Talk:Democratic legitimacy of the European Union

As an explanation for the creation of this article, it was created after some concerns about the "democratic deficit" article being dominated by the issue of the European Union. I created it therefore to relieve that article and also to give a more detailed account of the arguments related to the EU. This is one of the key debates in the literature on European integration and I felt it merited its own article. I am not an expert and this involves numerous theories some of which I know and some of which I don't, so I've done the best I can - hopefully this can have some more contributions in the future. blankfrackis 17:35, November 18, 2006

Tidying up

I tidied up the introduction to this article, this - "after the first energy transition from coal to gas in 1963 (Gasunie) as the world's root cause for globalization" is rather confusing and wasn't needed for a simple reference to the European Union. The last sentence was also very meandering and imprecise - "due to the overall complexity resulting in a fundamental lack of overview and direction of the democratic process being overshadowed by international institutional conduct and strategic behavior under market pressure". If anyone is unhappy with the edit then feel free to post something here. Jason - 19:20, December 6, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by blankfrackis (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

neutrality

i don't see whats wrong with the neutrality of this article, it seems fine to me Theglobeismyeye 01:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it mentions a large number of "arguments", but very little is verifiably attributed to specific groups or individuals. This is against Wikipedia policy, see WP:WEASEL. Junes 09:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

??? the empty core

This topic defines the European Union, so why is it so ... Never mind. Does anyone know how to stick a tag on it to label it as Important and Worthy of Immediate Expansion and attract the attention of the obsessives? Vinny Burgoo (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a guide

Articles on wikipedia shouldn't be shaped as a guide to arguments of pros and cons. What individual scholars think/claim/have found out, can never be part of a good article (because one can always find people who claim the opposite on this subject). See Wikipedia:Pro and con lists. - SSJ ☎ 00:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Bias

This article is biased, because it presents rebuttals against arguments of "democratic deficit" before or without even presenting the arguments that the topic of the article is based on.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.74.195.92 (talk) 2009-11-12

That would appear to suggest that the title itself is biased.--Boson (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

German article

The German article is differently structured. I translated a section from it:

Federalist Arguments:

A considerable criticism from a federalist perspective is the absence of a referendum to the Lisbon treaty; generally, federalists have encouraged a common, Europe-wide vote instead of multiple national referenda for the ratification of the treaty.

In substance, the Treaty of Lisbon (from a federalist perspective) has muiltiple advantages. Most crucially is the renewed expansion of the competencies of the European Parliament. The co-decision procedure (henceforth: "Orderly Legislative Procedure") will then be applied in more areas of policy, particularly in the (previously strictly intergovernmentally-organized) areas of police and judicial co-operation in criminal cases. Additionally, the Lisbon Treaty removes the differentiation between "obligatory" and "non-obligatory" expenditures; the parliament has full rights of co-determination [representative participation?] over all EU allocations, including agricultural expenditures [I'm assuming they mean farm subsidies].

Furthermore, the Lisbon Treaty should increase the transparency of decisions in the [European] Council of Ministers: they must, when legislatively active, meet publically.

-Ich (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Do we have reliable sources for the statements about federalist criticisms of the Lisbon Treaty. The idea of not having referendums in the constituent states would appear to be a somewhat novel interpretation of federalism. --Boson (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The EU Democratic deficit and the Fiscal Compact Treaty

Hi - I am new to contributions/edits on Wikipedia so excuse my naivety and please bear with me... I believe, there is an issue concerning the ratification criteria for the Fiscal Compact treaty and the democratic deficit. I have touched briefly on this elsewhere - http://startledearwig.blogspot.com/2012/03/irish-referendum-on-eu-fiscal-compact.html

Now before anyone reads that and goes off on let my stress I am pro-European, not a vote 'NO' rabble rouser who would vote no, no matter what, type.In fact my principal objection to the EU Fiscal Treaty referendum in Ireland is my own interpretation of how far this democratic deficit is now entrenched in the EU, that in order to to implement the agenda being pursued, the EU is prepared to structure the rules for future treaty ratification so that a country rejecting a treaty change would no longer prevent that same treaty being ratified. There are other aspects of the treaty I do not like but that is not the issue here.

Is my opinion shared sufficiently, that a balanced contribution could be made here to that effect? I do not feel it appropriate to raise this on pages relating directly to the treaty, or on any of the other EU/EU structures related articles I have read to date.

Thanks

Max Maxwellsh (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)