EU Constitution ratification - dead in the starting gate?

[asterion]

I’d assume:

The European Constitution (or perhaps Union)?
For 25%
Against 75%

[Schnitte]

Constitution. I don’t speak Dutch, but I do know that “wet” means “law/statute,” and “grond” looks like the equivalent to German “Grund-,” meaning fundamental or basic, so I assume a grondwet is a constitution.

[gum]

That’s it, asterion & Schnitte Thanks for the translation.

You’re NOT fluent in Dutch, owl? :eek: Tsj.

[owlstretchingtime]

@gum

You’re NOT fluent in Dutch, owl? :eek: Tsj.

Edam; Gouda; Skunk; Cruyff.

That’s all you need

[Arwin]

@ralph124c

My views on the EU constitution: the european parliament need something to do…in between figuring out what color the road signs shouldbe, and deciding if the French style yellow headlamps should be amndatory in the rest of Europe. When will you euros learn! We (in the USA) have entirely TOO MUCH government-and you europeans seem to want more! Why? If you set up an institution (the european parliament) two things will happen:

Actually, we already have a European Parliament. It’s problem is that it has too little influence to balance out the European Commission, not that it has too much influence.

(1) it will continually try to expand its influence(like nosing into airconditioner safety standards in Bulgaria)

Again, nothing the EU Parliament has a say in. Also, I take it you are completely against FCC safety regulations then.

(2) it will continually try to increase its budget

The EU was setup for two reasons. 1 - prevent more European Wars from happening (considering how you got involved last time, you’d say the U.S. should think this a good thing), and 2 - increase economic potential. This also actually works, in terms for free internal markets etc. Also, the euro has been a good thing for the economy (in The Netherlands alone it saves us 15.000.000.000 euro a year on exchange rate costs).

The downsides of the EU, financially, have been the protection of internal industries. I wish they wouldn’t, but it’s nothing the U.S. doesn’t do worse. Take as an example Chinese cotton. We’re still arguing about restricting import, the U.S. has banned it immediately.

In 50 years or so, people will wonder why they have this monster in Brussels, sitting around and wasting money.

Projection, much? I for one just hope we’ll have a fully functioning parliamentary democracy at all levels of government, so that when we vote, we still have a real choice.

There’s a good reason Norway stayed out-they pay a lot less in taxes!

As said, they don’t, and right now, they’ve also been suffering a lot from the high Kroner rate. They’re surviving by grace of them being an oil state, but even so they would most definitely have been better off economically being a part of the EU.

[Arwin]

@wonderwench

The Irish economy is doing well because it has low tax rates which attract business.

Sure, that helps too. But you owe a great deal to Europe.

The EU is in trouble because it is an enormous and bureaucratic document (@ 470+ pages in the English version) drawn up by people completely out of touch with reality.

It’s not as if those pages are additional legislation. They’re a rewrite of earlier documents. It’s an improvement over what we have, but the real issue here is that people are clueless about Europe and its benefits, and the importance of the changes in this document to make Europe more dynamic. Voting no means doing yourself a great disfavor, because particularly many of the No voters object to things that are a lot worse without than with the document.

It is not about protecting individual rights - it is about seizing and centralizing control. This is a far different animal than the U.S. Consitution.

That’s nonsense and you’re comparing apples and oranges. Sure, the document can still be made more elegant, but the total level of agreements covered by the documents cannot be compared to just the U.S. Constitution.

This process tests the ability of the bureaucrats to trick the “normal” people into acting against their own interests.

Again, nonsense. Benefits far outweigh any downsides. Again, the only problem is ignorance, and for that the national governments are to blame. They see the benefits themselves, but fail to report them clearly to their voters.

One of the more troubling aspects in the EUC is the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Unlike the American Bill of Rights (which in its original unamended form was designed to protect individual “negative rights” - the right to be left alone), the EUC promotes affirmative rights “to” things such as education and health care.

Just echoing the principles of such ‘crap’ as the Declaration of Human Rights.

Who pays for these things? The more economically successful EU members (ie, those with low tax rates) are going to be burdened with supporting the aging populations of France and Germany. It remains to be seen if they will be snookered.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Q&A: Charter of fundamental rights

You actually read that link yourself? Because it doesn’t really show …

[CBCD]

The current Weekly Standard has an article by Christopher Caldwell that (predictably) mocks France’s handiwork in the proposed constitution:

“This constitution,” said French president Jacques Chirac in mid-April, “is in its way, a daughter of French thought.” He was talking about the 448-article constitutional treaty (the U.S. Constitution has 7 articles) that is meant to bind the 25 countries of the European Union into something like a superstate…former president Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, who authored the constitution in consultation with European bureaucracies, went on One Hundred Minutes to Convince, France’s Nightline, to try to save the day. “It’s easy to read,” he pleaded. “Limpid, rather beautifully written . . . " Without cracking a smile, he urged his readers to spend an evening reading the first 60 articles.”