Melita,

You might wish to look at the constitution of the German Empire. Considering how you describe the EU, it might look rather familiar.

I suggest to you the resemblance is deliberate. I do not believe it is intended for the EU to be a democracy of any kind.

I think you're right, Ruvy, about it not having been intended for the EU to be a democracy of any kind. But that doesn't mean it can't be, shouldn't be, or that it doesn't stand a better chance of survival and useful function as a real democracy.

One thing about Europe that I love is the degree to which the population has shown itself willing to hold their governments' feet over the fire - they do this in a way North Americans, at least, don't. The results aren't always likable. But at least they're there.

I think a democratic EU is possible if Europeans find a way to insist on it, whatever the founders or the administrators intended. I also think the unexpectedly high turnout for the last European Parliament elections are a sign that this possibility, knotty as it may be, could be more than a pipe dream.

As it exists right now, the EU is an example of rule by an elite of professional bureaucrats. I'm not sure what the correct term for that is, but it's not a very appealing concept.

dave

Bureaumania (too French?), bureaucratic collectivism (too pink?), oligarchy (too exagerrated?) . . . really, you're spoiled for epithets.

Still, the EU has done lots of good for member states, especially in terms of the free circulation of goods and people. But if it's going to continue to do good, it's in desperate need of major democratic reform.

Dave, it disturbs me that I keep finding myself experiencing the odd sensation of time travel as I peruse your increasingly odd and dated political views.

You oppose socialism in any form and seem to see Europe as something to be almost pitied with such dogmatic fervour that almost smacks of desperate acts of faith rather than the genuine love of reason that you repeatedly profess to endorse.

There are more than just a few good ideas that have come from the left of the political spectrum and to decry the left as inherently wrong is just as silly as protestants v catholics.

Similarly, Europe is a mostly happy safe and progressive part of the world that values far more in life than just the bottom line that seems to obsess so many Americans.

As to it's form of government, yes, it's bloated and cumbersome but that is a temporary thing reflecting the massive changes going on.

As the CIA World Factbook says:- "The evolution of the European Union (EU) from a regional economic agreement among six neighboring states in 1951 to today's supranational organization of 25 countries across the European continent stands as an unprecedented phenomenon in the annals of history. Dynastic unions for territorial consolidation were long the norm in Europe. On a few occasions even country-level unions were arranged - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Austro-Hungarian Empire were examples - but for such a large number of nation-states to cede some of their sovereignty to an overarching entity is truly unique. Although the EU is not a federation in the strict sense, it is far more than a free-trade association such as ASEAN, NAFTA, or Mercosur, and it has many of the attributes associated with independent nations: its own flag, anthem, founding date, and currency, as well as an incipient common foreign and security policy in its dealings with other nations. In the future, many of these nation-like characteristics are likely to be expanded."

And, for the record, from the same source, our current form of government is this "chief of union: President of the European Commission Jose Manuel DURAO BARROSO (since 22 November 2004)
cabinet: European Commission (composed of 25 members, one from each member country; each commissioner responsible for one or more policy areas)
elections: the president of the European Commission is designated by member governments; the president-designate then chooses the other Commission members; the European Parliament confirms the entire Commission for a five-year term; election last held 18 November 2004 (next to be held 2009)
election results: European Parliament approved the European Commission by an approval vote of 449 to 149 with 82 abstentions
note: the European Council brings together heads of state and government and the president of the European Commission and meets at least twice a year; its aim is to provide the impetus for the major political issues relating to European integration and to issue general policy guidelines

Legislative branch:

Council of the European Union (25 member-state ministers having 321 votes; the number of votes is roughly proportional to member-states' population); note - the Council is the main decision-making body of the EU; European Parliament (732 seats; seats allocated among member states by proportion to population); members elected by direct universal suffrage for a five-year term
elections: last held 10-13 June 2004 (next to be held June 2009)
election results: percent of vote - NA%; seats by party - EPP-ED 268, PES 202, ALDE 88, Greens/EFA 42, EUL/NGL 41, IND/DEM 36, UEN 27, independents 28
Judicial branch:

Court of Justice of the European Communities (ensures that the treaties are interpreted and applied correctly) - 25 justices (one from each member state) appointed for a six-year term; note - for the sake of efficiency, the court can sit with 11 justices known as the "Grand Chamber"; Court of First Instance - 25 justices appointed for a six-year term"

Christopher, the passages you've just cut-and-pasted describe a democratic deficit that needs correcting by the Parliament's electorate (that is, Europeans).

You can compare it or not to other places, but the prominence of bureaucracy in EU decision-making is something that should be criticized by the left AND the right.

Saying that America is worse or believing that the EU must be moving in the right direction because right-wingers who you disagree with don't like it doesn't help at all.

It is being corrected Melita, just takes a while is all. As to your final para, I don't believe I did say that but whatever.

That CIA world factbook is an interesting little piece of literature, and one has to wonder what it's for.

You can imagine the scenario during a slow week at Langley: "OK Henry, this week, we're going to do a bit of political interference in Tajikistan."

"Right, Fred, hang on while I just get my factbook so we can see exactly where that is before we start."

I suspect they are the same two dudes who gave Don Rumsfeld his advice on the invasion of Iraq.

Christopher, all I did on this thread was object to the fact that the EU is run by a cadre of professional bureaucrats who are paid $500,000 a year and are answerable only to each other. This isn't a problem for me - I don't live in Europe. But there are plenty of people who do live there who find it offensive. Would you like links to scads of their websites?

Dave

Yeah, there are thousands of people who don't like it.

And millions who do. Once again Dave, that's democracy at work.

No, STM. More like there are millions who just don't think about it.

Those few who do take the time to think about it are likel to be the ones who are fed up with it.

Dave

Morning Dave (you are either up late or up early): I'm just giving you a gee up, as you'd probably guessed. I do know that many Brits aren't happy.

Their main worry is that the French think they are the most important, and are making loud noises about it, and the Germans believe the same about themselves but are going about it very quietly.

That is therefore already a recipe for disaster, as past events have proven. Thank God for the Channel, that God-given stretch of water that separates the righteous from the riotous, the heavenly from the heathen.

But sadly, only a miracle can save the green and pleasant land we all knew and loved from the insanity emanating from Brussels.

It is now time to fight them on the beaches.

No, Dave, all you did was display your dated mindset and your prejudice, again...

The Brits, like the Yanks, somehow think they're special. It's a delusion of course and one that governments from both sides of the political "spectrum" do nothing to change. Meanwhile, on the European mainland, we just get on with things.

Que? Oh sorry, that's right ... you're Spanish these days.

That aside, the British delusion IS a wonderful delusion, though. Some of them even think they can play cricket.

I still love England, STM, but prefer to live in the warm, sunny, confident and optimistic South.

I see myself as a European, though that doesn't at all get in the way of supporting Manchester United in football, Lancashire in cricket, St Helens in Rugby League and Sale at the superior Union game.

CR said: "I still love England, STM, but prefer to live in the warm, sunny, confident and optimistic South."

I'm with you on that one, old boy! Sale are a Lancashire RU side, are they? I didn't know. I am just watching the Great Britain v Australia RL Test at Suncorp Stadium, Brisbane, right now. Good game. Brits losing as we go into the final 10 but they have scored the last two meat pies.

Adrian Morley is a madman. They should only let him out of the box on special occasions. On a big night at the zoo, maybe. Good player and I wouldn't like to be nailed by him.

I lived in England as a kid and went to school there (I think I told you that). I do have fond memories.

Loving to hate isn't the same as hating.

Dave, it might be hard but you need to give Europeans more credit. They're more involved with and educated about the political processes of their individual countries than most North Americans, and while the results are gross sometimes it means most of them enjoy a much more representative democracy at the national level than you do.

I hope their level of political involvement leads to what Christopher Rose is so sure about (a real democratic overhaul of EU institutions). I think it will. We'll see.

So the EU ministers and commission can't decide who is a european, but You CAN? did I get you right?

No, unless you meant a royal "You" in the sense of the European population, which I belong to by birth and nationality and which I spent about 2000 words arguing should fight a more democratic EU.

But I doubt that's what you meant at all, so I'll just say you're completely wrong.

Their main worry is that the French think they are the most important, and are making loud noises about it, and the Germans believe the same about themselves but are going about it very quietly.

This may be at the heart of my problem with the EU. Having spent a lot of time in Germany and France, but having genuinely lived and worked in England for years at a time, I find it inconceivable that England would benefit from being in a 'union' with Germany or France. For that matter I don't see how anyone in a halfway decent country could benefit from being in a political union with France.

Dave, it might be hard but you need to give Europeans more credit. They're more involved with and educated about the political processes of their individual countries than most North Americans, and while the results are gross sometimes it means most of them enjoy a much more representative democracy at the national level than you do.

And I take it you think that's a good thing? Direct democracy is a very poor form of government. Add on a level of autonomous bureaucracy and it becomes even worse.

I hope their level of political involvement leads to what Christopher Rose is so sure about (a real democratic overhaul of EU institutions). I think it will. We'll see.

I agree that there seems to be a push towards positive change. I think that the introduction of some elements of federalism in the EU would be a very good idea, but some of the more powerful nations involved are likely to resist that as it would reduce their dominance.

Dave

The validity of the sorts of fears you write about depend on the dominance of the old big countries within the union, Dave, which I don't think is sustainable and is exagerrated now (though not for lack of trying within France).

As far as I've heard the only European country practising direct democracy is Switzerland, which doesn't count, of course. Although when I was there it seemed to work well enough. Anyways, direct democracy wasn't what I was talking about. I think you know that; no need to resent it just because neither of your electable national parties have platforms that reflect your beliefs about political right and wrong.

Not sure how my issues with the current US political structure fit into the picture of the EU. That's one thing the Europeans seem to have gotten right - political party diversity and coalition based government. Never let it be said that I don't think there are soem things we can learn from them.

Dave

Shavua Tov (have a good week),

Melita, I'm going to skip over most of the discussion here and go back to the point I was trying to get across to you on Friday.

I agree with you that the EU should be more democratic. In directing you to the imperial German constitution which I strongly suggest you look at, I'm not stating what I think should be or not; I'm talking about what I perceive to be reality.

The Philadelphia Trumpet examines the rise of the EU in the light of the resurrection of Germany from the ashes of destruction of WWII, and, from the point of view of the Trumpet, the resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire that it reflects.

Dave Nalle, who has discussed this issue with you, will immediately jump in with arguments that the Trumpet represents a dangerous view of extremists.

All I will say is this. Herbert Armstrong made many predictions as the head of the church this magazine represents, and many of them were wrong - dead wrong. But he hit one on the money, and that was that Germany would rise to lead Europe. Armstrong said this in 1945, when the Allies were still contemplating how to permanently divide Germany so that never again would the peace of the world be threatened by the aggressive designs of the Germans. Germany was never divided, it is re-unified, and it is the leading force of the EU. The present editor of the Trumpet, Gerald Flurry, concentrates on that one prediction, and unfortunately, his correlating of events occurring on the ground in Europe correspond with an awful vision of the resurrection of a German Empire, clothed in the lamb's wool of the EU.

I strongly suggest you take a good look at the link. Although written in September, you will see a clear understanding for events going on in Europe and the Middle East. The magazine makes a careful analysis of the German economy, of the changes in the running of the Vatican and in the ties between the Vatican and the government of Germany. It also makes a number of predictions, all of them disturbing, but they all make sense, and all have a strong posibility of occurring.

I tend to agree with the overall outlook of the Trumpet here, and I do not think a more democratic EU is in the cards.

Ruvy, your comment above would be interesting if it wasn't completely inaccurate and wrong. For a starter, Germany isn't the leading force in the EU, not by a long way. It may be the most populous member state but it is seriously debilitated still by the re-union with the East.

Mind you, I'm not surprised to see another of your pessimistic, deluded and near-paranoid ideas, after all, you are, as you write about yourself, "a fellow who knows that behind every smile is a grimace, that behind all humor is pain, that behind all love is fear and that underlying all prosperity is insecurity."

Ruvy, I agree with Christopher Rose about your outlook. The structure of the EU - silly as it can seem - does have effective safeguards protecting the whole from the dominance of any one country. The Parliament already has the power to dismiss the Commission, and the last election turn-out suggests it's getting a popular mandate that will force EU planners to take it more and more seriously. I find your pessimism about a more democratic EU poorly founded.

I also find it provoking to be referenced to the Trumpet in this context, as it's plainly biased in such a fashion that any of its commentary on the EU will be profoundly unhelpful to its future.

Hi Dave, interesting article. I'm having a bit of trouble with your statement that the EU "cadre of professional bureaucrats" are paid $500,000 a year. Can you source this for us?

I have only two comments to make.

1. Chris, I hope you are right in your analysis, thin as it is. The evidence I see doesn't indicate that, but nevertheless I prefer that you be right than wrong.

2. Melita, you write, "I also find it provoking to be referenced to the Trumpet in this context, as it's plainly biased..."

What you are telling me is that if someone says something you don't want to hear, you'll put your fingers in your ears so as not to hear them. You're entitled to do this, but it is not wise.

I have nothing else to say on the matter.

I'll hear them, Ruvy. But I'll also consider the source. Your source is an anti-Catholic American church with a special mission to the Anglophone world. What it has to say about Europe may be interesting in terms of anthropological studies of cultural chauvinism and the use of God as a big WASP in the sky who spends all his time cursing your enemies, but this thread isn't about anthropology.

While the experiment of the EU is noble (Charlemagne and the Holy Roman EMpire came close), I wonder - and please correct me if need be - if the undercurrent of nationalism that remains in Europe can one day rise again to spoil the idea.

Britain, being the only genuine, civilised nation within the EU, should be in charge.

God knows it already has an oversized bureacracy, and all functions of government in Brussels could revert to the Crown (wouldn't that be fun!).

The way it should always have been ...

If for no other reason than to piss off the French and Germans.

And the Turks could join provided they paid regular homage to Liz.

It might, Alessandro. Nationalism is a hard thing to deal with. We're seeing that in an almost comic way in Canada right now.

The thing is, an appealing thing about the European Parliament is the idea of regionalism it works on. That is, the Parliament is elected by regions within a country, rather than by the countries as wholes.

A big part of the strife in European nationalism, at least since 1945, has been from nationalist groups within countries. The European Union represents a way for them to have a direct voice in governance which many of their countries don't offer them at the moment. Think the Corsicans and the Basques in France, not to mention the Bretons. Think the opposing interests of north and south Italy.

All of which is a long way to say I think a stronger European parliament is actually a way to deal with European nationalism.

I'm not sure if Canadian nationalism is on the same level of the European version. Canadian nationalism is hollow. The Quebecois version is stronger but anti-climatic. Nationalism in Canada is a spent force. In Europe, nationalism runs far deeper. It's the inherent contradictions - as you have mentioned and alluded to - that concern me. While Italy, for example, is prepared to dive into the experiment, France is less so given its opinion of itself. How it views their place in the world collides with the EU. Britain may be best served to stay away until the EU indeed becomes more transparent and as you have said more democratic. And we haven't even mentioned NATO's role in all this as it sets to redefine itself. These are confusing times for many nations of the West.

I'm not saying you're wrong, Alessandro, but the way the French view themselves, and the way the French government views France, and the relationship between the government and the people - holy shit. They're lucky to have any place in the world and I'm sure the people will understand that the framework a democratic European Union provides would be the best way to project themselves forward.

As for Great Britain keeping out of the Union, maybe it would if it could. But there's just too much money in being European. They gave up lots of the economic benefits of the Commonwealth for it, and it hasn't worked out badly for them.

At this point Great Britain is intimately tied to the Union economically, even if it has kept away from the euro, and it already participates in its core political institutions. Might as well participate in a democratic renaissance too.

Don't they prefer to be aligned closer to America? In any event, you're right, it only makes sense they participate in European affairs. Well put about the French. By the way, I didn't think you thought I was wrong. :>) Unless the person is way off their rocker or not defending a point lucidly or with merit, I don't tend to see debates in right or wrong prisms.