Ah, what a difference a change in byline makes. (Original idea via Cold Fury)
Let us start by perusing this article from the Financial Times: Poland and Spain under pressure over EU treaty. The two countries mentioned are digging in their heels about suggested changes in the European Constitution. I’ve just given myself a crash (in all senses of the term) course on the blessed thing – I’ve got my own Constitution to badly interpret, after all – but generally speaking Spain and Poland quite like the old rules, which gave them more power within the EU than the current draft being circulated. Our good, dear friends France and Germany are behind the latter, arguing that population should be considered more when determining the percentage of votes needed to pass initiatives.
Sound familiar? Yeah, it does sort of sound like the problems that the Constitutional Convention dealt with two hundred years ago, doesn’t it? Back then, you had the big states and the little states; the former objected to giving small groups special treatment and the latter didn’t feel like signing onto a tyranny of the majority. So, they compromised, which is why we have a bicameral legislature (note to newfound fiscal hawks: you’d have an easier time balancing the budget if the Seventeenth Amendment went away and Senators suddenly were coming from the state legislatures currently living off of the federal government’s scraps. Just thought I’d mention that).
So, reasonable to say that there’s more than one side, here? – These are, after all, sovereign nations in Europe. Different cultures, different languages, different societies: some of them have been at war with each other in living memory. It’s not unreasonable for the smaller nations to want to have some defense against the larger, and surely this can be taken into account. Right?
Well, it depends: take a gander at this article. The bias is a bit more subtle than normal, but two things should be noted:
1). This sentence: “That treaty gave Spain and Poland 27 votes, compared to 29 for Germany, whose population is bigger than that of the two countries combined.”
Well, yes, it is: Germany is larger than Spain or Poland. Germany’s also bigger than France, Italy, and the UK. If we’re going to compare populations, one must wonder why the latter three countries are given an equal number of votes as to Germany, despite the fact that they each have no more than 75% of Germany’s population. Well, actually, no: they have them because they insisted on them, much like Spain and Poland are insisting now.
2). “Poland and Spain are fighting off efforts in the EU draft constitution to correct the imbalance, while France and Germany insist on keeping the draft in its current form.”
“Correct the imbalance’: yup, that’s precisely the sort of objective, unfiltered commentary that we’ve come to expect from… who wrote this, again?
AFP?
Well, hell, why should I even be surprised? Let me tell you: we may love to jump on Reuters over here at the VRWC, but when it comes to badly-hidden state-driven agitprop, give me Agence France-Presses every time. Funny how they’re couching this in terms as unfavorable as possible to the opponents of the German-French ‘reform’…
Actually, not funny at all. Sorry, I get sarcastic real easily these days. Especially this late at night.
Moe
12:46 on a Friday is late? Jesus, that’s about when I’m having lunch.
One day I’ll see that sun thing I hear so much about.
EU Constitution
Found over at Obsidian Wings is this post which discusses the pains that Europe, in general, is enduring in trying to finalize the European Union Constitution and, specifically, the impediments to equal representation being placed on Poland and Spain b…
Moe – I’m confused. I almost thought I detected puzzlement on your part that the French would be acting (a) nefariously, and (b) in their own self-interest to the detriment of others.
For much readable detail on the draft EU Constitution (and lots of other sorts of bloggery goodness) y’all might want to check out A Fistful of Euros, right over there on the left.
My take? I agree with Moe, though not as vehemently. This is one of those purely political, you-get-what-you-negotiate kinda deals. If the Poles and the Spanish hang tough, good for them; if not, well, they get what they negotiate.
The voting issue is sort of secondary anyhow. The EU Constitution contains a lot that’s good, a lot that’s pointless, and a fair bit that’s scary dumb. It badly needs a rewrite, which it ain’t gonna get, so it’ll probably have to be shot down by referenda.
Story for another time.
Doug M.
Oh, and by the way, gang: I just voted again (yes, it’s allowed), and was horrified to find that my vote made the difference between fifth place and sixth.
Sixth!
And sixth behind “On Beyond Azure”, which is… well, just not nearly as good a blog as this one.
Come on, gang. You’re going to let Moe, von and Katherine get whipped by a blog that can’t even be bothered to capitalize and punctuate? That would just be so… embarrassing.
There’s still a day left in the poll, and just twelve lousy votes will move us up a rank, so vote early and vote often, whilst you still can. It doesn’t take five seconds, and hey: while you’re there you can vote for (I mean against) Brad de Long and against (oh, I mean for) James Lileks. Or whoever, as the case may be.
Doug M.
Fun at France’s expense
CalPundit takes issue with conservatives cheering on Spanish and Polish obstructionism over the EU Constitution: I’m a moderate skeptic of the euro and the expanded EU myself, but this very real sense of treating Europe as a flat-out enemy —…
The worrying thing was Chirac saying to the newbies Poland that they’re abusing their future positions (they’re not officially in the European Union yet), and that they should keep quiet out of deference to being allowed into the club.
I don’t know that I’m especially anti-Europe or pro-Europe or anti-Chirac or pro-Chirac, but this sort of attitude, ‘You shouldn’t speak out because…’ is wrong.
As I say, I’m really not anti-Chirac. I know what life in France is like; I have a lot of relatives there – French, not ex-pat Britons. He seems quite a good leader. But Chirac’s used that argument before, saying You’re New Here, So Shut Up; and it’s not right.