http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/05/12/afx2021698.html
"Germany's lower house of parliament today ratified the EU constitution with an overwhelming majority."
"*The treaty aims to set out a new framework for an enlarged European Union which last year opened its doors to 10 mostly former communist countries.
However, it needs to be ratified by all 25 member states to take effect.
Six countries have so far completed the process of ratification.
They are: Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia.*"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,2763,1482441,00.html
"German newspapers have been highly critical of the failure to hold a referendum, with a comment piece in today's Berliner Zeitung saying it "hindered an intensive debate about Europe and its goals"."
Has anyone actually read the constitution treaty in its entirety? I've read like 1/3...it's HUGE.
Opinions about the constitution in general welcome, I'm quite pro-EU and could use some abuse to refine my opinions.
Barely begun reading it. I will gripe though that it is too big. I can understand attempting to cover everything, but since the constitution would affect every citizen, every citizen should understand it. With such a whopper length, that's not happening any time soon.
Inflexibility is a possible problem. I cannot comment on that until I've finished reading it though.
This fellow has some gripes about it: http://blogger.xs4all.nl/steeph/category/7076.aspx?Show=All
I'll reserve judgement until I've finished it for myself, but if he's correct about certain attributes of the constitution, it won't be pretty.
I need the "EU Constitution for Dummies" version before I start reading it. ^^;
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=I0KMBOBDTUJQSCRBAELCFEY?type=topNews&storyID=8574751&pageNumber=1
okay let's see:
The constitution's supporters in France say it will help make decision-making easier, make Europe stronger and reinforce its economy.
That's vague...
Opponents say the constitution imposes an economic model on the EU which they regard as too liberal, does not protect workers and will drive companies out of well-established member states such as France to countries with lower wages and costs.
That's already happening anyway...
My score: 0-0
France rejects EU treaty
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-05-29T222756Z_01_L29320986_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-EU-FRANCE-DC.XML
"France overwhelmingly [56%] rejected the European Union's constitution in a referendum on Sunday"
>"France overwhelmingly [56%] rejected the European Union's constitution in a referendum on Sunday"
I guess I should hurry to my local EU-info to get a real-life copy before they permasage it. ; )
56% is "overwhelmingly" now? Well, if that was an absolute percentage of the voting population, maybe. But that's not it, right?
I've heard conspicuous 'rumors' around these parts that this 'EU' is equivalent to a 'Fourth Reich'.
..I disregard these rumors, however.
>>10
Well, since that '51%' in the Bush election was acclaimed as "overwhelming" by the US press, it makes sense that 56% is even more overwhelming. Logic from the absurd. :P
Actually, I believe they called it a "landslide victory", which has even less connection to reality.
Ok, the exact, final numbers:
No 54,87%
Yes 45,13%
Of interest: Paris, yes with 66%.
Large cities voted toward the yes
http://news.tf1.fr/news/europe/0,,3222528,00.html [French]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4592431.stm
Have Your Say
What does the French 'No' mean?
"something as important as a constitution shouldn't be almost 500 pages but a simple statement of ideals."
"A no vote means that in six months there will probably be another referendum. The EU leaders will keep asking the same question until they get the answer they want."
"The French no vote means that all the Euro politicians will go away and devise a way of proceeding anyway, ignoring the will of the people. The EU exists for the sole benefit of politicians, the cost is enormous and the waste, incompetence and still corruption is staggering."
"The French people say no to the EU constitution and already the politicians are saying it's really only a response to an unpopular French government. They just will not accept that the majority in Europe don't want a federal state or a president."
"The Constitution was pushed too quickly. There was no impetus to "unify" the continent, as Europe is still digesting all the economic unification enacted over the past decade."
"I based my [no] vote on reading the proposed European constitution that was mailed to me, and the comments of my family in France. All my relative say that since the Euro came into existence their standard of living has plummeted. The addition of all these recent under-developed countries to the European Union has created even higher unemployment as frontiers have been erased and all that cheap labour is free to wander to richer countries."
"I voted "non". For years corrupt politicians and lobbies have written self-serving treaties then had them approved by threatening World War III. People in France have repeatedly voted for the Europe of peace and were served the Europe of capitalism."
> "something as important as a constitution shouldn't be almost 500 pages but a simple statement of ideals."
I completely agree with this statement. It's true that general ideals make the legal playground rocky (witness the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms), but a sprawling mass like the proposed EU constitution is a guaranteed way to ensure people don't know what they're getting into. Beware the submarine.
I finished my legal studies two years ago, and I'm still having nightmares of analyzing case law where multi-billion dollar decisions were made based on the extremely finely nuanced meaning of a single word. When you're talking about such a significant and large document that's mostly specifics, and with all the complex interrelationships between clauses...
> "something as important as a constitution shouldn't be almost 500 pages but a simple statement of ideals."
About the above quote: one shouldn't forget that it is meant to replace several treaties, not just fill a void. I believe the primary thing it replaces is the Nice treaty, which I don't think anyone really thinks is above manure.
Why the people who made it felt like they had to make/call it a constitution is unclear to me.
Dutch voted No
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=810488
"Dutch voters overwhelmingly rejected the European Union constitution Wednesday, the prime minister said"
"An exit poll broadcast by state-financed NOS television said the constitution failed by a vote of 63 percent to 37 percent"
"Turnout was 62 percent, far exceeding even the most optimistic expectations"
http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-06-01-voa43.cfm
"The Netherlands has traditionally been a major champion of European integration. But Dutch voters have been unhappy with the direction the EU has been taking in recent years. Many think it has expanded too far and too fast. Most believe the introduction of the euro single currency has made their cost of living higher. Some also resent the distant pan-European bureaucracy in Brussels. But, above all, they appear to be furious that they were never consulted by the EU or their own government about the way the European project has changed their lives in recent years."
This is interesting considering NONE of these countries enforce voting. Thus, the only people who are at the ballot are those who give enough of a shit to vote, or feel they need to.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=8690290
"An Italian minister said on Friday the country should consider adopting its own currency again"
"Welfare Minister Roberto Maroni, from the euro-skeptical Northern League party, said Italy should hold a referendum on whether to revert to the lira currency it abandoned when 12 nations started to use euro notes and coins in 2002."
"The euro "has proved inadequate in the face of the economic slowdown, the loss of competitiveness and the job crisis," Maroni told the daily La Repubblica"
"[But] Analysts say outside the single currency Italy would have far higher interest rates and debt-servicing costs which would swell the budget deficit and possibly cause a financial crisis."
""Maybe it would have been better not to join monetary union, but now it's too late ... the real problem of the euro is the shameful monetary policy of the ECB [European Central Bank]." [said] Guido Crosetto, an economic spokesman for Berlusconi's Forza Italia (Go Italy) party"
The fourth reich has been postponed.
IIRC, some people were claiming that the constitution would extend Germany's power, thus making the Fourth Reich.
Maybe Alexander can clarify.
Not so much extending as solidifying. One must keep in mind that Germany has been, next to France, been the major driving force, economically as well as politically, behind the EU, and that the European Constitution is barely more than just a unified codification of already existing European laws.
I'm sure they're referring to the total outlawing of the death penalty mentioned in the constitution treaty. There are many other fourth reich things in there too!
No, I can't take any ideas about Germany making the EU totalitarian seriously. Sorry.
Holy Roman Empireget?