User:Super Quantum immortal/Eu treaty reform ideas

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

(fix the formating latter)

EU treaty reform ideas The following proposals try really hard to be as consensual as possible. Heavily inspired by Switzerland. Switzerland as a multinational federation share a lot of similarities with the EU. The mechanisms of the swiss solutions are understood and then adapted to the European reality. Its not just verbatim copying with out understanding. These solution, DO work in Switzerland, they had 800 years to sort them out. Its not just theory. I say all this, because the proposals will seam too technocratic, complicated and out right odd.

Short summary:


1. On straightening the governance of the Union: a) On fiscal union: Real EU tax powers, inside certain restrictions, that expire after a set time period( example 35 years). b) On foreign affairs and defense: Exclusive European powers on foreign affairs and defense that are strictly neutral. Defense spendings at 1% of EU GDP.

(a) and (b) should be done together. This way the states will horse trade.

2. On treaty changes: States can vote "yes", "no" and "veto". An amendment needs a QMV of "yes" and no "veto".

3. On the commission: Becomes fully collegial, its size is reduced to 7, appointed as a block in there portfolios, can not be removed individually, meet in secret, acts publicly unanimously, the unified Union presidency rotates equally among them, and an absolute veto replaces the exclusive right to legislative initiative.

4. On enlargement: Enlarge simultaneously to Russia, Korea and Japan.


More in detail:


1. On straightening the governance of the Union. a) On fiscal union: The states are afraid to give this power for indefinitely. Its mostly an irrational fear. With expiration clauses, fiscal union will be able to proceed. Every time the taxation powers of the Union are about to expire, it would be needed a renewal of the taxation powers in the treaties. At least in the beginning we will go from extension to extension. The states will feel comfort in the though, that they can always veto the next extension, in practice having a stronger European tax system, then if perpetual power of taxation where given to the Union.


b) On foreign affairs and defense: I think you are all exacerbated by the lack of any serious movement in the area. Again states have fears. The neutrality clause will do away with those fears. Neutrality gives predictability, and reassurance that they will not be dragged in to unwanted future wars. Its a good compromise among diverging states, some are to the right, some to the left, some are neutral. Neutrality is the best way to accommodate all diverging views simultaneously. In reality, the Union, is already neutral, we just need to make it official, and take in the states. The Union is neutral, not weak, as some may be thinking. Actually, neutrality is the only reasonable way to achieve communitarisation in this field. I don't know what this would mean for the seat in the UN security council though. The military budget should be set in the treaties, at 1% of GDP, that would actually make economies in defense spending. Several states are already neutral, avoiding this field in order to protect there neutrality. If the Union it self is neutral there complaint becomes largely void. And yes, this means the end of NATO. On a lighter note, the seat of the European army will be based in France, in exchange, the EU parliament will meet in Brussels only.


(a) and (b) Should be done together. Various states would strongly want one, and not the other. Binding the two together will permit them to trade amendments, and avoid simply having the lowest common denominator. For example, Germany wants (b) but not (a), France wants (a) but not (b), they can have a deal.


2. On treaty changes: Apparently, nothing will change, but this is not the case. As human beings we are social animals. We have build in instincts, that make us go along an overwhelming majority in a group. Psychologically it, would be hard for people to actually use the veto, if a "no" vote is available. I expect, even in a UK referendum, we will not get a veto. Simply statistically, it would split the current "no" votes in to "no" and "veto" camps, the "yes" side however will stay as is. In practice it would be used for very sensible issues, like abortion for example. Further more, it will permit a real debate during votes for treaty amendments. The current system of, "yes" or "veto" simply kills all possibility in having a real debate, in essence, you accept what is presented, or we scrap it totally.


3. On the commission: It will be appointed as a block, in to there portfolios, by a majority of 2/3 in parliament. It would be best if the council is cut out of the vote. Alternatively, the MEPs and state MPs that would sit in the council of Europe parliamentary assembly could do the vote. The commissioners should be balanced according to geographic region and sex.

They can not be removed individually, the whole commission must be brought down. Commission meetings are kept secret, and the minutes sealed for 100 years. Breach of secrecy would be a criminal offense with severe prison terms. The commissioners are required to act publicly unanimously, they share responsibility of the whole commission, not just there portfolios. States are afraid, that commissioners are agents of other states, being very relinquient to let go their commissioner. The secrecy, will ensure to the eyes of the states, that the commission is independent from the influence of there home state. Reduction of the size of the commission is long overdue.

Parliament, council and citizen petition, gain right of initiative. However, in order to preserve the community method, the commission also gains an absolute veto.

The position of commission president is merged with the position of council president. The new position will rotate equally among the commission members. The merger is wanted by federalist, but rejected by intergovernmentalists, having the post rotate inside the commission is a compromise of both sides. Because of the rotating presidency, the size of the commission must be limited to 7. If the commission is too big, it will be unable to act in a coherent manner.


4. On enlargement( legally, its a treaty amendment): It would be nice to enlarge to Russia, but we don't have enough money. So we take in Korea and Japan, they will help pay for the enlargement. Its a win-win for everybody, benefits are too numerous to count. The Union will increase in size by 60%, over night, to over 800 million. I believe its doable in less then 15 years. With out Korea and Japan, an enlargement to Russia could easily take 30 or more years. And Turkey will have to wait.


Normally all the proposals should be done simultaneously. After strengthening the governance. The constitution procedure should also change, because of the requirement of expiration of the EU tax powers. The enlargement should be performed, to calm the fears of certain people about the neutrality clause. After all this reorganization, the commission must be correctly reformed, because of all the added powers it will dispose.