| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| "A Healthy Constitution" for Europe |
| 2005-06-05 |
| If they were smart, they'd adopt this tomorrow. But unfortunately they're not. Hat tip: Instapundit Proposed by The Daily Telegraph (UK): WHEREAS the Peoples of France and the Netherlands have voted "No" to further European integration; WHEREAS their Governments argued, throughout the referendum campaigns, that a "No" vote would amount to a rejection of the entire European project; and WHEREAS said Governments are determined to abide by their own logic; we, the 25 Member States of the EU, HAVE DECIDED to cancel the proposed Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe and, in doing so, to annul the Treaties establishing the EEC, the ECSC and Euratom, the Treaty on European Union and all consequent accords. Woo-hoo! Go for it. Adopt this and you might save yourselves yet. In their place, we hereby ESTABLISH a European Commonwealth, to be based on the following principles. I The European Commonwealth shall be an association of parliamentary democracies that collaborate one with another for mutual benefit. What - with no overlords in Brussels? Non, non - we can't have that. II The jurisdiction of common European institutions shall be confined to cross-border matters: that is, fields of policy where the actions of one Member State impact directly upon the internal affairs of another. These include: commerce between Member States (but not trade with Third Countries); cross-border environmental pollution; and the maintenance of a free market in goods, services, people and capital. III For the avoidance of doubt, and as a defence against creative interpretation by European judges, a list of national Reserve Powers shall be drawn up in the Member States' constitutions (or by parliamentary statute in the United Kingdom). Such a list shall include: foreign affairs, defence, asylum and immigration, transport, energy, the powers of regional and local government, agriculture, fisheries, industry, social and employment policy, taxation, health, education, justice and home affairs. In these areas, the supremacy of national parliamentary and legal systems shall be guaranteed. That ain't gonna fly with the Euroweenies, either. The people might somehow get involved! Common European policies shall come into effect only following a specific implementing decision by the national authorities. That loud scream you just heard - at the mere mention of "national authorities" - was the Brussels overlords. IV Member States shall be free, if they wish, to adopt common policies in these areas. Such initiatives may happen bilaterally or multilaterally, without prejudice to the non-participating members. Did I just hear Brussels implode (explode)? They will if this is adopted. :-D V In order to give effect to these principles, the institutions of the old EU shall be reformed as follows: 1. The European Commission shall lose the right to initiate legislation. Such a right is incompatible with the principle of accountable democracy. YES! Somebody finally said it. At least The Telegraph gets it. The Commission shall instead fulfil the role of a neutral civil service, answerable to the elected governments of the Member States. 2. The European Parliament shall be replaced Replaced? Whatever will all those professional elites do if they can't suck at the public teat? They have no idea how to actually work for a living. by an Assembly comprised of national deputies and senators, seconded from their home legislatures for a period of not more than four days a month. The Assembly shall not pretend to the role of a legislature. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA! Its function, rather, shall be to oversee the Commission. 3. The European Court of Justice shall be comprised of judges, required as a condition of their appointment to have had experience on the bench in their home countries. It shall adjudicate disputes between the Member States as well as questions arising from the interpretation of this Treaty, but shall have no right to demarcate the border between national and European jurisdictions. Tranzis won't like that one, either. Any dispute over the location of power shall be referred to a European Tribunal, comprising the heads of national legal systems: the Master of the Rolls from the United Kingdom, the President of the Conseil d'Etat from France, the head of the Bundesverfassungsgericht from Germany and so on. These eminent jurists, retaining their national perspectives, shall adjudicate all questions touching on sovereignty. 4. The Council of Ministers shall be the supreme authority of the European Commonwealth. It shall propose common initiatives, open to such member states as choose to participate. Such initiatives should also be open to states from outside Europe. 5. The European Central Bank shall be abolished Best thing that could happen. (And get rid of the goddam Euro too.) So it won't. Too bad. and member states shall be free to set their own interest rates or to combine their monetary policies bilaterally or multilaterally. VI The European Commonwealth shall work towards international co-operation and the breaking down of global trade barriers. Phrance would fight that one tooth and nail. They might actually have to compete in the real world. And we all know how VII The European Commonwealth shall encourage the progressive reduction of tariffs against produce from Third Countries, including in the fields of agriculture, textiles and raw materials. VIII Any uncertainty arising from ambiguities in this Treaty shall be resolved in favour of the individual citizen rather than the state, We can't have that! Why, it sounds positively American! Oh, the horror! and of national governments rather than European institutions. IX Changes to this treaty shall take effect only following ratification by referendum in all signatory states. Done at London on the Fifth Day of June in the year Two Thousand and Five. [Here follow the signatures] It's a pretty good constitution when the main objection to it is the misuse of "comprise." But that can be fixed. Adopt this, Europe, and you might have a chance at survival. Or continue on down your present road to Sharia. Your choice. |
| Posted by:Barbara Skolaut |
| #9 I think the first 3 sentences are a reference to Orwell's "1984". |
| Posted by: docob 2005-06-05 23:44 |
| #8 Jackal - I don't understand your first 3 sentences. At all. Regards the enumerated powers and Bill of Rights. Two separate issues. The powers refers to the relationship between member states and the federal authority. The Bill of rights is between individuals and all govt authorities, as I see it, since it trumps either state or federal infringement. Sure, they could certainly use a BoR - absolutely. Now about those first 3 sentences - care to elaborate? |
| Posted by: .com 2005-06-05 23:19 |
#7 the phone book currently going down in flamesPerfect description, .com! ;-p |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-06-05 21:43 |
| #6 Double-plus ungood. Wrong bordering on crimethink. Writer to be sent to Room 101. .com: Article III looks to be a "we really mean it" backup to Article II. Our Bill of Rights should theoretically be unnecessary given the Enumerated Powers, but the theory didn't work. Heck, the BoR has been ignored, too. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-06-05 21:36 |
| #5 I'd give it an A-. It's stilted in Article III due to a logic flaw. The enumeration of powers is from the POV of the Commonwealth, not the member countries. Bzzzzzt! The member countries are granting the powers to the Commonwealth, not the reverse. Thus, it should enumerate the few powers being granted the Commonwealth - and state unequivocally that all unenumerated powers remain with the member countries. This is a fundamental logic flaw which GreasyBoy could never grasp, either. Sadly, though this version is, otherwise, obviously superior - the flaw remains - it must be an Old World cognition defect. But, all things considered, it is a vast improvement -- far more worthy of public debate and discourse (that thought alone would, indeed, make heads explode in Brussels, lol!) -- than the phone book currently going down in flames. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-06-05 20:50 |
| #4 I'll take what I can get, Mrs. Davis. At least this looks like an actual Constitution - not the Code of Federal Regulations. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-06-05 20:40 |
| #3 If they really meant it they'd say "In the year of our Lord 2005." |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-06-05 19:17 |
| #2 I'm with you booger..money for nutin' and chicks for free! Little EU girls rock baby |
| Posted by: Domenica de Villepenis 2005-06-05 19:01 |
| #1 No guaranteed 20-hr work week? Merde! |
| Posted by: Booger Spooger1429 2005-06-05 18:07 |