17-12-2003 16:44									#121
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by CerberusIV If France and Germany want to unify into a single country - go ahead. That doesn't mean everyone else has to join in too. If it works they may want to. When it fails the rest of us won't have had to go through a painful and expensive experience.

Yes, I think that is a point. Although I wouldn't call it "a single country", at least not yet. But in the future the EU should go the way into a single country, in my opinion. I know that this opinion isn't very popular in some countries. Strangely most of them are monarchies, a pattern?

But you hit the nail very well. Everyone can join, but nobody has to.

	17-12-2003 16:44									#122
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Yeah! But not that Lidl crap

	17-12-2003 16:52									#123
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Sir Ralph But you hit the nail very well. Everyone can join, but nobody has to.

As long as we are allowed beat Germany at football occasionally and pretend that we still run our own affairs and that our politicians make a difference the UK will join in.

So, if we can agree on the football thing it's a deal then, right?

	17-12-2003 16:55									#124
	Increase Your PM Length

Anytime. At the moment this isn't very hard, actually. But be prepared to beat "Core Europe" in the future.

	17-12-2003 17:32									#125
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Sir Ralph Yes, I think that is a point. Although I wouldn't call it "a single country", at least not yet. But in the future the EU should go the way into a single country, in my opinion. I know that this opinion isn't very popular in some countries. Strangely most of them are monarchies, a pattern? But you hit the nail very well. Everyone can join, but nobody has to.

Well, I want a single country in the future

	17-12-2003 18:45									#126
	Tired of ads?

So wait, we small ones are the only ones losing soverignity? That's not Union! That's integration to bigger countries. That's like little satellite countries, that are autonomus. It's not union.

And as for the core. Well it can be argued, but it's not believable without UK. So, they don't want to join it. So, what are we going to do about it? Now we're basically saying 'well screw the UK'. We should think about how to make it more appealing. Not this ' you're with us or against us'.

Furthermore, I once again talk about the conspiracy. It's pretty good plan and it's working out so far. Now NATO is not working very good, because Chirac can veto what ever he wants. We can see NATO as American military alliance, but it doesn't work 100% now. However, EU core will work 100% when it's ready, because Chirac will bash and toss around the little ones. Now, he has the only working military alliance in the world.
I don't like this.

It looks like crap, smells like crap and sounds like crap.. must be crap.

	17-12-2003 19:02									#127
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Pekka It looks like crap, smells like crap and sounds like crap.. must be crap.

pull your head out of your arse. you will see things more clearly then ... (no personal insult intended, sounded just cool)

	17-12-2003 19:11									#128
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Sir Ralph I happen to be from Germany and therefor will say "we" if I mean the Germans. You are free to interpret into this whatever you want.

Zieg HAIL! Jawohl , mein Fuher.

	17-12-2003 19:16									#129
	Inflate your Upload Space

I think the final solution is to have a bicamrial parlement where the lower house has representation determined by population and an upper house where all member states are equal. Anything else and the big or little states will complain about how unfair the system is to them.

	17-12-2003 19:24									#130
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I suggest that the fixed costs of running the EU be allocated in proportion of the decision power.

	17-12-2003 19:24									#131
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

dannubis, I'd like to, but I think we won't quit EU just like that .

	17-12-2003 19:38									#132
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by DAVOUT I suggest that the fixed costs of running the EU be allocated in proportion of the decision power.

No, not fixed costs. Instead it should be net costs vs net debters. I suspect if we do that we will find France takes more out of the EU budget then it puts in.

	17-12-2003 19:43									#133
	Support Apolyton

I don't know. France might actually give more than take. As of now. But it's all about buying small countries to integrate.. so it's not very big price for that.

	17-12-2003 19:52									#134
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin No, not fixed costs. Instead it should be net costs vs net debters. I suspect if we do that we will find France takes more out of the EU budget then it puts in.

You are so biased against my benevolent country that you refuse the only system which would have set a limit to the claims for more power.

	17-12-2003 20:05									#135
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin I think the final solution is to have a bicamrial parlement where the lower house has representation determined by population and an upper house where all member states are equal. Anything else and the big or little states will complain about how unfair the system is to them.

This is similar to what the things are now. In the Council of Ministers, some votes are held with qualified majority (where countries weight differently according to their pop, although the smaöö countries are highly overrepresented), and some votes are held at Simple majority (where all countries are equal). Some votes even require all countries to be unanimous, but unanimity is now the exception rather than the rule.

The only difference betyeen the current model and what you'd call for, is where lies the real power. Currently, the real power lies in the "Senate", and the Lower House is badly underpowered.

Imagine a system where the US senate takes years to agree on any issue, after all senators had articulated their State's interests (i.e. no concern for the interest of the US as a whole). Imagine also these "senators" are not elected, and are civil servants who have nearly no ideological concerns when voting, only pocketbook ones.
Imagine that, in this system, the House of Reps can only agree or disagree with the Senate's decision.
And imagine that the executive has no real decision power, except suggesting things to the Senate. You'd have a picture of what the European system is right now.

The fact that the US is a federation makes possible something that doesn't exist in today's Europe: that two actually powerful institutions can care of the Nation's interest (the executive and the lower house). Although State-rights are high in the US, the federal interest has a priority.
In your system, you can, for example, amend the Constitution even if one or a few States disagree. In Europe, we cannot. We need the agreement of each and every freaking country when changing the rules, and this is the direct explanation of the bureaucratic hell that is the EU these days.

Sir Ralph among other Demogamers will remember when the Civ3 Demogame threatened to become a Bureaucracy Game as we added a myriad of rules to correct the flaws of the original document. Only when we had a major overhaul did we have clear and good rules.
On a much grander scale, this is the problem that's happening to the EU now. The rules of the 1957 EU with 6 members can simply not be the rules of the 2004 EU with 25 members.

The only area where the EU is highly successful, the trade policy, is because there is one supranational "Mr Trade" handling it (currently Pascal Lamy), and the Member-States decide only the general aims, rather than guiding him by the hand. There happens to be a general consensus on international trade issues (except for the CAP), which makes things easier.

The difference betyeen a EU where the power lies in a Parliament, and a EU where the power lies in the Council, is that a parliamentary EU doesn't handle issues out of national interest, but out of ideological posistions on what to do to reach global interest.
Although there are a few differences between countries, the ideological issues are similar across Europe: the role of the State in the economy, Welfare programs, work legislations, environmental concerns etc... All these issues grossly concern the Member-States equally. And the people of every country can make their opinion on these topics.

Currently, the European debate is devoid of ideological content. You speak about a "Senate" like in the US, but our current "Senate" refuses to take any position, and is only motivated by greed.
And the result of this is that we end up taking the "minimal agreement" position. For example, the Pact of Stability and the ains of the ECB, although completely outdated, cannot be changed simply because we cannot agree on the specifics. So, the contraproductive policy remains the same.

This is what poisons the EU. This is why we need a federal system, for the decision-making to be fluid at last

	17-12-2003 20:32									#136
	Inflate your Upload Space

Besides, it seems Gangerolf and others think I'm playing the "arrogant French", who only wants more power for France-Germany, and who patronizes those who refuse our enlightened rule.

I'm not. Actually, I loathe Chirac's current policies because it doesn't draw the right lines of division in Europe. I think the attempt to resurrect the "French-German motor" of the past is a great mistake, because the time where countries accepted whatever French-German initiative is over.

What we need is not to force countries to follow us. What we need is an efficient system where the public of all countries is highly associated in the decision making.

In a sense, the European Convention just did that. There were tons of National MPs, European MPs, Scholars, national civil servants defending the interest of their country, European civil servants defending the EU interest.
The result of the European Convention is far from being great. Very few significant things were new, besides that all of our treaties were brought together in a harmonised text.

The result wasn't thrilling. But it was acceptable to most. If the European constitution had been put to referendum across Europe, the YES would have probably won easily except in Denmark and the UK.
But the constitution was ruined. It all was ruined because individual governments felt they had the ultimate power to tweak the Text, despite being already largely associated in its 18-months old elaboration
As long as individual States (I mean governments, not populations) will be the ones which ultimately decide everything, all initiatives are doomed to be dumbed doyn, or to failure.

I read here much about the Franco-German tyranny. It is an utter misconception. There is a Franco-German arrogance and haughtiness, but there is no tyranny.
In the current system, France + Germany weigh exactly as much as UK + Italy. For that matter, they also weigh exactly as much as Spain + Poland.
The difference is that France and Germany see eye-to-eye for the time being, and their initiatives have the support of quite a few smaller countries. This leads France and Germany to arrogantly take initiatives.

But France and Germany can only afford to be arrogant because there is no organised "alliance" against them. Britain and Italy fought over the Italy-wished expansion of EU's foreign policy powers. Spain is completely at odds with Poland when it comes to the "structural funds", i.e. the EU infratructure funds, which are going to be drained from Spain/Portugal/Greece, to go to Poland/CZ/Baltics.

If there was a coherent alliance competing against France and Germany, people would whine about the "London-Rome axis" or the "Spanish-Polish despots". Or more simply, they'd whine about how inefficient and stuck our system is.

This is why I'm fundamentally against expanding the poyers of individual States. This is why I'm against further expanding the powers of France and Germany for that matter.

Gangerolf:
I called the countries attached to their national sovereignity "nationalist dinosaurs" because I think they are fundamentally missing the tide of history.
My calling them that has nothing to do with the fact they don't associate with France and Germany's projects. As a matter of fact, I enjoy it when the French-German superiority is challenged, because I think the system is doomed if it continues to work by caring more about national interests (my nation's included) rather than about European interests. Everytime the French-German superiority is challenged, it is a blow to the idea that individual countries can highjack the European construction.

	17-12-2003 20:54									#137
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Spiffor why is it so important that the EU is a democracy? Are you really convinced that such a system is the best kind of government for Europe. Personally I find the idea of having to follow orders without any responsibility tied to me rather attractive.

	17-12-2003 20:57									#138
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Tripledoc Spiffor why is it so important that the EU is a democracy? Are you really convinced that such a system is the best kind of government for Europe. Personally I find the idea of having to follow orders without any responsibility tied to me rather attractive.

I like democracy, that's why.

But I fundamentally think that a central seat of power for Europe, that cares about the interests of the Union in general (modeled after the US) is what we need.

I merely think that democracy would make this central seat legitimate and good

	17-12-2003 21:23									#139
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor I like democracy, that's why. But I fundamentally think that a central seat of power for Europe, that cares about the interests of the Union in general (modeled after the US) is what we need. I merely think that democracy would make this central seat legitimate and good

I don't understand how anyone can 'like' democracy.
I'd rather have a government which is effective and capable of reaching long term goals. I can just imagine what a circus it would be in Europe with a system based on the American one. The senators there don't care for the Union, they care for the state they in fact serve. Hence the socalled porkbarreling. Also imagine how erratic policies would be with an elected President. One would go from one extreme to another. Think of the major change the United States has undergone from being run by a Democrat to a Republican. All the goodwill shown to Clinton, has been squandered by Bush. Imagine that the EU would one year be friendly towards Russia, and hostile towards America. And the next year vice versa.

Also if Europe had indeed been a democracy, the political fallout over the Iraq affair would have been much worse. No European countries would have joined the war.

	17-12-2003 21:43									#140
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I think we should continue this discussion in This recent thread instead of threadjacking this one.

	17-12-2003 22:01									#141
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Spiffor, great posts Where did you learn all this?


My main beef with the "nationalist dinosaurs"-comment is that I don't think the governments of UK and Denmark are sceptical to "core Europe" and such ideas because they're particarly nationalist. They just don't find it compatible with their own interests.
Just like the French and Germans aren't for it out of the kindness of their hearts but because it serves their own interests. But hey maybe I'm just being cynical

	17-12-2003 22:05									#142
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Gangerolf My main beef with the "nationalist dinosaurs"-comment is that I don't think the governments of UK and Denmark are sceptical to "core Europe" and such ideas because they're particarly nationalist. They just don't find it compatible with their own interests.

And what are the interests of Denmark and the UK? And who define those interests?

	17-12-2003 22:11									#143
	Got spare money?

It's all BS.

	17-12-2003 22:11									#144
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Their governments. And no they're of course not always right, if that's what you're implying

	18-12-2003 01:47									#145
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Gangerolf Spiffor, great posts Where did you learn all this?

I had a course I took keen interest in about the workings of the EU at uni. Besides, I interned at the European Parliament, and I could see how it worked as an insider. Obviously, some people know more about this than me (Roland-HershOstropoler is infinitely more knowledgeable than me on these matters). But my courses have given me a knowledge of the EU's workings too few people have.

quote: My main beef with the "nationalist dinosaurs"-comment is that I don't think the governments of UK and Denmark are sceptical to "core Europe" and such ideas because they're particarly nationalist. They just don't find it compatible with their own interests.

Maybe not the governments. But ever since I discuss with Brits on 'Poly, I see most consider that the EU should be only economical, and that no sovereignty on political matters should be given up.
The public opinion of Denmark and UK seem to be consistently more defiant toward the EU integration than most other countries. I think we should "agree to disagree" (thx Sir Ralph for the expression) with them, i.e. let them be in an economic federation as they seem to want, and let us move on in a political federation.

	18-12-2003 02:53									#146
	Remove this text

The major issue much of the public across Europe have about the EU is the lack of public input - in many cases it seems to be the political elite telling everyone what is good for them

I think the example of the European Convention as a positive EU story is not a good one as many of the ideas came from the presiding officer down rather than from the bottom up

	18-12-2003 03:35									#147
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Deutschland, Deutschland über alles.

Vive la France.

	18-12-2003 03:42									#148
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Myrddin I think the example of the European Convention as a positive EU story is not a good one as many of the ideas came from the presiding officer down rather than from the bottom up

Hard to believe that more than one hundred members coming from all countries and origins were forced to swallow the ideas of one man.

	18-12-2003 03:44									#149
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor But ever since I discuss with Brits on 'Poly, I see most consider that the EU should be only economical, and that no sovereignty on political matters should be given up.

My problem with the EU, and the biggest problem most Brits have, is that its political system is not accountable, does not allow for differences in national outlook or culture and doesn't offer any advantage over what our domestic politicians impose on us (that's the perception, whether true or not). We understand the economic benefits and want them but don't see any political benefits. Change that impression and many Brits might consider things differently.

	18-12-2003 05:10									#150
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

That's not an impression though; it's the truth. At the heart of the EU there is a simple belief that "integration is good", without any thought for why or the consequences. There is no accountability, there is no thought, there is no reasoning. It must change, or else the EU will go nowhere. Hell, as if that's a bad thing...