NationStates Jolt Archive

If the European Union (EU) is to exist as a legal entity (state), what shape should it take?

If you do not believe the EU should exist as a legal entity, please do not post here. This is for the consideration of what the EU should, hypothetically, look like.

For the purposes of this thread, please abide by the following definitions:
• Commonwealth - a nation, state, or other political entity founded on law and united by a compact of the people for the common good.
• Confederacy (Confederation) - a union by compact or treaty between states, provinces, or territories, that creates a central government with limited powers; the constituent entities retain supreme authority over all matters except those delegated to the central government.
• Constitutional - a government by or operating under an authoritative document (constitution) that sets forth the system of fundamental laws and principles that determines the nature, functions, and limits of that government.
• Democracy - a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed.
• Federal (Federative) - a form of government in which sovereign power is formally divided - usually by means of a constitution - between a central authority and a number of constituent regions (states, colonies, or provinces) so that each region retains some management of its internal affairs; differs from a confederacy in that the central government exerts influence directly upon both individuals as well as upon the regional units.
• Parliamentary Government (Cabinet-Parliamentary Government) - a government in which members of an executive branch (the cabinet and its leader - a prime minister, premier, or chancellor) are nominated to their positions by a legislature or parliament, and are directly responsible to it; this type of government can be dissolved at will by the parliament (legislature) by means of a no confidence vote or the leader of the cabinet may dissolve the parliament if it can no longer function.
• Parliamentary Democracy - a political system in which the legislature (parliament) selects the government - a prime minister, premier, or chancellor along with the cabinet ministers - according to party strength as expressed in elections; by this system, the government acquires a dual responsibility: to the people as well as to the parliament.
• Republic - a representative democracy in which the people's elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation.

Examples of compounds of the above definitions:
• Constitutional Democracy - a form of government in which the sovereign power of the people is spelled out in a governing constitution.
• Democratic Republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
• Federal Republic - a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives.

Absolutist Monarchy!
...
...
...
... what?

Confederacy.

Sorry, a little confused about the original question. If you can clear something up for me I'll have a think about this.

You say if the EU is to exist as a legal entity. It already does exist as a legal entity - constructed through a series of intergovernmental treaties that stretch back to the European Coal and Steel Community after the second world war, via the EEC etc. Are you asking what form it should take if it is to continue to exist as a legal entity

Plus I dont think think legal entity = state

I know that isn't true, but can't be bothered with the complication of defining exactly what is an is not a legal entity, what is and is not a state etc.

For the purposes of this discussion; the EU does not currently exist as a legal entity whereas the new EU constitution creates a legal entity.

If Europe is going to be a state, what should it be like?

costitutional parlamentary democracy.

Fundamental religouse theocracy. :D
Or a confederacy.

I support a strong, Federal Europe.

Or a Startrek kinda

Federation (http://web.ukonline.co.uk/alternatereality/federation.htm)

Confederacy

costitutional parlamentary democracy.

that same

Confederacy.
Should have taken a poll.

dalradia open a poll, i am curious to see what people says.

Does that suit? Anyone got a better way of running the poll?

i voted Constitutional Parliamentary Democractic Federal Confederacy Republic Commonwealth

I really voted Confederacy

I'd like to see a democratic constitutional confederacy. Power to the people, with a legal document guarentee their rights, and keep the power at the lowest level, so most decisions are made by the nations, while a central government is established for those things taht can't be dealt with on a national level.

Examples: organised trans-national crime, environmental issues, and some defencea and foreign policy.

Agriculture can get right out of there, that shouldn't be an authority given to the central government.

Well... I myself believe in the future of a Federal Europe, and as a European Liberal I really think LYMEC (www.lymec.org) (European Liberal Youth) all summarised it nicely for me. I've looked up the section of their Manifesto (http://www.lymec.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=PN_Content&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=25) dealing exactly with this item. This is also sorta how I envision it.


5.4 A Democratic and Federal Europe

The future of the European Union is a federal system. LYMEC believes in an united Europe based on a federal system where the principle of subsidiarity is respected so that the decisions are made as closely as possible to the citizen, at local, regional or national levels, unless the common interest can be proved to be better served by a decision at European level.

A constitution creating a European federation should follow the existing Treaty of the European Union. However, European unity can only be achieved with the support of the citizens of Europe. Therefore, the citizens of the member states should be allowed and encouraged to participate in a thorough debate on the future of the European Union setting up the proposal for a constitution.

LYMEC supports a federal European political system based on the two-chamber system. The first chamber represents the citizens of the Union and will be the European Parliament. The second chamber represents the member states and will be the Council of Ministers. In the Council of Ministers each member state should have one vote. The European Union is a union of the inhabitants of the member states and of the member states themselves. The structure would mean that European legislation should have a majority among the inhabitants (Parliament) and member states (Council). The European Commission will be the government of the Union. The chairman of the commission should be elected by the parliament. The elected chairman should then suggest that the Commission and the European Parliament should approve on each commissioner and the Commission as such. The number of commissioners should reflect the number of key policy areas of the European Union, not more, not less. The current system with at least one commissioner for each member state is not sustainable in an enlarged European Union.

The number of members of the European Parliament from each country should be proportional to the number of inhabitants. No single country should be allowed to block the decision-making process in the two chambers. Members of the European Parliament should be elected on the basis of a common European electoral code, based on the principle of proportional representation.

For us as Liberal minded people the individual citizens are far more important than states. Therefore we want the European Parliament to be the major force in the European Union.

The competence of the European Parliament should be increased to have the right of initiative and to amend, approve and disapprove every law. The European Parliament should have the right to amend and approve the full budget. The European Commission proposes the budget. The competencies of the second chamber should be to have the right to approve and disapprove every law, including the budget.

The powers of the political institutions should be restricted by the fact that those institutions must show that the common interest is better served by a decision at European level rather than at national, regional or local level. The constitutional court must guarantee the division of powers according to the principle of subsidarity. The European Union must ensure that its legislation is implemented and enforced in all the member states. Member states that do not sufficiently enforce Union law must be tried before the European Court of Justice. Such European laws imply that any citizen should be able to apply to the court of Justice in his/her state.

The European Union decision-making process including documents held by the European Union institutions must be open to the largest possible extent to all European citizens. Modern information and communication technology must be used to make the EU more open and transparent.

Does that suit? Anyone got a better way of running the poll?

i think it's better if u use plausible options (costitutionary alone seems pointless to me, for example), and let everyone to choose only one of them.

cheers

I've chosen a combination of the abovementioned you know. Read the manifesto. Federalism, a constitution and parliamentary democracy are not mutually exclusive. However I would scrap things like "republic" because they are remarkably vague and overlapping with other concepts. But hey, its not my polls.

And meh. I should go and write my RP posts.

Out of all of them a confederacy sounds the best as it would allow decisions to be taken as close to the ordinary citizen as possible. But I'd never want to see a single European state anyway.

Out of all of them a confederacy sounds the best as it would allow decisions to be taken as close to the ordinary citizen as possible. But I'd never want to see a single European state anyway.

Actually a confederacy is not a guarantee that the ordinary citizen has as much as possible to do with the decision-making since "joint" decisions are made my states and not be a representative body of citizens. At least, that is my understanding of it.

The principle of subsidiarity (that decisions are taken at the lowest possible level) does not neccecerily require a conferderacy. It is a principle, rather then something that can be captured in the institutional set-up since even confederacies can "set apart" certain policy areas that are common. Just look at how the US government (not a confederacy, but still) has grown over time from "tiny" to "omnipresent". The EU as it works now is an organisation of states only and look how its grown.

Instead of reducing the democratic legitimisation of the highest level in an attempt to keep it small, it seems wiser to me to reinforce that democratic legitimisation and keep subsidiarity as a principle that is enforced by the constitutional court rather then democratic body. Let them prove that something has to be done on a European (Federal) level rather then locally. A lot of stuff could benefit from being handled on the EU level, but other things do not.

Democratic constitutional confederacy

I voted confederacy and commonwealth. Should be somewhere in between. I actually like the compromise in the draft constituition: The double majority: EU laws need in futura the appoval of the council of ministers (every government sents their national minister): The majority is going to be: 55% of the states (at least 15 yes) who need to account for 65% of the population.
This mechanism underlines the dual nature of the EU as a Union of Nations and peoples. Furthernmore it is much less complicated than the current mechanism under the treary of Nice.
I would hower like to see national governments - who are after all legitimated by the people - run the EU. And foreign, defense and tax policy should remain an consensus issue. I actually pretty much agree with Tony Blair on that points. However in contrast to him - he doesn´t care about double majority or not - I think that this is an important step to make the EU more transperent and representative, because we would now have two objective criterias to measure the weight of the votes each country has.

Being an American, it's definitely not my place to suggest what form the EU should take. I just want to say that whatever course you all take, I wish you the best!

Having said that, I will watch VERY closely if the EU ends up following a federal model similiar to the US Constitution. Kind of curious how the various European nations would handle "states rights" concerns if that's the path you take.

Being an American, it's definitely not my place to suggest what form the EU should take.
That is right. Unfortunately President Bush thinks differently. Although the US isn´t a member of the EU (well it is not part of Europe after all) it thinks it can decide who should be a member of it (via pushing fot Turkish membership in the EU). That is unacceptable. We don´t tell you after all how you should conduct your relationship with Mexico.

As an American, I have no say on the matter, but I would suggest you peruse the early history of the United States, which faced a similiar problem to the EU today. The US consisted of 13 self decalred states who considered themselves soverign entities. There were several issues including slavery that caused vast differences between the 13 states, just as the nations of Europe have vastly different ideas on how things should be run in the Union. The original "Articles of Confederation" established a very weak central government and it more or less failed. The "Constitution" established a stronger government, but with limited powers, returning all powers not mentioned to the states. (The evolution of the oiriginal consistution to the current system in place in the US is interesting but not for this thread.)

If the American experience is any model it is that strength of autority is not as much as an issue as checks and balances. These checks and balances must balance the natural forces (and thus the natural greed) of the various powers of the government, both on a horizontal and on a vertical level. For this reason I recommend a tri-branch system as opposed to the parlimentary system where executive and legislative brances are woven tightly together. (Although even in the US, the president of the senate is actually the Vice President and as such a part of the Executive Branch.)

If the American experience is any model it is that strength of autority is not as much as an issue as checks and balances. These checks and balances must balance the natural forces (and thus the natural greed) of the various powers of the government, both on a horizontal and on a vertical level. For this reason I recommend a tri-branch system as opposed to the parlimentary system where executive and legislative brances are woven tightly together. (Although even in the US, the president of the senate is actually the Vice President and as such a part of the Executive Branch.)

I'd agree that I tri-branch system is best. I tried to discuss the mechanism for electing a european president, but that got hijacked by americans. I titled it badly, "why I like the electoral college". Got lots of americans going, but i really meant it for europeans.

I'm now more of hte opinion that a single president would be a bad thing, but an executive council may work better. I'm still working on it just now, but I'll post my ideas in a new thread when I've worked them out, and I'll be looking for some constructive criticism.

Commonwealth Constitutional Democracy ...a nice mix of the three.