My.. such extreme choices in the poll.. and neither is to my liking.
F-3582 said:
You might have read it in the news: France and the Netherlands both decided to let their people decide whether they wanted that constitution or not. In both countries the people voted against this - SHOCK! Big crisis! Europe's gonna crumble apart!
:lol:
Boltzmann said:
I haven't read it yet. I greatly favor European integration, but judging from what some people whose opinions I respect have said, this constitution doesn't look very good.
I think you'll like it.
The European Constitution isn't all crap. It's actually pretty good, from a neutral point of view. It consists of all sorts of treaties, old and new. To make it into a constitution makes them legally unavoidable in all participating countries. These treaties are actually of good nature, and would help unify European coördination and coöperation more than currently is. Considering what Super Powers the US is and a growing China is starting to become, this is far from a bad idea.
However.. as I would be influenced, I'm not neutral in this matter.
The Netherlands did not do a bad thing in co-founding the EU, but our political body is too glad to be in league with the big boys to see the negative effects the EU has recently (since late 90's) been having over us. The Netherlands used to be one of the (and THE) richest countries in the world, and now we're paying for that. As a dutch civilian, I don't like things taken away from me, but for the cause of equality, I must. Holland is relatively the biggest net payer to the EU, and it isn't helping our slowly crumbling economy. With the coming of the European Constitution, our chances of lowering our contribution would have been dwindled. I've even heard rumours that the Constitution would need us to pay even more (which I can't verify), let alone other extra costs that all need to be compensated through even higher or newer and more ridiculous taxes (we already
have taxes for nearly everything).
Holland is tax-land. This directly influences consumer prices and our static (despite inflation) pay checks. All american and european countries I know of are cheaper to the consumer, save some of the skandinavian and swiss prices. Social security is being stripped down to the bare minimum, pensions of the current aging generation are not enough to live on, and this keeps going on. The EU is contributing to this, because Holland has to keep adjusting to meet its rules.
The Euro contributed to a common hatred here. Since it became our currency, prices went sky high, and we already weren't cheap in comparison to abroad.
I've also heard quite a lot of good effects (ie: over time, it would cost us less; which as I recall has now been withdrawn with the denial of the constitution) promoted by our ministers that would result from the Constitution's acceptance, but I don't understand these, as the how and why seem to be subject to the slippery minds and tight lips of politicians. I don't recall reading anything in the Constitution that would make these positive points in effect, and I wasn't about to read it again.
What was worse were the countless of threats we would 'possibly' endure if we wouldn't accept. I've joked in Cid's thread that they'd nearly go as far and claim all sorts of cancer strings would invade our bodies if we voted no: That's the impression they gave us. They've mentioned war and terror, and then there was even a commercial that was
heinous to every degree.
Ofcourse, the arguments after the referendum of France were priceless. In an act of desperation, our prime-minister told the people that we would
"teach the french non-sayers a lesson by voting yes!" and that
"we will not let us dictate by the french, so vote yes!". I was all tingling in anticipation like a little school boy, ready to kick those french asses.. :/ .. or not. What moronic attempts to turn the tide. You've also got to love his:
"I'll look like a fool to the others when I need to explain no".
Another issue is Turkey. People who've been saying that the Constitution directly influences Turkey's admission in the EU don't know ****, but neither do those who say the constitution has no effect at ALL with regards to Turkey's role.
Holland (and France, so I've heard) has suffered integration problems greatly (most heavily in the heavy-industry provinces) due to massive culture differences, most notably of respectless criminals, muslim extremists and variations of ******** who would have their hands chopped off in their own countries. Civil War has even been mentioned as a possibility by analists, and I can attest first hand the tension which it was inspired by.
Turkey's economy is finally steadily growing again, but it still is a poor country compared to most western european ones. Its admittance to the EU will open up new possibilities (read: social wellfare) to the poorer folk, as they will more easily integrate in the other EU countries. The constitution would have made us drop our not-quite-strict-enough foreign and integration policies for something quite open to every other EU member's civilians. We have an abundance in workless people already. Imagine having a ****load of willful leeches from elsewhere added to it, being able to come in and take a bite of our 'democracy' without contributing. It has been done before our change of policies, and it
would happen again.
In conclusion, I voted in
favor of the Constitution.
AH!Ahaha!!1 What do they take me for? An utter moron? ;/ There's even more. To shortly
name a few: Transparent efforts of pressure from other EU countries put on the Netherlands, arrogance, religious politics, and more. I don't have the time to continue this post + this post will bore you to death if it already hasn't.
The more obvious advantages of the constitution do not die with a possible death of the constitution. Also, no European Constitution invokes
no change, no matter what they're telling everywhere.
3585 said:
Umm... that constitution is going to replace the single states' constitutions.
No it won't. First and foremost: It's an addendum that will only take precedence on conflicting articles. For an entire replacement, this one doesn't nearly cover enough ground.