Jump to content

The EU Constitution


H. Lecter

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
Guest imported_El Mamerro

I deleted the other one for your convenience.

 

You might want to be a little more specific on what you want people to vote about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to sound like a dick, but if you don't immediately understand what the vote is about then this poll was'nt made for you and you should'nt be voting.

 

 

For the record,

 

This is a poll concerning The Ratifacation of the European Union Constitution.

 

 

Yes- for it

No - against it

 

Please Only Vote if you are an EU CITIZEN

otherwise the whole purpose is defeated..

if you've an opinion but are'nt an EU citizen, feel free to post comments...

 

thanks all..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From BBCnews.co.uk....

 

 

Constitution full text (1MB)

Constitution in full (PDF link)

 

The constitution brings together for the first time the many treaties and agreements on which the EU is based. It defines the powers of the EU, stating where it can and act and where the member states retain their right of veto.

 

It also defines the role of the EU institutions.

 

Click on the headings below to find out the constitution says, and what it means:

 

Powers of the EU

Division of responsibilities

Decision making

Qualified majority voting

President

Foreign Minister

 

Foreign and defence policy

Reform of the Commission

European Parliament

Fundamental Rights

Legal Supremacy

Leaving the EU

 

POWERS OF THE EU

 

What the constitution says:

 

The Union is said to be subsidiary to member states and can act only in those areas where "the objectives of the intended action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states but can rather... be better achieved at Union level." The principle is established that the Union derives its powers from the member states.

 

What it means:

 

The idea is to stop the Union from encroaching on the rights of member states other than in areas where the members have given them away. Critics say that the EU can act in so many areas that this clause does not mean much but supporters say it will act as a brake and is an important constitutional principle.

 

Back to top

 

DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES

 

What the constitution says:

 

The EU already has rights to legislate over external trade and customs policy, the internal market, the monetary policy of countries in the eurozone, agriculture and fisheries and many areas of domestic law including the environment and health and safety at work.

 

The constitution will extend its rights into some new areas, perhaps most importantly into justice policy, especially asylum and immigration. It does away with the old structure of pillars under which some policies came under the EU and some under "inter-governmental" arrangements.

 

What it means:

 

It means a greater role for the EU in more aspects of life. In some areas, the EU will have exclusive competence, in others a shared competence and in yet more, only supporting role.

 

Back to top

 

DECISION MAKING

 

What the constitution says:

 

The principle of voting by qualified majority will be generally applied. It is felt that otherwise getting the agreement of all 25 members would be a recipe for inaction. There will however be a veto for members in foreign policy, defence and taxation. And there is to be what's called an "emergency brake" in which a country outvoted on an issue can take its case to the European Council, though it can still be outvoted there. The European Parliament will have an equal say on decisions requiring majority voting.

 

Back to top

 

QUALIFIED MAJORITY VOTING (QMV)

 

What the constitution says:

 

"A qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55% of the members of the Council, comprising at least 15 of them and representing Member States comprising at least 65% of the population of the Union."

 

What it means:

 

This system replaces the old one under which countries got specific numbers of votes. There were objections that Spain and Poland had too many votes and this methods is felt to represent a fairer balance between large and small countries. The new one will still lead to complicated permutations of voting but the final results of the "double majority" should command more general respect.

 

An amendment does away with a proposed procedure under which the European Council could have changed an area of policy to QMV. Now such a proposal will have to go before national parliaments and if one objects the measure fails.

 

Back to top

 

PRESIDENT

 

What the constitution says:

 

The European Council, that is the heads of state or government of the member states, "shall elect its President, by qualified majority, for a term of two and a half years, renewable once." The candidate will then have to be approved by the European Parliament. The President will "chair (the Council) and drive its work forward and ensure, at his level, the external representation of the Union."

 

What it means:

 

This is a new post. At the moment, the Council presidency rotates through the member states every six months, so continuity is lost. The new President will therefore be a permanent figure with much greater influence and symbolism. But since he or she will be subject to the Council, the powers of the post are limited.

 

Back to top

 

FOREIGN MINISTER

 

What the constitution says:

 

"The European Council, deciding by qualified majority, with the agreement of the president of the Commission, shall appoint the Union Minister of Foreign Affairs... [who] shall conduct the Union's common foreign and security policy."

 

What it means:

 

It sounds grand, but the minister will only be able to speak on the EU's behalf when there is an agreed or common policy, for example over the Middle East roadmap which members have accepted. The post will combine the present roles of the external affairs member of the Commission with the High Representative on foreign policy so it will be more prominent, especially in negotiating trade and aid agreements. The EU is also to set up its diplomatic service which will strengthen the Minister's hand.

 

Back to top

 

FOREIGN AND DEFENCE POLICY

 

What the constitution says:

 

"The Union shall have competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy."

 

What it means:

 

It does not mean that a common foreign or defence policy will be imposed on member states. Each one will retain a right of veto and can go its own way. There is nothing that could stop divisions over Iraq for example. The aim however is to agree on as much as possible. Defence is even more sensitive and has been ring-fenced by references to the primacy of Nato for relevant members.

 

Back to top

 

REFORM OF THE COMMISSION

 

What it says:

 

The Commission, the body which proposes and executes EU laws, "will consist of one national from each Member State" for its first term of five years starting in November 2004. After that it will be slimmed down to "a number of members... corresponding to two thirds of the number of Member States, unless the European Council, acting unanimously, decides to alter this figure."

 

What it means:

 

As a transitional measure to reduce the fears of small states that they will be ignored, each member state will have a Commissioner (only one each) from November. The idea after five years is to slim down the Commission from 25 to 18 (or one or two more if there are more member states by then). It is felt that the current Commission is too big with not enough jobs to go round.

 

 

 

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

 

What the constitution says:

 

The European Parliament is to have powers of "co-decision" with the Council of Ministers for those policies requiring a decision by qualified majority.

 

What it means:

 

The European Parliament has over the years acquired real power and the constitution confirms this. If the parliament does not agree to a piece of relevant legislation, it will not pass. This idea is to strengthen democracy because the parliament is the only EU institution in which voters have a direct say.

 

 

 

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

 

What the constitution says:

 

It sets out "rights, freedoms and principles." These include a whole list from the right to life and the right to liberty down to the right to strike.

 

What it means:

 

The Charter is wide-ranging but has to be tested in the courts before its exact status is established. The British government says that rules for interpreting the Charter mean, for example, that national laws on industrial relations will not be affected.

 

 

 

LEGAL SUPREMACY

 

What the constitution says:

 

The EU will for the first time have a "legal personality" and its laws will trump those of national parliaments: "The Constitution and law adopted by the Union institutions in exercising competence conferred upon it by the Constitution shall have primacy over the law of the member states."

 

What it means:

 

This really just confirms the status quo, which is that if the EU is allowed to legislate in an area of policy, its law will overtake any national laws. Equally in areas where it does not legislate, national law prevails.

 

By having a "legal personality", the EU will be able, as an organisation, to enter into international agreements. The old European Community had this right but the EU as a whole did not so its status in world diplomacy increases.

 

 

LEAVING THE EU

 

What the constitution says:

 

A new procedure describes how a member would leave the EU: " A member state which decides to withdraw shall notify the Council of its intention... The Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that state, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal."

 

What it means:

 

It was always the case that a member state could leave by simply repealing its own legislation. Now there is a formal procedure designed to show that the EU is a voluntary association. However a departing member would have to agree terms so there is an implied threat that it would not be that easy.

 

This clause is presumably designed never to be used

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------

The arguements lay between those who truely want a unifed Europe and those who prefer extended sovreignty...

and those who support a free-market system and those who support protectionist markets.

 

 

please only vote if you are an EU citizen,

otherwise feel free to post comments...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest sneak

im an EU citizen, and i have heard about this.

france are at the polls today right??

 

other than that i know fuck all about it. and i pride myself on being one of those people who are usually abreast of these things. i blame the govt. for not telling me more!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not in Europe, but my newspaper says that France and the Netherlands voted "No thanks." Who knows, they still might create an EU at some point, but to me it looks like some of the populations of some major players are not too happy with the loss of national sovereignity and LOCAL CONTROL. And the Euro took a plunge against the dollar when the vote came in. Has it recovered yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FRANCE is really stupid to say no to the constitution, they are going to be isolate in Europe,

I think E.U MUST work and have a constitution together, to be a stronger force.

I am french and I am very dissapointed because I know most of the NO are against the president Chirac who supported it...It was a way to contest and critict the actual government.

UNE SEULE SOLUTION LA REVOLUTION :hatred:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oui mais une revolution est plus efficace quand se contre la grand force, pas la classe ouvriere...

 

 

 

We should be taking care of one problem at a time,

Portugal one of the initial members of the EU is still in dire economic straits,

Eastern Germany is yet to be adequately rebuilt, employed and organized,

and Italy's textile manufactuers are still losing BIG everyday to China and E.Europe.

What about us in the Western European nations??

 

Furthermore,

do you want your jobs being sacraficed to eastern nations?

do you want MORE of your already over-whelming taxes diverted to the East?Or to Bruxelles?

do you want a majority vote compromising your nations trade agreements?Foreign Policies?Immigration Policies?Laws??

 

It endangers the individual and sovereign liberties of nations...

 

For example,some things which may suffer are Italy's conservative laws, and Nederlands liberal laws...

and these are things which are reflective of their respective cultures.

 

A federal EU would destroy cultures by these means, and further-more it will create a faux balance in the continent... a unfied facade covering a spirit of discontent.

in such a case success would quite likely prove more destructive than failure.

 

Despite many of the Western European industrial and hard-labour jobs which have been diverted recently,

the current treaties have been working fairly well,

and this rush into a constitutional,federal Europe is

simply governing leaders picking fruit before it's ripe.

 

The truth is that you can't turn around countless years of divison with one constitution.

many other things need to be done before such a document is put into place,

and many revisions must be made, to the document and to the peoples awareness of it...as well as their control of what it contains.

 

Sure it would make a "United States of Europe", and bring the continent a louder ,unified international voice...

it will create a heavier counter-weight to American "super-powerism".

But if the EU leaders continue as they have been,

this is likely to be proven as a tragedy of unimaginable proportion

because many of the current dominating EU leaders have been in favour of making deals with China which America has refused to,

trade-offs which include the dealing arms to China, who happens to be the single largest threat to the economic and military stability in all of the world...

China is a silent enemy of the west and even of it's own people.

They're straight decievers and no true friend, and helping these people to help yourself will by no means "balance" power in a positive way for the world.

 

This is a very different time than that of DeGaule...

When it was simply America and the USSR as the superpower "balance", the world was on the edge of destruction for 40 years...

 

Either way,

The people,the workers, they make a nation or even a union strong,

it's about what's right and wrong for the people,

and if it's wrong for the people,no matter what happens with foreign policy,

the constitution would be a disaster.

 

If you want to save your nation from unnecessarily becoming ever more dependant on others...

until there's major revisions,and until exisiting responsibilties are met,

I'm sorry to say that the only logical vote is "NO"....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as the economy continues to grow there is nothing to fear in adding new nations to the EU economically speaking.

As industrialized nations age the population growth tends to drop off to zero, or even negative population growth.

Therefore, bringing new nations into the EU is one way to maintain a growing economy.

From what I have seen the EU economy has been growing steadily.

 

As far as arms deals with China goes, I don't really think that would be threatening to the EU. China is becoming more and more of an international player all the time. Their economy continues to grow exponentially and once they are firmly established as an industrialized nation they will stabilize. Increased literacy rates initially causes instability but eventually it all stabilizes. Especially now that the world is ever more interdependent. The only threat China poses militarily is in resource wars. They may make and imperial move to control the Spratley archipelago if our current energy crisis is not resolved soon. It is more likely, and more beneficial, for the far eastern nations to form a trading bloc. However war over resources is a very touchy subject. As far as war between industrialized nations goes, that is highly unlikely given the interdependence between the industrialized world. War between industrialized nations is fought economically. And the future of the economy for industrialized nations is to fund education. Manufacturing is history, services will soon be history as well. That's not just in Europe... that's here in the US as well. Soon it will be a war of ideas and information. Artists may actually thrive (for once!) in this coming age. But we will be competing on a global scale. This new era, economically speaking, could resemble the preindustrial era, when merchants and custom artisans were the backbone of the economy. Instead of the industrial ages plutocratic owner/ruler worker/plebian strata. Things could get better for everyone... hopefully. It should be much more egalitarian.

 

As for national sovereignty I cannot say. I do not understand EU politics enough. I see nothing wrong with the way the EU is operating now. It seems to work quite well enough. This new constitution was rather sudden for me... I had only heard of it maybe a month ago. So I could understand any uneasiness. I read somewhere that economic policies were established in this constitution... so there is a justifiable aversion there. Economics is always subject to change, while the rights of a people and nation should not be. If this was a move by lassez faire economists to create unregulated economic policies, then it's probably best that the constitution in it's current form was shot down.

 

Try, try again....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest imported_Tesseract
Originally posted by EUROne@Jun 3 2005, 03:44 PM

FRANCE is really stupid to say no to the constitution, they are going to be isolate in Europe,

I think E.U MUST work and have a constitution together, to be a stronger force.

I am french and I am very dissapointed because I know most of the NO are against the president Chirac who supported it...It was a way to contest and critict the actual government.

UNE SEULE SOLUTION LA REVOLUTION :hatred:

 

Obviously you're more stupid than my cat after i farted 10 times in her face.

Putting the word revolution and yes to the Eu constitution together proves that.

 

The EU constitution as it is now is fuckin horrible. Its only oriented around economy and holds no social weight whatsoever.

 

I wont go in depth cause i'm fuckin bored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest imported_Tesseract

PS. Under the EU constitution the 'European Army' should only use NATO bases, which means the US will control the 'European Army'...full of jokes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...