[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Vic Ferrari *
**
As far as I can tell, the main political bodies in the EU are the Parliament, the Commision, the Council, the Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors, is that right? **
I think you can leave the court of auditors out of the “main bodies”
How are the members of each of these bodies chosen?
The members of parliament are elected by the citizens. The number for each country is somewhat dependant on the population (but not directly…there aren’t three times more representants for a country which has three time more citizens, for instance)
The members of the commission are chosen by the Council and approved by the Parliament. Each of the commissioner is in charge of a particular topic (education, agriculture, etc…), like a minister. There is one commissioner for each country, except for the largest ones who have two commissioners.
The Council include one representant of the government of each state. He can be the head of state/government for important matters, the minister of, say agriculture when agriculture issues are debatted, etc…In other words, the council isn’t made of designated and permanent individual members. A council meeting will include different persons depending on the issue at hand.
And by the way, there’s a “presidency” of the Union, which is rotating each six months between the state members. So, one country represent the EU for this period, for instance during diplomatic negociations. However, this system becomes more and more cumbersome with a higher number of members, and somewhat weird when say, the Luxemburg, which doesn’t necessarily have the same means than Germany for instance presides the EU. This could dissapear in the future.
There’s also an individual in charge of the common foreign and security policy, who also act as a representant of the Union (a permanent one, this time).
As you can see, the system is cumbersome and definitely needs some cleaning. There’s currently a commision which is debating over the possible institutionnal reforms. It should make its proposals next year.
Actually, there are several kind of “laws”, ranging from mere recommandations to mandatory for all state members (with fines, etc…if they aren’t enacted). The process is complex with the text moving back and forth between the three bodies. But roughly, they’re initiated by the Cimmission, and must receive the agreement of both other bodies.
Honnestly, I don’t remember clearly, and I’m to lazy to check right now, so don’t take my word for it. As far as I remember, there’s no “automatic” review of the “laws” when they are passed, but the Court can state, when a particular case is is presented by say a citizen or a national court asking for an advice, whether or not a particular european “law” (or national law, for that matter) is in agreement with the treaties. There is no european constitution since it…hmmm…sounds a little supra-nationalist. However there are more and more voices calling for one, so it could happen in the near future.
The Commission and the Council would be a two-headed “executive”.
Because the EU is founded on treaties between sovereign nations. Important changes in the EU, like the institutionnal changes needed for the enlargment, or the enlargment itself, require a new treaty between these nations. The pending treaty of Rome, including these changes has been ratified by all members, except Ireland who will approve it (or not) by a referendum. If the “no” wins in Ireland, the situation will be problematic, and I suppose the EU will have to be very creative to find a way around. It’s a serious concern.
May I leave this one out? Especially since my answer wouldn’t be extremely accurate. Also, there’s no domain totally “controlled” by the EU. But for instance tariffs, trade and concurrence issues are essentially controlled by the EU, while taxes and social policy aren’t.
Well…It’s a difficult issue since there are very conflicting points of view. For instance some countries (the UK being the prime example) think the NATO works just fine, hence thinks European Defense should be subsidiary, and relying on NATO structures. Others (France being the prime example) think the European Defense should be fully independant and should exist beside NATO, and able to operate without it. Some countries (say, Ireland) are also traditionnally “neutral” and don’t like much the concept of an integrated european defense. So, there’s a long way to go, before an agreement can be reached. And even more time before it could be enacted.