Talk:European Union

Please consider reading the frequently asked questions for this article before asking any questions on this talk page.

intergouvermentalism of the EU council

Usually, when you hear intergovernmental, people understand, ministers talk talk and talk, they sign a treaty, and then it must be ratified by there parliaments to be valid. But in the council of the EU, they ,talk they talk and they talk, then they vote, anything from simple majority to unanimity, and then that's it, it goes in to force immediately. This distinction should be made explicit in the article, preferably in the lead, and also in the councils article.QMV is only among the ministers, it's not about which Parliament ratified a proposal. Intergovernmental organizations that work in this way are the exception not the rule, and when they do,it's far more limited then with the council.Also is this strictly speaking intergovernmentalism, under this scheme, council seems to be by it's self an entity, while intergovernmental means that decisions are up for the member states,meaning, according to there constitutional arengments, not only to there ministers."However, it also has supranational bodies, able to make decisions without the agreement of all national governments" this is bogus, they are areas that only a QMV in council is needed, does this say that council is supranational?--88.82.47.129 (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

From the current introduction: "The EU operates through a hybrid system of intergovernmentalism and supranationalism. In certain areas it depends upon agreement between the member states. However, it also has supranational bodies, able to make decisions without the agreement of all national governments." Arnoutf (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This to me,implies, that they negociate treaties that then must be ratified by there parliaments, and that they are also supranational entities that fax them what they should do.It's also too vage.--88.82.47.129 (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So, what do you propose instead? Let's see how you would formulate and then we can discuss if your text adds quality to the article or not. It would be great, if your proposal was more precise, easier to comprehend and yet not longer than what we currently have. If you meet those requirements, I am sure you will find open ears here. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Basicly say what's the place for national parliaments.Just say(more or less), that "In the context of the EU, intergovermentalism means that national ministers, or head of states, are taking decisions that are immediately binding, just by voting among them selves(unanimity is considered voting?), they don't need ratification by there national parliaments. EU decisions aren't draft treaties, but immediately binding laws and executive decisions, national parliaments are involved only for amending the treaties on EU it's self."In the lead of course, because this form of intergovermentalism is not the rule.--88.82.47.57 (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Beyond the erroneous grammar, which could of course be fixed by the community, I have several points that make me prefer the original phrase:

(i) The original is much shorter, yet conveying in a clear tone what you are trying to explain by wordiness: There are institutions and processes that are intergovernmental or supranational or something in between.

(ii) You implicitly focus on two institutions the Council and the European Council, while not (even implicitly) mentioning the Commission and the Parliament.

(iii) The way how you mix up the former two (Council and European Council) is causing more confusion than clarifying the message that you want to convey. First, people are left wondering if those are the institutions that you refer to and then they will be uncertain if those two are the same or different or whatever.

(iv) For a lead proposal it is much too specific and not generally correct, e.g., "just by voting among them selves(unanimity is considered voting?), they don't need ratification by there national parliaments". OR "national parliaments are involved only for amending the treaties on EU it's self"

(v) You use terms that are explained later and should therefore not be used at this point, e.g., "EU decisions aren't draft treaties". Tomeasy _{T C} 13:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(i)it's not suposed to replace the original.You now many international organizations that work like the council.You can trim my proposal.

(ii)The distinction of the councils is ceremonial,even the council of ministers is not really one body,please focus at "In the context of the EU, intergovermentalism means ....". Commision and EP are not intergovermental.

(iii)I beleave that they both work like this

(iv)Not generaly corect?You are refering to directives?I'm not trying to explain all EU in one phraze

(v)I beleave this is important, it's the point that sets it apart from "normal" international organizations.

(vi)Feal free to amend my proposal.

"In the context of the EU, intergovermentalism means that national ministers(council), or head of states(european council), are taking decisions that are immediately binding, just by voting among them selves, national parliaments don't ratify the decisions."--217.112.186.165 (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

May I ask you something completely different? Perhaps you would like to register an account. As you are using different IPs it will otherwise be difficult to always assign the origin of your individual comments correctly. Apparently, you are motivated to create an impact on Wikipedia. To this end, an account will certainly be helpful and registering takes less time than posting one comment. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just stick to the issue.Do you have a problem with, more or less "In the context of the EU, intergovermentalism means that national ministers(council), or head of states(european council), are taking decisions that are immediately binding, just by voting among them selves, national parliaments don't ratify the decisions." If you want we can have a poll, about what people expect by intergovernmental.Say the "ask for comment" thing , no not among people editing this article,among the average Joe, and simply ask people if they rather understand the "drafting treaties for ratification" or the EU way.--217.112.178.33 (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a problem with your proposal. This article is about the EU and not about intergovernmentalism. Unfortunately, your formulation yields a specific definition of the latter rather than a general explanation of the former. Moreover, as I mentioned in point (iv) above, you are making false statements. National parliaments (or whichever process the country chooses) are in deed required to ratify treaties negotiated at the European Council. Also point (i) appears even more relevant to me now that you say you want to add your proposal instead of substituting text. I do not feel that your brackets solution for the Council and the European Council really solves issue (iii).

If you do not want to create an account than make at least clear which of the above contributions were posted by you. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't start splitting hears.The normal decision procedure it's by vote among the ministers/presidents,"treaties negotiated at the European Council", are you referring to the EU treaties them selves?I'm not aware of doing this outside amending EU treaties."your formulation yields a specific definition of the latter rather than a general explanation of the former" the point isn't to rerwite the article on intergovermentalism, only explain what is the prosedure in the EU "In the context of the EU, intergovermentalism means .....", pepol expect treaties when they hear intergovermental, EU clearly doesn't work in this way."is much shorter, yet conveying in a clear tone", sory it isn't clear,it's to general, and pepol have prconsieve ideas going in the other direction."Council and the European Council", are you just trying to win the debate hear? just propose a wording, until now you just reject everything."In the context of the EU, intergovermentalism almost always means that members of national governments, are taking decisions that are immediately binding, just by voting among them selves,and national parliaments don't ratify the decisions." And don't start with how often they just vote just propose a replacement for "almost always" that you like say "most of the time" "usually" "normally" "overwhelmingly" "X%".You can propose further changes that you like, i just whant to convey the message that treaties are the exception/rare/unusuall/special cases/ugly/taboo/avoided/monstrous whatever, and voting somehow among members of goverments/ministers/presidents/prime ministers/govermenet whatever you what to put here, is the rule/usual/natural/normal/beautiful whatever you what to call it.Intergovermental to the average joe says that it's about treaties, like in most international organizations, EU is clearly whay out of the norm in this one and should be in the lead in some form.And don't complain about the the weird syntax/grammar you can fix this trivially.--217.112.178.73 (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I also have problems with the formulation. Bundling the European Council and Council of Ministers together in such a way is unhelpful. The former is a policy formulator and does not take decisions which are immediately binding law as your description implies. Not to re-open old arguments but they are different... Also they take decisions "just by voting among them selves". They do? This implies they are the SOLE influence in taking a decision. The reality is not quite so simple. Many areas adopt the co-decision procedure in which the European Parliament operates as co-legislator. I feel the *original* lead allowed us to, without confusion, follow this point up later, and your formulation causes confusion. Also I am not certain of the link you are making between intergovernmentalism and the ratification of decisions by the national parliaments. What does this have to do with intergovernmentalism within the EU? Orthodox academic opinion in the field of the EU makes no such connection. Finally I agree with the other points raised by Tomeasy Lwxrm (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"Bundling the European Council and Council of Ministers together in such a way is unhelpful"."In the context of the EU, intergovermentalism almost always means that members of national governments, are taking decisions that are immediately binding" Thats beater? "Also they take decisions "just by voting among them selves". They do? This implies they are the SOLE influence in taking a decision." legaly yes, they are the only one that deside, in practice of cource is a litle diferent, like with parlements, legaly they do what ever they what, in practice they take the opinion of voters under due councideration, in the same way when they vote at the council, they don't act autoritarian, they take there voters/parliament/party in to acount.Feal free to propose something that that satisfies your councern.This is not a countest about how good my wording is, just propose something that you feel it's beater, not nescascary satisfactory, and we'll see if we can modifie it to something that satisfies most of us."The reality is not quite so simple. Many areas adopt the co-decision"the proposal is about intergovermental part of the EU, not the supranational part. "I feel the *original* lead allowed us to" I don't what to replace anything, i just whant to add a phraze similar to what i have proposed. "Also I am not certain of the link you are making between intergovernmentalism and the ratification of decisions by the national parliaments" I argue that the average joe, expects intergovermenta=treaties, we can ask a request for comment to check this out. "Orthodox academic opinion in the field of the EU makes no such connection."This is not relevent, i don't understand what you understould, i just whant to point out that normal EU decisions are not treaties.--217.112.178.73 (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

“ The EU operates through a hybrid system of intergovernmentalism and supranationalism. In certain areas it depends upon agreement between the member states. However, it also has supranational bodies, able to make decisions without the agreement of all national governments. ”

That's my proposition to tackle these aspects in the lead. The governance section will then explain in detail how the institutions work, and therefore answer your concern as to how much intergovernmental they are.

I disagree with you about the average Joe, which you do not want to be yourself, but even better want to know. Intergovernmental co-operation is not equivalent with the necessity to ratify decision. I also disagree with you that this would be the rule. I think, it's rather the exception. Look at the UN, NATO or whatever intergovernmental organization! When they make decision, e.g., whether to expand or UN resolutions, they do not need a ratification process for it. So why would average Joe assume this hearing the word intergovernmental?

"This is not relevant, i don't understand what you understould, i just whant to point out". Honestly, you should try to understand us first, before deciding that our arguments are irrelevant. This thread is not a one-way street! Tomeasy _{T C} 14:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"I argue that the average joe, expects intergovermenta=treaties". I would argue to "average Joe" intergovernmental means nothing...It is not a concept "average joe" will have come across. Which is why we link the word in the lead to the wiki page on intergovernmentalism which mentions nothing of intergovernmental==treaty... and also briefly define how it applies to the EU Also once again I challenge the accuracy of your "legaly yes, they are the only one that deside". They are not. Article 251 lays down a co-decision procedure for JOINT legislative (decision making) authority between council and parliament. They cannot legally do whatever they want. They would swiftly face an action for annulment if they did... Again "the proposal is about intergovermental part of the EU, not the supranational part". When a proposal about one part distorts the meaning of the section as a whole I think it is fair to flag this up. The EU works on a HYBRID system of the two. Therefore you cannot fully separate out the two issues. In things which are considered "intergovernmental" there are supranational influences. Lwxrm (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)