A Constitution for Europe

Bri

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.

Indeed.

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.

Can you see the benefit that the EU has in terms of enlargement; as a soft power tool? The EU's expansion creates stability, and potential accession countries are given a more concrete and tangible reason for improving their HR right record. Turkey is a good example; it's hardly there yet but without the potential prospect of joining the EU it has little to push it in the right direction - NGOs and International 'pressure'. The world is a cynical place when it comes down to foreign policy, so don't forget the history (and continuing violations) of much of the 'civilized' world. Are we just as guility for trying to be pals with the U.S.?

foxybrowne wrote:

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.

What exactly do you mean by this - in realistic terms? Bearing in mind the self-serving realism that still dogs much of foreign policy. It's very easy to talk nice but what would you want the EU to do tomorrow that's feasible?

It's arguable that the EU is leading by example: we're providing the diplomatic pressure while the U.S. flexes its muscles and plays bad cop with Iran, etc. We don't have the current capability or technology to have a large active army (let alone the will) and the huge increase in spending would hardly be feasible given the EU's relatively small budget. Also the EU's neighbourhood policy is arguably for the better (albeit flawed), as we engage our neighbours and have encorporated many into the Union.

flex wrote:

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.

I'm not 100% on this but Solana (the Foreign Minister to be) will be the single voice speaking when the EU agrees on topics. The reason CFSP is so dogged by trouble is the lack of unanimity in controversial issues. It's not like you've just diminished our own foreign ministry. Do you understand the complex process that goes on in articulating foreign policy? For a start all embassies get their instructions from their own country, not the EU. I'll post more on this if you want.

m1ke wrote:

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.

Likewise re: memory.
I also agree that it was arrogant of Bertie et al to decide constitution was the correct label to give it. It's blatently going to have a negative effect and hardly comparable to our own constitution in terms of size!

Bri

Flex wrote:

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).

Forgot to ask, what exactly is your issue with the EU presidency? Do you understand what it is now and what it will be?

Also, I'm unfamiliar with the Commission's downsizing, and regardless of what it is - what is negative about that, (especially for us over anyone else)? The Commission itself has voluntarily decentralised recently, to the benefit of all involved. e.g. DG Comp and Regulation 1/2003 delegating powers to NCAs.
If the Commission's role is diminished in some other way, I'm still unclear how this could be negative. Only thing I can think of is in relation to the increased powers of the Foreign Minister. It still has the sole right to propose legislation.

:eek:

capistrano

We shouldn't even be having a referendum about it. I fundamentally disagree asking the people to vote on complex treaties. Simple questions, like abortion or whatever, are fair enough, but not large complicated treaties or this new constitution for Europe. Who really believes that most voters will understand what's in the constitution when they vote?

Our duly elected government negotiated this on our behalf, it ought to be down to the Oireachtas to ratify it - that's parliamentary democracy.

Having said that, I'll certainly be voting yes. The only chance of getting a Yes vote in the UK is if everyone else has ratified it first - shame them into it!

Bri

monument wrote:

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

What makes you think I do?! The British press are well known for their large Euro-sceptic element, so it's quite unsurprising that my first google found this (as good as any redtop!)

This lay-man's guide to the EU is priceless. If only it was this simple!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=307249&in_page_id=1770
"The constitution will leave no corner of British life untouched as it takes a massive stride towards a European superstate."
Also more of the same:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=180818&in_page_id=1770
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=182963&in_page_id=1770

In contrast, here's Mr. Straw in the Economist:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2900206

Edit:

monument wrote:

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)?

You are also aware that Ireland currently supports the lifting of the Chinese Arms embargo? Welcome to the reality of International politics/trade. The EU is China's biggest economic partner. Self-serving interests always have a role to play, regardless of other goals. Why do you think we let the U.S. into Shannon?

The Corinthian

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.

With respects you don’t have a very good grasp of history. Most of the European nations were formed as a result of compromise, political expediency and sometimes just blind chance. In many cases, throughout the World Nations exist without any single dominant language or with numerous languages living side by side, each dominant in it’s own region.

Some nationalities are completely invented; such as the Belgians and British (both of which are actually composed of multiple ethnic groups). Two hundred years ago referring to a German or Italian was frankly no more a nationality than calling someone a Scandinavian or Iberian. And if you’re so certain that the people of a nation have common values, go up to Belfast for a bit.

