Poland May Veto EU Constitution

[EzInKy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3308917.stm

Apparrently they are afraid of being relegated to second class status by having their voice drowned out by the "big boys". There is an obvious compromise here, just look across the pond. A bi-cameral system really is the best way to address the issue of population versus the needs of individual states.

 

[SanPellegrino]

If they want to start like that, they should better stay out... when I think longer of it they should stay out anyway

 

[Mega Tsunami]

SanPellegrino

If they want to start like that, they should better stay out... when I think longer of it they should stay out anyway

But they were promised it in 2000, why are Germany and France trying to change the rules now? To suit themselves once again? Maybe they are he ones who should stay out.

I hope the Poles do veto this undemocratic EU Constitution (although I doubt it). We in Britain are not even going to get a vote on it.

 

[Kinniken]

Originally posted by EzInKy
A bi-cameral system really is the best way to address the issue of population versus the needs of individual states.

The proposed system, where a majority of states representing 60% of the EU's population have to agree to a proposal for it to pass, is somewhat akin to a bicameral system in that it weights the votes of the various states both by number and by population.

Originally posted by Mega Tsunami
But they were promised it in 2000, why are Germany and France trying to change the rules now? To suit themselves once again? Maybe they are he ones who should stay out.

I hope the Poles do veto this undemocratic EU Constitution (although I doubt it). We in Britain are not even going to get a vote on it.

Forst, contrarily to what the BBC article would have you believe, the new system is not backed only by France and Germany - the UK is a strong backer as well, as are the Benelux nations and Italy. I agree though that presenting France and Germany as the "baddies" again make the story simpler for BBC readers to "understand". BTW, though France is now in favor it was totally against it at Nice on the ground that it breaks equality with Germany. Supporting it is actually a concession France made, not something it devised for its own ends.

As for the Poles, they were not promised that the rules of the EU were set in stone when they were accepted in. And whatever you say on the Constitution being "undemocratic", the current system in which Spain, Poland (40 millions people each), France, the UK, Italy (60 millions each) and Germany (80 millions) get the same number of votes is not democratic. It is also overly complex and relies on a largely arbitrary number of votes per countries requiring periodic re-negotiations (especially for new members). The proposed one is a lot simpler and place clear rules applicable whatever the size of the Union.

 

[MrPresident]

Originally posted by Kinniken
Forst, contrarily to what the BBC article would have you believe, the new system is not backed only by France and Germany - the UK is a strong backer as well, as are the Benelux nations and Italy. I agree though that presenting France and Germany as the "baddies" again make the story simpler for BBC readers to "understand". BTW, though France is now in favor it was totally against it at Nice on the ground that it breaks equality with Germany. Supporting it is actually a concession France made, not something it devised for its own ends.

Why insult the British people? We are rational human being who have happened to notice that everything the EU does somehow benefits either Germany or France, or more likely both. That is not to say it does not benefit other countries but it does make it seem very unlikely that France will do anything to give up control of their European project. If you feel this is decidedly anti-European of me then you would be wrong. I am in favour of a united Europe, just not the one we have now. The European constitution is a disgraceful enterprise in which the British people will not have say in its ratification. It is being run by the Italians who wish to have it done and dusted by the end of their presidency, which does not exactly fill me with confidence that this thing is being thought out particularly well. Also it follows three years after the Nice treaty, which was supposed to sort out these problems in time for the enlargement. Basically this constitution will enshrine the power of the nations over the power of the people and it will do so without their consent. France and Germany may not be the "baddies" but they certainty are not the good guys. And insulting the British people for their dislike of the European Union is not the best way to endear them to it. It's just another in a long line of examples of EU supporters ignoring the people to pursue their "greater good".

 

[Kinniken]

Originally posted by MrPresident

Why insult the British people?

I did not. If I "insulted" anything, it was the BBC for distorting the issue in an all-to familiar way.

Originally posted by MrPresident

We are rational human being who have happened to notice that everything the EU does somehow benefits either Germany or France, or more likely both. That is not to say it does not benefit other countries but it does make it seem very unlikely that France will do anything to give up control of their European project.

France is not in control of the EU project... It is merely one of the big countries most involved in it. I thought that the harsh negotiations on the Constitution had made it quite clear that no single country controlled the EU (or even two, for that matter). In the voting issue, Spain and Poland alone are blocking a reform backed by nearly everyone else...

Originally posted by MrPresident

It is being run by the Italians who wish to have it done and dusted by the end of their presidency, which does not exactly fill me with confidence that this thing is being thought out particularly well.

The Italians organise the negotiations until January, where Ireland will. They do not "run" it, and if Berlusconi believes that the miracle compromise he claims to have in his pocket will settle everything this week-end he is even more of a fool than I thought.
The negotiations will definitely go on longer.

Originally posted by MrPresident

And insulting the British people for their dislike of the European Union is not the best way to endear them to it. It's just another in a long line of examples of EU supporters ignoring the people to pursue their "greater good".

The way you manage to transform my annoyance at a BBC article in an insult to the "British people" in the name an "European greater good" is impressive.

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by Kinniken

The proposed system, where a majority of states representing 60% of the EU's population have to agree to a proposal for it to pass, is somewhat akin to a bicameral system in that it weights the votes of the various states both by number and by population.

It's nowhere close because it does not preserve the rights of states with small populations. From the sounds of it the way things are set up now a group of large nations could vote to have the smaller ones do everyones laundry and get away with it. If instead you have a house where each state has an equal voice and another which distributes representation by population it would require the consent of both the majority of the states and the majority of the people before a law would pass, which is how you recognize both popular opinion and diversity.

 

[Ossric]

it's ok for Poland to get the best deal possible for themselves. But frankly people (here in Belgium) are already getting a bit tired of Poland's "all or nothing" attidude on every EU subject. That's not how the EU has worked for all these years, compremise is the way to go.

 

[MrPresident]

Originally posted by Kinniken
I did not. If I "insulted" anything, it was the BBC for distorting the issue in an all-to familiar way.

Are you accusing the BBC of being anti-Europe? Because that would come as a great surprise to us in Britain.

]Originally posted by Kinniken
France is not in control of the EU project...

Explain the continuing existence of the Common Agricultural Policy then.

Originally posted by Kinniken
The way you manage to transform my annoyance at a BBC article in an insult to the "British people" in the name an "European greater good" is impressive.

My apologies for the rant.

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by Ossric
it's ok for Poland to get the best deal possible for themselves. But frankly people (here in Belgium) are already getting a bit tired of Poland's "all or nothing" attidude on every EU subject. That's not how the EU has worked for all these years, compremise is the way to go.

Poland is a lot less further away from being a formerly occupied nation than Belgium is, it's only natural for them to be a little more apprehensive. Obviously the larger "voice" was dangled as a carrot, if that carrot is taken away now what can they expect from the EU in the future when their vote will be drowned out by larger nations?

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by EzInKy


It's nowhere close because it does not preserve the rights of states with small populations. From the sounds of it the way things are set up now a group of large nations could vote to have the smaller ones do everyones laundry and get away with it. If instead you have a house where each state has an equal voice and another which distributes representation by population it would require the consent of both the majority of the states and the majority of the people before a law would pass, which is how you recognize both popular opinion and diversity.

IMO this is the only way the EU will not collapse.
Even if France and Germany have larger populations, it's unfair and undemocratic to give them power over others. Of course bigger populations need bigger representations, and that's why there should be two Chambers. Major issues, suchs as a new Constitutions, should be aproved in both.
That's how it works here in Brazil, that is a Federation. Every state has the same number of senators, but the most populous ones get more Representatives, and all law changes must be apprved by both.

 

[The Yankee]

Poland should stick up for its sovereignty and the right to be heard in the EU. The country has worked too damn hard to throw it all away to the French and Germans. If the Constitution lets them become the underlings to French and German will, then they must veto.

luiz, same system in America, too. It does work most of the time.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

This could fuel speculations about a certain conspiracy theory. By this, the US will support the EU adhesion of certain states, which would undermine the EU from within. Just a theory

 

[The Yankee]

I believe it's easier for a state that's been in a capitalist society for decades like Belgium to be more able to compromise than a still-developing economy in Poland. Especially given all the advances they've made in the past decade-plus, it would be a shame to give even a little of it up for some "greater cause" if France and Germany do indeed dominate with the Constitution.

 

[Kinniken]

Originally posted by EzInKy


It's nowhere close because it does not preserve the rights of states with small populations. From the sounds of it the way things are set up now a group of large nations could vote to have the smaller ones do everyones laundry and get away with it. If instead you have a house where each state has an equal voice and another which distributes representation by population it would require the consent of both the majority of the states and the majority of the people before a law would pass, which is how you recognize both popular opinion and diversity.

I do not believe you quite understood the proposed system, which is indeed very close to a bi-cameral system, except that it takes place between governments and not MPs/Senators. To pass, a resolution needs both to have the backing of governments representing 60% of the population and of half the states, whatever their populations. For the bigger countries to force the small ones to "do the laundry", they would need to have the backing of half the states, even if they represent 2/3 or 3/4 of the population.

Originally posted by MrPresident


Are you accusing the BBC of being anti-Europe? Because that would come as a great surprise to us in Britain.

No, just of shoddy reporting and of falling back on stereotype instead of doing their research. Now, does that come as a great surprise to you?

Originally posted by MrPresident


Explain the continuing existence of the Common Agricultural Policy then.

Simply because it is far, far easier to block changes than to implement them. A veto and/or a "blocking minority" is all it takes. One could make the same argument on the British rebate or the continuing massive help to Spain. Or, for that matter, to Spain and Poland's continuing vetoing of the proposed new voting rights.
BTW, the new voting system would somewhat reduce that by making blocking minorities harder to form.

Originally posted by MrPresident


My apologies for the rant.

Only if you accept mine for over-reacting to a rather minor BBC mistake

Originally posted by The Yankee


Poland should stick up for its sovereignty and the right to be heard in the EU. The country has worked too damn hard to throw it all away to the French and Germans. If the Constitution lets them become the underlings to French and German will, then they must veto.

It does not, it stops them from getting a voting right (nearly) equal to Germany with only half the population. As for being "underlings", that they have the power to block the proposed constitution nearly on their own make that one difficult to believe

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by The Yankee

luiz, same system in America, too. It does work most of the time.

I know, we copied it from you.

 

[Ossric]

We can all blame this on the Nice treaty. Allthough it produced a good representation for small nations, it went a little overboard on the number of votes for Spain & Poland. Now we're stuck with that thing..

 

[SanPellegrino]

Originally posted by MrPresident

We are rational human being who have happened to notice that everything the EU does somehow benefits either Germany or France, or more likely both.

would be nice, but never noticed it, Germany has nothing out of the EU and is still the biggest payer, while Britain pays less than it should since Maggie Thatchers "I want my money back". also the british were clever enough not to switch to the Euro which was the final nail to our coffin.

 

[h4ppy]

I really don't see what the Poles are complaining about. They are a relatively new nation (government-wise) and get alot of power. From what I heard, it seems like they are larger than most other EU members and have quite alot of power for a nation that isn't exactly the biggest fish in the pond. They should just agree to the constitution, it seems like they would still be a force to be reckoned with.

 

[Enemy Ace]

Poland should consider conquering its neighbors or becoming a crony of the United States.