Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Europe

Comparing the US and ~~Soviet~~ European Constitution

2005-02-20

Credits: This is translated from the Spanish blog Hispalibertas.com.

Don't worry this will be short.

First words in the Foreword

We, the people of the United States...

First words in the Foreword (Sorry I wasn't able to find the English version so I translated)

His Majesty the King of the Belgians, the President of the Czech Republic, Her Majesty the Queen of Denmark, the President of the Federal Republic of Germany, the president of the Republic of Estonia, the president of the Hellenic Republic, the King of Spain, the President of the French Republic, the President of Irealand, the President of the Italian Republic, the President of the Republic of Cyprus, the President of the Republic of Letonia, the President of the Republic of Lituania, his Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, the Parliament of the Republic of Hungary, the President of the Republic of Malta, Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands, the President of the Republic of Austria, the President of the Republic of Polonia, the President of the Portuguese Republic, the President of the Republic of Slovenia, the President of the Republic of Slovaquia, the President of the Republic of Finland, the governement of the Kingdom of Sweden, the Quen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland

Let's put the lights out and leave. If we continue the comparison it is still worse

in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The improved Uropean version (1)

Conscious that Europe is a continent that has brought forth civilisation; that its inhabitants, arriving in successive waves from earliest times, have gradually developed the values underlying humanism equality of persons, freedom, respect for reason. Drawing inspiration from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, the values of which, still present in its heritage, have embedded within the life of society the central role of the human person and his or her inviolable and inalienable rights, and respect for law,

Believing that reunited Europe intends to continue along the path of civilisation, progress and prosperity, for the good of all its inhabitants, including the weakest and most deprived; that it wishes to remain a continent open to culture, learning and social progress; and that it wishes to deepen the democratic and transparent nature of its public life, and to strive for peace, justice and solidarity throughout the world,

Convinced that, while remaining proud of their own national identities and history, the peoples ofEurope are determined to transcend their ancient divisions and, united ever more closely, to forge a common Convinced that, thus "united in its diversity", Europe offers them the best chance of pursuing, with due regard for the rights of each individual and in awareness of their responsibilities towards future generations and the Earth, the great venture which makes of it a special area of human hope,

Notice the caracteristic modesty of the makers of the European constitution

grateful to the members of the European Convention for having prepared this Constitution on behalf of the citizens and States of Europe, Who, having exchanged their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows

Those guys would have the chutzpah of making us pay for the right to vote.

(1) Unlike for the first words (King of Belgian) I didn't translate the following it is from the the official English version . Even if in the preamble it is irrelevant I found non-trivial differences between the English and Spanish version. Are the peoples of Europe voting for the same constitution?

Posted by:JFM

#34 Convinced that, while remaining proud of their own national identities and history, the peoples ofEurope are determined to transcend their ancient divisions and, united ever more closely, to forge a common Convinced that, thus "united in its diversity", Europe offers them the best chance of pursuing, with due regard for the rights of each individual and in awareness of their responsibilities towards future generations and the Earth, the great venture which makes of it a special area of human hope,

The heretofore unknown deleted clause...

We proclaim, There she was just a-walkinâ down the street,
Singinâ, do-wah diddy-diddy down diddy-do
Snappinâ her fingers and shufflinâ her feet,
Singinâ, do-wah diddy-diddy down diddy-do
She looked good, looked good
She looked fine, looked fine
She looked good, she looked fine
And I nearly lost my mind

Posted by: BigEd 2005-02-20 11:05:59 PM

#33 Aris,

Europe has the RIGHT to pick whatever kind of constitution it wants. As an American my only concern is that people have not really recognized how much power they are surrendering to an unelected bureaucracy of the "elites." I can accept that Europe has, in general, been more comfortable with being governed by such elites than has been the case for Americans, but it disturbs me, so as a friend, I feel obligated to ask, "have you really thought about what you are about to do?"

The fundamental difference IS between the US and Europe IS illustrated in the preamble: In the the US, the PEOPLE granted the power to the government, in the EU, the esisting governing powers are creating the consititution.

It is your RIGHT to accept that, but I think you should consider whether or not perpetuating that aspect of your existing system and if anything reinforcing its remoteness from the power of the people,is truly in your interest.

I wish you the best of success.

Posted by: Ralph Tacoma 2005-02-20 8:43:22 PM

#32 is about to get the "Consitution" it deserves.

What about the "New Europe" nations?

If it were truly an exercise in freedom, the Europeans would have written and argued about the equivalent of The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers in recent years.

Perhaps I don't understand what you mean, but I thought that was indeed what we were doing.

As a sidenote, Sweden's human development index seems to be second best in the world. So I don't that nation is the best possible example for the supposed ills of socialdemocracy.

It's rather ironical that the lofty, self-laudatory opening statements in the EuroCon so thoroughly contradicts the major 20th century contributions of Europe to history: death and slavery for hundreds of millions by Communism and Nazism.

And this sentence is rather revelatory about how your hatred for the Constitution in reality just disguises your hatred and contempt for the entire continent.

Tell me now, is there *any* possible blueprint for a political union of the nations of Europe that you'd have supported?

Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-20 7:43:48 PM

#31 The Union of Socialist European Republics is about to get the "Consitution" it deserves. If it were truly an exercise in freedom, the Europeans would have written and argued about the equivalent of The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers in recent years. It will be interesting to watch which European people has the courage to vote no (assuming they are asked).

It's rather ironical that the lofty, self-laudatory opening statements in the EuroCon so thoroughly contradicts the major 20th century contributions of Europe to history: death and slavery for hundreds of millions by Communism and Nazism.

In other news, my mother has finally given up on hoping for the end of socialism in Sweden. Took her about 35 years. Now she says --quote-- "the Swedes are getting what they deserve, since a majority keeps voting Socialist and Communist despite their unhappiness with the system."

Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-02-20 6:13:04 PM

#30 Left to their own devices, the bureaucrats of the EU will ultimately render Europe into a micropower. The people, who are surrendering to the bureaucrats, will be getting what they deserve. There is NO comparison to the U.S. Constitution.

Posted by: Slomoter Shotle1331 2005-02-20 4:27:02 PM

#29 Another so-very-original comparison.

Youre right, Aris. I meant Napoleon.

Posted by: Raj 2005-02-20 1:46:46 PM

#28 While Aris tries to "give us cat for hare" (Spanish expression), about the European Constitutaion saying that it is not a problem since it is only the codification of existing lmaws and practice we have to consider the fundamental differnece between laws and Constitution: laws are made to be changed, Constitutions are made to last and in any country the process for amending the Constititution is ever difficult and constraing in order to avoid a government modifying it just for convenience (or for say, modifying the electoral system is such way governemnnt cannot lose). That is why, because Constitutions are diffiucult to change (and the EU one has a provision who forbids modifying the Constitution for, I think, twenty years) that it is very important to get it right, to never say YES to a bad constitution and for not allowing in the Constitution matters who belong to state policy and thus who need to be changed when the economic, demographic or politic environment changes.

Posted by: JFM 2005-02-20 1:39:11 PM

#27 The real problem remains that by reading that constitution the people don't get a real idea why they need a political union. What's its point? The union doesn't give its citizens fundamental rights that they didn't already enjoy in the national context.

If you make a union, the first question should be: What for?

You usually marry because you want to found a family and give your kids a protected environment.

The economic advantages of a European Economic Union are clear to see. What are those of a political union of 25 rather different states. The Finns know that they benefit from a economic union with Portugal. But politically, how do the Finns and the Portuguese profit from that?

Posted by: True German Ally 2005-02-20 1:36:46 PM

#26 I have heard of "the perfect being the enemy of the good," but I had never heard of the "the better being the enemy of the just barely good enough."

Posted by: Mark E. 2005-02-20 1:33:11 PM

#25 The difference between ... between voluntary union and coercive imperialism ....

For once you make an interesting point Aris.

Posted by: AzCat 2005-02-20 1:24:42 PM

#24 Aris, then you'll have to at least deal with the problem that you now have a treaty/federal code hybrid with the force of constitutional law instead of federal code.

Posted by: Phil Fraering 2005-02-20 1:22:43 PM

#23 TGA: Isn't there an old joke somewhere about how the Venetian Constitution worked for hundreds of years, and after it broke they were still able to sell it off to the US?

Posted by: Phil Fraering 2005-02-20 1:15:45 PM

#22 TGA and Phil> Lol! Okay, and calling it a "Treaty of whatever" would certainly help people to focus on the contents of it instead of on the word "Constitution" instead. I'd have no problem with that.

Ofcourse then people would accuse the writers of being dishonest by labelling it a treaty instead of a constitution, but you can't have everything. :-)

Raj Believing that reunited Europe... You mean, like how Hitler united Europe?

Another so-very-original comparison.

The difference between day and night, between war and peace, between voluntary union and coercive imperialism, between consentual sex and rape, between freedom and tyranny... but yeah, other than that *exactly* like when Hitler united Europe.

Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-20 1:15:26 PM

#21 I agree. Let the people write the real constitution (the internet is a great place to do it) and let bureaucrats write bureaucratic texts without the excuse that "the people approved them".

And hell, make it short and make it start with "WE THE PEOPLE".

We can borrow at least this phrase from the US constitution. It's not copyrighted.

Posted by: True German Ally 2005-02-20 1:08:13 PM

#20 Believing that reunited Europe...

You mean, like how Hitler united Europe?

Posted by: Raj 2005-02-20 1:05:49 PM

#19 As TGA says, it would be more honest.

It would also be better because it wouldn't preclude the authorship of a real constitution somewhere down the line. And it would be better for the bureaucrats writing the current treaty to be more held accountable as treaty authors rather than letting them pretend to be writing a real constitution.

Posted by: Phil Fraering 2005-02-20 12:54:19 PM

#18 It would be a bit more honest, but still vaporware.

Posted by: True German Ally 2005-02-20 12:44:26 PM

#17 My last post was directed to TGA -- but I guess it could apply just as well to Phil's post. :-)

Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-20 12:42:47 PM

#16 So, is it simply that it's called a "Constitution"? If we called it the "Treaty of " but the content was the same, all would be okay?

Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-20 12:40:38 PM

#15 At the risk of violating my lenten absolutions, I'll post to this thread:

The various treaties previously in effect in Europe were the equivalent of the federal code here in the US.

That the current document called the "European Constitution" is being defended because it's allegedly a better federal code for Europe than the previous federal code it's replacing.

To those of us in America, this still sounds like bull puckey, because it's not being called the New Federal Code, but the new constitution.

It's not a constitution, which would be a collection of meta-laws about law, but a collection of laws and bureaucratic decisions. It's not the difference between the constitution-as-implemented and an ideal pie-in-the-sky constitution that bothers us, it's the fact that this part of what in the US would be the Federal Register is being passed off as a constitution.

It doesn't matter how much better it is than the current European version of their federal code; it's still not a real constitution.

Posted by: Phil Fraering 2005-02-20 12:38:37 PM

#14 Aris, the first European Constitution should not be a "small improvement", it should be a real big step.

"The Parliament's role is enhanced a bit"... that says it all.

Posted by: True German Ally 2005-02-20 12:30:48 PM

#13 Aris, the Constitution does indeed not change or amend these lunacies, but it sanctifies them.

Does it? I believe that for the first time the Constitution also adds the protocol which insists that all legislative acts must be justified on the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

Draft European legislative acts shall be justified with regard to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Any draft European legislative act should contain a detailed statement making it possible to appraise compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. This statement should contain some assessment of the proposal's financial impact and, in the case of a European framework law, of its implications for the rules to be put in place by Member States, including, where necessary, the regional legislation. The reasons for concluding that a Union objective can be better achieved at Union level shall be substantiated by qualitative and, wherever possible, quantitative indicators. Draft European legislative acts shall take account of the need
for any burden, whether financial or administrative, falling upon the Union, national governments, regional or local authorities, economic operators and citizens, to be minimised and commensurate with the objective to be achieved.

And there's also a process there that national parliaments vote to call such a legislative act as non-compliant to such principles.

"Where reasoned opinions on a draft European legislative act's non-compliance with the principle of subsidiarity represent at least one third of all the votes allocated to the national Parliaments in accordance with the second paragraph, the draft must be reviewed. This threshold shall be a quarter in the case of a draft European legislative act submitted on the basis of Article III-264 of the Constitution on the area of freedom, security and justice."

Now, you may say again that this is not *enough* -- it doesn't order the act necessarily withdrawn, only reviewed, but once again it seems to me to be a step in the right direction.

Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-20 12:28:48 PM

#12 Aris, the treaty of Nice isn't any better

That's all I'm talking about. The Constitution is a small improvement over the current situation, that's all.

It formalizes for the first time an exit clause for states that want to leave. For the first time it has an article about citizens' initiative, a first step towards direct democracy on a European level. It gives some tiny more flexibility to the Common Foreign policy. It allows for further enlargement of the Union in that its ends the rotating presidency and trims down the size of the Commission. The Parliament's role is enhanced a bit. It has a Charter of Fundamental rights for the first time embedded in it. So forth, so forth. All these I find steps to the right directions.

Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-20 12:17:49 PM

#11 Aris, the Constitution does indeed not change or amend these lunacies, but it sanctifies them.

Posted by: True German Ally 2005-02-20 12:11:54 PM

#10 JFM, I doubt that the EU commission does that. I don't think they know what a blog is before they have worked out the standard regulation ISO-BLOG 203443 for blogs, the language quota, the number and length of admissable comments, the clear identification of every blogger with passport number and VAT Id etc.

Posted by: True German Ally 2005-02-20 12:09:30 PM

#9 JFM, when I'm calling the Constitution an utterly sucky watered-down document with lots and lots of vaporware, I don't see myself "defending it even in its most questionable and undemocratic aspects".

So screw you.

What I see myself doing is this: seeing which aspects it improves and which aspects it worsens from the *current* de facto constitution of the EU.

You know -- comparing it with what actually is there, rather than with hopes and fantasies. TGA just mentioned that under the Treaty of Nice, the City of Berlin had to pay lots and lots of money for some useless law.

And I suppose his criticism of the Constitution is that it doesn't improve the situation in this respect.

However he should keep in mind, that the Constitution wasn't in effect when the city of Berlin had to pay that amount, so I don't see what this item has to do in discussing whether the Constitution is an improvement or a worsening of the situation.

Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-20 12:08:26 PM

#8 Aris, the treaty of Nice isn't any better. And I define "democratic state" of the EU less by voting rights of member states, but by voting rights and rights of control (and impeachment) of the people.

Posted by: True German Ally 2005-02-20 12:04:29 PM

#7 That Constitution was made by Giscard d'Estaing the one who received diamonds from "Emperor" Bokassa, a guy who pierced the eyes of children and, allegedly ate some of them.

Frankly I am atonished by your pavlovian defence of that Constitution even in its most questionnable and undemocratic aspects: even Mao's Red Guards didn't have the same kind of wooden tongue. Now I remember thet the EU Commission is paying people for going into blogs and putting texts in favour of the EU. You should apply for the job, really. At least you would get paid.

Posted by: JFM 2005-02-20 11:58:35 AM

#6 TGA> I see lots and lots of vaporware. Yes. And it's unfortunate.

But "Solidarity" seems rather defined to me in places:
Solidarity clause
1. The Union and its Member States shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a Member State is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster. The Union shall mobilise all the instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made available by the Member States, to:
(a) â prevent the terrorist threat in the territory of the Member States;
â protect democratic institutions and the civilian population from any terrorist attack;
â assist a Member State in its territory, at the request of its political authorities, in the
event of a terrorist attack;
(b) assist a Member State in its territory, at the request of its political authorities, in the event of a natural or man-made disaster.
2. The detailed arrangements for implementing this Article are set out in Article III-329.

The democratic nature of the European Union is among other things enhanced by the million-citizens initiative which is for the first time embedded in the constitution. No, it's not enough. But it's a step to the right direction.

No, we can't elect the Commission unfortunately, but neither could we with the treaty of Nice.

Once again I'm not comparing the Constitution with some currently non-existent and unavailable ideal. I'm comparing it to what it's replacing.

Another good thing for enhancing the democratic nature of the Union is that for the first time Germany will have more influence in the Council than France, UK or Italy, since we will no longer have bargained vote arrangements but rather a qualified double majority of states and *populations* instead.

Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-20 11:52:58 AM

#5 Supranational institutions should tackle supranational issues.

They should not dictate member states and regions to enforce a regulation about cable railways.

The city of Berlin just had to spend a couple of 100000 euros to provide for that regulation.

The little detail the eurocrats in Brussels don't care for:

Berlin has no mountains. No cable cars. Will never have one.

Good we have all the regulations for it.

Posted by: True German Ally 2005-02-20 11:50:36 AM

#4 The Constitution talks in detail about what competences the EU will have, yes. Because all those competences that the Constitution *doesn't* talk about, the EU *wouldn't* have. Or so I gather.

I agree with changing the Constitution to allow for much greater flexibility in policy matters. But ofcourse then you face the disapproval of all those people who are terrified of the supranational institutions taking *any* more power on themselves or making any actual decisions without the further unanimous consent of all member-states.

Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-20 11:40:47 AM

#3 Aris, can't you see all that vaporware in the European version? Who cares about storytelling like those "successive waves", about "inspired", "embedded", "path of civilisation, n'stuff.

"Deepen democratic nature"? With an EU Commission we cant elect, with a constitution we had no part in writing and (the German case) not even voting on? And let me not go into the "transparent nature"...

"Soliidarity"... with whom? Without qualifyer, it's an empty word, with qualifyer it's usually an empty promise.

What "great venture" was it again?

A bureaucratic Vanity Fair

Posted by: True German Ally 2005-02-20 11:36:11 AM

#2 The comparison it is easy: it is a lot worse than the French one both in the verbiage, in the fact it fixes in the Constitution things who ahave no business being there since they belong to the day to day management by the government like "Europe must have a space policy" and in the warranties it gives to the citizen.

Democracy was born in Greece but, in Europe, it is dying in Brussels.

Posted by: JFM 2005-02-20 11:31:22 AM

#1 The significant comparison would not be between the European Constitution and the American one, but rather between the European Constitution and the treaties it is replacing.

It's always a deceitful game, when a person compares an actual possibility with what is not an alternative and never was one. Applying the US Constitution to Europe was never a possible alternative. Retaining the Treaty of Nice, or replacing it with the European Constitution -- *these* two are the current alternatives being discussed.

Compare *those* two, and keep the comparisons with the American Constitution for when the time comes to improve and amend the European Constitution *further*.

People attack the European Constitution for not being merely a treaty ("we don't need no steenking constitution", etc, etc), and then they attack it for being one, and phrased like one.

Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-20 11:05:21 AM

00:00