The future of the EU - aka a no slagging allowed thread

Orion

Seriously.

I've read most threads on this forum and haven't participated because of the "you're wrong - you're full of shit - you're an idiot" comments. Some thread titles have put me off even reading them:
cf: "Ok, now please leave EU"
"For those of you who voted yes..."
"I don't think people realise the corner they have put Ireland in......."
"Thank you Ireland.. "

Could we just have a thread that actually debates the future of the EU without any idiocy?

I voted no. I'm happy with my vote and obviously with the result. I think the EU has a future without Lisbon.

I don't like the comments from Barroso regarding ratifying the treaty without Ireland. Or from the German guy - can't find his name - who said we've ruined the EU for 500 million people. So let's have none of those arguments because they're just destructive.

It's constructive time!

Why can't the EU have room for every state to have a commissioner? Why not 1 per state or 2 per state? The EU is a collection of countries and every country should be represented at all levels. We are not a federation - we are a Union. Look at the US - 50 states = 100 Senators - 2 from each state regardless of population.

Require UN sanction for military action. Yes the UN needs to be reformed - the permanent members shouldn't have a veto - but ignoring the UN is not the answer. The EU (even after Lisbon) does not require UN sanction for military intervention.

Allow abortion and conscription in Ireland will ya? ... ok that's a joke


I had other issues with Lisbon but they were my main two. Let the rational debate begin

P_1

Right, first post on this forum be gentle:pac:

First re the comparison between the Commissioners and US Senators.
The main differences between the two are that
1) US Senators are directly elected where the Commissioners are appointed by the respective governments.
2) The purpose of the Commissioners is to have them act in the interests of the Union as opposed to their individual states where the Senators act in the interests of the States they represent.

Secondly, re the 2/3 commissioner as per Lisbon.
I wonder how people would have felt if the term of the commission was reduced to say 2 or 3 years. I'd imagine not having a commissioner for 2 or 3 years out of 4 or 6 would be a less bitter pill to swallow than 5 out of 15.

Re the future of the EU
Maybe it may be better to start from scratch and just write a new constitution/fundaamental document (preferably in a similar format to the US constitution) that is easily understandable to all than to continue to try to ammend what is currently there. Then All member states should hold votes on this new document which hopefully should be in simple language and of course have a better yes argument than Lisbon had.

Just a few musings there..

Orion

US Senators are supposed to act in the interests of the country too. Allegedly. But re-election is always a priority.
In the EU the appointed is supposed to remove that - but do you really believe it does?

The EU has a population of ~500m while the US has a poulation of ~310m. It would be unfair in either to expect that a local politician would be impartial. He/she would always be looking after his own.

P_1

Macros42 wrote: »

US Senators are supposed to act in the interests of the country too. Allegedly. But re-election is always a priority.
In the EU the appointed is supposed to remove that - but do you really believe it does?

The EU has a population of ~500m while the US has a poulation of ~310m. It would be unfair in either to expect that a local politician would be impartial. He/she would always be looking after his own.

Well I'd like to hope that I'm cynical enough not to believe so. Maybe the 2/3 commissioner thing was intended to stamp that out but I believe that with a term of 5 years that is unrealistic to expect any country's peopple to agree to vote for that.

marco_polo

Macros42 wrote: »

Seriously.

I've read most threads on this forum and haven't participated because of the "you're wrong - you're full of shit - you're an idiot" comments. Some thread titles have put me off even reading them:
cf: "Ok, now please leave EU"
"For those of you who voted yes..."
"I don't think people realise the corner they have put Ireland in......."
"Thank you Ireland.. "

Could we just have a thread that actually debates the future of the EU without any idiocy?

I voted no. I'm happy with my vote and obviously with the result. I think the EU has a future without Lisbon.

I don't like the comments from Barroso regarding ratifying the treaty without Ireland. Or from the German guy - can't find his name - who said we've ruined the EU for 500 million people. So let's have none of those arguments because they're just destructive.

It's constructive time!

Why can't the EU have room for every state to have a commissioner? Why not 1 per state or 2 per state? The EU is a collection of countries and every country should be represented at all levels. We are not a federation - we are a Union. Look at the US - 50 states = 100 Senators - 2 from each state regardless of population.

Require UN sanction for military action. Yes the UN needs to be reformed - the permanent members shouldn't have a veto - but ignoring the UN is not the answer. The EU (even after Lisbon) does not require UN sanction for military intervention.

Allow abortion and conscription in Ireland will ya? ... ok that's a joke


I had other issues with Lisbon but they were my main two. Let the rational debate begin

I think that the EU need to move forward as standing still is not an option with the prospect of future growth.

On the point of the commision the problem is that each one has a specific area such as Agriculture, Finance etc, the Parliament was designed to be the true representative area of the EU and was to have its powers increased under the EU. The commission was simply not designed this way. Is it really any worse than domestically in Ireland when a constituency has no minister for example.

Personally I am not against a common defense policy in any shape or form (I also am not a supporter of our neutrallity either but that is another days work), ideally there would be some form of UN safeguard in any proposal, but as you say it is a weak organisation in major need of reform.

Also I think to be fair both France and Germany (just picking two of the biggest nations here) are generally very conservative and responsible countries when it comes to conflict and have a very excellent track record over the past 50 years in this regard and have shown few signs of any wish to become agressors. When you look at the dithering over the Balkans 15 odd years ago it is a reasonable arguement to be made for a unified EU policy on defense, and a strong EU could have saved alot of lives in the face of UN dithering.

I still think the core of the Lisbon treaty is a good framework and should not be thrown away completely.

pithater1 wrote: »

Well I'd like to hope that I'm cynical enough not to believe so. Maybe the 2/3 commissioner thing was intended to stamp that out but I believe that with a term of 5 years that is unrealistic to expect any country's peopple to agree to vote for that.

The other way of looking at that is that a term of less than five years would make it difficult for any commisioner to complete any medium or longer term projects of any value. Five years is a pretty standard political term in my view.

IRLConor

Macros42 wrote: »

Why can't the EU have room for every state to have a commissioner? Why not 1 per state or 2 per state?

Think of it this way, they're all going to want an approximately equal chance to discuss an issue (otherwise what's the point in having a seat at the table? (Not just that, but all commissioners are required to turn up to every meeting)). If you give every member only one minute on an issue you're looking at close to half an hour. Now imagine giving them 6 minutes like TDs get for questions in the Dáil, that adds up to 2 hours 40 mins for discussing a single issue. Simply having that many people at the table makes things unwieldy.

