The EU and small countries

[Kinniken]

this thread started in the "In which countries have you been?" thread, but I am seperating it to limit thread-jacking

Originally posted by Finmaster
Altough this year I'll get to travel to 2 new countries: In november I'll spend a week in Strassburg, France, where we will learn how the Eu works (as if everyone didn't already know that EU is just an organization where France, Germany and Italy can decide things for smaller countries without even asking the opinion of these smaller countries). Well, it is interresting to see if that trip turns my opinions into pro-EU or will they just make them more anti-EU...

Originally posted by Kinniken
The EU where France & Germany decide everything? Like during the Iraqi crisis, where Chirac & Schroeder got themselves isolated?
As for little countries not having a say, may I remind you that "little countries" have nearly half of the votes at European Council despite representing roughly one fifth of the EU's population? Or perhaps on the constitutional proposal, where any country, even tiny Luxembourg and Malta, has a veto right? Or maybe you are thinking of European Commissioners, who in the current constitutional proposal will come as often from small countries than from big?
Of course, the "big countries" individually have more influence than small one - which is quite normal given their demographic weight. But every rule in the EU is twisted in small countries' favor, not the reverse. And if you can point to a single other time in European History where little countries had an influence even remotely as big as today, I'm curious to hear it

Originally posted by Finmaster
Are you not aware of the way how the EU convention agreed on the constitution proposal? In the last meeting, where they made the final decisions, only representives of big countries were present. And it really shows in the constitution proposal: the number of comissioners would go down, so the smallest nations wouldn't have a commissioner at all.

Are you not aware that last week, Germany's foreign minister Fischer or whatever his name is, came to Finland and told our prime minister that "Finland better agree with convention's proposal OR ELSE!"

So we should let France, Germany and other big countries decide these issues for us without even having the right to disagree? That was the basic idea of Germany's foreign minister's words. Luckily, our prime minister was wise enough not to agree with him.

I don't see my country having ANY power in EU. We used to decide our own domestic affairs, but now France, Germany and the other big ones are deciding them for us. I just wish that some day Finland will leave EU and become independent again - altough I fear that that day might never come.

I have to agree that EU does bring economical stability and increasing wealth, and that is a good thing. But we are paying a price far too high for that - we are giving up our political freedom.

Originally posted by Kinniken

Originally posted by Finmaster


Are you not aware of the way how the EU convention agreed on the constitution proposal? In the last meeting, where they made the final decisions, only representives of big countries were present. And it really shows in the constitution proposal: the number of comissioners would go down, so the smallest nations wouldn't have a commissioner at all.

I have a copy of the Convention's proposal in front of me. Here is a loose translation from the part concerning the nationality of Commissioners:

Article I-25
3.a) Member states are treated with a strict equality concerning the order and length of service of their nationals in the European Commission ; thus, the difference between the total number of mandates held by nationals of two different countries can never be greater than one

What this means is that as the number of commissioners drop below that of member states (and it must to keep the Commission working), countries will obviously no longer have a commissioner every time - but big countries will loose "their commissioners" as often as small ones. Nearly half the time France, Germany, ect. will have no representatives on a 15 members body whose importance is getting stronger and stronger in the EU...

Originally posted by Finmaster
Are you not aware that last week, Germany's foreign minister Fischer or whatever his name is, came to Finland and told our prime minister that "Finland better agree with convention's proposal OR ELSE!"

So we should let France, Germany and other big countries decide these issues for us without even having the right to disagree? That was the basic idea of Germany's foreign minister's words. Luckily, our prime minister was wise enough not to agree with him.

I did not hear of that, and I could find no reference to it. But even if he did say that, the fact remains that the Constitution requires unanimous approvals and he knows it. I expect such a statement to be about as effective as Chirac's on "impolite new members".

Originally posted by Finmaster
I don't see my country having ANY power in EU. We used to decide our own domestic affairs, but now France, Germany and the other big ones are deciding them for us. I just wish that some day Finland will leave EU and become independent again - altough I fear that that day might never come.

I have to agree that EU does bring economical stability and increasing wealth, and that is a good thing. But we are paying a price far too high for that - we are giving up our political freedom.

Finland, like every country, has a limited but real influence in Europe. Your MEPs have the same powers as everybody's else... I agree that in an EU with 15 and soon 25 members, that power is limited, but it's still real. And alone, a country like Finland has no foreign influence, no impact on trade negotiations, and in general no influence in the shaping of rising number of issues which are decided at a global level - from world trade to environmental issues to the war on terrorism.

