Fair is Fair, a question for Europe

[rah]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The U.K. should be taking the lead.
Of course, that will lead to the same type criticism that the U.S. endures. They'll just have to get used to it.

I really don't see the relevance of this, the UK is already getting criticism for not participating and being perceived as a US toady.
I don't see how additional criticism would change anything.

Yes, the Berlin,Paris,London triangle of opinions will make further integration a painful and slow process. Just think how long it took for the North and South in the US to really get back together after the Civil War. (some claim that it hasn't happened yet)

RAH

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hmmm, a proportional representation of population in the UN is a very interesting idea. However, I fear the smaller states (who in total have much more population than Europe and US combined, btw) would never go for it. We would have to try to get it done, and then maybe we in the US could have an election (for UN reps) where voter turnout is even worse than it is for Congress .

[Roland]

It is a slow process with surprising results. But don't forget a couple things:

- the only power missing for a federal system is foreign and defense policy
- barely noticed, we now have an institutionalised Council of the defense ministers, so the drifting towards the Union and even supranationality has started
- in 1954 we almost got a common army for the original 6 EC members

[MikeH]

European election turnout was around 25 - 35 % in the UK in '99. That's incredibly poor.

[Arrian]

I think there's something the "proportional representation" people are forgetting: the fact that India and China would have 1/3 of the votes between them.

-Arrian

[MikeH]

What's wrong with that? You think their people are worth less than other people?

[Roland]

It's a moot point. That would be interesting if the GA got some powers.

[MikeH]

Well that's my main problem with the EU at the moment. It doesn't seem to be very democratic... I'd rather have a decent European GA with real powers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I tell you though, that UN GA hall would have to be super-expanded! I wonder what the cap on ministers should be? 500, with every state at least having one?

[Roland]

You need to read up on the EP powers....

[Arrian]

Originally posted by MikeH
What's wrong with that? You think their people are worth less than other people?

Nope, didn't say that (although, in the case of China, all those people don't have a say in their government). I brought it up because the posts I saw discussing proportional representation were all about USA, Europe, and the small third world countries. No mention of the big dogs. That is all.

-Arrian

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Roland
You need to read up on the EP powers....

I am much too lazy for that. I'll just make generalisations based on my assumptions if that's OK?

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Arrian


Nope, didn't say that (although, in the case of China, all those people don't have a say in their government). I brought it up because the posts I saw discussing proportional representation were all about USA, Europe, and the small third world countries. No mention of the big dogs. That is all.

-Arrian

Yep that's a good point about China.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, one of the problems would be who assigns the ministers. If you have an autocratic state... the government will do it. And if the Secretary General is elected from the GA, you won't see many SecGen's that are not Chinese or Indian .

[MikeH]

OK... EU Parliment powers:

Approve/not approve Council of Ministers Legislation
Approve/not approve EU budgets
Supervise legislative process.

So they can't actually do anything, just stop the Council of Ministers from doing stuff? Or have I got that wrong?

[Roland]

Most legislation is EP+Council. Like in a good federal system, like germany, the US...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Roland, what do you think should be done with the Council? As of right now, it is fairly undemocratic, though its power in recent years has been less as more power has been given to the EP.

[rah]

It is possible to have proportional representation but include a maximum cap. This type of arangement might help calm some people's fear of domination by the most populous countries. Whether it's fair or not is another question, but no system is good unless it can be implemented, and I see this as the only way that some countries would go along with it.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Roland
Most legislation is EP+Council. Like in a good federal system, like germany, the US...

Good?

[rah]

GP, don't forget to post your Chicago trip itinerary so Ming and I have a chance to work something out.

RAH

[Colon™]

I find it strange nobody mentioned the admittance procedure the UN has, it’d seem to me that’s what the question boils down to. Admittance requires the consent of the security council and the general assembly for a start, but does that mean that any entity can be accepted as a member as long both organs agree or are there any criteria?
And what procedure was used when Germany reunified and their 2 seats were reduced to one?

[Ecthy]

Germany never had 2 seats. Maybe each of the German states had one, but that doesn't mean Germany had 2. You know, there were reasons for the existence of 2 states.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Germany never had 2 seats. Maybe each of the German states had one, but that doesn't mean Germany had 2.

(simplifying question for Ecthelion mode) East and West Germany each had a seat, right? And then when Germany reunified, it turned into one, right? What procedure was used to do that? (/simplifying question for Ecthelion mode).

[Ecthy]

[continuing silly smartarse rant from earlier]I just corrected his damn mistake. he put it like they artificially continued the 2-state-thing to be more powerful. which is a blastant lie. Colon should apologise to the German nation[/rant]

[Colon™]

Is my writing style really that convoluted?

The only thing I could find about admittance of members in the Charter of the UN is this:

Article 4

1. Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.

2. The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

[Colon™]

At first sight I'd seem to me that the US can get 50 seats if the rest of the world doesn't mind.

[Tom201]

Ah vote based on the numbers of provinces you have is rediculous, unless you want everyone to imidiatly form a thousand new ones

If you want to take the population as basis to calculate the seats, you are aware that for example China gets 6times, India 4times more seats than the US?

[Colon™]

Hey, Syria and Egypt once had a shared membership, though they were a nation only in nominal terms. (the United Arab Republic) So, if the US wants to break up its membership in 50 pieces and the rest of the world goes along with it, why not?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Tom201
Ah vote based on the numbers of provinces you have is rediculous, unless you want everyone to imidiatly form a thousand new ones

That's the point though, America doesn't have "Provinces", we have "states". For the 90 or so years, the USA acted more a a regional Federation with a small standing Army. The American Civil War certainly strengthened the Federal Government, but the immense power of the states are far and beyond that of most other countries, who have unitary governments.

It also explains why American seems so "undemocratic". It's very democratic, at a state level, but if you get into the electoral college...

[Ned]

If I understand the rules, the GA resolutions are non binding and need SC approval to become "law." Is this right?