You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Europe
EU draft constitution agreed
2003-06-14
A final version of the draft constitution for an enlarged European Union has been agreed after tough last-minute negotiations in Brussels. The document is to be presented to EU leaders at a summit in Greece next week. Former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing, who headed the convention that produced the text, said that history had been made. However, several countries including Britain and Spain said the draft would need to be rejected amended when governments start to debate it later this year. "This will be a good foundation for final negotiations," said Britain's chief negotiator, Peter Hain. The convention has also put off a final decision on some controversial issues until after the summit in Thessaloniki. These include the question of whether EU should drop national vetoes in foreign, defence, taxation and cultural matters. Mr Giscard d'Estaing said that when he handed over the draft to next week's summit he would advise the leaders there to tamper with it as little as possible. "I will make just one recommendation to the Council: The closer you stick to our text, which has been discussed and reflected upon at great length, then the lighter will be your task."
Yeau kneau, doon't yeau leuk teau cleausly at zee leetle deetailz. Zey arrrr not amportont.
The 105 members of the convention, representing 25 countries, have been working on the text with a president and two vice-presidents for 16 months. They have reached broad agreement to extend qualified majority voting to a range of new areas, including immigration and asylum policy. The debate has been dominated by tensions between small states, which favour strengthening the European Commission - the EU's executive arm - and the larger states, which prefer joint decision-making by governments. The final draft constitution creates a new post of president of the European Council - the body made up of heads of EU member states - who will work in parallel to the President of the Commission. It also introduces a foreign minister who will get his or her mandate from the European Council, but will serve as a vice-president of the Commission. Some of the changes are designed to make it easier to administer the EU when 10 new members join the 15 already in the union next year. "We are setting up a new Holy Roman Empire political age, more efficient, more democratic, and assuming [France's] [Europe's] full role on the world stage," said French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin. Slovenian parliamentarian Alojz Peterle said that the draft was part of the project of unifying Europe after 50 years of Cold War division.
That's right! If only the nasty old US hadn't allowed the Nazis or the Communists to unite Europe 50 years ago, we wouldn't have to doing all this now.
"This project proves that a united Europe is possible, and an expanded Europe can be successful," he said.
How does a pile of paper "prove" in any way that a future experiment will be successful?

Clickable guide to the draft constitution
Excerpts from the latest draft
Posted by:Bulldog

#12  The top leadership part sounds like a pyramid scheme. The generalizations and "feel good" language I have read so far sounds like a bureaucrat's dream. I hope that the European public reads this document very carfully and asks some hard questions before they sign on with this outfit, but I'm just a cynical and uncultured Merkin.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2003-06-14 12:59:51  

#11  I give this un-UN about four years before all the members bow out. I am taking bets on it going beyond four years.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2003-06-14 12:00:13  

#10  The Czechs also voted (77% approval) to join - hope they had a better upbringing, and they know when to shut up and listen to their betters, so Jacques isn't frustrated again
Posted by: Frank G   2003-06-14 10:22:35  

#9  The undercurrent of political struggles and quarrels between the smaller and larger members of the EU sound a lot like the US in the 1780s. The smaller states signed on to the constition pretty fast as it helped to prevent them from being steamrollered by the larger states. Federalism worked best for them. States like Virginia had a vested interest in the older confederation political process because it enlarged their influnce and Federalism could only decrease it over time. This is one reason that a Constitional Admendment to eliminate the Electoral College will never pass.
Posted by: Someone who did NOT vote for William Proxmire   2003-06-14 10:10:51  

#8  I especially love this bit:
"Social policy:
The Union and the Member States... shall have as their objectives the promotion of employment, improved living and working conditions,"
 You mean like cutting the work week to 25 hours, and prohibiting firms from ever laying off workers?
There's a future economics Ph.D. somewhere in there: 21st Cent. European Economic History: What Went Wrong?
Posted by: RW   2003-06-14 09:42:07  

#7  Europe is going to pieces. I love it!
(Oh wait, I said that already)
Europe is going nowhere. I love it!
Posted by: RW   2003-06-14 09:33:04  

#6  "...US hadn't allowed..." should read "...US had allowed...". Time to beef up the coffee levels, I think.
Posted by: Bulldog   2003-06-14 09:23:59  

#5  And RW, I'm glad you know what 80% and 90% have been thinking based just on your own family's attitude. Or what your family claimed was their attitude. Perhaps they didn't want to break your heart. :-)

But polls tell a different story, one that's not based on economics alone, but on a common foreign and defense policy as well.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2003-06-15 02:21:10  

#4  Difficult to have "border disagreements" mean much when people pass freely from one country to the other and borders mean about as much as state borders mean in the US.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2003-06-15 02:00:58  

#3  perhaps the EU will work for a while...

then two member states will have a 'border disagreement' or some other spat

the EU will then become paralysed beaurocracy producing 'strongly worded resolutions condemning the violence' and Europe will go back to being a bloodbath. Old habits die hard.
Posted by: Anon1   2003-06-15 00:25:36  

#2  This is a powder keg waiting to explode. Europe will never get rid of its nationalistic fervor. Implementing economic measures is understandable, but this super-state thing is nonsense. Those countries that voted 80% or 90% were thinking in terms of economics (like my family in Poland) and not because they wanted to form some sort of new European one nation. Get your head out of the clouds Aris.
Posted by: RW   2003-06-14 17:56:24  

#1  And as always it's only Americans and Brits (well, and communists too) that can see the deep conspiracies and horrors that exist behind Europe's beautiful faces. All those Eastern Europeans that voted with margins of 90% or 80% in favour of joining the EU are surely uneducated and uninformed savages that have to be taught by you where their own good lies.

I propose calling this sacred duty of yours "Anglosaxon Man's Burden".

But I've still not understood the reason you believe Blair's government stays in the EU, if he doesn't believe it to be good for the UK...

And yeah as "Someone who did NOT vote for William Proxmire" said, it's closer union and federalism that's favoured by the small member-states, exactly because it works better for them.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2003-06-14 14:09:37  

00:00