Posted on 02/27/2005 3:42:43 PM PST by MadIvan
The EU constitution makes tough reading, but its meaning - and its danger - couldn't be clearer
WHO’S GOT it right? The German Minister for Europe, Hans Martin Bury, or the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, Jack Straw? Last week Herr Bury told the Bundestag that the constitution of the European Union is more than a “milestone”, it is “the birth certificate of the United States of Europe”. Last month Mr Straw said that the constitution treaty signalled “thus far and no further on European integration”. Is the treaty a boundary marker for European integration or is it a birth certificate for “a single European state bound by one European constitution”, to use the language of the German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer?
One may doubt how many people have yet read the constitution. Since the early phases of drafting, I have been reading it and re-reading it. In this process I’ve kept in touch with David Heathcote-Amory, the Conservative MP for Wells, who was a member of the convention on the EU constitution. I hope everyone will read the treaty, though they may not find it much fun.
The treaty is indeed complex. If the convention had followed the example of the framers of the American Constitution, it might have produced a skeleton constitution. Unfortunately, the constitution includes quantities of material of a quite unsuitable kind, in an apparent attempt to dictate not only the structure but the long-term political objectives of the European Union.
For instance, Title 1 includes a statement of objectives which would be better suited to a party manifesto than to a constitutional document. Article 3 reads: “The Union shall work for sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and with a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.”
We have to take this seriously, but these aspirations are neither defined nor justiciable. Suppose they were brought in front of the European Court of Justice, on the complaint that the European institutions were failing to achieve these objectives.
What is “sustainable development”? How can Europe achieve “balanced economic growth”? What does “balanced” mean in that context? Is “economic growth” desirable in all circumstances? What is a “social market”? In what ways does it differ from an ordinary “market economy”? Can a “social market economy” be “highly competitive”, or will its social character be a hindrance to its competitiveness? What is the appropriate level of full employment? Is it 3 per cent unemployment, as Lord Beveridge once suggested? Is it the 10 per cent which is the current German level? What is “social progress”? Can it be measured by income differentials? Or by educational standards? Might there not be a conflict between social progress and economic growth? How does one measure the “improvement of the quality of the environment”? Indeed, what is “the quality of the environment”? How should Europe promote “scientific and technological advance”? By subsidies? How would they fit in with fair competition?
Whenever one dips into the constitution one is liable to sink into a bog of unexamined propositions. I cannot think of any document of comparable historic importance which raises so many questions or answers so few. As an American scholar has observed, the European constitution, if it were American, would raise numerous Supreme Court cases in every paragraph.
Nevertheless, the constitution does two things which do allow one to answer the question: boundary stone or birth certificate? It creates a state. Article 11: “The constitution establishes the European Union.” Article 15a: “The constitution . . . shall have primacy over the law of the member states.” Article 18: “Every national of a member state shall be a citizen of the union.”
This new state will have broad and predominant powers, with ministers to execute those powers. Article 111: “The member states shall co-ordinate their economic and employment policies within arrangements as determined by Part 3, which the union shall have competence (power) to provide . . . the union shall have competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy.”
The EU is already proceeding step by step to the establishment of this common foreign and security policy. Nato is being downgraded; a European diplomatic service is being developed; the constitution provides for a Foreign Minister. The whole European structure has been built by general aspirations backed by creeping bureaucracy. The common foreign and defence policy is likely to become a fait accompli.
I sometimes think that Britain has a Government which takes us all for fools. There may be a case for a United States of Europe. Many continental Europeans believe in that; most Germans, for instance, see a single European state as a natural development, similar to the creation of a united Germany in the 1870s. Britain, as Franz-Josef Strauss used to say, should have the status in a United Europe which Bavaria has in the Federal Republic. Bavaria, he would add, does not feel any need for a separate air force. Some Germans differ. One recently commented to me: “What is the problem for which the European Union is the solution?”
We could have a useful debate on these issues. Is it Europe’s destiny to become a superstate? Is the age of British independence at an end? Can we protect democracy and the rule of law in a fully united Europe? That would be an honest and historic debate. But it cannot be an honest debate so long as the Government pretends that the European constitution is anything other than a constitution for the United States of Europe. The Germans are telling the truth. So long as our Government takes us for fools, we have every reason to take them for liars.
Here are some views posted at the BBC:
Apparently in a recent poll here, nine out of ten people said they had no idea about the contents of the EU's constitution. That says it all really.
Marcus, Madrid
Reports throughout Europe show that nearly 90% of the Spanish population had never actually read the charter and had no idea what it contains. Further, the number of Spaniards that voted was 20% less than those that voted in Iraq. This is not a ringing endorsement, even if the "yes" vote had a large majority. Kind of dispels the notion of the European public "being more informed" than Americans. A constitution that has 500 pages?! Europe could have borrowed all of the eleven pages America needed for its constitution and have been done with it.
John Willard, Atlanta, Georgia USA
In the UK, I feel that our politicians and media are seriously letting us down, and failing to uphold the most basic tenet on which democracy is based. I follow the news and current affairs with reasonable regularity and yet, until I clicked on the link below, I had no idea what the contents of the EU Constitution are. I didn't even know what basic principles it is based on. None of our politicians have, to my knowledge, offered any information or informed debate on what the EU Constitution means, and the press offer only shallow, sensational jingoism. In this light, abstention from voting, though entirely non-constructive, is the only informed decision one can make.
N Rhodes, Leicestershire, UK
Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com
Of course not. But then Boeing isn't subsidized by the state. Nor are we telling other countries not to buy "French" or Euro. We'll compete in the global marketplace , Oh, and before you use the argument;Awarding military contracts to Boeing is not subsidization so don't bother going there.
1. I have heard that the proposed constitution trails in opinion polling in the UK, but that most are undecided. Is there a significant chance UK voters will approve it?
2. Are there any other countries where it is likely to fail?
3. In that past, when referendums haven't gone the EU's way, they've just held them again until they get the result they want. If the UK votes no, what happens? Does the superstate proceed without the UK? Do they just try again? Does the integration process stop?
No one knows the answers for sure, but I would be interested to hear what people think.
I think chances are slim - not only are the Tories opposed, but the far left is too, they regard it as some sort of capitalist dodge. My response is, "Um, whatever you say, comrade."
Are there any other countries where it is likely to fail?
Poland and Denmark. Maybe Sweden.
In that past, when referendums haven't gone the EU's way, they've just held them again until they get the result they want. If the UK votes no, what happens? Does the superstate proceed without the UK? Do they just try again? Does the integration process stop?
Back to ye olde drawing board, probably. Even the left-leaning Economist had a cover saying, "What to do with the European Constitution" and showing a rubbish bin. Another alternative is that a "two speed Europe" develops, with a core of states, like France and Germany, that decide to integrate further, leaving us out of it. Which suits me.
Regards, Ivan
Ciao Scaniaboy,
That's why I would suggest a 2/3 majority to get in (and also to get out)... as opposed to weathervane feelings.
I can understand why countries of true democratic tradition, (although Sweden is so PC, I wonder if she can still be called a democracy) aren't at all pleased by a United Europe. Don't misunderstand me, I see nothing at all wrong with that choice.
What's wrong is trying to sit on two saddles. Either in or out, either you accept the Euro, or out. In raw and dirty politics money is where your heart is. If the Germans could sacrifice their proud Mark, then the British should do the same with the Pound.
Though the changeover was hell, I'm fairly happy with the Euro. I like going to France, Austria, Germany with the same money in my pocket. I imagine that a New Yorker likes to go to Michigan without having to stop in a wechselstube.
Now with the Islamic threat, who knows what's better? Probably each country on its own with heavily guarded borders. Wouldn't want too much of Rotterdam or Malmo or Marseilles traveling freely to Florence.
Ideally, without murderous religions and ideologies, my rule of thumb is: whatever's good for children and lovers.
Two kids of any nationalities will always play (even if their dads might hate each other) and there will always be Romeo and Juliet stories. The world is already united, only humans separate it.
But factor in terrorism / Islamic demographics and everything changes.
Ciao
“…you think that the US have a license forever for manufacturing airplanes (and other high tech goods) for the whole world?”
I think that if a country’s private industry would like to buy a Boeing plane or an Airbus plane, it should be up to the country and the company. I do not think the France should threaten them with a promise to delay their EU membership - although I think this threat would be a blessing.
Again look at recent history, a few years back France and Germany threaten Turkey against allowing US troop to invade Iraq through their lands. These recent action of the EU dictating to member states and non-member states is more reminiscent of the old U.S.S.R. then anything representing a free Europe.
This constitution of the EU, do the Europeans voting for it know what it entails? Do they know if they will be financial contributors or recipients? Will the EU use military force to hold the signers in the union? Who will give power (the people or an electoral system like America)? Will the smaller states have rights or will they be rolled over by France and Germany? Who will benefit, who will pay? …Are the people even reading the document before voting for it? …500 pages, the people need to study it, not just read it!
Why aren’t Europeans asking these questions? I think the EU is spreading anti-American propaganda to keep the people busy while their country’s culture, values, freedoms and tradition are striped away and voted for by an ignorant population. Good luck fools!
Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.