Funny, how the more equal we get the less equal we become. The entrenched protect their existing rights, special interest groups in turn demand better than equal treatment. In some cases it borders on the ridiculous, in others, common sense prevails.

Take for example the American Constitution. As initially drawn up it is a noble document, which in reality failed to serve the interests of all. Amendment after amendment was made in the name of the development of freedoms — abolishing slavery and emancipating women, providing all adult citizens with franchise but the most obvious examples.

Constitutions are, as a fault, more exclusive than inclusive, as the initial American Constitution demonstrates. That constitution, which is a written document, has now been rendered virtually unintelligible except in the light of highly complex judicial applications and congressional amendments. People can plead the Fifth, not even knowing what lies behind that right.

The UK’s constitution, on the other hand, is unwritten, and relies greatly on the role of convention. An argument has long been made that an unwritten constitution is better than one carved in stone, for it can safeguard liberties and rights of the citizenry precisely because it hesitates to formulate them. Thus it never exposes these rights to hasty or even tyrannical elimination. And then there are the constitutions, like the Soviet one, which famously give lip service to principle, but in reality serve as little more than window dressing.

As democracy evolves, these documents need improvement, giving us Charters of Rights and Freedoms, and qualifying those are other lesser clauses, among others, the notwithstanding clause, that, in Canada at least, serves to muddle the issue rather than provide necessary clarity. In a country where the French and English lay claim to “founding father” status, but where immigrants are among the builders, singling one out of many, notwithstanding cultural uniqueness, can provide grounds for disenchantment and inequality.

The North American tradition of cultural conservatism has been emphasized in election campaigns as a good in itself and as a major cause of social and political stability.

North American traditions evolved from European ones, revolutions both cultural and political were means of dismissing then continental values. With the European Union, Europe has also shown continual development, moving towards different freedoms than those entrenched in our Charter of Rights, the American Constitution. And as often is the case, the formulation of a Constitution of the European Union is proving to be a difficult undertaking, necessary vagueness not satisfying all involved, specific principles proving to be, like the Soviet Constitution was, unenforceable or simply ridiculous.

Take freedom — or the Four Freedoms, as a cornerstone of the European Union. These freedoms are the free mobility of goods, services, capital and labour, discussed since the Treaty of Rome in 1957, in force under the Single European Act of 1987, which firmly established the single, internal market. These 4 freedoms make sound sense — not only is this a noble idea, but based in viable, sound economic theory. In brief: a single currency — the euro — assists in achieving economic success. When goods are produced in places where it is cheapest to do so, if labour can move to where the highest wages are, (witness the push to immigrate to North America from underdeveloped countries) — and when capital can locate where it receives the highest rate of return, then the whole stands to benefit. Competition, furthermore, ensures that prices and wages, returns stabilize in such a system. Thus the EU as an economic modelWith EU expansion these freedoms are being taken away. Banning movement of labour and services is only the most obvious example. Concurrent with the recent expansion the European Constitution is being worked on, yet few can seem to agree on the entire text.

Estonia is one country that is being singled out by others, because the country’s system of taxation strikes others as tilting the scales in Estonia’s favour. Morten Hansen, economics lecturer at the Euro Faculty, the University of Latvia and the Stockholm School of Economics in Riga addressed this issue in a recent article published in The Baltic Times, “The Four Freedoms!? Three, then? Maybe two…”

Hansen notes that Estonian corporate taxes are much lower than German ones. Estonia even has a zero-tax rate on reinvested profits. This caused Chancellor Gerhard Schröder to rail recently about “unfair tax competition”. Indeed, as Hansen writes, in an EU that would honour the Four Freedoms principle “firms will come to Estonia bringing new technology, creating jobs, reproducing goods — all of which will raise income in Estonia… but possibly reduce employment in Germany.”

Hansen argues that rather than Estonian taxes being too low the problem is in German ones being too high. When once a guiding light for Europe, known for the Wirtschaftswunder, economic miracle enjoyed in the post Marshall Plan years, Germany is now a victim of what is known as euro-sclerosis — high unemployment, little or no growth, an over-regulated economy and a rigid, inflexible labour market — all due to protectionism. The Baltics, with their free-market economies are at present still worse off than Germany, but as high-growth areas are attractive to foreign firms. Baltic economies are booming, Italy and Germany struggling Giving reason as to why the actual application of the Four Freedoms is in reality to be questioned.

Estonia has not been quiet about the EU Constitutional Treaty, perhaps precisely because politicians are aware of these differences, and wish to ensure that some equals are not more equal than others are. When the European Council endorsed the EU Constitutional Treaty on June 19, Estonian PM Juhan Parts said Estonia could be satisfied with the results. “A compromise expressing the will of [all] the nation-states was achieved… and I can assure you that Estonian interest are protected,” Parts told press. Still, member countries need to endorse the treaty, and that is a daunting challenge. A justified decision achieved by consensus is the goal — as other Constitutions elsewhere demonstrate, easier said than done. Ideals are merely noble ideas, rarely applied in a manner that keeps us all content.

Märkmed: