New EU constitution, good for Britain?

Netko · Post by **Netko** » 2007-06-26 09:32am

From my little corner of Europe, I hope the modified constitution/treaty passes as soon as possible since there is a real possibility in '09/'10 of us getting to wait in the lobby until it passes despite finishing the membership negotiations.

Other then that, I agree with Olrik - a strong Europe is a good thing.

Darth Tanner · Post by **Darth Tanner** » 2007-06-26 09:37am

That's not an answer to my question. How about if I pose a well-written federalist EU constitution? What do you say then?

Then I'd likely support it, depending on what it included. However you can not tell me with a straight face that the CAP is going to be reformed or even removed whilst a single Frenchman still draws breath.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2007-06-26 09:41am

Darth Tanner wrote:
That's not an answer to my question. How about if I pose a well-written federalist EU constitution? What do you say then?
Then I'd likely support it, depending on what it included. However you can not tell me with a straight face that the CAP is going to be reformed or even removed whilst a single Frenchman still draws breath.

Since I doubt that the US Constitution says anything about agricultural rights, the issue is irrelevant. A US-style EU Constitution, which I'd also be for, wouldn't include CAP.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2007-06-26 09:41am

Darth Tanner wrote:
That's not an answer to my question. How about if I pose a well-written federalist EU constitution? What do you say then?
Then I'd likely support it, depending on what it included. However you can not tell me with a straight face that the CAP is going to be reformed or even removed whilst a single Frenchman still draws breath.

What does agricultural policy have to do with a constitution, which defines government structure?

Darth Tanner · Post by **Darth Tanner** » 2007-06-26 09:49am

To my knowledge the last proposed constitution had it in.

You are correct however that a US style constitution would not have it in, so yes I'd likely support it.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2007-06-26 10:02am

As I understand it, it is no longer a Constituion but a treaty between nations. Not quite the same in terms of impact and intent. Wouldn't the EU just be like an extension of NATO?

Also the EU Constitution which I read somewhere was at one point in the hundreds of pages needs an overhaul and an editor. The US Constitution is like 10 pages long and it has done well at governing an extremely successful nation for over 200 years. Where is all this extraneous language coming from? Why was there a debate about the Constitution including language on Christian origins? What does that have to do with governing in any way shape or form? Seems like the EU Constitution was not only a governing set of rules but also a bunch of mission statements and platitudes.

I would love to see the EU take off but it is disheartening to see these stumbles and starts in its final formation. It makes so much sense to someone on the outside looking in but I guess when you have nations that have been warring with each other for over 1000 years it can be difficult to form consensus.

I really hope this ends up working and doesn't end up being a series of watered down treaties.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2007-06-26 11:34am

Stravo wrote:As I understand it, it is no longer a Constituion but a treaty between nations. Not quite the same in terms of impact and intent. Wouldn't the EU just be like an extension of NATO?

No, the Constitution or Treaty, or whatever, proposed mainly simplify what already is in place due to previous treaties. Some mediatic changes are the figure of president of the EU, which would replace the present rotative structure of Presidency which makes a new president every 6 months out of one of the countries leader. The current President of the EU is Angelina Merkel, the next one will be the Portuguese PM, and so on. The current Presidency works closely together with the last one and the next one to further the stability of politics.

The EU is much, much more than an organization like NATO. To give you an idea of what it means to the living of a common individual, I moved to Munich without having to do any paperwork besides registering as a resident in the city, which gave me the right to vote (and be a candidate) in the local (up to State) and european elections. After 5 years of living here, I can apply automatically for German citizenship, without having to relinquish my original one. I drive with my original drivers license, which is permanently valid in all EU, and have my portuguese healthcare which is also valid in all EU. Which is why I can't stomach the bureaucracy bitching, since truly bureaucratic would have been making me apply in triplicate forms for a residence permit (to renew after a couple years, of course), a new drivers license, new healtcare, work permit, etc all costing €€ and time like it was ten years ago. I understand wishing and working for more efficient and transparent decision making processes, but for people working and traveling in the EU, life has never been so easy.

There's the free market and free borders, but it's more than that.

Also the EU Constitution which I read somewhere was at one point in the hundreds of pages needs an overhaul and an editor. The US Constitution is like 10 pages long and it has done well at governing an extremely successful nation for over 200 years. Where is all this extraneous language coming from? Why was there a debate about the Constitution including language on Christian origins? What does that have to do with governing in any way shape or form? Seems like the EU Constitution was not only a governing set of rules but also a bunch of mission statements and platitudes.

I plainly agree that it was an overlong and obscure text with too much in it. Here's a BBC take of it if you're interested.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2950276.stm

As for the Christian references, thank the Vatican and the Poles for the debate, but IIRC in the end the rational people told them to fuck off.

I really hope this ends up working and doesn't end up being a series of watered down treaties.

Time and patience

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2007-06-26 01:09pm

I like the EU in sofar as that it gave us the euro, it forced my country to scrap a bunch of old government monopolies and generallt liberalise itself, but sadly not all of the old monopolies where destroyed. Free movement and trade are definite plusses as well.

But I don't like the idea of people in Brüssels dictating Finlands social policies (unless they want to liberalise our laws, that I'm all for), what drugs we should ban or legalize, how hard our gun control should be, if we should monitor our people or save internet browsing habits for every person for several years (internet data retention act passed last year) etcetera etcetera.

To make it short, I want the EU to be primarly an economic block, not another america.

Zed Snardbody · Post by **Zed Snardbody** » 2007-06-26 02:05pm

The sense I get is that Europe is still fucking about with its Articles of Confederation. In 10 or 15 years I could imagine seeing a US style constitution creating a European State, or simply the EU saying "Fuck it, we're good" and being done with the EU evolution for the most part.

Its really interesting to watch. Seeing the great empires of the world, really able to strike down so many barriers and work together. The final stumbling block is 600 years of history for nations that built empires and ruled large portions of the globe, surrendering parts of their self governing nature to higher authority. Its like watching a world government try to take shape but on a smaller scale.

On the Euro issue. Are the people in the EU that dislike the Euro conspiracy nutters? It strikes me abit like the guys in the US who fear the UN and their black helicopters. I can't even by one Euro with a dollar, this bothers me deep down in my America gland!

Post by **Surlethe** » 2007-06-26 02:22pm

Zed Snardbody wrote:On the Euro issue. Are the people in the EU that dislike the Euro conspiracy nutters? It strikes me abit like the guys in the US who fear the UN and their black helicopters. I can't even by one Euro with a dollar, this bothers me deep down in my America gland!

Damn straight. I don't get the bitching and whining: the euro is actually stronger than the dollar, and it's moving into place to be the next world currency after the dollar finishes tanking.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2007-06-26 02:34pm

This thread is great, it is rare both sides of an argument throw about enough nonsense that I actually feel like ignoring the entire issue.

This new treaty is just the constitution via the back door (which I predicted over two years ago when the French voted no).

The difference being it isn't bringing a few advantages of the constitution (greater clarity, escape clause etc) and have some pathetic language in specifically to cater to the low brow distortions of the British tabloid press.

On the subject of the French, it isn't just Darth Tanner's opinion, he is correct (about the one time he is in the thread) a substantial number of them voted against the Constitution because they believed it was forcing Anglo-Saxon economics (i.e. less protectionism and interference) on them.

If the EU is about anything it is about liberalising and opening the member economies, the French stand in direct opposition to that.

They view the EU as a way to harness the rest of Europe to their aims, the Britsih view it as a way of facilitating inter-member endeavours.

Olrik your "my way of the high way" reasoning is exactly the sort of rhetoric which alienates from the EU, people can have differing views on what the EU is about than you and still have a valid case.

For you it might be about allowing free movement between countries but for the vast majority of people it influences their lives in other ways.

The Guid · Post by **The Guid** » 2007-06-26 02:55pm

This issue is very difficult for a regular newswatching liberal pro-European anti-New Labourite . On the one hand New labour is clearly trying to sneak what is largely like the former constitution into law because it will lose a referrendum. All its denials are hilariously new Labour. Keith Vaz on Channel 4 said something to the effect of:

"This isn't a constitution where we need a referrendum because if it was... we'd give you a referrendum!" (NOT DIRECT QUOTE, though lookup the transcripts for yourselves on Channel 4 if they do them).

On the other hand I like the EU, it's handy. All of the criticisms people have of it tend to be rather foolish on second inspection:

"The EU is really over beauracratic..." - This mostly stems from the fact that EU needs more translators than national governments which forces up the number of civil servants. It is also responsible for over 500 million people - who really thinks this can be done with less than the 30,000 civil servants they employ?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&ie ... ants&meta=

The British Government employs 500,000 on the other hand:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/civil_service.htm

"The EU will take away our sovereignty" - At the end of the day the UK has every right to pull out of the EU with a simple motion through its own national government. The fact that this would be monumentally stupid and have vast economic consequences does not change the fact that we can do it. Even if not in the EU the UK could not just stick two fingers up at Europe and expect to live happily ever after in economic terms.

"The EU will take away our national identity." - Go tell it to the Welsh or the Scottish that the UK has taken away their national identity - see if they like it.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2007-06-26 06:22pm

For you it might be about allowing free movement between countries but for the vast majority of people it influences their lives in other ways.

I am yet to see a valid case that doesn't involve a sense of nationalism fueled with strawmen about evil Brussels taking over our fluids and power. As The Guid says, for the imaginable future (and for that I mean hundreds of years) the question of national identity and being able to pull out is not even on the table. I can perfectly see reasons to disagree with many aspects of the common fishing, agricultural, etc policies, but I cannot understand how anyone can look at the EU's accomplishments and not see it as a good thing. If it's a character flaw of mine, so be it.

PS: and t's more than about free movement. It's like an american feels when he moves from New York to California. Wherever he is living or staying, he's a citizen of a great country.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2007-06-27 06:14am

Colonel Olrik wrote: Yes, it is. Because it would eliminate our agriculture in the process. While we can survive without ipods or even shoes made in China, we cannot survive without food. Which can quickly become unavailable for several reasons if we depend of imports.

Rubbish. My nations agriculture didnt evaporate overnight when we eliminated subsidies, nor did Australia's, to suggest that it would when there are mouths to feed is silly when you can do it with subsidies.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2007-06-27 12:00pm

Rubbish. My nations agriculture didnt evaporate overnight when we eliminated subsidies, nor did Australia's

You're rather far and isolated. Hungary's agriculture was wiped out, and there are a lot of other examples.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2007-06-27 08:18pm

Stas Bush wrote:
Rubbish. My nations agriculture didnt evaporate overnight when we eliminated subsidies, nor did Australia's
You're rather far and isolated. Hungary's agriculture was wiped out, and there are a lot of other examples.

Given that 90% of our agricultural produce is exported from our point of isolation, and we are doing better now that we ever did with subsidies I rather think our geographic isolation has nothing to do with it.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2007-06-28 08:18am

Given that 90% of our agricultural produce is exported from our point of isolation, and we are doing better now that we ever did with subsidies I rather think our geographic isolation has nothing to do with it.

Probably, but for Europe the situation is different. European states have ineffective agriculture, southern soils and the Third World easily make food with less costs.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2007-06-29 11:47pm

Stas Bush wrote:
Given that 90% of our agricultural produce is exported from our point of isolation, and we are doing better now that we ever did with subsidies I rather think our geographic isolation has nothing to do with it.
Probably, but for Europe the situation is different. European states have ineffective agriculture, southern soils

So why the hell do they over produce and flood {thats changing however} poorer nations with food below cost of production? Their is nothing wrong with EU agriculture, what is wrong is that they dont know how to farm without subsidies and are inefficient as a result.

and the Third World easily make food with less costs.

Not that it matters when heavily subsidised EU and US food swamps their markets and make their farming expensive by comaprison.