Slashdot Mirror

What is my agenda?

I wish to live in a peaceful, integrated Europe, which is capable of managing the change from living off the developing world (as we do just now) to supporting it and accepting it as an equal.

I think we believe different things because we come from different cultures in Europe. As has been said many times, a French No is very different to a British No, or even a French Yes to a British Yes. I'm not from France.

most people do not even understand the first page for christ sake.

Given that the first page is the passage quoted (unless you count the title/preface), I find that hard to believe. I read the first 50 pages in half an hour or so, without too many problems. For the curious, it's available on the web en fr.

of a lot of very important parts of this "constitution", but yet, you understand all of it very clearly ?

Some of it uses deliberately vague language to allow wiggle room for the various partner states. There are many 'get out clauses' (which they refer to amusingly as passerelles in the English text (ça sent le français original parfois, il faut le dire)) for the various nation states that didn't want to sign up to all of it at once. I can see how that could lead to ambiguity. I didn't say I understood every nuance, I said it was remarkably clear for a text which deals with so many issues.

Have you read it?

If you expect something to be legally watertight it is very difficult to make it at the same time clear. I am in no way saying this document is perfect, but it is not the source of all evil as you seem to hint. Many of the national laws in France and the UK are just as obscure, if not far far worse.

Perhaps the worst part, is that this "constituion" defines the economic regime. This is the worst thing you could find in a constitution (we can see the effects with the software patents episode), but it does not seem to be a big deal to you.

Economics is integral to politics, and this document supercedes many treaties, and thus incorporates their rules. These treaties were agreed upon by all the nation states. Those rules will be in no way changed by a yes or a no to the constitution. Are you really suggesting that we repeal the common market, is that what you want? Would that solve economic problems in France?? ?

To say, as the constitution does,
based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, highly competitive and aiming at full employment and social progress.

is a balance between the free market economics which now dominate the agenda in Europe and the feeling that we should strive to uphold our standards, not lower them to the lowest common denominator (le nivellement par le bas). Europe is not France and the UK is not America - there are many shades of social democracy, and the argument is over which particular shade we want to aspire to. Now I can't say I agree with many of the policies in the UK right now but just as an example often not cited in the current French debate the public services of each nation are explicitly defended in this document, the cultural exception is there.

Frankly, living in France, I find the debate here on the constitution dissapointing, desolant, in its insistance on the corrupt right wing government in power, the economy, and the difficult situation for most French workers. Will voting no change any of that? If you aspire to a better constitution, by all means fight for one - this one could in many ways be improved. If you wish to live in a France unbuffetted by the changes the world is undergoing, which will forever live as in the halcyon days of les trentes glorieuses, you are living in the past.

The most disturbing thing about the debate right now in France is that if the constitution is rejected this time by France, the next proposa

What is my agenda?

I wish to live in a peaceful, integrated Europe, which is capable of managing the change from living off the developing world (as we do just now) to supporting it and accepting it as an equal.

I think we believe different things because we come from different cultures in Europe. As has been said many times, a French No is very different to a British No, or even a French Yes to a British Yes. I'm not from France.

most people do not even understand the first page for christ sake.

Given that the first page is the passage quoted (unless you count the title/preface), I find that hard to believe. I read the first 50 pages in half an hour or so, without too many problems. For the curious, it's available on the web en fr.

of a lot of very important parts of this "constitution", but yet, you understand all of it very clearly ?

Some of it uses deliberately vague language to allow wiggle room for the various partner states. There are many 'get out clauses' (which they refer to amusingly as passerelles in the English text (ça sent le français original parfois, il faut le dire)) for the various nation states that didn't want to sign up to all of it at once. I can see how that could lead to ambiguity. I didn't say I understood every nuance, I said it was remarkably clear for a text which deals with so many issues.

Have you read it?

If you expect something to be legally watertight it is very difficult to make it at the same time clear. I am in no way saying this document is perfect, but it is not the source of all evil as you seem to hint. Many of the national laws in France and the UK are just as obscure, if not far far worse.

Perhaps the worst part, is that this "constituion" defines the economic regime. This is the worst thing you could find in a constitution (we can see the effects with the software patents episode), but it does not seem to be a big deal to you.

Economics is integral to politics, and this document supercedes many treaties, and thus incorporates their rules. These treaties were agreed upon by all the nation states. Those rules will be in no way changed by a yes or a no to the constitution. Are you really suggesting that we repeal the common market, is that what you want? Would that solve economic problems in France?? ?

To say, as the constitution does,
based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, highly competitive and aiming at full employment and social progress.

is a balance between the free market economics which now dominate the agenda in Europe and the feeling that we should strive to uphold our standards, not lower them to the lowest common denominator (le nivellement par le bas). Europe is not France and the UK is not America - there are many shades of social democracy, and the argument is over which particular shade we want to aspire to. Now I can't say I agree with many of the policies in the UK right now but just as an example often not cited in the current French debate the public services of each nation are explicitly defended in this document, the cultural exception is there.

Frankly, living in France, I find the debate here on the constitution dissapointing, desolant, in its insistance on the corrupt right wing government in power, the economy, and the difficult situation for most French workers. Will voting no change any of that? If you aspire to a better constitution, by all means fight for one - this one could in many ways be improved. If you wish to live in a France unbuffetted by the changes the world is undergoing, which will forever live as in the halcyon days of les trentes glorieuses, you are living in the past.

The most disturbing thing about the debate right now in France is that if the constitution is rejected this time by France, the next proposa

seems to be corruption is build into system

Which is why I, as well as most intelligent and informed people I know, will be voting against the European Constitution. Most citizens of Europe have never even read a copy of the constitution, and are trusting their local governments with their yes votes. But the constitution codifies into law this corrupt structure, whereby abstentions or absences become a YES vote, where the power structures of Europe can ignore the powerless elected body of the parliament.

There is a huge list of things wrong with the European Constitution, way too long to post here. Concerned /.ers in Europe are urged to download a copy of the Constitution in their local language from the treaty site or the europa site.

Note that the nacional votes, recently in Spain, soon in France, are merely guides for governments to approve the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, and that if this treaty is taken into effect, only then will the actual text of the constitution be written, by a committee of jurists and corporate lawyers. Citizens will be barred from any participation in creating the actual Constitution, and it will be adopted without debate if this treaty is agreed to.

The AC

The treaties are full of the phrase "Ever Closer Union", and explicitly prevent seccession.

The new EU constitution, due for adoption next year if things go right, explicitly guarantees member states the freedom to leave the Union:

Article 59: Voluntary withdrawal from the Union

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the European Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention; the European Council shall examine that notification. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council of Ministers, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

The representative of the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in Council of Ministers or European Council discussions or decisions concerning it.

3. The Constitution shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, decides to extend this period.

4. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to re-join, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 57.

I have nothing in common with lets say someone from Italy other than currency and open boarders as an european.

On my passport as a dane it says Danish citizen, not a citizen of european union.....

I'm living in Frankfurt/Germany. Last month I was at a study session in Strasbourg/France. I could have left my passport or my ID card at home. As long as your skin is white enough, borders within the Schengen countries do not apply to you. You enter the train in - let's say Karlsruhe - and you leave it in Strasbourg without having noticed a thing called "border".

If I were a German of turkish origin, my experience would be totally different. German or French border police would have picked me up, would have checked my passport and maybe my pockets.

Under these circumstances, it might be arrogant to say ist but for me as some kind of WASP, Europe has become one country.

If you take it from a legal perspective, there is more evidence. About 50 per cent of the new laws in 'the German part of Europe' are more or less ratifications from European ones.

Well, and nobody can take away my optimism that this European Constitution will come into effect soon. (Actually, this is not the first European Constitution but this is the first time they call it that way).

• Dignity
  • Human dignity
  • Right to life - explicitly forbidding death penalty
  • Right to the integrity of the person
  • Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
  • Prohibition of slavery and forced labour
• Freedoms
  • Right to liberty and security
  • Respect for private and family life
  • Protection of personal data
  • Right to marry and right to found a family
  • Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
  • Freedom of expression and information
  • Freedom of assembly and of association
  • Freedom of the arts and sciences
  • Right to education
  • Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work
  • Freedom to conduct a business
  • Right to property
  • Right to asylum
  • Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition
• Equality
  • Equality before the law
  • Non-discrimination
  • Cultural, religious and linguistic diversity
  • Equality between men and women
  • The rights of the child
  • The rights of the elderly
  • Integration of persons with disabilities
• Solidarity
  • Workers' right to information and consultation within the undertaking
  • Right of collective bargaining and action
  • Right of access to placement services
  • Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal
  • Fair and just working conditions
  • Prohibition of child labour and protection of young people at work
  • Family and professional life
  • Social security and social assistance
  • Health care
  • Access to services of general economic interest
  • Environmental protection
  • Consumer protection
• Citizens' rights
  • Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament
  • Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections
  • Right to good administration
  • Right of access to documents
  • Ombudsman
  • Right to petition
  • Freedom of movement and of residence
  • Diplomatic and consular protection - if you are not in your own country
• Justice
  • Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
  • Presumption of innocence and right of defence
  • Principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties
  • Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence