I cannot speculate on the reasons that the people of France, and now of the Netherlands, rejected the proposed EU constitution. I do have a few comments of my own about it, however. Hopefully you will see my point as to why it SHOULD have failed (based on a Constitutionalist American perspective).

While it is far too long and too often redundant to hit it with a "Fisk", there are several points in the EU constitution that simply do not stack up.

Let's start with a little something found in the Preamble:

BELIEVING that Europe, reunited after bitter experiences, intends to continue along the path of civilisation, progress and prosperity, for the good of all its inhabitants, including the weakest and most deprived; that it wishes to remain a continent open to culture, learning and social progress; and that it wishes to deepen the democratic and transparent nature of its public life, and to strive for peace, justice and solidarity throughout the world ...

Reunited after bitter experiences? Exactly at what point was Europe united BEFORE these "bitter experiences"? European history is filled with one bitter experinece after the other right up through World War II, and considering Moscow is on the European continent as well, it can easily be argued that these bitter experiences reached an end only after President Reagan, Prime Minister Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II successfully brought the Soviets to their knees within the last fifteen to twenty years.

The way this is worded, it appears the EU is supposed to be proactive in bringing peace to the world. How exactly do these people plan on "striving for peace, justice, and sollidarity throughout the world" when their very leaders allow non-peaceful regimes to take advantage of the peaceful nature of peaceful nations, and discourage those who wish to bring peace to these regions of the world? Phht. I ain't buyin' it, guys.

There is an interesting "Bill of Rights" attached to the EU Constitution. It has some very interesting points, and leaves out some things, too. There is an expressed right to life. This is put rather bluntly: "Everyone has the right to life." The unfortunate thing is that the EU constitution clearly bans the use of the death penalty (even for those who have deprived others of THEIR right to life), and also prohibits the extradition of criminals who may face the death penalty if found guilty. Therefore, all a murderer must do is move to Europe after committing his crime, and he will never face the appropriate consequences for his actions.

There seems to be an obsession in the document with the rights of children. Rights are a great thing to advocate, and children are the most vulnerable among us, so why not? The answer lies in the fact that socialists are forever seeking victims who would require help from the socialists. These clauses could easily lead to the invocation of children as a means of increasing oppression. It sounds very sinister, and it is. What safeguards does this constitution give its citizens against such evils? None. In fact, the most important one, the right to keep and bear arms, is curiously omitted.

Your rights are violated. You go through all the necessary steps and procedures. Your rights are still being violated. What means do you have of defending yourself? None. Zip. Zero. Nada.

You are in imminenet danger. The police are too far away, or your adversary has blocked your access to any means of communicating with the authorities. What means of defending yourself do you have when your adversary decides to kill you? None. Zip. Zero. Nada.

Rights aren't much good if you have no way of asserting and/or protecting them. In all cases involving a gun, the guy with the better eye and/or faster trigger finger is the one who wins. Don't have a gun? You forfeit.

Another concern I have with the EU constitution is that all rights expressed in it are derived from it. In other words, the EU constitution would have been the source of the rights of the people living under it. No God. No higher authority. Just a bunch of bullshit about being "open to culture, learning, and social progress". What a crock!

Of course, we all know what these people mean by "social progress". The EU constitution expresses everyone's right to a "free" education (Yeah, right. Like these teachers are going to work for "free"), and a right to go on strike (I wonder if that's with pay), and "free" (there's that word again) placement service. This is nothing more than socialism run amok.

With this limited analysis of the EU "constitution", it's pretty easy to see why it's best that it's dead on arrival. I do wonder, however, if these are the reasons it was rejected in socialist havens like France and the Netherlands.

Something to think about.

RWR