EU Constitution, what will you vote

[A318]

Finally some good news from France and now we are the next country in line to vote.

I hope your country will do a good score also .

Seb.

We will see HorsPower, dutch people are shouting hard until the moment they have to press the button, so don't be surprised if it yes even I think the majority will stick with NO

[Comet]

We don't know yet if the UK will have a referendum after the French voted no. Hopefully the Dutch people will vote no as well.

[HorsePower]

We don't know yet if the UK will have a referendum after the French voted no.

Yeah, I've heard that also. Basicaly, is the NO win in France, Tony Blair could switch the referendum to the parliamentary way. It means ok, you can vote, but only if I am sure you will vote what I want you to vote. What an undemocratic spirit !

@Louise and other UK fellows, I hope you will vote.

Regards

Seb.

[Comet]

Seb - I will definitely vote if I have the opportunity, and my vote will be a "no". I could say the same for VC10 as well. It would be funny if all the ordinary people voted "no" to this constitution

[sn26567]

And what will happen next?

Can the EU democratically accept the NO vote of a few countries and ignore the YES of a large majority?

[B744skipper]

The best thing for Holland (after they vote NO) would be to get out of the European Union and try to form a little union with Denmark, Norway and Suisse. Those countries have fairly the same background, and to not differ so much from eachother as the European Union. Such a little union could be a lot stronger then one large union, in which the "little" countries and their interests are overlooked too much. And a little union could be better to manage, because one has not too much countries and different interests to consider when making union wide decisions.

Btw, a EU-constitution would just make matters worse for the "little" countries.

[Comet]

And what will happen next?

Can the EU democratically accept the NO vote of a few countries and ignore the YES of a large majority?

Not all countries have agreed the treaty yet (at least they haven't held a referendum) so how do you know that a majority will vote in favour? And if countries do not want this treaty then what right has the EU to force it upon them if the EU is such a wonderful organisation?

[B744skipper]

Yesterday they showed on the late evening news (RTL Germany) that know 9 countries are in favor and 1 against the EU-constitution, which leaves 15 countries open to vote on the consitution.

[B744skipper]

My no vote is in the box (well, the electronic box)

[sn26567]

which leaves 15 countries open to vote on the consitution.

Among them, only the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and perhaps Denmark are likely to vote NO.

Which leaves an immense majority in favour of the YES.

[Humberside]

What about Ireland. They have the Euro but are quite eurosceptic?

[B744skipper]

Oh my god, this has turned out to be even a more clear statement then in France.

The Dutch vote about the Constitution ended in:

37% Yes;
63% No;

That is just massive........

[A318]

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
End results 62% against it
Good that 2/3 all thought the same about this ridicilous constitution.

Greetz,

Erwin

[sn26567]

this ridicilous constitution.

The 'ridiculous' constitution was a compromise between the opinions of the major parties of all the EU countries. the best possible compromise.

Tell me now what the No-sayers will propose as an alternative? How do you see the No-sayers from the extreme-right, the extreme-left and the narrow-minded nationalists from left and right to come up with a common proposal that is also acceptable for the Yes voters?

It is easy to unite against a text. It is much moàre difficult to propose an solution acceptable by the largest number.

And when the Dutch, all together, will have found a common proposal ("mission impossible" in my view), they will have to get this proposal accepted by the other EU members. And you know very well that theb reasons for voting no in Holland, sorry, The Netherlands, are quite different from the reasons for the French to vote no, and even more different from the reasons of the future UK voters.

Again, there was an acceptable compromise. Now, there in nothing.

It is a doomsday for Europe. Foreigners have understood that very well, pushing the Euro to its lowest level in 8 months.

Your turn now!

[B744skipper]

And what will happen next?

Can the EU democratically accept the NO vote of a few countries and ignore the YES of a large majority?

Well, in those countries, which voted yes, there was no referendum (except Spain), so I wonder what the people in those countries think about the EU (-constitution).
Just because the politicians in a country are in favor, it doesn't necessarily mean that the people also agree with it. (Like in Holland happened).
And when the politicians don't even ask how the people think about it, which hardly can be called democratic.

What now? In my opinion the EU has integrated far too much. For me there is no need for a revised constitution, I will also decline that one. A corporation on the matters of trade and security in the EU would get my full support, but I do not need a government in Brussel. Each of the European countries can perfectly govern themselves. And that is also the best way, because how can a Spanish EU-politician in Brussels decide about a matter in Eastern Poland? He can't, it is the best to leave that up to a Polish politician in Warsaw. The European Union has way too many different countries with different backgrounds and different interests to unite in one Union. That would never work and look at the countries that currently are not in the EU or member states that did not agree on everything. Swiss, Norway, Denmark and the UK, they are doing (economically) speaking a lot better then the other EU-member states.
The EU-constitution would have transferred even more power away from the people (in Holland) to Brussels, and we all can see in which trouble it has brought Holland at the moment (for example: Holland can't build any more houses and infrastructure do to EU-regulations).
And we in Holland are stupid enough to follow these guidelines and let our national interest suffer under it.
And moreover, a constitution is meant to protect the citizens from each other and the government, but in this constitution had a lot more things in it that do not belong in a constitution (like animal-protection, environment-protection, social security bs).

In short, I would agree to a thorough corporation on the matters of trade/economics and security, that is all. The European Union has way too many different countries with different backgrounds and different interests, which cannot be decided in Brussels therefore, but the best decisions can be made by the national governments of the countries involved. Countries do not need to be governed by some far away EU-government, but are perfectly capable of governing themselves.

[Sabena_690]

In short, I would agree to a thorough corporation on the matters of trade/economics and security, that is all. The European Union has way too many different countries with different backgrounds and different interests, which cannot be decided in Brussels therefore, but the best decisions can be made by the national governments of the countries involved. Countries do not need to be governed by some far away EU-government, but are perfectly capable of governing themselves.

That's a valid point... but I still find that one big EU has brought us a lot of advantages (like the Euro which is extremely important for the whole European Union).

[sn26567]

B744skipper,

There are indeed matters that are handled better by the individual countries, and even further down, by regions (e.g. the German länder or the Dutch provinces) and even further down by the cities or boroughs. That's why Europe has the "subsidiarity principle", by which a matter will be handled by the Member States if they are in a better position to do it.

But a common economic plicy (with a single currency), a common foreign policy, even a common defence are better handled by the Union rather than by the individual countries.

By refusing to vote YES, you have even deprived the European Parliament, the only democratically elected body in the EU, from having more power.

What would Holland, sorry, The Netherlands, be without the Union, with tariffs for goods coming in, with trade barriers for its goods sold abroad, with currency exchange costs, etc. Holland is a country of traders that need an open market to be successful.

The NO is a big error, going back one century to a splendid isolationism that cannot survive in modern times.

[Comet]

But a common economic plicy (with a single currency), a common foreign policy, even a common defence are better handled by the Union rather than by the individual countries.

But you are one who is fond of saying that the UK, which controls its own currency, has such a strong economy. Why is that the case if financial control is better handed over to the French and Germans?

By refusing to vote YES, you have even deprived the European Parliament, the only democratically elected body in the EU, from having more power.

Oh dear, what a shame! Maybe people don't want to hand more power to the EU, that is why they are voting NO.

[sn26567]

But you are one who is fond of saying that the UK, which controls its own currency, has such a strong economy. Why is that the case if financial control is better handed over to the French and Germans?

Oh dear! I wonder sometimes if you take the time to read me correctly.

1)The fact thet the British economy is strong has little to do with the fact that the UK controls its currency. It comes from the fact that the EU has opend a large free market for British goods (and I cited the example of City Of London Telecom providing telephone services to my organisation), which probably never would have happened without the EU.

2) Financial control of the currency, I repeat, is not handed over to the French and the Germans, but to the European Central Bank where every Member State has its representatives and can have its voice heard.

By refusing to vote YES, you have even deprived the European Parliament, the only democratically elected body in the EU, from having more power.

Oh dear, what a shame! Maybe people don't want to hand more power to the EU, that is why they are voting NO.

Oh dear, what a shame. You visibly have not the slightest idea on how the EU functions, with its three levels of power.

The Commission proposes regulations (compulsory in all Member States) or directives (minimum level of common legislation), which must be adopted both by the Council (representing the governments of the Member States) and the Parliament (democratically elected). Whether you vote YES ot NO to the new conctitution, this is not going to change. But a YES vote would have meant more power to the ONLY democratically elected body, the Parliament, hence a better chance for your voice to be heard.

[Comet]

European Central Bank

And where is the European Central Bank? Certainly not in the City of London, one of the world's foremost financial centres, and neither would it have been if the Brits had been foolish enough to hand over financial control to the foreigners.

Britain has managed perfectly well for hundreds of years without being told what we can and cannot do by the French, the Germans, the Spanish, the Italians...

You have always harped on about low unemployment and strong economy here in Britain. France and Germany, both countries who abandoned control of their economies, have high unemployment and other problems which you are saying the British do not have as much.