How about the European Constitution ?

[Britanny]

What do you think about the European Constitution ? This thread is obviously for the Europeans, but if someone Else got an opinion just go ahead.

Do you think it's bad or right ?

Don't you think it is too much print of liberalism ?

Don't you think it locks us up in an ideological dogma of the money ?

Could it be an amazing progress for the European economy ?

Is it going to level the inequities of Eastern Europe ?


Well, I don't know if my ideas are very clear, but anyway, give me your opinions and your feelings.

Brit. France -Vote the May 29th-

[wonkey_donkey]

Unfortunately, I've not seen enough of it to have any specific complaints, but I will say that in general I'm for the idea but NOT YET. I'm very much pro-Europe as a general rule, but I feel that too many steps are being taken towards economic and political unity before it's been verified that it is the best for all European states. As a Brit, for example, I'm pro-Euro in principle, but with the British economy performing as it has done over the last few years, I'd not like to give up monetary (and probably soon fiscal) autonomy just yet. So in 10 years, perhaps, I'd be saying something very different. For now, though, it's no Euro and no constitution.

I am, however, hoping that France votes for the constitution, as without one of its main proponents, the idea will go for a long time rather than just this specific constitution. I like the idea, and France is probably best suited for the constitution of any nation, but as long as Britain says no I'll still be happy!

Tom

[rvs]

The real question is: do we need it?

The answer is no.

[The_Real_Smmenen]

But don't you think that a genuine European Constitution is a progressive step?  Just becuase one doesn't "need it," does that mean you shouldn't go for it anyway?  It could be a real strong force to counterbalance the United States even more than Europe does now.

By clinging to nation-states, you enable the United States to do the same. 

[Matt]

Is there somewhere I can read an English version of it before deciding?

[Limbo]

I, too, am pro-europe and I think that Europe will eventually get this constitution. But I think Europe isn't ready for it yet.

Expansion (including a lot of the eastern-european countries) and creating a constitution at the same time doesn't look like a good idea.

And at the very moment it is very unclear what an effect the constitution will have on the economy, safety and other claimed advantages in Europe in general, and for different countries in particular.

What I dislike about the rally for the constitution in the Netherlands is that it is a lot of nonsense in the adds. I quote:
Why choose FOR the European Constitution? To maintain the peace, prosperity and safety of the last 60 years.
That is a goal of the EU already...

At the moment, I am PRO-europe, but AGAINST a constitution. When Europe is ready for it, I will vote for the constitution.

[The_Real_Smmenen]

But WHY?

It just sounds so emotionally charged and not rationally thought through.  People say they are pro-europe but against this?  Is it becuase the wrong, uncool people have been promoting it?  What has stained it?


This is the future.  Why can't you accept it now?

[nataz]

reason why not to pass

-loss of independence, as the movement from a trade organization (EU) to a super-state restricts individual state sovereignty. (See movement towards more "international courts")
-merger-economics that could potentially damage more developed countires as they absorb huge losses (and potential crashes) due to the underdeveloped eastern states. (See: the current state of Germany, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is in huge trouble due to economic woes at home. This can only get worse.)
-immigration laws => undesired influx of outsiders, and quite frankly free-moving cheap labor scares the industrialized states.
-Initial members were fairly homogeneous, compared to states that are currently looking to be accepted (see:turkey), or have recently been accepted. Religious, social, and cultural differences will arise.
-many Western Europeans (see:Christins) don't like the possibility of a Muslim majority in their state, or maybe eventually in the EU.
-Europe isn't ready. France, arguably the initial driving force behind the constitution, stands a good chance of voting it down. This should be a warning sign. There are to many unanswered questions, to many scared voters, and to much political hype on both sides. Many of the benefits are either intangible, or at best much further down the road. France was supposed to be an "easy" win, with england being the deal breaker. Everyone admits that initially there will be huge problems, and I haven't seen any decent solutions besides "wait it out, things will get better".

If France votes no the constitution stands no chance.

[Limbo]

Is it becuase the wrong, uncool people have been promoting it?

It is not that the wrong, uncool people have been promoting it, it is that people have been promoting it without any valid, thought through arguements. A lot of the important arguements (like the economical ones) should start with : Hopefully the constitution will...

This is the future.  Why can't you accept it now?

One can only accept the future when one is ready for it. That it will happen eventually is no reason to start with it now.

My thought is to see what happens with the European Union now a lot off eastern european countries are joining, and get back on the subject of a constitution in a year or ten.

[Matt]

I don't know if this is actually in there, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the E.U.C. contained some clause that would end up hamstringing member states' ability to act individually - something that said that in order for one member to, say, send troops somewhere it must first get the permission of all or a majority of the other members'.

Again, I don't know that such a clause is in there, but given the actions of many of the members of NATO after Sept. 11, 2001 - where they interpreted the Article 5, "an attack against one is considered an attack against all" clause as meaning "we attack as one or not at all" - it would not surprise me one bit. And that would be a fine reason to reject the E.U.C.

Does anyone know if such a clause exists therein?

[Toad]

Nataz's post pretty much sums up the problems we (by "we", I mean the most powerful European countries, France, Germany, England...) would have to face.

* Immigration : the European Constitution would allow people to move to foreign countries way more easily than It is now. That's a very good thing for the less advanced countries, but not for the most advanced ones. Germany already has this kind of problem with immigration from Poland and the new countries created from USSR. Cheap labour is a bad thing.

* Work laws : the European Constitution statues that workers will be hired following the work laws of their own country. Basically, a Polish worker in France will work under the Polish work code. This is hardly a good thing for the French workers, for example. Once again, cheap labour.

* Credits for technology : the E.C statues that everything should be done for helping the smaller countries to reach the level of the bigger ones. Basically, less credits for scientifical research, and more for development. France, Germany, England would get nothing from that, except more taxes.

The first steps in the creation of Europe, with a common market and a common currency, was a very good thing. Nevertheless, the European Constitution - if accepted - will probably give a huge boost to the smaller countries in Europe, but severely hinder the most advanced ones. At the moment, opinion polls give the No winning by 53% of the votes in France. And Its getting higher every day. There are many problems in this constitution, and many flaws in the reasonning behind it. I'll vote No.

[combo_dude]

I'd say that was a pretty good summary of the more obvious shortcomings. Someone in England who sums it up hilariously is Ian Hislop (satirical journalist):

"...{rude stuff about Giscard D'Estain}...and because he says it's 'not important', Blair's not going to have a referendum on it. Perfectly good reason: he'd lose. We have a referendum on whether to have local elections, whether we want a monkey in Hartlepool...but when it comes to the future of the country, it's not important, is it? Sorry, I'm aware I'm beginning to sound like the Daily Mail*, but just occasionally they're right..."

(*The Daily Mail - absolute rag of a newspaper that is unbelievably right-wing and pretends to be a serious broadsheet when it's much more of a tabloid, and as such the opinions in it are taken much more seriously than most tabloids; also, it's written for women, so it's something that has a lot of influence because of its high circulation.)

[Britanny]

Hum , good opinions there.

1. Immigration ; I really not hope that the immigration will be easier. Even if I know that the Shengein space will be enforced. the Bolkestein's directive underline the inequities if the level of life in Europe.

2. I really hope to help the eatsern countries to reach the level of France or Germany. Example : They give MORE the the P.A.C (Common Agricultural Policy) that to the subsidies  of the Eastern Europe . (Amazing).

A lot of things to say , but don't have the time right now...

I'll back back. OH and by the way, if I could vote (in one month) ; I'll  vote No.

[Naguini]

I don't think this is a good think , because it's obviously cool for the politicians ; the capital is going to circulate better and the trade will be helped. Even if they say that the competition between the states will be respected. Blah, blah.

I don't like this idea, and I really wondering what is it going to change for the Europeans citizens .

[Freelancer]

For now I don't even know if I would vote at all. Specifically because the government has completely and utterly failed to give me any worthwhile information that actually tells me what's in the whole thing. If however I would have to vote I will probably vote yes if this is the last chance (Like in if the constitution is rejected that's it we never hear anything about it anymore) and no if I know for sure that in a year or so we get another referendum.


In the netherlands a strange thing is happening though, people are using this referendum as a way to protest. For instance; several people have stated that they will vote against the constitution because the gulden was valuate to low. WTF! That has absolutely nothing to do with the whole thing. Its mostly a emotion that people feel that the Euro has been forced upon them, and that this is there chance to retaliate. A lot of other emotions are also reflected upon this constitution that have no business with it at all. I strongly reject this behavior. I have no way to stop it though, and I fear that the constition will be rejected because people have no idea (just like me) what they are actually voting for and instead of there mind let there emotions decide what they vote.  
So yeah I probably won't vote at all, it feels way to much like; 'Just trust us, you don't have to read the constitution we know what we are doing'. And the line 'just trust us' scares me like hell.

[Meanee]

I am also going to vote "no", but that's just because I'm a friggin' socialist, and fundamentally against the European Union as it is today...

I'm from Denmark by the way, so it really doesn't matter what I vote - Denmark will not be listened to anyway...

- Meanee

[Malhavoc]

Nevertheless, the European Constitution - if accepted - will probably give a huge boost to the smaller countries in Europe, but severely hinder the most advanced ones.

This could be probably true. Neverthless, who says that's not something we have to face for a better future? When East and West Germany went together again, of course the most advanced one had to face problems and slow downs in economy, but with the passing of time they were able to flourish.

This can give problems in the short run, indeed, but I see only advantages in the long run. On the other hand, remaining "isolated", from a political, economical, and even a military point of view isn't a good thing in my eyes: giants such as USA (and China, particularly in the future) could be big problems otherwise. You can see that with Iraq and other matters: how much were we able to matter? Very little, very very little.

[Toad]

I've been talking with the german reunification with german friends (including some from TheManaDrain), and most of these who live in the old West Germany find that the reunification was a bad thing for them, economically speaking. Helping the smaller european countries is a very good thing, but that should not be detrimental to your own growth, and I fear the European Constitution will settle the wrong bases for that.

Another thing I really don't like with the European Constitution is that It gives lots of powers to the "European Comission", the one that decided to work on the Bolkenstein stuff, for example. That Comission is not controlled by the European Deputees, hence by the Europeans. That's not very democratic to me.

[racetraitor]

Yay, more centralization and moving desiscions away from the ones affected by them. Even if the emperor has a new set of clothes on, this is the same old neo-colonialist searching of new markets to exploit. Free movement of labor is just another way of lowering vages by making everyone too afraid of losing their jobs to hordes of cheap eastern european workers to demand better conditions and salaries. Pit worker against worker and ethnic/religious groups against eachother and you'll make sure that noone unites against the ones making the profits. Instead you have an atmosphere of fear and insecurity where people only care about their own necks. So yes, I'm all for unity and cooperation between europeans (and people all around the globe), but not trough structures that only serve to divide and conquer. The best way to help the Eastern European countries would be to reinforce labor unions and social welfare structures within those countries instead of dismantling them. Now you're just forcing them from the ashes of one totalitarian system into the fires of another.

But don't worry, it probably won't be long until we have Eurasia, Eastasia and Oceania gunning it out and we'll all forgot that things like "voting" even existed anyway... 

[Smmenen]

* Immigration : the European Constitution would allow people to move to foreign countries way more easily than It is now. That's a very good thing for the less advanced countries, but not for the most advanced ones. Germany already has this kind of problem with immigration from Poland and the new countries created from USSR. Cheap labour is a bad thing.

