Prodi ressurrects referendum!

[InsaneApache]

Rather aptly, because it's Easter, Romano Prodi has decided to bring back the EU constitution.


“We need a strong relationship not just with France and Germany but also with the so-called group of six, countries like Belgium and Luxembourg — but not the Netherlands,” Prodi said.

Asked if this group would include Britain, he replied: “I believe it is difficult to include it among countries which are pushing for more integration. Britain has decided not to hold a referendum on Europe so it has not approved the European position. Evidently it believes in a policy which is more independent of the EU.”


The EU, he added with a smile, should relaunch talks on the European constitution after next year’s French elections.

Link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2136355,00.html)

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the EU constitution thrown out by France and The Nederlands?

This is why I dislike the whole EU concept. If the voters dont happen to agree with the elite political classes, then just ignore the voters. Keep having referenda until they (the electorate) come up with the right answer. Or better still, don't put it to a vote (ala Euro) and just ram through your agenda without the bothersome messyness of a mandate.

:shame:

[edyzmedieval]

EU sucks anyhow.

Modern democratic communism, my definition of EU.

[Marcellus]

Britain has decided not to hold a referendum on Europe so it has not approved the European position. Evidently it believes in a policy which is more independent of the EU.

Rubbish - the EU constitution was killed by France (included in Prodi's list of 'pro-EU' countries that he wants to push forward with) and the Netherlands. To have continued with a referendum would have been a massive waste of money.


He added in English with a smile: “There is no alternative.”

:sweatdrop:

[Keba]

Now, I don't mind the Constitution, but that thing they flaunt as the European Consitution is a monstrous abomination of a document that should be called a Constitution.

I mean, Constitutions are normally short things, laying out the principles of the goverment and the state. The Corpus Iuris Civilis, the entire breadth of Roman law (some 1000 or so years of constant work) is shorter than that thing.

Constitution, possibly, yes ... this particular Constitution, most definitely no.

Besides, England never had a written Constitution ... didn't hurt them much, did it? Don't see a reason not to apply their particular example.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Besides, England never had a written Constitution ... didn't hurt them much, did it? Don't see a reason not to apply their particular example.

The real problem that the European Onion faces is that there are many treaties now in existence that are increasingly contradictory. With enlargement, some codification of principles is necessary. The UK (it's more than just England remember ~;) ) has an 'unwritten' constitution which is a similar model of law and written treaties such as Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights etc, that remain uncodified into a whole except through precedent and interpretation. However, they have a constitutional monarch in whom power is ultimately vested, thereby representing the unifying factor. I'm sure the British would be open to offer Her Majesty as head of state for the Onion and perform this valuable service on a greater stage. :bounce:

Their mistakes were to call this codification a 'Constitution' and let Giscard d'Estaing loose on it. The federalists thought they might sneak through their ideas under the guise of common sense. They were rumbled.

Prodi can say what he likes. France and the Netherlands rejected the whole thing, and the UK certainly would have - and probably several others. They will reject it again, and it is unlikely that the bureaucrats can come up with a scenario that will run round the wall of public opinion. The Ministers know they would pay a very heavy price at the next poll if they did.

I'm very positive about the idea of the Onion, but until they institute proper democratic controls, and implement the founding principle of subsidiarity (ugly word for devolving power to the lowest practical level) it should neither add powers nor expand.

[AggonyDuck]

What I don't understand is what people actually have against the EU constitution?

[Kagemusha]

What I don't understand is what people actually have against the EU constitution?

I think its matter of Principle.People are against the whole EU.While the constitution brings mostly good stuff to EU.The best new thing in my mind is that now if the constitution passes its possible to leave EU.~;)
Here is BBC link that has some simple answers to what the new constitution offers:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2950276.stm

[BDC]

He added in English with a smile: “There is no alternative.”

Followed by, "so pull down your trousers and bend over" perhaps?

[Duke Malcolm]

What I don't understand is what people actually have against the EU constitution?

The question is not what people have against it, but what people love about it...

[Keba]

What I don't understand is what people actually have against the EU constitution?

Speaking from my perspective, it's a great idea ... but the current version is flawed.

After some discussion with other people ... the EU is moving too quickly too far. Many see this as infringment on their own national independence, and in Europe where such traditions have existed for a very long time (those of national identity, not nations themselves, in some cases), that is no small thing. In their opinion, it is a poorly veiled attempt to take away their nation's independence.

I have no doubt that a (yes, a, it's doubtful that this one will) constintuion will pass and be accepted Europe-wide. It is even possible that a confederacy will emerge from the EU, but that will take decades, perhaps even longer.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

He added in English with a smile: “There is no alternative.”

:laugh4: He sounds like the Borg. :help: