European Politics Thread.

[denoir 0]

Not that I am a pro-US but how come their constitution remained practicaly unchanged for over 200 years and yet it is so universal and basic.

It remained practically unchanged because they have no mechanisms of chaning it - only adding amendments. That's why today in the US constitution it is defined that when you count the population of the country, blacks are only counted as half a person ( or a third, don't remember ). So it's not very universal - for the most part it is an obsolete document. It's certainly not a very good examlple to follow.

Quote[/b] ]WHy EU is not capable of producing sth very simple that states all basic rights.

Because defining mutual rules for countries that have existed for hundreds of years, faught each other on many occasions and that have a wide range of traditions is a bit more difficult than making a few British colonist agree on something.

[Colossus 2]

Around 55% voted 'non'.

Will this be a(n) end of EU?

[denoir 0]

Will this be a(n) end of EU?  

Hardly. Far more important treaties have been voted down before (Maastricht by the Danes and Nice by the Irish) with only some delays as a consequence. What this means is that the EU will go on for a while in the same way it has since the Nice agreement - until the next step of integration can be taken.

[Supah 0]

Not that I am a pro-US but how come their constitution remained practicaly unchanged for over 200 years and yet it is so universal and basic.

WHy EU is not capable of producing sth very simple that states all basic rights.

Yeah, the US legal system is real simple.

The right to arm bears

[red oct 2]

n/m

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Well, that gives everyone some extra time to deal with the new realities in New Europe Not bothered about the failed referendum, it will either be held again or Chirac will vote "yes" irregardless of referendum. Either way, its coming, whether people want to or not

[Bordoy 0]

I think the main problem is that the EU is trying to introduce too much and too quickly. They might do better if they do things slower and introduce things in small groups rather then one big chunk which no one understands as its like an encylopedia to read.

[Colossus 2]

Will this be a(n) end of EU?  

Hardly. Far more important treaties have been voted down before (Maastricht by the Danes and Nice by the Irish) with only some delays as a consequence. What this means is that the EU will go on for a while in the same way it has since the Nice agreement - until the next step of integration can be taken.

Whatever the future brings (and I guess they will have a contitution sooner or later) this union will fall, like Soviet Union, Norwegian-Swedish union, etc. etc etc..

But that could take centuries.

Nothing last forever you know.

[denoir 0]

Statement from Barroso (President of the Commission)

(From EU's main website http://europa.eu.int/ )

Quote[/b] ]

"The French voters have today, Sunday 29 May, chosen to say no to the ratification of the Constitutional treaty. We take note of this.

We regret this choice, coming as it does from a Member State that has been for the last 50 years one of the essential motors of the building of our common future.

We completely respect the expression of the democratic will that has made itself felt at the end of an intense debate. The result of the French referendum deserves a profound analysis, in the first instance, on the part of the French authorities. The Institutions of the European Union should also, for their part, reflect on the results of the collected ratification processes.

It is important to remember that nine Member States, representing almost half (49%) of the European population have already ratified the Constitutional Treaty, in one case on the basis of a broadly positive referendum and that the majority of Member States have not yet had the opportunity to complete the ratification process.

The tenor of the debate in France, and the result of the referendum also reinforce our conviction that the relevant national and European politicians must do more to explain the true scale of what is at stake, and the nature of the answers that only Europe can offer. We continue to believe that a response at thee European level remains the best and the most effective in the face of accelerating global change.

We must ask ourselves how each among us - national governments, European institutions, political parties, social partners, civil society - can contribute to a better understanding of this project, which cannot have its own legitimacy without listening to its citizens.

The building of Europe is, by its nature, complex. Europe has already known difficult moments and it has every time emerged from them strengthened, better than before, ready to face its challenges and its responsibilities. Today Europe continues, and its institutions function fully. We are aware of the difficulties, but we have confidence that once again we will find the means to move the European Union forward. Together, we are determined to contribute to this."

[denoir 0]

Will this be a(n) end of EU?  

Hardly. Far more important treaties have been voted down before (Maastricht by the Danes and Nice by the Irish) with only some delays as a consequence. What this means is that the EU will go on for a while in the same way it has since the Nice agreement - until the next step of integration can be taken.

Whatever the future brings (and I guess they will have a contitution sooner or later) this union will fall, like Soviet Union, Norwegian-Swedish union, etc. etc etc..

