To our French citizens...

[Buccaneer]

...please vote "NON' today (Sunday).

[Galaxy]

...please vote "NON' today (Sunday).

Vote no for what?

[Hammer755]

Vote no for what?
Prop 15 of course.

[MIJB#19]

Please vote "oui", otherwise the Dutch 'nee' (pronounce nay, but think no) won't shock the world on Wednesday.

[SirFozzie]

Just to explain what they're talking about, France and the Dutch are voting on their nations ratifying the European Constitution. If they vote no.. odds are you won't see the EU states growing any closer together for at least five years.

[Suicane75]

Does this have anything to do with Catherine Denueve?

[Crapshoot]

Vote yes- its an important decision - one your country was fundemental in shaping.

[Buccaneer]

- and one that they will regret for generations to come.

[Tara]

...please vote "NON' today (Sunday).
Just tell why you're so sure that voting 'NON' is the best choice.

[Crapshoot]

- and one that they will regret for generations to come.

No, they won't. A unified, federal Europe has the potential to provide some sort of counterweight for the US on a worldwide scale. Its hardly a decision they'll regret- given the French goal to do such a thing - and its not something they ca do alone.

[Buccaneer]

Just two of several reasons

A defeat not only would shake the EU to its core, it could plunge France into political chaos. Chirac's prestige, at home and abroad, would be damaged; the opposition Socialist Party, divided down the middle, could be crippled; and the unpopular prime minister would, analysts agree, quickly be fired.

Opponents fear it will strip nations of sovereignty and trigger an influx of cheap labor just as European powers such as France and Germany struggle to contain double-digit unemployment.

[cthomer5000]

I move for a vote of no confidence in Buccaneer.

[Tara]

No, they won't. A unified, federal Europe has the potential to provide some sort of counterweight for the US on a worldwide scale. Its hardly a decision they'll regret- given the French goal to do such a thing - and its not something they ca do alone.

Well done.
I completely agree with this. Moreover It's just insane to slow down a process, as the Europe unification, that took so long to come so far.
BTW the real problem is that a 'NON' to the European constiution would come from one of the country that started the idea of the 'big' Europe...this will have a great negative effect on that countries that have not voted yet, such as England.

[Ryan S]

...please vote "NON' today (Sunday).
I second this statement.

I guess that in the long term this result does not really matter because there is no way that the UK will accept the EU constitution.

[Solecismic]

Je preconise "oui" seulement si joli Prince Charlie etre choisi de se reposer sur le trone de toute l'Europe.

[Galaxy]

What does the EU constitution do?

Why is the UK against a full-merger with the EU? It seems like the EU would need the UK more then the UK needs EU. UK is pretty wealthy and has a pretty strong political/democratic system in place. Switzerland seems to the only country against joining.

[BreizhManu]

Switzerland seems to the only country against joining.
and Norway.

BTW I don't know what I voted, I give my mother power to vote for me since I'm in Spain but I don't even know if she has voted.

[MrBigglesworth]

BTW I don't know what I voted, I give my mother power to vote for me since I'm in Spain but I don't even know if she has voted.
There are some weird democracies out there...

[BreizhManu]

for info, the NO won 55% vs 45%

[MIJB#19]

Great, we're going to have a useless vote next Wednesday. I knew we should have voted three days earlier in stead of three days later than the French...

[Buccaneer]

Great, we're going to have a useless vote next Wednesday. I knew we should have voted three days earlier in stead of three days later than the French...
I would think now that the pro-EU vote in the Netherlands will be staying home and it will be even more of a rout than the current 60-40 projections.

[MIJB#19]

I would think now that the pro-EU vote in the Netherlands will be staying home and it will be even more of a rout than the current 60-40 projections.I don't buy the sentiments of the projections. They're always wrong with some kind of voters and those kind of people are the Christian Democrate voters, who will vote 'yes' like The Almighty himself instructed them through the sacred Jan-Peter Balkenende. Despite knowing that the EU is only costing us more than we were told it would cost us.

Aside from that, everything we stand for in the Netherlands will be destroyed in the proposed European constitution, yet the government we have would love to see it happen and purposely kept all the needed info to know what to vote off. But to punish Bush junior's pet, people will vote against a more centered EU and keep the USA's world super power arrogance alive for at least a couple more decades. How freaky is that?

