Does this make a difference? Who cares? Your thoughts Ladies and Gentlemen??

NB. This is only the exit poll, with 55% voting No. The result will be confirmed in the coming hours.

Originally posted by t020
NB. This is only the exit poll, with 55% voting No. The result will be confirmed in the coming hours.

Yeah but a majority "NO" vote doesn't mean it'll happen... :roll:

It puts the European project back 5 maybe 10 years while everyone chews on what it actually is they want from it - which will turn out to be a shedload of mutually incompatible things.

Once we've worked out that collectively we all still hate each other, we can dissolve the euro, erect national boundaries, and go back to having wars again.

Something that the European Project has by and large steered us away from.

The rejection of the EU constitution could well prove to be a blessing in disguise, and a very good thing for the development of the EU and indeed Europe as a whole.

It does not mean the end of the 'European project'. In many ways, the constitutional treaty was a failure even before it was put the the voters of (some) EU countries. This is because the original idea was to have a simple, clear document which EU citizens could understand - indeed, one which could fit into your back pocket. It ended up at over 300 pages long, and full of ambiguities and virtually incomprehensible jargon.

The idea for a constitional originated in the immediate aftermath of the negotiations for the Treaty of Nice in 2000. It was widely recognised at the time that the mechanism for the development od the Union - i.e. through a series of treaties (ECSC; Rome; Single European Act; Maastricht; Amsterdam; and Nice) simply made the EU more and more complicated (with over 12,000 pages of legislative documents). A constitutional document was supposed to replace this method and also bring the EU project closer to the people. But the constitution, through the Convention which drafted it, ended up as another treaty (even if it is largely one of codification).

For too long the EU project has been an elite project, disconnected from the citizens it was created (supposedly) to serve. When voters have been asked by the elites if they actually want deeper integration, the results have on more than one occasion been 'no' (in the case of treaties, we have the case of the Danes and Maastricht; the Irish and Nice and now the French and the CT). Similarly, the Swedes and Danes have bot rejected the euro (as indeed would the voters of the UK).

Just say NO x x

I'm not sure wether the French voting Non is actually representative of the desire, or not, to integrate more closely. The constitution is apparently a large, dense and impenetrable document which even the legal and political professionals have problems understanding. I would be surprised if more than 1 in 1000 people understand the contents and implication of the putative EU constitution. How can anyone vote for such an important without understanding it? I know I couldn't and I'm a pretty pro-europe person!

This is why I said it was a failure before anyone voted on it - because the original idea was to a short, simple, and above all comprehensible, document.

Those who drafted it, and those who presented it to EU citizens, have only themselves to blame.

Originally posted by evildrneil
...The constitution is apparently a large, dense and impenetrable document which even the legal and political professionals have problems understanding. I would be surprised if more than 1 in 1000 people understand the contents and implication of the putative EU constitution.

Who wrote it? And on what mandate?

How much did we pay them?

Can we claim it back?

The mandate was this: following the negotiations at the Nice European Council (basically comprising heads of government) in December 2000 and also decisions taken by the Laeken European Council (again, heads of government) a year later, it was decided to set up a European Convention, comprising representatives of the Member States, European Parliament, national parliaments and Commission, to write a draft treaty for a European Constitution. The Convention produced this draft, which was finally agreed by the leaders of the governments of member states in June 2004.

They were paid expenses;

No, you can't claim it back

The vote is very close though, almost 50-50. So the nay-sayers cannot claim a resounding victory.

If it was really that bad, the 'no' vote would have been higher.

56% to 44% (with 85% of votes counted) is no where near 50-50. It is a clear and decisive rejection of the constitutional treaty. This does not, of course, mean that voters (pro or con) examined the minutae of the treaty, or understood all of its contents or implications.

Originally posted by evildrneil
I'm not sure wether the French voting Non is actually representative of the desire, or not, to integrate more closely. The constitution is apparently a large, dense and impenetrable document which even the legal and political professionals have problems understanding. I would be surprised if more than 1 in 1000 people understand the contents and implication of the putative EU constitution. How can anyone vote for such an important without understanding it? I know I couldn't and I'm a pretty pro-europe person!

Perhaps it's the overall concept of what will effectively become a United States of Europe that the people are voting against?

The EU will never be a United States of Europe (i.e. a single state, similar to the USA). It is much too diverse (in almost every sense) for this to happen

Originally posted by t020
Perhaps it's the overall concept of what will effectively become a United States of Europe that the people are voting against?

The EU constitution doesn't propose a 'United States of Europe' and in fact one of the elemts of it is to provide limits to where and when it can act!

