The U.K. Takes the Helm of the Rotating European Presidency

India-Defence & PINR ^

[Srirangan]

The European nation-state considered to be the least Europeanist, the United Kingdom, took the presidency of the E.U. on July 1, right after the double French and Dutch rejection of the E.U. Constitutional Treaty and the failure of the June 16-17 European Council -- a sign interpreted by many as the beginning of the end for the European political and strategic union. Although many observers believe that the British rotation is going to further aggravate the E.U.'s political crisis, and that the project of a common European Security and Defense Policy (E.S.D.P.) could suffer from a "final blow" in the next six months, a careful analysis of the U.K.-E.U. relationship will highlight a more complex reality, helping to assess the stakes involved and the likely developments to come.

[Srirangan]

(original article link)

The U.K. Takes the Helm of the Rotating European Presidency (article link)

[Paleo Conservative]

The U.K. Takes the Helm of the Rotating European Presidency

That's rather undemocratic. Why isn't the president of hte EU elected directly by the people of the EU?

[SAJ]

Easy Q. The answer is: because any resemblance of the EU to a democratic (or, especially, republican) government is purely accidental.

There is absolutely no concept of ''the will of the people'' w/in EU. The Brusselcrats constitute a regime, not a government per se.

I certainly hope I didn't mumble, here.

[Paleo Conservative]

Easy Q. The answer is: because any resemblance of the EU to a democratic (or, especially, republican) government is purely accidental.

But the US doesn't directly elect its president either. Notice each country in the EU gets the presidency for six months regardless of the size of the country. The smaller countries hold the presidency a disproportionately to their population. A directly elected president is likely to be either French or German. The only countries that directly elect their head of government are France, Mexico, and Russia. I doubt it is a coincidence that all three countries have extremely centralized governments.

[SAJ]

You'll note I used the wording ''or, especially, republican''. In a constitutional republic, smaller states are not denied access to various offices simply because they are small. Consider the US Senate, wherein each state's representation is equal by constitutional order, and irrespective of the size of the state. Consider also Franklin Pierce and Bubba, even Truman, to name just a few presidents fitting this small-state circumstance.

The point here is that the EU is neither democratic nor republican in its structure; it is authoritarian in the extreme. Whether or not EU ends up being just another sad totalitarian state, no one can say -- we'll simply have to wait and see, but I for one am not optimistic. Europe has tended throughout history to degrade EVERY state into either socialism, state socialism, or authoritarianism over time, bar only those states that managed to keep out of the way; Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Andorra should probably be included, and Iceland, by way of example.

[greasepaint]

In 1945, George Orwell wrote a novel
about how the EU operates,
'Animal Farm'.

[Nussbaum]

Ironically the reason people can't elect who takes "presidency of the EU" (also goes for presidency of the eu comission, a post with probably more power) is because "the people don't want that because it would turn europe into a superstate", according to the current dutch prime-minister.

It's part of the battle between the philosphy of europe as a intergovermental organisation and a federal superstate. It's becoming a sort of split between because of all the compromises. An elected high ranking official would mean the member states would lose power over the EU to the people, which England(and many eurosceptics to) don't want. What it is now is probably worse than either form.