EU Constitution a joke

[Kerberos]

Why? We already have a trading zone. An area where war between EU partners is unthinkable. What more do you want?

Could it be that you just prefer the more "left wing"/"statist" politics of the continent and wish to drown out troublesome English Tory voters in a sea of 300 million left of center, anti-American Eurotrash?

Yeah, course my highest ambition is to turn UK into a socialist paradise, right! Would it suprise you to learn that I voted for what might be the most economically right-wing party in the Danish parliament? BTW I appreciate how you try to avoid dd hominems and wild generalizations, but you might want to try just a little harder.

God, is it too late to petition NAFTA for membership?

Feel free. The new EU Constituional treaty specifies, IIRC how a member state may leave the union.

 

[LW]

I agree that the EU Constitution is a joke. But unfortunately it is on our expense. In particular, I mean the Article I - 18 that is called Flexibility clause:

1. If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in Part III, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Constitution, and the Constitution has not provided the necessary powers, the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously on a proposal from the European Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures.

Translation: If the constitution prohibits us from doing something, we can do it anyway if we really insist.

 

[Jon_in_london]

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

Add up the entire EU Beurocracy, plus that of Ireland, the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Holland, Luxembourg, Belgium etc etc... and I think you get the message.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Given the suggestions that the UK become "a part of" Ireland, Canada etc... I would therefore recommend that we rebuild our empire from scratch.

So.... you Frogs! Kindly hand over those French lands you unjustly hold to be the realm of France.... balls into gunstones... etc etc..

 

[Rob Lister]

Given the suggestions that the UK become "a part of" Ireland, Canada etc... I would therefore recommend that we rebuild our empire from scratch.

So.... you Frogs! Kindly hand over those French lands you unjustly hold to be the realm of France.... balls into gunstones... etc etc..

That's the spirit.

 

[Darat]

Doesn't the Queen still own Canada?

 

[Giz]

Given the suggestions that the UK become "a part of" Ireland, Canada etc... I would therefore recommend that we rebuild our empire from scratch.

So.... you Frogs! Kindly hand over those French lands you unjustly hold to be the realm of France.... balls into gunstones... etc etc..

Wasn't Henry V heir to the French King? And our present royals are Henry's heirs, so:

1) We own France
2) France owes us some Royal beheading

 

[Jon_in_london]

Wasn't Henry V heir to the French King? And our present royals are Henry's heirs, so:

...cheerily to sea!
The signs of war advance,
no King of England
if not King of France!

 

[CBL4]

As an American, I see three major problems with the EU:
1) The Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) is the single biggest obstacle to eliminating poverty in the world. Because of a vocal tiny majority, all EUians pay too much for food and African farmers are deprived of their obvious market.
2) The euro structure is not suited to a group with great differences in economic situations - e.g. a single economic policy cannot suit Germany, France, the UK and Slovenia, Czech Republic.
3) The EUracry does not represent the people or a sensible economic policy. They do not understand how their elitist, socialist, statist structure retards growth. This view is shared by some of "old EU" countries such as France and Germany. Due to stupid policies, they have poor economic growth. But instead making significant reforms, they want to put the sam straightjacket on the rest of the EU.

The new EU constititution does not address any of these problems and is likely to make them worse not better.

The reason I like the EU is that is a great incentive for prospective members to become liberal democracies. For this reason alone, I am a fan of the EU. It is (unintentionally) one of the greatest forces for freedom in the world.

CBL

 

[Darat]

As an American, I see three major problems with the EU:
1) The Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) is the single biggest obstacle to eliminating poverty in the world. Because of a vocal tiny majority, all EUians pay too much for food and African farmers are deprived of their obvious market.

It's not just African farmers but any farmer outside the EU hoping to export to the EU. And I totally agree the CAP should be scrapped, not reformed but totally scrapped. (However as a caveat it would also be useful if the USA stopped subsidising their farmers, I remember reading of a figure of around $95 billion of USA agricultural subsidies in 2001...)

2) The euro structure is not suited to a group with great differences in economic situations - e.g. a single economic policy cannot suit Germany, France, the UK and Slovenia, Czech Republic.

Yet the differences between EU member states is probably no more then the difference between USA states and the USA works with a single currency, I don't see anything wrong intrinsically with a single currency approach for EU member states.

3) The EUracry does not represent the people or a sensible economic policy.

This needs splitting out, there is a democratically elected representative parliament, the problem is in what it is meant to do!

They do not understand how their elitist, socialist, statist structure retards growth.

This is an opinion that is often aired yet I don’t know if it is ever possible to objectively support it?

This view is shared by some of "old EU" countries such as France and Germany. Due to stupid policies, they have poor economic growth. But instead making significant reforms, they want to put the sam straightjacket on the rest of the EU.

Germany and France want what they believe is best for their respective country, I don’t expect anything else from the German or French leaders just as I don’t expect anything less from my elected leaders.

(Don’t forget the leaders of all the EU member states are democratically chosen.)

The new EU constititution does not address any of these problems and is likely to make them worse not better.

Oh I doubt it will make matters worse, in fact I think it will help stimulate the economy of all member states, well at least the legal services section of the economy! It is an abysmal, totally ludicrous document that insults the meaning of a "constitution”.

The reason I like the EU is that is a great incentive for prospective members to become liberal democracies. For this reason alone, I am a fan of the EU. It is (unintentionally) one of the greatest forces for freedom in the world.

CBL

Also it may be a one of the significant reasons that "Europe" hasn’t dragged the rest of the world into another bloody and terrible "World War".

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Darat
It's not just African farmers but any farmer outside the EU hoping to export to the EU. And I totally agree the CAP should be scrapped, not reformed but totally scrapped. (However as a caveat it would also be useful if the USA stopped subsidising their farmers, I remember reading of a figure of around $95 billion of USA agricultural subsidies in 2001...)

You are correct about it not being limited to Africans. I was just using the poorest and closest example. The US agriculture programs are not as harmful. They are smaller and many of them are designed to limit production. I totally agree they should be scrapped but it will not happen until the CAP is scrapped as well.

Yet the differences between EU member states is probably no more then the difference between USA states and the USA works with a single currency, I don't see anything wrong intrinsically with a single currency approach for EU member states

The wealth ratios are totally different. If we take decent sized countries in the EU, the GDP/capita range is $5000 in Poland to $43,000 in Norway. In the US the range is $22,000 in Mississippi to $41,000 in Connecticut. EU has 8 to 1 ratio while the US is less than 2 to 1. What can work in the US may very well fail in the EU (and visa versa).

This [elitist, socialist, statist structure retards growth]
is an opinion that is often aired yet I don’t know if it is ever possible to objectively support it?

Germany and France (the EU leaders) have rigid employment rules and high taxes. Ireland, for example, has grown fast in a large part due to a more business friendly environment. Several of the new EUians are following suit.

France and Germany's reaction to this has been to enact EU-wide laws to hamper business (IMO) in order to prevent other countries from following Ireland example. If you want a concrete example, tax "harmonization" is the clearest. The high tax countries want to prevent other countries from having lower taxes.

Germany and France want what they believe is best for their respective country, I don’t expect anything else from the German or French leaders just as I don’t expect anything less from my elected leaders.

You are right about the citizens but I very much doubt that you are right about the leaders. The leaders want to remain in power and will do what that takes regardless of what it does to the country. I admit that there is a strong correlation but Chirac and Shroeder are more concerned with re-election than the country. Of course, this is true about almost all politicians.

CBL

 

[PogoPedant]

The wealth ratios are totally different. If we take decent sized countries in the EU, the GDP/capita range is $5000 in Poland to $43,000 in Norway. In the US the range is $22,000 in Mississippi to $41,000 in Connecticut. EU has 8 to 1 ratio while the US is less than 2 to 1. What can work in the US may very well fail in the EU (and visa versa).

Yeah, but if you compare Florida and Quebec....

Norway is still not a part of the Union. (And also not decent-sized. We're smaller than a medium sized american city.)

 

[Kerberos]

The reason I like the EU is that is a great incentive for prospective members to become liberal democracies. For this reason alone, I am a fan of the EU. It is (unintentionally) one of the greatest forces for freedom in the world.

CBL

I agree that the rapid democratic progress in Eastern Europe and Turkey is one of the greatest achievements of the EU, but I'm at a loss to why you call this unintentional. Democracy, respect for human rights and a working market economy are explicit criteria for joining the EU. Also you might consider why, if the EU is such a bad thing for its members, why the prospective members actually want to join.

 

[CBL4]

agree that the rapid democratic progress in Eastern Europe and Turkey is one of the greatest achievements of the EU, but I'm at a loss to why you call this unintentional.

Perhaps I am wrong but I have not seen it mentioned by EUreaucrats. In fact, I have seen the opposite applied e.g. they are not liberal democracies now, so therefore they cannot apply. This certainly seems to be one of the arguments against Turkey's membership instead of realizing that Turkey cannot join until it meet the Copenhagen criteria.

One side note, the Economist had an article on Turkey which quoted a cab driver who more or less said "It does not really matter if we get EU membership because we have already benefited so much from reforms to try to become a member."

Also you might consider why, if the EU is such a bad thing for its members, why the prospective members actually want to join.

All of the new members of the EU are poor, unstable countries. For them membership is a guarantee of stability and freedom not to mention access to EU markets. For stable, rich countries, it is not such a boon which is why neither Norway nor Switzerland are members.

[/quote]Norway is still not a part of the Union. (And also not decent-sized. We're smaller than a medium sized american city.)[/quote]Thank, I had forgotten that Norway rejected EU membership. As far as size, I was eliminating Luxemburg which is just a small city. I will admit I was surprise that Norway's population was only 4.5 million.

CBL

CBL

 

[Kerberos]

Perhaps I am wrong but I have not seen it mentioned by EUreaucrats. In fact, I have seen the opposite applied e.g. they are not liberal democracies now, so therefore they cannot apply. This certainly seems to be one of the arguments against Turkey's membership instead of realizing that Turkey cannot join until it meet the Copenhagen criteria.

Who are EUreaucrats? Are you suggesting that the professional bureaucrats in Brussels are making decisions or authoritative pronouncements on that level? I did hear some politicians in the recent election for the Europian parliament say that Turkey cannot join because they aren't a liberal democracies now (and never will be cause they Muslims and Islam is a terror organization and incompatible with democracy), but most of them said that they could join once they fulfilled the Cobenhagen criteria. They did say it in a different manner though, from the Social Liberal and the Socialistic people's party who said it as you (and I) mean it, to the Socialist and Liberals who said it more in the manner of "don't worry they won't join until they fulfil the criteria and that's going to take a long time and might never happen". If we look at the official EU-machinery I'd say they're very much engaged in transforming the aspirants, the Commission releases annual reports on the progress of the aspirants, and there are running negotiations/conversations on what steps need to be taken.

One side note, the Economist had an article on Turkey which quoted a cab driver who more or less said "It does not really matter if we get EU membership because we have already benefited so much from reforms to try to become a member."

Not an entirely unique position, the Turkish Prime Minister also said that if the EU choose to refuse Turkey membership he'd continue the reform process because it was in itself good for Turkey.

All of the new members of the EU are poor, unstable countries. For them membership is a guarantee of stability and freedom not to mention access to EU markets. For stable, rich countries, it is not such a boon which is why neither Norway nor Switzerland are members.

The reason that all the new members are poor and unstable, is that all the rich stable countries who want to join already have. Switzerland has a long tradition of not joining International Organisations so the fact that they haven't joined doesn't mean much. As for Norway they have an "association agreement" with the EU which, IIRC, basically mean that they implement most of the EU's decisions about the inner market, just like if they were members, but don't get to vote on any of it (perhaps PogoPedant can correct me if I'm wrong). Hardly the same as being truly independent of the EU and besides their Oil-wealth puts them in a somewhat different position than most other states. I also believe that Switzerland has some sort of association agreement with the EU, but I don't know if it works the same way.

BTW I think that your notion that the EU promotes socialism, is basically a misconception brought on by the fact that Europe is generally more left-wing than the US. The EU however is generally regarded as a liberalizing (in the European sense of the word) influence within Europe.

 

[Darat]

(I would just like to make a public note that I have now read the entire proposed EU constitution. Hopefully most of the stains in the carpet from when my brain exploded will clean up.)

I will now say categorically the proposed EU constitution is the biggest load of codswallop I have ever read. It is an obscenity, it is not a constitution, anyone involved in its compilation should never be allowed near a word processor again for the rest of their life.

There is absolutely no way I can vote for it.

 

[CBL4]

Who are EUreaucrats? Are you suggesting that the professional bureaucrats in Brussels are making decisions or authoritative pronouncements on that level?

I guess I should be more precise. I read term somewhere and I liked it. It's not a good excuse for sloppiness.

I am talking mostly about the politicians and appointees who work for the EU. Not surprisely, they love the EU and want it to expand in scope and size which, not so coincidentally, also expands their feifdom. In general, government officials love government and want to keep expanding it especially their own area.

The way the EU works, many of these people are immune from the people for several reasons. Many are appointees. Much of the EU stuff happens behind closed doors. The power in the EU is split between so many different people (president of countries, EU Parliment, appointees, European Commission, The Council of the EU, European commission, etc) Often EU elections have low turnout and are seen as referendum on national leaders not EU politics. And most of all, people don't really care about the EU.

* - I defy you to describe the functions and members of the EU Parliment, European Commission, The Council of the EU and the European Council without doing research.

CBL

 

[Skeptic]

More seriously, I am on principle suspicious of any beaurocracy-run, top-heavy, unaccontable (or barely-accountable) organization like the European Union's leadership.

The problem is that no matter what kind of constitution such a body has, the nature of things is that such organizations tends to become either useless (if it does not manage to gain real power) or dictatorial (if it does).

The USSR and the UN also had or have wonderful constitutions which promise lots of rights and freedoms to all and sundry, but in reality they were dictatorial or are useless.

 

[CapelDodger]

Wasn't Henry V heir to the French King? And our present royals are Henry's heirs, so:

1) We own France
2) France owes us some Royal beheading

Henry VII (Henry Twdr) broke that line and returned to the line of Richard II (died of melancholy at the hands of Bollingbroke) via the distaff side and some Welsh chancers. Then came the Stuarts and the Hanoverians, now calling themselves ze Vinsors, so perhaps the French have German kings.

By the way, we don't own anything. When monarchs rule, they own everything. It's good to be king.

 

[CapelDodger]

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

They really isn't an executive, as that would involve admitting the loss of sovereignty to openly. The whole project has become a mess of bureaucracy and lawyers. It is achieving things in the real world, and a clear statement of basic principles, as you say, would be an excellent thing. I'm sure it was meant to be that in the beginning, then the caveats and ifs-and-whyfores come in and it's bureaucracrat heaven. European idealists shoot into own feet. No surprised there, then.