We hear about Europe almost every day, but we have a very confused idea
of it, except to complain about it. Already, we must make an effort to
remember which countries are there, which are not, and then, an
additional effort, which is in the euro zone and which is not, the
immigrants must learn by heart the list of member countries of the
Schengen area... But then, if I ask you the difference between the
European Commission, the Council of Europe and the European Parliament
and who has the power over what....
A little vocabulary
It is necessary to navigate a little to understand certain propositions.
Once and for all, the European Council is the States, the European
Commission is senior officials, and the European Parliament is the zealots.
An ordinary legislative measure is a regulation, directive or decision.
A regulation is applicable in all Member States. A directive imposes a
result but leaves each State free to decide on the modalities. A
decision is binding on all recipients.
The "ordinary legislative measures" concern 85 areas. You will find the
list of domains in question on Wikipedia. The list of excluded areas
does not exist, it is all the others, of little importance such as
foreign policy, defense, military or political alliances, taxation, etc.
In the glorious days of the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community) and
then the Common Market, it was a treaty between States. It was the heads
of state who met, or their ministers, and who decided together
unanimously. Above all, we did not ask the opinion of anyone in the
population, whether they were for or against. It must be said that 5
years after the end of the war (the ECSC is 1950), the idea of an
alliance with Germany was, how should I put it..., moderately popular in
the European countries concerned. Moreover, from the start the "founding
fathers" of Europe (Robert Schumann and Jean Monnet) had a simple idea
which still governs Europe: above all, we do not ask citizens for their
political opinion, we create an economic community. (liberal capitalist
of course), and politics will follow, of course. So yes, Europe is
technocratic from the start, which certainly does not mean politically
neutral, since it is oriented from the start towards the construction of
a capitalist power freed from the social compromises of certain
countries with communist parties. important.
At that time, things were simpler, decisions were taken unanimously, if
there was a problem with Europe, you just had to scold its government
for having signed anything. . And I think we didn't miss out on it too much.
When it went as far as rearming Germany (in the name of a European
defense community), it had to be ratified by parliaments, and the French
parliament refused. Nothing should be exaggerated though, it was only 7
years after the end of the war.
It is the Treaty of Rome which established the common market and the
European Economic Community in 1957. It is an "international entity of
supranational type", which is already a little vague, equipped with a
budget and civil servants. It was then that the European Commission
(chaired by the now famous Ursula von der Leyen since 2019) and the
European Council were created. The members of the European Council are
the heads of state or government of the EU member states, the President
of the European Council and the President of the European Commission. It
is therefore an assembly of heads of state. The European Commission
includes 27 commissioners, one per state. It is therefore an assembly of
civil servants. Its decisions are collegial. (1)
Therefore the two oldest and most important institutions of the European
Union are emanations of the State without any democratic control, even
formal.
Initially, there was a common assembly, then from the common market a
European Parliamentary Assembly of 142 members whose role was only
consultative (i.e. it had no decision-making or decision-making power).
opposition). It took the name of European Parliament in 1962.
It was only from 1979 that the European Parliament became an elected
parliament (proportional). But it is a parliament without legislative
initiative, that is to say it does not have the right to propose laws,
it is the exclusive monopoly of the European Commission. And it is the
European Council which adopts them or not. In short, we wonder what it
is for, apart from providing a democratic veneer to Europe. It is only
since 2007 (Lisbon Treaty) that it has had a say on standards. We still
had to wait 45 years, 28 years if we count since they are elected officials.
In 1992, the co-decision procedure was invented, meaning that the
European Council and the European Parliament are equal (well, almost!)
for certain types of law (2).
Since the Treaty of Lisbon, ordinary legislative measures can be amended
or approved (so we will also assume refused). But Parliament still
cannot propose laws. He can, however, ask the European Commission to do
so, which must tell him why it refuses if it refuses.
So if we summarize, to be adopted, a law must have a majority in the
European Parliament and the European Council (heads of state). Very
recently, France was able to overturn the law to fight against rape. If
they do not agree, the law is rejected. We can imagine the pressure that
this represents: ah you are not voting for the deadline for the ban on
this dangerous product, well there may be no law at all on this type of
dangerous product. Parliament can still propose amendments, but voted
for by the majority of parliamentarians, and not just those present.
When we know the absenteeism at least French in the European assembly...
And if these amendments are not approved by the European Commission,
unanimity of the European Council is required. In summary, the
legislative power of the European Parliament is still quite limited.
There are more and more often initiatives that appeal to the European
Parliament. We must therefore remember that the latter must first
convince the European Commission, and that in the end few heads of state
are enough to derail the matter.
The Parliament elects the President of the European Commission for five
years, but only on a proposal from the European Council (the heads of
state), which takes into account the results of the elections to the
European Parliament. Given the respective powers of the three
institutions, this is undoubtedly its most important power. The other
members of the Commission are appointed by the president and are not
obliged to correspond to the parliamentary majority. Parliament approves
or rejects en bloc. He can force the Commission to resign by a motion of
censure. You only have to follow French political news to understand how
realistic this is.
Finally, like all Parliaments in the world, it votes on the budget, but
with one small reservation: it can only vote on expenditure, revenue is
the responsibility of the States (the European Council) unanimously!
There are 705 deputies, 96 Germans, 79 French, 76 Italians and the
others much fewer (6 for the Cypriots, the Luxembourgers and the
Maltese). These are proportional elections, and the threshold necessary
to have a representative must not be above 5%. In France, of course,
it's 5%.
There are political groups and their role is important: their
(co-)presidents participate in the conference of presidents which sets
the agenda. We give them a budget. A group must have at least 25 elected
officials from at least 5 states. Given the differences in political
traditions between countries, this last condition is undoubtedly the
most difficult to fulfill. For example, there is of course no communist
group (we didn't create Europe to be pissed off by the reds!), but there
is still a left-wing group (the smallest, 37 members) and a "progressive
alliance of socialists and democrats" (143 members). The Greens and
Regionalists group has 72 elected officials. The far right (Identity and
Democracy) has 61 deputies.
An exotic feature for France (but not for the majority of European
countries): lobbies are not only authorized but official. As of August
30, 2021, 12,911 interest groups (this is their official name, or
pressure groups) exercise lobbying activity at Union level according to
Wikipedia. The French government speaks of 50,000 lobbyists (on vie
publique.fr). The huge difference between these two figures may be due
to the fact that not all are recorded.
Indeed, there is a transparency register associated with a code of good
conduct (yes, yes!), but only on a voluntary basis... This registration
is still compulsory to obtain an access badge to the European Parliament
or to participate to its institutions (commissions, public hearings,
intergroup meeting on a subject, etc.). So yes, lobbies act well within
the institution itself, a lot, and it is encouraged. In particular, in
this famous register, they are supposed to indicate their main
legislative proposals. That says a lot about their power.
MEPs are required to publish online information about their scheduled
meetings with "interest representatives" (if they are registered on the
transparency register) and with representatives of public authorities
from third countries. Some recent scandals have shown that they were
sometimes a little distracted in these declarations, which moreover only
officially concern the European Commission (and undoubtedly this is more
important for them).
Directly influencing policy and legislation to defend particular
interests, notably those of large companies, is therefore considered
positive and laudable by the European institutions, which officially
allow them to participate in their activities. On the other hand,
corruption is still prohibited, that is to say the act of buying
European deputies or commissioners (see all the scandals recently raised
in particular by mediapart).
In conclusion, when we talk about the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie,
the European Union is almost a caricature. It was put in place for the
construction of an important market (which reminds us in passing that
the market, far from being the domain of freedom, is first and foremost
a state construction). Its guiding idea from the start is that
encouraging business development will make it possible to consolidate
political liberalism, to impose the political program of a liberal
capitalist Europe. Moreover, it only became "democratized" once the
project was firmly established, and the populations were presented with
a fait accompli. Its institutions are deliberately opaque (it is better
that we do not really understand who is responsible for what), and the
European Parliament is not the European institution that has the most
weight, far from it.
In fact, the European Union is based on a culture that is quite foreign
to us, "the culture of consensus". It's the idea that between reasonable
people, we can always come to an understanding. These "reasonable
people" are of course all in favor of maintaining the current system,
with or without desires for reform in one direction or another. This is
the essential condition for a culture of consensus and the search for
compromise. Without this culture and this research, the European Union
with its tangled institutions will break down. This also assumes heads
of state sensitive to "public opinion", basically none of them are
called Macron.
In short, as with many elections, it's a world where we don't have much
to do. And contrary to what we are told, the political composition of
this Parliament has only a slight influence on the progress of Europe.
Sylvie
Sources: Wikipedia and the European Parliament
Notes
1. I present to you here the current situation. I thought you wouldn't
be interested in the details of the various bureaucratic changes since 1957.
