Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A United States of Europe? Good Luck

bloombergview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 91 posts

Re: A United States of Europe? Good Luck

#61

Post by wolfgke »

netrus wrote: post #46
wolfgke wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can not ask Italy and Greece to solve the crisis by themselves, when most refugee want to actually go other countries. If the refugees are persecuted so badly in their own countries (which is a condition for getting asylum), they should be happy for any sufficiently safe country that is willing to give them asylum.

Greece is not able at the moment to provide a decent living for 100k+ refugees. My understanding of asylum goes beyond providing a bread a day and a toilet. What help would I expect from my neighbors if I have to leave my home due to war? We are talking medical care, language courses, and working permit. I would expect all of that if I were ever to ask my (global) neighbors for asylum - so I am willing to provide it…

> Greece is not able at the moment to provide a decent living for 100k+ refugees.

I agree here. This is why it surely is not a bad idea to distribute the refugees over the EU countries. But I don't agree to the mentality "want to go to other countries". The refugees should be happy to get temporary asylum in a country that is much safer than the country they flee from.

> We are talking medical care, language courses, and working permit.

For language courses: Since lots of refugees have at least a smartphone, they could simply use the resources that the internet provides to learn the language themselves up to some decent level.

Re: A United States of Europe? Good Luck

#62

Post by rbehrends »

dogma1138 wrote: post #58
rbehrends wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The European Parliament has no real power. The European Parliament elects the European Commission and can force its resignation through a vote of no confidence (the latter happened to the Santer Commission). Jean-Claude Juncker technically has more democratic legitimacy than David Cameron; he was elected by a number of representatives standing for a majority of the electorate. Practically all EU legislation require…

Yes i did mean the council of the European Union, but sorry you are completely wrong on everything else. The Parliament has only a say on 1 of the 28 commission members the which is the president and even then it's not elected by them. The president is nominated by the council, and confirmed by the parliament. This is similar to how supreme justices are confirmed by the senate in the US however the EUP has much less…

> Yes i did mean the council of the European Union and on the Council of Europe, but sorry you are completely wrong on everything else. The Parliament has only a say on 1 of the 28 commission members the which is the president and even then it's not elected by them.

No, the European Parliament elects the entire European Commission; it just has to be an up-or-down vote on the entire Commission, but cannot vote for individual commissioners, though last year one Commissioner was replaced after the confirmation hearings and another had his portfolio cut.

The European Council nominates a candidate for President of the Commission; that person than selects candidates for the Commissioners, one from each member state. The European Parliament than holds confirmation hearings, may suggest adjustments to the Commission, and then holds a vote on the Commission in its entirety.

> The president is nominated by the council, and confirmed by the parliament.

First, the Commission President is not nominated by the Council of the EU. He is nominated by the European Council, which is not the same as the Council of the EU.

Second, the British PM is appointed by the British Monarch and is not even confirmed or elected; the German chancellor is nominated by the German president and then confirmed (or not) by the German parliament.

> This is similar to how supreme justices are confirmed by the senate in the US however the EUP has much less power over that confirmation.

No, this is how election of the head of government works in most parliamentary democracies, which is what the EU system is modeled after.

> The executive branches set up the council

Which is how the upper house is commonly set up in a federal system; it represents the states and the representatives are often selected by their executives.1

> the council has direct control over the legislative and executive powers of the union which means they can pass laws which might have implications on EU member states

The Council of the EU cannot pass laws without the European Parliament (the Council of the EU is only the upper house of the EU legislature). It does not have any power over the European Commission, which is the executive (i.e. the equivalent of a cabinet) in the EU.

Please, do read up on how the EU actually functions and do not go by second-hand sources.

Re: A United States of Europe? Good Luck

#63

Post by dogma1138 »

rbehrends wrote: post #62
dogma1138 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes i did mean the council of the European Union, but sorry you are completely wrong on everything else. The Parliament has only a say on 1 of the 28 commission members the which is the president and even then it's not elected by them. The president is nominated by the council, and confirmed by the parliament. This is similar to how supreme justices are confirmed by the senate in the US however the EUP has much less…

> Yes i did mean the council of the European Union and on the Council of Europe, but sorry you are completely wrong on everything else. The Parliament has only a say on 1 of the 28 commission members the which is the president and even then it's not elected by them. No, the European Parliament elects the entire European Commission; it just has to be an up-or-down vote on the entire Commission, but cannot vote for ind…

>No, the European Parliament elects the entire European Commission; it just has to be an up-or-down vote on the entire Commission, but cannot vote for individual commissioners, though last year one Commissioner was replaced after the confirmation hearings and another had his portfolio cut

Again that is simply not correct, here is Article 17 for you to read again.

Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission. This candidate shall be elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its component members. If he does not obtain the required majority, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall within one month propose a new candidate who shall be elected by the European Parliament following the same procedure.

The Council, by common accord with the President-elect, shall adopt the list of the other persons whom it proposes for appointment as members of the Commission. They shall be selected, on the basis of the suggestions made by Member States, in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraph 3, second subparagraph, and paragraph 5, second subparagraph.

The President, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the other members of the Commission shall be subject as a body to a vote of consent by the European Parliament. On the basis of this consent the Commission shall be appointed by the European Council, acting by a qualified majority.

>The president is nominated by the council, and confirmed by the parliament.

Again not correct see Article 17 above.

The rest is nonsense, you are confusing ceremonial roles like the Queen appointing the head of the majority party to form the Government to the EU Council actually selecting the President and all the Members.

>This is similar to how supreme justices are confirmed by the senate in the US however the EUP has much less power over that confirmation

Not this isn't how state elections work, the Government doesn't select the Government, which appoints the Government.

>The executive branches set up the council

The Council isn't the upper house of the EU Parliament it's a completely separate body.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutions_of_the_European_U...

>The Council of the EU cannot pass laws without the European Parliament (the Council of the EU is only the upper house of the EU legislature). It does not have any power over the European Commission, which is the executive (i.e. the equivalent of a cabinet) in the EU.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/20150201PVL...

They can jointly and separately adopt laws however only laws that are adopted by the council are actually turned into EU directives which is required for laws to have any effect on member states.

>Please, do read up on how the EU actually functions and do not go by second-hand sources.

Please do.

Re: A United States of Europe? Good Luck

#64

Post by dogma1138 »

cm2187 wrote: post #55
dogma1138 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The European Parliament has no real power. The legislative and executive powers of the union are held by the council of Europe which isn't an elected body.

EU laws take precedence on local laws. It is percieved as not having any power but in practice is a superior authority to the local parliements

No it doesn't.

Re: A United States of Europe? Good Luck

#65

Post by im3w1l »

Oletros wrote: post #57
im3w1l wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've literally had guerillas trying to split it up. Is that the kind of EU we want?

> They've literally had guerillas trying to split it up What the heck?

The most famous is the Basque ETA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA

The Catalonians also had one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_Lliure

Re: A United States of Europe? Good Luck

#66

Post by Oletros »

im3w1l wrote: post #65
Oletros wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They've literally had guerillas trying to split it up What the heck?

The most famous is the Basque ETA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA The Catalonians also had one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_Lliure

ETA was not a guerrilla, it was a terrorist group

And Terra Lliure would have been a joke if not for the only innocent death they provoked. It is perhaps the only terrorist group that has more deaths by accident than actions they tried to do

Re: A United States of Europe? Good Luck

#67

Post by rbehrends »

dogma1138 wrote: post #63
rbehrends wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes i did mean the council of the European Union and on the Council of Europe, but sorry you are completely wrong on everything else. The Parliament has only a say on 1 of the 28 commission members the which is the president and even then it's not elected by them. No, the European Parliament elects the entire European Commission; it just has to be an up-or-down vote on the entire Commission, but cannot vote for ind…

>No, the European Parliament elects the entire European Commission; it just has to be an up-or-down vote on the entire Commission, but cannot vote for individual commissioners, though last year one Commissioner was replaced after the confirmation hearings and another had his portfolio cut Again that is simply not correct, here is Article 17 for you to read again. Taking into account the elections to the European Parl…

For the first part: you're pretty much rephrasing what I said. E.g. to quote you:

> The President, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the other members of the Commission shall be subject as a body to a vote of consent by the European Parliament. On the basis of this consent the Commission shall be appointed by the European Council, acting by a qualified majority.

As I said, the entire Commission is voted for by the European Parliament, not just the President, as you originally claimed.

> > The president is nominated by the council, and confirmed by the parliament.

> Again not correct see Article 17 above.

You realize that you are disagreeing with yourself? Or is your quoting just totally messed up?

> The Council isn't the upper house of the EU Parliament it's a completely separate body.

The Council isn't the upper house of the European Parliament; it is the upper house of the EU legislature, the European Parliament is the lower house of the EU legislature. Of course they're separate bodies, silly [1].

> They can jointly and separately adopt laws however only laws that are adopted by the council are actually turned into EU directives which is required for laws to have any effect on member states.

The ordinary legislative procedure requires the consent of the European Parliament AND the Council of the EU. The consultation procedure is largely limited to Art. 103 and Art. 115 TFEU (aspects of competition law and the internal market).

Yes, of course the consent of the Council of the EU as the upper house of the legislature is required. Never said otherwise.

[1] http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/european-parliament

Re: A United States of Europe? Good Luck

#68

Post by notfoss »

pluma wrote: post #50
gizmodo59 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diversity need not be a reason for non unification. India for example is so diverse that each state has its own language, food, culture etc..

To be fair, Pakistan did happen.

You'd be surprised to know the similarities between India and Pakistan, culturally. The differences are based on ideologies, but the cultures are quite similar.

Re: A United States of Europe? Good Luck

#69

Post by im3w1l »

Oletros wrote: post #66
im3w1l wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most famous is the Basque ETA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA The Catalonians also had one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_Lliure

ETA was not a guerrilla, it was a terrorist group And Terra Lliure would have been a joke if not for the only innocent death they provoked. It is perhaps the only terrorist group that has more deaths by accident than actions they tried to do

Ah, I see. I thought they were synonyms.

Re: A United States of Europe? Good Luck

#70

Post by xlm1717 »

netrus wrote: post #12
youngtaff wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeh, that's one of the key things - a United States of Europe is a goal driven by politicians and bureaucrats who are forever grabbing more power for themselves. Some of goals - trade zone, free movement of people etc., may make sense but a European wide army? Europe is a region of huge diversity, it doesn't need to be a single political entity.

German here. Could you imagine a Florida army going to war in Afghanistan, while California stays neutral, and Texas sends troops to Mexico? - Why not? People in Texas are quite different from people in California, they have different interests and beliefs. The driving force behind the United States of Europe is that (1) every single country is too small to be influential in the world (and we want to have influence i…

Texas at one point did have rebel troops in Mexico before seceding and stayed independent for a few years before joining the US. California tried something similar but then got swept up in the Mexican-American War. Even West Florida was "independent" for a few months before being annexed by the US, and of course the rest of Florida was Spanish but neglected by Madrid.

So it is not that hard to imagine a Florida army going to war in Afghanistan, while Texas invaded Mexico and California remained neutral. If they had not been annexed by the US, they would likely either ally the US or have animosity with their southern neighbors due to strained relations from their independence wars.

Also, theoretically a governor can refuse to deploy the state's National Guard. I could find one instance where in California, Governor Schwarzenegger declined the President's request to send National Guard troops to the border with Mexico. So California does have precedent of remaining neutral (said tongue-in-cheek)!

Post reply on HN