France scraps the EU constitution

Remove all ads!

It won't. If a law would be suggested that was in conflict with the national constitution the national constitution would have to be changed. This is done once in a five years or so in Finland too and is quite a big of a domestic process. The constitution was made so that it would not conflict with any national constitutions of present EU members, so practically EU members would have two equal constitutions which should work well as long as they are not in conflict with eachother.

 

So, since it's the national constitution and not the EU law that has to be changed doesn't this mean that the EU law has primacy over the national constitution?

 

It can be changed it does not have to be changed. If the government of that nation which has constitution which is in conflict with a proposition for a EU law refuses to follow the change then it can't possibly go through, if rest of the EU puts enough preassure on that country it might eventually comply but there's no way EU could do anything without the acceptance of the government of that country.

It would be very doubtful that the EU would anytime soon propose a law which is in conflict with a national constitution of a current member state. It might eventually become a problem when dealing with possible future members such as Turkey.

 

IMHO, if a constitution is several hundred pages long, someone's done something very, very wrong.

 

Oh there is a lot wrong in EU and even in this constitution and it would need to be improved after a while but it's a start. What needs to be understood is that the EU constitution is very different from any national constitution. It has to take more things into consideration and hence its lenght. In time it might be simplified but for now it has to be the mess it is in order to somehow moderately please everyone.

 

The problem with a constitution (oh, I KNOW Tal isn't going to like this one ) is that you write something down and it seems like a pretty good idea. Then a few years down the road some weirdo group (usually socialists, but not always) come along and twist the living hell out of it to obtain some sort of social engineering goal that very few people want.

So the majority says "the Framers of the Constitution intended . . . ." and the weird little group says "How do you know that? Are you a mind reader, or possibly a time traveller? What you think they 'intended' is irrelevant. What is THERE is important, and it says . . ."

Very dangerous; even more so if the document is so freaking huge that there's room for all sorts of weird abuses. I prefer an approach based on common law and precedent. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, IMHO, has caused us Canadians nothing but trouble.

I'm not fond of the French, but I don't blame them one bit for being leery of a document that could be used to undermine their whole society and history.

 

My gripe with the (now dead ?) constitution is (was ?) mainly the way decisions were made. I want another concept for electing EU-Institutions and mainly parliament and another power-distribution around the branches.

I think they should start with the beginning. First a constitution focussing on reforming the decision making and enabling the masses to participate.

The problem many French had, was, that they were afraid of the liberal bogeyman, coming around slashing the welfare state to pieces through the competences given by this constitution. I think their fear was partially correct. Because I want the EU to have competences in those areas the EU has to spend money or has economically to act as one, because a single currency needs a common economical policiy. (oh.. and a yeah, if the currency now has the windowdressing of being called "Euro" or not, one currency is one currency, another strange emotional thing, except for the pound of course)

As I see it, the EU needs for example competences in the agrarian sector, to be able to kill all those damn subsidaries. At the same time, the people have to be able to influence this decision. As it is now, nothing happens, except subsidaries rise even more. (Not that I don't know that subsidaries are hard to get rid of)

And I think that's where the fear of the French was really founded, even if it's a huge stretch that this constitution would have been the beginning of a liberal reform. But a liberal reform may very well be a possibility in the future. And the EU would need the according competences too slash through all the expenditures. And even reform employment law. It may be in the future.

 

@Morgoroth

The national law or constitution has to be changed if it comes to conflict with the EU laws. As I have already said, recently we had an issue like this, where a law originated from an article of our constitution was in conflict with EU laws. The defense line of our goverment was exactly what you are saying, that the national constitution is above the EU law. The answer of the european commision was crystal clear:

"The EU law is above the national constitution, put the law on hold until you change the specific article of the national constitution (this can be done in the next parliament not in this one)and then harmonize this law with the EU laws. If you refuse to do it, you will be sent to the european court (where you will be convicted to pay a huge fine) and the flow of EU money to Greece will be stoped".

Of course after this answer our government put its tail between its legs and did exactly what the european commission asked. Also our current constitution exists since 2000, so it's obvious that your claim that the constitution was made so that it would not conflict with any national constitutions of present EU members, is simply wrong.

 

I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist, but it looks like someone is trying to centralize a great deal of power in Europe through the EU. I've got nothing against European countries working together (healthy competition for the U.S.) but I see the rumblings of a nastier agenda -- one that seeks a little too much control over the people of Europe. I'd be worried if I were there.

 

BOC, what can I say except that which I said is how it should be and how the constitution presents it. If Germany, France or UK would have resisted against something which is against their constitution the comission would have had no choice but to scrap the issue. As I said that kind of preassure can be used, especially against countries that recieve more money from EU than they pay. That kind of methods would be of no use against countries that actually pay more than they recieve. I agree that such methods are questionable to say the least allthough a part of me is saying that when you recieve benefits from the EU you should also comply to its laws.

Well I can't possibly know the contents of all constitutions around Europe, it's possible that some changes were done but I would claim that it was a goal to make the constitution such that it requires as little change to the national constitutions as possible. In Finland no changes would have been required.

@LKD, Bah you're just delusional like all those who claim that Bush tries to centralize the power in America. One must keep an vigilant eye though under all circumstances.

 

At least parts of Europe wants a stronger more centralized Europe, borders are bad. Humans are humans no matter where they live. I also wouldnt mind to have some powerful democratic entity being able to rein in the US a little bit and perhaps show that cooperation work.

 

@Carcaroth,

Hey, you were right.

Dutch Voters Reject EU Constitution

 

The Dutch represent yet another nail in the coffin containing the EU constitution. Granted, without France buying in, it was probably doomed anyway, but it now appears that there is language in there that many people don't like. OTOH, as has been said, who knows how many Europeans actually know what's in the EU constitution, and therefore how can they make an informed decision?

 

I would say that the majorities in almost every old EU member is against this population. The funny thing is that governments everywhere would be ready to ratify the EU constitution. My personal opinion is that this would have gone through easily (and not referendums would have even been held) before the expansion of EU. The expansion has awoken new concerns and new scepticism towards EU in many of the older members.

The constitution is not dead it's just knee deep in the grave, and when the ratification process is complete it will probably be either scrapped permanently or buried somewhere just to be brought up again after a few years or so. The future course of EU is now uncertain and this most certainly is a crisis for EU and the next top meeting will be very important in deciding what should be done now.

 

Here's what I don't get. From everything that I've heard, some nations receive more from the EU than they pay into it, while other nations spend more than they get in return. I'd imagine that most of the members of the "spend more than you get back" club are the older members of the EU. The thing that completely baffles me is if there are country that put more into the EU than they receive back from it, what incentive is there at all to be a member? To the countries that get more out of it, it makes sense - more employment, better jobs, stronger economy - but what's in it for those nations in which the EU represents negative cash flow?

 

The countries that contribute more money are usually the big ones, which have the biggest and strongest industry. Being members of the EU these countries can export their products to the other EU members without any import taxation.

 

Joachin, I'm all for universal human rights, not to mention strong democratic forces, but I'm not sure that the EU, as it stands, would BE a democratic force -- as BOC has already illustrated, they are already using membership in the EU as a club with which to force democratically elected local governments to alter their laws. That idea makes me very uncomfortable.

To address your other point, I agree with you that "people are people" but not everyone wants to live the same way -- different lifestyles and cultures need to be given the respect they deserve. Robert Frost said it the best "Good fences make good neighbours".

 

what's in it for those nations in which the EU represents negative cash flow?

Not much actually, free trade regulary benefits larger economies, but countries like Netherlands Sweden and Austria, that lose most per capita, aren’t that large.

In the beginning The EU was not so much an economic project as political one with the goal to promote peace. That each country contributed after ability was not a problem. Now things have changed. Those countries that receive most subsidies aren’t really poor. And the subsidies overwhelmingly goes to keeping the useless agricultural sector alive.

In short it’s part the eurocommie values coupled with deep fear of being left outside the EU that motivates the richer countries to open their wallets.

 

Britain (thanks to our Mags) gets a large rebate (£3 billion ish) from the EU, because basically we get very little else. Interestingly though, until the expansion France was a net receiver - due to the large farming subsidies. The rest of the EU now want to stop Britains rebate (snowballs chance in hell if we have any say) but France & Germany want to contribute less.