And here is the latest:
Makes you wonder what they would propose in exchange for the referendum? I certainly hope those government giths aren't planning on staying in the limbo by waiting for the new set of negotiations, but I fear the worst. Wouldn't that be a fine example of political cowardice? Not taking any position at all. Politicians, bah.

Dutch may cancel referendum if France votes no
06.04.2005 - 07:19 CET | By Mark Beunderman
The Netherlands is considering calling off its referendum on the EU constitution if the French poll on the treaty results in a "no", it has emerged.

According to Dutch press agency ANP, the cancelling of the referendum is one of the emergency scenarios currently under investigation by the Dutch cabinet in case the French reject the constitution.

The news emerged at a press briefing by the Dutch Foreign Ministry on Tuesday (5 April).

The Dutch poll on the new EU treaty is to be held on 1 June, just three days after the French referendum on 29 May.

On Tuesday, three more French surveys put the "no" camp ahead of the supporters of the constitution. This brings the total number of polls predicting a French "no" to nine over the past two weeks.

MPs against cancelling the poll

Dutch parliamentarians denounced the emergency scenario.

Labour MP Niesco Dubbelboer said that it is not up to the Dutch government to discuss the issue, as the referendum had been an initiative by the Parliament, not the cabinet.

The left-liberal MP and former MEP Lousewies van der Laan stated that "it would be useful to get to know the opinion of the Dutch people" even if the French were to say "no" to the Constitution.

"The government could take that into account during new negotiations [on the treaty]"

Ms Van der Laan also expressed her concern about the small interest displayed by the Dutch public over the Constitution.

Compared to France, the debate on the new EU charter in the Netherlands has so far been very limited.

[ 04-06-2005, 05:35 AM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

Good old French, this means it won't be us that gets the blame [img]smile.gif[/img]

I guess that means we have to reorganise the lynchmobs. Turns the ships around, people. :D Heh.. besides, I'm sure the British would have seen the light in time. ;)

Well I hope you all work together to keep this thing from getting ratified.

Well, the French are here to annoy the crap out of everyone else aren't they ?

Good job then. :D

The sheer existence of this thread, and the sheer contempt of its title, clearly indicate that, to the question of whether we want this text to become the Constitution of Europe, the answer must definitely be "NO".

For when someone is trying to ram a text down your throat instead of peacefully discuting its points shows with no doubt that this text is wrong.

I had started to write a much longer reply and it went down the drain of an Internet cut, so there.

Welcome to my world. :D

Don't feel so bad. At least when the French need to know there's someone hated worse than them, it's the US. ;)

<font color = lightgreen>I don't blame anyone for not wanting that "constitution". Anything that lengthy cannot be good for anyone involved. </font>

Ah Moraine, would it help if I re-named this thread 'Long live the British' and advertised against the constitution. :D Edit: oh, and I do apologize for the rather less then flattering tone I used. When you just spend the last week defending the Con. against the local department of Eurosceptics, the last bit of diplomacy quickly goes out of the window. Still, I'm sorry.

Azred: the reason the Constitution is so long is because is also contains modified versions of every EU-treaty from the last fifthy years.

[ 04-02-2005, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

<font color = lightgreen>So I have been reading lately. You realize, of course, that there is an inversely proportional relationship between the length of a constitution and its usefulness/efficacy. That is to say, the longer it is the worse it becomes, because constitutions are meant to be "living" documents that can be amended in the future if need be, not a listing of what to do in every conceiveable possibility. *shrug*

I'm not saying it's a bad document or a good one. Merely stating that the length alone should raise some red flags. </font>

Come on now Azred, you lived in Europe once... can't you leave us at least with a few good pointers from where we could start building our civilization ? :D

<font color = lightgreen>You're not going to let me live that down, are you? [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>

Heh.. aren't you aware that 'long is better' in Europe? If I want to tie my shoelaces, I need written permission from the government. ;) Anyway, this is what a EU blogger wrote about the size:

"I know, the text of the Constitution is way too long (more than 300 pages). True, the US Constitution is shorter - actually, only if you forget about the amendments and the 200 years of jurisprudence and of interpretation of the text.
The EU text is actually both a constitution per se and an international treaty: the EU is inventing something new, never done before. It is the result of the peaceful cooperation of a continent, something that the world has never seen before.
The national states will not disappear, hence the need of an international treaty. At the same time, an entity above these very nations is created and needs to be defined: this is where we need a constitution." (http://eu-constitution.typepad.com/e.../too_long.html)

[ 04-06-2005, 05:29 AM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

Yeah, splitting the atom of sovereignty has never been done before. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

To clarify:

http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/4th/991055P.html

[ 04-06-2005, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

True, it *is* called a constitutional treaty afterall. People just call it a constitution because it's shorter. [img]tongue.gif[/img]