Taram!!! The new Europe.

[Spiffor]

Besides, it seems Gangerolf and others think I'm playing the "arrogant French", who only wants more power for France-Germany, and who patronizes those who refuse our enlightened rule.

I'm not. Actually, I loathe Chirac's current policies because it doesn't draw the right lines of division in Europe. I think the attempt to resurrect the "French-German motor" of the past is a great mistake, because the time where countries accepted whatever French-German initiative is over.

What we need is not to force countries to follow us. What we need is an efficient system where the public of all countries is highly associated in the decision making.

In a sense, the European Convention just did that. There were tons of National MPs, European MPs, Scholars, national civil servants defending the interest of their country, European civil servants defending the EU interest.
The result of the European Convention is far from being great. Very few significant things were new, besides that all of our treaties were brought together in a harmonised text.

The result wasn't thrilling. But it was acceptable to most. If the European constitution had been put to referendum across Europe, the YES would have probably won easily except in Denmark and the UK.
But the constitution was ruined. It all was ruined because individual governments felt they had the ultimate power to tweak the Text, despite being already largely associated in its 18-months old elaboration
As long as individual States (I mean governments, not populations) will be the ones which ultimately decide everything, all initiatives are doomed to be dumbed doyn, or to failure.

I read here much about the Franco-German tyranny. It is an utter misconception. There is a Franco-German arrogance and haughtiness, but there is no tyranny.
In the current system, France + Germany weigh exactly as much as UK + Italy. For that matter, they also weigh exactly as much as Spain + Poland.
The difference is that France and Germany see eye-to-eye for the time being, and their initiatives have the support of quite a few smaller countries. This leads France and Germany to arrogantly take initiatives.

But France and Germany can only afford to be arrogant because there is no organised "alliance" against them. Britain and Italy fought over the Italy-wished expansion of EU's foreign policy powers. Spain is completely at odds with Poland when it comes to the "structural funds", i.e. the EU infratructure funds, which are going to be drained from Spain/Portugal/Greece, to go to Poland/CZ/Baltics.

If there was a coherent alliance competing against France and Germany, people would whine about the "London-Rome axis" or the "Spanish-Polish despots". Or more simply, they'd whine about how inefficient and stuck our system is.

This is why I'm fundamentally against expanding the poyers of individual States. This is why I'm against further expanding the powers of France and Germany for that matter.

Gangerolf:
I called the countries attached to their national sovereignity "nationalist dinosaurs" because I think they are fundamentally missing the tide of history.
My calling them that has nothing to do with the fact they don't associate with France and Germany's projects. As a matter of fact, I enjoy it when the French-German superiority is challenged, because I think the system is doomed if it continues to work by caring more about national interests (my nation's included) rather than about European interests. Everytime the French-German superiority is challenged, it is a blow to the idea that individual countries can highjack the European construction.

[Tripledoc]

Spiffor why is it so important that the EU is a democracy? Are you really convinced that such a system is the best kind of government for Europe. Personally I find the idea of having to follow orders without any responsibility tied to me rather attractive.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Spiffor why is it so important that the EU is a democracy? Are you really convinced that such a system is the best kind of government for Europe. Personally I find the idea of having to follow orders without any responsibility tied to me rather attractive.

I like democracy, that's why.

But I fundamentally think that a central seat of power for Europe, that cares about the interests of the Union in general (modeled after the US) is what we need.

I merely think that democracy would make this central seat legitimate and good

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I like democracy, that's why.

But I fundamentally think that a central seat of power for Europe, that cares about the interests of the Union in general (modeled after the US) is what we need.

I merely think that democracy would make this central seat legitimate and good

I don't understand how anyone can 'like' democracy.
I'd rather have a government which is effective and capable of reaching long term goals. I can just imagine what a circus it would be in Europe with a system based on the American one. The senators there don't care for the Union, they care for the state they in fact serve. Hence the socalled porkbarreling. Also imagine how erratic policies would be with an elected President. One would go from one extreme to another. Think of the major change the United States has undergone from being run by a Democrat to a Republican. All the goodwill shown to Clinton, has been squandered by Bush. Imagine that the EU would one year be friendly towards Russia, and hostile towards America. And the next year vice versa.

Also if Europe had indeed been a democracy, the political fallout over the Iraq affair would have been much worse. No European countries would have joined the war.

[Spiffor]

I think we should continue this discussion in This recent thread instead of threadjacking this one.

[Gangerolf]

Spiffor, great posts Where did you learn all this?


My main beef with the "nationalist dinosaurs"-comment is that I don't think the governments of UK and Denmark are sceptical to "core Europe" and such ideas because they're particarly nationalist. They just don't find it compatible with their own interests.
Just like the French and Germans aren't for it out of the kindness of their hearts but because it serves their own interests. But hey maybe I'm just being cynical

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
My main beef with the "nationalist dinosaurs"-comment is that I don't think the governments of UK and Denmark are sceptical to "core Europe" and such ideas because they're particarly nationalist. They just don't find it compatible with their own interests.

And what are the interests of Denmark and the UK? And who define those interests?

[Pekka]

It's all BS.

[Gangerolf]

Their governments. And no they're of course not always right, if that's what you're implying

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
Spiffor, great posts Where did you learn all this?

I had a course I took keen interest in about the workings of the EU at uni. Besides, I interned at the European Parliament, and I could see how it worked as an insider. Obviously, some people know more about this than me (Roland-HershOstropoler is infinitely more knowledgeable than me on these matters). But my courses have given me a knowledge of the EU's workings too few people have.

My main beef with the "nationalist dinosaurs"-comment is that I don't think the governments of UK and Denmark are sceptical to "core Europe" and such ideas because they're particarly nationalist. They just don't find it compatible with their own interests.

Maybe not the governments. But ever since I discuss with Brits on 'Poly, I see most consider that the EU should be only economical, and that no sovereignty on political matters should be given up.
The public opinion of Denmark and UK seem to be consistently more defiant toward the EU integration than most other countries. I think we should "agree to disagree" (thx Sir Ralph for the expression) with them, i.e. let them be in an economic federation as they seem to want, and let us move on in a political federation.

[Myrddin]

The major issue much of the public across Europe have about the EU is the lack of public input - in many cases it seems to be the political elite telling everyone what is good for them

I think the example of the European Convention as a positive EU story is not a good one as many of the ideas came from the presiding officer down rather than from the bottom up

[Ecthy]

Deutschland, Deutschland über alles.

Vive la France.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Myrddin

I think the example of the European Convention as a positive EU story is not a good one as many of the ideas came from the presiding officer down rather than from the bottom up

Hard to believe that more than one hundred members coming from all countries and origins were forced to swallow the ideas of one man.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Spiffor
But ever since I discuss with Brits on 'Poly, I see most consider that the EU should be only economical, and that no sovereignty on political matters should be given up.

My problem with the EU, and the biggest problem most Brits have, is that its political system is not accountable, does not allow for differences in national outlook or culture and doesn't offer any advantage over what our domestic politicians impose on us (that's the perception, whether true or not). We understand the economic benefits and want them but don't see any political benefits. Change that impression and many Brits might consider things differently.

[*End Is Forever*]

That's not an impression though; it's the truth. At the heart of the EU there is a simple belief that "integration is good", without any thought for why or the consequences. There is no accountability, there is no thought, there is no reasoning. It must change, or else the EU will go nowhere. Hell, as if that's a bad thing...