Article

2004-04-30 Europe

Chirac seeks ratify or quit clause for EU constitution

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2004-04-30 1:40:29 AM|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 If the Brits are smart, they'll vote no and quit subsidizing inefficient French farmers with their tax ~~dollars~~ pounds.

You want a common market, Britain? Make one with us.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-04-30 2:46:15 AM|| 2004-04-30 2:46:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 More tales from the farce side.

Could someone (Aris) explain to me why the EU needs a constitution in the first place??

Posted by Rafael 2004-04-30 3:02:58 AM|| 2004-04-30 3:02:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Rafel - so that France and Russia can collect taxes from all of Europe - they have bled their own populations dry.

Posted by B 2004-04-30 3:32:17 AM|| 2004-04-30 3:32:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 oops...Russia=Germany ..doh!

Posted by B 2004-04-30 3:33:05 AM|| 2004-04-30 3:33:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Rafael> There are actually two issues contained in your question: First, why a new treaty is needed (regardless of whether we'll call it a constitution or not) and secondly, why are we calling it a "constitution" or "constitutional treaty".

The new treaty is for starters required if we want the EU to expand further in size, to take Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia and even more states. The treaties until now provide too far veto powers in individual states -- moreover there was weird play with the vote numbers that gave truly bizarre and unproportional powers to the two middle-sized countries (Spain and Poland), to the injury of both smaller and larger states. The new treaty would simplify the situation by calling for a "double majority" (of populations and of states) akin to the two-house system of the US Congress (though in the EU this double-majority system will be connected to the Council, not the Parliament). Other matters like the rotating presidency -- in a union of 6, 10, 12, 15 that's workable. In a union of 25 it is simply not and it most definitely ain't workable in a future union of 35 or so.

(Actually the troubles to ratify the constitution is why I've started thinking that expanding the EU before installing the new constitution was a big mistake. We should have ratified first, and then the countries that still wanted to join should be allowed in.)

In other matters, the new treaty would help as simplification -- instead of having this treaty to tell about protected rights in the union, and this other treaty to tell about movement in the union, and this piece of treaty to tell us about trade issues in the union, and this other piece to tell about the law-making of the union, now everything having to do with the workings of the union will be contained in a single piece, no matter how abnormally long it will be. :-)

As to the second issue -- why we are calling it a "constitution"... well, it's the honest thing to do. It is one, serves all the functions of one -- refers to the rights of the citizens, describes the balance of powers, establishes the instruments of judiciary/legislative/executive authority. And ofcourse it's a further step, no matter how small, down the way to federalism.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-04-30 9:42:42 AM|| 2004-04-30 9:42:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Hundreds if not thousands of trees dead in printing the thing and no one ever thought of this?? Only, of course everyone will join up front, if they decide to leave after, here's what we'll do.

Posted by Anonymous2U 2004-04-30 10:29:46 AM|| 2004-04-30 10:29:46 AM|| Front Page Top

Jacques Chirac

The French president, has put renewed pressure on Tony Blair over the proposed new European Union constitution by arguing that any state that fails to ratify it within two years of signature must quit the EU.

Posted by BigEd 2004-04-30 11:11:13 AM|| 2004-04-30 11:11:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Anonymous2U> "and no one ever thought of this?? "

Um, thought of what exactly out of all the things mentioned in this thread?

If you are referring to the "ratify or quit" scenario, the problem yet again is that the EU unfortunately can't currently force the UK to leave if UK doesn't itself agree to it. So they'll first have to make the countries unanimously agree to a "ratify or quit" arrangement and *then* allow them to make the choice of the two.

Difficult? Hell, yeah.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-04-30 11:44:20 AM|| 2004-04-30 11:44:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 BigEd, how DARE you insult me!

Posted by Kermit the Frog 2004-04-30 12:11:41 PM|| 2004-04-30 12:11:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Chirac can shove his precious constitution up his arse. Britain won't be signing.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-04-30 12:53:36 PM|| 2004-04-30 12:53:36 PM|| Front Page Top

17:01 Mark Espinola
14:26 Seafarious
14:08 Anonymous6089
12:57 Frank G
12:30 .com
12:14 Anonymous5203
00:06 cingold
23:41 Anonymous4731
11:52 Robert Crawford
11:45 Infidel Bob
11:43 Infidel Bob
07:06 B
06:59 Dave D.
06:49 Anonymous4617
06:29 Bulldog
05:21 Anonymous4617
05:15 Bulldog
03:26 Mark Espinola
02:45 ex-lib
01:21 ex-lib
01:19 Tresho
00:33 Super Hose
00:33 Paul Moloney
00:32 Super Hose