How about the European Constitution ?

[Bram]

No, it actually does matter. A lot.

Ofcourse the France vote already was problematic, but now that TWO of the original founders have given a resounding NO, noone really knows what the next step should be. Don't be mistaken; our small country very likely killed the constitution yesterday (I'm not implying wether that's a good or bad thing, just stating a fact). The only other referendum held was in Spain, and that was a VERY resounding YES.

The only other countries that will hold a referendum are Luxembourg (July 10th), Poland (September 25th), Denmark (September 27th), Ireland (somewhere towards the end of September), Portugal (somewhere towards the end of December), the UK (probably early next year).  Czechia will ratify (or not) in june 2006 but has not yet decided if it's doing to do a referendum or not. Same for Sweden and Estonia.

The other countries let their parliaments decide. The deadline is november 2006. In case you're wondering, three things can happen now:

1. All 25 member states ratify the constitution before the deadline and it will take effect (theoretically, it can still happen in France and us decide on a new referendum, but it is not likely).

2. Between 1 and 5 member states fail to ratify in time (or, in the case of France and Holland, at all), in which case heads of state and government officials will meet to discuss the crisis situation. Since us and the frenchies already said no, this meeting has been bumped to June 16th 2005. You can expect to hear a LOT about that on the news in the next few weeks.

3. Over 5 member states did not ratify: the deal's off.

Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia, Italy, Greece, Slovakia, Belgium, Austria, Germany and Latvia have already said YES. Poland, Estonia, Ireland, Portugal and Czechia are obvious YES'ses. I'm thinking Luxembourg will go for YES as well. Sweden I'm not sure about. Denmark might well be NO.  You can bet your ass that the UK votes against, too. Malta, Cyprus and Finland I have no idea about.

We could well end up with 5 NO's.

A nice factoid is also that we (Europeans) only make up about 3% of the world population

Nice, but wrong. Its more like 6%. The European Union has the third largest populace in the world (380 million), second only to China and India. We have more inhabitants that the USA does (290 million), even though we only have about a third of its surface. We are by no means insignificant.

[jpmeyer]

And the EU has (depending on what system you use) the world's largest economy if you count all the countries together.

[Toad]

Follow the leader!

Bram summed up pretty well the importance of the Dutch vote for the European Constitution. When all the countries have voted, they'll just count the number of "No", not the relative importance of the countries voting "No" in Europe. Basically, the Dutch "No" is as important as the French "No". That's already 2 countries rejecting the Constitution. 3 more, and the text is rejected.

Of the remaining countries, Denmark could vote "No". UK will probably vote "No" because they tend to be against Europe since the beginning, unless they decide to keep acting the exact opposite as the Frenchies do (they've been doing this for milleniums!) and vote "Yes"...

[Bram]

unless they decide to keep acting the exact opposite as the Frenchies do (they've been doing this for milleniums!) and vote "Yes"...

That's not true, though. Several times the UK and England made the very same decision to go to war with the other party

[Limbo]

unless they decide to keep acting the exact opposite as the Frenchies do (they've been doing this for milleniums!) and vote "Yes"...

That's not true, though. Several times the UK and England made the very same decision to go to war with the other party

Hasn't it been a while since there was a civil war in England / UK? Last time must have been when they lost to Germany while playing soccer in the European / World Championships

[Dr. Sylvan]

I am intrigued: is there a reason why the Eastern European members, especially Poland, are obviously going to ratify? Us ignorant Americans don't have the insight into the European collective psyche to know what's going on. :-)

[rvs]

I am intrigued: is there a reason why the Eastern European members, especially Poland, are obviously going to ratify? Us ignorant Americans don't have the insight into the European collective psyche to know what's going on.

They are poor. We are rich. What more reason would they need?

[Bram]

While overly simplistic, rvs' answer has a core of truth in it. Eastern european countries (who have only very recently been allowed to join the club, so to speak) stand to gain a hell of a lot more than we do, and lose nothing. With us, it's the other way around. In short, all of the Easter European coutries (including the ones that would join in 2007 like Romania and Bulgaria) are net-recievers of money while we are net-payers. But it's not just that which irks us.

Even the strongest supporters of this constitution concede that in the short term, The Netherlands will likely be worse off than it is now. We pay about 5 billion euros per year to the EU and recieve about 2 billion each year. That gives us the biggest per capita gap in Europe, in addition to being the highest per capita contributor. A Dutchman pays (per capita) almost twice as much as a Swede, four times as much as a Dane and almost six times as much as a Frenchman, while none of these countries are poorer than us. Barosso recently asked us to up our contribution by an additional 1 billion euros per year.

Furthermore, what we have to say about Europe is unfairly linked to our number of inhabitants. An example.
- Belgium has 10,000,000 inhabitants and gets 24 seats in the Parliament.
- The Netherlands has 16,000,000 inhabitants and gets 27 seats in the Parliament.
- Romania has 22,000,000 inhabitants and would get 35 seats in the Parliament.

For the 6,000,000 inhabitants The Netherlands have more than Belgium, we get 3 additional seats.
But here's the kicker: for the same 6,000,000 seats Romania has more than we do, they get an additional eight seats.

Taking those two factors into consideration, it's no surprise that Easterns European coutries are jumping at the chance to ratify (and they kind of clearly explain our 'no' as well). They net a whole bunch of money from it, boost their economies in the process, and gain a disproportionate amount of power over the countries that 'feed' them. Equal rights is one othing, but giving us proportionally less doesn't go over very well, apparently.

[dandan]

As someone who actually lives in one of the eastern countries in the EU (how the hell can a sane person/Dutchie call a country that lies at the geographical centre of Europe an Eastern European country? Central Europe my friends, friggin central, don't lump us in with the Ukraine and Moldova) the main reason why there is a very pro-EU trend here is that we want to show that are good Europeans. Waving a EU flags sure beats waving red ones on May Day.

The rich/poor thing is a little bit of a smokescreen as most Slovaks expected things to get worse after we joined the EU (as in a country with low wages and low prices joining an organisation that fixes food prices artificially high, many people expected prices to rise much faster than wages - in reality nothing much happened). People have a lot of experience of centralised systems over here and aren't expecting the EU to make Slovakia rich. It might allow Slovakia to make Slovakia richer but that is hardly the same thing.

Bram hit the nail on the head with his EU parliament numbers albeit the wrong nail. Romania isn't in (I think he used the future expansion's proposed figures) but Poland gets a huge amount of Euro-MPs compared to their population. The Polish parliament are hardly likely to kick out such a deal. It should be noted that all members are not equal - the common agricultural policy is modified for new members and they get less than half the subsidies that the current members get. In addition citizens of new member states do not enjoy the right to work in any member state. Still, I'm glad to see Bram is opposed to unfairly treatment of some countries in the EU and hope he'll be campaigning to allow Slovaks to wear silly wooden clogs and grow tulips in below sea-level fields if they so desire.

As far as I know, there is no real chance of England leaving the United Kingdom so it'll probably be the UK that votes NO if it even gets a vote. Is there any point at all on voting on the current constitution as it is clear changes will have to be made to it? Vote YES or NO on a proposal that you know is going to be changed?

[Bram]

(how the hell can a sane person/Dutchie call a country that lies at the geographical centre of Europe an Eastern European country? Central Europe my friends, friggin central, don't lump us in with the Ukraine and Moldova)

It is how we refer to it over here. I'm not going to change that. It's kind of like how I'm not going to call football 'soccer' just because some foreigner disagrees. I'm sure you can sympathize

The rich/poor thing is a little bit of a smokescreen as most Slovaks expected things to get worse after we joined the EU (as in a country with low wages and low prices joining an organisation that fixes food prices artificially high, many people expected prices to rise much faster than wages - in reality nothing much happened).