But that could take centuries.

Nothing last forever you know.

The question you posed was not if the EU would last forever but if it would end because of this referendum.

[denoir 0]

I think the main problem is that the EU is trying to introduce too much and too quickly. They might do better if they do things slower and introduce things in small groups rather then one big chunk which no one understands as its like an encylopedia to read.

That's the way it is probably going to happen. It is going to be sliced up into smaller parts; approved by national parliaments piece by piece until it's all in place. The difference will be that it won't be called a "constitution" and will possibly lead to some increased bureaucracy (rather than the other way around as it was intended).

[Bordoy 0]

Will this be a(n) end of EU?  

Hardly. Far more important treaties have been voted down before (Maastricht by the Danes and Nice by the Irish) with only some delays as a consequence. What this means is that the EU will go on for a while in the same way it has since the Nice agreement - until the next step of integration can be taken.

Whatever the future brings (and I guess they will have a contitution sooner or later) this union will fall, like Soviet Union, Norwegian-Swedish union, etc. etc etc..

But that could take centuries.

Nothing last forever you know.

Long live the union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

[Colossus 2]

Will this be a(n) end of EU?  

Hardly. Far more important treaties have been voted down before (Maastricht by the Danes and Nice by the Irish) with only some delays as a consequence. What this means is that the EU will go on for a while in the same way it has since the Nice agreement - until the next step of integration can be taken.

Whatever the future brings (and I guess they will have a contitution sooner or later) this union will fall, like Soviet Union, Norwegian-Swedish union, etc. etc etc..

But that could take centuries.

Nothing last forever you know.

The question you posed was not if the EU would last forever but if it would end because of this referendum.

What I ment was that this contitution will surely come through some time in the future, but this contitution and the union will not last forever.

There wasn't more then that I ment.

[Thunderbird 0]

I'm very disappointed that our french citizens voted "no" , I still don't understand the reasons which push them to follow this way...

I think they were affraid from a lot of things.

btw the french "No" won't enjoy the other european countries and everything will have to get restarted.

[Colossus 2]

I'm very disappointed that our french citizens voted "no" , I still don't understand the reasons which push them to follow this way...

I think they were affraid from a lot of things.

btw the french "No" won't enjoy the other european countries and everything will have to get restarted.

-High unemployment in France

-The treaty is more about economy then social relations (ergo leftist don't like this)

-People who are against globalization.

-Some are against having Turkey in the union.

The whole thing was a protest against the threaty not against the union.

When they get changes in this threaty I'm sure the tie turns.

[der bastler 0]

Around 55% voted 'non'.

Will this be a(n) end of EU?

No. Just a warning shot to reconsider some topics.

Just look into the constitution and then ask yourself: "Does most of this stuff have to be in a constitution? Why are social rights limited by Union Law? Why is the definition of consumer protection very diffuse, opposite to the rich definitions about internal economic policies? Why is War on Terrorismâ„¢ explicitly mentioned in the constitution, turning EU armed forces into an international intervention force?"

One reads the constitution and one thinks "Well, sounds good". But while reading on one notices that there are many ammendments from apparently many, many people with very own interests.

"Viele Köche verderben den Brei" -- "Too many cooks spoil the broth."

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I'm very disappointed that our french citizens voted "no" , I still don't understand the reasons which push them to follow this way...

I think they were affraid from a lot of things.

btw the french "No" won't enjoy the other european countries and everything will have to get restarted.

-High unemployment in France

-The treaty is more about economy then social relations (ergo leftist don't like this)

-People who are against globalization.

-Some are against having Turkey in the union.

The whole thing was a protest against the threaty not against the union.

When they get changes in this threaty I'm sure the tie turns.

Absolutely incorrect. That is exactly what the french misinterpretation. The treaty had NOTHING to do with the recent discussion about the liberalisation of service industries. It is the good old french "gauche" that is afraid of everything foreign. Funny enough that this time they went hand in hand with the opinion of Mr. Le Pen.

Anyhow. Many cities voted Pro Europe, including Paris. But this dirty little mudhole Marseille voted extremely against the constitution. .

