European Constitution
Posted by: MichaelC on 27 March 2004
So it appears that Blair is going to sign us up again, no referendum - what happened to democracy?
Has this man no shame?
I would like your views.
Incidentally, this is not meant to be a thread about whether or not there should be closer integration with Europe but the manner in which Blair is approaching this.
Mike
Has this man no shame?
I would like your views.
Incidentally, this is not meant to be a thread about whether or not there should be closer integration with Europe but the manner in which Blair is approaching this.
Mike
Posted on: 27 March 2004 by BigH47
They were not going to sign it was in the Manifesto just after no top up fees.Its not important so no need for a referendum. 
The sooner the don't knows get in the better.
Howard
The sooner the don't knows get in the better.
Howard
Posted on: 27 March 2004 by Mr Underhill
Frankly I really have hated the way Labour have tramelled over the constitution since being elected.
We have always joked that we live in an elected dictatorship, but now we know it is truer than we believed.
The sooner we have a written constitution the better; and, if we have to have a Supreme Court, one with the power to strike off anti-constutional legislation.
Martin
We have always joked that we live in an elected dictatorship, but now we know it is truer than we believed.
The sooner we have a written constitution the better; and, if we have to have a Supreme Court, one with the power to strike off anti-constutional legislation.
Martin
Posted on: 27 March 2004 by Haroon
Errm, arent we already part of the EU, a referendum is a bit too late isnt it?
As far as I know the EU Constitution just roles together the existing treaties, rules etc into one coherent form important due to the expansion created by new countries joining the EU. Okay there are some changes that are important but we are still keeping decision making on key issues. So why do we need a referendum? I dont want to vote in a referendum each time we a change happens at EU level - we have Euro-MP's for that.
[This message was edited by Haroon on Sun 28 March 2004 at 0:01.]
As far as I know the EU Constitution just roles together the existing treaties, rules etc into one coherent form important due to the expansion created by new countries joining the EU. Okay there are some changes that are important but we are still keeping decision making on key issues. So why do we need a referendum? I dont want to vote in a referendum each time we a change happens at EU level - we have Euro-MP's for that.
[This message was edited by Haroon on Sun 28 March 2004 at 0:01.]
Posted on: 27 March 2004 by JeremyD
quote:I wonder how much support there is for this? I must admit that in 1997 I thought that by now more progress would have been made towards full democracy for Britain - a written constitution, separation of church and state, replacement of the Lords by an elected second chamber, flying pigs available on the NHS...
Originally posted by Mr Underhill:
The sooner we have a written constitution the better; and, if we have to have a Supreme Court, one with the power to strike off anti-constutional legislation.
Posted on: 27 March 2004 by BigH47
I wish people would stop talking about UK constitution because we hav'nt got one. Surprising as our pals over the pond have. Just think if we had written one we could be in the same state as the US. Every bloody decision made in the court house not intelligent minds.
Howard
Howard
Posted on: 27 March 2004 by Haroon
We dont have a constitution because we couldnt stick to one 
Posted on: 27 March 2004 by Bhoyo
quote:
Originally posted by BigH47:
I wish people would stop talking about UK constitution because we hav'nt got one.
Way back when I did my A-Levels, I was taught that we Brits did have one, but that it was unwritten.
An honest democracy should have nothing to fear from a constitution and, at least as important, a bill of rights.
Davie
Posted on: 28 March 2004 by Simon Perry
Blair's policy on Europe is in tatters, partly over Iraq. Isn't the interconnectedness of things interesting. The previous Spanish PM was keen to associate the "war on terror" with his country's struggle against ETA, he cuts a deal with the US, participates in the Iraq debacle, 10 bombs later and he's out, and Blair's even more isolated in Europe.
Haroon said "I dont want to vote in a referendum each time we a change happens at EU level - we have Euro-MP's for that". Perhaps, but then do you understand how you can influence EU policy through your MEP voting rights? I sure as hell don't.
Simon
Haroon said "I dont want to vote in a referendum each time we a change happens at EU level - we have Euro-MP's for that". Perhaps, but then do you understand how you can influence EU policy through your MEP voting rights? I sure as hell don't.
Simon
Posted on: 28 March 2004 by BigH47
Bhoyo
"A verbal agreement is not worth the paper its printed on" a wise man once said.
I agree we should not fear written constitution its a shame we have not got one now we could compare to the "new" Euro one. I'm not sure I'm qualified to vote on it but I'm also sure the polliticians have'nt either.
Howard
"A verbal agreement is not worth the paper its printed on" a wise man once said.
I agree we should not fear written constitution its a shame we have not got one now we could compare to the "new" Euro one. I'm not sure I'm qualified to vote on it but I'm also sure the polliticians have'nt either.
Howard
Posted on: 28 March 2004 by Haroon
Simon: not sure exactly what you mean, I guess we influence MEP voting rights in the same way we influence MP voting rights.
Fredrik: Thing is why do we feel the need for a referendum? To me its seems like a thing the Conservatives are whipping up the EU issue just to get some beleagured support for their disfunctional party. Tory party are always like this labour comes out with one thing and tories automatically want the opposite. By the way Im not aligned with Labour. You write an interesting post, but not once do you realy say why we need the referendum? On what? What do you think the referendum should ask of us all? Like I said we already are a part of the EU, we already subscribe to many of the EU policies and treaties which the constitution roles up and we are still to keeping decision making on key policy areas. So whats there to object to? I dont understand, I would like to know what your objection to the EU constitution is. In your last post you ask for the open debate - well whats stopping you posting your view against it? My position is not fixed pro-consitution, just from what I know so far it makes sense, the only thing from the anti lobby is errm 'We dont want it' - hardly a convincing argument against.
Fredrik: Thing is why do we feel the need for a referendum? To me its seems like a thing the Conservatives are whipping up the EU issue just to get some beleagured support for their disfunctional party. Tory party are always like this labour comes out with one thing and tories automatically want the opposite. By the way Im not aligned with Labour. You write an interesting post, but not once do you realy say why we need the referendum? On what? What do you think the referendum should ask of us all? Like I said we already are a part of the EU, we already subscribe to many of the EU policies and treaties which the constitution roles up and we are still to keeping decision making on key policy areas. So whats there to object to? I dont understand, I would like to know what your objection to the EU constitution is. In your last post you ask for the open debate - well whats stopping you posting your view against it? My position is not fixed pro-consitution, just from what I know so far it makes sense, the only thing from the anti lobby is errm 'We dont want it' - hardly a convincing argument against.
Posted on: 28 March 2004 by Steve Toy
A European Constitution providing us with the checks and balances in our system of government that we so lack would be better than no constitution at all.
In an age where politicians disregard values, norms, traditions and ideals in their desire to embrace change for its own sake, an unwritten constitution is the same as no constitution.
Add this to the fact that under our stupid electoral system parliament is but a lame rubber stamping operation for our elected dictatorial oligarchy.
We need the following:
* A written constitution with a Bill of Rights.
* An elected Second Chamber to Replace the House of Lords, elected perhaps in two phases with peerages lasting for, say, eight years, but with elections every four years.
* A divorced Church and State.
* A Supreme Court that can step in when someone like Blair acts in a dictatorial and unconstitutional manner.
* Manifesto pledges should be constitutionally binding and subject to a General Election called by the Supreme Court in the event of them being broken.
* Proportional Representation in the Lower Chamber so that Parliament can actually call the government to account.
* Fixed four-year terms between General Elections.
In the meantime, Europe may at least be able to impose restraint upon the excesses of our successive elected dictatorships.
So I say Yes to a European Constitution. If Blair is abusing his power in order to renounce much of it, then I'm more than happy to let him take the requisite rope to hang himself and his dictatorial inclinations.
Blair may have ambitions of becoming President of a European Super State, but I'm prepared to gamble upon the fact that he will never be elected president of Europe because I'd credit voters across Europe as a whole with more sense than to vote for him.
