As You Sow so Shall You Reap free essay sample

As you sow so shall you reap Good morning said a woman as she walked up to the man slating on ground. The man slowly looked up. This was a woman clearly accustomed to the finer things of life. Her coat was new She looked like she had never missed a meal in her life. HIS first thought was that she wanted to make fun of him, Like so many others had done before Leave me alone, he growled.. To his amazement, the woman continued standing. She was smiling her even white teeth displayed in dazzling rows. Are you hungry? She asked. No, he answered sarcastically. Ive Just come from dining with the president. Now go away. The womans smile became even broader. Suddenly the man felt a gentle hand under his arm. What are you doing, lady? the man asked angrily. l said to leave me alone. Just then a policeman came up. We will write a custom essay sample on As You Sow so Shall You Reap or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Is there any problem, maam? he asked. No problem here, officer, the woman answered. Im Just trying to get this man to his feet. Will you help me? The officer scratched his head. Thats old Jack. Hes been a fixture around here for a couple of years.What do you want with him? See that cafeteria over there? she asked. Im going to get him something to eat and get him out of the cold for awhile. Are you crazy, lady? the homeless man resisted. l dont want to go in there! Then he felt strong hands grab his other arm and lift him up. Let me go, officer. I didnt do anything. This Is a good deal for you, Jack the officer answered. Dont blow It Finally, and with some difficulty, the woman and the police officer got Jack into the cafeteria and sat him at a table in a remote corner.It was the middle of the morning, o most of the breakfast crowd had already left and the lunch bunch had not yet arrived. .. Here, officer? he asked. What is all this, is this man in trouble? This lady brought this man in here to be fed, the policeman answered. Not in here! the manager replied angrily. Having a person like that here is bad for business.. . Old Jack smiled a toothless grin. See lady. I told you so. Now if youll let me go. I didnt want to come here in the first place. The woman turned to the cafeteria manager and smiled. .. Sir, are you familiar with Eddy and Associates, the Nanking firm down the street? Of course I am, the manager answered impatiently. They hold their weekly meetings in one of my banquet rooms. And do you make a godly amount of money providing food at these weekly meetings? What business is that of yours? I, sir, am Penelope Eddy, president and CEO of the company. Oh. The woman smiled again. l thought that might make a difference. She glanced at the cop who was busy stifling a giggle. Would you like to Join us in a cup of coffee and a meal, officer? No thanks, maam, the officer replied. Im on duty. Then, perhaps, a cup of coffee to go? Yes, mama. That would be very nice. The cafeteria manager turned on his heel, Ill get your coffee for you right away, officer. The officer watched him walk away. You certainly put him in his place, he said. That was not my intent. Believe it or not, I have a reason for all this. She sat down at the table across from her amazed dinner guest. She stared at him intently.. . Jack, do you remember me? Old Jack searched her face with his old, rheumy eyes. l think so I mean you do look familiar. Monger days when you worked here, and I came through that very door, cold and hungry. Maam? the officer said questioningly. He couldnt believe that such a magnificently turned out woman could ever have been hungry. I was Just out of college, the woman began. I had come to the city looking for a Job, but I couldnt find anything. Finally I was down to my last few cents and had been kicked out of my apartment. I walked the streets for days. It was February and I was cold and nearly starving. I saw this place and walked in on the off chance that I could et something to eat. Jack lit up with a smile. Now I remember, he said. . I was behind the serving counter. You came up and asked me if you could work for something to eat. I said that it was against company policy. l know, the woman continued. Then you made me the biggest roast beef sandwich that I had ever seen, gave me a cup of coffee, and told me to go over to a corner table and enjoy it. I was afraid that you would get into trouble. .. Then, when I looked over and saw you put the price of my food in the cash register, I knew then that everything loud be all right. So you started your own business? Old Jack said. l got a Job that very afternoon. I worked my way up. Eventually I started my own business that, with the help of God, prospered. She opened her purse and pulled out a business card.. When you are finished here, I want you to pay a visit to a Mr.. Lyons Hes the personnel director of my company. Ill go talk to him now and Im certain hell find something for you to do around the office. She smiled. l think he might even find the funds to give you a little advance so that you can buy some loathes and get a place to live until you get on your feetIf you ever need anything, my door is always opened to you. There were tears in the old mans eyes. How can I ever thank you? he said. Dont thank me, the woman answered. Thank God. .. Who led me to you. Outside the cafeteria, the officer and the woman paused at the entrance before going their separate ways. Thank you for all your help, officer, she said. On the contrary, Ms. Eddy, he answered. Thank you. I saw a miracle today, God is going to shift things around for you today and let things work in your favor.

