Properly done, a reformed EU where these hacks were undone and the requisite sovereignty ceded to the EU parliament to allow for a restructured EU would not need to leave the EU with more power, and could move much of what power the EU holds to the elected parliament and actually make the EU far more accountable to people, even if it involves ceding some sovereignty.
There has been a slow and steady move towards this, but there's only so much the member state governments can do via treaties without seeking explicit consent from their electorates, and there's very little public appetite for voting for anything that smells of a unified state, not least because the current EU bureaucracy rightfully is not very trust-inspiring. It's quite the Catch-22.
The alternative is the return of walls, nationalisms and wars, which has been the natural state of affairs in Europe for 99.9% of its history (100 years ago the Ministry of Defense was called Ministry of War for a reason).
The iteration we have at the moment is far from efficient, far from perfect, far from fair, but it's better than anything that has come before.
No it's not. You can have an EU-lite, where we agree on some things, like free trade, joint projects (like EuroPol). Not having the United States of Europe won't result in war any more than the EU imposing a rule on an non-volunteer country will.
If anything the EU has shown that it doesn't work. We can't even agree on helping people fleeing a war zone. Nor are the Eurozone countries in agreement on how to handle financial policies.
It's not that the European countries should work together, or strive to have similar laws and rules, but it should be limited to issues like trade and the environment. Things that is beyond the scope of single nations.
I think the only viable EU is a United States of Europe, in which the current countries disappear, and you only have a Federal state and what is currently regions in the current countries.
Whether a EU is desirable for the UK is another debate. The UK is one of the rare capitalist countries in Europe while pretty much all the other countries are social-democrat if not outright socialist countries, with the high unemployment and low growth associated.
The legislative and executive powers of the union are held by the council of Europe which isn't an elected body.
The European Parliament elects the European Commission and can force its resignation through a vote of no confidence (the latter happened to the Santer Commission).
Jean-Claude Juncker technically has more democratic legitimacy than David Cameron; he was elected by a number of representatives standing for a majority of the electorate.
Practically all EU legislation requires a majority in the European Parliament and a qualified majority in the Council of the European Union (the upper house of the EU legislature, which represents the democratically elected governments of the member states).
The problem is that democratic legitimacy alone does not functioning institutions make.
> The legislative and executive powers of the union are held by the council of Europe which isn't an elected body.
The Council of Europe [1] is an intergovernmental body that has nothing to do with the EU. If you mean the Council of the European Union, that is (as mentioned above) the upper house of the legislature, but has no executive powers (those lie with the Commission and the member states) and all its members represent the democratically elected governments of the member states.
You can say that the EU as a whole is actually non-democratic all of the power de-jure and de-facto lies within the council, the council represents the executive branches of the EU members, you can even make an argument that the EU actually undermines the democratic process in other countries as it gives their executive branch a possible legislative power which they do not have directly in their own country.
The executive branches set up the council, the council has direct control over the legislative and executive powers of the union which means they can pass laws which might have implications on EU member states (especially if the state has decided to subdue itself to EU law in it's constitution, cough Sweden cough) in a manner that the executive branch of those states would not have agency on.
No, the European Parliament elects the entire European Commission; it just has to be an up-or-down vote on the entire Commission, but cannot vote for individual commissioners, though last year one Commissioner was replaced after the confirmation hearings and another had his portfolio cut.
The European Council nominates a candidate for President of the Commission; that person than selects candidates for the Commissioners, one from each member state. The European Parliament than holds confirmation hearings, may suggest adjustments to the Commission, and then holds a vote on the Commission in its entirety.
> The president is nominated by the council, and confirmed by the parliament.
First, the Commission President is not nominated by the Council of the EU. He is nominated by the European Council, which is not the same as the Council of the EU.
Second, the British PM is appointed by the British Monarch and is not even confirmed or elected; the German chancellor is nominated by the German president and then confirmed (or not) by the German parliament.
> This is similar to how supreme justices are confirmed by the senate in the US however the EUP has much less power over that confirmation.
No, this is how election of the head of government works in most parliamentary democracies, which is what the EU system is modeled after.
> The executive branches set up the council
Which is how the upper house is commonly set up in a federal system; it represents the states and the representatives are often selected by their executives.1
> the council has direct control over the legislative and executive powers of the union which means they can pass laws which might have implications on EU member states
The Council of the EU cannot pass laws without the European Parliament (the Council of the EU is only the upper house of the EU legislature). It does not have any power over the European Commission, which is the executive (i.e. the equivalent of a cabinet) in the EU.
Please, do read up on how the EU actually functions and do not go by second-hand sources.
Again that is simply not correct, here is Article 17 for you to read again.
Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission. This candidate shall be elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its component members. If he does not obtain the required majority, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall within one month propose a new candidate who shall be elected by the European Parliament following the same procedure.
The Council, by common accord with the President-elect, shall adopt the list of the other persons whom it proposes for appointment as members of the Commission. They shall be selected, on the basis of the suggestions made by Member States, in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraph 3, second subparagraph, and paragraph 5, second subparagraph.
The President, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the other members of the Commission shall be subject as a body to a vote of consent by the European Parliament. On the basis of this consent the Commission shall be appointed by the European Council, acting by a qualified majority.
>The president is nominated by the council, and confirmed by the parliament.
Again not correct see Article 17 above.
The rest is nonsense, you are confusing ceremonial roles like the Queen appointing the head of the majority party to form the Government to the EU Council actually selecting the President and all the Members.
>This is similar to how supreme justices are confirmed by the senate in the US however the EUP has much less power over that confirmation
Not this isn't how state elections work, the Government doesn't select the Government, which appoints the Government.
>The executive branches set up the council
The Council isn't the upper house of the EU Parliament it's a completely separate body.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutions_of_the_European_U...
>The Council of the EU cannot pass laws without the European Parliament (the Council of the EU is only the upper house of the EU legislature). It does not have any power over the European Commission, which is the executive (i.e. the equivalent of a cabinet) in the EU.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/20150201PVL...
They can jointly and separately adopt laws however only laws that are adopted by the council are actually turned into EU directives which is required for laws to have any effect on member states.
>Please, do read up on how the EU actually functions and do not go by second-hand sources.
Please do.
> The President, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the other members of the Commission shall be subject as a body to a vote of consent by the European Parliament. On the basis of this consent the Commission shall be appointed by the European Council, acting by a qualified majority.
As I said, the entire Commission is voted for by the European Parliament, not just the President, as you originally claimed.
> > The president is nominated by the council, and confirmed by the parliament.
> Again not correct see Article 17 above.
You realize that you are disagreeing with yourself? Or is your quoting just totally messed up?
> The Council isn't the upper house of the EU Parliament it's a completely separate body.
The Council isn't the upper house of the European Parliament; it is the upper house of the EU legislature, the European Parliament is the lower house of the EU legislature. Of course they're separate bodies, silly [1].
> They can jointly and separately adopt laws however only laws that are adopted by the council are actually turned into EU directives which is required for laws to have any effect on member states.
The ordinary legislative procedure requires the consent of the European Parliament AND the Council of the EU. The consultation procedure is largely limited to Art. 103 and Art. 115 TFEU (aspects of competition law and the internal market).
Yes, of course the consent of the Council of the EU as the upper house of the legislature is required. Never said otherwise.
The EU council and commission can issue directives, decisions and regulations without involving the EU parliament, the EUP is mostly for show it's opinions and recommendations are shafted there's a good reason why it looks like a circus filled with Neo-Nazi's/Fascists and Marxists (or at least that's how the extreme right and left like to call each other) with representation which is completely skewed from the geo-political reality within each member state.
The EUP still haven't degraded to the point of being a utter kangaroo court like the UNGC but it's not that far. If you think otherwise there's no point of continue to discuss it but if you follow EU politics you can easily see where the power lies and how and by whom pan-European policy is driven: hint it's not the greens, the pirates and the golden dawns in the EUP.
You're making a distinction without a difference (and you're muddying the waters between a proposal to appoint and the actual appointment; without the European Parliament, the European Council can only propose, not appoint). If the European Parliament says yes, the Commission is elected and can get to work. If the Parliament says no, it isn't and it can't do a thing. Same for how plenty of parliamentary democracies elect their head of government or cabinets. Lack of a write-in option does not make it not an election.
I note also that for all practical purposes, the "spitzenkandidat" system has factually replaced the power of nomination (not appointment).
> The EU council and commission can issue directives, decisions and regulations without involving the EU parliament
This is factually false, the codecision procedure (= what is now called the ordinary legislative procedure) applies to practically all legislative acts and requires the Parliament to vote for them. Legislative acts can include framework decisions with the legislature delegating implementing measures to the Commission (for example, the ecodesign directive, where the exact wattage for vacuum cleaners was then set by the Commission according to the guidelines of the directive), similar to how legislative acts in the US generally leave it to the administration to enact the necessary regulations. Note that even there, some implementation measures may be subject to parliamentary approval via the examination procedure.
As far the the legislation goes again you are mixing the various types of legislation codified within EU law, Regulations and Directives can only come from the council, Decisions and Recommendations can only come from the commission, Opinions like well the old saying says can be made by all 3 bodies. For the most part outside of mostly formal proceeding the EUP only issues opinions nothing more, Directives are the most common issue of EU law as they leave room for member state to decide how to "interpret" and implement them, the only really binding EU law is Regulations which can only be adopted by the Council the EUP doesn't get to vote on it.
You need to understand that for the most part no one gives a flying fuck about the EUP what matters is the council the council is the one that represents the Governments of each of the member states they are the ones that make the decisions. The EUP is full of people who are non-electable in state level politics and no serious politician actually wants to get involved with the EUP there's no glory, no power, and no money in play there.
You can continue arguing about semantics but you need to understand that there's much more to politics than de-jure agency if you look at every political system in the world you'll find that often the majority of the power tends to fall into the hands of positions and bodies that might not or should not have power at all on paper, the US politics are a great example for it.
As far as the EU goes the only thing that matters in terms of de-facto policy is what the Governments of the member states want no some yahoos that got elected in elections that no one really cares about with 40% or some times less turn out, and the treaties that the EU is based on leave gaping holes to ensure that member states keep their sovereignty and agency because outside of a very few or well actually one state with so far suicidal social and political tendencies most member states still value their sovereignty over unity and considering the Euro-skepticism within most state level political systems these days it is not going to change any time soon.
Have a nice day.
P.S.
ai16 Special legislative procedures
Special legislative procedures replace the former consultative, cooperation and assent procedures. The objective is to simplify the EU’s decision-making process by making it clearer and more effective. As their name indicates, these procedures derogate from the ordinary legislative procedure and therefore constitute exceptions. In special legislative procedures, the Council of the EU is, in practice, the sole legislator. The European Parliament is simply associated with the procedure. Its role is thus limited to consultation or approval depending on the case. Unlike the ordinary legislative procedure, the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU does not give a precise description of special legislative procedures. The rules of special legislative procedures are therefore defined on an ad hoc basis by the Articles of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU that provide for their implementation.
And no there isn't much limit on the "special legislative procedure" for the most part the council can enact it at any point which is why even when the ordinary legislative procedure is used the role of the parliament is much more formal and official.
This is one of those many many loopholes I've talked about that pretty much allow the Governments of the member states to have full control over the union and not vice-versa. If you still want to argue, well have a nice day again!
Basically there are two ways of making the EU more democratic: Weakening it, or for the citizens of the member nations to explicitly allow their government to cede some degree of sovereignty to the EU Parliament to reduce the need for institutions like the Council by letting the EU Parliament subsume many of the duties.
I would point at our avowedly socialist NHS and disagree with you there.
We're a mixed capitalist/socialist country like pretty much everyone else.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_...
I'm a Scot and I do - and I'd rather see the UK part of it as well.
I want a democratic EU though - the current structures are undemocratic precisely because they have been designed to please national government rather than the people.