EU: Constitution II.
What do you think about this new try to give the EU a common basis? Generally I think its a good idea, but some things are solved in a false way.
http://www.reformvertrag2007.eu/
__________________________
"Vor allem bewahrt Euch stets die Fähigkeit, jede Ungerechtigkeit, die irgendwo auf der Welt begangen wird, aufs Tiefste zu empfinden. " Che Guevara
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Scotlands oil???maybe..
It's a good step forward, although I doubt we will actually see a radical change for the better without a European constitution. What things do you think have not been properly addressed or solved in the Treaty of Lisbon?
1. Institutions of EU: Some of them should be closed/reformed in the interest of democracy
2. market form: The Treaty should not fix the "Free Market" but the best actual market form.
3. social: There is no agreement about what kind of social aids a EU-citizen should be granted and how it should be like.
4. International relations: If the single member states won't give up their seats in UNO, NATO, WB... Europe (as a whole) will never have a voice in the world.
__________________________
"Vor allem bewahrt Euch stets die Fähigkeit, jede Ungerechtigkeit, die irgendwo auf der Welt begangen wird, aufs Tiefste zu empfinden. " Che Guevara
Parliament should become a parliament, that can make laws independently on a basis of simple voting. Give Europe it's domains of autonomy starting with things like traffic regulations and health (eg. food) and make laws be voted on say a 51% or 2/3 majority basis.
__________________________
Daar is de lente, daar is de zon
bijna, maar ik denk dat ze weldra zal komen.
De fallus impudicus staat al in bloei
En de blaadjes krijgen bomen.
M'n vrouw en m'n kat zijn allebei krols
en de klokken vertrekken naar Rome
That will never happen cause this would mean that the national government would loose their influence on EU.
__________________________
"Vor allem bewahrt Euch stets die Fähigkeit, jede Ungerechtigkeit, die irgendwo auf der Welt begangen wird, aufs Tiefste zu empfinden. " Che Guevara
No, it doesn't mean that.
__________________________
Daar is de lente, daar is de zon
bijna, maar ik denk dat ze weldra zal komen.
De fallus impudicus staat al in bloei
En de blaadjes krijgen bomen.
M'n vrouw en m'n kat zijn allebei krols
en de klokken vertrekken naar Rome
For the 1st, I am very happy with the Treaty of Lisbon/Reform Treaty. It's basically the 'Constitutional' Treaty, without the flag, anthem, some names removed and some ruffled feathers stroked smooth again... The only thing that I dislike is that we'll keep the voting system as it is now for quite some time, due to Poland being annoying about it.
That being said, I am not so sure it is a good idea to give parliament the right to initiative as well. The present system is based on a balance between the institutions. Taking away the exclusive right of initiative of the Commission would upset this balance. It is the only way for the Commission, besides the informal way, to exercise pressure, by threathing to withdraw an initiative (which it can do at any time really) if it is amended in a certain way.
Moreover, the Commission is still the most supranational element we have. Besides, EP already has a right to request an initiative, which the Commission follows almost all the time. Another thing is that the Commission has quite a bit of civil servants to help them examine and draw these proposals. There's a lot of work involved in a Directive or the like. A single Member of Parliament, or a couple of them, would not be able to do it (nor would their already overburdened secretariat be able to).
The national experience in the Netherlands further shows that parliament-based-initiatives are not that common...
__________________________
Fantasy = Life
It's a good step forward, although I doubt we will actually see a radical change for the better without a European constitution. What things do you think have not been properly addressed or solved in the Treaty of Lisbon?
1. Institutions of EU: Some of them should be closed/reformed in the interest of democracy
2. market form: The Treaty should not fix the "Free Market" but the best actual market form.
3. social: There is no agreement about what kind of social aids a EU-citizen should be granted and how it should be like.
4. International relations: If the single member states won't give up their seats in UNO, NATO, WB... Europe (as a whole) will never have a voice in the world.
1. Which ones...?
2. Which is...? Also, we don't have a free market: we have an internal market/common market... Free market smacks of free trade area, which is something completely different.
3. Try bringing up anything social with the UK in the Council of Ministers 
... Moreover, if we go that route, I say let's go for a federal European State.
4. Europe already has quite an effective external policy, which will only be strengthened as soon as it is decided whether the President of the European Council, the High Representative or the President of the Commission (unlikely) will be Europe's face...
__________________________
Fantasy = Life
It's a good step forward, although I doubt we will actually see a radical change for the better without a European constitution. What things do you think have not been properly addressed or solved in the Treaty of Lisbon?
1. Institutions of EU: Some of them should be closed/reformed in the interest of democracy
2. market form: The Treaty should not fix the "Free Market" but the best actual market form.
3. social: There is no agreement about what kind of social aids a EU-citizen should be granted and how it should be like.
4. International relations: If the single member states won't give up their seats in UNO, NATO, WB... Europe (as a whole) will never have a voice in the world.
1. Which ones...?
2. Which is...? Also, we don't have a free market: we have an internal market/common market... Free market smacks of free trade area, which is something completely different.
3. Try bringing up anything social with the UK in the Council of Ministers ... Moreover, if we go that route, I say let's go for a federal European State.
4. Europe already has quite an effective external policy, which will only be strengthened as soon as it is decided whether the President of the European Council, the High Representative or the President of the Commission (unlikely) will be Europe's face...
1. The Commission could be closed completely, as well as all the Councils. Instead the Parliament should get a second chamber and take over the duties of the closed institutions. In Parliament a majority (> 50 %) should be enough to make decisions.
2. At the moment I would see the eco-social market system as the best. Iknow, of course, that this is only my opinion.
3. UK (and others) would never agree to 1.) so no problem with them denied their agreement, because they would leave.
4. How effective our external policy is , could have been seen at the last war of Israel, Iraq, Irans nuke programm etc...
__________________________
"Vor allem bewahrt Euch stets die Fähigkeit, jede Ungerechtigkeit, die irgendwo auf der Welt begangen wird, aufs Tiefste zu empfinden. " Che Guevara
1. Institutions of EU: Some of them should be closed/reformed in the interest of democracy
2. market form: The Treaty should not fix the "Free Market" but the best actual market form.
3. social: There is no agreement about what kind of social aids a EU-citizen should be granted and how it should be like.
4. International relations: If the single member states won't give up their seats in UNO, NATO, WB... Europe (as a whole) will never have a voice in the world.
1. Which ones...?
2. Which is...? Also, we don't have a free market: we have an internal market/common market... Free market smacks of free trade area, which is something completely different.
3. Try bringing up anything social with the UK in the Council of Ministers ... Moreover, if we go that route, I say let's go for a federal European State.
4. Europe already has quite an effective external policy, which will only be strengthened as soon as it is decided whether the President of the European Council, the High Representative or the President of the Commission (unlikely) will be Europe's face...
1. The Commission could be closed completely, as well as all the Councils. Instead the Parliament should get a second chamber and take over the duties of the closed institutions. In Parliament a majority (> 50 %) should be enough to make decisions.
2. At the moment I would see the eco-social market system as the best. Iknow, of course, that this is only my opinion.
3. UK (and others) would never agree to 1.) so no problem with them denied their agreement, because they would leave.
4. How effective our external policy is , could have been seen at the last war of Israel, Iraq, Irans nuke programm etc...
1. Why? The Commission is a supranational organ and has often been the driving force behind the Community. It is the Commission, together with the ECJ (another non-democratic organ) that has brought us to where we are now. Not without defects, ofcourse, but nevertheless an improvement. Lasting peace for 50 years in itself is worth all this.
Besides, if parliament is to make laws, who then will execute them? There has to be an executive force at some point.
2. Again, in order to achieve that, we'd need a federal state... Otherwise we're stuck with the limitations of Art. 5 TEC. Also, you forget that since the Single European Act of 1986 we've already had a distinct social dimension, or atleast to the extent that the Competencies of the EC allow...
3. And who, do you perceive, will actually stay? And I hardly think UK and others would leave, more like the other way around: the wayward states would have to leave and create their own little Community. While I am all for social-economic policy, I'd rather that we have the cooperation that we do now, then everyone forming their own little Community. Europe has to stand united if we are to stand any chance in the future or be of any influence. We can't have these internal squabbles.
4. That's a very narrow definition of external policy you have there. It's the same argument people use to say 'international law is no law' or international law does not work... There's much more to external policy then military strength/issues. That's at best 0.005%...
__________________________
Fantasy = Life
1. Why? The Commission is a supranational organ and has often been the driving force behind the Community. It is the Commission, together with the ECJ (another non-democratic organ) that has brought us to where we are now. Not without defects, ofcourse, but nevertheless an improvement. Lasting peace for 50 years in itself is worth all this.
Besides, if parliament is to make laws, who then will execute them? There has to be an executive force at some point.
2. Again, in order to achieve that, we'd need a federal state... Otherwise we're stuck with the limitations of Art. 5 TEC. Also, you forget that since the Single European Act of 1986 we've already had a distinct social dimension, or atleast to the extent that the Competencies of the EC allow...
3. And who, do you perceive, will actually stay? And I hardly think UK and others would leave, more like the other way around: the wayward states would have to leave and create their own little Community. While I am all for social-economic policy, I'd rather that we have the cooperation that we do now, then everyone forming their own little Community. Europe has to stand united if we are to stand any chance in the future or be of any influence. We can't have these internal squabbles.
4. That's a very narrow definition of external policy you have there. It's the same argument people use to say 'international law is no law' or international law does not work... There's much more to external policy then military strength/issues. That's at best 0.005%...
1. "The Commission is a supranational organ and has often been the driving force behind the Community" - Thats the main part of the problem: The Commission only sees the interests of the economy and not the interest of the people. So they often make decisions the majority of people don't want. But no institution in a democracy should be able to act AGAINST peoples will. The laws made by EU Parliament become national law sooner or earlier and there is no need to execute them before. So national executive organs could do that.
2. Why? I can't see why we'd need a federal state. The national differences in tax percentages for enterprises profits could be made equal by EU and this money could be taken to install a EU-wide social security system. Another possibility to get money is to stop the subsidies for agricultural exports and to take back agricultural subsidies if garicultural stuff is exported from EU.
3. It doesn't matter who stayes with whom or who leaves whom: Fact is: EU would be much better this way. But I agree with you that Europe should be united though, but not for such a high price.
4. You want other examples? The (illegal) immigrants problem: EU makes everyone a crimminal who just dares to pull a drowing person out of the meditarrenan sea.... Between Spain and Marrocco they built up a BIG fence to prevent people from entering EU... People who get caught get a package with cookies and 5 L water and then they are brought into the Sahara desert from where they never can escape alive.... Enough foreign policies?
__________________________
"Vor allem bewahrt Euch stets die Fähigkeit, jede Ungerechtigkeit, die irgendwo auf der Welt begangen wird, aufs Tiefste zu empfinden. " Che Guevara
The policy of EU toward immigrants is gradually changing. Several countries have already had a 'regularisation' of illegal immigrants, meaning that they can stay after being here for a while. Funny: Illegal immigrants have the right to vote for local elections here in belgium, after being here for at least 5 years. More: they have to pay taxes when they have a second address within the country. That's a new law.
A parliament, European or else, is elected by the people. The parliament has more eye for people's needs (work, social issues...) than the commission. but the parliament has hardly anything to say in EU. A constitution is supposed to move the power from commission to parliament. And that a supranational parliament makes laws, doesn't mean that we live in a supranational state. It is perfectly possible to give certain matters in the hands of the European Union, and other not. Eg environment. Belgium is so small that if it works hard on reducing its CO levels, then Germany and Netherlands get cleaner air. But it doesn't change a thing to our own air. We get the pollution of England and Northern France. Same goes for a great deal, for jobs. , education, immigration, crime....
__________________________
Daar is de lente, daar is de zon
bijna, maar ik denk dat ze weldra zal komen.
De fallus impudicus staat al in bloei
En de blaadjes krijgen bomen.
M'n vrouw en m'n kat zijn allebei krols
en de klokken vertrekken naar Rome
Eg environment. Belgium is so small that if it works hard on reducing its CO levels, then Germany and Netherlands get cleaner air. But it doesn't change a thing to our own air. We get the pollution of England and Northern France.
On the other hand Belgium has the technologies the others want to have lateron that way...
__________________________
"Vor allem bewahrt Euch stets die Fähigkeit, jede Ungerechtigkeit, die irgendwo auf der Welt begangen wird, aufs Tiefste zu empfinden. " Che Guevara
Yes, we do use more horses to plough the fields than they do around us.
__________________________
Daar is de lente, daar is de zon
bijna, maar ik denk dat ze weldra zal komen.
De fallus impudicus staat al in bloei
En de blaadjes krijgen bomen.
M'n vrouw en m'n kat zijn allebei krols
en de klokken vertrekken naar Rome
1. Why? The Commission is a supranational organ and has often been the driving force behind the Community. It is the Commission, together with the ECJ (another non-democratic organ) that has brought us to where we are now. Not without defects, ofcourse, but nevertheless an improvement. Lasting peace for 50 years in itself is worth all this.
Besides, if parliament is to make laws, who then will execute them? There has to be an executive force at some point.
2. Again, in order to achieve that, we'd need a federal state... Otherwise we're stuck with the limitations of Art. 5 TEC. Also, you forget that since the Single European Act of 1986 we've already had a distinct social dimension, or atleast to the extent that the Competencies of the EC allow...
3. And who, do you perceive, will actually stay? And I hardly think UK and others would leave, more like the other way around: the wayward states would have to leave and create their own little Community. While I am all for social-economic policy, I'd rather that we have the cooperation that we do now, then everyone forming their own little Community. Europe has to stand united if we are to stand any chance in the future or be of any influence. We can't have these internal squabbles.
4. That's a very narrow definition of external policy you have there. It's the same argument people use to say 'international law is no law' or international law does not work... There's much more to external policy then military strength/issues. That's at best 0.005%...
1. "The Commission is a supranational organ and has often been the driving force behind the Community" - Thats the main part of the problem: The Commission only sees the interests of the economy and not the interest of the people. So they often make decisions the majority of people don't want. But no institution in a democracy should be able to act AGAINST peoples will. The laws made by EU Parliament become national law sooner or earlier and there is no need to execute them before. So national executive organs could do that.
2. Why? I can't see why we'd need a federal state. The national differences in tax percentages for enterprises profits could be made equal by EU and this money could be taken to install a EU-wide social security system. Another possibility to get money is to stop the subsidies for agricultural exports and to take back agricultural subsidies if garicultural stuff is exported from EU.
3. It doesn't matter who stayes with whom or who leaves whom: Fact is: EU would be much better this way. But I agree with you that Europe should be united though, but not for such a high price.
4. You want other examples? The (illegal) immigrants problem: EU makes everyone a crimminal who just dares to pull a drowing person out of the meditarrenan sea.... Between Spain and Marrocco they built up a BIG fence to prevent people from entering EU... People who get caught get a package with cookies and 5 L water and then they are brought into the Sahara desert from where they never can escape alive.... Enough foreign policies?
1. Name decisions that have a majority of the EU people against it... I daresay you only know the handful of regulations or directions that have some initial controversy surrounding them. This does not amount to a majority being against it. Moreover, on beautiful pieces of legislation, such as 2004/38 nothing ever gets said...
Another thing: Much has been written about the democratic deficit that the EU is said to be possess.. To an extent this is true, and more democracy needs to be inserted. However, I can give you quite a few arguments, fi you are itnerested, supporting the current system as opposed to the another international cooperation. Also, now that we use the co-decision procedure for most decisions (art. 251 TEC), the Parliament has to agree with a majority of the votes to any legislation. If they represent the people, then where does your 'majority' come from?
The Commission does, also, only in very few cases possess the competence to legislate on its own (notably ARt. 81/82 procedures, and art. 86). So, at the very least, the Council of Ministers are involved, who are indirectly democratically legitimated themselves.
Also, I am sorry to say, but there is no way 'laws just become laws'. You might want to read up on how stuff like that works.
2. And what competences, do you imagine, would be left to the national state then...?
3. Not necessarily... Social-economic policy is not as easy as you perceive. Moreover, what would then be the standard? The lowest common denominator?
4. That's not the fault of the EU but rather of the Member States that have given the EU such restrictive competences in these matters. Moreover, the external policy the EU has been able to conduct in economy-related matters, which is its origin, has been extremely succesfull. There is now one voice where there were 27. Things are bound to improve now that the external relations in some cases will be put firmly in the hands of the EU.
Also, I don't know where you got the criminality from... The EU has no competence whatsoever to legislate in criminal matters, much less enforce it.
__________________________
Fantasy = Life
1. Name decisions that have a majority of the EU people against it... I daresay you only know the handful of regulations or directions that have some initial controversy surrounding them. This does not amount to a majority being against it. Moreover, on beautiful pieces of legislation, such as 2004/38 nothing ever gets said...
Another thing: Much has been written about the democratic deficit that the EU is said to be possess.. To an extent this is true, and more democracy needs to be inserted. However, I can give you quite a few arguments, fi you are itnerested, supporting the current system as opposed to the another international cooperation. Also, now that we use the co-decision procedure for most decisions (art. 251 TEC), the Parliament has to agree with a majority of the votes to any legislation. If they represent the people, then where does your 'majority' come from?
The Commission does, also, only in very few cases possess the competence to legislate on its own (notably ARt. 81/82 procedures, and art. 86). So, at the very least, the Council of Ministers are involved, who are indirectly democratically legitimated themselves.
Also, I am sorry to say, but there is no way 'laws just become laws'. You might want to read up on how stuff like that works.
2. And what competences, do you imagine, would be left to the national state then...?
3. Not necessarily... Social-economic policy is not as easy as you perceive. Moreover, what would then be the standard? The lowest common denominator?
4. That's not the fault of the EU but rather of the Member States that have given the EU such restrictive competences in these matters. Moreover, the external policy the EU has been able to conduct in economy-related matters, which is its origin, has been extremely succesfull. There is now one voice where there were 27. Things are bound to improve now that the external relations in some cases will be put firmly in the hands of the EU.
Also, I don't know where you got the criminality from... The EU has no competence whatsoever to legislate in criminal matters, much less enforce it.
1. E.g. the decision to allow gentech food. 70 % of the EU-citizen are still against that. Or the plan for a service directive, which anyone with brain in his head has to be against.
I know that several (economic) decisions are said to be forced on EU from others (like WTO), but hey, why don't we leave them?!
2.The national governments could give the EU-regulations a regional suitable form. They already do that because around 80 % of the laws are made by EU.
3. At first it would be the lowest common denominator, but hopefully our politicians are intelligent enough to bring in a growth factor, so that it can become enough to live everywhere in EU.
4. You wrote about "crimminal matters". What did you mean?
__________________________
"Vor allem bewahrt Euch stets die Fähigkeit, jede Ungerechtigkeit, die irgendwo auf der Welt begangen wird, aufs Tiefste zu empfinden. " Che Guevara
1. Name decisions that have a majority of the EU people against it... I daresay you only know the handful of regulations or directions that have some initial controversy surrounding them. This does not amount to a majority being against it. Moreover, on beautiful pieces of legislation, such as 2004/38 nothing ever gets said...
Another thing: Much has been written about the democratic deficit that the EU is said to be possess.. To an extent this is true, and more democracy needs to be inserted. However, I can give you quite a few arguments, fi you are itnerested, supporting the current system as opposed to the another international cooperation. Also, now that we use the co-decision procedure for most decisions (art. 251 TEC), the Parliament has to agree with a majority of the votes to any legislation. If they represent the people, then where does your 'majority' come from?
The Commission does, also, only in very few cases possess the competence to legislate on its own (notably ARt. 81/82 procedures, and art. 86). So, at the very least, the Council of Ministers are involved, who are indirectly democratically legitimated themselves.
Also, I am sorry to say, but there is no way 'laws just become laws'. You might want to read up on how stuff like that works.
2. And what competences, do you imagine, would be left to the national state then...?
3. Not necessarily... Social-economic policy is not as easy as you perceive. Moreover, what would then be the standard? The lowest common denominator?
4. That's not the fault of the EU but rather of the Member States that have given the EU such restrictive competences in these matters. Moreover, the external policy the EU has been able to conduct in economy-related matters, which is its origin, has been extremely succesfull. There is now one voice where there were 27. Things are bound to improve now that the external relations in some cases will be put firmly in the hands of the EU.
Also, I don't know where you got the criminality from... The EU has no competence whatsoever to legislate in criminal matters, much less enforce it.
1. E.g. the decision to allow gentech food. 70 % of the EU-citizen are still against that. Or the plan for a service directive, which anyone with brain in his head has to be against.
I know that several (economic) decisions are said to be forced on EU from others (like WTO), but hey, why don't we leave them?!
2.The national governments could give the EU-regulations a regional suitable form. They already do that because around 80 % of the laws are made by EU.
3. At first it would be the lowest common denominator, but hopefully our politicians are intelligent enough to bring in a growth factor, so that it can become enough to live everywhere in EU.
4. You wrote about "crimminal matters". What did you mean?
1. Granted, the Service directive is horrificly complicated. Nevertheless, it does not really contain any new things, it's basically a 'codification' of a lot of directives that are already in place. Moreover, what's your exact reason for beign against it?
Gentech food is another issue that goes beyond just the EU, but has to do with WTO measures as well (like you noted). Growth hormones on the other hand are still forbidden within the EU, but there's increasing pressure from the international community to change that as well...
Also, I do not think leaving the WTO is a good idea. Liberalization of trade has brought much wealth and welfare to us. If everyone started to put up (extended) tariffs and non-tariff barriers again, we would basically go back to the situation of the 20s...
Moreover, these two things are, as stated before, part of the 'handful' of regulations. There's so much more to the EU than just these two.
2. While there is a lot EU influence on national law making (especially regarding the transposition of Directives), I am pretty sure it's *way* less than 80% of all Laws. In advance of what will be said later: There's quite a few areas where the Community has not competence to legislate... Also, if we ever got to the point of the EC having extended competences, and the national governments reduced to implementing them, than we have a federal state, which is what I proposed in the first place... This is how the German federation basically works: Cooperation between the Länder and Federal Government (US works differently, on the principle of 'if the Federal Government/Legislature wants something, they can do it themselves').
3. While your proposal sounds attractive, the fact that the European Member States at the moment, DO NOT have equal social facilities (even though there has been development in this area since 1800s) says much about social facilities being tied to culture. Since everyone seems to be unwilling to give up their national identity, of which this is a part, this will just not happen. No one would be happy: the high social countries because they now would have to adopt a lower standard and the low social countries because they'd have to adopt a higher standard and so lose out on competitiveness (or so they perceive). This is not a basis for increasing the social standard... Unless we went for the federal state and became Europeans instead of Dutch, Swedish and Germans...
4. You pointed out "U makes everyone a crimminal who just dares to pull a drowing person out of the meditarrenan sea.... ". The EU doesn't make anyone a criminal. They do not have the competency. It's the Member States that decide on this.
__________________________
Fantasy = Life
It's a good step forward, although I doubt we will actually see a radical change for the better without a European constitution. What things do you think have not been properly addressed or solved in the Treaty of Lisbon?
__________________________
How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen