Talk:Council of the European Union/Archive 1

(old -2003- comments)

The system seems to be injustice, especially towards Germany. There is a question, why Germany first signed the treaty and only after a year demands the changes?

The Germans, as most European nations, realized that you can only build a community if you are willing to compromise. Nice was an improvement over the previous situation (where any country could veto any decision in order to bargain for national interests at the expense of the community). But you are correct that the Nice voting system is an injustice and not democratic. Worst of all, it is still too easy to block important decisions for purely egoistic interests.

The way to go, of course, is toward majority decisions in clearly defined fields of politics (as opposed to the current situation where the limits of responsibility of the EU are defined only fuzzily). 62.227.161.233 17:36, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

European Council

What exactly is the difference between the council of the europen union, and the European Council. As far as I can see these two are both part of the same thing, representatives of member governments meeting to discuss and agree policy. The only distinction is that 'european council' is specifically heads of state? Even if There is a big difference between the two.

The Council of the European Union, is more commonly, and I believe more rightly called, the Council of Ministers, as it is the meeting of ministers from member states, so in the case of the UK, the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw is a member of the Council of Ministers.

The European Council, however, is the meeting of the heads of state. In academic litrature, the Council of the European Union is called the Council of Ministers, so as not to confuse it with the European Council. I suggest we cahnge the title to Council of Ministers, but acknowledge that it is also called the Council of the Euroepan Union.

It is also important to note that the Council of Europe and the European Council are different bodies.

According to the proper definition, as it can be deduced from the official europa.eu website, the Council of the European Union is made up of: The Council of Ministers plus The European Council. So, the term "Council of the EU" comprises all possible configurations (various kinds of ministers and/or permanent representatives, heads of state and/or government, etc.)

Luca Italy, 7 Feb.2007

In the text it is stated "The European Council is similar to a configuration of the Council and operates in a similar way, but is composed of the national leaders (heads of government or state) and has its own President,[33] currently Donald Tusk."

Which seem ok, but doesn't The European Council also include the president of the commision? If so shouldn't we mebtion this too? Nigel 88.145.82.208 (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The Council of the European Union

It was called until 1993 by its older name, Council of Ministers, but then in 1993 it was renamed. The older academic literature of course refers to it by the older name, but the post-1993 academic and non-academic sources only mention the older name and refer to it by its present name - The Council of the European Union. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.2.237.31 (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Presidencies of the EU

It seems, although I am not absolutely sure, that the article is wrong in respect to the "President." The President of the Council is elected from and by the Council on 5 year terms (the length of the Council), as opposed to the 6 month rotating Presidency of the EU. If I'm wrong, let me know, otherwise we should probably change the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.68.155.43 (talk • contribs) . [1]

At the present time you are wrong. --Henrygb 01:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That was the proposed new structure under the frozen European Constitution. —Nightstallion (?) 22:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

votes by countries

While the breakdown based on political parties is somewhat interesting it would be much more more important to have a list of votes by countries.

86.101.162.160 19:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Working Languages

>>> Luca Italy: Deleted German from working languages. Added reference to consilium.europa.eu webpage mentioning EN/FR as the working languages of the Council (link - see "ADVICE" section)

>>>Michael Zimmermann: revert, your cited statement "the working languages most frequently used at the General Secretariat of the Council are English and French" is not excluding German as the third working language!

>>>Luca Italy: As for that, it is not excluding Finnish either.... Why then not mention also Finnish as the 4th working language of the Council? :-)

Name of the Council in all official EU languages

According to these pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_European_Union#Official_languages_of_the_European_Union http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/languages/index_en.htm Danish, Dutch, Estonian, Hungarian, Irish, Lithuanian, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovene, Swedish is missing from this list, i.e. 10/23 are missing. Changing it to "some official EU languages" since I sadly don't have the time to seek out all the phrases right now.

213.238.233.27 17:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Article nomination passed

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Reasons for verdict and suggestions:

• This article is a great example of a Good Article nomination. The prose is good and flows well, and the layout follows WP:MoS very well indeed. Citations are mostly excellent (with the exception of a few which I've noted below) and all sources are highly relevant. Broad in coverage without going beyond the topic in question, with good usage of images to illustrate the article, which all have fair use rationale. A very clear pass in my opinion
• Only two things I noticed needed addressed. The statement that "with legislative power being officially distributed equally" in the powers and functions section is not attributed to a source (I couldn't find mention of it from reference #4). Also, it's stated in the article that "The Codecision procedure is the most common (about three-quarters of policy areas)". There are no references to support this statement, which should be addressed.
• On the whole, another fine article. Good work everyone!

