The new European Constitution

[Forsythe]

The European Constitution

Might be uncalled for, but this thread is meant for general, critisiscm and worship of the constitution. I find many of the other threads go into other subjects.
And i just wanted everyone to have the opportunity to easily find the constitution.

And as i've said before, this isn't a normal constitution. This is a constitution for the Eu, which dictates how the Eu should behave, and what rights of controll it has. It's like this since every country affected by this, already has its own constitution.

 

[Czar]

My biggest gripe about it comes form my own perspective, that is the control over fishing is in the hands of a EU council for member countries. Which basicly means that Iceland and Norway will never ever join the EU if they have to hand over control over one of their biggest industries to the EU.

The quote the EU council will set is partly political. They set the number of tons can be fished each year and then distribute the quota to the other countries. The quota can for example the UK fisheries can be distributed between UK, Denmark, Spain and Portugal even though it should be under UK control.

There is obviosly a need for a better control over fisheries since they have for the most part been in decline for the past decades. But for Iceland which has the most successful fishing policy in the world to hand over a good system to an untried one is foolish.

The worst is that if this becomes a part of the EU constitution then changing that policy to make it possibly for Iceland and Norway to join is extremely hard, or I would say, impossible.

The compromise would be that the EU sets the total quota with a recomendation from the country which the fishiers belong to and then it is totaly under the countries power to distribute the quota either just to themselves or split it up to other nations.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Czar
My biggest gripe about it comes form my own perspective, that is the control over fishing is in the hands of a EU council for member countries. Which basicly means that Iceland and Norway will never ever join the EU if they have to hand over control over one of their biggest industries to the EU.

The quote the EU council will set is partly political. They set the number of tons can be fished each year and then distribute the quota to the other countries. The quota can for example the UK fisheries can be distributed between UK, Denmark, Spain and Portugal even though it should be under UK control.

There is obviosly a need for a better control over fisheries since they have for the most part been in decline for the past decades. But for Iceland which has the most successful fishing policy in the world to hand over a good system to an untried one is foolish.

The worst is that if this becomes a part of the EU constitution then changing that policy to make it possibly for Iceland and Norway to join is extremely hard, or I would say, impossible.

The compromise would be that the EU sets the total quota with a recomendation from the country which the fishiers belong to and then it is totaly under the countries power to distribute the quota either just to themselves or split it up to other nations.

I'm not very much into that fishing policy But i somewhat understand your worries.
But.
The amount of fishing that can be done is set by counsel of envirmental experts, to make sure that "you" won't empty the waters of fish, and thereby eliminate your own line of work (which was happening in the seas around denmark). Afaik the amount of fish fishable is set pr part of the ocean, and not just generally.
But i know fishing is a big part of the Icelandic economy, so i understand your worries. What i can't say, however, is what the effect of joining Eu would be on Iceland.

Praise to iceland for CCP. hrm hrm...

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Czar
My biggest gripe about it comes form my own perspective, that is the control over fishing is in the hands of a EU council for member countries. Which basicly means that Iceland and Norway will never ever join the EU if they have to hand over control over one of their biggest industries to the EU.

The quote the EU council will set is partly political. They set the number of tons can be fished each year and then distribute the quota to the other countries. The quota can for example the UK fisheries can be distributed between UK, Denmark, Spain and Portugal even though it should be under UK control.

There is obviosly a need for a better control over fisheries since they have for the most part been in decline for the past decades. But for Iceland which has the most successful fishing policy in the world to hand over a good system to an untried one is foolish.

The worst is that if this becomes a part of the EU constitution then changing that policy to make it possibly for Iceland and Norway to join is extremely hard, or I would say, impossible.

The compromise would be that the EU sets the total quota with a recomendation from the country which the fishiers belong to and then it is totaly under the countries power to distribute the quota either just to themselves or split it up to other nations.

I'm not very much into that fishing policy But i somewhat understand your worries.
But.
The amount of fishing that can be done is set by counsel of envirmental experts, to make sure that "you" won't empty the waters of fish, and thereby eliminate your own line of work (which was happening in the seas around denmark). Afaik the amount of fish fishable is set pr part of the ocean, and not just generally.
But i know fishing is a big part of the Icelandic economy, so i understand your worries. What i can't say, however, is what the effect of joining Eu would be on Iceland.

Praise to iceland for CCP. hrm hrm...

Thats exactly it, "we" have been monitoring and setting our own quota for decades and have been extremely successful. Other countries have been trying to do the same with their own enviromental expert and have been, well, not as successful. Just to be polite

So thinking that the Eu will somehow do better than what their member countries have been doing is very hard to belive.

The effect joining the EU would be that the EU could declare that Iceland gets this amount of quota and the rest goes to other member countries without us having any say in the matter. Same is with norway, even though for both countries the revenue generated by the fishing industry is important but not that important since both countries have industries which are larger, but neither of them have industries that employ more people. So cutting down the quota would essentialy mean more unemployment. Not forgetting that alot of remote towns rely almost completely on fishing could be wiped out.

 

[Czar]

btw, voted that the constitution is generaly positive, because it is, just a few big gripes I have with it

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Czar
btw, voted that the constitution is generaly positive, because it is, just a few big gripes I have with it

I, admitted, am confident that if the quotas you have are succesful, they won't be changed.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Czar
btw, voted that the constitution is generaly positive, because it is, just a few big gripes I have with it

I, admitted, am confident that if the quotas you have are succesful, they won't be changed.

Thats what people say, but there is nothing in writing so it means nothing. The best offer the EU has given us is a transitional period of 5-10 years if I remember correctly.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Czar
btw, voted that the constitution is generaly positive, because it is, just a few big gripes I have with it

I, admitted, am confident that if the quotas you have are succesful, they won't be changed.

Thats what people say, but there is nothing in writing so it means nothing. The best offer the EU has given us is a transitional period of 5-10 years if I remember correctly.

Yup, well, at least i can remind you that your economy is extremely strong

 

[RabidMongoose]

I would say that it's negative as it is far too long and covers at times topics that are not necessary to be in a constitution. The idea is good, but the execution has been poor.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I would say that it's negative as it is far too long and covers at times topics that are not necessary to be in a constitution. The idea is good, but the execution has been poor.

Again, i'd have to disagree. This seems like the most worthless critisiscm i've ever heard of anything. Critisiscing(sp?) that a text is too long and that it covers more than you feel it needs has absolutely no value. Which is again, why it makes no sense. I see no reason for it to be short.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I would say that it's negative as it is far too long and covers at times topics that are not necessary to be in a constitution. The idea is good, but the execution has been poor.

Again, i'd have to disagree. This seems like the most worthless critisiscm i've ever heard of anything. Critisiscing(sp?) that a text is too long and that it covers more than you feel it needs has absolutely no value. Which is again, why it makes no sense. I see no reason for it to be short.

I see plenty of reason. Imagine how much 'interpretation' on hundreds of subjects there will be. There could be massive and complex problems when you're dealing with hundreds of pages convering hundreds of different topics.

In my opinion a Constitution should primarily cover basic human rights and laws and so forth, not ridiculous notions of 'sportsmanship' and the like. It should be short and to the point so that the people can easily understand and read it, not long, complex, and boring so that few will understand their own Constitution.

Why exactly do you think a long constitution is better?

 

[yllus]

Using What the EU constitution says as a guide:

DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES

The EU already has rights to legislate over external trade and customs policy, the internal market, the monetary policy of countries in the eurozone, agriculture and fisheries and many areas of domestic law including the environment and health and safety at work.

The constitution will extend its rights into some new areas, perhaps most importantly into justice policy, especially asylum and immigration. It does away with the old structure of pillars under which some policies came under the EU and some under "inter-governmental" arrangements.

Sounds a lot like an attempt to reduce each member country to a state/province under an overall federal ruling body. Not the worst idea in the world, continent-sized countries like Canada and the United States have done this successfully even if the economic needs and wants of one province are against those of another. We're still stronger for being together.

QUALIFIED MAJORITY VOTING (QMV)

"A qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55% of the members of the Council, comprising at least 15 of them and representing Member States comprising at least 65% of the population of the Union."

I'm not fond of the pure democracy voting model whatsoever. Marginalizing smaller population states is just asking for problems down the road.

FOREIGN AND DEFENCE POLICY

Each state will retain a right of veto [in foreign or defence policy matters] and can go its own way. There is nothing that could stop divisions over Iraq for example. The aim however is to agree on as much as possible. Defence is even more sensitive and has been ring-fenced by references to the primacy of Nato for relevant members.

This makes the worth of this constitution useless in my eyes. If you want to strength economic ties, you don't need to draft a constitution to do that. What is the point of this entire venture without centralizing some of these important powers of office?

LEGAL SUPREMACY

The EU will for the first time have a "legal personality" and its laws will trump those of national parliaments: "The Constitution and law adopted by the Union institutions in exercising competence conferred upon it by the Constitution shall have primacy over the law of the member states."

That should be acceptable to everyone. If they don't all share the same judicial values, they shouldn't be creating this new body of government anyways.

Anything important that I'm missing out on reading about?

 

[Forsythe]

Well, regarding each countries veto, this is a step towards the abolishment of that veto. Europe is still not it's own state, and that is why that is still there, so every country still has the option to say no

It's still democracy, that's what it is. Smaller states would just have to stay out of EU then.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Well, regarding each countries veto, this is a step towards the abolishment of that veto. Europe is still not it's own state, and that is why that is still there, so every country still has the option to say no

It's still democracy, that's what it is. Smaller states would just have to stay out of EU then.

You're not saying why you think a long Constitution is so grand. Any particular reasons?

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I would say that it's negative as it is far too long and covers at times topics that are not necessary to be in a constitution. The idea is good, but the execution has been poor.

Again, i'd have to disagree. This seems like the most worthless critisiscm i've ever heard of anything. Critisiscing(sp?) that a text is too long and that it covers more than you feel it needs has absolutely no value. Which is again, why it makes no sense. I see no reason for it to be short.

I see plenty of reason. Imagine how much 'interpretation' on hundreds of subjects there will be. There could be massive and complex problems when you're dealing with hundreds of pages convering hundreds of different topics.

In my opinion a Constitution should primarily cover basic human rights and laws and so forth, not ridiculous notions of 'sportsmanship' and the like. It should be short and to the point so that the people can easily understand and read it, not long, complex, and boring so that few will understand their own Constitution.

Why exactly do you think a long constitution is better?

The problems i understand, but that is something that must be overcome, and i disagree with what you're saying, that it should directly influence the constitution.

The constitution is for the lawmakers, i know americans are obsessed with your constitution, but this is just the basics of laws, it's not written for the people, that period is over. The period where people had to love and be proud of a text is over. This is written for the laws, and lawmakers. And this constitution is supposed to direct the relation between Eu, and it's member countries.

[edit]
Yup, i nearly forgot
I don't prefer a long constitution, i don't think it's better because it's longer. It covers many things, and i feel that is nescesarry(sp?), sure there might be things that could not be there, but i don't see any problems.
Including, preface asnd index, the constitution is 30 pages long. That is not long.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I would say that it's negative as it is far too long and covers at times topics that are not necessary to be in a constitution. The idea is good, but the execution has been poor.

Again, i'd have to disagree. This seems like the most worthless critisiscm i've ever heard of anything. Critisiscing(sp?) that a text is too long and that it covers more than you feel it needs has absolutely no value. Which is again, why it makes no sense. I see no reason for it to be short.

I see plenty of reason. Imagine how much 'interpretation' on hundreds of subjects there will be. There could be massive and complex problems when you're dealing with hundreds of pages convering hundreds of different topics.

In my opinion a Constitution should primarily cover basic human rights and laws and so forth, not ridiculous notions of 'sportsmanship' and the like. It should be short and to the point so that the people can easily understand and read it, not long, complex, and boring so that few will understand their own Constitution.

Why exactly do you think a long constitution is better?

The problems i understand, but that is something that must be overcome, and i disagree with what you're saying, that it should directly influence the constitution.

The constitution is for the lawmakers, i know americans are obsessed with your constitution, but this is just the basics of laws, it's not written for the people, that period is over. The period where people had to love and be proud of a text is over. This is written for the laws, and lawmakers. And this constitution is supposed to direct the relation between Eu, and it's member countries.

[edit]
Yup, i nearly forgot
I don't prefer a long constitution, i don't think it's better because it's longer. It covers many things, and i feel that is nescesarry(sp?), sure there might be things that could not be there, but i don't see any problems.
Including, preface asnd index, the constitution is 30 pages long. That is not long.

What are you talking about? The EU Constition is hundreds of pages long, not 30 pages long.

I don't think that you realize how long and cumbersome it is and the ridiculous topics that are included in this Constitution.

The fact that you don't think that the people should actually be able to understand and comprehend their own Constitution is pretty alarming as well.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I would say that it's negative as it is far too long and covers at times topics that are not necessary to be in a constitution. The idea is good, but the execution has been poor.

Again, i'd have to disagree. This seems like the most worthless critisiscm i've ever heard of anything. Critisiscing(sp?) that a text is too long and that it covers more than you feel it needs has absolutely no value. Which is again, why it makes no sense. I see no reason for it to be short.

I see plenty of reason. Imagine how much 'interpretation' on hundreds of subjects there will be. There could be massive and complex problems when you're dealing with hundreds of pages convering hundreds of different topics.

In my opinion a Constitution should primarily cover basic human rights and laws and so forth, not ridiculous notions of 'sportsmanship' and the like. It should be short and to the point so that the people can easily understand and read it, not long, complex, and boring so that few will understand their own Constitution.

Why exactly do you think a long constitution is better?

The problems i understand, but that is something that must be overcome, and i disagree with what you're saying, that it should directly influence the constitution.

The constitution is for the lawmakers, i know americans are obsessed with your constitution, but this is just the basics of laws, it's not written for the people, that period is over. The period where people had to love and be proud of a text is over. This is written for the laws, and lawmakers. And this constitution is supposed to direct the relation between Eu, and it's member countries.

[edit]
Yup, i nearly forgot
I don't prefer a long constitution, i don't think it's better because it's longer. It covers many things, and i feel that is nescesarry(sp?), sure there might be things that could not be there, but i don't see any problems.
Including, preface asnd index, the constitution is 30 pages long. That is not long.

What are you talking about? The EU Constition is hundreds of pages long, not 30 pages long.

I don't think that you realize how long and cumbersome it is and the ridiculous topics that are included in this Constitution.

The fact that you don't think that the people should actually be able to understand and comprehend their own Constitution is pretty alarming as well.

Lol, true. I was reading a readers gathered edition of the contitution, i dounf an edition to 219 pages, my mistake.

It's not a constitution for the people, and if they want to understand it, they should just read it, and what i read of it is no cumbersome. I disagree with your point that you should write a constitution to the lowest common denominator.

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I would say that it's negative as it is far too long and covers at times topics that are not necessary to be in a constitution. The idea is good, but the execution has been poor.

Again, i'd have to disagree. This seems like the most worthless critisiscm i've ever heard of anything. Critisiscing(sp?) that a text is too long and that it covers more than you feel it needs has absolutely no value. Which is again, why it makes no sense. I see no reason for it to be short.

I see plenty of reason. Imagine how much 'interpretation' on hundreds of subjects there will be. There could be massive and complex problems when you're dealing with hundreds of pages convering hundreds of different topics.

In my opinion a Constitution should primarily cover basic human rights and laws and so forth, not ridiculous notions of 'sportsmanship' and the like. It should be short and to the point so that the people can easily understand and read it, not long, complex, and boring so that few will understand their own Constitution.

Why exactly do you think a long constitution is better?

The problems i understand, but that is something that must be overcome, and i disagree with what you're saying, that it should directly influence the constitution.

The constitution is for the lawmakers, i know americans are obsessed with your constitution, but this is just the basics of laws, it's not written for the people, that period is over. The period where people had to love and be proud of a text is over. This is written for the laws, and lawmakers. And this constitution is supposed to direct the relation between Eu, and it's member countries.

[edit]
Yup, i nearly forgot
I don't prefer a long constitution, i don't think it's better because it's longer. It covers many things, and i feel that is nescesarry(sp?), sure there might be things that could not be there, but i don't see any problems.
Including, preface asnd index, the constitution is 30 pages long. That is not long.

What are you talking about? The EU Constition is hundreds of pages long, not 30 pages long.

I don't think that you realize how long and cumbersome it is and the ridiculous topics that are included in this Constitution.

The fact that you don't think that the people should actually be able to understand and comprehend their own Constitution is pretty alarming as well.

I think you are missing the point. It is not a constitution in the ordinary sense. At the moment there are several different treaties that regulate the union, the constitution was basically an attemtp to collect all of them in a single document. So AFAIK the consitution is actually much shorter than the total length of treaties. Human rights etc is included in the consitution but is strictly speaking not very important since all national consitutions that already include this (the EU constitution does not directly affect national justice systems).

There are a number of differences between the constitution and the treaties, most of them designed to make EU a more efficient; the current rules for how decisions are made were created when there were 12 (I think) member states, now there are 25 and in a few years 28; eventually there will probably be at least 32.
Btw, according to the current treaty 28 is the maximum number of members, hence in order to make it possible for more states to join a new treaty will be needed; but I guess it won't be called a "constitution".

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I would say that it's negative as it is far too long and covers at times topics that are not necessary to be in a constitution. The idea is good, but the execution has been poor.

Again, i'd have to disagree. This seems like the most worthless critisiscm i've ever heard of anything. Critisiscing(sp?) that a text is too long and that it covers more than you feel it needs has absolutely no value. Which is again, why it makes no sense. I see no reason for it to be short.

I see plenty of reason. Imagine how much 'interpretation' on hundreds of subjects there will be. There could be massive and complex problems when you're dealing with hundreds of pages convering hundreds of different topics.

In my opinion a Constitution should primarily cover basic human rights and laws and so forth, not ridiculous notions of 'sportsmanship' and the like. It should be short and to the point so that the people can easily understand and read it, not long, complex, and boring so that few will understand their own Constitution.

Why exactly do you think a long constitution is better?

The problems i understand, but that is something that must be overcome, and i disagree with what you're saying, that it should directly influence the constitution.

The constitution is for the lawmakers, i know americans are obsessed with your constitution, but this is just the basics of laws, it's not written for the people, that period is over. The period where people had to love and be proud of a text is over. This is written for the laws, and lawmakers. And this constitution is supposed to direct the relation between Eu, and it's member countries.

[edit]
Yup, i nearly forgot
I don't prefer a long constitution, i don't think it's better because it's longer. It covers many things, and i feel that is nescesarry(sp?), sure there might be things that could not be there, but i don't see any problems.
Including, preface asnd index, the constitution is 30 pages long. That is not long.

What are you talking about? The EU Constition is hundreds of pages long, not 30 pages long.

I don't think that you realize how long and cumbersome it is and the ridiculous topics that are included in this Constitution.

The fact that you don't think that the people should actually be able to understand and comprehend their own Constitution is pretty alarming as well.

Lol, true. I was reading a readers gathered edition of the contitution, i dounf an edition to 219 pages, my mistake.

It's not a constitution for the people, and if they want to understand it, they should just read it, and what i read of it is no cumbersome. I disagree with your point that you should write a constitution to the lowest common denominator.

The people are not the 'lowest common denominator'.

I suggest that you read up on this issue and read some of this Consititution and the ridiculous topics that it covers in it.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I would say that it's negative as it is far too long and covers at times topics that are not necessary to be in a constitution. The idea is good, but the execution has been poor.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I would say that it's negative as it is far too long and covers at times topics that are not necessary to be in a constitution. The idea is good, but the execution has been poor.

Again, i'd have to disagree. This seems like the most worthless critisiscm i've ever heard of anything. Critisiscing(sp?) that a text is too long and that it covers more than you feel it needs has absolutely no value. Which is again, why it makes no sense. I see no reason for it to be short.

I see plenty of reason. Imagine how much 'interpretation' on hundreds of subjects there will be. There could be massive and complex problems when you're dealing with hundreds of pages convering hundreds of different topics.

In my opinion a Constitution should primarily cover basic human rights and laws and so forth, not ridiculous notions of 'sportsmanship' and the like. It should be short and to the point so that the people can easily understand and read it, not long, complex, and boring so that few will understand their own Constitution.

Why exactly do you think a long constitution is better?

The problems i understand, but that is something that must be overcome, and i disagree with what you're saying, that it should directly influence the constitution.

The constitution is for the lawmakers, i know americans are obsessed with your constitution, but this is just the basics of laws, it's not written for the people, that period is over. The period where people had to love and be proud of a text is over. This is written for the laws, and lawmakers. And this constitution is supposed to direct the relation between Eu, and it's member countries.

[edit]
Yup, i nearly forgot
I don't prefer a long constitution, i don't think it's better because it's longer. It covers many things, and i feel that is nescesarry(sp?), sure there might be things that could not be there, but i don't see any problems.
Including, preface asnd index, the constitution is 30 pages long. That is not long.

What are you talking about? The EU Constition is hundreds of pages long, not 30 pages long.

I don't think that you realize how long and cumbersome it is and the ridiculous topics that are included in this Constitution.

The fact that you don't think that the people should actually be able to understand and comprehend their own Constitution is pretty alarming as well.

Lol, true. I was reading a readers gathered edition of the contitution, i dounf an edition to 219 pages, my mistake.

It's not a constitution for the people, and if they want to understand it, they should just read it, and what i read of it is no cumbersome. I disagree with your point that you should write a constitution to the lowest common denominator.

A constitution should hit only the important part, such as structure of the government and rights of the people and other limitations. Legislation written into the constitution is difficult to change if it needs to be changed. To change a law you needs to pass a constitional ammendment, which is typically a difficult process.

 

[f95toli]

Again, it is NOT that kind of constitution.
It is basically a big treaty which covers everything the EU is suppose to be involved in; it has nothing to do with the kind of constitutions nations have.
When they started negotiating it was not even called "constitution", that came later and the word was not really used until maybe a couple of years ago (it changed over time from "treaty" to " a kind of constitution" to "constitution").

The rights of the people etc in a state is covered by national constitutions, not by any European treaty.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I would say that it's negative as it is far too long and covers at times topics that are not necessary to be in a constitution. The idea is good, but the execution has been poor.

Again, i'd have to disagree. This seems like the most worthless critisiscm i've ever heard of anything. Critisiscing(sp?) that a text is too long and that it covers more than you feel it needs has absolutely no value. Which is again, why it makes no sense. I see no reason for it to be short.

I see plenty of reason. Imagine how much 'interpretation' on hundreds of subjects there will be. There could be massive and complex problems when you're dealing with hundreds of pages convering hundreds of different topics.

In my opinion a Constitution should primarily cover basic human rights and laws and so forth, not ridiculous notions of 'sportsmanship' and the like. It should be short and to the point so that the people can easily understand and read it, not long, complex, and boring so that few will understand their own Constitution.

Why exactly do you think a long constitution is better?

The problems i understand, but that is something that must be overcome, and i disagree with what you're saying, that it should directly influence the constitution.

The constitution is for the lawmakers, i know americans are obsessed with your constitution, but this is just the basics of laws, it's not written for the people, that period is over. The period where people had to love and be proud of a text is over. This is written for the laws, and lawmakers. And this constitution is supposed to direct the relation between Eu, and it's member countries.

[edit]
Yup, i nearly forgot
I don't prefer a long constitution, i don't think it's better because it's longer. It covers many things, and i feel that is nescesarry(sp?), sure there might be things that could not be there, but i don't see any problems.
Including, preface asnd index, the constitution is 30 pages long. That is not long.

What are you talking about? The EU Constition is hundreds of pages long, not 30 pages long.

I don't think that you realize how long and cumbersome it is and the ridiculous topics that are included in this Constitution.

The fact that you don't think that the people should actually be able to understand and comprehend their own Constitution is pretty alarming as well.

Lol, true. I was reading a readers gathered edition of the contitution, i dounf an edition to 219 pages, my mistake.

It's not a constitution for the people, and if they want to understand it, they should just read it, and what i read of it is no cumbersome. I disagree with your point that you should write a constitution to the lowest common denominator.

A constitution should hit only the important part, such as structure of the government and rights of the people and other limitations. Legislation written into the constitution is difficult to change if it needs to be changed. To change a law you needs to pass a constitional ammendment, which is typically a difficult process.

I would have to agree with this. I hate to compare the EU constitution to the Alabama constitution in any way, but I believe that the length of each document is a serious issue. The Alabama constitution is the longest state constitution in the US. To that end, there are many "laws" in it which go over everything from structure of the government to issues such as taxation for individual counties, commercial statutes, and many other things that should be on the lawbooks, but not in any constitution. It is so long that most people that live directly under that constitution do not even know exactly what it says. It has in a sense inhibited both the government and the people from operating (in the legal sense) in an efficient manner. Passing "laws" on some issues requires a constitutional amendment, which is a mess.
I do have one question though. How can one consider a constitution not to be a document "for the people", and instead to be a document for the lawmakers and governments alone, only a relation between member states and the EU? If the governments are supposed to be representatives of the people, and people therefore have an interest in the actions of their government, why should the people not have an interest in what their government is bound by, i.e. the EU constitution, should it ever come into effect?

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I do have one question though. How can one consider a constitution not to be a document "for the people", and instead to be a document for the lawmakers and governments alone, only a relation between member states and the EU?

Because, as I have already written several times, it is NOT A CONSTITUTION IN THE ORDINARY SENSE, it a just a (very important) treaty which was not even suppose to be called "constitution" in the beginning; it is a "fundamental document" or whatever you would call it which mainly regulates the relation between the member states but it has nothing to do with documents like the US constitution.

Bad choice of word if you ask me.

 

[chcarnage]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

I do have one question though. How can one consider a constitution not to be a document "for the people", and instead to be a document for the lawmakers and governments alone, only a relation between member states and the EU? If the governments are supposed to be representatives of the people, and people therefore have an interest in the actions of their government, why should the people not have an interest in what their government is bound by, i.e. the EU constitution, should it ever come into effect?

I simplify things in this post for the sake of the bigger picture.

The European project started in the fifties as a frame for economical cooperation. It was an elitist project that didn't involve the people much. That's totally legitimate for trade treaties in my opinion. Some hoped that the European states are going to strenghten their bounds. The idea of "Spill-Over" wandered around in the heads. It stated that economical cooperation could and should lead to political cooperation. It happened and leaded to the historically unique chimaera the EU is today. But with the arrival of the political dimension into the EU another Spill-Over became necessary. The project of the elites has to become the project of the people. Integration of the people and synchronization of the two named processes was difficult though. That's the reason why the European unification is not a continuous process but affected by phases of stagnancy and phases of progress. Even after ratification of the constitution the states would remain souvereign (i.e. free to leave the EU).