You were so funny moving towards Hungary but meaning to go for Ireland xD

I think for the Netherlands the biggest objection was that we - as the biggest net payer based on GDP to the EU and having a relatively small voting power - didn’t want to loose the unanimous vote on the EU budget as we want to be able to block any increase on that from our side

@joaquin.5692

Жыл бұрын

Seems reasonable

@JoaoDias-et6cd

Жыл бұрын

​@@joaquin.5692No it doesn't, it's rather selfish of them. They very much love it when they can still our companies with unfairly low taxes on profits, but when the time comes when they're not the ones who'll be the most benefited, that's when they see a problem 🤡

@ruudvanoijen1844

Жыл бұрын

Dont forget the european project is based on economics en money. Nothing more

@bdg88

Жыл бұрын

@@JoaoDias-et6cd We see a problem when we have to pay billions again to bail out failing southern countries. Countries which often have a shadow economy going on which their government fails to tax properly. If you want to talk about low taxes, look at your own countries NHR programme lol.

@cormoranoimperatore8413

Жыл бұрын

@@bdg88 I thought the EU was about mutual collaboration as well though or am I wrong?

I remember the Lisbon Treaty vote in Ireland. Our government did an awful job explaining what it was. I remember a lot of people around me voting against it simply because the government was being so silent on what it was going to do.

@davianthule2035

Жыл бұрын

The Lisbon treaty was necessary but yeh biffo and co were fuckers on it, the even though the Lisbon treaty protected our neutrality and increased the power of the parliament, and most importantly provided an exit mechanism to the eu

@soeppoes8949

Жыл бұрын

Let's be honest here though; when a government is very quiet on something, and doesn't go out of its way to explain it thoroughly, it comes off as pretty suspicious and doubtful to the people.

@antoinebaldur2941

Жыл бұрын

Most French people rejected the Constitution because of the economic part, which had nothing to do with it and, what's more, would have been anti-social.

@hungrymusicwolf

Ай бұрын

@@soeppoes8949 One of the smartest things a corrupt democratic government can do to sway a vote to negative is be silent and let rumors fly. They're already untrustworthy so the suspicion will do all the heavy lifting.

That joke about Hungary 😂

@skape924

Жыл бұрын

+

@ANDR0iD

Жыл бұрын

I hate my goverment... We are a joke 😢

@Turnil321

Жыл бұрын

@@ANDR0iD Your government is well-liked by the Russian government and the American Republican party. So not everyone hates it.

@ANDR0iD

Жыл бұрын

@@Turnil321 Thanks, great people to be liked by 😂

@offnight1

Жыл бұрын

@@ANDR0iD yes, I love your people and architecture, I personally have friend from Budapest, but your pro Putin government are messing up things

I remember voting in the referendum in the Netherlands to ratify this constitution and even though i was in favor of the idea, i had to vote against it due to certain passages within the proposed constitution that i could not in good conscience agree with. It included a total ban on human cloning including the prohibition to create human embryos for research purposes and a prohibition on the modification of the genome. These would have had dire consequences in regard to treating genetic diseases and the development of new medications.

I like the idea of the Constitution, and I think the EU constitution will make EU look less bureaucratic, but I understand that most people won't be in favour, and in this moment is bit too much, it will only rise euroskepticism.

@pierren___

Жыл бұрын

It would be better to have a confederation, with 1 voice by states.

@DELTA-one

Жыл бұрын

Well, let me put it this way: EU-skepticism is caused because of the national Newspapers and TV Broadcasters. Why? Because many of 'em don't offer alot of the good news from Brussels and/or Strasbourg. But they are rumbling brilliantly against the EU if they pass a law some conservative or nationalist Medias in some Countries think this topic might give those Medias more attention, so the people are bying more often that newspaper or watching more often that News Channel. And when i campare the TVnews in particular all across Europe, there aren't alot of reports or even reports in depth on TV about or from the EU-(Institutions) or even Live-Debates (EU-Parliamant and the Commission), and if so, the most people tend not to watch those, as it is then broadcasted on "Niche-Channels". Those Niche-Channels are watched on average only by 1-2% (or even under 1%) of the Society of the whole Country. I could go more in depth, but i want to keep it simple. Nobody wants to read an Ecyclopedia noadays. To be honest: Where and how do you inform yourself about this Topic? Hopefully not only via YT, Insta & Co?! Allthough this and other channerls is doing a quite good job. Ok, Ireland mistaken with Hungary. So that's why you should rather professional News and check always the facts that are thrown at you.

@francescot5012

Жыл бұрын

Mi entute konsentas.

@yoannbelleville7763

Жыл бұрын

@@pierren___ A one voice by state system would be undemocratic. It would allow for laws to be passed without the consent of most of the European population. A proportional voting system (as often mentioned on this channel) would be far more representative of the peoples will.

@pierren___

Жыл бұрын

@@yoannbelleville7763 haha ! Certainly not. Remember that some countries are very small. They have no chance. A confederation is better suited because each head of state would not be forced to apply whatever.

I think the problem with the USA is that an entire continent will never have agreement on anything and there will be massive political division between regions. I think Europe trying to follow in its footsteps is foolish and arrogant, as if Europeans won't have the same problem as the USA in terms of divisive politics. Having each country with higher indepence as it does now is better as it allows each member state to experiment and do its own thing with some reasonable restrictions. For example, Germany is generally anti-nuclear power, but France gets around 70% of its power from it. What if there was a vote or a national budget that negatively affect the nuclear industry? It would be awful. I think pushing for a totally united Europe would do more against peace and progress than for it. Im pro-EU because it has done so much for Ireland and the rest of Europe, but I think it has done this more by finely balancing cohesion and independence. A swing in either direction will be detrimental to its public support and efficacy.

@eacraig

Ай бұрын

I think this comment shows your ignorance on how the USA actually works constitutionally. Yes we have different needs in different areas. Those needs are taken care of by the states. Our federal government may help in many cases but most things are left each state to handle. Every state in our union is like one of your countries hence the term state! Each state has their own lays that govern them, each state has its own constitution as well. The problem with the EU constitution Was that Its representation always favored larger states. Its senate was based on size as well as its house. That is not a fair thing. With the USA the senate always has 2 representatives from each state to consider the states needs. House is fair for population representation. Originally the senate reps was Appointed by the states Legislatures and Governors. That changed with the 17th amendment in 1913 where the senators was directly elected by the people. Watch some videos about the US constitution before you comment on it. Don't be ignorant.

For me a „United Sates of Europe“ is a stupid idea, we all have our own language our own culture and our own Parlament, I think building a State of all European countries would argue we are one nationality but we’re not and i think most smaller countries will risk losing there identity due to the imbalance of population and migration. Building such a super State is in my opinion just another attempt of people to draft a European Empire under there banner. What Europe needs is a federation of equals where we help and support each other / have equal rights and independent politics but act together as a sort of club. Building a State is to much and disregards 2000 years of History in favor of a newly created „European“ society/culture. I get why the commission wants more power and wants to build a state, but there powerful enough and the State is destained to fail if it’s forced upon people by integration projects.

@merlinkrause

Жыл бұрын

Languages, cultures and parliaments can change and have always changed. The nationalities of most countries in Europe were invented during the 18th and 19th century. Germany and France, as the biggest European countries by population, for example, were not in any sense unified in the aspects you mentioned above. Germany was divided into 300-something different states until Napoleon came along in 1803/06 and what we regard as "French" today was only spoken in 15 out of 83 departements in 1793, which is when there was a school law made on the 21st October 1793, which ordered all children to learn French. So why not repeat the process that roughly happened 200 years ago and build on what connects us on a bigger scale? I don't see how a European Empire would be a bad idea. It could give us all the strength to not simply be a plaything of Russia, China or the US. Also, if you ever lived on a different continent for an extended period of time, you'd realize we, as Europeans, have much more in common than what divides us.

@lynox172

Жыл бұрын

@@merlinkrause i visited many countries and i have seen that most of them have so many subcultures that it make them strong I am German and the legacy and cultures remain to this day just like in France(basq). The attempt at „creating an empire“ has already been tried in China who have annihilated many cultures by war to creat there realm. If we want an European empire it will need to be more than a country were everyone speaks the same language and it can’t be another attempt of forcing us together that is not different from H!tler and the Romans. Creating a culture of want for an Empire is megalomaniacal and will more likely destroy 2000 years of culture development and history while creating a Nation only being held together by a strong hand ( historical example: British empire, mongol empire, Roman Empire). Cultures change overtime but using this as an excuse to forcefully change them is not right, cultures evoke naturally over time out of progress of technology, state and climate. Any outside interference has proved fatal , the Romans tried to „change“ the cultures but it only led to them evolving the other way. In my opinion the only EU state that will work is a federation in which cultures evolve naturally and not by „integration“ programs and a state in which history relations and culture standards are respected, you can’t „create“ an empire from nothing it is a process that comes to pass and while we have a lot of similarities we also have many differences, this is how it also was in the Frankish, Roman and Persian Empire. They were strong because they didn’t change cultures but because they led them evolve and so profited from a variety of cultures. You could argue now that there were examples in Rome were the culture was changed, but if you look at Spain and Italy for example you soon notice that they already back then were very different. Finally the best attempt at a European state building lies in my opinion in the congress/ concert of Europe were everybody was respected and were cultures flourished as a result of growing side by side. If the EU is to be a State then we will grow into a State like brothers, not like subjects( we have already done this to too many nations)

@covfefe1787

Жыл бұрын

@@merlinkrause dont let the little hat people get to you like that. ethnicities have always existed in Europe irrespective of the borders. there was always a French and German ethnicity since the fall of the Roman Empire. multi ethnic states are failures I give you Yugoslavia and Austro Hungarian empire for examples of diversity is a failure example.

@crazeelazee7524

Жыл бұрын

@@merlinkrause "The nationalities of most countries in Europe were invented during the 18th and 19th century." Holy shit, you could have just told us your only experience with history is being hit on the head by a history book and left it at that.

@merlinkrause

Жыл бұрын

@@crazeelazee7524 Ouch. To all three of you. Please read the Wikipedia article on nationalism to at least get a basic grasp of things.

this is the problem with europhiles you don’t understand that people in europe don’t want a superstate. people want cooperation but not a superstate and when you force people into political union as happened in yugoslavia chaos happens

i was there in France, and the fear for sovereignty was not the main problem. E-mails were a thing at this time, long before the social networks, but already all the peolple, even my grand-parents were behind their mailboxes. And we had to face the most agressive mail disinformation campaign i've never see, and i've never seen after. All the far right (cause of nationalism) and the far left ( cause the paper began by "EU is an organization based upon free market") created incredibly stupid but efficient hoaxes. I was the only one of all my friends and family to have read the constitution we all received, most of them voted no, with each time stupid reasons based upon this disinformation "they say polish workers will steal all the jobs because of the #35 section " and so on.

@EUMadeSimple

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the info. I was way too young at that time to care :). This is the difficulty with referendums.

@Pouncer9000

Жыл бұрын

There's also the problem with referendums, that if you don't hold them often enough they're more likely to be used to as a way to express a general dissatisfaction rather than an opinion of the subject at hand *cough*brexit*cough*

@SP95

Жыл бұрын

Turns out Polish workers stole those jobs and France faced two decades of shameful brain drains as well as a spectacular collapse of its own local industries. Today the social democrat president just announced a new phase of protectionism which is what the nationalists always wanted ever since the birth of the UESSR.

@kennyb5537

Жыл бұрын

I dont think you understand the French people so please Shhhhhh

@Jujupiter

Жыл бұрын

I voted yes at the referendum and I remember that at the time, few people around me were interested in that referendum. I remember speaking to a friend who said he would vote no to oppose then-President Chirac. There was a lot of talk as well about how the treaty could trigger more privatisation, there was thinly veiled xenophobia about Eastern workers stealing jobs, and so on... There was also the possibility of an alternative treaty, though the people advancing that argument never came up with a credible solution. This whole thing felt like a missed occasion. Maybe people should have been more included from the start to think about the changes they want, the challenges we are facing, etc. But then you look at the Conference on the Future of Europe, which to me was a good idea but I don't know whether it reached as many people as it should have, and as far as I know, it still hasn't delivered any result.

Short answer: they said "no" because the question was asked to the people by referendum, not to politicians. Fun fact: politicians decided the answer was not the right answer and signed the Lisbon treaty anyway.

@hungrymusicwolf

Ай бұрын

So, the reason is that the democratic country asked its people what they wanted on an important topic? Like an actual democracy? If that's the problem for your proposal then your proposal is the problem.

@gontrandjojo9747

28 күн бұрын

@@hungrymusicwolf I don't understand what you mean, probably because you didn't understand what I wrote in the first place.

@hungrymusicwolf

28 күн бұрын

@@gontrandjojo9747 I think I misplaced my comment. I remember commenting this on another comment. My bad fam. That person said something about it being a problem.

In France we didn’t vote for the treaty of Lisbonne It was impose to us

It failed because we are not like the American states without national identities. In the US there is a national identity : American . There is not a European identity but multiple nations like France, Greece with their own specific history and values. And no I don’t believe we need to be together to stand against other powers : France was a power in itself under King Louis XIV, it is time we reconcile with the same ambition.

@elvishprincess321

Жыл бұрын

Exactly! The US states were all territories which were settled & formed in a similar fashion so those states coming together in a union worked much more fluidly (yet even the states had civil wars!) Meanwhile the countries of europe are made up of ancient kingdoms very different culturally from each other, totally different from the formation of the US!

@RandomHuman1103

Жыл бұрын

True

I hope we won't get a EU constitution. Here in the Netherlands, we're already feeling the effects of EU-wide policy on nitrogen, the economy and various other areas. Part of it is also the national government, who tend to go a bit further than EU policy, but there's no doubt that many of these policies are EU based or EU inspired. For example, we're having to preserve nature, and in order to do that, the government has decided to cut down our nitrogen output, which has caused building projects to be halted, speed limits on highways to be lowered and farmers having to go out of business. The situation is especially bad for them, with some farmers having committed suicide out of desperation. The Netherlands is a densily populated country, so EU-wide policies on nature that would work in countries like Spain or Sweden, just don't work here. And we cannot vote against it, because environmental groups can just go to court, point to EU-law and shoot it down. And there's tons of other difficulties that we're facing due to EU policy. It would make much more sense if countries could make up their own laws. The way we're doing it now, we're just being governed by foreigners. It's very anti-democratic.

@obelic71

Жыл бұрын

Correct moving one cm into Germany or Belgium and their is no problem with Nox deposites. Dutch Politicians shot themself in the foot by making EU rules more strict. Our country is kept hostage by ngo's who enforce those by Dutch politicians made laws in court. Even EU politicians like Frans Timmermans was pissed, because of the told lies that those rules were pushed and enforced by the EU on to the Netherlands. We Dutch citizens are really fed up with narcistic politicians who won't solve real problems. It says enough when Dutch citizens ( who historicly protest the least in Europe) go more on the streets to protest then the French!

"we" didn't vote yes. There were referenda in the Netherlands and France the first time. For the second time they didn't bother to have a referendum as they feared we would vote no again. In the Netherlands our prime minister said: "the thing you disliked were the European flag and anthem so we remove them and we can move on." And even that was worthless as you see the flag everywhere now on government buildings.

@RandomHuman1103

Жыл бұрын

Its just a power grab,nothing else

I'm french and i voted no not because it's a loss of soveirgnty but because it was not a constitution treaty. I remember in this treaty many article was about economics rules and impose privatisation of a large part of french national company such as électricity gas and health compagny. I don't think it's fair to Say it's only for an intégration and a democratic purpose

The eu becoming one country might be the stupidest thing ive ever heard...

@SP95

Жыл бұрын

marxists keep trying to make europe a country, they are way too jealous of the US to leave them alone.

@GreatRetro

Жыл бұрын

@@flyveto457 You are sooooo naiv, lol! ^_^

@herospeedy3174

Жыл бұрын

@@flyveto457 so autocracy it is?

@jakubzov

Жыл бұрын

Nah that's based af

In France people voted "no" to the constitution by référendum and it was the Parliament who voted "yes" for the treaty of Lisbonne, people were not invited to vote directly this time

A constitution for the European Union would be a backwards idea that wouldn't work. There are way too many cultural differences besides the fact that a lot of nations joined the EU if they could stay sovereign so it would go against EU principle. Especially since the EU is meant to be a trade union. The second issue is that the stronger economies would have to carry the weaker ones even more which would be simply unfair towards the citizens of the economically stronger nations.

I would love an EU constitution, and more movement towards something like Federalization (but nu the USA style, maybe something more tailored for europeans). Tbh, I don't see Europe being something big in the international context the way it is right now. We could compare EU GDP/progress/population to other super powers, like China and USA. But instead, we have to compare european countries, that cannot be above the others

@eddiewinehosen6665

Жыл бұрын

The EU is BS and the less they have to say about things the better. They're already trampling on the rights of sovereign countries and you want to give them more power? Talk about swallowing the EU propaganda hook, line and sinker!

@cald1421

Жыл бұрын

What would you propose as the European tailored federalism? I think the US style federalism is well suited to a multi National entity like the EU. That way legitimate concerns about national sovereignty would be addressed and the states would share sovereignty with a central and supreme government

@nar2cc

Жыл бұрын

​​@@cald1421 I disagree, as an irish myself I believe it should be somewhere more on the lines of a confederation, I dont think I wouldnt like a Centre legal body in a completely foreign country (Brussels) who doesnt have a notion of the priorities of my country but "EU" priorities.

@cald1421

Жыл бұрын

@@nar2cc Maybe there could be a rotating capital and states would of course have representation in the central government. That’s why US federalism is best. There’s a federal (not central) government that can act in the best interests of everyone but the institutions ensure foreign interests don’t counteract you’re own. For instance there are two bodies laws must pass through, one where states have votes according to population and one where all states have an equal vote so a smaller nation like Ireland couldn’t be ignored. And of course states share sovereignty with the federal government so in this case Ireland would still have authority over its own domestic affairs with a general police power

@nielskorpel8860

Жыл бұрын

So... if the EU is one entity, it becomes bigger because you can add up all the smaller numbers? Is that your point?

You guys got me when you were zooming on Hungary.

One simple reason for me to have voted no. A 'constitution' should not be so large it requires days to read. It should be a framework for making law, and not a treaty arranging everything in detail.

Well, as a Norwegian I can safely say, we will stay out of that mess as long as possible.

@Maria-pk7mr

Жыл бұрын

LOL

@ugaboga9829

Жыл бұрын

As a Norwegian, i agree. I don’t like the colour of the EU flag. The blue to be more specific.

@Mosern1977

Жыл бұрын

@@a.m.4148 - that's because it doesn't say "made in Norway" on your oil and gas. And maybe you don't eat fish. And you probably won't see made in Norway on your car's aluminum sub-frame. There is a reason Switzerland and Norway is not in the EU club...

@ugaboga9829

Жыл бұрын

@A. M. EU is cool and we wish to be great partners with them both now and in the future, but joining the EU it’s just not for us. Sorry:)

@ugaboga9829

Жыл бұрын

Change the colour of the flag and i might change my view.

I love the whole "cause the euro was such a success" bit... it became obvious very soon that the northern part of europe and the south have vastly different opinions on how money was to be divided, the general concensus is more towards "in hindsight we should have had 2 different euros" For example billions went to italia to solves issues in healthcare back in 2003, f all happened and then italia gets pissed when the dutch veto extra covid support, yeah lets throw more money down a well.

@crazeelazee7524

Жыл бұрын

Italy is a net provider in the EU, get your facts straight. There's a difference between being a leech and needing help during a rough patch.

@Alakablam

Жыл бұрын

@crazeelazee7524 being a net provider says nothing bout money management and or corruption etc. But without working in healthcare you wouldn't get what I'm saying anyway, it happened, look it up

I don’t like the idea, I’m from the Netherlands. It speaks for itself

@kerim.s8801

Жыл бұрын

Same from Germany

I think you left out the major reason why France voted against: the treatment of religion on the European Costitution. From the effort of nation like Poland and Italy, Christanity was put explicity put as an integral part of the european identity. An addition that wasn't very popular in France, historically proponent of "liberty *of* and *from* religion". Maybe if that was cut out, France could have actually supported the Costitution.

@niallmurray6089

Жыл бұрын

You're bang on about France being incredibly secular and many countries wanted a preamble that mentioned Christianity, which France definitely opposed. However, I believe the final version of the Constitution didn't actually include that preamble, it was only an idea floated in previous drafts.

@GreatRetro

Жыл бұрын

lol, without Christianity Europeans have more reasons to hate and kill each other!!! It seems that you are not a very good learner of history, m8!

@gontrandjojo9747

Жыл бұрын

I think you have no fucking idea of the concerns of the average Frenchman. Who the fuck cared about Christianity? Most of people didn't even read the Constitution or cared about the "religion" part of the constitution. Most of people just thought: "Prices increase with the Euro, EU bad, industries leave for eastern Europe because cheap labor, immigration, etc..." When it comes to vote, French people think only about their wallet.

I think they first should make a start with harmonizing laws within the EU and in time go from there .

@liepsan

Жыл бұрын

What he said.

"You need Democracy!" cried the unelected unaccountable European [Union] Commission.

@RandomHuman1103

Жыл бұрын

Yes,bunch of despots

@definitlynotbenlente7671

Жыл бұрын

@@RandomHuman1103 the eu comission is indirectly elected trhough the national govenrment of each country furthermore the u parlement is directly elected and many countrys have similar democratic defisits in their government like the first chamber in the netherlands

@RandomHuman1103

Жыл бұрын

@@definitlynotbenlente7671 Goverment electing more Goverment isn't really democratic,while i have never heard about EU parlament elections,no have i seen voting taking place near me

@definitlynotbenlente7671

Жыл бұрын

@@RandomHuman1103 i voted for parlem3nt the last election

On June 1, 2005, a consultative referendum was held in the Netherlands on the European Constitution. A majority of voters (more than 61 percent) voted against. It was the first national referendum in our country. Three days earlier, the French had also rejected the Constitution in a referendum. Although the Dutch referendum was consultative and not binding, the House of Representatives factions that were themselves in favor also stated that they would respect the result. Due to the outcome, the cabinet subsequently withdrew the bill that was supposed to regulate official approval. The question put to voters was: Are you for or against the Netherlands' acceptance of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe? According to the official results, 61.5 percent were against the European Constitution and 38.5 percent in favor. The turnout was 63.3 percent.

I'm very glad this didn't go through as I don't think many people would be happy with it. Also, I think a country like the United States of Europe would not last long and would sooner or later Balkanize.

I remember being in the Netherlands and creating bad photoshop posters against the european constitution when I had no idea what I was talking about (well, very little of an idea anyway) There was definitely an air of "this is something our government is trying to "slip by us"" and we didn't like it. And yeah, the "EU had just introduced the euro" but a lot of people got the feeling that the introduction of the euro made life significantly more expensive. I have no idea how accurate that this, I imagine there were other factors at play there. I do definitely think even if I were better informed I still would have been quite concerned about the idea of a European constitution and would probably have voted against it. A couple decades later though, I am not so sure anymore.

@Neko-

Жыл бұрын

For the dutch, the Guilder value was linked to the Deutsch Mark in Germany. When the Euro got introduced however it was stated that 1 Euro would be valued at 2,20 Guilders. So for every 22 Guilders, you'd get 10 Euros. It was later found that the Guilder/Euro coupling was flawed. As such we should have gotten 10 Euros for every 20 Guilders. So in the transition to the Euro the dutch _lost_ money. Not to mention that the price of goods should have halved based on that, but actually got halved and then got a bit added... So everything you bought also got more expensive. (something that cost 5 Guilders, should have cost 2,50 Euros, but instead cost 2,75 Euros). And considering the fact that the constitution got rebranded as the Lisbon Treaty (some things were skipped, but the majority was retained. As a treaty it could be accepted without a referendum by the dutch) that means the government did indeed 'slipped that constitution' past the people... And with a modus operandi like that, which has since been validated in other fields, it's clear why the EU as a political circus isn't trusted. They seem to pushtheir own agenda through despite the opinion of the citizens living in the country. Thus the resentment against the EU continues to grow.

France voted Yes to the Lisboa Treaty ? Funny, I don't recall the vote results. Ah yes, there was no vote. Also, the main problem with the TCE (not a constitution in itself, a treaty establishing a constitution) was that free trade, an economic policy in its own right, was written in it - hence, Non.

Erm, just in the first 10 seconds I have an issue. I really really don't like equating "nation" with "country", ESPECIALLY in the European context. If you tell people that forming a federal European state is "making Europe into one nation", people will inevitably scream "Ahhh NO! We MUST oppose the EU!!! They want to erase X nation off the map! My culture will not go down without a fight!!!" A federal EU state =/= no more Italy, or Poland, or Denmark and certainly not the erasure of your cultural identities.

@dejabu24

Жыл бұрын

there should be an article in the constitution in which the federal government will guarantee the current ethnic and cultural distribution of europe,(only for europeans) you don't need 27 governments to do that

@neuralwarp

Жыл бұрын

"Federal European State doesn't mean no more Italy" .. is that like "an Italian State doesn't mean no more Kingdom of Sardinia, Sicily, .." ?

@falsevacuum4667

Жыл бұрын

@@neuralwarp Not quite. Italy was unified through conquest and coercion and today is a unitary state. That's quite different from a voluntary federal union like Switzerland. That's also not to say that regional Italian identities still exist as well.

Most French people who voted against the European constitution did not do so for a question of national sovereignty. There were articles which had nothing to do with a constitution but were more concerned with laws (and not fundamental laws) subject to the sensitivity of parliament and which had nothing to do with a constitutional treaty.

A constitution would be nice, and I think there is a chance for something similar. After the conference on the future of Europe there was talk about a potential changing of some of the EU treaties, so maybe merging them into one document under a name other than "constitution" wouldn't be too impossible.

@mkooij

Жыл бұрын

There already is something similar which they put into effect right after we said no. It's called the treaty of Lisbon which act nearly identical to the constitution we said no to

@charlesjenner1951

Жыл бұрын

@@mkooij Not identical at all : The Lisbon Treaty of December 2007 includes just seven articles. The existing two European treaties it amended are : 1) the Treaty on European Union (TEU), comprising 55 articles: established by the Treaty signed in Maastricht in 1992 and subsequently amended by the Treaties of Amsterdam (1997) and Nice (2001); 2) the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), comprising 358 articles: formerly the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), it was established by the 1957 Treaty of Rome and amended several times by the Single European Act (1986) and the Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice. Compared with the draft constitution: 1) the language evoking a constitutional approach (European laws, Minister of Foreign Affairs, etc.) has not been retained. Similarly, the treaty does not mention the symbols of the Union (European flag, anthem, motto, Europe Day); 2) the Charter of Fundamental Rights is not incorporated directly into a treaty; it is only referred to in the article devoted to fundamental rights (art. 6 TEU), which gives it the same legal value as the treaties; 3) "free and undistorted competition" is not included in the list of EU objectives; 4) the fight against climate change is added to the Union's objectives.

The United States of Europe is much further away right now than then. I think the best idea would to form a super state-country of several states and having the other members more lose .. ditching the EU all together do get around the Veto problem all counties leave the EU and form a constitution and than have like tier2 states .. but this is very unlikely to happen as Europe is the slowest moving ball on the planet. The EU essentially is dead right now there is nothing really happening anymore

i think 1 european nation will not work, there is just too much difference between the countries. I don't think for example the Netherlands is willing to bail out and pay tons and tons of tax money to southern Italy. They have a whole 0.10 HDI difference, a whole different culture, and some rules just don't work in other places. Yes, i think cooperation is useful, and we definitely need that, but fully integration into 1 country, and losing almost all your voting power seems kinda weird. Rules that france or Germany want implemented will most definitely go through, even when other, smaller nations might suffer due to those rulings. but that's just my perspective.

@Bouzhe

Жыл бұрын

If the Netherlands gave back the tax on benefit money they siphon from all eu, the other countries would be better off than if they got whatever money those thieves would “give”.

This video sounds like a deja vu... Which shows how we haven't changed as much as we tend to think in the past 20 years... For me it'd be yes for the EU constitution but yeah... I'm quite certain not in the majority.

A European constitution?? Great idea, how do you do it?? Well, complicated, before any referendum about a constitution we HAVE TO draft the qualified majority Veto then a following campaignbof information in every member states about the Constitution's content and the EU then have to be open to critisism and people asking for information, only when a majority is in support of the Constitution, the referendum vote will be able to start. Itis more complicated than this? Oh, you bet it is! There is a more semplified version of this? Not at feicking all!

I think a EU constitution could be something that would help the EU function more smoothly. I would be all in for it! But it's conondrum... Going about it too fast risks breaking the EU, but not pressing for it means people might get complacent with the way things are now and not want any changes.

There are allot of things to discuss and this is a complex topic thst reuires allot to finish, the best thing is to discuss a possible plan that everyone can agree on like giving rights to all member states, europeans dont have a problem with Identity but with language, what would be the official language? This topic is so vast that there is no point for me to discuss it further but you probably get where im coming from with this comment

@BYROXI5000

Жыл бұрын

It's a "problem" who was discussed before: an unifying langue should be the esperanto language. It's an "easy" language who is international and not of any countries. But i don't remember exactly why but the step to unify to this language fails and today the european union still use english in administration.

@rizkyadiyanto7922

Жыл бұрын

whats wrong with english? why find a new one if there is something that has worked?

@BYROXI5000

Жыл бұрын

@@rizkyadiyanto7922 yes that work but that is also a symbol of use of foreign languages and don't allow the european continent to feel up to their own decisions, their own way to become stronger together and make their path. It's symbolical, it's like a subjugation to America and United Kingdom.

@Interitus1

Жыл бұрын

Canada has 2 official langauges, South Africa has 11, Boliva has the most with 37. Official language is not a problem since you can have more than one. No nation would lose their identity by being forced to learn a different language.

@BYROXI5000

Жыл бұрын

@@Interitus1 i agree but administration is administration. It's like do mesurements both in kilometers and in miles. It's a traduction who slow down the process of a already slow process.

EU constitution would be great

@dennisengelen2517

Жыл бұрын

Please tell me how a constitution could work without free Western countries losing basic rights for LGBT and stuff like we have now when homophobic Poland and Hungary have a say in our rights??

@MrGnorts

Жыл бұрын

@@dennisengelen2517 I think they would allow LGB, but not the T and other woke nonsense

@dennisengelen2517

Жыл бұрын

@@MrGnorts Yeah but those countries have already a problem with basic rights such as equal treatment without discrimination and the right of marriage and adoption (without the woke nonsense). So I don't see a constitution working between such countries that even have trouble teaching their kids basic stuff that we we literally can't choose who we love and between our overly woke Western nations where they exaggerate what you can identify as and where Muslims can do whatever they want and are allowed to oppress us with their traditions and sharia law while destroying our culture because black chocolat makes some sensitive ass wokers hurt their feelings.

@dutchman7623

Жыл бұрын

@@dennisengelen2517 What about abortion, euthanasia, free press, no corruption, equal representation, basic democracy? We cannot even built houses or improve our infrastructure, because of the EU, while NRW and the Paris region in France are worse but not held to the same standards. We are the most dense populated country in the EU by far, we do not have, and never had, vast empty regions as compensation for our cities and towns.

@definitlynotbenlente7671

Жыл бұрын

@@dennisengelen2517 the constitution would guarantee rights to citizens of member states becouse it forces local goverments to folow the laws in the cinstitution if for example a goverment wants to become more authoritairian the would have a more dificult time with it becouse the eu constitution would guarantee rights like freedom of speach making it harder to for example ban journalism

This guy is either straight up lying or wrong, we didn't get a new referendum in the Netherlands, where he says we now said yes. So it was just decided to ignore our democracy, and because they made it a treaty instead of constitution, they just bypassed us. Doesn't mean that I don't agree with the contents of the treaty, but i am just saying, the Dutch people were asked the 1st time, the 2nd time just the leaders. Funny stuff

The French have not voted "Yes" for the treaty of Lisbon. It's our representatives (which were and are still) pro-UE that decided to bypass the popular vote in 2005. That was "No". And the common sense says that if the people is the master, in democracy, the will of the people exprimed directly by a Referrendum is more legitimate than the will of the representatives of the people. Especially when the people says "No" and the representatives says "Yes" two years later. Even if the elites were (and are) pro-UE, in that case, you must wait some years and make people re-vote directly by a Referrendum. It was anti-pedagogical and seemed (with good reason for a lot a french people) anti-democratic.

2:28 : "the french voted yes" : It is wrong, the french didn't voted. Our president said yes without ask to the french citizen.

@FrietPiet

Жыл бұрын

Same in The Netherlands. They didn't like the outcome so they just signed.

It wasn't a constitution, it was and it IS a treaty. They added "constitutionnal" only to sell it to the French opinion. A true constitution would have meant, since the EU Law is ABOVE members laws, the end of EVERY states members constitutions and therefore the abolition of republics and monarchies. And NOBODY wanted it. the term "EU Constitution" like every EU communication is misleading and always confronted to the reality of facts.

I read many people saying, They want the EU to federalize so it can get its shit together. I want the EU to get its shit together first and then we can talk about federalizing. To me this has nothing to do with being left or right. My main fears are the concentration of powers because power would be more absolute and in the hands of fewer people as someone suggested. losing right to self determination. Freedoms that where garantued on a local level might no longer be certain under this New EU. And the lack of transparancy that now takes place in the EU and many of EU's governments is also scary if it continues into a federal EU. Another thing is, I would not be surprised at all if the new federalized EU is some sort of an imperial project, a new European Empire, A concept which wars have been fought over in the last two centuries to prevent it from happening. And being a "Europhile" Is just some new form of EU-Nationalism. I'm also currently on the fence about a European army, even tho the argument in favor is a very practical one. So I am definitely in favor of more military cooperation on a Defensive level. And even setting up a sizable response force with a single command structure. Tho I also think the Ukraine war proves that a smaller country can stand up to a larger one if it is prepared well and has its own sizable military, which is probably why Poland is investing so heavily in that. Have always been in favor of the EU as an economic cooperation project as it was meant to be since it was the way it was being pitched to its members trough schools and tv. The idea of a federal EU and a EU constitution therefore sounded very contradictory to what I was told the EU was supposed to be before that moment. So it makes sense that many people voted against in the referendum to me. They were being told it was one thing and then it was like nah we gonna make it something else. These things take time and need to be done right. which probably can only be done once if we don't want to end up like yugoslavia. Also if a federal EU is pushed right now, I'll expect many exits from eastern and southern europe.

Bring on the European Federal Union already.. it's been ages.. the populations across the EU are ageing heavily. The older generations are dragging back progress for innovation and change. Europe can't compete vs giants.. small netherlands, ireland, spain, finland, france etc can't compete e.g. vs 1.4 billion economy China. Those who resist change will eventually be influenced by non-european powers rather than leading path of european integrity and sovereignty. It's common sense that nothing stays static other than the nostalgy of elderly to times of youth that will never go back anyway. Common sense.

@justus4341

Жыл бұрын

Europe has had its best days back in the 19th and 20th century. The sooner you accept that the better.

You have to consider that different peoples come together at the EU level. There is not one EU people like the US people, but everyone comes up with the idea of ​​being different and speaking a different language. But the question arises, should the EU Parliament, elected by the people, decide or the individual heads of state of the countries.

Well, Europe isn't a country, and never has been. Europe has been a continent of many countries, many cultures, many peoples, etc.; they are not the same. The EU will never be one country, they are better off as separate countries.

I hope a unified Europe or a European constitution will never ever happen.

@davianthule2035

Жыл бұрын

Weeeee let's be US and Russian vassals (and increasingly china) foreevvvvvvveeeeer

@_-Naz-_

Жыл бұрын

@@davianthule2035 sounds good to absolutely nobody

@RandomHuman1103

Жыл бұрын

Same

@dutchpatriot17

Жыл бұрын

@@davianthule2035 You're the same guys who cried about European colonial Empires and now you're mad because ''muh we can't play world police anymore''? Make up your mind, do you want Europe to rule the world, yes or no?

@elisebellier9336

11 ай бұрын

@@dutchpatriot17 No. But we don't want to be crushed and ruled by others.

great video :)

Referenda are inherently flawed in that people's votes are heavily influenced by their current opinion in favour of or against the government.

No. here the politics are nuts, spending 60.000.000 euros on climate. . of some euro bureaucrats, who are cutting trees. here in the Netherlands. but houses are in big demand, Almost nothing gets billed.

Swiss style confederation? Woud it help governing and managing this beautiful, vibrant, multi headed Beast?

I think the main problems for the Netherlands is that there was nothing to gain with an EU constitution. A more efficient EU seems nice, but most people feel like all money going to the EU is practicly wasted anyway. The benefits are no trade restrictions and things like the possibilty forseasonal workers also helps. For a trading nation it is important that your neighbours are also doing well, but the main trade partners are GB, GER, FR, BEG and they are already doing pretty fine. An increase in centrilisation means that for a country with a relative small population you have less to say. ( It's a bit like seeing a morron: no problems to be friends with him, but as soon as he's gonna tell me how the world works I'll walk away.) In the Netherlands most things are working pretty good compared to almost all countries in the EU, why let someone who is doing much worse tell you how to do it? (An example: At the start of Corona , the Netherlands and 3 major economies, planned to buy vaccins for 20 euro per piece. They got called out for that by the EU for not being solidair with the rest. So they agreed to buy it as EU, some poorer countries wanted the cheapest for 1 euro. As you can imagine this resulted in multiple months delay. Saving the Netherlands ~400 million in vaccin cost and costing the Netherlands atleast double that amount per week that it got delayed.) Furthermore having an EU defence just leads to countries on the border of the group having an oppurtunity to drag you into a useless war. If the war/ problem location is deemed to be justified the Netherlands is gonna come already. Colleberation in weapons production is already done on a lesser scale with bigger surrounding countries. And at last the Dutch don't like to be told what to do. They can appreciate a leader, but don't like a boss. And the EU is just another boss beside our government. Addition: Also a lot of people that didnt read anything and have no clue what it is about, just vote no because the government suggested it. ( Mostly all consisting of "the lower class of society")

I do like the idea of a EU constitution, but I do think a lot of reform is necessary to insure integrity. I trust the EU commission or parliament as far as I can throw them. Which considering they're abstract entities existing only in our thoughts is not very far. I first want proven reforms and improvements on how democratic AND effective the EU is, and then I'd love to see an EU constitution. Specifically I'd like to see some of the old ways of Dutch politics (Polderen) be applied and where possible required in reforms, where you focus heavily on addressing concerns of those opposing you until you have little to no opposition anymore. Yes, I did watch your videos on the reforms and I did like most of the reforms. I still have some concerns due to how the EU behaved during the Brexit. Slandering and attacking UK citizens for having concerns is NOT a good sign of the attitude and maturity needed for the functioning of democratic institutions. You need to be able to understand concerns and respect others rights to disagree and take their own actions / make their own choices in a democracy, otherwise you'll soon devolve into a tyranny of one form or another with people voting to get their way at the expense of others.

1:41 You went a little overboard with the Wadden Sea islands there. About half of that squiggle is German.

What I wish more people understood about the EU is that: one size doesn't fit all. Too much variation in history, values and traditions. Whilst we're all "Europeans" and more similar than not, any unification just serves to annoy the majority and makes people turn nasty when they think their identity as people of their nations is being over ruled and denied its place to shine. The original idea of the EU was/is good, but todays reality is why we left in the UK. And why other nations will leave. Who knows which, or when. But they will - the red line is different for each country. The UK will set the framework. It has been difficult, but others will be able to get out and avoid the mistakes we made.

@falsevacuum4667

Жыл бұрын

The EU doesn't force countries into one size fits all. The EU is a platform to create one size fits all solutions WHEN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES AGREE TO DO SO, because that solution is more beneficial or can only be solved properly at the continental level.

@sancte3982

Жыл бұрын

The UK government is keen to highlight the "Brexit opportunities" that freedom from EU rules offers. However, the evidence so far that the benefits outweigh the costs is thin on the ground, and their future according to their economy, doesnt give any good signs either. not to talk about the massive trade problems..

@dylanscanlan8153

Жыл бұрын

@@sancte3982 And these are cons that the massive UK economy is facing - could you image a smaller economy leaving the EU? It's incomprehensible, and Brexit has proved that.

@oscarcrespo5660

Жыл бұрын

Stronger together. The UK set a fantastic example of how even being a huge country by European standards leaving the EU has way more cons than pros.

@leescott1775

Жыл бұрын

agree pal ,if the eu was just a trading bloc i would have voted remain but there was too much talk about more intergration, one foreign policy, a eu army, also seemed if 27 agreed and 1 disagreed the latter was railroaded into agreeing.

What does idear mean

0:10 Instead of USE(United State of Europe) i prefer FE(Federacion Europea = European Federation) i want to chose my president and laws and thigs not let representat to chose for me. And each state can add or remove locale tax but federl nop(like USA)

I disagree! It would lead to the concentration of power in a few people... I prefer to go for more territorial autonomy for diversification.

when I get my European citizenship I will vote in favor

@JUAN_OLIVIER

Жыл бұрын

There is no such thing

We were...This....fucking...close to furthering intergration so much, GOD FUCKING DAMNT!

Well as a staunch supporter of Brexit. I am against anything that gives the EU more power. It is always little by little, if everyone in Europe was able to vote on what the EU is now over what it was at the start it would never have been allowed to start. And as it stands now the EU has its fingers in so many pies that would stand on there own.

Europen Constitution shoukd be inteoduced OLNY IF it would set up a clear and transoarent decision making and political process. I mean - e.g. European Comission should be chosen in general voting, not the backstage non-transparent political deals. The same for high EU level posituons. --- Parliament should have been organized into two houses. Lower House and Higher House. That should be transparently organised in the EU Constitution. Today it seems to work like this - European Parliament is in fact the Lower House. The role of Higher House (similar to senate) is played by European Council. But it's not so simple - in reality voting in the EU is unequal and abusing the rights of many countries. What's more - introducing EU Council (the polititians of every national government) is in my opinion mixing the legislature with executive. The potential EU Senate should give the countries equal vote - that mean every country should have equal number of representants (independent of the number of citizens - thats an idea of Higher House - Senate would represent the Nations). The lower house (today EP) should be chosen in general election and represent citizens. That two-houses system should replace the today Qualified Majority Voting system, where there is a rule "55% of countries, 65% of citizens". And its used only in the EU Council. No - the decisions should be made by majority of votes representing citizens (lower house) + majority of votes representing narions (higer house - Senate/EU Council). QMV gives unnatural power to the biggest countries - de facto Germany+France - and other countries have almost no voting power. In the result - it's almost impossible for smaller countries to build the opposition in the EU Countries against the polirical power of the big ones. That cancels any sense of the two-stage voting ( idea of bicameral parliament). I see no sense of QMV in the EU Council if the distribution of citizens within EU is included in the European Parliament. For me, if EU wants to have any future, such democratic and citizens-nations equality rules and reforms should be introduced. Only then the foundations of EU will be stable and allow thenEU countries to grow together without the kind of "internal European colonization". But I'm sure (it's my opinion) that Germany and France will be the main opponent against democratisation of EU political system and any forms of transparency for all countries and citizens.

@praetoriancorps

Жыл бұрын

I think many of these issues should be fixed before a constitution is even implemented. Especially the Transparancy issue.

I hope and wish there is going to be a european constitution one day, one that lays the ground work for a united europe, simplifies the EU institions and allows more democratic participation.

@pierren___

Жыл бұрын

It would be better to have a confederation, with 1 voice by states.

It would be a good idea.

It won't happen and if it did it won't last long. Too many differences culturally and economically.

Educate yourselves and read Andrew Neils piece in the Daily Mail 30th July, entitled Why would we want to rejoin the EU when citizens in Americas poorest state earn more than the French

Its no longer about democracy it's about structure organization for a democracy to work,

I remember voting no, because it explicitly mentioned religion on one of the first pages. Thanks, but no thanks. I like my constitutions to be secular.

The Netherlands mush out of the EU (NEXIT) i am dutch man. and i tell you it a beginning to fall down when we still in the EU..

The reason for me to vote against the EU constitution was because a constitution needs to come from the people (the bottom) and not from politics (the top). And the fact that we haven’t had a referendum since, is because politicians which were in favor of referendums thought they would win. After losing twice in a row (Ukraine and EU constitution), they didn’t think it was such a great instrument anymore. So exit referendum. Another reason our referendums fail is that it is an advisory referendum, but politicians and political parties say upfront they wanna stay with the result of the referendum, making it a corrective referendum. And referendums in our country are held by the government/parliament instead of an independent body, so people use it as a midterm to punish a government(coalition) for its policies. Referendums in The Netherlands don’t work the way it should work because the referendum law isn’t well thought through. An independent body, like our election council, should come into action if parliament decides to hold a referendum. That independent body should also search for pro and contra team members and let them write a manifest based on facts, pro and contra. Let that pro and contra team fact check the stories being told during the campaign by others. And political parties should stop promising they stick to the referendum result. It is an advisory referendum, not a corrective referendum. There should be a lively debate in parliament after the people gave an advice. If I get an advice, I consider that advice, think it over, but stil make my own decision. That’s what parliament should do, that’s why we chose them. They’re trying to change the rules during the game. They should stop doing that otherwise referendums will never work.

@-_YouMayFind_-

Жыл бұрын

Yes also because a lot of people just vote against the government, which that was not how people should vote in referendums. I know this because I am Dutch myself and I know the reasons why many voted haha. Oh protest vote..... haha. Referendums dont work like this.

@FrietPiet

Жыл бұрын

@@-_YouMayFind_- I mostly recall politicians from D66 and VVD calling for their members and supporters not to go vote so the electoral threshold wouldn't be reached. The latest Dutch referenda were initiated by people/organizations because government policy clearly went against the will of the people. I know this because I am Dutch myself and I know the reasons why many voted haha.

