Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

After Juncker debacle another EU stitch up- time for the people to vote? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should EU voters elect senior EU positions like EU Commision and Parliament President
    Yes- the people should elect them
    11
    73.33%
    No- leave to the EU to decide
    4
    26.67%

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    You would be affected by a unified European army and police force. The effective abolition of this country and its (unique) legal system would profoundly affect everyone. But, shh, go back to sleep.
    Most people don't care about this country's legal system - I can say that much for sure!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    Most people don't care about this country's legal system - I can say that much for sure!
    They care a lot. Not in the way academics care, but read dailymail.co.uk some time, and see how many stories have a criminal justice angle, or mention a law suit.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    Theres a very nice summary here http://www.robertthomson.info/wp-con...JCMS_power.pdf

    Here - Under Artcile 289 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Commission has power to introduce legislation after taking into account Parliaments say. So in this case, the Commission asks for the Parliament to approve Schulz, if the Parliament rejected Schulz, the Commission has fulfilled it's requirement to take into account Parliament's view, but has no obligation to listen to it. Hence the Commission could still appoint Schulz. It's called Special Legislative Power.

    Although the Parliament has co-decision on many issues, foreign affairs, budget, defence, candidacy and leadership along with a few other thins are exempt.
    You're right in saying that the European Parliament has only an advisory function when the consultation procedure is used (as opposed to co-decision), but this is irrelavent to the topic at hand. Legislative procedures (how laws are drafted, ammended and adopted) do not concern the election of the President of the European Parliament. The two are not related, and neither site you provided states or implies that they are.

    I'm really not sure how you have confused legislative procedures with elections. Have I missed something?
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    Theres a very nice summary here http://www.robertthomson.info/wp-con...JCMS_power.pdf

    Here - Under Artcile 289 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Commission has power to introduce legislation after taking into account Parliaments say. So in this case, the Commission asks for the Parliament to approve Schulz, if the Parliament rejected Schulz, the Commission has fulfilled it's requirement to take into account Parliament's view, but has no obligation to listen to it. Hence the Commission could still appoint Schulz. It's called Special Legislative Power.

    Although the Parliament has co-decision on many issues, foreign affairs, budget, defence, candidacy and leadership along with a few other thins are exempt.
    Having that power is very different to using that power though. I'd be interested to know when/if the commission has actually used its clout to override the parliament, it seems to me that saying "they'd just appoint Schulz anyway" is a bit presumptive, we can't know for certain that they would've actually done that, even if it was within their power.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    I'm really not sure how you have confused legislative procedures with elections. Have I missed something?
    Yes and no, it depends on how you look at it. The EU doesn't classify a vote as an election. There are six specific passerelle clauses. Each clause is an area where the Commission has final say. The multiannual financial framework (Article 312 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU), the Common Foreign and Security Policy (Article 31 of the Treaty on European Union), judicial cooperation concerning family law (Article 81 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU). This specific clause is the only clause regarding which national Parliaments retain a right to object, reinforced cooperation in areas governed by unanimity or by a special legislative procedure (Article 333 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU), social affairs (Article 153 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU), environmental matters (Article 192 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU). The last one - Social Affairs - can be used to appoint the head.

    (Original post by Dez)
    Having that power is very different to using that power though. I'd be interested to know when/if the commission has actually used its clout to override the parliament, it seems to me that saying "they'd just appoint Schulz anyway" is a bit presumptive, we can't know for certain that they would've actually done that, even if it was within their power.
    Fair enough, but I would argue the option shouldn't be there. It hasn't been used to overrule the Parliament around an election/appointment but has been used to overrule Parliament in areas concerning finance and foreign affairs.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    They care a lot. Not in the way academics care, but read dailymail.co.uk some time, and see how many stories have a criminal justice angle, or mention a law suit.
    They don't care in a "our legal system is unique and rooted in history" kind of way.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    Yes and no, it depends on how you look at it. The EU doesn't classify a vote as an election. There are six specific passerelle clauses. Each clause is an area where the Commission has final say. The multiannual financial framework (Article 312 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU), the Common Foreign and Security Policy (Article 31 of the Treaty on European Union), judicial cooperation concerning family law (Article 81 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU). This specific clause is the only clause regarding which national Parliaments retain a right to object, reinforced cooperation in areas governed by unanimity or by a special legislative procedure (Article 333 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU), social affairs (Article 153 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU), environmental matters (Article 192 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU). The last one - Social Affairs - can be used to appoint the head.
    Are you sure? Passerelle clauses are defined differently by the EU:

    Passerelle clauses allow derogation from the legislative procedures initially provided for by the Treaties. Specifically, and under certain conditions, they make it possible:

    • to switch from the special legislative procedure to the ordinary legislative procedure in order to adopt an act in a given policy area;
    • to switch from voting by unanimity to qualified majority voting in a given policy area.
    ...and...

