European Constitution: So it begins

[Spiffor]

The Spaniards have voted in favour of the European constitution by a very large margin (77%). However, the vote was characterized by a low turnout, of a bare 42%. The low turnout may have to do with the fact that the referendum was non-binding. However, I don't see the Parliamentarians voting against the treaty in any way.

From the BBC:

Spain voters approve EU charter
A clear majority of Spaniards have voted in favour of the European Union constitution in a referendum.

The blueprint for the EU's future was backed by 77% of voters, with 17% against, official figures showed.

Spain's prime minister hailed the result, but his opponents pointed to the low turnout of 42%.

It was the first of a series of European polls on the constitutional treaty, which must be ratified by all 25 EU member states to go into effect.

The deadline for ratification is November 2006.

Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero told reporters: "Today has been a great day for all Europeans".

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, who called Mr Zapatero to congratulate him, welcomed "the very clear 'yes' which Spain has given to a Europe which moves forward and which makes a difference, a Europe united in diversity".

Like most Spaniards, I'm pro-European - but it's the wrong time for a constitution
Pedro Schwartz
Spanish voter

The EU constitution is designed to streamline the EU's decision-making process after the bloc brought in 10 new members - mostly from central and eastern Europe - last May.

The BBC's Katya Adler, in Madrid, says the turnout was embarrassingly low for the Spanish prime minister, who had promised to set a shining example for the rest of Europe.

Critics said the government's information campaign had been glitzy - with football and film stars calling for a Yes - but did not do enough to inform voters about the content of the charter.

In a recent poll, nine out of 10 Spaniards admitted they had little idea what the EU constitution is about.

The referendum was non-binding, with parliament set to have the final say.

Voters were asked: "Do you approve the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe?"

Early voters in Madrid included King Juan Carlos, who cast his ballot at a school.

The EU constitution provides for the first EU president and foreign minister and incorporates certain fundamental rights into EU law.

Nine EU members have definitely said they will hold referendums, with two more countries undecided. The remainder are ratifying the treaty by a parliamentary vote.

Spain joined the EU in 1986, and has since benefited from generous EU subsidies.

It's so sad to see the first of a series of people lured into believing that this horrible constitution has merits . I really hope the Brits and the French will turn it down

[Provost Harrison]

We'll probably turn it down. Anything with the letters 'EU' over here gets turned down...

[Spiffor]

BBC article:
In a recent poll, nine out of 10 Spaniards admitted they had little idea what the EU constitution is about.

Duh. Have you merely seen the monster it is? Even the Preamble, supposedly understandable by all people, to the point that they dream of teaching it at school, is formulated in legalese. I'm not even mentioning the 470 other pages.

It takes a huge interest to know what the constitution is about, because it's really unaccessible for the ordinary person. That's why the voters will be very easy to manipulate on this one, because very few people can call on the bull**** of political parties. Anti-EU scaremongering will probably win in the UK, while pro-EU scaremongering will probably win in France.

In my own experience, pretty much everybody (French people) I talked to wrt the EU constitution told me that whatever the validity of my arguments, they'll vote for the constitution because otherwise, the EU would be shot down

Edit: I was wrong: the Constitution is not 260-pages long as I thought, but 200 pages long + 270 pages in the annex.

[Provost Harrison]

So what are the major problems with the EU constitution?

[Saras]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
We'll probably turn it down. Anything with the letters 'EU' over here gets turned down...

anEUrysm? EUlogy? dEUs ex machina ?

[alva]

Originally posted by Saras


anEUrysm? EUlogy? dEUs ex machina ?

PrEUvost HarrisEUn...

--------

So what are the major problems with the EU constitution?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
So what are the major problems with the EU constitution?

It changes precious little about what we have now. And this is the real problem.

You may ask "but how is it worse than what we have now?", and it's a good question. The EU constitution brings a few worse things (re-affirmation of free competition and liberal fanaticism as a constitutional principles), but this bad is balanced out by the few goods: The Charter of Fundamental rights will now have constitutional value, and there will be a Foreign Affairs guy.

Actually, I would have supported this Constitution if it hadn't been for one thing: to amend it, the agreement + ratification of every individual member-State is required. This constitution, as it is, will be extremely rigid and continue to suck until a major crisis manages to have all 25 (probably 29 in the future) Member States. This constitution crowns the very imperfect, bureaucratic, inefficient, antidemocratic EU we have now, for the decades to come. This constitution is a monument of complacency.

