The proposed articles for the constitution of the EU concerning its institutions
J.M.
future institutions of the EU:
http://european-convention.eu.int/docs/Treaty/cv00691.en03.pdf
These have been received fairly sceptically in the press and by the
convention in general, mainly because the President of the Council is seen
as been to much of a competitor to the President of the Commission. The
smaller states (and to some degree Germany) want a powerful Commission and
a fairly weak Council President rotating by countries, whereas the other
large states seem to prefer a strong Council President elected by the
Council. Any thoughts on these articles?
Jan
J.M.
For me the following:
The European Parliament:
sounds pretty good in general. It may still not have enough power in all
(depending on other articles), but this is basically fine and nothing new.
I don't like the idea of the "degressively proportional" representation of
the European citizens in this body though, which means that citizens living
in a large country will continue to have fewer representatives per capita
than those living in larger countries. As this body is supposed to
represent the people and not individual countries, I just don't like the
idea of some people's votes being worth more than other people's votes.
The European Council:
sounds familiar, nothing new. The decisions shall be taken by "consensus"
unless the constitution says otherwise, what does that mean? Unanimously, I
suppose.. In that case, I wish they would have expressed it the other way
around: the decisions will be taken by qualified majority unless stipulated
otherwise, but I suppose, this amounts to the same thing as how voting is
done is determined by other articles.
The European Council Chair, i.e. President of the Council:
he seems to be too powerful. I would have wanted a figurehead president and
not one responsible for the common foreign and defense policy. The only
positive aspect that I see in this, is that the common foreign and defense
policy will only work if the larger countries are willing to allow the EU
to speak for them. Unfortunately, they appear to be more willing to let the
Council President speak for them than the Commission President. The fact
that the President presents a report to Parliament after each meeting of
the Council seems to put the Council above the Parliament, which I find
unacceptable. All in all, this has too much the flavor of the French
constitution and the potential of cohabitation in Europe. I do like the
fact that the council presidency no longer rotates. The council presidency
has always had a good bit of influence in priorities for the rudimentary EU
foreign policy and changing president and priorities every 6 months was
never good. With 25 members, it would be a joke. I do think though, that
something needs to be done for the smaller members to compensate them for
the loss of the rotating presidency, which primarily benefited them.
Council of Ministers: nothing new, sounds good. Usually voting by qualified
majority (majority of countries, 3/5 of population), which is ok...
European Commission: the President of the Commission is proposed by the
European Council "taking into account the elections to the European
Parliament" and elected by the Parliament. This is a signficant
improvement. The only weakness is that Parliament cannot elect any person
it wants to, but must rely on a proposal by the Council. In practice, this
will mean, that is my guess anyhow, that parliament can elect anyone it
wants to, i.e. that there will be "top candidates" for the elections to the
EP by each party and regular coalition building as in any parliamentary
democracy and that the Council will have to propose the "top candidate" of
the strongest party in parliament to become President of the Commission. I
also like the idea that the system of one commissioner per country is given
up. That is a concept that makes no sense in a parliamentary democracy,
especially as the commissioners even now show no particular loyalty to a
particular country but act as a group. A streamlined commission, proposed
by the president-elect of the commission to be elected by the EP, seems to
be a big improvement.
Foreign Minister: basically a good idea, not sure that it will work, being
both part of the Council and the Commission, but I don't see how it can be
done better. If the President of the Council is to be fairly powerful, I
don't see how it can be done better... I would again prefer a weak Council
President and a strong Commission President and a Foreign Minister
basically as part of the Commission...
Congress: I don't know if I like it or if it is totally useless. The idea of
an ongoing constitutional convention is not that bad, as the EU is
characterized by change since its existence. Nevertheless, there are too
many bad points: the President of the Council giving a State of the Union
address and the Commission President reporting on the legistlative program
underlines the proposed superiority of the Council President, which I find
unacceptable.
********************************
All in all, I would prefer a strong Commission President and a weak Council
President. If there has to be a strong President of some sort in order to
win the approval of the larger states, I would rather go for the following
model:
A fairly strong EU president, initially elected by some sort of electoral
college, possibly the Congress, later by popular elections in the EU,
responsible for foreign policy and representation.
An equally strong President of the Commission elected by the EP.
A weak Council President elected by the Council or rotating as is done
today. He would be no more than the speaker of the Council, a chairman of
the Council meetings and nothing else, no foreign representation
responsilities.
This would again fairly closely model the French system, not that that is my
favourite model, but at least the powerful President would have a greater
democratic legitimacy than the current proposal....
Jan
Thomas M. Widmann
> For me the following:
>
> The European Parliament:
> sounds pretty good in general. It may still not have enough power in all
> (depending on other articles), but this is basically fine and nothing new.
> I don't like the idea of the "degressively proportional" representation of
> the European citizens in this body though, which means that citizens living
> in a large country will continue to have fewer representatives per capita
> than those living in larger countries. As this body is supposed to
> represent the people and not individual countries, I just don't like the
> idea of some people's votes being worth more than other people's votes.
In theory, I agree, but without it small member states would have
extremely few members of parliament.
I was wondering whether some kind of election system could be made
which would allow the overrepresentation of small countries but keep
the proportional representation politically. What I mean is that if
10% of European voters vote for, say, ELDR (The Liberal Party), it
should have appr. 10% of the seats in the parliament; however, more of
these should be from Malta, Slovenia, Denmark and other small
countries than the number of votes would entitle them to, and there
should be fewer German ELDR MEPs. In this way, the overrepresentation
of small countries would not affect the political balance in the
parliament, and German votes would not be worth less than Maltese ones
(it would "just" be more difficult for a German to get elected).
Another thing I'd like to see is basing the number of MEPs per country
(and the number of votes etc.) on the number of inhabitants of each
country. Something like in the US, where numbers of seats in the
House of Representatives is adjusted every ten years after the census.
> The European Council: sounds familiar, nothing new. The decisions
> shall be taken by "consensus" unless the constitution says
> otherwise, what does that mean? Unanimously, I suppose..
Yes.
> In that case, I wish they would have expressed it the other way
> around: the decisions will be taken by qualified majority unless
> stipulated otherwise, but I suppose, this amounts to the same thing
> as how voting is done is determined by other articles.
No, I don't think is would be the same. The way I read this,
nearly everything should be unanimous in the European Council, and
nearly nothing in the Council of Ministers. This will work well if
very little is decided by the European Council.
