User:JLogan/Spade




 * This is not intended as a general argument regarding the federalist nature of the EU, it is aimed at showing its similarities to a federation and hence allow the use of federalist terms to describe the EU for the purposes of helping people understand it.

When writing about the European Union, it can be very hard to make clear what it and its institutions are. This isn't helped by the fact leaders choose to invent ridiculous names, deliberately as far as I can see. As a result, when a comparison is drawn between an institution and a national equivalent, some editors get a bit skittish.

I am not suggesting changing names of institutions, but we should not be afraid to draw comparisons in order to greater explain the Union. When you first hear European Commission, what do you think of? Chances are its not what it is (follow the Commission link there, compare the European Commission to the others on that list). Then follows are a long list of legislative procedures and a photo of the bloke in charge. Again, not helpful. If you say it is the executive branch, or the government, then people understand what it is just from that word.

Now the EU in general. In no way can you say it is like then UN, AU or OECD, if you think that you ought to read something on it first. It is fashionable to call the EU sui generis, but that is just like the EU - a political compromise among editors. But now, especially under the constitution (read reform treaty, scrambled with the few new sensible names proposed not replaced with the usual jargon), it is becoming quite clear what it all is; the European Union is a federation, or if you want something softer: confederation (but the difference between the two is minimal and as far as I'm concerned meaningless). Eurosceptics invent words as well, for example with "Super-state". What is super? Is the US a "Super-State"? It's a super power but a Super-State? Why are we using these words? It is a State, a federation, a political union.

But that's what it is, whether you think it is a good thing or not, as sure as a spade is a spade. I have been picking this up for a long time, drawing comparisons and challenging jargon. Guy Verhofstadt's is one of the few with guts to call for clearer names (See his book, the "United States of Europe"). He also called for a federation, but we have a federation, we just need to formalise it... admit it.

Independence and sovereignty
"Pooling sovereignty" is a very nice soft word, truth is it means we hand it over to another authority. Just as we do to from state to sub-state authorities or the other way around. The question of who is sovereign, well US States have sovereignty over some areas that cannot be removed by federal government. In any multi-level state, sovereignty is shared and emanates from the people. So what is "sovereign"?


 * Independent, subject to no higher authority. Okay, well member states are subject to the powers of the EU, as members they are not independent. And this is not like some basic international treaty, this is far bigger. In some cases you have 80% of national legislation coming from the EU.
 * Right to leave, a lot of people seem to draw comparison between an EU state's right to secede and the lack of that right with a US state. Well right now there is no official way for an EU state to leave, they negotiate it. Although there is an "exit clause" in the Reform Treaty, it is a written down form of what you do now, negotiate to leave. But if an EU state were to unilaterally secede, people would be pissed off but would they go to war? Now this is the point raised by some, that the last time a US state left they had a civil war. At this point I start to bang my head at the sheer stupidity of their argument, that was in a certain historical context you might remember and not just about independence? If California declared independence today, would Washington send in the troops??? Some people seem to think so, I'll let you come to your own conclusions on that.
 * Authority to declare war, this is a FP thing and I admit there is no EU power to do that. There are greater powers over foreign policy and the European Council, acting unanimously, could practically take the EU to war (I remind you that the leaders of the European Council hold the executive of the states that is not at EU level. In practice, barring any national control on those powers, it is a simple unanimous vote on such matters). Think about the rapid reaction force and battlegroups, what if they were peacekeeping, were attacked by one side and the conflict escalated? The Council might send in more rather than withdraw, maybe to keep the peace. Look at Kosovo, what if it was one of the EU forces involved there? No that is not "declaring" war, but most wars now are undeclared, no one declared war on Iraq in 2001, are we saying that wasn't a war? Lets use some common sense.
 * Recognition, recognised authority in the international community. Curious this, it may not be recognised as a sovereign country as such, but it is the recognised authority in all the areas it has powers over, and no one is saying it has anything more than that. It has external representation too, it sits in international organisations and meets with foreign ambassadors, it has a "embassies" ("representations" - that's another jargon word) and a foreign minister ("High representative" - at least they tired to change that name, even if they have now dropped along with any common sense they had left). So the EU is a recognised authority by just about every country, in the same way any federal government with those powers would be. So I'd argue it has de facto and de jure recognition, even if again people do not use the "C" or "S" word.

And why do we keep saying "supranationalism"? A nation is a body of peoples, Scotland is a nation, do we say the UK is a supranational entity? If we say suprastatism, isn't that just a state above a state? A federation? Also, if Scotland is a nation, and Britain is a nation, I'd say Europe has enough in common to be a nation. Same applies to country, you are just talking about land. So if you are talking about states, nations or countries - that's the EU. Finally, "member state", why not just say "state"? Again, add a word and it sounds better to the politicians ear. When the IGC got its hands on the Constitution, the UK saw the word federal and rubbed it out. Now the word "community" is there. Didn't change anything else with that, just the word. Leaders use these terms because they are afraid their people will see what it is an go into reactionary mode, they'll loose the referendum/vote/election and be hated. Look at Edward Heath and the Tories.

At the start, there was an attempt to use proper words but large powers were rejected then. As it grew the institutions outgrew these names but few changed. If the politicians came clean they'd suffer in the short them and know it. But the truth is, once the reactionary spirit is gone and you get everyone involved in the process, they are open to it. Many wouldn't mind a European Federation, but you have to involve them in it an be honest about these things. How do you expect people to be involved in a "Commission" they don't vote for? Who knows what it is or who runs it? Call it a "Government" and have elections, euroscepticism might well die out. I've seen what it is like when you take ordinary people and explain Europe to them properly, once they understand what it is they are less opposed - people fear that which they do not understand. Indeed if I didn't I'd be a sceptic, Westminster may be hell but better the devil you know.

Executive
Now the European Commission is clearly a government, NOT A CIVIL SERVICE. It has a civil service, Catherine Day is in charge of it, but Barroso is a politician. He is a former Prime Minister and a member of a political party. He makes speeches, proposes legislation and tries to lead. As do the other commissioners. That is no civil service I have ever heard of. A Civil Service does not make decisions, it enables them. The Commission controls the money, it acts in foreign affairs (at the WTO for example), it is in charge of the communities agencies and it proposes and drafts legislation before putting them before Parliament (what civil service has legislative initiative).

European Commission: It is the government, a cabinet government to be precise. Think about it, what else do you call an executive body of members who make executive decisions by majority and is headed by one of its members? The President of the European Commission is the head of government, the Prime Minister. A European Commissioner is a Cabinet Minister or Secretary of State in control of a Directorate-General which is a Ministry or Department and headed by a civil servant called a Director-General (Permanent secretary). The Secretary-General of the European Commission is the Cabinet Secretary.

European Council: The Head of State, or more precisely a Council of State. It is like any non-executive presidency, look at the President of Ireland or President of Italy and you see they share the same role of appointing the Commission President (PM of Ireland/Italy) based on who won the elections. Although in the EU the Council doesn't appoint the leader of the largest party yet, but it is only a small step for the Parliament to refuse to approve anyone but the leader/candidate of the largest party. Indeed this may happen in 2009, it is a widely suggested idea, requires just basic political maturity from MEPs and some have said it themselves that they will have this arrangement, constitution or no (depends on the MEP you talk to and hwo they're talking to). As I said above, the leaders of the European Council hold the executive of the states that is not at EU level. In practice, barring any national control on those powers, it is a simple unanimous vote on such matters - under the Treaty of Lisbon a unanimous vote would have also amend treaties.

Legislature
European Parliament and Council of the European Union/Ministers. Your lower and upper chambers of Parliament. Neither have the right to initiative but I really don't think that is the defining power, it isn't even used much by those which do have it. It may not control all the taxes, but it does officially hold the EUs budgetary authority (and there are the own resources, the EU levy - a tax basically). The President of the European Parliament is of course the speaker of the lower chamber.

The Council of Ministers is a bit more complex. It is of course the Senate and composed of people appointed nationally - as most second chambers have a different composition like that and this can be directly compared to the Bundesrat of Germany. The Presidency, like that of the Bundesrat, rotates - this hardly makes the Council amazingly intergovernmental - it is just a different way of chairing meetings. It should also be noted that the Council has more democracy that the UK's House of Lords - the idea phobics keep throwing around that if the UK were to leave it should somehow have democracy seems idiotic considering the massive flaws in British democracy (and to be fair, most others). In fact, I'd go as far to say that the EU is in theory more democratic than the UK - its just in practice there is little involvement by the people as they don't understand it and few balls in the Parliament prepared to stand up for those who do bother to vote.

Constitutional stuff
Another UK comparison, the EU does not have a Constitution, and looks like it wont. But the treaties are in practice its constitution, how its run and so fourth, its all there. The UK has bits written down, mostly convention, scattered over the place. There is no document for the UK that says "Constitution", so why should the EU be downgraded because it doesn't, and wont for now, have one. The same applies to Israel and New Zealand, both lack a constitutional document.

Capital city, nothing says London is. I think the 1707 Act of Union (one part of the constitution, and note that the UK was formed by an international treaty) said the Parliament meets in London, which makes it the de facto capital. Enshrined in the EU treaties (as above, parts of the constitution) are a list of were the major institutions are based. The cities are Brussels, Strasbourg, Luxembourg, Frankfurt and the Hague. First, lets just discount the last two, that's the ECB and Europol. So we have three capitals? So does South Africa, an executive, judicial and legislative. With both executives and both legislatures meeting in Brussels I'd say that is the chief city (Luxembourg being a judicial capital) but all three could be called capitals. Point is, it may not be named "a capital" but in practice the city in which a state's main institutions are based in is the capital.

Flag, no it is not written in the treaties. But the Communities officially adopted it early on, which is more than the UK did. It is just a royal standard that has common usage, if everyone started using a different flag that would be equally considered official - this was tried with dismal results by the RE-flag campaign. This is the same for all other symbols, and I am getting sick of people removing the symbols from Wikipedia because they think that as they won't be in the new treaty they won't exist any more. Excuse me, what has been flying over EU buildings since the 1980s?

Constitution and Reform Treaty
Okay, I first wrote this while the Constitution was in ratification, I have updated it at bit but lets look at the new treaty. Numerous people have said it is the same thing, just changed to make it incomprehensible (I disagree it is exactly the same for the UK, the opt-outs do make a difference even if it is not positive from my POV). Previous document was citizen-friendly. Now they have an incompressible mess like the last lot. State like elements have been dropped though, along with common sense. Did people vote against calling "regulations" "laws" (and "directives", "framework laws")? What was bad about that, how is it "state-like" to call a law a law? If laws a state like then we obviously have a state. Also we loose the name "foreign minister", instead they have changed "High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy" to "High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy"..... wow, pat your self on the back guys what a fantastic idea, it is SO much clearer! You see this is what happens when you keep people in the dark for so long and then suddenly you decide to be honest only when you want them to ratify a treaty, they say no so in response - rather than listening to the people who rejected the document - you have the British and the Poles (sorry, who was it who voted against again? I think that was France and the Netherlands who gain what from the new treaty?) putting back all the usual jargon so no one understands a damn thing so don't know what they are voting on so passively approve. Is this a democracy? If people knew what the EU was before hand, got used to it and understood how it worked. We would not be in this position.

Sum up
I hope editors see what these bodies are and address them in the appropriate manner, calling a spade a spade. People wont understand the EU in our articles if we simply go along with this dishonourable jargon. These things have the names they do not because it is what they are but because it is politically expedient. We are an encyclopaedia, not a propaganda machine.