The EU (Sheeps NES)

[TheBladeRoden]

OOC: It's tantamount to me subscribing to this thread.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

OOC: It's tantamount to me subscribing to this thread.

No, it isn't. All of the EU's meetings are held openly, and the results are published. Observer status means that the observing country may speak, but not vote.

 

[Insane_Panda]

Jalapeno_Dude:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Constitution

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6227823.stm

The EU, quite frankly, is a mess. This is acknowledged by all of the major leaders in Europe in OTL (yet somehow, you people seem to not have any idea of problems whatsoever. I suggest that everyone party to this Union do some research about the current state of the EU.)

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Jalapeno_Dude:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Constitution

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6227823.stm

The EU, quite frankly, is a mess. This is acknowledged by all of the major leaders in Europe in OTL (yet somehow, you people seem to not have any idea of problems whatsoever. I suggest that everyone party to this Union do some research about the current state of the EU.)

Oh, I know that, but it still doesn't answer my question. Part II of your resolution is way too vague.

 

[Insane_Panda]

Primarily, our contention with the constitution lays with a majority of those clauses which are not essential. The European Union, as it stands, is a federation of nations, and should not dictate the policies of its member nations - such an infringement of national soveriengty as percieved by the french people was one of the major factions of the NON vote on the constitutional referendum. Therefore, we believe that the constitution should be rewritten under the following plan:

I.) Firstly, the creation of a simple treaty by the end of 2007 containing only essential and non-contentioned points of the former treaty. This would essentially contain the charter of fundamental rights and affirm the policy of both referenda and the pre-eminence of parliamentry law in governing the decisions of the Union.

II.) Secondly, before the end of 2009, a constitutional convention (containing delegates from all member nations) should convene and form a new constitution, one which is especially concerned with the "Common Foriegn and Security Policy" whilst affirming the sovereign rights of nation and limiting EU domestic involvement to those policies already enshrined in past treaties such as the charter of fundamental rights and the assertation of parliamentry law in governing all EU policies.

III.) Finally, at the end of 2009, a European-wide referendum on the new Constitution.​

 

[jalapeno_dude]

This is as good a time as any to remind the richer EU nations of the European Investment Fund and Bank. These institutions make Europe stronger by investing in small businesses throughout Europe and promoting regional development, telecommunications and energy, research, development and innovation, environmental improvement and protection, health and education. With an estimated 433 EP to spend among the EU27, surely some can go to promoting the advancement of Europe.

And, should you fear that the Bank will misspend the money given to it, relax--the Bank and Fund are in Luxembourg, the banking headquarters of the EU.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Primarily, our contention with the constitution lays with a majority of those clauses which are not essential. The European Union, as it stands, is a federation of nations, and should not dictate the policies of its member nations - such an infringement of national soveriengty as percieved by the french people was one of the major factions of the NON vote on the constitutional referendum. Therefore, we believe that the constitution should be rewritten under the following plan:

I.) Firstly, the creation of a simple treaty by the end of 2007 containing only essential and non-contentioned points of the former treaty. This would essentially contain the charter of fundamental rights and affirm the policy of both referenda and the pre-eminence of parliamentry law in governing the decisions of the Union.

II.) Secondly, before the end of 2009, a constitutional convention (containing delegates from all member nations) should convene and form a new constitution, one which is especially concerned with the "Common Foriegn and Security Policy" whilst affirming the sovereign rights of nation and limiting EU domestic involvement to those policies already enshrined in past treaties such as the charter of fundamental rights and the assertation of parliamentry law in governing all EU policies.

III.) Finally, at the end of 2009, a European-wide referendum on the new Constitution.​

This resolution seems acceptable, though not ideal. In France's vision of it, what will the 2009 constitution say about the admissions of new members? Will it at least lay the groundwork, even if there is no desire at the time to admit new members?

 

[Insane_Panda]

Furthermore, how shall we be dealing with the vote-disparity between nations in the EU? The EU does not operate under a system of equal representation, and rather it is proportional based on nation population instead as follows:

Germany - 29
France - 29
UK - 29
Italy - 29
Spain - 27
Poland - 27
Romania - 14
Netherlands - 13
Greece - 12
Portugal - 12
Belgium - 12
Czech R. - 12
Hungary - 12
Sweden - 10
Austria - 10
Bulgaria - 10
Slovakia - 7
Denmark - 7
Finland - 7
Ireland - 7
Lithuania - 7
Latvia - 7
Slovenia - 4
Estonia - 4
Cyprus - 4
Luxembourg - 4
Malta - 3
Total votes: 345

I am for adhereing to this system. Not simply because it shall give me more power (which it undoubtebly shall, but it shall also give UK, Germany, and all the other larger nations more power), but because that is how the EU currently works and how the nations have agreed on it to work, and therefore it is also the most realistic approach, without being very complex.

 

[Insane_Panda]

This resolution seems acceptable, though not ideal. In France's vision of it, what will the 2009 constitution say about the admissions of new members? Will it at least lay the groundwork, even if there is no desire at the time to admit new members?

We believe that it is essential to lay a groundwork for accepting new members to the EU. We are just hesitant to do so now due to the fact that we just accepted 2 member nations, and accepting 2 more so soon will cause some growing pains for the Union.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

But, should new members be added, how will the votes shift? Will they simply receive a number of votes the same to existing members with similar populations? Will the number of votes remain at 345, meaning all vote totals would have to change? Or will the number of votes increase, but the specific numbers be adjusted so that proportions remain similar?

EDIT:

Is 2009 "soon"? New nations were admitted in 2004, and they were well-integrated by 2007. The EU has previously said that nations will no longer be admitted in waves. But should there be a maximum number of new members per decade, or a rule that new nations can only be admitted every 3/5/etc years?

 

[Insane_Panda]

Well, the votes would simply be added to the system, and their votes would be based off of comparative populations of other nations.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Well, the votes would simply be added to the system, and their votes would be based off of comparative populations of other nations.

So the power of an individual state would become less and less as new members were added? Also, what if the populations shift drastically? Should votes be reapportioned every 10 years?

OOC: Also, see my EDIT above.

 

[Insane_Panda]

So the power of an individual state would become less and less as new members were added? Also, what if the populations shift drastically? Should votes be reapportioned every 10 years?

Indeed, that is what happens as new members are admitted. (OOC: It is why alot of people are against admitting new nations)

We do not expect populations to shift dramatically, but we do believe that they should be reapportioned within a time period to reflect the changes which shall occur.

As for the admittance of new nations into the Union, I believe we should set up a number to be eligible per every few years, though that can be negociated between ourselves. Basically, what I dont want is, like you said, the EU recruiting in waves.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Okay. So, how about:

I. Votes are reapportioned every 10 years based on the mechanism in the Treaty of Nice, starting January 1st, 2010.
II. New member states initially get a number of votes and index of population equal to the nation closest to them in population, until votes are reapportioned at the end of the decade.
III. No more than 2 new members can be admitted in any 4-year period, starting with the adoption of this constitution.

Sheep, can we get some NPC feedback?

 

[Insane_Panda]

France agrees wholeheartedly.

 

[Sheep]

I would if there was actual resolutions to vote upon.

NPC nations on a whole however like the current system, think a new consitutuion is necessary and would like to see some of the ambiguiaties ironed out in the treaties.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Fine. Luxembourg proposes the Treaty of Luxembourg (OOC: following the convention of naming treaties after cities):

I. Votes are reapportioned every 10 years based on the mechanism in the Treaty of Nice and the EU census, starting January 1st, 2010.
II. New member states shall initially get a number of votes and index of population equal to the nation closest to them in population, until votes are reapportioned at the end of the decade.
III. No more than 2 new members shall be admitted in any 4-year period, starting with the 4 year period commencing on January 1st of the year following the ratification of this treaty.
IIII. The number of commissioners in the European Commission shall be equal to the number of member states in the European Union. Each member state shall appoint one commissioner.
V. New member states shall enter into the European Union on January 1st of the year following the ratification of an admission treaty.

Luxembourg submits this treaty for ratification by the governments of the EU27.

OOC: Added IV and V. IV clears up a contradiction with the Treaty of Nice, V makes things easier from the point of view of the NES. Let's consider this the draft treaty proposed by the working group from Resolution II.

 

[Insane_Panda]

France votes YES to the treaty of Luxembourg.

Furthermore, France re-proposes Resolution#3 (4?):

The Treaty for a Revised European Constitution:
I. By December, 2007, a new European Constitution consisting of only a basic fundamental framework shall be ratified to replace the current constitution.
II. By December, 2009, a new Consitutional Convention is to have convened, consisting of representatives from all European Union members. This Convention is charged with the creation of a new European Constitution based upon the principles of a "Common Foriegn and Security Policy" whilst at the same time maintaining a large degree of sovereignty for member states domestically.
III. By January, 2010, a European Union-wide referendum will be held, to determine whether or not the new constitution shall be enacted throughout the Union.​

 

[jalapeno_dude]

OOC: It's a treaty, not a resolution, so you need your Parliament to ratify it rather than simply voting yes. But I doubt they'd vote no.

IC: Luxembourg votes yes on Resolution 4.

OOC: Now, Sheep, we actually do need ratifications. Unfortunately, each one of the 27 members must ratify the treaty for it to take effect, but hopefully that will happen.

 

[Sheep]

ALL NPC nations will ratify this treaty by the end of 2007.