Down in Flames?
I recently had lunch with Mart Laar, former Primer Minister of Estonia (now in the European Parliament), who assured me and the others around the table that the British would defeat the proposed (and monstrous) phone-book-sized European Union Constitution. Now it looks like the French might beat them to it!
I’m planning on using the U.S. and proposed E.U. constitutions as props in my sessions on constitutionalism in Iraq. If the French defeat it, I’ll be robbed of a useful demonstration of how not to write a constitution. (Question 1: Ask whether the drafters have actually read the whole thing.)
(For full text of the proposed Constitution for Europe in 21 languages, go here.)
So, at Dr. Palmer’ s suggestion, I entered the rabbit hole of the new EU constitution, and emerged with:
Article II-77
Right to property
In 18 pages of “rights”, this is the entire provision devoted to private property. (The link is http://europa.eu.int/constitution/download/part_II_en.pdf)
“1. Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired
possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. The use of property may be regulated by law insofar as is necessary for the general interest.”
Doubting Thomases (sorry Tom) who might object that this is just a mealy-mouthed consecration of eminent domain can take comfort in the second (and final) provision under the heading of Property:
“2. Intellectual property shall be protected.”
What a relief.
Perhaps the EU ideal for its citizenry is Boethius: Though my physical property can be expropriated to serve the public interest, my mind remains free!
In the meantime, on your next trip to the Continent, remember to leave that nice watch and set of cufflinks behind. You never know when the Public Interest might want to upgrade the Collective wardrobe.
Good news indeed. But I’m afraid if the no wins the eurocrats will just spend more (tax-payer) money in propaganda and repeat the referend until they get the “right” result.
My only real hope is a strong rejection in the UK…
The most…disturbing thing about the proposed confustitution is that the implicit assumption is that the eurozone is delineating the rights it *allows* its citizens to have, rather than stating the rights they possess. They can call them “fundamental” all they want—this is a perfect example of simple and powerful the natural law tradition is. And how complicated, convoluted, and just plain verbose the so-called “positive rights” tradition has become.
The problem is that, even if some european people is wise enough to say no to the constitution, things will not improve, because the present treaties are very similar to the proposed constitution
Ana Vasconcelos.
“the present treaties are very similar to the proposed constitution”
That’s true, but I think that if this proposed constitution is rejected the proccess of european integration has a better chance of changing course towards a less statist approach.
Helas, it was too good to be true.
It seems that the results of the opinion pools were probably just a trick from Chirac to put pressure on the european summit of last week in order to postpone the directive on deregulation of services, which the french think would favour the East european countries.
Hence nothing new on the EU.
Ana Vasconcelos