Edit: found PDFs of the Convention's proposal on the EU's website: in english and in finnish . Check Title IV, Article I-25, 3.b

Originally posted by Finmaster

Originally posted by Kinniken
What this means is that as the number of commissioners drop below that of member states (and it must to keep the Commission working), countries will obviously no longer have a commissioner every time - but big countries will loose "their commissioners" as often as small ones. Nearly half the time France, Germany, ect. will have no representatives on a 15 members body whose importance is getting stronger and stronger in the EU...

I understand that. However, some bigger countries are currently having two comissioners and they won't lose more than one while those who are having one comissioner won't have any comissioners at all. So the biggest countries will always have at least one comissioner. This most definetly does not progress equality among member states. I think it is a fair demand from the smaller countries that all countries are to have at least one comissioner all the time.

The way I see it, the only way to ensure that the big nations won't get the gap to dictate the entire Europe is to grant one comissioner position to each nation. This would be trivial to me if the bigger nations wouldn't try to dictate the domestic issues of smaller nations... but they are, as Germany's foreign minister showed last week, and as none of the smaller nations were heard when making final decisions about the constitution. Believe me, if someone had asked the opinion from the smaller nations, the consitution proposal would look very different.

Originally posted by Kinniken
I did not hear of that, and I could find no reference to it. But even if he did say that, the fact remains that the Constitution requires unanimous approvals and he knows it. I expect such a statement to be about as effective as Chirac's on "impolite new members".

It was the biggest news in Finland last week, it was on all papers and even our prime minister spoke about it on national television. Tell me, if the constitution must have unanimous approvals then why weren't the representives of small nations allowed to decide the final form of the constitution?

Also, I think that the fact that the constitution requires unanimous approvals is not a good reason to dismiss all demands of democracy and equality - not to mention the freedom of speech, which Finland's government is trying to do. Apparently Germany's foreign minister wouldn't want that...

Originally posted by Kinniken
Finland, like every country, has a limited but real influence in Europe. Your MEPs have the same powers as everybody's else... I agree that in an EU with 15 and soon 25 members, that power is limited, but it's still real. And alone, a country like Finland has no foreign influence, no impact on trade negotiations, and in general no influence in the shaping of rising number of issues which are decided at a global level - from world trade to environmental issues to the war on terrorism.

Edit: found PDFs of the Convention's proposal on the EU's website: in english and in finnish . Check Title IV, Article I-25, 3.b

I agree that Finland's influence on international issues has not been big. Altough I'm not sure if it has grown a lot, since as you might have noticed EU does not have very united foreign policies. We did have trade affairs before we joined EU and we are among the wealthiest nations in EU. Our gross-national product will be 1.6 times as big as the EU average on march (Learned this in history class, so I can't really provide you the source). Altough if I remember right, the soon-joining, poorer-than-average Eastern European countries joining in 2004 were also calculated in this average. So I'd say that our economy was doing well enough even before joining the EU. But I admit that when we look at it stricktly economically, Finland (as well as all small nations) will be doing better economically after joining the EU than before, that is an undenyable fact.

Notice also that when I say that EU takes away our political freedom, I am not talking about foreign policies. I don't see why a northern, small country like Finland even should be demanding influence on world affairs. I am quite happy to leave that to the superpowers, since they are so eager to want it. I just want the superpowers not to be telling Finland what we must do (hint hint, Germany's foreign minister). Notice also that so far we haven't completely followed EU's opinions in all our foreign policies: our foreign policy is and has been for a long time to work with the UN. That's why Finland has had influence in many UN peacekeeping missions, and that is also why our stand in the Iraq-war was to let UN take care of it. EU, in the meanwhile, has not formed a united opinion, and as long as it won't it will be somewhat weak as a unit on the stage of world affairs.

But what bothers me is not the foreign policy part; I have to admit that on the long term, EU is likely to increase our influence rather than decrease it. What bothers me are our domestic policies, and EU's growing influence on them. And as small nations lose more power to the bigger nations due to the new constitution which was completely decided by bigger nations, our government has to make decisions they wouldn't want to make because some crazy law passed again in the European Parliament. The way I see it, we have lost our independence on domestic affairs. We have already lost a LOT of it since joining the EU; we have had to ruin our agriculture for example. Also, because of EU's decisions we have had to remove taxes A LOT from cars, alcohol, etc... and instead take that money off from healthcare and education. This is making Finland more rightist. Don't get me wrong; I have nothing against Finland turning a bit more rightist. My problem is when our country is turning rightist while most of our people AND our government is not wanting that to happen.

