EU constitution

[ComradeDavo]

(have numbered this to make easier to reply)

1. Did you also read my reply to him?


2. If that wise remark is aimed at me, I think I have mentioned ad nauseam that I am an anarchist. However I think parts of Marx' thinking is still highly relevant today and rather more modern than a neoliberal constitution.But that is off-topic, of course.

3. :shakehead :shakehead I really wonder what you did during history classes...

4. So we have a typical EU-debate, instead of arguments demogogical slogans are used. Except for the absurd in that people who supports a system that is made by, for and with the very elite that wants to impose a more neoliberal economy with the consequences mentioned above accuses others of this, it is an unaccaptable way of debating as far as I am concerned, so I will leave this thread.
Just let me give some of you a piece of advice: read the EU constitution carefully before you make up your mind.

1. Yeh, and I understand your point, it's just that I don't think in the current world situation a country such as mine can really have socialist style state ownership of production anyway.

2. No, the remark was aimed at the communist parties across the EU who oppose it. Aplogies if you thought this was directed at you.

3. I got an A (top mark) for History at A-Level (plus A* (top mark) at GCSE......What I mean is that the EU is essentinial to the UK economy, and that we need the money we get from trading with our EU partners so that we can afford wealfare programmes. Basically, EU makes companies money, we tax companies, Jimmy gets to go to a decent school and his Grandma gets a pensionplus a free bus pass.

4. I genuinally believe that if the UK was to not go into this then the country will suffer as the conservatives would gain from a No vote, and the conservatives will devastate the wealfare state with their proposed tax cuts and privatisation programmes. The welfare state will suffer is the UK does not go for this. So sorry if you say I was using a 'slogan', it's just that i'd rather take the EU common market over British isolationism.

There is a veto for governments in regards to taxation, and it is tax that provides the wealfare state in the UK.

Also, please elaborate on how you think it is neo-liberal, and how you would rather it be I am intrested in what you have to say so please post more in this thread!

 

[ComradeDavo]

I am undecided on this and will thus vote no in the poll as I can't just "sign" on to something I'm not convinced of.

The only argument in favour of it for me is that it might be better than nothing. But effectively it is far too undemocratic for my taste and simply doesn't go far enough. I tend to prefer a "either complete or not at all" stance on these matters, I think countries who didn't want to join the Euro should have been kicked out, for example.

But as we won't even hold a referendum (which would probably lead to a "no" and the factual collapse of the whole union) this doesn't matter at all. Great democracy this is...

How do you think it is un-democratic? I have heard this argument alot but as far as I see it's not any more undemocratic than national parliments anyways.

I do think you should have a referendum though, all 25 countries should in my opinion

 

[Winner]

If there is a referendum in CZ, I'll vote YES. Personaly I don't think it is very good, but I understand it is the best possible compromise. I would like to see it more pro-federalistic, but I can live with it in its current form.

And for those from smaller European countries - I think that this "constitution" actually make EU friendlier for small countries such as CZ.

(BTW it is very funny, when some people here call it too neoliberal Opposition in CZ actually call it socialistic )

 

[MaisseArsouye]

This Constitution has some good points and some bad points. I spent a lot of time thinking about it before deciding... For me, it's NO.

The good points are :
- simplifications of ancient treaties
- voting procedure at the council simpler than in the Treaty of Nice
- a president elected for 2,5 year, renewable one time
- a foreign affairs minister
...

The bad points are :
- It's still too much complicated it has more than 448 articles while most constitutions have less than 200 ( 198 in Belgium, 89 in France, 27 in the USA ).
- It goes too far on some points : free market, good relations with NATO,.. al these have not place in a CONSTITUTION ! They can change <ith every new government
- It doens't go far enough on the way to federalim
...

The point that makes I say no is this Constitution will be very hard to change if we take it.

 

[Winner]

From IHT.com

BRUSSELS When President George W. Bush arrives this weekend, he will be confronted with an aspect of the grand European project that usually gets less attention than the shared currency or the single market: a common European foreign policy.

One of the chief architects of the new policy, Robert Cooper, describes it this way: "This is not realpolitik."

