Support NeoGAF

[norinrad21]

Looks like the French folks have voted against the european constitution, in 3 days we [The Netherlands] will do the same.

YAY for democracy

Referendum season

The constitution was finalised last year after long and difficult negotiations among EU governments.

The treaty includes a Charter of Fundamental Rights and the creation of a foreign minister and a diplomatic service.

Member states can ratify the document through a referendum or by parliamentary vote.

Germany ratified the charter on Friday, with an upper house vote timed to boost France's struggling "Yes" camp.

Those who want the treaty rejected are thought to be ahead in the Netherlands, which will hold its referendum on Wednesday.

I'm predicting 80% NO in Holland......... :lol

 

[automagnus]

Wanna fill us in about whats so bad about this constiution?

 

[Bigfonzie]

Meh, its all a question of what we want the EU to be.

1) just free trade economic trade partners with a few other shared projects.

2) A European superstate that holds massive world strength and can be the worlds biggest superpower.

 

[Mike Works]

I'd never even heard of this, should it be approved, what would it entail?

 

[123rl]

I read today that the UK might not even bother to have a vote if France voted no

 

[Macam]

I'd never even heard of this, should it be approved, what would it entail?

You've never heard of the EU Constitution? I'll have to dig up some facts for you folks later today when I get a break. It's a huge ordeal, though I think it's a bit of a shame if the constitution isn't ratified, as I think the benefits far outweight the consequences, but like I said I'll ger around to posting some information on it later.

 

[norinrad21]

I'd never even heard of this, should it be approved, what would it entail?

Well when you look truly deep, nobody wants Turkey to controle Europe, thats what it comes down to. Turkey's population is huge and once they become a member they will be calling all the shots.

I never bought the whole idea of europe becoming a super state and a force in the world.

People don't want Turkey to become a member.........well thats how i see it

 

[Jacobi]

Wanna fill us in about whats so bad about this constiution?

I don't know shit about it and I'm European :lol

 

[norinrad21]

France 'rejects EU constitution'
Breaking news graphic
French voters have rejected the proposed EU constitution in Sunday's referendum, according to an exit poll.

The poll quoted by French TV gives the "No" side 55% - in line with surveys published in the run-up to the vote.

If confirmed, the result will be a blow to President Jacques Chirac and France's two main political parties, which campaigned for a "Yes".

It could deal a fatal blow to the EU constitution, which the Union has been working on since the start of 2002.

The constitution cannot come into force unless it is ratified by all 25 EU members.

So far, nine countries have ratified it.

Eight other national referendums are still to come, including one in the Netherlands on Wednesday, where the "No" side is also leading in the polls.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Ninjarabe]

Wanna fill us in about whats so bad about this constiution?

I don't know shit about it and I'm European :lol

I think you summarized the situation, nobody knows what the constitution is all about (I'm French)

 

[123rl]

It basically means each country has no say over their own laws. There would be an 'EU law' that would replace all of our individual national laws. It changes about 650 different things iirc - most are minor but a lot of them are HUGE (like the laws I just mentioned) but there's also stuff like Brussels having the final say in setting interest rates for each country, which is a huge deal. It basically kills a country's chance of controlling inflation by raising/lowering the interest rate...whoever thought that was a good idea is an idiot!

 

[Vandiger]

Am I right in assuming this constitution is aimed at serving and protecting more likely nations or rather large institutions rather than the individual like the US constitution. If so, than yeah I can see why this would be BS

 

[HooDoo]

Sucks to be french, dangit.

Anyone willing to make me anything but french ? :l

 

[123rl]

Am I right in assuming this constitution is aimed at serving and protecting more likely nations or rather large institutions rather than the individual like the US constitution. If so, than yeah I can see why this would be BS

It's about making Europe a single State rather than 25 countries. atm the idea of the EU is mainly economical but this would harmonise everything so all our laws are the same, taxes and fiscal policy are the same etc...it's a terrible idea

 

[ShadowRed]

It basically means each country has no say over their own laws. There would be an 'EU law' that would replace all of our individual national laws. It changes about 650 different things iirc - most are minor but a lot of them are HUGE (like the laws I just mentioned) but there's also stuff like Brussels having the final say in setting interest rates for each country, which is a huge deal. It basically kills a country's chance of controlling inflation by raising/lowering the interest rate...whoever thought that was a good idea is an idiot!

