Re: the European Constitution
 

I agree with much said by Pmb, but a few things are simply incorrect with his arguments. I'll start with making Capital and private property an invioble right... That does not make other systems possible, it just means they cannot be forced on people. It would be argued to death anyway (well, shouted) were a substantial example come up regardless of constitution.

"Same people or similar as 50 years ago". This is a cynical untruth, but I can see what you mean.

I voted no, and will when we have a referendum, (which, you'll be intrested to know, the government is trying to scam us with) but not because of the points in the constitution. More specifically it is two things that I see as an issue.

1) It is trying to make my country conform to laws and standards I will have hardly any power over. At all. At least within Britain ,(and any individual nation eventually depending on which) we can force change (and, with reference to the "50 years" comment, can be sweeping and disastrous. The useless Labour governments, the effective but widely disliked Thatcher years -despite excellent policy and long term- and the resultant "tear down the establishment" approach that bred the current mad hypocrites) and make government work for us, or become them. You cannot become the government of Europe. Even France and Germany, who together vilely influence the EU, cannot get their way all the time, and they are the governments, let alone "the people".

2) There is no way to take half measures, even if they are by far the better way. This, incidentally, is one of my reasons against the €, to which I am far better disposed, but on this point falls flat for me.
While (esp. in the constitution) unanimous consent is required to change things, once you have joined something major like this there is no remaining at a beneficial level. You must then proceed with all major changes, whether you want them or not. (Unless everyone hates them and fail them as well.) You cannot just hold up the entire bloc because you dislike some change, you'll just have to keep voting until a favourable result is attained.
With the constitution, it can be abndoned, but the € cannot -it epitomises this point, moreso because you cannot simply put off major Economic descisions.

I feel the € would solve many of Britain's problems, we hae been able to avoid a lot of trouble by being very favourable compared to our counterparts, thanks to Thatcher and good scemes and sensible (and a few silly undoubtably) laws and management by New Labour, but these economic advantages are minor now, due to the "success" of the € and the £ amongst other things.

Re: the European Constitution
 

Arguably right. Unless these systems HAVE to condemn capitalization to work, in which case it's not possible to apply them.

You're right. I will rephrase myself: obviously, not all the european institutions were created 50 years ago. Most of them are only 10, 20 years old (Maastricht, etc.) That optic in mind should render my phrase more comprehensible.

The rest of your argumentation is very good, although some parts are highly criticizeable (Thatcher years' excellent policy...)

Your first point is very good. It is the famous lack of democracy, in the etymological sense of the term.

About the second point, I'd say part of the problem is not the Euro itself, but the Central Bank policy (or absence of, given where your stand point is). We obviously don't share the same wing, so I won't push the debate in that direction. I'll just say that my belief is that economy must be kept subordinated to politics, by all means, coercitive ones if required. A state can't be run like a firm, for a state runs for its people and not against other states whatsoever, where a firm hardly runs for its employees but does against the competition.

Re: the European Constitution
 

Actually, a bank controlling several key points (fiscal policy) of the economy is far superior to the government doing it. There is less room for fools to screw around with it for political gain. The creation of a more powerful Bank of England fashioned in part on the old German one is an excellent idea. With regards to the € (really, I shouldn't have to Alt Gr to get the symbol, it should be shift!) a central bank is necessary, you simply can't have polititions in control of fiscal policy! (Especially when you're talking about different nations) I think the influence the nation states (especially the powerful France/Germany combination) have over the currency and it's economic policy should be slashed, frankly it would be much better for all concerned.
You can't have various countries trying to control the economy when they share a currency, so the needs to be a central point. I say a strong bank, not a group of politicians and certainly not some committe.

The thing is, the economies should not be run like a firm, but for the people by someone who is there in their interest. They must not be politicians, or "elected officials", or "officials appointed by the committe for slapstick policy".
Modern central banks are for he regulation of the economy, they don't operate like a high street banking corporation, such as HSBC.

On the topic of Thatcher, well. If it weren't for her, we'd be a very different nation. We would either be a mess or someone would have come along to sort it out after it got that way.

For instance. Tightening of labour laws. We would be worse off due to the lack of foreign direct investment, which has really helped us. (Incidentally this is set for decline, which could be solved by joining the Euro, but there are other issues with that.) In the forst instance we would leech a lot of money from the EU, in the second we could well be a far more totalitarian nation, or perhaps the power central government has over us would be excerised more fully. (The government here is actually shockingly powerful, it just can't apply much of this power without serious backlash, which if we had continued in decline might well be seen as acceptable.)

Right to buy council houses, I think this speaks for itself.

It may seem a little sketchy, but the UK in the late 70's was a failing welfare state style country -Thatcher changed all that and you'll notice that labour doesn't want to change back...

In principle I believe in a welfare state, I am classified as a "left-centralist" with stong libertarian views, but in practice I don't think it would work. The result always seems too totalitarian and lets face it, noone would ever vote for my policies. I do then stand with the conservatives, but I think I'll change for the Lib Dems if they sort themselves out. The conservatives have too much baggage with them -it encompasses too many views to be effective (though that can be an advantage for getting votes) but the lib dems are currently so damn wishy-washy and can't do anything but whinge about things trying to pull disaffected votes. Bah.

Re: the European Constitution
 

very good read.

my initial zombie-vote would be yes, since I'm in favor of the union, but you post has made me reconsider a bit, PMB.

Common to all you arguments are a comparison to the basic form of a constitution.

You see a constitution as something made by an elected group, which the european constitution isn't.
You see a constitution as something readable, which the european constitution isn't.
You see a constitution as something revisable, which the european constitution isn't.
you see a constitution as a neutral document, which the european constitution isn't.

All those points mainly have to do with the form of the constitution, and not it's function.

but let me start out with arguing a bit about 'the idea of the constitution'.

A constitution is made by an elected group you say. As I understand your argument, this is because a political group will be biased. Prior to this i have only studied the danish and american constitutions, but based on my knowlegde of those two, i must argue that the people who were elected to write the constitutional draft were as biased as any european politician.
The constitution is based on the original european organization because of this, you say? well of course it is, and whether you like or dislike this organization this surely can't come as a surprise to you? What else might the constitution be based on, had it be written by others? No radical changes has made a constitution neccesary, so therefore the constitution must be based on what we already have.
Concerning the danish and american constitutions, the case was a bit different, but the people who wrote both pieces were just as politically engaged (and therefore just as biased) as the people who wrote the european counterpart.
What difference would an elected group have made?

Your next point is easier to understand. My first reaction was that 'if it works, why need it to be readable', but i guess that i'll never know if it will work, because I'm surely not gonna read it...

A constitution must be revisable, yes, but we shouldn't change it all the time either. I agree with you to a certain extend here, but when you argue that the constitution has to perfect, i think you have to make some points as to why it isn't perfect as it is, regarding it's contents, and not only it's form.

The last argument is my absolute favorite.

let me quote Marx: "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness." Neutral, you argue. Well tell me what's neutral...
There is no such thing as neutral. the inalienable rights of man is a political and ideological statement, just as property and the free market is. The abstract free individual is the basis of all liberalistic politic. The european constitution just takes a tiny step in the direction of the modern capitalistic evolution. the individual is the truth in western society. There is no need to argue this anymore, and thus we can just as well move on to the consequences of that truth, such as the free market.
Hence the quote.

But as i noted in the beginning, this is just the form of the constitution and has very little to do with the contents (except of the last argument). What influence do you think the constitution, flawed as it might be, will have on europe in the future?

I'm asking because I don't know. The medias in are only arguing in large perspectives, without much talk about the actual text and it's consequences. This makes it hard for me to say anything clever about it, but since I'm used to like the idea about europe, i generally tend like anything they come up with... I actually think i need to revise my opinion about the union quite a bit...

Re: the European Constitution
 

Go France Go.

In a few days Netherlands takin the vote.
And prepolls tell it'll be a NON to.

Re: the European Constitution
 

We'd be in a strait jacket. For years. No way to change a iota from the policies dicted in the Constitution. This alone would be sufficient to vote no.

You gotta be honest, there's a big difference between the way the American Constitution has been written by Washington and his lads and this one. The American Constitution created new institutions (or for the least validated the creation of ones that were just in place) that have been laid to work in a kinda democratic manner. This one validates the function of ones that exist for decades, that were not supposed to be democratic at all. Let's not forget that Europe was initially an ECONOMIC community, and that their institutions were merely representations of the governments in place.

The Europe we have now is an Europe for politicians and bankers, but it is not a democracy and has never been!

*edit*
To add something else. Notice how all the great humanist ideas in part I and II are systematically voided by this clause:
These articles apply without prejudice of the dispositions taken in part III of the present treaty.
Enough said I guess.

Re: the European Constitution
 

well the curent situation isn't equal to the situation when the american constitution was written, and I think it's fair to question why we even need a constitution in Europe.

But that is still not an argument based on the contents of this constitution. When you answer my question by telling me that the constitution is a strait jacket, you aren't really answering much. What i'm curious about is what influence this constitution will have on europe in the future. Strait jacket or not.

Of course the lack of changability will restrain politics to a certain degree, but what i actually wanted to know was what it is, that we can't change and how this will affect europe in the future.

Re: the European Constitution
 

In germany noone asks the people, the politicians decide this >:(. At the moment there are too many bureaucrats getting too much money for doing useless things in the european union I think.

Re: the European Constitution
 

Isn't it so that when one country sais no, there is no deal for this constitution? I will vote anyway, but as i see it, nobody has to vote or say what they want in the end. Its better to have referendums saved for the next or have some easy polls to get an idea who voted for or against...

it does not really matter anyway i suppose.. NON by france, means back to the drawing board with that constitution!

Re: the European Constitution
 

It's not that simple Stefan. We need a certain number of countries to disagree altogether for the treaty to be revised. And even then, there's no guarantee that it'll be revised at all, and the Council might as well decide that these countries must redo the same vote one second time !

The text says "... for the Council to deal with the situation" (translated) without any precision.

I'll try to reply to Exilibur's question this evening, because that one needs more than 5 minutes.