Question for EU Citizens with regards to EU Constitution

Tyler_JC

If you can, please explain why you voted for/against it.

Or if your country didn't have a popular vote on it, please explain why you would have voted for/against it.

Basic overview of what the EU Constitution would have done

I'm currently taking a class about the history of European integration and I'd be curious to see what the opinions of this board are with regards to the EU.
_________________
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."

Qolio · Tar Sands Joined: Jun 01, 2007 Posts: 26 Location: FIN

Our national parliament ratified the constitution so we didn't have to bother our little heads with such decision.

I would've voted no, just because I didn't (and I still quite don't) know what the heck it was all about. People were very, very, very badly informed about the treaty.

The more I hear and read about the constitution, I'm starting to believe it might have been a good thing. It seems that it doesn't really "give more power to the EU" like many people think; it mainly clarifies things that have already been accepted by the member states.

But even so, I don't think the whole process of creating the constitution was transparent and democratic enough to be acceptable.

IslandCrow

Although I am an EU citizen living in the EU I DO NOT HAVE A VOTE, this is because that while I hold a British passport, I am not allowed to vote in the UK (not being resident there), and because I am not a citizen of the country where I live I only have limited voting, ie for local elections, or for European Parliament, but not at national level.

If I was a Finn living in England, Finland would still allow me to vote in national elections. So me being denied a vote is because of the UK's political line. It fits with its anti-EU bias, in that it denies the vote to those who have moved elsewhere in the EU and so presumably would be seen as more pro-EU.
_________________
We should teach our children the 4-Rs: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and Rejoice.

Bas · Last edited by Bas on Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:16 am; edited 1 time in total

the treaty was too comlicated and Europeans not enough involved to really understand it. What I mostly understood is that with the constitution some people were afraid they were going to lose a lot from their national identity (which in my view was an unfounded fear) in an age where the loss of a sense of identity because of modern society is already a much talked about topic.

I was pro constitution, though I didn't vote because I didn't think it was that important; it wouldn't give Europe more power but would rather simplify much of the web of previous treaties and hence battle the much complained about European bureaucracy. Anyway, now that they dropped the term constitution and some of the symbolism (like a European Anthom) there might be less opposition but the last debacle is still quite fresh in my memory at least. Either way it looks like the Dutch government won't hold a referendum on this treaty and will go ahead and just sign it, which is fine with me, but not with some groups here, but the fact that they some are not fine with it is also a sign that people are getting more involved, which is a good thing. On the other hand all this is a good example of that Europeans still have a long way to go to become one in their minds; the role of country in identity will be more important than Europe for a long time to come yet.

Also for myself I think country is still more important than the EU, though I'm sure less so than with most other people.
_________________
"The best thing about the future is that it comes only one day at a time."

- Abraham Lincoln

waegari

I'm one from the Duch minority which voted in favor. Main reason: the Constitution would have ended the present veto right nations have, which only slows down the political process and which may wreak havoc when it comes to energy policies in times of crisis. We already had one example of that, shortly after the Dutch NO vote: the Polish veto which put further stress on the EU-Russia relationship.

Over here the discussion was focused on the pettiest kinds of nationalism one could have ever imagined from my country, to a shameful extent, and also there was a strong sense of trying to be naughty amongst the public, without actually knowing what the Constitution was about.

But then again, I would rather have a European passport than a Dutch passport, which makes me quite an exception generally.
_________________
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.

Al Bartlett

Bas

morning Weagari, fellow city, country and European -man Smile

_________________
"The best thing about the future is that it comes only one day at a time."

- Abraham Lincoln

Gerben

The constitution would have realy helped the EU forward.
But I don't want that. So I voted no. I'm from Holland in the Netherlands. We don't want others to decide for us. We like our weed.

Twilight · Expert Joined: Mar 02, 2007 Posts: 2971 Location: UK

My feelings are not straightforward.

I did not get the opportunity to vote, would have voted Yes, but did not want either myself or my countrymen to get the chance.

The problem is, the constitution document ended up being much more than what the word implies, not a broad outline of what Europe is and will be, but a detailed description. Not exhaustive, but far too detailed a description to put before the public and expect a meaningful response. That is a large part of why it became unpopular. Give any group of ordinary people a huge tome written in a style to which they are not accustomed, covering subjects of which they were not previously aware, ask them to sign on the dotted line, and they will refuse. Not only that, they will feel patronised and insulted at the absurdity of the request and the casual implication that they are expected to partake in democracy as a formality, the real work being elsewhere and momentarily interrupted.

People hate that. It leaves a really bitter taste. They were never expected to read it, and they knew it.

The constitution was best kept in the government arena as most other EU things are. Giving people the illusion of participation is a quick way of squandering whatever support or acquiescence you enjoyed, with that risk not leading to a materially different outcome. While I have nothing against the constitution, putting it to the popular vote was never necessary.

