Saturday, 19 February 2005

The EU constitution

Fortunately, I’m blessed with not having to live in Europe and face the possibility of living under a constitution that exceeds 500 pages. Here’s a review from the Telegraph:

George W. Bush is a good Protestant, but I doubt if he has read the European Constitution. Why should he, indeed, since he is lucky enough to live in a country that will not be ruled by it? No reason at all, unless, as is rumoured, early drafts of the speech he will make in Brussels next week commit him to saying what a wonderful thing it is.

It is natural for Americans to like the sound of the word “constitution”. They have the best one ever written in a single document. It consists, in the copy I have before me, of 12 pages, 11 if you exclude the list of the men who signed it. There are also amendments added over the past two centuries: they amount to another nine pages. If President Bush tucked himself up with it at his famously early bedtime of 9.30, he could finish it well before 10.

I should be surprised if the State Department, the Washington faction keenest on turning Mr Bush into a Euro-enthusiast, has encouraged him to go to bed with a copy of the European Constitution. My copy, published by TSO (note that the former name Her Majesty’s Stationery Office has quietly been relegated), is 511 pages long. I do not claim it would keep Mr Bush up all night – in fact, I guarantee that, if he tried to read it, he would still be asleep by 10 – but it would wake him and the First Lady up with a start as it slipped from his nerveless hands and crashed, all 2lb 8oz of it, on the floor.

If he did spend 20 minutes with the document, however, the President would see that it was not what is normally meant by a constitution. Rather than confining itself to the division of powers by which a country should be governed – head of state, parliament, judiciary, what’s local and what’s national – it lays out scores of pages telling people how to run their lives. It supports positive discrimination, outlaws the death penalty in all circumstances, commits itself to high public spending, compulsory consultation with trade unions about changes at work, “the exchange of youth workers”, “fat-free breakfasts”, “distance education” and “the physical and moral integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen” (I made one of these up). And it imposes all these on nations that have their own governments and electorates.

The content of this “constitution” sounds horrid as well, though there may be a silver lining. It seems designed to marginalize Nato and put Europe on a path toward self-defense. That can’t happen too soon for my liking. The sooner our troops are out of Europe, the better.

2 comments:

Any views expressed in these comments are solely those of their authors; they do not reflect the views of the authors of Signifying Nothing, unless attributed to one of us.

I think its designers are confused. Although 18 is +3 and 3 is -3 on hit points, that doesn’t mean a bigger constitution is better.

 

I tend to think any constitution that is comparable in length to Alabama’s is a bad idea by definition.

The bit of the article I don’t get is why Blair is said to reckon that having George W. Bush’s endorsement for the document is any form of valuable political support. My god, the “No” campaign writes itself… all they need to do is send out postcards to every household in Europe from the Adriatic to the Baltic with “Bush thinks this constitution’s a good idea” on them and watch the No vote roll in.

Anyway, the whole thing’s here if you’re masochistic enough to read it.

 
Comments are now closed on this post.