time for some european politics

[eppie]

As you all know the coming time there will be some referenda in several european countries to ask the people if they want to have the (a) european constitution.

France was up last week (non) and today it is our turn in Holland. (ours is by the way an "advising" referendum, so the governement does not need to go with the result.

Anyway as you can imagine lots of people vote yes or no for different valid and non-valid reasons.

My first contra is here that we are asked a simple question (so it seems) but the answer is not so simple. What if you are for a constitution but not for this one. Or what if you are against some points in this constitution.

And the second is that they are a bit late, first everything is decided just by the government (EU, currency etc.) and now in the end they ask us if we want a constitution.

So we have seen politicians trying to win votes with lots of strange arguments.
Let's say we have seen the worst face of politics.

Or maybe it was all meant to be.....just to let the people get more involved and interested in politics.


ANy thoughts?

p.s. this thread is not just for europeans :D

[Jarulf]

As you all know the coming time there will be some referenda in several european countries to ask the people if they want to have the (a) european constitution.

I would personally say that it is a little bad/wrong to call it a constitution, or if it is meant as one, it is a really bad one. It has in many parts nothing i relation to what should be in a constitution. It also goes into quite details of things like how countries should be run in specific (for example economic) cases, something that in my opinion does not fit into a constitution. It is in my opinion (although I must admit I have not yet read it completely or in detail) to a be a patch work of many speicific things individual countries have lobbied to get into it and thus ends up as a very bad thing as far as a constitution goes.

As a voting deal, yes, it is a yes or no thing. Like in many votings (be there 2 or more options, like for parliment with a limited number of candidates), you have to stick with the options in existance. Take whatever option you feel is the best or less bad. Not much more to do, there will never be an option that everyone (or even a majority) will agree upon every single option as "the best" and nothing wrong.

[Kylearan]

Hi,

As you all know the coming time there will be some referenda in several european countries to ask the people if they want to have the (a) european constitution. France was up last week (non) [...]

It seems there have been a lot of French mixing up "Referendum about the proposed European constitution" with "Referendum about Chirac and his politics". I guess they were not aware of the harm they have done. :(

My first contra is here that we are asked a simple question (so it seems) but the answer is not so simple. What if you are for a constitution but not for this one. Or what if you are against some points in this constitution.

Then you should have joined a political party and tried to have some influence on the proposed constitution during its creation. I'm not sure how you want to work out something as complex as a constitution via a referndum?
Or you should have elected a different political party to represent you in the process of creating the constitution.

(Sidenote: As far as I know, the proposed constitution has been created by merging the last two EU contracts (Maastricht and Nizza?), and adding some more details/making some compromises. There had been referenda about these before.)

And the second is that they are a bit late, first everything is decided just by the government (EU, currency etc.) and now in the end they ask us if we want a constitution.

I'm quite sure it's not the "if" we have to discuss: I think we agree that now with 25 countries in the EU, we *need* a constitution for it to work. Now is the proposed constitution a good one? No, I don't think so. However, I think it's a lot better than what we have now, and thus a step in the right direction. It adds a lot more democracy to the EU (albeit not enough for my taste) and replaces the old contracts we had, which had been designed to work with only 15 countries, not 25.

The main problem in my view is that the EU as a whole doesn't get the attention and media coverage it deserves. Its influence on national politics is huge, and yet nobody is really interested about it, or knows how it actually works (I'm not really an exception to that). I have been positively surprised about how much media coverage the process of creating the constitution got here in Germany; the daily newspaper I read wrote about it for months now. I know that's not necessarily true for other media and other countries, though. Hard to say who's to blame: The media for not reporting about it, or the population for their lack of interest.

The polls that showed that a majority of French who voted against the constitution had no idea what it said really frightened me.

-Kylearan

[Jarulf]

For the interested, here is a link to the actual text (in all available languages as well):

http://europa.eu.int/constitution/index_en.htm

[eppie]

Hi,

It seems there have been a lot of French mixing up "Referendum about the proposed European constitution" with "Referendum about Chirac and his politics". I guess they were not aware of the harm they have done. :(

-----yes exactly, and that also happens over here. (By the way don't make the mistake a lot of people make to say that everbody who votes NO does it for unjust reasons).
But this is exactly why the referendum (in this case) is such a wrong thing to do. You will never get the answer to the question you were asking. But than again, that is indeed the mistake of the governments.....they could expect this to happen.



Then you should have joined a political party and tried to have some influence on the proposed constitution during its creation. I'm not sure how you want to work out something as complex as a constitution via a referndum?
Or you should have elected a different political party to represent you in the process of creating the constitution.

----I personally have allready voted (always) for "another" political party. (one that does think about environment, animal rights and a social europe, not one that thinks only about helping farmers and make sure big companies will profit from a united europe but instead "the people")




(Sidenote: As far as I know, the proposed constitution has been created by merging the last two EU contracts (Maastricht and Nizza?),

----let's not ruffle up the feathers of the french lurkers here (Nizza i german for Nice isn't it  :D )



I'm quite sure it's not the "if" we have to discuss: I think we agree that now with 25 countries in the EU, we *need* a constitution for it to work.

---well yes I agree with that.....so that makes the having a referendum again a big mistake.


-Kylearan
[right][snapback]79170[/snapback][/right]

My main problem with is that it looks like a piece of paper on which all countries could put some of their important wishes on....and because all government wanted this constitution so bad, they did not think about what people really wanted.

One example (my main reason to vote NO although I'm in favour of a european constitution):
The articles about animal rights and agriculture are written in such a way that we go a huge step back. From now on bioindustry is a thing supported by the constitution, and as long if it is a "tradition" or cultural heritage, people can do what they want with animals. (so in no particular order: bull fighting in Spain, force feeding geese in France, dancing bears in the east, shooting of birds on Malta, fox hunting in brittain, and everything you can invent yourself). These things were in the countries still allowed but a lot of work is done to try to end these things, once it is in a constitution, this is gonna be very hard.

I know it can be changed, but cannot imagine that this is put in the constitution.

It is like putting "if you feel threatened you can kill somebody" in the constitution.

[Bob]

The polls that showed that a majority of French who voted against the constitution had no idea what it said really frightened me.
[right][snapback]79170[/snapback][/right]

I'd be more frightened if they'd voted for the constitution without knowing what it said. If you don't know what the change your being asked to make is it's better to keep the status quo, the change can always be reintroduced later. Lots of ugly bills have been introduced in the US where congresspeople have voted 'for' without reading what they've voted for, I say "go the French for not doing the same here".

It seems there have been a lot of French mixing up "Referendum about the proposed European constitution" with "Referendum about Chirac and his politics". I guess they were not aware of the harm they have done.

I fail to see how the French have done 'harm' to europe. They were asked what they thought best for them and that's what they voted for. There's no point having a vote on it if you have to vote yes 'for the good for Europe'. If you don't like Chirac and his politics and he tells you to vote 'yes' to some sort of sweeping change, are you going to vote for it?


None of that was meant to come across in an offensive or aggressive manner, I'm just really bad at composing posts in a peaceful tone.

-Bob

[Occhidiangela]

My main problem with is that it looks like a piece of paper on which all countries could put some of their important wishes on....and because all government wanted this constitution so bad, they did not think about what people really wanted.

One example (my main reason to vote NO although I'm in favour of a european constitution):
The articles about animal rights and agriculture are written in such a way that we go a huge step back. From now on bioindustry is a thing supported by the constitution, and as long if it is a "tradition" or cultural heritage, people can do what they want with animals. (so in no particular order: bull fighting in Spain, force feeding geese in France, dancing bears in the east, shooting of birds on Malta, fox hunting in brittain, and everything you can invent yourself). These things were in the countries still allowed but a lot of work is done to try to end these things, once it is in a constitution, this is gonna be very hard.

I know it can be changed, but cannot imagine that this is put in the constitution.

It is like putting "if you feel threatened you can kill somebody" in the constitution.
[right][snapback]79180[/snapback][/right]

eppie:

The US first agred on the Articles of Confederation, and while operating under those, drafted, negotiated, ammended, and then finally compromised enough (slavery was one area of compromise, for example) to get all 13 states to agree on a Constitution + first ten Ammendments. (AKA the Bill of Rights.)

The states were very jealous of their sovreign status, and it was not until our Civil War (1861-1865) that the federal govt took a significant leap in real power.

Europe has been having wars for centuries, so your constitutional process seems almost the inverse of ours, with the exception of the need for twenty one versus thirteen "States" to agree to the framework document. I'd guess your challenge is at least twice ours, if not four times as hard. As noted by Kylaren, this is a continuation of a decades long process. I'd offer that its genesis was in the BeNeLux framework in the late 1940's early 1950's. So, it is a two or three generations old work in progress.

Getting enough people to be happy enough -- there can be no perfect constitution, see ours as meeting the "good enough" standard -- is hard, hard work.

FWIW: Canada's constitution is vintage 1982.

Any Canadian Lurkers care to comment on that process vis a vis the European's work to date?

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

I'd be more frightened if they'd voted for the constitution without knowing what it said.
-Bob
[right][snapback]79182[/snapback][/right]

Well put. Bob.

Structurally, the fundamental tension is outlined right up front.

1. The union shall respect the equality of Member States before the constitution as well as their national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government. it shall respect their essential State functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security.

2. Pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation, the Union and the Member States shall, in full mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Constitution.

The Member States shall take any appropriate measure, general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Constitution or resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Union.

The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union's objectives.

Article I-6
Union law
The Constitution and law adopted by the institutions of the Union in exercising competences conferred on it shall have primacy over the law of the Member States.

This is similar to "the supreme law of the land" framework of the US Constitution.

However, and I may have missed the salient paragraph, (Para I-59 seemed to be what I was looking for) this Constitution is far more federalist in structure than ours, in that it does not appear to assign to the EU only those powers defined, and reserving the rest to the several states. This Constitution presumes that membership is something states desire, that its own primacy is self evident. That position is similar to the Federalist position during out early years, though not identical. The tone is of "Union granting limited powers to members" rather than "members granting XX limited authority to the Union." Subtle, but fundamentally different.

That does not make it inherently bad, but it may explain the cold feet of any number citizen blocs who are wary of their loss of sovereignty. As a practical matter, a federal system is one of the few ways to effectively rule a large political entity, though any system is susceptible to corruption and influence peddling.

For a similar tension, the "states' rights" school of American politics, since inception, has always held a wariness of Federal Power not explicitly granted the Government.

Occhi

[ShadowHM]

FWIW: Canada's constitution is vintage 1982. 

Any Canadian Lurkers care to comment on that process vis a vis the European's work to date?

Occhi
[right][snapback]79224[/snapback][/right]

That is not 'quite' true. We always did have a constitution: it was called the British North America Act and was passed by the British Parliament, albeit crafted in Canada.

The Constitution finally came home in 1982. It is, like any such document, flawed in some respects. But it was the best we could manage at the time. Aren't they all? :rolleyes: It was a time of high emotions, much dickering and much posturing. Sound familiar?

And, despite those aforementioned flaws, the contentiousness of any further tweaking is something that no politician wants to touch with the proverbial 10-foot pole.

[russ]

The Dutch say no to the EC as well, and with a lot less partisan reasons than the French vote.

Exit polls describe no voters as being upset over the reduced voting power this document would give them, as well as citing Germany, Greece, Italy, and France's willingness to violate EU budget rules while the Dutch followed them to a T.

It's a fair complaint of what could go wrong in the EU - power going to far to the largest and leading countries, and corruption. Given that the Constitution makes it easy for a large party to keep in power... well, there's a lot of reasons to vote against it.

[Doc]

Off topic (sorta) question about European politics.

Somebody mind explaining why so many Europeans cling so tightly to outdated goverments like monarchy? Not flamebait, honest... I don't understand how folks could live willingly under somebody's thumb like that. I don't get it. Call me a dumb American if you will, but it is a question I have wanted to ask for quite some time. What makes some lazy bugger so special that they can laze about in some spectacular palace squandering their wealth while so many of their own population goes to bed hungry or doing without basic human needs? I realise that a lot of European countries are moving to democratic or socialist governments, but why are some folk hardcore royalists? I think all of the people that truly believe that they are noble by birthright and deserve the world on a platter need to be rounded up and placed in a psychiatric hospital for observation. And the idea that other human beings, even poor ones, support this delusion, well, that falls in the catagory of mass hysteria methinks. I fail to understand how somebody would willingly subject themselves and make another human being their "master." There is either a lot of fear or a lot of brain washing involved, and I can't say I agree with either one.

[Occhidiangela]

Off topic (sorta) question about European politics.

Somebody mind explaining why so many Europeans cling so tightly to outdated goverments like monarchy? Not flamebait, honest... I don't understand how folks could live willingly under somebody's thumb like that. I don't get it. Call me a dumb American if you will, but it is a question I have wanted to ask for quite some time. What makes some lazy bugger so special that they can laze about in some spectacular palace squandering their wealth while so many of their own population goes to bed hungry or doing without basic human needs? I realise that a lot of European countries are moving to democratic or socialist governments, but why are some folk hardcore royalists? I think all of the people that truly believe that they are noble by birthright and deserve the world on a platter need to be rounded up and placed in a psychiatric hospital for observation. And the idea that other human beings, even poor ones, support this delusion, well, that falls in the catagory of mass hysteria methinks. I fail to understand how somebody would willingly subject themselves and make another human being their "master." There is either a lot of fear or a lot of brain washing involved, and I can't say I agree with either one.
[right][snapback]79260[/snapback][/right]

Short answer: Constitutional Monarchies

Short follow on: Heads of government and heads of state are not always the same seat, as is our President.

Occhi

[Doc]

Constitutional monarchies my rosy red ass.

I aint calling nobody "Your Highness" "Your Excellency" or any of that hooey. I grew up in an environment where one class of people expected another class of people to kiss their ass just because they thought their skin colour made them the Shiznit. I didn't buy it then, I don't buy it now, and I believe that even the idea of "Constitutional Monarchies" are a paradoxial contradictory term at best, and an outright lie at worst. Of course, I may have a skewed view of "constitutional" so take that into account. A king by any other name is still some twit that sits on some chair stroking his sceptre on some huge power trip.

I just don't like it. Something about the whole thing just irks me. Don't take it personal folk.

[ShadowHM]

Short answer: Constitutional Monarchies

Short follow on: Heads of government and heads of state are not always the same seat, as is our President.

Occhi
[right][snapback]79262[/snapback][/right]

And, to add a wee bit 'o flamebait....

Doncha think it would be handy to have someone other than your currently elected head of state available to do the glad-handing, opening of hospitals and other such-like? Someone who has been schooled their entire lives to STFU, smile on cue and never make 'off the cuff' malapropisms? That's worth something! ;)

[Occhidiangela]

And, to add a wee bit 'o flamebait....

Doncha think it would be handy to have someone other than your currently elected head of state available to do the glad-handing, opening of hospitals and other such-like?    Someone who has been schooled their entire lives to STFU, smile on cue and never make 'off the cuff' malapropisms?  That's worth something!      ;)
[right][snapback]79266[/snapback][/right]

No. He's gotta do all parts of the job, just like everyone else before him, and if he does not pull it off as well as some of his predecessors, that's his cross to bear.

Of course, other presidents have used their VP's for some of that stuff, but our current VP is the very opposite of a media hound.

Occhi

[Doc]

Shadow, just when I think you are about to chase me down with a fire extinguisher, you throw a bucket of gasoline.

You are a beautiful, wonderful, saint of a woman. God bless you.

[ShadowHM]

Constitutional monarchies my rosy red ass.

I aint calling nobody "Your Highness" "Your Excellency" or any of that hooey. I grew up in an environment where one class of people expected another class of people to kiss their ass just because they thought their skin colour made them the Shiznit. I didn't buy it then, I don't buy it now, and I believe that even the idea of "Constitutional Monarchies" are a paradoxial contradictory term at best, and an outright lie at worst. Of course, I may have a skewed view of "constitutional" so take that into account. A king by any other name is still some twit that sits on some chair stroking his sceptre on some huge power trip.

I just don't like it. Something about the whole thing just irks me. Don't take it personal folk.
[right][snapback]79265[/snapback][/right]

BAH ! So you are going to greet Mr. Bush as "hey, fella?" :blink: He was born to riches, and he does expect a lot of folks to kiss his ass. Americans have their 'royalty' too. And it is inherited wealth to boot.


Go do some reading, Doc. It may save us some more sour commentary. Or, better yet, go for a walk. Smell the roses. Give the critters some exercise.

[Occhidiangela]

BAH !  So you are going to greet Mr. Bush as "hey, fella?"    :blink:  He was born to riches, and he does expect a lot of folks to kiss his ass.  Americans have their 'royalty' too.  And it is inherited wealth to boot. 
Go do some reading, Doc.  It may save us some more sour commentary.    Or, better yet, go for a walk.  Smell the roses.  Give the critters some exercise.
[right][snapback]79269[/snapback][/right]

Shadow, respect to the position is a ritual with most polite societies. This allows for a few more "good morning, Senator" and fewer "hey, you freaking crook" to pass on a daily basis.

And I'll remind you that Joe Kennedy made his money the old fashioned way, he ran booze. :P

Occhi

[ShadowHM]

And I'll remind you that Joe Kennedy made his money the old fashioned way, he ran booze.  :P

Occhi
[right][snapback]79272[/snapback][/right]

And he was elected when? It was his kids who got to be politicians, no? :rolleyes:

[Occhidiangela]

And he was elected when?  It was his kids who got to be politicians, no?  :rolleyes:
[right][snapback]79274[/snapback][/right]

Joe Kennedy was the ambassador to the Court of Saint James. I'd say that is a politician, wouldnt you? But otherwise, yes.

Your inference that all wealth is inherited is of course, bogus, though in defense of your point the old money crowd in the Northeast, and the sorta old oil money in Texas, try to adapt the trappings of aristocracy.

Then you have the Geekistocracy, Emperor Bill Gates . . . and clown prince Steve Jobs.

Rogue out