TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- sooooooo, what should a possible next constitution look like?
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

St. Andrew it wasn't always like that.

In fact their was another nation right before the United States of America (the 2nd) in the 13 colonies that people don't remember much. It was a confederacy, and it was governed by "the articles of confederation" (http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html) which were almost as stupid as the proposed EU constitution.

The point is, the colonies were more like nations then then they are now, and you can't really judge how it was then (after all remember the US CIVIL WAR???) by how the states are today. They were much more comparable to the EU today (share same history/politics/cultural heritage and judeo/christian values) than the US as it is now.

Honestly everyone is not telling you "use the US constitution" because we are all egotistical pro-USA maniacs. The thing is better written then the bible (not that that means much to you but.. ), its really a masterpiece that is so well thought out and simple its suprising when you dwell into it.


The EU can basically "copy" this sytem and simply reduce the powers allocated to the EU and allow the nations to operate their own foreign policy and such (the US constitution disallows this for the states). Recall that the US constitution allows the states to have their own militas (read militaries) but the US army does rein supreme and the US commander and chief (the president) can use milita forces during war time. This I think would work much better in the EU than in the USA today.

I think an EU constition where it only has the ability to discuss foreign policy that is trade-related and leave all other diplomatic relations to the nations would be a good deal and people would agree to it.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus St. Andrew it wasn't always like that. In fact their was another nation right before the United States of America (the 2nd) in the 13 colonies that people don't remember much. It was a confederacy, and it was governed by "the articles of confederation" (http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html) which were almost as stupid as the proposed EU constitution.

I just skimmed through parts of it, what is bad with it? and whats the differences between this one and the current US consitution?

quote:

The point is, the colonies were more like nations then then they are now, and you can't really judge how it was then (after all remember the US CIVIL WAR???) by how the states are today. They were much more comparable to the EU today (share same history/politics/cultural heritage and judeo/christian values) than the US as it is now.

well, there is a huge difference between now and then tho, democracy is deeply rooted in ppls minds, so ppl will have a say about everything. Back then you could in a much broader degree propose pretty much everything and get through with it, today its much more complex, and a great deal of compromisation is required to get a bunch of countries together to somewhat work as a single unit.

quote:

Honestly everyone is not telling you "use the US constitution" because we are all egotistical pro-USA maniacs. The thing is better written then the bible (not that that means much to you but.. ), its really a masterpiece that is so well thought out and simple its suprising when you dwell into it.

better written than the bible?! oh god! yo momma can write something better written than the bible

quote:

The EU can basically "copy" this sytem and simply reduce the powers allocated to the EU and allow the nations to operate their own foreign policy and such (the US constitution disallows this for the states). Recall that the US constitution allows the states to have their own militas (read militaries) but the US army does rein supreme and the US commander and chief (the president) can use milita forces during war time. This I think would work much better in the EU than in the USA today.

The french voted no this time cause it was too "liberal" (in the european sense), what do you think they would do if it was a truly liberal economical treaty?! this is where it gets complicated, and thats what you americans dont understand, all EU countries dont agree what the consitution should look like, so what they have tried to do (and imo suceeded pretty good with) is to compromise so every country can get what they like, and everyone can be happy. Also by stating all these goals, it clearly states what the EU stands for, which will be more and more important as the EU grow.

quote:

I think an EU constition where it only has the ability to discuss foreign policy that is trade-related and leave all other diplomatic relations to the nations would be a good deal and people would agree to it.

Dont think so, many ppl in the EU want a much stronger EU when it comes to foreign policies, and this constitution allowed the EU to have a common policy, when all the countries agreed. In this way all the countries in the EU would actually have a say, cause as single countries no one really cares what sweden or denmark says, but what the EU says actually matters. And I amongst others want a common foreign policy, so ppl wouldnt agree with it

So i thought about it, and this is actually not too far away from how the constitution propsed it to be.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus What's so hard? Create an EU Congress built on two houses: The higher house, lets call it the "Senate" will afford all nations equal repersentation and each nation will have two senators on rotating terms of 6 years. The lower house, lets call it the "house of repersentatives" will be derived via the population of the EU. Therefore if the UK has more people then Luxenberg it will have more repersentatives. Limit the amount of EU repersentatives to 500. An area will be defined as a repersentative jurisdiction according to a population that is 1/500 the population of the EU.

Instead of the senate, we have the "council of ministers" which consist of one minister from every country (when they are discussing farming all the agriculture ministers are there, when they discuss foreign policies all the forgein ministers are there etc), to get a vote through here you need to win with a qualified majority: "A qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55% of the members of the Council, comprising at least 15 of them and representing Member States comprising at least 65% of the population of the Union.". TO make it impossible for the big countries to rule the EU, or the small countries. Again a good compromise. Every decision that is approved in this council must then later be approved by the european parliament, which is a directly elected assembly, if its not approved here too, it will not go through.

Kinda like your system, but more advanced to meet the needs of the european ppl.

quote:

Next create an executive office, have the executive office in responsibility of executiving all legislation the EU Congress passes. Allow the executive, lets call him the "president" to be elected by the EU Congress initially, later on as the EU mature you can transition this to a direct-style election.

We already have this, its called the commision its memembers are elected by the council of ministers, and it is approved by the parliament. The members of the commision is supposedly neutral, and thats one of the reasons why its not elected.

quote:

Third, create a judiciary to make sure that neither congress nor the executive transgress their bounds. You want a high court that can be the final word for all the nations of the EU on matters of Union interest. Lets call this high court of all the land the "supreme court". Make sure judges are appointed for life so no corruption can come in, but also allow their selection via congress and the president to make sure you ensure a balance of powers. Have these judges interpert the EU constitutional law and all federal law in cases that can not be settled in lower courts.

we already have a "supreame court" too works pretty much like the US's as far as i understand it. Judges are appointed on 6 year terms tho.

quote:

Fourth, protect the people from government. The people are the reason for the governments existance, they give away their freedoms (voluntarily) so it may serve to the benifit of all. However, they do not agree to give up all their freedoms and as such it is imperative that they are protected against the government in case it becomes tyranical and over-burdensome. A statement of the rights that a citizen always has is imperative to protect the people, a portion of the constitution should contain this part, lets call this part the "bill of rights".

or lets call it the "charter of rights", and you already have it there also it is stated in the consitution what powres the EU have, something that i think is missing in current treaties.

quote:

Lastly, empower the legislature - give them all (or as little) power as you like. Whether it is the power to tax, the power to have foreign policy (and banning all EU nations of it), the power to coin money, the power to determine interstate trade, the power to raise a military, etc. This is where the EU can really decide how big the scope of the legislature (and hence the EU) will be. If the power isn't specifically given to Congress in the constitution then the congress can not do it.

yes, and all this is in the constitution.

quote:

So if you want the EU to be a rough collectivist entity give the EU the ability to finance itself (either by taxing people directly or the nations), the ability to raise a army (whether banning national armies or not), the ability to be the final arbitrator for any nation to nation dispute,t give the EU the opprotunity to do only foriegn policy that is trade related, and allow it to control the borders. Leave the rest for the nations to decide how they would like to run themselves, whether it is to have euthenasia, whether they do want to give their children's rights, whether they do want people to have free access to a placement agency (wtf??) etc.

again, what the EU can do and cant do is much clearly stated in this constitution than in all the other treaties.

Re: sooooooo, what should a possible next constitution look like?

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew anyway, brainstorm!

Well, by process of elimination we can count out Hammurabi's Code.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/04/59635.shtml

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/895624/posts

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.