NationStates Jolt Archive

This week both the french and the dutch have rejected the EU constitution, and I'd like to get your opinions on why the peoples of these two nations are rejecting a union that could solidify their power for the next century on the world stage. Is there a downside that I'm not seeing? Are there issues that the constitution wasn't addressing?

For you Europeans out there, do you have an opinion on the EU, and why it has been rejected twice? Are there parts in the constitution that personally give you pause? Or is this a vote concerning the retention of local and regional autonomy and culture (less tangible reasons)?

This helps explain why the EU is failing and why the failure is good for Americans.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8065121/

It is not the only factor, but its a big contributor.
Others include problems with immigration and national soverignty issues. Though I might be wrong about the european nationalities really being concerned about ns issues. If I am then some European will correct me.
Also most Europeans don't want Brussels running things. If you ask me, having a glanced at some the laws passed by Brussels, I think the europeans are doing the right thing. Brussels seems to be trying to turn Europe into a modern day Soviet Union.

Again, if I am wrong, I am sure any europeans on this forum will correct my limited knowledge of european politics.

here goes, IMHO the vote against the EU constitution is a vote against what some people see as an emerging super state, and the Europeans do not want to see a multi polar world or a bipolar world and a new cold war. The former eastern bloc nations will probably vote "Da" "Oui" or "je" because they believe that voting for the EU constitution will make them closer to "Cafe Europa" than they are percieved.

PS Remeber 1984? East Asia is our enemy and has always been our enemy, and oceania?

I have never read 1984 though I here about often.

This helps explain why the EU is failing and why the failure is good for Americans.

Yes, because they need America's approval for everything. Everything must benefit America.

Sometimes I'm sorry to live in a country that's such a spoiled brat sometimes.

The former eastern bloc nations will probably vote "Da" "Oui" or "je" because they believe that voting for the EU constitution will make them closer to "Cafe Europa" than they are percieved.

Why after just now emerging from decades of foreign domination by Moscow would they vote themselves new masters in Brussels? I think they'll see the failure of liberal socialist models* in western europe and reject them for more free market democratic based systems closer to the US model.

* - Germany's collapsing pensions and crushing employment rates.
The Netherlands Islamic crisis as muslim immigrants grow more and more violent.
Sweden's cultural crisis under the weight of unchecked immigration.
France's collapsing economy most notable in the aborted 35 hour work week. Not to mention the weekly strikes.

The votes against EU constitution are not votes against EU. Most think that EU is a good thing but this referendum and the way issues are handled in the EU at the moment are not. The leaders are elite who are not listening to the people of EU. Many have been against latest reforms but there hasn't been any method to show it. Finally there was one and people showed that they are unhappy with the current policy.

It's true that many did not actually vote about the constitution but about many other things. Some say it's stupid but IMO if you never ask any approval by the people, the people will find the way to stop you. Now there should be an open discussion in every member country about in which direction the union should go.

+the constitution is very badly written. You can interpret it as you wish. What's the use of a constitution only lawyers can understand.

From what I have been hearing on National Public Radio and Fox News the vote against the constitution by France was more a vote against Chiraq (sp?) than anything else. Some also suggest that it was a vote by the people of the countryside against the Pariseans. It also doesn't help that the EU constitution is over 500 pages long and includes rules for mantaining the moral integrety of sports. It is a rather ridiculous document really.

This helps explain why the EU is failing and why the failure is good for Americans.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8065121/

It is not the only factor, but its a big contributor.
Others include problems with immigration and national soverignty issues. Though I might be wrong about the european nationalities really being concerned about ns issues. If I am then some European will correct me.
Also most Europeans don't want Brussels running things. If you ask me, having a glanced at some the laws passed by Brussels, I think the europeans are doing the right thing. Brussels seems to be trying to turn Europe into a modern day Soviet Union.

Again, if I am wrong, I am sure any europeans on this forum will correct my limited knowledge of european politics.
Failing? Good for America? EU has problems with it's economy because the euro is too strong. It would be better for us if dollar could get a bit stronger again.

I don't know which laws you mean but believe me, EU is not turning into modern day Soviet Union. It's going 180 degrees to the other direction and that's one of the biggest reason why France voted no.

Does that mean the European people's are looking for something more simple, maybe as simple as the US Constitution is?
Comparison I am making is the EU Proposed Constitution was somewhere around 300 something pages long and the US constitution is only a page long.
EU Constution written by elites and lawyers where as US Constitution was written by commoners using everyday language of their time.
I know its a simplistic comparison, just wondering what it is that the Europeans are looking for in a constitution.

Failing? Good for America? EU has problems with it's economy because the euro is too strong. It would be better for us if dollar could get a bit stronger again.

I don't know which laws you mean but believe me, EU is not turning into modern day Soviet Union. It's going 180 degrees to the other direction and that's one of the biggest reason why France voted no.
So does this mean the current french leadership is in trouble? What about the rest of the European governments?

Also, your statement about the Euro reminds me of the US dollar in the 80's.

From what I have been hearing on National Public Radio and Fox News the vote against the constitution by France was more a vote against Chiraq (sp?) than anything else. Some also suggest that it was a vote by the people of the countryside against the Pariseans. It also doesn't help that the EU constitution is over 500 pages long and includes rules for mantaining the moral integrety of sports. It is a rather ridiculous document really.
They keep saying that and there is some truth in it. But I wonder what they will be saying about Dutch now. Are Dutch also so stupid that they don't know what they were voting about? It's general discontent of the ruling elite. Rich voted yes, not so rich voted no.

Whittier--
EU Constution written by elites and lawyers where as US Constitution was written by commoners using everyday language of their time.

Not to be knitpicky but the US constitution was written by some rather elite fellows. Most were wealthy landowners and many were lawers and/or politicians. The problem with the EU constitution has to do with the fact that it deals with many incredibly trivial issues. The US constitution is very broad and deals primarily with how the goverment is to operate.

They keep saying that and there is some truth in it. But I wonder what they will be saying about Dutch now. Are Dutch also so stupid that they don't know what they were voting about? It's general discontent of the ruling elite. Rich voted yes, not so rich voted no.

The Dutch voted against it mainly for immigration reform I hear. The Moroccan immigrants are causing a LOT of trouble there.

So does this mean the current french leadership is in trouble? What about the rest of the European governments?

Also, your statement about the Euro reminds me of the US dollar in the 80's.
Yes, many governments are in trouble at the moment as if not all, at least the vast majority of them supported the constitution. (I realised I've written referendum all the time, I've meant the constitution....I'll correct those in a moment)

The French Prime minister has been changed (It's Villepin now). The Germans are going to get rid of the current leaders. Don't know about Netherlands but I'm quite sure there will be some changes too.

Does that mean the European people's are looking for something more simple, maybe as simple as the US Constitution is?
Comparison I am making is the EU Proposed Constitution was somewhere around 300 something pages long and the US constitution is only a page long.
EU Constution written by elites and lawyers where as US Constitution was written by commoners using everyday language of their time.
I know its a simplistic comparison, just wondering what it is that the Europeans are looking for in a constitution.
I guess so. I think it's pointless to write all those "all are equal" stuff once again as every single country has already signed similar promises. The language it self is not too complicated but it's too open for interpretations. In addition I have to say that I haven't read all of it, just parts of it.

Yes, many governments are in trouble at the moment as if not all, at least the vast majority of them supported the constitution. (I realised I've written referendum all the time, I've meant the constitution....I'll correct those in a moment)

The French Prime minister has been changed (It's Villepin now). The Germans are going to get rid of the current leaders. Don't know about Netherlands but I'm quite sure there will be some changes too.
Villepin's the guy who hates America?

The Dutch voted against it mainly for immigration reform I hear. The Moroccan immigrants are causing a LOT of trouble there.
Mainly? Wouldn't be so sure, but I do believe that it has had a big impact on it. EUians don't want to let Turkey, Ukraine etc in either. The last expansion was already too big and too fast. Romania and Bulgaria will become members in 2007 and that's too fast too. They are not ready.

