European Constitution: So it begins

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Pekka
I chose the latter one because you have shown overwhelming racism against me in the past so I was in the right to choose the latter one. But since the case seems now that you meant the first one, well, I won't apologize but I understand what you meant.

OK

Edit: As a rule, no matter what I think of other peoples' opinions, I always encourage them to look for the politicians who defend the same opinions. Unless one helds VERY marginal beliefs (and I don't think you are), there will always be a politician that'll defend the point of view, and there's always a way for one's voice to be heard

In this case, we are in agreement against the constitution, for different reasons. We also agree on the fact that the decision should be made by the citizens and not the policians. But even if I had wholly disagreed with you (which I do fairly often ), I think your opinions would deserve to be represented, and I think you should support the politicians who defend them.

[Dinner]

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.

From what I hear people have turned it into something like another treaty filling in lots of little unrelated details that truly don't belong in a constitution.

Does anyone know if the German government will finally bow to public pressure and let the people vote on the constitution?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Does anyone know if the German government will finally bow to public pressure and let the people vote on the constitution?l

As of today, nope

I strongly doubt it'll happen, considering their own constitution bans referenda.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Fine indeed; that results from my health which has improved enough to make my return to my home authorized after a 70 days absence, but also from the summary of the bills relating to all my stays in hospital since january 2004 (130 days). The total amount that I have personnally to pay is around 2000€ covering only the food. All other expenses which amount to more than 100000€ were charged to the Social Security. It is with a great satisfaction that I call my friends and thank them for spending such a fortune for me.

It sounds like you got the better part of that deal.

[Pekka]

In this case, we are in agreement against the constitution, for different reasons. We also agree on the fact that the decision should be made by the citizens and not the policians. But even if I had wholly disagreed with you (which I do fairly often ), I think your opinions would deserve to be represented, and I think you should support the politicians who defend them.

Politicians in here are bastards. I don't support them. Unless there's a worthy politician, but right now there are maybe only few.. Bring Back Niinistö! NIINISTÖ FOR PRESIDENT!!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Pekka
Oh look, another crying commie coming to state his 'facts' with a terrorist avatar... Yaksemash!

Cause the facts destroy the Supercitizen. Admit it, you've lost like usual.

[Pekka]

Lost what? There wasn't even argument going on.. you know, you should really get a clue. And in case you are trolling, which you are, try harder, you're not a good racist like Spiffor is. Spiffor doesn't mean to be racist but in the process he becomes one. You are malicious racist with no other intentions than to mess up with other people. Get a life.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Pekka
but right now there are maybe only few

Then go find them and vote for them!

[Pekka]

That's not how it works in here.

[Spiffor]

And here I was on the verge of crossposting by telling Imran: "Don't tread here! Lest you'll become a racist!"

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Spiffor
And here I was on the verge of crossposting by telling Imran: "Don't tread here! Lest you'll become a racist!"

Teh Spiffor .

He's a 'Poly Hall of Famer, IIRC. That trumps Supercitizen any day.

[Pekka]

Imran, what ever, I know you are just trolling but I have other stuff to worry about than your puny little games. Congrats, you're the first one on my ignore list ever.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Woot... I won! I like how he said he had other stuff to worry about, but managed to respond to my posts more than once .

[Maniac]

*BUMP*

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.

Actually personally I’d consider what you call small technical ameliorations the two biggest changes in the constitution: 1> more power to the Parliament on certain matters by making the co-decision procedure the general rule, 2> the simplification of voting in the Council of Ministers, together with making some matters (eg asylum & migration IIRC), that previously had to be decided unanimously, now to be voted on by QMV (= qualified majority voting).

In your first post you mention repeatedly how much you dislike the fact that the constitution can’t be changed except by unanimity. Even that you would have voted in favour of the constitution if it could be changed by majority instead of unanimity. So surely then you realize the importance of this “technical procedure”?

