[Lio]

I know I do.

I think the main purpose of the EU is to prevent wars between European states by providing a forum for compromise and cooperation.

I’d say it’s succeeded in that nicely since its founding. Not one war between member states despite ongoing disputes.

Seems like a very good idea.

I hate this law though, it’s undemocratic.

[rayiner]

Okay, but couldn’t a more transparent and accountable structure have accomplished the same result? Why do you need a system with seven different bodies, more than one of which can make what’s effectively laws?

For example, why have an elected parliament that can’t even originate law, but an unelected commission that can make regulations that are effectively laws?

[NikolaNovak]

That's implementation details though; one can absolutely think that "EU is a good idea" and "specific EU systems need improving" simultaneously, without contradiction.

It's like thinking "I like Canada and am a proud Canadian, though I think there's still a lot of inequality and many policies can be improved upon and we can certainly be more efficient".

[rayiner]

I understand, but my question is directed to the second point. Even assuming people like the EU in principle, it's constitutional structure seems bizarre and in need of major reform, at least from my American viewpoint. But there doesn't seem to be any movement to "mend it, don't end it." Do most EU supporters also think the constitutional structure of the EU is fine as-is?

[NikolaNovak]

I think parallel comment has a much better answer than I could provide - EU is a set of heterogeneous political units which each have multiple nested political units within. Given complexity of USA states rights and legislative bodies, vs municipal and county governments, and then vs the federal judicial executive and legislative branches, including a complete house and a complete Senate, all permeated at all level by two binary polarized parties, all within a single country, I'm not sure EU system is that different or suboptimal anymore.

[hollerith]

In the US, the state government has absolute power over the municipal and county governments in its borders, which is a very simple legal structure. For example, the NY state legislature can override any law made by the NY city government and can even replace the NY city government with whatever entity it wishes.

[NikolaNovak]

There's the internal reality and external perception.

As an outsider, it feels all levels of USA government are constantly fighting and going back and forth and back and forth over big topics like minority rights, marriages, religion in schools and public matters, funding, environmental concerns, police approach, rights and freedoms, spying, choices of utilities, etc.

Same for EU externally I imagine.

[Barrin92]

>Why do you need a system with seven different bodies more than one of which can make what’s effectively laws?

because the European Union contains more than 600 million people and almost 30 very diverse countries (and is a supranational, not federal body). It's institutions also do mirror the structures of most other large unions.

The Commission is an executive body, the parliament is a legislative body, and the council is comparable to the state bodies in bicameral governments. You may as well ask why you have a Senate or Bundesrat when you have a HoR and Bundestag. Because minoritarian and majoritarian interests need to be balanced, even more so in the EU. If even actual nation states a fraction the size of the EU and bona fide countries aren't governed in unitary fashion, why do you expect anybody would centralize so much power in the EU.

[rayiner]

If the purpose is to avoid centralizing power, why can the Commission make regulations that have the force of law without consent from either Parliament or the Council?

[Barrin92]

it can't. Any new regulation goes through the parliament and council as a legislative act. What the Commission can do, if a legislation already exists, is pass regulation that doesn't modify essential elements. There's a direct analog to this in the US, Federal Agencies which end up doing a lot of the actual technical rule making work.

If the FAA decides to make some aviation regulation that's binding through the entire country, and likewise if EU parliament and council have adopted legislation for say, the emission rates of cars the Commission then goes and decides the actual rules. In this particular case of Chat Control 1.0 it was put to a vote, but they didn't reach the majority they needed because apparently a significant number of representatives weren't even there. Of course politically a bit of a dirty trick to push something through like this before a summer break, although I'd say the blame is on the representatives, not the Commission.

These kinds of institutions, and really in most countries they do most of the implementation work are necessary because you can't have your legislative vote on thousands of technical details of how cars or planes work, that's just a technocratic reality regardless of where you are.

[selfmodruntime]

> I think the main purpose of the EU is to prevent wars between European states by providing a forum for compromise and cooperation.

It should have stayed this way.