Talk:European Constitution/Archived talk

message: Hi, I would like to reference this site on the page:
http://www.eugreens.net/
But since it is linked to the Green party, I am not sure it corresponds to your neutrality policies... Do as you think best, anyway.
:Are there pages of it which are directly relevant to the constitution? If so, it's probably worth adding in the external links section - perhaps we could add similar links to the other main parties' positions on the constitution. If it's not directly relevant to the constitution, try over at the relevant Green Party or Green group pages. Toby W 21:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Add it! Toby W 08:53, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[New site on EU Constitution]] 

message: Please sign your comments and posts (with ~~~~). It makes it a lot easier to edit discussions afterwards and to see who said what :-) Mr. Jones 14:18, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please sign your posts 

message: I've linked to the above article. Has the structure changed in the version recently signed? Mr. Jones 13:42, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Structure of the proposed EU Constitution]] 

message: Like eg.:
*the central European held referenda supported accsesion on terms negotiated in Nice, so technicly one can't claim their citizens support EU membership (although most voters probably never read any of the documents)
*the question of invocatio Dei (the assertion of the supremacy of God over the EU by the treaty)
*fears that in the future the charter of fundamental rights might be abused to force memeber states such as Ireland, Poland or Spain to allow abortion, gay "marriages", a leftist agenda or whatever else will be popular at the time.
*the opposition towards a common foreign policy.
And probably many many others
N.N. 15:23, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It would indeed be nice, provided it was kept NPOV. Go for it. Toby W 15:53, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: <<might be abused to force memeber states such as Ireland, Poland or Spain to allow abortion, gay "marriages">>
I don't really agree that that would be "abuse". Nightstallion 20:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Point taken, but I think the point being made is that it would be inappropriate for decisions on those kinds of policies to be forced by a supranational constitution, rather than made at national level. (The question of whether the constitution would indeed do that is a different one.) Wombat 10:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few points of controversy for the article 

message: Reverted anonymous POV edits by 217.229.61.69, which deleted current text and inserted:
The objective of the draft Constitution is to give Brussels more power. It reduces the requirements to come to a ruling on EU level by removing veto rights and replacing them with majority votes from the countries. The goverments of France, Germany and the United Kingdom are pressing to change the voting balance in the Council of the European Union (which is currently still one of the main bodies) to give these three nations an absolte majority of votes which means that these three countries would rule the EU.
and:
This is then called as "Needed for the functioning of the future Union when 10 new countries from Eastern Europe join the existing 15 member states on 1 May 2004." (see EU enlargement). But it is not required to change the votes of states in the council, keeping the current system helps the functioning of the Union by lowering the burdens of Goverments to implement the endless stream of directives from Brussels. The EU will not be as powerful without this change, but the national states will also have more power without it. It would not be as possible to rule against the majority of the countries.
and:
Michael Howard launched a nationwide campaign for a referendum on the proposed constitution. The constitution is wrong in principle, and he said that the Government's approach had been dishonourable. "When it comes to transferring power from Britain to Brussels, Tony Blair says 'trust me'. Well, Conservatives say 'trust the people'.
and similar changes to the bullet points under 'Provisions of Constitution'.
Instead of swingeing anti-constitution POV edits, the factual information in this article should be left alone, and then 2 new sections could be added: say, Arguments in favour and Arguments against. Much of the above content could then be restored, hopefully staying on the right side of NPOV this time. Toby W 08:58, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted changes 

message: I've heard that the minister will be able to set foreign policy. Is this correct? If so, would he have any say in the engagement of the EU rapid reaction mechanism?  Mr. Jones 12:28, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As the draft currently stands, the foreign minister will be able to represent the EU abroad, but only in areas where the EU countries have previously agreed. He/she won't be able to set policy, only to act on it once it's been agreed by the European Council and European Parliament. He will have the same powers in that sense as Javier Solana, the present EU High Representative who is essentially the 'foreign minister of the EU' at the moment, though not in name. I'm not sure about the connection between the proposed foreign minister and the rapid reaction force. Toby W 13:56, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Powers of the proposed European [[Union Minister for Foreign Affairs]] 

message: Shouldn't this article include mention of the fact that the constitution "went away" after no agreement was reached then "came back again" once the Socialists won the Spanish election? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:00, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The Spanish election's effect on the constitution

message: Randy/Toby, I noticed you put the dispute notice back. Is this version of the article disputed? By who, and why? I think it all looks quite dry and reasonable. Should we remove the notice? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:01, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice removed due to lack of response. Mr. Jones 13:31, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV dispute notice

message: Wombat, Kaihsu, et al, this article is developing very nicely. Keep up the good (NPOV) work!  I'll hope to tidy up and build on the article based on the constitution's structure in the next month or two. Mr. Jones 13:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Philip - the article is the result of lots of work by a large number of people over a long time! As for perceptions by other countries, you're right, some of that belongs here (or perhaps in a related article) - but stuff about how we see the EU generally, rather than the constitution in particular, is covered in other areas such as Euroscepticism. Wombat 10:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gratuitous praise 

message: Really enjoyed reading the article and I now feel much better informed - okay, okay, just plain informed - about the proposed constitution.  One suggestion would be to include a section on the perceptions of the constitution in Europe.  We in the UK are more traditionally eurosceptic and so any mention of European legislation gets touched by that.  But what about on the continent?  How does France for example perceive the constitution?  In the UK we tend to think of the EU having gone too far (whether rightly or wrongly), do other countries feel it isn't doing enough?  Philip Thomas --82.38.227.149 14:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Philip - the article is the result of lots of work by a large number of people over a long time! As for perceptions by other countries, you're right, some of that belongs here (or perhaps in a related article) - but stuff about how we see the EU generally, rather than the constitution in particular, is covered in other areas such as Euroscepticism. Wombat 10:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More gratuitous praise 

message: This might need moving somewhere else.
I found this site: http://yourparty.org. It looks quite good, and there is some material about the referrendum and other political matters.  I wonder if they would link to wikipedia?  http://www.publicwhip.org.uk looks interesting too. Who runs them, I wonder? Mr. Jones 13:27, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting sites 

message: Many critics consider that the propossed constituion does not reduce the gap between citizens and institutions, and fails to democratize the union. Shouldn't we write a short entry in the controversy subsection?
User:TheWikipedianTheWikipedian 22:39, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC+2)
: Is something a controversy when it's mutually agreed? That the constitution keeps the current situation as is in many respects is a disappointment but doesn't seem particularly "controversial" when everyone agrees about it. Not "controversial" in the same way as the debates about the issues where the EU constitution would actually affect, and people disagree about whether it's moving in the right direction. Aris Katsaris 21:08, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I see what you're saying, but I agree with User:TheWikipedianTheWikipedian. A 'controversy' doesn't have to be facts that are disagreed over - it can be a disagreement about whether the situation is as it should be. Toby W 09:37, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of the effectiveness of the constitution in rectifying the EU's democratic deficit

message: We desperately need a sceptic quote to balance the new pro-constitution one by Rifkin. Toby W 12:30, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance is required in the quotes at the end of the article

message: An edit that slipped through the net a while back - Roadrunner changed "Germany's constitution prohibits referenda" to "Germany's constitution does not require a referendum". I've reverted this change. The constitution of Germany makes all plebiscites illegal on constitutional issues. Toby W 23:35, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany 

message: I know very little about this topic but hasn't it now been signed?  Is it still "proposed" (a word found all over the page)?  Should it now be moved to European Union constitution? violet/riga (t) 18:43, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not been ratified yet. So it has no legal power yet -- it's also highly uncertain whether it will ever achieve ratification. I don't think we can call it "European Union constitution" yet. A sentence that simply said "The European Union's constitution" would wrongly imply that this document currently has legal standing. Aris Katsaris 19:41, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK thanks. violet/riga (t) 19:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signatures on the treaty: how significant are they? 

message: === Control of guns and arms? ===
I am basing my comments on this "reader friendly version" (a PDF). Its still 300 pages.
There are only 4 mentions of "arms" in this and nothing on "gun" . Does this mean there is no siginifigant position with respect to the United States'  second amendment?
:Yes, that's exactly what it means. The treaty isn't the same kind of constitution as, say, the US constitution, since it's designed to govern a union of nation states, not to create a single nation state. It only deals with those subjects which individual countries have agreed to handle collectively at European level, leaving everything else to the individual countries to decide. So there's no mention of gun laws, or anything else that remains the province of nation states. Toby W 09:39, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's about what the council considered important enough to be handled by a constitution. E.g. the EU constitution does prohibit death penalty, while in the US this issue is handled independently by the federal states. (Which does not say that this is something introduced by the EU constitution. Unsurprising, the EU formally joins the European Convention on Human Rights.) – Hokanomono 08:05, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
=== EU law, national law and international law ===
Just as a point of international law: it isn't true that all parties have to agree to a treaty before it becomes effective.  Plenty of treaties have gone
into effect without ratification by all parties. Roadrunner 06:53, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm no expert, but can a country be held to terms of a treaty which it didn't ratify? In any case, isn't it still true that all international law supersedes national law? Toby W 09:22, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ianal, but afaik a treaty might take effect before all of the signatory states ratify it, however it takes effect only in the souvereign territory of the signatory states that have ratified it. The conditions when a treaty starts to take effect should be specified by the treaty. – Hokanomono 08:28, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
=== EU law and national law ===
An edit today resulted in the following paragraph:
Defenders of the constitution point out that it has always been the case that EU law supersedes national law, and that it has long been accepted in European nations that international law which a nation subscribed to overrides national law. The proposed Constitution does not change this arrangement for currently extant EU law, as all were adopted by unanimous decision or by unanimous decision. The Qualified Majority mechanism changes the nature of further EU law, as it thus authorizes possible adoption and enforcement of new law without the consent of one or more member nations.
I've changed this, correcting a couple of inaccuracies and clarifying some confusion.
1) It's not true to say that all existing EU law was adopted unanimously. A number of areas are already decided by QMV and many laws have been passed using that mechanism already. The new constitution simply expands the use of QMV to cover more areas of day-to-day (i.e. not sovereignty-sensitive) decision-making.
2) The method by why laws are voted on, QMV or unanimity, is separate from the question of whether EU law supersedes national law, though related. It's clearer if these two points are made separately, I think.
So the paragraph now reads:
Defenders of the constitution point out that it has always been the case that EU law supersedes national law, and that it has long been accepted in European nations that international law which a nation subscribed to overrides national law. The proposed Constitution does not change this arrangement for either extant or future EU law. However, the question of whether the arrangement is considered acceptable in the first place is still an issue for debate.
With the widening of Qualified Majority Voting also envisaged in the constitution, however, the issue of the primacy of EU law becomes more sensitive. This is because there is an increase in the number of areas in which laws can be passed by majority vote. It is therefore possible for an individual country to vote against a proposal (unsuccessfully) and subsequently find its national legislature to be bound by it.
I mention this here by way of providing an explanation of what might otherwise have looked like a rather arbitrary change. Toby W 19:34, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sovereignty and the scope of the constitution 

message: An edit today resulted in the following paragraph:
Defenders of the constitution point out that it has always been the case that EU law supersedes national law, and that it has long been accepted in European nations that international law which a nation subscribed to overrides national law. The proposed Constitution does not change this arrangement for currently extant EU law, as all were adopted by unanimous decision or by unanimous decision. The Qualified Majority mechanism changes the nature of further EU law, as it thus authorizes possible adoption and enforcement of new law without the consent of one or more member nations.
I've changed this, correcting a couple of inaccuracies and clarifying some confusion.
1) It's not true to say that all existing EU law was adopted unanimously. A number of areas are already decided by QMV and many laws have been passed using that mechanism already. The new constitution simply expands the use of QMV to cover more areas of day-to-day (i.e. not sovereignty-sensitive) decision-making.
2) The method by why laws are voted on, QMV or unanimity, is separate from the question of whether EU law supersedes national law, though related. It's clearer if these two points are made separately, I think.
So the paragraph now reads:
Defenders of the constitution point out that it has always been the case that EU law supersedes national law, and that it has long been accepted in European nations that international law which a nation subscribed to overrides national law. The proposed Constitution does not change this arrangement for either extant or future EU law. However, the question of whether the arrangement is considered acceptable in the first place is still an issue for debate.
With the widening of Qualified Majority Voting also envisaged in the constitution, however, the issue of the primacy of EU law becomes more sensitive. This is because there is an increase in the number of areas in which laws can be passed by majority vote. It is therefore possible for an individual country to vote against a proposal (unsuccessfully) and subsequently find its national legislature to be bound by it.
I mention this here by way of providing an explanation of what might otherwise have looked like a rather arbitrary change. Toby W 19:34, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU law and national law 

message: "Defenders also point out that it must logically be longer, since it is not an all-embracing, general constitution, but rather a document that precisely delineates the limited areas where the European Union has competence to act over and above the competences of member states."
Longer than what? this seems US specific. Also, this is factually incorrect as the US constitution is largely concerned with delineating power between the states and the US federal government. If there are no objections I will just remove the sentence. - cohesion ☎ 06:54, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
:Well, I see what you mean (especially about being US-specific), but it strikes me that the article is making a valid point. I'm no expert on the US constitution, but my understand is that it covers all aspects of sovereign competences, saying "This, this and this can be done at state level, and everything else lies in the federal domain". The proposed EU constitution doesn't pretend to have the same blanket authority, so it has to specifically go through, step by step, which particular competences are being ceded to EU level. So if the sentence is to be deleted, won't something else have to go in its place? Toby W 10:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The U.S. Constitution establishes the entire federal government--the presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court.  Prior to this, the country had no national executive or judicial branch, and the role of its legislative branch was very different--it was a one-house congress with very limited powers.  The Constitution manages to establish the powers of all these AND delineate power between the federal government and states, in 4,600 words.  There's no reason for Europe's constitution to be 12 times longer.
Just a little reminder: the topic of the division of power between the US federal state and the states has been controversial since the foundation of the US. Remember, they even fought a very bloody civil war because they disagreed with the way the federal government dealt with the desires of the southern states. The so-called "commerce clause" has been creatively interpreted to the point where just about anything may be voted through it. (Note that, lately, the US Congress even voted a law about a specific patient on a matter that should have been reserved for state law, by all accounts; see Terri Schiavo.)
Thus, I think it has been established that the US Constitution, by itself, does not specify the balance of power between the states and the union. This balance is largely set by constitutional conventions, case law, and a lot of strong-arming. My understanding is that the proposed European constitution has rather chosen to set the specifics in written law. David.Monniaux 09:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complexity 

message: There are 12 quotes in the Reaction section, and I'm wondering if the sample is balanced enough. The quotes come from a wide variety of different countries (good), and from a variety of different political viewpoints (good). But there are basically two views expressed: (1) that the constitution preserves the sovereignty of co-operating nation states, or (2) that it is a move towards a superstate. Now, by my count, there are 9 quotes for the former viewpoint and only 1 (Howard's) for the latter. Does this seem right?
I know that the debate here in the UK is very skewed, with hard eurosceptics like UKIP and wannabes like the Tories making more noise than all the more moderate parties put together; and I know that, in general, the constitution is seen elsewhere in the EU as a victory for the UK and nation state principles, something that stops federalism dead in its tracks. So maybe, in this EU-wide context, the balance of quotes is about right. All I can say is that, from a UK perspective, the balance looks to be skewed rather towards the 'nation state' side. What do people think? Do we need a couple more Howard-type quotes to even things out, or is the balance OK?
And, incidentally, one thing that's definitely missing is a quote from somebody on the left who objects to the constitution on social grounds - perhaps a French socialist like Laurent Fabius? - Toby W 09:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know exactly why Fabius opposes the proposed constitution, but it's generally believed that he does so because of the internal squabbles inside of the French Socialist Party. Fabius has never had a reputation of a true "Socialist". Better take somebody like Olivier Besancenot or Arnaud Montebourg. David.Monniaux 09:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance of 'Reaction' quotes