2. Don't ask me which ones or how, it's already complicated enough as it is.
http://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article4107
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
of it, except to complain about it. Already, we must make an effort to
remember which countries are there, which are not, and then, an
additional effort, which is in the euro zone and which is not, the
immigrants must learn by heart the list of member countries of the
Schengen area... But then, if I ask you the difference between the
European Commission, the Council of Europe and the European Parliament
and who has the power over what....
A little vocabulary
It is necessary to navigate a little to understand certain propositions.
Once and for all, the European Council is the States, the European
Commission is senior officials, and the European Parliament is the zealots.
An ordinary legislative measure is a regulation, directive or decision.
A regulation is applicable in all Member States. A directive imposes a
result but leaves each State free to decide on the modalities. A
decision is binding on all recipients.
The "ordinary legislative measures" concern 85 areas. You will find the
list of domains in question on Wikipedia. The list of excluded areas
does not exist, it is all the others, of little importance such as
foreign policy, defense, military or political alliances, taxation, etc.
In the glorious days of the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community) and
then the Common Market, it was a treaty between States. It was the heads
of state who met, or their ministers, and who decided together
unanimously. Above all, we did not ask the opinion of anyone in the
population, whether they were for or against. It must be said that 5
years after the end of the war (the ECSC is 1950), the idea of an
alliance with Germany was, how should I put it..., moderately popular in
the European countries concerned. Moreover, from the start the "founding
fathers" of Europe (Robert Schumann and Jean Monnet) had a simple idea
which still governs Europe: above all, we do not ask citizens for their
political opinion, we create an economic community. (liberal capitalist
of course), and politics will follow, of course. So yes, Europe is
technocratic from the start, which certainly does not mean politically
neutral, since it is oriented from the start towards the construction of
a capitalist power freed from the social compromises of certain
countries with communist parties. important.
At that time, things were simpler, decisions were taken unanimously, if
there was a problem with Europe, you just had to scold its government
for having signed anything. . And I think we didn't miss out on it too much.
When it went as far as rearming Germany (in the name of a European
defense community), it had to be ratified by parliaments, and the French
parliament refused. Nothing should be exaggerated though, it was only 7
years after the end of the war.
It is the Treaty of Rome which established the common market and the
European Economic Community in 1957. It is an "international entity of
supranational type", which is already a little vague, equipped with a
budget and civil servants. It was then that the European Commission
(chaired by the now famous Ursula von der Leyen since 2019) and the
European Council were created. The members of the European Council are
the heads of state or government of the EU member states, the President
of the European Council and the President of the European Commission. It
is therefore an assembly of heads of state. The European Commission
includes 27 commissioners, one per state. It is therefore an assembly of
civil servants. Its decisions are collegial. (1)
Therefore the two oldest and most important institutions of the European
Union are emanations of the State without any democratic control, even
formal.
Initially, there was a common assembly, then from the common market a
European Parliamentary Assembly of 142 members whose role was only
consultative (i.e. it had no decision-making or decision-making power).
opposition). It took the name of European Parliament in 1962.
It was only from 1979 that the European Parliament became an elected
parliament (proportional). But it is a parliament without legislative
initiative, that is to say it does not have the right to propose laws,
it is the exclusive monopoly of the European Commission. And it is the
European Council which adopts them or not. In short, we wonder what it
is for, apart from providing a democratic veneer to Europe. It is only
since 2007 (Lisbon Treaty) that it has had a say on standards. We still
had to wait 45 years, 28 years if we count since they are elected officials.
In 1992, the co-decision procedure was invented, meaning that the
European Council and the European Parliament are equal (well, almost!)
for certain types of law (2).
Since the Treaty of Lisbon, ordinary legislative measures can be amended
or approved (so we will also assume refused). But Parliament still
cannot propose laws. He can, however, ask the European Commission to do
so, which must tell him why it refuses if it refuses.
So if we summarize, to be adopted, a law must have a majority in the
European Parliament and the European Council (heads of state). Very
recently, France was able to overturn the law to fight against rape. If
they do not agree, the law is rejected. We can imagine the pressure that
this represents: ah you are not voting for the deadline for the ban on
this dangerous product, well there may be no law at all on this type of
dangerous product. Parliament can still propose amendments, but voted
for by the majority of parliamentarians, and not just those present.
When we know the absenteeism at least French in the European assembly...
And if these amendments are not approved by the European Commission,
unanimity of the European Council is required. In summary, the
legislative power of the European Parliament is still quite limited.
There are more and more often initiatives that appeal to the European
Parliament. We must therefore remember that the latter must first
convince the European Commission, and that in the end few heads of state
are enough to derail the matter.
The Parliament elects the President of the European Commission for five
years, but only on a proposal from the European Council (the heads of
state), which takes into account the results of the elections to the
European Parliament. Given the respective powers of the three
institutions, this is undoubtedly its most important power. The other
members of the Commission are appointed by the president and are not
obliged to correspond to the parliamentary majority. Parliament approves
or rejects en bloc. He can force the Commission to resign by a motion of
censure. You only have to follow French political news to understand how
realistic this is.
Finally, like all Parliaments in the world, it votes on the budget, but
with one small reservation: it can only vote on expenditure, revenue is
the responsibility of the States (the European Council) unanimously!
There are 705 deputies, 96 Germans, 79 French, 76 Italians and the
others much fewer (6 for the Cypriots, the Luxembourgers and the
Maltese). These are proportional elections, and the threshold necessary
to have a representative must not be above 5%. In France, of course,
it's 5%.
There are political groups and their role is important: their
(co-)presidents participate in the conference of presidents which sets
the agenda. We give them a budget. A group must have at least 25 elected
officials from at least 5 states. Given the differences in political
traditions between countries, this last condition is undoubtedly the
most difficult to fulfill. For example, there is of course no communist
group (we didn't create Europe to be pissed off by the reds!), but there
is still a left-wing group (the smallest, 37 members) and a "progressive
alliance of socialists and democrats" (143 members). The Greens and
Regionalists group has 72 elected officials. The far right (Identity and
Democracy) has 61 deputies.
An exotic feature for France (but not for the majority of European
countries): lobbies are not only authorized but official. As of August
30, 2021, 12,911 interest groups (this is their official name, or
pressure groups) exercise lobbying activity at Union level according to
Wikipedia. The French government speaks of 50,000 lobbyists (on vie
publique.fr). The huge difference between these two figures may be due
to the fact that not all are recorded.
Indeed, there is a transparency register associated with a code of good
conduct (yes, yes!), but only on a voluntary basis... This registration
is still compulsory to obtain an access badge to the European Parliament
or to participate to its institutions (commissions, public hearings,
intergroup meeting on a subject, etc.). So yes, lobbies act well within
the institution itself, a lot, and it is encouraged. In particular, in
this famous register, they are supposed to indicate their main
legislative proposals. That says a lot about their power.
MEPs are required to publish online information about their scheduled
meetings with "interest representatives" (if they are registered on the
transparency register) and with representatives of public authorities
from third countries. Some recent scandals have shown that they were
sometimes a little distracted in these declarations, which moreover only
officially concern the European Commission (and undoubtedly this is more
important for them).
Directly influencing policy and legislation to defend particular
interests, notably those of large companies, is therefore considered
positive and laudable by the European institutions, which officially
allow them to participate in their activities. On the other hand,
corruption is still prohibited, that is to say the act of buying
European deputies or commissioners (see all the scandals recently raised
in particular by mediapart).
In conclusion, when we talk about the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie,
the European Union is almost a caricature. It was put in place for the
construction of an important market (which reminds us in passing that
the market, far from being the domain of freedom, is first and foremost
a state construction). Its guiding idea from the start is that
encouraging business development will make it possible to consolidate
political liberalism, to impose the political program of a liberal
capitalist Europe. Moreover, it only became "democratized" once the
project was firmly established, and the populations were presented with
a fait accompli. Its institutions are deliberately opaque (it is better
that we do not really understand who is responsible for what), and the
European Parliament is not the European institution that has the most
weight, far from it.
In fact, the European Union is based on a culture that is quite foreign
to us, "the culture of consensus". It's the idea that between reasonable
people, we can always come to an understanding. These "reasonable
people" are of course all in favor of maintaining the current system,
with or without desires for reform in one direction or another. This is
the essential condition for a culture of consensus and the search for
compromise. Without this culture and this research, the European Union
with its tangled institutions will break down. This also assumes heads
of state sensitive to "public opinion", basically none of them are
called Macron.
In short, as with many elections, it's a world where we don't have much
to do. And contrary to what we are told, the political composition of
this Parliament has only a slight influence on the progress of Europe.
Sylvie
Sources: Wikipedia and the European Parliament
Notes
1. I present to you here the current situation. I thought you wouldn't
be interested in the details of the various bureaucratic changes since 1957.
2. Don't ask me which ones or how, it's already complicated enough as it is.
http://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article4107
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten