So, no more EU?

[joemoefro]

Since the Dutch just rejected the EU constitution... Do you guys think it will still go on, try to gather the EU? Write a new constitution? Or what will they do to join all of European state together?

I think the leaders of the countries will try modifying it or just force it upon the people to join the EU constitution... That is more long termish... But what do you guys think?

 

[jayjaya29]

I haven't followed the situation much, but I do think they will eventually agree on a Constitution. Its just going to take awhile.

 

[bone]

the problem with the constitution is that nobody knows what's in it.
if you ask a politician what is in it, they answer "things concerning interpol have been agreed, and there have been made rules about imigration and stuff"

that's not a constitution. those are laws or agreements based on a constitution. and all the things they're about to do, have nothing to do with europeans. they are creating a europe without europeans.

i think there are 2 possibilities:
1) the EU keeps expanding, but becomes only a trade-union, no more than that
2) it slims down again to it's core (like 12 countries or so) and become the united states of europe, in which case it can play a political role

 

[jensked]

there have always been problems with the political side of Europe.

First, it was only pure economical. In the 50s, they tried to expand the pure economical collaboration to a political union and a defense union. The political union did not receive much hail.

Trough the time, countries always were very hesitant of creating Europe as a supra-state. For economical matters, there was no problem. International trade is 'good' for every countries wealth. (soft matters)
On the other hand, the hard matters (defense, politics, justice) are the things a state is been dealing with since states first emerged. So on those matters, countries are certainly very hesitant of 'loosing' them.

But, the problem nowadays is the decision-making. Economic (and other soft issues) are delt with via the supra-national EU Commission: that is majority rule (a "government"). The hard issues are delt with via souvereign decision making (i.e. the countries come together as equals and they have to reach a consensus). A consensus means that it is VERY difficult to have an agreement. And so, it is slow.
Now we are with 25 and it is even more difficult to have a consensus.

Above all, nobody knows how the EU works ... there is a president for one year, there is the president of the Commission, there is a weak parliament, there is a kind of high representative... it's very heterogenous

THe constitution's main purpose is to create a new kind of decision making that is faster, more recognisable and more accountable.

ANd I think it's about time there is a new manner for decision making.

By the way, in France and in The Netherlands, most people didn't vote pro or con the constution. A referendum is a bad way: people probably vote against the incumbent government or against a person (prime minister).

edit: http://www.europa.eu.int/constitution/download/brochure_160904_en.pdf

 

[CyberMonkey]

By the way, in France and in The Netherlands, most people didn't vote pro or con the constution. A referendum is a bad way: people probably vote against the incumbent government or against a person (prime minister).

This is very correct. I really don't know why the politicans decided to do such a vote for a matter like the constitution. It is a very complicated matter and, like you say, most people used it to ventilate their irritation with the government.
Also a lot of people voted against the enlargment of the EU, although that's already done and will stay done. But, strange enough, there wasn't a vote to let the citizens decide if they wanted "poor countrys" in the EU.

ah well, sorry for my English. I know it sucks.