Who has the power in Europe?

The EU is about to grow from 15 to 25 member states and is currently in the process of adopting a constitution; one text replacing all the previous different treaties. This process is planned to be concluded in 2004.

However, it seems that a struggle for power and money will take place before a constitution will be adopted. One of the hardest issues to solve is the amount of decision power individual member states will have. Germany, one of the biggest countries, strongarms countries like Spain and Poland into accepting a system in which the countries with the most inhabitants will have the most powe, threatening the withdrawal of subsidised projects to these countries. Spain and Poland reject Germany's wishes and want to hold on to the rules of the Nice treaty.

France and the UK share Germany's position more or less, but the UK also supports Spain and Poland. Germany, France and the UK are getting closer on a deal for a common defense structure.

France and Germany recently clashed with smaller countries for not keeping their deficits within the boundaries set by the Stability Pact for the third year in a row. Smaller countries like the Netherlands now threaten to sabotage the constitution if there are no hard guarantees that larger countries will be sanctioned for breaking rules, for example breaking government budget deficit rules.

The EU is on a threshold towards a new Europe. All member states want the EU to grow, but the question is: will the current 15 members come to an agreement on a new constitution and will such an agreement allocate the power to make decisions in a fair way, or will the balance of power move towards the big members: Germany, France and the UK?

I think the latter. What do you think?

The UK with it's US bonds runs Europe along with Germany and France. Western Europe in general controls the power as it is seen as further removed from the past eastern "red menace" subversion and hence more "developed" and "civilised".

"control the power"? That is like saying: control the control. It doesn't make sense. Please explain your point, if you wish.

Abrazo said:

MD7 said:

Abrazo said:

MD7 said:

Abrazo said:

MD7 said:

Abrazo said:

MD7 said:

Abrazo said:

MD7 said:

Abrazo said:

MD7 said:

Abrazo said:

"control the power"? That is like saying: control the control. It doesn't make sense. Please explain your point, if you wish.

Hold the power and control Europen policy if you will. A united Europe is an impossible falsehood as the three main powers pull all the strings.

Well... currently they pull many strings, but not all. I agree that the big 3 have the most power and that will try to gain more in the coming negotiations, but I wouldn't underestimate the resistsance of the smaller nations either. It is going to get heated.

Sure if the "little" nations unite they can be powerful, but history doesn't bare this out, usually the main powers can divide and conquer to the point of controlling the smalltime players.

Yes, usually they can, but the history of the development of the EU has shown more than once that when smaller nations unite there can be a healthy balance of power.

Also: the main powers don't always with eachother agree either and are divided as well. Iraq for example, or the Euro.

--
[This message was edited Fri Dec 12 2:59:07 PST 2003 by Abrazo]

True, the growing divisions between the UK and France/Germany as a result of the formers cosying up to Bush and his cronies will be interesting to observe as regards European resolution.

Very interesting, especially in light of the growing agreement between those 3 on a common defense policy. The US then all of a sudden does care a whole lot about Europeans not uniting.

MD7 said:

Abrazo said:

MD7 said:

Abrazo said:

MD7 said:

Abrazo said:

MD7 said:

Abrazo said:

"control the power"? That is like saying: control the control. It doesn't make sense. Please explain your point, if you wish.

Hold the power and control Europen policy if you will. A united Europe is an impossible falsehood as the three main powers pull all the strings.

Well... currently they pull many strings, but not all. I agree that the big 3 have the most power and that will try to gain more in the coming negotiations, but I wouldn't underestimate the resistsance of the smaller nations either. It is going to get heated.

Sure if the "little" nations unite they can be powerful, but history doesn't bare this out, usually the main powers can divide and conquer to the point of controlling the smalltime players.

Yes, usually they can, but the history of the development of the EU has shown more than once that when smaller nations unite there can be a healthy balance of power.

Also: the main powers don't always with eachother agree either and are divided as well. Iraq for example, or the Euro.

--
[This message was edited Fri Dec 12 2:59:07 PST 2003 by Abrazo]

True, the growing divisions between the UK and France/Germany as a result of the formers cosying up to Bush and his cronies will be interesting to observe as regards European resolution.

Very interesting, especially in light of the growing agreement between those 3 on a common defense policy. The US then all of a sudden does care a whole lot about Europeans not uniting.

Haha that is wild the way the US gets nervous and shaky about any European comradery and keeps pushing forward NATO's agenda as the way to go as regards defence.

European Union Constitution Talks Fold By ALESSANDRA RIZZO, Associated Press Writer

BRUSSELS, Belgium - The European Union (news - web sites)'s effort to seal its first-ever constitution collapsed Saturday, diplomats said, after leaders could not agree on the best way to divvy power once the bloc adds 10 new members next year

The key stumbling block was a proposal to scrap a voting system that was accepted in 2000 and gave Spain and newcomer Poland almost as many votes as Germany, which has twice as many people as either. Talks will be taken up again in 2004.

Despite last-ditch arm-twisting over new proposals, "it became apparent ... an agreement would be impossible," an EU official said on condition of anonymity.

Polish Prime Minister Leszek Miller, who had refused to accept a revised voting system, was leaving early to consult with his government, his main foreign policy adviser, Tadeusz Iwinski, said.

A Swedish diplomat confirmed talks were called off. "They will resume in the new year," the diplomat said on condition of anonymity.

Italy, chair of the summit, had discussed several compromises during bilateral meetings Saturday, but never garnered enough support for any of them, diplomats said.

"We had to acknowledge after intense work ... that there is no agreement," an Italian diplomat said. He said the voting system was main issue.

The draft text supported by France and Germany would allow EU decisions to be made by a simple majority of EU nations if they represent 60 percent of the EU's population of 450 million. The constitution must be approved unanimously by all 25 governments.

Backers of the proposed new voting system, led by Germany and France, say the changes will make the voting system simpler and more democratic.

Those revisions, along with others in the draft constitution, were intended to streamline decision-making to prevent gridlock when the 15-member EU takes in 10 new members, mostly from the former communist east, in May.

Poland — the biggest of the 10 newcomers — along with Spain objected most vociferously to the proposed change. The Spanish and the Poles insist the new system would entrench the power of the four EU heavyweights — Britain, France, Germany and Italy.

"If it's not possible to agree, we shall wait," Polish Foreign Minister Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz said Saturday morning. "We're talking about compromise or domination."

A French diplomat accused Poland of being "intransigent."

Germany, the bloc's biggest member, said the future of the EU was at stake. "This is not about national interests," Bela Anda, spokesman for German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, told reporters.

The summit began well Friday, when leaders put aside their differences over the constitution and agreed on a plan to boost the EU's military capability, with or without the NATO (news - web sites) alliance.

They also endorsed a global security document and approved a $75 billion investment plan for dozens of public works and research projects.

This isn't necessarily about who has the power, but about keeping the EU manageble as it grows and gets more responsibilities. Until now, almost on any issue a unanimous vote was needed. It was almost impossible with 15 countries, and surely will b with 25 countries. I think the larger countries have made big sacrifices by giving each country the same weight in the voting system so Spain and Poland shouldn't b complaining. The second condition (that 60% of the poplution must b represented by the vote) is simply to avoid that 13 countries with mayb 20% of the population could pass certain things. Do the bigger countries have more power in this system? Sure! But hey, they're the bigger countries, rigth?
I do agree with the Dutch point of view however: sanctions against countries who don't maintain monetary policies as agreed should b punished. Bigger countries can have more power, but shouldn't b above EU regulations.

Voting rights are always about power, simple as that, can't be denied. Sure, the offical motivation for a new system is to keep the bigger EU managable, but that can be done in different ways. I agree that the proposed system seems to make sense, but the consequences will be that in most cases only the big countries will be able to approve or to dissaprove new legislation and policies, including the rules of the stability pact. Don't forget that it were France and Germany who broke these rules for three years in a row. Now their proposal is to give them the power solely based on the fact they have the most inahbitants. But the EU isn't a country with provinces and the EU is not a federation of states like the USA. It is a union of sovereign states which still have a basic amount of sovereignity that should not be taken away by three or four big countries whenever they feel like it.

--
[This message was edited Sat Dec 13 8:36:21 PST 2003 by Abrazo]

Surely the power lies within the people...you, me and granny smith.

Noone has or will have the power in Europe. We have learned that from the past.

butter said:

GermanHottie1981 said:

Abrazo said:

GermanHottie1981 said:

No group of common men and women control anything anywhere on Earth. There are very, very, rich and powerful people, along with others (that are hidden from view) that control the power, money, and access. If anyone gets too far and tries to change the system, they are killed or persecuted. You best believe it!

Peace,
JD

GermanHottie1981 said:

coqui said:

GermanHottie1981 said:

Noone has or will have the power in Europe. We have learned that from the past.

whooo... that's a doozie!

Flashpointe said:

Abrazo said:

coqui said:

GermanHottie1981 said:

Noone has or will have the power in Europe. We have learned that from the past.

whooo... that's a doozie!

Laughing so hard and falling of your chair because of your own "jokes"?? Pitifull. You don't understand a thing. Either contribute something meaningfull or go and play at your other thread overgeneralising all Europeans as French, doozer.

coqui said:

Abrazo said:

coqui said:

GermanHottie1981 said:

Noone has or will have the power in Europe. We have learned that from the past.

whooo... that's a doozie!

Laughing so hard and falling of your chair because of your own "jokes"?? Pitifull. You don't understand a thing. Either contribute something meaningfull or go and play at your other thread overgeneralising all Europeans as French, doozer.

So you believe the French and Germans aren't going to have more influence in the EU? Do you believe they will not decide the social agenda of the EU? If you do, you are nieve.

as I said... That's a doozie! But it's typical of socialists, get somebody else to pay for their own problem. All while pushing huge regulations on these less liberal countries who cannot afford the pressing social influence of the larger nations.

Abrazo said:

coqui said:

Abrazo said:

coqui said:

GermanHottie1981 said:

Noone has or will have the power in Europe. We have learned that from the past.

whooo... that's a doozie!

Laughing so hard and falling of your chair because of your own "jokes"?? Pitifull. You don't understand a thing. Either contribute something meaningfull or go and play at your other thread overgeneralising all Europeans as French, doozer.

So you believe the French and Germans aren't going to have more influence in the EU? Do you believe they will not decide the social agenda of the EU? If you do, you are nieve.

No, I don't. You assume I do.

Why do you think the Czechs are thinking about turning down the EU? They get to inherit a HUGE debt caused by the socialists in Europe while they need their funding to rebuild their own country.

as I said... That's a doozie! But it's typical of socialists, get somebody else to pay for their own problem. All while pushing huge regulations on these less liberal countries who cannot afford the pressing social influence of the larger nations.

What are you talking about? "socialists","liberal countries". "HUGE debt" Shouldn't you be worrying about the highest US deficits ever?? No, you rather talk shit abou the EU. You don't know shit. The Chechs are very happy to join, they won't turn it down.



you still haven't contributed anything meaningfull to this thread.

coqui said:

GermanHottie1981 said:

It is clear that coqui doesn't know what the EU is about, but only intends to discredit it, and Europeans, with silly remarks about the "last bastion of Socialism". pfff...your viewpoints are tiresome. And you haven't contributed anything to the topic of this thread.