(Are you pro or contra the ratification by the Netherlands of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe?) I did three things to answer this question for myself. The first thing was reading the constitution myself. The second thing was to listen carefully to opinions of other people. The third thing was asking myself which criteria I find important for a European Constitution. My criteria: It’s also very important to state that I don’t judge this constitution against the current situation. I already concluded that it will be an improvement over the current situation. But that is not what they ask me to vote for. Before I check the criteria, I’ll give the most important good and bad points in this constitution (in my mind). Good things: Bad things: There are loads and loads more remarks to make, be it positive, negative or neutral. But that would only make this a very long post. If the EU has power, it needs democratic control. The constitution needs to tell how. This constitution does indeed explain how the steering of the EU goes. In way too much detail if you ask me, but that’s not the main point. The existence of the EU has to add something that individual countries can’t reach. The constitution needs to make that clear. In this the constitution succeeds. Cooperation and solidarity between countries on all kinds of different areas are defined. A common agriculture policy, common defense, common foreign policy, open borders, exchange of knowledge, etc… are part of this constitution. A constitution needs to be political neutral and time resistant (not containing items which will loose meaning in a couple of years). There are way too many elements in the constitution that have to do with things happening at this time. Terrorism and the stability pact to name just two. Such articles can cause trouble in 50 to a 100 years time. Like with the American constitution where it states that people have the right to bear arms. That was something useful in the time it was written, but a big burden these days (in my opinion). The last part of deciding what to vote was to sit back and think about what is important and what not. For example, will attention for the environment weight up against the free market principles? It’s like comparing apples to pears (as the Dutch saying goes). So that process can’t be described over here. You have to take my word for it that I gave it a lot of thought. After reading it all, reading related stuff (other constitutions), writing about it, thinking about it, discussing it and summing it all up, I came to the conclusion that this constitution is just not good enough. Europe deserves better. The people of Europe deserve better. So I will vote “no” to this constitution. I praise the fact that this time we are allowed to voice our opinion. To those people who state that there won’t be a second change or renegotiations I say: Then you shouldn’t have asked for this referendum and my vote! (While writing this conclusion I listened to:
Next Wednesday, June 1st, I will be asked to answer the following question:
“Bent u voor of tegen instemming door Nederland met het Verdrag tot vaststelling van een Grondwet voor Europa?“
Now back to my criteria and how this constitution measures up to them.
The set up is not democratic enough. We are only able to vote for the EP. This EP can only accept or reject proposals. And not even alone, they also need the Council.
Some people say the Council is also democratic because it’s made up by representatives from the member states that have been elected (indirectly). But that’s not what I want.
When I elect the council for my local town, I look at what they can do for that town, not for the country. When I elect people for the government of my country, I look at what they can do for my country, not Europe.
I want to be able to vote directly for the most relevant parts of the European Government.
The Commission is out of reach. It can only be accepted or rejected as a whole by the EP. Not good enough.
And I’m also constrained to voting for members of parliament that represent my country. That’s also not what I want. I want to vote for representatives that have the right ideas what to do with Europe, regardless from which country they are.
Furthermore it’s not the EP that sets out the direction of the Union but the Council and the Commission. And a lot of work can be done outside the control of the EP, most important the foreign and defense policy making.
So all in all this constitution is just not democratic enough.
So that’s good.
Since a constitution won’t be changed that easy and articles tend to be seen as carved in stone over time, this should be handled with utmost care. This constitution doesn’t measure up on that.
The second problematic point is that certain political views are an integral part of this constitution. Most important one is the consistent mentioning of the free market, privatization and low government intervention. Another one is made up by the statements about the buildup of a common defense organization that should receive more and more attention and money from the member states (no exceptions allowed). Apart from the fact if you like these things or not, it doesn’t leave any room for the moment people think things should be set up otherwise. You will have to change the constitution.
It should be enough that you state that you will have a European army and a common economic policy. But the details should be decided by democratic elected people, time and time again.
And on a less neutral tone, I dislike the privatization and free market principles described in this constitution. I want governments to be able to keep control over certain markets because they think it’s important for the well being of the people (public transport, airports, public baths, zoo’s, energy, etc…).
Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon (2x)
Radiohead, the bends)
Recente reacties
- http://postnow.hospedagemlivre.com.br on Connecting the dots on Iraq
- Nem on Irak: de Winnaar schrijft de geschiedenisboeken
- Stephan on Irak: de Winnaar schrijft de geschiedenisboeken
- Steeph on Datamartelen
- Stephan on Daily Dose of EU Constitution – The Conclusion
- Carin on Datamartelen
- Paul Vereijken on Datamartelen
- Roel Groeneveld on Datamartelen
- Wessel on Datamartelen
- Stephan on Datamartelen
Kalender
Archief
Here are the original comments on this post on my old blog (as one big block):
Feedback
# re: Daily Dose of EU Constitution – The Conclusion Remove Comment 40750
5/26/2005 11:05 PM by Iwan
Thanks for the effort you put in this project and for letting all your readers join in the process.
I suggest you mail a link to this post to all these politicians who propagate a yes and dare to say that no-voters are ignorant and don’t know what they’re talking about.
# re: Daily Dose of EU Constitution – The Conclusion Remove Comment 40763
5/27/2005 12:17 AM by Bernard
I agree that they should not have organised a referendum on the constitution. Texts like these are always a compromise and will never be perfect in anyone’s view. You use your three criteria – someone else will use some other criteria – and nobody will ever be fully satisfied.
For me, the real question is if the constitution is a step forward. I think it is, also measured against your 3 criteria. If you vote no, we will not take this step forward and will remain stuck with the inferior Nice Treaty. As history has shown, approving this constitution will not be the final Treaty revision – others will undoubtedly follow. It is just one step in the right direction.
# re: Daily Dose of EU Constitution – The Conclusion Remove Comment 40768
5/27/2005 1:01 AM by Wilbert
“And I hope people in the Netherlands and other countries will do that as well so a process towards a better proposal can be started. And I also hope that in any future steps Europe takes, the people will be more directly involved.”
Just ask yourself the following question. How long will it take before we (= Europe) will have a *better* proposal. Do you still want to vote no, if we won’t have a better one coming ten years?
Btw, I completely agree with Bernard.
# re: Daily Dose of EU Constitution – The Conclusion Remove Comment 40779
5/27/2005 7:46 AM by Steeph
@Wilbert: I’ve removed the text because I realize (late last night) that I don’t want to give an advise to other people on this. They have to make up their own mind.
But I again protest against statements like you make:
“Just ask yourself the following question. How long will it take before we (= Europe) will have a *better* proposal. Do you still want to vote no, if we won’t have a better one coming ten years? ”
That’s not what I’m asked to consider. I’m asked to give my vote on whether this is a good or bad proposal. What happens next is up to the politicians.
If there will be no second change, they shouldn’t have asked us this question.
# re: Daily Dose of EU Constitution – The Conclusion Remove Comment 40790
5/27/2005 9:57 AM by Erik
There’s more to take into consideration when you look at the constitution from a philosophical perspective.
Montesquie in 1748 presented the Trias Politica where the Lawmaking (parliament), Executing (government) and Judicial (Justice dept.) Powers are seperated in order to prevent too much power in one hand.
This is the basis for almost all European countries. The EU constitution proposed right now doesn’t meet these basic rules. Art. III-353 up to III-378 if you want to make up your own mind.
Etienne Chouard also makes some philiosophical comments regarding this constitution. He states that this proposal doesn’t meet the basic requirements of a constitution:
1. A constitution should be readable by all the people involved in order for them to make an informed decision. (try reading those 450+ pages of difficult text)
2. A constitution doesn’t define any kind of political direction. (this text defines a very narrow economical and political path)
3. A constitution can be ammended. (sure enough if both the EU parliament and the EU committee unanimously agree)
4. A constitution allows for seperation and control of power (trias politica). (see above)
5. A constitution is written by the people for the people (US: We the people…). (EU laws and regulations until now have been written by politicians chosen by our national governments not by the people. This constitution would ratify all those regulations)
Please note that I am in favor of a constitution for Europe. Just not this one.
# re: Daily Dose of EU Constitution – The Conclusion Remove Comment 40804
5/27/2005 12:12 PM by Wilbert Dijkhof
“That’s not what I’m asked to consider. I’m asked to give my vote on whether this is a good or bad proposal. What happens next is up to the politicians.”
Yes, this is what you are asked, formally … But it can’t hurt to think about the possible consequences of a yes or a no
@Erik,
“Montesquie in 1748 presented the Trias Politica where the Lawmaking (parliament), Executing (government) and Judicial (Justice dept.) Powers are seperated in order to prevent too much power in one hand.
This is the basis for almost all European countries. The EU constitution proposed right now doesn’t meet these basic rules. Art. III-353 up to III-378 if you want to make up your own mind.”
Interesting, this is new for me. I will read those articles and Chouard’s comments. Could you elaborate?
“He states that this proposal doesn’t meet the basic requirements of a constitution”
Nobody claims it’s a constitution. At least not the people who made it or who are in favour of it. As i see it, the constitution is a small part of it.
“3. A constitution can be ammended. (sure enough if both the EU parliament and the EU committee unanimously agree)”
I guess you mean European Council (instead of EU committee). I don’t agree with that statement, as explained in
http://blogger.xs4all.nl/steeph/archive/2005/05/24/40476.aspx#FeedBack
Could you point me to the correct articles if my statements are false?
“5. A constitution is written by the people for the people (US: We the people…). (EU laws and regulations until now have been written by politicians chosen by our national governments not by the people.”
That’s how our democracy works (in Europe). At least the whole process was open, also for normal people like us.
Correct me if i’m wrong, but the US Constitution is not written by the normal people: “The Constitution was adopted by a convention of the States on September 17, 1787″:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttime2.html
Our first article:
“1. Reflecting the will of the citizens and States of Europe to build a common future….”
Isn’t that written for the people?
# re: Daily Dose of EU Constitution – The Conclusion Remove Comment 40810
5/27/2005 1:00 PM by Spuyt12
“1. Reflecting the will of the citizens and States of Europe to build a common future….”
Without first asking the opinion of those citizens, no.
# re: Daily Dose of EU Constitution – The Conclusion Remove Comment 40928
5/28/2005 4:47 PM by Maciek
by Maciek;
Looking back in history of EU the law was changing quite frequently up till now. I still remember the Maastricht Treaty when in the meantime it was Nice and now the “constitution”. I can not believe that this constituiton will last for more than 10 years if it will be approved. And, at least in my opinion, it should not last longer taking into account all shortcomings and too much detail concerned with current political and economical situation.
On the other hand there is a say (not only in France but also in Poland and probably other countries) that nothing last so long as temporary solutions. In Antwerp we do have “pre-metro” for as long as I remember. I am afraid that the real metro will not be build during my life.
Why? – it functions and it is for sure better to have pre-metro than nothing.
Could it be the case of the EU “pre-constitution”?
# INN,RNC: Idealistic not naive, realistic not cynical Remove Comment 41077
5/29/2005 11:38 PM by Pingback/TrackBack
INN,RNC: Idealistic not naive, realistic not cynical
# re: Daily Dose of EU Constitution – The Conclusion Remove Comment 41078
5/29/2005 11:42 PM by Frans Groenendijk
“I am going to vote yes, most probably, but one line in Steeph’s post makes me think a little longer (to say the least): it is the line I underlined:
It’s also very important to state that I don’t judge this constitution against the current situation. I already concluded that it will be an improvement over the current situation. But that is not what they ask me to vote for.
In fact I am not too much interested in what exactly was asked me. My interpretation of his implicit objection is that when we are talking about a treaty that comes close to a constitution the quality we demand should be higher (than with other treaties and decisions).
I really think the quality is poor. Really.
I do not worry about if I am going to make a mistake in the referendum itself. Now that the French have said NON the actual outcome of the Dutch referendum is of much less importance. What lacked in the YES-campaign as well as the document itself was a strong spirit of optimism. And: credibility.
How can we organize a credible alternative?”
From my review “of Steeph” on my own blog http://www.fransgroenendijk.nl/reactieding.php?id=P559_0_1_0
# Now For The Double Whammy Remove Comment 41129
5/30/2005 11:47 AM by A Fistful of Euros
Actually with the critical ECB meeting looming on Thursday, it could in fact be more like a ‘trifecta’ than a ‘double whammy’. Anyway, however you classify things, on Wednesday it will be the turn of the Netherlands. My impression is…
# re: Daily Dose of EU Constitution – The Conclusion Remove Comment 41233
5/31/2005 2:21 AM by Tim Stoop
I will be voting against the Treaty. The aforementioned text from mr. Chouard gives me a lot of arguments. I basically sum those up and add my own opinion to those in my summary of Chouard’s text on: http://www.cidev.nl/~cvd/wordpress/?p=160
I very much like to have some opinions about it. So if you have some time…
# re: Daily Dose of EU Constitution – The Conclusion Remove Comment 41375
6/1/2005 12:27 AM by CapTVK
Nice effort Steeph, congratulations for having a go at it.
Now that you´re done with this treaty are you planning to have a go at the constitution of alabama? (including all the amendments)
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/Constitution1901_toc.htm
# re: Daily Dose of EU Constitution – The Conclusion Remove Comment 41416
6/1/2005 9:40 AM by Steeph
@Tim: time fails me right now. Sorry.
@CapTVK: Only when Alabama goes independent
# Non Remove Comment 41455
6/1/2005 3:42 PM by Modulator
Eugene Volokh does not appear to think highly of the French non vote on the proposed EU constitution:As best I can tell from what I’ve read recently, the substantive arguments for the French “no” vote weren’t very sound, either; and peevishness at the political classes’ seeming arrogance doesn’t strike me as a great reason to vote no.He does not go…
# re: Daily Dose of EU Constitution – The Conclusion Remove Comment 41478
6/1/2005 6:29 PM by Elinor Zuke
Check out some of the articles published by openDemocracy this week, including a parallel debate taking place on “Europe: after the constitution” http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-europe_constitution/debate.jsp
Frank Vibert, director of the European Policy Forum in London, has been having a similar debate to this blog about what a “constitution” should constitute.
“Constitutions are normally about new foundations, new beginnings and vision.
“Ideally, they are strong on principles of democratic organisation and brief on details. But the document that the French, Dutch, Danes, Irish and others will be asked to vote on is being played by its proponents in an altogether different way. It is being presented as about continuity rather than renewal; about tidying up rather than as a vision for the future; about the exercise of powers rather than their justification; and about agreeing terms of debate for conventional left/right exchanges rather than approving founding documents that involve decisions about the fundamental character of political association….” to continue reading this article please visit http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-europe_constitution/article_2494.jsp