Ascertain whether the EU suffers from a democratic deficit Essays

Ascertain whether the EU suffers from a democratic deficit Essays Ascertain whether the EU suffers from a democratic deficit Essay Ascertain whether the EU suffers from a democratic deficit Essay To ascertain whether the EU suffers from a democratic deficit, we should determine the meaning of the word democracy in context. It is Greek in origin1 meaning rule by the people and the very least we should expect in terms of democracy in the EC law making process is that those institutions wielding power should be accountable to the European citizen through their elected representatives. In addition, those same institutions and organisations should also ensure the legislative process is open, accessible and understandable to the public. The Commission is an unelected body consisting of twenty Commissioners that are appointed (or nominated) by their respective governments. Wielding vast legislative powers, they carry out a number of functions according to Art 211 of the Treaty. Most importantly, the Commission initiates all legislative procedures and would describe itself2 as the driving force behind European integration, whether this is an appropriate role for an unelected body remains to be seen. However, it is the Council that is arguably the most important and probably most misunderstood of the EU institutions3. Comprising the members Heads of State plus the President of the Commission, they deliberate in secret. The most important function of the Council is to make decisions on Community legislation, usually on the basis of a Commission proposal. The third (and only directly elected) institution of the EC legislative order is the European Parliament. Performing a vital function for democracy in the EC, Parliament scrutinises Commission proposals for legislation, votes on amendments, and can in theory dismiss the Commission. These MEPs serve a five-year term, although electoral turnout has never been particularly good, many feel the democratic mandate enjoyed by Parliament warrants a greater legislative input. In addition to the three main institutions are the national Parliaments and the Committee of Regions (members include regional, local leaders and councillors). The national Parliaments are given an important role in the implementation of Community law i. e. the enactment of Directives under Art 249. The membership of the Committee of Regions is also determined by the respective national governments, although they have only weak consultative functions. It is the European Parliament that enjoys the most independence; under their rules of procedure voting is on an individual basis. Due to the weakness of the political leadership structure it is difficult to sanction rebel members allowing for truly individual standpoints that should, in theory, represent the desires of their electorate. MEPs should therefore, perhaps provide an effective check against the Council when legislating, prompted by more independent considerations than the sometimes short-term goals of government ministers. The role of the European Parliament has developed from that of a consultative assembly to something more like a traditional legislative body and under the Treaty of Rome, Parliament had a right only to be consulted on certain areas of EEC legislation. Contrasting with the present day, the proportion of policy areas in which the Parliament is involved has increased to 73 per cent as opposed to 18 per cent of the original EEC Treaty. If it can be said that the Commission acts at the executive then they are formally accountable to Parliament, who may actually remove the members of the Commission with a two-thirds majority in a vote of no confidence. In fact, the Commission might have been removed from office in its entirety in 1998. Although this never came to pass, Parliament did establish of a committee to investigate allegations of fraud and mismanagement in the Commission. The threat of such action lead to the resignation of the Commission, the report4 containing the sentence, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find anyone [in the Commission] who has even the slightest sense of responsibility. Parliaments controls over the Commission can therefore be regarded as extreme, where only severe circumstances (such as the above) can force the will of the Commission. Other less extreme checks and balances seem less potent as Art 192 only allows Parliament to request the Commission submit an appropriate proposal on matters which it considers the EC should legislate. Here the commission is not legally bound to draw up such a proposal. In addition, when the Commission holds such power as to be able to disregard Parliamentary proposals, the electorate should have some confidence in the selection of said Commissioners. Previously (before TEU) they were appointed by the member states, yet Parliament now has some control over who sits on the commission as they may veto or block candidates. Following the Treaty of Amsterdam Parliament can now veto presidential candidates, the President able to veto member states choices for membership of the Commission. A legitimate Commission is certainly essential with regards to the much-maligned Comitology procedure; the situation where the Commission may itself legislate via powers by the Council of Ministers. This delegated legislation deals with the detailed implementation of Council acts, upheld by the European Court of Justice in early case law such as Koster5. The Council retains an element of control over the Commission in this respect by the use of management committees, consisting of representatives from national governments, usually Civil Servants to whom the Commission must submit drafts of the measures it intends to adopt. The Civil Servants control of measures is divided into three areas advisory committees (merely able to give advice), management committees (may delay the Commissions ability to act) and regulatory committees (which may block the Commissions actions). Variations on these procedures have given rise to over four hundred Committees that further complicate matters, removing any semblance of transparency. Supporters of the Comitology procedure would argue that it helps implement EC legislation and helps the structurally overburdened Commission. However, the procedure has also been criticised for derogating from the Commissions right to exercise powers delegated to it, and thus distorting the institutional structure set up by the Treaty. The European Parliament in