Presidential veto

Posted by JH on 29/07/09

The EU President (created in the Lisbon treaty) should be given a veto over decisions reached by qualified majority voting (QMV).

The way in which QMV functions presently is deeply undemocratic. States with nothing but an academic interest in an issue can pass legislation which may be very damaging to a key industry within another member state.

An example of this situation is the current debate over financial regulation. Britain, which accounts for 80% of hedge fund activity in the EU, will have to accept legislation drafted by its competitors (who account for the remaining 20% of EU activity in this area).

A veto for the EU President would ensure that all EU citizens’ opinions were considered in QMV decisions. This would enhance the democratic legitimacy of decisions reached this way. This democratic legitimacy would be enhanced further if the President was directly elected by all EU citizens.

Need a change

Posted by John Smith on 04/12/08

I think that in Europe it is time to think about immigration problems. The Europeans no longer seem mannered, reserved, correct people. The reason for this trend is the blind imitation of the mass culture of show business. Relegated to the background values of family, home, children. Europe is time to understand that we should return to basic values, rather than gonyatsya for incomprehensible ideas obscure idols.

Instil european values.

Posted by Theodoric on 19/08/08

New citizens to the EU should undergo a cermony much like the american, where the theme of the ceremony is to honor european values as freedom, equality and scientific progress. Likewise should european school children have time set aside for learning about the foundations of which the continent has been built.

In an age where Europeans have sheded their religious spirituality for the most part, what is better than to replace this void by a semi-spiritual approch to the european values. The citizens of the EU should believe that the EU stands for something positive, which influences them in their every doing and creates a continent of aware freedom loving citizens, that value western values and work towards keeping them on honoring them.

Nuevos Créditos Profesionales

Posted by emilio chile acost on 15/07/08

Sin un nuevo indicador de valor de la calidad de los recursos humanos que garantice la marcha estable de todos los planes y programas previstos para la EU de los 2040 el trabajo de los 25 años anteriores se pierde como consecuencia del envejecimiento acelerado de los RH.
Yo les propongo leer mi propuesta de programa de gestion de cambio para las entidades que gestionan la administracion de la educación física y el deporte en nuestros niños y jovenes de la EU.
Este articulo se encuentra en la seccion de debates de esta misma pagina.
Esa es mi propuesta y mi experiencia de trabajo, no una idea sino un programa que para los de aqui parece una idea porque su base científica procede de otra sociedad y país.
Emilio Chile Acosta

EU-now it’s the era of the citizens

Posted by Christine Fischer on 30/06/08

500 million Europeans are taken in hostage by 862,415 Irish (less than 0.2% of the European population) – in the name of democracy. According to the elitist representative democrats this is the direct democrat’s fault, i.e. the “uneducated and unteachable people”. This disrespect makes the current EU-catastrophe even worse.
Because: in a democracy the tool democracy can only be always right. In Ireland it was however employed wrongly. For voting for a purely internal-Irish problem without European dimension an Irish referendum would doubtlessly have been the correct instrument. For a pan-European concern however, only the pan-European referendum can be the correct means. This would be the correct level, and only then the right sovereign is speaking. No matter what the result will be, YES or NO, only via this way the right has spoken the right.
In the EU the sovereign are the 500 million Europeans – and not a slight Irish referendum’s majority. Regarding the current archaic principle of unanimity it could even appear more bizarrely: even Malta or Cyprus could by their 315,000 resp. 500,000 eligible voters bring the EU to a final halt. Good gracious!
No matter whether for or against the EU: we should not be lead by a handful of nationalists. For important matters we do need a pan-European referendum! The Treaty of Lisbon would have given us this power! Although its fate is uncertain at the moment, we have to become active for the EU’s future, i.e. our future. Let us demand a pan-European referendum for all important EU-matters, such as enlargement, environmental issues, the future election of EU president etc. There is the possibility to stand up in an organized way and to vote at the citizens’ platform: Let’s change Europe – now!


Posted by Chiara Palieri on 26/06/08

Hello everyone,
my name is Chiara,i’m 18 and i’m italian.
i would suggest to all the webmasters of the european portals to send e-mails with informations about the European Parliament,about the international camps,about the information which is SO POOR!!
I discovered this site casually,and i think it’s soo bad.You should send an e-mail in every language to all the european citizens who have an e-mail.Just to reinforce the INFORMATION.I think ignorance kills,so if we are aware about our life in the european union,we can make a change,we make a mobilization.

I perfectly know it’s complicated,but i think it’s the most effective way to achieve people’s attention!

In this newsletter we should have the translation in every language,and all the links for the most important site of the European Community.

I hope somebody is listening my voice,i need your help.WE CAN MAKE A CHANGE.
I can do the italian translation.

Let me know as soon as possible,

Chiara Palieri

Blog europ@s

Posted by EMILIO on 26/05/08

Desarrollar un blog en el que podamos hablar de cualquier asunto (economía, urbanismo, cultura. cine, literatura) con una perspectiva europea.


The EU budget should be decomposed into three distinct parts. Part I would include redistributive operations, including all structural funds and horizontal transfers required to bring net balances in line with relative prosperity. Part II would describe activities for the provision of European public goods: it would show on the revenue side own resources and on the expenditure side spending for the production of European public goods and the pursuit of common policies. Any subsidy paid on interest payments on the European loans would also be shown here. Part III would show capital operations funded with loans, having on the revenue side the proceeds of loans – in due course netted of attendant repayments – and on the expenditure side the use made of money.
The ceiling on EU resources set by the European Council would only apply to the sum of revenues accruing to the EU budget under Part I and Part II.
The Treaty of Lisbon has brought the Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF) into the Treaty (art. 312) and involved the Parliament in the decision. Decisions will be taken by unanimity, but the European Council may authorise the Council to decide by qualified majority. But some further adjustments are required, which can implemented without Treaty changes. In particular, the duration of the MFF should be aligned with the term of office of Parliament, running for five years. Parliament could then seek a mandate from the electorate on the desirable evolution of the budget.


The growth of the European economy needs support by the Union’s budget. Hence, exploiting the strength of the euro, allowance should be made for the possibility of tapping capital and stock markets with Community loans to finance specific projects of European scale and value added, that add to capital stock and have measurable positive returns, albeit perhaps spread over long time horizons. These additional resources could in no case be used to provide extra funds for activities in the current budget of the EU, but would have to be targeted to large projects identified by the Council and the European Parliament, on the basis of a proposal by the Commission.
The resources raised on the capital market should be made available to the project on favourable terms, and to this end the Community budget could shoulder interest payments in part or wholly, but recipients should be required to pay them back over a suitable time horizon. Bonds should be issued directly by the European Commission. A new financial facility could be created for this purpose whose management could be delegated to EIB, under control of the Ecofin Council, Parliament and the Court of Auditors.
Projects to be funded could include investments for the creation of cross-border material and immaterial infrastructures, such as networked research projects with large financing requirements; transport and communication networks; large projects for space, defence, technology for clean energy.


The overall fiscal burden on European citizens is already high and should not be increased. The present ceiling on own resources – set at 1.27 per cent of aggregate GNI – appears on the whole adequate for the present and perspective tasks of the Union, if the ceiling is fully utilised by removing the implicit cap on appropriations (1 per cent of GNI) imposed by the European Council in the 2007-2013 MFF.
The system of own resources does not comply with the Treaty prescription the “the budget shall be financed wholly from own resources”, since most revenues are disbursed ex-post by member states from their own national budgets, under the GNI resource. Therefore, it should be changed by a suitable new regulation decided by the Council as provided for by article 269 of TEC, so as to establish a true European taxation to fund the production of European public goods through the Union’s budget. The GNI resource would remain to finance redistributive transfers between the member states and ensure ex-post balance of the EU budget.