> The European Council Chair, i.e. President of the Council: he seems
> to be too powerful. I would have wanted a figurehead president and
> not one responsible for the common foreign and defense policy.
I agree, this sounds very much like the situation in France, which
doesn't work too well all the time.
> The only positive aspect that I see in this, is that the common
> foreign and defense policy will only work if the larger countries
> are willing to allow the EU to speak for them. Unfortunately, they
> appear to be more willing to let the Council President speak for
> them than the Commission President. The fact that the President
> presents a report to Parliament after each meeting of the Council
> seems to put the Council above the Parliament, which I find
> unacceptable.
At the least, the Parliament should have some influence on this report
(ie, they should have the power to reject it).
> All in all, this has too much the flavor of the French constitution
> and the potential of cohabitation in Europe. I do like the fact that
> the council presidency no longer rotates. The council presidency has
> always had a good bit of influence in priorities for the rudimentary
> EU foreign policy and changing president and priorities every 6
> months was never good.
Well, sometimes it did speed things up because a country wanted to
be able to present tangible results in some area.
> With 25 members, it would be a joke. I do think though, that
> something needs to be done for the smaller members to compensate
> them for the loss of the rotating presidency, which primarily
> benefited them.
One could make a rule that the president should be from a small
country every second time.
> Council of Ministers: nothing new, sounds good. Usually voting by qualified
> majority (majority of countries, 3/5 of population), which is ok...
I'm wondering why it's 50% of countries and 60% of population. Why
not 50% or 60% in both cases?
> European Commission: the President of the Commission is proposed by
> the European Council "taking into account the elections to the
> European Parliament" and elected by the Parliament. This is a
> signficant improvement. The only weakness is that Parliament cannot
> elect any person it wants to, but must rely on a proposal by the
> Council. In practice, this will mean, that is my guess anyhow, that
> parliament can elect anyone it wants to, i.e. that there will be
> "top candidates" for the elections to the EP by each party and
> regular coalition building as in any parliamentary democracy and
> that the Council will have to propose the "top candidate" of the
> strongest party in parliament to become President of the
> Commission. I also like the idea that the system of one commissioner
> per country is given up. That is a concept that makes no sense in a
> parliamentary democracy, especially as the commissioners even now
> show no particular loyalty to a particular country but act as a
> group. A streamlined commission, proposed by the president-elect of
> the commission to be elected by the EP, seems to be a big
> improvement.
But I think it might be necessary to add a rule that every country
must have a commissioner once in a while to ensure nobody feels left
out.
> Foreign Minister: basically a good idea, not sure that it will work,
> being both part of the Council and the Commission, but I don't see
> how it can be done better. If the President of the Council is to be
> fairly powerful, I don't see how it can be done better... I would
> again prefer a weak Council President and a strong Commission
> President and a Foreign Minister basically as part of the
> Commission...
Yes, but the large member states would probably not cede powers to
such a construction.
> Congress: I don't know if I like it or if it is totally useless. The
> idea of an ongoing constitutional convention is not that bad, as the
> EU is characterized by change since its existence. Nevertheless,
> there are too many bad points: the President of the Council giving a
> State of the Union address and the Commission President reporting on
> the legistlative program underlines the proposed superiority of the
> Council President, which I find unacceptable.
Also, I think the size is wrong. It seems to be of appr. the same
size as the European Parliament. I'd rather have either a smallish
group (say, 100 members), or a very large congress meeting very rarely
(say, all members of national parliaments meeting once every five
years), just to emphasise the difference.
/Thomas
--
Thomas Widmann, MA member of the steering group for europa.*
Mavisbank Gardens, Glasgow, Scotland, EU
tho...@widmann.uklinux.net http://www.widmann.uklinux.net
J.M.
> "J.M." <jm_jm_re...@gmx.de> writes:
>
>> For me the following:
>>
>> The European Parliament:
>> sounds pretty good in general. It may still not have enough power in all
>> (depending on other articles), but this is basically fine and nothing
>> new. I don't like the idea of the "degressively proportional"
>> representation of the European citizens in this body though, which means
>> that citizens living in a large country will continue to have fewer
>> representatives per capita than those living in larger countries. As this
>> body is supposed to represent the people and not individual countries, I
>> just don't like the idea of some people's votes being worth more than
>> other people's votes.
>
> In theory, I agree, but without it small member states would have
> extremely few members of parliament.
I think a clause that guarantees every state at least x seats in parliament
(current proposal x=4) is fine. Beyond that, smaller states are represented
as equals in the European Council / Council of Ministers. If the the new
constitution would make the Council and the EP equals as parliamentary
bodies, then I would even think that it would be ok to replace "qualified
majority" by "majority of countries" regardless of population, but as long
as the European Council is much more important than the EP (e.g. in foreign
policy), that is not acceptable either. I kind of like the American
solution for the House and Senate...
>
> I was wondering whether some kind of election system could be made
> which would allow the overrepresentation of small countries but keep
> the proportional representation politically. What I mean is that if
> 10% of European voters vote for, say, ELDR (The Liberal Party), it
> should have appr. 10% of the seats in the parliament; however, more of
> these should be from Malta, Slovenia, Denmark and other small
> countries than the number of votes would entitle them to, and there
> should be fewer German ELDR MEPs. In this way, the overrepresentation
> of small countries would not affect the political balance in the
> parliament, and German votes would not be worth less than Maltese ones
> (it would "just" be more difficult for a German to get elected).
>
That would only work, if candidates are not elected by "national" lists. I
am not sure that this would be such a good idea actually at this point.
That may work for small countries, but even in Germany, there are Länder
lists in national elections and in a huge EU that would be hard. In any
case, the resulting election system would be very difficult and
confusing...
> Another thing I'd like to see is basing the number of MEPs per country
> (and the number of votes etc.) on the number of inhabitants of each
> country. Something like in the US, where numbers of seats in the
> House of Representatives is adjusted every ten years after the census.
Sure, that would be fine...
>
>> The European Council: sounds familiar, nothing new. The decisions
>> shall be taken by "consensus" unless the constitution says
>> otherwise, what does that mean? Unanimously, I suppose..
>
> Yes.
>
>> In that case, I wish they would have expressed it the other way
>> around: the decisions will be taken by qualified majority unless
>> stipulated otherwise, but I suppose, this amounts to the same thing
>> as how voting is done is determined by other articles.
>
> No, I don't think is would be the same. The way I read this,
> nearly everything should be unanimous in the European Council, and
> nearly nothing in the Council of Ministers. This will work well if
> very little is decided by the European Council.
Aren't there a large number of exceptions to both these rules? But I guess
that you are right, that most decisions by the EC will be by consent,
whereas most in the CoM will be by qualified majority.
>
>> The European Council Chair, i.e. President of the Council: he seems
>> to be too powerful. I would have wanted a figurehead president and
>> not one responsible for the common foreign and defense policy.
>
> I agree, this sounds very much like the situation in France, which
> doesn't work too well all the time.
>
>> The only positive aspect that I see in this, is that the common
>> foreign and defense policy will only work if the larger countries
>> are willing to allow the EU to speak for them. Unfortunately, they
>> appear to be more willing to let the Council President speak for
>> them than the Commission President. The fact that the President
>> presents a report to Parliament after each meeting of the Council
>> seems to put the Council above the Parliament, which I find
>> unacceptable.
>
> At the least, the Parliament should have some influence on this report
> (ie, they should have the power to reject it).
What would be the point of that? What would the consequence of parliament
rejecting that? The whole report is silly, as this just makes the EC senior
to the EP.
>
>> All in all, this has too much the flavor of the French constitution
>> and the potential of cohabitation in Europe. I do like the fact that
>> the council presidency no longer rotates. The council presidency has
>> always had a good bit of influence in priorities for the rudimentary
>> EU foreign policy and changing president and priorities every 6
>> months was never good.
>
> Well, sometimes it did speed things up because a country wanted to
> be able to present tangible results in some area.
Sure, in special cases, and it certainly was a good idea in an EU of 8 or
12, but I can't imagine there being any sort of consistency if for example
Cyprus and then Latvia and then Ireland have the presidency one after the
other...
>
>> With 25 members, it would be a joke. I do think though, that
>> something needs to be done for the smaller members to compensate
>> them for the loss of the rotating presidency, which primarily
>> benefited them.
>
> One could make a rule that the president should be from a small
> country every second time.
I guess something like that could be done, if it makes the small countries
feel better, but that sort of destoys the idea of a president being
reelected... In any case, I don't see smaller countries not having a chance
at this office, the candidate needs a qualified majority to be elected,
i.e. a majority of small countries must support him. For that matter,
candidates from small countries have often held important offices in the
EU: Santer(?) was President of the Commission, the current EP president is
Irish, the current ECB president Dutch...
>
>> Council of Ministers: nothing new, sounds good. Usually voting by
>> qualified majority (majority of countries, 3/5 of population), which is
>> ok...
>
> I'm wondering why it's 50% of countries and 60% of population. Why
> not 50% or 60% in both cases?
Well, in most democracies, 50% passes a law, if all votes count equally
strong. So that is why 50% of the countries approving is needed to pass a
law, that is nothing unusual. When one person speaks for a country however,
he is obviously not speaking for ALL in that country, but hopefully for a
majority. So the idea is that if you want to be certain that at least 50%
of EU citizens are in favor, then you need more votes of countries
representing more than 50&% of the people. Of course the 60% is arbitrary
and not all countries voting against a new measure have populations 100%
opposed, but in general it is a pretty good safeguard to make sure that a
new measure does in fact have high support in the EU.
>
>> European Commission: the President of the Commission is proposed by
>> the European Council "taking into account the elections to the
>> European Parliament" and elected by the Parliament. This is a
>> signficant improvement. The only weakness is that Parliament cannot
>> elect any person it wants to, but must rely on a proposal by the
>> Council. In practice, this will mean, that is my guess anyhow, that
>> parliament can elect anyone it wants to, i.e. that there will be
>> "top candidates" for the elections to the EP by each party and
>> regular coalition building as in any parliamentary democracy and
>> that the Council will have to propose the "top candidate" of the
>> strongest party in parliament to become President of the
>> Commission. I also like the idea that the system of one commissioner
>> per country is given up. That is a concept that makes no sense in a
>> parliamentary democracy, especially as the commissioners even now
>> show no particular loyalty to a particular country but act as a
>> group. A streamlined commission, proposed by the president-elect of
>> the commission to be elected by the EP, seems to be a big
>> improvement.
>
> But I think it might be necessary to add a rule that every country
> must have a commissioner once in a while to ensure nobody feels left
> out.
Sure, if it makes you feel better, I would agree with such a rule.. Again, I
think that such fears are overstated and that every country will be
involved every now and then. There has always been a good tradition in the
EU of getting everyone involved ;-)
>
>> Foreign Minister: basically a good idea, not sure that it will work,
>> being both part of the Council and the Commission, but I don't see
>> how it can be done better. If the President of the Council is to be
>> fairly powerful, I don't see how it can be done better... I would
>> again prefer a weak Council President and a strong Commission
>> President and a Foreign Minister basically as part of the
>> Commission...
>
> Yes, but the large member states would probably not cede powers to
> such a construction.
Exactly, which is why I guess we will end up with that contruction....
>
>> Congress: I don't know if I like it or if it is totally useless. The
>> idea of an ongoing constitutional convention is not that bad, as the
>> EU is characterized by change since its existence. Nevertheless,
>> there are too many bad points: the President of the Council giving a
>> State of the Union address and the Commission President reporting on
>> the legistlative program underlines the proposed superiority of the
>> Council President, which I find unacceptable.
>
> Also, I think the size is wrong. It seems to be of appr. the same
> size as the European Parliament. I'd rather have either a smallish
> group (say, 100 members), or a very large congress meeting very rarely
> (say, all members of national parliaments meeting once every five
> years), just to emphasise the difference.
Yes, that is true. If its purpose is to revise the constitution
occassionally, then 100 would be good. If their job is to applaud the state
of the union address, the whole EP should be included as well as a good
number of representatives from the individual states.
Jan
>
> /Thomas
Thomas M. Widmann
> Thomas M. Widmann schrieb:
>
> > "J.M." <jm_jm_re...@gmx.de> writes:
> >
> >> For me the following:
> >>
> >> The European Parliament:
> >> sounds pretty good in general. It may still not have enough power in all
> >> (depending on other articles), but this is basically fine and nothing
> >> new. I don't like the idea of the "degressively proportional"
> >> representation of the European citizens in this body though, which means
> >> that citizens living in a large country will continue to have fewer
> >> representatives per capita than those living in larger countries. As this
> >> body is supposed to represent the people and not individual countries, I
> >> just don't like the idea of some people's votes being worth more than
> >> other people's votes.
> >
> > In theory, I agree, but without it small member states would have
> > extremely few members of parliament.
>
> I think a clause that guarantees every state at least x seats in parliament
> (current proposal x=4) is fine. Beyond that, smaller states are represented
> as equals in the European Council / Council of Ministers.
They are not (they don't have the same number of votes).
> If the the new constitution would make the Council and the EP equals
> as parliamentary bodies, then I would even think that it would be ok
> to replace "qualified majority" by "majority of countries"
> regardless of population, but as long as the European Council is
> much more important than the EP (e.g. in foreign policy), that is
> not acceptable either. I kind of like the American solution for the
> House and Senate...
Me too, but in the US all states are totally equal in the Senate.
> > I was wondering whether some kind of election system could be made
> > which would allow the overrepresentation of small countries but keep
> > the proportional representation politically. What I mean is that if
> > 10% of European voters vote for, say, ELDR (The Liberal Party), it
> > should have appr. 10% of the seats in the parliament; however, more of
> > these should be from Malta, Slovenia, Denmark and other small
> > countries than the number of votes would entitle them to, and there
> > should be fewer German ELDR MEPs. In this way, the overrepresentation
> > of small countries would not affect the political balance in the
> > parliament, and German votes would not be worth less than Maltese ones
> > (it would "just" be more difficult for a German to get elected).
> >
> That would only work, if candidates are not elected by "national"
> lists.
Indeed.
> I am not sure that this would be such a good idea actually at this
> point. That may work for small countries, but even in Germany,
> there are Länder lists in national elections and in a huge EU that
> would be hard. In any case, the resulting election system would be
> very difficult and confusing...
It could be interesting to try to create such a system in order to
find out whether it would be that bad...
Speaking of voting systems, here in Scotland the election for the
Scottish Parliament is on Thursday. A two-vote system is used (first
vote for first-past-the-post, second vote for proportional
representation). I think it's more or less the same system that is
used in Germany, but are there any other countries using it? It seems
to confuse people a lot. :-(
> > Another thing I'd like to see is basing the number of MEPs per country
> > (and the number of votes etc.) on the number of inhabitants of each
> > country. Something like in the US, where numbers of seats in the
> > House of Representatives is adjusted every ten years after the census.
>
> Sure, that would be fine...
Who would be against it? I haven't seen it suggested anywhere...
> >> The European Council: sounds familiar, nothing new. The decisions
> >> shall be taken by "consensus" unless the constitution says
> >> otherwise, what does that mean? Unanimously, I suppose..
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >> In that case, I wish they would have expressed it the other way
> >> around: the decisions will be taken by qualified majority unless
> >> stipulated otherwise, but I suppose, this amounts to the same thing
> >> as how voting is done is determined by other articles.
> >
> > No, I don't think is would be the same. The way I read this,
> > nearly everything should be unanimous in the European Council, and
> > nearly nothing in the Council of Ministers. This will work well if
> > very little is decided by the European Council.
>
> Aren't there a large number of exceptions to both these rules?
Oh yes, at the moment. But one would assume that would change under
the new treaty.
> But I guess that you are right, that most decisions by the EC will
> be by consent, whereas most in the CoM will be by qualified
> majority.
> >
> >> The European Council Chair, i.e. President of the Council: he seems
> >> to be too powerful. I would have wanted a figurehead president and
> >> not one responsible for the common foreign and defense policy.
> >
> > I agree, this sounds very much like the situation in France, which
> > doesn't work too well all the time.
> >
> >> The only positive aspect that I see in this, is that the common
> >> foreign and defense policy will only work if the larger countries
> >> are willing to allow the EU to speak for them. Unfortunately, they
> >> appear to be more willing to let the Council President speak for
> >> them than the Commission President. The fact that the President
> >> presents a report to Parliament after each meeting of the Council
> >> seems to put the Council above the Parliament, which I find
> >> unacceptable.
> >
> > At the least, the Parliament should have some influence on this report
> > (ie, they should have the power to reject it).
>
> What would be the point of that? What would the consequence of
> parliament rejecting that? The whole report is silly, as this just
> makes the EC senior to the EP.
Actually, I think you're right, but at least if they can vote it down,
the Council will have to take into account the opinion of the
Parliament somehow.
> >> All in all, this has too much the flavor of the French constitution
> >> and the potential of cohabitation in Europe. I do like the fact that
> >> the council presidency no longer rotates. The council presidency has
> >> always had a good bit of influence in priorities for the rudimentary
> >> EU foreign policy and changing president and priorities every 6
> >> months was never good.
> >
> > Well, sometimes it did speed things up because a country wanted to
> > be able to present tangible results in some area.
>
> Sure, in special cases, and it certainly was a good idea in an EU of
> 8 or 12, but I can't imagine there being any sort of consistency if
> for example Cyprus and then Latvia and then Ireland have the
> presidency one after the other...
Yes, that's a problem. One possible solution would be to say that a
large country would have the presidency every spring, and a small one
every autumn (or vice versa).
> >> With 25 members, it would be a joke. I do think though, that
> >> something needs to be done for the smaller members to compensate
> >> them for the loss of the rotating presidency, which primarily
> >> benefited them.
> >
> > One could make a rule that the president should be from a small
> > country every second time.
>
> I guess something like that could be done, if it makes the small
> countries feel better, but that sort of destoys the idea of a
> president being reelected...
That could be an exception.
> In any case, I don't see smaller countries not having a chance at
> this office, the candidate needs a qualified majority to be elected,
> i.e. a majority of small countries must support him. For that
> matter, candidates from small countries have often held important
> offices in the EU: Santer(?) was President of the Commission, the
> current EP president is Irish, the current ECB president Dutch...
I get your point, but there must be a reason why so many small
countries are so strongly opposed to the idea.
> >> Council of Ministers: nothing new, sounds good. Usually voting by
> >> qualified majority (majority of countries, 3/5 of population),
> >> which is ok...
> >
> > I'm wondering why it's 50% of countries and 60% of population.
> > Why not 50% or 60% in both cases?
>
> Well, in most democracies, 50% passes a law, if all votes count equally
> strong. So that is why 50% of the countries approving is needed to pass a
> law, that is nothing unusual. When one person speaks for a country however,
> he is obviously not speaking for ALL in that country, but hopefully for a
> majority. So the idea is that if you want to be certain that at least 50%
> of EU citizens are in favor, then you need more votes of countries
> representing more than 50&% of the people. Of course the 60% is arbitrary
> and not all countries voting against a new measure have populations 100%
> opposed, but in general it is a pretty good safeguard to make sure that a
> new measure does in fact have high support in the EU.