Alcassin

I really don't know. I really like the idea (I was a member of young federalists), but not practice. That's why I would probably vote "no", I'm after European Studies, and to be clear, Constitution Treaty is keeping EU in technocratic style, with all its agendas which are not transparent to European citizen.

For me it's another question - Schengen and Constitution can block our east border and create another 'iron curtain', but without this we will have diplomatic that kind of curtain on our west border. Because choice is binary I really can't choose. I may take the third option - don't vote, let the other vote for me. It's tough.

I think in Poland there is always possibility that parliament will vote it, but still constitution is popular among Poles, and they are much pro-European than our puppet anti-EU pro-US government. Poles living in EU countries will vote for it, and as our emigration reached 2 millions(!) in two years, the result is obvious.
_________________
The poor complain; they always do,
But that's just idle chatter.
Our system brings rewards to all,
At least to all who matter.

virgincrude · Heavy Crude Joined: Mar 09, 2006 Posts: 430

Oh Boy, where to begin? I am Spanish and happily voted "yes", in the general spirit here of coming into the big warm fuzzy fold of "Europe", since we all hold very recent memories of what rigid nationalism can do ... Also, coming from an English background, I hated the constant blocks and swerves of the British who consistently put a spanner in the works of our great and glorious European Union.

Then I felt stupid for having voted for something I never really knew enough about, and having my vote anulled for all intents and purposes by the Dutch and French resounding 'NON'. Bloody French.

Now, having discovered the real background to the forming of the European Union (pushed by Kissinger and members of the Bilderberg Club) and seeing the ultimate goal of federalisation, loss of national identities in the name of 'Globalisation', and ultimately creation of One World Government, I can't believe how well we've been manipulated.

On the face of it, a single army, single police force, unified security and foreign policy etc., seem like decent goals. But on the other hand, what price shall we be paying for our willing submission to the elite? The unwealdy obfuscating burocracy is all there for a reason: a la Orwellian 1984.

Please check out Daniel Estulin's web site and find out about the less cozy aspects of our willing European unity. William Engdahl can also help clarify thoughts ....

Scactha

It´s so much easier to say no and even more so when it´s about some big power base in a land far far away. No suprise it went down the drain like it did.

I voted yes and also for Sweden to join the EMU. It´s d*ng embarrasing to be from a antion that isn´t willing to share the risk.

I guess Kissinger will be happy though. Now he can "call Europe". Soon to ask for a loan for the US war machine I hazard to guess...

virgincrude · Heavy Crude Joined: Mar 09, 2006 Posts: 430

Here's an interesting snippet:

From AN UNCOMMON VIEW OF THE BIRTH OF AN UNCOMMON MARKET

Alfred Mendez
“Few realise how pivotal the 2000 Bilderberg chairman, Viscount Etienne Davignon, was in this process. As European Commissioner for Industry and the Internal Market from 1977 to 1980 he was perfectly placed to put big business in the driving seat of European policy. In 1985, as Industry Commissioner, he challenged Pehr Gyllenhammar, CEO of Volvo, (also administrator of United Technologies, Vice President of the Aspen Institute and one of the five partners of Kissinger Associates) to organise a group of the top European businessmen to lobby the Commission. Davignon argued that the Commission would be obliged to respond to the demands of some of the largest European industrialists. The Gyllenhammar group was to become the highly influential European Round Table of Industrialists or ERT, drawing up policy for Europe”

MrBean · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Sep 26, 2004 Posts: 1085

EU has become authoritarian and undemocratic bastion of neoliberalism and lunatic dogma of eternal growth (see e.g. Lissabon targets). Or rather, it allways was, but in my foolish youth I didn't see and accept that and were an EU-enthusiast for a while.

Just another bloody police state.

Besides, I'm not European, I live in non-european land and language violently and culturally colonized and oppressed by (Indo-)Europeans for hundreds of years, suffering from a bad case of Stockholm Syndrom. Naturally, my fellow Euro-Finns don't like to hear that.

paimei01

I could not vote, I would have voted against.
Yes we have a few people in the EU parliament , so what ? I don't know who made the EU constitution, and of course they voted YES. Whoever is against the EU here in Romania is called a crazy anarchist or sympathizer of the totalitarian regime from before 1990. Which I am not

If one day I am found guilty of breaking some EU law that I do not know how was made, I will not recognize it.
I am crazy enough to do that
_________________
"Hitting bottom isn't a weekend retreat. It's not a goddamn seminar. Stop trying to control everything and just let go! LET GO!"

kevincarter

I didn't vote, but was going to vote no.

I don't really know why, it just felt like no, and also it was a VERY BIG document, very long, constitutions should be short and clear.

Besides, I don't think we need an European constitution, each country has its own alredy.

This is the kind of thing that is done in a historical time, like the French or the Americans did, then it feels right.
_________________
When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem.