Yesterday I quickly jotted down a few lines because I had to leave. First thing, with better trade options i meant that it's easier for companies to trade and sell goods in the EU with less borders and rules, it's easier for EU citizens to work in other EU countries. Harmonised standards will create a more efficient market that can stand up against the American and Asian markets.R00k wrote:What do you mean by 'better trade options'?saturn wrote: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 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.
It's been like this already and handled with EU laws, but that's the main point; 90 percent of the EU constitution proposition already exist in many EU laws. If you merge all those different agreements, laws, into a basic constitution you lay the ground for a more unified Europe. That's my idea of course.
Security is a big issue now of course and fighting the war against terrorism (lol) is the big catchphrase. We already had Interpol to fight crime across borders, we have NATO, but maybe Europe needs one unified army (that's a large discussion point). We need the same immigration policies, look at the refugee camp at Sangatte (Fr) where thousands of people try to travel through the Eurotunnel to the UK where immigration laws are less strict. Spanish and Italian beaches are flooded with North-African and Albanic refugees every night. I don't blame them for wanting to live in prosperous Europe. But you see, this is a problem that needs a multi-country tackle.
I'm not sure about health policies, but one thing is that every baby and child in the EU will get the same vaccinations for example. That's the general health thing I'm talking about.
Of course I know that big countries like Germany and especially France will try and use their (historical) influence to persuade other and smaller countries to follow their vision. But you need many countries to accept a proposal for a new law and also a few countries to deny a new proposal. They wanted to remove the veto right on many levels of decision-making since that would create a unwieldy bureaucratic institution with 25 countries.
I have lost focus a bit now, so I'll finish with the reason why Dutch citizens have massively voted "no" against the proposal of a EU constitution. The EU was officially established in 1992 with the Treaty of Maastricht, but many aspects of it existed already, going back to the 50's. It first started with the Benelux, an union started in '48 or something between Belgium, Netherlands and Luxemburg. A few years the EEC (preceder of the EU) was formed with West-Germany, France and Italy. I tell you this because the intention and ideals to unite Europe exist for almost 60 years now. Europe didn't want a destructive World War on their territory anymore. The EU was created to unify disparate countries and promote cooperation. The process took a long time and progressed slowly, but with great results.
The developments have gone quickly the past few years. Introduction of the Euro and 10 new members added in 2003 (not sure what year lol) were already a big obstacle to overcome and caused dissatisfied feelings among citizens. Especially when prices went up with the introduction of the euro. And now a EU constitution, it's going too quickly for citizens of France and Holland, two of the original founding fathers. People feel like they're losing control and identity and the national governments have failed in explaining the need for a EU constitution. And when the overall people's voice was NO a few weeks ago, the Dutch government rushed in a YES campaign that felt like propaganda to many normal people.
Yesterday 63% went voting and 62% voted NO. That's a strong message that will be abided by the parlement though they don't have to accept the outcome of the referendum. We need to think again about the European Union and slow down. Maybe it would have been better if there was a proposal for a constitution when the EU still had 15 countries. And a lot of people in France and Holland have voted no because they're dissatisfied with their goverment and ministers, so it's not persé a NO against the unification of Europe.
A roommate studies Rights and he had to study the whole Constitution. He said there were too many things too vague and a few loopholes, so he would have voted no if he could have found his voting card.
I have voted YES.
Besides, it would take way to much money to convert everything to the right now.
