NationStates Jolt Archive

With over 70% of eligible voters casting a vote, France has rejected the EU Constituion by a lopsided 55%.

What, if anything, does this bode for the future of the EU?

No doubt there'll be a lot of political fumbling around for a while. I expect that the Constitution will be slightly altered and then put to vote again.

No doubt there'll be a lot of political fumbling around for a while. I expect that the Constitution will be slightly altered and then put to vote again.

Yeah, no matter what the voters want, they'll do as they please regardless. What do you want in a Father Knows Best political climate!

No doubt there'll be a lot of political fumbling around for a while. I expect that the Constitution will be slightly altered and then put to vote again.

I do not think it as simple as that.

If you alter the Constitution to appeal more to the French, it means you will have to take out those parts that make the constitution seem liberal and too "capitalist" to the French. However, in doing this, you will make the document even less popular in United Kingdom and some of the newer member-states. So, you have just as great or an even greater problem.

In my opinion, the Constitution is the best it will get. It was decided by the Convention and then approved by the member state governments. It is already a product of compromise between the member states and therefore is the most acceptable to all that it can get.

The only way I can think of is to ensure if you do have a referendum again is to employ a greater education programme and to dispel some of the myths and lies that were said of the Constitution during the campaign in France (and also in campaigns in other member-states, especially UK).

The other option is to take a whole new approach and re-write in a far more simplistic style that is comprehensible. This is however probably impossible as the document has to be acceptable to all member-states and therefore requires many derogations etc in the text.

The other method that could be emplyed is very radical; the people of the EU elect representatives to a new convention to draft the constitution. This is then approved by national parliaments or referenda. More radically, a referndum could be organised on an EU-wide basis with all Europeans voting in a single referendum with one result. However, I fear there is no procedure to have an EU-wide referendum as the present structure requires the member-states to each approve treaties etc.

Prediction:
In an unprecedented clever move, the current document referred to as "constitution" is renamed to "Treaty 5632 sub a". All governments agree to this treaty, since it essentially is a more efficient version of the existing treaties. The public has no problems with it, since the average European could not care less about treaties, nor has any idea which parts are already present in existing ones.

Nobody knows for sure at this stage, as the constitution will still be voted on in other EU countries, Belgium will decide next.
After that, who knows? My guess is, they will alter it and have new referenda. However, I personally would like to see a more democratic approach. A constitution isn't just a treaty or a law, it is the basis for a confederation and its consequent legislation. All members need to have a say in that, and by all members, I don't mean goverment representatives, but inhabitants of the EU.
I think they tend to feel underrepresented and powerless because of the current slightly undemocratic structure of the EU.

In time, the EU will have a constitution, there's no way around that. But we shouldn't rush it and force it to be ratified without giving the population a clear feeling that it is their constitution and that they will have a say, no matter what.

With over 70% of eligible voters casting a vote, France has rejected the EU Constituion by a lopsided 55%.

What, if anything, does this bode for the future of the EU?

France has yet again proved that since the fall of the Third Republic that they always take the easy way out. They are quickly becoming a museum power -- one in which all of their glory are in days gone by.

They are quickly becoming a museum power -- one in which all of their glory are in days gone by.

Now, THAT applies to almost all European countries, just take a look at Austria, Spain, Portugal, Britain.... :)

Prediction:
In an unprecedented clever move, the current document referred to as "constitution" is renamed to "Treaty 5632 sub a". All governments agree to this treaty, since it essentially is a more efficient version of the existing treaties. The public has no problems with it, since the average European could not care less about treaties, nor has any idea which parts are already present in existing ones.

I've read somewhere that there are plans do "dismantle" the constitutional text, and approve the parts that are relative to the daily functioning of the EU.

wednesday,the Nederlands (consultative) will vote no(nee),Belgium has almost approved it(without any people consultation),the diiferents federals representants have yet to approve it(this is a paradox for belgium where voting is compulsory)...What a circus!! and this in the name of democracy :gundge: :headbang: ;)

Now, THAT applies to almost all European countries, just take a look at Austria, Spain, Portugal, Britain.... :)

I'll agree with Austria & Portugal. Spain is a little tougher, if they could ever come to an accord with the Basques/ETA, they might resurge quite a bit.

Britain I disagree with -- while they may never have a large Empire again, they are still a very powerful nation that still acts on the stage of world affairs. They may not be #1 in much anymore, but they're in the "Top 5" in most everything. And that's nothing to sneeze at. :)

wednesday,the Nederlands (consultative) will vote no(nee),Belgium has almost approved it(without any people consultation),the diiferents federals representants have yet to approve it(this is a paradox for belgium where voting is compulsory)...What a circus!! and this in the name of democracy :gundge: :headbang: ;)

This is why the American Constitution was easier to get approved: no only was it easier to read, it was short enough that one could read the whole thing over breakfast. :D

France has yet again proved that since the fall of the Third Republic that they always take the easy way out. They are quickly becoming a museum power -- one in which all of their glory are in days gone by.

What a bizaare thing to say. They didn't want the constitution because it didn't suit the way they like their country to be run, so they rejected it, just like anyone would do in a similar situation.

Why would they approve something they don't like?

This is why the American Constitution was easier to get approved: no only was it easier to read, it was short enough that one could read the whole thing over breakfast. :D

well the french one too,without beeing partisan ;)

This is why the American Constitution was easier to get approved: no only was it easier to read, it was short enough that one could read the whole thing over breakfast. :D

But with the downside that so many people have different opinions on what parts of the text actually mean...
Not that that is any better in the European draft.

Nobody knows for sure at this stage, as the constitution will still be voted on in other EU countries, Belgium will decide next.


Actually, it will be The Netherlands who vote next, and polls suggest they will vote 'No' as well.

The leader of Luxembourg suggested before France's vote that if the French vote 'No', they should just have another referendum, and another until the answer is correct.

Quite scary really.

There is a combination of factors and beliefs for France saying no.

A) They thought it was too Anglo-Saxon ie Thatcherite (Which is funny because the anti-EU Britons think the constitution is too Franco-German-Brussels and centralised in Brussels and loss of sovereignty)

B) A scare story was raised by the Right wing section of the non camp about an influx of Polish plumbers who would take French jobs.

C) Outsourcing of French Jobs

D) The EU is too big and the French don't feel so important any more.

E) The admission of Turkey to the EU because of their human rights record, and the Cyprus issue, which is a thorn in the side of the EU because Turkey took one half of Cyprus in the 70's, which Greece is uppity about.
The question about what you would do with the part of Turkey which is in Asia, and because the Americans want Turkey to join the EU, well that really put the kiss of death on any suggestion of Turkey joining the EU, because the Americans suggested it, and Europeans (French particulary) feel what right does America have to say on who joins the EU, it would be like EU suggesting Mexico should join the US and blahblahblah etc, etc.

In conclusion, it was a mixture of the constitution's beaucratic language, it's capitalist policies that the French don't endear to, national pride about feeling marginalised in Europe, and scare stories about immigrants stealing jobs.

Holland citizens too, feel this way, and a No there is likely too.

Holland citizens too, feel this way, and a No there is likely too.

In all honesty the majority of the Dutch will probably vote against it as a statement of distrust in the government. And considering the way my government has been campaigning to make them vote "ja" (yes) I can't blame them. Leaflets with happy children and clear blue skies... yuck. And I thought the shameless propaganda in the US surrounding the presidential elections was bad.

What a bizaare thing to say. They didn't want the constitution because it didn't suit the way they like their country to be run, so they rejected it, just like anyone would do in a similar situation.

Why would they approve something they don't like?

France's current political agenda is to be a "counterweight" to the United States. They've been acting in such a manner for several years, and (with the Germans as semi-silent partners, as they want a chair at the UN), have been "the European Voice".

Now, they refuse to join into the very thing they've been pushing for, even after 11 other nations approved. It's a sad joke: they want the power, but not the work.

If it wasn't written in such a way that they'd wanted it, how did it ever get to a vote?!? That'd be like the Slavery Provision getting into the US Constitution in 1789: the South wouldn't stomach it, so it didn't happen.

But with the downside that so many people have different opinions on what parts of the text actually mean...
Not that that is any better in the European draft.

I consider that a strength: the document is a flexible framework. When something obviously wrong (ie: Slavery, Prohibition) comes along/becomes an issue, it works itself out.

Right. But it's over 50 times longer! ;)

This is why the American Constitution was easier to get approved: no only was it easier to read, it was short enough that one could read the whole thing over breakfast. :D

It took a war to finalise it, did it not?

Secondly, an EU constitution needs to address the concerns of nations that have longer histories, and differing cultures and wants and needs that need to be finely balanced so that each nation retains sovereignty, and their own wants and needs.

well the french one too,without beeing partisan ;)

Fair enough. I can only compare to what I know: The American & Polish Constitutions. :)

This text was liberal that why neo cons in Washington were for.
The word Market came back 83 times
the word concurency 28 times
the world freedom once
,and now i kan wipe my ass without bying anything to the mall for at least 1 week ;)

In all honesty the majority of the Dutch will probably vote against it as a statement of distrust in the government. And considering the way my government has been campaigning to make them vote "ja" (yes) I can't blame them. Leaflets with happy children and clear blue skies... yuck. And I thought the shameless propaganda in the US surrounding the presidential elections was bad.

Indeed, there does seem to be a patronising tone to it. Another reason why the French voted No was Chirac's domestic policies. He advocated it, which was a turn off as well.

It took a war to finalise it, did it not?

Secondly, an EU constitution needs to address the concerns of nations that have longer histories, and differing cultures and wants and needs that need to be finely balanced so that each nation retains sovereignty, and their own wants and needs.

War? Nope. It did take several years and lots of alcohol, but it was done in 1789. If you're referring to the American Civil War, that didn't finalise it, but it did determine the status of slavery & the right to leave the Union.

Yep. They should have revised more. The US Constution went through MANY drafts before the version the orginal 13 colonies approved was voted on.

War? Nope. It did take several years and lots of alcohol, but it was done in 1789. If you're referring to the American Civil War, that didn't finalise it, but it did determine the status of slavery & the right to leave the Union.


But it did affect the consititution by way of how many states had to have it....


Yep. They should have revised more. The US Constution went through MANY drafts before the version the orginal 13 colonies approved was voted on.

Indeed, I think they will have to. No use having a rushed document, it needs to be reviewed, reviewed, reviewed, and where need be, changed, changed, changed.

War? Nope. It did take several years and lots of alcohol, but it was done in 1789. If you're referring to the American Civil War, that didn't finalise it, but it did determine the status of slavery & the right to leave the Union.

Yep. They should have revised more. The US Constution went through MANY drafts before the version the orginal 13 colonies approved was voted on.

As you said, this was the first draft. It is very difficult because it is such a very basic document. And state structures within Europe are fundamentally different : The French are proud on their social state, the British eye that with mistrust, the Germans are currently thinking about dismantling theirs... it's a long way to find consent.

France's current political agenda is to be a "counterweight" to the United States. They've been acting in such a manner for several years, and (with the Germans as semi-silent partners, as they want a chair at the UN), have been "the European Voice".

Now, they refuse to join into the very thing they've been pushing for, even after 11 other nations approved. It's a sad joke: they want the power, but not the work.

If it wasn't written in such a way that they'd wanted it, how did it ever get to a vote?!? That'd be like the Slavery Provision getting into the US Constitution in 1789: the South wouldn't stomach it, so it didn't happen.


Well, they didn't join it because it didn't turn out to be the article they pushed for. People change their minds. it's that whole democracy thing. It wasn't in line with their way of thinking, so it got rejected. The thing is, it isn't the French constitution, you have all the member states wanting it to be written one way or the other. They thought it was a compromise, so it was put forward in its form. People wanted to vote for it, and it was rejected because it was too much of a compromise. Sounds like fairly standard democratic faire to me.

But it did affect the consititution by way of how many states had to have it....

I'm not sure what you mean by that... could you rephrase, please?

Indeed, I think they will have to. No use having a rushed document, it needs to be reviewed, reviewed, reviewed, and where need be, changed, changed, changed.

Yep, no question.

As you said, this was the first draft. It is very difficult because it is such a very basic document. And state structures within Europe are fundamentally different : The French are proud on their social state, the British eye that with mistrust, the Germans are currently thinking about dismantling theirs... it's a long way to find consent.

I'm a bit confused, but it's not fair to say that the EU Constitution was the first draft. The Convention took a very long time to draw up the document, it just wasn't very widely reported in the media for some reason.

Don't forget, the member-state governments agreed to this constitution in signing it. They wouldn't have signed it if they didn't agree with it - so a lot of compromise took place already between the member states' individual interests.

As you said, this was the first draft. It is very difficult because it is such a very basic document. And state structures within Europe are fundamentally different : The French are proud on their social state, the British eye that with mistrust, the Germans are currently thinking about dismantling theirs... it's a long way to find consent.

Basic? The thing is thick enough to use as a small chair! :D

Exactly. Which is why they should do something like what the US did: start small with what everyone can agree on, then ADD to it over years. It may not be easy. It may not be the way you really wanted it, but it works.

The EU document (er, I mean TOME!) went into too much minutae.

Well, they didn't join it because it didn't turn out to be the article they pushed for. People change their minds. it's that whole democracy thing. It wasn't in line with their way of thinking, so it got rejected. The thing is, it isn't the French constitution, you have all the member states wanting it to be written one way or the other. They thought it was a compromise, so it was put forward in its form. People wanted to vote for it, and it was rejected because it was too much of a compromise. Sounds like fairly standard democratic faire to me.

Did you read my reply? :)

The French gov't should have known what their own people would and would not stand for. If it wasn't close, it should never have come to a vote at this time.

It's good that it was defeated. A constitution that emphasises NATO as the bases for the common defense policy is not worth the paper it was written on.

It's good that it was defeated. A constitution that emphasises NATO as the bases for the common defense policy is not worth the paper it was written on.

True. An organization of allies that kept Europe out of war for 60 years is obviously worthless. :rolleyes:

True. An organization of allies that kept Europe out of war for 60 years is obviously worthless. :rolleyes:
do you live in europa?

True. An organization of allies
Sattelite states. Whith NATO as the US tool to keep the rest under it's thumb.

Basic? The thing is thick enough to use as a small chair! :D

Exactly. Which is why they should do something like what the US did: start small with what everyone can agree on, then ADD to it over years. It may not be easy. It may not be the way you really wanted it, but it works.

The EU document (er, I mean TOME!) went into too much minutae.

I agree, to some extend. It has to leave room for interpretation, at least at the begining. European countries resemble each other more closely than any of them care to admit, but there are still vast differences in history, tradition, mentality, beliefs, etc. If you want something to accomodate all, keep it basic. It's a constitution, for crying out loud, not the BGB or the Code Civil.

I'm not sure what you mean by that... could you rephrase, please?


Certainly. What I meant is that by the end of the American Civil War, it decided how many states would be affected/came under the Constitution.

Sattelite states. Whith NATO as the US tool to keep the rest under it's thumb.
agree with you.it was written in this constitution.

True. An organization of allies that kept Europe out of war for 60 years is obviously worthless. :rolleyes:

The EU was what kept European nations from starting another war, by bringing them together in a trade federation.

The NATO actually was involved in the Cold War, if I remember my childhood days correctly. Although it has to be said that it protected the continent from becoming Russian satelite nations...

It's good that it was defeated. A constitution that emphasises NATO as the bases for the common defense policy is not worth the paper it was written on.


I've seen around the web quite a number of Americans who seriously believe the EU will be the next Cold War enemy.

If true, the US would start to get nervous if the EU gets it's own common defence policy... The section on NATO was to reassure the US administration, that's what I'm guessing.

The French citizenship is smarter than we Americans have previously given them credit for. They know that the principle aim of the EU is to subvert the will of the people, to the benefit of the political aristocracy.

If true, the US would start to get nervous if the EU gets it's own common defence policy... The section on NATO was to reassure the US administration, that's what I'm guessing.
Excactly. Reason enough to refuse the piece crap.

I've seen around the web quite a number of Americans who seriously believe the EU will be the next Cold War enemy.

If true, the US would start to get nervous if the EU gets it's own common defence policy... The section on NATO was to reassure the US administration, that's what I'm guessing.
if it's true then Georges orwel was Horribly good,we all should be worry now :)
So can we form an international resistenz against totalitarism front(serious here)
of well IRATF?

Excactly. Reason enough to refuse the piece crap.

Yep.

Did you read my reply? :)

The French gov't should have known what their own people would and would not stand for. If it wasn't close, it should never have come to a vote at this time.


People put too much stock in votes, is my point of contention. I did read your reply, and was unsure how to really respond to it. Wait a minute. I'll put a bit more effort into this one.

Putting it down to the vote doesn't really mean all that much, and you can never really say that a gov't is in tune with its people, especially with Chirac himself being accused of being too right wing for the French people. So they called a vote on whether to approve the constitution, and it failed. Just because in America they waited for everyone to be satisfied with it doesn't mean that that's the way it is, or should be, everywhere. It'll no doubt be revised, and re-revised, until it suits everyone. Remember that Europe is made of different countries with vastly different cultures, and not like The U.S which has a largely homogenous history in comparison.

Also, evidently it WAS close. It was only a 55% majority. That's pretty damned slim. Indicating they thought it WOULD pass, even if only barely. Also, the U.S constitution was made at the beginning of the nations history. The EU constitution is being written after about 1000 years of individual nations history. You have to take account of sovereign individuality (in their own form of politics) after such an extreme length of time.

if it's true then Georges orwel was Horribly good,we all should be worry now :)
So can we form an international resistenz against totalitarism front(serious here)
of well IRATF?

Well Orwell predicted there would be a Second World War by 1940, but perhaps he saw the signs of one happening in everyday politics....just like he saw the signs of superstates in the late 40's.

The EU and Russia are on fairly good relations, signing economic and mutual aid agreements, so that become known as 'Eurasia'.

We see Australia, and perhaps to a lesser extent New Zealand becoming more influenced by the US, so that bloc would be 'Oceania'

and then of course you have China, which has influences over Burma and North Korea, and has made agreements with India.....Eastasia.

And then you have the war that has no end = 'war on terror'.

Scary.

Sorry to say, but I think it's a sad display by the French. I also doubt that most people even read the constitution. I think it was just a "no" to smack the current government over the head.

Then again, we're talking about the country that has its own word for "software"... They always have to be somehow special, despite the fact that they get owned regularly...

The EU constitution is being written after about 1000 years of individual nations history. You have to take account of sovereign individuality (in their own form of politics) after such an extreme length of time.

Agreed.

Sorry to say, but I think it's a sad display by the French. I also doubt that most people even read the constitution. I think it was just a "no" to smack the current government over the head.

Then again, we're talking about the country that has its own word for "software"... They always have to be somehow special, despite the fact that they get owned regularly...

did you read it, before you dare to post here?.if not fuck off and read,but don't awnser in this thread anymore

Sorry to say, but I think it's a sad display by the French. I also doubt that most people even read the constitution. I think it was just a "no" to smack the current government over the head.

Have you?

If you have I would bet you are in a very small minority. Lots of people (myself included) don't like the idea of reading something like 450 pages of dry legal terms and such. I honestly tried to read it, but gave up.

Though it could have promised the world on a stick and I still would be against it.

Then again, we're talking about the country that has its own word for "software"... They always have to be somehow special, despite the fact that they get owned regularly...

I hear that it goes beyond just having another word for software over there. I hear that they speak a whole other language :eek: . Imagine that. A whole nation of people that don't speak English/whateverish

Well accidently, most people here don't speak English primarily. Most speak German :p And our countries just happen to speak the languages which were the basis for English. My ancestors (Saxons) even colonized Britain - my god, who would have thought. I don't think a 450-page constitution can cover all the individual traits of the various nations - from Germany to France to Italy or Britain - we are way too diverse in our political customs and our folklorish traditions, that this can never be made into a homogenous Europe. Thank god too - I'd hate seeing us all pressed into one bureaucratic superstate.

Ein Deutscher']Well accidently, most people here don't speak English primarily. Most speak German :p And our countries just happen to speak the languages which were the basis for English. My ancestors (Saxons) even colonized Britain - my god, who would have thought. I don't think a 450-page constitution can cover all the individual traits of the various nations - from Germany to France to Italy or Britain - we are way too diverse in our political customs and our folklorish traditions, that this can never be made into a homogenous Europe. Thank god too - I'd hate seeing us all pressed into one bureaucratic superstate.

Ooo, you don't speak English either over there?

What's your word for 'software'? :p

i speak few language and will not go on with this xenophobe bullshit....
I d rather go with :fluffle: dan :sniper: ,my choice was :fluffle: over "flag" and $$$$$.....

i speak few language and will not go on with this xenophobe bullshit....

Ooh, which ones?

I've tried learning French, but have no ear for languages :(

Actually, it will be The Netherlands who vote next, and polls suggest they will vote 'No' as well.
[yadda yadda yadda]

Nope. As a soon to be French citizen and well informed individual living in France, I'll give you the true main reasons for the massive rejection of the constitutional treaty:

While we're at it, let's take a quick peek at the French political landcape:

- The current government (UMP, Union pour la Majorité Presidentielle- the President's party, right wing to european standards, centrist-lefty to american standards): Strongly for the constitution, since it follows the party's political agenda; They are moderately liberal (French meaning of the word: as in "economically liberal") and believe that France will reinforce it's power -both economically and politically- through it.

Valery Giscard d'Estaing, former president and european politician, was the main author, and shares their ideals.

The current gvt has taken a lot of extremely impopular economic and social measures recently; The unemployment rate keeps going up. Moreover, the inhabitants can feel that the public media are extremely biased, we felt like everyone was campaigning for the "oui". Public funds were used to finance an ad campaign for the "yes".
Voters are usually members of lower-upper, upper-middle classes and the peasantry.

- The Communist party, Anarcho-syndicalists and other extreme left-wing parties (off american political spectrum scales): Kinda obvious. They're always criticizing the government, blaming job outsourcing on the EU and the gvt etc..
In the last three years, they've gained power after the '02 presidential elections, the unemployment and the welfare crisis.
Voters are mainly hard-nosed blue collar workers (lower classes) and trend commies, the kind of guys you see in a campus with a Che T-shirt and a goatee that smells like weed.

- The Front National, National Front. Overtly racist and anti-semitic, yet they don't say everything out loud - idiotic behavior is illegal in here - they are borderline fascists (in the french sense) and can be compared to red-blooded republicans or neo-cons, minus the religious zeal and less economically liberal.
They've always refused an Europe where France couldn't control absolutely everything, and think that embracing the constitution will open the doors to countries such as turkey, albania and other places populated with people with a darker skin tone and other customs. Apart from that, It's economically okay.
Voters are aristocrats, old and scared people, poor people who think everyone with a funny accent stole their jobs and neo-nazis, mostly idiots overall. We can say without making a sweeping generalization that they're all narrow-minded.

-The Socialists: Probably the most popular party. Could possibly be compared to the american Green party, just leaning more to the left. They promote social, educational, economical and ecological reforms and want to reinforce the state-owned industries and cut off army's budget for the welfare and education. Sadly, a small part of those who say they vote for them are either lazy or stupid, since they support them but don't vote (Cf. April 21st 2002 fiasco).

The most left-leaning half is against the constitution, who they consider too liberal economically, resulting in more job outsourcing and the rise of corporate scandals we only used to find in the US. They protested against the lack of social rights in the constitution (right to abortion among others) and a standardized european minimal wage (thus limiting job outsourcing). However, they agree that besides these major flaws, it would have been perfectly acceptable.

On the other hand, the second, slightly centrist half tend to minimize these flaws, and believed that we could amend the constitution it if there was the need to. They put forward the same constitutional advantages that the UMP do (unified europe, dynamized economy, safer borders, freer(sp?) eurocitizens, one european army etc..).

Voters are among the workers of the public sector and middle-lower to upper-middle classes, almost 8,5 out of 10 students and undecided people.

- Les Verts (The Green party): Tucked in between the commies and the socialists. Just like the socialists, with an extra fondness towards nature. The novelty, internal fights and the total lack of charisma of their leaders -often totally unknown people- didn't help them in previous elections. They decided to campaign for the "oui", but no one seemed to care.
Voters are blind-folded people, deceived socialists and communists, Marijuana legalization activists and vegans.

- Centrists: See UMP

That's all for now. Hope it helped.

Then again, we're talking about the country that has its own word for "software"... They always have to be somehow special, despite the fact that they get owned regularly...

Considering the French (specifically Joseph-Marie Jacquard) can be argued to have invented the concept of software I do think there is nothing wrong with them using their own word for it...

Besides, the USA has its own word for "football" - namely soccer ;) And soft-ware or "wares that are soft" is not that hard to translate.

The French word for "software" is "logiciel". Oddly, there's no word for "hardware". We only say "Computer devices".

do you live in europa?

I'm a Slovak ex-pat. I live in the US.

It is (in theory) irrelivant to what the dutch, belgians, brits etc vote for because every member state must agree to it, either that or the EU could split into old EU(spain, france, germany) and a new EU (britain, Eastern Europe etc). Both groups will do things they want and acheive what they need till in years to come some stupid Frenchman will try and unite it all again.

Apart from that the system is undempcratic anyway because the Belgians are not even given the choice of saying yes or no. (Germany doesnt either i think but i dont know)

If we have a referendum in the UK i know how i will vote.

NO

I agree, to some extend. It has to leave room for interpretation, at least at the begining. European countries resemble each other more closely than any of them care to admit, but there are still vast differences in history, tradition, mentality, beliefs, etc. If you want something to accomodate all, keep it basic. It's a constitution, for crying out loud, not the BGB or the Code Civil.

Spot on. :)

The French word for "software" is "logiciel". Oddly, there's no word for "hardware". We only say "Computer devices".

Not that odd since the word "logiciel" is not a translation of the word software. It is an independant word used to denote the same thing, that most likely existed even before the term software was coined.

Certainly. What I meant is that by the end of the American Civil War, it decided how many states would be affected/came under the Constitution.

Well, yeah... all of them. :)
But that's really a sub-set of The Right of Succession (which states don't have...)

Sattelite states. Whith NATO as the US tool to keep the rest under it's thumb.

(yawn)

Fine. Next time Germany loses a war (please take care to note, GERMANY has never won one...), we'll make sure you get another Treaty of Versailles, okay? :p

(yawn)

Fine. Next time Germany loses a war (please take care to note, GERMANY has never won one...), we'll make sure you get another Treaty of Versailles, okay? :p

Germany has won a war Franco-Prussian War 1870-1871 as well as succesully invading France, Denmark, Norway, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and a whole host of other countries, which is more than some countries can claim (america!)

I'm a Slovak ex-pat. I live in the US.
did you read the text(i did)?

The EU was what kept European nations from starting another war, by bringing them together in a trade federation.

The NATO actually was involved in the Cold War, if I remember my childhood days correctly. Although it has to be said that it protected the continent from becoming Russian satelite nations...

Um... no. The EU was a trade federation, yes. It has no military power per se, and did nothing to confront the Soviets/Warsaw Pact nations. NATO did that.

Note EU expansion:
Year Country
1952 Belgium, France, (West) Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands (founding members)
1973 Denmark, Ireland, the United Kingdom
1981 Greece
1986 Portugal, Spain
1990 East Germany reunites with West Germany and becomes part of the EU
1995 Austria, Finland, Sweden
2004 Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia
2007 Bulgaria, Romania

Consider the Berlin Airlift. The Suez Canal Crisis. The Revolt in Budapest and the Prague Spring. The Fall of the Iron Curtain. Kosovo.

Can you name any instance where the EU did anything to actually keep the
peace?

Don't get me wrong, the EU is a great organization, and an important one. But it's never stopped any wars.

Germany has won a war Franco-Prussian War 1870-1871 as well as succesully invading France, Denmark, Norway, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and a whole host of other countries, which is more than some countries can claim (america!)
stay on topic please

France's current political agenda is to be a "counterweight" to the United States. They've been acting in such a manner for several years, and (with the Germans as semi-silent partners, as they want a chair at the UN), have been "the European Voice".

Now, they refuse to join into the very thing they've been pushing for, even after 11 other nations approved. It's a sad joke: they want the power, but not the work.

If it wasn't written in such a way that they'd wanted it, how did it ever get to a vote?!? That'd be like the Slavery Provision getting into the US Constitution in 1789: the South wouldn't stomach it, so it didn't happen.

And thank God they are doing it. They're the only ones right now opposing the US. On the other edge, we have the UK which is becoming more and more "the puppy dog of the US".

I'm glad they rejected the Constitution. A federal Europe is the way to go, for sure (like the United States of Europe), but there is something you must understand. First of all, unlike the US, we have hundreds of ethnical groups and dozens of different languages. Each of the ethnical groups has hundreds of years of history and wars with each other.

The US is a very multicultural country, with lots of immigrants, but you can't compare that in any way to europe. The difference in magnitude is enormous.

That being said, i will vote NO to the constituition (Portugal, referendum in september probably). As with was said above, NATO shouldn't be on the constituition. IMO NATO is a resource waste and simply a way for the US to maintain a grip in Europe. It was necessary during the cold war (or maybe not, who knows), and i'm sure europe is thankful to the US for that, but right now it servers no purpose. There should be an European military, based in Europe, controlled by europeans and nobody else.

Of course, that doesn't mean i'm against the so-called "transatlatic" cooperation, even on a military basis. But right now that cooperation seems more like the US trying at all costs to gain more influence in Europe, while it's a fact that you are losing it.

Speaking as an EU citizen, I think proximity with Russia is much more desirable . They have all the strategic things we need, like lots of oil, gas, half of a continent :) , a cash-stripped but effective and large army, etc. And we have the money they need to rebuild the country, end corruption, etc etc. And guess what - THEY'RE IN EUROPE!

Again, i'm all for the United States of Europe, with a common military, common foreign policy, common currency, common education system, common everything. But this will take a lot of time, and a lot of constitutions will be approved and rejected in the meantime.

Germany has won a war Franco-Prussian War 1870-1871 as well as succesully invading France, Denmark, Norway, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and a whole host of other countries, which is more than some countries can claim (america!)

Prussia. Not Germany. Germany didn't exist until 1871.

And it lost them all, as well as itself.

That's nice. But that's not what I'm here to debate.

Consider the Berlin Airlift. The Suez Canal Crisis. The Revolt in Budapest and the Prague Spring.
before the curtain
as for the rest kosovo, rwanda, and darfour....we will all know dat over 25 year(may be),i forget irak and afghanistan. :rolleyes:

Speaking as an EU citizen, I think proximity with Russia is much more desirable . They have all the strategic things we need, like lots of oil, gas, half of a continent :) , a cash-stripped but effective and large army, etc. And we have the money they need to rebuild the country, end corruption, etc etc. And guess what - THEY'RE IN EUROPE!

Again, i'm all for the United States of Europe, with a common military, common foreign policy, common currency, common education system, common everything. But this will take a lot of time, and a lot of constitutions will be approved and rejected in the meantime.[/QUOTE]

Russia is the country we should help but, the UNited States of Europe would spell the end for individual Sovreinty in each country, we should be allowed to keep our own currencies as the Euro is not working (Italys looking for ane escape route apparantly). Also it may mean when us in Britain join the EU we will have to accept the Euro sooner or later, and then what? Same language? Loss on National identity? Another mono-cultural superpower? As well as this no EU country has an army worth shouting about! WE need to improve ourselves before we join each other.(If you hadnt noticed im a proud middleclass Brit)

People put too much stock in votes, is my point of contention. I did read your reply, and was unsure how to really respond to it. Wait a minute. I'll put a bit more effort into this one.

Putting it down to the vote doesn't really mean all that much, and you can never really say that a gov't is in tune with its people, especially with Chirac himself being accused of being too right wing for the French people. So they called a vote on whether to approve the constitution, and it failed. Just because in America they waited for everyone to be satisfied with it doesn't mean that that's the way it is, or should be, everywhere.

All true. My point is just that they *should* have had a better idea of what would fly.
Actually, they locked them up in summertime in Philadelphia. They had to compromise, not agree. :) They didn't agree on lots of things... but they had a framework to work within to solve the problems. The EU Consitution is less a Constitution than a Goverment Handbook... it goes into too much about the little things and not enough on the general things.

It'll no doubt be revised, and re-revised, until it suits everyone. Remember that Europe is made of different countries with vastly different cultures, and not like The U.S which has a largely homogenous history in comparison.

Yes.

Also, evidently it WAS close. It was only a 55% majority. That's pretty damned slim. Indicating they thought it WOULD pass, even if only barely. Also, the U.S constitution was made at the beginning of the nations history. The EU constitution is being written after about 1000 years of individual nations history. You have to take account of sovereign individuality (in their own form of politics) after such an extreme length of time.

You call that slim? Have you seen the past two US Presidential elections? ;)

before the curtain
as for the rest kosovo, rwanda, and darfour....we will all know dat over 25 year(may be),i forget irak and afghanistan. :rolleyes:

The point stands: NATO ensured European peace. The EU ensured European prosperity. :)

You also forgot Japan, Haiti, Grenada, Italy, Germany and Mexico. :rolleyes:

I don't by any means agree with the statement that France is "taking the easy way out," First off, almost every French politician and member of the upper class was pushing for the "oui" vote, It was the extremist right and left that opposed the constitution, and if you combine the members of the far right and left in France you get about 40 % of the population, now add that to the individual thinkers and you'll get about 55 %. I think it's wonderful that the French people have stood up to the world again, by rejecting this legislative bull shit, and i think it is more a sign of France's defiance than a sign of weakness or decline. When the Netherlands rejects the Constitution we will see the signatory nations cringe as they struggle to make this constitution work, when it was originally intended to use nations like France and the Netherlands to assist smaller and politically weaker nations, like those that have already signed.

The point stands: NATO ensured European peace. The EU ensured European prosperity. :)

You also forgot Japan, Haiti, Grenada, Italy, Germany and Mexico. :rolleyes:

no it is imposing US domination,the european constitution will make it possible.
so why don't you speak about Venezuela or Cuba,and if not Why not?

no it is imposing US domination,the european constitution will make it possible.
so why don't you speak about Venezuela or Cuba,and if not Why not?

Um, yeah. Right. That's why the US drafted Europeans to fight as Janissaries in Iraq, right? Please leave conspiracy theories out of your arguements.

Those were just the examples that came to mind. You put up a list of successful German invasions. I countered with a list of successful American ones. You didn't mention the USSR for Germany, I didn't mention Cuba for the US.
To my knowledge, the US has never invaded Venzuela.

France's rejection of the constitution has highlighted the deep divisions between different countries in Europe, especially between France and the UK. It's futile to try and unite countries that have so little in common with each other. It's much better for everyone if we can all just follow our own seperate paths.

France's rejection of the constitution has highlighted the deep divisions between different countries in Europe, especially between France and the UK. It's futile to try and unite countries that have so little in common with each other. It's much better for everyone if we can all just follow our own seperate paths.

...or to start as *broadly* as possible (ala the US in 1789) and allow the differences to disappear over time. :)

France's rejection of the constitution has highlighted the deep divisions between different countries in Europe, especially between France and the UK. It's futile to try and unite countries that have so little in common with each other. It's much better for everyone if we can all just follow our own seperate paths.

Which is what i said earlier abouth the EU breaking into Splinter organisations

To my knowledge, the US has never invaded Venzuela
invasion?i thought it was liberation!

I didn't know that the US had ever had dealing with Venuzala let alone invading it?

invasion?

Are you stoned?

I think we are losing the plot here, Get back to the constitution Vs the French

Are you stoned?
no

no

Any reason you can't follow a simple thread, then?

/done

I think we are losing the plot here, Get back to the constitution Vs the French
let's take it back constitution for the elite

Any reason you can't follow a simple thread, then?

/done
the consitution may be?

Russia is the country we should help but, the UNited States of Europe would spell the end for individual Sovreinty in each country, we should be allowed to keep our own currencies as the Euro is not working (Italys looking for ane escape route apparantly). Also it may mean when us in Britain join the EU we will have to accept the Euro sooner or later, and then what? Same language? Loss on National identity? Another mono-cultural superpower? As well as this no EU country has an army worth shouting about! WE need to improve ourselves before we join each other.(If you hadnt noticed im a proud middleclass Brit)

Noone said that.

Don't fool yourself, same language and culture will take a long time in europe. Maybe in 1000 years, when we become so intermixed there's no distinction. And if that happens, what's wrong with that? There is no need for national armies. Let's all create one single huge army, make bases in every country and when there is a problem, we have like 10 million soldiers at our disposal.

And what is the problem with losing the currency? I was also very nostalgic when the Escudo (national coin) was lost in 2002, but hey, people move on. Sure it was a 200 year old currency, but what does that matter? The advantages are huge for the common man, let alone businesses.

Loss of national identity will only happen when we are completely assimilated, IMO that will take the same 1000 years. I have no problem with the destruction of a national identity and a birth of an european identity, but of course, in it's own time. Probably it won't happen in this century.

Just keep in mind, 1000 years ago, there was no Britain. There were the Scots north and the anglo-saxons south. There was no national identity. Britain's national identity is not very old (english and scottish is a lot older of course). Same with Spain and lots of other countries in Europe.

Noone said that.

Don't fool yourself, same language and culture will take a long time in europe. Maybe in 1000 years, when we become so intermixed there's no distinction. And if that happens, what's wrong with that? There is no need for national armies. Let's all create one single huge army, make bases in every country and when there is a problem, we have like 10 million soldiers at our disposal.

And what is the problem with losing the currency? I was also very nostalgic when the Escudo (national coin) was lost in 2002, but hey, people move on. Sure it was a 200 year old currency, but what does that matter? The advantages are huge for the common man, let alone businesses.

Loss of national identity will only happen when we are completely assimilated, IMO that will take the same 1000 years. I have no problem with the destruction of a national identity and a birth of an european identity, but of course, in it's own time. Probably it won't happen in this century.

Just keep in mind, 1000 years ago, there was no Britain. There were the Scots north and the anglo-saxons south. There was no national identity. Britain's national identity is not very old (english and scottish is a lot older of course). Same with Spain and lots of other countries in Europe.

Who would you put in charge of the "eruopean super army", loss of cultural identity is closer than you think how much of the continent can speak English, even as a second language. Also not joining the Euro has not harmed british business. And finaly if 1000 years is a short time what nation has had a national identity for along time?

The difference between UK and the French isn't that big actually.
Many times in the past, both countries proved they could work together:
Think about the Concorde, the Eurotunnel and to some point, WWI and II(The resistance, not Vichy's Government!).
The new generation is slowly changing; anglophoby used to be way more important when De Gaulle was in charge than now. Today's aversion to the brits is more fueled by football (soccer for you wee yankees ;)), that more-than-eager collaboration with the US and the war on irak (that most UK citizens, I believe, reject), the whole ECHELON thing and the warm beer. Oh, and the Euro deal.

"Who would you put in charge of the "eruopean super army","
The european commission. Easy answer don't you think?



"loss of cultural identity is closer than you think how much of the continent can speak English, even as a second language."
Most of it, as most of the industrialized world. But culture isn't only language, and if there's a language assimilation, it wouldn't be government imposed, but it would slowly enter everyday language (that's why it's called assimilation ). If that happens, probably there won't be much left of the english we speak nowadays



"Also not joining the Euro has not harmed british business."
i'm not sure about that, as i don't have any figures. but the thing is, it boosted lots of businesses in the countries which have adopted it.



"And finaly if 1000 years is a short time what nation has had a national identity for along time?"
1000 years is a lot of time. But britain doesn't have 1000 years - let's go back to the example of Scotland. Just a quick search at google gives this:
1707 Act of Union between Scotland and England. The Scottish parliament was dissolved and England and Scotland became one country.

So there you have. 300 years is much less than 1000. It creates a much more fragile national identity.

This just in: As a result of the failure of the "oui", Jean-Pierre Raffarin, Prime Minister, quits. His successor will prolly be Dominique De Villepin, ex-foreign affairs minister. The one who kinda looks like Junichiro Koizumi.

This just in: As a result of the failure of the "oui", Jean-Pierre Raffarin, Prime Minister, quits. His successor will prolly be Dominique De Villepin, ex-foreign affairs minister. The one who kinda looks like Junichiro Koizumi.

(crosses fingers)

If things fall right between this and the Oil-for-food programme, maybe we can get a 6th Republic going. :D

This just in: As a result of the failure of the "oui", Jean-Pierre Raffarin, Prime Minister, quits. His successor will prolly be Dominique De Villepin, ex-foreign affairs minister. The one who kinda looks like Junichiro Koizumi.
MAY BE,but it won't change anything.
New election is the solution

Basic? The thing is thick enough to use as a small chair! :D

Exactly. Which is why they should do something like what the US did: start small with what everyone can agree on, then ADD to it over years. It may not be easy. It may not be the way you really wanted it, but it works.

The EU document (er, I mean TOME!) went into too much minutae.

What you people talking about having to go through more drafts need to remember is that the EU constitution is not only the result of several years of negotiation, but is also only the latest in a long line of EU treaties- The Treaty Establishing the European Community (Treaty of Rome) The Single European Act, The Maastricht Treaty, The Treaty of Amsterdam, The Treaty of Nice.

As for all the detail it goes into - it only goes into as much detail as what has gone before. It also simplifies most of the procedures that went before it and adapts them for 25, rather than 15 states. Most of the Constitution is little more than a tidying up exercise, and most of what is changed is not what the French were complaining about. All this stuff about the Neo-Con free market policy of the Common Market was already at the core of the EU, the economic side was what it has all been about for the last 50 years! This Constitution starts to bring in political union,and that's what the French want. I think the we should all make closer union our main aim, and reform the Union later - the Constitution makes it easier to amend the EU treaties - QMV rather than this ratification process; it makes it an internal legal matter rather than the standard international law treaty process.

However, this "Non" vote may be the best thing ever to happen to Europe. Already, we're seeing an Actual, pan-European debate on Europe,with pan-European lines being drawn. The French have managed to do what no one has done before and engage all of Europe in a serious debate about the aims and purposed of the EU. Already we have British politicians on British TV saying things that should have been said a long time ago. Jack Straw - we need to have a Western power base that can compete with China and India; Tony Blair - we need to think about the need for a European power, about the aims of the Union. And there have been other people talking about the need for a serious counterweight for the US and how we need political power to globalise so that it can counter globalised corporate power.

This is stuff that has been sitting on the edge of mainstream discourse for a long time, and it needs to be put at the forefront of the debate. It might be possible for us to have a serious, proper debate across Europe, and even here in the UK without the ridiculous screeching and hyperbole of the Tabloid press.

Vive France! Vive l'Union Européenne!

This just in: As a result of the failure of the "oui", Jean-Pierre Raffarin, Prime Minister, quits. His successor will prolly be Dominique De Villepin, ex-foreign affairs minister. The one who kinda looks like Junichiro Koizumi.

Yeah, "quit" ....*cough*pushed*cough* [what looks like the hands of a certain Mr Chirac disappear behind the window frame...]

Chirac II was an error. Lionel Jospin was the one who was meant to be elected, but since these irresponsible suckers didn't vote (around 30% of those who could vote, didn't. Sunny day + Football game + Commies and Cons = Democratic failure), we were stuck 5 more years with Chi-chi.
I'm pretty sure that in the parallel dimension where Jospin has been elected as president, Valery Giscard d'Estaing wouldn't even have had thought about touching the constitution and it wouldn't be as liberal and way more social, thus avoiding us the problems we face today.

(crosses fingers)

If things fall right between this and the Oil-for-food programme, maybe we can get a 6th Republic going. :D


The 6th Republic is already here. It's just not official.
These last 30 years, there have been enough constitutional changes to consider that it has already began: Majority lowered from 21 to 18, a lot of laws for the equality of sexes in all the republican institutions -from politics to education to the army-, president's mandate is now 5 years long instead of 7..