[EU] Denk alsjeblieft even na voordat je tegen stemt

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 mei 2005 01:10 schreef HiZ het volgende:
Welk EG verdrag ? Ben je niet in de war met het EVRM dat NIET opgenomen wordt in deze grondwet?

Het Handvest dat WEL wordt opgenomen in de Grondwet heeft op het ogenblik nog geen juridische status.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 mei 2005 01:10 schreef HiZ het volgende:
Welk EG verdrag ? Ben je niet in de war met het EVRM dat NIET opgenomen wordt in deze grondwet?

Het Handvest dat WEL wordt opgenomen in de Grondwet heeft op het ogenblik nog geen juridische status.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 mei 2005 01:55 schreef evert het volgende:

[..]


ik ben jaloers op je detailkennis!

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 mei 2005 11:24 schreef Thisbe het volgende:

[..]

Shoot me! Ik bedoelde inderdaad het EVRM

Het EVRM wordt namelijk WEL opgenomen in de Grondwet, ze herhalen hem alleen niet nog eens helemaal omdat dat overbodig is!
ik citeer: De EU treedt toe tot het EVRM.....(etc) (artikel 2 titel II van deel I).

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 mei 2005 11:24 schreef Thisbe het volgende:

[..]

Shoot me! Ik bedoelde inderdaad het EVRM

Het EVRM wordt namelijk WEL opgenomen in de Grondwet, ze herhalen hem alleen niet nog eens helemaal omdat dat overbodig is!
ik citeer: De EU treedt toe tot het EVRM.....(etc) (artikel 2 titel II van deel I).

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 mei 2005 01:55 schreef evert het volgende:

[..]


ik ben jaloers op je detailkennis!

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 mei 2005 13:12 schreef HiZ het volgende:

[..]

Nou ja, dat is niet helemaal hetzelfde, maar wel met een vergelijkbaar effect. Was ook wel hoognodig nu de EU steeds meer de vorm van een staat begint aan te nemen. Je moet er toch niet aan denken dat je straks wel een EU politie en rechtspraak hebt, maar geen rechtsbescherming.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 mei 2005 13:44 schreef Diederik_Duck het volgende:

[..]

Ik zou dit toch niet "opnemen" noemen, dat suggereert teveel dat het EVRM een integraal onderdeel van de communautaire rechtsorde wordt, wat natuurlijk niet waar is; de Unie treedt alleen toe tot het Verdrag (wat natuurlijk wel op zijn minst opmerkelijk is, aangezien de Unie in feite geen staat is, maar een tussenvorm van een verdragsorganisatie en een (losse) federatie).

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 mei 2005 15:03 schreef Thisbe het volgende:

[..]

Pardon?!? Het EVRM behoort al jaren tot de communautaire rechtsorde! Het verdrag gaat boven de nationale wetten _Costa/Enel
De uni is een beetje te vergelijken met een statenbond op sommige terreinen (landbouw ed)

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 mei 2005 13:50 schreef concac het volgende:
Noorwegen zit niet in de EU en economisch hebben ze niks te klagen, hun economische groei is veel groter dan van bijv. Nederland,Duitsland,Frankrijk en iets groter dan UK.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 mei 2005 15:03 schreef Thisbe het volgende:

[..]

Pardon?!? Het EVRM behoort al jaren tot de communautaire rechtsorde! Het verdrag gaat boven de nationale wetten _Costa/Enel
De uni is een beetje te vergelijken met een statenbond op sommige terreinen (landbouw ed)

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 mei 2005 15:00 schreef Thisbe het volgende:

[..]

Die rechtsbescherming op Europees niveau was er altijd al hoor.......! Burgers van de lidstaten konden al jaren terecht bij het Hof

quote:

A song for Europe
May 26th 2005
From The Economist print edition

No would be the right answer in next week's French and Dutch referendums—and a good one for Europe

THE voters, quite plainly, are in a restive, perhaps even angry mood. That will be so even if the outcomes in the French referendum on the European Union's constitution on May 29th and the Dutch one on June 1st turn out to surprise the opinion pollsters by producing narrow votes in favour of the treaty. When this constitution was agreed upon by heads of government last year, few seriously envisaged that it might be rejected or even actively disliked by voters in two of the EU's six founding members. It was countries in the Union's awkward squad—Denmark, Britain, Poland—that were expected to pose problems. That is the trouble when you draft ambitious measures designed to bring Europe closer to the people. The people then have the cheek to tell you what they think.

But why, Euro-enthusiasts have been asking themselves, can't a clear majority of voters be persuaded by two fine arguments that we have offered to them? The first is that the constitution is a noble document designed to help today's enlarged EU march on more efficiently towards an “ever closer union”, one that (as the French Socialist Party says in its pro-constitution campaign) can be forte face aux Etats Unis (strong in the face of the United States). The other is that the treaty is just a technical matter that will make little real difference and is too boring for voters to worry their pretty heads about.

One reason, of course, is that the arguments are contradictory. That clash is easily solvable, for the second one is nonsense. Weighing in at almost 200 pages in its French version, this treaty contains a bill of rights, redefines the role and powers of the EU's institutions, lays down new rules for how decisions will be made and provides a new text for European judges to interpret. That is no mere technical matter and fully deserves the term “constitution”, however much some worried Europhiles may now regret the word. Another reason, though, is that some voters may not really be offering their verdict on the constitution at all but instead on economic anxiety and their governments' record.

That is, it is true, the trouble with referendums. Even if many do cast their ballots on the question actually posed, enough voters may cast protests to distort the result. And there is no doubt that economic anxiety is rife in Europe: that is why Germany's Gerhard Schröder took such a drubbing in regional elections on May 23rd (see article). Against that, however, lies the fact that there has been no shortage of debate about the real issue in either France or the Netherlands. There has been ample chance to focus most voters' minds on the constitution itself and indeed interest has run high (see article). Yet there is also another point: that it is not entirely unreasonable to link economic anxieties with the treaty.

It is not that the constitution will have much impact on the European economy if in the end it comes into force. Moreover the text is not, contrary to the claims of many French antis, “ultra-liberal”. The Economist, which is proud to be liberal with or without the adjective, wishes it were so. But the treaty makes no stipulations about economic arrangements more radical than those that France did so much to craft in the Treaty of Rome in 1957, which provided for the abolition of obstacles to the free movement between member states of goods, persons, services and capital. If the new system would be ultra-liberal, then the European Union must always have been so. The truth, of course, is otherwise and so it will be in the future. Rather, the real link is not about policy but about confidence. At a time when people are so anxious about their futures, any sort of change feels alarming. And an accurate criticism of the change envisaged by the constitution is that it is highly ambiguous, not to say bewildering; it will transfer some more power away from national governments and to the EU, but with effects of which no one can be at all sure.

E unum pluribus

This newspaper's objections to the constitution are well known; any readers that would like a reminder can find our two previous leaders urging a rejection here and here, along with the constitution we immodestly drafted ourselves in 2000. No doubt our specific ideas would be considered impractical for a Union of 25 member states, all with interests and ideas of their own. But there is a theme running through our constitution and rejectionist articles that has much in common with the anti-treaty feelings being seen in France and the Netherlands.

This is that the divergence of views and national prejudices in the EU are so wide that it is a mistake to try to force more and more policy areas into a single framework. Indeed, there are already too many: every country has some complaint about policies being foisted on it from Brussels. Some of that is desirable, for the Union has always been in part a means by which national governments force their electorates to accept rules that they might not have been able to impose on their own. But such a process has limits, which are being shown all too clearly in these referendums. A process remote from the people is unlikely to remain popular for long. And a larger Union, whether at the old 15 countries, today's 25, or in future even larger, is likely to become more remote, not less—especially if it tries to take on more and more common policies.

What is needed instead is a treaty that acknowledges the central popular concern: that an EU that is increasingly remote is also a threat to the diversity of Europe's nations and thus to national identity. Admittedly the draft constitution does leave plenty of scope for national variation; the French could nationalise (although not subsidise) their banks, if they were foolish enough to want to do so; the British could still privatise their hospitals. But the central thrust of the document is towards more centralisation.

