@ Schaveiger

Sad to say, you are poorly informed.

1)  Take your first point.   Every serious 'western' constitution describes - I repeat for the umpteenth time - the 'organisation of political power (or the institutional setup of the political sytem).  This INCLUDES specific provisions that proscribe how the constitution can be changed.  These provisions set a difficult hurdle for changing the constitution, to ensure that the changes are 'widely' acceptable to the population, not just to a simple (and temporary) majority, unlike 'ordinary' legislation.  These provisions differ in different countries (and certainly differ between centralised and federal systems).  In Belgium, they include for instance a formal declaration of the authorities about proposed changes to the constitution and making parliament a 'constituante'.  In practice that means that an election is held specifically on the proposed constitutional changes.   As far as I know, this constitutional provision has been respected in past changes to the Belgian constitution.  If the current Belgian government wants to change the constitution (i.e. superimposing an EU constitution) it should declare parliament a 'constituante' and give people a chance to vote on the new constitutional provisions.    

2)  I have no idea what you are trying to say under your second point. 

3)  I have no idea what you mean by my "side".  Is speaking up for the constitutional principle of freedom of (political) speech "a side"?

My conclusion is that you do not take seriously the ongoing violations of the current Belgian constitution, especially as regards freedom of political speech and of (political) association.  Probably, because like many people you cannot separate fundamental principles from emotions about immediate specific personalities (politicians), parties, and popular 'ideologies'. 

As is often the case, future generations will pay a heavy price for the 'kopindegronderij' of the current generations.  

@ Schaveiger

I think we are making slight progress in clarifying differences and misunderstandings between us, although I must say that - from my perspective - you seem to be blind to important current realities in Belgium and in the EU.  So is much of the public, obviously, which illustrates the failure of the major media and the education system to accurately and objectively inform.

1) I do not understand what you mean by my presumed "preference".  Ordinary legislation and a constitution have different purposes.  It is not a matter of "preferring" one over the other.  We both agree that ordinary law (made in parliament, and easily changeable) is necessary for the functioning of any society.  Whether a constitution is necessary, that is not so clear, and is debatable among serious people.  A constitution is the 'basic law' of a political system.  It should describe the organisation of political power (or the institutional setup) AND spell out fundamental individual rights (essentially as a means to constrain political power, i.e. to safeguard the individual from abuses by the 'ruling' politicians of the day).   Thus, a major purpose of a constitution is to give the highest court of the judiciary (Supreme Court) a yardstick to judge the 'constitutionality'  of ordinary laws passed by parliament, and if necessary to force politicians to go back to the 'drawing board' and revise their laws.  

Your comments about the people not being "skilled" enough to make decisions about the constitution, illustrate a fundamental philosophical difference between us about "democracy".   Yes, in a parliamentary democracy the people send representatives to parliament to represent them and to make complicated decisions about things like criminal law, economic policy, etc... They did NOT send them to parliament to change the basic nature of the political system without their express agreement.  The people would be very foolish if they would let a small ruling elite change the very 'nature'  of theitr country.  Ultimately, 'sovereignty' must rest in the people, not in politicians, ruling classes or 'elites'.  So, when it comes to making a decision about entering a new or different political system, the proper democratic answer is to let the people decide (not the politicians).  Thus matters, like joining another country or countries, splitting up a country, changing the 'basic law' (the constitutional order) of a country, properly need to be decided by the people themselves.  It is thoroughly depressing that contemporary European elites seem to be digressing so far from what was long-ago gained in the cultural European 'Enlightenment' of several centuries ago.    The reason I brought up Japan as a current example, is that its current political class better seems to understand where democratic 'sovereignty' properly lies.  And they will not change their basic (constitutional) political order without EXPRESS aproval of the people. 

2) ??

3)  Try to remain honest, please.   You did NOT claim that there are "cultural differences within the EU".   You claimed that the history and the culture of Britain and of "the continent" were "totally different".   That is another incredible illustration of the terrible (and ideological) state of contemporary education in Belgium. 

