40 replies to this topic

[2072]

For those who have the chance to vote (too few):

http://etienne.chouard.free.fr/Europe/

It's in French but there is a "Translation" link where the same text is available in German, English, Spanish, Esperanto...


EDIT:

English Translation available: http://etienne.choua...urDemocracy.htm

There is a real propaganda in France to force the people to say YES to this "Constitution"...

How is it in other european countries?

Personally, I'm against this Constitution.

[huhn_m]

why are you against it?

In germany the "Bundestag" and the "Bundesrat" decided about the
constitution and voted yes.

I think this is good since the last european elections prooved that people are either uninterrested or uninformed. Some voted the way they did to "punish" our gov. for their policie but this is complete nonsens since the EU parties are only in a very small measure connected with the German parties and so the people voted against sth. they don't even know.

Same with the constitution. The real decission makes the media since they decide to inform us only about the facts of the consitiution they want us to know and if the media wants us to say no then they will find the right facts.

Nobody will EVER read the consitution since it is like a 1000 page book (maybe a little less but at least arround 500) and most (if not all) have neither the time nor the political knowledge to read these things.

No normal "citizen" does really know why things are the way they are in the constitution because they do not have enought insight in the politics of the EU. The constitution can't look at everyones needs and must considder that this is a grown union of nations that is based on many contracts that must be included in this constitution.

What do you want to achive by voting no? What are the points you are against? I think the constitution is a good thing though I have only limited insight too. It makes a lot of things possible wich were impossible before. (Leaving the EU, a european exterior minister ...)

You should really considder if you really don't like the constitution or if you just don't want to loose some of your souvereign powers (that admittadly everyone must) but this is the principle of a union and this union can not exist without it. If you are against this loosing of souvereign powers then you should considder that this is the nature of the european union and if you don't like it it might be best if you voted "yes" and then left this union since ONLY the constitution would give you this chance. If you vote no you WILL have to give away powers sooner or later anyways and the only thing you would achive is that the EU gets spilt and the whole process of unification is slowed down-

Please considder all this while voing for the constitution (or against it ).

I DO trust the people I voted for when I elected our parliament (well in fact i didn't vote back then but my parents voted like I wanted since they could not really decide ) and what are they good for if they do not make decissions.

*edit*

I'm still reading the text so please be patient! Till now the folowing response:

Quotes are estimated but sense is the same (trans. German -> English )

1.  A constitution must be readably, the EU constitution is not.

--> See right above. It is not as simple to unite nations as to build a new one from ground up. You have to considder many DIFFERENT laws and habits in the countries that take part and many nations signed in based on a contract the still want to see in action (like Nizza) so that many parts are taken from there.

He criticizes that:

SIEG (services d?int?r?t ?conomique g?n?ral, services in common public interrest) do not appear in it

So what does he want. It doesn't in the German const. either. Does he want a SHORT and EASILY readable constitution or one that considders ALL facts from ALL nations lokal constitutions?

The text seems als suggestive to me. He say that the "Constitution is missing a list with the basic law-making rights of the institutions" but then he says that THERE are such right but just not listed in one single list but in each paragraph.
So what? Does he want the information to repeat themselves to make the "text" even longer? I assume that the restrictions are in the paragraphs corresponding to their topics.

And what is this shit (you can call it this way) about the article I-33? He say that this regulates the Suggestions made by the parliament (sorry have no english translations) and that it does not limit the power of the Commision. But heck... this paragrah IS NOT about the commision. By their nature suggestions need NOT be followed. I'm sure the rights of the commision are restricted in their own article.

Btw. the author say you have to understand what you sign... so what is on your computer? Windows? Remember the license you "signed"? Have you read it. I bet you have not understand this whole thing unless you read the dozend of pages several times. And have you? NO? And haven't you heared the critics that came when M$ introduced their strange paragraphs in it allowing them to get data from your PC? And the critics came from accepted sources. So you can assume that SOMEONE out there is reading the contracts and thinking about it,

2.    a constitution is not politicaly motiveted

oh, it is believe me. And somewhat else why do all political parties of the spectrum of parties agree to the constitution if it does not resemble or at least allow their sight of policie?

*still reading ... expect more later...

[huhn_m]

2The contract is valid for unlimited time

Every constitution is. Or does yours expire after 10 years?
This does NOT imply that it can not be changed.

*correction of the first post*
He didn't mean suggestions my failure in translation

But what do you expect. Should LAWS made by the EU not be enforced in all countries? What is the sense of them if they are not?

he critices that you have to read other documents to get the meaning of an institution (Annotation 8)

Well this is also the case in germany sometimes. Some offices are not defined in the consitution. No problem there for me ...

Inflation politics make people loose their job

Wrong! As statet rightly the bank does ONLY rise their interest if the request for products is too high to be satisfied. But when it is too high this means there are too few workers so rising the interest just levels the request to the possible production.

No public building is possible anymore (keynesian type)

we had this in political studies. it is wrong that this supports the economy since it is only a temporary measure and not really helpful. This is also agreed to by most modern politics.

And just on a site-note. The German "Grundgesetz" does also prescribe that germany is a "social" state so it is also not free how everything is done ... can't please everyone eh?

To annotation [18]

The const. is difficult to change

so what does he want? this IS democratic since EVERYONE involved has to agree. He would also comlain if it would say a 2/3 majority can decide. And btw. changes of const. do not happen too often and laws and be made by a simply majority of people and size.

This paragraph is the result of the unwillingness of people to give away their souvereign powers because NO nation wants to accept a change it does not want but the majority of the others accepted.

the barrier right for nations is sill in existance (right of nations to stop a law) if fact i think 3 nations can stop a law and THIS is far worse then if it was not in action.
He says this right would not exist anymore.


The limitations of the law-making process (the parliament is not allowed to do this) are because the nations don't want to loose their souvereignity and don't want to be ruled by (eventually) the other countries if they have a common opinion.

*I don't want to read on, but if you want you can get counter-arguments for most of the things he says. Some are true and lie in the nature of a treaty of many nations. Just tell me what does convince you most and I'll tell you my opinion to it. (There ARE some fact I agree to but these are not so bad to make this work a bad consititution.

[CrimsonCasio]

ok, what is this about? i just read through huhn's posts but im not sure what to make of it?

[2072]

You know at first I was like you, I thought this constitution was a good thing I was sure I would say YES, I did not understand why some people wouldn't want Europe!

Then I came across this page, and I woke up... As I said in France there is a real propaganda to force the people to say YES. The fact is that the YES defenders have no argument to discredit the NO...

I want Europe but not that one!

The Maastritch vote was only about unique money.

That is the first time in 50 years that we are asked our opinion about what is beeing decided behind our backs!

My main reasons to vote NO are (the same that are written on the linked page):

1 - This text is unreadable, there are about 400 pages with multiple "see other" in every paragraph.
A Constitution should be readable by the people, even for an expert this text is difficult to read...

2 - This constitution defines the type of economy we MUST have (so far only the soviet constitution dared to do such a thing). A Constitution should let the choice, this one is clearly liberal.

3 - This Constitution is too difficult to change, to change a single coma every state have to agree then the parliament of each state (or his people) have to agree...

4 - The most important thing: This Constitution breaks one of the biggest fundations of democracy: the separation of powers, the ones who create the laws cannot apply them and the ones who apply the laws cannot create them... This is the most important argument. (you should read this part of the text)

5 - This constitution has been written by people not elected to do such a job, it has been written by the people actually in power. (Like if they were writting the rules they will have to follow later)

[quote]In germany the "Bundestag" and the "Bundesrat" decided about the
constitution and voted yes.
[/quote]

I thought that Bundesrat would answer on 27th of May?

[quote]Same with the constitution. The real decission makes the media since they decide to inform us only about the facts of the consitiution they want us to know and if the media wants us to say no then they will find the right facts.
[/quote]

Well in France the medias clearly want us to say YES... It's a real brain wash.

[quote]Nobody will EVER read the consitution since it is like a 1000 page book (maybe a little less but at least arround 500) and most (if not all) have neither the time nor the political knowledge to read these things.
[/quote]

Indeed that is a sufficient reason to say NO. This is a unique case for a constitution...

Yet every voting citizen have received the complete text of the Constitution in his letterbox... (btw: in the package my mother received they forgot the "NON" paper, there was only the "OUI" one...)

It's 14.7 times longer than our actual French constitution! (using the number of words to compare - more stable than the number of pages)

[quote]No normal "citizen" does really know why things are the way they are in the constitution because they do not have enought insight in the politics of the EU. The constitution can't look at everyones needs and must considder that this is a grown union of nations that is based on many contracts that must be included in this constitution.
[/quote]

This Constitution will define the life of every "normal" citizen for several generations so I think they have there word to say.
If you take the actual French constitution, it's readable, only 20 pages....

[quote]What do you want to achive by voting no? What are the points you are against?
[/quote]

To prevent this Constitution to take place because if it does we will have it for 50 years (Giscard said it himself)


[quote] I think the constitution is a good thing though I have only limited insight too. It makes a lot of things possible wich were impossible before. (Leaving the EU, a european exterior minister ...)
[/quote]


I thought like you before because I had only limited insight too...
Do not forget that almost 95% of this constitution is already applyed through the Nice treaty that every YES defenders in France hate because it is even worse than this text (but they ratified it yet).
In fact that is the only argument of the YES defenders: if we vote NO then we will stay with Nice treaty...

I agree that the Constitution is better than the Nice treaty but I'm not asked to vote for the differences but for the whole thing.


[quote]You should really considder if you really don't like the constitution or if you just don't want to loose some of your souvereign
[/quote]

As you may have understood I really hate this constitution that I think is dangerous for teh futur of democracy in Europe...


[quote](unreadable)
--> See right above. It is not as simple to unite nations as to build a new one from ground up. You have to considder many DIFFERENT laws and habits in the countries that take part and many nations signed in based on a contract the still want to see in action (like Nizza) so that many parts are taken from there.
[/quote]

Well they have failed, a Constitution HAS to be readable by ANY citizen.

[quote]He criticizes that:

[quote]
SIEG (services d?int?r?t ?conomique g?n?ral, services in common public interrest) do not appear in it
[/quote]


So what does he want. It doesn't in the German const. either. Does he want a SHORT and EASILY readable constitution or one that considders ALL facts from ALL nations lokal constitutions?
[/quote]

Maybe the German translation is bad because it is not what he meant.

He meant that in this Constitution that yet make 400 pages they did not find the place to write the definition of SIEG. Note that SIEG is a new invention of this constitution to replace what we call Public Services (Enterprise that belongs to the State and that are not ruled by the god Money).

[quote]The text seems als suggestive to me. He say that the "Constitution is missing a list with the basic law-making rights of the institutions" but then he says that THERE are such right but just not listed in one single list but in each paragraph.
So what? Does he want the information to repeat themselves to make the "text" even longer? I assume that the restrictions are in the paragraphs corresponding to their topics.
[/quote]

Well I think that a list of the domains where each institution can create laws is important don't you think? You have to read 400 pages to understand (and I'm not convinced) what each institution can and cannot do. It's like if they were trying to deceive us by hiding the most important points...

[quote]Btw. the author say you have to understand what you sign... so what is on your computer? Windows? Remember the license you "signed"? Have you read it. I bet you have not understand this whole thing unless you read the dozend of pages several times. And have you? NO? And haven't you heared the critics that came when M$ introduced their strange paragraphs in it allowing them to get data from your PC? And the critics came from accepted sources. So you can assume that SOMEONE out there is reading the contracts and thinking about it,
[/quote]

My computer will not rull the way we and futur generations will have to live... Besides this is a Constitution not a contract, IT HAS TO BE READABLE.

[quote]So you can assume that SOMEONE out there is reading the contracts and thinking about it,
[/quote]

Indeed there are and most of those people are voting no...

[quote][quote]
2.    a constitution is not politicaly motiveted
[/quote]

oh, it is believe me. And somewhat else why do all political parties of the spectrum of parties agree to the constitution if it does not resemble or at least allow their sight of policie?
[/quote]

No it is not, read the definition of Constitution.
And not all political parties agree to this text. Note that it's a real problem in France, because we do not understand why socialists are voting YES to this text that is clearly ultra-liberal...

By the way the man who wrote the page I linked is a law teacher, so I think he knows better than us what he is talking about. Besides he is not the only law teacher to think this way, a lot of university teacher are against this Constitution!

[quote]he critices that you have to read other documents to get the meaning of an institution (Annotation 8)

Well this is also the case in germany sometimes. Some offices are not defined in the consitution. No problem there for me ...
[/quote]

It just adds to the fact that this text is REALLY unreadable...

[quote][quote]

Inflation politics make people loose their job
[/quote]

Wrong! As statet rightly the bank does ONLY rise their interest if the request for products is too high to be satisfied. But when it is too high this means there are too few workers so rising the interest just levels the request to the possible production.

[/quote]

From what I read, rising the interest rate prevent small entreprise to rise and progress and can even make them close, so as a side effect it makes peole to lose their job and you can be sure that the banks knows that very well!

[quote][quote]

The const. is difficult to change
[/quote]
so what does he want? this IS democratic since EVERYONE involved has to agree. He would also comlain if it would say a 2/3 majority can decide. And btw. changes of const. do not happen too often and laws and be made by a simply majority of people and size

[/quote]

From what I know in democracy it's majority who decides and yes he would also complain if it was 2/3 because as I said democracy is about majority.


[quote]This paragraph is the result of the unwillingness of people to give away their souvereign powers because NO nation wants to accept a change it does not want but the majority of the others accepted.
[/quote]

obviously you are missing the point.

[quote]*I don't want to read on, but if you want you can get counter-arguments for most of the things he says. Some are true and lie in the nature of a treaty of many nations. Just tell me what does convince you most and I'll tell you my opinion to it. (There ARE some fact I agree to but these are not so bad to make this work a bad consititution.
[/quote]

Well no one as succeeded to counter-args his 5 main arguments. And this is not a treaty it's a Constitution, don't be misleaded by this word trick.

You should read on, but from what I know you can read French, so maybe you should read it in French because it seems there were some losses in translation...

You should also read evry NOTE in the text they are here to proove what he says with facts and full extracts from the Constitution.

Edited by 2072, 20 May 2005 - 08:50 PM.

[2072]

ok, what is this about? i just read through huhn's posts but im not sure what to make of it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well it's about the European constitution that have created a real debat in France because a lot of people are against it.
Unfortunately in Germany they don't have the choice, their government did not let them the right to choose the way they'll have to live...

In France we will have, on the 29th of May, a "referundum" and we will be asked to say YES or NO to this Constitution.

You know Crimson I often said that American politics were corrupted and serving their intersts rather than the people who elected them and so that democracy was in danger... Well since a few months, I'm realizing it's not different at all in Europe It's just more insidious, more secret...

[CrimsonCasio]

so basically they are trying to unite europe under a single constitution? that doesnt sound like a bad idea... it would need to be done very carefully though.

[2072]

The idea is good but the result isn't

You never heard anything about this european constitution?

[huhn_m]

buu?hh! I just clicked close tabe before clicking reply ... damn ... I'll rewrite it and reply later ...

[dscoshpe]

We being residents of the world apathetic USA don't have news of a European constitution in our major news outlets. If a constitution was ratified then they would pick it up most likely. I'm sure some of the specialized news outlets and newspapers have picked it up on occasion.

I personally have known about it but only because I really like British news and have a habit of reading it. I think it has to do with the humorous wit.

Anyways, it is a nice idea especially after the adoption of the Euro but it sounds like a nightmare to execute because of all of the sectionalized agendas and opinions.

Now, I have a question, would this constitution set up any form of new office or legislative body? Or is it more of distilling the lowest common denominator of all the individual nations' existing constitutions to make an underlying framework?

- dscoshpe -

[huhn_m]

it does only set up a european foreign secretary. This is the only
new office. The rest defines the basics of the European laws that
will be valid for all countries that belong to the European Union.


Sorry. Don't have time to awnser 2072's post again but only as many:

Some of your arguments are right BUT though this constitution is not readable for the normal man it can NEVER be compared to any other const. in the world since all thes were written from scratch with no other laws and treaties they had to include.

The EU has to include many trities (like the one of nice) since they are the basics of the current situation, the conditions all those nations are now united under and MUST finde themselves in this constitution. If they are not you'll never get the yes from the heads of states. AND this constitution has to include many different laws of different countries and must balance these laws in order to make it aplicable in all countries. Noone will ever be able to write a European Constitution that makes all current constitution legal, inlcudes all basics of the Union AND makes the heads of states (is this the plural ? ) happy with 20 or 30 pages.

*Some short statements:

I thoght SIEG was a french thing. it is not, so you're right.

I don't agree to:

changes of const too difficult: Not everybody should be able to lightly change it

and some other things I don't have time to rewrite now.

[2072]

buu?hh! I just clicked close tabe before clicking reply ... damn ... I'll rewrite it and reply later ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's why I always use VIM to write long post.

it does only set up a european foreign secretary. This is the only
new office. The rest defines the basics of the European laws that
will be valid for all countries that belong to the European Union.

it makes 400 pages so this new office isn't the only new thing...
In fact about 95% of it is already applied through the Nice Treaty.
But this treaty was never validated by the people (it's written and applied by the politics in the back of the people since 50 years).

Also note that Europe is almost like a government, it can create and executes laws on its own that are then applied to all countries. So yes it defines a new legislative body. Besides most of the laws decided by Europe prevail over the current ones of every member...

The most terrible thing it does is that it defines the type of economy we must have (liberalism without barrier). Individual countries are forbidden to make anything that prevent competition... With this Constitution individual state cannot decide anything about economy... For exemple the central bank of europe is completely independant and its only goal is to prevent inflation!

Some of your arguments are right BUT though this constitution is not readable for the normal man it can NEVER be compared to any other const. in the world since all thes were written from scratch with no other laws and treaties they had to include.

Why not? Why couldn't they make a short Constitution from scratch that could be applied to all current and futur countries?

The EU has to include many trities (like the one of nice) since they are the basics of the current situation, the conditions all those nations are now united under and MUST finde themselves in this constitution. If they are not you'll never get the yes from the heads of states. AND this constitution has to include many different laws of different countries and must balance these laws in order to make it aplicable in all countries. Noone will ever be able to write a European Constitution that makes all current constitution legal, inlcudes all basics of the Union AND makes the heads of states (is this the plural ? ) happy with 20 or 30 pages.

Not many treaties, it only re-takes completely Nice treaty and adds a few mods.

I think that the mistake was to make every country "happy"... and so late.

They've should have done this way:
The 6 countries that founded Europe should have agree to create a real Constitution (respecting the rules) they would had applied to them all first. Then any futur Country that wanted to join Europe would have had to agree to this Constitution...

I don't agree to:

changes of const too difficult: Not everybody should be able to lightly change it

and some other things I don't have time to rewrite now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why? If a majority of the people doesn't agree with the Constitution, they should have the right to change it, this is how works democracy...

[huhn_m]

They've should have done this way:
The 6 countries that founded Europe should have agree to create a real Constitution (respecting the rules) they would had applied to them all first. Then any futur Country that wanted to join Europe would have had to agree to this Constitution...

that would have been the best solution. I still think it is not possible to write the const. shorter NOW but they should have made sth. BASIC that is not constantly changed and that is short and precise.

Why? If a majority of the people doesn't agree with the Constitution, they should have the right to change it, this is how works democracy...

Maybe it is because of Germanys Nazi-past but this time has shown us, that many people are easily decived and that it is better to have a BROAD majority to change this most important thing than jost a normal one.

it makes 400 pages so this new office isn't the only new thing...
In fact about 95% of it is already applied through the Nice Treaty.

Yeah, but the Foreign secretary is the only new office

I'm not sure if the const. is really so one-sided liberal.
In Germany it is also said that competition has to be free but nonetheless there is an office that prevents huge companies to gain a monopoly position and thus eliminate the competition and prevents the companies to say "well, we'll all raise the price for this product". So it ensures a FAIR but FREE competition

What is bad about free competition? It reagulates the prices and often also in the interrest of the customers.

In TV they showed a short info from french and said that most of the french didn't want to sign the comstitution because it didn't include many of your social achievements. But they never said that it would be the same situation for germany or that it doesn't resemble our opinion, so I assume, that you simply are a very social state while Germany is more like a social-liberal state? Can this be the case?

[2072]

What is bad about free competition? It reagulates the prices and often also in the interrest of the customers.

I think that free competition is dangerous because it's like if we were living in the jungle: The law of the strongest, with no protection at all for others (look what's happening with Chinese textils, it's an example of what can do free competition...)

It's surely good for customers but not for the workers.

I'm not sure if the const. is really so one-sided liberal.

Believe me, it is... It sets up neoliberalism as a principle of life (neoliberalism is when government or states have no mean to intervene on the economy)

In TV they showed a short info from french and said that most of the french didn't want to sign the comstitution because it didn't include many of your social achievements.

Yes, that's one of the other reasons, the arguments of ?. Chouard are not pointed by our media, that as I said are biased and would never speak about those arguments they cannot conter...

Our media are only showing clich?s (Only French-French "possible" problems) when speaking of the NO side, and those social achievements are one of them.
For exemple, we are afraid to lose what we call "services publiques" - The constitution doesn't denie them but doesn't guarantee them either....

With this Constitution our "services publiques" would be replaced by the SIEG.

The problem is that "services publiques" are incompatible with "free competition" since those entreprise belong to the State who can give them money if they need it... (which is clearly forbidden by this Const.)

Our "services publiques" are always very high quality services with very qualified people, such as our Electricity, train transport, telephone etc... (Telephone and Electricity have been privatized a few years ago to respond to "free competition").

Personnally I'm afraid that those services could lose quality if they are exposed to free competition...

But they never said that it would be the same situation for germany or that it doesn't resemble our opinion, so I assume, that you simply are a very social state while Germany is more like a social-liberal state? Can this be the case?

I'm not sure about that, since your people was not asked his opinion about all of this there are only a few people who read the Constitution in your country (it also include journalists) and so very few of them could have detected such problems...

[huhn_m]

so the "services publiques" is sth. like the "German Telekom" or the "Deutsche Bahn" were? Companies where the state held most of the
shares of the companie?

[2072]

not exactly, all the shares belong to the state... They are not in the stock exchange at all. They are also helped a lot by the state and the workers have special priviledges (they work for the state - "Civil servant").

Oh yes I forgot a very special particularity of those "services publics" (that makes the whole difference in fact): Benefits are not necessary and they are not opened to competition...

see http://www.answers.c...c/public-sector

and

http://www.answers.c...public-services



a better definition but it's in French: http://www.globenet....msp/definir.htm

[huhn_m]

ah, yes!

The business of supplying an essential commodity, such as water or electricity, or a service, such as communications or transportation, to the public.

most of these were also owned by the state not too long ago, but now they are independant (state sold them at least partitally) and only regulated by the state. The state must say yes if the water or electricity companies want to raise the prices.

But they are(were) also not defined in our constitution because this ALSO defines the way the politics are done because there are several ways to support the economy. One is that the state buys goods and gives orders to companies and the other was, I believe, giving work directly though such "public services"... we had this in Social Studies this year. It was quite interresting but I can only remember, that the giving of oders is only a short cure of the symptoms and there was also sth. foul with the other thought I don't remember right now. I don't think such a thing should be defined by the constitution but left for the current goverrnment to decide.

[2072]

I don't think such a thing should be defined by the constitution but left for the current goverrnment to decide

Indeed; the problem is that since each member of the EU is forbidden to make anything that prevent free competition such public services are at risk...
Privatization of public services has also began in France (Telephone and electricity are no longer public services)...

This constitution defines the type of economy every member must have, that's one of the big problem...

[octobclrnts]

Ok...I've been reading this post, and being an American, I wasn't that informed beforehand. The one thing that really bothers me about this constitution is that it is over 400 pages long and not easily readable by the people. I don't want to sound like a spoiled, egotistical American, but I think that our constitution is one of the most spectacular documents to come out of this world since the time of Christ. It is short, succinct, and easily readable by anyone interested. It sets up some broad guidelines that are restricting enough to let the people keep the power. And each word seems most appropriatly chosen to fit the meaning.

Ok, I'm done praising America. But I think that the EU constitution should be a document that can unite Europe like the 50 states and give them a working guideline to follow.

Once again, please don't think of me as trying to act superior or snotty.

[huhn_m]

Once again, America was build from ground up and the nations joined AFTER the constitution was defined so you needn't considder a lot of things.

And, btw. the American Constitution is by far not the best one (though the oldes democratic one) since it does not define such basic
things like the freedom of speech. These are only defined in the
Ammandements (Bil Of Rights) that is not the same as the constitution itsself.

Also the second ammandement is still not acceptable for me

*edit

btw. I like your sig

[Bob Vila]

Also the second ammandement is still not acceptable for me

not to be off topic or anything, but why not?

don't you believe that people should have the right to defend thier homes and families if the need arrises?

[CrimsonCasio]

lets not get off-topic, if you want we can start a 2nd amendment debate in another topic (personally, im ambivilant about it, it was ment to allow malitias but that really isnt needed these days... eh)

the US constitution was indeed easyer to form because of the circumstances... but i think that the EU const could be much simpler if politics wernt involved...

[huhn_m]

I conpletely agree with crimson.

[CrimsonCasio]

lol, thats new (jk)

[octobclrnts]

Well on the comment that the constitution isn't complete...the bill of rights was promised before anybody even ratified it. Therefore it may not have been in writing at the time but it was certainly part of the deal.

Thanks for the sig complement

[CrimsonCasio]

thats true, if the bill of rights hadnt already been planned none of the states would have ratified the constitution. thats why the first 10 amendments are sort of grouped together.

and, in fact, ammendments really are part of the constitution, they are just places where we crossed things out or wrote things in.

[2072]

Ok...I've been reading this post, and being an American, I wasn't that informed beforehand.  The one thing that really bothers me about this constitution is that it is over 400 pages long and not easily readable by the people.  I don't want to sound like a spoiled, egotistical American, but I think that our constitution is one of the most spectacular documents to come out of this world since the time of Christ.  It is short, succinct, and easily readable by anyone interested.  It sets up some broad guidelines that are restricting enough to let the people keep the power.  And each word seems most appropriatly chosen to fit the meaning.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The French constitution is 20 pages long only... and it is readable.

[betoe]

The French constitution is 20 pages long only... and it is readable.

Without margin and letter size 1 (just kidding).

The mexican constitution have a lot of pages and its useless. I never celebrate the mexican revolution and the constitution day.

[octobclrnts]

The French constitution is 20 pages long only... and it is readable.

That's a good thing

And if you still challenge my belief that our constitution is very good then here is a link to the words of Benjamin Franklin who didn't even approve of the whole thing but still said that it was a perfect as possible considering the men that had to come together and the differences they had to overcome.

Ben Franklin

[CrimsonCasio]

ben franklen was cool (imo )

the EU constitution should be no more than the combined number of pages from all the EU countries... and it really shouldnt be that big... i constitution isnt meant to define every little thing that government can and cant do and everything that the people can and cant do, it should simply set down the guidelines from which laws are made and from which the people in government base their decisions. only some things should be explicitly protected (and/or) banned in the constitution.

[octobclrnts]

I agree, as the constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. Therefore it should be broad enough to be able to interpret from it what each country wants to keep as laws, but specific enough to make a clear statement that holds all of the countries together.

[huhn_m]

well tt shouldn't be as long as the different countries consts. cm,bined. Ours is like 40 Pages (in DIN A4) and there are 25 nations so this would make 750 pages (if every nation had only 30 pages on average )

[Bob Vila]

i heard it didn't pass in france, is that true?

[CrimsonCasio]

yeah, i actually read it in the news paper this morning... i guess they diecided to mention it now that its not happening.

some interesting articles here: http://news.bbc.co.u...ope/3825521.stm

[2072]

Yep 55% for the NO with only 30% of abstention

The problem is that I don't know how much represents the part of the people who are really against this Constitution with regard to the part of the people who voted NO for a "selfish" reason not related to the Constitution...

They spoke a lot of the results on CNN int. (we were switching between CNN and French chanels).

[CrimsonCasio]

some advise though, France has said no to the constitution, now france needs to turn that around and become the driving force behind a new constitution that suits everyone as best as possiblem. if that doesnt happen France could be seen as just being obstructionistic and eventually be left behind by the rest of europe. (this is happening to the democratic party in the US, they say "no" to almost everything but they havent come up with any new ideas, its really hurting them and i think they are to proud to notice)

if france turns around now and starts offering solutions it could very well turn everything in its favor, everyone will be eager to avert this "disaster" and will be much more eager to listen to frances arguments. of course i know you cant do anything about this one way or another... im just saying what i think (and very possibly what your government has been planning to do all along, it would be very shrewd)

btw, what are these "selfish reasons" you speak of?

[huhn_m]

I really like your decission, especially after reading your text, but
the problem is that most think, and maybe this is also the case, that this decission was only made to punish your government.

I fear that the people who are informed about the const. are really few and therefor STILL have no influence.

[2072]

btw, what are these "selfish reasons" you speak of?

Well some of them must have voted NO just to punish our government, or because they are simply against Europe...

[CrimsonCasio]

ah, well there will always be that sort...

[2072]

English Translation available: http://etienne.choua...urDemocracy.htm