Euro at Seven-Month Low After French Vote

Exactly. It's not about becoming part of the EU - we're already in the EU. It's all about how we handle things in the EU. The constitution sums up previous agreements with some alterations which are in most of the cases an improvement. And for those who want to get out: vote yes. It's settled in the constitution to leave the EU without much hassle.

And I agree with Crash's posts as well ( :P )

Ah ponrauil - thanks so much for a very informative post. I understood far more from your discussion that I did from reading the New York Times articles about the election. That's one reason why I love this board - one gets opinions from people actually affected by certain world evernts - not just opinions by journalists or disinterested third parties. Thanks

Kathleen

Make sure you add that to our list. (Hmmm, thanks by the way.)

And what if they did? If they'd ask my co-worker, there would be something written about the French not to participate in a referendum. If they'd ask my uncle, there would be something written about not helping people who are looking for asylum in The Netherlands. If they ask my neighbour, I'm sure there would be something written about the right to watch soccer games on television every single night.

I agree with you that they could have done it, but it isn't a reason to reject the constitution because they didn't. The contents may as well be something you like, although the people haven't been consulted about it.

People with less education could inform themselves by the bicillion websites that are made for this issue. In most cases, these are set up in understandable language. They could have asked about things they don't get.

I agree that the campaigns were a parody (at least over here in The Netherlands) but again: not a good reason to vote no. You vote for/against the constitution, not for/against a campaign.

In The Netherlands, it was quite the other way around: 85% of our politicians were pro constitution. And these are people who have the knowledge, know what they are talking about when it comes to politics and I'm pretty sure their decisions will be based on the fact that it's good for The Netherlands and it's good for the EU.

Then again: I don't blindly follow these people. I'd rather base my vote on the information I've gathered myself.

I wish that they hadn't held a referendum about this subject. It's way too complicated for the majority over here. I hear the stupidest things and people tend to believe whatever they like to believe and refuse to listen to facts. I don't think the majority can't comprehend this issue, can't see thing in the grand scheme of things. Probably including me, btw.

Another point 5

I totally agree about being more enthusiastic about this constitution if we've been consulted and informed sooner. But again: I vote for a constitution. A constitution and its contents. Whether I'm enthusiastic or not

Let's hope so. Really.

I have to say that your arguments to vote no are based on how the campaign should've been run or how the people should've been more informed and/or consulted about this. I haven't read a thing about the contents of the constitution which is all you vote for.

I just voted yes, btw.

Oooh, we have a list? Nice. Make sure you'll add something as well, Crashy baby

Crash i gave my reasons as to why I don't think we need or want a constitution for the EU. Nowhere was there anything that could be remotely deemed as little islander syndrome.

We ARE different, we don't agree on tonnes of stuff and I'm talking about every single nation in the EU not just Britain vs the rest. Every single country acts in it's own self interest and the constitution is just going to make it easier for other countries to froce their self interest against weaker states IMO.

The referendum in Holland isn't even binding. nice bit of democracy you've got going on when the Government can turn round and say "meh you only won by 5% so we're going to run it anyways."

The EU keeps getting bigger and bigger and more beauraucratic every single year and I don't like that fact.

And to make a point about counter-weighting the US economically. The only thing that will serve to do is strain tensions between Europe and the US and in turn international relations and trade will suffer. I read an interesting article the other day about how there really is no "West" because it's so fragmented and there is no call for western solidarity after the cold war so there's nothing to stop the 2 becoming "enemies" so to speak.

finally, as I've said before, just because you think it's a good idea 9which I haven't seen any real arguments for) doesn't mean people who think it's a bad idea are wrong or idiots.

That doesn't change the fact that the UK as a whole is seen as the lone wolf referring to European issues.

Scots are not Welsh are not English, still you've got the same constitution.

Even if so, would it not strengthen the weaker states, too? Or dou you want the weaker states to have the only say? No, seriously, you want the weaker states to stay the weaker states and the powerful the powerful, right?
I believe this principle is outworn and won't bring mankind any further. TOGETHER is the way to go and not on your own. It is not easy and there will be retrenchments. That's the nature of every sort of progress.
I don't understand how anyone does not see this.

Another good reason to finally set a concrete basis to decrease the clutter within EU's borders.

Sometimes you seem to live in the past to me. Of course, it is not about western solidarity, it is about GLOBAL solidarity and a united Europe is just one very important step.

Hey, yeah, it's all my opinion of course, but just like you I for sure think it is right. Or do you support things of which you think they are wrong?
Yes, I think you are wrong, it doesn't mean I decided for the world that you are wrong. It's just my opinion and I didn't call you an idiot.

A very good point my dear.