A Constitution for Europe

foxybrowne

What do yiz think on the EU constitution?
Personally, I'm all for the EU, but will be voting against the constitution because:
1. Too much on defence in it. The European arms trade is rotton.
2. Charter of Fundamental Rights has is only a declaration, and lacks the force of law.
3. People haven't engaged with it enough to vote on it (yet)
4. I'm from North County Dublin and after Burke, GV and the "gang", I have a great mistrust of anything FF and FG says and does. Its a pity, but they have only themselves to blame.

Flex

Im gonna vote against it aswel.The reason being that we're going so deep into eureope that we're literally on the verge of becoming like we were in the UK of GB&Ire ; a province rather than a nation.Sorry, dont want that.The EU cant become like the USA
1)The USA started out as colonies and most of the people regarded themselves as colonists.They never had a strong individual bond to their state, like we do to our country.
2)They had to unite as 1 to fight against a common powerful enemy(British Empire)
3)They mostly spoke a common language and had very similar values.

The EU is great, but I dont understand why there has to be political union and a sacrifice of nations sovereignty so we can trade and have co-operation.

gandalf

I have downloaded the draft of the constitution. I will try and read it over the next week or so, I will reserve my judgement until then at least.

mike65

Flex wrote:

1)The USA started out as colonies and most of the people regarded themselves as colonists.They never had a strong individual bond to their state, like we do to our country.
2)They had to unite as 1 to fight against a common powerful enemy(British Empire)
3)They mostly spoke a common language and had very similar values.

Er not really true, Americans are uber nationalists (heck they think everything is better is the US of A and often go abroad to make that clear).

They had to fight off not just Britain but also the Spanish, French, Mexcians and er the natives at different times.

They never had a common language - English, French, Spanish, German, Swedish, Itailian, Polish, Yiddish, yes Irish too are just a few of the many lauguages spoken throughout the history of the United States and before.
English has only ever been the unofficial "official" tongue of the USA.

As for the EU constitution I'm not familair with it and even if I were because I'm a European in a country not "my own" I won't get to vote on the matter.

Amazing but true.

Mike.

Mike.

Bri

Flex wrote:

The EU is great, but I dont understand why there has to be political union and a sacrifice of nations sovereignty so we can trade and have co-operation.

Economic union should generally follow political union...the EU did it the other way around (for a variety of reasons). Hence the emphasis on political now that the economic has been largely successful (I said largely!).

You are aware that the majority of what the constitution actually does is cement the existing treaties into one, altering the legal basis of what already exists. It also includes a 'leave the Union' clause.

TBH I have plenty more reading to do on the topic but I would strongly advise you to read up some more before you reckon your just advancing the EU another step closer to federal union. As much as some core countries may continually push for integration, sovereignty is something no state will be giving up anytime soon. A huge part of the EU is intergovernmental and will stay that way. There are oodles of examples and reasons for this.

mike65

Its interesting that even the federal French are at the moment slightly against it in latest poll. While the UK will almost certainly vote no (and Blair has promised a vote on this issue) so I dont know why its even been considered.

Curent attitude in EU states

Mike.

PHB

UK will prob vote no, although don't discotn the political skill of Blair.

France uses referendums to signify their like/dislike of the government.
Watch for a drop in taxes or improved services a month before the referendum and it will pass

Bri

mike65 wrote:

Its interesting that even the federal French are at the moment slightly against it in latest poll. While the UK will almost certainly vote no (and Blair has promised a vote on this issue) so I dont know why its even been considered.

As PHB mentioned, France's prospective no is reaction to the current state of things in France such as the 35-hour week debate - aswell as the Bolkenstein (sp?) services directive...which as been called back for reform anyway. Sure they can always have a second - ala Nice!

The UK was always going to be the hard one and so if it fails you can bet there's been much talk on making a different tiered Europe, raising the level of the 'core' countries who are more happy to integrate.

What really annoys me about the UK's attitude is a huge proportion of it comes from poor understanding and tabloid scaremongering.

dathi1

for or against it wont make much difference...if the French vote no then its back to the drawing board for Brussels. "IF" Ireland votes No then we will have to vote again until the dictat is passed.

gom

dathi1 wrote:

for or against it wont make much difference...if the French vote no then its back to the drawing board for Brussels. "IF" Ireland votes No then we will have to vote again until the dictat is passed.

Well if the French VOte 'Non' to the EU Constitutional Treaty it isn't binding. French Referendums ar enot contitutionally binding in france. Essentially Charac could just push it through parliment but would almost certainly lose the next election. Still, he is a proud gaulist and I think he might just do that if he beliefs it is for the betterment of his fellow countrymen .
I have close friends in france who are leading opposition to the EU Constitution and the Bolkestein Services Directive. Their campaign has been gaining general broad censenus support in France. I would actually say there is a 50/50 chance in France at the moment of the referendum falling/passing.

This of course doesn't mean that France won't ratify the Treaty even if they vote No

Bri

What are their reasons for opposing the treaty and the directive?

bonkey

Flex wrote:

The EU is great, but I dont understand why there has to be political union and a sacrifice of nations sovereignty so we can trade and have co-operation.

Isn't that just another wa of saying that the EC was great, but you don't see why we had to decide on having an EU?

jc

Moriarty

The opposition to the constitution in France isn't purely because of domestic matters. French people are worried (rightly or wrongly, I don't know) that they're going to have their power diluted in the EU if this treaty is ratified. No longer will France and Germany alone be able to guide it as they see fit.

Bri

Moriarty wrote:

No longer will France and Germany alone be able to guide it as they see fit.

By the increase in QMV or the EP's role or something else? I havn't done enough reading on this but I'm not really sure what part of it they object to outside of domestic matters?

Moriarty

I dunno tbh. I saw this on a bbc news report about the constitution a month or two back. It more than likely is to do with QMV and removal of vetos.

m1ke

I plan to vote in favour of the constitution. Without a shadow of a doubt it is historic and without precedent, Irelands input was central to negotiating it and it is very much in our national interest. Worringly, if France vote no, we can forget about the whole thing for a few years. In answer to some of the reasons people have given for voting against it:

1. Too much on defence in it. The European arms trade is rotton.
Europe's lack of defensive capabilities has caused the EU to turn a blind eye from crimes against humanity and war on our very doorstep in the Balkans. Having a small well equiped force to tackle this is vital for the peace and prosperity of the region and will give the EU the further specialist capacity to undertake peace keeping missions. Furthermore, neutrality is protected so it's within all member states interests.

2. Charter of Fundamental Rights has is only a declaration, and lacks the force of law.
A declaration is a good start. As was mentioned earlier, this is a consolidation of what already exists into one document, with many added improvements that make important moral considerations on things like human rights. This document improves the efficiency and capacity to act in this area and provides the grounds for evolution. The status quo is just a long list of inefficient agencies that fail to provide a joined up strategy on these issues.

3. People haven't engaged with it enough to vote on it (yet)
If people were expected to engage on everything, nothing would get voted on.

4. I'm from North County Dublin and after Burke, GV and the "gang", I have a great mistrust of anything FF and FG says and does. Its a pity, but they have only themselves to blame.
Don't let petty individuals and local politicians influence your vote on a very important continental issue. Also, i'm sure in European Parliament, the constitution is supported by a party that you could agree with, unless you're involved with the far-right.

1)The USA started out as colonies and most of the people regarded themselves as colonists.They never had a strong individual bond to their state, like we do to our country.

Europe is not even remotely becoming anything like a federal state. Infact in the EU what we have is a more advanced solution that allows nations to co-exist and co-operate. There are intergovernmental elements, some federal elements, And other theoretical frameworks such as:
-Multi-level governance, think of the EU as an advanced level of government
-The regulatory state(a new type of state that is not like a traditional state with an army etc... but is there to regulate an advanced economy)
-Supranational government

Flex

bonkey wrote:

Isn't that just another wa of saying that the EC was great, but you don't see why we had to decide on having an EU?

jc

How are ya bonkey.No not really.I just dont see the need for political union between seperate nations as a need for trade and co-operation.Not only does this simply bring together all the past treaties, it creates a president of europe and a foreign "chief", to look after foreign affairs.Also diminishes the EU commission, which as a small nation, is something we should be wary of.Ya cant really trust our parties because theyre so pro-EU; Fine Gael is a part of the EPP(very pro-federalist) and Fianna Fail tried to join the Liberals(also pro-federalist).

I think the EU parliament should give nations a far more even amount of representation to each nation rather than proprotionality by population, or even copy the US model if needs be, by creating an upper house like our Seanad(but more power) which has 2 members from each nation regardless of size.Besides, isnt this one of those treaties that needs unanimous consent to pass?If so id say Britain will stop it, and because theyre a big member nation, the treaty might be checked over again rather than being voted on again like with us.Im hopin for a career in the defence forces and as such im scepticle about were this treaty is leading to, since some of our partys have started comin out and sayin they think our policy of neutrality should be phased out.

