British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced this week that England's acceptance or rejection of the proposed European Union constitution will be put to a public referendum, reversing his earlier commitment to shape agreement through inter-governmental negotiations. England is the fourth EU state, following Denmark, Ireland, and Luxembourg, to declare its intent to subject this extremely important political question to democratic process.

An earlier attempt to adopt the proposed constitution through inter-governmental negotiations failed, and several other states are showing signs that its provisions are unacceptable. The public concern has been aimed primarily at the loss of states' rights and the lack of serious checks and balances in the European system. The proposed constitution hands control of the extensive set of laws that now exist within the treaties that form the European Union to a strangely constructed set of central institutions.

The European Council would set the political agenda for Europe. The European Commission would be tasked with managing Europe. A Council of Ministers and the European Parliament would play a role in influencing the implementation of the political agenda established by the Council. A Court of Justice, Central Bank, and Auditors, institutions that also already exist in the Union, would continue to function.

Promotion of the proposed constitution hinges on the idea that it is based on Europe as it is rather than radical change. But the power shift and authority of central institutions to reform every aspect of Europe's generally overly-politicized lifestyle is enough to put nerves on edge. A recent poll found 53 percent of respondents in England against the proposed constitution, and only 16 percent in favor. In January, a Swedish poll showed 42 percent of the voting population favored the formation of a new political party of European skeptics, with 27 percent undecided.

The particular character of Europe that the proposed constitution seems most to preserve is the bureaucratic shell game. The European Council would be composed of heads of government of each member state and the Council of Ministers would be composed of representatives from each member state. This sets up a system of policy by consensus of governors with no clear lines of responsibility. Fundamental rights incorporated in a European constitution are not binding for the member states, so there is no "last resort" protection of individual rights.

Experiences in the European Court of Justice have already exposed the problem for several divorced fathers that have contacted me. In the post-family reform era in the west, the problem is familiar to fathers in many countries outside of Europe as well. Policy, is generally decided by the <i>super-state</i> (same as the U.S. federal government regarding current family policy). But its laws are instructions to member states, not directly effecting individuals. Each member state carries out the policy dictated by the super-state, optimizing the benefits to government (mostly in the form of funding) without regard to individual rights and interests.

An individual attempting to demand rights under the constitution in the European courts finds it impossible. The European Court insists that the implementation of policy is a local matter even when the cause of the problem is in the laws and and funding incentives provided by the European Union. State politicians insist that they have taken necessary steps to implement policy that is regulated by the European Union, and call it irresponsible to consider reducing the funding they receive by giving way to individual rights and concerns.

The mechanism of control by funding has been made particularly strong in the European Union. In the United States, the method is effective because every citizen is required to pay federal taxes directly to the federal government. States wishing to free themselves from some level of federal political control, as greatly allowed under the U.S. Constitution, by raising state taxes would subject their residents to a form of double taxation. High taxes are not politically popular, and anyone attempting to do the right thing by that method would still have a difficult time remaining in office. In the European Union, states are required to keep their budgets under control within strict limits, including a limit on debt, or face penalties. So, it isn't merely that a state would lose funding, but that they risk heavy fines if they attempt to operate independently.

This structure of defining policy on one level and policy implementation on another is not the structure of a democratic system of government. It is the structure of bureaucratic administration found within large government agencies. No one within an agency takes responsibility for policy, which must be decided by law. The rules of policy implementation are aimed at implementing policy, not by the broader power to provide checks and balances and to assure human rights. Individuals seeking justice find that no part of the system is designed to accommodate them.

The United States is forcing its citizens into this bureaucratic way of life one step at a time. There are still many Americans who do not yet realize the massive loss of individual rights in family policy that has occurred during the past quarter century because they have not yet been personally effected. The proposed constitution of the European Union on the other hand, seeks to encompass virtually every aspect of life in such a system in one fell swoop.

The promotional idea is that the proposed constitution is based on Europe as it is rather than radical change. But aside from a bizarre ignorance to the fact that it would not, proponents are apparently not familiar with European history. Western Europe owes its success entirely to the compromise the socialist movement was forced to make with classic liberal ideology. The proposed approach would eliminate the compromise, creating a pure socialist form of governance within the context of social democracy (the second form of socialism). Without the legitimizing elements of classic liberalism, the European Union will, sooner or later, be faced with its own versions of the protests in Tienemen Square and the masses dragging down statues of former leaders in Moscow.

The political dynamics of the old Soviet Union are already apparent. Continuously playing one group against another, the masses were manipulated into being so concerned about preserving and promoting themselves in groups, that they had little energy left to consider how they were being treated as individuals. It was something like a continual state of war. The immediate emergency of battling against the advantages of neighbors took precedent over advancing the cause of individual justice.

France has been the new leader in creating and maintaining conflict between the old Western Europe and new member states from the former Eastern bloc. Throughout Europe debate is raging over the right of free movement within the Union, with proposals to create double-standards based on country of origin. Fear is being generated over the potential loss of jobs for established residents as citizens from poorer countries are allowed to migrate west. Anger is building within poorer member states over a continued tradition of using eastern Europeans as underpaid, temporary, migrant labor.