Villepin's the guy who hates America?
Are there any French leaders who don't hate America? :D
He's the former interior minister. And yes, the guy who was propably the loudest opponent of US-Iraq war.

This week both the french and the dutch have rejected the EU constitution, and I'd like to get your opinions on why the peoples of these two nations are rejecting a union that could solidify their power for the next century on the world stage. Is there a downside that I'm not seeing? Are there issues that the constitution wasn't addressing?

from what i understand, the opposition is mainly fueled by either nationalism (for the le pen and ukip types) or opposition to the stupid neoliberalism being pushed in it (for the intelligent opponents).

from what i understand, the opposition is mainly fueled by either nationalism (for the le pen and ukip types) or opposition to the stupid neoliberalism being pushed in it (for the intelligent opponents).


In other words, the don't want to be United at all. :(

Sweden's cultural crisis under the weight of unchecked immigration.


I think you'll find Sweden's not in the EU, but trade with it so has to fall under it's regulations.

In France they Claimed it was to Anglo-Saxon (British), in the UK it's looked at as too Franco (French).

The Dutch had lots of issues with it. Like with the Euro, they didn't want it but got it.

Spain voted yes, maybe because they have had so much money out of Europe it's silly, but the no vote was still quite high.

I would like to see a greater Europe, but from what I've heard about it so far I would vote no, given the chance. I'm British.

To much goes on in Brussels that no one has a clue about. It's a document written by businessman. One of the main things that seams to come up allot is sovereignty and handing to much power over.

The thing that gets me is why the British Government is surprised that we will vote no, and we will vote no. I don't know what it's like in the rest of Europe, but in the UK you get politicians saying there going to fight Europe, on what ever reason. Therefore make them self's popular and Europe the (for want of a better words) Bad Guys. So now they want us to vote for something that we always seam to be fighting.

I think you'll find Sweden's not in the EU, but trade with it so has to fall under it's regulations.

Are you sure you don't mean Norway?

In other words, the don't want to be United at all. :(

well, maybe for some. but others like the idea of uniting - just not uniting to give even more power to the rich elite and continuing the global horror show of neoliberal policies.

well, maybe for some. but others like the idea of uniting - just not uniting to give even more power to the rich elite and continuing the global horror show of neoliberal policies.

Um, since when is a free market economy neoliberal? Neoliberal indicates a socialist money system.

Um, since when is a free market economy neoliberal? Neoliberal indicates a socialist money system.

since always - well, neoliberals call their policies 'free market' anyway.

and no, no it doesn't.

since always - well, neoliberals call their policies 'free market' anyway.

and no, no it doesn't.


They dislike social justice then? How sad.

They dislike social justice then? How sad.

¿qué?

¿qué?

Social justice = civil rights

To give you an inside scoop on the dutch voting...
1) A LOT of us voted against because they dislike Balkenende (Prime Minister) :headbang:

2) We weren't told anything, they asked us to vote and said because it would be good for the EU, the Economy... w/e. No facts about what would be in the damned document etc. Which is why I voted against.

Social justice = civil rights

that i know. i just can't figure out how what you said is related to what i said.

I think you'll find Sweden's not in the EU, but trade with it so has to fall under it's regulations.


You're British and don't know that Sweden is in EU... *shakes head*

that i know. i just can't figure out how what you said is related to what i said.


You said some were objecting to neoliberalism. Well, I looked it up and that's economic growth with an emphasis on social justice. Since I don't see why they would be against economic growth, I assumed they were against social justice.

You said some were objecting to neoliberalism. Well, I looked it up and that's economic growth with an emphasis on social justice. Since I don't see why they would be against economic growth, I assumed they were against social justice.

you lost a word somewhere. it'd be an emphasis on eliminating social justice.

You said some were objecting to neoliberalism. Well, I looked it up and that's economic growth with an emphasis on social justice. Since I don't see why they would be against economic growth, I assumed they were against social justice.
Heh, every system is "economic growth". From communism to liberalism. Europe is very socialistic compared to US (as you know..?)

So we actually are against economic growth because we have seen that it reduces the social justice we already have.

you lost a word somewhere. it'd be an emphasis on eliminating social justice.

How so? Last year, it was illegal to have gay sex in Romania. Now it's legal thanks to them wanting in the EU. It'll help stop the Orthodox Church control over some of the countries, and the Catholic church in the others.

How so? Last year, it was illegal to have gay sex in Romania. Now it's legal thanks to them wanting in the EU. It'll help stop the Orthodox Church control over some of the countries, and the Catholic church in the others.
Thanks to EU, not thanks to neoliberalism.

Orthodox Church control? Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

Thanks to EU, not thanks to neoliberalism.

Orthodox Church control? Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

Well, I hear that the Romanian Orthodox Church had/has great sway over laws in Romania. Maybe my source was telling me lies. It's quite possible.

from what i understand, the opposition is mainly fueled by either nationalism (for the le pen and ukip types) or opposition to the stupid neoliberalism being pushed in it (for the intelligent opponents).

*nods* Exactly. I voted no, as part of the latter category - i.e., against "ultralibéralisme", ultra-capitalism. Here in France, the no-vote was overwhelmingly for social reasons rather than for nationalistic reasons. I would also like to stress that rejecting the Constitution does not mean opposing the EU, or even opposing the idea of a Constitution - merely the content of this one.

*nods* Exactly. I voted no, as part of the latter category - i.e., against "ultralibéralisme", ultra-capitalism. Here in France, the no-vote was overwhelmingly for social reasons rather than for nationalistic reasons. I would also like to stress that rejecting the Constitution does not mean opposing the EU, or even opposing the idea of a Constitution - merely the content of this one.

I'd probably reject a 400odd page constitution too.

I'm just mad that the American news organizations are saying it's good because they think the EU is failing now. They want America as the only superpower out there, and I think it's really rude.

Well, I hear that the Romanian Orthodox Church had/has great sway over laws in Romania. Maybe my source was telling me lies. It's quite possible.
No, it's possible in Romania. Most east European countries had a short religious period after the fall of iron curtain. But Romania was a dictatorship and that may have caused a power vacuum in the country (after they kicked the old bastard out of the office) which may have led to a politically powerful church.

You're British and don't know that Sweden is in EU... *shakes head*

Sorry ihadn't realised they had joined. I'll pull my head out of a bucket.

Sorry ihadn't realised they had joined. I'll pull my head out of a bucket.
Now that's a good boy/girl. :D

Yep, they joined in 1995.

im english and i would vote no, to me it seems that europe meddels in my life too much, and i do not want more laws and more regulations set by people in brussles that have no clue as to what i want! At the mo the UK has a very strong currency and an economy that is doing far better than much of europe so why would we hand over control to people doing a worse job than ourselves?

Personally, I'd rather see the constitution fail another five times or so. It will get accepted in time, I've got no doubts there, but it has to be a document that a vast majority can agree on.
Therefore, I think it will end up being far smaller than it is now, but every word will be important and agreed on. In my opinion, it is extremely important to agree on the basics and let the specifications be added in time and when necessary.

The most important thing is, it has to be accessible to everybody (a 400 page legal book really isn't), it has to be discussed by everybody and it has to be agreed on by the population, not just a few government representatives.
If this takes a few years, so be it. The EU took 50 years to come to this point and it was successful so far. But it has become to burocratic and it will need to work on that. It has to listen not only to its member governments, but to its population...

I'd probably reject a 400odd page constitution too.

I'm just mad that the American news organizations are saying it's good because they think the EU is failing now. They want America as the only superpower out there, and I think it's really rude.

Agreed, but us Europeans are used to the American government and media establishment and it's nasty biased ways.

The Constitution needs to be reviewed, and altered and modified, made simpler, but not to the point that it would leave dangerous loopholes.

Anyone who thinks the US will be the sole superpower for much longer is wrong, because if it won't be the EU who will be a superpower as well, it will be China or India. Or all three of us and the US, if the US can indeed mantain it's global influence.

Well, I'm Luxembourgish, and I'm going to vote "Nee" on the referendum (10.07). here are some reasons why:

- One article forces the EU members to increase their military budget, but I don't think that that's the best way to protect freedom
- the BCE (european central bank) is controlled by no other organ and may therefore do whatever it thinks best
- the Constitution may not be changed unless each and every member of the EU agrees with it... it has no limit (no expiration date ;) ) and is therefore extremly difficult to modify
- social rights (minimum wage, limited working hours...) are not protected, but merely recognized
- in the case of war, what do you think the EU will do (after the const.) ? Try to end it? Seek help from the UNO? No, they'll just try to save the market (article III-131)
- public services will be privatized

- the BCE (european central bank) is controlled by no other organ and may therefore do whatever it thinks best


Well, yes, but that is the way that central banks are supposed to work, independently of any other authority. Imagine how horrible would be if the monetary policy was determined not by the laws of economy, but by politicians!

Well, I'm Luxembourgish, and I'm going to vote "Nee" on the referendum (10.07). here are some reasons why:

- One article forces the EU members to increase their military budget, but I don't think that that's the best way to protect freedom
- the BCE (european central bank) is controlled by no other organ and may therefore do whatever it thinks best
- the Constitution may not be changed unless each and every member of the EU agrees with it... it has no limit (no expiration date ;) ) and is therefore extremly difficult to modify
- social rights (minimum wage, limited working hours...) are not protected, but merely recognized
- in the case of war, what do you think the EU will do (after the const.) ? Try to end it? Seek help from the UNO? No, they'll just try to save the market (article III-131)
- public services will be privatized

Bravo. You're voting no for the same reasons I did.

*shakes your hand from across the French border* :)

The EU is no falling !!!

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=kleidemos

I don't normally reply to these posts, and I am guessing this question was posed by an American. Well I live in America, but was born and grew up in the UK. I lived there for 27 years before I moved to the states five years ago.

I guess the best analogy I could give you is, how would you feel if they decided to make a United America, which involved the entire continent including Canada and Mexico along with the Central American countries? How would you feel if Mexicans could freely walk into America and get jobs without any paperwork or difficulty (and it would be 100% legal)? How would you feel if the Canadian Dollar became the national currency?

The EU constitution and close ties within Europe is kind of like that. The UK is a pretty rich country as is France, Germany and Holland. These wealthy countries would be crippled by cheap labor from poor Eastern European countries. Then of course there is the whole concept of a country like France telling England what they can do. I'd not be any happier about that than a typical American would be if France told them what to do.

So that's my opinion on why people in Europe don't want this constitution. It's a lot different from the concept that created a United States.

I'm polish. The whole idea of the EU as a federalised superstate is a nonsense, an illusion of our european socialists. And its fall in its current form is assured, as wisely noticed Margaret Thatcher. The british economy works better than the rest of Europe beacuse it's less socialistic. When EU was working as a treaty which allowed several independent countries to have free internal trade in the area of EU, it worked best. And that's where the EU should have taken a halt.

It's the mechanism for approval that is causing the problem.

Imagine, if to pass a Constitutional Amendment in the US, it required a unanimous approval from all 50 states.

Right now, it only takes 3/4ths of the state legislatures to approve a US constitutional amendment. Which leaves the other potential 1/4 to eat it.

In the EU, they seem to want to make sure that it's unanimous - so that the little countries aren't given the shaft.

It's just going to take time to come up with something that makes EVERYONE comfortable saying yes.

(and all this from an American!)

I think what's misunderstood is that all the constitution does is consolidate the treaties to date, making no changes other than streamling the system and removing the beureacracy that the EU has long been plagued by. To answer the original question of why it was rejected by France and the Netherlands...
France, and particularly the Netherlands have sever issues with the resident muslim population integrating into society, the local people feel swamped culturally by the growing numbers of muslims in their respective countrys. Unfortunatley, it is as a result of this that the constitution seems to be failing, as the opposition have been pushing the idea that it does not include anything that would prevent Turkey from joining (which has a large muslim population).
The arguement behind not including something like this is that what we should be concerned with is the Human Rights records of applicant nations, not their creed. This is an ideology I strongly agree with, and am disappointed that instead of dealing with the immigration and integration problems of France and the Netherlands at a domestic level, the No decision cast by their populations has set European Integration back.
Disappointing, but that's Democracy!

