The consequences of the Anglo-saxon influence on the EU future

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DAVOUT

If the UK had been strongly influencial in the last enlargement and still support further enlargements, and if it does not ratified the treatise which was supposed to adapt the EU institutions to the new situation, it is only bad luck for the EU of course.

If you are talking about the now deceased proposed constitution then, yes, the prime minister did say there would be a vote on it however after the the proposed constitution was killed by the people of France and Holland there was no point for the UK to go ahead with a referendum. The proposed constitution was dead so why waste millions voting on a document which has zero chance of ever becoming law?

The UK is for enlargement because 1) it feels enlargement will stabilize those parts of eastern Europe 2) Free trade does increase business opportunities 3) The union can't be called the "European" union if you wall off half of Europe and refuse to let them join 4) Any difficulties caused by the enlargement (and I am specifically referring to political voting difficulties) can be solved if France & Germany want them to be solved however it will require getting ride of the vetoes some nations hold over EU affairs, it will require greater democratic transpariency at the EU instead of a few elites deciding everything, and it will require real political give & take. It is still questionable if France will give up its dreams of lording over the entire EU with Germany but I am hopeful that they will one day admit reality and agree to make this club a real democratic institution instead of the oligarchy it is today.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Pekka
BeBro, but Finland is still a net contributor, well, at least a while ago it was.

You know, one of those countries that pay more because few big members can't be bothered to pay their full membership fee. You know, that fair stuff.

Also one of the few countries that actually TRIES to follow the common rules, not like countries who don 't and then won't get penalized for it.

Are you referring to the UK's rebate? That rebate was an agreed upon solution to the obvious gross market distortion that is the CAP. Thatcher refused to contribute any more money to the EU unless the French agreed to reform that awful agricultural subsidies program which enables millions of French farmers to site on their asses doing nothing which is economically useful. So Mitterrand agreed to the rebate in order to prevent the destruction of his cherished CAP.

The UK has repeatedly offered to give up the rebate if France will agree to give up that money wasting CAP however France has always refused. France is the problem here. With something like 40% of the EU's budget going into wasteful agricultural subsidies, most of which ends up in the pockets of French farmers, why the hell should the UK contribute more? They've already said, repeatedly, that they'll give up the rebate as soon as France gives up the CAP thus freeing up some 40% of the EU budget (and allowing for hundreds of millions in new revenue from the UK) there by allowing for a huge modernization campaign to occur in Eastern Europe.

France remains the road block though. It is France which refuses to give up it's monstrous ag subsidies there by robbing the majority of the EU budget and preventing the needed investment from flowing east where it is most needed. Until France stops being the big problem then nothing will change.

[Pekka]

Yeah, France is the problem, and usually is the center of the problem in most questions anyway.

I agree. That's why I say I wouldn't cry if they died.

[Dinner]

Re: What exactly

Originally posted by pchang
does DAVOUT want the EU to be?

Pekka claims that DAVOUT and the French in general, want the EU to be a vehicle for them to exercise their influence over the other members.

I'd say Pekka has it right, for the most part. Some French would really like to see the EU reformed to become more democratic but that is the last thing the French elites want. They yearn for the good old days when Germany bent over whenever France told them too and together they dictated what the EU would be and do. Now there are more members so they must justify their actions more in order to convince other members that their course is the correct course. The UK has been good, certainly much better then France, at convincing the new(ish) members that it's vision is the better vision. This upsets the French elites who are not used to not getting their way.

Eventually the EU will need to be reformed or it will stop functioning. It will have to move to majority rule instead of absolute consensus and individual states will have to give up their vetoes. France and Germany are kind of afraid to give up their vetoes because they think the new majority will vote in new taxes or that they will kill sacred cows to free up money (by getting rid of things like the CAP). Eventually the vetoes will have to go our the people who refuse to give up their vetoes will have to accept that they are responsible for killing the EU.

[RGBVideo]

Congrats France, you're destroying European Union.

[Barnabas]

So France and Germany give new countries free money, so that these new countries can develop their economies, and these new countries ungrateful bastards vote agaisnt France/Germany?

Isnt that for France/Germany like creating competitors thru charity?

[Pekka]

Giving free money? What a load of crap. They're buying extra-territorial power. We'll never be equal and that's the problem. We're EU as long as we follow the dream of a few, to build a new power that was long lost but built by force, destroyed by too much innocent blood shed. So now there's a new approach to it, but the same cut throat mentality is alive and kicking.

Don't think for a second if we started going the way of Britain, that is thinking for ourselves for a bit, just going hold on let's think about this.. we'd be trouble makers, there would be allegations of wanting to be a separate force, wanting to crumble the power and therefor making it worse for everyone in the union. This is the cold truth, this is what happens.

