Article

2004-10-30 Europe

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-10-30 2:42:42 AM|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Hopefully a European Ranburger will comment on this but I don't see the European Constitution as anything but a positve ... for US competitiveness and a negative for European competitiveness. Yielding all power over customs, trade, & monetary policy to only nominally accountable extranational bureaucrats seems like a recipe for disaster. And the areas of legislation to be (initially) shared between the EU and member states seem broad enough to cover just about everything that the EU didn't take for themselves exclusively. Anyone want to bet which direction power will gravitate when the EU's new top court begins to adjudicate the balance of power between the EU and national legislatures? If I were European I'd be very worried about this. Am I way off base here?

Posted by AzCat 2004-10-30 10:42:03 AM|| 2004-10-30 10:42:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 If I were European I'd be very worried about this. Am I way off base here?

Yes.

For example the areas you say that the Euroepan Constitution "yields" (monetary policy in the eurozone, customs, trade) have pretty much been yielded already by previous treaties, so the Constitution does absolutely nothing new here.

And the areas of legislation to be (initially) shared between the EU and member states seem broad enough to cover just about everything that the EU didn't take for themselves exclusively.

And how is that different from the currest Constitution-less EU?

If I were European I'd be very worried about this.

More than half the people scared to death of what the European Constitution will supposedly bring, don't even realize that those elements are here already without the Constitution.

When supporting or objecting to a Constitution shouldn't you be focussing on the issues and the functioning it actually *changes*, rather than the matters that it leaves unaltered?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-30 11:04:27 AM|| 2004-10-30 11:04:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 We welcome the economic and political regression by our erstwhile "allies". Thanks and good luck. Don't call if you need help. Buh-bye

Posted by Frank G 2004-10-30 11:18:25 AM|| 2004-10-30 11:18:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Ya-w-w-w-n.

Posted by Infidel Bob 2004-10-30 11:19:55 AM|| 2004-10-30 11:19:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Bob, I know that actual information can be boring, especially when compared to the fascination that ignorant kneejerk reactions possess.

But try to hang in there. You might eventually learn something, even though Frank G. is probably beyond help.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-30 11:35:49 AM|| 2004-10-30 11:35:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 OOOoooooooooo that really HURT

Posted by Frank G 2004-10-30 11:38:40 AM|| 2004-10-30 11:38:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 The EU is the biggest ~~French~~ European mistake since the Maginot Line. Pretentious does not even begin to describe this mindset.

Posted by Raj 2004-10-30 12:41:31 PM|| 2004-10-30 12:41:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 "The fruit of 28 months of at times acrimonious debate between EU governments, the treaty must be approved by the national parliaments of the 25 EU nations."
Lol. That may mean it's either (1) watered down enough to pass and is fairly pointless or (2) has been forwarded on to die a lingering death. Either way, Infidel Bob's "Ya-w-w-w-n" about sums it up. It's about as exciting as a U.S. Senate vote on Kyoto.

Posted by Tom 2004-10-30 1:15:22 PM|| 2004-10-30 1:15:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Don't bother, Aris -- I'm not coming back to this thread.

Posted by Tom 2004-10-30 1:16:38 PM|| 2004-10-30 1:16:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Tom> I'm not interested in whether you are coming back to this thread or not -- when I'm giving people info, it isn't a one-to-one thing. As for the EU constitution, there are multiple places where you can get copies of it in the Internet, so you don't need to guess at whether it's "watered down enough to pass", you can check it out yourself. Here you go: http://europa.eu.int/constitution/index_en.htm

You can even get summaries through that link.

Anyway, I'm betting on 24 out of 25 countries ratifying the Constitution. United Kingdom will whine and refuse, at the same time refusing to leave the EU and sabotaging the progress of the rest of the nations. Which will be typical. But atleast (if events happen as predict) it'll give the world a quite clear view of who's blocking EU integration. That may come in handy in future negotiations.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-30 1:40:33 PM|| 2004-10-30 1:40:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Aris is correct, Tom. Nothing could be watered down in 855 pages of bureaucratise. Makes the Internal Revenue Code seem absolutely lucid.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-10-30 1:59:19 PM|| 2004-10-30 1:59:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 "Aris is correct, Tom. Nothing could be watered down in 855 pages of bureaucratise."

Mrs. Davis, somehow I don't remember ever saying that the Constitution isn't "watered down".

Especially since my own belief certainly is that it *is* indeed watered down. Much more so than I would have wanted it to.

But not watered down enough for the people scared to death of it about the horrible horrible changes it'll supposedly bring (correlate my comments #2 and #10), mainly Brits and non-Europeans.

But I'd like you to make up your mind, Mrs. Davis. I remember some time ago when you used that mocking tone when I told you that the Constitution doesn't make many actual changes -- then you disbelieved *that*. Now you are using that mocking tone to disbelieve a supposed lack of watering down, and a comment you imagined me making. Contradictory, much?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-30 2:44:52 PM|| 2004-10-30 2:44:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Let me add my Yawn as well.

Posted by whitecollar redneck 2004-10-30 3:06:19 PM|| 2004-10-30 3:06:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 The constitution foresees simpler voting rules to end decision gridlock in a club that ballooned to 25 members this year and plans to absorb half a dozen more in the years ahead.

It is neither the ambitious document Euro-idealists had hoped for, nor the blueprint for a European superstate Euro-skeptics have warned against.

It includes new powers for the European Parliament and ends national vetoes in 45 new policy areas - including judicial and police cooperation, education and economic policy - but not in foreign and defense policy, social security, taxation or cultural matters.

The article mentions a "hefty charter of fundamental rights", which means that there may be limits put on the states to modify local laws affecting social security and taxation in the name of these fundamental rights. How much influence are the Courts promised, Aris?

What is the amendment process? What number/percent of states is required to approve an amendment so that it is binding on all states?

Also, and to cut down on the snarkiness here, is it really 855 pages of unique text, or does the number include doublespacing, translations, footnotes, supporting documentation, etc?

Is there an Official online link to the document in English that allows searching the document? I've tried googling, and keep coming up dry.

I have an opinion on the matter, but realize that it may be based on a lack of information, which is what I'm fishing for in this comment. I'm sure Aris can lend me a hand. (However, to avoid, umm, misunderstandings, Aris, I suggest putting your responses in one comment, and direct your response to some of the other comments in another comment. Just to avoid confusion, if you know what I mean...)

Posted by Ptah 2004-10-30 3:40:24 PM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-10-30 3:40:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Gee, Aria. A whole 25 states? Why it's ballooned to a full half the number of American states! Quite obviously unmanageable...

Posted by mojo 2004-10-30 3:59:49 PM|| 2004-10-30 3:59:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Ptah> Some of the more easy questions first:

"What is the amendment process? What number/percent of states is required to approve an amendment so that it is binding on all states?"

All of them. Unanimity is required for any amendment. From a legal standpoint this Constitution is still a treaty between independent sovereign states.

Also, and to cut down on the snarkiness here, is it really 855 pages of unique text, or does the number include doublespacing, translations, footnotes, supporting documentation, etc?

Judging from my PDF documents, english version, and various tables of contents included:
Part I - 62 pages
Part II (CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS) - 27 pages
Part III - 247 pages
Part IV - 14 pages
Declarations - 121 pages
Protocols and Annexes - 382 pages

That puts the total at around let's say 850 pages, 30 or so of which are probably tables of contents, and most of the rest are not part of the Constitution proper, but rather the Declarations and Protocols "annexed" to it. There's *very* large amounts of duplicated text. For example one single such "declaration" is a paragraph-by-paragraph repetition of the whole Charter of Fundamental Rights and detailed explanation of what is meant where.

So, I don't know how many pages of text if you only count the unique text.

From the Constitution proper, the huge part is Part III which describes in detail which areas of policy and for which purposes and with which procedures the Union has a right to legislate in each case.

Is there an Official online link to the document in English that allows searching the document? I've tried googling, and keep coming up dry.

This is the official text http://europa.eu.int/constitution/constitution_en.htm but it's a PDF. Sorry.

"The article mentions a "hefty charter of fundamental rights", which means that there may be limits put on the states to modify local laws affecting social security and taxation in the name of these fundamental rights. How much influence are the Courts promised, Aris?"

Interesting question. The only one I don't have a ready answer to. Will have to look into that.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-30 4:16:55 PM|| 2004-10-30 4:16:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Thanks for the link, Aris.

From a legal standpoint this Constitution is still a treaty between independent sovereign states.

Aha. NOW the size makes sense. I would imagine, if the Federalist Papers were attached to the US Constitution, that it would inflate somewhat. (And, IMHO, would be a damn big improvement).

Seems to me the problem is the use of the word "Constitution", which means one thing to Americans, and something else to the EU. With the exception of monetary union (something which came with the US Constitution), I would say the current EU Constitution is roughly equivalent to the American Articles of Confederation. *IF* history is any guide (assuming the experience of 18th century Americans can map to 21st Europe), Y'all will probably trundle along for about a decade, then decide on a re-write. A bit of a stretch, to be sure, but exactly how many times has something like this happened in the history of the world?

Posted by Ptah 2004-10-31 6:32:27 AM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-10-31 6:32:27 AM|| Front Page Top

00:06 Thavilet Spotle9553
01:04 Slinetle Snolurong4312
02:10 Silk
08:06 Joe
05:20 Glereger Cligum6229
20:57 Faisal
22:42 Boris Pribich
22:42 Boris Pribich
23:04 Boris Pribich
23:04 Boris Pribich
06:32 Ptah
01:13 lex
01:12 phil_b
01:09 lex
01:54 trailing wife
00:38 lex
00:36 lex
00:18 CrazyFool
00:14 CrazyFool
00:01 AzCat
00:00 lex
23:40 Mark Espinola
23:38 Mark Espinola
23:38 Phil Fraering