Constitutions of europe

A very hot item in europe is the organisational structure, some like covered by the concept of constitution. This item is deeply fascinating, it will not only describe europe's future culture, it may easily be the make or break of the whole planet.

It is nowhere a matter to set aside or simplify. Theoretically a constitution is the basic of justice, and once again; justice is theoretically the mechanism to control power.

Actually constitutions represent that. The wish to control power.
It should be point one, that political power can always be controlled, eg. a decission or position can never get unmutable. (this suggest you manage to underwrite human rights and other accorded true values (like those from constitutions) and still opens the discourse on interpretation.)(1)

The situation is, already the national political arenas loose the more ambitious yet more masked personalitys to european scheming, marginalised purposedly.
Likewise the out of control financial and economical powers represented through the european parlament have lost transparance already. Hugely due to the scale, but there is indication of less obvious transactions, getting stuck in usual circuits,
and pure neglect of issues.

The scale, and size of it all begins to impress and work, and the somewhat plain proto omni european structure seems to prefer to stay behind a curtain, building up huge reserves to spend on security for the ultra-rich.

(the privacy "case", privacy has untill yet always been: that for the rich. Equality is way more essential, or you would not be equal in your privacy and the constitution dumb.)

The european national constitutions excellently provide human values.
Ofcourse a new definition of the privacy concept is welcome, but definetly not in a way that makes it the argument for basicly all injustice.

(telegram style: don't be fooled ppl).


That said over the conceptualisation i don't see why the EU needs a very thick book for constitution. Honestly the EU should try and apply only (not exclusively) international human values, and has no excuse to just mess up things more.

In that case a more proper aproach seems to actually unify the existing constitutions. At least that way we can make sure civilians don't loose essential rights.

In some international cases jurisprudence may become inevitably more commisionairy.
That is no excuse for an acting commitee or several shimmery rooms with power of law.

These positions are also so ambitious they need public consideration.
It is definetly essential the eu stresses the roulation of lawmaking and highest courts of justice positions. I really don't care when my prime minister or anyone else does not want his dirty laundry on the table...(still angry, why do they want that anyway..).

That is another reason not to complicate matters, eg. the early rotations in even parlament will have a hard time adopting. It will predictably lead to inflexibility (practically and publicly) , when they can basicly work from the perspectives they know while the methods change the shock need not be bigger.
(actually i think quitte the opposite: by setting ourselves up with a doubtfull case
we spoil everything and that is my remark to the public, not so much to the politicians because for them it does not matter).

Some real guarantee can only be arranged by a concept close to that of (mh that would be al quada in arab..) democracy of the basis. People should definetly keep working public services on a level they can reach within a scope. (mostly a contemporary nation or region but perhaps a liguistical entity or a more artifical burocratic domain.) If people don't, the slavery will eventually be complete. And circumstances for the human dignity would from now on only worsen.

I must say we seem to do better then worsest, in the view of the last point, but i am serious about being precautious here.

Certainly most of the continents are emancipating and cooperating internally to a larger extend (australia, india and antartica the notable exceptions).
Even the others know industrial development.

stay strong.

(1) For this reason i like the idea of not having a european constitution at all,
the looser and also the less powerfull the centralist aspect of europe is the smaller the chance we get totalitair characteristics. Wich is a severe risk since we also can't have experience with the 'democratic' and undemocratic dynamics of such a big and prosperous (multi)state.(i don't like it much). The endpoint of it is that without the recognition of the authority of the state the whole subject would be moot, thus it is hardly a matter of authority.(things would perhaps speed up a bit when we incorporated our (so-perceived) 'marxist' neccesity's consciously).