Vexen Crabtree 2015

vexen

Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Vexen Crabtree 2015
vexen

EU Constitution

I am strongly and definately for a European Constitution.

It is a major document, comprehensively standing for Human Rights, the best constitution ever written. Commerically and politically it is merely a bringing-together of hundreds of treaties into a single document: Economically, nothing is new. In terms of power, nothing changes. All the same laws are there as already exist: They are brought together in one powerful, efficient and accessible document instead of a hundred different treaties with a hundred different names. In short, it allows humble citizens to know their rights within Europe in a way not possible now without much research.

It upholds equality of gender, sexuality and religion in a way no other constitution does. It upholds individual rights clearly and comprehensively; it is accurate and specific.

I do not know what the intelligent arguments against the constitution are. I am going to research them this month (it's on my list...), was wondering where all you stand... importantly, if against it; why? If for it, why?

  • 1
I have always been ardantly pro Europe, the EU, the Constitution, the Euro, the whole shebang, but then I think the natural evolution of the planet will lead (eventualy) to one world country. Hopefully. I figure we might as well help it on it's way. The only people that more involvment with Europe doesn't help is greedy capitalist-pig-dogs, oh my heart bleeds for them!
Besides, it draws us closer (not litteraly) to Scandanavia and it's nice liberal out look and pro-gay stance. Oh, and their superior school system.

Scandanavia is the future, the heart of the world, the most beautiful and hope-inspiring set of nations in the world. When I fight for Europe, I fight for the UK in particular, with the hope that one day we achieve the moral and effective stances that Sweden, Finland and Norway have achieved.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/best.html (My page on "Which Countries Set the Best Examples?)

I don't really know much about the EU constitution, but I am very much pro Europe, pro enshrining progressive ideals in as wide-ranging a constitution as possible, and pro consolidating all the laws and such that have built up in an efficient way. You sure sell it well, and I don't really know what the arguments against were. Anecdotally, I hear there's still a lot of inefficient bureaucracy in the EU. I daresay that's true, but I think that bureacracy the more co-operation, agreement and standardisation there is.

I don't take seriously arguments that we're going to lose our 'national identity', or that British self-sovereignity is inherently important.. and I have to go to lunch now. :)

^but I think that bureaucracy will decrease the more...*

(Deleted comment)
I am strongly and definitely AGAINST it.

Why?

1. It is a Tranzi's wet dream.

2. It creates an anti-democratic european super state that

- enshrines the napleonic idea of the state being greater than the sum of its parts (i.e. the citizens).

- where everything is either prescribed and proscribed.

- has an inherent anti-capitalistic bias that trys to reinforce the doomed socialistic policies of Continental Europe.

- has luddite, unrealisitic (and doomed) environmental policies are foised upon populations by green pressure groups.

- is simply an updated "Fortress Europe", and like Yugoslavia, and the USSR, and which like those other two, is doomed to failure.

- is reflexively anti-American, anti-democratic and pro-tranzi organisations and regulatory frameworks such as the ICC, Kyoto and the UN and so on.

If you're happy living in a mittelEuropa-style 1984 then the EU Constitution is defintiely for you...



"- enshrines the napleonic idea of the state being greater than the sum of its parts (i.e. the citizens)."

And this is a bad thing how? If by working together we can achive more then good.

"- where everything is either prescribed and proscribed."
Just not true and an incredibly sweeping and unrealistic statement to boot. Indeed so sweeping such a policy would be totaly unenforcable under the structures proposed. (if indeed under any structures)

"- has an inherent anti-capitalistic bias that trys to reinforce the doomed socialistic policies of Continental Europe."
Strangely the french voted against it because they belived it was to pro capitalistic in bias.

"- has luddite, unrealisitic (and doomed) environmental policies are foised upon populations by green pressure groups."
It really dosn't go nearly far enough with reguard to facing the enviromental desarster the world is currently moveing towards. Unfortunatly being mostly about creating economic power the european comunity is unlikely to come close to tackling the problem until it's to late. (Cinic? me? never)

"- is simply an updated "Fortress Europe", and like Yugoslavia, and the USSR, and which like those other two, is doomed to failure."
Strange I thought UKIP were campaining on the grounds that the border controls were so week bogus assilum seekers would be streeming in at every port and air strip (and all headed for the UK)

"- is reflexively anti-American,"
Then why do the US want us to sign up to it?

"anti-democratic"
Then why do the US want us signed up to it?

"and pro-tranzi organisations and regulatory frameworks such as the ICC, Kyoto and the UN and so on."
Yay for KYoto and UN both worthy of support. (and probably the ICC to when it's not late at night and I remeber what that stands for).

It's not without floors but so far I've yet to see you hit a convincing one.

"- enshrines the napleonic idea of the state being greater than the sum of its parts (i.e. the citizens)."

And this is a bad thing how? If by working together we can achive more then good


I'll take your points one at a time.


With regard to the state being greater than the sum of its parts, firstly, it is a bad thing because it results in the idea of the state being superior to its citizens. This is primarily manifested in the idea of citizens being given "rights" (e.g. the UNCHR etc).

In the Anglo-Saxon model, the people have all those rights already. We allow the State to do some things on our behalf, e.g. collect taxes, police us, etc, things which we VOLUNTARILY submit to. In other words, everything is permitted, and only things that are listed are being forbidden are forbidden.

In the EU model, however, it is the opposite. The state GRANTS you rights to do certain things, and everything else is, de facto, forbidden, unless it is permitted, explicity by the state. This is why I am against ID cards, for example. The State has no damned business needing to know my identity, etc, unless I am being suspected of commiting a crime, crime-prevension etc being part of our responsibiliy, that, as I have indicated earlier, we have willingly subcontracted out.

Secondarily, there in reality, no such collective entity as a "state", or even "society". Everything boils down to the relationships and interconnectedness of individuals. It is through individual actions that others (what a statist would misleadingly call "society") are influenced. To subsume individuals beneath the state smacks of Marx, and we all know what a failure Marxism has turned out to be.

Honesty, you could solve all the world's energy problems nowadays just by harnessing the rotational energy from Orwell's grave.

When you "give" rights, the only think that you "de facto" forbid is the removal of those rights. So, for example, the European Constitution gives the right to belief: Therefore apostasy cannot be made a crime because it conflicts with basic human rights.

The Human Rights is of the European Constitution is largely is sync with those of the United Nations; only they're layed out clearer and grant rights in areas such as gender equality that the UN doesn't.

Rights are given in order to ensure that no-one can take them away.

This does not mean that if something is not a right, you can't do it! If it's *illegal* you can't do it, and that's largely up to individual countries, same as before.

If Orwell saw the types of Human Rights that it was possible to grant nowadays (freedom of religion was unthinkable two decades ago!), he would have died happy.

He would turn in his grave, though, like Weber and Marx, at the rampant commercialism that goes unchecked because small European governments do not have enough clout on their own to regulate commercial globalisation.

No, I simply do not share your benigh view of govermnent. To state that "Rights are given in order to ensure that no-one can take them away" simply decries any reasonable reading of history. Firstly, the state has no, err, right to grant certain inalienable rights that I, as a free citizen already have. Secondly, the state giveth, the state taketh away.

Sorry for the late reply, just back from an enjoyable weekend in France...

"In the Anglo-Saxon model, the people have all those rights already."

All which rights? Certainly the rights enshrined in the EU constitution as it would have been are mostly concidered to be part of either our unwriten constitution or our laws. What the EU constituion dose for us is enshrine them all in law and make sure that anybody else that joins the EU comes up to thoes standards as an absolute minimum.

The thing that makes your comments even more wrong is that you go on to say:

" We allow the State to do some things on our behalf, e.g. collect taxes, police us, etc, things which we VOLUNTARILY submit to."

It's not like that now and it never has been since time immemorium. I can not think of a time within recorded history where the citicens/subjects of the state were not subject to it; Where the state did not tell us what powers and choices were ours and what were it's. We now get to choose who "the state" is led by and run by and thus as a group exsert some control and moderation, but even then we only have no individual power but only as the part of the citizenship as a whole. The State is the citizens and the state is the citizens but not the individuals however the individual benifits from the power of grater numbers all be it at the cost of some personal choice/power/freedom. We have never had the choice as to weather we give up that personal choice/power/freedom.

I think on balance we do very well on the deal. I think the constituion will mean we do even better still.

The suggestion that everything not enshrined as a right in the constituion is strait up bulshit. only that which is specificaly forbidden is forniden. That which the EU constituion dose not mention is entierly with in the power of the individual state to either forbid, Enshrine as a right in law or leave unlegislated on for individuals to make thier own decitions on. The rights they enshrine are only an absolute minimum standard for it's members.

Incidently the constitution says the EU only has the right to legislate on areas the individual states grant it the power to specificaly.

As for ID cards that has nout to do with euroupe.
The exsistance of the state is self evident as is socioty how ever much thatcher and her supporters wish there wasn't. Thatcher may have thought she killed it when she beat the minors but it's back and gaining strength as an entity every day. Watch the streets people are getting pissed off and the party is just begining.

"In the Anglo-Saxon model, the people have all those rights already."

All which rights? Certainly the rights enshrined in the EU constitution as it would have been are mostly concidered to be part of either our unwriten constitution or our laws. What the EU constituion dose for us is enshrine them all in law and make sure that anybody else that joins the EU comes up to thoes standards as an absolute minimum.



No, you fail to grasp the point. The EU Constitution "permits" me certain things. Yet no government in a democracy is legally entitled to "permit" me to do certain things, on the contrary, governments do not exist apart from the will of the people. They *cannot* permit me to do anything, they are simply authorised by THEIR citizens to disallow certain things.

Additionally, if the state has the right to permit me certain things, it also has the right to forbid the same things. Which is a completely unacceptable state of affairs.


The thing that makes your comments even more wrong is that you go on to say:

" We allow the State to do some things on our behalf, e.g. collect taxes, police us, etc, things which we VOLUNTARILY submit to."

It's not like that now and it never has been since time immemorium. I can not think of a time within recorded history where the citicens/subjects of the state were not subject to it; Where the state did not tell us what powers and choices were ours and what were it's. We now get to choose who "the state" is led by and run by and thus as a group exsert some control and moderation, but even then we only have no individual power but only as the part of the citizenship as a whole. The State is the citizens and the state is the citizens but not the individuals however the individual benifits from the power of grater numbers all be it at the cost of some personal choice/power/freedom. We have never had the choice as to weather we give up that personal choice/power/freedom.


This is an irrelevant point. The plain facts of the matter are, that government is a function of the people, no more. Outside of the will of the people, government does not exist.

Unless you are a tranzi, of which you and Vexen obviously are, in which case you believe in an organisation greater than the people, i.e. the State.


I think on balance we do very well on the deal. I think the constituion will mean we do even better still.

Wrong. The EU Constitution strips away large amounts of power from National Parliments to the centre, and reserves the right in the future to strip away any other powers!

The suggestion that everything not enshrined as a right in the constituion is strait up bulshit. only that which is specificaly forbidden is forniden. That which the EU constituion dose not mention is entierly with in the power of the individual state to either forbid, Enshrine as a right in law or leave unlegislated on for individuals to make thier own decitions on. The rights they enshrine are only an absolute minimum standard for it's members.

Wrong. Go and read the constitution itself, especially the sections on Competances.


Incidently the constitution says the EU only has the right to legislate on areas the individual states grant it the power to specificaly.


But it reserves the right to expand its own jurisdiction, as mentioned above.

As for ID cards that has nout to do with euroupe.
The exsistance of the state is self evident as is socioty how ever much thatcher and her supporters wish there wasn't. Thatcher may have thought she killed it when she beat the minors but it's back and gaining strength as an entity every day. Watch the streets people are getting pissed off and the party is just begining.


And as with *every* other instance of the state gaining power, it will end in bloodshed. c.f. Yugoslavia, the USSR and so on.

wow, just wow!
I cannot remember ever having came across someone I have so much in common with, on paper, and yet been so, mind bendingly different from.
I had a quick look at your journal ( I hope you don't mind, I'm nosey me!) and good lord, but you talk about Toynebee! I'm more Malthus myself, and Hegel. You sound like the exact antithesis of the SWP dudes I used to hang with (though in my defense I told Tony Clif himself were to stick his membership).
I have rearly come across an educated, inteligent sounding individual with the opposing veiws of my own (yeah, obviousely I've been looking in the wrong places).
I am, I hate to admit, intregued! :)
Oh, I do RP too, but White Wolf stuff. And I tend to play nyphomanic charecters rather than psychopathic.

"The most effective way to restrict democracy is to transfer decision-making from the public arena to unaccountable institutions."

Noam Chomsky

I have not read the text of the European Constitution. Trying to find copies of it to do so seems a hard enough job. It would be wrong for me to berate it without first reading it.

However, from my understanding of the situation to ratify the European Constitution would be to bring into play a set of laws over which I an the millions of other "ordinary people" of Europe had NOT had a direct say in creating. That may seem a "paranoid way of looking at things", and yes I am sure that the Constitution brings in some great benefits.

Unfortunately, I (me, myself, I, personally) would like to be afforded the opportunity of actually finding out just what exactly is said in the Constitution before I were to stick my hand up as an "Aye!"

I think the bigwigs in Brussels should be worrying more about transparency of action, and accountability before they start trying to force the member states into some form of "normalised legal playing field".

The Constitution defines EU institutions that already exist, it doesn't create much which is new, apart from clarity!

There are hundreds of trades agreements between EU countries, the Constitution compiles them all, and writes in the same Human Rights that the European Court of Justice has been defending since it's inception - that same ones, incidentally, that the United Nations lists.

Consider this... if the UK puts tariffs on US steel imports, what does the US do? It merely asks the other fourteen European countries if it can export steel to them instead. One of them will agree. Then, the US company works the steel and ships it to the UK from that country. Without consolidation of the European bloc into one economic entity, our regulation of our own economy is crippled.

We are a close-knit set of countries (unlike the USA which has very few neighbours), it is not sensible for all two-dozen of us (including malingerers such as Switzerland!) to have differing trade relations with the rest of the world: The present situation allows commercial interests to run over European regulations by just shifting from country to country.

A combined power base puts power of the economy back into the hands of (accountable) government, not (unelected) globalised corporations.

The playing field is 90% normalized, but the left-over 10% are leaks in the dams... and any attempt by European government to legislate industry fails due to that 10%, where business just floods elsewhere whenever regulation is attempted.

With a common European bloc, industry *has* to conform and listen to government; democracy in Europe is anti-commercialist, but commercialism has the upper hand because European governments are splintered.

This is a chance to rectify that!

With a common European bloc, industry *has* to conform and listen to government; democracy in Europe is anti-commercialist, but commercialism has the upper hand because European governments are splintered.

This is a chance to rectify that!>


No, it is a chance for Europe to slip even behind. More statism will simply result in industry relocating to the Far East and the States, which both use Anglo-Saxon/Adam Smith economic model.

What you discount is the reality that free enterprise is the *only* remotely-successful economic methodology. Continental Europe simply has to wake up to this fact, else it will slip even further behind.

What the EU constitution says (courtesy BBC news) :-)

I'm not sure either way on this one, or at least I can see good points to both the yes and no. My view/understanding of politics is naive and ignorant to say the least, but I'm working on it.

I can see why having one document is better than lots, but I'm still not convinced that it's possible to have laws which are fair/balanced to the huge variety of countries and cultures in Europe. Having met both, and backed up by some psychology research I heard once (!), the spanish and norweigen are very different people!

What I'd like to see is a system that accepted diversity rather than trying to squish everything into the same shape. If you're going to base Europe-wide decisions on majority vote, it seems that there will always be some countries which get a raw deal and have laws imposed upon them which simply do not suit their people or lifestyle.

A question I have is, how open to change will the constitution be? what about a total overhall if we discover it doesn't work? How would we know if it WAS working??

hmm...!

(Deleted comment)
I think argument is that it will erode parliamentary sovereignty.

Given the current constitution is pretty well shafted unless they wish to steamroller it through against the wishes of the majority of people in at least a couple of the countrys it will effect (And no matter how right the constitution is to do that would be wrong) I figure I will wait untill I see what mark 2 will be. To say you are for the european constituion as currently proposed is one thing but to say you are for "a European Constitution" But that is to suppose that we are to have the current one or that the next one wont be crap. Neither a certianty.

I reserve my judgement and will start argueing when I know what I will be argueing about.

What I would do is (simply) make the Constitution binding in the countries that have accepted it (eleven so far?), and leave a few stragglers to sort out their own. The world will be an amazing, inspiring place if we can get countries like Turkey to sign up for a Human Rights document that enshrines gender equality and freedom of (and from) religion!

I think that's one of the main things... the constitution steps on the toes of too many who DON'T want such human rights to exist! It's making too many enemies at once, it's ahead of it's time.

Perhaps people simply do not want to live in a European superstate?

The problem is that the constituion changes voteing powers. Members would be surrendering vetos in some areas. If those that signed up in good faith beliving that others would all be giving up thier vetos to discover that only half the other countries had and that they had been short changed then it all breaks down.
In short certain parts of the constituion dose need everybody to play ball.

forward a european superstate

The only problem I have with the current European government is that it's created by politicians which have conflicting agendas. What i'd like to see IS a European superstate (the outlines of which i've posted before on my journal and will leave out to save some space) created with the single idea of benefitting the people of Europe (but not at the expensive of others outside of it).

  • 1
?

Log in