My opinion on this would change if the EU constitution was made fair for all countries. Of course it now says that it's fair, but it doesn't say in the paper anything about the actions how to make it fair. And as long as there are people like Germany's foreign minister ordering small countries around, I don't think it will be very fair for the small countries no matter what beautiful ideologies are written in the constitution.

Btw, thanks for providing the constitution. I don't have time to read it now (besides it's kinda long) but I might quickly check out the most important parts when I have time.

 

[Kinniken]

Originally posted by Finmaster
I understand that. However, some bigger countries are currently having two comissioners and they won't lose more than one while those who are having one comissioner won't have any comissioners at all. So the biggest countries will always have at least one comissioner. This most definetly does not progress equality among member states. I think it is a fair demand from the smaller countries that all countries are to have at least one comissioner all the time.

No, you do not understand, or you have not read my post or the quote from the constitution closely enough. the "two commissioners for big countries" rule no longer exist in the current constitutional proposal. Nearly half the time, every country, from Germany to Malta, has no commissioner. The equality between big and small countries in this respect is total.
In fact, it's about the one point of the constitution where I think the "small countries" are getting too good a deal, but in any case it's there, black on white.

Originally posted by Finmaster
The way I see it, the only way to ensure that the big nations won't get the gap to dictate the entire Europe is to grant one comissioner position to each nation. This would be trivial to me if the bigger nations wouldn't try to dictate the domestic issues of smaller nations... but they are, as Germany's foreign minister showed last week, and as none of the smaller nations were heard when making final decisions about the constitution. Believe me, if someone had asked the opinion from the smaller nations, the consitution proposal would look very different.

A Commissioner for every country would be more politically acceptable for everyone, and in particular for the big countries, but that means varying the number of "ministeries" depending not on need, but on the number of EU members. And having 25 Commissioners is just too much.
A possible compromise would be to have two levels of Commissioners, but that was scrapped at small countries' insistance.
As for the opinion of small countries, it certainly was taken into account - simply, a compromise had to be drawn at some point, and everyone has griefs with it, which is not surprising considering the diversity of opinions.

Originally posted by Finmaster
We did have trade affairs before we joined EU and we are among the wealthiest nations in EU. Our gross-national product will be 1.6 times as big as the EU average on march (Learned this in history class, so I can't really provide you the source). Altough if I remember right, the soon-joining, poorer-than-average Eastern European countries joining in 2004 were also calculated in this average.

1.6 times EU average?? I just checked on the world bank's website, and your GDP/head is just a nudge above France's, and we are a bit below the current average. Though of course the average will drop next year, the drop cannot be that big.
As for trade affairs, of course you do not need the EU to trade. You need it to have a real voice in world trade negotiations.
It is quite revealing that the only international negotiations where the EU speaks for its member states, the WTO negotiations, are also the only one where we have a negotiating power on par with America's, and thus a real say on the final decisions.
And those negotiations are handled by the Commission, where you get as many representatives than Germany or France in the proposed constitution!

Originally posted by Finmaster
Notice also that when I say that EU takes away our political freedom, I am not talking about foreign policies. I don't see why a northern, small country like Finland even should be demanding influence on world affairs. I am quite happy to leave that to the superpowers, since they are so eager to want it. I just want the superpowers not to be telling Finland what we must do (hint hint, Germany's foreign minister). Notice also that so far we haven't completely followed EU's opinions in all our foreign policies: our foreign policy is and has been for a long time to work with the UN. That's why Finland has had influence in many UN peacekeeping missions, and that is also why our stand in the Iraq-war was to let UN take care of it. EU, in the meanwhile, has not formed a united opinion, and as long as it won't it will be somewhat weak as a unit on the stage of world affairs.

I agree that for the moment the EU does not have much of a foreign policy - it's too soon. However, the constitution proposal does include the possibility of a common approach on a foreign policy problem if all countries agree on it, which will allow an common EU foreign policy to be tested on things we all agree on before thinking of a closer system.
And a united European voice, speaking not for one nation but for 25+ countries having accepted to share national sovereignty and to end centuries of wars by resolving their conflicts peacefully would have an interesting voice in foreign policy. And it would most likely remains very close the UN.

Originally posted by Finmaster
But what bothers me is not the foreign policy part; I have to admit that on the long term, EU is likely to increase our influence rather than decrease it. What bothers me are our domestic policies, and EU's growing influence on them. And as small nations lose more power to the bigger nations due to the new constitution which was completely decided by bigger nations, our government has to make decisions they wouldn't want to make because some crazy law passed again in the European Parliament. The way I see it, we have lost our independence on domestic affairs. We have already lost a LOT of it since joining the EU; we have had to ruin our agriculture for example. Also, because of EU's decisions we have had to remove taxes A LOT from cars, alcohol, etc... and instead take that money off from healthcare and education. This is making Finland more rightist. Don't get me wrong; I have nothing against Finland turning a bit more rightist. My problem is when our country is turning rightist while most of our people AND our government is not wanting that to happen.

I disagree once again with your idea that the constitution proposal exaggeratedly favors big countries, especially since the arrival of the ten new members, 9 of which are "small", will further increase small countries' weight in the EU.
As for all the laws in question, this is not a "small country's problem", but one which every country shares. For a common market to work, we need some standardisation of VATs, of quality standards, of some business rules, ect. Recently France was thinking of reducing taxes on restaurants, and we would have had to ask authorisation from the other EU members - who made it clear that they would refuse.

Originally posted by Finmaster
My opinion on this would change if the EU constitution was made fair for all countries. Of course it now says that it's fair, but it doesn't say in the paper anything about the actions how to make it fair. And as long as there are people like Germany's foreign minister ordering small countries around, I don't think it will be very fair for the small countries no matter what beautiful ideologies are written in the constitution.

Btw, thanks for providing the constitution. I don't have time to read it now (besides it's kinda long) but I might quickly check out the most important parts when I have time.

The German Foreign Minister can says what he wants, he does not rule the EU anymore than Chirac does.
And the fact remains that in the EU today, the 5 big countries make up roughly 5/6 of the population, so it is not surprising or shameful that they should have a great deal of influence. Which does not mean that small countries do not have a good deal as well.
What is more, if it is true that on the constitution proposal there is a rather clear small countries/big countries divide, it is specific to that debate. On the issue of an EU military force France and Germany sides with Belgium and Luxembourg, on support for the Iraqi war the future members, big and small, tended to side with the Uk and Spain, on agriculture, Ireland and Greece are France's best allies, ect.

 

[Hitro]

The EU as it is now gives far too much power to the small countries, the majority of Europeans should rule, not the majority of countries.
It can only work if Europeans regards themselves as such first, and only as French, Germans, Fins, etc. second.

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by Hitro
The EU as it is now gives far too much power to the small countries, the majority of Europeans should rule, not the majority of countries.
It can only work if Europeans regards themselves as such first, and only as French, Germans, Fins, etc. second.

I am not so sure about this. When we compare the EU to the US of A, you might get my point. The US has a congress where each state can send reps according to its inhabitants. California sends about 50 (I think it is 52..), North Dakota, for instance, sends 1. Yet each state has two senators.

The EU will never be one nation. At best it will become a federation, where each state/country will always be able to have its own rules on several issues.

A one-head-one-vote situation is not quite likely!

BTW: Germany is the only federation in the EU afaik. Each Land (or Freistaat) has its own president. What exactly can german lands decide for themselves?

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Originally posted by Hitro
The EU as it is now gives far too much power to the small countries, the majority of Europeans should rule, not the majority of countries.
It can only work if Europeans regards themselves as such first, and only as French, Germans, Fins, etc. second.

Well, it might also work if each citizen begins to feel strongly attached to the city he lives in. A regionalism on a municipal basis.

 

[SideshowBob]

We are not yet living in the United States of Europe, and therefore I feel that the EP has to much power concerning domestic affairs.

I don't want to be told by some Germans, French, English, Italians or whatever how we should live in Finland when they don't know squat about this country. Yet I'm sure they are wise enough (hopefully) to make the right decisions for their own countries.

And finally, I am happy that Schroeder and Chirac took such a strong stand against a war in Iraq. That was really one time I got very, VERY disappointed with our former prime minister who said to Bush something like "we can't participate in any military actions, but you can count on humanitarian aid from us when the war is over". In other words he gave the war more or less his blessing, even though that wasn't Finlands stand. "Oh, go ahead, bomb Iraq. It's quite alright. We can help clean up the mess afterwards"

So, I think there should be one representative from each country when some issues are adressed. In others there should be representatives in the right proportions. How about. On representative from each country, and all of them would have different amounts of votes depending on how large the population of the represented country is?

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Stapel
The EU will never be one nation. At best it will become a federation, where each state/country will always be able to have its own rules on several issues.

I agree that it will be that way, but I think it shouldn't be so.
And Germany has, like the US, a Federalist system, but the EU hasn't, it only has the state part. Of course the whole of Europe votes for the parliament but first it has virtually no power compared with the Commission and the national governments and second the representation there is also based on countries, in a biased way.

Each Land (or Freistaat) has its own president. What exactly can german lands decide for themselves?

Each Land has a Prime Minister (though called something else in some), never a President though, the President is head of the Federal Republic. There are several issues they can decide upon themselves, with education being one of the most prominent, which leads to different numbers of schoolyears and even different school systems. Also certain parts of the tax laws, but the Bund (the Federal government) has alot to say about that.

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
Well, it might also work if each citizen begins to feel strongly attached to the city he lives in.

In that sense I am a model European.
Secession now!

 

[Finmaster]

Originally posted by Kinniken


No, you do not understand, or you have not read my post or the quote from the constitution closely enough. the "two commissioners for big countries" rule no longer exist in the current constitutional proposal. Nearly half the time, every country, from Germany to Malta, has no commissioner. The equality between big and small countries in this respect is total.
In fact, it's about the one point of the constitution where I think the "small countries" are getting too good a deal, but in any case it's there, black on white.

Then you are interpreting the article 25-3 in a different way than me. Yes, the article does speak of "stricktly equal footing" between member states, but it does not say what this means.

Wait yes it does: "each successive College shall be composed as to reflect satisfactorily the demographic and geographical range of all the Member States of the Union"

How do you interpret that? I interpret that in the following way: the more people live in your country, the bigger chance you'll get on having a commissioner. And we can all pretty much understand where the fact that the constitution is so hard to interpret will lead us: soon the big countries are interpreting it for us. I have gotten the idea that that is another thing what our government is afraid of - and for a good reason, I think.

Also, notice that so far in EU, the power has pretty much been in hands in the chairmen of the convention (the fact that small countries weren't invided to the final discussions over the constitution proves this in my mind). So even if the comissioner positions were equally divided (which I very much doubt), the chairmen (who naturally wouldn't be from the "border countries" of Europe) would get to decide over everything... At least Finland's current commissioner suggested towards the direction of the convention being "undemocratic" in that sense. And I believe him... mostly because he wasn't present when France's and Germany's and Italy's commissioners were deciding over the constitution.

A Commissioner for every country would be more politically acceptable for everyone, and in particular for the big countries, but that means varying the number of "ministeries" depending not on need, but on the number of EU members. And having 25 Commissioners is just too much.
A possible compromise would be to have two levels of Commissioners, but that was scrapped at small countries' insistance.
As for the opinion of small countries, it certainly was taken into account - simply, a compromise had to be drawn at some point, and everyone has griefs with it, which is not surprising considering the diversity of opinions.

Why is 25 Commissioners "too much"? It sounds like the best solution to me and 25 really isn't that much.

Especially when there might be a "EU president". And especially if this president would have a lot of power, then the country where the president comes from would have a bit of an edge on the issues that the convention decides of. And I can assure you that that president would not be from Finland or Sweden or Hungary...

1.6 times EU average?? I just checked on the world bank's website, and your GDP/head is just a nudge above France's, and we are a bit below the current average. Though of course the average will drop next year, the drop cannot be that big.
As for trade affairs, of course you do not need the EU to trade. You need it to have a real voice in world trade negotiations.
It is quite revealing that the only international negotiations where the EU speaks for its member states, the WTO negotiations, are also the only one where we have a negotiating power on par with America's, and thus a real say on the final decisions.
And those negotiations are handled by the Commission, where you get as many representatives than Germany or France in the proposed constitution!

Like I said, I got these stats from my history teacher. I forgot to ask him where he had gotten them. But you must remember that basically all the new countries joining EU are somewhat below the EU average (both current one and the new one) economically, which might have raised Finland's figures. I'm not sure about that, and I don't think that it's really being the key issue for this discussion.

What comes to EU having a par with America on negations... I believe that it is true. However, the countries that take part in these discussions are the big countries. The EU's stand on issues will not go through the parliament, basically the country leaders who are currently leading the EU will be having the biggest influence.

Right now the biggest influence is with whoever is running the EU, and this changes every year (or was it every 6 months?). Right now Italy and their Berlusconi is "in charge". In 1999 it was Finland's turn. I liked this system because it was truly fair for all countries. However, in the new EU there will be a president; and suddenly small countries lose even that little gap they had.

I agree that for the moment the EU does not have much of a foreign policy - it's too soon. However, the constitution proposal does include the possibility of a common approach on a foreign policy problem if all countries agree on it, which will allow an common EU foreign policy to be tested on things we all agree on before thinking of a closer system.

Sounds good to me. As long as the decisions are unanimous.

And a united European voice, speaking not for one nation but for 25+ countries having accepted to share national sovereignty and to end centuries of wars by resolving their conflicts peacefully would have an interesting voice in foreign policy. And it would most likely remains very close the UN.

I have my doubts about that... but like I said, that isn't the most vital question to me.

I disagree once again with your idea that the constitution proposal exaggeratedly favors big countries, especially since the arrival of the ten new members, 9 of which are "small", will further increase small countries' weight in the EU.

I believe that this is the reason why the constitution is made: little countries are gaining a gap by having 9 new small countries joining the EU and this gap is being tried to remove with the constitution.

As for all the laws in question, this is not a "small country's problem", but one which every country shares. For a common market to work, we need some standardisation of VATs, of quality standards, of some business rules, ect. Recently France was thinking of reducing taxes on restaurants, and we would have had to ask authorisation from the other EU members - who made it clear that they would refuse.

Of course the laws are for everyone. However, the laws are in their nature bound to be more hard for the smaller countries - or countries who have different kind of political/economical system than the bigger countries - because the bigger nations have had more to say when making the laws.

The German Foreign Minister can says what he wants, he does not rule the EU anymore than Chirac does.

Maybe not, but I think that he does pretty well demonstrate the common attitude that the bigger countries have towards the smaller countries. And I don't see how you can deny this, because he has not been the only important politician talking like this. You already mentioned Chirac, and I could add Berlusconi to the list. A few years ago Blair held an "EU-meeting" where only the 5-6 biggest nations participated. Finland and Austria were the only countries who had the guts to send a note about this to Blair.

And the fact remains that in the EU today, the 5 big countries make up roughly 5/6 of the population, so it is not surprising or shameful that they should have a great deal of influence.

I don't like it. I don't want to get screwed only because I belong in a minority! I want out of EU!!!!

Even though the small countries have only 1/6 of the population, I think they should still be included in the decision-making of such issues as the constitution.

Which does not mean that small countries do not have a good deal as well.
What is more, if it is true that on the constitution proposal there is a rather clear small countries/big countries divide, it is specific to that debate. On the issue of an EU military force France and Germany sides with Belgium and Luxembourg, on support for the Iraqi war the future members, big and small, tended to side with the Uk and Spain, on agriculture, Ireland and Greece are France's best allies, ect.

I would like Finland being neutral on all military issues.

Back to the constitution... it must clearly say what the "equality between member states" mean. If the leaders of the convention decide over everything and the normal commissioners don't have that much to say, then the new system doesn't make it any more equal that it is now - and it will be even worse if the leaders of the big countries don't interpret it the way you do. And the president... WTH is that all about? Are they making it to ENSURE that small countries will be having even LESS to say on EU's foreign negotiating than they are having now!

You know, there is an interresting debate going on in Finland now: our government is saying that the constitution can only be accepted if the president is given very small authority in the constitution itself. Our oppisition, in the meanwhile, is saying that Finland shouldn't accept a constitution that presents a president for the EU at all. I tend to agree with the opposition...

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Im an American, but based on what I read in the news, it seems no single person has done more to unite Europeans than George Bush. There were already forces urging greater unification and cooperation (particularly in the military arena), but the events of the last 2 years have fully convinced Europe that it can no longer depend on America for leadership. A superpower with an irresponsible leader is a very dangerous thing. There could be even worse to come in the future. I think its the French who see a tri-polar world developing, Europe, America and China, and I agree with that. Europe has alot of catching up to do in the military arena.

 

[Kinniken]

Originally posted by Finmaster
Then you are interpreting the article 25-3 in a different way than me. Yes, the article does speak of "stricktly equal footing" between member states, but it does not say what this means.

Wait yes it does: "each successive College shall be composed as to reflect satisfactorily the demographic and geographical range of all the Member States of the Union"

How do you interpret that? I interpret that in the following way: the more people live in your country, the bigger chance you'll get on having a commissioner. And we can all pretty much understand where the fact that the constitution is so hard to interpret will lead us: soon the big countries are interpreting it for us. I have gotten the idea that that is another thing what our government is afraid of - and for a good reason, I think.

"strictly equal footing" means what it means. There was quite a lot of discussion on this point when it was added in the draft, and every article I read on it interpreted it that way. The rule on the number of mandates is as clear as it gets.
As for the "according" sentence, it's just an vague phrase which means that every commission should try to be representative of big/small countries and geographical origins (ie, not having a commission made up wholly of southerners, ect.)

Originally posted by Finmaster
Also, notice that so far in EU, the power has pretty much been in hands in the chairmen of the convention (the fact that small countries weren't invided to the final discussions over the constitution proves this in my mind). So even if the comissioner positions were equally divided (which I very much doubt), the chairmen (who naturally wouldn't be from the "border countries" of Europe) would get to decide over everything... At least Finland's current commissioner suggested towards the direction of the convention being "undemocratic" in that sense. And I believe him... mostly because he wasn't present when France's and Germany's and Italy's commissioners were deciding over the constitution.

I thin, you are mixing up the Commission - the body headed by Prodi who initiates and implement EU laws and the Convention - the one-off "conference" organised last year who designed the project of constitution. The Convention is now over.
The President of The Commission (currently Prodi) is indeed quite powerful, but he certainly is not always from a big country. In fact, the one before Prodi was from Luxembourg, the smallest EU country. What is more, the Commission is usually considered the body most favorable to the small countries - most decisions are taken by votes among Commissioners, and currently small countries have ten, like the big countries.

Originally posted by Finmaster
Why is 25 Commissioners "too much"? It sounds like the best solution to me and 25 really isn't that much.

25 ministers is already a lot, and having to "split" portfolios every time a new country joins makes the whole system clumsy. I agree though that it would be good to have a Commissioner per country. It's a debatable point for me.

Originally posted by Finmaster
Especially when there might be a "EU president". And especially if this president would have a lot of power, then the country where the president comes from would have a bit of an edge on the issues that the convention decides of. And I can assure you that that president would not be from Finland or Sweden or Hungary...

I am split as well on the issue of the President of the European Council (and not of the EU, though he might be perceived that way). On one hand, abolishing the rotating presidency makes sense for practical reasons - having to start everything again in a new country every six month is a pain.
On the other, I do not want him to have too much powers, and under the current proposal he does not get that much.
As for his nationality, I wouldn't be surprised if he was chosen from a small country - mainly because a French, German or British President would frighten many people.

Originally posted by Finmaster
Like I said, I got these stats from my history teacher. I forgot to ask him where he had gotten them. But you must remember that basically all the new countries joining EU are somewhat below the EU average (both current one and the new one) economically, which might have raised Finland's figures. I'm not sure about that, and I don't think that it's really being the key issue for this discussion.

I agree that it's not an important point, but I'm still pretty sure that 1.6 is far too high. The new members are poor, but they are not very populated so they will not change the EU average that dramatically.

Originally posted by Finmaster
I believe that this is the reason why the constitution is made: little countries are gaining a gap by having 9 new small countries joining the EU and this gap is being tried to remove with the constitution.

Not really. The reason why a constitution is badly needed is to make EU institutions works with 25 members, when they were devised for 6.
Things like unanimity for nearly every decisions or the rotating presidency (one turn every 12.5 years! great...) worked well with six members, but work less and less as the number goes up.

Originally posted by Finmaster
You know, there is an interresting debate going on in Finland now: our government is saying that the constitution can only be accepted if the president is given very small authority in the constitution itself. Our oppisition, in the meanwhile, is saying that Finland shouldn't accept a constitution that presents a president for the EU at all. I tend to agree with the opposition...

I tend to agree with your government, as far as my personal preference is concerned. However, I also recognise that with 25 countries needed for ratification, everyone cannot get everything they want. I wanted things like the election of the President of the Commission by the Parliament which are not there because eurosceptics refused - I would still vote for it in a referendum, because even if it's only a laborious compromise it's a step forward.

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by Hitro
Each Land has a Prime Minister (though called something else in some), never a President though, the President is head of the Federal Republic.

Huh, I am pretty sure these guys are called 'Landespraesident'... I might be wrong.. I got an information book on a german classic car rally last week (2000km durch Deutschland) and it has an intro where all (except H, B & SH) the presidents / prime ministers say a word of welcome. I'll check tonight.

Now that you have mentioned education. I remember a dispute on the ß.. IIRC the Bavarians wanted to keep it......

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Stapel
Huh, I am pretty sure these guys are called 'Landespraesident'... I might be wrong.. I got an information book on a german classic car rally last week (2000km durch Deutschland) and it has an intro where all (except H, B & SH) the presidents / prime ministers say a word of welcome. I'll check tonight.

Yeah do that, I'd be kind of suprised about that.
They are called "Ministerpräsident" in all the big states and "Bürgermeister" (Mayor) in the three city states.

Now that you have mentioned education. I remember a dispute on the ß.. IIRC the Bavarians wanted to keep it......

Wanted? It is still there and rightfully so. But it wasn't the Bavarians who fought the war against the corruption of the language (would have been quite ironical anyway ), the commission that decided upon it was devided across state borders.

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by Hitro

"Bürgermeister" (Mayor) in the three city states.

3? Hamburg, Bremen and?? Berlin?

What is the diff between buergermeister and oberbuergermeister?

btw: sorry to jack this thread into a german political systems questionairre...

 

[addiv]

My opinion is that the EU has way too much power, not specifically the big countries. Especially the European Commission has too much power. The whole EU isn't even a truly democratic institution, and yet it has installed many laws for the EU countries, whether they are small or big.
This is ridiculous. I want the EU to be JUST a trade-union again, and nothing more. No more political tasks.

 

[Phantom Lord]

Originally posted by Stapel


3? Hamburg, Bremen and?? Berlin?

What is the diff between buergermeister and oberbuergermeister?

btw: sorry to jack this thread into a german political systems questionairre...

Yes, Berlin. There is no real thing such as "Oberbürgermeister", unless you have several mayors for parts of the city. The city state heads are mayors (Bürgermeister) and the cities have senates and senators, while the countries have parliaments, ministers and prime ministers. But in fact it's just different titles for equal positions.

 

[andrewgprv]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
Im an American, but based on what I read in the news, it seems no single person has done more to unite Europeans than George Bush. There were already forces urging greater unification and cooperation (particularly in the military arena), but the events of the last 2 years have fully convinced Europe that it can no longer depend on America for leadership. A superpower with an irresponsible leader is a very dangerous thing. There could be even worse to come in the future. I think its the French who see a tri-polar world developing, Europe, America and China, and I agree with that. Europe has alot of catching up to do in the military arena.

I agree....however there are those in Europe that do not want unity. They complain that France for instance may have more of a say compared to Norway but that is how it should be. In a country like England which has more say London or some small town in the countryside?

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
I think its the French who see a tri-polar world developing, Europe, America and China, and I agree with that. Europe has alot of catching up to do in the military arena.

I think the French hope they can be part of a tri-polar world. America is obviously there, China is getting there, the question is whether Europe can get there or not.


Europeans are debating big states v. small states. I wonder if they will be dealing with sectionalism in another 70 years or so...

 

[addiv]

Originally posted by andrewgprv


I agree....however there are those in Europe that do not want unity. They complain that France for instance may have more of a say compared to Norway but that is how it should be. In a country like England which has more say London or some small town in the countryside?

There is a reason there are so many countries in Europe: there is a huge variety of peoples and cultures. Regrettably this variety is diminishing, but it's still there. So you cannot compare Europe to England and say that Norway (not in the EU btw) should have less to say than France. The EU is trying to establish an artificial unity. It would be wise if they don't go any further with giving the EU more political power. They should wait until Europe is much more a cultural unity (like the US is).

 

[Yago]

I think the French hope they can be part of a tri-polar world. America is obviously there, China is getting there, the question is whether Europe can get there or not.

From an European point of view. Been there, done that. Since hundred and fifty years Europe is declining. Since 50 years it's the golden age of peace and wealth. So, yes, insignificant but happy, that's how it's going to be.

To the actual topic. The problem are the British, the twins of the British, a.ka. Germans and the French. And invisible but big Italy.

Particularly the big 3 have to reduce there über-ego a little bit before things can get democratic and federalistic.

.

They should wait until Europe is much more a cultural unity

The cultural diversity of Europe always was its biggest advantage (in the end). And I see no reason, that this cultural diversity will vanish. Just because there are obviously countries which are many times bigger than an European country, like China, India, Brazil or the US, it does not mean, that the European countries have to disappear into eachother

 

[naervod]

From the point of view of an outsider (who has studied the EU while in Europe) I feel that an EP system will work if it is like the American system, where there are two houses, one based on population, and one equal one. Now, I feel Germany and France should get down from their high horse, and let the smaller countries have more say. I'm not saying small countries should have more power than the big countries, just more power than they already have.