EU with a new constitution?

[SlyHunter]

Among Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s many contributions to the conduct and character of American security policy was his introduction last year of the term “New Europe.” With just two words, he deftly parried those who inveighed against U.S. action in Iraq absent Franco-German approval by observing that the French and Germans (together with their poodles, the Belgians and Luxemburgois) do not speak for all Europeans – and most especially not for those Central and East European newcomers to freedom, who remembered all too well the Saddam-like totalitarianism of the Soviet Empire.

This indisputable fact prompted outrage and protests from Paris and Berlin and scorn from U.S. press and intellectual elites. John Kerry seems to have it in mind when he engages in mantra-like repetition of his charge that the Bush Administration’s foreign policy is “the most arrogant” in memory. Yet, the discomfort Secretary Rumsfeld caused seemed to delight most Americans, only too pleased to have an opportunity to twit the sanctimonious Old Europeans and their devotees.

Unfortunately, Old Europe is poised to have the last laugh. The European Union is about to foist a draft constitution on all of its New European members and Great Britain that will virtually ensure that, from now on, the French and Germans will be able, among other things, to enforce a single foreign and defense policy. Inevitably, the party line will more closely resemble their anti-American predilections than the trans-Atlantic reflexes of our traditional and new-found friends there.

If the EU Constitution becomes binding on all member nations – including those of New Europe who will shortly become full-fledged members, we are unlikely ever again to see the sort of independent, let alone reliable, support for America that has been among the finest moments in Great Britain’s storied history. It is hard to imagine Winston Churchill or Margaret Thatcher allowing their country’s foreign – or for that matter any other – policy to be dictated by the Continent’s political lowest-common-denominator, let alone by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels.

Neither, one would think, would Tony Blair. And yet, Mr. Blair displays in this matter the addled socialist tendencies of Old Labor (a legacy the prime minister sought to obscure when he first ran for that office by dubbing his party “New Labor”) that have made his robustness on combating terror all the more extraordinary. He is actively campaigning for the surrender of British sovereignty and seems convinced that, all other things being equal, he will succeed in foisting the EU Constitution on the people of Great Britain, perhaps via an election and referendum later this year.

The negative implications for the United States are not hard to discern. The front page of Sunday’s New York Times featured an article about American judges discovering to their surprise that international tribunals are second-guessing and in some cases overruling their decisions. Georgetown Law Professor John Echeverria told the Times, “This is the biggest threat to United States judicial independence that no one has heard of and even fewer people understand.”

Although the article’s focus was on obscure courts created by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a similar interference in our jurisprudence is predictable as the European Court of Justice (ECJ) flexes its muscle. Last fall, the Conservative Party’s “shadow” Attorney General and Minister for Constitutional Affairs, Member of Parliament Bill Cash, observed: “Together with legal personality for the [European] Union, [the creation of an ECJ capable of defining its own jurisdiction] would turn the Union from a creature of the member states into their master.” He could have added, it may become the master of non-member states, as well.

After all, even without a constitution, the European Union has been hurting U.S. interests. Its trade bureaucracy has taken to disallowing mergers between some U.S. companies and levying immense fines on others. Its Galileo satellite navigation system is being designed not only to compete with the American GPS, but to interfere with its signals. And a new, autonomous European army is taking shape outside of NATO. Inevitably, it will compete for resources and otherwise serve to undermine the Atlantic Alliance.

Bad as things may be at the moment, though, the vital interests of the United States will be even worse served by a constitution that authorizes the European Court of Justice to see to it that New Europe, Great Britain and all other member states will “actively and unreservedly support the Union’s common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity....[and] ensure that their national policies conform to the positions of the Union.” It behooves the Bush Administration to help its Polish, British and other real friends across the pond to strangle this Old Europe monster in its crib.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/frankjgaffneyjr/fg20040421.shtml

[miloblithe]

I like that the authors of this article like to use metaphors like strangling babies in cribs. Nice.

The authors also seem not to understand EU voting structure and other technicalities. But overall, imagine, Europeans wanting a structure that will promote their interests in international trade and law. Unbelievable.

[mactastic]

Note the 'scorn from the press' they complain about right before they call Belgium and Luxumburg the 'poodles' of France and Germany. Nice touch of hipocrisy.

[amnesiac1984]

and how dare they put Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher in the same sentence. She was an evil right wing crone.

After all, even without a constitution, the European Union has been hurting U.S. interests. Its trade bureaucracy has taken to disallowing mergers between some U.S. companies and levying immense fines on others. Its Galileo satellite navigation system is being designed not only to compete with the American GPS, but to interfere with its signals.

I don't know where this article came from, but probably out of somebody's backside.

This exactly the kind of ************ that makes us angry at the states, and has done for many years.

The American GPS system is controlled entirely by the US military, but civilian and commercial shipping as well as car nav systems rely on it. Can we rely on the US military to keep it on? What happens if there is some sort of threat, will they just turn it off, leaving hundreds of ships and yachts left to navigate blindly into the rocks? It also is not nearly accurate enough for our needs as the US military scrambles the signal. We need Galileo because it will be a civilian system for civilians with their interests at heart. I've read many articles on Galileo in both international yachting magazines and New Scientist, none of them mentioned that it will interfere with GPS. Anyway, galileo will be far more accurate so everybody should switch to it anyway. But Americans won't because they're so ****ing "Patriotic", jeez when will you guys learn that we all live on the same ****ing planet!

edit: this is not a sweeping attack at Americans, jsut at a certain type of American. I think you know what I mean.

[takao]

haha thanks SlyHunter that article was perhaps the most funny thing i read today...

just... can't... stop.... grinning.... :D

[Ugg]

Whoever wrote that is so clueless about the realities in Europe today. If you really believe this Slyhunter, you are being grossly misled. Why don't you start reading some of the European press to see what they have to say about it all. I think you would be astounded by what is really happening there, that is if you are interested in the reality of the situation instead of some deluded American rightwinger's interpretation of reality

[Sayhey]

I don't read SlyHunter's posts anymore, but I can tell by the discussion it is more of the same "quality." I'm very interested in Blair's turnabout on a referendum and what it will mean for the new constitution. Is this his way of trying to scuttle the constitution without actually paying the price with the rest of Europe for doing so? Or is this just a way to divorce the fate of the constitution from his own?

I understand there are many who are skeptical about the supposed "loss of control" to Brussels, but from way over her on the left coast of North America it seems that much of what is being proposed is very good. I'd love to hear from our European members (or anyone with some knowledge on the subject) what they are thinking.

[amnesiac1984]

I don't read SlyHunter's posts anymore, but I can tell by the discussion it is more of the same "quality." I'm very interested in Blair's turnabout on a referendum and what it will mean for the new constitution. Is this his way of trying to scuttle the constitution without actually paying the price with the rest of Europe for doing so? Or is this just a way to divorce the fate of the constitution from his own?

I understand there are many who are skeptical about the supposed "loss of control" to Brussels, but from way over her on the left coast of North America it seems that much of what is being proposed is very good. I'd love to hear from our European members (or anyone with some knowledge on the subject) what they are thinking.

I'm not sure what I think. I'v ebeen spending too much time on here complaining about American politics and I kind of don't know what to think. I'm scared that I'll here some biased viewpoint from the media and go with that, there needs to be some decent discussion about it on here, cos when we have a referendum It will be the first thing I vote on (I'm 19)

[whocares]

-SlyHunter

Why don't you restrict your political posts towards something you may actually understand: US politics.

[poopyhead]

The negative implications for the United States are not hard to discern. The front page of Sunday’s New York Times featured an article about American judges discovering to their surprise that international tribunals are second-guessing and in some cases overruling their decisions. Georgetown Law Professor John Echeverria told the Times, “This is the biggest threat to United States judicial independence that no one has heard of and even fewer people understand.”

