I have seen the future, and it ... well, it looks like a first draft

The European Convention has released a draft of the first 16 articles of an EU constitution, and Iain Murray - perhaps you should be sitting down for this - doesn't like it. (You can find the draft here. Iain gives a link to the English text; I've linked to the German version, so that when you have done reading it you may say, 'Ha, das const. sonstwo stecken!', and your German friends will think you amazingly witty.)

That Iain is not amused may come as no surprise. Still, his criticism is to some extent misplaced. He notes that the values enshrined in the constitution are 'human dignity, liberty, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights.' Call me a rampant eurofederalist, but those always struck me as reasonably nice things. Iain doubtless likes them too, but quibbles that 'liberty' is not defined. True enough; it is as undefined as are the 'blessings of liberty' in the US constitution, which seems still to be creaking along a couple of hundred years on. He asks whether the rule of law shall be of the common or civil sort. The answer to that question is: it doesn't matter. The thing about rule-of-law is not to come down on one side of the continent-vs-Britain-(except-for-Scotland-sort-of) divide. It is to have the state set rules for itself and then stick to them; arbitrary-and-capricious is arbitrary-and-capricious under either system. That some jurisdictions are common-law and some civilian is no more a barrier to European Union than it is to the Union of GB&NI. Even America knows this sort of disunity. Louisiana, alone among the states, has preserved some of its old French legal heritage (clericalist parishes rather than aristocratic counties, for example, to say nothing of such unseemly spectacles as naked owners); the state's gallicoid idiosyncrasies have not noticeably imperilled the union.

Iain goes on to relate the Union's prospective aim of 'a society at peace, through the practice of tolerance, justice and solidarity'; and he cocks an eyebrow at that last word. As well he might; it is rather continental and bolshie-sounding, isn't it? Maybe I can help here; 'solidarity' is very big where I live (and hardly limited to the left). So far as I can tell it means two things (and I imagine the draft constitution has the latter in mind). One, it is a vague abstract good conjured up by earnest radical youth chanting at demos (and is extra specially good when linked to 'international' or 'with the oppressed'). Two, it is the idea that some costs that would otherwise be borne by a small group should be distributed among society as a whole because we are all, somehow, in this together. The words following 'because' in that last sentence might give some people a nice warm feeling in their vitals, but I suggest we may ignore them as so much fluff. What remains is something that one finds in pretty much every state. And, barring a few extreme libertarians, I think none of us would reject the principle, though of course we will argue loud and long over when it should come into play, and for what purposes, and just how much is that going to be out of my pocket?

In fact much of what's in the draft is the sort of thing I would expect to find in a good constitution; indeed, I would expect to find it any constitution, good or no. But Iain's disquiet is not unfounded altogether. Some of the later articles are non-starters for any but a committed eurofederalist. (And, as an aside, may I note that this term is precisely, 180 degrees wrong! The trouble about a 'federal Europe' is that it's not nearly federal enough.) Unacceptable, as Iain rightly concludes. Well then: what to do? Go on unaccepting until one wakes up one morning in just the sort of Europe one unaccepts? Sign up with the UK Independence Party (even if one is, say, a Dane) in an effort to sunder the chains of the Brussels tyranny? As an alternative, how's this: get some better ideas out into the marketplace. This is a first draft. The eurocracy must know very well that it cannot take force both (i) in its present form and (ii) with the present roster of member states. The Americans needed a good deal of time, and a few tries, until they got it more or less right; their first shot at a constitution is, I think, pretty generally regarded as a middling-to-poor effort (though, now that I think of it, something like that might serve Europe very well).

For an idea of what a half decent EU constitution might look like, see the Economist's modest proposal. (Unless you have been carrying a photocopy on your person since it appeared in print, I am afraid you will have to give the Economist some money if you want to look at it.) Note how very much in common it has with the European Convention draft; note how extremely important are the differences.