How about the European Constitution ?

[Smmenen]

No such assumption was made. 

Here is the wording of my first three posts:

* 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.

I did not mention the word Muslim here.

Second post:

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.

I did not mention the word Muslim here.

Third post:

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.

Nor did I use the word anti-muslim there!
I'm not quite sure why your post immediately after that singled that idea out and harped upon it.  I never even mentioned the word muslim.  I also mentioned eastern Europeans and Pakistanis although I did not, but could have, mentioned Africans as well.  There is racisim in Europe and it is wideranging and not limited to Arabs or blacks but a wide swath of peoples.  I also mentioned Mexicans in North America as another example.  There is also racial and ethnic animosity towards Jews in Europe. 

[Smmenen]

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.

Thank you, I got a very good grade in European Union Law where I was forced to read the full text of many of the key court decisions.  Although its been a few years and I have forgotten most of it I still have solid notes and a binder full of treaty excepts and case law. 

I have a real affinity for the EU and concern for it becuase I really think it is the future.  Seen from a larger historical context, the development of the EU is nothing less than extraordinary.  The development of the nation-state was painfully slow and critically important to the development of law and our notions of citizenship.  I think that clinging to the nation-state has serious ramifications for the environment, development, and the general health and welfare of the people the world over.  You can see this playing out right now in the U.S.  We have parochial notions of what a democracy should look like and what values and laws should be exported.  It worked for a while.  The United States was a genuine force for good in the promotion of our values to organizations such as the UN and the Bretton Woods institutions and the development of NATO and the like.  But now the United States has over-reached.  There is a great new book out by Jeremey Rifkin called "The European Dream."  The European dream embraces, ideally although not in practice, notions of civic community and democracy that are very much at odds with the American Dream.  The European Dream is the dream that is winning the hearts and minds of peoples the world over.

It never ceases to amaze me how obsessed Americans are with our institutions without really knowing or caring much about what other countries have.  Here is an example - I was talking with an attorney once, a rather well known attorney, and they were going on and on about how magnificent the U.S. Constitution was - what a marvel and what a work of genuis and how they would die to protect it.  I asked: what other constitutions have you read?  They meekly admitted none. 

I think the EU is a very important project.  I am the kind of person who doesn't like to wait for the future.  We don't live forever.  We can't afford to wait around for a better world.  If it were up to me I'd rapidly accellerate space exploration, massively increase funding for education and research and development for health and medicinal purposes, speed up the development and implementation of environmental treaties, treaties concerning civil and political rights, etc. 

I think your position of uncertainty is probably healthy.  You are keeping an open mind to both sides of the debate.  I respect that.  But I am curious what your opinion is concerning the race issue. 

[kirdape3]

The big problem from the great Western European powers' views (France, Britain, and to a lesser extent Germany) is that they would be forced to discuss the ability to set foreign policy with the other nations of the EU.  Expecting a nuclear weapons state to ask fully twenty four other countries for permission to set it's own national defense policies is going to be difficult - the main reason to acquire such weapons is to ensure that right. 

Economically, it's a boon for the major conglomerates within the three major powers as they can swap out their indigenous and expensive workforces with semiskilled labor from Eastern Europe, but the detrimental effect on such populaces themselves is not to be discounted.

I honestly am not sure whether or not it's in the great powers' interests to join such a conglomerate, especially as far as foreign policy goes.  Germany probably would not lose very much freedom (as they have almost no power projection capacity and therefore limited sway outside of Europe), but Britain and France have such capacity and therefore are going to be the hardest sells on the grounds of having their foreign policy chosen for them.

[Matt]

...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.

Welcome to America, circa Novermber 2004. Or Austin, Texas, on the recent bill that passed which banned smoking in all bars.

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.

Yes, I would totally agree with that. That line would scare the shit out of me too.

You can see that with Iraq and other matters: how much were we able to matter? Very little, very very little.

Do you think that would have changed much had Europe been united politically? Bush made it very clear that his position was that we were going in alone if necessary. I think that of the three fronts you mention, military is the most important for the EU to get going, because otherwise it'll (continue to) be unable to do anything about even minor skirmishes in its own backyard (see Balkans, The). And if the rest of the world sees the EU proclaiming loudly some situation or another but unable (or unwilling) to do anything about it, they'll learn that the EU is the boy who cried wolf.

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.

If you want my advice - and I know you probably don't - I would say that the answer to what you should vote rests upon your answer to another question: is the possibility of not having a constitution right now intolerable? If there's no rush then take the time to get a constitution right. If you need one ASAP, then 60% might have to do.

[Bram]

If you want my advice - and I know you probably don't - I would say that the answer to what you should vote rests upon your answer to another question: is the possibility of not having a constitution right now intolerable? If there's no rush then take the time to get a constitution right. If you need one ASAP, then 60% might have to do.

Why would I not appreciate your advise? It appears sounds. I am also considering not voting. It is, after all, a referendum. It asks of the people to speak their opinion. In all honestly, I think I can say that I have no relevant opnion on the matter. I am neither especially in favor of or against this constitution. A vote 'for' on my behalf would basically be the result of the more general sentiment of 'me believing in the EU' and a vote 'against' would be the result of me admitting to myself that I don't believe in it. And really, that's not what this referendum is about.

As our minister of foreign affairs stated last monday: 'For those in doubt, it is better not to vote that to vote 'no' out of cynicism.' He was called to oprder after saying this, since it might affect the turnout (giving fractions a valid reason to ignore the referendum is it's low enough), but there's a core of truth in there.

Smmenen: I will address my view of the race problem later today. It is too complicated to 'rush' an answer.

[Toad]

To answer Nataz's question, I consider myself as a French citizen in the vast political and economical mess we call Europe. Yes, I hardly consider myself as an European citizen.

A couple of years ago, I voted Yes for the unified currency, because I thought It was a good thing to start with, but I don't really think that European Constitution is good for "us". We have a fundamental difference between Europe and the US. The US have been built around the same communities, with people coming from basically similar regions and culture. Irish, English, Dutch... with minorities being added over the time (Mexicans and Africans). Europe is very very different. You can't compare a Spanish and a Swede, or an English and a Greek. Every single country has its own culture and its own history. The European history is full of wars against each other. England vs France during Middle Age, France vs. Germany in 1870, France and England vs. Germany and Austria in WW1, France and England vs. Germany and Spain and Italy in WW2, East vs. West during the Cold War, etc... Unifying the currency was a very easy thing to do. Unifying the citizens is far far more difficult. Each country has its own warefare system, its own civil laws, its own government (we have Monarchies, Federal Republics, non Federal Republics), its own labour rights... This is not a question of racism here, just a question of individualities. I have nothing in common in my origins or in my culture with Bram from Netherlands, Womprax from Germany, GabeTheBabe from Spain, MaxxMatt from Italy.

Another problem with the European Constitution is that It will probably settle some "topfeeding" rights. Basically, Germany, England and France would have to pay more taxes and give more subventions to the European Commission in order to help the development of the smaller countries, Estonia or Poland for example. This is what happened in 1975 when Spain and Portugal entered the EEC. The gap between the top countries and the bottom countries is far too important to be attenuated without important sacrifices from the top countries, on economical and scientifical levels. Open frontiers, social policies leveling and easier immigration and labour rights is a very bad thing for France, Germany and England. We are already facing high unemployment rates (12% in Germany), and a mass arrival of cheap labour employed under inferior labour rights will be problematic for many economies. I'm over exagerating the comparison, but, basically, just imagine what would happen to the US if you had the same kind of agreements with Haiti and Cuba. That would *hardly* be a good thing for the US, and most of the US citizens would actually be against these laws. That's what's happening in France at the moment, and start to raise in Netherlands according to what I've read lately.

For all these reasons, I doubt the European Constitution is a good thing. You can't rally 25 very differents countries under the same rights. It's just a non-sense to me.

[Bram]

You can't rally 25 very differents countries under the same rights. It's just a non-sense to me.

Actually, I think you can. However, I'm not altogether sure you can do it with a constitution that was initially designed for 6 to 8 of themand got amended to 'fit in' an additional 17. In conclusion: regardless of the question of we should have a european constitution at all, I have serious doubts if the proposed one will 'do the trick'.

[Britanny]

Just several comments :

1 I've read the constution (not entirely I admit) , and it's just blah blah blah, "omg the constitution is so cool" , "we really need it" , and stuffs like "it is going to underline your basics rights like social , racial equality ; the right to have a social protection ; the right to have a very efficient justice; etc" > we already got that , but if you read between the lines you could see : "this is very cool for the capital (understand : the capital of the politicians, economist), this is very cool for our exportation ... " . Whatever.

2 What the country are going to manage :
-Scholar programs
-Immigration (part of)
-other stuffs pretty important
-And .... The protection of the fishes.
Stupid.

3 What does the England is going to vote ?
They are living alone , on their island , in autarky. They don't care about Euro ...

That's all , going to bed , I don't know if what I've said is very interesting..

Brit.

[rvs]

The Constitution is simply worthless, since, as being said in this thread before, the European Union is not an actual democratic entity, since there is no division of power (law-makers, law-implementers, law-validators(=judges,etc)).

[mongrel12]

I just had a debate on this... and it's blatantly clear that the EU constitution is a terrible piece of legislation that as it stands should never be ratified. Here are the reasons:
a.   It pllaces power in an undemocratic, unelected, unchecked, body—the EU Commission
The EU constitution threatens France’s legislative sovereignty by placing all EU laws under the control of “a conclave of technocrats responsible to nobody”—the EU Commission. The EU constitution empowers the unelected Council of ministers to have the monopoly of proposing all EU laws. Article I-35 of the constitution empowers the un-elected EU Commission to make laws, stating that it has the right to supplement or amend “non-essential elements of European laws and framework laws,” without defining “non-essential.” Article I-10 establishes that EU laws have primacy over national laws. The presence of such an undemocratic body clearly violates the sovereignty of the nation of France by imposing laws. The constitution also makes a farce out of the role of national legislative bodies. The “Protocol on the Role of National Parliaments” states that if 1/3 of national parliaments have objections to an EU Commission proposal, “the commission may decide to maintain, amend, or withdraw its proposal,” in other words, they do whatever the hell they wantThe EU constitution threatens France’s legislative sovereignty by placing all EU laws under the control of “a conclave of technocrats responsible to nobody”—the EU Commission. It undermines the right of france to make its own decisions by placing it under the dominion of the majority.
The Princeton Review reports, “The effect of the constitution is to make it virtually impossible for any member country to veto an EU Council Law or decision.” This clearly impedes upon France’s right to determine its own legislationThe new EU Constitution violates France’s sovereignty by abolishing the unanimity voting under the 2002 Treaty of Nice in 27 new policy areas. Article I-14 gives the EU power to adopt measures to coordinate the economic, employment, and social policies of member states. Which creates MASSIVE problems for France because it will no longer be able to dictate its own economic plans. Article III-157 introduces a universal EU policy on energy and provides for EU laws aimed at ensuring security of energy supply in the EU and the functioning of the energy market, and promoting energy efficiency. This will give Brussels power over national oil and gas reserves, exploration rights, and national policy will become subject to EU laws based on majority voting. The New Statesman reports that "half or more" of European legislation (depending on the country) begins in Brussels and not in their home capitals Article I-12 would take away from France it’s power to sign treaties with other states. It states that the EU will have the power to sign treaties that affect any “internal union act,” which means that the EU will negotiate and sign international treaties and conventions related to criminal law, foreign and security policy, and much else. Articles III-62 and III-63 provide for the majority voting on “administrative cooperation or combating tax fraud and tax evasion,” once the council of ministers decides that these are desirable. This will allow the EU council of ministers to regulate internal tax policy and infringe upon the national sovereignty of France. In conclusion, the extension of majority voting and the abolition of national vetoes subverts the national sovereignty of France through shifting policy making towards Brussels and not Paris.
--   The New Statesman reports that "half or more" of European legislation (depending on the country) begins in Brussels and not in their home capitals
--      The Princeton Review reports, “The new constitution would severely limit the sovereignty of all 25 member nations, instead routing most important legislative decisions through the EU Council of Ministers in Brussels . The Council, which consists of unelected representatives from member nations, votes in secret on legislation which may only be introduced by an even smaller commission. The effect of the constitution is to make it virtually impossible for any member country to veto an EU Council Law or decision.”
--     “An Empirical analysis of voting in the European Union Council” published in the European Journal of Political Research states that “decision making in the Council takes place behind closed doors…little is known about what actually happens in these meetings” this clearly indicates a lack of transparency about what actually occurs, which is simply not possible in a democratic legislative process

[Matt]

It sounds like this is all a Belgian plot to take over the world.

[Moxlotus]

This may be a little simplistic and is certainly off topic but in my opinion the Neo-Con led U.S. government is happy to keep people of non-anglo races down by turning them agianst each other in a sense and thereby helping to keep them all in poverty

Can you give any back up to this radical claim?  How exactly do conservatives turn people against each other?  Sorry for being off topic.

It sounds like this is all a Belgian plot to take over the world.

They already have a monopoly on waffles

The whole part about the power in nonelected officials voting behind closed doors would make me very suspicious if I lived in Europe.

[Bram]

It sounds like this is all a Belgian plot to take over the world.

You know, that actually occured to me, too. It would also explain why my girlfriend is such a EU supporter.

The whole part about the power in nonelected officials voting behind closed doors would make me very suspicious if I lived in Europe.

Yes, me too. I need to reflect more on all this, and I need to do it fast. Mongrel22 makes some decent points. Much as I would like to, I can't shoot them full of holes. Here's one that concernes me.

If 1,000,000 autographs are collected (from any number of member states) regarding some proposal, it must be put on the European agenda. The Commission is then obliged to discuss this proposal.

That all sounds very good, but it's ofcourse slightly harder to get 1,000,000 votes in a country where only 16,000,000 people live (e.g. The Netherlands) than it is in a country with 83,000,000 inhabitants such as, say, Germany. This means Germany can quite easily get proposals on the agenda if they would want to (1,2% of inhabitants requried), whereas we cannot (6,3% of inhabitants required). I am reluctant to transfer (some of) our power to Europe. Howeverm I can also see the benefits. It's all very confusing. I think I'd be better off reading and thinking some more than posting in this thread. I think I'll sign of from this one now.

[Ivantheterrible]

@ Moxlotus

I dont have documented evidence to support my claims but i have looked at common appearing trends and facts to help me formulate my ideas and opinions. It has to be pretty clear that overall Blacks, Hispanics/lations are poorer than whites in this country. The people who control this country (politicians, CEO'S) are for the most part white and they want to keep it that way. An example of this would be when on election day over the last two elections in certain states blacks were stoped from voteing. Of course the consevetives tried not to make that blatantly clear, all they did was set up certain rules on who couldn't vote somehow that just happened to include mostly blacks (funny how that worked so well.)

When I said that the consevetives turn minorities agianst each other that should be pretty evident througout history and rich showed it himself. He states that he had to go throught hardships to be a citizin and that the newer immigrants are dodging that. Thats exactly what i mean its the old I want to be like that guy at the top so i'll crush those below me to feel better. In this situation an immigrant group that came here 100 years ago has finally made it past the stage of whipping boy and moved up in the world just a bit and now can rag on the new immigrant group saying hah the white folks hate me less then you so i am better than you. It's the choice of the minorities they can let the vicious cycle continue (as is most prbablle) or they can help each other and not do the rich white conservitives job for him.

[Smmenen]

Take your semantics off thread PLEASE.

VOTE YES on the European Constitution!

[Toad]

I have just voted. The No is winning in my area at the moment according to an opinion poll done at the exit of the vote center, by quite a large margin (56/44).

8hrs left before final and official results. Stay tuned!

[Britanny]

I want to say first that France was voting ...

But just woke up... Anyway , as Toad said ; results tonight at 10h P.M (GMT +1).

[Jacob Orlove]

There's a reason political discussion is usually banned on TMD.

Some posts removed.

[Britanny]

France has said NO to European constitution !

(Personally, I'm happy ) .

Now , we are waiting the dutch vote Wednesday.

[Subaru]

France has said NO to European constitution !

(Personally, I'm happy ) .

Now , we are waiting the dutch vote Wednesday.

+1

But ALL the politician are so bad

[edit]I replace "who voted NO" by "ALL" because during the post-election debate they all speak about the presidential election and no about the Europe [/edit]

[nataz]

exit polls showing "no" vote as of 5pm EST

*edit

France is an official "NO" in case anyone hasn't heard.

[MrZuccinniHead]

Why don't the leaders just add a clause to the constitution that forces companies/people to pay the same minimum wage as citizens.  If they do, there is no incentive to hire a "Polish Plumber" (as it says on a news site) over a normal citizen.  If that is the main reason people are voting it down, then Europe is crazier than America (and I think we're pretty nuts, too)! 

[Dr. Sylvan]

I don't really feel strongly about the EU Constitution (except insofar as I dislike all measures centralizing power; in the 1780s I would have sooo been with the Anti-Federalists in the US constitutional convention), but I do think the EU is a very good thing as a force for opening markets to competition. A sentiment expressed earlier in this thread was that France and Germany are being dragged down by the ten new members. This is not the reason they are having a tough time economically. The biggest continental economies (Italy, Germany, France) have their immense unemployment, stagnant growth, and worsening export outlook because their markets are intensely regulated, and by doing business with countries that are freer, they inevitably face competition from people who aren't as bogged down with extra costs.

Americans are invariably shocked at the benefits and perks continental Europe expects: 4+ weeks of vacation per year is required. In France the work week is only 35 hours. Italy's retirement age is what, 55? Yet when France switched to the 35-hr work week, they didn't allow pay decreases commensurate with the reduction of hours---they wanted something for nothing, a universal 14% pay raise. It should surprise no one that they're down to 1% growth per year. In the words of a 1994 OECD report, "countries with more flexible labor markets enjoy greater benefits from technological change, have better records in job creation, and experience faster growing economies."

France, Germany, and Italy are just going bananas over the possibility that their intricate system of government-mandated benefits and privileges is just incapable of competing with people in other countries that don't tie one hand behind their backs. The best thing these countries can do is try to make the standard of living in their competing countries rise as rapidly as possible, because the closer they are to the richest countries, the less reason someone has to shift their company's jobs somewhere else just for the low cost. And no labor force becomes expensive without starting out cheap for a certain amount of time. (Taiwan, anyone?)

Try these for further reading; they're from an extremely biased source but then again, most things are, and these at least have a worthwhile point.

[dandan]

I think most of the voting is actually about the direction Europe is heading in. Few people are informed about the constitution and fewer really care about it. The problem is that with so many members, you cannot let each member say 'NON' to individual laws/directives and still expect the European (alas no longer {when did they decide it wasn't] ECONOMIC) Union to function as a cohesive entity. However few people actually want a EU that overrides the self-interests of their country. France is correct in its suspicion that most new members would not continue to accept agricultural subsidies far below that which France enjoys. Who would bet against France getting less and Poland more in future? Would Holland have to take more immigrants? Quite possibly, under the constitution each state should take an amount averaged out over the EU.

What this means is the United States of Europe is dead. The phoenix that will rise from the ashes of the constitution should be a tight coalition of individual states, which is what everyone outside the original members wanted anyway. On the downside, it leaves the US as the world's only superpower until China and India get up to that level.

As an Englishman living in Slovakia I'd be willing to wager rather a lot of money that the few EU members that have allowed workers from the new member states to work there will enjoy considerably greater growth than those countries that seek to protect their workers and consequently damage the competitiveness of their companies. I also suspect that the new member countries will benefit from this emmigration too as a significant percentage of workers return with new skill and ideas (in addition to the temporary lowering of high unemployment rates).

Personally, the less power the EU has, the happier I am.

[Britanny]

hey , Netherlands has said NO ! That's cool . But i think it was obvious they were going to vote no : because they were afraid to lose their monarchy and they were expecting the french vote... So, they follow us 

[Bram]

The Dutch NO was more forceful that the French, even.

62% NO with an unexpectedly large oter turnout of 63% (European Parliament elections drew 39% of the eelctorate last year. The current tournout is almost on the level of national election).

The primary reasons were somewhat different from the ones Brit mentioned Actually, we're not afraid to lose our monarchy (for one thign, it's not really an issue and for another, most people couldn't care less

Top 5 reasons for NO:

1. The Netherlands pay way too much to the EU (62%)
2. The Netherlands will have less to say about itself under the constitution (56%)
3. The Netherlands will have too little influence in Europe (55%)
4. The Netherlands will lose its own identity (53%)
5. The Netherlands will be too dependant on Europe (46%)

Interestingly, the NO vote was apparently not out of discontent with our current government, but directed almost solely at Europe.

[Limbo]

hey , Netherlands has said NO ! That's cool . But i think it was obvious they were going to vote no : because they were afraid to lose their monarchy and they were expecting the french vote... So, they follow us 

I am happy to inform you all that over 60% of the "allowed" people over here in Dutchieland voted, turning into 38% for, 62% against the constitution.

I am happy to see that on CNN it is pointed out that the tendency in the Netherlands is not against the EU, just against this constitution. I hope our own dutch Harry Potter (Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende) will act as he should, and starts working on a new, decent constitution with France (and the rest of Europe). If not, then it will probably take until after the next elections in the Netherlands before things are started up again.

Btw, although most people (myself included) like (but not love) having Queen Bea and her son Wim-Lex instead of a president, I don't think that was a reason for people to vote against the constitution

[Bram]

I took a look at population statistics and the number of people allowed to vote. It means that a FULL THIRD of our ENTIRE POPULATION actively opposed this constitution. The other two thirds are people who're either too young to vote, couldn't vote, wouldn't vote, didn't vote, voted blanc or voted yes. That's over thirty percent of every single person in this country that went out of their way yesterday to say NO.

[rvs]

I took a look at population statistics and the number of people allowed to vote. It means that a FULL THIRD of our ENTIRE POPULATION actively opposed this constitution. The other two thirds are people who're either too young to vote, couldn't vote, wouldn't vote, didn't vote, voted blanc or voted yes. That's over thirty percent of every single person in this country that went out of their way yesterday to say NO.

[nitpick]Or made someone else go. I was really too Kowal to travel back to my hometown to actually vote No.[/nitpick]

In any case, our vote is totally irrelevant, since we only make up a small % of European Inhabitants. The only votes that matter are France, Germany and England, and why the last one of those actually matters, nobody really knows.

[Flopmeister]

A nice factoid is also that we (Europeans) only make up about 3% of the world population. I used to think that Dutchville was just a small country in Europe. The above information really woke me up as to how insignificant we really are on a global level.

Furthermore I would like to state that the Netherlands do matter in their vote against the Eu Constition. I'm really disappointed by the statement that the opinions of Dutch individuals are irrelevant, seeing how we are not represented in a big number. You totally discount the fact that a statement was made, which counts heavily towards countries that are still in doubt on approving the constitution.