NationStates Jolt Archive

Well. I just voted no. Who else here lives in the Netherlands? Who of those voted? What did you vote? Why did you vote the way you did?

I voted yes. Voting no is plain stupid IMO

Why? What would have been so wonderfull about this constitution?

Why? What would have been so wonderfull about this constitution?
Better human rights, a bigger vote for small countries (no more Germany and France, saying what to do), more economic equality throughout europe....

Let's see:

Every nation other than say, France, the UK, and Germany, would over time acquire the same international clout as Wisconsin.

Your local laws over time would be superseded by the mandates of an omnipotent central government - laws that could be passed over the objections of delegates from your country. So neat things like gay marriage might get eliminated, or hordes of immigrants might come in, etc.

Those are the "bad" things that foreign commentators are saying over here in the US about the EU Constitution. They say that the Netherlands suffered from inflation and poor job market after accepting the euro. Hmm. Bad taste in the mouth.

It might be that a 60 year hiatus and a lot of economic prosperity hasn't been enough to cover hundreds of years of screwing each other over.

I voted blank. I do support the idea of an European constitution- but the thing they gave us isn't one. It is just a bunch of treaties lumped together, lacking in ideals and goals, and missing quite a few issues I think should be included.

However, since I do not oppose most of the things this "treaty" contains, I decided on "blanco" instead of "nee".

For those interested: at 14.00 local time 24% had voted. Predictions still are "nee" will win.

a bigger vote for small countries (no more Germany and France, saying what to do)

Really? Although I voted "no", those over here in France trying to persuade us to vote "yes" explained that France would have more votes, a greater say in the EU, if the Constitution were adopted (and backed the claim up factually). Either someone is lying, or the politicians in both countries are twisting the facts, drawing out the good ones and leaving the bad ones unsaid, to try to get people to vote in favour...

Better human rights, a bigger vote for small countries (no more Germany and France, saying what to do), more economic equality throughout europe....
Also a kneefall before the US. A foreign secretary who has no real power since very country would have had a veto right. Oh yeah. And an appointed president.

Let's see:

Every nation other than say, France, the UK, and Germany, would over time acquire the same international clout as Wisconsin.

Your local laws over time would be superseded by the mandates of an omnipotent central government - laws that could be passed over the objections of delegates from your country. So neat things like gay marriage might get eliminated, or hordes of immigrants might come in, etc.

Those are the "bad" things that foreign commentators are saying over here in the US about the EU Constitution. They say that the Netherlands suffered from inflation and poor job market after accepting the euro. Hmm. Bad taste in the mouth.

It might be that a 60 year hiatus and a lot of economic prosperity hasn't been enough to cover hundreds of years of screwing each other over.
all part of becoming a Federal EU state. i will be voting yes in the UK referendum

i hate that in France many people seemed to vote for national polices/reasons (to punish Chirac) rather than vote on what the EU constitution really is: an international treaty

Also a kneefall before the US. A foreign secretary who has no real power since very country would have had a veto right.
No. No more veto right

And Arridia: I'm pretty sure every country will get one vote, no matter what the population

I love this Europe is pulling itself apart again as France voted no and Holland is probably about to vote no BRitain will probably vote yes but thats LAbour government for you and most of eastern europe will vote yes because they have nothing to lose, belgium doesnt even get a referendum, how democratic. The whole thing wont work, all EU nations are too different different languages, cultures, beliefs etc.

all part of becoming a Federal EU state. i will be voting yes in the UK referendum

i hate that in France many people seemed to vote for national polices/reasons (to punish Chirac) rather than vote on what the EU constitution really is: an international treaty
Then they should come up with an acceptable constitution. Since most no voters are not against a constitution or the EU but they are against this constitution.

Well, if there had been pistols over the mantelpiece in the first act, I would be expecting the lights to go out shortly after the Netherlands vote, and to hear the sounds of several pistol shots.

all part of becoming a Federal EU state. i will be voting yes in the UK referendum

i hate that in France many people seemed to vote for national polices/reasons (to punish Chirac) rather than vote on what the EU constitution really is: an international treaty

I hasten to assure you that was not my case. I voted against the referendum because I didn't like its content. I felt I had a responsability to vote on the Constitution itself, since the vote was so important, rather than use it to kick the government's butt.

If I were in the UK, though, I may just have voted yes; I'm not too sure. After all, the no-vote in the UK, from what I've gathered, will primarily be a vote against its social aspects and in favour of more extreme capitalism (the exact reverse of the no-vote in France).

I love this Europe is pulling itself apart again as France voted no and Holland is probably about to vote no BRitain will probably vote yes but thats LAbour government for you

last I heard is that the Brits would vote "no" ? Are they so determined to be opposite to France.. ?

However, as one of the people of the campaign platform said: "even if we say no against this constitution, we *did* get people to think about it"

Which is true. People are finally starting to take an interest which wasn't there before.

I love this Europe is pulling itself apart again as France voted no and Holland is probably about to vote no BRitain will probably vote yes but thats LAbour government for you and most of eastern europe will vote yes because they have nothing to lose, belgium doesnt even get a referendum, how democratic. The whole thing wont work, all EU nations are too different different languages, cultures, beliefs etc.

And why is this a good thing?

And why is this a good thing?
They are called the good old days for a reason.

I haven't voted yet, but I'm going to in about half an hour or so I guess. And I'm gonna vote 'yes', simply because I'm totally hopeless idealist.

Of course, that very fact also means that for the longest time I was considering saying 'no' simply because the VVD didn't want me to.

And Arridia: I'm pretty sure every country will get one vote, no matter what the population

There are several kinds of votes, from what I gather, and in at least one France would have increased its overall share, by several percent.

And why is this a good thing?

Because it means we cannot have a treaty that is simply one huge compromise, and in compromises no one wins we need to obliterate the EU and try again with something a little more socailly acceptable to all the nations. The EU grew too big too fast, and its trying too change Europe toomuch, too soon, too quickly. No country likes it as it is too centrist and no nation sits right in the middle, which the constitution wants them to do.

I voted blank. I do support the idea of an European constitution- but the thing they gave us isn't one. It is just a bunch of treaties lumped together, lacking in ideals and goals, and missing quite a few issues I think should be included.
What they've given you is a 400+ page blueprint for even more oppressive bureaucracy, almost complete loss of sovereignty for member nations and a ridiculous ammount of micromanagement of European affairs.

Besides, the Euro has got to be the most pathetically bland/ugly monetary unit on the planet.

Because it means we cannot have a treaty that is simply one huge compromise, and in compromises no one wins we need to obliterate the EU and try again with something a little more socailly acceptable to all the nations. The EU grew too big too fast, and its trying too change Europe toomuch, too soon, too quickly. No country likes it as it is too centrist and no nation sits right in the middle, which the constitution wants them to do.

If a committee is large enough, and discusses something long enough, it can screw anything up.

All the EU needs now is Jar Jar Binks.

What they've given you is a 400+ page blueprint for even more oppressive bureaucracy, almost complete loss of sovereignty for member nations and a ridiculous ammount of micromanagement of European affairs.

Not entirely correct: most of the stuff in it is already implemented and this treaty is more efficient than the existing ones in many ways.
However, I do agree with the sentiment concerning the contents. Which is indeed also a statement about the things already implemented without referenda.

Besides, the Euro has got to be the most pathetically bland/ugly monetary unit on the planet.

That depends on the country they were minted in. Those of Italy are easily prettier than the dollar for instance, while the Dutch, Belgian and Luxemburg editions are indeed not much to look at.

Really? Although I voted "no", those over here in France trying to persuade us to vote "yes" explained that France would have more votes, a greater say in the EU, if the Constitution were adopted (and backed the claim up factually). Either someone is lying, or the politicians in both countries are twisting the facts, drawing out the good ones and leaving the bad ones unsaid, to try to get people to vote in favour...

I guess that is called politics. Have you ever heard of an honest poitician? :headbang:
BTW, I voted no about an hour ago

All the EU needs now is Jar Jar Binks.
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA! That is SO t-shirt material. :D

Just to make one thing clear: on the opposite to what mass media say, french people did not vote NO against Chirac, against Turkey or against Europe. What we rejected was neoliberalism and all the trategedies that comes with it, and a technocratic Europe where the elected Parliament has nearly no power.

We do want an European Consitution, we just want one that does not impose neoliberalism, and one that respect democracy: directly elected institutions should have the power, and the three powers (executive, legislative and judicial) should be separated.

I hasten to assure you that was not my case. I voted against the referendum because I didn't like its content. I felt I had a responsability to vote on the Constitution itself, since the vote was so important, rather than use it to kick the government's butt.

If I were in the UK, though, I may just have voted yes; I'm not too sure. After all, the no-vote in the UK, from what I've gathered, will primarily be a vote against its social aspects and in favour of more extreme capitalism (the exact reverse of the no-vote in France).
thats very true, plus there's so much anti-EU sentiment in the UK i'll be voting yes primarily just to support the EU at all - if there's a crushing 'no' vote the Tories and media will surely start pandering for us to leave the EU alltogether or somesuch nonsense.
as a result i also feel that i would rather vote to have a constitution and then work/vote in the future to get it changed, rather than find Britain out of the EU...

then again i don't see anything markedly wrong with the constitution myself, anyway. what is so wrong with it?

Not entirely correct: most of the stuff in it is already implemented and this treaty is more efficient than the existing ones in many ways.
However, I do agree with the sentiment concerning the contents.



That depends on the country they were minted in. Those of Italy are easily prettier than the dollar for instance, while the Dutch, Belgian and Luxemburg editions are indeed not much to look at.
Cmon... what Constitution contains legislation dealing with who gets to breed reindeer?!? :headbang:


And I'll admit I haven't seen all of the Euros, but the ones I've seen look like the results of some college graphic design student wankfest. :p

Because it means we cannot have a treaty that is simply one huge compromise, and in compromises no one wins we need to obliterate the EU and try again with something a little more socailly acceptable to all the nations. The EU grew too big too fast, and its trying too change Europe toomuch, too soon, too quickly. No country likes it as it is too centrist and no nation sits right in the middle, which the constitution wants them to do.
compromise is part of progress

I keep hearing Europeans throw the term "neoliberalism" about.

Just to make sure we're on the same wavelength, what does "neoliberalism" mean to a European? Any examples?

There would be nothing wrong with leaving the EU we could get on with our lives then, we could resume trading with Austalia, NEw Zealand, and the rest of the world

By the way in the Euro elections i voted UKip

I keep hearing Europeans throw the term "neoliberalism" about.

Just to make sure we're on the same wavelength, what does "neoliberalism" mean to a European? Any examples?

Kinda like Thatcherism I think. More commitment to monetarist policies than socialist governments of old, lowering taxes and generally being more business friendly.

I keep hearing Europeans throw the term "neoliberalism" about.

Just to make sure we're on the same wavelength, what does "neoliberalism" mean to a European? Any examples?

Savage, unrestricted, unregulated corporate capitalism.

But thatcher was a Tory
That sounds more like it(above)

Cmon... what Constitution contains legislation dealing with who gets to breed reindeer?!? :headbang:

My point exactly. However, *treaties* about these types of things already exist. This "constitution" would improve some of them (which really says a lot about those existing treaties :() - but in my opinion that is not its job.

At the same time moral issues like bio-industry and animal treatment are only lightly touched upon. Those types of things I want a real stance on.

I love this Europe is pulling itself apart again as France voted no and Holland is probably about to vote no BRitain will probably vote yes but thats LAbour government for you
Labour has next to no influence on this. Britain will deliver a huge 'no' vote, given the chance.

I just voted FOR the constitution. I'm one of the few people.. I guess... :cool:

There would be nothing wrong with leaving the EU we could get on with our lives then, we could resume trading with Austalia, NEw Zealand, and the rest of the world

By the way in the Euro elections i voted UKip
i believe (if i remember correctly) that inter-EU trade counts for 60%+ of the UK's national exports. are you sure that leaving the EU would be monetarily beneficial?

but there's more to Europe than plain Economics/Trade, dispite the opinion of the average Brit.



and, on an ideological note, what makes us 'getting on with our lives' (read: improving the relative prospects of the UK) so important? what about improving the relative prospects and welfare for all EU nations by staying in the EU and working together towards a common goal?


edit: and just to note, i would vote communist/socialist if there were any viable options in the UK (and i plan to move to Amsterdam sometime in my life)

Savage, unrestricted, unregulated corporate capitalism.

That sounds more like it
bugger it - we're pretty damn well opposed here & i don't have time to stay here and argue. i'll have to agree to disagree
That sounds more like it

My point exactly. However, *treaties* about these types of things already exist. This "constitution" would improve some of them (which really says a lot about those existing treaties :() - but in my opinion that is not its job.

At the same time moral issues like bio-industry and animal treatment are only lightly touched upon. Those types of things I want a real stance on.


I think it was you that said that if this constitutional treaty had been named "treaty 18-a" it would have been applauded and voted almost unanimously.

Okay, so this treaty isnt the most perfect text of all. It was a compromise between 15 nations, to regulate how 25 nations would work. All this work conditioned by all previous treaties that have been signed for the past 50 years concerning the EU. And still, it had a very complete charter of rights, more complete, if you think of it, than most constitutions of most EU countries, hell, of most countries in the world.
Perhaps this wasnt a perfect text, but if you consider the conditions in it was made, it was a damn good one.

i believe (if i remember correctly) that inter-EU trade counts for 60%+ of the UK's national exports. are you sure that leaving the EU would be monetarily beneficial?

but there's more to Europe than plain Economics/Trade, dispite the opinion of the average Brit.



and, on an ideological note, what makes us 'getting on with our lives' (read: improving the relative prospects of the UK) so important? what about improving the relative prospects and welfare for all EU nations by staying in the EU and working together towards a common goal?


edit: and just to note, i would vote communist/socialist if there were any viable options in the UK (and i plan to move to Amsterdam sometime in my life)
This may sound selfish but all nations want to be in contol of the EU France, Britain Germany but none will have it and no nation will ever agree with the leading nation because they aer not in charge because it is a known fact that everyone in Europe is selfish bigoted and spiteful as much as people claim they are not

The constitution will never work, besides that it has to be agreed by everynation and if one doesnt vote another one wont. Few nations will vote yes.

Neoliberalism is a form of savage capitalism which gained strenght during the Tchatcher-Reagan period.

Basically, it is ultraliberalism: savage, unregulated capitalism, with nearly no social systems, laws protection worker or customer rights, unlike to the moderated capitalism that was the basis of western Europe since WW2, where the state redistribute money, protect the weakest, and mess up with the economy to encourage or discourage things (like, less-polluting and safer railroads get favored over more-polluting and more-dangerous road), promote education and culture, ...

But neoliberalism also includes stronger military and police in its theory, which are needed to keep the situation stable and allow buisness to make profits, even if more and more of the population suffers from misery (and therefore, would more likely break the laws). It also include monetarism, the study dogma that a strong money is the key of a working economy (we all know that the too-strong euro is playing against EU economy, but still, the ECB sole purpose is to keep the euro as strong as possible).

To summarize in a few words: neoliberalism is a set of policies which allow the few wealthiest to make as much profits as possible, without taking care about the sufferings of a huge part of the population.

I haven't seen "unrestricted capitalism" in any country in Europe, so I'm thinking that Portu Cale's remark is indicative of a perceptual definition.

Caplitalism, for example, is not "unrestricted" in the United States. Despite the perception that it is, it most certainly is not.

I think what Portu may be alluding to is that the central government must control business in the same manner as a socialist state, and that the first priority of a business is not to its investors or shareholders, or even its customers, but to funding social programs.

Correct?

Better human rights, a bigger vote for small countries (no more Germany and France, saying what to do), more economic equality throughout europe....
you didn't read it....

Caplitalism, for example, is not "unrestricted" in the United States. Despite the perception that it is, it most certainly is not.
You are definitely correct there. Our businesses are vastly overregulated...especially in areas that the government should have no say in.

Don't get me wrong. I don't trust corporations to be environmentally conscious in any way, shape or form. I do believe *some* regulations are needed...but VERY few.

I voted blank. I do support the idea of an European constitution- but the thing they gave us isn't one. It is just a bunch of treaties lumped together, lacking in ideals and goals, and missing quite a few issues I think should be included.

However, since I do not oppose most of the things this "treaty" contains, I decided on "blanco" instead of "nee".

For those interested: at 14.00 local time 24% had voted. Predictions still are "nee" will win.
a consitution must be neutral, that is taking in account that the dominant will not abuse his power this constitution does not and the more dangerorous ,it is subject to interpretation, i did oppose it(french,living in holland)

and for all who see Europa as a counter power of US ,you are wrong,one article say that all military forces are depending the decision of the mighty NATO,WHILE THE CONSTITUTION ALSO SAID ALL MEMBER AGREE TO BOOST THERE MILITARY FUNDS TO BE MODERNIZED
i ask myself, is politic a way to bring weapon lobyist to what they want,i mean
come on! we will all work in the weapon industry in order to kick china ass or india for this matter...What sort of logic is that?
Good europa neh!!!!!
It is going to be a mess Everywhere,because we can no work together.
this is reality and our children are going to pay...

The Dutch are voting N-O! The Dutch are voting N-O!

A double wammy for the EU! First France now the dutch. Rumor has it the Brits will vote NO too when they have their vote.

*Dances to Celebration Time*

I think it was you that said that if this constitutional treaty had been named "treaty 18-a" it would have been applauded and voted almost unanimously.

Yes, because the thing in my opinion is better than what we currently have. I just do not think that "hey - it is better than what we have" is a good basis for a constitution. Call me an idealist if you want ;)

Yes, because the thing in my opinion is better than what we currently have. I just do not think that "hey - it is better than what we have" is a good basis for a constitution. Call me an idealist if you want ;)
if you mean Nice! Than you should know that nobody was consulted....They decided it as a club, makin this one a good one,so are you an idealist? or are you brainwashed/ignorant?

I love this Europe is pulling itself apart again as France voted no and Holland is probably about to vote no BRitain will probably vote yes but thats LAbour government for you and most of eastern europe will vote yes because they have nothing to lose, belgium doesnt even get a referendum, how democratic. The whole thing wont work, all EU nations are too different different languages, cultures, beliefs etc.

Germany didn't get a referendum either, iirc.

That said, even if there had been, and I were able to vote in it (18 in another 2 months) I would not have known what to vote. It is largely the socialists who speak out against it, which would sort of drive me to tag along with that. On the other hand, it appears that a "no" to this will set back plans for a EU constitution several years at least. An amendable constitution is better than none at all...

Germany didn't get a referendum either, iirc.

That said, even if there had been, and I were able to vote in it (18 in another 2 months) I would not have known what to vote. It is largely the socialists who speak out against it, which would sort of drive me to tag along with that. On the other hand, it appears that a "no" to this will set back plans for a EU constitution several years at least. An amendable constitution is better than none at all...

Since you're in Germany, could you tell us:
a) why the press keeps saying Merkel will be in power after the next election
b) what effect would the CDU have on Germany's EU policies

I still need to vote, but haven't really managed to decide yet...

I voted no because this huge teetering pile of treaties simply isnt a constitution, furthermore it is way too focused on micromanaging too many things.

I still need to vote, but haven't really managed to decide yet...
you have 3 hours left
did you read it?(the constitution)

I voted no because this huge teetering pile of treaties simply isnt a constitution, furthermore it is way too focused on micromanaging too many things.

Congratulations Hobabwe. Tell the EU that this is wrong and to fix it :D

*Still dancing to Celebration Time*

No, I heard it's a lot of pages, and I had more important stuff to read (exams/tests/papers) :D

I voted no because this huge teetering pile of treaties simply isnt a constitution, furthermore it is way too focused on micromanaging too many things.
you are right ,it isn't a constitution and never was

No, I heard it's a lot of pages, and I had more important stuff to read (exams/tests/papers) :D
so? it is not important to know what you are voting ,for or against,why?
no time? they just hope on it,with help from the media.....go to vote! and follow your feelings

Update:

The exit polls indicate that 62% of the Dutch has voted, and 63% of those voters has said "no".

63% against

63% against :fluffle:

An amendable constitution is better than none at all...

But it wouldn't have been amendable - or rather, only with great difficulty. Even the slightest amendment would have required unanimous approval by all member nations... and do you really think the Eastern nations or the UK, for example, would ever have approved any amendments to include more social rights?

Well, voted :D

Just in time too..

*throws a victory part*

Another one bites the dust. Another one bites the dust. And another one does, another one does, another one bites the dust!

*Dances to Celebration time*

Well, voted :D

Just in time too..
well done

85% of the reps voted for.
long live bullshit! and his fascist regime!

lI voted yes this morning, was the first to vote in the polling station together with my stepmum.

Despite all the criticism I really think this constitution represented a step forward, even if it was rejected by the Dutch populous for reasons outside of the constitution itself. This referendum was a rather stupid idea, IMO. Politicians should have known that people would not vote about the item on the table. Putting it up for a referendum (the first truly national referendum in Dutch history!) was a bad idea. People here are not used to them anyway.

A tragic day for Europe and my country. I just know politicians will twist it into "The Hague needs more powers instead of Brussels" and the Americans here will gloat with “OMFG WE SI SUPAPOW SI COMMIES SUCK LOL”.

*sigh*

I hope people who voted “no” because the constitution wasn’t Federalist or Democratic or Social enough are very happy now. Congratulations. You just scored a major victory for the far right.

WHo on God's Green Earth wants to support something that isn't even a Constitution but 400 Pages of Treaty and Legalese paperwork?

WHo on God's Green Earth wants to support something that isn't even a Constitution but 400 Pages of Treaty and Legalese paperwork?
Because it is better then 2500 pages of Treaty and Legalese paperwork? (Not counting protocols). Because it would make the EU function better? Because it would have made the EU more transparent and more democratic?

Oh, wait. It was a rhetorical question. I wasn't supposed to answer.

Because it is better then 2500 pages of Treaty and Legalese paperwork? (Not counting protocols). Because it would make the EU function better? Because it would have made the EU more transparent and more democratic?

Oh, wait. It was a rhetorical question. I wasn't supposed to answer.

No actually, I wanted an answer.

Anyway, this isn't a Constitution. A constitution needs to be readable and understandable. This isn't either one of those things. Jeez, the US has a readable and understandable Constitution and its short! LOL

Because it is better then 2500 pages of Treaty and Legalese paperwork? (Not counting protocols). Because it would make the EU function better? Because it would have made the EU more transparent and more democratic?

Oh, wait. It was a rhetorical question. I wasn't supposed to answer.
did you read it?

Because it is better then 2500 pages of Treaty and Legalese paperwork? (Not counting protocols). Because it would make the EU function better? Because it would have made the EU more transparent and more democratic?

Doubtful. Highly doubtful. Besides that, it was unreadable and no one was able to understand it. Why did you vote for it?

Oh, wait. It was a rhetorical question. I wasn't supposed to answer.

:rolleyes: Believe what you will but I believe I already stated that i wanted an answer in the first time I replied to this.

No actually, I wanted an answer.

Anyway, this isn't a Constitution. A constitution needs to be readable and understandable. This isn't either one of those things. Jeez, the US has a readable and understandable Constitution and its short! LOL

Why?

If you look at constitutions around the world, the US constitution is really the exception. Unreadable costitutions are the rule. A few examples:


The Swiss constiution (http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/sz00000_.html)
The Russian constitution (http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/rs00000_.html)
The Dutch constitution (http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/nl00000_.html)


All equally "unreadable". Perhaps we should abolish those too?

Or maybe, just maybe, we should accept that a complex and diverse continent with a hybrid and unique organisation like the European Union cannot be governed by 2 A4 sheets of paper with some rules of thumb which are then to be interpreted by Supreme Court judges in arcane rituals involving reinterpretations, the intention of the Founding Fathers and the citation of foreign law. (which some judges "like" and others don't)

did you read it?
I know what is in it. As a student of Public Administration ("how governments work") I spent this year studying European Governance and International Governance (one semester on each respectively), including how the EU works and a special course just on constitutional issues and the like. I visited Brussels with a political youth group to hear members of the European Parliament and invited guests speak on it in person. I had many debates on the matter. Good enough for you?

(thought I'd add some examples)

Swiss constitution:

(1) The Federation shall levy an annual charge on each domestic and foreign motor vehicle and trailer having a total weight of over 3.5 tons for the use of roads open to general traffic.
(2) The charge shall be:
a. for lorries and articulated motor vehicles of
- over 3,5 up to 12t: CHF 650
- over 12 up to 18t: CHF 2000
- over 18 up to 26t: CHF 3000
- over 26t: CHF 4000
b. for trailers of
- over 3,5 up to 8t: CHF 650
- over 8 up to 10t: CHF 1500
- over 10t: CHF 2000
c. for coaches: CHF 650

Russian Constitution:

(4) The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, proceeding from complaints about violation of constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens and requests from courts reviews the constitutionality of the law applied or due to be applied in a specific case in accordance with procedures established by federal law.

Dutch constitution (my favourite article ^_^)


Article 26
For the purposes of hereditary succession, the child of a woman pregnant at the moment of the death of the King shall be deemed already born. If it is stillborn it shall be deemed to have never existed.

Why?

If you look at constitutions around the world, the US constitution is really the exception. Unreadable costitutions are the rule. A few examples:


The Swiss constiution (http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/sz00000_.html)
The Russian constitution (http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/rs00000_.html)
The Dutch constitution (http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/nl00000_.html)


All equally "unreadable". Perhaps we should abolish those too?

At least I can understand what they are spelling out so no it is NOT unreadable but very readable. :rolleyes: I hate to see your definition of unreadable.

Or maybe, just maybe, we should accept that a complex and diverse continent with a hybrid and unique organisation like the European Union cannot be governed by 2 A4 sheets of paper with some rules of thumb which are then to be interpreted by Supreme Court judges in arcane rituals involving reinterpretations, the intention of the Founding Fathers and the citation of foreign law. (which some judges "like" and others don't)

I'm sorry but I don't understand how 400 pages of Treaties and Legalese can be construed as a constitution. Care to explain it please?

(thought I'd add some examples)

Swiss constitution:



Russian Constitution:


Dutch constitution (my favourite article ^_^)

You know whats funny Knootoss? You. I can understand most of what you just posted in this post.

I posted at 10:53 PM, you posted at 10:59 PM. You read hundreds of pages in mere minutes! Amazing!

You also like the punditry technique a lot. That is fine. By repeating the phrase "400 pages of Treaties and Legalese" a lot you plug your opinion without having to defend it. Kudos.

You may not know I like to flirt with postmodernism, and all meaning is local. of course, one might wonder why a tree is called a tree, or what makes a constitution a constitution.

My view of reality in this case would be that the Treaty regarding a Constitution for Europe is a constitutional treaty because it is ratified and signed by heads of state (just like a real treaty!) and it is constitutional because it deals with the "constitution" of Europe, namely the way things work. Neato!

I posted at 10:53 PM, you posted at 10:59 PM. You read hundreds of pages in mere minutes! Amazing!

Don't have to read all of it to understand it. From the blurps that I have read, things are spelled out quite clearly. Care to show me where something isn't spelled out quite clearly please?

You also like the punditry technique a lot. That is fine. By repeating the phrase "400 pages of Treaties and Legalese" a lot you plug your opinion without having to defend it. Kudos.

Because the burdan of proof is on you to defend it. I'm getting tired of asking you this now. Apparently you would like to dodge the question instead of answering it. Thats fine except it shows that you don't have an answer to my question. I'll ask it again! How is a 400 page Treaty and Legalese constitute a Constitution? Are you going to answer it or dodge it? This is your moment to shine. Make the best of it.

You may not know I like to flirt with postmodernism, and all meaning is local. of course, one might wonder why a tree is called a tree, or what makes a constitution a constitution.

Oh I know but I don't care. However, I still like to know why your calling this a Constitution when everyone I've been hearing have stated it isn't. Care to enlighten me or are you going to dodge this question too?

My view of reality in this case would be that the Treaty regarding a Constitution for Europe is a constitutional treaty because it is ratified and signed by heads of state (just like a real treaty!) and it is constitutional because it deals with the "constitution" of Europe, namely the way things work. Neato!

Then don't call it a constitution because your heads of state have signed it first. That IS NOT how the constitutional process works my friend.

I will use small words then. Perhaps that will work.

National constitutions and the EU constitution are just as difficult to read. The populous is equally ignorant of their content, especially because European nations tend not to treat their Constitutions like a secular version of the Bible. Your 'casual glance' doesn't change that.

Now, I'll spell the simple rules of logic out for you:
-A constitution is a "system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution", or "the document in which such a system is recorded."
-The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe records a system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of the European Union
-The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe is, therefore, a constitution.

I know what is in it. As a student of Public Administration ("how governments work") I spent this year studying European Governance and International Governance (one semester on each respectively), including how the EU works and a special course just on constitutional issues and the like. I visited Brussels with a political youth group to hear members of the European Parliament and invited guests speak on it in person. I had many debates on the matter. Good enough for you?
Knootoss you didn't read it,don't make a fool of yourself,you pretend to know it while you don't know about life(beside your own)...
What do you know about working to survive?
What do you know about illusion?
What do you know about superiority,when you are just learning it?
did you know kohn bendit was revolutionaire in 1968
What do you whant to proove?
no!really! it is not good enough for me,may be in the future but i think you are a dangerous liar and if you are not ,you have been brainwashed
_Allers

Regard must be had to the issue of the single European currency, brought about by the argument of some Dutch European citizens who believe that one should vote no because of the weakened Dutch economy. This does not have much strength when one considers that the Netherlands, like the UK chose, had the chance not to involve itself in the single European currency.

French concerns over social justice vis a vis market liberalisation are more political in nature and have little to do with a binding legal document. The debate over the UK reservation to the Working Times Directive shows that the EU does concentrate on social justice issues.

One wonders why referenda were used in the first place. People either do not really realise what the Constitution does, or vote with national motivations that may not be reasonably related to the Constitution. If anyone takes the time to read Parts 1 and 2 of the EU Constitution, they will realise that the provisions relate to democratic participation, division of competences and human rights. These issues also relate to streamlining the EU to fit 25 (with more to come) member states. Though they may not be perfect, they are the core of this Constitutional Treaty.

Read it before you judge it: http://www.eu.int/constitution/en/lstoc3_en.htm

I will use small words then. Perhaps that will work.

National constitutions and the EU constitution are just as difficult to read. The populous is equally ignorant of their content, especially because European nations tend not to treat their Constitutions like a secular version of the Bible. Your 'casual glance' doesn't change that.

Now, I'll spell the simple rules of logic out for you:
-A constitution is a "system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution", or "the document in which such a system is recorded."
-The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe records a system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of the European Union
-The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe is, therefore, a constitution.

A constitutiuon shoud be readable for all.This one is made of interpretations

a constitution shoud be neutral,this one is not,it a rather a partisan one

therefore this treaty is not a constitution

Regard must be had to the issue of the single European currency, brought about by the argument of some Dutch European citizens who believe that one should vote no because of the weakened Dutch economy. This does not have much strength when one considers that the Netherlands, like the UK chose, had the chance not to involve itself in the single European currency.

French concerns over social justice vis a vis market liberalisation are more political in nature and have little to do with a binding legal document. The debate over the UK reservation to the Working Times Directive shows that the EU does concentrate on social justice issues.

One wonders why referenda were used in the first place. People either do not really realise what the Constitution does, or vote with national motivations that may not be reasonably related to the Constitution. If anyone takes the time to read Parts 1 and 2 of the EU Constitution, they will realise that the provisions relate to democratic participation, division of competences and human rights. These issues also relate to streamlining the EU to fit 25 (with more to come) member states. Though they may not be perfect, they are the core of this Constitutional Treaty.

Read it before you judge it: http://www.eu.int/constitution/en/lstoc3_en.htm

What about part 3?
is it here for nothing?

Knootoss you didn't read it,don't make a fool of yourself,you pretend to know it while you don't know about life(beside your own)...
What do you know about working to survive?
What do you know about illusion?
What do you know about superiority,when you are just learning it?
did you know kohn bendit was revolutionaire in 1968
What do you whant to proove?
no!really! it is not good enough for me,may be in the future but i think you are a dangerous liar and if you are not ,you have been brainwashed
_Allers
Ignorance is strength... actually, I have no idea what you are talking about nor do I particularly care. Give my regards to the late Kohn Bendit? (However he may be related to your, uhm, little story.)

A constitutiuon shoud be readable for all.This one is made of interpretations

a constitution shoud be neutral,this one is not,it a rather a partisan one

therefore this treaty is not a constitution
Lot of tricky concepts there, mate. As I pointed out, most constitutions are not easily understandable for all because they are legal documents. What exactly you mean by "neutrality" is not clear to me. I suppose you can disagree with the constitution on that basis, but it is still a system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of an institution. :rolleyes:

I'll just reply to Malbet Park because he actually makes a vague sort of sense...

Regard must be had to the issue of the single European currency, brought about by the argument of some Dutch European citizens who believe that one should vote no because of the weakened Dutch economy. This does not have much strength when one considers that the Netherlands, like the UK chose, had the chance not to involve itself in the single European currency.

French concerns over social justice vis a vis market liberalisation are more political in nature and have little to do with a binding legal document. The debate over the UK reservation to the Working Times Directive shows that the EU does concentrate on social justice issues.

One wonders why referenda were used in the first place. People either do not really realise what the Constitution does, or vote with national motivations that may not be reasonably related to the Constitution. If anyone takes the time to read Parts 1 and 2 of the EU Constitution, they will realise that the provisions relate to democratic participation, division of competences and human rights. These issues also relate to streamlining the EU to fit 25 (with more to come) member states. Though they may not be perfect, they are the core of this Constitutional Treaty.

Read it before you judge it: http://www.eu.int/constitution/en/lstoc3_en.htm

*nod* I can agree with much of what you say. Therefore I think putting the issue up for referendum was a bad idea. People will judge it on all sorts of standards, usually not inside the document itself.

I have been following the Dutch radio today (and a bit of TV but I really prefer radio) and the word "divide" was used more often then "referendum" or "constitution" because all the usual pundits were talking about was the supposed divide between voters and the government. (Its one of those key words here, like flip flopper in the US election, that are repeated ad nauseum by people who want to sound profound.) It leads me to believe that this is an issue about Dutch national identity and not about the merits of the constitutional treaty. The van Gogh and Fortuyn murders, not the rotating presidency was at vote here.

I will use small words then. Perhaps that will work.

Don't start condescending now. Otherwise, it'll get ugly really fast.

National constitutions and the EU constitution are just as difficult to read. The populous is equally ignorant of their content, especially because European nations tend not to treat their Constitutions like a secular version of the Bible. Your 'casual glance' doesn't change that.

My casual glance tells me that I can understand what is written. A constitution is supposed to be understandable. If it is not understandable then how on Earth is a nation supposed to get anything done? I guess someone here forgot that little piece of logic.

Now, I'll spell the simple rules of logic out for you:

*yawns* this should be good coming from someone who is politically ignorant!

-A constitution is a "system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution", or "the document in which such a system is recorded."

Correct however, if its unreadable to the average joe then how is the average joe supposed to understand it? A Constitution is nothing if the people of the Country don't understand it.

-The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe records a system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of the European Union

Oh brother. This has got to be the biggest piece of crap I think I've ever heard. Someone here needs to redefine what a treaty is! Just because something is a treaty DOES NOT make it a Constitution. There is a very big difference between a Treaty and a Constitution and I suggest you figure out what the difference is.

-The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe is, therefore, a constitution.

Look at the differences between a Treaty and a Constitution then get back to me.

A constitutiuon shoud be readable for all.This one is made of interpretations

a constitution shoud be neutral,this one is not,it a rather a partisan one

therefore this treaty is not a constitution

Perfect!

Thanks Allers. You said it better than I ever could!

Please. Do you really need me to get out the dictionary?
trea·ty
1. A formal agreement between two or more states, as in reference to terms of peace or trade.
2. The document in which such an agreement is set down.

con·sti·tu·tion
1. The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution.
2. The document in which such a system is recorded.
3. Constitution The fundamental law of the United States, framed in 1787, ratified in 1789, and variously amended since then.

A constitution doesn't have to be a multinational agreement, nor did I mention it in my little piece of logic :) Soccer clubs can have a constitution.

Therefore I am really not responding to the fact debates anymore. If you still insist on believing that a document which is, by definition, a constitution isn't a constitution then I really see no reason to waste my time with you. If you want to believe that trees with brown leaves are not trees, then feel free to do so. It is none of my concern.

---

I would suggest you extend your "casual glance", or at least extend similar glances to the EU constitution. You'll find many similarities, including that it is written in legalese. What matters is that the people who use the constitution understand it. Do you really and honestly believe that they would write an unusable constitution? (Or perhaps you are thinking that because you do not understand how it works, nobody will. Which is, well, amusing.)

For an EU agreement, this one is remarkably clear and easy to understand, doing away with the countless special conditions and little exception rules that existed in the thousands of pages of existing treaties ;)

Please. Do you really need me to get out the dictionary?
trea·ty
1. A formal agreement between two or more states, as in reference to terms of peace or trade.
2. The document in which such an agreement is set down.

Yep that's a treaty all right. Fits the so called EU Constitution to a T!

con·sti·tu·tion
1. The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution.
2. The document in which such a system is recorded.
3. Constitution The fundamental law of the United States, framed in 1787, ratified in 1789, and variously amended since then.

Yep! Definitely the definition for a Constitution. To bad it DOES NOT describe the EU Constitution.

A constitution doesn't have to be a multinational agreement, nor did I mention it in my little piece of logic :) I am really not responding to the fact debates anymore. If you still insist on believing that a document which is, by the definition of a constitution still isn't a constitution then I really see no reason to waste my time with you. If you want to believe that trees with brown leaves are not trees, then feel free to do so. It is none of my concern.

Considering that more than one person has come out and stated that this is not a Constitution kinda defeats what you've been saying. I know full well what a Constitution. I've read my own nation's constitution and I can understand every word of it. I've read parts of other Constitutions and I can understand theirs too. I've tried reading this one and you know what? I don't understand it.

If you don't want to debate it then you have no idea what the hell your talking about. You have not answered anyone's question on this because you don't have the answers for it. Instead you answers are condesending in tone and that irritates the hell out of me.


I would suggest you extend your "casual glance", or at least extend similar glances to the EU constitution. You'll find many similarities, including that it is written in legalese. What matters is that the people who use the constitution understand it. Do you really and honestly believe that they would write an unusable constitution? (Or perhaps you are thinking that because you do not understand how it works, nobody will. Which is, well, amusing.)

Knowing Europe? Yes I would expect that. Frankly, I'm glad its getting rejected. Something 400 pages full of treaties (which a Constitution CAN NOT HAVE) and legalese (something no one understands) is not worth the effort of getting it approved. We had a full general debate with ours and it wasn't the governors that approved it either but delegates sent by the people of their states to the constitutional convention. Can you tell me Europe did the same?

For an EU agreement, this one is remarkably clear and easy to understand, doing away with the countless special conditions and little exception rules that existed in the thousands of pages of existing treaties ;)

Well apparently no one told the people that since this thing has been rejected TWICE within 48 hours by TWO of its founding nations. That says something right there in my honest opinion.

What does the term "constitutional treaty" mean to you, hon?

"More then one person" having said something does not make it true. It is a Constitutution for the European Union, yet it isn't the constitution for a European state. What is so difficult for you to understand about that?

Why you claim to "understand" national constitutions but not this one is really a question for you to answer, not for me. Are the words too hard? Are you not familiar with the issues involved? Bad grammar? Or maybe you just don't like the idea of a European constitution to begin with. Hmmm?

I have been answering your questions (even the rather simplistic ones), so really you have nothing to complain about. If you think I am 'dodging' anything then maybe this is just because I am not feeding you the tacky lines you want to hear. Boohooh.

The Constitution was, in fact, written by the European Convention (http://european-convention.eu.int/) in which many societal groups participated. While not a spontanious gathering of random folk, everyone was able to participate if they wanted to. Of course this kind of thing gets ignored by the media, but one can hardly blame the EU for that *shrug*

Likewise, the rejection of the treaty both in France and the Netherlands has nothing whatsoever to do with the text or with the fact that you cannot understand it. That you prefer the status quo (the Nice treaty) says a lot about your selective reading skills because that particular document and its referring clauses are a disaster to wade through. (I had to study the Nice treaty some research so I speak with some experience. Its a maze of paperwork.)

Anyway, I am off to bed. Enough punditry for a day.

What does the term "constitutional treaty" mean to you, hon?

Hon? Oh brother

"More then one person" having said something does not make it true. It is a Constitutution for the European Union, yet it isn't the constitution for a European state. What is so difficult for you to understand about that?

Absolutely not a thing. However, this document doesn't deserve the word Constitution because its nothing but a bunch of Treaties. Treaties have NO PLACE in a constitution. It doesnt matter if its for a European state or not. What so difficult for you to understand about that?

Why you claim to "understand" national constitutions but not this one is really a question for you to answer, not for me. Are the words too hard? Are you not familiar with the issues involved? Bad grammar? Or maybe you just don't like the idea of a European constitution to begin with. Hmmm?

I don't mind a European Constitution. WHat I do have a problem with is 1)its lenght and 2) that it was done by people that no one in their own country knows. No wonder 2 founding nations have rejected it overwhelming. Not to mention people in Europe either do not understand it or that they want something that the Politicos that formed this document don't. Frankly, I go more with the latter than the former. As someone said about the Dutch vote, "They want more democracy and more say into what goes into a constitution"

I have been answering your questions (even the rather simplistic ones), so really you have nothing to complain about. If you think I am 'dodging' anything then maybe this is just because I am not feeding you the tacky lines you want to hear. Boohooh.

Apparently you haven't answered them because your answers have been wrong. You have dodged what I asked and then when you did answer it, you skirted it and gave me definitions when I already know the Definitions of BOTH WORDS.

The Constitution was, in fact, written by the European Convention (http://european-convention.eu.int/) in which many societal groups participated. While not a spontanious gathering of random folk, everyone was able to participate if they wanted to. Of course this kind of thing gets ignored by the media, but one can hardly blame the EU for that *shrug*

HAHAHAHA!!!!! It was done by rich people who their own nation doesn't know who they are.

Likewise, the rejection of the treaty both in France and the Netherlands has nothing whatsoever to do with the text or with the fact that you cannot understand it. That you prefer the status quo (the Nice treaty) says a lot about your selective reading skills because that particular document and its referring clauses are a disaster to wade through. (I had to study the Nice treaty some research so I speak with some experience. Its a maze of paperwork.)

Just like wading through the American Judiciary System is a pain in and of itself. Something that I"m going to do next semester. Heck, I'm also going to study international law. That should be an interesting class.

Anyway, I am off to bed. Enough punditry for a day.

Sleep tightly.

Knootoss you didn't read it,don't make a fool of yourself,you pretend to know it while you don't know about life(beside your own)...
What do you know about working to survive?
What do you know about illusion?
What do you know about superiority,when you are just learning it?
did you know kohn bendit was revolutionaire in 1968
what the fuck all that shit has to do with the referendums ???

and you are calling him a fool :gundge: