Wednesday, June 01

World

Just Say Non

Out of curiosity, I downloaded a copy of the proposed European Constitution (available here in English; check here for other languages or to read it online).

I skipped the table of contents (five pages) and the preamble and signatories (eight pages). The first two articles, Establishment of the Union and The Union's values are reasonable enough. The fun starts with article I-3.

1. The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.
Well, okay. Peace is nice. But is that all you want to do? Promote peace? Hmm.
2. The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, and an internal market where competition is free and undistorted.
Fine and laudable, this one. That's what I like to see. Not what some of the French political parties want to see (that part about the internal market), but I have no trouble with it. But then:
3. The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.
Price stability? A social market economy? Full employment? Social progress?

They're communists. And communism don't work.

Look, you just one paragraph ago said that you wanted an internal market where competition is free and undistorted. If you have that, you can't also have price stability, and you can't guarantee full employment. Those things just don't work together; they're antithetical.

[Update: Commenter Jojo points out that price stability is a term used to refer to zero or very low inflation (a good thing) rather than price controls (a bad thing) as I had assumed. This does somewhat deflate my anti-communist paranoia, but the document is still devotedly socialist and statist. Its prescription for every ill is more government.]

And who gets to define what social progress means?

It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child.
What an awful jumble of weaselry. Are you trying to say "All men are created equal"? Because I think copyright has expired on the Declaration of Independence. A quick cut-and-paste and you're away.
It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States.
Well, okay. I mean, if you're going to have a Union, you have to have some sort of cohesion and solidarity going on.
It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.
Respect is fine. Safeguarding one's heritage is fine, I guess. Enhanced? What? How?

I'll skip some waffle. Article I-4 is a surprise: Short, sweet, right to the point:

Fundamental freedoms and non-discrimination

1. The free movement of persons, services, goods and capital, and freedom of establishment shall be guaranteed within and by the Union, in accordance with the Constitution.

2. Within the scope of the Constitution, and without prejudice to any of its specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.

Good stuff.† If it was mostly like that, I wouldn't mind the occasional outbreak of fluffy-bunnies, like:
The anthem of the Union shall be based on the ‘Ode to Joy’ from the Ninth Symphony by Ludwig van Beethoven.

The motto of the Union shall be: ‘United in diversity’.

United in adversity, eh? Oh, sorry.

But we're now on page 20... Of 485. Let's skip ahead a bit:

Article II-70

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. The right to conscientious objection is recognised, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

Article II-71

Freedom of expression and information

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.

Article II-72

Freedom of assembly and of association

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association at all levels, in particular in political, trade union and civic matters, which implies the right of everyone to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his or her interests.

2. Political parties at Union level contribute to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union.

Article II-73

Freedom of the arts and sciences

The arts and scientific research shall be free of constraint. Academic freedom shall be respected.

What a lot of blather. Yes, we have those rights. We don't need you to tell us that, because they are rights. Y'know, inalienable and stuff. What you mean to say is this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Those five little words, Congress shall make no law, they go to the heart of the problem. Governments make laws, it's what they do. They don't confer rights, because you can't confer a right. You don't need to list universal rights in the constitution, but what you can do is restrict the lawmaking powers of the government.

Skip skip

Article II-91

2. Every worker has the right to limitation of maximum working hours, to daily and weekly rest periods and to an annual period of paid leave.

Every worker? What if you're on an hourly contract? What if you're a freelancer paid on delivery?

Skip skip

Article III-312

3. Any Member State which, at a later stage, wishes to participate in the permanent structured cooperation shall notify its intention to the Council and to the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs.

The Council shall adopt a European decision confirming the participation of the Member State concerned which fulfils the criteria and makes the commitments referred to in Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on permanent structured cooperation. The Council shall act by a qualified majority after consulting the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs. Only members of the Council representing the participating Member States shall take part in the vote.

A qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55 % of the members of the Council representing the participating Member States, comprising at least 65 % of the population of these States.

A blocking minority must include at least the minimum number of Council members representing more than 35 % of the population of the participating Member States, plus one member, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained.

4. If a participating Member State no longer fulfils the criteria or is no longer able to meet the commitments referred to in Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on permanent structured cooperation, the Council may adopt a European decision suspending the participation of the Member State concerned.

The Council shall act by a qualified majority. Only members of the Council representing the participating Member States, with the exception of the Member State in question, shall take part in the vote.

A qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55 % of the members of the Council representing the participating Member States, comprising at least 65 % of the population of these States.

A blocking minority must include at least the minimum number of Council members representing more than 35 % of the population of the participating Member States, plus one member, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained.

And you thought that stuff about cloture and filibusters was bad.
Article IV-437

2. The Treaties on the Accession:

(a) of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;

(b) of the Hellenic Republic;

(c) of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic;

(d) of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, and

(e) of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic,
shall be repealed.

Nevertheless:

— the provisions of the Treaties referred to in points (a) to (d) and set out or referred to in the Protocol on the Treaties and Acts of Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the Hellenic Republic, of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, and of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden shall remain in force and their legal effects shall be preserved in accordance with that Protocol,

— the provisions of the Treaty referred to in point (e) and which are set out or referred to in the Protocol on the Treaty and Act of Accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic shall remain in force and their legal effects shall be preserved in accordance with that Protocol.

You what?

It's not in fact utterly dire, as a plan for a European Union. That surprised me. It's a really lousy constitution, though. Its scope is too broad; it spends far too much time on what can, should, will or may be done instead of what the government cannot do.

Better than I expected, but the French got it right.*

But they're still communists. [Update: Still communists.]

*There, are you happy? I praised the output of a bunch of Eurocrats and the common sense of the French people in one sentence. Now my brain hurts.

† Actually, on second thoughts that's another case of rights inversion. Change it around to a "Congress shall make no law" clause, and you've got it. As it stands, it has the government guaranteeing a right, which is wrong.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 07:15 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 1682 words, total size 11 kb.

1 The thing that really annoys me about all this is that you can bet your bottom dollar they are NOT going to consolidate their seats in the UN, WTO, or any other int'l body. Why should the EU get umpteen votes where the US gets one? They want the advantages of unity without the disadvantages. Sorry, posted this in wrong thread first time.

Posted by: TallDave at Wednesday, June 01 2005 01:15 PM (9XE6n)

2 "Price stability? A social market economy? Full employment? Social progress? They're communists. And communism don't work." hehehe Excellent commentary and analysis... And you're right, they could have been a heck of alot less verbose if they simply said "Congress shall make no law..." and emphasized what the govt. could NOT do, rather than blurring the boundaries and making the scope so broad as to unavoidably (at least I.M.H.O) invite interpretive trouble.

Posted by: kyer at Wednesday, June 01 2005 01:37 PM (oY0vI)

3 I don't understand why aiming for price stability is "communist"? They're saying they want economic growth without runaway inflation, which is the policy of pretty much every OECD country. I don't agree with this rhetoric that having a central government bank issuing currency is "communist"; it might not be a pure free market solution, but it's a far cry from actual communism.

Posted by: Jojo at Thursday, June 02 2005 01:40 AM (K7kS/)

4 There's a major difference between currency stability and price stability. Keeping inflation low is good economic policy. Keeping prices stable isn't. You can't keep prices stable with a free market, because a free market means that prices shift according to supply and demand. If you want to use government powers to maintain price stability, that's distorting the market, and that's what they just said they wouldn't do. It's not just that that made me slap the "communist" label on them, though. A pledge of full employment in an election speech is unremarkable. In a constitution it's a red flag... So to speak. So too the "social market economy". So too the dedication to undefined social progress. Call them socialist if you prefer, but really it's the same thing.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Thursday, June 02 2005 01:51 AM (AIaDY)

5 Um, and I don't think I said anything about central banks. I'm a centrist, not a big-L libertarian. I have no problem with central banks.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Thursday, June 02 2005 01:52 AM (AIaDY)

6 Europeans have long suffered from delusions of grandeur, so the wordy (yet empty) substanced constitution comes as no real surprise to me. Europe lost her real grandeur centuries ago and a stack of wordy documents cannot bring her back, until the people have a change of attitude.

Posted by: LASunsett at Thursday, June 02 2005 01:57 AM (6aOuQ)

7 Sorry, I (wrongly) assumed that you were against central banks because I assumed you were against the concept of monetary policy in general. In any case, I think you misinterpret what they mean by "price stability". Price stability is a commonly used term to refer to low inflation; Alan Greenspan routinely uses the term in his speeches. It refers to the general level of prices, not the prices of individual products. Check out Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_stability I think you confuse "price stability" with price controls, such as price floors, ceilings and outright price fixing, which I agree would be a very bad thing and definitely warrant a "communist" label.

Posted by: Jojo at Thursday, June 02 2005 02:31 AM (K7kS/)

8 I wouldn't say "centuries ago". Europe had a lot going for it right through the 19th century, even with the various empires diminishing. Two world wars pretty much put paid to that. You're basically right, though. Europe is living for the past, not for the future. That's evident in the consitution, with its emphasis on protecting Europe's grand heritage.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Thursday, June 02 2005 02:31 AM (AIaDY)

9 It had a brief flash in the 19th century, but as Marxism began to take hold, it killed the entrepeneurial spirit that the early mercantilists produced. Also, the continent was host to a lot of struggles, revolutions, and petty wars throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, as a prequel to the two world wars. That's not nearly the grandeur of the Bourbons and Hapsburgs.

Posted by: LASunsett at Thursday, June 02 2005 02:46 AM (6aOuQ)

10 Jojo - Thanks, it looks like you're right. I'll make a note of that in the post.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Thursday, June 02 2005 06:21 AM (+S1Ft)

11 Good point LA, and that was a primary reason for US isolationism. No one wanted to get involved in another of those interminable European wars.

Posted by: TallDave at Thursday, June 02 2005 11:32 AM (9XE6n)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
55kb generated in CPU 0.0153, elapsed 0.1241 seconds.
56 queries taking 0.1131 seconds, 228 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.