[Cid Highwind]

It's been the main talk out on the streets these days. I want to know what the fellow European members here think of the European constitution.

I have to go and vote for it this Wednesday, but I'm really disappointed by the whole Dutch government seeing there is censorship on the opinion of the MP's who are against the constitution. That's one reason for me already to vote for 'no' because it's hard to get objective information. And I don't think it's wise to vote for something which has got such an effect on politics while being uninformed by our own government.

Source (In Dutch) (A weblog by politicians and columnists)
North Korea along the Rhine
Early on in the discussion about the constitution I the leader of the 'pro-campaign' of the cabinet. He wanted to ask me if I could decide wether to vote yes or no as soon as possible, and he gave me his number and offered each possible way of support when it came down to providing information.

This week adds started to pop up in the daily papers, among them 'Volkskrant' and the 'Telegraaf'. Ayaan Hirsi Ali called us to vote 'yes', because it would have a positive influence against the trade of women; also Hans van Baalen showed up in an add.

I just called the leader of the 'yes-campaign', and asked him a question. The parlement has agreed on spending extra tax-money to inform people give people extra information, in the cadre of the 'yes-campaign'. Wether you agree with it or not, it has been decided.

But now it has taken the form that the goverment offers MPs advertisementspace, selecting them on their political point of view. So only the ones pro-constitution are allowed to place adds with the help of tax money. My question was simple: Jan, I want to place an advertisement with that budget as well tomorrow, can that be done?

The answer was simply 'no'. The money is meant for the 'yes-campaign'.

I don't know if the parlement had this in mind when it made the decision. But the consequense is that the Tweede Kamer (Lowerhouse?) agreed with mayority to give common money to some of their members, selected on political point of view. Members who are against, like André Rouvoet and Jan Marijnissen and others from society are not given that chance. That's something I object.


translation from dutch to english by Cid H. feel free to correct me on things if you don't agree Samor, Gaurav or any other dutch reading member

I know this is a political thread, therefor I hope anyone posting here will respect each other's opinion. Because debates about such subjects can be a good source of information to me as well, since I my opinion can still be changed before wednesday according to any new information I can find. But for now, I'm thinking of voting 'no'.

 

[RZetlin]

There might not be a European Constitution or Union.

French Voters Reject First EU Charter

Back to square one.

 

[Samor]

I'm also annoyed by it Cid; they're almost threathening if you won't say yes.
But hey, since France voted no now, what do they still have to worry about

 

[Seta-San]

how did i know that was going to happen. Hopefully EU findings against microsoft will go away. It's also apparent why the french voted no. I've said it time and again. The French are completely in love with their past. It's the only country where you can say viva le resistance or viva le revolution... The point is, joining the EU would kill their national identity that they love for some reason or another.

 

[Samor]

you don't really know what you're talking about, are you?

 

[Cid Highwind]

I'm also annoyed by it Cid; they're almost threathening if you won't say yes.
But hey, since France voted no now, what do they still have to worry about

Yeah I heard it last night as well. But I won't let that influence me, it's still our own decision. If now all no-voters will think it's not necesary anymore to vote, and Holland will go for a yes. France will be the only one. But if there are two mayor countries opposed it they've got 500 spare pages of toilet paper for sure

A thing that worried me the most is that the Netherlands, one of the smaller countries, will become a ball of mayority (France, Germany and others) even more after this constitution. That's what some who are opposed say. As long as that's not clear to me I'm not in for a change of the current situation.

 

[ChankastRules]

It doesn't matter how you vote Cid, because it'll be a No anyway

 

[Cid Highwind]

Quoting from the article RZetlin linked to:

PARIS - In a stunning rejection of the
European Union's latest ambitious move to unite its 25 nations, French voters shot down the bloc's first constitution, dealing a potentially fatal blow to the charter and humiliating President Jacques Chirac.

President Jose Manuel Barroso, while conceding the outcome was a "serious problem," insisted: "We cannot say that the treaty is dead."

Two countries have a bigger effect than one I think

And I don't like the idea of flocking with the masses as well by not letting my voice heard. Because the French 'no' is a reason for Dutch ppl who weren't sure about voting yes, but who did know they wouldn't vote 'no', to go vote yes as well perhaps. In other words: Some ppl who wouldn't mind a new constitution might be affected by the French no and have decided to vote yes. Here in Holland things are still pretty close.

 

[Samor]

well, that's clear now, isn't it?
too bad the Dutch politicians still don't get it, though.
With no, I think people mean "no", not "well, seems we've got to talk about it again"

 

[Tulac]

What good would this constitution bring? What bad would it beong rejected bring?

 

[Grv]

There was a brilliant cartoon in 'Het Parool' (newspaper) today. It featured a boxer in a ring with a black right eye, having an F marked on it. The left eye was wide open, and had a 'Klomp' with the letters N L printed on it being thrown towards it. :lol:

What good would this constitution bring? What bad would it beong rejected bring?

According to dutch politicians, it being rejected would invoke war, terror, another Auschwitz and all sorts of terrible cancer strings, I'm sure.

The dutch referendum asked to be for or against a change. A no therefor implies no change. Our politicians have been ridiculous on the subject (see above). Our prime-minister even made public statements towards the people that felt as if we were being treated as infantiles, especially after France's No ("Let's teach those french nay-sayers a lesson!" I was all like **** YEAH!!1 ;/). Our politicians did a bad job in translating the constitution to the public, which despite its advantages, was very impopular due to the fact that "the change" would give no direct advantages to the average civilian, while several disadvantages were transparent, but being muffled away. That, and we have sort of a hate thing going on because of the euro and all the other EU crap that's making Holland an economic mess for it to adjust to EU rules. Add Turkey to the fray, and people even fear the constitution, despite it hardly having influence on the the consequences of a possible admittance of Turkey to the EU. Although I say hardly, there were a few things that affect it anyhow, despite the denials.


The advantages that were given to us didn't have their reasons explained yet, and I'm not going to read the dutch translation of the constitution AGAIN to find out on my own. Therefor, I'm not spreading nor advocating any of it right now. Except the one I favored the most: Animal Rights would have been made constitutional.



Our politicians that favored it seem to be taking the '63% against' pretty well, though.

 

[Cid Highwind]

If it weren't 500 pages but 100 understandable ones instead, I might have taken the effort to read it. But since I was in the middle of exams that didn't happen

The constitution should be made understandable to the average person, less pages, normal language, short and clear. Now all we got were 4 small pages of propaganda.

I am not against Europe, I am not against progression, I am not against reforming the political system in brussels, but I AM against voting something I don't know what the 'tiny print' is about.

Alot of positive things from the constitution can be used in new talks or new treaties. But it would've been alot harder to undo the constitution when it turns out the things we didn't know about are stabbing us in the back.

 

[Kane]

They way it shouldbe layed out IMO is a set of at most 10 or 20 simple 'rules' if you will. The fine print can then be ratified in area specific (legal, not physical) documentation. That's just my opinion, but there's probably some ill-construed reason agains't doing that.

 

[Samor]

I hoped the Dutch politicians would lower the arrogance a little.... but they sure haven't learned THAT so far....
They're saying congrats to "no-propaganda". That's so stupid. There hardly was. The Dutch people simply rejected it, and they still don't want to admit it.

 

[Grv]

If it weren't 500 pages but 100 understandable ones instead, I might have taken the effort to read it. But since I was in the middle of exams that didn't happen

It was boring.

Spoiler

The hero dies in the end. :'(