European Constitution, yes or no?

[Matrix]

Well, there's actually not much wrong with that. You can't expect people to carpool, nor can you expect people not to collect the travel fee if they carpool, because they only carpool (which is a good thing on itself) to save money.

[Beam]

quote:because they only carpool (which is a good thing on itself) to save money.

Collect money in this case. Assume for an individual traveling by car would cost 100 Euros and the compensation is fair at 100 Euros. Carpooling in this case will cost just a little over 100 Euros (say 120), if three people carpool the compensation is 300 Euros, profit for our representatives is (300-120)/3=60 Euros each.

Populist Dutch politician Wilders was on TV tonight voicing his opinion against the EU constitution. Main argument: the Netherlands will loose their veto. If one thing is both undemocratic (it can block a vast majority) and blocking any kind of effective decision making (it calls for dirty compromises) it is the veto. Wilders go and fuck yourself.

[ProPain]

quote:Originally posted by Matrix

Well, there's actually not much wrong with that. You can't expect people to carpool, nor can you expect people not to collect the travel fee if they carpool, because they only carpool (which is a good thing on itself) to save money.

When taxmoney is concerned I do think there's something wrong with that. Also it seems the expense fee they get is paid on a per day basis. Day in parliament = expense fee (I read somewhere expense fee is € 500 day, mind you that's NOT their salary it comes on top of that.) We all pay for that I rather see tax money spent on something usefull.

And I'm not even getting started on the whole agricultural policy nor the dutch attitude of not applying for european money 'because it is meant for poorer stated' while France & the UK don't feel burdened to apply for that same money. Since when do France and the UK qualify as developing nations.

I'm for europe but the current day-to-day way it is handled leaves room for improvement.

Maybe it should be ran according to CDZ anarchist principles

[grs]

I voted yes. Besides any legislative, economical or personal disad- and advantages, it further fixes the EU and will make it possible to become stronger and stronger in the future. That is what I want for a certain reason: You won't make war with any country you formally share you legislation, trade agreements, social structures and more with. Maybe this opinion is idealistic and biased by me being German, but I think that is so utterly important it overrules any bad sides the new constitution and the EU in general might have.

[Plux]

I'm still not sure. My feeling says to vote yes, but only because I feel Europe should be closer together and resolve their political and economical differences. I feel very close to the other European cultures, just because they interest me. Still an idealist I guess . But I haven't made time yet to read up on the issue, and after filling in the questionnaire at referendumwijzer.nl it told me to vote no for ca 55%. But those questions were as usual quite suggestive, 'Do you think we should care more about the environment?' . As always I'll probably stay a 'drifting voter' up to D-Day

grs, did the referendum already take place in Germany? What was the result?

[grs]

@Plux: Our government did not think it would be a good idea to let us vote on it, it was decided in parliament and there was a huge majority for "yes".

[Stapel]

In the first place, anyone organising a referendum for a 800 pages document is so incredibly insane, he should be locked away.
I applaud the Jerries for not having one.

In the second place, this is no constitution.

I dislike a political European Union. But I applaud an economical union. Therefor I will vote yes.

There's many details I dislike, but in general it's better.

[Rik Meleet]

De referendumwijzer gave me 78% in common with the Constitution. That shows how crappy and biased the referendumwijzer is; it asks what you think the EU and the member-states should be able to do on certain topics, yet doesn't link to the proposed constitution so any consequences aren't expressed.

Example: "13: The EU should be able to act in cases of border-crossing threats to public health". -> Yes of course, that's the meaning of border-crossing. Yet I fail to see how this leads to a "yes" or "no" on the constitution. There's just no relationship. Unless in the const is stated "border-crossing threats to health are not the EU's business". But in that case it's a reason for me to vote "no".

I also don't think a "referendum-wijzer" is very suitable for a guide in deciding your vote on the const. What does it mean if you get 10% or 50% or 99% agreement ?
Imagine you like an imaginairy constitution 99%. The only part you don't like about it is just 1 article: "Every white male has to be castrated on his 28th birthday, or in case the said male is older on the day the constitution is ratified, on his next birthday". Even if you like all the rest of the constitution; this part is too important that it will change your vote to "no" on it (I hope). A constitution is not a normal political ideology which will turn into a compromise if you want to take part in a government; it's a case of "what you see is what you get - no compromises". So if there are parts in there you cannot come to terms with; your logical vote should be "no".

[Plux]

quote:Originally posted by Rik Meleet

I also don't think a "referendum-wijzer" is very suitable for a guide in deciding your vote on the const. What does it mean if you get 10% or 50% or 99% agreement ?
Imagine you like an imaginairy constitution 99%. The only part you don't like about it is just 1 article: "Every white male has to be castrated on his 28th birthday, or in case the said male is older on the day the constitution is ratified, on his next birthday". Even if you like all the rest of the constitution; this part is too important that it will change your vote to "no" on it (I hope). A constitution is not a normal political ideology which will turn into a compromise if you want to take part in a government; it's a case of "what you see is what you get - no compromises". So if there are parts in there you cannot come to terms with; your logical vote should be "no".

That's what the weighting part is for, thought poorly implemented. Just say that you find that 1 article 1000 times more important than anything else, and you'll still have 90% voted against.

But referendumwijze(r) is a poor advising tool, that's for sure..

[Kemal]

I'll vote a yes.

As swingue said already earlier in the thread, it seems lots of people are ill-informed on what the constitution really is all about, as there are plenty of fears that "we are heading towards a US based federal states of Europe" situation, or that national laws no longer have any relevance when this constitution becomes effective..

Point is, almost all things in the constitution are already in effect now via various treaties that are in effect between (EU member)states already, but people just do not know about that it seems, or do not want to know. The fact that there is supranational law which supercedes a nation's own provisions on certain subjects is nothing new at all, and people should be aware that whether you vote a "yes" or "no", that is not going to change one bit.
The only thing this constitution does is trying to put all these binding agreements and clauses that are already in effect into a more clear, single "document".

Now, as for whether a supranational organ with certain powers in decision making processes that exceed those of each individual member state is needed, my personal opinion is that this is very much something we should aspire and that is and will be needed to help Europe develop now as well as in future times.

Purely looking at The Netherlands, one cannot deny that it simply is a very small country with respect to the rest of the world, both territorial as well as in terms of population. In the past 40 or 50 years, however, the phenomenon called globilization has caused every state to more and more not only take into account their own needs and demands, but also those of others as international relations are becoming more and more important, and also causing the needs and demands of those other states to have a direct influence on your own nation's decisions.
It will not be news to anyone here that such topics ranging from economic to militaristic to environmental are no longer matters of one single state. Multinationals such as Unilever/Shell etc are becoming important actors in the world economy.. nations become and make themselves dependant of each other for their defenses using various treaties, and indulge in shared military research to decrease development costs while still mutually profiting from the gains.. and environmental issues such as pollution and the decline of the ozon layer simply can no longer be combated by each state individually, and plenty of conflicts arise even over small issues such as industrial pollution crossing borders either via the air, or via rivers.
In all these cases, I think it is imperative that the decision- and law-creating process should be brought to a higher level, beyond the limited scope that each individual member state can enforce their decisions on. We need an institution that is able to take into account and weigh all factors that involve these trans-border issues without having to argue with an equal partner (i.e. another member state) for at least 5 year and than see that no compromise can be gained.
Simply put, for several key issues I indeed think nations should give away some of their sovereignty to Europe, and let decisions be made as well as judicially trialed (by the European Court of Justice) on that level. So, definitely a "yes" for me to the EU constitution.