NationStates Jolt Archive

Following the Intergovermental convention in 2003, the text of the Constitution for the European Union was formed, mainly to make in one text the results of all previous treaties, from the treaty of Rome to the Treaty of Nice. So, do you agree with this provision? Do you think the constitution should not exist? Exist, but with less depth, or more?

The text of the constitution can be found here:
http://europa.eu.int/futurum/constitution/part1/title1/index_en.htm

Its huge, not as beautiful as the US or French constitutions, and its messy. But it comes as a bridge between 25 different states, different cultures, etc, so give the text a break.

Not having read it I couldn't say whether it's entirely a good thing, but the general principle is a good thing. Also, compared with the American Constitution there's a lot stuff that really only applies to governments not individual people. I mean, establishment of an internal market?

Not having read it I couldn't say whether it's entirely a good thing, but the general principle is a good thing. Also, compared with the American Constitution there's a lot stuff that really only applies to governments not individual people. I mean, establishment of an internal market?


Well, the thing is, the EU is constituted of 25 different countries, 25 different markets, that must be turn into one. This actually as brought, and will continue to bring, great economic prosperity. The thing is, to foster such economic integration, you need to build a legal frame for it, one that doesnt interfeer to much in the sovereignty of each state in the domains that they don't want to be messed up, ence the parts of the internal market and such.

I tried reading it once, but it was way to long. But from what I understand it will strenghten the parliament but holds no additional voting rights for the citizens. At least no one mentioned that in the news reports. Also there will be a president which is elected by the parliament rather then the people. I for one am suspiciouse of it.

Not having read it I couldn't say whether it's entirely a good thing, but the general principle is a good thing. Also, compared with the American Constitution there's a lot stuff that really only applies to governments not individual people. I mean, establishment of an internal market?I haven't read the final form of the text and I think it too wordy in many areas, but I am quite familiar with the US constitution in its final form and recall Article I Section 8 Clause, or the commerce clause, empowering the US congress to establish an internal market for the US.


I do have problems with the right to an education, What does "This right includes the possibility to receive free compulsory education" mean? I suppose it's better than the previous version of "The right to a free mandatory education" which is just an oxymoron, but it doesn't make much sense.

How about the right tot freedom to marry and found a family, as a member of the Union you are guarenteed the same rights guarenteed to you by your national government - what's the point?

Top

Article 59: Voluntary withdrawal from the Union



1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the European Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention; the European Council shall examine that notification. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council of Ministers, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

The representative of the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in Council of Ministers or European Council discussions or decisions concerning it.

3. The Constitution shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, decides to extend this period.

4. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to re-join, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 57.


The above copy and paste seems a good sign- its nice to know there is a secession option built into the constitution.

As a staunch federalist, i believe that the Union is of no sence if member states aren't allowed to choose to be in or not, i too like the secession clause.

I haven't read the final form of the text and I think it too wordy in many areas, but I am quite familiar with the US constitution in its final form and recall Article I Section 8 Clause, or the commerce clause, empowering the US congress to establish an internal market for the US.


I do have problems with the right to an education, What does "This right includes the possibility to receive free compulsory education" mean? I suppose it's better than the previous version of "The right to a free mandatory education" which is just an oxymoron, but it doesn't make much sense.

How about the right tot freedom to marry and found a family, as a member of the Union you are guarenteed the same rights guarenteed to you by your national government - what's the point?

Dunno how on-topic this is but, how can you have the right to be compelled?

Dunno how on-topic this is but, how can you have the right to be compelled?
I have no idea either. It makes no sense to me.

Bah, its all articles of confederation.

I doubt this will last a decade. Also it needs more stuff about the property rights of citizens. And what does the free flow of "capital and establishment" do to ther residency requirements of Tax havens.

Try again Europeans.

Dunno how on-topic this is but, how can you have the right to be compelled?


