I’m an American and most of what I know about the European Union comes from the media. I know it started out as a coal-and-steel tariff union, and now it appears to be something more than a confederacy but less than a state. Can anyone fill me in on the details? What powers and functions does the EU government actually have? How democratic is the EU? There is an elected Parliament – but how much power does it have relative to the executive bureaucracy? And how is that executive bureaucracy set up? Who chooses its top officials? What arguments do “Euroskeptics” bring to bear against the EU? What are they complaining about? Is there going to be a “constitutional convention” to draft an EU constitution? Will there ever be a “Euro-army” independent of NATO? Several former Communist Bloc countries have applied for EU membership – what about Russia itself? Is there a chance Russia will join someday?
So many questions!
The European Union has existence by virtue of a series of treaties between sovereign states. The Treaty of Rome was the founding treaty, and since then further agreements such as the Treaty of Maastricht, etc.
Each non-founding country (there were originally six, there are now 15 and will next year be 25) has to sign up to all the existing treaties and incorporate into its national law the rather large body of European Law that has come into being over the last 44 years.
Laws must be passed by a majority vote in the European Parliament, but they can only be originated by the European Commission. This puts the Commission in the role of an executive branch. Members of the Commission are nominated by the member states - small countries like Ireland “have” one commissioner, large countries like the UK have two. In theory, of course, the commissioner is not there to favour his own country but to run his “directorate-general” (environment, energy, competition, transport, etc.). Small countries are greatly over-represented at Commission level and somewhat over-represented in Parliament.
The European Union’s powers do not extend to taxation, which is a matter for each state. There is as yet no common foreign, defence or security policy. There is no European Army (but there is now a “Rapid Reaction Force”, and troops are being deployed (in Congo) under an EU flag for the first time this month)
There is in theory a principle of “subsidiarity” which means that everything should be decided at the lowest level appropriate, whether it be regional, national or Union.
There has just been a constitutional convention, at which a constitution was drafted last week.
There is no real chance that Russia could join the Union. It is too big and too unstable. Even now, a crisis in a small member state could break the Union - a military coup in Belgium would present the Union with exactly no options: there is no possibility for military intervention, and no provision to expel a member state. This is unlikely in Belgium, but extremely likely in say Turkey (where the military deposed the government in 1998) or Russia (ditto). This may be one reason why the US would like to see Turkey admitted - knowing that it would weaken or destroy the Union.
You lost me with that last bit, hibernicus. Why would the United States want to “weaken or destroy” the European Union?
BrainGlutton, I regretted posting that last remark within seconds of hitting “submit” - it is inappropriate for this forum and I withdraw it and apologise. I hope the factual information in the rest of the post makes up for it.
“Confederacy” doesn’t mean much…The US “confederate states” or Switzerland weren’t/aren’t “less than a state”.
There’s no “government”. There’s one hand the EU commission, which head the bureaucracy and is a proposition force, and the EU council (which include one representant from each state, either the head of state/head of government, either a minister, depending on the issues being discussed) which mostly has the final say.
The EU has an authority in some domains, for instance trade, concurrence, agriculture and none in others like social affairs, taxation, etc…The EU members try to achieve some common policies in more delicate issues, like foreign affairs, or immigration but it isn’t an easy task, and it’s not per se a power the EU has, though they might be some treaties, like say, the Schengen agreement which have been drafted in the EU frame but only signed by part of the members. Of course there’s also now, for 12 of the 15 members, a common currency and a central bank. The general idea is the principle of “subsidiarity” already mentionned. Everything should be decided at the lowest sensible level (landers/provinces, state, EU)
I would say it has much less power, on the overall than the “executive”, but it’s quite obvious that it’s gaining more and more. EU regulations, or laws, if you prefer, follow a complex path, but very roughly they are proposed by the commission and have to be approved by both the parliament and the council. Once they’re adopted, they become part of the legal system of each member state (I’m simplifying a lot, here).
The commissioners are chosen by the council and have to be approved by the parliament. It used to be a formality, but the parliament now takes its role much more seriously, and some years ago, following a scandal, dismissed the commissioners.
Such a convention just ended some days ago. But it made only proposals, and only time will tell what kind of constitution the EU will have, since many issues are strongly debated, and assuming it will have one, since many people aren’t very supportive of this concept. Currently, the EU is based on a set of treaties between the member states, not on a constitution.
There certainly will be an european army. The key issue is the “independant of NATO” part. The members are strongly divided on this issue. France being the main supporter of the “independant of NATO” camp, while the UK, at the contrary, would want this force to use the already existing NATO infrastructure, which would mean for instance that it would have to rely on the NATO command and control systems, hence couldn’t act indendently (or at least not against the will of the NATO).
It’s also an issue with the US, which is very supportive of the “european force” concept but is very strongly opposed to it being independant of NATO, for obvious reasons. Some countries (namely Belgium, France, Luxemburg and Germany) seem to be moving ahead on this issue instead of waiting for all the countries involved to agree on something.
Of course, it raises the issue of a common foreign policy (what would be the use of an european army without it), and as you might have noticed during the Irak war, there’s some widely different views inside amongst the EU countries.
Everything is possible, but Russia didn’t display the slightest interest in joining the EU (not that the EU members have displayed such an interest, anyway). There’s no hint that Russia will join in any foreseeable future. But then, things might change. “What should be the limits of the EU?” is actually in itself a serious issue. The most obvious example being Turkey, whose application has been delayed time and time again.
On the overall, the EU became more and more supranational during the 20-30 last years, though the adding of ten new members could slow down considerably the evolution. An example of that is the concept of having an actual president of the Union. This is a commonly debatted topic today, while it would have been unthinkable 20 years ago.
Actually, reforming the EU became a vital necessity since the way things are now, it’s way too easy for an individual member to block a decision, and there’s essentially always someone opposed to any thing which can be proposed. This reform is the hottest current issue in the EU. If it can’t be achieved, most probably there will be a “two speeds” EU, with some countries signing treaties creating more stringent ties while some other countries will stay member of a “looser” EU.
By the way, anout the “democratic” part. Originally, one of the reasons why the EU wasn’t too democratic (not necessarily the main one, but still) was to avoid to give it too much legitimacy. For instance, an elected president, whatever could be his powers or lack thereof, could be perceived as having at least as much, and arguably more, legitimacy than the head of government/state of one of the member countries. Originally, people opposed to the EU supranationalism didn’t want it to be a democratic instance. Now, people opposed to this supranationalist concept complain about the lack of democracy (note that they aren’t necessarily the same people).
Personnally, I think the EU is quite democratic. The parliament is elected directly by the people, and can vote down EU “laws”, vote the budget, can dismiss the commission, etc…The council is made of the democratically elected representants of each state. And the commission’s members are chosen and approved by the two former instances. It does look quite democratic to me. There’s even a court of justice (not to be mistaken with the European Court for Human Rights, which is sometimes criticized by the anti-EU crowd, though it has nothing to do altogether with the EU).
But then, I’m a supranationalist, hence very biased.
I would say that nobody knows where the EU is heading exactly. Only time will tell.
I always like clairobscur’s contributions. There is also an EU Guide for Americans at http://www.eurunion.org/infores/euguide/euguide.htm
Noteworthy to me is:
“May 1, 2004 – Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Slovenia become EU member states.”
Reasons why the US doesn’t like the EU: For the first time, there is now a trading bloc with both the size and stability to rival the US. Reasons why the US likes it- less worrying to do about friendly states in Europe fighting each other, and more time to worry about, say, North Korea.
One major issue for the “Euroskeptics” is the fact that the member states have given up some measure of autonomy and sovereignty to the whole.
For example, the European Charter onHuman Rights supersedes all national law in member states. Britain had its ban on gays in the military struck down a couple years ago, because it contravened the Human Rights charter. The issue was decided in a British court, by a British judge, but nevertheless, to many skeptics, particularly Americans (who invariably find any suggestion of a country giving up its sovereignty unless it harbors terrorists or isn’t as democratic as it ought to be) this is an erosion of the sacrosanct principle of sovereignty.
The other major issue is that the EU requires a reeeeeally big bureaucracy. Several commissioners in Brussels have entirely contradictory jobs- particularly in the case of farm subsidies, where one may be paying a farmer to sell his crop cheaply to keep prices down, and the guy in the next office is paying another farmer to destroy the same crop to keep prices up.
Finally , there is the globalization argument: like the World Bank and the IMF, the European Central Bank arrangement tends to promote growth at the expense of citizens.
With all that being said, however, it should be pointed out that many, if not most, international relations and organizations experts suggest that the days of the nation state are numbered, just like the city states that came before. Who knows… by 2200, people may call themselves citizens of NAFTA, the EU, Mercosur… maybe even the Gulf Cooperation Council. Food for thought eh?
dutchboy208: are you refering to the Rome Treaty aka the European Convention on Human Rights? Or do you mean the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights? It does make a large difference: while states should conform to the ECHR, it need not be directly applicable in member states. EU law, on the other hand, if sufficiently specific* is directly applicable (and supersedes) national law.
The ECHR is completely independent of the EU. It has its own court in Strasbourg. The European Community’s Court of Justice resides in Luxembourg.
The Charter, on the other hand, is part of EU law. The EU is currently working on a European Constitution which can fulfill a role similar to the ECHR, but it isn’t there yet. Art. 6.2 EU-Treaty does state that the EU will respect the ECHR, but that doesn’t mean that EU law completely supersedes the ECHR.
- I won’t go into the details, which are not relevant in this context.
There’s no need for us to feel threatened by such an entity. The creation of the EU adds no new consumers, it merely re-brands those already in existence and extends trade regulations across national boundries, much like NAFTA.
In theory, a single European government would make it easier for Washington to negotiate trade and diplomatic agreements than the myriad of European governments that have been in place. Most of us would welcome a single European authority with which to partner.
In practice, though, what we have now is another layer of government with its own set of unique interests that we have to fold into these discussions. Someday it may be easier for us to deal with a united Europe but that day is unfortunately not here yet.
Not actually true - the EU employs less people than a medium sized town would. The European Commission has about 20 000 staff in total. For comparison Luxembourg, the smallest Member State, has 60 000 people working in “Public administration and defence, compulsory social security; education; health and social work; other community, social and personal service activities”
an erosion of the sacrosanct principle of sovereignty
A fairly paradoxical issue: in the UK at least, many people dislike the erosion of national sovereignty, even though EU law is often a vehicle for their obtaining more rights - for instance, in the region of employment - than the UK government would have given.
Mangoldm – I think when discussing US/EU attitudes, one should be careful with using words like ‘we’ or ‘the US’, as if the interests of everyone in the US were the same.
For instance, ol’ G.W. has an interest in seeing a weak and divided EU because it leaves him as the biggest dog on the block, as opposed to having a strong president of the EU, who would be equal in power and respect to G.W.
Now a member of a labor union would quite likely see G.W. having less power as a good thing. [I tend to think this would be true of a Democratic president as well]
For many businesses, a strong EU is a good thing for eliminating lots of different country standards a product has to meet, making it simpler to export to Europe. On the other hand, large corporations that do significant lobbying of governments (e.g. telecomm, or currently anyone with significant intellectual property) might prefer a bunch of smaller, easier-to-push-around governments.
Obviously, you could come up with a bunch more examples. Just wanted to point out that what’s good for you and me might not always correspond to what’s good for someone else in the U.S.
Really? I thought things were actually going the other way, with the EU being the exception. It seems that in the last few decades quite a few nation states have broken up into seperate states, or had citizens seceed from them and form their own. It seems unlikely to me that any more EU type organisations will form in the future, and that the majority of nation states will be in organisations explicitly for either trade or security.
Reading your post, I’m guessing you’re actually refering to the European Court of Human Rights, which, as I wrote above, is totally unrelated to the EU and was created by the Council of Europe, a completely different institution, including completely different countries (Russia, for instance). The european court of justice doesn’t make rulings about human rights, but about EU regulations related issues.
For instance, if a given government doesn’t want people from other EU countries to become teachers, the case might come to the (EU) european court of justice, since such a decision would contradict the EU treaties which allow people to freely move within the EU and take any job they want (except for really sensitive positions). On the other hand, if the said governement doesn’t want gays to become teachers, this issue will come to the (non-EU) ECHR since it would contradict the treaties about human rights (that nobody was forced to ratify in the first place, by the way) set up by the Council of Europe.
And once again, there’s no relation at all between the Council of Europe and the European Union. One could as well say that he’s opposed to the EU because he doesn’t like the way the UN work or is opposed to the recently created international criminal court. It would make as much sense.
I regard this as the “back stretch” of the process. Minority enclaves must gain their independance from the states that have been dominating them and get on their feet before joining the nascent regional federation as equal partners.
It appears that Africa is heading in that direction.
Sorry… I did mean the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Squeels did a rather nice job of explaining why states appear to be disintegrating rather than coming together at the moment…
Take Ireland for example. Although the Irish spent several hundred years trying to get rid of British rule, Eire is now a member of the EU, and thus, somewhat ruled by Britain (although no more than Britain is ruled by it).
The large states that are breaking up are doing so because they were formed by conquest, or in some cases, through shared ideological government systems. Now that they are essentially free to secede, and communism has collapsed in Europe, these states are clamoring for independence. However, the tendency is that once they get this independence, they will seek close ties and possibly pool their sovereignty with other states- the difference is they may now do so on their own terms. Does that make more sense?