The guiding philosophy behind the EU

KaRl

Is Sweden a centralized or a federal state?

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Mike Gaskey

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I really like the US congress. I think that's a fairly fair way to divide the power between the states. Since no one has responded, I will. You are correct in thinking that our approach is fair. As you probably know, there are two components to the US Congress. These are the House and the Senate. Representatives elected to the house stand for re-election every two years. The idea here is that the Representatives reflect the "will of the people" which can be mercurial, changing in a fairly short amount of time. Senators are elected for six year terms. Roughly a 3rd of the Senate stands for re-election every two years (terms are staggered). The number of Representative "seats", the number of representatives that can be elected from a given state, are determined every 10 years through a nation wide census. The number of Senate "seats" is fixed at two per state. Money related legislation is initiated through the House of Representatives - the concept being that the members of the House are closer to the "will of the people" because of the need to stand for election every two years. The over all arrangement provides a governing body that represents the current will of the people (House) balanced by a longer term view (Senate) who will tend to act in the interest of the country overall versus the state from which they were elected (the view, of course, changes as an election nears). The arrangement for the House of Representatives also recognizes that large states (population)should have a larger representation on many issues. The arrangement for the Senate keeps the large states from being dominant, since to become law, a new law must pass both legislative bodies. With the limited exposure that I have had to the EU concepts and processes, it would appear that EU member states will be governed by something more closely akin to an aristocracy that is dominated by two or three countries. It is difficult for me to see why a nation would yield it's soverignty and identity when it is not to be treated as an equal. Mike

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Thanks for the rundown on how your government works. Some parts are still in the grey. But I will learn more in due time. I am planning on emigrating to the US. Eventhough I don't see eye to eye with your current president and his administration, I feel that the US is a country which I'd like to live in. Can't be sure though until I'm actually there, so I'll keep my Swedish citizenship until I'm sure. :) With any luck I might have my green card this spring. *holding thumbs* Mike Gaskey wrote: It is difficult for me to see why a nation would yield it's soverignty and identity when it is not to be treated as an equal. Exactly. Why should we (the smaller countries) bend over for Germany, France and England? Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike these countries. However, I'm sure we have different interests, and therefore we should have equals saying in many decisions since it may radically change our way of life. I can't say that I'm an expert on how the EU works today, but I know how I want it to work should we ever turn into one big nation. Your government model appears to be an ideal for such a large nation. One thing that bothers me a little though, is the presedent election. IIRC, the president who gets the most votes is not necessarily the one who gets elected. But I guess that's ok, since your type of government is branched into three different administrations. Presedential, congress and judicial, right? Do you feel that "trinity" works out ok? Or have you found any flaws in it which you'd like to correct? -- we dance to the sound of sirens and we watch genocide to relax we dance to the sound of sirens we are the heroes of self-deception

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Judicially no. Politically yes. Our laws are the same all over the state, but we have local communal governments which sets taxes etc independently. Basically, the structure is like this:

Regering & Riksdag/State government & Parliament

Runs the show together with the rest of the parliament. However, a majority government or coalition gets to decide pretty much everything. We do have different semi politically independent institutions that checks that everything the government behaves according to the book. Hearings are done whenever there is a suspicion of decisions which are clearly against our "constitution". The parliament is a single chamber one by the way.

Landsting/Provincial government

Our country is divided into smaller parts, called Landsting. I guess you could call them provinces. These smaller elected governments basically run the wellfare programs. They also tax us, but those taxes are marginal. Some say these provincial governments are just a wast of money and efficiency. I tend to agree a little. To me it seems they only cost money. Hearing about a Landsting having money left at the end of the year is something you don't hear too often.

:)Kommun/Communal government

Landsting are broken down into smaller parts. Typically, a larger city gets to represent a commune. Smaller towns and villages are often grouped together with nearby larger cities. The communal governments are those who gets most of the taxes. They implement the wellfare as required by Landsting. They also fund the schools, transportation, libraries etc. Basically, they only implement laws and regulations as stipulated by the Regering and Landsting.

Constitutional laws are changed by the government. The laws can only be changed if they are in favor for two (or is it three?) consecutive mandate periods. A mandate period is four years. Other laws are made/changed by the parliament in cooperation with our "law institution". And on top of all that is EU. :) -- we dance to the sound of sirens and we watch genocide to relax we dance to the sound of sirens we are the heroes of self-deception

Russell Morris

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: One thing that bothers me a little though, is the presedent election. IIRC, the president who gets the most votes is not necessarily the one who gets elected. This is true, and from some of the discussions in this thread I think that EU representation is designed this way as well (I could have misread something, however). The US Consitution basically says that each of the States is responsible for sending a certain amount of "Electors" (the number of which is determined by that State's population size) to vote for the President. The Consitution, as far as I know, does not explicitly prescribe the method by which a State determines which electors to send, nor does it say how those Electors should determine their vote. I beleive that what the founders wanted was for each State to pick its best and brightest and give them the job of electing the President. What has happened is each Elector for a given State always casts his vote to coincide with the winner of that State's popular election. People got really uppitty when Bush won without getting a majority of the popular vote (even though this has happenned once before). These very same people were shocked to find out that the Presidential election has never been - and was never intended to be - a popular election decided by the masses alone. I am very interested in this whole EU thing. It looks like you guys (read: Europeans) are struggling with some of the very same timeless issues that the original US colonies struggled with. How much power should be granted to a central authority? How much sovereignty are we willing to concede, and for what benefit? How can we maintain our own individual customs and ways of life and at the same time create a usefully strong centralized government? You might be interested in reading up on the US's failed Articles of Confederation which served as our governmental outline between initial independance (late 1770's) and the ratification of the current Constitution (1787). It was voluntary, weak, toothless, and mostly for show. In fact, it's often compared to the UN over here ;) -- Russell Morris "Have you gone mad Frink? Put down that science pole!"

