Immacolata really sums up one of the big problems with a unified Europe. To paraphrase another Mr Blair (George Orwell) Some are more equal than others.
For the UK, the EC began as the EC, a nice common trade policy bloc, run for the economic benefit of its members. Leaving aside the sovereignty issues, and the GATT, it was a useful tool for levelling the playingfield, and establishing some good standards for products.
Beyond that, the idea of a politically and economically integrated Europe is fine, as far as it goes. If any citizen had an equal say in the running of the running of the whole, there wouldn't be a problem. As soon as you start dividing citizens into unequal separate blocks, with different rights, based on the size etc of each block, you're going to have problems.
Its not a difficult concept to understand, and I'm sorry if this is coming across as a granny egg-sucking exercise, but it seems almost laughable that the the Franco-German maschine could expect the other nations of tht EU to swallow a constitution based on the principle that: We're equal, but since we're bigger, we get to say what equal means.....
One of my favourite quotes from that Grauniad article is:
"Germany, which pays 25% of the EU's costs, is already threatening to reduce funds to Spain and, especially, to Poland, which needs billions of euros to modernise its infrastructure and agriculture."
Its nice that Germany is funding the happy integration of member states. Not so nice that they'll take their ball away if we don't aquiesce.....
From what I gather (please correct me if I'm wrong) each of the members pays from or takes money from a kind of pool, depending on how good their economy is. So the rich ones cough up the dough, while the poorer ones take it. I'm at uni and <i>meant </i>to be working (coursework in tomorrow BLEH), so I'm not sure whether how accurate it is and don't have time atm to check. It's an incentive for the eastern european countries, and a deterrent to the ones who do well for themselves (such as Switzerland).
Now, can someone explain to me why the Reform of Commission doesn't follow the US Congressional or British Parlimentary model, considering that it covers the same basic problem (how do you give states with different sizes/resources equal and fair rights)? Why not just have a two-house legislature, with each country getting a 2-vote upper house and a population-distributed vote lower house? Then the little guys get a check and balance, as do the big guys. It's been working just fine for centuries in the traditionally democratic countries.
The more I look into it, the more paranoid I become. I'm starting to see Frace and Germany behind a lot of "reforms".
Anyway.
Possibly one reason its not done following the Bi-carmal (sp?) system is that individual governments and local authorities would almost be redundant. A case of serving in heaven or ruling in hell?
Imagine you're Blair. You have the option of completely devolving power to Europe, and becoming a backwater nobody, or hanging on to your nominal position, and being president of the backwater.
No different than being a governer in a US state. In a federation, the sum of the pieces is what counts. Not understanding this is going to keep the EU limited to being a currency (in some of its countries only) and better trade tarrifs. There appears to be no spirit of compromise, and that's how a real union gets formed.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Dec 15 2003, 05:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 15 2003, 05:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now, can someone explain to me why the Reform of Commission doesn't follow the US Congressional or British Parlimentary model, considering that it covers the same basic problem (how do you give states with different sizes/resources equal and fair rights)? Why not just have a two-house legislature, with each country getting a 2-vote upper house and a population-distributed vote lower house? Then the little guys get a check and balance, as do the big guys. It's been working just fine for centuries in the traditionally democratic countries. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Don't ask me about that! I am not very familiar with that system. Please elaborate a bit on that monse - url me if you like <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Dec 15 2003, 06:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 15 2003, 06:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There appears to be no spirit of compromise, and that's how a real union gets formed. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Spot on! There is no wish for consensus and that kills the union dead with a point blank shot. You gotta have a will to cooperation, to extend your hand and meet some terms that all can agree to. Either that, lack of compromises, or unacceptable offers.
There are two legislative bodies (Houses), once called the Senate and one called the Representatives. The Senate always has two members per state, and thusly two votes. The Representatives have a number of votes based on population; so New York gets 29 votes, and Iowa gets 5, based on state population. Each house has the ability to design and propose laws. When they pass a vote on a bill in one house, they get sent to another house for a second vote. If they pass in both places, they get sent to the President who can agree or veto the bill. If he vetos it, another vote in both houses (with a stronger majority than simple 50-50) can override that veto and make a bill a law. In all cases, a Supreme Court sits above them and decides if the new law is allowed by that Constitution. Since each house gets a chance to vote before something becomes law, smaller weaker states get a chance to oppose or revise things via the Senate, but the larger richer states also get some control via the Representatives. All sort of a massive circuit, with magnesium breakers. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
That's the basics of it, there's much much more. It's covered in its entirety in the first Article of the Constitution (the founders thought that the legislature was so important that it should be addressed first in the document). Have a gander here: <a href='http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html' target='_blank'>http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...n.overview.html</a>
Well it seems to put pragmatically into play what we all know: the big ones always has the last say if push comes to shove.
So, in effect, what is your highly opinionated opinion of this system? Does it actually work? Is it possible for the small fries like Iowa to get a say in matters, or is it just a puppet play with the real strings being pulled by the big ones, as usual?
There is also one other, big difference. Except for Britain, Europe does not have two party systems. Instead there is the plural parties one chamber system - and I ask is this not a simpler solution in the end?
The big one does not always have last say in practice though (and if you don't believe me, well, 225 years of US government with only one interruption in service in 1861 is a decent track record). The smaller nations tend to band together and combine their Representative votes if they feel that their interests are endangered, and then divide and conquer the larger states. When everyone has a common interest and an effort is made to satisfy the majority of states large and small, there's no need to worry anyway as they are all happy. More compromise <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->. The two party issue is often raised by europeans as an example of why it wouldn't work, but this system is mirrored in the state legislatures as well, and they often times have pretty strong 3rd, 4th, etc parties as well. More compromise.
See my word trend? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> As long as Germany, France, and their pseudo-toadies act like bullies and refuse to compromise, you will be deadlocked and nothing will ever happen. By the time the EU finally gets its act together it will be too late, and you will not only be second fiddle the the US, but also China, and perhaps the Pacific Rim conglomerate countries (Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore). 4th-class seating puts you above only Africa and South America on the totem poll economically and politically at that point.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Dec 15 2003, 10:47 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 15 2003, 10:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now, can someone explain to me why the Reform of Commission doesn't follow the US Congressional or British Parlimentary model <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Because the British parliament is a national disgrace. It consists of mainly men who:
jeer and shout when people are speaking; are rude and combative in an attempt to score cheap points over each other; wave bits of paper at each other in a manner which is presumably considered threatening; only appear to turn up when the cameras are there.
<!--QuoteBegin--_Creep_+Dec 16 2003, 04:20 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (_Creep_ @ Dec 16 2003, 04:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Because the British parliament is a national disgrace. It consists of mainly men who:
jeer and shout when people are speaking; are rude and combative in an attempt to score cheap points over each other; wave bits of paper at each other in a manner which is presumably considered threatening; only appear to turn up when the cameras are there. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sounds rather like every politician of every single legislature I have ever seen, ever. Certainly not a limey exclusive... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Dec 16 2003, 06:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 16 2003, 06:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--_Creep_+Dec 16 2003, 04:20 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (_Creep_ @ Dec 16 2003, 04:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Because the British parliament is a national disgrace. It consists of mainly men who:
jeer and shout when people are speaking; are rude and combative in an attempt to score cheap points over each other; wave bits of paper at each other in a manner which is presumably considered threatening; only appear to turn up when the cameras are there. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sounds rather like every politician of every single legislature I have ever seen, ever. Certainly not a limey exclusive... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Hence one could ask WHY the hell they are leading us? Is it so that power corrupts or corrupted people try to get in power? Or are all the people lazy bums in their hearts? Yeah, we're all lazy bums.
Philosophy of Dread, Vol I.
Question: if German has the most population, strongest economy, they pay most and seem to be supporting the idea of EU most, why shouldn't they be allowed to have lots of decision power too? Same with other countries, the more you get involved -> more you get to decide. Germany and whole EU is going to pay tons of cash to pull Poland up from the agricultural swamp they are in, so Germany/France want some benefits back. What's wrong with that? Also someone might want to explain me just how much the constitution is supposed to screw other countries(Poland etc) and favour Germany/France/UK/whatever? I haven't read it and knowing how bureacratic EU is, I don't probably even want to <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Dec 16 2003, 04:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Dec 16 2003, 04:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Question: if German has the most population, strongest economy, they pay most and seem to be supporting the idea of EU most, why shouldn't they be allowed to have lots of decision power too? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> My problem isn't so much with the bigger countries having more power, it's about the smaller countries having none at all.
