 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:26
|
|
The French-German motivation wasn't to be nice with the populations, but to give a strong symbol of the renewal of the French-German motor (which had been down for years). This renewal was especially important now, since the EU's constitution draft will soon be ready, and the big debate on who leads the future of the EU will take place. France and Germany want to keep their standing, as they have from the beginning inspired everything the EU has done.
However, former "underdog" countries such as Italy, Spain or Britain don't want to be led by the French-Germans anymore. Poland and likes also wouldn't want to enter the EU immediately stamped as vassals from Paris-Berlin.
Chirac and Schröder expected other countries to fall in line after their declaration of being hostile o war in Iraq. Other countries seemed to hesitate, since the letter has been published only a week ago. But fact is, other countries didn't fall in line, which is bad for Chirac and Schröder, for their willingness to remain the guides of the EU.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
EU unification has nothing to do with the US one.
Completely different statuses.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:26
|
|
Actually, there are two levels of power-struggle when it comes to the future of the EU :
- between countries : France and Germany have traditionally been the motor of the European Integration, and can be credited with nearly everything ambitious the EU has done (enlargment, common agriculture policy, development policy, common monetary policy, common currency etc.). However, other big countries now are tired to modify French-German longrange decision only at the margin. This especially goes for Britain, which has lost its willingness to let the EU being a free-trade zone, and which now wants to get much more involved.
Also, small States fear to become completely unsignificant with the enlargement.
- between indicidual countries and supranational institutions. This is a bit tricky to explain. There are two different logics in the EU : intergovernmentalism and supranationalism.
Intergovernmental relations means the haggling between countries (represented by miniters) has the most power. In the end, Nation-states get to decide according to their specific interests.
Suprnational decisions are taken by EU-institutions who look for the greater good of the Union, and not the good of individual countries. The European Parliament, for instance, is a supranational institution.
Until now, all important steps have followed the intergovernmental logic, i.e they are treaties which can or cannot may be ratified by the countries. All the founding texts of the EU are treaties mangled together. These treaties delegate power to supranational institutions (Eurozone States have no monetary sovereignity anymore, for instance), but these supranational institutions cannot get more responsibilities without a new treaty needing to be signed.
The incoming European constitution may give much more weight to supranational institutions in deciding the future of Europe. To most State leaders, that's a danger.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Maybe in the US that is so ... 
edit for your edit: about the troll, I think I'm a pretty good one. Still you got to work with what's around you.
Last edited by Bereta_Eder on 18-02-2003 at 09:52
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26. Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|