Well, perhaps you're right, but I was wondering whether the 60% was
introduced to make sure some specific majority wouldn't work.
Yes, so far.
> >> Foreign Minister: basically a good idea, not sure that it will
> >> work, being both part of the Council and the Commission, but I
> >> don't see how it can be done better. If the President of the
> >> Council is to be fairly powerful, I don't see how it can be done
> >> better... I would again prefer a weak Council President and a
> >> strong Commission President and a Foreign Minister basically as
> >> part of the Commission...
> >
> > Yes, but the large member states would probably not cede powers to
> > such a construction.
>
> Exactly, which is why I guess we will end up with that contruction....
Yes.
> >> Congress: I don't know if I like it or if it is totally useless. The
> >> idea of an ongoing constitutional convention is not that bad, as the
> >> EU is characterized by change since its existence. Nevertheless,
> >> there are too many bad points: the President of the Council giving a
> >> State of the Union address and the Commission President reporting on
> >> the legistlative program underlines the proposed superiority of the
> >> Council President, which I find unacceptable.
> >
> > Also, I think the size is wrong. It seems to be of appr. the same
> > size as the European Parliament. I'd rather have either a smallish
> > group (say, 100 members), or a very large congress meeting very rarely
> > (say, all members of national parliaments meeting once every five
> > years), just to emphasise the difference.
>
> Yes, that is true. If its purpose is to revise the constitution
> occassionally, then 100 would be good. If their job is to applaud
> the state of the union address, the whole EP should be included as
> well as a good number of representatives from the individual states.
Precisely.
Aris Katsaris
"J.M." <jm_jm_re...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:b8g8uo$kg1$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
The second president ("Council President") is a foolishness IMO.
Another bad thing is having a qualified majority in the Council that
says something like "member states representing 3/5ths of the
population".
That's an insane measure that gives an undivided strength to the
vote of big countries that should properly have been seen in the
*European Parliament*, where all the political views of both big
and small countries can be expressed and divisions seen.
What *I'd* do is ensure greater proportionality per size of
population in the European Parliament, and greater equality
between member states in the Council.
In the European Parliament I'd give to each country over one
million 5 MEPs as "default"+ 1 extra MEP for each million
of population. For countries between 750.000 and 1.000.000
5 MEPs in total, 4 MEPs for countries between 500.000 and
750.000 3 MEPs for countries between 250.000 and 500.000.
2 MEPs under that.
In the Council, however, which represents the union of member
states, not the union of peoples, greater equality between big and
small countries should exist. Four votes for countries under 3 million
people. Five votes for countries between 3 and 20 million. Six
votes for countries over that amount of population.
Council presidency -- I'd create a system of mixed rotation
and election. Each year 5 countries rotate into legibility for
gaining council presidency. The rest of the member states vote
which of the five they want. Keep in mind that the presidency
goes to the *country*, not a single person that'd be a rival for
the Commission president.
The Commission -- keep it simple for chrissakes! Only restriction
should be that there should exist no more than one commissioner
from each member state (including the President and the
Vice-President/Foreign Minister)... And have the President *elected*
from the parliament, not just approved there! He (and the Foreign
Minister) shouldn't be *chosen* by the Council, but *should*
have the support of atleast four member states from there.
That gives both institutions a say...
In all of the above I think I've considered both simplicity and
emphasizing the dual nature of "Union of Peoples"/"Union of
Member States"...
Aris Katsaris
J.M.
>
> "J.M." <jm_jm_re...@gmx.de> wrote in message
> news:b8g8uo$kg1$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
>> Last Thursday, the Presidium of the Convention proposed new articles for
>> the future institutions of the EU:
>>
>> http://european-convention.eu.int/docs/Treaty/cv00691.en03.pdf
>>
>> These have been received fairly sceptically in the press and by the
>> convention in general, mainly because the President of the Council is
>> seen as been to much of a competitor to the President of the Commission.
>> The smaller states (and to some degree Germany) want a powerful
>> Commission and a fairly weak Council President rotating by countries,
>> whereas the other large states seem to prefer a strong Council President
>> elected by the Council. Any thoughts on these articles?
>
> The second president ("Council President") is a foolishness IMO.
> Another bad thing is having a qualified majority in the Council that
> says something like "member states representing 3/5ths of the
> population".
>
> That's an insane measure that gives an undivided strength to the
> vote of big countries that should properly have been seen in the
> *European Parliament*, where all the political views of both big
> and small countries can be expressed and divisions seen.
Sure, if the EP had true proportional representation, that would be a good
thing...
>
> What *I'd* do is ensure greater proportionality per size of
> population in the European Parliament, and greater equality
> between member states in the Council.
>
> In the European Parliament I'd give to each country over one
> million 5 MEPs as "default"+ 1 extra MEP for each million
> of population. For countries between 750.000 and 1.000.000
> 5 MEPs in total, 4 MEPs for countries between 500.000 and
> 750.000 3 MEPs for countries between 250.000 and 500.000.
> 2 MEPs under that.
That would be fine by me.. And then curtail the powers of the EC..
>
> In the Council, however, which represents the union of member
> states, not the union of peoples, greater equality between big and
> small countries should exist. Four votes for countries under 3 million
> people. Five votes for countries between 3 and 20 million. Six
> votes for countries over that amount of population.
Sure. Would be fine as well, probably better than the current proposal.
>
> Council presidency -- I'd create a system of mixed rotation
> and election. Each year 5 countries rotate into legibility for
> gaining council presidency. The rest of the member states vote
> which of the five they want. Keep in mind that the presidency
> goes to the *country*, not a single person that'd be a rival for
> the Commission president.
If the Council President is "weak", i.e. he chairs the council meetings and
has no say in foreign or defense policy, then it wouldn't matter at all to
me how he is elected or if it rotated, but that is, I am afraid, not going
to happen..
>
> The Commission -- keep it simple for chrissakes! Only restriction
> should be that there should exist no more than one commissioner
> from each member state (including the President and the
> Vice-President/Foreign Minister)... And have the President *elected*
> from the parliament, not just approved there!
I think he will be elected. The EC is required to take the political
situation in the EP into account...
>He (and the Foreign
> Minister) shouldn't be *chosen* by the Council, but *should*
> have the support of atleast four member states from there.
> That gives both institutions a say...
