« Too long? | Main | Should the EU promote the Constitution? »


EU Serf

These rights are a shopping list of Social Democratic ideas. As such they have no place in a constitution as they are creating the opposite of a level playing field.

To me they strengthen the state and its claim on all of our lives and incomes and decrease the level of real rights that we enjoy vis a vis the state, the body that is a real threat to our liberty.

For example, solidarity between generations means that when the Ponzi schemes that they call public pensions go bankrupt, we will all have to pay half of our salaries to honour the promises of long dead corrupt politicians.

Tim Worstall

The Right To Life? So Abortion’s illegal now is it? About the only thing that would get me to vote for that farrago of nonsense. As Serf points out, it encapsulates the Social Democratic Ideal, the Third Way crap.
Constitutions are about what powers we the citizenry give to the Govt and what the Govt may not do to us. Everything else is up for voting on at each and every election....ooops, sorry, forgot, we don’t get to do that for the Commission do we?
Raising an old idea, if we must have an EU constitution, why not simply adopt the American one? Lasted a couple of hundred years, has its problems but they do seem to be able to run most of a continent on it.

Sebastiano G.

I do not see why the fundamental statements in the EU constitution (at least in the summary above) should not be agreed upon by anyone wanting to live in a civilized peaceful democratic society.
How are they unfair to conservative ideals ? (at least, as long as the latter ones recognize that we are all part of society and are respectful of everyone's right to life with dignity).
Where is the suffocating grip of the State over our personal liberties and incomes?
Solidarity between generations does not support corruption and generational priviligies (quite the opposite).
And abortion is still legal as long as we vote to allow it(it is not written in the constitution though). In my opinion, it is a regrettable measure but much better to have this freedom than the miserable horrors that women had to face before being granted the right.


What one must bear in mind when invoking the US Constitution is that it was never intended to fulfil the same purpose the EU constitution is to serve.

First, the various US colonies were broadly similar [relatively speaking - yes there were differences, but as stark as those separating Poland and the UK? Greece and Ireland? I think not]. The Constitution was designed to provide the *basis* for a government.

In contrast, the EU25 [and growing] are remarkably diverse. Further, we already have the basis of the government/legislative bodies. The EU Constitution is designed to *reflect*, rather than *prescribe* the EU.

The rights laid out in the Constitution and the various associated treaties, going back through the history of the Union, are not designed to be a *starting block*, rather they are a reflection of the level of progress we have already attained. The notion that we would have, say, freedom of expression only because of the EU constitution seems somewhat absurd. Rather, the Constitution specifies freedom of expression *because* we have attained that level of development.

The EU Constitution is much more "look, we have arrived" than "time for a journey".


I is pleasantly amazed! Thank!!!
I Will be back!

The comments to this entry are closed.