[sabotai]

Je preconise "oui" seulement si joli Prince Charlie etre choisi de se reposer sur le trone de toute l'Europe.
http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/eek.gif

[Wolfpack]

But to punish Bush junior's pet, people will vote against a more centered EU and keep the USA's world super power arrogance alive for at least a couple more decades. How freaky is that?

Doesn't sound like a bad deal to me... ;)

Seriously, though, I don't know if a US-of-E as Crapshoot wants is ever really going to happen, simply because Europe has been too fractious and divided over so much of its history to ever really federate like that. Too many people like their own country too much to really see it get swallowed up in some concocted "European" identity. The US started from zero in 1789 with the ratification of the Constitution and nearly shot itself in the head 70 years later and it was meant to be a federation of states with a common language and culture (aside from slavery, of course) and everything. Trying to pull together an aglommeration of states that all have different cultures and languages and for much of history a general dislike of one another may be asking for too much, at least at this point. I just don't see how the EU can exist as a federation like the US with a "national capital" in Brussels, and a "national government" that becomes another bureaucratic layer above the individual nations and can in fact (if it's like the US federal government) impose its own will on member states who have done things their own way for so long.

[MrBigglesworth]

Wolfpack, I think it is in unavoidable that the culture gap will get smaller and the countries will consolidate. Techonology has created the networking effect where there is power in numbers, where power is exponential to the number of people involved. It's also why English is or will become the dominant language.

[MIJB#19]

Wolfpack, I think it is in unavoidable that the culture gap will get smaller and the countries will consolidate. Techonology has created the networking effect where there is power in numbers, where power is exponential to the number of people involved. It's also why English is or will become the dominant language.I disagree, Wolfpack put it nicely why the EU will never became a US-of-E. The huge history of wars in Europe created healthy rivalries between the countries and those won't be easy to overcome with, despite the last real war having ended 60 years ago.

The biggest front line in each country is those between:
* people who want a united Europe so as a whole the EU has more power than all the smaller countries would have combined
* people who want to not see the own culture get lost in the crowd, don't want people in other countries to tell them how we should live life in their contry

For example: In the Netherlands, the last group of people is bigger. The arrogant tone of the bigger countries who contribute less make people dislike the unity. But especially the way 'we' try to handle the ethical issues by legalizing things into a certain context and the social care that keeps 99% above the povertry rate have been hardly excepted over the borders and would likely be the first things we'd lose.

[st.cronin]

Wolfpack, I think it is in unavoidable that the culture gap will get smaller and the countries will consolidate. Techonology has created the networking effect where there is power in numbers, where power is exponential to the number of people involved. It's also why English is or will become the dominant language.

English will likely never be the dominant language. We're about 5 years away from a universal translator being available to pretty much anybody, which will ensure the survival of different languages.

[Barkeep49]

English will likely never be the dominant language. We're about 5 years away from a universal translator being available to pretty much anybody, which will ensure the survival of different languages.

Sweet! Can I get that and my flying car in a package deal?

[MrBigglesworth]

I disagree, Wolfpack put it nicely why the EU will never became a US-of-E. The huge history of wars in Europe created healthy rivalries between the countries and those won't be easy to overcome with, despite the last real war having ended 60 years ago.
If you want to see healthy rivalries, come over to the USA. The people in the South here still won't vote for anyone for President that is from the North (generalization alert). We had a little war in the 1860's that there is still bad blood about. Yet that was put behind us, and we are stronger for being together. I think the same thing can happen to Europe, with time.

[fantastic flying froggies]

After yesterday's vote, I 'm thinking of moving to the States...

France has become a place of political extremes, where the far out left and right wings have gained enormous support...
I really fear for our democracy, as most of these parties have show in the past and in many places what they can do.

As a pro-european, I'm sad that France, one of the founders of modern Europe as has been mentionned in this thread already, decided to turn its back to a European future...

[andy m]

as i understand it, France voted no because the UK had too much power over the constitution and turned it into something that citizens of France could never vote for. i'm pro-europe personally as i am pro the disolution of all borders. burn all flags.

what a mess. large scale politics sucks - its impossible for anything to ever be achieved in this world because politicians have too much of a personal stake in issues that are basically inconsequential. rather than looking at what could be achieved for the future of world as a whole, they waste time bullshitting and pandering to the insecurities of electorates that only want a comfortable life for themselves and fuck everyone else. politicians niggle over the tiniest of tiny details, afraid that they will lose some irrelevant bit of power for themselves. and in doing so, they screw up hopes of ever getting anything useful done.

shitty.

[Tara]

After yesterday's vote, I 'm thinking of moving to the States...

The same thing that I think everyday watchin' the situation in Italy.
Some days ago I was talking with my boyfriend about the real possibility to leave our country.

I can't stand what's going on here. Politically speaking the situation is hopeless. I don't want to talk about the current governament because everyone out there has an Idea of what's going on with berlusconi, and the thing would be too long; what really let me think is that there isn't a valid and strong alternative to the courrent governament even if everything could be better than that...

Moreover people really sucks. Everyone is just interested in soccer, dress, fashion, car and similar bullshit... and at least nowdays situation doen't seem will change.
:(

[MIJB#19]

The most important element in the 'no' from France means that people more than ever are talking about whether Europe wants or needs a united constitution. Besides, a 'no' today doesn't mean a 'no' forever. The hard foundation of the Union is less than 15 years old.

I think the timing of the referenda in France and especially in the Netherlands about the EU come at a bad timing. Confidence in the government and politics, as well as the unbalanced media bias towards 'yes or we are losers', and not to mention the recent expansion with relative poor countries.

Current poll still show a 59% Dutch 'nee' on Wednesday.
The big parties' politicians are not taking their voters serious, all they say is 'vote yes, because we have to'. The confindence in politics is at an all-time low after the national bank disclosed that we lost 10% of our money with the arrival of the Euro. And hearing how the Dutch people are being the biggest payers, doesn't do any good to see us lose power about how our country should be ruled. Pay more for less power, that can't be the right combo to get people warmed up to vote pro-EU.

[MIJB#19]

How's this: in the new constution, if a number of countries who represent 35% of the population (about 160M+), they can still veto. That means that a trio of the big four (Germany, France, UK, Italy) can still veto. In fact, if France and Germany are against something, they only need the support of one big country (including Spain and Poland) or a duo from the 8M+ populated countries.

The other side of the table is that to get something done, at least 55% of the total countries need to agree. That means that at least 2 countries of less than 6M have to agree, even if all the countries above 6M agree. Theoretically, 93% of the population can be pro and still come short one country.

Given that, where's the power? For renewal, the small countries are required to be pro, the big countries are needed to be against. Given that, in the end, the vote of the representation of the six biggest countries will be crucial, but not entirely.

[AlexB]

I'm very happy at the 'non' vote: we've just gone too far down the road of centralised European government without the public being asked directly often enough.

The UK MEPs are/have been generally people who couldn;t hack it in domestic politics (Kinnock, Lawson, Mandelson, Kilroy Silk all spring to mind) which doesn;t exactly inspire you, and the government have signed away our rights to govern ourselves not just without asking us but often without even telling us! (e.g. to govern our non-EU immigration is a recent biggie)

In my opinion, which people may or may not agree with, a Europe-wide agreement should be a trade agreement only and not centralised government based - there is just too much variance for common economic policies in particular to work across the board: the economies of the three considered powerhouses UK/France/Germany differ greatly from each other (e.g. Germany's economy actually doesn;t meet the EU criteria!) and when compared to countries more recently admitted like Turkey and Latvia for example, there is no way a single policy can cover every country and yet still be a workable policy with clear definition and goals.

Hopefully this vote will stop the descent into this monster, and allow people to work on a mutually beneficial trading agreement (which is where the EC worked) but countries retaining their independence and right to govern themselves.

Anyway, that's my tuppence worth :p

[Desnudo]

I believe the EU is a secret French plot to enslave the English and put them to work in vineyards and art galleries.

[AlexB]

Could be... but then why would they vote no? Personally, if this was the case, and I assume you have this on high authority, I'm even more relieved as I don't like wine, and I've only ever been to two or three art galleries! ;) (they were surprisingly impressive though)

[Bubba Wheels]

Who knew?

[MrBigglesworth]

The other side of the table is that to get something done, at least 55% of the total countries need to agree. That means that at least 2 countries of less than 6M have to agree, even if all the countries above 6M agree. Theoretically, 93% of the population can be pro and still come short one country.
That's not that strange, that could easily happen in the United States Senate.

[MIJB#19]

That's not that strange, that could easily happen in the United States Senate.I wasn't saying it was strange or not.
Besides, why should this be compared to the USA's Senate? If this is an argument of saying "if it works in the USA, it can work for the EU", then I really think it's a very weak argument to be pro-constitution. I honestly don't see much of a resemblance of the EU being a sort of USA. There is no way you can tell me the States in the USA have the kind of seperate and joint history the European countries have.

[MrBigglesworth]

I wasn't saying it was strange or not.
Besides, why should this be compared to the USA's Senate? If this is an argument of saying "if it works in the USA, it can work for the EU", then I really think it's a very weak argument to be pro-constitution. I honestly don't see much of a resemblance of the EU being a sort of USA. There is no way you can tell me the States in the USA have the kind of seperate and joint history the European countries have.
I was just giving an example of how government consisting of representation by political entities instead of representation by number of people can work. I think it is an apt comparison because at the time of the formation of our country, the smaller states were worried about being run over by the more populous states. Back then people thought of themselves more as 'Virginians' or 'Pennsylvanians' rather than 'Americans'. I would imagine that that is the worry in Europe, right? In the US we came up with the compromise of the Senate, where smaller states would have equal representation. The larger states gave up some of their representation rights, and in return they got the inclusion of the smaller states.

[MIJB#19]

I was just giving an example of how government consisting of representation by political entities instead of representation by number of people can work. I think it is an apt comparison because at the time of the formation of our country, the smaller states were worried about being run over by the more populous states. Back then people thought of themselves more as 'Virginians' or 'Pennsylvanians' rather than 'Americans'. I would imagine that that is the worry in Europe, right? In the US we came up with the compromise of the Senate, where smaller states would have equal representation. The larger states gave up some of their representation rights, and in return they got the inclusion of the smaller states.It does sound similair, but I honestly doubt that the 'Virginians' and 'Pennsylvanians' had the historical belief of being a country that once was a world dominating country and has it's own unique constitution after hard fought battles with neighbouring countries to call the land they have their own. But if I'm wrong there, please correct me.

[Bee]

I believe the EU is a secret French plot to enslave the English and put them to work in vineyards and art galleries.

If that's the case, I'm all for it.

[AlexB]

I was just giving an example of how government consisting of representation by political entities instead of representation by number of people can work. I think it is an apt comparison because at the time of the formation of our country, the smaller states were worried about being run over by the more populous states. Back then people thought of themselves more as 'Virginians' or 'Pennsylvanians' rather than 'Americans'. I would imagine that that is the worry in Europe, right? In the US we came up with the compromise of the Senate, where smaller states would have equal representation. The larger states gave up some of their representation rights, and in return they got the inclusion of the smaller states.

On the surface this would appear to be true, but while peole would have been Virginians/Pennsylvanians for 100 years or so, we're talking about countries with over 2000 years worth of history, wars, hatreds, etc - the divisions and identies are far more evolved in Europe.

[cuervo72]

It does sound similair, but I honestly doubt that the 'Virginians' and 'Pennsylvanians' had the historical belief of being a country that once was a world dominating country and has it's own unique constitution after hard fought battles with neighbouring countries to call the land they have their own. But if I'm wrong there, please correct me.

Hard to believe the Dutch can believe the 'dominating' part. :p

(I know, we're talking 500 years ago)

[Klinglerware]

English will likely never be the dominant language. We're about 5 years away from a universal translator being available to pretty much anybody, which will ensure the survival of different languages.

Wasn't that on "The Last Starfighter"?

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I'm very happy at the 'non' vote: we've just gone too far down the road of centralised European government without the public being asked directly often enough.


I'm all for a strong EU, but I agree with the French vote on this basis. We don't get a lot of EU coverage here, and what we get is almost entirely superficial, but my impression is that it's a huge bureaucratic mess and not terribly democratic. It's democratic in the sense of nations having a voice, but is several layers removed from the public. In order for the EU to become more like the US of E they'll need more direct voter participation (electing representatives and such) like the US. Hopefully that is what will come out of the 'no' vote...

The huge history of wars in Europe created healthy rivalries between the countries and those won't be easy to overcome

You can't tell me it's worse than Ohio State - Michigan. :p

[MIJB#19]

The results of the Dutch advisory referendum? In a record turnout (aside from the four-yearly house of representatives votings) of 62.8 percent, there was an overwhelming, unexpected big loss for the European constitution with 38.4% pro and 61.6% against. The government has already declared to listen to the people and to not ratify the European constitution, despite having the power to overrule the referendum. Note that about 85% of the house of representatives would have voted pro-Europe (127 of 150 seats).

