Can someone explain what the results of a "no" vote on the EU Constitution would be? Depending on who you listen to there will either be gloom and doom or it will be the greatest thing ever for The Netherlands.I do not mean to start a political debate on this board but I would like to be enlightened to what all the EU Constitution talk means.

Here,s some info

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2950276.stm

Damned if I know. I might log on to the EU Commission's website though and ask them who the best escort they slept with is ?

The effects of an "no" vote would mean -

1. Confidence crisis in the EU
2. Uncertainty in the financial market (where the certainty is change anyway)
3. Turkey will have to wait even longer to get in

Let's hear more from Herr Professor Fiets.

His faithful student,
Fred

The proposed EU Constitution has to be ratified by all 25 member nations. A “yes” vote means the member state will accept the terms of the Constitution as is. A “no” vote by the member nation means the EU Constitution will be rejected and goes back to the drawing board and re-draft the Constitution again.

By design, EU is based on existing treaties, only to consolidate them all together. By nature, EU expects the member nations to give up some national rights to gain security and harmony (joint decision) for the bigger whole, therefore the EU Constitution will allow trumping the national laws with a qualified majority vote in certain legal areas. I guess this is what they called “democracy” – majority rules!

So what this could mean is that the liberal drug and prostitution policy could be trumped by the qualified majority vote if they affect international trade so as to conform to a common policy, unless NL can convince the other member nations to gain a majority to go along with the policy.

If you go to http://europa.eu.int/constitution/index_en.htm and download the FAQ pdf file, it will explain how to interpret the proposed Constitution. #4 will answer the question of how EU can overrule member-nation’s own laws. #20 and #21 will answer the question of what if the Constitution is not ratified. #22 answers how the EU Constitution can be amended.

BTW, Switzerland is doing fine without joining the EU. Switzerland has always been a neutral and independent country, and so can NL. There is provision to cede from EU, but they have to agree to the terms imposed by the EU when they leave. So there are strings attached.

It means absolutely nothing either way.

The constitution is a stupid innocuous little piece of legislature that won't do a damned thing to help anybody. Neither will it harm anybody (on its own.)

Euro politicians are a particularly corrupt bunch (yes I would say that in court and no, it is not slander) and this "constitution" does nothing but slowly and inexorably bring forward the moves required to put those Euro politicians into a position of greater power. Which is what the EU is all about, not about harmony or human rights or anything else. its about money and power.

The constitution will come into effect. Yes it may need to be re-draughted. It will e re-draughted and put again and again to the populace until such time as they can't be bothered to vote no any more. Then once in, it will be strengthened till almost meaningful and it will start to resemble a real constitution. Eventually.

Then it will be used as a building block to bring in stricter, more sinister, homologious legislation at a later date.

Then ID cards...

Then... drip drip drip.

So, the short term effect is .. NIL. Oh, and by the way - if the NL secedes from the EU there are no conditions which it would have to abide by. Its people have certain "inailiable rights" to self government. Sound familiar?

I suspect that one immediate effect a "no" vote by any of the major EU countries would be a devaluation of the Euro vs. the dollar. That would at least be a temporary reprieve for those of us here in the US that enjoy trips to Holland or other EU nations. I also suspect that the current polling showing "no" votes in France and Holland is a major cause of the falling Euro at this point.

DELETED

I have to disagree with Lovebite I'm afraid.

My understanding is a "no" vote in any referendum by a member country would mean that they would continue with the existing constitution, whereas a "yes" vote would mean that they would have an input into the formulation of the revised one. A revision being necessary since the EEC->EC->EU has grown to 25 countries, with more knocking the door to come in.

Personally I'd rather Britain be a part of it so that it has some say in trade laws et cetera directly affecting it rather than say Iceland, who are outside of it but still bound by certain rules.

Consequences of a French 'Non' [taken from BBC Website]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4552937.stm

Regards
G~

Thank you for the insightful comments, Herr professor fiets. It's impossible to have a referendum to satisfy the liberals, the holy rollers, the soccer fans, the inspectors, etc.

I feel guilty contributing to the unfavorable balance of payments of US - buying euros and selling dollars.....

Would the Dutch from Maastricht be more supportive of the referendum?

Regards,
Fred

Well, actually the EU is working out perfectly fine without the Constitution. If it ain’t broken, why fix it! So a “no” vote to the Constitution would have no affect to the current status of what it is whatsoever. EU will exist as a treaty, and that’s what it should be – a treaty, and let all nations maintain their sovereignty and laws without infringing on each other.

What the EU Constitution created is a stateless state, more government and control. That’s all. I don’t think Europe needs another government on top of their own governments. A constitution, by nature, creates governance and regulations. Treaties work just fine, why need more buracracy?

I think the problem lies in the common misconception of the spirit of a “constitution” should be by politicians. Ideally, a constitution should “grant” rights to its citizens and member states rather than “restricting or denying” rights to them. The only thing it should limit is the excessive power and abuse of the government. That is in theory.

But in reality, it’s the opposite. It gives government more power and limits the rights of citizens and member states. That’s the irony!

If you look at the US Constitution as an example, all its amendments are granting rights to citizens and limiting the excessive power of the government, with one exception – the Prohibition Amendment XVIII in 1919 that banned liquor use, which was then repealed by Amendment XXI in 1933. Now, another movement is to amend the constitution to ban same sex marriage, another example of how government abuse their power to deny rights rather than granting rights.

Although the EU Constitution spells out most of the rights granted to its citizens, http://europa.eu.int/constitution/en/ptoc16_en.htm it falls short of granting the most “inalienable right to pursue happiness.” Without that drugs and prostitution can be banned by its constitution.

(BTW, the terms and conditions to withdraw from the Union is spelled out in http://europa.eu.int/constitution/en/ptoc13_en.htm It’s not entirely free to leave without conditions agreed on by the majority.)

DELETED

Typical that a moderator starts the name calling ... "petty nationalist". Rather like slurring people withthe "racist" word when they say something about social issues thatr you don't like.

Personally, I am unhappy about that list you mention about the European constitution because of the words like "take precidence over" and "More authority to..." nothing is what it seems. I don't trust it.

My country has lived without a written constitution for the last thousand years and I felt more free in 1970 than I do now as a European citizen.

Drip drip drip, piece by piece and before you know it, 1984 will arrive about thirty years late.

Oh - lovebite...Article 160 paragraph 3 that you refer to, is only going to apply if that country agrees to the constitution. Its not in force now. Furthermore, any country is completely free (morally as well as politically in my view) to tear up that agreement and do what the hell it wants.

Such a withdrawl without conditions would be a "fait accomplis". What would the other states do? Shout nasty names at the withdrawing country? A trade blockade perhaps? Or perhaps all go to war again. Now that would be fun wouldn't it. NOT.

DELETED

I wish the moderators would finally decide one way or another whether political discussion is welcome on this board.

Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds ;-)

In fact we welcome, and always have, all discussion pertaining to city & country.

But sometimes certain discussions bring out the nasty beast in those who are prone to that disease, and that's the only reason we ever remove a post, or occasionally, a user.

Anyone who lives here understands that along with personal freedom, comes personal responsibility. Certain types of visitors have the mistaken impression that everything is permissible...it ain't. Same here.

There is an urge and rage in people to destroy, to kill, to murder, and until all mankind, without exception, undergoes a great change, wars will be waged, everything that has been built up, cultivated and grown, will be destroyed and disfigured, after which mankind will have to begin all over again. - Anne Frank

Any guesses where I got this book?

"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds"

Consistency is also the cornerstone of fair play. As long as all political views are treated with an equal inconsistency, would-be big minds shouldn't be a problem.

This just in...France votes down the constitution 55% to 45%....

we do what we like, it usually coincides with "fair". if not everything seems fair, that's life. take it on the chin, smile, or not, and move on. whining is unattractive.

if you have a problem, and it seems you do, please feel welcome to "vote" by going elsewhere.