Two up, two down...

European countries have started voting on accepting the European Union constitution. A couple days ago France voted no by 55%. Today the Netherlands voted no by 62%.

9 other countries have ratified it prior to this week, but their rules require ratification by ALL 25 member countries to go into effect. It's dead.

I'm curious how our European members here feel about this.

 

As a recently ex-European member *grins* what concerns me is the UK government suggesting as France voted no the UK shouldn't go to referendum on it at all. I say, as a separate entity, the UK should have a voice and use it, if only to give Tony Blair a guideline as to where the British public stand on this

 

Personally I am very pleased at these results. This is not a good constitution, particularly in military and sovereignty terms. It is a long and boring read but a salutary one.

Tony Bliar and ilk were enormously relieved as well, should we have a referendum I expect our NO figure will be comparable to the Dutch.

A Frenchman said it best. "Europe is about and for the People not the Bosses, maybe they'll listen now"

 

The Dutch 'No' is mainly a protestvote against the current arrogance of todays politicians and the policies they can't execute properly.
We've had scandal after scandal here and thus people feel the politicians don't listen to them at all.

Another thing is the rate at which the EU expanded over the last couple of years, to be honest we don't NEED nor WANT Eastern Europe to be part of the EU, because it wasn't running properly when we only had 10 countries.
They just don't listen to the people, which is why we, as a country, voted against the European Constitution.
Another reason for voting against it is that it's only harmed the Dutch economy, with the recent scandal about the whole value of the Guilder towards the Euro/ Deutsche Mark at the time being too low etc.
A lot of big and small scandals has played a role here and our government has failed to do anything against it.
Their campaign for voting in favour of the Const. was mainly based upon "You'll vote yes because I (Balkenende, our own Harry Pothead Prime Minister) say so.", they should've known better and should've acted sooner.
I'm not surprised at all it's come out at 32.1% in favour and 61.9% against.

However, they'll surely stuff it down our throats sooner rather than later anyway, so the value of it all is neglible (spelling?) imo.

 

I`m not completely up to snuff on this vote....have enough going on here to keep us all busy...but it seems to me the only time the French vote yes is when they need someone (ie.the USA) to kick the Germans out. I hope I haven`t offended anyone...but politically speaking the French seem to be more concerned with thier bottomline more than anything else.

 

Everyone is more concerned about their own interests, that's part of the problem Sasquatch

 

This is probably pointless as the UK hasn't even subscribed to the Euro and until recently had a the veto for some of the labour laws and also questions about the UK rebate.

I doubt that the euro-bureau-crates consulted the general opinion of the populace of the member countries. Personally, I think the status quo in the UK is acceptable and vote for no change, although it would be nice not to have to pay banks commission on changing £ to € and back again.

 

Here in Ireland, the government has said that there will be a referndum on the constitution regardless of how other countries vote. You have to realise that not ALL of the countries need to vote yes. If only a few vote against, they will prob go with the majority.

However, with France and now The Netherlands(both founding countries of the original EU) rejecting the treaty, this looks unlikely.

Personally, I think it is voter apathy that has led to France and The Netherlands rejecting. It is a case of the politicians not campaigning effectively to inform the electorate of the consequences of their decision.

Just look at the referendum we had on the Nice Treaty a few years ago in 2001. The people voted no (much to the governments displeasure) and then decided to put it to a vote again. This time around it was ratified. The reason? The second time round our government actually bothered to inform people correctly rather than just expecting them to vote 'accordingly'.

It will be interesting to see how the 'eurocrats' deal with this......

 

The last thing we needed in the current, or indeed any climate, is a constitution that binds us to military action beyond our control.

I realise the bitter irony of this in the circumstances but consider this; it entailed dismantling all national military structures and functions and subsuming these, abracadabra, under NATO.

Which begs the question, wherein lies the authority and chain of command in NATO.

Let's be realistic and pretend that everybody has the best intentions, would you want to be ordered into a war, the authority for which may have been usurped, not just within your own borders but a continent away?

By definition those who want power and are prepared to have someone else die for it are suspect.

Hi de Hi

 

When did that change? 4 months ago my own UK bank was happily exchanging foreign currency commission free!

 

A bank that does something for a customer FOR FREE? Now thats a rare beast. Bazza

 

There's the fact that the other major economies of the EU can afford a 48 hour week, but Britain uses it's workers resources relatively inefficiently, and therefore needs to work longer, just to keep in the game. Denying the UK the power of veto is arrogant too. Personally, I would prefer a NAFTA style treaty, rather then one which reduces our soveriengty.

And Sasquatch: please, the last time the damn germans invaded was over 60 years ago. France has signed up to many treaties since then, and in any case, it is the duty of a government to look after it's own citizens first, and then consider anyone elses. Saying the french are more concerned with the bottom line, and implying that is a bad thing, makes you seem a tad hypocritical.