Flex

1. Too much on defence in it. The European arms trade is rotton.
Furthermore, neutrality is protected so it's within all member states interests.

2. Charter of Fundamental Rights has is only a declaration, and lacks the force of law.

Ya know, the thing our government got at Seville to "protect" our neutrality is also only a declaration.Theres nothing legally binding about it, so its a flimsy piece of protection for us.

Flex

As for the EU constitution I'm not familair with it and even if I were because I'm a European in a country not "my own" I won't get to vote on the matter.

Amazing but true.

Mike.

You arnt allowed to vote on it?!? Thats pretty ****** up.

monument

Bri wrote:

What really annoys me about the UK's attitude is a huge proportion of it comes from poor understanding and tabloid scaremongering.

Could you give examples on this issue, please - I don’t read the red tops.

m1ke wrote:

Furthermore, neutrality is protected so it's within all member states interests.

You'll have to remind me who said "-The regulatory state(a new type of state that is not like a traditional state with an army etc..."

It’s an army of our union, but it has noting to do with us. Funny, but not laughable.

m1ke wrote:

2. Charter of Fundamental Rights has is only a declaration, and lacks the force of law.
A declaration is a good start.

What's the use when our government just "trusts" suspected breakers of current human rights laws(, and at least one other EU government is breaking them all the time)?

m1ke wrote:

3. People haven't engaged with it enough to vote on it (yet)
If people were expected to engage on everything, nothing would get voted on.

Yeah, because nothing every gets done in Switzerland. :rolleyes:

(see: Swiss government system, for starters see -
http://www.swissworld.org/eng/swissworld.html?siteSect=700 )

m1ke wrote:

Don't let petty individuals and local politicians influence your vote on a very important continental issue.

No, but you should let most of Europe - where you will find more of their kind - influence your vote.

m1ke wrote:

Europe is not even remotely becoming anything like a federal state.

Sorry, but you go on to contradict your self...

m1ke wrote:

There are intergovernmental elements, some federal elements,

Remind me who said "Europe is not even remotely becoming anything like a federal state". Thanks!

m1ke wrote:

And other theoretical frameworks such as:
-Multi-level governance, think of the EU as an advanced level of government
-The regulatory state(a new type of state that is not like a traditional state with an army etc... but is there to regulate an advanced economy)
-Supranational government

And none of this is even sounding like it's becoming 'a group of regions that is controlled by a central government'.

gandalf

BTW here is a link to a downloadable version of the constitution.

bonkey

monument wrote:

Yeah, because nothing every gets done in Switzerland. :rolleyes:

Now, in fairness....the Swiss may have far more control over their own nation...but they still don't engage half-enough in many of the issues.

Also, just like in Ireland, ad campaigns etc. on an issue generally don't start until a month or two before its coming up for a vote. In that respect, its often just like Ireland....it just happens more often.

They're just as capable as the Irish of making decisions from a perspective of being underinformed or of the issues being clouded by differing voices telling you different meanings of what will happen.

jc

m1ke

It’s an army of our union, but it has noting to do with us. Funny, but not laughable.
The EU can have federal elements without being a federal state. Just as the UK has federal elements without being a federal state. Not to say that the EU has anything approaching the centralised nature of the UK! What I should say is that: the EU is something new, so it's understandable that people may see it as a potential USA. Your concerns about a European army follow this theme. Whereas in areas of economic management e.g the single currency etc., the EU has some federal powers... even in economic areas they're heavily wieghted towards the intergovernmental... infact so much work gets done by unanimity and consensus that sometimes you can forget about power struggles. However, when it comes to foreign and security policy, and security and defence policy powers are totally intergovernmental.

At the heart of European security and defence policy is it's ability to provide civilian crisis management. This means being able to deploy forces, military and policing, rule of law missions, civil administration agents, reconstruction specialists, observers etc... Most importantly, decisions are made by QMV and unanimity and there is an emergency break if I remember correctly, and the policy process isn't controlled by any centralised institution.... it's initated in one insitution, policy is planned developed... passed on etc... I'd have to get a book out tbh to go through it all.

What's the use when our government just "trusts" suspected breakers of current human rights laws(, and at least one other EU government is breaking them all the time)?
Why throw away a great advance in the area of the respect for human rights just because it's not utopian enough for you? Progress has to start somewhere. The EU has created the political norms and conditions for respect for international law and human rights in what was the most violent region in human history.

Oh, good luck to those who are planning to read the draft constitution! I'll read the first bit so I can contribute to any future threads on it.

Flex

gandalf wrote:

BTW here is a link to a downloadable version of the constitution.

Im gonna read through all of it, but iv read through the Common Foreign and Security Policy and quite frankly thats enough to make me vote against it.Your only fooling yourself to think this will be a union of seperate & independent nations, rather than the next USA.I hope the electorate will vote for this based on what it is and what it means rather than voting for it because Bertie Ahern and Enda Kenny tell them to.

foxybrowne

Lets just leave out the guns, all they do is kill.

m1ke

Lets just leave out the guns, all they do is kill.

If you are expressing a distaste for war then I commend you. However, are you further implying that the EU shouldn't engage in crisis management situations? Non-intervention in crisis situations as been tried in a darkly ironic way: to death. If only we could ask the 800,000 people in Rwanda, and the 50,000 people who died in Sudan last year what they thought of our callous indifference. There is no cost free way of making our lives, and the lives of others secure.

iv read through the Common Foreign and Security Policy and quite frankly thats enough to make me vote against it.Your only fooling yourself to think this will be a union of seperate & independent nations, rather than the next USA.

Why have you reached this conclusion after reading the CFSP? I'm open to any suggestions that you can back up.

foxybrowne

Lets lead by example, lets ban the bomb, drop the gun and bury the hatchet with all our neighbours. Europe can take the lead and build a brighter future.

Moriarty

That's effectively what most of europe has done for the past 15 years. The result of which is that the US have the only military capable of actually projecting force, so they're relied on to take the lead with all the Haitis, Sudans, Liberias etc as well as the likes of post-tsunami SE asia.

If they don't want to or can't, I guess those people can just go die quietly, right? After all, it's entirely their fault and responsibility for having poor governance or civil war, us europeans are above all that messy fighting business. So we'll continue to sit on the side lines and say "Oh, what a calamity!" while death tolls keep rising. There's a word for that you know.. complicity.

monument

bonkey wrote:

Now, in fairness....the Swiss may have far more control over their own nation...but they still don't engage half-enough in many of the issues.

It looks as if I was clouding their control, and how much they engage in issues they have control over.

m1ke wrote:

The EU can have federal elements without being a federal state. Just as the UK has federal elements without being a federal state.… a potential USA.

Before there is a “federal government”, such a government has to have total control? Or, can there be a federal government along side other levels of government?

Don’t get me wrong federal type government can be good, but they do not need to be as powerful as some want the EU to be.

m1ke wrote:

Why throw away a great advance in the area of the respect for human rights just because it's not utopian enough for you? Progress has to start somewhere. The EU has created the political norms and conditions for respect for international law and human rights in what was the most violent region in human history.

I don’t think I said I was looking for a utopian solution. Progress can start when governments do not ignore current human rights laws when it pleases them to do so.

Flex

Why have you reached this conclusion after reading the CFSP? I'm open to any suggestions that you can back up.

Articles I-39 1,2,5,7
ArticlesI-40 1,2,3,5,7

The creation of a Foreign minister, who i have no doubt will take "primacy" over our own.Since we only have 13 of the 732 MEPS in the EU parliament, QMV isnt much good for us.

m1ke

The creation of a Foreign minister, who i have no doubt will take "primacy" over our own.Since we only have 13 of the 732 MEPS in the EU parliament, QMV isnt much good for us.

The decisions are of an intergovernmental nature so voting doesn't take place in the parliament on the major military issues. They're taken in the council of ministers. So Ireland would be equally represented as any other member state.

As far as I remember policy is initiated by the council or commission with the foreign ministers involvement. The need for a foreign minister is really the need to have someone capable of giving scope and direction to foreign policy and to be able to initiate policy... where it then is voted on. The role of the foreign minister is not comparable to the role of a national foreign minister. The Parliament only has co-decision in some areas of lesser importance. This is all from memory, I don't have a book or other source on hand to substantiate this so I mighn't have all the details. In conclusion, people are just intimidated by words like 'foreign minister' 'constitution', they place them in the same context as that which they view in national politics when infact they're totally different in reality.