EU Constitution: France No? Netherlands no referendum?
For a while blogging colleague Steeph engaged in placing the articles in the European Constitution on 1 June which a referendum is held. I read them regularly and I also follow other news on the European Constitution.
Some sites I ia occasionally visit are:
- EU Observer with the latest news and information about the EU
- Constitution Europe
- EU Constitution (especially the weblog of State Secretary for European Affairs Atzo Nicolai and the site of the Dutch government and recently launched especially for the Yes campaign)
The Dutch referendum is currently being superseded by the current events in France. The last few days is because it increasingly appears that the French vote against the EU Constitution. From French opinion polls seem no-voters to predominate. The French go to the polls on May 29 for the referendum, three days before the referendum in the Netherlands takes place.
Now, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs last week announced the referendum want to weld if the French vote no. This emergency scenario is currently under consideration by the government.
It is very strange that the government step in developing these. Not the government but the parliament has called for this referendum and after notification of the Ministry have a number of MPs responded disturbing.
Anyway different MPs complain about the limited interest of the Dutch in the EU Constitution.
The subject fascinates me in that I want to know when I say yes or no. Unfortunately this government there fails, especially in not too much about the Constitution want to tell and seems more concerned with fighting potential no-voters. It is also not clear what consequences a no vote.
The government has also long been marked not just the opinion of the referendum will take over, especially when a majority says no.
The discussions already underway for some time and only now, the government is a kind of awareness campaign in the form of a free newspaper with the entire text of the European Constitution. This paper is from April 12 to pick up at post offices, libraries, municipal and provincial and Q8 petrol stations and from 20 April at the Albert Hein.
When the French actually no majority vote is no longer any basis for the EU Constitution. A Dutch vote does not really matter anymore. Member States will have to re-negotiate. An advantage of letting go of the referendum is that the government at least know how its citizens feel about the EU Constitution as they sit at the negotiating table. It is also a good basis for an earlier and clearer information campaign!
Tags: Politics
April 9th, 2005 at 4:43 p.m.
I have an idea why the information is so scanty.
The government wants a low turnout so they ignore the results can explain.
And if "yes" vote on behalf of the Netherlands.
The statistics show that this approach will succeed.
I just saw that only 35% of the Dutch intend to vote.
April 9th, 2005 at 5:20 p.m.
And I think ultimately even less if the weather is nice bijvoorbeel. In Gronigen pair them likely to hold a referendum on the rebuilding of the city center and therefore will be more people go to the polls.
The Dutch government has anyway no need for no-voters, given its huge budget and the Yes campaign which is reserved for no-voters to discourage.
April 9th, 2005 at 7:09 p.m.
Good piece JoGy. And in case you missed it, the daily pieces on the Constitution are in Dutch now be followed on http://www.sargasso.nl .
One of the reasons I write the pieces that I want more people in the discussion process. They realize what is actually going on insufficient and that this is first so that we can directly talk to the EU.
Therefore, it is also important not only here online to discuss but also against all and sundry to shout that they especially need to think and vote. Shout it from the rooftops!
April 10th, 2005 at 3:16 p.m.
@ Steeph, she had not really missed it when you had already read and had idd also ff a link over there to put
Is that the debate on the constitution difficulty getting started. Many people who are not directly to do with it, almost not really know what it is and that is unfortunate because it has a significant impact. That is why my light wickedness about the lack of communication from the government and who now gets going it's not even an objective action. Vote yes and especially why?
April 15th, 2005 at 9:29 p.m.
Shout it from the rooftops! ....
Difficult, stabbing head in sand is easier. Or something.
Most do not know what is happening, what matters.
The Constitution is too tedious, and there is not much clarity.
Curious what France will do ...
April 15th, 2005 at 10:45 p.m.
@ Marian, totally agree, it does indeed matter if you got your head in the sand, but then your voice is lost and since I though I have gradually become better know what I go to the polls go, no chance to drain not to vote. And that is at present probably NO! be.
April 17th, 2005 at 10:05 p.m.
We already have a Constitution. I do not see that there is a constitution "above" can stand, so I do not bother to read Steephs undoubtedly weldoortimmerde considerations. I agree unseen 'No'.
April 18th, 2005 at 11:22
@ Balko: is also an option. Everyone is free to his or her way to deal with the choice of whether or not a European constitution and to use his or her vote. But it does have an advantage to know why you have a particular voting choice, but that's my opinion.
April 28th, 2005 at 11:16
The European Constitution places the current constitutions of the states are not offside! It defines only the ground rules for cooperation within Europe.
It is true that within the Constitution is discussed further harmonization of the union (read: union). It is actually a vote on whether you as a resident of a future federal Europe want yes or no.
As a Dutchman I own that there is not much choice, 'no' will harm our economy more than is manageable. More unemployed and fallicementen. Actually we have no choice and that's the annoying thing about the current debate.
April 28th, 2005 at 11:27
So you can also see all choices lead to something not everyone wants and that makes it really is no debate ...
May 14th, 2005 at 10:51 p.m.
Actually you have no choice to vote no.
First, the government does nothing to attract the referendum.
Second: If we vote no and the government cares of this, and they accept the constitution, there will be no European constitution verlopig at best (in the other case we are in the eu or are we as still forced to vote).
Then there will be a few years another chance for a new constitution which is not saying change it.
Then the government three times looking for a referendum to set.
And if we still refuse again we are from the EU and what we still have to say, we already have but little to say than do.
So what choice do we have?? with no voices reach nix.
Why a referendum?
And actually there are no arguments to vote against it. The eu is democratic, the economy will certainly not go backwards, security in Europe is increasing, we lose a veto but that loses all and with all those vetoes, there is also no longer govern. The only good reason to vote against it is that all politicians hague then begin to wonder why everyone voted against.
The VAT is not really a constitution is an amalgamation of all treaties now in force and it makes a bit more democratic Europe.
ps I am not against Europe. Europe's environmental rules are great!
May 18th, 2005 at 4:53 p.m.
@ Onno: I'm not directly against Europe, but I have nothing to do with a European super state or a federation of European countries, for that I'm still too many Dutch and am just back in Germany and France have been and notice that I still am different . That's not a real reason to vote no.
What I especially in the last country saw and heard that the referendum mainly engages in protest against the policies of the French Government. For example, working on the 2nd day of Pentecost, out of loyalty to all elderly, led to strikes and massive free days and the polls that were taken that day showed a large increase in no-voters see.
I am afraid this will happen in the Netherlands, and the comments of the Government, that if we say no, we fall into an abyss, our self sideline etc, makes it look even nicer on.
But for now to assume that we are not able to vote no, I do not really the case. However, you must vote purely aimed at the convention to reach a European Constitution, while you should not let you affect how you feel about the current government. It is not a protest vote and I think it will happen for a part ...
May 20th, 2005 at 11:35
Voting for a European Constitution
The no-voters seem to prevail, I go 'yes' votes and as I shall shortly have explained why many of you will do the same.
EEC
The EEC was once the logical sequel to the Benelux. Precisely because of the mutual cooperation and the benefits that brought England was such that a community had to come that was to form a union against South European countries. One reason was that migrant workers from Spain and Italy were cheaper, which had regulated.
Also in the field of import and export rules were drafted, so it was easier to trade with the English.
Soon was the expansion to nine Member States. Meanwhile we go towards the 30 States and the Dutchman fears to be snowed under and that's exactly what will happen if we 'no' vote. The government and many MPs would have us believe that most great misery will break out if we do not vote for the constitution. In itself, I agree with that but for entirely different reasons.
Our great advantage lies in the east
Until now the EU has our benefits. I call one of the most important: trade with Germany. This country, the definition of the budget for 2006 to 2011 less from having to contribute to the EU, the Netherlands not. That decision will be after the referendums in France and the Netherlands because the French have a reduction of the German financial contributions do not like the Dutch and a freeze on their remittance not want, we want a reduction. Is there not, that is already established, we go from 2011 to pay less.
That Germany should be paying less is logical, which have invested billions into the reunion. Then back to the advantage for the Netherlands to 'yes' vote. Trade with Germany is vital to our economy always has been and always will be. A torpedoed the constitution by the Netherlands will provide us the Germans not be appreciated.
We can also easily say yes because the Constitution comes not in its present form. The French will reject these and other one of the Eastern European neighbors of Germany who have to make money because Germany may pay less.
With a "yes" so we sit in the lee of the storm that between Germany and other countries will learn. What about England? That should go help pay for the financing of the reunification of the two Germanies.
Netherlands will always say, "we said yes so we are not to blame." The Germans will thank us and trade with this country will increase because of fury comes with both the English and the Eastern Europeans.
If you really believe that it does what the Netherlands is in the box makes you 'no' red on June 1. If you are like me think the actual arrival of the constitution no matter what we vote only for trade between the Netherlands and neighboring countries do you agree yes.
Abuse your voice to the government (which I am not at all a fan of) a heel turn because you find yourself only with me.
Honesty is the best policy
My reasons are certainly not pure but practical. That government should be straightforward, but in the back playing there completely different interests, only that one can not express the way I do it here.
Balkenende burns on the lips to indicate trade with Germany, but you do understand also that he can not do that.
And honestly, as the French 'no' vote, our vote does not matter anymore, as the French say 'Yes' but the more we shoot ourselves in the foot. In the long deadlines will be a 'yes' will always be in our favor.
Leave underlying sentiments behind you and think ahead as you state later in the booth.
Think what you do
The constitution does little disadvantages, no advantages, I think even that much can be arranged without the new constitution. If nobody you really can (will) explain why you 'yes' votes, is it not obvious that there are other reasons not to appoint so anyway 'yes' vote?
I think that we can greet the hostility of the neighboring larger countries. If 'no' votes do you think the euro is too expensive or to control the few you have had in recent years, especially when it comes to Europe.
But turn that a 'no' soon return?
May 20th, 2005 at 12:42
@ Rene: Thank you for your extensive and well-argued contribution. I certainly agree with your formulation of having an economic standpoint. Other Half has certainly given this position and will therefore also vote yes.
My vote is subject to doubt. I would definitely vote yes when it comes to just above would go, but I miss one of democracy in the proposal for the Constitution. Or I find this compelling enough for a No, I'm still not over it. My voice will certainly not be led by my dislike of this government. Even though this government is doing its utmost before the opinion is to shape and thereby plays more on the gut feelings of the people than probably intended. With a reasonable annoyance I read about it in newspaper and Internet, and also about giving expression to my blog. But it would be too easy to use this voice for a No to this government, because that is about it (unfortunately) and you can make that distinction, I think.
May 26th, 2005 at 10:14 p.m.
European cooperation is a necessity. We must be able to compete against the U.S. and growing economies in Asia. Only that economic cooperation is already underway and there is no constitution requires.
No continent as diverse as Europe. This has already proven the past. A tight integration of many things does not make sense that it only costs time, bureaucracy and there is no land to wait.
Just a few words: the number of inhabitants of a country determines the influence of a country. Sounds fair, but what if GB and Turkey contributes 22% to 3%. Dan is still considering the voice of Turkey six times faster than that of the Netherlands!
European co-ok, no land law
May 27th, 2005 at 7:59
@ Tom: a good observation of the current situation. Economic cooperation is indeed something that has been going on much longer. This requires not need a constitution. I do not see a constitutional differences between the countries will take away this is not enough Europe.
That one should not pursue and that gives no reason to vote against the constitution.
May 29th, 2005 at 10:06 p.m.
I definitely bring my voice out, and that is yes. I must admit that this choice is not easy is established, reading the arguments from the yes and no camp there is for sure, but see the Netherlands in a position of advantage if we vote yes.
In addition, it strikes me that in the camp of the no-voters become more gebuik made of scaremongering and whether it makes sense. Apply anyway in any case your vote.
May 29th, 2005 at 10:47 p.m.
@ Henk: I will certainly vote and that is now no definitive yes. Have now read all things on the Constitution, all put on a list, with supporters and opponents debated and there is no stronger than my my potential so derived.
As for the scare I do not agree with you that the no-voters are more important than doing the yes-voters. The latter group is mainly in the Netherlands started with all sentiment when it became clear that the no-camp already had a big lead on the yes campaign. It is clear that the statements by various members of Cabinet not exactly free of sentiment and belonging really to the yes camp.
May 29th, 2005 at 11:58 p.m.
Interesting article and comments ditto.
It seems that no French became a fact.
Incidentally, in the NRC Handelsblad of 27 May writes Kapteyn - a former member of the European Court of Justice that the treaty actually incorrect Constitution called.
Constitution would be ee btere indication. The Constitution is a state Regling which regulates the political life.
Furthermore, he argues that this constitution or rather treaty establishing a constitution (sic constitution) for Europe really great part about the principles and rules stipulated in the course of years are already committed in other treaties.
So why are we now omte invited to vote?
Should I see it as an attempt to bring Europe closer to its citizens?
May 30th, 2005 at 9:59 p.m.
when it comes to war in the Netherlands, "Europe = Germany, Spain, Great Britain etc.) is at once not help in crises they let us fall
and why do you say no?
We are not the only one who have to pay even if those other to pay, why does germany right?
for them to realize that there is good
Netherlands such a small country in Europe
and is as stubborn as a Rat
Netherlands always says why not,,,?
couvenisme talked about (France, there is a but also Netherlands)
DUSS I will vote yes for
May 31st, 2005 at 8:23
@ Philip: Thanks for your compliment. It is idd nice to see that the subject in many people lives and that this leads to at times very interesting opinions.
It is true that a treaty establishing an EU Constitution. In the French brochures that are in the French in the bus falling, it was also clearly on the front, as opposed to the Dutch brochures. That makes it confusing for people and thus unclear where they should vote.
Whether this vote brings the citizens closer to Europe? I doubt that, given the mood in the Netherlands and a large No tomorrow, the public will only bring more of Europe.
May 31st, 2005 at 9:03
@ Moritz T: why do you say Yes, why should you fear a crisis, to war?
We are not the only idd pay and we receive money from Europe, all true. And the Netherlands is a small country, but unlike what you say, until now the Netherlands has always said Yes. We are also one of the best behaved kids in the class. In new EU directives, the Netherlands is generally one of the first adapters, so that matter does not complain about Europe Netherlands.
Now the people must first express itself on a European issue and if it appears that the majority votes against, there will also be handled it should be.
May 31st, 2005 at 2:07 p.m.
I have read various contributions. I'm going to vote no. Not because I am against Europe, but because I'm worried about what happens to our contribution if we do relatively little to say about it. The scare comes more from the yes-camp, I agree. Terms such as war and Holocaust come from that side. In the non-euro country Switzerland would therefore - according to that reasoning - a chaos to be. Never noticed. So by that kind of screams let me not be affected.
I am so against adoption of a constitution at this time. Let us first see how it works in Europe with countries like Turkey there. Ask us about 5 or 10 years back in our opinion. Maybe I think differently then.
May 31st, 2005 at 4:14 p.m.
@ Inge: thanks for your constructive input. I almost completely agree with you and this is the reason for my no vote tomorrow.
I hope that most people who vote no so nuanced thinking.
May 31st, 2005 at 4:19 p.m.
Also I will happily vote no. My main reason is that we vote on a treaty establishing a European Constitution (as opposed to what the politicians want you to think, the Constitution itself, all confusion and therefore trend calls for voters is not exactly easy). That means that we YES (or no) vote for a constitution that does not yet exist. Yeah directives and large parts of it are well defined, but that does not mean that we commit to something we have not quite know what we promise. If the referendum was now for the promise to create a constitution with the guarantee that we will for the actual constitution still get a referendum, then I might be inclined to vote yes. But as it seems this is the last chance we get to provide input to, and then I choose rather to maintain the current situation until they give us a better proposal can do ...
May 31st, 2005 at 5:51 p.m.
@ Soli: true, I had been previously reported that in France the neat brochures titled The Treaty establishing the EU Constitution stood in the Netherlands and keeps it stubbornly insisted that the EU Constitution to themselves. Then it would be clear what you would vote and now remains in the air unresolved. In that respect, your No vote was right
August 21st, 2005 at 11:21 p.m.
2778!!
August 22nd, 2005 at 10:11
@ Peter: 2779!! 2780 and before you know it!