It is important to keep the veto option, but I would change the rule to make it so that two full security council countries are needed to veto a bill. This would get around the problem of one country blackmailing the others.

So what you are saying is that frankly, The conitnents should have one vote each right? They should be able to sort it out internaly?

Africa one vote, Asia one Vote, South America one vote, The arab countries one vote, hey they should be able to to figure it out internaly right?

Sorry, but the EU is not like the US, it is a pact of agreement concerning mostly trades and an open market for the countries that signs the contracts. And if EU should get one vote, the former Yoguslavian countries should get how many votes? NAd should they loose that vote once they are members of an market trade?

Without either veto´s or each country one vote you will get nowhere. US has a Veto as do Russia, fairly simple, two great powers that on their own could change the turn out events anyway if they like to.

But don´t do the mistake to bunch the EU members into one country. Nor do we act like a state either, it is on proposal but there are few regarding that proposal as something real yet.

Well, I think you're taking it to the extreme Wolfgir.

I really think the US-style compromise is a good model. If it's one nation one vote you can get a situation where the vote of 10 million people counts equally to that of 300 million. Same is true with GDP comparisons. That seems inequitable. But, simply having more people in your nation doesn't seem a fair sole factor, either.

The US solved the problem by having two houses: Senate (2 votes per state) and House (votes based on population). Seems a better solution that just choosing one system or the other. I'm sure their are other such compromises possible. I think this was an issue in setting up the EU structure, but don't recall how. What's Canada's legislative structure?

<font color="#ffccff">I have never once heard anyone talking about a North American Currency or ID. Where did this idea come from? I know I occasionally leave the country for business now and then, but Im sure I would have heard of that....</font>

A ludicrous premise and a ludicrous poll. I take it that if the EU is a single entity that there aren't 30,000 British troops ready to attack Iraq?

But how do you REALLY feel, Donut you flamer? :D :D

I don´t Timber.
My reaction would at least show you that I think YOU that are talking about EU as a common country are taking it far to the extreme.

The system you describe wouldn´t work. If it would, many countries would have really big issues with their EU memberships and leave, regardless of the initial costs (well a speculation, but pretty biased on the latest gallup).

Timber why does America suddanly have a problem with democracy, first you had the embarrasment of bush being *cough* voted in by some stange accounting methods :rolleyes: then they have a problem with a couple of nations daring to disagree with them on Iraq. as though thier opinions and vote should not be allowed. Frustrating it may well be but that is democracy!

And I notice your hint that maybe someway of taking gdp or population into account when counting the votes might be worth looking at.
Does america now have a system where a vote from the poor inner city or country areas is less of a vote than those of the richer suburbs.
Or on population size, India and china together would be a formidable voting block. and where is the incentive for population control(coming from an enviromently aware lawyer? [img]graemlins/stunned.gif[/img] )

Don't change the rules of the game because you are not winning

Timber, you may look at it with a lawyer's point of view, but you completely overlook all that the concept of "nation" represents. I'll say it again, a nation is a group of people sharing a unity of language, history and culture, a unity whose roots plunge deep in a centuries-old common experience of living together.

Didn't it occur to you that all the different languages reflect deep cultural and historical differences ?

Hey, when I told my Mum I had met a Swedish friend here on IW and was going to spend two weeks of vacation with my family at his summer place, she was finding it weird because 400 years ago, the French king had hired Swedish troops against what was then the Duchy of Lorraine, her ancestors' country (which is now part of France since the wedding of the last Duke's daughter with the French king Louis XV), and those Swedish troops massacred lots of people ! My Mum told me "when I was a child, we didn't like Swedes" - because of 400 years old events ... You telling me the traces history left in human minds are all wiped out and we are all now a big loving family ? ;)

So far, I have travelled to Switzerland, Germany, England, Ireland, Spain, Italy and Sweden. I have seen with my own eyes and ears how much we are culturally different - it shows in cities, buildings, music, painting, language, behavior, humour, climate, lanscapes, ...

I once read a book written by Germaine Tillon, a famous anthropologist and sociologist. She said once she went to a village and she saw everyone crying. She asked why. She was told that a village girl was going away to marry a foreigner. The "foreigner" turned out to be a man from a nearby village, 30 km ago ! That was at the beginning of the 20th century ... ;)

I have helped my Mum to make our family tree. In France, archives allow us to track our ancestors down to around 1600. I have seen that before 1800, NONE of my ancestors has moved from the village they were born in. Does it give you an inkling of why the concept of a common French nation has been so long to take root ? And why you don't have at all the same conception of distances as we used to have for centuries ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Nah, Timber, maybe it is because your country is younger than ours are, but you are wanting too much too soon. Wait a couple of centuries and come back saying the EU is one nation, maybe it will be closer to reality then. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Should the US keep it's constitution or scrap it for the UN Charter?
The US should keep its Constitution and allow as little sovereignty erosion to the UN as possible.
Should all nations submit to the rule of the UN?
Nope. A bunch of tin pot dictators and democracies sitting cheek by jowl is too unstable and poorly conceived to weild such power.
Does it make sense for some nations to have greater influence in the UN?
Well, duh. In any international setting, the nation with the most powerful armed forces will be listened to most attentively.
Should the EU have only a single vote in the UN?
I think the EU should be around a lot longer before the individual nations shed their sovereignty to this extent. Though it would serve them right. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Should the US just pull out of the UN all together? No, but we should pay a lot less dues.