BUT if it's the Frenchies that does it, it's OK, it's what EU is doing. OK? Notice the difference? If it's outrageous, like Frenchies throwing little tantrums and acting like kids once again, well, you know, we should adapt to it, because we wouldn't want to crumble the collective power now would we?

We all know they do not give loyalty to anyone and are extremely unworthy in alliances of any kind. Last example, it's a different thing to refuse acting in NATO because you disagree, but launching an active campagn against your OWN allie, just touring the world, collecting names to your camp.. what the **** is that? Is that what your loyal partner does? Considering the very recent past the country has with colonialism and ****ing countries up anyway, and then playing the ebony tower watchmen and King of Europe, mostly self proclaimed anyway, I'd say you know, they're a plague and we shoudl treat them like cancer and cut them out.

From objective poitn of view, EU would be a lot stronger if France was cut out and the whole nation just disappeared.

[RGBVideo]

Uhh, France is the biggest net gainer of the massively complex subsidy network with their specific agriculture subsidies.

Germany is the biggest net loser.

[Barnabas]

Yes I know

a few weeks ago the minister of economy of France called Brazil Argentina Australia and New Zealand "predators" who would destroy the french lifestyle if France drops their farm subsidies

[DAVOUT]

Re: Re: What exactly

Originally posted by Oerdin

Eventually the vetoes will have to go our the people who refuse to give up their vetoes will have to accept that they are responsible for killing the EU.

I have not yet heard the UK confirming they will accept to give up their veto more than France has accepted. Those who wanted the enlargement before the ratification of the treatise have granted vetoes to 12 more states. We have absolutely no incentive to give up our veto under the present conditions.
As for the responsibility to kill the EU, does it belong to the country which has altered its original purpose, or to the country which does not accept this alteration.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by VJ
Uhh, France is the biggest net gainer of the massively complex subsidy network with their specific agriculture subsidies.

Germany is the biggest net loser.

The end of agricultural subsidises has already been decided to occur in 2013. I am sure that the whole population of Europe (except France) will enjoy the change in prices of food resulting from this improvement.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Its good to see DAVOUT and Ned sharing the same opinion that it's always the Brits at fault.

Ned probably has French blood in his veins

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by VJ
Uhh, France is the biggest net gainer of the massively complex subsidy network with their specific agriculture subsidies.

Source?

[pchang]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Source?

DAVOUT

[Spiffor]

Re: Re: What exactly

Originally posted by Oerdin
I'd say Pekka has it right, for the most part. Some French would really like to see the EU reformed to become more democratic but that is the last thing the French elites want. They yearn for the good old days when Germany bent over whenever France told them too and together they dictated what the EU would be and do.

This gaullist vision of Europe is basically dead among the French elite now that Chirac won't be president again.
A significant part of the French citizenry shares it still. But the elite definitely doesn't share it anymore. This is why the establishment was overwhelmingly in favour of the EU-constitution (and still is), and why they used the following line of defense: "we can't possibly get a better text with negociations, the current compromise must be accepted".

Edit: I'm not saying the French elites want to see a Europe genuinely more democratic however. Rather, they accept that France isn't the centre of it anymore, and they want to have an influence over the EU by acknowledging this, instead of ignoring the new reality and doing it the old way.

Eventually the EU will need to be reformed or it will stop functioning. It will have to move to majority rule instead of absolute consensus and individual states will have to give up their vetoes. France and Germany are kind of afraid to give up their vetoes because they think the new majority will vote in new taxes or that they will kill sacred cows to free up money (by getting rid of things like the CAP). Eventually the vetoes will have to go our the people who refuse to give up their vetoes will have to accept that they are responsible for killing the EU.

I entirely agree with you, but for one thing: the culprits you designate.
The EU-constitution extended majority-rule fairly significantly, and Germany was among the countries that promoted this. At the same time however, the constitution made the EU-policies constitutional, as those policies currently belong to treaties. And to amend the constitution, one would need unanimity.
Currently, nearly no European country wants to give up its veto over constitutional change. The Brits don't. The Danes and other Nordics don't. The new members don't. France doesn't. Maybe Belgium would be ready to give up on its constitutional veto, but I wouldn't bet on it.

So, when you blame France and Germany for the veto rule, it's quite a bunch of bull****. If anything, Germany promoted more supranationalism (with the support to the EU foreign minister, f.ex). And sovereignity was a fairly small issue on the agenda during the French debate in 2005 (unlike 1992, where the Maastricht treaty barely got accepted, and where sovereignity issues were of utmost importance).