IRLConor

Macros42 wrote: »

US Senators are supposed to act in the interests of the country too. Allegedly. But re-election is always a priority.
In the EU the appointed is supposed to remove that - but do you really believe it does?

The EU has a population of ~500m while the US has a poulation of ~310m. It would be unfair in either to expect that a local politician would be impartial. He/she would always be looking after his own.

That's one of the main reasons they aren't directly elected I think.

If they were directly elected by a constituency of citizens they'd be much less likely to act impartially.

Orion

IRLConor wrote: »

Think of it this way, they're all going to want an approximately equal chance to discuss an issue (otherwise what's the point in having a seat at the table? (Not just that, but all commissioners are required to turn up to every meeting)). If you give every member only one minute on an issue you're looking at close to half an hour. Now imagine giving them 6 minutes like TDs get for questions in the Dáil, that adds up to 2 hours 40 mins for discussing a single issue. Simply having that many people at the table makes things unwieldy.

And what's the problem with that? They're being paid to do a job - heavens forbid they might actually have to work for it. We're talking about having a few more Commissioners not having none. So they may have to spend an extra hour discussing a major issue - is that a problem?

IRLConor wrote: »

That's one of the main reasons they aren't directly elected I think.

If they were directly elected by a constituency of citizens they'd be much less likely to act impartially.

I implied that. My point was that they won't be impartial anyway if it concerns a national interest. And if countries have no representation that just means they'll be at a disadvantage. I also firmly believe that political sway will only advantage the larger countries. Even when Germany (just to pick an example) has no Comissioner they would use their heavy political influence to sway votes.

marco_polo

IRLConor wrote: »

That's one of the main reasons they aren't directly elected I think.

If they were directly elected by a constituency of citizens they'd be much less likely to act impartially.

To the best of my knowledge US Senators are directly elected IrlConor (Which is why they tend to be quite outspoken on contraversial issues).

IRLConor

Macros42 wrote: »

And what's the problem with that? They're being paid to do a job - heavens forbid they might actually have to work for it. We're talking about having a few more Commissioners not having none. So they may have to spend an extra hour discussing a major issue - is that a problem?

It's not a problem if they spend an extra hour discussing a major issue. It is a problem if they spend and extra hour discussing a minor issue though.

If they spend all their time in meetings they'll never get any work done. They need time to work on their proposals, meet with their staff, do all the backroom wheedling and horse-trading needed to get people to support their DG's projects and so on.

Macros42 wrote: »

I implied that. My point was that they won't be impartial anyway if it concerns a national interest. And if countries have no representation that just means they'll be at a disadvantage. I also firmly believe that political sway will only advantage the larger countries. Even when Germany (just to pick an example) has no Comissioner they would use their heavy political influence to sway votes.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not convinced either way. It's not that big of a deal though since the commission is really just a source of legislation, not a decisive body. The power to approve or reject legislation lies with the council and parliament and everyone has a seat at those tables.

Orion

marco_polo wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge US Senators are directly elected IrlConor (Which is why they tend to be quite outspoken on contraversial issues).

He was talking about EU Commissioners. US Senators are directly elected.

IRLConor

marco_polo wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge US Senators are directly elected IrlConor (Which is why they tend to be quite outspoken on contraversial issues).

Sorry, I was referring to Commissioners not being directly elected.

US Senators suffer the same drawbacks as US Congresspeople and Dáil TDs in that they are directly beholden to their local constituency and hence spend too much time on parochial crap and not enough time on the big issues. US Senators aren't as bad as Dáil TDs on that matter since their constituency is bigger, but it's still a problem.

marco_polo

IRLConor wrote: »

Sorry, I was referring to Commissioners not being directly elected.

US Senators suffer the same drawbacks as US Congresspeople and Dáil TDs in that they are directly beholden to their local constituency and hence spend too much time on parochial crap and not enough time on the big issues. US Senators aren't as bad as Dáil TDs on that matter since their constituency is bigger, but it's still a problem.

Doh! Sorry it is very late, I misread the last few posts, I think it is time for me to withdraw for the evening and recharge my batteries.

sink

I put forward a pretty extreme idea for how to solve the commissioner issue in this thread.

Could the commission be replaced by a cabinet of MEP's?

So far it's the only viable alternative to the current or Lisbon setup that I've seen.

Orion

sink wrote: »

...

Don't know what you did there but this is the link you wanted. Too tired now - I'll read it tomorrow (it's long) and reply then.

[edit]You do agree that cats are evil right?

IRLConor

sink wrote: »

I put forward a pretty extreme idea for how to solve the commissioner issue in this thread.

Could the commission be replaced by a cabinet of MEP's?

So far it's the only viable alternative to the current or Lisbon setup that I've seen.

Either that or flat out abolish the commission and move the DGs under the relevant sitting of the council of ministers. It would mean flying our national politicians to Brussels/Luxembourg more than we currently do which would drag them away from national interests.

MEPs would probably be a better choice since they'd be in Brussels more. How you select them is a massive can of worms though. That, and there are a bunch of oddballs in the EP that you don't really want anywhere near anything important.

marco_polo

IRLConor wrote: »

Either that or flat out abolish the commission and move the DGs under the relevant sitting of the council of ministers. It would mean flying our national politicians to Brussels/Luxembourg more than we currently do which would drag them away from national interests.

MEPs would probably be a better choice since they'd be in Brussels more. How you select them is a massive can of worms though. That, and there are a bunch of oddballs in the EP that you don't really want anywhere near anything important.

I don't think there is any way that we can directly elect commisioners fairly and end up in any way better, certainly not for a country of only 4.5 million people. No matter how you carve it up not every country will be able to have one and we will end up back at square one.

If we don't decrease the size of the commission and instead keep going as is, we will end up with diluted commisions such as a commisioner for team sports or shellfish or dairy farming (Being slightly ridiculous here). If that is that case you might as well have none for 5 years anyway.

As alluded to youself alot of MEPs are loonies, Communists, Facists or Euroskeptics and using the national ministers would be like akin to asking people to work two full time jobs.

IRLConor

marco_polo wrote: »

If we don't decrease the size of the commission and instead keep going as is, we will end up with diluted commisions such as a commisioner for team sports or shellfish or dairy farming (Being slightly ridiculous here).

