European constitution. Ya or Na?

[Andail]

It's definitely a hard question. I'm quite into politics, but I stand rather clueless when it comes to the constitution. The fact that both the communists and the extreme right seemed to unite in their big "non", makes it sort of hard to take a stand.

[Dowland]

But that's not a good answer! It's a reactionary answer, which is exactly what guided the choice of the French. Except that in their case, their bitter dislike of Chirac, or moreover the worse-and-worst choice of 2002 had them tilt the other way.

Hypothetically, I could say that I voted “non” to piss-off my pro-constitution father, and it would be received as a valid argument.

[Lucky]

If, by some accident, we actually get to vote for it, I'll vote 'no'. Only because no one seems to have the faintest idea of what the constitution actually means.

[Dowland]

Oh well that's an educated vote.

I imagine most British toddlers don't know where Cambodia is on a world map. Should we teach them to dismiss it as a country alltogether? Or explain to them that the clothes manufactured there and imported here, don't really exist and that it's all an Emperor's Clothes act?

Why not read the constitutionâ€"or if not the constitution, an annotated, commented version of it? (For instance, reading pro-constitution books and anti-constitution books, and making an opinion of your own.)

And if you can't be arsed, then you're giving a prime argument to those who say democracy is flawed because people aren't apt to make state decisions.

[SSH]

The problem with individual referenda is that too much gets lumped into one question, for example if the French asked:

1. Should we give Chirac the boot? Oui/Non
2. Should we in France keep all our special worker protection? Oui/Non
3. Don't you hate muslims, like those Turks? Oui/Non
4. Oh, and should we rationalise all these various EU treaties into one and a few other things with a constitution? Oui/Non

They would have got Oui, Oui, Oui, Oui!

[SSH]

I really do hope that the constitution is rejected and the EU can move back to just being a free trade area, which is what it was originally designed to be.

Actaully, this is a common theme through many countries anti-EU propoganda and is wrong. Part of the original idea of the EU was to encourage closer unity and understaning between european countries so that the like of WWII would never happen again. Remember that at the time the gap from WWII wsa about the same as it had been between wars. Interestingly in France, people who had lived through the wars generally voted "Oui" to the constitution.

Also, the constitution does not make the EU any more of a political union, so the whole point is irrelvant to the referendum anyway.

It's definitely a hard question. I'm quite into politics, but I stand rather clueless when it comes to the constitution. The fact that both the communists and the extreme right seemed to unite in their big "non", makes it sort of hard to take a stand.

Sound like a very good reason to vote for it: if extremists hate it...

[Mozesh]

Result from the Netherlands: NO!
With a majority of about 57% the Netherlands has rejected the European Constitution.

[skw]

Huh... I'm too young to take care of politics, so I don't have a clear opinion about EU Constitution.

Anyway...

A: Most European countries that accepted Euro as it's currency have their market prices doubled (for instance Germany has changed the pricecs from 1 DEM to 1 E- before change, DEM was about 1/2 of Euro).

Pack of ciggles goes as an example: In Poland you can buy it to the tune of around 5 złotych (on average) ~ 1,2 E. The European prices are higher of course, so after a few years we'll pay a price around 12 złotych ~ 3 E for a pack. Where's the point? I doubt, that the average wages 'll increase so much. So everything 'll be just expensive.

I were in Italy last month and I took the amount of 100 E for a week (+/-) ~ 400 złotych. I must say, that these 10 E for a day (some of that 100 E went for gasoline, some tickets etc.) is -certainly- too little to "live fine". For 400 złotych in Poland you can buy, for example a quite good cellphone, 100 liters of gasoline or some hardware, such as a printer.

A sandwich at gas-stations in Italy costs ~ 3 E. In Poland it's 12 złotych - a quite good dinner.

[Dowland]

That doesn't have so much to do with Europe, as it has to do with Poland being a poor country (compared to Italy). BTW, with 100 â,¬ you can buy a very nice cellphone here (with a subscription), or a very good printer. You can even buy a DVD player, as said before, and nowadays, a 16x DVD burner (for PC).

Also, the price of anything at a gas station is internationally recognized as being a rip-off.

I can buy a decent baguette sandwidtch, and a tuna salad, and a can of Coke for 10 â,¬.

[Las Naranjas]

On another note, this entire debate reminds me why I study Economics, since without fail, anything said in the political arena about the subject is charlatanry.

On a brief note, it's sorta scary about how some of the people who complain about inflation the most are it's main beneficieries. Historically, unless you're a parasite living off interest, it's hyperinflation or a supply shock [ala 1973 and subsequent decade], you'll end up with a higher real wage [real meaning adjusted for inflation].

If you want deflation you can lose your job and live in the park for the rest of your life like the Japanese unemployed.


But hey, Turks aren't European and I liked my pentecostal holiday, and I object to the vaguely worded economic ideas on the basis that they're "anglo saxon", NON!

[skw]

Well, we will live, we will see...

[Pumaman]

If you want something to impose limits to curtail the EU from turning into a "United States of Europe" (which is a rather paranoid thought, I think, but anyway...) then this would be the constitution to vote for. It clearly sets out what the EU is for and its limits at the start, essentially setting the status quo down in stone. If it comes to a vote here in the UK it'll get rejected, because it's from the EU, and people here don't have to read it to believe that it's all part of the plot to take over (even sensible people like CJ).

The reason I'd vote No to the constitution is because it would formally recognise the EU as being a "superstate" to the individual countries. Although it does also place limits on what the EU can do, which is a good thing, by adopting it the country would be seen to be "pro-EU" and would then find it impossible to leave.

What I really want is a referendum with four answers that go something like:
(A) Adopt the constitution
(B) Do not adopt the constitution and continue the EU as normal
(C) Downgrade the EU from a law-making body to a free trade area
(D) Get rid of the EU altogether

at least then people could honestly vote for the option that they believed in, rather than the constitution having to take all the flak.

At the end of the day, most people, myself included, see the EU as sucking up taxpayer's money, and giving little or nothing in return except for bizarre laws like the straight banana directive. Leaving the EU would free up billions and billions of pounds to be spent on schools and hospitals instead.

[Dowland]

... which is obviously why UK was not one of the founding countries. 


I actually love to tell the story of the beginnings of Europe. The first form of a European Union was the CECA, for “Communauté Européenne du Charbon et de l'Acier” (European Coal & Steel Community), project proposed to the French government by Robert Schuman.

The focus of this community, coal and steel, was not without meaning. Schuman was a clever man. A European community project would've never been accepted by the bulk of the French government, for mere diplomatic values. Schuman (and the others working on the project) thus presented it as a way to keep on tabs on Germany's weapon construction (coal and steel are the base materials for artillery).

When talking of European construction, this is very rarely reminded, and is how I illustrate the “only bring forth arguments serving your theory” advice.

Pumaman ... you overestimate the capacity of the people to understand anything. First of all, a referendum, is a yes/no question. If there's multiple choice answers, it's not a referendum. Again, perhaps Brits are cleverer (in your voting habits, I mean) ... but in France the referendum has long been a popularity vote (and I don't mean sarcastically--it's just that I've rarely, if ever seen a referendum that wasn't a popular vote).

That is one of the criticism done to De Gaulle--that he was the one to forge the popular the idea that, in referenda, you aren't being asked whether you agree to the question, but whether you agree with the person asking it. His spectacular resignation in 1969, following the rejection of one very unimportant referendum, gave the French bad habits.

Chirac, and it's obvious in the introductory pages of the constitution, made all the efforts in the world to dissociate himself from De Gaulle in that regard, and clearly explain that the French should express themselves on the Constitution rather than Chirac.

At the end of the day, most people, myself included, see the EU as sucking up taxpayer's money, and giving little or nothing in return

Well you're complaining that it doesn't do enough, but you're not willing to give it more power? I don't understand what you mean. Is it not illogical to say “I won't give power to the EU, because I doesn't have the power to do anything.”?

[Pumaman]

First of all, a referendum, is a yes/no question. If there's multiple choice answers, it's not a referendum. Again, perhaps Brits are cleverer (in your voting habits, I mean) ... but in France the referendum has long been a popularity vote (and I don't mean sarcastically--it's just that I've rarely, if ever seen a referendum that wasn't a popular vote).

That's the trouble, if a referendum is a yes/no answer, it is bound to become a popularity vote so that people can give the government a bloody nose. If on the other hand it had a few different answers as I indicated, rather than "yes/no", people would actually have to think about what they were voting for.

Well you're complaining that it doesn't do enough, but you're not willing to give it more power? I don't understand what you mean. Is it not illogical to say “I won't give power to the EU, because I doesn't have the power to do anything.”?

I'm not complaining that it doesn't do enough. I'm complaining that it sucks up billions of pounds of taxpayer's money, and it all seems to disappear down a black hole. If it doesn't have the power to do anything, what is it managing to do with all the cash??

[jaz]

This whole constitution thing is slowly turning into parody of some sort.

Over here in Czech Republic it's not even clear whether a referendum will be held or the Parliament will decide.

Anyway I think that in general the Constitution is a good thing because almost all its content and rules are actually here already but not that prominently displayed to eyes of the public but scattered over numerous EU treaties. Yes, the Constitution gives EU legal subjectivity and formal signs of a state but really nothing new is substantial.

So when the time comes (and if) I will vote yes... but I have a feeling that by that time it will be just flogging a dead horse since *THIS* Constitution is dead IMO.

[Dowland]

I'm not complaining that it doesn't do enough. I'm complaining that it sucks up billions of pounds of taxpayer's money, and it all seems to disappear down a black hole. If it doesn't have the power to do anything, what is it managing to do with all the cash??

I honestly can't say I have an answer for you on that one.

But it makes me laugh to see that, although this could be a valid argument, none of the French used it (simply because they're used to paying a LOT of taxes!!). 

BTW, from my (limited) trips to the UK ... I found that life there seems a bit costly. Was that just an impression?

[Las Naranjas]

The Pound is perennially over valued because of the use of inflation targeting by the reserve bank [they rise interest rates to stop inflation since they determine that as the main role of official interest rates] and subsequently demand amongst speculators and lenders for UK currency is always high, and the Pound is exchanged at a price which is higher than would be expected.

Thus, even if prices relative to UK wages remain low, they will appear expensive to foreigners, just like American goods appear very cheap to most countries now.

It's worth noting that the Big Mac Index has the Euro further overpriced however.

[Sinister]

I dont see too much into this whole France giving a big NON (mon-dieux!) to the EU Constitution, as many of you have said before, its just to piss-off the government. I mean many french people are pissed at Jack Chirac (or however you spell it).. because they believe that France is going towards a more english-oriented future, meaning that they opose English leadership.. if Tony Blair had kept his mouth shout and stopped saying that The EU Constitution was a big succes for England, then the French would have said Oui, to the damn thing.. (maybe im being a little simplistic..). But the point is that this isnt really a about The Constitution not being good for Europeans, no!!... its about European Politics and the fact that people dont know squat about what is going on, because simply put no-one really asked if they where ready to take the next step.

One day out-of-nowhere (for most Europeans who dont follow politics).. you have this proposal.. you dont know squat.. and all those who opose the government, get up and start screaming bloody-murder!!.. Who are you going to believe?.. The Ones who are making all the noise?.. or the ones who dont ask your permission to do something to your country?.. naturally you wont go and look up books and read the constitution, you'll just listen to the one whose making all the noise... why?

cause.. i truly belive this, individuals are smart.. they can understand and be reasoned with, but the masses are quite stupid.

i would vote NO, one the Constitution, why?... cause i want a joint effort, not just the top countries (England, France, Germany, Spain, Italy...) pushing something out so it can be passed. Im pro-constitution, but i want a resposible constitution that reponds to the needs of all europeans, not a constitution that holds me to a social-economic model being pushed by richer countries... that they themselves have huge differences.

[SSH]

i would vote NO, one the Constitution, why?... cause i want a joint effort, not just the top countries (England, France, Germany, Spain, Italy...) pushing something out so it can be passed. Im pro-constitution, but i want a resposible constitution that reponds to the needs of all europeans, not a constitution that holds me to a social-economic model being pushed by richer countries... that they themselves have huge differences.

The Constitution actually tends to take power away from any one country trying to force its own agenda, by changing the voting to a simple majority instead of qualified majority, which always let the big countries gang up and stop somethign they didn't like.

It's funny, every time I see someone say "I'd vote No on the constitution becuase ..." the reason is ALWAYS somethign that isn't in the constitution. I sat down and read the thing yesterday, and there's nothing in there that makes the EU worse. Really. Some of it isn't as good as I might hope, but compared to the existing treaties its better. For goodenss sake, it has a "Bill of Rights" for example. Are you telling em you don't want your human rights protected?

[Pumaman]

For goodenss sake, it has a "Bill of Rights" for example. Are you telling em you don't want your human rights protected?

I am when it means that a burglar who breaks into my home has more "rights" than I do. I am when it means that a teacher cannot control their class because the kids have the "right" to behave like assholes.

The whole Human Rights business has caused far more disrespect in society than anything I can remember.