The EU may simply destroy itself. And a good thing if it does. The current US Constitution wasn't the first attempt at government and they should really chuck the current structure and start over. I fear though that given recent events, any American criticism of the EU may just drive Europe into its arms. I think the recent split over Iraq has been excellent for demonstrating the various agendas of France, etc.

"But the whole system could eventually collapse, given the problems when one central bank has to steer an entire continent of nation states. Certainly, the more countries that join, the more ungovernable it will become," Nolling says. "In that sense, the euro was born to die."

"Many Germans privately feel that given the chance, they would have voted against, and we wouldn't be in this mess," he says. "That's why we feel the UK is a very privileged country."

From the Telegraph. Imagine if a German politician actually began asking the tough questions?

Transnational socialism aka "transoc". Old Orwell nailed it.

There's no way to avoid saying it: The EUrocrats are setting up an oligarchy. Its thrust will be the same as that of any other oligarchy: to preserve and extend its barons' power and perquisites.

It's time every European read Friedrich Hayek's The Road To Serfdom. Pay particular note to the chapter "Why The Worst Get On Top."

In case you need reference,this website has the text of the Commission proposal.

The details are right:Only parties with activity in several different countries may take part in parliamentary elections,and a majority of MEPs (europarliamentarians) may decide to drop off the parties that are considered insufficiently committed to "the principles of freedom and democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law."

What is dubious is that the documents at hand don't specify exactly what kind of activity would result in expulsion.It appears to be enough that the majority of MEPs consider it so.

Furthermore,the article on expulsion says:"Before carrying out such verification the European Parliament shall hear the representatives of the European political party concerned and ask a committee of independent eminent persons to give an opinion on the subject within a reasonable time."

Who are these independent eminent persons?(The committee)"...shall consist of three members, with the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission each appointing one member. The secretariat and financing of the committee shall be provided by the European Parliament."

That's not all.The parties that wish to take part in elections to the Europarliament would be eligible for party funding from the Union.The article five says,among other things,that to receive funding,a European political party must have "received at least five per cent of the votes cast at the most recent European elections in at least one third of the Member States."

Has this deck been stacked or what?

Something important seems to be emerging from the inchoate mists of the last decade or so in world events. I think it goes something like this...and is directly linked to the 'death' of France discussions of yesterday.

In the US, "all politics is local" is not just a throwaway line. A succession of so-called third parties has failed to go anywhere because American political parties arise and flouorish from the base. To have a Libertarian or Reform or even the Bull Moose party run a candidate for President is an exercise in futility because there is nothing underneath it.

For non-Americans -- and Americans who graduated from high school after about 1975 -- YES, there really was a Bull Moose party. In 1912 the popular former President Teddy Roosevelt ran for President under that banner, and lost badly.

The Libertarians (or whomever) will almost certainly never elect a President until they have hundreds of seats in state legislatures, several governorships, and a respectable number of seats in the House, along with a few in the Senate.

American politics is decidedly bottom-->up. Not so in Europe, and only true to a limited extent in places like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

What seems to be emerging from the mists in Europe is a virulent return to the top-->down power structure that has prevailed there for centuries. They dabbled in American-style bottom-->up politics for a couple of decades, but the power-elite figured out quite quickly that they didn't like it.

Both the EU and the UN reflect a vigorous attempt to re-impose the old (some would say 'natural') order of things.

We have then, in front of us in the 'West" a looming power struggle of considerable magnitude. There are the Islamo-fascists, the Euro-statist secular socialists (National Socialists, if you will) and the Americans (grass-roots democratic republic).

Two of the three are decidedly opposed to freedom.

What will make things interesting is that the Islamo-fascists have a strong beach-head in Europe (particularly France, where within a generation they could constitute an effective voting majority).

Similarly, the Euro National-Socialists have a strong beachhead within the US, most notably in academia and the media.

Things are likely to get rather ugly between now and the late '20s. And as they do, it will be interesting to see how (and where) the Middle Kingdom [China]--which has pretty much the same type of government it had 800 years ago--will respond.

I suspect most Americans do not yet understand that we are in the early phases of what will become a struggle for the very existence of this nation, its liberties, and its freedom.

Bart,

It has been obvious for some time that the EU is an attempt by European elites to get around democracy. They loathe and abhor the concept of popular sovereignty.

Here's a short summary of the roots of the latter in America, from one of my columns elsewhere:

"American actions in the war on terror can be better understood if the unique role of the American people in American nationalism is considered. They feel they alone constitute the nation. This is quite contrary to other countries' nationalism where the "people" are considered one of many domestic factions, and often an illegitimate one ("the rabble"). This distinction arose because the American people have always deemed America's sovereign power to reside in themselves, while most other nations began their national consciousness with a hereditary monarch expressing the sovereign power. Other peoples identify themselves with their nations. Americans instead identify the nation with themselves, feeling they collectively are the nation.

Many distinctive American traits grow from these feelings - exaggerated self-reliance and individualism, disdain for elites, self-confidence, etc. The American phenomenon of "populism" is a perfect example - a feeling that factions are illegitimate usurpers of power properly exercised solely by the people through governments which are supposed to be their servants. The American people are rightly confident they collectively can bend their governments, including the national government, to their will when necessary, but don't hesitate to act on their own, as individuals or in spontaneously formed groups, to address issues as those arise. The unique vitality, power and independence of American local and state governments compared to those of other countries arises from the fact that sovereignty and power reside in the American people collectively and flow from the bottom up."

The EU has lots of problems. But even glancingly comparing it with the USSR is too much.

The EU will never set up a gulag system, nor will it starve millions on purpose in the Ukraine. Nor will it invade and conquer its neighbors and foment totalitarian revolutions on the other side of the planet.

Never? "Never" is a long time, and history laughs at us all. I wouldn't make that "never" claim about any country, including America, though of course there are sharp differences in probability depending on which polity one is talking about. My concern is that the probability meter is going up significantly in Europe, and even if it's not headed for gulags the consequences are grave.

As for the the comparisons to the USSR, they were made by people who had lived under it - and "Back in the USSR?" was the title of the Telegraph article. If a Polish MP sees similarities, that's news and worth reporting as such. The piece also mentions, specifically, that gulags are not in the offing here. So I'm not worried about a perspective problem.

Whether it wishes to become a threatening USSR-style state or merely a softer "Brave New World" tyranny matters to a point, but in either case the EU as envisaged is an increasingly dangerous actor on the international stage. The events of the last century were no accident - there is a deep, deep hole in Europe's soul, and it's still there. We are not unwise to watch them very carefully, and to see the developing anti-democratic EU with trepidation.

Hmm, thanks for sharpening my arguments Michael. Made a couple changes that bring the comments I just posted into the main article.

reading these comments makes clear nobody here has knowlege of european poloitical systems.
the described mechanisms of forbidding political parties and not let them participate if they do not get more than 5% of the votes are special mechanisms that existed in the german political system since the end of wwII.

they were established in the inner knowlege of what made hitler and the nsdap possible.
the principle of this system was and is 'nor freedom for the enemys of freedom' which means no partys are allowed who want to abolish the constitution and the democratic rights, and there are other mechanisms which should guarantee that what happend in the 1920s and '30s never could happen again.
one of these mechanisms is that no party can participate if it has less than 5% of the votes. this results in an stable political system, just look at the working (and NOT working..) of the israeli or italian parliament: there are very many, very little parties which just got a few votes but are in parliament with one or two MP's and can decide which of the big parties gathers the political power in an coalition. this mean unstability and often chaos, what you can see if you look at the work of the parliament in these two countries.

and one thing to add: the polish MP who was cited is one of the facist, extreme-nationalist, anti-europe party, i would query if this man should be cited about democracy.

and should those, who have no knowlege about the political system in the european union, and about the great democratic tradition complain about a lack of democracy?
for those who have no knowlege, doubts about the democracy in america itself can arise, and not without reason, there are mechanisms in the american poltical system that show themsself as not very democratic in these times.
america has only two political parties that could participate in national politics, schould someone out of this system complain about the forbidding of extreme-nationalist anti-democratic parties in europe? at least we HAVE more then two parties who participate in daily political live.
and a system in which one party can get 49% percent of all votes in the whole country can be not represented because the 'winner takes all' is only very doubtly a good democratic system.
theres the same problem with presidential elections, a candidate can get the majority of all votes in the country but his opponent can be president (as happend between gore and bush).

and should you REALLY complain about a lack of european democratic if not the half of your population votes? in germany ind important elections about 80% of the populations goes voting -> THIS is lived democracy.

I think 100% of Iraqis voted in their last set of elections under Saddam. Guess you're in second place, Maxim.

May be a valid point about the Polish MP, but it doesn't address his argument. Is the mechanism the same as the one in Warsaw Pact Poland? If it is, he could be a worshipper of Cthulhu for all it matters. Same ad hominem problem re: JH, who has text to cite, an URL, and a coherent argument. All you offer are insults in return.

Ignorance cuts 2 ways, too - America has a national 2 party system because American voters choose not to support other parties enough to establish them. Though the Reform Party has contested national elections, and even won a governorship. This is rather different that saying "we're going to let existing political parties vote on whether to allow or disallow others," which is what the EU proposals amount to. That IS Soviet - and given the rest of the pattern cited in this article, extremely disturbing.

Re: banning the Nazi party... a system invoked to deal with very unique German circumstances may not work very well across the entire EU. Just a thought. If that's a critically important goal, one could say that a party must be accredited in the country it runs in, in order to put up EuroParliament candidates. Problem solved without excluding Eurosceptics or a Soviet-style accreditation system - but that isn't what they did at all.

And Maxim reveals his ignorance of the US system.

and should you REALLY complain about a lack of european democratic if not the half of your population votes? in germany ind important elections about 80% of the populations goes voting -> THIS is lived democracy.

Iirc 100% of Iraqis voted for Saddam. Elections, whether free or fair or not, are not the sole arbiter of whether a country is democratic. Indeed, being allowed to NOT vote is even a sign of democracy. If a law was passed requiring I vote, I'd protest and howl. But "democracy" has been fetishized too much. A pure democracy would be nothing but a tyranny. Certain safeguards for the rights of minority groups have to be included in the system.