Cooper has helped develop the idea of a voluntary, liberal "imperialism": The European Union persuades countries to adopt its peaceful and democratic ways, not by armed conquest but by offering access to its markets, its aid budgets or even the ultimate prize of membership and entry into its councils.

It is an amorphous style of foreign policy that seeks to change the world in ways other than through confrontation or conflict. It is a philosophy, as Bush may discover during his visit, that is at odds with U.S. thinking, at least in its current neoconservative incarnation.

"There is something that people perceive about the EU: its peace and prosperity, its idea of a community of democracies," Cooper, a former British diplomat and adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair, said this week in an interview.

"This is actually very, very powerful."

Reaching even the current nascent stage of a common European foreign policy has taken years. In the early decades of European integration, countries ignored foreign policy to concentrate instead on building the EU's grittier internal structures.

But the succession of wars in the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, the EU's inability to respond, and the rising terrorist threat underlined the need for a stronger, unified external stance.

In 1999, Javier Solana, a former Spanish foreign minister and former chief of NATO, was appointed the EU's high representative on foreign policy. His role, according to Cooper, has been to divine the political "center of gravity" within the constellation of the EU member states.

Deep within the Consilium, a sand-colored, mirror-windowed building that is one of Brussels' seats of power, Solana has begun to develop a single European civil service and an embryonic EU foreign ministry. His staff has doubled in size since 1999 and now stands at about 300.

According to Jim Cloos, who works for Solana on trans-Atlantic relations, it is already affecting the way Europe relates to America.

"The way we talk to the Americans and what we talk about has changed quite dramatically over the last five years," Cloos said.

The role of Solana and his team could be elevated further within the next 18 months if all EU nations ratify the new European Constitution. The constitution foresees a single European foreign minister; Solana has already agreed to take the job.

Despite such early stirrings, there are forces opposing further integration. As with every part of the European project, the tradeoff in foreign policy is between those who want power delegated to the EU's central institutions, and those who think it should continue to reside in Paris, Berlin or London.

Countries such as Britain and France are loath to surrender any claims to independent power, such as their seats on the United Nations Security Council. The United States, too, has been uncertain about whether to encourage the emergence of a potential rival.

Europeans, in turn, have been wary of undermining traditional alliances such as NATO.

But the biggest recent blow to a shared foreign policy was the war in Iraq.

The bitter divisions it caused rocked the balance between members, deflecting the focus away from Brussels and toward national capitals.

Yet, argue Cooper, Cloos and others, the forces of integration remain stronger; the ineluctable growth of the EU in other fields, such as trade, makes a common foreign policy inevitable.

Said Cloos: "How can you have an organization with 450 million citizens that matches the U.S. economy, that is the premier trading power in the world, the biggest aid donor in the world, that has a functioning internal market, a single currency, more and more common visa and asylum policies - how can you do that and ignore foreign policy?"

But above all, a single voice is developing because countries realize that the United States will not take them seriously unless they are part of a larger, cohesive entity.

That shared voice has already begun to recover from its divisions over Iraq and will be heard next week in Brussels.

Europeans will present a unified front on lifting the arms embargo on China, disarming a nuclear Iran diplomatically and implementing the Kyoto accord, issues that the entire EU supports but that Washington opposes.

In his analysis, Cooper describes the EU countries as post-modern states that have pooled sovereignty and rely on mutual interference in one another's affairs. They no longer think of security in exclusively military terms, and this philosophy is carried over into the EU's external policy.

The aim of that policy for the EU, he argues, should be to foster a "circle of friends" around its borders. The tool it uses to attract these friends is the prospect of closer ties and a share in the EU's prosperity and political stability. "We have enormous power of attraction," Cloos said.

This lure of membership brought Mediterranean countries such as Spain into the Western European fold and converted most of the former Warsaw Pact countries into well-functioning democracies.

Now it is having the same effect on Turkey and Ukraine as they bolster democracy and get closer to EU membership.

The EU recognizes, of course, that it needs military power as well as diplomacy, chiefly to counter the unpredictable threats posed by failed states.

In the late 1990s, EU countries agreed to share some aspects of defense. Last year, they set up a European Defense Agency to coordinate aspects such as procurement.

They are developing "battlegroups" of 1,500 soldiers that the EU can send quickly into nearby trouble spots. Brussels has already sent small forces into Congo and Macedonia. Last autumn, it began its biggest military operation yet when 7,000 troops wearing blue EU armbands took over from NATO soldiers in Bosnia.

"We are still at the beginning," said Erika Mann, a leading member of the European Parliament and chairwoman of the Transatlantic Policy Network, a prominent think tank that fosters EU-U.S. ties.

"I am a strong believer in soft power, but this is only going to work if you know you are going to use hard power as well."

 

[Winner]

This Constitution has some good points and some bad points. I spent a lot of time thinking about it before deciding... For me, it's NO.

The good points are :
- simplifications of ancient treaties
- voting procedure at the council simpler than in the Treaty of Nice
- a president elected for 2,5 year, renewable one time
- a foreign affairs minister
...

The bad points are :
- It's still too much complicated it has more than 448 articles while most constitutions have less than 200 ( 198 in Belgium, 89 in France, 27 in the USA ).
- It goes too far on some points : free market, good relations with NATO,.. al these have not place in a CONSTITUTION ! They can change <ith every new government
- It doens't go far enough on the way to federalim
...

The point that makes I say no is this Constitution will be very hard to change if we take it.

It actually isn't real constitution, it is constitutional treaty. It is called this way because of media

I think it is only the beginning. In the future, we can create better, real constitution. But now we need this one.

 

[REDY]

Why? (10 characters)

 

[Winner]

Why? (10 characters)

Why not? (prosímt&#283; ned&#283;lej tu znás blbce Kdy&#382; jsi proti, argumentuj n&#283;jak rozumne)

 

[MaisseArsouye]

I agree on the distinction between treaty and constitution, but it's not the point.

I think it is only the beginning. In the future, we can create better, real constitution. But now we need this one.

This is the real point !! If it was only a beginning I might have said yes. Actually, this is how I saw things just a month ago... But after thinking and talking about it, I have serious doubt about the possiblity to change this constitution/treaty later. We would need all the member states to agree. It might be so difficult that UE could be paralized. So, as I want a strong ,united federal EU, I say no.

 

[Winner]

I agree on the distinction between treaty and constitution, but it's not the point.



This is the real point !! If it was only a beginning I might have said yes. Actually, this is how I saw things just a month ago... But after thinking and talking about it, I have serious doubt about the possiblity to change this constitution/treaty later. We would need all the member states to agree. It might be so difficult that UE could be paralized. So, as I want a strong ,united federal EU, I say no.

Well, but if current "constitution" fails, it will probably discredit any future attempts to make better, more federalistic document. This is real danger.

As you know, european integration is proceeding in small steps. Current "contitution" is only another small step towards United Europe. If we cannot do even this small step, it is unlikely that we will be capable of doing bigger step in the future.

Future of EU is at stake and therefore I'll vote for it, even if I don't like it very much.

 

[REDY]

(Já sem argumentoval rozumn&#283; na podle m&#283; nerozumný argument že te&#271; pot&#345;ebujeme ústavu, která je, jak p&#345;iznáváš, zlepšitelná) Arguments? OK.
1)European constitution bring other treasury to European Byrocracy(spelling).
2)Minsters and presidents will be from one European country so they will supply and protect their homelands
3)Why debate about constitution started near time, when Czechs,Poles,Estonians,..became and Bulgaria with Romania are becoming EU members? Its strategy, isnt?
4)I agree that Euro laws are very hard to understand. But will Constitution help? What about better and more simple laws?
5) "I think it is only the beginning. In the future, we can create better, real constitution. But now we need this one." - I have Czech constitution and I not need any other and I think that you also neednt new EU Constitution. So in next years we will vote newer and newer constitutions.
6)Its not truth that smaller countries will have more rights. We will be closer and closer to EU federacy so we will have less rights.

 

[Winner]

(Já sem argumentoval rozumn&#283; na podle m&#283; nerozumný argument &#382;e te&#271; pot&#345;ebujeme ústavu, která je, jak p&#345;iznává&#353;, zlep&#353;itelná)

Já &#345;ekl, &#382;e je to jediný v sou&#269;asnosti mo&#382;ný kompromis a jeho neschválení by po&#353;kodilo EU jako celek.

Arguments? OK.
1)European constitution bring other treasury to European Byrocracy(spelling).

I don't understand. 1.2% GDP limit is still there and will be there after adoption of "constitution".

2)Minsters and presidents will be from one European country so they will supply and protect their homelands

Tak tohle nechápu úpln&#283;. Co jsi cht&#283;l &#345;íct?

3)Why debate about constitution started near time, when Czechs,Poles,Estonians,..became and Bulgaria with Romania are becoming EU members? Its strategy or not?

No, it's not. We've simply entered a running train, so we must adapt ourselves to a little shaking.

4)I agree that Euro laws are very hard to understand. But will Constitution help? What about better and more simple laws?

Are the czech laws simple and easy to understand?

5) "I think it is only the beginning. In the future, we can create better, real constitution. But now we need this one." - I have Czech constitution and I not need any other and I think that you also neednt new EU Constitution. So in next years we will vote newer and newer constitutions.

Czech constitution is constitution for our country. EU "constitution" is a treaty which makes EU more efficient and therefore better for all its citizens. That's why I want it.

6)Its not truth that smaller countries will have more rights. We will be closer and closer to EU federacy so we will have less rights.

No, Czech rep. on its own is far weaker that it is as a part of EU.

P&#345;ísloví: Velcí d&#283;lají, co cht&#283;jí, a malí to, co musí. Tohle je ta suverenita, kterou chce&#353;?

 

[Richard Cribb]

(have numbered this to make easier to reply)

1. Yeh, and I understand your point, it's just that I don't think in the current world situation a country such as mine can really have socialist style state ownership of production anyway.

2. No, the remark was aimed at the communist parties across the EU who oppose it. Aplogies if you thought this was directed at you.

3. I got an A (top mark) for History at A-Level (plus A* (top mark) at GCSE......What I mean is that the EU is essentinial to the UK economy, and that we need the money we get from trading with our EU partners so that we can afford wealfare programmes. Basically, EU makes companies money, we tax companies, Jimmy gets to go to a decent school and his Grandma gets a pensionplus a free bus pass.

4. I genuinally believe that if the UK was to not go into this then the country will suffer as the conservatives would gain from a No vote, and the conservatives will devastate the wealfare state with their proposed tax cuts and privatisation programmes. The welfare state will suffer is the UK does not go for this. So sorry if you say I was using a 'slogan', it's just that i'd rather take the EU common market over British isolationism.

There is a veto for governments in regards to taxation, and it is tax that provides the wealfare state in the UK.

Also, please elaborate on how you think it is neo-liberal, and how you would rather it be I am intrested in what you have to say so please post more in this thread!