Why not do like the US and have a Federal set of laws and allow the countries to retain their individual ones? That way the Neatherlands can have their legalized pot, and the British can have their prohibition. As far as Brussels setting the interest rate, seeing as the EU is a combined economy it makes since that there be a centralized organization that would over see matters such as interest rate. If people want to be a dumb ass about it then so be it, and let the individual states assign their own rates, and watch as smaller countryies get ass raped by the larger ones because they can afford to lure industries to their country because they can lower the interest rates lower. The Fed is in cotrool of interest rates in the US and you don't see inflation in say Arkansas out of control because of it. In fact the Fed works to keep inflaction spread even across the board so that no one state gets hurt the most.

It's about making Europe a single State rather than 25 countries. atm the idea of the EU is mainly economical but this would harmonise everything so all our laws are the same, taxes and fiscal policy are the same etc...it's a terrible idea

Care to explain why it's a terrible thing? Is the way the US terrible? I don't understand why this is bad unless you just don't want to be part of a super state.

 

[norinrad21]

Why not do like the US and have a Federal set of laws and allow the countries to retain their individual ones? That way the Neatherlands can have their legalized pot, and the British can have their prohibition. As far as Brussels setting the interest rate, seeing as the EU is a combined economy it makes since that there be a centralized organization that would over see matters such as interest rate. If people want to be a dumb ass about it then so be it, and let the individual states assign their own rates, and watch as smaller countryies get ass raped by the larger ones because they can afford to lure industries to their country because they can lower the interest rates lower. The Fed is in cotrool of interest rates in the US and you don't see inflation in say Arkansas out of control because of it. In fact the Fed works to keep inflaction spread even across the board so that no one state gets hurt the most.
Care to explain why it's a terrible thing? Is the way the US terrible? I don't understand why this is bad unless you just don't want to be part of a super state.

The fear of losing your national identity and the loss of job and security is one of the major factors for most people voting for NO. People dont want Brussels controlling their lives, not only that the so called EU 3 UK,GERMANY and France always do what they want if they dont get their way. Where does that leave the little guys who contribute more to the Eu financially?

BRUSSELS, Belgium May 22, 2005 — European Union foreign ministers hold closed door talks Sunday in an effort to bridge deep divisions over how much money each country should contribute to the union's budget in the years ahead.

A budget fight over setting the EU's spending plans for 2007 through 2013 is expected between several countries, especially over Britain's much-cherished rebate, which other EU countries want axed.

But British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is expected to reject all proposals to scrap the rebate, as demanded by France, Germany and Poland. The British government strongly defends the cash-back guarantee, worth about 3 billion pounds ($5.5 billion, euro4.4 billion) a year. Britain won the rebate in 1984, arguing that its contribution to the EU was lopsided as it drew little back in the way of farming and other subsidies. Britain has gotten more than 50 billion pounds (euro73 billion) back in rebate payments in the last 21 years.

"It's wholly justified and if we did not get the result that we wanted we would not hesitate to use our veto," British Treasury chief Gordon Brown told British Broadcasting Corp. TV on Sunday.

"We get so little of the Common Agricultural Policy receipts, we get so little of the Structural and Cohesion Fund receipts, that our rebate is wholly justified," Brown said.

Luxembourg's Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn was to lead the closed door talks aimed at devising a compromise on a plan that envisions a cap and phase-out of Britain's rebate.

Asselborn is also expected to present a draft budget proposing big spending cuts to appease Germany, the Netherlands, Britain and France, which face budget cuts at home.

The draft suggests euro1.026 billion ($1.29 billion) in cuts in EU spending in areas including aid to poorer regions, transport and research

But such cuts are unlikely to appeal to the 10 new members that joined the bloc last year. Most of them are poorer than other EU members and are hoping to benefit from EU aid by maintaing the funds they currently get from the EU in the years ahead.

They actually want people to vote YES when they themselves can'yt even get it together?

 

[Sqrt_minus_one]

It basically means each country has no say over their own laws. There would be an 'EU law' that would replace all of our individual national laws. It changes about 650 different things iirc - most are minor but a lot of them are HUGE (like the laws I just mentioned) but there's also stuff like Brussels having the final say in setting interest rates for each country, which is a huge deal. It basically kills a country's chance of controlling inflation by raising/lowering the interest rate...whoever thought that was a good idea is an idiot!

I do not beleive all of the above to be accurate, for instance I am under the impression that you loose control of your interest when you join the Euro. For instance Brussels controls the interest rates in all states so what I am saying is any country who has the Euro as its national currency has lost control of its interest rates already. The constitution does not even need to be accepted in the country before you loose control of interest rates.

With respect to the laws it must be acknowledged that a common judicial system is beneficial to all, it is my beleif that the European Union has gone too far in its law setting specifying everything up to the curviness of bananas.

The EU in my opinion is a good idea buggered up by over ambitiousness and excessive bureaucracy.

 

[Sqrt_minus_one]

----------snip-----------
Where does that leave the little guys who contribute more to the Eu financially?
They actually want people to vote YES when they themselves can'yt even get it together?

I agree with everything else but who contributes more to the EU budget than the UK, Germany and France ?

 

[norinrad21]

I agree with everything else but who contributes more to the EU budget than the UK, Germany and France ?

The Netherlands and Sweden.

every citizen of the Netherlands pays 180 euro fellowed by Sweden i believe its about 130 euro, while every French citizen only pays 33 euro.

Pretty fair wouldn't you say? :lol

 

[Sqrt_minus_one]

Oh your talking per capita, thought you meant as a whole my bad.

 

[heavenly]

It appears that God's four angels are still holding back the winds of strife so that His message can be heard before the Battle of Armaggeddon. I'm glad to hear the French have some sense.

Who becomes the lawmaker and lawgiver in this setup? Who enforces the EU laws? Who becomes the central figurehead or controlling power of this single entity? Too many questions unanswered...the negatives outweighs any positives IMO as far as individual rights are concerned.

 

[Bigfonzie]

Who becomes the central figurehead or controlling power of this single entity?.

Tony Blair











^He actually does have a good chance of beign the head of the EU if the constitution went through aswell as other things.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

Man, welcome to 1787...

 

[123rl]

I thought the central figure would be picked democratically and it rotated between countries every few months (as it does now...an Italian MP is in charge atm iirc). See, we don't even know HOW it's going to be governed and people expect us to vote if we want it or not. wth? :lol

 

[Jacobi]

I thought the central figure would be picked democratically and it rotated between countries every few months (as it does now...an Italian MP is in charge atm iirc). See, we don't even know HOW it's going to be governed and people expect us to vote if we want it or not. wth? :lol

So true except we Germen () can't even decide if they want it

 

[Midas]

Awesome. Good job France!

 

[Macam]

It basically means each country has no say over their own laws. There would be an 'EU law' that would replace all of our individual national laws. It changes about 650 different things iirc - most are minor but a lot of them are HUGE (like the laws I just mentioned) but there's also stuff like Brussels having the final say in setting interest rates for each country, which is a huge deal. It basically kills a country's chance of controlling inflation by raising/lowering the interest rate...whoever thought that was a good idea is an idiot!

Not true. The EU is given control only over certain aspects, and most of these are fairly broad, such as with regards to defense, foreign policy, interest rates, and so on. It does not, as you somewhat dramatically put it, "basically mean each country has no say over their own laws". Of course, they do.

The EU is a larger framework to help guide Europe as a whole, akin to the way the U.S. manages to balance between state and federal power. Unfortunately, there are a number of aspects among the EU's members that cause issues of contention, and some of the more prominent members seem to hinge on these aspects more than the bigger picture. Point in case, as a previous poster noted, the fear of Turkey, with its large Muslim population, joining the EU has raised xenophobic fears among some members, notably France, in addition to Italy and the Netherlands, where a controversial film director, Van Gogh, was murdered last year by an extremist. However, it's foolish for anyone to assume Turkey will control the EU, despite their population numbers, and prohibiting Turkey from being welcomed into the EU promises more negative consequences than positive ones.

 

[gofreak]

I don't think the problem is with the constitution so much as it has to do with informing and educating people about it (I'm already seeing misinformation in here about it, which just goes to show you..). If people feel they don't know enough about it, they'll just vote no.

If there are a number of further no votes in other countries, they'll likely renegotiate it. If it's just France, they'll simply put the vote to them again as they did with the Nice treaty in Ireland (passed on the second vote).

I think they'll go back to the drawing board with it, to be honest, but this is just a small setback in the wider scheme of things. Hopefully they'll address concerns second time around and it gets passed. European integration makes sense IMO - this constitution would not have made a "United States of Europe", by the way - not by a long shot. That'd require much much more than what was in this agreement. There's a lot of fear-mongering about a giant superstate, but even the most ardent pro-Europeans agree that's likely never to happen.

I'm very very pro-European, I should say, just to admit my biases here and now. I just think it's remarkable what has been achieved thusfar, and it's amazing to see the changes the EU can bring about in a country that others (like the US) aim to do through force. Look at how Turkey has been reforming and changing laws, for example just be considered for EU membership. The same was true of many of the other countries that joined recently. It's political influence has been remarkably positive thusfar.

 

[Nerevar]

why is Turkey even being considered to join the EU? I mean, the country's not part of Europe ... why don't you guys invite Morocco and Egypt to join while you're at it? Or are you going to change the name to "European and Asia Minor Union?"?

 

[gofreak]

why is Turkey even being considered to join the EU? I mean, the country's not part of Europe ... why don't you guys invite Morocco and Egypt to join while you're at it? Or are you going to change the name to "European and Asia Minor Union?"?

Turkey is neither east nor west..it's an important gateway to asia too.

I don't know. By some definitions, Russia is considered to be "Europe".

We have a European song contest here every year, and I mean, Israel partakes in that. I've heard it suggested on a couple of occasions that Israel could (very very eventually) join the EU. I think that'd be a somewhat distant future though.

 

[Midas]

why is Turkey even being considered to join the EU? I mean, the country's not part of Europe ... why don't you guys invite Morocco and Egypt to join while you're at it? Or are you going to change the name to "European and Asia Minor Union?"?

Eurasia.

 

[Mama Smurf]

I've always considered Turkey, Russia and Isreal as part of Europe.

But then, my geographical knowledge is largely based on football. Cardiff's in England, right?

 

[Deleted member 1235]

I like the way france isn't afraid to say "fuck it" if they don't like what's going down.

Wouldn't it suck some of the individuality out of the european Countries a bit if you made them all the same? From my perspective Europe is so awesome because you can travel to another country by car/train and experience different rules/cultures etc. Put them all under the same laws and some of that would wear off quick I think.

 

[Macam]

why is Turkey even being considered to join the EU? I mean, the country's not part of Europe ... why don't you guys invite Morocco and Egypt to join while you're at it? Or are you going to change the name to "European and Asia Minor Union?"?

You could ask the same about Greenland, which is closer to Canada than continental Europe. It's largely irrelevant for the most whether Turkeyis associated with Asia or Europe in particular; the more important is what gofreak has noted about the reforms Turkey (and other aspiring Eastern European countries, primarily former Soviet-controlled republics) has been undertaking to join the EU. The implications of Turkey joining the EU, which wouldn't officially even happen for at least another decade as talks for ascension only began last November, are significant: much needed economic reform, the elimination of human rights abuses, closer ties and acceptance of Muslims into the Western world, and, ultimately, lifting the standard of living for thousands of Turks while providing economic growth to the EU on the whole. A large part of the hostility to Turkey's acceptance stems from their Muslim roots and the fears of being overrun by them, but these fears are largely unfounded. Turkey is a secular country, which has constantly attempted to adhere to Ataturk's Western-oriented legacy.

Catfish: Ratifying the EU doesn't equate to creating a standard, homogenized culture. Even without the ratification of the constitution, Europe has made steps to work together more over the last few decades as seen with the adoption of the Euro -- on the contrary to losing the charm of Europe, this has helped in a few ways, particularly for visitors. I speak from experience here: while it may be great to jump from country to country in Europe, it was a real pain in the ass to deal with the countless currency conversions. Imagine traveling from state-to-state in the U.S. and having different currencies. Ultimately however, ratifying the EU just means larger cooperation, notably with respect to foreign policy and broad economic issues (not micromanagement), not standardizing cultures.

France seems more intent on saying "fuck it" to economic growth & Chirac.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

Catfish: Ratifying the EU doesn't equate to creating a standard, homogenized culture. Even without the ratification of the constitution, Europe has made steps to work together more over the last few decades as seen with the adoption of the Euro -- on the contrary to losing the charm of Europe, this has helped in a few ways, particularly for visitors. I speak from experience here: while it may be great to jump from country to country in Europe, it was a real pain in the ass to deal with the countless currency conversions. Imagine traveling from state-to-state in the U.S. and having different currencies. Ultimately however, ratifying the EU just means larger cooperation, notably with respect to foreign policy and broad economic issues (not micromanagement), not standardizing cultures.

France seems more intent on saying "fuck it" to economic growth & Chirac.

yeah I was pretty much musing without knowing squat about it, You would be right about the currency thing though, I'm going to be travelling from Berlin to Netherlands and probably a bit between the two soon. Doing the currency thing would suck since I'm going to be doing it with my kiwi bux for a while anyway.

Is this thing actually going to standardise the laws though? I mean how would that work? No wonder Netherlands are saying no...

Once again, don't know much about this.

 

[Macam]

Is this thing actually going to standardise the laws though? I mean how would that work? No wonder Netherlands are saying no...

Once again, don't know much about this.

I'd have to re-read up on the specifics, but it's not going to standardize the laws across the board, only with regards to some aspects of it, and again, these are fairly broad ones. Things like having a standing EU military force, an international court system (if I'm not mistaken, but this won't apply to all cases obviously), and standardizing certain economic aspects. It won't go meddling around in outlawing marijuana usage in the Netherlands for example. I'll have to get back to you on the specifics of it later, but I'm entrenched in work at the moment.

 

[callous]

You could ask the same about Greenland, which is closer to Canada than continental Europe.

Greenland is Denmark. I don't care about the semantics. It's Denmark.

 

[fortified_concept]

Why not do like the US and have a Federal set of laws and allow the countries to retain their individual ones? That way the Neatherlands can have their legalized pot, and the British can have their prohibition. As far as Brussels setting the interest rate, seeing as the EU is a combined economy it makes since that there be a centralized organization that would over see matters such as interest rate. If people want to be a dumb ass about it then so be it, and let the individual states assign their own rates, and watch as smaller countryies get ass raped by the larger ones because they can afford to lure industries to their country because they can lower the interest rates lower. The Fed is in cotrool of interest rates in the US and you don't see inflation in say Arkansas out of control because of it. In fact the Fed works to keep inflaction spread even across the board so that no one state gets hurt the most.









Care to explain why it's a terrible thing? Is the way the US terrible? I don't understand why this is bad unless you just don't want to be part of a super state.

What norinrad said. Plus a couple of things like strict copyright laws and some set of laws which look a lot like the Patriot Act are trying to tranform europe into USA which is NOT good. Thanks but no thanks.

 

[strikeselect]

Good job France


fuck globalization

 

[fortified_concept]

Good job France


fuck globalization

Globalization is great but not the way these scumbags called politicians imagine it.

 

[Guileless]

Interesting mix of opponents according to the BBC: "Those who rejected the treaty included Communists, various left-wing groups, dissident socialists and far-right parties."

From what little I know, people were confused by the document's complexity, there was a lot of misinformation going around, and people voted against it as a way to stick it to the ruling government, which is currently unpopular.

 

[Kseutron]

many french choosed to vote "no" to express their strong disagreement with chirac's government wich is really unpopular

 

[Kola]

I'm very pro-European, like nearly all of my friends. I think European integration and the EU in general are a good start, but yes, perhaps they needed a little reminder that there are also people in this entity called EU, who they should listen to.

The constitution had goddamn 511 pages, the constitution of my home country had just about 100, and this was absolutely necessary. Honestly, it is probably much better to have a small and slick constitution. Back to the drawing board ladys and gents, this time make it better.

 

[Forsete]

Meh.. Maybe it was for the better?

 

[Instigator]

They made 3 mistakes... and a half.

1. They should have negotiated and settled the constitution before the last great expansion. It would have increased the odds of approval just having less countries having to vote on it. The French vote might have very well gone differently for other reasons explained later.

2. Though not an EU tradition, they should really make a EU referendum on the issue on the same day in all countries. The mind boggles that they don't realize having the debate drag on in some countries and having previous countries waver or vote against whatever just influences other countries down the line.

3. They let big business rule too much of EU policy, ever decreasing environmental and health standards, a major irritant in some of the more progressive members of the EU.

3 1/2. I'm surprised it wasn't mention before in this thread, but a major issue is labour. There's a major fear in center and left-wing circles that having let in all those eartern European workers will lower wages, create higher unemployment in rich countries and just hurt some sectors of the economy. They should have aimed to improve the economies of those countries first and then let them in the EU. Since people hardly have a say on expansion, rejecting the constitution is one way to indirectly pass the message.

 

[Crispy]

The Netherlands and Sweden.

every citizen of the Netherlands pays 180 euro fellowed by Sweden i believe its about 130 euro, while every French citizen only pays 33 euro.

Pretty fair wouldn't you say? :lol

If the constitution gets ratified we wouldn't have to pay as much anymore, at least Zalm could get that much right in the constitution. I will be voting 'yes' by the way, I think it's a good thing if we all work closer together. Moreover, we wouldn't really lose that much power over our own laws. The national law still mostly superceeds the European law. Only when it has to do with international relations will the European laws take the upper hand.

 

[RonaldoSan]

Stupid politicians... They never countered any of the obvious wrong reasons the majority used to vote against the constitution.

- cheap eastern labour
- migration
- turkey (the country not the bird)

I can't stand those ignorant bastard politicians roaming the streets of holland with their jihad-muslims-will-cut-your-throat-when-you-sleep messages.

They should have told the people that their jobs aren't going no where and this is for better not worse.

 

[swander]

The big sticking point for me is foriegn policy, as well as the fact that the constitution is a BLOATED UNREADABLE PIECE OF SHIT COMPILED BY APPOINTED (NOT ELECTED) BUEROCRATS.

 

[norinrad21]

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - Dutch voters overwhelmingly rejected the
European Union constitution Wednesday, the prime minister said, in what could be a knockout blow for the charter roundly defeated just days ago by France. Less than an hour after the polls closed, Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende conceded defeat in his campaign to ratify the constitution and said the government would respect the results of the overwhelmingly "no" vote on the referendum.

"Naturally, I'm very disappointed," he said in a televised statement.

An exit poll broadcast by state-financed NOS television said the constitution failed by a vote of 63 percent to 37 percent, an even worse defeat than the 55 percent "no" vote in France's referendum Sunday.

Turnout was 62 percent, far exceeding even the most optimistic expectations and a reflection of the heated debate in recent days over an issue that has polarized Europeans. Dutch liberals worried a more united EU could weaken liberal social policies, while conservatives feared losing control of immigration.

Although the referendum was consultative, the high turnout and the decisive margin left no room for the Dutch parliament to turn its back on the people's verdict. The parliament meets Thursday to discuss the results.

The constitution was designed to further unify the 25-nation bloc and give it more clout on the world stage. But the draft document needs approval from all the nations to take effect in late 2006, and the "no" vote in both France and the Netherlands — founding members of the bloc — was a clear message European integration has gone awry.

Early in the day, Balkenende had said he was optimistic the electorate would defy the pollsters and vote on the merits of the constitution rather than their general feeling of malaise.

"The question is: Do we want to have progress today or do we choose a standstill, and for me the choice is obvious," he said.

But voters marking paper ballots with red pencils or pushing electronic buttons appeared to have a different view.

At an Amsterdam school, where about a dozen people waited to vote, a reporter had difficulty finding anyone in favor of the constitution. One said the charter would bolster Europe: "I think it's a good thing if there's a strong Europe," said Jaena Padberg. "It's good that our rights will be secured."

Some voters said that they were undecided up to the last moment and that it was one of the toughest choices they had faced in a polling booth.

"I can't decide because I don't feel I have enough information," said waitress Flora de Groot, who was determined to vote anyway. "At first I thought, yes, definitely. But now, because what I've heard from other people, I'm leaning toward no."

Opponents said they feared the Netherlands, a nation of 16 million people, would be overwhelmed by a European superstate even though the Dutch pay more per capita than any other country into the collective EU kitty.

Nicolas Ilaria, an immigrant from Suriname, said he was voting no. "In principle, I'm against bureaucracy and I don't believe everything is working well now," he said as he read a newspaper at an Amsterdam cafe.

Like many others, Ilaria voiced an underlying mistrust of Dutch politicians. "The government is not telling the truth about what is in the treaty," he said.

Others were concerned a strengthened Europe could force the liberal Dutch to scrap policies such as tolerating marijuana use, prostitution and euthanasia. Some felt cheated by price increases after they traded in their guilders for the EU's common currency, the euro, in 2002. Conservatives worried that the EU would take over control of immigration policies.

"Things are going too fast," said Maarten Pijnenburg, in the "no" camp. "There's not enough control over the power of European politicians" under the new constitution.

The Dutch vote was not expected to have the same dramatic result for domestic politicians as France's referendum Sunday — a loss that was a public humiliation for President Jacques Chirac and resulted in Jean-Pierre Raffarin's resignation as prime minister.

Balkenende said before the vote that there would be no political resignations, no matter how the vote went.

Back to the drawingboard you idiots.



___

 

[ronito]