EU Constitution AGREED!!

gom

Do you think that now the EU Constitution has been agreed that the Bertie posponed the discussion on who should be the next EU Commission President so that he himself could be nominated by the Dutch Presidency next month???

aidan_walsh

Link to the text, for those interested

Cork

This is indeed a massive diplomatic triumph for the Irish presidency.

Getting agreement from 25 member states was very difficult.

Fair play to all involved. They have done us proud.

mike65

One day I may read the text....

Mike.

arcadegame2004

Let's hope people actually read this document instead of waiting till the last minute and then complaining about "not having enough time for debate etc." when we come to the Irish referendum campaign.

Make up your minds on the basis of the document's contents and not on the basis of prejudicial views in either direction okay?

That's what I will try to do.

On the Bertie question, "No" is my answer. I think that with 25 members reaching decisions was always going to be more difficult. But I am strongly opposed to reappointing the gaff-prone Romano Prodi. Now do I want another Leftie in charge of the Commission for the umpteenth time. The next man should be of the centre-right, because they won a majority in the European Parliament elections. Maybe Wolfgang Schuessel, the Austrian PM would be a good compromise candidate.

Originally posted by doodle_sketch
Link to the text, for those interested

Erm..
Thats the draft from july 2003 isn't it?
It's dated 18 july 2003
Would it be to much of a co-incidence that today is 18th july 2004 and that it is a typo?
Could be very different from what was agreed today

*edit* well it's actually the 19th now-night night

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

aodh_rua

Just a quick word of warning to anyone thinking of reading the entire constitution - it's a whopping 333 pages. While I agree we should all be informed as to its content - I think I'll hang on for the summaries.

dathi1

Make up your minds on the basis of the document's contents and not on the basis of prejudicial views in either direction okay?

ok..but one question...why do we need a European constitution in the first place?

Maybe Wolfgang Schuessel, the Austrian PM would be a good compromise candidate.

I'm probably off the richter scale here but I'd go for Jörg Haider.

Imposter

Originally posted by dathi1
ok..but one question...why do we need a European constitution in the first place?
I'm probably off the richter scale here but I'd go for Jörg Haider.

Haider is busy. He's governer of Karnten. Then again Schüssel and Bertie also should be busy! His sister (Haider not Bertie) is now the new leader of the party too. Schüssel was mentioned in the Austrian media for the last while but I haven't seen anything mentioned about him in Irish, English or German media! I reckon there'll be a problem with whoever they go for as Germany and GB don't seem like they want to agree on anyone.

arcadegame2004

ok..but one question...why do we need a European constitution in the first place?

Some of the reasons:

A: We need an EU Constitution to make the division of powers within the EU easier to understand. At present, if you try reading the Maastricht Treaty, then Amsterdam, then Nice, what frustrates you is how you come across lots of parts that say stuff like "Article blah blah is replaced with this...paragraphy blah blah from this or that previous treaty is replaced by this...etc." Having a single document containing the division of powers would make the whole working of the EU much easier for the citizen to understand. It would also help to avoid EU encroachment in matters of national law that ought to be outside its competency.

B:I understand that new powers are given in the Constitution to national parliaments to block or hold up new EU laws proposed by the EU Commission. This increases the role of national parliaments and therefore enhances the role of the individual nations in the EU legislative process.

C:The European Parliament is apparently given a veto and amending power over all proposed EU laws (rather than 80% of them at present). This means that our elected MEP's get much more of an input into the EU legislative process - a fact which enhances democratic-accountability within the EU/ More stuff that is unpopular with the EU public can be blocked or changed then.

D:Apparently, the Constitution may include a way for a country to leave the EU, if they so wish - provided they give about 2 years notice. While I do not personally want Ireland to leave the EU, I think that it would be nice if the UK wasn't in a permanent position of being able to hold up the rest of us from doing what we want to do.

E:Greater use of enhanced-cooperation, the system that allows some EU states to go ahead on their own if not everyone wants to enter into common policies of a certain kind.

arcadegame2004

Here's the EU Constitution in a reader-friendly format.

http://www.euabc.com/upload/rfConstitution_en.pdf

Have a read.

arcadegame2004

Some positive points I have found reading the 317 page EU Constitution:

Article 1-23(3) (page 21) :

"The Council shall meet in public when it deliberates and votes on a draft legislative act."

I feel that this is welcome. It could help remove and address the suspicion some have of the Council of Ministers meeting privately and horsetrading in a manner that they might feel violates national-interests. Holding the meetings in public should engender more confidence in how the Council makes decisions, especially as, being viewed in public, they are more likely to be more vigorous in protecting national-interests.

Article 1-24(1) (page 22):

"A qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55% of the members of the Council, comprising at least fifteen of them, representing Member States comprising at least 65% of the population of the Union"

I feel that this Council of Ministers voting system better protects small countries than the system under Nice, especially as 20 of the 25 EU member-states are now small countries. The big countries - assuming they were all voting together - would need to get at least 10 of us to agree with them to win a vote at the Council of Ministers to pass a measure at the Council of Ministers. Good!

Sparks

Yes, but article I-51 is still unchanged.
http://www.irish-humanists.org/HotIssuesSub/eu51.html

arcadegame2004

1. The Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States.

2. The Union equally respects the status of philosophical and non-confessional organisations.

3. Recognising their identity and their specific contribution, the Union shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with these churches and organisations.

---

What's wrong with that? I strongly disagree with the website you linked to implying that this somehow amounts of Churches taking control of Europe.

aidan_walsh

The only problem I can see now is that we have to go to a referendum in order to ratify it. Oh the delicious irony if we have a Nice-a-like...

Sparks

What's wrong with it is that it is giving special protection to religious groups that is not afforded to non-religious groups. And if you read the footnotes on the Association of Irish Humanists' webpages, you'll note that it's not all sweetness and light:

Notes:
1. At the invitation of Dr Michael Weninger, Advisor on Religious Affairs to the President of the Commission, the Conference of European Churches and the Commission of the European Bishops Conferences have, in an exchange of letters, proposed four ways in which the ‘regular dialogue’ can be implemented including (and this is their phrase) ‘pre-legislative’ dialogue with the various advisors to the European Commission, ‘Presidential-level’ meetings, and the creation of a liaison office ‘to facilitate contacts between the various Commission services and the churches and religious communities’. As far as we are aware, Dr Weninger has extended no equivalent invitation to any Secular, Freethought, or Humanist organisation, nor have any such organisations sought special rights of access to the Commission.

In other words, the priests get to have quiet chats with the legislature behind the scenes, but non-religious groups do not enjoy this rather dangerous little luxury. And remember, that while it's the Vatican that gets the meetings, the Vatican does not represent the beliefs of the majority of catholics on many fundamental issues such as contraception, abortion, homosexuality and so on.

Also, 51's not needed - the rights of religious groups are protected elsewhere in the constitution already.

arcadegame2004

Dr Michael Weninger is only an advisor and of course consulting someone doesn't at all mean you're going to do what they say.

Sparks

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Dr Michael Weninger is only an advisor and of course consulting someone doesn't at all mean you're going to do what they say.

Advisors are listened to occasionally, and consulting someone doesn't at all mean you're not going to do what they say.
Point stands that this was a measure put in place for religious groups that is not afforded to nonreligious groups.

article6

Originally posted by Sparks
Point stands that this was a measure put in place for religious groups that is not afforded to nonreligious groups.

Does Irish Humanists not count as a "non-confessional organisation"? Given that the word "organisation" is only used in 2 and 3, you could argue that non-confessionals may have dialogue. If they really have not "sought special rights of access to the Commission", then they should, to defend the interests of their members.

Sparks

Originally posted by article6
Does Irish Humanists not count as a "non-confessional organisation"?

No more so than a bank or a sports club...

Given that the word "organisation" is only used in 2 and 3, you could argue that non-confessionals may have dialogue. If they really have not "sought special rights of access to the Commission", then they should, to defend the interests of their members.

Except that Humanists tend to believe in strict seperation of church and state. So sure, you could pursue special access, but only at the sacrifice of your beliefs - not much of a solution.

They're not asking for a back-door to government anyway, they're saying that we should debate laws in public, not debate on church-approved laws in public.

article6

Originally posted by Sparks
No more so than a bank or a sports club...

Dodging the question. For the purposes of this Article, section 2 is a counter-balance to section 1; that is, giving 'atheist' groups the same rights as 'theist' groups (though this is an oversimplification).

Except that Humanists tend to believe in strict seperation of church and state. So sure, you could pursue special access, but only at the sacrifice of your beliefs - not much of a solution.

Alright. It's still not true to say the Article is "a measure put in place for religious groups that is not afforded to nonreligious groups" if the non-religious groups are afforded the measure, but will not accept it. That is a matter for the group, not the Constitution.

They're not asking for a back-door to government anyway, they're saying that we should debate laws in public, not debate on church-approved laws in public.

Isn't it unrealistic to claim all laws will be "church-approved" given that the Constitution only refers to a "dialogue"? Your complaint should be about Dr Weninger's vague guidelines, not the Constitution document. At least we've rowed back on "quiet chats with the legislature behind the scenes" when "open" and "transparent" are staring at us in the face in section 3...

Sparks

Originally posted by article6
Dodging the question.

Nope, pointing out the problems with the language used.

Alright. It's still not true to say the Article is "a measure put in place for religious groups that is not afforded to nonreligious groups" if the non-religious groups are afforded the measure, but will not accept it. That is a matter for the group, not the Constitution.

Nope. It's a measure not afforded to nonreligious groups because no non-religious group was given the offers that the religious groups were given; the fact that the humanists wouldn't have accepted on philosophical grounds is a seperate fact, not another facet of the same one.
And it is a matter for the constitution - where else do you draw the line between church and state?

Isn't it unrealistic to claim all laws will be "church-approved" given that the Constitution only refers to a "dialogue"? Your complaint should be about Dr Weninger's vague guidelines, not the Constitution document. At least we've rowed back on "quiet chats with the legislature behind the scenes" when "open" and "transparent" are staring at us in the face in section 3...

Actually, there's been no rowing back. Article I-51 has not been altered since the last draft was issued prior to this round of negotiations. And Weninger's guidelines would be mooted by an alteration to the Constitution, and that's where this problem should be handled. It's a fundamental point, not an ancillary one to be handled in side notes.

article6

Originally posted by Sparks
Nope, pointing out the problems with the language used.

Semantics, the death of many a fine debate on the Politics forum

Nope. It's a measure not afforded to nonreligious groups because no non-religious group was given the offers that the religious groups were given;

Whether they are offered the measure or not, it is their right under the Constitution to take it. Your complaint here should be with Dr Weninger, not the Constitution.

And it is a matter for the constitution - where else do you draw the line between church and state?

Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I meant that whether the non-confessional group accepts the measure or not is a matter for themselves. Whether measures should be afforded to them is obviously a matter for the Constitution, and has been resolved favourably towards non-confessionals.

Actually, there's been no rowing back. Article I-51 has not been altered since the last draft was issued prior to this round of negotiations. And Weninger's guidelines would be mooted by an alteration to the Constitution, and that's where this problem should be handled. It's a fundamental point, not an ancillary one to be handled in side notes.

Again, my fault. The "rowing back" I referred to was your own, considering that 7 posts ago you said that the dialogue would be a "quiet chat", despite the Constitution saying it would be "open" and "transparent".

Sparks

Originally posted by article6
Semantics, the death of many a fine debate on the Politics forum

True, but this is a piece of written law - the language is rather important, especially as it will be translated into several different languages and be equally authoritative in each of them...

Whether they are offered the measure or not, it is their right under the Constitution to take it.

A constitution that claims to fairly and equally defend the right of all to their religious beliefs. And since humanism is classed as a religious belief (even though it's purely secular), this is an example of one article in the constitution violating that protection.

Your complaint here should be with Dr Weninger, not the Constitution.

But Weninger's offers couldn't take place without Article 51. Fix 51 and Weninger's offers are a moot point. Therefore Weninger is secondary.

Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I meant that whether the non-confessional group accepts the measure or not is a matter for themselves. Whether measures should be afforded to them is obviously a matter for the Constitution, and has been resolved favourably towards non-confessionals.

But why did it have to be done this way at all? Why not treat churches and state (and don't forget, the EU hosts more religions than just Roman Catholicism, there's Protestantism, Islam, Humanism, and a dozen or more others...)

Again, my fault. The "rowing back" I referred to was your own, considering that 7 posts ago you said that the dialogue would be a "quiet chat", despite the Constitution saying it would be "open" and "transparent".

But Weninger's offer are the "quiet chat" model, rather than open and transparent debate - those "pre-legislative talks" that he's talking about are not public ones.

gaelic cowboy

At least now we can see what this is all about at last with this constitution lark the rocky road to an EU federal state of course. Well I say no way man to hell with there bloody grandiose notions of superpower building stuff them.

Cork

You will have the usual euro skeptics coming out of the wood work. But - replacing the various treatys with a constitution makes sense.


We still will have a veto on social security, taxation and security policy

So, the skeptics will harp on about soveriegnty, neutrality etc.

The very same arguements they put forward, time after time after time.

We still have our veto lads on social security, taxation and security policy

This constitution one of the most important developments effecting this country. It is a triumph for the Irish Presidency and it safegaurds social security, taxation and security policys.

arcadegame2004

Gaelic cowboy, given that the Constitution specifically states that a country may leave the EU, how do you surmise that it creates a "superstate"?

gaelic cowboy

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Gaelic cowboy, given that the Constitution specifically states that a country may leave the EU, how do you surmise that it creates a "superstate"?

Simple the more we intergrate our diplomatic function's involving everything from foreign policy, economics, the millitary etc etc the more the politicians will try to cod us with rubish about how we can't leave or how were being ungrateful etc etc take your pick really. If you do not believe we going to have a superstate one day ask yourself this why did Ireland have to vote yes on the treaty of nice. If we discount all the reason's about how it couldn't be ratified anywhere else in the EU why was a democratic result wrong. Why is it seemingly that we can never be allowed to have a result that is not what is expected. Regardless of wether you supported or rejected the eventual result on any treaty we voted we seem never to be allowed to voice our own opinion a bit like Iraqi election's with Saddam

ewanduffy

It si a pity the treaty wasn't concluded in Dublin as then it would have been the Dublin Treaty and the No campaign could have used the slogan "No to Dublin":)

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Gaelic Cowboy
Simple the more we intergrate our diplomatic function's involving everything from foreign policy, economics, the millitary etc etc the more the politicians will try to cod us with rubish about how we can't leave or how were being ungrateful etc etc take your pick really. If you do not believe we going to have a superstate one day ask yourself this why did Ireland have to vote yes on the treaty of nice. If we discount all the reason's about how it couldn't be ratified anywhere else in the EU why was a democratic result wrong. Why is it seemingly that we can never be allowed to have a result that is not what is expected. Regardless of wether you supported or rejected the eventual result on any treaty we voted we seem never to be allowed to voice our own opinion a bit like Iraqi election's with Saddam

Gaelic Cowboy, that is a rather scaremongering post and in my opinion borders on the hysterical. This is intended to be the final EU treaty that will be negotiated so I don't accept that with all 25 EU states retaining their national-vetos on taxation, and defence, that we are going to see harmonised taxation or conscription into European armies, contrary to the off-the-wall arguments of Anthony Coughlan, SF, and the Greens in all of the other EU-related referendums. I am so sick of them opposing every single EU treaty that gets negotiated. Clearly, the content of these documents alone is not what repulses them. It is the EU itself that they despise. Anyone can tell this is the case from how they warn they will oppose such treaties even before their negotiation had even finished or been released to the public, e.g. Patricia McKenna of the (europhobic) Greens called the Nice Treaty "the death of democracy" when she heard it had been negotiated and called for a "No" vote in December 2000. She could hardly have known of its contents at that stage.

More evidence that emotional europhobia is the real reason for these groups' opposition to EVERY EU treaty this country has ever signed up to can be found from their hatred of the existing system while also opposing ANY changes to it! For example, while the original 2000 Nice negotiations were going on, when it was reported that Ireland would keep its Commissioner, she ranted that it didn't matter because the Commission was only "symbolic". Is it? That's news to me. Then of course when it turned out that upon the growth of the EU to 27 there might be equal rotation of Commissioners she was warning about us "losing our Commissioner". So you really can't win with people like her, and to my mind you come across Gaelic Cowboy as someone like her.

You need to appreciate the fact that a small state can only wield substantial influence over the most important factors affecting it through membership of international-organisations, especially the EU. For example, recall when the US imposed tariffs on imports of European steel. Do you seriously think that Ireland, outside of the EU, would have been able to persuade the US to back down on this alone? Get real if you do. It was because of warnings of sanctions by the EU (which has 21% of world trade) that the US backed down.

There are other issues concerning Ireland too, beyond trade, but which Ireland alone cannot effectively deal with, and these justify the EU being more than just a trading-bloc e.g. environmental policy needs to be coordinated to help deal with global-warming, immigration-policy needs to be coordinated to combat trafficking of illegal-immigrants, etc.

You need to realise that true sovereignty means being able to actually have an influence over things that affect you. In those policy areas where the nation state can do this itself, the veto should remain etc. taxation, social-security, education, health (and indeed they do remain in the Constitution). But in those policy areas where alone Ireland can achieve little, e.g. international-trade, environmental policy, the veto should not remain, as otherwise concrete measures are unlikely to emerge.