Jujupilote, I think now (as the UK is out) EU has a chance of creating EU military union. And that would help its countries to start thinking collectively as a military power as well as a soft power. And that EU army can be part of NATO. Not going to be popular with current UK establishment. :)
the parliament would be very small – which is not really a problem because obviously the vast majority feels represented by them.
Except that you need a certain number of people to do the work… working groups on this and that… Proposals to consider. Despite the stereotypes I think politicians do work quite hard. Even the ones I disagree with.
Whenever you devise a new complex system there will be ‘gotchas’ that one has to consider. I remain intrigued.
arj1 wrote:
Jujupilote, I think now (as the UK is out) EU has a chance of creating EU military union. And that would help its countries to start thinking collectively as a military power as well as a soft power. And that EU army can be part of NATO. Not going to be popular with current UK establishment. :)
The Brits (incl me) will be more worried if the EU bundles olmypic gold medals and football teams 
arj1 wrote:
And that EU army can be part of NATO
That is going to be like asking for an EASA seat on ICAO as well as your individual seats. :-)
kwlf wrote:
Except that you need a certain number of people to do the work… working groups on this and that… Proposals to consider. Despite the stereotypes I think politicians do work quite hard. Even the ones I disagree with.
Sure – but it’s also quite unlikely that people in Europe really concentrate their votes on 10 candidates only so that no other would get let’s say more than 100.000.
And yes, many politicians work quite hard but most of them not only in their job as members of parliament but they have also other roles like in parties, organizations, some even paid jobs, etc.
I’m pretty sure that if they would doe there MEP job really full time and we would introduce some efficiency improvements (like not letting them move between two locations frequently) the EP would work pretty decently with 250 members instead of the 700 today as well.
Absolutes sure every system has it’s downside – but that doesn’t mean that todays system (which is basically coming from 19th century) is the best one could think of…
arj1 wrote:
Jujupilote, I think now (as the UK is out) EU has a chance of creating EU military union. And that would help its countries to start thinking collectively as a military power as well as a soft power. And that EU army can be part of NATO. Not going to be popular with current UK establishment. :)
Excuse me but I can’t refrain from 
UK and France are the only EU countries that think as a military power, and can work together efficiently.
France asked mid-2019 for the EU to join the fight in Mali (not patrols with the blue helmets, real search-and-destroy).
For now, 50 estonians are deployed and 60 czech are coming 
As of being part of NATO, it is like a teenager joining the big gang of the block. It protects you from your nasty classmate, until the gang gets other projects and looses interest
Sure – but it’s also quite unlikely that people in Europe really concentrate their votes on 10 candidates only so that no other would get let’s say more than 100.000.
Would you give the MEPs with more voters, bigger votes than the MEPs who just scraped in?
kwlf wrote:
Would you give the MEPs with more voters, bigger votes than the MEPs who just scraped in?
This starts to get confusing to me, in this forum, I interpret MEP as Multi Engine Piston, but in your sentence it did not make sense at all, had to read it twice before I realized that MEP has another meaning here :-)
kwlf wrote:
Would you give the MEPs with more voters, bigger votes than the MEPs who just scraped in?
In general not a bad idea! Why not give each MEP as many “votes” as voters they represent?
Malibuflyer wrote:
In general not a bad idea! Why not give each MEP as many “votes” as voters they represent?
My “King for a day” political reform would be that, in any democratic system, the “Party of the non-voters” would get all the votes of people not turning up. In first-past-the-post systems, if the majority of people don’t vote, that constituency gets no MP. And in proportional representation systems, half of parliament would be empty.
The twist is – to make any material change (pass new laws, rather than just keep the budget rolling and keep everything the same), you would still need a majority and the empty seats count.
That would sort the legitimacy issue. If the politician’s can’t get people to positively vote for them, they have NO MANDATE to make change and everything stays the same until a party gets enough votes from the population to drive their agenda.
That works at every level.
People can then not only decide WHO exercises power, but if that power exists in the first place.
