The European Parliament: now with balls!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid
Just for fun, I checked up the US government website to see how power is distributed among their states. I used California and Wyoming for the comparison as they have the largest and the smallest state populations, respectively.

It turns out that both states (as all other of their states) have two senators in the senate.
In the house of representatives, on the other hand, Wyoming has only one very lonely representative while California has 53! Now that's really horrible imperialistic and arrogant oppression of the small states!

Which is because, despite the differences, we happen to be homogenous enough that most people consider national interests before state interests. Now our problem really is the disparate representation of individuals, because it gives certain classes more power - i.e. farmers.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Which is because, despite the differences, we happen to be homogenous enough that most people consider national interests before state interests.

I thought the very role of your Senators was to protect the interests of their State (also read: obtain as much pork) as possible. That they are supposed to care for their State's interests, while the House cares for the general interest?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Indeed. But our governments act as if they had the endorsment of 100% of the population.

Yes, but you are aware that a referendum probably would NOT result in a federal government of the sort you envision, correct? It barely passed in the United States (specifically New York), which was FAR more homogenous than Europe is now.

Anyway, the point is that your governments have certain powers, which means that in the end the Finnish people or the French people get to decide on how to exercise those powers. If some of those are given up to the EU, they now can have other people decide for them. The reason is simple: Europe is not one country or nation, and until then it is not fitting for it to have one national or even federal government, because that would violate the sovereignty of the people. Until the people of Europe are one nation more than they are separate nations, a federal EU even approaching the power of the US is inappropriate and coercive.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I thought the very role of your Senators was to protect the interests of their State (also read: obtain as much pork) as possible. That they are supposed to care for their State's interests, while the House cares for the general interest?

That's not their role. It happens to be the result often, but that's a fault of the structure of our government, not an actual representation of the American populace. It's artificial.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Yes, but you are aware that a referendum probably would NOT result in a federal government of the sort you envision, correct?

Yes, I know that very well. I know Europe is not homogenous enough to become one country. Heck, we barely have a half of our population that feels European at all (only a fringe feels more European than national)

Anyway, the point is that your governments have certain powers, which means that in the end the Finnish people or the French people get to decide on how to exercise those powers.

Not in diplomacy, especially European displomacy. European diplomacy works quite similarly to what the Realist approach of International Relations says: States strive for their self interests, regardless of the ideology of the ruler.
Some countries that are especially Euro-enthusiastic (like Belgium) may be above it, but all other countries haggle for their self interests, no matter what their governments's beliefs are. Hence a Socialist accepting to privatize our public services.

If some of those are given up to the EU, they now can have other people decide for them. The reason is simple: Europe is not one country or nation, and until then it is not fitting for it to have one national or even federal government, because that would violate the sovereignty of the people. Until the people of Europe are one nation more than they are separate nations, a federal EU even approaching the power of the US is inappropriate and coercive.

1. I don't want a federal EU on the whole of the current EU territory. Several countries are fine with the EU being a trade confederation (Britain), and most recent additions aren't integrated in the EU enough already to join a Federation.
I'm all for a two-tier Europe, in which a part of the EU stays where it is, while the other part is still a member of the EU as we know it, while going onwards with political integration.

2. I don't think even the "politically integrated" Europe should trust as much power to the supranational layer as the US does. However, I think that an actual supranational power, instead of an intergovernmental one, is the only way to have an efficient and a democratic decision-making, in the issues that are already depending on the EU.

The very reason the EU is that bureaucratic is because we associate plenty of institutions in the decision-making, and most decisions must be met by consensus. Besides, by trusting much decisional power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats (whether they be at the Commission or the Council), we make the decision-making processes extremely undemocratic, because the Parliament is the least important part of the "institutional triangle".

To me, the solution is simple and elegant: have the directly-elected MEPs decide policy and nominate the Commission. And since the whole of the EU is not ready for this, begin with the most eager countries.

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Until the people of Europe are one nation more than they are separate nations, a federal EU even approaching the power of the US is inappropriate and coercive.

True. It will probably take at least a few decades to get there, but that doesn't stop some of us from supporting the idea

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BeBro
Well, here the problems begin - the question is what do you mean by "solving" this. Do you mean that in the EU equality means that small countries should have the same benefits as big countries, but when it comes to duties big countries should pay much more than small members?

BTW, that is actually pretty much the current situation. Countries like Ireland or Portugal gained from the EU much more than they gave. And heck, I don't have even a problem with that. I'm just fed up with the endless "oh evil Germany and France rule the EU and exploit poor, defenseless other members" legends.

Bebro, so you think that in international organizations votes should be proportionate to financial support? That could be very interesting at the UN

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I thought the very role of your Senators was to protect the interests of their State (also read: obtain as much pork) as possible. That they are supposed to care for their State's interests, while the House cares for the general interest?

in origin they had multiple roles - to defend particularly the interests of small states, but also, because they are fewer in number, elected for longer terms, and orginally indirectly elected, to act as a constraint on the more democratic house, to act as a quasi aristocratic body, slowing down democratic impulses to radical action. It was certainly NOT envision that the House would represent a general interest, but that it would represent the interests of the more democratic classes, and of localities, (as well as the larger, more heavily represented states). Its not clear that the founding fathers really believed ANY body could represent a general interest - certainly the authors of The Federalist Papers didnt. Humanity is too corrupt for that. Rather the general interest is defended in the clash of competing interests, each of which stops the extremes of the others. Of course this is based on ideology that sees the general interest more threatened by government action, especially central govt action, than by inaction. I suggest you read Federalist Paper Number 10, by James Madison, if youre interested in these issues. Its certainly one of the classics of American political thought.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Bebro, so you think that in international organizations votes should be proportionate to financial support? That could be very interesting at the UN

Nope I don't think that. As said, I don't have a prob with Germany paying more into the EU than other members. It would be nonsense to claim ca. 20-25% of all votes for Germany in the EU. It just surprises me that Pekka was (IMO) overly aggressive about what he called inequality, while not seeing that the differences in financing the union are a form of inequality as well (according to what he posted).

[Pekka]

"while not seeing that the differences in financing the union are a form of inequality as well (according to what he posted)."

Yes. Pay full membership fees please. you have agreed on it, so pay it.

[BeBMan]

Where do you read that Germany doesn't pay its membership fees fully? All I know that we resist a higher EU budget (not for the first and probably not for the last time), because it would require that we - as all net payers - pay more. But this is a matter of negotiations.

[Pekka]

Well you got me there, I'm not sure if Germany was the one paying full amount or not. But various of countries gets discounts, that means the ones who already pay full membership has to pay even more than they originally agreed upon.

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by Spiffor

To me, the solution is simple and elegant: have the directly-elected MEPs decide policy and nominate the Commission. And since the whole of the EU is not ready for this, begin with the most eager countries.

Two-speed Europe. Maybe it's the best solution but I doubt it's going to happen.

When it was brought up nearly a year ago (by Chirac?) it seemed more like a threat to bring Poland in line wrt to the voting weights issue.

[Gangerolf]

Pekka, IIRC the UK gets a "discount" because they have a relatively small agricultaral sector compared to their relatively large economy or something like that. Thanks to Maggie Thatcher.

edit: Britain originally got the deal because it paid more into the EU budget than it got back, principally because it received less than other countries from the CAP.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
When it was brought up nearly a year ago (by Chirac?) it seemed more like a threat to bring Poland in line wrt to the voting weights issue.

The idea seems to be progressing.

Tomorrow, the Chiefs of State will sign the European Constitution. They are highly worried that such a constitution will not pass: should a small country (like Estonia) vote against the constitution, they feel they can accomodate said country. Should a big country like Britain vote against it, they expect a whole new round of negociations. Should France vote against it, they expect the constitution will be completely shot down

I can't wait for the day where both Britain and France reject the constitution, for completely opposite reasons. This would prove that all countries don't share the same conceptions of Europe. And this will turn the idea of a two-tier Europe from "existing" to "mainstream".

Already, it is possible for a group of countries to integrate at a faster pace than the whole. It was a concession western Europe demanded from Central Europe in earnest (this concession was actually a condition for the entry of Central Europe). This possibility will be used often, once the failure of the Constitution will let our disagreements appear