France says no to Europe ... Netherlands to follow?

[wellard]

French voters have rejected the European Union's proposed constitution in Sunday's referendum, President Jacques Chirac has said.

The vote could deal a fatal blow to the constitution, which needs to be ratified by all 25 members states. Exit polls published just after voting ended put the "No" side at 55%.

-----

So far nine countries have formally endorsed the constitutional treaty.

Eight other national referendums are still to come, including one in the Netherlands on Wednesday, where the "No" side is also leading in the polls. The constitution was finalised last year after long and difficult negotiations among EU governments. The treaty includes the union's Charter of Fundamental Rights and establishes a foreign minister. Member states can ratify the document through a referendum or by parliamentary vote. Germany ratified it on Friday.


BBC news


At last some common sense from the common market [img]smile.gif[/img]

A United Europe may be a great ideal worth moving towards but the rushed speed that changes have been taken so far is leading to this backlash IMO. Why the need for such constitution changes so fast? Why not let a couple of generation go by letting people grow up with or get used to the Euro currency, common borders, European court decisions overturning national laws, a EU army and just the whole idea of one day joining into a United Europe? It just feels to me as though people are more fed up with being bullied by the pace of change rather than rejecting the actual concept of a united Europe.

Edit for the usual poor english abuse [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 05-29-2005, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: wellard ]

[dplax]

I was just about to post this, when I noticed your thread Wellard. I think it is probably the death blow to the Constitution in it's current form. It might be reformed to exclude the points due to which it did not pass now. Or it migh be disbanded totally the future shall show that.

I study in France and have been following the events somewhat closer than I would have had for other countries referendums. The sad thing is that I have heard from several people that one of the main reasons for this vote isn't the dissatisfaction with the Constitution, but with Chirac, the french president. IMO some of the french people voted against Chirac and not against the constitution.

[johnny]

Vive la France.

[mad=dog]

I am just glad that for once we aren't the ones who step out of the shadows and raise a hand in rejection of the entire ordeal.
I am liberal by heart. I am born and bred free enterprise. I love the idea of free and open markets, free trade and cross-border collaboration. I hope that within my lifespan we will see a free and united Europe - a true brotherhood. And I will vote a deafening NO on the 27th of September (Danish referendum).
Why? Because the very foundation of the current union contradicts every democratic value I hold dear. It is inefficiently run to the extreme. Beaurocracy like the world have never seen. I like the idea, but we simply have to start anew. An open modern expanding free market.
Unfortunately humans never learn. The current EU will probably have to crash and burn before we can replace it. Alas I allow myself to be hopeful. One thing is certain. I will never ever vote yes out of fear for the future. I have voted no so many times now with that theme and the world somehow keeps on turning.

EDIT: Typos

[ 05-29-2005, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: mad=dog ]

[Dreamer128]

I don't share your cynicism, MadDog, although I do agree that Europe could be run far more efficiently (have to admit though, I could probably say the same about most national government run institutions we have here [img]tongue.gif[/img] ). Which is why I'll be voting 'yes' in our own referendum next week. I think this Constitution would have gone a long way towards making the European Union more efficient and flexible. But now that France has reduced it to rubble, I think a Dutch-yes will also serve to improve our position on the bargaining table, when they decide which parts to salvage. Also, I don't agree that the EU is a bureaucracy. Heck, most medium to large sized Dutch cities have more employees then the European Commission.

[ 05-30-2005, 03:34 AM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by dplax: I study in France and have been following the events somewhat closer than I would have had for other countries referendums. The sad thing is that I have heard from several people that one of the main reasons for this vote isn't the dissatisfaction with the Constitution, but with Chirac, the french president. IMO some of the french people voted against Chirac and not against the constitution.

That's oh so painfully true, and it's something similar that is going to happen in the Netherlands. One of the most commonly cited reasons to vote 'no' over here is 'because they screwed us over with the Euro' or another wholly unrelated reason; or worse, people voting 'no' out of principle because they have absolutely no idea what the entire thing is about in the first place (not that anyone really does, of course ). I personally don't care all that much about this whole referendum thing, nor about its outcome, but some of the arguments against are just plain silly - even outweighing the blatant propaganda methods used by the Government to get people to vote 'yes'.

[Aragorn1]

Personally i think the EU shoud be an economic and not a political union. Additions such as the President and Foreign minister are not needed for this, an I beleive that the EU has been guided by people out of touch with the real desires of a significant part of the EU population. The problem with the constitution is that Europe has tried to move forwards without the EU deciding clearly in which direction it wants to move.

I do however recognise that with recent additions a new set of rules is needed, but these need to be better thought out an more in touch with the people. Perhaps Mad=Dog is right, in that the EU has changed so much from its begining that the book has to be torn up and written again, which may in fact produce a more workable Constitution.

The question now i what do we do? We have had a French no, with Likely Dutch and British nosto follow. Are we to modify the exosting document, or start it agian fromm scratch?

[ 05-30-2005, 05:15 AM: Message edited by: Aragorn1 ]

[mad=dog]

Ï am a cynic I will agree to that in a second. I may also be turning down something bad for something worse. That is perhaps my largest predicament. However I must insist that when you compare the size of the current EU administration you also take into account it's limited scope in the current form. It really only administrates a limited section of politics.
Decision-making is hard to make out properly. Which decisions are made by elected people? Which by people (at least) appointed by elected national governments? Which by permanent staff? The entire body has grown out of a 50'es model Coal-Steel union. The "Parliament" was founded in 1958. I guess the name was chosen percause it sounds good - anything resembling elections wasn't held until 1979.
I am not against the EU constitution because I think it is too far reaching. Actually I think it is not far reaching enough. However in order to approve the extended power to the EU I must also feel that they are competent to administrate this power. I simply don't.

They should concentrate a LOT of energy into making the administration as slim as possible. After all it is our new liberal model Europe. I am shaking my head at this mastodon in pity. Is outsourcing a foreign word to them? Or do they have to translate that into - what is it now - 20 languages before they can decide. THEN they should concentrate a LOT of energy into making every decision as democratic as possible and make this apparent to the population. Right now people are going "what is this directive?" in bewilderness. They need to go "I helped decide that!" in pride.
Now AFTER that they can go out and ask to expand the power base of the union. Not now. Not yet. At least if I have it my way.

I salute your decision to vote yes. There are many improovements on the bottom line. I am sure if we sat down at a café over a cup of coffee we would agree on a lot of issues. I do not wish to advice Dutchmen on the Dutch referendum. It is a national affair. However I will allow myself to point out that voting yes to "improve the Dutch position at the bargaining table, when they decide which parts to salvage" is equally cynical.

EDIT: Somehow I managed to call it the Iron-Steel union... After I finished laughing I decided to correct it to Coal-Steel [img]smile.gif[/img] .

[ 05-30-2005, 05:37 AM: Message edited by: mad=dog ]

[dplax]

I have to agree with Grojlach. Having not read fully the Constitution I can't judge whether it would have been good or bad but voting for other reasons than the Constitution being good or bad is ridiculous.

[ 05-30-2005, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: dplax ]

[philip]

...