Europe to sign itself into new era

HeXp£Øi±

Well-Known Member
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The Agora, centre of ancient Athens, on Wednesday afternoon (16 April) will play host to 25 European heads of state who will sign the treaty that will enlarge the EU 15 to 25 member states.

Following in the footsteps of Socrates and Plato, European leaders, including the Presidents of the Commission and the Parliament, will grace the ancient Stoa of Attalos, close to the Acropolis, and will (in alphabetical order) wax lyrical for three minutes each before adding their names into the treaty.

Symbolism is high on the agenda as the Agora is traditionally associated with Athenian democracy as in ancient times it was the focal point of the city's public life.

The signatures will mark a new era in European integration as the European Union will from 1 May 2004 bring together a majority of European States - and among them almost all of the eastern European countries that were behind the Iron Curtain after World War II.

Out from the cold
The countries not (yet) invited to be part of the European Union will take part in a wider Europe Conference on Thursday, 17 April.

This will be attended by the EFTA countries, including Norway, Iceland and Switzerland as well as Russia, Ukraine and Moldova; the two countries likely to join the EU in 2007 (Romania and Bulgaria) and Croatia and Turkey, who are at the early stages of the EU membership process.

In total, the conference will gather some 40 heads of state. Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, has also accepted an invitation to attend and to address this meeting.

It will be held in the Zappeion Hall close to the Greek parliament in the centre of Athens on Thursday morning.

The changing face of Europe
Few doubt the face of the European Union will be drastically changed after enlargement, not least because it will almost double the number of member states participating at meetings and summits.

The balance of votes in the important Council of ministers will tip in favour of the smaller countries, as nine of ten acceding countries - except Poland - are considered smaller nations.

This has added huge pressure on the EU to adjust the way it works and to change the institutional set-up and take these events into account.

The bigger countries do not want to be out-voted in the European Union and there are some fears that the existing system of the six-month rotating presidencies and having a Commissioner from each country will break down.

At a summit held in Laeken, in Belgium, in December 2001, EU leaders tasked a Convention, led by former French president Valéry Giscard D´Estaing, to present concrete ideas to develop the EU for the future.

In Athens on Thursday morning, Mr Giscard will meet the leaders and report on the work done by this Convention since it started in 28 February 2002.

To the disappointment of some commentators, Mr Giscard and his convention have not come up with the answers to the most pressing questions of the future of the EU debate.

Instead he is sending five questions which he wants the heads of state to express their views on in Athens - in this way, he can make sure that the Convention does not produce constitutional articles on, say, EU foreign policy, that will be totally unacceptable to member states.

The Convention president has asked them to deliberate on:

• How to ensure a greater continuity in the presidency of the European Council and the other formations of the Council

• The size and the composition of the European Commission (after the enlargement to 27 members)

• The nomination and the powers of the President of the Commission

• The nomination and the powers of an eventual "Foreign Minister"

• The role of an eventual formation (Conference/Congress), composed by representatives of the national parliaments and of the European Parliament.

The related constitution articles will then be drawn up in the Convention to be debated in May.

http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?sid=9&aid=10938
 
Jeslek said:
Who is going to make foreign policy?

Better yet, who's going to be der furher?

Seriously, if they want to unite into a single country, then they need to do it right. They need to create a legislative body that is representative of the entire population along with an executive branch, a judicial branch of appeals courts with a unified body of law, and a unified arms forces. From what I can tell, sitting over here, they basically have something like a senate whose members are appointed by each 'state' government, and the decisions they make have to be ratified by each 'state'. They're trying to have their sovereignity and eat it too.
 
the members of the european parliament are voted for through election ballots in each country, not appointed by the state governments.
sadly the mep elections aren't treated with a great deal of respect in the uk and then we somehow get surprised when those we half-heartedly elect don't do an awful lot.

you'd be surprised how close the eu is to a unified body of law and armed forces, the former has been running in part for a while and the latter has been subject of much recent discussion.
 
Shows what I know... Are there two houses of parliament, or just one? Is there an executive branch?

I honestly don't blame people in the UK for being hesitant. I wouldn't want to tie my country's future to the whims of the French and Germans.
 
as far as i know its one chamber with the second in effect being the relevant parliaments in each country as most things that are passed can be blocked at home. germany and france may be the two largest continental members but that is changing now as spain and italy have begun to exert more influence. if we were full members [currency included] then we would wield a pretty large chunk of influence, as might denmark conceivably when they come in.
 
I guess I'm not really sure what the EU is supposed to be. On the one hand, it seems like they're inching piecemeal towards forming a single country, but on the other hand, there's a lot of resistance to giving up individual sovereignity. That was a problem for the original 13 colonies over here. They tried forming a loose confederation at first, but it ran into problems, and that's why they eventually formed a federal government. A lot of our history has been the slow assertion of the federal consitution over the prerogatives of the individual states. Personally, I favor a strong federal government as long as it's powers are constitutionally limited to protecting individual rights. The federalization of the US has tended to increase freedom in most cases, though not all.
 
Back
Top