Question: When the European Union was formed, how did that affect the constitutions of the member

[Dover]

countries? Was the newly formed EU inclusive of those original documents, were they altered or were they thrown out?
I was not paying attention when this was happening, so don't know the logistics of how that went down.

[angstlessk]

1. are you a proponent of the north american union? n/t

[Dover]

3. Proponent?

Unlike the European countries who as I recall, at least, were informed of alternative plans for a new kind of union and discussed/debated it amongst themselves, our government has kept us in the dark. So who can have an informed opinion one way or the other?

I do think it's one scenario of our future that has been planned and discussed in the boardrooms and back rooms of corporations and government in this country. For all intents and purposes, I think our Constitution has already been severely compromised and has suffered enough blows without so much as a peep from the People, that we are well on the way to its demise already.

[Kutjara]

2. The constitutions of the member nations (those that have written constitutions, of course)...

...remain in effect, but certain European laws have precedence over individual national laws (particularly with respect to Human Rights). The European Court was established to adjudicate cases of conflict between European and national law, with the European Court assumed to have primacy over national courts. In practice, however, member countries have proved very adept at ignoring European Court rulings, so the mechanism needs a bit of tweaking.

Europe attempted to ratify a Constitution that would have replaced the national constitutions of the member states about three years ago, but it got voted down in referenda in France and Denmark. It was felt that, without French support, the Constitution would lack authority, so the idea was sent back to the drawing board.

[Dover]

4. Thank you for that succinct and informative explanation.

So there is an interest in ultimately doing away with their national constitutions.

[Kutjara]

5. Well, there's certainly interest among "Eurocrats" for replacing national...

...constitutions. There does not, as yet, appear to be much interest from the electorates of the member nations, however. Every time the issue comes up for discussion, it gets pretty heavily trounced. The majority view appears to be that Europe is not yet ready for political integration. Even economic integration isn't complete, with the UK refusing to join the Euro. Things have a way to go yet before Europeans are one big happy family.

[Dover]

7. I think it's wise to move slowly, and sounds like they don't have the choice to move

more quickly anyway. Too many variables.

[tritsofme]

6. A couple of points

The EU constitution wouldn't have replaced the constitutions, written or otherwise, of EU member nations, nor would it have outright created some sort of super-state, it would have basically harmonized all the treaties that have held the EU together since its inception, and made the whole EU more efficient.

Also for the treaty to take effect it would have had to have been ratified by all member states, so the rejection by France and Denmark effectively killed it.

[Kutjara]

9. Thanks for the clarification.

I thought the ambitions for the new Constitution were for it to be a replacement. Since, as you say, it was never meant to be, I find it even harder to understand why everyone was do dead-set against it.

[Dover]

10. Not sure which treaties you are referring to and exactly how they would be 'harmonized'

to satisfy everyone. And 'efficiency' as a criteria for change sounds awfully 'corporate'. Efficient for whom?
I recall that reasoning being thrown about by those who wanted to see the U.S. government run more like a corporation.....for 'efficiency's sake'. And look where we are now.


And what other criteria needs to be addressed in that mix?

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. Those treaties are what currently define what the EU is

http://europa.eu/abc/treaties/index_en.htm

including

Treaty of Nice 2001 - mainly enlargement to 25 states
Treaty of Amsterdam 1997 - mainly consolidation of earlier treaties
Treaty of Maastricht 1992 - created the main form of the current EU, eg the move to the Euro
Single European Act 1987 - single market (removing trade barriers), freedom of personal movement between countries, and so on
Treaty of Rome 1957 - established the European Economic Community

The "European Constitution" was the "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe" - one reason it was so large was that it contained most of what was set up in the previous treaties, but harmonised. But it was rejected for various reasons. We now have the Reform Treaty, containing much of what the 'Constitution Treaty' did, but without, hopefully, the controversial new bits that caused the previous rejection. The various countries now have to ratify this - Ireland has to do this by referendum, under its constitution, and I think other governments are deciding whether they need to have referenda, or if their parliaments can ratify it by vote (in the UK, Labour, with a majority in Parliament, say they'll just have Parliament vote on it, but the opposition Conservatives say they promised a referendum for the old Constitution Treaty, so they ought to have one for this too).

The areas that are controversial in the recent treaties tend to be what areas of policy belong at country level, and what at EU level; and how governments vote at EU level (the relative voting strengths of the different sized countries).

[RB TexLa]

8. What did the charter of the UN do to them?

How long before left wing isolationists join their right wing brethren in screaming "Git da UN out da US!"

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Nothing, effectively

The initial founding of the UN didn't really affect countries in that way. The ICC does have a bit of an effect, because it does have something to say about legality. Really, the UN is more about regulating inter-country relations.