BREAKING: Dutch vote AGAINST EU Constitution

[gp]

Dutch voters 'reject EU treaty'

Exit polls in the Netherlands suggest voters have firmly rejected the proposed European Union constitution in Wednesday's referendum.

The polls indicate that at least 62% of the electorate voted "No".

The BBC's William Horsley in Brussels says the ballot has probably delivered a death blow to the constitution, at least in its present form.

The treaty needs to be approved by all 25 EU member states. It was rejected by the French in a vote on Sunday.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4601439.stm


edit: added link

[PST]

1. exit poll: 63% votes NO n/t

[Robbien]

2. Yay for the Dutch!

Hopefully a few more countries take a closer look at what is in that constitution.

[dhinojosa]

15. What do you see that I don't?

The constitution looks good to me.

[Raiden]

20. From what I've heard

it's way too massive and sprawling

[dhinojosa]

21. Brother.....

I guess these people want childrens books with pictures.

[arcos]

33. Well, a Constitution shouldn't be massive...

Much less have 500 pages :P

[dhinojosa]

38. If kids can read....

over 600 pages of a Harry Potter book. You'd think that adults would like to read the constitution that would affect them. Eh, losing battle on my part, American's don't read either.

[Frederik]

43. A constitution for Europe

that cements a certain economic system is not desirable. The French and Dutch have done the right thing, IMO. The clause that allows companies to hire workers from low-cost countries and employ them in high-cost countries under the same terms and wages that apply in their country of origin was added towards the end of the process. That sort of anti-worker legislation has no place in a European constitution. The purpose of much of this long and cumbersome text seems to have been to introduce anti-social legislation that it would have been impossible for any single state to remove later.

The range of policies that can be decided by the nation-state through ordinary democratic channels has already narrowed significantly in EU members, transfering power to distant Eurocrats. This constitution would further advance that movement away from popular democacy, which I'm sure is what many of the "elder statesmen" in the Convention intended. You know, the hoi-polloi don't know what's best for them, they need unelected Eurocrats to lead them.

[aneerkoinos]

51. Agreed and couple corrections

The directive liberating services is not part of the constitution, just a Commission's proposal for directive, and the clause you mention has been allready shot down.

Second, this constitution would not further advance that movement away from popular democacy, it just doesn't advance democracy enough at European level.

[Frederik]

58. You mean the Bolkestein directive

It's not included but there's a clause with a fairly similar content. There's an article about it on www.reseauvoltaire.com if you read French, although the site seems to be having some problems at the moment.

Democracy on the Euro level can't be a substitute for democracy at the national level, in my opinion. There's no European media arena, no real European-wide discourse except among the elites. Which would be desirable, but the language barrier and cultural barriers preclude it. If social policy is determined in Brussels, then workers in France have less influence over their conditions than if it's decided in Paris, regardless of whether they vote in European Parliament elections or whether France has a lot of influence in the corridors of Brussels. And the Parliament is without doubt the best thing about the EU.

[aneerkoinos]

63. Thanks

Alas, I don't read French that well.

>>> Democracy on the Euro level can't be a substitute for democracy at the national level, <<<

... and democracy at national level cannot be a substitute for democracy at local level. That's why subsidiarety-principle.

>>> If social policy is determined in Brussels, then workers in France have less influence over their conditions than if it's decided in Paris, <<<

Sadly, the ability to determine social policy on national level is a fools dream. The choise is between harmonizing and setting minimum standards on European level, or letting market forces determine them in the race to the bottom.

[arcos]

108. Sure...

But a Constitution should be brief... that's the idea, it shouldn't be too specific.

Plus, there are lots of other concerns regarding the EU constitution.


Amiens rally for “no” vote on EU constitution
The French left and the politics of evasion
By Peter Schwarz
28 May 2005

Francine Bavay of the Greens was the first speaker. She criticized the undemocratic and anti-social character of the constitution. The catalog of fundamental rights it contained was minimal and represented a considerable retreat from the famous Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789. Social rights, such as the right to work and receive job training, are entirely left out of the document.

She said, “We do not want competition between workers, but rather the same rights and social standards throughout Europe.” With regard to environmental policy, she noted that the word “bank” appears some 600 times in the constitution text, while the term “climate” occurs just once.

Gérard Filoche of the Socialist Party said there was a close relationship between social resistance to the government and rejection of the constitution. He pointed out that there was also substantial resistance to the constitution in other countries. In Greece, the parliament ratified the constitution although 10,000 demonstrated in favor of a referendum.

<snip>

Filoche called for a renegotiation of the constitution. He said that as a trade unionist he knew, “If one wants something, then one must say no.” The rejection of the constitution by the French people, he continued, was not an “expression of the crisis, but rather the maturity of Europe.” He then described in detail the implications for workers’ lives of the “free market” liberalisation of the economy embodied in the constitution. He concluded his contribution with the demand for a common European minimum wage and the abolition of the so-called Bolkestein directive.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/fran-m28.shtml

[funkybutt]

109. They can have our Constitution....we're not using it n/t

[pissed_American]

133. That would be funny....if it weren`t true

:rofl:










:puke:

[burrowowl]

161. Yes, ours is a model!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[rfkrfk]

170. why does the EU con. create four different one-chamber counsils?

The European Parliment
The European Council
The Council of Ministers
The European Commission

265 PDF pages, but no comics, no sports page.
I would vote no.

[aneerkoinos]

171. To make your mind boggle

Seriously, the EU con (sic) does not create any of them, they exist allready.

And they are not "one-chamber" anything, the word don't make sense here. If you like, you can compare Parliament to the House and both Counsils (the more ore less permanent inter-governemental organ and highest level meeting between heads of states few times a year) to Senate.

Commission is the executive organ, but abhorringly also with the sole power to initiate legislation.

[aneerkoinos]

37. Really?

Have you taken a really good look?

The message is quite clear, French and Dutch are saying loudly and clearly that they (we) wan't a constitution that is:
1. more democratic
2. more transparent
3. not tied to one economic system (market liberalism).

That is what they (and we in other EU countries) want and deserve.

What is needed now is that the process continues, so that all nations have chance to reject or adopt this constitutions. And that four more members reject it in referendum, which is near certainty, but must happen concretely.


PS: I was an EU-translator for several years, and even I have often difficulties understanding the Constitution text.

[rayofreason]

60. Agree...

I agree with your post. The elites thought that they could just steamroller this thing and transfer huge power to an unelected and unaccountable bureaucracy in Brussels.

But after the French vote, what did they say in Brussels? "The treaty is not dead" - Just have the French vote again until they get it right. Even with the Dutch vote, there will be pressure to push through parts of the treaty, no matter what the people want.

The real question is how many times will the answer be "NON" before the elites try to dispense with asking the question altogether?

[aneerkoinos]

69. Easy

Answer is 6 times, six member states need to reject this constition, after that it is dead.

And I agree with the continental elites and disagree with the British elites, that the ratification process must continue, no nation should be denied its democratic right to state it's opinion, whether for or against.

[rayofreason]

112. further elections

I also agree that the referendums should continue, but I bet that once 6 have said "NON" there will still be an attempt to put in place what the people have rejected.

[aneerkoinos]

165. Our leaders may be stupid

but not that stupid. After that, it's a total rewrite.

