New Plan On The EU Constitution!

[Annie]

Change the name and marketing strategy. New and Improved? No, not looking for changes, they just had the name wrong. There's a winning ticket!

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/...split_on_constitution_EU_bids_to_rebrand_text

Vienna - Exactly one year after French and Dutch voters torpedoed the European Union constitution, a meeting of the bloc's foreign ministers ended Sunday with no breakthrough on resolving the crisis.

But there was a fragile emerging consensus that the text would have to be rebranded and marketed under a new PR strategy to win over deeply sceptical voters.

'I assume this question will come up...should we change the name of it,' said European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, adding: 'If someone finds a better name, great.'

All 25 EU member states must give a green light for the constitution to enter into force.

This is why the 'no' votes in France and the Netherlands pitched the EU into what German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier described as 'one of the deepest crises' the bloc has ever faced.

But getting the EU back on track will take time.

Steinmeier said he expected debate over how to repackage a new treaty to last through June 2007, with a text hopefully in place by 2009.

This could be the deal EU leaders will endorse when they meet for their June 15 to 16 summit in Brussels.

Marking the start of what appears to be an effort to rebrand the constitution, Steinmeier said Germany would be happy to rename the entire project.

'Substance is the key and form is less significant,' he said.

The German constitution, noted Steinmeier, is not even called a constitution but rather the Grundgesetz, or 'Basic Law'.

'But it has the same legal status,' he said, hinting that this could be Berlin's strategy during the German EU presidency next year.

The very word 'constitution' seems to have become so laden with negative connotations that governments are desperately seeking any other label for a document badly needed to streamline decision-making in an expanding EU.

Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn proposed renaming the constitution an 'EU Basic Treaty'.

Dutch Foreign Minister Bernard Bot, whose country has taken a tough line against moves to resurrect the defeated treaty in its old form, said: 'I do not believe it makes sense to talk about the 'constitution' any longer.'

The meeting of EU foreign and European affairs ministers at the 12th century Klosterneuburg Abbey outside Vienna came after a year of bitter squabbles over how, as Steinmeier put it, to 'give Europe a soul again.'

A key problem has been that the constitutional issue is entangled with fading EU support for further enlargement following planned admission of Bulgaria and Romania to the bloc in 2007 or 2008.

The current EU voting system has only been set up for 27 members, meaning some revamped treaty must be put into place for the Union to take in aspiring members such as Croatia and other states from the western Balkans.

However, countries such as France, the Netherlands and Denmark are demanding the bloc's 'absorption capacity' be taken into account before admitting any new members to the elite club.

Such demands raise a big question mark over whether the EU will ever expand beyond 27 members - with or without a new constitution.

 

[ErikViking]

Change the name and marketing strategy. New and Improved? No, not looking for changes, they just had the name wrong. There's a winning ticket!

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/...split_on_constitution_EU_bids_to_rebrand_text

A bit off topic, but you seem to read alot about the EU.
When you think of EU, do you think of it as the American union? I mean like our countries would be like states in a federation? I guess it is hard to express a feeling, but from my point of view America is 100% united and the different states are more an historical thing. The EU on the other hand seems more like a thin set of rules between countries with very different goals and standards. But some people compare EU with USA as a concept.

I do think the world would benefit from a (quite) united europe for the balance of both economy, resources, military and cultural reasons. Does this somehow sounds intimidating in America? Is EU disliked over there, as an ambition?

 

[Annie]

A bit off topic, but you seem to read alot about the EU.
When you think of EU, do you think of it as the American union? I mean like our countries would be like states in a federation? I guess it is hard to express a feeling, but from my point of view America is 100% united and the different states are more an historical thing. The EU on the other hand seems more like a thin set of rules between countries with very different goals and standards. But some people compare EU with USA as a concept.

I do think the world would benefit from a (quite) united europe for the balance of both economy, resources, military and cultural reasons. Does this somehow sounds intimidating in America? Is EU disliked over there, as an ambition?

I don't think many here, I mean in the US, give thought to the EU. Personally, if they were to organize themselves along a model of the US, they might stand a chance, but that isn't going to happen, for all the differences you enumerated. These are nation states, not states, in the way we think of our states. I have no problem with however they were to join themselves, if they could. If they could actually lie down a federal system, with seperation of powers, and balance of power, they might stand a chance.

I would suggest if you are interested to read the Federalist Papers, you will see how the framers came to recognize the concerns of the people, then explained how their concerns were addressed, often imperfectly, but certainly addressed. That's missing from the EU Constitution, to the best of my reading. If you read them, one of the major areas of contention was known to be the differences in population and size of the states. One doesn't need to be a lawyer in reading the EU Constitution, to see that the smaller states will not be equal, certainly newer members will be subordinate. I think the people got that.

Problem as I see it here, totally not concerned with it, is to attempt such a plan, without true federalism. There is not equality amoungst the members, France and Germany play by different rules. Some of their 'smaller, aligned' neighbors, wonder if that won't help them. A country like England, even Ireland, would have to consider long and hard. Yet the English seemed more amenable to the constitution than the French, an interesting development indeed.

Lord knows our country doesn't work perfectly, we had a very bloody war, yet it pales in length, hostility, and bad will with all of the European wars over a much longer length of time. For so many Europeans that pooh poohed the Civil War, I wonder if they have thought of the 100 Years or 30 Years wars as two instances of their own civil wars, for far more mercenary purposes than either side harbored in our Civil War?

Now you have the main players saying that the whole problem was marketing? :shocked: Sorry, that doesn't fly. I read through quite a lot of the EU Constitution, massive sucker for sure. The writing is very convoluted, not impossible to make out, but very time consuming.

Talk about 'Big Brother'! Unbelievable, marketing is not the problem, even given most Europeans comfort with a socialist system. I think people 'sensed' in the length the possible danger of a 'super government.'

 

[ErikViking]

I don't think many here, I mean in the US, give thought to the EU. Personally, if they were to organize themselves along a model of the US, they might stand a chance, but that isn't going to happen, for all the differences you enumerated. These are nation states, not states, in the way we think of our states. I have no problem with however they were to join themselves, if they could. If they could actually lie down a federal system, with seperation of powers, and balance of power, they might stand a chance.

I would suggest if you are interested to read the Federalist Papers, you will see how the framers came to recognize the concerns of the people, then explained how their concerns were addressed, often imperfectly, but certainly addressed. That's missing from the EU Constitution, to the best of my reading. If you read them, one of the major areas of contention was known to be the differences in population and size of the states. One doesn't need to be a lawyer in reading the EU Constitution, to see that the smaller states will not be equal, certainly newer members will be subordinate. I think the people got that.

Problem as I see it here, totally not concerned with it, is to attempt such a plan, without true federalism. There is not equality amoungst the members, France and Germany play by different rules. Some of their 'smaller, aligned' neighbors, wonder if that won't help them. A country like England, even Ireland, would have to consider long and hard. Yet the English seemed more amenable to the constitution than the French, an interesting development indeed.

Lord knows our country doesn't work perfectly, we had a very bloody war, yet it pales in length, hostility, and bad will with all of the European wars over a much longer length of time. For so many Europeans that pooh poohed the Civil War, I wonder if they have thought of the 100 Years or 30 Years wars as two instances of their own civil wars, for far more mercenary purposes than either side harbored in our Civil War?

Now you have the main players saying that the whole problem was marketing? :shocked: Sorry, that doesn't fly. I read through quite a lot of the EU Constitution, massive sucker for sure. The writing is very convoluted, not impossible to make out, but very time consuming.

Talk about 'Big Brother'! Unbelievable, marketing is not the problem, even given most Europeans comfort with a socialist system. I think people 'sensed' in the length the possible danger of a 'super government.'

Hey, this was a sound input!
I think you cover some very important facts (as well as giving a general "feeling"). I don't know about the future, but an EU by American model seems, as you said, impossible. And the leight weight trade-only agreements doesn't cover things like culture and military areas. I think EU will reach a point where it might function to a degree and stability can be achieved, but not to the point where we define ourselves as Europeans before nationality. Like you do.

Interesting about the civil war too. Not many people care to look more than 20 years back to see why we are what we are. But since what people did 300 years ago still affects us and should be taken in to consideration now and then. Especially in europe, where nationality was forced upon ethnical groups like 500 years ago and the scars are still visible.

But as for EU, it is needed anyway. Single nations of europe can't be an effective partner in trade with neither America, China or any other major market. And not many nations of europe can act as an ally in times of war or unsecurity (like now) with any substance either.

 

[Annie]

Hey, this was a sound input!
I think you cover some very important facts (as well as giving a general "feeling"). I don't know about the future, but an EU by American model seems, as you said, impossible. And the leight weight trade-only agreements doesn't cover things like culture and military areas. I think EU will reach a point where it might function to a degree and stability can be achieved, but not to the point where we define ourselves as Europeans before nationality. Like you do.

Interesting about the civil war too. Not many people care to look more than 20 years back to see why we are what we are. But since what people did 300 years ago still affects us and should be taken in to consideration now and then. Especially in europe, where nationality was forced upon ethnical groups like 500 years ago and the scars are still visible.

But as for EU, it is needed anyway. Single nations of europe can't be an effective partner in trade with neither America, China or any other major market. And not many nations of europe can act as an ally in times of war or unsecurity (like now) with any substance either.

Well thank you, I'm glad I didn't come off sounding 'condescending', sometimes that happens, when it's not meant.

I think perhaps there could be an 'economic alliance' of Europe, to be 'one' in trade negotiations, joining us more often for free markets/open markets, etc. I think that would be a boon to all European states. Problem is 'your' troublemakers/crooks/whatever you wish to name them. France and Germany have to treat the others as equals, to me that has been the most significant problem faced within the EU.

Military seems for the forseeable future, something EU and most member states do not wish to address, with the notable exception of UK. France under Chirac seems to assume nukes as their first and last defense. Germany has mostly gone totally pacificist, which may not be a bad thing. My guess is that if their was an EU 'military alliance' the citizens of most countries would really pitch fits, that made the marches of France look laid back. Eastern Europe I think, has the right mindset, but not the money-in an alliance or out of one.

 

[ErikViking]

Well thank you, I'm glad I didn't come off sounding 'condescending', sometimes that happens, when it's not meant.

I think perhaps there could be an 'economic alliance' of Europe, to be 'one' in trade negotiations, joining us more often for free markets/open markets, etc. I think that would be a boon to all European states. Problem is 'your' troublemakers/crooks/whatever you wish to name them. France and Germany have to treat the others as equals, to me that has been the most significant problem faced within the EU.

Military seems for the forseeable future, something EU and most member states do not wish to address, with the notable exception of UK. France under Chirac seems to assume nukes as their first and last defense. Germany has mostly gone totally pacificist, which may not be a bad thing. My guess is that if their was an EU 'military alliance' the citizens of most countries would really pitch fits, that made the marches of France look laid back. Eastern Europe I think, has the right mindset, but not the money-in an alliance or out of one.

You have insight, it shows. I think it is intressting to hear what people from the "outside" says. They usually have the horizon in the picture and not the head down in the mud, so to say. (Did that make sense!?!)

 

[Annie]

You have insight, it shows. I think it is intressting to hear what people from the "outside" says. They usually have the horizon in the picture and not the head down in the mud, so to say. (Did that make sense!?!)

Perfect sense. Well I'm glad we discussed, I found it interesting.

 

[ErikViking]

Perfect sense. Well I'm glad we discussed, I found it interesting.

Heh, cheers!

 

[aeromit]

It is not right to see EU as one federal union... even in the future. YOu know the union has been founded when European nations were in search of how to prevent another war. The integration passed a long way... more than 50 years. But member states are not ready to transfer more sovereignty to Brussels.

The main objective of course is EU to have common foreign and defence policy. This however puts on discussion the future of NATO and Transatlantic relations. I believe it is good for US and EU to have very strong relations on security and defence issues.

 

[Matrixx8]

Now you have the main players saying that the whole problem was marketing? :shocked: Sorry, that doesn't fly. I read through quite a lot of the EU Constitution, massive sucker for sure. The writing is very convoluted, not impossible to make out, but very time consuming.

Talk about 'Big Brother'! Unbelievable, marketing is not the problem, even given most Europeans comfort with a socialist system. I think people 'sensed' in the length the possible danger of a 'super government.'

The EU constitution is hardly new. Generally speaking, it is simply a collection of all the treaties that are currently in existence. It defines a confederation, not a federation, of nation-states. The individual states can opt out of certain provisions, such as currency, Social Charter and open borders, for example.

This is why it is a question of marketing, not substance. I just watched the results of a poll on Dutch TV a year after the "nee" vote. Most people seem to feel the same way now. The reasons they gave for voting against the constitution had nothing to do with the contents of the document. It seemed to reflect a general fear of increased costs, increased bureaucracy, cheap labor crossing borders and similar perceived threats.

The French street polls suggest that many rejected the constitution because it favored business interests over social interests -- not at all a "socialist" document, as you characterize it.

In fact, if you look at the Heritage Foundation's. Economic Freedom Index, you will see that six of the top ten countries on the index are European. The U.S. is number 11.

In the Netherlands, for example, even the post office has been privatized. This varies from country to country. However, the UK -- with socialized medicine -- is still number six on Heritage's list.

In any case, the "marketing" talk is because the basic objections to the constitution in Holland and France are mainly perceived problems. Real issues such bureaucracy or specific market regulations can only be dealt with once the constitution has been ratified.

The referendum in the Netherlands, by the way, is not binding. The NL could ratify despite the public sentiment, but I doubt that this will happen. I do think, however, that it will not be that difficult to change people's minds on this issue. Most other countries will ratify automatically without a referendum.

Of course, if problems still persist, the EU could threaten to expel countries that do not ratify the constitution. Given the fact that the benefits of EU membership far outweigh non-membership, I suspect that such a "marketing" tool might be quite effective.

And yes, I favor membership but, as a U.S. citizen, I am not allowed to vote. But my wife and three children are my proxies (if I market it properly)!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Matrix, it's substance you oaf. The people don't want and don't need another layer of government. Do you believe your own lies?

 

[Matrixx8]

Matrix, it's substance you oaf. The people don't want and don't need another layer of government. Do you believe your own lies?

I guess you missed my point. The "new" EU constitution is not really new at all. It is a compilation of all EU treaties ratified to date.

If you see new substance in the text that I missed, please point it out.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, I suggest that you get your facts straight before you distort them.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I guess you missed my point. The "new" EU constitution is not really new at all. It is a compilation of all EU treaties ratified to date.

If you see new substance in the text that I missed, please point it out.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, I suggest that you get your facts straight before you distort them.

I wasn't referring to the components of the constitution. First of all, so stfu.

If that's all it is, why do you need another layer of government? The people will never accept it. They're sick of tyranny. They don't want your new world order.

 

[Matrixx8]

I wasn't referring to the components of the constitution. First of all, so stfu.

If that's all it is, why do you need another layer of government? The people will never accept it. They're sick of tyranny. They don't want your new world order.

Thirteen European countries have already ratified and another three are expected to shortly. Two have rejected. That leaves seven countries, which are now waiting to see what the further ratification process will be.

The entire process is very similar to the ratification process of the U.S. Constitution, which was very controversial, as you may recall.

When you use the word "tyranny" to describe the highly developed secular democracies of the EU, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Thirteen European countries have already ratified and another three are expected to shortly. Two have rejected. That leaves seven countries, which are now waiting to see what the further ratification process will be.

The entire process is very similar to the ratification process of the U.S. Constitution, which was very controversial, as you may recall.

When you use the word "tyranny" to describe the highly developed secular democracies of the EU, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

It will never happen. Sorry. The people are on to your new world order, totalitarian tricks. Get a day job.