European Politics Thread.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

der bastler- The economy and a free market has always been a cornerstone of the 'european project', (the idea of the single market itself?)

Just as this BBC article An Anglo-Saxon takeover of the EU? ) on the supposed 'anglo-saxon' character of the treaty mentions:

Quote[/b] ]A charge often made against the proposed EU constitution by its opponents in France is that it is an "Anglo-Saxon" document - a plot to enshrine Thatcherite policies which will devastate the social balance of European economies.

As an example, they point to the phrase used in Article I-3 (2) which states that there shall be "an internal market where competition is free and undistorted".

One of the leading French critics, Socialist Senator Jean-Luc Melenchon, commented in a recent radio interview: "This is the law of the jungle turned into a constitution. I do not want a constitution that imposes a principle - free and unfettered competition - with which I do not agree."

For such critics the word "competition" represents all that is worst about what they see as free-market, "neo-liberal" principles laid down by the constitution for the EU.

Repetition

The problem with such an approach is that in many key areas the constitutional treaty essentially repeats existing policy.

The original Treaty of Rome from 1957, which established the then European Economic Community, also said, in Part One, Article 3 © that there should be "an internal market characterised by the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital".

And further, it said there should be "a system ensuring that competition in the internal market is not distorted".

The principles of the "free and undistorted" internal market were established from the start.

So if you complain about the constitution, as you are entitled to, you also have to complain about the Treaty of Rome.

There is more in the article on other issues in the constitution and its worth a read.

It is ironic that whilst many French people see it as too British ('anglo saxon', free market), Many British people see it as too French, (continental, old fashioned protectionist).

I dont think this constitution is going to get through the ratification process though, it will probably have to be amended, renegotiated or whatever. Scrapping it and starting again would be more satisfying to me, though a mammoth task to reach agreement on. You really cant expect it to resemble the German constitution or any national one.

I think already its too complicated and seems to have too much detail. Why does it even need to mention terrorism, surely a vague passage about defence would suffice? It seems too contemporary, not timeless enough, too bogged down in details, uninspiring, messy, longwinded etc.

But what will the alternative be? Reforms are needed in Germany and France just as they were needed in Britain in the late 1970s. If those countries or others insist on increasing protectionism, lower maximum working hours, very generous benefits and so on even as it becomes unsustainable with competition from emerging economies (China and India being frequently mentioned examples)  increasing and with the continuing high unemployment levels, then there will very likely be a split in the EU (or different 'tiers' which would amount to the same thing).

There is a widespread sense that changes are needed for the EU to progress but can we agree on what the changes are, on which direction to go in?

There is also it seems a widespread dissatisfaction with the way the EU is being run (for various reasons). Time to shake things up.

---

EU referendum prompts French identity crisis (Guardian)

Quote[/b] ]"It's intriguing," said Pascal Perrineau, director of Cevipof, the Centre for the Study of French Political Life, "because there is a historical, if passive, consensus in France in favour of Europe. But as soon as you ask a concrete question, pro-EU sentiment melts."

...The best social model is no longer our social model," Nicolas Sarkozy told a rally last week. "The question is this: can France escape the effort, the work, the questioning, the reforms that some of our European neighbours have put in before us? My answer is no. Europe demands that we change."

The message seems clear: for years no French politician has dared admit that in a globalising world, the French model was going to become untenable without some fairly far-reaching reform (particularly, economists say, to its over-regulated labour market).

"We're witnessing one of the last remnants of the French exception," said Mr de Rivery. "French society is different to American society or British society. But we have to adapt. The constitution has confronted France with a debate it should have been having for a decade or more. And now we risk blaming Europe for our own immobilism."

---

Blair promises better regulation Guardian)

Quote[/b] ]

· PM says red tape threatens competitiveness

· Promises to fight EU regulations

· Calls for end to media scare stories

Tony Blair today launched an attack on Britain's "compensation culture" and promised the UK would use its chairmanship of the EU this year to champion "better regulation".

...Turning to Europe, Mr Blair said that the level of regulation coming from Brussels had reached such a pitch it was undermining support for the EU.

"Europe has done itself more damage through what is perceived as unnecessary interference than all the pamphlets by Eurosceptics could ever do," he said.

"About 50% of regulations with a significant impact on business now emanate from the EU. And often it seems to want to regulate too heavily without sufficient cause."

He cited the recent EU directive which would outlaw thousands of vitamin products as a "good example" of the problem.

"There may be a case for ensuring the public are properly informed and that some rules and order are brought to what is today a major industry. But the way it has been done is wholly out of proportion to the risks run."

I agree with him on this, and im sure the majority of the voting public in this country do.

Perhaps there is a chance that changes may come with the British presidency but im not sure whether France and Germany are open to the winds of change.

[denoir 0]

It is ironic that whilst many French people see it as too British ('anglo saxon', free market), Many British people see it as too French, (continental, old fashioned protectionist).

As agreements are made today, it has to be. It's all just a set of compromises - that they got all the governments to finally agree is remarkable, given the wide spectrum of the political positions of the European governments.

Objectively this current proposed constitution makes rather large concessions to the British. In Europe it is only really Britain that has a very free market economy with very little social considerations involved. Such a model is not really representative of Europe. So I can understand a bunch of people not being too happy about it. (Although France's protectionist stance, where the government owns a good portion of the major industry is not representative of the rest of Europe either)

Having said that, the British, together with the Poles do serve a useful function in the EU: making a counter-weight to France. Germany lacks the political will of thinking for itself, so mostly it follows France's lead. Incidentally, the proposed constitution with its double majority principle would by itself prevent any of the larger countries to completely dominate - thus restricting the influence of France, Germany and Britain.

Quote[/b] ]I think already its too complicated and seems to have too much detail. Why does it even need to mention terrorism, surely a vague passage about defence would suffice? It seems too contemporary, not timeless enough, too bogged down in details, uninspiring, messy, longwinded etc.

The big question there is if it is at all possible to write a coherent document, when you have to appease 25 nations and politicians that have to be very short-sighted, so that they can suck up to voters.

Quote[/b] ]

But what will the alternative be? Reforms are needed in Germany and France just as they were needed in Britain in the late 1970s. If those countries or others insist on increasing protectionism, lower maximum working hours, very generous benefits and so on even as it becomes unsustainable with competition from emerging economies (China and India being frequently mentioned examples) increasing and with the continuing high unemployment levels, then there will very likely be a split in the EU (or different 'tiers' which would amount to the same thing).

I think you are quite wrong there. The trends in the world, including Britain and the US are stronger social protection, rather than weaker. There's little chance for any western nation to go back to 19th century laissez faire.

Yes, the British have a stronger economic model, but that is at the expense of the population whose quality of life considerably worse. The Britons have longer work hours, shorter vacation, much less subsidized medical care, child care etc.. The economic gap between the social classes is also considerably higher. Finally, if we even look at the bottom line, both France and Germany have higher GDP/capita than Britain.

So, all in all, it is difficult to argue that the British 'free market' ideology is more successful.

That said, France and Germany are facing some serious structural problems. Unfortunately for the rest of us chances are very good we'll be facing them as well in a relatively short time. The problem is that the issues are as a result of a general social development, rather than the effects of a failed economic policy.

While we today are talking about a service-based or information based economy, in reality the economic backbone of every western country is the industry. The problems we're seeing in France (and to a varying degrees in the rest of Europe) are:

[*] Market saturation - people are simply not buying as much as they could, especially not industrial products. This is a big boot up the ass of classical market theory. Instead of buying two cars when they can afford it, people worry about the environmental impact and don't buy. Or even worse, they just don't even consider it as a way of spending their money. Europe's industrial output is far higher than the demand. At the same the strong Euro makes it difficult to compete with cheap Asian or American products.

[*] Industrial automation - partially because of the regulated work market, it is far cheaper replacing people with machines where possible. Work power is very expensive here, you have a ton of social regulations and lots of taxes associated with employing somebody. In the US workers assemble cars, in Europe robots do that task (in Japan robots as well, but the industry employs a huge number of support workers so in fact there is more manual work involved - even more than in the US).

[*] Strong social security - and other 'soft' costs such as reduced work hours, longer vacations etc.. People clearly want these things as they improve the quality of life.

These factors combined create a problematic situation. The industry can't sell its products locally, because people are simply not interested. They have a difficult time competing in the world due to the higher prices of the European products. At the same time industrial automation has lead to increased unemployment, which again makes social security costs higher. People get more benefits, shorter work hours, but it's difficult to pay for all that as long as the industry is the main source of income.

So basically we're standing at a very similar point to the one a 100-150 years ago when we went from an agricultural society to an industrial one. It hurts and it will certainly hurt some more before we progress to something else. France and Germany are somewhat ahead in that development, so the problems are most obvious there.

Quote[/b] ]There is also it seems a widespread dissatisfaction with the way the EU is being run (for various reasons). Time to shake things up.

I think the middle layer must be eliminated so that rather than people voting for national representatives that choose Union representatives, we need to have people choosing Union representatives directly. Today the EU is too distanced from the people and as such is a convenient scape goat for anything that might be wrong. National politicians have the tendency to blame everything that is wrong on the EU while they claim credit on a national level for the positive consequences of the Union.... only to ahead of a referendum then insist on an EU cooperation, assuring everybody that it's the best thing. "EU sucks, it sucks. It sucks. x1000" and then "Hey, let's vote yes for this EU thing here".

This goes especially for Britain and Sweden, resulting in very mixed messages from the politicians.

[Necromancer- 0]

Denoir:

Quote[/b] ]So basically we're standing at a very similar point to the one a 100-150 years ago when we went from an agricultural society to an industrial one. It hurts and it will certainly hurt some more before we progress to something else. France and Germany are somewhat ahead in that development, so the problems are most obvious there.

Would a EU constitution help that problem?

Somehow.. i think not, but yet.. I'm not intelligent enough to find good arguments to support my statement.

The EU constitution states that every Euro-citizen has the rights to social security of the EU-state of which he/she is currently habiting.

Hence that The Netherlands has one of the most "generous" social system of the EU, I'm afraid that massive migration from the poorer EU countries (such as Polen and Turkey) to the EU countries with "generous" social system will happen.

With the current economic situation, I think none of the EU countries can support such amount of people living from our social security.

So therefore, I vote "no" to this EU constitution.

[denoir 0]

Would a EU constitution help that problem?

No, not really. At least not this constitution which is for the most part just the same thing that we have in place today.

Quote[/b] ]The EU constitution states that every Euro-citizen has the rights to social security of the EU-state of which he/she is currently habiting.

Hence that The Netherlands has one of the most "generous" social system of the EU, I'm afraid that massive migration from the poorer EU countries (such as Polen and Turkey) to the EU countries with "generous" social system will happen.

The current rules state that as well. Have you noticed massive immigration from Poland to Holland during the last year? Yes or no to the constitution makes no difference here, the same rules will apply either way.

Quote[/b] ]So therefore, I vote "no" to this EU constitution.

...and making a fine example of why referendums are a bad idea.

[EiZei 0]

Yeah, people will surely abandon their families, language, country and culture to get some more welfare and see that getting eaten away by higher prices and get treated like shit by certain *cough* people.

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]...and making a fine example of why referendums are a bad idea.

Can't trust some of the politicians out there.

No point in having a democracy if you don't do what people want.

[denoir 0]

Democracy is not about people micro managing political decision. It is about electing a professional to do the job.

If your electrical system breaks down, you can choose between different repairmen. That doesn't however mean that you should interefere with their job, deciding which wire goes where.

[Bordoy 0]

Democracy is not about people micro managing political decision. It is about electing a professional to do the job.

If your electrical system breaks down, you can choose between different repairmen. That doesn't however mean that you should interefere with their job, deciding which wire goes where.

Yer, but not all 'electrical repairman' turn out to be preofessionals, you may get the cowboy who does the quick job and wants you to pay an overcharged amount.

[denoir 0]

Then you hire somebody else the next time.

[EiZei 0]

Democracy is not about people micro managing political decision. It is about electing a professional to do the job.

If your electrical system breaks down, you can choose between different repairmen. That doesn't however mean that you should interefere with their job, deciding which wire goes where.

Yer, but not all 'electrical repairman' turn out to be preofessionals, you may get the cowboy who does the quick job and wants you to pay an overcharged amount.

Then you kick his arse out and get an another repairman not start messing with the wires.

[Bordoy 0]

Dam, both of you got me that time.

[Necromancer- 0]

Then you hire somebody else the next time.

It appears that they all suck.

[Bordoy 0]

Then you hire somebody else the next time.

It appears that they all suck.  

Good comeback. Why do you think people in the UK want a "none of the above" option? I don't, i think its rediculous.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

To strain this analogy like a surgically enhanced breast, for me its more like i want the electrics fixed and instead someone fiddles with the plumbing.

[Necromancer- 0]

Then you hire somebody else the next time.

It appears that they all suck.  

Good comeback. Why do you think people in the UK want a "none of the above" option? I don't, i think its rediculous.

In The Netherlands... there is an option called "none of the above".

You simply just put the voting voucher "unfilled" in the box.

[Bordoy 0]

Then you hire somebody else the next time.

It appears that they all suck.  

Good comeback. Why do you think people in the UK want a "none of the above" option? I don't, i think its rediculous.

In The Netherlands... there is an option called "none of the above".

You simply just put the voting voucher "unfilled" in the box.  

In the UK, they just count that as 'people who don't know how to fill it out properly'. So, if there's a none of the above they can count it.

[Donnervogel 0]

Democracy is not about people micro managing political decision. It is about electing a professional to do the job.

That's one kind of democracy. However there are other forms that are working well too - although differently. ;)

[denoir 0]

Well, yes, in Switzerland you do have far more referendums. But does it really work well?

If we take a look at the French situation again:

If the vote had been three months ago, it would have been a certain "Oui". People are changing their minds on a monthly basis on something that is going to be in place for decades and that will serve as a foundation for future versions of a European constitution. It's completely bonkers to think that people are making a well-founded decision. Furthermore referendums are controlled mainly by three factors that almost always decide the outcome, regardless of the subject:

[*] If the ones giving the referendum are unpopular, people will vote no.

[*] If the issue is complex, people will vote no.

[*] If the perception of the economic state of the country is negative, people will vote no.

This is basic human behaviour, and I'm not sure if it is avoidable - even in Switzerland.

What most pisses me off about the French/Dutch situations is how people look at the completely wrong issues, that have nothing to do with the constitution. There are several valid objections against it, but basically none of those reasons are given by the "no" side. They're rejecting it for all the wrong reasons.

In France there's lots of talk about délocalisations - outsourcing. That French jobs are going to Eastern Europe. First of all the work market won't change in any way with or without the constitution. A common work market was agreed on ages ago and is part of the Nice agreement that is in place now and that will continue to be in place if the constitution fails. Second, the issue is nonsense. Data show that France lost 6,500 jobs to companies moving operations to east Europe, dwarfed by the 150,000 jobs created in France by its trade surplus with these countries, which more than doubled in 10 years to €1.1bn ($1.4bn, Å756m) last year.

(source Financial Times)

The second issue frequently mentioned is the "Polish Plumber" - a fear of people from the new member states coming to France and taking French jobs. This again has nothing to do with the constitution. It has gone a year since many Eastern European countries joined the EU and there has been no massive immigration. On the contrary, it has only been economically very positive as new markets have opened up. Ironically, this debate was also held 20 years ago when Spain and Portugal joined the EU. In both cases, the French economy got a massive boost from opening its borders to trade and workers.

The Dutch are being just as unreasonable. They cite worries of immigration, EU membership fees etc.. in short a bunch of things that have nothing to do with the constitution.

Anyway, there's little chance of this thing staying afloat. If the French don't blow it out of the water, the Dutch will. If the Dutch won't then the Danes probably will. And if by some miracle the Danes accept it, the British will most certainly sink it. If somebody has to sink it, France is probably the best choice. Great concessions have been made to the British - this might pull things more to the continental side.

[der bastler 0]

Why does a constitution have to include definitions about market and the like? Isn't European Law a more suitable place for stuff like this? Imo a constitution is something important (ie. civil rights, type of government) which represents the base for all the other more precisely defined laws.

Then why do we have to include many, many articles about market liberation, currency policy, services, etc...?

My point is: They can say "look, it's written in the constitution." -- a killer argument to end further discussions about e.g. social services.

I have a bad feeling about that.

[Supah 0]

The Dutch are being just as unreasonable. They cite worries of immigration, EU membership fees etc.. in short a bunch of things that have nothing to do with the constitution.

Unreasonable you say? I assume you have lived in the netherlands for the last couple of years and have seen how we have been cheated with the euro? I remember ppl saying how the prices wouldnt rise astronomically, you infact in person made remarks which bordered on the snide on this forum when I implied they did.

Turns out now that the Guilder was undervalued against the D-mark but the german government ofcourse wasnt going to allow this to be fixed. Rather then just own up to the mistake our Finance minister Zalm lied to the dutch people. He has admitted this recently but said it was in our own best interest hence it was ok for him to lie and that he would do so again in the future. What we got was massive inflation which had a VERY bad effect on our economy. But nooo nothing was getting more expensive we were all being hysterical ... o wait we were all being lied to by the very ppl who were calling us hysterical. Our government lied to us then and I see no reason why they shouldn't be lying to us now. Fool me once shame on you. fool me twice .....

