Fair is Fair, a question for Europe

rah · May 28, 2002, 16:30

All this talk of a unified Europe who's goal is to compete worldwide with the US and other Large Countries.

Question, to keep things fair, would Europe be willing to unite in the UN and only have one vote? A unified Europe would be about the same size and have similar economic and miliatry strength.

If you're looking for parity with the US, this would be a step in the right direction. Anything else would be hypocrisy. (please ignore the last sentence but I couldn't resist

).

Would this change how you view the UN?

RAH

Arrian · May 28, 2002, 16:36

If Europe were to combine into one political entity (read: unified government), then they should have to drop down to 1 vote in the UN. But the EU is merely an economic union (NAFTA on 'roids?), so no need to give up those votes just yet.

-Arrian

Stefu · May 28, 2002, 16:37

Well, it's obvious we'd do like Soviet Union and organize the UN to give a province or two a vote in the General Council.

And I don't believe that it'll come to one big United States of Europe. Nations will retain at least a modicum of independency - enough for them to call themselves nations and, well, retain seats in UN General Council.

Paul Hanson · May 28, 2002, 17:21

Good question. The answer is probably "not without a fight", because we're a stubborn bunch of gits when we want to be.

Tom201 · May 28, 2002, 17:25

France will never give up. They will insist on calling their nation seperatly, no matter how close the EU gets

rah · May 28, 2002, 17:45

If Europe did agree to reduce it's vote to one.

Do you feel you would be properly represented? Or would your needs be lost among the masses of third world countries?

RAH

Imran Siddiqui · May 28, 2002, 17:49

Wow! Very good question rah... (but you can tell us... did the ferrets tell you to write this one... we won't squeal

).

If Europe becomes fully integrated under one government, then yes, they should give up all the other votes in the UN except one. However, I'm not sure it will ever come to that. It will end up like the US's Articles of Confederation, but looser.

Eli · May 28, 2002, 17:51

And the Arabs will have half of the votes? No thanks.

Imran Siddiqui · May 28, 2002, 17:52

Not like the Euros don't already vote with the Arabs on the ME Conflict, Eli

.

germanos · May 28, 2002, 17:53

Not if Europe would still have a 'veto' in the Security Counsel, as a permanent member.
(not that I think France or U.K. will ever give theirs up)

Monk · May 28, 2002, 17:55

I guess the EU should be limited to one vote, but it's all so hypothetical because I don't see the EU countries harmonizing their foreign policies and abolishing their independence completely within the next 20 years. But of course, you never know.

SpencerH · May 28, 2002, 17:56

The EU mandated what a sausage was, and "bangers" wern't. Theres your independent states. You've got 10 years before you're using the flag the Dutch guy designed (the bar codes).

MrFun · May 28, 2002, 17:58

Perhaps the United States is entitled to 50 votes in the UN for each state of the United States to be consistent with each EU country entitled to one vote.

rah · May 28, 2002, 17:58

Yes, I believe that Europe should have one veto in the security counsel. That would be fair and equal to that of the US.

RAH
Imran, ixnay on the erretsfay. We knocked off RAH over the weekend and have hijacked his machine.

Vito......

Imran Siddiqui · May 28, 2002, 18:00

I knew it!

rah · May 28, 2002, 18:01

Ok, back to the question, would europe feel represented with only one vote. Or might you get a little suspicious of the organization. (for those that didn't forsee where this was going)

RAH

moomin · May 28, 2002, 18:02

It really doesn't matter, does it?

The UN ought to be dismantled anyway.

SpencerH · May 28, 2002, 18:04

That kinda hit the nail on the head

red_jon · May 28, 2002, 18:15

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
If Europe did agree to reduce it's vote to one.

Do you feel you would be properly represented? Or would your needs be lost among the masses of third world countries?

RAH

I thought Tony Blair and Bush were lobbying to have all the third world votes reduced to one, under the title of 'The Land Where Brown People Come From' or 'Cruise Missile Testing Range'?

Shi Huangdi · May 28, 2002, 18:16

I think if Europe actually declared itself to be one soverign state, they would have to accept having one vote. I don't think the UN has to continue giving seats to non-existnant countries, and I can't imagine who would support letting the Europeans keep their old votes outside of Europe. Especially since China has only 1 vote and they have way more population then Europe does.

rah · May 28, 2002, 22:40

Quote:

Originally posted by red_jon

I thought Tony Blair and Bush were lobbying to have all the third world votes reduced to one, under the title of 'The Land Where Brown People Come From' or 'Cruise Missile Testing Range'?

So much for serious arguements from the chaps on the other side of the pond.

RAH

TCO · May 28, 2002, 23:05

Quote:

Originally posted by red_jon

I thought Tony Blair and Bush were lobbying to have all the third world votes reduced to one, under the title of 'The Land Where Brown People Come From' or 'Cruise Missile Testing Range'?

SEE!!

Bush had a good reason for asking about Brazil.

TCO · May 28, 2002, 23:06

Rah...it was a great question. And very interesting to think about. kudos.

(BTW we shou;d get together for drinks. I'll be in Chi town in a couple weeks.)

TCO · May 28, 2002, 23:09

Quote:

Originally posted by SpencerH
The EU mandated what a sausage was, and "bangers" wern't. Theres your independent states. You've got 10 years before you're using the flag the Dutch guy designed (the bar codes).

YES!!

Bar code will rule you all!!

notyoueither · May 28, 2002, 23:09

A very interesting question. A perhaps unintended consequence of it is to highlight how the relatively rigid nature of the organization may well lead to the UN becoming more and more of an irrelevant entity as time goes by. Unless it can reform itself.

Lonestar · May 28, 2002, 23:13

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
Perhaps the United States is entitled to 50 votes in the UN for each state of the United States to be consistent with each EU country entitled to one vote.

Why not? The USA is a regional Economic and Political Union. At least, originally. States in the USA have more power than "proviences" in other countries.

Ned · May 29, 2002, 00:03

They is something very very wrong about one-state one-vote in the context of the GA. The very idea of the EU being reduced to 1 vote illustrates the problem.

I support the SC only because the US has a veto.

CyberGnu · May 29, 2002, 00:19

well, if it would come to that, it is very likely that the voting model would be redone altogether... Maybe more like the EU parliament or the US congress, where the number of representatives is 'sort of proportional to population'. Basically, if all the small states gang up, they have more votes than the big ones, even though their total population is lower.

I suprised myself by considering this practice unfair in the US, but defensible in the EU... Basically on the grounds that in the US the difference between the states is so little, there is no real reason to diffrentiate the votes. Whereas in Europe, we know that France would run roughshod over everyone else if only they could...

CyberGnu · May 29, 2002, 00:19

It is a great question, though, RAH.

CyberGnu · May 29, 2002, 00:20

Monk, if you are going to thank Stefu for the avatar, shouldn't you at least spell his name right?