Subject: Is European Union good or bad thing?

And what's the problem with economic differences? As you may know the southern part of Italy is poorer than the northern part, should it be expelled from Italy? Wallonia is poorer than other parts of Belgium, should it be expelled from the Belgian Kingdom? The northern part of the Netherlands is poorer than other parts of the country, should we be expelled from the Netherlands because of that? Italy was poorer than the other founders of the 'European Union', did we make a mistake by letting Italy enter the union?

Or is it just stupid to refuse poor countries to enter a union where they would better be able to improve their situation and catch up with their neighboring countries?

So you oppose Sweden, Finland and Austria joining the EU? Why if I may ask?

Ok this is an example.

If a country has 2 millions people they should have 1 EU delegate
If a country has 10 mil. people they should have 5 EU delegate
If a country has 60 mil. people they should have 30 EU delegate.

In this way the vote of 2 millions people will not be the same as the vote of 60 million people.

And Ripp, the word "stupid" is written like this, and if you don't respect others opinion you could use a more appropriate language... :)

Why should one country have bigger weight on it's vote,than small country has? Because of the number of people? In that case, EU would be pointless. Big countryes do whatever they want.
Yeah, You guys want more power,but it wouldnt be an union in that case.

I do respect others opinion,but thats insane what You are writing. And about picking on my languaege. So what? You are perfect,we all know that.

Why is it a problem that the commission has too much power? I agree on the fact that the Council should be granted less power (and eventually should have no power at all) and the Parliament more power - and that's exactly what both the Constitution and Reform Treaty is doing. It's simply a matter of doing EU more democratic.

I agree on what he has to say - it's not exactly democratic to grant a person more power just because he lives within a less populated state. It's untrue that doing so would leave the big countries ruling the small ones. First of all you assume that the representatives of the big countries would have a common goal which exactly due to the large population (and hence number of representatives) would be somewhat impossible. Second of all you'll have to take into consideration that the Commission has monopoly of proposing acts and as their goal is to represent the common good of EU it'd once again be impossible for the big countries to rally something through which is not in the interest of the Union as a whole. Third of all the countries of EU have signed the charter (which is also mentioned in the Reform Treaty) and hence will give the citizens regardless of the nationality some basic rights which EU cannot violate.

The southern part of Italy is poorer than the northern part, should it be expelled from Italy?

Oh yeah... I always dream about it! That would be very nice!

Anyway, I agree with you. There is always a poorest country, and is not needed to expell it.
Then we must consider that Romania and Bulgarian economy are growing up very quickly, so we can't denie them to join EU.

I respect your opinion, but as you see I think the opposite... in my opinion big countries should not be ruled by small countries...

you're going wrong way...
you should imagine eu as a single entity that has common interests so talking about "they are ruling" is really pointless...
we all (europe) should "rule" on other non eu countries...but i don't like the world "rule", i would say compete...compete against other fast growing economies (china, india, etc...) or even usa...

You're absolutely right. Inside Europe we should cooperate, outside Europe we should compete.

the 2 things are related: better cooperation - better competitors

I try to explain my thought in my poor english: there are some matters that have to be decided with one nation one vote, others with one head one vote. Really I don't understand why commercial or industrial rules (f.e.) have to be better decided from governs instead of elected deputies(so 80 millions of germans or 60 of french count just like Malta or Latvia). While other matters, just like the economic and politic guideline, could be better decided by the commission and the governs, in order to preserve the smallest countries. That's all.

If that is considered poor English in Italy, i am very surprised. It's better than a lot of English people's English!

[oops]

yes but you don't know how many minutes I worked for do this..
[he]
(edited)

Not trying to take anything away from you, i'm sure you have, but that's pretty decent English :o)

"It's not exactly democratic to grant a person more power just because he lives within a less populated state." - its not exactly democratic to grant a country more power just because is bigger than others

"It's untrue that doing so would leave the big countries ruling the small ones. First of all you assume that the representatives of the big countries would have a common goal which exactly due to the large population (and hence number of representatives) would be somewhat impossible." - for first, its natural that representatives of big countries will want solve problems which have big countries. So they will have common. Franco-German coalition rule todays doesnt matter socialists or conservatives.

"Second of all you'll have to take into consideration that the Commission has monopoly of proposing acts and as their goal is to represent the common good of EU it'd once again be impossible for the big countries to rally something through which is not in the interest of the Union as a whole."
Common good was propaganded anywhere where justification and rights ended existence.

"Third of all the countries of EU have signed the charter (which is also mentioned in the Reform Treaty) and hence will give the citizens regardless of the nationality some basic rights which EU cannot violate"
Nothing new, we should live happily and healthy without it. I dont think that big countries will want exploit somebody from smaller ones. I think more of that representation of Portugal will have different goals than, for example, Finland. Standartization isnt optimalization.
(edited)
(edited)

"its not exactly democratic to grant a country more power just because is bigger than others" - If EU was an inter-state cooperation you'd be right as the subjects within the cooperation then would be states. The fact is though that EU on quite a few areas is supranational and hence operate with it's citizens as subjects. That's why it's a democratic deficit to grant people living in a less populated area more power.

"its natural that representatives of big countries will want solve problems which have big countries" - Why is it natural?

"So they will have common. Franco-German coalition rule todays doesnt matter socialists or conservatives." - You do realize that the Parliament is divided into different political groups in relation to their political conviction and not in relation to the population to their country, right?

"Common good was propaganded anywhere where justification and rights ended existence" - That's an allegation. I express what according to the treaties is to be the basis of their legislation.

"Nothing new, we should live happily and healthy without it." - Well I tend to agree with you. The reason for the Germans wanting to formulate these rights are historical founded (despite of Hitler being democratically elected he tried to carry out the Endlösung - with the Charter that would be an illegal thing to do).

"I dont think that big countries will want exploit somebody from smaller ones" - That seemed to be your main concern when arguing for not letting the number of representatives be proportional with the population of a country.

"Standartization isnt optimalization" - I totally agree, but that doesn't have much to do with the charter?

I think we should go back to what it began with, the Benelux :p