GioFX
13-12-2003, 20:01
Non voglio parlare qui delle ragioni del sostanziale fallimento del vertice europeo sulla Conferenza Intergovernativa per la discussione dulla bozza di Costituzione, ma far notare un interessante articolo attualmente in prima pagina sul sito del New York Times...
Propongo degli stralci.
Da Nytimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/14/international/europe/14EURO.html?hp):
European Union Cannot Reach Deal on Constitution
By JOHN TAGLIABUE
Published: December 14, 2003
BRUSSELS, Dec. 13 — The leaders of 25 current and imminent members of the European Union failed to reach agreement on Saturday on a draft constitution, stumbling on a problem familiar to Americans: how to apportion power among large and small states.
At issue was a proposal to discard a voting system agreed upon three years ago that gave Spain, a member of the union, and Poland, which joins next year, almost as much voting weight each as Germany, which has more than twice the population of either.
Klaus Hänsch, a German deputy of the European Parliament, laid the blame for the failed meeting squarely on the two nations' unwillingness to compromise. "I hope that Spain and Poland realize that the failure of the summit is due to them, and that they missed a historic opportunity," he said.
[cut]
Officially, the leaders said they would meet to try again next year. But the failure touched off bitter recriminations, notably between Germans and Poles, underscoring differences between current and imminent members of the union. The war in Iraq also played a part: the bitter divisions in "old" and "new" Europe over whether to go along with the United States' military action contributed to the wedges driving the leaders apart.
The failure prompted reports that some countries — most notably the six founders of the European Union, Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands — would go it alone in efforts to integrate more closely in areas like foreign and defense policy.
Poland's prime minister, Leszek Miller, left Brussels and was expected to convene a cabinet meeting on Saturday evening to inform the government of the outcome, Polish diplomats said.
The meeting was not without its successes. On Friday, the leaders took a first important step toward striking a deal on the constitution's draft text, the subject of almost two years of discussion, when they agreed unanimously to a common defense policy that included planning abilities independent of NATO.
As with the American leadership in Philadelphia in the 1780's, Europe's leaders are acting because they recognize that the challenges facing an enlarged union require more efficient government structures. Recent moves, including the introduction of the euro and the creation of a central bank, have fueled the drive beyond simple economic integration toward common policies in defense and foreign affairs.
The analogy with the United States, which moved in the 1780's from a confederation to a stronger national government under the Constitution, has not escaped the Europeans. When the former French president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, chairman of the convention that framed the draft constitution, left for vacation last summer, he took along a copy of David McCullough's best selling biography of John Adams, the author of the Massachusetts Constitution, the oldest such text still in use.
Mr. McCullough said by phone from his home in Massachusetts that in Philadelphia "all the small states were afraid of the large states, they feared they would take the ball and run with it." To provide equal weight in the councils of power, the founding fathers created the Senate, in which all the states were equally represented. "They called it the balancing wheel," Mr. McCullough said.
Europe's leaders toyed in the past with the idea of a kind of bicameral system, proposing to transform the Council of Europe into a kind of senate. But the idea was discarded in favor of a voting system agreed upon three years ago in Nice that gave mid-sized countries like Poland and Spain almost as many votes each in the European Council as Germany, despite its far greater population.
The discussions here have left Poland and Spain relatively isolated, because the system agreed to at Nice has been jettisoned in favor of an arrangement known as the double majority, which seeks to assure the rights of smaller states by defining a voting majority as at least half of the member states representing at least 60 percent of the total population.
Poland's foreign minister, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, had dug in his heels on Saturday morning. "If it is not possible to agree on the change today we shall wait," he said before the day's talks began.
Large countries like France, Germany and Britain, who embraced the double majority because of a worry about the risk of giving too much voting power to the smaller states, have also built measures into the constitution that would assure their continued control.
[cut]
Mr. Featherstone, of the European Institute, said there was not a sense of immediate crisis if the states failed, "but there is a climate of ideas across Europe that something must be done."
Propongo degli stralci.
Da Nytimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/14/international/europe/14EURO.html?hp):
European Union Cannot Reach Deal on Constitution
By JOHN TAGLIABUE
Published: December 14, 2003
BRUSSELS, Dec. 13 — The leaders of 25 current and imminent members of the European Union failed to reach agreement on Saturday on a draft constitution, stumbling on a problem familiar to Americans: how to apportion power among large and small states.
At issue was a proposal to discard a voting system agreed upon three years ago that gave Spain, a member of the union, and Poland, which joins next year, almost as much voting weight each as Germany, which has more than twice the population of either.
Klaus Hänsch, a German deputy of the European Parliament, laid the blame for the failed meeting squarely on the two nations' unwillingness to compromise. "I hope that Spain and Poland realize that the failure of the summit is due to them, and that they missed a historic opportunity," he said.
[cut]
Officially, the leaders said they would meet to try again next year. But the failure touched off bitter recriminations, notably between Germans and Poles, underscoring differences between current and imminent members of the union. The war in Iraq also played a part: the bitter divisions in "old" and "new" Europe over whether to go along with the United States' military action contributed to the wedges driving the leaders apart.
The failure prompted reports that some countries — most notably the six founders of the European Union, Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands — would go it alone in efforts to integrate more closely in areas like foreign and defense policy.
Poland's prime minister, Leszek Miller, left Brussels and was expected to convene a cabinet meeting on Saturday evening to inform the government of the outcome, Polish diplomats said.
The meeting was not without its successes. On Friday, the leaders took a first important step toward striking a deal on the constitution's draft text, the subject of almost two years of discussion, when they agreed unanimously to a common defense policy that included planning abilities independent of NATO.
As with the American leadership in Philadelphia in the 1780's, Europe's leaders are acting because they recognize that the challenges facing an enlarged union require more efficient government structures. Recent moves, including the introduction of the euro and the creation of a central bank, have fueled the drive beyond simple economic integration toward common policies in defense and foreign affairs.
The analogy with the United States, which moved in the 1780's from a confederation to a stronger national government under the Constitution, has not escaped the Europeans. When the former French president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, chairman of the convention that framed the draft constitution, left for vacation last summer, he took along a copy of David McCullough's best selling biography of John Adams, the author of the Massachusetts Constitution, the oldest such text still in use.
Mr. McCullough said by phone from his home in Massachusetts that in Philadelphia "all the small states were afraid of the large states, they feared they would take the ball and run with it." To provide equal weight in the councils of power, the founding fathers created the Senate, in which all the states were equally represented. "They called it the balancing wheel," Mr. McCullough said.
Europe's leaders toyed in the past with the idea of a kind of bicameral system, proposing to transform the Council of Europe into a kind of senate. But the idea was discarded in favor of a voting system agreed upon three years ago in Nice that gave mid-sized countries like Poland and Spain almost as many votes each in the European Council as Germany, despite its far greater population.
The discussions here have left Poland and Spain relatively isolated, because the system agreed to at Nice has been jettisoned in favor of an arrangement known as the double majority, which seeks to assure the rights of smaller states by defining a voting majority as at least half of the member states representing at least 60 percent of the total population.
Poland's foreign minister, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, had dug in his heels on Saturday morning. "If it is not possible to agree on the change today we shall wait," he said before the day's talks began.
Large countries like France, Germany and Britain, who embraced the double majority because of a worry about the risk of giving too much voting power to the smaller states, have also built measures into the constitution that would assure their continued control.
[cut]
Mr. Featherstone, of the European Institute, said there was not a sense of immediate crisis if the states failed, "but there is a climate of ideas across Europe that something must be done."