[dchill]

156. I'm sure...

...the call must have already gone out to Diebold.

[rayofreason]

159. Diebold?

No, much simpler than that. Just keep on holding elections until the "right" choice wins. Failing that, simply ratify the document anyway.

See http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0,36-655514,0.html if you read French.

"Le traité n'est pas mort" No, it is feeling much better (to paraphrase Monty Python). Yet the French and Dutch electorates have truly farted in the general direction of the elites.

[0007]

46. Show us what you like about it!

Do a cut & paste from what you've read.

[dhinojosa]

98. Holy shit....are you serious?

That a mighty big task.....

[0007]

102. Now ya know why the Dutch and the French think it sucks!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

105. Bing...zoom!

He got all of that one!

[dhinojosa]

113. Yeah, he sure did.....

how should I have known that Europeans are too lazy to read.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

114. And it bounces back onto the field!

Let's put it in simple terms.

Would you rather be ruled by a small set of universal ethics, i.e, "All men are created equal," "Taxation only with representation," and the "Golden Rule" or a complex series of laws that will only benefit those that can afford lawyers (the party of the third part, blah blah, blah)?

For my part, the Constitution could say only "The Golden Rule" and I'd be more than fine. Give me one that loves it's subclauses and I'm outta here.


Edit to add: We're not talking about the laws that govern the every day existence of the citizens, we're talking about the overriding principles that are a country's raison detre.

[dhinojosa]

119. Hahah nice header.

Let this quote be a guide.

"The liberally educated person is one who is able to resist the easy and preferred answers, not because he is obstinate but because he knows others worthy of consideration."
Allan Bloom


In follow up....this document (which I am on page 54) is very progressive. I don't think it ought to be sunk because its too long. There is no reason for that, these 500 pages can be what Europeans need the most, and can be their answer to many problems.

This reminds me of Hillary's health care plan. Republicans kept at their commercials saying its too long and too complicated. Her health plan was excellent but was thrown out because people wanted commercial snippets instead of the long drawn out plan.

From Article 2:

"The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, liberty, democracy, equality, the
rule of law and respect for human rights. These values are common to the Member States in a
society of pluralism, tolerance, justice, solidarity and non-discrimination."

Hot Damn and the rest of it is good too. :)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

124. Easy? No. Preferred? Yes.

Having not read the EUC....:shrug:....but if you want me to, I'll check it out and come back with some bullshit. (Please don't make me read it! :scared: )

[dhinojosa]

128. haha, well I am going to read it anyways.

Just so I know what's going on. :)

cheers.........

:beer:

[bpilgrim]

141. but don't let that stop you from insulting whole peoples from IGNORANCE

:eyes:

peace

[dhinojosa]

147. Wait, what are you on about?

You do know I was being sarcastic. I don't believe that Europeans are really lazy to read, but DUers here claim that the only reason that it didn't pass in France is because "it was too long".....

hence the sarcasm.

[bpilgrim]

153. "Europeans are too lazy to read"

that sarcasm misses the mark, since constitutions should be EASY to understand which means SHORT, and is offensive.

you go on being sarcastic about things you don't have a clue about i'm sure that will improve your credibility :hi:

peace

[dhinojosa]

155. No, Constitutions don't "need to be short"....

There is not a law stating that. This constitution is awesome so far, and cover many great ideals.

[bpilgrim]

162. commonsense and experience

is the LAW we are pointing to :hi:

peace

[dhinojosa]

164. and there has been a lot experience in the last couple of centuries.

why not integrate that into a new constitution and have it explicitly stated?

Because as you or I know with our Bush situation here in the U.S., there are times that we cannot rely on leadership to have commonsense or experience.

[burrowowl]

163. This constitution

goes into too many specifics. Constitutions should be open to changing times and not say what color corporatists at the time say what color your toe-nail polish should be!
Sorry, a 500 page constitution and this has it, should not specify what should be legislated if it is to last. Valery Giscard d'Estaing (a very pro-corporatist person was one of the MAJOR drafters).
Should the American Constitution read: We the Corporations of the United States in Order to guarantee our shareholders profits and the enormous pay to CEO's who know hold to screw workers .......
I think not.

[RoyGBiv]

160. Too Long ...

You are assuming a meaning for the phrase "too long" that does not necessarily apply, perhaps because it is easier to do so than examine the subtleties of what people find objectionable about the length of the document, which is rather ironic.

Even if it were simply about reading the document, the comparison you made earlier regarding a Harry Potter book, sarcasm or not, is out of place. Reading and understanding a legal document, particularly when it must be translated into several different languages and will likely contain language expressing concepts that are difficult to translate directly, is in no sense similar to reading a work of fiction written for an audience with a relatively low reading level that does not affect the life and death of the anyone in any meaningful sense. The number of pages, in other words, is not the point. The content of those pages and what they mean for millions of people is.

Consider this. At one time, the State Constitution of Oklahoma was the longest constitution in the Union. This document has been widely criticized for its length, not because it is too long to read, but because the complexities involved in that length address relatively minor points that would be better serviced through traditional legislative means, thus ensuring that if the laws adopted are flawed they can more easily be changed. Oklahoma's original constitution with amendments adopted at statehood, for example, contains a clause codifying segregation. It was legally more difficult to challenge segregation in Oklahoma because of this; it required an amendment to the constitution, which further required a county by county statewide referendum. The laws could not be changed in the legislature. Ironically, this is why civil rights workers chose to target Oklahoma City in the 1950's as one of their first battlegrounds. In essence, they were challenging a state constitution, which in turned framed the debate under an equal protection umbrella that could (and did) effect a national ruling. But, I'm getting off the subject.

Many of Oklahoma's problems today are directly related to the length and complexity of its constitution and by extension the difficulty in managing to effect change in the society and economy. I see some of the same problems of delving into minutia in the EU constitution that I see in Oklahoma's, elements that make progressive change in the face of as yet unforeseen circumstances extremely difficult if not impossible. This is exactly the opposite of what the flowery language suggests, and which you seem to embrace, regarding progressivism.

Constitutions are intentionally difficult to alter because they define the overriding, presumably slow to change, and, in the best case scenario, universal principles governing a society. Fundamentally, a constitution's purpose is to define the structure of the governing body and the society over which it governs, not the individual details of how all this is accomplished. Marrying European society to a corporate based economy, which is what the EU Constitution does when taken to its logical extension, does not, thankfully, fit the definition of a universal principle and is not, or should not be, the type of element that defines the structure of a government. By contrast, the American Constitution is intentionally vague on various points such as this, allowing the society governed by the document to evolve as it sees fit. That certain 19th century and later "activist" judges chose to interpret the Constitution as amended as embracing corporatism is beside the point. That decision could theoretically be reversed rather easily because the Constitution itself does not explicitly define this legal structure.

[aneerkoinos]

167. Too difficult...

I repeat:

I have years of experience of translating EU documents, and EVEN FOR ME this document is often extremely diffucult to decipher.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

169. Constitution= principles.

Laws= the everyday bullshit.

:thumbsup:

[bpilgrim]

140. ALERT - "Europeans are too lazy to read"

projecting (see post #121), and you will not even a copy-n-paste, to back up your opinion, even at the request of another evil DU'er, sheesh...

peace

[dhinojosa]

142. Yeah, Copying and Pasting a book on DU would be

...such a blast!.....


Here is the link...have fun
http://european-convention.eu.int/docs/Treaty/cv00850.en03.pdf

[bpilgrim]

148. "Europeans are too lazy to read" is what you said

and i'm calling you on.

you admit your IGNORANCE on the constitution but that doesn't stop you from making sweeping generalizations that put down a whole nations people.

just like the M$MWs, lame

peace

[dhinojosa]

149. See post 147 nt

[dhinojosa]

111. Too lazy to read?

I mean what the fuck, the PDF is like 250 pages.

[0007]

120. I'm not asking you how long it is, you said there were parts that

you liked. Now your complaining! WTF!!

[dhinojosa]

129. Nah dude, follow the thread

You are complaining that is too long...with your "Now you know why the French and Dutch thinks it sucks", as if that is great reasoning. So do you really think it's bad because its too long?

[0007]

131. Your the one that made the statement......now back it up dude

and follow the thread.

[dhinojosa]

136. Huh?

What statement do you think I made?

[Massacure]

85. Its 430 pages.

Why should they be expected to vote on something that would take any reasonable person weeks to read?

[bpilgrim]

138. he admits in post #121 he didn't even read it

:eyes:

peace

[dhinojosa]

152. See post 147 nt

Yikes

[LynzM]

3. Why did they have the vote?

If it was rejected by France on Sunday, and they need consent between all 25 member states, why bother with further voting? Just curious.

[tritsofme]

8. There was a school of thought

that if France was the lone hold-out, that perhaps there could be another vote several years down the road.

[Robbien]

10. 80% of the countries have to ratify it

If they get 80%, then the countries can meet and decide what to do to get the other 20% to ratify it. If less than 80%, the constitution as it is is dead.

[LynzM]

19. Got it

Thanks for the clarification. That makes a lot more sense.

[tritsofme]

72. Where did you hear that?

I have always heard that it is dead unless all countries ratify it.

And even if just one country doesn't ratify it, it is supposed to be dead.

Although as we saw from the Treaty of Nice, they may keep them voting until they give the "right" answer.

[termo]

79. art. IV-447, § 1.

he found it in the constitution...

it is in french, but you can find the english version, check art. IV-447, § 1.

"
La Constitution européenne entrera en vigueur après ratification par tous les Etats membres selon les procédures prévues par leur droit national (art. IV-447, § 1). Le traité prévoit une date d'entrée en vigueur possible au 1er novembre 2006, soit deux ans après sa signature le 29 octobre 2004 (ce délai correspond à la durée moyenne pour les traités européens antérieurs).

Si à cette date, " les quatre cinquièmes des États membres ont ratifié ledit traité et qu'un ou plusieurs États membres ont rencontré des difficultés pour procéder à ladite ratification, le Conseil européen se saisit de la question " (déclaration n° 30).
"

[Robbien]

81. It is a two step process. Yes all countries have to ratify it

but if everyone doesn't on the first go around, they get a second chance to get all the signatures if at least 80% ratified it in the first place.

The EU Constitution is full of legalize and hard to follow but this site
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/EU-Constitution#Ratification_process

does a good job of explaning all the provisions. For this 80% rule see section 3.

[aneerkoinos]

83. It's in the constitution

If 20 members ratify and some don't, governements will have a meeting to decide what to do. Extremely vague, but that's what it says.

It does not come to force unless all ratify, and it's definately dead only if six or more decide against, rest is gray zone.

[BushSpeak]

101. The Treaty is dead, don't worry.

There seems to be a consensus on French television that the Treaty is dead. If the elections had been close with a low turnout that might have left a chance. But the votes were too overwhelming to merit a re-vote.

Now citizens in other countries are making noises about how they don't even get to vote on the question.

If they do try to shove it down our throats, it will be rejected by 70%. The Constitutional Treaty is impossible to defend on it's own merits. There are many people who were undecided to the end and finally voted "Yes" to keep Europe from falling into chaos (sic)!

I've now got enough information now to shoot down any credibilty that's left. See my post #96 below.

There was an interesting article on a web site that came out a couple of weeks before the election in France. It was by a graduate of one of the elite French political universities. He was recruited by the think tank of Prime Minister Raffarin and place on the Europe Commission. When the "No" began to rise in January, they were asked to provide the main arguments for the "Yes" campaign. After a couple of weeks, their leaders came in and said that there was no way that they could match the arguments of the "No" campaign and the only was to win was to launch slander campaign to bring down the "No". Thank God, you've kept Rove busy in the States!

And this was coming from the Head Quarters of French Prime Minister. This led to a campaign that avoided the essential issues and tried to make people feel guilty for destroying European unity.

He then went on to completely demolish the Constitutional Treaty.

http://www.ineditspourlenon.com/">Témoignage d'un revenu du Oui

We'll see what will happen now. They will probably let things play out, then give us a watered down version or just do another treaty without asking our opinion.

I still don't think that Europe is mature and coherent enough to merit a Constitution.

Bushspeak in Brittany

PS How is the American media portraying the renegade French and Dutch people?

[Baclava]

4. More here...

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - The Dutch voted in a referendum on the European Union's constitution on Wednesday with polls showing they will join the French in decisively rejecting the treaty, deepening a crisis in the bloc.

EURO IN DECLINE

A second rejection after France would deliver a heavy blow to EU leaders' hopes of streamlining decisions in an expanded bloc and could further weigh on the euro, which fell to its lowest level against the dollar in more than seven months.

DUTCH TURMOIL

A rejection would be the latest milestone in a period of unprecedented turmoil in previously staid Dutch politics since the 2002 murder of anti-immigration populist Pim Fortuyn, who accused the elite of losing touch with ordinary citizens.

(snips)

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-06-01T173253Z_01_SPI141078_RTRUKOC_0_EU-CONSTITUTION.xml

[Chicago Democrat]

5. Booo....

Its too bad I think.

[aquart]

6. Why?

What don't the Dutch and the French accept? Are they angry over the same things?

[PST]

14. several reasons

the French used it as a way to protest aginast Chirac, who they feel is responsible for the sad current state of the economy.

the Dutch aren't too happy about the direction the EU is going. they're afraid they'll lose their vote on issues like abortion, soft drugs, gay rights and euthanasia.
plus they're angry about the fact that they've been the paying the highest contribution per capita even though tey're not the richest country.

In general this constitution wasn't sold well enough to the French and Dutch public. Few people knew what this was really about, and since they'd never been consulted on any issue re the EU before, many simply voted NO because they feared things were going too far too fast.

[dhinojosa]

16. Damn

I think this is a great step forward. I am not European, but this reads like a plus for everyone. I am sure there are minor items to be concerned with, but not all constitutions are perfect in the first few years. We can vow for that.

[SRSU]

64. And because you are not European

You don't fully realize what this is about.

Somehow the EU constitution has been written in a way that will give american corporations near government power in the EU. I am sure bush/blair have had a hand in it.

It seems the neocons have forgotten one key thing - the EU still has a free press. They can't get massive numbers of people to go along with them as easily as they can in the US.

[aneerkoinos]

39. Thats the MSM spin

>>>Few people knew what this was really about,<<<

French were the first to have a real debate about the constitution and it's details. Most people read it, at least the most important parts, and that's why they voted against.

[PST]

42. not sure, if that's the case

why did Chirac fire his PM and told the public in a speech later that night that his firt priority is job creation?

[aneerkoinos]

47. Ask Chirac

But he's immensely unpopular, with or without constitution, and Raffarin was even more unpopular. It seems that French are getting fed up with any and all supporters of market liberalism, whether conservative or socialist (in name only), and don't want any more privatizations, outsourcing, labour "flexibility" etc...

[confludemocrat]

183. This is right, it is MSM spin, like MSM take on the spanish 04 elections

Stuff made up by lazy "news analysts" trying to keep their well-paid jobs under corporate media "management" watchers.

I was in France pre-vote. The papers were filled with discussions about the const., its language, it's length, it's difficulty to read and understand--and its dangers.

The French read more than we do, they vote more than we do (70% turnout, so regurgitating corp media spin here does a disservice to DUers).

They had real problems with its substance, people here need to understand, so disgard the MSM spin and look into what really happened.

One could start here:
http://www.counterpunch.org/johnstone05312005.html

[Frederik]

49. I disagree completely

The French elites and media did what they could to "sell" it, but unlucky for them the French people were well informed and didn't agree that it was such a splendid idea. For which they have my full support. A European Constitution that cements a particular economic system is not desirable. Chirac begged the people to not make the referendum a referendum about him and his policy, and I think the people took him on his word. They voted against a constitution they didn't want, against an EU which moves in a direction they don't want. Surveys indicate that the French were quite well informed and interested, which also would explain the 70% turnout, much higher than in European Parliament elections.

Among working class and low-income people, I believe about 80% voted no - because the anti-worker legislation that has been included in the constitution goes against their interests. Not because they are racists or uninformed (well, the LePenists are, but a majority of Socialists also voted no).

[PST]

68. you're probably right about the French

I haven't been following them that closely.

the Dutch NO voters however have voted for the following reasons (taken from 1 of the exit polls):

- they feel they're paying too much
- they don't want to lose more influence to the Eu
- they're afraid of losing their identity

[deutsey]

28. See post 7

[IChing]

7. It a fight against

anti-labor economics

[Wright Patman]

11. I agree with that

However, as long as China and India are "in the house" so to speak, I do not see how labor has any more bargaining power against the elites of Europe than it does here.

It looks to me as if the future of the world will play out with the formerly advanced middle-class citizens of North America and Europe gradually being reduced to serfdom as the jobs they used to hold are transferred to Asia.

Can you tell me anything on the horizon which would block that scenario? Doing anything "nationalistic" such as imposing tariffs is against not only the EU's rule, but also the WTO's.

And forget trying to argue tariffs in the U.S. The free trade adherents defend their philosophy with religious zeal.

[aneerkoinos]

44. Yes

>>> Can you tell me anything on the horizon which would block that scenario? <<<

Yes, United Socialist States of Europe; a mass movement of socialist internationalism, international solidarity that is not limited to Europe alone. We need a constitution that stays open to this possibility, if and when people are ready to choose it. United and socialist Europe is strong enough to battle victoriously the neoliberal globalization, together with Latin America and others.

And fuck Wolfowitz' WTO.

[Frederik]

53. Dismantle the WTO

or radically change its ruleset. It's good to have a multi-lateral organization that can serve as an arena to agree on common rules and avoiding beggar-thy-neighbour trade policies, but the logic behind the WTO, just like the one behind the EU, is ever increasing liberalization. It's based on a religious belief that free markets are a priori good for everyone, which is a bad foundation for arriving at reasonable policies.

[aneerkoinos]

55. Yup

WTO needs to changed from plutocracy to democracy.

[deutsey]

26. BBC World has interviewed people who are opposed in France

and Holland. They all pretty much express what you say here...they're concerned about neo-liberalism quashing workers' rights in Europe.

[wellst0nev0ter]

31. Well, Waddaya Know.

Looks like Europeans also no likey NAFTA-like economic programs.

[lovuian]

115. The Workers are making their VOICE heard!!! NO!!!

its a bad constitution for workers!!!

[Wwagsthedog]

9. Tic-tic-tic

goes the demographic time bomb.

[0rganism]

12. Take your time, Europe, get it right the 1st time

One need only look to America and our own initial failures to see the importance of properly drafting the foundations of government.

[dhinojosa]

18. We didn't get it right the first time thats why we have amendments...

And even amendments aren't perfect. I say ratify it and get it out and working. The document takes care of a lot of problems, and it can always be amended.

[0rganism]

29. Amendments are one thing, wars of secession are something else

Humanity can't afford a European civil war over some crucial unresolved issue, not with the current weapons technologies capable of devastation on a planetary scale. We don't have that "luxury" anymore.

The upcoming Iraqi civil war will be nasty enough to adequately illustrate my point.

[dhinojosa]

32. What crucial unresolved issue would they fight over?

I see nothing in the document that would cause such chaos.

[0rganism]

90. IIRC, some of the framers held a similar opinion in 1789

I think it was one of Jefferson's letters to Madison which said something like, "That pesky slavery thing, well, we don't exactly know what to do about it, but we'll have to hope that an acceptable solution will arise in time."

But I have to give those antebellum lawmakers some credit: many of them went to a lot of trouble to concoct some compromises that seem bizarre, counterintuitive, and convoluted in retrospect, in the name of holding the union together. Their acceptable solution didn't materialize, unfortunately.

For my part, I'll trust that the people of Europe are capable of deciding when to ratify a constitution, or not. If we couldn't rely on them to rationally and critically approach ratification, we wouldn't then simply turn around and expect them to intelligently solve difficult problems through amendment. When after reviewing the document the people of France and Holland find it so woefully inadequate that they reject it overwhelmingly at the polls, there's going to be a reason.

[Frederik]

62. Impossible

Europe is practically pacifist and has been so since world war two. War between Europeans is unthinkable and certainly so for something as banal as a constitution.

[cvoogt]

76. one word:

Yugoslavia. I hope you were being sarcastic ..

[Frederik]

80. The Balkans

Eastern Europe is a little different, and the Balkans is very different. I was talking about Western and Central Europe and I was not being sarcastic. If you think the EU countries are likely to start a war you know exactly nothing about the EU.

[cvoogt]

86. the EU is taking on a more Eastern European flavour

and that is leading to tensions between west/east. No, I don't see EU member states starting wars with each other and see the EU as a very positive thing for peace and stability ... but then on the other hand it is also a tool for corporations to exert greater influence. The constitution has much more to do with economics than individual and social rights. Anyway, I should also point out the tensions between large and small EU members ... France, Germany and Britain vs. the Benelux, Italy, Spain, etc. All that talk a couple months ago about two separate military police forces for the big members prompted the smaller ones to propose similar things, but the US didn't like this since it would diminish the role of NATO and therefore US military influence in Europe.

[Frederik]

107. Yeah, the EU's common defense

was still subordinate to NATO in the constitution. They would basically have some EU forces but using NATO's infrastructure, intelligence etc, just without the Americans. There wasa proposition last year of establishing a separate EU military HQ but I don't think it went far.

[aneerkoinos]

168. Yup

Fifth column Blair had his way in that part too.

Finland (together with Sweden, Ireland, Austria, Malta and Cyprus) is not part of NATO and will not be, so that is not acceptable.

[LSatyl]

77. Well, that's one of the reasons I voted no.

The document takes care of a lot of problems, and it can always be amended.

Um no. The document only creates problems, and an amendment would take all 25 countries agreeing. Like that is gonna happen anytime soon.

Trust me, I've read the frickin' document and the rather ludicrous Protocols and Declarations in 2 languages, it is wrong on all levels. It's insane to call such a treaty a Constitution to start with. What does Maltese real estate have to do with a European constitution? And the so called democratic powers were all fake. Take the much touted civilian initiative: first you need to get one million autographs, which the European commission can then get to use as toilet paper i.e. ignore. Same for European legislation, with the help of 8 other national parliaments, our parliament can advise the Commission of our objections. They will stack those objections next to the autographs. And to get these wonderful democratic powers, we have to give up our veto. Urm no thanks. Liberalization of everything under the sun, from health care to education, has already been discussed in several posts. And I could go on and on, there over 350 pages of this brouha.

My personal reason to actually veto this document, it's much much more than a NO, is article II-77 member 2, five little words: "Intellectual Property shall be protected".

To top it all of, once the major opposition of the population became clear the "Yes" camp started campaigning on fear, our own prime minister likened rejection of the constitution to inviting another holocaust, a minister proclaimed the lights would go out and another promised us war. And as the final insult we get told that rejection of the document is based on fear. Fear of an "open market", fear of change and fear of the Turks.

There were so many reasons to vote no today, but the first and foremost one was that *this* document would take us yet again in the wrong direction, towards a Europe that I would not want to live in.

[Sandpiper]

88. Sometimes it's not that easy

It took 87 years and a bloody civil war to settle the slavery dispute.

[dhinojosa]

99. So should have we put off ratifying the constitution til after ...

the civil war?

[Sandpiper]

117. Your question makes no sense

The Civil War was fought over constitutional issues, thus illustrating the importance of getting a Constitution right in the first place.

The United States ratified a Constitution that was deeply flawed and paid dearly for it. In truth, African Americans are still paying the price for the Constitution that was ratified in 1787.

[dhinojosa]

126. No, you don't make any sense.

You don't get it, without the constitution, states would have no reason to be cohesive and united and would've broken off on their own. United States would never have been, and educated reasoning would lead me to believe there would be more inner continental wars. It needed to be done and quick. You may have heard of George Washington's "There are combustibles in every state which a spark might set fire to."

[Sandpiper]

157. You don't get it

The United States were not cohesive or united following the ratification of the constitution.

Does Lincoln's "A house divided against itself cannot stand" ring any bells.

Ignoring the elephant in the living room for the sake of false unity is not a wise course.

[dhinojosa]

166. Huh?

"The United States were not cohesive or united following the ratification of the constitution."

So "in order to form a perfect union" was?


"Does Lincoln's "A house divided against itself cannot stand" ring any bells."


Yeah, but he wasn't in the Continental Congress. :)



Ignoring the elephant in the living room for the sake of false unity is not a wise course.


So you are saying that the U.S. was falsely unified? I think that's what the Constitution did for us, it did what it could to explicitly to join our country. Though slavery was still at issue, the constitution needed to get done quickly. Ben Franklin strongly advocated getting the constitution compromised and done.

[amandabeech]

158. Actually, the several States had tried a looser organization

called the Articles of Confederation, but it didn't work. That's why the states sent delegates to Philadelphia to work out a new arrangement. The original States had already realized that they could not go it alone in the late 18th century world. The British were still a danger, and the French might have become extremely overbearing to any individual state.

My recollection is that the Bill of Rights, our first ten amendments, was anticipated at the convention by many of the delegates as it was originally put forth by the Constitution's primary drafter, James Madison, who later became President after Jefferson's two terms.

The slavery question was a festering sore, and that sore was lanced, along with the sore of secession, by the Civil War. We're still dealing with the consequences.

[0007]

104. Such as?

[David__77]

13. I have mixed feelings.

I want Europe to consolidate as another polie in a multipolar world, in order to counterbalance US hegemony, but the anti-Constitution vote for certainly largely a vote of the left, against neo-liberal economics and austerity. Europe must also reiterate its social economic character if it is to unite. It must not be dog eat dog.

[deutsey]

27. I agree

[IChing]

17. good articles to read on why vote no

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6208

http://www.european-referendum.org/up/up88.html

http://www.teameurope.info/FSno4-euconstitution-FINAL.pdf

[theboss]

22. The EU is a fascinating process to watch

When it comes right down to it, people and nations want to be independent. The creation of the EU has been decidedly undemocratic up until this point. Once the voters got a say, the entire process fell apart.

[tobeornottobe]

25. That's how I see it.

The transnationalists lost.

[aneerkoinos]

57. No

People still support EU and transnationalism (outside England), they just wan't better EU.

[cestpaspossible]

23. It was more fun when the French did it.

as usual

Allez sortons le gouvernement
impunité zéro pour notre président
Il est surement plus coupable
que la misère des enfants
qu'il veut enfermer
en bon dirigeant

Allez sortons le gouvernement
il faut avancer ont est intelligents

On va user les pavés
On va user les pavés
On va user les pavés
et ils vont reculer.

[hector459]

24. Help somebody! Is racism and anti-immigration behind the "no votes"

on the EU constitution?

[dhinojosa]

30. It sure looks like it doesn't it....

I don't know though for a fact.

[barb162]

52. If countries want to keep their ethnic identity I don't know if I

would call that racism.

[SRSU]

65. Have you even stepped foot on European ground?

This is NOT about racism. It's about anti-labor rights american corporations having framed the EU constitution in a way that will give them FAR too much power in europe.

[dhinojosa]

67. Yes, I have,

I am not European though. :)

But that a new one about American corps. I will check it out.

[name not needed]

34. I doubt it

It's the fact that many Europeans don't want to be ruled by DLC-type neoliberals that's behind the "no votes"

[Baclava]

35. One word. Turkey

Although the European constitution makes no reference to Turkey's possible membership, the "No" camp in France played on voters fears of admitting the large, poor and predominantly Muslim nation. The same can be said for the Dutch.

[aneerkoinos]

61. Two words:

MSM spin. The usual rasist, bigoted, xenophobic MSM spin.

Left, which voted NON, is generally for Turkey's membership, if it fullfilles the criteria, Right, which voted yes, is against Turkey's membership, for the usual R-winger reasons.

[SRSU]

87. Ummm

They don't want a civil war perhaps?

Once you're in the EU then EU court rulings apply to you. Can you imagine Turkey going along with, for example, EU rulings mandating GLBT people be given equal rights?

[Robbien]

36. More like a vote against privatization and loss of social programs

The EU constitution gives corporations the same rights they have here in the US and look how well that has worked for us.

[trebizond]

40. unfortunately many supporters of the constitution just aren't willing to

listen to such objections- it's easier for them to tell themselves that people are voting against it because they are ill-informed, irrational racists. But of course, that sort of arrogance and condescension on the part of their leaders is one of the reasons why the French and Dutch have voted against the constitution. I actually hope they do plough on regardless with process of ratification, so I can help vote it down when it comes to Britain (and it will be voted down in Britain).

[Robbien]

48. Is the press any better over there in getting the word out of what's at

stake with this constitutional global corporate grab, or are they playing the same games being played here?

[SRSU]

89. The EU has a free press

there is no comparison to the US press.

[deutsey]

45. Here's something from the World Socialist Web Site

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/euro-m25.shtml

[barb162]

54. I was reading some Dutch people on this somewhere; a lot of them

were pissed that their currency was pegged to the euro at a bad time, consequently all of their buying became very expensive. Also a fair number of people were talking about the corruption, expense, etc., of a new European government

[aneerkoinos]

59. Some of the no votes

but only small minority.

[Frederik]

66. For a minority

Not at all the main reason, which is worker's rights and social policy, and the undemocratic nature of the EU.

[LSatyl]

82. Hell No!!!

I'm tired of our media painting 62% off the population as extreme left or extreme right. Just because I am doesn't mean my fellow country(wo)men are :evilgrin: (extreme left that is)

It just package and parcel of the "Yes" campaign which has been run, especially the last 2 weeks, on fear and fear alone.

Which is not to say that there aren't racists here or racial tensions, just that this document was voted down because of Europe, and not because of Turkey.

[Dirk39]

93. Another perspective:

Hello from Germany,
I guess it's not a secret: there are right-wing extremists and racists in Europe and they did vote "no", too.
But the majority of the people, who voted "no", are not racists.

There were a lot of discussions and good campaigns. I guess the referendums in France and Dutch did something very good: they might have changed the "blind" ressentiments of many people, who are prone to racisms and fashism, into a reflection of what really is going on in Europe.

Just a thought,
Dirk

[Robbien]

95. How did the fact that the German people didn't get to vote on the issue

play out in Germany. Was this acceptable to most?

[Dirk39]

97. Hello Robbien,

I'd say no. It's just a feeling of powerlessness. The cynicism and ignorance of the political class is unbelievable.

The green-red government in Germany resigns for new elections after 7 years of failing neoliberal reforms.
Many people had lots of hopes, when after 16 years of the ultra-conservative Kohl-regime, the Greens and the Socialdemocrats did win, but they destroyed our welfare state even more. The unemployment rate in Germany is nearly as high as at the end of Weimar, now.

While in France a conservative regime is undergoing a similar crisis for the same reasons.
It's just cynicism, when the leaders of the countries, whose people don't have a vote, claim that although the Dutch and the French did vote against the neoliberal constitution, they could just go in, 'cause all the other countries said "Yes" (o.k. Spain was an exception, for it was the only country so far, where the people voted "yes").

Dirk

[Robbien]

103. Thanks Dirk

There has not been much discussion here about the German reaction. After seeing a report on the BBC here where it said Germany was becoming more and more conservative, I wondered if that were really true or that perhaps the politicians were the ones who were becoming more conservative. With the economic conditions in Germany right now it was hard to believe the majority of the people were happy with global corporatism.

Yay for the French and Dutch speaking up for all the working people of EU.

[confludemocrat]

177. Of course, partly, but both right and left are against it

So there is a lot for everyone to hate or run from and btw some of the discussion above that talks about the validity in a DU forum of maintaining "ethnic identity" is pretty brain- dead and possible only in a forum as lacking in diversity as this one, however much I love being here.

I loved a remark made on the TV5 this morning that continuing the ratification process as Barroso, the EU Commission Prez wants to do is like having the orchestra playing on the deck of the Titanic!

[Jack Rabbit]

41. BBC: What the EU constitution says

From the BBC Online

What the EU constitution says
A constitution for the European Union was agreed in Brussels on 18 June, 2004.

The constitution brings together for the first time the many treaties and agreements on which the EU is based. It defines the powers of the EU, stating where it can and act and where the member states retain their right of veto.

It also defines the role of the EU institutions.

Read more about the document that has had a very bad week.

[alfredo]

50. Back to the drawing board.

Let the fallout begin

[bpilgrim]

56. Just Say NO, to Corporate Constitutions!

:toast:


http://images.globalfreepress.com

peace

[amandabeech]

70. Is it possible that the citizens of other European countries which

ratified the Constitution via parliamentary vote will demand that those ratifications be vacated and referenda be held in their place?

Or in countries which have not yet ratified, and are not scheduled for referenda, will there be a hue and cry for popular vote?

Democracy can be catching, as the Repugs will find out in 2006.


Edit: spelling

[PST]

73. they don't have to

the support of all countries is needed for the constitution to be enforced. if only 1 or 2 countries would say no they could have a re-vote after some time to reach that consensus.
2 of the 6 founding countries saying NO means the constitution is pracically dead.

[aneerkoinos]

84. Yes

Here in Finland the governement don't wan't to hold referendum. 50 MP's (Greens, Real Left, nationalist anti-EU MP's) out of 200 are demanding a referendum, and French and Dutch votes give a lot of power to those demands, and governement may have to give in. Not surprisingly, it is social democrats (in name only on both accounts) together with conservative (in name only) party that are most strictly opposed to referendum.

According to polls, 70 percent want a referendum and same number says likely to vote. Most don't know yet how to vote.

[amandabeech]

91. Thanks for the information, aneerkoinos. n/t

[sigmund]

71. The Euro is crashing again today. No topic

[Dirk39]

74. Juchu! I never felt as european as now!

Hello from Germany,
I love the French and the Dutch for stopping this neoliberal nightmare of a corpocrate Europe. The corporations and banks and their lobbies along with their tanslaters - politicians - were so convinced they would come through with this joke of a constitution that they didn't prepared an alternative way to sell us the same sh*t.
Vive la France! If only the Dutch would stop to produce chease and would held more referendums instead.
A Europe for the people, not a slave-market and free-trade zone for corporations!

Dirk

[Zorra]

75. At this time in history,

there is no way that an organization of 25 major European States all bound by the same Constitution would not become a huge economic puppet for global financial powers.

A big hooray for the French and the Dutch. All nations should maintain their identity and sovereignity and throw off all attempts by the controlling financial powers to homogenize the world into a consumer/worker slave planet.

Marcos on Globalization:

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/1997/jigsaw.html

[DemExpat]

78. I think it is a very good thing.

I voted no while my husband and 2 children voted yes....I saw good arguments for both choices, but my gut reaction told me to vote no.

No, to relinquishing more sovereignty to untransparent bureaucracy in Brussels, No to some countries (France and Germany) not living up to budget agreements in the stability pact - why have agreements? - No fueled by fear of loss of national identity and progressive values and policies to a uniform and grey federation, but especially, No to the breakneck speed of EU enlargement and No to decisions being taken by the national government without consulting/listening to the people.

There has been so much debate in the past couple of weeks, higher turnout in this referendum = all very positive pluspoints for democracy.

Now let's see what the Dutch and French governments and the EU do with the French and Dutch referendum results.

BTW - the Dutch are very pro-Europe, just not in the form presented in this so-called Constitution.

Let the real debates begin!

:kick:

DemEx

[Nihil]

172. The Dutch are probably the best examples of Europeans around

> the Dutch are very pro-Europe, just not in the form presented in this
> so-called Constitution.

In terms of their integration, their fluency in languages and their
ability to forgive (yet not forget) past wrongs, the Dutch are probably
the nearest you will get to finding the ideal European in a single
place.

When you recognise their tolerance (sexual, racial, religious) and
their progressive attitude to most contemporary issues (drugs, armed
forces), it is a shame that they are not placed high on a pedestal
for everyone else to see and learn.

The idea that their "no" vote was produced by racist, extremist or
fear-mongering motives is laughable ... unless you are particularly
insular with no access to the real world of information, just that
provided by the US MSM.

I'm English but if I had to choose one country to base an ideal of
"Europe" upon, it would be the Netherlands.

Nihil

[DemExpat]

182. I agree that they are most special.....

and they want their voice to be heard in this rapidly expanding union.

I agree that more Dutch ideals and attitudes incorporated into the EU would make the EU great and more appealing to the Dutch who are afraid of their values being dictated from Brussels.

I am a dual national (US/Dutch), but although I love much of my American heritage, I find The Netherlands very "enlightened", for a country!

DemEx

[norml]

92. Europe in crisis after Dutch, French reject treaty: AMSTERDAM (Reuters)

Europe in crisis after Dutch, French reject treaty
Wed Jun 1, 2005 06:40 PM ET


By Emma Thomasson and Paul Gallagher
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - The European Union was in disarray on Thursday after the Netherlands followed France in resoundingly rejecting the bloc's new constitution, possibly stalling future expansion and disrupting decision making.

The rejection of the charter by two of the six countries that founded the bloc in the 1950s could deal a fatal blow to a treaty designed to make the EU run more smoothly following its enlargement from 15 to 25 states last year.

The votes also cast doubt on the EU's hopes for a stronger foreign policy and its plans to expand further to the western Balkans, Turkey and Ukraine, and raised questions about its appetite for economic reform amid mounting global competition.

The Dutch "No" vote of 61.6 percent was even more decisive than the nearly 55 percent scored by French opponents of the treaty. Turnout was also a strong 62.8 percent, well above the 39 percent in last year's European parliament election.




snip




http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=8671510

[Robbien]

94. Notice how quickly the money men talked about "economic reforms"

Former European Central Bank chief Wim Duisenberg agreed with Juncker that the euro should not suffer lasting damage, but said the votes would be a blow to economic reforms in the bloc. "The political uncertainty created will hamper the efforts in Europe to introduce more structural reforms which are so very, very necessary."

The word Reforms means giving up social programs of the many to give profits to the ownership society elite.

[BushSpeak]

96. How we got stuck with a Constitution in the first place!

I first posted this in the thread on the French rejection of the Constitutional Treaty last Sunday. Since it was one of the last messages, I've posted it again here. I think it will open many eyes.

Looks like the people found the user's manual for democracy!



This all began with one man's ego trip. Former French president Giscard d'Estaing wanted to end his political career on a high note and go down in history as the father of the European Constitution. (Un)fortunately his excessive paternal instincts gave birth to a bastard or a miscarriage (take your choice).

When the European Council of Laeken mandated the Convention in December 2001, the goal was to clean up the 97,000 pages of the four previous treaties and to introduce more democracy into the institutions in Brussels. At the end of the fourth objective, there is the phrase " and to eventually decide whether the European Union should begin the path towards a constitution".

In his opening address at the convention on February 28th, 2002, Giscard (president of the convention)had already decided for the delegates and declared that the convention would end with the writing of a constitution for the citizens of Europe.

Sir John Kerr, ex-high official in the Foreign Office, was installed as head of the Convention Secretary Office, thus giving Tony Blair final say on the wording of all the Constitutional articles.

For most of fifteen months, the delegates debated essentially the First Part of the Constitution on institutional procedures.

The Second Part, the Charter of Fundamental Rights had been written by a previous convention and received only slight attention, mostly to add subtlety worded escape clauses to allow Blair the possibility to avoid having to apply the many of social aspects of the Constitution. This caused Guy Braibant, vice-president of the original convention that had written the Charter, to state on French television, "When friends in Brussels informed me of the changes that had been made, I finally understood that they had renounced the essence of the Charter". It was only in the final months that the decision was taken to include the Charter in the Constitution.

The famous Third Part or Neo-liberal economic policies and the Fourth Part - annexes and Protocols, were drafted by a special group of experts appointed by the Commission in Brussels. They were finally presented to the Convention three weeks before the end, leaving so little time to debate the issues, that the final draft presented to the European Council in Thessalonica on June 20, 2003 only contained the First and Second Parts. This was very confusing and several members of the Council were ready to accept the Constitution in this form, without the Third and Fourth Parts.

Finally, an additional month was granted to allow the Convention to finish it's work (in haste).

Giuliano Amato, Vice President of the Convention, even stated that "if they keep the article requiring a unanimous decision to modify the Constitution, I will commit suicide". At last news, both Mr. Amato and the unanimous decision article were still alive and kicking.

In October 2003, the Constitutional Treaty was presented to the Inter-Governmental Council in Rome and during the next eight months the governments integrated additional modifications. The most notable being changes to the decision procedures in several areas, mostly financial, requiring unanimous approval instead of a qualified majority. Also restrictions were placed on future European Court and the budget powers of the European Parliament. The article allowing the pursuit of fraud and tax evasion was suppressed.

On June 18th, 2004 the final text was adopted by the 25 member countries.

_____________________________________________________________________

In resuming, we have a Convention that wrote a Constitution when this wasn't it's principle mandate. Only one of the four parts was democratically debated, the other three were given only token attention. The final draft was futher modified by an Inter-Government Council.
_____________________________________________________________________


AND THIS IS THE TEXT THAT IS SUPPOSED TO GOVERN 450 MILLION PEOPLE FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS!


The real question that should be asked is:
Is Europe mature enough to need a Constitution?.

The previous treaty of Nice was considered a failure because the 15 countries couldn't reach a common accord on most of the issues.

We are now 25 with large differences in economic and social standards.

2 more countries are on the waiting list and they are talking about eventually including 38 countries.

Doesn't it seem more logical to allow time for the dust to settle and the economic/social standards to grow closer before setting out on a Constitutional journey?

BushSpeak in Brittany

PS I would be interested in exchanging with DU members in other European countries to learn about the mood in their country. Also if you need additional documents, we've pretty much dissected the Constitional Treaty here in France.

Maybe we can start a thread in a more appropriate section.

[Dirk39]

100. Thanx a lot for the background...

besides all the valuable information given by you, I can't resist to add that it might be the only constitution in the world that contains rules about "holiday flats" in a single country (Denmark).

Dirk

[Robbien]

106. Thanks. This explains a lot.

When reading through the document one got the feeling that all the fancy words about people's rights and welfare were just a bunch of bs. The document read more like a corporation charter.

If you start a European discussion elsewhere on this issue, please leave a trail of bread crumbs for those of us yanks who would like to follow the discussion

[ckramer]

110. Are French and Dutch shortsighted and stupid?

I think they are.

[bpilgrim]

118. care to elaborate...

on those offensive comments?

peace

[ckramer]

176. Excuse my French but the way I see it

French and Dutch voters are selfish and stupid in this regard for voting NO. I don't regret in saying that. Shortsighted and Stupid as far as a future united Europe is concerned.

Small rich countries like Holland need to look beyond its nose: a big Europe is only good for Europeans, in the long run.

France has totally damage its reputation in this result as the France that had resisted the US' push for invading Iraq.

3S - Stupid, Shortsighted, and Selfish.

End of the rant.

[aneerkoinos]

179. What a poor rant

Both on style and content (=no content).

Your rant seems to have nothing to do with the constitutional treaty, just a mistaken wish for Europe develop into a little nicer capitalistic and militaristic empire to compete with US.

[ckramer]

185. "Europe develop into a little nicer capitalistic and militaristic empire "

Oh yeah, that would be fun.

And Japan, S. and N. Korea, China, India united into another nice little capitalistic and militaristic empire....Whoopee!

The best check and balance for the mother earth.

[dhinojosa]

121. Most here say "Its too long to read"

I don't buy it, I started to read and it looks fucking good.

[amandabeech]

122. The nasty stuff will not be in the beginning.

Read it through once. Then, read it again, starting with the back sections where you will undoubtedly find objectionable global corporatist provisions.

I used to write corporate documents. That's how it's done.

[dhinojosa]

127. I will keep that in mind in my reading....thanks

:)

[0007]

132. Try remembering what you like also dude! Then maybe you can

tell the gang here what you like about it!!

[dhinojosa]

135. There is a lot I like about it....

but yeah, that would be a great idea. :) I am sure I will find something I don't like.

[0007]

137. Tell me one major outstanding thing that impressed you?

[dhinojosa]

139. Hmmmm.... There's a lot of cool stuff....but if you are forcing me...

to choose...I drooled over these ones....

Article II-34: Social security and social assistance
1. The Union recognises and respects the entitlement to social security benefits and social
services providing protection in cases such as maternity, illness, industrial accidents,
dependency or old age, and in the case of loss of employment, in accordance with the rules
laid down by Union law and national laws and practices.
2. Everyone residing and moving legally within the European Union is entitled to social security
benefits and social advantages in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices.
3. In order to combat social exclusion and poverty, the Union recognises and respects the right
to social and housing assistance so as to ensure a decent existence for all those who lack
sufficient resources, in accordance with the rules laid down by Union law and national laws
and practices.



Article II-35: Health care
Everyone has the right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical
treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices. A high level of human
health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and
activities.

[0007]

145. Now was that so hard? Why the stall?

[dhinojosa]

154. Please don't tell me you don't know....

I believe it was in post #46 you asked

"Do a cut & paste from what you've read."

I have read a lot. You didn't ask to post one or two things you asked me to "Do a cut & paste from what you've read." That is way too much text for me to copy and paste. If you wanted one or two things to begin with you should've been specific.


On edit...corrected post number

[Nihil]

173. Ah ... I think I see ...

> I drooled over these ones....
>
> Article II-34: Social security and social assistance
> ...
> Article II-35: Health care
> ...

If you are in a country that does not provide such things then, yes,
I can see why you are so much in favour of the constitution.
France & Holland (+ Germany, Britain, ...) however already have these
things, have had them for a long time and so do not see how the extra
legalese surrounding such "obvious" features is beneficial.

I think I am starting to understand some of your past posts.

Please do not assume that the lack of joyful praise on these points
from Europeans is a sign that they cannot or will not read the document.
It is merely that we treat such "natural" features as given and so fail
to recognise the importance that outside observers may attach to them.
The latter, however, may be so overwhelmed that they regard the new
material in the constitution as trivial: this is the stuff that is
causing concern in Europe.

Nihil

[bpilgrim]

125. lol

mmmmmmmmmmm... donuts

peace

[0007]

134. Did you read the whole text? For the third time what part did you

like about it?

[dhinojosa]

143. I didn't read the whole thing yet (as I have stated)

I just started about 4PM mountain time. I am on page 69 now. Are you reading it?

[bpilgrim]

146. he isn't making sweeping, racist, generalizations out of admitted IGNORANC

you are

fyi

peace

[dhinojosa]

151. See post 147 nt

[bpilgrim]

144. no - see post #121

but that won't stop him from commenting on it, acting like he KNOWS better, out of ignorance :eyes:

peace

[dhinojosa]

150. See post 147 nt

[name not needed]

123. Yeah. Who wouldn't want to live in a country

dominated by multinational corporations? :eyes:

[trebizond]

174. Is your post ignorant, racist drivel?

I think it is.

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nihil]

180. Calm down and check who he was replying to ...

... <Clue: It wasn't you ...>

[dhinojosa]

181. You are right.....Sorry....

Whenever posts get like this it is hard to trace... :)

:beer:

[darkism]

116. Exit polls? Don't you know those are always wrong?

Oh, wait. They're mysteriously accurate to within 1% EVERYWHERE IN THE FREAKING WORLD but here.

Funny, ain't it?

[BushSpeak]

130. Constitutionalize the economy

In a now famous article in 1977, Edward Prescott and Finn Kydland, the two winners of 2004 Nobel prize in economics stated:

"It is necessary to constitutionalize economic policies in order to prevent them from becoming subject to the political instability of democracy". (translated from French)

Hmm! Free elections are an obstacle to neo-liberal domination?

Shocking? Not really. It's actually an underlying theme in neo-liberal philosophy from the beginning.

I've been doing a study of neo-liberalism going back to the origins at the University of Chicago, and I've come up with some interesting discoveries.

The Rockafellars brought Friedrich von Hayek over from Europe to teach at the University in 1950. One of von Hayek's main theories was that the world should be governed by the financial elite and that nation states are an obstacle to this end. Von Hayek was also the private tutor of David Rockafellar in economics.

David Rockafellar in turn founded the Bilderberg group (1954) and the Trilateral Commission (~1973), private clubs that include the 150 most powerful industrials in the world.

In an article in Newsweek in 1999, Rockafellar stated "Something must replace governments and private interests seem to me to be the best choice".

In a study by the Trilateral Commission called "The Crisis of Democracy", it is stated "There are desireable limits to the extension of political democracy".

There was also a statement by Rockafellar to the effect that he thanked the editors of Time, Washington Post & NY Times for keeping the activities of the Trilateral Commission secret. Without this secrecy, the Commission would never have been able to acomplish it's objectives for the past 40 years. (This is from memory, so don't quote me on specifics. But the general idea is there).

I'll be doing a web site on the hidden face of neo-liberalism here in France in the next week. The constitutional debate has raised conscienceness enormously and the French people are now open to learning more about the neo-liberal bulldozer.

Add in the Free Trade agreements (NAFTA, GATS, WTO), the World Bank and IMF, the neo-liberal take over of the Iraqui economy + many more and now the constitutional ploy, I think we get a very good idea of the neo-liberal's hidden agenda and where this thing is headed.

The goal of the web site is to vacinate people for life against the neo-liberal philosophy and I don't think that should be too hard once all the juicy details come out in one place.

If anyone is interested in continuing an ongoing discussion of neo-liberal history/objectives, maybe we can find a more appropriate corner in DU.

BushSpeak in Brittany

[Vladimir]

175. For those who don't see what is wrong with this constitution

I recommend:

http://apostatewindbag.blogspot.com/2005/05/pour-leurope-votez-non-leur.html

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/28/news-ireland.php

[Baclava]

184. Britain to scrap EU referendum...

2 June 2005

Britain's referendum on the EU constitution is to be shelved after Dutch voters dealt a devastating blow to the treaty, sources have said.

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw will announce on Monday that the Bill paving the way for the British vote is to be put on hold indefinitely.



http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/PA_NEWA42525311117718819A0?source=PA%20Feed&ct=5