If Wikipedia's to be believed there are already 'turf wars' between some of the DGs since there isn't enough turf to go around.

I do feel sorry for Leonard Orban though. Imagine having to deal with the equivalent of 27 countries worth of militant Gaelgóirs!

marco_polo wrote: »

using the national ministers would be like akin to asking people to work two full time jobs.

Well, they already have two full time jobs. It would merely be a case of expanding one of them. Still though, you're right, they're too busy as it is.

tolosenc

Macros42 wrote: »

Require UN sanction for military action. Yes the UN needs to be reformed - the permanent members shouldn't have a veto - but ignoring the UN is not the answer. The EU (even after Lisbon) does not require UN sanction for military intervention.

Can I get a source for that one, please? I've heard it a few times, but never found it in the treaty text. Section, article and paragraph number if you have them handy.

Orion

Exactly - it's not in the treaty text - any treaty. It would only be there if UN sanction was required.

axer

Where is the EU heading?
I believe it is ultimately heading to federalisation. We might fight it at first but as can be seen from the rejection of this treaty, the EU will attempt to bully us asking who are we to say no to the EU. Our government will give in in any case as it will do this time and our voice will be lost.

Do I want a United States of Europe?
No

Why not?
because we will become a dot in the european sea being controlled from a far off place by much larger countries. How could that possibly help us? I would question why we could possibly need it.

IRLConor

Macros42 wrote: »

Exactly - it's not in the treaty text - any treaty. It would only be there if UN sanction was required.

The main reason people are wary about requiring a UN mandate is the veto at the UN Security Council level. Ireland would probably be happy with a UN mandate requirement but other countries probably don't want to run the risk of the USA, Russia or China hamstringing them in a moment of need.

Imagine a small country with state owned oil production facilities. The state does a deal with the EU to sell it oil at low prices in return for EU assistance building infrastructure in the country. Then an insurgency breaks out in the country which is supported covertly by the USA/China/Russia in a move to try and open up the oil deal. The UN tries to intervene with a peace-keeping force but is vetoed by the USA/China/Russia.

Now, Ireland can afford to sit back and demand a UN mandate in most conflicts like this since we're rarely, if ever, affected by civil wars in other countries. We don't have any large industries dependent on raw materials from faraway places. The larger nations in the EU have no such luxury. It's distasteful, but the realpolitik of global economics/politics is that countries are going to fight over scarce resources and it isn't difficult to end up in a situation where the UN will be powerless to stop it due to the involvement of one of the UNSC permanent members.

If the vetos were removed from the UN Security Council permanent members I'd be all for a UN mandate requirement for the deployment of EU forces.

As it is, Lisbon was enough of a guarantee for me since Ireland was able to opt out of any mission it didn't wish to contribute to.

axer

IRLConor wrote: »

As it is, Lisbon was enough of a guarantee for me since Ireland was able to opt out of any mission it didn't wish to contribute to.

Is Ireland's name not on all those missions still though if the EU were to be involved in some war i.e. are we suddenly an EU target (not a target of the EU, I mean a target for some other country).

What happens if the EU gets as greedy as the USA? You admit that the larger countries need their scarce resources. What happens if they cannot get access to them for some reason - economic or otherwise? Will we end up with Ireland and the UN powerless to stop them? It will be the EU on the side of those tanks etc and since we are in the EU then we are no different than a state like Oregon IF it sent no troops from that state - those being attacked would not see the difference.

IRLConor

axer wrote: »

Is Ireland's name not on all those missions still though if the EU were to be involved in some war i.e. are we suddenly an EU target (not a target of the EU, I mean a target for some other country).

Would Ireland get blamed for a UN mission it's not involved in? Same answer.

It depends on the country which is pointing the finger of blame. If they're run by sane rational people they'll realise that Ireland was not involved. If they're nutters well then it's anyone's guess.

axer wrote: »

What happens if the EU gets as greedy as the USA?

They already are. So are we, we just don't have the teeth to do anything about it.

axer wrote: »

You admit that the larger countries need their scarce resources. What happens if they cannot get access to them for some reason - economic or otherwise?

They'll fight for them. It's the way it has been for thousands of years and isn't going to stop any time soon.

axer wrote: »

Will we end up with Ireland and the UN powerless to stop them?

We're already powerless to stop any other sovereign country from going to war. What would change?

axer wrote: »

It will be the EU on the side of those tanks etc and since we are in the EU then we are no different than a state like Oregon IF it sent no troops from that state - those being attacked would not see the difference.

What about Irish troops in Kosovo with KFOR (a NATO-led mission)?
What about Irish troops in Afghanistan with ISAF (also NATO-led)?

Do we get seen as members of NATO and targeted for those?

I think most sane leaders in the world can tell the difference between a US state and an EU member state. As for the mad leaders? Well, you can't count on them anyway.

axer

IRLConor wrote: »

Would Ireland get blamed for a UN mission it's not involved in? Same answer.

A UN mission would be different than an EU mission as there are 192 members of the UN whereas only 27 in the EU.

IRLConor wrote: »

They already are. So are we, we just don't have the teeth to do anything about it.

Are we? Do we want to give the EU teeth?

IRLConor wrote: »

They'll fight for them. It's the way it has been for thousands of years and isn't going to stop any time soon.

Do we want our names on it?

IRLConor wrote: »

We're already powerless to stop any other sovereign country from going to war. What would change?

They could be fighting with the EU symbol on the side of the tanks - thats us too then.

IRLConor wrote: »

What about Irish troops in Kosovo with KFOR (a NATO-led mission)?
What about Irish troops in Afghanistan with ISAF (also NATO-led)?

Do we get seen as members of NATO and targeted for those?

I think there is a geographic difference in that the EU defence could be seen like the USA - a more specific target.

IRLConor wrote: »

I think most sane leaders in the world can tell the difference between a US state and an EU member state. As for the mad leaders? Well, you can't count on them anyway.

There won't be much difference in a federal europe which is where the EU is headed.

IRLConor

axer wrote: »

A UN mission would be different than an EU mission as there are 192 members of the UN whereas only 27 in the EU.

Numbers alone do not lend legitimacy. Or are you trying to say that we can hide in the noise of the UN but we're more obvious in the EU?

axer wrote: »

Are we?

I reckon if we had the geopolitical clout we'd pillage with the rest of them. From what I've seen, countries don't have morals. People do certainly, but countries appear (to me) to act primarily in their self interest.

axer wrote: »

Do we want to give the EU teeth? Whats wrong with NATO or the UN?

We wouldn't really be giving the EU much in the way of teeth TBH.

The problem with NATO and the UN is that there are countries without European interests at heart who have massive control (USA in NATO) or a veto (USA/China/Russia).

axer wrote: »

Do we want our names on it?

They could be fighting with the EU symbol on the side of the tanks - thats us too then.

There are two issues here.

1. Whether or not the EU will send troops overseas under the EU flag.
2. Whether or not Ireland should be involved.

The way I see it:

1. This will happen anyway. If Ireland's not involved, it will still happen with another group of countries and it will still be identified as an EU force.
2. I think Ireland (and the other countries) should pick and choose which missions they wish to be associated with.

axer wrote: »

I think there is a geographic difference in that the EU defence could be seen like the USA - a more specific target.

Maybe, maybe not. Odds are there'll be tanks in a foreign country with an EU symbol on them some time in the future whether we agree to it or not.

axer wrote: »

There won't be much difference in a federal europe which is where the EU is headed.

...in your opinion.

There's no guarantee of a federal Europe. In fact I think it will be quite unlikely to look anything like the USA. There's too much cultural difference between the member states and the principle of subsidiarity is deeply embedded within the heart of the union.

Orion

IRLConor wrote: »

If the vetos were removed from the UN Security Council permanent members I'd be all for a UN mandate requirement for the deployment of EU forces.

As it is, Lisbon was enough of a guarantee for me since Ireland was able to opt out of any mission it didn't wish to contribute to.

I agree about the flaws in the UNSC model but there is a major difference between the UN and the EU and that's that the UN is a peacekeeping organisation (in theory at least) whereas the EU is an economic one. The US was formed for this purpose and despite its failings still should be the one to sanction military force imo.

Fuascailt

Macros42 wrote: »

Seriously.


Why can't the EU have room for every state to have a commissioner? Why not 1 per state or 2 per state? The EU is a collection of countries and every country should be represented at all levels. We are not a federation - we are a Union. Look at the US - 50 states = 100 Senators - 2 from each state regardless of population.

We have the European Parliament, isnt that our equivalent of the US Senate.

As I see it, the commision issue is a bit like Ireland having too many junior ministers. With too many commisioners, the power and efficiency of the Commision is diluted. They have to make up jobs so that everyone has something to do. I'm not sure, but I think the Finance portfolio has something like four or five commisioners, surely that defeats the whole purpose. As well as that, Commisioners arent working for their country. A point is made to give commisioners areas that dont have much to do with their country.

IRLConor

Macros42 wrote: »

I agree about the flaws in the UNSC model but there is a major difference between the UN and the EU and that's that the UN is a peacekeeping organisation (in theory at least) whereas the EU is an economic one. The US was formed for this purpose and despite its failings still should be the one to sanction military force imo.

The problem is that the UN is currently broken and there's no political will to fix it among the permanent members of the UNSC.

Until it's fixed, other groups of countries will need to fill the gaps somehow. Multilateral action by broad alliances is the next best thing. That's where the EU comes in.

BlitzKrieg

Multilateral action by broad alliances is the next best thing.

heh, isnt that what led us to world war 1


on the military issue, how substantial is its capability to conduct operations outside the EU in its current set up? How I read it was the military being a combination of peacekeeping and security.

With the EU expanding further into the eastern states the chances of instability among members who have *recent* or *ancient* history is much higher. Especially when we get closer to new countries like Kosovo or old states like Turkey. I was under the impression the EU common defence policy was being used as a tool to ensure that

A) these new states within the union keep in check in the future.

Reassurance to new members that they have the full support of the EU as members.

It hasnt been an issue up until now because the western european states both politically and geographically have no military risks.

the EU has shown no interest to date in supporting any individual states insterest of conquest or war, England has never recieved its support and neither has any other state (cant think of any but I believe there was an issue with France at one point?)

O'Morris

IRLConor wrote: »

Multilateral action by broad alliances is the next best thing. That's where the EU comes in.

Why does the EU need to be the vehicle for that alliance though? If there is a strong case to be a made for a military alliance between European countries, then why can't the countries in favour of the idea get together and form some kind of NATO-like alliance themselves, independently of the EU?

BlitzKrieg

O'Morris wrote: »

Why does the EU need to be the vehicle for that alliance though? If there is a strong case to be a made for a military alliance between European countries, then why can't the countries in favour of the idea get together and form some kind of NATO-like alliance themselves, independently of the EU?

hmm a good point of discussion.

I would guess it would be a matter of efficency and accountablity maybe?



Not that I agree with it but I would say if the organisation was seperate from the EU, you could end up with this possible situation:

Members within the EU not involved in a military alliance use the economic power of the EU to sabotage those within the alliance over a military action.


This would mean to protect both sides of the above conflict, it would be part of the EU to therefore allow all members to have the ability to oppose military action, while also securing the economic and political structure of the military action when its approved.

Efficency because having it within the EU ensures all members have some form of input and it would allow a direct link from national governments to the military to the suprnational government without excessive red tape.

daheff

In my view if the EU continue down the road of trying to ratify the Lisbon treaty/EU constitution then it will kill the EU as a democratic institution. Why? because (so far) 3 of the members have rejected this in national referenda.

The EU can still function as a political entity..but it would mean that Lisbon/EU constitution would need to be renegotiated.

I have no problems with having a commissioner for 10 out of 15 years...once they are appointed they are not supposed to work in the interest of any national country (and to be fair the vast majority dont). however to keep people happy (not just in Ireland) the country without a commissioner should probably get to appoint a junior commissioner (maybe for the 5 most important Commissions- so these commissioners dont always have to go to all meetings?)

As for EU military intervention at a time of crisis...why is this necessary?? Countries dont require UN/EU/NATO approval...they can intervene themselves without it ....and if more than one country wants to intervene all the better for them.

As for Ireland (or any other EU country) being signed up to a clause compelling us to come to the aid of another EU country under attack...as a member of the EU we would be morally obliged (what with them being political partners/trading partners etc) anyway...Why would we need this formalised? Do certain countries not trust others in the EU? And anyhow..how would this work if (for example) Italy and Spain were to go to war with each other (or Turkey & Greece for that matter)...would we have to go to the aid of both countries???

