What's Next For The Eu?

[brainless 0]

the problem is not how a treaty should get ratified if every nation had to vote on it but how could we call our systems a democracy if the people are not allowed to vote on what's going to become their constitution [heck, we're talking about constitutions, not a law on the regulation of chicken breeding!]. And it's not a problem to get a constitution ratified - as long as the constitution is being accepted by the people. This can be done either through propaganda and faked voting procedures or by the constitution's content.well, with up to 17.x% of the people being unemployed [as was the case in Germany a few months ago and it's still way above 10%], it's hard to make the people vote in favor of a treaty which increases corporate security and decreases social security...

[Joannespw 0]

I wish that all the eu countries would have had a referendum - with or without consulting the people - all at once. Now everyone is not sure where the countries stand who did not yet vote. If I was english, polish or danish I would still want to have my say in the matter. I think this is an oppertunity for europe rather than a setback. If the people can make clear why they don''t want the constitution then that is going to be great learning lesson for the european union that can be used to plan the future of europe. Maybe it will also get the eu to listen more to citizens as well as start a debate amounst citizens of europe as to what they want from europe. I know quiet a few people inivolvved in the eu and they all tell me that they would love the people to come to them with ideas for europe- except no one does. The future of europe? not sure at the moment - but sure that there is one for the european union. hope there will be a role for france and holland to play though...... especialy if every other country gets a chance to vote and says yes. Techinically speaking the constitution can still be passed with a 2/3 majority of european countries voting in favor for it.....

[Donegal 0]

I think, they should hold a sexy party.. and invite only me and lotsa girls.. what?

[Joannespw 0]

I think, they should hold a sexy party.. and invite only me and lotsa girls.. what?

150923[/snapback]

they already do that. just sign up as a stagaire on an assitant and you will see. come up with something new....

[brainless 0]

If the people can make clear why they don''t want the constitution [...]

Nothing wrong with your opinion, it's just the "if". Yeah, _if_ the people can make clear what they want. Here in Germany, we didn't even get the chance to say no, our parliament decided over our heads that 95% of the german people are in favor of this constitution...

Techinically speaking the constitution can still be passed with a 2/3 majority of european countries voting in favor for it.....

nope. Have a look at Article IV-447:

ARTICLE IV-447 -- Ratification and entry into force
1. This Treaty shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Government of the Italian Republic.

2. This Treaty shall enter into force on 1 November 2006, provided that all the instruments of ratification have been deposited, or, failing that, on the first day of the second month following the deposit of the instrument of ratification by the last signatory State to take this step.

Source: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

[Joannespw 0]

You are right I wish that the german people would also have had a chance to vote. I should have made it clear that my comment was meant for the netherlands and france. Spain- even though they ratifeid the treaty it does not seem they did so with much enthusiasm (low voter turnout).

 

I still say that everyone should have had a chance to vote at the same time though.

 

As for the article:

 

 

nope. Have a look at Article IV-447:

Source: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

150953[/snapback]

My bad thank you for correcting me, it is not 2/3rds (I was dumb enough to quote an MEP....)

 

Actually the article you qoute does not state that every country has to ratify the treaty for the constitution. (because it is not actually a constitution in the tradiontal sense, badly chosen word)

 

please see the article below taken from the same source as yours. the right amount is 4/5 ths. But again practically speaking the EU council till not ratify the treaty. please also see the BBC news story qouted below at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4596005.stm

 

ARTICLE IV-443

 

4. If, two years after the signature of the treaty amending this Treaty, four fifths of the

Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in

proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council.

 

source http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

 

Is there already a plan B?

 

Not really. However, there is a procedure to discuss deadlock. The draft constitution says (in Article IV-443-4) that if, after two years from the treaty being signed (which was on 29 October 2004), 20 member states have ratified it and others "have encountered difficulties", the "matter will be referred to the European Council". The European Council is a summit.

 

It does not say what the European Council should do.

 

 

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4596005.stm

 

So, technically this clause applies since the treaty was signed in tome and technically in a case of deadlock (so "20 member states would have ratifeid it") the council could ratitfy the treaty. but i sincerely doubt the council is evill enough to do so.

[Joannespw 0]

Nothing wrong with your opinion, it's just the "if". Yeah, _if_ the people can make clear what they want. Here in Germany, we didn't even get the chance to say no, our parliament decided over our heads that 95% of the german people are in favor of this constitution...

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

150953[/snapback]

But you can still make clear why you would have wanted it to be no through discusion groups etc. thats the nice thing about democracy. at least in theory....

[brainless 0]

I don't think everybody should have voted at the same time, I just think everyone should have the right to vote on the Constitution. But maybe you're right and everyone should have voted at the same time [wasn't that one of the criteria for democratic elections, everybody has to vote at the same time/on the same day? never mind...]...

 

(I was dumb enough to quote an MEP...)

hehe ... I only quote those if I simply can't find any other source ... politicians say many things when the day's long

If you need your theories based on facts, you should rather go for printed stuff like draft laws [or online copies of them] or something alike, newspaper articles usually give hints what you have to look for...

 

Actually the article you quote does not state that every country has to ratify the treaty for the constitution. (because it is not actually a constitution in the tradiontal sense, badly chosen word)

I just compared the german edition [printed book from the german Agency for Political Education] and the english edition [from the source I quoted earlier today] and, at least for not-native english speakers, the german edition is easier to understand than the english. In the english version the "instruments of ratification" have to be deposited at the italian government while I would translate the german version to "certificates of ratification" or "documents of ratification" or something alike. Article IV-447-2 states that _all_ instruments of ratification have to be in Italy for the treaty to enter into force since there's no exception like 2/3 in this article...

 

As to whether we're talking about a constitution or not: Actually we're talking about the "Treaty establishing a Constitution for the European Union", if I'm not completely mistaken; the german Agency for Political Education named the book "Constitution for the European Union", so I believe it comes pretty close to a constitution. If you have a look at other parts of this Treaty, you can see many things which are in other constitutions as well (especially in the first (I) and second part (II) where the fundamental rights are stated)...

 

----

 

I think BBC is mistaken on article IV-443 and I can fully understand why you've fallen for this mistake, since it requires at least some experience with treaties and stuff like this to notice the difference.

 

Article IV-443 states how the constitution can be amended and not what happens when the original treaty is deadlocked.

 

ARTICLE IV-443

 

(4) If, two years after the signature of the treaty amending/b] this Treaty, [...]

Any treaty amending "this" Treaty [did you notice that the amending treaty is lowercase while the constitutional Treaty is uppercase? I'd suggest we use Treaty for the Consitution, if I can't persuade you to call it a Consitution, too] is not the Treaty itself.

I suppose this article says the national governments will have to state why they couldn't ratify the amendment yet and the european council will debate it and thereby answer the government's question(s) so the ratification process can continue...