http://www.viciojuegos.com/imagenes/...reenelaire.jpg
And here are the results. Blue for yes, red for no. Even though red occupies most of it, the votes for the "No" were of a 55%:
http://ttd.cache.el-mundo.net/elmund...dillos_3_0.gif
Printable View
http://www.viciojuegos.com/imagenes/...reenelaire.jpg
And here are the results. Blue for yes, red for no. Even though red occupies most of it, the votes for the "No" were of a 55%:
http://ttd.cache.el-mundo.net/elmund...dillos_3_0.gif
"totally owned"
That's why I admire the French. They don't give a damn about what anyone thinks of them.
However, I still think they made a mistake...
thank god for that, die consitution die.
I hope for your all grateful for that in depth political analysis.
It's just delaying the inevitable. In 100 years time, heck, possibly 50, Europe will be like the United States of America, but the United States of Europe. As much as you or I don't want that, it's going to happen so although we've won the battle, we will lose the war eventually.
Not if we bomb it
Seriously though i don't not think a united states of europe is inevitable infact the trend in the last hundred years was the breaking of large countrys into smaller countrys Austria hungry, russia, yugoslava. We can all sit in our respective countries saying hi and trading without having to have the same laws, leaders and liars.
I hope you're right gokufussions, I really do. But from the vice-like grip the bureacratic and unaccountable (and therefore undemocratic) European Union holds over the citizens of member states, I really can't see how it can be stopped. The constitution is just one more step along the road towards Federal Europe, along with the Euro. (And I will be extremely surprised if Britain doesn't have the Euro in less than 20 years time.)
I believe the problem is that this constitution has more market laws than citizen laws. I am not against Europe united, I am against Europa united under the euro!
A united Europe, like 1 country would be stupid. Think of all the different cultures and laws etc.
It wouldn't stop you. The united states is like that. We have federal laws which apply everywhere but all 50 states have their own individual laws with their own penalties. We also have all sorts the different cultures all mingled in together here. It is far from impossible and is very realistic for Europe to be one country.
If I knew what the EU constitution that is being proposed was about then I would call stupid or good vote on this one...but since I don't I will not say. If it was more about market laws over setting up a federal type government...I understand. The EU was suppose to be a step towards easier trade in Europe and it has accomplished that but because it was suppose to be about trade and economic stuff it really doesn't suprise me. I wish it had been more about a federal government.
Something tells me that the majority of people who voted had no clue what the constituion contained though and just didn't like the idea of losing their power.
You think it makes sense for the Constitution to be nearly entirely formed by market laws? Market laws in a constitutional level?
Not to mention the supposed Europe of peace and progress is trying to pass a constitution full of pro-militar, neoliberal laws. And the supposed defense of nature only has one very vague article. What the hell? I am amazed how people in my country (and in other countries of Europe, I suppose) are stupid enough to believe Europe is socially and legally centuries superiorin the advancements in reference to the U.S, while in reality US and Europe politicians are just as hateful. Actually, most people attempt to defend this constitution claiming it will make us strong to face the US economically, and make the EU a second world power. Yes, whatever. Yet the Constitution still sets Europe under the NATO, though it develops andother military force. Yes, we have enough problems in Spain to be wasting money on tanks and airplanes while the young people can't even get to be independent because of the apartment prices, and old people get miserable pensions, we are attempting to keep economically with all this new people entering the country, etc, etc, etc
Anyway, I'm not going to start with a anti-Constitution pamphlet now, but I am absolutely against it, it even reduces some labour rights.
Oh, and the intention was never making a United States of Europe.
I guess I didn't really make a lot of sense with what I had said. I don't think that market laws are a good idea for a constitution but I think it makes sense that what was proposed was mainly market laws as the EU is mainly a market organization. Does that sound better?
I will also admit that I don't really know a whole lot about what goes on in Europe with a lot of this stuff as it isn't really news over here as it doesn't affect us. As much as I may want to know it isn't really ever presented. I have to go outside US news to read about pretty much anything not directly related to us. Which I can't be bothered to do most of the time. So please, don't be to hard on me if I don't quite understand something or something I say is completely ass backwards(not saying you are but just for the future). I am just mis-informed.
The constitution itself wouldn't create the US of E, but it would certainly lay down the foundations for its creation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus
The USA is utterly different it was a union of 3 million anglo saxons mostly prodestant and all culturaly similar, all of them supporting the identical legal system. Further non anglo saxon immigrants were forced to interegrate, to some extend culturaly but totaly in terms of law and justice. To that effect america remains in it's laws and general sense of culture heavily anglo saxon. While Europe is a combination of distinctily different countries with there own seperate ways and means and no single thread of continuity running through it. Any intergration between the nation states would require each country to give up major slices of their culture and law for a single common european identity. This is what i fear and this is what the contitution despite it's claims of thinning out legistation is the first step towards.
On a side note the french rejected the constitution on large part due to it's tendacy to an British style economy based on much more open trade and far less socialist. We just approach life from different ends of the spectrum.
who said european ministers were not accountable? they are accountable in the exact same way your government minietrs are. you voted for them. well actually most peopel didn't becasuse they were too damn apathetic to bother. so meh. you could vote for your share. if you missed the chance then that's your fault what til next time and make them accountable the same way you do in a general or local election.
these people are not faceless beaurucrats mnost people just don't take the time to look at thei face. except when they are whining.
i would like to see the constitution signed. if you actually read it (i would not recommend it, it's one of the most broring things ever written and is not for thr layman) then it really makes very little difference to how things are done now. there are a few changes but nothing will majorly change. people say we will be giving up our controls and sovereignity. that's already been done. it's about cohesion. it's about an actual constitution where all previous rules are in one place as well as some new ones. it needs to be signed in order to move forward. and put it this way what's the worst that could happen? it's not a major changing document. i don't even see the need for a referendum on it.
i would like to see a united states of europe. it wouldn't be impssible. cultural difference will not matter. scotland has kept it's identity for a few hundred years after being taken over. the seperation of the countries is a good thing for the creation actually. things most fragmate to the best stae before they can reform.
i personally would like to think of the eu as the new zollverein.
Wrong. Only the European Parliament has elected members. The other three bodies, the European Council, the European Commission and the European Court of Justice, do not. And arguably all of these hold more power than the European Parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Further more, the European commision does not respect the Montesquieu division of powers, traditional in European politics since the bringing in of the enlightment currents. And those are not democratically elected.
As for what you said, yes, I have looked at the document. I admit I haven't read all of it, but I do have made a major read (didn't look at the anexes closely, for example). I find it filthy. And no, it is not signing the current laws- with the ones I do not agree at all and would wish to see changed- what the constitution is about. It adds many things, re-organizes organization and most importantly, levels up the market laws to a constitutional level. Market laws at the same level as citizen rights? Who was the sicko who thought of this? It is hardcore neoliberalism, and on top of all, it needs the approval of the 25 member states to be changed. All the countries! In this way, they attempt to make the constitution practically inalterable. How can there be any rational justification to such thing? Societies evolve, but as long as the European Union lasts this document is not supposed to change. So what, we will stand with market laws in constitutional level until WWIII or what? There will be no articles defending nature until the whole constitution is forced to change by some drastic even? Oh God, really, they can grab their precious document of justice, freedom and market and shove it up their asses. I was ashamed it won in Spain for a 74%, I am just happy the French seem to have more political conscience.
Market laws are already there, just not on constitutional level.Quote:
it makes sense that what was proposed was mainly market laws as the EU is mainly a market organization
Just an update. The Dutch, as predicted, also voted no and by a much larger margin than the French!
It also means a British referendum on the subject is now unlikely, and if there was one held here, the constitution would undoubtedly be rejected. I know that I for one will vote against it, if that is to be the case.
Hm... maybe the other side of the coin:
I understand that civil rights should be ranked higher than trade laws in any constitution, just to create a symbol of respect for humanity.
But: the roots of the EU are those of a trade organization and the current economic situation needs European trade laws. Yes, we also need environment laws, but have you ever tried to explain a mother with four children, who are not able to study because they can not effort it, the need for environmental laws? Of course, in contrast to many people in this world they are rich, but they don't see this contrast, they only see that contrast to the rich people, who can effort a house or whatever. In the region here, the radical (!) right winged party got about 10% of the votes in the last elections. Not to mention the radical left winged party, who got about 16%. Do you know, how often I see swastikas around here?
I am definitely against giving up cultural traditions and customs to create a mainstream European society. But an alternitive has to be created. People should see, that something is changing... that it makes sense to cooperate with each other. This constitution is not perfect (not even roughly....), but in my opinion it would be a step in a direction, which might not be right, but better than our course until now.
you wanna know why the dutch voted no ill give you lots of reasons
1:60.000.000.000 is A LOT to pay with just 16 miljon people whe pay much more then france induvidualy
2:the rest of europe would drill our drugs policy in the ground wich would lead to a hogher crime rate here
3: Do whe have anything to say in a united europe? NO whe wouldnt the lands with all the power would be germany france en england
so no thank you sitck that united euope somewhere the sun doesnt shine
greetz TailZy
Well, I believe we still need them, despite what the mother thinks. And I don't think that mother would exactly be too benefited from the current constitutional. I don't know where this mother lives, but if it's any of the countries in western Europe, well, the current constitution gives her the same or even less civil rights than the current constitution in her country. Hell, the Spanish constitution, for example, is far more liberal than the European one, and it also respects cultural divsersity more. And it is subject to change, something that dosen't happen with the European one.Quote:
Yes, we also need environment laws, but have you ever tried to explain a mother with four children, who are not able to study because they can not effort it, the need for environmental laws?
As for the eastern countries, I really don't know about their constitutions, but it's easy to guess most democratic countries will have a constitution similar or better than the civil rights section of the European constitution. It's just a guess, though.
No they wouldn't. Well, at least I doubt they would. I have been in Amsterdam (mmm...actually today I dreamt of Amsterdam, I don't think it's a coincidence in reference to the referendum) and I have seen plenty of Coffee Shops, I can't see how they could actually shut down that, it would bring economic problems, and economy is what the current Europe seems to worry more about. What are they going to do, to turn those places into actual coffee shops? Blue Velvet will be turned into Starbucks? No, seriously, I doubt it.Quote:
2:the rest of europe would drill our drugs policy in the ground wich would lead to a hogher crime rate here
By the way, it's so cool you can actually go into a place and buy marihuana without problems. When I was there, I felt like I was doing something illegal or whatever, it just felt weird...but you can carry weed and the cops can't register you! And I heard the cops actually are firmly regulated under a number of laws, so they can't abuse power, and if you denounce it I heard it even actually works. Here in Spain if the Guardia Civil get you, they can drag you into the police station and beat you up. Of course, the problem is, if the police was as in Holland, how the hell could I hate the cops if they treat me nicely? Where's the traditional egocentric asshole cop everyone hates? No more punk songs about killing cops!!! Hell, in Holland prostitutes even have decent working conditions, it's amazing, it's like centuries more advanced than Spain!
But I'm getting off topic now.
I'd like to comment on the last two entries ^^;
There's another reason why most Dutch voted no.. To spite the government. Ever since the Euro came along our economics have been marching down hill. People blame it on the Euro, which isn't entirely wrong to do so. The German 'Mark' and the Dutch 'Gulden' weren't equal in value, ( the Gulden was higher) yet they have been treated that way when the Euro came around. Every 2.2 Gulden was converted into 1 Euro. The government could (and should) have protested against this, but didn't, fearing to offend Germany by pointing out our economy was currently ..well, better then theirs (Germany IS our biggest trade/export partner). If they had, well, every 2 Gulden would have been 1 Euro.
Basically, summing the above up: because of the government we 'lost' 10% of our 'spending money'. Prices of objects went up, while our income and bank-accounts went down.
I know..I'm getting off topic. It's just that I personally believe that this is one of the main reasons people in The Netherlands voted no. The Euro-incident got out not too long before the voting took place (a week or two) so people were pretty worked up about it, and feared for another financial leap downwards should they agree with the whole thing.
On a side note: Don't worry, people over here diss the cops too, for being er.. *keeps the foul language thing in mind* 'softies' and lacking 'those rounds things males tend to posses'.
Now that this topic has been brought back my brother had made some interesting comments about this. Tell me if you think this played a roll:
France did not want the constitution because of how farm substidies would play out. When the EU was first formed they were the biggest farming country and got the majority of the cash. Now with later additions they are not the largest and have taken a bit of a hit there and do not want it to effect it further.
Do you think his comments are correct or have at least played a part. I will actually have him come on a post a bit later on this because I think he has more.
Yes, I am sure the economic reasons are a great part. Also, I bet some French even voted no out of pure chauvinism.
I recommend those people to visit Spain and get beated up by the Guardia Civil.Quote:
On a side note: Don't worry, people over here diss the cops too, for being er.. *keeps the foul language thing in mind* 'softies' and lacking 'those rounds things males tend to posses'.
I think we can say 35-40% of the population really rejected the Constitution, and the 20-15% left voted no for various reasons:
- the text sucks, is too long and bloated, so in doubt, reject
- they wanted to give the political sphere another warning of the general distrust of the population towards them (including people who voted no just to annoy Chirac)
- they fear change
In the part who really rejected the constitution, there are good parts of agricultural related professions, who have more to lose than to gain, since other countries are more competitive, a good part of chauvinists/nationalists, and the good old plain anti-europe-at-all-costs.