| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| Europe | |||
| EU Constitution Unveiled | |||
| 2003-05-26 | |||
| BRUSSELS -- The proposed EU constitution, unveiled Monday and to be considered by EU leaders next month, calls for an elected president and the post of foreign minister to represent the union internationally, and a binding bill of rights. the binding part is what will be the worst part The document, drawn up by a 105-member committee led by former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing, calls for the European Union's six-month rotating presidency to be replaced by an EU president, elected from the current batch of heads of state for two and a half years. He also favors creating the post of EU foreign minister to represent the bloc on the world stage So if Chiraq can get the presidency, he can put off the bribery charges for another 2 and 1/2 yrs Perhaps as important, at least to the British, was that the document does not use the term "federal" and the European Union will not be renamed "United Europe" of the "United States of Europe." ? United Weasels was also out of the question? Welsh Secretary Peter Hain, who represents Britain on the 105-member convention, said the draft text showed London had made "good progress" in influencing the proposals. "We are burying once and for all the fantasies of a Brussels super-state. Europe will remain a union of sovereign nation states with governments such as Britain's in charge," he said.
Or we'll punish you It also commits the 15 members to come to each other's defense in the event of terrorist attack. Riggghhhttt, like Patriot Missiles for Turkey, M. De Villepin? | |||
| Posted by:Frank G |
| #10 Aris & TGA: The Iraq war illustrated what divisions there are within Europe at fundamental levels. Why try to force common foreign policies on people who do not share common outlooks. It's not necessary and it's certainly not going to enhance any one nation's standing in global affairs to be represented by a single representative on, say, the security council. And, as for the democratization and reform. Call me a cynic, but I'd like to see that in place before signing away my democratic rights in a sovereign state. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-05-27 03:23:46 |
| #9 Lileks's brief commentary on the EU Constitution, as well as a review of Matrix 2. Seems sad, really, how more than 200 years has not yet produced a group more insightful and forward-thinking than our own founding fathers. |
| Posted by: jegstuff 2003-05-27 00:29:03 |
| #8 The ones who don't want it, like UK, may feel free to leave it. That may turn out to be a bit more difficult than you think. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-05-26 23:56:31 |
| #7 TGA and ARIS, This Yank wishes you the best of luck on your journey through the "Looking Glass" MOLON LABE |
| Posted by: leonidas 2003-05-26 23:28:14 |
| #6 TGA and Aris - I have no fear that a EU will ever become a rival to the U.S. militarily and politically and economically. My comments on deeding yourselves to a French-schemed "union" are merely observations *shakes head* If it keeps Europe happy go for it - if you compete with us, I have no problem with that and the competition is what keeps us (and you) sharp. I merely was musing about the uber-state that has to restrict nations from leaving a voluntary union with little common grounds. Good luck |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-05-26 21:08:43 |
| #5 TGA, in theory what you say is true. There's just one minor problem.... A nation, and particularly its diplomacy, reflects the culture of its people. I don't think French culture has changed all that greatly (except superficially) in the last century. They still believe themselves to be masters of diplomacy. A century ago, these amazing French diplomats gave the world the Treaty of Versailles. Now you want to trust d'Estang? If it works for you.. |
| Posted by: Dishman 2003-05-26 20:16:43 |
| #4 The idea of sovereign nations led Europe into destruction twice the last century. Today the European idea is to give up parts of national sovereignity in order to obtain a stronger European sovereignty. Still in the making, I agree. How "sovereign" are countries like Slovenia or Lithuania? Outside the EU they would still have to follow all the (economical) rules of the EU without having a say in the matter. They prefer to be inside. Smaller countries will have more influence inside the EU than outside. What could "sovereign" Slovenia really do? Print their own money, yes, but they'd still go by the mighty Euro. Playing the US card? Not likely. An US base isn't a substitute for thriving European markets and what political influence could such a country have with the allmighty US? A few troops in Iraq-Iran-Syria-Saudi Arabia (tick box)? The breadcrumbs of American geopolitics? The Swiss have a first hand experience of what it means to follow what the EU says without having a say. OK the Swiss still have their secret bank accounts but this is pretty much the only thing that is worth staying outside. And sooner or later they will cede to EU pressure to tax non-Swiss clients. Franco-German interests? The more countries join, the less influence these two countries will have (they will still have a lot though). The EU may have been created for economical reasons but it also serves a political purpose: to guarantee that all European countries will live in peace with each other in the 21st century. Yes it's still rough at the edges but we are on track. Of course, the bureaucratic structures must be reformed, democratization must take place. I guess the new Eastern members may very well teach us a lesson in that respect. Good for them. With all respect: Vitriolic US statements just betray a certain worry: That the EU might seriously challenge the US. That's not what the EU wants. But we will have a stronger economical position if we are united. We won't be bossed around. And that's what it is all about. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-05-26 19:48:26 |
| #3 For once, Aris, I agree with you. The UK should have no further part of the EU consolidation. It's already unaccountable, corrupt and led by power-crazed manipulators. If you like that sort of thing, and the majority of your compatriots do too, fair enough. In Britain, the majority do not. What's wrong with a pan-European trading bloc? Why do you want to become a small and expendable cog in a machine which has no purpose but to further Franco-German interests? Your funeral... |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-05-26 16:46:54 |
| #2 "the binding part is what will be the worst part" Yes, how horrid, the idea of having states bound to defend human rights. "United Weasels was also out of the question" We can see how grateful the Americans are for all the Danish, Spanish, Polish and UK assistance. Or don't you know that these countries are/will be members of the EU? "We are burying once and for all the fantasies of a Brussels super-state. Europe will remain a union of sovereign nation states with governments such as Britain's in charge," Bzzt. The constitution clearly marks progress towards a federal state (and good for it), even though UK wanted the dread f-word removed. "if the EU is too weak then what good is it; if it is too strong then who wants it." I do. The ones who don't want it, like UK, may feel free to leave it. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-05-26 12:09:19 |
| #1 classic problem: if the EU is too weak then what good is it; if it is too strong then who wants it. |
| Posted by: mhw 2003-05-26 11:08:00 |