Should the EU promote the Constitution?

Imagine that you're an organization that came up with a product (read: the EU with the EU Constitution). Is it OK for you to spend money to promote it to people who are supposed to buy it (read: to EU citizens) ?
My answer would be yes, it does make sense. So, I find it fitting that the EU should set up a website promoting the Constitution or even gets Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to talk about throughout Europe.  The Times of London (which belongs to fierce anti-EU, pro neo-con Murdoch) has today a paper called : " They don't like the EU constitution? Quick, send in the force."
I find it OK to report that eurosceptic MEPs criticize the fact that the EU is spending money to promote the text (freedom of speech), even if I find their position inconsistent. Again, what is surprising about the EU promoting the EU Constitution, a text recently approved by the majority of MEPs and ratified by all the heads of euro governments?
But the article's title, as well as the first paragraphs,  are clearly crafted to comfort British readers that the EU is bad by essence and a waste of money on top of it.

The move has angered opponents of the proposed constitition, who say that the rapid reaction force is made up entirely of MEPs who support the constitition but is funded by taxpayers’ money. One leading Eurosceptic MEP said that the move was reminiscent of totalitarianism.

Interestingly enough, the Times asked famously eurosceptic Danish MEP Jens-Peter Bonde what he thought about the situation He's the one who came up with the comparison with totalitarian times. Now, even if I do not agree with him, I'd like to point you his website/blog, which I actually find very interesting. Mr Bonde backs up his strong opinions with well argumented ideas. As a euro citizen, I thank him for explaining me his views.
Last thing: Lose the Delusion has an post about people in the UK complaining that the UK government will be spending money to promote the Constitution.
 

Comments

[Marcel de Vries]

what's the fact that the majority of MEP's approved the constitution got to do with whether or not it's any good?

I am vehemently opposed because this sets in stone the undemocratic way that the EU functions in and makes it worse by removing our veto on virtually everything. It's downright treason to support it, it's a worthless document.

[Thibault]

Well, I would argue that the fact that democratically elected MEPs have approved a text gives it more legitimacy. Like a law voted by a national parliament, it gives legitimacy, but does not prove it is good (e.g. 35-hour working week in France.).
Having a veto is nice, but not very convenient when 25 countries have to agree. If The Netherlands or France cannot manage to get at least a third of the EU countries to oppose a law, it may mean than they are bad negotiatiors or that it may not be good for the EU as whole.

[Robin]

Imagine you are an organization that came up with a product that was rejected by the people,should not it then be scrapped?It would be in a free society.

[Hew BG]

The analogy is too simplistic, I fear.

Let's try the following:

You are an organisation with a product that you hope consumers will want to buy. The problem you have is that your consumers are already buying another product (citizens of member states electing their own governments). Your product, however, fundamentally changes the way that consumers buy their current product and removes some of its value, though they will still have to pay the same amount for it.

Not so simple now...

On the substantive topic though, I believe that the people of the UK need to be given clear, factual, non-partisan information on the effect that the constitution will have upon their democracy. On that basis, the EU ought not to spend our money either on promoting the constitution or on giving information, as this will - of necessity - be partisan.

[Ken]

The analogy is just plain wrong sorry.

Your company is risking its own money to promote its product, if the customers do not buy it the development and promotional costs of the product is a loss to the company. In the case of the EU it we the customers who have to foot the bill, not the EU the EU has no money of its own.

The other point is that in this instance it is the EU which wants the Constitution with its transfer of powers from the member states, the EU has set out its stall, and now it is up to the members states to individually decide if they want to accept the Constitution, the institutions of the EU have no place in this debate.