NationStates Jolt Archive

A lot of Europeans are on these forums. They will all go to the polls sometime this year or next, in order to vote on the new constitution for the European Union. This will effectively cement it as a political entity, and not just an international organization. And yet, there is little, if any, talk on it. France is expected to vote on it next month, and its vote will be seen as decisive. Yet no one brings it up. Why?

So I am guessing that it is that little talked about.

From the brits I know, a lot of them are ignoring it/don't want to talk about it. I think they hope it will go away or something.

Saying that, they do have people like kilroy silk, who will no doubt be banging his drum over the next few weeks as part of the elections.

Not all EU countries will have referenda on the matter. I believe just 10-11 will.

In Sweden it has caused quite the fuss with some parties wanting a referendum, while the bigger, pro EU parties (notably the large leftist social democrats and the large rightist "Moderate" party) don't.

From what I can see, any of the referenda will be decisive; if it fails to pass in a single one, it will be vetoed by that country, meaning the constitution's demise. That's why the big parties in Sweden are afraid of a Swedish referendum; the Swedish populace is the most EU sceptic of the current EU countries and would probably reject the constitution like it did the Euro two years ago.

Personally, I don't like the new constitution. It tries to cement political policies in a constitutional document, which is just ludicrous.

i know nothing about it, other than it does some dodgy stuff....i remember reading that if its passed then it will be illegal to protest against it or something

really though, nobody here makes a big issue about it, nobody has made an effort to inform people on it, and nobody knows when the referendum will happen

A lot of Europeans are on these forums. They will all go to the polls sometime this year or next, in order to vote on the new constitution for the European Union. This will effectively cement it as a political entity, and not just an international organization. And yet, there is little, if any, talk on it. France is expected to vote on it next month, and its vote will be seen as decisive. Yet no one brings it up. Why?

It won't cement the EU as a single political entity, or reduce national sovereignty. (Please do not take this as indication on me voting 'yes' in there is a referendum.)

Also not the nations will have referendum (I'm not too sure if Britain will get a referendum to be honest) and those that do won't have it on the same day.

One reason that we don't talk about it is that no one really knows enough about. It is a huge document and no one wants to read a all of it (for Christ's sake the US constution is fairly short and can be read through fairly easily, you'd think the EU could do the same)

i know nothing about it, other than it does some dodgy stuff....i remember reading that if its passed then it will be illegal to protest against it or something

really though, nobody here makes a big issue about it, nobody has made an effort to inform people on it, and nobody knows when the referendum will happen
Yes, it isn't like we are being overwhelm with information regarding it. AFAIK it ratifies existing agreements and the ECHR plus some other stuff.

All I do know is that I am not going to be reading it.

i know nothing about it, other than it does some dodgy stuff....i remember reading that if its passed then it will be illegal to protest against it or something

really though, nobody here makes a big issue about it, nobody has made an effort to inform people on it, and nobody knows when the referendum will happen
I get the Economist. It keeps mentioning that the referendum will be floated sometime next year. Expect the political campaigning over it to begin once you dig Labor's grave in May.

And actually, the EU is screwing up so many things that ARE talked about... software patents, "international security" and copyright issues, anyone?

It won't cement the EU as a single political entity, or reduce national sovereignty. (Please do not take this as indication on me voting 'yes' in there is a referendum.)

I'd personally love it to. It'd promote economic and security cohesion, reversing a 2,000 year old trend, annd it will create a stable, powerful, and potentially prosperous entity. In the medium term, it will also be an ideaological boon for me. Foreign policy disputes, such as the ones over Iraq and China's arms embargo, will keep the EU politically divided without creating instability. There is presently too much competition between France's neo-deGaullism, Spain, Germany, and Belgium's socialist tendencies, and Britain and Italy's position as US partners. I suspect that not all of the Eastern European nations will keep the positions they have now, and will be just as divided as the West. In terms of foreign policy and political ideaology for the EU, Eastern European nations' stances will be indecisive.

The EU constitution is an attempt to enforce extreme neoliberal economic policies on the people of Europe and it transfers more powers to the unelected commission including the right to force any member state to privatise their public services. At the same time it contains no mention of a social Europe where the welfare state will be guaranteed and the rights of workers will be protected and its only purpose seems to be to create a competitive zone across Europe where businesses will be free to steal from the working classes without any interference from democratically elected governments. Many more progressive arguments against the constitution can be found at the site of the Centre for a Social Europe (http://www.social-europe.org.uk).

From the brits I know, a lot of them are ignoring it/don't want to talk about it. I think they hope it will go away or something.

