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.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.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
Too big. <-- yeah i heard that one before
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.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.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.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.
And then there is Death
Posting Permissions
