EU Constitution

[The Gaffer]

What do people think about this?

I'm still trying to work out exactly what's in it; it seems like it will be a good thing, though. Countries will retain their veto over foreign policy, defence, taxation, etc. It seems that it will streamline much of the legislative framework and, potentially, undermine the Franco-German axis that has historically dominated the EU.

More specifically, will this document finally dispel the myths being peddled by the UK Independence Party?

[sun-star]

It's tinkering with the details. It doesn't go anywhere near tackling the democratic deficit - it changes the uncontroversial (for ordinary people) issues like voting rights and QMV without making any difference to what those votes are actually used for. I don't have a problem with the Constitution, because it's really just a technicality to deal with enlargement - it's with the role of the institutions, not their composition, that the problem arises, IMO.

It presents some interesting issues though - not least the amusing prospect of watching the poor EU Foreign Minister attempting to work out what exactly Europe can agree on in foreign policy

[The Gaffer]

Good point on the "democratic deficit", and one that I broadly agree with. Do you agree that the Constitutional Treaty will lead to greater accountability, since it will provide a reference point and simplify some of the bureaucracy?

[Janny]

I'm sceptical. I just envisage the French and Germans doing whatever the hell they like, that is not following laws that aren't in their interest. I don't disagree with that either, I think that self interest is good.

I was a little prerturbed by the EU report on human rights abuses in Iran. Not that I don't think that abuses are bad, but is it the perogative of the EU to write reports like that? If anything, shouldn't that be the role of the UN? Won't that just increase the divide between the Islamic world and the Christian Europe?

[The Gaffer]

That's been their habit, especially the French.

I dunno though, it seems like a document like this will make it easier to work out when that's been going on, and perhaps even to build meaningful accountability mechanisms on top.

On the foreign policy side, only things that are unanimously agreed will be enacted. At the moment, the EU has two foreign ministers, and the Constitution will bring them together into one office. Again, it seems like a sensible idea. It might even help stop the Americans from driving a wedge between us.

[Janny]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Again, it seems like a sensible idea. It might even help stop the Americans from driving a wedge between us.

So Europe wants to become a Superstate to rival the USA purely in the interests of wooing Britain back into the fold?!

[Rían]

by The Gaffer
It might even help stop the Americans from driving a wedge between us.

Are you saying that we Americans give you guys wedgies?!

Personally, I don't think that's an official American policy, tho.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Janny
So Europe wants to become a Superstate to rival the USA purely in the interests of wooing Britain back into the fold?!

That's what I said last year. And it seems to be the case - especially from what the french say on their news.

So my quesion is - how many Europeans are going to read their 250+ page constitution? Seems a bit unmanageable to me. Does anyone outside the EU government really know what is in it?

In my opinion constitutions should be short - not throw in everything and the kitchen sink. I've never seen such a large constitution before.

By the way Gaffer - you don't need America to drive a wedge between you - you have France and Germany for that. In some ways - you guys are your own worst enemy. But of course - the United States went through the same thing. States not trusting each other, some trying to take control of the government, states wanting to make sure their soveriegnty isn't infringed upon. Washington DC is not part of a state because the founders didn't want a state to feel they were the federal government. It was to keep all the states equal.

[sun-star]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Good point on the "democratic deficit", and one that I broadly agree with. Do you agree that the Constitutional Treaty will lead to greater accountability, since it will provide a reference point and simplify some of the bureaucracy?

Yes, it could do. Although since the judges (I suppose?) who will hold the politicians accoutable are themselves unaccountable, it goes round in circles

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
But of course - the United States went through the same thing. States not trusting each other, some trying to take control of the government, states wanting to make sure their soveriegnty isn't infringed upon. Washington DC is not part of a state because the founders didn't want a state to feel they were the federal government. It was to keep all the states equal.

Yes, I feel we have a pretty good set-up here.

It seems so much more complicated for the EU Constitution, tho. The countries involved have years and years of their own individual, unique history, as opposed to when the US made its constitution. How in the world can you tie all those years of history and culture together into one constitution?

[Radagast]

The UK will have a referendum in 2006 to decide whether it shall adopt the EU Constitution.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
By the way Gaffer - you don't need America to drive a wedge between you - you have France and Germany for that.

And some would say also: Brittain....

Originally posted by jerseydevil
In some ways - you guys are your own worst enemy.

Sad but true. If it wasn't for the money I think a lot of nations would say to hell with a European Union.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Washington DC is not part of a state because the founders didn't want a state to feel they were the federal government. It was to keep all the states equal.

The same happened with Brussels, since it was the Belgian capital it was made a region of its own on the same level with Wallonia and Flanders. Now Flanders has a Brussels-shaped hole in it. I still think it was a bloody stupid idea, but hey, that's politics for ya.

[Nerdanel]

Originally posted by Radagast
The UK will have a referendum in 2006 to decide whether it shall adopt the EU Constitution.

We won't.

I've heard that this constitution means, that Finland won't keep our representative in the commission (is that the name in English?). I don't see the locigs in this; shouldn't every nation in the union have their own representative there?
Well, maybe I just know too little about this..

[Falagar]

And this is one of the reasons why we Norwegians still haven't joined you guys in your happy union.

[Janny]

Originally posted by Radagast
The UK will have a referendum in 2006 to decide whether it shall adopt the EU Constitution.

Come now. You should at least put referendum in inverted commas. I think we all know a yes vote means 'yes' and a no vote means 'yes, but in a little while'.

[sun-star]

Originally posted by Nerdanel
I've heard that this constitution means, that Finland won't keep our representative in the commission (is that the name in English?). I don't see the locigs in this; shouldn't every nation in the union have their own representative there?

Nations don't have representation in the Commission anyway. Each Commissioner is supposed to give up their national allegiance and vote for the good of the EU, not their own country, so if the EU law those unelected failed politicians are voting for conflicts with your country's interest (oops, a bit of bias there...) the EU always comes first.

Originally posted by Janny
Come now. You should at least put referendum in inverted commas. I think we all know a yes vote means 'yes' and a no vote means 'yes, but in a little while'.

Most likely - as with Ireland and the Nice Treaty. Democratic deficit again (I think I'm a bit obsessive about this)

[Nerdanel]

Originally posted by Falagar
And this is one of the reasons why we Norwegians still haven't joined you guys in your happy union.

I wish we would have chosen like you did. I want my markka back!! (markka was our former currency)

And sun-star, thanks for the information. Well, I still don't think EU only works for the good of the union, and that's the way it should be. Naturally the biggest countries get the most power, and therefore Finland shouldn't be in EU, IMO. We are not like other countries in Europe.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Washington DC is not part of a state because the founders didn't want a state to feel they were the federal government. It was to keep all the states equal.

you can bet your life against the fact that the "capital" will be brussels, which will only make the franco german states (including belgium and luxembourg under this loose umbrella) feel even more superior to the UK than they already do.
the constitution is unmanageable, unfeasable and generally unrealistic. I bet even various foreign ministers don't even read it, let alone the civil servants that really run the government.
we are a country, not a state of USE (The United States of Europe). UKIP is wrong, but that doesn't automatically make the EU 'powers-that-be' right. There are good parts and bad parts to this, and I am sure all European nations need longer to examine this fully and frankly...now will someone help me down from this soapbox!!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally posted by Janny
Come now. You should at least put referendum in inverted commas. I think we all know a yes vote means 'yes' and a no vote means 'yes, but in a little while'.

Very good point, and we all know it will stay that way all the time that the Rt Hon Tony Blair MP is our beloved prime minister. The Tories had a go, Labour has now failed utterly, so surely it is time for a Liberal Democratic Government? (then at least it will cost less to go to university)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Last Child of Ungoliant
you can bet your life against the fact that the "capital" will be brussels, which will only make the franco german states (including belgium and luxembourg under this loose umbrella) feel even more superior to the UK than they already do.
the constitution is unmanageable, unfeasable and generally unrealistic. I bet even various foreign ministers don't even read it, let alone the civil servants that really run the government.
we are a country, not a state of USE (The United States of Europe). UKIP is wrong, but that doesn't automatically make the EU 'powers-that-be' right. There are good parts and bad parts to this, and I am sure all European nations need longer to examine this fully and frankly...now will someone help me down from this soapbox!!

Well it seems like the EU parliament needs more voices like yours. UKIP made a surprising showing during the elections though. Right now you guys are heading in the direction of the United State of Europe with France and Germany being the ones pulling the strings and making policy. Unless you reign in the big guys - the little guys will just be pawns.

How long will you gusy be examing this though? The Constitution has been passed - you guys have that unweildy thing that now you have to live with - right? The EU is seeming very much like it is growing into a beaurocratic mess with only a few countries to control everything.