Politics EU constitution

Dutch Baka

FIGHTING FOR JPOP
Messages
332
Reaction score
21
Points
0
Location
amsterdam
Ethnic group
dutch
Okay the 4th of july i can vote for YES OR NO.... if netherlands will join the EU constitution... right now it is a 60% no in the netherlands and the goverment worries a lot about it.

im still thinking about what should i do?

one way i want to say now, because i dont want a United states of EUrope... i think netherlands will lose a lot of things in the future, like gay marriage, legal soft-drugs, etc etc... this is why i would say NO

but, i think if it will be a NO , it will be verry bad for the economic, because were are being closed out.... this means no salary raises, higher prices, etc etc and this is what the dutch really do not want at all!!!!! so this is why i would say YES

im having a hard time to choose, maybe i shouldnt choose because i will leave my country anyway, but it still stays my country!!!

so please help me vote, what did you vote? what would you vote, what advice can you give me???


p.s. sorry if my spelling is wrong, and some facts arnt completle right.
 
In Denmark, we will have a referendum the 27. September 2005.

I would vote yes, so decision-making could be planned federally among the member states and have directly elected Parliament. Then, we can become a strong Europe and become one strong and serious player in world politics.
 
Tony Blair keeps saying that we will have a referendum on this, whether or not France and The Netherlands vote no. But I have a feeling that there would be a strong no vote in the UK (no surprise) and Tony might not be there to make the choice. As for you Dutch Baka I would vote for what feels right for you. Do you feel that Europe is strong enough at the moment without a constitution? That we will move closer together without being forced by Brussels, or do we need it to make us move closer?
 
if i live that long to see this for my country...
uh... what to say, dutch, vote what you feel that is best for you and your familly, i guess. it is hard, i would vote now for yes, because my country is sooo troubled etc, but you know best for your country. hey, it is really big decition, good luck!
 
man, I wish i would have the oppurtinity to vote, damm, i envy you guys sometimes :p

But um, dutch baka I think you should vote YES most defenetely I mean dont think Europe is against gay marriage and soft drugs, in belgium already there is gay marriage and stuff, soooo, plus I dont think the constitution will change things like that, it's just something that increase federalism and efficiancy of the new European system.

Anyways, I don't get why in France also there seems to be an attitude towards going no, now the netherlands :S, and also the UK :s

this is gettin a bit depressing, we are supposed to keep on going forward, not backward :(
 
Maybe you should 1st read the constitution & then make your decision. If I see it right, not that much will change, anyway.

Constitution
Charter of Fundamental Rights (PDF, integral part of the constitution)

I suppose, it won't really matter, though. If only one country doesn't ratify the whole thing is void. If not France, the UK will vote "no". If not the UK, some other...
 
The term "plebiscite" derives from the Latin "plebs", that's why my government took no risks and decided not to hold a referendum, lolol. The Austrian parliament ratified the constitution last week. Personally, I understand the qualms eurosceptics hold against the constitution, but this is certainly a historic step for Europe that shouldn't be frustrated by internal bickering and national considerations.

As bossel pointed out, not a lot is going to change anyhow, but a symbolic display of unity would be of utmost importance.
 
thanks for all the reply's , yes im sure going to read , hear more about the constitution the next week, as i really want to vote. this friday there is a 2 hour program on tv about it,, and i will just sit down with a nice beer in my hand watching it!

i think the thing is in the netherlands ( maybe more country's) that the feel so betreated betrayted by the goverment here, with the euro first of all, and things like that, that they dont trust this so good, of course now maybe nothing change, but maybe in the future it will be.

before the euro came the all promised good things, but everything just becom worst, i do not know any dutch who is happy with the euro, i see some benifets in it, but as long as the salary's dont rise ( if the will rise, they will steal your money from other things)

i dont know good how this is in other country's what they feel about the euro?

so yeah, in my opinion, and what i have heard, the dutch just dont trust it, for what will happen in the future.

I WILL READ MORE AND SEE MORE, thanks to ya all!!!
 
France will (I hope) vote no, not for internal bickering and national considerations, but for for a renegociation of the constitutional treaty. If you read the constitution you will see why...
 
Are you also one of those people afraid that Turkey will join?

Can you explain to me why? Your points and objections.....
 
Duo said:
Are you also one of those people afraid that Turkey will join?

Can you explain to me why? Your points and objections.....

I welcome Turkey in the EU, Turkey is a part of europe, but this has nothing to do with the constitution...

my points:

-total independence of the european bank, no control of the fluctuation of the €uro
-NATO as the principal defense of europe, it's difficult to have a diplomatic weight if you do not control your army isn't it. And remenber the Irak conflict...
-european deputies has no right to present law projects, a majority of social deputies are useless if no social laws are presented to vote
-any help of a government to a private society or entreprise are prohibited, good thing the AIRBUS A320 is already finished...
-and finally we won't be able to change anything in this constittution if it is ratified... scary
Those are the major problems French have with this constitution, just change this five points and France will ratified this treaty.

oh and please excuse my poor english skills :p
 
i dont know if i welcome turkey to the EU yet, if i see what happend a couple of months ago with the woman that were protastating and that the police were really hard to them, i think no, i think turkey still need to change some thing before they can join in... other way i think it is really good that the come , it will unit the west with the m_east more if you ask me

about the constitution, isnt it just way to early to do it? why now? why not in 5 years
first the EURO, which havnt done much good yet, and then the Constitution,,,, how to trust that, when they didnt won our trust with the Euro???
 
I don't want more Turkish or Moroccean peepz in Belgium, not because I'm a rascist, but because there has to be a limit.Right now there are WHOLE NEIGHBOURHOODS filled with immigrants where I live.And those people just won't adjust to our way of life.There have been a lot of problems with them and they make demands that are not reasonable.They want Arabic as the 4th official language in Belgium ??? like WTF??? There is a treshold, and they are crossing it very very bad ! If they would integrate in our society,and would act like normal people they would be better accepted in my opinion.I think they are doing it to themselves.

Also I can't go anywhere (unless remaining at home) without hearing at least 1 conversation in Turkish.It's driving me mad :( I wish there would be more Japanese...at least I would benefit from it :p :blush:
 
Lacan said:
-total independence of the european bank, no control of the fluctuation of the €uro
What would be the problem with that? The German Bundesbank was always rather independent, no problems in Germany.

-NATO as the principal defense of europe, it's difficult to have a diplomatic weight if you do not control your army isn't it. And remenber the Irak conflict...
Can't see your point here, either. Coordination on a European level should increase, but defence will still be a largely national task, there won't be too many changes here. (see article I 41)

-european deputies has no right to present law projects
Where does this stand in the constitution? For what I know, the exact rules of how the parliament will work in the future have to be layed down in new laws which are not part of the constitution. Could you point me to the article where it states what you wrote?

Addendum: I just found this in the protocols section (part4, prot.2, art.4):
"The European Parliament shall forward its draft European legislative acts and its amended drafts to national Parliaments."
Therefore it seems as if the EP will have some legislative rights.

-any help of a government to a private society or entreprise are prohibited
Could you point to the article where this is stated? Not that I would be opposed to this, since the usefulness of economic aid to single companies is dubious at best. Subsidies in general are not prohibited, anyway. You should read protocol 29 (part IV) for this. Quote:
"RECALLING that the provisions of Section 3 of Chapter III of Title III of Part III of the Constitution, on economic, social and territorial cohesion as a whole provide the legal basis for consolidating and further developing the Union's action in this field, including the creation of a fund;"

-and finally we won't be able to change anything in this constittution if it is ratified... scary
Where does it say so? Anyway, AFAIK any member state has the right to quit the EU later on. Therefore if a country is unhappy with the constitution it can say good bye.
 
Mycernius said:
I heard on the news that some politician from Luxembourg has said that France and the Netherlands shopuld keep having referendums until they get the yes vote. Democracy at work.


yeah some dutch guy said this, that if the dutchies so NO, there should be a new referendum ( mmm i want to vote on this guy so he could become premier, but im reconsidering this)
 
As a history student it is very interesting to see the debates about this and reflect on the same type of debates that took place in establishing the constitution of the United States of America. I wonder if we can look back in a few decades and really compare.
 
jhough37 said:
As a history student it is very interesting to see the debates about this and reflect on the same type of debates that took place in establishing the constitution of the United States of America. I wonder if we can look back in a few decades and really compare.
You could look to the US, but it is different in Europe to the US. The US was really 13 colonies from one country. They had the same language and the same cultural background. Within the EU you have 15 countries with different backgrounds and languages. The problems with the EU constitution would be cultural differences. What is acceptable in Germany may not be acceptable in Greece, not that the Germans had much choice in whether they want the constitution or not.
 
The 13 US colonies were the exact same. They might have had similiar backgrounds but they were fiercely independent and really wanted very little to do with each other. Their economies were not tied together and it took quite a bit of political manuvering to get them to agree to a single constitution. In actuallity the chances of the "United States" ending up like Europe, with independant state/nations was pretty high.

And also, they we're not totally "from one country" As they had pretty high populations from multiple European countries.
 
What would be the problem with that? The German Bundesbank was always rather independent, no problems in Germany.

It may not be a problem in France, but this is a serious issue in France (with a high €uro ->low exportations, high concurence with China etc...)

Can't see your point here, either. Coordination on a European level should increase, but defence will still be a largely national task, there won't be too many changes here. (see article I 41)

article I 41: "The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. (...)it shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, under the North Atlantic Treaty, and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework."

since soon enough any EU country will be a part of the NATO, so any initative "uncompatible" with Bush oh excuse me the NATO isn't possible

Where does this stand in the constitution? For what I know, the exact rules of how the parliament will work in the future have to be layed down in new laws which are not part of the constitution. Could you point me to the article where it states what you wrote?

Addendum: I just found this in the protocols section (part4, prot.2, art.4):
"The European Parliament shall forward its draft European legislative acts and its amended drafts to national Parliaments."
Therefore it seems as if the EP will have some legislative rights.

Article III-396:1. Where, pursuant to the Constitution, European laws or framework laws are adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure, the following provisions shall apply.

2. The Commission shall submit a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council...
Only the comission can submit laws to the EP, a deputy alone can't...

sorry I'm tired, its 2:20 am, and the text of the constitution is written in a very small police so I will respond later to the other questions, but those facts are accepted to be true by both pros and cons constitution, the debate is about their importance.

oh, and I forgot to mention the laicity problem and the bolkenstein directive which are big issues too...
 

This thread has been viewed 34434 times.

Back
Top