European Constitution

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

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

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.]

quote:

---

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.

---

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...

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

We dont have a constitution because we couldnt stick to one

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

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

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

The issue of the new European Constitution is, it seems to me, something that would provoke a huge turn-out were there to be a referendum. This is because when it comes to really important things the general public have real instinct for what IS right. The trouble for Mr Blair is that he knows this and that he will be opposed by a huge majority.

What he will try to do is wait till after (I gues, an early) an election, and bounce it through.

The other issue touched on here is just as important: The un-written constitution of the United Kingdom. What is truely amazing is that a governement, not elected in any case by the majority of voters, sees fit to fiddle in a random (apparently at least) and feebly thought through way both with the House of Lords, and the office of Lord Chancellor. For my own part I don't think any one Prime Minister or party in governement should be allowed to adjust the constitution without all party agreement. In that sense a Supreme Court (with a Constitutional role) might be a very good thing, but where was the debate? Answer: Mr Blair is no democrate and has no use for debate.

He hates it as he is convinced that really he cannot trust the peoples of the United Kingdom to get it right. HE THINKS he knows best as did Mrs Thatcher before she was thrown out - ironically by her own party. One wishes that the Labour party would have enough spine to do the same thing with Mr Blair.

I never cared for this governement (or as it was was governement in waiting), as they run under a socialist tag, but then implement policies that are basically cherry picked, and largely self-serving. The reason that there will be a low turn out at the General Election is that people are fed up with being treated to a sanitised version of events, and sometimes possibly not even that, which invariably puts a gloss on what the governement is doing or trying to do. This has simply happened too often... The sooner they are gone the better, BUT Mr Howard and Mr Kennedy don't exact inspire confidence as alternative administration leaders. So people will stay away in droves.

There is only one thing that would be worse than the political leadership of this country being based at Westminster, and that is if it is watered down and given to Brussels. In fact ALL the political party leaderships would do well to look at King Lear and see what happens when you try to give up you Kingdom and share it out. King Tony look out, madness and blindness is only just round the corner the way you are steering the chariot of state.

Haroon, I hope you will forgive this, but as most of the people in the UK want a referendum why should the few who don't (and whom I guess rather want to see us subsumed into a European Superstate, though I don't accuse you of this thought) be allowed to shoe-horn the majority into a possition they don't want to see happen. Let us get it out in the open, have a robust debate, air the issues and have a vote and THEN pick up the pieces. Norway did that, and actually stayed out of Europe. Good for them I say. They had the debate, and in spite of all party support for joining the electorate threw it out. That IS democracy, I'd say. My grandmother was furious, having been a supporter of the European ideal since 1945, but even she accepted that in that was part a rather small minority. [That date may well give pause for thought, but that would be in a Thread that would too hot to be constructive].

Fredrik Fiske

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.

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.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haroon:
...


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.

---

----------------------

Dear Haroon, This is so important. Mr Blair is moving us towards something that it will be very difficult to undo were it to get implemented. [By the way the only reason I would vote conservative is that they do have a democratic policy on the EU].

You state that the new constitution is not so much new as a tiying oppereation . Not true. Over 200 pages long it contain many phrases that are at best obscure and at worst oonlycapable of analysis by lawyers. That has the potential for misunderstanding and abuse. Not a very good idea. Clarity of purpose should be the aim. Many aspects are entirely novel. Majority voting is introduced into new areas. Foreign policy, human rights, social policy, and even taxation are to be made subject to derogations from the supremacy of EU law and so on. This means that with the slippery business of politics, that these areas will over time be taken from Westminster in a succession of little blows as this political compromise or that political compromise is made, to retain our negotiating possition in Europe. 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. [It is no good thinking that a big enough block of ecnomies can possibly alter the fact that ANY economic block actually has to live a would where where there are major economies we once called Third World, which are now becoming highly involved in technologies and manufacturing, once the preserve of what we once called the First World]. Would that further policy direction and quite possibly motetary policy as well if we are bounced into the Euro, then our governement would be dominated by these powers who in recent decades have actually not been nearly as successful as we in the UK.

Whether you want to rely on the powers of your MEP to save your bacon in this, I don't trust that they have enough power to manage this. No let the people have a referendum to actually stop Mr Blair driving headlong into a catastrophe. I am afraid I don't trust him not to. On the other issues (our UK constitution etc) perhaps we could start another Thread on that if you like as it is a subject in itself and will spoil this one if it all gets too complicated and mixed up.

Fredrik Fiske

Fredrik

Absolutely spot on.

Mike

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

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

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.

Has everyone here read 'The World We're In' by Will Hutton?

If not, I think you should. IMHO, of course.

ag

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

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.

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

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

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!!!

I assume that is the same Hutton as the one who writes in the Observer?
I may check it out.
Simon

Simon

Same bloke. It's an easier read than his earlier works, IMHO.

ag