TOPIC: A democratic constitution for a European Federation.
The 15 Heads of State and Government, meeting in Laeken in December 2001, established a Convention (almost a Constituent Assembly) of 105 members (including 12 Italians), a hundred deputies and 13 observers to draft a draft European Constitution. Started February 28, 2002, the Charter has been brought to the discussion Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) in October 2003, without obtaining the approval for differing views on the voting system, the role of President of the European Council and the Foreign Minister of Defence, on the composition of the Commission (cons. of Ministers EU) on economic governance. The more than 60 questions put to the Convention can be summarized the four major issues: 1. Division of powers between the EU and the Member States, 2. Simplification of the Treaties, 3. Status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, 4. The role of national parliaments within the European Federation.
"The context in which agriculture policies took place the work of the Convention of the majority of cold- Governments of the Member States towards the European project; jealousy of the candidate countries regained sovereignty, distrust arising from conflicting positions on Iraq ', has certainly not helped the development of solutions uniquely favorable to the advancement and deepening of integration. Therefore should not be surprising, given the climate of the moment, that the limitation of the powers of the Union is a major concern in the draft Constitution, which is informed "
V. RANDAZZO , as indicated by the draft constitution? , in "The Thought Mazzini", No. 4, 2003
"What we see, then, a constitution" true "? With its institutions intertwined with those of nation-states, with a system of rights and their guarantees, to use common (and dual) of European citizens with a system of interdependent legitimized the last common Gaul to Rome-Brussels Senate -European Parliament, a Court exercising jurisdiction by "constitutional state"? We can say that the Constitution is true in the sense that the EU, going beyond the dreams of the Federalists, did not participate in the phenomenon "a union of states" but the much more invasive, union constitutions that each conunicano legittimitàm through law and through channels with different but interdependent peoples-European people. There is indeed something more: the possible configuration of the EU institutions as isttuzioni mutual guarantee between the European constitutions (those of each Member State and the Union). There may in fact be lonely for the European Constitution in the making. It will come already installed in a block of constitutionality which includes the Constitutions of the Member States "
A. MANZELLA , From Convention to Constitution, in" The Mill ", n 409.5 / 2003
" The substance of the Convention was to deftly navigate upstream. The project gives Europe a legal personality, reinforces the concept of European citizenship, extends Parliament's powers, extends the mandate of the president, create a foreign minister, restricts the right of veto from member countries, the democratic criterion introduces the double majority (states and population), suggests a route for further progress. But the 'quantum leap' there is no federal state. Some key issues (foreign, defense, taxation) is still the principle of unanimity, a synonym of powerlessness [...] There is scope for some decisive improvement? The answer, unfortunately, is no "
S. ROMANO, Italy between ambition and realism in Il Corriere della Sera 3/10/2003
Preamble EU Constitution: Our Constitution is called a democracy because power is in the hands of the few but of the greatest. Removing the reference to 'the primacy of reason' and 'Enlightenment tradition', also did not want to insert an explicit reference to 'Christian roots' of Europe, as he would like Pope John Paul II [or Europe is Christian or Europe is not], because of different religious cultures of Europe. In this regard, it was reported that this request is in fact ... not as a desire to privilege the Christian religion at the expense of other religions present today in the European territory, but [as a desire to] rise formed by European humanism the inculturation of Christian heritage, which was a mass phenomenon of people settled in that territory [...] The inclusion in the New European Constitution in reference to Christian roots would, once again, to take account of the people, of all people and not just a new class of intellectual elites "
V. GROSSI , The reference to Christian roots ... , in L'Osservatore Romano , 2/10/2003
" In the draft constitutional, on the one hand is crucial 'the principle of an open market economy with free competition', a view that has always been present in essentially since its inception in Treaty of Rome of 1957 establishing the EEC, on the other hand, is central to the 'value' of 'solidarity', has only recently risen in the same maximum degree of importance of freedom, equality, tolerance or Justice, which is even dedicated the entire Titollo IV of the Charter of Fundamental Rights [...] The draft constitution defines the limits and modes of public action in the economic system, applying the principle, introduced by the Treaty of Maastricht, 'subsidiarity ', as well as' proportionality' [...]: in the presence of market failures, while those of the public administration are not even more, it must intervene to correct [...] or to combat [...] E 'patently weak internal consistency of the draft constitution, because it raises employment policies through coordination between those of a mere' guidelines' by the Union "
F. KOSTORID PADOA SCHIOPPA , efficiency and solidarity, in Il Sole 24 Ore , 05/10/2003
the December 15, 2001 was a very important day for the history of the EU. They were, in fact , declared a number of objectives including:
- Annexation of new states join the EU;
- institutional changes in order to bring the city to a representation Europe;
- greater centralization of powers to the European Parliament;
- Drafting of a Constitution.
Too many brains do not work together well, especially if the brains in question are from countries which are so profoundly different traditions, cultures and tradizioni.Ricordiamo that the current 27 EU Member States are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria (the last to come together Romania on 1 January 2007), Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Hungary.
difficult to agree 27 states, many of whom have spent centuries of history to war with each other, and this is the big difference between Europe and the federal model as Canada, the USA or Australia. In these places there is not ancient history, has never existed the Middle Ages, nememno do not know what the Holy Roman Empire nor the Thirty Years War, not to mention the various alloys Sante, Napoleonic wars, world wars or wars of religion. There is no story, there is no memory. In these countries it was possible, therefore, lay the foundations Eer a totally new society unlike in Europe whose history has led to much violence. Unfortunately, tolerance and mutual respect are absolutely not part of human condition, especially if the specimens of human holding positions as high as even MEP, European Defence Minister, Predisente of the European Council or otherwise. Chee not in this case are wrong. The mega-year federal states does not lead to anything good, is an example of the Soviet Union or even the present Russian Federation with its vast territory ravaged by internal strife. Gather together many heads would have been a genuine suicide. Perhaps the few years would be a great burst European Civil War: Northern States on the one hand, the other Southern states, perhaps the Rhine or the Danube as a dividing line. It seems to be similar warning Mr. Randazzo, who wrote his disappointment on the quarterly thought Mazzini, title that arouses so much tenderness. He clearly explains that, for personal reasons on the powers that be and divergence opionion on policies, it is socially impossible to implement a European federal state . There has succeeded the Soviet Union with its mega-states that have taken all of Asia, there has succeeded Yugoslavia: Marshal Tito refused to become a country-satellite 's Soviet Union. He was expelled in 1948 by the Commonwealth of Europe and created in collaboration with the second Egyptian President Nasser and Indian Prime Minister Nehru, a block of nearly 100 non-aligned countries. At his death in 1980, many nationalist revolts, above all those of Kosovo Serbs did not want to be inland region of ethnic Albanians found there (remember that Serbia and Albania are in constant conflict with each other for various reasons: relgiosi, Orthodox Christian one, and other local Muslims, Albanians seeking to adhere to the Kosovo region of Serbia politically and geographically, in particular). Born of ethnic wars, the USSR collapsed in 1990 broke the Communist League and won the elections nationalist parties claimed that the 'independence, the first regions to declare themselves autonomous and Slovenia were the current Croazia.Tutto this has led to the situation in the Balkans not so prosperous that we know.
All this is history, not personal opinions or propaganda for a party politician, far from me such an idea. The piles do not solve anything. Even within the same country there are conflicts, just think of all 'Eta in Spain, the Northern League and other small parties secessionists in Italy or Switzerland, the tiny nation that has found its balance and divide into quasi-independent cantons. Nor is the opinion of Esquire S. Romano the Corriere della Sera when praising the European constitution as a future project that could increase the sense of unity among European citizens. As is to be respected, not simply true. The federal state is perfect, sorry for the many dreamers who still believe in outdated concepts as unity, centralization and indissoluble. I wrote earlier that the Federal Government is a perfect state. Now I realized that I said the blasphemy. The perfect state is pure utopia. There are, roughly, two types of state: centralist and federalist. The central state is less than perfect for the reasons already given, the Federal Government would not be fair in any case: the federal state is a union of various autonomous regions represented by an upper central body with regard to defense policy, foreign policy and economic and monetary policy. In short, the region may be what they want but the economy is closely the same in the hands of a master, who (as we shall see later) may not be fair for the other roles assigned, for reasons campanilisitiche (certainly encourage ' other region of origin) and why did you hand in the economy, the most important thing.
any state is nothing but a insiememe people rich, powerful, they aspire only to swell out of proportion to its large patrimonio.Questo is historically proven. They are not personal opinions. Are very few examples of heads of government in history that have not protected their interests first. Came to power are all alike expressed Machiavelli.
I've never been in favor of a state. The idea of \u200b\u200ba State does not agree to my heart. E 'connected with many difficulties and narrow-mindedness. I think it's a bad thing. So said Einstein. Eeffettivamente, your comment has a point. The idea of \u200b\u200ba state does is give birth to ideas of diversity and division. The unit, according to many people sleep a single head, under a governor, under a powerful man, any man who, as it may have good intentions, can not govern with justice, can not never be, even minimally, corrupt. It is this history into are personal opinions.
Who is in favor of a state, supports the restriction of freedom porpria. Then everyone will think as they please. Unfortunately, the confirmation of all this (for the skeptics who still refuse to get the equation state = injustice) arrives by reading the review on the journalist's Big 'Osservatore Romano newspaper spiaccatamente filoclericale. Grassi said that a European Constitution as it should have to take by force account of Christian origins of the Old Continente.In other words, it means that the Constitution of any European federal state, must be centered on Christianity and who has a 'make do other faith. It seems to be back to the Middle Ages, the contention between Pope and Emperor, to the Counter. A little matter of minorities in every country, have repeatedly trampled on the concept of state. The idea of \u200b\u200bhuge territories meeting is called globalization, which the Vatican would take a lot of profit. Grossi's opinion is not to look into. Do not mean to go against this religion or that belief, it means not to respect those who want to impose their beliefs on others regardless of religious beliefs.
But back to our discussion. A European Federation would affect very heavily on state autonomy, which affect those which affect the regional towns. History teaches us that any form of State or Government, has failed. There has always been a fringe constantly neglected, forgotten or a part, often trampled. Can not get an equal distribution of rights within a single region, let alone within a state. Fichte said that the government is to perfect if they do not miss it because it has fulfilled the role of educating citizens in intellectual independence, mutual respect, Kant's categorical imperative. The fact that you feel the need to have a rule that says a lot about the enormous conscience of men. But I think here we go beyond idealism.
The state, after all, is a church, a sacred place where worship a god with the capital. But the D stands for money. all this is history, not personal opinions. Reflect before they relished the loyalty to a party, a coalition or a form of government.
