Sleep walking in to a European super state

KomradeBishop

It's a logical fallacy, to say "the problem is with the cause of the problem, with where the 'blame' lies":
If I (as an arsonist) set someones house on fire, then they have a problem independent of me: The fire. That is two problems, the arsonist, and the fire.

In this discussion, the political structure of Europe is a problem independent of our national governments (just like the fire), even though they caused that problem. That is two problems, our national governments, and the political structure of Europe.

The less-accountable political structure of Europe, is a problem separate from - but greatly influenced by - our national governments; however, it is less-accountable, even to our governments as well, which makes it highly unlikely that we can get Europe's national governments to co-operate enough, to resolve this lack of accountability (the dysfunction with the way our national governments negotiate, gives the European political structure a large part of its unaccountable power).


So we pretty much have only a few choices here:
1: Inform the public all over Europe, of the problem with Europe's political structure and how the loss of sovereignity/democracy may become permanent, with no replacement with a central sovereignty/democracy - and lobby all of our national governments to change course (in my opinion, unlikely to succeed).
2: Have national governments take back parts of their sovereignty from Europe, piecemeal, where possible (likely to run into massive legal challenges and create dysfunction in Europe).
3: Leave Europe to immediately regain full sovereignty/democracy (short a massive change of course in European politics, this may be the only way to ensure long-term sovereignty/democracy).


In the entire history of Ireland, we've only been invaded by the Vikings and British - we're pretty safe, and it's hysterical scaremongering to suggest otherwise.
Nothing stopping us seeking alliances again after leaving Europe either - could easily see a new European market union, without the sovereignty/democracy-eroding aspects of the current one.

The Corinthian

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's a logical fallacy, to say "the problem is with the cause of the problem, with where the 'blame' lies":
If I (as an arsonist) set someones house on fire, then they have a problem independent of me: The fire. That is two problems, the arsonist, and the fire.

No. Ultimately they have only a problem with you, because without you there is no fire.

In this discussion, the political structure of Europe is a problem independent of our national governments (just like the fire), even though they caused that problem. That is two problems, our national governments, and the political structure of Europe.

Created by the aforementioned national governments...

The less-accountable political structure of Europe, is a problem separate from - but greatly influenced by - our national governments; however, it is less-accountable, even to our governments as well, which makes it highly unlikely that we can get Europe's national governments to co-operate enough, to resolve this lack of accountability (the dysfunction with the way our national governments negotiate, gives the European political structure a large part of its unaccountable power).

In what way is it less accountable to our national governments. Please give evidence.

So we pretty much have only a few choices here:
1: Inform the public all over Europe, of the problem with Europe's political structure and how the loss of sovereignity/democracy may become permanent, with no replacement with a central sovereignty/democracy - and lobby all of our national governments to change course (in my opinion, unlikely to succeed).
2: Have national governments take back parts of their sovereignty from Europe, piecemeal, where possible (likely to run into massive legal challenges and create dysfunction in Europe).
3: Leave Europe to immediately regain full sovereignty/democracy (short a massive change of course in European politics, this may be the only way to ensure long-term sovereignty/democracy).

4: Make the national governments cede direct control so that Europe is managed by directly accountable and democratically elected representatives.

Funny how you didn't suggest that one.

In the entire history of Ireland, we've only been invaded by the Vikings and British - we're pretty safe, and it's hysterical scaremongering to suggest otherwise.

Did you not notice my point about economic belligerence? Any reason you're ignoring that? I am finding it tiresome, and disingenuous, that you are failing to address points made.

KomradeBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

No. Ultimately they have only a problem with you, because without you there is no fire.

Eh? Lets step through this logic of yours:
1: Arsonist lights your house on fire.
2: Get rid of the arsonist, which is ineffective at putting out the fire.
3: Job done, fire solved. (!?)

The Corinthian wrote: »

Created by the aforementioned national governments...

Here is the logic you are using, again like the above:
1: National governments create European political structure, lacking accountability both to the European population, and with severely limited accountability to national governments.
2: Vote out your current national government, and vote in another which is ineffective at resolving the European political structure, since the European political structure makes co-operation between member state governments dysfunctional/ineffective.
3: European political structure lacking accountability, resolved. (!?)

The Corinthian wrote: »

In what way is it less accountable to our national governments. Please give evidence.

Here is Yanis' good description (last couple of sentences in particular):

An ‘alliance of states’ can, of course, come to mutually beneficial arrangements against a common aggressor (e.g. in the context of a defensive military alliance), or in agreeing to common industry standards, or even effect a free trade zone. But, such an alliance of sovereign states can never legitimately create an overlord with the right to strike down the states’ sovereignty, since there is no collective, alliance-wide sovereignty from which to draw the necessary political authority to do so. This is why the difference between a federation and an ‘alliance of states’ matters hugely. For while a federation replaces the sovereignty forfeited at the national or state level with a new-fangled sovereignty at the unitary, federal level, centralising power within an ‘alliance of states’ is, by definition, illegitimate, and lacks any sovereign body politic that can anoint it.
...
...A parliament is sovereign, even if it is not particularly powerful, when it can dismiss the executive for having failed to fulfil the tasks assigned to it within the constraints of whatever power that the executive, and the Parliament, possess. Nothing like this exists today in the Eurozone. While members of the European Council are elected officials answerable theoretically to national parliaments, the Council itself is not answerable to any Parliament; indeed, to no body politic whatsoever.
...

The Corinthian wrote: »

4: Make the national governments cede direct control so that Europe is managed by directly accountable and democratically elected representatives.

Funny how you didn't suggest that one.

To make a sovereign European nation, with a democratically elected government? That would be the best result of all - and I include that in point number '1' (because we need to inform the public of Europe's current problems, in order to move towards this).
It's also not the course we are on - instead, Europe is getting countries to cede sovereign powers, and thus is eroding democracies, without heading anywhere near the course of creating a federal Europe.

That's the whole problem: Instead of getting a proper federal Europe, we are at risk of heading down the path towards despotism.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Did you not notice my point about economic belligerence? Any reason you're ignoring that? I am finding it tiresome, and disingenuous, that you are failing to address points made.

I find your hyperbole disingenuous - you're using it as an excuse to be demanding/nitpicking and increasingly condescending, as has been your posting style on Boards for years - care to substantiate who is going to engage in economic belligerence against us?

The Corinthian

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Eh? Lets step through this logic of yours:
1: Arsonist lights your house on fire.
2: Get rid of the arsonist, which is ineffective at putting out the fire.
3: Job done, fire solved. (!?)

As opposed to your logic?
1: Arsonist lights your house on fire.
2: Ignore the arsonist and instead live out in the open air as there's no house to burn down then.
3: Job done, fire solved.

That appears to be your approach - ignore the core problem and simply concentrate on simplistic, short term solutions.