 4) With regard to your comments about the "cordon sanitaire", in response to may complaint about the loss of democracy in Belgium, it would seem that the Belgian public seems to have lost a sense of proportionately about what is important and what is not.  From a long-term perspective, it is NOT important which particular politicians or parties 'win' or 'lose' succeeding elections, to make changing 'ordinary' laws about ways of tackling crime  or laws to implement specific social and economic policies.   By contrast, it is of the UTMOST importance, when a specific ruling class starts to violate the EXISTING constitution by passing ordinary laws that violate freedom of political speech and try to ban political opposition. And the Belgian judiciary did not stop them, i.e. did not perform its proper role under the (constitutional) separation-of-powers doctrine!  The Belgians are going to deserve in the long run what they are going to get, because they allowed their politicians to violate their own constitution.  It is an attitude of extreme shortsighted 'kopindegronderij'.     

@ Schaveiger

1) Where did I express a "preference" for ordinary law?  I simply observed that ordinary law can easily be changed, and is subject to the 'ballot box', whereas constitutions cannot easily be changed.  Hence, the constitution better be a 'good' one, before one should even think about signing up for it. 

No, I do not want more "flexibility" to change constitutions.  There should be very broad agreement within a polity before changing a constitution, and certainly before adopting one for the first time (as the EU one)!  A temporary narrow parliamentary majority would certainly not be sufficient to change the fundamental law (or nature) of a political system.  Moreover, when entering a new political system, the people should have a chance to express themselves on this through a referendum.  Have you noticed recently that Japan wants to change its postwar 'pacifist' constitution in order to 'legitimise' the role of its growing military (in view of growing threats from N-Korea and China)?  Well, yesterday, Japans' government announced that it is preparing for a referendum on proposed changes to its constitution.  One would hope that all these "constitutional scholars" in Europe would need no lesson from Japan in 'democratic' sensibilities.  But apparently many of them do today.

I gave you 2 specific examples of "nefarious laws" in response to your incredible claim or belief that there could not be such laws made in the "actual EU".  And, my second example had certainly very important constitutional implications.  How, on earth can you deny that certain 'ordinary laws' in Belgium that pertain to negationism, anti-racism, hate speech and the like, are not in conflict with Belgium's own constitution which supposedly "guarantees" freedom of political speech?   You seem to be part of a collective head-in-the-sand attitude that is now widespread in western-Europe. 

And your example of "freedom of language" in Belgium is completely incomprehensible.  What has that got to do with the discussion at hand?   Do you know of any person, or party, in Belgium that has been prosecuted for using somewhere a particular language?  As far as I know anyone can speak any language one wants in Belgium as a private person, and also in public.  Parliament can certainly proscribe the use of any specific language FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES, for instance in dealings with government, or to 'organise' the public education system etc.... It would indeed not be reasonable for a Mongolian to demand to be treated in Mongolian when dealing with a Belgian bureaucrat in,say, Brussels.   What on earth has this got to do with 'fundamental' individual rights that the Belgian Constitution supposedly "guarantees"?   You do not seem to understand what the the purpose of a constitution ought to be.

2) The content of the EU constitution has been extensively covered elsewhere.  My biggest problem is that it contains 'ideological' language which opens the door to abuse.  It should focus on fundamental individual rights that government can - if it wants - "guarantee", like habeas corpus and freedom of speech.  It should not invent fake 'rights', eg. like full employment for instance.  First because governement cannot guarantee such matters, and second because specific social and economic policies of changing governments have nothing to do with fundamental individual human rights.  I repeat such matters belong to 'ordinary law' and should be fought over at the ballot box, not through lawyers in courts.  

3) The state of historical education?  Yes your statement was amazing.  To claim that the history and culture of Britain and the Continent are "totally different" shows great ignorance of particularly west-European history.   And certainly from a broader world perspective.  Let's just leave it and say that, for instance, historically the cultural link between the Netherlands+Denmark is much bigger with Britain than with, say, Spain or Austria.    

Finally, labelling your political opponents "extremists" is not a sign of democratic credentials. On the contrary. I repeat, the surest way to discern a 'democrat' from an 'extremist' is to see which one of them is willing to take measures (legal or otherwise) to shut up his political opponents. Now, I ask you, who is trying to do that in Belgium today? Can you give an honest answer to that?

@ Schaveiger

 ..........

2) I have already here twice stated the essentials of a 'good' constitution.  What is the point to repeat it if you do not want to read or see it?

  Given that a constitution provides a blueprint for a political 'order' or system, in which all judicial processes in the end 'revert' upwards to a 'Supreme Court', it is amazing that you (and all those so-called "skilled constitutionalists of every country" would even dare to argue against the need for referenda (i.e. direct popular approval to a change in the constitutional order to which the people in the future will belong).  My gosh, even the presumed ex-communists of Chechoslovakia knew better when they changed their constitutional order a decade or so ago.

3) It is also amazing that you can claim that "the (cultural/political) history of Britain and the continent is totally different". I guess that depends on which parts of the Continent we are talking about. But, it is hard to think of a better example to illustrate the 'dire' current state of historical education on the 'Continent' (and probably in Britain too), where current popular ideology seems to trump even historical knowledge.

Finally, indeed there are (and always will be) "greedy guys and thirsty for power". That is one of the major lessons of human history. The best and SUREST way to recognize such "guys" (and women in the future) is when they start shutting up their political opponents by criminalising political speech, irrespective of whatever labels or fancy ideological words are used in that process of undermining genuine democracy.

@ Schaveiger

1) Of course I am not leaning to the "anarchistic side".  That is the domain of 'Amsterdamsky' and other (culturally) naive-left Americans living in Europe, who generally have little knowledge of the historical development of western civilisation.  

And, of course, one should "not change the fundamental rules of a society by each government".  Did I say that?  Why, then, do you raise such a nonsensical 'strawman'.  So you don't have to deal with my arguments?   In fact, I said the opposite.  It is 'ordinary law' which is easily changeable (irrespective of wether a government changes or not).  And it is precisely because an established constitution is virtually impossible to change, short of 'revolutionary' means, that it has to be a good one.  Better no constitution, than a bad one, is my position.  

I note your assertion, or belief, that "parliamentary sovereignty would not work in the EU".   There is no room here to comment further on it, but it should act as a 'warning' to discerning readers.

Your belief that there could not be "nefarious laws" in the "actual EU" is...to say the least...very naive.   Such laws exist virtually everywhere in the world, in different degrees, and I don't know where to start on that one.  Let's take a simple example, the high unemployment rate (particularly of youth) in SOME EU countries is a direct result from "nefarious laws" (governing labor markets) in those countries.  Or, to take another, the government-induced violations of freedom of political speech, say in Belgium, is a direct result of unconstitutional "nefarious (ordinary) laws" (nefarious in the sense of 'easily abusable' by intolerant nondemocrats) relating to 'negationism, so-called anti-racism, hate speech and the like'.   That you could think that nefarious laws would be impossible at the EU level is extremely naive, and a form of anti-historicism (i.e. the belief that people today would be fundamentally different from people in the past).   Indeed, in Belgium it is "the watchdog" (the judiciary) itself which is in large measure responsible for the loss of genuine democracy.  Fifty years ago there was genuine freedom of speech there.  For example, even then at a time when western Europe faced possible nuclear annihilation from the communist Soviet Union, one could openly profess to be a communist, sit in parliament as a representative of the communist party, etc....Today there is no longer freedom of political speech in Belgium.  There is now 'controlled speech' (under legislative and judicial intimidation) and the long-term consequences of that 'cultural change' will be very severe (just like they have been in the past).  One immediate consequence has been the importation of a sizable immigrant population of 'nondemocrats' over the past 20 years or so.   I repeat, you can only form and maintain a genuine democracy with 'democratic-minded' people, but it will take a while (probably a number of electoral cycles) for the remnants of the former democracy to disappear.  Freedom of political speech is usually the first thing to go.  And it has already gone in several major respects.    

..........

The other three main parties - Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour [who are currently the largest party in Scotland] are all committed to the Union. A majority of Scottish people however are not. That is why the separatist Scottish National Party will most likely win [ie form the largest party in the Scottish Parliament] tomorrow and why Scotland will have a referendum within 3 years.

What's in it for the Scottish people? The ability to determine their own future.  Personally I'm all for it. If Scotland break away from Britain then how long before England breaks away from the EU?

