86
Future of the EU: Parliament’s proposals to amend the Treaties (www.europarl.europa.eu)
submitted 1 year ago by Parodper@foros.fediverso.gal to c/europe@feddit.de
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Full proposal

From that link:

  • a more bicameral system and fewer deadlocks in the Council, through more decisions by qualified majority voting and the ordinary legislative procedure;
  • a fully-fledged right of legislative initiative, and a co-legislator role for Parliament for the long-term budget;
  • an overhaul of the rules for the Commission’s composition (rebranded as the “European Executive”), including the election of its President (with the nomination to be done by Parliament and the approval by the European Council - a reversal of the current process), limiting the number of Commissioners to 15 (rotating between the member states), enabling the Commission President to choose their College based on political preferences with geographic and demographic balance in mind, and a mechanism to censure individual Commissioners;
  • significantly greater transparency in the Council by publishing EU member state positions on legislative issues;
  • more say for citizens through an obligation for the EU to create appropriate participatory mechanisms and by giving European political parties a stronger role.

Some changes missing from that link that I found interesting:

  • Switch from «High Representative» to «Union Secretary» and «President of the European Council» to «President of the European Union».

I very much prefer the old names, and I don't like the downgrade from High Representative to Secretary.

  • Parliament now chooses by itself how to divide its seats between member states.

Not really in favor of this, this should be the European Council's job.

  • More power to the CJEU for resolving inter-institutional disputes, and involving it in the process for suspension of EU membership.
  • Gives more agency to the European Defence Agency and gives the CSDP its own budget. It also copies NATO's article 5 wording for mutual defense.
  • Amending the treaties needs the approval of 4/5 of member states.

That would currently mean 22 out of 27, so no more French-Dutch veto.

  • Adding the risk to cross planetary boundaries when considering environmental policy (?)
  • Adds a more concrete language, from «may» and «suggest» to «shall» and «enforce».
all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] sucius1 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm mostly OK with the changes. Moving on the veto, for the most part, is probably the biggest. The rise of rogue fascists governments in EU countries blocking everything made decision making almost impossible, so it makes sense.

[-] Dmian@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

Anything on banning lobbyists from the EU Parliament? Because that’s urgently needed…

[-] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

Would such a thing be possible? Maybe I'm cynical, but wouldn't any process of getting input to the politician be vulnerable to professionalised influence, and any insular politician isolated from their constituents?

[-] Ooops@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

That's correct. And that's the reason you don't ban lobbyism. You make it transparent instead, so you can clearly see which interests a person is presenting.

[-] Dmian@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I’ve no idea. But in practice, corporations with big pockets have more possibilities to influence than regular people, or even NGOs. But lobbying is a part of politics that, in my opinion, is truly detrimental. If politicians want to be in contact with their base, they should reach for local associations (and be more proactive in being in contact with their constituents). By design the EU Parliament isolates representatives from their voters. It’s in this microcosm that lobbyists flourish.

[-] heeplr@feddit.de 9 points 1 year ago

corporations with big pockets have more possibilities to influence than regular people, or even NGOs

I guess nowadays it's cheaper to target social media and let the voters + traditional media do the lobbying.

[-] Dmian@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

The thing is, some people and corporations have so much money that they can do both. Why not? Just use your media corporations to convince people that the law you convinced the politicians to pass is good, and things will go smoothly for you.

[-] heeplr@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

Just use your media corporations

Exactly. It's easier for smaller NGOs to do political lobbying since they don't have any media corporations available.

If you take that away, you're basically left with big actors and social media.

[-] tryptaminev@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

Lobbying is necessary. It is not just corporations doing lobbying, but also social and environmental groups. The problem is that these issues are impossible to adress with the "base" because they are often too specialized. Ask the average citizen what his stance on regulating a specific product is and he will just tell you to fuck off.

We are simply 200 years too far into industrialization and technology to let average Juan, Jonathan or Joe make an informed opinion on most topics.

[-] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Partly agreed. The ignorance of voters is irrelevant in a representative democracy. It's not voters who make the law, it's their representatives. Voters are supposed to pick representatives based on their values and then trust them to get on with learning about specific issues. The reason lobbying is inevitable is not that voters are ignorant, it's that the representatives are incompetent or sleazy or lazy, they don't take their job seriously, and they make laws according to whatever expert has their ear. Big business has the money to pay for their attention, and so NGOs end up having to play the same game.

Of course, whether all this is the fault of voters or politicians comes down to intuition. Most people say the latter. Personally I would say it's the former. After all, in a democracy we get the politicians we deserve, by definition.

[-] Microw@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

That's actually not true. The standards in place help that big corporations have the same possibilities to influence as NGOs. It only gets out of hand if an MEP is corrupt, as evidenced by multiple examples over the last couple years.

[-] Dmian@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I was probably not clear with what I was thinking. I remember watching a video of the main hall of the European Parliament, filled to the brim with corporations stands with lobbyists trying to push their corporate agenda to passing parliamentarians.

I was not talking about MEPs receiving this or that organization or corporation in their offices. Frankly, it looked like a freaking market. That is what I want to see banned. Not MEPs talking to people in their offices.

[-] Microw@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Ah, yes it's very easy to rent rooms at the EP to do such events. And often it's lobby organizations who do so, and will try to get MEPs to attend.

That's definitely a point of concern, especially as normal citizens will see videos from an event at the EP and of course think "this is an official event hosted by the Parliament".

[-] uis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

In EU? EU can do it.

[-] Parodper@foros.fediverso.gal 7 points 1 year ago

The solution is not to ban lobbyist (a big part of the EU legislative process is listening to outside organizations), but to put them on equal footing to normal people.

[-] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

How exactly do you propose to do that? This sort of thing is always suggested, it sounds great, but in practice it is really, really hard. Ordinary people just do not have the time to scrutinize every decision in every committee meeting and be on their representatives' backs night and day. Time is money, and big business can pay for expert lobbyists to do the legwork. Which is why NGOs have to exist, to fight back by doing the same thing. As you imply, you can't really ban people from exercising influence, that quickly ends up being undemocratic. But big business will always have more money, therefore time, than everyone else. There's no easy fix to the problem unfortunately.

[-] Parodper@foros.fediverso.gal 2 points 1 year ago

Honestly, no idea. The only solution I can see are NGOs. Specially at EU levels, you need to show that your opinion has support, and that you aren't just pushing your fringe idea. And on that front I believe the EU hasn't been lacking.

I think the EP would be a lot more accountable if it was elected on single member constituencies. This also has its own issues (main one being no minority representation), but it would allow a more direct connection with their electorate and people would know who to talk to when they want to push for something.

[-] tanja@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 year ago

Can we please not destroy the Cmmission?

The European Commission stands or falls by is ability to act independently. Having it's leadership (and lower layers) messed with from without, it may be significantly more prone to corruption and undermines it's effectiveness to help the average citizen like it has done impressively for the last decades until now.

Landmark legislations such as the Digital Markets Act, the Digital Services Act, and the GDPR, among many others, would perhaps not have been feasible to realize like they have been, if the European Commission couldn't have the best commissioners for the jobs.

While I do agree with many points made in this proposed legislation, I can only hope the damage done to the European Commission stays as small as anyhow possible.

[-] Parodper@foros.fediverso.gal 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The only big change I can see will be Parliament proposing the Commission President, instead of the European Council. Apart from that, experience shows that motions of no confidence are rare, so I don't think this will make the Commission less independent.

would perhaps not have been feasible to realize like they have been, if the European Commission couldn’t have the best commissioners for the jobs.

Those acts are approved by Parliament, which is where the Commission will be responsible to.

[-] Microw@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

I still dont think that we should limit the commissioners to 15. The censuring mechanism would be a good addition though.

Clearly the thing that needs change the most is the relationship between Council and Parliament.

[-] uis@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

including the election of its President

Sounds like bad idea for union.

more say for citizens through an obligation for the EU to create appropriate participatory mechanisms

Good EU.

and by giving European political parties a stronger role.

Not so good EU. I hope it's not something like article 6 of USSR constitution. On the other side last part of article is interesting.

[-] Parodper@foros.fediverso.gal 3 points 1 year ago

Why? It would give citizens a more direct way to choose the Commission.

[-] uis@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

(with the nomination to be done by Parliament and the approval by the European Council - a reversal of the current process)

Doesn't look like more direct. Last time a union had president, it was quickly dissolved before first term ended. I don't think having one person on position like this is good for union. But whatever.

[-] Parodper@foros.fediverso.gal 2 points 1 year ago

Doesn’t look like more direct.

EP parties usually have a candidate for the Commission that they show during election, so voters know who they will support. On the other hand, the European Council members are usually chosen from internal politics and issues, and at different times.

Last time a union had president, it was quickly dissolved before first term ended.

That's just a name though. The election would stay the same, even if it were called «First Janitor».

I don’t think having one person on position like this is good for union.

The position is the same.

[-] uis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Switch from «High Representative» to «Union Secretary» and «President of the European Council» to «President of the European Union».

Gensecs! They are everywhere. USSR 2.0.

[-] tal@lemmy.today 1 points 1 year ago

President of the European Union

Oh, cool, this looks like a change from the first thing I saw, where the name was supposed to become "President of the Union". I thought that "President of the European Union" would be more clear.

this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2023
86 points (98.9% liked)

Europe

8332 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
poVoq@slrpnk.net