Faceless Bureaucrats part I
Posted at 9:39 pm by Adam SinclairOne of the many criticisms levelled at the EU is that it's run by faceless bureaucrats who are unaccountable to the people. There is a partial truth to it, but of course it is exaggerated and sensationalised beyond recognition. So to counter this claim I will start with the facts.
There are four institutions responsible for setting the direction of the EU, drafting legislation, passing legislation and implementing legislation. They are the European Council, The European Commission, The Council of Minister and The European Parliament. In a addition The European Court of Justice interprets and rules on the legislation.
The logical place to start is the European Council, it consists of the heads of government of all 27 member states in our case An Taoiseach Brian Cowen. It is the European Council which laid down the foundations of the treaties which establish all other institutions and the EU itself and as such it is the most powerful institution of the EU. It more resembles an international summit than an institution as it has no formal role in the daily business of the EU; as the heads of government for all 27 members states it essentially gives the EU it's direction and it's impetus through their cabinet ministers who sit at the Council of Ministers and through electing the head of the European Commission.
The Treaty of Lisbon only contains one major reform of the European Council, it will no longer have a rotating presidency but instead the position will be elected by the European Council for a 2.5 year term. The six month rotating presidency is flawed in many ways. With 27 states it will take 13.5 years for one full rotation. With terms of only six months the presidency is constantly in a rush to accomplish everything they set out, which can often lead to mistakes. But the main flaw in the rotating presidency is the major conflict of interest caused holding both EU and national office as the same time. The president should not be obligated to do what is best for his country as part of his national commitments and to do what is best for the EU as part of his European commitments, for while they will be compatible most of the time they can't be compatible all of time and whenever there is a conflict no doubt the national obligations will take precedence to the loss of every other country in the EU. Making the President of the European Council a permanent elected position solves all of these problems.
The new position has no formal or executive powers it is simply a glorified chairmanship. Duties of the position involve tabling discussions, presiding over meetings and acting as the European Councils external representative. It has no vote and no mandate to push it's own agenda, it is completely beholden to the European Council. Of course in their usual fashion many NO compaigners and Euro sceptics have picked up on this reform and completely misrepresented it as some sort of President of the EU similar in power and stature to the US president and then point to this as evidence that Lisbon creates a federal superstate which is of course complete nonsense.
In part II, I will deal with the European Commission and the new position of High Representative for Foreign Affairs.
September 21st, 2009 - 04:00
One of the misconceptions about the Lisbon Treaty is that it ends the rotating Council presidencies.
It does not, because only the European Council (which formally becomes an institution) and the (partly new) Foreign Affairs Council will have ‘permanent’ chairs, the President of the European Council and the “double-hatted” High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy.
The other Council configurations will continue to rotate between the member states.
Sadly, the prolonged ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty and the uncertainty concerning its entry into force is causing the European Union a number of problems at a critical juncture, when a new Commission should be appointed and take up its tasks.
This situation has dampened or even eliminated open discussion about the decisions needed to implement the Lisbon Treaty, including the rights and obligations of the President of the European Council. (I wrote a post about the implementation problems on my blog.)
September 21st, 2009 - 13:34
The ‘European Council’ and the ‘Council of the European Union’ aka the ‘Council of Ministers’ are separate institutions. I was only referring to the former when I said the President will no longer work via rotation. Apologies for any confusion.
September 21st, 2009 - 21:56
Re you will deal with the European Commission
I wish someone would
http://ceolas.net/#eu2x
The Commission is an enduring hangover from the days of a small, limited, European Coal and Steel Community, a common market for coal and steel set up between 6 countries, when the Commission was called the High Authority
( http://europa.eu/scadplus/treaties/ecsc_en.htm#INSTITUTIONS )
That was then, this is now.
Now we have 27 member nations in wide-ranging political and economic cooperation.
Now we have 27 unelected Commissioners, supposedly wise and independent, with sole rights to initiate and execute legislation that affects 500 million citizens.
Now we have 736 elected Members of Parliament with no real relationship to the Commission (Government) and who basically just look on and give advice to the Commission and to national politicians, whatever about some approval functions it is allowed to share with the national politicians, who meet as the Council of Ministers.
Normally in Western democratic tradition, it is of course the other way round:
Commission structures, unelected “wise heads”, that advise parliaments and governments, whether as appointments to the upper houses and senates that largely serve such a function, or in directly advising parliamentary committees and government departments.
Even with a Platonian ideology of wise rule by an elite,
the appointment of commissioners seems to be more by political cronyism and ad-hoc by country,
perhaps we don’t completely have la-crème-de-la-crème ruling Europe (and it would of course not excuse the lack of democracy then either).
In a different Europe,
legislation initiation could largely shift to the European Parliament that forms a Government, with continuing legislative approval by the Council of Ministers.
Let’s have a look at the United States model.
Comparisons with the United States usually gives the response “Europe is not the United States!”,
“No more power to Brussels!”
Actually, national sovereignity guarantees can be maintained precisely because the European Union already is like the United States.
Democracy by Population = The House of Representatives = The European Parliament
Democracy by State = The Senate = The Council of Ministers
I go into it more how an alternative structure could function on the website.
I am for Europe,
therefore I am against the European Union,
and I do not support the present or proposed systems,
in my view rather no Union, than this Union.