Additionally, look at how many were formed; Austria did not become part of Germany for political reasons while Bavaria did because it was bankrupt. As for fighting against (or simply freeing itself from) a common powerful enemy; try Switzerland, Poland, Holland or Ireland.

Nationhood is largely a myth created by poets and politicians. A public relations exercise designed to keep everyone happy or going over the top of the trench.

foxybrowne

Moriarty wrote:

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 aftermath

Ask yourself where these countries (Haitis, Sudans, Liberias) got the weapons in the first place. The EU will better tackle the worlds troublespots by scrapping the European arms trade.

(sorry for delay in reply, was busy)

Moriarty

You wont find many factories for AK-47s or RPG-7s in western europe.

foxybrowne

You won't find ANY Coke or Nestle products in TCDSU owned outlets. Ban the weapons, boycott the companies who make them.
We'll lead and let the rest follow.

Moriarty

So I've heard. I don't agree with that either as it happens, but for different reasons.

In any case, attempting to ban the sale of weapons is analogous to demanding world peace. It's not going to happen, no matter how reasonable it may at first sound.

foxybrowne

The EU will ban the manafacture of weapons and the world will follow.

Moriarty

*sighs*

If you say so foxybrowne, if you say so.

m1ke

The EU will ban the manafacture of weapons and the world will follow

Suppose, eh... to pick one country at randon: Iran. Decides not to follow? You've been harping on about how guns'r'bad, however, removing them isn't going to reconcile the source of conflict. Even if they could be removed in the first place. For instance, there are substantial restrictions on weapons in Ireland, but we still have paramilitary organisations who flout that. The peace process, the operative word being process(imo), has been about changing the process of how people interact, the underlying fabric of tensions over a long period of time with the eventual goal of achieving peace and decommissioning etc... Part of voting for the EU constitution in a way, is endorsing a change in process, from violent nation-states and international anarchy to cooperation and peaceful coexistence. Surely, voting for perpetual peace in Europe is the kind of example we need to be setting.

foxybrowne

I'm rotton at argueing the point, but what I'm really trying to say is that the EU should be a force for peace in the world and that by arriving in a war-torn country with big guns and saying guns are bad might not work.

Bri

Your kidding right?!

Whatever aspirations you may have for world peace; don't expect 'the EU' to suddenly abolish everything and sit and wait for the rest to follow. Firstly the arms trade is something individual member states are engaged in, and have been for a long time. Imagine if the Commission initiated legislation stopping them making money (and being less secure)...Do you really see that as realistic?

I find myself wondering if your fully grasping the 'soft power' elements that the EU provides as a collective entity - regarding certain standards before accession which makes prospective members jump through hoops - the kind of hoops your calling for! For instance, Croatia can (and will) have their entry into the EU held back because of the government's failure to present a war criminal (due to overwhelming public support for said criminal). Is this the kind of thing your against?

bonkey

foxybrowne wrote:

arriving in a war-torn country with big guns and saying guns are bad might not work.

Sure, but in recent history, there is every indication that arriving and saying "guns are bad" with no force to back you up tends to lead to the ppl you're trying to discourage saying "yes, you're right. We promise to behave" and then continuing on with the slaughter.

Bri

foxybrowne wrote:

I'm rotton at argueing the point, but what I'm really trying to say is that the EU should be a force for peace in the world and that by arriving in a war-torn country with big guns and saying guns are bad might not work.

What about arriving in a war-torn country with big guns and saying genocide is bad? :eek:

You want them to be a force for peace? Force generally implies some degree of power, and economic sanctions are hardly the bees knees with little further to encourage certain standards...

The Corinthian

foxybrowne wrote:

The EU will ban the manafacture of weapons and the world will follow.

That has to be the most naïve thing I’ve heard in ages. And I mean criminally naïve. The type that reinforces my faith in eugenics.

You won't find ANY Coke or Nestle products in TCDSU owned outlets.

You do know that in one college, one such campaign to ban a certain company’s products was actually a scam? The referendum was engineered only so that a number of hacks could approach the company in question for ‘funding’ for a campaign.

m1ke wrote:

Suppose, eh... to pick one country at randon: Iran.

I would have suggested the USA; after all guns are a constitutional right there.

Bri

The Corinthian wrote:

That has to be the most naïve thing I’ve heard in ages. And I mean criminally naïve. The type that reinforces my faith in eugenics.

And that's one of the funniest things I've read in ages! Bravo.

/twidles thumbs while awaiting the response with anticipation.

johnKarma

foxybrowne wrote:

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.

Well, this is a bit vague. What in particular do you dislike?

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

Wrong. At present the Charter does not have the full force of law as it has not been integrated into the Treaties. (Although it has been endorsed by each individual member state.) The Constitution WILL give it legal force. The institutions of the Union and Member States will be bound to respect the fundamental rights as defined in the Constitution in their implementation of Union law. Furthermore, the Constitution will allow the Union to accede the the European Convention on Human Rights, thus providing a double protection.

3. People haven't engaged with it enough to vote on it (yet)

This is hardly a reason to vote 'no' is it?

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.

It's rather myopic of you to base your decision on a question of worldwide importance on your dislike of local politicians. Unfortunately this is the way of the world. Another unfortunate example is the current French opposition to the Constitution. Just like the French, you owe it to yourself, Ireland and Europe to inform yourself properly and not to let local prejudices determine your choice.

Bri

Still waiting for a response to these and the above points...

froggy 2

It is funny how the debate seems different in Ireland.

Here, in France, it is the left wing, traditionnally pro-european and even federalist, which is concerned by what is called "anti-social" aspects of the text.
Our right wing, for whom this point is of limited importance, tends to support the text.

In fact, the YES side try to convince people that we'll have an unified foeign policy to balance US power.
A little French neo-gaullist projection I suppose.
Basically, our NO side tends to show the foreign minister as an empty shell.

I see that the point is reversed in Ireland, with a YES side trying to convince people that the constitution implies nothing and a NO side trying to convince you that this part is really important.

Flex

Didnt the original text of the constitution actuallyinclude the word federal, but tony blair said it had to change.

froggy 2

"Didnt the original text of the constitution actuallyinclude the word federal, but tony blair said it had to change"

I don't know, but it seems doubtful.
I read the 2003 draft, and the word "federal" was not in the text.


Maybe it had been in previous versions, but I would be surprised it is true.

capistrano

Flex wrote:

Didnt the original text of the constitution actuallyinclude the word federal, but tony blair said it had to change.

I think one of the early drafts by Valery Giscard d'Estang's group did have the word federal. But that was never going to fly; Ireland, UK, Denmark, Sweden and probably others would have vetoed it instantly.

Nevada

The EU is sucking us in and pulling us down man it may very well cause the next European war.

capistrano

Nevada wrote:

The EU is sucking us in and pulling us down man it may very well cause the next European war.

Yawn!

Bri

Nevada wrote:

The EU is sucking us in and pulling us down man it may very well cause the next European war.

Again I find myself asking if I'm reading this right. Do you have any concept of how the EU foundations?

I'm guessing your just trolling. :rolleyes:

Rredwell

I personally am going to vote Yes in October for a number of reasons:
1. The Constitution gives us a framework that can be referred back to. Would you prefer us to keep operating under 6 overlapping and confusing treaties?
2. The Constitution will not make us a United States of Europe: the fact that the Union is a collection of independent member states is expresly stated.
3. This is Europe's chance to take a giant leap into the future and leave bloodshed and war behind, to abandon fractious national differences and forge a new identity based on peace and democracy, and above all, human rights.
4. This is a rights-based document, which enshrines human freedom and dignity in Part I. This means that everything the EU does will be based on rights, not on greed. We will have a completely different approach to the US.

m1ke

if France vote no in the next few weeks.... i think this whole thread will have been pretty much a pointless debate

AngelofFire

After spending the best part of a day reading the constitution je vote non. It will lead to ireland loosing a lot of political and economic autonomy.

1.The EU constitution supports militarisation, there is an article in there requiring member states to ''progressively undertake to improve their military capablilities'', as far as im concerned money spent on warfare is money that is not spent on welfare.

2.It will lead to a common foreign policy and will spell the end of irish neutrality, the council of ministers can decide foreign policy for all member states and all it needs is a majority of 55%. Meaning that if enough ministers decide that they want to follow America on another of its neo conservative crusades it will become the policy of the EU and ireland will have to follow.

3.It will undoubtabley lead to privatisation of our public services, Europe over the last few years has moved towards the american model of mass liberalisation of public services. There are several articles on free movement of goods, one of the articles states that economic policy shall be of common interest which can also be decided by a 55% majority.Meaning that Europe can vote to privatise our importance services like transport, electricty even education.

This Constitution does has a few token gestures to the left, like abolition of the death penalty and equal rights for workers travelling through memberstates. Nonetheless i see this as a right wing constitution framed by vested interests. I am voting no because i believe that europe deserves better.