Saying that, they do have people like kilroy silk, who will no doubt be banging his drum over the next few weeks as part of the elections.
there's a fair bit of hatred of it from the brits. there was a bit of media frenzy over it a while back but its died down now.

i don't see what the big fuss is. all the constitution does is basically boil down the many, many treaties between the EU member states upon which the EU currently operates into a single document. what's wrong with that? :confused:

The EU constitution is an attempt to enforce extreme neoliberal economic policies on the people of Europe and it transfers more powers to the unelected commission including the right to force any member state to privatise their public services. At the same time it contains no mention of a social Europe where the welfare state will be guaranteed and the rights of workers will be protected and its only purpose seems to be to create a competitive zone across Europe where businesses will be free to steal from the working classes. Many more progressive arguments against the constitution can be found at the site of the Centre for a Social Europe (http://www.social-europe.org.uk).
Dude, what they're proposing sounds totally awesome! However, don't forget that the US constitution says nothing about economics. All it does is outline what economic powers Congress does have, but does not mandate a thing. I actually think that it goes too far. So does the EU constitution, but it does need to enforce some type of rule over all of Europe.

And actually, the EU is screwing up so many things that ARE talked about... software patents, "international security" and copyright issues, anyone?
So let me guess: you have no belief that intellectual property should exist?
Which leads me to another question: what do you want from your constitution? Do you want it as a laundry list of issues for mandatory spending and specific geographical references? If so, that is not what a constitution is. It is simply to outline how a government is formed, and if need be, outline basic civil rights and suffrage rules.
Also, note that the US Constitution makes no reference to geography, nor America. The official, constitutional name of this country is not the United States of America, but simply the United States. If Thailand became a state, and America was overrun, then the US would still exist in Thailand.

(for Christ's sake the US constution is fairly short and can be read through fairly easily, you'd think the EU could do the same)
The US constitution guarantees citizens' rights and defines the limits of government power. On the other hand, the EU constitution seems to try and build the government itself and at least in part limit the rights of it's citizens. Radically different purposes and reasons for creation.

Software patents are totally unnecessary and will only hurt the European economy in favour of the big 'uns like Siemens and Microsoft. 90% of that stuff would be trivial patents, anyway.

It is already ruled that you canot patent software per se, but only runnning on the machine, which is totally bollocks. If that is so, I would have to be able to patent a movie running on a projector.

And let's not forget that software is covered under copyright. We don't need patents for it.

Copyright should be there, "intellectual property", if you like, but the things that are headed our way with trusted computing and the total criminalization of copying even for yourself are not funny in any way.
It is ridiculous, to say the least, that companies like Sony on the one hand try to maky copying music CDs illegal (it is already illegal to copy CDs with copy protection, hence you wouldn't even be allowed to rip them to your mp3-player), but then on the other hand are flooding the market with mp3-players.

Surely filesharing may *cough, cough* have gotten a little out of hand, but mass criminalization of the people won't help.

Software patents are totally unnecessary and will only hurt the European economy in favour of the big 'uns like Siemens and Microsoft. 90% of that stuff would be trivial patents, anyway.

It is already ruled that you canot patent software per se, but only runnning on the machine, which is totally bollocks. If that is so, I would have to be able to patent a movie running on a projector.

And let's not forget that software is covered under copyright. We don't need patents for it.

Copyright should be there, "intellectual property", if you like, but the things that are headed our way with trusted computing and the total criminalization of copying even for yourself are not funny in any way.
It is ridiculous, to say the least, that companies like Sony on the one hand try to maky copying music CDs illegal (it is already illegal to copy CDs with copy protection, hence you wouldn't even be allowed to rip them to your mp3-player), but then on the other hand are flooding the market with mp3-players.

Surely filesharing may *cough, cough* have gotten a little out of hand, but mass criminalization of the people won't help.
Perhaps it won't help, but it is moral. Ideas are meant to be built on. Taking it and accepting it as your own is just plain wrong.

I get the Economist. It keeps mentioning that the referendum will be floated sometime next year. Expect the political campaigning over it to begin once you dig Labor's grave in May.
the European Union Bill, which IIRC would have set the details of the referendum etc, looks like its going to be dropped because its run out of time with Parliament dissolving

the European Union Bill, which IIRC would have set the details of the referendum etc, looks like its going to be dropped because its run out of time with Parliament dissolving
Parliament, however, will reconvene, and as much as I shutter to think it, the europhile Labor party will probably win.

Parliament, however, will reconvene, and as much as I shutter to think it, the europhile Labor party will probably win.
itll need to be reintroduced, which will hold it up by a few months

but in the very unlikely event they dont win, i wonder what the new government would do with it...

wonder why Labour were in such a rush to get their crime bill through then?

The US constitution guarantees citizens' rights and defines the limits of government power. On the other hand, the EU constitution seems to try and build the government itself and at least in part limit the rights of it's citizens. Radically different purposes and reasons for creation.

I realise that.

Which is another reason why I would prefer a more US type constitution then the one planned. (Though I think a major factor of a Constitution is that it should be easily readable, the EU seem to have the opposite idea though, and want to know as little as possible about anything)

There is not going to be a referendum in Germany, because the politicians know that the public rejects the constitution and the EU as it is now and the referendum would veto the constitution.

Instead they decided to vote among themselves (and in favour of this constitution) like monarchs used to do in the middle ages. Our politicians are a class, who are detached from the people and not representing the people, but their own policies and agendas, thus why we have a rampant unwillingness of the people to participate in politics or elections and the right-wing parties are gaining in strength.

Personally I do not like this constitution, since it cements the neoliberal economic policies of the EU and completely disregards the socialist systems of all countries. It only exists to ensure that Europe becomes a free and unlimited market, which is not the purpose of the constitution and which is against the interest of the people, who are already being exploited by insane legislation from the commission and parliament.

No referendum in Finland either. In general I think there should be a referendum in every EU country but I have to say there are several problems with it. Like in France. People are not actually voting about EU constitution but for or against current government. There should be more public discussion about these issues. At the moment it has been silenced to death.

The British have historically held themselves apart from the Continent, considering themselves a breed entirely different from the Europeans. Politically and socially, there has been a sort of "anglocentric" view of the world in which the outside world is engaged only in the interest of Britain, and then only when absolutely necessary.

So taking this step towards becoming part of something larger is socio-culturally repugnant to the British identity. One need only look at the Euro v. British Pound situation to get an idea.

So mebbe that's why they're upset over this, and you don't hear them talking about it, because it might get passed over their grumbling...

The British have historically held themselves apart from the Continent, considering themselves a breed entirely different from the Europeans. Politically and socially, there has been a sort of "anglocentric" view of the world in which the outside world is engaged only in the interest of Britain, and then only when absolutely necessary.

So taking this step towards becoming part of something larger is socio-culturally repugnant to the British identity. One need only look at the Euro v. British Pound situation to get an idea.

So mebbe that's why they're upset over this, and you don't hear them talking about it, because it might get passed over their grumbling...
I actually do. It's no secret that they are the most europhobic of European societies. They demand to keep their pound, get a rebate, and all other shennanigans. Why they can't embrace change is beyond me.

The US constitution guarantees citizens' rights and defines the limits of government power. On the other hand, the EU constitution seems to try and build the government itself and at least in part limit the rights of it's citizens. Radically different purposes and reasons for creation.
Exactly. Even our Constitution couldn't stop the growth of the American government to its sprawling size right now. Imagine how much faster it will happen in the EU.....

www.britainineurope.org.uk

Excellent site, if you are unsure about EU Constitution go to their 'myth busting' page. Debunks a lot of the racist shit rags like the Sun come out with.

Consumer Standards:

- British citizens are guaranteed rights similar to their UK statutory rights when they buy anything in the EU.

- EU regulations ensure that consumers have product information at their disposal at the time of purchase. For example, all food products must carry "best before" markings and a list of the ingredients, colourings and additives. Labels must also indicate whether they contain genetically modified ingredients.

- Because British shoppers do not have to pay any tax or duty on goods that have been bought in other EU countries they have the right to bring back cheaper cigarettes and alcohol, as long as they are for personal use. Pressure from consumers and the European Commission has meant that the rules have recently been changed to increase how much can be brought back.

- European rules insist on common standards on items from washing machines to cars. The safety of children's toys for example is guaranteed by European law, which also apply to toys produced outside of the EU.

- EU rules allow consumers to cancel a purchase within a week of an unsolicited visit from a doorstep salesman and the salesman is obligated to inform the consumer of that right.

- Thanks to the EU, consumers have to be given full and accurate information on the details of timeshare deals and have the right to pull out of a contract within 10 days.

- EU rules on distance selling ensure that when you order goods from a company in the EU - on the phone or internet, for example - they must be delivered to you within 30 days. If what you ordered is faulty or broken, you have the right for your money back for the next seven working days.

- Member states are required to apply common rules to all forms of credit, preventing competition distortions and protecting British consumers.

- The single market has made companies more competitive and products cheaper. For example competition and liberalisation in Europe's telecoms market has cut the price of calls in half.

- The cost of flights to Europe has halved in the last ten years. Deregulation at European level has helped create the current boom in low-cost airlines.

- Recent sweeping changes forced upon the car industry by the EU will mean a better deal and greater choice for consumers. Changes to the "block exemption" rule have allowed dealers to sell more than one make of new car and end the servicing and repairs monopoly of garages. The rules will also make it easier to import cheaper cars from Europe or buy them over the internet. These rules and increased competition will bring down the prices of cars in Britain.

Environment:

- Acting through the EU gives Britain more influence over international agreements as in the Rio de Janeiro 1992 Earth Summit, the 1979 Bonn Convention on protection of migratory species of wild fauna, and the 1997 Kyoto Agreement.

- EU rules prohibit the discharge of toxic substances into EU waters. Sea pollution around the UK has been curbed through EU action to stop all dumping of raw sewage at sea.

- European law protects holiday beaches from pollution. A decade ago half of British bathing beaches failed to meet European standards, today 98.5% meet them. Those beaches that meet these tough standards receive the prestigious Blue Flag award.

- The EU has set tough targets to cut carbon and sulphur emissions in the UK.

- EU laws have made it compulsory for all new cars to be fitted with catalytic converters and for lead-free petrol to be widely available. At the beginning of 2000 environmentally damaging lead petrol was banned from general sale.

- The EU has introduced the Eco-Label to encourage consumers to buy environmentally friendly goods.

- A European law - the Environmental Impact Assessments Directive - requires national governments to ensure that environmental effects are taken into consideration when planning major infrastructure developments.

- A deal has recently been reached which is likely to pave the way for a ban on the testing of cosmetics on animals.

- The EU restricts imports of whale products and has banned products made from the skin of seal pups.

- EU agreements ban the use of leghold traps and imports of pelts and manufactured goods of certain wild species originating in countries which allow leghold traps or trapping methods which do not meet international humane trapping standards.

- For over 20 years now, the EU has been fixing maximum sound levels for vehicles, aircrafts and machinery. The individual noise of cars has fallen 85% since 1970 and that of lorries has decreased by 90% since the 1970s. The EU also regulates sound levels for household appliances, motorcycles, concrete breakers, tower cranes and power generators

http://www.britainineurope.org.uk/theissues/myths

Americans will try to confuse you and get you to vote no as they are petrified of the idea of a united europe of nation states. They cower in fear before the might of Europe and when the EDF is formed they will bow down before us.

Some people really need to take their heads out of the sand... or read the bloody text of the CONSTITUTIONAL TREATY. It is NOT a constitution. Basically, it is a resumee of all previous European treaties.

You can find the text here (http://europa.eu.int/constitution/en/lstoc1_en.htm)


Exactly. Even our Constitution couldn't stop the growth of the American government to its sprawling size right now. Imagine how much faster it will happen in the EU.....

You are aware that the "huge number of unnamed Bureocrats" in Brussels, Strarsbourg, and other EU institutions is of a mere 30.000, right?


The US constitution guarantees citizens' rights and defines the limits of government power. On the other hand, the EU constitution seems to try and build the government itself and at least in part limit the rights of it's citizens. Radically different purposes and reasons for creation.


Limit the rights of its citizens, eh?

http://europa.eu.int/constitution/en/ptoc16_en.htm#a85

It is actually quite complete in garanteeing freedoms.

The EU constitution is an attempt to enforce extreme neoliberal economic policies on the people of Europe and it transfers more powers to the unelected commission including the right to force any member state to privatise their public services. At the same time it contains no mention of a social Europe where the welfare state will be guaranteed and the rights of workers will be protected and its only purpose seems to be to create a competitive zone across Europe where businesses will be free to steal from the working classes without any interference from democratically elected governments. Many more progressive arguments against the constitution can be found at the site of the Centre for a Social Europe (http://www.social-europe.org.uk).


How is it the English word for this? Demagogy? Of demagogs..

http://europa.eu.int/constitution/en/ptoc18_en.htm#a108

Its not ther communist paradise, but it sure does alot to protect worker's rights, more than in any other constitution.

Oh, and because it's funny, various French authorities quotes concerning the EU constitution.

http://www.eursoc.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/760

* "[The EU Constitution] embodies the French vision of Europe. A 'yes' vote will reinforce the French model in Europe, a 'no' vote will weaken it." - Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin (AP, 29 and 30 March)

* "We have finally obtained this 'Europe à la française' that we have awaited for so long. This constitutional treaty is an enlarged France. It is a Europe written in French." - Justice Minister Dominique Perben (Times and AFP, 4 April)

* "A 'no' vote is an open door to an Anglo-Saxon Europe. A 'yes' vote is the advent of a Europe à la française! The constitutional treaty is inspired by our model." - Minister for Transport and Tourism Giles de Robien (Le Figaro, 6 April)

* "To vote 'yes' is to show one's attachment to the French model and one's refusal of the Anglo-Saxon or Polish model." - Budget Minister and government spokesperson Jean-François Copé (Le Monde, 30 March)

* "The European Constitution consecrates the French vision of Europe. This Constitution marks the coming of the "political Europe" that France has always wanted." - Europe Minister Claudie Haigner=E9 (Le Figaro, 6 April)

* "This treaty carries the French hallmark. [it has] all the elements to allow us to defend, in the years to come, our vision of society, our vision of Europe." - Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin (Nouvel Observateur, 22 March)

* "This Constitution allows the French ambition to assert itself in the big Europe that General de Gaulle hoped and prayed for." - Education Minister François Fillon (Le Figaro, 7 April)

* "Saying 'no' to the treaty today would be saying 'no' to French Europe, and therefore, in a way, saying 'yes' to a Europe that we don't like - to an ultraliberal Europe." - Education Minister Fran=E7ois Fillon (AP, 25 March)

* "This treaty is everything except a liberal treaty." - Employment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo (Le Figaro, 31 March)

*(The EU Constitution is)"the crowning of what one could call the French vision for Europe, against the Anglo-Saxon vision." - UMP party website

Oh, and because it's funny, various French authorities quotes concerning the EU constitution.

http://www.eursoc.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/760


Your point?

http://european-convention.eu.int/bienvenue.asp?lang=EN

Here you can find the inputs of the shit load of people that worked on it, not just the french.

Your point?

http://european-convention.eu.int/bienvenue.asp?lang=EN

Here you can find the inputs of the shit load of people that worked on it, not just the french.

There is no point in rational debate, Americans have always been scared, first it was the native Americans, then it was immigrants, then it was the Germans in WWI then it was the Russians, the Chinese, the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Nicaraguans, the Cubans, the Arabs and on and on... The World can no longer be held hostage to the never ending and regenerative feare that the American people suffer from.

Your point?

http://european-convention.eu.int/bienvenue.asp?lang=EN

Here you can find the inputs of the shit load of people that worked on it, not just the french.
'because it's funny' Not because there was a particular point to it, other than to laugh at french megalomania.

'because it's funny' Not because there was a particular point to it, other than to laugh at french megalomania.


That is rethoric, mostly for the French public. Most of it is indeed true, though most conclusions that the French brag of being theirs, are of all of us, Europeans. But what can one say? They are.. the French.

That is rethoric, mostly for the French public. Most of it is indeed true, though most conclusions that the French brag of being theirs, are of all of us, Europeans. But what can one say? They are.. the French.
As I said, it's funny. My interest in the quotes has no actual bearing on the EU constitution itself. I mean, c'mon, you have to admit this is funny:
* "We have finally obtained this 'Europe à la française' that we have awaited for so long. This constitutional treaty is an enlarged France. It is a Europe written in French." - Justice Minister Dominique Perben (Times and AFP, 4 April)

As I said, it's funny. My interest in the quotes has no actual bearing on the EU constitution itself. I mean, c'mon, you have to admit this is funny:
* "We have finally obtained this 'Europe à la française' that we have awaited for so long. This constitutional treaty is an enlarged France. It is a Europe written in French." - Justice Minister Dominique Perben (Times and AFP, 4 April)

We must have very different senses of humor. I couldnt care less of what Dominique Perben says.

I care of what the Text of the Constitutional Treaty says. And that, i agree with, i have studied its creation, and it was common. Period.

As I said, it's funny. My interest in the quotes has no actual bearing on the EU constitution itself. I mean, c'mon, you have to admit this is funny:
* "We have finally obtained this 'Europe à la française' that we have awaited for so long. This constitutional treaty is an enlarged France. It is a Europe written in French." - Justice Minister Dominique Perben (Times and AFP, 4 April)

B-liar said exactly the same things but with a different tinge of rhetoric. He claimed that they had secured a Constitution agreement which concluded with 'Britain's wishes' and so on. Stay out of our affairs, they are nothing to do with you or your country.

i know nothing about it, other than it does some dodgy stuff....i remember reading that if its passed then it will be illegal to protest against it or something

really though, nobody here makes a big issue about it, nobody has made an effort to inform people on it, and nobody knows when the referendum will happen
Same here. There is not a lot of information around at the moment. But I am sure that I'm against it.

Why? Well, it will lead to further political integration, which will lead to a federal superstate. I think most decisions should be taken at the lowest effective level, so I am against that.

Stay out of our affairs, they are nothing to do with you or your country.

I see you don't hold freedom of speech very highly.

The EU constitution is an attempt to enforce extreme neoliberal economic policies on the people of Europe and it transfers more powers to the unelected commission including the right to force any member state to privatise their public services.

Which is precisely why I'll be voting No.

I'm all in favour of an EU Constitution, but not one that sets us firmly on an increasingly capitalistic, free market, "libéral" (in the French sense of the word) path.

A lot of Europeans are on these forums. They will all go to the polls sometime this year or next, in order to vote on the new constitution for the European Union. This will effectively cement it as a political entity, and not just an international organization. And yet, there is little, if any, talk on it. France is expected to vote on it next month, and its vote will be seen as decisive. Yet no one brings it up. Why?

Well frankly id like it, ive given it a skim over and i like a lot of the stuff in it. Frankly i want to push the e.u towards become a super state, but thats just me.

Loads of people dont talk about it becuase the govt's being really under the table about it, very little media info on it and all that.

And the french look like they are going to vote against it, so that will probally mean its throw out.

Well frankly id like it, ive given it a skim over and i like a lot of the stuff in it. Frankly i want to push the e.u towards become a super state, but thats just me.

Loads of people dont talk about it becuase the govt's being really under the table about it, very little media info on it and all that.

And the french look like they are going to vote against it, so that will probally mean its throw out.
The US constitution required nine out of thirteen states to ratify it in order to be the law of the land. So why does each and every single country in Europe need to individually ratify it?

There is no point in rational debate, Americans have always been scared, first it was the native Americans, then it was immigrants, then it was the Germans in WWI then it was the Russians, the Chinese, the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Nicaraguans, the Cubans, the Arabs and on and on... The World can no longer be held hostage to the never ending and regenerative feare that the American people suffer from.

The Germans in WWI?
But, the vast majority of USians didn't care about WWI, didn't want to become involved at all and considered it a European mess. We only became involved because our president, Wilson, bought that democracy/freedom crap being spouted by the Brits and French. He was too naive to realize it was as much about building up their empires and using their militaries on the allied side as it was on the central powers side.
The same was true about WWII and FDR in that US citizens, the common man, wanted nothing to do with the war and did not consider the Germans to be a threat.

The US constitution required nine out of thirteen states to ratify it in order to be the law of the land. So why does each and every single country in Europe need to individually ratify it?

I think the EU should be formed with France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, holland, Belgium, Greece, Austria, Swez...and maybe Italy.

If UK and the Finns are not sure...I say let them out.

*you forgot about Poland* ...me bad :D

The US constitution required nine out of thirteen states to ratify it in order to be the law of the land. So why does each and every single country in Europe need to individually ratify it?

Because each country in Europe is a real country with about two thousand year's of history in one form or another, and most of that history has been spent killing their neighbours. The United States, on the other hand, were a group of colonies at that point. They'd liberated themselves, true enough, but they weren't proper countries. Look at most African nations today; that's the kind of mess the US was post-independence. It took 130 years before they got sorted.

The States hand no real government of their own; it had been provided (via proxy) by the British. There was no real civil service. There was none of the stuff you need to have a functioning country. The states were pretty much stuck with mutual dependancy, and were also a very small fish in a pond full of Great White Sharks. It's only cos the sharks spent most of their time biting each other that the early US survived at all, and there would have been little hope had they been independant. Today's Europe is made of countries that are quite capable of functioning on their own, and are very reluctant to give up their own government's powers for an even bigger federal one.

There isn't a lot of point in comparing the EU constitution with the US one. They are designed to do entirely different things. The EU is not a state. It is a collection of states working together. The Constitution is a way of setting out the EU's fundamental aims and purposes so that the European Court of Justice can enforce EU law properly. It is not simply designed to say what powers and so on the EU should have.

For example, Article 81 of the current treaty (please don't ask me what Article of the new constitution that will be, but it will be in there almost unchanged), states that companies in the EU cannot form cartels together, bascially. That has nothing to do with the constitution of the EU organisation, clearly. But it is in the treaty because it then allows the European Commission to pass legislation in the form of Regulations and Directives that implement the treaty provision.

That is why the treaty is so long, and of such a different nature. It includes a great deal of actual non-constitutional law. The new 'Constitution' will play exactly the same role as the treaty does now.


European Communism has highlighted some of the benefits of the EU. Most of them are valid points, though it should also be borne in mind that EU legislation in these areas did not appear into a vaccuum. Much of it simply replaced or was brought in alongside domestic law. For example, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UK law) overlaps massively with the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (which implemented an EU directive). It has added a few extra areas where a term in a contract might be thought unfair, but mostly these rest on technicalities, such as differing defintions of a company. So the impact of EU law was limited, even though the law itself was extensive.

Another thing that people need to know about the EU, when trying to understand why people dislike it so much, is that the accountants have refused to approve its accounts for the last ten years. The sums don't add up. If it was a private company then there is a fair chance that a lot of them would be in jail. As it is any officials attempting to get to the root of the corruption have been sacked.

The Common Agricultural Policy is a massive nonsense as well. We pay money for our farmers to dump produce on thrid world countries. It harms our economy because we pay over the odds for food, when the subsidy is included, and it harms the economies of third world producers. Most of the EU budget goes into CAP.

The British rebate is entirely necessary to make the EU fair, because of the impact of CAP. Even with the rebate Britain is still the second-largest net contributor to the the EU after Germany, which has a much larger population. France gets almost as much back through CAP as it puts in to begin with. I don't mind contributing to help less well developed countries, but without the rebate we would be contributing far more than anyone else, and that hardly seems fair.


Personally I'm not against the idea of a European Union. I just don't like this one. I don't want Britain to join their dire economy, because we do much better with the pound. It's not a nationalistic argument, it's an economic one. As for the constitution itself - I doubt that it would make much difference either way. The problems lie elsewhere.

The EU is not a state. It is a collection of states working together.

Just a quibble, but the same is technically true of the US. They have the constitutional right to cede from the union at any time. Unfortunately, as the US civil war proves, Washington is militarily opposed to any attempt to break away, and doesn't give a damn about the constitution.

The main reason the British hate the EU so much is because the French are directing it. We hate the French. We have for as long as England and France have existed. And while we sat on the fence and tried to decide whether or not joining the EU would be a good idea or not, and whether we wanted a bunch of Belgians (BELGIANS!!!) deciding our laws for us, France leapt in with both feet and quickly started shaping the whole thing. Germany simply agreed to pay for it.

The best answer to this, really, would have been for Britain to just bite the bullet ten years ago and throw all our weight in too. Then there would have been a second 'big player', and the Union would probably have taken on a much better shape all round. As it was, Britain held out and wavered around about how commited we were to the whole thing, and so now we're walking into a game that being run by our oldest enemy, and they wrote the rules. And while we don't fight the French any more, there's still this tendancy for Britain and France to try and get one over on each other.

Because each country in Europe is a real country with about two thousand year's of history in one form or another, and most of that history has been spent killing their neighbours. The United States, on the other hand, were a group of colonies at that point. They'd liberated themselves, true enough, but they weren't proper countries. Look at most African nations today; that's the kind of mess the US was post-independence. It took 130 years before they got sorted.

The States hand no real government of their own; it had been provided (via proxy) by the British. There was no real civil service. There was none of the stuff you need to have a functioning country. The states were pretty much stuck with mutual dependancy, and were also a very small fish in a pond full of Great White Sharks. It's only cos the sharks spent most of their time biting each other that the early US survived at all, and there would have been little hope had they been independant. Today's Europe is made of countries that are quite capable of functioning on their own, and are very reluctant to give up their own government's powers for an even bigger federal one.
You brought up a little point that makes me feel stupid. Nevertheless, the Europeans have never been closer, and bar the Balkans (which matter less to Europe as a whole than they use to be), the continent has never been as peaceful. Yet if they aren't ready, I understand.
Perhaps this means that two or more tiers may form in the EU. There might be a core that functions as a country, notably Spain, France, Germany, Italy, the Low Countries, and a few others. The second tier may include the UK, Eastern Europeann nations, and maybe a few others. That's just my guess, however.

You brought up a little point that makes me feel stupid. Nevertheless, the Europeans have never been closer, and bar the Balkans (which matter less to Europe as a whole than they use to be), the continent has never been as peaceful. Yet if they aren't ready, I understand.
Perhaps this means that two or more tiers may form in the EU. There might be a core that functions as a country, notably Spain, France, Germany, Italy, the Low Countries, and a few others. The second tier may include the UK, Eastern Europeann nations, and maybe a few others. That's just my guess, however.

Frankly, I find the whole thing rather stupid and petty for the most part. At some point within the next 100 years, Europe will unify into a federation powerful enough to balance out the US. The only thing stopping them from doing so now is what some French bloke's great grandad did my my great-great-uncle Charlies at Waterloo, and various other ridiculous things like that.

That's pretty much how the US had such an easy time of it compared to Europe; there was no history of hostility between states. The political map of the US was all flat terrain, if you will; uniting wasn't just easy to achieve, it was a genuinely good idea given their situation. Europe's going to have a hell of a time convincing countries that they're better off in than out, and it's going to be bloody awful integrating them once they accept. The trade-off is that the European Union is the most densely industrialised area in the world, by a very long way; a European Federated super-state would make the US seem industrially pathetic and backward. Pick any two out of France, UK and Germany and they can equal the industrial capacity of the entire US. have all three, and then add to them the rest of Europe, you've got a population half again as big as that of the US, perhaps three times as many major cities, far better infrastructure, much more arable land....

Britain and France were the Great powers. The US and the USSR were the Superpowers. The EU would become the Ultrapower, once it sorts out it's teething issues, and the US would only match it by combining with all of south America, Mexico and Canada.

More likely will be a total reform in China, turning it into a cut-thoat super-capitalist democracy, and then some form of attempt to unti them with India. It would be backward (initially), but half of the world's population living in one superbloc would make for a decent counterweight. The US will fall from it's current position as a world leader, since around 4/5ths of it's territory is undeveloped and rife with poor infrastructure. The Superpowers weren't really that powerful, considering that they were so vast; smaller countries make much better use of space, and when thy untie they suddenly become vastly greater than the previous 'big boys'. Look at Germany in the 1870s : it goes from being a scattered group of weak principalities into the only serious rival for the British Empire within 30 years.

Frankly, I find the whole thing rather stupid and petty for the most part. At some point within the next 100 years, Europe will unify into a federation powerful enough to balance out the US. The only thing stopping them from doing so now is what some French bloke's great grandad did my my great-great-uncle Charlies at Waterloo, and various other ridiculous things like that.

That's pretty much how the US had such an easy time of it compared to Europe; there was no history of hostility between states. The political map of the US was all flat terrain, if you will; uniting wasn't just easy to achieve, it was a genuinely good idea given their situation. Europe's going to have a hell of a time convincing countries that they're better off in than out, and it's going to be bloody awful integrating them once they accept. The trade-off is that the European Union is the most densely industrialised area in the world, by a very long way; a European Federated super-state would make the US seem industrially pathetic and backward. Pick any two out of France, UK and Germany and they can equal the industrial capacity of the entire US. have all three, and then add to them the rest of Europe, you've got a population half again as big as that of the US, perhaps three times as many major cities, far better infrastructure, much more arable land....

Britain and France were the Great powers. The US and the USSR were the Superpowers. The EU would become the Ultrapower, once it sorts out it's teething issues, and the US would only match it by combining with all of south America, Mexico and Canada.

More likely will be a total reform in China, turning it into a cut-thoat super-capitalist democracy, and then some form of attempt to unti them with India. It would be backward (initially), but half of the world's population living in one superbloc would make for a decent counterweight. The US will fall from it's current position as a world leader, since around 4/5ths of it's territory is undeveloped and rife with poor infrastructure. The Superpowers weren't really that powerful, considering that they were so vast; smaller countries make much better use of space, and when thy untie they suddenly become vastly greater than the previous 'big boys'. Look at Germany in the 1870s : it goes from being a scattered group of weak principalities into the only serious rival for the British Empire within 30 years.

Nice thoughts, though I won't comment much. This speculation is too far out into the future.
However, I will say one thing. Europe today is an international political and economic player due to investments fifty years ago, but is doing little to build its power today. The Eastern European nations have potential, but are still too small. Western Europe, on the other hand, has rigid and uncompetitive economies, a rapidly ageing populace, and many, many social problems. The euro has been a disaster since its creation. While it has created competitiveness, it was not implemented in an optimal currency zone. The eurozone's economies are vastly different, and the Stability and Growth Pack is all but abandoned. The euro went from super-cheap to overpriced in just five years. Why can't I expect it to fluctuate in the future?
Maybe in the future, Europe will be powerful. But with its current problems and attitudes, the EU is on the fast track to becoming a museum state of designer fashion, good food, and past glory, but little else. Until Europe as a society changes its outlook on life, this will be the fate of the EU.

The EU as a whole has a GDP that isn't a whole lot bigger than that of the US, and the US is catching ip quite fast due to the sluggish performance of France and Germany and the US's increasing population. The UK keeps pace with the US in terms of GDP per capita, but the other big players can't cut it. Unless they loosen up their economies they would never be able, even if united into a superstate, to challenge the US in terms of global power, even if that was their aim.

I think that people also should not underestimate the language barriers in Europe that prevent a truly unified market and which will very possibly prevent Europeans from ever feeling like they are part of the same nation.


And China would NEVER unite with India. Do you have any idea just how much they dislike each other? The answer is - a lot. When I was in the Himalayas once (in India) the people there told me that the Chinese went up to the border once a year and moved the flags a metre forward. They were quite convinced about it. They had this idea of the evil Chinese communists who were intent on slowly taking over the world. It partly stems from wars fought in the 1960s, I think.