Originally posted by evildrneil
The EU constitution doesn't propose a 'United States of Europe' and in fact one of the elemts of it is to provide limits to where and when it can act!

Indeed it does not propose a USE. But what it does propose is in many places unclear as to its implications and might be viewed as but a further stage on the road towards an 'ever closer union'. The CT is largely about codification of existing practices and rules, but not entirely so. The original idea was to provide a kind of finality to the EU's process of development. But it did nothing of the kind, and it has generally been accepted that it would not be the last word on the EU's constitutional development.

Incidentally, if the phrase 'United States of Europe' did not inevitably lead to comparisions with the USA, it would be a pretty accurate description of where the EU is heading (indeed, of its current state). Ironically, the term 'United States of America' is literally false, because the 50 states are not states (i.e. they do not have sovereignty. The USA is a federal sovereign state. A better term for it therefore would be 'the American Union'. Conversely, the 25 members of the EU are sovereign states, so the EU has a better claim to the title of 'United States' than the USA does.

I was very pleased that the French voted , "Non" in their recent referendum.
I think that anything that restricts the power of the monstrosity that , "Europe " is becoming can only be good news , especially for Britain. As far as I understand it , Britain , generally has paid far more than its fair share into this money-guzzling club. The pen-pushers and gravy-train passengers expand year by year by year. More and more rules and regulations affect our lives , here in the U.K.-----as if we didn't have more than enough of our own !
I can't recall any period in history when a group of countries , all with different historical backgrounds , different cultures , different languages and currency have voluntarily joined , or been asked to join up , so tightly. It has led to mind-boggling complications as the rule-makers and Euro-Control Freaks try to , "iron out " the discrepancies that once made the old Europe , at least interesting.Even groups of countries with different backgrounds that were cajoled into unity , like the old Soviet Union or the Ottoman Empire collapsed , after much trauma , into chaos.
A simple free trade area is probably feasible but anything further and deeper in Europe is artificial and resented by too many to make it work.
To suggest that a "united Europe " has somehow prevented war in Europe over the past 50 years is merely tripe. How long has this great unity been effective ? The only thing that stopped the Red Army doing whatever it wanted in Europe was N.A.T.O., largely funded by the Americans.How effective was this wonderful European union in preventing the genocide.....etc.....in the old Yugoslavia ? Incidentally , another example of an artificial union which fell apart in chaos when its citizens were given the freedom to choose their own way of life.

Originally posted by evildrneil
The EU constitution doesn't propose a 'United States of Europe' and in fact one of the elemts of it is to provide limits to where and when it can act!

I never said it did *directly* propose that. However it seems pretty obvious that this could be seen as the long term goal of the "European project", and why so many people are hostile towards it without even having to read the constitution.

Originally posted by t020
I never said it did *directly* propose that. However it seems pretty obvious that this could be seen as the long term goal of the "European project", and why so many people are hostile towards it without even having to read the constitution.

In fact, many of the french voted against the constitution because they thought it didn't go far enough to curb what they see as rampant american style economic neo-liberalism. Lots of french people want to see a more socially integrated europe with a more interventionist attitude to the market.

Many french people did actually read the constitution and came up with the view that even though they are very supportive of the european project they don't want to see it go down this route, which would be quite close to my own view.

Don't assume because they voted non they are brethren of UKIP!

Originally posted by t020
I never said it did *directly* propose that. However it seems pretty obvious that this could be seen as the long term goal of the "European project", and why so many people are hostile towards it without even having to read the constitution.

Ahhhhhhh the joys of preconception and bias huh ;)

The French have always been awkward bleeders (to stereotype a whole nation) I think it would now be futile to hold a referendum as it is now pointless… Uk has always been an add on state for the US rather than Europe. I believe that the Iraq war would indicate this. :(

what can you say about the french , spineless creosoted arsed mugs , and thats being polite.:heyhey: :heyhey: :heyhey:

Au contraire miniminch mon ami we englanders are the european awkward squad, and well known for it on't continent. Ever since stupid thatcher and her "no, no, no" speech.

It is completely pointless to have a referendum now, but people (by people I mean the sun) will still insist on it so that they can 'stick two fingers up at brussels and blair'. I swear some people live in a weird little bubble world!

Which leaves me wondering which way to vote - I'm all for the european project but I don't want this constitution. If I vote no then all the anti-EU campaigners will try and claim that my vote was against europe itself. What a mess. :(

Originally posted by kathythebean
Au contraire miniminch mon ami we englanders are the european awkward squad, and well known for it on't continent. Ever since stupid thatcher and her "no, no, no" speech.

It is completely pointless to have a referendum now, but people (by people I mean the sun) will still insist on it so that they can 'stick two fingers up at brussels and blair'. I swear some people live in a weird little bubble world!

Which leaves me wondering which way to vote - I'm all for the european project but I don't want this constitution. If I vote no then all the anti-EU campaigners will try and claim that my vote was against europe itself. What a mess. :(

Actually kathy, it has been the pro-constitution campaigners who have been arguing that a 'no' vote is a vote against Europe. Voting 'no' is perfectly compatible with being pro-EU and pro-Europe - indeed, I think in the long run the rejection of the constitution could well enhance both.

Originally posted by kathythebean
Au contraire miniminch mon ami we englanders are the european awkward squad, and well known for it on't continent. Ever since stupid thatcher and her "no, no, no" speech.

It is completely pointless to have a referendum now, but people (by people I mean the sun) will still insist on it so that they can 'stick two fingers up at brussels and blair'. I swear some people live in a weird little bubble world!

Which leaves me wondering which way to vote - I'm all for the european project but I don't want this constitution. If I vote no then all the anti-EU campaigners will try and claim that my vote was against europe itself. What a mess. :(

You are so right mon cherie (not mon cherie Blair, the hysterical cow) But I refuse to believe that we British are the awkward unmoveable polemicists of Europe. It’s simply not true. And anyone who says it is gets invaded. But remember if it’s a toss up between European culture and American Culture – I’m voting Oui

Remember the great song

When the lights go out all over Europe

"Twilight turns from amethyst
To deep and deeper blue.
We've got an hour or two
Before it's time to go.
Let's go see a movie show."

Jeanne can't choose
Between the two
'Cause Jules is hip
And Jim is cool
And so they live together
With the trees and birds
And little girls
Who play upon
Poor Jean-Claude's nerves
Till finally
He strokes Claire's knee
And when she asks
Of his ambition
Jean-Pierre replies: "My mission
Is to become eternal
And to die" -
Heaven knows the reason why.

When the lights go out all over Europe,
I forget about old Hollywood,
'Cause Doris Day couldn't make me cheer up
Quite the way those French girls always could.

Jean Seberg: Et puisque je suis méchante avec toi c'est la preuve que je ne suis pas amoureuse de toi.
Jean-Paul Belmondo: On dit qu'il n'y a pas d'amour heureux...
Jean Seberg + Jean-Paul Belmondo: Si je t'aimais...
Jean Seberg: Oh, c'est trop compliqué!
Jean-Paul Belmondo: Au contraire, il n'y a pas d'amour malheureux.
Jean Seberg: Je veux que les gens ne s'occupent pas de moi
Jean-Paul Belmondo: Je suis indépendant...
Jean Seberg: Peut-être que tu m'aimes?
Jean-Paul Belmondo: Toi, tu le crois, mais tu ne l'es pas.
Jean Seberg: C'est pour ça que je t'ai dénoncé.
Jean-Paul Belmondo: Je te suis supérieur.
Jean Seberg: Maintenant tu es forcé de partir.
Jean-Paul Belmondo: Tu es singlée! c'est lamentable comme raisonnement!

When the lights go out all over Europe,
I forget about old MGM
'Cause Paramount was never Universal
And Warners went out way back.
When those lights go out all over Europe,
I forget about old Hollywood,
'Cause Doris Day could never make me cheer up
Quite the way those French girls always could.
:) :thumbsup:

I'm very happy of the result of the refunrundum, indead I voted by proxy (thanks dad), and cast my 'Non, je ne contre'.

I always find funny how the pople who usually say 'Yeh Europe, great stuff' are usually people who live in the backend of a valley and never leave their county...

I travel a lot, and the fact the EU is growing is bringing nothing more than a pain up my backside, it's getting harder to actually go somewhere worth going, having all these common laws for everywher,e the same boring money (which make it quite hard to convert when I'm in France, the Franc meant I could take a 0 quite easily).

So I voted Non, and I won, owned... to those who voted Oui, go effe yourselves... I've never pretented to be tolerant, so I'm quite happy to shhh on those who voted Oui and who are gutted :p

No ! Europe does not make my life easier.
No ! the Euro does not make me save money !
No ! Maastritch has not brought economic progress.
No ! Schengen does not make my travelling easier.

Not an exageration, but the Union don't give me anything I want or need, or that I care about. and ANY referundumn concerning the Union, whatever it may be, will have a big fat No and a Non from myself.

Donc, à tous ceux qui ont voté non, vous l'avez dans l'os !

I'm just going to snigger all week now :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: