Joint eu military

[bn880 5]

The difference in our position is that you think that the general population is capable of making decision on specific issues while I don't think they are.

I can even accept referendums to a certain level. I think for instance it's ok to make a direct vote about joining the EU. I don't think however it's ok to make a direct vote about the new constitution or joining the EMU. Those are technical processes far to complex for the average voter to fully comperhend and they are not ideological in nature. These things should be left to the professionals.

I agree with that as well, and if you wantto look at a system where they take this run by people approach very far look at California. It is perhaps _the_ place which takes it the farthest. (just a point of intrest)

[denoir 0]

Really? Didn't know that. I thought they had the standard system of a governer with a sort of mini-parliament.

Do they have referendums on specific issues?

[bn880 5]

I don't know the details honestly, I am pointing out to you what I've heard during Schwarzenegger elections from the States (credible reports). A bit of research might show why they consider it to be so.

At least I remember that de-regulating the power industry was linked to precisely this popular vote method. (people know best) and it has been a miserable failure if you will.

EDIT: I'm sure some members from Cali. can better explain this trend of "people know best" there

[NurEinMensch 0]

Parliament's budgetary powers under renewed attack

Quote[/b] ]EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - A strong bastion of member states have once again spoken out against the European Parliament having the final say over the EU budget.

At a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels on Monday (8 December), the UK, Ireland, Portugal, Sweden, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Spain and France, all spoke out against MEPs holding sway over the EU's 100bn euro budget.

Only Greece, Luxembourg, Belgium and the European Commission sided with the two representatives of the European Parliament, Klaus Hänsch and Elmar Brok.

Having a say over the budget is one of the traditional roles of a parliament. But since this is one of the few issues where the big countries actually agree I think the EU parliament will not get that power.

Constitution success hangs on vote weighting issue

Quote[/b] ]EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – Spain and Poland are coming under increasing pressure to capitulate on the sensitive issue of vote weighting after a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels yesterday (8 December).

Italy, France and Germany all kept with their pledge to stick with the proposals contained in the draft Constitution.

This double majority system, strongly opposed since the outset of intergovernmental talks by both Spain and Poland, suggests that for a decision to be taken at least half of member states representing 60% of the population must agree.

Madrid and Warsaw oppose the system, which determines the balance of power in the EU, and want to keep the current Nice Treaty which allows them to punch above their population weight.

However, they have seen little sympathy.

This is one of the key issues of the whole constitution, and the current draft of the constitution has a rather fair and practical solution.

Going back to the Nice Treaty system would be not only unfair in regards to voting weight, it would also make decision making more difficult.

[Jinef 2]

Ok as a British person this is my point of view.

Britain would quite happily become more pro European, have the Euro and look less to the US if there was one thing in place: If the UK actually had a say in the EU.

At the present time Germany and France are basically controlling it, trade is focused around keeping the French Farmers happy etc.

The UK is rather marginalised and feels it has to play up it's history with the US to actually be considered seriously. It is the problem of the British not liking to realise we are now a small weak country in the scale of things. It is only our history that prevents us being completely walked over. If the EU let Britain take a leading role in the management we would undoubtedly have Euros (all this pro pound stuff is a load of bollocks, the only viable problem is trying to get used to the new currency and it isn't that big of a problem) and be contributing a lot more to a European Joint Defense Force. But this isn't going to happen as we would then threaten France and Germany's economies.

The other reason... The EU is getting too big to manage and the British see it, if you stuck the British, the French and Germany's leaders in a room and said to talk about something as trivial as the price of milk they would be arguing to doomsday. Now let's add everyone else and don't forget now all the eastern European countries are getting in to reap the trade support and status of the EU, you now have a qualified clusterfuck.

Now it is nice and easy to say "I want them to all make a big slap bang wallop pow army that can say no to America" but many countries will not commit to that unless they actually feel thier needs are being catered for, and with the expanding size this bloody difficult task is only getting harder.

