Poles apart
It never rains but it pours. As foreign ministers trooped out of their meeting, the pelting rain on the roof over the VIP area made them difficult to hear. I was just thankful there was a roof. But listening back to the recordings several messages emerge out of the storm...
The Poles have told the other European Union foreign ministers that "they cannot accept" the currently proposed voting system. Even if Blair and Brown can be kept happy, the Poles may still veto any new treaty.
And the British government still has a hard job on its hands.
Other countries have, according to the German foreign minister, agreed to "take a step" in the direction of those countries like Britain who have problems, by agreeing to give up the title 鈥渃onstitution鈥 and consenting to a smaller treaty. In return, the plan to give the EU a single legal personality and make the legally binding are "not to be touched." Technical stuff, but believe me, it could make Mr Brown thunderous.
In the meeting itself, sheltered from the weather, I'm told spoke last, after the dessert and coffee, and gave something of a lecture on the state of public opinion in Britain. Often these meetings are about technicalities. But she told her colleagues that a referendum would be extremely hard to win in Britain, and there will have to be one if any treaty is too big or too ambitious. There was a bit of a hush when she finished.
But there's a perennial problem for British governments. While Mrs Beckett was telling the plain truth, it is also a tough negotiating position. One of the most common ploys of trade union leaders is to tell the bosses, "It鈥檚 not me: I just couldn't sell this to the lads, they'd go mad." In any negotiation you go in hard and then have to modify your position. And that's what some call betrayal.
You could say that is part of the problem of negotiating in secret. But it鈥檚 actually the problem about negotiating in dimly-lit semi-public.
Read about the questions the Germans put to the other countries here, and about the British government鈥檚 red lines here.
I鈥檓 Mark Mardell, the 91热爆's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
The position of the Poland is complex. I assume that such stiff position tells a lot about internal state of affairs in Poland. To be blunt, I think that Polish government abuses EU topics to hide internal problems from their public. This is by no means unique among the countries (their governments) in EU.
On the other hand, I ask myself why is Germany et al. pushing for this voting changes ? What would they (in fact the whole EU) gain from these changes ? I would be happy if someone clarified this two questions for me.
Lastly, I stand firmly by my belief that veto power should be abolished. To pursue their interests, countries have enough levers available at hand -> parliament, comission, etc. Maybe those institutions' efficiency is somewhat lacking ? Change them, do whatever is necessary to make them efficient, but members' veto power should be abolished as it is the stone around EU's neck.
Jan you are asking what Germany et al. would gain and are answering your own question in the next sentences?
OK again:
- proportional voting: One Man, One Vote! Why on earth is a Poles vote worth almost 3 times as much as that of a German?
- no vetoes: Poland blocks EU deal with Russia, Poland installs US missiles. How does this serve European interests?
If you don't like it, then leave for gods sake. Same for Britain. I am tired of reading about "Eurocrats" who deny the proud British there referendum, when the ones denying it are the folks at No.10.
Maybe we should work towards a two chamber system as in the United States. One House of Representatives according to population and one Senate with two members of each country. We could finally have a use for Strassbourg. This Senate could also replace the minister council. What do you think Mark? Could this work or has this no change of making it as a plan B?
Why are some people afraid of our Parliment looking after our interests.I voted for the Common Market but not for this lot.We should leave the EU.We will always trade with them and after all said and done that was all most of us ever wanted to do.
Sven, let me clarify my background. I am not from Poland and I do not think their position is correct.
Secondly, I simply did not know, what are the changes. If they consist of proportional vote and abolishment of veto power, then I am all the more FOR such changes. Well, simple proportional vote is somewhat lacking. There has to be some body in which countries have equal say (like US senat -> two senators per state).
The claim that Poland is isolated is a lie, the Czechs too want to change the voting rules. If the Germans don't listen to us, the Euroconstitution will be vetoed, and I know - and the 91热爆 knows too - that 70% of Brits will be pleased if it will. Sven - what missiles are installed on Polish soil shouldn't interest you, but if you want to argue so, I want to remind you that YOUR NATION, without consulting anyone, signed a deal with the Russians (Baltic pipeline) - HENCE why the EU-Russia deal was vetoed.
I can't agree proportional vote is good for EU because we got many very different countries in this community.
Suppose we got union between one big country like Germany and one small country like Luxemburg. Proposrtional vote system would result in german domination instead of UNION between these two country.
European Union cannot be lead just by a few contries and to me this system of voting results in such domination. Of course we have to respect that there are about 80 million Germans and their influance has to be stronger but we can;t forget about the balance. If we destroy influance of smaller contries they won't be satisfied from this union and this is bad for whole EU.
Poland needs to tone down a bit. If we consider that the EU is mainly an _economic_ union, then it is absolutely preposterous the size and importance of the national economies aren't taken into consideration where voting procedures are concerned.
By that notion, the Netherlands should overtake Poland.
Warsaw would be wise to remember that.
Erik,
Sounds quite logical but some experts say it will take some 40 years for Poland and its economy to actually catch up with other old EU members. Should Poland not fight for its rights for the next 40 years or so?
Anyway, the government says we're ready to come to a compromise. So I believe they'll make it.
Regards,
Wojtek.
I am a Pole so I'd like to clarify a few issues.
First, the old system. It was agreed just before Poles where voting whether to join the EU or not. Many Poles consider it simply deceitful to change it just after the consent of our society to join the Community.
Secondly, every country defends its own interest in the EU. Do I have to remind you how Germany and France, after exceeding the allowed budget deficit, used their strong position in the voting system which in fact was denying previously signed agreement? We are afraid that you will simply vote everything you wish not taking our stance into account. The example of our beloved vodka at the moment explains what I mean.
Thirdly, do not mix issues such as missile system with that. After German-Russian agreements concerning the gaz-pipes throught Baltic sea - which is a disaster from an economic point of view but the advage is that it ommits Poland that can be now blackmailed or, trains between Russia and Germany shiped which also ommits Poland, so, after that, we are seriously concerned about our security. Now we again realise that noone will guarantee it if we don't defend us ourselves.
Finally, I'd like to add that of course our current government is far from being perfect, particularly on the EU scene. But please, before drawing conclusion, get some insight into the issue.
Krzysztof
Thank God for the Poles.
If, as seems likely, Blair is more interested in some sort of grandiose European legacy in the form of signing us up for this constitution, the only way that we are going to be protected from this nonsense is if the Poles refuse to put up with it.
Britain is about to capitulate to an aggressive German chancellor, and the Poles may just ride to the rescue. Hmmm...seems familiar, but shouldn't it be the other way around?!
Europe does not have a "constitutional demos", a People willing to accept majority opinions. This is the major difference between the USA - which is a single people - and Europe which is 30-40. In the absence of a constitutional demos, the imposition of law superior to national law by qualified majority over the heads of voters has no democratic legitimacy. No institutional rearrangement in Brussels can make the EU democratic when it has no people. The only way to make the EU compatible with democracy to recongise that the constituional demoi exist at the national level and therefore to make most EU law inferior to national law such that nations that do not like things agreed in brussels are not required to live under these decisions against their will.
The government will only hold referendums it will win. An EU Constitution could be drawn up containing 1000 pages or 10 pages, it will never be ratified in a referendum in Britain and Tony Blair knows it. I think he is hoping to fool the public with this re-branding it as鈥榯reaty鈥 nonsense. This is a little like Gordon Brown and his economic tests for joining the Euro, the only economic test Mr Brown has for the single currency is 'will we win a referendum', no, so if he wants us to join he will have to re-brand that.
How about a referendum to stay in the EU or get out?
I think some people do not understand some issues in here. There is a letter of 50 scientists saying that the way of voting which Poland supports is the most reasonable. The way of voting which Germany wants to be established is unacceptable. They want the biggest countries, with the biggest population to be the most privileged, imagine if the world was one union and what do you think who would rule the world? China??? This is obvious that every country wants to rule UE especially Germany but as it says this is UNION,
Is it any wonder why Poland is skeptical of German plans to decrease its influence?? Its not like Germany hasn't tried to end Poland's voice before, or the rest of Europe's for that matter. We saved Poland and Europe from German dominance in 1945, its quite fitting Poland will save us and Europe from German dominance in 2007.
1. All of this should have been sorted before we enlarged from 15, but Governments like ours always want to fudge everything and wanted enlargement before deepening
2 Had it all been sorted before enlargement, those joining would simply have signed up for what was there, in a fait accompli
3 This government would not win a referendum because it never engages with the electorate about the positives of EU membership. The government always follows the Little Englander view of the Press. All of them against us. They are still fighting the war
4 It's time we joined the Euro and that argument could be won if the Government engaged the public and explained the positives of Euro membership
Mark,
You wrote 'Thank God for the Poles'. As a Pole I'd like to add 'Thank God for the Czech people' as only they officially support us at the moment.
Nice to read Britons understand where Poland comes from.
Regards,
Wojtek.
Yes Mark, the Germans are after you. We even managed to get the treacherous French to dig a tunnel so we can march right onto your island...
Krzysztof
Good point, I always thought that this deficit problem was an embarrassment for both France and Germany. I also think that Schroeder sold Germany in the Treaty of Nice (one of his many failings). It is just not fair that I pay for everybody else, but my vote counts just 1/3.
Ms. Merkel (or the next chancellor) will feel the heat in the next EU financing round, but this time not from Poland or France, but her electorate.
This whole episode has just one good thing. Despite British efforts Turkey will not be able to join unless there are crystal clear rules in place.
Being part Polish, being born and raised here in the UK I hope my Polish friends can do us proud and veto any agreement which comes out from these meetings as I have the feeling Blair will sell us out as his nice little leaving present.
He doesn't dare let us have our say on the matter in the way of a referendum because he knows more and more of us are seeing the EU progress much too far down the road of a United States of Europe.
With the posturing going on, the one thing that comes to mind is -
"A constitution by any other name would still smell like a sewer..."
People talk so much about the European Union but aren't even aware on how the system works.. Please, check and see how the voting system is supposed to work! It's not like Germany or France will decide how the things work in the EU in the Double Majority system!
Why does the British Governemnt not want the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be legally binding? Do they not agree with its very necessary provisions? It is rather worrying if they don't and won't explain why not.
About "One Man One Vote": German proposition is a democratic one (one man-one vote, used in unitary states), Polish one is federalist (where smaller federal states are given more power).
The true is that both Poland and Germany are defending their raison d'etat. The Poles made it in a wrong way by saying that they're losing the most while the Germans would gain twice as much power as they have according to the Nice Treaty. Germans are talking about democratisation of the Union. They have the same goal.
There's a little discussion about the PROBLEM. A voting system of a unitary state does not have to be good for a quasi-federalist Union.
Financial Times published an article about it. A short extract:
"To an uninitiated observer, this does not appear immediately obvious. Does it not seem fair that the voting power of a country in an international organisation should be proportional to its population size? The answer is no. In fact, it is totally unfair. The reason is that effective voting power in multi-nation settings such as the EU depends not on voting size but on the ability to form winning coalitions. Large countries are better placed than their relative population size would suggest."
The whole article:
You are either on one side or the other, and no amount of "negotiating", "haggling" or debating is going to produce a compromise suitable for everyone. Those who seek political union should be allowed to go down their road, and those who want free trade plus a few other common benefits such as food safety, health standards and imigration controls, can follow their path. Why not? Throughout Europe it is a paradox that the private sector is thriving and governments display themselves as moribund and backward looking, lacking the leadership qualities we need. If the European project were seen to be a model of competence and vision, more citizens would support the idea. As it is now, there is no chance.
Sven H. - you're not paying for everyone! Each country pays, depending on it's possibilities. In 20 years or something like that Poland will have similar GNP and will pay similar money (per citizen) to EU budget... treat it as an export of stability. In few years Poland will not be the biggest beneficent - Romania, Bulgaria, hopefully Ukraine will join. Then we (Poles) will also pay more that we will receive.
I think that there has to be balance between population of countries and voting rights. I support some of arguments for and some of arguments against changing of voting rights.
Surely we have to abolish veto right - we Poles know best how destructive veto right is (partitions in late XVIII century was a result of this veto thing in Polish parliament).
As it was mentioned before, when my country was joining EU we were tempted by telling us that our vote will be quite strong, so we won't be simply overruled by the biggest countries. When after just a few years we hear that the rules are about to change it's difficult not to think about it as of a deceit.
And could someone tell me when Germany or France negotiated this treaty? Meaning talking about it, not just forcing smaller countries to accept it. It's not a good start if they want us to believe in their good intentions...
I strongly believe that Europe will be stronger united - but when it's done willingly.
Sven - the rules are already clear, and the rules are (according to the French constitution) that French voters need to be asked to allow the Turks to join. If polls are any indication, the French would never express consent. Regarding the Czech President, I hope he refuses to sign the European constitution as he promised he would. There should be no Euroconstitution - EVER.
Poland is not the #1 beneficiary of the EU. States like Spain, Greece, Ireland and Portugal receive more EU aid than Poland.
I don't think I need to mention the 7 closed labour markets. For the Germans to state any demands is silly.
The question is: 1) what's the purpose of changing the voting system after it had been agreed in Nice only a couple of years ago? 2) WHat's the purpose of extending economic character of the EU and making it a political body. It is senseless to have a political body with 27 governments, which change almost every year in each member state due to general elections. 3) I know that Germany are the EU net payer, but so maybe Mrs Merkel should strive to change that and not tamper with voting system after it's already been agreed in Nice.
Took a quick straw poll around the office.
Fuller integration - 1
Leave it as it is - 0
Not bothered - 4
Withdrawal from EU - 27
The biggest complaint was EU law. What we do in our country is our business and has got nothing to do with Brussels or any 'Euro-Court'.
Incidentally our office is all well educated ( IT ), is multi-ethnic and pretty young - average age about 26. The majority are New Labour voters, followed by LibDem, so it appears that within our office at least, the most pro-EU parties are actually seriously out of step with their voters.
Leszek Deska wrote: ... hopefully Ukraine will join.
Poland will not agree the 'contract'. Nobody will join.
Europe is inquorate.
The EU should be released.
In 2005 Germany has been paying 7.1 billion EUR for the EU household, which is by far the largest sum and is even more than the net payments by Britain (2.9 bnEUR), France (3.1bnEUR), Belgium and Austria taken together. Above average payers are Germany, Sweden, Luxemburg and the Netherlands. Below average payers are Britain (rebate ...), Denmark and Austria. Among the receiving countries there likewise was a strong bias in favour of Ireland, Portugal, Greece and Spain. Poland received 1.4 bnEUR almost the net amount of Ireland.
Per head the paid net annual sums of 2005 were: Britain 48 EUR, France 49 EUR, Germany 72 EUR, Sweden 95EUR, Netherlands 162 EUR. Receiving countries: Czech 16 EUR, Poland 48 EUR, Spain 136 EUR, Ireland 271 Eur.
As you can see there are numerous imbalances in these numbers. No doubt: one can certainly not say that the contributing countries share their burdens on equal terms. And the way the present discussion is used as a tool for anti-German sentiment is just a disgrace. So please do not wonder if the German willingness to tolerate being treated as the whipping boy and paymaster at the same time might be dramatically dwindling under the xenophobic attacks of the Kaczyinski brothers. Burden sharing and fairness is not a one way route and it will not do much use if some people expect to be treated more equal than others. Since the Kaczyinskis are not undisputed in their own country we also should not overestimate their inner political importance. However if things continue developing like in the last days the prospects for the EU are dull. It is all the more disappointing since the citizens of Poland and Germany are making their first shy but promising steps to get to know each other far better in their daily life.
To Andy Williams (# 29), who writes:
'The biggest complaint was EU law. What we do in our country is our business and has got nothing to do with Brussels or any 'Euro-Court'.'
Why this need to demonize the EU?
It is thanks to the EU that you are about to pay considerably less when making a call on your mobile phone. It is thanks to the EU that software firms other than Microsoft are given the opportunity to develop their own products and drive innovation.
Surely, these are decisions you and your IT colleagues will applaud?
Lukasz - the Nice Treaty allows for an EU of no more than 27 member states. So either some member states will be united (which is what I'd like to happen), or enlargement will halt (which should happen too). Most EU citizens do not approve continued enlargement.
I just forgot to mention one thing. I hope you are aware of the fact that other EU countries refuse to discuss the issue of the voting system and Poland is ready to use its veto not in case of losing the discussion, but in case of big coutries denying its right to discuss it during the summit?
The Union where smaller "partners" are not allowed to present their views is the union with which I disagree.
Krzysztof
Paul Steinmann:
1) Thank you, you've just proven that Poland receives less cash than Spain and Ireland.
2) Your EUR 3 bn figure is incorrect. Britain's yearly net contribution is 5.6 bn EUR, although France's GDP and Italy's GDP are identical to Britain's GDP. And if the British rebate was terminated, Britain would be the #1 net contributor. Yes, it would be contributing yearly more than Germany!
Britain's population numbers roughly as many people as the population of France and the population of Italy. But Britain contributes yearly more than France and Italy COMBINED. And this will continue until at least 2013. That doesn't even include the money wasted on those expensive 232 EF-2000s (232 F-35Bs could have been bought instead). Regarding Poland, I don't understand WHY Spain is still EU's #1 net beneficiary. Why is Ireland a net beneficiary?
Paul (31) has pointed out the #1 reason as to why I oppose the EU as it is. We (Netherlands) pay in well near twice as much per head as the #2 on the list does. This is totally unacceptable. I do not for a single second believe that we would NOT be better off outside the EU. We don't have any influence inside, so we might as well be outside and pick and choose. After all, the EU needs us a lot more than we need them.
As for the voting system, I am appalled at those who would casually throw away the vetos. The vetos are the only thing standing between a country's sovereignty and what is essentially the rule of a foreign power (foreign ministers voting in qualified majority). We value our national sovereignty and too much of it has been conceded already.
So I can say to Diogo (20), I perfectly understand how QMV works. It enables Italy, France and Germany to form a blocking minority.
If the voting system is to be changed, and we are to stay inside, I demand that the voting weights be determined based on contribution per head of population. We (Netherlands) should have more votes than any other country.
It seems to me that most of the critics (a specially Germans) of the Polish proposal do not know it. Below you can find an article that describes it:
written by: Richard Baldwin Professor of International Economics at the Graduate Institute in Geneva, CEPR Policy Director, and VoxEU.org Editor-in-Chief
and
Mika Widgr茅n
Professor of Economics at Turku School of Economics, Finland
Actually similar voting method was proposed by Sweden in 2000. Voting system based on the square-root calculation is also know as Penrose method:
In short we (Poland) want the fair voting system.
Regards
Here is another article that present the Polish proposal:
see the figure at the end of document showing the relative voting power of citizen under different voting systems.
System based on the Penrose method is the most fair.
The voting system should be based on the balance between big and small countries in EU. THe system proposed in German version of the treaty is unacceptable as it gives power to few big countries and will cause that the opinion of small ones will be neglected. Thus, the Polish system is by far more democratic. Especially Germany should remember that some 60 years ago this kind of attitude to the politics caused partition of Czechoslovakia in Munich and made the WWII one step closer. Nobody even asked Czech people about their opinion those days. We all need to learn on common experience. The treaty should not be related to money (at the end Eastern Europe sold to Russia by their Allies after WWII had no chance to gain money from Marshall act) but to the stabilization in all areas. I am rather sure that neglected countries do not stabilise EU.
#15 should try to stop living in the past. Should we keep on dragging up everyones dirt? If that were the case the earstwhile colonial powers could hear an earful.
Zbigniew, your are wrong, I am afraid.
The numbers have been taken from 2006 data of the EU commission and from the German statistical yearbook. They have also been published in Wikipedia. Your data might relate to the households beyond 2006. Presently Germany麓s share is about net 8 bnEUR. Following the proposals of the European commission however Germanys contribution would double to net 16 bnEUR which is the reason for a lot of displeasure (data from manager magazine). There is no chance this will ever be paid, if at the same time Germany麓s voting rights are almost halfed compared to the present proposals if the "square root" would be accepted. Of course Poland has the right to fight for its square root voting system. But Germany will also have the right just to say NO. But tell me why is it that a polish citizen in the Kaczynski voting system is counting much more than a German citizen. And why should a German citizen accept according to this proposal give up his rights to this kind of mathematical apartheid ?
To understand me correctly. I am in favour of Germany being the major contributor to the EU. And I do not care if Poland is the biggest receiver of EU help. But I would never accept that also my rights as European citizen will be sacrificed on the altar of the inferiority complex a political leader whose anti-German sentiment is more important than the rationale of making liberal and adult politics.
Paul, there is a simple answer to your questions. Just read informations on Penrose method (the algorithm behind Polish proposal) - focus on relative voting power concept. Start reading from Wikipedia.
Poland has paid dearly for not having sufficient say in its destiny in the past. I wonder how Poland could ever accept having less say, in the context of such historical highlights like 3 partitions, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact or the Yalta Conference. While I do not believe in dwelling in the past, I certainly believe in learning from it. I think the fact that Poland is exhibiting a slightly longer memory than it's neighbours may serve it well...as well as all the other smaller states who have a stake in this.
Why is everyone so angry at Poles? Nice treaty was agreed by all right before 10 new members voted to join EU. Not even 3 years past an we want to change the system.
Why you are not angry at French and Dutch? They rejected the constitution. Now you trying to bypass democratic vote in some dark room German-French deal. Poles are bed becouse they block the new vote that will drasticly reduce their power in EU. How come Brits are not bed for refusing to agree to preaty much everything else? Why French are not bed for their veto about CAP? Why Germans are not bed for ignoring all new members with Russia-German gas pipe or their over 3% deficit?
Even now nations are not equal in EU.
Btw I do agree that EU has huge finace problem. I think that 1% flat tax from every EU citizen would make situation more fair to Dutch and Germans.
Paul, regarding Poland, you were the one who said Poland receives less cash than Spain.
Regarding Britain, according to the 91热爆 its pre-2006 contribution (using 2003 figures) was 4.6 bn EUR per year. After Blair surrendered 1 bn GBP PY, i.e. 1.5 bn EUR PY, Britain's net contribution has increased to 6.1 bn EUR.
The British rebate is 2/3rds of Britain's net contribution, so the 4.6 bn EUR figure is what the Brits pay yearly AFTER getting the rebate every eyar. That means that even while they get a rebate every year they still pay 4.6 bn EUR per year.
So if the rebate was no more, Britain's net contribution would be 3 times bigger.
3*4.6 bn =13.8 bn
France would cease to be an EU net contributor, and so would a few other EU member states.
If your 16 bn EUR figure is right, then yes, Germany would still be the #1 contributor, but Germany's population is 34% bigger than Britain's population, and Germany's GDP is 2.6 trillion dollars, while Britain's GDP is $1.93 trillion.
It's amazing that Brits complain about their government, yet THEY, not me, elected it three times. Were I a British citizen, I would NEVER vote for the Labour Party nor for the Liberals nor for the SNP.
I read the whole article from Baldwin and Widgren . Although an interesting proposal, ultimately it is a neither here nor there story. Why should the polish voting influence be almost the same as the german one but three times higher then the one of Malta. After all in both cases it鈥檚 a difference of about 40 million people.
As I see it there are only two options that are fair: either one country one vote, or one person one vote. The Penrose method is just a way to satisfy the selfish interests of the polish government.
Zbigniew . maybe by referring to different years we actually dont have a dissent. 16 bnEUR were quoted by management magazine which is a very serious source in such things. I think EU should also consider a 2 chamber system and yes there must be a fair formula that outbalances everyones rights and burdens. History is often made by taking chances and usually there is enough room for fine tuning later. But it could well be that there is no second chance any more. The Kaczynskis are not a great help in this respect. I am afraid we will all lose opportunities and they might marginalize the EU process or result in a useless and historically dramatic self-marginalization of Poland. In times of global climate problems, Russia looking for new dominance, China or India becoming new players and the US to fight for its leading role, this is not what I desire for Europe.
The EU has actually been crucial to WEAKEN Europe, with its socialist laws. Piebalgs and Barroso, who appease Vladimir Putin, didn't help either. Regarding Poland, it would be only beneficial for Poland if the Euroconstitution was vetoed by Jaroslaw Kaczynski.
I think before we start deciding voting system we need to answer one question - what is the purpose of the EU. If its to create space where everybody has an equal rights i think that every country should be granted just one voice then no country will be able to impose its will to others just becouse its bigger. The germans have their country where they are most important nation but i don't understand why they should also be the most important nation in EU. With the double majority system countries like Slovakia, Malta and Czech don't have a voice unless its the same as of some bigger country, the situation is better with the Polish voting system but it still isn't perfect. I think the best proposition is what Peter(3)wrote.
And one last thing if the voting system should reflect on population let all people of europe decide not in national referendums but in general europen voting. Let every citizen decide what system they prefer I have the feeling it wouldn't be double majority after all...
Wojtek,
Obviously a voting system taking the value of the national economies into consideration would (due to the changing nature of everything economical) have to be re-evaluated by the same formula at set intervals. Say once every ten years.
Nikolay - maybe because we Poles are STILL discriminated by the Germans and several other nations? The German labour market is not open yet, and will not be until 2012. If they want to keep it closed, OK - but they must pay a price. The currently relevant treaty is the Nice Treaty. So the square root proposal is a compromise. No treaty has replaced the Nice Treaty yet.
Now Bozo Barroso has spoken. He should not dictate us whether to adopt the Euroconstitution or not, he's President of the EC, he's not authorised to do so.
By the by, I propose a new voting system: 55% of member states representing 65% of the EU's population, but the voting right of Eurozone states which violate the Maastricht criteria would be suspended.
I regard the square root voting system as an insult to Germany. Even proposing it is a scandal.
I completely fail to see how 'one man/one vote' is out of proportion. If there's anything out of proportion its Polands ambitions. How about using the GDP for determining each countries voting power? Poland is already far better off than it should be. Germany on the other side does not demand anything out of proportion, it demands the voting power it deserves.
Of course the Poles should be given the chance to discuss the possibility of them suddenly being a 'big player', but I suggest they should also give a thought about when it is time to quit the bloating and get real.
In my eyes the Kaczynski brothers are driven by a mix of xenophobia, megalomania and greed. If it was Poland that had 80 million citizens, and Germany 40 million, the Kaczynskis would'nt even know the meaning of square root.
Reading these posts, the solution is simple; Poland and Britain (and Holland if it wants) should leave the EU. No reason for them to moan any longer and the other countries can just get on with what needs to be done, namely adopting a constitution clearly defining what the project is all about and creating a workable, more democratic frameset as was drafted in the Nice treaty. Frankly I think the rapid EU extension into Eastern Europe has been over hastly.
Zbigniew (53) surely the Poles are treated differently by Germany (and most of the other 鈥渙ld鈥 EU members), but so are the Czechs, the Hungarians, the Bulgarians and the rest of East Europe. But they don鈥檛 seem to mind the voting system so much (even the Czechs). It鈥檚 not nice to be restricted to work, but if Poland minds it so much, they just have to answer with the same treatment of offenders. And after all it will be over in four years at most. The polish attitude is a strange combination of megalomania and self-pity. Look at Luxemburg, although their voting influence is close to zero (and have been like this for the last 50 years) they look quite OK. So it鈥檚 probably better for Poland to use the fact that it鈥檚 right between Russia and Germany for its own advantage, rather than trying to prove how great it actually is and being snotty at the same time.
Simply Poland won鈥檛 matter as much as Germany or France or UK as long as it鈥檚 smaller and poorer. To put it the good old way 鈥淨uod licet Jovi, non licet bovi鈥.
I perfectly understand the position of Germany on the issue - we pay a lot to the EU, we therefore demand more power. That's obvious, if I finance anything, I shall control it and no questions about that. On the other hand, if the EU is understood only in economic terms, then give more power to those who finance it, and stop pretending that the EU project develops towards some form of political union, which is not feasible at all (look at British and Polish demands). In such a case,let's forget about the constitution, reference to God, Charter of Fundamental RIghts etc. If you want to make the EU an efficient political project, then all EU institutions shall be revamped or superseded by sthg else to run the EU smoothly (two house EU parliament, president etc, smaller role of national governments), which requires a bold decision. I am fed up with pretending that such a change would be an evolutional one. Time is running out, the US, CHina and Japan are catching up and all the acquis communautiaire shall be suspended immediately and superseded by new and less red-tape, more transparent organizational structure, whic would make the political utopia feasible. If not, let's leave it as it is, and please stop meddling with this successful economic union.
I am a German of Polish heritage and I still have very strong ties with my family in Poland.
First I really think that any notions about Germany aiming for a new "domination" in Europe are ridiculous. There are 27 countries in the EU and by all means 84.000.000 Germans can never count as 65% of the entire EU population, the second criteria for a double majority. Also cutting the veto-rights concerns Germany as well as all the other members of the EU; not really the behaviour typical of countries seeking hegemony. This really is an insult to Germany. I don't want to embellish the incredible atrocities committed by Germany during WWII and my utmost respect to all victims, their relatives and veterans, but it's been more than 60 years and the majority of Germans, especially we, the young people, are no warhawks anymore. So please do not relate to any arguments, notions or claims about Germany's past. We have a problem to be solved at the present.
Second I would really like to know what the British or Poles would say if their votes only counted 1/3. What could be more democratic than saying "one man-one vote"? As far as I know this is the basic principle of any recognized true democratic system. I am a citizen of the European Union and I think that all citizens should be treated equally, no matter if we pay more taxes or less (considering the Euro amount). So please enlighten me, why should my voice count less than anyone else's does? This is also meant to criticise Germany's unfair rules concerning Polish and other Eastern European labour force. Besides Britain's example shows that it has mostly benefitted from the skilled Poles. So those absurd xenophobic visions by German politicians were incorrect.
I agree as well on the point that the idea of a double majority bears the risk of a "population-related" (ALL big countries!!!) lack of balance in the making of decisions. However a square-root solution, even though some scientists think it's the best way, is still not democratic because it causes inequalities in the value of each citizen's vote, just like Nizza had done. Therefore I consent very much with those favouring the American bicameral system, since the US faced a similar problem when they were founded. The bicameral system could be the solution, we are looking for, for this and any further conflicts. In return we could get rid of the commission which is not directly authorized by the European people.
As to why the EU should also become a poltical body: The EU's common market so far has brought all its members a higher standard of life. Look at Spain or Ireland. People are now emigrating there. Germany, a predominantly export-orientated country has also benefitted a lot since its exports are mostly sold to its EU PARTNERS! Poland's contruction boom gives new jobs to German craftsmen. However such a market also needs to be somewhat regulated (no over-regulation!) by someone and with all respect, but 27 countries focused on their own advantage can't do it by themselves, so we need a supranational body and common laws. Although I don't like futurologists I honestly believe that all these small European nations, and WE ARE SMALL, can only survive the upcoming emergence of the global players in Asia and the comeback of Russia, if we stand together. Otherwise we will end up as a new cold-war battlefield of global powers depending on the mercy of a lord protector.
As for the Kaczynskis, I think they are the worst government the III. RP has had so far. Not because they are bringing up issues "unpleasant" for our Chancellor (there is the invaluable freedom of speech), but because this government is stuck in its resentiments for Germany, even though they were all born after WWII, megalomania and an inquisiton-like hunt for former communist agents in Poland instead of taking care of its own people who have to leave that really beautiful country. Just look at the Polish health system...
Best regards to everybody
One man one vote, this is nice. Square root? A country of 100 million would have 10 votes, two countries with 50 millions together 14 votes, 10 countries with 10 millions each 30 votes, is it only me or is this far from being fair?
The voting system that is now proposed does need 55% of all countries to agree. One vote each country. Is this fair? I think so. Coming up with the square root or now with the idea of counting the war deads in, sorry, but this is just rediculous.
鈥淨uod licet Jovi, non licet bovi鈥
Poor Poland - Stalin compared it to a cow and now it is being called an ox.
Better to be an ox than a treacherous snake, like some of the EU members.
just to remain - European Constitution with its unfortunate voting proposal has been already rejected by people of France and Holland. It is a BIG scandal that Germany attempts at all cost to enforce the same proposal. It has nothing to do with democracy - it'a a farse. It's quite funny - but it looks that Germans needs some lessons in democracy - people voted, Constitution was rejected so new proposal is needed. Germans think that it's enough to change some minor points like EU flag, emblem etc. to make Constitution look like new project. Its a farse. At lastly - why the voting system needs to be changed in such a way to favour big countries? Since begining EU uses completely different algorithm that makes small/middle countries relatively stronger (e.g. Luxembourg) - to avoid situation where big countries will dominate its smaller partners. Why this method needs to be changed?
The voting system is the most imprtant issue for the success of the European Union. The failure of the United Nations should serve as a reference point in discussing this issue of power. We must not create yet another multinational organization where the big guys bully the small guys. The European Union must take into account the voice of the smaller nations in much more effective way then currently proposed.
The square root formula is not ridiculous. It is not unfair. One just needs to understand statistics to comprehend it. This is why a bunch of scientists supported the proposal. Understandably most people would find it hard to get their brain around this concept, but the fact remains that using the square root formula the influence of a German or Pole, and everybody else on the approval of proposal in the EU would be exactly the same. This strange sounding thing is an artefact of the current rules proposed for voting. The square root solution is equivalent on average to giving every single person within the EU a direct and equal vote, like in a referendum.
Zbigniew (53) surely the Poles are treated differently by Germany (and most of the other 鈥渙ld鈥 EU members), but so are the Czechs, the Hungarians, the Bulgarians and the rest of East Europe. But they don鈥檛 seem to mind the voting system so much (even the Czechs). It鈥檚 not nice to be restricted to work, but if Poland minds it so much, they just have to answer with the same treatment of offenders. And after all it will be over in four years at most. The polish attitude is a strange combination of megalomania
Nikolay:
1) Closing your labour markets to us even for 1 day would be unfair, while the Irish, for example, are not so treated.
2) The square root system is fair because it assumes counting the votes of every nation identically - by the square root. The square root of the population of Germany would not be divided by 3.
3) Germany IS a threat to Poland, ever heard of the Baltic Pipeline?
4) The Brits and the Dutch WANT to withdraw from the EU, it's just that their traiterous governments won't allow them to do so.
Patrick:
1) The EU is a corrupt organisation doomed for a terrible economic disaster. The only reason Ireland and Spain are wealthier now is because the Brits have been subsidising them for 34 years.
2) China will never be a power as strong as the US or Russia.
3) The claim that the EU will ever be powerful with nonexisten militaries (except the British and the French militaries) is ridiculous TBH.
I just want to add that the double majority gives more power to ALL big countries, not just Germany and so far no big country has complained about the new distribution of voting powers. (except Britain, but only concerning vetos) President Sarkozy has just tried to change Poland's mind by proposing that small countries could eventually veto a decision if there were enough of them to do so. So please stop demonizing only Germany all the time. Italy is also in favour of the double majority.
As for the French and Dutch, I think their rejection of the "constitution" was less if not at all motivated by the voting system. It was rather a reaction to interior political conflicts (contract premi茅re embauche) and to some point the islamist violence that took place in the Netherlands (Theo Van Gogh...). So sorry about that...
If you want to make the EU really more democratic give each citizen's vote an equal value, otherwise THAT is a farce!
Oh and please stop calling any country an ox or a snake...
The development of the European Union should not be held back by a few States who do not subscribe to what the project is fundamentally about.Those who appear to want to fight the Second World War in a different form have understood nothing about what the EU is really all about. If a reasonable compromise is not possible, those states who agree (23 or 24 states) on the way forward should go ahead with the new Treaty and in effect exclude those who want out or want to turn the EU into a loose free market area or an ineffective UN-like international organisation. Those who do not share the overwhleming majority view of the way forward should simply withdraw from the Union. They could and perhaps should set up their own arrangement of sovereign independent states. Those States who agree about the way forward should exercise their pooled sovereignty and go ahead without the minority who have a different view of the world and the role of the EU. No vetos required really- just a decision to divorce and go our different ways. That way everyone would be happy.
Radek,
1.
The constitution was rejected by two and ratified by 15 countries. So it is totally normal and democratic to negotiate the original constitution which was negotiated by all countries (including Poland).
2.
The lessons in democracy should be taken by Poland. Since Poland entered the EU (also thanks to strong German support) it is only acting by demanding something (money, voting power etc.) and threatening with veto.
That sounds very democratic.
3.
Why changing a voting system? Because of countries like Poland which are abusing the veto right. Because every citizen of the EU should have equal voting powers. A German vote is equal to a Polish vote or a French vote and so on...
4.
Always when arguments run out Poland comes with the big "second world war" argument...which ended in 1945...and now we are in 2007. It has simply nothing to do with voting rigthts in the EU.
The whole discussion is so ridiculous. One country (representing less than 40 million citizens and a rather small economic power) wants to dictate his will over all the other countries. The biggest absolute EU receiver is attacking the biggest EU donator. Maybe Poland should simply leave the EU if they don't like the club.
I propose this deal:
1) the double majority system will be enforced
2) Eurozone Nations that violate the Maastricht criteria will not be allowed to vote
3) German budget contributions will increase significantly, the British net contribution will be zeroed, the French will become net beneficiaries, the Spaniards will become net contributors (they are net beneficiaries right now), and the net contributions of all other EU member nations won't change
Zbigniew,
with all respect
you want that Eurozone Nations that violate the Maastricht criteria will not be allowed to vote?
In this case the German EU net contribution should be substracted from their debts and the Maastricht criteria is easily achieved every year.
Anyway the Maastricht criteria does only matter to the Eurozone...which Poland does not belong to isn't it?
If you really want to make money a factor in the EU voting system some countries could easily propose that net receiving countries are not allowed to vote or that economic power should be reflected in voting power.
I think that Germany and other net payers do not complain about being the paymaster of the EU but they complain when countries which only receive try to block the whole Union in order to get political voting power that they simply don't deserve neither for population nor for economic contribution.
When you talk about EU contributions you should remember that it is not up to the receiver to decide how much anybody has to pay.
If that summit will be vetoed Poland will be the scapegoat and the Polish people will pay for the political irrealism of there elected leaders. We will be definitely on the way to a Europe at two speeds.
Zbigniew,
May be I should remind you that it鈥檚 largely thanks to Germany that Poland is in the EU. So far Poland just wants and wants. After all EU is not a mechanism for Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and Austria to subsidize a bunch of other countries and get trash in return.
What the Treaty really needs is a set of Articles of getting rid of a country, may be when 3/4 or so of the other member states and the European parliament want it. After all divorce is always an option.
I would like to suggest to most of you to find the Eurobarometer surveys after the referenda in France and the Netherlands. At least you will know they rejected the constitution. And the EU burocracy domination was not between the main concerns.
Patrick, the Contrat Premiere Embauche Loi was proposed one year AFTER the constitutional referendum. The French and the Dutch voted against the Euroconstitution SOLELY because they didn't want to ratify it, not because they hated their governments. By suggesting otherwise you are offending them.
Sven - the population of those states which ratified the Euroconstitution is less than half of the entire population of the EU.
Sven
1. Only two countries decided to give people chance to decide on European Constitution - France and Holland. In both cases constitution was rejected by the people. The 15 countries who ratified it, were not brave enough to allow people vote on it. It is not normal and democratic to propose almost the same project for voting again. Poland and new EU member countries had very limited means to influence the constitution. Just remember, at that time we were not members of EU. From our perspecitve it looks like the project was prepared specially to limit out voting power and give it to the old EU member states.
2. Your arguments are not logical. At the time when project of EU constition was under discussion Poland was not member of EU - so your argument is totally invalid. All EU countries 'abuse' veto - see how France protects CAP or Spain, Ireland protected their interest during EU enlargement. Up to now small and medium countries have relatively stronger voting power to protect their interests from domination of larger countries.
3. This discussion is not ridiculus. Poland is not attacking anyone. From our perspective it looks that Poland is being attacked by Germany....because we do not agree with german proposals. Just to remaind you - Poland wants to add to the agenda disscussion on the voting system - Germany is against it. If the matter of voting system is so simple as Germany suggest - why not to include it on the agenda ?
As for today Poland is not the biggest EU receiver.... most of your money goes to Spain, Ireland. Do not forget count money that goes to French farmers.
Nikolay, my reply has been divided, and consists of four paras.
May be I should remind you that it鈥檚 thanks to Germany that Poland is in the EU.
>>>This claim has already been made once by someone and it's knowlingly false. EVERY EU15 member nation had to allow the 12 candidate nations to join, not just the Germans.
So far Poland just wants and wants.
>>>So far the Germans have been always signing secret deals with the Russians, e.g. the 1772, 1793 and 1795 partition treaties, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the Baltic Pipeline deal. That the latter will cause an ecological disaster does not worry the Germans or the Russians.
After all EU is not a mechanism for Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and Austria to subsidize a bunch of other countries
>>>Well I think the Germans should pay after they destroyed Europe during World War II. That WWII ended 62 years ago is irrelevant.
I would like to suggest to most of you to find the Eurobarometer surveys after the referenda in France and the Netherlands.