Why do I focus so much on what the constitution should be, rather than on what it actually is? Very simply, the fact that we are deciding on a constitution is a historical opportunity. One we probably won't have in decades or centuries. The moment when a constitution is written is much more conducive for bringing in the serious changes the EU needs.

You may say "Sure, you want a Commie EU and so do I. But let's face it, it won't happen anytime soon. Why shouldn't we settle with this imperfect but not-that-terrible document?" Actually, my worry is not so much about creating a Commie EU. My worry is about creating a functional and democratic EU, that respects the wishes of the people, rather than being stuck in a quagmire of bureaucracy and constitutional rigidity.

Currently, the EU's decision processes are horribly complex, to the point that a layman is completely lost. Besides, there are so many come-and-goes between the Three institutions that any legal act takes years to be taken. This bureaucracy has a cost, and quite an ugly one. IIRC, running costs are the third highest spending of the EU, after agriculture and infrastructure.

It is possible to streamline the decision process, so that it can be (1) more efficient, (2) understood by the people and (3) accountable. Such could be done, for example, by having a Commission that is elected by the people (even indirectly, through the EuroParl), or by giving more power to the Parliament. Fairly simple to do. The US has such a stremlined decision process, and it's barely more complex to grasp than the power-structure of a big city. (Don't get me wrong: the issues at hand are far more complex, but the power-structure is not that much).

You may object "The EU is not ready for this. My own British fellow subjects would kill rather than give up their sovereignity to the EP". That's perfectly right. But again, this constitution must not be looked for what little it achieves here and now. It must be looked as the handkerchiefs that will bind us for the decades to come. One day, the Brits will generally tolerate the idea of giving up some extent of power to the EP (after all, they already did for some matters). However, on that day, the adamant constitution won't change, because Malta or Poland will disagree. Because of the obsessiveness of a fraction of the population, we'll remain stuck in the undemocratic, inefficient and bloated decision-process we have now.

There's another argument. You may think I'm exxagerating when I speak in such harsh words of the EU's decision process. But there's a reason as to why it sucks so much, and that's because it's a bastard system. At the beginning, the EEC had far fewer competences than today. It was a fairly simple thing: representatives from 6 countries sat at a table, and discussed an issue with the technical guidance of a Commission of experts.
Since then, the EEC/EU has grown considerably in power. The once-token EuroParl has been granted some actual (but not decisive) weight in the decision process. The Commission has become much more political, especially now that it has actual executive powers. The council, from 6 States, has become midboggingly big with 25 States. The inertia of all this is fricking huge, and the system we have is completely incoherent. It is merely pile upon pile of new bureaucratic arrangements. The role of a constitution is precisely to give a solid base of the decision-making processes, with its general goals and its general limitations.

The EU constitution dramatically falls short in this regard. Rather than having a new, fresh look on our decision process, we keep the same old. Heck, even the idea of making the President of the Commission elected by the people has been shot down. Remeber how transparent and democratic the election of Barroso was? With the EU constitution, you'll have more of the same for the decades to come.

---

My opposition to the EU constitution is not only a rant about how the EU will suck for decades. After all, what's a few decades in millenia of a history full of wars and blood? The problem is that I think the EU is seriosuly threatened by this constitution. As I said above, it is a monument of complacency. And the EU cannot grow complacent.

As the EU sees its competences expanding, it grows also more and more unpopular. Many populations (not just yours) criticizes the EU for putting its nose in their national affairs, where it doesn't belong. Even in France, which is traditionally pro-Europe, our hunters all ***** about the EU's environmental policies, and they find an echo among all those who long for the rural lifestyle. The East-Europeans wanted to join the EU to have freebies like the Spaniards or Irish did, but they have found themselves forced to accepting plenty of policies they disliked.
And the economic fanaticism of the constitution will only make it worse. Want quality public services? Too bad, the EU tells you that you can't subsidize your utilities, unless you subsidize every profiteer as well. Want your workplace to remain in your city? Too bad, you should have worked for 1€ per hour like these guys at the other end of Europe. Whether you agree or not with these policies, it is a bad idea to make them constitutional, because economy should be about pragmatism. Whether you agree with these policies, you can see their unpopularity. And it's always a bad idea, for the viability of a political order, that its constitution demands unpopular policies on a systematic and decade-long basis.

If nothing is done to curb the EU's unpopularity, the EU will implode from within, after having overcome all the crises that came from without. 1980's-1990's "Uruguay Round" of trade negociations saw the US get everything it wanted because of our divisions; our trade policy is now completely merged. 1993's monetary crisis should have been a death blow for the EEC; instead, we turned it in the EU and created the Euro. 2003's diplomatic crisis should have confused the EU for years; instead, we are having a common policy with Iran and Washington even speaks of backing us.

In the past, our leaders were always the ones who responded to an outside crisis to make the EU stronger. But now, it's the same leaders who are complacent. With their outstanding support to the EU constitution, they are the ones who remove the tools they could use against the EU's growing unpopularity. And that's why we need a wake up call.That's why we need to say a firm NO to the constitution.

[Maniac]

Let's bring some FACTS in this discussion:

The European budget is one percent of the EU GDP.
50% of that goes to agriculture.
30% to structural, cohesion, regional funds etc...
The remaining 20% are divided over a lot of posts such as Erasmus student exchange program, develoment aid, research subsidies, and so on, with the administration being one of them.

The European bureaucracy doesn't cost that much at all. It more or less has as much employees as a middle-sized European city.


Nine innovations in the constitution:

1) There will be a European president being chairman of the European Council for a period of 2.5 years.

2) There will be a European minister of foreign affairs. Appointed by the heads of state and government, so a strengthening of the intergovernmental side. The first one will be Javier Solana.

3) The power of the European Parliament increases in matters such as eg agriculture. The co-decision procedure becomes the general rule. This is of course a strengthening of the supranational side.

4) With one million signatures you can force the EU to hold a referendum and force them to take action on a certain matter.

5) Countries have to assist each other when attacked military or struck by a terrorist attack or natural disaster.

6) There will be a charter of fundamental rights in the constitution. You know, the classical political, social and cultural rights.

7) National parliaments will be more involved, but not in a way that they could systematically block the working of the Union.

8) The vote weighing in the Council of Ministers will be simplified. Currently we work with the system of the Nice treaty. With the constitution treaty a proposal would be accepted if 55% of the member states containing 65% of the population agree with it.

9) The Commission becomes smaller starting in 2014. Then the number of commissioners will be 2/3 of the # of member states. So there will be a rotation principle.

Actually, I would have supported this Constitution if it hadn't been for one thing: to amend it, the agreement + ratification of every individual member-State is required. This constitution, as it is, will be extremely rigid and continue to suck until a major crisis manages to have all 25 (probably 29 in the future) Member States.

That has also been the way for all previous treaties. (Remember: basically the constitution is just a treaty given a fancy name). The last twenty years there have been (or will be after the constitution is accepted) no less than five treaty changes: The Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty, the Amsterdam Treaty, the Nice Treaty and now the constitutional treaty. I'd be very surprised if there won't follow other treaty changes. It's a work in progress, and a gradual step in the right direction.

[Pekka]

to EU constitution. It's really nice that some people actually have a vote on it.. binding or non-binding. We will never vote for it. Because there's a real chance it wouldn't go through at all. So our communist leaders think it's better not to let the people have a say on this. I punch them in their fat guts and spit on their childrens faces. A self extracting masturbation orgy has started in the TRUE EURO and Euronite communities, but we know they nothing but stinky wine drinkers who prolly will listen some letf wing party songs and cream their pants over the swim trunk picture of david hasselhoff, and that's what they are. Hasselhoffs. May the die in pain.

[Kuciwalker]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Spiffor
You may ask "but how is it worse than what we have now?", and it's a good question. The EU constitution brings a few worse things (re-affirmation of free competition and liberal fanaticism as a constitutional principles), but this bad is balanced out by the few goods: The Charter of Fundamental rights will now have constitutional value, and there will be a Foreign Affairs guy.[/q]

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Maniac
1) There will be a European president being chairman of the European Council for a period of 2.5 years.

2) There will be a European minister of foreign affairs. Appointed by the heads of state and government, so a strengthening of the intergovernmental side. The first one will be Javier Solana.

3) The power of the European Parliament increases in matters such as eg agriculture. The co-decision procedure becomes the general rule. This is of course a strengthening of the supranational side.

4) With one million signatures you can force the EU to hold a referendum and force them to take action on a certain matter.

5) Countries have to assist each other when attacked military or struck by a terrorist attack or natural disaster.

6) There will be a charter of fundamental rights in the constitution. You know, the classical political, social and cultural rights.

7) National parliaments will be more involved, but not in a way that they could systematically block the working of the Union.

8) The vote weighing in the Council of Ministers will be simplified. Currently we work with the system of the Nice treaty. With the constitution treaty a proposal would be accepted if 55% of the member states containing 65% of the population agree with it.

9) The Commission becomes smaller starting in 2014. Then the number of commissioners will be 2/3 of the # of member states. So there will be a rotation principle.

This doesn't deny anything of what I said. I mentioned the two main news (EU foreign minister and Charter of Fundamental Rights).

The others are adjustments of a decision-making process that remains more of the same. If you're so keen of small technical ameliorations, you may also mention that the constitution makes all previous agreements void, removing potential compatibility problems between treaties. These unsignificant changes to the way the EU works is precisely what I cal a monument of complacency. Thanks for helping me making my point.

That has also been the way for all previous treaties. (Remember: basically the constitution is just a treaty given a fancy name). The last twenty years there have been (or will be after the constitution is accepted) no less than five treaty changes: The Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty, the Amsterdam Treaty, the Nice Treaty and now the constitutional treaty. I'd be very surprised if there won't follow other treaty changes. It's a work in progress, and a gradual step in the right direction.

All of those which you cited were new treaties. While the difference between creating a new treaty and modifying one is not that significant, the fact that we'll have to amend an existing document rather than create a new one will make it slightly more difficult to change things. The Statu quo is a powerful beacon when you're striving for unanimity.

That's why the Nice treaty was such a failure. And it's precisely in the light of Nice's failure that the European leaders decided to create a convention about the "Future of Europe". Hundreds of people from all of Europe spent several years trying to give a vision for the future. What are the results? A vision? A common goal for which we should thrive? An common understanding of what the EU should be? A cohesive decision-making progress? None of that. The results of the Convention on the "Future of Europe" is a technical document that makes marginal modifications, and two significant modifications.

It's a failure. Let's admit to call it like that, and let's go to the drawing board once again. If we willfully swallow this failure, we'll doom any attempt at seriously pondering the "big picture" for our Union, while the anti-European populisms will continue to rage and eventually threaten to tear it down.

[Spiffor]

It's a work in progress, and a gradual step in the right direction.

The reason I oppose it is precisely because I consider the constitution to be a blocking point, and not a "gradual step" as you put it.

For a long time, I favored the Constitution because I believed it would be a gradual step indeed. But with the unanimity rule, now that we are 25, it is almost impossible to make any significant change. You mentioned the previous treaties... The last really significant treaty was Maastricht, when there were 12 negociators. From then on, all new treaties were slight modifications of the Maastrichtian order. Nice was especially pitiful, because with so many negociating countries, it was impossible to find any meaningful consensus. The result of Nice was basically a power distribution that let everyone unsatisfied, and the statement "we do have a problem, let's do something about it by calling a convention".

With the unanimity rule (which is extremely unlikely to be modified), modifications will be more and more difficult, inertial, and meaningless as we get new members.

Again, if this was a document for the here and now, it would be about tolerable. It's indeed a very small step, and changes little as it is. However, if you consider the writing of a constitution as a unique historical opportunity to bring serious change, this text is a horrible waste. Since the normal way of things won't change our institutions any significantly (and I suppose you agree with me on the topics of inefficiency and democratic deficit), we must seize this unique opportunity.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Pekka
to EU constitution. It's really nice that some people actually have a vote on it.. binding or non-binding. We will never vote for it. Because there's a real chance it wouldn't go through at all. So our communist leaders think it's better not to let the people have a say on this.

That's funny, because my Communist Party is strongly in favour of the referendum

A self extracting masturbation orgy has started in the TRUE EURO and Euronite communities, but we know they nothing but stinky wine drinkers who prolly will listen some letf wing party songs and cream their pants over the swim trunk picture of david hasselhoff, and that's what they are. Hasselhoffs. May the die in pain.

Almost all establishment parties in Europe, right and left, support the Constitution. That you are denied your right to vote on this issue is not due to the fact your leader are "Communists" but simply because your establishment political class fears the voters don't vote like they want to. It's a commonplace trait among politicians, right and left.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
That's funny, because my Communist Party is strongly in favour of the referendum

Because it would succeed, in France?

[Pekka]

No WAY? Wait a minute...

"Because there's a real chance it wouldn't go through at all."

I said that myself earlier so no prize to you.

What is that called, that is called dictatorTRUEUROcommunstEuronite behaviour. 'We don't want people voting on it,it might turn out otherwise!'... These kind of leaders should be executed for being retards, power is in here, not in there, so they should start respecting that. Damn stinkign euronites should all die, they're nothing but stupid smelly fatso bastards.