Old Europe left out in the cold? - Page 5

MrBaggins · January 31, 2003, 10:47

So that Saudi Arabia can collapse, oil prices sky rocket, and US industry get hit with higher oil prices, right?

Harovan · January 31, 2003, 11:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
From reports, France will veto a UN declaration war on Iraq even if the US demonstrates that Iraq is actively defying the inspections regime so that futher inspections (at least as they are now conducted) would be a waste of time.

Why?

I didn't think, that France would insist on her 'no' for long and in no way thought, they would use their veto. In fact, I even thought, that France might participate in the end, and Germany help in the cleaning up and peacekeeping. But the way the US tries hard to piss off France right now, I wouldn't be surprised, if what you describe would happen.

DanS · January 31, 2003, 11:54

Unlike old projects which have been initiated by individual countries, this convention is truly a communautary/supranational undertaking.

Spiffor: OK, I guess this is the crux of my questions. Since the EU recently added a second tier and third tier countries, it should become increasingly more difficult for France and Germany to initiate EU policies on their own in any forum.

But why would Germany and France invite this analysis upon themselves? The analysis would show that supranational institutions are the only way to go for the EU. Basically, I'm saying that they should have consulted more widely before deciding to stab the US in the back.

I doubt even the nutjobs in the Bush admin will touch the oil deals Saddam made. They'd cut way too deep into the special interests who own them.

HO: I agree that the deals are probably there to stay, in one form or another. Much like sovereign debt, they would be difficult to kill.

The french might well end up supporting a war, leaving germany as the odd man out.

Yes, Germany's game is a lot more precarious. I wonder how long it will take the Germans to kick Schroeder to the curb.

Spiffor · January 31, 2003, 12:17

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Unlike old projects which have been initiated by individual countries, this convention is truly a communautary/supranational undertaking.

Spiffor: OK, I guess this is the crux of my questions. Since the EU recently added a second tier and third tier countries, it should become increasingly more difficult for France and Germany to initiate EU policies on their own in any forum.

In the European institutions, the role of the French-German ticket has been lengthy debated (when I worked in the European parliament, I heard my dear French-German friendship was deemed kitsch by most people there).
France and Germany had to renew their ticket to lose this reputation of backwardness. It is important to notice that the agreement on Iraq is nothing more than a spectacular element of the 40th aniversary of the Elysée Treaty (many other projects have been announced, and most of them will be much more important in the long run than the anti-war barking)

If supranational institutions become more important than states, France and Germany will lose their outstanding role in Europe, and they'll lose many interests, as well as other big countries.
To avoid this, France and Germany must counter the monopoly of the Constitutional Convention on matters regarding the future of Europe (the Convention deals with all matters reguarding the future, not only the constitution ; I call it "Constitutional Convention" for practicality). And who's better than the old motor of Europe to argue against the new one ?
Well, that is only my analysis, but it seems reasonable.

Quote:

But why would Germany and France invite this analysis upon themselves? The analysis would show that supranational institutions are the only way to go for the EU. Basically, I'm saying that they should have consulted more widely before deciding to stab the US in the back.

We on Apolyton are discussing this matter now because of the joint anti-war declaration. But the ruling elites of Europe are aware of this for a long time, and the national vs. supranational debate haunts European Institutions for decades. Most countries aren't ready to embrace a supranational Europe yet, especially the ones joining : they consented heavy losses of sovereignity in the recent past already, and they aren't prone to lose even more.

I agree they should have consulted more before "stabbing you in the back" (well, I don't think the expression is appropriate, since France's and Germany's hostility to war was well-known for quite some time), and it looks like a rushed decision to fit the 40th aniversary. Maybe they thought other European countries would follow the lead happily, to please their population

? I just love it when Chirac is gaffing

HershOstropoler · January 31, 2003, 12:19

Dan:

"Since the EU recently added a second tier and third tier countries, it should become increasingly more difficult for France and Germany to initiate EU policies on their own in any forum."

Flexible geometry.

"The analysis would show that supranational institutions are the only way to go for the EU."

Yes, and... ?

"Basically, I'm saying that they should have consulted more widely before deciding to stab the US in the back."

Working on some Dolchstoß-legend already?

Anyway, the result of all this will be that europe's politicians have achieved very little, and a couple of them pissed off their electorate. Lessons like those have usually propelled the EU forward. Crisis-leap-crisis-leap.....

"Yes, Germany's game is a lot more precarious."

Well, not really. What's at stake for Germany?

