EU Constitution: Why France & The Netherlands Said NO!
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 30. 05. 2024
- In 2004, the European Union (EU) embarked on a significant journey to create an EU constitution, aiming to establish a unified legal framework and redefine the roles of member states and institutions. Although this endeavor faced challenges, its impact continues to shape the vision for a more integrated Europe. This video will look at what was in the constitution, why did it fail, and what this means for the future.
Support the Channel:
đââïž Patreon: / eumadesimple
â Buy me a Coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/EUMadeSi...
Socials:
đ· CZcams: / theeumadesimple
đŹ Twitter: / eu_made_simple
đž Instagram: / theeumadesimple
Resources:
Source 1: www.europarl.europa.eu/about-...
Source 2:
âą The European Union - T...
Source 3:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_...
Source 4:
www.europarl.europa.eu/Europe...
Source 5:
âą Ireland rejects Lisbon...
You were so funny moving towards Hungary but meaning to go for Ireland xD
I think for the Netherlands the biggest objection was that we - as the biggest net payer based on GDP to the EU and having a relatively small voting power - didnât want to loose the unanimous vote on the EU budget as we want to be able to block any increase on that from our side
Seems reasonable
â@@joaquin.5692No it doesn't, it's rather selfish of them. They very much love it when they can still our companies with unfairly low taxes on profits, but when the time comes when they're not the ones who'll be the most benefited, that's when they see a problem đ€Ą
Dont forget the european project is based on economics en money. Nothing more
@@JoaoDias-et6cd We see a problem when we have to pay billions again to bail out failing southern countries. Countries which often have a shadow economy going on which their government fails to tax properly. If you want to talk about low taxes, look at your own countries NHR programme lol.
@@bdg88 I thought the EU was about mutual collaboration as well though or am I wrong?
I remember the Lisbon Treaty vote in Ireland. Our government did an awful job explaining what it was. I remember a lot of people around me voting against it simply because the government was being so silent on what it was going to do.
The Lisbon treaty was necessary but yeh biffo and co were fuckers on it, the even though the Lisbon treaty protected our neutrality and increased the power of the parliament, and most importantly provided an exit mechanism to the eu
Let's be honest here though; when a government is very quiet on something, and doesn't go out of its way to explain it thoroughly, it comes off as pretty suspicious and doubtful to the people.
Most French people rejected the Constitution because of the economic part, which had nothing to do with it and, what's more, would have been anti-social.
@@soeppoes8949 One of the smartest things a corrupt democratic government can do to sway a vote to negative is be silent and let rumors fly. They're already untrustworthy so the suspicion will do all the heavy lifting.
That joke about Hungary đ
+
I hate my goverment... We are a joke đą
@@ANDR0iD Your government is well-liked by the Russian government and the American Republican party.
So not everyone hates it.
@@Turnil321 Thanks, great people to be liked by đ
@@ANDR0iD yes, I love your people and architecture, I personally have friend from Budapest, but your pro Putin government are messing up things
I remember voting in the referendum in the Netherlands to ratify this constitution and even though i was in favor of the idea, i had to vote against it due to certain passages within the proposed constitution that i could not in good conscience agree with. It included a total ban on human cloning including the prohibition to create human embryos for research purposes and a prohibition on the modification of the genome. These would have had dire consequences in regard to treating genetic diseases and the development of new medications.
Short answer: they said "no" because the question was asked to the people by referendum, not to politicians.
Fun fact: politicians decided the answer was not the right answer and signed the Lisbon treaty anyway.
So, the reason is that the democratic country asked its people what they wanted on an important topic? Like an actual democracy? If that's the problem for your proposal then your proposal is the problem.
@@hungrymusicwolf
I don't understand what you mean, probably because you didn't understand what I wrote in the first place.
@@gontrandjojo9747 I think I misplaced my comment. I remember commenting this on another comment. My bad fam. That person said something about it being a problem.
I think the problem with the USA is that an entire continent will never have agreement on anything and there will be massive political division between regions. I think Europe trying to follow in its footsteps is foolish and arrogant, as if Europeans won't have the same problem as the USA in terms of divisive politics.
Having each country with higher indepence as it does now is better as it allows each member state to experiment and do its own thing with some reasonable restrictions.
For example, Germany is generally anti-nuclear power, but France gets around 70% of its power from it. What if there was a vote or a national budget that negatively affect the nuclear industry? It would be awful.
I think pushing for a totally united Europe would do more against peace and progress than for it. Im pro-EU because it has done so much for Ireland and the rest of Europe, but I think it has done this more by finely balancing cohesion and independence. A swing in either direction will be detrimental to its public support and efficacy.
I think this comment shows your ignorance on how the USA actually works constitutionally. Yes we have different needs in different areas. Those needs are taken care of by the states. Our federal government may help in many cases but most things are left each state to handle. Every state in our union is like one of your countries hence the term state! Each state has their own lays that govern them, each state has its own constitution as well. The problem with the EU constitution Was that Its representation always favored larger states. Its senate was based on size as well as its house. That is not a fair thing. With the USA the senate always has 2 representatives from each state to consider the states needs. House is fair for population representation. Originally the senate reps was Appointed by the states Legislatures and Governors. That changed with the 17th amendment in 1913 where the senators was directly elected by the people. Watch some videos about the US constitution before you comment on it. Don't be ignorant.
this is the problem with europhiles you donât understand that people in europe donât want a superstate. people want cooperation but not a superstate and when you force people into political union as happened in yugoslavia chaos happens
In France we didnât vote for the treaty of Lisbonne
It was impose to us
"we" didn't vote yes. There were referenda in the Netherlands and France the first time. For the second time they didn't bother to have a referendum as they feared we would vote no again. In the Netherlands our prime minister said: "the thing you disliked were the European flag and anthem so we remove them and we can move on." And even that was worthless as you see the flag everywhere now on government buildings.
Its just a power grab,nothing else
It failed because we are not like the American states without national identities. In the US there is a national identity : American .
There is not a European identity but multiple nations like France, Greece with their own specific history and values.
And no I donât believe we need to be together to stand against other powers : France was a power in itself under King Louis XIV, it is time we reconcile with the same ambition.
Exactly! The US states were all territories which were settled & formed in a similar fashion so those states coming together in a union worked much more fluidly (yet even the states had civil wars!) Meanwhile the countries of europe are made up of ancient kingdoms very different culturally from each other, totally different from the formation of the US!
True
I like the idea of the Constitution, and I think the EU constitution will make EU look less bureaucratic, but I understand that most people won't be in favour, and in this moment is bit too much, it will only rise euroskepticism.
It would be better to have a confederation, with 1 voice by states.
Well, let me put it this way: EU-skepticism is caused because of the national Newspapers and TV Broadcasters. Why? Because many of 'em don't offer alot of the good news from Brussels and/or Strasbourg. But they are rumbling brilliantly against the EU if they pass a law some conservative or nationalist Medias in some Countries think this topic might give those Medias more attention, so the people are bying more often that newspaper or watching more often that News Channel. And when i campare the TVnews in particular all across Europe, there aren't alot of reports or even reports in depth on TV about or from the EU-(Institutions) or even Live-Debates (EU-Parliamant and the Commission), and if so, the most people tend not to watch those, as it is then broadcasted on "Niche-Channels". Those Niche-Channels are watched on average only by 1-2% (or even under 1%) of the Society of the whole Country.
I could go more in depth, but i want to keep it simple. Nobody wants to read an Ecyclopedia noadays. To be honest: Where and how do you inform yourself about this Topic? Hopefully not only via YT, Insta & Co?! Allthough this and other channerls is doing a quite good job. Ok, Ireland mistaken with Hungary. So that's why you should rather professional News and check always the facts that are thrown at you.
Mi entute konsentas.
@@pierren___ A one voice by state system would be undemocratic. It would allow for laws to be passed without the consent of most of the European population. A proportional voting system (as often mentioned on this channel) would be far more representative of the peoples will.
@@yoannbelleville7763 haha ! Certainly not. Remember that some countries are very small. They have no chance.
A confederation is better suited because each head of state would not be forced to apply whatever.
I'm french and i voted no not because it's a loss of soveirgnty but because it was not a constitution treaty. I remember in this treaty many article was about economics rules and impose privatisation of a large part of french national company such as électricity gas and health compagny. I don't think it's fair to Say it's only for an intégration and a democratic purpose
For me a âUnited Sates of Europeâ is a stupid idea, we all have our own language our own culture and our own Parlament, I think building a State of all European countries would argue we are one nationality but weâre not and i think most smaller countries will risk losing there identity due to the imbalance of population and migration. Building such a super State is in my opinion just another attempt of people to draft a European Empire under there banner. What Europe needs is a federation of equals where we help and support each other / have equal rights and independent politics but act together as a sort of club. Building a State is to much and disregards 2000 years of History in favor of a newly created âEuropeanâ society/culture. I get why the commission wants more power and wants to build a state, but there powerful enough and the State is destained to fail if itâs forced upon people by integration projects.
Languages, cultures and parliaments can change and have always changed. The nationalities of most countries in Europe were invented during the 18th and 19th century. Germany and France, as the biggest European countries by population, for example, were not in any sense unified in the aspects you mentioned above. Germany was divided into 300-something different states until Napoleon came along in 1803/06 and what we regard as "French" today was only spoken in 15 out of 83 departements in 1793, which is when there was a school law made on the 21st October 1793, which ordered all children to learn French. So why not repeat the process that roughly happened 200 years ago and build on what connects us on a bigger scale? I don't see how a European Empire would be a bad idea. It could give us all the strength to not simply be a plaything of Russia, China or the US. Also, if you ever lived on a different continent for an extended period of time, you'd realize we, as Europeans, have much more in common than what divides us.
@@merlinkrause i visited many countries and i have seen that most of them have so many subcultures that it make them strong I am German and the legacy and cultures remain to this day just like in France(basq). The attempt at âcreating an empireâ has already been tried in China who have annihilated many cultures by war to creat there realm. If we want an European empire it will need to be more than a country were everyone speaks the same language and it canât be another attempt of forcing us together that is not different from
H!tler and the Romans. Creating a culture of want for an Empire is megalomaniacal and will more likely destroy 2000 years of culture development and history while creating a Nation only being held together by a strong hand ( historical example: British empire, mongol empire, Roman Empire). Cultures change overtime but using this as an excuse to forcefully change them is not right, cultures evoke naturally over time out of progress of technology, state and climate. Any outside interference has proved fatal , the Romans tried to âchangeâ the cultures but it only led to them evolving the other way. In my opinion the only EU state that will work is a federation in which cultures evolve naturally and not by âintegrationâ programs and a state in which history relations and culture standards are respected, you canât âcreateâ an empire from nothing it is a process that comes to pass and while we have a lot of similarities we also have many differences, this is how it also was in the Frankish, Roman and Persian Empire. They were strong because they didnât change cultures but because they led them evolve and so profited from a variety of cultures. You could argue now that there were examples in Rome were the culture was changed, but if you look at Spain and Italy for example you soon notice that they already back then were very different.
Finally the best attempt at a European state building lies in my opinion in the congress/ concert of Europe were everybody was respected and were cultures flourished as a result of growing side by side. If the EU is to be a State then we will grow into a State like brothers, not like subjects( we have already done this to too many nations)
@@merlinkrause dont let the little hat people get to you like that. ethnicities have always existed in Europe irrespective of the borders. there was always a French and German ethnicity since the fall of the Roman Empire. multi ethnic states are failures I give you Yugoslavia and Austro Hungarian empire for examples of diversity is a failure example.
@@merlinkrause "The nationalities of most countries in Europe were invented during the 18th and 19th century."
Holy shit, you could have just told us your only experience with history is being hit on the head by a history book and left it at that.
@@crazeelazee7524 Ouch. To all three of you. Please read the Wikipedia article on nationalism to at least get a basic grasp of things.
In France people voted "no" to the constitution by référendum and it was the Parliament who voted "yes" for the treaty of Lisbonne, people were not invited to vote directly this time
I hope we won't get a EU constitution. Here in the Netherlands, we're already feeling the effects of EU-wide policy on nitrogen, the economy and various other areas. Part of it is also the national government, who tend to go a bit further than EU policy, but there's no doubt that many of these policies are EU based or EU inspired. For example, we're having to preserve nature, and in order to do that, the government has decided to cut down our nitrogen output, which has caused building projects to be halted, speed limits on highways to be lowered and farmers having to go out of business. The situation is especially bad for them, with some farmers having committed suicide out of desperation. The Netherlands is a densily populated country, so EU-wide policies on nature that would work in countries like Spain or Sweden, just don't work here. And we cannot vote against it, because environmental groups can just go to court, point to EU-law and shoot it down.
And there's tons of other difficulties that we're facing due to EU policy. It would make much more sense if countries could make up their own laws. The way we're doing it now, we're just being governed by foreigners. It's very anti-democratic.
Correct moving one cm into Germany or Belgium and their is no problem with Nox deposites.
Dutch Politicians shot themself in the foot by making EU rules more strict.
Our country is kept hostage by ngo's who enforce those by Dutch politicians made laws in court.
Even EU politicians like Frans Timmermans was pissed, because of the told lies that those rules were pushed and enforced by the EU on to the Netherlands.
We Dutch citizens are really fed up with narcistic politicians who won't solve real problems.
It says enough when Dutch citizens ( who historicly protest the least in Europe) go more on the streets to protest then the French!
A constitution for the European Union would be a backwards idea that wouldn't work. There are way too many cultural differences besides the fact that a lot of nations joined the EU if they could stay sovereign so it would go against EU principle. Especially since the EU is meant to be a trade union. The second issue is that the stronger economies would have to carry the weaker ones even more which would be simply unfair towards the citizens of the economically stronger nations.
i was there in France, and the fear for sovereignty was not the main problem. E-mails were a thing at this time, long before the social networks, but already all the peolple, even my grand-parents were behind their mailboxes.
And we had to face the most agressive mail disinformation campaign i've never see, and i've never seen after.
All the far right (cause of nationalism) and the far left ( cause the paper began by "EU is an organization based upon free market") created incredibly stupid but efficient hoaxes.
I was the only one of all my friends and family to have read the constitution we all received, most of them voted no, with each time stupid reasons based upon this disinformation "they say polish workers will steal all the jobs because of the #35 section " and so on.
Thanks for the info. I was way too young at that time to care :). This is the difficulty with referendums.
There's also the problem with referendums, that if you don't hold them often enough they're more likely to be used to as a way to express a general dissatisfaction rather than an opinion of the subject at hand *cough*brexit*cough*
Turns out Polish workers stole those jobs and France faced two decades of shameful brain drains as well as a spectacular collapse of its own local industries.
Today the social democrat president just announced a new phase of protectionism which is what the nationalists always wanted ever since the birth of the UESSR.
I dont think you understand the French people so please Shhhhhh
I voted yes at the referendum and I remember that at the time, few people around me were interested in that referendum. I remember speaking to a friend who said he would vote no to oppose then-President Chirac. There was a lot of talk as well about how the treaty could trigger more privatisation, there was thinly veiled xenophobia about Eastern workers stealing jobs, and so on... There was also the possibility of an alternative treaty, though the people advancing that argument never came up with a credible solution. This whole thing felt like a missed occasion. Maybe people should have been more included from the start to think about the changes they want, the challenges we are facing, etc. But then you look at the Conference on the Future of Europe, which to me was a good idea but I don't know whether it reached as many people as it should have, and as far as I know, it still hasn't delivered any result.
You guys got me when you were zooming on Hungary.
One simple reason for me to have voted no. A 'constitution' should not be so large it requires days to read. It should be a framework for making law, and not a treaty arranging everything in detail.
I donât like the idea, Iâm from the Netherlands. It speaks for itself
Same from Germany
The eu becoming one country might be the stupidest thing ive ever heard...
marxists keep trying to make europe a country, they are way too jealous of the US to leave them alone.
@@flyveto457 You are sooooo naiv, lol! ^_^
@@flyveto457 so autocracy it is?
Nah that's based af
Erm, just in the first 10 seconds I have an issue. I really really don't like equating "nation" with "country", ESPECIALLY in the European context. If you tell people that forming a federal European state is "making Europe into one nation", people will inevitably scream "Ahhh NO! We MUST oppose the EU!!! They want to erase X nation off the map! My culture will not go down without a fight!!!" A federal EU state =/= no more Italy, or Poland, or Denmark and certainly not the erasure of your cultural identities.
there should be an article in the constitution in which the federal government will guarantee the current ethnic and cultural distribution of europe,(only for europeans) you don't need 27 governments to do that
"Federal European State doesn't mean no more Italy" .. is that like "an Italian State doesn't mean no more Kingdom of Sardinia, Sicily, .." ?
@@neuralwarp Not quite. Italy was unified through conquest and coercion and today is a unitary state. That's quite different from a voluntary federal union like Switzerland. That's also not to say that regional Italian identities still exist as well.
On June 1, 2005, a consultative referendum was held in the Netherlands on the European Constitution. A majority of voters (more than 61 percent) voted against. It was the first national referendum in our country. Three days earlier, the French had also rejected the Constitution in a referendum.
Although the Dutch referendum was consultative and not binding, the House of Representatives factions that were themselves in favor also stated that they would respect the result. Due to the outcome, the cabinet subsequently withdrew the bill that was supposed to regulate official approval.
The question put to voters was: Are you for or against the Netherlands' acceptance of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe?
According to the official results, 61.5 percent were against the European Constitution and 38.5 percent in favor. The turnout was 63.3 percent.
Well, as a Norwegian I can safely say, we will stay out of that mess as long as possible.
LOL
As a Norwegian, i agree. I donât like the colour of the EU flag. The blue to be more specific.
@@a.m.4148 - that's because it doesn't say "made in Norway" on your oil and gas.
And maybe you don't eat fish.
And you probably won't see made in Norway on your car's aluminum sub-frame.
There is a reason Switzerland and Norway is not in the EU club...
@A. M. EU is cool and we wish to be great partners with them both now and in the future, but joining the EU itâs just not for us. Sorry:)
Change the colour of the flag and i might change my view.
I love the whole "cause the euro was such a success" bit... it became obvious very soon that the northern part of europe and the south have vastly different opinions on how money was to be divided, the general concensus is more towards "in hindsight we should have had 2 different euros"
For example billions went to italia to solves issues in healthcare back in 2003, f all happened and then italia gets pissed when the dutch veto extra covid support, yeah lets throw more money down a well.
Italy is a net provider in the EU, get your facts straight. There's a difference between being a leech and needing help during a rough patch.
@crazeelazee7524 being a net provider says nothing bout money management and or corruption etc. But without working in healthcare you wouldn't get what I'm saying anyway, it happened, look it up
I think you left out the major reason why France voted against: the treatment of religion on the European Costitution.
From the effort of nation like Poland and Italy, Christanity was put explicity put as an integral part of the european identity.
An addition that wasn't very popular in France, historically proponent of "liberty *of* and *from* religion". Maybe if that was cut out, France could have actually supported the Costitution.
You're bang on about France being incredibly secular and many countries wanted a preamble that mentioned Christianity, which France definitely opposed. However, I believe the final version of the Constitution didn't actually include that preamble, it was only an idea floated in previous drafts.
lol, without Christianity Europeans have more reasons to hate and kill each other!!! It seems that you are not a very good learner of history, m8!
I think you have no fucking idea of the concerns of the average Frenchman. Who the fuck cared about Christianity? Most of people didn't even read the Constitution or cared about the "religion" part of the constitution. Most of people just thought: "Prices increase with the Euro, EU bad, industries leave for eastern Europe because cheap labor, immigration, etc..."
When it comes to vote, French people think only about their wallet.
I would love an EU constitution, and more movement towards something like Federalization (but nu the USA style, maybe something more tailored for europeans).
Tbh, I don't see Europe being something big in the international context the way it is right now. We could compare EU GDP/progress/population to other super powers, like China and USA. But instead, we have to compare european countries, that cannot be above the others
The EU is BS and the less they have to say about things the better. They're already trampling on the rights of sovereign countries and you want to give them more power? Talk about swallowing the EU propaganda hook, line and sinker!
What would you propose as the European tailored federalism? I think the US style federalism is well suited to a multi National entity like the EU. That way legitimate concerns about national sovereignty would be addressed and the states would share sovereignty with a central and supreme government
ââ@@cald1421 I disagree, as an irish myself I believe it should be somewhere more on the lines of a confederation, I dont think I wouldnt like a Centre legal body in a completely foreign country (Brussels) who doesnt have a notion of the priorities of my country but "EU" priorities.
@@nar2cc Maybe there could be a rotating capital and states would of course have representation in the central government. Thatâs why US federalism is best. Thereâs a federal (not central) government that can act in the best interests of everyone but the institutions ensure foreign interests donât counteract youâre own.
For instance there are two bodies laws must pass through, one where states have votes according to population and one where all states have an equal vote so a smaller nation like Ireland couldnât be ignored. And of course states share sovereignty with the federal government so in this case Ireland would still have authority over its own domestic affairs with a general police power
So... if the EU is one entity, it becomes bigger because you can add up all the smaller numbers?
Is that your point?
France voted Yes to the Lisboa Treaty ? Funny, I don't recall the vote results. Ah yes, there was no vote.
Also, the main problem with the TCE (not a constitution in itself, a treaty establishing a constitution) was that free trade, an economic policy in its own right, was written in it - hence, Non.
"You need Democracy!" cried the unelected unaccountable European [Union] Commission.
Yes,bunch of despots
@@RandomHuman1103 the eu comission is indirectly elected trhough the national govenrment of each country furthermore the u parlement is directly elected and many countrys have similar democratic defisits in their government like the first chamber in the netherlands
@@definitlynotbenlente7671 Goverment electing more Goverment isn't really democratic,while i have never heard about EU parlament elections,no have i seen voting taking place near me
@@RandomHuman1103 i voted for parlem3nt the last election
I remember being in the Netherlands and creating bad photoshop posters against the european constitution when I had no idea what I was talking about (well, very little of an idea anyway)
There was definitely an air of "this is something our government is trying to "slip by us"" and we didn't like it. And yeah, the "EU had just introduced the euro" but a lot of people got the feeling that the introduction of the euro made life significantly more expensive. I have no idea how accurate that this, I imagine there were other factors at play there.
I do definitely think even if I were better informed I still would have been quite concerned about the idea of a European constitution and would probably have voted against it. A couple decades later though, I am not so sure anymore.
For the dutch, the Guilder value was linked to the Deutsch Mark in Germany. When the Euro got introduced however it was stated that 1 Euro would be valued at 2,20 Guilders. So for every 22 Guilders, you'd get 10 Euros.
It was later found that the Guilder/Euro coupling was flawed. As such we should have gotten 10 Euros for every 20 Guilders. So in the transition to the Euro the dutch _lost_ money. Not to mention that the price of goods should have halved based on that, but actually got halved and then got a bit added... So everything you bought also got more expensive. (something that cost 5 Guilders, should have cost 2,50 Euros, but instead cost 2,75 Euros).
And considering the fact that the constitution got rebranded as the Lisbon Treaty (some things were skipped, but the majority was retained. As a treaty it could be accepted without a referendum by the dutch) that means the government did indeed 'slipped that constitution' past the people... And with a modus operandi like that, which has since been validated in other fields, it's clear why the EU as a political circus isn't trusted. They seem to pushtheir own agenda through despite the opinion of the citizens living in the country. Thus the resentment against the EU continues to grow.
I think they first should make a start with harmonizing laws within the EU and in time go from there .
What he said.
I'm very glad this didn't go through as I don't think many people would be happy with it. Also, I think a country like the United States of Europe would not last long and would sooner or later Balkanize.
This guy is either straight up lying or wrong, we didn't get a new referendum in the Netherlands, where he says we now said yes. So it was just decided to ignore our democracy, and because they made it a treaty instead of constitution, they just bypassed us. Doesn't mean that I don't agree with the contents of the treaty, but i am just saying, the Dutch people were asked the 1st time, the 2nd time just the leaders. Funny stuff
Most French people who voted against the European constitution did not do so for a question of national sovereignty. There were articles which had nothing to do with a constitution but were more concerned with laws (and not fundamental laws) subject to the sensitivity of parliament and which had nothing to do with a constitutional treaty.
great video :)
What does idear mean
A constitution would be nice, and I think there is a chance for something similar. After the conference on the future of Europe there was talk about a potential changing of some of the EU treaties, so maybe merging them into one document under a name other than "constitution" wouldn't be too impossible.
There already is something similar which they put into effect right after we said no. It's called the treaty of Lisbon which act nearly identical to the constitution we said no to
@@mkooij Not identical at all : The Lisbon Treaty of December 2007 includes just seven articles. The existing two European treaties it amended are :
1) the Treaty on European Union (TEU), comprising 55 articles: established by the Treaty signed in Maastricht in 1992 and subsequently amended by the Treaties of Amsterdam (1997) and Nice (2001);
2) the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), comprising 358 articles: formerly the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), it was established by the 1957 Treaty of Rome and amended several times by the Single European Act (1986) and the Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice.
Compared with the draft constitution:
1) the language evoking a constitutional approach (European laws, Minister of Foreign Affairs, etc.) has not been retained. Similarly, the treaty does not mention the symbols of the Union (European flag, anthem, motto, Europe Day);
2) the Charter of Fundamental Rights is not incorporated directly into a treaty; it is only referred to in the article devoted to fundamental rights (art. 6 TEU), which gives it the same legal value as the treaties;
3) "free and undistorted competition" is not included in the list of EU objectives;
4) the fight against climate change is added to the Union's objectives.
This video sounds like a deja vu... Which shows how we haven't changed as much as we tend to think in the past 20 years...
For me it'd be yes for the EU constitution but yeah... I'm quite certain not in the majority.
A European constitution?? Great idea, how do you do it?? Well, complicated, before any referendum about a constitution we HAVE TO draft the qualified majority Veto then a following campaignbof information in every member states about the Constitution's content and the EU then have to be open to critisism and people asking for information, only when a majority is in support of the Constitution, the referendum vote will be able to start. Itis more complicated than this? Oh, you bet it is! There is a more semplified version of this? Not at feicking all!
The French have not voted "Yes" for the treaty of Lisbon. It's our representatives (which were and are still) pro-UE that decided to bypass the popular vote in 2005. That was "No". And the common sense says that if the people is the master, in democracy, the will of the people exprimed directly by a Referrendum is more legitimate than the will of the representatives of the people. Especially when the people says "No" and the representatives says "Yes" two years later. Even if the elites were (and are) pro-UE, in that case, you must wait some years and make people re-vote directly by a Referrendum. It was anti-pedagogical and seemed (with good reason for a lot a french people) anti-democratic.
There are allot of things to discuss and this is a complex topic thst reuires allot to finish, the best thing is to discuss a possible plan that everyone can agree on like giving rights to all member states, europeans dont have a problem with Identity but with language, what would be the official language? This topic is so vast that there is no point for me to discuss it further but you probably get where im coming from with this comment
It's a "problem" who was discussed before: an unifying langue should be the esperanto language. It's an "easy" language who is international and not of any countries. But i don't remember exactly why but the step to unify to this language fails and today the european union still use english in administration.
whats wrong with english? why find a new one if there is something that has worked?
@@rizkyadiyanto7922 yes that work but that is also a symbol of use of foreign languages and don't allow the european continent to feel up to their own decisions, their own way to become stronger together and make their path. It's symbolical, it's like a subjugation to America and United Kingdom.
Canada has 2 official langauges, South Africa has 11, Boliva has the most with 37. Official language is not a problem since you can have more than one. No nation would lose their identity by being forced to learn a different language.
@@Interitus1 i agree but administration is administration. It's like do mesurements both in kilometers and in miles. It's a traduction who slow down the process of a already slow process.
i think 1 european nation will not work, there is just too much difference between the countries. I don't think for example the Netherlands is willing to bail out and pay tons and tons of tax money to southern Italy. They have a whole 0.10 HDI difference, a whole different culture, and some rules just don't work in other places. Yes, i think cooperation is useful, and we definitely need that, but fully integration into 1 country, and losing almost all your voting power seems kinda weird. Rules that france or Germany want implemented will most definitely go through, even when other, smaller nations might suffer due to those rulings. but that's just my perspective.
If the Netherlands gave back the tax on benefit money they siphon from all eu, the other countries would be better off than if they got whatever money those thieves would âgiveâ.
It wasn't a constitution, it was and it IS a treaty.
They added "constitutionnal" only to sell it to the French opinion.
A true constitution would have meant, since the EU Law is ABOVE members laws, the end of EVERY states members constitutions and therefore the abolition of republics and monarchies. And NOBODY wanted it.
the term "EU Constitution" like every EU communication is misleading and always confronted to the reality of facts.
I hope a unified Europe or a European constitution will never ever happen.
Weeeee let's be US and Russian vassals (and increasingly china) foreevvvvvvveeeeer
@@davianthule2035 sounds good to absolutely nobody
Same
@@davianthule2035 You're the same guys who cried about European colonial Empires and now you're mad because ''muh we can't play world police anymore''?
Make up your mind, do you want Europe to rule the world, yes or no?
@@dutchpatriot17 No. But we don't want to be crushed and ruled by others.
Referenda are inherently flawed in that people's votes are heavily influenced by their current opinion in favour of or against the government.
2:28 : "the french voted yes" :
It is wrong, the french didn't voted. Our president said yes without ask to the french citizen.
Same in The Netherlands. They didn't like the outcome so they just signed.
I read many people saying, They want the EU to federalize so it can get its shit together.
I want the EU to get its shit together first and then we can talk about federalizing.
To me this has nothing to do with being left or right.
My main fears are the concentration of powers because power would be more absolute and in the hands of fewer people as someone suggested.
losing right to self determination. Freedoms that where garantued on a local level might no longer be certain under this New EU.
And the lack of transparancy that now takes place in the EU and many of EU's governments is also scary if it continues into a federal EU.
Another thing is, I would not be surprised at all if the new federalized EU is some sort of an imperial project, a new European Empire,
A concept which wars have been fought over in the last two centuries to prevent it from happening.
And being a "Europhile" Is just some new form of EU-Nationalism.
I'm also currently on the fence about a European army, even tho the argument in favor is a very practical one.
So I am definitely in favor of more military cooperation on a Defensive level. And even setting up a sizable response force with a single command structure.
Tho I also think the Ukraine war proves that a smaller country can stand up to a larger one if it is prepared well and has its own sizable military,
which is probably why Poland is investing so heavily in that.
Have always been in favor of the EU as an economic cooperation project as it was meant to be since it was the way it was being pitched to its members trough schools and tv.
The idea of a federal EU and a EU constitution therefore sounded very contradictory to what I was told the EU was supposed to be before that moment.
So it makes sense that many people voted against in the referendum to me. They were being told it was one thing and then it was like nah we gonna make it something else.
These things take time and need to be done right. which probably can only be done once if we don't want to end up like yugoslavia. Also if a federal EU is pushed right now, I'll expect many exits from eastern and southern europe.
The United States of Europe is much further away right now than then. I think the best idea would to form a super state-country of several states and having the other members more lose .. ditching the EU all together do get around the Veto problem all counties leave the EU and form a constitution and than have like tier2 states .. but this is very unlikely to happen as Europe is the slowest moving ball on the planet. The EU essentially is dead right now there is nothing really happening anymore
You have to consider that different peoples come together at the EU level.
There is not one EU people like the US people,
but everyone comes up with the idea of ââbeing different and speaking a different language.
But the question arises, should the EU Parliament, elected by the people, decide
or the individual heads of state of the countries.
Europe consists of a lot of different cultures, with different economic and social habits. That makes a single European state very unlikely to me. In our lifetimes.
â@@LunarBuzz I don't know what they you are referring to, but I see the multitude of cultures as a richness, with different points of focus and innovations, valued by the masses and the rulers. Pluriformity.
"..and why they mostly got it anyway, just with a different name."
I remember this, the "period of reflection" where the EU did no actual reflecting, and the stitch-up that followed. The French and Dutch votes were ignored, and the British government given a loophole to avoid a referendum it was certain to lose.
Not the EUs finest hour.
Well, Europe isn't a country, and never has been. Europe has been a continent of many countries, many cultures, many peoples, etc.; they are not the same. The EU will never be one country, they are better off as separate countries.
What I wish more people understood about the EU is that: one size doesn't fit all. Too much variation in history, values and traditions. Whilst we're all "Europeans" and more similar than not, any unification just serves to annoy the majority and makes people turn nasty when they think their identity as people of their nations is being over ruled and denied its place to shine. The original idea of the EU was/is good, but todays reality is why we left in the UK. And why other nations will leave. Who knows which, or when. But they will - the red line is different for each country. The UK will set the framework. It has been difficult, but others will be able to get out and avoid the mistakes we made.
The EU doesn't force countries into one size fits all. The EU is a platform to create one size fits all solutions WHEN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES AGREE TO DO SO, because that solution is more beneficial or can only be solved properly at the continental level.
The UK government is keen to highlight the "Brexit opportunities" that freedom from EU rules offers. However, the evidence so far that the benefits outweigh the costs is thin on the ground, and their future according to their economy, doesnt give any good signs either.
not to talk about the massive trade problems..
@@sancte3982 And these are cons that the massive UK economy is facing - could you image a smaller economy leaving the EU? It's incomprehensible, and Brexit has proved that.
Stronger together. The UK set a fantastic example of how even being a huge country by European standards leaving the EU has way more cons than pros.
agree pal ,if the eu was just a trading bloc i would have voted remain but there was too much talk about more intergration, one foreign policy, a eu army, also seemed if 27 agreed and 1 disagreed the latter was railroaded into agreeing.
what are you talking about, the Dutch people have never voted on the Treaty of Lisbon
The reason for me to vote against the EU constitution was because a constitution needs to come from the people (the bottom) and not from politics (the top). And the fact that we havenât had a referendum since, is because politicians which were in favor of referendums thought they would win. After losing twice in a row (Ukraine and EU constitution), they didnât think it was such a great instrument anymore. So exit referendum. Another reason our referendums fail is that it is an advisory referendum, but politicians and political parties say upfront they wanna stay with the result of the referendum, making it a corrective referendum. And referendums in our country are held by the government/parliament instead of an independent body, so people use it as a midterm to punish a government(coalition) for its policies. Referendums in The Netherlands donât work the way it should work because the referendum law isnât well thought through. An independent body, like our election council, should come into action if parliament decides to hold a referendum. That independent body should also search for pro and contra team members and let them write a manifest based on facts, pro and contra. Let that pro and contra team fact check the stories being told during the campaign by others. And political parties should stop promising they stick to the referendum result. It is an advisory referendum, not a corrective referendum. There should be a lively debate in parliament after the people gave an advice. If I get an advice, I consider that advice, think it over, but stil make my own decision. Thatâs what parliament should do, thatâs why we chose them. Theyâre trying to change the rules during the game. They should stop doing that otherwise referendums will never work.
Yes also because a lot of people just vote against the government, which that was not how people should vote in referendums. I know this because I am Dutch myself and I know the reasons why many voted haha. Oh protest vote..... haha. Referendums dont work like this.
@@-_YouMayFind_- I mostly recall politicians from D66 and VVD calling for their members and supporters not to go vote so the electoral threshold wouldn't be reached. The latest Dutch referenda were initiated by people/organizations because government policy clearly went against the will of the people. I know this because I am Dutch myself and I know the reasons why many voted haha.
No need for a Constitution: For the entire duration of the 3rd French Republic, there was no such thing as a Constitution (essentially making possible a return to monarchy). Powers were organized by a simple law passed by 353 votes to 352: the law of February 25, 1875 on the organization of public powers. France's Third Republic lasted the longest, from 1870 to 1940...
when I get my European citizenship I will vote in favor
There is no such thing
I think the main problems for the Netherlands is that there was nothing to gain with an EU constitution.
A more efficient EU seems nice, but most people feel like all money going to the EU is practicly wasted anyway. The benefits are no trade restrictions and things like the possibilty forseasonal workers also helps. For a trading nation it is important that your neighbours are also doing well, but the main trade partners are GB, GER, FR, BEG and they are already doing pretty fine.
An increase in centrilisation means that for a country with a relative small population you have less to say. ( It's a bit like seeing a morron: no problems to be friends with him, but as soon as he's gonna tell me how the world works I'll walk away.) In the Netherlands most things are working pretty good compared to almost all countries in the EU, why let someone who is doing much worse tell you how to do it?
(An example: At the start of Corona , the Netherlands and 3 major economies, planned to buy vaccins for 20 euro per piece. They got called out for that by the EU for not being solidair with the rest. So they agreed to buy it as EU, some poorer countries wanted the cheapest for 1 euro. As you can imagine this resulted in multiple months delay. Saving the Netherlands ~400 million in vaccin cost and costing the Netherlands atleast double that amount per week that it got delayed.)
Furthermore having an EU defence just leads to countries on the border of the group having an oppurtunity to drag you into a useless war. If the war/ problem location is deemed to be justified the Netherlands is gonna come already. Colleberation in weapons production is already done on a lesser scale with bigger surrounding countries.
And at last the Dutch don't like to be told what to do. They can appreciate a leader, but don't like a boss. And the EU is just another boss beside our government.
Addition: Also a lot of people that didnt read anything and have no clue what it is about, just vote no because the government suggested it. ( Mostly all consisting of "the lower class of society")
Its no longer about democracy it's about structure organization for a democracy to work,
It won't happen and if it did it won't last long. Too many differences culturally and economically.
1:41 You went a little overboard with the Wadden Sea islands there. About half of that squiggle is German.
It would be a good idea.
I think a EU constitution could be something that would help the EU function more smoothly.
I would be all in for it! But it's conondrum... Going about it too fast risks breaking the EU, but not pressing for it means people might get complacent with the way things are now and not want any changes.
EU constitution would be great
Please tell me how a constitution could work without free Western countries losing basic rights for LGBT and stuff like we have now when homophobic Poland and Hungary have a say in our rights??
@@dennisengelen2517
I think they would allow LGB, but not the T and other woke nonsense
@@MrGnorts Yeah but those countries have already a problem with basic rights such as equal treatment without discrimination and the right of marriage and adoption (without the woke nonsense). So I don't see a constitution working between such countries that even have trouble teaching their kids basic stuff that we we literally can't choose who we love and between our overly woke Western nations where they exaggerate what you can identify as and where Muslims can do whatever they want and are allowed to oppress us with their traditions and sharia law while destroying our culture because black chocolat makes some sensitive ass wokers hurt their feelings.
@@dennisengelen2517 What about abortion, euthanasia, free press, no corruption, equal representation, basic democracy?
We cannot even built houses or improve our infrastructure, because of the EU, while NRW and the Paris region in France are worse but not held to the same standards.
We are the most dense populated country in the EU by far, we do not have, and never had, vast empty regions as compensation for our cities and towns.
@@dennisengelen2517 the constitution would guarantee rights to citizens of member states becouse it forces local goverments to folow the laws in the cinstitution if for example a goverment wants to become more authoritairian the would have a more dificult time with it becouse the eu constitution would guarantee rights like freedom of speach making it harder to for example ban journalism
Why should the trade union have a constitution?
No. here the politics are nuts, spending 60.000.000 euros on climate. . of some euro bureaucrats, who are cutting trees. here in the Netherlands. but houses are in big demand, Almost nothing gets billed.
Will Schwab sith Ursula write ths new Consitution.?
its a too large leap for most europeans, expect that to change within 20 years or earlier
Why is there no UK on map, if it is 2004?
You erased yourselves, no need to put you back in the picture.
Bring on the European Federal Union already.. it's been ages.. the populations across the EU are ageing heavily. The older generations are dragging back progress for innovation and change. Europe can't compete vs giants.. small netherlands, ireland, spain, finland, france etc can't compete e.g. vs 1.4 billion economy China. Those who resist change will eventually be influenced by non-european powers rather than leading path of european integrity and sovereignty. It's common sense that nothing stays static other than the nostalgy of elderly to times of youth that will never go back anyway. Common sense.
Europe has had its best days back in the 19th and 20th century. The sooner you accept that the better.
Swiss style confederation? Woud it help governing and managing this beautiful, vibrant, multi headed Beast?
Europen Constitution shoukd be inteoduced OLNY IF it would set up a clear and transoarent decision making and political process.
I mean - e.g. European Comission should be chosen in general voting, not the backstage non-transparent political deals.
The same for high EU level posituons.
---
Parliament should have been organized into two houses. Lower House and Higher House. That should be transparently organised in the EU Constitution.
Today it seems to work like this - European Parliament is in fact the Lower House. The role of Higher House (similar to senate) is played by European Council. But it's not so simple - in reality voting in the EU is unequal and abusing the rights of many countries.
What's more - introducing EU Council (the polititians of every national government) is in my opinion mixing the legislature with executive.
The potential EU Senate should give the countries equal vote - that mean every country should have equal number of representants (independent of the number of citizens - thats an idea of Higher House - Senate would represent the Nations).
The lower house (today EP) should be chosen in general election and represent citizens.
That two-houses system should replace the today Qualified Majority Voting system, where there is a rule "55% of countries, 65% of citizens". And its used only in the EU Council.
No - the decisions should be made by majority of votes representing citizens (lower house) + majority of votes representing narions (higer house - Senate/EU Council).
QMV gives unnatural power to the biggest countries - de facto Germany+France - and other countries have almost no voting power.
In the result - it's almost impossible for smaller countries to build the opposition in the EU Countries against the polirical power of the big ones.
That cancels any sense of the two-stage voting ( idea of bicameral parliament).
I see no sense of QMV in the EU Council if the distribution of citizens within EU is included in the European Parliament.
For me, if EU wants to have any future, such democratic and citizens-nations equality rules and reforms should be introduced.
Only then the foundations of EU will be stable and allow thenEU countries to grow together without the kind of "internal European colonization".
But I'm sure (it's my opinion) that Germany and France will be the main opponent against democratisation of EU political system and any forms of transparency for all countries and citizens.
I think many of these issues should be fixed before a constitution is even implemented. Especially the Transparancy issue.
We have never voted for the Lissabon Treaty, it is just ratified. One of the many issues people voting against the EU institution have with the EU.
The EU is an undemocratic monstrosity
I'm in favour of an EU constitution for the same reasons that the commission was, but you can't put a 70-page document to a popular vote. It is too much (in various dimensions) for a simple "yes" and "no". Citizens Assemblies need to work it out bit by bit - we had a similar exercise in the EU recently (but not culminating in a new structure).
Yeah, the people clearly cannot be trusted to vote on that... but they can be trusted to vote for the people who DO vote on that...
Total L take.
We will end up in a united Europe someday anyway, so why hurry if we have to get this right to ever form a united Europe that can survive in the first place.
i am hoping for a united europe to
with europeans
I disagree!
It would lead to the concentration of power in a few people... I prefer to go for more territorial autonomy for diversification.
0:10 Instead of USE(United State of Europe) i prefer FE(Federacion Europea = European Federation) i want to chose my president and laws and thigs not let representat to chose for me. And each state can add or remove locale tax but federl nop(like USA)
I like the idea of EU constitution and United States of European. But I think it should happen in the far future, about 50-100 years later when there are many demands for creating a Federal EU. Right now and near future, EU should only use treaties only.
It depends on how they write the Europe constitution
I do like the idea of a EU constitution, but I do think a lot of reform is necessary to insure integrity. I trust the EU commission or parliament as far as I can throw them. Which considering they're abstract entities existing only in our thoughts is not very far. I first want proven reforms and improvements on how democratic AND effective the EU is, and then I'd love to see an EU constitution.
Specifically I'd like to see some of the old ways of Dutch politics (Polderen) be applied and where possible required in reforms, where you focus heavily on addressing concerns of those opposing you until you have little to no opposition anymore.
Yes, I did watch your videos on the reforms and I did like most of the reforms. I still have some concerns due to how the EU behaved during the Brexit. Slandering and attacking UK citizens for having concerns is NOT a good sign of the attitude and maturity needed for the functioning of democratic institutions. You need to be able to understand concerns and respect others rights to disagree and take their own actions / make their own choices in a democracy, otherwise you'll soon devolve into a tyranny of one form or another with people voting to get their way at the expense of others.
Educate yourselves and read Andrew Neils piece in the Daily Mail 30th July, entitled Why would we want to rejoin the EU when citizens in Americas poorest state earn more than the French
The idea of an EU constitution is too much. It would theoretically make all the members unable to contest EU recommandations.
As EU and EFTA countries, we're already united under one banner. So why not promoting the right to self determination to stateless nations across Europe such as Catalonia, Scotland, Flanders and Wallonia just to name a few đ€
We will become a mighty big player as a united Europe or every nation of us will loose in globalization
Les français n'étaient absolument pas d'accord, Sarkozy a signé le traité de Lisbonne sans l'accord des Français et absolument rien n'ont été changé entre "La constitution européenne" et le traité de Lisbonne, la seule différence, c'est qu'on ne nous a pas demandé notre avis.
Et ça, on ne l'oublie pas.
It *could* be a good idea, if it enshrine a confederal model into said constitution.
The EU Constitution was very much perceived as a Merkel-pushed idea (Which wasn't honestly too far off...) and as such, was seen as politically oriented and right-leaning. So left-leaning voters disliked it heavily.
what a complete BS comment you wrote, m8! lol. Yeah... Right leaning ppl are known for wanting to give their independence away and accept millions of non-Europeans in to their country (like Merkel did with arabs and africans)...sure, m8....
Here it are the right leaning that vote against EU for most part.
Well as a staunch supporter of Brexit. I am against anything that gives the EU more power. It is always little by little, if everyone in Europe was able to vote on what the EU is now over what it was at the start it would never have been allowed to start. And as it stands now the EU has its fingers in so many pies that would stand on there own.
The EU federalizing is the only way it's people can navigate the newly forming multipolar world without ending up being someone else's satellite state and thus federalization is the best way to retain our hard fought democracy, justice, equality, welfare systems, infrastructure, worker rights, etc.
I disagree, completely.
You could choose to see the world as a bunch of big players who bully their smaller neighbors.
In that world, I understand that you feel uncomfortable being a bunch of small countries in a world of big superpowers.
Or you could choose to see the world differently.
The EU was first built as a way to prevent war between the members, (through entangling their economies; if you wage war with your neighborh, you hurt because you need the stuff they make during peace.). This allowed europe to create a continent of friendly states.
I fear that a single europe would become one nation that fights wars with their neighbohrs, just like before,... only on a bigger scale.
Then our geopolitics will have taken exactly no steps forward.
But if we can normalise the "countries being friends" idea,... now that would be something.
It would attack the idea of a multipolar world.
What would this look like:
Well, currently, ukraine is fighting a war with russia, almost entirely on ukranian soil, to kick russia out after they invaded. The EU and the US and other ukraine-friendly countries around the world support ukraine, sure. But it is ukraine that is fighting, there are no EU militaries that are sending soldiers and becoming party to the conflict. If Ukraine succeeds in booting out russia, russia will have been punished for their attempt to make ukraine into a sattelite state. And all this despite europe being a group of country-friends, because many small numbers can still add up to one large number.
On the topic of retaining democracy, justice, and all that other stuff, I also disagree.
Currently, the democracies of the countries themselves are much, much stronger than that of Europe.
Good luck being a journalist and entering the parliament building, and asking critical questions.
Unless the continentwide institutions become *a lot better, stronger and more mature* very quickly, federalising soon can mean losing some of our democracy.
And now that I have explained how the current structure of the EU insists on friendliness, geopolitically.
If we can make that work, without countries having to give up their independence and souvrenighty, that is quite an achievement of peace.
An achievement in line with our values of justice and equality and rights for people.
If Europe can be an example to show that those ideals can work, to defuse tensions between people and countries even,... I'd argue that would strengthen human rights, justice, etc as political forces in the world. It would help protect them.
However, that idea (that you can treat 'others' with respect even amid conflict, be it countries or individuals) is new in a our world -- which comes from an age of empire, and more recently an age of superpowers with spheres of influence (the cold war). Because this is new in our world, it makes sense that people feel vulnerable.
But this is a time to prove that it can work.
@@nielskorpel8860
The big players are a combination of superpowers and massive corporations.
A divided EU can be eroded by either type of organization and turn it into a bunch of satellites one country at a time.
Let's take Greece as a current example.
As things are now it's spending exorbitant amounts of it's funds into bolstering it's military due to the constant threats by turkey.
The result is a cut in every other function to make ends meet.
In contrast a unified European federation could defend itself from any and all threats and it would cost the average taxpayer of all of its member states less to do so due to the streamlining and efficiency that results from having one army instead of many.
Other openings where a unified European federation would allow us to grow is enhanced space exploration and exploitation capabilities, the ability of decoupling from the US-led economics that endlessly result in us getting the short end of the stick to benefit their billionaire oligarchs, being able to attempt new economic frameworks in response to the upcoming AI technological revolution and the transhumanist technological revolution without fearing a US planted coup, allowing us to have an organized and unified R&D program that could give us world status technology of the upcoming crucial fields without having to rely on China or the US (for example bionics, clean energy, biotechnology, medical nanotechnology, quantum computing, etc.), It would allow us to have a stronger presence in international politics and increased influence to lead by example in democratic values, the sovereignty of our citizens will be firmly cemented, and we will be able to do superior long term planning and infrastructure megaprojects that will be necessary for the future.
@@nielskorpel8860 Federalization of the EU implies we'd insert a full on democratic central system paired with strong regional democratic infrastructure.
The current model is less democratic than a EU federation, I'll once again point to Greece and it's crisis.
The lack of a federation had two effects in that crisis: a center of control beyond that of the citizens and the separated economies of the member states that shared the same currency resulted in antagonistic monetary and fiscal policy
In contrast a unified European federation would have a vested interest of not having regions of it being used as "escape valves" in the expense of some of it's own citizens.
Sorely needed.
Why is it always: "United States of", could be "United Kingdoms of" or "United Nations of"
i prefer united federation of Europe
1:26 Brexit had such huge effect, that we even erased them from the past. :P
UK was never part of the EU. :D
I remember voting no, because it explicitly mentioned religion on one of the first pages. Thanks, but no thanks. I like my constitutions to be secular.
The European Union is starting to suck more and more. I hope we might even go away from it. They are creating more and more ineffective and stupid restrictive rules without having good alternatives.
A lot of EU countries also don't have their finances in order, meaning countries that do are paying the price.
Some countries are foul in dealing with politics. Just look at france vs pulse fishing or Italy vs The Netherlands for European bonds.
The open borders, as well as economic help is great, but if things continue like this it might soon not outweigh the negatives anymore.
Being in same continent does not mean being in same nation. Europe can not be one nation.
That's very false regarding french reasons to say no. The no was supported by the far right wing (soverinity), but also by the left wing ! The majore issue we had with this constitution was that many national companies should have become private, such as train services and electricity providers. When asked, people in the country said "no".
We were betrayed by our politicians, who signed the Lisbon treaty, and then destroyed state companies "because we have to harmonise with EU". We had the cheapest electricity in Europe, and among the cheapest in the world. Why couldn't they harmonise with us ? Many leftist in France are very unhappy about this, and "Frexit" is not a far right thing here. It is imagined by both left and right wing, but with different expectations (left wing want to rebuild a more social union, and not an economic union lead by profit)
Il y Ă aussi des partis souverainistes de gauche
I hope and wish there is going to be a european constitution one day, one that lays the ground work for a united europe, simplifies the EU institions and allows more democratic participation.
It would be better to have a confederation, with 1 voice by states.
We were...This....fucking...close to furthering intergration so much, GOD FUCKING DAMNT!
As a frenchman, given the stances of many EU countries (rather until recently, a MAJORITY of EU countries) on energy and nuclear, I sure am glad a more powerful EU parliament isn't a thing.
A majority of eu countries have nuclear, the only countries that have banned nuclear are germany and italy.
Also its not said that energy policy could have been lart of EU jurisdiction in full.
Federalism is about dividing competences between federal states and federal government, france could have gotten an exception in the constirution to have countries stilld ecide on their own if to have nuclear or not.
Also this worry is unfounded since the european parliament isnt anti nuclear