PDA

View Full Version : EU Constitution



Praxus
03 Oct 03,, 23:53
The EU Constitution is a disaster waiting to happen. It is over 150 pages of contridictions and statements that could be so easily manipulated. On top of this it does not list the most basic of rights. Namely the right to life, liberty, property, and persuit of ones own happiness. But somehow they manage to mention space exploration.

If the EU becomes an actual political entity there is a chance Europe could eventually break down into War.

JulianStarr
18 Oct 03,, 06:37
You raise an excellent point sir. First of all the length is entirely too long. However that is the nature of many Constitutions outside the United States. At least for those that do have Constitutions. I would argue that at the minimum the European Union is already a de facto political entity.

Bill
18 Oct 03,, 06:39
And a defacto political nightmare. I couldn't imagine tying my fortunes to the likes of France....

2DREZQ
18 Oct 03,, 21:19
Originally posted by JulianStarr
You raise an excellent point sir. First of all the length is entirely too long. However that is the nature of many Constitutions outside the United States. At least for those that do have Constitutions. I would argue that at the minimum the European Union is already a de facto political entity.

The United states was a political entity prior to, and after, the Constitution adopted. We waged a civil war to prevent the dissollution of that entity. Is Europe prepared to do the same?

Julie
19 Oct 03,, 03:57
The US Constitution was drawn with very good intentions. Since then, the Amendments thereto have all but rendered the original Constitution moot.

Contraditions are intentional by the Government for loop holes for the political entity to have room to maneuver.

You might use the cliche, aren't rules made to be broken?

Ironduke
19 Oct 03,, 06:20
Well, we can compare sections of the US and EU constitutions that concern similar matters.

US:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Europe:

Any nation in Europe that does not have an established religion as of the signing of this document shall not establish a state religion, and neither shall any state that accedes to the European Union that does not have an established religion at the signing of this document. There are several states within Europe that will be allowed to keep their state religions, the following being: England with the Anglican Church, Greece with the Greek Orthodox Church, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland with the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and Scotland, the Church of Scotland, aka the Presbyterian Church.

No state shall prohibit the free exercise of religion, unless it's a religion deemed dangerous to the internal stability of that state. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are among those deemed a danger to the stability of all of Europe, as well as Evangelical Protestants like those in the United States. Jesuits can be forbidden in the northern European states. Any group deemed a 'cult' maybe be acted against in any way. Wahabbism (also known as Salafism) are not to be forbidden in anyway.

People should generally be able to speak whatever is on their mind, unless it is discussion about race, religion, immigration, government social policies, etc. A prison term of 5-10 years will suffice for all offenders. It is imperative that we jail the owners of dogs who teach the dogs to do a Hitler salute.

There shall be a freedom of the press, unless it conflicts with the governments of the various European states. Every state is entitled to make full use of nationalized broadcasting facilities to disseminate propaganda among the masses. No newspapers can be printed with soybean ink from genetically engineered soybeans.

People should be discouraged from peacefully assembling, they should be dispersed with teargas and rubber bullets. Violent assembly, which usually occur during World Trade Organization and Bilderberger meetings, should be left alone, unless they destroy more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the town they are rioting in.

Citizens by all means are free to petition the EU government and the government of the state they live in, but they won't get answered.

Gio
19 Oct 03,, 06:23
LOL :LOL

Ray
19 Oct 03,, 10:35
I await with bated breath.

bobbylad
19 Oct 03,, 12:38
The EU Constitution is not a national constitution that is why, football clubs have constitutions, political action groups have constitutions, the EU is a supranational economic and political union like no other in the world and because its a new thing in the world some people have a hard time understanding it.

EEC/EC/EU has had a constitution for a long time now the only difference is that while this treaty is 200 pages long the previous system of treaties was tens of thousands of pages long. 80% of the clauses from the new treaty are copied directly from previous treaties, this constitution shouldnt be compared to the US Constitution because as I just stated they are for different purposes although I do hope one day it will lead to a Federal Europe with a new Federal Constitution.

Ray
19 Oct 03,, 14:33
Bobbylad,

From what see on BBC, I believe that the British are not too keen on it, nor the Scandanavians.

However, sure what to know more of the same. It is quite interesting to find an English speaking person speak up for the EU. Are you British?

From the discussion of speakers on the BBC, I reckon it is a fear of being swamped by the French and the Germans. How far is that correct? Further, they are also wondering of making a European Army. This is causing another fierce debate vis a vis the status of NATO. In fact, it is beleived that the idea of an European Army is just to keep the US out of it, since the task apparently would be the same.

JulianStarr
19 Oct 03,, 19:17
The current Constitution for the united States was actually one of the greatest frauds perpetuated. The Annapolis Convention met to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to come up with a new Constitution.

The war between the Sovereign States, did fundamentally alter the Constitution forever, it was an American Revolution. Thank the lord however the Constitution has endured through it all, despite the Supreme Court's best effort.

The European Union would do well to allow for a "Right to secession" and to recognize that it was the member Nation-States that created the Union and NOT the other way around. Oh and a "one size fits all policy" a la Brussels should not be continued.

bobbylad
19 Oct 03,, 19:19
Yes I am a British "Subject" and a European Citizen, I am certainly in favour of our membership of the EU as are most people in this country however one thing which is a problem is how little people in this nation actually know about the EU. We dont teach any post war history in our schools other than the Cold War, our foreign languages are shocking, only a tiny proportion of the country speak speak a second European Language and if you were to quiz people about how the EU works I doubt many would know to be honest. That needs to be tackled first and foremost in order to stop extremists like the UK Indepdence Party and the British National Party being seen as serious by some people.

I dont know about being "swamped" there is always opposion to immigration although if the people involved have dark skin that tends to wind up the usual suspects more. We already have nearly a million "non British" EU citizens living in our country as it is, I dont see it as a problem and compared to tension which has existed with other immigrant communities its nothing.

Also why is it always "French and Germans", im not just picking on you here but every time the issue of Europe is discussed its either the French or the "French and Germans" who get brought into it, they are just two countries, the largest and third largest why not "Spanish and Italians" or "Sweeds and Dutch" you know its the typical ignorance shown about the EU that it centres around two countries it doesnt thats nonsense and its one of the myths put about by xenophobes in countries around the EU (apart from in France and Germany).

bobbylad
19 Oct 03,, 19:20
Julian there is a right to leave the EU in the draft constitution and a relativly quick process for doing so once it has been exercised.

JulianStarr
19 Oct 03,, 19:23
I see many parallels between the United Kingdom and the United States. Both of our Nations are not too fluent in other European languages, and have reservations about the European Union.

The whole "French and German" syndrome is partially an American characterization, stemming from the Iraq issue. It is also because those two countries didn't exactly love each other prior to this date.

Praxus
19 Oct 03,, 19:39
EEC/EC/EU has had a constitution for a long time now the only difference is that while this treaty is 200 pages long the previous system of treaties was tens of thousands of pages long. 80% of the clauses from the new treaty are copied directly from previous treaties, this constitution shouldnt be compared to the US Constitution because as I just stated they are for different purposes although I do hope one day it will lead to a Federal Europe with a new Federal Constitution.

What is the point of the EU?

If everyone has free trade with each other, what's the point of having a political entity. The only thing I can think of is POWER.

Ironduke
19 Oct 03,, 20:05
Originally posted by JulianStarr
I see many parallels between the United Kingdom and the United States. Both of our Nations are not too fluent in other European languages, and have reservations about the European Union.

The whole "French and German" syndrome is partially an American characterization, stemming from the Iraq issue. It is also because those two countries didn't exactly love each other prior to this date.
France and Germany laid the foundation of what was to become to EU with the Schuman Declaration in 1950, which pooled French and German coal and steel, which was succeeded by the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951.

France and Germany have been the nexus of European integration efforts over the last 5 decades.

bobbylad
19 Oct 03,, 20:40
If everyone has free trade with each other, what's the point of having a political entity. The only thing I can think of is POWER.


Well you dont think very much then. Free trade is more than just about lowering tarriff barriers its about lowering all other barriers to trade. If you have a product it has to meet certain standards of quality and safty before it can be sold on a nations market, so if you had a company and you wanted to export that product to the other EU members you would have to get it approved and certified in every single one of those nations, on the other hand if there is a common EU standard for that product all you have to do is make sure it meets that standard, if its an electrical product for instance you can then slap on this nice golden sticker which has a big E on it which then allows you to sell it anywhere in the EU. You dont have to worry about national issues because if it meets the common European standard then you can sell it anywhere in the EU. That also applies to taxes, if you pay them in one country then you can sell your product anywhere in the EU as if you were selling them in the country you were based in. Its more than Free Trade its a Single Common Market and that is what it has been for a long time now.

bobbysnemesis
19 Oct 03,, 20:42
Hi bobby my old chap.

The British public arent as thick as you like to make out.

And you dont know for a fact that people want to stay in the EU, you just assume that they would.

PS hope you like your flag bobby :p

JulianStarr
19 Oct 03,, 20:45
Yes, the Steele & Coal agreements did lay the foundation for the EU, there is no doubt about that. It did happen, it is not an assumption.

Praxus
19 Oct 03,, 21:13
Well you dont think very much then. Free trade is more than just about lowering tarriff barriers its about lowering all other barriers to trade. If you have a product it has to meet certain standards of quality and safty before it can be sold on a nations market, so if you had a company and you wanted to export that product to the other EU members you would have to get it approved and certified in every single one of those nations, on the other hand if there is a common EU standard for that product all you have to do is make sure it meets that standard, if its an electrical product for instance you can then slap on this nice golden sticker which has a big E on it which then allows you to sell it anywhere in the EU. You dont have to worry about national issues because if it meets the common European standard then you can sell it anywhere in the EU. That also applies to taxes, if you pay them in one country then you can sell your product anywhere in the EU as if you were selling them in the country you were based in. Its more than Free Trade its a Single Common Market and that is what it has been for a long time now.

You don't need a fucking political entity to have the same safety standerds throughout Europe. So why don't you take your aragont self and get the fuck lost somewhere.

Ironduke
19 Oct 03,, 21:14
Come on now, language man.

bobbylad
19 Oct 03,, 21:59
Well you obviously dont know what politics because without human interaction you cant do that at all.

Would you like to tell me a different way to run the common market other than through the structures the EU currently has?

Praxus
19 Oct 03,, 22:05
My point is they don't need a political entity to have open and free trade. Is there something hard to understand about that?

European countries could agree on a set of standereds for accepting products then they could sign a treaty or protocol or whatever. They do not need a politcal entity.

Stinger
20 Oct 03,, 00:06
Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are among those deemed a danger to the stability of all of Europe, as well as Evangelical Protestants like those in the United States. Mormons are a threat? yeah I've often heard this cry "Hide the women and children, men ready your guns the MORMONS are coming".... pfft....

Ironduke
20 Oct 03,, 00:37
Originally posted by Stinger
Mormons are a threat? yeah I've often heard this cry "Hide the women and children, men ready your guns the MORMONS are coming".... pfft....
They've been banned in alot of countries, I believe. I know the Jehovah's Witnesses are banned just about everywhere.

bobbylad
20 Oct 03,, 10:55
European countries could agree on a set of standereds for accepting products then they could sign a treaty or protocol or whatever. They do not need a politcal entity.

Oh no I understand its just a really stupid idea. First of all unanimity amongst 25 members would be impossible to reach that is why council decisions are based on qualified majority so not everybody has to agree, also simply having ministers draw up treaties in secret isnt really very democratic now is it? Thats why we have the European Parliament which is directly elected which has to accept all European Laws.

Also laws are changed ammended, budgets altered new ones introduced all the time there is no way that you could simply introduce a new treaty every week.

Also its not just about product standards its about workers rights, European Citizens can live and work anywhere in the EU that is their right so there has to be some level of common standards for working practices. Its also about fighting crime, we have free movement within the EU, national boundaries dont exist anymore you simply move from one country to another and you pass a sign saying "welcome to spain" or whatever so there needs to be a way to stop cross border crime.

There is also the effectivness of laws, if you create a law on a European level then it will possibly more effective than simply introducing that at a national level. For instance if the UK Government legislated on something some companies may avoid it by moving to another part of the EU however if you implement that legislation on a European wide level there is nowhere for them to move to.

You seem to be under the impression it is simply about free trade, it is a single market you will find there is a difference.

bobbysnemesis
20 Oct 03,, 11:38
If it was up to me no law would be passed without unanimity amongst all 25 countries :dbanana

thus making sure that individual nations arent being dictated too by the majority :)

And the European parliament is less than useless, just having a European parliament doesnt make it more democratic.

Being democratic means that each country has power over its own furture, in your EU bobby, countries have to submit to the greater so called good of the EU,what ever that might be, thats not democratic its the USSR.:)

bobbylad
20 Oct 03,, 12:14
USSR? Please.


If we had to have unanimity amongst 25 nothing would ever get done, it used to ne unanimity when it was 5 members but not anymore.

Id hardly call the EU Parliament useless but then again you have never been there, you dont know how it works and I doubt you even know the name of your MEPs so I dont know what yuor basing it on.

Leader
21 Oct 03,, 01:02
Originally posted by bobbylad
USSR? Please.


If we had to have unanimity amongst 25 nothing would ever get done, it used to ne unanimity when it was 5 members but not anymore.

Id hardly call the EU Parliament useless but then again you have never been there, you dont know how it works and I doubt you even know the name of your MEPs so I dont know what yuor basing it on.

I think that is the point he's making. He does want the EU congress to get everything done because he sees many of the things that body does as bad. I personally don't care much about the EU. I don't see what they would be discussing since they are all socialist (or at least 95%)


You've also given me a severe case of avatar envy with that huge flag.

bobbylad
21 Oct 03,, 01:25
I think you have a funny idea of socialism but for your information the Party of European Socialists is no longer in power in the EU, the Council has a huge majority of Conservatives and the European Parliaments biggest party is the Conservative "Christian Democrats".

Leader
21 Oct 03,, 01:51
Originally posted by bobbylad
I think you have a funny idea of socialism but for your information the Party of European Socialists is no longer in power in the EU, the Council has a huge majority of Conservatives and the European Parliaments biggest party is the Conservative "Christian Democrats".

Yeah conservative. :LOL I beat I would be truly hard pressed to find a truly conservative party in all of Europe

Bill
21 Oct 03,, 03:01
Europe's definition of a conservative would make a republican revolt against his party if we used the same definition.

A European conservative is the same as a US liberal.

A European liberal is more akin to a communist.

Europe is almost as a whole socailist....meaning i view almost all of it as potential enemies of the United States.

You lad's wouldn't know real freedom if it bit you on your collective asses.

And who reported this thread, and why? I saw nothing here particularly offensive...

Leader
21 Oct 03,, 03:14
Originally posted by M21Sniper
Europe's definition of a conservative would make a republican revolt against his party if we used the same definition.

A European conservative is the same as a US liberal.

A European liberal is more akin to a communist.

Europe is almost as a whole socailist....meaning i view almost all of it as potential enemies of the United States.

You lad's wouldn't know real freedom if it bit you on your collective asses.

And who reported this thread, and why? I saw nothing here particularly offensive...

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

Leader
21 Oct 03,, 03:18
I got money on that bobbylad reported this

"You don't need a fucking political entity to have the same safety standerds throughout Europe. So why don't you take your aragont self and get the fuck lost somewhere."

that might have been a little harsh but I've been called worse

Bill
21 Oct 03,, 04:00
Try to keep it clean as much as possible.

I understand that at times you have to use profanity to keep from punching a hole in your monitor when faced with the stupidity of those that willingly trade their freedom for 'the collective good', but please do try to keep things more civil.

I for the life of me do not understand why socailists get so offended when they are called such, for they are the ones that have insisted through their vote and inaction that they be little more than sheep of the herd- under the ever watchful eye of the sheppard, who secretly desires to eat them all.

bobbysnemesis
21 Oct 03,, 12:11
The trouble with bobbylad is he is a idealist and thus makes him quite mad.:dbanana

Stinger
21 Oct 03,, 14:23
Hey Snipe did you ever read a novel called "Cauldron"? In the novel France and Germany ally and begin merging their respective armies and commands. They then try to bring all of Europe into line.... sound somewhat familiar considering the book was written in the early 90's?

Bill
21 Oct 03,, 16:30
As a matter of fact, i think i did read that.

Of course now it all seems a blur....so maybe i didn't- but meant to!

LOL ;)

Praxus
21 Oct 03,, 18:40
think you have a funny idea of socialism but for your information the Party of European Socialists is no longer in power in the EU, the Council has a huge majority of Conservatives and the European Parliaments biggest party is the Conservative "Christian Democrats".

Read this peice by Ludwig Von Mises...
http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=2757

Ray
21 Oct 03,, 19:11
If EU really become a reality as a 'Nation', would it not become another centre of power?

Praxus
21 Oct 03,, 20:05
It would for a little while then they would start hating each other and it would erupt into Civil War.

Bill
21 Oct 03,, 21:40
I can't say Ray, my crystal ball isn't working today. ;)

It would be a threat to the US though, if France was the 'lead' state.

bobbysnemesis
21 Oct 03,, 21:41
I don't think we have to worry about the EU ever becomming a nation, it will tare its self apart long before that ever happends.

And the sooner the better. :dbanana

Bill
21 Oct 03,, 21:52
It may appear that way, but can we say for sure?

Not really.

Hopefully, you are right.

Leader
21 Oct 03,, 23:32
Originally posted by M21Sniper
It may appear that way, but can we say for sure?

Not really.

Hopefully, you are right.

They would never be united. They lack a common language and a common culture.

Stinger
21 Oct 03,, 23:38
Originally posted by Leader
They would never be united. They lack a common language and a common culture. heheheh.... you could say the same for California by itself let alone the rest of the US.

Jay
22 Oct 03,, 04:48
California itself has a sepetrate identity I guess, much like Texas!!

But finally, its Washington that lends money and bail them out :roll

Officer of Engineers
22 Oct 03,, 05:22
Originally posted by Leader
They would never be united. They lack a common language and a common culture.

Pax Romana

Gio
11 Nov 03,, 20:38
Europeans will soon consider a proposed constitution for the European Union that is very different from the U.S. Constitution. The United States is the oldest and largest surviving constitutional republic -- a nation that has experienced a larger increase in area, population, and income; absorbing people of more diverse racial, ethnic, and language backgrounds than any other contemporary nation. So Europeans are well advised to understand and consider those characteristics of the U.S. Constitution that provided the political and legal framework for the American success story.



Several characteristics of the U.S. Constitution have contributed to its relative success and survival as a body of foundation law. The preamble, for example, describes the objectives of the Constitution in only 52 words of forceful, declaratory, and quite general prose, which, by itself, provides no authority for any specific political decision. The main text, in only seven articles, describes the powers authorized to the several branches of government and the powers denied to the federal government or the states as few, brief, and well defined. All residual powers are reserved to the states. And the Bill of Rights, with one exception, is a list of the rights of individuals against the state, not a list of claims by individuals on services to be provided by the state; the one exception is the right to a trial by jury. All residual rights are reserved to the people.



The proposed EU constitution is very different in several dimensions. The preamble goes on and on for 293 words to describe the shared values and objectives of the Union; this is wholly unnecessary and sure to provoke continued controversy. One sentence alone, for example, commits the Union to "work for a Europe of sustainable development based on balanced economic growth, with a social market economy aiming at full employment and social progress," a sentence that includes at least five ambiguous terms.



The proposed constitution has more than 400 articles but leaves several important issues unresolved. The relation between the Union and the member states, for example, is not clearly defined; one article suggests that the Union could use its power outside its exclusive authority if some unspecified body decides that the Union could do it better than a member state. Another article authorizes the Court of Justice to give preliminary rulings on the interpretation of Union law but without identifying what body has the authority to make a final ruling on these issues.



The most important difference between the U.S. Constitution and the proposed EU constitution, however, is the concept of rights. The U.S. Bill of Rights is a list of individual rights against the state. In contrast, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which constitutes Part II of the proposed EU constitution, includes a long list of rights to services provided by the state. Such rights, for example, include education, a free placement service, paid maternity leave, social security benefits and social services, housing assistance, preventive health care, services of general economic interest, and high levels of environmental and consumer protection.



These claims on the state represent the most important potential tension in the Union. On the one hand, the proposed EU constitution states that the "Free movement of persons, goods, services and capital, and freedom of establishment shall be guaranteed within and by the Union ... [and] any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited." Fine. On the other hand, any citizen of the Union seems to have a claim on a wide range of social services wherever that person chooses to live. This will lead to either a massive movement of people to states with a higher level of social services or the harmonization of these services among the member states. The only way to resolve this potential tension is to allow each member state to restrict access to social services on the basis of such personal conditions as the number of years of work in that state and the absence of a felony conviction. Unless that happens, the EU will become a massive, harmonized welfare state.



As in the United States, the proposed EU constitution doesn't deal well with the inherent conflict between nondiscrimination and affirmative action. The EU constitution states that the "Equality between men and women must be assured in all areas, including employment, work and pay," but this "shall not prevent the maintenance or adoption of measures providing for specific advantages in favor of the under-represented sex." For the moment, in both the United States and the EU, discrimination against people is generally illegal but discrimination in favor of some people is sometimes required. This minor madness, hopefully, will not last.



A final point: The text of the proposed EU constitution is pretentious. Many of the substantive provisions are described as if they were derived from some first principle, as if the crafting of a constitution is some form of algebra rather than the result of political negotiation and agreement. For example, the text talks about the principles of loyal cooperation, conferral, subsidiarity, proportionality, solidarity, democratic equality, representative democracy, participatory democracy, and on and on. Broad agreement on the substantive provisions of a constitution is necessary to its effectiveness. Broad agreement on principles is not, because many people may support the same substantive provision for quite different reasons. On these issues, I suggest that Madison is a better guide to an effective constitution than is Descartes.



Europeans should be careful about any major political structure that is presented for their approval, particularly a constitution that was originally presented as a treaty among the member states but now appears to be more like the constitution of a European nation. Even those who favor the major provisions of the proposed constitution should be careful to ensure that the constitution limits the authority of the EU to define its own powers, because all governments seek broader powers than first authorized. Over time, an imperfect Europe of national states -- bloodied but hopefully wiser -- may be a better protection of liberty than approving the proposed constitution in the hope for a more perfect European Union.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/080403M.html

Ironduke
05 Dec 03,, 15:44
Originally posted by Leader
They would never be united. They lack a common language and a common culture.
Many in Europe see themselves as Europeans first. If the politicians can succeed in building a large European identity than they may very well become united.

bobbysnemesis
05 Dec 03,, 19:27
Don't expect we british to be part of it, it would have to be a cold day in hell ,before i could call my self a European.

Praxus
05 Dec 03,, 21:23
At least most of the British people are smart enough to relize a tyrannical government in the making.

Trooth
06 Dec 03,, 13:00
There is a common European langauge, English. It is extremely widely and fluently spoken in most European nations. Most European nations start teaching their kids English at a very young age. A second language that if you go to many places is better spoken there than in England.

This has largely led to the philosphical assumption that the EU will be come a single entity speaking English. (The same trend apparently indicates the US will become a single entity speaking Spanish.)

The European community is a much more difficult thing to "bind together" than the colonial states of the US because of exactly the opposite reason: the colonial states weren't based on history and culture. Europe as we all know has history, culture and bloodshed in spades.

The original purpose of the Europen Union was an attempt by, primarily, France and also the Benelux countries to gain some control of German industrial power as it was rebuilt after the second world war. Understandably they were concerned that Germany was difficult to control. It has now spread to such an extent that France has somewhat become subsumed by German economic power anyway. Long before the Euro was introduced, the Franc was somewaht a reprint of the Deutchmark.

My own personal view is that the EU's power needs curbing in the short term and that the cultural, ecomonic and political landscapes are too extreme for increased power in Brussels, certainly in relation to the UK which is very different to the other economies, for example.

In the long term, the EU will become a federal state as trade and culture harmonises as it is has been doing since the dawn of time. At that point it may even adopt the union jack along with english :D

Praxus
06 Dec 03,, 15:15
You can dream all you want, but ANY "Union" based on a 200 page constitution is bound to turn to into a tyrannical state.

Look at the US Constitution it is 6 pages long(including bill of rights and all of the rest Ammendments), it is simple and to the point(look how much they have been able to manipulate it, now think about a 200 page one with contradicting statements).

Trooth
06 Dec 03,, 16:31
Originally posted by Praxus
You can dream all you want, but ANY "Union" based on a 200 page constitution is bound to turn to into a tyrannical state.

Look at the US Constitution it is 6 pages long(including bill of rights and all of the rest Ammendments), it is simple and to the point(look how much they have been able to manipulate it, now think about a 200 page one with contradicting statements).

The EU constitution is not that of a nation state. The US one is. They are different things.

The US constitution didn't have to deal with established situations because it was establishing a new country. The EU constituation has to deal with the nations that only stopped out and out war with each other 60 years ago. It can't "sweep aside" existing ad-hoc arragements in place of the new ideal.

The US constritution was born out of struggle, war and revolution. The EU one is born out of peace , stability and propserity. Very different times. People love to argue more in peacetime.

The EU constitution has to learn from the problems of the US one. Large parts of the US constitutions actually took 200 years to finally become established, after all.

Praxus
06 Dec 03,, 17:33
The US constritution was born out of struggle, war and revolution. The EU one is born out of peace , stability and propserity. Very different times. People love to argue more in peacetime.

The EU constitution has to learn from the problems of the US one. Large parts of the US constitutions actually took 200 years to finally become established, after all.

The US constitution was made in peace time by the way, in the summer of 1787. Four years after the end of the Revolution. The Bill of Rights didn't come about until 1791.

The EU Constitution is based on the flawed ideal of Socialism and "Social Justice" not of the Protection of Individual Rights like the US Constitution.

Trooth
06 Dec 03,, 18:01
I never said it wasn't made in peace time, but it was born out of struggle.

You are right that there is a fundamental difference between the EU and the US, the latter prizes the individual above all else, the former more of a societal view.

I also agree that the EU one is flawed, but then the US one ain't perfect either.

As with most things, the best solution is probably somewhere in between, certainly the US has become more socialist over the last two hundred years and the EU less socialist.

Praxus
06 Dec 03,, 19:30
You are right that there is a fundamental difference between the EU and the US, the latter prizes the individual above all else, the former more of a societal view.

I also agree that the EU one is flawed, but then the US one ain't perfect either.

One mistake they did make was adding the General Welfare clause which has been misinterapted despite the fact that the founding fathers in varius letters to each others, speeches, etc... explicitly says it means only what is provided for in the constitution. This and of course about allowing slavery for 40 more years or something to that effect.




As with most things, the best solution is probably somewhere in between, certainly the US has become more socialist over the last two hundred years and the EU less socialist.

If you mix food and poision the poision always wins.

Europe turned to Capitalism in the 19th Century, the only thing closer to Lassiez Faire was late 19th Century America. Europe has been for the last 200 years more socialistic then the United States except for maybe FDR's presidencys which I won't go into to.