If the Scottish National Party become the largest party in the Scottish Parliament in tomorrow's election, then Alex Salmond will become First Minister. If, and likely when, this happens Scotland will hold a referendum on leaving the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland within 3 years.

Interestingly Great Britian celebrated 300 years of Union only yesterday. In another 3 years it could have been dissolved. Like I said in my earlier post, that's democracy for you. The people decide. Not political elites. The political class should exist to facilitate the will of the people. 

@ Schaveiger

1) Of course, every society needs laws and regulations.  What has that got to do with the matter under discussion?  You will find laws in the most 'libertarian/anarchistic'  of societies, and of course even more so in the most totalitarian of societies, and everywhere in between(***).     These laws will be used by the rulers to enforce their agendas.   If they have a 'democratic' agenda, so much for the better, and if they don't, then law becomes a nefarious instrument.  So far, are you still with me?

My main point was that 'ORDINARY LAW' can easily be changed, in reasonably 'democratic' cultures, because it only requires a parliamentary majority.  If such law becomes 'abusive' in the hands of the powerful (with a sychophantic or like-thinking judiciary) then democratic remedies are easily available through the 'ballot box'.   By contrast, CONSTITUTIONS are very difficult (nearly impossible) to change.  If they get abused then the remaining remedy is usually....revolutionary.   

2) So my position is very clear.  

First, say yes to a 'good' constitution.  Do I have to repeat again what "good" means in this context? 

Second, say no to a 'bad' constitution.

Third, the Giscard-constitution is 'bad', because it is riddled with ideology.  It does not limit itself to 'organisation' of political power and to 'fundamental' individual rights.   It is bound to be abused by the current ruling elite in the EU to cement their ideology, and to restrict freedom of political speech.        

Fourth, there can be no doubt about this future abuse at EU level, because it exists already in several major 'old' EU countries at the national level (persued by the same political 'elites').

3) I am very well aware that Britain is an island, and so is Ireland, thank you.  I was not making a military point, but rather a 'cultural' one.  So, you misunderstand the analogy of 70 years ago.  The point is that a totalitarian ideology did not arise in Britain, even though it did not have a 'formal' constitution.  By contrast, the presence of a constitution in Germany did nothing to prevent the rise of unfreedom there (even though that rise might have been in accordance with the popular will, a point that also Armor does not seem to grasp). And neither did the presence of a constitution in France do anything to preserve freedom or to ensure that the country took the necessary measures to preserve freedom in France. 

You must understand that, ultimately, the achievement and the preservation of democracy is not a matter of laws, but of 'culture'.  And the essence of democracy is closer to a concept of individual freedom than to a concept of majority rule.  Indeed, the latter can only be an instrument of democracy under conditions of freedom of political speech.  Without such freedom, all claims to presumed 'democracy' are a fraud.   And that is why Belgium today is no longer a genuine democracy.     

 (***) "This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down etc..."  said Thomas More already at the time of Henry VIII in Robert Bolt's "A Man for all Seasons").  

@ Schaveiger

You must have really dark glasses on that prevent you from making observations.   How can you say that a constitution "guarantees" democracy"? Seventy years ago, the Brits had no constitution and kept their democracy.  The French and Germans did have constitutions, but lost their democracy.  

The current Belgian constitution states explicitly that there should be freedom of political speech.  Yet, TODAY people in Belgium are SELECTIVELY (arbitrarily) being convicted for exactly that!   And political parties in Belgium, Austria, and Germany, among others, are being 'banned' for SPEECH or ideas (not actions)! 

If you don't know history, and if you cannot make empirical observations, then you are condemned to repeat history, as the current young generations of Belgians are surely going to find out in the future.

There is nothing more 'common' (frequent) in human political history as the ruling classes declaring political opponents as "undemocratic", or "unislamic", or "un-Germanic", or "racist", or un-whatever, and proceeding to 'shut them up' with 'undemocratic' legislation (thereby often violating their own constitutions).

True enough. We weren’t offered a referendum on joining the EEC. On the 6 June 1975 we were, however, given one on whether or not to stay in. 17,300,000 voted to stay in. 8,400,000 people voted for withdrawal. Then, the EEC was essentially a free-trade area. What we have now is quite different. A referendum would serve to re-assert the authority of the euro-sceptical British people over that of the euro-fanatical political class.

If, in the referendum, my compatriots voted for “ever closer union” then I’d abide by that. We just need to be given the choice. It's called 'democracy'

@ Schaveiger

You got it backwards.  After you jump it is too late "to see where you land".  The decision is made, and the consequences will perhaps be irreversible.  You better look before you jump. 

In any case, what is the haste, or even the need?   A 'Constitution' does not bring nor make a democracy.  Democracy is first and foremost a matter of cultural behavior patterns (rooted in deeply-held 'values').  Britain never had a 'constitution', in contrast with the 'formalism' of some other large West-European countries.  Yet, European history of the past 2 centuries clearly shows that Britain was better at safeguarding individual rights, and that it resisted better several (collective) totalitarian temptations, than France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc...did.  Better no constitution than a bad one.  Why?  Because, once it exists, a constitution becomes another instrument in the hands of the powerful (i.e. the ruling political class and cultural orthodoxy).  And they will use it!  If it is a 'bad' constitution, then it will easily be used for 'bad' purposes.  For instance to put "numerous political issues beyond the normal play of electoral politics".  Is that so difficult to understand?   To change 'ordinary law', all that is required is a change in parliamentary majority.  By contrast, constitutions are in practice very difficult to change.  Indeed, in Europe that has historically required 'revolutions' (which in themselves are indications that conditions must have gotten really bad under the previous constitutions).

I repeat.  The purpose of a 'good' constitution is the organisation of political power and its proper organs or institutions, AND to safeguard fundamental individual rights (like freedom of speech, of association, habeas corpus and the like).   Who threatens individual rights?  The man in the street?  No, only the powerful, i.e. those who govern, can threaten fundamental individual rights!  So, the last thing you want to do is to introduce (in a constitution) ideological terms that can mean anything, and therefore can be used by the powerful for any purpose.  That is were the Giscard-constitution fails.  Moreover, some leftists in Europe oppose the Giscard-constitution because it is supposedly not ideological enough (not "social" enough, they claim).   Needless to say, these people are no 'democrats'.  Their goal is precisely to put numerous economic and political issues beyond the normal play of electoral politics, and to misuse the judiciary in order to obtain what they cannot obtain via the ballot box.       

Even if you have a 'good constitution' that doesn't mean that you can save democracy.  The current Belgian constitution is supposed to safeguard freedom of (political) speech and of association.  Yet, in Belgium today, individuals are being prosecuted for political speech and parties are being banned for the same.  You may have an excellent constitution, but if the Executive violates it, and the Judiciary does not intervene (and actually cooperates in the violation) then you are in the process of losing your democracy.   Ultimately it is a matter of cultural behavior patterns at large. You cannot make, nor keep, a democracy with 'nondemocrats' (i.e. people who are willing to trample on fundamental individual rights of others). If you put me in jail because you want to 'shut me up', then you trample on my constitutional right of freedom-of-speech, and that would prove that you are not a 'democrat'. But, if you cannot find a job (say, because you are a drug addict, or special interest groups like trade unions have made labor markets so inflexible that full employment becomes impossible, what has this got to do with fundamental individual rights? Did I take away your job? No, either you did it yourself through your own behavior, or some trade union did it (but is now hiding behind a 'bad' constitution in order to be able to blame someone else).

"...those who won't follow better step out."

Yep that's right. As soon as a British government [or the EU for that matter] gives us the option to leave via a referendum then "step out" is exactly what we'll do.

Sorry buddy but I never wrote that francophone or French or whoever are better than anyone else.
I agree with you that the "Giscard-made" Constitution is too long and too detailed. That's why it should never have been used on a referendum.
However, you should consider that they wanted to include the significant things of each national Constitution? The result of this was a lengthy and detailed exercise which had the advantage to squeeze out  individual claims but with the disadvantage that it had the size of a bible.
No one at this time has pinpointed any disadvantage of this Constitution against his own one and if you find any, please tell me.
If you consider that the latter is a "ridiculous listing of shallow and subjective rights", give me one example were one's own Constitution is not the same.
You're claiming the threat of  "sovereignty" of the people, can you show  the article that confirms this ?. Do you really think that Giscard (as a French and God knows how eager they are on their sovereignty), along with his fellows, should have tempted to do such a thing ?.
I would rather suggest you to read and re-read that (lengthy) Constitution over and over again and compare it with our own,  instead of copying the arguments of those who want to turn us back to the middle-age.

"(...) organizing a referendum to approve matters of such complexity has nothing to do with democracy but is a blow in the face of the citizens."

 That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

@ Schaveiger

You got one thing (implicitly) right, i.e. that De Gaulle correctly foresaw that Britain would prevent 'Europe' from becoming an arm or extension of narrow French foreign policy and interests (as it largely was at the time of Britain's joining).   There is no evidence that the French (people) are better capable at "being  a single member of a union" (unless thay are at the center of it and effectively 'control' it) than Brits, or Poles, or Italians etc... If francophone Belgians prevented the development of the Benelux into something of 'consequence', why do you blame other Europeans for having difficulty with subsuming their identity into a larger political system that would threaten their ultimate sovereignty?  

The only "remarkable" thing about the Giscard-made Constitution is its absurd length and detail.  It certainly is, or was, not focused on the organisation of political power and its proper organs, nor on the  essence of fundamental ('constitutional') individual 'democratic' human rights.  Instead, with its endless ridiculous listing of shallow and subjective 'rights', it was a ridiculous attempt at 'cementing' current fashionable ideology into constitutional law, in order to curtail the sovereignty of the people and to put numerous issues beyond the normal play of 'democratic' politics and of 'ordinary' (i.e. easily-changeable) law. It did not represent 'progress' when compared with typical 19th century constitutions of some European nation states. 

It is not "the meanness of nationalism" (Whose? That of the French?) that 'explains' the need for a European constitution.  Rather, it is the absence of sufficient consensus about 'democratic values' among Europeans in general, that explains the absence of such a Constitution.  If they cannot even agree that freedom of political speech is the bedrock essence of maintaining 'democracy' over time, but rather waste their time on silly 'rights' like "full employment" and absolutely meaningless (in the sense of impractical constitutional law, and of being dependent on subjective whim) aims like  "social justice", how could there be a sensible European constitution? 

 So long as the practical choice on offer remains between  (1) being democratic-small (e.g. like Switserland or Australia) or (2) becoming a world super power with Chinese-style ideological constraints on political speech, then the first option remains better for Europeans.  Not only from an economic perspective, but more importantly from a long-term freedom perspective.

It's a pity that you could not copy the letter from Merkel, so that we could have a better picture of the content.
The 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome had less impact on the citizen than the Carnival festivities. The reason is that Europe has an obsolete image in people's mind and our politicians are not keen to improve this. In fact, nationalism is ruling and there seems very little political will and courage to alter this.

At the start we had the BENELUX, considered as the embryo of the EU, but also restricted due the nationalistic behaviour.
Then, with already inside difficulties, the UK joined. At the time De Gaulle was not very enthusiastic (the least to say) by their membership and this has been proven right. In fact, the Britons are not sure being Europeans and, coming back as the ruling entity of their glorious Commonwealth era, they are unable to accept to be a simple member of an Union.
Lastly, the new member states from the East, who were for half a century dominated by the USSR, have the same difficulties to be restricted in their newly acquired freedom. Poland is at the moment illustrating this at best.

Concerning the European Constitution, this document has been qualified as "remarkable" by skilled constitutionalists. However, the way it has been presented to the common citizens was a pity. One could imagine that they did it on purpose to make sure it was rejected.
Under such circumstances, organizing a referendum to approve matters of such complexity has nothing to do with democracy but is a blow in the face of the citizens.
Blair understood this too and the fact that the UK has no Constitution as such would make the exercise disastrous. We've seen in France how extremists of all sides argued with everything to jeopardize the referendum and they succeeded.
Democracy is not ruled by the street but lived.

In the meantime, the EU has still no president, no common foreign policy, no army… and is considered as a pussy by the USA and China, while the Russians are back on business again.

It is because of the meanness of nationalism that we badly need a Constitution and those who won't follow better step out.