 |
| |
|
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
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. |
I disagree. Only by taking on new members can the impetus for reform be sustained. What if Turkey or Ukraine meet the conditions, wait patiently for ten years for the EU to be right for them, and then suddenly get told that they're still not welcome?
Expansion should be the EU's top priority. Integration should not be allowed to slow it down.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DAVOUT
|
 |
AUERSTADT
Jun 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sandman
My aim with expansion is promoting democracy and good governance throughout the regions neighbouring the EU. |
Unfortunately, you cannot do that without the agreement of the people of the present members. And the people does not want. You are confusing the Bush method based on force with the european method based on consensus.
Last edited by DAVOUT on 21-06-2005 at 12:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sandman
Besides, what's the effective difference between a 25 member EU and a 32 member EU where all the members have vetoes? |
A similar difference as between a 15 members EU and a 25 members EU. Or between a 6 members EEC and a 12 members EEC.
The more countries you add, the more particular interests you have to take into account. Also, the more risk you have to be stuck because of some national trauma (Britand an sovereignty, France/Poland and religion, Germany and monetary stability, Turkey and democratic values, some countries and animal rights, etc.)
Whenever you add an actor that has a veto, you create an increasing inertia, which is patently absurd in a world that evolves faster and faster. The veto power is the main thing that makes the EU's decision-making as sucky as it is now. Either you remove plenty of competences to the EU, so that unanimity becomes a viable decision-making scheme, or you keep the current competences and you remove the veto.
We already have too many members for our institutional arragements btw. It was very difficult to do something when we were 15. It's now outright impossible to make any ambitious changes now that we're 25.
I personally don't want the EU to become like 18th century Poland.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DAVOUT
|
|
AUERSTADT
Jun 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
A similar difference as between a 15 members EU and a 25 members EU. Or between a 6 members EEC and a 12 members EEC.
The more countries you add, the more particular interests you have to take into account. Also, the more risk you have to be stuck because of some national trauma (Britand an sovereignty, France/Poland and religion, Germany and monetary stability, Turkey and democratic values, some countries and animal rights, etc.)
Whenever you add an actor that has a veto, you create an increasing inertia, which is patently absurd in a world that evolves faster and faster. The veto power is the main thing that makes the EU's decision-making as sucky as it is now. Either you remove plenty of competences to the EU, so that unanimity becomes a viable decision-making scheme, or you keep the current competences and you remove the veto.
We already have too many members for our institutional arragements btw. It was very difficult to do something when we were 15. It's now outright impossible to make any ambitious changes now that we're 25.
I personally don't want the EU to become like 18th century Poland. |
Excellent explanation Spiffor. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-06-2005 19:21
|