What's Next For The Eu?

[Peaktao 0]

After the French have voted "non" to the European Constitution, the Constitution seems pretty much dead. The Netherland is likely to vote "no" also on 1 June. If that's the case, then two of the original six founders would have rejected the treaty. Obviously, other more eurosceptic countries such as Denmark, UK are likely to follow suit. So what's next for the EU?

[mSite 0]

Now there is only one thing for EU to do:To invite Serbia, if you want take Montenegro too (but they are boring so you can chill them out)That will be the only smart thing to do.Does anybody read my messages!?SRBIJA DO TOKIJA Kakv sam car!!!!!!!!!!

[HmmZ 0]

Well, seeing as France had a pretty clear "non" with 54.86% of all votes, it's obvious that the european constitution is out of the question (for now). People in the netherlands that have the voting right (18+) are insecure and doubtful about what to vote. The dutch government began with their campaign only 1 or 2 weeks ago...wich is far too late to my opinion. The "no" has their pros and cons, but so does the "yes".

 

This is why the upcome in the netherlands is often low, we dont get the information we need. when theres elections, you get a gigantic list of names where you dont even know 3/4 of the names.

 

France has made it's decision in this big step to European Unity, most likely the following countrys will get the "non" aswell, I hear politicians say it's still important what the people vote, of course it is, but it won't have any effect.

 

and for the record, these public voting events could even have no effect at all. that's the democracy in countrys like the netherlands, they ask people to vote, but if the government doesn't support the vote results, they can swipe it off like it's nothing. that's what they call democracy..

[Tyssen 0]

Now there is only one thing for EU to do:To invite Serbia, if you want take Montenegro too (but they are boring so you can chill them out)

I doubt that's really gonna make much positive difference to how Western European countries view the EU.

[adriantc 0]

I'm sorry to see that the UE is not that united...grim days are coming...

[MaryAnne Der Esel 0]

Despite the French "Non" vote, the ratification process will continue. After all, 49% of Europe has already voted "yes". They can't ignore the will of that many poeple on the account of a small band of disafected Frenchmen, and they don't intend to. There have been talks of a re-vote for resistant countries such as France. If it turns out France and the Netherlands are the only nay-sayers of the 25 EU nations, well, I say they should give them a choice to vote "yes" the second time around or to get left behind as the rest of Europe unifies. This constitution is too great of an opportunity for Europe to let it snag on such a small group of people.My main concern right now, though, is that the Dutch are going to be the next to vote. With the "No" camp said to be leading the "yes" by 10%, it could mean two "no" votes in a row within three days of each other. That could bring the forward momentum of the Constituion to a grinding halt. Britian has expressed some concern over whether to ratify the document, and the French and Dutch vote could affect their decision as well as that of many other nations.

[HmmZ 0]

Yes, there have been discussions regarding a revote in a few countrys, but France has already stated before the voting, that they will not do a re-vote, if the people vote no, it's no, although it sounds very democratic, the french are known to be stubbarn like this, the 'non' was expected by many sides, because france is too proud to share their information (aiming at military intelligence and files about criminals and such). Although this pride could affect some countrys (seeing as they are somewhat jealous of France, in many aspects), the eastern block won't be affected in any way by this, they are so eager to join because of the many, many benefits they can acquire by joining the european union.

 

As i said before, the netherlands is most likely to vote no (this is a distorted message to euopre though, seeing as the upcome in the netherlands rarely reaches 40+%). The dutch government has already stated that a re-vote is not out of the question.

 

And MaryAnne, I think it's really wrong that you say that france and the netherlands are just a small group of people, both countrys do a great deal in the european union. the netherlands, one of the smallest countrys in the union, pays the most "european tax" per person, france is somewhere around 4th place, so they are certainly not a small group of people.

 

also, you say europe can't ignore the will of disaffected frenchmen...wrong, very wrong France is one of the leading countrys in europe that held the biggest constitution campaign, so calling the no-voters disaffected is just plain wrong.

[brainless 0]

This constitution is too great of an opportunity for Europe to let it snag on such a small group of people.

Yes, a European Constituation might be an opportunity. But this Treaty on a constitution for the European Union is not a chance but a disaster. Most articles which brought a good deal of social security for the people in the Treaty of Nice [Nice as in italian city, not as in nice] have been reduced to mere phrases in the Constitution. On the other hand, the articles about economics state very clear, what the EU does and what it not does. Same goes for the articles on military matters.

 

1) In the Treaty of Nice from the year 2000, the Union guarantees "a high grade of social security" (Art. I-3), in the draft constitution this is not the case anymore. Article I-3, paragraph 3 now contains the words "[promotes] social security".

In the articles III-205 and -209, the constitution does not "aim at full employment" anymore as the Treaty of Nice did but it aims at "a high level of employment".

The "social economy" has become an "open economy with free competition" [equals Neoliberalism ... kinda like what you guys in the USA have] in Article III-177.

The right to access to services of social security is not everyone's right anymore but depends on "Union and national laws and customs" (Art II-94).

Once again Article III-177: This article clearly states that the people's struggle against mass unemployment (about 11% in Germany, about as much in other states of the "old Europe") and social security are less important than stable prices and a "healthy monetary situation".

 

2) If one of the Union's goals is to promote peace (I-3), you could think that disarming at least parts of the member states' armies would be considered. But the exact opposing thing is the case: All member states have to "gradually increase their military capacities" (Article I-141). To watch this, a European Defence Agency and Crisis Reaction Forces are being created. The CRF's may move into war all around the world ... and the european parliament doesn't even have to be bothered with this questions until half a year after the forces have been deployed...

 

3) In a Union which requires all states who want to join to be democratic, you might think that this is because the Union itself is democratic. Nada. The Parliament is not even equally strong as the Secretaries' Council. The Parliament may not propose laws, the European Commission's president is elected by the Parliament but the Parliament may not propose any candidates - it's the Council which proposes the next president of the commission. By the way, the Councils are not elected by the people.

In foreign and security policies, the Parliament does not have any voice at all, the Council is just required to "hear" the Parliament and "keep it up to date" (Article I-40).

 

Actually, this constitution does not even try to fight tax evasion, tax dumping etc. It actually guarantees the special status of the Isle of Man and other tax havens.

 

well, that's just what I have to say about the differences between the Treaty of Nice and the Constitution, which will hopefully fail in more nations.

 

There are some articles in the german constitution (GrundGesetz/GG), which I would have loved to see in the european constitution as well:

 

The social state's duties as in article 20GG,

the obligation of property to use it for the public's well-being (Art 14, p2GG),

open economic regulations without the state (or the Union) having to privatice services but also the possibility to socialise companies if need be (article 15GG),

or, most important, the prohibition of attack wars (article 26GG).

 

There is no way I can accept this constitution, and I know that many fellow germans think so, too. Unfortunately, we were not allowed to vote on the european constitution. Anyway, if they want to force this on us - there's still article 20, p4GG: "All Germans have the right to resist against anybody who tries to abolish the order as stated in this article, if there is no other way." (by the way, the european constitution does not have contain the right to resist against an unjust government). No, it even establishes the death penalty for all those who resist against the european union, as you can read in a thread I've posted here quite some time ago.

 

And I think the proposal to re-vote in those nations where the people voted against this constitution is shi... not ok. Accept the people's decision - or do you want to revote ... and revote ... and revote ... and revote ... and rev...?

 

to come back to the original question:

 

So what's next for the EU? Back to the Treaty of Nice and re-negotiate it to fit onto the EU of 25 [info for the non-EU-people among us: Earlier this year, we welcomed 10 new member states, making it a EU of 25 instead of a EU of 15]. Even though I don't think this Treaty's the best we could have, it's still wayyyyy better than the Constitution...

 

... by the way, it's quite interesting to compare the Treaty of Nice and the Constitution. Try to order them from your state's agency for political education or whatever institution does this job. In Germany it's the Bundeszentrale fuer politische Bildung, bpb (great: in the european parliament's german office, they charge 25 euros for a copy of the constitution and it's impossible to get the Treaty of Nice there. The bpb charges 2 euros protection fee each...

 

Notice from BuffaloHELP:

Merged as per request.

[Tyssen 0]

[Nice as in italian city, not as in nice]

Nice is in France, not Italy.

[brainless 0]

uhm ... ok, my geography isn't too good (though I know where to find the Iraq on a map, instead of many people who were about to invade that country )

[HoRuS 0]

Wow, I'm happy to see Netherlands have vote NO! but 63% Now I can sleep in peace, who knows what have happened to many countries (and people) if that Constitution came trough. Would have caused many people to suffer and politicians to go on with their selvish and ignorant agenda's Oh and it wasnt't the people who founded the EU, but the diplomats and see? When the people get to vote they want different things then their governments

[brainless 0]

yep, I hope they get the idea to ask the people what they actually want now ... the Treaty of Nice wasn't that bad, I could have said ok to that one (I'm not even saying a united Europe would be bad).Here in Germany we had 95% of all votes cast in favor of the Constitution while there was about noone among the people who said "Yes, I want this constitution", which led to stupid excuses by politicians like Mr. Stroebele (who's said to be quite far on the left side) who excused himself with "It hurt me to vote 'Yes'" or, some other member of the Green party who said that "My 'Yes' was actually meant to be a 'No'". In the last speech before the vote, our chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said "That it's all settled now and there's no way for a 'No' so it's unnecessary to have too close a look at the one or other sentence.". With sentences like this ... who's supposed to trust our politicians?

[Peaktao 0]

There you go... second "NO" in a week from another founder of the EU. Although it's true that many countries have retified the treaty (correct me if i'm wrong but it's not 49% yet is it?), there are some countries with "No" as the most likely answer. Britain, Denmark are a few examples. These countries are more EU-sceptic through and through. As a lawyer myself, an EU constitution would harmonise many legal areas nicely to create more certainties for traders. But to me, the treaty seems pretty much dead for now.

[brainless 0]

yes, many countries indeed did ratify the treaty ... but how many of those asked the people? As I've pointed out before, the constitutional treaty is not a treaty of the people as it should be, if we are supposed to accept it...I don't think that this constitution would harmonise that many areas since I've seen the words "... according to national habits" and similar phrases quite often...anyways, I just got a nice sheet of paper from the german socialist party which pays attention to the points I've mentioned a little bit more closely - and even with more attention it does not become better :/

[Aro 0]

problem is, I'm not sure how any treaty could get ratified if every country had to vote on it