Huh? About 70-80% of national legislation is drafted in Brussels these days, and (almost) all that goes through the EP. How much more meaningful do you want it to get?
taxation would do it.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 668
Huh? About 70-80% of national legislation is drafted in Brussels these days, and (almost) all that goes through the EP. How much more meaningful do you want it to get?
I'll let PJ answer that, but I suspect the answer is "not all that much" Your conflict between state and national interest is similar to the growing pains of the EU though.
Interesting. Thanks for the overview, guys. I think ignorance is always a vice, and no harm comes from knowing more. Even if the EU's most important action is deciding what flavor of ice cream will be the official flavor of Europe, it's still interesting to know about.
What are the odds of a ground-up redesign such as you are talking about? Is it one-in-a-million, barring some sort of weird unexpected event making everyone panic?
Some of the problems you outline remind me of my issues with the U.S. Senate, too, which I find odd.
I'm certainly not qualified for in-depth discussion of Euro politics, but taking a simplistic view from the outside: A comment like this tells me you've managed to get a UN-esque tyranny of the minority. Too many heads in the room with too many divergent agendas. Y'all really like that structure, though. Unlike our system of running full steam down the path and then 4-8 years later running full steam the opposite direction, y'all like to set the deck so nothing gets done beyond talking. Not really making a judgment on which system is better--both have their plusses and minuses.And, of course, any attempt to reform the system gets blocked because there will always be at least one country out of 27 that's against it. It's a muddle.
This was a very special election for me as it was the first one I got to vote in, I was a few months too young in our latest national election.
I think the media here did a good job of really trying to explain how the union works and what the Parliament does even if it was very low intensity campaign until the last two weeks or so. That people still complain about it all being obscure and without real consequences is just lazy talk IMO. It's sad that not even half of us exercise a privilege which in my case took less that 10 minutes in summer heat and dazzling sun when I voted early some time ago.
I'm pretty interested and knowledgeable regarding Swedish politics but I gambled a bit and went for the Pirate Party. I'd describe them more as a "cluster-issue" party and their stance on mainly personal integrity but also copyright reform really matters to me. Hopefully they won't make fools of themselves (and me) once in Parliament.
I'm certainly not qualified for in-depth discussion of Euro politics, but taking a simplistic view from the outside: A comment like this tells me you've managed to get a UN-esque tyranny of the minority.
Too many heads in the room with too many divergent agendas. Y'all really like that structure, though.
Unlike our system of running full steam down the path and then 4-8 years later running full steam the opposite direction, y'all like to set the deck so nothing gets done beyond talking. Not really making a judgment on which system is better--both have their plusses and minuses.
I'm certainly not qualified for in-depth discussion of Euro politics, but taking a simplistic view from the outside: A comment like this tells me you've managed to get a UN-esque tyranny of the minority. Too many heads in the room with too many divergent agendas. Y'all really like that structure, though. Unlike our system of running full steam down the path and then 4-8 years later running full steam the opposite direction, y'all like to set the deck so nothing gets done beyond talking. Not really making a judgment on which system is better--both have their plusses and minuses.
I believe we could (and should) do a lot better than either, though, and IMO many European countries do function better at the national level than the US at the state or federal levels.
Hrm. Well, hope that happens, then.A bit better than that IMO. There's a possibility that the Lisbon treaty will pass, which will strengthen and simplify the EU legislative process somewhat; in particular, it'll make it easier to reform the system from within, without going for a plebiscite in Malta about every single item on the list. I kinda doubt there'll be a wholesale reorganization any time soon, but if things go well, there might be gradual evolution in small steps to the same effect.
I hope that happens. I think a unified Europe would greatly benefit not only Europe but the world in general. I think it'd also help to balance out China if they become what America was in the last half of the 20th century/beginning of this one.You can't hurry these things, though. Europe will only be ready for genuine transnational democracy when there is a genuinely transnational European identity. I believe such an identity is emerging, but it'll take easily decades for it to crystallize enough to be reflected in political structures.
Makes sense. I hope any change you guys make to the system makes it more democratic and responsive to the people. That is one of my problems with the U.S. Senate, by the way - my senior thesis argued that it should be apportioned according to population instead of a two-per-state basis.There are similarities; some are simply due to the inherent difficulties in governing political units this big. One shared problem is that both political organizations have made it extremely difficult to modify the foundational structures -- it's virtually impossible (in practice) to amend the American Constitution, so you have to keep coming up with all kinds of devious ways to get around it; the basic EU treaties are even more in need of reform, and the obstacle is the same -- every state needs to approve the changes separately.
Makes sense. I hope any change you guys make to the system makes it more democratic and responsive to the people. That is one of my problems with the U.S. Senate, by the way - my senior thesis argued that it should be apportioned according to population instead of a two-per-state basis.
Interesting intellectual exercise, but wouldnt that practically give you a unicameral system, and is the US homogenous enough for that to work?
I've been pondering over the problem since forever and to me it seems like only the extremes "state - one vote" or "no upper house at all" make sense, and if one has an upper house it should have fairly restricted powers (maybe mostly suspensive).
Anyways, don't mean to derail the thread on the EU. Sorry!
True enough!NP, knowledge doesnt hurt, and I think it is a relevant tangent compared to some of the stuffs we see on the forum.
I just get the impression that your new senate would end up with the representation that the house should have had in the first place! That's why I thought you'd get a functionally unicameral system (if the two chambers have the same distribution of seat they'll be likely to produce fairly similar voting patterns). And then you'd end up with an elaborate system that lets the city screw the farm every time
So my question is how do you implement that senate in a way that doesnt end up with a second house? I assume the states have done so since the old setup was deemed unconstitutional
I consider the spending issue as part of the democracy issue, to be honest. The main argument against reforming the Senate (other then the fact it'll never happen) is because it "balances out" with the House - the spending issue proves that it doesn't, from what I researched.And while flawed and possibly an effect of the setup I think the spending distribution is a separate (and less interesting) issue from the democracy argument.
I consider the spending issue as part of the democracy issue, to be honest. The main argument against reforming the Senate (other then the fact it'll never happen) is because it "balances out" with the House - the spending issue proves that it doesn't, from what I researched.