    ''The Treaty of Lisbon has introduced passerelle clauses in order to be able to apply the ordinary legislative procedure to areas for which the Treaties had laid down a special legislative procedure.''
    The ''ordinary legislative procedure'' it refers to is co-decision. Co-decision requires consent from both the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union equally. The ''special legislative procedure'' it refers to is consultation. Consultation is the one that does not require consent from the European Parliament (as discussed earlier).

    If the passerelle clauses do indeed change legislative proceedure from special to ordinary, then surely they cannot grant the Commission a final say (given that ordinary procedures demand EP approval)?

    Also, Article 153 of TFEU does not discuss or even mention the appointment of Presidents in the European Union (as far as I can see).

    Sources:
    http://europa.eu/legislation_summari.../ai0019_en.htm
    http://europa.eu/legislation_summari.../ai0016_en.htm
    http://euwiki.org/TFEU
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    Are you sure? Passerelle clauses are defined differently by the EU:

    The ''ordinary legislative procedure'' it refers to is co-decision. Co-decision requires consent from both the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union equally. The ''special legislative procedure'' it refers to is consultation. Consultation is the one that does not require consent from the European Parliament (as discussed earlier).
    My stand corrected, I read it incorrectly. The Passelle clauses do indeed switch special to ordinary. Which is worse as it means the areas which can be used to appoint a head by the Commission or Council are automatically special. The following procedure is special.

    I think I've found the one I'm thinking of. Read this, it concerns the appointment and election of candidates by Commission or Council.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    My stand corrected, I read it incorrectly. The Passelle clauses do indeed switch special to ordinary. Which is worse as it means the areas which can be used to appoint a head by the Commission or Council are automatically special. The following procedure is special.

    I think I've found the one I'm thinking of. Read this, it concerns the appointment and election of candidates by Commission or Council.
    You're confusing me. You have not provided evidence that the Commission or the Council could appoint the President of the European Parliament. You said that Article 153 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU regards social affairs and therefore the appointment of a head, but the article itself does not mention such a thing. Also, nowhere does it say that these appointments (if possible) are considered special automatically.

    With regards to the link you have provided, may you please direct me to the relavent parts?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    You're confusing me. You have not provided evidence that the Commission or the Council could appoint the President of the European Parliament. You said that Article 153 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU regards social affairs and therefore the appointment of a head, but the article itself does not mention such a thing. Also, nowhere does it say that these appointments (if possible) are considered special automatically.

    With regards to the link you have provided, may you please direct me to the relavent parts?
    I confused myself too. I must admit, I'm not the expert here, I ask my house mate to explain the EU Law interpretations as she's studying that at the moment. I switch off some of the time.

    I use that website to learn about the EU parliament workings. I've read it and am trying to find it. I shall post here when I find it
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    Fair enough, but I would argue the option shouldn't be there. It hasn't been used to overrule the Parliament around an election/appointment but has been used to overrule Parliament in areas concerning finance and foreign affairs.
    Bet you can't name a major world power that doesn't have that ability though. We've got Royal Assent (and to a lesser extent the House of Lords), the US has the Presidential Veto. I agree with you that in an ideal world the power wouldn't exist, but that's not really how the world works. I'd be far, far more concerned if the Commission was abusing their power, but it doesn't sound like they are, unless you read the Telegraph of course.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    They don't care in a "our legal system is unique and rooted in history" kind of way.
    These things are not just separable into non-interacting parts. Britain's legal system is unique and so is its history of stability, economic prosperity, and relative liberalism. The two are fundamentally entwined.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    I confused myself too. I must admit, I'm not the expert here, I ask my house mate to explain the EU Law interpretations as she's studying that at the moment. I switch off some of the time.

    I use that website to learn about the EU parliament workings. I've read it and am trying to find it. I shall post here when I find it
    Please do! I enjoy reading, understanding and discussing how the EU functions.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 2, 2014
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.