• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

EU Constitution a joke

CBL4

Master Poster
C
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
2,346
LATE last year European Union ministers sat down in Brussels to draft a common declaration about the new European constitution. Since all 25 EU countries are meant to ratify this document over the next two years—and as many as ten will hold a referendum on it—it seemed a useful idea to set out succinctly what the constitution does and doesn't do. Useful: but, sadly, also impossible. The British suggested that it should be made clear that the constitution's Charter of Fundamental Rights would not limit the rights of managers to sack workers. But the Belgians and the French objected; as far as they are concerned the charter will do exactly that. All right, said the British and others: how about making clear that the constitution puts paid to the idea of a common EU tax? Not at all, said the Belgians and other federalists, for whom the creation of such a tax remains a cherished ideal. Eventually, the ministers abandoned the whole idea of a common declaration.
Click to expand...
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3644698

In other words, no one can agree what the proposed EU constitution actually mean. Or as Humpty Dumpty would say "When I write a constitution, it means exactly what I say it means. Nothing more. Nothing less."

The big advantage of having a huge, self contradictrary constitution is that it "In each EU country ..., national governments will carefully tailor their messages to their domestic audiences. And that may be the only hope of getting the constitution approved in all 25 countries. " (same article)

CBL
 
CBL4 said:
In other words, no one can agree what the proposed EU constitution actually mean. Or as Humpty Dumpty would say "When I write a constitution, it means exactly what I say it means. Nothing more. Nothing less."

The big advantage of having a huge, self contradictrary constitution is that it "In each EU country ..., national governments will carefully tailor their messages to their domestic audiences. And that may be the only hope of getting the constitution approved in all 25 countries. " (same article)

CBL
Click to expand...
That little unpleasantness in the 1860's indicates that the US Constitution was open to interpretation as well. Was it presented in precisely the same way by all of the state governments? For that matter, did it mean the same thing to all its drafters, or was it more of a diplomatic compromise? Hopefully it won't take another European civil war to determine exactly what the EU Constitution does mean.
 
Why don't they adopt the "Canadian Model". That's where you put in a "notwithstanding clause", which basically nullifies the whole document.

This was done to appease les Quebecois.

Charlie (moodsy tabernack) Monoxide
 
Sounds to me like they are looking for Articles of Confederation and not a Constitution. With the predictable results to follow.
 
CBL4 said:
In other words, no one can agree what the proposed EU constitution actually mean. Or as Humpty Dumpty would say "When I write a constitution, it means exactly what I say it means. Nothing more. Nothing less."
Click to expand...
If you know a different way to write a constitution that avoids all that, let's hear it.
 
For a real Constitution to work, every member state must surrender some of its sovereignty to the union. As long as that does not occur, as long as any member state can choose to not comply with the articles of the Constitution, then the entire union is doomed to fail.

The law within the EU Constitution must be superior to the laws of the member states. For example, "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" would immediately invalidate the official religion of Denmark. Such practices would be forbidden.

Think of all the differences between the laws and cultures of each of the EU states and you can begin to appreciate the problem.
A lot of national pride will have to be swallowed and an entirely new culture created that will have something to rub everyone the wrong way. I just don't see it happening.
 
In the highly entertaining short SF story "Lobsters" by Charles Stoss, the near-future world includes the news that "Europe achieves peaceful union for first time ever. They're using this unprecedneted event to harmonize the curvature of bananas." Seems like that's not too far off the mark.
 
Luke T. said:
For a real Constitution to work, every member state must surrender some of its sovereignty to the union. As long as that does not occur, as long as any member state can choose to not comply with the articles of the Constitution, then the entire union is doomed to fail.

The law within the EU Constitution must be superior to the laws of the member states.
Click to expand...
It is, and has been for some time, I believe that the new Constitutional treaty makes this explicit, but that has been how things worked for some time now.

Luke T. said:
For example, "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" would immediately invalidate the official religion of Denmark. Such practices would be forbidden.
Click to expand...
It pretty much would, but no such clause exists. If I recall correctly Denmark had some law restricting the use of satellite receivers on TVs, until the European court ruled that this violated the Danes right to freedom of information, after which the law was repealed.

Luke T. said:
Think of all the differences between the laws and cultures of each of the EU states and you can begin to appreciate the problem.
A lot of national pride will have to be swallowed and an entirely new culture created that will have something to rub everyone the wrong way. I just don't see it happening.
Click to expand...
You seem to assume that the EU is meant to become the USE, but I really don't see things moving in that direction. I'm one of the probably relatively few people who would like that to happen, but I don't think it actually will. Certainly not in the near future, but that doesn't automatically make the EU a failure. There is plenty of room between a federal state and fully independent states with only normal diplomatic interaction. Basically I think that calling the new treaty a Constitution is misleading.
 
Skeptic said:
In the highly entertaining short SF story "Lobsters" by Charles Stoss, the near-future world includes the news that "Europe achieves peaceful union for first time ever. They're using this unprecedneted event to harmonize the curvature of bananas." Seems like that's not too far off the mark.
Click to expand...
You're referring to the EU harmonizing the curvature of cucumbers? Would you be terribly disappointed to learn that that is an urban legend?

