the back burner

France's GDP ($1.6 trillion) is larger than most of Eastern Europe put together. The UK's is the same size, and Germany's is 50% larger than either ($2.2 trillion). Stick Germany, France, the UK, and Italy ($1.5 trillion) together and you've got a combined economy of around $7 trillion. (The US's economy is about $11 trillion, for comparison's sake.) Also for comparison, Poland, the most economically robust Eastern European nation, has an GDP of $430-odd billion. That's an order of magnitude less than any of the major Western European nations. Latvia's is only $23 billion. Stick all of Eastern Europe together and you'd still fall short of any one of the big guys.

There isn't equality in the EU because the countries aren't equal. At all. There's no reason that Slovokia should be as well represented as Germany. Fewer people, less land, and far less economic influence. Which means far less money paid into EU coffers. You get what you pay for, i.e. you get what you can afford.

If you aren't already, you should keep an eye on Ukraine in the next few days. Major constitutional crisis time.

And no, that link doesn't work.

In other news, this means that Wal-Mart has more revenue in a given year that a significant chunk of Eastern Europe. Sheesh.

I read that article too :)

While it's always fun to accuse the EU of inequality between Member States and though it's generally true, that's not the main issue here. The issue really and truly is the approval process. The EP doesn't approve commissioners in groups or as individuals (which would make the most sense), it approves the Commission as a whole -- one group of twenty-five. Which is completely inefficient, but it has something to do with balance of power between the institutions. The Commission is already starting three weeks late thanks to earlier hold-ups.

Speaking of which -- it was Latvia and Italy that had to nominate new commissioners. Hungary's commissioner only got reshuffled to a different portfolio. There is no difference in application of process.

Inequality in the Commission is more a matter of who gets which portfolio, who already has a household name, etc. It's fairly straightfoward otherwise: one country = one commissioner = some amount of equlaity between states. It's actually weird to have so much equality in the executive branch to begin with. This, of course, is explained by the fact that the EU is not a country; it is composed of countries. That can change the way that 'equality' works -- though I would still give the EU a little more credit where equality is concerned than ryan does. But I agree about Ukraine.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Ooooh. Thanks, Ryan. I completely forgot to think about the economics. There's some interesting potential in Eastern Europe, isn't there? I won't say "a lot," because economists haven't really settled on that issue. Come to think of it, people are also divided on whether or not helping to develop that potential (say, by fostering some sort of political "equality") is an investment or a threat for the mroe developed economies of Western Europe. In fact, the whole discussion makes a lot of people angry.

And blast! I don't know WHY that link isn't working. I keep tinkering with it...

Thanks for the 4-1-1, Erin. Come to think of it, I'm not sure what differences there are between the branches of the EU. That's one of my next questions.

erin: the reason I'm a bit cynical about equality is that I don't really feel the need for it. People and countries may be equal in moral ontology, but not in size, ability, skill, resources, power, etc., and this isn't a bad thing, it just is. As such, trying to push for equal representation amongst nations is silly.

Bob: potential? Perhaps. But only if Eastern Europe moves away from Russia and towards the West. Putin is currently the head of a massive farce: Russia is democratic in name only, and elections exist to validate the decisions of those in power. Corruption is rampant, liberty scarce, and prosperity fleeting.

chechnya comes to mind, for some reason.

Ryan: Of course absolute equality between Member States doesn't exist. Equality between Member States is not a fact; it is a principle. It is a principle on which the EU is based and, unless you're European, your feelings about the need for it really don't matter.

I just think that there are sexier and more relevant things to be cynical about if you want to be cynical about the EU. Smaller and poorer states might make a fuss when larger, richer states are given special treatment by the EU, but for the most part they are very pro-EU and they gain a lot from membership. Besides, Eastern Europe has Western Europe (except Ireland) beat hands down when it comes to growth of GDP, which will be more important in the long-run anyway.

Concerning growth: correct, but it's a lot easier to attain double-digit growth in a $23 billion economy than it is in a $2.2 trillion economy. This kind of growth isn't sustainable. They'll reach a certain level of development and level off just like everyone else.

And there are much better things to be pessimistic about concerning the EU. For example, the growing Franco-German alliance that is growing increasingly anti-American in their foreign policy.