European Constitution: So it begins

[Pekka]

You know they call it the true democracy, but you don't even get to vote on it. What a POS leadership we have and what a POS deal this is going to be. They don't even... I wonder if that is translated in Finnish yet, I bet it isn't. That's my guess. We don't get the memo.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Pekka
I wonder if that is translated in Finnish yet, I bet it isn't.

Sopimus Euroopan perustuslaista

You may want to criticize the constitution on its own flaws (and it doesn't lack them), rather than on weak arguments that are so easily beaten.

[Pekka]

I haven't even started beating on them yet. And some time ago that wasn't available in Finnish. SOmeone must of gone crazy and translated 'yeah those hairy northern bastards say they want one too but I wasn't sure they were drooling so much and looking violent and drunk NGGHHH' you know htis is just crap that's what it is. It's not the fault of the EU that we don't get to vote on it. It's the fault of OUR leadership that is totally communist POS. Half of them were spying on DDR in the 70s anyway, you don't think so? It's the truth I'm not making this **** up. SO there are the sympathies they should ****ing die, that's all I have to say about it.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Because it would succeed, in France?

The French Communist Party opposes the constitution, on grounds different to mine (I emphasize the fact that it's extremely rigid, they emphasize the fact that it's a crappy text to begin with).

That, and the fact that my party has always supported making our democracy more participative, i.e. has always liked referenda.

[chequita guevara]

What the hell is going into that thing? All you need is a government framework and a bill of rights. That shouldn't take more than a few pages.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What the hell is going into that thing? All you need is a government framework and a bill of rights. That shouldn't take more than a few pages.

"PART III — THE POLICIES AND FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION" P. 55-186

Edit: random tidbit from the middle of Part III:

Article III-240
1. In the case of transport within the Union, discrimination which takes the form of carriers charging different rates and imposing different conditions for the carriage of the same goods over the same transport links on grounds of the Member State of origin or of destination of the goods in question shall be prohibited.

And no, I didn't chose it on purpose

[alva]

Pope John Paul II publicly expressed his disappointment on Sunday (20 June) over the fact that the Constitution makes no reference to Christianity

Speaking to pilgrims gathered in St. Peter's Square on Sunday, Pope John Paul said that Europe's Christian roots could not be forgotten, and was upset that the EU leaders failed to mention Christianity in the Constitution text.

"One does not cut the roots to one's birthright," the pontiff said.

He also went on to publicly praise Poland, his home country, for trying until the last minute to get a reference included in the treaty.

The Pope, along with representatives of other European churches and several governments, campaigned strongly for a mention of Europe's Christian roots in the preamble of the European Constitution.

Others, with France and Belgium at the forefront, fought to keep the text free from any specific religious reference.

The preamble to the Constitution says that the EU draws its "inspiration from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, from which have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, democracy, equality, freedom and the rule of law".

http://www.grondweteuropa.nl/9326000/1f/j4nvgjok6iwsea9_j9vvgjnazrhmix9/vgrdop8qiatc?nctx=vgokjhior4nz

Looks like I'll be voting "yes".

[DAVOUT]

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

I cant see any serious problem, except that Spiffor has not been invited at the Convention.

[Spiffor]

Hi Davout

How are you doing?

[alva]

Hey Davout!! Good to see you man!!

[chequita guevara]

The problem with it is that they are writing into it things which should be laws, not articles of a contstitution. Constitutions need to be light and flexible, or they break with the strain. If this will be your constitution, then the CIA is right, the EU will be breaking up in 20 years.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The problem with it is that they are writing into it things which should be laws, not articles of a contstitution. Constitutions need to be light and flexible, or they break with the strain. If this will be your constitution, then the CIA is right, the EU will be breaking up in 20 years.

Well, a constitution can allow itself to be rigid, if it is light (In the German constitution, there are 20 articles that cannot be amended, for example). Or a constitution can afford to be heavy and bloated if it is flexible. But here we are on the verge of having the dreadful combination of a bloated constitution that is also extremely rigid.

In ten to twenty years, many countries will want to abrogate such-and-such policy, which could have been sound the day the constitution was written, but which will not be anymore. This is not political fiction: environments and ideas change, and policies change with them as well. But for the inadaptability or "adamantability" of a very marginal minority, these needed changes will be impossibe, and the system will be more and more unadapted as years go by.

We are experiencing it right now with the stability pact. This idiotic policy mostly finds its causes in the traditional German fear of inflation, and the traditional prejudices towards the "irresponsible" countries like France and Italy. Today, it's Germany which suffers from the stability pact. Since it is impossible to repel this unflexible policy, what happened? Germany and France were exempted from suffering the immediate consequences (fines) of breaking the pact, while other countries have been forced indeed to face these consequences. While it changes only little in the overall French and German budgetary policies, this action had many people in Europe rightly burst with anger.

By putting too many "policies of the day" in the constitution, we are creating dozens of future such situations where solution will be the weasel's way out.

More than the Iraqi diplomatic crisis, more than the division over Turkey, I think the constitution is the one poison that may destroy the EU. That's why I oppose it so much.

[Kuciwalker]

Unamendable articles:

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Unamendable articles:

When it is something like "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.", I have no problem with it (Article I of Germany's basic law)

When it's something like:

4. By way of derogation from Article I摯瑬敳獩12(5) and Article I摯瑬敳獩17(a) and in accordance with Article I摯瑬敳獩14
(2)(k), European laws or framework laws shall contribute to the achievement of the objectives referred to in this article by establishing the following measures in order to meet common safety concerns:
(a) measures setting high standards of quality and safety of organs and substances of human origin, blood and blood derivatives; these measures shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or introducing more stringent protective measures;

, then I have a problem with it. Granted, the second one (from the European constitution) is technically amendable, if each and every Member-State agrees with the amendment. But why the fricking hell does this point belong to the European constitution ?!?!?!

[Kuciwalker]

Hell, that's not a consitution at all. A constitution is, well, the constitution of a government, what consitutes is i.e. the structure and powers of that government. It's not even supposed to touch on the general citizenry.