Failing? Good for America? EU has problems with it's economy because the euro is too strong. It would be better for us if dollar could get a bit stronger again.

I don't know which laws you mean but believe me, EU is not turning into modern day Soviet Union. It's going 180 degrees to the other direction and that's one of the biggest reason why France voted no.


Not to strong it is just WAY overvalued and investors in the past few days have finally started to realise that.

I'd probably reject a 400odd page constitution too.

I'm just mad that the American news organizations are saying it's good because they think the EU is failing now. They want America as the only superpower out there, and I think it's really rude.


Well something like the EU was tried before in 1958 I think it was with 8 member nations. It failed miserably.

For me, as nee-voter, voted no mainly because off the following reason.

The democratic system in Europe (right now in particular, but most importantly also in the new constitution) is far less democratic and transparant than my country's democratic system. I will not hand over any powers to a system that can't protect my democratic rights. As soon as the European Parliament works properly (read: is not so corrupt, watches our interests instead of their own, doesn't waste money / slide in their own pockets) then, AND ONLY THEN, I will vote for this constitution.

By the way, the european parliament has quite some members that failed politicly in their own country.



You reap what you sow. Europe had it coming.

Well something like the EU was tried before in 1958 I think it was with 8 member nations. It failed miserably.

???????????????????????????

You mean the steel and coal pact? or what the hell are you talking about? Nothing failed miserably, EU was not formed, it evolved from other economic pacts...

It's the mechanism for approval that is causing the problem.

Imagine, if to pass a Constitutional Amendment in the US, it required a unanimous approval from all 50 states.

Right now, it only takes 3/4ths of the state legislatures to approve a US constitutional amendment. Which leaves the other potential 1/4 to eat it.

In the EU, they seem to want to make sure that it's unanimous - so that the little countries aren't given the shaft.

It's just going to take time to come up with something that makes EVERYONE comfortable saying yes.

(and all this from an American!)
That's actually an improper comparison unless you are referring to their amendment process.
When the US Constitution was ratified, each state did one at a time. It only required 69% of the colonies for the Constitution to go into effect and would only apply to the states that ratified it.
If I reading correctly, the EU constitution has to be ratified by all members of the EU.

I'm live in Britain and am very pro-EU, but I'm glad the French voted no - the Dutch vote didn't matter much after that. I hope ony Blair makes us vote on it, so it can draw out a lot of the poison that middle Britain has for Europe, so next time we can get a good constitution through.

The EU is moving too closely to the US/UK social model and that is very dangerous. The constitution was too difficult a document, which scares a lot of us incase there is some clause hidden away in it to undermine our freedoms, and no matter how much you read, unless you are a multi-lingual diplomat with degrees in British, French and International Law you will never understand it. I studied the EU as part of my degree and I couldn't have read it all and understood it all.

A simple three or Four page constitution outlining the direction of the Union, divisions of powers between nations and the institutions that will carry out the functions of the EU are all we require, everything else can happen at treaty level.

I think what's misunderstood is that all the constitution does is consolidate the treaties to date, making no changes other than streamling the system and removing the beureacracy that the EU has long been plagued by.

Actually quite a lot of people agree with that assesment - and consider it a reason to vote it down as a constitution. Call it a treaty and very few will care.

The EU constitution and close ties within Europe is kind of like that. The UK is a pretty rich country as is France, Germany and Holland. These wealthy countries would be crippled by cheap labor from poor Eastern European countries. Then of course there is the whole concept of a country like France telling England what they can do. I'd not be any happier about that than a typical American would be if France told them what to do.


This is already going on and voting no did not change things. Finns were scared that almost all Estonians would move to Finland as cheap labour, but surprise, it didn't happen. They don't want to move to another country. (Well...not to Finland...) There are some cheap labour in use in building sites but those are mostly illegal in the first place. French are worried about cheap labour from Poland but they can't stop it any more. They have already said yes to that when the new members joined.

The constitution would actually have made the decicion making in EU more democratic than what it is now by giving more power to the Parlament. But that's not enough, EU needs bigger changes, less bureaucracy and much more open democracy.

That's actually an improper comparison unless you are referring to their amendment process.
When the US Constitution was ratified, each state did one at a time. It only required 69% of the colonies for the Constitution to go into effect and would only apply to the states that ratified it.
If I reading correctly, the EU constitution has to be ratified by all members of the EU.

I was referring to the amendment process. In the US Constitution, an amendment is ratified if approved by 3/4ths of the state legislatures.

If you made the requirement 100 percent, nothing would EVER pass.

I'm live in Britain and am very pro-EU, but I'm glad the French voted no - the Dutch vote didn't matter much after that. I hope ony Blair makes us vote on it, so it can draw out a lot of the poison that middle Britain has for Europe, so next time we can get a good constitution through.

The EU is moving too closely to the US/UK social model and that is very dangerous. The constitution was too difficult a document, which scares a lot of us incase there is some clause hidden away in it to undermine our freedoms, and no matter how much you read, unless you are a multi-lingual diplomat with degrees in British, French and International Law you will never understand it. I studied the EU as part of my degree and I couldn't have read it all and understood it all.

A simple three or Four page constitution outlining the direction of the Union, divisions of powers between nations and the institutions that will carry out the functions of the EU are all we require, everything else can happen at treaty level.

The reason people vote against it is because its completely undemocratic and elitist and people don't get a say in how we're run. For example, Brussels recently wanted to pass the 48hour week on to Britain, a move which only idiot socialists of the lIb Dems and Labour could support. Most normal people can see how wrong it is. But, we don't get a say. Also, if we left the EU we'd stop having to give £30million a day so that french farmers can have their land checked once a year to decide whether its environmentally friendly. They then get paid a fee for simply having the land so that it doesn't kill too many badgers or larks. Oh the wonders of the murderous CAP. Also, the WTO wouldn't let us raise trade barriers against the EU if we leftso we wouldn't miss out of the free trade aspect. We should join EFTA to have free trade with the eu witohut the baggage. A recent study shows it costs nearly 4% Gdp for the UK mainly because of the CAP.

Yours sincerely, Kilroy

Europe is a place with a number of very patriotic countries who have a long history of power and of being at war with one another. The idea of the EU (yes, I am simplifying, but bear with me) is to unite Euorpe in many areas, especially economically and in its role on the world stage. These countries have had centuries of not trusting those lying [insert nation here] with their terrible food and [insert stereotype here]. They have had a long history of being the dominant power in the world, and it is not easy to admit that they need eachother to be relevent. I am suprised that it was only two countries that have rejected it. The EU will eventually come to be, it will just take a while. We will see the same problems when we globalize in fifty years time. It will happen, we just have to wait it out and put in the effort.

i refuse to vote yes for an organisation that is that undemocratic

i refuse to vote yes for an organisation that is that undemocratic

How excatly is EU undemocratic, and btw you are not voteing for and organisation but for the constitution.

How excatly is EU undemocratic, and btw you are not voteing for and organisation but for the constitution.
yes, you can vote for the MEPs, but thats not where the power lies.

The thing that would concern me about the EU is the structure seems to be one where national identity is secondary to creating a centralised structure. It almost seems as if Europe is trying to become one country instead of a rich collection of languages and cultures and ways of life that it is now.

France rejecting the European constitution could be chalked up to the French being whatever negative stereotype you want. To me, both France and the Netherlands rejecting it is an indication of a fundamental flaw in the system.

Another problem lies in the requirement for all 25 countries to vote aye. When the United States began ratifying the Constitution back in 1789, the U.S. needed nine out of 13 states to ratify it. It might have been a different story had it been 19 countries out of 25.