I find this very scary. 

Europe already has a dangerous reputation for what amounts basically to racism or fear of racial and ethnic minorities.

Look at the Netherlands where the murder of Van Gothe and subsequent backlash or what has happened in France with the headscarves or in England with the pakistanis. 

This whole fear of immigration happens in the US too with regard to Mexico and I find it as disturbing here as I see it there.  These people just want to earn a decent living becuase they can't get one where they are.  The idea that some of us are more deserving than others of that lifestyle simply becuase of where we are born is borderline racist.

[nataz]

This whole fear of immigration happens in the US too with regard to Mexico and I find it as disturbing here as I see it there.  These people just want to earn a decent living because they can't get one where they are. 

lol,
thats like telling the sheep not to worry, cause, you know, the wolf has to eat too. After all, the wolf is just trying to get a decent meal. Good if you are the wolf, bad if you happen to be a sheep.

Of course toad says cheap labor is bad, he's the sheep!

One of the main problems is the continuing intergration of single national => multinational economics. Currently the EU is able to stay afloat on the strength of the singularly strong economies of countires such as France and Germany. The addition of the eastern countires are weighing the powerhouses down, and therefore causing their economies to slip (again, see: germany and even France and their current domestic woes).

The additional gain provided by the weaker economies in no way currently balances out. If too many countires are added too fast, it will break the economies of even the fully developed wester en countires, which will then collapse the entire EU system as the western countires panic and pull out.

On the small scale, a very similar model can be applied to the transient workers from the East that could flood the marketplaces of Western Europe. Unlimited immigration will effectively "out-source" the local economy to "foreigner" workers. This would be less of a problem if Europe was fully intergrated as a single state, but they are not. Ask toad how many polish dollars went into French roadways, or healthcare. Then ask foreign workers how much money they send home. The same is true for many Mexican workers in the united states. They don't want to live here, they want to work here.

International Economics still applies on a broad scale, and transient workers count for much less then local workers to the local/state economy. Without full intergration of the economic systems, countires like France, Germany, England, etc. will continue to absorb losses with no immediate gain. 

Too much cheap labor IS bad, and too much DE-regulation of labor too quickly can cause a collapse in the system.

The idea that some of us are more deserving than others of that lifestyle simply because of where we are born is borderline racist.

I don't find it racist, I find it realistic. If anything I find your statement dangerously naive. Before you call someone a boarderline racist, I suggest you look at your own situation.

You obviously own a computer, play vintage magic, and are attending Law School. Do you think any of that could be possible in a "everyone just wants a fair job" DE-regulated economy? Those of us who happen to be born in a western country have an advantage over those are are not. That advantage allows us to afford things like buy power, buy a computer, and pay for college. Would you like that advantage taken away?

Its easy to tell others that they should sacrifice. Much harder to do it yourself. 

P.S.

Yay, you are back.

[Smmenen]

One problem is that there is this overlap between concern over immigration as a drain on national welfare nets and a concern over immigration for ethnic and cultural reasons.  The two are difficult to disconnect, but they must be.

Peoples the world over are notorious for ethnic divisions and conflict.  Europe has a particularly dark history in that regard. 

I think one of the reasons that the European model is so compelling is becuase they have an entirely different view of the nation-state.  On a daily basis they live both as members of their states and as members of the EU in ways that Americans can't even fathom.  There are EU courts, EU currency, EU parliament members that people vote on, and so on.  They live in under a genuine supra-national authority. 

Americans cling to an outmoded notion of a nation-state.  This is part of the reason that we care so deeply about our "soverienty" and our distrust for treaties and international bodies.  Many in the US view the UN as an evil.  And there is a segment of US culture that even views the UN as part of the End Times as discussed in armeggeddon literature. 

I have two concerns.  The first is that Europeans are fully distinguishing between the fear of cheap labor and the fear of ethnic and cultural minorities that aren't traditionally European.  They aren't entirely separate, but it is important, I think, that Europeans are aware of the differences so as to guard against latent racisim.

The second concern is this concern of seeing non-citizens as "the other."  In American we see Mexicans as "the other.'  But in Europe, with fading notions of a nation-state, what it means to be a member of society or a citizen has a different and changing meaning. 

Authority figures since time immemorial have appealed to fears of outsiders to get insiders to band together.  It has happened since the very earliest of times.  In ancient Rome, insidership could be purchased.  In modern societies, it is often what we call citizenship.  Whatever it is and however we view it, it is most often an tool used by politicians and rhetoriticians to manipulate irriational fears on the part of the population.  The reason this appeal is powerful is because of the mistaken assumption that immigrants will take from "what is ours."  That's really a false decision.  Immigration is not really a threat to anyone.  The sheep don't have anything to worry about, really.  This fear though is currently exacerbated in Europe by unemployment problems.   You, like most people, over-estimate the effect of cheap labor.  There are lots of counterbalancing forces.  If you want, we could discuss the actual economics of immigration.

[nataz]

I think you assume too much by saying the nation-state model is obsolete. Although it is true that the nation-state is no longer the only international entity, it has hardly been successfully replaced by anything else. If you wish, go ahead and look at the international law and the U.N. It still almost exclusively deals with nations, not individuals. Even within the EU, it is the states which are subject to the Union, not the individuals. 

I think one of the reasons that the European model is so compelling is because they have an entirely different view of the nation-state.  On a daily basis they live both as members of their states and as members of the EU in ways that Americans can't even fathom.  There are EU courts, EU currency, EU parliament members that people vote on, and so on.  They live in under a genuine supra-national authority.

If the EU IS so different as you claim, and their notion of what a nation-state is has changed, why does it look like a very good probability that France will reject the EU constitution? You act as thought Europe has already approved the constitution, but remember as of right now the EU is nothing more then a regional-super-trade organization.

@ Toad. Do you consider yourself a French citizen in the EU, an EU citizen in France, or both equally? 

Internationalist like you are the reason why the EU could fail. People are pushing it too hard, and too fast. Regular people (and their governments) have not given up the ideas of national sovereignty yet. Although Europe is much further ahead then the U.S. in terms of promoting internationalism, on a whole I think it would be odd to suggest that their feelings of nationalism have faded into some sort of super-Europe contingent. 

I would agree that much of the immigration hoopla does have at least some roots in "fear of others" w/ France being a noteable example. But I'll disagree that the EU, and the new possible immigration policies, have no immediate detrimental effect on the economies of Germany, France, and England. 
 

[Smmenen]

I think you assume too much by saying the nation-state model is obsolete. Although it is true that the nation-state is no longer the only international entity, it has hardly been successfully replaced by anything else. If you wish, go ahead and look at the international law and the U.N. It still almost exclusively deals with nations, not individuals. Even within the EU, it is the states which are subject to the Union, not the individuals. 

I think one of the reasons that the European model is so compelling is because they have an entirely different view of the nation-state.  On a daily basis they live both as members of their states and as members of the EU in ways that Americans can't even fathom.  There are EU courts, EU currency, EU parliament members that people vote on, and so on.  They live in under a genuine supra-national authority.

If the EU IS so different as you claim, and their notion of what a nation-state is has changed, why does it look like a very good probability that France will reject the EU constitution?

Because of the reasons I've just pointed out - the racial and ethnic tensions and fears are playing into some of the other reasons.  I think you are ignoring the vast historical context and the modern historical context in which race and issues of race have become extremely salient in the political scene in Europe.  You have people like Pym Fortune (sp?). Jorg Haider and political leaders across Europe running on anti-immigrant platforms.  When this happens in progress countries such as the Netherlands, I think we should be very careful about what's really going on.  Immigration was even an issue in the British election - but the subtext is often anti-middle east or anti-eastern European.  There have been numerous instances of race crimes in the last decade.

I really think that you are making a huge mistake understating the relevance of racism on the European Continent.

You act as thought Europe has already approved the constitution, but remember as of right now the EU is nothing more then a regional-super-trade organization.

That's really not the case.  The EU is unlike any super-trade organization in that the key role of the central bank is under the control of the EU.  Countries must tax and spend at certain rates and have certain rates of debt.  Moreover, EU law has principles like subsidiarity which means that in given areas of law, Community law is supreme over national law.  The reach of community law may be currently limited to the economic realm, there are numerous court cases in which EU law has spilled over into health and family law.  The community law may be invoked by individuals at the local court house which may act as a EU court.  These are rights that people enjoy, not just nations against each other.   

EU law is actually alot more than trade law.  It really is a supra-national body. 

[The Atog Lord]

The idea that some of us are more deserving than others of that lifestyle simply becuase of where we are born is borderline racist.

Welcome back, Steve. You can always  be counted on for an interesting discussion.

As for being "deserving." Should you, Steve, be given a better life-style and career just because you happened to be born with more intelligence than the average person? Is it unfair that your intelligence has opened for you the door to law school, and therefore the door to a more promising career than most people could hope for?

Should a professional athelete earn the same as the cashier at McDonald's? The athelete, through no virtue of his own, was born with a physical build conducive to sports, without any sort of physical ailment inconsistent with his being an athelete, and was born with, or had instilled in him at a young age by others outside his control, the discipline required for striving in his sport.

What I am saying is that if you try to say who "deserves" what, you will seldom if ever find that someone's acheivement is entirely the product of that person alone. Rather, a lot of chance goes into what one has -- trying to force the universe to act otherwise would be a futile effort.

So, now, as for your "racist" comment. No one I know dislikes immigrations per se -- after all, that is how all of us got here (except for American Indians, and even they were not "native" -- just came long before anyone else). People are only concerned, rather, with illegal immigration.

And you can count me among those people. Whenever I hear about driver’s licences or education being given to people who have no legal right to be in the US, it bothers me. Why, you ask? I’ll tell you. First, of course, having undocumented, illegal immigrants is inconsistent with our security. Second, the people smuggled into this country are often subjected to inhumane treatment, from what I understand.

Finally, there is the notion of fairness. My (maternal) ancestors came to this country around a centry ago. They followed the rules. They were legal immigrants. They were subject to the laws, and they did what the law let them do. When I see other people ignoring the laws and flaunting the laws of this country, and then being rewarded with a driver’s license, it bothers me.

Finally, one last but very very very important point.

Europe already has a dangerous reputation for what amounts basically to racism or fear of racial and ethnic minorities…Look at …what has happened in France with the headscarves

Alright, let me make this very very very clear. Islam is not a race. It is a religion. Perhaps there is some other prejudice that accounts for the headscarf thing. But it cannot be racism, because Islam is not a race.

[Smmenen]

Arabs are a racial minority.   http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Racism.asp#RacisminEurope 

Now we can talk around the rampant racism in Europe and pretend to ignore it with discussions of low wages and cheap labor, or we can talk about the reality that racism is alive, well, and thriving in Europe.  Europeans need to find a way to untangle the two debates.  That's a difficult thing to do, but a necessary move.  In America, abolitionism often accompanied economic fears among poor whites.  The debate was economic as well as racially charged.

As for the whole "deserving" point, you are right, who is found to be deserving is a product of random circumstances.  But, in all fairness, you put too much weight on what is "legal" and what is not.  Legal is what a group of men and women decided would be legal and what would be illegal.  In many cases, the law mirrors common morality, such as criminal law.  In many cases, it does not, such as immigration law after 9/11.   

Michael Walzer, a very fascinating philosopher, argues that the single constant trait among all civilizations is membership.  historically, membership was granted only to wealthy, white males.  Membership has been extended in modern democracies to all "citizens."  The touchstone has been citizenship.  But that touchstone isn't necessarily anymore just than wealth, skin color, or sex.  And just becuase that's the way things are, doesn't mean we should stand for it.  Globalization means that borders mean less.  I beleive that citizens and non-citizens have the same fundamental rights to a fair trial, freedom of speech, and right to competent counsel as citizens.   

[The Atog Lord]

Dear Lord.

Arabs are a racial minority.

Arab != Muslim

Edit:

Calmer now. Yes, I realize that arabs are a racial minority. Though, not the sort of minority that you can list on school applications. In those applications, arabs are classified as "white."

So, the french action against head dresses is an act against Muslims, and not against Arabs. Only by (falsely) assuming Muslim to mean Arab would you be able to construe the action as having anything to do with race.  As such, it is not a racist action, nor an action against an ethnic group. That's what I'm saying.

[Smmenen]

You'll notice I talked about race AND cultural and ethnic minorities. 

I am a research assistant for a civil rights professor at the law school and I work at the Kirwan Institute under him:

http://www.kirwaninstitute.org/

We focus on issues of race and ethnicity.  The nomenclature is not as fixed as you presume.  In the 19th century, the Irish were considered another race. 

Look at the question on the 1880 census:

Personal description:
4.    Color – White, W; black, B; Mulatto, Mu; Chinese, C; Indian, I.

Race is a fluid concept, much more than you are suggesting.  It is not an inappropriate use of the language to term what I described as racism. 

From Wikipedia:
"Assuming that every individual's character adequately can be determined by racial or ethnic stereotypes is race prejudice, and granting or withholding rights or privileges based on such stereotypes is racial discriminatory prejudice. The term racism sometimes is used to mean a strong and persistent bias or inclination towards these activities."

But this discussion is best left for another thread becuase it distracts from the main purpose of this thread.

[The Atog Lord]

The only "racial" assumption being made is the assumption that all arabs are muslim. That is not at all the case. If you'd like to point out that Islam is its own culture, then I won't disagree. However, calling muslims a race or an ethnicity is very incorrect. Not everyone from the middle east is muslim.

[Bram]

I consider myself an above averagely informed voter, and I can honestly tell you that I am at a complete loss as to what to vote. It's like the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon where he suddenly sees all sides of everything simultaneously.

As a last resort, I have partaken in various internet questionnaires and tests. The results show a frighteningly confusing, yet stable image of my preferences. The test typically measure how much your personal beliefs are in line with the proposed constitution. It is broken down in four distinct areas.
Regarding social policy and economy, there's a near-perfect fit between my personal ideas and the constitution. This holds true for environmental and agricultural issues as well. On the other hand, I continuously score almost zero regarding the justice system , and around 50% for both defence & foreign policy issues and European institutes. In addition, my average appreciation of he European Union is quite neutral according to my answers. On the whole, my personal beliefs match the constitution by some 60%.

Now I find that inconclusive. I'm not simply going to vote 'yes' because it's over 50% or something ludicrous like that. These tests only strenthen me in my belief that I don't know what the hell I should do. It's realy frustrating.

Moreover, EU law has principles like subsidiarity which means that in given areas of law, Community law is supreme over national law

Yes. European guidelines take precedence even our our national constitution. If national law conflicts with European guidelines, national law must be altered. Smmenen: I am genuinely impressed by your knowledge of the workings of the European Union. You should really check out the discussion in the Mod Lounge regarding freedom of expression versus anti-discrimination laws in Holland, by thw way. I'm certain you'll have something to add to that as well.

[EDIT] I think I figured it out. I'll take bribes! If I can't figure out what to conscienciously vote before net week, I'm ebaying my vote. Democracy to the highest bidder!


...


I hope you all realise that was sarcasm :-/