European Politics Thread.

[Necromancer- 0]

Today I voted no..

Due to the reason that I can't comprehend the constitution..

A more simpel law should have been made.. or at least more comprehendable.

[Gordy 0]

read my comment gordy.. I added it later

I don't question the reasons.

I question its place in constitution.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]1) The EU is expanding too fast and people are concerned with Eastern European coutries flooding the labor market with cheaper labor

So far these concerns doesn't seem to be nessecary ,Since Poland joined the EU i havn't seen a mass influx of Poles here ,neither did many company's leave for Poland at that point.As for Poles working at a low costs ,those thing's will change soon to.Portugese and Irish were also cheaper to employ 15 years back ,but their membership of the Eu have given them such an economical rise that these days the average salary is about the same there as in most of Europe.

Basicly Europe has proven in the past that it can turn somewhat underdeveloped county's in developed ones to the standard of the rest of the EU ,Ireland ,Portugal ,Greece are a few example's ,I figure within here and 10 years Poland will have progressed a lot to.Though granted the costs for modernizing poland is hihger with a poppulation of aprox 40 mil.

Quote[/b] ]2) People aren't all happy with switching to the Euro and feel that it has had some detrimental effcts on some national economies

Can't say what people in other country's feel ,but in Belgium atleast most people are happy with the euro.

Quote[/b] ]3) Too much power is being placed in Brussels

Yeah Brussels and regulations ... don't tell me about it.As Belgian i know all to well how absurd this country can be in administration ,you have to fill up 10 forms atleast to be able to even let a fart in this country.

But Brussels isn't filled with Belgian politician ,there are representative's of every country there ,and they make the regulations.

However wheter it's Brussels or Strasbourg ,i would like them to finnaly put all European institutions in 1 city instead of 2 ,wich is really a big problem in Europe today.

Afcourse it's like that because the French really had to have these institutions in their own country ,damn chauvinistic French politicians are always first to demand certain possitions in Europe ,and the candidate's they put forward often have very dubious pasts.

Quote[/b] ]4) People are concerned with the erosion of their national identities as Europe is merged into a union of member states

NATIONALISTS are concerned with this ,not the overall Eruopean ,and it depends from country to country.In Belgium many people would rather assimilate in Europe than actually stay as Belgium ,understandably as really there doesn't exist such a thing as a "Belgian". (except or King maybe)

There are a lot of EU member state's with a low patriotic or nationalistic feeling ,country's with few identity.

But country's like the UK ,France or Germany have more nationalists ,because their national identity is stronger.

Another thing to note here is that usually mostly people from older generations are Nationalistic ,younger people are usually much more pro-Europe.The elder generations make the majority in current European demographics (damn WW2) ,but once that generation is gone the picture will be different.

Quote[/b] ]5) The EU bureaucracy has imposed quite a myriad of rules and regulations that have caused various businesses to incur additional expenses in order to be compliant

Yeah ,like Health and safety regulations ,or regulations on amount of pollution made.

So what ,should be just let the company's do what they want?

Goverments putting rules and regulations on company's is normal over most of the world ,and usually this means additional expenses for the company's.

Quote[/b] ]6) There is also a feeling that the EU contitutional proposal is overly complex and lengthy

It is IMO ,personally i think Europe is less ready to make steps to further political intigration than further economical intigration. (the last has has so far being very benificial for the EU member state's)

Nationalism and local politics are to blame IMO ,politicians of a certain country will often hold to a very specific issue because of local needs ,thus making a Europe wide consencus very hard ,and when a consencus is then reached it's very complex as it has to take into acount many very specific issue's in individual member state's.

[kerosene 0]

They should probably have a citizens charter that lays out the basic rights all E.U citizens can expect.

Economics is complicated, unless you studied it or have an interest in it, a lot of it will be meaningless to you, and its probably unreasonable to put in a constitution and expect regular people to care.

SGT. Jones

1) The EU is expanding too fast and people are concerned with Eastern European coutries flooding the labor market with cheaper labor

Personally I feel like Western European countries should be competing with a skills based economy that relies on innovation and training not a cost based one that can't compete with lots of places, not just E. Europe.

4) People are concerned with the erosion of their national identities as Europe is merged into a union of member states

I feel confident about my identity, I dont really understand were people get this idea, in U.K at least, that we're all going to turn European or something.

- I don't have too much of an opinon on the others.

[Thunderbird 0]

Quote[/b] ]1) The EU is expanding too fast and people are concerned with Eastern European coutries flooding the labor market with cheaper labor

Yeah this and turkey are the main reasons which push people to vote "No" in France.

How to resolve this problem ? I don't see how can one fix it...

[FW200 0]

First exit polls show 62% of the population of The Netherlands voted, and 63% said no and 37% said yes...

[denoir 0]

1) The EU is expanding too fast and people are concerned with Eastern European coutries flooding the labor market with cheaper labor

That is a concern, I understand it, but we have the answer to that already. The Eastern European countries have been part of the Union for over a year now and the feared mass immigration to the west failed to materialize. We have on the other hand earned a shitload of money by opening the markets.

Unfortunately this information somehow gets lost on the national level. The PR and information campaigns about the EU have been disastrous. The people simple don't get informed about the benefits.

Quote[/b] ]2) People aren't all happy with switching to the Euro and feel that it has had some detrimental effcts on some national economies

In some of the countries, things got more expensive. A second issue is that the European economies are not entirely synchronized. It's one of the main goals of the monetary union, and that takes time. Until we're synched, it will hurt. The payoff in the end is however much greater.

And in absolute terms, both in the Eurozone and the EU in general, the GDP/capita has increased significantly. The purchasing power of the average European is much higher now than it was a decade ago.

Quote[/b] ]3) Too much power is being placed in Brussels

That's primarily the British concern but a among nationalists also exists among nationalist in the other states. The overall problem is that there is no European political debate at the level of the people. European politics exists in Brussels and on governmental levels. The last set of elections for the European Parliament had a pathetic 30% turnout.

This is a major EU shortcoming - the failure to bring common politics to the people of Europe. Ironically, the person who has done most in recent year for a common European front has been Bush and his Iraq war.

Quote[/b] ]

4) People are concerned with the erosion of their national identities as Europe is merged into a union of member states

Again, it's primarily a British concern in general and with the right wing populist in rest of Europe. There are more worries on the practical level - that smaller member states might lose all political influence. The purely nationalist argument doesn't have too much support on the continent.

Quote[/b] ]5) The EU bureaucracy has imposed quite a myriad of rules and regulations that have caused various businesses to incur additional expenses in order to be compliant

There are rules and regulation, but all aim for fair trade. It can be unpopular with governments with protectionist idologies (like France), where the national governments own parts of the industry. Overall however as an economic union, the EU has worked very well.

There are restrictions on work hours, minimum vacation etc that could be a pain in the ass for the British. In the rest of the Union however, those restrictions and much more exist already on the national level.

Quote[/b] ]6) There is also a feeling that the EU contitutional proposal is overly complex and lengthy

It is, but it may be a necessity. The treaties it is based on are complex as the European governments try to protect their own interests. So compromises have to be made.

If it is possible to get a better, more coherent constitution, I will be very happy that France and the Netherlands voted no. There is the possibility that they'll actually rewrite it to something half-decent. I am worried however that it won't be the case. I'm worried that the current treaties will be in place for a while in the future - and they suck significantly more than the proposed constitution does. I'm worried that the constitution will simply be chopped up and passed as law anyway - just in an even more chaotic and bureaucratic form.

I hope that we'll look back on this time and say that this was a great time for Europe. That this was the moment when the people got involved and decided that not any compromise will do.

I doubt it however. Most likely this will delay things for years, cost Europe a shitload of money, keep us in an insignificant position in international politics.. and then continue om the same way. I suspect this will just have been a collosal waste of time.

[kavoven 4]

Quote[/b] ]4) People are concerned with the erosion of their national identities as Europe is merged into a union of member states

NATIONALISTS are concerned with this ,not the overall Eruopean ,and it depends from country to country.In Belgium many people would rather assimilate in Europe than actually stay as Belgium ,understandably as really there doesn't exist such a thing as a "Belgian". (except or King maybe)

There are a lot of EU member state's with a low patriotic or nationalistic feeling ,country's with few identity.

But country's like the UK ,France or Germany have more nationalists ,because their national identity is stronger.

Another thing to note here is that usually mostly people from older generations are Nationalistic ,younger people are usually much more pro-Europe.The elder generations make the majority in current European demographics (damn WW2) ,but once that generation is gone the picture will be different.

Well, I am german and I do not need a german identity, I would rather prefer a real European identity, but I guess that not many people think like me in this case..., but as you said, "younger people are usually much more pro-Europe", I really hope so.

Anyway, your point is a good one!

[Supah 0]

Quote[/b] ]2) People aren't all happy with switching to the Euro and feel that it has had some detrimental effcts on some national economies

In some of the countries, things got more expensive. A second issue is that the European economies are not entirely synchronized. It's one of the main goals of the monetary union, and that takes time. Until we're synched, it will hurt. The payoff in the end is however much greater.

And in absolute terms, both in the Eurozone and the EU in general, the GDP/capita has increased significantly. The purchasing power of the average European is much higher now than it was a decade ago.

Unless you get lied to by your national government to cover up that they let themselves be walked over by the bigger nations and your national currency is now going into the euro at 90% of its real value leading to high inflation

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]3) Too much power is being placed in Brussels

That's primarily the British concern but a among nationalists also exists among nationalist in the other states. The overall problem is that there is no European political debate at the level of the people. European politics exists in Brussels and on governmental levels. The last set of elections for the European Parliament had a pathetic 30% turnout.

This is a major EU shortcoming - the failure to bring common politics to the people of Europe. Ironically, the person who has done most in recent year for a common European front has been Bush and his Iraq war.

Yes got to love irony I also think its mainly nationalisme that is at the root of this. People should realize that they do not stop being british or belgian but gain a "nationality" I am from friesland (a more independantly minded province of the netherlands) and I've always seen myself as a Frisian first and a dutchmen second. If european comes third then that wont be to hard. I think it's a way of seeing things more people should adopt.

[denoir 0]

I think a bit of a problem in analyzing these results is that you have a really big mix of people that voted "nee" and "non". A major Swedish newspaper for instance in its analysis concluded that it was Dutch fears of an EU superstate that was the main reason for the "nee". And to support this, they quote one of the leading opponents, Geert Wilders on the issue. As far as I know he is a right wing populist, that is hardly representative for the Dutch in general. But as he is loud and part of the "nee" side, people assume that he is representative.

The same thing in France - both the far left and the far right were against the constitution. The mainstream parties were for it. So people that voted "non" are categorized by the ideology that those far off parties represent. I'm not sure that's the right thing to do.

Anyway, the big winner in all of this for now is the UK. Right now the future direction of the EU is open - will it remain mostly just an economic union, or will it develop politically as well?

Well, the American conservatives seem to be pretty thrilled about it as well.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/terencejeffrey/tj20050601.shtml

Quote[/b] ]

Long live France

Terence Jeffrey

French voters did themselves a favor -- and Americans, too -- on Sunday, when they voted down a single constitution for a homogenized Europe.

As France debated the issue, it became clear that a major aim of the proposed European Union constitution was to begin building a new power bloc that could counter the United States and neutralize those peoples within Europe who persist in believing they share interests and values with the American people when it comes to the conduct of politics among nations.

It would have done this by subordinating all 25 member nations to a single foreign and security policy bureaucracy.

The proposed European Union constitution would have created a single European president and a single European foreign minister. European voters would not have been allowed to directly elect these chief executives of their new over-government, however. Instead, a council made up of European heads of state would have chosen them, subject to the approval of the European Parliament.

The purpose of the new European president and foreign minister would have been to conduct a single European foreign and security policy.

"The Union," said the draft constitution, "shall have competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defense policy."

"Member States," it said, "shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union's action in this area. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair its effectiveness."

"Member States," it also said, "shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defense policy, to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council."

As the constitution was drafted, these powers were hedged by providing that decisions be made unanimously by member nations on foreign policy questions. That would have either rendered the EU foreign-policy apparatus a paper tiger, similar to the U.N. Security Council, or led to future changes fully and effectively consolidating foreign-policy power in the central European government.

If the latter occurred, the EU could direct all of Europe to side with, or against, America in future international crises.

One strong clue of the direction the EU might take with such power can be found on the business pages of Tuesday's newspapers, where it was reported that the United States will sue the EU in the World Trade Organization because of the EU's ongoing subsidies for Airbus.

A consortium of European governments formed Airbus more than three decades ago to compete in the global market for commercial jetliners. In those days, multiple American manufacturers dominated the field. Since then, backed by billions in government subsidies, Airbus has forced the U.S. jetliner industry to consolidate into a single manufacturer, Boeing. And Airbus now controls a bigger share of the global market than Boeing.

EU's Airbus subsidies have an unmistakable aim -- and it is not to advance free trade. It is to defeat in global competition the last U.S. manufacturer of jetliners.

Given control of a unified European foreign and security policy, would the EU treat the United States as any less of a rival?

In the last great international crisis -- the question of what to do about Saddam Hussein -- EU nations split on whether they were with America or against her. England, Italy, Spain, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic were among those supporting the United States. France and Germany, whose governments have led the charge for the EU constitution, were not. Because a single European constitution did not commit these nations to a single foreign policy, they weighed their own interests and went their own ways.

But what path would a single Euro-government follow in a crisis that pits, say, the United States against China? Hint: Airbus is now fighting with Boeing for China's lucrative jetliner market.