First of all, I have to dash off now, but human decency compels me, after my bad behaviour to write these lines. So excuse me if it is a bit uncoherent, but my wife is already standing and breathing down my neck...
I apologize for being a bit harsh, it is just that I am a bit sensitive on this, since I have been struggling for more than ten years to give my contribution to keep my country out of the European Union. I see your point also, and that your country is in another situation than mine, but still I think that this constitution is another step in the wrong direction.
I also humbly apologize for my rather rude remark on your history knowledge, congrats with your achievement, but before you gave me any context your remark seemed wild, especially for someone who took a master degree in mainly social and labour history.
I would like to see a constitution modelled to a great extent upon the Scandinavian welfare model, with extensive social rights connected to citizenship and neutrality towards applicable economical systems, so that a change towards right as well as left would be possible if the people wanted that in democratic elections. I would also like less federalism.I would like a system were the parlament decided, rather than the Commision and the Central Bank.In short, less power to bussiness, more to the people and theirthe democratic institutions.And less militarism, please.
About the neoliberalism part I think I gave the best arguments in my reply to TLC, in a nutshell the favorism of capital over labour and democracy. The way I see it, the aim of the constitution is to solidify the political ties that have made it easier for transnational corporations to control European economic affairs. I can also assure you that it is not only reactionaries that objects to this, recently GTC, the largest trade union in France, urged its membership to oppose the constitution.Also in Norway, most labour organizations plays a big role in the opposition to EU.
A bit also about federalism.While EU resembles USSR in imposing one economical system in its constitution, it resembles USA if you consider Brussel and its likeness to Washington DC. I think here about lobbyism.
If I remember correctly, apart from being EU's bureaucratical main site, Brussel is also the home of about 30 000 professional lobbyists working full-time, about 70% percent of them for corporations.Now federalism has as a consequence that in signing up, you have to agree on whatever is agreed by your counterparts. Consider this then: A transnational corporation can for instance lobby a Spanish or Italian representative and this will hurt working people in for instance France. This is why I say that federalism is great for neoliberalistic economics and its spread beyond national boundaries.
Individual countries are, indeed, increasingly powerless to control the course of their economies. I think I have read somewhere (unfortunately I don't have the reference at hand)that at least half of European legislation (depending on the country) begins in Brussels and not in their home capitals. This loss of sovereignty is sometimes a good thing, i.e in connection to racism, discrimination and war, but the creation of an economic superstructure does not help combat these problems. In fact, neoliberal economics has resulted in very little being done to open borders to trade, while quite a bit has been done in paving the way for single corporations to merely spread their influence across borders. This is not trade: just expansion, plain and simple.
You might as well say that predominance of foreign firms in European countries has been fuelling many right-wing extremistic movements.
With this I mean that the current "nationalists" are being faced with a continually consolidating oligopoly that is destroying their local sovereignty.Together with social problems that is not likely to be solved by imposing this constitution, like unemployment,they will not be lacking in public appeal.
But now I really got to leave...

 

[REDY]

Winner:
5) and 3) I understand. EU is many years without any constitution and now EU need apply new constitution in this time. And of course new members will be in different enviroment than they entered and no one will disagree because it will be end of EU.
1)Yes but now more euros will go to new politicians and not to more quality.
4)No but it is presented like as one of the main arguments for apply constitution.
6)Já nejsem proti EU ale pouze proti ústav&#283; a federalizaci. Ale když už si m&#283; premisemi dostal do týhle pozice: M&#283; nezajímá jestli m&#367;žu ovlivnit r&#367;st jablek v Portugalsku nebo vývoz saní v Lotyšsku a zárov&#283;&#328; mi není jedno když mi dá n&#283;kdo limit na vývoz soli nebo bude prezidentem EU (tedy i nadprezidentem) n&#283;jakej podobnej tip jako je Chirac. Ur&#269;it&#283; si myslím že v&#283;tší vliv na chod EU budem mít bez toho hrozného po&#269;íta&#269;e populace, aneb N&#283;mci a Francouzi p&#345;ehlasující klidn&#283; 7 stát&#367;. Mimoto už od Mnichova víme jak to s dohodama chodí:-(
2)Euroústava mimojiné po&#269;ítá s jakýmsi ministrem zahrani&#269;í a europresidentem a já si myslím že budou automaticky preferovat svou zemi. Nep&#345;edpokládám že by byl zvolen n&#283;jakej neevropan, to by bylo ješt&#283; horší a že to nebudou zbyte&#269;né funkce, což by byli s pravomocemi rovnající se v&#283;tšin&#283; Evropských prezident&#367;.

 

[Hitro]

If it was only a beginning I might have said yes. Actually, this is how I saw things just a month ago... But after thinking and talking about it, I have serious doubt about the possiblity to change this constitution/treaty later. We would need all the member states to agree. It might be so difficult that UE could be paralized. So, as I want a strong ,united federal EU, I say no.

That is pretty exactly why I am opposed to it as well. It is a step forward, but the way it is presented and percieved makes it quite likely that it will remain the only step. And as such it simply doesn't go far enough.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Regarding neo-liberalism, well, to me wanting to get rid of national monopolies in energy, transportation, etc, doesn't make you a neo-liberal. If you want to call neo-liberal the policies of parties that I consider left-of-centre, fine, but it's sure confusing.

Considering the actual constitutional treaty, I think it regulates too much. It should neither rule out nationalized industries nor mandate welfare states, Scandinavian-style or otherwise.

I don't understand the reasoning behind opposing the treaty because it's too hard to change. The current treaties already need unanimity to change. Sure, one could wish for a more flexible system, but if the treaty is rejected we're stuck with essentially the same amount of rigidity as it would give us.

 

[Winner]

1)Yes but now more euros will go to new politicians and not to more quality.

Politicians in Brussels are IMHO much better than our politicians

4)No but it is presented like as one of the main arguments for apply constitution.

Because it is true. Compared with present treaties, it is simpler.

6)Já nejsem proti EU ale pouze proti ústav&#283; a federalizaci. Ale kdy&#382; u&#382; si m&#283; premisemi dostal do týhle pozice: M&#283; nezajímá jestli m&#367;&#382;u ovlivnit r&#367;st jablek v Portugalsku nebo vývoz saní v Loty&#353;sku a zárov&#283;&#328; mi není jedno kdy&#382; mi dá n&#283;kdo limit na vývoz soli nebo bude prezidentem EU (tedy i nadprezidentem) n&#283;jakej podobnej tip jako je Chirac. Ur&#269;it&#283; si myslím &#382;e v&#283;t&#353;í vliv na chod EU budem mít bez toho hrozného po&#269;íta&#269;e populace, aneb N&#283;mci a Francouzi p&#345;ehlasující klidn&#283; 7 stát&#367;. Mimoto u&#382; od Mnichova víme jak to s dohodama chodí:-(

EDIT: Translation in brief: "I am not against EU, I am against constitution and federalization. I am not interested in the right to influence the rest of EU. France and Germany can outvote 7 smaller states. Blah blah blah."

Kdy&#382; nebudeme v EU, tak se budeme muset pod&#345;izovat taky, jen nebudeme mít v&#367;bec &#382;ádná práva. Takhle je máme.
N&#283;mecko a Francie mají taky 8x, resp. 6x víc lidí. Euroústava ale po&#382;aduje 55% &#269;lenských stát&#367;, a velkých stát&#367; jako fr. nebo n&#283;mecko je jen 6. Tzn. malé státy budou mít v&#283;t&#353;í vliv, proto&#382;e jejich souhlas bude nutný.

EDIT: Translation in brief: "Outside EU, there isn't any possibility for us to influence the EU decisions. Therefore it is better to be inside. Smaller states will have more power after adoption of const., because of their agreement is needed for all decisions and bigger states need them."

2)Euroústava mimojiné po&#269;ítá s jakýmsi ministrem zahrani&#269;í a europresidentem a já si myslím &#382;e budou automaticky preferovat svou zemi. Nep&#345;edpokládám &#382;e by byl zvolen n&#283;jakej neevropan, to by bylo je&#353;t&#283; hor&#353;í a &#382;e to nebudou zbyte&#269;né funkce, co&#382; by byli s pravomocemi rovnající se v&#283;t&#353;in&#283; Evropských prezident&#367;.

EDIT: Translation in brief: "Const. is making some foreign ministry and president and I think they will prefer their country of origin."

President je v angli&#269;tin&#283; p&#345;edseda, tzn. to bude p&#345;edseda evropské rady. Ministr zahrani&#269;í bude jen zastupovat &#269;lenské státy, aby Evropa vypadala jednotn&#283;. Nic &#353;patného na tom nevidím.

EDIT: "Translation in brief: President is chairman in English, that means he will be chairman of the European Council. Foreign minister will represent member states to make it look the Europe is united. I think it's OK."

 

[The Last Conformist]

Posting in non-English languages without translations in English-language fora is widely considered a breach of netiquette. It would be appreciated if translations were provided, or if private discussions were conducted via PM.

 

[REDY]

I knew this. I will must try it in English
1)This is right now, but next day it may be different. And in the future we may give might to computer, which is quicker and better than people? Its a little personification, but how we may be sure???
3)No, I disagree. When we will be not EU member, EU will hasnt legal options to cause.
These 55 percents are pretty small to vote and I only would hope to solidarity of careful ministers. But I must reply I am not againist EU, only againist Federation.
4)Europe isnt uniform, so foreign minster may only lie about it. I dont understand how he will help.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Thanks.