I'll be frank.
I don't think Poland and the other teenie and insignificant countries in Europe should have the same power as the major countries in Europe like Germany, France, UK.
I see. So because Poland "only" has 38 million people, then it is a "teenie and insignificant"? And you do know how voting is done in the EU right?
The needs of Britain cannot be met if we have to cater to the tiny countries and yes, UK should reserve its right to veto as should Germany and France.
Why? You sound highly imperialistic here.. or is it based in some sort of xenophobia or racism? What makes the UK, France, Germany better than say Spain, Italy, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden or Poland?
UK pays alot into Europe.
Well. You pay a few billion pounds yes, but other countries pay more.. France and Germany for example. Italy pays almost as much as the UK. And if we go by per capita, 5ish nations pay more than the UK last I looked, and some MUCH more. So using this excuse is as debunked as Palin's foreign relations credentials.
More than Poland i'll bloody bet as well, we should have more say on what happens with that money otherwise if we get one vote and Poland gets one vote.
Okay.
First off any new voting system wont be put in place before 2014... thanks to Poland. Which mean you can thank Poland for not having a system in place that at present does not do what you basically want...
Secondly as it stands now, the UK has more votes in the Council of Europe than Poland.. because you have more people. It has always been like this and unless you wack off 30 million Brits then it will remain so.
Thirdly the requirements for passing stuff under Lisbon are quite complex to meet the various issues in the EU and are designed to protect the smaller countries from the big countries or one single big country from the others. For example, there is no simple majority of countries, but that those countries are at least 65% of the total EU population. And if there are 4 countries against an issue.. then it is blocked. If not all member states participate in the vote, then if the opposition is more than 35% of the population then the issue is blocked.
So yes, the UK has now and will have in the future more votes than Poland, just as you have more members of the EU parliament than Poland.
Make sure the same amount of money is taken from ALL countries. So if we are paying 4bn+. Those small countries should pay the same amount
And now you are being freaking childish. Sorry but why should Denmark pay 4 billion pounds with a population of 5 million people, when the UK has 60+ million? It makes zero sense. I can see the argument for paying the same per capita, but else it is just silly. As it stands now each country pays a sum to the EU depending on your GNI. This in turn means the bigger and better economy you have the more you pay. This is the same principle that funds the UN btw, and most international organisations. You pay what you can afford.
For example, the EU, including the UK, pumped billions into the Irish and Spanish economies back in the day. Today they are reaching and soon will (if not already) be net contributors to the union. Why? because there GNI has grown so much that the will be paying more into the EU than they are receiving.
btw, the biggest net gainer from the EU.. which country is that?
Now I understand that conservatives get rubbed the wrong way about "paying for others" principle, but that is how it is, whether it is internally in the UK or in the EU. London and the main cities have always paid in some way for the rural underfunded areas of the UK, whether it is for rail tracks or roads or what not.
The only real difference is that the EU actually gets stuff done when it comes to helping poor and under funded regions, where as national governments tend to sweep it under the rug.. Scotland and Wales are grinding examples in the UK along with Northern Ireland.
