They have already renogiated the text. The governments made changes in a short time after getting the text from the Convention.

I'm sure the U.S. and the Republic of Ireland didn't spend 4 years (or 10 years or whatever number of years they tell us it took) to write their constitutions. The EU one only took so long because they went out of their way to make it as big and wide ranging as possible.

A good simple document, reflecting the wishes of the people to limit the scope of the EU's powers could be written in weeks and months.

What way would our Sluggerettes vote in a referendum on the constitution?
Mick, we should have a poll on it.

At the moment i'm in the No camp.

The problem is that the French don't know where they are going. They want to be able to make the rules for others and ignore them when it suits themselves. The referendum result has more to do with dissatisfaction with the current French government and especially its President (whos record on corruption would make Charlie Haughey look like a choirboy) and with elections two years off, this was a chance to vent spleen.

The other countries should procede and if there is a large proportion of the countries against the constitution, then a compromise needs to be made.

The Constitution is dead but it can't be buried until the Dutch have their vote.

The French thought the EU was trying to impose a "free-market ideology" on them.

What that means is that they believe the economic policy of France is a matter for France.

We will not now get to vote on this constitution so we should really be thinking about the next one. Is it possible to design a Constitution that will pass in both France and Britain? Yes if it is recognised that both countries are entitled to decide for themselves what mix of free-market and social-democratic policies they should have.

It's a Europe of nations folks. Get used to it.

It is obviously a fun time for the supporters of the Treaty (especially in the North where all three MEPSs are against the Treaty) and debate inexistant. Not sure that Britain will go ahead, but the Irish gvt seems to want to have a Referendum alongside with Neth/Fin/Den/Swe/Port.

Ah. Bertie Aherns contribution to History, dead in the water....

I'm disappointed that a majority of French people voted against the E.U. constitution, but they have, so we have to live with that. If it turns out that they are the only ones to vote no, then perhaps only minor changes to it are needed. If, as seems more likely, several other countries reject the constitution a more radical overhaul and rethink of the way forward for the E.U. may be needed.

Martin,

Its not dead in the water. It'll be slightly changed and there will be a re-run or else the French will pass it thru Parliament.

And I think if you asked Bertie he'd rate 'EU constitution' well down his list of acheievments.

f c,
even the smallest little change will need ratification by all the states. The EU messed up at every stage during the development of this constitution. It's dead. They need to go back to the drawing board and start again, and not bother the good people of Europe with referenda until they have a decent text. I'm no expert on the national constitutions of those countries that have already ratified this constitution, but I expect many of them will need to ratify any replacement constitution, including the Spanish needing to vote again (I know Ireland would need to).

The only wriggle room is to give the French something which doesn't involve changing the constitution, for example scrapping the UK rebate, but that (hopefully) is a non-starter.

O tempora! O mores... :-(

f c,
what does that mean? Is it something to do with nostalgia?

It means: I have a horrible feeling the dream of European Unity could be about to unravel in front of our eyes, and that anyone who doesn't share that dream will be getting ready to open the champagne bottles about now. (an admittedly loose translation-the link you gave, o c, gives a rather more literal translation).

Carlos

After last years Constitution was agreed, Fianna Failers were proclaiming Ahern as a great European statesman to rival Monnet ans Schuman. Unfortunately, the press down here bought this story and portrayed Ahern as the Hero of Europe.

I can't see France and Britain passing the same constitution.

Martin, if the next EU treaty was to cut back the EU's powers, isn't it possible it would pass in both France and Britain?

No matter what the eventual outcome of the constitutional process the same problems will still have to be answered by the EU.

At the minute the EU requires unanimity. The problem is that unanimity will be close to impossible across 25 States. Yet the benefits that the EU has brought in terms of equalising access to markets across Europe and providing a baseline in terms of social responsibility ( a key economic determinant)cannot survive in a nationalistic free for all.

I fully support the international agreements on the environment, on free movement of people, on the Fundamental Rights,on working practices, etc, that the EU has produced, but these cannot survive in a system when individual nations have no incentive to compromise

Those who are arguing against the Treaty ( as far as I'm concerned, it's not a constitution - it's a Treaty.) have no answer to that big question. Instead we have a steady stream of self interested politicos saying that the Treaty will not suit us, whether it is because the French will lose the assumtion of their directing Europe, or the Dutch want to mark their anger at the recent murders of prominent politicians or movie makers.

The big question must still be answered and the ways of the past, with national interest at its core, simply will not work.

Yes, very possible.

But successive EU treaties have given increasing powers to the EU. I don't foresee this changing.

It's interesting to see the elite struggling to come to terms with what the people have said.

