It seems that French say no to EU Constitution.

[Turrican]

What do you think, european shmuppers? is this a good or bad sign for you?

I was hoping in the victory of "Oui", but that doesn't come as a surprise, Italians are known to be fervent supporters of the European union project.

[BulletMagnet]

Here in the US I've only heard inklings about this, but one of the big newspapers around here (New York Times) had a couple of editorials in it the other day, which maintained that the French would be wiser to vote against the new constitution...I'd have to read more to know the details, but I do remember that the paper accused the new constitution of not following the democratic model that it should, since those who made it up were not voted for, but "appointed" bureaucratically, and also said that the thing doesn't adequately address modern-day concerns or make itself clear enough in terms of what exactly it intends to do.

Again, that's just what I remember reading.

[Super Laydock]

"Vive la France!";

that was what I actually said upon hearing the news about the french "no!".

In about three days there's a similar "referendum" (poll) here in the Netherlands and from the mentioning of it I've been campaigning to everyone I know to say NO!

I am FOR Europe but against the constitution! I would be the first REAL step to a European "state" (read: country) and i do not like that thought.
I am in the first place Dutch! After that I am European and beyond that a world citizen.

US readers of this could read this as the fight against federalism (centralism) sometimes apparent in the US. Though everyone denies the constitution being a step up to " The United States of Europe" (USE, ), it would almost inevitably be the final outcome.

Arguments posted here are defenitely more emotional than rational, but it's the way I feel it!

[The n00b]

I think the whole EU constitution deal would be great for Europe. A real EU would instantly be a world power that would be able to rival the U.S., China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia in terms of world influence, economy, and military strength.

Of course the EU faces a much harder task than the states in the U.S. You've got big time egos like France, Germany, and the UK mixed in with smaller, U.S. sidekick of the week nations, like Poland and Lithuania. The whole thing could collapse when France, the unruly teenager of the bunch, decides to sit up in its room with its cellphone if it doesn't get its way. Basically, you gotta look out for the little guys while stroking France's ego without everyone getting in a huff and getting nationalistic on your ass. I'd really like to see it done though...

[dtdg]

This is strictly an European affair. So of course I can see the European media covering this like flies on a pile of sheibe. But the American media is also giving this the coverage it deserves, small-to-medium sized coverage.
But if you ask any American about this, Most of them will tell you that they don't give two sheibes about it. They have more important things to worry about like: Unemployment,The economy, and the war on terrorism and the culture war. That's why there's apathy among the Americans.
It is not a matter of "if", But "When". When the Europeans get their sheibe together, they might actually become an economic/military world power. Thus, it would actually wake the Americans up from the funk they're in because of the circumstances I've mentioned. But rememeber,
the european rivalries still exist, only in less bloodier circumstances.
There are other reasons for this,too. But the main reason why the French is because of their problems are not being addressed by their leaders or some sheibe like that,

No i'm not german, I'm of German descent in Missouri and I learned how to curse in german from my friend Colby

[raiden]

is "sheibe" supposed to be a German word? There is "Scheisse" meaning "shit" if that is what you meant.

[neorichieb1971]

Europe as one entity is a joke. Almost every country will have pre conditions which will automatically default them to isolation.


No country wants to do what is right, every country wants to do what is profitable. I prefer the fragmented Europe as it stands now. If there is a reason for them to join in matrimony they can opt for that when deemed necessary.

Just because your bigger does not mean your better, ask any Canadian.

[Zach Keene]

is "sheibe" supposed to be a German word? There is "Scheisse" meaning "shit" if that is what you meant.

I think "Scheiße" was what dtdg was going for, yes.

[chtimi-CLA]

the UE is governed by unelected officials. the european parliament is a joke. the central bank, the commission, ..., which of course are heavily and successfully lobbied by pro big business entities.
the french have said no to a constititution that enshrined those policies, even though all medias and big parties were in favor of the yes. the will to lock the system was obvious just from the length of the constitution (300 pages!)
i'm glad we rejected that shit.

[aurang]

http://www.archives.gov/national_archiv ... ution.html

Here, try our constitution and amendments. It's very good, written by some pretty darn smart guys, and heck, we're not using it anymore.

[D]

What really amuses me is that everyone in Holland is focussed on the yes and no. Brainashed by propaganda.

Whether you vote Yes or No. There is no telling what will happen.
Personally I'd vote No, because there are enough problems as is. but I choose not to vote because I am against the current so-called democracy. It's not real democracy.

I hereby ask all fellow dutchmen and women not to vote at all to show there is no confidence in the the government.

This is the ONLY way.

[Platypus[gEc]]

The belgian government decided to play it safe and not hold a poll. Yeah well....

Most people who vote "NO" on these things have legitimite gripes with the EU (too many rules, or too little rules, too much trade protection, too little trade protection... u get the point) and every now and then an opportunity comes along for these people to voice their gripes with the whole affair.

This time it's a constitution, so everyone that has a problem with the way the EU is organised or whatever decides to stand up and vote "NO". (u can also see this when the european elections are being held, where traditionally extreme right wing politicians who are against the EU get elected for european parliament).

The impact on the overall project will be non-existing and the EU will just continue to do whatever it is they do. Nothing can stop that evolution, it's too big for a couple of nations to stop it.

[magnum opus]

What really amuses me is that everyone in Holland is focussed on the yes and no. Brainashed by propaganda.

Whether you vote Yes or No. There is no telling what will happen.
Personally I'd vote No, because there are enough problems as is. but I choose not to vote because I am against the current so-called democracy. It's not real democracy.

I hereby ask all fellow dutchmen and women not to vote at all to show there is no confidence in the the government.

This is the ONLY way.

I believe americas current voting rate proves that not voting doesn't show shit about shit to anyone.

as for not voting because you're "against the current so-called democracy. It's not real democracy" , well you not voting just makes it even less so.

[Ghegs]

I believe americas current voting rate proves that not voting doesn't show shit about shit to anyone.

as for not voting because you're "against the current so-called democracy. It's not real democracy" , well you not voting just makes it even less so.

Aye. A slightly better idea would be to go vote but return an empty ticket, at least that tells that you are aware of the voting event (and possibly interested about the outcome) but chose not to enter it for whatever reason. If you don't go at all that's the same as either not knowing about it at all or not caring about the end result.

[Naiera]

Idiots like Jean-Marie Le Pen and Geert Wilders (Netherlands) have WAY too much influence on these elections. Even here in Denmark, our very own populist right-wing negro-hating party is using the argument of "A Yes to the Constitution is a Yes to Turkey in the EU", even though these things have NOTHING to do with each other (the same party that helped cause a No vote for the Euro in 2000. Dickheads. At least the current Yes side is still in front by a good margin, even though it doesn't seem to matter much now). These moronic politician's play on ignorance and fear of "them niggerz there" is ruining everything. Doesn't help that most french people who voted against the constitution essentially voted against Chirac, which is as moronic as anything.

Even though it's not very democratic, I wish they'd have just ratified the constitution in parliament. That way everyone would have been spared the problems we're now facing.

Bitch. Moron. Dickhead.

[D]

Aye. A slightly better idea would be to go vote but return an empty ticket, at least that tells that you are aware of the voting event (and possibly interested about the outcome) but chose not to enter it for whatever reason. If you don't go at all that's the same as either not knowing about it at all or not caring about the end result.

Good point. I should (I won't but I should) try and reach all citizens and indeed try to convince them to do the above.

People tend to disbelieve me though.

[Platypus[gEc]]

Idiots like Jean-Marie Le Pen and Geert Wilders (Netherlands) have WAY too much influence on these elections. Even here in Denmark, our very own populist right-wing negro-hating party is using the argument of "A Yes to the Constitution is a Yes to Turkey in the EU", even though these things have NOTHING to do with each other.

Agreed. It's a "NO" vote on the EU, or a "NO" vote against Chirac...

None of this has anything to do with the question at hand: the constitution...

[Super Laydock]

Idiots like Jean-Marie Le Pen and Geert Wilders (Netherlands) have WAY too much influence on these elections.

Like anyone with more than 1 braincell even takes the crap Wilders puts out serious.
Everyone knows the membership of the possible future membership of Europe isn't the issue in this vote.
Here in the Netherlands some Christian religious parties and even the Socialist Party are also campaigning for a no and they are quite the opposite of the things Wilders stands for!

The YES campaign have the same worthless arguments as some of the No campaigners by the way.
What about a (withdrawn after lots of critique) tv spot from the Euro fraction of a Dutch Liberal party:

It starts with tragic music and shows pictures of the Holocaust, mass graves in Bosnia and pictures of just after the Madrid bombing.....
Then this guys from the fraction appears and says: "Never Again"

How about that for try to scare people and abuse these past tragedies for something that has got nothing to with it. Like if we reject the constitution it is a blueprint for a simmilar human disaster.

Saying NO to the constution doesn´t neccessarily mean a vote against the rest of Europe!

[BulletMagnet]

It starts with tragic music and shows pictures of the Holocaust, mass graves in Bosnia and pictures of just after the Madrid bombing.....
Then this guys from the fraction appears and says: "Never Again"

How about that for try to scare people and abuse these past tragedies for something that has got nothing to with it. Like if we reject the constitution it is a blueprint for a simmilar human disaster.

Looks like the post 9-11-style campaign tactics from around here are gaining a foothold elsewhere...the sad part is, at least not long ago, they worked. Hopefully Europe's a bit less emotionally-driven than many of us are...

[sjewkestheloon]

to not vote is to not have an opinion as far as i can see. not voting in anything invalidates any complaint gained by a decision, as you personally chose not to involve yourself in the democratic process and cannot either way comment on the result. seems stupid to me.

however i have always believed that there should be a box on each election form with a section entitled abstain (sp?) to ensure that you are counted but do not agree either way. i think this would somewhat counter the ludicrous argument that pervades the uk that "noone is worth voting for". maybe then the politicians would guage the real voter appathy and also the level of contempt aimed at them.

as for the eu, damn it. i am english first, and british second, and i do not wish to have beurocrats from different countries deciding ridiculous rules that cannot apply to every country effectively. each ecconomy has developed individually, and to take away this individualism would trouble me somewhat. being a labour supporter, and a right-wing tory hater (damn racism and ecconomy destroying force) i support the possibility of a successful eu build that holds a certain amount of weight. i also look forward to what gordon brown suggests as he inevitably takes hold, but i'll reserve full judgement until more info is given on the specifics.

please take this as opinion and a view on the topic, not a wish to start a war on politics. i am interested in counter arguments however.

p.s. the same people who voted non voted for a racist right wing git... i am curious. did the enntire country rebel by not voting on that day???

[SheSaidDutch]

however i have always believed that there should be a box on each election form with a section entitled abstain (sp?) to ensure that you are counted but do not agree either way. i think this would somewhat counter the ludicrous argument that pervades the uk that "noone is worth voting for". maybe then the politicians would guage the real voter appathy and also the level of contempt aimed at them.

I agree on that point.

[Acid King]

US readers of this could read this as the fight against federalism (centralism) sometimes apparent in the US. Though everyone denies the constitution being a step up to " The United States of Europe" (USE, ), it would almost inevitably be the final outcome.

Federalism is not centralization. Federalism as it was originally conceived, gave states power to make their own laws and their own constitutions and to govern and regulate how they see fit. In America, we have the collapse of federalism, where the states have no rights, which can be seen, for example, in the way the feds cracked down on California's medical marijuana initiative.

[Super Laydock]

US readers of this could read this as the fight against federalism (centralism) sometimes apparent in the US. Though everyone denies the constitution being a step up to " The United States of Europe" (USE, ), it would almost inevitably be the final outcome.

Federalism is not centralization. Federalism as it was originally conceived, gave states power to make their own laws and their own constitutions and to govern and regulate how they see fit. In America, we have the collapse of federalism, where the states have no rights, which can be seen, for example, in the way the feds cracked down on California's medical marijuana initiative.

Yes you are correct!
I should have said (and actually meant): "the Federal Government".

The argument still stands though...

[Zhon]

I wonder how many of the voters read the actual constitution.

[Guardians Knight]

ahh Europe, what a totally pointless entity. Clearly the only people to benefit are big business and politicians.

Britain was sneaked into europe via the back door anyway by lying politicans who promised to ask the people if they wanted to join, but instead just signed us up and told everyone when it was too late.

Why we dont set up a former British commonwealth entity i dont know, surely that would mean hello to canada, nz, aus, indian subcontinent and most of the caribbean and some of africa?!

[system11]

I wonder how many of the voters read the actual constitution.

Almost none I'm sure. The poll isn't what people actually voted on. The French were saying no to the increased integration of Europe, and no to their (apparently) unpopular government.

Tony Bliar knows this, that's why he won't let us have a referendum - we will vote as much against his party as against Europe.

[aurang]

The way our constitution and amendments where supposed to have worked was the Federal Government was very limited in its powers, basically it could maintain a Navy, Government installations, provide arms and training for federal militia, raise an army for a limited time if need be, maintain roads and a postal system, Levy Taxes, enter into treaties, etc. The government's only real purpose was to defend the rights of Americans against foreign and domestic threats, and occasionally "provide for the general welfare".

The original "INDIVIDUAL bill of rights" and subsequent amendments ensured that the people's rights where important above all else, followed by the right of the states to make up their own laws and constitutions in areas where they didn't infringe on peoples rights or the very limited rights of the government.

The Bill of Rights was requested by George Mason and written by James Madison because they felt the current states and future states couldn't be trusted in maintaining all the rights of the people. So now if a State turned to tyranny, the federal government could muster the militia or raise an army to correct the situation.

I think the current situation in our country is due to the failure of our schools and the failure of people to take their own initiative in learning how our system of government works and what their rights are.

Right now if the congress and president want to make up a BS unconstitutional law and put it in the US code, they just do it. If the courts want to keep an unconstitutional law they just cite case law, if no case law exists they take the initiative and simply create a “precedent”. Ask the African-Americans, the Japanese-Americans, the Native Americans and a few other choice groups about how well the federal government has been at protecting their rights.

[Super Laydock]

I wonder how many of the voters read the actual constitution.

Or how many actually had enough free time to read it...
Many of the policy makers don't even know completely what the constitution says...it's TOO big to be fully comprehended by the casual person...