"Many 'Euro scare stories' have dwelt on the issue of harmonization and standardization. Sections of the British press in particular have, over the years, warned their readers about the prospect of 'Euro-sausages', 'Euro-buses' and others. Stories about Community regulations on the curvature of bananas and cucumbers have proved more resilient, surfacing in a number of Member States. The truth is that most of these are nonsense, or result from misunderstandings. British and Irish double-decker buses will survive unharmed a series of negotiations on bus and coach safety across the Community, despite repeated reports that they are to be banned! Also, quality standards for fruit and vegetables ensure not just that the consumer gets a high-quality product, but that buyers can deal over the phone, without even having seen the produce. As it happens, most Member States or their industry associations had equivalent or nearly equivalent standards in place before the Community acted; some were even stricter."

http://europa.eu.int/comm/publications/archives/booklets/move/14/txt_en.htm

It took me all of 30 seconds to write "EU harmonizing the curvature of cucumbers" into google and click on the first link. Perhaps you should have done that.
 
Kerberos said:
You're referring to the EU harmonizing the curvature of cucumbers? Would you be terribly disappointed to learn that that is an urban legend?
Click to expand...
In the UK there's been a tendency for government departments to blame the EU for regulations they themselves have introduced. The old MAFF - Ministry for Agribusiness and Financing Farmers, now defunct - was particularly prone to that.

(I too favour a USE, and am a little more optimistic than you. I expect the actuality to precede the name; evolution, not revolution.)
 
CapelDodger said:
In the UK there's been a tendency for government departments to blame the EU for regulations they themselves have introduced. The old MAFF - Ministry for Agribusiness and Financing Farmers, now defunct - was particularly prone to that.

(I too favour a USE, and am a little more optimistic than you. I expect the actuality to precede the name; evolution, not revolution.)
Click to expand...
Personally I'm only in favour of the thing, not the name, let's face it "USE" is a lousy acronym. As for whether it's actually going to happen I guess we'll see. The EU is already clearly more than an ordinary international organization.
 
CapelDodger said:


(I too favour a USE, and am a little more optimistic than you. I expect the actuality to precede the name; evolution, not revolution.)
Click to expand...

Why? We already have a trading zone. An area where war between EU partners is unthinkable. What more do you want?

Could it be that you just prefer the more "left wing"/"statist" politics of the continent and wish to drown out troublesome English Tory voters in a sea of 300 million left of center, anti-American Eurotrash?

God, is it too late to petition NAFTA for membership?
 
You're referring to the EU harmonizing the curvature of cucumbers?

No, I was referring to Stoss' (humorous) story... I was not aware of any such urban legend. Perhaps that's what Stoss had in mind when he wrote it, but he too apparently was making a point by comic exagerration.
 
Originally posted by Giz:
Could it be that you just prefer the more "left wing"/"statist" politics of the continent and wish to drown out troublesome English Tory voters in a sea of 300 million left of center, anti-American Eurotrash?
Click to expand...

The thing about it is that if the French vote against the constitution it'll be due in no small part to the fact that they dislike the idea of been drown in a sea of flat-tax loving Eastern Europeans and neo-liberal atlantacist "Anglo-Saxons". this attitude helped derail the services directive.
 
Shane Costello said:
The thing about it is that if the French vote against the constitution it'll be due in no small part to the fact that they dislike the idea of been drown in a sea of flat-tax loving Eastern Europeans and neo-liberal atlantacist "Anglo-Saxons". this attitude helped derail the services directive.
Click to expand...


You're crediting us of far deeper political reflexion than is the case, alas.

The main reason why the French are more than likely going to vote against the constitution is they're fed up with Chirac and his government, and they're ready to listen to any politician who tells them that the constitution will encourage him to make them work more for less pay ... ;)
 
Originally posted by Flo:
You're crediting us of far deeper political reflexion than is the case, alas.

The main reason why the French are more than likely going to vote against the constitution is they're fed up with Chirac and his government, and they're ready to listen to any politician who tells them that the constitution will encourage him to make them work more for less pay ...
Click to expand...

That's par for the course wherever referenda are held. Unpopular governments call them, and the voters throw them back out of spite. This is especially true when the opposition is held in as much contempt as the government, in which case voters are just aching to give the government a bloody nose. France is no different or no worse in this regard.
 
Kerberos said:
You seem to assume that the EU is meant to become the USE, but I really don't see things moving in that direction.
Click to expand...

I think it's more likely to become the EUSR.

Without the gulag, of course.
 
Ed said:
http://www.europarl.eu.int/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

The charter of Human Rights seems like a pretty mealymouthed document, aside from being sexist, racist, homophobic, and relying on the word "respect" a bit much.
Click to expand...

I recall some idiot judge ruling a dwarf in Australia could not partake in "dwarf tossing" game because it was undignified in some un-respectful way.

Well, if that's not respectful, then what in god's name is telling somebody they can't do something they want to do voluntarily?!?!?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom