Tweet
Thanks for the long answer Pekka. This is probably the most elaborate reply you ever wrote in a EU thread, and now I see more clearly what you mean 
OK, this means there was a misunderstanding at the beginning. I thought you accused me personally of having a disproportionate power.
I actually consider this the main problem of the EU. My premise (which apparently you don't share) is that the main cleavages in European political opinions are ideologic cleavages rather than national ones.
Nations can be extremely important on the mentality of all its citizens in a few matters (think Poland vs. France when it comes to religion, or UK vs. Belgium when it comes to national sovereignty). And nations play a secondary but real role in shaping ideas on most issues, especially the one that is of particular interest for the EU: free-market vs. regulated market (Brits as a whole will tend to be more free-marketeer than the French).
However, in the issues where the Nations don't radically shape collective ideas (i.e. the many many issues where you don't witness a quasi-consensus in one land, and an opposite quasi-consensus in another), the cleavage is not national but political. A French and a Swedish leftie will agree on most economic matters. A Spanish and a Czech Green will agree on most ecological matters. Their respective nationalities will add some ideological variety, but they will remain secondary.
This is why I think that the European leadership should take political diversity into account (and seriously so), instead of having each Member-State voting as one whole bloc. And this is why I think that the fact your and my voice isn't taken into account at the Council is a EU problem, and not merely a domestic one, because it's the very structure of teh EU's decision-making that makes it so.
Not really, but it's the only EU institution where I have a pathetically small shred of power, as opposed to none at all. So I do cherish it
Agreed. The only reason why I spent more sentences about the Parliament than about the council is not because the Parliament is more important (far from it), but because my explanation is simply a bit more complex and requires more sentences.
Well, not precisely so, because the EU Parliament has Representative Proportionality. Proportional votes are the only ones where voters of a marginal party (such as maybe, and maybe such as you in the future
) have an exactly equal say to the voters of mainstream parties playing by the same rules.
I don't. I consider the current institutions to be horrendous. The debacle you often refer to (when France and Germany got away with not being punished where a smaller country would have been) is one of the scandals that characterise the current institutions. I'd like to point out that I was outraged by this scandal when it happened, despite the fact that I consider the stability pact to be pure crap that should be thrown to the garbage.
I advocate a change, and that's the very reason why I oppose the current constitution (I am currently an anti-constitution activist, taking part to the campaign for the NO).
Now, the change I advocate is not the same as yours, as I want to national governments to be less powerful, and the power to go to the European Parliament. But either way, both of our views would result in the end of the hegemony of a small alliance.
Err, no. You have accused me of naiveté, and I just told you that I'm not. In case you son't remember, I am an opponent to the way the council functions.
Well, I indeed consider that a State with a huge population should have more say than a State with a tiny population. Because I ultimately believe in the idea of "one voter, one vote". I understand that it's impossible to apply perfectly in the EU at the moment (and probably for a ery long time too), but I think can't allow ourselves to have one Maltese worth 200 Germans, which is what you advocate. It may be an acceptable idea in irrelevant institutions like the UN (or in a watered-down Council), but it's seriously unacceptable in an institution as essential as the Commission as it currently is.
Basically, with what you suggest, a grand alliance of the 13 smallest Member-States (31 million people, of which probably only about half would have voted for the governments representing them) could make laws that the whole 446 Million Europeans will have to abide. That's seriously overkill.
I don't want hegemonic states, but having at least some demographic representation is essential. Or else, the EU would become extremely unpopular far more quickly than what it's doing right now.
I say it is a problem, but for reasons different than yours. It is fundamentally a problem to manage such an integrated entity as the EU in a diplomatic fashion. Diplomacy only works so far, and all international organizations that don't have an hegemon show how ineffective they are (think about the UN, the African Union, or the EU whenever full consensus must be reached). And in the case of an important institution such as theu EU, the presence of a hegemon is wholly unjust, and morally unaccptable.
This is why the very notion that national governments should be at the center of decision making in Europe (diplomatic decision-making) is wrong. This is why we should work at removing their influence from the EU. This is why we should take European matters directly in our hands. This is why the protests we're talking about in this thread are positive.
Almost, but not exactly. I say it's a problem, and it won't disappear alone. We have to make it so. There are two ways to remove the problem: either turn the EU into a full-fledged diplomatic institution à la UN, that will get nothing done (might as well kill the EU right now). Or strip the national governments from their say in the EU, and give it directly to citizens. I advocate the second solution, while you seem to advocate the first.
I agree, which is why I don't oppose the "one country - one vote" principle when it comes to changing the rules (the constitution and the treaties). At least as long as the power to change the rules isn't entrusted in an institution that directly represents the citizens.
This is the system currently in place, and this is the reason why the small States weren't entirely shafted (actually, at Nice and in the Constitution, the States that were shafted were the medium ones, like Poland and Spain. The small ones significantly benefited from these two treaties, because the small States are far more numerous than the big and medium ones)
That's not exactly my point. My point is that we aren't a one happy EU at the moment, but we should strive to be one. This is why I am enthusiastic whenever a public opinion expresses itself at the European layer, instead of being content with the national layer. This is why I'm so enthusiastic when I witness a European protest that transcends national matters and look at the bigger picture. This is why I think the creation of an actual European Green Party, or a European Left are great news, because they actually participate in removing the borders, and in creating the European public opinion that we need if we are to ever leave the current crapfest.
Well, when it comes to deciding what the new play will be like, our countries are all equals (unanimity rule = no matter how strong or weak a country is, its approval is absolutely necessary in order to change the rules). The area where the countries are unequal is not "creating a new play", it's the content of the policies of the EU.
In the current state of affairs, it's pretty normal, considering that in a diplomatic circle, States will always want to reach their best interests. However, if we want the EU to work in the long run, if we want to make sure that we won't wage war on each other anymore, we have to learn to trust ourselves across the border, just like you trust a citizen of Helsinki not to always shaft a citizen of Nokia. And to that effect, we have to do away with the diplomatic management of the EU. For in Diplomacy, real trust cannot exist.
Actually, "Euronites" are mostly free-marketeers. Because of the EU's history as a free-market heaven, most Socialists are cautious (if not hostile) to it. Among the "Euronites", I'm somewhat of an oddity. Just on this board, the only other European extremist I can think of, is a free-marketeer (El Freako), despite this board being much more leftie than the real world.
Originally posted by Pekka
And this has nothing to do with the weight states can throw in EU.
And this has nothing to do with the weight states can throw in EU.
However I don't consider this to be the problem, because this is a problem within the country that I'm in, not EU problem or fault.
I actually consider this the main problem of the EU. My premise (which apparently you don't share) is that the main cleavages in European political opinions are ideologic cleavages rather than national ones.
Nations can be extremely important on the mentality of all its citizens in a few matters (think Poland vs. France when it comes to religion, or UK vs. Belgium when it comes to national sovereignty). And nations play a secondary but real role in shaping ideas on most issues, especially the one that is of particular interest for the EU: free-market vs. regulated market (Brits as a whole will tend to be more free-marketeer than the French).
However, in the issues where the Nations don't radically shape collective ideas (i.e. the many many issues where you don't witness a quasi-consensus in one land, and an opposite quasi-consensus in another), the cleavage is not national but political. A French and a Swedish leftie will agree on most economic matters. A Spanish and a Czech Green will agree on most ecological matters. Their respective nationalities will add some ideological variety, but they will remain secondary.
This is why I think that the European leadership should take political diversity into account (and seriously so), instead of having each Member-State voting as one whole bloc. And this is why I think that the fact your and my voice isn't taken into account at the Council is a EU problem, and not merely a domestic one, because it's the very structure of teh EU's decision-making that makes it so.
And I have absolutely 0. Yet this is not the problem. Like I've said, you consider this to be the key to power.
Not really, but it's the only EU institution where I have a pathetically small shred of power, as opposed to none at all. So I do cherish it
the power they can weigh in is only MARGINAL. It is THEORETICAL. This is my beef, I've been very clear about it. It doesn't matter at all, when there are certain members that can still do what they want, against everyone else. The number of representors does not matter so much, it's not the key to power.
Agreed. The only reason why I spent more sentences about the Parliament than about the council is not because the Parliament is more important (far from it), but because my explanation is simply a bit more complex and requires more sentences.
"and my weight in the unimportant institution is the smallest of Europe."
That tends to be the case if you're a communist. So? My voices is equally nada, because I don't have one. This is a problem inside the member, not EU problem.
That tends to be the case if you're a communist. So? My voices is equally nada, because I don't have one. This is a problem inside the member, not EU problem.
Well, not precisely so, because the EU Parliament has Representative Proportionality. Proportional votes are the only ones where voters of a marginal party (such as maybe, and maybe such as you in the future
) have an exactly equal say to the voters of mainstream parties playing by the same rules.
You are the man because you defend blindly the current situation, and how it's going to be.
I don't. I consider the current institutions to be horrendous. The debacle you often refer to (when France and Germany got away with not being punished where a smaller country would have been) is one of the scandals that characterise the current institutions. I'd like to point out that I was outraged by this scandal when it happened, despite the fact that I consider the stability pact to be pure crap that should be thrown to the garbage.
I advocate a change, and that's the very reason why I oppose the current constitution (I am currently an anti-constitution activist, taking part to the campaign for the NO).
Now, the change I advocate is not the same as yours, as I want to national governments to be less powerful, and the power to go to the European Parliament. But either way, both of our views would result in the end of the hegemony of a small alliance.
" I know full well that the big States dominate the Council"
End of this debate.
End of this debate.
Err, no. You have accused me of naiveté, and I just told you that I'm not. In case you son't remember, I am an opponent to the way the council functions.
I say this is a problem, where you are not agreeing. Or at least you haven't before, because this has been the very cornerstone of all my problems with the EU.
Well, I indeed consider that a State with a huge population should have more say than a State with a tiny population. Because I ultimately believe in the idea of "one voter, one vote". I understand that it's impossible to apply perfectly in the EU at the moment (and probably for a ery long time too), but I think can't allow ourselves to have one Maltese worth 200 Germans, which is what you advocate. It may be an acceptable idea in irrelevant institutions like the UN (or in a watered-down Council), but it's seriously unacceptable in an institution as essential as the Commission as it currently is.
Basically, with what you suggest, a grand alliance of the 13 smallest Member-States (31 million people, of which probably only about half would have voted for the governments representing them) could make laws that the whole 446 Million Europeans will have to abide. That's seriously overkill.
I don't want hegemonic states, but having at least some demographic representation is essential. Or else, the EU would become extremely unpopular far more quickly than what it's doing right now.
OK! So, my initial statement, that member states are not equal is correct. Equality means, how much they can weigh power in EU.
I say it is a problem, but for reasons different than yours. It is fundamentally a problem to manage such an integrated entity as the EU in a diplomatic fashion. Diplomacy only works so far, and all international organizations that don't have an hegemon show how ineffective they are (think about the UN, the African Union, or the EU whenever full consensus must be reached). And in the case of an important institution such as theu EU, the presence of a hegemon is wholly unjust, and morally unaccptable.
This is why the very notion that national governments should be at the center of decision making in Europe (diplomatic decision-making) is wrong. This is why we should work at removing their influence from the EU. This is why we should take European matters directly in our hands. This is why the protests we're talking about in this thread are positive.
You say it's not a problem, because borders will vanish and it's a situation where EU citizens can join each other across the borders and find their political soulmates, regardless of their nationality, and join powers, and let's see how things go now.
Almost, but not exactly. I say it's a problem, and it won't disappear alone. We have to make it so. There are two ways to remove the problem: either turn the EU into a full-fledged diplomatic institution à la UN, that will get nothing done (might as well kill the EU right now). Or strip the national governments from their say in the EU, and give it directly to citizens. I advocate the second solution, while you seem to advocate the first.
My problem is, if we don't get rid off the power inequality BEFORE we 'vanish' the borders, we will have a situation where the current power players have even more power. Because there's no giving up of the victories and benefits gotten earlier. To argue this is to argue against human nature, against every single human and national act. That's the way it goes.
I agree, which is why I don't oppose the "one country - one vote" principle when it comes to changing the rules (the constitution and the treaties). At least as long as the power to change the rules isn't entrusted in an institution that directly represents the citizens.
This is the system currently in place, and this is the reason why the small States weren't entirely shafted (actually, at Nice and in the Constitution, the States that were shafted were the medium ones, like Poland and Spain. The small ones significantly benefited from these two treaties, because the small States are far more numerous than the big and medium ones)
But this time the problem becomes mroe difficult to see, because we don't now have those imaginary borders, but states. If your position still is, that it doesn't matter because we are now all one, a big happy EU
That's not exactly my point. My point is that we aren't a one happy EU at the moment, but we should strive to be one. This is why I am enthusiastic whenever a public opinion expresses itself at the European layer, instead of being content with the national layer. This is why I'm so enthusiastic when I witness a European protest that transcends national matters and look at the bigger picture. This is why I think the creation of an actual European Green Party, or a European Left are great news, because they actually participate in removing the borders, and in creating the European public opinion that we need if we are to ever leave the current crapfest.
SO all I'm saying, have been saying and still say is that we need to even out the structures before getting into a new play.
Well, when it comes to deciding what the new play will be like, our countries are all equals (unanimity rule = no matter how strong or weak a country is, its approval is absolutely necessary in order to change the rules). The area where the countries are unequal is not "creating a new play", it's the content of the policies of the EU.
'Trust me!' is BS, we don't trust anyone.
In the current state of affairs, it's pretty normal, considering that in a diplomatic circle, States will always want to reach their best interests. However, if we want the EU to work in the long run, if we want to make sure that we won't wage war on each other anymore, we have to learn to trust ourselves across the border, just like you trust a citizen of Helsinki not to always shaft a citizen of Nokia. And to that effect, we have to do away with the diplomatic management of the EU. For in Diplomacy, real trust cannot exist.
Euronites trust, but then again their socialist ideals and agendas usually work as well as car with 1 wheel, that doesn't work.
Actually, "Euronites" are mostly free-marketeers. Because of the EU's history as a free-market heaven, most Socialists are cautious (if not hostile) to it. Among the "Euronites", I'm somewhat of an oddity. Just on this board, the only other European extremist I can think of, is a free-marketeer (El Freako), despite this board being much more leftie than the real world.
Comment