This is a big mistake. First, it cuts down on the range of political choices open to national electorates—and thus is anti-democratic and liable to provoke a backlash. Second, the EU is capable of producing some remarkably awful policies, which because of its consensual way of policymaking become almost impossible to change once established and eventually risk discrediting the whole project. Farms policy is the best example. Finally, it is more likely that good policy will be promoted in Europe by the power of example than by fiat from Brussels. France is likelier to embrace reform because it sees Britain or Spain flourishing with different sorts of policies than because Brussels tells it to. But for this process to work, it is essential that the maximum freedom of manoeuvre is left for national governments. America's slogan of “E pluribus unum” means “out of many, one”. Europe's, though, can and should be the reverse: out of one, many.

Whether or not the French and Dutch electorates kill this current constitution, the EU's future will depend on both permitting and exploiting the continent's very diversity. A Europe that allows different approaches to be tried, whether in single countries or in groups of countries, whether “core” or “non-core”, is likely to be one that survives. A defeat for the constitution would not be the catastrophe that some Europhiles seem to think: life would go on, even in Brussels, and a Union that has lasted for almost half a century is surely strong enough to deal with the occasional rebuff from voters. If it responds by taking a pause for thought, it might even benefit.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 mei 2005 15:29 schreef PJORourke het volgende:
Het verstandige antwoord t.o.v de nogal arrogante en betweterige TS:
[..]

But why, Euro-enthusiasts have been asking themselves, can't a clear majority of voters be persuaded by two fine arguments that we have offered to them? The first is that the constitution is a noble document designed to help today's enlarged EU march on more efficiently towards an “ever closer union”, one that (as the French Socialist Party says in its pro-constitution campaign) can be forte face aux Etats Unis (strong in the face of the United States). The other is that the treaty is just a technical matter that will make little real difference and is too boring for voters to worry their pretty heads about.

One reason, of course, is that the arguments are contradictory.

[..]

www.economist.com

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 mei 2005 15:22 schreef HiZ het volgende:

[..]

Tegen hun eigen staat wel ja, maar niet tegen de EU.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 mei 2005 13:50 schreef concac het volgende:
Noorwegen zit niet in de EU en economisch hebben ze niks te klagen, hun economische groei is veel groter dan van bijv. Nederland,Duitsland,Frankrijk en iets groter dan UK.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 mei 2005 01:00 schreef Thisbe het volgende:
Mijn grote bezwaar tegen de Grondwet betreft het aantal Europarlementariers. Nederland heeft er slechts 31, terwijl Duitsland er 99 heeft. Gezien het bedrag dat richting Brussel verdwijnt vind ik dit weinig fair. Nederland zal dus harder moeten lobbyen voor zijn zaak dan de grotere landen dan nu het geval is.

quote:

Verder geloof ik een geen klap van dat de buitengrenzen beter "bewaakt" zullen worden door landen als Spanje. Illegalen zullen nog steeds vrij makkelijk binnen kunnen komen, en doorreizen naar Nederland. Tenzij wij er als Europa er flink veel geld in pompen om die gigantische buitengrens te gaan bewaken van landen als Polen en Spanje.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 mei 2005 16:23 schreef speedfreak1 het volgende:
Dus:
- subsidies afschaffen
- eigen immigratiebeleid
- volkomen vrije markt
- afschaffen overheidsbemoeienis
- afschaffen EP
- afschaffen idee dat er überhaupt europese wetgeving nodig is
- het hebben over economische samenwerking.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 mei 2005 16:18 schreef RM-rf het volgende:

[..]

wat betreft Netto-betalers, dan is je vergelijking met Duitsland niet geheel juist, Duitsland is namelijk de grootste netto-betaler aan de EU, met een ruime 5 miljard euro, oftewel 95 euro per burger ...
Nederland is gerekend per burger inderdaad een grotere netto-betaler, met 120 euro per burger....

quote:

If it responds by taking a pause for thought, it might even benefit.
www.economist.com

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 mei 2005 17:24 schreef HiZ het volgende:
Ben ik nou gek of heeft de schrijver van dit stuk vergeten dat de EU 2,5 jaar heeft nagedacht en keihard onderhandeld over deze grondwet?

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 mei 2005 17:26 schreef PJORourke het volgende:

[..]

En dus is hij automatisch goed?