Holland says "nee"

[Shakermaker]

This just in: the first exit poll by ANP (the main dutch press agency) and NOS (dutch public TV/radio) says 63% voted against and 37% voted in favour of the European constitution. The turn-out was pretty high: 62% of the dutch people voted.

 

[jimbo118]

This just in: the first exit poll by ANP (the main dutch press agency) and NOS (dutch public TV/radio) says 63% voted against and 37% voted in favour of the European constitution. The turn-out was pretty big: 62% of the dutch people voted.

yep it was pretty obvious it would be no.

 

[Feath]

Time for the Union to draw up a different document. Something smaller, maybe.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

i'm happy for Holland and their hot babies

 

[Feath]

i'm happy for Holland and their hot babies

Where are you from? I've been wondering for a few days.

 

[The Monkey]

The turn-out was pretty big: 62% of the dutch people voted.

Is that irony?

 

[Feath]

Is that irony?

It's bigger than expected. I mean, the Government had set a limit of 30%. Otherwise they would ignore the outcome.

The thing is, this Referendum isn't binding. It's binding in France (and the UKGBNI, if we have one)

 

[iyfyoufhl]

Where are you from? I've been wondering for a few days.

Mother Russia :smoking:

 

[Shakermaker]

Is that irony?

No, I wish it was. And as Feath mentioned: it was way higher than expected. Some poll yesterday predicted a 45 - 50 % turn-out.

 

[The Monkey]

Mother Russia :smoking:

Really?

It's bigger than expected. I mean, the Government had set a limit of 30%. Otherwise they would ignore the outcome.

The thing is, this Referendum isn't binding. It's binding in France (and the UKGBNI, if we have one)

France has 70%, right? OK, it's not low, considering many people might not know enough about it to vote, but I still wouldn't call it high.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

Really?


France has 70%, right? OK, it's not low, considering many people might not know enough about it to vote, but I still wouldn't call it high.

originally yeah

 

[PvtRyan]

I wouldn't know what to vote, but it saddens me to see that most of that 63% "nee" has been a protest vote, just trying to kick the big bad Europe and our government and 90% not having a clue what the hell they're voting about. Piss poor campaign. But I'm heavily leaning towards a YES when I see that the biggest hick bible humping town (Urk) voted 91,6% against it. It's ignorance mainly.

 

[Shakermaker]

the biggest hick bible humping town (Urk)

Very good description :thumbs:

 

[Razor]

This is why the parliaments should vote for it, not general people as the general people are ignorant.

The main reason France said no was because it didn't want a free common market, which unfortunately will pretty much destroy France.

 

[The Monkey]

I didn't know we had so many dutch people here! Can you explain why the dutch people wanted to stop the progress of Europe with at least 20 years and making it more undemocratic and beaurocratic?

 

[Feath]

I'm against the Constitution and I resent the fact that people are saying that anyone against it is ignorant.

The thing about all the Yes campaigns is that . If they want to convince undecided voters you have to explain why it's good. Right now, they're only explaining why it would be bad to vote no. It's too defensive.

You know, the Dutch Prime Minister actually said "Don't let us be the only country to vote no!". And then France voted no.

 

[RoyaleWithCheese]

I didn't know we had so many dutch people here! Can you explain why the dutch people wanted to stop the progress of Europe with at least 20 years and making it more undemocratic and beaurocratic?

now that's a loaded question...

I guess PvtRyan sums it up pretty well. A lot of people (me including) don't really know what they were voting for but felt that with the euro they had been brutally r*ped in the lower back part. Furthermore, people are dissatisfied with the Dutch government and try to use the referendum as a means of making this clear.

Oh, and I almost forgot, the Dutch feel that their vote won't count for shit as it's one of the smallest countries in Europe (with a relative big poulation to be honest).

 

[iyfyoufhl]

you know, i think US views Europ as one country with little state (like US), they disregard that each europiean country is independent, has it's own history, culture and traditions

but thankfully, Russia is viewed apart for Europe

 

[The Monkey]

now that's a loaded question...

I guess PvtRyan sums it up pretty well. A lot of people (me including) don't really know what they were voting for but felt that with the euro they had been brutally r*ped in the lower back part. Furthermore, people are dissatisfied with the Dutch government and try to use the referendum as a means of making this clear.

Oh, and I almost forgot, the Dutch feel that their vote won't count for shit as it's one of the smallest countries in Europe (with a relative big poulation to be honest).

But you're one of the six superpowers of the EU! If one of you votes down, the constitution will fall! But why can't you make it clear that you don't like your government in a normal election?

 

[RoyaleWithCheese]

But you're one of the six superpowers of the EU! If one of you votes down, the constitution will fall! But why can't you make it clear that you don't like your government in a normal election?

lol, that's the firts time that 'superpower' and Dutch are related to eachother, thanks for making me lol. And I never said I voted against the referendum, I just explained how the majority of the Dutch people (who were interviewed) feel.

I think that the general feeling is that the EU is taking too large steps lately. The constitution leaces a lot of details open, and people fear that if they vote yes now, that those details will bite them in their asses later.

 

[PvtRyan]

lol, that's the firts time that 'superpower' and Dutch are related to eachother, thanks for making me lol. And I never said I voted against the referendum, I just explained how the majority of the Dutch people (who were interviewed) feel.

I think that the general feeling is that the EU is taking too large steps lately. The constitution leaces a lot of details open, and people fear that if they vote yes now, that those details will bite them in their asses later.

Hey, we once conquered the world as a superpower on the sea... of course, that's 300 years ago

 

[RoyaleWithCheese]

Hey, we once conquered the world as a superpower on the sea... of course, that's 300 years ago

Ah, the good old VOC days! Too bad we exchanged new york for suriname, otherwise we would have been yankees!

 

[iyfyoufhl]

Ah, the good old VOC days! Too bad we exchanged new york for suriname, otherwise we would have been yankees!

royale with cheese, sounds like a familiar quote from a movie, i wanna say something along the lines of Big Lobaski(sorry spl.) or Fear and Loathing in LV

 

[RoyaleWithCheese]

think quentin tarantino :E

 

[iyfyoufhl]

think quentin tarantino :E

oh, yeah, it's from Pulp Fiction, royale with cheese is Big Mac in France, i knew i heard it somewhere, great movie

 

[RoyaleWithCheese]

oh, yeah, it's from Pulp Fiction, royale with cheese is Big Mac in France, i knew i heard it somewhere, great movie

*slaps iyfyoufhl*


Quarter Pounder with cheese

BECAUSE OF THE METRIC SYSTEM!!

 

[PvtRyan]

Ah, the good old VOC days! Too bad we exchanged new york for suriname, otherwise we would have been yankees!

Glad though that we didn't give up Schubbekutterveen, I love Schubbekutterveen, almost as much as Dikkelulledorp.

 

[Shakermaker]

Glad though that we didn't give up Schubbekutterveen, I love Schubbekutterveen, almost as much as Dikkelulledorp.

Nah, Schubbekutterveen is teh pwnzor.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

*slaps iyfyoufhl*


Quarter Pounder with cheese

BECAUSE OF THE METRIC SYSTEM!!

oh, right, i failed the coolness test

 

[RoyaleWithCheese]

Nah, you're still cool to me, coming from mother russia with that weird name, faked ignorance, excessive posting and all

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

you know, i think US views Europ as one country with little state (like US), they disregard that each europiean country is independent, has it's own history, culture and traditions

but thankfully, Russia is viewed apart for Europe

On the contrary, most here view Europe as having trouble coming together (IE: This) and thus not becoming a true Union like us.

Not a 'bad' thing or anything since there is no impeding threat requiring you to and it's not viewed as a weakness. We just don't view Europe as one.

 

[Razor]

Rakurai, can you please change your vile, nasty avatar, it is making me ill :s.


Anyway, i am not saying that everyone who said no to the vote is ignorant, all i am saying is that everyone who said no because they wouldn't to get their own back against their government and don't know anything about the constitution is ignorant.

They are voting on an important matter of the European Union, yet screw it up by making things personal with their government.

 

[Shakermaker]

On the contrary, most here view Europe as having trouble coming together (IE: This) and thus not becoming a true Union like us.

Not a 'bad' thing or anything since there is no impeding threat requiring you to and it's not viewed as a weakness. We just don't view Europe as one.

That's because Europe isn't a federal state. And with this no-vote by my countrymen, a real union á la the US is even further away. Most Europeans cling to their nationalities too much imo, but it's a democracy so they can.

 

[JellyWorld]

99% of the people voting for or against the constitution have no idea what it is about. Period.

 

[RoyaleWithCheese]

And you know this, how?

 

[The Monkey]

lol, that's the firts time that 'superpower' and Dutch are related to eachother, thanks for making me lol. And I never said I voted against the referendum, I just explained how the majority of the Dutch people (who were interviewed) feel.

I think that the general feeling is that the EU is taking too large steps lately. The constitution leaces a lot of details open, and people fear that if they vote yes now, that those details will bite them in their asses later.

Well maybe not a superpower, but still one of the "big six".

 

[Gray Fox]

Rakurai, can you please change your vile, nasty avatar, it is making me ill :s.


Anyway, i am not saying that everyone who said no to the vote is ignorant, all i am saying is that everyone who said no because they wouldn't to get their own back against their government and don't know anything about the constitution is ignorant.

They are voting on an important matter of the European Union, yet screw it up by making things personal with their government.

Now thats ignorant, if a government who hasn't done their job well in improving the country is saying that the constitusion is god, then you have all the reason to mistrust them, tehy are the one that toke part in writing teh constitution, if the yare such ****ups then that doesn't bode well for the constitution.


First of all I vote against, and I', not ignorant, I woudl say teh people who voted for are the ones who are ignorant.

My reasons:

Many dutch people do feel part of europe, infact I would say we are the ones who feel that the most, simply because we are a country which is small and in which a lot of people deel with foreign countries. But what we are afraid of, is that people in other countries do not feel that way, look at france for example, it's about the most nationalistic country in the world.

Second, small countries would get ****ed and big countries would win. Thats simply the way it is. Prove of that is what happend with France and germany, when their deficit grew above 3%, which is stricktly prohibited, and countries that do that are fined, well if their small. But if their big like France and Germany they get away with it, despite the protests of the small countries. And the constitution would make that even worse.

The constitution is not clearer or more transparant then the current rules. Now I don't remember the program I saw it in, but I saw two givernment officals debating what was stated in a part of it. Now it is understandable if you debate what it would mean, or what the reasons are. But to literary debate about what is writtin on the paper. Now thats BS, thats not transparant and not clear. If they can't figure it out, how can we possibly do that.

Furthemore the parliment is supposed to get more power over the commission, making europe more democratic, and they can make proposals and more stuff. Now you would think that is good, and nice. But what the government didn't bother to tell us is that the commission can simply decide to not have that in the constitution after the constitution is approved, or that they do not need to obey the wishes of the parliment.

And even if the parliment would have gotten more power, what then. Many differnet languages are spoken in europe, so communication would be though and ineffective.

+ as we have seen, the bigger a country gets the more undemocratic it is. Not because the people want it. It's simply because it's necessary, because keepng the politics at the same democratic level in a big country as in a small one, is simply to innefective, to slow, and to costly. And especially if in the country many poeple speek differant languages.


A constitution is also in part a representation of a countries values and culture. And in europe there are many different cultures.


The constitution a lot of very good points, and imporves a lot things we have in agreement now,but all those points can be realized with simply agreements liek we have now, there is no need to have a constitution now. There is no need to let go of our sovereignty just yet.

People also voted against it because it would mean that we would lose some of our socal securities to a marketmechanism, which has porven not very effective in holland. And we certainly don't want a marketmechanism at work in our hospitals and education which would have been done, if this constitution had been ratified.


This constitution is on the right way, but there are points which need to be adressed, and we have givin a clear message of that. We rejected this one, in favor for a more fair one in the future. This is not a rejection of europe, not at all. This is for europe and it's best interest.

 

[Razor]

Now thats ignorant, if a government who hasn't done their job well in improving the country is saying that the constitusion is god, then you have all the reason to mistrust them, tehy are the one that toke part in writing teh constitution, if the yare such ****ups then that doesn't bode well for the constitution.


First of all I vote against, and I', not ignorant, I woudl say teh people who voted for are the ones who are ignorant.

My reasons:

Many dutch people do feel part of europe, infact I would say we are the ones who feel that the most, simply because we are a country which is small and in which a lot of people deel with foreign countries. But what we are afraid of, is that people in other countries do not feel that way, look at france for example, it's about the most nationalistic country in the world.

Second, small countries would get ****ed and big countries would win. Thats simply the way it is. Prove of that is what happend with France and germany, when their deficit grew above 3%, which is stricktly prohibited, and countries that do that are fined, well if their small. But if their big like France and Germany they get away with it, despite the protests of the small countries. And the constitution would make that even worse.

The constitution is not clearer or more transparant then the current rules. Now I don't remember the program I saw it in, but I saw two givernment officals debating what was stated in a part of it. Now it is understandable if you debate what it would mean, or what the reasons are. But to literary debate about what is writtin on the paper. Now thats BS, thats not transparant and not clear. If they can't figure it out, how can we possibly do that.

Furthemore the parliment is supposed to get more power over the commission, making europe more democratic, and they can make proposals and more stuff. Now you would think that is good, and nice. But what the government didn't bother to tell us is that the commission can simply decide to not have that in the constitution after the constitution is approved, or that they do not need to obey the wishes of the parliment.

And even if the parliment would have gotten more power, what then. Many differnet languages are spoken in europe, so communication would be though and ineffective.

+ as we have seen, the bigger a country gets the more undemocratic it is. Not because the people want it. It's simply because it's necessary, because keepng the politics at the same democratic level in a big country as in a small one, is simply to innefective, to slow, and to costly. And especially if in the country many poeple speek differant languages.


A constitution is also in part a representation of a countries values and culture. And in europe there are many different cultures.


The constitution a lot of very good points, and imporves a lot things we have in agreement now,but all those points can be realized with simply agreements liek we have now, there is no need to have a constitution now. There is no need to let go of our sovereignty just yet.

People also voted against it because it would mean that we would lose some of our socal securities to a marketmechanism, which has porven not very effective in holland. And we certainly don't want a marketmechanism at work in our hospitals and education which would have been done, if this constitution had been ratified.


This constitution is on the right way, but there are points which need to be adressed, and we have givin a clear message of that. We rejected this one, in favor for a more fair one in the future. This is not a rejection of europe, not at all. This is for europe and it's best interest.

You're not ignorant because you had clear and concise reasons behind voting against it and understand what you were voting for.

I still hold my point though that the people who merely voted it because they didn't like the government was ignorant, if they didn't like their government and wanted to get their own back on the government due to some personal problem, they should have abstained.

I agree with people voting yes or no due to reasons relating to the constitution when they have fully understood what is going to happen with it and how it is going to change their lives. But when they don't understand it at all, have no idea what their voting for and just listen to some scare mongerer (from both sides) or vote against it because they hate their government, that is ignorant.

 

[Cons Himself]

Second, small countries would get ****ed and big countries would win. Thats simply the way it is. Prove of that is what happend with France and germany, when their deficit grew above 3%, which is stricktly prohibited, and countries that do that are fined, well if their small. But if their big like France and Germany they get away with it, despite the protests of the small countries. And the constitution would make that even worse.

I understand what you are saying here. France and Germany breaking the 3% budget deficit limit signalled the end of the Stability and Growth Pact in its current form. It was unworkable. Its important to point out however, that no small countries were fined for breaking the Stability and Growth Pact, as the rules originally stated - up to 0.5% of national GDP (talking about billions of euros here - unlikely for any country). Thus the SGP has been changed to reflect the fact that countries may have to break the SGP occassionally to employ the use of automatic fiscal stabilisers in order to grow their way out of a recession. I wrote my dissertation on the topic of the SGP and the ECB
However, as to your point about representation - the smaller countries are majorly over-represented at present, and if this was continued with the Eastward expansion, this would have actually meant a majority of small member states would be able to block Council Directive in favour of the majority of the EU population, which is also not very fair is it. The democratic deficit works both ways remember - a Union of Peoples is Preferable to a Union of States.

The constitution is not clearer or more transparant then the current rules. Now I don't remember the program I saw it in, but I saw two givernment officals debating what was stated in a part of it. Now it is understandable if you debate what it would mean, or what the reasons are. But to literary debate about what is writtin on the paper. Now thats BS, thats not transparant and not clear. If they can't figure it out, how can we possibly do that.

Indeed this is a good point - but we are not starting off here as the Americans did with a brand new country and starting everything from scratch - we have to make things explicit in Law so everyone will feel protected by the contract, and enter into it.

Furthemore the parliment is supposed to get more power over the commission, making europe more democratic, and they can make proposals and more stuff. Now you would think that is good, and nice. But what the government didn't bother to tell us is that the commission can simply decide to not have that in the constitution after the constitution is approved, or that they do not need to obey the wishes of the parliment.

I think by Commission mate, you mean the Council. The Council is as close to an executive body as you get in Europe - and anyway what you are talking about is the co-decision procedure, wheby the European Parliament (EP) gets two readings of a Council directive (in the policy areas where co-decision is used, ie, not Defence Policy, or Taxation etc), which it needs to pass with an absolute majority. If after 2 failed readings, the directive has not been approved, the decision would go in theory to a Conciliation Committee - 50% Council, 50% Parliament and the Chairperson from the Council. Of course this is not perfect but it does improve the subsidiarity principle and democratic deficit in a big way as opposed to what was there before. This was clarified in the Treaty of Nice which has already been ratified by all member states.

And even if the parliment would have gotten more power, what then. Many differnet languages are spoken in europe, so communication would be though and ineffective.

The Parliament uses some of the best translators in the world I believe - this is not really a problem - and besides, the unofficial, 'official' languages of the EU are French and English - which highly educated ministers from most States would speak, you would hope

+ as we have seen, the bigger a country gets the more undemocratic it is. Not because the people want it. It's simply because it's necessary, because keepng the politics at the same democratic level in a big country as in a small one, is simply to innefective, to slow, and to costly. And especially if in the country many poeple speek differant languages.

The EU is not a country per se and it never will be. That is not its aim. Its end point aim is not yet clear, but I can assure you it is not a United States of Europe. Remember, political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. And the EU has no standing army loyal to only the EU, and nor would it ever want one. The EU may be big yes, but since most major decisions are handled at the national level this is not such a problem. And as I outlined above, the EU is making steps to reduce the democratic deficit in its institutions via the subsidiarity principle.

The constitution a lot of very good points, and imporves a lot things we have in agreement now,but all those points can be realized with simply agreements liek we have now, there is no need to have a constitution now. There is no need to let go of our sovereignty just yet.

Don't worry, a constitution would never cede sovereignty to a supranational institution. And remember the EU is only the sum of its parts - the Council and the Parliament and the Commish - they only come from us - the Member States of Europe. The UK Parliament act for example means Parliament can do basically whatever it wants. Parliamentary perogative is very strong here - I cant speak for Holland, but im sure your Parliament too is free to make and revoke any laws it wants to. Why? Because it has the political power - and power is only in the hands of those who can enforce it. And what is the ultimate method of enforcement? You see my logic - my friend who studies European Law explained this to me the other day

People also voted against it because it would mean that we would lose some of our socal securities to a marketmechanism, which has porven not very effective in holland. And we certainly don't want a marketmechanism at work in our hospitals and education which would have been done, if this constitution had been ratified.

I agree - a liberal market economy is not what continental Europe needs of wants. Im not sure to what extent the Constitution would put this into practice however.

This constitution is on the right way, but there are points which need to be adressed, and we have givin a clear message of that. We rejected this one, in favor for a more fair one in the future. This is not a rejection of europe, not at all. This is for europe and it's best interest.

Perhaps - Europe has survived worse in the past, that is for sure, and will do so again here.

:thumbs:

 

[DarkStar]

Yes, but where are the KNIGHTS who say "nee."

EDIT: Was that too obvious? Felt forced.