| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Turbulence Underneath | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 11 2008, 10:02 PM (573 Views) | |
| ds9074 | Dec 14 2008, 01:11 PM Post #31 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ I would agree that the length of the document makes it very difficult for voters to read and understand. So that does reduce its democratic legitimacy. It would be good to have a more concise document that voters could really get to grips with. At the same time, as I have said, I would not want a document that is too loose and so allows the EU bodies to take power from the member states or allows the European Court of Justice greater freedom to make judgements effecting the member states. Its therefore important that everything is laid out in the treaties. The US Constitution, whatever the original intention, has failed to prevent the federal level of government growing in size and reducing the influence of the states. That makes me weary of the idea of applying a document based on the US constitution to Europe. Edited by ds9074, Dec 14 2008, 01:14 PM.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Dec 14 2008, 02:16 PM Post #32 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
^^^ Well, you do fully understand though, that the size was expanded with the full consent of the governed, don't you? Those governed, the voting public, may not have fully understood what they were voting for, but that does not detract for the notion that many of the expansions of government were popularly endorsed, such as the with the Great Depression and the expansions in government that brought about. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Dec 14 2008, 02:26 PM Post #33 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ I would be very concerned indeed if voters in other member states could alter the system of governance for the EU potentially without our consent. That could occur if you remove the check that there must be unanimous ratification of the treaties by all member states and/or you made the treaties so loose and flexible that the EU institutions themselves could fundementally change the system. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Dec 14 2008, 02:59 PM Post #34 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
^^^ And that is why you have a stalemate in the ratification of EU Constitution. At some point there has to be conpromise, which a unanimous system deters. In fact, that kind of system guarantee's some group will dig in itself heels and hold up ratification, because they didn't get exactly what they want. If the nacent United States had done as you think is necessary for Europe, then the US Constitution would never have been ratified. the Three-Fifth Compromise is one such example of a compromise on deeply held cultural and spiritual beliefs that was necessary for the states to agree on the constitution. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Dec 14 2008, 04:17 PM Post #35 |
|
Admiral
|
Dwayne I think you are not getting the point that the member states of the EU are and wish to remain sovereign nation states rather than just states in the US sense as part of a federal government. If a state rejects a change to the treaties there only has to be a compromise if there is to be change and that compromise has to be acceptable to all. The other option is the rules stay the same. There is simply no way that as a sovereign state you would want to give other states a right to alter key parts of your constitutional law against your will. A key element of what makes the member states of the EU still sovereign is that any major change to the way the EU works must be ratified by all. The proposed EU Constitution was rejected and taken off the table because France and the Netherlands refused to ratify it. The EU leaders then proposed some of the same measures with alterations in the Treaty of Lisbon. The Irish have refused to ratify that treaty. Unless Ireland changes its position the Treaty of Lisbon is dead and so it should be. Ireland cannot be forced to adopt a treaty it doesnt want even if all 26 other states agree because Ireland has sovereignty over the treaties it signs. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Dec 14 2008, 04:46 PM Post #36 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
^^^ As did the early American states, which almost resulted in the US Constitution not reaching ratification. In my opinoin, that is why you make a constitution as consice as possible and have it lay out the aspect in which you can agree, and then leave an amending process for those things you cannot agree. The simple fact is, European nation-states are no more sovereign from each other than California is sovereign from Texas. You all agree on a currency, almost all share the same standards for measurements, and almost all universally accept a similar political, social and economic system. You all have so much more in common than what's not in common. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Dec 14 2008, 05:03 PM Post #37 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ Your view is fine for a constitution between entities that have agreed to give up their individual sovereignty and become subsumbed into a larger sovereign body. That does not apply to the EU member states. European nation states are more sovereign than the states of the US. We do not all agree on a single currency actually, we operate independent tax systems, we have seperate military and foreign policies, we have the right to veto any change to the EU treaties (whereas no state veto exists to my knowledge to changes to the US constitution). We also have the right as sovereign entities to withdraw from the European Union without the consent of the other members. That is not a right that states within the US enjoy. We do have a lot in common in terms of history and culture in Europe and I am all for co-operation, I am just not keen on the level of political integration that the EU entails but would be even more opposed to a federal system. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Dec 14 2008, 05:37 PM Post #38 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Well, that just goes to prove you don't know American history and the Articles of Confederation. It's sad really, because if Europeans weren't so disdainful of America, I think you could all learn a thing or two from it. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Dec 14 2008, 06:47 PM Post #39 |
|
Admiral
|
Please enlighten me. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Dec 15 2008, 02:57 AM Post #40 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
^^^ America didn't form with a single currency. Each state was conducting its own foreign policy. Each state was essentially acting as a nation. etc. But, please, enlighten yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation Edited by Dwayne, Dec 15 2008, 02:59 AM.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Dec 15 2008, 05:43 AM Post #41 |
|
Admiral
|
Dwayne you wrote:
Since California and Texas are both bound by the US Constitution this is clearly wrong. Even in relation to the Articles of Confederation those original states appear arguably less sovereign than the EU member states in two big ways;
Unless I have misunderstood this the Articles of Confederation created a military union - that in itself seriously undermines the sovereignty and independence of any individual state. The EU does not operate in this way. Member states can unanimously agreed to deploy troops together under an EU banner for peacekeeping roles but they are still forces of the individual nations. Some of the member states, like Ireland, also hold a position of neutrality. Importantly if member states want to they are free to conduct their own foreign and military policy. If you remember the EU was divided over the Iraq war, its quite likely if we had been operating under the same rules as the Confederation no European forces would have been committed. Instead forces from Britain, Poland etc did deploy and that was a decision for their national governments despite the strong criticism from others like France and Germany.
Again this appears to be a serious difference from the EU. Within the EU a member state can withdraw from the Union if it wishes without the consent of the other members. In the British case this would mean repealing the European Communities Act and giving notice that we are withdrawing from our treaty obligations. We are entitled to do that because we are a sovereign state. It doesnt sound like the original states had this right in relation to the Confederation or am I wrong? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Dec 15 2008, 08:35 AM Post #42 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
^^^ Oh, but wait a sec, I could swear I read some where that eventually a unified foreign policy is a desired goal of the EU bureaucracy in Brussels. And while I can certainly admit that even the Article of Confederation were tacit in the creation of a new nation, and thus any state that ratified it knew they were part of a larger body, but the fact is large pluralities, even majorities in some areas, were either apathetic or opposed to the creation of the United States. Sound familiar? The replacement of the Article of Confederation with the United States Constitution was a long and arduous journey that almost failed. And as for the dissolution of the union by member states leaving it, would it surprise you to know that Texas has a provision in its constitution for leaving the United States? Just wondering if you knew that. On a side note, here's a nice little article I came across that tells about the poor behavior of EU bureaucrats toward Vaclav Klaus...
You seem to think a 400+ page constitution will somehow prevent a big central entity, whether you want to call it a federal government or not, but it's already becoming clear that this thing in Brussels already has a life of its own. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Dec 15 2008, 01:06 PM Post #43 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ On the common foreign policy yes there are those within the EU who would like to move to a position where the EU has more power of foreign policy. There are also those, who have vetos, who do not want that to occur. As for the disgusting behaviour of the MEPs - not exactly unexpected. These people want a federal system and they have been thwarted time and again in that goal. The last thing I would want to do is hand those very same people control over the military, foreign affairs and taxation. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Dec 15 2008, 01:52 PM Post #44 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
^^^ So can you appreciate that the exact same arguments between a strong central government versus strong local government occurred in the US at the time of the creation of the US Constitution? All the states feared ceding any sovereignty to this federal government created by the Article of Confederation, but it was the limitations inherent in Articles that lead to the stronger federal government created by the US Constitution. But even with stronger federal government created, at the time the states were still far more powerful than the federal government. The American Civil War greatly expanded the power of the federal government, and in reality, the Civil War wasn't fought over the issue of slavery per se, but over the rights of states versus the rights of the federal government. The federal government won that war and since then it's literally been downhill for states rights from most points of view. You can make your EU Constitution say whatever you want, but this entity, the EU, exists and wants its blood and treasure... In time, it will take it by force if necessary. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


2:13 PM Jul 11