A Bicameral European Parliament

Hello, wisemen and women of AtWar, I'm requiring your intellectual superiority and brilliance to help me find enough inspiration for an essay I'm supposed to deliver for a call of papers.

Basically, my idea is to propose a bicameral European Parliament, the identical chamber-system that exists in France, Germany, United States, Spain or the UK, for instance.

In short, for the less knowledgeable ones, the European Parliament is currently unicameral and has 750 members plus 1, the President: 751 members in total.
European Members of Parliament (EMEP) are elected directly (since 1979) by citizens of the EU's member-states (who, by cumulation, are citizens of the EU and thus, possess the right to vote) as if it was an election taking place in a member-state, and according to each member-state rules.

What I was envisioning is to install a second chamber of Parliament, that would have a lasting meaning: to level all member-states to the same legislative weight field (having the same members in the chamber), so that no country would have a bigger weight than others, formally-speaking. That currently does not exist in EP, with countries like Germany, France and other large ones amassing more EMEP's than countries like Malta and Chipre, who, under a principle of degressive proportion, must have a minimal of 6 EMEP's and Germany, the most populous one, being limited to no more than 99 EMEP's. This means smaller countries don't have much of a say in EP affairs, with their only shot being the Council of the European Union, where they can bundle up with others and cockblock european legislative procedures. With this, my idea would put countries like Malta and Germany on the same level on such a second chamber, providing them equal say (where they only have that equal say in the European Council).


Now, I also envision its election to be a direct one, so that this chamber has a democratic legitimacy rather than a technocratic or indirect-democratic legitimacy that would wound its credibility. Though, I've got a problem with the number of "Senators" each country would have. If I go by 2 Senators per country, it would resemble like the United States Senate, and the US is a federation and the EU is not, so the similarity would be a tacit compromise in the formation of a federation, that at the current stage, is not possible. If I go by 3, the variability of the further integration of new countries would force the "Senate" composition to vary between a par number (ending in 2,4,6,8) and unpar numbers (ending in 3,6,9..) which would complicate voting approval math and so forth.

So, should 4 be the best number? Because it's a large enough number to reduce phenomena of cesarianism among such senators, because 4 per country would reduce their individual protagonism, ideally, and thus, not "elitistify" the chamber as much.

And lastly, what should this Senate be named? Senate is a negative, federationalistic name so ye

Thanks for your help D

I need rep

Is this for rp or for real life

Napísal boywind2, 19.04.2019 at 19:44

Is this for rp or for real life

new UN scenario i think

Napísal boywind2, 19.04.2019 at 19:44

Is this for rp or for real life

You deserved the Rep, D

But seriously, it's an academic call for papers I'm participating in, I'm just looking for outside input on the subject xD

Napísal Al Fappino, 19.04.2019 at 18:04

With this, my idea would put countries like Malta and Germany on the same level on such a second chamber, providing them equal say (where they only have that equal say in the European Council).

Yeah the EU-legislationprocess needs a bit of reforming, I do agree on that. Though this (^) what you said above is kinda right and wrong at the same time, let me explain:

At first you're right that every country should have a say in this, but I strongly disagree that all countries should have the same amount of votes and says in this. Lets take Luxembourg and Germany as examples, Luxembourg is (together with Malta) one of the smallest populated country in the European Union, and Germany is the largest populated country in the European Union. If both of them have the same amount of seats, therefore meaning votes, therefore meaning influence when it comes down to EU-legislation and representation, this will be far from equal, in fact, someone's vote in Luxembourgh will be far more worthy than someone's vote from Germany. So as you can see, at the same time it makes it equal but also unequal.

And as far as I am aware of, the division of the seats in the European Parliament is already ''degressively proportional'', meaning that the smaller populated countries already do have more seats than they actually should have. Since every country in the European Union gets atleast 6 seats in the European Parliament, and cant get more than 96.

Therefore I find it justified that larger populated countries should have more seats in the European Parliament than the smaller populated ones, since the larger ones represent more people. Not sure if adding another chamber is going to fix it though, seems to me it would only make the legislation harder.

Napísal Waffel, 19.04.2019 at 20:28

Napísal Al Fappino, 19.04.2019 at 18:04

With this, my idea would put countries like Malta and Germany on the same level on such a second chamber, providing them equal say (where they only have that equal say in the European Council).

Yeah the EU-legislationprocess needs a bit of reforming, I do agree on that. Though this (^) what you said above is kinda right and wrong at the same time, let me explain:

At first you're right that every country should have a say in this, but I strongly disagree that all countries should have the same amount of votes and says in this. Lets take Luxembourg and Germany as examples, Luxembourg is (together with Malta) one of the smallest populated country in the European Union, and Germany is the largest populated country in the European Union. If both of them have the same amount of seats, therefore meaning votes, therefore meaning influence when it comes down to EU-legislation and representation, this will be far from equal, in fact, someone's vote in Luxembourgh will be far more worthy than someone's vote from Germany. So as you can see, at the same time it makes it equal but also unequal.

And as far as I am aware of, the division of the seats in the European Parliament is already ''degressively proportional'', meaning that the smaller populated countries already do have more seats than they actually should have. Since every country in the European Union gets atleast 6 seats in the European Parliament, and cant get more than 96.

Therefore I find it justified that larger populated countries should have more seats in the European Parliament than the smaller populated ones, since the larger ones represent more people. Not sure if adding another chamber is going to fix it though, seems to me it would only make the legislation harder.

I do see your point of view. The division of seats in the European Parliament follows indeed a principle of proportional degression that serves a logic of bridging up differences between the different member-states by implying that as your population increases, larger will the number of population per MEP be, whereas the logic to small countries is the contrary, implying that the shorter the population, shorter the minimum number of population to achieve a MEP (that's what the principle implies on). However, this will mean that when it comes to the legislative procedure, with the exception of the Council of the European Union (where minor states can just bundle up and form a minority vote blockage (91 votes I think?), minor states can be easily stomped in their saying and opinions throughout the legislative procedure. Now, this is relevant on a EU Level for a simple reason: we're talking about legislation that will directly impact on those minor states, and thus, relate to their sovereignty. As a respect for their sovereignty, which must be equal in every state, whether small or big, rich or poor and sovereign commitment to fulfil the obligations created by the EU, they should have somewhat a relevant say in the legislative procedure as in the end, they all enjoy the same dignity as member-states of the European Union. This is where a second chamber could come in handy: it helps minors states feel their word count, and that they're on an equal playing field on that specific chamber, when it comes to deliberating on subjects or even having consulting prerrogatives (as I think this chamber should have, more than voting ones, but I haven't made up my mind yet).

This second chamber does not erase the current circunstances and composition of the European Parliament, but serves as a levelling playingfield between all the member-states. Besides, they essentially get a field where theye enjoy an equality of relevance, that doesn't necessarily mean an equality of decisive influence. Luxemburg, Malta and Cyprus can go one way on that Second Chamber whereas the rest can just stomp them. I think this chamber would just legitimize the democratic minorities, this time at a supranational field.

Besides this, I also think having this chamber, with elections that don't match with the elections for the EP is also beneficial for one greater reason: it forces a proximity between the European Structure and the Regions of Europe, as elections for this chamber would mean a campaign around the countries. Doing twice a time these sorta campaigns is good for the "idea of europe". And furthermore, because the elections for the EP are crucial to elect the next European Commission, candidates (to Presidents of the EC) don't feel urged to campaign in minor countries and would rather do it on the larger ones because they ensure him more votes. Perhaps having this second chamber with untimed elections and equal seating would prop them to ponder their campaign positioning..

Napísal Al Fappino, 19.04.2019 at 20:17

...

As this is a call for papers, i'm not sure if this input is useful, but you spent a good chunk of your opening post discussing 'senate' numbers.... i would use a 6+1 configuration... Each nation would have 7 representatives... 6 that could vote and resolve the parity issue you mentioned, and a seventh to break any ties should it be a majority vote required. However, since 7 representatives from each member nation is too many to physically sit down in a room, each member nation would have a single representative, so the member nation would speak officially with a single voice. By having 7 representatives in total, individual nations would have vast flexibility in how they want representation... perhaps gender is important for one nation, but not another, so it could have 3 men and 4 women, while another state, who's citizens care more about ethnic minority visibility, could have all 7 members from various ethnic backgrounds, but perhaps all 7 are women. In other words, they can custom tailor their delegation of 7 to their own nation's identity, values and goals that wouldn't be possible with only 2 or 4 representatives. However, when it comes time to put all these people in the same room, only 1 representative would speak for the country to keep the numbers manageable.

As for numbers, Canada's 'senate' works similar in the way i think you are envisioning to find balance between numbers and individual identity of smaller nations. It overcomes the problem of disproportionate representation by having the two houses. So the 'lower' house is approximately based on population representation, while the 'upper' house is a fixed number for each region. Both houses have to agree for a law to pass, so both the population representation is respected, and the 'unique identity' of each region is also respected, so that the majority can't override the minority (which is what i think you trying to achieve). If this is correct, look at Canada's system, but tweak it so it works for your model.

For the sake of providing something producticve, ill give my POV:

Check out the US Senate potentionally for some inspiration (which btw was the basis for the Canadian upper house as well as basically every democracy in the world ). Back before the senate was established, there was a raging debate amongst the founding fathers whether state representation should be based on population, or equality. In a compromise, they agreed one house would be based on population, and one house would be equal, 2 representatives from each.

In the EU sense, granted I am by no means a European and have little understanding of EU politics, I think a smaller house of 2 members makes sense since the 'lower' house already has 750+1 members, seems like a lot imo. Cutting down on massive bureacracy while still keeping it democratic is a great way to ensure efficiency.

I'm not entirely sure the scope of your paper, but check out the US system of checks and balances, that could also help you with how each house should work in tandem

Cituj:

Napísal brianwl, 19.04.2019 at 21:33

As this is a call for papers, i'm not sure if this input is useful, but you spent a good chunk of your opening post discussing 'senate' numbers.... i would use a 6+1 configuration... Each nation would have 7 representatives... 6 that could vote and resolve the parity issue you mentioned, and a seventh to break any ties should it be a majority vote required. However, since 7 representatives from each member nation is too many to physically sit down in a room, each member nation would have a single representative, so the member nation would speak officially with a single voice. By having 7 representatives in total, individual nations would have vast flexibility in how they want representation... perhaps gender is important for one nation, but not another, so it could have 3 men and 4 women, while another state, who's citizens care more about ethnic minority visibility, could have all 7 members from various ethnic backgrounds, but perhaps all 7 are women. In other words, they can custom tailor their delegation of 7 to their own nation's identity, values and goals that wouldn't be possible with only 2 or 4 representatives. However, when it comes time to put all these people in the same room, only 1 representative would speak for the country to keep the numbers manageable.

7 per country wouldn't be a lot, but would mean the minors would have more delegates at the 'senate' than at the lower house (6 is the minimum). This is basically a call for papers for ideas to reform Europe, what I'm delivering is just preliminary, so should I be selected (which would mean I'd be a speaker at a conference :/) I'll approach the 'senate' composition a bit more elaborately, but my first idea on this second chamber was basically 4 per country (112 in total, counting 28 member-states) with a rotative Presidency to the delegation in general, from which they would choose a President. Or such presidency could just be taken on by a vice-president of the European Parliament for example, who would have an untie-vote should there be a blockage in the chamber. But I've inserted the alternative suggestion for 7 members and what you've suggested, it seems really pondered!

Napísal brianwl, 19.04.2019 at 21:33

As for numbers, Canada's 'senate' works similar in the way i think you are envisioning to find balance between numbers and individual identity of smaller nations. It overcomes the problem of disproportionate representation by having the two houses. So the 'lower' house is approximately based on population representation, while the 'upper' house is a fixed number for each region. Both houses have to agree for a law to pass, so both the population representation is respected, and the 'unique identity' of each region is also respected, so that the majority can't override the minority (which is what i think you trying to achieve). If this is correct, look at Canada's system, but tweak it so it works for your model.

That's the rationale behind the US Senate, and what I was thinking. I'm not saying there should be total equality between the countries, as that cannot exist, as Waffel implied, but having an equal-seated upper house would level the playing field. When it comes to its prerrogatives, I haven't made up my mind between a chamber that has to vote on all laws, or one that gives consulting advice on all laws and then a necessary vote on the most important ones or formalities (a confirmation vote about the election of the European Commission, elected by the EP or international treaties approval, for example…)

Napísal Sultan of Swing, 20.04.2019 at 08:41

In the EU sense, granted I am by no means a European and have little understanding of EU politics, I think a smaller house of 2 members makes sense since the 'lower' house already has 750+1 members, seems like a lot imo. Cutting down on massive bureacracy while still keeping it democratic is a great way to ensure efficiency.

The reason i'm not admitting 2 members per country is simple: It favours a sort of cesarism by those personalities, because the second chamber will be in comparison too small, and thus, sound too elitistic, as if it was a council of european elders, which is not the image the EU needs to pass. Having 4 or even 7 helps in dissuading that cesaristic protagonistic image some would have. Besides that, having a European Senate with 2 members each would be an unfortunate copy of the US Senate, and the European Union isn't and cannot be resembling a Federation xD*


*Names and Symbols do matter in Europe. The European Constitution Treaty failed back in 2004-06 because of the name of the treaty "Constitution" and because it created the post of Ministers (instead of european commissioners, as we have today). As soon as those federalistic names were dropped out, the new substance of the Treaty - The Lisbon Treaty - was approved D

Napísal Al Fappino, 20.04.2019 at 09:57

... I haven't made up my mind between a chamber that has to vote on all laws, or one that gives consulting advice on all laws and then a necessary vote on the most important ones or formalities (a confirmation vote about the election of the European Commission, elected by the EP or international treaties approval, for example…)...

This is a tough one to overcome. The 'upper house' in Canada does have a vote, but 99.9% of the time they are in agreement with the lower house. How this works combines all of what you are considering. So if a law appears 'flawed' in some way, the upper house can act more as a consulting/advisory committee, and so the law can be tweaked or reworked before the official vote. It does all that you mentioned, also serving as the 'confirmation vote' - but that vote is needed so they can't be ignored. In other words, if the upper house were strictly consulting/advising, laws could still be pushed through. By having a firm vote, the 'lower house' has to take time to consider the interests of the 'minority/regional' concerns.

The principle at play is that a 'good' law should never be 'bad' for a minority/under-represented group, and so it forces the people making up the law to give it enough consideration so the smaller regions have their voice heard and respected.

Napísal brianwl, 20.04.2019 at 10:58

This is a tough one to overcome. The 'upper house' in Canada does have a vote, but 99.9% of the time they are in agreement with the lower house. How this works combines all of what you are considering. So if a law appears 'flawed' in some way, the upper house can act more as a consulting/advisory committee, and so the law can be tweaked or reworked before the official vote. It does all that you mentioned, also serving as the 'confirmation vote' - but that vote is needed so they can't be ignored. In other words, if the upper house were strictly consulting/advising, laws could still be pushed through. By having a firm vote, the 'lower house' has to take time to consider the interests of the 'minority/regional' concerns.

The principle at play is that a 'good' law should never be 'bad' for a minority/under-represented group, and so it forces the people making up the law to give it enough consideration so the smaller regions have their voice heard and respected.

This is really interesting, I'm reviewing what I wrote. There can be some soft-law lobbying by both Houses in order to push legislation forward, basically.That's pretty interesting, haven't thought it from that prisma (im also limited to page-number so that kinda hinders my creativity xd)

Napísal Al Fappino, 19.04.2019 at 20:17

Napísal boywind2, 19.04.2019 at 19:44

Is this for rp or for real life

You deserved the Rep, D

But seriously, it's an academic call for papers I'm participating in, I'm just looking for outside input on the subject xD

you looking for outside input from atwar. That's a yikes.

I will say that I am not convinced that the addition of a state-based legislative body would benefit the entirety of Europe. The addition of such a legislative body does actually go against the democratic representative notion due to the fact that it would allow certain citizens to be represented more than others. I think there is a valid point in asking: why should Malta have the same bargaining power as Germany on the EU stage? If the EU is wanting to more closer and closer to uniformity in its nations, in cooperation, it cannot be creating a legislative body solely on the principle of certain votes per nation.

In the United States, the historical context of why there is two legislative bodies is essential. The creation of the Senate was to appease state efforts to maintain autonomy and ensure that state interests were valued, for all states. This was a valid concern several hundred years ago but it is entirely undemocratic and would be counterproductive to current efforts to promote true democratic principles. While it is too far, I think, for America to rethink our political system to fix this issue, I would advise against any attempt to establish such a system in Europe.

The best way with which to hear the voice of the people is and will always be to allow direct representation proportioned by the number of individuals to be represented. Allowing a small population, who contributes little to the effects of the entire union to dictate the issues of major powers is counterproductive to the entire goal of the union itself.

Napísal Quantum027, 20.04.2019 at 13:09

I will say that I am not convinced that the addition of a state-based legislative body would benefit the entirety of Europe. The addition of such a legislative body does actually go against the democratic representative notion due to the fact that it would allow certain citizens to be represented more than others. I think there is a valid point in asking: why should Malta have the same bargaining power as Germany on the EU stage? If the EU is wanting to more closer and closer to uniformity in its nations, in cooperation, it cannot be creating a legislative body solely on the principle of certain votes per nation.

For the simple fact they're sovereign states with an equal membership or dignity as members that they enjoy by being member-states of the European Union. They've contracted the same rights and obligations, hence why in a certain way, there should be some levelling of the playing field. Having an 'egalitarian' second chamber would not harmfully vaporize(decrease the overall bargaining power countries like Germany and others enjoy on the EU Stage, because of their soft power that automatically flows from the various circunstances related to country A or country B and would not be erased by having such a second chamber because both in the Council of the EU and the European Parliament, they have a decisive rule. Besides, the European Union is evidence enough that is capable of embracing the larger bargaining power of countries like Germany and France through votes/seats in the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament at the same time it sovereignly ensures an equal dignity of membership among Member-States, through the European Council, where all countries have a single vote, and decide on relevant matters of the bloc, and in some matters, unanimity is required, which gives a tremendous amount of power to minors. A Second Chamber would just give a second pondered voice to minor voices. By force of the circunstances and inter-institutional cooperation that impends upon all european level-relations (via a principle of loyal cooperation, prescribed in the Treaties), the second chamber, where minors would have opportunity for relevance, would not mean a blockage.

Napísal Quantum027, 20.04.2019 at 13:09

The best way with which to hear the voice of the people is and will always be to allow direct representation proportioned by the number of individuals to be represented. Allowing a small population, who contributes little to the effects of the entire union to dictate the issues of major powers is counterproductive to the entire goal of the union itself.

I don't challenge that, the problem is, european unicameralism forces upon a tyranny of the majority that may collide against the sovereign existence of one member-state that, via various circunstances, does not have opportunities for an equal, to-be-equally-pondered perspective within the legislative procedure.

Napísal Quantum027, 20.04.2019 at 13:00

Napísal Al Fappino, 19.04.2019 at 20:17

Napísal boywind2, 19.04.2019 at 19:44

Is this for rp or for real life

You deserved the Rep, D

But seriously, it's an academic call for papers I'm participating in, I'm just looking for outside input on the subject xD

you looking for outside input from atwar. That's a yikes.

Yeah I know, but one can distinguish pondered individuals from bushes

You should find the reason why the fathers of the E.U. established from the beginning a unicameral Parliament.

Maybe from the beginning this Union was founded with two locomotives, Germany and France and this can't be changed. However, when I asked a chief representative of Romanian European affairs: Are we isolated? Why don't create something like the Visegrád group to defend our interests more? His reply was something like this: We collaborate with various countries from project to project.
So what matters is the interest, not the general uniformity, which will probably never be attained, because the chief states have ways of blocking your initiatives who would restrict their power.

And honestly, I don't think I concur with you on this matter. In this period of time of rise of authoritarianism, I don't believe a more fragmented power at the legislative level would benefit the Union. You desire this change with the utmost pure intentions, but this change can make way to meddling of oligarchs of small nations in the affairs of the big ones (I don't believe this is such a bad thing, however).
I agree, the voice of the small nations must be heard. But you think it's not heard in this moment? Maybe not, maybe yes, a thorough analysis on this subject must be made. In this moment, the only chance of small nations' interests to prevails is to ally and work together on different projects and legislative initiatives ( a thing which is probably done at the moment).

Update: Afterall I won the call for papers and I'll be delivering a speech in a conference defending my proposal. xd thanks for the inspiration, y'all actually helped me <3

Napísal Al Fappino, 30.04.2019 at 18:07

... I'll be delivering a speech in a conference defending my proposal. ...

And of course you'll post your speech here?

♥

Napísal brianwl, 01.05.2019 at 19:47

Napísal Al Fappino, 30.04.2019 at 18:07

... I'll be delivering a speech in a conference defending my proposal. ...

And of course you'll post your speech here?

♥

I'll translate the preparation-paper I'll be making to speak at the conference x

Napísal Al Fappino, 02.05.2019 at 16:09

Napísal brianwl, 01.05.2019 at 19:47

Napísal Al Fappino, 30.04.2019 at 18:07

... I'll be delivering a speech in a conference defending my proposal. ...

And of course you'll post your speech here?

♥

I'll translate the preparation-paper I'll be making to speak at the conference x

dw i can use google translate

Why not address the root of the problem - whoever donate the most, hold most power? You can set any political system, and still the one who donate the most money will rule, like Germany.

By this point, i think we can say democracy failed. It is nothing more than demagogy and semantics. Too much corruption and no work is done.

My support goes to dictatorship, atleast we can know whom to blame or commend for things done.

Fuck is a Eu ropan

The eu sounds terrible, but I don't think you'd want to take inspiration from the American system either, our politicians sit on a teeter totter and swing back and forth all day when not kow-towing to their corporate sugar daddies, accomplishing nothing. I can only imagine what Washington and Franklin would think of this!

Napísal Daniel Ham, 25.05.2019 at 01:18

The eu sounds terrible, but I don't think you'd want to take inspiration from the American system either, our politicians sit on a teeter totter and swing back and forth all day when not kow-towing to their corporate sugar daddies, accomplishing nothing. I can only imagine what Washington and Franklin would think of this!

Washington and Franklin would jump off the White House multiple times over if they saw what today's US government was like.

Interesting topic and hypothetical proposal but this simply wouldn't happen. Nation states like Germany, France and Britain wouldn't give up their power to smaller states. It's not in their nature. Currently, the trajectory towards deeper centralization may be erasing sovereignty of these larger nations but it is handing it over to a federal government of plutocrats with no oversight, it's certainly not looking to giving more power to small states; the opposite is true. The EU cannot be reformed. The way it is currently operates prevents reformation.