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)

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)