This site is a reserved place for a proposed coming site with the purpose of making the EU and it's decision procedures as transparent as possible. The central part is a readable presentation of the text that rules much of the life of half a billion Europeans today, the EU treaties. This is where the ruling political principles, a description of the law making procedures and the prescribed and forbidden legislations can be found. Unfortunately, this text is very little known today, and also difficult to read or neglected in existing official presentations on the workings of the EU. In this proposed version there will be a complete compilation with advanced search functions, an immediate display of referred articles, a menue with all the chapter headings etc. There are also a lot of other features in the Swedish version that can be included, such as a clickable map showing the whole procedure from treaty to national implementation.
The idea is also 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, know an institution or organisation that might be interested to host it or just ask or tell something, contact
admin [at] eusverige.se
To add to the discussion on the future, here is an alternative idea
What can be done with the EU? 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, including Britain leaving, while the leaders are working to keep status quo. The debate on the future concerns more or less of the same. Are there any other future options?
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 before it is too late. No wonder we see traditional parties losing ground all over Europe and less progressive groups grow.
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 others cultures and nations. Authoritarian or simply fantasy lacking tendencies nationally will have to meet and confront other perspectives in the open in their own parliaments.
Outline of an inter-parliamentary structure
This is a "clean" decentralized, neutrally worded version of such a system, that can be implemented on international level, as a reform of the UN system or as a reform of the EU and a blueprint for development of other continental political bodies. The international bodies will get another kind of power, rather that simply losing their present competences. It would work like this:
Proposals for new international legislation would come from three directions: from the national parliaments, from members and groups of an International Parliament (IP) and from groups of national leaders.
The proposals would be gathered in the International Parliament, which would vote on which proposals would be mandatory to debate and decide on in all participating national parliaments. National parliamentarians can appear in the IP to speak for proposals they have submitted. The IP will be elected by the citizens of the participating nations.
Thus, all national parliaments would be obliged to debate and take a position on the proposals from the IP, and those who like a particular proposal would adopt it, while the others can reject it. If the implementation is successful in some countries, the others may voluntarily join later.
The decisive factor in this idea is that representatives of approved proposals themselves can visit national parliaments and physically or virtually participate in the debate and argue for the proposals there, including in preparatory bodies. A parliamentarian from any country could for example appear in the IP and promote a proposal, and if it is accepted, later participate in the debate on it in the parliaments of other member countries, sharing the task with others who support the proposal. International parliamentarians or ministers from other countries could do the same.
Of course there will be need for an international agency for administration and investigations. Apart from administrating and providing backgrounds for the official decision process, they could support joint projects, organize seminars and promote exchanges and collaboration of various kinds, as international administrations do today.
Meeting(s) of leaders where they have the opportunity to exchange good ideas with each other, ideas that they can bring home to all the consenting colleagues. They can also bring proposals to the International Parliament if they want them to be tested there for dissemination to all member countries.
An international court will oversee that the system works as constructed, including overseeing that the nations implement their decisions on matters arising from the international cooperation and imposing some kind of disincentive not to do so.
On the international level, a formal transparent role for civil society organizations and lobbyists will be in place. Their accountability will be put to national votes together with the election of representatives for the IP, and they will be allowed to take part in for them relevant debates if they have gathered enough support through votes.
A global citizens initiative will be established, for making proposals for the IP, demanding a reasonable support from a number of people in a number of countries to be valid. It can contain any topics and will be treated as any proposal from politicians.
Possible specifications and modifications of this structure are demanding that a certain number of parliamentarians would have to stand behind the international proposals, from one or from many parliaments. We could also allow a possibility for a number of nations to delegate final decision power to the international parliament. This could be implemented as a full delegation, or a possibility to have their proposals adapted with a large minority nationally.