Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Polls Heaven

View Poll Results: what will you (or would you) vote for?
In favour of the constitution, I'm a EU citizen. 14 25.45%
Against the constitution, I'm a EU citizen. 19 34.55%
In favour of the constitution, I'm not a EU citizen. 11 20.00%
Against the constitution, I'm not a EU citizen. 11 20.00%
Who voted? Voters: 55
You may not vote on this poll

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
(Posted as Geck)
Posts: 211/367
(26-Apr-2005 at 17:44)


The European Constitution

I was kind of surprised not to see a topic on this, so here goes:

Europeans, will (or would) you vote in favour of the new European Constitution?

Personally I won't for the following reasons:


1) It will lead to the creation of a European super state.
An own flag, an own "national" anthem (Iíve been told, don't know which though), a foreign minister, a president, a currency and last but certainly not the least, an army.
This IMHO doesn't make any sense, why a European state and constitution if there is no such thing a European citizen (Iíve yet to meet the first person to call himself European above his nationality).
-Articleís I-1, I-10, I-12, I-22.


2) In a number of fields the EU memberís powers will practically be transferred to Brussels.
The EU will have exclusive authority over the following fields:
- Monetary policy (specifically the Euro countryís)
- Customs union
- Common trade policies
- Competition regulation for the internal market
- Defence (military etc.)
Then there are the fields on which "shared authority" exists, which means that the member states make the decisions UNTIL the EU steps in and overrules it
These are social policies, economic policies, agriculture and fishing, environment, energy, transportation and public safety.
(Article I-12):

Then there is the foreign policy of the members, or rather a abolishing of the foreign policy.
- All the foreign policies of all member states will be subject to the decisions made by the majority of the EU leaders under guidance of the EU's foreign minister, this includes the removal of the separate states' veto rights. Io international organizations/conferences the EU nations must express the point of view of the EU rather than they're own.
(Article III-305)
- In international organizations and other international conferences the foreign minister of the EU will represent and defend these majority decisions I previously mentioned. The member states are no longer allowed to express they're individual point of view in these organizations/conferences.
(Article III-296)
- Besides this the EU can make treaties with for example China or the US, this specifically bothers me, with Blair and Berlusconi (they represent a major part of the EU population) blindly following the lunatics in the White House. The individual states cannot object to the treaties, which are once again made by majority votes.
(Article III-323)
- One could argue that opposite to the loss of power in the national parliaments the European Parliament will be directly chosen and will get more influence. But the EP still has no right for initiative, and can only block propositions by the Council.


3) Agriculture.
-I assume most of you are familiar with the debates revolving around the subsidies given to European farmers. Since 1992 the EUís leaders have tried to change the current unfair system, but to no avail.
For example, these subsidies are (among other causes ofcource) prohibiting development country's from building up a viable agricultural sector of they're own, by giving the European farmers great advantages by state subsidies on top of the high import tariff's.
-A major part of the constitution revolves around free and world trade, but when it comes to agriculture free trade is practically non-existent.
I the so-called "agenda 2000" a different agricultural policy is advocated, not that of increasing the production (Europe is and has had over-production for a long time now) but for rural-development, durability, animal welfare and the safety of the food.
But instead of this the constitution includes the agricultural goal of increasing the production by the means of supporting technological development, this way safeguarding the European food supply.
(Article III-227)
-To clarify this a later article (not sure which) includes a statement saying the European agricultural policies must be limited to the pre-mentioned goals, this being the increasing of production regardless of the current over production, with all the risks for the environment and animal welfare that come with it.


4) The constitution is said to (at least by the Dutch leaders) protect animal rights. Meanwhile they forget (read neglect) to mention article III-121.
In this article is described that when concerning animal welfare, the memberís states must respect religious rituals, cultural traditions and regional heritage.
Some consequences of this being:
- No measures to end the Spanish bull fighting (read slaughters)
- No measures to counter ritual killings
- No measures to prevent the picking up of endangered species eggs, as a cultural tradition in for example Belgium.
- No measures to prevent hunting as it has recently been abolished in the UK. I'm not sure if that law could be reversed though.


5) A very expensive cooperating European army.
-At this moment the European member states together spend about 150 billion Euros on they're army's.
The constitution includes an article that says the member states MUST gradually increase they're military capability's, this will increase the total European expenses by another 50 billion Euros a year.
If a member states would want to cut back on they're defence budget in favour of healthcare or education, this is in violation with the constitution.
(Article I-41, section 3)
-Furthermore a European defence agency will be will be set-up. The function of the agency will be to increase the development of defensive capability's, weapons development, purchase as well as arming the member states.
Besides this is also needs to support the European weapons industry by developing its industrial and technological basis.
(Article I-41, section 3)
-Not only is this strong European focus on arming its nations a great recipe for a new weapons-race like between the USSR and the USA, but also it's overall ridiculous such a law is included in a constitution.
The Constitution also expresses the EU's strong relation with NATO and that way the alliance with the US.
This means there will be no more room for individual country's to hold a military neutral position as opposed to NATO or the US.
But the Constitution isn't only including the mutual defence of the EU's allies' territories but also expresses the possibility of military missions outside the EU's territory for peace keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening the international security.
Obviously a perfect recipe for a preventive war. This can be good, like Afghanistan, but Iím sure Iraq already crossed your mind .
(Article I-41)


6) More bureaucracy from Brussels
The EU is a bureaucratic, undemocratic, money-devouring monstrosity.
Ofcource bringing 50 years of treaties together in 1 constitution makes it more synoptic, but it will not lead to the simplification of the current 97.000+ pages of treaties and laws. On the contrary, the individual states (specifically the smaller ones) will have less influence on the decisions regarding its interests.
A striking example of the burocracy and wastes produced by this monstrosity is the monthly movement of the entire parliament (journalists, representatives, members, lobbyists, documents, you name it!) from Brussels to Strasbourg, annual costs: 200 million Euros. And obviously the brand-new building erected in Strasbourg that costed hundreds of millions, and is empty for most of the year.

Calculation by the Dutch Algemene Rekenkamer (government institution that calculates various financial development on various fields) concluded that the bureaucracy would not decrease with the new constitution.
"It is a pity to see that in the constitutional treaty the principles of descent public governance are not or barely made concrete.



I had a few other issues in mind but Iím pretty sure I bored you enough by now .
#1  
View Public Profile Find more posts by rsyhdtyjffdtyj Add rsyhdtyjffdtyj to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 68/104
(26-Apr-2005 at 17:49)
Well I supose it would give more stability to Europe but what are the cons worldwide?

Dandrophilia : Knock on Wood.
#2  
View Public Profile Find more posts by TeslaSon Add TeslaSon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2740/4829
(26-Apr-2005 at 18:14)


Well, I used to be for the creation of a European super state, but after reading some of your stuff I am against it. For example: I am quite frankly shocked that they would insert animal rights into a constitution at all. Animal rights are not a universally held belief.

Also, since the leftists are the majority in Europe a unified government would prevent us "lunatics" from directly associating with the more right minded states.

Other than that an EU sounds like it would be quite successful.

P.S. - From America
#3  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Royal Assassin3 Add Royal Assassin3 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Research Group
Posts: 2397/4241
Donated $0.60
(26-Apr-2005 at 20:03)


I'm against EU's constitution and EU. My country has been deceived to join EU. Goverment hide facts about EU and did not told everything and almost forced us to join with huge advertasiment campaign for EU ( I.E. Propaganda )

I hate EU and everything about it! I think I move in New Zealand or Iceland to get away from it. Even Russia is better option than EU. And I hate to admit that I live in a country that belongs to EU

Generalization is rhetorics of simpletons.
"Sages learn from history... idiots learn from experience" -Fairy Tail manga
#4  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Lord Menchalior Add Lord Menchalior to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Geck)
Posts: 212/367
(26-Apr-2005 at 21:00)


Quote:
us "lunatics"
Well, if you say so yourself .

Actually I was saying: "the lunatics in the White House."
Unless your some US secretary or even higher this should't include any of you people who think I meant the American population .
#5  
View Public Profile Find more posts by rsyhdtyjffdtyj Add rsyhdtyjffdtyj to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 225/253
(26-Apr-2005 at 21:08)


i say make a one world capitalistic democracy and have it over with with the emphasis on capitalism . Let people open their own business and let them make what they want i mean thats what drives most of us is money right???

Burning flames, shooting energy bursts, power with anger and superforms that kind of fights a Saiyan really desires
#6  
View Public Profile Visit draconis84's homepage Find more posts by draconis84 Add draconis84 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Osiris is here)
Posts: 367/1009
(26-Apr-2005 at 21:11)


Im in the UK and i will definatly vote no Fro the constitution. I really hope we dont have to use the euro either
#7  
View Public Profile Find more posts by O s i r i s Add O s i r i s to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2743/4829
(26-Apr-2005 at 21:19)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Geck)

Well, if you say so yourself .

Actually I was saying: "the lunatics in the White House."
Unless your some US secretary or even higher this should't include any of you people who think I meant the American population .
Our government is We the People. In any case wouldn't it take lunatics to elect a lunatic?

That is another thing you may need to worry about if you had an EU. (and it is probably the root of your objections) Your government will represent you, even if it holds an ideology contrary to your own or is located in a different state of the EU. The smaller the highest unit of government the less likely that there will be large divisions within a state.

Last edited by Royal Assassin3, 26-Apr-2005 at 21:21.
#8  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Royal Assassin3 Add Royal Assassin3 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 322/842
(26-Apr-2005 at 21:22)
well...i say go for it, you have a lot of cons but im sure their are some pros....i mean you can't have everything now can you ?
#9  
View Public Profile Find more posts by tylerrrrr Add tylerrrrr to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Osiris is here)
Posts: 369/1009
(26-Apr-2005 at 21:31)


no but i would prefer not to make a superstate our cultures are just too different, i mean English french dutch german just wouldnt work as a country
#10  
View Public Profile Find more posts by O s i r i s Add O s i r i s to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 427/714
(27-Apr-2005 at 09:52)


The only change that the EU constitution will make is that its all written down. There wont change much, its already that way and wether we like it or not.

I doubt the EU will become like a United States of Europe, too many different cultures.

A Clockwork Orange:
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

#11  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Frederick Add Frederick to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Murmelbeast RoU)
Posts: 101/136
(27-Apr-2005 at 10:15)


Re: The European Constitution

Quote:
(Originally posted by Geck)

I was kind of surprised not to see a topic on this, so here goes:

Europeans, will (or would) you vote in favour of the new European Constitution?

Personally I won't for the following reasons:
Why not post the changes in a neutral way instead of what you think about it so people get to decide themselves wether it's good or not. Me myself have no idea what the new constitution is all about but I figured it would be best not to read all that stuff that angles it in a bad way because it would influence my oppinions.

We'll be back in a flash with more of this trash
#12  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Murmelbeast Add Murmelbeast to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 486/803
(27-Apr-2005 at 10:51)
Definately in favour of it, and willing to accept the bad with the good.

In the long run, I would guess that a īsuperstateī or even a federation will be better for all parties involved, and in a greater worldwide perspective. It will strenghten Euro influence and ability to compete with other large economies, and a strong and closely united EU will also balance out other federations and unions worldwide.


My creation has become depraved and fallen lower than the Sodomites; darkness came upon them like a lethal veil, sent by Satan.

Welcome into my life, and the world, Alexandra. Born March 9th 2006.
#13  
View Public Profile Find more posts by The Mordor Add The Mordor to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 147/189
(27-Apr-2005 at 11:08)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Osiris is here)

no but i would prefer not to make a superstate our cultures are just too different, i mean English french dutch german just wouldnt work as a country
Yeah, like the US don't have those. They are our colonies and it didn't stop them...

That said, I hate govts, laws, rules, regulations and all that shite. I'm definitely against the EU and it's Constitution.

-------------------------
To do aught good never will be our task, but ever to do ill our sole delight, as being the contrary to his high will whom we resist. If then his Providence out of our evil seek to bring forth good, our labor must be to pervert that end, and out of good still find means of evil.
#14  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Headless cook Add Headless cook to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 712/1022
Donated $1.20
(27-Apr-2005 at 11:46)


From the EU (Ireland) but completely against the constitution. It hasn't been explained at all to us here, and i think the EU has as much power as it needs/should have. I've no intention of voting in favour of a major political constitution that I don't properly understand. That nobody tries to explain it either doesn't inspire confidence that it's good for Europeans.

On the other hand, i think the EU is a great idea, but as a "global power" or a "superstate" it's completely impossible and stupid. While i favour Europeans working together in areas where a collective, positive influence guarantees better effect, (such as defense/trade) i'm Irish and then European, and i don't see that being reversed. There is nothing at the core of the EU that would encourage the entire continent to consider themselves European before considering themselves French/German/Spanish.
Europe has a long history of nationalism and self-assertion, as much good as the EU does there is no way (or reason) i can see that being ignored or forgotten about.
Even the most fervent Euro-phile must accept that.

The biggest single barrier though is that the EU seems very distant to me. I don't really have much say in it, and my vote is just one amongst 450 million others. I don't think i'm alone in thinking that the EU is just too complex and "above" the average schmoe on the ground that people won't vote for the constitution. I know even here, Euro-sceptics abound, same in Spain, and with both of us benefitting HUGELY from the EU makes it hard to see why. Also, i believe in France and Holland (both traditionally among the EU's most fervent supporters) the EU is losing ground thanks to immigration fears (Holland) and despite Chirac/France wanting to be a counterweight to the US.


Put it this way, the people that usually should/would support the EU don't anymore, so i can't see how, and i certainly can't see why, the EU constitution in its present form is going to pass the referenda it needs to.

Noble Lady Sarak ~~ King Was Throne Away
The most extragant idea that a politican can have is to believe that it is enough for a people to march into a foreign country, for that country to adopt its laws and constitution. No-one likes armed missionaries; and nature and prudence both teach us to repel armed missionaries as enemies.
~ Maximilien Robespierre; January 1792
#15  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Sarak Add Sarak to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 876/2058
(27-Apr-2005 at 12:44)


Against eventhough Im not a eu citizen.

You know the real meaning of PEACE only if you have been through the war. Anyone, who truly wants to go to war, has never truly been there before!
#16  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Invasion Add Invasion to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 26/28
(27-Apr-2005 at 13:11)


I see a lot of polemique in the initial post, which seem to come from the fear of a citizen from a smaller country, which so far in the union have overproportional strength. I think it would be completely logic, that 80 million citizens have 40 times more weight then 5 million, however the actual situation gives the 80 million people 7 votes and the 5 million 3 votes. I also understand that the 5 million people now fear, that their opinion will be relativised with the new constitution. However as still the council of ministers exist, which are non representative of the population but only of the country, they still have more weight than the majority of the population.

To relativise the initial post:
Yes the union will have exclusive competence on customs politics (already the case now)
monetary policy (with teh Euro its already a common currency, why should a state alone decide on it if all share the money?)
rules for the internal market, thats already the case now
Btw there is not mentioned that an army is under the exclusive order of the union (or I am too blind to see it)

Maybe its cause I come from a country which is already organized as a federation, that I dont see problems with an even larger federation.

Concerning the animals, it would be good the read actually the original text and not turning around the sentences. The paragraph says in the context of agriculture, fishery and transport:
as animals are sentient beeibgs the union and member states shall pay full regard to the requirements of animal wellfare while respecting each countries legeslative and administrative provisions and customs relating in particular to cultural traditions and regional heritage.
Again this does not change anything to what we have right now. I dont think its the place of a constitution to force a country to change its customs. And its surely not the place that one country wants to see all its local laws and viws imposed to the rest of the community, but to guarantee the basic and fondamenal rights for its citizens in respect with the environement, and thats what I see in this constitution.


The contitution is NOT the attempt to put the 50 years of treaties together, but to create a frame for a common political work of the member states. A constitution is not containing all the laws!



I am from Europe and I have voted yes.

The main reasons:
- the european parliament is finally gaining the rights of a parliament, i.e. legislation rights, which will constitute a huge gain compared to the actual situation where the "laws" are decided by the comission which has no legal delegation by elections (dont know the right terms for that, but I think you get what I mean)
- i find all the fundamental rights which are garanteed by the constitution (liberty, egality, etc)
#17  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Thalura Add Thalura to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 66/66
(27-Apr-2005 at 13:15)
I am Dutch, and in favour of the European constitution.

First I'll try to show a couple of the advantages the constittin brings, then I'll reply to some of the critics out there.

1) Democracy! Finally, in the constitution, the European Parliament gets some real power. Still not enough, obviously, but it is a step in the right direction.

2) Better coördinated foreign affairs. While this will of course mean that a minority opinion inside the EU will get less 'camera time', but then agian, these minority opinions wouldn't have really mattered anyway, since only one or two countries would would have that opinion.

3) Countries would (finally?) have a way to get out of the union. Currently they can't.

4) This might also be partly accomplished by just debating about the constitution, but by putting all European laws in one document, which then gets a lot of attention, there might be more people who know a bit of European law.

5) We get (Part of) Beethoven's Ninth as an 'International Anthem'. ;-)

Now, about the 'disadvatages' and disadvantages mentioned before:

Quote:
1) It will lead to the creation of a European super state.
No it won't. European citicenship is an addition, not a replacement of national citicenship. Okay, we get an anthem. Whoooo... Now I'm sure everyone will just start thinking their own country has disappeared.

And besides, what's wrong with an European super state? For that matter, what would be wrong with a world state? Of course you'd still nees more local governments, but that isn't ruled out by a superstate, is it? And then it would finally be possible to actually do anything, say, protecting the enviroment, without a couple of nations putting their own short-term interests above the long-term interests of everyone, including themselves.

Quote:
2) In a number of fields the EU memberÔŅĹs powers will practically be transferred to Brussels.
I must admit I'm not too happy about this either. However, I do see that there is no other way. I mean, the euro countries have one currency. It would make absolutely no sense to let each of them determine their own monitary policy, would it? The same counts, more or less, for the other points.

And, let's be honest. It's not like the EU will suddenly turn on its inhabitants, and create all sorts of laws that are bad for everyone. Sometimes a law will be bad for you, sometimes it wil be very good, in the long run it should approximately equal out. The EU is, after all, a somewhat (and getting more) democratic union.

And, of course, in most of those points the EU already has the power, and the constitution won't change anything.


Quote:
3) Agriculture.
True. But that is not a reslut of the constitution. This is how the current European agricultural policy works. This isn't a disadvantage of the constitution, this is a disadvantage of the EU.

And, yes, it would have been nice if the constitution would have been used as a point to really change the agricultural policy. But that just isn't possible at this time, let's settle for what we can get.

Quote:
5) A very expensive cooperating European army.
Let's take a look at what the EU defence policy tries to accomplish:

Article I-41.1:
"The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civil and
military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter."

Well, if you ask me, that's actually pretty good! You know, the peacekeeping the EU countries already try to do, but then more coördinated, so probably a lot more effective. And all within the rules of the UN Charter. I couln't come up with a better way to formulate a EU Defense policy.

And, yes, that might, perhaps, cost a little. (However, I read I-41.3 and it doesn't say anything about increasing spending.) That's of course not very good, but I consider that acceptable if it really gives an effective EU intervention force.

Now lets get to other people responses.
Quote:
Well, I used to be for the creation of a European super state, but after reading some of your stuff I am against it. For example: I am quite frankly shocked that they would insert animal rights into a constitution at all. Animal rights are not a universally held belief.
Well, this is based on two false assumptions:
1) That the EU constitution is like a national constitution. It isn't. Most of it is just a summary of existing EU law. The Preamble and the first couple of articles do resemble a 'normal' constitution.
2) That a constitution should hold only universally held beliefs. There ARE no universally held beliefs. A constitution should hold beliefs that are CLOSE to universal INSIDE the area it is a constitution of. And, well, like it or not, animal rights are a close to universal belief inside the EU.

Quote:
Im in the UK and i will definatly vote no Fro the constitution. I really hope we dont have to use the euro either
I do hope you realise the Euro and the constitution don't really have any connection? If you want to, you can of course vote against the constitution. But please don't do it for the wrong reasons.

Quote:
Europe has a long history of nationalism and self-assertion, as much good as the EU does there is no way (or reason) i can see that being ignored or forgotten about.
Even the most fervent Euro-phile must accept that.
Well, there is a long history of that. However, at the moment most European countries are amongst the least nationalistic in the world. I mean, compare, say, Germany with the US, with 'saluting the flag', or whatever they call it. That's just plain scary! Not to mention referring to God of course, but thats another debate.
#18  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Awetugiw Add Awetugiw to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2073/2365
(27-Apr-2005 at 13:17)


hm, i couldn't really say whether i'd vote for or against it; i don't have enough information to really make an informed decision. fortunately, my parliament is going to do that for me.

actually, i would probably vote for it at any rate, not so much because i agree with specific aspects, but rather because it generally is moving Europe into a direction i agree with.
i think closer cooperation is a good thing. i think formulating common policies is a good thing. it needs to be done in a sensible way, obviously, without the majority bullying the minority, but rather consensus based. but that is the case in all democracies.
by the way, it is not true that smaller nations are under-represented in the decisionmaking process. it's the other way round, the citizens of larger nations are under-represented, in order to ensure that the smaller nations get heard and can make their vote count.

now, about the feeling of not being able to make a difference: what does it matter to me whether i have one vote in 80 million, or one in 450 million? essentially, my vote per se does not make a difference either way. and Sarak, the same is true for Ireland's 6 million; the numbers might look different, but in the end, it's all the same.
i don't care whether i am governed from Berlin or Brussels. i don't have a strong personal connection to either one; Brussels is actually 200 kilometers closer than Berlin from where i live.

an that whole identity issue: i don't feel as a German very much. certainly not more so than as a European. my emotional connection is with the area i live in, and other than that, i have as much in common with a German from another part of the country than with a European form anywhere else. (apart from the language, obviously. but since i actually use English more than German, that doesn't really matter too much).

regardless, what has been said about good governance is of course true, and must be adressed. but that has little to do with the constitution per se; it needs to be adressed with or without it. as a matter of fact, it must be tackled on all levels of governance, not just the European level; i certainly wouldn't say that my national government has no problems like that.

what i think is required is less influence by national governments in the European Union, and a more direct relationship to the people. as it is now, the European beaurocracies are being stuffed with national appointees, and there is little accountability to the people, who are, after all, what the European Union is supposed to serve and represent.
#19  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Subterranean Add Subterranean to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Geck)
Posts: 214/367
(27-Apr-2005 at 23:47)


Quote:
Our government is We the People. In any case wouldn't it take lunatics to elect a lunatic?
Well I suppose if you put it that way Iíd refer to 51% of the US citizens (minors excluded) as lunatics :S.
But since not every Republican supports all issues (they have some good ones) this'd become really difficult, certainly as I do not intent to offend an entire (or half) country



Quote:
1) Democracy! Finally, in the constitution, the European Parliament gets some real power. Still not enough, obviously, but it is a step in the right direction.
Sure, the European Parliament does gain a little power, but by far not enough to compensate for the loss of power by the national parliaments.
The only real power of the democratically elected part of the EU still can only block proposals, and still cannot initiate it's own proposals.
The real power still lies with the Council of Ministers, whose meetings are only public when they act as a legislative authority. However this is rarely the case.
In most situations the Council of Ministers makes it's decisions based upon articles by the Committee of the Regions, a body that is frequently consulted by the
Council of Ministers and has a great influence. These meetings also are not public.
European Parliament real power? Think again!
A (translated) quote from the biggest Dutch Juridical magazine: "the attempt to substantially increase the democratic value of the EU appears to have largely failed."



Quote:
3) Countries would (finally?) have a way to get out of the union. Currently they can't.
What? Imagine the Dutch government would decide to withdraw form the EU now, you don't actually expect German, British and French tanks rolling over our lands would you? Or were you thinking more in lines of air strikes? Ofcource they can already get out. This is the EU, not even a sovereign state, let alone China.



Quote:
However, I do see that there is no other way. I mean, the euro countries have one currency. It would make absolutely no sense to let each of them determine their own monetary policy, would it? The same counts, more or less, for the other points.
Ever since the introduction of the Euro on the financial markets (even before the actual coins were distributed) the Euro country's were already cooperating on this and continue to do to this day.
However till now the Netherlands (and if Iím correct) another country could use they're veto rights for the following reason:
In the years of economic prosperity the Dutch government set aside some of the abundance of money, while France and Germany spent the money that came in on the left side immediately on the right instead of saving it, and decrease the governments debts.
Now last year France and Germany tried to increase the maximum annual budget deficit above three percent. This constitution would enable them to increase this, meaning among others my country will have to pay for the financial mess they produced themselves.



Quote:
And, let's be honest. It's not like the EU will suddenly turn on its inhabitants, and create all sorts of laws that are bad for everyone. Sometimes a law will be bad for you, sometimes it will be very good, in the long run it should approximately equal out. The EU is, after all, a somewhat (and getting more) democratic union.
The country's will no longer have it's veto rights. Now we have our same-sex marriages, legal prostitution, Euthanasia and ofcource a liberal Drug policy.
This might sound very selfish, but it took my country decades to acquire these liberty's. And I am afraid the small mindedness, conservativity and intolerance that exists in most of the member states will end these aspects of our liberty.



Quote:
True. But that is not a result of the constitution. This is how the current European agricultural policy works. This isn't a disadvantage of the constitution, this is a disadvantage of the EU.
Well your right on this one, like I said the constitution is mostly created to combine the previous treaties.



Quote:
2) That a constitution should hold only universally held beliefs. There ARE no universally held beliefs. A constitution should hold beliefs that are CLOSE to universal INSIDE the area it is a constitution of. And, well, like it or not, animal rights are a close to universal belief inside the EU.
Good point, however this was not how I meant it.
The European leaders use this argument (of animal rights) to persuade the EU citizens to vote in favour of the constitution.
However they neglect to mention the exclusion I mentioned in my first post in this thread about religion and culture. Giving people false hopes about the abolishment of such animal cruelty.
#20  
View Public Profile Find more posts by rsyhdtyjffdtyj Add rsyhdtyjffdtyj to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 06:53.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.