Demystifying the EU Constitution

A Fistful of Euros: great source

How can I dare to write some things about the EU while not mentioning my favorite EU-related blog? Well, it is high time I should mention A fistful of Euros. Not only is the quality of the posts amazing, but so is the quality of the comments left by visitors.
For example,   I was really interested in reading a post (Turkey and the EU: Poles apart?) that was putting into parallel the integration of Poles in the Ruhr area in the early 20th century with the potential integration of Turkish migrants within the EU countries.
This blog is informative, with contributors coming from different Euro countries (at least, that's my guess from looking at those guys' names).

Malta debate

I mentioned a few weeks ago a great website, The Malta-EU Information Centre, that was created to explain what entering in the EU would mean to the lives of people living in Malta.
Now, the Times of Malta had an editorial piece  yesterday that presented a few of the EU constitution topics that could be questionable if applied to Malta:

Could the EU, for example and if it has jurisprudence over social policy matters, legalise abortion as a matter of social policy and, should this happen, will Malta have no option but to submit? Can it, at a different level, impose EU Day as a national holiday? And why were its authors so adamant about having nothing to do with God, let alone Christianity?

Legalization of abortion may seem a debate from the past to most Western Europeans, but it is very much alive in countries such as Malta and Poland. I wonder what the debate about social issues (abortion, gay rights, etc.) will be like once we include Turkey. Let's be positive and hope that the common standards will go up, not down.
The newspaper wanted to have God mentioned... well, if we could avoid doing things like in the US where God is called upon to bless acts or decisions that can be quite questionable at times, I think that would be better.
As for having one more national holiday, I am not that sure that people would mind the extra day off. I mean, we Europeans are supposed to be extremely lazy, right?

Ratification countdown: 23 countries to go

I had to mention that Hungary became the second country after Lithuania to ratify the EU Constitution.  Here's the official score:

The vote crossed party lines as 322 lawmakers cast ballots in favor of ratifying the constitution with 12 against and eight abstaining. A total of 43 were absent. (source: EUbusiness.com)

You may remember that all of the 25 heads of government have already signed the constitution, but it still has to be officially ratified by the population, either indirectly through their representants (i.e. the parliaments,  like in Lithuania and Hungary) or directly through a referendum procedure (like in France and in the UK).

Nationality: European, Sir!

It is always hard to find an original topic to entertain your guests during a Parisian dinner. Thanks to the EU constitution, I was able to shine when I told my guest that soon they would be able to enjoy an additional citizenship (OK, full disclosure: people were only slightly interested but at least, this information was new to them).

“Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union.”

My document of reference, which you can download here, gives the following precision:

This citizenship is additional to national citizenship and does not replace it. It confers additional rights: the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Union, the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in the country of residence, diplomatic and consular protection in third countries, the right to petition the European Parliament, to apply to the European Ombudsman, and to address the Institutions and advisory bodies of the Union in any of the Constitution's languages and to obtain a reply in the same language.

To my knowledge, Europeans could already move around the EU, settle where they wanted, and vote for local and European elections. I thought the citizenship part was also new, but I was proven wrong by a great website called Historia del Siglo 20 , available in Spanish, English and French. The author, Juan Carlos Ocaña, is a Spanish professor. He has dedicated great pages about the EU citizenship. I discovered thee that the EU citizenship was actually already included in the Maastricht Treaty. Here's the official text:

Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship.

Funny enough, while searching for more information on that topic, I stumbled on an ad on Google promising EU citizenship to applicants. It linked to a website called http://www.europassport.org/, owned by a company called KLP Trade Company. This Czech Republic based company promises that you can quickly get a Czech resident permit that will then enable you to work anywhere in the EU. I do not know whether this is legal. At least, it is a sign that Euro countries should harmonize the way they deliver papers to non residents: I do not see why it should be harder or easier in one country than another, as permit holders will be able to work everywhere anyway.

Viewing Turkey from Sicily

I've been traveling in our beautiful Europe. My stay in Sicily made me think a lot about the issue of Turkey getting into the EU, for two reasons.
First, the Italian newspapers  were full of reports of  the EU's official commitment to Turkey to start entry talks in October 2005. (as well as about the deal reached on Cyprus)
Second, the island of Sicily is a very interesting example of the common history of Muslims  and Christians.  I was struck by the many churches that were built thanks to the help of Arab architects and artists. The Arabic influence in the design of the mosaics is also very visible. Moreover, the seemingly peaceful coexistence of two civilizations on the island - the Arabs and the Normans - between 9^th and 12^th centuries was very interesting.
If you want to see more about those buildings, you may want to check the following websites:
- The Arab experience in Sicily
- San Giovanni degli Ermiti (cloisters + church)
- Monreale
- Sicily, Crossroads of Invaders 

It shows that there has been a Muslim influence in Europe.  But does it make Turkey a country with the same shared past as other European countries? I still do not know. Yes and no.

Avoiding another European Civil War

I visited Washington, D.C. for the first time during last Thanksgiving weekend. I was of course very impressed by the city: it really is the capital of an empire, a new Rome: Doric columns here, Greek temples there, statues of legislators everywhere.
The Lincoln Memorial made me think of the European Constitution: what if one of the members of the EU decided to leave? According to Lincoln, secession from the (American) Union is unlawful; hence, measures should be taken to preserve the Union.  Why was it unlawful? Well, let's hear from him:

I hold that, in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the union of these States is perpetual....It follows....that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void. (Inauguration speech,  March 4, 1861)

I am not sure that we could invoke "universal law" as a a reason nowadays.  Of course, a lot of Americans discuss whether this was lawful or not. For example, David Alan Black shows that Lincoln's viewpoint was not obvious.
What about the EU? Well,  the Constitution addresses this matter:

" A member state which decides to withdraw shall notify the Council of its intention... The Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that state, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal."

All righty,  this may mean that we will avoid a Civil  War (OK, we already had two during the 20th century, that is quite enough, thank you). Here's the BBC Online's view on that part of the text:

It was always the case that a member state could leave by simply repealing its own legislation. Now there is a formal procedure designed to show that the EU is a voluntary association. However a departing member would have to agree terms so there is an implied threat that it would not be that easy.

Finally, let me refer you to a great FAQ created by The Malta-EU Information Centre (MIC). The purpose of this  FAQ  was to help understand people from Malta understand what belonging to the EU would change in their life.  Question 143 is: "Can we leave?" The answer states that it is technically possible, but it would not be convenient on both economic and political standpoints due to the degree of integration among the different EU countries.
Once you go black blue, you never come back ?

4 parts in a Constitution

From my favorite document (constitution summary):

The European Constitution is divided into 4 parts:

• Part I defines the values, objectives, powers, decision-making procedures and institutions of the European Union. It also describes the symbols, citizenship, democratic life and finances of the Union.
• Part II contains the “Charter of Fundamental Rights”.
• Part III describes the policies, the internal and external action, and the functioning of the European Union.
• Part IV contains general and final provisions, including the procedures for adopting and revising the Constitution.

Well, that's a good overview of the content of the document. It seems that there are things that one would expect in a Constitution, as well as things a bit more technical like procedures and general policies. I guess that's why the document is so big. (hundreds of page).
Of course, that's way longer the US Constitution, even if  one includes the Amendments.  Let's be positive: the goal of this blog is to help you and me find out about this text and the longer it is, the longer this blog will live ;-)

FT: Honesty favours EU supporters

I'm lucky enough that the Financial Times is delivered every morning at my doorstep, here in the US. This is a paper I've learned to appreciate, especially after reading the very Republican Wall Street Journal for a year. The FT is a great source of information for people interested in business, European, and international affairs.
Anyway,  one of the FT's commentators, Wolfgang Munchau, has written a column today that compares the No and Yes campaigns in France and in the UK. His position is that proponents of the Constitution that depict the issues with honesty have a better chance to make the Yes vote win.  To him, the Yes campaigners within the French Socialist Party did a great job of showing the advantages of the Constitution, while insisting that voting No would actually foster une Europe a l'anglo-saxonne (The EU turning Anglo-Saxon because of the current constitutional project was the main argument of the No campaigners in France, and the Yes campaigners debunked that idea).
By contrast, neither the Yes nor the No campaigners in the UK have (so far) been honest about the implications of the Constitution to the Kingdom. The Yes campaigners need to start spelling out the benefits to the UK that the EU integration has brought and will further bring.
Munchau concludes his  column by this: "The prosaic truth about the EU Constitution is that it is neither damaging nor a great leap forward. It is technically necessary so that the EU can cope after enlargement, and politically it is a finely balanced compromise that should be acceptable to a large majority of Europeans, Anglo-Saxon or not."

Publius, a multi-voice blog about the Constitution

While I was lamenting on the death of the Allies/Duhamel blog on Le Monde,  I stumbled on a comment inserted on the very same blog that invited French speakers to go on debating on another website: Publius.
This blog has been crafted by several authors who do not all agree on the virtues of the Constitution. They expose their opinions and welcome comments from readers. It's a great read, with a nice design by the way. Yet, I wonder whether the whole thing is not leaning a bit too much towards the Left to be totally balanced. That's just an observation, I may be wrong: for instance, the site does link to the UMP website (the UMP is Chirac's party).
Funny enough, I have commented earlier that one could draw parallels between the 1787 US Constitutional Convention and the current debate in Europe. Well, the authors of the Publius blog chose their name after the collective nom de plume that Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay took to write the Federalist Papers. So, I'm not the only one to make that comparison ;-).

No, the debate is not over!

Is the debate on the Constitution over now that the Socialists have cast their votes?
Yes, according to Le Monde, as the blog that was written by Paul Alliès et Olivier Duhamel (two Socialists and intellectuals that know much constitutional laws) has stopped.
I'm a bit sad, as I only discovered it today. Yet, as one was for the yes and the other for the no on the EUC referendum, you may still read very interesting comments there.