Talk:European Constitution/Archived talk

Talk from Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe talk page from November 2004 to May 2005.

Please review quotes in Reaction section
I've put some quotes in the 'Reaction' section &mdash; could people review them and improve the balance a little by finding some quotes from important figures who hold the view that the constitution is an important step towards a superstate (or otherwise object to it). The majority of the quotes take the view that the proposed consitution is a victory for intergovernmentalism over supranationalism, obviously that's contentious so please supplement the quotes to restore balance. I have introduced some quotes from opposing parties (UK Conservative party and UKIP). Reaction from Roman Cathlolic Church, Eastern European nationalists, etc. would be good.

Nick Fraser 15:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This is great stuff, but shouldn't at least part of it go in wikiquote with a link? It's not too out of control yet, but it could get that way. How many quotes do you think we should have in the article? My first thought is "one per viewpoint" but that's a gross oversimplification.

Yes I don't want to extend the number of quotes, even reduce by one or two. I'll see about doing the wikiquote thing you suggest. I've never used wikiquote but will check it out. Nick Fraser 09:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Are you implying that the RCC is opposed to the EU as an entity? I don't think it is per se, though I daresay many of the right-wingers who JP-II filled many of its senior positions with are sympathetic to that view.  Some fundamentalist and right-wing christians believe that it's a part of a satanic conspiracy to create a world government (though curiously they don't seem to see the US that way).

No not implying that RCC is opposed to EU - though they did react to failure to get references to a common Christian heritage in the constitution, thought that was an interesting non-political viewpoint. Nick Fraser 09:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * One other thought: these views are a bit fringe; the loony right, if you will. Aren't there more moderate right-wing anti-EU groups out there? Aren't there anti-constitution pro-EU groups? The British Conservative Party is one such group (I think), though one can never be sure what their policies are nowadays  (this didn't tell me much, except that they oppose the constitution and are worried about vitamin pills being regulated).   Mr. Jones 21:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes you're right UKIP and to some extent the Conservative Party hold 'extreme' views with regard to the EU in the context of European party politics as a whole (the centre of which is closer to the federalist position than UK media generally reports). I did edit down from a much longer list of reaction, there were some quotes pro-EU right-wingers such as German Christian Democrats (CDU) and the like - I removed these as to be honest they were rather bland statements of support and very similar to many others. To a UK reader the body of quotes I could have included would have seemed distinctly POV, however reading around the literature I've come to the unsurprising conclusion that there is a general consensus amongst European politicians on the merits and need for the Constitution and that there are only a relatively small number of countries (but influential ones such as UK, France, and Poland) in which it is significantly more contentious. Moderate right-wingers and left-wingers on the European stage seem to be generally supportive of the Constitution with the dissenting voices mainly coming from further right (Conservative party, UKIP, Front National/other nationalists) or far left parties. There of course, is the criticism from other groups that the constitution is not ambitious enough (but I think the quotes from the Italian and German federalists covers this just about adequately). Nick Fraser 09:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I found this after looking more carefully, but there were no references to "Nice" or "Rome", and two to "treaty", neither of which stated Conservative policy. I'll have to read the thing in full. The bits I scanned through looked like rhetoric to me, but there may be some actual policy assertions burried in there somewhere. Mr. Jones 21:40, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * (Also, their "ten word" policy summary is so powerful it goes up to eleven. ;-) )

New site on EU Constitution
Hi, I would like to reference this site on the page: http://www.eugreens.net/ But since it is linked to the Green party, I am not sure it corresponds to your neutrality policies... Do as you think best, anyway.


 * Are there pages of it which are directly relevant to the constitution? If so, it's probably worth adding in the external links section - perhaps we could add similar links to the other main parties' positions on the constitution. If it's not directly relevant to the constitution, try over at the relevant Green Party or Green group pages. Toby W 21:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course it is relevant to the constitution: it is a wiki about the constitution. Try "TCE Encyclopedia" on the left menu, the full text is already there, and now we will begin adding comments.[mailto:arnaudherve@mac.com my mail]

So? No listing of eugreens.net? Still, the EU constitution is a political subject, hence referring to parties websites should be ok. Referring this site doesn't mean a monopoly of external links to the Greens. To be precise this one is not even a party website: it's a grassroots initiative. But it's one of the few sites where the text is online.


 * Add it! Toby W 08:53, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just a sec, what's the copyright policy? (would look, but I'm going to bed). Mr. Jones 21:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please sign your posts
Please sign your comments and posts (with ~ ). It makes it a lot easier to edit discussions afterwards and to see who said what :-) Mr. Jones 14:18, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Structure of the proposed EU Constitution
I've linked to the above article. Has the structure changed in the version recently signed? Mr. Jones 13:42, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Controversy and reverted changes
kilobug> Sorry to put this on top of the discussion, but I fear it'll not be read else, and it should be only temporary. Can I know why my changes were reverted ? Why should only the arguments of the ones opposing the idea of an European Constitution be in the "controversy" section, and not the arguments of the ones wanting an European Constitution, but totally disagreeing on the content of the text ? None of what I wrote is false, it's all clearly written in the text, and it is an important part of the "controversy".


 * I know how it feels to have your edits reverted arbitrarily, but I think I can see why it happened this time. I wasn't the one who reverted your changes, but to my eye, the content and tone of your additions were a long way from what's needed for an NPOV encyclopedia. I suspect that somebody saw your changes, recognised them as unacceptable, but was in no position to do a detailed clean-up and instead simply reverted the changes.


 * Now it may well be that the points you made are well worth making, in which case please do think about re-editing the article. But, when you do, please avoid phrases like "the constitution forces upon member states", "mess with the economy", "force them to perpetually run towards greater military", "lack of democracy", "neo-liberal policies", "mandatory policies forced upon all countries", and so on. Many pro-constitution campaigners would hotly dispute these claims. Now, whether you think the claims are true or false, the fact is that they are disputed, and so Wikipedians need to tread carefully in analysing them. Toby W 11:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

kilobug> Why did you reverse my change on the "popular mandate" section ? The section, as written now, is just false. Read the actual text of the Constitution, article I-46-4, Not less than one million citizens coming from a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the Commission.... The Commission being ivinted is not the Commission being forced as written in the current article. In the same way, it's not any constitutional proposal which means anything compatible with the Constitution, but on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Constitution. (still article I-46-4). Being required for the purpose of implementing the Constitution is far more restrictive than merly being compatible with the Constitution.


 * I don't know why that change was reverted. I agree that your point is accurate, but I see that you also added some political comment instead of simply changing the word 'obliged' to 'invited'. In my opinion, that political comment belonged in the 'controversy' section, not in a section which should simply describe the content of the constitution.


 * Incidentally, though, the edit you made was inaccurate in another respect. The European Parliament has the power to oblige (not just invite) the Commission to bring forward a proposal. And it then has the power to rewrite that proposal as it sees fit, without the Commission having any subsequent say.


 * I hope that makes sense and explains why I've removed the NPOV tag from the top of the page. And I'd strongly encourage you to have another go at editing the article. Cheers! Toby W 11:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Kilobug, thanks for your edits today. I've made a few minor changes mostly of style. I've also added some brief balancing remarks without affecting the content of your edits. I hope that's OK, but as ever, feel free to edit as you see fit! Toby W 09:59, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Link to external POV article replacing article text
''Contrary to popular belief, the Nice weightings do not give Spain and Poland an influence disproportiane to their populations. The Nice weighting give each country 27 votes out of a total of 320 (8.44%). If we take EU-25 population at 450.7 million, Spain's at 39.4 million and Poland's at 38.6 million, then they have 8.74% and 8.56% of EU population respectively (I've seen different figures for population; but these are approximately correct). Therefore the Nice weightings give Spain and Poland less than if the weightings were proportional to population. '' (continued at Discussion of Nice weightings and EU Constitution) -- Cabalamat 16:55, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC) Amended by Mr. Jones 12:42, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've put a link to the above-linked article (i.e.Discussion of Nice weightings and EU Constitution) in the main page. Since it's an external link to something I myself have written, I'm not saure about the propriety of doing so. Is it OK? please let me know (on my talk page) -- Cabalamat 17:29, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Is discussion of this topic is too biased in this article?
"Contrary to common belief, the Nice weightings do not give Spain and Poland an influence disproportiane to their populations..."

"Spain's and Poland's dislike of the draft constitution weightings cannot be because they'd get..."

While I applaud the effort to create an entry for the very important European Constition, I thoroughly dislike the above sections and surrounding paragraphs. This is an opinionated analysis presented as fact and in my mind at least, it very clearly violates the NPOV (neutral point-of-view) principles that are the basis for Wikipedia -- regardless of one's opinion on the actual matter. These paragraphs should be in a debate forum, not in a neutral encylopedia. Does anyone else agree with me? If these paragraphs must be there, they should be presented in an entirely different tone, and citing the opinons of other people (with examples where possible) rather than profess to claim the truth.

By the way, I wouldn't have a problem if these paragraphs were contained in some link (we can and should expect links to possibly be biased) but it looks like they are actually part of the main page.

Contentiousness is not bias

 * I don't agree, Anonymous. I know the issue of voting rights is a contentious one, but 'contentious' doesn't translate as 'biased'. The paragraph quoted above is entirely factual - all it does is quote figures. There is no indication of a particular viewpoint except in the link, which is entitled to be non-NPOV because it's not part of Wikipedia. If Cabalamat had written "Therefore Spain and Poland should stop whinging and put up with it", this would be out of order, but he hasn't.

Spain and Polands' views on their voting weights need to be represented

 * What we perhaps need in order to satisfy everyone is a modification to explain the rationale (purely factual, again, of course) behind Spain & Poland's side of the argument. Something like "Spain and Poland dispute their revised proposed voting weights because…" and then giving their reasons, perhaps with an external link to the other side of the argument to balance it.

Later:

I googled the issue to find out what was the row about, and found this: IGC (the convention)' did not specified in the draft what the voting rights are.' The draft says: " Article 19: The European Parliament Chapter I - The institutional framework 2. The European Parliament shall be elected by direct universal suffrage of European citizens in free and secret ballot for a term of five years. Its members shall not exceed seven hundred and thirty-six in number. Representation of European citizens shall be degressively proportional, with a minimum threshold of four members per Member State:

The term degressively proportional' was aparently invented at the convention and remains undefined. Mathematics knows relationships which are
 * proportional
 * progressive (grow faster then proportional)
 * regressive (grow slower then proportional)

So, the term is at best undefined, possibly an oxymoron, and this view (not humble perhaps, but based on good background in math)is shared by UK House of Lords

which says:
 * We would welcome an explanation of this term ("degressively proportional"). (Paragraph 16 of the House of Lords' Report.)

It may seem that the row was not about number of votes accorded to states but about the treshold for having bills aproved. This is apparent from a presentation of  Spanish view

which says:
 *  We believe also that the general interests of the EU are at stake. With the double-majority system proposed the EU would, in practice, end up being governed by the four most populous Member States. .. a given number of votes (232/321 in a 25-member EU or 255/345 in a 27-member EU) and the support of at least half the Member States

BUT THEN draft says in article 24:
 * 2. When the Constitution does not require the European Council or the Council of Ministers to act on the basis of a proposal of the Commission, or when the European Council or the Council of Ministers is not acting on the initiative of the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs, the required qualified majority shall consist of two thirds of the Member States, representing at least three fifths of the population of the Union.

This, three fifths of the population of the Union means either that MEPs have uneven voting power, or, that degressive function must be very close to proportional.

It does not says 'three fifths of the votes in parlament' but 60% of the population, so stripping the small states of any advantage, which were given to them in a Nice, and hiding it in an obscure language (not necesarily intentionaly).

IMHO: The constitution, which is not a law, but rather 'a mother of laws', should be more general and abstract then a specific treaty, such as treaty of Nice. It cannot allocate the number of votes, but has to state a principle by which allocation shall be made in many future years. It should state it clearly. The treshold, number of votes for passing a law, is a different issue, different laws may have different tresholds, some may need 60%, some 66% and some just majority.

It seems that this draft of the constitution is not lucid, is too long and complex, sometimes confusing often too nebulous to mean anything

Wicky page needs to explain better what the 'voting row' was about.

I can add the explanation about the threshold and voting row and 'degressive function' into a separate page with topic : Voting in EU parlament. Should I go ahead? Do I hear a second? Petr 23:17, 2004 Jan 8 (UTC)

- The IGC is _not_ the Convention but the Intergovernmental Conference, thus the forum in which the 25 nation states reviewed the constitution draft after it was put forward by the convention. - The discussion on votes ('double majority') was in no way related to the Parliament but to the Council. Chapter I Art. 19 2.) mentioned refers to the Parliament and thus not to the most controverse issue - Previous treaties had fixed the thresholds, nice distributed the numbers of voices to the states when voting in the council. Here the Spanish and the Polish were very succesful and gained with 27 votes each only 2 less than each of the 4 'big' Italy, Britain, France and Germany (although Germany is double as big as Spain or Poland, the others are at least 50 % bigger) The constituion now introduces a completely new system with two tresholds which need to be reached: 55 % of the states (currently 15) which represent 65 % of the Union's population. So Spain and Poland fought again loosing a privilege - and blocked the system change (at least officially) for this reason

Criticisms of Cablamat's edits and his responses

 * One of the primary uses of an encyclopedia (and a Wikipedia, of course) is to provide, in a balanced and unbiased way, the necessary factual information underpinning any debate so that readers can make up their own minds. To my mind, this is exactly what Cabalamat is doing. Toby 10:33, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * There are two things that it's been suggested are a violation of NPOV, my "Contrary to common belief", and my speculation about reasons behind Spain and Poland's behaviour. The first, I think, is a matter of fact; for example it was previously written on this page as fact, and no-one had corrected it, and I myself was quite surprised when I worked out the figures and found out it was not true. As for the second, clearly S and P's behaviour cannot be motivated by a worry over the proportion of Council votes they get; the figures prove that. I've changed the rest of the wording of that paragraph, to dispell other concerns that it might be non-NPOV. &mdash; Cabalamat 19:14, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I do not see a bias, but an error. I just did read the page for the first time.
 * I do not see any bias, just facts, but I find things which are not clear.

The point that Poland and Spain are not losing votes is interesting, it is not clear if it is realy so, not clear what the controversy is about.

I suggest we anticipate that the number of pages dealing with this lively issue will rise considerably between now and 2010. So, I would favor keeping this page as an introduction with a list of topics, each topic containing the NPOV history of the current state of affairs and optionally descriptions of various views such as those of small states, large states, etc.
 * If this happens, it should happen organically. Mr. Jones 14:18, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So, in concusion, I appreciate what the author (cabalamat) did so far, and think we should build on it.

A few points of controversy for the article
Like eg.: And probably many many others
 * the central European held referenda supported accsesion on terms negotiated in Nice, so technicly one can't claim their citizens support EU membership (although most voters probably never read any of the documents)
 * the question of invocatio Dei (the assertion of the supremacy of God over the EU by the treaty)
 * fears that in the future the charter of fundamental rights might be abused to force memeber states such as Ireland, Poland or Spain to allow abortion, gay "marriages", a leftist agenda or whatever else will be popular at the time.
 * the opposition towards a common foreign policy.

N.N. 15:23, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * It would indeed be nice, provided it was kept NPOV. Go for it. Toby W 15:53, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The recent battle between the appointed Commission and the elected Parliament could be worked into this as it drew on similar themes. Mr. Jones 14:18, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * <>

I don't really agree that that would be "abuse". Nightstallion 20:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Point taken, but I think the point being made is that it would be inappropriate for decisions on those kinds of policies to be forced by a supranational constitution, rather than made at national level. (The question of whether the constitution would indeed do that is a different one.) Wombat 10:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reverted changes
Reverted anonymous POV edits by 217.229.61.69, which deleted current text and inserted:

''The objective of the draft Constitution is to give Brussels more power. It reduces the requirements to come to a ruling on EU level by removing veto rights and replacing them with majority votes from the countries. The goverments of France, Germany and the United Kingdom are pressing to change the voting balance in the Council of the European Union (which is currently still one of the main bodies) to give these three nations an absolte majority of votes which means that these three countries would rule the EU.''

and:

''This is then called as "Needed for the functioning of the future Union when 10 new countries from Eastern Europe join the existing 15 member states on 1 May 2004." (see EU enlargement). But it is not required to change the votes of states in the council, keeping the current system helps the functioning of the Union by lowering the burdens of Goverments to implement the endless stream of directives from Brussels. The EU will not be as powerful without this change, but the national states will also have more power without it. It would not be as possible to rule against the majority of the countries.''

and:

''Michael Howard launched a nationwide campaign for a referendum on the proposed constitution. The constitution is wrong in principle, and he said that the Government's approach had been dishonourable. "When it comes to transferring power from Britain to Brussels, Tony Blair says 'trust me'. Well, Conservatives say 'trust the people'.''

and similar changes to the bullet points under 'Provisions of Constitution'.

Instead of swingeing anti-constitution POV edits, the factual information in this article should be left alone, and then 2 new sections could be added: say, Arguments in favour and Arguments against. Much of the above content could then be restored, hopefully staying on the right side of NPOV this time. Toby W 08:58, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Powers of the proposed European Union Minister for Foreign Affairs
I've heard that the minister will be able to set foreign policy. Is this correct? If so, would he have any say in the engagement of the EU rapid reaction mechanism? Mr. Jones 12:28, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * As the draft currently stands, the foreign minister will be able to represent the EU abroad, but only in areas where the EU countries have previously agreed. He/she won't be able to set policy, only to act on it once it's been agreed by the European Council and European Parliament. He will have the same powers in that sense as Javier Solana, the present EU High Representative who is essentially the 'foreign minister of the EU' at the moment, though not in name. I'm not sure about the connection between the proposed foreign minister and the rapid reaction force. Toby W 13:56, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So he will be a diplomat, and may negotiate on behalf of the EU? I need to read Article I-27 :-) Mr. Jones 16:54, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Spanish election's effect on the constitution
Shouldn't this article include mention of the fact that the constitution "went away" after no agreement was reached then "came back again" once the Socialists won the Spanish election? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:00, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

NPOV dispute notice
Randy/Toby, I noticed you put the dispute notice back. Is this version of the article disputed? By who, and why? I think it all looks quite dry and reasonable. Should we remove the notice? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:01, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Notice removed due to lack of response. Mr. Jones 13:31, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Gratuitous praise
Wombat, Kaihsu, et al, this article is developing very nicely. Keep up the good (NPOV) work! I'll hope to tidy up and build on the article based on the constitution's structure in the next month or two. Mr. Jones 13:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wonderful article
I just wanted to comment on how well-laid-out and clear I found this article. I very much enjoyed reading it.

More gratuitous praise
Really enjoyed reading the article and I now feel much better informed - okay, okay, just plain informed - about the proposed constitution. One suggestion would be to include a section on the perceptions of the constitution in Europe. We in the UK are more traditionally eurosceptic and so any mention of European legislation gets touched by that. But what about on the continent? How does France for example perceive the constitution? In the UK we tend to think of the EU having gone too far (whether rightly or wrongly), do other countries feel it isn't doing enough? Philip Thomas --82.38.227.149 14:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks Philip - the article is the result of lots of work by a large number of people over a long time! As for perceptions by other countries, you're right, some of that belongs here (or perhaps in a related article) - but stuff about how we see the EU generally, rather than the constitution in particular, is covered in other areas such as Euroscepticism. Wombat 10:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Interesting sites
This might need moving somewhere else. I found this site: http://yourparty.org. It looks quite good, and there is some material about the referrendum and other political matters. I wonder if they would link to wikipedia? http://www.publicwhip.org.uk looks interesting too. Who runs them, I wonder? Mr. Jones 13:27, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Criticism of the effectiveness of the constitution in rectifying the EU's democratic deficit
Many critics consider that the propossed constituion does not reduce the gap between citizens and institutions, and fails to democratize the union. Shouldn't we write a short entry in the controversy subsection?

User:TheWikipedianTheWikipedian 22:39, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC+2)


 * Is something a controversy when it's mutually agreed? That the constitution keeps the current situation as is in many respects is a disappointment but doesn't seem particularly "controversial" when everyone agrees about it. Not "controversial" in the same way as the debates about the issues where the EU constitution would actually affect, and people disagree about whether it's moving in the right direction. Aris Katsaris 21:08, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I see what you're saying, but I agree with User:TheWikipedianTheWikipedian. A 'controversy' doesn't have to be facts that are disagreed over - it can be a disagreement about whether the situation is as it should be. Toby W 09:37, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Balance is required in the quotes at the end of the article
We desperately need a sceptic quote to balance the new pro-constitution one by Rifkin. Toby W 12:30, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Germany
An edit that slipped through the net a while back - Roadrunner changed "Germany's constitution prohibits referenda" to "Germany's constitution does not require a referendum". I've reverted this change. The constitution of Germany makes all plebiscites illegal on constitutional issues. Toby W 23:35, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The UK

 * The imminent UK referendum on it (to cost £100m, apparently) should be mentioned too. Mr. Jones 13:40, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * If you are interested in this topic, please take a look at my new article British referendum on EU constitution. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:45, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * A good summary. Very party-oriented and news-like, but that's hard to avoid at this stage, I suppose. A reference to and contrast with the 1975 referendum would be good.  I intend to improve the summary of the EU constitution.  Are you a Tory, by any chance? :-) Mr. Jones 17:35, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The opposite, actually - but compared with my usual stuff this was quite a political topic - so I am not that surprised if I swung too far when trying to present all sides and be NPOV. Happy for updates as you see fit. Yes more mention of '75 is a must - in fact it is a topic I intend to learn more about whilst there is lots of information about it in the papers this week (I was born shortly after the event).


 * Might be worth chatting to your folks about. I think I'll do that myself. Mr. Jones 20:28, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland
A recent edit by 193.1.209.101 inserted the following: Ireland's own constitution, for example, insists that a constitutional referendum be held on all international treaties involving a substantial transfer of national sovereignty. While this may be uncontroversially true (I don't know enough about Irish constitutional law to judge), it does imply something which is far from controversial, namely that the constitution involves a substantial transfer of national sovereignty. Those who are pro-constitution argue that it does not involve that kind of transfer.

To keep things NPOV, I've therefore softened the paragraph in question to read: Ireland's own constitution, for example, insists that a constitutional referendum be held on all international treaties CONCERNING national sovereignty. While this is slightly less informative about Ireland's constitutional law, it does avoid the POV implication about the constitution. Toby W 11:29, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * (I made the original edit here.)


 * By making the change above I did not seek to imply any pro or anti treaty bias regarding the transfer of sovereignty (for the record I am pro-Constitution), rather I was striving for accuracy regarding the state of Irish Consitutional Law on this topic. I used the phrase "substantial transfer of national soveriegnty", because there is no question of every international treaty having to be put to the people in a referendum, nor is there any question of every treaty "concerning national sovereignty" having to be put to referendum. (In fact it can be robustly argued that every international treaty "concerns national sovereignty" as it will limit the State's choices to some extent in the future.) However, there seems to be a consensus amongst Irish Constitutional scholars that any treaty involving a "substantial transfer" of national sovereignty must imperatively be endorsed by a constitutional referendum. This is a legal concept, not a political one; it is a subtle point of constitutional interpretation.


 * While I realise this is not a article about Irish Constitutional Law, this kind of niggling inexactitude irks me, as I'm sure it does many people with a legal background. I accept your point, however: this may read like a bias to the untrained eye. However, "concerning national sovereignty" is inexact for the reasons stated above. I feel that the phrase "concerning a transfer of national sovereignty" would be an effective compromise; it would be acceptably close to the actual state of the law whilst omitting the potentially controversial adjective "substantial". I don't think it can be denied that the adoption of the Constitution would "concern a transfer of national sovereignty" whatever one's political point of view.


 * I see the difficulty. It's a tricky one. The problem is that I've seen much pro-constitution literature explicitly insisting that the treaty does not involve any transfer of national sovereignty at all, for two reasons: (1) no new areas are added to the EU's field of competences over and above the present constitution (i.e. set of treaties) - so any arguable transfer took place long ago and has already been endorsed by the Irish people; (2) many pro-EU campaigners describe the co-operative structure of the EU as not a transfer of national sovereignties but rather a pooling or enlargement of national sovereignties. I'm not expressing any opinion about these arguments, only pointing out that they are frequently made.


 * All that said, I think your compromise is better than any option I can think of. The latent NPOV overtones niggle me a little, but since the latent inexactitude of the alternative would niggle you, I'm prepared to accept this as a necessary evil, if that suits? :o) Toby W 11:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Cool :o)


 * As a final point, it's worth noting that this is a controversial area of Constitutional Law, and it isn't clear-cut whether the Constitution would STRICTLY require a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty. During the run-up to the first Nice plebiscite in 2001, serious doubts were expressed by various scholars as regards the necessity for a referendum. However the reality is that since a successful challenge was brought to the ratification of the Single European Act, it has become a political necessity for a referendum to be held on every european treaty in Ireland, whatever the exact legal situation. So to a large extent the debate is moot.


 * Anyway it has been refreshing to discuss this issue in a balanced, rational manner for a change. Thanks. hankMajor 01:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The principles and mechanisms for the use of Constitutional Referenda in the Republic of Ireland1 is described in . It does not, however, explain why it is needed in this case. Following the link to the Irish Constitution, Article 29 contains a list of treaties that the Government is authorised to ratify.  Observe that it contains all the significant ECSC/EEC/EC/EU treaties in the past.


 * 1Not "Southern Ireland"! This is a geographical designation (like "Southern England" or "Southern Mexico") and can be read as meaning Munster or Cork.  I corrected this today, but I see that the error has been reverted. I've corrected it again.  Before undoing, please review article Ireland.

Signatures on the treaty: how significant are they?
I know very little about this topic but hasn't it now been signed? Is it still "proposed" (a word found all over the page)? Should it now be moved to European Union constitution? violet/riga (t) 18:43, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not been ratified yet. So it has no legal power yet -- it's also highly uncertain whether it will ever achieve ratification. I don't think we can call it "European Union constitution" yet. A sentence that simply said "The European Union's constitution" would wrongly imply that this document currently has legal standing. Aris Katsaris 19:41, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. violet/riga (t) 19:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The structure of the article
This article was beautifully structured. Now the TOC is unnecessarily massive and the structure is much worse. Hopefully this can be undone and put back to how it was. Correct me if there is any reason why the new structure needs to be in place. violet/riga (t) 15:30, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with you but please say *which* previous version you mean. There's:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Treaty_establishing_a_constitution_for_Europe&oldid=6964259 (most elements are bullets, which diminishes the size of the TOC, and which is my preferred solution)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Treaty_establishing_a_constitution_for_Europe&oldid=6982415 (which again has very long TOC but it doesn't divide the provisions into groups)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Treaty_establishing_a_constitution_for_Europe&oldid=6702313 which doesn't structure the provisions at all.
 * Aris Katsaris 15:51, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The top one, I agree, is the preferred solution. violet/riga (t) 17:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The structure is much better now. Sorry for messing around with it - I must have been having an off day. The original article was entirely a bulleted list, which wasn't good, but you're quite right, my solution of adding lots of small headers made the TOC rather silly. Anyway, we have the best of all worlds now, with bullet points acting as headers so the TOC isn't too long, and with the other prose changes incorporated too. Sorry again for generating all that extra work! Toby W 10:30, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * See also Structure of the proposed EU constitution for the full structure. Mr. Jones 14:18, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Control of guns and arms?
I am basing my comments on this "reader friendly version" (a PDF). Its still 300 pages.

There are only 4 mentions of "arms" in this and nothing on "gun". Does this mean there is no siginifigant position with respect to the United States' second amendment?


 * Yes, that's exactly what it means. The treaty isn't the same kind of constitution as, say, the US constitution, since it's designed to govern a union of nation states, not to create a single nation state. It only deals with those subjects which individual countries have agreed to handle collectively at European level, leaving everything else to the individual countries to decide. So there's no mention of gun laws, or anything else that remains the province of nation states. Toby W 09:39, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * It's about what the council considered important enough to be handled by a constitution. E.g. the EU constitution does prohibit death penalty, while in the US this issue is handled independently by the federal states. (Which does not say that this is something introduced by the EU constitution. Unsurprising, the EU formally joins the European Convention on Human Rights.) – Hokanomono 08:05, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

EU law, national law and international law
Just as a point of international law: it isn't true that all parties have to agree to a treaty before it becomes effective. Plenty of treaties have gone into effect without ratification by all parties. Roadrunner 06:53, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert, but can a country be held to terms of a treaty which it didn't ratify? In any case, isn't it still true that all international law supersedes national law? Toby W 09:22, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Ianal, but afaik a treaty might take effect before all of the signatory states ratify it, however it takes effect only in the souvereign territory of the signatory states that have ratified it. The conditions when a treaty starts to take effect should be specified by the treaty. – Hokanomono 08:28, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

EU law and national law
An edit today resulted in the following paragraph:

''Defenders of the constitution point out that it has always been the case that EU law supersedes national law, and that it has long been accepted in European nations that international law which a nation subscribed to overrides national law. The proposed Constitution does not change this arrangement for currently extant EU law, as all were adopted by unanimous decision or by unanimous decision. The Qualified Majority mechanism changes the nature of further EU law, as it thus authorizes possible adoption and enforcement of new law without the consent of one or more member nations.''

I've changed this, correcting a couple of inaccuracies and clarifying some confusion.

1) It's not true to say that all existing EU law was adopted unanimously. A number of areas are already decided by QMV and many laws have been passed using that mechanism already. The new constitution simply expands the use of QMV to cover more areas of day-to-day (i.e. not sovereignty-sensitive) decision-making.

2) The method by why laws are voted on, QMV or unanimity, is separate from the question of whether EU law supersedes national law, though related. It's clearer if these two points are made separately, I think.

So the paragraph now reads:

''Defenders of the constitution point out that it has always been the case that EU law supersedes national law, and that it has long been accepted in European nations that international law which a nation subscribed to overrides national law. The proposed Constitution does not change this arrangement for either extant or future EU law. However, the question of whether the arrangement is considered acceptable in the first place is still an issue for debate.''

''With the widening of Qualified Majority Voting also envisaged in the constitution, however, the issue of the primacy of EU law becomes more sensitive. This is because there is an increase in the number of areas in which laws can be passed by majority vote. It is therefore possible for an individual country to vote against a proposal (unsuccessfully) and subsequently find its national legislature to be bound by it.''

I mention this here by way of providing an explanation of what might otherwise have looked like a rather arbitrary change. Toby W 19:34, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Complexity
"Defenders also point out that it must logically be longer, since it is not an all-embracing, general constitution, but rather a document that precisely delineates the limited areas where the European Union has competence to act over and above the competences of member states."

Longer than what? this seems US specific. Also, this is factually incorrect as the US constitution is largely concerned with delineating power between the states and the US federal government. If there are no objections I will just remove the sentence. - cohesion [[User_talk:Cohesion|&#9742;]] 06:54, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I see what you mean (especially about being US-specific), but it strikes me that the article is making a valid point. I'm no expert on the US constitution, but my understand is that it covers all aspects of sovereign competences, saying "This, this and this can be done at state level, and everything else lies in the federal domain". The proposed EU constitution doesn't pretend to have the same blanket authority, so it has to specifically go through, step by step, which particular competences are being ceded to EU level. So if the sentence is to be deleted, won't something else have to go in its place? Toby W 10:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The U.S. Constitution establishes the entire federal government--the presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court. Prior to this, the country had no national executive or judicial branch, and the role of its legislative branch was very different--it was a one-house congress with very limited powers.  The Constitution manages to establish the powers of all these AND delineate power between the federal government and states, in 4,600 words.  There's no reason for Europe's constitution to be 12 times longer.

Just a little reminder: the topic of the division of power between the US federal state and the states has been controversial since the foundation of the US. Remember, they even fought a very bloody civil war because they disagreed with the way the federal government dealt with the desires of the southern states. The so-called "commerce clause" has been creatively interpreted to the point where just about anything may be voted through it. (Note that, lately, the US Congress even voted a law about a specific patient on a matter that should have been reserved for state law, by all accounts; see Terri Schiavo.)

Thus, I think it has been established that the US Constitution, by itself, does not specify the balance of power between the states and the union. This balance is largely set by constitutional conventions, case law, and a lot of strong-arming. My understanding is that the proposed European constitution has rather chosen to set the specifics in written law. David.Monniaux 09:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Balance of 'Reaction' quotes
There are 12 quotes in the Reaction section, and I'm wondering if the sample is balanced enough. The quotes come from a wide variety of different countries (good), and from a variety of different political viewpoints (good). But there are basically two views expressed: (1) that the constitution preserves the sovereignty of co-operating nation states, or (2) that it is a move towards a superstate. Now, by my count, there are 9 quotes for the former viewpoint and only 1 (Howard's) for the latter. Does this seem right?

I know that the debate here in the UK is very skewed, with hard eurosceptics like UKIP and wannabes like the Tories making more noise than all the more moderate parties put together; and I know that, in general, the constitution is seen elsewhere in the EU as a victory for the UK and nation state principles, something that stops federalism dead in its tracks. So maybe, in this EU-wide context, the balance of quotes is about right. All I can say is that, from a UK perspective, the balance looks to be skewed rather towards the 'nation state' side. What do people think? Do we need a couple more Howard-type quotes to even things out, or is the balance OK?

And, incidentally, one thing that's definitely missing is a quote from somebody on the left who objects to the constitution on social grounds - perhaps a French socialist like Laurent Fabius? - Toby W 09:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know exactly why Fabius opposes the proposed constitution, but it's generally believed that he does so because of the internal squabbles inside of the French Socialist Party. Fabius has never had a reputation of a true "Socialist". Better take somebody like Olivier Besancenot or Arnaud Montebourg. David.Monniaux 09:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)