Hi supporters of European democracy!

This site is a reserved place for a proposed coming presentation of the text that rules much of the life of half a billion Europeans today. A transparent and readable English version of the EU treaties, where the prescribed and forbidden legislations can be found. A Swedish version already exists, where you can see some inventions implemented to make the EU treaties as readable as possible.

Here is a text describing the project.

The idea is to promote a discussion om the future of Europe, a future that very much is determined by the writings in the common political statements in the Treaties, as they function today. Below is a text discussing a possible alternative structure.

We need support, partners, sponsors who care for European democracy and want to promote the English presentation, to appear here. If you want to get engaged or just ask or tell something, contact

admin [at] eusverige.se

To add to the discussion on the future, here is an alternative

Another possible EU

What can be done with the EU? No one can deny that the project is in trouble, and not many ideas on how to go forward are discussed. A radical revision of the EU treaties was not to be expected as a result of the UK negotiations in front of the referendum. And after the Brexit vote, noone seems to have an idea about how to proceed. What can be done? The idea of bringing the peoples closer to each other has rather resulted in the opposite, as the economic and immigration crises creates conflicts on all levels. Are there any other future options than more or less of the same?

I believe there are possibilities that can combine a decentralisation of decision making with a true possibility to bring people closer to each other. For that we have to really decentralise the debate, we have to create an international cooperation that doesn’t rely on leaders compromising behind closed doors and then having to sell wanted and unwanted decisions to their peoples.

Trying to hide within national bubbles won’t make it today, however. Added to the much referred to international trade, people themselves already meet over the internet regardless of nations, and meet other perspectives more easily that ever. The national parliaments, on the other hand, are stuck in old ways and old perspectives, and lose their authority as the media report the same old debates going on, debates that become even stranger when they are about implementing EU directives that never has been part of a national debate. No wonder we see traditional parties losing ground all over Europe.

Bring home the political international perspective.

A possible solution would be to truly internationalise the national parliaments, and at the same time giving them back the decision power. This means allowing representatives from national parliaments to put proposals to all the other national parliaments and have persons take part in the actual debates on them, including giving a presentation in national preparatory committees. The proposals will have to go through the EU parliament to receive a majority there first. This also goes for proposals from the EU parliamentarians themselves or from the national ministers. In this way the EU system loses the power to decide over the heads of the national parliaments and peoples, but is instead given the power to initiate national debates and take part in it. It can be expected that the national media cover the topics better that way, and the peoples will be more familiar with the perspectives of each other. Authoritarian or simply fantasy lacking tendencies nationally will have to meet and confront other perspectives in the open.

A democratic EU structure

The democratisations of the system proposed by federalists, including a more powerful EU parliament, has been rejected because they would create an unrealistic United States of Europe too far from the peoples and with too much power. In this case, since the final power stays at the national level, the European Parliament can become the only deciding power on the EU level, a simplification that would make the EU more understandable and more like the national structures. As said, they will decide which proposals have to be discussed and decided upon in every national parliament. The proposals can come from the EU parliamentarians themselves, from ministers in the Council or, importantly, from groups of national parliamentarians. The system would become a true interparliamentarian cooperation. You may have a British parliamentarian appearing in the French or Greek parliament promoting his/her idea. Since all kinds of proposals must be possible, the controversial political elements of the Treaties today must be possible to change. The future “harmonisations” will come through approval of the proposals nationally when there is a majority for them, probably when the proposals have proven fruitful in the pioneering countries.

The unelected Commission should become an administrative body, supporting the EU parliament, as similar bodies support the national parliaments today, apart from continuing administrating the various cooperations and investigations it handles today. The Council of Ministers could then become a creative forum for exchange instead of a battleground around Commission proposals, now resulting in less wanted compromises or even the need to sell ideas at home that you don’t believe in.

This basic framework could be specified or modified in various ways, such as delegating topics to the EU parliament totally or demanding a qualified majority to reject certain proposals, preferably for a limited time. There can be demands for making proposals to the EU parliament, giving a room for civil society voices in the debates, developing of referendums etc. However the basic idea here is to exchange the present EU power to impose decisions on the nations for the power to impose debates. The power of the word instead of the power of the formal might.

See pdf schema

Anders Erkéus,
web master of Swedish EU-related websites
informational eusverige.se and critical eukritik.se