>
> In all of the above I think I've considered both simplicity and
> emphasizing the dual nature of "Union of Peoples"/"Union of
> Member States"...
>
> Aris Katsaris
Jan
J.M.
> "J.M." <jm_jm_re...@gmx.de> writes:
>
>> Thomas M. Widmann schrieb:
>>
>> > "J.M." <jm_jm_re...@gmx.de> writes:
>> >
[zap]
>>
>> I think a clause that guarantees every state at least x seats in
>> parliament (current proposal x=4) is fine. Beyond that, smaller states
>> are represented as equals in the European Council / Council of Ministers.
>
> They are not (they don't have the same number of votes).
Well, sort of.. The way I understand it, a qualified majority means that the
votes are counted twice: once to see that there is a majority of states and
then to see that 3/5 of the population of the EU is in favor.. In the first
count, all states are equal, so nothing can pass unless a majority of
states are in favor... In this sense, all states are equal..
>
>> If the the new constitution would make the Council and the EP equals
>> as parliamentary bodies, then I would even think that it would be ok
>> to replace "qualified majority" by "majority of countries"
>> regardless of population, but as long as the European Council is
>> much more important than the EP (e.g. in foreign policy), that is
>> not acceptable either. I kind of like the American solution for the
>> House and Senate...
>
> Me too, but in the US all states are totally equal in the Senate.
That is what I am saying. Majority of countries means essentially that each
country has one vote (as opposed to two in the US Senate).
>
[zap]
>
>> I am not sure that this would be such a good idea actually at this
>> point. That may work for small countries, but even in Germany,
>> there are Länder lists in national elections and in a huge EU that
>> would be hard. In any case, the resulting election system would be
>> very difficult and confusing...
>
> It could be interesting to try to create such a system in order to
> find out whether it would be that bad...
Well, it would not be "that" bad, but I don't think it is any better than
the current solution either..
>
> Speaking of voting systems, here in Scotland the election for the
> Scottish Parliament is on Thursday. A two-vote system is used (first
> vote for first-past-the-post, second vote for proportional
> representation). I think it's more or less the same system that is
> used in Germany, but are there any other countries using it? It seems
> to confuse people a lot. :-(
Well, it combines direct elections with proportional representation WHILE
preserving the idea that all votes should count equally. So it really would
not address the question we are talking about for the EP.
>
>> > Another thing I'd like to see is basing the number of MEPs per country
>> > (and the number of votes etc.) on the number of inhabitants of each
>> > country. Something like in the US, where numbers of seats in the
>> > House of Representatives is adjusted every ten years after the census.
>>
>> Sure, that would be fine...
>
> Who would be against it? I haven't seen it suggested anywhere...
Well, there is a fundamental problem involved: the seats given to a country
in the EP is based pretty much on its diplomatic skill and not so much on
any key that says so and so many inhabitants yield so and so many seats in
the EP. Spain was originally opposed for example to Poland getting the same
number of seats despite the fact the population is almost equal. (Other
states intervened and made sure Poland got the same number.) Unless there
is some sort of key as to how seats are divided, there is no point in
stipulating that the distribution should be discussed on a regular basis..
If there were proportional representation, such a thing would be much
easier...
[zap]
>> > At the least, the Parliament should have some influence on this report
>> > (ie, they should have the power to reject it).
>>
>> What would be the point of that? What would the consequence of
>> parliament rejecting that? The whole report is silly, as this just
>> makes the EC senior to the EP.
>
> Actually, I think you're right, but at least if they can vote it down,
> the Council will have to take into account the opinion of the
> Parliament somehow.
Sure, but without consequences?
>
>> >> All in all, this has too much the flavor of the French constitution
>> >> and the potential of cohabitation in Europe. I do like the fact that
>> >> the council presidency no longer rotates. The council presidency has
>> >> always had a good bit of influence in priorities for the rudimentary
>> >> EU foreign policy and changing president and priorities every 6
>> >> months was never good.
>> >
>> > Well, sometimes it did speed things up because a country wanted to
>> > be able to present tangible results in some area.
>>
>> Sure, in special cases, and it certainly was a good idea in an EU of
>> 8 or 12, but I can't imagine there being any sort of consistency if
>> for example Cyprus and then Latvia and then Ireland have the
>> presidency one after the other...
>
> Yes, that's a problem. One possible solution would be to say that a
> large country would have the presidency every spring, and a small one
> every autumn (or vice versa).
That seems very artificial.. I just think that in the EU of 25, the small
countries will be 19 out of the 25 countries (i.e. the 6 big countries are
Germany, France, UK, Spain, Poland, Italy). In order to get elected council
president, you need at least 13 countries supporting you, i.e. at least the
support of 7 small countries, if you have support of all big countries. I
just don't see big countries succeeding THAT often in winning the election
and the small countries can easily form a block and insist that a candidate
from a small country be elected if small countries have been neglected in
the past...
>
>> >> With 25 members, it would be a joke. I do think though, that
>> >> something needs to be done for the smaller members to compensate
>> >> them for the loss of the rotating presidency, which primarily
>> >> benefited them.
>> >
>> > One could make a rule that the president should be from a small
>> > country every second time.
>>
>> I guess something like that could be done, if it makes the small
>> countries feel better, but that sort of destoys the idea of a
>> president being reelected...
>
> That could be an exception.
>
>> In any case, I don't see smaller countries not having a chance at
>> this office, the candidate needs a qualified majority to be elected,
>> i.e. a majority of small countries must support him. For that
>> matter, candidates from small countries have often held important
>> offices in the EU: Santer(?) was President of the Commission, the
>> current EP president is Irish, the current ECB president Dutch...
>
> I get your point, but there must be a reason why so many small
> countries are so strongly opposed to the idea.
Sure, but not all fears are rational. Germans are scared to death that the
labour market will be flooded with Poles despite the fact that new and
poorer countries have never flooded labour markets in the past. Similarly,
I think small countries overestimate this particular point. I believe
smaller countries have a very valid and important point when they say that
the commission should not be weakened, because in an intergovermental EU,
the smaller countries lose out...
>
>> >> Council of Ministers: nothing new, sounds good. Usually voting by
>> >> qualified majority (majority of countries, 3/5 of population),
>> >> which is ok...
>> >
>> > I'm wondering why it's 50% of countries and 60% of population.
>> > Why not 50% or 60% in both cases?
>>
>> Well, in most democracies, 50% passes a law, if all votes count equally
>> strong. So that is why 50% of the countries approving is needed to pass a
>> law, that is nothing unusual. When one person speaks for a country
>> however, he is obviously not speaking for ALL in that country, but
>> hopefully for a majority. So the idea is that if you want to be certain
>> that at least 50% of EU citizens are in favor, then you need more votes
>> of countries representing more than 50&% of the people. Of course the 60%
>> is arbitrary and not all countries voting against a new measure have
>> populations 100% opposed, but in general it is a pretty good safeguard to
>> make sure that a new measure does in fact have high support in the EU.
>
> Well, perhaps you're right, but I was wondering whether the 60% was
> introduced to make sure some specific majority wouldn't work.
No, that would be hard to imagine as the number of members in the EU is
hardly constant and we can't really be sure that all 10 candidates will
join... And if Turkey joins one day, things will look very different
anyhow..
Jan
PGreenfinch
nation-states.
But what I still don't understand is what nation-states are doing in the
european council.
The council and the commission should be only one, and form the EU gov.
A project of gov would be presented by the president to the assembly(ies)
for nomination.
There should be only one president, elected by the assembly(ies) in a first
step, and directly by the european citizens after a 5 years interim period.
HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
PGreenfinch <pgreenpasd...@wanadoo.fr> a écrit dans le message :
b8hh1m$sb$1...@news-reader14.wanadoo.fr...
Seconded in every particular, except for interim period, which ought to be
longer.
However, this would be in an ideal world.
In the real world, there needs to be something to prevent particularism and
less numerous cultures from being swamped by populous ones ( or
'dictatorship of the many' ). This would require, at least in an interim
period, an institution in which nations are represented. In a second period,
such fears will disapear, I think.
However, there also need to be something to balance the 'dictatorship of the
little countries'. Nations will always look for there own first ( see the
current spate about PAC and structural funds ) but won't contribute equally.
IOW, I fail to see Why Luxembourg should have the same say as Germany.
So, at least in a first time, there must be a compromise for things to work
out and trust to be established.
Aris Katsaris
"PGreenfinch" <pgreenpasd...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:b8hh1m$sb$1...@news-reader14.wanadoo.fr...
> Maybe a 2nd assembly could be made of representative of
> nation-states.
> But what I still don't understand is what nation-states are doing in the
> european council.
> The council and the commission should be only one, and form the EU gov.
Americans have two houses, in one of which there's two representatives
per state, no matter how small or big the state in question is...
I tend to see the Council as something like that. And I do think we kinda
need something like that for the time being. It's also a way to bring
closer cooperation between members of each government and the
European Union, I guess, talk to each other directly, rather than through
people that remain in Brussels...
In the future this may change. But not yet. And I'm not sure there's that
much of a need for it to change - other matters are in more important
need of revision.
Aris Katsaris
HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
Aris Katsaris <kats...@otenet.gr> a écrit dans le message :
b8hp8l$3v8$1...@usenet.otenet.gr...
>
> "PGreenfinch" <pgreenpasd...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> news:b8hh1m$sb$1...@news-reader14.wanadoo.fr...
> > Maybe a 2nd assembly could be made of representative of
> > nation-states.
> > But what I still don't understand is what nation-states are doing in the
> > european council.
> > The council and the commission should be only one, and form the EU gov.
>
> Americans have two houses, in one of which there's two representatives
> per state, no matter how small or big the state in question is...
>
And I doubt the population disparity between US states is a big as between
European states.
Finally, US is a republic. EU ideal is a democracy. There is a difference.
Christian Feldhaus
> Does DC have two senators?
That DC is a district, not a state. (But heck, it might even be
represented in an enhanced State Quarters program - that comes close to
statehood <g>.)
> And I doubt the population disparity between US states is a big as between
> European states.
It is not quite as extreme as in the EU, but California (#1) has a
population of about 35 million while Wyoming (#50) has ~500,000.
Note, though, that the states chamber (Bundesrat) of the German Federal
Parliament also takes the population of the German states into account.
The biggest state, North Rhine Westphalia, has a population of 18
million while the smallest one, Bremen, has less than 700,000. In the
Bundesrat, each state has between three and six seats, depending on how
big it is in terms of population ...
Christian
Aris Katsaris
"HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa" <fhae...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:b8iecr$i67$1...@news-reader11.wanadoo.fr...
>
> Aris Katsaris <kats...@otenet.gr> a écrit dans le message :
> b8hp8l$3v8$1...@usenet.otenet.gr...
> >
> > per state, no matter how small or big the state in question is...
>
> Does DC have two senators?
>
> And I doubt the population disparity between US states is a big as between
> European states.
Somewhat less than European states, but pretty big population disparity
nonetheless.
> Finally, US is a republic. EU ideal is a democracy. There is a difference.
*sigh*. Republic means nothing more than "representative democracy", a
system which is governed by democratically elected representatives.
Aris Katsaris
Thomas M. Widmann
> Thomas M. Widmann schrieb:
>
> > "J.M." <jm_jm_re...@gmx.de> writes:
> >
> >> Thomas M. Widmann schrieb:
> >>
> >> > "J.M." <jm_jm_re...@gmx.de> writes:
> >>
> >> I think a clause that guarantees every state at least x seats in
> >> parliament (current proposal x=4) is fine. Beyond that, smaller states
> >> are represented as equals in the European Council / Council of Ministers.
> >
> > They are not (they don't have the same number of votes).
>
> Well, sort of.. The way I understand it, a qualified majority means
> that the votes are counted twice: once to see that there is a
> majority of states and then to see that 3/5 of the population of the
> EU is in favor.. In the first count, all states are equal, so
> nothing can pass unless a majority of states are in favor... In this
> sense, all states are equal..
But in another way, they are not. One could copy the CoM model to the
Parliament, so that a majority was only valid if it also represented a
majority of member states.
> > Speaking of voting systems, here in Scotland the election for the
> > Scottish Parliament is on Thursday. A two-vote system is used (first
> > vote for first-past-the-post, second vote for proportional
> > representation). I think it's more or less the same system that is
> > used in Germany, but are there any other countries using it? It seems
> > to confuse people a lot. :-(
>
> Well, it combines direct elections with proportional representation
> WHILE preserving the idea that all votes should count equally. So it
> really would not address the question we are talking about for the EP.
No, I was just mentioning it in passing.
> >> > At the least, the Parliament should have some influence on this report
> >> > (ie, they should have the power to reject it).
