyone else one way or another. Maybe so, but whatever it became wouldn't be the EU and wouldn't include most of the current members states. It's obviously still an impossibility, as there is no appetite in any of those four countries for a federal EU.
  - toyg 3y ago
    You're making up your "obvious" reality there. EU federalism was born in France and remains strong in the other three countries I mentioned - it might not be a clear majority at the moment, but it's definitely a popular idea among large swaths of the population. The evolution of EU structures undeniably goes in that direction year after year, with stronger and stronger federal institutions.
    - closewith 3y ago
      > You're making up your "obvious" reality there. There has never been even a hint of a popular federal movement in any of the countries which you mentioned, so I don't think I am. > EU federalism was born in France and remains strong in the other three countries I mentioned - it might not be a clear majority at the moment, but it's definitely a popular idea among large swaths of the population. That's a bold claim that I'm sure you'll be able to back up? Honestly, I think you've allowed your own preferences and wishful thinking to cloud your judgement here.