 |
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
How? |
At heart, the French vote was a rejection of integration, or at least continued integration with most of the EU, such as the Brits. You might come back with some two track integration strategy, but basically that's France picking and choosing among EU members for candidates for integration.
Last edited by DanS on 19-06-2005 at 23:27
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sandman
With that attitude, the Turks could be left waiting forever, tarnishing Europe's image. It would also necessitate a deplorable choice between Turkey and Ukraine, since your views suggest that admitting both would be too much. |
Admitting both wouldn't be too much in the long term. Admitting both now (or soon) would be way too much, since we are years from a geuine integration of the new members.
The Constitution, wich was the most ambitious programme to reform the European institutions ever, was a failure. The constitution's mission was to make the EU less unwieldy now that we're 25, but it didn't adress the real blocking points of the institutional arrangements. It also just got shot down by two referenda out of three, and the No is rapidly rising elsewhere.
We'll need time for a EU that can be functional enough, flexible enough, and economically homogenous enough, that we can continue the EU's expansion. If we continue to expand at an overly high pace, the EU won't be able to make any progress, and will be stuck with the statu quo (and the statu quo sucks, from every perspective).
I don't want to see a EU that will remain stuck for decades until it becomes fully irrelevant. If we are to consolidate our Union, we must avoid the increased inefficiencies and the increased rivalries, that can only come with the current system as it enlarges.
quote:
If I remember rightly, you want to scrap the CAP and replace it with national subsidies. Is this still your view? |
Yes  (more accurately: almost)
I only salute Chirac's tactics, not the content of his policy. Thanks to his tactics (i.e. making a diversion with the UK rebate), Blair couldn't create a European dynamic in favour of the British view this time.
The CAP sucks donkey balls as it is. It needs serious reform, so that money doesn't go to a completely outdated productivism. It must become an agricultural development fund, that should be much much less costly, and whose budget goes primarily to the East. I'm not against subsidizing family farmers, but I think the rich countries can pay for their farmers by themselves.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
kronic
|
|
Germany
Mar 2002
time: 06:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
No, he didn't. Chirac was forced to set the rate of increase to the CAP budget at 1% per year. Setting a rate of increase isn't the same as "freezing" a budget item.
Because that actually does freeze the amount the UK reciueves where as CAP was only set at a certain rate of increase. Either both are frozen without increases or both are cut by equal amounts but the UK will not accept one being set in stone while the other gets to continue increasing every year. |
I think I already responded to both points.
quote:
Ah, come on. It can't grow more than 1 % pa, which is less than the growth of the EU budget and less than the inflation rate. If Blair said after Juncker's last proposal, we agree to the compromise, if we can get € 5,5bn + 1 % pa, the others would have taken it. |
The UK doesn't even get € 5,5bn this year. There was just no will to accept any compromise.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DAVOUT
|
 |
AUERSTADT
Jun 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
Europe can still get a Constitution but it will actually have to get a proper one know which limits itself to describing how the government will work and will have to ditch all of the useless policy crap which never belonged in a constitution to begin with. It will have to be short, sweet, and to the point instead of some treaty which is thousands of pages long and filled with garbage which has nothing to do with explaining how a government will function. In the long run you don't want to enshrine currently vogue policies into a constitution any way since those policies will undoubtedly be changed some time in the future.
Ideally you want something which everyone can read and understand and which school kids can memorize. It will describe succinctly how the government works, how disputes will be resolved, and what rights the citizens have. More then that is just worthless garbage which should be ejected or saved for a separate document. |
I wonder if you red the constitutional treaty. The part I, which is the real constitution (Definition of the Union, citizenship, institutions, competences, democratic life,financing, membership), is made of 60 articles (12 pages).
The part II, Chart of the fundamental rights, is made of 54 articles (6 pages).
Total : 114 articles and 18 pages.
Is that so different from what you suggest?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
Nah, can't be that difficult - it's only 28 A4 pages.
Some parts are quite funny - I would call Art I sect 8 and 9 garbage collectors - not that it's gabage, but more like oups we must remember to get something about this, and also something of that into the text.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-06-2005 23:14
- you have a good mind DanS, you should use it. 
|