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Russell Morris wrote: This is true, and from some of the discussions in this thread I think that EU representation is designed this way as well (I could have misread something, however). Frankly, I've been a bit too ignorant to learn about all the details within the EU parliament. So far, the EU membership hasn't really affected us as citizens a great deal. But I'm sure it will sooner or later. Especially after we join the monetary union. However, if I'm not mistaken, the number of EU "congressmen" a country has is linearly proportional to the size of the country. But there are also other chambers (I think) which behaves more like your congress - one or two members per country. I'm not really sure how these bodies interact. I don't think all bodies are open to the public, which is diametrically different from the Swedish parliament, where all presented material, official as well as unofficial, goes into the record. A couple of years ago, some anti-scientologists gave a copy of the sacred texts of scientology to an government official. Therefore it is now public material, thus any Swedish citizen may now read it. Last I heard, the church of scientology has booked the material for the next forseable future. :) They even lobbied american politicians to force our government to change our stance on this particular piece of information. Thankfully, the request was turned down. After reading and participating in this thread, I think I should do some reading about the EU parliament. :-O Russell Morris wrote: These very same people were shocked to find out that the Presidential election has never been - and was never intended to be - a popular election decided by the masses alone. Yes, I remember reading about this in high school. But doesn't it strike you as odd? The guy being elected does have veto. But then again, some questions about fairness has never been easily answered. Russell Morris wrote: I am very interested in this whole EU thing. ... How can we maintain our own individual customs and ways of life and at the same time create a usefully strong centralized government? Luckily you guys have endured all that, so we can study, evaluate and copy the goodies. Hopefully, constitutions/governments can be reused just as code. ;) Russell Morris wrote: You might be interested in reading up on the US's failed Articles of Confederation which served as our governmental outline b

Mike Gaskey

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Thanks for the rundown on how your government works. My pleasure. Please allow me to extend the description a bit. At the Federal level, we really have 3 branches. The Administrative, Legislative, and, the Judicial. I gave you a description of the Legislative - the branch of the government that creates law (legislation). Our founding fathers feared a powerful, central government. They were very much afraid that the President (head of the administrative branch) could wind up being as strong as a monarch. They wanted counter balance. The President is effectively the leader as head of the administrative branch. He also heads the military, which reports to him. However, the congress has a high degree of control because no funding occurs until the legislative branch provides it. The legislative branch cannot become overly strong because the President has veto power over legislation that is passed. That veto can be overridden, which provies a counter balance. The judicial branch provides another counter balance because a law that is passed by congress and approved by the President can still be challenged by the "common" man via the Supreme Court, a part of the judicial branch. It isn't easy, and the "supremes" can decide to not hear a case, but overall it is a court of last resort that decides whether or not a law is constituitional. If it is found not to be, the law is cancelled. The net effect of all this is that while an administration may take off to do something, it really does not happen unless a majority of the population is behind the action. Short term, something that the population in general doesn't agree to can happen - but it really gets corrected quickly (read as: the next election cycle, or, via the Supreme Court). You see a lot of harping here from people in the USA that do not like (that is probably mild) George W. Bush. But this is 2003 and there is another election in 2004 (November), so if they truly disagree they can effect a change via a vote. You should have also seen a lot of harping on "he really didn't win". That is pure garbage from individuals who do not understand the system. The vote was close and it came down to the votes cast in one state (Florida). There was a lot of after the fact manipulation (my view) by the Democrats who attempted to change Florida law (states have a high degree of control over elections) to have Al Gore be declared the winner. The Florida State Supreme Court (all or mos

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Mike Gaskey wrote: He, Clinton, essentially sold pardons. That can't be legal, can it? Sounds like abuse of power to me... Mike Gaskey wrote: On executive orders, he set aside huge tracts of land as "monuments". Means the land can't be logged, mined, etc. Is that neccesarily a bad thing? From reading this I could assume he's trying to save endangered wild life. Mike Gaskey wrote: Read up on Minnesota. It has a large population of folks from your part of the world. I was very close to visit Minnesota in 98. But after 4 weeks in the car, we (me and my friend) decided for our own sanity's sake, that it would be best if we returned to Lafayette, LA. I did visit Seattle though. I learned that a lot of nordic people, especially norwegians, settled down there in Washington. Mike Gaskey wrote: Hope this helps. Hope you get here, I'll keep my fingers crossed for you. Thanks for your information and crossing your fingers. I'll be scouting for jobs in Dallas, Texas this summer. Luckily I have a friend there who'll provide me a room until I settle down myself. Be sure to cross those fingers this summer! :) -- we dance to the sound of sirens and we watch genocide to relax we dance to the sound of sirens we are the heroes of self-deception

KaRl

Thanks for the explanations :)

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Vous êtes bienvenu. :) -- we dance to the sound of sirens and we watch genocide to relax we dance to the sound of sirens we are the heroes of self-deception