Constitutional Roundup
From the desk of Daniel Hannan on Sat, 2006-11-25 07:11
Let’s review where we stand, shall we? Since the French and Dutch “No” votes, five more states have approved the European Constitution, bringing to 18 the number of nations to have ratified. Meanwhile, every government remains devoted to the text.
Germany’s Angela Merkel says the European constitution is “vital to German interests.” Italy’s Romano Prodi says he interprets the “No” votes as “a demand for more Europe, not less.” Spain insists that its “Yes” vote be allowed to stand. Austria and Finland want ratification to be completed by the end of 2007, and Belgium suggests changing the rules so that this can happen by a majority vote rather than by unanimity.
In France, both main presidential candidates are committed to pushing ahead: Nicolas Sarkozy says he wants a “mini-treaty” that will contain all the constitution’s main elements, while Ségolène Royal says that, if Britain has problems with the constitution, the rest of the EU should go ahead without it. Not that the UK is trying to back out: it seems to have agreed in principle to the Sarkozy “mini-treaty” proposal.
Am I forgetting anyone? Oh yes, there is one solitary voice of dissent: that of the ordinary citizen who, whenever invited to express an opinion on the Constitution, keeps rejecting it. Opinion has swung against the constitution over the past two years, both in France and the Netherlands and in those countries whose governments went ahead with ratification – most spectacularly in Germany, where two thirds of people now say they would vote “No”. Not that any of the governments seems to care.
Indeed, the distinction between governments and peoples has been explicitly acknowledged by the constitution’s chief author, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing. “It was not France that said ‘no’ to the constitution,” he said the other day, “it was 55 per cent of French people.” France, in other words, is represented, not by its ill-informed population, but by its exquisitely tailored former President. “L’état, c’est Giscard.”
Relying on Giscard’s argument, the EU will continue to adopt as many of the Constitution’s proposals as it can under the existing structures. It has, after all, already enacted the document’s chief provisions: a European criminal justice system, a diplomatic corps (the “European External Action Service”) the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Some 85 per cent of the clauses can be pushed through this way. Then, at some stage in the next 18 months, there will be a perfunctory Inter-Governmental Conference to tie up the loose ends: the new voting weights, for example, and the end of the rotating presidency. There will be no disagreement in principle about these things, which the 25 – now, with Romania and Bulgaria, 27 – governments have accepted in principle all along. The national leaders will then tell their electorates that it would be absurd to hold referendums on such detailed and technical proposals. The result? We will end up with virtually the entire text of the constitution, but with no more referendums.
EU constitution: a modest proposal
Submitted by Snorri Godhi on Mon, 2006-11-27 15:30.
If the constitution were to begin as follows, and continue in the same spirit, I would vote for it. (NB: Some legal definitions for European citizen, constituent State, etc. are required. Also, the wording can be improved. I'll leave that to constitutional experts.)
Article 1: The sole purpose of the European Union is to guarantee the liberty of European citizens by putting limits on the powers of the constituent States.
Article 2: The sole purpose of the European Constitution is to put limits on the powers of the European Union.
Article 3: Any European law, or article of the European Constitution, which is found, by the European Court of Justice, to violate Articles 1 or 2, shall be deemed null and void.
Article 4: The European Constitution, and any changes and amendments to it, require approval by referendum in every single constituent State.
Article 5: Any constituent State can leave the European Union, subject only to approval by a referendum called by the government or parliament of the constituent State.
Dutch vote aimed at EU
Submitted by Amsterdamsky on Sun, 2006-11-26 09:20.
"Is that a criticism aimed at the EU, or at European governments ?
"
Here is was certainly aimed at the EU. Things have gotten much worse here since the euro and people have had more than enough of the EU. The impression I get is that Fwance voted no for very different reasons and were holding out for even more free money from the EU or something that only the Fwench can understand.
The EU is not the problem
Submitted by Armor on Sun, 2006-11-26 03:24.
Am I forgetting anyone? Oh yes, there is one solitary voice of dissent: that of the ordinary citizen who, whenever invited to express an opinion on the Constitution, keeps rejecting it. (...). Not that any of the governments seems to care.
Is that a criticism aimed at the EU, or at European governments ?
I think we hear too many EU bashers who won't denounce the lack of democracy in their home country. What is changing the face of Europe is mass immigration, and we know that ordinary citizens of every European country would reject the policy if they were given the chance. What is currently destroying Europe is not the EU.
Changing the face
Submitted by Bob Doney on Sun, 2006-11-26 14:29.
Armor: What is changing the face of Europe is mass immigration
The effects of immigration on the UK are much less damaging to our democracy than the creeping loss of sovereignty to Brussels. In any case immigration is largely an EU-generated problem. Most of our immigrants come from other EU countries, and as such we are powerless to stop them coming even if we wanted to.
This is not all bad news to Eurosceptics like me, because if we can associate the two issues in people's minds we may be able to use immigrantophobia to kill off the European project. Every cloud...
Bob Doney
Save Bob Doney from the EU !
Submitted by Armor on Sun, 2006-11-26 15:34.
The effects of immigration on the UK are much less damaging to our democracy than the creeping loss of sovereignty to Brussels.
What democracy ? Mass immigration has been made possible by the absence of democracy, and it is going to make democracy even more unlikely in the future because Europe will need authoritarian governments to prevent civil war.
we may be able to use immigrantophobia to kill off the European project. Every cloud...
Bob Doney needs to vent his raging immigrantophobia before he explodes, but he is not allowed by his government to contest mass immigration from the third world. So, the only solution left for him is to turn on the EU: it is awful, the EU is taking our yard and inch system away. EU immigrants are committing crime in every English street. Stop the EU !
Venting and raging
Submitted by Bob Doney on Sun, 2006-11-26 16:43.
Armor: Bob Doney needs to vent his raging immigrantophobia before he explodes
As it happens I've been on the whole in favour of immigration to the UK. But I'm so not in favour of the EU that I'd welcome any chance to get it out of our lives - at least in its present communitaire form.
Bob Doney
The E. U. constitution needs to redone by the public
Submitted by Zen Master on Sat, 2006-11-25 16:04.
Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, a member of the French elite, designed the E. U. constitution. The public had nothing to do with the content that will change their lives each day. They had no voice in this unwieldy 600+ page document. If the public had an idea of how many problems this constitution would cause them, they would have voted against it.
The E. U. ‘technocrats’ are busy writing more restrictive laws that will cripple the ability to conduct business in Europe. They don’t understand that the new laws raise the prices of products made in the E. U. countries. Then they will complain about the other non- E. U. countries being able to sell the same products at a lower price. Their answer will be to raise import taxes on products from the countries that have a capitalist model economy.
Questions, but are there answers?
Submitted by Flanders Fields on Sat, 2006-11-25 12:07.
Isn't it wonderful to live in a democratic country where the voice of the lowliest person has equality with that of the mightiest?
Is there an option for the people other than taking to the streets to oppose it, which I don't forsee happening? Why are the citizens of the respective countries of Europe allowing their representatives to impose their whims on the populace? Is this because they feel they are too busy and satisfied with their everyday lives or do they feel powerless to change events anyway?
In the US, there are some safeguards such as referendums from the grassroots, but these are becoming too complicated by the structure to be effective. The people there are being trained, also, to be uninvolved and unaware of processes taking place around them.
It is difficult for a family struggling with the pressures of everyday life and limited finances to find the will to be involved against the capricious aims of those who are exorbitantly paid with their taxes to spend full time enacting measures of which the people do not approve and only a vague understanding of the details. How are those people supposed to know who will really represent their interests instead of the aims of power and money seeking politicos, businesses and bankers? The people have lost the little control they were ever able to exercise of the process of selecting those who are to represent them. A process has been established to bypass their concerns and interests.
The problem is that we keep
Submitted by tradcat on Sat, 2006-11-25 11:06.
The problem is that we keep electing pro-european politicians. That may be taken as a more accurate reflection of public opinion that a referendum.
The state of play in my view is that we don't like the EU but we are at the stage where we still think we need people there who will work for the interests of our nations there. We feel anti-EU people would lose out in the horse-trading.
If the French are offended by the idea of having their referendum overturned they can elect someone who will prevent it.
So we have to admit it's not a priority. Euro-sceptics have to become credible, respectable and electable all over Europe. Otherwise they will continue to run rings around us.
Bullying small states to
Submitted by Malloc on Sat, 2006-11-25 09:27.
Bullying small states to accept the words of discarded French presidents will not change the voice of the European peoples.
If your choice is between two people who(m) you disagree with then your only way is protest. Do not let this selling out of our homes to continue, the leaders have got it wrong, unfortunatly they are to beholden to the press to admit it.