EU Constitution Referendums

[CBL4]

IF YOU put something to the vote, it is foolish to predict that there will be a huge crisis if you lose. Unfortunately, Europe's leaders tend to be foolish, as the current hysteria about a possible French no to the EU's constitutional treaty on May 29th shows. Indeed, when some assert that a no will mean the end of Europe, one wonders not just about their judgment but about their belief in democracy. One aim of this constitution was to bring the EU closer to ordinary people. If the people choose to reject the result, should they be blamed—or the leaders who tried to sell them such an incomprehensible text?

As it happens, there are four weeks to go before the vote in France. Despite a string of negative polls, a yes remains possible. But there are at least eight referendums to come after this one, including a Dutch one three days later. To anybody but Europe's foolish leaders, this should make it obvious that they need to think of an alternative: a plan B. And it is equally obvious what such a plan B should be. If the present text proves unacceptable, the EU must go away and produce another that is shorter, simpler and sets out the distribution of powers more clearly—and is thus more readily saleable to voters.http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3910214

[BPSCG]

I don't believe the U.S. model is copyrighted... :D

[geni]

Originally posted by BPSCG
I don't believe the U.S. model is copyrighted... :D

Too much centeralistion of power and the church state seperation thing could cause problems.

[IllegalArgument]

Originally posted by geni
Too much centeralistion of power and the church state seperation thing could cause problems.

Pardon my ignorance. Why would church state seporation be a problem?

From everything I have read, the EU constitution sounds a lot like the Texas constitution, too big, too much detail, bound to be amended lot, if it ever gets ratified in the first place.

[geni]

Originally posted by IllegalArgument
Pardon my ignorance. Why would church state seporation be a problem?

Because a number of european countries have a state church


From everything I have read, the EU constitution sounds a lot like the Texas constitution, too big, too much detail, bound to be amended lot, if it ever gets ratified in the first place.

Problem is that if you try and put it together any other way countries will have even more fun interptiting it in different ways.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by geni
Too much centeralistion of power and the church state seperation thing could cause problems.
And way to centralistic on controversial areas such as foreign and military policy.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Kerberos
And way to centralistic on controversial areas such as foreign and military policy.

Military policy! Oh yes. The European Rapid Reaction Force :rolleyes:

This is the simple result of the Frog's dislike of the US and their desire to be the military leaders of Europe. Exactly what in modern military experience qualifies them to wear this crown? They havent done anything of note since the battle of the Marne!

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Military policy! Oh yes. The European Rapid Reaction Force :rolleyes:
Newsflash: The American constitution gives the federal governement responsibility for raising armies, navy and declaring war.

[BPSCG]

Did I say the EU should adopt the U.S. Constitution word-for-word? Obviously, it couldn't be (for starts, you'd leave out the references to slaves counting as 3/5 of a person and such).

But my impression is that the EU version tries too hard to nail down every possible permutation of every possible right. Why do they have to do that, when they could just adopt our model, which says that the listing of certain rights in the Constitution does not somehow limit other rights. Shanek would probably argue here that people have the right to do anything that is not specifically prohibited. That simple statement would probably lop a couple of hundred pages off the EU Constitution.

[IllegalArgument]

Originally posted by geni
Because a number of european countries have a state church



Problem is that if you try and put it together any other way countries will have even more fun interptiting it in different ways.

Thanks for clearing that first point up, I forget that tidbit.

IMHO, they are trying to create percisely definition when I think they need general guidelines. The document smell like bad code, I'm a programmer, it's sounds like a brittle structure.

[Darat]

I said this in a similar thread a little bit ago; it's quite relevant here as well:



Hmm.. how does rejecting a terrible treaty (I'm refusing to call it a "Constitution") roll back all the current treaties and so on?

To me this seems a bit of scaremongering, personally I'd love the French to say "non" in their referendum and I don’t think it harm the current EU one iota.

The treaty needs to be ripped up, what we need is a true "constitution" that all states can vote to adopt and then the EU Parliament should be given the task of overseeing whatever new financial, political and trade treaties are required.



I'd urge every EU citizen to read the treaty and understand what it is really about and why a referendum on adopting it is not about adopting a constitution for the EU but rather trying (and in my opinion failing) at replacing various treaties that countries have already ratified e.g. Maastricht.

(Edited to add.)

We've currently got the process back-to-front, we need to decide on what we want the EU to be, and then we can draw up the treaties etc. that are required to create and support the EU. Not create treaties and then see what sort of EU we get!

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Did I say the EU should adopt the U.S. Constitution word-for-word? Obviously, it couldn't be (for starts, you'd leave out the references to slaves counting as 3/5 of a person and such).

But my impression is that the EU version tries too hard to nail down every possible permutation of every possible right. Why do they have to do that, when they could just adopt our model, which says that the listing of certain rights in the Constitution does not somehow limit other rights. Shanek would probably argue here that people have the right to do anything that is not specifically prohibited. That simple statement would probably lop a couple of hundred pages off the EU Constitution.
Well the charter for basic rights is around 18 pages long, slicing a couple of hundred pages of that is would be a rather neat trick. Also the ninth amendment is an open invitation to judicial activists. It is very unrealistic that the European states would grant such a Card Blanche to a super national court. You seem to believe that the EU is or is meant to be a state, but that’s simply not the case, the EU is still to a large extend an international organization and the countries and populations don’t want to give up to much of their sovereignty. Perhaps it’s possible to write a simpler and shorter document but nothing anywhere as short as the American constitution

[IllegalArgument]

Originally posted by Darat
I said this in a similar thread a little bit ago; it's quite relevant here as well:



Hmm.. how does rejecting a terrible treaty (I'm refusing to call it a "Constitution") roll back all the current treaties and so on?

To me this seems a bit of scaremongering, personally I'd love the French to say "non" in their referendum and I don’t think it harm the current EU one iota.

The treaty needs to be ripped up, what we need is a true "constitution" that all states can vote to adopt and then the EU Parliament should be given the task of overseeing whatever new financial, political and trade treaties are required.



I'd urge every EU citizen to read the treaty and understand what it is really about and why a referendum on adopting it is not about adopting a constitution for the EU but rather trying (and in my opinion failing) at replacing various treaties that countries have already ratified e.g. Maastricht.

(Edited to add.)

We've currently got the process back-to-front, we need to decide on what we want the EU to be, and then we can draw up the treaties etc. that are required to create and support the EU. Not create treaties and then see what sort of EU we get!

Darat has a very good point here, one of the reasons the US constitution was created is because the Articles of Confederation weren't cutting it. The constitution was constructed from ideas that already existed in state constitution.

EU constitution sounds like top down design, instead of a capstone on exsisting structures.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Well the charter for basic rights is around 18 pages long, slicing a couple of hundred pages of that is would be a rather neat trick.Okay, save seventeen and a half pages.You seem to believe that the EU is or is meant to be a state, but that’s simply not the case, But isn't that the long-range goal, a United States of Europe? If not, why does France care if Spain has an established religion?

[geni]

Originally posted by BPSCG
But isn't that the long-range goal, a United States of Europe?

For some yes for others no



If not, why does France care if Spain has an established religion?

because

[Darat]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Okay, save seventeen and a half pages.[B]But isn't that the long-range goal, a United States of Europe? If not, why does France care if Spain has an established religion?

No, there isn't a long range goal. It is an ever increasing number of treaties and obligations binding many sovereign states together. This seems to have an "emergent property" of being a super state. (Which you can argue is a good or bad idea.)

That's why I'm saying the EU citizens need to send clear messages to their governments saying "hold on a mo' lets work out what we are trying to achieve before you lot go and sign another dogs-dinner of a treaty on our behalf".

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Okay, save seventeen and a half pages.
That might be possible but as I said it would give more power to the court than most would be prepared to give it. The European human rights court is already much, much stronger than the Danish Supreme Court (Which I don't mind, the Danish Supreme Court is ridiculously weak)
Originally posted by BPSCG
But isn't that the long-range goal, a United States of Europe?
As Geni said it is for some, but things don't seem to be moving in that direction. The consensus view among People who study the EU seems to be that the EU is something more than an ordinary international organization but something less than a state and that it will continue mucking around between those two possibilities for the foreseeable future
Originally posted by BPSCG
If not, why does France care if Spain has an established religion?
Cause they're a bunch of busybodies? :D

Honestly I'm not sure what you're referring to, there isn't anything in the new treaty/constitution that prohibits Spain from having an established religion though some EU-opponents like to claim so.

[Cleopatra]

Ok I chose to reply to this message because it doesn't contain characterizations like " foolish european leaders" et cetera.

Originally posted by Darat

Hmm.. how does rejecting a terrible treaty (I'm refusing to call it a "Constitution") roll back all the current treaties and so on?

To me this seems a bit of scaremongering, personally I'd love the French to say "non" in their referendum and I don’t think it harm the current EU one iota.

I agree. A potential no won't harm the EU but it will prolong the dead-end that the Union seems to be since the War in Yugoslavia, the lame attempts of a creation of Franco-German block and the attachement of UK to USA.

The Constitution, that I don't object in calling it " Constitution" is nothing but a political declaration of the citizens of Europe to face in union a series of issues that goes far beyond trading and monetary policies.

The treaty needs to be ripped up, what we need is a true "constitution" that all states can vote to adopt and then the EU Parliament should be given the task of overseeing whatever new financial, political and trade treaties are required.

Obviously we are not ready yet but according to my psychic powers our children will be ready to do what we are afraid to do: To admit that the background of each country -member is so old indeed that doesn't risk to vanish under a political union of essence.

In my eyes, considering the serious immigrating issues along with the islamic danger that we have to face, the political union is the only positive answer to the xenophobia and racism of the nationalistic right that will party if the French say no.

I'd urge every EU citizen to read the treaty and understand what it is really about and why a referendum on adopting it is not about adopting a constitution for the EU but rather trying (and in my opinion failing) at replacing various treaties that countries have already ratified e.g. Maastricht.

If what you say is true, it won't harm anybody to vote for it. :)

We've currently got the process back-to-front, we need to decide on what we want the EU to be, and then we can draw up the treaties etc. that are required to create and support the EU. Not create treaties and then see what sort of EU we get!

Treaties can be revised. We are not threatened by treaties.

I come from a country of the South that profited immensely by its presence in EU not in strictly financial terms but in political and social terms as well. The regulations that the western europeans mock, improved our agriculture and made our trade competitive.

In political terms the influence was more subtle because Greece has a very liberal legal system but no less important. EU served as an umbrella for the liberal voices of the country, a country that came out of a bloody civil war and a Junda confused and bleeding.A country that its governments tended to perceive the State as their property following the long turkish tradition. EU served as a catalyst in order to get over those mentalities more quickly and without any social upheavals.If today we discuss about the separation of Church and State this is due to the mentality of the EU administration.

You might ask why should a British citizen care of the benefits that the Union has had to an insignificant southern country. Hegemonies should care of what insignificant countries think if they are interested in keeping their power.

The Constitution must proceed even with its problems because the monetary union is not enough anymore and because the problems that we will be asked to face in the future decades are not peripheral but they concern everybody.

Not to mention that the fact that USA is so damned scared of the Union must put the euroskeptic in deep thoughts.

[IllegalArgument]

Not to mention that the fact that USA is so damned scared of the Union must put the euroskeptic in deep thoughts. [/B]

I'm not scared at all, would be quite happy to see a more united EU.

Not sure where you are getting this, the US is scared info.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by IllegalArgument

Not sure where you are getting this, the US is scared info.

I am getting this from the anti-EU hysteria that one can observe in the american press and in fora like that.

[IllegalArgument]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I am getting this from the anti-EU hysteria that one can observe in the american press and in fora like that.

I really haven't been seeing this, but it's not important. What did you expect from the media? :)

[CBL4]

The problem with a EU constitution in general is that there are at three major block of opinion.
1) Elite in France, Germany, etc have a desire for a more powerful, centralized and socialistic EU.
2) Elite in UK and some the Eastern members have a desire for a more continually expanding liberal/libertarian EU (also refered to as "Anglo-Saxon" to benefit from anti-US and anti-UK sentiment.)
3) Much of the population who does not see much of a benefit to the EU and hears horror stories about it. They are xenophobic and want no more countries added - especially Turkey.

As long as their is no consensus of what the EU is about, a EU constitution cannot and should not pass.

(BTW, I realize that my characterization is a gross oversimplication but it a reasonable synopsis.)

CBL

[Cleopatra]

I agree with your synopsis and with the way you have set the parameters I just interpret it slightly differently.

Originally posted by CBL4

1) Elite in France, Germany, etc have a desire for a more powerful, centralized and socialistic EU.
The problem is that France for unknown to the rest of the world reason considers itself an elite and the other problem is that Germany cannot be trusted because given the opportunity they will start the same old stories again.

But who is in the possition to put those two in their proper places? Italy or Spain? Of course not. Only UK is in the position to do the hard talk with those two.

Instead UK has decided to turn its back to EU although they know that Europe without UK is a joke.

Elite in UK and some the Eastern members have a desire for a more continually expanding liberal/libertarian EU (also refered to as "Anglo-Saxon" to benefit from anti-US and anti-UK sentiment.)

The Eastern members are pawns of the Catholic Church and of USA they don't count and if they form an ally with UK is because lately UK is attached to USA.

I believe that the problem lies in UK because they don't know what they want. They cannot tolerate the French's and the Germans' illusions of grandeur and who can blame them for that? For the moment they think that their interests are served better by the ally with USA although I don't know where is the benefit so far. The only benefit I see is that they discuss with Bush instead of Chirac and Shreder which is not a benefit that can be dismissed that easily :p

Much of the population who does not see much of a benefit to the EU and hears horror stories about it. They are xenophobic and want no more countries added - especially Turkey.

If the Constitution gets a no in France it will be because of the Turks and the islamic danger. The pseudo-intellectual leftist mentality gives no answer to burning issues like immigration and islamism.The worse thing of course is that they allow to the extreme right nationalistic parties to give the specific answers the pseudo-intellectuals are afraid to give in the name of tolerance.

This is the reason I see the Constitution as the political answer to nationalism and xenophobia.

As long as their is no consensus of what the EU is about, a EU constitution cannot and should not pass.

I agree but on the other hand processes like this one are the ones that will give us the idea of what the EU is about. Think that until some decades ago each one of most of the EU countries had built an Empire by themselves with the Collonies. Now we ask them to deny part of their national independence ( I had a fight with my b.a this afternoon because I used in public such a "vulgar expression"(!): loss of national independence. The truth hurts) for a not so clear benefit of a union. I don't blame the Europeas.See? I choose the word union because even for a hard-core eurocentric like me the word Federation is a horror. Maybe it's because I have read Alexis de Toqueville ;)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I am getting this from the anti-EU hysteria that one can observe in the american press and in fora like that.

I have not seen such hysteria and personally I don't feel strongly one way or the other about EU -- so long as the French are not in charge.

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The problem is that France for unknown to the rest of the world reason considers itself an eliteI might not have made my self clear. When I said "elite" I meant the "ruling class" and intellectuals of each country not the country itself. For example, the Enarques (graduates of Ecole Nationale d'Administration) in France who believe that they, and they alone, should determine the direction of France and, more recently, Europe.

I agree is that France has an inflated self worth.

CBL