[Mekt-Hakkikt]

Man, Standoff is a time-hog.)

But it's a very good reason to waste tme on! I'm eagerly looking towards it.

How cynical. Maybe this is why I can't seem to understand the German government's stance on this issue - because to me it is obvious that those people deserve compensation (just not from Poland). They are the victims of the Nazi regime - they may not have been kicked out by the Nazis, but it was a direct consequence of the Nazi actions. And we're not just talking about German settlers that had lived in the area for a generation or two. We're talking people who had been there in some cases for almost a thousand years, and in some cases even longer - because some of the Germans from Prussia were actually Germanised descendants of the Prussian tribes that had lived there at least since the first millenium.

I am very well aware and fully agree with you that Germany and the inhabitants of Prussia lost some of the most historical parts of Germany and it's a real pity. But there's nothing that can be done at the moment. It has to be accepted, those lands are lost. Sad but true.
And of course they should get compensation from Germany - and they got compensation. If it was an adequate compensation is another question but various laws and institution payed for those who lost their homes. Money is never an adequate compensation for your home but it's all you can expect. As the Courst said it's a burden to be carried by the German people.

Hold on there - why can't I compare them? The US constitution is simplistic, true... but it works. As far as constitutional law is concerned, the US constitution is a work of genius, while the EU constitution is the work of a retard. No, sorry, scratch that - the EU constitution is the work of a committee of retards.

You can't cmpare them because the US constitution beíng as old as it is didn't have to give rules concerning the environment e.g.. There were just matters that weren't thought of at that time but are now actual topics. The less detailed a constitution / law is the more power is given to the courts to interpret them. As I said, the US are a land of the common law system, jurisprudency is charged with the role of filling up the gaps. It works, no question. But the majority of the Eu is made up of countries that have a tradition of written law. Thus the EU constitution is written in that tradition. Two different systems, two different ways each one with it's own benefits.

BTW: The EU C° certainly is far more simple to read than the many different treaties regulating the EU at the moment. Thus you'd at least have to acknowledge that the C° is a bit better than the actual situation.

(...)

The verdict in question had nothing to do with the convention - none of this does. By entering the EU, Poland has basically made the Strasburg tribunal the highest court of appeals (a court that is not necessarily bound to settled those appeals using Polish law). What this means is that if the expelled Germans win the case (and they should win - not just because they've got the law on their side, but because they have justice on their side), Poland can choose between paying them or leaving the EU. For me, that choice would be a no-brainer, but the Polish government will, of course, want to pay up.

Wait, just to clear things up: there is a court in Straßburg - which has nothing to do with the European Union: the European Court of Human Rights.
And there's the Court of the European Union in Luxemburg which is not bound by the verdicts of the European Court of Human Rights (though it respects them as much as possible).

Which one are you talking about?

God spare us, if Strasburg prefers to break the law than to cause trouble.

Come on - almost every Supreme Court (it not all of them) cares about the political consequences of its verdicts. And there are enough methods to rule not in favor of the Germans without breaking the law.

Right, and wrong - they don't have as much sovereignty (in the sense that in some aspects, the federal government can impose its will), but in terms of autonomy, they have a lot more. The US constitution gives some rights to the federal government, and specifically states that all other rights are in the hands of the state governments. On the other hand, the EU constitution seems to try to impose EU control on just about everything, from taxes to trade and the number of potatoes you can grow.

Subsidiarity is one of the main principles of the European Union: as long as the EU hasn't exclusive competence - which isn't in much areas (4/ 5 for those countries with the Euro), it will only act if the objective cannot be achieved by the members. And that decision is made by the members.
That principle is written right at the beginning of the EU C°.

Eh, yeah, the system is indeed to be blamed - I'd sure love to shoot the idiot who came up with the idea of giving power to the people . You missed my point, though - I wasn't saying that the Polish people hadn't been allowed to choose in the matter. I was saying that their choice wasn't the same as *mine*, and since nobody's changed my mind about my choice being the correct one, I can't possibly be happy with the results of the referendum.

Yes, I'm the kind of arrogant asshole who would go against democracy and say that no - instead of putting things to a vote, they should just ask *me*. It's simple - I'm against Poland's membership in the EU, because it's not in Poland's best interest. And since I know it's not in Poland's best interest, I don't give a fuck what everybody else thinks - because they're wrong.

So, I regret the fact that we have referendums at all on this matter... but at the same time, I'm willing to exploit the democratic system, and if there's a chance that a future referendum will produce a different result, then bring on the referendum.

OK, I see. So, the only thing you have to do is to convince the majority of your people and get them to vote for a no. Too bad that the majority seems to think that you're the one who's wrong.

(hey, that's the democratic, EU way - how many referendums has Denmark had on joining the Euro-zone? Two, or was it three already? How many times must the people of Denmark say they don't want the damn currency before their democratic government finally gets the message? )

Probably as soon as they clearly vote for a no. But as long as it's a head-to-head race, it will be a topic.

I pray that you're wrong .

(but I fear that you're right - the socialists have spent too long buiding the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of Europe to give up over such minor inconveniences)

Well I do hope as well I'm wrong. Those refusing the C° should get kicked out so that the EU can progress with those willing to contribute instead of making worthless compromises and keeping the notorious trouble-makers in.

Oh well, we'll see.

I'll be gone for 3 days with probably no internet access and I still have to buy some Christmas presents, so I don't know when I'll be able to post again.

So just in case: Merry Christmas!

 

[Quarto]

But it's a very good reason to waste tme on! I'm eagerly looking towards it.

I certainly hope so .

You can't cmpare them because the US constitution beíng as old as it is didn't have to give rules concerning the environment e.g.. There were just matters that weren't thought of at that time but are now actual topics.

The constitution most certainly does not need to give rules concerning the environment. This is precisely why the US constitution is so good - it only deals with the things that are timeless. And that's great. Because a constitution should be something that gets amended as rarely as possible. The EU constitution will fail miserably in this aspect - by including rules dealing with temporary issues and indeed even some non-issues, it will end up sorely needing amendment even before its ratification process is complete.

I stand by my earlier suggestion - the damn thing should be burned.

The less detailed a constitution / law is the more power is given to the courts to interpret them.

Not true. The degree to which a document is elongated and elaborated upon does not necessarily have any significant or noticeable impact upon the amount of information that the document in question imparts.

Translated into English: brevity does not mean less detail, as shown in this example .

Nor is the common law/written law thing in any way a factor. The US constitution does not forbid the writing down of laws - it merely determines who has the right to create laws in which aspect of life, and what are the limitations of these laws. There's no reason why this would be a problem for a country with a tradition of written law. I simply fail to see why the EU would need a constitution that deals with everything.

(furthermore, there is another significant problem with the written law argument - the EU constitution is supposed to be for all of the EU, and that includes all those countries with a common law tradition that the EU constitution ruthlessly destroys)

BTW: The EU C° certainly is far more simple to read than the many different treaties regulating the EU at the moment. Thus you'd at least have to acknowledge that the C° is a bit better than the actual situation.

Certainly not. The multiple treaties are in many ways a better solution - for example, Poland was able to join the EU without being immediately admitted into the Schengen zone or the Euro-zone. Countries like Germany, which felt Poland's admission could upset their labour market were able to block free movement of workers from Poland into the EU. This is not good for Poland, but it's great for the EU, which can add new members at a reasonable pace. But if everything is codified by one constitution, new members will have to be admitted fully right off the bat. And when you've got Turkey at the door, that's dangerous.

Wait, just to clear things up: there is a court in Straßburg - which has nothing to do with the European Union: the European Court of Human Rights.
And there's the Court of the European Union in Luxemburg which is not bound by the verdicts of the European Court of Human Rights (though it respects them as much as possible).
Which one are you talking about?

Umm, I don't actually remember . I think it might be the Strasburg court, but I'm not entirely sure.

And of course, what you say about the Strasburg court having nothing to do with the EU is false - no EU member state could hope to disregard the ruling of this court without facing collective punishment from the other states. Doesn't matter whether this is sanctioned by treaties or not - the fact that Austria was a sovereign country certainly didn't help its democratically-elected government stay in power when the EU decided to boycott it.

Come on - almost every Supreme Court (it not all of them) cares about the political consequences of its verdicts. And there are enough methods to rule not in favor of the Germans without breaking the law.

Not without violating justice, though. Additionally, regardless of what happens in practice, what is desireable is a Supreme Court that upholds the law and justice even (especially!) against the government's wishes and the country's interests (though, of course, justice is in fact always in the country's interest. Except for 'social justice'... but then again, 'social justice' is the very opposite of justice.).

That principle is written right at the beginning of the EU C°.

Isn't that convenient? I suppose had it been written in the middle or at the end of the document, nobody would have noticed it, what with all those other paragraphs that try to regulate absolutely everything. But then again, I suppose that's the difference between subsidiarity and autonomy - in the latter case, you are allowed to control your life in at least some aspects, while in the former, you are only allowed to put in motion the directives of the people above you.

OK, I see. So, the only thing you have to do is to convince the majority of your people and get them to vote for a no. Too bad that the majority seems to think that you're the one who's wrong.

If that is indeed the case, that is truly too bad for them - because it so happens I am right. No good thing came from becoming a puppet of Soviet Russia, and no good thing will come from becoming a puppet of Soviet Europe. But I still have hope - over the past half a year, the giant leap in costs of living we've had here in Poland has been a rather effective wake-up call for even those who were staunchly pro-EU before.

 

[Mekt-Hakkikt]

Again sorry for the delay but the holidays kept me away. I didn't even get to play Standoff but well, I was late for UE too.
Happy new year!

(...)
The constitution most certainly does not need to give rules concerning the environment. This is precisely why the US constitution is so good - it only deals with the things that are timeless. And that's great. Because a constitution should be something that gets amended as rarely as possible. The EU constitution will fail miserably in this aspect - by including rules dealing with temporary issues and indeed even some non-issues, it will end up sorely needing amendment even before its ratification process is complete.

The US constitution gives no rules concerning the environment because nobody thought of it. In my opinion, the protection of the environment is pretty timeless from now on. The US constitution deals mainly as far as I see it with technicalities which the most important at the time since there was no king to decide how things should work. They're still very important of course but times have changed and so has the appreciation of what's important as well.

Why do you think the EU constitution will need so many ammendments? One could say the more important matters are put into a constitution, the less likely will be the need to change it because chance is it's already in the constitution.
And: why has a constitution to be amended as rarely as possible? It's not a holy cow. If the need arouses then the thing should be amended. Of course, not everything is to be put into a constitution - that's why you have a strict procedure to amend a constitution.
I'd like to hear an example of one in your opinion useless issue in the EU constitution maybe then I could answer more specifically.

I stand by my earlier suggestion - the damn thing should be burned.

Yes, of course and I don't see you giving that suggestion up so soon.

Not true. The degree to which a document is elongated and elaborated upon does not necessarily have any significant or noticeable impact upon the amount of information that the document in question imparts.

Translated into English: brevity does not mean less detail, as shown in this example .

Not necessarily, no. But on the other hand: A long text doesn't mean it's necessarily inflated with useless blabla.

Nor is the common law/written law thing in any way a factor. The US constitution does not forbid the writing down of laws - it merely determines who has the right to create laws in which aspect of life, and what are the limitations of these laws. There's no reason why this would be a problem for a country with a tradition of written law. I simply fail to see why the EU would need a constitution that deals with everything.

But this is a fairly simple matter: most of the EU members have always written rather long and detailed laws. The founders of the European communities all have a tradition of written law, thus they made all their treaties that way. Now they're meeting and want to make an EU constitution - why should they all of a sudden break with this tradition? It was completely natural for them to write it the way it was written.

(furthermore, there is another significant problem with the written law argument - the EU constitution is supposed to be for all of the EU, and that includes all those countries with a common law tradition that the EU constitution ruthlessly destroys)

That would be the UK, Ireland and possibly Malta in my count. 3 out of 25 and those 3 do not complain. Because it's no problem for a country with a common law tradition to accept that.
And of course, the EU constitution does not ruthlessly destroy their tradition since they can of course still make laws their own way.

Certainly not. The multiple treaties are in many ways a better solution - for example, Poland was able to join the EU without being immediately admitted into the Schengen zone or the Euro-zone. Countries like Germany, which felt Poland's admission could upset their labour market were able to block free movement of workers from Poland into the EU. This is not good for Poland, but it's great for the EU, which can add new members at a reasonable pace. But if everything is codified by one constitution, new members will have to be admitted fully right off the bat. And when you've got Turkey at the door, that's dangerous.

Ah, but I was adressing your complaint that the EU constitution was unreadable whereas in reality it's more easily accessable than all the different treaties.

Concerning your new complaint: all of this is still possible with the EU constitution.

(...)
And of course, what you say about the Strasburg court having nothing to do with the EU is false - no EU member state could hope to disregard the ruling of this court without facing collective punishment from the other states. Doesn't matter whether this is sanctioned by treaties or not

My statemant was technically correct - the best kind of correct.
And it's even more than that: any member of the Council of Europe (again: which has nothing to do with the EU) and of the convention couldn't disregard the ruling of the court - regardless of it being member of the EU or not.

- the fact that Austria was a sovereign country certainly didn't help its democratically-elected government stay in power when the EU decided to boycott it.

Yes, that was pretty lame what happened - and it's admitted now that it was wrong what the member states did, that's why they didn't react when Berlusconi's party won in Italy.
But your example is a bad one: the EU as an institution did not take a single measure of boycott against Austria. Because the treaty did not allow this unless there was a direct violation of the Union's values - and everybody admitted that this was not the case, only a risk. Thus each member state independently ruptured their relations with Austria which was their good right, being a sovereign nation and all, just like Israel did for example. But not only did the EU not take any action against Austria but it was also the EU which brought the solution to the crisis: in cooperation with Austria they appointed a commitee to check if Austria's government would respect the values of the EU. In september 2000 the commitee reported back that, yes, Austria's government was respectful towards the Union's values and that the measures of the member states were doing more harm than good and should be lifted. And the member states followed the suggestion.

Not without violating justice, though. Additionally, regardless of what happens in practice, what is desireable is a Supreme Court that upholds the law and justice even (especially!) against the government's wishes and the country's interests (though, of course, justice is in fact always in the country's interest.

I disagree (surprise!) - the German people can be expropriated by its government
given a legal base and compensation and I say Germany's treaties and various laws and so on can be seen as such a legal base and compensation was given. Thus the procedure was respected and a court would turn down any demand with the full backup of the law. You certainly disagree with my view and it's not like that I consider it impossible that a court would rule in favour of the Germans but I think it's highly unlikely and would be nearer to breaking justice and the law than if ruling against them. Both ways are possible and we'll see.

Except for 'social justice'... but then again, 'social justice' is the very opposite of justice.).

Oh nonono, I won't get into this - I remember your (highly interesting) discussion with cff all too well.

Isn't that convenient? I suppose had it been written in the middle or at the end of the document, nobody would have noticed it, what with all those other paragraphs that try to regulate absolutely everything. But then again, I suppose that's the difference between subsidiarity and autonomy - in the latter case, you are allowed to control your life in at least some aspects, while in the former, you are only allowed to put in motion the directives of the people above you.

It's written at the beginning because it always was written at the beginning even in the treaty from 1951 and is a main principle of the EU (and the European communities before) and thus is considered to have its place at the beginning.

Those "people above you" are the ones the population has elected - and in a democracy the people has to follow the directives the elected ones give.

If that is indeed the case, that is truly too bad for them - because it so happens I am right. No good thing came from becoming a puppet of Soviet Russia, and no good thing will come from becoming a puppet of Soviet Europe. But I still have hope - over the past half a year, the giant leap in costs of living we've had here in Poland has been a rather effective wake-up call for even those who were staunchly pro-EU before.

It's obvious you're convinced you're right but I fail to see why Poland would be a puppet of the EU or why EU has any puppets at all. Who is the EU for you and thus controlling all the puppets?

 

[Death]

The US constitution gives no rules concerning the environment because nobody thought of it. In my opinion, the protection of the environment is pretty timeless from now on. The US constitution deals mainly as far as I see it with technicalities which the most important at the time since there was no king to decide how things should work. They're still very important of course but times have changed and so has the appreciation of what's important as well.

As someone who lives in the US, and has put some study into its Constitution, given how difficult it was intentionally made to amend the ultimate "law of the land" here in the US (2/3rds majority in both houses of Congress, ratification by 3/4ths of the individual states), IMO in no way, shape, or form should it be used to directly address things like the environment, public education, or any other of the hobbyhorses of the political left (or for that matter the political right, like for two examples the amendments to ban flag burning and ban homosexual marriages that have been floated in the recent past), the opinions on almost all of which being as variable over time as they've historically been.

The US Constitution was designed to only handle the basic structures, leaving the fine details (the opinions regarding most of which change over time; just looking at how opinions and information about environmental issues have changed over the decades [let alone centuries or millenia] allows me to throw the BS flag on that "timeless" claim) to be handled by more flexible laws of Congress and the smaller legislative bodies (state, county, city/town) as attitudes or information changes. Using the Constitution (any of them, not just the US one) to address such issues is the legislative equivalent of using the flat side of a battleaxe to spank a misbehaving child, at best (the "at worst" option being to use the sharp edge for the spanking).

You EU folks can keep your battleaxe, thanks. We've already voted with our feet (and guns) in regards to that issue, over 200 years ago.

 

[Fruitcake]

Damn, this thread contains a lot of text. I have to say I agree with Quarto, for the most. I hate the EU, especially because Holland relatively pays a lot more money on this bureaucratic monster then any other country in the EU does.

 

[Mekt-Hakkikt]

As someone who lives in the US, and has put some study into its Constitution, given how difficult it was intentionally made to amend the ultimate "law of the land" here in the US (2/3rds majority in both houses of Congress, ratification by 3/4ths of the individual states), IMO in no way, shape, or form should it be used to directly address things like the environment, public education, or any other of the hobbyhorses of the political left (or for that matter the political right, like for two examples the amendments to ban flag burning and ban homosexual marriages that have been floated in the recent past), the opinions on almost all of which being as variable over time as they've historically been.

The US Constitution was designed to only handle the basic structures, leaving the fine details (the opinions regarding most of which change over time; just looking at how opinions and information about environmental issues have changed over the decades [let alone centuries or millenia] allows me to throw the BS flag on that "timeless" claim) to be handled by more flexible laws of Congress and the smaller legislative bodies (state, county, city/town) as attitudes or information changes. Using the Constitution (any of them, not just the US one) to address such issues is the legislative equivalent of using the flat side of a battleaxe to spank a misbehaving child, at best (the "at worst" option being to use the sharp edge for the spanking).

You EU folks can keep your battleaxe, thanks. We've already voted with our feet (and guns) in regards to that issue, over 200 years ago.

The difference between the value most/many European countries give to environmental protection and the US do is obvious. But the authors of the US constitution certainly did not choose knowingly (don't know if that's a correct expression) not to include environmental protection in the constitution; they just did not thought of it, as nobody would have at that time.
My point was simply to show that the US constitution was so simplistic because it was a child of its time: everything being considered important at that time was included and those weren't as many things as today, including things being considered pointless nowadays (clauses about nobilities e.g.). Today, other things are being considered to be as important as well and it's natural that in a new constitution they're included as well. The environment was an example for a thing I see as important from now on that should be included in a constitution. Having it in the constitution would make it more difficult (though certainly not impossible) to create laws disregarding and polluting extremely the environment. Having it not in the constitution a government can choose to pass laws which allow to recklessly destroy the environment and you could not stop it.
And, though I am no expert on environmental theories, I don't see that the attitude towards its protection has changed that much in time: at first there was no attitude/opinion about it. Then came industrialisation and with time people recognized that pollution was a problem and stepped up to take measures to protect the environment. That hasn't changed as far as I see it.

Damn, this thread contains a lot of text. I have to say I agree with Quarto, for the most. I hate the EU, especially because Holland relatively pays a lot more money on this bureaucratic monster then any other country in the EU does.

Strange, since the Netherlands - being a very mercantile-heavy country - certainly are one of those countries that profit most from the free exchange - which is the reason why it was the Netherland's idea to form the European Economic Community. I'm pretty sure it paid off for the Netherlands.

And AFAIK your claim that the Netherlands relatively paying the most is false. It certainly is one of the highest paying but ranks after Sweden and Germany.

Edit: or did you really mean Holland and not the whole Netherlands? Then I have no idea.

P.S.: I realise that this post if far from having good grammar and spelling but I'm tired, so please excuse. But feel free to point out mistakes if you want since I have the feeling that my English has become a bit rusty.

 

[Death]

The difference between the value most/many European countries give to environmental protection and the US do is obvious. But the authors of the US constitution certainly did not choose knowingly (don't know if that's a correct expression) not to include environmental protection in the constitution; they just did not thought of it, as nobody would have at that time.

And you know this, how?

The US was founded by people who were tired of having their every act regulated, legislated, and taxed, with no say-so in the matter. Locking everything and anything under the sun behind the bars of an intentionally difficult-to-change constitutional document, as seems to be the ultimate goal (in practice if not theory) of the EU constitution, is almost as much a tyrrany the near-absolute power demonstrated by George III and the British Parliament that forced the American colonies to seek by arms relief from excessive burdens that couldn't be gained by petition after petition to the people who were supposed to be representatives for the colonies.

800 pages (or whatever the exact number, waaaay too much text in this thread to search through, for me ) for what should just be a framework onto which one builds with instruments capable of finer tuning than an overreaching constitution is just as ridiculous as the umpteen billion silly laws found here in the states that no reasonable "man on the street" person (as opposed to academics and assorted legal weenies) can be expected to know, but can still be arrested and convicted under in spite of their ignorance.

 

[Mekt-Hakkikt]

And you know this, how?

Can you honestly believe otherwise?
But I have used apparently the wrong word since nobody who was not there can know how it really was. I was looking for a word that means more than "supposedly" but is not stating something as an absolute truth but the only possible explanation in one's eyes.
To me, it is absolutely unimaginable to think that the authors of the US constitution did think about environmental protection being an issue and I cannot believe that common sense . The reasons for that are: It is not in the constitution and I have never heard about any human thinking about the problem of pollution of the environment at that time which makes sense to me since the industrial revolution was still in the future, the knowledge about hygienic issues rather undeveloped and it seemed at that time that the ressources were undepleatable. There's no indication known to me that they thought about the subject and then dismissed it.
(But keep please in mind that the environment only came first to my mind as an example. My goal was not to prove that environment is a timeless issue.)

The US was founded by people who were tired of having their every act regulated, legislated, and taxed, with no say-so in the matter. Locking everything and anything under the sun behind the bars of an intentionally difficult-to-change constitutional document, as seems to be the ultimate goal (in practice if not theory) of the EU constitution, is almost as much a tyrrany the near-absolute power demonstrated by George III and the British Parliament that forced the American colonies to seek by arms relief from excessive burdens that couldn't be gained by petition after petition to the people who were supposed to be representatives for the colonies.
800 pages (or whatever the exact number, waaaay too much text in this thread to search through, for me ) for what should just be a framework onto which one builds with instruments capable of finer tuning than an overreaching constitution is just as ridiculous as the umpteen billion silly laws found here in the states that no reasonable "man on the street" person (as opposed to academics and assorted legal weenies) can be expected to know, but can still be arrested and convicted under in spite of their ignorance.

But certainly a big difference is that the EU is not forcing anyone under its rule but the adhesion is purely voluntarily and as it seems something regarded as something desireable. And every member is free to leave the Union (there's a clear procedure for it in the constitution).
Then consider the fact that a large portions of the EU constitution covers the means and the matters where the EU can act instead of the member states. Something very desirable to keep the member's sovereignity protected.

And of course it's far shorter than 800 pages - though it's hard to say how long it is because of the different translations. The French version I have here at hand has about 250 pages and is written very spacious.
Of course, I don't claim that the EU constitution is not long - it's obviously long. But I fail to see why this is bad. And there is not everything and anything locked behind bars and it is certainly not the intention of the EU consitution to do that.
Please give me an example in the EU constitution.

 

[Quarto]

Again sorry for the delay but the holidays kept me away. I didn't even get to play Standoff but well, I was late for UE too.
Happy new year!

Well, as you can see, I haven't exactly been around much lately either... and even now that I'm back online, I don't expect to have enough spare time to carry on discussions like this (whatever spare time I have needs to go towards Standoff ), so I'm only gonna post a few comments here, without fully replying to what you said.

The US constitution gives no rules concerning the environment because nobody thought of it.

That isn't the issue. I'm sure you're right, that nobody thought of the environment at the time - but the far more interesting question to me is whether they would have provided any rules for it had they thought of it. IMO, the answer is a great, big, resounding no. As Death said, the US constitution is a framework, which is intentionally kept down to a minimum, in order to avoid over-regulation and to provide everyone with clear, legible rules.

This, needless to say, is good. It's a good thing when the citizens of the country, including the vast, huge, overwhelming majority that has not studied law, can understand the constitution and what it has to say about their basic rights and responsibilities. The EU constitution fails dismally on this count. I saw an article on BBC news online today that most people in Spain (where the referendum is coming up) have no idea what the constitution is about. And that includes those who are for it. Even if this would be the only problem, IMO this would already be enough to qualify the EU constitution as a stinking pile of bullshit.

Because, let's be completely clear about this. Laws are not written for lawyers. Laws are written for people. When people can't understand the law - that's not a small issue. That's a huge, show-stopping problem.

Why do you think the EU constitution will need so many ammendments? One could say the more important matters are put into a constitution, the less likely will be the need to change it because chance is it's already in the constitution.

Because of what you just said - times change, issues change. The more you put into the constitution, the bigger the chance of having to change it later.

And: why has a constitution to be amended as rarely as possible? It's not a holy cow. If the need arouses then the thing should be amended.

No, it shouldn't. It should be an unchangeable holy cow.

We respect the law because it's beyond our control. We respect it because it comes from above, and because violating it carries tangible (and preferably painful) consequences. Once we can change the law, we lose our respect for it. This is why parliaments today constantly come up with dozens of new laws that either make no sense or contradict existing laws. This is why we keep having scandals about politicians abusing their power. I don't blame the politicians for being corrupt. When you have the ability to change the law, surely you are above the law, and you don't need to stick by its rules. If you break the law, you can always change it... and yeah, such changes aren't supposed to apply retrospectively, but you can change that, too.

Compare this to the US, where people - both ordinary people and the politicians - have this enormous respect for their constitution. Sometimes when I talk to Americans, I'm amazed by just how much they respect the constitution and the people who wrote it. Why is that? Simple. Because their consititution is nearly impossible to change. And so, everyone knows that it's neutral. Everyone knows that the US constitution can never be changed to allow an incumbent president to remain in power for another two decades, the way it happens in so many third-world countries with their brand new, super-fancy constitutions. And so, no matter what happens in politics, the constitution is a rallying point - both the Republicans and the Democrats respect it, because they know it wasn't written to favour one side or the other, and they know that nobody will ever agree to change it to serve the interests of one side of the other.

This will not be the case with the EU constititution. The EU constitution will get changed over and over, to serve the interests of those in power. The EU constitution, in fact, already represents such change - after Iraq, France and Germany weren't happy with Poland's pro-US policies, and so you had that whole debacle with Poland getting less votes in the constitution than it did in the Nice treaty (which was a crime, really, and had the Polish government been the least bit interested in serving their country, they would have held a second EU accession referendum at that point - because the results of the previous referendum applied to a situation that no longer existed). This is the way things will go in the future, and this is why the EU constitution will never be respected in the way the US constitution is respected. Once a bloated piece of crap, always a bloated piece of crap...

Edit: Hmm, so this is what I call 'a few comments'? I'm almost as bad as the EU constitution .

 

[MamiyaOtaru]

Quarto, it really makes me feel happy inside that someone understands our constitution and the respect we have for it. You are explaining it as well as I ever could, thank you for that.

 

[Conrad]

I may be wrong here, but wont the EU constitution actually put legistration in place that'll enable a nation to pull out of the EU?

But naturally living and being a product of the Education system in England means that I have very little knowledge of the EU and how it works and why it is there. And what i do know is things I've read myself in the past two years. And that isn't a lot. But there seems to be a general underlying feeling that the standard public in Europe have it a lot better in terms of workers rights, and social care.

We are told on the one hand that being in the EU is benefical to the nation, then next its being paraded as the next great threat to British soveriegnty after International terrorism.

I dont have a real informed opinion on the EU constitution. It certainly feels like it applies to most of the population of europe as well.

That strikes me as a problem, dont you think

 

[Edfilho]

I sincerely wish we had your problems and not ours. Wanna trade?

 

[Quarto]

I sincerely wish we had your problems and not ours. Wanna trade?

Only if the deal includes climate, location and environment - ain't no way I'm taking Brazil's problems unless I get the tropical weather to go with it .

 

[Mad Cow]

Compare this to the US, where people - both ordinary people and the politicians - have this enormous respect for their constitution. Sometimes when I talk to Americans, I'm amazed by just how much they respect the constitution and the people who wrote it. Why is that? Simple. Because their consititution is nearly impossible to change. And so, everyone knows that it's neutral. Everyone knows that the US constitution can never be changed to allow an incumbent president to remain in power for another two decades, the way it happens in so many third-world countries with their brand new, super-fancy constitutions. And so, no matter what happens in politics, the constitution is a rallying point - both the Republicans and the Democrats respect it, because they know it wasn't written to favour one side or the other, and they know that nobody will ever agree to change it to serve the interests of one side of the other.

I disagree. While I think Americans do respect (if not revere) our constitution and the people who wrote it, I do not they do because it is unchangeable. In our education system, our founding fathers and the work they did are mythicized. Most Americans hold both in the highest regard, but could tell you very little about the lives of even the most famous Constitutional Delegates. Aside from the Bill of Rights, which was a series of ten amendments to The Constitution, I would imagine that most Americans couldn't tell you much about The Constitution either. This isn't a criticism on America, mind you (I'm a very patriotic person). If anything, it is a criticism on the lack of extensive history and civics education done in our schools.

 

[Worf]

I don't know. I find that this article is rather scary.

Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.

This is taken from 100,000 high school students .

 

[McGruff]

We're doomed

 

[Quarto]

This is taken from 100,000 high school students .

Well, it's difficult to disagree with the idea of government supervision for the media. I mean, come on - anyone that would actually write an article based on the opinions of high school students deserves to be placed under government supervision, for his own good. Angsty teenagers moaning about how life sucks because George Bush is like, you know, sooo totally evil, are the very last people you should ever talk to about politics.

 

[Mad Cow]

Angsty teenagers moaning about how life sucks because George Bush is like, you know, sooo totally evil, are the very last people you should ever talk to about politics.

Yeah, but what ever happened to liberal young people? These kids are talking about how the media should be censored and that the First Amendment isn't a big deal. Coming from young people, that's enough to make my blue-stater heart wilt.

 

[McGruff]

Liberals and blue-staters tend to be strongly against censorship except in the cases when someone is saying something they don't agree with.

 

[Mad Cow]

Liberals and blue-staters tend to be strongly against censorship except in the cases when someone is saying something they don't agree with.

Nah, we fully respect anyone's right to watch Fox News and listen to talk radio. We just like to bitch about the way they report the news. Even a media skewed to one side of the political spectrum or the other is better than a censored media. However, the way the laws concerning media ownership are changing, I worry that there won't be room for more than one opinon in the mainstream news media much longer.