EU Constitution

Victor

I'm suprised how little debate is going on on this topic here and elsewhere. As I see it the are a few core disagreements

Voting: Germany especially was disingenuous in the Nice negotiations. Poland and Spain are now being overly optimistic.

Defence: 4 of 15 members aren't in NATO, this will rise to 11 of 25 (some being NATO candidates).

Vetoes: Especially in the area of taxation and a few other critical areas, countries should not be made feel like the "bad boys" for not agreeing.

The Draft EU Constitution
http://european-convention.eu.int/docs/Treaty/cv00850.en03.pdf

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/2156553?view=Eircomnet

Government committed to seeking EU treaty solution
From:ireland.com
Monday, 15th December, 2003

The Government is committed to seeking agreement on the EU's constitutional treaty during the Irish presidency, despite predictions from some European leaders that no progress will be possible during the next six months.

Government sources said last night that although the Taoiseach is not certain that a deal can be reached following the collapse of talks in Brussels on Saturday, he is determined to "have a go" at finding agreement.

The Brussels summit ended on Saturday afternoon after Italy's Prime Minister, Mr Silvio Berlusconi, failed to resolve a dispute over how member-states should vote in the Council of Ministers, the EU's most powerful decision-making body. France and Germany wanted to replace the system of weighted votes agreed at Nice with a "double majority" system reflecting population size. Spain and Poland, which enjoy almost as many votes as the EU's four biggest states under the Nice system, were resisting change.

Following the failure of the talks, EU leaders asked the Irish presidency to present a report to a summit next March on prospects for finding agreement but no deadline was set for the conclusion of negotiations. The leaders of Sweden and Luxembourg said there was little hope of any progress until the Netherlands takes over the EU presidency from Ireland in July 2004.

Britain's Foreign Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, expressed a similar view in a television interview yesterday. "It could be during the Irish presidency although I frankly doubt it," he said. The Taoiseach said it would take time, debate and consideration to revive the talks, adding he did not expect to call a formal negotiating session during the opening months of the Irish presidency.

"If I at any time over the next six months believe the atmosphere would present the occasion to finalise it, I would move to it. The answer today is that that atmosphere is not there. The agreement will come when people have reflected on it and when people can see they can resolve the outstanding areas," he said.

He said that while agreement during the Irish presidency was "not impossible", March elections in Spain and European Parliament elections in June would make it difficult.

http://home.eircom.net/content/unison/national/2156835?view=Eircomnet

'Two-speed' Europe rift looms
From:The Irish Independent
Monday, 15th December, 2003

Chirac's proposal for an 'elite' alliance could complicate our EU Presidency
Conor Sweeney and Brian Dowling

A SMALL number of EU countries should forge ahead in a "two-speed" Europe, Jacques Chirac suggested at the weekend - thus raising potential problems for Ireland's forthcoming EU presidency.

Although the Taoiseach confirmed he had heard rumours about this idea, he said the French president hadn't mentioned them at the weekend talks.
In a press conference, Mr Chirac espoused the creation of a "pioneer group" that would move towards closer integration, with other member states left to follow later if they choose.

If he finds supporters and pursues the proposal, it will significantly complicate the work of the Irish presidency in the next six months and will also fuel many countries' concerns about being left out in the cold, with an inner core, spearheaded by France and Germany, setting the agenda.

Some countries could focus on closer co-operation in such areas as justice, defence and economic integration, suggested President Chirac, although he said other member states would be free to join later, if they wished.

"I continue to think that it is a good solution because it will give an engine - it sets the example, I think, that will allow Europe to go quicker, further and to work better," he said.

Many sceptics at the weekend summit suspected that France strategically wanted the talks to fail so that it could pursue this narrow agenda rather than be forced into a wider but slower Constitution that also embraced more reluctant states, such as Britain and many of the accession countries.

German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder offered qualified support to the concept, but not unless talks failed to produce a constitutional treaty. "If we don't manage in the foreseeable future to reach a consensus, there will emerge a Europe of two speeds. That would be the logic of such a final failure."

But the Taoiseach made it clear there was no discussion at the summit about President Chirac's idea. "That's a rumour but there was no such proposal," he said.
Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi scorned the French plan, insisting that the EU should not be split into two clear groups. "I don't believe it is appropriate to form groups of countries," he said.

And the Taoiseach has again cautioned against hopes of an early resolution to the collapse of talks on a new EU constitution, even though it will overshadow the Irish presidency.

However, after the debacle in Brussels, he was conscious that a number of countries, particularly Poland, are anxious for moves to break the deadlock on voting rights under the proposed constitution.

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/breaking/2161876?view=Eircomnet

EU dissenters may be left behind - Belgian PM
From:ireland.com
Monday, 15th December, 2003

Spain and Poland must decide whether to compromise on voting rights contained in the proposed EU constitution or face being left behind while other member states move to towards closer integration, Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt has said.
He told Belgian radio that a core group of countries would club together on defence, crime-fighting and immigration policy in the coming months if the states that scuppered agreement on the constitution at the failed EU summit at the weekend did not relent.

"If we don't get a solution very soon, I believe it will be necessary in the first months of next year for like-minded countries who share our belief in intensifying European integration to find much closer cooperation in many areas," Mr Verhofstadt told RTBF.
But diplomats have said tentative plans for France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and some other pro-integration countries to launch an initiative declaring themselves a "pioneer group" had been deferred.

The European Commission has called for another effort next year to break the deadlock but spokesman Mr Reijo Kemppinen has indicated that talks may not begin in earnest until after Ireland's six-month presidency which begins at the start of next year.

He said the Commission hoped for an agreement by the end of 2004, after elections in Spain in March and for the European Parliament in June.

"It is clear that what we need is time for reflection and rethinking of some of the issues," Mr Kemppinen told reporters.

Spain and Poland have refused to accept a proposed reduction in the weight of their votes in the constitution and while the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, has said Ireland will "have a go" at getting agreement at the next summit in March, Mr Kemppinen said progress was more likely in the second half of next year under the Dutch presidency.

DadaKopf

From what I read, the EU constitution was pegged as "a good deal" but apart from no comprehensive moves to

• make the EU more accountable, transparent and democratic or
• to genuinely redress the enormous power imbalances within the current and proposed voting systems
• the dangers associated with QMV and
• a frankly limp attempt to transcend statism
• oh, and the destructive (and irreversible) impact it'll have on our public services

yeah, it was a good deal. Yeah, right.

I'm glad the talks collapsed. The reason the talks collapsed was because states are still competing against each other instead of genuinely working towards a new form of democratic political partnership which "they" pretend to be inspired by.

Unfortunately, like Nice, I'm not remotely optimistic that the impasse will prompt serious soulsearching from our elected statesmen and unaccountable bureaucrats. Any eventual solution will have nothing to do with democracy or accountability or anything like that.

The constitution is all about losing control of our own lives and it's being covered up.

But then, as Ivana Bacik said on the TV the other day, we get the constitution we voted for when we elected our government.

Imposter

As far as I can see France and Germany are trying to renege on agreements made in the Nice treaty. They, as the articles pointed out above, are basically giving every country that doesn't agree with them a two finger salute, similar to current US policy.

Add to that the the Austrian european minister came out at the weekend and stated that he reckons the current EU is at an end. And then yesterday the announcment by the 6 major (financial) contributors that the contributions will be reduced and capped at a percentage of GDP (1% iirc) of the union.

I think it'll take a miracle to come to any type of agreement prior to the applicant countries joining and even harder to reach a compromise after this.

Victor

Originally posted by DadaKopf
I'm glad the talks collapsed. The reason the talks collapsed was because states are still competing against each other instead of genuinely working towards a new form of democratic political partnership which "they" pretend to be inspired by.

Is the problem here that the French and Germans want revolution instead of evolution?

star gazer

The Poles seemed to back themselves into a corner with a parliamentary vote to keep their Nice voting strength. Obviously they need flexibility to get through all the different parts of the constitution with agreement. Every nation is probably a little bit nervous about expansion and to have a new constitution on top of that must be daunting, there will no doubt be a fair few legal testings of national laws and EU laws when(if) the constitution gets ratified. The european economy is stagnant for the most part and memories of the stagnation of the german economy after reunification (not that reunification was the only reason for economic stalling in germany at the time).
The extra three months up to march should help to get over the problems although there is no reason to suggest waiting for another nine months to give people breathing space.

DadaKopf

Originally posted by Victor
Is the problem here that the French and Germans want revolution instead of evolution?

I'm not quite sure what you mean....

Victor

Originally posted by DadaKopf
I'm not quite sure what you mean....

They want constant rapid change towards an uber^H^H^H^H unified Europe, rather than the previous gradual pace of unifying a certain piece of policy, implementing it and leaving it settle, then moving onto the next. While the French and German governments have enough people to think out all the implications 10 and 20 years ahead, the smaller countries can just be swamped. They want a big Europe to compete with the USA, instead of being a benevolent counter-weight.

Typedef

I think Federalism is a French agenda, which partly stems from a fear of being marginalised by a resurgent Germany in political and economic matters.

The French were on the 'winning' side in the last European war and while Germany was partitioned, the West German state was easily controled by France.

Without some sort of influence over a unified Germany, France would be marginalised in Europe, by a reconstructed and united Germany.

This I think is the driving factor behind the French push towards Federalism.

The French see themselves as the 'natural' leaders of Europe, because of the politics left over from the end of the Second World war.

In comparision to the US, French influence, will do nothing but, wane, if European Federalism ((with French politicans forging it's makeup) on the back of a resurgent Germany in both economic and political terms), can give France it's pre-WW2 'superpower' status back again, then for the French that is well and good.

I think the German public, is so, scared of Germany's past, that it reflects on German politicans to allow France (a nation roughly half the size in economic and population terms) to run the European Federal show.

For the UK & Ireland, as part of the former British Imperial infrastructure (which the USA is now clearly making a new sort of pax-Americana in lieu of the old British empire), both states are clearly conflicted, between the economic desire to exploit the European Free Trade and the realities of American economic and political influence (which outstrips that of Europe in the British isles) nationally and globally.

For different reasons Ireland and Britain do not fear American hegemony the way France does. Germany, in a state of economic, political and yes even (or especially) military resurgence, has little to fear from Americans, since Germany would clearly, due to it's size and scope merit a (weltpolitik) place that outstrips that of France and the UK.

It is no accident that Europe is carved in the shape of 'French' ambitions. I for one am glad the negotiations on the European constitution collapsed, since I don't believe that Political integration or anything more then a mutually beneficial European free trade area, really benefits anybody, expect for it's largely French architects.

Certainly 'harmonised' taxation (another word for the removal of the American-style tax infrastructure in Ireland and the UK), would spell the end of the crest of American economic dynamism, this country has fed on, and for what, to please the vain French socio-political and economic interests of being a 'great nation'?

What interests of Ireland's are served by participating in a 'counterbalance to the US'? What makes French/German/Italian Imperialism (of which all countries named have a long and distinguished career) so much more filled with fortitude then that of the USA?

I'm no supporter of George Bush, but, since when does that mean, I have to love Jaques Chirac and his country's desire to run Europe from within, as the European political heavyweights?

No, I don't want to call Napoleon my King!

star gazer

Ireland took the money and ran
There isn't anything more wrong about a european counterbalance to American power than an American power that allows them to ignore the reservations of the rest of the world. Doubtless we have done better with the American model with European-sized subsidies for our industries and infrastructure. It's not really a case of either or for Ireland it is a question of getting the best of both worlds rather than getting stuck in the mddle crack that could be emerging.

Typedef

Originally posted by star gazer
Ireland took the money and ran

You know, the EU reminds me of a man who invites a woman out for dinner and the expects sex in return.

He didn't say. "Hey baby, lets get some chow and then make sweet love", he said "Fancy some dinner in this really plush place on the South side honey?".

Two different things.

Ireland will be a net contributor by 2007 and unlike other net contributors to date (if memory serves), the EU (not Ireland) will decide how much Ireland contributes.

Moreover, the UK, is also a net contributor to the EU and opposes tax harmonisation and defence conglomeration of the EU, so to paint Ireland as some sort of ingrate sitting on the periphery, is, in the very least, totally spurious.

star gazer

originally posted by type def
Moreover, the UK, is also a net contributor to the EU and opposes tax harmonisation and defence conglomeration of the EU, so to paint Ireland as some sort of ingrate sitting on the periphery, is, in the very least, totally spurious.

It's interesting how politicians try to take the credit for the Celtic tiger, writing off the businesses and the people that worked at it and created the jobs etc. They would also like us to forget that the transfer of Eu funds really did make a difference to our economy lessening the drastic effects of the run away from the land (which back in the eighties and early nineties = emigration). The EU did not give us the Celtic tiger, but they did help, some say the regulations they forced us to accept even helped to make a more legitimate place to do business.

We bought into the ideals of europe when the money flowed in, now maybe the loveable rogue will say that hey we never forced anyone to give us the money, so why should we care about it now that we aren't dependent any more. It doesn't look good and if we wish to keep our EU neighbours off our backs for our 12.5% corporation tax rate then we have to act a little more 'europpean'. We don't owe them anything, but we owe our own futures something.

Matt Simis

Originally posted by Typedef


What interests of Ireland's are served by participating in a 'counterbalance to the US'? What makes French/German/Italian Imperialism (of which all countries named have a long and distinguished career) so much more filled with fortitude then that of the USA?

I'm no supporter of George Bush, but, since when does that mean, I have to love Jaques Chirac and his country's desire to run Europe from within, as the European political heavyweights?

No, I don't want to call Napoleon my King!

That fact that Ireland would be part of the new European unity makes it infinitely more attractive than Ireland's current situation of being relegated a cheap and nasty entry point for American companies into the EU.

A counterbalance to the US is needed, lest we further to be told when and where we can run our businesses (see US bans "non-pro-war" nations from Iraq). If we can be part of such a vast and powerful counterbalance, so much the better. We cant sit on the neutral fence forever, further EU integration and expansion is our big chance to be part of the worlds future.

Fine, youre against "European Federalism", please provide an alternative that addresses the concerns the people of Europe have with a seemingly out of control uni-superpower that would see us further relegated to second class citizens of the world political stage.


Matt



PS: Im also sickened by the fact Irelands name is associated with this idiotic campaign to have "christian origins and values" in the EU Constitution.

PHB

Why is it a good thing for Ireland to join a federal EU?

Ireland, on its own, will never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever have any sort of large scale influence on global politics ever.

The EU gives that option, to allow western liberalism a voice in global politics instead of being dictated to by the US.

Ireland has a strong position in Europe, its the example that every now joining economy will want to emulate, also, perhaps most importantly, its incredibly close relationship to England.

France and Germany are looking towards EU federalisation, why?
I do think its because that France wants to be a major player on the world stage, but I dont think Germany are giving into France easily because they are scared of what might happen in their country, I think its because they similarily want to be a major player on the world stage, to have their views heard.

If Ireland was to push for federalisation it would bring the UK along with it.
The UK connection with Ireland is very strong and I think they will eventually be forced to choose between the US and Europe(with Ireland part of it) and they will choose Europe.

The reason now that the UK back the US is because they are the only country that is acting on the global scale, and they are aware of their relativly tiny military power. They want to have an influence in world politics, and they do through influencing the US.

If Europe federalises slowly, it will bring Britain along, however if the they it too rapidly I fear it will not give sufficient time for the people of europe to get behind the idea.
I was personally very happy about the Iraq war because I knew it would begin to unite Europeans, and it has. the people of europe are moving closer and closer every day, and its a great thing, because it means in about 20 years, we will be able to have a say in what happens in the world, and not have to do what america tells us.

Maybe France will be leading Europe, and if so I dont really mind, nor do I mind if Germany leads it, or if Spain leads it, or(most likely) if the UK leads it. Why? Because eventually an Irish person will lead it, and even if that doesnt happen I know my voice can actually make a difference in the rest of the world, and not just in the 26 counties that we live in.

Sparks

Originally posted by PHB
Ireland, on its own, will never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever have any sort of large scale influence on global politics ever.

<looks at Irish politicians from Charlie Haughey to Bertie Ahern>

I fail to see why that would be a bad thing PHB. The best we have would be Mary Robinson or David Norris - and as good as they are, the bad drown them out without any effort
Frankly, I don't think we have much to offer the rest of the world.

PHB

Well I completely and utterly disagree, and that logic is just silly.
Are you saying to me you like Bush more than Bertie?
Would you rather the Italian prime minister ran the show?
I for one wouldn't like that all.

I have a lot of faith in the public, and eventually they'll stop screwing themselves by electing people like Bertie, and will start electing people like the used to, i.e. Cosgrace Lemass FitzGerald et al.

Sparks

"No one in this world, as far as I know...has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people."
— H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
Baltimore Sun Columnist