European constitution?

[Daevren]

Its funny how everyone is busy talking about money now. Well, actually not funny, but ironic. Everyone wants their money back from the EU. That's not really the thing we need right now.

They should have held the referendum on the same day everywhere. Now we have all those problems.

[musik_man]

I'm opposed to the current EU constitution and for a few reasons.  I guess I should start by saying that I have no principled objections to a united Europe.  I do think that this constitution is too much too fast.  There are still too large differences in culture, government, and economic status to form one sovereign body.  I have the same objection to the Euro, which is bound to fail.  The reason is, is because you can't have the same currency for different nations, who may need different monetary policies.  Germany may need a loose monetary policy while say Italy needs a tight policy for their respective economies.  By having one currency, they make monetary policy impossible to use.  It also makes one nation suffer for another nations policies.  If say France were to run a large deficit, resulting in inflation of the Euro, all the other countries would suffer because of France's actions.  You can't have a one currency until you have one country and in the same way, you can't have one country composed of such different nations.

I also dislike the current constitution itself.  It has more than 400 articles.  I believe that the main point of a constitution should be to limit the power of a government.  The more text you have, the easier it is for the government to justify an expansion of its powers.(Just look at how congress misused the commerce clause to give it power to regulate almost anything.)

[TheHammer]

Hmm, thanks for sharing Musik_Man. and of course I disagree  .

Euro has helped all European countries in the last 3 years a lot. As I said before, Germany probably would suffer from a grown-out recession right now without the currency union. It saves economies from currency fluctuations and thus minimizes risk when trading. and the point about making other countries suffer for one other. Well, I think that's the whole point about it. You give something, you get something in exchange. Solidarity, rather than "turbo-capitalism" (I actually hate this term). Currency policy is to some extent controlled by the nations, to some extent by the EU. There are treaties to minimize the deficit one country is producing (although these treaties have been violated recently numerous times, admittedly). Up until now, I think the Euro was a success, and I don't think that it will fail (mainly because there is no real way back. That would cost ridiculous sums no country can afford right now, and I know of no country which actually would want that).

The Constitution is rather long, and is therefore difficult to be communicated to the people, I agree. But being long does not allow the government to misuse it. That is an generalisation. Actually, the EC gives more stability to the Union, because with it, e.g. the president would have been elected for 1 1/2 years, not changing twice a year. This would eventually lead to more power for the national governments. There would be more responsibility on the president and noone would do what he liked to do. Also, the power of the parliament would have been strengthened (not enough though), making the EU more democratic, and so on and so forth. There are several flaws in the Constitution, but overall, I think it would make a united Europe much easier to govern. If you are for a united Europe, IMO you must be for this Constitution.

To your point that there are too many differences. First of, after the ratification the Constitutions of the nations would still be in power. I don't think that any country would have lost it's so called "national identity" (I am against this concept at all). Culture is nothing one can determine with a law. It comes from the people. Plus there are enough roots in history to find some common places for the people of Europe (and if it be religion...but also music, art, literature, also language and so on). All in all, the EU would have had some influence on the nations' policies, but it would not have determined them. So it depends on the point of view. If you concentrate more on your own situation, and if you live in a country which is prospering right now, you may be right in not wanting the EC. If you look at the whole picture, consider the tasks a strong EU could fulfill, that one such great unified Europe can lead to more fairness considering financial matters (although it will hurt the richer at first), and of course foreign policy, you probably are inclined to vote for the Constitution.



Daevren: Yeah, would have been better (would have been best not to vote at all, though )