I believe this establishes the right for a state to make kids go to school, even if their parents don't want them to go (In my country, this happens with gypsies, that generally kept their childreen away from basic shool, until the govermnet passed legislation forcing them otherwise). This is quite disputable, i agree. Who says that a state as the right to have its citizens educated, though the alternative is unbearable?

Dunno how on-topic this is but, how can you have the right to be compelled?

It just means that all children in the EU are entitled to a free Primary and Secondary education*(Once they get to be young adults and seek a university//college education they may not be so lucky depending on which part of the EU they reside//study in.





*However kids who meet scholarship requirements or have wealthy parents will still be able to be privately educated and forgo the free education that memberstates must offer to all children.

I believe this establishes the right for a state to make kids go to school, even if their parents don't want them to go (In my country, this happens with gypsies, that generally kept their childreen away from basic shool, until the govermnet passed legislation forcing them otherwise). This is quite disputable, i agree. Who says that a state as the right to have its citizens educated, though the alternative is unbearable?
Ah but there's where the fun begins, because it is not a right of the state to force education on the individual, it is the right of the individual to have an education forced on them.

Bah, its all articles of confederation.

I doubt this will last a decade. Also it needs more stuff about the property rights of citizens. And what does the free flow of "capital and establishment" do to ther residency requirements of Tax havens.

Try again Europeans.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/coreservices/forum/index.cfm?forum=Futurum&fuseaction=debate.home&archive=1

Go there and input your constructive ideas. In Europe, we accept the opinion of foreigners over our internal subjects.

Go there and input your constructive ideas. In Europe, we accept the opinion of foreigners over our internal subjects.
Unless the foreigners are Americans. I recall the last time an American suggested something to the Committee drawing up the consitution.

Ah but there's where the fun begins, because it is not a right of the state to force education on the individual, it is the right of the individual to have an education forced on them.

Funny indeed lol. Is it a right to have something forced on you? Well, i guess one can say that in free societies, one is forced to be allowed to have free speech. Or is it the goverment that forces its citizens to have that right? Confusing, indeed..

Unless the foreigners are Americans. I recall the last time an American suggested something to the Committee drawing up the consitution.

What happened?

Funny indeed lol. Is it a right to have something forced on you?
No its the right to get that something for free. No compulsory school fees to accompany the compulsory education. The reason "compulsory" is stated is to make it clear that the free education is aimed at children(who are compelled ro receive a primary//secondary education) rather than young adults (who are not compelled to receive a tertiary education)

What happened?
The Frenchman in charge threw a hissy fit and told all Americans to go away, and promised that the Europeans would put there fingers in their ears and go nananana the next time an American had a sugestion for them. In fact he went further and said some rather derogatory things about the nature of the US governent, but I am not going to repeat them as he was apparently speaking out of anger.

Seriously, the US is the second oldest federal government in existance and we've made a lot of mistakes that people could learn from, but if you're from the US your advice is not wanted. It seems that Europeans are too mature to listen to Americans about how to set a federal government, it's not as if we ever set one up or had problems which they might want to not repeat.

Funny indeed lol. Is it a right to have something forced on you? Well, i guess one can say that in free societies, one is forced to be allowed to have free speech. Or is it the goverment that forces its citizens to have that right? Confusing, indeed..Actually it seems to me it is equivalent to being forced to make a public speech every day about your opinions in the name of freedom of speech and freeom of opinion. I imagine somewhat like the comminist party style confessions of old.

The Frenchman in charge threw a hissy fit and told all Americans to go away, and promised that the Europeans would put there fingers in their ears and go nananana the next time an American had a sugestion for them. In fact he went further and said some rather derogatory things about the nature of the US governent, but I am not going to repeat them as he was apparently speaking out of anger.

Seriously, the US is the second oldest federal government in existance and we've made a lot of mistakes that people could learn from, but if you're from the US your advice is not wanted. It seems that Europeans are too mature to listen to Americans about how to set a federal government, it's not as if we ever set one up or had problems which they might want to not repeat.

Not really. An American made remarks about the European Constitution. As a European citizen, i directed him to a public discussion forum, where is ideas can be listened. So..

I am not altogether impressed with this bit



Article 45: The principle of representative democracy



2. Citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament. Member States are represented in the European Council and in the Council of Ministers by their governments, themselves accountable to national parliaments, elected by their citizens.

I am personally unhappy with the unelected nature of both the European Council and the Council of Ministers. I would prefer direct elections such as we have for the European Parliament.
Its a shame that the constitution has this particular article, or perhaps I am just overly attached to the idea of democracy.
.

I am not altogether impressed with this bit
I am personally unhappy with the unelected nature of both the European Council and the Council of Ministers. I would prefer direct elections such as we have for the European Parliament.
Its a shame that the constitution has this particular article, or perhaps I am just overly attached to the idea of democracy.
.


mmmmm That could only happen if the EU was a federal, centralized goverment. Since it is a union of states, the heads of each state (That are themselves, democraticaly elected), form the Council of Ministers. This article exists basically to protect the sovereignty of each state.

mmmmm That could only happen if the EU was a federal, centralized goverment. Since it is a union of states, the heads of each state (That are themselves, democraticaly elected), form the Council of Ministers. This article exists basically to protect the sovereignty of each state.
I understand what you are saying buddy- but for example although the UK head of state is the queen our "top man" so to speak is of course Tony Blair, however Tony Blair was only elected by the people of his Sedgefield constituency. In the UK we dont have the ability to directly elect a prime minister.
The article I quoted does indeed as you say "protect the soverignty of each state" but its seems to be more about "representative" than about "democracy"

Wouldnt it be preferable to have more say in our representatives?
The EU constitution could be a way of delivering this, as it presently stands it isnt.

I understand what you are saying buddy- but for example although the UK head of state is the queen our "top man" so to speak is of course Tony Blair, however Tony Blair was only elected by the people of his Sedgefield constituency. In the UK we dont have the ability to directly elect a prime minister.
The article I quoted does indeed as you say "protect the soverignty of each state" but its seems to be more about "representative" than about "democracy"

Wouldnt it be preferable to have more say in our representatives?
The EU constitution could be a way of delivering this, as it presently stands it isnt.


I totally agree with your position, there is still a democratical deficit in the EU institutions. This, one must note, happens in order to respect the sovereignty of each state. For example, with this method, the leader of the british goverment (assuming your prime minister) keeps alot of power in his hands to specifically protect the interests of Britain, and its sovereignty. Should the Council of Ministers be elected directly, the political objectives would center around the protection of the interests and sovereignty of a united Europe, in contrary to the particular interests of each country.

(im sorry if i am not clear, English isnt my mother tongue, its hard to articulate my ideas into a proper speech :( )

(im sorry if i am not clear, English isnt my mother tongue, its hard to articulate my ideas into a proper speech :( )
I understand you fully mate, your English is Kickass, Mind If I ask where you are from?

I understand you fully mate, your English is Kickass, Mind If I ask where you are from?

Portugal :D

I think the negative American comments on this is due to them forgetting that The EU is not the US so the constitutions are not really comparable. The EU is a union of states primarilly for economic reasons, one day it may lead into the birth of a 'United European States' or words to that affect in which case another constitution would be needed, thats a long way off, in fact any mention to that would probably have seen this constitution shot down in many EU states as public opinion is not ready for further integration.

The EU is a union of states primarilly for economic reasons, one day it may lead into the birth of a 'United European States' or words to that affect in which case another constitution would be needed, thats a long way off, in fact any mention to that would probably have seen this constitution shot down in many EU states as public opinion is not ready for further integration.
Perhaps in many cases public opinion does not favour further integration, nonetheless the constitution is far from primarily being an economic document, even if the initial stated purpose of the EU was to facilitate trade.
For example


Article 3: The Union's objectives


4. In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests. It shall contribute to peace, security,

This suggests both a) A European Union Foreign Policy("its relations with the wider world") and b)A European Union Defence Policy ("It shall contribute to peace, security)

Bump-
No one wants to talk about this?