EU Constitution a joke

[Ziggurat]

You're referring to the EU harmonizing the curvature of cucumbers? Would you be terribly disappointed to learn that that is an urban legend?

I have no idea of the cucumber thing, but the banana thing isn't quite the urban myth you imply. Check it out:

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/consleg/pdf/1994/en_1994R2257_do_001.pdf

This document does indeed lay out minimum length and widths for bananas, and does prohibit bananas of "abnormal curvature", though what exactly that means isn't specified.

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.

And maybe you should have looked into bananas a little more closely.

Here's another example: grape tomatoes.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/050304A.html
The EU specifies four types of tomatoes: round, ribbed, oblong, and cherry. Grape tomatoes do not fit in any of these categories. They are therefore not available in the EU. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Now, obviously this stuff isn't part of the constitution. But this regulatory mentality infects the constitution as well. The EU constitution tries to specify not only the structure of government and the limits of its power, but also its purpose and the goals of its policies. That is fundamentally undemocratic, and it's stupid and shortsighted as well. It's a recipe for an unaccountable, unresponsive, uncontrollable beaurocratic behemoth. And if the Europeans think that such a government can do anything but hobble their economic growth and aspirations, they've got a rude awakening ahead of them.

 

[Kerberos]

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.

Could you point out some of theese sexist, racist and homophobic passages?

 

[Jon_in_london]

The EU is like a malignant tumour. It cannot stop growing. It grows out of control, speading its putrifaction ever deeper into the social fabric of the states it infests. It metastisizes and spread to new, heathly states. It seeks to master all, tax and foreign policy and at the same time seeks to micromanage the dimension of our fruit and vegetable.

The EU is a disease. It must be cut out and burnt before it kills us all.

 

[CBL4]

If you know a different way to write a constitution that avoids all that, let's hear it.

That is a softball question. The US constitution is consise document that student are often required to read. The EU constitution is bloated mess of well over 200 pages. I would not be surprised if no one has ever read it in one sitting (or perhaps no one has ever read the entirety.) One thing is for sure, most people who get the opportunity to ratify it will not really understand what it says.

From another article in the Economist:

The most important task for any constitution is to assign powers while ensuring that the officers and institutions exercising those powers are held in check, accountable to citizens. This central preoccupation is plain in the constitution of the United States. Europe's constitutional convention has barely troubled itself with the question. The assignment of powers, or “competences” in Euro-speak, is so vague in this draft constitution that on issue after issue the conventioneers themselves cannot explain what their text means. At the same time the complementary principle of subsidiarity—the idea that political decisions should be taken, so far as possible, at levels of government that are close to the citizens—has been drained of any power it might have had....
The assignment of powers, or “competences” in Euro-speak, is so vague in this draft constitution that on issue after issue the conventioneers themselves cannot explain what their text means.

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=S%27%29HL%29RA3%27%210%20D%0A

In other words, instead of stating the powers of the EU and the countries, it obfuscates. Instead of being a document that students can understand, it requires a dictionary to understand "EU speak." If you are interested, here is a link to such a dictionary and it includes "new entries concerning the EU Constitution"
http://euabc.com/

Two more example:

Corporation taxes could eventually be harmonised by majority vote, but only if countries first agreed unanimously to take such a vote. ...
Asked recently if the constitution lets foreign-policy decisions be made by unanimity or majority vote, the convention’s spokesman refused to answer and invited journalists to work it out themselves.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1863080

CBL

 

[CapelDodger]

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?

I appreciate that the Tory dedication to the 1707 arrangement is based on being big fish in a small pool. (OK, the 1926 arrangement, but that was a tear, wasn't it? On the other hand, it might have made the pool a tad too big.) There is no counter-balance to the Home Counties within the UK, so interest rates and fiscal policy are driven by London house prices, even in industrial areas. Within a larger unit, such distortions would be evened out.

I'm a believer in subsidiarity, free trade and a Europe of cities and regions. Wales, for instance, has never voted for a Tory government, but has suffered many under a highly centralised system. That's hardly democratic.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think the EU Constitution sucks, I think the UN sucks. But I support the principle of both. The common problem is that both are intended to be trans-national, but could only be created by claiming not to be. The sovereign national state remains the unquestionably correct unit, and since the powers-that-be in the world are powers because of the nation-state, there's little incentive to examine the assumption. Some are disinterested enough to do so- in Europe, for instance - but they must do it by stealth, because nationalism has become as insidious as religion and racism in opiating the masses. Note, for instance, the way the Tories in the UK - powers-that-have-been if ever there were any - exploit all three.

The principles have been established. The instiutions will have to evolve, just as Parliament had to evolve from Magna Carta. The EU Constitution doesn't help, but the principle of a constitution - if established - will.

 

[Rob Lister]

I think the EU Constitution sucks, I think the UN sucks. But I support the principle of both. The common problem is that both are intended to be trans-national, but could only be created by claiming not to be.

Well said. Actually, a lot of people have well-said a lot of things in this thread.

May I recommend to all our Brit friends that you completely forego joining the EU and just become one (or three or four) of our states instead? You get a dozen new flags for free, along with a set of Ronco steak knives.

Of course, I'm not sure what we're going to do with your royalty. Send them to Hollywood with the rest of ours, I suppose. Prince Charles can hang out in Britneys dressing room trailer. That should make him happy. If not, I'm sure Richard Gere would put him up for a few nights.

 

[Jon_in_london]

May I recommend to all our Brit friends that you completely forego joining the EU and just become one (or three or four) of our states instead? You get a dozen new flags for free, along with a set of Ronco steak knives.

I'd rather not join Jesus-land, steak knives not withstanding.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by CapelDodger:
Some are disinterested enough to do so- in Europe, for instance - but they must do it by stealth, because nationalism has become as insidious as religion and racism in opiating the masses. Note, for instance, the way the Tories in the UK - powers-that-have-been if ever there were any - exploit all three.

I agree, just as long as you can differenciate between patriotism and nationalism. Anyone who truly understands the former will repudiate the latter. People are also wont to exploit the ideal of "Europe" for their own ends as well. Look at how the services directive went south due to pressure from a range of vested interests.

Originally posted by Jon_in_london:
I'd rather not join Jesus-land, steak knives not withstanding.

That's OK, Ireland is looking for a 33rd county.

 

[Giz]

I think the EU Constitution sucks, I think the UN sucks. But I support the principle of both. The common problem is that both are intended to be trans-national, but could only be created by claiming not to be. The sovereign national state remains the unquestionably correct unit, and since the powers-that-be in the world are powers because of the nation-state, there's little incentive to examine the assumption. Some are disinterested enough to do so- in Europe, for instance - but they must do it by stealth, because nationalism has become as insidious as religion and racism in opiating the masses. Note, for instance, the way the Tories in the UK - powers-that-have-been if ever there were any - exploit all three.

The principles have been established. The instiutions will have to evolve, just as Parliament had to evolve from Magna Carta. The EU Constitution doesn't help, but the principle of a constitution - if established - will.

My problem with the EU is that it's expansion seems to be forced.

Why cant we keep the free trade/movement of workers for a generation or two and if we all seem to be getting ever more chummy and a common European culture seems to be forming then we can unite at that point - due to popular demand, rather than at the urging of self-aggrandising politicians who'd like to add another layer of beaurocracy to our governance.

Forcing it too soon seems to be a recipe for internal dissent and a possible subsequent split... hopefully without a civil war (it would be ironic if the EU managed to cause what its founding was designed to avert)

 

[Flo]

I'd rather not join Jesus-land, steak knives not withstanding.

Then all is left to do is to rebuild an Empire and go it alone !

 

[richardm]

Then all is left to do is to rebuild an Empire and go it alone !

Well, it worked okay last time we tried it

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by richardm:
Well, it worked okay last time we tried it

Better take a look at that pike I hid in the thatch a while back. Looks like I might be needing it.

 

[Giz]

Then all is left to do is to rebuild an Empire and go it alone !

Hmmm, Aquitaine.

And Brittany, why the heck isn't that part of Britain anyway?

 

[Flo]

Hmmm, Aquitaine.

And Brittany, why the heck isn't that part of Britain anyway?

According to the Bretons, it's almost completely done !

And you forgot Dordogne.

 

[Darat]

In principle I'm for an EU constitution, one that sets out the rights of individuals and the restrictions on the powers of the executive etc. However what is being proposed is not a constitution, it's a mess.

And I do, in a very juvenile way, hope the French say "non" in their referendum.


(If someone starts a whispering rumour that if they say "qui" they'll be forced to work a 35.5 hour week should ensure a resounding “non”! )



(Edited for a superflousously.... superfleous.... and extra "the".)

 

[Darat]

My problem with the EU is that it's expansion seems to be forced.

Why cant we keep the free trade/movement of workers for a generation or two and if we all seem to be getting ever more chummy and a common European culture seems to be forming then we can unite at that point - due to popular demand, rather than at the urging of self-aggrandising politicians who'd like to add another layer of beaurocracy to our governance.

Forcing it too soon seems to be a recipe for internal dissent and a possible subsequent split... hopefully without a civil war (it would be ironic if the EU managed to cause what its founding was designed to avert)

I agree with you but I don't think it would even take a couple of generations, just a couple more decades. However I feel most of the current bureaucracy of the EU needs to be burned down to the ground and re-built and I think that is why a simple, well thought out constitution is required. Without that in place all that will happen is that the current monstrosity of bureaucracy will become even more monstrous. With a strong (and good) constitution in place any expansion, any increase of power for a particular part of the EU government can be challenged and be measured against what the EU is then defined to be about.

 

[Rob Lister]

I'd rather not join Jesus-land, steak knives not withstanding.

Yea, but France!? I mean, even the Jesus believers can't be worse then the French. Maybe another compromise is in order. We'll make you part of Canada. We can do that, you know. Don't believe all that sovranty claim of theirs. It's fiction.

 

[Kerberos]

I agree with you but I don't think it would even take a couple of generations, just a couple more decades. However I feel most of the current bureaucracy of the EU needs to be burned down to the ground and re-built and I think that is why a simple, well thought out constitution is required. Without that in place all that will happen is that the current monstrosity of bureaucracy will become even more monstrous.

So how big do you think the EU bureacreacy should be compared to say that of the US? Same size? Half the size a teenth of the size?

 

[Darat]

So how big do you think the EU bureacreacy should be compared to say that of the US? Same size? Half the size a teenth of the size?

It's not about the size but about the quality

Actually its more ensuring that it has clear mandate on what it has to deliver and what it is for. At the moment it has more or less grown out of a treaty about trade, with all sorts of stuff grafted on as the remit changed and more and more was asked and expected from it.

I am a strong believer in very carefully and as simply as possible setting out what an organisation is for, what its goals are and how it can go about achieving that. At the moment I don’t think the EU bureaucracy can even be expected to “account” for itself as I don’t think anyone has a clear understanding of what it is meant to do and what “operational parameters” it has to work within.

(Edited for words.)