The Constitution of the European Union

[Divinus Arma]

I would like to gain a greater understanding of the Constitution of the EU that was rejected by France and the Netherlands.

Why is it good? Why is it bad? I read up on it at Wiki, but that just won't do. I need the voice of the people here.

[InsaneApache]

It won't happen. At least not anytime soon. As I see it, the EU constitution was/is a mishmash of ideas that attempted to combine all the national interests of the member states and so therefore appealed to none of them.

For instance; The French voted it down because they couldn't swallow the Anglo-Saxon model of a free market, whilst the British (If Tony had had the cajones to allow a vote for us) would have voted it down as we equally couldn't stomach the 'social' model that the French so adore.

The only states that voted for the constitution were/are the net recipients of cash from Bruxelles, and then, IIRC, they didn't put to a plebiscite, (Spain excepted) they just steamrollered it through the various national Parliaments.

Now that the French and the Dutch (and more than likely the British) have torpedoed the project it is unlikely that it will be implemented in it's present form.

It is also unlikely that the EU will make the mistake asking the electorate to approve any future constitution, as the voters keep coming up with the wrong answers.

For instance, when the vote for the common currency (the Euro) came up, although various electorates rejected the idea, the EU repeatedly pushed for referenda after referenda until the people came up with the right answer. Those were the lucky ones. Countries, such as Greece, never bothered to ask the people if they wanted the Drachma abolished. (As a piece of trivia the Drachma was the worlds oldest continuous currency.)

Plans are now afoot to implement to EU constitution by the back door, circumventing the will of the people, therefore not having to bother with the messiness of a democratic mandate.

Until the EU becomes more accountable and transparent, (it's own auditors have refused to sign off the accounts for nearly a decade) this British subject for one will not be a happy camper.

[Keba]

It is too long and too complicated. The point of a Constitution is that it is short and to the point, outlining the basics.

The proposed European Constitution is a mammoth in size. The only other country that had a Constitution that long was the France, and that Republic lasted for a very short time before collapsing.

A Constituion that is too long needs to be changed often, therefore denying the prupose of a Constiution, to be a lasting document outlining the basic ideals of a state.

Also, it's rejection, aside from the above outlined reason is for the simple fact that the EU is currently moving a bit too fast. It is still young, and the current attempts to push it toward a state are going too fast, and many populations of the numerous countries of Europe are not quite ready or willing to lose (as they percieve it) their national identity to some formless beraucracy in Brusells.

[Fragony]

I am not going to vote for something that doesn't even know what it's supposed to be. EU is intrusive, corrupt and undemocratic, and on top of that pretty much useless. A great example is the cartoon affair, when ambassy's were being attacked they were probably discussing the prefered intensity of the color red of tomatoes, it all means nothing. Giving more power to nothing, no thanks.

Screw them.

[Pannonian]

Isn't the EU constitution merely putting all existing treaties and regulations on a single piece of paper? The "constitution" is there, whether you ratify or not, since the component parts have already been ratified. What the top brass want to do is rationalise the whole massive unruly thing.

One thing I can't understand is why the French rejected it. They pass all the EU laws as have been argued by the member states, but they ignore anything that doesn't suit them, so "imposing an Anglo-Saxon model" shouldn't really affect them, since they'll do whatever they like anyway.

The more I look at things, the more I feel that Blair and Britain are the true Europeans, unlike the statist French. We've offered numerous concessions, including giving up much of our rebate, in exchange for reforms of farming subsidies. But the French farmers won't budge an inch (or even a centimetre).

[L'Impresario]

Isn't the EU constitution merely putting all existing treaties and regulations on a single piece of paper? The "constitution" is there, whether you ratify or not, since the component parts have already been ratified. What the top brass want to do is rationalise the whole massive unruly thing.

True words indeed. Seems like it was a mistake to call it a "Constitution" and making noise about, because people started thinking in national terms and expectations changed. Ofcourse without this move, the central goal wouldn't have been reached (or at least attempted): familiarize the citizens of the EU with the whole structure and its treaties, by having a codified version of all previous ones in one document. It was also an opportunity to encorporate the European Convention of Human Rights, which was only typically in force and not in a binding documentfor all member states and european institutions.

It must be said that internal politics had a lot to do with the rejections, as well as atavistic fear of the "unknown", or at least vague, something that the EU remains for the majority of the population.

The more I look at things, the more I feel that Blair and Britain are the true Europeans, unlike the statist French. We've offered numerous concessions, including giving up much of our rebate, in exchange for reforms of farming subsidies. But the French farmers won't budge an inch (or even a centimetre).

I'm not so sure about it, because while Britain might be seeing it from a point of view based on global competitiveness, the whole agriculture issue has strong social connotations in the relevant countries and should there be a radical reform, it could cause a great deal of instability (plus, it'd be a political suicide). Ofcourse at some point a long-term solution should be found.

[Vladimir]

So does this "constitution" tell the government what it can't do or does it tell the people what they can do? I.E. free subjects vs. citizens.

[A.Saturnus]

One thing I can't understand is why the French rejected it. They pass all the EU laws as have been argued by the member states, but they ignore anything that doesn't suit them, so "imposing an Anglo-Saxon model" shouldn't really affect them, since they'll do whatever they like anyway.

The French rejected it because they hate their government and would say 'no' to whatever it may propose.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

While true thats not particually helpful to the current debate. The problem with the constitution is that it codified and fixed much in the EU which is still supposed to be temporary, for instance, the current VAT system is open to fraud because it is a transition model, rather than the final model which requires harmonisation of VAT accross Europe.

Another problem was that it would have made it much harder to ever leave the EU.

The EU needs to hand the power of law-making and treaty signing from the commision to the parliament. Until it does it has no right to aspirations of nation-hood.

Personnally, I want out. If in 30 years it has sorted itself out maybe I'll want back in.

[Husar]

The French rejected it because they hate their government and would say 'no' to whatever it may propose.

That´s gotta be the reason they elected it.

Then again, people can often choose only between two evils.

[The_Doctor]

Main problem is that nobody knows what it is and what it is supposed do.

The politicians don't know, I don't know, you don't, Chuck Norris doesn't know and several of the Lesser Know Divine Beings are having problems with it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I would like to gain a greater understanding of the Constitution of the EU that was rejected by France and the Netherlands.

Why is it good?

It is good firstly because it codifies a lot of existing treaties. And mainly because it would streamline EU decision making. Amongst others by allowing qualified majority for a lot of policy rather than having to rely on all member states agreeing on every single subject brought up.

There can be no effective EU with each country retaining a veto. The last round of enlargement brought the number of member states up to 25, members as different as Sweden and Cyprus.

Why is it bad?

It isn't.

The irony is that this constitution would've repaired a lot of the shortcomings of the EU, but got rejected precisely because of exasparation at those shortcomings.

[InsaneApache]

Chuck Norris know eveything. He's just not telling.

[Louis VI the Fat]

It is too long and too complicated. The point of a Constitution is that it is short and to the point, outlining the basics.

The proposed European Constitution is a mammoth in size. The only other country...

Yes, but the EU is not a country. It is a supranational organization. The two cannot be compared.
This EU constitution is not a constitution in the classical sense, but a misnamed treaty on the functioning of an supranational organization of sovereign states.

[L'Impresario]

The EU needs to hand the power of law-making and treaty signing from the commision to the parliament. Until it does it has no right to aspirations of nation-hood.

Generalizations I'd say. While the Parliament's role can't be compared with their national equivalent, there are certainly reasons for this, federalization and regional integration theory 101. Ofcourse from republic day #1, there is a general tendency for the executive power to collect additional functions or at least exert some influence on them. But when we 're talking about regional organisations, we 're referring to international treaties, and as a general rule the negotiations required have been the realm of government premiums for quite some time.
The EU has progressed towards a more multifaceted organisation, and the Parliament is gaining steadily functions and powers. The Constitution would 've clearly marked a move towards a general rule of co-decision and as such, criticisms of not promoting a more democratic rule are inaccurate.

Anyway, people who mourn their tax-money, currently devoured by the unrelenting Brussels-bureaucrats [filed under: corrupt], could peruse a few pages from the official EU-sites.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The EU is [...] pretty much useless. A great example is the cartoon affair, when ambassy's were being attacked they were probably discussing the prefered intensity of the color red of tomatoes, it all means nothing. Giving more power to nothing, no thanks.

Screw them.

Did you consider that by your no-vote you prevented the EU from aquiring the tools necessary for any effective common policy in the first place?

[Louis VI the Fat]

The more I look at things, the more I feel that Blair and Britain are the true Europeans, unlike the statist French. We've offered numerous concessions, including giving up much of our rebate, in exchange for reforms of farming subsidies. But the French farmers won't budge an inch (or even a centimetre).

The British the true Europeans? I'd say they're biggest whining whingers on the face of the earth.

Here's the outcome of last years budget negotiations, after all those 'numerous British concessions':
'the UK, France and Italy will be making a roughly equivalent net contribution to the EU budget from 2007 onwards'.

Of course, I took care to take that from a thrustworthy British source, the BBC.

Oh, you'll also find an entire chapter there devoted to the question that perenially obsesses Britain: 'Did France get everything it wanted?'

One thing I can't understand is why the French rejected it. They pass all the EU laws as have been argued by the member states, but they ignore anything that doesn't suit them, so "imposing an Anglo-Saxon model" shouldn't really affect them, since they'll do whatever they like anyway.

This much unfortunately is true.
France, like the UK, always takes care of her own interest first and foremost. Usually at the expense of the true real Europeans, Germany and the Netherlands.

[InsaneApache]

The British the true Europeans? I'd say they're biggest whining whingers on the face of the earth.

Here's the outcome of last years budget negotiations, after all those 'numerous British concessions':
'the UK, France and Italy will be making a roughly equivalent net contribution to the EU budget from 2007 onwards'.

Of course, I took care to take that from a thrustworthy British source, the BBC.

Oh, you'll also find an entire chapter there devoted to the question that perenially obsesses Britain: 'Did France get everything it wanted?'

This much unfortunately is true.
France, like the UK, always takes care of her own interest first and foremost. Usually at the expense of the true real Europeans, Germany and the Netherlands.

I hereby revoke your honouray English status until you agree that West Ham are the worst football team ever to acquire a UEFA cup spot.

Where's that damn Jag when you need him

[A.Saturnus]

That´s gotta be the reason they elected it.

They could have elected another government, but they would have hated that too.

Yes, but the EU is not a country. It is a supranational organization. The two cannot be compared.
This EU constitution is not a constitution in the classical sense, but a misnamed treaty on the functioning of an supranational organization of sovereign states.

Maybe true, still the Constitution unfortunately didn't feel like a constitution. That wasn't the main reason for its failure, but it may have contributed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That´s gotta be the reason they elected it.

Then again, people can often choose only between two evils.

The other option was a French Hitler.

Generalizations I'd say. While the Parliament's role can't be compared with their national equivalent, there are certainly reasons for this, federalization and regional integration theory 101. Ofcourse from republic day #1, there is a general tendency for the executive power to collect additional functions or at least exert some influence on them. But when we 're talking about regional organisations, we 're referring to international treaties, and as a general rule the negotiations required have been the realm of government premiums for quite some time.
The EU has progressed towards a more multifaceted organisation, and the Parliament is gaining steadily functions and powers. The Constitution would 've clearly marked a move towards a general rule of co-decision and as such, criticisms of not promoting a more democratic rule are inaccurate.

The EU aspires to nationhood, don't insult my intelligence by telling me any different. The commision is composed of PMs, Chancellors or whatever else claims rights on the issue at hand. I don't want Tony Blair representing me or making these decisions for me, I want an MP.

The EU is moving towards a federal state, until the power to make decisions of law and treaty are done democratically and transparently I won't be happy.

In Britain the Prime Minister can't just sign treaties without Parliament's approval, but thats exactly what he does in Brussles.

Its not right. You can't leave these decisions to so few people so far from reality.

[L'Impresario]

The EU aspires to nationhood, don't insult my intelligence by telling me any different. The commision is composed of PMs, Chancellors or whatever else claims rights on the issue at hand. I don't want Tony Blair representing me or making these decisions for me, I want an MP.

No, the EU doesn't aspire to nationhood. What it aspires to depends on whom you ask and when. Although, generally, one can safely say that a steady course towards a federation or an ever-deepening confederation is what europhiles promote.

I don't know what you mean with "the commision". If you have something specific regarding the EU legislative procedures to blame the Commision or the Council for then better name it because it's hard to converse on a positional basis when such issues are put forward.
BTW, the EU hasn't got a clear legal personality, as outlined by the Constitution Treaty.
It's also very useful checking in which fields the EU has common policies and how they function.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I hereby revoke your honouray English status until you agree that West Ham are the worst football team ever to acquire a UEFA cup spot.

Lol, somewhere deep down I always knew my title wouldn't survive the very first EU thread.

Naturally, knowing that Paris Saint-Germain after being rubbish for an entire season managed to sneak in an UEFA cup spot on the last day of the season ( ), I must decline on your offer.

I say this whole thread was nothing but a set-up by Eclectic, in a divide and conquer strategy. He knows nothing divides Europeans more than that which is supposed to bind them together.

[scotchedpommes]

I say this whole thread was nothing but a set-up by Eclectic, in a divide and conquer strategy. He knows nothing divides Europeans more than that which is supposed to bind them together.

Why did it take so long to arrive at this conclusion?

[Divinus Arma]

No. I was genuinely curious. Because of my current assignment research on Eastern Europe, I have been exposed to Europe's mix-and-match web of treaties. It appears that EU was a reasonably good idea, in so far as that it promotes economic stability (after all, a country must demonstrate some fairly rigid economic policy performace to accede to the Euro as their national currency), national security, freedom of movement, cultural integration, and all of the business benefits that come with these assurances.

I noticed that the EU is steadily advancing east. Slovenia, the first of the former Yugoslav republic, recently rose to the EU and is set to adopt the Euro by 2007. Croatia is in negotiations, as is Macedonia IIRC. These two nations and others are part of CEFTA, which is a precursor to EU accession.

I can't help wonder what the limits of the EU will be. Ukraine? Georgia? Armenia? North Africa? Russia? After all, if Turkey is a candidate, than who is not?

So, I'm not baiting at all. I am genuinely curious what the perception of the EU is, and especially of its development.

[Slyspy]

The EU is a corrupt, closed and unrepresentative entity, an insult to the democratic countries over which it legislates.

Nice idea though.

[L'Impresario]

*enter banana curvature/ baby sacrifice/voracious bureaucratic beast comment*

I can't help wonder what the limits of the EU will be. Ukraine? Georgia? Armenia? North Africa? Russia? After all, if Turkey is a candidate, than who is not?

It's a matter of priorities and time. A random example: in 40-50 years maybe Morocco could be seen as being closer to european political standards than Maghreb, Arab or North African ones. If there is enough acceptance of such a view, then I think that closer ties with the EU and eventual membership could appear as a logical continuation of converging attitudes. Ofcourse, at the moment, a candidate state needs to be willing to enter the EU plus fulfill
the Copehagen criteria.

OTOH Some cases appear improbable. First of all, as it is often said, Russia can't be part of something, only others are part of her. Countries like Georgia and Armenia at the moment can't have european aspirations; apart from the general volatility of the Caucasus area, Russia exerts significant influence in the region. With Ukraine things are more complicated. There is a strong will inside the country to upgrade the nature of partnership with the EU, and one can find quite a few comments from european officials aknowledging a further expansion towards the East, but this will also depend on the West itself and how willing it is to support pro-EU politicians like Yuschenko, likely for decades to come.

Ultimately, the question of a deepening and/or widening union rears its disfigured head. Countries like the UK and the US are leaning towards the "widening" aspect, needless to say, because it makes political integration a considerably slower process (UK) and it offers new prospects for developing countries and promotes stability in regions of strategical and geopolitical interest (US).

[InsaneApache]

No. I was genuinely curious. Because of my current assignment research on Eastern Europe, I have been exposed to Europe's mix-and-match web of treaties. It appears that EU was a reasonably good idea, in so far as that it promotes economic stability (after all, a country must demonstrate some fairly rigid economic policy performace to accede to the Euro as their national currency), national security, freedom of movement, cultural integration, and all of the business benefits that come with these assurances.

The Lira, Drachma, Escudo and Peseta hardly qualified as 'hard' currencies. It was a political decision pure and simple. A pre-cursor, if you will, from our overlords in Bruxelles forcing their concept of a political union, a superstate. Shame they then went ahead with enlargement and totally buggered the whole idea up. Well perhaps not.

[A.Saturnus]

The Lira, Drachma, Escudo and Peseta hardly qualified as 'hard' currencies. It was a political decision pure and simple. A pre-cursor, if you will, from our overlords in Bruxelles forcing their concept of a political union, a superstate. Shame they then went ahead with enlargement and totally buggered the whole idea up. Well perhaps not.

The Lira was a "hard" currency by all means. Not as hard as pound or D-Mark, but certainly hard enough. I'm not sure about Escudo and Peseta, but I think there inflation was reasonably low. Drachma wasn't stable enough, but Greece got away with fraud. But after all, what me worry? The Euro is currently one of the most stable currencies in the world.

[InsaneApache]

The Lira an hard currency?

You've not been raiding the dispensery for psycho-tropic drugs have you?

[Louis VI the Fat]

So, I'm not baiting at all. I am genuinely curious what the perception of the EU is, and especially of its development.

I know you're not baiting, I was only teasing a bit.

I can't help wonder what the limits of the EU will be. Ukraine? Georgia? Armenia? North Africa? Russia? After all, if Turkey is a candidate, than who is not?

L'imprésario gave a good rundown. I'll add my own prediction that at some point in the future we will see a multi-tiered membership, of whatever sort. The first tier will include the original six, and possibly a few others. These will deepen their cooperation.

The second tier will include the other current members. Possibly and hopefully Norway, Switzerland and Iceland will join this more limited membership too.

A third group will include most of the countries you mentioned, in a kind of associated membership. Most of the wineding of the EU will probably take place in this form.