I myself would like to see a strong united Europe but being realistic i doubt that will happen. I believe this is generally true for most of the British speaking out against the EU. Why commit more to an organisation that at the moment cannot handle the pressure of a few countries and yet is still adding on the pressure. The EU getting bigger is gonna lead to a lot of crying and wailing and probably the refragmentation of Europe.

Now i would like to see some disagreement with what we (this is a joint perspective by 3 guys in the British military) have stated and see if it cannot be applied to other countries who don't like the idea of a strong,united Europe. We are open to criticism as we are just saying things as we see them.

[EiZei 0]

Maybe the UK has been trivialised for not being involved enough?

[denoir 0]

Things are developing very very rapidly. The current draft for the constitution contains this: "..the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other member states shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance..."

There are some other things being worked out in unrelated parts of the constitution, but this thing could be signed within days. And then de-facto we have a new, big military pact in the world. And it has no connection to NATO.

The four neutral EU countries, Austria, Ireland, Sweden and Finland got an exception, but it's not written in the constitution. This all came so fast that nobody has had any time to react, but it's quite possible that we're seeing the end of the neutrality of the four EU countries. Currently in Sweden a majority of the population supports a common defence pact, but neutrality is a very holy cow in Swedish politics and our politicians are more or less in a state of shock after being overrun by this constitutional draft. They've said however that they won't veto it... We'll see how this develops.

[Baron von Beer 0]

Believe California is considered as such due to the recall vote itself. There was a vote by the people, to determine if the current Governor was to be "fired" or not. They voted to remove him, and elect a new governor to immediately replace him.

You were correct WRT to the "make up". Governor, and a State House and Senate.

[NurEinMensch 0]

Constitution talks collapse

Quote[/b] ]EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Talks on an EU Constitution have broken up with no agreement.

EU leaders meeting in Brussels have failed to bridge their differences over the controversial remaining issues on the table.

After several attempts to broker a new deal on the future balance of power in the EU, which has pitted Germany against Poland and Spain, EU leaders have conceded defeat.

A spokesperson for Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said that there is "no possibility of reaching agreement this afternoon".

Gianfranco Fini, Italian vice Prime Minister, said directly after the talks had collapsed that Italy had been coherent in opposing a "low level compromise". Such a solution would have been more damaging and so unacceptable for a founding member of the European Union as Italy is, he added.

The European Parliament's representative in the talks, Klaus Hänsch, said "the confidence of people in the fate of Europe has been damaged".

He added that those countries who are willing to shape the future of Europe based on the draft Constitution "should join together to see how they come out of this crisis".

Member states are currently working on a face-saving declaration.

What a sad day and what a shame.

[turms 0]

Constitution talks collapse

Quote[/b] ]EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Talks on an EU Constitution have broken up with no agreement.

EU leaders meeting in Brussels have failed to bridge their differences over the controversial remaining issues on the table.

After several attempts to broker a new deal on the future balance of power in the EU, which has pitted Germany against Poland and Spain, EU leaders have conceded defeat.

A spokesperson for Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said that there is "no possibility of reaching agreement this afternoon".

Gianfranco Fini, Italian vice Prime Minister, said directly after the talks had collapsed that Italy had been coherent in opposing a "low level compromise". Such a solution would have been more damaging and so unacceptable for a founding member of the European Union as Italy is, he added.

The European Parliament's representative in the talks, Klaus Hänsch, said "the confidence of people in the fate of Europe has been damaged".

He added that those countries who are willing to shape the future of Europe based on the draft Constitution "should join together to see how they come out of this crisis".

Member states are currently working on a face-saving declaration.

What a sad day and what a shame.  

Well this is a big decision and will define Europes future, so I dont see that this is bad thing, I see this as a timeout to evaluate what we really want ,and to think our future without any stress or hurry.

[Tamme 0]

I dunno if it's already posted hear, but I read from a newspaper today that some kind of a rapid deployment force is being planned for EU. It should be operational by 2007. All countries should have troops ready for action in 5-30 days. It's for peacekeeping purposes and such. I'll find some links later, but I'm in a hurry now.

Oh, and I think this is a good thing.

[denoir 0]

There is already an EU rapid reaction force, it was activated in August this year, but it isn't entirely complete. The elements that are ready are actually already deployed in Congo. The UN military intervention there (codename ARTEMIS) is completely delegated to the EU. The command and control is all EU as are the troops on the ground.

[denoir 0]

Constitution talks collapse

Quote[/b] ]EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Talks on an EU Constitution have broken up with no agreement.

EU leaders meeting in Brussels have failed to bridge their differences over the controversial remaining issues on the table.

After several attempts to broker a new deal on the future balance of power in the EU, which has pitted Germany against Poland and Spain, EU leaders have conceded defeat.

A spokesperson for Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said that there is "no possibility of reaching agreement this afternoon".

Gianfranco Fini, Italian vice Prime Minister, said directly after the talks had collapsed that Italy had been coherent in opposing a "low level compromise". Such a solution would have been more damaging and so unacceptable for a founding member of the European Union as Italy is, he added.

The European Parliament's representative in the talks, Klaus Hänsch, said "the confidence of people in the fate of Europe has been damaged".

He added that those countries who are willing to shape the future of Europe based on the draft Constitution "should join together to see how they come out of this crisis".

Member states are currently working on a face-saving declaration.

What a sad day and what a shame.  

Yeah, it's a shame, but not entirely unexpected. It's not necessarily a bad thing either. Very much has been rushed and very little public discussions have existed about the constitution.

It will be a very good thing, once it is agreed on as it will greatly reduce the number of odd EU rules, regulations and beaurocracy. There is no rush however. We're going pretty fast anyway and honestly it doesn't really make a difference if they come to an agreement now or on the next meeting in January. Obviously there is a need for further discussions between the countries and they'll get a bit of more time for that now.

Having said that it's pretty obvious that the double majority rule has to be the one implemented and not the unfair system that Spain and Poland want (can't blame them for trying though).

(The double majority rule is that for a law to pass at least half the EU countries must agree on it and they must represent at least 60% of the EU population.)

[Donnervogel 0]

Quote[/b] ](The double majority rule is that for a law to pass at least half the EU countries must agree on it and they must represent at least 60% of the EU population.)

Hmm sounds familiar from the Swiss system... Seems that not everyones thinks that we suck that much ;)

sorry couldn't resist

[denoir 0]

Actually, the Swiss system is more similar to the Polish & Spanish position (i.e Nice model), if I'm not mistaken. 

[Donnervogel 0]

Actually, the Swiss system is more similar to the Polish & Spanish position

Swiss system for passing new federal LAWs:

1. Parliament has to elaborate and to agree. This means the Ständerat (cantons have 2 representatives there, means two votes; half-cantons - the very small ones - have 1 representative, that is one vote) and the Nationalrat (which counts 200 members not limited to cantons) have to agree.

EDIT(look again if you didn't see it - made a mistake):

If they agree the population get's to vote on it. Here comes the double majority. To accept the LAW the majority of the cantons must approve of the LAW aswell as the majority of the population.

[denoir 0]

No, it's not the people voting, silly

It's the countries. A majority representing 60% of the people means that those countries that vote for a proposal contain at least 60% of the EU's population

Each country gets 1 vote.

Edit:

Example:

Country A = 20 people

Country B = 10 people

Country C = 50 people

Country D = 10 people

Country E =  10 people.

Vote for: A,B,E = majority of countries, but not majority of population = VOTE FAILS

Vote for: B,C = majority of people, but not majority of countries = VOTE FAILS

Vote for C,D,E = majority of countries, majority of people = VOTE PASSES

[Donnervogel 0]

No, it's not the people voting, silly

It's the countries. A majority representing 60% of the people means that those countries that vote for a proposal contain at least 60% of the EU's population

Each country gets 1 vote.

I know I know... I know the EU is incapable of seeing the delight of people voting )

But we have double majority too It's just not in the same place. The comment wasn't meant too serious anyway.

[denoir 0]

But we have double majority too  

Well, duh, you have a federal system so that goes without saying. USA has a double majority too

[Supah 0]

In time there will be a constitution, but not one that is rammed down smaller nations throats by the french and germans. You dont make deals only to break them. Promisses are there to be kept not broken.

[denoir 0]

Want to bet that it will be the same constitution that didn't go through now?

Why? Because the voting system proposed was the only one that made sense. It's not reasonable that Poland with it's 40 million people gets the same number of votes as Germany with it's 80 million. The double majority vote also guarantees that the smaller countries are not overrun by the big ones. You still need a majority of countries behind it to pass a law. And there everybody has equal say.

So what will happen now? For a few months all of EU is going to put some serious pressure on Poland and Spain who will in the end through bribes, threat and blackmail in the end be good little boys and stop sabotaging for the rest.

Thanks to them, instead of a coherent constitution we are now stuck with the incoherent mass of beaurocratic shit called the "Nice agreement". It's what gives EU a bad name..

[Supah 0]

Why? Because the voting system proposed was the only one that made sense. It's not reasonable that Poland with it's 40 million people gets the same number of votes as Germany with it's 80 million. The double majority vote also guarantees that the smaller countries are not overrun by the big ones. You still need a majority of countries behind it to pass a law. And there everybody has equal say.

Yeah untill france and germany want to alter that too. We have seen how they stick to promisses and agreements. Besides its no biggy, we have the treaty of Nice. It would have be nice to have a constitution soon but in the end ...

Quote[/b] ]So what will happen now? For a few months all of EU is going to put some serious pressure on Poland and Spain who will in the end through bribes, threat and blackmail in the end be good little boys and stop sabotaging for the rest.

Ah yes the right and honourable way of solving matters. And the rest? More like sabotaging France and germany.

Quote[/b] ]Thanks to them, instead of a coherent constitution we are now stuck with the incoherent mass of beaurocratic shit called the "Nice agreement". It's what gives EU a bad name..

Yes and the world is going to end and we will all be dead in 24 hours Burocracy = politics . Basically the peoples of europe who DIDNT live in france and germany were a bit worried about being snowed under by those two, them breaking allot of promisses recently doesnt help their case either. Many countries were being forced to hold votes to see what the citizens though of the constitution. Alternatively a bad constitution would see them not reelected. France and Germanies recent behaviour of threatening and being downright insulting and verbally agressive towards anyone who doesnt share their views does NOT make them seem like the sort of people you want to give too much power too. Especially germany's eichel has been very "nice" about opposition. Funny thing, eichel in dutch, eikel, stands for "Dickhead" too

[NurEinMensch 0]

What does this have to do with the double majority system being good or bad?

[Grizzlie 0]

Duble majority system can be a trap. Lets count a little:

25 countries in EU is about 450,000,000 ppl, but D+F+I (not very exotic coalition) have about 198,000,000 ppl whis is about 44%, so this 3 countries can block EVERYTHING.

22 to 3 in "national" votes PRO, but ALWAYS less than 60% in "population" votes.

I'm not saying that it WILL be that way, but CAN be, and, what is most important it couldn't be changed without their permission, so it leaves them in "priviledged" position.

[Donnervogel 0]

EDIT: this is not the response to you grizzlie

lol. Sometimes when I read those silly discussions and I'm not sober I wish the real EU believing countries should just dismantle the EU, build a new one with a clear and sensible constitution and then let those join who wish to be part of the EU and leave those outside that are stuck in the 20th century.

Ah well... bad bad alcohol...