I'm stealing from another forum I like because, well, I want to hear more about it:

Dutch Philosopher:

This thread is mainly made to be dragged up later, but this whole EU constitution thing? It's not going to work. The Poles, the Czech, the Dutch, the French. All of the populations don't want it. Never mind the already eurosceptic countries (Danes, Brits, Swedes).

Some countries will have referenda on it, and they will fail. In fact, inside the Netherlands, one of the most left-oriented and a right-oriented party that's in the governing coalition, are planning on holding a referendum and lobbying for a "No.".

The constitution isn't that bad, but the integrated Europe hasn't been good of late for the European people. Dragged outside the shell of their protective welfare states, they are raw from the trashing of American-style predatory capitalism. The current neo-liberal Europe is not the social-democratic dream that was dreamt up after the Second World War.

The chasm between the rule in Brussels and the will of the people too big, and this issue isn't adressed (can't be adressed) by the Constitution.

If the European Union experiment is to be saved, it needs to be put on hold as a practical experiment, and to be worked out more as the ideological dream it was. Instead of cold hard number-crunching and technocratic rule, those in Brussels need to capture or create a pan-European spirit before they can move ahead. Otherwise, the Union will fall apart rather soon.

and one reply I thought interesting:

The drafting of a Constitution for the EU deals with two problems:

1. it reformulates existing EU law. The idea was to combine the EU- and EC- Treaties as well as the relevant ECJ case law to make a document that is readable and would actually be able to inform a citizen of the goals and competences of the EU. This did not necessitate changing any of the law.

2. and more importantly, it was meant to deal with the structural problems of EU decision-making. The current system of decision-making, which often requires unanimity, will not be able to cope with 25 instead of 15 Member States. The current system, famously complicated, is designed for a maximum amount of compromise. Until now, the Member States have fought hard to avoid the possibility of being outvoted in any legislative or executive decision. In theory, there is qualified majority decision-making, but in reality, the system requires everybody's consent. With this system in place, the EU will not be able to make decisions after the enlargement. This was what the Niece Treaty was supposed to have already have accomplished, and which it claims it did, but which is complete and utter bollocks. (Some of the Member States (esp. Spain, Poland) are trying to prevent changes to that system, claiming that Niece is sufficient, because they fear that they will lose political clout.)

One aspect of this is that the Member States were to regain competences in some areas in order to give the EU more (majority) competences in other areas - I'm not sure how far this has been reflected in the draft.

Overall, formulating a single-document "constitution" is nice for the reasons pointed out in 1. But of course, there is no difference between the situation we have now (EU and EC treaty) and something that happens to be officially called a "constitution". The latter is easier for everybody to use.

But if changes to the decision-making system are not undertaken - regardless of whether these changes are implemented in form of a "constitution" - the EU will be paralysed by the enlargement. And that will mean that the EU will cease to evolve and revert to something little more than a free-trade area and customs union. And that would be a tragedy for all of Europe.

So, overall, I think it may be more of too little, too late.

I'm not sure that the population really cares about the EU, i.e. I have no faith that even the most transparent, user friendly, democratic system of participation would change a thing regarding the way Joe EU-citizen thinks about the EU.

Germany's foreign Minister Mr. Fischer stated all this (expept for my bit about Joe EU-Citizen) much nicer in his famous 2002 Humboldt speech, which is an excellent and eloquent overview on the reasons why we have the EU, why the enlargement was such an important issue, and which problems the EU is now facing.
Fischer's Humboldt Speech

This post has been edited by MixMasterMax on Oct 8 2003, 10:42 AM

The site referenced in the quote is here:
http://www.dgap.org/english/tip/tip4/fischer120500.html

So...?

It'll take a severe crisis to pull-off the EU stuff. There's so many different ones to choose from, I don't know what's more probable.

Beer shortage?

The EU is a shaky project indeed but I think it is going to be pulled off, going to take time though. One of the main reasons for my belief in that is that for example here in Sweden, the politicians most strongly opposed to joining the EMU and who headed the no campaign before our recent referendum now flinch at the mention of exiting the EU, something they have seen as one of their main goals in the past. The people who were against EU in the past are now pro, even if they are more hesitant than those that always were pro. I just think it takes time for people to get used to the idea and grasp the bigger picture. I think the EU is a great idea and one quite large step towards a world where it doesnt matter which nationality you have, heck a world where nationality and the old nations doesnt matter at all. Breaking free of the view that we are Swedes, Germans, Poles, Serbs, Basque, Irish and all see us as humans, even if there in this case is the middle stop of seeing us as European. There are many many bumps on the road but I think it is going to be hard to stop the ball when it has got rolling, especially in todays internet integrated world.

Ex pluribus unum. And pluribus will remain. The continent has always profited from it's different cultures. And so it will remain. On the other hand, the nation-state is short lived concept which has outlived it's usefuleness in many areas. The trouble now is, there are too many problems. The demographics which will cause hevoc, the huge changes in the economical structure. Nearly every country has a strong anti-immigration party, from the British BNP to the Austrian FPÖ, sometimes directed versus the eastern countries. The eastern countries have a lot of potential, but haven't taken off yet. This inter-domestic issues make the whole thing to a huge tohuwabohu, while there is not yet a consensus, on how the strucuture of the "federacy" exactly should look like. Not to say that it's a huge emotional leap to change the currency.

Beer shortage? Beer, indeed, is one of those things that hold the whole thing together. Actually, the consequences for beer prices any dismantling of the EU would have, scare any politican from going a step to far in this direction, eventhough they gain voters with walking that line. Beer is intra-European produced and sold.

A european constitution offers advantages - atm europe is confusing to analyse to say the least - making it more transparent would certainly ease acceptance among it's 'citizens'. Basically it has been much said about it but actually it doesn't even offer that much new - except for the clearer division of powers and restructuring of the relationships between parliament and commission and council (which is indeed quite an evolution).

The rules about union citizenship and the according rights have been renumbered but are nothing new - the same applies to the rules for the free market, currency policy, traffic, tarifs and subsidies as well as legal transformation and cooperation, security and immigration. The new draft compiles the rules from both EU and EC - MixMasterMax above is quite right.

The really interesting part starts in Title VI. It introduces majority votes and that is both risk and blessing. Risk because even the mighty three - Germany, France and the UK - could be overruled in a "uprising of the dwarfs", a blessing because it offers a way to deal with the enlarged EC, and perhaps even with the amount of french agriculture subsidies ;)
I wouldn't overestimate this - true diplomats try to find a consensus anyway - in order to avoid isolating or entroubling other members. But it is an important step.

The draft also strengthens the power of the european parliament - probably as a response to this - and IMO that is a very sensible thing. Giving powers to a parliament is a nice thing, but it necessiates a european discourse - and as it is now only few people are informed about what's going on in their own parliaments, let alone in Bruxelles.
Another disadvantage is the disparity in the "weight" of the mandate. So a german MP would represent more citizens than one from Portugal while having the same voting weight ... there should clearly be a factor to represent economic strength and population - but that will, as it has in the past, face resistance from the minors. This is a key issue here.

As a result of the enlargement the EU *needs* a reform and I share the concern above that otherwise paralysation would be a genuine risk.
So if they call this reform consitution I couldn't care less - as long as it works.

I trace the lack of popular support to lack of information. It isn't all that new and it isn't even so that Bruxelles will grab more power as it already has - it's a restructuring at the top. It will force the core members to cooperate more closely that they do already to be able to see their interests reflected - and that is good news.

The european constitution is a bold undertaking but by no means it represents what will come out in the end. Mind it's still a draft. There will be changes and it is interesting to see who wants what - and to conclude why. I'm optimistic however.

And being from Cologne a beer shortage is the last thing I fear ...

Yes, Beer Is Good.

I assume from what I have heard, and what I have read here, that all European nations are a part of the EU, if so then this is an excellent step.
If people will think about the consequences before, rather than after, their own agendas, then it is definately great, and while I balk at the constrainment of a ruling body I think that a constitution if laid out and followed thoughtfully, would also be a great thing. An equal minded (dare I say global) council that has an absolute scope, might even reduce govermental control on a local level, and at least be able to set out the guide-lines in a more effecive way than is current elsewhere (here anyway) until people learn to also act with mindfulness. I can see ample posibilty for such a thing to flourish well within an allready (relatively) old and close-nit area such as Europe.

This is fantastic for Europe, and I have always viewed many countries therein as being closer to rejecting the foolishness that tries to pervade our legal and political structures. Let us hope that it does not deteriorate into a charde like the UN, or some capitalist dictator like the WTO. Perhaps the Asian and Middle-Eastern nations will also form their own Unions (if only to oppose threats from overseas), for when power is divided and consolidated simultaneously in such a way people tend to open themselves up to greater scopes, and cease bickering amongst themselves. This emergence of a Triad of Unions may well indeed balance out the current turmoil arising in our modern landscape, if only as an equalising of tensions.

As for my own nation, I would hope for entrance one day into such a Union, until such things are no-longer necesary. Things could be much worse, but I fear we are falling ever-rapidly, for which we have no excuse. I do not hold out much hope left for us at all.