> >>
> >> What would be the point of that? What would the consequence of
> >> parliament rejecting that? The whole report is silly, as this just
> >> makes the EC senior to the EP.
> >
> > Actually, I think you're right, but at least if they can vote it down,
> > the Council will have to take into account the opinion of the
> > Parliament somehow.
>
> Sure, but without consequences?
There would have to be some consequences, of course, such as forcing
the Council to reconsider.
> [...] I believe smaller countries have a very valid and important
> point when they say that the commission should not be weakened,
> because in an intergovermental EU, the smaller countries lose out...
The really odd thing is that Denmark and Sweden are siding with the
large countries in this question.
J.M.
> "J.M." <jm_jm_re...@gmx.de> writes:
>
>> Thomas M. Widmann schrieb:
>>
>> > "J.M." <jm_jm_re...@gmx.de> writes:
>> >
>> >> Thomas M. Widmann schrieb:
>> >>
>> >> > "J.M." <jm_jm_re...@gmx.de> writes:
>> >>
>> >> I think a clause that guarantees every state at least x seats in
>> >> parliament (current proposal x=4) is fine. Beyond that, smaller states
>> >> are represented as equals in the European Council / Council of
>> >> Ministers.
>> >
>> > They are not (they don't have the same number of votes).
>>
>> Well, sort of.. The way I understand it, a qualified majority means
>> that the votes are counted twice: once to see that there is a
>> majority of states and then to see that 3/5 of the population of the
>> EU is in favor.. In the first count, all states are equal, so
>> nothing can pass unless a majority of states are in favor... In this
>> sense, all states are equal..
>
> But in another way, they are not. One could copy the CoM model to the
> Parliament, so that a majority was only valid if it also represented a
> majority of member states.
Sure, but that makes things difficult. In the US, you need a double
majority, i.e. a simple majority in the House and the Senate.. In the EU,
we already have a triple majority (majority of countries in the EC,
majority of population in EC, majority of votes in the EP). If we keep
adding more criteria, things will be much harder to get approved...
>
>> > Speaking of voting systems, here in Scotland the election for the
>> > Scottish Parliament is on Thursday. A two-vote system is used (first
>> > vote for first-past-the-post, second vote for proportional
>> > representation). I think it's more or less the same system that is
>> > used in Germany, but are there any other countries using it? It seems
>> > to confuse people a lot. :-(
>>
>> Well, it combines direct elections with proportional representation
>> WHILE preserving the idea that all votes should count equally. So it
>> really would not address the question we are talking about for the EP.
>
> No, I was just mentioning it in passing.
>
Ok :-)
>> >> > At the least, the Parliament should have some influence on this
>> >> > report (ie, they should have the power to reject it).
>> >>
>> >> What would be the point of that? What would the consequence of
>> >> parliament rejecting that? The whole report is silly, as this just
>> >> makes the EC senior to the EP.
>> >
>> > Actually, I think you're right, but at least if they can vote it down,
>> > the Council will have to take into account the opinion of the
>> > Parliament somehow.
>>
>> Sure, but without consequences?
>
> There would have to be some consequences, of course, such as forcing
> the Council to reconsider.
>
That sounds like we're sending a schoolboy back to redo his homework because
the first time around we were not happy with it... Just writing a new
report won't do...
>> [...] I believe smaller countries have a very valid and important
>> point when they say that the commission should not be weakened,
>> because in an intergovermental EU, the smaller countries lose out...
>
> The really odd thing is that Denmark and Sweden are siding with the
> large countries in this question.
Not surprising, actually. The Scandinavian countries tend not to trust the
"community" method, i.e. the EP and the Commission. They don't "trust" the
currency of the community for example. Of course the Danes are kidding
themselves when they try to believe that they have an "independent"
currency and Rasmussen is kidding himself if he thinks he will be playing
with the big boys by trying to have an intergovernmental EU.
Jan
>
> /Thomas
rosignol
"HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa" <fhae...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
[zap]
> > Americans have two houses, in one of which there's two representatives
> > per state, no matter how small or big the state in question is...
> >
> Does DC have two senators?
It's not a state.
> And I doubt the population disparity between US states is a big as between
> European states.
Depends on if you include the microstates that aren't large enough to be
shown on a globe. But there is a fairly substantial difference between
California and (say) Wyoming.
> Finally, US is a republic. EU ideal is a democracy. There is a difference.
What kind of democracy?
--
al Qaeda delenda est
rosignol
"Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote:
> "HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa" <fhae...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> news:b8iecr$i67$1...@news-reader11.wanadoo.fr...
[zap]
> > Finally, US is a republic. EU ideal is a democracy. There is a difference.
>
> *sigh*. Republic means nothing more than "representative democracy", a
> system which is governed by democratically elected representatives.
A republic is generally considered to be a nation with a government that
derives it's authority from the consent of it's citizens, and usually
has a Constitution describing the mechanism by which this is done and
various other things. The details vary a lot, and a lot of places call
themselves a Republic when they aren't (example: The Republic of Iraq,
which was anything but).
But Republic = "Representative Democracy" is, um, not entirely accurate.
A Republic can be a Representative Democracy (and usually is, these
days), but it doesn't have to be.
Stefan Fricke
> Yes, but the large member states would probably not cede powers to
> such a construction.
The governments don't want. I think the people would prefer an EU which is
organized more similar to a nation state because it would be more
understandable for them.
A few years ago when there was a public discossion on the Euro in Germany
(which is still quite unpopular) the Federal Constitutional Court had to
dicide it it is legal to transfer powers to the EU. The decision was that
Germany mal transfer power to the EU only when the EU itself is a
democracy.
Well, a president who is appointed by the Council would still mach this
ruling but what about lawmaking behind closed doors? What if a minority
tries to dictate their will abusing their right to veto?
Stefan
AD C
More rubbish from the E.U, another way to get a United States of Europe,
another way to pin us to agreements which may ruin our country.
Aris Katsaris
"AD C" <grap...@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b99biq$je7$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
This may surprise you but the universe doesn't revolve around Britain,
and not everything is a conspiracy to ensnare your country to our
diabolical European plans.
Aris Katsaris
AD C
>>More rubbish from the E.U, another way to get a United States of Europe,
>>another way to pin us to agreements which may ruin our country.
>
>
> This may surprise you but the universe doesn't revolve around Britain,
> and not everything is a conspiracy to ensnare your country to our
> diabolical European plans.
>
Of cause not, look, the E.u will take over this country, everything the
E.u do, makes us worse off.