Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sun 02/20/2005 View Sat 02/19/2005 View Fri 02/18/2005 View Thu 02/17/2005 View Wed 02/16/2005 View Tue 02/15/2005 View Mon 02/14/2005
1
2005-02-20 Europe
Panicked Chirac may call early vote on 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 Bulldog 2005-02-20 4:39:04 AM|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Maybe we should take out ads in LeMonde that say the EU "Constitution" will make it easier for Britons to buy Brittany.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-02-20 8:31:55 AM||   2005-02-20 8:31:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Someone should suggest to the Europeans a simple idea: take the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, and replace the words "United States" with "Europe". Then, ask the question: "Would life be *intolerable* living under *just* this minimal document?" That is, accepting the notion that the purpose of a constitution is to limit government, *not* to detail every possible thing that government *could* do. This would entail abandoning the Roman and Napoleonic Law idea that "That which is not allowed by the government is prohibited", and replacing it with the Common Law idea that "That which is not expressly forbidden by government is legal." And then, to add the part that is the most essential, most important, and the most precious part of the US constitution, its Bill of Rights. Because nothing matters in the composition of a state that allows the government to trample the rights of its citizenry. A constitution is just words unless it has a Bill of Rights, a recognition that the state is there *solely* to serve the people, and not the other way around. That, of itself, the state has no intrinsic value AT ALL.
Posted by Anonymoose 2005-02-20 9:07:29 AM||   2005-02-20 9:07:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I've stayed clear of this EU/EU costitution debate,because I know very little about it.But I would like to ask a couple of questions.
1)Do the citezens of the EU have the right to vote on thier Representatives to the EU?
2)Do they have the right to vote on laws proposed by the EU?
3)Do the citzens of individual countries have the right to recall/impeach thier EU reps?
4)Do the citezens of the (collective)EU have the right to impeach members of the Executive Branch(ex:EU priesident)?
How are EU judges chosen and do the citezens have any say as to who sits on the bench?
Posted by raptor 2005-02-20 9:20:48 AM||   2005-02-20 9:20:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Personally I don't really understand all of the hoopla surrounding the EU Constitution. Population demographics will once and forever unite the Caliphate Europe in the latter half of the century anyway so what's the big deal?
Posted by AzCat 2005-02-20 9:37:43 AM||   2005-02-20 9:37:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Quick quick, let vote before the citizens start - gasp - READING the proposed constitution!!

raptor:

1) EU parliament yes (limited power), EU commission no
2) No
3) No
4) No
Posted by True German Ally 2005-02-20 10:20:07 AM||   2005-02-20 10:20:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Someone should suggest to the Europeans a simple idea: take the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, and replace the words "United States" with "Europe".

LOL! Bravo for the innovative idea of the "United States of Europe" which has never ever been proposed before!

But let's see, a single foreign policy, a standing army and single defense, a single currency throughout the Union (too bad UK or Sweden, no opt-outs allowed for you), federal taxation, the federal government enforcing a full separation of church and state throughout the continent no matter what the regional traditions are (sorry UK, sorry Greece), no state vetos at *all*, no right to secede from the Union...

Most of this is a federalist wet-dream for me (though even *I* wouldn't go that far towards federalism -- for example I'm in full favour of the rights of any state to secede), but when some people loathe it whenever the EU takes even tiny, *tiny* steps towards federalism, do you really think that they would currently accept the full-blown United States of Europe that you are talking about?
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2005-02-20 10:53:51 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/]  2005-02-20 10:53:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Actually the Spanish minister of Justice has said to the citizens: "No need to read the Constitution to know it is good".
Posted by JFM  2005-02-20 12:29:53 PM||   2005-02-20 12:29:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Just sign along the dotted line.
Posted by True German Ally 2005-02-20 12:31:40 PM||   2005-02-20 12:31:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Thanks,TGA.Now let me see if I've got this straight.
The EU is going to be an un-elected government, ran by un-elected beuracrats,with a judiciary un-accountable to the people they are supposed to protect.All this and the people of Euorpe have no way(short of armed revolt)to correct problems,or get rid of incompetant,corrupt,or inneffective leaders.Are my conclusions correct,TGA,JFM,BD,Howard?
I find it hard to believe,Aris,that you are in favor of this hegmonic dictatorshp.Aris,thier are a lot of examples that are much,much worse than U.S. Federalisam,after all how many Euoropean Democracies have lasted over 200 hundred years.Just where the hell do the Euros get off calling the U.S.hegomnic when they are in favor of this crap?
Posted by raptor 2005-02-20 12:37:30 PM||   2005-02-20 12:37:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 The people only have an indirect influence through their national governments and parliaments, and a very limited influence through the European Parliament.

Not good enough. The EU commission already affects our daily lives as much as our national government.
Posted by True German Ally 2005-02-20 12:42:25 PM||   2005-02-20 12:42:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 I'm curious: are there provisions from withdrawing completely from the bureaucratic lunacy while remaining completely within the economic union? If not it might not be a stretch to call the withdrawl provisions illusory.
Posted by AzCat 2005-02-20 12:42:51 PM||   2005-02-20 12:42:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Raptor

You atre right, we have no way short of armed revolt to get rid of corrupyt and incompetent leaders, except it would be unarmed revolt.

Btw, one of the nice things in that EU Constitution we are invited NOT to read is that there are many provisions who can be translated as "liberty is guaranteed until the government decides it not longer suits it" or "property is guaranteed unless the governement decides it is in public interest to expropriate you".
Posted by JFM  2005-02-20 12:49:07 PM||   2005-02-20 12:49:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 I'm curious: are there provisions from withdrawing completely from the bureaucratic lunacy while remaining completely within the economic union?

Yeah, there's that article that says "Any member stay may withdraw completely from the bureacratic lunacy, while remaining completely on those parts of the agreement it still likes. Also pink elephants fly in happy circles."

There are provisions to negotiate the terms and aspects of your withdrawal, yes, and reach an agreement after consultations. But the absolute right retained under the Constitution is that of having the treaty cease to apply to you in its entirety.

That's the way treaties work. You can withdraw completely from it, or you can respect it, or you can renegotiate it with your partners and reach a compromise solution. But you don't get to pick and choose which chapters to respects and which not to.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2005-02-20 12:55:47 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/]  2005-02-20 12:55:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 The EU's idea of accountability:

"... The National Audit Office found that in 2002 alone there were 10,000 examples of possible fraud in the EU’s accounts. For nine consecutive years the EU court of auditors has refused to sign off the budget. The numbers are huge. The annual EC budget is around 100 billion [Euros] (£65 billion). The auditors cannot clear 95 per cent of that. We simply cannot tell what is happening to that money; the system does not allow us to say even if the money is well or fraudulently spent. ..."

Nine. Consecutive. Years.
Posted by Bulldog  2005-02-20 1:24:30 PM||   2005-02-20 1:24:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 That's the way treaties work. You can withdraw completely from it, or you can respect it, or you can renegotiate it with your partners and reach a compromise solution. But you don't get to pick and choose which chapters to respects and which not to.

Unless you're frogland or Germany
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-02-20 1:29:18 PM||   2005-02-20 1:29:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Bulldog - 95% can't be accounted for? I guess the other 5% aren't trying hard enough?
Makes the UN look good by comparison....sheesh.
Posted by Desert Blondie 2005-02-20 1:39:15 PM|| [http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com/]  2005-02-20 1:39:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Mrs Davis, thinking of the "iron" Stability Euro Pact, a very valid point.

Greece should not even have made it into the Euro.
Posted by True German Ally 2005-02-20 2:04:35 PM||   2005-02-20 2:04:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 No disagreement there, TGA.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2005-02-20 2:07:49 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/]  2005-02-20 2:07:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 DB - I was reading a letter in the Times (IIRC) recently about a chap who's taking the British Government to court over its payments to the EU (£1,500,000 per hour). under British law, it's illegal for HMG to hand over taxpayers' money to businesses or orgnisations which do not have audited accounting and open books. Our payments to the EU, quite obviously, are therefore illegal.
Posted by Bulldog  2005-02-20 2:07:54 PM||   2005-02-20 2:07:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 For a concise and clear description of the development of Common Law, referred to in #2 above, check your local library for the book "Magna Carta," written by an excellent legal scholar with the unfortunate name of William Swindler. The book was written for junior high students years ago; very few students probably see it today, probably. I have used it in home schooling my daughters.

The idea that the king could be answerable to the law was revolutionary; everywhere else the law depended on the king's whim. In England, as successive kings renewed the Charter, economic conditions helped the crown to evolve from personal rule to an institution larger than the king himself. The barons and politicians responsible for the Hundred Years' War and the Wars of the Roses killed each other off and left the field open for new leadership and, compared to the rest of Europe at the time, a more stable and prosperous nation.

Note the differences between the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man" and the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. The French Clergy had become so corrupt under the Bourbons, and the religious behavior of the Bourbon kings had become such a travesty of faith, that the French threw God out of their reckoning entirely. I believe that abandonment of principles led in part to the horrors of the French Revolution.
Posted by mom 2005-02-20 2:30:37 PM||   2005-02-20 2:30:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Cool, #19 Bulldog.

Glad to see the lawyers are useful for something after all.

Of course, the way things seem to be going, the British government will probably just change the law. :-(
Posted by Barbara Skolaut  2005-02-20 2:33:50 PM||   2005-02-20 2:33:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Mom

The Declaration of Rights of Man has more in common with Us Constiution than you believe: let's review the two first articles.

First Article: "Men are born and remain free and equals in rights"

Second Article: Those rights are freedom, property, security and resistance to oppression"
(Notice that this implies the right to bear arms).
Of course that part was quickly "forgotten" by the revolutionary authorities.

The problem was not the Declartaion of Rights but what happenned later. In order to understand contemporary France you have to realize the French Revolution was basically a scam. The people was sant to die in the battlefields of Europe with promises of liberty and democracy but in the meantime the bourgeois who controlled the Constituante made that you only were allowed to vote if you were rich enough on the basis that the poor were not learned enough. But they also closed the free schools set by Monarchy and Clergy and who allowed the people to get instruction. You see for the French Enlightenement philosophers instruction was bad for the people. The Revolution leaders had also the State sell the lands of Nobilty and Clergy in a such way that the bourgeoisie was able to buy them at a fraction of their value while the peasants or workers weren't able to buy. They also suppressed syndicates and Napoleon put workers under watch of the police through a booklet any worker had to keep and present to the police or employer whenever he moved or chnged jobs.

In America workers were able to escape their condition through governement's distribution of free lands or by creating their own company (partly because they had had instruction: at the time of the Civil War over 90% of men in New England were able to read and write). But in France the oppressed, police-controlled and unlearned workers never had those opportunities (1): instead they became resentful and embraced socialism

(1) It is difficult to create a business if you can't read, write and count. In addition it ws much harder for badly paid French workers (no syndicates) to get enough funds to start it or to get loans from the banks.
Posted by JFM  2005-02-20 3:41:30 PM||   2005-02-20 3:41:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Thanks, JFM. May I ask where you got the above material? I need the short, concise form for homework in April; #3 daughter has Asperger's Syndrome, also known as high functioning Autism, and has a hard time with cause and effect, so I need to be able to reduce things dramatically without sacrificing the point.
Posted by mom 2005-02-20 6:46:05 PM||   2005-02-20 6:46:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#24  The auditors cannot clear 95 per cent of that. We simply cannot tell what is happening to that money; the system does not allow us to say even if the money is well or fraudulently spent. ..."

Question, for comparison: I know the U.S. government accounts are supposed to be audited. How well are they able to account for the monies disbursed (other than, I assume, CIA and Military, at least part of which is supposed to be secret)?
Posted by trailing wife 2005-02-20 7:26:11 PM||   2005-02-20 7:26:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 #24 do you think this is a case of THE FOX IN CHARGE OF THE HEN HOUSE? It seems that way to me.

Andrea
Posted by Andrea Jackson  2005-02-20 7:32:52 PM||   2005-02-20 7:32:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 The GAO is a Bulldog (apologies, Bulldog, heh) and can account for all non-black expenditures. They regularly testify before Congress regards where the money went - for any member who wants to chase it.

Our money is being watched carefully, but that doesn't prevent Congress from spending it on asinine pork barrel projects. That's legal - we elected the jerks.
Posted by .com 2005-02-20 7:35:11 PM||   2005-02-20 7:35:11 PM|| Front Page Top

00:05 Jame Retief
23:57 BigEd
23:55 BigEd
23:54 .com
23:52 Phil Fraering
23:48 BigEd
23:46 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
23:46 Jame Retief
23:44 gromky
23:17 gromky
23:07 John in Tokyo
23:06 .com
23:05 BigEd
23:03 Mrs. Davis
23:03 .com
22:56 BH
22:53 Anonymoose
22:38 Fred
22:38 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead
22:36 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead
22:33 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead
22:32 Zhang Fei
22:29 Zhang Fei
22:26 JP









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com