Demystifying the EU Constitution

United in diversity

The EU has a motto, did you know that? Well, I didn't, until I read Alain Lamassoure's book called Histoire secrète de la Convention Européenne  (I'll review it in a future post). The EU's motto is "United in diversity".
Lamassoure  recalls the small internal debate among the members of the Convention to come up with a motto that most would like.  At first, some proposed something modeled after the French Liberté, égalité, fraternité, where the 3 main values of the EU would be displayed. The first proposition was "Peace, Freedom, Unity" but is was judged a bit corny.
Then, somebody came up with the idea of keeping the 3-word idea, but using words from several Euro languages. For instance,  the following motto was proposed "Friede, Liberty, Solidarnosc". The idea was to use the German word for Peace to show how much progress the friendship between Euro countries had made since 1945, the word Liberty  to please to both the French and the British as those two people were the first in Europe to endorse political freedom, and the Polish word for solidarity to remind us of the struggle of Eastern Europeans against totalitarianism.  But people objected that the people whose language had not been chosen may not be happy with this motto.
Then, somebody said" What about "All together"? or "Together for tomorrow"?. But people objected that this sounded like a bad political slogan.
Finally, the Convention settled on "United in diversity", a motto to be translated in all the Euro languages.
Yet, as Lamoussoure says, the motto is a bit flat and .... really close to that of the US (E pluribus unum - Out of many, one). In a way, it is very compelling that the union of the 13 colonies be put into parallel with the union of our 25 states. The hard thing is to preserve state rights, while building something above them.
By the way, Wikipedia has some interesting facts about the US motto. Finally, I must add that the US has a second motto, officially adopted in 1956: "In God we trust". Now, I'm not sure that the EU will come with something close to that motto any time soon ;-).

Cool resources - thanks EMP Bonde!

I mentioned Danish "Eurorealist" MEP Bonde's website in my last post.  While reading his biography on his website, I discovered that "Bonde is married to Lisbeth Kirk, the Danish editor of the web-based EU Observer."
The EU Observer's website is one of my favorite sources of information about the EU.  It is updated daily, has great content and a pleasant design. Now, if you're planning on having dinner at Mrs Kirk and Mr Bonde's house, make sure to know a little about the EU, otherwise you will look foolish while discussing the pros and the cons of the Constitution!

Another great thing on Mr Bonde's website is a tool provided by EU ABC. It helps you find definitions of cool words such as subsidiarity or find what the EU says on topics such as hunting. Here's the tool, you can use it from here:

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.
 

A Charter of fundamental rights

As I said in the previous post, the text of the Constitution is more than just a constitution: it is also an international treaty, as well as a Charter of Rights.
Citizens of the EU have guaranteed rights and countries willing to enter the EU will have to respect them. Here's what my favorite summary of the Constitution has to say about that:

The Charter guarantees respect for human dignity; the right to life; the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment; the right to liberty and security; respect for private and family life; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of expression and information; the right to education; freedom to conduct a business; the right to property; equality before the law; respect for cultural, religious and linguistic diversity; equality between men and women; the integration of persons with disabilities; the right to access to justice and to a fair trial; the presumption of innocence and right of defence; etc.

These rights go beyond those of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, with new rights to oppose discrimination based on gender or disabled citizens.  Of course, some rights are very European and may sound strange to an American, such as mentions of "sustainable development",  "solidarity between generations", and "protection against discrimination of the grounds of sexual orientation".
But as a Euro citizen, I do agree that preserving the planet (sustainable development), facing Europe's demographic challenge (solidarity between generations), and establishing equality between gays and straights (protection against discrimination of the grounds of sexual orientation) are important topics to me.

Too long?

I know, the text of the Constitution is way too long (more than 300 pages). True, the US Constitution is shorter - actually, only if you forget about the amendments and the 200 years of jurisprudence and of interpretation of the text.
The EU text is actually both a constitution per se and an international treaty: the EU is inventing something new, never done before. It is the result of the peaceful cooperation of a continent, something that the world has never seen before.
The national states will not disappear, hence the need of an international treaty. At the same time, an entity above these very nations is created and needs to be defined: this is where we need a constitution.
Update: Publius, a French blog about the EU, published a few days ago a post on the exact same topic. You know what they about great minds meeting ;-)

Constitution approved by the EU Parliament

I'm almost a week late, but I still have to mention that the EU Constitution was approved by the EU Parliament on Jan. 12. As ABC News reports it:

The EU legislature voted 500 to 137 for a resolution backing the constitutional treaty, with 40 abstentions.

This vote is non binding, but I find it pretty interesting. We got to see what people elected by Euro citizens (really, our delegates) thought of the text (a big YES), and it was also a window on which countries needed to be closely watched in the coming months. The main EU-wide blocs had asked national parties to approve the text. Yet:

Britain's opposition Conservatives, who belong to the center-right European People's Party, the largest bloc in parliament, broke ranks with their group and voted "no," while Poland's center-right Civic Platform abstained.

Well, not surprisingly the British Conservatives voted No. I am sure some were truthfully against it, but I also wonder whether some have not become knee-jerk euroseptics (and it might also be populist popular to vilify the EU in the UK, especially if you're desperate to get votes)

A dozen French Socialists close to former Prime Minister Laurent Fabius broke ranks with the Socialist group and abstained after losing an internal referendum of party members which backed the EU constitution last month.

Interesting. The socialist militants voted on the text, they approved it, and yet all their elected representative are not willing to carry out their opinion. I agree that an EMP can vote according to her/his political beliefs, but then, it was just not worth asking militants their opinion. And also, let's forget about our friends from the extremes, with a behavior more relevant than ever:

Communists and the far left rejected the constitution as a global capitalist charter without adequate social protection. (...) A few dozen far-right and nationalist lawmakers jeered and waved banners proclaiming "Not in my name" just before the vote.

We're all about demystifying

I will start today with a quote: Vanitas vanitatum, omnia vanitas - "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity" (Bible, Ecclesiastes,  1:2).

Yes, I confess, I've googled the name of o my own blog - actually, that is not the only thing I did with Google today, but hush, that's another topic. The first result was obviously a link to this very website.  Well, the second link was actually more interesting: a link to an International Herald Tribune article whose title is Demystifying the EU: A hot line with answers. This hot line is Europe Direct, a free EU service for Euro citizens with questions.
I think that this is a great service: you can call (00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 - toll free from the 25 member states), chat with, or write to the EU contact center.  It is very interesting to learn what fellow Europeans have on their minds when calling. Here's what the article says:

Ten topics dominate most conversations, according to Gisela Gauggel-Robinson, who is in charge of Europe Direct for the European Commission. The top theme is mobility and the right to move and work freely between countries in the Union. The next most popularr topic is even more basic - the ins and outs of obtaining EU financing for businesses and programs. Callers are also wondering about the impact of expansion on their everyday lives, like how to obtain a driver's licenses or complete property purchases.

I think it is a great service, available in a dozen of languages.  Read the article, it is really worth it. Now, why don't hear about this service more often?

Pro-EU Americans, part 2

Jeremy Rifkin is a quite famous American political commentator. I can safely say that he is not a Republican. His new book, called The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream is a long praise of the EU. Some find it a bit too optimistic.
Here's waht the publisher has to say:

The American Dream is in decline. Americans are increasingly overworked, underpaid, and squeezed for time. But there is an alternative: the European Dream-a more leisurely, healthy, prosperous, and sustainable way of life. Europe's lifestyle is not only desirable, argues Jeremy Rifkin, but may be crucial to sustaining prosperity in the new era.
With the dawn of the European Union, Europe has become an economic superpower in its own right-its GDP now surpasses that of the United States. Europe has achieved newfound dominance not by single-mindedly driving up stock prices, expanding working hours, and pressing every household into a double- wage-earner conundrum. Instead, the New Europe relies on market networks that place cooperation above competition; promotes a new sense of citizenship that extols the well-being of the whole person and the community rather than the dominant individual; and recognizes the necessity of deep play and leisure to create a better, more productive, and healthier workforce.
From the medieval era to modernity, Rifkin delves deeply into the history of Europe, and eventually America, to show how the continent has succeeded in slowly and steadily developing a more adaptive, sensible way of working and living. In The European Dream, Rifkin posits a dawning truth that only the most jingoistic can ignore: Europe's flexible, communitarian model of society, business, and citizenship is better suited to the challenges of the twenty-first century. Indeed, the European Dream may come to define the new century as the American Dream defined the century now past.

Pro-EU Americans, part 1

Two years ago, Robert Kagan taught us that America was from Mars and Europe from Venus (i.e. Americans are real guys, Europeans are sissy wimps).  While sitting in class here in the US, I heard a former representant of the US at the UN say that Europe was committing a demographic suicide (He made me think a lot about the famous "culture of death" that neo-cons fight against).
This year, the latest fahion in the US is to see the EU as growing superpower. For example, a book called The United States Of Europe: The New Superpower and the End of American Supremacy is selling well. Here's what the publisher has to say about it:

While the United States flexes its economic and military muscles around the world as the dominant global player, it may soon have company. According to the Washington Post's T.R. Reid, the nations of Europe are setting aside differences to form an entity that's gaining strength, all seemingly unbeknownst to the U.S. and its citizens. The new Europe, Reid says, "has more people, more wealth, and more trade than the United States of America," plus more leverage gained through membership in international organizations and generous foreign aid policies that reap political clout. Reid tells how European countries were willing to discontinue their individual centuries-old currencies and adopt the Euro, the monetary unit that is now a dominant force in world markets. This is noteworthy not just for exploring the considerable economic impact of the Euro, but also for what that spirit of cooperation means for every facet of Europe in the 21st century, where governments and citizens alike believe that the rewards of banding together are worth a loss in sovereignty.

If you have read it, please leave you comment!

Surprisingly, the Cato Institute dislikes the EU Constitution

American think-tanks are sometimes desperately predictable. I mean, what if neo-con groups were suddenly embracing a stronger Europe? Wouldn't they be happy to see Europeans finally act as adults, and build a proper army to defend themselves? After all, neo-cons have been criticizing Europe for its over-reliance on the US.
Well, the Cato Institute ("The Cato Institute seeks to broaden the parameters of public policy debate   to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government,   individual liberty, free markets and peace.") has decided to review the EU Constitution. Guess what? The EU Constitution is bad, the US Constitution is good:

The American Constitution is a product of the 18th century Enlightenment. (...) In contrast, the recently drafted EU constitution is a product of 20th century welfare-state socialism.

Don't tell the Cato Institute that most Enlightenment thinkers were French, they would have a heart attack.  Welfare-state is such a bad word, but this is not surprising. It is not my point of view, but it is consistent with their beliefs.

The EU's operations are expanded, not streamlined, and its bureaucracy is made more complex, not simpler. There are no cuts to the EU's 97,000 pages of accumulated laws and regulations

I heard this argument before, while in class in the US.  Well, I wonder how many regulations exist on the Federal level in the US? If a new state was joining the USA, let's imagine British Columbia, can you imagine how much text should be written in order to adapt British Colombian laws to those of the US?

If the EU is ever to approximate the stature of the United States in international affairs and global economics, the Brussels-led reasoning goes, centralized decision-making must increase.

Now, that's interesting. The article goes on saying that no limits to the federal state are given in the Constitution, and that this is the real democratic deficit. I guess this is when the subsidiarity principle is supposed to kick in.
Also interesting is that to the Cato Institute, the real goal behind the EU Constitution is to build a rival to the US.
It is true that one can read in the Constitution the influence of the welfare state and a compromise with the Euro Socialists (e.g. right to a job). I agree with the Cato Institute that this reflects a gap between the US and Europe. But I actually believe that it is the result of democracy: the elected people who crafted the text were from both the right and the left. So, it is normal to find references to socialist views. Now, whether it is a good thing or not, I will let the reader decide.