I’ve been following the doings of the European Union with some mild academic interest, and I have a few questions for our European Doper bretheren.
As I understand it, the proposed supra-national Consitution for the EU has been moldering on the shelf for a couple of years to give everybody a chance to mull it over.
My questions:
Is it true that some of the smaller countries (Poland, Bulgaria, etc.) are resentful of perceived French and German domination of the EU? (I’ve heard some “first among equals” cracks.)
I believe that adoption is dependent on all member countries ratifying the thing independently, to be decided by simple majority in national plebicites, and if even one country’s majority votes “no” the whole thing is scrapped. Is this true?
I’ve seen French public opinion polls that put opposition to the Constitution at about 53% with the vote coming at the end of May. If it has that little support in France, how much does it have elsewhere? Going back to the next previous question; a French “no” vote kills it before anybody else has a say, right?
How unwieldy is this thing, anyway? I’ve only read excerpts (and poorly translated ones, at that) but it’s supposed to be huge, and go beyond being a foundation-of-law document into minutiae like farm subsidies. Is that an exagerration?
Finally, do you, as an individual potentially governed by this document, consider it to be a good idea?
Anything you can tell me would be welcome. Please don’t feel limited to answering these few questions.
There’s every chance of the French killing it with their referendum. they perceive it as being too “anglo-saxon” and a threat to their very protectionist economy (not to mention the three hour lunch break).
It is also being seen as a chance to give Chirac a bloody nose.
If the French don’t kill it, we’ll give it a good kicking when we get a chance (after our election). Oddly in France it’s opposed by the left and in Britain on the right.
As for a personal opinion: It’s a bloody awful idea.
One possible outcome from all of this is that we end up with a two tier Europe with those keenest on further integration coming closer together with the rest of us orbiting around the edge.
Personally, I’m keen on the idea of a two-tier EU. I just think it’s a shame Britain would be on the periphery.
I haven’t followed what’s been happening in France very closely, partly because of what Owl says - the British referendum will royally stuff the constitution. If it’s rejected, then it’s back to yet more ‘negotiations’, taking several more years at least.
There’s some things in it that seem to be Very Good Things - one that is often overlooked is that, for the first time, there would be a procedure put in place for countries to leave the EU, something not possible in the current situation.
The Franco-German ambivalence is also tied in with EU enlargement. The advances towards future membership of most of eastern Europe, the Balkans and Turkey means that they simply will not any longer be able to be the heart of the EU, in any sense.
BTW, couple of nitpicks - Bulgaria isn’t (yet) a member, and Poland can’t really be described as a ‘small’ country in any meaningful way. It is, however, economically very weak compared to other EU members, as were Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal when they joined.
Surely, some smaller countries aren’t always happy that if France and Germany get together on something, they have a good shot at pushing through. However, it’s not like these two countries agree on anything, and if the U.K. bonds with a few other countries, they can get a long way too. It’s just a shame that the U.K. isn’t really pulling it’s political weight in that respect yet.
Yes. So the chance of failure is considerable, especially if you look at previous referenda, countries often only barely voting in favor of the Maastricht treaty or the Euro.
Well, no, because France isn’t the first country to have put it to a vote, so at least in theory that’d be a wrong assumption. Besides that, referenda would be held in all countries even if inbetween one country voted no. This makes sense, as a likely next step would be for the countries who voted yes to move on together.
Unfortunately, in France, people see it as a way to vote against the current president, whom they (justly) hate, and not really about Europe. In France, I sometimes think that only the politicians care about Europe. Truth of the matter is, Europe may not be perfect, but it’s a darn good idea in many, many ways. And pretty inevitable too.
No, it’s huge. But what do you mean with poorly translated ones? English is the most important European language for these matters and I’m sure the original was written in English first. Or did you read it in another language.
Yes, although not perfect, it is a considerable improvement over the treaties we currently have (Nice, Maastricht). It fixes a number of things that need to be fixed.
The document revises a number of treaties, as well as establishes a basic constitution. As such, a lot of paper is involved, but the basic constitional stuff isn’t all that extensive.
I knew I was going to stuff that up. When I said “small” I was thinking economically, not in terms of population, but I didn’t make that at all clear. And I swear I thought Bulgaria had been admitted. Is there still a lot of opposition to the admission of Turkey?
I’ve only seen translations from French to English. (I thought the principle architect was Chirac’s predecessor.) I haven’t seen a full native English version, but I’m not dumb enough to think it doesn’t exist.
I think each country has to ratify the constitution, but I’m pretty sure that they can do it however they want. Several countries (mainly ones where support for Europe is high), I belive, are simply passing it through their legislatures rather then going to the trouble of national plebicites.
Bulgaria’s one of the next wave of admissions, I think - intended for somewhere around 2007. As for Poland’s economy, it’s certainly not insignificant, due to its agricultural basis - Polish farmers don’t get the subsidies that are provided for older member state, basically because to do so would bankrupt the whole system. Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy is long overdue, and it’s basically the French who are preventing it from happening. Remove their right to veto change, and you’ve got a lot of angry French farmers.
Oh, and yes, there’s plenty of opposition to Turkey being on the membership route. Some of it valid (such as concerns that its economy can’t match even those of eastern Europe, treatment of Kurds, the unresolved issue of Cyprus), and moronic Islamophobic attitudes that the EU is something that should only embrace ‘Christian countries’ (whatever they are).
This is true. German constitutional law, for example, does not include any referendums on the federal level, so the constitution is to be ratified by votes of the two chambers of legislature, which are very likely to support it unanimously as all the parties represented in parliamend are pro-EU.
As a sidekick, the German constitution states at its very end that its abolishment and the introduction of a new constitution (as was originally planned when the current statute was enacted in 1949) requires referendum. Some think the EU constitution would practically end Germany’s indepedent statehood and therefore requites referendum; there are suits to the constitutional court to come.
Personally, I’d vote no in a referendum. Not because of national sovereignty, but because I disagree with the content of the draft; it seems to include, for example, a duty for the member states to increase the military strength, which doesn’t appeal to me, not to speak of the poor quality of the text itself - it’s way too long.
I’m not too sure when Ireland is planning on a ref. but if another country hasn’t killed it then I reckon we will.
They had a very hard time passing the Nice Ref. in fact if was rejected the first time so the feckers just called a new ref. and asked the country again with new ‘assurances’ about neutrality etc. It’s passed then but only just.
People have become more skeptical of the EU since then so as I said I don’t think it will pass in Ireland if it ever even gets that far.
Bulgaria isn’t (still) a member. But the answer is yes, to some extent. I say “to soe extent” because people can be opposed to the EU for very different reasons (like price rises or the fate of the farmers in Poland who are, for most of them, doomed, for instance). But AFAIK, such a perception exists. This “perceived domination” comes mainly from the fact that France and Germany have both been very supportive of the EU concept (at least the governments have been, if not always the populations) and over the years have consistently worked together to solve the issues between them and present some kind of compromise together, and this despite changes in governments, or having governments of opposite persuasion in power in Paris and Berlin. The current french conservatives are currently working as happily with the german socialist/green as the former french socialist Mitterand was working with the german conservative Kohl. And the overall goals of France re the EU didn’t significantely change over the years, either. there’s an overall agreement of the french polical class over the main issues.
By contrast, other blocks of votes are shifting depending on the issues at hand or on the government. For instance, the Spanish European policy made a 180° turn when the socialists recently came to power, and they joined the french/german “team” on several major issues while the previous government was working in particular with the poles towards a common goal now forgotten. Or Berlusconi’s italian government is currently on the overall “anti-EU” while the former one was much more cooperative.
However, of course, France and Germany don’t have any special priviledges apart from both being large EU countries and don’t always get it their way.
Yes, for the part about the adoption being dependant on all members ratifying it.
In this case, the previously negociated treaty of Nice, reforming the institutions in an unsatisfaying way would apply instead.
A representant of the EU parliament recently announced that there won’t be a new negociation for a different treaty if this one is rejected. Which was intented for the french audience, since a lot of the opponents in France actually want/expect a different treaty more palatable to them. But it might be still true since the negociations for this one have been extremely difficult and complicated and I doubt they’re going to begin all over again (and anyway, no treaty politically envisionnable would satisfy this opposition. What they want isn’t going to appear in any EU “constitution” in the foreseeable future).
No for the part about the constitution being decided by plebicites. each country choose by herself the ratification procedure. In many countries, it will simply be a vote by the parliament.
The french population isn’t as pro-EU as you might believe. A previous treaty was pleblicited with only 50, 5 % “yes” vote or so, for instance. A lot of people are opposed to the EU either because they favor national independance, either because the EU is too liberal (european meaning of “liberal” : economically liberal, hence right-wing) for their tastes. The main parties (and the greens) are calling for a “yes” votes, but besides the extreme (right and left) opposed to it, there is a very vocal dissent within both the right and the left main parties which have recently influenced a lot the electorate. Some people are also going to use the plebicite to vote against Chirac or to convey their general unhappiness.
France isn’t the first country to ratify the constitution.
Problem is : despite its name, it’s not a foundation of law document. It’s only a treaty that regroup all other previous treaties, change the organization of the institutions in order to make them functionnal with a large number of countries (that’s the main and important part, and that’s the part people should consider when voting), and adding into the mix some general principles to make it looks nicer. IOW, it’s not a constitution. And the opposition to it (in France at least) argue about IMO irrelevant points, (like the economical liberalism) which were already present in the exact same way previously, or a brief mention of the NATO, or the lack of mention of something else, or the wording of some principle which is anyway unenforceable or already enforced by previous treaties, etc…or are affraid of the supposed consequences of ratifying the treaty (like jobs going to cheaper central europe countries), which, assuming they are not mistaken, would happen with or without the treaty anyway.
Yes. This treaty (the part about the instutions, rules for majority votes, etc…As I said, the rest is irrelevant) is IMO absolutely necessary with a 25 countries EU. Otherwise, the Union will be so burdenned it will come to a halt. Which would please some of the opponents, of course.
My views on the EU constitution: the european parliament need something to do…in between figuring out what color the road signs shouldbe, and deciding if the French style yellow headlamps should be amndatory in the rest of Europe. When will you euros learn! We (in the USA) have entirely TOO MUCH government-and you europeans seem to want more! Why? If you set up an institution (the european parliament) two things will happen:
(1) it will continually try to expand its influence(like nosing into airconditioner safety standards in Bulgaria)
(2) it will continually try to increase its budget
In 50 years or so, people will wonder why they have this monster in Brussels, sitting around and wasting money.
There’s a good reason Norway stayed out-they pay a lot less in taxes!
All the EU offcial documents exists in all offcial languages of the EU (that is, all the languages of the member countries) and all versions are equally valid.
The chairman of the commission that drafted the constitution was Valery Giscard d’ Estaing a former french president from the 70’s (who never got over not being reelected, always dreamt of some great achievment so that his name woud be remembered, like for instance being the first president of the EU, if such a job existed, and is subjected to some level of ridicule in France).
No they don’t. They’re slap in the middle of the range of European tax burdens. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922307.html (Other little things, such as oil & fish, might’ve had an influence on them.)
Irish people can be as insular, selfish and silly as any other nationality.
Fears of added immigration due to a lessoning of control on a national level, losing neutrality and good old fashioned scaremongering have had a big effect over here.
Same here.
A poll on a popular website showed this:
De Europese Grondwet?
Voor 25%
Tegen 75%
Even if some of the scaremongering was done by an MP [Donner] who said we’d surely get into a WAR soon, if we didn’t vote yes.
If we look at the poll, it’s obvious no-one believes him.
The Irish economy is doing well because it has low tax rates which attract business.
The EU is in trouble because it is an enormous and bureaucratic document (@ 470+ pages in the English version) drawn up by people completely out of touch with reality. It is not about protecting individual rights - it is about seizing and centralizing control. This is a far different animal than the U.S. Consitution.
This process tests the ability of the bureaucrats to trick the “normal” people into acting against their own interests.
One of the more troubling aspects in the EUC is the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Unlike the American Bill of Rights (which in its original unamended form was designed to protect individual “negative rights” - the right to be left alone), the EUC promotes affirmative rights “to” things such as education and health care. Who pays for these things? The more economically successful EU members (ie, those with low tax rates) are going to be burdened with supporting the aging populations of France and Germany. It remains to be seen if they will be snookered.