Confused yet? If you are, you have something in common with a lot of the "Eurocrats" in Brussels. Since the Nice Treaty (and its unilateral rejection by voters at a national referendum in Ireland), the Commission has taken a new strategy to try to get its way. This new strategy involves creating another treaty: this one would be a Constitution for Europe.
Why all these documents? Is the Treaty of Rome so flawed that it and its successor interpretations should be eliminated from validation? And for what substitute? More federalism? Less federalism? A new name for the entity? The speculation and dithering are endless.
Basically the questions are those of small states versus large states, applicant member states versus existing member states, maintaining or relaxing the euro-zone budget criteria, policy coordination and diversion, how to pay for and integrate the new members, and what to do about admitting Turkey to the organization.
The first "we don't like this!" complaint came from the larger member states when they learned the Commission via the Amsterdam Treaty would limit its representation to one Commissioner per state. Until then the five largest states each received two Commission posts. The smaller states liked this more equitable form of representation; larger states completely despised it because they thought it diminished their authority and influence on the Commission. Some states also disliked the Amsterdam Treaty because it reintroduced qualified majority voting. Obviously the balance of power was shifting in a very significant way.
One simple reality of the Commission's structure is that after expansion, the entity will have twenty-five members. Only so many portfolios can be created to accomodate the increasing membership. The perpetual "we never get an important portfolio!" whining will persist.
After the entire Commission resigned in 1999 because of corruption, the Commission reshuffle was shelved temporarily as the dominant enlargement gripe. Concerns turned to the more tangible issue of introducing the euro. After the euro was introduced, it became clear that (shock of shocks!) some states did not play straight with their deficits data. Amid all this number crunching, all the member states tried to ensure they received their share of the agriculture and other subsidies. Reapportionment and new standards to allocate these subsidies comprise most of Agenda 2000's more than five thousand pages of information. Apparently the desire for "wine lakes and butter mountains" is still very much alive and well.
Go To Page: 1 2
