European Politics Thread.

[Supah 0]

I don't think a militarily and economically unified europe with a central government is something to be afraid of. It entirely depends on which values this union is based. At the moment I am getting the impression that too much focus is being placed on the money and too little on the human aspect.

[Colossus 2]

I'm hearing that Dominique de Villepin is the be the new PM in France.

Quote[/b] ]De Villepin appointed French PM  

Dominique de Villepin has been named as France's new prime

minister, following the government defeat in Sunday's vote on

the EU constitution.

The former interior minister replaces Jean-Pierre Raffarin, who

tendered his resignation minutes earlier.

President Jacques Chirac promised cabinet changes after the

referendum, in which almost 55% voted "No".

Correspondents say the result reflects domestic discontent

as well as wider anxiety about the European project.

Mr Chirac is due to address the nation on Tuesday evening to

present a policy for the new team, which is expected to

govern until elections in 2007.

Mr de Villepin has not yet named other members of the new

government.

But reports say Nicolas Sarkozy, the leader of the ruling UMP

party, will return to the interior ministry, a post which he held

before Mr de Villepin.

Mr Sarkozy is one of France's most popular politicians, and

seen as a possible future president.

Career diplomat

Mr de Villepin is best known abroad for his fiery defence at

the UN of France's position on the war in Iraq, and is likely to

go down well with European allies.

 

But the BBC's Caroline Wyatt in Paris says that as a career

diplomat never elected to public office, he, of all candidates,

most typifies the French elite so roundly rejected by the

French people on Sunday.

He has little experience, is unelected and has a difficult

relationship with parliament, correspondents say.

After Mr Raffarin resigned, he said in a TV broadcast that he

had made his decision independently of the EU vote.

He attempted to justify his attempts to reform France, but

acknowledged these had not been accepted by the French

people.

He promised to offer his support to his successor, who must,

he said, try to continue the vital European project.

BBC News

Chirac however is still at large.

[denoir 0]

I like de Villepin. Or better to say, I liked the speeches he gave when he was the French foreign minister during the preamble to the Iraq war. On the other hand, that says very little as French politicians are in general very eloquent and highly educated - which is by no means a guarantee that their policies are sound.

supah:

Quote[/b] ]At the moment I am getting the impression that too much focus is being placed on the money and too little on the human aspect.

My position on that is that I honestly don't know. I've read in detail the major articles, and they seem to be pretty much in place. The rest I skimmed through. My conclusion was that it was too big and complex for me to base an informed opinon. That by itself could be considered an argument against it - but on the other hand it may be the case that a more simple version is not possible, due to the complex nature of political interactions on the European level.

As for the economics, you have to remember that the European Union is today primarily an economic institution. The political aspect is secondary. The constitution encapsules the Maastricht and Nice treaties, so it has to contain most of the information found there.

You also have to remember that the EU is not a federation or a country - it is a form of confederation of nation states. Decisions are made on the European level in only certain areas. For the rest it is an agreement between nation states, so the rules have to be spelled out explicitly - especially when it comes to economics.

[SPQR 0]

Whatever how good is any text, whatever the utopia some men dreamed off, it still men who apply for others' or their own sake them.

The US Constitution is one of the best legal democratic text written in Mankind history, it never prevented the TBA from waging war in Irak. Nor real peaceful wisdom in sacred books like the Bible or the Quram prevented men to kill or blast themselves with others for their supposed "true and pure" faith.

Politic people aren't perfect, not really a hot new. But who elected them and let them "have fun with power" ? Who believe in old told stories of "Big night before singing following days" ?

We, electors, have the politics we deserved to, from our action to our own lazyness. Always moaning, and Frenches are good in that, is truly meaningless.

[Thunderbird 0]

I like de Villepin. Or better to say, I liked the speeches he gave when he was the French foreign minister during the preamble to the Iraq war. On the other hand, that says very little as French politicians are in general very eloquent and highly educated - which is by no means a guarantee that their policies are sound.

Honestly I prefer to see mister Sarkozy as primer minister cuz his seems suited for this job.

btw De Villepin's also a great man though and I'm sure he can improve several things but I'm pretty sure that Sarkozy can do better cuz he showed us in few months ago his political capacities reducing the delinquency,and decreasing cars accidents.

Regards

Thunderbird84

[Donnervogel 0]

I don't think a militarily and economically unified europe with a central government is something to be afraid of. It entirely depends on which values this union is based. At the moment I am getting the impression that too much focus is being placed on the money and too little on the human aspect.

As Denoir already said. That is pretty much logical as the European Union started as a Economical Alliance and it's main focusses are on economics because that's the only area where all the nations are willing to cooperate. However it starts to become a political unions now. Or it tries. But as you can see from all the nationalistic anti EU propaganda in many member states this is something where it is very hard to get an agreement on. It's almost pervert when you see that the French object the EU constitution because it's not social enough while the british people object it for not being liberal enough. You can see the nations have very different positions. But I personally don't understand all the fear of the constitution not being liberal/social enough as it doesn't really matter. The EU constitution wouldn't replace any existing constitution. I sometimes wonder why people put so much weight in it. Their countries will keep their constitutions.

Also the EU is very far from becomming a centralised European government. The EU is a federation of sovereign nations and it only tries to become some sort of place where those nations can try to coordinate their politics towards non EU countries. Your national politics will not become obsolete with this constitution.

I live in Switzerland and in many aspects it's kinda a mini EU. We are a federation of 26 souvereign states (cantons). Each of those cantons has it's own constitution with very different rules in some areas. Cantonal politcs are still very important. However we realised some time ago that it's stupid to have many weak single states that try to trade or make agreements with our huge neighbours (Germany, France, Italy, Austria - which was bigger in the past than today) so we put ourself together to form an alliance of common policies and common defense. And basicly it's the same until today. We preserved the structure over almost 600 years (with a short intermezzo of 3 years when napoleon conquered us and made of Switzerland a republic) and still all of our cantons have their own culture, their own dialects and we still speak 4 official languages in Switzerland. But we have some things that are commonly regulated on federal level. And that's mainly foreign policy, defense (although the manpower still belongs to the cantons, only the equippment is federal), economics and traffic. Those are the same areas where the EU tries to get common rules. And I see it worked out well in Switzerland and therefore I don't think it will fail in the EU. However the people have too many unreasonable fears in my opinion. They fear about their culture and their national identiy and their constitutions and so on. But I don't think those things are going to be lost.

Of course the EU is a much bigger project and there are more complications due to bigger differences in language, culture and economical development than there have been in Switzerland. Therefore the EU can't be an exact copy of Switzerland. But I truly believe it is possible to unite Europe and make it a peaceful but also powerful member of the international community that can represent the needs of it's population in the international competition. I fear that if we don't manage to speak with a common voice we will run into even bigger problems. Espeacially in economic situations. Our living standarts and social security systems are a truly magnificent archievement but we won't be able to preserve them if we continue to waste our ressources by competeting against each other. We need to put our ressoruces together to get into a positions where we can preseve those things for us even though they present an economical disadvantage - at least in the short-medium term.

[Thunderbird 0]

hmm , yeah I agree with ya on many points however what about the incoming swiss vote about "Schengen" new laws toward europ ?

heh , as you can see swiss people won't accept them.

Each country's looking for the most advantages avoiding problems.

[Donnervogel 0]

hmm , yeah I agree with ya on many points however what about the incoming swiss vote about "Schengen" new laws toward europ ?

heh , as you can see swiss people won't accept them.

Each country's looking for the most advantages avoiding problems.

Well so far the yes camp is leading. However it's gonna be close like everything that has to do with the EU. A large part of the Swiss population is very critical towards the EU. Especially because of fears about jobs and foreign people.

Besides Schengen/Dublin threaties are not the same as joining the EU. We have them as part of our bilateral thraties with the EU which is our alternative to get into good cooperation with the EU (that is by far our most important trading partner) without joining it , which has no majority in the Swiss population. But when we want to cooperate with the EU we are, of course, forced to accept some of their rules. Becuase we depend on the EU, they don't depend on us. WHich is also why I would appreciate EU membership of Switzerland, because then we don't have to accept EU regulations on which we have no influence. And we need to accept them as long as the EU exists. Because we are depending on our export business and all our neighbouring countries are EU members. There's no way around the EU for us so we need to cooperate with them at least.

[Postduifje 0]

Just went to cast my 'yes' vote to the European constitution. But I'm affraid the dutch outcome will be a 'no' too. Well, we will see.

[Thunderbird 0]

Unfortunately In Netherland, I'm pretty sure it would be "No" too

[Postduifje 0]

The polls unanimously aim that way yes, but I'll keep my hopes up. I managed to convince some people who where in doubt to vote yes today. Either yes or no, I'm just so afraid people are voting for the wrong reasons...

[Gordy 0]

I am very "No" as far as EU constitution is conserned.

This is why:

Constitution is a Document that states basic laws that should be undeniable and written in straight forward language.

1. It states things like:freedom of speech, religion, etc.

2. All the basic laws are no more than 3 A4 pages (here 265)

3. It must be comprehendable for every EU citizen

4. It must be interpretation free.

What we have here?

What EU convent prepared for EU members is a vague pile of law articles that is very difficult for a avarage lawyer to understand.

Sample:

Quote[/b] ]Article III-141.

The Union shall adopt measures with the aim of establishing the internal market,in accordance with this Article, Article III-15, Article III-26(1) and Articles III-29, III-39, III-62,III-65 and III-143 and without prejudice to the other provisions of the Constitution.

One sentence read

Quote[/b] ]Article III-16

Member States shall consult each other with a view to taking together the steps needed to preventthe functioning of the internal market being affected by steps which a Member State may be calledupon to take in the event of serious internal disturbances affecting the maintenance of law andorder, in the event of war, serious international tension constituting a threat of war, or in order tocarry out obligations it has accepted for the purpose of maintaining peace and international security.

Wishfull thinking!!! Constitution states the rights that you have, not you might have sometime in the future. This extract contradicts what we already have.

Quote[/b] ]Article III-19European laws or framework laws shall establish the measures needed to bring about freedom of movement for workers, as defined in Article III-18. They shall be adopted after consultation of theEconomic and Social Committee.

WTF is this?

Quote[/b] ]Article III-35

Articles III-24 to III-27 shall apply to the matters covered by this Subsection.

How this effect a regular EU citizen?

Quote[/b] ]Article III-48

Where, in exceptional circumstances, movements of capital to or from third countries cause, orthreaten to cause, serious difficulties for the operation of economic and monetary union, the Councilof Ministers, on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt European regulations or decisionsintroducing safeguard measures with regard to third countries for a period not exceeding six monthsif such measures are strictly necessary. It shall act after consulting the European Central Bank.

Now, that's hilarious.

What a usual UK (or any other) citizen would think, reading this extract from a EU constitution?

Quote[/b] ]Article III-56

©aid granted to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected bythe division of Germany, insofar as such aid is required in order to compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by that division.

Constitution or ?

Quote[/b] ]ECONOMIC POLICY

Article III-70

Member States shall conduct their economic policies in order to contribute to the achievement ofthe Union's objectives, as defined in Article I-3, and in the context of the broad guidelines referredto in Article III-71(2). The Member States and the Union shall act in accordance with the principleof an open market economy with free competition, favouring an efficient allocation of resources,and in compliance with the principles set out in Article III-69.

Next set of BS

Quote[/b] ]Article III-86

1.In order to promote coordination of the policies of Member States to the full extent needed forthe functioning of the internal market, an Economic and Financial Committee is hereby set up.

©without prejudice to Article III-247, to contribute to the preparation of the work of theCouncil of Ministers referred to in Article III-48, Article III-71(2), (3), (4) and (6),Articles III-72, III-74, III-75 and III-76, Article III-77(6), Article III-78(2), Article III-79(5)and (6), Articles III-83 and III-90, Article III-92(2) and (3), Article III-95, Article III-96(2)and (3) and Articles III-224 and III-228, and to carry out other advisory and preparatory tasks assigned to it by the Council of Ministers;

I could do this for the whole day.

It covers all things that happen within EU. Why? WTF for? Constitution is THE LAW above other laws. Economy, politics, social life, customs, defence, imigration are things that are based on basic rights but MUST not be included within this document.

It consists of many contradictory matters. It also creates new bureaucracy monstrosity that is given unlimited power. It says that all decision making, according to EU Constitution, should go to lower instances (decentralisation) if it doesn't consern EU Integration in any way. Every decision made by any EU office consernes EU integration by default.

The last word.

Do you think that people should vote "YES" for EU constitution if they don't understand it? Based on reason, none of you wouldn't. Why? Because none of you knows what you will get in the end run.

Also, The fact that there is sth we might call a EU constitution, doesn't mean we have to accept it without any doubt.

Would any of you take an aspirin for a finger cut? It is a medicine, right?

Just because sth we have is called a medicine doesn't mean it's the right one.

[Thunderbird 0]

The objective of the european goverments isn't to establish bad laws for their citizens , even if they aren't sometimes understandable though.

[Gordy 0]

The objective of the european goverments isn't to establish bad laws for their citizens , even if they aren't sometimes understandable though.

now, laws can be simple and effective.

It is very European to have a complicated, misleading and very vague laws.

The simpler, the better. Less bureaucracy, lower costs, better economical efficiency.

What we have now is State within a state. Thank you, no.

[denoir 0]

Gordy, you are certainly right that the constitution isn't a very aesthetically pleasing document.

You have to however consider the following things:

First of all, it's better than the Nice agreement now in place. It would make the Union more democratic and less bureaucratic. So if the choice is between the Nice agreement and this, then the constitution is certainly a better choice. The Nice agreement was written for 15 countries, making it cumbersome and in some aspects unfair in the expanded Union.

Secondly, the EU is not a federation or a single state. The subsidiary principle, saying that each country decides what it agrees on delegating to the Union level, makes it necessary to in detail specify the different areas which the Union has jurisdiction over.

And third, it's not the final word. European integration is a step-by-step progress. The currently proposed constitution is a compromise that is acceptable to the governments of the member states today. It is questionable if it is possible to write a clean and simple constitution and have everybody agree on it.

[Thunderbird 0]

The objective of the european goverments isn't to establish bad laws for their citizens , even if they aren't sometimes understandable though.

now, laws can be simple and effective.

It is very European to have a complicated, misleading and very vague laws.

The simpler, the better. Less bureaucracy, lower costs, better economical efficiency.

What we have now is State within a state. Thank you, no.

I totally agree with ya mate , but you should tell them that

[Bordoy 0]

Just went to cast my 'yes' vote to the European constitution. But I'm affraid the dutch outcome will be a 'no' too. Well, we will see.

It says it could be upto 60% on the no camp.

You lot have to hope that less then 30% of the country vote then your leader won't listen to the vote.

[Gordy 0]

Gordy, you are certainly right that the constitution isn't a very aesthetically pleasing document.

You have to however consider the following things:

First of all, it's better than the Nice agreement now in place. It would make the Union more democratic and less bureaucratic. So if the choice is between the Nice agreement and this, then the constitution is certainly a better choice. The Nice agreement was written for 15 countries, making it cumbersome and in some aspects unfair in the expanded Union.

Secondly, the EU is not a federation or a single state. The subsidiary principle, saying that each country decides what it agrees on delegating to the Union level, makes it necessary to in detail specify the different areas which the Union has jurisdiction over.

And third, it's not the final word. European integration is a step-by-step progress. The currently proposed constitution is a compromise that is acceptable to the governments of the member states today. It is questionable if it is possible to write a clean and simple constitution and have everybody agree on it.

That's what I say. We don't need any constitution.

UK doesn't have one.

US have one and it consists of 54 (?) states. US wasn't a nice place just after the Constitution. But it stated that it is a land of free, etc.

This layed the ground for creativity and what a US is today. Anyone can go there being a regular Joe and with great effort of work and dedication become a rich monkey. The state wouldn't interfere unless you break the law.

In EU Before you even begin anything you get stroke, heart attack or any other bureaucracy trauma.

What EU needs is another treaty-like document and that should be of our concern.

EU is clearly not ready to be a United States of Europe , without divisions, all of its fears of "Polish plummer" or "Turkish muslim". The problem is that it became too socialistic.

[denoir 0]

What EU needs is another treaty-like document and that should be of our concern.

And that's exactly what this is. The name "constitution" is quite misleading. It's mainly another treaty.

It does have some constitutional elements, such as defining what the European Parliament is and its relation to the Commission. It also defines the concept of "Citizen of the Union", sets the official flag etc

Quote[/b] ]EU is clearly not ready to be a United States of Europe   , without divisions, all of its fears of "Polish plummer" or "Turkish muslim". The problem is that it became too socialistic.

People tend to be conservative and afraid of change. I think the biggest failure here is the information from the EU side. They failed to point out facts such as that in France while some 7,000 jobs have been outsourced to the new member states, some 150,000 jobs have been created because of the increased trade.

If there's something the EU is good for, it's the economy. Too bad they're so bad at highlighting that. Furthermore, these referendums are a joke. If there had to be referendums, it should have been across the entire EU and at the same time. It's a "Constitution for Europe", not a "Constitution for France" or a "Constitution for Sweden". The debate should have been held at European level.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Gordy

Quote[/b] ]  

Article III-56

©aid granted to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected bythe division of Germany, insofar as such aid is required in order to compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by that division.

well nice selective facts.. but please read the entire article

Article III-56 (ex Article 87 TEC)  

1. Save as otherwise provided in the Constitution, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.

2. The following shall be compatible with the internal market:

(a) aid having a social character, granted to individual consumers, provided that such aid is granted without discrimination related to the origin of the products concerned;

(b) aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences;

© aid granted to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by the division of Germany, insofar as such aid is required in order to compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by that division. Five years after the entry into force of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt a European decision repealing the present point.

3. The following may be considered to be compatible with the internal market:

(a) aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment, and of the regions referred to in Article III-330, in view of their structural, economic and social situation;

(b) aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State;

© aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest;

(d) aid to promote culture and heritage conservation where such aid does not affect trading conditions and competition in the Union to an extent that is contrary to the common interest;

(e) such other categories of aid as may be specified by European regulations or decisions adopted by the Council on a proposal from the Commission.

Well if you would have a look at former eastern germany than you would know why this is relevant.

Germany is the largest contributor to the EU though having lots of structually underdeveloped regions itself.  

This paragraph is actually a disadvantage for us.

We could reduce our contribution by claiming that we have 18 million people in the East living under the lowest standards of living. Our taxpayers are already paying a great percentage of their fees to fund the east (only the east). So we pay EU development fees and East Germany development fees. This paragraph makes sure that the money we pay to the EU returns partially to fund the east. Why is that important? Because EU members states would deny money being invested into germany claiming it would be a "rich" country. True for the West, totally wrong for the East where unemployment can amount to 30% in some cities

Considering the amount we pay this is fair.

18 million people. If that would be a country... then it could claim a lot more funding.

[Gordy 0]

Quote[/b] ]  

Article III-56

©aid granted to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected bythe division of Germany, insofar as such aid is required in order to compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by that division.

well nice selective facts.. but please read the entire article

Article III-56 (ex Article 87 TEC)  

1. Save as otherwise provided in the Constitution, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.

2. The following shall be compatible with the internal market:

(a) aid having a social character, granted to individual consumers, provided that such aid is granted without discrimination related to the origin of the products concerned;

(b) aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences;

© aid granted to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by the division of Germany, insofar as such aid is required in order to compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by that division. Five years after the entry into force of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt a European decision repealing the present point.

3. The following may be considered to be compatible with the internal market:

(a) aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment, and of the regions referred to in Article III-330, in view of their structural, economic and social situation;

(b) aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State;

© aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest;

(d) aid to promote culture and heritage conservation where such aid does not affect trading conditions and competition in the Union to an extent that is contrary to the common interest;

(e) such other categories of aid as may be specified by European regulations or decisions adopted by the Council on a proposal from the Commission.

It still has no place in Constitution. It is irrelevant.

So, whole Eastern europe should have special EU aid because they were parted from civilasation for 50 years?

Should articles like that has place in document like constitution? Why? Why Germany must be any better or special than any other state?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

read my comment gordy.. I added it later

[Postduifje 0]

Just went to cast my 'yes' vote to the European constitution. But I'm affraid the dutch outcome will be a 'no' too. Well, we will see.

It says it could be upto 60% on the no camp.

You lot have to hope that less then 30% of the country vote then your leader won't listen to the vote.

Too late, the 30% rate was already reached at 16.00, while we'll continue until 21.00. Although I'm not a fan of referendums and I'll probably will disagree with the outcome, this referendum has been a great success; European politics has never been discussed this much before.

[Bordoy 0]

Just went to cast my 'yes' vote to the European constitution. But I'm affraid the dutch outcome will be a 'no' too. Well, we will see.

It says it could be upto 60% on the no camp.

You lot have to hope that less then 30% of the country vote then your leader won't listen to the vote.

Too late, the 30% rate was already reached at 16.00, while we'll continue until 21.00. Although I'm not a fan of referendums and I'll probably will disagree with the outcome, this referendum has been a great success; European politics has never been discussed this much before.

Yer, and when one is (if) announced in the UK, the discussion rate will go up. We will start talkin about it in college etc aswell.

[Sgt. Jones 0]

I have been listening to various BBC reports on the referendums held for the EU constitution. It seems that some of the concerns that people have are:

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

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

3) Too much power is being placed in Brussels

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

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

6) There is also a feeling that the EU contitutional proposal is overly complex and lengthy

I was just wondering what the perspectives of some of the Europeans are on these concerns