[denoir 0]

Just look into the constitution and then ask yourself: "Does most of this stuff have to be in a constitution? Why are social rights limited by Union Law? Why is the definition of consumer protection very diffuse, opposite to the rich definitions about internal economic policies? Why is War on Terrorismâ„¢ explicitly mentioned in the constitution, turning EU armed forces into an international intervention force?"

The answer to that is: because the member states demanded it. I can assure you that not a word was written just for the fun of it. Social rights can be limited because the British demanded that. The common defence clauses are there because France demanded that etc

It's a compromise and as such by nature not optimal. Already the fact that the French are denouncing it as "Too Anglo-Saxon" while the British are denouncing it as "Too French", should ring some bells. It is quite possible that this as good as it gets today, given the diversity of opinions of what Europe is to become.

I cannot see Britain any time soon switch to the French ideas on social security and I cannot see most of Europe switching to the British ideals. Most likely the proposed rules will be pushed through, piece by piece, without calling it a constitution. And then in the end you'll get the same array of micro regulations, but without any ideological foundation. And that in my opinion is not a very good alternative.

Either way, this is probably going to be a very interesting time ahead. It's quite possible for instance that this will create a Franco-German rift, that may end up with Germany getting a political will of its own, rather than just following the French lead.

Quote[/b] ]-High unemployment in France

-The treaty is more about economy then social relations (ergo leftist don't like this)

I think it is quite funny that they don't see the correlation between those two things. Reduced work hours and a strong social security leads to high unemployment. What they don't seem to get is that they can't really measure the success of a social maket system with the rules of a laissez faire market system. High unemployment isn't necessarily a very bad thing, if you can finance it all.

In Sweden for instance we have 5% "open" unemployment and another 5% "hidden". The latter includes the people who don't work per se, but get financed by the state to get some useless hobby or education. It gives people something to do and we can finance it, so it's not considered a problem. We have de facto an equal level of unemployment as France, but nobody thinks of it as a real issue.

[Supah 0]

Just look into the constitution and then ask yourself: "Does most of this stuff have to be in a constitution? Why are social rights limited by Union Law? Why is the definition of consumer protection very diffuse, opposite to the rich definitions about internal economic policies? Why is War on Terrorismâ„¢ explicitly mentioned in the constitution, turning EU armed forces into an international intervention force?"

The answer to that is: because the member states demanded it. I can assure you that not a word was written just for the fun of it. Social rights can be limited because the British demanded that. The common defence clauses are there because France demanded that etc

It's a compromise and as such by nature not optimal. Already the fact that the French are denouncing it as "Too Anglo-Saxon" while the British are denouncing it as "Too French", should ring some bells. It is quite possible that this as good as it gets today, given the diversity of opinions of what Europe is to become.

I cannot see Britain any time soon switch to the French ideas on social security and I cannot see most of Europe switching to the British ideals. Most likely the proposed rules will be pushed through, piece by piece, without calling it a constitution. And then in the end you'll get the same array of micro regulations, but without any ideological foundation. And that in my opinion is not a very good alternative.

Either way, this is probably going to be a very interesting time ahead. It's quite possible for instance that this will create a Franco-German rift, that may end up with Germany getting a political will of its own, rather than just following the French lead.

Things like social security and market regulation have no place in a constitution. Its strong liberal undertone is just another reason to vote against it. To say the member states wanted it is a bit iffy ... the politicians from the member states wanted it. I get the feel thats a whole different thing from what the people want, looking at the rift between yes and no voters under politicians and the population their supposed to represent. Etienne Chouard said it best that a constitution should come from the people not forced upon them by people in power. The social element of this constitution is underdeveloped while the economical portion is overdeveloped and seriously leans toward the employer instead of the employee.

[denoir 0]

Things like social security and market regulation have no place in a constitution.

I think that granting social security as a basic right to every citizen is a European core value and indeed has a place in the constitution. A free and open market is also something very fundamental - it is actually the core idea of the European Union, so I don't really see it as a problem either.

Quote[/b] ]Its strong liberal undertone is just another reason to vote against it.

You mean economically liberal? The British would argue the other way around - that its strong socialist undertone is a reason to vote against.

Quote[/b] ]

To say the member states wanted it is a bit iffy ... the politicians from the member states wanted it. I get the feel thats a whole different thing from what the people want, looking at the rift between yes and no voters under politicians and the population their supposed to represent.

