Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Forum Resident
Original Poster
#1 Old 24th Sep 2009 at 3:18 AM
Default For Europeans: The EU Constitution.
Its in a form a re-hatching of an older debate some time back. Considering we have many new members, many from the EU, maybe some thing for them other then all the US styled debates.

Pros or Cons of the European constitution

The debate surrounding is, should all members of the EU, obey a higher form of the constitution? Could all members of the EU agree on a single form? Could such a agreement be beneficial to all members of the EU?


A possible Pro situation. (From older debate)

A felon who committed a crime in another EU member state fled back to their home nationality. But their home nationality has its own laws regarding deportation of its citizens that prevent said felon from being extradited to other nations. Including EU member states. A unified constitution with a provision on extradition across nation lines enforces all felons be handed over with evidence of said crime.

A possible Con situation.

Loss of sovereignty and national identity. Under such a case, all nations would have to agree to abide by a single form of governorship and basically follow a singe form of set laws.

Erasing One Big Astounding Mistake All-around
Advertisement
Forum Resident
Original Poster
#2 Old 2nd Oct 2009 at 2:15 PM
Give this another breath of life. Out of the news today.

Quote:
DUBLIN – The future of the European Union hung in the balance Friday as Ireland's voters decided whether to ratify a treaty aimed at making the 27-nation body more powerful and effective.

Irish voters rejected the Lisbon Treaty last year. A second "no" vote would doom the EU's painstakingly negotiated plans to improve its institutions in an age of rapid eastward expansion and growing challenges from cross-border crime, terrorism, energy needs and ecological threats.

If Lisbon becomes law, more policy decisions would be permitted by majority rather than unanimous votes in European summits and in the European Commission, the EU's executive branch. Those policies, in turn, would increasingly be shaped by the elected parliaments of each nation and the European Parliament, which currently has little say.

Projecting this more decisive EU abroad would be a new fixed-term president — in place of a decades-old system that rotates the presidency among governments every six months — and a new foreign minister.

The treaty can't become EU law unless every member ratifies it. Twenty-four nations have done so, while the Euro-skeptic heads of state in Poland and the Czech Republic are withholding their assent until Ireland's popular will has spoken.

Ireland is the only EU member requiring the treaty to win majority approval from voters. The country is voting again after EU leaders reaffirmed Ireland's military neutrality, control over tax policies and right to keep abortion outlawed in this predominantly Catholic country.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091002...eland_eu_treaty

So, should the EU proceed with a unified system of rule, and is it a good thing? What could be the pros and cons of this?

Erasing One Big Astounding Mistake All-around
Theorist
#3 Old 2nd Oct 2009 at 3:10 PM
Pro: It would standardize a lot of things, making the EU more competitive against the US, and probably strengthening the overall global economy. It would prevent flare-ups between member countries as well.

Con: It would give the EU the same problems they love to rail against the US over...how often are misunderstandings between States rights and Federal rights here? Give the EU a Constitution, they will have misunderstandings between their states and the EU as a whole, the equivalent of our Federal government? (lets be honest, as soon as the EU gets a unified Constitution, the member countries will in fact, become states in their way, and will effectively cease to be unique, independent nations). They would be forced to unite militarily, an EU Constitution would surely attempt to unite the various armed forces under one banner, however, given the status of NATO, etc, that really isn't so much a concern, as that is hardly a new idea.

Honestly, while the mainland European nations may favor this, I cannot see any members of the UK signing on to the idea. They are already somewhat unified within themselves, and while using the euro may be convenient at times, I cannot see the UK as a whole, going along with it. They may not have nearly as much to gain in such a proposition as they do to lose. It seems to me the UK would be better off keeping an alliance with the rest of the EU, it makes political and financial sense, but yet retain its independence, so that it is empowered to not simply go along with something because they are compelled to. Further, I think it would much harder to accept for nations that have been nations for hundreds and hundreds of years to suddenly accept something like that, it isn't like the US, where the Constitution uniting the colonies was an early development, so there wasn't a sense of unique nationhood within each state so much. I just don't see European nations giving up what independence they have without a fight. Having financial ties with other European nations makes sense, sharing a currency, etc, but, I don't think they could completely submit to an EU Constitution's authority.

It would be similar to the United States, Canada and Mexico. While there are certainly economic ties linking the three, NAFTA, etc, using that as an argument to unite them under one set of laws is simply a huge stretch. There are a huge number of hurdles that would have to be overcome, not only legally, within each government, but also in the minds of each country's citizens. Are the French ready to stop thinking of themselves as French first, European second, to think of themselves as Europeans, who happen to be French? (just as an example, not picking on France)

However, The Yahoo link doesn't mention a EU Constitution, it seemed like it was more about just giving the EU Commission a little more power over what they currently have, and not really about drafting a written Constitution, per say. I think that is a separate issue from having an actual written down Constitution, like the US has.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Test Subject
#4 Old 2nd Oct 2009 at 3:21 PM
Based on the very little I know about the subject, I think it's a good idea. I fail to see how it would take away a sense of national identity. I live in the UK and from what I've heard, a lot of out laws are pretty fucked up anyway. Having a universal set of rules that we all pretty much agree with and are willing to follow would be a good thing. However, that's better said than done. Getting twenty-seven very different countries to agree on controversial issues such as abortion is a near impossible task. Maybe they should give it some kind of trial-run?

last.fm

“ I love women, I think they should be naked backstage all the time. I love looking at them.”
- Lemmy
Theorist
#5 Old 2nd Oct 2009 at 3:30 PM
Quote: Originally posted by FistsOfDissent
Based on the very little I know about the subject, I think it's a good idea. I fail to see how it would take away a sense of national identity. I live in the UK and from what I've heard, a lot of out laws are pretty fucked up anyway. Having a universal set of rules that we all pretty much agree with and are willing to follow would be a good thing. However, that's better said than done. Getting twenty-seven very different countries to agree on controversial issues such as abortion is a near impossible task. Maybe they should give it some kind of trial-run?


See, that is why I think it is a bad idea. You can't compare it to the US Constitution uniting 50 states, those states didn't have much national identity prior to it, as the European countries do...It would be nearly impossible to get all 27 countries in the EU to agree to everything everyone else wants, which would lead to an intense amount of bickering between them. I guess, while in theory it would seem to be a good idea, the actual application of it would be nearly impossible, and the problems that would arise out of it may be insurmountable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Lab Assistant
#6 Old 2nd Oct 2009 at 5:14 PM
The treaty of Lisboa currently on the ballot in Ireland is not the European constitution. That has already been rejected. The Lisboa treaty is merely a watered down substitute for the failed constitution.
Any further attempts at anything called constitution are very unlikely in the near future, given the general animosity to in the the European public (I think most, if not all public polls rejected the idea).

But a major restructuring of the European Union is absolutely necessary in my opinion. Currently the EU is pretty much incapacitated in most areas. One reason is that major decisions can currently be vetoed by any one country, and with the recent expansions of the EU this system simply cannot work.
Another problem is that the EU severely lacks a clear representation and a "face". EA presidency gets swapped around every year to another country whose job it is to get all members to somehow agree on something.
There is a European parliament but that has little power and is only perceived as creating new bureaucratic burden on a lot of small regulations.

I think to make the EU really operationable it needs more concrete and binding rules for its member states and a clear and constant representation (a cabinet, a president, chancellor, whatever) that can independently act in internal matters and represent the EU externally.

All this will only ever affect certain political areas that the members explicitly agree upon. The EU will never (well, not in the foreseeable future) become a true government. It will stay being restricted to certain areas. And that is certainly necessary, for the reasons davious mentioned.
Scholar
#7 Old 3rd Oct 2009 at 1:13 AM
Quote: Originally posted by davious
See, that is why I think it is a bad idea. You can't compare it to the US Constitution uniting 50 states, those states didn't have much national identity prior to it, as the European countries do...It would be nearly impossible to get all 27 countries in the EU to agree to everything everyone else wants, which would lead to an intense amount of bickering between them. I guess, while in theory it would seem to be a good idea, the actual application of it would be nearly impossible, and the problems that would arise out of it may be insurmountable.

Working together is good, but having a universal set of rules that we all pretty much agree with and are willing to follow would indead be nearly impossible. Also what use would it add like on issues of abortion? When several countries joined they already had to adapt to some basis of universal humanitarial rules which they didn't have. They reluctantly did so, because the EU is beneficial to their economy. However, Europe varies so widely in ideas, its impossible to blend. Countries on average vary more than in the USA. West europe is modern, far east europe, the part which has been behind the communist wall is very different, and way more old fashioned. Remember: these countries have been commmunist for long, and under the dictatorial government had not change to modernize. Melting into the middle of something which europe consists of would be a lot of steps backwards in modern ideas for west europe. Sharing power, making economics easier between the countries and boosting up the poor countries is good, making common rules will just be a big mess. No use melting in rules and morality with countries that before the EU even did not have basic human rights.


"When the moon is in the seventh house
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars"
Scholar
#8 Old 10th Oct 2009 at 6:22 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Amish Nick_SC
A possible Con situation.

Loss of sovereignty and national identity. Under such a case, all nations would have to agree to abide by a single form of governorship and basically follow a singe form of set laws.


[Definition]: Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a territory.

So they're just trading one form of authority for another. What's the big deal? Less stupid laws, more streamlined justice system, less hassle...how is that a bad thing?

Oh the National Identity thing...that huge lie from the stupid ages that unfortunately spread all over the world and now we have countries fighting over an imaged past...yea that should crawl under a rock and DIE. If it dies in Europe God willing it'll die all over the place.
 
Back to top