So, especially for all Europeans around here, do you have a "referendum" or whatever to decide about it, and how would you vote?
The Dutch government really tries to push it down our throats, using commercials, ads, newspapers and booklets that remind me more of communist propaganda than anything else (not to say anything bad about communists, but you get the idea).
They've also already said that if there isn't enough of a lead for the against-voters, they'll still push it through. (what exactly "enough of a lead" is, they don't say)
I'm beginning to doubt the need for a referendum, since they'll go ahead anyway, no matter how the vote goes.
I'll still vote against, though.

Popular vote about single issues doesn't exist in our constitution, so we aren't asked at all. All parties represented in parliament are in favour of the constitution, so it'll be accepted. There is no opposition.

That's actually very, very sad, because according to polls, the majority of the people here are against this constitution, and nobody even considers representing these people in parliament. The parties don't even try to convince people how this constitution is a good thing - they'd rather not talk about it at all. The only ones saying anything against it publically are nationalist parties.

Personally, I'd vote for the constitution. It has many flaws and it's one huge compromise, but on the whole, it's a change for the better. At least a little more 'democracy' (giving more power to the European parliament).

In spite of me being in favour of it and being sure that a popular vote here would prevent it at the same time, I'm extremely pissed off about how our parties are acting. This is a matter which does concern everyone, and deciding 'above our heads' is the worst way to go.

Ah, so it's not only the Dutch government that does that. Our "prime minister" even had small cards containing the advantages issued out to all ministers, to just repeat until everybody believes it.

At least here, we get a chance to speak out(and be ignored, but...)

IMO, the European Union started out well, but has since gained too many members that can't really contribute economically. Far from being a "power block", it's going fast towards another form of aid to poorer countries. Not that giving aid is a bad thing, but we can do that easier (and cheaper, so they get more) without a union. Plus, from a Dutch standpoint, we lose more than we get:

-per person, we pay the most to the EU
-we get very few subsidies, most now go to the poorer countries (not that they don't use them well, but it's not the reason it was started)
-last month it was proved that we lost over 10% of our money in the guilder-euro conversion, our minister for economics allowed it (secretly) because he thought it would be "good for the export" which didn't put anything back into our pockets.
-many EU legislations now supersede our own, and the constitution will remove even more of our sovereignty (no more veto's, for example)
-we're just a small country, so our EU votes don't make much difference to the grand total.
That means many laws will be pushed down our throats because we're powerless to stop them anyway. And our laws(think drug use, for instance, or environment, or lab animal rights) are a bit different from those in other European countries.

On the whole, I'm fine with the idea of a united Europe, but not like this. Too many countries to be called a union, and that's not even counting Turkey yet, where torture is still practiced.

Things I think that should be different:

-Less countries in it, and those that can contribute only.
-Equal distribution of subsidies
-Payment to union per capita
-Equal representation of countries in a european parliament
-no more wasting money by travelling between Brussels and Strassbourg(sp?)
etc. etc. etc.

I'm in France most of the time, and plan to move there for good as soon as I can afford it. I hope they vote no, and then elect Sarkozy as their next president...

If I understand correctly, the current malaise in both France and Germany is a result of long reigns of the opposing parties (the socialists in France, the Christian Democrats in Germany), and most acutely the spending policies of same. People tend to have short memories, therefore it's hard for Red/Green in Germany and the Centrist/Moderate Right in France to look good right now.

But before Schengen, Maastricht, and the EUR, most people I know were doing all right. I base that on personal experience in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, and Holland, so I'm not talking about an isolated pocket of locals somewhere. I won't start about the influx of all things east-"european" here, but whichever way you turn it, both the botched EU attitude toward the Yugoslavia conflicts and the current bigger=better policy has brought disaster for the regular Joe.

Since then, prices have increased by ~30%, but salaries didn't follow, and jobs disappeared or were relocated to the east. Criminal organisations great and small no longer have any trouble moving their business about and are now everywhere. Cultural differences are being levelled instead of integrated, and inane EU rules and regulations are messing with the last few entrepreneurial opportunities that still existed in the west.

So if that's Europe, thanks but no thanks. I'm hoping french chauvinism and pluck will cause them to ditch the whole idea in the end, and go it alone. That's not such a bad position to be in, historically speaking.

Just so's you don't get the wrong idea: I have no money; I far prefer people like Fischer to Merkel and Sarkozy to Jospin; I've only voted once in my life (to send Thatcher to hell, didn't work); and I despise most politicians and petty party differences. If someone seems intelligent and sincere, I'll vote for him/her. Hope that happens before I'm dead.

Sadly I had to vote "What's that?"... Politics on the European level are way over my head and I think they are for a lot of people here (Belgium). The issue is largely overshadowed by our ever so ridiculous national politics. I think there's currently a vote going on about whether or not we should have the referendum, and most parties are against for no other reason than because the extreme right are all for it.

That's about all I know, I have no idea what this European constitution stands for or what it would change.

Johann67: Sorry, but that's exactly the kinds of argument which just don't count for me. Everything you're saying is based purely on egoism. Just look at one of your own points: Eh? You're actually saying it would be fair for a country with 5 million citizens to have the same votes as one with 100 million? Some equality you're proposing there. And that's exactly one of the points which would be improved with the constitution: giving more weight to the population.

All of your points could as well be made against the Dutch nation as well. After all, your home city is small compared to the overall population, too, so your city's 'voice' isn't heard enough, isn't it? Also, subsidies are shuffled from one are to the other - perfect reason to scrap the country! And so on and so on.

There are many reasons to critisize the EU, like overblown bureaucracy, concentration on economy over politics and non-democratic structures, but what you're bringing up isn't even really about the EU...

Edited by Mr Creosote at 23:50 on May, 24th 2005

The Mole really sums it up for me, although I have a vague notice of whats in the European constitution.

I guess that as long as we are looking at how many votes a country gets we are on the wrong track. As soon as we see the EU as our country things will be getting better.

I'm not saying we should lose our identity but we should start thinking out of the box and really work together.

Yes, they are egoistical points. I'm not thinking of the good of Europe here, true. Why not?
Let me try to explain it this way.
Why do people do things?
1) because they think they benefit from them
2) because they think someone or something they care about benefits from them

(Doing things "because you like it" falls in the first category, because doing things you like makes you feel good, which means you benefit from it.)

Why is the Netherlands not just a bunch of independent city-states? Because all those cities benefit from a central government to have almost the same rules, divide cash, build infrastructure, catch criminals moving from one city to the next, etc. This centralised form of government has benefited the cities in it(no matter if I think the current prime minister is a complete idiot).

How does the European constitution benefit us?

-the argument about "it prevents a war" is complete nonsense.
-it helps catch criminals.
-it may help stop illegal immigration.
-it may finally give a fishing-law where there's actually a chance that some fish don't die out(but I doubt it).

How does it do neither benefit nor hinder us?
-it makes the EU more powerful
-it clearly defines what the EU's jurisdiction is and what the nation's jurisdiction is
-it adds social rights to the constitution

How does it hinder us?
-see my previous post
-it takes away our veto-rights
-it surpasses our own constitution, so if that needs to be changed, the people here will have less power to do so.
-it partially centralises environmental and energy policies, and since for instance Poland is still dependant on coal for factories, that won't really benefit us.

how does the EU benefit us?
-it's supposed to make Europe into an "answer to America in power". Might be useful if you see how our PM grovels before the American president.

How does it hinder us?
-See previous post

I agree with Breaker when he said "As soon as we see the EU as our country things will be getting better." True. But that won't be happening soon. The cultural differences are immense. We're not like the US, where most states don't differ much from each other. Do you feel European yet? Most people (at least here) feel themselves as part of the nation, but not the union. There aren't even pan-European political parties.

So, back to the top of this post(it's getting a bit long, I'm afraid) Why should we agree? Why do the benefits weigh up to the costs?
I've not seen a satisfactory explanation to that question anywhere yet, government-provided info or otherwise.

Equal representation of countries I mentioned was a point for in an <i>otherwise beneficial</i> union: representation per amount of population and no veto rights at all, because they only slow down everything. I admit I put it in the wrong place.

The other point, which, I must sadly admit, also does influence me on this point is the way in which the government pushes it on us. Not that I wouldn't have reached the same conclusion if they hadn't, but sadly it does push my mind in a particular direction. I know it shouldn't, but it does.

By the way, long time since we had a heavy discussion here. Nice!

Eh? Sorry, but I don't see these 'immense differences'. Especially compared to the US, where south still differs a lot from north and east from west. Again, by the same argument, we'd have to split up Germany, especially from the political point of view. Looking at the outcome of the last general elections (2002), the split was pretty much north vs. south.

No, I don't feel European, but I also don't feel German. I couldn't give a shit about nationalities, but realistically, I figure nations won't be abolished any time soon, so anything which reduces the number of these abominations and gets more people on the same level is good.

See what I wrote above. It's a political question for me. Your arguments are mainly based on economic questions, but as I see this constitution, it's really about getting the EU away from being a purely economic union (which it undoubtly is) towards a political one (which it should be). Just a small step, I admit, but better than nothing.

Johann, all the problems that you criticize will persist and probably get worse if the constitution won't be accepted. In case of a "No", the Nice treaty will remain the fundament of the EU. However, the Nice treaty is not a solution in the long run. It is screwed up in large parts; it means less democracy and more complicated and intransparent legislative procedures. The constitution improves many of the current problems. You should consider that a "No" to the constitution is a "Yes" for the Nice treaty, and I doubt that this is what you want.

This is the reason why I would probably vote for this constitution if there was a referendum, even though I know little of its contents. Emphasizing similarities instead of differences is always a good thing...

Which level do you mean? I think that what's ahead socially, is a continuation of the usual bickering and infighting under slightly different flags (figuratively speaking), that's all. Business as usual on a bigger playground.

And the economy is the key, really. It's all about the money. None of those people at the top are thinking of you and me. Shell, Krupp-Thyssen, Renault, etc. have 'liaison' officers at the Commission. Do you? And even if you did, whom would they listen to?

On the socio-political level, it never worked in the States either - contrary to the myth of the melting pot - even though they had the benefits of unified legislation, shared language, and an incredible economic impetus that should have catalysed integration.

Johann's position reflects that of a very large part of the EU population. As long as that many people are against it, they shouldn't force the issue. You can't even get neighbours to talk to eachother these days. So how long would it take for a European identity to establish itself?

Edited by ardell at 22:32 on May, 26th 2005

What I said about economic vs. political union came from a little different angle. Our governments only care about giving tax breaks to huge corporations, that's true. However, I've accepted that as being inherent in the system ("Now you see the violence inherent in the system!" ) a long time ago.

However, comparing the EU as it is now with what it would (could) be like with such a constitution, it's a night/day difference. The EU and its predecessors were established as pure economic unions, and that still shows. The constitution strengthens the political branch, on the other hand, and that is why I still see it as a step into the right direction in spite of all flaws.

Edited by Mr Creosote at 15:47 on May, 27th 2005

Like I said, ideally (for me) it would all revert back to the pre-Schengen days, or even 1985.

But I realise that that's virtually impossible, and hope that your (Creosote's) optimism is justified.

update: the French voted against.

Tapuak: they'll probably just change the constitution. There's no way that it'll be blown off now. Too many politicians want it.
I agree that the Nice treaty isn't good. However, I'll not vote for any constitution that I can't agree with even a little.

Mr Creosote: I still don't see the benefit from the constitution. It's true that the political side gets a little bit more attention. But still the constitution has so many flaws that it will not be any better. In fact, I think it will get worse. I'd love to be optimistic about it, but as it is now, I can't. Maybe another constitution, but not this one.

Well, I guess that was it then. They won't try again soon.

Oh, they will.
It's not like politicians to let their wishes be countered.

Well, I doubt it. Anyway, what I'd be interested in (but what's totally impossible to determine) is why the French rejected the constitution. Especially whether it really was about this constitution (i.e. how many actually knew it) or about showing a general opposition against their government...

Let's take a look at the facts then: http://europa.eu.int/constitution/

I've read the constitution, and in my opinion it is even better than I expected. It strengthens the position of the parliament by providing it with the right to initiate a legislative process, making the institutional framework more similar to the one of a "ordinary" state with a representative system. Still, the Council is too powerful, but from the institutional persepective, it's a good foundation to start with.

However, if the constitution fails, the people won't be able to influence politics in Brussels. EU politics will remain undemocratic and uncontrolled for many years. Thanks to the people who refused the constitution, the citizens won't be asked again about EU politics. Instead, the work will continue as we know it: in the elitist way.

To the ones who'd vote no: What parts (contents) of the constitution do you concretely disagree with?

Edited by Tapuak at 16:09 on May, 30th 2005

Difficult question. There is no "European public" yet - that's why the discourses take place on the national level. Because of that, it is very likely that national issues played a decisive role, but not exclusively. Also, you can be sure that most voters didn't know the contents of the constitution, and out of the few who actually read it, many are not able to judge its quality (i.e. formulate a decision that is explicitly based on contents rather than feelings). A good reason for being sceptical about the plebiscite hysteria.

I'll keep my eyes open; maybe there will be a serious anylysis in some months.