The future of Europe

[The Monkey]

Today the future of Europe is judged, by the French people. Their vote on the european constitution is very important. If they vote against it will fall, it they vote for, it lives on. All 25 countries must aprove it if it is to live, and I think 7 countries have voted so far, of which one had a public vote (Spain). If this falls it will slow down EU's work by many years. Everything points that it will be a "non". The latest polls shows that 52-56% will not aproove it. Your thoughts?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4589403.stm

 

[Kangy]

I hope it goes through. Europe needs to become a real superpower, not just a loose region with similar politics.

 

[Cons Himself]

With regards to the constitution, I believe that they will just keep holding referenda until it is signed. The reason people are voting No in France is not because they are anti-EU, but because they are fed up with their Government in general - they want to stick it to the Elites.

With regards to further integration after that, here is what people have to understand: although the idea of a United States of Europe inspired the creators of the Treaty of Rome (De Gaulle etc), this is not what Europe needs in an EU of 27 or more countries - and even the French and the Germans understand this. A USE would be unworkable due to the increasing heterogeneity of the nations and their preferences within Europe after successive expansions.

The European Integration project has always been propelled forward by Treaty Signings involving all the countries, but this is unlikely to continue now that there are 27 countries within the EU.

What was proposed in the Nice Treaty was a form of Enhanced Cooperation Areas - ECAs. The ECAs would allow those countries who wish to form deeper integration do so without the need for unanimity in the Council (subject to any negative or positive externalities being ironed out with non-participants). If a particular ECA is a success it is open to all EU members and could thus snowball into an EU-wide form of deeper integration.

If anyone wants any clarification on any European issues feel free to ask - it was my Masters degree subject and Dissertation subject was on the ECB in particular.

 

[Feath]

For what I've heard, if it fails then France is just going to have to through another route to ratify it.

I think the plan is to have the Constitution part of next General election manifesto. So if Chirac is elected again, then he'll say "Look, it was part of the manifesto and you voted for us. So we're going to ratify it."

I hope it goes through. Europe needs to become a real superpower, not just a loose region with similar politics.

We don't have similar politics. The French 'no' campaign is based around the fact that the constitution is "Too Anglo-Saxon". I.e. it's full of Thatcherite ideals (of Free market and suchlike) instead of French ideals (like Social protection).

 

[Cons Himself]

Those are German or Nordic ideals. The French ideal includes social protection, but is also more about state-intervention, and the support of large 'national champions' in different industries - Total, the oil company for example, which arent so present in the German Coordianted Market Economy Model of Capitalism.

 

[Raziaar]

Europe needs to be a superpower? Come on, you puny europeans! Become your own one country superpowers like the good ole days!

 

[Cons Himself]

and the award for lowering the tone of the post goes to....

 

[KoreBolteR]

why do the french decide our fate?

shouldnt it be a european referendum.

 

[Cons Himself]

Because if one country doesnt ratify the treaty, it is null and void under the current system, unless the rest decide to go on ahead without the French which is unlikely

 

[Kangy]

Europe needs to be a superpower? Come on, you puny europeans! Become your own one country superpowers like the good ole days!

Yeah, that was when we owned all the current superpowers. The Old Man's Club has decided to come together and teach all the young un's a lesson.

"In our day, we went on crusades and formed colonies!"

 

[The Monkey]

Cons Himself: I don't want to be picking on details, but the EU has 25 members, not 27.
http://www.vadneteurope.com/eu_map_big3.gif

 

[Cons Himself]

Yes, Bulgaria and Romania will be joining within the next 1 to 2 years.

 

[The Monkey]

Yes, Bulgaria and Romania will be joining within the next 1 to 2 years.

The Icelanders will have a public vote soon, I think...

 

[Cons Himself]

yes, the point is in Europe the supranational focus has shifted from Integration, to Enlargement. That is why the ECAs are so vital to further integration within the EU as a whole.

For the case of Iceland, that wiould be, if it ever happens, a more painless expansion, since as a relatively rich country compared to the CEECs (Central and East European Countries), Iceland is quite well off. Switzerland even more so, and even Switzerland seems to be moving closer to the EU, albeit at a much slower pace.

 

[The Monkey]

yes, the point is in Europe the supranational focus has shifted from Integration, to Enlargement. That is why the ECAs are so vital to further integration within the EU as a whole.

For the case of Iceland, that wiould be, if it ever happens, a more painless expansion, since as a relatively rich country compared to the CEECs (Central and East European Countries), Iceland is quite well off. Switzerland even more so, and even Switzerland seems to be moving closer to the EU, albeit at a much slower pace.

What have stopped Iceland from joining before it EU's fishing restrictions. 90% of Iceland's income is fishing, so I understand them...

 

[Cons Himself]

derogations and opt-outs to certain EU policies are usually granted in exceptional cases. For example : The UK and its opt-out from the Social Chapter and EMU. I guess if Iceland was to join the EU, then they would come to some kind of arrangement over this. The aquis communautaire, while rigid, can be waived in certain policy areas.

 

[The Monkey]

derogations and opt-outs to certain EU policies are usually granted in exceptional cases. For example : The UK and its opt-out from the Social Chapter and EMU. I guess if Iceland was to join the EU, then they would come to some kind of arrangement over this. The aquis communautaire, while rigid, can be waived in certain policy areas.

Yeah, you got your fees cut off, didn't you? You has a "crisis" and therefore you didn't wanna pay. Well tell you what, we were in a crisis too in the 90s, but we didn't need no bloody cuts! And the most annoying thing is that you still keep it, even though your crisis ended a long time ago!

 

[Cons Himself]

Yes we had a budget rebate because when we joined the EU back in the seventies, most of EU spending (as it is now) was on the CAP. Since the UK had a tiny farming industry compared to France or Germany, Thatcher famously demanded that she 'wanted her money back' since the UK did not benefit from the EU spending (not trade) at all. It may have been justified then, but nowadays with the UK being much richer, and with the UK benefiting from other areas such as Free Trade and Structural Funds, it is often called into question, especially with a lot of poorer countries having joined the EU recently.
However, the UK is still the seconds largest contributor to the EU, and between 1995 and 2003 Britain paid more in per person than either France and Italy.
In my personal opinion, the rebate should be repealed, but the UK's contributions cannot skyrocket to more than Germany's. The UK should remain as the 2nd largest contributor after Germany.

 

[xLostx]

It's the beginning of World War IIX