What the heck is the EU?

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I'd watch your arse Sava when we get our act together

Do you ever get to see "Saturday Night Live"?

I'll be wearing my "Oops! I crapped my pants" undergarments in anticipation.

[axi]

it sure seems like the EU is one big bureacracy trying to circumvent democratic principals.

It is what it seems to be.

[Pius Popprasch]

It's the ultimate bureaucratic experience. But Europeans want it like that.
And it has little to do with left or right wing politics. Commies obviously like it more than nationalists but the difference isn't all that great.
Every tree needs a law and a rule.

[Adalbertus]

Spiffor, you seem to know a lot about the inner mechanisms of our beloved burEaUcracy (or ...crazy ?). Do you know any sensible pro-EU group who is trying to increase the level of democratic legitimation in the commission? When I remember how the German commissaries got their position: Always one CDU, one SPD, then Kohl wants to get rid of an incapable FDP minister and pisses off the SPD, probably SPD takes revenge and gives a post to a Green (don't know that for sure but they certainly wanted to ...) Except for any major change in the German political landscape there is no way to influence the selection of commisaries ... And for this they have way too much power.

The first problem, Austrians had with the EU was the maximum content of cinnamon in food . Austrians were used to far more.
(there seems to be some serious poison in cinnamon which kills you when you eat more than a kilo of it, or so. Same holds for black pepper, containing piperin. The lethal dose is when you eat about 800g of black pepper)

[Paul Hanson]

The EU isn't half as bureaucratic as people seem to think; only about 5% of it's annual budget is spent on bureaucracy. The real problem with the EU is the Common Agricultural Policy; this really does have to be reformed quite seriously before the EU can get down to some serious business.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Paul Hanson
The EU isn't half as bureaucratic as people seem to think; only about 5% of it's annual budget is spent on bureaucracy. The real problem with the EU is the Common Agricultural Policy; this really does have to be reformed quite seriously before the EU can get down to some serious business.

Once again, something to blame on the French .

[Saint Marcus]

The EU is the best thing that happened to the world since sliced bread.

[Roland]

Spiffor:

"Decisions are taken by 3 actors : the Commission, the Council, the Parliament."

And the Court of Justice, not to forget, although its political importance has decreased.

"These commissioners are not elected by the people, but chosen by the PMs or Presidents."

And need a vote of confidence in Parliament.

"In a Council meeting, the states can be represented by ministers (when the question is important), but at most by administrators who represent the interest of their State."

Well council decisions are taken by government ministers, but most preparatory work is being done at bureaucrat level.

"Again, the Council is not elected."

Not directly, but the representatives are responsible to their national parliaments, and can be bound by parliamentary instruction, which is namely the case in Denmark and Austria.

"Now, how are the decisions taken ? The Commission elaborates a law (with an extreme pressure from the lobbies)."

The lobbying is intense, the pressure is quite limited. Also, Commission proposals are usually better prepared and more openly discussed than national initiatives, this goes at least in comparison with Austria and Germany.

"When the law is approved by the Council, it then goes to the Parliament, in some cases only."

Most legislation is under codecision now. Parliament is quite powerful now - best seen in the fact that the lobby groups pay much more attention to it now.

"National parliaments are often simply ignored, and they often know what's going on too late, when agreements between governments have been reached."

That problem is centered on the intergouvernemental areas. As for council voting and bargaining, it's up to the national constitution to provide for information rights etc.

"you'd need a Phd in political sciences..."

Or a doctorate in law.

[Roland]

Adalbertus:

"...trying to increase the level of democratic legitimation in the commission?"

We've seen a gradual strengthening of Parliament and the Commission President. Legally, it would be possible to field candidates for Comm. President in the EP election, and Parliament could block any other president nominated by the member states. The president than has some power to influence nominations for commissioners. It is just that the political time has not yet come. It will be interesting to see what the convention will come up with....

"The first problem, Austrians had with the EU was the maximum content of cinnamon in food ."

Really ? Even I can't remember that...

[Pius Popprasch]

Originally posted by Roland
"The first problem, Austrians had with the EU was the maximum content of cinnamon in food ."

Really ? Even I can't remember that...

What happened with Danish pink colored hot dog sausages?(I really liked them when I was there but that was before E.U.)

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Roland
Or a doctorate in law.

Roland if you know Koen Lenaerts he was by proffessor in constitutional law of the european union... (I hope you're not him )

[Bereta_Eder]

This silence is very disturbing

(Hey I got one of the highest grades in your class )

[Ecthy]

what freaking class are you talking about?

[Spiffor]

Roland : the Parliament may not give confidence to the commission, but it has never been seen : the parliament cannot refuse one commissioner and accept another : when it refuses to give confidence, the whole commission goes to the traps, and months of negociations are ruined.

The lobbying is intense, but worse, it is subtle : as the commission doesn't have enough bureaucrats for the work they have, they often call "independent" experts to prepare their work, to give a scientific background to their decisions. Hat the expert will say and forget to say is very important in the course of the decision : a politician knows he's not versed in science and cannot counteract the whole study : he'll consider almost everything as true. And act accordingly. Of course, the lobbies can influence these experts, to let them forget a not so business friendly data, for example.
Another method of the lobbies is to give to a commissioner or to an underling an already complete, ready-to-sign text. As they have far too much work, they accept this quite often.
Another method is "ideological brainwashing" : say something repeatedly to all your connections in the commission and the parliament, so that your idea becomes accepted over time. That's what the companies and the ecologists do for long, and that explains why the EU is so free-market oriented while pushing for the Kyoto agreement. Leftist groups such as ATTAC are beginning to do so for 4 years, we'll see if they succeed.
Sure, many lobbies go in Brussel to have prime time information of what the EU is going to do, but others really want to pressure the institutions for their own interests.

About the court of justice : it has not much decision power per se, but instead a power to block decisions, and to clarify the deep meaning of the treaties.

I know that European Democracy progresses, but it's extremely slow, and I can't tolerate this sluggishness, which is extremely damaging for the European ideal (which I love... It's on purpose that my localization is "EU")


Paul Hanson :
The EU is a bureaucracy with no enough bureaucrats. It's a bureucracy in the meaning that bureaucrats (I prefer the word "technocrats" : people who are in power not because they were elected, but because they have the "scientific" knowledge of politics) have the power. The representatives have a marginal power : blocking or modifying decisions which were already discussed for months or years. They cannot create laws, which is dramatic.

Adalbertus :
I don't know any organized commissioners group who want more democracy. Maybe most commissioners are diehard democrats in private, but when they talk publicly, it's in the name of the commission. And changing the role of the parliament is not the work of the commission, so they don't speak loudly about this. In fact, for a more democratic Europe, you have to look at diehard Europeans politicians : the Belgians have, the French have Bayrou, the British have none (sorry, a bit of Brit-basing, couldn't resist )etc. The role of the parliament, commission and council are detemined by the big treaties, such as Maastricht or Amsterdam (I refuse to consider Nizza as a big treaty, even if it was intended)
Currently, there is a convention which works on the political future of the EU, led by Valery Giscard d'Estaing. When they give their conclusions, in one year I think, the big treaties will probably take them into account, and give much more democracy in the EU.

[Roland]

"the Parliament may not give confidence to the commission, but it has never been seen "

Yes, but it still has an effect, eg in the Commissioner hearings, and in who the member states will nominate.

"the parliament cannot refuse one commissioner and accept another"

True. But that's the same in Germany - only a vote of (no-)confidence for the government as a whole (the chancellor to be precise).

"Of course, the lobbies can influence these experts, to let them forget a not so business friendly data, for example."

Usually you have a mix of experts of different affiliations, and some independent ones mostly from universities.

"say something repeatedly to all your connections in the commission and the parliament, so that your idea becomes accepted over time."

Well this works everywhere. Just as well with national governments and parliaments.

"About the court of justice : it has not much decision power per se, but instead a power to block decisions, and to clarify the deep meaning of the treaties."

Well the latter is a huge decision making power, with all the (mostly economic) policies directly enshrined in the treaties.

The main democracy deficit I see is that currently, we can't vote the EU "government" out and a new one in. It is an eternal big coalition of social democrats, conservatives and liberals across the 3 institutions....
Paiktis: no worry... I think I've read a piece by him about EC powers and/or national sovereignty, not sure though....

[Sprayber]

My only question is which country will be the first to double cross the others?

France, Germany, Greece, or a darkhorse contender?

[Spiffor]

Well this works everywhere. Just as well with national governments and parliaments.

Sure, but all institutions / countries are not as wide open to lobbyism : in France, lobbies are seen with a tad of defiance, while in Europe, they're seen as valuable representatives of the civil society. Thus they have much more impact in Europe than in France, but it doesn't mean they don't have any in France.
I still think that, wherever they act, lobbies are evil simply because they betray the very idea of democracy : the politician should enforce his idea of the public good (that's why he's elected), and he's getting influenced to enforce the interests of groups.
It reminds me a thing : a mayor has to choose the best swimming pool project for his city. There are several competitors, and one influences the mayor to choose his own... through money. But here, it's not called lobbyism, it's called corruption I guess lobbyism is a legal corruption with other means.

BTW, I love your sig

[Roland]

"Sure, but all institutions / countries are not as wide open to lobbyism"
"I guess lobbyism is a legal corruption with other means."

When special interests buy legislation, it is corruption IMO (you might want to discuss this point with DanS though, as he sees nothing wrong with it in the US). On the other hand, fighting for your interests is perfectly legitimate in a democracy. So it is a murky area. The EU's legislative process sure breeds some strange flowers....

Abot the sig - I just love Krugman beating the trash out of silliness of the Bush regime.

[Bereta_Eder]

Another thing to ponder is that the shortcomings of the Commission in regard to expertise obliges it to run to the companies themsevles for advice on lawmaking.

To ask for advice and to consult with the companies on whom the laws are going to be applied is one thing.

But to actually base and depend on what THEIR experts say and draft the law based on that is discomforting.

This is a significant problem.

To counterbalance this there are only the trade unions and such, but many times they do not have the expertise or the resources that the companies specialist have.

Also the pressure of time is what leaves the Commission compeled to follow companies experts advice...

Roland, he's also a judge in the Court of Justice of the EU,nice guy but pendantic like you

[Roland]

"he's also a judge in the Court of Justice of the EU,nice guy but pendantic like you"

At the Court of First Instance, to be precise... ooops.

[Adalbertus]

Originally posted by Roland:
Really ? Even I can't remember that...

The cinnamon stuff was something I read about a few years ago in the Kölner Stadtanzün- oops anzeiger.

[Ecthy]

you seem to be pretty familiar with that kind of humour... quite odd for a frog...

[Adalbertus]

(In the style of "Weltenbummler") Ecthelion.

Didn't you read the second line of my sig I recently added?

(For "Weltenbummler" you have to know a bit about the Carnival of Cologne ...)