The emerging EU is anti-democratic on its face. An enormous bureaucracy with no political accountability? No public elections? That's asking for corruption (watched the news in Europe lately?) and structurally, well, it even looks like the USSR.

i know the favours of the US systems (for example it is very stable), and i know it is democratic, because i know how this systems works.
and i also know the problems this system causes in these times (especially in the party financing system there are problems that can cause further problems), there are other problems in the US, especially the low rate of voters in elections. [and i think you KNOW this is a problem, and you should ACCEPT this is a problem, and not just lie to your self that it is no problem.]

but all in all i know it is democratic, although it has it's problems, like every single state-system on the world, because i know how iot works and i know it's mechanisms.
AND i know the mechanisms of german and european state-system, how partys and parliaments work, what commisions do and don't do. and i KNOW that it is absolute nonsense to claim this system is 'soviet' [by the way, WHAT exactly should this mena, 'soviet'??], because it is a democratic system. it works different than in the US, but it works, and it works in favour of its citizens, and it works in approbation of it's citizens.
there are mechanisms that are difficult to understand, and that would look strange on the first view for those who have no inner knowlege of the working of this system. but this should not mean somebody should think this system is in any case not democratic.
'democracy' is a difficult word, and also saddam hussein claimed his state was 'democratic'.
but the EU and every single country in it is democratic in the meaning the western world has established since the french revolution, since the birth of the United STated in 1776 and since the end of WWII and the birth of an new european democratic century.

instead of demonising the EU and it's single members as a new enemy of freedom and a new 'evil empire', it should be accepted the western world can only be strong an vital, and the party who makes world policy in the new century if it's two importent parts, the US and Europe stand together in favour of each other, and in inner knowlege of each others favours, in knowlege of commons and differences, and in knowlege of common intrests in the world and in the single countries.

the EU is NOT a new sovielunion, nor a new 'evilempire', it is a new factor in worldpolicy, and it is a factor taht is allied to the US because of common intrests and a deep friendship, but beeing an ally does not mean beeing a vassal. so critic will be there where it has to be out of european sight, but this never will mean the US and the EU stand diametric against each other.

so instead of demoniseing the EU with claims that are not true, or should be explained there should be writings about our commons and our common intrest. about the US view on the world and the way it changes in these and later days and perhaps the european one. on each side of the atlantic there are sceptics about the future of the western world, sceptics that want to divide, but if they win, WHO will be the laughing third?
so it also up to you, if the sceptics win, and the new century will be those of china and islamic radicals, or the visionaries win and the new century will be those of the western world and new victorys of humanity and democracy.

sorry because of the bad spelling, i am german ;)

It's OK, we understand.

Maxim, I agree with your last 2 paragraphs. My fear is that unless something is done to change the EU's current direction very significantly, we risk a future in which common interest and common traditions won't be much in existence. A Europe with a strong economic and political counterbalance via TAFTA to the EU's tendencies described above, one that lets its member states find their own way while cooperating in areas they wish within and beyond Europe - that New Europe could be our good friend and ally.

A Europe under the firm grip of a centralizing bureaucracy who shows consistent contempt for both democracy AND liberty, one with no mechanism for secession or national second thoughts - that New Europe raises all kinds of very serious, and justified, fears. History teaches us clearly that it will not remain free - and worse still, may not remain at peace. It looks, smells, and behaves like the Europe that made us go over there twice before.

This is the nuclear age. We can't afford that again. Neither, if you think about it, can you.

Maxim, I'm for European integration. I also don't think we're demonizing the EU so much as pointing out it has some serious structural problems that I don't think many would deny. The system being built is an emerging Soviet Union imo. I'm worried by what I see coming out of Europe: the anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, laws that limit free speech, etc. I think the current structure should be tossed out. It's ok to start again and restructure the EU to make it more accountable and democratic. The current US system wasn't the first attempt at government either.

Hmmm ... what was the name of that Swedish leftist who was arrested for putting up a poster announcing an anti-EU meeting -- and promptly declared persona non-grata throughout most of the EU?

When you can be arrested and declared PNG for trying to organise a meeting at which people might be expected to express opinions in contradition to the party line ...

The EU already resembles the Soviet Union in certain characteristic aspects.

Do not make the error of assuming 'democracy' to be the opposite of 'totalitarian.' They answer two different questions -- WHO has the power, and HOW MUCH power do they have.

Democracy can be an effective path to totalitarianism as Hitler so clearly illustrated.

In Europe.

So incredibly troubling. On the emerging Euro-wide Arrest Warrant... (link from Samizdata.net)

When the warrant comes into force next year court hearings will be a formality and the requesting country will not have to present evidence of a well-founded case. Nor will the accused be allowed to argue that he will not get a fair trial. It has been a long-standing principle in English law that extradition would not be allowed to a jurisdiction where the procedures were considered unjust.

The Government says that because the rest of the EU has signed up to the European Convention of Human Rights, their judicial systems can be considered fair. But most other EU countries do not have habeas corpus or trial by jury and, as in Ms Daniels's experience, can reactivate a legal case years after it was apparently brought to an end.

As a moderately sceptical pro-European Brit (pro Single Market, and other economic/social policies, dubious about the single currency and the Euro-warrant without safeguards, against a common defence and foreign policy) I regard the unelected nature of the EU Commission as a feature, not a bug.

Essentially, the Commision is a limited executive body which:
- implements the European legislation adopted by Parliament and the Council;
- presents legislative proposals to Parliament and the Council (in practice, those agreed in outline by the Council in advance);
- represents the EU in international agreements, mainly trade and technical.

By contrast the the Council is where the real power lies:
- it is the supreme legislative body (for some issues it invites input from the European Parliament);
- coordinates economic policies of Member States;
- concludes agreements with one or more States or international organisations (where these do not remain under national purview);
- is the main budgeting authority;
- acts as the executive for foreign and security cooperation (insofar as this exists at all), and police and judicial.

The European Parliament, the only directly elected body, is largely an irrelevant talking shop, except in acting as watchdog over the Commission.
( see http://europa.eu.int/inst-en.htm#3 )

Why does this not worry me? Because the Council is comprised of ministers from each of the governments of the member states. The legitimacy in EU decisions derives from the agreement of states. The democratic accountability is via the elections of those govenments at national level. The lack of democratic standing for the Commision, and power for the Parliament, discourages attempts to widen their field of operation, and helps to encourage resistance to such pretensions.

In American terms, it might be loosely compared to the Executive and the Senate being replaced by a committee of all the State Governors, or their representatives. Of course, the vital difference is that the EU is not a nation, the USA is.

As long as the EU is, at base, an association of nation states, which is constrained within limits, (ie a "Confederacy", not a "Federal Union") that's fine by me.
If not, not.

brrr it is really disillusioning to read all these wrong and dangerous allegations about the reality in the EU.

"When you can be arrested and declared PNG for trying to organise a meeting at which people might be expected to express opinions in contradition to the party line ..."

sorry, but you really reveal your deep ignorance of the EU system, and you reveal your big lack of knowlege.
i have to wonder WHO inside of the US propagates this horror-pictures..
i can ASSURE you we have enough oppositional meetings, and we have enough demonstrations and even strikes. besides this we have a vital press which can be very investigative and very oppositional in cases that need opposition to the gouvernmental line.
what I could see in the US pre Iraq-war was much more concerning, there where different efforts to stop oppositional or gouvernment-critical speech, and you couldn't find ANY critic in any larger news paper or on any TV-Station. FOX-News is just the peak.

don't complain about lack of democracy and free speech without knowlege about Europe. as i said before - we are a liberal democracy, we value human rights, democratic tradition, liberty, freedom, free speech - and we act this way.

it makes me sad to read all these horror-stories about lack of free speach in Europe, and i really would be interested in WHERE this comes from.

for sure some demonstrators get jailed if they don't act legally. but can i remember you of seattle '99? not only a few demonstrators where jailed... and a suit at law in europe is for sure very fair and very democratic. you should just stop to propagate these horrific (and wrong) allegations.

i would liked to have said a few more things about the importence of an strong and vital (and democratic, of course!) europe in the future of new world policy, but now i haven't enough time to do, but perhaps you can read again my former comment and try to comprehend what i really meant, and how important it is.

maxim -

Thigs are a little more complex over there...from Dagens Nyheter:

"On Sunday night Per Johansson, from Ornskoldsvik, was putting up posters critical of the EU in Brussels. Now the Belgian police have decided to send him back to Sweden - without giving any indication of how long this decision (of him being denied the right to entry Belgium again) is going to last.

Per Johansson has been asked to leave Belgium before Wednesday (12 December). The decision by the Belgian police also means that he is not allowed to enter any of the other 15 countries within the Schengen agreement apart from Sweden, unless he has “appropriate documents”. The police in Brussels do not mention when he will be allowed back into Belgium."

A.L.

i wasn't there, and you wheren't there - who can say what has happend?
go, read 'indymedia', it is full of these 'horror-stories' you can look at german, belgian, canadian or US-American Indymedia....

do you want to tell me, you really think it is forbidden in europe to organize demonstrations and meetings that are gouvernment-critical? i will invite you to colonge and we can organize so many anti-EU meetings as you like.

and all i know, in the US there are really serious problemns concerning expelations.
you are going to expel more than 18.000 muslims in the next months. go look at the US/Canadian border: it is full of refugees who say goodby to the US because they fear being expeled. and i know no one in europe has to have fear because of this. nor because of the possibility of beeing sent to kuba without reason, without prosecution, without rights.
you have problems inside of the US, if you want to close your eyes about this and realize someday in future how much these things destoyed your reputation in the world, or if you want to do something now for democracy and freedom is up to you.

Maxim, why do you think those people are being expelled? I have issues/a lot of anger with the Ashcroft Justice Department, but those people are being asked to leave because they're illegal. Or they've violated some immigration-related rule. I'm sure some of them are just innocent victims of what's happening in the world, but many are here illegally. Why are we doing this? Because, before our lax attitude toward immigration violations/illegal aliens contributed toward the death of 3,ooo + Americans, American Muslims included. Why do so many of the people I speak to behave as if much of what has happened in the US in the past two years has no cause?

Nevertheless, those people weren't expelled for political views as Per Johansson was.

Also, as a liberal, even I would say that Indymedia is the last place one should go for correct information. Although I have in the apst read some rants over there that border on neo-nazi screeds.

there are other problems in the US, especially the low rate of voters in elections

An American Govt. professor I once had said that while media and sometimes those in politics complain about low voter turnout this is in actuality a good thing. Why? Because the low turnout is usually due to voter apathy. Yes an apathy towards goverment. This happens when a voter is generally pleased (not necessarily completely) with the way things are going or when the candidates have both good standings. I'm actually pleased we have a low voter turnout in some cases. While it means decisions hang on fewer votes, it also tells me that the general public are CONFIDENT in our government and also in ourselves to correct the government if necessary.

Oh and indymedia isn't what I would call a reliable source of information. This is the same type of site that denies the holocaust or its numbers. So if you want to be deemed credible if I were you I wouldnt spout just about ANYTHING from their site.

seeing an advantage in a low voter rate really surprises me. do you really think many people without knowlege about policy are a good thing in a democracy?
and do you really think those out of south-central LA and out of the worst neighborhoods in new york don't vote because of their general confidency in US gouvernment? i would doubt this.

for sure, SOME of those who don't vote cant decide, have no time etc. thats the same in every western democracy, but seeing voting rates of less than 50% in presidential elections means for the most people who didn't vote: they are not interestet or they are disillusioned.
yes, perhaps a mount of them are really confident in general - but is NOT patricipating nor interesting in national policy RALLY a good thing in a democracy.

more to come, have no more time by now.

RE: Indymedia comments. Linden, Valentine, in fairness to Maxim he was making the same point you are - that anyone getting their news from it would have a very warped view of the world. At which point, he implicitly draws the analogy to say that many of the things he reads here seem to be analagous: products of selective and biased sources that paint a false picture of the EU.

I don't necessarily agree with that last bit, but thought it only fair to set the record straight on what he's arguing.

Voter turnout is a digression to me - I'd just as soon we stuck to the topic of the article. Is the EU structurally "safe" in a political sense, basically trustworthy but preoccupied with the usual bugs and stupidities of human foibles? Or is it a danger to political liberty whose untrustworthy essence lies in its very structure, and what we're seeing now is just the thin edge of a darker wedge?

The answers matter. A Lot.

"what I could see in the US pre Iraq-war was much more concerning, there where different efforts to stop oppositional or gouvernment-critical speech, and you couldn't find ANY critic in any larger news paper or on any TV-Station. FOX-News is just the peak."

Maxim, you really need to spend some time in the United States or get your information from better sources. This statement is a joke. Fox News is one of FOUR major television news networks, and the ONLY one that shows a pro-American/pro-conservative slant. All of the others show a distinct liberal slant (though Fox News's popularity is changing that some, gotta love the free marketplace of ideas). And maybe you should watch Fox News, because they often have some of the most vigorous debates about the most controversial topics.

Couldn't find any critic in larger newspapers? Um, ever heard of the New York Times? The LA Times? That's just the tip of the iceberg of news media that ripped into Bush and his foreign policy without pausing for a second, even STILL criticizing the fact that we went to war.

Efforts to stop oppositional speech? I must have missed that story. But I guess if you consider arguing for war and criticizing anti-war protests "efforts to stop oppositional speech" you would be right. I consider that healthy debate.

I just couldn't sit and let this terribly simplistic and propagandized lie go unchallenged. Maybe I also am getting bad information, but I've heard that the debate in Europe over the war was very one-sided, at least in France, where the state-run media was a constant stream of anti-American, anti-Bush propaganda.

If you still think America is a land of gun toting religious redneck cowboys who are too stupid and simplistic to have an intense debate over important foreign policy decisions, GET REAL.

products of selective and biased sources that paint a false picture of the EU

Um, the proposed EU constitution? ;-)

Seriously, we are not talking about vague presentiments of doom here; we're talking about structural problems, lack of checks and balances. For example, John Farren remarked that the European Parliament is pretty toothless, and then says:

Why does this not worry me? Because the Council is comprised of ministers from each of the governments of the member states. The legitimacy in EU decisions derives from the agreement of states. The democratic accountability is via the elections of those govenments at national level.

However, the elections of those national governments will be profoundly influenced by the EU power structure, because that structure decides which political parties are legitimate enough to participate in EU elections. They can't (as far as I know) forbid a party from standing in national elections... but the difference in perceived legitimacy will probably be great, particularly in countries that are more deeply invested psychologically in the EU, so the EU structure will be exerting a great deal of control, in practice, over the range of viewpoints considered legitimate in the elections that indirectly determine the EU's composition.

That's a bona fide structural problem. So is the fact that the only way for the people to exert influence over the EU is indirect - people -> national legislators and executive -> national bureaucracy -> EU bureaucracy.

Now structural problems do not imply that the people of Europe are slavering to set up gulags and whatever else Michael Totten mentioned, but that's not really the question; the question is whether the structure will prevent anyone who lusts for power from gaining too much of it.

If you've got a governmental structure that's conducive to tyranny, you may be lucky for ten years, or for several generations, but eventually such a person or party will appear and the weakness will catch up to you. (If you have as well a credulous population that can be easily swayed to feelings of unity if you tell enough lies about an invented enemy, it's even easier, and in such a case a sound structure is even more essential.)

at least is think we have to learn MUCH, MUCH, MUCH about each other.
even if we thought all the years during the colad war europe and america stand together as near as its possible, by now i think this part of time has alienated us.
to me it looks as the europeans and the US have much more in common, and much more common intrests and ideas then many would think - because they are alienated to each other and really lack depper knolege about each other. not every single person here and there fits in this sheme but enough people on both sides of the atlantic do.

thanks to Joe for explaining this indymedia thing. i hope the lack of understanding was not caused by my bad english.

you summarized the whole problem very good. is the EU generally a democratic, safe and good thing featured with the results of human foibles. or is it the way to a new ussr, or at least a new totalitarian system because of a lack of checks and balances, because of too much power concentrated to few elites and the permanent danger of beeing misused?
what is europe and what will it be? a strong, free, safe haven; or a ne danger to world order in the new century.

and i know, the EU is democratic, and does not lack checks and balances, and it has not the 'feature' of much power beeing concentratet on few elites - but i also klnow it IS 'featured' with a lack of functionality, with general problems, with strange arrangements, with all these results of human foibles. and it is a normal process als these will be eliminated - and have to be eliminated.
by now, ideed, there is a lack of clear transparancy, but not because the structure is made intransparent for it's citizens but because of it is too difficult, too big, too unweildy - but it is a normal process, and it will take place (and it already takes places, IN THESE DAYS at the EU konvent) that these structures will be opened and made more transparent - because this is no longer a europe of kings, no longer a europe of nationstates, but has become a europe of the people. and this EU is the result not of a europe of kings or nations but of their people who came together after centurys of bloody wars and recognized what they had in common - and what are their diffenreces - and joint a leage of nations who are themselfes no longer are nationalstates[this is a german word i don't know if it exists in english: it should mean a state defined by a nation in the meaning of nationality/race].

justin: what you said about NYT (and WaPo, too) is true and i know, because i read them during the war and in the end of the war: you are absolutely right there where critical comments during all the time - but you can't deny even in these papers the patriotism (and sometimes the border to nationals is a very thin one) was represented broadly. and this was even more the case in other newspapers.
it is okay, and this is democracy too(or at least economy..), to write what the people buy and want to buy. but that there IS a danger to free speach if on the broader media only patriotic themes are noticeable is not denyable.
and if this danger came or came not reality in the days of war: if FOX does not more than just repeat what the gouvernment said about things without only to think about questioning it, is dangerous if it spreads.

but if this what you wrote is true - then i was as wrong about american media as you are about european one.

for sure the media was critical on the things Bush said, and on the things Rumsfeld said (at least because of he was wonderful in deeply insulting us) - but they where at least so critical to schroeder and chiraq as to blair and bush.
there was a wide debate about schroeders foreign policy, and about it's mistakes, and the critics, those who offended and those who supported the war, had mainly a common opinion: what he did, and the way he did was very wrong. i think in the days of war and in the days of the UNSC meetings in the german media, and between the german intelectuals the critic on schroeder was harder than those on bush ever was.
for sure there where questions about the honesty of bush's and blairs efforts, and the where doubts and critical question about their stories on wmd's. but THIS is exactly what a free press should do - and by now we can say they where not wrong in asking these questions, and they wheren't wrong in their doubts.
you can believe me our press was never the way you described, and i belive you the american press and media was better than i thought.

"If you still think America is a land of gun toting religious redneck cowboys who are too stupid and simplistic to have an intense debate over important foreign policy decisions, GET REAL."

if you read the posts above, and those out of other articles, you should know, and i think you do know, i do not think this way.
i wouldn't underline the importance of going together if i would think we would go together with a stupid, redneck happy trigger cowboy.
but to be fair this is (perhaps not this hard, but it is in this direction.) the view of some europeans by now - these are not the majority, but they are growing. this is not the picture presented us by an state-controlles television and print-media, but this can be the view of those who only recognize small cut-outs of a whole picture. and these cut-outs are normally the strangest and the extremest ones - this does not mean these cut-outs are wrong, but it means they are not representative.
seeing people in a house full of guns, loving to shoot all they, talking about theri love of guns - perhaps it is a true picture, but it is not representative.
i know this problem, i know it exists on both sides of the atlantic, i know it exists all over the world. what is out, what is the averange americans view about 'the arabs'? how those about 'the french'?

the picture of 'the american' you described is as wrong as the picture some, also here, draw about french/europeans/the EU/the arabs/[..]. i only can say it with your words: GET REAL! and this should mean all those who know evidently much to less about 'the others'.

" because that structure decides which political parties are legitimate enough to participate in EU elections"

NO, NO, NO!!!

this is not the case, this sounds like horror, and if this where the cas i can assure you i would take THE NEXT pilgrim ship to america.
we have very free elections, we have elections on the EU-parliament. and there is NO structure in any nation who can forbid any partys (except of germany, where the 'supreme court' can do this after a long and difficult procedure where it has to proof that this party is against the german constitution and it's freedom and democracy. this has taken place one time in history; in the 1950's the KPD the communist party who wanted to abolish the german constitution)
i agree that there is not as much democracy and transparency inside of the EU as some can wish, but it really has enough of legitimacy. their structures, their members, their parliament get legitimacy either through elections, or thruogh the national gouvernments.

and perhaps theres a general thing to clarify: the EU is a supranational organization. this means it IS what their embers allow it to BE. it is not a big black organization that decieds anything and every nation has to follow.
the nations themself decide, the EU is the federation of these nations, but the only one who decides are the nations themself. there is no 'EU bureaucracy' that decides and every country has to follow. the countries themself decide the way they want to go. they fund it, they send the people who talk, and their governments decide.
'the EU' does not mean any abstract building, or state-like organizations, but it means 'all neations who are together in this organization called EU speaking with one voice' - remeber this if you think of " 'the EU' decieded...", " 'the EU' said...".

sorry for not having any good last words and ideas, but by now it is 1.22am here ant i am tired now... good night :)

This is a great thread. Congratulations to all.

Maxim, shouting "NO, NO, NO!!!" does not change what the draft constitution says about political parties. JH, above, posted this:

Only parties with activity in several different countries may take part in parliamentary elections,and a majority of MEPs (europarliamentarians) may decide to drop off the parties that are considered insufficiently committed to "the principles of freedom and democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law."

What is dubious is that the documents at hand don't specify exactly what kind of activity would result in expulsion. It appears to be enough that the majority of MEPs consider it so.

Do you disagree with this analysis? If so, can you specify which provisions of the draft EU constitution would prevent it? This would be far more helpful in understanding your position than vague assertions about how wonderful the EU is, how it is democratic, and so on. I have noticed that your response to arguments here has mostly been to hold up the good underlying values of Europeans. I understand that it is your sincere belief that these things are true.

But we are talking here about constitutional structure, not about wishes. A constitution is like an engineering project: its exact construction is more important than good intentions in determining the result. And so referring to specific parts of that structure, to show how these values are protected, would be best.

we have very free elections, we have elections on the EU-parliament. and there is NO structure in any nation who can forbid any partys

Maybe I wasn't clear. I am not saying that Europe does not have free elections, or that there are not elections for the EU parliament, or that any country can forbid a political party. What I am saying is that the draft constitution allows the EU to decide what parties may participate in elections for the EU parliament. This is dangerous for two reasons:

1) It lets the EU use this method to insulate itself from its only democratic structure. (The EU might not forbid a party in order to protect itself from challenge, but that isn't the point. The point is that it can, because the structure of the constitution lets it.)

2) It also lets the EU use this method to affect politics in national elections. It cannot forbid a party from participating in national elections, but if it forbids a party from EU elections, that will affect the party's legitimacy in the eyes of voters. In this way they can damage a party's prospects in national elections, even though they cannot forbid it directly. Because the main control over the EU is exerted by national governments, this is dangerous, because it allows the EU a way to subvert this control.

i like to see that you at least accept and agree in my sincere and honest belief in the democratic structures of europe and the EU.

but as we see some very general things are to clarify.
i agree on your points about the importence of constitutional structure. so we can talk about the structures of the EU.

there are some general things to say that are, perhaps, not clear to everybody:
the EU exists not as alone-standing institution, but it is the together of all the gouvernments of it´s member states. it is not a gouvernment-like organ, because it only exists in the agreement of the single gouvernments and has no power without these gouvernments. the EU is no gouvernmental organization who controles it's members, but is controlled by it´s members.

all this is expressed by the laws and organs that build the EU.
the main organs are:
[i do not know the exact english names; the given names may be the real ones or they may not. i just translated the german terms, so i will give these german names in brackets after the englisch translation]
- the european council [Europaeischer Rat]
this is the meeting of the 15 [in the future 27] heads of state
- the european parliament [Europäisches Pralament]
it is elected by the europeans
- the council of the european union [Rat der EU]
in this council the ministers of each member state are sitting.
- the european commission [Europaeische Kommision]
it´s commissars are chosen by the national gouvernments and elected by the E. parliament.
- the european court of justice [Europaeischer gerichtshof]
the judges are chosen by the national gouvernments.

although these instituitions indeed lack of direkt democracy, the don't lack of legitimacy which is expressed by the national gouvernments. the EU does not a job alone, the EU means all the european gouvernments deciding one thing together. this will be clearer if it's organs are explained.

in council of the EU the national ministers sit together. this means there are many different 'councils of the EU': the meeting of the ministers of finance, the meeting of the m. of justice, the meeting of the m. of agriculture. the councils can agree on laws, major laws have to be decided together with the european parliament, others, for example those in world-trade policy can be decided directly by the councils. all these laws are products of common national decicens. all of these laws have to be ratified by the national parliaments.

in the european commision are 20 commisars with one president of the commision. he has to be nominated consensual by all the national gouvernments and the european parliament. the commisars are nominated consensual by all national gouvernments and the commision president.
the commision has the alone right of initiative, which means it has the right (and the duty) to formulate laws on suggestion by the parliament. the council and the parliament can ask the commission to formulate laws on specific topics.
but the decicion about these laws have only the council and the parliament.
besides this the commision is the 'executiveorgan' of the EU. if it thinks one member transgresses against european law it can accuse it at the european court of justice.

the judges at the european court of justice are nominated by the national states. every state has to nominate one of the 15 (in future 27) judges.
the ecoj decides about the lawfulness of new european laws, it is an administrative tribunal, an labour court who can decide about fundamental social rights of equalrights and fair environments.

the european council, the meeting of the heads of state is responsible for the guidelines of the further development of the EU. it also can decide in question where the ministers at the european council couln'd get an consensual agreement.
the european council meets four times a year.

all this is a bit difficult, but follows straight lines:
- the european policy is made together by the national states
- ALL DECISION HAVE TO BE RATIFIED BY THE NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS
- the whole system is based on the political systems of the member states.
- by now all important decisions are consensual. [this will change in some cases when the new members joins us]
- the organs are legitimated by the elections of the european parliament wich has to agree to many of the decisions and can ask for new laws and the national gouvernments who are those who nominate the members of the commision and provide the members of the council.
- the EU is checked by it court of justice.

a 'EU bureaucracy' does not exist, because the EU is not a gouvernment-like institution who can decide and it´s members and citizens have to follow, but it exists only through these members. the members themselfs decide about their own future.
so what the people decide in their nations and in the elections to the european parliament is what´s decides about their futrue.
this has to be understood, the EU is not a 'central commitee' like in the ussr, but exists only through it´s members and the legitimacy through the national gouvernments and the parliament.

there are some words to say about the parties in the european parliament. these are not the same oney, sitting in the national parliament. this is understandable, because every member has it´s own parties. the parties in the EU are associations of the national parties which represent the political spectrum. there is a association of social-democratic parties [this would be 'labour' in britan and SPD in germany], conservative parties, liberal parties (not in the meaning 'liberal' has in the US, but in the meaning of 'liberal' has for example in the UK and Australia. in general these parties fight for a freer market economie and less regulations on them (i.e. less labour rights)), or green parties.
this means the parties in the european parliament rerpesent the different parties throughout the EU, but they differ from them by their name and their nature.
by now i have not enough information to solve the problem of the exclusion of parties who don't follow the principles of human rights etc. but i try to find out what's this all about and write about it. please bookmark this discussion, there was so much output by now; it would be very bad if all this would be losed to quick.

i hope i could give some insight in the work of the EU and how it works. for deeper insight i would recomend to buy a book about the structure of the EU, especially to all those who couldn't stay from the accusation that the EU is a new ussr. before making such blessing accusations a deeper insight in the structures and the work of the EU should have taken place. doing otherwise is, in my eyes, very unprofessional and does help neither those who want to inform themself about developments inside europe nor the position of europe in the world.
to construct a safe and stable world in the new century both are required.

i looked up a few things, to clearify the question wheter a party can be expeled from elections from a majority of the parliament (which would be very undemocratic) or not.

the things are VERY different than whats presented by JH and others in the beginning of this commentary section [i hope he still reads it].

what i found is, that this is indeed a proposal of the european commision. but it is NOT about the status of european parties NOR is it a part of the draft constituion presented these days.

i had to find and read the proposal in german, because it is difficult to read, and i am not a lawyer...

but one-time reading clearified the situation. this proposal is one about the financial support of the european political parties.
this is not really a big thing because of:
- by now there is no financial support of the EU for the european parties themselfs (afaik); the parties are financed by the different national parties that represent the european ones.
- the financial support would be not very much money.

the proposal has a more symbolic meaning to underline the importance of the european party associations. for different reasons, especially to avoid the financial support of parties that do not get any financial support in their nations because of their anti-democratic sense there is a unbureaucratic mechanism to stop this financial support.
to GET this support the party must be a European party in the meaning of the laws of the EU, it has to have the organs to manage the money and it has to agree on the principles of freedom, democracy, human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law.
also the support is only given to parties that are in the parliament or reached more than 5% in at least three member states.

if there are doubts about lawlessness of a political party, and as i wrote above especially to avoid that undemocratic parties who don't get any financial support in their nation get financial support from the EU, the parliament can, after some hearings and proofs decide a party does not get this financial support any more.

the affectet party would be in the situation as, by now, are all european parties are.

so they would loose something a party in, for example, the US never has and never had: somer financial support. and, by the way, this is just a PROPOSAL and i don't know if it came real or not, and if when. if anybody could find further information here i would be grateful, and i will search agin by myself.

this has absolutely NOTHING to do with expelation, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with forbidding a party, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with an 'oligarchy' or an 'eu-bureaucracy'.

this shows again what i wrote in the comment above: before claiming any fabulous accusations some should inform themselfs and should think about if this accusation is really possible in any way. perhaps one more time the sentence of Justin finds it place: GET REAL.

i give you some details out of the document who show what it is about.

"[the treaty of nice] also recognises that in order to perform the role that the Treaty wishes to assign to them, it will be necessary that they should be at least partially financed from the Community budget."

"This financing is not intended to replace the autonomous financing of the European parties"

"Accordingly, Article 2 (dealing with the definition of a party) and Article 3 (dealing with registration) lay down that to be registered by the European Parliament [to get financial support] a party must:
- have participated or declared their intention to participate in elections to the European Parliament;
- have clearly defined bodies responsible for financial management;
- ensure that the statute and activities of the European political party respect the basic purposes of the Union with regard to freedom, democracy, human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law.
Article 4 establishes a procedure for verification of respect for these obligations contained in the third indent above and would enable the European Parliament to deregister a party which no longer satisfies the conditions for registration."

"Verification
1. At the request of one quarter of its members, representing at least three political groups in the European Parliament, the European Parliament shall verify, by a majority of its members, that the condition laid down in Article 3 (2), second sentence, continues to be satisfied by a European political party. Before carrying out such verification the European Parliament shall hear the representatives of the European political party concerned and ask a committee of independent eminent persons to give an opinion on the subject within a reasonable time.
If the European Parliament finds, by a majority of its members, that the condition is no longer satisfied, the statute of the European political party in question shall be removed from the register."

furthermore you have to consider that the affectet party has the possibility to go to the european court of justice and lamentate for their financial support.

the proposal can be found here