Information Related to "Q: When Is a Constitution Not a Constitution? A: When It' a "Treaty.""
| Audio/Video |
A leading editorial in the highly respected British newsweekly magazine The Economist simply stated in its brief drophead: "Sneaking a new constitution through on the sly is a bad idea for all Europeans" (Oct. 27, 2007). Yet a bad idea could very well become a stark reality.
The Economist summed up what really happened: "On October 18 [2007] the leaders of the European Union took the constitution that voters in France and the Netherlands had rejected in 2005, changed the odd phrase, muddled the odd concept and presented the Lisbon 'Reform Treaty' to the world...So there is no need for it to be put to any difficult referendums" (emphasis added throughout).
In other words, after the EU constitution had been rejected by voters in France and the Netherlands, EU leaders simply changed a few details and relabeled it a "treaty" so it could bypass European voters. The treaty was then signed by European leaders in Lisbon on Dec. 13 (though national parliaments must still ratify it before it goes into effect Jan. 1, 2009).
Major changes for Europe
The Daily Mail' deputy political editor, James Chapman, had previously stated in midsummer that the "new treaty is 96 [percent] identical to the rejected blueprint." The Economist later referred to the alterations as "cosmetic changes." However, for a short period public attention was focused on important new provisions in this new treaty (also found in the previous constitution):
• The creation of a new European president.
• The creation of a new EU foreign minister with political clout, funding and his own diplomatic service.
• The creation of a new EU public prosecutor.
• New powers for an EU Court of Justice.
Related Information on UCG Sites:
Table of Contents that includes "Q: When Is a Constitution Not a Constitution? A: When It' a "Treaty.""
Other Articles by John Ross Schroeder
European Union - unity: