Anyone keeping up with the EU Constitution vote?

[Clandestino]

If France votes no, which it is looking like it will happen, what do you think it means for the EU?

[The Ressurrected One]

If France votes no, which it is looking like it will happen, what do you think it means for the EU?
I hope it means complete and utter failure of the whole silly concept.

[Clandestino]

the dollar is already strengthening on the possibility... once the dollar gets back to normal levels i am vacationing in europe!

[Slomo]

If France is the only one it will mean a delay. If others countries say no too, then it's going to be back to the drawing board.

I think that even in the worst case scenario people are starting to realize that a strong united Europe has better chances in today's world than a divided one (as illustrated by the Euro weakening of today). It will therefore happen one way or another.

How is the concept more silly than say the concept of the USA?

[Clandestino]

If France is the only one it will mean a delay. If others countries say no too, then it's going to be back to the drawing board.

I think that even in the worst case scenario people are starting to realize that a strong united Europe has better chances in today's world than a divided one (as illustrated by the Euro weakening of today). It will therefore happen one way or another.

How is the concept more silly than say the concept of the USA?

You guys are totally different nations... different cultures, languages, etc.

In the u.s. we are more or less same. I feel the EU is too large now for anything other than an economic body.

[MannyIsGod]

How is the concept more silly than say the concept of the USA?
It provides a compitor economicly to the United States. Oh, and imagine if Europe would actualy start to defend itself. How would lawmakers here be able to justify their military machine?

Yeah, it's a silly idea only because it conflicts with the vital interests of those RO supports.

[Slomo]

Put it into historic perspective.
The US founding fathers were far from being "more or less the same". Frankly nobody really believed in the "melting pot" at the time, but it still worked (well almost). And from what I've seen in the US you are far from being a homogenous group - but still it works (better on some levels - worse on others. Nobody is perfect).

Now the EU integration started as an economic alliance and in a totally different historic period. The way that the EU is coming together is of course totally different than what the US went through, but the basic impulse is the same - strength in numbers. You also have to admit that it has gone much farther from its initial idea and it will continue to do so as long as it makes sense/makes things better.

And finnally tell me how is the union of the US states so much different than what the EU would be if this new constitution goes through? The only real difference is that you all speak English (well that's also less and less true, right?), and while it does simplify certain things - it's only a logistical problem.

[The Ressurrected One]

How is the concept more silly than say the concept of the USA?
Well, it's one thing to get a bunch of people to agree over a constitution for a new nation. It's quite another to get a bunch of people in long-standing nations to compromise their sovereignty in order to constitute a new union.

That's why it's silly. You'll never get France to agree to what Germany will agree to and Germany will never agree to what Belgium will agree to. etc...

[Slomo]

Well, it's one thing to get a bunch of people to agree over a constitution for a new nation. It's quite another to get a bunch of people in long-standing nations to compromise their sovereignty in order to constitute a new union.

That's why it's silly. You'll never get France to agree to what Germany will agree to and Germany will never agree to what Belgium will agree to. etc... You shouldn't post about things you know little about. The first European agreement ever was when France and Germany agreed to integrate their coal and steel industries. After the two agreed Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy and the Netherlands joined the initial contract and created the first economical pan-european agreement that would become the historic base for the EU.

Secondly if I remember correctly in the US there wasn't a bunch of people agreeing to create a country but a bunch of states creating an union and seeking independence from the British. Other states joined the union later. I'm sorry that doesn't sound so much different from the EU method to me.

Compromise sovereignty? What sovereignty? In today's world please explain how any country (yes any) is free to take decisions without regard to others? The only sovereign decisions are really only taken about domestic issues, and those - much like in the case of US states - are the sole domain of each individual country.

The only silly thing in this thread are your posts.

[Gerryatrics]

The difference being that most of the various states were formed as part of the Union (excluding the original colonies that formed the Union in the first place), while most of the European countries have been established for hundreds of years. It's one thing for the US to inherit a territory and say "Hey, let's make it a state" Quite another for a European country to say "Hey, if we just give up some of our uniqueness and most of our sovereignty, we might be able to better compete with the United States".

[Slomo]

The difference being that most of the various states were formed as part of the Union (excluding the original colonies that formed the Union in the first place), while most of the European countries have been established for hundreds of years. It's one thing for the US to inherit a territory and say "Hey, let's make it a state" Quite another for a European country to say "Hey, if we just give up some of our uniqueness and most of our sovereignty, we might be able to better compete with the United States". I will admit that I am over simplifying facts in order to keep the posts short - but you get my basic idea. I have also said that you must put things into perspective, it was somewhat easier for the states to form an alliance/country since in view of all the iminent dangers of the time it definitely looked as a good idea (and it was). Of course in today's context such a swift union would be impossible to replicate by anyone let alone by traditionally conservative countries like the one in Europe. That is why the process is gradual and very slow.

The process is also based on voluntary membership and consensus. And while all the attention is now focused on France because it might be the first EU member to reject the new constitution you shouldn't forget all the countries that have either already ratified the contract or have stated that they will.

If the French vote against it, it will be just one in a serie of obstacles that the EU has already had to face and we'll just have to find a solution. It's not like we have an option. The EU is not the promised land but it is far better than the alternative. I also do not see how we will be any less unique in the EU than we are now? Is Texas less unique because it's in the US? Is Hawaii? New York?

As for sovereignty, the EU laws regulate mainly the economic principles and technical aspect of the Union - with the exception of Human rights laws who are also part of the EU legislation. Everything else is still regulated locally by each member state. But as I have said earlier sovereignty is suposed to mean that nobody can influence or mingle into the state's decisions - well show me which country in the world can still claim it can do that?

And finally get one thing straight - it's not about the USA!

The EU's main purpose is not to be competitive to the US - it's to create a stronger economy that will profit it's citizens. It does create some competition between the US and the EU but it's not its raison d'etre. The US have not us to fear but economies like China and India.

[spurster]

The problem is that the proposed constitution has been put together by bureaucrats.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/opinion/27tournier.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/opinion/27clarke.html

[Clandestino]

the fact is how much power are the countries willing to give up. also, some votes require every member nation to comply for it to pass. I think the EU enlarged too much and took in too many countries too quickly.

Once France votes no, the EU will remain stagnant.

And the USA concept is totally different. NAFTA would be more like the EU, but still not the same because we don't have the freedom of movement. The only way it'd be the same was if the US, Canada and Mexico decided on a constitution together.

[Clandestino]

the purpose of the EU and most recently, the euro, is meant to compete with the US and dollar...

[Slomo]

the purpose of the EU and most recently, the euro, is meant to compete with the US and dollar... You're wrong since the US is not the main threat to our economy. Note that I say threat and not competition since we are probably the biggest competitors in terms of quality and technology - but at the same time those are free markets where one can participated at free will (something that can not be said of the other big economies). A strong American economy has alway helped the European economy and vice versa, that's because the two economies are much too intertwined for your statement to be true.

As for the Dollar, what's wrong with a little competition?

[BronxCowboy]

Slomo, I'm afraid the main problem is that these jingoistic xenophobes like Clan and TRO cannot grasp the concept of cooperating with anyone outside your own borders.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I think the whole idea failing is a good thing.

The last thing anyone in Europe needs is Germany, and particularly France, having extensive control over how they live their life, their rights, what they can say and do, etc.

France is going to be a Muslim nation in 20 years anyway, that's not a path Europe needs to have leading the way.

[Slomo]

Although I disagreed wiht the previous posts, I could understand why they had such a point of view. The last two however are the perfect ilustration why I rarely go into this part of the forum - stupid and rude name calling, unsuported by any sort of argument.

They do not deserve an answer.

I did not think so but you might just be correct BronxCowboy.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

What's wrong with my post?

Are you telling me you think the socialist, pacifistic way of life that permeates in France is the model nation state?

If you read everything Chirac says and does (and step outside the US mainstream media box), it's pretty obvious to see that Chirac's whole impetus for this is to preclude France from becoming irrelevant in the world power structure, basically a last ditch attempt at that.

And I'm not trying to be racist or anything when I mention the Muslim problem, but everyone paying attention to what's going on in Europe with Muslim sectarian violence against any non-Muslims is a very real problem, and one that is going to over-run France in the next 15-20 years.

You've already got politicians over there in hiding because Muslim street gangs have bounties on their heads, you had Van Gogh getting killed in broad daylight, the list goes on and on.

I've got relatives (my mom's English) in the U.K., as well as some who live in Germany, and they say the problem with the Muslim thugs is escalating greatly on mainland Europe.

The one Europe, one world model is doomed to failure, you've got too many individual cultures you're trying to put together to make it work. Didn't anyone learn from the League of Nations or the United Nations? Apparently not.

And BTW, there's a big difference, Bronx Cowboy, between countries cooperating (as all the countries in Europe do already) and this EU constitution bullshit where basically you've got France and Germany making a power grab at the future of the entirety of the EU.

[MannyIsGod]

If you read everything Chirac says and does (and step outside the US mainstream media box), it's pretty obvious to see that Chirac's whole impetus for this is to preclude France from becoming irrelevant in the world power structure, basically a last ditch attempt at that.

:lmao

I'm sorry, but that's jus hillarious for obvious reasons.

[Clandestino]

Slomo, I'm afraid the main problem is that these jingoistic xenophobes like Clan and TRO cannot grasp the concept of cooperating with anyone outside your own borders.

wtf are you talking about bronxdumbass? i never said the eu was bad. i asked for thoughts on it.. i also said that the eu was nothing like the usa in general.

[Clandestino]

i lived there for quite a bit of time. i think some of the eu policies are good, but others are doomed to failure with how fast and how large the eu is growing. getting 25 different nations to unanimously agree on anything is difficult. some eu votes require that.

[BronxCowboy]

wtf are you talking about bronxdumbass? i never said the eu was bad. i asked for thoughts on it.. i also said that the eu was nothing like the usa in general.

It goes far beyond this one thread, my friend.
Nonetheless, I apologize for lumping you in with TRO in the context of this thread.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

getting 25 different nations to unanimously agree on anything is difficult.

Like I said, the only way I see them being *successful* is if they start stripping countries of their cultural uniqueness.

I haven't had the privilege of a long trip to Europe to enjoy it, and I don't want it all destroyed out of some Jacques Chirac pipe dream.

[Clandestino]

LONDON (AFP) - Britain is losing 200 million pounds (290 billion euros, 365 billion dollars) a year due to its membership in the European Union, according to a detailed cost analysis to be published next month.

"The cost of the EU to Britain is equivalent to the UK economy remaining stagnant for eight years," said co-author Philip Booth of the conservative Institute of Economic Affairs, quoted in The Business, a Sunday newspaper.

Direct contributions to the EU budget, higher food prices due to the Common Agricultural Policy, higher costs for manufactured goods, lack of competition in services, and red tape are imposing high costs on Britain, the report says.

Future costs are likely to come with the introduction of pan-European labour regulations and, possibly, the need to bail out bankrupt pension funds in EU member states, it adds.

Minford said that if European leaders don't renegotiate Britain's terms of EU membership, "then it would be in the UK's interests to leave the EU and unilaterally pursue liberal policies".

On its Internet site (www.iea.org.uk), the Institute of Economic Affairs says its analysis would be presented in London on June 14, after the French and Dutch referendums on the EU constitution, although copies are already on sale.

[Clandestino]

Here are five arguments put forward by the Oui and Non camps in France on the EU constitution:



YES CAMP

Efficiency; The constitution will replace voting rules that were designed for a smaller bloc and will make decision-making easier in the EU following its enlargement to 25 member states. More decisions will be taken by "qualified majority" voting, rather than unanimity, to enhance efficiency.

Foreign policy; The constitution will increase Europe's influence in world affairs, strengthening the EU's common foreign and defence policy. The charter also gives a face to EU foreign policy by creating the post of an EU foreign minister.

Social policy; The constitution strengthens social policy in the bloc by setting out social goals such as full employment and equality between men and women.

Best option; The constitution that has been drawn up was the best compromise possible after long negotiations. A better deal cannot be found, and the treaty will not be renegotiated.

Fairer voting weight; The constitution will increase France's voting weight in the EU from nine per cent of the total votes to 13 per cent. The current system, agreed at a summit in Nice in 2000, awards countries weighted votes that bear no relation to their size.

NO CAMP

Anti-liberal economics; The charter enshrines an "ultra-liberal" economic model which puts market interests ahead of social concerns. It does not protect workers enough and will drive firms out of well-established members such as France to states with lower wages and costs in eastern Europe.

Defence; On defence, the constitution makes the EU dependent on NATO, and therefore the United States.

Loss of sovereignty; French influence will decline inside the bloc as the constitution strips countries of more sovereign rights and moves power to Brussels.

Turkey; The constitution paves the way for Turkey to enter the EU.

No discussion; The constitution is hard to understand and read, and a better treaty can be negotiated that takes more account of social concerns. A French No would also encourage a wider debate on the merits and goals of the EU.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/campaigns/eunion/utreatyreasons.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/05/28/ixportaltop.html

[MannyIsGod]

Like I said, the only way I see them being *successful* is if they start stripping countries of their cultural uniqueness.

I haven't had the privilege of a long trip to Europe to enjoy it, and I don't want it all destroyed out of some Jacques Chirac pipe dream.

Would you like to explain how France will stop being France because of the EU?

[Slomo]

Here are five arguments put forward by the Oui and Non camps in France on the EU constitution:



YES CAMP

Efficiency; The constitution will replace voting rules that were designed for a smaller bloc and will make decision-making easier in the EU following its enlargement to 25 member states. More decisions will be taken by "qualified majority" voting, rather than unanimity, to enhance efficiency.

Foreign policy; The constitution will increase Europe's influence in world affairs, strengthening the EU's common foreign and defence policy. The charter also gives a face to EU foreign policy by creating the post of an EU foreign minister.

Social policy; The constitution strengthens social policy in the bloc by setting out social goals such as full employment and equality between men and women.

Best option; The constitution that has been drawn up was the best compromise possible after long negotiations. A better deal cannot be found, and the treaty will not be renegotiated.

Fairer voting weight; The constitution will increase France's voting weight in the EU from nine per cent of the total votes to 13 per cent. The current system, agreed at a summit in Nice in 2000, awards countries weighted votes that bear no relation to their size.

NO CAMP

Anti-liberal economics; The charter enshrines an "ultra-liberal" economic model which puts market interests ahead of social concerns. It does not protect workers enough and will drive firms out of well-established members such as France to states with lower wages and costs in eastern Europe.

Defence; On defence, the constitution makes the EU dependent on NATO, and therefore the United States.

Loss of sovereignty; French influence will decline inside the bloc as the constitution strips countries of more sovereign rights and moves power to Brussels.

Turkey; The constitution paves the way for Turkey to enter the EU.

No discussion; The constitution is hard to understand and read, and a better treaty can be negotiated that takes more account of social concerns. A French No would also encourage a wider debate on the merits and goals of the EU.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/campaigns/eunion/utreatyreasons.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/05/28/ixportaltop.html You realize that with this post you've disproved almost all of your own previous posts. Look at the NO column and tell me which of those is really a good argument - except maybe the one about the new constitution being difficult to understand.

As for the article about the cost to the UK it's written by a EU sceptic (nothing wrong with that) but I've seen articles showing that just the savings made by the adoption of the Euro by England would mitigate most of those costs. Of course talking the British out of using their beloved Pound is not something that might happen soon.

AHF
You claim not to be racist in your 1st post and then go on and bash the Muslims some more. You of course also forgot to mention your racist bashing of the French and the Germans in that 1st post.

What is especialy ridiculous is you claiming that the new constitution is giving too much power to France while one of the main arguments of the "NO" sayers is that it takes away too much influence (which btw is true).
The biggest problem with the French is the farmers lobby. They are extremely strong and the one group in the EU that receives the biggest chunk of money from Brussels. Their position got tougher already during the last EU expansion and under this new constitution their position could (would?) get even worse. At the end it's always a money matter.

Taking away the cultural uniqueness? Please! You can't make that call when yourself admits you have no idea what it looks like. It's like saying that Chicago's deep pan pizza's will destroy Tex-Mex food because Illinois and Texas are both part of the USA. Most expert agree that our "uniqueness" is more threatened by the hugely successful entertainment industry of America than by anything else.

Please realize that if the constitution passes we would have an alliance who would put each country in a position very similar to what the states are in the USA. A position that would be very similar to the current position, minus the very complicated and bureaucratic decision process in place now.

[Clandestino]

You realize that with this post you've disproved almost all of your own previous posts. Look at the NO column and tell me which of those is really a good argument - except maybe the one about the new constitution being difficult to understand.

As for the article about the cost to the UK it's written by a EU sceptic (nothing wrong with that) but I've seen articles showing that just the savings made by the adoption of the Euro by England would mitigate most of those costs. Of course talking the British out of using their beloved Pound is not something that might happen soon.

AHF
You claim not to be racist in your 1st post and then go on and bash the Muslims some more. You of course also forgot to mention your racist bashing of the French and the Germans in that 1st post.

What is especialy ridiculous is you claiming that the new constitution is giving too much power to France while one of the main arguments of the "NO" sayers is that it takes away too much influence (which btw is true).
The biggest problem with the French is the farmers lobby. They are extremely strong and the one group in the EU that receives the biggest chunk of money from Brussels. Their position got tougher already during the last EU expansion and under this new constitution their position could (would?) get even worse. At the end it's always a money matter.

Taking away the cultural uniqueness? Please! You can't make that call when yourself admits you have no idea what it looks like. It's like saying that Chicago's deep pan pizza's will destroy Tex-Mex food because Illinois and Texas are both part of the USA. Most expert agree that our "uniqueness" is more threatened by the hugely successful entertainment industry of America than by anything else.

Please realize that if the constitution passes we would have an alliance who would put each country in a position very similar to what the states are in the USA. A position that would be very similar to the current position, minus the very complicated and bureaucratic decision process in place now.

exactly, in the u.s. the federal gov is the more important than the states. are 25 countries willing to give up power to the eu? i don't think so.

and i posted this just to show some pro/cons. i am not a europe hater. i loved living in europe. i just don't think this new constitution will fly for a majority of the countries.

[Slomo]

exactly, in the u.s. the federal gov is the more important than the states. are 25 countries willing to give up power to the eu? i don't think so.

and i posted this just to show some pro/cons. i am not a europe hater. i loved living in europe. i just don't think this new constitution will fly for a majority of the countries. Well countries have already relenquished almost all their powers to Brussels - the only new category in the new constitution is foreign policy (which is encountering most oposition in the UK). Everything else is about relenquishing some authority to make the process quicker and easier (but the process itself is already in place since years). France (and to some extend Holland) are using the ratification process to score political points at home (as I said previously strong lobbies like the farmers) and by doing so are actually slowing down the EU process - something that will cost them (and us) a lot in missed opportunities, if nothing else.
Oh and btw most EU countries have already spoken in favour of the new constitution.

I do not think you're an EU hater, and I also do not expect you or anybody to agree with me just because I wrote something. It would be nice if some people would bring some substance to the discussion or God forbid some facts.

I do believe on the other hand that your views of the politics in the EU is skewed by the current US political mantra that "you're either with us or against us". Since quite a few EU countries did not agree with your Iraqi policy, now most American think we're against the US on all subjects (when we actually disagree on just one or two) - which in turns has convinced many European that you're against us...

The only aspect of that that really pisses me off is that people on both sides of the Atlantic that are loudly promotiong isolationism are usually the biggest idiots who haven't even tried to understand what the other side is about. Hoping that they would actually know what they're talking about is a lost cause anyway.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

You claim not to be racist in your 1st post and then go on and bash the Muslims some more. You of course also forgot to mention your racist bashing of the French and the Germans in that 1st post.

Just because I am skeptical of the ability of the leaders of Germany and France to not try and pervade Europe with their economic, social, and cultural mindset doesn't mean I'm racist against the people of both countries.

Hell, one of my best friends and college roommates is French, and he thinks Chirac is a piece of shit (for proper perspective, he thinks both Bush and Kerry are corrupt and cheats, but said he'd take either one any day over Chirac).

As for the Muslims, I've studied Islam and the Qur'an. Muslims and Islam in and of itself isn't bad.

But I'm not talking about the general population, I'm talking about the street thugs who are invading Europe and turning it into hell for its native citizens (things like the Van Gogh murder, the problems in Denmark, Norway, even Germany is having problems with Muslim street gangs).

Did you know 3/4 of reported rapes in Denmark in the last three years were committed by Muslim street gangs?

In Germany you've got sheiks giving sermons saying the people of Germany are no better than the Jews, and deserve to die.

I could go on and on...

If acknowledging that what's happening on the streets of Europe and being concerned about it makes me racist, well so be it.

[Slomo]

Just because I am skeptical of the ability of the leaders of Germany and France to not try and pervade Europe with their economic, social, and cultural mindset doesn't mean I'm racist against the people of both countries.

Hell, one of my best friends and college roommates is French, and he thinks Chirac is a piece of shit (for proper perspective, he thinks both Bush and Kerry are corrupt and cheats, but said he'd take either one any day over Chirac).

As for the Muslims, I've studied Islam and the Qur'an. Muslims and Islam in and of itself isn't bad.

But I'm not talking about the general population, I'm talking about the street thugs who are invading Europe and turning it into hell for its native citizens (things like the Van Gogh murder, the problems in Denmark, Norway, even Germany is having problems with Muslim street gangs).

Did you know 3/4 of reported rapes in Denmark in the last three years were committed by Muslim street gangs?

In Germany you've got sheiks giving sermons saying the people of Germany are no better than the Jews, and deserve to die.

I could go on and on...

If acknowledging that what's happening on the streets of Europe and being concerned about it makes me racist, well so be it. With all due respect this post is a lot different from the one I called you upon. Whenever someone says all the French are dum or all American are idiots - that person is making a racist statement.

I agree with most of what you are saying in the above - I just do not see how it is relevant to the new EU constitution.

The muslim problem in some west European countries is an increasingly worysome issue. But it's primarly a social problem. The muslim groups that are responsible have many of the same problems than for example the black or hispanic people had/have in the US. The majority lives below the poverty line, high percentage of school drop out, inadequate employment politics....
Those problems must be addressed before unscrupulous "leaders" take advantage of them and turn them into a political fight.
Many of the laws are not adequate and will require many tough decision on the part of the European people if we are to make it work. A good example is how the English are handling it. With one of the highest percentage of ethnic/religion diversity in Europe they have far lesser problems than others.

And finally as a person that grew up in a Chirac controlled Paris I agree that he's an incompetent and corrupt moron, but thank God most French are not. The EU constitution is more important than him and the few idiots that have not realized that fact yet.

I've been listening to reaction of voters exiting the polling stations in France all day long and most nay sayers said it was a vote against Chirac and not necessarily against the constitution. That further proves my opinion about Chirac since he failed to explain to his people what this election is about.

[Slomo]

FYI, it seems that the French voted NO.

[Clandestino]

only a handful have ratified the new treaty and most did so without a public vote.

[Slomo]

only a handful have ratified the new treaty and most did so without a public vote. 9 countries that represent a little less than half of the EU population have already ratified the treaty. Every country ratifies the treaty according to its own legislation that may or may not include a popular referendum - regardless of that all country have to assess it's voters opinion on the subject, not doing so would result in a political suicide.

Slovenia ratified the treaty without a referendum but only after a lengthy public debate that showed the public support for the ratification.

Most analyst (in fact all that I've read this morning) attribute the French vote as a NO vote to the Chirac government and not to the EU constitution. Anyway the process will now go on and I expect negotiations with France.

It is an unpleasant delay that will cost us - but only a delay non the less.

In order for the EU to remain competitive and strong, it needs the next step, wether with this treaty or another. Standing still in today's world means moving backward.

[Clandestino]

why else do you think they chose not to ask the public? they knew the vote would fail. and 9 out of 25 is not very many.

[MannyIsGod]

This shit doesn't happen overnight. Public referendums are expensive, and if there are obvious signs that the public overwhelming supports it, whats the point?

[Slomo]

why else do you think they chose not to ask the public? they knew the vote would fail. and 9 out of 25 is not very many. It depends on the legislation of the country. In any case it's done by people who were elected in a general election - that's why I said they wouldn't dare vote in favour if the public was against it since it would be political suicide. Not all the countries even have laws for referendums, while others (i.e. Switzerland) use referendums as a method of government all the time.

9 of 25 is not many, but it is also not just a handful especially if you take into consideration that they represent almost half of the EU population. As far as I can remember beside Holland (and obviously France) nobody else is predicting a NO vote. In any case let's see how it unfolds.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn29.html

EU President: "vote yes. If you vote no, we'll keep making you vote until you say yes."

:lol

Nice "democracy" they've got going over there.

[Slomo]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn29.html

EU President: "vote yes. If you vote no, we'll keep making you vote until you say yes."

:lol

Nice "democracy" they've got going over there. Well I guess it's still better than to have a president appointed by corporations. This article is just bashing and making fun of something the author has absolutely no clue.

You want the real statement you can find it here. (http://www.eu2005.lu/en/actualites/communiques/2005/05/29jclj-ref/index.html)

And I agree, if France does not want to sign the new treaty, it should not prevent the others to go ahead - and if it happens, yes they might change their minds. It's their choice - but I can see how free choice can be confusing to you.

[The Ressurrected One]

Well I guess it's still better than to have a president appointed by corporations.
Really? Who has one of those?

And I agree, if France does not want to sign the new treaty, it should not prevent the others to go ahead - and if it happens, yes they might change their minds. It's their choice - but I can see how free choice can be confusing to you.
Just how many EU Countries were allowed a referendum? The fact is that most Europeans, given the chance to vote, would vote non -- just as have the French.

If the EU rams this constitution through it'll be confirmation of the elitists behind the whole scam.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Yeah, politicians in Europe are I'm sure above taking bribes from corporations, that's why prosecutors are going to be arresting Chirac's ass the day his reign ends.

Why are you taking this so personally Slomo? Several of the countries who have ratified this have done it without so much as a vote of their country's people, and somehow that's supposed to represent democracy or the wishes of the people of Europe?

At least we get to vote here...

[Drachen]

Well I for one appreciate this thread filling me in on what is going on over there. Im sure that no one here will find it any sort of surprise that I agree with Slomo's opinions on the matter. Will it be hard for them to set up? Sure! Shoot we had growing pains in the US as far as what type of government we should have and how much power states vs federal should have. Shit we even had a whole war over it in the 1860's. Fact of the matter is that we worked, why shouldnt they.

[Slomo]

Really? Who has one of those? You must be new here.


Just how many EU Countries were allowed a referendum? The fact is that most Europeans, given the chance to vote, would vote non -- just as have the French.

If the EU rams this constitution through it'll be confirmation of the elitists behind the whole scam. You must have a problem reading. No EU country were "allowed" to have a referendum. Each has to ratify the treaty according to its own legislation (they decide - actually they don't - they have to do it according to their own existing laws). The EU doesn't have the power to force any members to do anything that wasn't agreed to unanimously - how's that?

[Clandestino]

the dutch rejected it too now

[Clandestino]

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) -- European leaders faced the possibility of having to scrap the proposed EU constitution Thursday after Dutch voters rejected it by a massive margin, voicing their concern over dwindling national identity in a rapidly expanding union and increasingly powerful bureaucrats.

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

Really interesting thread. I believe that the EU is an excellent idea, it's the way the world is going to work in the future. The different regions will create their own representative goverments to deal with regional issues. Of course, when moving this idea to the practise, it will bring some problems, this always happens.

There are several issues that should be taken into the table for the EU to really work. Like the incorporation of Turkey. Unlike the Western European countries, where a secular, post-modern society is the representation of the majority of the population, Turkey and some of the Eastern Europe nations are completely different.

I believe Turkey was accepted too early, while other nations that are closer to the European culture haven't joined yet. A massive amount of Turks immigration to Western Europe could represent problems, specially if they are not assimilated into the country where they'll be moving.

It is a remarkable stat that in the French referendum, both the extreme left and right voted for "No". Of course with different motives, the right because of their nationalism, anti-immigrantion, ultra-catholic stance, while the left because they considered the constitution to be ultra-liberal in the economic matters. I'd like to add that "liberal" does not mean left in Europe or South America like it does in the U.S.

The term liberal is used to refer someone with an economic tendency towards free market, while the left is closer to a Keynesianism. This for the moderate left and right, the extremists have more radical views.

Another issue is the authonomy request of different regions for different reasons, like Euskadi, Catalonia, Lombardia, etc. where the population sees the EU Constitution approval as the end of the posibility of an independent state.

[Clandestino]

turkey is not a member.

[The Ressurrected One]

turkey is not a member.
turkey leg is though.

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

turkey is not a member.

They will be acepted after 2007 if things keep at this pace.

[The Ressurrected One]

They will be acepted after 2007 if things keep at this pace.
What pace? The thing is going down in flames!

[Clandestino]

nah, not turkey. they have tons of things to work on before being accepted. especially their economic situation.

[The Ressurrected One]

Britain chickens out on their referendum and now Italy is thinking of abandoning the EUro and go back to the Lira?

Folks, pay attention, you're watching history in the making!

[Clandestino]

i am just hoping the euro keeps dropping so i can go back and visit on the cheap!


LONDON (Reuters) - Britain is expected on Monday to consign the European Union constitution to limbo after voters in France and the Netherlands overwhelmingly rejected it.

But, afraid of being the first government to publicly declare it dead and therefore bear the blame for its demise, the move is likely to take the form of an indefinite postponement of the government bill paving the way for a promised referendum.

A spokeswoman for Prime Minister Tony Blair said on Sunday that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw would make a statement on the constitution to parliament on Monday, but following parliamentary protocol she declined to hint at its content.

However, Anthony King, professor of politics at Essex University, had no such qualms.

"I will be amazed if Straw doesn't explicitly or implicitly make it clear that Britain will not go ahead with the referendum plans," he told Reuters after voters in two of the EU's founding members threw the bloc into crisis.

"My guess is that he will signal -- even if he doesn't say in as many words -- that he and the British government regard the constitution as dead," he said.

Advocates argue the constitution is needed to streamline the bloc's unwieldy bureaucracy and decision-making process, while opponents say it centralises power in Brussels and reduces national governments to bit players.

Ten EU countries, accounting for about half the bloc's population, have approved the constitution but the rejections by France and Holland have triggered doubts about whether it remains viable.

EU SUMMIT

Opinion polls in Denmark, Portugal, Poland and the Czech Republic -- once favorable to the constitution -- have tumbled since the French and Dutch rejections.

The official position in Britain, which takes the helm of the 25-nation EU in July for six months, is that everything should wait for the EU summit on June 16 to mark the end of Luxembourg's presidency.

That period of abeyance holds despite a call on Saturday after an emergency meeting of French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder for ratification to proceed at full speed.

"We have set out our position. We believe that it is necessary to have a period of reflection leading up to discussion at the Council of Ministers meeting on June 16," the Downing Street spokeswoman said.

Blair, in power for a third and final term and keen to secure a legacy other than the unpopular Iraq war, has long declared an ambition to put Britain at the heart of Europe.

But while ratification of the constitution could have been just the epitaph he is looking for, deeply Euroskeptic Britons were unlikely to have done him the favor.

"I suspect that Blair would have liked the constitution to have been adopted by the whole of Europe -- after all the British government put a lot of effort into drafting it," King said.

"But now that the French and the Dutch have said 'no', Tony Blair has got off a political hook because it would have been rejected by the British people," he said.

The issue has come as EU leaders search for an agreement over the next mid-term budget for the bloc for the 2007-2013, which has been held up by the refusal of major contributors, including Germany, to increase their payments

[RandomGuy]

i am just hoping the euro keeps dropping so i can go back and visit on the cheap!


With us current account deficits running 600Bn per year, don't bet on it.

[RandomGuy]

If France votes no, which it is looking like it will happen, what do you think it means for the EU?

Not a whole heck of a lot. The proposed constituion was a bad idea on lots of levels, so I won't shed any tears over it, but the loose confederation now does provide some efficiencies and a good framework to resolve problems.

[Clandestino]

euro is down from 1.36-1.37 to 1.22

[mookie2001]

aw man