repercussion's of French "NO" vote on E.U. constitution ?

[Douglas]

How does the French "NO" vote on the E.U. constitution affect the status of it ever being ratified?

 

Will the Netherlands vote "NO" next wednesday ?, if yes, does that sink the boat ?

 

What is Chirac's future?

[husmusen]

I don't think anyone would argue it wasn't a setback.

 

As to the Netherlands, I don't have my time machine handy.

 

But if they do vote no, (even if they had always been going to vote

no from the start of creation), guess who's going to get the blame?

 

Cheers.

[Dave]

The EU Consitution, in its current form, is pretty much dead in the water (at least in its current form). I would predict that this result will have a cascade effect on those countries who are still going to vote. It's looking pretty much certain that the Netherlands will vote no, so I would say that will certainly put the nail in the coffin. The EU need to take a good look at what they've done wrong. For starters, a constitution shouldn't be a rather idiotic 500 pages long if they want people to actually read and understand what they're voting for.

[Dak]

I think its safe to say that britain will vote no to the constitution, and lots of the remaining contries seem split (although quite a few are in favour).

 

BBC news summary of contries stances

 

a (very brief) summary of the constitution

[atinymonkey]

Poor Tony. As it turns out, nobody else was dreaming of Blair being the first president of Europe.

[husmusen]

To put a european perspective on Tony Blairs chances

of becomming the head of Europe.

 

Nej, Nej, Nej, Nei,

Non, Nein, Ne, Ni,

Neen, Nao, Nayir.

 

An English man may very well one day be "Head of Europe",(If UK joins),

but he won't be the first head, and nor will a frenchman I daresay

given recent events .

 

Dave:

For starters, a constitution shouldn't be a rather idiotic 500 pages long if they want people to actually read and understand what they're

voting for.

 

It's not the length, but the failure to explain it.

Better a long and well planned watertight document, than a

simplistic one full of holes.

 

What are your thoughts on language problems,

while I value the language preservation in the parliament,

I think they need a subset of languages for official documentation.

Or even better a nice neutral language, like Swedish, as the

official language of Europe .

 

Cheers.

[Skye]

As for the non vote, it seems to be more a matter of national politics, it's a blow to those politicians who backed the constitution to the hilt.

[atinymonkey]

To put a european perspective on Tony Blairs chances

of becomming the head of Europe.

 

Nej' date=' Nej, Nej, Nei,

Non, Nein, Ne, Ni,

Neen, Nao, Nayir.

 

An English man may very well one day be "Head of Europe",(If UK joins),

but he won't be the first head, and nor will a frenchman I daresay

given recent events .

[/quote']

 

I see. You think Britain should join the EU and wait for our turn. Er, ok. A few minor quibbles with that statement:-

 

-On the 1st of July 2005, Britain (which is part of the EU) is set to take over the presidency of the EU.

 

-Tony Blair is about to step down as PM of Britain to allow Gordon Brown to take the role.

 

-Tony Blair has always voiced the view that Britain and the EU need to forge stronger links.

 

-If the constitution gets passed in this round it will be during the UK presidency, so only an English politician will be eligible for the position

 

-The EU is a different organisation to the UN, and so the issues with Iraq are not of great concern to the voters

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4591381.stm

 

Other than that, great point.

[Dave]

It's not the length' date=' but the failure to explain it.

Better a long and well planned watertight document, than a

simplistic one full of holes.[/quote']

 

Personally, I think that constitution was a great big pile of poo. A constitution should be simple enough so that everyone can read it, not just for people who have loads of time spare so that they can sit down and view it at their leisure.

 

What are your thoughts on language problems,

while I value the language preservation in the parliament,

I think they need a subset of languages for official documentation.

Or even better a nice neutral language, like Swedish, as the

official language of Europe .

 

Cheers.

 

This is exactly my point. I suspect that the reason the document is 500 pages long is because there was so much bickering about whether this should be that or where this should be, or the exact wording of stanza 728, etc. To me, the entire consitution was just a big document from the elite saying "This is what we want, now you're going to go along with it". It didn't represent anything the public stood for, and ultimately this is why it got the no vote in France.

[Ophiolite]

If Blair were to spring a surprise referendum on the consititution next week the vote would almost certainly go in favour. Why? There is no way the average Brit would wish to be seen publicly agreeing with the French. Vive la difference.

[husmusen]

atinymonkey"

 

Actually I had formed the odd idea that the President was elected by vote

of the member nations (The EU actually has a rotating presidency).

 

That is I was conflating the EU with the effin FN. (UN in English).

That says all you need to know about how long I'd been up.

 

However I still maintain that Neither Blair nor Chirac are flavour of the week

in the Pro-Eu camp tonight.

 

Dave:

I agree that the contitution has, or rather had, issues, but it also had a

lot of good. I think that the EU is going to happen, if it the new result ends up giving countries more flexibility on social policies, I think that's a good

thing, I think there is too much momentum behind this for a single "no" vote,

to kill it.

 

Hopefully they will go back, improve it, and retry.

 

Cheers.

[Ophiolite]

I think there is too much momentum behind this for a single "no" vote

The constitution requires every country in the EU to ratify it, therefore it only takes a single 'no' vote, and it is dead. Two 'no' votes, just makes it deader.

The European people are finally waking up to the fact that they were being manouvered into cementing in place a political structure where the key decisions are made by unelected officials in Brussels. Enough already!

A single market - yes; a single political entity - no.

[atinymonkey]

However I still maintain that Neither Blair nor Chirac are flavour of the week

in the Pro-Eu camp tonight.

 

Agreed. I think Blair would have trouble running for a bus, never mind running for President. He's lost whatever support he may have once had.

[Dak]

The constitution requires every country in the EU to ratify it' date=' therefore it only takes a single 'no' vote, and it is dead. Two 'no' votes, just makes it deader.

The European people are finally waking up to the fact that they were being manouvered into cementing in place a political structure where the key decisions are made by unelected officials in Brussels. Enough already![/quote'] democracy is over-rated. anyway, the constitution may not nessesaraly be dead.

 

to take effect, it has to be ratified by all 25 contries within two years, but has a 'forse it through if only 5 people vote no' clause:

 

BBC News

 

Is there a plan B?

 

Not really. However' date=' there is a procedure to discuss deadlock. The draft constitution says (in Article IV-443-4) that if, after two years from the treaty being signed (which was on 29 October 2004), 20 member states have ratified it and others "have encountered difficulties", the "matter will be referred to the European Council". [/size']

 

It does not say what the European Council should do. It is possible that the Council might seek to revive the treaty in some way or try to agree on some limited measures but that is for a decision at the time.

 

 

10 have said yes. two have 'had difficulties'. as long as at least 10 of the remaining 13 vote yes, its possible that the constitution could be forsed through, or the contries that voted no would have another referendum.

[Ophiolite]

democracy is over-rated.

I'll take the voting preferences of the proletariat, who may be fairly thick, over those of the faceless beaurocrats, who are thick, any day.

[Guest prozak]

How does the French "NO" vote on the E.U. constitution affect the status of it ever being ratified?

 

Will the Netherlands vote "NO" next wednesday ?' date=' if yes, does that sink the boat ?[/quote']

 

From a historical standpoint, less centralization is better. The faster a continent comes under one rule, the faster it decays, it seems.