Did the French sabotage the EU Constitution deliberately?

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
If Poland and Spain are going to take a political, social, and or an economic hit by being in the EU the should opt not to join.

Erm, Spain is already in the EU (has been for about 20 years).

Andy

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
If Poland and Spain are going to take a political, social, and or an economic hit by being in the EU the should opt not to join.

Erm, Spain is already in the EU (has been for about 20 years).

Andy

Spain also receives the most money out of all of the countries currently in the EU. Poland will probably be one of, if not the largest receiver of funds once they join.

 

[RabidMongoose]

So what if Poland is a poor country and going to be a new member of the EU? Again, that was known when they were accepted into the EU and the voting system was agreed upon with that in mind. Again, you reap what you sow. Why should these other countries now back out of an AGREEMENT? And now they're trying to paint Spain/Poland as the bad guys - when the blame can be equally.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
So what if Poland is a poor country and going to be a new member of the EU? Again, that was known when they were accepted into the EU and the voting system was agreed upon with that in mind. Again, you reap what you sow. Why should these other countries now back out of an AGREEMENT? And now they're trying to paint Spain/Poland as the bad guys - when the blame can be equally.

The only reason I continue to bring up Poland and Spain's financial situation is that they will be putting a large strain on the EU's funds, which will limit what the EU can do. Since they will be putting such a strain on those funds, they should not have such a problem with the lack of importance. Sure, overtime they will grow, but it could take several decades.(Spain has been in for 2 decades and is still quite poor when compared to the other nations)

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
So what if Poland is a poor country and going to be a new member of the EU? Again, that was known when they were accepted into the EU and the voting system was agreed upon with that in mind. Again, you reap what you sow. Why should these other countries now back out of an AGREEMENT? And now they're trying to paint Spain/Poland as the bad guys - when the blame can be equally.

The only reason I continue to bring up Poland and Spain's financial situation is that they will be putting a large strain on the EU's funds, which will limit what the EU can do. Since they will be putting such a strain on those funds, they should not have such a problem with the lack of importance. Sure, overtime they will grow, but it could take several decades.(Spain has been in for 2 decades and is still quite poor when compared to the other nations)

Shouldn't Poland have their long-term interests in mind? Also, I'd doubt that all funding to them would stop. They're not given aid just for fun or out of the kindness of the heart. I'm sure they want to see their neighbors grow strong and not push them away.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
So what if Poland is a poor country and going to be a new member of the EU? Again, that was known when they were accepted into the EU and the voting system was agreed upon with that in mind. Again, you reap what you sow. Why should these other countries now back out of an AGREEMENT? And now they're trying to paint Spain/Poland as the bad guys - when the blame can be equally.

The only reason I continue to bring up Poland and Spain's financial situation is that they will be putting a large strain on the EU's funds, which will limit what the EU can do. Since they will be putting such a strain on those funds, they should not have such a problem with the lack of importance. Sure, overtime they will grow, but it could take several decades.(Spain has been in for 2 decades and is still quite poor when compared to the other nations)

Why? If a good deal is presented to you, you would quickly jump in on it. You would agree to it without even thinking about it. Again, you reap what you sow. There was nothing deceiving done by Poland in the deal.

Hopefully these countries will negotiate and come to a compromise.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: charrison
one house that has representative determined by population, then another house with an equal number representatives per country.

It seems simple.

Has this been proposed yet? It seems a fair compromise and it has been proven to work quite well over here. Seems to me that going only by sheer population sets up a "tyrrany of the majority" situation, which the smaller nations would be concerned about. The rights and voice of the minority populations/countries should be protected in some way. I wonder what would be said about such a proposal within the EU?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: charrison
one house that has representative determined by population, then another house with an equal number representatives per country.

It seems simple.

Has this been proposed yet? It seems a fair compromise and it has been proven to work quite well over here. Seems to me that going only by sheer population sets up a "tyrrany of the majority" situation, which the smaller nations would be concerned about. The rights and voice of the minority populations/countries should be protected in some way. I wonder what would be said about such a proposal within the EU?

2 things.

First, we are talking about the Council of Ministers, this is not the legislative body.(although they are the more powerful group right now)

Second, the Parliament is, at the moment, a relatively weak legislative body. They can vote on various things, but they don't have much weight behind what they do. It is currently unicameral and based on population.(current max is 87 people per nation, unless that is changing with Nice too) As far as a bicameral legislature is concerned, those countries are quite aware of what they are. Many of them have one, although none have an upper house quite as powerful as our senate.(closest might be the bundesrat in Germany when state issues are concerned)

As far as Poland and Spain are concerned, you know how I feel. Unless there is something I'm missing(I'm only dealing with the votes in the CoM, mind you) I still don't see how they feel short-handed. They are receiving 27 votes, that's 2 less than Germany, which has more than twice the population. I guess I have to just read up more on the progress of the EU I suppose.

 

[SuperTool]

"Let's talk about football and women," Mr Berlusconi suggested. And turning to the four-times married Mr Schroeder, "Gerhard, why don't you start."
"I don't know much about women," Mr Schroeder apparently replied, looking sourly at his asparagus risotto. "But I thought you knew something about food."

Haha

 

[Dari]

Why don't we let the Euros settle their differences with another pointless war?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Dari
Why don't we let the Euros settle their differences with another pointless war?

Like you settled this thread with another pointless post?

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: freegeeks
Poland and Spain better tone it down.

GB, France, Germany and the Benelux countries have made it clear that they are the biggest contributors to the EU budget and that Spain and Poland are on the receiving end.

IMO it's only fair that larger countries with larger populations have more voting power then the smaller countries. It's only Spain and Poland that want almost equal votes.

You ignored the entire article, freegeeks. Poland and Spain were apparently willing to negotiate while France adamantly refused to do so in order to push their two speed Europe agenda. Regardless, Miller was absolutely incapable of doing otherwise (insisting on Nice) because of domestic politics.

Hence, the future failure of the EU.

not true

this rumour was started by Berlusconi, one of many f*ck ups during the 6 month Italian presidency of the EU

Romano Prodi made it clear that it was Spain and Poland who didn't want to move an inch

France has a lot to gain by a two-speed EU, in particular protecting their precious agricultural sector from a fairly agrarian nation. I remember numerous strikes (some violent and destructive) over Polish fish and other products coming into France back in the early '90s. The French government subsidies weren't enough, and the French producers were pissed.

Nevertheless, if the voting scheme was agreed to at Nice, why should it change with no concession? Can't say that I blame the Poles and Spaniards for trying to hold onto the previous agreement. Besides, French government pisses me off most of the time.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: charrison
one house that has representative determined by population, then another house with an equal number representatives per country.

It seems simple.

Has this been proposed yet? It seems a fair compromise and it has been proven to work quite well over here. Seems to me that going only by sheer population sets up a "tyrrany of the majority" situation, which the smaller nations would be concerned about. The rights and voice of the minority populations/countries should be protected in some way. I wonder what would be said about such a proposal within the EU?

2 things.

First, we are talking about the Council of Ministers, this is not the legislative body.(although they are the more powerful group right now)

Second, the Parliament is, at the moment, a relatively weak legislative body. They can vote on various things, but they don't have much weight behind what they do. It is currently unicameral and based on population.(current max is 87 people per nation, unless that is changing with Nice too) As far as a bicameral legislature is concerned, those countries are quite aware of what they are. Many of them have one, although none have an upper house quite as powerful as our senate.(closest might be the bundesrat in Germany when state issues are concerned)

As far as Poland and Spain are concerned, you know how I feel. Unless there is something I'm missing(I'm only dealing with the votes in the CoM, mind you) I still don't see how they feel short-handed. They are receiving 27 votes, that's 2 less than Germany, which has more than twice the population. I guess I have to just read up more on the progress of the EU I suppose.

I dont know why they will not have a bicameral system. Could be because of France - that would be too much democracy and infringe on an unspoken law within the EU : French supremacy must not be contested

No really, I would be all for an bicameral system: But on the other hand something like was suggested but Poland didnt want that: 1country=1 vote but to reach a majority it must be the majority of the countries AND the majority of the Population in Europe. In Short to get a "yes" on something: #of counties with yes >50% AND #of citizen in the "yes" countries > 50% of EU citizen

 

[heartsurgeon]

I did not read the article

this about sums up 90% of the posts on this topic...

France and Germany originally made the offer to give Spain and Poland the number of votes now in debate!!

This was to address concerns about representation and balance of power (remember there is not a bicameral legislature like ours in the EU)

Now the French and the Germans want to RENEGE.

for those of you who "blame" spain and poland for the EU summit failing, WHAT PART OF THIS DON'T YOU GET..the germans and the french are trying to weasel out of a
committment they already made!!

lets not forget that spain and poland had the germans bomb the crap out of them about 60 years ago, and french.....well, enough said about the trustworthy gallics.

Oh by the way, don't forget that part of adopting the Euro as a standard currency, included agreeing to fiscal policies that limited deficit spending by signatory countries...guess who unilaterally decided to ignore these fiscal policies - the french and the germans...they each, this year, ran budget deficits which exceeded the previously agreed upon limits (ostensibly to "stimulate" their economies). Gee, the french and the germans agreeing to one thing, and then doing the exact opposite when they want to....sound familiar...I wouldn't give these jokers political control over my country with their past and PRESENT track record.

that's what i love about this forum. nobody lets the complete lack of facts stand in their way of having an opinion....