Instead of high-falutin' ideas about Euro Defence Forces and Euro Diplomatic Corps (Single European Language anyone? Thought not...), why do we not get on with streamlining and improving what we already have?

The EU has great potential in very many ways, but we need fewer power-hungry maniacs, and more people power!

Alan claims:
Those who are arguing against the Treaty ( as far as I'm concerned, it's not a constitution - it's a Treaty.) have no answer to that big question.

The answer is very simple: If you can't get unanimity then simply don't make a decision. If the 25 states don't want to have the same social and economic system, then they will all be perfectly happy to have different systems. On this, the No camp across Europe are totally at one and are not contradicting themselves.

The constitution supporters make the mistake over and over again of deluding themselves that one size fits all. Compromise is not needed when it's not necessary to make a decision.

Whilst all around and sundry pontificate; it is all about Iraq.

life is about making decisions and often the harder the decision, the better the outcome. Look at the the introduction of welfare, look at the National Health Service, look at entering the EU. They were all difficult decisions that made a difference.

Failing to make decisions at international level will result in dislocation for Europe's economy and for the peripheral regions in particular.

If, to take just one instance, Europe (not individual countries, but Europe) fails to negotiate access to Chinese markets on an even playing field and has to rely on individual countries making their own arrangements, what is to stop one country agreeing to act as a conduit for Chinese goods and flooding Europe with cheap products without reciprocation by China?

The longer we put off decisions on how Europe makes decisions, the more difficult the decision becomes, but that decision will still have to be made.

I'll repeat myself - The big question must still be answered and the ways of the past, with national interest at its core, simply will not work.

We'll be back....

Alan, in response to the points you raised at 7:36am:

You gave a list of good decisions. But you seem to be suggesting that all hard decisions are good ones. Say that to those who were against Mr. Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq. Or Mrs. Thatcher being pushed into the ERM. There are countless examples of good and bad decisions. I'm sure you and others could think of more.

You, just like the EU leaders, have still failed to give a single reason to vote Yes, and continue to dodge this issue as you have just tried to do.

The EU and it's predecessors have always been trading blocs, and will negotiate trade deals with China et cetera as a bloc, just as Europe has always done.

I have already made my decision on how Europe should make decisions, an my decision is: 1) more free market and free trade; 2) make better decisions on regulation and business; 3) make no decision, except by unanimity, on crucial issues like criminal justice and human rights. 4) More cooperation on other areas like the environment is no bad thing either, but should be done my unanimity.

You may not like my decisions and opinions, but you can no longer deny that I, and others like me, have a comprehensive and workable view on the future of Europe.

Alan said: I'll repeat myself - The big question must still be answered and the ways of the past, with national interest at its core, simply will not work.

It seems like I'll have to repeat myself again. I have a comprehensive and workable answer to all your questions, and my general position on an end to integration is in tune with much, if not most, of Europe's population.

Putting a stop on integration is without a doubt a realistic option. Will you admit that this is so, while of course you may suggest a preference for more integration.

As for your complain about national interest and the ways of the past, what makes you think that any country should sacrifice itself for the other countries? Which country would you like to enslave? If you genuinely believe that the EU decisions will benefit all the member states, then you will have no problem insisting on unanimity. If a country vetoes in it's national interest, it actually means it's vetoing on behalf of real people (EU citizens no less) whose job/health/way-of-life is on the line.

The "national interest" of which you complain is also a good thing. The map of Europe is pretty much what it is nowadays because the people in the countries get along pretty well and see things the same way (it's not perfect as our local difficulties in NI demonstrate but anyway ..). Therefore the national government is a better protector of the real people in those countries than is the EU. No decision the EU makes can be a good decision unless the national governments support it.

We both believe that Europe is capable of a lot, and that the EU may well be the vehicle, but the idea that millions of people should simply be ordered to sacrifice is a disgrace.

Democracy on all levels from local council to EU Parliament works by polling the electorate. Each voter votes selfishly, and the only way to approximate the "common good" is to count up all the selfish votes. Anything else conjures up this absurd idea of everyone sacrificing with nobody gaining but somehow the "common good" is improved. The common good is defined by selfish individuals.

I have probably repeated myself too much. Good night!

The Dutch will definitely say no too. The French no would increase if they were asked to vote again ;you gotta understand their psyche. If text was re-jigged or more patronisingly simplified for French and issued as a Ladybird Edition, others (les anglo-saxons) would object to their favourite bits being excised plus - as others above have rightly said, those who have already ratified would have to repeat the process ab initio.

In short a real mess ; no soft off-shuns here!

I have every confidence that T.Blair will sort all of this out very quickly (not)

Right now if obliged I would vote no - not good institutionally for all the small countries ; this is (was ?) a constitution for the gang of four Euro "superpowers" to ponce the world stage waltz with Bush.