EU constitution ?

froggy 2

Hello,

It's strange that there seem to be no talk about the EU future constitution.

Are you interested ?
Has anyone read the texte ?

Or maybe, there is a special place I d'indn't find to talk about it.

dahamsta

I wouldn't mind seeing a poll on this. You know, if it went to a vote now, how would you vote, style of fing? Any chance mods?

adam

Victor

Shouldn't we see the text before a vote? Or would that be "unpatriotic"?

froggy 2

http://european-convention.eu.int/docs/Treaty/cv00850.en03.pdf

froggy 2

It is not the final version, because there is the intergov. conference... but it seems unlikely that it would be fundamentally modified.

DadaKopf

I'll be voting NO to the EU constitution because it will legally enshrine the GATS agenda in EU law. It will make irreversible the comprehensive privatisation of *all* public services.

Most worrying of all, it will set the way for the privatisation of all health, education and cultural services.

It will make secret all decisions made by the Council of Ministers secret, with no possibility of public scrutiny or accountability. Those decisions will be carried out on the basis of qualified majority voting with no veto and no provisions to change policy at a later date. Countries will not be able to opt out. No veto, no accountability, no democracy.

Some voices on the right even oppose the constitution on the basis that it will centralize privatisation, therefore it'll be anti-free market. Which is bad for them, but not my cuppa tea, but certainly not centralized economy either.

There's an analysis of the draft constitution by the Assembly of European Regions here. Good reading.

Meh

Originally posted by DadaKopf
It will make secret all decisions made by the Council of Ministers secret, with no possibility of public scrutiny or accountability. Those decisions will be carried out on the basis of qualified majority voting with no veto...

Nonsense. While the draft extends QMV to several new areas, unanimity is still required in critical areas such as taxation, foreign policy, immigration and the budget.

DadaKopf

Decisions made by the Council, on the basis of QMV, on matters of privatisation of health, education and culture. That's what I said.

The Saint

Would it be such a bad idea to have our health and education on a European level? I'd more trust Europe to make good decisions on such things than Bertie.

dathi1

Would it be such a bad idea to have our health and education on a European level? I'd more trust Europe to make good decisions on such things than Bertie.

http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?sid=9&aid=13549
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/27/wblow27.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3027212.stm
http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2003/10/16/story117587.asp
Tip of the iceberg...why would you wantt to centralise more power to another city in Europe when we have a hard enough time keeping tabs with our own shower here?

Typedef

Originally posted by The Saint
Would it be such a bad idea to have our health and education on a European level? I'd more trust Europe to make good decisions on such things than Bertie.

And what exactly makes you think that a governmental entity responsible for 500 million people, is going to do what's right for Irish people, over say the interests of French,German, more populous bloc(x)?

How exactly would it be in Irish interests, to have less control over our own education system?

What benefit is there for this nation in that?

Since when are European politicians less corrupt or more able to govern Ireland, then our own inept, corrupt political establishment?

Why should I vote to put, control of these matters into the hands of distant Eurocrats, who will make decisions on a European (495 million non-Irish people) level and trust/hope the outcome won't damage Ireland?

PalerPaul

I just think it is disgusting. The Irish people will be made to pass this bloody constitution when it is finally released on the premise that we will be the black sheep of Europe. Lets get one thing straight, we were the black sheep of europe for 800 years, so a few more years wont kill us. Granted Europe helped us with money and our current prosperity is a direct result of this and our unique american links. But these are the people who during all of irelands troubles wouldnt say a word, just ignored us, why?, because they didnt want to piss off Britain (apart from french who crashed their ships on our beaches, but the thought was there). Then they come over with their hi tech highways and want to be our friends, sod off.

And dont say we are european. Thats an accident of geography. We have little in common with them continentals. Ive worked with alot of europeans especially goosesteppers and most cant point out ireland on a map. Dont get me wrong, I do think europe is good, but i think its all getting a little too much now. I dont trust the Germans. Think about it, they have existed since 1870 and how many wars have they started. The french are so up their own hole and the rest are eejits.

Im not having my kids growing up to be told how to run their government by a fat sausage eater, cheese eater or an omelette eater. They can stick their constitution up their holes.

Everyone has fallen for this europe likes each other lark. Let me tell you the germans (and I have lived there) are just as racist as they ever were. They dont express it because deep down and quite rightly they are ashamed of their country. But it lurks under their skin, we are the best. Every 30 or so years they have to start something. In brief Im voting no.

Typedef

You know.

Sometimes I think it's the pro-Federalists who make posts like the above, to discredit the Nationalist argument.

PalerPaul

How do you mean typedef?. undermining the nationalist view?

Typedef

I dont trust the Germans. Think about it, they have existed since 1870 and how many wars have they started. The french are so up their own hole and the rest are eejits.

When people read stuff like that, it makes 'everybody' who holds an anti-EU Federal state view out to be, well, ignorant and bigoted.

Thus diminishing the anti-Federalist argument.

For example during the Nice II campaign, a prominent anti-Nice (and pro-Life) campaigner, was mysteriously associated (read spoke at a rally) for some Neo-Nazi group somewhere.

Thus everybody who was arguing against the Nice Treaty, was suddenly confronted not with logical argument, but statements like "No to Nicers are Nazis" and the like.

From your comments, somebody who is anti your position could make a similar comment.

Thus diminishing any sort of reasoned argument others ( like myself ) who will vote against the EU constitution might make.

It's actually not such a jump to imagine people delibrately making such, ridiculous arguments, in order to cause a side in an argument to loose face.

A doppelganger post, if you will.

DadaKopf

A bit of a pre-emptive strike, maybe, but let's keep this thread on topic, please .

The EU Constution, not cultural essentialism. Thanks, fellas.

Victor

I saved a copy and took it home for reading, while many of the principles are worthy, much of the wording is wrong "shall" (no choice) is often used where "may" (devolved choice) is vastly more appropriate. Other sections appear deliberately either vague "human dignity shall be respected" (but how far) or convuluted (the section dealing with structures, EU President (of the commisssion) and EU Foreign Minister). As they say a camel is a horse designed by committee. The EU constitution is 100 A4 pages long.

There are other parts that move towards a common defence for example every country shall help one that was attacked by terrorists (or suffers man made or natural disaster), now no doubt in a September 11th type situation, everyone is going to bend over backwards to provide search and rescue, medical, humanitarian and legal cooperation, but not everyone is going to get involved in another Afghanistan. And what of the good old Greece - Cyprus - Turkey argument or Northern Ireland or when Turkey joins (which this Constitution eventually foresees) will we have Irish soldiers on the Turkey-Iraq border? I'm sorry it not our argument (whatever about facilitating peacekeeping, taking sides is another matter).

PalerPaul

I think standing together would be designed for for deterent which is what Nato is technically about. Granted in disasters etc we would all help but do we really need that in a constituion?. I cant think off hand of an exact situation but european countries have helped each other out when such things happen. I personally feel europe must be dying to get this constitution through ireland while Bertie is in power.

If we were to sign up to such a document then I would feel (only a wee bit!) if I had some faith in our leader who signs it. Now, Im not anti FF or anti anyone else I actually think what is happening in Ireland with everyday living transcends party allegiance. We just cant be rolled into line because we fear the consequences of rejecting it.

There is someone sitting in an overpriced leather chair in Brussels with their computer in front of them, with paintshop pro on drawing a picture of a person with gun to their head finishing off the caption.... "Voting NO?"

Now where did I see that before?

Duffman

Why should I vote to put, control of these matters into the hands of distant Eurocrats, who will make decisions on a European (495 million non-Irish people) level and trust/hope the outcome won't damage Ireland?

:rolleyes: The draft constitution isn't about giving more power to the EU. The idea is to consolidate existing treaties, powers that Brussels already has. The EU is a daunting and complex organisation to most of its citizens and a democratic deficit exists because of this. I'm not saying the draft is in any way perfect, but the need for a constitution is clear. A document that clearly explains the workings/functions of the institutions and sets out citizens' rights is a great idea.

rcunning03

Since when are European politicians less corrupt or more able to govern Ireland, then our own inept, corrupt political establishment?

just go to mainland europe and see how much better things are run over there

Typedef

Originally posted by rcunning03
just go to mainland europe and see how much better things are run over there

Give it a rest.

That same argument was used by the English to justify not granting Home Rule to Ireland for hundreds of years. Namely the poor stupid paddy wasn't fit to run his own country. It's a variance on the old Impreialist rally of the "White man's burdeon", you know, brining civilisation to the 'savages'.

All the white man seems to have brought to the savages seems to be slavery, disease and borders drawn with a ruler on a map, which have caused decades of war.

You will have to do much better then that, to convince me that yet more power and influence ceded to the European Union, is in Irish interests.

Not only do I not subscribe to that completely ridculous argument, but, it's hardly going to convince me to put powers to privitise Irish industries into the hands of Eurocrats making decisions ostensibly for the benefit of the large economies in Europe, to the detrement of small economies like Ireland if necessary.

Typedef

Originally posted by Duffman
The draft constitution isn't about giving more power to the EU. The idea is to consolidate existing treaties, powers that Brussels already has. The EU is a daunting and complex organisation to most of its citizens and a democratic deficit exists because of this. I'm not saying the draft is in any way perfect, but the need for a constitution is clear. A document that clearly explains the workings/functions of the institutions and sets out citizens' rights is a great idea.

Actually, if you read this thread from start to finish, you'll find that the statement you just made is false.

rcunning03

The world needs a strong europe as a counterweight to american power. what would you prefer a country with low corporation and personal taxes and a large percentage of the population providing customer service for american companies, then spending 2 hours to get home to housing estates with no public services or amenities, or people working a 35 hour week in skilled jobs and everybody paying their fair share of tax to provide for infrastructure and social services.

This country is run for the benefit of american corporations, landowners and the catholic church.

whereas in europe they have had social revolutions, and government is run mainly for the interests of citizens.

we have never had a social revolution in Ireland, politicans believe they can get away with being corrupt in ireland, cause we have never stood up for ourselves. whereas in germany, france etc they know if they mess up too much they leave the door open for another hitler, musslolini, napolean etc

Typedef

rcunning03

You can't honestly be so naive as to think that the same continental European countries who subjectaged entire continents wholesale throughout the world and made 'subjects of empire-x' millions of people, are somehow 'better' people then those in the USA, and that is is somehow a good reason to ratify an EU constitution that does pretty much nothing for Ireland, now can you?

Nobody is suggesting ceceding from the EU, just yet, but, if Ireland has no choice or influence in the EU, to say 'no' to measures that don't have 'any' benefit to us, aside from not incurring the supposed 'wrath' of the EU, then the EU is an instituion we should not reasonbly choose to be a part of, because it dictates, rather then includes us?

Honestly though, I'm wondering why the EU must be some sort of paragon of virtue to the big bad old USA (who interceded in Northern Ireland to bring peace, where the EU, never did)?

Why must we be wrapped up in the EU (as is your agrument) because of some blinkered belief that the EU, has.... 'better' morals?

Look at the recent history of all the major European countries over the last 50 years, Spain, France, Italy, Germany and the UK and then tell me why those countries are more virtuous. All the afore mentioned countries have a recent history of trampeling all over small nations/ethnic peoples in one form or another. Then please tell me why some supposed notion of 'choosing' sides has any 'real-world' implications for Irish people, who might have to face dictat from Europe on some educational matters, where the 'bad guys' the US (as is the core of your argument (taking sides)) never would, nor have expressed any desire to do so?

Also, please explain, how the European Union, if it were as powerful in comparison to any other single bloc on earth as the US currently is, would not act in the same unilateralist manner as the US?

Because Europeans are 'better' people? I think that would be a pretty racist thing to say, don't you?

Victor

Originally posted by Typedef
Honestly though, I'm wondering why the EU must be some sort of paragon of virtue to the big bad old USA (who interceded in Northern Ireland to bring peace, where the EU, never did)? ... Why must we be wrapped up in the EU (as is your agrument) because of some blinkered belief that the EU, has.... 'better' morals? ... Because Europeans are 'better' people? I think that would be a pretty racist thing to say, don't you?

Reading the text of the constitution, you will note that it obliges the union to respect other countries and the Earth, in fact parts of it seems to be written by hippies. It's not that Europeans are or aren't better people, but that it is a better constitution in it's treatment of the rest of the world. In contrast the USA is an executive constitutional democracy, that only protects it's own citizens and the president can do pretty much anything he wants (subject to "cheques and balances") within the constitution.

Originally posted by Typedef
Also, please explain, how the European Union, if it were as powerful in comparison to any other single bloc on earth as the US currently is, would not act in the same unilateralist manner as the US?

France and Germany argue they want to counter-balance the USA, I indeed fear them becoming the belligerent USA.

Elmo

Well I would have no problem with a EU (is it not the EEA now) constitution if it does not impede on the Irish Constitution.

Oh wait some how I don't think that that would work.

In relation to things being done better on mainland Europe.

China gave electricity to Tibet
Europe gave civilisation to America, Africa, Australia.
And the British Gave us ...... mmmmmm

Perhaps Germany, Britain and France should just invade us and Fix our roads, fix our health service, fix our country. Yeah I think that’s the best Idea.

But wait then we'd have nothing to give out about and then we'd all have to top ourselves.

I think that's a no from me.

Put the EU Propaganda in gear, The Treaty Of Dublin is coming.

Oh and lets point out that the biggest piece of EU propaganda will be "The Treaty Of "Dublin""

Duffman

Originally posted by Typedef
Actually, if you read this thread from start to finish, you'll find that the statement you just made is false.

How so?

Victor

Originally posted by Elmo
Put the EU Propaganda in gear, The Treaty Of Dublin is coming. Oh and lets point out that the biggest piece of EU propaganda will be "The Treaty Of "Dublin""

I doubt it, most of our Presidency will be in gearing the +10 countries up for membership. I suspect the constitution will take 2-3 years to be adopted.

Originally posted by Duffman
How so?

Well if you read it, you would notice the chart of rights bit and the new EU foreign minister and strengthened EU Commission president and "mini-commissioners"

Duffman

Originally posted by Victor
Well if you read it, you would notice the chart of rights bit and the new EU foreign minister and strengthened EU Commission president and "mini-commissioners"

Where is more power being given to the EU here?

The rights bit just incorporates the provisons of the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental freedoms into community law. This is nothing new, rights set out in the convention can be and have been invoked in Irish court cases. ie. this is nothing new.

Proposed Commission reforms give more power to the president, yes. But the Commission as an institution isn't becoming more powerful in a way that further erodes our sovereignty.

Anyway, my statement was "The draft constitution isn't about giving more power to the EU" - It isn't. It was drafted to make the union more transparent, democratic and accountable, not to take us one step closer to a big scary federalist superstate. If you're worried about handing over power to europe's institutions, wouldn't you prefer to see the powers they do have and limits on those powers clearly defined?

Elmo

This is nothing new, rights set out in the convention can be and have been invoked in Irish court cases. ie. this is nothing new.

Why bother then?

If you're worried about handing over power to europe's institutions, wouldn't you prefer to see the powers they do have and limits on those powers clearly defined?

Yeah, if something continues to get bigger then it becomes less trasparent then it ever was. I mean how much does the ordinary joe soap know about the cruption with in the EU when several commisioners steped down?

Typedef

rcunning03, I'd just like to quote Eamo here.

Eamon DeValera League of Nations 1936
"Peace is dependent upon the will of great states [...] All the small states can do [...] is resolutely to determine that they will not become tools of any great power and that they will resist [...] every attempt to force them into a war against their will."

I don't see any reason to 'side', with a power bloc, because of some nonsensical notion, that European states, if powerful enough to do so, wouldn't be as unilateralist ('again' in the case of the European big five), as the United States, in war, foreign policy and neo-colonial/quasi-imperialist policies.

Also, Duffman, as has been pointed out in the thread already, European powers would be extended with relation to GATS (outside of Irish national control ostensibly) upon acceptance of the Constituion, so blithley claiming the constitution is exclusively about, clearly consoldating existing EU powers is false.

froggy 2

The Commision president would be a bit more potent, but it is not a "revolution".
He would be elected by parliament, but on the basis of a single candidature choosed by the council (I-25/I-26).
It's new power is to select, but only from lists of three proposed by members, and fire (which is more important) commisionners.

At the opposite, the chart of rights seem to be weakened, since it would only be only applied on the EU fields of competence (II-51); anyway, the member states would have to respect the value of union, so this weakening is not so important....


Actually, there is one big thing new:
This is a CONSTITUTION . It implies it has a a much stronger value:

A treaty has only a power on the precise points it deals with.
A constitution is universal on every point (in this case, on every EU fields of competence), unless specified otherwise. It gives general frame which has to be respected by all decision taken by the union institutions (including parliament and council) in the present time and in <b> the future </b> .


The problem I see with this draft constitution are the following:
1) I am (relatively) left-wing, and I see that I make a free competition a value (I-3 and II-69) almost of the same rank as freedom, security and justice. It would be the first constitution wich would telle about the economic system: for instance, in France, the today constitution has allowed diriged economic policy (until the mid-80s) with wide nationalisations, as well as strong right wing policies (privatisations) since the early 90s.
This would not be possible with this new text.
2) More broadly, many articles are about the various policies, and I tend to think this has nothing to do in a consitution. The perfect example is article I-40 about military capacities. the whole part III (or almost all of it) is in this case.
3) The public services would disappear: the services of general economic interest are far from being the equivalent: first, they are only "economic" (what about education, culture, health for instance), then they are subject to competition (III-55), which implies there would be "profitable" consumers, and non-rpofitable one... end of egality of service, I'm afraid.
4) Any modification would be hard : see IV-7 dor details.

It's late, and I still have some work, bye.

rcunning03

Also, please explain, how the European Union, if it were as powerful in comparison to any other single bloc on earth as the US currently is, would not act in the same unilateralist manner as the US?

fair enough, i'll give you that point but do you not think the world would be a much better balanced place if we had a strong europe as well as a strong us, that way each power could act as a check and balance to each other.

granted i may of only been a child in the 80's(im 28 now), but when we had two superpowers the world seem more balanced and generally they kept each other in check

i think china will be a superpower in the next 10 years or so and ideally a strong europe could act as a mediator between the two, but as it stands at the moment we are irrelevant, the only reason countries like iran, israel meet with the eu is because were allies of the us, our say at the moment is irrelevant

Victor

I can understand a gradual move towards tax harmonisation - however this potentially just means that the larger states impose a tax regime that only suits them.

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/2006623?view=Eircomnet

Harney vows to face down EU over tax powers
From:ireland.com
Saturday, 22nd November, 2003

The Government will not accept that the European Union should have powers in the future to govern company taxation rates by a qualified majority vote of EU member states, the Tánaiste, Ms Harney said yesterday. Mark Hennessy, Political Correspondent, reports.

The draft European Union Constitution produced by the Convention on the Future of Europe proposes that EU finance ministers could agree unanimously to decide some corporate tax issues by qualified majority voting.

In a forthright speech to the Institute of European Affairs, the Tánaiste said the Government wants to bring the current inter-governmental talks on the new Constitution to "a timely and successful conclusion".

"We have said, however, that in the area of economic policy, tax is a red-line issue for us. We are saying this to our colleagues, old and new, respectfully and firmly. We want to be clear and fair to all concerned.

"Everyone in a negotiation has bottom lines. There would be no need for any negotiation if everyone had the same bottom line, or if no one had any bottom line," she said.

The extra EU tax powers proposed in the Constitution, negotiated by delegates from EU governments, MEPs and national parliaments, is "just a temporary halt along this road" for pro-integrationists, she said.

"But I am convinced it would be a recipe for instability and tension around this issue that would prevent progress on the Union's economic, financial and internal market policies," she said.

The proposal would mean that Ireland would have "one minister, one vote, once only" on company taxation.

"After that one vote, national decision-making would be gone forever," she said.

In a blunt warning, she emphasised that the Government would not recommend to voters that they accept such a fundamental change to the EU's laws. "And I don't see the Irish people approving that," she went on.

The Government's "red line" means that the agreement reached during the Nice Treaty which was "approved explicitly in our referendum should remain in place", she said.

The Tánaiste's refusal to consider tax decision-making by a qualified majority vote even in the long-term is significant, since senior Irish officials appear more favourable towards the idea.

Ireland, along with the United Kingdom and Sweden, are under increasing pressure to concede on taxation, as efforts continue to agree a new treaty before the Italian EU presidency ends in December.

Taxation is a core part of a country's sovereignty, she made clear: "Fiscal choices are decided by elections. Monetary choices are not. How much we tax, what we tax, and who we tax, are not mechanical matters of technical rules and targets.

"They are about democratic political choices. In each of our societies, we argue about them, we contest them, and we resolve them. Tax decisions define our political life.

"This is why my colleagues and I in the Irish Government are firm in our view that policy on direct taxation must remain a matter for national governments," she told the institute.

The Government's stand on taxation played a decisive part in persuading Irish voters to accept the Nice Treaty at the second attempt: "We asked people to vote Yes to reaffirm that position. And the people did so, only one year ago," she said.

The lack of qualified majority voting up to now has not stopped efforts to curb "harmful business tax practices", which have been fully supported by the Republic.

Varying corporate taxation rates throughout the EU are "good for the diversity and dynamism of the European economy, and will benefit the countries joining the Union in May 2004," she added.