Holland and France will be voting on the new European constition at the end of April and the begin of May.
Strangely enough, there's not really a lot of objective information out there about what this is going to mean.
I'm hoping we can sum up a list of good and bad things about it, so that I can use it to help inform people about what they're going to be voting on.
I read through a rough draft of it and a couple of items did spring to mind:
1. The group who created it were supposed to be looking into making the EU more transparant. What they've come up with is a less transparant system. Namely, the executive is chosen by member states (not voted on) and they decide what's going to happen. The Euro MP's can vote yes or no, but the executive has the final say.
2. It is a federal European State which is being created. Only taxation is really left to the individual countries.
3. Voting on issues will go by % of population. This means that 3 large countries can determine the policy for 25 countries. This can't be all bad though. It means that if you can swing three large countries to the left, you can swing the whole of Europe to the left.
4. National law is secondry to European law.
Right, I don't have time to continue quite at the moment, but please fill in and add!
Originally posted by shavixmirYou have to look at what is new in the Constitution and what isn't.
Holland and France will be voting on the new European constition at the end of April and the begin of May.
Strangely enough, there's not really a lot of objective information out there about what this is going to mean.
I'm hoping we can sum up a list of good and bad things about it, so that I can use it to help inform people about what they're goi ...[text shortened]... law.
Right, I don't have time to continue quite at the moment, but please fill in and add!
1. Doesn't the constitution give the European Parliament increased powers? Until a few years ago the Commission really did run the show. In any case, there's always something people can say. If more power goes to the EP, it means Europe is getting centralised, as the EP is not under the control of member governments, it's a source of power in itself. If more power goes to the Commission, then it's not as democratic, but it gives member governments some control. I must say I'm in favour of a strong Parliament, and that seems to be the current trend, but I can see why some people are uneasy about it, and individual governments don't want to relinquish power to it.
2. Pretty much all the powers specified in the constitution are ones the EU already has. You can call it a federation if you like, but it's a pretty weak one; even the federal government of Switzerland has more power. As long as the decisions are taken by democratic means, I don't really care whether things are decided in London or Strasbourg, and indeed the EU exists precisely to make decisions that can only be made effectively at an international level, eg environmental policy.
3. Er, did you not read the part about QMV? 3 large countries can block a policy if they don't approve, but regardless of population, at least 13 countries (might be more, I can't remember) must agree for anything to happen. There's not much danger of a left- or right-wing coup by a handful of extremists.
4. There wouldn't be a lot of point in European law if it didn't supercede national law - it would be more 'European advice' that member states are free to ignore. Europe produces enough advisory material as it is, and in fact almost all tabloid scare stories refer not to EU law but to a piece of advice from some obscure committee. European law is what all member states have agreed to do - ignoring it is like breaking any other international treaty, and international law supercedes all other law. Suppose all EU countries including the UK agreed to ban some nasty atmospheric pollutant, and then the UK Parliament passed some new law saying that this chemical was OK after all. Don't you think that would be a little unreasonable?
Originally posted by AcolyteI really enjoyed the effort and thought you have put into this post.
You have to look at what is new in the Constitution and what isn't.
1. Doesn't the constitution give the European Parliament increased powers? Until a few years ago the Commission really did run the show. In any case, there's always ...[text shortened]... after all. Don't you think that would be a little unreasonable?
I will throw a little "gas on the fire" by questioning your #4. You say that it wouldn't be a lot of point in Eruonizing if it doesn't supercede nationalism.
I doubt that the writers have given any thought at all as to "human nature". That is why communism failed so miserably. The founders thought they could change human nature. Do you really think there is a hope in hell of making a "french man" a "euro"?
<edit> But not to be just a pain in the arse... I offer the obvious solution. Don't form a "federated democracy". Form a Republic. But hell. Nobody listened five years ago. The romance of "democray" is too strong.