Copyright © 2015 - 18 euexit.com. All rights reserved.

​​25th August 2018

USA versus EU Development

There seems to be a general assumption that the development of the EU is not that different to how the American States came together to form the United States of America, and that the EU member States have a similar relationship to their government as the American States have to their Federal government - and the American people. We briefly examine the differences between how the two systems developed and how that might lead to an understanding of the future direction of the EU. We contrast the Constitutions of each, beginning with the oldest of the two systems.


Constitutional Differences

The following section is based upon a commentary "Comparing the U.S. and EU Constitutions" by William A. Niskanen, Chairman CATO institute, published in the Tapei Times on 4th August, 2003.


United States of America:


  • "The United States is the oldest and largest surviving constitutional republic — a nation that has experienced a larger increase in area, population, and income; absorbing people of more diverse racial, ethnic, and language backgrounds than any other contemporary nation."


Update: The above commentary was written prior to the accession of Eastern European countries to the EU, and does not include areas that are in certain Single Market or visa-free access arrangements; including North African and the Middle Eastern states (Barcelona Declaration 1995); Ukraine or the continued attempts to "entice" the western Russian satellite (buffer zone) states such as Georgia etc. into the EU - in response Russia has threatened retaliation if Georgia joins NATO.


  • "The preamble, for example, describes the objectives of the Constitution in only 52 words of forceful, declaratory, and quite general prose, which, by itself, provides no authority for any specific political decision. The main text, in only seven articles, describes the powers authorized to the several branches of government and the powers denied to the federal government or the states as few, brief, and well defined. All residual powers are reserved to the states."


American Constitution preamble:​ "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


  • "​​All residual powers are reserved to the states. And the Bill of Rights, with one exception, is a list of the rights of individuals against the state, not a list of claims by individuals on services to be provided by the state; the one exception is the right to a trial by jury. All residual rights are reserved to the people.


European Union

Historical note: The EU Constitution was in the form of the "The Constitution for Europe Treaty (2004)" and that is what is being described here by Mr. Nyskanen - the treaty was rejected in a Referendum in 2005 by the Dutch and French populations - mostly on the grounds of "loss of sovereignty". Its current position, as a the de facto EU Constitution, (see "Fanatical Federalistson this website) came about by a deception upon the Member State populations - engineered by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) - following the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty (2007) by their respective parliamentarians (MP's and Peers) and Heads of State.


  • The proposed EU constitution is very different in several dimensions. The preamble goes on and on for 293 words to describe the shared values and objectives of the Union; this is wholly unnecessary and sure to provoke continued controversy. One sentence alone, for example, commits the Union to “work for a Europe of sustainable development based on balanced economic growth, with a social market economy aiming at full employment and social progress,” a sentence that includes at least five ambiguous terms.


Note: since 2008 the EU has inflicted widespread austerity on the Member States leading to mass youth unemployment of up to 40% among its southern member states) 


  • "The proposed constitution has more than 400 articles but leaves several important issues unresolved. The relation between the Union and the member states, for example, is not clearly defined; one article suggests that the Union could use its power outside its exclusive authority if some unspecified body decides that the Union could do it better than a member state. Another article authorizes the Court of Justice to give preliminary rulings on the interpretation of Union law but without identifying what body has the authority to make a final ruling on these issues."


  • ​​"The most important difference between the U.S. Constitution and the proposed EU constitution, however, is the concept of rights. The U.S. Bill of Rights is a list of individual rights against the state. In contrast, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which constitutes Part II of the proposed EU constitution, includes a long list of rights to services provided by the state. Such rights, for example, include education, a free placement service, paid maternity leave, social security benefits and social services, housing assistance, preventive health care, services of general economic interest, and high levels of environmental and consumer protection.


Our Comment:Centralised State Control (a modern Communist economic system) - and according to Article 6 of the Lisbon Treaty (2007) the EU only accepts the European Charter of Human Rights as long as it does not affect the EU's power viz. 


Lisbon Treaty (2007) Article 6

  • 1. The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg, on 12 December 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties. The provisions of the Charter shall not extend in any way the competences of the Union as defined in the Treaties.


  • 2. The Union shall accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Such accession shall not affect the Union's competences as defined in the Treaties.


The cited commentary concludes with:

  • "Even those who favor the major provisions of the proposed (EU) constitution should be careful to ensure that the constitution limits the authority of the EU to define its own powers, because all governments seek broader powers than first authorized. ((EU) added)


  • Over time, an imperfect Europe of national states — bloodied but hopefully wiser — may be a better protection of liberty than approving the proposed constitution in the hope for a more perfect European Union."