>>>Yeah, the same opinion polls which, immediately before the French referendum, suggested that the French would vote 'yes'.
Zbigniew-and Poland's population of 38.2 millions represents only 8% of the EU's population.
So where is the point about the population of the countries who ratified the constitution? There are only two countries which rejected it and the reasons for this have nothing to do with the voting system which was proposed in the constitution draft. The other countries have not rejected the constitution they just didn't gave there answers yet.
Zbigniew:
Thank you for correcting me with the CPE, but I really do not think that it is offending the French and Dutch people saying that they rejected the EU constitution because of their government's interior policies. If there are any French people here, please do correct me in case I am wrong.
Former French President Chirac put all his prestige in the struggle to win the French for a "yes". In the end he has been a rather liberal (even if the CPE happened after the referendum it is an example) politician and France is a very socially-orientated state and after WWII the state had a close eye on the economy. So the referendum was a great opportunity to show the people's opinion. Of course many people might have rejected the constitution for several contents, like the pro-free competition elements, which Sarkozy has managed to get rid of. However I really don't believe that the French have done so for the new voting system, at least I haven't read any article mentioning it as a point to be criticized in LeMonde, but maybe you can prove me wrong.
The EU surely is corrupt to some extent, but so are all national governments, too. The thing is that I would really like to see the evidence for claiming that Ireland and Spain have prospered only because of British subsidies and not because of EU subsidies from all member countries AND the opportunities our common market has offered them. Maybe the evidence can convince me of your position.
Also by forcing all member states to find compromises in their differences, to cooperate with each other and by making all the strong at least economic between countries that once regarded each other as hereditary ennemies, I personally believe the EU has done a lot as well to ensure peace between nations for more than 60 years now. I think it would be a shame to lose it all.
As for China and the military. Yes, China MIGHT never become as powerful as the US or Russia and yes, we DO NOT HAVE a military NOW. Yet divided even a mediocre power could put us under pressure. At last there is Russia in the east and why should we always count on the Americans and not help ourselves? We don't have a military, but we don't lack the brains, the money and the people in Europe to build one.
This new treaty if it succeeds could make the union more efficient and in the end who knows what it might become one day (of course your predicition Zbigniew might turn out to be right). Giving every person's vote equal (one man-one vote) value would therefore be a great step into a at least more democratic future for the EU which every man will understand without statistics and great scientists.
The above discussion is very interesting. What I think is that EU is no longer democratic. The real power is not in the hands of people, but in the hands of politics. We cannot even vote, we cannot refuse the wrong ideas of politics. They do whatever they want. Is it not true? I am Polish and I am really pleased that we at last we are in EU. For the last 50 years we wanted to be free and be part of Europe. Now we are but again somebody else wants to rule us! No, no, I do not agree with German voting system. I do not support my President, but in that case I really do and think it is good that we can and We will say NO.
Sven (65): in the countries that ratified by parliament, most peoples were against the whole thing too. Their politicians wouldn't let them vote for an obvious reason.
Francesco (66): political union is not a step forward but 10 steps back. Multi ethnic/cultural federations have never lasted. See: USSR, Austro-Hungary, Yugoslavia, Ottoman Empire.
No one except a minority of inward looking Europhiles wants political integration. Where is the popular support for your agenda?
We (Netherlands) would gladly withdraw, so would the British and increasing numbers of Germans (though not yet their politicians). All the net payers are complaining.
You europeans are so funny! We American (those of us who even know what is going on in Europe) are laughing ourselves sick over this issue. We had the exact same issue 250 years ago and resolved it quite simply to the satisfaction of all the States.
1) Senate which has 2 representatives from each country.
2) Congress which has varying numbers of representatives depending upon population.
Voil谩, Sarkosy would say....
So what's the problem with this?
According to polish daily "Rzeczpospolita" there is a deal with Poland. The distribution of powers from the Nice treaty will last untill 2017. Poland had to agree because of the pression of the rest. Czech Republic was the ONLY country supporting Poland.
Heiko,
"I completely fail to see how 'one man/one vote' is out of proportion."
One man /one vote is not a must in democracies. Many established democracies use electoral systems based on single constituency (US, Canada, Great Britain, France鈥) The German electoral system is not an example of pure proportional system either. Secondly, things become even more complicated in federal systems. US senate has two seats per state, no matter the size of its population.
鈥淚f it was Poland that had 80 million citizens, and Germany 40 million, the Kaczynskis would'nt even know the meaning of square root.鈥 So you believe that if Poland had 80 millions citizens it would favor the proportional system for nationalistic reasons and you seem to imply that it would be bad, but when Germany is doing it now, we have to believe that it is doing democracy a favor. Please explain this difference in interpretation to me. Both countries talk about democracy to defend systems that 鈥渉appen鈥 to give them more power 鈥 I don鈥檛 know why do you believe so easily that Germany does it out of love for democracy and Poland out of xenophobia.
And no, we are not going to leave the EU. Poles are actually very euroenthusiastic.
The WWI and WWII have left Europe on his knees. Thanks to the EEC before and to the EU now, Europeans (even Britons) have lived in one of the longest period of peace in European history (at least in Western part). Maybe all the well educated IT-people in their mid 20s in the UK Office that are contrary to the EU should read the following:
Dear Zbigniew Mazurak Poland could leave EU, the door is open. But before leaving please have a look at this:
"Since 2004, EU membership and access to EU structural funds has provided a major boost to the economy." Source:
Who has given all that money? Maybe the richest country: Germany, France, UK, Italy just to mention a few. Please think carefully before speaking. And if you want to leave EU, as a former Italian taxpayers "I want my money back!".
In another post on this subject, someone from the UK suggested that England (not the entire UK: selfish!) should leave EU and join the US. Are you prepared to drive on the "right" side? Who will be your next Head of State? What will be your name "OLD ENGLAND"? Do you think Americans will move the Capital and the financial centre (NY) to London? Are you ready to adopt US Dollar? By the way, my future Head of State will be Her Majesty Elizabeth II, and I'm truly happy for this. Greetings from an European, (Italian) living in Canada.
I wonder at the unqualified acceptance by most of my fellow British contributors of the British public's anti-EU stance. The UK national press is so overwhelingly anti-EU, is mostly owned by non-EU foreigners, delighting in such stories as the 'EU diective' requiring cucumbers to be stight that the public have a totally false sense as to the nature of the EU. It is quite normal to see references the the vast EU bureaucracy while the truth is that many UK county councils employ more staff than the EU. Unfortunatley our current generation of politicians are self-serving, ineffectual non-entities who seem to think they owe their jobs to Mr Murdoch.
"The German electoral system is not an example of pure proportional system either."
Yes, I heard so, Nath. ;) Still the one vote I give at a national election is counted as 1, whereas, on EU level, in comparison to Poland and by the sqare root system, it had counted as 1/3. With the same electoral system applying for both countries. That cant be right.
"Please explain this difference in interpretation to me."
Of course. It is absolutely obvious to me that a proportional voting system is logical and fair, whereas a system based on the square root is irrational and unfair. In consequence I believe that anyone defending the square root system is not doing so in pursuit of fairness and equality, but for national gain. You may not believe me but I'd be of the same opinion if Germany was the smaller country and demanding the square root. My point is that by the square root system certain contingents of EU citizens receive less representation than others. That is no democracy but apartheid.
Does Germany insist on its population count to be recognized for that reason? I for one believe it does.
That mathematics, the pre-eminently rational, logic and objective science between the sciences, might provide an answer to what a fair voting system is for the EU, gives me an uncomfortable feeling.
The process of voting doesn't seem to me an example of a rational, logic and objective process that it permits itself to be put in a mathematical formula, on the contrary.
The battlefield for politicians to fight out their election is now the television screen.
Although completely different events political elections more and more seem to resemble that other television voting festival called Eurosong. I trust you don't need further comments to how this event has been evolved.
If a fair EU voting system is to be determined by mathematics, should these mathematics not foresee in taking into account affinities and common interests between certain EU countries or regions, based for instance on common trade, common history, common origin of language etc...etc. Should there in other words not be something introduced in the mathematics called a factor of natural alliance (or the opposite: natural aversion) between EU countries or regions?
Conclusion of this caricature:
Why not keeping EU Treaty rules simple with much more space for a social Europe and for solidarity, a word that already seems to be forgotten in Poland.
The Poles have a huge national inferiority complex running thanks to the double trauma of the Nazi and Soviet ocupations. Their decision making is not entirely rational. I am afraid we are in for at least several years of the type of stubborn behaviour we are seeing recently until they throw off the big chip they are carrying on their collective shoulder. Impetuous or noble, the decision to grant the Poles full powers of membership of the E.U. means we will need to excercise great patience as towards a brother who has been deeply wounded and who needs his family as he comes back to himself and his true dignity, Hard work!
Of course the voice of Poland should be heard, a hugely important country and possible leader of the Eastern European new entrants. The trouble is that it is very difficult to take their current leadership seriously. Even in the country, the ambitious Poles are leaving in droves to make their fortune elsewhere in Europe.
Tony, Poles are living for money not to runaway from our leaders. We are tired of almost 20 years of coruption and bureaucracy not to mention 50 years of comunism. This leaders we have now aren't much worse nor better from the previous ones but they not responsible for the polish economy, in fact they are the first ones that even tried to fight corruption...
Charicatures? Or perhaps we need more funding for math education. Of course we can throw out science and fact and make all our decisions based on what feels or sounds good. One main conclusion comes from this whole "square root or die" circus that Poland got itself involved in. Unless this was some opaque political game or feint, Polish presentation of the idea was highly inadequate. It was doomed to failure. The idea was presented late. Poland did not form a coalition of support for it. The idea was not explained... I had the suspicion throughout that not even all the leaders who were trying to introduce the square root voting plan understood the details. As for chips on shoulders, we all have them... some British think the Empire still exists, the Germans think they are always the most efficient, the Polish dwell on their history, and so on. I guess, as the saying goes, we should all learn from history, and not repeat its mistakes. At least the idea of the EU has advanced, even if it will need a lot more work and adjustments in the future.
Marcel(79,...): I do not believe for a single moment that the Dutch would want to withdraw from the EU. Dutch people know that EU contributions only account for a very small percentage of their GDP and know that their central location in Europe together with free trade and single currency boosts their exports and tourism in a massive way.
You refer to big unions like USSR and Ottoman empire as failures. I can bring you examples of multi-language Unions which have been much more successfull while united: China (read history books), Italy, USA, Spain, India. Why do you think many of those nations were occupied by foreign powers? The answer is obviously because they were weak and divided.
Zbigniew, Andy Williams: Britons voted already twice to remain in the EU. Changes are being made but only with the approval of British authorities which Britons have elected. I wonder why Gordon Brown can go to power without being elected but the Prime Minister cannot decide for a greater integration in the EU.
Alan(84): Thank you. As an Italian living and studying (on an internship atm) in the UK I really feel this. I think that on press matters only nationals of a country should be allowed to own Media. Murdoch especially brings this problem to a ridiculous level, broadcasting neo-conservative propaganda from his TVs (eg. Sky) or newspapers (eg. The Sun) all over Europe.
Regarding the topic of this discussion more directly, I think that a person in every country should have one vote.
Even though there are different voting intentions at times between different countries, it doesnt matter. This because it is a normal thing and even in countries and regional administrations of countries there are different intentions of voting. I don't see anybody from the Borough of South Kensington and Chelsea (where I live and where Conservatives obtained a 70%) arguing of being subjugated by the rest of the country which voted Labour.
I am not a fan of the Polish position, why should Poland with a population half the size of Germany have similar voting power? Why do they believe Germany will invade!? Please. Poland need to accept the new deal or the EU should begin the creation of a two speed Europe. The Polish are paranoid, they are acting like two spolit children with a historical chip on their shoulders. Their position and the manner in which they are going about it does not endear Poland to many member states. Poland will suffer in the long run. Thank God I do not live there!
I feel sorry for ordinary Poles, their country is losing repect and authority in the EU and they are only members for two years. The two twins need to change their attitude if they wish to maintain any decent level of interest in their affairs. A country that is losing a million people to emigration and many more per year is in no position to demand voting power next or near to the voting power of Germany. I trust Germany over Poland or France for that matter. Poland needs to sort itself out first before lecturing the EU off the large historical chip that is on their shoulder. It is 2007 not 1947.
John White #92 & Jef #86
we would like to thank you for showing us what solidarity means in Yalta, Teheran and Potsdam. Thank you for leaving us in communist refregirator for 50 years. I'm sorry but we will not forget about it.....
John. Under Polish Plan Poland would have 60 votes and Germany 90. Under Nice plan Poland had only 2 votes few votes less then Germany. So it is not like Poland wanted more power then it has now. It just did not to wish to loose as much as it will now. Under constitution Poland I think Poland will have 80 votes to german 180 or so. Frankly I do not understend the huge German negative reaction to Polish refusal to accept German plan right away. I do not think that any other large nation would take reduction of its influence by such magnitude without a flinch.
This discussion has probably gone past its expiry date. So I will try to make this point short. One thing the West Europeans may want to understand is that the events of WWII and what happened afterwards still have direct consequences on the lives of every Pole, even those who were born long after, and the state of Poland. The West has long sinced moved on from that time. In a way for Poland WWII has lasted much longer, and only finished with the end of communism, not even 20 years ago. Supposedly Germany lost the war, and Poland was on the winning side. However, we can all agree that by comparison between the two ountries, Poland is the loser so far. Poland still has to sort out a lot more probems partly derived from the past. Poland did not get economic assistance to rebuild after the war, unilke Germany, it got cut up and sold off to Stalin and here we are as we are today as the result. John White is correct that Poland has a lot to do to build up the country, but the reasons behind Poland's actions and statements are not as ridiculous and out of time as it may at first seem.