[Vote] What will happen with the E.U. Constitution?

[Menydh]

What do you think that will finally happen with the E.U. Constitution after all the referenda?

Please, reason your vote and comment.

sine die: "without a date", until further notice

[Carnyx]

Seeing that they just can control governements but not people, they will accelerate the destruction processus of european population by opening widely borders. Juridically we're still a part of E.U. A conspiracy is a conspiracy, they won't stop their attacks.

" It should not remain any more place in Europe for non mongrelized people. "

edit : .. ammend it with some cosmetic changes and force it no matter the results of the referenda

[Menydh]

Highly unlikely, even for such rats. But anyway, that should be option #7 (other).

[Aeternitas]

I voted:

.. ammend it with some cosmetic changes and force it no matter the results of the referenda

Rats indeed. Too much fuss has been made about this constitution, so they will not give up and let it go that easily IMO. Eventhough a desintegration of the EU would be ideal, I don't see it coming just now. Perhaps it's too early to tell.

[Milesian]

They will make cosmetic changes and keep pushing it in one form or another.
They might keep calling a refferendum but they will just keep persisting until they can change opinion enough or it gets through from voter apathy, whatever.

They have an agenda, and something like Democracy isn't going to deter them.
Democracy is just an illusion they like to flaunt when it suits them or justifies their acts. At all other times it is just a minor irritant that is easily ignored or circumvented.

[Menydh]

One thing is for sure. They are in a blind alley and whichever move the do next will be a desperate one.

[Menydh]

Apparently we are not the only ones speculating on some probabilities..

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish prime minister, said yesterday he wanted a clear signal that France would not try to renegotiate the treaty, to make it more protective of its social model. "If we are going to move ahead [with the referendum] it will be about the treaty as we know it today and nothing else."

This bit is interesting too, and in my opinion it shows a big gap divide in the E.U.:

The UK government believed there were distinct differences in Dutch and French opposition to the European Union constitutional treaty that pointed to a deep schism in Europe, diplomats in the Hague said yesterday. That difference would prove decisive in determining whether Britain called off plans for a referendum on the treaty next year, said one diplomat. "The Netherlands is not another France," he said. "The Netherlands follows the British view on things like economic reform, and is generally pro-Atlanticist."

In fact France is known to use E.U. issues to reflect their internal issues. The 'non' vote is said to be a punish vote to Chirac for France's current situation. The other camp is pro-Atlanticist (i.e. pro-American, or Anglo-American) Britain, supported by The Netherlands. There is, of course, a third variable into this impossible to solve equation.

http://forum.stirpes.net/showthread....ed=1#post43098

[Aeternitas]

Actually the Internet is full of articles dealing with this subject or similar ones.

From BBC:

Hundreds of debates have been organised in town halls and coffee-houses across the country to mark the first referendum in the Netherlands for more than 200 years. "It's the first time for decades that Europe is being debated. We have had 50 years of integration by stealth, and now it's over," says Richard Wouters of the Green Left party, after a debate in Amsterdam's Royal Dutch Shipping (KHL) coffee-house.

This is the third debate he has taken part in, as a member of the panel, and he has the feeling that Dutch voters will not allow Europe to slip off the political agenda again.

From The Independent:

What is the EU's future?
By Stephen Castle
31 May 2005

Is this the end of Europe?

No, but it marks a halt to further European integration, at least for the time being. No one pretends the constitution is a perfect document, but it represents the best compromise that could be achieved in more than two years of negotiation. Without it, hopes of improving the sclerotic pace of decision-making are lost.

The "no" represents a devastating psychological blow, coming from a founder member of the EU and one of the two traditional "motors" of integration. It also calls into question the direction of the EU, including Turkey's hopes of joining and efforts to generate more economic growth.

What happens if the Dutch vote "no" on Wednesday?

It will probably put the nail in the constitution's coffin. Other countries that have promised referendums - most notably the UK - will conclude that their prospects of a successful "yes" campaign have gone.

Why did the French say "no"?

The "no" alliance, between those in France who want more Europe and those who want less, make this a difficult result to analyse. But there were several elements that can be identified, many not connected to the constitution. They include the unpopularity of the President, Jacques Chirac, and of his Prime Minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin; dislike of the EU's recent enlargement and fears over Turkey's membership bid; and worries that free-market policies will cost jobs.

What difference will we notice if the constitution does not come into effect?

Very little. The EU has already put into effect the Nice Treaty, which allows for the enlargement that took place last year when 10 new, mainly ex-Communist countries were admitted, and for Romania and Bulgaria to join in 2007. But hopes of streamlining decision-making and making the EU more efficient will be lost.

Could anything be rescued from the constitution without a new treaty?

Very little of importance. One Brussels think-tank, the Centre for European Policy Studies, believes that only a handful of proposals could be saved without a new treaty. These include creating an EU foreign minister's post and an EU diplomatic service, and a provision that means the European Commission would have to consider proposals for new laws if they are supported by a petition of a million signatures. Some believe that even this is optimistic.

Another:

Which way for Europe?

After French 'no' vote, the continent stands at a historic crossroads
31 May 2005

Constitutional Europe

Builds on the status quo with reforms to make the EU work better. Drawn up after more than two-and-a-half years under the chairmanship of the former French president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, it is the result of compromises and trade-offs. It combines existing treaties into one text and changes EU decision-making structures to help an enlarged EU operate more efficiently. It creates a new president of the European Council and an EU foreign minister. Other changes include a voting system linked to population size and a cut in the size of the Commission from 2014. Nine countries have already ratified the treaty.
NATIONS IN FAVOUR: Spain, Italy, Greece

Free-trade Europe

The British model under which European co-operation is limited or kept at an inter-governmental level (preferably with national vetoes). The cornerstone is seen as the single market, allowing free movement of goods and eliminating trade barriers. Meanwhile, the UK has always favoured EU enlargement in part to weaken prospects for closer integration in core economic areas such as harmonising taxes. Britain has won new allies with the accession of Eastern European nations which tend to be more Atlanticist in instinct and put greater onus on free markets and competition than social protection.
NATIONS IN FAVOUR: UK, Poland, Estonia

United States of Europe

The dream of some of the EU's founders such as Jean Monnet and Altiero Spinelli, the idea of a federal Europe has receded as the EU has enlarged. It describes a division of responsibilities between a central authority and states, regions or provinces. But it is usually coupled with the term "superstate" in Britain, or shorthand for closer European integration, for example on the economy, taxation, agriculture and the environment. Founding EU nations (France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries) traditionally supported closer union, though even in these, its appeal fades.
NATIONS IN FAVOUR: Luxembourg, Belgium

Multi-speed Europe

An idea debated much over the past decade which would allow an inner core of countries - probably based on France, Germany and the Benelux - to forge ahead with closer integration, leaving Britain and others in the slow lane. It already exists with the single currency and the Schengen passport-free zone. The Nice Treaty allows groups of nations to identify areas where they want to co-operate more, though this has never been put into effect. If France and Germany could agree on common objectives they might use the mechanism, for example, to boost economic co-operation in the eurozone.
NATIONS IN FAVOUR: France, Germany

[Menydh]

I'll take this one

Is this the end of Europe?

No, but it marks a halt to further European integration, at least for the time being. No one pretends the constitution is a perfect document, but it represents the best compromise that could be achieved in more than two years of negotiation. Without it, hopes of improving the sclerotic pace of decision-making are lost.

The "no" represents a devastating psychological blow, coming from a founder member of the EU and one of the two traditional "motors" of integration. It also calls into question the direction of the EU, including Turkey's hopes of joining and efforts to generate more economic growth.

The truth is that they are groggy now and they don't know where to move from here. There is not only one clear indication to answer why the French rejected it, and the Dutch rejection tonight in unconnexed with the French one.

The Dutch (and the English) are for an E.U. subsidiary of the U.S. The French people are not, and among other reasons to reject it, there is the fear for membership expansion and the loss of sovereignty reflected in the policies enforced from Brussels. So they are disoriented and with few possibilities to disentangle the mess. If any.

When they are cornered, as the Eurocrats are now, their moves become even more dangerous out of desperation.

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

What do you think that will finally happen with the E.U. Constitution after all the referenda?

This is a slap in the face to the Eurocrats, but hardly the end. As one commentary noted, all this means now is that the EU will continue to operate on current treaties and agreements.

[Ukonwacka]

I don't believe they're going to make any modifications to the constitution, politicians never listen to people.

[Nadvojvoda Janez Kranjski]

Prolly option #3: the least hassle and same desired outcome.

[Ederico]

What is definite is that this is definitely a crisis for the European Union although Eurocrats and Pro-EU National Politicians will try to minimise the public scope of the crisis.

In relation to what will happen next, it all depends on how much respect for democracy and the electorate there is on the part of the politicians involved. Assuming that for the implementation of the EU Constitution there must be the ratification from the 25 Member States then it must follow that the EU Constitution cannot be implemented, or should not be implemented, if popular will is to be considered the main value in decision-making.

I prefer the National Interest (and the National Interest intrinsically means some degree or another of Nationalism) to Popular Will and I consider the two separate, sometimes parallel, often conflicting. I am pleased to say that the results in France and Holland appear to be in their respective National Interests, and a case of a parallel with the Popular Will. I await to be proven wrong on this one.

[Aeternitas]

Politicians have claimed that it was wrong to let people vote concerning the EU Constitution, as it was a too complicated issue for them to understand. The funny thing is, some people really had no idea what they voted for.

Examples (BBC - Dutch voters voice their views):

Peter Slagter: "Yes" (University professor, 62): "I have not heard a single argument for voting "No" that really holds water, and refers to the constitution itself. The text does not really go beyond what has already become law over the last 20 years."

Lotte van Gelder: "Yes" (Law student, 25): "I am voting "Yes", though I don’t think a referendum is the best way of passing this treaty. Everyone agrees or disagrees with parts of it, so how do they make up their mind? I reject nationalist arguments that the EU will eat up national values."

Bob Bosschert: "Yes" (Retired magazine editor, 59): "I am voting "Yes". I do not really know what the constitution is all about, but I think strengthening the organisation of the European Community is a good thing. I have some reservations about how the EU works, but I think we must move forward."

Femke Marcar: "Yes" (Marketing assistant, 28): "I think Holland is a very small country and can only have power by uniting with powerful countries. I think people fear this will end some of the good things about Holland, such as its soft drugs policy, but I do not agree."


The No voters:

Matthew Aler: "No" (Stockbroker, 28): "I filled in a questionnaire on the internet, which advised me to vote "No". If I had to vote right now, I would vote "No" on that basis. But I am still looking into it. I will read the information sent out by the government before voting."

Frances Maguire: "No" (Car rental company employee): "I am voting "No". I don’t think they have come up with a good enough plan and I don’t think we are ready for it. We have had problems with the euro, everything has become crazily expensive. I'm also afraid the country could lose its identity."

Rita Kohnstamm: "No" (Psychologist, 67): "I believe in a united Europe, but it's going too far too fast, with all kinds of very detailed legislation. I don't agree with the idea of a new European president. To many people I think it feels as though Europe started, and now cannot be stopped."

Glenn Seymonson: "No" (Cook, 42 --- this one is a negroe): "I am voting "No" because I don't think any more countries should join Europe. More people will come here to work, and it will be even more difficult to find a job. Soon we are going to be a Muslim state. There are already mosques everywhere."


Neither yes, nor no:

Freek Spykerman: "Neither" (Philosophy student, 19): "I am going to vote for democracy, which means I am not going to vote for the constitution or against it. It will be a blank vote. There is a big difference between what the government wants and what the people want. They should represent us, but they don't."


--------------------------------------------------------

The last statement has a lot of truth in it (regardless of the rest of the argumentt) and is reflective to what happens in Europe currently. European governments don't really represent the interests and wishes of European nations. This is why I see it being pushed forward.