Although the article’s focus was on obscure courts created by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a similar interference in our jurisprudence is predictable as the European Court of Justice (ECJ) flexes its muscle. Last fall, the Conservative Party’s “shadow” Attorney General and Minister for Constitutional Affairs, Member of Parliament Bill Cash, observed: “Together with legal personality for the [European] Union, [the creation of an ECJ capable of defining its own jurisdiction] would turn the Union from a creature of the member states into their master.” He could have added, it may become the master of non-member states, as well.



shouldn't you consider this a good thing
Republicans and others right of center have long been complaining about judicial activism and the problems of an independent judiciary
this would seem to fix the problem
subservient american courts which would pander to the "tyranny of the masses" albeit un US american masses should be seen as a positive by republicans. right?

slyhunter
I appreciate your posts
if nothing else they have helped me to better define my opinions
I don't typically agree with them and some times the number is anoying
but I'm sure most people feel the same way about me

[takao]

I understand there are many who are skeptical about the supposed "loss of control" to Brussels, but from way over her on the left coast of North America it seems that much of what is being proposed is very good. I'd love to hear from our European members (or anyone with some knowledge on the subject) what they are thinking.

i think positive about the development of a constitution for the EU, but it is far from being final (at the moment there is no EU constitution as far as i understand the word "constitution" which means "Verfassung" in German, the last conference about the further development failed...) i think this will take a lot more years (i guess at least 5 , but 10 or more would be more realistic)

i think the biggest problems are with the individual constitutions of the different countries

example: the austrian constitution has the point of neutrality which means in the case of a war austria cannot join an other group of nations to fight with (execption: self defence of country) ...there is still a big discussion in the media press etc. if this is still true after austria joined the EU and if austria should join a Eu Army (polls showed that about 60 are against that)

[Sayhey]

i think positive about the development of a constitution for the EU, but it is far from being final (at the moment there is no EU constitution as far as i understand the word "constitution" which means "Verfassung" in German, the last conference about the further development failed...) i think this will take a lot more years (i guess at least 5 , but 10 or more would be more realistic)

i think the biggest problems are with the individual constitutions of the different countries

example: the austrian constitution has the point of neutrality which means in the case of a war austria cannot join an other group of nations to fight with (execption: self defence of country) ...there is still a big discussion in the media press etc. if this is still true after austria joined the EU and if austria should join a Eu Army (polls showed that about 60 are against that)

My understanding is that there is likely to be an agreement on the EU constitution in the next month or two. The change of the government in Spain and the change in position of the Polish government removed the obstacles to the agreement on the draft. That does not mean there won't be any changes in the present draft - there almost certainly will, particularly on the 55-55 double majority proposal from Germany and some moves to mollify Tony Blair's "red lines." The current President, Ireland's Bertie Ahern, has pledge to push for the constitutional agreement before the end of his term on June 30th. All of this supposes that, with the change of Prime Minister in Poland on May 2nd, there will not be a new government that refuses to accept a compromise.

takao, you raise an important point about Austria's constitution and the proposed creation of a EU defense force. Do you think this would stop Austria from adopting the constitution? Also do you think Austria will follow Blair's lead and put it up for a referendum vote?

edit: for those who don't know what this is all about check out the following site:

Draft EU Constitution and History (http://europa.eu.int/futurum/index_en.htm)

[takao]

takao, you raise an important point about Austria's constitution and the proposed creation of a EU defense force. Do you think this would stop Austria from adopting the constitution? Also do you think Austria will follow Blair's lead and put it up for a referendum vote?

i doubt the actual austrian government would try to stop a Eu defense force ..they are in favour for a Eu Army it instead of joining the nato but they are split up too... but they are rather neutral in their opinion towards the Eu
if they loose the next election and the socials are back in power it won't change because the socials are _absolutly_ pro-EU...so i doubt it make a difference at all

a United EU - Army would be a real advantage for all countries (IMHO) in the EU... at the moment every country has to buy it's own tanks,air defense fighters,mountain infantry etc.etc.
with a United Army resources can be shared : airports, training grounds,training staff,and even military equipment like radar facilites,airplanes,ships... etc.
i absolutley support this idea

[skunk]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/frankjgaffneyjr/fg20040421.shtml
If the EU Constitution becomes binding on all member nations – including those of New Europe who will shortly become full-fledged members, we are unlikely ever again to see the sort of independent, let alone reliable, support for America that has been among the finest moments in Great Britain’s storied history.
I especially love this bit: like the way WE supported YOU at Waterloo and Trafalgar. Or were they thinking of WWI and WWII? :rolleyes:
Where DO they find these people? :eek:

[skunk]

with a United Army resources can be shared : airports, training grounds,training staff,and even military equipment like radar facilites,airplanes,ships... etc.
i absolutley support this idea
Austrian Navy? Where?

[numediaman]

It's been fun reading through this one. Mr. Gaffney, the author of this silly article, is not a very credible authority -- as you may suspect. He is the President of The Center for Security Policy -- an organization that has a motto straight out of the 50's: Promoting Peace Through Strength.

Here is the story on their web page today:
Bin Laden tape shows al Qaeda strategy depending on 'peace' movements

Bin Laden makes protesters part of his strategy

Borrowing a page from North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap, Osama bin Laden is making the US and European "peace" movement an instrument of his strategy . . .

These guys are in a time warp. They think it is still the Vietnam war. And this time we are going to win, so long as we shut up those damn protesters!

[Sayhey]

Austrian Navy? Where?

very funny, cheap shot, my friend. I think we all know Austria is a landlocked country. He was talking about the combination of European forces, including naval forces, that could save money for individual countries. No mention of an Austrian Navy.

What do you think about a EU force? I know that Rumsfeld was in Europe not too long ago, lecturing everyone about how this was a threat to NATO. Personally, I think it is a great idea for missions like Bosnia or peacekeeping missions outside of Europe.

Do you think the proposed constitution is a good thing? Do you the UK should have a referendum on it?

[skunk]

very funny, cheap shot, my friend. I think we all know Austria is a landlocked country.
Must...stop...making...Austrian...Navy...jokes! :p


What do you think about a EU force? I know that Rumsfeld was in Europe not too long ago, lecturing everyone about how this was a threat to NATO. Personally, I think it is a great idea for missions like Bosnia or peacekeeping missions outside of Europe.
If ever anyone could agree on what to DO with such a force, it could be useful. But the line of command would probably be very tortuous, so I think peacekeeping would be its only useful function.

Do you think the proposed constitution is a good thing? Do you the UK should have a referendum on it?
Yes, if only to flush the terms out into the open: nobody here has a clue what it's about, including me, to be honest. I'm obviously going to have to wade my way through it sooner or later. :(

[Sayhey]

Yes, if only to flush the terms out into the open: nobody here has a clue what it's about, including me, to be honest. I'm obviously going to have to wade my way through it sooner or later. :(

I don't envy you reading the draft constitution. It is hardly inspiring reading, but the integration of Europe seems to me to be a very important development for not only Europe but the world. When you do read it post what you think, I'd like to read what you have to say.

[skunk]

I don't envy you reading the draft constitution. It is hardly inspiring reading, but the integration of Europe seems to me to be a very important development for not only Europe but the world. When you do read it post what you think, I'd like to read what you have to say.
I have just read it. I am appalled. The whole thing seems to be a monumental, wasteful fudge. A President elected by the heads of state or government? Why do we need some superannuated old buffoon whom all states from Lithuania to Malta will be happy with? Who is he or she going to represent, and why? Another wreath for the Unknown Soldier?
The whole proposed voting system looks a complete shambles, and as for anything useful coming out of an agreed "Foreign Policy": don't make me laugh!
I shall be voting NO. :( :mad:

[takao]

Austrian Navy? Where?

on the Danube .... serisouly... 3-4 fast patrol boats for controlling transport/passengerships at the borders in cooperation with the multiple police boats...

every boat eqipped with a few 2-3 cannons with calibers ranging from 20 to 40 mm and each with a couple of heavy machine guns

no aircraft carriers but still a navy ;)

austria would supply other things like world class mountain infantry and first class helicopter pilots..and i guess a lot of equipment which is usefull ....

[skunk]

and i guess a lot of equipment which is usefull ....
World-class leather trousers? :rolleyes:

PS I'm only having fun. Some of my best friends are Austrian... :)