The Beginnings

In America: "The Constitution acted like a colossal merger, uniting a group of states with different interests, laws, and cultures. Under America’s first national  government, the Articles of Confederation, the states acted together only for specific purposes. The Constitution united its citizens as members of a whole, vesting the power of the union in the people. Without it, the American Experiment might have ended as quickly as it had begun." (archives.gov)


In Europe: "The European Economic Community (EEC) was a regional organisation which aimed to bring about economic integration among its member states. It was created by the Treaty of Rome of 1957. Upon the formation of the European Union (EU) in 1993, the EEC was incorporated and renamed as the European Community (EC). In 2009 the EC's institutions were absorbed into the EU's wider framework and the community ceased to exist." (Wikipedia) 


The European Union began as the EEC which pretended to be only a trading relationship between the Nation States of Europe (as the UK general public were assured (1975 EU Referendum)) - even though the entire EU project had been formulated in the Treaty of Rome (1957)  


The EEC transformed into the European Community (EC) and the European Union (EU) in the Maastricht Treaty (1992) - but the EU only acquired a legal personality in 2009 by virtue of the Lisbon Treaty (2007) ratification - and it was not until later that the EU Treaties were accepted by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) as the de facto Constitution of the EU (based upon Case Law)


The convoluted process by which the ECJ brought in the Constitution for Europe (2004) ensured that it would be the duly authorised Constitution for the European Union (which existed only in fragmented form within the EEC(EU) Lisbon Treaty (2007))* speaks volumes about the nature of the EU and the relationship between the ECJ and the European Commission. 


The consequences of the EU acquiring a Constitution (which the Member States had inadvertently signed up to in the Lisbon Treaty (2007)) on its Member State populations are very far reaching - it gained supremacy over the Constitutions and Laws of the EU Member States - all carried out by stealth - not in any way similar to the the development of the Constitution of the United States of America - the fact that the EU Constitution was brought in behind the backs of EU Member States populations shows the true nature of the EU project and the lack of morality of the people who are in control.   


The supremacy of the EU Constitution is particularly disastrous for the people of the UK because our Common Law protections are being taken away - Theresa May has already re-signed the UK up to the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) which requires the UK Police to arrest any UK citizen and deport him (or her) to another EU Member State without any evidence - simply based upon a statement from any complainant in another Member State - where they can be detained under the EU's Corpus Juris legal system.    


Corpus Juris is based upon Napoleonic Code and takes away our Habeas Corpus and Trial by Jury rights: under Corpus Juris the accused can be held in prison for months - without legal representation - until a state or appointed prosecutor decides when the matter should be investigated; the accused will eventually appear before professional judges where they are assumed to be guilty and have to prove their innocence - all totally opposite to our (UK) legal system. (see "EU Myths_2 Page 2" on this website)


The EU's Frankenstein Constitution*

The only way that the EU could bring about a Constitution for Europe was through a deception on the people of Europe - by breaking-up the earlier rejected "Constitution for Europe Treaty (2004)  and distributing its text throughout the Lisbon Treaty (2007) and the earlier treaties in order to make it unreadable as a constitution to anyone who was not a constitutional expert - particularly since the word "Constitution" was removed; along with any reference to the paraphernalia of State (Anthem, Motto, Oath of Allegiance etc) - in all, some ~95% of the original was preserved - what is much worse is that the leaders of the EU, including Angela Merkel, actually gloated about the deception in the Press. (see "The Phoney 2nd EU Referendum Bid " on this website.)


The Constitution of Europe (2004) was later "brought back-to-life" by the ECJ - which resurrected the Constitution through legal "manipulation" of the Constitution "fragments" following the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty (2007) in 2009.


This situation is due to change in the future though, since the EU is planning to bring in a new Constitution - put forward by the Communist Spinelli Group in 2013 - "The Fundamental Law of the European Union" and apparently it will be put to the EU Member States in Referendums (though it is not clear how many times they will have to vote before it is accepted); those who agree will form a new EU of fully integrated members controlled under a single government. 


Separation of Powers 

In the EU - unelected EU Commissioners (swear an oath of allegiance to the EU) are the only group that can formulate laws - Directives and Regulations etc., - such laws are primarily designed for the benefit of lobbying International Corporations, big business and other vested interests; other laws are devised in the interests of "Ever closer Union" - towards a single government supranational state. 


Lawmaking is carried out in secret - and subsequently those proposed laws are voted upon by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament where they are either passed, rejected or amended - but they can be overruled or modified by the Commission.


The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is mandated to assist the European Commission in bringing about "Ever closer Union" and works with the European Commission to modify the Treaties, through legal rulings (Case Law); ensure Treaty compliance and enforce European Commission rules in favour of the EU. There is no discernible separation of powers in the EU in reality - the European Parliament is simply a box ticking group.


Conclusions

The American Constitution is about freedom and the rights of the American people - in the EU the Constitution and the Treaties together are about the top down control of the populations of Europe and over-regulation of all aspects of the lives of Europeans - over 120,000 regulations to-date. The EU is an out-of-control regulation generating bureaucracy - whose regulations are widely ignored or circumvented by commercial interests (e.g. certain German Motor manufacturers developing software to get around anti-pollution legislation)


The EU has also created widespread poverty and despair among the populations of many parts of Europe (see"Poor Germans " on this website)- by virtue its liberalisation policies (privatisation of Member State Public Services) and imposed austerity measures - requiring compliance with Maastricht Treaty (1992) Fiscal controls on National Deficit (<3%GDP) and Debt (60%GDP) - which also applies to the UK which is not in the Eurozone - but has been converging for entry. 


The worst aspects of the EU though are still to come to public awareness.


Home