EurActiv: Big member states 'backing out of EU', warns Hungary FM (27 April 2009 )
Balázs, who is a former EU commissioner, said that large member states were looking to "strengthen" the role of other institutions as alternative decision-making fora. The foreign minister said Germany had been working "to seize economic institutions and to strengthen the G20" since 2007. In line with views recently expressed by Belgian Foreign Minister Karel de Gucht (EurActiv 21/04/09), he argued that the aim of such actions was to leave smaller EU member states "behind", with larger members preferring to deal with states that have "similar influence and weight".
The foreign minister said Germany had been working "to seize economic institutions and to strengthen the G20" since 2007.
In line with views recently expressed by Belgian Foreign Minister Karel de Gucht (EurActiv 21/04/09), he argued that the aim of such actions was to leave smaller EU member states "behind", with larger members preferring to deal with states that have "similar influence and weight".
With just a year to go until the Belgian EU Presidency, the country's foreign minister denounced the functioning of the Union, which he said is increasingly governed by an "executive board of big countries". Speaking on Monday (20 April) at the opening of an annual diplomatic conference in Brussels, Karel de Gucht said Belgium would make full use of its presidency in the second half of 2010 to re-establish the EU institutional balance, which he said was in "danger". "It is absolutely unacceptable that small groups of member states put in danger the normal institutional process," de Gucht said. "Belgium has the duty of trying as quickly as possible to re-establish the institutional balance."
Speaking on Monday (20 April) at the opening of an annual diplomatic conference in Brussels, Karel de Gucht said Belgium would make full use of its presidency in the second half of 2010 to re-establish the EU institutional balance, which he said was in "danger".
"It is absolutely unacceptable that small groups of member states put in danger the normal institutional process," de Gucht said. "Belgium has the duty of trying as quickly as possible to re-establish the institutional balance."
In Europe, due to political competition between countries, it is tradionnally difficult to have a strongly regulated policy (each country tend to prefer it's own version of "strongly regulated", which hurts the neighbourg's pride/interests/tactic).
In this context, deregulatory policies were a win win solution: when you wwouldn't accept to comply with your opponent rules, you will accept to cancel all rules. What has not been apparent was that this behaviour was really hurting EU hability to keep its policy under its citizen's (or governement) control, giving instead the power to rich private interests from all over the world.
My analysis is that the EU lacked a political will all these years, because no political personal was ready to give up on sovereignty.(and the last decision about packaging rules is typical: a common "regulated" rule is given up for the sake of a few private interests).
EU is political, it is about creating a federal state, and some people don't want it (UK, Sweden, Eastern europe). So: is there anybody to accept that division? Is there any political debate about this? No. And time is running short for years. I'm interpreting the 2005 fiasco as the "stop everything" from voters tired of not knowing the actual direction for EU.
I hope I'm explaining myself... A free fox in a free henhouse!
