[xnorswap]

Individual countries within the EU have their own regulators who make their own enforcement decisions.

The EU isn't a super-state and EU law isn't applied by some overarching entity. On a technical level, each country ratifies and applies their own laws in their own ways.

Given this, other countries could act on this too, but it's the French regulator who has chosen to do so.

[DaiPlusPlus]

> The EU isn't a super-state and EU law isn't applied by some overarching entity

Yes-and-no: the EU Commission serves as the "executive branch" (Americanisms...) of the EU, and while the EU isn't a true federal superstate union yet, but there's enough similarities that the EU Commission probably does 80% of the work it would be doing if the EU were.

While the majority of EU directives are enforced by member states, the EU can enforce itself via several routes (e.g. there is now an EU public prosecution, and the EU parliament can vote to apply sanctions on its own members for non-compliance (e.g. Hungary).

[tpm]

> there is now an EU public prosecution

That only prosecutes the misuse of EU funds (and perhaps the EU VAT border regime?) and even then only with cooperation with local prosecutors. In addition, the EU prosecutors are from the participating member states - several EU members are not yet participating.

> EU Commission probably does 80% of the work it would be doing if the EU were.

It's very far from that; notably health-and-safety enforcement is largely in the jurisdiction of members states.

[oblio]

> Yes-and-no: the EU Commission serves as the "executive branch" (Americanisms...) of the EU

That's not an "Americanism". It's a principle of the separation of powers and I imagine it dates back to the "Europeanianist" Englightenment.

[DaiPlusPlus]

EDIT: I'll admit I overlooked the US system's origins origins and concepts in France - but even though these concepts are not American in origin, the US is where all the mentions lead-to today.

---

It is an Americanism because the term implicitly assumes two things:

1. That the government is split into branches, following how the US system evolved.

2. That executive power must be confined to a single branch, also how the US is organized.

Then, consider that other-countries-that-are-not-the-US do exist, many of those are liberal democracies that arguably function better than the US for various scores - and of those very few (if any?) of those are modelled on the US’ system. While some other countries have a US system but score poorly overall (e.g. Liberia).

It is demonstrable that deep separation between the agents of the government - and the state - is unnecessary for a functioning liberal-democracy today: many countries using the Parliamentary system have an executive cabinet and an executive PM role which, under the US system, is considered part of the legislature - and the US is hardly the best example of “separation” of the judiciary when you consider how explicitly political the judge appointment process is - and the volume of politically-motivated and arbitrary SCOTUS rulings over the past 120+ years.

———

I understand that (non-crackpot) political-scientists would agree that judicial independence alone is far more important to a functioning democracy than a system that constantly pits an executive President against the legislature whenever their political party affiliation differs.

Don’t get me wrong: accountability is of paramount importance; I just want to communicate that having “separate but co-equal branches of government”, “separation of powers” (and other thought-terminating-cliches from middle-school civics class) is both unique to the US - and is demonstrably unnecessary for a functioning liberal democracy.

[seszett]

> It is an Americanism because the term implicitly assumes two things:

> 1. That the government is split into branches, following how the US system evolved.

> 2. That executive power must be confined to a single branch, also how the US is organized.

I'm pretty sure these principles are originally French. The American system was built around these principles as well, but calling them American is a whole new level of Americentrism.

Separation of powers into three branches is basically a prerequisite for belonging to the EU, as it is considered a basic requirement for a democracy.

For that matter, the US and France are probably two of the modern democracies that have the least separation between these powers (on paper).

[DaiPlusPlus]

> I'm pretty sure these principles are originally French. The American system was built around these principles as well, but calling them American is a whole new level of Americentrism

I'll concede that - certainly.

> Separation of powers into three branches is basically a prerequisite for belonging to the EU, as it is considered a basic requirement for a democracy

The EU is concerned more with judicial independence, not constitutional separation-of-powers: most EU countries (and especially its founding and early members) do not have separation strictly along judicial/legislative/executive boundary lines: The UK, Germany, Spain, and others all have an executive parliament; France and the US are in the minority here.

[tpm]

> most EU countries (and especially its founding and early members) do not have separation strictly along judicial/legislative/executive boundary lines

1. Let's not count the UK because it's the earliest democracy, and also is the messiest one (no written Constitution...) and also it's not the earliest or current member of the EU.

2. What exactly is an 'executive parliament'? My understanding is that in parliamentary democracy, the parliament chooses the executive, but the executive powers lie solely with the executive (government), and the parliament in itself does not have any direct executive function. It can only legislate, not execute. Certainly that's the case for Germany and Central European parliamentary systems I know a little bit more of. Might be different in the US but we are talking about the EU now.

[oblio]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#Montesqui...

The origin of the principle is literally European, but all right, you have an agenda, have fun :-)

[closewith]

The EU is not and never (on human time scales) will be, as there is no appetite for a federal union in many member states and unanimity would be required.

[toyg]

Anything can happen in the same way as it happened with Maastricht and the Euro: cooperating countries would just go forward with new entities that inherit the previous institutions, dissolving or mothballing old entities. In the long run, the hard core inevitably wins.

Anything that includes France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, will inevitably drag everyone else one way or another.

[closewith]

> Anything that includes France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, will inevitably drag everyone else one way or another.

Maybe so, but whatever it became wouldn't be the EU and wouldn't include most of the current members states. It's obviously still an impossibility, as there is no appetite in any of those four countries for a federal EU.

[toyg]

You're making up your "obvious" reality there. EU federalism was born in France and remains strong in the other three countries I mentioned - it might not be a clear majority at the moment, but it's definitely a popular idea among large swaths of the population. The evolution of EU structures undeniably goes in that direction year after year, with stronger and stronger federal institutions.

[closewith]

> You're making up your "obvious" reality there.

There has never been even a hint of a popular federal movement in any of the countries which you mentioned, so I don't think I am.

> EU federalism was born in France and remains strong in the other three countries I mentioned - it might not be a clear majority at the moment, but it's definitely a popular idea among large swaths of the population.

That's a bold claim that I'm sure you'll be able to back up?

Honestly, I think you've allowed your own preferences and wishful thinking to cloud your judgement here.

[tpm]

Yet several EU members still don't use the Euro and will not use it for the foreseeable future. So the hard core didn't win?

[toyg]

Technically, all of them are required to join once their structural problems are solved - it's not that they chose not to adopt but rather that they were left out to avoid compromising the currency. Most of them have a clear political will to join the eurozone. The only real exception is Sweden, which effectively enjoys a de-facto opt-out like Denmark, for historical reasons (although they are increasingly under pressure to join).

Regardless, the hard core has won because the Euro is now a cornerstone of EU policies, whether the non-EZ countries like it or not. Every project, every accounting in the Union is now done in Euros.

[tpm]

> Technically, all of them are required to join once their structural problems are solved - it's not that they chose not to adopt

Denmark has a real opt-out. They chose not to adopt in a referendum.

> Most of them have a clear political will to join the eurozone.

No they absolutely don't have that. Even leaving out Sweden and Denmark - it's a toxic political issue in Czechia even though de facto euro is widely used in the business. And while Hungary has currently no chance to fulfill the technical conditions, there is also no political will to join until Orban is in power (and that will be a long time). The ruling party in Poland (PiS) is also explicitly against the euro, as is majority of the population.

> the hard core has won because the Euro is now a cornerstone of EU policies

The Euro won through merit - it just makes sense to use a common currency in the common market.

[hugoroy]

> The EU isn't a super-state

True whatever that means :)

> and EU law isn't applied by some overarching entity.

It is. EU law as a whole is ultimately applied by an entity, the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is overarching, over national courts, over national governments, and over EU bodies.

Then within EU law, you have several branches and distribution of who has authority etc. Primary EU law is the foundational basis (some would say a "constitution" effectively even though the word has been a political minefield) and does provide some "overarching entity" in some areas.

Then within Secondaru EU law, you have regulations, orders, directives, etc. Many regulations and orders have an EU overarching entity, and in many cases the European Commission has a central role.

> On a technical level, each country ratifies and applies their own laws in their own ways.

That is a gross mischaracterisation and overgeneralization of EU Directives.

EU Directives as a general rule* don't have "direct effect" in a Member State. They set a goal agreed at the EU level, and the Member State are bound to implement the means in their national laws to reach the goal. That usually (but not always) means at a national level the adoption of a legal act by national Parliament.

*as a general rule because as always there are exceptions.