Meanwhile we have had to have massive cut backs on just about everything (though in a typically right wing way of take from the weak and poor) to stay within the 3% limit of national debt while when the french and the german government failed this suddenly exceptions COULD be made. How fair, honest and transparant is that? Apparently rules only apply if france and germany want them too.

Per Capita the Netherlands pays the most to the EU yet under this new constitution we would lose a lot of influence on political decision making. Where I come from we have a saying "Wie betaalt bepaalt" Roughly translates "Who pays says what goes" I do not see why we should be paying the most per capita while our vote has no influence what so ever.

We are constantly being told that the constitution wont change much, its just bundling together a lot of old treaties. Yet somehow with out this constitution, which we are also told isnt really a constitution, the following will happen:

1. China will overrun us

2. There will be war again on europe3

3. Another Houlocaust (yes completely distastefull of the Yes camp to drag that in to this but they have)

4. Our economies would crash

Seems kind of strange these dire consequences if its just bundling old treaties? The dutch people are sick and tired of the tasteless fear mongering propaganda from the yes camp nationally.

This is the first time our opinions as voters were ever asked about anything related to the EU. The Dutch feel massivly screwed over and all that resentment is now coming out. I think its natural and there is nothing wrong with that. You can choose to talk down to people and belittle their views or you can actually take their distrust and disenchantement at the EU as a sign and try to fix it.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Why does a constitution have to include definitions about market and the like? Isn't European Law a more suitable place for stuff like this? Imo a constitution is something important (ie. civil rights, type of government) which represents the base for all the other more precisely defined laws.

Then why do we have to include many, many articles about market liberation, currency policy, services, etc...?

My point is: They can say "look, it's written in the constitution." -- a killer argument to end further discussions about e.g. social services.

I have a bad feeling about that.

That is my objection as well. The constitution needs to be a fundamental charter, defining the form of government and the rights of the citizens. No more no less.

Why it came to the current situation is however understandable. First of all, what the constitution primarily does is replace all the existing treaties with one. The content is basically the same, it's just a simplification of the bureaucracy.

Those treaties are a set of compromises. There is a basic idea behind them, but it has been corrupted by compromises on all sides.

If we look at social security: It is pretty obvious that if there is going to be an open market, the conditions for the people working must be the same. So a simple declaration saying that all EU citizens have right to economic social protection is needed.

Then of course the British start panicking. Such a clause doesn't cost anything for Germany that has a very solid social security. For the Britons on the other hand, this could cost dearly. So they demand an addition.

"All Union citizens have right to social protection" becomes "All Union citizens have right to social protection to the extent possible by market conditions".

Then the Spanish begin to riot because they have fishermen that work during a short period of time and are subsidized the rest of the time, so another addition is made.

"All Union citizens have right to social protection to the extent possible by market conditions, except for employees of the fishing industry who are guaranteed social protection regardless of market conditions".

Then of course, the French riot because the French government owns a part of the French fishing industry in Guyana and they don't want to pay up there. So it becomes:

"All Union citizens have right to social protection to the extent possible by market conditions, except for employees of the fishing industry, except the one in French Guyana, who are guaranteed social protection regardless of market conditions".

Then the Finns begin to object loudly because "social protection" is what Russia called the occupation of Finland. So instead it is changed to:

"All Union citizens have right to economic support from the government when unable to provide a sustainable existence through employment to the extent possible by market conditions, except for employees of the fishing industry, except the one in French Guyana, who are guaranteed social protection regardless of market conditions".

Then of course the French, British, Polish and Swedish begin to riot over the definition of "Sustainable Existence" etc etc

Now this was a made-up example, but that's how it works. Historically constitutions were written by people with similar backgrounds, national, social etc In this case we have a large number of people trying to squeeze as much advantage for their own country as possible. It is not easy to find a coherent compromise.

[denoir 0]

The Dutch are being just as unreasonable. They cite worries of immigration, EU membership fees etc.. in short a bunch of things that have nothing to do with the constitution.

Unreasonable you say? I assume you have lived in the netherlands for the last couple of years and have seen how we have been cheated with the euro? I remember ppl saying how the prices wouldnt rise astronomically, you infact in person made remarks which bordered on the snide on this forum when I implied they did.

They rose as a consequence of the post IT-crash dip in the economy. Same thing here, but no euro.

And no, I haven't lived in the Netherlands, but I know quite a few people that do. Most think prices have gone up. Those that travel in Europe are very positive about the Euro while the others are less, but still supportive.

Quote[/b] ]How fair, honest and transparant is that? Apparently rules only apply if france and germany want them too.

On the contrary, that's a reason to vote for the constitution. The relative powers of France, Germany and Britain are reduced thanks to the Qualified Majority Vote system.

Quote[/b] ]Per Capita the Netherlands pays the most to the EU yet under this new constitution we would lose a lot of influence on political decision making. Where I come from we have a saying "Wie betaalt bepaalt" Roughly translates "Who pays says what goes" I do not see why we should be paying the most per capita while our vote has no influence what so ever.

That's a twisted argument, you are looking at one side only. the Netherlands get a shitload back in forms of subsidies. In net terms, UK pays most.

And again, the new constitution gives smaller countries more power due to the QVM, not less. By rejecting the constitution you won't gain anything.

Quote[/b] ]Seems kind of strange these dire consequences if its just bundling old treaties? The dutch people are sick and tired of the tasteless fear mongering propaganda from the yes camp nationally.

What about the tasteless fear mongering propaganda from the no camp?

Quote[/b] ]This is the first time our opinions as voters were ever asked about anything related to the EU. The Dutch feel massively screwed over and all that resentment is now coming out. I think its natural and there is nothing wrong with that. You can choose to talk down to people and belittle their views or you can actually take their distrust and disenchantement at the EU as a sign and try to fix it.

Rubbish, you could have elected a different party. It is at your election you should display dissatisfaction, not at a referendum that deals with one specific issue: the constitution. And that has nothing to do with your bitching. Furthermore, your bitching is not unique in any way - you can see it in most parts of the western world. It's the blow back of the economic recession. And while I fully support your right to bitch (no matter how unproductive and pointless it is), you should pick the right place to do so.

Saying no to the constitution for all the wrong things won't get you anything, except possible resentment from other Europeans.

[Supah 0]

You arent really reading my post are you? once again, It has been in the news here recently that our finance minister Gerrit Zalm KNEW the guilder was undervalued when the prices were fixed for the euro. He did not inform the dutch government or people of this. This is not me saying this, this is Gerrit Zalm owning up to his lies after the President of the dutch national bank made this public. This was the cause of inflation, Post IT crash has nothing to do with this. Apparently our politicians think its ok to lie to us, they are undoubtedly doing so now about the constitution. We didnt know this the last time we voted for our national government so we could really vote based on it now could we? And if we wait to voice our reservations about this at the next ellection the constitution we are pbb being lied about now will have been passed and it will be to late to do anything about it.

As for the fear mongering of the No camp .... I wouldn't know ... they didnt get 7 million from local government and the EU for propagande purposes on TV and everywhere. The no statement has been made by people in newspapers columns and articles. Not in 20.000 euro a piece TV adds and special TV shows like the Yes camp.

You can belittle my reservations towards the constitution by calling them "bitching and moaning" if thats your favorite discussion tactic. It only reflects badly on you. I went to public debates, I read the condensed version of the constitution (our government doesnt give you the full version, kinda makes you feel like they have something to hide) which is a vague piece of non information that doesnt go into any real issues and I've read all the opinion pieces in the news papers from both sides, Yes and No. I made an informed opinion and if you want to just call that bitching and moaning ..... I don't see why I should respect someone's opinion who can't even muster the slightest respect for mine.

[denoir 0]

I fully respect your opinion, but what I'm saying is that the referendum is not the place to address the complaints you have. If your finance minister deceived you, then elect somebody else. It's not correlated in any way to the constitution. You say you are making an informed position, but the arguments against that you have stated here don't have anything to do with the constitution. You want to punish your minister of finance for lying to you a buch of years ago - and that has nothing to do with the actual constitution that you are supposed to be voting for or against.

I'm calling it "bitching", because it is just a litany of complaints, without any proposed solution. Voting against the constitution won't change the fact that you have the Euro as currency at the exchange rate it was set against the guilder. In fact, the only thing that will happen is that you will prevent yourself from gaining a stronger voice (due to the QVM system that is proposed). So you are really shooting yourself in the foot by voting no (at least on those grounds).

If you don't trust your politicians, elect somebody else. The constitution has nothing to do with that.

[Necromancer- 0]

If you don't trust your politicians, elect somebody else. The constitution has nothing to do with that.

The problem is...

Basically all "standard" politicians of "standard" parties are hypocrites left, right AND liberal..

Over the years the major parties are still as naÄve as they were 10 years ago.

The newest parties such as "Groep Wilders" and "Partij voor de Dieren" (Party for Animals) are both way too right winged or too left winged".

The common liberal parties want to liberalise everything.. including social security.