EU Commissioner Will Simply Ignore Any Rejection Of ACTA By EU Parliament

What's the best channel by which to call for that action?

- No constitution right from the beginning.

- Executive can overrule legislative (and even judicative?)

- Legislative can hold up executive meetings (??)

While it is possible that he wants to try to weasel a procedural end-run around rejections, what he's actually said does not provide any basis for jumping to that conclusion.

E.g. under the UK constitution (yes, the UK has a constitution, it is just not codified in a single act) the UK Parliament is sovereign, to the extent that it can not even bind future parliaments.

So without tricky constitutional changes (particularly tricky because parliament has pretty much "bootstrapped" its own constitutional powers in the UK into a position were giving them away again will need to be very carefully structured to stand up in court) it is pretty much impossible to grant the EU parliament any real power.

This is part of why the current structure of the EU uses a web of treaties to bind the executives of the member states in various to seek the passage of local laws to implement EU directives, with convoluted measures to cajole the national legislatives to follow through. It's still not ironclad - plenty of directives languish in national parliaments for years before being implemented (or get implemented with inconsistent differences in different member countries) exactly because the EU has very few means to push it through - but it's a far stronger method than trying to tie the national parliaments with no constitutional support.

Switzerland is a confederation in name and by tradition only, but has had all the features of a federation since 1848.

After civil war in 1847, the new constitution was drawn up expressly to create a federal central government to replace the weak old con-federate governments, and to have the cantons cede some of their sovereignty to it, in the same was the US Constitution had the states cede sovereignty in certain areas - the Swiss constitution of 1848 was to a large extent influenced by the US Constitution.

The current constitutions official name even translates to the Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation.

If the legislative power were transferred away from the commission to the parliament (where it should be, if EU governance were to follow the standard approach for separation of powers), the individual member states would lose a lot of control. Control they aren't at all interested in relinquishing, as you may imagine.

And that's before even considering making the executive branch (the commission) directly elected.

The latest to win seats in parliament is the Greek Golden Dawn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn_(Greece)

I know of openly fascist Golden Dawn party from Greece. And I think there are Tricolour Flame, New Force and National Social Front in Italy.

There are also plenty of horrible evil parties with a similar agenda (but not identifying as right-wing or fascist) growing like mushrooms all over rest of the Europian continent.

Then you couldn't have looked too hard. The NPD is present in 2 German Landtage, and most European countries come with their own flavour of right-wing nuts.

Then there is Germany, which has an even more right wing movement called NPD. They clearly position themselves as far-right. They are mostly a party for skinheads/neo-nazi and don't really attract others. This party is considered too radical by most Germans and by all other parties.

Still nothing compared with what's going on Hungary. The problem there is that their nationalist party actually has power and in the recent years they killed off a lot of democratic elements, like the free press.

I know that there also is a nationalist, populist party in Switzerland, but I know nothing about it.

Also there are a few nationalist movements going on in a number of northern Europe countries, like Belgium and in countries where it has reason in more recent history, like Serbia.

It however seems to be a global problem. The US have always been very nationalist and a bit fascist, as you can see by flags everywhere and how important military is there. But it's way harder to distinguish them there, because there is these huge republican party which has the very extreme people, but also very, very liberal ones. Hard to tell whether that's good or bad. Well, you now have stuff like the tea party movement, which can be to compared not with the real nazi-like parties, but at least with the conservative, nationalist populist parties, often using religious symbols. From what I get I think they are really similar to the Austrian FPÖ.

But also Russia and virtually every country has such movements. On one side they have to be there in a democratic society and it's better if they create parties than doing other stuff, but on the other hand it's really bad when they become so big.

Demonstrably false. There are many decent parties whose position is "we want to stay in the EU, but a completely reformed and much better EU". People unsatisfied with current EU politics could vote them.

Most of the votes for neo-fascist parties are votes that come from fear (of other cultures or of losing money/job) or ignorance (as in "poor education"). Checkout the journal article "The Support Base of Radical Right Parties in the Enlarged European Union" [1] that analyses the demographics of the voters of neo-fascist parties in current EU.

[1] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07036330903145930

Errr..... History proves you wrong. Fascism was at the zenith of it's power when there was no EU. The danger is if the EU disappears, the fascists will come up with some other boggyman and get more powerful… Like last time…

The is almost no need for a waterhead burocracy in brussel.

There are several other treaties but these are the three most significant.

In other words, they are simultaneously the EU's constitution and they are the instruments keeping those trade & migration barriers down. So one cannot have one without the other. Instead a whole new set of treaties & governing organisations would have to be negotiated from scratch.

This is unlikely in the current, fragmented European political puzzle.

And even if they could be, well, the funny thing is, because of the nature of human specialisation, their details would be negotiated by the same diplocrats running the current system. I leave it to your imagination what the result of that will be.