In his ill-fated push for French ratification of the EU constitution, French President Jacques Chirac unmistakably portrayed America as Europe's rival. "During his few appearances during this campaign," noted the Economist, "Mr. Chirac has drawn on one of his favorite themes: the need to create 'a European power', strong enough 'to count in tomorrow's world' faced with the American superpower, as well as with rising powers such as China. Such a 'Europe puissance', with its own defense capability, would naturally be of French inspiration, not 'Anglo-Saxon, Atlanticist.' It is a popular theme, which Mr. Chirac used to near-universal French acclaim when opposing the Iraq war."

But French voters would not trade their sovereignty for Chirac's dream of a European superpower that can thwart the United States. The world will be a better for it.

[Apollo 0]

Let the US and UK have their phyrrus victory ,you can't stop globalization and evolution.

As i see it ,the political problem's of the EU these days is mainly due to the ideals and interrests of a dominant elder generation in wester Europe.

Go to a local conventions of any far right wing party in West Europe and calculate the average age ,some of the most elder and somtimes staunchest members often were part of some Nazi symphaty group in WW2 ,or analyse the roots of the party...

In most West European country's the dominant political wing is often right ,or centre right.in the EU the conservative's are most dominant.Even the social party's in Europe are often pretty mostly centre left or even a bit right.The party's adjust themselfs to the needs of those groups in society that have most power ellectoraly.

Wait 30 years and the demography of Europe is tottaly different if not only for a decline of a few dozen million people in Western europe ,heck if not 100 million.Belgium has now almost 11 million people ,it's expected to have 6 or 7 million in 2030 if we don't get additional immigration.Immigration will be a must ,there goes youre national identity ,prepare for a European multicultural society i would say as people will move all over Europe probably.

I forsee the growth of the European identity ,it's already growing ,especially among us young people ,who often talk to people all over the world by thing's like internet wich is much more used by the young generation.Most of us think more mondial ,and probably frankly couldn't give much of a damn about the nationality of their tiny insignificant country.

It's not like you can stop this evolution of cultural breakdown and assimilating into a multi-culture ,see how easy large portions of American culture has penetrated into the European country's during the last decade's.Human is a flock animal ,and essentially we were born human not for ex. Luxemburgian.That doesn't mean all local culture is lost ,only a portion.But local culture gets lost anyhow ,my grandma for ex. her local dialect vocabulary is a thousand times richer than mine ,when her generation dies most of that local dialect dies to.It has always been like that in the past to.

[denoir 0]

As i see it ,the political problem's of the EU these days is mainly due to the ideals and interrests of a dominant elder generation in wester Europe.

Go to a local conventions of any far right wing party in West Europe and calculate the average age ,some of the most elder and somtimes staunchest members often were part of some Nazi symphaty group in WW2 ,or analyse the roots of the party...

There arn't many people left from the Nazi era. Those born in 1945 are 60 years now.

As for youth, in Sweden for example, they are mostly against the EU. They feel that the Union is just the rule of "old men" protecting financial interests.

From my point of view this is completely absurd. We're building something brand new here. It's an exciting time, and nothing is written in stone. The EU can become whatever we want it to become. It's in my view a great opportunity.

Quote[/b] ]In most West European country's the dominant political wing is often right ,or centre right.in the EU the conservative's are most dominant.Even the social party's in Europe are often pretty mostly centre left or even a bit right.The party's adjust themselfs to the needs of those groups in society that have most power ellectoraly.

Realtive what? The Americans think we're all communist. On a global scale Europe is pretty far left winged. Even the most far right wingers here support an extensive social protection, government financed medical care, labour laws etc.. the traditional socialist values.

Quote[/b] ]I forsee the growth of the European identity ,it's already growing ,especially among us young people ,who often talk to people all over the world by thing's like internet wich is much more used by the young generation.Most of us think more mondial ,and probably frankly couldn't give much of a damn about the nationality of their tiny insignificant country.

On the other hand, in an age where everybody uses Microsoft Word, drinks Coca Cola and flies Airbus, there should be an increased demand of uniqueness. And Europe has plenty of that. There could be a lot of value in preserving the different cultures - to provide some color in an otherwise gray and standardized world.

I do not see European integration as a problem in this. The Germans will still speak Germans, and Paris sera toujours Paris... etc. Integration doesn't have to mean complete assimilation. Cross-migration will certainly lead to a degree of blending, but the core of a multi-cultural society is that you have different cultures in one system, coexisting peacefully. I can for instance see myself moving to the French riviera in a few years from now. That doesn't mean that I intend to become French. I fully intend to still be Swedish and European - but that doesn't mean that I can't live and work with the French.

[Donnervogel 0]

I don't question the reasons.

I question its place in constitution.

I fail to see how that is a reason to be against the constitution. I mean what if the effective difference if you have rather short, abstract definitions in one document and a shitload of regulations and laws hidden somewhere in other documents that constraint the constitution aricles? If I get you right you'de be pro constitution if there would be written things like "the internal market shall be free of privilegations" and then there are regulations and laws that state thing like "germany may support the east" "a member state can privilege a part of the economy if the EU market competiontion does not get affected in a too big extend and it serves to conserve national heritage and culture" and so on

But the effect would be the same in the end.

Also as Denoir said this isn't supposed to be a classical constitution like they were written 200 years ago. It's a constitutional threaty that combines different thraties into one set of rules and adabts it to the new situation in order to make it easier to handle. But why don't they do a "classic constitution". It's because the EU is not a nation. There aren't enough common points between it's members nor is the culture and political system compatible between all of the memebr states. So how are you supposed to get a document that everyone can agree on if you don't explicitly state how far the article can be interpreted.

You seem to praise the US constiution but you have to see that the aricles of it can be interpreted differently. And because they can be they need further explaination and restrictions. Those things are provided in the normal law which is terribly complicated. I am sure if Jefferson had lived today in the EU he would have written a more complex constitution too.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]There arn't many people left from the Nazi era. Those born in 1945 are 60 years now

That was just a sideremark ,genneraly just saying older people are usually easier nationalistic.

Quote[/b] ]As for youth, in Sweden for example, they are mostly against the EU. They feel that the Union is just the rule of "old men" protecting financial interests.

Well i was talking in general ,and what you say basicly means "Swedish youth is mainly against a EU of older value's" ,the Swedish youth would probably be more pro for a "young" EU.

The point is the somewhat continued decline of nationalistic sentiments among young people and the willingness to join into a larger and stronger entity.

Quote[/b] ]Realtive what? The Americans think we're all communist. On a global scale Europe is pretty far left winged. Even the most far right wingers here support an extensive social protection, government financed medical care, labour laws etc.. the traditional socialist values

I know that ,but plz do not use that silly benchmark that is American politics.

It's not because most of our our right is relative left to many outsiders that their arn't clear distinctions between left and right in Europe.In western europe usually the far right party's are very nationalistic ,almost the dominant factor of their strenght.

Quote[/b] ]On the other hand, in an age where everybody uses Microsoft Word, drinks Coca Cola and flies Airbus, there should be an increased demand of uniqueness. And Europe has plenty of that. There could be a lot of value in preserving the different cultures - to provide some color in an otherwise gray and standardized world.