Because creating second-class states in a Union will ultimately lead to its destruction. The larger states put in more money, more population, etc. They also have to put in more moral fiber and reach bigger compromises. Go back and look at the discontent and outright warfare caused in Scotland and Ireland for centuries when the English let their 'United Kingdom' sub-countries be second class in parliament. Just like the original wealthy American colonies like Virginia and Massachusetts had to give up power to tiny colonies like Rhode Island and Delaware, so do the EU powerhouses. Otherwise, stop wasting time now on all this stuff, it's doomed from the start.
And read the link Immac previously provided for a Reader's Digest version of the constitution. The biggest issue that most countries have a problem with is that they will not have a vote in the EU legislature. None. Zero. Only the founders do. That makes them puppet states at best, and only 10 out of 25 countries make all the decisions for the rest.
And let's not kid ourselves that Germany and the rest are doing this for egalitarian reasons: they expect to get paid back with expanded markets and more affluent customers that can afford their goods. There's very little nobility here except in name; you're not throwing off the yoke of British oppression or having boston tea parties or anything, that's clear from what I've read. It's all about the BenjaEuros... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Is the EU attempting to form a single state, IE, "The United States of Europe", or simply and expanded political and diplomatic unit? If they're going for the USE, they might as well just us the American constitution's ideas.
There's no consensus on what EU is supposed to be. Some just want the trade, others want the complete Premium Package with 300 free minutes of paid for call time each month.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Question: if German has the most population, strongest economy, they pay most and seem to be supporting the idea of EU most, why shouldn't they be allowed to have lots of decision power too?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By that logic, shouldn't America simply be able to do whatever it wants? We outpopulate any European nation, have the largest economy in the world, and provide the most support for things. Why shouldn't America have lots of decision power too?
Of course, it completely ignores the issue of the smaller nations developing a great deal of contempt and shattering the alliance. The sort of thing that happened between France and America could just as easily happen between Germany and Poland. While it probably won't lead to outright warfare, it does lead to a bunch of bad jokes about the French.
The U.S. congressional model might be a good choice for a Federal Europe. A set amount of votes for each member state in one house and a certain amount of votes based on population in the other house with a presidential veto power. Of course, that would depend on Europeans adopting an American system, so I'm not sure if the EU wants to go with a "We're not America" stance.
<!--QuoteBegin--The Finch+Dec 16 2003, 06:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch @ Dec 16 2003, 06:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> While it probably won't lead to outright warfare, it does lead to a bunch of bad jokes about the French. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Bah, and I thought all those french jokes were pretty good...
<i>A man askes his companion, "What's the most common French expression"? His friend scratches his head, shrugs his shoulders and replies, "I give up!"</i>
gg France, nextmap <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
This debate strikes me much like the debate over the electoral college in America. If only the popular vote mattered, cities would control the country, ignoring the needs of everyone else in the nation. Imagine this, except replace cities with powerful countries, and you have the predicament of the EU.
Hearing more of this argument, I think, much to the European elite's chagrin, the American model works best.
Well, the strongest and most populous states are still going to have a lot of influence under a US system. Take California; it's worth a heap of votes thanks to it's massive population, same as New South Wales in Australia. Any party is going to focus on grabbing the states worth the most first. Having 2 senators from each country/state though does help balance this out. Germany and France would thus still hold a lot of power in a US-form EU, as their populations would give them large voting power in a House of Reps style section of the government. The question must be though are the larger nations of the EU willing to make any compromise?
<!--QuoteBegin--The Finch+Dec 17 2003, 12:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch @ Dec 17 2003, 12:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Question: if German has the most population, strongest economy, they pay most and seem to be supporting the idea of EU most, why shouldn't they be allowed to have lots of decision power too?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By that logic, shouldn't America simply be able to do whatever it wants? We outpopulate any European nation, have the largest economy in the world, and provide the most support for things. Why shouldn't America have lots of decision power too? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Decision power where? In NATO? You control it. In UN? It's useless now that you 'left'.
Besides, you are comparing USA a little too conveniently for you. Russia is bigger than USA, China has more population, Finland is technologically more advanced(tech/pop) <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Dec 17 2003, 09:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Dec 17 2003, 09:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Besides, you are comparing USA a little too conveniently for you. Russia is bigger than USA, China has more population, Finland is technologically more advanced(tech/pop) <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ehhh, huh? You sorta ducked the question Dread - whatsamata, no convenient answer? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Russia is bigger what, geographically? What does that matter to the subject? China has more people. Again, how is that relevant? Finland is more technologically advanced - uh, not even close. Finland has a couple of nice factories that make Nokia and Ericson parts. Being technologically advanced means research and development, invention, innovation, and the rest. Finalnd is not really any of those things on any scale - you're the Japan of the 1980's for europe: a great manufacturer of other people's ideas. In another 20 years this might change though, if you don't let the Germans conquer you economically (Dresden has more high-tech fabrication and R&D than your whole country, for example).
I'm still pretty hazy on your whole reply or its relevance. Explain to my teeny brain!!!
And Ryo, you are right to an extent, but also wrong. State population matters a great deal at <i>election time</i>. Don't confuse 3 months out of 4 years with great power. It's very specific to presidents basically, and that's about it. Where you are very right is in how this would influence an EU presidential race (in our proposed United States of EU <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ). After all, US states are not particularly analogous to European countries, except in size and economics. Culturally and socially and legally, US states are far more homogenous than EU countries. I can see Germany or France dominating politics if you followed a strict population rule for Presidential elections, and I have no good solution to that. I don't feel bad though, as I don't think the EU does either <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> .
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Dec 17 2003, 05:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 17 2003, 05:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Dec 17 2003, 09:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Dec 17 2003, 09:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Besides, you are comparing USA a little too conveniently for you. Russia is bigger than USA, China has more population, Finland is technologically more advanced(tech/pop) <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ehhh, huh? You sorta ducked the question Dread - whatsamata, no convenient answer? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Question was: shouldn't USA have more decision power(in a some sort of union?) Answer: yeah, it should and it has in all alliances it is part of(UN, Nato, else?)
I thought China having more pop is important because Finch thought it's important too: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> We outpopulate any European nation<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I knew someone wouldn't let my finland notion pass, which I based on Human Development Report 2001 made by United Nations: Finland was at least at that time technologically most advanced nation in the world. I guess UN has different definition than you <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> They calculated it with amount of internet connections, cell-phones, export of hi-tech, amount of technology-sector students etc.
To highlight my reply to your teeny brainz0rs: 1) USA should have and HAS more decision power in Nato and UN. We agree? 2) USA isn't all that great <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
As someone working in the technology field, I disagree with their criteria, especially since it's per-capita based. I've worked in city blocks of Chicago that have more overall technology than your teeny country. That's neither here nor there though. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I guess I was hoping you were talking to me, but it turns out your were replying to this other posts. Hence my old man confusion. However, you're pretty confused yourself, as the points you're replying to from the other fellows were pure hyperbole. You have ignored the real question, which was how do you expect the EU to function with such ridiculous unfair ideas about how the constitution whould be written. Could it be because Finland is one of the 10 nations with a vote, so for you 'the victors get the spoils'?
And to answer your points: 1) USA should have and HAS more decision power in Nato and UN. We agree? - Nope, not anymore. 2) USA isn't all that great - Finland ain't that great. In fact, the county (not country, county) I grew up in is the home of Motorola, inventor of the cell phone that gives your country life and makes more of them in one county of northern Illinois than your whole country does. So neener, johnny-come-latelys. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And Ryo, you are right to an extent, but also wrong. State population matters a great deal at election time. Don't confuse 3 months out of 4 years with great power. It's very specific to presidents basically, and that's about it. Where you are very right is in how this would influence an EU presidential race (in our proposed United States of EU ). After all, US states are not particularly analogous to European countries, except in size and economics. Culturally and socially and legally, US states are far more homogenous than EU countries. I can see Germany or France dominating politics if you followed a strict population rule for Presidential elections, and I have no good solution to that. I don't feel bad though, as I don't think the EU does either .
I was drawing on the Australia example as well, in our case New South Wales. It's the state with the largest population and almost certainly the most industry and economic strength. Thus a lot of government policy revolves around gaining control of NSW, and keeping the voters there happy. It may be because our system works a little differantly; we have local, state, and federal governments. Local governments are elected every few years and govern small regions, very similar to counties I believe they're called in the US. State governments operate seperatly but not exclusively from Federal governments; each one manages a state (we've got 6), and utilise some Federal funding for state projects, however they also have their own tax income from taxes that are applied only in one state, such as petrol taxes. Federal government oversees the whole lot, but just because one party controls the Federal level doesn't mean that power translates correctly to the state level.
Take the current situation: the lower house, or House of Reps, is controlled by the Liberal party (who, ironically, are right wing <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ). The Senate is divided between the Liberals, Labor (the left wing party and other main politcal force in Australia) and a bunch of smaller independants or third parties. Every state government though is Labor controlled, and this has lead to a balance of sorts, because the Liberals have to make sure that what they try and get through Parliment will be acceptable by the states. The Federal government only has control over some sections of funding; a lot of it comes from the states and they make their own rules as to what they do with their funds. To give an example of how important state governments are, Labor recently had a crisis of leadership. The current holder, Simon Crean, was woefully unpopular. The state governor of New South Wales however was very popular, and had been head of the state for some 12 years. A push was made to make him leader, but it was quickly decided that Labor preferred to hold onto New South Wales rather than take a gamble for the Federal parliment.
In this way, states gain considerable power that extends beyond just Federal election times. Perhaps something similar could be applied to the EU situation: give each state considerable power within their own borders and freedom to apply funding how they see fit.
Of course, it would be virtually inevitable that the EU probably would be dominated to some degree by France, Germany and Britian, not so much for population as economic reasons. These three nations represent a huge chunk of the industrial and economic power in Europe, and as such it's only natural that in an alliance they would control quite a bit of power, as they would be providing a large slice of the funding. Given that these three nations will gain considerable weight in the EU, one of the goals of sorting out an EU contitution should be finding ways for the other, smaller nations to balance the power of the others.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Dec 17 2003, 06:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 17 2003, 06:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 2) USA isn't all that great - Finland ain't that great. In fact, the county (not country, county) I grew up in is the home of Motorola, inventor of the cell phone that gives your country life... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Gives life? Wth are you talking about? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I guess I was hoping you were talking to me, but it turns out your were replying to this other posts. Hence my old man confusion. However, you're pretty confused yourself, as the points you're replying to from the other fellows were pure hyperbole. You have ignored the real question, which was how do you expect the EU to function with such ridiculous unfair ideas about how the constitution whould be written. Could it be because Finland is one of the 10 nations with a vote, so for you 'the victors get the spoils'?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You egosentric Monsieur ?bel you. Always assuming everyones talking to you o_O Anyway, I don't expect EU to function with ridiculous unfair ideas how the constitutin whould be written. I just said they will figure out a way eventually. I don't even know what it says in the constitution, maybe I should skip it through so I would know why everyones so flared up? I haven't said at any point that other countries should be bashed and others should get a profit out of it. I've only been making questions. You could always spare me the trouble and highlight the juicy parts of the constitution <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> All this thinking and typing makes me drowsy.
Hell, I just figured out a phunny nick for you: M?bel! XD
I'm totally going to use that for the rest of my existance. Or until you ban me, whatever comes first.
Comments
For the UK, the EC began as the EC, a nice common trade policy bloc, run for the economic benefit of its members. Leaving aside the sovereignty issues, and the GATT, it was a useful tool for levelling the playingfield, and establishing some good standards for products.
Beyond that, the idea of a politically and economically integrated Europe is fine, as far as it goes. If any citizen had an equal say in the running of the running of the whole, there wouldn't be a problem. As soon as you start dividing citizens into unequal separate blocks, with different rights, based on the size etc of each block, you're going to have problems.
Its not a difficult concept to understand, and I'm sorry if this is coming across as a granny egg-sucking exercise, but it seems almost laughable that the the Franco-German maschine could expect the other nations of tht EU to swallow a constitution based on the principle that: We're equal, but since we're bigger, we get to say what equal means.....
"Germany, which pays 25% of the EU's costs, is already threatening to reduce funds to Spain and, especially, to Poland, which needs billions of euros to modernise its infrastructure and agriculture."
Its nice that Germany is funding the happy integration of member states. Not so nice that they'll take their ball away if we don't aquiesce.....
I think.
Anyway.
Possibly one reason its not done following the Bi-carmal (sp?) system is that individual governments and local authorities would almost be redundant. A case of serving in heaven or ruling in hell?
Imagine you're Blair. You have the option of completely devolving power to Europe, and becoming a backwater nobody, or hanging on to your nominal position, and being president of the backwater.
Don't ask me about that! I am not very familiar with that system. Please elaborate a bit on that monse - url me if you like <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Spot on! There is no wish for consensus and that kills the union dead with a point blank shot. You gotta have a will to cooperation, to extend your hand and meet some terms that all can agree to. Either that, lack of compromises, or unacceptable offers.
There are two legislative bodies (Houses), once called the Senate and one called the Representatives. The Senate always has two members per state, and thusly two votes. The Representatives have a number of votes based on population; so New York gets 29 votes, and Iowa gets 5, based on state population. Each house has the ability to design and propose laws. When they pass a vote on a bill in one house, they get sent to another house for a second vote. If they pass in both places, they get sent to the President who can agree or veto the bill. If he vetos it, another vote in both houses (with a stronger majority than simple 50-50) can override that veto and make a bill a law. In all cases, a Supreme Court sits above them and decides if the new law is allowed by that Constitution. Since each house gets a chance to vote before something becomes law, smaller weaker states get a chance to oppose or revise things via the Senate, but the larger richer states also get some control via the Representatives. All sort of a massive circuit, with magnesium breakers. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
That's the basics of it, there's much much more. It's covered in its entirety in the first Article of the Constitution (the founders thought that the legislature was so important that it should be addressed first in the document). Have a gander here: <a href='http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html' target='_blank'>http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...n.overview.html</a>
Well it seems to put pragmatically into play what we all know: the big ones always has the last say if push comes to shove.
So, in effect, what is your highly opinionated opinion of this system? Does it actually work? Is it possible for the small fries like Iowa to get a say in matters, or is it just a puppet play with the real strings being pulled by the big ones, as usual?
There is also one other, big difference. Except for Britain, Europe does not have two party systems. Instead there is the plural parties one chamber system - and I ask is this not a simpler solution in the end?
See my word trend? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> As long as Germany, France, and their pseudo-toadies act like bullies and refuse to compromise, you will be deadlocked and nothing will ever happen. By the time the EU finally gets its act together it will be too late, and you will not only be second fiddle the the US, but also China, and perhaps the Pacific Rim conglomerate countries (Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore). 4th-class seating puts you above only Africa and South America on the totem poll economically and politically at that point.
Hang together or hang separately.
Because the British parliament is a national disgrace. It consists of mainly men who:
jeer and shout when people are speaking;
are rude and combative in an attempt to score cheap points over each other;
wave bits of paper at each other in a manner which is presumably considered threatening;
only appear to turn up when the cameras are there.
jeer and shout when people are speaking;
are rude and combative in an attempt to score cheap points over each other;
wave bits of paper at each other in a manner which is presumably considered threatening;
only appear to turn up when the cameras are there. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds rather like every politician of every single legislature I have ever seen, ever. Certainly not a limey exclusive... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
jeer and shout when people are speaking;
are rude and combative in an attempt to score cheap points over each other;
wave bits of paper at each other in a manner which is presumably considered threatening;
only appear to turn up when the cameras are there. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds rather like every politician of every single legislature I have ever seen, ever. Certainly not a limey exclusive... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hence one could ask WHY the hell they are leading us? Is it so that power corrupts or corrupted people try to get in power? Or are all the people lazy bums in their hearts? Yeah, we're all lazy bums.
Philosophy of Dread, Vol I.
Question: if German has the most population, strongest economy, they pay most and seem to be supporting the idea of EU most, why shouldn't they be allowed to have lots of decision power too? Same with other countries, the more you get involved -> more you get to decide. Germany and whole EU is going to pay tons of cash to pull Poland up from the agricultural swamp they are in, so Germany/France want some benefits back. What's wrong with that? Also someone might want to explain me just how much the constitution is supposed to screw other countries(Poland etc) and favour Germany/France/UK/whatever? I haven't read it and knowing how bureacratic EU is, I don't probably even want to <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
My problem isn't so much with the bigger countries having more power, it's about the smaller countries having none at all.
Because creating second-class states in a Union will ultimately lead to its destruction. The larger states put in more money, more population, etc. They also have to put in more moral fiber and reach bigger compromises. Go back and look at the discontent and outright warfare caused in Scotland and Ireland for centuries when the English let their 'United Kingdom' sub-countries be second class in parliament. Just like the original wealthy American colonies like Virginia and Massachusetts had to give up power to tiny colonies like Rhode Island and Delaware, so do the EU powerhouses. Otherwise, stop wasting time now on all this stuff, it's doomed from the start.
And read the link Immac previously provided for a Reader's Digest version of the constitution. The biggest issue that most countries have a problem with is that they will not have a vote in the EU legislature. None. Zero. Only the founders do. That makes them puppet states at best, and only 10 out of 25 countries make all the decisions for the rest.
And let's not kid ourselves that Germany and the rest are doing this for egalitarian reasons: they expect to get paid back with expanded markets and more affluent customers that can afford their goods. There's very little nobility here except in name; you're not throwing off the yoke of British oppression or having boston tea parties or anything, that's clear from what I've read. It's all about the BenjaEuros... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
By that logic, shouldn't America simply be able to do whatever it wants? We outpopulate any European nation, have the largest economy in the world, and provide the most support for things. Why shouldn't America have lots of decision power too?
Of course, it completely ignores the issue of the smaller nations developing a great deal of contempt and shattering the alliance. The sort of thing that happened between France and America could just as easily happen between Germany and Poland. While it probably won't lead to outright warfare, it does lead to a bunch of bad jokes about the French.
The U.S. congressional model might be a good choice for a Federal Europe. A set amount of votes for each member state in one house and a certain amount of votes based on population in the other house with a presidential veto power. Of course, that would depend on Europeans adopting an American system, so I'm not sure if the EU wants to go with a "We're not America" stance.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bah, and I thought all those french jokes were pretty good...
<i>A man askes his companion, "What's the most common French expression"? His friend scratches his head, shrugs his shoulders and replies, "I give up!"</i>
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Conquered by Nazi count
France: 1
America: 0
gg France, nextmap <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
This debate strikes me much like the debate over the electoral college in America. If only the popular vote mattered, cities would control the country, ignoring the needs of everyone else in the nation. Imagine this, except replace cities with powerful countries, and you have the predicament of the EU.
Hearing more of this argument, I think, much to the European elite's chagrin, the American model works best.
Not that I'm in favour of a federalised state anyway.....
By that logic, shouldn't America simply be able to do whatever it wants? We outpopulate any European nation, have the largest economy in the world, and provide the most support for things. Why shouldn't America have lots of decision power too? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Decision power where? In NATO? You control it. In UN? It's useless now that you 'left'.
Besides, you are comparing USA a little too conveniently for you. Russia is bigger than USA, China has more population, Finland is technologically more advanced(tech/pop) <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Ehhh, huh? You sorta ducked the question Dread - whatsamata, no convenient answer? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Russia is bigger what, geographically? What does that matter to the subject? China has more people. Again, how is that relevant? Finland is more technologically advanced - uh, not even close. Finland has a couple of nice factories that make Nokia and Ericson parts. Being technologically advanced means research and development, invention, innovation, and the rest. Finalnd is not really any of those things on any scale - you're the Japan of the 1980's for europe: a great manufacturer of other people's ideas. In another 20 years this might change though, if you don't let the Germans conquer you economically (Dresden has more high-tech fabrication and R&D than your whole country, for example).
I'm still pretty hazy on your whole reply or its relevance. Explain to my teeny brain!!!
And Ryo, you are right to an extent, but also wrong. State population matters a great deal at <i>election time</i>. Don't confuse 3 months out of 4 years with great power. It's very specific to presidents basically, and that's about it. Where you are very right is in how this would influence an EU presidential race (in our proposed United States of EU <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ). After all, US states are not particularly analogous to European countries, except in size and economics. Culturally and socially and legally, US states are far more homogenous than EU countries. I can see Germany or France dominating politics if you followed a strict population rule for Presidential elections, and I have no good solution to that. I don't feel bad though, as I don't think the EU does either <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> .
Ehhh, huh? You sorta ducked the question Dread - whatsamata, no convenient answer? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Question was: shouldn't USA have more decision power(in a some sort of union?)
Answer: yeah, it should and it has in all alliances it is part of(UN, Nato, else?)
I thought China having more pop is important because Finch thought it's important too:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> We outpopulate any European nation<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I knew someone wouldn't let my finland notion pass, which I based on Human Development Report 2001 made by United Nations: Finland was at least at that time technologically most advanced nation in the world. I guess UN has different definition than you <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> They calculated it with amount of internet connections, cell-phones, export of hi-tech, amount of technology-sector students etc.
To highlight my reply to your teeny brainz0rs:
1) USA should have and HAS more decision power in Nato and UN. We agree?
2) USA isn't all that great <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I guess I was hoping you were talking to me, but it turns out your were replying to this other posts. Hence my old man confusion. However, you're pretty confused yourself, as the points you're replying to from the other fellows were pure hyperbole. You have ignored the real question, which was how do you expect the EU to function with such ridiculous unfair ideas about how the constitution whould be written. Could it be because Finland is one of the 10 nations with a vote, so for you 'the victors get the spoils'?
And to answer your points:
1) USA should have and HAS more decision power in Nato and UN. We agree? - Nope, not anymore.
2) USA isn't all that great - Finland ain't that great. In fact, the county (not country, county) I grew up in is the home of Motorola, inventor of the cell phone that gives your country life and makes more of them in one county of northern Illinois than your whole country does. So neener, johnny-come-latelys. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was drawing on the Australia example as well, in our case New South Wales. It's the state with the largest population and almost certainly the most industry and economic strength. Thus a lot of government policy revolves around gaining control of NSW, and keeping the voters there happy. It may be because our system works a little differantly; we have local, state, and federal governments. Local governments are elected every few years and govern small regions, very similar to counties I believe they're called in the US. State governments operate seperatly but not exclusively from Federal governments; each one manages a state (we've got 6), and utilise some Federal funding for state projects, however they also have their own tax income from taxes that are applied only in one state, such as petrol taxes. Federal government oversees the whole lot, but just because one party controls the Federal level doesn't mean that power translates correctly to the state level.
Take the current situation: the lower house, or House of Reps, is controlled by the Liberal party (who, ironically, are right wing <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ). The Senate is divided between the Liberals, Labor (the left wing party and other main politcal force in Australia) and a bunch of smaller independants or third parties. Every state government though is Labor controlled, and this has lead to a balance of sorts, because the Liberals have to make sure that what they try and get through Parliment will be acceptable by the states. The Federal government only has control over some sections of funding; a lot of it comes from the states and they make their own rules as to what they do with their funds. To give an example of how important state governments are, Labor recently had a crisis of leadership. The current holder, Simon Crean, was woefully unpopular. The state governor of New South Wales however was very popular, and had been head of the state for some 12 years. A push was made to make him leader, but it was quickly decided that Labor preferred to hold onto New South Wales rather than take a gamble for the Federal parliment.
In this way, states gain considerable power that extends beyond just Federal election times. Perhaps something similar could be applied to the EU situation: give each state considerable power within their own borders and freedom to apply funding how they see fit.
Of course, it would be virtually inevitable that the EU probably would be dominated to some degree by France, Germany and Britian, not so much for population as economic reasons. These three nations represent a huge chunk of the industrial and economic power in Europe, and as such it's only natural that in an alliance they would control quite a bit of power, as they would be providing a large slice of the funding. Given that these three nations will gain considerable weight in the EU, one of the goals of sorting out an EU contitution should be finding ways for the other, smaller nations to balance the power of the others.
Gives life? Wth are you talking about? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I guess I was hoping you were talking to me, but it turns out your were replying to this other posts. Hence my old man confusion. However, you're pretty confused yourself, as the points you're replying to from the other fellows were pure hyperbole. You have ignored the real question, which was how do you expect the EU to function with such ridiculous unfair ideas about how the constitution whould be written. Could it be because Finland is one of the 10 nations with a vote, so for you 'the victors get the spoils'?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You egosentric Monsieur ?bel you. Always assuming everyones talking to you o_O
Anyway, I don't expect EU to function with ridiculous unfair ideas how the constitutin whould be written. I just said they will figure out a way eventually. I don't even know what it says in the constitution, maybe I should skip it through so I would know why everyones so flared up? I haven't said at any point that other countries should be bashed and others should get a profit out of it. I've only been making questions.
You could always spare me the trouble and highlight the juicy parts of the constitution <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> All this thinking and typing makes me drowsy.
Hell, I just figured out a phunny nick for you: M?bel! XD
I'm totally going to use that for the rest of my existance. Or until you ban me, whatever comes first.