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Mon 29 March 2004 at 2:28.]
In an age where politicians disregard values, norms, traditions and ideals in their desire to embrace change for its own sake, an unwritten constitution is the same as no constitution.
Add this to the fact that under our stupid electoral system parliament is but a lame rubber stamping operation for our elected dictatorial oligarchy.
We need the following:
* A written constitution with a Bill of Rights.
* An elected Second Chamber to Replace the House of Lords, elected perhaps in two phases with peerages lasting for, say, eight years, but with elections every four years.
* A divorced Church and State.
* A Supreme Court that can step in when someone like Blair acts in a dictatorial and unconstitutional manner.
* Manifesto pledges should be constitutionally binding and subject to a General Election called by the Supreme Court in the event of them being broken.
* Proportional Representation in the Lower Chamber so that Parliament can actually call the government to account.
* Fixed four-year terms between General Elections.
In the meantime, Europe may at least be able to impose restraint upon the excesses of our successive elected dictatorships.
So I say Yes to a European Constitution. If Blair is abusing his power in order to renounce much of it, then I'm more than happy to let him take the requisite rope to hang himself and his dictatorial inclinations.
Blair may have ambitions of becoming President of a European Super State, but I'm prepared to gamble upon the fact that he will never be elected president of Europe because I'd credit voters across Europe as a whole with more sense than to vote for him.
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Mon 29 March 2004 at 2:28.]
Posted on: 29 March 2004 by MichaelC
Fredrik
Absolutely spot on.
Mike
Absolutely spot on.
Mike
Posted on: 29 March 2004 by matthewr
We have a representative democracy and so the idea of a referendum should be justified only in the most extreme circumstances. This is not such a circumstance and, if one filters out the usual delusional paranoia of the Eurosceptics, not really such a big deal and is mostly linked to the coming expansion.
Fredrik said "Majority voting is introduced into new areas"
Becuase, by common consent, a 25 member EU would essentially be unworkable with the current national vetos. Vetos are retained in all the key areas.
"Foreign policy, human rights, social policy, and even taxation"
Blair's position is that foriegn policy and taxation (and defence) will be unaffected by this process. The Human Rights declaration is unlikely to make it into actual law (its not neccessary given that we already have the EU Convention on Human Rights)
"Please don't be convinced that the great European powers want us in. They have to have us in so that they can curtail our inherently competive Anlgo-Saxon economy, which has for many years been doing rather better than the highly regulated restricted and inward looking system adopted by the other major economic powers within the EU"
This is the sort of bizarre nonsense one reads from obscure right wing academics in magazines even The Spectator views as a bit odd.
Britain's economy has prospered with the EU and if anything economically France and (especially) Germany will become more like Britain that the other way around.
Matthew
Fredrik said "Majority voting is introduced into new areas"
Becuase, by common consent, a 25 member EU would essentially be unworkable with the current national vetos. Vetos are retained in all the key areas.
"Foreign policy, human rights, social policy, and even taxation"
Blair's position is that foriegn policy and taxation (and defence) will be unaffected by this process. The Human Rights declaration is unlikely to make it into actual law (its not neccessary given that we already have the EU Convention on Human Rights)
"Please don't be convinced that the great European powers want us in. They have to have us in so that they can curtail our inherently competive Anlgo-Saxon economy, which has for many years been doing rather better than the highly regulated restricted and inward looking system adopted by the other major economic powers within the EU"
This is the sort of bizarre nonsense one reads from obscure right wing academics in magazines even The Spectator views as a bit odd.
Britain's economy has prospered with the EU and if anything economically France and (especially) Germany will become more like Britain that the other way around.
Matthew
Posted on: 29 March 2004 by MichaelC
Matthew
Has it not occurred to you that some people may not want "closer" ties with Europe. I do not want to see, certainly at this stage, Brussels having a greater say in the way we run this country. Although we are part of the EU I see the Constitution as a means to impose its will in terms of foreign policy, taxation etc (albeit, perhaps, gradually over time). Does this make me wrong to oppose the Constitution?
We need open debate on where we are going in terms of Europe. If the majority wish to be subsumed into the European Superstate (and that is what it is all about ultimately) so be it. At least there will have been a debate.
More to the point, other countries are being given the opportunity to vote on the subject of the Constitution, AND this brings us back to my original point - the manner in which Blair is handling this issue.
Mike
Has it not occurred to you that some people may not want "closer" ties with Europe. I do not want to see, certainly at this stage, Brussels having a greater say in the way we run this country. Although we are part of the EU I see the Constitution as a means to impose its will in terms of foreign policy, taxation etc (albeit, perhaps, gradually over time). Does this make me wrong to oppose the Constitution?
We need open debate on where we are going in terms of Europe. If the majority wish to be subsumed into the European Superstate (and that is what it is all about ultimately) so be it. At least there will have been a debate.
More to the point, other countries are being given the opportunity to vote on the subject of the Constitution, AND this brings us back to my original point - the manner in which Blair is handling this issue.
Mike
Posted on: 29 March 2004 by Simon Perry
I wonder what the result of a referendum would be? Based on my current understanding of the constitution, it may well be that it is not a significant enough issue to warrant a referendum. Joining the Euro is another matter entirely.
Posted on: 29 March 2004 by matthewr
Michael,
"Has it not occurred to you that some people may not want "closer" ties with Europe"
Of course it has. I recommend you vote Conservative and if enough people agree with you you will get your wish.
"I see the Constitution as a means to impose its will in terms of foreign policy, taxation etc (albeit, perhaps, gradually over time). Does this make me wrong to oppose the Constitution?"
You have every right to oppose the constitution but should do so on its merits rather than dark mutterings about ulterior motives. Blair has been very clear about his implaccable opposition to EU interference in foreign policy, tax and defence.
"We need open debate on where we are going in terms of Europe"
Such debate is largely impossible because of the Eurosceptics who just go on about how its all part of a dark plot for a European Superstate run by socialist bureaucrats. You try and have a debate and before you know it someone will mention "backdoor Socialism" and how the EU tries to ban banannas for not being straight enough. It's this dogmatic, (often) xenophoic and anachronisitic mindset that causes the problem. How can you debate with the Tory party when their policy on the EU can be summed up as "No"?
FWIW I am quite Eurosceptic myself in many ways (it's lack of democracy, the CAP, inefficiency, etc) and also resent the lack of debate.
"AND this brings us back to my original point - the manner in which Blair is handling this issue"
We've elected a PM and a government broadly in favour of the EU and closer intergration and now we let him get on with it. If they had only called it a "Treaty" rather than a "Constitution" and missed out VGdE's unfortunately worded preface it wouldn't have raised anywhere near as much fuss.
Matthew
"Has it not occurred to you that some people may not want "closer" ties with Europe"
Of course it has. I recommend you vote Conservative and if enough people agree with you you will get your wish.
"I see the Constitution as a means to impose its will in terms of foreign policy, taxation etc (albeit, perhaps, gradually over time). Does this make me wrong to oppose the Constitution?"
You have every right to oppose the constitution but should do so on its merits rather than dark mutterings about ulterior motives. Blair has been very clear about his implaccable opposition to EU interference in foreign policy, tax and defence.
"We need open debate on where we are going in terms of Europe"
Such debate is largely impossible because of the Eurosceptics who just go on about how its all part of a dark plot for a European Superstate run by socialist bureaucrats. You try and have a debate and before you know it someone will mention "backdoor Socialism" and how the EU tries to ban banannas for not being straight enough. It's this dogmatic, (often) xenophoic and anachronisitic mindset that causes the problem. How can you debate with the Tory party when their policy on the EU can be summed up as "No"?
FWIW I am quite Eurosceptic myself in many ways (it's lack of democracy, the CAP, inefficiency, etc) and also resent the lack of debate.
"AND this brings us back to my original point - the manner in which Blair is handling this issue"
We've elected a PM and a government broadly in favour of the EU and closer intergration and now we let him get on with it. If they had only called it a "Treaty" rather than a "Constitution" and missed out VGdE's unfortunately worded preface it wouldn't have raised anywhere near as much fuss.
Matthew
Posted on: 29 March 2004 by Haroon
Well said Matthew
Michael Fredrick: Like Matthew and I have both written, we would have clear areas where we still retain decision making. Okay you have fears that our powers in certain areas will be eroded, but at the moment they are just that fears and unfounded. You mention that the 200 page document is unclear only to a lawlyer - well yeah of course its has to be a technical document and anyway much of the current treaties or rules or no better - so whats with the beef on this one? Its seems to me you are coming across as an entrenched anti-euro. Im all for debate but I still dont think neither of you have put forward a real constructive argument against the EU constituion - give us something real to chew on please. Instead I think what you have given us is the common paranoid euro-sceptic fear of the EU. What was it the John Lennon sang about in Imagine? It is only with things like what is happening with the EU that we can BEGIN to make roads to that ideal.
Michael Fredrick: Like Matthew and I have both written, we would have clear areas where we still retain decision making. Okay you have fears that our powers in certain areas will be eroded, but at the moment they are just that fears and unfounded. You mention that the 200 page document is unclear only to a lawlyer - well yeah of course its has to be a technical document and anyway much of the current treaties or rules or no better - so whats with the beef on this one? Its seems to me you are coming across as an entrenched anti-euro. Im all for debate but I still dont think neither of you have put forward a real constructive argument against the EU constituion - give us something real to chew on please. Instead I think what you have given us is the common paranoid euro-sceptic fear of the EU. What was it the John Lennon sang about in Imagine? It is only with things like what is happening with the EU that we can BEGIN to make roads to that ideal.
Posted on: 29 March 2004 by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
Blair has been very clear about his implaccable opposition to EU interference in foreign policy, tax and defence.
Exactly!
Mike
Posted on: 29 March 2004 by JohanR
quote:
Blair may have ambitions of becoming President of a European Super State, but I'm prepared to gamble upon the fact that he will never be elected president of Europe because I'd credit voters across Europe as a whole with more sense than to vote for him.
Our beloved Swedish Prime Minister, Göran Persson, is considered to have the same ambition. Strangely enough, my feelings when confronted with this thought is the same as yours about Blair
JohanR
Posted on: 29 March 2004 by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Haroon:
Im all for debate but I still dont think neither of you have put forward a real constructive argument against the EU
We have very circular arguments here.
I may not be able to present definitive facts for or against the Constitution or even indeed whether the EC is good or bad on, say, an economics point of view.
Likewise, those in favour of the Constitution or for that matter the benefits of, say, a single currency do not present definitive facts.
My argument is primarily with the manner in which the EC is run and quite frankly my lack of faith/trust in the encumbent politicians. That is not to say I have much faith in any politicians.
Mike
Have to go now but will rejoin the fray this evening!!!
Posted on: 29 March 2004 by Simon Perry
I assume that is the same Hutton as the one who writes in the Observer?
I may check it out.
Simon
I may check it out.
Simon
Posted on: 29 March 2004 by matthewr
Michael,
"I may not be able to present definitive facts for or against the Constitution"
Then your argument is more than somewhat flawed.
"Likewise, those in favour of the Constitution"
Not true. Whilst the final version has not been agreed yet the draft has been around since last May and I assume most people involved in the debate will have at least some familiarity with the content.
Anyway, you'll find a brief summary here
"or for that matter the benefits of, say, a single currency do not present definitive facts"
I'd love to see such a debate in economic terms. Unfortunately instead we get the likes of the Daily Mail running stories about the ECB backing up a truck at the Bank of England to take away our gold to Germany and finish what Hitler tried to do in 1940.
"My argument is primarily with the manner in which the EC is run"
Which, since this is what the EU Constitution is actually for, I'd have thought you would have been all in favour of it.
Matthew
"I may not be able to present definitive facts for or against the Constitution"
Then your argument is more than somewhat flawed.
"Likewise, those in favour of the Constitution"
Not true. Whilst the final version has not been agreed yet the draft has been around since last May and I assume most people involved in the debate will have at least some familiarity with the content.
Anyway, you'll find a brief summary here
"or for that matter the benefits of, say, a single currency do not present definitive facts"
I'd love to see such a debate in economic terms. Unfortunately instead we get the likes of the Daily Mail running stories about the ECB backing up a truck at the Bank of England to take away our gold to Germany and finish what Hitler tried to do in 1940.
"My argument is primarily with the manner in which the EC is run"
Which, since this is what the EU Constitution is actually for, I'd have thought you would have been all in favour of it.
Matthew
Posted on: 29 March 2004 by matthewr
Fredrik,
The bit I quoted from your post seemed to suggest that the "great European powers" -- a phrase which makes you sound like you just woke up from an afernoon nap you took in 1914 but by which I take you to mean France and Germany -- had allowed Britain to join the EU as a means of undermining our economy.
This is a ludicrous claim that not only falls at the first hint of critical analysis but is firmly in the realm of whacko conspiracy theories and seems, to my mind at least, "the sort of bizarre nonsense one reads from obscure right wing academics in magazines even The Spectator views as a bit odd".
"If you cannot do better than refer to my views as "bizaare right wing nonesense" (without having the first idea of what my politics are!)"
If you read my comment accurately you will note that I said it was "bizarre nonsense" (which seems like fair comment to me) and that I said nothing about your politics but that your statement was akin to those I have seen from "right wing academics". Obvisouly I was using a colourful example to make my point in what I hoped was an entertaing manner about the unusual and unlikely view you expressed. I do not literally beleive you are a right wing acadmic who writes for those obscure periodicals one sees advertised in the small ads of The Spectator.
FWIW I did also answer your point albeit briefly as it didn't seem to warrant an overly detailed analysis.
Matthew
The bit I quoted from your post seemed to suggest that the "great European powers" -- a phrase which makes you sound like you just woke up from an afernoon nap you took in 1914 but by which I take you to mean France and Germany -- had allowed Britain to join the EU as a means of undermining our economy.
This is a ludicrous claim that not only falls at the first hint of critical analysis but is firmly in the realm of whacko conspiracy theories and seems, to my mind at least, "the sort of bizarre nonsense one reads from obscure right wing academics in magazines even The Spectator views as a bit odd".
"If you cannot do better than refer to my views as "bizaare right wing nonesense" (without having the first idea of what my politics are!)"
If you read my comment accurately you will note that I said it was "bizarre nonsense" (which seems like fair comment to me) and that I said nothing about your politics but that your statement was akin to those I have seen from "right wing academics". Obvisouly I was using a colourful example to make my point in what I hoped was an entertaing manner about the unusual and unlikely view you expressed. I do not literally beleive you are a right wing acadmic who writes for those obscure periodicals one sees advertised in the small ads of The Spectator.
FWIW I did also answer your point albeit briefly as it didn't seem to warrant an overly detailed analysis.
Matthew
Posted on: 29 March 2004 by Haroon
Right then can we have a referendum on whether we should have a referendum?
Posted on: 30 March 2004 by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
Michael,
"I may not be able to present definitive facts for or against the Constitution"
Then your argument is more than somewhat flawed.
Looking back I did not express myself clearly.
Yes, the draft constitution is readily available and extracts and commentaries are readily available from many sources.
The point I was trying (and failed) to put across was how can a defintive statement of facts be made as to what the true purpose of the Constitution is. That in turn makes it difficult to present arguments. We have to interpret the intention. Clearly, well at least to my mind, different people have different agendas behind putting the Constitution in place.
Mike