The people elected the politicians that made the decisions. It's representative democracy, no more, no less. You always had the choice of voting for somebody else - somebody that represented a different ideology.

Quote[/b] ]Etienne Chouard said it best that a constitution should come from the people not forced upon them by people in power.

That's a bit of a naive statement, don't you think? Who are "the people", if not the elected political professionals? Do you really think that the general population would be capable of writing a legal document? How would you organize that?

Or is it more reasonable that the people choose a few representatives to do that - representatives that know a bit of law and a bit of politics?

Quote[/b] ]The social element of this constitution is underdeveloped while the economical portion is overdeveloped and seriously leans toward the employer instead of the employee.

I'm a bit confused here, in the first paragraph you said that social security has no place in a constitution.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Just look into the constitution and then ask yourself: "Does most of this stuff have to be in a constitution? Why are social rights limited by Union Law? Why is the definition of consumer protection very diffuse, opposite to the rich definitions about internal economic policies? Why is War on Terrorismâ„¢ explicitly mentioned in the constitution, turning EU armed forces into an international intervention force?"

The answer to that is: because the member states demanded it. I can assure you that not a word was written just for the fun of it. Social rights can be limited because the British demanded that. The common defence clauses are there because France demanded that etc

It's a compromise and as such by nature not optimal. Already the fact that the French are denouncing it as "Too Anglo-Saxon" while the British are denouncing it as "Too French", should ring some bells. It is quite possible that this as good as it gets today, given the diversity of opinions of what Europe is to become.

I cannot see Britain any time soon switch to the French ideas on social security and I cannot see most of Europe switching to the British ideals. Most likely the proposed rules will be pushed through, piece by piece, without calling it a constitution. And then in the end you'll get the same array of micro regulations, but without any ideological foundation. And that in my opinion is not a very good alternative.

Either way, this is probably going to be a very interesting time ahead. It's quite possible for instance that this will create a Franco-German rift, that may end up with Germany getting a political will of its own, rather than just following the French lead.

Things like social security and market regulation have no place in a constitution. Its strong liberal undertone is just another reason to vote against it. To say the member states wanted it is a bit iffy ... the politicians from the member states wanted it. I get the feel thats a whole different thing from what the people want, looking at the rift between yes and no voters under politicians and the population their supposed to represent. Etienne Chouard said it best that a constitution should come from the people not forced upon them by people in power. The social element of this constitution is underdeveloped while the economical portion is overdeveloped and seriously leans toward the employer instead of the employee.

DONT FORGET Often the employer isnt a "person", often it is a Ltd/LLC, PLC or Inc. So this "person" isnt a stingy "human", it is a company that needs to be healthy and rich in order to provide us with a salary and a secure job.

You know it starts to get kind of ridiculous to put so much emphasis on "employees" rights if there are so few people left that still have a job!

[der bastler 0]

DONT FORGET Often the employee isnt a "person", often it is a Ltd/LLC, PLC or Inc. So this "person" isnt a stingy "human", it is a company that needs to be healthy and rich in order to provide us with a salary and a secure job.

Do you mean employee (does the job) or employer (offers the job)?

Quote[/b] ]You know it starts to get kind of ridiculous to put so much emphasis on "employers" rights if there are so few people left that still have a job!

Now I'm confused. Same question: employee or employer?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

dont be confused.. I made a mistake! changed it now!

[Supah 0]

Just look into the constitution and then ask yourself: "Does most of this stuff have to be in a constitution? Why are social rights limited by Union Law? Why is the definition of consumer protection very diffuse, opposite to the rich definitions about internal economic policies? Why is War on Terrorismâ„¢ explicitly mentioned in the constitution, turning EU armed forces into an international intervention force?"

The answer to that is: because the member states demanded it. I can assure you that not a word was written just for the fun of it. Social rights can be limited because the British demanded that. The common defence clauses are there because France demanded that etc

It's a compromise and as such by nature not optimal. Already the fact that the French are denouncing it as "Too Anglo-Saxon" while the British are denouncing it as "Too French", should ring some bells. It is quite possible that this as good as it gets today, given the diversity of opinions of what Europe is to become.

I cannot see Britain any time soon switch to the French ideas on social security and I cannot see most of Europe switching to the British ideals. Most likely the proposed rules will be pushed through, piece by piece, without calling it a constitution. And then in the end you'll get the same array of micro regulations, but without any ideological foundation. And that in my opinion is not a very good alternative.

Either way, this is probably going to be a very interesting time ahead. It's quite possible for instance that this will create a Franco-German rift, that may end up with Germany getting a political will of its own, rather than just following the French lead.

Things like social security and market regulation have no place in a constitution. Its strong liberal undertone is just another reason to vote against it. To say the member states wanted it is a bit iffy ... the politicians from the member states wanted it. I get the feel thats a whole different thing from what the people want, looking at the rift between yes and no voters under politicians and the population their supposed to represent. Etienne Chouard said it best that a constitution should come from the people not forced upon them by people in power. The social element of this constitution is underdeveloped while the economical portion is overdeveloped and seriously leans toward the employer instead of the employee.

DONT FORGET Often the employee isnt a "person", often it is a Ltd/LLC, PLC or Inc. So this "person" isnt a stingy "human", it is a company that needs to be healthy and rich in order to provide us with a salary and a secure job.

You know it starts to get kind of ridiculous to put so much emphasis on "employers" rights if there are so few people left that still have a job!

Employer was meant more as an entity, I.E. not a person persay. Fact remains that these things have no place in a constitution, there are other places to arrange such things by law. If, as Joschka Fischer (I believe) said on dutch TV, the end of the road for europe is a union state then its constitution should be about a lot more then "de centen" or the money in english. It should be a set of principles that binds people together. Not some unreadable bundle of economic instructions.

About companies needing to be healthy and rich to provide us with a stable job. Seems to me its more and more about being healthy and rich so they can outsource jobs and make the already rich even richer while firing as much of the employees as possible, labour costs are a pretty big portion of the cost of any product. It makes sence to want to cut those but the scale its being done on now kinda makes me wonder where it will end. Looks like we are going to end up with a lot of super cheap crap made in asia with noone here having the money to buy it because most are unemployed as their jobs got outsourced. Sad trend and I feel pretty strongly about it. Do I think this has a place in a European constitution though? No not at all.

from denoir

Quote[/b] ]'m a bit confused here, in the first paragraph you said that social security has no place in a constitution.

Not all social aspects have to do with how much money we give who. Social aspects such as common values, peoples rights, obligations for the citizen AND the politicians etc. THATS what a constitution should be about. Have a look at the American constitution, does that largely exist out of trade agreements?

Quote[/b] ]The people elected the politicians that made the decisions. It's representative democracy, no more, no less. You always had the choice of voting for somebody else - somebody that represented a different ideology.

Everybody here raise your hand if you take every single possible future occurance into account in to mind before voting ..... few hands showing When the people went to vote for the national government this was the last thing on their minds. Now it turns out the elected politicians have wildly different ideas about what is desirable in a european constitution then the population. If I were a politician today I would be worried about my job security. At the very least this rejection of the constitution should be a clear message that their on the wrong track.

Quote[/b] ]That's a bit of a naive statement, don't you think? Who are "the people", if not the elected political professionals? Do you really think that the general population would be capable of writing a legal document? How would you organize that?

Or is it more reasonable that the people choose a few representatives to do that - representatives that know a bit of law and a bit of politics?

Why should it have to be an unreadable piece of legal terms when it should be about what binds us as a people? Do you find it at all strange that people dont see themselves as a "European" if their not in the slightest bit envolved and all that comes out of the european union is text only readable with a law degree? I dont see the American constitution being so hard to read and thats the country that "invented" lawyers This document should have been about the people and it turned out to be about big bussiness. Now offcourse you could argue that whats good for bussiness is good for the people. But I get the impression thats not necesarily true anymore these days.

[denoir 0]

Not to mention who in fact pays the bills for all the social security.

I'm really getting tired of how in the more socialist parts of Europe (my country included) companies are vilified as greedy capitalists parasites. Well, guess who pays for all that fancy social security? Guess who is taxed to hell and back so that the government can have some income? Companies are treated like shit while at the same time they are paying for the entire existence of the country.

This kills of entrepreneurship and I think it is a terrible way to go for Europe. In that respect, the British have a more sane system.

Well, perhaps Supah is right with his "Wie betaalt bepaalt". Perhaps voting power should be weighted to how much taxes you pay