Why not btw?

And what will that one voice say? Will it state the foreign policy positions of a majority of Europeans? Not fucking likely since foreign policy is already considered an elite preserve. National governments have enough trouble finding unity for their own foreign policy positions (i.e. the Iraq war) without multiplying the difficulty by 25 or however many EU members there are now.

i accidentally threw out my bill

i accidentally threw out my bill

Oh yes Emka: Bij de afdeling Burgerzaken van het stadhuis kun je een nieuwe oproepkaart krijgen. Neem hiervoor wel een geldig paspoort of rijbewijs mee!

...

Going to vote Yes!

Heil Europa!

It seems to me that European countries could achieve most of the things they are looking for, without drafting an internationally binding constitution. Countries can draw up agreements for economic and political solidarity.
It sounds to me almost like you guys are voting for a central, federal government over all of Europa, in order to maintain an outward appearance of solidarity, and give you more collective bargaining power in world events. At least that's the way the politicians seem to be looking at it.
That doesn't seem like much of a tradeoff for the general populace.

Aside from not having to show your passport and exchange currency when going to other European countries, what exactly are the benefits for you guys?

better trade options, more security, improved co-operation on fighting crime, environment policies, general health policies, more control of the national governments on "Brussel" (i.e. center of EU power)

And yes, more political solidarity and one stance on foreign policy (and no, it won't be only France, Germany's voice)

And yes, more political solidarity and one stance on foreign policy

I've saved a soul today

I obviously don't have any say in the process, but I personally think there should be more Euros looking at the comparisons to the US for this constitution. There are very strong analogies, but I don't really see anyone discussing them. Which seems very odd, considering the popular sentiment of Euros towards the US right now.

I'm not sure if it's because it just isn't noticed, or perhaps because you guys don't consider yourselves anything like us (which is probably true in a lot of ways, but still irrelevant).
But you should remember -- the United States started out as 50 states that were almost completely autonomous, except for very necessary nation-wide laws and regulations. The states were supposed to retain full control over decisions that affected the local populations, and the federal government was only there to provide a unified face to the world, to protect the country from aggressors, and to handle problems between states, or problems that just couldn't be handled at the state level.

It's been a little over 200 years now, and look how much has changed. I personally feel that if you guys think you are immune to this type of gradual encroachment of centralized decision-making, then it is at least a little short-sighted (at worst I might even say hubris).

The reason I say this, is because I love the diversity that's seen in European countries. It is wider than there ever was in the states (on a legal/institutional level) - and I would hate to see that character and diversity take a back seat to the ideology of international politics and economics, which is what this constitution seems to be all about.

Just my $0.02 of course.

i agree with rook on the issue. just look at our (the US of A) situation. our federal government has severely overstepped it's boundary and is continually undermining our states' rights to govern themselves. i've always been, and always will be anti EU.

What do you mean by 'better trade options'?

And I'm not sure I follow the more security. It seems that having to show identification between countries would actually provide more security than otherwise. I can understand the improved crime-fighting cooperation, but by the same token, if I had to show a passport to enter every state in the US, then it would be fairly easy to track down any criminals to begin with. I don't know what the current extradition laws are like over there, but isn't it fairly easy to have criminals prosecuted where their crime was commited in most European countries already?

As far as general health policies, you're a doctor with a lot of experience in that area so I should probably take your word on it. But if there are centralized decisions made on healthcare, and everyone in the EU pays taxes for public healthcare, how long do you think it would take for serious issues to arise about cultural things such as the Netherlands' more lax drug laws, and the health issues that arise from them? People will complain about paying for drug addicts' healthcare until something has to be done about it.

And you say that larger, more influential countries won't have a stronger voice in foreign policy matters than all the others, but that doesn't sound very realistic to me. Any delegated, decision-making body is a power struggle by definition, and to assume that the countries with the most at stake, the most invested, the largest populations, the largest economies, and the strongest previous foreign connections will allow the other countries to have a strong influence over the way they operate and/or make decisions, is a mighty dangerous assumption.

Also to consider is the reason the politicians have been pushing for the constitution to begin with: political solidarity for more influence, economic solidarity for more influence... These are selfish ideals to begin with, so it seems like quite a stretch to me that the people drafting this constitution are doing it for "the greater good of all of the peoples of Europe" as much as they're doing it out of a desire for more power and influence.

And I want to be clear that I'm not trying to undermine Euros' quest for more power and influence - I think you should have it. But I also think there are other ways to have it without putting the entire population under a single umbrella of law.

Also, like seremtan said earlier, historically democratic/republican representation has only worked when it is a grassroots movement from the people. If the people aren't yearning for it, and the politicians are, then I don't see how it's much different from what the best-case-scenario in Iraq could have been -- a people who don't respect what they have because they did not ask for it, and possibly later a growing resentment when they find that their identities and self-determination might be in the hands of someone else they don't even know, who is claiming to represent them.

Seriously, Sat, I have no idea what that means.

I also have a serious problem with the unified healthcare thing. The working time directive has already totally fucked up medical training in the UK to the point at which doctors are hired preferentially from outside the EU because they actually have the necessary experience (I accept that this is partly because the NHS can't find its arse with both hands). Healthcare isn't one homogeneous entity, different areas have different needs.... and I'm sure you've noticed that trying to treat someone with whom you have no common language is practically impossible. Because of cultural differences, generally speaking even when you can get a translation, it doesn't make any fucking sense; trying to educate the patient is insanely hard.

More to the point, answer me this: If the EU's so fucking great, why is it that the Scandinavian countries have a much higher standard of living?

Don't the EU want to set the maximum speed limit over the whole of europe to 60mph? Fuck that, and fuck those Euros too. I'd vote no if weget the vote.

i agree with rook on the issue. just look at our (the US of A) situation. our federal government has severely overstepped it's boundary and is continually undermining our states' rights to govern themselves. i've always been, and always will be anti EU.

im sure he was kidding