I think if even the Dutch people are against, something must be definately wrong with either the European constitution, with the way how the EU is being ruled over or with the way the constitution ihas been promoted. It's obvious now that people won't buy the "Vote pro or be a moron" argument that all of the 5 biggest parties in the country used. That said, I honestly believe that had this voting taken place 4 years earlier, the people would have voted pro-Europe, there's been a weird tone going around in the country, which has been supported by the whole spectre of the media. Big party politicians gladly took advantage, thinking this is the way to get people to vote for them. But if people vote on 'the lesser of three evils' or even ignore the traditional big3 parties (Labor, Christian Democrats, Liberals), something is not right. The recent EU related news has all about the Dutch being the big losers on the power and money scales, that's not helping.

[Alf]

MIJB, that's kinda funny, as the "Vote Yes or you're a moron" argument was one of the french political partys too....

Assholes !

[MIJB#19]

Some parties that were pro now start claiming the whole European constitution wasn't a good proposal and the content was the reason why people voted against. Get real, hypocrites! Nobody knew the content, the big political parties failed to explain the content, couldn't kill the perpecption of this being big6 countries friendly. The small and extreme parties (Socialists, Extremer Christians, Pim Fortuyn-ists) won because nobody trusted the real leaders, felt like we're getting sold out after getting screwed with getting the Euro, felt things are going too fast and we're not ready or simply couldn't vote pro something they never laid an eye on.

[Klinglerware]

there was an overwhelming, unexpected big loss for the European constitution with 38.4% pro and 61.6% against.


Unexpected? It was polling this way for weeks...

While this constitution vote was probably doomed to failure (this vote probably would have gone a little better for the constitution supporters if the vote took place before the eastern European expansion), I doubt this is really going to stop the drive to further integration. The EU has shown a tendency to ignore national referenda in the past...

[MIJB#19]

Unexpected? It was polling this way for weeks...

While this constitution vote was probably doomed to failure (this vote probably would have gone a little better for the constitution supporters if the vote took place before the eastern European expansion), I doubt this is really going to stop the drive to further integration. The EU has shown a tendency to ignore national referenda in the past...Now tell me, who's living in the Netherlands here? Unexpected overwhelming victory for 'against' it is.

Seriously, the reliable polls were (as if they exist in times of subjective media) were pointing to a close race. 62-38 was higher than anticipated, with the turnout far above 50, there were more people against than people who didn't vote, I still call it unexpected big.

That European constitution will get there one way or another pretty soon, but as I said, the timing of the referendum was very bad in the Netherlands. Faith in politics is at an all-time low, we found out we were screwed by getting the Euro only a month ago and we were told we're contributing the most per head of the country to the EU. Those are not the reasons I voted against, but it really matters. Reason or not, having had this before the expansion to 25 could have helped, but not much. The power of the big5 (Poland is new) would have been even bigger and that wouldn't have helped to get a 'yes' from the dutch, 'we' don't want to be ruled by the French, Germans and the UK.

[Klinglerware]

Now tell me, who's living in the Netherlands here? Unexpected overwhelming victory for 'against' it is.

Seriously, the reliable polls were (as if they exist in times of subjective media) were pointing to a close race. 62-38 was higher than anticipated, with the turnout far above 50, there were more people against than people who didn't vote, I still call it unexpected big.


I meant no disrespect, MIJB. I made the claim that it wasn't unexpected since the polling in the weeks prior to the vote showed a 20 point spread, consistent with the final vote...

[MIJB#19]

I meant no disrespect, MIJB. I made the claim that it wasn't unexpected since the polling in the weeks prior to the vote showed a 20 point spread, consistent with the final vote...No problem, I exaggerated a little bit, but it was supposed to go by with an eye-wink. Maybe I should have stated that the unexpected part of the entire event was probably that the obscure polling bureaus were dead-on with the final voting results.

'No' winning was the consensus for weeks indeed, but I actually had belief that the political figures would be able to talk the majority into a 'yes' vote. The simply didn't act until the polls were 60-40 like and it turned into a hopeless race against time, with just about 10 days to go to win the people over. Even a historical coalition of the Labour-Christian Democrates-Liberals and the next two biggest parties couldn't safe the EU constition. And now they know they're screwed as the turnout was very big and this calls for more referenda on very important issues in the future.

[judicial clerk]

This is quite fascinating. I have not been paying much attention to all of this, but I will do so now. Some thoughts:

-I don't think a united Europe will ever be the same as the USA (or China) and it shouldn't be expected. The entities are created under completely different processes and with completely different histories. I see the EU evolving into something stronger than the UN and about as powerful as the Confederate States of America central government, but never with a central government as strong as in the USA.

-If I were one of the smaller countries, I would hold out and block centralization of power until I got all the concessions I could from the bigger players, because every bit of power and control you give up to the EU is going to be lost forever. I would demand a split of power based on state (and not population) that goes way further than the US federal government's bicameral legislature. It seems so crazy to think that the Dutch (or whoever) are going to have to do what France and Germany tell them to do.

-I think taking a slow and cautious approach to this type of change is the better way to go. Is there a reason that European countries need to centralize governmental authority in the near future? I can't think of any. Wanting to be a superpower like the USA sound like a horrible, prideful reason. Take your time and let the US carry the water.

-All of this is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic anyway. Europe is old, creaky, and irrelevant. The course of the world in the 21st century is going to be decided in the Pacific Rim (and India). I for one welcome our Chinese Overlords. (just kidding. Go Europe!)

[Klinglerware]

-I think taking a slow and cautious approach to this type of change is the better way to go. Is there a reason that European countries need to centralize governmental authority in the near future? I can't think of any. Wanting to be a superpower like the USA sound like a horrible, prideful reason. Take your time and let the US carry the water.


All excellent points about what a united Europe may look like.

I'm not sure the pro-integration Europeans really want to create another superpower. But they do want to increase Europe's effective power via resource pooling and strategy coordination to better meet their policy goals--that is not vanity or pride, it is smart foreign policy strategy.

If the European countries can somehow coordinate itheir foreign policy, that would give them more leverage in world affairs than if those countries were acting individually. This is not so important now, but Russia is revitalizing and East Asia seems destined to emerge--the Europeans will stand a better chance in defending their interests and remaining relevant in the coming decades if they pool their capacities...

[fantastic flying froggies]

I couln't have put it better Klingerware.
You've hit right on the head all the reasons why I am in favor of a united Europe.

[MIJB#19]

FFF, I am in favor of more European based foreign affairs, but there were elements in this proposed constitution that made me think this was not a good plan to do.

To be honest, I'm not even sure what it's all about, but as long as we get vote on something and we don't know what we're voting on, I'm not going to be pro. And most of all, I trust the political party and leader I voted for the past years and they were clearly against the current proposal, yet they are not against a united Europe.

[AlexB]

-If I were one of the smaller countries, I would hold out and block centralization of power until I got all the concessions I could from the bigger players, because every bit of power and control you give up to the EU is going to be lost forever. I would demand a split of power based on state (and not population) that goes way further than the US federal government's bicameral legislature. It seems so crazy to think that the Dutch (or whoever) are going to have to do what France and Germany tell them to do.



This argument IMHO is even more applicable for the larger countries, or at least for the UK (I don't know enough about other countries polical psyches to comment on their behalf).

Why, after years of being an independent country, with a relatively stable and successful economy (and yes, I appreciate we've not been a true superpower since WWI) do we want to relinquish control to a Europe of whom none of the member countries have had the prolonged stability of ourselves? The most stable and successful Eurpoean country that springs to mind is Switzerland, and they don't want a part of it either - that says quite a lot to me in itself...

Trade agreements: definitely yes; I can see the case for more closely linked foreign policy; but I do not see why these benefits require centralised government and economic policy.

[MIJB#19]

It's appliciable to all countries:

* The 6 big countries (Germany, UK, France, Italy, Spain, Poland) have no power to get something done based on their population alone, they always require 10+ smaller countries to agree, no matter their population.

* The remaining countries have no power at all, they need the population of 4 big countries to get something done. Maybe the Netherlands (16M) and the 5-11M population countries have a bit more power, but not much as the total population figure required is 65% of about 500M.

And all members can't block anything on their own anymore.

[digamma]

-Is there a reason that European countries need to centralize governmental authority in the near future? I can't think of any.
To fulfill Biblical prophecies?