Who Wants to Predice Outcome/Effects of EU Vote?
 

On May 29, voters will decide on the fate of the EU constitution. I see that it is a hot debate in France and the Netherlands. Has anyone been following this enough to know what the possible effects of a "no" vote will be? (other than the constitution has been rejected)

PredicT...sorry about the typo!

If France votes "no," the nation could well lose its current prestigious standing within the EU. If "yes," then France might lose considerable autonomy. It's a hot topic all across the country.

Here's what the IHT has to say:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/24/news/vote.php

Hello wren, there is a lot of info on the International Herald Tribune website which is www.iht.com. It will be interesting to see how this all turns out.

here's the last pole earlier today.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...p;refer=europe

My friend, Eve, on another forum posted this.
http://www.ttc.org/200505232046.j4nkkjr24672.htm

On May 29, only the French will be voting. Those of the rest of us whose governments aren't frightened of referendums vote later: countries - like Germany - whose governments mistrust their citizens aren't allowed to vote on the subject at all.

If the French referendum follows voter wishes, France will vote 'no'. But it's the counting, not the voting, that matters, and the uncanny speed with which the last results of a French referendum were announced implies that Chirac is as capable as any other corrupt megalomaniac of ensuring the result goes his way.

So my bets are on a "yes" vote in France.

In the unlikely event of an honest count, and the consequent "no" vote, the solution for the rest of us is dead easy.

Expel France from the EU. At a stroke we'll get rid of the CAP - thus reducing the fortunes (of British, Swedish, German and Dutch money) squandered in propping up French farming, and eliminate the world's second most disgraceful destroyer of livelihoods in the world's poor countries (for nothing, of course, even begins to match America's cotton subsidies in the million of lives blighted).

In fact, expelling France, whichever way it votes, would be a pretty good idea.

Flanneruk; this is what I have heard too; a mayor of a small town in France was reported as saying that the people will vote no, but the outcome will be yes.

I believe an important issue here is that people feel they have lost their grip on what is happening with 'Europe'. They now finally have a chance to voice their opinion. In The Netherlands, the government has already said that the referendum is not binding; so if the people vote No, they could go ahead anyway. I think that this is disgracefull.

I am not totally up on the referendum but Ireland was in a similar situation last year with the nice treaty. In the constitution we are protected in some ways buy having referendum's which I believe DeValera instigated in the constitution when we became a Republic(Maybe someone with more knowlege can explain :-)). They said if we voted No that Ireland would lose standing etc and that we received so much money over the years we should not oppose etc etc. It boiled down for many to the opposition of the death penalty and being forced into a war situatuation when we have always been a neutral country. It still made the yes vote but it was close. Just have to sit tight I suppose. We all lose a bit of control by being in the EU and it's hard to give that up.

Chances are the Dutch will vote against the constitution (if that's what you want to call it!). Right now, estimates are about 35% of all potential voters will actually vote, from which more than 60% will vote against. Probably for all the wrong reasons, but that doesn't really make a difference.

However, with the Dutch politics being as they currently are, chances are the government will ignore the outcome of this referendum and accept the proposal as is or with very little changes.

If France votes NO, the European Constitution is FINIS, which will be good for Europe. A multinational, multicultural state cobbled together by the elites will be untenable over time. It would also be undemocratic, a government by and for bureaucrats. The biggest crisis looming for Europe isn't economic unity but a welfare state that is outstripping the ability of a decreasing working age population to pay for it. I'm not arguing about whether a large welfare state is good or not but actuarial tables mandate that the European working age population of 2030 will not be able to provide for the rapidly aging and retiring population of Europe.

There was an Interesting article on this subject in the Financial Times last week.What caught my eye about its analysis,was that for both the Dutch and the French electorate one of the main reasons to reject the treaty was the possibility Turkey joining the EU.

Just having returned from France, I'd say that the NON signs outnumbered the OUIs. Most of the OUIs we saw seemed to be from government officials; the NONs appeared more grass-roots.

This article from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4483817.stm
is a pretty good summary in a Q&A format.

Someone told me he had heard an interview on NPR with a French government official whose job was to go around and convince people to vote OUI. But she said that the more she talked to the NON people, the more she went over to their side!

If France votes no, does that mean no more EU fussing about unpasteurized cheeses?

I think most of us don't appreciate the difficulties in making a single entity out of long established sovereign states that are frequently at war with each other. I am impressed with how well it has gone so far, but I'm certain there will be rough spots, and collapse is not unforseeable.

US history shows that it took a very, very long time for us to blend together the different states to the point where we considered ourselves Americans, rather than, for example Virginians, and we did not have the history of violent conflict that Europe carries.

Incidentally, people voting on such issues is, I believe, very rare. Certainly in the US the people do not vote on federal constitutional amendments nor, for that matter, on any federal legislation.

Mr. Cleveland Brown's points are well taken but one important difference between the American federation and the European Union is language. We had one; Europe has over twenty-five. Another is that, originally, most of the political power remained vested in the 13 states while Brussels will wield a huge amount of power if the EU Constitution is approved. The British Parliament, for instance, will be more impotent than any American state legislature, if I am understanding the European Constitution correctly. Brussels will be able to overule the national legislatures in most instances. I can't support that.

"long established states that are frequently at war with one another"

Huh? Other than WWII, some 60-odd years ago, I'm not aware that ANY of the nations of the EU are "frequently at war WITH EACH OTHER."

Something going on here that I don't know about? (smile)

Spygirl,
I know it was not a hot war,but I would classify the "Cold War" as a war between European countries.And don't forget that for 2,000 years prior to WWII European Nations were in an almost constant state of "Hot" wars

I don't think Shane is understanding the proposed constitution correctly. It doesn't shift either deeper or wider powers away from member state governments; it slightly widens the areas they agree to act together on, and it tries to streamline the decisions they make together. The other central institutions don't get much increase in their powers or responsibilities. The problem, as ever, is that too many member states don't have enough local parliamentary control over what their governments are doing when they get into the conference chambers: which suits the governments fine, because they can claim the credit for the popular decisions and shift the blame for the unpopular ones.