Not for you guys it didn't. Prices went up something MAD over here after the introduction of the Euro. The example I'm giving now ofcourse isn't representative, but I can name several goods/services that used to be costed at 1 guilder that are now costed at 1 euro; a factor 2,2x more expensive in a matter of les sthat four years. Note how I'm not saying that 'you guys get all the benefits and we get all the costs'; it is a fact that the economic unification proposed will be beneficial for the whole of the EU (rich countries included). The problem, however is that a. many people don't know/believe it, and b. many of those who do, don't want things to get worse before they get better.

Fact is, the average Dutchman pays a net amount of $20 USD out of his paycheck every month to the EU and sees nothing in return except for the promise that things get worse in the near future and might be better by the time he's either retired or dead. I'm just trying to explain the NO vote. For you Americans reading this, that would be something like Bush trying to have a new law passed that sais that everyone's monthly salary decreases by 20 bucks, promising that he'll personally see to it that the money is used to make things even worse in the future and limiting US ciizen's rights in the process. That's how many Dutch people see it.

Bram hit the nail on the head with his EU parliament numbers albeit the wrong nail. Romania isn't in (I think he used the future expansion's proposed figures)

Allow me to quote myself:

(including the ones that would join in 2007 like Romania and Bulgaria)
(...)
- The Netherlands has 16,000,000 inhabitants and gets 27 seats in the Parliament.
- Romania has 22,000,000 inhabitants and would get 35 seats in the Parliament.

Note the stuff in bold, please

Still, I'm glad to see Bram is opposed to unfairly treatment of some countries in the EU and hope he'll be campaigning to allow Slovaks to wear silly wooden clogs and grow tulips in below sea-level

I made no such comment. I merely implied that us being treated unfairly partially explains the no vote. I made no comments on others being treated unfairly, or my personal view on the matter. Even so: the reduced agricultural subsidies (which total out at about half the EU budget...) were clear from the beginning. Eastern european countries knew about them before they agreed to become member states. They could also have simply declined. The matter is different now for us. We were asked: 'do you, as one of the original founders, want to pass a law that treats you as a country unfairly?'. We said: 'No, thanks.'

Again, I'm not saying I agree with this view, but these are the thoughts of the man in the street, as the outcome so clearly illustrates.

As far as I know, there is no real chance of England leaving the United Kingdom so it'll probably be the UK that votes NO if it even gets a vote. Is there any point at all on voting on the current constitution as it is clear changes will have to be made to it? Vote YES or NO on a proposal that you know is going to be changed?

I think each country should at least get their say on the matter. It's not a single elemination system. The countries that opted for 'no referendum' all got their say, too (by ratifying the constitution). Everyone's opinion should be heard if only to clarify member state viewpoints.

 

[dandan]

Why look at Romania when Poland makes a far better example? I'm not sure exactly how many they got but I remember a few complaints over here that we got far fewer EuroMPs per head than Poland as we only got around the average figure.

Regarding Eastern Europe, I now reserve the right to call your country Holland. I'm sure this retaliation won't be viewed as too harsh.

The rich/poor thing - I was talking about Slovakia joining the EU not the Euro. So far we are holding budget deficit targets so I guess we are not a suitable candidate for the EMS. As far as the Euro goes, it would be welcomed with open arms by Slovakia, nobody is that nostalgic about the Slovak crown as it has only been around for 12 years. People buying stuff for 2.2x more than they should cost is due to stupidity and/or lack of competition, neither of which is Slovakia's fault.

Regarding the referendums, each country should now vote NO as then they have a better bargaining position when the constitution is renegociated. Voting YES to the current referendum is like answering "Do you want to pass a law that treats you as a country unfairly and then we'll change it to treat you even worse?"

[Bram]

Why look at Romania when Poland makes a far better example?

Because it increased the populace by 6,000,000 again (10-16-22M vs. 24-27-35 seats).

Regarding Eastern Europe, I now reserve the right to call your country Holland. I'm sure this retaliation won't be viewed as too harsh.

Indeed not.

The rich/poor thing - I was talking about Slovakia joining the EU not the Euro.

Yes, but in the minds of the people these things are strongly interrelated.

neither of which is Slovakia's fault.

I did not imply that. It merely serves to illustrate the fact that people here view the EU and the resulting Euro as a major factor in our current economic decline. The outlook on several more countries that are net recievers joining (Romania and Bulgaria), thereby by default increasing our per capita contribution, does not excite many. And neither does ratifying an agreement that basically says we don't get a vote in it anymore.

And yes, I'm well aware the participation of Romania and Hungary cannot be stopped anymore. The worst thing that could happen is that if they don't meet the criteria in 2007 (many of them dealing with corruption issues and border controls) is that it's held off for another year.

Regarding the referendums, each country should now vote NO as then they have a better bargaining position when the constitution is renegociated. Voting YES to the current referendum is like answering "Do you want to pass a law that treats you as a country unfairly and then we'll change it to treat you even worse?"

Yes, that is true. Also, I'm quite sure both our turnout and our NO percentage would have been lower had France voted YES. It's a fact; these things are not independant.

[dandan]

Of course one of the main reasons a number of 'old' EU members supported enlargement was the idea that it would be almost impossible to make a United States of Europe out of 25 countries (24 2/3 if we include Cyprus).

However...

As I was forced to defend the US of A last week, I'll do my good-European duty now...

The EU (or EEC) was initially an attempt to prevent war in Europe by encouraging international trade and cooperation between states. It is not only economocally unviable but absolutely unthinkable for France to go to war with Germany (or Germany to go to war with France for those who mock France's thirst for war with anything larger than a Greenpeace boat). In a continent ravaged by war for centuries, history will see the end of war in (most of) Europe and the formation and growth of the EU as irrovacably linked.

[Britanny]

So, here is a little summary  of what happened in EU and what is going to happen.

-Germany : approval by the parliamentary way (Bundestag the 12th may 2005 and Bundesrat (federal council) the 27th may 2005).

-Austria : approval by the parliamentary way (Nationalrat (national council) the 11th May 2005 and  Bundesrat the 25th may 2005).

-Belgium : approval by th parliamentary way (Senate and Room). Approval by the Senate the 28th April and by the Room, the 19th May.

-Cyprus : Parliamentary way the 30th June 2005.

-Denmark : referendum the 27th september.

-Spain : Parliamentary way and referendum . Referendum the 20th February 2005 (76.7 % for the "yes"), approval by the Congress the 28th April 2005 and by the Senate on the 18th may 2005.

-Estonia : Approval by the parliamentary way in Autumn 2005.

-Finland : Approval by the parliamentary way in Autumn 2005.

-France : Referendum the 29th May 2005 (54.5 % for the "no").

-Greece : Approval by the parliamentary way the 19th April 2005.

-Hungary : Treaty approved by the council the 20th December 2004.

-Ireland : Parliamentary way and referendum ; no fixed date.

-Italy : Approval by the parliamentary way . Senate the 25th January 2005 and the Room on the 6th April 2005.

-Latvia : Approval by the parliamentary way the 2nd June 2005.

-Lithuania : Approval by the parliamentary way the 11th November 2005.

-Luxembourg : First vote of the Room for the approval of the treaty scheduled for June 28. Referendum fixed at July 10, 2005. Second vote of the room after the referendum .

-Malta : Parliamentary approval awaited for July 2005 .

-Netherlands : Referendum the 1st June 2005 (61.7% for the "no").

-Poland : Maybe a referendum on the October 9, 2005.

-Portugal : Maybe a referendum scheduled for October 2005 (at the same time as the local elections ).

-Czech republic : No date scheduled for the possible referendum.

-United Kingdom : Parliamentary way (House of Commons et House of Lords). Parliamentary ratification procedure suspended (suspension announced by the government on June 6, 2005) .

-Slovenia : Approval by the parliamentary way (1st February 2005).

-Slovakia : Approval by the parliamentary way (11 May 2005).

-Sweden : Parliamentary way (no date scheduled for the moment).
 
Brit .

[MrZuccinniHead]

I hope the EU can work this thing out.  My country (America) needs some global competition!