EU Constitution, what will you vote

[sn26567]

And where is the European Central Bank? Certainly not in the City of London, one of the world's foremost financial centres.

Why? Because the British were foolish enough not to join the euro from the beginning.

But since you seem to enjoy it, please continue exchanging currencies every time you travel abroad, to the benefit of the banks of Her Majesty. Continue showing your passport (that you have to renew every five uears at an expense because you have no identity card) every time you cross a border. Please lose time and money. We in Belgium enjoy the full advantages of being in the EU and can avoid that hassle when we go to most countries of the EU (with the notable exception of the UK and a few other backstepping countries).

[Comet]

Continue showing your passport (that you have to renew every five years)

Who is wrong now!!! Passports issued in the UK are valid for 10 years, not five.

And my Mum says that the biggest European ally the Brits ever had was Charles de Gaulle. The UK was conned into the Europe thing by being told they were merely voting to join a trading agreement, not a federal superstate. That was the fault of the primal traitor Heath. Countries outside the EU don't do so bad, look at Switzerland and Iceland. The Euro is a mess.

And if you want to know how you sound, I suggest you look up the fable of the fox who lost his tail in a snare, and told the other foxes that they should hack off their tails just to be like him, even though it was a bad thing to do. That is how the pro-Euro fraternity always come across. Like "we've done away with our curency, the conbtrol of our economy and you should do the same because we don't like to see another country with a stronger economy than our noddy money!"

And yes, I do prefer individual currencies to this Euro crap.

[B744skipper]

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 "subsidiary principle", by which a matter will be handled by the Member States if they are in a better position to do it.

Yes, but unfortunately EU-right overrules the countries own laws so countries can be forced to accept new laws without being able to resist to them. An example is the air quality law, it has been imposed on the Netherlands without any possibility to object, so no much needed roads and houses can be constructed. Building companies are going bankrupt because they can't get any new orders or the existing project have been postponed or halted. Our economy, which is based on export, has been hindered by massive traffic jams. But there where relief roads can be build, the construction of it has been blocked by EU-laws.

So the EU is effectively blocking our national economies by imposing sick rules on us, so maybe Comet has a point when she compares the UK economy to the German or France one. In the matter of fact, the Danish, Norwegian or Swiss economy is also doing much better.

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

Yes, we have seen how a common foreign policy we had regarding Iraq; do you really believe that the EU can change the different opinions on subjects? Btw, Iran is laughing their butt off because Europe can't deliver any real pressure on them regarding their nuclear program. They can't deliver a punch now, or in the future. It seems that other countries never will take the European Union serious (I can't blame them). I repeat:
The European Union has way too many different countries with different backgrounds and different interests.
A constitution will never change that; nothing can change that for the matter of fact.

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

That was one of my reasons to vote "no", I did not want to transfer any more power from our National Government to the EU.

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.

As I said before, I do not have had any problems with a thorough corporation on the field of trade and economics, but the EU countries are perfectly able to govern themselves, so no need to have some EU government.

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

A Yes would have been a bigger error, because the more Europe integrates, the more interests of the separate countries will be ignored. This would effectively destabilize the European Union and we will see a situation develop like in the Soviet Union, the Union will fall apart in separate and sovereign countries.

Continue showing your passport (that you have to renew every five uears at an expense because you have no identity card) every time you cross a border. Please lose time and money.

Come on, where have you been? These open border policies have made the Western European countries much more open to crimes, like car theft and smuggling. And without controls at our borders, we have lost the control of those crimes. Every criminal (and terrorist) can acces and leave the EU without even being detected anymore.

You seem to have no idea how many crimes are commited (car theft, burglary) by the same Eastern European criminal who now can enjoy the free travel between the member states (and also the stolen goods can be transported rather undetected).

No, really great that EU, you don't want to see any disadvantages that has come with it.

[A318]

Still people don't accept our NO, I am happy we did.
The EU constitution is 10 times accepted, 9 times by governments without a referendum and one time a yes in Spain by referendum but how, by making the people afraid that if they would vote no Franco times would come back. Also Spain is one of the countries that received the most from the EU so they would have been very stupid to vote no.

Why did I vote no? We don't need this constitution, the agreement of Nice if more then fine.
Look which countries are accepting this EU constitution, the weaker newest countries. Is that what the EU wants? A front of weak, economically unstable, most east european countries? A EU of the new Europe like Bush called it?
No thanks, then we better step out of it all and join with the "free" Scandinavian countries and form our own rules, that is what the Netherlands really want!
I am still happy, even 24 hours later

Greetz,

Erwin

[sn26567]

Look which countries are accepting this EU constitution, the weaker newest countries.

Germany, a founding member of the EU, will certainly be very happy to be called a weaker newest country!

Do I perceive some xenophobia in your words? Would an Estonian be less of a European than a Dutch?

Incidentally, yesterday Latvia became the 10th country to approve the Treaty for a European Constitution. It is now 10-2.

[Sabena_690]

A front of weak, economically unstable, most east european countries

The Netherlands are actually doing almost as bad as some of those 'economically unstable east european countries' when you look at the budget.

Give them some time, but most of them are really doing a good job at the moment.

So the EU is effectively blocking our national economies by imposing sick rules

A lot of those 'sick rules' are actually helping you to stay a stable country for example in terms of economics (Maastricht).

By the way: I know that you don't care about the environment, but a cooperation between EU countries will be the ONLY way to take measures to reduce for example the CO2 exhaust. Imagine for example that there is no EU, and your PVDA, SPA and Groenlinks decide that the CO2 exhaust has to be lower. What if the same measures aren't taken in for example Germany? Indeed: it's a disadvantage for your economy. That's why it is good that a lot of measures are taken together BY everyone, and FOR everyone.

About border control: can't you ask your police force to control a little more?

The protectionism I notice here and there (especially in the postings of Comet) is frightening. Why don't you just realize how bad protectionism is for your economy??

[OO-VEX]

I am surprised to read that a lot of you don't even know the basics of economy. 8O
Now i understand why those countries have vote NO, how is it possible that those people who don't know what they are talking about should decide about their economy. Now i'm very confident with all those countries where the government takes the decision.

Another remarkable thing is that certain people have a very narrow-minded vision. They see A and think B, while they forget about other effects which have on impact on B.

And even egoism is not far away, it looks more that only what is important for them is ok.

Here is what i think about al your comments:

Holland is the biggest financial contributor at this moment for the EU and is receiving the smallest amount of money back.
France is receiving huge amounts for their agricultural needs and they are contributing almost nothing, this is a completely wrong politic.

You can discuss about the money France is getting, but do not forget that in the past Holland was not a contributor as it was getting more money from the EU than they were contributing, e.g. the eighties. And do you know why The Netherlands was receiving money?? because of the agricultural needs of your country.

The policy of the 'juste retour', which is contributing the same amount as one gets back, is a very stupid rule. Being a member of the EU, means that countries should be solidary with each other.
OK, i agree with you that the agricultural policy of the EU isn't perfect at all. But who on earth is perfect? Changes are necessary, yes!! But don't think that you won't be a contributor anymore.

Concerning the contributes, there is another mistake you make. Figures are only showing the money that goes out and comes in. But the assets and liabilities of a membership may not be confused with budgetary transfers. The assets are e.g. the economic integration, single market,...

Erwin, do you have a problem with those transfers?? Is it because you're living in a rich country and would like to keep it like that?? Well that is freezing a situation my friend, being afraid of new things. It is like in every business. Standing still = losing!! To give you some examples: IBM was big in the pc market, well they have sold them and are an IT services company right now. Philips can't survive when they only keep producing televisions,... They have to introduce new products. Therefore the EU must continue too! Our economies can survive, but we have to change them. So that's why I believe we all should help the economies of Eastern European countries. They will prosper and that will be good for us too. Yes we can loose jobs to those economies, so what? We are innovative enough to find solutions for that.

They are just imposing rules without the people in Europe can influence it in any way, this is like in a dictatorship. A national government could lose the elections when they are doing bad, but in the EU they are doing bad all the time and we as Europeans can't do anything about it.

That is not correct, every 5 years 380 million EU-citizins vote for their nationals that may represent their country in the European Parliament. Maybe you have said that because you don't know those 27 Dutch people who are there to represent your country?? So you can do very much: be interested in what those people do and go vote if you have an opinion about their practices, otherwise please don't vote as you don't know what you are doing.

To cover this in short, cooperating thoroughly (on the economic side) is fine with me, but one EU-government that is deciding policies that are implemented (on us) are pissing me off.

You want the EU just to be an economic union?? In that case you also need to have the same legislation, otherwise you would have unfair competition. As there a smaller companies in smaller countries, that means it is of our interest to have that same legislation. Otherwise our companies can't compete with companies from the UK, France, Germany,...

Do you know how we call it when governments make decisions for the people and not in agreement with the people.............communism!

The governments are there because we, the people, vote for them! I'm very happy that Belgium didn't have a referendum. How is it possible that people without a little knowledge about the economy should decide what is good for them????
BTW Erwin, how sure are you that the Dutch politicians share the opinion of the people every time they have to vote for new laws etc...? If we may believe you, then there would be referenda in Holland every few days!!!

During the 'switch' to the Euro prices were not re-calculated as promised by our government.
I know that the re-calculating was done by the companies and store owners but there should have been a check by our government if this procedure was done correctly, they never did!

Before the EU, your government was responsible. But we know that it is always easier to blame someone else instead of taking up full responsibility. Silly!!

In fact, all the Euro zone countries are loosing 95% of their economic decisions because the CEB rules! BTW, non-euro zone -like UK- has a better employement rate that Euro zone.
Sabena_690 wrote:
You'd better make your economy more competitive, instead of re-introducing protectionism.

What do you mean by "more competitive"?
Does the government should give even more (taxpayers) money to the industries to keep the employment going or should we reduce salaries? Both of it maybe?

Yes monetary measures were given up, because of the Euro. But does that mean that a country is unable to take economic measures?? No, not at all. It is just that the governments were using measures which worked in the past too and it was easy to use them. Right now they have to be innovative and introduce something new.

Blaming the 'system' is of course the easiest thing you can do if you don't have a job.

Exactly!!! People should think more on country or even EU level. Why?? Because when you're country or the EU is doing very well, then your chances on a better life are higher as well!! Or do you prefer your own job in an economy which is not performing as it should be?

Comet and Trisha, what has your unemployment to do with the EU? Maybe i don't understand your system enough, please explain more if that's the case.
How i see it for the moment is that you should not blame the EU for that but the system of your country. Probably some EU rules have changed the system in your country and probably there are also good reasons for that. It is not because we don't know them, that it is a bad rule for the EU. It looks more like that your country was unable to be innovative enough to introduce new rules to cope with unemployment.

Every time i hear people about changes, they believe it is bad. Whether it is the system of a country, business processes in companies, etc... People are just afraid of new things, even if they will be better off in the future. Off course it takes some time to change things and during that period it could be difficult. But if you can improve things, why not???

In my opinion the EU has integrated far too much.

Integration is needed when you want a single market. And that is exactly what you want, as you asked for an economic EU.

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.

An economy is always going up and down, whether you have control over the financial measures or not, will not have an impact on that! Saying that the economy in the UK is doing better because of not having the Euro is ridiculous!!
The European Central Bank is taking measures in benefit of the European citizens. When you want an economic EU, the competition should be fair and that is not possible when you take different measures for different countries. Therefore 1 policy for the Euro is good for us. There will always be differences between the performances of the economies of European Countries, but when the EU is performing good, it will also be in the benefit of your country, e.g. more trade...

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.

That is the spirit!!!
In marketing terms: Think global, act local!!!
Off course you must replace global here by European.
It seems that a lot of NO-voters, believe it should be think local and act local, do you really believe that is the way to compete with China?? Together we're much stronger!

Our economy, which is based on export, has been hindered by massive traffic jams.

Come on, where have you been? These open border policies have made the Western European countries much more open to crimes, like car theft and smuggling. And without controls at our borders, we have lost the control of those crimes. Every criminal (and terrorist) can acces and leave the EU without even being detected anymore.
You seem to have no idea how many crimes are commited (car theft, burglary) by the same Eastern European criminal who now can enjoy the free travel between the member states (and also the stolen goods can be transported rather undetected).

I have the feeling you don't know what you want. It seems that you want to install border controls again, which results in even more traffic jams and that will harm your export as it would take longer for goods to leave your country.
Can you prove that there are more crimes in the Netherlands since your country gave up border controls??
Eastern European criminals are one thing, another thing is that Dutch criminals also can cross borders. What was the result of that effect?
An efficient Europol should be able to cope with these problems. I do NOT say that 1 police is the future, but countries should work together, that will be the key to success!!

As a conclusion: No the EU is not perfect, but we should continue with this project. In the end, it is good for all of us. It is not because you don't see the results right now, that the EU is doing bad. And it certainly is not about what the situation is today, but we have reached so far!!

OO-VEX

[Sabena_690]

What an outstanding posting Koen, a pity that we don't have a respected userslist!

By the way, about the new EU countries with 'weak economies' A318 was talking about: I once read something about a certain Kondratieff-cyclus.

If you follow this cyclus, you'll see that chances are high that a new cyclus will start, as the last one started in 1945 I believe (with each cyclus taking about 60 years).

The Kondratieff-cyclus is depends from some conditions:
- new areas to sell your products (the expansion of the EU is important for this)
- new technologies (micro-electronics for example)
- innovation in general

You certainly know more about this, Koen, but I only wanted to highlight that the expansion of the EU and the growing economy in those countries might be an important stepp towards a new Kondratieff with increasing welfare.

By the way: a lot of those new EU countries managed to escape from communism. Does our dear Erwin want to reïntroduce a bad government, from which people have suffered already such a long time?

Oh Erwin, by the way: you must thank extreme left and extreme right in France for your no-vote. Comfortable position huh?

[A318]

One reply to the ones that didn't get a referendum:
We are all very sorry for your undemocratic governments but please, don't take your frustration out on us, the NO voters

Very funny to see that all comments on skipper and me are coming from the Belgiums, the ones that didn't get a referendum!
But hey, why should a government from a bankrupt country let it's citizens vote for something they only can get financially a better situation in their country?

By the way, for your information, Denmark and Portugal are thinking to cancel the referendum since France And the Netherlands already killed it............that is what I call EU united

Goodnight now.

[Sabena_690]

Fantastic reply to our arguments, Erwin! But I hadn't expected anything else from you to be honest.

PS: if I look at all the polls, the majority of the Belgians seems to be pro the Constitution anyway.

[A318]

Fantastic reply to our arguments, Erwin! But I hadn't expected anything else from you to be honest.

Thanks, it wasn't that difficult to reply on such a crap you wrote

If you really want to get a little smarter on the lie which is called EU constitution, I have some wonderful piece of correct media information.
Sorry but it is in dutch only:

Alles over de Europese Grondwet in twaalf vragen. Elseviers advies: stem 1 juni TEGEN


Nederlandse burgers hebben goede redenen om de Europese Grondwet in het komende referendum af te wijzen. Het is de laatste kans om te voorkomen dat de EU vitale Nederlandse belangen schaadt.

De Nederlandse burgers kunnen zich op 1 juni uitspreken over de vraag of ze akkoord gaan met het kabinetsvoorstel om het nieuwe Europese verdrag, ook wel de Europese Grondwet genoemd, goed te keuren (zie 'Twaalf vragen over de Europese Grondwet’ op pagina 29). Er zijn best argumenten om 'ja’ te zeggen. Maar er zijn nog veel betere redenen om 'nee’ te zeggen tegen de Europese Grondwet.

Die is strijdig met vitale Nederlandse belangen. Een 'nee’ van de Nederlandse burgers biedt de enige kans om die schade – op het nippertje – te verzachten. Na een 'nee’ kan het kabinet namelijk vanuit een stevige onderhandelingspositie uitzonderingen voor Nederland bedingen.

Die vitale belangen zijn met name de mogelijkheid voor Nederland om zijn eigen immigratiebeleid te regelen en om zelf te bepalen of het buitenlanders, burgers uit de Europese Unie (EU) of anderen, al dan niet wil toelaten tot uitkeringen, huursubsidies, gezondheidszorg en andere collectieve arrangementen (zie ook 'Een zwart scenario’, Elsevier, 5 maart 2005).

Immigratie en verzorgingsstaat hebben alles met elkaar te maken. Landen als Nederland met royale verzorgingsregimes oefenen grote aantrekkingskracht uit op migranten die met een uitkering stukken beter af zijn dan in hun eigen land, en door de zogeheten armoedeval zelfs beter dan met een baan. De hoge werkloosheid en het hoge uitkeringsgebruik onder niet-westerse immigranten en hun kinderen in Nederland zijn daarvan een pijnlijke illustratie. Feit is ook dat Nederland relatief de hoogste uitkeringen van Europa heeft.

De Europese Grondwet beperkt de door internationale verdragen toch al schaarse mogelijkheden van de Nederlandse overheid om migranten de toegang tot haar uitkeringen te weigeren. Dat gebeurt op drie manieren. Ten eerste wordt het Europees Verdrag van de Rechten van de Mens integraal onderdeel van de Grondwet. Dat maakt het Nederland praktisch onmogelijk op dat verdrag uitzonderingen te bedingen. Bijvoorbeeld op het onderdeel dat het recht op huwelijksmigratie regelt. En migratiehuwelijken met partners uit arme landen zijn nu juist het belangrijkste kanaal voor problematische immigratie.

Ten tweede wordt de migratie naar de EU volgens de Europese Grondwet een Europese zaak, omdat er met gekwalificeerde meerderheid over zal worden gestemd. Landen die bijvoorbeeld denken dat ze hun vergrijzing kunnen oplossen door de Europese grenzen open te zetten voor arbeidsmigranten, kunnen Nederland makkelijk overstemmen. In Nederland is allang vastgesteld dat de vergrijzing niet kan worden opgelost door op grote schaal niet-Europeanen binnen te laten. Hooguit zeer goed opgeleide migranten kunnen een bijdrage aan de samenleving leveren.

Het Europese migratiebeleid waar de Europese Commissie aan werkt – en dat vooruitloopt op de nieuwe Grondwet – houdt geen rekening met de Nederlandse omstandigheden. Maar als bijvoorbeeld Spanje op grond van de Europese wetgeving arbeidsmigranten binnenlaat, kunnen deze wél naar Nederland doorreizen om hier te werken, dan wel na enige jaren een uitkering bemachtigen.

Dat laatste is des te problematischer omdat – ten derde – de Europese Grondwet alle burgers van de EU plus alle legale migranten in andere EU-landen dezelfde rechten op uitkeringen, gezondheidszorg en sociale huisvesting toekent als die Nederlanders hebben. Nu zal een welvarende Duitser of een ondernemende Zweed niet zo gauw naar Nederland trekken omdat hij hier met nietsdoen ook aardig kan rondkomen. Maar de EU is vorig jaar uitgebreid met acht arme, Oost-Europese landen, en eind volgend jaar worden het nog armere Bulgarije en Roemenië lid. Verder komt het even grote als arme Turkije volgens plan bij de EU, staat heel voormalig-Joegoslavië op de rol om op enig moment lid te worden en kan het lidmaatschap ook een straatarm land als Oekraïne nauwelijks nog ontgaan.

Een klein land met relatief goede, maar toch al te dure sociale voorzieningen en een relatief hoog minimumloon verliest dus het recht om zelf te bepalen of het bijna een kwart miljard inwoners van nieuwe en toekomstige arme lidstaten uit zijn verzorgingsstaat mag weren. Dat is een somber vooruitzicht.

De grootste problemen van Nederland van de laatste halve eeuw waren en zijn het onmatig gebruik van de gulle verzorgingsstaat en de overwegend problematisch uitgevallen migratie uit arme landen. Het lukt de Nederlandse overheid nu al niet om die twee samenhangende problemen op te lossen. De nieuwe Europese Grondwet vergroot de problemen en slaat Nederland de instrumenten uit handen om ze aan te pakken.

Het is onwaarschijnlijk dat de Nederlandse regering erin slaagt om na een 'nee’ op 1 juni vervolgens de zo schadelijke passages in de Europese Grondwet aan te passen. Maar het is wel heel goed mogelijk dat de regering in het zicht van een tweede referendum – of een 'gewone’ beslissing van de Tweede Kamer – uitzonderingen bedingt op de gewraakte passages uit de Grondwet.

Daar is op zich niets bijzonders aan. Alle lidstaten kennen speciale bepalingen die ze bij de Europese Grondwet of bij eerdere Europese verdragen hebben bedongen. Zo dwong CDA-premier Jan Peter Balkenende in juni vorig jaar in nauw overleg met VVD-minister Gerrit Zalm van Financiën af dat de Europese ministerraad in de toekomst pas met meerderheid over de Europese meerjarenbegrotingen kan besluiten als er een oplossing is geboden voor 'de buitensporige negatieve nettobetalingspositie’ van Nederland.

Zulke uitzonderingen zouden ook bedongen kunnen worden om Nederland te vrijwaren van de gevolgen van de bepalingen in de Grondwet die een verdere uitkeringsmigratie naar Nederland op gang kunnen brengen. Daarvoor zijn wel nieuwe onderhandelingen nodig – en die kunnen alleen worden afgedwongen als de Nederlandse bevolking en vervolgens ook de Tweede Kamer 'nee’ zegt tegen de Europese Grondwet.

Denemarken kan als voorbeeld dienen. Daar wees de bevolking in 1992 het Verdrag van Maastricht af. Vervolgens presenteerde de Deense regering aan de andere lidstaten een memorandum waarin Denemarken afzag van volledige deelname aan de euro, van deelname aan de EU-defensie en van het Europese justititie- en immigratiebeleid, maar andere landen niet afhield van het zetten van verdere stappen. De daaropvolgende onderhandelingen werden na een halfjaar, op de Top van Edinburgh, met succes bekroond. Weer een halfjaar later stemden de Denen alsnog in met het – nu van Deense uitzonderingen voorziene – Verdrag van Maastricht.

Opmerkelijk is dat premier Balkenende in Brussel wel hard onderhandelde om te voorkomen dat de overige EU-landen zonder Nederlandse instemming kunnen bepalen wat Nederland aan Brussel afdraagt of terugkrijgt, maar dat er noch in het kabinet noch in de Tweede Kamer oog was voor de uitkeringsmigratie. Het lijkt erop dat vooral CDA-minister Aart Jan de Geus (Sociale Zaken) en VVD-collega Rita Verdonk (Vreemdelingenbeleid) niet goed hebben opgelet.


Laatste kans
Een volgende kans om de eerdere lichtzinnigheid aan de Europese vergadertafels te herstellen, krijgt het kabinet niet. Tenzij de hele Grondwet er niet komt, omdat bijvoorbeeld – drie dagen voordat de Nederlandse burgers naar de stembus kunnen – de Fransen de Grondwet naar de prullenmand verwijzen. Tegen deze achtergrond verbleekt het argument van het kabinet en andere voorstanders van de Grondwet dat die de EU slagvaardiger en democratischer maakt. Hetzelfde geldt voor het betoog dat het omstreden EU-lidmaatschap van Turkije, ergernis over de euro en het feit dat Nederland onevenredig veel betaalt aan de EU niets met de Grondwet te maken hebben.

Dat van die slagvaardigheid is waar, maar die heeft een keerzijde. Volgens de Grondwet kan een meerderheid van landen in de toekomst nog veel vaker dan nu de belangen van een minderheid van landen negeren. De Grondwet kent bovendien in vergelijking met het huidige Verdrag van Nice extra stemmen toe aan landen met een grote bevolking. Dat houdt in dat een middelgroot land als Nederland er in stemmacht verder op achteruitgaat.

Dat het Europees Parlement meer bevoegdheden krijgt, is ook waar. Maar is dat democratische winst? Nederlanders nemen de Tweede Kamer veel serieuzer, maar die mag volgens de Grondwet alleen samen met acht andere parlementen bezwaar maken tegen een wetsvoorstel van de Europese Commissie, waarop de Commissie met die afwijzing vervolgens kan doen en laten wat ze wil.

De promotors van de Europese Grondwet doen ook, nogal vilein, alsof een 'nee’-stem op 1 juni een afwijzing van de Europese integratie als zodanig zou zijn. Europarlementariërs doen daar nog een schepje bovenop, met dreigementen als zou Nederland 'buitenspel’ komen te staan. Feit is, dat als die Grondwet er door toedoen van Nederland of anderen niet komt, het huidige Verdrag van Nice in werking blijft. Een verdrag waarvan bijvoorbeeld de VVD-politici Jozias van Aartsen en Hans van Baalen eerder vaststelden dat daar best nog een tijdje mee valt te werken.

Van de Turkse kwestie wordt beweerd dat die niets met de Grondwet te maken heeft. Maar grote landen krijgen volgens de nieuwe Grondwet meer macht ten koste van de kleine, en Turkije zal kort na de beoogde toetreding naar verwachting het volkrijkste land van de EU zijn. Enig verband is er dus wel.

De euro, door de 'ja’-campagne eveneens buiten de orde verklaard, staat als zodanig bij het referendum niet ter discussie. Maar waarom zou het niet legitiem zijn het voor Nederland schadelijke loslaten van de Europese begrotingsregels mee te laten wegen? Ook de ergernis over de, zeker voor Nederland, hoge kosten van de EU mogen best een rol spelen bij het referendum. Een 'nee’ kan het kabinet trouwens op dat punt een steuntje in de rug geven om via onderhandelingen aan die misstand een eind te maken.

Maar de beste reden om op 1 juni 'nee’ te stemmen is dat de Nederlandse politiek bij de onderhandelingen voor de Grondwet niet steeds goed heeft opgelet. Op last van de burgers kan die fout worden gecorrigeerd.

[Sabena_690]

wonderful piece of correct media information.

Elseviers advies: stem 1 juni TEGEN

And you find this correct, neutral media information? 'nuff said!

By the way: my posting and the one of OO-VEX only contains factual information (impact of the EUR on our economies etc etc). Also André his points are very interesting. The fact that you call this 'crap' says enough about what type of person you are. Keep on enjoying your 'neutral' media reports.

[Sabena_690]

One last thing: I have a lot of respect for people who don't like this constitution. The article above quotes some interesting points. However, there are other articles enough where you can find a positive stance towards the constitution.

Pro or not doesn't matter as long as you can back up your opinion (a bit like B744Skipper does). You, Erwin, just keep on spewing your "I hate the EU" - crap on people, but avoid all serious discussions and remarks.

This once again confirms that every minute anybody puts in replying to one of your postings in this topic is a waste of time.

[A318]

This once again confirms that every minute anybody puts in replying to one of your postings in this topic is a waste of time.

But somehow you are completely addicted on it

Ever heard about the bee coming to the honey pot?
You are that bee since you always have your arrows ready when I express my thoughts about something.
You just have a problem with me and I really don't care since you are a lousy admin anyway (since you deleted posts from me and other people a while ago that you didn't like.

I never mind to reply on people that do want to discuss on a growing up way, I hate it when people like you almost force people your thoughts up to their neck, even when you know they have other ideas.
Grown up and get a life and do accept other peoples ideas.

In case you forgot it, I did tell you long ago I will never go into any discussion with you anymore since you don't know how to make a civilized discussion.
Every time you do react on my posts and play your game directly on the man, so once again don't bother me!

[Sabena_690]

I really don't care since you are a lousy admin anyway (since you deleted posts from me and other people a while ago that you didn't like.

Strange, as I stopped moderating topics as a forumadmin already a long time ago.

You can always try to give me a bad name on this website, but a lot of people know better than that.

You maybe don't want to reply to my postings anymore, but there is still the one of OO-VEX!

If you have anything to add, you can always send me a PM as this topic is still about the EU Constitution.

PS: if I really wanted to misuse my "power" (whatever that means) of being an admin, I would already have deleted your article 3 replies above as it is 1) in Dutch and 2) probably in breach of copyright regulations.

[sn26567]

One reply to the ones that didn't get a referendum:
We are all very sorry for your undemocratic governments

May I remind you that our 'undemocratic' government resulted from very democratic elections. And that it is not the government, but the democratically elected parliament that decided to vote YES. And that our parliament reflected the opinion of a majority of our citizens.

[sn26567]

If you really want to get a little smarter on the lie which is called EU constitution, I have some wonderful piece of correct media information.
Sorry but it is in dutch only

Aren't you smart enough to develop your own opinion and express it in English?

[Comet]

The UK won't get their referendum after the treaty was rejected by the French and Dutch.

And if the EU is so democratic, how come it is France and Germany who are meeting to sort out a deal, what about the other 23 countries?

And you wonder why I complain about being ruled by the French and Germans.

[zillox]

Yess.. the only way to stop any new problems.

[A318]

If you really want to get a little smarter on the lie which is called EU constitution, I have some wonderful piece of correct media information.
Sorry but it is in dutch only

Aren't you smart enough to develop your own opinion and express it in English?

Yes I am and I did before, time to read backwards Andre!
I just placed this article to express the feelings and ideas we have here in Holland, well 62% does.
If that is also against the rules you admins have, then it is time to make this an private site for you admins only!
Since the only ones replying on a negative way on my posts are Belgiums and know the dutch language I supposed it was no problem to post this article in dutch.
You guys have your opinion and we dutch have other opinions, lets keep it that way and don't try to get me (us) on your side of the line.
That's why we had a referendum so we could vote on a democratic way about this EU constitution thanks to our democratic elected government.
There is nothing wrong with the agreement from Nice and this EU constitution adds nothing to it for us besides negative agreements.
When people ask why we vote against it you will hear some different arguments but main argument is that we see no improvement with this constitution.
I also have to agree with Comet that I see no reason why Germany has to talk with French about the EU future now, like she said there are 23 other parties that should speak!

Erwin