Only in the EU....

[Nono]

Quote by: G.Adams I do think we need to get rid of the national vetoes. You will never get 25 nations to agree on something if vetoes exist, especially if we pain in the ass repeats of Thatcher who will veto everything on principle.

Once the referendum genie is out of the bottle, it's hard to squeeze it back in. The EU has at times suffered from a lack of democratic credibility, and if national governments now railroaded things through without referendum the EU would simply be shooting itself in the foot.

The French voted No by only five points. If the Giscard's constitution had made clear that it was serious about upholding what people are concerned about in Europe -- jobs especially -- it would have passed.
It didn't pass because it was viewed by so many as a stew of mealy-mouthed pieties that would be twisted and used against people by the bizboys who increasingly control their lives.

[blibbka]

Quote by: G. Adams I've heard rumours that despite what D'Estang and Delors have said, there is a plan B waiting to be enacted if this dies. It will be a stripped down "constitution" that really is just a tying up of all previous treaties, and the bits they want that are a little more controversial will be tacked on in time as treaties, rather than articles of the consitution, so they won't be subject to referendums.

Would that be bad thing? If we can't agree on a mighty big constitution, I think it would make sense to be less ambitious and go for a cut-down one. Better a stripped down agreement that can be built on than a complicated disagreement that can't.

I also think perhaps people just don't know enough about what the constituion actually means to be able to give it a "yes" vote.

I hear that many of the French who voted no are not anti-European, but simply felt that they didn't know what it really meant and wanted clarification before pinning their colours to it.

If that is the case, then this no vote my be just the thing that is needed to get a real discussion (and therefore education) going throughout Europe - a good thing ultimately.

To illustrate this: People have long been saying here in the UK that Europe is one fo the biggest issues for us and the future, yet I've heard as much and perhaps more detailed discussion on it in the media over the last few days than I can remember from any point in the previous few years.

I guess I see this as an opportunity for the EU to gain some greater self-awareness rather than impending doom.... call it "growing pains" perhaps.

[rcne]

Blibbka .... I hear that many of the French who voted no are not anti-European, but simply felt that they didn't know what it really meant and wanted clarification before pinning their colours to it. ....

You sound like Chirac, telling the people that they know the answer and to follow them. I don't really know the details, I don't think that many in the world actually do

This is a serious blow for the EU, many are thinking that it was to much to fast. Though, it seems that the EU after all this time is actually still in its infancy.

I think sooner or later there will be a EU, just not in the form that this constitution would have made it.

A simple basic agreement with greater autonomy for the member states, if presented openly may actually have a chance.

Either way this setback has cost the EU years.

[blibbka]

Quote by: rcne You sound like Chirac, telling the people that they know the answer and to follow them.

Sorry, I don't understand how you make the connection between what I said and the above.

[rcne]

In the weeks before the election, one of the sites I visit either the BBC or CNN had a little blip stating that the populace of France did not need to understand just what the acceptance of the constitution meant to them.

It was enough that the leaders did, and the voters should just accept their decision. When I read that I had a suspicion that the voters would continue to back further away from a 'yes' vote.

In rereading my post, it is I that didn't understand. We are basically saying the same thing.

Blibbka .... I hear that many of the French who voted no are not anti-European, but simply felt that they didn't know what it really meant and wanted clarification before pinning their colours to it. ....

[Nono]

Quote by: rcne (...) a little blip stating that the populace of France did not need to understand just what the acceptance of the constitution meant to them (...)

Inconceivable that either the BBC or CNN would say such a thing. What they probably did was point out that the proposed constitution is over 400 pages of sometimes murky prose and that few voters were likely to have actually read the thing in its entirety.
A poll done in Spain (which voted Yes a few months ago) showed that only a tiny percentage of voters had read it.

So how does one vote otherwise? One puts one's trust in those one trusts. Which suggests that direct democracy in practice sometimes closely resembles indirect democracy.

[rmnunez]

The Dutch also rejected Giscard's proposal.

[Matt W]

Yup. 63% voted no - and most of the quotes I've seen indicate that they saw the EU Consitution as threatening to their liberal lifestyle.

Latvia's Parliament, in the meanwhile, accepted it.

[Nono]

Quote by: MattW threatening to their liberal lifestyle

What?! How so?

[Matt W]

There's a coupla quotes in the Independent - I'll dig it out later when I get home and post 'em - but it was along the lines of they didn't trust the EU to ensure that their respect for civil liberties & rights to be proteceted (such as their attitudes towards drugs).

[Samildanach]

I dont blame them either, I would wants drugs and sex exemptions for the netherlands as well, we need to keep it the happy vice capital it is.