To me the LISBON treaty/EU constitution tried to do too many things....if it concentrated on reforming how the EU worked on an institutional basis (eg parliament/commission etc) it probably would have passed...adding in loads of other clauses killed it.

axer

IRLConor wrote: »

Numbers alone do not lend legitimacy. Or are you trying to say that we can hide in the noise of the UN but we're more obvious in the EU?

Yes

IRLConor wrote: »

We wouldn't really be giving the EU much in the way of teeth TBH.

In the begining maybe.

IRLConor wrote: »

The problem with NATO and the UN is that there are countries without European interests at heart who have massive control (USA in NATO) or a veto (USA/China/Russia).

What interests do you refer to? peace?

IRLConor wrote: »

There are two issues here.

1. Whether or not the EU will send troops overseas under the EU flag.
2. Whether or not Ireland should be involved.

The way I see it:

1. This will happen anyway. If Ireland's not involved, it will still happen with another group of countries and it will still be identified as an EU force.
2. I think Ireland (and the other countries) should pick and choose which missions they wish to be associated with.

Can it be identified as an EU force with lisbon not ratified?

IRLConor wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not. Odds are there'll be tanks in a foreign country with an EU symbol on them some time in the future whether we agree to it or not.

possibly.

IRLConor wrote: »

...in your opinion.

There's no guarantee of a federal Europe. In fact I think it will be quite unlikely to look anything like the USA. There's too much cultural difference between the member states and the principle of subsidiarity is deeply embedded within the heart of the union.

Thank you for highlighting that it is in my opinion. Just because a federal europe may not look like the USA does not make it impossible. I believe it is nearly inevitable if the EU keeps heading the way it is i.e. more more more integration.

BlitzKrieg

daheff wrote: »

In my view if the EU continue down the road of trying to ratify the Lisbon treaty/EU constitution then it will kill the EU as a democratic institution. Why? because (so far) 3 of the members have rejected this in national referenda.

The debate though is that the response from the 3 member states is not conclusive a response against the treaty, it has been clear that in all 3 states that national issues not involving the EU at all had influence on the referendum.

Not only that but the refusal has been so varied in its reasoning that its impossible to pinpoint a definitive *why*.

hence the EU is unsure how to respond

The EU can still function as a political entity..but it would mean that Lisbon/EU constitution would need to be renegotiated.

renegotiated, thrown out, leave the EU, keep the status quo. Those are a few of the many stances so you can see the difficulty facing us.

Not only that but the design of the Lisbon treaty and the prior constitution is of issue because its essentially the second half of a treaty that was already agreed on so essentially the treaty cannot be done away with because its actually required to complete what was started years ago.

essentially we agreed to half of a new a structure of the EU and now we are refusing the second half and are unable to agree on why.

I have no problems with having a commissioner for 10 out of 15 years...once they are appointed they are not supposed to work in the interest of any national country (and to be fair the vast majority dont). however to keep people happy (not just in Ireland) the country without a commissioner should probably get to appoint a junior commissioner (maybe for the 5 most important Commissions- so these commissioners dont always have to go to all meetings?)

good suggestion. It would be good to consider, look for a great thread by Sink about doing away with the Commission alltogether, there was a similar suggestion in there.

As for EU military intervention at a time of crisis...why is this necessary?? Countries dont require UN/EU/NATO approval...they can intervene themselves without it ....and if more than one country wants to intervene all the better for them.

As for Ireland (or any other EU country) being signed up to a clause compelling us to come to the aid of another EU country under attack...as a member of the EU we would be morally obliged (what with them being political partners/trading partners etc) anyway...Why would we need this formalised? Do certain countries not trust others in the EU? And anyhow..how would this work if (for example) Italy and Spain were to go to war with each other (or Turkey & Greece for that matter)...would we have to go to the aid of both countries???

Like I explained above, I believe the defence clause is because of the new member states, they are the ones that are of the higher risk, they also dont have the historic ties with other member states like we do, so a clause is probably seen as something to reassure them that they will be protected as part of the EU.

To me the LISBON treaty/EU constitution tried to do too many things....if it concentrated on reforming how the EU worked on an institutional basis (eg parliament/commission etc) it probably would have passed...adding in loads of other clauses killed it.

This ties in with my argument (again another thread that got buried) that the issue might not be the lisbon treaty but how the referendum we use to vote for it. it should be broken down that its not a yes/no to the whole treaty, but a yes/no to individual sections.

The only issue there is that because its a international treaty we cannot pick and choose clauses.

But it will benefit because now the EU and Irish state now know which clauses need to be addressed.

IRLConor

O'Morris wrote: »

Why does the EU need to be the vehicle for that alliance though? If there is a strong case to be a made for a military alliance between European countries, then why can't the countries in favour of the idea get together and form some kind of NATO-like alliance themselves, independently of the EU?

There's no other convenient alliance of European countries.

There's also the argument (which I'm not entirely comfortable with) that the EU needs a credible military threat to use as a last resort when other countries don't respond to economic force.

IRLConor

axer wrote: »

Yes

Hiding in the noise is not a long term strategy for global influence.

axer wrote: »

In the begining maybe.

If we increased the size of our military five fold it might start to turn up on the radar. Realistically, that's not going to happen though.

axer wrote: »

What interests do you refer to? peace?

Peace. Economic power. Enriching the EU population. The ability to shape the world to European ideals (the socialist streak that runs through much of the EU is one of these). The usual list of objectives of countries and alliances.

axer wrote: »

Can it be identified as an EU force with lisbon not ratified?

Definitely. Enhanced cooperation.

axer wrote: »

Thank you for highlighting that it is in my opinion. Just because a federal europe may not look like the USA does not make it impossible. I believe it is nearly inevitable if the EU keeps heading the way it is i.e. more more more integration.

More and more integration does not mean a federal state. The two are related but separate concepts. Federal state implies integration but the reverse is not true.

axer

IRLConor wrote: »

Hiding in the noise is not a long term strategy for global influence.

We don't have much option there unless we increase our military which is not going to happen as you say. So we join a european army instead? I don't think that is necessary. What does it get us?

IRLConor wrote: »

If we increased the size of our military five fold it might start to turn up on the radar. Realistically, that's not going to happen though.

Well being a member of the EU puts us as part of an EU target if the EU go to war against some state. It is different than being part of the UN or NATO.

IRLConor wrote: »

Peace. Economic power. Enriching the EU population. The ability to shape the world to European ideals (the socialist streak that runs through much of the EU is one of these). The usual list of objectives of countries and alliances.

NATO and the UN have an interest in peace in europe. Why would we use an army to get everyone to turn into europeans - Are we going to be like the USA and spread our great democracy?

IRLConor wrote: »

Definitely. Enhanced cooperation.

Enhanced cooperation cannot be used in military or defence matters.

IRLConor wrote: »

More and more integration does not mean a federal state. The two are related but separate concepts. Federal state implies integration but the reverse is not true.

The continuing integration will lead to a United States of Europe. I don't see where the line will be drawn.

molloyjh

Macros42 wrote: »

Seriously.

I've read most threads on this forum and haven't participated because of the "you're wrong - you're full of shit - you're an idiot" comments. Some thread titles have put me off even reading them:
cf: "Ok, now please leave EU"
"For those of you who voted yes..."
"I don't think people realise the corner they have put Ireland in......."
"Thank you Ireland.. "

Could we just have a thread that actually debates the future of the EU without any idiocy?

I voted no. I'm happy with my vote and obviously with the result. I think the EU has a future without Lisbon.

I don't like the comments from Barroso regarding ratifying the treaty without Ireland. Or from the German guy - can't find his name - who said we've ruined the EU for 500 million people. So let's have none of those arguments because they're just destructive.

It's constructive time!

Why can't the EU have room for every state to have a commissioner? Why not 1 per state or 2 per state? The EU is a collection of countries and every country should be represented at all levels. We are not a federation - we are a Union. Look at the US - 50 states = 100 Senators - 2 from each state regardless of population.

Require UN sanction for military action. Yes the UN needs to be reformed - the permanent members shouldn't have a veto - but ignoring the UN is not the answer. The EU (even after Lisbon) does not require UN sanction for military intervention.

Allow abortion and conscription in Ireland will ya? ... ok that's a joke


I had other issues with Lisbon but they were my main two. Let the rational debate begin

Just on the Commissioners, the main reason the Commission is being reduced is due to the role of the Commissioner. Each Commissioner is responsible or a particular area of policy within the EU. That means that there is a logical limit to the number of Commissioners due to the limit of policy areas. At the moment there are Commissioners (with departments and staff) for ridiculous, made-up areas aswell as areas that would be better included in another portfolio. This is creating unnesseacry overhead in costs, time and resources. Also the Commissioner is not representing a country, but rather the whole EU so its not like we really "have" a Commissioner.

There was also a clause in the Treaty that stated that any EU military action had to be done in accordance with UN guidelines and standards etc.

As for what we're going to do now, while I did vote Yes I recognise that the people of Europe are feeling even more disconnected from their politicians, both locally and in the EU, than I had thought. I think what makes sense now would be for each nation to go back to its people (not through official referenda, but rather some form of canvassing effort) to identify what exactly is troubling voters and what can be done to bridge the gap. From there we need to ensure we all understand what the EU is at the moment and where we want to go from here, as a people.

Sadly this will never get done, even though its the most logical thing. I think we're in a period of voter apathy and dis-illusionment and no amount of talk will change that.

ixtlan

A few comments:

The UN wants the EU battlegroups. Kofi Anan said that when he was the Secretary General. This is because the UN has no standing army and is unable to send peacekeeping troops in a timely manner. The UN therefore was happy that the EU would have highly trained troops ready to deploy within a few days/weeks. If in the future we withdraw from the Battlegroups we will not be on many future UN missions. However I think it may be advisable to have a separate referendum on the military clause (probably would lose) and membership of the battlegroups (probably would win).

Also, there is a separate military organisation close to the EU. This is the Western European Union. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_Union.

Gay Mitchell made a valid point about this during his recent radio rant. If the military clause is removed from the treaty all such discussion and activity will switch to the WEU where we have absolutely no right to comment (although we are an observer). So we would switch from a role where we could veto action we did not approve of to one where we could say/do nothing. Sadly I think this is what the public wants. Tthey don't want Ireland to have to make any difficult decisions. In fact it seems the public would want us to withdraw from the WEU completely and put a bag over our head, while sticking our fingers in our ears and crying lalalalalalalalala.

Ix.

ixtlan

molloyjh wrote: »

There was also a clause in the Treaty that stated that any EU military action had to be done in accordance with UN guidelines and standards etc.

Just to get in before the no side jumps on that. As a yes voter I have to acknowledge that this UN guidelines thing does not mean much since NATO says the same thing. I think it just means proper rules of war. Not a UN mandate.

The most important thing was the Irish veto on action, which as I mentioned above we don't want. We don't want the choice at all. I disapprove of this view, but it seems clear that's the way the public is thinking.

I must add, that a UN mandate is not a guarantee either. The Korean war had a mandate, and Iraq now does.

Ix

IRLConor

axer wrote: »

We don't have much option there unless we increase our military which is not going to happen as you say. So we join a european army instead? I don't think that is necessary. What does it get us?

I'm not saying that we necessarily go all in on the military bits.

I reckon we should:

• Not block the others from doing it
• Opt in to the missions that are aligned with our national policies.

That's pretty much what Lisbon gave us.

axer wrote: »

Well being a member of the EU puts us as part of an EU target if the EU go to war against some state. It is different than being part of the UN or NATO.

If the other 26 countries all decided to invade Morocco under any sort of alliance do you think anyone who would be likely to consider attacking us would draw the distinction that Ireland wasn't involved?

axer wrote: »

NATO and the UN have an interest in peace in europe. Why would we use an army to get everyone to turn into europeans - Are we going to be like the USA and spread our great democracy?

I'm not saying that we should invade other countries to enforce our culture on them. Frankly that's not a very European attitude to doing things.

On the other hand the way the world works is that countries get their way by cajoling (carrot - trade deals) and by bullying (stick - economic war, military war). I don't like it, but I have to accept that it's the way things get done in the world. EU countries historically have done more cajoling than bullying and that's a very good thing, but you can't be blind to the fact that the big economic powers in the world are partly where they are by having a credible threat of military force. Just like Theodore Roosevelt said: "Speak softly and carry a big stick." You don't need to necessarily use it, but you do need to let others know that you would if pushed hard enough.

It's a crappy way to run a planet, and I don't like it, but it seems to be the way things work.

axer wrote: »

Enhanced cooperation cannot be used in military or defence matters.

Ah, good point. Sorry. My bad.

I'd say they'd find a way around it though. Possibly call it something like the "European Union Defence Alliance". They'd be legally separate from the EU but they'd use the blue flag, be colloquially called the "EU Army" and so on.

axer wrote: »

The continuing integration will lead to a United States of Europe. I don't see where the line will be drawn.

The way I'd see a United States of Europe would be if each member state had the same rights as a state in the USA. To get there you would need to:

• Weaken the principle of conferral. The closest the USA has to this is their 10th Amendment which doesn't go as far as the way the EU has it.
• Weaken the principle of subsidiarity by moving lots more stuff to the exclusive competence of the union.
• Do away with the principle of proportionality. That is, give the EU power to freely legislate beyond the strict needs of the objectives of the treaties. (Similar to the USA's "Necessary-and-proper clause")
• Transfer all foreign affairs functions to the exclusive competence of the EU.
• Transfer all defence functions to the exclusive competence of the EU.
• Abolish the notion of national citizenship and create one, single EU citizenship.

I really don't think you could persuade the countries currently making up the EU to do this. Can you see the French and Germans agreeing to that?

jmayo

daheff wrote: »

In my view if the EU continue down the road of trying to ratify the Lisbon treaty/EU constitution then it will kill the EU as a democratic institution. Why? because (so far) 3 of the members have rejected this in national referenda.

But the EU leaders that are champing at the bit for Federal EU know what is best for us all.

daheff wrote: »

I have no problems with having a commissioner for 10 out of 15 years...once they are appointed they are not supposed to work in the interest of any national country (and to be fair the vast majority dont). however to keep people happy (not just in Ireland) the country without a commissioner should probably get to appoint a junior commissioner (maybe for the 5 most important Commissions- so these commissioners dont always have to go to all meetings?)

Very sensible idea but will they listen ? Hell NO.

ixtlan wrote: »

A few comments:
The UN wants the EU battlegroups. Kofi Anan said that when he was the Secretary General. This is because the UN has no standing army and is unable to send peacekeeping troops in a timely manner. The UN therefore was happy that the EU would have highly trained troops ready to deploy within a few days/weeks. If in the future we withdraw from the Battlegroups we will not be on many future UN missions. However I think it may be advisable to have a separate referendum on the military clause (probably would lose) and membership of the battlegroups (probably would win).

Also, there is a separate military organisation close to the EU. This is the Western European Union. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_Union.
Ix.

I beleive the idea behind closer military links is to eventually have an EU army and it probably ain't for peace keeping reasons.
I bet there are EU pundits that are looking at the long term where they feel that their interests would be best serverd with a strong military option.
Resources such as oil/gas are going to become scare and the EU will have to compete with Russia, China and the US. Can the EU rely on being able to peacefully get access to these resources or will the EU have to fight to maintain access to these resources ?

Does the EU want to include all of Europe probably right up to Russian borders? Next for acceptance into the club is Croatia, after that who's left, Serbia, Bosnia, Moldova, Ukraine and Turkey?
This treaty is a step towards making this expansion easier (less commision headaches etc).

There is a parallel strategy to have single head of state and single foreign spokesperson. Why have single foreign minister if they can only speak on unamious foreign decisions ?
The ultimate goal is to have Federal Europe, one leader and one foreign policy, one military system that can enforce foreign policy and one legal system to dictate the laws by which we all live.
The nations or states within the EU are subservent to Brussels with the major nations (France, Germany, Spain, Italy and UK) calling the shots due to having largest populations and thus highest number of MEPs together with largest financial clout and largest military components.

The outburst by some EU leaders and commentators already highlight how large countries would view any small country that is not playing by their rules and dancing to their tune.

Either way I reckon we are some day going to have to make decision if we want our laws and foreign policy dictated to us, in order for us still to have access to EU market and energy resources.

Mr.Micro

I did not vote for the likes of Sarkozy who thinks he is the driving force of the EU. The EU is just a big expensive bureaucratic machine that has lost its way. Certain members now appear to have an agenda to make it a military power of sorts for whatever reason?

ixtlan

jmayo wrote: »

I believe the idea behind closer military links is to eventually have an EU army and it probably ain't for peace keeping reasons.

I do understand people's concern about this, but is the best way to deal with this to withdraw Ireland entirely from contact at all with the militaries of the other EU states? Or might it perhaps be to remain at the table and put forward our point of view, and veto any action we disapprove of? Of the 27 states there are always some that will have a non-military view. The nightmare scenario you seem to be thinking of will never happen while the states agree to a veto for all states. It might happen at some point in to the future if the military discussions move exclusively to the WEU.

jmayo wrote: »

Does the EU want to include all of Europe probably right up to Russian borders? Next for acceptance into the club is Croatia, after that who's left, Serbia, Bosnia, Moldova, Ukraine and Turkey?
This treaty is a step towards making this expansion easier (less commision headaches etc).

Quite true, and what is wrong with this? There is still a lot of conflict in some of those areas. The EU has been the most potent force for conflict resolution in the history of Europe.

jmayo wrote: »

There is a parallel strategy to have single head of state and single foreign spokesperson. Why have single foreign minister if they can only speak on unamious foreign decisions ?

Well, why? So that they can speak on unamimous foreign decisions. There are a lot of these. How about Burma. One voice from the EU is much more powerful than 27 voices, and I cannot believe that we would have any difficulty agreeing a common position.

jmayo wrote: »

The ultimate goal is to have Federal Europe, one leader and one foreign policy, one military system that can enforce foreign policy and one legal system to dictate the laws by which we all live.
The nations or states within the EU are subservent to Brussels with the major nations (France, Germany, Spain, Italy and UK) calling the shots due to having largest populations and thus highest number of MEPs together with largest financial clout and largest military components.

Again while understanding your concerns I don't think Europe really works like that. Just within those 5 large countries, (and you would have to add Poland probably) there are many conflicts and disagreements. Those governments do not want to concede all their power and certainly not their military control.

jmayo wrote: »

The outburst by some EU leaders and commentators already highlight how large countries would view any small country that is not playing by their rules and dancing to their tune.

Some of the comments have been ill-advised, but if you look at what happened after the constitution failed a referendum in France, there were similar desires to continue with the process, though the tone was not as harsh. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56261538&postcount=117

jmayo wrote: »

Either way I reckon we are some day going to have to make decision if we want our laws and foreign policy dictated to us, in order for us still to have access to EU market and energy resources.

This is the debate of pooled sovereignty versus controlling your own destiny. It's not them dictating to us, it's us agreeing with them on what to do. We gain some control over Germany and they gain some control over us. Per capita the smaller countries have more influence than the larger ones (from certain points of view). If what we got in a referendum was a choice between a closer EU or a more distant one it would be an interesting campaign.

Ix

limklad

WEA may soon be no longer, as it functions will be transferred into European Defence Agency (EDA) under lisbon treaty (I will stand corrected, if i am wrong).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Defence_Agency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Battlegroups
which has direct control of the European Council
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council)
which we are part of, supposeably there only as observers, in the battlegroup with Nordic states including Norway, Sweden, Finland and Estonia fighting off polar bears :eek:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Battlegroup

Our boys had exercises with them some time back (forgotten the timeframe, I remember hearing it in the news).

We are also part of EUROFOR (European Operational Rapid Force) in Kosovo (KFOR) under UN mandate and EUFOR and NO we not part of EUROCORPS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocorps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EUFOR

We are suspose to be observers in Kosovo and in Chad, just like the US in Vietnam police action or way the Korea police action. With all these various names for what they are truly call "WAR".

I hope our military boys are taking some nice pic's while sun bathing before the shooting starts in Chad because those rebels (who are not well or partially educated) cannot tell the difference between Irish or French soldiers, because we are all white and they are brown(Arabs)/ black(African) colour, before we know it, we are in a war. The signs posts are already there.

Lisbon treaty made provisions for military spending because it wants it own army ( in the name of peace ) probally to behave like the Americans to rival them.

Scofflaw

ixtlan wrote: »

A few comments:

The UN wants the EU battlegroups. Kofi Anan said that when he was the Secretary General. This is because the UN has no standing army and is unable to send peacekeeping troops in a timely manner. The UN therefore was happy that the EU would have highly trained troops ready to deploy within a few days/weeks. If in the future we withdraw from the Battlegroups we will not be on many future UN missions. However I think it may be advisable to have a separate referendum on the military clause (probably would lose) and membership of the battlegroups (probably would win).

Also, there is a separate military organisation close to the EU. This is the Western European Union. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_Union.

Gay Mitchell made a valid point about this during his recent radio rant. If the military clause is removed from the treaty all such discussion and activity will switch to the WEU where we have absolutely no right to comment (although we are an observer). So we would switch from a role where we could veto action we did not approve of to one where we could say/do nothing. Sadly I think this is what the public wants. Tthey don't want Ireland to have to make any difficult decisions. In fact it seems the public would want us to withdraw from the WEU completely and put a bag over our head, while sticking our fingers in our ears and crying lalalalalalalalala.

Ix.

Funnily enough, 61% of people in Ireland apparently think defence and foreign affairs ought to be handled through the EU (Source:Eurobarometer Autumn 2007). 29% think it ought not to be - but I suspect they are more motivated.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jmayo

ixtlan wrote: »

I do understand people's concern about this, but is the best way to deal with this to withdraw Ireland entirely from contact at all with the militaries of the other EU states? Or might it perhaps be to remain at the table and put forward our point of view, and veto any action we disapprove of? Of the 27 states there are always some that will have a non-military view. The nightmare scenario you seem to be thinking of will never happen while the states agree to a veto for all states. It might happen at some point in to the future if the military discussions move exclusively to the WEU.

Like it or not the aim is to eventually move everything to a majority voting situation. Military would probably be one of the last to be moved to this since we also have Sweden and Austria in the club.

ixtlan wrote: »

Originally Posted by jmayo
Does the EU want to include all of Europe probably right up to Russian borders? Next for acceptance into the club is Croatia, after that who's left, Serbia, Bosnia, Moldova, Ukraine and Turkey?
This treaty is a step towards making this expansion easier (less commision headaches etc).

Quite true, and what is wrong with this? There is still a lot of conflict in some of those areas. The EU has been the most potent force for conflict resolution in the history of Europe.

Bulgaria and Romania are basket cases to a degree with large scale corruption etc. Why not let these countries and the others that joined 5 odd years ago develop before we rush head long in bringing in another 5 or 6 states into the party.
Turkey of course is another sticking point (I believe they should nopt be allowed in EU and it is only going to cause trouble long term) and if they are allowed then maybe Morocco or Israel ? Where does it stop ?
The more countries that are in, the smaller our voice becomes.
Yes it is good for stability of Eastern Europe, but remember we live in the far West of Europe.
EDIT: AFAIK the EU actaully agravated the situation in Yugoslavia since countries like Germany rushed to back independence of their old allies Croatia...

ixtlan wrote: »

Well, why? So that they can speak on unamimous foreign decisions. There are a lot of these. How about Burma. One voice from the EU is much more powerful than 27 voices, and I cannot believe that we would have any difficulty agreeing a common position.

Come on, you have to admit there is a move to have the EU as one entity on the world stage that speaks with one voice. Some believe EU should be counterbalance to USA, now we have China and a Russia resurgent.
Sooner or later there will be the move to base that foreign voice on majority rules.
What would be the use of having foreign minister if they can only speak on whether the EU felt the earthquake in China was bad or offering condolences to a state when leader dies ?

ixtlan wrote: »

This is the debate of pooled sovereignty versus controlling your own destiny. It's not them dictating to us, it's us agreeing with them on what to do. We gain some control over Germany and they gain some control over us. Per capita the smaller countries have more influence than the larger ones (from certain points of view). If what we got in a referendum was a choice between a closer EU or a more distant one it would be an interesting campaign.

That sounds like something the ones seeking the power says.
Did the English use the same argument when they were pushing through the Act of Union on Ireland's parliament ?

By saying we are making the EU more democratic by giving more power to the parliament, we are in affect saying that we are loosing power since we only make up 13 (soon to be 12) odd deputies in the Parliament.
Now according to website there are 783 memembers of Eu parliament.
The more countries join the smaller our voice will get.
At the moment we make up 1.66% of deputies.
If is based on equal rights for each country, with one commissioner for each then we have representation of 3.7% and the same at council of ministers meetings.
I know you can say that it is not fair since more people live in Germany, Poland or Uk, but that is their worry and not ours sitting out here on the edge of the Atlantic.

It is a bit like telling workers that globalisation is good for them at the same time as their job is heading to India, because the business can get Indian to work for much less.
It is good for some (the Indian and the business owners), but it is not necessarily good for the guy facing unemployment.
But that is another argument or discussion.