HershOstropoler · January 31, 2003, 12:29

Spiffor:

"To avoid this, France and Germany must counter the monopoly of the Constitutional Convention on matters regarding the future of Europe"

Just to clarify for those not so attuned to EU ploitics: The convention is formally only making proposals that need to be ratified. So while it can take the initiative, it is also quite limited on some key issues. The institutional balance is at the core perfectly applicable to a federal system, the fight is essentially over details. Where the struggle is serious is competences - about the structures of CFSDP.

As for the people, I think there is strong support for a common foreign policy in principle. Might change when it gets down to the details. One odd poll in Austria had 70 % in favour of an EU army with our participation, and 70 % wanting to "keep" our neutrality. Ehm...

"I just love it when Chirac is gaffing"

DanS · January 31, 2003, 12:48

Yes, and... ?

Roland: Then it follows that why should we pay particular attention to France and Germany? They're no more or less than other EU members.

What's at stake for Germany?

The success of this policy relative to other anti-war policies. It seems pretty clear to me that Schroeder took the wrong path. Rather than helping to build a growing chorus against war, his actions have invited some kissing the ass of the US and a backlash for war. He looks isolated and without options.

France might be isolated on the issue, but they still have the option of switching sides, and looking OK doing it (we did our best to avoid war blah). Chirac hasn't set himself up too poorly, although I wonder why they are choosing to devalue their SC seat.

DanS · January 31, 2003, 13:01

It is important to notice that the agreement on Iraq is nothing more than a spectacular element of the 40th aniversary of the Elysée Treaty

Yes, I agree. That's why I look to see if there are other elements to this package deal. Did Chirac pledge to vote against any 2nd SC resolution, for instance? Were agricultural subsidies part of the package?

If supranational institutions become more important than states, France and Germany will lose their outstanding role in Europe, and they'll lose many interests, as well as other big countries.

Without knowing the details, it seems that this is already the reality--the momentum is there already. That's why I'm confused. Why underline that fact in red?

To avoid this, France and Germany must counter the monopoly of the Constitutional Convention on matters regarding the future of Europe (the Convention deals with all matters reguarding the future, not only the constitution

OK. I admit that I don't know nearly enough about this to have a sense of it.

Spiffor · January 31, 2003, 13:21

DanS :
Included in the package were closer cooperation between the government of both countries (a German advisor in the French cabinet, and vice-versa), the project of giving every citizen of France and germany the double nationality, and the will to give a new direction to Europe (no more details has been told in TV news here)

I understand you are pretty much lost with the Convention, the Council, the Parliament etc. I needed a year of lectures to understand something myself

But to sum up :

The European Convention is a gathering of many people from governments, parliaments, civil society etc. whose job is to discuss the future of Europe. They have not been elected by the people to do this job, and they have no actual decision power (I mean, their conclusions are not binding for Europe). They started about a year ago, and they should finish in June. It is highly likely that most of their suggestions will be accepted in the end. In European Institutions, the Convention is considered as the future answer to the biggest problem of the EU : lack of vision.

In short, the convention has been charged to give a vision to Europe, which hadn't any since it was decided to make the common money. It replaces the States in their traditional role of giving a direction to the Union.

EDIT : In its current shape, EU gives much more power to individual States than to suprnational institutions. Many important EU decisions give much leeway to the States in the way they apply them, as long as results are noted, and the most important decisions are directly taken by direct negociation between governments, rather than by suprnational institutions.

Basically, EU decisions have 3 core actors :
- the European Commission is made of technocrats and unelected personnel. Its main purpose is to draft new projects within EU abilities (for example, to draft a new policy on salmon fishing). Only the Commission can draft European decisions.
- the Council of the European union gathers people from national ministries. They tweak the texts drafted by the Commission so that they match their State's interests.
- The European Parliament has the power to agree, disagree, or amend the text already tweaked by the Council. In most cases, the Parliament's advice is only consultative, but sometimes, a parliamentary NO blocks completely the text. Since European institutions love to compromise, such an extreme situation is extremely rare, and the Parliament ends up tweaking the text again.
In short, the Council (which represents the interests of individual nations) is the most powerful actors among the 3, and the Parliament the least powerful.

HershOstropoler · January 31, 2003, 13:25

"Then it follows that why should we pay particular attention to France and Germany? They're no more or less than other EU members."

So far we haven't supranationalized foreign policy. We have done that with trade policy, and it works the way you describe there.

"The success of this policy relative to other anti-war policies."

I do not think any policy short of kicking the US out of europe would have worked.

"although I wonder why they are choosing to devalue their SC seat."

They aren't. They are just taking that risk.

Bereta_Eder · January 31, 2003, 13:36

It is pissing me off that they ddint go through the usual institutionalized procedures and just anounced it through the media.

BTW whats that one of the eastern countries' president have said? he was just representing himslef when he signed the letter?

pleeeeze.
in greek papers there are titles like

the gang of 8 who sold out europe

Bereta_Eder · January 31, 2003, 13:40

notice the mugshots

lord of the mark · January 31, 2003, 13:41

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
notice the mugshots

so i take it this wasn't too popular in FOPG???

Spiffor · January 31, 2003, 13:42

What does FOPG stand for ?

Winston · January 31, 2003, 13:43

According to Danish newspaper reports this evening, the Danish government on the request of the US administration, is preparing to commit one submarine and a corps of 40-60 special "Hunter" forces to combat.

The Danish special forces also served in covert operations in Afghanistan and received special recognition for its achievements there.

The submarine is currently in the Mediterranean Sea.

The forces will be ready and operative within 1-2 weeks.

Bereta_Eder · January 31, 2003, 13:45

it wasnt popular anywhere since they acted like common cheatinglittle children.
but that letter doesntmean anything

the greek presidency will call a emergency EU meeting on iraq and let them repeat it there, officially if they want.

the letter is a joke

lord of the mark · January 31, 2003, 13:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
What does FOPG stand for ?

Former Ottoman Province of Greece.

Bereta_Eder · January 31, 2003, 13:46

You obviously agree with the reaction LOTM

Spiffor · January 31, 2003, 13:47

(It just made me thought that FYROM is really a lame name

)

Bereta_Eder · January 31, 2003, 13:50

plus Aznar and Balir are hypocrites of the highest magnitude

a day before they amde the letter (or should it be called toilet paper?) they had talks for hours with simitis and didnt warn him of anything

lord of the mark · January 31, 2003, 13:53

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
You obviously agree with the reaction LOTM

FOPG is a sovereign country, and FOPGians have the right to react how they please. ;

The signers acted out of the interests and beliefs of their own sovereign countries.

Will it matter - dont know for sure - its a subtle game of pressure going on right now, probably matters at least a little bit.

DanS · January 31, 2003, 13:55

FOPG is just angry that their EU presidency is going down in flames.

Bereta_Eder · January 31, 2003, 13:55

the signers did not follow normal procedures and stabbed a knife in the back of the EU, seriously undermining the quest for a common foreign policy line.

thats what bisbehaving children do, not countries which have committed themselves to an institution.

lord of the mark · January 31, 2003, 13:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

(It just made me thought that FYROM is really a lame name

)

Well of course thats not what the FYROMians call themselves. But the FOPGians insist.

Lord of the Mark
Former British Colonial Territories of British North America (excluding Upper and Lower Canada) FBCTNAXULC

Bereta_Eder · January 31, 2003, 13:58

Thats about Iraq and the 500.000 people you will kill for oil, not how FYROM is recognized in the UN.

DinoDoc · January 31, 2003, 13:59

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
the signers did not follow normal procedures and stabbed a knife in the back of the EU, seriously undermining the quest for a common foreign policy line.

FOPG should look at German and France if she wishes to blame people for undermining the quest for a common European foreign policy. Those two appear not to have consulted with the rest of the EU when making thier decisions on this issue and now we see the predictable response to that.

lord of the mark · January 31, 2003, 13:59

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
the signers did not follow normal procedures and stabbed a knife in the back of the EU, seriously undermining the quest for a common foreign policy line.

thats what bisbehaving children do, not countries which have committed themselves to an institution.

EU procedures forbid memeber states from writing letter together without consulting in advance, but allow memebers to coordinate positions at UNSC meetings without consulting in advance, like France and Germany did. I think the signers were pissed with the folks who are undermining the quest for a common EU foreign policy.

Bereta_Eder · January 31, 2003, 14:01

au contraire France and Germany and ALL the others had already agreed on the principles.

the gang of 8 made a maverick move which is like a firework.

Bereta_Eder · January 31, 2003, 14:02

and was outside the institutions unlike to what others did.

thats why it has the worth of a toilet paper

lord of the mark · January 31, 2003, 14:04

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
Thats about Iraq and the 500.000 people you will kill for oil, not how FYROM is recognized in the UN.

what about iraq and the 500000 iraqi we will kill for oi, paiktis waht post are you referrring to??
I explained FYROM situation in response to another post that mentioned the lameness of the name FYROm, and was not about the million iraqis saddam has killed, or about the Kurds who are worried the US will NOT invade, or about how we dont need Iraqi oil. Neither was it about FOPGian roles in supporting massacres in the balkans, nor in equating local acts of revenge by Kosovars with a planned genocide by the serbs. It was not about any of those things, paiktis, so why are you bringing them up???