Free Essays on EU Constitution

The council, which represents national governments and adopts most EU laws, is the Union's pivot. But, in our third look at Europe's institutions, we spot weaknesses as well as strengths THE symbolism is almost too apt. For two years the European Commission building, the four-pronged Berlaymont, has been shrouded in white plastic while asbestos is removed. Meanwhile across the street glowers a grim pink fortress: the Justus Lipsius Building, new home of the Council of Ministers. Power is indeed seeping from one to the other. Under the classic EU design, the commission proposes, the parliament opines and the council disposes. But nowadays, especially in foreign policy and home affairs, commission and parliament barely get a peep; the council runs the whole show. Yet this is too simple. The European Parliament, for instance, has grown more powerful as well. Even so, the EU clearly has a more â€Å"inter-governmental† flavour than it didthat is, national governments have managed to wrench back more of a say, in keeping with the public mood in most of the Union's 15 countries. Not only Eurosceptical Britons, but also Danes, Swedes, Frenchmen and others want less bossiness from Brussels. Such feelings inevitably strengthen the council, the most inter-governmental of the EU's institutions. They have also made the council somewhat schizophrenic. It is more than a collection of national ministers. Through regular ministerial meetings, a six-monthly presidency that rotates among all the members, a 2,300-strong secretariat and 15 national permanent missions in Brussels, the council has acquired its own European identity. It is, after all, the central body of a nascent confederation. The tension between national and supranational interest reaches right down to the humblest council working-group. A big failure of the council is that it is far too secretiveperhaps the only law-making body in the democratic world that takes decisions behin... Free Essays on EU Constitution Free Essays on EU Constitution The council, which represents national governments and adopts most EU laws, is the Union's pivot. But, in our third look at Europe's institutions, we spot weaknesses as well as strengths THE symbolism is almost too apt. For two years the European Commission building, the four-pronged Berlaymont, has been shrouded in white plastic while asbestos is removed. Meanwhile across the street glowers a grim pink fortress: the Justus Lipsius Building, new home of the Council of Ministers. Power is indeed seeping from one to the other. Under the classic EU design, the commission proposes, the parliament opines and the council disposes. But nowadays, especially in foreign policy and home affairs, commission and parliament barely get a peep; the council runs the whole show. Yet this is too simple. The European Parliament, for instance, has grown more powerful as well. Even so, the EU clearly has a more â€Å"inter-governmental† flavour than it didthat is, national governments have managed to wrench back more of a say, in keeping with the public mood in most of the Union's 15 countries. Not only Eurosceptical Britons, but also Danes, Swedes, Frenchmen and others want less bossiness from Brussels. Such feelings inevitably strengthen the council, the most inter-governmental of the EU's institutions. They have also made the council somewhat schizophrenic. It is more than a collection of national ministers. Through regular ministerial meetings, a six-monthly presidency that rotates among all the members, a 2,300-strong secretariat and 15 national permanent missions in Brussels, the council has acquired its own European identity. It is, after all, the central body of a nascent confederation. The tension between national and supranational interest reaches right down to the humblest council working-group. A big failure of the council is that it is far too secretiveperhaps the only law-making body in the democratic world that takes decisions behin...