Im not saying culture shouldn't be preserved ,im not quite propagating the burning down of cultural landmarks as ex. ,im simply saying that probably there few to be done about the decline of local culture's ,even if the EU wouldn't exist.If you try to preserve it youll probably end with a mere reflextion of what it once was.

The thing is we still will know how that culture was like ,we just probably won't live anymore according to those custom's as we evolve.It's already like that anyhow and it always have been like that in history ,we don't live by medieval customs anymore because modernity have made them obsolete ,but we still know how it was like and we can appreciate learning about it.

In africa we can still sometimes see a shamen dance while on a trip ,but he does it for a fee and afterwards he just live's by more modern custom's.We may be saddend by the fact that technicly it isn't real anymore ,but it's evolution you can't stop.

I wouldn't be sad if culture in Europe evolved like that ,in the end the more we become assimilated in the whole structure the easier it is to live with eachother and to hold the structure toghether.It's good to preserve an image of previous culture ,but it's also good IMO to addapt to eachother IMO.

An example is languaghe ,you bring it up to ,sure in a 1 generation conrtext languaghe assimilation isn't that big ,but see that over multiple generations.I know many people from immigrant background here of wich their children don't speak the native languaghe of their parents anymore.

you might be Swedish in Southern france ,but will youre children still be that Swedish if they went to french schools ,have french friends etc...?

People adjust their languaghe if they have a need for a different langhuaghe for communication with certain people ,there's a reason why most of us speak english on the internet ,and in the end ,even if it will take long ,i forsee many langhaughe's getting unused in europe after a long time ,probably decade's. I figure the lowlands will be the first to go that way.

Example's of assimilation are legio trough history ,often assimilation is a good thing for stabilety and unity ,and while many culture's have gotten unuesd by this progress ,it doesn't mean they have got forgotten.

[Airbourne Alchaholic 0]

TBH I don't really see much point worring about the nationalists. Let's face it, the majoraty of nationalists are the older generation, still feeling pride that their country was great having done somthing in one of the two wars (that goes for Germany and Austria too). It is also the older generation that is currently running the EU and many of it's countries. In thirty years time the "Modern Generation" would've taken over and old barriers would start collapsing.

This is just my opinion now but perhaps in 100 years or so the separate countries in Europe could merge with one big superpower blossoming out as a concequence. This would definately put an end to many issues.

But of course, I won't be alive to see that happening, like many others. I just think time is the one thing that will sort everything out, our children or grandchildren - the real solution to Europe's problems.

[SPQR 0]

You forgot to tell that some of the old generations habe directly known the second world war, and they surely understand better the preciousness of peace and cooperation that puny youngsters bred before the TV set, MTV, real TV (Big Brother,...) and fed with coke and hamburger, usually thinking that Peace is a state of fact which absolutly no effort to preserve.

About some old generation people who worked hard to create a better and safer place, I'd like to tell a story about Simone Veil. She is one of the few survivors of the nazi extermination camp. She understood well that national pride, rude competition, and viewing neighbour countries as potential enemies only drive people, sooner or later to war (WW2 being a consequence of a faulty peace after WW1).

Just after the WW2, germans were still hated as criminals and arch-enemies by French and other European people. On the other side, some others wanted to create new relationship in order to prevent any futher conflict in Europe.

So, Mme Simone Veil went in many congress in order to promote peaceful and friendly relationship with Germany. One day, during a meeting, a man stood up, angry :

"But haven't you ever heard about german extermination camps ?"

The story do not tell what was her own answer, but knowing her traumatic experience, I have no difficulty to imagine that this man felt ridiculous after her answer

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Denoir-

Quote[/b] ]that they got all the governments to finally agree is remarkable, given the wide spectrum of the political positions of the European governments.

Yes, given the nature of the Treaty thats true but i dont think it should have to go treading on peoples toes at all. Its a function of the type of 'constitution' assembled (a detailed, legalistic constitutional treaty replacing specific existing treaties) that it is so difficult to reach agreement on. Plenty of people here seem to feel that this isn't the best europe can do and you, a supporter of it even have objections. Id say what we see here is representative of many.

Quote[/b] ] Objectively this current proposed constitution makes rather large concessions to the British. In Europe it is only really Britain that has a very free market economy with very little social considerations involved. Such a model is not really representative of Europe. So I can understand a bunch of people not being too happy about it. (Although France's protectionist stance, where the government owns a good portion of the major industry is not representative of the rest of Europe either)

The Lisbon agenda for economic reform in europe was agreed to by the governments (not just the British, and not some anglo-plot for power). Unemployment here is half that of Germany. That is a social consideration. In addition we have welfare support, the National Health Service etc.

The (-relatively-) free market economy is not representative of whos europe? Half of the EU now is still playing catch up (including with British levels of welfare, pension and other spending), and of course economy comes first, you get a good growing economy and then use it to finance a reasonable level of social support.

Quote[/b] ]Having said that, the British, together with the Poles do serve a useful function in the EU: making a counter-weight to France.

We do serve a useful function , Woohoo!

I would say that the Swedes serve a useful purpose, namely supporting the British on many issues . I would prefer that we serve a useful function in the positive contribution that we can and do make to the EU however (yes, including helping to gently reinvigorate the stale economies of our friends). And France and the rest of the EU serves a very useful function in giving us different systems from which we can learn something as well (such as in child care).

Quote[/b] ] The trends in the world, including Britain and the US are stronger social protection, rather than weaker. There's little chance for any western nation to go back to 19th century laissez faire.

I wasnt suggesting that Britain let alone anywhere else was moving back to 19th century capitalism, noone seriously is, we have a welfare state, we have public services financed by the taxpayer in a way unthinkable in the US, and British people are proud of that. Britain does not equal 'mini US', by any stretch. I was suggesting that the rigidity in employment and some of the protectionist excesses in Germany and France will be unsustainable in the future, not that all social spending will somehow cease in some new capitalist nirvana. Your vision of an automated 'culture economy' is some way off, and before it could ever be realised reforms are necessary (as you have said).

Quote[/b] ]rather than people voting for national representatives that choose Union representatives, we need to have people choosing Union representatives directly

What are you referring to here please? We already elect euro MPs, presumably you mean the council of ministers, commisioners, the european council or what?

What is needed is to develop a sense of what we have in common across borders (the 'european demos'), and a clear sense of what people would be voting for, something that this treaty wouldnt be all that great for anyway. Different solutions create different problems (+ you seem strangely hot on greater EU democracy given your elitist views on 'the masses')

The thirty-third report of the select committee on European scrutiny has some interesting comments (if you can get through it all there are some good points made):

Quote[/b] ]

The European Council

62. The European Council is the meeting of heads of state and government four times a year. It does not have a formal role in the legislative process, but it is 'the Union's supreme political authority', its task being to 'provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development and ... define the general political guidelines thereof'.[117] According to the Prime Minister and the German Chancellor, it 'plays a key role in providing the EU with strategic direction and a clear sense of purpose, such as driving forward the Lisbon and Tampere agendas' (on economic reform and justice and home affairs respectively).[118] It is also a democratically accountable part of the EU, in the sense that, through electing their own national governments, voters can change its party political character.

63. Several proposals to reform the European Council have recently been put forward, reflecting the perception that the European Council is too bogged down in detail to provide effective leadership and the probable difficulties following enlargement. Enlargement from 15 to 25 or more will be a change of kind rather than of degree; as Sir Stephen Wall put it, 'Six, 9, 12, even 15 people sitting round the table can negotiate. With 27 it is very difficult to do that'.[119] According to the Council's Secretary-General, the European Council 'is increasingly asked to spend time on laborious low-level drafting work ... The drift in the workings of the Presidency has reduced its meetings to report-approval sessions or inappropriate exercises in self-congratulation by the institutions.'[120]

64. Apart from measures to make the European Council's agenda more 'focussed and manageable', the Prime Minister and the German Chancellor have proposed that discussions 'focus on strategic and overarching issues, such as considering the Commission's annual programme and maintaining momentum behind the EU's economic reform agenda'; that 'consideration of individual legislative dossiers should in principle be precluded'; and that 'unanimity should only be applied in areas where this is provided for in the Treaties'.[121] The Swedish Prime Minister has concentrated on 'a more efficient system for preparing the European Council meetings' (as well as greater openness).[122] The Council's Secretary-General sums up the matters for discussion as:

*'Refocussing the European Council on its original purpose, concentrating on its role of co-ordinator and driving force';

*'Better organisation of European Council meetings', including new provisions relating to agendas;

*'More structured preparation', to be achieved by greater efficiency in a smaller number of Council formations and 'a methodical approach to preparation which is lacking at present'.[123]

65. Much of this seems to us like common sense. Indeed the descriptions of how the European Council currently operates paint an astonishing picture of chaotic organisation, with inadequate preparation of meetings and "bouncing" of items onto the agenda.[124] Remedying this does not require Treaty changes and so need not await the IGC. We have already discussed proposals for greater openness and for the European Council to set deadlines for legislation.[125] Here we are mainly concerned with the proposal for the European Council to have a more strategic role. In his speech in Warsaw in October 2000, the Prime Minister proposed 'an annual agenda for Europe, set by the European Council', which 'would be a clear legislative, as well as political, programme setting the workload of individual Councils'.[126] He indicated that the President of the Commission would play a part in drawing up that agenda. An annual agenda set by the European Council is potentially a welcome development, giving a clearer idea of what the EU is seeking to achieve and better advance warning of new legislative and other proposals and their likely timing. Presumably it would replace the six-monthly list of Presidency priorities. We see merit in replacing the six-monthly list of Presidency priorities with an annual European Council agenda that relates more clearly to the Commission's annual work programme. We also we consider it essential that any European Council agenda is subject to scrutiny before it is finalised, and that national parliamentarians participate in that scrutiny, and we return to this point later.[127]

The Council of Ministers

66. The Council of Ministers is in principle a single body, which can deal with any subject within EU competence, but in practice it meets in different 'formations' in subject areas such as agriculture or justice and home affairs, attended by the national Ministers with those portfolios. Most proposals, other than that for the Council to meet in public when legislating, have concentrated on changing the Council 'formations', calling for: a formation capable of exercising a co-ordinating role, to be created either by splitting the General Affairs Council (so that there was a separate Council formation for foreign affairs) or through a new formation composed of Deputy Prime Minister or Ministers for Europe;[128] reducing the number of Council formations so that there is greater coherence of policy in related subject areas and less chance of sectional interests dominating;[129] and a separate Council formation dealing with legislation in all policy areas and meeting in public.[130] The Minister for Europe envisaged a co-ordinating Council composed of 'Prime Ministers' representatives who clearly were acting with the authority of the Prime Minister', meeting two or three times a month (whereas the General Affairs Council currently meets monthly).[131] We would welcome a simplified Council structure which gave rise to more coherent policy-making and which would potentially make national parliaments' task of holding Ministers to account less difficult.

67. According to Sir Stephen Wall, individual Presidencies vary in the use they make of the Council Secretariat:

'Some countries use the Secretariat more than others, but most people would agree that whatever the Council formation, there is greater scope for the provision of information to Ministers, so that when ... the General Affairs Council is, say, dealing with Macedonia in one month and Macedonia in the next month, it is quite useful for them to have shortly before the meeting a note from the Council Secretariat to say that "Last month you took X and Y decision. This is what has been done in the meantime to implement it. This is what we think you now need to focus on when you meet next week". To an extent that happens but it is a bit hit and miss at the moment and there is scope for what I would call introducing greater consistency and professionalism in the way we as Member States in the Council work with the Secretariat which services us to organise our business.'[132]

It is extraordinary that the EU's main legislative body operates in such a slapdash way, and it helps to explain some of the difficulties we encounter over scrutiny of legislation. It is also further evidence for the harmful effects of the six-monthly Presidency system. Citizens and parliaments are entitled to expect greater professionalism in the organisation of the Council of Ministers.

....The European Parliament (EP)

....86. However, as the EP has gained power, turnout at EP elections has declined, falling below 50% in the 1999 elections (from 63% at the first direct elections in 1979), despite voting being compulsory in several countries.[173] Turnout has, of course, fallen in national parliamentary elections too in most countries, but from a higher level. Lower turnout at EP than national elections is probably inevitable, given the fact that EP elections do not determine the political colour of a government and the EP is geographically further away. One of the underlying problems is that there is not a European 'demos', in the sense of a people with sufficient sense of common interest to vote on similar issues for similar parties. EP elections are 'second order' elections, in which electors predominantly vote not on European issues but on national ones, such as whether the governing party is popular.[174] Consequently there is no mandate for a particular set of policies to form the basis for the EP's amendments to legislation. Relations between MEPs and citizens are relatively weak, and Martin Howe QC argued that this made the EP unduly susceptible to lobbyists.[175]

-----------------------------------

Denoir-

Quote[/b] ]The proposed constitution is far from perfect - I wouldn't even call it good. But I think it is better than the set of treaties that are currently in place.

But the fact is its called a constitution (Treaty Establishing a Constitution), and that summons up grand ideas which bear little relation to this, the 'Treaty Replacing Previous Treaties in a Fairly Ad Hoc Fashion. If we're calling it a constitution then lets write a real damn constitution that the european people can agree on and be proud of.~ Why not?

People may be voting on wider european issues not directly related to the constitution as Necromancer indicates (and also to me seemingly stupid reasons like Ran-sorry), but thats not necessarily such a bad thing- if there are issues that the masses of europe feel are not being addressed, including a wider debate on the future of europe, then a referendum is one way of making this clear and bringing it up for debate (though referenda becoming a test of national governments is indeed unfortunate).

As Supah indicates in both the Netherlands and France there has been a negative Yes campaign stressing the dangers of voting No rather than what this constitution is good for (possibly because the answer isnt very impressive).

Quote[/b] ]Even if the French and the Dutch accept the constitution, the British will almost certainly reject it. In the case of a re-negotiation, the British will be in a stronger position, and the constitution will have to be changed to suit them better

I dont think thats necessarily true, the French rejection seems to me to put Chirac in a potentially weaker position.

Quote[/b] ]Everybody knows that the Britons aren't too fond of European cooperation, so it wouldn't be a big blow to morale if they rejected it.

A lot of British people love european cooperation in principle im pretty sure. People are in favour of general coopation on the issues that clearly transcend national boundaries (environment, crime, immigration) what we dont like is seemingly duff and irrelevant legislation, corruption, and an attempt to impose one 'vision' on europe (why for instance cant the British continue to have their more market orientated model preserved and the french their protectionist model, if they wish, as now).

ran-

Quote[/b] ]another reason for my vote...alignment of the European defence policy on NATO...I'm in no way against partnerships but >I can't stand the idea of basing our policies on external bodies.<

Maybe you should apply for a position in the Bush administration. That doesnt seem like a very 'european' view.

ran-

Quote[/b] ]no, the same treaties are still in place, that's all, we didn't go back in time, we just put the whole thing on hold.

You may want things to go fast but believe me, what has been done in 50 years is incredible and on the scale of human history that's quite fast.

I have been saying for years that things should go slowly (whilst consulting and getting the people to feel involved) or the great unwashed masses will feel dissociated from it. Thats just what has happened i think (quite apart from the dissatifaction with individual governments).

Denoir-

Quote[/b] ]In reality however, the European Union has been around long enough and has been too economically successful to be seriously hurt by one referendum. While it of course is a failure for Europe, it's not a devastating one.

Its true the EU wont collapse because of this. I dont think its a failure for 'Europe', its a faliure for the people who drafted the treaty. The people who reject the treaty are of europe and the people who drafted it failed to represent them (and crucially, make them -feel- like they were getting represented). Its just 'Europe' sorting itself out and deciding in a more public way where its heading. If its sad its because it took these referenda to initiate such debate.

I agree also with der bastler and others that a lot of the writing in this document was not really fit for a 'constitution for europe'. some of it could be covered or determined elsewhere if necessary.

Denoir-

Quote[/b] ]I can assure you that not a word was written just for the fun of it.

Oh surely not! I think this constitution is very fun!

Albert Schweizer-

Quote[/b] ]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!

Yes.

Supah -

Quote[/b] ]It should be a set of principles that binds people together. Not some unreadable bundle of economic instructions. ...Social aspects such as common values, peoples rights, obligations for the citizen AND the politicians etc. THATS what a  constitution should be about

I quite agree with you on this even though i disagree about a supposed 'ultra liberal' undertone or that mere references to 'the market' are a reason to vote against it.

Supah-

Quote[/b] ]This document should have been about the people and it turned out to be about big bussiness

Its not about big business anymore than the EU has always been about big business. Its about restating previous treaties and shuffling things round a bit plus a bit of centralisation etc. But theres no doubt the people in a lot of nations feel excluded from all this and thats a serious flaw which needs correcting. I heard a good proposal from a Dutch guy on the BBC to set up institutions in member states to find out what people from member states actually want precisely from the EU. Cant hurt.

Denoir-

Quote[/b] ]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?

"US Companies in Germany

The (Blood-) Suckers"

You mean like this? Sometimes im not sure whether the religious right in America are more extreme, or the indoctrinated left in continental europe (even ignoring the ugly resonances of this campaign against foreign business).

Denoir-

Quote[/b] ]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.

But who says the EU is run on principles of sanity?   (i agree with you though).

Albert Schweizer-

Quote[/b] ]"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."

You know I am over it to tackle this silly slogan. The rich wanting to become richer is the motor of our economies. Maybe you forget that companies need investors. Have a look at africa if you want to see what it is like if there is no capital to be invested.... etc...not meant to sound furious at you.. I am just very unhappy with yesterday election.

I agree with all that you said in this post Albert but the rejection of this treaty is nothing to get angry about really, things will continue as usual and we will find a way to reach agreement eventually. In fact the British presidency will ensure that economic factors will not be brushed under the carpet even whilst politicians in various countries try to reconnect with the people (probably using populist rhetoric).

Denoir-

Quote[/b] ] If you look at the trends however, the US is becoming more European in terms of social security than the other way around. I think there is a strong trend of increased social protection.

They can afford it in the US. You really think e.g. Germany needs -more- social security and employment protection at this moment, making it even harder to hire (and fire) people? Its up to them what they do, i dont really care unless it destabilises the continent, yet i wouldnt think they should increase spending in that area above what the working population can support. But they can have their system, Spain its, and we ours. Theres no pressing need for one central model to be imposed on unwilling populations.

Apollo-

Quote[/b] ]A pitty that many Western European political establishments are not very much liked by their own poppulace ,or for that matter that in so many European country's the political establishment is quite corrupt ,i know Belgium is not that much better than France ,and i deffinatly know Italy is terrible.

A pity to say the least. I dont think we are the worst in this by a long shot but even so we sent our own damaged goods with tarnished image to become- guess what- EU trade commissioner (Peter Mandelson)!

Ive been thinking for a while that we could probably write a better treaty in this forum. And now BBC Newsnight ('Construct a constitution') are asking people to do just that. Maybe we should make an entry. I think it would be so great if somehow a constitution for europe came from outside the political classes that the masses of europe could agree on. IE By the people, for the people.

------------

In other news i welcome the recent increase in EU aid (EU aid agreement)- Which the UK has played a leading part in (strange since we are apparently such selfish capitalists). I hope though it goes into long term development and not just handouts (which dont even offset third world debts)

[Sgt. Jones 0]

Well, it seems that a lot of those points of concern are still contentious depending on who you talk to. Thanks for your replies.

It's been said that this may be a younger Europeans vs. older Europeans concern and that if we wait 30 years the demographics will have changed. This may be true, however once a person has moved that far along in life experience, their outlook on the world changes dramatically. So not only will the demographics have changed, but their viewpoints, goals, etc. will likely have changed tremendously as well.

[Thunderbird 0]

I think it would be better if we'd support europ , there would be mainly advantages for us but unfortunately some people are still affraid from the future cuz they don't really trust their own governements thinking that the european laws will change badly theirs, this situation's clearly understandable though.

I hope that politicals'll make some efforts to explain better the constitution to their citizens in the goal to avoid the same situation here and in Netherland.

[denoir 0]

The Lisbon agenda for economic reform in europe was agreed to by the governments (not just the British, and not some anglo-plot for power). Unemployment here is half that of Germany. That is a social consideration. In addition we have welfare support, the National Health Service etc.

The (-relatively-) free market economy is not representative of whos europe? Half of the EU now is still playing catch up (including with British levels of welfare, pension and other spending), and of course economy comes first, you get a good growing economy and then use it to finance a reasonable level of social support.

First let me tell you that I'm impressed by the shear length of your post. It must have taken some time to write  

Anyway, on the economics the problem is that the French and Germans want to both have the cake and eat it. It's not possible to have a mega sized social protection while at the same time have a low unemployment. Not working is simply a possible alternative, that a certain percentage will choose.

In Sweden, well, I'll post an thing here from our former prime minister Carl Bildt

Quote[/b] ]

Sweden's Economy - Successful or Sick?

Not the least its government likes to portray Sweden as a big success story in terms of growth and employment, and not seldom this is what comes out of EU compatison based on the official statistics available.

But the thruth is somewhat different, and a row inside the trade union federation LO during the past weeks have exposed this in a somewhat brutal way.

By tradition, the economist of LO have intellectual freedom, alhough they are supposed to stay politically loyal to LO and the social democratic party.

Now, however, the limits of this intellectual freedom has been demonstrated as a report on the level of real unemployment in the Swedish economy was de facto supressed and the author left his position at LO in protest at this. As a result, the report has gotten far more attention than would otherwise have been the case.

The official unemployment rate in Sweden is 5,5 %. This is the figure the government likes to give out. It's considerably above the 4,0 % they have as their target - indeed "the promise" they have given the voters in the last few elections. That's bad enough.

But in addition there are 4,4 % of the labour force in different sorts of labour market programs. If you add these two together, the unemployment rate suddenly jumps to 9,9 %, which is very much higher, and doesn't make Sweden that much different from some of the more problematic economies in Europe.

But what Jan Edling - formerly at the LO - claims is that this figure is way too low. A number of other measures, notably putting people on early pension schemes of different sorts as well as on long-term sickness benefits, should add in the order of a further 10 % to this figure.

That's dramatic. That means that in the order of 20 % of the labour force is unemployed in the one way or the other.

Not much to boast about - mildly speaking. In terms of employment, the Swedish economy suddenly looks like being far more sick than it is succesful.

While there are some complaints about unemployment, they're not very loud. The Swedish economy is doing well in general - positive growth, balanced budget, a nice sureplus etc

Basically we don't see it as a problem becuse.. well, we can afford it. Sure it's expenisve, but this comes in, in the category as "Quality of Life".

Also you have to remember that there's another relevant factor in France & Germany - they are heavy weight industrial countries and they are automating everything. The British have of course a lower unemployment as first of all, Britan deals with commerce more than industry and the industry it has is not automated.

Quote[/b] ]We do serve a useful function , Woohoo!

I would say that the Swedes serve a useful purpose, namely supporting the British on many issues . I would prefer that we serve a useful function in the positive contribution that we can and do make to the EU however (yes, including helping to gently reinvigorate the stale economies of our friends). And France and the rest of the EU serves a very useful function in giving us different systems from which we can learn something as well (such as in child care).

To be honest, I'm not quite sure what Britain does in the EU - except for the simple fact that it can't afford not to be in it. There are of course Britons who are very positive to a deeper European cooperation, but overall, I'd say that you are quite sceptical to the whole project. Sweden shares some of the scepticism, but at least we are closer to the continent on questions of social protection etc

I think that EU is richer with Britain in it, but the question is how much point it is to drag around unwilling participants.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]rather than people voting for national representatives that choose Union representatives, we need to have people choosing Union representatives directly

What are you referring to here please? We already elect euro MPs, presumably you mean the council of ministers, commisioners, the european council or what?

I'm refering to the Commision, that should be elected directly on the national level. Unfortunately today the governments use the post of EU commisioner as a chip in their internal games. Furthermore I'd like to see a strengthening of the EU parliament - that it can introduce legislation.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

A pitty that many Western European political establishments are not very much liked by their own poppulace ,or for that matter that in so many European country's the political establishment is quite corrupt ,i know Belgium is not that much better than France ,and i deffinatly know Italy is terrible.

A pity to say the least. I dont think we are the worst in this by a long shot but even so we sent our own damaged goods with tarnished image to become- guess what- EU trade commissioner (Peter Mandelson)!

I just get the feeling Europe is becomming the political dumping place for corrupt politicians ,deffinatly the fees that one can earn with an position in Europe attracting some guys who are rather in it for the money.Go to the European parlement and check how many representative's are actually there trough the day ,often the majority of chairs are empty even when there is vote on a important issue.

What was the name again of that French guy france tried to put forward some years ago for head of the ECB? Afaik he had quite a dubious history.

[theavonlady 2]

What was the name again of that French guy france tried to put forward some years ago for head of the ECB?

Jean-Claude Trichet?

He's there right now.

[Apollo 0]

What was the name again of that French guy france tried to put forward some years ago for head of the ECB?

Jean-Claude Trichet?

He's there right now.

He is?

Ok i think it's time i crawl back under my rock...

[Postduifje 0]

I think a bit of a problem in analyzing these results is that you have a really big mix of people that voted "nee" and "non". A major Swedish newspaper for instance in its analysis concluded that it was Dutch fears of an EU superstate that was the main reason for the "nee". And to support this, they quote one of the leading opponents, Geert Wilders on the issue. As far as I know he is a right wing populist, that is hardly representative for the Dutch in general. But as he is loud and part of the "nee" side, people assume that he is representative.

Please don't give this man any more attention than he already receives. In the last polls I've seen he would get less the 2% of the votes if there would be held elections, it's just because of his weird hair and his loud and recognisable populistic blatter that he receives this much attention inside and outside this country.

The larges part of the no camp was made by the SP, the Socialist Party. Geert Wilders is on the other side of the spectrum, where also many people voted against, but he is in no way representative for the no-voter, let alone for all the Dutch.

[der bastler 0]

http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/20/20100/1.html

"Der Geist der Gesetze"

"The Spirit of Laws"

Quote[/b] ]Compared to the economic rights the social rights are regarded as worth of minor protection, because e.g. regarding healt care the "right of access" Art. II-35 shall merely "be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and activities." -- in plain english: as it pleases the respective government. The rights of access to "social security benefits" or "social advantages" are accepted and protected even less "in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices" (Art.II-94)., whereas the "right to intellectual property" (Art. II-77.2) is protected without any further social obligations.

[...]

Article I-46 of the constitution states that the members of the European Council are "democratically accountable either to their national Parliaments, or to their citizens." But means of enforcement of this control are not mentioned. Therefore the provisional inadequate control mechanisms of the Parliament are cemented with this constitution.

What does this mean? Example software patents: The constitution would legitimate the undemocratic bypass of the parliament by council and commission.

Well let's look at some other articles refering to parliament and council:

Quote[/b] ]1. A European law or framework law of the Council shall establish the necessary measures for the election of the Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States or in accordance with principles common to all Member States.

The Council shall act unanimously on initiative from, and after obtaining the consent of, the European Parliament, which shall act by a majority of its component members. This law or framework law shall enter into force after it has been approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

2. A European law of the European Parliament shall lay down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the duties of its Members. The European Parliament shall act on its own initiative after seeking an opinion from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the Council. The Council shall act unanimously on all rules or conditions relating to the taxation of Members or former Members.

...shall act on its own initiative with opinion and consent of of the Council...

Quote[/b] ]Article III-332

The European Parliament may, by a majority of its component Members, request the Commission to submit any appropriate proposal on matters on which it considers that a Union act is required for the purpose of implementing the Constitution. If the Commission does not submit a proposal, it shall inform the Europethe an Parliament of the reasons.

The commission doesn't have to submit a proposal, it can dismiss it with a small "We don't want to"-information. The parliament has to accept this decision...

Quote[/b] ]Article III-333

In the course of its duties, the European Parliament may, at the request of a quarter of its component Members, set up a temporary Committee of Inquiry to investigate, without prejudice to the powers conferred by the Constitution on other institutions or bodies, alleged contraventions or maladministration in the implementation of Union law, except where the alleged facts are being examined before a court and while the case is still subject to legal proceedings.

The temporary Committee of Inquiry shall cease to exist on submission of its report.

A European law of the European Parliament shall lay down the detailed provisions governing the exercise of the right of inquiry. The European Parliament shall act on its own initiative after obtaining the consent of the Council and of the Commission.

Again, "after obtaining the consent of the Council and of the Commission"...

The Council

Quote[/b] ]Article III-337

1. The European Council and the Council shall be heard by the European Parliament in accordance with the conditions laid down in the Rules of Procedure of the European Council and those of the Council.

2. The Commission may attend all the meetings of the European Parliament and shall, at its request, be heard. It shall reply orally or in writing to questions put to it by the European Parliament or by its members.

3. The European Parliament shall discuss in open session the annual general report submitted to it by the Commission.

The Council shall be heard, the Commission may attend -- and the other way around?

Quote[/b] ]Article III-341

1. Where a vote is taken, any member of the European Council may also act on behalf of not more than one other member.

Abstentions by members present in person or represented shall not prevent the adoption by the European Council of acts which require unanimity.

2. The President of the European Parliament may be invited to be heard by the European Council.

3. The European Council shall act by a simple majority for procedural questions and for the adoption of its Rules of Procedure.

4. The European Council shall be assisted by the General Secretariat of the Council.

Ah, yes, the President of the European Parliament may be invited. If it pleases the Council. If not -- bad luck, President.

Quote[/b] ]Article III-346

The Council shall adopt European decisions laying down the rules governing the committees provided for in the Constitution. It shall act by a simple majority after consulting the Commission.

Oh, the Council can act only after consulting the Commission. What about the parliament? Forgotten? Don't want to ask the parliament? Then why do we need a parliament?

The Commission

Quote[/b] ]Article III-348

1. Apart from normal replacement, or death, the duties of a member of the Commission shall end when he or she resigns or is compulsorily retired.

Compulsory retirement? What's that?

Quote[/b] ]Article III-349

If any member of the Commission no longer fulfils the conditions required for the performance of his or her duties or if he or she has been guilty of serious misconduct, the Court of Justice may, on application by the Council, acting by a simple majority, or by the Commission, compulsorily retire him or her.

May, may, may... May's gone, we have June (just kidding ). But seriously, why not "has to"? "May" is a bit diffuse, isn't it?

Ok, as a point pro constitution you can say that the parliament can elect the president of the commission. But what does it mean exactly?

Quote[/b] ]Article I-27 The President of the European Commission

1. Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission. This candidate shall be elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its component members. If he or she does not obtain the required majority, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall within one month propose a new candidate who shall be elected by the European Parliament following the same procedure.

See, the parliament only has the right to nod through what the Council proposes...

And how about foreign and security policy?

Quote[/b] ]Article I-40 Specific provisions relating to the common foreign and security policy

1. The European Union shall conduct a common foreign and security policy, based on the development of mutual political solidarity among Member States, the identification of questions of general interest and the achievement of an ever-increasing degree of convergence of Member States' actions.

2. The European Council shall identify the Union's strategic interests and determine the objectives of its common foreign and security policy. The Council shall frame this policy within the framework of the strategic guidelines established by the European Council and in accordance with Part III.

3. The European Council and the Council shall adopt the necessary European decisions.

4. The common foreign and security policy shall be put into effect by the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs and by the Member States, using national and Union resources.

5. Member States shall consult one another within the European Council and the Council on any foreign and security policy issue which is of general interest in order to determine a common approach. Before undertaking any action on the international scene or any commitment which could affect the Union's interests, each Member State shall consult the others within the European Council or the Council. Member States shall ensure, through the convergence of their actions, that the Union is able to assert its interests and values on the international scene. Member States shall show mutual solidarity.

6. European decisions relating to the common foreign and security policy shall be adopted by the European Council and the Council unanimously, except in the cases referred to in Part III. The European Council and the Council shall act on an initiative from a Member State, on a proposal from the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs or on a proposal from that Minister with the Commission's support. European laws and framework laws shall be excluded.

7. The European Council may, unanimously, adopt a European decision authorising the Council to act by a qualified majority in cases other than those referred to in Part III.

8. The European Parliament shall be regularly consulted on the main aspects and basic choices of the common foreign and security policy. It shall be kept informed of how it evolves.

Very nice. The parliament is asked from time to time. Plus it will get some informations about the process.

Quote[/b] ]Article I-41 Specific provisions relating to the common security and defence policy

1. The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civil and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.

2. The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The policy of the Union in accordance with this Article shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States, it shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, under the North Atlantic Treaty, and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.

3. Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council. Those Member States which together establish multinational forces may also make them available to the common security and defence policy.

Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. An Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (European Defence Agency) shall be established to identify operational requirements, to promote measures to satisfy those requirements, to contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, to participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and to assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities.

4. European decisions relating to the common security and defence policy, including those initiating a mission as referred to in this Article, shall be adopted by the Council acting unanimously on a proposal from the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs or an initiative from a Member State. The Union Minister for Foreign Affairs may propose the use of both national resources and Union instruments, together with the Commission where appropriate.

5. The Council may entrust the execution of a task, within the Union framework, to a group of Member States in order to protect the Union's values and serve its interests. The execution of such a task shall be governed by Article III-310.

6. Those Member States whose military capabilities fulfil higher criteria and which have made more binding commitments to one another in this area with a view to the most demanding missions shall establish permanent structured cooperation within the Union framework. Such cooperation shall be governed by Article III-312. It shall not affect the provisions of Article III-309.

7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.

8. The European Parliament shall be regularly consulted on the main aspects and basic choices of the common security and defence policy. It shall be kept informed of how it evolves.

This means: No common defence policy (members are allowed to have their own not policies); obligatory and controlled armament; the parliament can't intervene.

Conclusion: This constitution provides no more democracy, no common policy and prefers economy over social rights.

Thanks, France and Netherlands! Merci, mes amis, you couldn't have offered a better cadeau d'anniversaire to me on sunday!

P.S.: Just another review: http://www.counterpunch.org/johnstone04262005.html