« A Charter of fundamental rights | Main | Cool resources - thanks EMP Bonde! »


Marcel de Vries

what's the fact that the majority of MEP's approved the constitution got to do with whether or not it's any good?

I am vehemently opposed because this sets in stone the undemocratic way that the EU functions in and makes it worse by removing our veto on virtually everything. It's downright treason to support it, it's a worthless document.


Well, I would argue that the fact that democratically elected MEPs have approved a text gives it more legitimacy. Like a law voted by a national parliament, it gives legitimacy, but does not prove it is good (e.g. 35-hour working week in France.).
Having a veto is nice, but not very convenient when 25 countries have to agree. If The Netherlands or France cannot manage to get at least a third of the EU countries to oppose a law, it may mean than they are bad negotiatiors or that it may not be good for the EU as whole.


Imagine you are an organization that came up with a product that was rejected by the people,should not it then be scrapped?It would be in a free society.

Hew BG

The analogy is too simplistic, I fear.

Let's try the following:

You are an organisation with a product that you hope consumers will want to buy. The problem you have is that your consumers are already buying another product (citizens of member states electing their own governments). Your product, however, fundamentally changes the way that consumers buy their current product and removes some of its value, though they will still have to pay the same amount for it.

Not so simple now...

On the substantive topic though, I believe that the people of the UK need to be given clear, factual, non-partisan information on the effect that the constitution will have upon their democracy. On that basis, the EU ought not to spend our money either on promoting the constitution or on giving information, as this will - of necessity - be partisan.


The analogy is just plain wrong sorry.

Your company is risking its own money to promote its product, if the customers do not buy it the development and promotional costs of the product is a loss to the company. In the case of the EU it we the customers who have to foot the bill, not the EU the EU has no money of its own.

The other point is that in this instance it is the EU which wants the Constitution with its transfer of powers from the member states, the EU has set out its stall, and now it is up to the members states to individually decide if they want to accept the Constitution, the institutions of the EU have no place in this debate.

The comments to this entry are closed.