Here is the logic you are using, again like the above:
1: National governments create European political structure, lacking accountability both to the European population, and with severely limited accountability to national governments.
2: Vote out your current national government, and vote in another which is ineffective at resolving the European political structure, since the European political structure makes co-operation between member state governments dysfunctional/ineffective.
3: European political structure lacking accountability, resolved. (!?)

Where did I say we should vote in anyone inefective? Where did I suggest that the European political structure makes co-operation between member state governments dysfunctional/ineffective?

Sorry, but step two is your own magical invention.

Here is Yanis' good description (last couple of sentences in particular):

Actually, the last couple of sentences are only valid if you choose not to address the core problem, as you would prefer. Otherwise it's nonsense.

To make a sovereign European nation, with a democratically elected government? That would be the best result of all - and I include that in point number '1' (because we need to inform the public of Europe's current problems, in order to move towards this).

You suggested a sovereign European nation? In what language, because you certainly didn't in English. Indeed, I never suggested we make a sovereign European nation.

I find your hyperbole disingenuous - you're using it as an excuse to be demanding/nitpicking and increasingly condescending, as has been your posting style on Boards for years - care to substantiate who is going to engage in economic belligerence against us?

Ahh... the mask slips, I see. Given you've been around long enough to rate my posting style, despite your low post count, I presume you're a re-reg that has been banned in the past for the kind of soapboxing you're practicing now.

Pointing out that Ireland's geographical location will not protect it from economic or political belligerence is not nitpicking - it's pointing out that to suggest that just because we may be difficult to invade militarily (although that didn't help Iceland), that does not mean we are immune from being what larger blocs, that we must deal with, can do to us. We already had this experience with the Anglo-Irish Trade War in the 1930's and we didn't come out all that well from it, and that was just against one European nation, let alone the EU.

Both Iceland and Switzerland have in recent years seen what it's like to go loggerheads with the EU politically, and neither did well well out of it either.

This inconvenient fact may not sit well with your narrative, but it remains a pertinent fact, and trying to categorize it as nitpicking is what is disingenuous.

KomradeBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

As opposed to your logic?
1: Arsonist lights your house on fire.
2: Ignore the arsonist and instead live out in the open air as there's no house to burn down then.
3: Job done, fire solved.

Err...maybe putting out the fire, will solve the problem of the fire?

The same way, that to solve the problem of Europe's political structure lacking-accountability, would involve educating the European population about that exact problem, and directly pushing for either a federal-Europe, or (since EU member states are likely to remain dysfunctional in negotiations) countries individually returning to full national sovereignty? (ending the problem of a Europe lacking accountability)

The Corinthian wrote: »

Where did I say we should vote in anyone inefective? Where did I suggest that the European political structure makes co-operation between member state governments dysfunctional/ineffective?

Well look, the bolded part here is where we disagree (and I've put forward Yanis' good description, to bolster my view of that), so we're going to need to agree to disagree here, because if we differ on this, the rest of what we are debating is going to be at odds the whole way.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You suggested a sovereign European nation? In what language, because you certainly didn't in English. Indeed, I never suggested we make a sovereign European nation.

If we stay in Europe, and don't (in the end) transform it into a fully sovereign nation - with an executive that we democratically elect - then we have a European political structure, with a centralized elite, that has great power over the European population, but is effectively illegitimate.

Since that is apparently what you want, it's no surprise you're trying to muddy debate, by denying any such problem exists.

As Yanis' says:

An ‘alliance of states’ can, of course, come to mutually beneficial arrangements against a common aggressor (e.g. in the context of a defensive military alliance), or in agreeing to common industry standards, or even effect a free trade zone. But, such an alliance of sovereign states can never legitimately create an overlord with the right to strike down the states’ sovereignty, since there is no collective, alliance-wide sovereignty from which to draw the necessary political authority to do so. This is why the difference between a federation and an ‘alliance of states’ matters hugely. For while a federation replaces the sovereignty forfeited at the national or state level with a new-fangled sovereignty at the unitary, federal level, centralising power within an ‘alliance of states’ is, by definition, illegitimate, and lacks any sovereign body politic that can anoint it.

If we're not heading towards a fully-sovereign Europe, then what we are heading into is - by definition - illegitimate.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ahh... the mask slips, I see. Given you've been around long enough to rate my posting style, despite your low post count, I presume you're a re-reg that has been banned in the past for the kind of soapboxing you're practicing now.

Eh, it's not exactly hard to guess who I am - KyussBishop - and I've not got any bans, that weren't already in place on that account. If you think I'm soapboxing, report me to the mods.

Again - who, exactly, will be belligerent against Ireland - militarily or otherwise? You can't substantiate that at all, because it's hysterical nonsense.

The Corinthian

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Err...maybe putting out the fire, will solve the problem of the fire?

Until the next fire, because you've not really solved the underlying problem.

The same way, that to solve the problem of Europe's political structure lacking-accountability, would involve educating the European population about that exact problem, and directly pushing for either a federal-Europe, or (since EU member states are likely to remain dysfunctional in negotiations) countries individually returning to full national sovereignty? (ending the problem of a Europe lacking accountability)

Or making the EU democratically accountable by moving power to elected representatives rather than having them with bureaucrats who can hide behind the national governments. Oddly, you don't want to even consider that, which is not surprising given that you're clearly a eurosceptic pretending to be neutral, but in reality just looking to push your agenda.

Well look, the bolded part here is where we disagree (and I've put forward Yanis' good description, to bolster my view of that), so we're going to need to agree to disagree here, because if we differ on this, the rest of what we are debating is going to be at odds the whole way.

Where we disagree is you want to keep this dysfunctional structure, I suggested reforming it.

If we stay in Europe, and don't (in the end) transform it into a fully sovereign nation - with an executive that we democratically elect - then we have a European political structure, with a centralized elite, that has great power over the European population, but is effectively illegitimate.

Again, if you refuse to reform that structure - which you would prefer. Why are you repeatedly ignoring that alternative?

Again - who, exactly, will be belligerent against Ireland - militarily or otherwise? You can't substantiate that at all, because it's hysterical nonsense.

No while your Illuminati running Europe scenario was perfectly reasonable?

I already pointed out how Ireland has had economic wars in the past and how it faired badly in them. I've already also pointed out how since 2008 the EU has used it's economic and political weight to force both Switzerland and Iceland to do as their told. And given these real examples, you still think that the same happening to an Ireland outside of the EU is "hysterical nonsense"?

You seem to spend a lot of time putting your fingers in your ears and humming loudly, from what I can see.

oscarBravo

What's with the premise of the EU as unaccountable? It's a supra-national organisation with three main pillars: Council, Commission, and Parliament. Parliament is directly elected by the population of the Union; the Council consists of democratically elected government members; leaving only the Commission, whose members are proposed by the democratically-elected governments and who must be ratified by the Parliament.

To describe this as "unaccountable" is, I'm afraid, to nail your colours to the mast as a democracy fetishist, where every political decision must be subject to the whims of, let's face it, a broadly uninformed electorate.

KomradeBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

Or making the EU democratically accountable by moving power to elected representatives rather than having them with bureaucrats who can hide behind the national governments. Oddly, you don't want to even consider that, which is not surprising given that you're clearly a eurosceptic pretending to be neutral, but in reality just looking to push your agenda.

An EU parliament, without a democratically elected EU executive/government, is illegitimate. To quote Yanis again:

A parliament is sovereign, even if it is not particularly powerful, when it can dismiss the executive for having failed to fulfil the tasks assigned to it within the constraints of whatever power that the executive, and the Parliament, possess. Nothing like this exists today in the Eurozone. While members of the European Council are elected officials answerable theoretically to national parliaments, the Council itself is not answerable to any Parliament; indeed, to no body politic whatsoever.

What exactly, have you got against a sovereign Europe, run as a single country? Your own 'agenda' seems to be in arguing for a European political structure, which has significantly limited accountability to the people it rules over, compared to a sovereign nation.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Where we disagree is you want to keep this dysfunctional structure, I suggested reforming it.

You don't even know what you're replying to now - I haven't advocated keeping any 'dysfunctional' structure.

The Corinthian wrote: »

No while your Illuminati running Europe scenario was perfectly reasonable?

You admit yourself that there is a severe lack of accountability in Europe, and when I point that out, it's suddenly comparable to a conspiracy theory?

The Corinthian wrote: »

I already pointed out how Ireland has had economic wars in the past and how it faired badly in them. I've already also pointed out how since 2008 the EU has used it's economic and political weight to force both Switzerland and Iceland to do as their told. And given these real examples, you still think that the same happening to an Ireland outside of the EU is "hysterical nonsense"?

You seem to spend a lot of time putting your fingers in your ears and humming loudly, from what I can see.

Who will be belligerent against us? Are you going to propose that the UK would become hostile to us? That the EU would become hostile to us? You can't name one nation that would, and can't substantiate that in any way.

KomradeBishop

oscarBravo wrote: »

What's with the premise of the EU as unaccountable? It's a supra-national organisation with three main pillars: Council, Commission, and Parliament. Parliament is directly elected by the population of the Union; the Council consists of democratically elected government members; leaving only the Commission, whose members are proposed by the democratically-elected governments and who must be ratified by the Parliament.

It is less-accountable, as compared to a national government, and the way it is centralizing greater amounts of power (getting countries to cede sovereignty in the process) lacks legitimacy, due to its political structure - Yanis Varoufakis explains it well:

One often forgotten fact about liberal democracies is that a constitution’s legitimacy is determined not by its legal content but by politics. As Tony Benn suggested once, we should constantly ask those who govern us five questions: “What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” Indeed, ever since Sophocles’ Antigone, we have known that all good women and men have a duty to violate laws not founded on political and moral legitimacy. Political authority is the cement that keeps legislation together and the sovereignty of the body politic that engenders the legislation is its foundation. To claim, as Dr Schäuble did in 1995, and implies again in 2014, that it makes no difference whether the Eurozone is an alliance of sovereign states or a federal state is purposely to ignore that the latter can create political authority whereas the former cannot.

An ‘alliance of states’ can, of course, come to mutually beneficial arrangements against a common aggressor (e.g. in the context of a defensive military alliance), or in agreeing to common industry standards, or even effect a free trade zone. But, such an alliance of sovereign states can never legitimately create an overlord with the right to strike down the states’ sovereignty, since there is no collective, alliance-wide sovereignty from which to draw the necessary political authority to do so. This is why the difference between a federation and an ‘alliance of states’ matters hugely. For while a federation replaces the sovereignty forfeited at the national or state level with a new-fangled sovereignty at the unitary, federal level, centralising power within an ‘alliance of states’ is, by definition, illegitimate, and lacks any sovereign body politic that can anoint it.

One may retort that the European Union’s democratic credentials are beyond reproach, as the Commission is appointed by elected heads of state who also form the European Council that legislates on behalf of Dr Schäuble’s ‘alliance of states’ or Jean Monnet’s ‘Europe of Nations’. Moreover, there is the European Parliament which has the power to throw out parts of this legislation. To round off this rejoinder, it is often added that sovereignty is, in any case, highly over-rated and profoundly meaningless in an inter-dependent, globalised world. In that kind of global village, the French, the Germans, indeed the Greeks, all Europeans, enjoy more sovereignty when they pool their national sovereignties together into one, common, European realm. And if this means that we institute a fiscal Leviathan, with a remit to keep us all in fiscal awe, and in line with the Stability Pact, so be it.

The above retort demonstrates how terribly Western European appreciation of the founding principles of liberal democracy has been depleted. The appalling error of such a defence is to confuse political authority with power. A parliament is sovereign, even if it is not particularly powerful, when it can dismiss the executive for having failed to fulfil the tasks assigned to it within the constraints of whatever power that the executive, and the Parliament, possess. Nothing like this exists today in the Eurozone. While members of the European Council are elected officials answerable theoretically to national parliaments, the Council itself is not answerable to any Parliament; indeed, to no body politic whatsoever. To claim that Iceland’s sovereignty is obsolete because it is too small to have much power is like arguing that a weak person with next to no political clout might as well give up her political rights.

It is described well in this article, which I recommend reading to get the full point of view:
yanisvaroufakis.eu/2014/09/07/can-europe-escape-its-crisis-without-turning-into-an-iron-cage/

oscarBravo wrote: »

To describe this as "unaccountable" is, I'm afraid, to nail your colours to the mast as a democracy fetishist, where every political decision must be subject to the whims of, let's face it, a broadly uninformed electorate.

To be honest, I'm a bit astonished at this - you view wanting democracy as a negative thing?
You think also that the electorate is 'uninformed' enough, that they should have even less power to influence how policy is decided, than they currently have over national governments?

I find that a bit unbelievable really - and I don't think it's a stretch at all, for me to say that the least we should expect from a European Union, even if it takes a while to get there, is a 100% fully sovereign country, with a democratic vote over the executive.
I don't believe that is the course we are on now, but I would fully support a European Union that heads down that course.

oscarBravo

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It is less-accountable, as compared to a national government, and the way it is centralizing greater amounts of power (getting countries to cede sovereignty in the process) lacks legitimacy, due to its political structure - Yanis Varoufakis explains it well:

I've already rejected his premise about the creation of an "overlord" with the power to strike down sovereignty. You responded by muttering darkly that it hadn't happened yet, but could in the future.

So, tell you what: if there's ever a treaty change proposed in which we irrevocably grant the EU powers with no possibility of reversal, I'll join you in campaigning against it.

To be honest, I'm a bit astonished at this - you view wanting democracy as a negative thing?

Your various incarnations should know me long enough to realise that I don't consider democracy an unconditionally wonderful thing.

You think also that the electorate is 'uninformed' enough, that they should have even less power to influence how policy is decided, than they currently have over national governments?

I think that it would be better if the electorate took the trouble to inform itself, but given its persistent refusal to do so, I think it's no harm to keep its power in check.

I find that a bit unbelievable really - and I don't think it's a stretch at all, for me to say that the least we should expect from a European Union, even if it takes a while to get there, is a 100% fully sovereign country, with a democratic vote over the executive.
I don't believe that is the course we are on now, but I would fully support a European Union that heads down that course.

Ironically, the reason we're not heading down that course is that the people of Europe don't want it.

I have no particular objection to that scenario myself, but I object to the idea that what we have now is so terrible that isolationism would be an improvement.

The Corinthian

KomradeBishop wrote: »

An EU parliament, without a democratically elected EU executive/government, is illegitimate. To quote Yanis again:

Can you quote anyone else? Seriously, I already addressed that; introduce an elected EU executive/government.

What exactly, have you got against a sovereign Europe, run as a single country? Your own 'agenda' seems to be in arguing for a European political structure, which has significantly limited accountability to the people it rules over, compared to a sovereign nation.

That must be it, because it couldn't be something like a confederation, after all.

You don't even know what you're replying to now - I haven't advocated keeping any 'dysfunctional' structure.

You have; I've pointed out the cause of the 'dysfunctional' democratic deficit and you've sought to ignore that.

You admit yourself that there is a severe lack of accountability in Europe, and when I point that out, it's suddenly comparable to a conspiracy theory?

Admitting there's a problem is not the same thing as agreeing that it's all part of a conspiracy to create "an overlord with the right to strike down the states’ sovereignty". Bit of a jump there.

Who will be belligerent against us? Are you going to propose that the UK would become hostile to us? That the EU would become hostile to us? You can't name one nation that would, and can't substantiate that in any way.

So you can guarantee that we will never have any conflict, economic or otherwise, with any other nation ever again?

If you cannot guarantee that, then you must allow that this may happen and we should take strategic steps to deal with it long before it becomes actual.

What makes me laugh is that because we are not presently in danger of such belligerence you dismiss it as ever possibly happening, yet are going on about future 'overlords' as if we must accept them as inevitable. Bit hypocritical.

KomradeBishop

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've already rejected his premise about the creation of an "overlord" with the power to strike down sovereignty. You responded by muttering darkly that it hadn't happened yet, but could in the future.

So, tell you what: if there's ever a treaty change proposed in which we irrevocably grant the EU powers with no possibility of reversal, I'll join you in campaigning against it.

Deal there so. Yes, the crux of Yanis' article, is that we're in danger of slipping into that form of European political structure - I think there's already some level of loss of sovereignity/accountability (as compared to a sovereign nation), but for this thread, I'll just focus on Yanis' view of the danger of this potentially getting worse.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your various incarnations should know me long enough to realise that I don't consider democracy an unconditionally wonderful thing. I think that it would be better if the electorate took the trouble to inform itself, but given its persistent refusal to do so, I think it's no harm to keep its power in check.

Ironically, the reason we're not heading down that course is that the people of Europe don't want it.

I have no particular objection to that scenario myself, but I object to the idea that what we have now is so terrible that isolationism would be an improvement.

It's been a while since I recall us debating - and I get you mixed up with Sierra Oscar for some reason

Where we are now in Europe, is definitely not as bad as what Yanis warns could happen - and even if we do distance ourselves from Europe, I wouldn't want isolationism.
Both Yanis and I, would argue for a reformed Europe, as being the best of all worlds (his 'Modest Proposal', is the best plan I have seen for resolving Europe's economic problems: yanisvaroufakis.eu/euro-crisis/modest-proposal/) - and (along with him) I'd be pretty worried about where Europe might end up, on its current course.

That last bit, being worried about where Europe is headed, that it might slip into a 'despotic' political structure, pretty much sums up all my posts in the thread.

KomradeBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

Can you quote anyone else? Seriously, I already addressed that; introduce an elected EU executive/government.

Ok, I'd agree with you there, since that's pretty much what Yanis is arguing.

The Corinthian wrote: »

That must be it, because it couldn't be something like a confederation, after all.

Which part are you arguing 'must be it' - a sovereign nation must be it, or a "political structure, which has significantly limited accountability to the people it rules over, compared to a sovereign nation"?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Admitting there's a problem is not the same thing as agreeing that it's all part of a conspiracy to create "an overlord with the right to strike down the states’ sovereignty". Bit of a jump there.

I'm not arguing there is a conspiracy, I'm arguing Europe is at risk of heading down that course - more out of dysfunctionality than malice.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So you can guarantee that we will never have any conflict, economic or otherwise, with any other nation ever again?

If you cannot guarantee that, then you must allow that this may happen and we should take strategic steps to deal with it long before it becomes actual.

What makes me laugh is that because we are not presently in danger of such belligerence you dismiss it as ever possibly happening, yet are going on about future 'overlords' as if we must accept them as inevitable. Bit hypocritical.

Judging by Europe's escalation of sanctions with Russia, we're more at risk of a war due to being in the EU, than we would be if outside of it.
All the same, I'd still argue for a sovereign Europe with Ireland in it, but your attempts to paint a non-EU Ireland as under grave threat, is pretty extremely unconvincing, if you can't even point out one single nation that would be a threat.

As Yanis said:

To claim that Iceland’s [a non-EU Ireland's] sovereignty is obsolete because it is too small to have much power is like arguing that a weak person with next to no political clout might as well give up her political rights.

oscarBravo

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yes, the crux of Yanis' article, is that we're in danger of slipping into that form of European political structure...

I disagree. I can't imagine what would motivate a member state government, never mind all of them, to irreversibly yield sovereignty.

...I think there's already some level of loss of sovereignity/accountability (as compared to a sovereign nation)...

Every treaty a country signs requires a loss of sovereignty. When Ireland signed up to the Ottawa Treaty, it relinquished the sovereign right to use anti-personnel mines. Ceding and/or pooling sovereignty is not inherently a bad thing, unless you fetishise sovereignty along with democracy.

Where we are now in Europe, is definitely not as bad as what Yanis warns could happen - and even if we do distance ourselves from Europe, I wouldn't want isolationism.
Both Yanis and I, would argue for a reformed Europe, as being the best of all worlds (his 'Modest Proposal', is the best plan I have seen for resolving Europe's economic problems: yanisvaroufakis.eu/euro-crisis/modest-proposal/) - and (along with him) I'd be pretty worried about where Europe might end up, on its current course.

I'm at a loss as to what that proposal has to do with the question of accountability in the European Union, or indeed with distancing ourselves from the EU.

That last bit, being worried about where Europe is headed, that it might slip into a 'despotic' political structure, pretty much sums up all my posts in the thread.

For the EU to slip into a despotic political structure would require all its member state governments to (a) want to be a party to such despotism and (b) successfully guide the necessary treaty changes through their respective treaty ratification processes, including a referendum here and the near-certainty of a constitutional challenge in Germany, among others.

Given this, I'm not sure why you and Yanis seem so concerned about the possibility of us all waking up some morning and finding that the treaties on which the EU is built have somehow been changed without any of us noticing.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

To claim that Iceland’s [a non-EU Ireland's] sovereignty is obsolete because it is too small to have much power is like arguing that a weak person with next to no political clout might as well give up her political rights.

Nobody's claiming that sovereignty is obsolete. We're not being offered a choice between complete sovereignty or no sovereignty; we have the option to pool sovereignty with other countries, and we do so because it is very much to our advantage (and theirs) to do so.

Scofflaw

KomradeBishop wrote: »

An EU parliament, without a democratically elected EU executive/government, is illegitimate. To quote Yanis again:

A parliament is sovereign, even if it is not particularly powerful, when it can dismiss the executive for having failed to fulfil the tasks assigned to it within the constraints of whatever power that the executive, and the Parliament, possess. Nothing like this exists today in the Eurozone. While members of the European Council are elected officials answerable theoretically to national parliaments, the Council itself is not answerable to any Parliament; indeed, to no body politic whatsoever.

The Council is not the EU's executive. The Commission is the EU's executive, and is accountable to the Parliament. The Council is the EU's 'upper house', and is not accountable to the 'lower house'.

This is kind of an EU101 fail, really.

cordially,
Scofflaw

KomradeBishop

oscarBravo wrote: »

I disagree. I can't imagine what would motivate a member state government, never mind all of them, to irreversibly yield sovereignty.

I don't think I said 'irreversibly' yielding sovereignty? Any sovereign powers we're yielding, are ceded piecemeal.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Every treaty a country signs requires a loss of sovereignty. When Ireland signed up to the Ottawa Treaty, it relinquished the sovereign right to use anti-personnel mines. Ceding and/or pooling sovereignty is not inherently a bad thing, unless you fetishise sovereignty along with democracy.

We're not 'pooling' sovereignty - as Yanis' article points out, we're ceding sovereign powers to a non-sovereign EU political structure, which (if given the power to veto our budgets - something which may happen, that Yanis takes issue with) may be able to strip away more of our sovereign powers as time goes by.

Agreeing not to use anti-personnel mines (a very specific thing), is very different to granting much more discretionary political power, to a political entity that is much less-accountable to us than our national government.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm at a loss as to what that proposal has to do with the question of accountability in the European Union, or indeed with distancing ourselves from the EU.

It doesn't relate to accountabilty, it's a different topic - the proposal just bolsters me saying that Yanis/I would like to see Europe succeed.

oscarBravo wrote: »

For the EU to slip into a despotic political structure would require all its member state governments to (a) want to be a party to such despotism and (b) successfully guide the necessary treaty changes through their respective treaty ratification processes, including a referendum here and the near-certainty of a constitutional challenge in Germany, among others.

Given this, I'm not sure why you and Yanis seem so concerned about the possibility of us all waking up some morning and finding that the treaties on which the EU is built have somehow been changed without any of us noticing.

No, that is wrong. It can happen piecemeal, by giving powers to Europe, which allow a centralized less-accountable-than-national-governments political structure, to gradually impinge on member states sovereignty, in a way the European population did not expect (giving Europe the ability to arbitrarily veto national budgets, would help set us on this course).

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nobody's claiming that sovereignty is obsolete. We're not being offered a choice between complete sovereignty or no sovereignty; we have the option to pool sovereignty with other countries, and we do so because it is very much to our advantage (and theirs) to do so.

You can't 'pool sovereignty' - for the previously-sovereign powers that we have ceded to Europe, to become 'sovereign' again, we need a sovereign Europe which is itself a new country.

KomradeBishop

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Council is not the EU's executive. The Commission is the EU's executive, and is accountable to the Parliament. The Council is the EU's 'upper house', and is not accountable to the 'lower house'.

This is kind of an EU101 fail, really.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Here is Yanis' view on that, based on how legislative power is divided:

The European Parliament is the only EU institution that remotely resembles a federal body. Elected directly in pan-European elections, it seems, to the untrained eye, equivalent to the US House of Representatives or to Britain’s House of Commons. However, it only takes a slightly closer look to notice that the European Parliament is nothing like any parliament consistent with liberal democracy. In the latter, all legislative power is vested in the parliament or congress, with the executive-legislature demarcation clearly marked. In the European Union the main legislative organ remains the Council of Ministers which meets and votes behind closed doors and is composed not of legislators but of members of the member-states’… executives.

These revolving doors between legislative power at the centre and executive power in the member-states was designed, purposely, in order to have laws passed without any serious scrutiny by any sovereign Parliament that is vested with the authority of the final arbiter. While the European Parliament has acquired, over the years, new powers to legislate alongside the Council, it is still not a proper Parliament. The fact that it shares legislative power with the European Council and, remarkably, lacks the authority to initiate any legislation, means that it lacks the political authority that could legitimise the transfer of sovereignty from the national level to any Euro Chamber within the European Parliament.

(the Euro Chamber part at the end, relates to a proposed reform that Yanis is rebutting)

So it seems fair to judge that as being part of the executive.

There is a bit of mix-up in terms between European Council and Council of Ministers - so I'm reading up on what he said more.

oscarBravo

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I don't think I said 'irreversibly' yielding sovereignty? Any sovereign powers we're yielding, are ceded piecemeal.

...and can be retrieved by withdrawing from the treaties, or by persuading our partners to amend the treaties. Hence my disagreement with the concept of an overlord striking down sovereignty. It's just not on the cards.

We're not 'pooling' sovereignty - as Yanis' article points out, we're ceding sovereign powers to a non-sovereign EU political structure, which (if given the power to veto our budgets - something which may happen, that Yanis takes issue with) may be able to strip away more of our sovereign powers as time goes by.

We are pooling sovereignty. We're not conceding anything that the other member states are not also conceding. If we're giving the EU the power to veto our budgets, we're also giving the EU the power to veto Germany's budgets.

I suspect you and Yanis are making the all-too-common mistake of confusing the EU for a sovereign state in its own right, and imagining that we're ceding sovereignty to another country, which is ceding nothing to us in turn. The EU is composed of its member states, and those member states are mutually ceding elements of sovereignty to each other - hence "pooling".

Agreeing not to use anti-personnel mines (a very specific thing), is very different to granting much more discretionary political power, to a political entity that is much less-accountable to us than our national government.

There's nothing discretionary about it. The sovereignty we are ceding to the EU institutions is prescribed in the EU treaties which we've ratified, in just the same way as our sovereign right to deploy landmines is ceded by our ratification of the Ottawa treaty.

No, that is wrong. It can happen piecemeal, by giving powers to Europe, which allow a centralized less-accountable-than-national-governments political structure, to gradually impinge on member states sovereignty, in a way the European population did not expect (giving Europe the ability to arbitrarily veto national budgets, would help set us on this course).

The point you're studiously avoiding is that those piecemeal changes have to be ratified by every single member state through treaty changes.

If the member states grant the EU institutions the right to veto budgets, it will be because the member states feel that it is in the interests of the Union as a whole (and thereby in their individual interests) for them to be able to do so. But granting them this right doesn't grant them any other rights; it certainly doesn't grant them the right to "strike down sovereignty". You're basically making a slippery-slope argument by ignoring the fact that the slope actually consists of stairs that haven't been built yet.

You can't 'pool sovereignty'...

And yet, we are.

...for the previously-sovereign powers that we have ceded to Europe, to become 'sovereign' again, we need a sovereign Europe which is itself a new country.

...or else we need to repatriate those powers by withdrawing from the Union. It's not in our interest to do so, but we can always do so, which is the ultimate expression of sovereignty.

oscarBravo

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Here is Yanis' view on that, based on how legislative power is divided:

The European Parliament is the only EU institution that remotely resembles a federal body.

But the EU isn't a federal body, so why should it conform to the stereotype of one?

KomradeBishop

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and can be retrieved by withdrawing from the treaties, or by persuading our partners to amend the treaties. Hence my disagreement with the concept of an overlord striking down sovereignty. It's just not on the cards.

Just because we can retake our sovereignty by leaving Europe, doesn't really disprove that our sovereignty can't be impinged upon while within Europe.

oscarBravo wrote: »

We are pooling sovereignty. We're not conceding anything that the other member states are not also conceding. If we're giving the EU the power to veto our budgets, we're also giving the EU the power to veto Germany's budgets.

I suspect you and Yanis are making the all-too-common mistake of confusing the EU for a sovereign state in its own right, and imagining that we're ceding sovereignty to another country, which is ceding nothing to us in turn. The EU is composed of its member states, and those member states are mutually ceding elements of sovereignty to each other - hence "pooling".

You really need to read his article, because I've already explained it several times using quotes from his article.

The EU is an alliance of states, sovereign powers ceded to Europe are no longer sovereign - for them to become sovereign again, we need a sovereign EU state.
'Power' is being ceded from sovereign control in member states (we are 'pooling power' in Europe, not sovereignty), and there is a loss of member state sovereignty when this is done.

Ironically, if you think power pooled within Europe is 'sovereign', you would need to believe Europe is a sovereign state.

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's nothing discretionary about it. The sovereignty we are ceding to the EU institutions is prescribed in the EU treaties which we've ratified, in just the same way as our sovereign right to deploy landmines is ceded by our ratification of the Ottawa treaty. The point you're studiously avoiding is that those piecemeal changes have to be ratified by every single member state through treaty changes.

If the member states grant the EU institutions the right to veto budgets, it will be because the member states feel that it is in the interests of the Union as a whole (and thereby in their individual interests) for them to be able to do so. But granting them this right doesn't grant them any other rights; it certainly doesn't grant them the right to "strike down sovereignty". You're basically making a slippery-slope argument by ignoring the fact that the slope actually consists of stairs that haven't been built yet.

This is the difference between 'de jure' (powers granted in law) and 'de facto' (powers gained beyond what was written in law) - if we grant Europe the de-jure power to setup an 'overlord' who can veto national budgets, then they gain de-facto power to indirectly influence the content of our budgets as well (by continually veto'ing until the 'correct' budget is given).

Here Yanis describes it well - but please, read the whole article, because by the end of this debate I'll have quoted nearly all of it:

The fact is that there was no level of austerity that could have driven Dublin’s or Madrid’s deficit under 3% of GDP without demolishing their national economies and leading Ireland and Spain to a hard default on their public debt a year later. Similarly today with Italy and France: there exists no level of austerity that can push their deficits ‘within the rules’ without, in the process, wrecking the Eurozone in the medium term.

In other words, if the fiscal Leviathan [KB: 'overlord' with veto power] is to play any substantive role, she must be able to say a great deal more than ‘Nein’. In short, she cannot be… ‘digital’ (i.e. 1 or 0, Yes or No) and must issue ‘analogue’ replies to the state budgets submitted to her. In fact, she must be at liberty to propose to national governments alternative budgets that, nonetheless, still break the agreed to rules. Of a variety of rule breaking budgets, some of which are favoured by national governments and one by the Leviathan, it must be the Leviathan’s that prevails. If not, what is the point of her existence?

But then what should happen if the national government resists implementing the Leviathan’s preferred budget and turns down her overtures for reasons that the Leviathan deems inappropriate or unconvincing? Surely Lamers&Schäuble must propose that the Leviathan be equipped with the power to steer the final budget in particular ways that in no way flow uniquely and naturally from the existing, agreed upon, rules. Massive discretionary power will, therefore, be created at Europe’s centre de facto, even if denied de jure.

yanisvaroufakis.eu/2014/09/07/can-europe-escape-its-crisis-without-turning-into-an-iron-cage/

oscarBravo wrote: »

KomradeBishop wrote:

...for the previously-sovereign powers that we have ceded to Europe, to become 'sovereign' again, we need a sovereign Europe which is itself a new country.

...or else we need to repatriate those powers by withdrawing from the Union. It's not in our interest to do so, but we can always do so, which is the ultimate expression of sovereignty.

I would hope, that this is an implicit agreement that the powers ceded to Europe, are no longer 'sovereign'. I agree they can be made sovereign again, but it would be good if we could agree they are no longer sovereign powers.

KomradeBishop

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yanis wrote:

The European Parliament is the only EU institution that remotely resembles a federal body.

But the EU isn't a federal body, so why should it conform to the stereotype of one?

While that's a good point worth answering, it - not to be rude - isn't directly related to what I was replying to Scofflaw, and don't want to open up another line of discussion just now, as keeping track already is tricky (I should probably be catching up with work a bit more as well ).

oscarBravo

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Just because we can retake our sovereignty by leaving Europe, doesn't really disprove that our sovereignty can't be impinged upon while within Europe.

Not without our explicit permission, it can't.

You really need to read his article, because I've already explained it several times using quotes from his article.

And I've disagreed with the premises on which he's basing the article. Maybe it would be better if you stopped quoting him and started explaining why you think he's right.

The EU is an alliance of states, sovereign powers ceded to Europe are no longer sovereign - for them to become sovereign again, we need a sovereign EU state.

The lynchpin of your argument is that sovereignty is an aim in itself, and that it can exist only in the context of a nation-state. If that nation-state took the form of a single world government, that's absolutely fine: it conforms to the arbitrary standard of sovereignty that you've defined. The EU doesn't fit this ideal, therefore any sovereignty ceded to it has somehow evaporated, but would be magically reconstituted if Ireland ceased to exists and was simply absorbed into one single country called "Europe".

Let's try a counter-example: "The UN is an alliance of states, sovereign powers ceded to the UN are no longer sovereign." Apparently, this de-legitimises any UN treaties we've signed up to, thereby diluting our sovereignty, and we can only regain sovereignty by withdrawing from the UN, or by the UN becoming a single state.

That strikes me as self-evidently daft. If you think it's different, please explain why.

'Power' is being ceded from sovereign control in member states (we are 'pooling power' in Europe, not sovereignty), and there is a loss of member state sovereignty when this is done.

There's a loss of state sovereignty every time a treaty of any kind is signed. If you want absolutely state sovereignty, move to North Korea.

Ironically, if you think power pooled within Europe is 'sovereign', you would need to believe Europe is a sovereign state.

The power is pooled with the permission of the member states. The EU and its institutions exists solely by the grace of the member states. Its power consists of pooled sovereignty.

If you're rejecting the concept of pooled sovereignty - where the members explicitly agree to let each other have a say in matters that would normally be sovereign - then you're basically just defining language to try to frame the argument, which is generally too exhausting to deal with.

This is the difference between 'de jure' (powers granted in law) and 'de facto' (powers gained beyond what was written in law) - if we grant Europe the de-jure power to setup an 'overlord' who can veto national budgets, then they gain de-facto power to indirectly influence the content of our budgets as well (by continually veto'ing until the 'correct' budget is given).

This argument is predicated on the belief that the EU member states will hand untrammeled authority to a single individual to veto budgets for arbitrary reasons, as opposed to granting one of the existing institutions the power to veto budgets for failing to comply with criteria written into the treaties.

In other words, you're inventing from whole cloth a scenario that's sufficiently unlikely to happen to constitute science fiction, and using it as an argument against the existing structure of the Union.

I would hope, that this is an implicit agreement that the powers ceded to Europe, are no longer 'sovereign'. I agree they can be made sovereign again, but it would be good if we could agree they are no longer sovereign powers.

If I sign a document granting someone power of attorney, but with the explicit right to revoke that power, you're arguing that I no longer have the authority I've delegated. I disagree. Until we cede powers irrevocably, those powers are sovereign, albeit pooled.

What I find bizarre about your argument is that you would consider it less of a loss of sovereignty to simply abolish the country and merge it into a European superstate than to do what we do at the moment, which is to conditionally cede some power on an explicitly temporary (albeit long-term) basis. That makes very little sense to me.

KomradeBishop

oscarBravo wrote: »

KomradeBishop wrote:

Just because we can retake our sovereignty by leaving Europe, doesn't really disprove that our sovereignty can't be impinged upon while within Europe.

Not without our explicit permission, it can't.

It can de-facto, even if not permitted de-jure, depending upon the powers granted - such as the 'budget overlord' possibility.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The lynchpin of your argument is that sovereignty is an aim in itself, and that it can exist only in the context of a nation-state. If that nation-state took the form of a single world government, that's absolutely fine: it conforms to the arbitrary standard of sovereignty that you've defined. The EU doesn't fit this ideal, therefore any sovereignty ceded to it has somehow evaporated, but would be magically reconstituted if Ireland ceased to exists and was simply absorbed into one single country called "Europe".

Let's try a counter-example: "The UN is an alliance of states, sovereign powers ceded to the UN are no longer sovereign." Apparently, this de-legitimises any UN treaties we've signed up to, thereby diluting our sovereignty, and we can only regain sovereignty by withdrawing from the UN, or by the UN becoming a single state.

If the UN had significant discretionary powers over the governing of our country (like an EU 'budget overlord' may have), minus the kind of accountability that a national government provides - up to and including the power to remove further elements of our sovereignty - then yes, it would have illegitimate power over us (even if we still have the ability to leave this control).

Landmine treaties don't really constitute this.

I'm not a purist/absolutist when it comes to sovereignty, and I'm ok with ceding elements of sovereignty to the EU, on the path to a federal Europe (I view that as a goal, which legitimates the ceding of some sovereignity - so long as we stay on that path) - I'm just not sure that's the course we're going down, I think we're at risk of going on a course that may not involve that.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The power is pooled with the permission of the member states. The EU and its institutions exists solely by the grace of the member states. Its power consists of pooled sovereignty.

If you're rejecting the concept of pooled sovereignty - where the members explicitly agree to let each other have a say in matters that would normally be sovereign - then you're basically just defining language to try to frame the argument, which is generally too exhausting to deal with.

I'm not trying to play semantics here - if we can use a common definition of 'sovereign', then we can discard with the 'pooled sovereignty' phrase and just pick 'pooled power' - this definition works for me:
"A sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity of the international legal system that is represented by one centralized government that has supreme independent authority over a geographic area."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state

oscarBravo wrote: »

This argument is predicated on the belief that the EU member states will hand untrammeled authority to a single individual to veto budgets for arbitrary reasons, as opposed to granting one of the existing institutions the power to veto budgets for failing to comply with criteria written into the treaties.

In other words, you're inventing from whole cloth a scenario that's sufficiently unlikely to happen to constitute science fiction, and using it as an argument against the existing structure of the Union.

While there's a lot I don't like about the existing structure of Europe, my posts are more warning about the dangers of the possibility of this, about the possible future structure of Europe - am not saying this will happen.

It's not 'science fiction' either, it's actually being proposed/debated.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If I sign a document granting someone power of attorney, but with the explicit right to revoke that power, you're arguing that I no longer have the authority I've delegated. I disagree. Until we cede powers irrevocably, those powers are sovereign, albeit pooled.

What I find bizarre about your argument is that you would consider it less of a loss of sovereignty to simply abolish the country and merge it into a European superstate than to do what we do at the moment, which is to conditionally cede some power on an explicitly temporary (albeit long-term) basis. That makes very little sense to me.

You're not comparing like with like - that analogy is not the same, people and countries are not the same - particularly since 'sovereignty' refers to the governing of a country, and revoking Europe's power means leaving Europe (for the person, a bit like jumping out the attorney's 2nd story window after revoking their power).

If Europe became a single sovereign nation, local control of our politics would definitely become a lot more limited, but the European population as a whole would have a much more accountable government than what we have in Europe now - and all the powers ceded to Europe would become sovereign again.

Fair enough, I can see why that sounds odd in many ways, but it's all about what 'sovereign' means - and (in my view), it's pretty important for having a fully accountable form of governance.

oscarBravo

This is all predicated on the fiction of a single unaccountable official with total discretion to veto member state budgets on a whim, and how we need to reform the EU in case the member states decide to allow such a situation to come to pass without their electorates noticing.

Yeah, I'll spend my energies on stuff I think might actually happen.

Scofflaw

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Here is Yanis' view on that, based on how legislative power is divided:

(the Euro Chamber part at the end, relates to a proposed reform that Yanis is rebutting)

So it seems fair to judge that as being part of the executive.

There is a bit of mix-up in terms between European Council and Council of Ministers - so I'm reading up on what he said more.

There's quite a bit of a mix-up, or possibly Yanis simply never knew about bicameral parliaments, since he seems boggled by the idea of the two sharing power even though they're quite common, and as a result assigns the 'executive' role to the Council, simply because it is a chamber composed of...'executives'!

Upper houses traditionally consist of exactly that - those who are executives within their own realms (such as he Lords, or heads of industry). The lower house consists of plebs elected by plebs, the upper house doesn't.

To assign the Council the 'executive' role in the EU because it consists of national executives requires one of those levels of misunderstanding that prompts the less muddled critic to stand back and wonder where one would even begin to untangle the confusion. It's like someone claiming the EU is part of the US because it has a blue flag with stars on it, something which also appears as part of the US flag.

cordially,
Scofflaw

KomradeBishop

He understands it perfectly well, by the looks of it - he deliberately, and rightly, does not distinguish between executives at a national level or at a European level - at all levels, the executive should be separated from the legislature, which is a basic concept for 'separation of powers'.

oscarBravo

KomradeBishop wrote: »

He understands it perfectly well, by the looks of it - he deliberately, and rightly, does not distinguish between executives at a national level or at a European level - at all levels, the executive should be separated from the legislature, which is a basic concept for 'separation of powers'.

Yes. And the executive branch of the EU is the Commission. This is well-understood.

Scofflaw

KomradeBishop wrote: »

He understands it perfectly well, by the looks of it - he deliberately, and rightly, does not distinguish between executives at a national level or at a European level - at all levels, the executive should be separated from the legislature, which is a basic concept for 'separation of powers'.

And at the EU level, the executive - the Commission - is indeed separate from the legislature, with the exception of the right of initiative.

That the members of the Council are national executives does not make them the European executive, because the European level is not the national level.

Similarly, the Bundesrat, Germany's second chamber, consists solely of representatives of the Lander governments. Does that make it the German federal executive? No, it doesn't. State representation is a bog-standard piece of federal architecture, and contrary to what Yanis mistakenly believes, a second chamber consisting of representatives of state governments is just as 'federal' and democratically ordinary as the directly elected EU Parliament.

Indeed, any structure which involves multiple self-governing states must include representatives of the governments of those states, because the governments of those states have been elected specifically to govern those states. A system which ignored them would be a centralised "super-state" indeed - an enlarged copy of centralised states like our own, which provides no central representation for the local government level.

That Yanis "deliberately...does not distinguish between executives at a national level or at a European level" means he fails (or refuses) to grasp pretty basic points about constitutional architecture in democracies, and prefers instead to impose a structure which doesn't match the reality, presumably in order to use it as a base on which to build his argument. Unfortunately, any argument he makes on that base is a tower founded on sand.

cordially,
Scofflaw

KomradeBishop

Scofflaw wrote: »

And at the EU level, the executive - the Commission - is indeed separate from the legislature, with the exception of the right of initiative.

That the members of the Council are national executives does not make them the European executive, because the European level is not the national level.

Yes, that has been stated by both Yanis and myself, making it obvious we are aware of this. The executive should be separate from the legislature at all levels.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Similarly, the Bundesrat, Germany's second chamber, consists solely of representatives of the Lander governments. Does that make it the German federal executive? No, it doesn't. State representation is a bog-standard piece of federal architecture, and contrary to what Yanis mistakenly believes, a second chamber consisting of representatives of state governments is just as 'federal' and democratically ordinary as the directly elected EU Parliament.

Those are regions of a sovereign Germany, not national governments - Europe is not a sovereign state like Germany is.

An alliance of states (which is what Europe is more like) is nothing like a federation of states.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Indeed, any structure which involves multiple self-governing states must include representatives of the governments of those states, because the governments of those states have been elected specifically to govern those states. A system which ignored them would be a centralised "super-state" indeed - an enlarged copy of centralised states like our own, which provides no central representation for the local government level.

That Yanis "deliberately...does not distinguish between executives at a national level or at a European level" means he fails (or refuses) to grasp pretty basic points about constitutional architecture in democracies, and prefers instead to impose a structure which doesn't match the reality, presumably in order to use it as a base on which to build his argument. Unfortunately, any argument he makes on that base is a tower founded on sand.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Europe is not a democratic sovereign, so comparing it to one is creating a fantasy of what Europe might someday be like, rather than looking at the much more complicated reality.

We still have a mix of real sovereign powers - in national governments, with their own executives - and centralized European powers that have been ceded as sovereign powers by member states; this is not what a federal Europe would be like, you would have one state with central sovereign powers.

So, for the executives in any sovereign, who are part of the Council with legislative powers - powers which affect the sovereign countries - we are mixing executive powers with legislative powers.

When/if Europe is a fully sovereign nation (thus stripping much remaining power from member state executives, to a centralized EU executive), this will be resolved.

Scofflaw

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yes, that has been stated by both Yanis and myself, making it obvious we are aware of this. The executive should be separate from the legislature at all levels.


Those are regions of a sovereign Germany, not national governments - Europe is not a sovereign state like Germany is.

An alliance of states (which is what Europe is more like) is nothing like a federation of states.


Europe is not a democratic sovereign, so comparing it to one is creating a fantasy of what Europe might someday be like, rather than looking at the much more complicated reality.

We still have a mix of real sovereign powers - in national governments, with their own executives - and centralized European powers that have been ceded as sovereign powers by member states; this is not what a federal Europe would be like, you would have one state with central sovereign powers.

So, for the executives in any sovereign, who are part of the Council with legislative powers - powers which affect the sovereign countries - we are mixing executive powers with legislative powers.

When/if Europe is a fully sovereign nation (thus stripping much remaining power from member state executives, to a centralized EU executive), this will be resolved.

It's hard to be sure whether this is a set of semantic dodges, or genuine semantic confusion. Either way, it makes no meaningful comment on the topic.

resignedly,
Scofflaw