 |
|
planet
|
|
is the eu con really that bad?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:23
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Atahualpa
Wishful thinking... I hardly believe that. Politics don't work that way. You have your agenda and you want to push it through with whatever legal (or sometimes) illegal means. If the people don't accept it, you put a nicer tissue around it and you're done. |
It's not exactly that easy in European politics. The difference between European and national politics is that the team in power doesn't have one agenda, but plenty of competing agenda.
Many politicians were underwhelmed by the constitution, but they supported it because it was a consensual text that had been written after months of hard work. If the constitution fails in several countries, the politicians (save a few hardcore supporters of this particular constitution) will not try to get it passed, to the bitter end.
During the diplomatic negociations on the constitution, the question of a two-tier Europe was seriously considered, before being swept under the rug, because they strived to reach a consensus. This shows that the consensus was very difficult. Unless they put to vote the very same text (which is unlikely IMO, because Chirac's amazing unpopularity will probably result in an even stronger non vote, by a population that tires of being called the "bad pupils"), then a new text will have to be negociated.
Since the difficult consensus didn't work this time, I think the negociators won't be able to find a better consensus that has a better chance of resist the test of a referendum. That's why they will need imagination.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001 time: 05:23
|
|
quote: If another vote is organized, the part III should be deleted. Part III was intended to rewrite all the previous treaties, but that was not required in a constitutional text, and it can be done separately. This deletion would reduce enormously the number of Non voters who are generally infuriated by the policies (part III), much more than by the chart of fundamental rights, or part I. |
Yes. Part III should never have been put in the treaty we are asked to vote upon. Here's an excerpt (page 125), roughly translated: "Until 1998, blah blah. Afterwards, unitl 2001, more blah blah". Half a page for stuff that has been obsolete for years. Most of the stuff in Part III is either already in effect or obsolete, but people will vote against it mostly because of this part.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23. Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|