UK to hold Referendum on EU "Constitution"

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Verres
Has anyone actually read the constitution? I know its been published, but its meant to be around 200 pages or something and as much as i may pretend to be a concerned and well-informed citizen, i really dont have the time or energy at the minute.

If anyone could give me a condensed version of what im going to be voting on, it would be much appreciated

Oh yeah, you mean the original purpose of this thread... what exactly is the UK referendum all about anyways?

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
No one cares, its just that we all like to think and say (even in North America) that the EU will somehow eclipse the US militarily and economically, when this is just simply not true.

Maybe economically, depending on how you count, but surely not militarily. Speaking for myself, I'm happy if we're strong enough to keep others from bullying us, but weak enough to keep us from bullying others

[GePap]

Hey Jimmy, add a link to your numbers, cause the US does NOT have 6% more of the world economy than the EU-specially not today with an expanded EU.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Verres
Has anyone actually read the constitution?

Only the first 60 pages of the final draft. It's mostly the unification of all our treaties in a single document. The only article that interests me is how the constitution will be amended. Sadly, I haven't found it.

I don't know what will be the text submitted to the British people. I doubt it will be the final draft, and I expect it to be the post-haggling text all countries will tolerate.

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
Spiffor: All your points make sense and are valid, but it seems to me like the major problems you are addressing are about harmonizing the governments of individual member states, but what I'm asking is WHY should a country go through all this trouble when the same ends could be achieved through economic and human rights agreements, rather than full blown poltical unification. Like, Canada and the US can have NAFTA and various other treaties, and we both benefit, but you don't see us creating the North American Union or something along those lines.

Why do you equate the EU with a "full blown political unification"?! Does membership in the EU result in the dissolution of national parliaments / armies / sovereign territories?
The EU gradually and partially tweaks national sovereignty, but only in certain issue areas and only so far as all member states have agreed. Only the first pillar of the EU, the European Economic Union, is supranational, meaning that the member states have given up a part (!) of their sovereignty. The Common Foreign & Security Policy (CFSP, the second pillar) and JHA (Justice and Home Affairs (JHA, the third pillar) are strictly intergovernmental, meaning that states cooperate, but do not give up their sovereingty (every state has a veto power).

Basically, the EU is a complex accumulation of treaties and agreements. You already said that many of these "economic and human rights agreements" are useful and desirable. Why do you want to implement them by countless bilateral treaties instead by membership in a formal organization? It is so much easier to do this multilateral.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Stop letting power in the hands of the slow, inefficient, non-accountable, and egoistically minded individual governments. Leave the decisions be taken by a much more efficient European Parliament, that is accountable to the population
Of course, these decisions should only be the competences of the EU, not of national governments at home.

So you think by removing some authority to a supranational institution is going to make it MORE accountable to the people? Interesting....

ElTigre: Its not full blown YET, but that is the ultimate goal for the future. But my point is how does it benefit individual members to give up ANY sovereignty at all. This has yet to be answered.

Think of my question this way. I'm a country looking to join a union. You are a salesman for the EU and you want me to join, while a saleman for the Banana Union wants me too. Why should I join the EU, give me a sales pitch that explicitly says why I will be better off for giving up certain national powers to you.

Basically, the EU is a complex accumulation of treaties and agreements.

And in English, we call this a government.

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Only the first 60 pages of the final draft. It's mostly the unification of all our treaties in a single document. The only article that interests me is how the constitution will be amended. Sadly, I haven't found it.

The constitution becomes effective if it is ratified by ALL member states. However, there is no deadline and it is unclear what happens if it is not ratified in all countries. The European Council would then decide what to do (second vote, changing the constitution,...).

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
So you think by removing some authority to a supranational institution is going to make it MORE accountable to the people? Interesting....

Of course, if the supranational institutions are democratic.

Currently, the intergovernmental bargainings are completely anti-democratic: the bargainiers are bureaucrats, and they remain at their post even when the local voters oust a government. They are neither accountable to their national parliament, nor to the European one. Sometimes a national Parliament gives its opinion of an issue currently bargained, but such opinion is ignored by the bargainers, unless they strengthen their own aims.

We basically have a bunch of high civil servants taking all the important economic decisions for us, without any transparency, without any accountability.

I take a supranational Parliament over this intergovernmental shady bunch any day.

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
So you think by removing some authority to a supranational institution is going to make it MORE accountable to the people? Interesting....

If you have the choice between a city-wide mob, and a country-wide Parliament to take political decisions, which do you hold for more accountable? The local layer, or the democratic one?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
Think of my question this way. I'm a country looking to join a union. You are a salesman for the EU and you want me to join, while a saleman for the Banana Union wants me too. Why should I join the EU, give me a sales pitch that explicitly says why I will be better off for giving up certain national powers to you.

I happen not to think we are in a Union of clients who only think of Europe as a money machine. I would never try to convince a country that has a client mentality. Let them go mess with the Banana Union instead.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Of course, if the supranational institutions are democratic.

Currently, the intergovernmental bargainings are completely anti-democratic: the bargainiers are bureaucrats, and they remain at their post even when the local voters oust a government. They are neither accountable to their national parliament, nor to the European one. Sometimes a national Parliament gives its opinion of an issue currently bargained, but such opinion is ignored by the bargainers, unless they strengthen their own aims.

We basically have a bunch of high civil servants taking all the important economic decisions for us, without any transparency, without any accountability.

I take a supranational Parliament over this intergovernmental shady bunch any day.


If you have the choice between a city-wide mob, and a country-wide Parliament to take political decisions, which do you hold for more accountable? The local layer, or the democratic one?

Ok, so why not fix your own governments instead of trying to scrap them for a new one? And doesn't the the new EU government run the same risk of shadiness and corruption as the old national ones did? Afterall, its basically the same people running the show... just under different titles and in different cities.

I happen not to think we are in a Union of clients who only think of Europe as a money machine. I would never try to convince a country that has a client mentality. Let them go mess with the Banana Union instead.

In an ideal world its not like that, but we all know what kind of world this is. The UK, or any other country, will not go further unless they feel they have something to gain... and this is not an unreasonable expectation. This is why prior to the EU, pro-EU representatives went to different European countries and hyped it up... otherwise where would the drive be to join?

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
Its not full blown YET, but that is the ultimate goal for the future.

Really? And that is written where? Integration is the general direction of the EU, yes, but that does not mean that a "full blown" political union is the ultimate aim. The EU may end up as something in between a federation of sovereign nations and a federal state. The point is that this process is neither inevitable nor will it happen without the consent of the participating states.

But my point is how does it benefit individual members to give up ANY sovereignty at all. This has yet to be answered.

Think of my question this way. I'm a country looking to join a union. You are a salesman for the EU and you want me to join, while a saleman for the Banana Union wants me too. Why should I join the EU, give me a sales pitch that explicitly says why I will be better off for giving up certain national powers to you.

1. Because economic integration cannot go beyond a certain point if it isn't backed up by the transfer of national sovereignty to central institutions. Example: The EURO and the European Central Bank.

2. Because unifying the European economic area (not just trade agreements, but matching company laws, intellectual and industrial property rights, interest rates, ...) fosters economic growth.

3. Because the EU can be stronger than the sum of its parts in the international arena. Example: The EU has a seat in the WTO, and not the member states, giving Europe perhaps less leverage than the US, but more than Japan. However, the EU can only use this leverage if the bonds between the member states cannot be loosened. Supranational integration prevents disunity and frictions. ( I know, I know: there are still countless conflicts within the EU at the moment...)

And in English, we call this a government.

The UN is an accumulation of treaties and agreements, too. Is it a government?
My dictionary tells me that there is a difference between linkage / interweavement / integration and unification.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
The armies of the EU nations combined are the 2nd most powerful military on earth.

1) The most expensive army in the field is the one that's second best

2) It still can't compete with the US.

The combined EU's GDP is the same size, and soon bigger (EU expanding) than that of the US.

Actually, IIRC it's a few trillion smaller.

[Kuciwalker]

Solution:
Stop letting power in the hands of the slow, inefficient, non-accountable, and egoistically minded individual governments. Leave the decisions be taken by a much more efficient European Parliament, that is accountable to the population.

I await with eagerness the day when Europeans argue over "states' rights"

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn And in English, we call this a government.

Nope, because treaties can be withdrawn from. You can't withdraw from a law.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Nope, because treaties can be withdrawn from. You can't withdraw from a law.

You can scrap laws.

[Kuciwalker]

Only the authority that passed a law (or a higher authority) can repeal it. A state cannot "withdraw" from a law passed by Congress.