George Orwell must have written the EU constitution handbook

An important aspect of the European Union is that in the EU "no" does not mean "no". That explains why Tony Blair hinted at a second referendum on the European Constitution if the first one fails.

This explains why Denmark and Ireland had two votes on euro membership. Britain, cunningly, wouldn't hold one, so the "N" word never surfaced. Eurocrats in pursuit of a goal just keep on caucusing and voting until their idea is approved.You may feel, as I do, that this is, in a way, more insulting than outright tyranny. Modern tyrants in democratic guise add insult to injury. Doing their bidding isn't enough. They also demand our consent.

In the bad old days of the Soviet empire, this came in the form of a sarcastic aside from your local commissar that "you not only have to do it but you have to do it voluntarily, with a song". Throughout eastern and central Europe, enforced compliance was reduced to the sarcastic slogan "voluntarily, with a song". It may be time to disinter the phrase.

My response to some sort of a European Union is favourable for shallow reasons. I sometimes feel more in tune with Mediterranean Europe and am at least as attracted to the culture of Rome and "Constantinople" (should Europe ever let Turkey in) as I am to that of London and Paris.

On a practical level, I worry about the doors a United Europe closes: having the historical memory of a European Jew, I prefer a Europe of sovereign nation states with distinct legal and political systems as opposed to the EU's proposed single "legal identity". In the event of a bad virus attacking one country, a diversity of "legal identities" pretty much assures escape routes.

I admit this approach is eccentric but, having now read the draft constitution of the EU, I think it should have a popular resonance. The draft EU constitution effectively gives power over every aspect of our lives to Brussels. From our criminal procedures to our prejudices and preferences, Brussels has laid down its marker. Where a particular power is now limited, there is a basket clause to amend or expand it in the future. Areas of influence have been mapped out as clearly as the patch of land around which any animal urinates to establish dominance.

Given that the EU's compliance and enforcement will be in the hands of an unaccountable civil service, this constitution is essentially a document in which bureaucrats constitutionally empower themselves to rule without limit. All we can hope is that they are nice bureaucrats. We can't exclude the statistical possibility that some of them will be decent intelligent people. If not, we're out of luck. This novo Magna Carta won't protect us against the gnomes of Brussels, either as nationals or individuals.

One understands why this approach has to be taken. You can't have an omelette without whipping some eggs together, and you can't make a United States of Europe - or anything more than a loose alliance - if its yolks remain separated. The logic of a European entity requires a common foreign policy, legal system, taxation and monetary policy all largely centralised.

Saying good-bye to the sovereign nation state sits uncomfortably with many, and certainly isn't a vote-getter; so its supporters tend to lie. Naturally, some differences in local customs can be retained just as differences within America remain. These customs can range from the totally meaningless to the somewhat meaningful, including cuisine, architecture and language. In Louisiana, the cooking is spicier than in Idaho.

Whenever and wherever a geo-political union is contemplated, objections surface regardless of its nature. But quite apart from what one thinks of a particular union - pro or con - and in addition to every other objection one might have specifically to the EU, this constitution is objectionable in terms of its vocabulary and prose.

Frankly, it reads as if it were written by the editorial committee of Ken Livingstone's office. The authors leave no progressive, Left-Lib cliché unturned. Everything from "sustainable development" to "social exclusion" is here, not a buzz word missing. We all give away our game by the vocabulary we choose, and the spirit of this constitution is that of the Socialist International.

The first page of the preamble calls for a Europe striving for "peace, justice and solidarity". Solidarity comes up quite a bit: it is the subject of Title IV which covers workers' rights, family and professional life, access to services of general economic interest, health care and consumer protection among other areas. The word "solidarity" is, in itself, a neutral word. But, in this context, you know the cauldron in which it was cooked - it's quasi-Marxism, quasi-syndicalism, and it has been well-stewed.

The rights of many groups are spelled out but I could not find any protection of private property. It may be covered by one of the documents subsumed in the constitution but it is not singled out in any of the articles as other rights are. Inequality is enshrined by nullifying the principle of equality when special advantages are needed for "the under-represented sex". The constitution is shifty on the entire subject of "equality" whenever it suits. Article III enshrines equal pay for male and female workers for equal work but also tacks on "work of equal value" - a contentious area - without any definition of what this phrase means.

The constitution wants to promote "solidarity between generations" which I assume is a constitutional call for Europe's younger generation not to be too upset when (a) it is taxed to the hilt and (b) it doesn't get some of its paid-for pension benefits. There is protection for men, women, children, generations and future generations but not even a nod that there may be some vestigial rights to the generation in the womb, even under "Right to Life" and "Right to the Integrity of the Person". Some generations are more equal than others.

Books could be written about this draft constitution - and probably will be. George Orwell, however, wrote the handbook to it years ago. In the appendix to Nineteen Eighty-Four, he listed "The Principles of Newspeak". His "A vocabulary" consisted of words needed for everyday life activities; "B Vocabulary", he wrote, "consisted of words that had been deliberately constructed for political purposes… intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them". His examples included "goodthink" and "minitrue".

The Articles dealing with freedom, security and justice in the EU establish a European Public Prosecutor's Office.

Where do these rules come from that - sooner rather than later - will end British civil and criminal law as we know it, with its value on the individual, presumption of innocence and protection of the accused?

They come from Eurojust. Sic. The time is 1984. The place is Oceania. The constitution is Newspeak.

The rights of many groups are spelled out but I could not find any protection of private property.

The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial. It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree...Ayn Rand

If history could teach us anything, it would be that private property is inextricably linked with civilization. - Ludwig von Mises

This is an important issue that every clear thinking American should follow closely because it's becoming clearer all the time that as the FTAA (FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS) is implemented we will see our own Constitution shredded piece by piece...... to be replaced by the fluff, swill and nonsense currently experienced by those in the EU.

Very sad. British law was ground breaking for its time, and foreshadowed many of the protections we (are supposed to) enjoy in our own Constitution. Sad to see it superseded by a bunch of cheese-eating non-bathing Marxist surrender monkeys.

The rights of many groups are spelled out but I could not find any protection of private property.

Article II-17: Right to property

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.
Intellectual property shall be protected.

It seems to me that the original author should read the document before 'commentating'

No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest

Perhaps you should have read it more carefully. Hardly seems like a constitutional protection to me. I imagine that that is just the point she is trying to make.

Then you need to reread the Constitution (and I do not want to hear about the recent volations of it under the pretext of emment domain.) Except for taxes, their is no leagal way to seperate you from your property "in the public interest" in this nation.

As you appear to have either 1) read the entire document, or 2) have a really good search engine technique, may I impose upon you for another questio re the EU constitution:

Under what, if any, circumstances may a country who has earlier voted to join the EU, leave?. I.e., say, Poland get disgusted in a few years and decide to opt otu? Logic would indicate that one of the newly free, former Sovie republics would find the bureaurocracy of Brussels stifling of all freedoms, and realize they'd made a mistake..

Article 59: Voluntary withdrawal from the Union

Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the European Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention; the European Council shall examine that notification. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council of Ministers, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. The representative of the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in Council of Ministers or European Council discussions or decisions concerning it.
The Constitution shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, decides to extend this period.
If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to re-join, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 57.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.