Re: EU Constitution, yes or no?

Anneke Andriessen wrote:

> J.M. wrote:
>> Anneke Andriessen wrote:
>>
>>> Nils Zonneveld wrote:
>>>> Next year we get to vote on a referendum whether the Netherlands
>>>> should approve of the proposed EU Constitution or not.
>>>>
>>>> I'm really in doubt. I want a more democratic EU. The proposed EU
>>>> constitution could give more of that, but far from enough. We also
>>>> had a stability pact for the Euro which has proven worthless. Why
>>>> should we give consent to another set of deals if the big countries
>>>> don't give a shit about deals when it's inconvenient to them?
>>>>
>>>> In the proposed constitution power still isn't fully checked by
>>>> directly chosen representatives. To change that you'll need an
>>>> unanimous vote of all (soon to be 25!) member states. That means it
>>>> will be impossible to amend the constitution.
>>>>
>>>> At the other hand, if we vote no, we return to the present status
>>>> quo, which is also far from perfect.
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts about it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nils
>>>
>>> There is no regulation in preventing the "headrunners" Germany
>>> France and UK to colonize in a legal sense all smaller EU countries.
>>> Now come again where this EU constitution would not collide with
>>> national juriprudence? Where in national constitutions does it say
>>> that in case of colllision with the EU
>>> constitution the national constitution prevails?  This would be the
>>> beginning of a democratic EU.
>>>
>>> Anneke
>>
>>
>> Hardly. The beginning of a democratic EU would be if the EP had real
>> power and to have clear cut responsbilities belonging to the EU and
>> to the member states. Giving the national constitutions priority over
>> an EU constitution makes no sense as it would make the EU entirely
>> dysfunctional.
> 
> Its about where does an EU constitution derive its' power from. I propose
> building bridges in stead of a unilateral European dictatorship.

All government derives its power ultimately from the people - whether local,
national or European government. The only important question is: given a
certain problem or policy, which part of the government is most suited in
dealing with this. Once decided that a certain part of government is best
suited to deal with this, its decisions should be binding for all. In other
words, it may be best for local authorities to decide (without interference
from national or European authorities) how land should be used: for
industry, for housing, for agriculture, etc. Similarly, it is probably best
for national authorities to set rules for pension plans. It is probably
best for the EU to set air pollution standards. In each case, each
authority should set these rules/standards by a democratic process. But
once it is done, it should be binding and no other authority should be
allowed to veto that.

Jan
> 
> Anneke
> 
> A country could simply refuse to abide by any EU
>> decision by adopting its national constitution appropriately, so
>> effectively all EU rules would be suggestions, not laws. A common
>> market or any union can hardly work under those circumstances.
>>
>> Jan