it is getting rejected by everyone!

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/european_union

Enlighten us, O wise one. What is in the EU constitution that is making Europeans say "PU"? :brood:

I believe the French and Dutch were concerned with losing their distinct identity.

Also, in the case of the French, it was also because of internal political issues with the current goverment.

Enlighten us, O wise one. What is in the EU constitution that is making Europeans say "PU"? :brood:In short, it's a capitalist plot, and an effort to continue the process of creating a new superpower. :whip:

Fortunately, this time the governments and people-in-power hadn't been doing their homework properly, and for various reasons the unenlightened masses voted against it. :up:

What was the basis of the French 'no' campaign?

French opposition came from both the left and right, often on areas that have nothing to do with the constitution. The right rode a wave of opposition to the prospect of Turkey joining the EU. The left used anger about a commission proposal to allow the service industry to operate more freely in the single market to argue the constitution represents the triumph of Anglo-Saxon economic liberalism over a French-inspired "social Europe". There is a case that new voting procedures would make it harder for a country such as France to block reforms to the common agricultural policy and the EU economy, but the constitution does not in itself introduce reforms.

There were internal factors too. The French president, Jacques Chirac, has become increasingly unpopular since his election win three years ago. Many on the left only voted for him in the final round run-off to keep Jean-Marie Le Pen, the National Front leader, out of the Elys´e Palace.

As is often the case with politicians, there was also some opportunism involved. Laurent Fabius, the former prime minister who signed Maastricht - a cornerstone of the constitution - led a populist no campaign, in part to propel him to the 2007 presidential election.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,1482635,00.html

My vote for most hilarious thread title in quite some time. :lol:

I for one voted against it because it didn't do enough to make this Union a more perfect Union in the democratic sense. I mean, the European Parliament can't even draft legislation under the current proposal! The Council of Ministers (an assembly of the relevant ministers from each country) gets to make decisions regarding the collective security/defence policy (among others) without any direct checks whatsoever. To paraphrase this, how would you like it if the governors of the various states were able to make federal policy all by themselves? Also, how would you like it if Supreme Court judges had six year mandates that could be renewed?

Truth be told, many of the above is already true under the current arrangement; in that sense, this 'constitution' would have fixed some things and would have been worth voting for. For me, in the end, it was the word 'constitution' that did it. Had they called it 'The Treaty of <insert city>', I would've been all for it. In the case of a constitution, however, I felt the need to be much less accomodating.

The majority of Europeans have already voted FOR the EU constitution. It's only France and Holland who have rejected it.

The vast majority of French/Dutch who voted against the EU constitution are still very much pro-EU.

The EU constitution was supposed to be a 1 page document. Brussels beauracrats blew it up to a 400 page document. Perhaps the next draft will be true to the origins and be a one page document.

The vote in Holland and France is actually simply to maintain the 'status quo'.

The majority of Europeans have already voted FOR the EU constitution. It's only France and Holland who have rejected it.


I thought it had only been agreed by 9 countries out of 25 so far? Did I miss something?

Either way, it doesn't look as if we Brits will be having a referendum any time soon.

I thought it had only been agreed by 9 countries out of 25 so far? Did I miss something?



Where the ratification process stands

Rejected:
France: Referendum, May 29 2005
Netherlands: Referendum, June 1 2005

Ratified:
Lithuania: Parliament, November 11 2004
Hungary: Parliament, December 20 2004
Slovenia: Parliament, February 1 2005
Spain: Referendum, February 20 2005
Italy: Parliament, April 6 2005
Greece: Parliament, April 19 2005
Slovakia: Parliament, May 11 2005
Austria: Parliament, May 25 2005
Germany: Parliament, May 12/27 2005
Latvia: Parliament, June 1 2005

Yet to decide:
Luxembourg: Referendum, July 10 2005
Denmark: Referendum, September 27 2005
Portugal: Referendum, December 2005
Belgium: Parliament, June 2005
Estonia: Parliament, June 2005
Cyprus: Parliament, June 2005
Malta: Parliament, July 2005
Finland: Parliament, Autumn 2005
Sweden: Parliament, December 2005
Czech Republic: Referendum, mid-2006
Britain: Referendum, no date set
Ireland: Referendum, no date set
Poland: undecided

http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,1482635,00.html

I haven't actually read the constitution, but I would rather see Europe being an uneasy laliance between neighbouring countries, rather than seeing a huge empire of european nations.

10 then - I wasn't far off!

Word on the street is that the Uk might cancel their referendum

i saw chirac on tv talking with a group of young frenchmen.
he seemed to be talking down to them a lot, just telling them their fears are unfounded and that this has nothing to do with the new constitution. whats worse is that in the netherlands politicians were trying to say that without the constitution there will be a return the era of waring states in europe. the EU isn't a very democratic organization, this constitution allows decisions to be made more rapidly, like the old system of rome electing a dictator in times of war. I think there's a fear that if we don't say "no" now we'll be left out of decisions from here on.

look at that list and see that there's plenty that have ratified but only spain has ratified by referendum.