Tweet
So that Saudi Arabia can collapse, oil prices sky rocket, and US industry get hit with higher oil prices, right?
-
-
I didn't think, that France would insist on her 'no' for long and in no way thought, they would use their veto. In fact, I even thought, that France might participate in the end, and Germany help in the cleaning up and peacekeeping. But the way the US tries hard to piss off France right now, I wouldn't be surprised, if what you describe would happen.Originally posted by Ned
From reports, France will veto a UN declaration war on Iraq even if the US demonstrates that Iraq is actively defying the inspections regime so that futher inspections (at least as they are now conducted) would be a waste of time.
Why?Comment
-
Unlike old projects which have been initiated by individual countries, this convention is truly a communautary/supranational undertaking.
Spiffor: OK, I guess this is the crux of my questions. Since the EU recently added a second tier and third tier countries, it should become increasingly more difficult for France and Germany to initiate EU policies on their own in any forum.
But why would Germany and France invite this analysis upon themselves? The analysis would show that supranational institutions are the only way to go for the EU. Basically, I'm saying that they should have consulted more widely before deciding to stab the US in the back.
I doubt even the nutjobs in the Bush admin will touch the oil deals Saddam made. They'd cut way too deep into the special interests who own them.
HO: I agree that the deals are probably there to stay, in one form or another. Much like sovereign debt, they would be difficult to kill.
The french might well end up supporting a war, leaving germany as the odd man out.
Yes, Germany's game is a lot more precarious. I wonder how long it will take the Germans to kick Schroeder to the curb.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
In the European institutions, the role of the French-German ticket has been lengthy debated (when I worked in the European parliament, I heard my dear French-German friendship was deemed kitsch by most people there).Originally posted by DanS
Unlike old projects which have been initiated by individual countries, this convention is truly a communautary/supranational undertaking.
Spiffor: OK, I guess this is the crux of my questions. Since the EU recently added a second tier and third tier countries, it should become increasingly more difficult for France and Germany to initiate EU policies on their own in any forum.
France and Germany had to renew their ticket to lose this reputation of backwardness. It is important to notice that the agreement on Iraq is nothing more than a spectacular element of the 40th aniversary of the Elysée Treaty (many other projects have been announced, and most of them will be much more important in the long run than the anti-war barking)
If supranational institutions become more important than states, France and Germany will lose their outstanding role in Europe, and they'll lose many interests, as well as other big countries.
To avoid this, France and Germany must counter the monopoly of the Constitutional Convention on matters regarding the future of Europe (the Convention deals with all matters reguarding the future, not only the constitution ; I call it "Constitutional Convention" for practicality). And who's better than the old motor of Europe to argue against the new one ?
Well, that is only my analysis, but it seems reasonable.
We on Apolyton are discussing this matter now because of the joint anti-war declaration. But the ruling elites of Europe are aware of this for a long time, and the national vs. supranational debate haunts European Institutions for decades. Most countries aren't ready to embrace a supranational Europe yet, especially the ones joining : they consented heavy losses of sovereignity in the recent past already, and they aren't prone to lose even more.But why would Germany and France invite this analysis upon themselves? The analysis would show that supranational institutions are the only way to go for the EU. Basically, I'm saying that they should have consulted more widely before deciding to stab the US in the back.
I agree they should have consulted more before "stabbing you in the back" (well, I don't think the expression is appropriate, since France's and Germany's hostility to war was well-known for quite some time), and it looks like a rushed decision to fit the 40th aniversary. Maybe they thought other European countries would follow the lead happily, to please their population
? I just love it when Chirac is gaffing 
"I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
"I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
"I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- DisComment
-
Dan:
"Since the EU recently added a second tier and third tier countries, it should become increasingly more difficult for France and Germany to initiate EU policies on their own in any forum."
Flexible geometry.
"The analysis would show that supranational institutions are the only way to go for the EU."
Yes, and... ?
"Basically, I'm saying that they should have consulted more widely before deciding to stab the US in the back."
Working on some Dolchstoß-legend already? Anyway, the result of all this will be that europe's politicians have achieved very little, and a couple of them pissed off their electorate. Lessons like those have usually propelled the EU forward. Crisis-leap-crisis-leap.....
"Yes, Germany's game is a lot more precarious."
Well, not really. What's at stake for Germany?“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
Spiffor:
"To avoid this, France and Germany must counter the monopoly of the Constitutional Convention on matters regarding the future of Europe"
Just to clarify for those not so attuned to EU ploitics: The convention is formally only making proposals that need to be ratified. So while it can take the initiative, it is also quite limited on some key issues. The institutional balance is at the core perfectly applicable to a federal system, the fight is essentially over details. Where the struggle is serious is competences - about the structures of CFSDP.
As for the people, I think there is strong support for a common foreign policy in principle. Might change when it gets down to the details. One odd poll in Austria had 70 % in favour of an EU army with our participation, and 70 % wanting to "keep" our neutrality. Ehm...
"I just love it when Chirac is gaffing"
“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
Yes, and... ?
Roland: Then it follows that why should we pay particular attention to France and Germany? They're no more or less than other EU members.
What's at stake for Germany?
The success of this policy relative to other anti-war policies. It seems pretty clear to me that Schroeder took the wrong path. Rather than helping to build a growing chorus against war, his actions have invited some kissing the ass of the US and a backlash for war. He looks isolated and without options.
France might be isolated on the issue, but they still have the option of switching sides, and looking OK doing it (we did our best to avoid war blah). Chirac hasn't set himself up too poorly, although I wonder why they are choosing to devalue their SC seat.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
It is important to notice that the agreement on Iraq is nothing more than a spectacular element of the 40th aniversary of the Elysée Treaty
Yes, I agree. That's why I look to see if there are other elements to this package deal. Did Chirac pledge to vote against any 2nd SC resolution, for instance? Were agricultural subsidies part of the package?
If supranational institutions become more important than states, France and Germany will lose their outstanding role in Europe, and they'll lose many interests, as well as other big countries.
Without knowing the details, it seems that this is already the reality--the momentum is there already. That's why I'm confused. Why underline that fact in red?
To avoid this, France and Germany must counter the monopoly of the Constitutional Convention on matters regarding the future of Europe (the Convention deals with all matters reguarding the future, not only the constitution
OK. I admit that I don't know nearly enough about this to have a sense of it.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
DanS :
Included in the package were closer cooperation between the government of both countries (a German advisor in the French cabinet, and vice-versa), the project of giving every citizen of France and germany the double nationality, and the will to give a new direction to Europe (no more details has been told in TV news here)
I understand you are pretty much lost with the Convention, the Council, the Parliament etc. I needed a year of lectures to understand something myself But to sum up :
The European Convention is a gathering of many people from governments, parliaments, civil society etc. whose job is to discuss the future of Europe. They have not been elected by the people to do this job, and they have no actual decision power (I mean, their conclusions are not binding for Europe). They started about a year ago, and they should finish in June. It is highly likely that most of their suggestions will be accepted in the end. In European Institutions, the Convention is considered as the future answer to the biggest problem of the EU : lack of vision.
In short, the convention has been charged to give a vision to Europe, which hadn't any since it was decided to make the common money. It replaces the States in their traditional role of giving a direction to the Union.
EDIT : In its current shape, EU gives much more power to individual States than to suprnational institutions. Many important EU decisions give much leeway to the States in the way they apply them, as long as results are noted, and the most important decisions are directly taken by direct negociation between governments, rather than by suprnational institutions.
Basically, EU decisions have 3 core actors :
- the European Commission is made of technocrats and unelected personnel. Its main purpose is to draft new projects within EU abilities (for example, to draft a new policy on salmon fishing). Only the Commission can draft European decisions.
- the Council of the European union gathers people from national ministries. They tweak the texts drafted by the Commission so that they match their State's interests.
- The European Parliament has the power to agree, disagree, or amend the text already tweaked by the Council. In most cases, the Parliament's advice is only consultative, but sometimes, a parliamentary NO blocks completely the text. Since European institutions love to compromise, such an extreme situation is extremely rare, and the Parliament ends up tweaking the text again.
In short, the Council (which represents the interests of individual nations) is the most powerful actors among the 3, and the Parliament the least powerful.Last edited by Spiffor; January 31, 2003, 13:32."I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
"I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
"I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- DisComment
-
"Then it follows that why should we pay particular attention to France and Germany? They're no more or less than other EU members."
So far we haven't supranationalized foreign policy. We have done that with trade policy, and it works the way you describe there.
"The success of this policy relative to other anti-war policies."
I do not think any policy short of kicking the US out of europe would have worked.
"although I wonder why they are choosing to devalue their SC seat."
They aren't. They are just taking that risk.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
It is pissing me off that they ddint go through the usual institutionalized procedures and just anounced it through the media.
BTW whats that one of the eastern countries' president have said? he was just representing himslef when he signed the letter?
pleeeeze.
in greek papers there are titles like
the gang of 8 who sold out europe
Comment
-
notice the mugshotsComment
-
so i take it this wasn't too popular in FOPG???Originally posted by paiktis22
notice the mugshots"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
What does FOPG stand for ?"I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
"I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
"I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- DisComment
-
According to Danish newspaper reports this evening, the Danish government on the request of the US administration, is preparing to commit one submarine and a corps of 40-60 special "Hunter" forces to combat.
The Danish special forces also served in covert operations in Afghanistan and received special recognition for its achievements there.
The submarine is currently in the Mediterranean Sea.
The forces will be ready and operative within 1-2 weeks.Comment
Comment