Those pesky Poles

Gość: Economist Re: Those pesky Poles IP: *.sympatico.ca 28.11.03, 15:51

Charlemagne

Those pesky Poles

Nov 27th 2003
From The Economist print edition

In which old members offer new ones some lessons in negotiation

SELFISH, greedy, nationalistic, unEuropean. Not France or Germany, you
understand, which have just upset the European Commission and many smaller
countries by riding roughshod over the euro's stability pact. No, these insults
are being heaped on the poor Poles, as the tortuous negotiations over a new
constitution for the European Union lurch towards a conclusion. What have the
Poles done to deserve such odium?

The problem is that they are fighting like alley cats for what they see as
their national interests. Siren voices in Brussels, Paris and Berlin are
warning the Polish government that it is making a terrible mistake. It is a
newcomer to the club and has failed to understand its essential feature:
the “culture of compromise”. All countries must occasionally sacrifice their
national interests to serve the greater European cause. Poland must realise
this great truth and buckle under, before it harms both the EU and itself.

The biggest issue causing grief is the proposal in the draft constitution to
adopt a new voting system. Under the putative “double majority”, a law would be
passed if it won the support of a majority of EU countries, representing 60% of
the total population. This would replace the system agreed upon at a summit in
Nice in December 2000, in which countries were awarded “weighted votes”. Under
the Nice formula, Germany, with a population of over 80m, gets 29 votes, the
same number as France, Britain and Italy, each of which has a population of
roughly 60m. Poland and Spain, with populations of some 40m each, get 27 votes
apiece. In their more candid moments, even the Poles recognise that this system
is bizarrely advantageous to them. As a Polish minister once confided to your
correspondent, “We have a population half the size of Germany's and an economy
about a tenth the size, and yet we get 27 votes to their 29. We would be crazy
to turn down a deal like that.”

The EU was certainly crazy to offer a deal like that. That it came up with such
a strange voting system was the result of the politics and panic of the moment.
Double majority was proposed at Nice, but France, which held the EU presidency
at that time, refused to accept the system because it gave Germany relatively
more power. The Poles, who were not even at the table in Nice, were the happy
beneficiaries of a combination of French intransigence and Spanish negotiating
skills.

There is no doubt that “double majority” is more democratic and more
comprehensible than the Nice formula. But the Poles have respectable arguments
for sticking to their position. The Polish people have just voted to join the
EU in a referendum, based on the terms offered to them at Nice. Now, after the
vote, and just a few months before Poland's formal entry next May, the EU is
belatedly trying to retract its offer. The switch to double majority was
proposed by the Convention on the Future of Europe in June, which claimed to be
an open and democratic exercise. But the new voting system was decided upon at
the last minute by the convention's presidium (steering committee), on which
there was no Polish representative. Even at the time, the Poles and the Spanish
made it clear they did not accept the idea.

Dogs in mangers
But, beyond the negotiating intricacies, don't the Poles have a moral
obligation to accept that Nice is plain silly and that double majority would be
better? Surely the EU should be about more than “what we have, we hold”? In an
ideal world, undoubtedly. But all the huffing by current members of the EU
about the need to think of the “European interest” would be more convincing if
they were to apply the same principle to themselves. Where is the European
interest in the Franco-German decision to trash the stability pact, simply
because the French and Germans cannot control their budget deficits? Where is
the European interest in France's dogged defence of the wasteful and
protectionist common agricultural policy, which just happens to shovel huge
wads of cash to French farmers? Where is the European interest in Britain's
insistence on keeping its budget rebate, no matter what? Or in Spain's
relentless determination to cling on to a disproportionate share of EU regional
aid?

The Poles, however, are newcomers, and relatively poor at that. As a result,
they seem to be expected to mind their manners and just be grateful for all the
EU money that will soon head their way. Even when current members try to sound
sympathetic, their attitude is deeply condescending. Viscount Etienne Davignon,
a Belgian former vice-president of the European Commission, and the epitome of
the EU's great and good, says: “We have to remember that the Poles have only
recently regained their national sovereignty and are new to the European Union.
It takes many years of membership before people really understand how Europe
works.” The notion that the Poles and the other seven central European
countries that are joining next year (along with Malta and Cyprus) might just
possibly have ideas that are as valid as those of the six “founder members” is
apparently too fanciful to contemplate.

The fact is that the entry of Poland into the EU is profoundly unsettling to
traditionalists. European integration began with Franco-German reconciliation
after the second world war. The EU's main institutions are still strung out
along the Franco-German borderlands, in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg.
For French and German politicians, it is axiomatic that their relationship
should remain the fulcrum around which the EU revolves. But enlargement will
shift the centre of gravity. The decision of the Poles (and most other central
Europeans) to take a pro-American line over Iraq went down particularly badly
in France, prompting Jacques Chirac's now infamous remark that the newcomers
had “missed a good opportunity to shut up”. Now that the constitutional
negotiations are reaching a crunch, the Poles are again being invited to “shut
up”. So far, they have declined the invitation. How very shocking.

Drzewko
Od najstarszego
Od najnowszego

Gość: Economist Re: Those pesky Poles IP: *.sympatico.ca 28.11.03, 15:51

Charlemagne

Those pesky Poles

Nov 27th 2003
From The Economist print edition

In which old members offer new ones some lessons in negotiation

SELFISH, greedy, nationalistic, unEuropean. Not France or Germany, you
understand, which have just upset the European Commission and many smaller
countries by riding roughshod over the euro's stability pact. No, these insults
are being heaped on the poor Poles, as the tortuous negotiations over a new
constitution for the European Union lurch towards a conclusion. What have the
Poles done to deserve such odium?

The problem is that they are fighting like alley cats for what they see as
their national interests. Siren voices in Brussels, Paris and Berlin are
warning the Polish government that it is making a terrible mistake. It is a
newcomer to the club and has failed to understand its essential feature:
the “culture of compromise”. All countries must occasionally sacrifice their
national interests to serve the greater European cause. Poland must realise
this great truth and buckle under, before it harms both the EU and itself.

The biggest issue causing grief is the proposal in the draft constitution to
adopt a new voting system. Under the putative “double majority”, a law would be
passed if it won the support of a majority of EU countries, representing 60% of
the total population. This would replace the system agreed upon at a summit in
Nice in December 2000, in which countries were awarded “weighted votes”. Under
the Nice formula, Germany, with a population of over 80m, gets 29 votes, the
same number as France, Britain and Italy, each of which has a population of
roughly 60m. Poland and Spain, with populations of some 40m each, get 27 votes
apiece. In their more candid moments, even the Poles recognise that this system
is bizarrely advantageous to them. As a Polish minister once confided to your
correspondent, “We have a population half the size of Germany's and an economy
about a tenth the size, and yet we get 27 votes to their 29. We would be crazy
to turn down a deal like that.”

The EU was certainly crazy to offer a deal like that. That it came up with such
a strange voting system was the result of the politics and panic of the moment.
Double majority was proposed at Nice, but France, which held the EU presidency
at that time, refused to accept the system because it gave Germany relatively
more power. The Poles, who were not even at the table in Nice, were the happy
beneficiaries of a combination of French intransigence and Spanish negotiating
skills.

There is no doubt that “double majority” is more democratic and more
comprehensible than the Nice formula. But the Poles have respectable arguments
for sticking to their position. The Polish people have just voted to join the
EU in a referendum, based on the terms offered to them at Nice. Now, after the
vote, and just a few months before Poland's formal entry next May, the EU is
belatedly trying to retract its offer. The switch to double majority was
proposed by the Convention on the Future of Europe in June, which claimed to be
an open and democratic exercise. But the new voting system was decided upon at
the last minute by the convention's presidium (steering committee), on which
there was no Polish representative. Even at the time, the Poles and the Spanish
made it clear they did not accept the idea.

Dogs in mangers
But, beyond the negotiating intricacies, don't the Poles have a moral
obligation to accept that Nice is plain silly and that double majority would be
better? Surely the EU should be about more than “what we have, we hold”? In an
ideal world, undoubtedly. But all the huffing by current members of the EU
about the need to think of the “European interest” would be more convincing if
they were to apply the same principle to themselves. Where is the European
interest in the Franco-German decision to trash the stability pact, simply
because the French and Germans cannot control their budget deficits? Where is
the European interest in France's dogged defence of the wasteful and
protectionist common agricultural policy, which just happens to shovel huge
wads of cash to French farmers? Where is the European interest in Britain's
insistence on keeping its budget rebate, no matter what? Or in Spain's
relentless determination to cling on to a disproportionate share of EU regional
aid?

The Poles, however, are newcomers, and relatively poor at that. As a result,
they seem to be expected to mind their manners and just be grateful for all the
EU money that will soon head their way. Even when current members try to sound
sympathetic, their attitude is deeply condescending. Viscount Etienne Davignon,
a Belgian former vice-president of the European Commission, and the epitome of
the EU's great and good, says: “We have to remember that the Poles have only
recently regained their national sovereignty and are new to the European Union.
It takes many years of membership before people really understand how Europe
works.” The notion that the Poles and the other seven central European
countries that are joining next year (along with Malta and Cyprus) might just
possibly have ideas that are as valid as those of the six “founder members” is
apparently too fanciful to contemplate.

The fact is that the entry of Poland into the EU is profoundly unsettling to
traditionalists. European integration began with Franco-German reconciliation
after the second world war. The EU's main institutions are still strung out
along the Franco-German borderlands, in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg.
For French and German politicians, it is axiomatic that their relationship
should remain the fulcrum around which the EU revolves. But enlargement will
shift the centre of gravity. The decision of the Poles (and most other central
Europeans) to take a pro-American line over Iraq went down particularly badly
in France, prompting Jacques Chirac's now infamous remark that the newcomers
had “missed a good opportunity to shut up”. Now that the constitutional
negotiations are reaching a crunch, the Poles are again being invited to “shut
up”. So far, they have declined the invitation. How very shocking.
- barwnic Re: Those pesky Poles 28.11.03, 16:23
  
  a deal is a deal, motherfuckers! To jest k. 'takie zachodnie', ze 'nikt wam rak
  nie wykrecal i bylo sie nie zgadzc". A teraz jak to sie do nich stosuje, to
  nagle 'to jest neetyczne, niemoralne, nieladne, niedobre'. Czy oni nie
  rozumieja ze nie byloby zadnego zrywu wiosny ludow jakby sie NA TO nie zgzili?!
  TO BYL WARUNEK tych pieknych zmian. A$$holes!
Gość: VIP-1 Re: Those pesky Poles IP: *.mt.sfl.net 28.11.03, 16:23

w gume tna i tyle
przed referendum naobiecywali
a tera zmiany dokonuja
no ale to nie pierwszy raz probuja Polske wyrolowac
tylko ze tym razem daja podstawy do wycofania sie
z tego "lewego" interesu i jakby w Polsce
ktos madrzejszy rzadzil to tak by zrobil
- barwnic Re: Those pesky Poles 28.11.03, 16:27
  
  ale nie zrobia bo przeciez grupa rzadzaca i przydupasy dostaja szmal, np
  stanowiska w UE.
  - Gość: VIP-1 Re: Those pesky Poles IP: *.mt.sfl.net 28.11.03, 16:32
    
    dokladnie, i dlatego znowu
    w h.ja ich zrobia
    - Gość: Economist Re: Those pesky Poles IP: *.sympatico.ca 28.11.03, 17:00
      
      Tez tak czuje, ze ich zrobia w tego ... . Polska jedzie do Unii ulica
      jednokierunkowa, tak ze zawracanie chyba nie ma. Podoba mi sie jednak, ze,
      przynajmniej na pozor,jada na walcu drogowym i troche napsuja krwi tym
      cwaniakom z Brukseli.
anieatak Re: Those pesky Poles 28.11.03, 17:05

znowu rzadkie gowno ktorym polacy sie interesuja..

kiedy nasz kraj sie zorientuje ze tam go w dupie maja..

kiedy ty sie sympatico zorientujesz ze ciebie tez..

economist..
najbardziej sztuczna, znaczy najbardziej dogmatyczna , nauka,

pierdole ich wykresy

Najnowsze z forum Z dala od Polski

Zaloguj się