Mouse Nightshirt | talk 22:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've dealt with the points you've raised, hope that is okay. - J Logan ^t/_c: 10:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

future name of the article

With the treaty, the name will become "Council of Ministers" or just "Council", the current name being dropped. The article name would of course also be changed. Council of Ministers would be the obvious one, I'm just wondering if we can take over the name from the disam page? This is a larger article and a more important institution than the others linking from the disam page so do you think we could take that page over and just have a link to a separate disam page? Other wise the article would be called "Council of Ministers of the European Union" which would be even longer than the current name. We could also call it "The Council", as that is the name used throughout the treaty - and infact if you look through the draft reform treaty "Council of Ministers" is hardly used. "The Council" is currently taken by a single, small, tv episode article we can budge. That's the options, any thoughts - we have plenty of time. - J Logan ^t: 17:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Further more, "European Council of Ministers"? Might it get confused with European Council? Again, a thought for the long run. - J Logan ^t: 20:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be okay with occupying either Council of Ministers, The Council or Council (EU). —Nightstallion 12:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Since we're supposed to write Wikipedia from a world view it seems like the title will have to include European Union or EU. There are a dozen Councils of Ministers already in the world, and I don't think it'd be appropriate to turn the existing page into a disambiguation. (a parallel situation with the U.S. would be House of Representatives) It would be better to have this article as The Council instead of a Star Trek episode, though my suspicion is that most council's in the world call themselves "the Council" on second reference. But surely the full legal name of the organization will be Council of Ministers of the European Union or European Union Council of Ministers, right? --JayHenry 22:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I am having trouble finding out its legal name. In the treaties it just says "Council", in fact when I did a search I think it came up with no mention of "of Ministers" or "of the European Union". The website always said the same changed from of the EU to Ministers (website for constitution, don't think they've dropped the change though) but don't know anything beyond that. I think "Council of Ministers of the European Union" would be very very long winded while "European Union Council of Ministers" just doesn't seem like something anyone would say. Just having "European Council of Ministers" would of course get confused with European Council. Logicaly it should then be "Council of Ministers (EU)" but I hate those tag on endings.- J Logan ^t: 08:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

We still have some time to discuss this, but I have to agree that I think that the "of Ministers" and "of the European Union" appear to have been dropped in official references -- thus, the article should be at Council (European Union), with a redirect from Council (EU) for ease of use. —Nightstallion 09:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Really, because I looked at the older treaties and it still lists it just as the "council". So in terms of treaties I think it is the same. - J Logan ^t: 16:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

PR comments

Just heard back from our peer review again, see second comments here. I have tried to deal with most of the issues he brought up but some I can't seem to sort right now. Issues I am finding annoying are the fact I can not find a single list of which areas are covered by QMV and which are not. Nothing. Reform Treaty texts say the number changing to QMV but do not say what they are! Ditto to some other issues, the Council just doesn't have good info - and isn't as well covered in the press - as the Parliament. If someone could take a look at the list and see if you can find answers I can't, it would help a lot. - J Logan ^t: 18:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

council of ministers as a general name

The term is also used for government of a state, may-be a small adition about that should be added.195.50.223.193 (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons section

I am very unhappy with this section. The claim that the council is only comparable to the German Bundesrat is ridiculous. Why would we need this section then? Anyway, what is this statement supposed to mean? Certainly not what it literally says, as we can also compare the Council to the US senate. In between lines one might understand it as the Bundesrat is the most similar institution of all institutions. If this is what is meant, then please put it in way that makes this statement. Then we can start a discussion from there, because this is (of course) still contentious.

I am not against a comparison section per se, but if we have such a section we need more comparisons. And if, on the other hand, we say that it is only comparable with the Bundesrat, what is the Swiss example doing in this section? Where would we end comparing, BTW? There are plenty of differences between the Council and the Bundesrat. But plenty of differences will also be there for many other comparison with other institutions. So, I am not very optimistic to get this thing stable in the end.

The comparison to the Swiss National Council is justified through the double majority similarity, which is, first of all, quite far-fetched here and second applies to a whole bunch of countries if handle as vaguely as in the Swiss example.

The image caption is blatantly wrong. The composition of the Council is not only comparable to the Bundesrat. Beyond my argumentation in the first paragraph, observe that in composition the US senate is much closer. There, as in the Council, all represented entities have at least the same voting power. This is not the case for the Bundesrat.

Please, address these points quickly, because I really feel like deleting the whole section. I think the best idea would be to sandbox this content first, because the current state (at best) makes me laugh. Sorry. Tomeasy _{T C} 14:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Council is comparable to Bundesrat only in composition - hence you can also compare to Swiss via voting. Second, Council is made up of national government members, as is Bundesrat with regional. US Senate is directly elected in a constituency system. Ergo, I think you misunderstood the nature of the comparison here and why it was being drawn. As for why, well I was just cleaning up the content but I think it is good to discuss its unique nature by stating there is only one similar composition - which of course then has to be elaborated upon. Not bothered though as the full comparison of the institutional structure is made on the institutions page.- _J.Logan`^t: 15:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, the comparability (similarity) with respect to the voting system is so far-fetched, you could equally draw this comparison to the US system. It would just be as far-fetched and wishy-washy as it is for the Swiss system. Actually, it more or less fits to most bicameral systems in the world. Nothing justifies the mentioning of the Swiss system here.

Also, the double majority takes place in one institution, the Council. While all those many comparable examples would refer to the two chambers of a bicameral system. This, however, should not be done here. As a second chamber in the EU legislative you might think of the parliament. I hope with this mention, I did not motivate a Comparison section on the EU article that draws parallels between EU Council/parliament and German Bundestag/Bundesrat. Why don't we just stick to explaining how things work, rather than comparing it to a potentially endless list.

IMO, the can only be compared formulation is very badly chosen. In your above comment, you do compared it to the US Senate, too. The result of this was to find that the members of the Senate are elected by the people while this is not the case for Council and Bundesrat. So, what I was opposing there, is this colloquial language usage. If you want to say that the Council's composition with government envoyees is only paralleled by the German Bundesrat, then please do so.

It appears to me that the governmental provenience of its members is the only detail that calls for an interesting comparison. Do you really think this justifies to introduce a section?

About misunderstanding the nature of the comparison. Just see my edit to the figure caption, way before you comment about my misunderstanding. I think this shows clearly that I was aware of the one detail that the Council has (solely ?) in common with the Bundesrat. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• About the uniqueness.Well Bundesrat has no equivalent in the world , no really, this is not an exaggeration, no other federation has anything like the bundesrat, EU of course is no federation,german federalism is alone in it's category.So automatically, either the council resembles only with the bundesrat, or they have very little in common to bother talking about.They both are composed by goverments, they both have unequal voting whait among states(being the rule, not like say the halfcantons is switzerland), in both votes are cast as a blok(US senat and swiss state council has 2 senators per state, and of course they vote as they see fit), in both cases a decision is made with a QMV of all votes, not just those cast(2/3 in bundesrat case), they both have a rotating presidency (among states, not pepol), elections are not coordinated among states,(so government can come and go at any time), no one can dissolve either of them. Isn't all this enough?

• " in composition the US senate is much closer. There, as in the Council, all represented entities have at least the same voting power. This is not the case for the Bundesrat." I really don't see what you mean hear, senate has two senators per state, they only sit in the senate, they are direcly elected, and they are not required to cast there vote togather.I'm not sure about this last one, senate votes with a simple majority of those present, in special cases this is raised to 60%(treaties,appointments) or 2/3 for impeaching the president.

• About a comparison with the swiss voting system, i think that logan got overzealous.--217.112.178.179 (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I will come back to the topic later. Just one short comment. Proper formatting requires words to be separated by spaces. This holds even when you have a punctuation already separating the words. However, punctuations do not have spaces before and after their character, but only after their character. You have introduced plenty of these mistakes in the article. Please, correct them. I do not want to copy edit a section that I rather like to remove, move or shorten drastically. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Granted on the Swiss point, out of context of the rest it doesn't stand alone well and was just being taken from the reference. But yes, could the IP please try to use some grammar - I just had to rapidly copyedit the institutions page in the middle of an FA bid. On "comparison" - that depends on how you're using the word comparison, it is quite valid to talk about if you can draw a comparison between two things or not depending on their similarity as well as simply the act of comparing. If you're going to complain about that, then when you replace the text could you replace it with something of the intended meaning rather than a weaker statement. Otherwise, I have no problem in this section going as it is a duplication of other information.- _J.Logan`^t: 09:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"the Council's composition with government envoyees is only paralleled by the German Bundesrat" Is that waeker than the intended meaning? Tomeasy _{T C} 09:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to [2], as your only other edit to the page on this aside from removing the section entirely.- _J.Logan`^t: 20:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Although it probably started off as a good idea, I am also wondering if it would be best to remove this section completely or radically shorten it. As it is, it is not always clear (to me, at least) what is supposed to be describing the Bundesrat and what is supposed to be describing both institutions. It seems to go into too much detail about the Bundesrat, but (in my opinion) introduces subtle inaccuracies that would require even more detail to remedy, as in the statement "Those members vote in their state blocks and can not cast fractioned votes, hence they do not act as individual members but as representatives of their state governments to that government's agreed line." The cited source states that there is no "imperative mandate"; and the members representing one state can in fact cast differing votes (and have done so in the past), though this makes the whole vote of the state invalid. The difference between "can" and "may" is perhaps rather subtle, but it would require more detail to convey the actual situation in a non-misleading way. --Boson (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to step in and add the details that you want.--217.112.186.133 (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not a question of adding any details, but rather of radically pruning this section (or even removing it altogether as a stand-alone part of the article). I agree with Boson that it goes into too much detail about the German upper house (simply cross-referencing the main Bundesrat article would be better) – not only does the section say far more about the Bundesrat than it does about the Council but it's also written in such a way as to leave it unclear much of the time which institution is being referred to: Bundesrat, Council, or both? -- Picapica (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest removing the image completely. As it is, it is not even that clear that it is a picture of the Bundesrat. It is even less clear why we should want a picture of the Bundesrat in an article about the Council of the EU. I would also propose reducing the text to a sentence stating something like "The Council can be compared with similar institutions in federal states, such as the German Bundesrat, the Swiss Bundesrat, or the United States Senate. This serves mainly to link to the other article (which should be discussed there). Especially if we use "compared with", rather than "compared to" we shouldn't even need a source, since it is patently obvious that a comparison with other institutions is possible. --Boson (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd meant to say something about that image myself. (I had to look at its source to be sure what chamber it was actually showing!) I'll give it a few days in case others may wish to comment, but I propose then -- in the absence of any sustained objections -- to be bold and follow the recommendations made in your latest post, Boson, some time early next week (unless you beat me to it, of course). -- Picapica (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I entirely agree that this is a useless section and should be deleted. The comparison with the US Senate seems flawed and tenuous at best. I propose to delete it - perhaps the "compared institutions" could be stuck in a "See Also" link, if anyone can really be bothered! Arrivisto (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

President of the Council: the minister of foreign affairs?

I am wondering whether what we state in the infobox makes sense. As far as I know (correct me if I am wrong), the Council is the forum of 27 ministers, one from each of the 27 member states. In regard to the topic discussed this can be ministers of finance, agriculture, or foreign affairs. It can even be that one country envoys a minister for resort A and another one for resort B. Obviously resorts can have different names and portfolios in different countries.

Based on this, I would see no justification to give the minister of foreign affairs (of the country that currently holds the EU presidency) the special denomination as the president of the Council. As I understand it, the president of the Council is the minister of whatever resort, who is member of the government of the country holding the EU presidency. So, one day it will be minister A and the next day it might be minster B.

I see this understanding is also in line with what is explained in Council_of_the_European_Union#Presidency. However, if my understanding is incorrect, and in deed the title President of the Council is fixed to minister of foreign affairs, I would like to see the evidence for this and would also like to add this information to the named section. Tomeasy _{T C} 14:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Tomeasy i agree with you and i am rather confused about this. I was looking for where it declared who the new president of the council of the EU was but could not find it on new years eve. According to the article on [{Presidency of the Council of the European Union]] in the opening paragraph it says "There is no single president but rather the task is undertaken by an entire national government" Also looking at http://consilium.europa.eu/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=242&lang=en i fail to see where it talks about a person, it sounds like it is just the member state. I suspect the confusion comes because of President of the European Council which does have an actual president. Im going to remove the mention of it from the info box because it goes against whats actualy said in articles and on the website. Someone can re-add it once its been explained, but some changes to the article to make clear why theres a president would also be needed. Id rather we include less information than wrong information, which is why im going to remove it. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BritishWatcher Ijanderson (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed it, i had to edit the template itself aswell which has been that way for over a year by the looks of it. So im not sure if we are all missing something or if its been wrong for that long but it can all be changed back if someone explains it BritishWatcher (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with LJ! As you said BW, it's probably better to lack information than to provide wrong information. Moreover, as I understand it, the current information provided by the infobox (i.e., merely a presiding country) is correct. If not, I am sure, someone will pop up soon and provide us with evidence for the contrary. Tomeasy _{T C} 15:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Subtle Vandalism

Someone had changed the links at the bottom which say offical sites to eurosceptic wesites, it seems like someone was trying to be sneaky. I changed it back to the real offical site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jajon (talk • contribs) 11:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Council of the European Union/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Kept

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Article name

Did I miss the discussion on renaming this article from Council of the European Union to Council of Ministers (European Union)?--Boson (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: I see it was mentioned in 2007, but the Council homepage still has "Council of the European Union".--Boson (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto, we need to talk about this but I won't revert as its no serious harm for now. I do however think that we previously made a mistake in thinking that Lisbon renamed it formally to Council of Ministers. It was called Council in the treaties before, and Council in the treaties after. No major change on the website, so can people find any evidence that it is now formally, in any way, called the Council of Ministers rather than the Council of the European Union?- _J.Logan`^t:16:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Officially, Council of the European Union or short Council is used, but not Council of Ministers [3]. The latter has the advantage of being more descriptive, and it makes it also easier to distinguish this institution from the European Council. However, I do not think that these pragmatic arguments are decisive for naming the article. This should be decided upon most common usage, and what the actual name is. In Google, Council of Ministers appears more common... Tomeasy _{T C} 17:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

What search criteria did you use? Remember Council of Ministers is the name of several bodies, do all the results refer to the EU?- _J.Logan`^t: 17:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I pitted "Council of Ministers" against "Council of the European Union" plus "Council of the EU". Unfortunately, I could not resort the problem you mention that CoM is generic and used in other cases as well :-( Tomeasy _{T C} 20:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think, unless people can find the Council describing itself as the Council of Ministers anywhere, we are looking at moving it back to Council of the European Union. The only other suitable name might be Council (European Union) but considering the old title is well linked in I don't see any advantages in such a new title considering "Council of the European Union" can work both as a formal title and as a descriptive title. Anyone else got thoughts on this?- _J.Logan`^t: 21:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I would argue for "Council of the European Union" because I think it is the only true name of the institution. I don't think it is relevant that the Council itself or treaties may refer to "the Council" or "the Council of Ministers" since they are, in my opinion, unambiguous only in context. I think this is different from the question of several entities accidentally having the same name and therefore requiring disambiguation. I would say talking of the "Council of Ministers" is analogous to talking of "the President" or "the Queen": they may, in context, be unambiguously used like unique names but you still would not name the articles "President (United States)" or "Queen (United Kingdom)". I would say it is a borderline case, though. --Boson (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

So it seems people agree on the old name, I shall move the article back.- _J.Logan`^t: 21:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It maybe should be said that since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on December 1, 2009, the official name of the Institution is neither Council of the European Council (as had been previously calling) nor Council of Ministers (as identified in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe), but just and simply "the Council". It can be checked in Articles 13.1 and 16 of Treaty on European Union and in the Third Section of Chapter 1 of Title I of the Sixth Part of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. So I propose, given the ambiguity and versatility of an article named "The Council", to set it as it follows (just v.g.): "Council (European Union)"; if not, it should be clarified someway in the text.--Miguel Bravo-Ferrer (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

See here in all languages that the Council calls itself "Council of the European Union". I think this title is just fine for us to use, too. Tomeasy _{T C} 13:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This all sounds fairly reasonable, but why then has the title "Council of Ministers" been maintained in the "This article is part of the series: Politics and government of the European Union" box at the side? Isn't it more confusing to try and please everyone but using different names in different places rather than just using a consistent name everywhere? Kennethmac2000 (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Emergency break (brake?) procedure?

At European Council there is the statement Finally, although the European Council gains no legislative power, under the "emergency break" procedure, a state may refer contenious legislation from a Council of Ministers to the European Council should it be outvoted in the Council, although it may still be outvoted in the European Council. What is this procedure? Surely it should be mentioned in this article too? --Red King (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Old post, but just to clarify the emergency brake procedure is better described as Qualified Majority with Emergency Brake it is a procedure used only for legislative proposals relating to the free movement of workers (Art. 136), judicial co-operation in criminal matters (Art. 270) and the approximation of definitions of criminal offences (Art. 271). The procedure basically allows one Member State on the Council to refer the proposal to the European Council if the M.S. thinks that the proposal affects fundamental elements of its legal system. (http://europa.eu/scadplus/constitution/majority_en.htm#EMERGENCY) It is a very specific procedure, and I'm not sure if it is worth detailing in the Article? --Connolly15 (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

delegated authorithy

the section "delegated authorithy" shall be deleted, since all its contents are completely deleted in the treaty of lisbon: 1. the european Commission has its power from the treaties, and not from delegated authority of the council and; 2. the european council is a separate institution, with no more formal relationship with the EU council (apart from sharing the general Sectretariat) --some IP.

Fair enough, though can we get a citation for this?- _J.Logan`^t: 10:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I 100% follow the argument or the conclusion here. The original delegation in Article 202 EC is through the exercise of a discretion by the Council. The reasoning of this is transferred into Lisbon. Article 290 TFEU deals with delegated powers of the Commission. These "MAY" (not note MUST) be granted by a legislative act. The Council or the EP may revoke these delegated powers if they wish. In essence, these powers are still subject to discretion and secondary legislation. They are still delegated and not granted directly by the Treaty. They are now just delegated by a legislative act, rather than by the Council. How is this any more "from the Treaty"? In addition, Article 291 TFEU sets down procedures for delegated IMPLEMENTING powers for the Commission. As far as I am aware, until the Regulation spoken of in 291(3) is in place, the Commission will continue to exercise its powers under the old Comitology Decision. I could be wrong, but I don't recall that that Decision was revoked by Lisbon. Lwxrm (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

To Tomeasy

Hi, this is Miguel, from Spain. You say in your reply to my revoked contribution I do commit many mistakes in other parts of my edit. I undestand the non-denominational change in the web of the Council can be a distortion factor very high to avoid it, but I would like to underline the supremacy of the legal bases (the Treaties in its present wording) over all hypothetical slips or lapses in the informatic translation, even if the mistake or the oversight comes from an Institution of the Union. I even remember having indicated the articles of the Treaties themselves, and the source where you can collate it (here they are: Articles 13.1 and 16 of Treaty on European Union and in the Third Section of Chapter 1 of Title I of the Sixth Part of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. You can find them in [4] (full text of the Treaty on European Union) and [5] (full text of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). This hierarchy of sources of information and the safety of its order guarantees the reliability of the content (I can't imagine what I would find here if, owing to a computer virus, the website of the Council called "Dying lizard" one of its high profile political senior!). From there, I fail to understand how or where do you find some other concrete variations between which I introduced that may undermine the content or the accuracy of the article. Thank you for your attention. --Miguel Bravo-Ferrer (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I know that the treaties use the term Council. Still, I do not find it a good title for the article, for it is too generic, as you have figured yourself when you proposed Council (European Union). Why on earth you are trying to shove in the article the is beyond me. using the denomination Council is just very often ambiguous, because there is another council, the European one, even though that one is never officially called the council.

To explain my revert: Changing the name is a major thing (by the way often discussed already), and obviously contentious. Therefore, I think you should convince us first instead of re-reverting. as long as the article is titled as it is, the first sentence should start defining the Council of the European Union.

The other mistakes I was referring to include a syntax error that made a reference source code appear in the lede itself; emboldening the; claiming that the Council is not called anymore CotEU (which is proven wrong by its own website); claiming that it brings together heads of states and government.

There were useful additions which I tried to rescue as well. Tomeasy _{T C}

consilium

As far as I can see consilium is the name of the Council's website. I can find no evidence that it is ever used in English to refer to the Council ever on their webiste itself! I can't even find a single webpage, other than this article on wikipedia, that uses consilium to refer to the Council of the EU or any other EU institution. On the Council's own website, consilium appears in the title (ie between the <title></title> tags) but nowhere in the content of the pages. To say that consilium is used "as a Latin-language compromise", is as far as I can see, nonsense. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

it is also used on the sign outside the door. But I agree, it is hardly used and I've been tempted to remove our mention of it before. Perhaps we could move it into a footnote though?- _J.Logan`^t: 20:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Before we do so, can we check how many readers try to get this term (Consilium) explained per week? Also, the insignia we are using in the infobox displays the term quite prominently, which makes me believe that the url is not the only instance where they use it. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"Consilium" is not used often, but it has nonetheless clearly been adopted as "Latin-language compromise" that isn't just limited to the website (there's a sign outside Justus Lipsius like JLogan said). I would be OK with a footnote, but I don't really think it's nescessary to remove it from the introduction. The short explanation is needed I think. - SSJ ☎ 03:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

foraff and genaff

Are these abbreviations generally used, other than by insiders? When I flagged these, what I really meant was: "Do such abbreviations have any place in Wikipedia?", but I thought I should first check if the terms are more widely used. Most of the occurrences I found were in URLs, not in text. --Boson (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Think of Ecofin - something on an equal standing to these. The media or other sources do indeed use Ecofin and related abbreviations as the long name is unwieldy - just in the same way EU is used rather than European Union. Not that I have to continue down this line of comparison, you get the message. Thus, people may be more or equally familiar with the shortened term as the full term and thus the association is importance. Now, we are dealing with new creations and thus the terms are so far unfamiliar to many, but they are of equal standing to established ones which have never been challenged and indeed if they are, then there are thousands more for you to look at, starting with Ecofin.- _J.Logan`^t: 19:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with 'Ecofin': it is very widely used, but I wouldn't say 'genaff' and 'foraff' have anything like the same standing. More on a par with 'AS-EUVL'.--Boson (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It has only just been established, these are the two most powerful configurations. We do of course have the issue that the names may change before settling fully of course, so if you want to delay their inclusion for now on those grounds I'm okay for that but I don't think your present justifications stand up to be honest.- _J.Logan`^t: 20:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Table of ruling parties needs to be updated

Can someone update the table of the ruling parties, please?--81.84.107.252 (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you state which ones you see as out of date please? Slovakia, the Netherlands and Belgium are both forming governments still if that is what you're referring to so we have to wait until the new governments are formed.- _J.Logan`^t: 12:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The ruling parties of Romania are out of date as the Social Democratic Party left the government in October 2009 and the Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania joined the government in December 2009, but the Democratic Liberal Party remained in the government.

Moreover, review the entire table using reliable sources and correct possible spelling errors.--81.84.107.252 (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that update, it is hard to keep track of the exact coalitions of all the countries .- _J.Logan`^t: 21:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Error in figure

There are some errors in the figure to the right of the section "Legislative procedure": the inequality signs have the wrong direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.139.56 (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

ensuring the smooth running of the meetings

This is waffly, POV and not encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Cabinet column in table

Blue-Haired Lawyer, re, I genuinely don't know.

My primary intent was to remove "Tribe of the Irish" and "Ó Coinnigh" since both Fine Gael and Kenny are the English and primary use names and don't need translating. It was when I was in there that I spotted the cabinet being called the "Kenny" cabinet. That just sounds strange. --Tóraí (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying earlier. I agree with removing references to "Tribe of the Irish" and "Ó Coinnigh". I also agree that the "Kenny" does sound a bit odd but then I thought "Dáil XXXI" or even "31st Dáil" looked odder. At least "Kenny" fits with the convention followed by the other countries. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 22:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Controversy

The European Parliament is this week likely to reject the Council of Ministers' 2010 accounts and raise serious concerns over several other areas of EU expenditure. Monica Macovei, a Romanian centre-right MEP who drafted the committee's stance, was not satisfied with the explanations given by the three agencies following a report by the European Court of Auditors. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] —  Ark25  (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Logo

The logo is wrong! It is the logo of the New Europa Building (the new home of the European Council). Is there a Justus Lipsius logo? Arrivisto (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Council of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120320233009/http://www.eu2008.fr/impression8f11.html?url=%2FPFUE%2Flang%2Fen%2Faccueil%2FPFUE-10_2008%2FPFUE-31.10.2008%2Fpid%2F17038 to http://www.eu2008.fr/impression8f11.html?url=%2FPFUE%2Flang%2Fen%2Faccueil%2FPFUE-10_2008%2FPFUE-31.10.2008%2Fpid%2F17038

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Europarties in European Council and EU Council

Take a look and maybe help:

Member State	Dominant Europarty	Additional Europarties
Austria	EPP	EGP
Belgium	ALDE	PES	EGP	EPP
Bulgaria	NI	PES
Croatia	EPP	NI
Cyprus	EPP
Czechia	ALDE	PES
Denmark	PES
Estonia	ALDE
Finland	PES	ALDE	EGP	EL
France	NI	EDP	ALDE
Germany	EPP	PES
Greece	EPP
Hungary	NI	EPP
Ireland	ALDE	EPP	EGP
Italy	NI	PES	ID	EPP
Latvia	EPP	NI	ECR
Lithuania	NI	EPP	ALDE
Luxembourg	ALDE	PES	EGP
Malta	PES
Netherlands	ALDE	EPP	ECPM
Poland	ECR	NI
Portugal	PES
Romania	EPP	PES
Slovakia	NI	ID	ECR
Slovenia	EPP	ALDE	EDP
Spain	PES	NI	EL
Sweden	PES
ALDE Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party ECPM European Christian Political Movement ECR European Conservatives and Reformists Party EDP European Democratic Party EGP European Green Party EL Party of the European Left EPP European People's Party ID Identity and Democracy Party NI Non-Attached PES Party of European Socialists

The dominant Europarty is the one holding the member state’s seat in the European Council.

Additional Europarties are the ones which also sit in (some configurations of) the Council of the European Union. – Kaihsu (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Council of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011040316/http://europa.eu/institutions/decision-making/index_en.htm to http://www.europa.eu/institutions/decision-making/index_en.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701001206/http://www.eu2007.de/en/The_Council_Presidency/What_is_the_Presidency/index.html to http://www.eu2007.de/en/The_Council_Presidency/What_is_the_Presidency/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Council of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070708114002/http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/community_legal_instruments_en.htm to http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/community_legal_instruments_en.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018111907/http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/european-union_157/eu-in-the-world_1491/common-foreign-and-security-policy_5463/operation-of-the-cfsp_5467/cfsp-decision-making-processes-and-instruments_5473/joint-actions-common-positions-and-common-strategies_8752.html to http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/european-union_157/eu-in-the-world_1491/common-foreign-and-security-policy_5463/operation-of-the-cfsp_5467/cfsp-decision-making-processes-and-instruments_5473/joint-actions-common-positions-and-common-strategies_8752.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703022118/http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/policybrief_constitution_july04.pdf to http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/policybrief_constitution_july04.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070623104055/http://europa.eu/institutions/inst/comm/index_en.htm to http://europa.eu/institutions/inst/comm/index_en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Name

The term "Council of the European Union" is used sparingly by the EU and its use appears to be a fairly recent phenomenon. In official documents the institution has always been called simply "the Council". "The Parliament" and "the Commission" are not used in the same way. The wording used here and similar wording in other articles may give the casual reader the impression that "the Council" is only used informally and that the official name has always been "Council of the European Union". I have changed the wording a bit to avoid this misleading impresssion. I have also put some details in a footnote – also to address some points made above. --Boson (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Upper House?

For broader coverage of this topic, see European Union § Politics.

Arkhandar and I disagree on whether it is appropriate to show the term "Upper House" in the infobox as being the role of the Council(s) of Ministers. They make this statement in support:

It is considered the upper house of the EU legislature, although it's not described as such in the treaties.

In my view, the infobox should record exclusively what it indisputable fact and this is not a fact, indeed it says so itself ('not described as such in the treaties'). The EU is not a federation. It does not have a federal government. The Commission is not an autonomous government, it does not initiate legislation in vacuum, it acts on the instructions of the European Council in general and of the Council(s) of Ministers in particular. They are not an approving body like the US Senate. The Parliament is far more like a consultative assembly than a legislature. For those unfamiliar with the detail, these familiar terms are useful approximations but they are just that, approximations. So, while it may be reasonable to give this similarity in the body, it should definitely not go in the infobox. Exactly this debate has already played out regarding the main EU article infobox, please let's not repeat it all here. --Red King (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you concerning the upper house thing. However, it is completely wrong to say that the Commission is not an independent institution. The treaties are very clear on this point, and that is one of the core features of the Commission. It is independent of the member states and it does not take any direct instructions from the Council or the European Council. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with federalism/federation. --Glentamara (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Just as a reference for my statement:

In carrying out its responsibilities, the Commission shall be completely independent. Without prejudice to Article 18(2), the members of the Commission shall neither seek nor take instructions from any Government or other institution, body, office or entity. They shall refrain from any action incompatible with their duties or the performance of their tasks.

— Third paragraph of article 17(3) of the Treaty on the European Union

--Glentamara (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. On your second point, I think a little clarifying note is required: yes, it is absolutely the case that individual Commissioners must not take any instructions, orders, requests or anything of the sort from their home countries. But conversely the Commission as a whole is servant of the members acting collectively as defined by the Treaties. Taking for example the Brexit negotiations, the Commission was given its negotiating mandate by the Heads of Government. The budget is another example: the Commission has no authority to determine its budget as a federal government might, that issue is decided by the FinMin Council. --Red King (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Red King: Upper and lower house chamber distinctions have nothing to do with whether or not the EU is considered a federation or whether or not the Commission is an independent institution. It's just a layout concept of a polity's legislature. What you're doing right there is subject to personal opinion (basically WP:OR) and not what WP:RS explicitly say. Now, whether or not to include this definition in the infobox is another (valid) question. I'm in favor of including it since it's what RS's define it as. Only including the treaties' information in the infobox would be relying too much on primary sources WP:RSPRIMARY and, as such, not accurately reflect reality. However, I would also be totally in favor of including a note explicitly stating that this denomination is not mentioned in the treaties.~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)}

@Arkhandar:, I do recognise that risk, but the fact remains that the Council(s) of Ministers are not an Upper House, just as the EU is not a federation. This is not my opinion, it is absolutely verifiable and objectively true. There are many reliable sources that say that the EU has most of the characteristics of a federation, some even that it is a federation in all but name – but that is comment, not a statement of factual legal status. So yes, it is entirely valid to report RSs as saying that the Councils are an upper house in all but name BUT you would need to quote chapter and verse where they say that this is a factual statement of their legal status. --Red King (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Red King: While it's easy to find many RSs (both primary and secondary) stating that the EU is not a federation, I'm curious to see if the same happens with the Council's type definition. From what I've seen, the answer is no. I'm afraid you're following a biased opinion when stating these "facts", and while that is completely valid, Wikipedia articles are source-based. So, if we have enough RSs stating X, and that X seems to be generally accepted, those are the facts (until, of course, disproven by other RSs). ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)}

@Arkhandar:, I am not questioning the sources, but rather your reading of them. The reality is what the treaties and law says it is. I would be astonished if the sources have just made something up that contradicts them. The Institutions of the European Union show a unicameral legislature, not a bicameral one. No treaty, not even the failed Constitution, says otherwise. That is why I say that you have to provide explicit quotations (in context if appropriate) to support your assertion. --Red King (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Red King: That is not true. The treaties clearly state that the Parliament and Council are in equal footing when it comes to legislating. During the ordinary procedure, proposals that come from the Commission, first pass through Parliament and then are approved or not by the Council. Hence, the RS's definition of lower and upper house. Again, for Wikipedia in general, it doesn't really matter if the treaties classify it as such, as long as RSs do. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)}

@Arkhandar:, precisely. The sources are saying that the Councils are like an upper house, not that they are the upper house. (Yes, I know about WP:DUCK but it doesn't apply to article space). I believe that you are in danger of slipping into WP:SYN. The further problem [yes, this bit is OR/POV] is that if a naive reader is steered into the belief that the set-up is any more than superficially like the US Senate or the UK House of Lords, they are really going to be led up the garden path. --Red King (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Red King: The New York Times specifically interchanges "Council" and "upper house", so I don't see what's your point. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)}

@Red King: I disagree. First of all, the EU is hardly a unicameral system, see article 14(1) and 16(1) TEU as well as article 289(1) TFEU. 20-30 years ago your statement might have been true, but since the Lisbon Treaty it's definitely not. The EU has clearly a bicameral structure. Second, I don't know of any constitution which formally uses the concepts of upper and lower houses. These concepts are instead generic ways of describing bicameral systems, where one house typically represents the provinces/states/regions/nobilities and the other one is directly elected. I do agree with you that the comparison with the Council and European Parliament may be questioned. On the other hand, I think the comparison may be helpful for many readers to get a grasp of what the Council and the Parliament are compared to other parliamentary institutions at national level. However, it has to be clarified in the article that this is an informal/descriptive comparison and not the actual legal/constitutional status that they have. By the way, I note that I cannot find anywhere in, e.g., the US constitution saying that the senate is the upper house and the house of representatives is the lower one. It is not a legal concept, but a descriptive one - and it should work prefectly fine to use for the legislative institutions of the EU as well. --Glentamara (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Arkhandar:, @Glentamara:, it still feels like wp:SYN to me but it seems that the consensus disagrees. So I will concede provided the text says 'upper' and not 'Upper' (and neither in the infobox, per earlier discussion). --Red King (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Red King: What earlier discussion? It doesn't make sense not to include the definition in the infobox, ensuring it also has a note next to it informing of the definition nature. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)}

@Arkhandar: Glentamara's reply to my rfc, second item at the top of this discussion. --Red King (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Good sirs, I love it when matters such as this are debated, but this topic was actually a matter of discussion over a year ago and the Talk page came to a consensus: that the only adequare format was to link to the Politics section where it is discussed in depth. Please see Talk:European_Union/Archive_1#Legislature.

The legislature of the European Union is considered sui generis, unlike any other, and it is not as simple as to be categorised into Upper House and Lower House. For one, Upper and Lower Houses are characterised by having legislative initiative, whereas in the European Union this power is held by the European Commission and delegated at its discretion only. This categorisation also leaves out the vital role of the European Commission in the legislative process, and the complicated role the Council of the European Union has in the decisions of the Commission. Unfortunately for those of us who like things to be neatly categorisable, as myself, EU's legislature is neither unicameral, nor bicameral, nor tricameral or any other.

Do get in touch if you would like to suggest a more efficient method of representing the legislature, but without multiple independent sources agreeing with such a description, it seems likely it will continue to defy categorisation. Vaurnheart (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

For example, would it be better to link to European Union legislative procedure? Vaurnheart (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I only see that two people have participated in that discussion. Well, I don't agree with that discussion either. In fact, the EU institutional framework, since the Lisbon Treaty, is pretty simple if you don't go into the details. Any political system is complicated if you consider all the details. And every political system is unique if you just consider the details carefully enough. Of course the EU political system can be categorized, it's just ridiculous to claim otherwise. It has been strongly shaped by the systems of the member states. Furthermore, what is described in the discussion is the pre-Lisbon treaty era, where the European Parliament indeed was mainly a consultative body - that's not true any longer. And no, the Commission is not enacting any legislation. And yes, the constitution of the EU is the treaties, although it's not called constitution (there are many countries where the constitution is called something else than constitution). Legislation is enacted by the European Parliament and/or the Council. Just look at every legislative act, it bears the title ".. of the Council" or "... of the European Parliament and the Council". The treaties are very clear on that matter. It doesn't matter that the right of initiative belongs to the Commission. That's something else than enacting legislation. But anyway, I don't bother to continue this discussion. --Glentamara (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

References