Europa expanding.

[flash]

Originally Posted by F2000

Underlining is mine.

*How does legislation work? The commission has the authority to initiate laws in some terrains, for example restrictions on the use of chemicals in industry. They draw up a provisional law. Then this is passed on to the council of ministers. In this is case all 27 national ministers of industry. The same provisional text goes to the EU parliament. Both bodies can ammend the text. The council and the parliament has to agree on the same text. Both bodies have to vote. Most often by Qualified Majority Vote. QMV has changed over time. In 2014 a new system will be used: "Starting November 2014: It will be a double majority so that, in order to be adopted, an act must have the support of at least 55 % of the EU Member States (i.e. 15 Member States in a Union of 27) and at least 65 % of the population of the EU.

*Origins of the EU parliament. It started in 1958 named the European Parliamentary Assembly as part of the European Economic Community. They only had a consultative function. No decision power. In 1967 it was named the European Parliament. Parliament received real decision power over the years and is now on par with the different formations of the Council of ministers (27 ministers of commerce, 27 of industry, according to the subject).
The European Parliament was directly elected for the first time in 1979. If you are allowed to vote in your country than you get to vote for the Parliament. Ordinary people decide every five year. Last elections were in 2009. So in 2014 it's back to the ballotbox. There is a good deal of info on wikipedia and http: //europa.eu/abc/12lessons/lesson_4/index_en.htm

*The EU is a supranational body but it's more than an intergovernmental organisation like the UN. The difficulty with the EU is that you have to balance between countries and population size. If the biggest countries decide than that's not very democratic. If every nation large or small has veto power, that doesn't work either. The EFTA tried and failed Most of the big treaties involve packagedeals. Every country gains something. Everyone has to let some ambitions go. Ordinary citizens sometimes have trouble understanding or accepting this kind of bargaining. What I meant is that the EU can't really be a full democracy because it's not a country. Yet the EU is very democratic for an international organisation. (Compare to the UN securitycouncil.)

*Who appoints the commission? There a decent explanation on wikipedia see appointment. Just search EU commission.

*You missed the part about "first president". No, every country can deliver a president. It just seemed more fair and politically easier to pick someone from the original six for the first time. This is no permanent restriction or anything. Herman Van Rompuy became president in 2009. Imagine choosing a Romanian as EU president while Romania only joined in 2007. It's easier to pick someone from a smaller nation. Otherwise it looks kind of Napoleonic. So the chances of a Britsh, French or German president are smaller.

*Wiki on Van Rompuy should give you the basics: I can't post the link because I have only posted 3 times on thus forum.

*High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy is a fancy name for a minister of foreign affairs on EU level. She meets national ministers of foreign affairs to see if they can come up with a unified opinion. That's easy if an African politician breaks down democracy. It's harder concerning stuff like the Arab-Israeli conflict.

*The EU has 23,000 European civil servants. I don't know much about them. They are part of the Directorate-Generals of each commissioner. 23,000 is not that many. The UK employs 453,000 Civil Servants on a full-time equivalent (FTE) basis and 489,000 on a headcount basis.

That's an excellent.well written post,all understood F2000,but is it all necessary,didn't the countries of Europe have all of that before the advent of the eu?
Just seems to me to be an unwarranted and unnecessary imposition on the running of individual states.
A big concern of mine (and others) is where will it all end?
How big does the eu want to get?
What are the future aims of this behemoth?
I still think it will all end in tears.

[F2000]

Originally Posted by flash

That's an excellent.well written post,all understood F2000,but is it all necessary,didn't the countries of Europe have all of that before the advent of the eu?
Just seems to me to be an unwarranted and unnecessary imposition on the running of individual states.
A big concern of mine (and others) is where will it all end?
How big does the eu want to get?
What are the future aims of this behemoth?
I still think it will all end in tears.

How big does the EU want to get? The EU doesn't want anything. The EU only expands its impact when new treaties are signed. Which means that every memberstate has vetopower. The driving power behind the EU is (unlike common believes) NOT somekind of holy ideal of European Unity but contemporary Realpolitik. The EU started with something very practical: the European Coal and Steel Community °1951. The positive experience led to the founding of the European Economic Community. The six members sought to create economic integration and a common market. Both the ECSC and the EEC operated under supranational entities. Britain set up the European Free Trade Association as a counterorganisation in 1960. This worked not as well as the EEC (although it did have positive effects on trade.) Most members later joined the EU or the European Economic Area.

The oil crisis of 1973 struck hard in Europe. EEC member states originally used sneaky tricks to block off foreign products despite the common market (such as packaging and safety regulations). This didn't work. The Single European Act changed that. Qualified Majority Voting in the Council of Ministers was expanded. This helped establishing a real free market and gave the economy a boost due to advantages of scale, specialization in most productive sectors etc.

The EU acquired the right to introduce legislation in a lot of new sectors due to spillover effects. As written above memberstates used packaging, health and safety, social and environmental legislation to keep the borders closed. However memberstates realised that this had a negative effect on the economy. That's why the EU started making rules in these sectors that applied to everyone, levelling the economic playingfield.

The Commission has the right to negotiate economic treaties with other countries. This together with coordinating help for the Third World lead to some form of external policy. This eventually led to the European External Action Service.

Small issues and Realpolitik lead to further European Integration.

Didn't the countries of Europe have all of that before the advent of the eu?

Peace in Europe:
The Second World Ward ended in 1945. The European Coal and Steel Community was founded in 1951. This included France, BRD (West-Germany) and Italy plus the Benelux. Peaceful relations between France and Germany were and are crucial for peace in Europe.

Economic growth:
Europe got rich due to early industrialisation and colonies. Especially Great-Britain and France relied heavily on this economic colonial backyard. This starts to break down after WW2. The oil crisis of 1973 points out nicely that the world was no longer economically dominated by Europe. The common market was essential for the European economy when the colonies gained their independance. I think that a common market is a more respectable solution that colonisation

International political and economical power
Britain, France and Germany were worldpowers before WW2. All were weakened after the war. Yes, Britain too. From then on the USA and the USSR called the shots. Today the Cold War has ended and we are left with a multipolar world. Although Americans call it a unipolar world
The USA is primus inter pares. Russia is still a force to be reckoned with. China is a big player and is still rising. India and Brazil are big regional powers and rising in importance. The political and economic importance of the separate European countries is diminishing. The EU as a whole however is a very big player especially economically. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ies_by_imports http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ies_by_exports
The EU has the highest imports and exports. It even beats China and the USA.

The EU Commission can broker better international economic treaties than the separate countries can and has more influence. In 1997 Boeing and McDonell Douglas, 1st and 3th largest producers of civilian jets, merged to form a single company acquiering 70% of the world market share. The American Federal Trade Commission was fine with that. The EU Commission objected and forced Boeing to make some important concessions.

The EU is the most important engine behind international conferences about global warming. Other big players care less although they have taken some mesures.

I still think it will all end in tears.

I think we will be fine as long as we stick together and fix previous mistakes.

[PitchRate]

Originally Posted by F2000

The American Federal Trade Commission was fine with that. The EU Commission objected and forced Boeing to make some important concessions.

Some of your posts are starting to sound like an advertisement. I guess "important" is a matter of interpretation.

To win Van Miert's approval, Boeing reluctantly agreed not to enforce the agreements it had won from three U.S. airlines to buy only Boeing jets in the next 20 years, and to refrain from entering into other such contracts in the future.

All three airlines -- American, Continental and Delta -- issued statements yesterday saying Boeing's gesture would have little effect on their purchasing decisions. "Boeing seems to best fit our needs," said Continental spokesman Dave Messing. "It wouldn't change our plans, and we wouldn't go out and order Airbus jets next week," said American Airlines spokesman Tim Smith………

For his part, Van Miert backed off his original demand that Boeing put McDonnell Douglas's commercial aircraft division up for sale for six months to see if a firm other than Boeing was willing to buy and operate it.

The divestiture idea was being pushed hard by Airbus executives, who feared that Boeing would gain added leverage in converting old McDonnell Douglas customers to Boeing customers in the future. But Van Miert finally dropped that demand after a high-level delegation of U.S. officials convinced him that there were no likely buyers and that the six-month hiatus would jeopardize the jobs of 14,000 McDonnell Douglas workers in Long Beach, Calif. Van Miert's concession on divestiture still was not sitting well in some European countries, particularly in France, where there is a growing resentment over U.S. economic hegemony in the world.

LINK

[F2000]

Originally Posted by PitchRate

Some of your posts are starting to sound like an advertisement. I guess "important" is a matter of interpretation.

LINK

Advertisement? flash posted some interesting questions and I am trying to formulate a decent and well considered answer. These are ofcourse not 100% value-neutral answers but I try to base my arguments on facts and on common academical knowledge and insights.

Some of the posted questions are not about facts but about attitudes and ambitions, so there is no objective answer to that. I'm not trying to convince or insult anyone. I just want to express a different point of view on the EU.

As for the Boeing example. I was trying to find an example that indicated the economic relevance of the EU. The fact that the Commission has a say in the merging of two big American companies seemed to be a decent example. The exact details of the case are of limited importance to me. I got the info from this pdf titled "The European Commission's decision on the Boeing-McDonnell Douglas merger and the need for greater U.S.-EU cooperation in the merger field" by Amy Ann Karpel. http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/47/karpel.pdf