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

sooooooo, what should a possible next constitution look like?

I have been thinking, but not come up with any good answer yet, i have some ideas, but im not sure... trying to get it together, im pretty damn tierd right now tho, so hopefully tomorrow it will be clearer.. hehe

is it possible to make a constitution that pass by all countries? or is the EU doomed to fail? i mean we could continue like we have it now too, but if we were to vote about the current treaties, i guess that would mean "no"s too considering the arguments against the constitution? or is it just a matter of waiting till ppl realises they are wrong? many questions arises!

anyway, brainstorm!

Article 1: See United States

The End



What do you think?

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Article 1: See United States The End What do you think?

Can you give me a link? I would really hate to have your political/electoral system, but am unsure of how much of that is rooted in your constitution, its ammendments, and elsewhere.

On topic: I think the same treaty would be great. It was basically a utility treaty, with little controversy inside, meant for making the EU bureaucracy more efficient. Maybe a new treaty could have an added clause stating that elections on individual matters should be outlawed, that election periods should be for at least eight years, and that you had to pass a simple yes/no quiz before being allowed into the voting booth.
However, I think that what was in the constitution is insignificant wrt. stupid people voting no. What we need is another 50 years of globalization for stupid peopl to get into the right mindset/die out.

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

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew I have been thinking, but not come up with any good answer yet, i have some ideas, but im not sure... trying to get it together, im pretty damn tierd right now tho, so hopefully tomorrow it will be clearer.. hehe is it possible to make a constitution that pass by all countries? or is the EU doomed to fail? i mean we could continue like we have it now too, but if we were to vote about the current treaties, i guess that would mean "no"s too considering the arguments against the constitution? or is it just a matter of waiting till ppl realises they are wrong? many questions arises! anyway, brainstorm!

Well it all depends,

what does Europe who to achieve by forming the EU?

Is it soley a economic organization or do they wish it to be one nation under which many states exist as a confederacy or as a federation?

I think the only real solution (from my limited understanding of what's happenning in Europe atm) is create a constitution that allows each nation as much autonomy as possible, while still maintaining - as far as possible - a unified economic system. People (and this is the same anywhere worldwide, not just Europe) aren't going to vote for an initiative if they feel that doing so means ceding their national autonomy to people of a different culture. I haven't been following this issue closely, so I could be way off the mark, but I'd imagine that this might explain a lot of the negative sentiment in places like France, Holland and the UK. In short, institute a bare-bones constitution and add to it gradually (in a series of referenda) as people become less skeptical.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Can you give me a link? I would really hate to have your political/electoral system, but am unsure of how much of that is rooted in your constitution, its ammendments, and elsewhere.

http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/

The articles lay the groundwork for the structure of the government (states rights vs. federal rights) while most of the amendments detail the rights granted to people.

Missed this first time around:

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Can you give me a link? I would really hate to have your political/electoral system, but am unsure of how much of that is rooted in your constitution, its ammendments, and elsewhere.

Read this. It should, if you're anything like me, give you an appreciation for just what monumental acheivements the late 18th century post-monarchical French and post-revolutionary American constitutions were for their time. I was always fairly skeptical about the supposed greatness of the US constitution (you know how Americans are when it comes to patriotism ) but reading this really did give me an insight into just how amazingly progressive the American and French constitutions were for their day and how influencial they've been in the development of democracies elsewhere.

Also, the US constitution has a Bill of Rights going in its favour, which is more than can be said for a lot of countries (including Australia)...

i think what europe needs is a mission statement typr of thing..not a constitution. im sure this has already been raised but a constitution comes from the bottom up, not the top down like this one is. as we have seen..the 'bottom' dont want it.

occrider & Renegade: Thanks. I'll read them in full when I get some hours for myself. At least before the Danish referendum on the EU constitution in september.

Okay, so i have been thinking some more without any good thought, and the only real solution is to wait till ppl realise how stupid they are...

EU is really in a catch 22 situation. the idea is that the EU should only solve problems that only can be solved on a wider basis. The only problem is, these issues are issues that are generally considered boring, and issues that most ppl dont care about. the average person care about issues that affects them, most EU things doesnt that much (at least not as obvious as the more local ones). So this makes EU far away from the average citizen, so to improve this i guess they should care about other issues, but then the whole point of the EU is gone imo, and ppl would get pissed about that instead... so whatever they do, they will get impopular... so just because they are so impoular, things like voteing no to this constitution happens, and because it happens, things that are bad about the EU wont imporve... etc...

anyway, im insanly tierd again, nighty

i dunno, I've gotten to a phase where I believe all the people that blame the failure of one thing or another due to the fact that "everyone or almost everyone is an idiot" are idiots themselves, otherwise they'd drill down and look for real reasons.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus i dunno, I've gotten to a phase where I believe all the people that blame the failure of one thing or another due to the fact that "everyone or almost everyone is an idiot" are idiots themselves, otherwise they'd drill down and look for real reasons.

i agree, or +1 as it's known around here

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Article 1: See United States The End What do you think?

Do you really believe the USA has it all figured out? The world only can only handle ONE United States of America. Thankfully we've only got one! Look at the country right now, can you really agree that there should be another union modelled after it?

quote:

Originally posted by apostrophe Do you really believe the USA has it all figured out? The world only can only handle ONE United States of America. Thankfully we've only got one! Look at the country right now, can you really agree that there should be another union modelled after it?

I'm not saying that the USA has it "all figured out," or even that its form of democracy is the best system of government (insert Churchill quote here). I am saying that the US has the longest surviving written constitution that in its 230 years has probably been the most successful as far as the growth of a nation is concerned, and in the number of other constitutions that have been modeled off of it.

Even if the exact same constitution were enacted by the EU or any other nation state, it does not mean that we would have another US. The constitution is flexible and setup for interpretation and the people of the country decide what direction their constitution will lead them. It is an excellent groundwork for a budding nation however as seen by the US turning from colony to superpower in under 200 years.

just fyi, a US style constitution would defently be rejected by the ppl of the EU...

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I'm not saying that the USA has it "all figured out," or even that its form of democracy is the best system of government (insert Churchill quote here). I am saying that the US has the longest surviving written constitution that in its 230 years has probably been the most successful as far as the growth of a nation is concerned, and in the number of other constitutions that have been modeled off of it. Even if the exact same constitution were enacted by the EU or any other nation state, it does not mean that we would have another US. The constitution is flexible and setup for interpretation and the people of the country decide what direction their constitution will lead them. It is an excellent groundwork for a budding nation however as seen by the US turning from colony to superpower in under 200 years.

Problem is that the EU is not trying to build a nation. It's trying to fuse several nations with widely varying traditions and systems, while taking into account the already existing EU institution. Furthermore, the world has gotten a lot more complex today than it was 200 years ago, when the US was formed. Therefore, a much more complex constitution shouldn't be surprising.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew just fyi, a US style constitution would defently be rejected by the ppl of the EU...

yea but only because it has the term "US" in it

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus yea but only because it has the term "US" in it

No, because it doesnt have the word social in it and it doesnt fit the needs/wants of either the ppl, nor the political elite in europe.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Problem is that the EU is not trying to build a nation. It's trying to fuse several nations with widely varying traditions and systems, while taking into account the already existing EU institution. Furthermore, the world has gotten a lot more complex today than it was 200 years ago, when the US was formed. Therefore, a much more complex constitution shouldn't be surprising.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.



And there you have it... your EU constitution. In probably less then 30 pages no doubt too (a tenth its current size).

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew No, because it doesnt have the word social in it and it doesnt fit the needs/wants of either the ppl, nor the political elite in europe.

How not exactly?

The EU constitution forces "free health care" as a right that must be bestowed upon its nation. But how what if I have to make a $5 copay to go to see a Doctor in France, is that a violation of the constitution?

What exactly is "free" and what exactly is "health care", and if every nation must provide it to its citizen why does the EU not just create one grand "EU Health System" which will have the advantage of quantities of large scale.

Oh and for those of you who love the EU constitution in its present state, you are both aware that the EU bans euthanesia and abortions right?

quote:

Part II Article II-62 Right to life 1. Everyone has the right to life. 2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.

Also here is a good article why the "idiots" voted No in the Netherlands:

http://breaking.tcm.ie/2005/06/01/story205232.html

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Problem is that the EU is not trying to build a nation. It's trying to fuse several nations with widely varying traditions and systems, while taking into account the already existing EU institution. Furthermore, the world has gotten a lot more complex today than it was 200 years ago, when the US was formed. Therefore, a much more complex constitution shouldn't be surprising.

The US constitution was made to to fuse the existing states into a centralized entitity, while still maintaining the power and soveriengty of the individual states. I see no difference in what the EU is trying to do.

I also think that it's not true that because today is "more complex" a "more complex" constitution is needed. We are finally starting to see a backlash in the United States of the late 50's, early 60's mentality of trying to increase the complexity of government in order to deal with every "complexty" of life. All this has done is increase beuracracy, decrease the individuals ability to understand laws and remove the ability of the individual and the government to interpret the law for each situation. Simple is better, especially when it comes to a constitution. Trying to create a law or constitution that expressly denotes a course of action for every minute situation of life is both impossible and wasteful. IMO

If you'd like some excellent reading on this, I suggest "The Death of Common Sense," by Phillip Howard.

Personally I'm a fan of a broad, loose constitution that enshrines basic inalienable rights and basic function of government. The courts can then interpret the constitution and adapt it suit the culture, technology, and society of the time. It seems to me that if you get bogged down in the detail you're only going to hurt yourself in the long run. Of course I'm slightly biased .

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. 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. 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. 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". 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. 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. And there you have it... your EU constitution. In probably less then 30 pages no doubt too (a tenth its current size).

well i would agree that a federal europe would be the best, by far. Perhaps not exactly the way you described it, but something similar. And if you ever followed the dabate prior to the draft of the constitution, you would know that original idea was a federal EU. However that idea was strongly protested by many countries and citizens, and the idea was discountinued.

I think the main reason for the constitution for beeing so long is that it consist of so much else, for example all the trade deals and so on, kinda like the nafta treaty would be included in your constitution. Also since its not a federal system, very much must be agreed upon how things should be govern, exactly how much powers the EU has. If this wasnt the case, it would be very hard to implement a treaty in the EU since the countries are very keen of their soverginity. In the US the powers arent as defined, and you can clearly see that the federal government is taking over more and more that they werent intended to do at first.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus How not exactly? The EU constitution forces "free health care" as a right that must be bestowed upon its nation. But how what if I have to make a $5 copay to go to see a Doctor in France, is that a violation of the constitution? What exactly is "free" and what exactly is "health care", and if every nation must provide it to its citizen why does the EU not just create one grand "EU Health System" which will have the advantage of quantities of large scale.

it doesnt say everyone has the right to free healthcare, it says everyone have the right to health care. Its a huge difference. I guess that means if you cant afford the 5 euros it takes to pay in france, then the government would be obligated to pay it.

Which makes sense imo, eveyrone should have the right to healthcare in a modern society.

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