Where Does the EU Get its Power From? (& How it Passes Laws) - TLDR News
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 июн 2024
- Patreon - www.patreon.com/tldrnewseu
In this video, we discuss the EU's power. The EU is somewhere between being a state and an international organisation, but somehow unlike other similar bodies, it has the power to pass laws and hold sovereign states to account. So we will explain where the EU gets its powers from and how the EU is able to pass laws.
Follow TLDR on Facebook: / tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Twitter: / tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Instagram: / tldrnewsuk
Join the TLDR Discord: / discord
TLDR Pin Badge Store: www.tldrnews.co.uk/store
TLDR TeeSpring Store: teespring.com/stores/tldr-winter
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Learn About Our Funding: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We want to give you the information you need, so you can make your own decision.
TLDR is a super small company, run few people with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!
The EU offers a readable, compact introduction called "the EU in 12 lessons" on its website. Explains history, context, workings etc, for young adults. It's free .
I love how surprisingly readable the Lisbon Treaty "By this treaty ... member states confer competences to attain objectives they have in common" becomes once you've naturally introduced what a "competence" is.
The Eu is not difficult to understand… The language just is 'difficult' at times. But that is why the EU's website allows for easy to follow pages so people understand how it works.
I would like to see that the EU has more competence about foreign policy. Since WW2 Europe was kind of the pingpong ball in the middle of Russia and the US. I would like to see the EU as an important global player thats more demanding on e.g. human rights issues and that protects European interests. But if we want that, there has to be more of a patriotic feeling about the EU and you just get that if a) the EU is more democratic and b) the EU is more represented so that citizen can identify with EU-politicians.
Thank goodness we are out of it
@@andrewwalsh816 What is that supposed to mean? If you mean thank god you brits are out, well then, good luck to you guys.
Patriotism is poisonous.
@@danklord6929 patriotism is poisonous to colonists
@@markilleen4027 to everyone.
We need a European public broadcasting. I know there's Euronews, but it's just a cooperation between national news agencies. We need something real.
That and I think we need more reporting on the news and papers on what the EU is up to, too many of the public don't seem to have a clue what's going on and go off what national governments or some of the press tells them which twist it for their own advantage, that is the main problem the EU has at the moment, not enough involvement from the public in EU democracy and that is something I think needs to change so the public have a better understanding in what's going on, that should also weaken the Eurosceptic movement a lot because they play on fear, ignorance and people not knowing fact from fiction.
🤩👌🏻🇪🇺
Totaly agree! 🇪🇺
The's the Brussels broadcasting corporation (BBC)...
You have hit the nail on the head, but given the way the British media is dominated by right wing mugals not sure if it would be welcome.
Somone recently made an intresting analogy which I extend now a little. One of the successes of the EU is it is a system of rules and regulations. There is no specific leader, no specific government, no specific country, no specific culture, no specific nationality. It's a machine running according to some very clearly formulared rules like laws of nature. Trying to subvert it or overtake it is extremly difficult, that's because of the "no-specifics" I recollected above make it extremly problematic to get a foothold. And that's also why there are so many lobbyists there because you'd need an army of them to achieve even the slightest influence. While in the UK you only need one for example (Dominic Cummings).
In that regard the analogy I would place here comes from Game of Thrones in that the EU is like the Bank of Barvos. There is no specific someone to gain influence. Even if one breaks away it's just replace by another of the same kind. What it lead to? ... Stability and continuity mostly but that's what true bussiness likes even more than one or two regulations which impacts their gains somewhat.
"No specific culture"?!?
It's clear you never lived outside Europe...
Except Ursula Von der Leyen and Germany!
Dominic Cummings, whilst influential isn't anything new. He's portrayed as a rasputin like character. Alistair Campbell would be his modern equivalent.
He cant bypass the laws and democratic system the UK has (as proved) and his influence will inevitably be judged by a democratic election.
Imo his ideology may be divisive, but had yet to reach the level of threat of the Iraq war. He is nothing but a scapegoat for the liberal globalists
@mininmalta 123 Nah, you're the one who can barely form sentences! I think my hyperbolic joke works quite well...
@@francescoguzzetta but Europeans looove to think that they are all sooo different from one another...
The Commission proposes, Parliament scrutinises and the Council (national govs) decide. It's a basically treaty making machine.
For the brevity, that's really really well put.
The parliament and the commission also get to decide. In practise they sidestep explained procedure and negotiate until they find something they all agree on, and then the Commission puts it forward and the Parliament and Council both just agree to it.
@@JBinero But that only works in those areas where the parliament has the competence, all other areas still need council approvement - although I kind of agree with you as it is a really (!) bad look for any national leader to not sign off on something both the EU commission AND the elected european parliament want.
@@QemeH Council approvement is _always_ required, and since the Lisbon Treaty, the cases where parliamentary approval isn't needed are rare.
Parliament and Council both make amendments and decide, their on equal terms in that respect.
Note that decisions by the council in general require a so called double majority of member states and population represented by the member states.
The Commission can veto the law (if the amendments diverge too much from the original proposal), which can in turn be reverted by an unanimous council decision.
It's certainly complex, but within reason. As presented, it may seem overly complex, but you have to keep in mind that the EU isn't a state, and the "dictatorship of the majority" isn't going to happen anytime soon. Almost everything the EU does is about forming consensus, and the last thing the EU wants to do is doing anything which is objected to by a significant part of the EU. Getting something done where only a small minority objects to is more important than getting something done where a small majority agrees upon.
*_“ dictatorship of the majority “_*
Or in other words : democracy, as described by somebody for whom democracy has returned a result that is inconvenient to the agenda into which they have been indoctrinated.
Pathetic.
Dictatorship of the majority? are you mad. that is democracy. not like the eu is now. It is a plutocracy. where the rich rule and corruptions is rampant. Democracy is the fairest system we can think of. ''Dictatorship o the majority'' is the stupidest i ever heard.
There are different ways to understand democracy. Example:
Let's say that 55% population wants more football fields, and 45% wants swimming pools. The winners may say "We won, but large portion wanted something else, so for every 2 fields we build one swimming pool".
Or they may just go "We are majority, everybody plays football now!"
Both were decided in democratic way, and completely valid approach, but second one creates tension and unrest.
I believe that democracy should be more about finding common ground and compromise, not "winner takes all, rest can shove it". It's harder way, and many issues are difficult to settle, but that's the goal.
Michał Jankowski That’s why developed countries decide big constitutional changes by at least ⅔ majority..
@@TheSegert Then educate yourself. The Ancient Greeks formulated it 2000 years ago as "Tyranny of the majority." A massive factor of modern democracies is precisely to prevent this tyranny of the majority, also known as mob rule and demagogy by enforcing the rule of law via an unchangeable set of values usually enshrined in a constitutional stipulation.
Democracies aren't about the majorities, they are about how the discourse and transfer of power between all members of societies can be regulated so the least number of people get persecuted, discriminated or silenced. It is not about majority, it is about achieving consensus. E.g. a parliamentary majority may change tax laws, but they cannot abolish parliament or throw the opposition out of parliament.
Why did the Greeks do this? Because they found their majorities started killing or intimidating their minorities and falling into plutocracies and tyrannies by demagogues who sabotaged the democratic systems by manipulating the majority. If you find similarities to today, you may keep them.
The European Union is not any more or less corrupt than her member states, overall it elevates the lower member states because its rules and regulations enforce procedures which stem corruption in those countries where lack those rules and regulations. So it is more corrupt than Denmark, but does enforce the rule of law and proper proceedings in much of Eastern Europe and the Balkans.
Explication brillante des institutions de l’UE. Merci pour ce travail.
I love you guys at TLDR, but this video came out bloody 4 years too late :-(
Indeed. :(
... is this not part of general (school) education in the UK?!
@@rm0986 I'm from the Netherlands and I never got any such explanation of the EU either. Most probably because my area of study is science (software engineering) and not something like economics, but still, no explanation on the EU.
@@alexanderdehaan8450 Well of course if you study software engineering the EU isn't really a topic. But what I meant was learning about it in school before you even start studying for your actual job. I learned about the EU for the first time in 7th grade, then again in more detail in 11th grade. How is that not a thing everywhere?
@@rm0986 Idk man, I learned of it's existence of course but never any explanation as to it's functioning
Thank you for pointing out the complexities of the EU. Indeed many people want it to be more democratic and not to take sovereignty away from the member states, but it turns out that making it more democratic requires taking more power away from the member states, hence reducing their sovereignty. The EU has managed so far in balancing the to but it is now at a crossroads
Edi Pires No its not. The EU is getting stronger. The support of the citizens of the EU27 for the EU is higher than ever. Also it is now been proved that you can exit from the EU. There are few sharp edges but those will we fixed. EU is busy making trade deals with the rest of the world and it strong with the environmental issues. It only has to get stronger in the military issues.
@@verttikoo2052 An undemocratic organisation that is now to get an army. The Netherlands and German army are to integrate. It sounds like something we had before in Europe backed by German and American conglomerates.
Isochest EU is very much democratic organization and much more than the USA or UK. Hitler died 75 years ago so you should start getting over it. We look in the future. Most of the Europeans at the moment never saw the WWII or were too young to understand anything.
@@verttikoo2052 That's very scripted and lacking in fact. US citizens vote for those who make a difference. EU citizens cannot do this. The undemocratic side is the bloodlines of most Presidents. Regarding the Third Reich what ever happened to Never Again. What cannot be ruled by force must be ruled by deception. So we cannot get over it. There was always the idea of a European Economic Area ruled by Nazi Germany with Vichy France in tow. Nobody knows when Hitler died. It may have been in the 1980s (Cuiabá Brasil?). I regard the EU as Walther Funk's Plan B!
@@Isochest Thanks for the comedy, I laughed out loud
Long live Europe!
Exactly. Long live Europe. Fuck the EU
@@london_james i love you
@@london_james Long Live EUROPE! Europe is for Europeans!
@@london_james the eu is Europe at this point
@@thomastakesatollforthedark2231 its not
To whoever is reading this comment, there's an upcoming conference on the future of europe where citizens are supposed to be consulted on what they want from the EU. Contact your local MEPs, make your voice as there may some member states who'll try make the conference a top-bottom process.
At the very least we should all agree on making the EU more democratic, having MEPs be able to write legislation, having the commission being controlled by parliament or a directly elected president. Replace the council of ministers with a directly elected senate. Have parliamentary districts so people have a connection with a local MEP, use ranked choice voting though instead of FPTP.
Also I hope we have a fiscal union for the eurozone, it can't survive without it. Also have the EU control the military equipment used and the training so we don't waste as much money. This should only be done once the EU has further democratized and power is transferred from the member states to the people. Some politicians will stop this in the name of sovereignty but true sovereignty for the people is only gained by directly electing the european institutions.
EDIT: It's fine if you don't agree with me and want small changes, I think you should still be involved with the CoFoE so your voice is heard.
So you want the EU to become a country then
GammaRade we also get more pacifistic because pro-war and anti-war groups are more equal, decreasing the number of EU interventions
@@Rialagma I am a federalist and you can disagree with how much power the EU should have but we can agree to at least make the EU more democratic.
This is basically just "think the way I do, and if you don't then you're not pro-democracy". C'mon.
I fundamentally disagree with a directly elected president. Populism is too easy to ride to victory, leaving people in places of power who simply won a popularity contest based entirely on personality instead of policy. Instead, I'd argue that these positions should be elected like they are now - internally - but the votes should be public. You should never have a high ranking official confirmed for an office who has been confirmed through a hidden vote.
I also disagree with a directly elected Senate. It completely degrades what the intended purpose of a Senate is, this is to fairly represent the desires of a country & it's government. This is the counter balance to the directly elected parliament, and means that even if a state has a low population they still have a equal say compared to larger countries. This is a power that shouldn't be directly elected, as this creates a vicious power struggle between two directly elected houses, but for this reason the council of ministers works well. You also get people in this council who know what they're talking about, rather than simply politicians who got elected because "grrr i dont like x".
The EU has issues with Democratic representation, but this just smacks of walking blindly after the United States without realizing some of the fundamental issues with that system.
@@501warhead I didn't mean to come off that way and I'm sorry if I did. I understand wanting to keep the council of ministers and I would prefer a parliamentary system but I think some people would want to directly the president and I'd prefer that over the member states electing the president.
Thanks for the video. I think it summed it up really well!
Just a couple of notes: Once the commission actually proposed a law to the European Parliament and the council, it is very difficult for the commission to withdraw or change that proposal. The ping pong you were referring to happens between the council and the parliament. (See Article 294 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)
The principle of subsidiarity and the ability of national parliaments to object only applies to shared competences. If the EU has exclusive competence, the EU is always the lowest level of regulation because member states gave up their power to legislate in that area.
Wow, it seems quite brilliant actually. Very educational, thank you all!
Well when you considering that we still got article 13 from it I dunno.
@@Elldallan blame the people that gave it support rather than the system.
@Andy Clifft that just makes you sound a bit unhinged.
Yeh there’s really nothing quite like being told what to think is there boy.
@@thegrandmuftiofwakanda yes I'm sure you just happen to know the real truth and aren't in any way being told what to think either.
For those interested in an introductory book on the topic, the book _The ABC of EU Law_ is available *for free,* shipping included, on the website of the Publications Office of the European Union, for all EU residents.
I won't include a link to avoid this being flagged as spam.
The most *_effective_* propaganda is *_free_* propaganda.
@@thegrandmuftiofwakanda And the worms ate into his brain!
Jean Monet worms.
Thank you 😊
Great stuff. Would be interesting a similar videos about how European central bank works and how it interferes with the member states budgets. I know, it is very complicated
Hi TLDR, thanks for the video. I found one tiny mistake: The Parliament and the Council only vote on the member states' parliaments' complaints when over half of the parliaments send a reasoned opinion. If only a third of the parliaments send a reasoned opinion, the Commission does need to amend, withdraw it or come up with its own reasoned opinion, but no vote takes place at the Parliament or the Council, other than the regular vote that always takes place for any legislation that is adopted with the ordinary legislative procedure.
Brexit has proved that the member states always retained sovereignty despite being part of the EU, since members can make the sovereign decision to leave at any time. Unlike say, US states.
And if they do we will make life as difficult as possible because we are horrible people with no conscience
@@ericc1336 prevent ex-member to "take the cake and eat it too" is not the same as making them miserable
One of the best summaries of the EU that I've ever seen - and a video that needed to exist 4+ years ago.....
Think about how depressing it is that the majority of people that voted in the referendum didn't even know the basics covers in this 10min video 🤦😟
I asked so many Brexiteers which body of the EU enacts laws and regulations. Not one knew it was representatives of nationals govs in the Council of Ministers and when I told them they didn't believe me. Most of them thought the EU's civil service "eurocrats" had somehow gone rogue and were enacting laws autonomously. They opposed something they had not the first understanding of.
@@davidmurphy563 Lol wtf but it's not just Brexiteers it's Remainders and undecideds it generally the majority of people. Must people don't give a shit or are too busy to learn or are simply disinterested.
David Murphy yeah yeah yeah I get it brexiteers are stupid bigots.
I don’t think rejoiners (formerly remainers) are any better informed as a group. If you are not highly engaged in politics your knowledge will be very superficial.
I actually voted remain to maintain the status quo, but I didn’t know what I was voting for. It’s only since then that Iv learned what the EU actually is, how it makes laws, what it does and what it’s plans for the future are.
This video doesn’t help. What I take away from it is that the commission can propose a law and as many as 8 nations can oppose it vehemently throughout the whole process and still have a law that hurts its people rammed down their throats
Sparky Marky "Brexiteers are stupid bigots" - those are your words, not mine. I said nothing of the sort.
As for "8 nations", this is false and shows you are either uninformed or misinformed.
55% of national governments (try using a calculator) *and* of 65% of the EU's population need to be in favour but a minimum of four countries are needed to block the majority.
In reality, national governments are consulted throughout the process from inception - laws/regulations are only made at EU level when there's a benefit to this - and agreements / compromises are made between countries while still allowing the EU to function effectively. There is horse trading and compromise where a country might concede in one area to gain in another. Finally, if a nation really doesn't like something it tends just not to implement it. Foisting laws basically never happens in reality. Unless you have an example? Didn't think so.
If you have some phobia to political compromise between nations - fine. Just don't misrepresent it.
Awesome video! Thanks. Very informative.
the union makes the force
When you get that revenge kill in your favourite FPS, but the timer has run out so you don't get the points.
The simpler presentation I ever ear .
Thanks
Please do one on how they select Presidents and Commisionars
It’s highly democratic and well-intentioned, but the cost of a high level of democracy is decision paralysis and ineffectiveness. It’s not well-positioned to combat the decline of democracy in its member states.
This goes to show once again, that Nation states have plenty of options to influence, change and complain about the EU's business. I hate when strongman national politicians claim that the EU is passing something that's bad for their country, even though THEY THEMSELVES helped pass it. They nod and give their green light at all steps of the way, help to amend it, but then when it's just about to pass or has passed, they come in and tell their people, how evil the EU is and how it's disrespectfully doing nothing in the interest of their country. Like, dude?? You signed it!! Just hand in your complaints earlier or stop the law! You have every right to do so. This is just propaganda. 🙄
the EU is an easy scapegoat unfortunately and when the commission defend themselves, the general population don't believe them over their national politicians.
I think the only way to fix this is by having the commission replaced by a government elected by parliament or having a directly elected president. But the member states don't want to give up that power, hopefully the upcoming conference on the future of europe will fix this.
@@gammarade2562 I think the key is just transparacy. Make it clear who said yes to what and report on it. One big reason why the EU is trusted so little, is because we rarely hear from it. There should be a prominent media agency, a TV channel, a newspaper, solely for EU news. But no... how would that come about? Won't happen, wil it? And people wouldn't consume those news either.
The EU is blatantly corrupt the EU President isn’t even elected by the people they represent
I don't think that's the whole story though. Typically you will see countries send their least-liked politicians to the EU parliament (or those that they don't want to have any power in the country). If you don't want them running your country, why send them to a body that will vote on rules that end up being a detriment?
Liverpool Fan they are elected by our sovereign governments but this ain’t democratic anymore
Unrelated to this video, just that I'm watching your old vids and I couldn't tell you this through Nebula: I was watching the other day the last EU video, on the European far right rise, and I thought it would be interesting if you did a video about the differences between I&D and ECR. I was looking into it the other day and found it was interesting and would like to know more about the origins of its differences, why I&D holds pro-Russian belief, their electoral prospects, and so forth.
Thanks, guys, keep up the good work. Your channels are great!
The Legislature and the Executive Power are basically one in the UK.
That’s what fundamentally wrong with the system.
Not necessarily wrong. Parliamentary democracies are more stable than presidential systems, in the sense that they have a lower likelihood to regress into dictatorships.
In the UK and other parliamentary democracies, the government is accountable to parliament. In other countries, they aren't accountable at all. Sure, they might be voted out in the future, but that's nothing to care about now, and if the damage has already been done it doesn't matter.
Governments are very powerful entities with their power concentrated amongst a few individuals. Parliaments have this power spread out which means it's less likely to be taken over.
Jeroen
I might not made my point clear enough.
Because of the FPTP system the conservatives now have a huge majority in Parliament. And because the way Parliament works in the UK (the government determines the business (agenda) of the House) Parliament hardly checks the government. The House of Lords have shown not to resist to the government as well so Boris Johnson can now basically do as he pleases. The resignation of Javid is evidence of that.
@@Conservator. In a presidential system the agenda of the parliament doesn't matter because there is very little oversight to be had. Just look at the USA today where the president just overrules any and all oversight.
Jeroen
And you think that’s ok?
I think the UK democracy is functioning a lot better than the US, even though the powers in the US are much more separated.
Federalize the EU. Power of initiative for the parlement and the commision is the exec. Eu court is the supreme court. Foreign affairs and defence to the union. Same goes for healthcare and treasury.
If I saw this 4 years ago, I would have voted to remain
This propaganda is really that good, is it? It didn’t work on me, but then again I have mastered the long lost art of independent thought.
So you’re saying you didn’t know what you were voting for?
I think the EU needs simplified. It's too complex for a regular EU citizen to understand and thus it's harder to hold to account.
How can such an interesting and well edited video not spell Sovereignty correctly?
Apart from confusing repeatedly the European Council with the Council of Ministers (a somewhat accessory component), great video!
Car analogy: Everyone drives cars. Does that mean everyone has to know exactly how an engine works? As long as the car drives you from A to B all is fine.
But if you think you can slap a turbo on that engine on your own without the help of professionals, it will blow up in your face sooner or later.
Bloody hell the levels of abject spastication around here is reaching critical levels now.
@@thegrandmuftiofwakanda Self knowledge is the key to wisdom. Brave of you!
Can you change the lights yourself though? #politicaltheory
The 2 areas I think the EU needs adjustment on to make it more democratic are:
1. The EU Parliament should not have a cap on the total numbers of MEPs. What this means is that as member states are added the apportionment of the whole is recalculated but means if there is constant expansion and/or population growth, MEPs will continually represent more and more citizens. Parliament should be doubled for now.
2. Too confusing. I took some EU law and my initial excitement was annihilated by the ridiculousness of the needless complicated structure... I mean a "European Council" AND a "Council of Europe?!" At least name things differently! I think this is important because citizens should be able to clearly understand how their government works and know what job they are voting people into. The Fog of Bureaucracy does not serve democracy well.
Your logo now looks like BFM TV ^^
Guys, one can't open the link in the bio for the EU patreon account, at least I can't. All other links work fine, but you might wanna check on the patreon one.
The EU wields great economic and diplomatic (soft) power, where it is really lacking is in military (hard) power which ultimately (even if never employed) must exist as a guarantor.
It actually has hard power if we combine the military of the individual countries
@@emilsinclair4190 To amuse myself one time I smacked down this brexiter who was trumpeting UK military strength, I supplied a link showing that EU countries had a combined total of over 22,000 combat aircraft to the UK's 700 or so, and then there is France's 300 nuclear warheads (the third highest in the world), but of course it lacks a combined authority and unity of command structure because- yes you've guessed it- countries are sovereign.
For what its worth I think the disbanding of NATO and the formation of an EU defence force is a matter of urgency.
Two things seems odd about the explanation: 1) You seem to say that the EU can't have courts, but then that it does; and 2) It sounds like the principle of subsidiarity can be overruled by the EU itself, which feels a bit contradictory. I can probably research this stuff on my own though, so thanks for the jumping off point!
Good points, let's see if I can help.
1) Not being a sovereign state the EU can't have full courts and for most cases she doesn't, you can't appeal your traffic ticket in the European Court of Justice(unless this somehow violates EU citizen rights). However it would be really inefficient to go past all national courts to deal with matters which apply across the EU. To continue with terms in the video the European Court of Justice is comparable to the Supreme Court in the US, she deals mostly with issues concerning the European Constitution a.k.a. the Lisbon Treaty. Can the EU do that deal, or can this company do this to European citizens etc. 95% of the time the EU is the defendant, can the EU do this, does she have the right? The other 5% it is the EU going after countries where the countries aren't following European agreements and/or laws.
2) No, the EU can't overrule sovereign parliaments, example TTIP, now forgotten but this trade agreement with the US was rejected by the parliament of Wallonia, the southern and French speaking part of Belgium. Since the political structure of Belgium grants these Regional Governments as much power as the Federal Government, TTIP failed in Belgium. Nothing the EU could do about it except to try and convince these politicians, where they failed as well. Now TTIP is back to the drawing board and a parliament representing 3,6 million people had more power than the EU parliament representing 500 million because of sovereignty. This goes back to another point in the video, some agreements only need a majority while others need unanimity, another time this happened was with the Lisbon Treaty it self, first rejected in Ireland, the government of Ireland agreed it wouldn't collapse the treaty on her own and would only stand by her vote if another country rejected. That happened in the Netherlands. When this happened the EU didn't even continue checking with the other countries since it was already dead and once again back to the drawing board.
Sander van Veen wasn’t CETA (Free trade agreement with Canada) the Wallonia Parliament rejected? I remember because the Commission made an exception to the rules and negotiated directly with Wallonia (and not with the Federal Government of Belgium )
@@Sanderos25 Right. To be more specific, the ECJ has competence in the interpretation of EU law only. So if a case turns up in a national court where there is uncertainty about interpretation of EU law, it can be referred to the ECJ. Once the ECJ makes a decision, it is up to the national courts to apply it. This is quite unlike the supreme court in the USA where people can use it as final court of appeals for almost anything.
Not to be confused with the ECHR which is not part of the EU.
"though it's not as crazy as the UK" hahahaha
Oh, I love to live on a planet where the EU exists...grand achievement of human kind!
You talked about directives, which have to be passed in every parliament. But there are other mechanisms such as "regulations". Those don't need member states to pass them, they are totally autonomous and binding.
Directives and Regulations follow the same procedure. So, member states have the same influence in both of them. They are different in their consequences (slightly). Regulations are directly binding to citizens. Directives are indirectly binding (through the legislature of the member states).
TLDR; to pass any EU law, the unelected experts in the EU commission must satisfy the national-citizen-elected national governments in the EU council and the EU-citizen-elected MPs in the EU parliament. The national-citizen-elected national parliaments may disagree but they can be overruled by the agreement of BOTH the national-citizen-elected national governments in the EU council and the EU-citizen-elected MPs in the EU parliament.
Did I get that right?
Longer summary:
- The commission (unelected experts) proposes a common rule
- The council (member states' government aka elected national executive branch) checks the commission for competences (if the proposal is within the jurisdiction granted by the treaty or not)
- The member states' parliaments (aka elected national legislature branch) then get another say on subsidiary principles (if the proposal can be done at the national level already)
- The council (elected national governments) and the parliament (elected directly by the citizens) get a vote to sustain or overrule the complaints of the member states' parliaments (elected national legislature branch).
- The parliament (elected MPs) then gets ANOTHER vote to pass, amend or reject the proposal.
- The council (unelected experts) replies to the parliament (elected MPs) and they play ping pong until everybody is happy.
- FINALLY, the council (member states' governments aka elected national executive branch) gets the last say on the official draft.
Yes, mostly. While commissioners aren't directly elected, they are proposed by the national governments, and are vetted by the European Parliament, so they're not totally independent.
@@varana This is no doubt confusing but as far as I can see, the so-called unelected part of the EU can't get a whole lot done without being checked by two other elected institutions (the council and the parliament).
The main problem I'm observing here is that some EU laws not requiring a unanimous vote in the council and that might be going against a member state's national interest can be still passed under the current system. There isn't a whole lot the said member state can do outside of voicing complaints from their national legislature branch on the third step and voting against the proposal in the council; both of which won't matter as long as the majority of the members support the proposal.
It kinda suck to be that guy but alas, it's democracy...
Since the Lisbon treaty, the EU parliament is more powerful and CANNOT be overruled by the combo Commission and Member States anymore (in normal legislature). Only exceptions remaining are the military, police, judges and fisheries, I think.
@@ronaldderooij1774 so what you mean is that the countries with more people have control and they get to choose who the commission is. Very democratic to all countries.
Need more information on the EU and more formilurization of its workings to get a real picture of how the EU works. But from the explanation given so far it's ok.
The EU offers a readable, compact introduction called "the EU in 12 lessons" on its website. Explains history, context, workings etc, for young adults. It's free .
1:37 almost everywhere does the executive make law proposals
It's a little misleading. The government is also part of the parliament and can therefore also propose laws. Not to mention you need to make plans before you can execute them.
@@Root174 Depends on the country. While that is true for most democracies in the European tradition, the government in the US is not part of the parliament. They do have some role in the legislative process but are more strictly separated than European democracies (including the UK).
@@varana Actually, in most EU countries the government is not part the parliament, the UK is the odd one out here. The situation in the UK where ministers vote on their own legislation is (IMHO) odd. Though AU has it too. One of the main steps after an election in NL is that in the formation of a government, anyone that becomes a minister gives up their seat in parliament.
This video is not confusing at all😹😹😹...Thanks guys for the good job
Thank you for your videos on the EU. In the last year, I relocated to the EU; and your videos are very helpful in getting me more well-oriented.
5:27 is why the EU is undemocratic
Good point. But if the parliament did have the power of initiative, wouldn't that conflict with the member states' sovereignty?
Also, if the parliament could have the initiative to propose laws, than the commission would basically become obsolete, right?
@@MacSvensson technically it would, but the existence of the EU itself as a political union could be argued as a violation of it's member's states sovereignty. Besides, that would give more legitimacy to EU laws if they were proposed by elected representatives. The Commission is supposed to be the EU's executive branch, meaning they manage the implementation of EU laws.
What does make it easier for many people to understand is that the EU acts very similarly as a 'Trade Union' does. It will represent it's members (the sovereign nations) on certain topics (e.g. trade) whilst also being able to represent specific issues for specific parts of it's members (EU citizens). This is analogous to a Trade Union representing it's members when dealing with a specific company, a government or resolving disputes (in some cases) between groups within its membership.
E.g. a TU can negotiate pay rises on behalf of members. In some (I think many) cases, unionized staff cannot negotiate salaries individually - this is similar to an EU member not being able to negotiate its own trade treaties.
Not
exactly 1:1...but similar.
That was the old union. This new EU is turning itself in a sovereignty. They even want their own army.
@@nocivolive There certainly are some people who want a USE (United States of Europe) but they are a small minority. In the EU, probably 5-10% think this is a great idea.
There are definitely more people who want to abolish the EU than turn it into a fully fledged nation.
Most people, and very definitely most people in the EU parliament, think the EU should not expand either territory OR it's legislative reach. They have voted for non-expansion and status-quo for 2 legislative sessions now (10 years) and have been pushing hard for actually stabilizing the union with it's current members.
As Germany is often cited as 'the Dictator of Europe'... all Brits are welcome to go to Germany and ask random people in the street if they want a USE... you will struggle very hard to find anyone who doesn't laugh in your face.
The only country in Europe where I've ever heard serious talk of this is in the UK. It is absolute paranoia.
It still has democracy issues I feel.
And the 1/3 rule just isn't enough with regard to how different geographies and local conditions can change the *effect* of a law.
Equal laws/rules sometimes have different outcomes due to the variables they operate within.
That is why it is very important to look at proposals early when the Commission is still writing them, and go to the Commission and tell them. Hence 20.000 lobbyists in Brussels.
5:22 "How are laws MAD" :D
We ticked them off!
How bad are we to make a law mad?!?!
The way of the future and very democratic
This sounds like a great club, maybe we should join.
Kinda blows the Brexit contention that the EU was dictating policies to the UK.
No shit.
us government also is dictating policies to its states, there is no point to economically cooperate with hostile regions.
And they were. They had control of fishing quotas and other stuff. A majority can help spain fishing in portugal waters in return of cheaper fish and portugal can't do shit. Is that fair? Portugal lost a huge industry because europe imposed quotas on portugal but allowed spain to do it.
@@nocivolive no portugal didnt lost a lot of fishing in fact portugal was once the poorest region in europe and today thanks to the eu it is thriving again, eu quotas are environmental protection measures. to limit industrial fishing
Have you guys thought of making a twitter account called TLDW (too long, didn't watch) to summarize your vids on a tweet? :D Just kidding, keep up the good work.
Well... there are some mistakes! To simplify things, the European Commission puts out a proposal sending it to the European Parliament, then it ping-pongs between the European Parliament and the European Council in a process called "co-decision". If no common ground can be reached, a last try in a common summit of European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Council is been held to reach an agreement. The goal is to reach an agreement between the European Parliament and the European Council with the oversight of the European Commission.
The Discord link has expired :/
This should be compulsive viewing to take away the nonsense that we have been listening to for the past four years !
Andy Clifft What have you based your opinion on please ? Maybe watch the video first.
I understand why the EU has all these systems to keep its members sovereign. Sadly, it also means that there is a lot of indirect democracy (ministers are appointed by the government that the people have more or less directly elected, coalitions and other parliamentary/electoral math included) while making it somewhat slow to act/reach decisions at times. Fixing these problems comes with more granted competences and/or or reduced sovereignty. Regretfully, we are in need of such reforms as we are ill-equipped in dealing with climate and refugee crisis. The latter looming more and more as the effects of climate change make an ever increasing number of regions very hard to live in if not uninhabitable in the short and medium term. Political chaos and wars in the Middle East not even included. So what to do? Swallow our collective pride and be able to deal with the impendings properly or continue to bicker, maybe break apart more and drown in chaos? I know what I prefer.
The EU on average takes 18 months to pass legislation. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The European Commission, after being asked to work on a proposal or fix an issue, has to study the problem, figure out the legal basis it has to act, talk to stakeholders and allow anyone in the EU to comment on the issue, study all alternative solutions, pick one of those, draft it, make a proposal and publish all aforementioned studies, they have to be translated in all 23 languages before the Parliament gets to debate and vote on it, and then it has to go to the member states. If they disagree it takes even longer.
Which of these steps is not crucial in your opinion? The reason the EU didn't act on the refugee crisis isn't because it was too slow. It simply doesn't have the competence to do so, and member states refused to give the EU the competence, while also refusing to fix it themselves.
As for climate change, again, slowness isn't the issue here. Because of the process explained, measures taken by the EU have been incredibly successful. Think about the regulations that define how loud your vacuum cleaner can be. That's not a regulation to comfort consumers, that is a regulation to reduce the energy waste of the devices, making them more efficient.
The issue is that whenever the EU proposes a regulation to tackle climate change, the parliament usually approves or in some cases even asks for an even more radical approach, but once the member states get to vote on it, they decline the proposal or water it out so badly it becomes much less effective.
Speed isn't the issue. Good laws need time.
@@JBinero The main issue is that the EU doesn't have a body to quickly react to crisis. 18 months is a long time and while legislation isn't necessary to react to a crisis, every action to a crisis must be first negotiated by 27 heads of state or ministers, which really causes problems.
And that is exactly something that will need to change. Sure we've weathered the current crisis acceptably now, but what if the next crisis needs actions within hours/days instead of weeks?
Nestrior is correct that at this moment it is time to give the EU some more powerfull, execute a political reform and make is less unwieldy, while ofcourse trying to keep a good balance.
@@MDP1702 What crisis justifies legislation? You should be prepared for that. Allowing quick legislation to be passed does not add anything valuable. As I said, which of those steps would you do away with for "emergencies", and can you give any example when that would've been useful?
How do you mean the "current crisis"? Do you mean the refugee crisis? That was not a case of the EU acting slowly, as I said before, the EU *is legally not allowed to act on this*. They tried to make some proposals that the member states could build on, but the member states refused to cooperate and address the issue.
The member states had the power to act quickly. They refused to do so, because their solutions were based on ideology not study. The EU method would've resolved the issue faster, and would likely have been able to prevent it altogether. If anything it's an argument in favour of slow, science-based legislation rather than rushing through highly controversial things with little to do expert oversight.
@@MDP1702 the member states can react quickly if needed
@@JBinero *Allowing quick legislation*
That is not exactly what I am talking about. The legislature is meant to take care of the long game with creating laws. The executive is meant to quickly act and deal with a crisis. At this moment the only body in the EU that is basically executive is the council, but because this consist of 27 membergovernment they can't act really swiftly like is shown with the refugee crisis for example.
*How do you mean the "current crisis"?*
I meant it plural crises, sorry for the confusion. Like the eurozone crisis, the refugee crisis, the financial crisis, ...
Your last paragraph is partly my point, the EU might have dealt with it better than the memberstates, because the memberstates don't look always at the greater picture and are divided on what to do. That is why the EU needs a proper executive branch that can quickly react, next to the legislative branch.
EU structure is a delicate balance of power between the member states and the union. I would like it to be more democratic with the parliament having the ability to propose/draft laws, with a proper senate (though the council of ministers is somewhat like a senate) and with a commission whose members are selected among MEPs, very much like the UK government. However, this would imply more transfer of competences to the EU and therefore reducing the sovereignty of each member state. As a federalist, this is not an issue for me but I doubt that most of the people calling for a more democratic EU are ready to give it more power. Unfortunately, an empowered parliament would automatically reduce the power of each member state. Finally, let's get rid of this unanimity vote and replace it by a majority of the 2/3. We should also have a double majority system like in Switzerland. Some laws to pass require double majority: majority at the federal level and at the canton level. Actually, a video on Switzerland could be very interesting. It is a federation and it relies on direct democracy. It could be a source of inspiration to improve EU. Making videos on various federation, though EU is not one, for the sake of comparison would be awesome: Switzerland, USA, Canada, Australia, Russia, etc
We’ll get there. The commission is still a good middle ground as both EU democratic institutions can request assessments and laws being drafted. However, parliament has ultimately no power in how the commission does things until it reaches the vote and potential amendment requests.
Everything that you suggest already exist. MEP's can form their own lobby groups (such as for fisheries) and influence the commission to draft specific laws in that aspect.
Commission members are also elected by MEP's already. First they get selected by the government of the member state and afterwards voted on by the EU parliament.
@@swanky_yuropean7514 Well, Commission members are approved by the parliament but not appointed or elected by it. I do not have any issue with that but I think it would make things clearer and more democratic for a majority of people, if the commission was appointed like the UK or German government. As Victor E. Caplon wrote, hopefully wee will get there.
@@pac2718 But even in those governments, the individual ministers of the government are not directly elected. In fact, both in the UK and Germany not even the _head_ of government is directly elected. Instead, citizens vote for party candidates who then vote on a head of government who then appoints government ministers.
I think that most people that want their country to leave and know how it works but dont agree with the idea of a council that initiate laws over a democraticly elected parlamant.
smart as usual, TLDR
It is unbelievble that 26 sovern states gave a bit if there powers to a body of “undemocratic EU bureaucrats” (some UK leavers say!). Why is (or looks) the education about politics in the UK so biased?Thanks for your excellent explanations!
And they do. Is a non elected commission that starts the proposals of laws and regulations. That makes no sense!! It should be a parliament with x people from each country.
It seems it's very difficult to pass laws, and for me, that's great! But you didn't explain how and who create regulations
He did. It was stated that the European Commission puts forward all laws and regulations they see a need for.
This is not explained because that would require acknowledging that the entire legislative potential of the EU lies solely in the hands of unelected bureaucrats.
@@necromanticer169 the european commission is elected tho?
@@necromanticer169 The commission is appointed by elected governments and approved by parliament and therefor is indirectly elected.
And while the commission puts forward the laws and regulations, parliament can ask them to look into something, like recently done in regard to electronic chargers.
@@35lux but it's not, tho?
@@necromanticer169 I don't know how you can state that the entire legislative potential is held by unelected bureaucrats. Their job is to come up with proposed legislation which cannot be implemented without agreement from the elected officials. And who are the commission? They are proposed by the council and must be approved by the European parliament.
So the people you are complaining about are not directly elected, but are nominated and approved, and do not have any power to pass legislation at all.
There is nothing sinister about this.
5:02 The body that legislates is not called a legislative, it's called a legislature
Legislative is also a correct synonym of legislature.
Legislative is an adjective, rather than a noun, so "legislative body" or something like that would be fine, but not legislative on its own as used there.
@@MichaelWarman No, legislative can be both an adjective and a noun. I double checked in a dictionary just now.
I personally think that while it’s current structure of the EU with the subsidarity principle etc. Is a natural conclusion/compromise between the STATES of the union in the form of the Lissabon treaty, it makes it also a semi olgigarchical one as well, even when it is formally not a unified state in the usual sense YET. For example: to vote for one of the transnational parties within European Parlament you need to vote for the ideological corespondent party within your own country, since those transnational parties as they are right now are just alliances between the ideologically similar parties within the states of the union. If you want for example to vote green or left within the European Parlament but they have a bad reputation locally or are actively worked against and discriminated within your state you are less likely to do so. I personally would prefer it in that particular example that the transnational states would be at least structurally more separate from the national parties. And as for the matter of souvereignty and pardon me, I‘m not that well read in the details of that, but assume a memberstate goes rogue for whatever reason, as in a dictator or a one party system is basically at play there, even worse an alliance of several rogue states has been formed within the EU, how would this then be dealt with? Am just a curious gal on the Internet.
... we managed to vote a comedian into the EU parliament before. I don't feel like it's too difficult to send a representative of your choosing, provided your interest group is large enough.
For reference, his name is Martin Sonneborn. And his party is called 'Die Partei', translating to 'The Party'.
It would be great a comparison with EEAA
Once you all have created pins for each country (hopefully Haiti will be soon) you should create pins of whatever building traditionally represents each country's government. (examples: the US Capital Building/White House, the Palace of Westminister, the Reichstag, both EU Parliament Buildings, etc)
Great explanation!
So if I understand it correctly, the citizens of the EU directly elect what is most close to the House of Lords rather than the government
No. The EU parliament is the House of Commons, it passes and amends legislative proposals. The Lords can only advise.
I believe that the EU parliment cannot propose amendments to legislation though? Its actually quite weak as parliaments go?
@@christopherdickinson9265Nope. If the EU parliament does not like the proposal, it has, in the end, the final say. And it also has the final say in the EU budget. Since recently it has also the final say to accept/reject candidate Commissioners and it can send Commissioners home. The only difference with a regular Parliament is, that in a sense the Commission has also a final say in that if it does not like the amendments of Council or Parliament, it can withdraw the proposal at any moment (but that never happens). So, the EU parliament can propose and even force amendments. It is a bit more complicated (it has to negotiate with the Council) but that is the rough idea.
@@christopherdickinson9265 The Commission drafts and tables bills, either of its own accord due to recommendations by experts, or at the behest of either Council or Parliament passing majority resolutions in favor of such legislation. Once introduced by the Commission, both the Council and Parliament have full amendment powers, and must both agree on and pass the final version for it to become law. The Commission does not get a vote.
Another way to describe the EU is me buying my neighbour big boot to use for kicking my butt. 😂
But the problem is that the EU DOES NOT FOLLOW IT'S OWN RULES OR LAWS. For example, Cameron used the UK's power of veto when it came to bailing out the Euro currency; (you'll note that I say the "currency" here and not Greece). Greece was never bailed out. "Bailouts" actually broke EU constitutional law, but that didn't seem to matter? The "Euro" itself was bailed out, as were the German and French banks who'd made bad loans to Greece in the first place. Greece and many other Southern European countries, including Ireland were plunged into fiscal austerity measures following this, which stagnated their economies. Interest rates were kept lower than many coutries could manage. This, followed by Merkel opening up of Germany's boarders, then insistance that "Europe" share the problem she created, are just two examples of crises that are still ongoing today. I do have a lot of empathy for political migrants and in helping to keep all EU countries economies stable. However, the lack of demogracy or consistency in the EU decision-making process and the passing of laws without full consensus from all member states is causing a lot of unrest within the EU itself. I do hope the EU can reform...
Now can the EU just get it's act together, create voting regions to elect parliamentarians directly? After that, we need more centralisation with regards to international policy (perhaps also with regions) since each member state is too weak to have a competent policy. And it needs a proper budget. To hell with Farage and his goons, let's show them how to run a government
That is the aim of many within like Macron. Unfortunately until they all agree (and there is a lot of resistance from Italy and the east, now excluding UK) it just won’t happen.
Using STV voting.
@@VictorECaplon true, but then again, I don't have any special affection for the EU in particular. Only what is best for Europe, and the peoples therein. If the whole thing needs to go out the window, it should, but there should be a strong, stable, centralized system because by all rights, the EU and all of its nations should be able to have as much influence in the world as the US.
The reason is that it is presently (to me) the best place to live in the world. It should be able to stay that way without any foreign sovereign influence from either the US or China or anyone one else who may come up.
I am against voting regions, I but I like the Voting System of Germany where you have two votes one vor a Party and one for a Person you whant in Power. Then them most People with individual votes get there seats first and after that the Parties are free to choose whomever they want. I am austrian so I do not advertise the voting system of my Government.
The EU is a cancer to Europe. You have a goverment that cant anything done. President Trump= promises made, promises kept.
The EU sounds like a confederacy
Not exactly, but I get the point.
That's exactly what it is. It's like a big Switzerland with more autonomy for its states
I want the EU parliament to be more influential - it needs the power of initiative, and a proposal started by the EU parliament does not need to be linked to a competence. I also want the amount of seats to be allocated by a formula instead of negotiation, and I want to be able to vote on international lists or other nations' lists.
It already has the power.
www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/decision-making/ordinary-legislative-procedure/legislative-proposal/
But EU isn't federal state so it requires much more complex structure for laws it can pass. For many cases it requires support of national parliaments too. In federal state regional parliaments would have much less say about federal laws.
The number of seats is allocated by the Treaty, not by negotiations. There is some kind of rough formula for it, but I think the final outcome in the Treaty was more of an outcome of the negotiations, in so far you are right.
That's a ridiculously hard to shake system. Rather good for gathering world powers together.
I feel like the EU is a perfect example of how an institution, while being wonderful in theory can be too complex in practice.
I think a better proposal for how the EU should handle laws is allow Parliament to propose the law for it to pass the muster of the national governments (wherein the 1/3rd rule applies) and it should pass the parliament. The council of ministers can then function as an upper house and finally the commission as a president.
That should then hopefully streamline the process a little
I'm also annoyed by the complexity of it all, but all those structures are there for a reason. Nation states want to be equal, not inferior, to the EU institutions. And rightfully so.
Allowing the European Parliament to initiate the creation of laws, by permitting MEPs to propose legislation, instead of the Executive (EU Commission) would force said Executive, and the upper house of Parliament (EU Council of Ministers [EU Heads of State]) to take responsibility for ludicrous positions on common-sense proposals, such as not transferring more resources and power to Frontex, the EU's Border Force, in lieu of States.
That is a great alternative but many states whithin and out of the EU dont want that because they fear It would become an actual country, in practice It would make them stronger but individual states would lose power
EDUARDO MILANI Yh but at the end we citizens win not our representative’s representative, we have direct control over our EU parliament
You're dealing with law at a international level the process is always going to have a degree of complication. It has to not just be but seen to be fair.
MEP or a body of them can bring pressure to start a law
You should have made this bloody video 4 years ago. Love you guys and and this video was great but its kinda too late now.
Sovereignty, I think!
There is NO REASON that anybody out of EU should propose ANYTHING regarding to EU. However everybody can comment ;-)
Sometimes an outside observer can see a problem more clearly than the people dealing with the problem itself, though whether to accept and implement feedback should indeed always be in hands of those working on the problem rather than an outsider.
@@alexanderdehaan8450 outside observer can deal with inside issues ;-)
@@zyghom like the British, they will have to deal with quite a few inside issues in a few months lol
How undemocratic of E-U
@Miguel samson Brits really have internal issues to solve. The best advice for EU would be when Brits can lead by example rather than by blabla
The guys who created this are masterminds.
Just like Hitler & Stalin
Funny looking at this 2 years later. The EU is mad at Poland for concluding the EU doesn't have sovereignty.
And as to the question if the EU is structured well... In theory it does balance out the interests of Union, People and governments, yes... but not equally.
The Commission, which is basically the EU's government, is more in the hands of the Council (the heads of governments of the individual states), when it should be more in the hands of the parliament.
Also, there should be more of a link between region and MEPs. Everybody knows, who their MP is, within their country. But on the European level there is little connection to their voting district. A politician is just a MEP from a party, and only has to answer to the electorate as a whole. However, I think there should be a geographic link. A member should represent a certain part of the electorate in whichever shape or form. Just so we have more accountability.
You are obviously British. You may know who 'your' MP is, but in most European countries, there is no district voting system. France is the only other country with a 'winner takes all' system. All other countries have proportional voting. And for good reason! District voting makes it very difficult for smaller parties to get in Parliament. It also makes it much more likely that a single party gets an absolute majority. Although this may seem appealing, because decision making is a lot easier, it can also lead to abuse of power. And when another party takes the majority, a lot of energy goes into undoing what the previous government has done. With proportional representation, it is very difficult to get an absolute majority. This means that compromises must be reached with other parties. This means that there is less chance of 'extreme' measures. There is more continuity because more parties have invested in new regulations. Maybe nobody is entirely happy with these regulations, but most are not too unhappy with them either. With Brexit, we saw what happens if political parties do not know how to compromise. So, instead of introducing a district system for the European Parliament, I would suggest that the UK start using proportional representation as their voting system.
@@allthatchas On a European level all election are a form of proportional representation.
@@swanky_yuropean7514 True, but theunsolvedcase made a suggestion to change that.
Yes, because having a party in parliament with a 80+ absolute majority, despite not having a majority in the cast votes is such a good idea, it should be replicated everywhere.
Some quality control and you wouldn't have spelt SOVEREIGNTY wrong in a video about sovereignty
The EU is a confederation of states..
..built through bypassing and ignoring the ballot box
Billie Piper’s Teeth Bullshit!
So why do people feel completely detached from the EU? And why doesn't anyone vote in EU elections?
The system you describe sounds quite reasonable. All stakeholders are represented, the union consults with a lot of interest groups before acting, and every official post is directly or indirectly democratically derived. Plus member governments can way in freely. So why the heck doesn't this work much better?! Why brexit and so much anti EU sentiment spreading so fast, with many people feeling alienated? I'm definitely not one of them. I am strongly in favour of the European project, but reform is clearly needed. Would be a super interesting topic for a video ;)) Have a nice one folks! :)
I'd like to know about pan-European parties. Are there any? How powerful are they, and why can't we start one in the UK, with the support of all the other pro-EU parties in Europe?
there's "Volt" and "DiEM25" which are pan- european parties. However, they are still pretty new iirc
I would say what the EU needs is more power to the parliament, mainly the proposal ability. That makes it even closer to the citizens.
Still, a Great video!
It's on purpose the EP doesn't have these legislative powers. This ability is part of the sovereignty that is normally attributed to nation states. You must be aware of the consequences when it does go in this direction... the EU will become more a federation. It's of course legitimate to have this preference. Personally,.. I am happy with the current configuration.
Never going to happen.
It already has power to initiate legislative procedure.
www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/decision-making/ordinary-legislative-procedure/legislative-proposal/
@@thegrandmuftiofwakanda | We finally might agree on something! Although,.."never" is strong,... "little chance of this happening in my lifetime".
... On the other hand,..... maybe some populist will start yelling "Make Europe Great Again".... "Take away control from these corrupt national parliaments"... we have seen what could happen when a loose herd of voters ventures into a democratic stampede.
*_” It is on purpose that these assholes are treading my face into the ground so it’s OK “_*
These pro-EU propaganda channels are always a source of such intense amusement for me.
All this only makes sense if the member states follow the rules, in many cases they don't. Eg E.European states refusing Merkels migrants, Greece commiting financial fraud etc. One of the very few nations which did follow pretty much every EU law has now left, the UK. Probably because of this.
"Merkels migrants"? LOL. :D
Technically it was to assist the massive influx of immigrants that were arriving to Italy and Greece which they couldn't handle. They asked the EU for help and that's where Merkel stepped in and requested EU members to assist these others nations. The EU has been trying for e.g. to create processing centers in Africa itself so that they can move the refugees there instead of the EU
It is not too bad, but I would like to give the parliament more power, increase democratic elements a bit as well as transparency. And there are propably some other issues I am not aware right now that I would also like to change.
I don't know of any governmental body in the world that is so transparent. However, you have to look for it at the site Europa.eu to find it. If you take one day of surfing that site, you will be amazed how deep you can go in finding very detailed information on drafts, changes to drafts, who wanted them, why and what the procedure is. No government can match that transparancy.
I do think the balance between Sovereignty of the Member States and the power of the EU is a masterpiece, but I don't like the current structure of the Council. At the Moment it is split in two. With the Council of Ministers (who can vote on EU laws) and the Council of the head of States (who dictate policies that the commission should work on). I do understand that this splitt enabels the head of states to be not antagonistic towards the EU, but I do think something more transparently structured would be better to represent the nation states of the EU. The US has the Senat, this wouldn't work in the EU but at least it's simple.
My other fear is that the planed initiative right of EU Parlament could antagonize the member states. The odd thing is it would be a step to a more democratic EU and also could tear ist apart.
Exiting times nonetheless I hope the waking call,in the form of Brexit, enabels us europeans to go the next steps toward an imperfect but ever Changing, ever Closer Union.
The Council is only one Council in the treaty. That is the Council of Heads of State. That by the way CANNOT dictate anything to anyone. It advises the Commission on policies and further legislation. The Commission decides on that. The Council of Ministers officially does not exist, but is there for practical reasons. They are called Council formations. The idea behind it is that member states (heads of state and ministers) want the same for their country anyway.
@@ronaldderooij1774 Thanks for pointing out some issues with my statement.
What would be a more appropriate therm to "dictate police to the ..." be, because I honestly thought that the Councel sets the police of the EU Commission. Am I wrong in that assumption?
I did use the wrong therm for the Council formation because I thought it makes the difference between the groupings more apparent.
@@ronaldderooij1774,
Sorry, you answered this one demonstrably wrong :
eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12016M/TXT#d1e1302-1-1
Of course, both Councils are in the treaties !
For the role of both councils, please see here :
www.consilium.europa.eu/en/
I tend to use this analogy for them :
I see the European Council as the EU’s collective _head of state,_ with the Council president as a figurehead, a permanent speaker for the Council.
Whereas the Council of the EU is analogous in function to the upper chamber of legislature, such as the Bundesrat in Germany or the US Senate.
EU makes rules for member states but have no power over them.
Haha, "soverignty".. 2:07, 4:03
Its good
They are just people, why do you trust them? You dont know them and they make discussions for you over shit that has nothing to do with them.
I am quite satisfied with how democratic the EU is.
The EU should finally start making the transition to becoming a proper state
and who do you think would agree to that? just look at Brexit
@@tiberiuzabara6891
Germany, the EU is a natural extension of the federal principles required by 1951 constitution, unless 26 others think the same (they don't) there is no way towards that.
@@fionafiona1146 That is a very broad interpretation of the federal principles, and if I recall correctly our highest court does not currently share it.
@@rm0986
Our highest count has an issue with how "democratic" the EU is, not wether or not such an institution can be built to fit basic requirements.
If the populous has neither understanding of nor influence on institutions they aren't democratic (European council) or republican in the original (if discriminatory) Roman sense.
@@fionafiona1146 I'm not sure I can follow what you're trying to say. Surely a democratic procedure remains democratic in its nature even if the people who are eligible to vote in it don't care about doing so?
Long life to the EU. The EU needs to become more and more powerful
So. Where do commissioners come from and how are they fired for maladministration and corruption?
When a new commission is being created, the President of the Commission (currently von der Leyen) calls on all governments of the member states to appoint one commissioner which can be rejected by the President. Once all names are in, the Commission President distributes the offices and tasks among them. Afterwards, the commissioner candidates undergo a vetting process by the European Parliament.
So where do they come from? Every government has exactly one commissioner.
How are they fired? The EP can depose the Commission with a 2/3rds majority. They can also be fired by the Commission President. In this regard, they basically work like cabinet ministers in the UK.
Is it not sovereignty… Not soverignty?
not if its loaned and not possesd. its like i rent you my car but i still own it.