Therefore, in my opinion if you want to be logical, you’d have to say either:

a) Reducing unanimity is important! This constitution makes it so that more matters can be decided by a qualified majority, so it’s a major change. Therefore I’ll vote in favour of the constitution!

b) Reducing unanimity is not important – it’s merely a technical detail. So it doesn’t matter that much that the treaty can’t be changed by a simple majority. With that in mind, I consider the constitution a small but gradual improvement over what we had before, so therefore I’ll vote in favour!

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 Status quo is a powerful beacon when you're striving for unanimity.

As you say, the difference between creating a new treaty and modifying an existing one isn’t big in the case of the EU history. For the previous treaty changes the last treaty was also token as basis with then the question being “what shall we change or add?”

Also I don’t see why amending an existing document would be more difficult than writing a new one. One could just as well say the opposite. An already existing treaty gives a common base which a majority will probably already like, making it easier to focus on the stuff that’s up for change, while having to write a new treaty every time could cause the same old issues to be discussed over and over, making sure the negotiations don’t get anywhere.

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.

Most of the people that will vote “No” on the constitution will be in favour of less Europe, not for more and a better Europe. So what will you think the political leaders’ reaction will be when over 50% votes against? “Oh, let’s go to the drawing board again and create another convention, and this time search for a true Vision for Europe!” No, they’ll think: “Darn. Ok, let’s weaken this constitution down, and hope it’s accepted in a second referendum.” Then you’ll be even further from what you want. After voting “no”, you may feel good about yourself, thinking “Ha! I’ve at least stuck to my principles”, but in reality you’ll just have shot yourself in the foot.

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.

While I certainly realize the importance of reducing unanimity to make decision making easier, one doesn’t have to go at the legalist extreme and say that significant change becomes nearly impossible because of it.

For example there’s this thing called a “package deal”. Eg countries A, B & C are in favour of issue 1 but against issue 2. Countries D & E are for issue 1 but against 2. So they make a compromise where both issues are accepted to some degree. As long as the countries consider the total sum of the agreement more positive than negative, it’ll be accepted. Unless of course you have systematic obstructers like the UK, but who knows with some luck they’ll be kicked out of the Union after rejecting the constitution. The idealists I know don’t like package deals, but hey, that’s just how politics work.

Also often initiatives are taken and cooperation exists de facto out of the legal framework before it is added de iure in a treaty. For example the heads of state and government began meeting regularly to set out the general strategy of the EC in 1974, while that was only formalized over ten years later as the European Council. To give a more contemporary example (though it may not be a good one for you as it’s currently not really proceeding in a social direction… ), there’s the Lissabon process to make the EU the most competitive and innovative economy in the world (while keeping the social and environmental advantages of the European system, so it officially sounds). The EU has legally nothing to say on many of the issues addressed by Lissabon, eg employment. Yet still the EU is urging for cooperation on those matters. So who knows in some future treaty those domains will be included, while cooperation is in fact already long happening.

A third argument I just remembered, IIRC since the Treaty of Amsterdam there’s the possibility of “strengthened cooperation” (or whatever it’s called in English. In Dutch: versterkte samenwerking) where IIRC eight or more of the members can cooperate more on a certain matter than the rest, while being allowed to make use of all European institutions. That hasn’t been used yet, but should the constitution prove as rigid as you fear, it’s certainly a viable option for eg Western Europe to assume a leader’s role within the EU.

However, if you consider the writing of a constitution as a unique historical opportunity to bring serious change, this text is a horrible waste.

But personally I don’t consider the constitution a unique historical opportunity, just one in a series of treaties. Rome wasn’t built in one day.

(and I suppose you agree with me on the topics of inefficiency and democratic deficit)

Well, not completely. I agree of course decision-making takes too long and is too difficult. But the consequence is that all sides are heard and that the resulting compromise often has broad political support. So if you’d define democracy as “lots of different groups and interests being listened to” one could say the EU is too democratic.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Maniac
Therefore, in my opinion if you want to be logical, you’d have to say either:

a) Reducing unanimity is important! This constitution makes it so that more matters can be decided by a qualified majority, so it’s a major change. Therefore I’ll vote in favour of the constitution!

b) Reducing unanimity is not important – it’s merely a technical detail. So it doesn’t matter that much that the treaty can’t be changed by a simple majority. With that in mind, I consider the constitution a small but gradual improvement over what we had before, so therefore I’ll vote in favour!

You forgot one thing:

"c) The ability to change the rules is essential! The EU isn't ready yet for fully integrated institutions, and I can't hope for a really good constitution at this point of time. But as long as the Constitution can be modified, it's all right! Therefore, I will only vote for a constitution that can realistically be modified on important matters-. Therefore, I will reject this constitution"

Also I don’t see why amending an existing document would be more difficult than writing a new one. One could just as well say the opposite. An already existing treaty gives a common base which a majority will probably already like, making it easier to focus on the stuff that’s up for change, while having to write a new treaty every time could cause the same old issues to be discussed over and over, making sure the negotiations don’t get anywhere.

You know, the EU constitution is a compilation of the status quo with only a few new things. Except for the fact that it overrules all previous treaties, the EU constitution changes precious little, just like Nice. So, the bargainings weren't about the statu quo that was upheld; they were about the few changes to the statu quo. As such, the bargainings about the Constitution were as "focused" as bargainings about amendments would be.

However, writing something new gives a positive push for the change in the statu quo (keep in mind that I consider the current statu quo to suck, and I certainly don't want to defend it). Modifying something that already exists doen't. As I said, the difference won't be enormous, but I stand by my position that an amendment will manage to be even more inertial.

Most of the people that will vote “No” on the constitution will be in favour of less Europe, not for more and a better Europe. So what will you think the political leaders’ reaction will be when over 50% votes against? “Oh, let’s go to the drawing board again and create another convention, and this time search for a true Vision for Europe!” No, they’ll think: “Darn. Ok, let’s weaken this constitution down, and hope it’s accepted in a second referendum.” Then you’ll be even further from what you want. After voting “no”, you may feel good about yourself, thinking “Ha! I’ve at least stuck to my principles”, but in reality you’ll just have shot yourself in the foot.

I don't think so. If the Brits are the only ones to reject the constitution, this is a sure thing. If both the Brits and the French reject it, that's far less sure. In France, almost half of the left-wingers oppose the constitution, despite them being traditionally pro-Europe (only 55% of the French Socialists voted that they wanted the party to support the Constitution. The French Greens, who are extremely pro-European, almost decided to oppose the Constitution, at a very short minority)

I wouldn't say that my point of view is majoritarian, but I am certainly not alone to think in similar terms, and at least the French establishment knows it.

Actually, I think that a French-British no to the constitution will make apparent the old wedge in the EU that we have constantly tried to keep hidden under the rug: the Brits fundamentally want less Europe; they want a Free-trade area. The French fundamentally want a more integrated Europe (where obviously they call the shot ), they want a "bloc-EU".

With this wedge apparent, the EU leaders will understand that this constitution can not be amended to be supported by both populations. The French mostly vote against the constitution because of the free-marketness of the EU (at different levels of expression: the racists oppose the fact that it's open door immigration to the Easterners and soon the Turks; the leftists oppose the fact that the constitution spells the end of our public services and pushes people in economic war against each other)
These are not at all the problem of the Brits, as they oppose the tranfer of sovereignty, and don't care about the free-marketness.

These two conceptions of Europe cannot be pleased by dumbing down the constitution. That's why the establishment will understand that it needs new ideas. And that's why it will go back to the drawing board. I don't expect any fantastic results, except for:
- a serious attempt to democratize the EU, so that it becomes legitimate
- a serious reflection about "agreeing to disagree", and restricting the political integration to the countries that seem to accept the idea.

I'm especially eager to see the second one. Ever since Maastritch, we have been plagued by the unreasonable expectations of consensus. We must "agree" in all circumstances. Any disagreement is bad, bad, bad. That might have worked when we were 6. Now that we are 25, it's completely stupid. Some countries are extremely attached to their sovereignty, like Britain. Some countries have just recently been independent and don't want to transfer their sovereignty to a monster, like Poland. I don't think we should shove political integration down their throats. OTOH, I don't think the Euro-supportive countries should continue to wait for the others, which will probably be forever reluctant. The NO to the constitution will make this debate finally salient, especially if two countries like France and Britain oppose it.

While I certainly realize the importance of reducing unanimity to make decision making easier, one doesn’t have to go at the legalist extreme and say that significant change becomes nearly impossible because of it.

It's not a legalist extreme IMHO. The more members you have, the more likely you are to have somebody unflexible on a precise matter. And the precise matter in question may very well be trifle in the grand scheme of things (like the whole bargainings about the Constitution had almost failed because Spain and Poland didn't like their amount of votes in the council)

About package deals: I don't like them (which is why I want to see the power held by the Parliament, because they will do far less package deals), but I agree that they work... for most issues. These package deals don't work for issues where one member is adamant, like France and Christianty, for example (again, a trifle thing).

The Lissabon process is a typical example of Europe being crap. Considering that it is extremely hard to agree on anything ambitious that is also concrete, the Lissabon agenda has two components:
- smallest common denominator in economics: let's happily liberalize, let's happily become equals at the lowest levels. We'll make sure to have EU laws forcing the States to liberalize their economies. Because of the nature of the bargainings, it is impossible to equalize "to the top", by using a serious Europe-wide keynesian policy, for example, or by creating a tax-harmonization. It's not like the ideologies of the States are as free-marketeer as the ideologies of Lissabon (there have been talks of tax-harmonization for years), but simply that no other agreement than liberalism can be found. The only reason why the GAP, the Structural funds, or Airbus exist today (actually ambitious common policies) is because they have been decided far before we were so fricking many.

- pie-in-the-sky economic objectives without anything to substantiate them. We are very far from the 3% of GDP going to research. And save for the 48 hours workweek in Britain, I don't remember any one thing the EU did to protect our social systems. Like in Amsterdam, the talks about the social system in Lissabon are naught. They have no purpose but to say "We care about social systems! We really do!". However, they can't find a consensus where it has any meaning. Heck, in Amsterdam, the mere addition of nice'n'social words was already a concession

A third argument I just remembered, IIRC since the Treaty of Amsterdam there’s the possibility of “strengthened cooperation” (or whatever it’s called in English. In Dutch: versterkte samenwerking) where IIRC eight or more of the members can cooperate more on a certain matter than the rest, while being allowed to make use of all European institutions. That hasn’t been used yet, but should the constitution prove as rigid as you fear, it’s certainly a viable option for eg Western Europe to assume a leader’s role within the EU.

Yup, but these cooperations cannot go against the constitution. I don't see these 8 countries remove the crown from the head of the ECB's leader. I don't see them inverting the balance of power between the Parliament and the Council. I don't see them loosening the free-marketeer exigences. Do you?

But personally I don’t consider the constitution a unique historical opportunity, just one in a series of treaties. Rome wasn’t built in one day.

Considering that the Constitution will be the only document of reference from now on, I don't really see how it can belong to a "series of treaties" (well, actually, it does belong to an interrupted series ). I agree with the fact that Rome hasn't been made in one day, which is precisley why I would vote for that constitution, no matter how much it sucked, if there was room for change. The fact that there isn't a realistic room for change unless a major crisis happens (which will make everybody agree), makes this constitution unacceptable. To continue the Rome analogy: Rome wouldn't have evolved, and would have remained a provincial town for a thousand years, rather than evolve to its full potential.

Well, not completely. I agree of course decision-making takes too long and is too difficult. But the consequence is that all sides are heard and that the resulting compromise often has broad political support.

:???:

So if you’d define democracy as “lots of different groups and interests being listened to” one could say the EU is too democratic.

Oh, yes, that definition of democracy where "demos" doesn't belong