EU Consitution

arcadegame2004

Im interested to hear what people here think of the principle of a EU Consitution. I would like people to put forward their position on the PRINCIPLE, and preferably not to prejudge what this unfinished work will contain.

I for one support the idea. An EU Consitution could make the EU far easier to understand in terms of the division of powers between nation states and the EU institutions, thererby debunking falsehoods spread by the Eurosceptics about the European Commission having the power to make laws, decide taxes etc. and others that claim the European Parliament is more powerful than the Dail. The truth is that the EU Commission may only PROPOSE new EU laws, and those proposals are then vetoable by the EU Council of Ministers (which includes our representatives) and - in most cases - the European Parliament. The European Parliament can propose amendments to proposed EU-wide laws but it can't yet propose the EU laws themselves.

The existing EU treaties are so numerous already that condensing them into one document is the only real way to avoid widespread confusion as to the EU's powers, as a result of reading one treaty only to find that specific parts of it are overturned by the next etc.

An EU Constitution doesn't have to mean an EU state. After all, the GAA and Fianna Fail have constitutions and nobody is seriously suggesting they are states. I very firmly believe that in an age of global interdependence, the nation state - while still important in those areas of policy where it can actually influence its destiny - is not always up to the task of resolving its problems. Global warming caused by pollution in one country affects us all, by causing climate change, including flooding etc. Collective decision-making on environmental policy is thus needed. This would not amount to a "loss of sovereignty" as the anti-Europeans claim. For them, all decisions made by individual nation-states acting separately have the ability to actually resolve a nation's problems. This is wrong. EXAMPLE: The Kyoto Agreement. It still hasn't been ratified by the required 60 countries to make it binding. State-to-state co-operation alone has proven insufficient to resolving this problem, with countries such as Russia backing out of their commitments.,

The Madrid blasts on March 11th further necessitate an EU Constitution. After this outrage , it transpired that the attack may have been planned in the UK, and that some of the suspects were known by the French intelligence-agencies to have Al-Qaeda links. This has echoes of September 11th, when it turned out the attacks were planned in Germany. I can only conclude from this that had intelligence been shared then these attacks might not have happened. I therefore feel that an EU Constitution should force states to inform other EU states of intelligence information indicating a terrorist attack is being planned on other EU states, and of the known names of terrorist organisations. Alternatively an EU-wide intelligence-agency could be established, accountable to the EU Council of Ministers that would appoint its head. This would end the nonsense of national intelligence-agencies refusing to divulge information on future terrorist threats to other EU member states.

There is also an economic issue. I am strongly opposed to tax-harmonisation, but as our Government is extremely unlikely to give up the veto in this area I have no real fears that we would lose such a veto in the EU Constitution, especially as the agreement of all 25 future EU states would be required for this.

But I strongly feel that outside of the trade-bloc that is the EU, Ireland would be left exposed to the protectionist winds from the US. The US is becoming more protectionist, and still refuses to scrap its illegal (according to WTO) Foreign Sales Corporation. under which exporters are subidised by the state. We can only force the US to back down by being part of a large trading-bloc, because only by imposing economic sanctions on the US as the EU does from time to time, can we force the US to back down. On our own, we would have no say on where these sanctions should apply.

The above issues are far too important to become the hostage of narrow nationalism. I call for a "Yes" vote if the treaty advances the concerns I mention above.

monument

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
The above issues are far too important to become the hostage of narrow nationalism. I call for a "Yes" vote if the treaty advances the concerns I mention above.

Global warming, environmental policy, state-to-state contact, the Madrid blasts, Al-Qaeda, intelligence sharing, been in or joining a large "trading-bloc" are issues far too important to be hijacked as reasons for a European Union constitution.

rde

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I for one support the idea. An EU Consitution could make the EU far easier to understand in terms of the division of powers between nation states and the EU institutions

This, to my mind, is the main reason we need a constitution. Well, that and the fact that the Nice voting system is unsustainable in the long run. It was necessary at the time, but we need something better.

An EU Constitution doesn't have to mean an EU state. After all, the GAA and Fianna Fail have constitutions and nobody is seriously suggesting they are states.

Here, I fear, you're being rather silly. Or at least disingenuous. No-one would argue against the GAA being a cohesive body that acts and speaks for itself; if it were bigger and could tax you, it'd be a state.

Collective decision-making on environmental policy is thus needed. ... The Madrid blasts on March 11th further necessitate an EU Constitution ... But I strongly feel that outside of the trade-bloc that is the EU, Ireland would be left exposed to the protectionist winds from the US.

The above issues are far too important to become the hostage of narrow nationalism. I call for a "Yes" vote if the treaty advances the concerns I mention above.

I hate to pick on a fellow constitution supporter, but none of these is a good reason for a constitution. Let me count the ways...

The environment A federal europe - hell, a European state - wouldn't make a blind bit of difference WRT Kyoto. If individual countries do their bit, then woohoo! If they don't, then pressure from the EU won't change their minds.

The Madrid bombing In the immediate aftermath of the bombing, we saw a lot of silliness, including talk of a European CIA and related asininity. We've got Gijs de Vries doing his funky thang now, and with the existing powers there's no need to make this a constitutional issue.

Trade wars We're already in the EU. A constitution (or lack thereof) isn't going to change that.

So why should we vote for a constitution? Many reasons; as I've alluded to above, my main reason is that there are too many treaties. In the convention, d'Estaing made it clear that his main goal was to produce a simple document that could be read and understood by an intelligent secondary-schooler. The draft also contains voting weights that are regressively proportional to population, so that a negotiations don't have to begin anew whenever a new country joins.
There's more, but I don't want to bore you.