[ January 25, 2005, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: scottneb ]
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Makes sense to me.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I'm thinking we're more likely to see the Antichrist in the newest American sitcom lineup than in the European Union.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I wouldn't exactly call Brussels a bustling metropolis of the modern world . . . well I suppose the guy could relocate the capital . . .
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, there's also that there's not exactly any one person in charge of the EU. The representative to the outside world is a part of the most purely legislative branch -- which doesn't even have the power to initiate legislation. And he changes every 6 months.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
And I feel fine.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Mack:
That song has been going through my head ever since this thread popped up.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
fugu, it seems to me that the powers given to this "President" are far too weak for the person to get anything done. On the other hand, it's hard to say how much power is enough. I can see the extremely difficult decision they have of determining exactly how much power that person has.
I think the position is too much for one person, even if they change him out every six months.
[ January 25, 2005, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: scottneb ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
United States of Europe...USE... Hmmm...Good acronym.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That's the thing, he's not a President. The EU is not an attempt to replicate the United States or create a new nation.
And they do manage to get plenty done, within the limited spheres of influence that are involved. In many ways its Confederalism done right.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and that one person is just the rep to the outside world. The actual leadership position is held by a country, which affiliates (though often not direct representatives) fill the leadership spots on many of the EU institutions.
The idea that one needs a single person mostly in charge to get things done is a bit of sillyness left over from monarchism.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
So, what position (if any) does the Prime Minister of the head country hold in this USE?
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Takes a Captain Kirk reflective pose a la ST:V
Is the anti-Christ really out there?
Maybe he's not out there, Bones... maybe he's right here... in the human heart.
[ January 25, 2005, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The head of government of the current chairing member state heads the European Council, which sets the general direction of the EU, generally by consensus. He is not the head of the EU (or its representative to the outside world, so to speak).
The person who represents the EU to the outside world is the Foreign Minister of the current chairing member state, who sits at the head of the General Affairs council of the Council of Ministers, which is the primary legislative body, must approve most legislation, and cannot initiate legislation. He is sometimes called the European President, President of the EU, or similar.
The person most like our President is the President of the European Commission, which is the primary executive branch of the EU as well as initiating almost all legislative and budgetary proposals. This body is, however, considered third in power under the European Council and the Council of Ministers, at least insofar as its ability to shape the overall policy of the EU. However, the President of the Commission is appointed by the European Council and must be approved by the European Parliament, which is a popularly elected body with some legislative and much larger budgetary powers.
You see, instead of trying to fashion roles for the different branches and then creating a system of checks and balances based on those roles, the idea is to separate the roles (in the EU).
Some illustrations:
The Council of Ministers has the greatest power to approve legislation, but it cannot propose it.
The European Parliament has the greatest power to adjust the budget, but it cannot create line items without legal basis from the European Commission.
The European Commission governs the implementation of treaties, policies, and laws, and proposes many of them, but it cannot approve anything beyond the trivial.
The European Commission does not have the staff or the authority to directly implement things in the member states, it must instead work with the member states so they implement policies.
The European Council gets to set the direction of the EU, but it has no EU wide legislative or executive power, everything ultimately needing to be approved by the other agencies. Its power is almost purely political (though of course the various government leaders who meet for it can and do make informal agreements which they then push for in their own countries).
Those're just a few examples, but you get the idea. We haven't even talked about the judicial system yet.
Oh, and congratulations. You now know more about the EU than most citizens (edit: of the EU, that is, much less US citizens).
[ January 25, 2005, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
fugu has been learning.
As an aside, Brussels is the ugliest city I've ever been to.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, another thing the EU did right is institutionalizing a lot of the support structure for the various officials.
In the US, the lack of an institutionalized support structure created a vacuum which was filled by homogenizing political parties. The institutionalized support structure in the EU under most of the institutions has effectively prevented political parties from taking over much of the policy making power. The only institution political parties could really be considered important in, the European Parliament, is largely inconsequential as far as policy making and the general course of the EU.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
I knew all this back in July.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
BTW, what do you think of the impacts of the increasing specialization of the COREPERs on cross-policy area negotiation, Kama?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
If the US is allowed to be powerful, how come it's such a shock that the EU wants to try and make itself into a more lumpified place?
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
The EU equating to the end of the world? Naah, I'd be more inclined to say that Bill Gates is the antichrist. It's no coincidence that the next version of Windows is codenamed "Longhorn." He's got a few poking out of his head.
Maybe he has horn envy, thus the name. Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
My knowledge ends on what COREPER is. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
COREPER is particularly fun in that it/they both is and are. The term is used for the collective entity and for all the sub entities (similarly to how the council of ministers is used to refer to the group as a whole and to each of the councils that actually meet). Wonder if it has something to do with all those funky european languages .
In this case, I'm speaking about how several of the councils of ministers (General Affairs, EcoFin, Environmental, Agricultural, et cetera) are now acquiring their own COREPERs instead of just COREPER II and I. COREPER II and I are the only areas where cross policy area meetings are held, and as more and more of the decision making gets moved into more specialized COREPERs, I think cross policy area decisions will decrease.
This may not mean much, as cross policy area decisions in the CoM are relatively infrequent anyways, but it may be interesting to look into.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
Hey! Bill Gates paid for most of my education!
Does that mean I'm one of his minions?
:checks head for newly grown horns: Nope, still only got the one pair, from joining the Mormons back in '01. Whew.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
So, what system is used to elect officials into these positions? Does the head state elect or does the entire EU citizenship elect their officials?
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
By the way, this is very enlightening for me, fugu.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
/tangent/ Hey scott, have you gotten a new Care Bear for the little whippersnapper? I've been tempted to buy him a new one of the same variety a couple of times, but not sure if I can dig your address out of my e-mail archives or if it is still the same.
AJ
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Banna, yes we've gotten him a few. But none like the one you saw. And, yes our address is the same. Let me know if you want me to send it to you again.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lets see . . .
European Parliament: general election in each european state.
European Council: heads of government, so elected in state by whatever mechanisms are used.
Council of Ministers: ministers of the various states, so appointed or elected as in those states (typically appointed).
European Commissioners: President nominated by European Council, approved by Parliament. President selects other Commissioners (though largely this is decided by nominations from the member states), which the Parliament must then approve for them to take office. Commissioners are not intended to represent member states, though they are allocated based on nationality. They are intended to proceed in the best interests of the EU. This has largely worked in practice, though the Commissioners do often function so as to alert the rest of the Commissioners to what is important to their particular state.
That about covers everything except the judicial system.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its important to note that while the heads of government often have some recall power over their ministers in the CoM, that recall power is almost never exercised for political reasons. Instead, the ministers generally feel free to ignore the wishes of the heads of government if they feel it is really important to do so.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and I should emphasize that the ministers in the CoM are not separately appointed ministers, they are the ministers for that country. The Foreign Minister of the country serves on the general affairs council, the Finance Minister serves on EcoFin (as its called), the Agriculture Minister serves on the Agriculture Council, et cetera (well, its actually more complex than that, but you get the idea).
Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
How nice to find links to my newspaper site from the forum of my favorite author. It reminded me of this forum at a time when I've been busy with other things for far too long.
[ January 25, 2005, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: kfander ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, why are you paying money for the incoherent, apocalyptic ramblings of this J. Grant Swank guy? I'll work for half what you pay him, and I'll be more coherent. I promise.
[ January 26, 2005, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*predicts he pays the paper to publish his stuff*
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Anyone else find it ironic that the piece is in a newspaper called the "Morning Star" as in, Lucifer, the Morning Star?
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Thanks for the explanation fugu. So does wishing our federal government was this simple make me a conservative, a libertarian, or a traitor?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Heh, European "Confederalism" is actually significantly more complex than the US federal government, at least at the level of explanation I'm giving. For instance, here's an explanation of the US federal government at this level:
The two branches of congress must approve legislation, which the president may veto, but that veto may be overridden with a 2/3 majority. They possess the sole powers of initiation of legislation.
The President holds the executive power, under him there being a cabinet which consists of "ministers" who supervise the various executive departments.
As allowed under Congress, the President may perform certain actions by executive order. This occurs with greater and greater frequency, though many executive orders have been for decades arguably unconstitutional.
Under the President (mostly) there exists a huge bureaucracy which deals with the details and enforcement of most legislation. Some of this bureaucracy is subject to the authority of cabinet members, some of it is subject to the authority of the president, and some of it isn't particularly subject to any authority but the legislative, which usually ignores the bureaucrats.
However, I would say that I would strongly prefer a more EU style government at a federal level than the one we have today. For one thing, the EU has managed to effectively separate the "detail legislation" from the "policy legislation", which means that the people making legislative decisions can actually read the bills in question. The detail legislation is handled by the executive organization, which is effectively subdued by a combination of the legislative branches (the European Parliament, for instance, can dismiss the Commission outright) and the Judicial branch (the European Court of Justice routinely rules on such things as whether or not an act of detail legislation violated the (binding) policy legislation).
Plus, the states involved in the EU have, on many decisions, the ability to choose not to follow the decision.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
To answer your question more directly, it would make you a person who favors a weaker, but more thoughtful, national government with particularly little ability to intervene socially though more to intervene economically, which is more accountable to the states directly, but where the popularly elected body has significant supervisory power (such as to dismiss the executive).
On the whole, I'd say it fits in very well with the conservative philosophy, particularly compared to how our current national government works.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
So what about you? I was just starting to read the interstate commerce stuff on the conservatives thread, which was honestly news to me. Though it makes sense now that I think about it. But I was kind of warped because I grew up in the beltway. When I think of "The Government" I think of the federal government.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, I'm definitely in favor of such a change.
Actually, I may get such a change by moving to Europe at some point; while I'm proud of the US and my citizenship in it, I don't really believe in my place of birth requiring me to live here until I die. I know I can also be proud of things that Europe accomplishes.
Posted by kfander (Member # 3737) on :
Tom, you'd have a hard time working for half of what I pay Grant Swank since I don't pay him anything.
This says nothing about his worthiness, however. Since we use a volunteer staff, we don't pay anyone anything.
Still, we have published authors, congressman and senators at the state and federal level, as well as town councilors, pastors, businessmen, and others interested in promoting their faith or cause, selling their book, seeking votes, influencing or entertaining the public.
Since the Grant Swank article that spawned this thread was published, it has seen more than 800 page views per day. Al Jazeera even linked to it.
Do I always agree with Grant Swank? Certainly not, but I often do. That doesn't matter, however. People read his stuff; many love it, while others love to complain about it.
We publish things that people read. We get the traffic, and our writers get exposure.
I am a conservative Christian. While I am the chairman of the Republican Caucus in my town, I voted for only one Republican in the last election, and he wasn't running for reelection to the presidency. I voted for no Democrats.
But I want my writers to feel free to express their own opinions, not mine.
>>Anyone else find it ironic that the piece is in a newspaper called the "Morning Star" as in, Lucifer, the Morning Star?
Actually, Jesus is referred to as the Morning Star in the New Testament. The most-quoted of these is Revelation 22:16.
“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you [ The Greek is plural.] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
But . . . according to my family, I am the Anti-Christ, so it just doesn't make sense to me.
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
United States of Europe ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)