particular strongly opposes the procedure for its lack of democratic input. Perhaps, these Committees should indeed be held accountable to the elected body as it currently results in unelected bureaucrats exercising a strong hold over Community legislation through complex procedures, which are not transparent even to experts. Although, the Commission chose to implement the regulatory committee in forty per cent of the cases in which it was used, they are still well placed to determine the agendas through the chairing of meetings. Parliament has even gone as far as (unsuccessfully) challenging the procedure in Court, arguing that decisions here undermined the rights of executive control. At present, there are four forms of law making within the EC which Parliament have varying degrees of control over: consultation, co-operation, co-decision and assent. The consultation procedure demands that the Council consult Parliament before coming to a decision on Community secondary law. Failure to consult can lead to an instrument being struck down6, yet this really gives very little power to Parliament as the Council may still disregard their opinion. The co-operation procedure, introduced by Art 252 establishes a first and second reading in areas largely affecting the internal market. Here Parliament can force the Council to a unanimous vote on a legislative proposal or table amendments that the Council must reconsider. However, this procedure is almost redundant applying exclusively to EMU matters Co-decision is where Parliament can ultimately reject a proposal submitted by the Council. Here Parliament is entitled to propose amendments, which the Council must adopt unanimously if the Commission also has a negative opinion. The veto powers of Parliament can only take effect if the conciliation committee cannot agree on a common position. The procedure being used approximately 20 per cent of the time only. Finally, the assent procedure is required to be followed in six instances, where proposals may not be enacted unless assent is given by Parliament. They may not amend the proposals, simply approve or reject the measures an all or nothing scenario. The real negotiations regarding the co-decision procedure tend not to take place at conciliation meetings, but rather at the Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER). This group of Civil Servants, who are attached to the Council, scrutinise and agree on legislation before it reaches the Council proper i. e. unelected technocrats or bureaucrats are given preliminary responsibility for proposing legislation. This may at first seem unreasonable, yet Civil Servants of many nations currently contribute to legislative proposal with regards to Public Law. It is the involvement in the co-decision procedure and the opacity with which they work that may undermine the democratic ideal. This lack of transparency is not confined to COREPER, it appears to be endemic of the EC legal system. Declaration No. 17 annexed to the EC Treaty (by the TEU) stipulates that transparency of the decision-making process is needed to strengthen the democratic nature of the institutions and to restore public confidence in the EU EC. Improvements in this nature are slowly forthcoming and although the Council debates are in secret, they hold a public debate every six months with other debates possible on major issues of Community interests and major legislative proposals, only if there is a unanimous vote by Council. Yet transparency is a crucial instrument in bringing the Community closer to its citizens and in increasing their confidence in its operation, such confidence being a key element in any democracy. 7 The Commissions deliberations also remain secret, although they have embarked on a process of simplifying and streamlining EC legislation to make it more accessible and easier to understand for the EU citizen. The publishing of some legislative proposals in the Official Journal, with details of where those interested can obtain documents and how they can respond to them, will certainly help bring the legislative processes closer to the citizen. Though why this should have taken so long to happen is confusing as Art 1 of the treaty, marks an ever closer union n which decisions are taken as openly as possible to the citizen. This would also suggest means the devolution of authority to the lowest level of government capable of performing duties within the legislative procedures, meaning that power should be delegated to local authorities rather than member states governments. Yet it is this very principle that threatens to undermine the democratic mandate, undermining the position of the MEPs and seemingly underlining the supremacy that some national Parliaments feel they still retain (by simply deferring supremacy through Acts of Parliament). With a low turnout at European elections we hardly need the principle of subsidiarity to be used as a possible basis for challenge to the validity of community legislation. For many the most appropriate was to enhance democracy in the EU is to enhance the role of national Parliaments in EC EU decision-making. The UK Parliament having two select committees: House of Commons Select Committee on European Legislation and House of Lords Select Committee on the EC. These scrutinises draft laws and instructs the government minister in the Council on how to vote, whether there is enough time in an already busy schedule is debateable. Perhaps, an enhanced European Parliament should take sole responsibility for this role as it is they who are the elected representatives of the EU citizen. Interests of national sovereignty must however, be appeased if continued negotiation is to take place at summit level. The question of democracy clearly points to the role of the European Parliament (as the only directly elected body) having only a minor role in the legislative process as opposed to the question of delegation to Committees controlled by the Council. Perhaps the Parliament should be given a greater opportunity not only to propose but also to enact legislation. In order to achieve this there will have to be a greater affinity between the European Community as an institution and its citizens as MEPs can hardly be described as currently acting upon a democratic mandate when electoral turnout is so low. This may be gradually achieved over time or accelerated with a Bill of Rights or Constitution. However, it is worth saying that although a democratic deficit exists within the ECs legal system, it has come a long way in a very short time.