I'm in favour of an EU constitution for the same reasons that the commission was, but you can't put a 70-page document to a popular vote. It is too much (in various dimensions) for a simple "yes" and "no". Citizens Assemblies need to work it out bit by bit - we had a similar exercise in the EU recently (but not culminating in a new structure).

@dutchpatriot17

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, the people clearly cannot be trusted to vote on that... but they can be trusted to vote for the people who DO vote on that... Total L take.

We will become a mighty big player as a united Europe or every nation of us will loose in globalization

what are you talking about, the Dutch people have never voted on the Treaty of Lisbon

I like the idea of EU constitution and United States of European. But I think it should happen in the far future, about 50-100 years later when there are many demands for creating a Federal EU. Right now and near future, EU should only use treaties only.

its a too large leap for most europeans, expect that to change within 20 years or earlier

I think a single EU constitution would be beneficial, assuming certain states are allowed an opt-out for things like Denmark with its opt-out of the Euro, and Ireland and Austria should have an opt-out of anything military, to maintain their neutrality, etc. Also I'm not really sure how the current heads of state for each EU state would work with that, I mean the states with an elected president are fine, said president could still run the state, but my concern is what would happen to the monarchies of the EU, like Spain, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden. I personally think those states should be able to retain their monarchs as their head of states in that scenario, but under the supervision of someone elected, most likely their heads of government.

@falsevacuum4667

Жыл бұрын

Er, the Lisbon Treaty is a thing you know. Denmark already has a Euro opt-out. Ireland and Austria already have signed up to the CFSP. I think you misunderstand what the EU constitution would be. The national institutions would remain untouched.

@nicholasmitchiner8630

10 ай бұрын

The thing is that monarchies are mostly symbolic as they can block a bill but that would be political suicide and they would pretty much have to step down afterwards so I don’t think they would need any oversight.

I voted against at the time. The reason: it was not a proper constitution. It did not properly delimit the rights and obligations of the EU and its member states. It did not provide a clear (and limited!) mandate to the EU; meaning that it pretty much placed no limits on the power the "United States of Europe" could assign itself, and provided no clear path towards such a union. It did not sufficiently protect the rights of citizens. It did not fix the democratic issues within the EU governance structure. And it removed from national governments the power to steer the EU in the right direction. Besides, it was far too long and complex to be a good constitution. The constitution of the USA would have been an excellent starting point, with some parts rewritten, the part about guns taken out (maybe), and so on. Because the founding fathers were keen on finding a good balance between the federal and state governments, and its people. We should have had a simple constitution as a blueprint for Europe, with the Lisbon treaty (or something similar) being the implementation of that constitution. Not that it matters. They took this constitution, removed the clause about "An die Freude" becoming the EU's anthem (which was the only good part in that document), deliberately obfuscated the rest of the text, and pushed it through as a new treaty later on. And we're already feeling the pain of having a union that was not built on solid first principles.

Hugely important question, and EU finds itself at a crossroads once again and this next step could be its most important ever. It has, in my opinion, already crossed a line that is an area only sovereign states involve themselves with, by issuing joint debt. Whatever your opinion on the wisdom of that (most seem happy with it, but let’s be honest, it’s debt issued on the back of German creditworthiness), it is indisputable that the EU has moved on from its initial purpose. On one path there is a group of nations that group together in some areas, and if it continues to do that, then it can perhaps get away with keeping the council being supreme like an organization that nations choose to belong to such as Nato or UN etc. On the other path it’s a government itself, and then the council (along with vetoes etc) needs to be reweighed within the eu gov’t setup, so that a commission (that needs to be directly democratically elected if going down this path) has at least equal authority. If EU goes down that path, that is a United States of Europe no matter what you call it or how you try to spin it. The EU has been bumping up against the limits of its current form for years now, from its size, to the fact EU laws trump nation laws, along with many other things. The next step is absolutely massive and will have ramifications not just in Europe but potentially worldwide if it formalizes and accepts a USE setup. I don’t see any other alternative if the EU is going to have responsibility for foreign policy, defense or raising taxes itself. For political junkies like me, it’s going to be fascinating to watch no matter which path is chosen.

honestly the idea sounds nice but it depends do the people of europe want a country or a multinational union

Europe consists of a lot of different cultures, with different economic and social habits. That makes a single European state very unlikely to me. In our lifetimes.

@groeneribbroek

Жыл бұрын

​@@LunarBuzz I don't know what they you are referring to, but I see the multitude of cultures as a richness, with different points of focus and innovations, valued by the masses and the rulers. Pluriformity.

Personally, I think the EU constitution is just a matter of time, not a matter of happening. If a nation wants to act alone in today's political environment dominated by two political, economic and military giants, that single nation will face serious problems trying to avoid the influence of one of these two giants. I think a nation is likely to fail while trying and end up losing some sovereignty. On the other hand, if we stick together and act as one giant nation, our chances of avoiding this kind of pressure are diminished, and in that case, we still retain our right to say a word about our future. Not to mention that greater integration likely means greater wealth. For these reasons I totally suport a further EU integration which by it self is a symbol of peace.

@SP95

Жыл бұрын

Why are the Swiss still mocking the UE then ? They are still all by themselves surrounded by a huge conglomerate of weak countries yet they are still the richest of the continent.

@fb55255

Жыл бұрын

The Swiss are not mocking the EU but just remaining neutral. Switzerland is surrounded by 3 G7 countries, how is that a weak conglomerate ? In what way are the swiss richest, even GDP pro capita is higher in Luxemburg and Ireland. If you are trying to suggest that beeing outside the EU favourites Switzerland let me assure this is unrelated. Switzerland does not have a significant trade with the continent and most of its economy is based on tertiary sector, banking in particular.

@Ender99ED

Жыл бұрын

​@@SP95they are basically an EU Member considering they have Shenghen and their coin is pegged to the Euro, plus have many deals going with the EU itself

@SP95

Жыл бұрын

Those three G7 nations are still far weaker than Switzerland. Let's take Germany for instance, the richest of the bunch, who is still nearly twice poorer in GDP per capita than a Swiss citizen, that little nation " fighting " " against giants " is doing much better on its own than anyone else around it without the need of this international fallacious propaganda. The average wage of a swiss citizen is twice bigger than the one of an irish citizen. Luxemburg is literally an EUSSR tax haven for european refugees taking shelter from their respective predatory socialist regimes as Luxemburg barely exports anything outside the EU. Without the EUSSR Luxemburg would be nothing. Switzerland's tertiary sector is not even their main source of wealth, banking only makes up 15% of their exports, the insurance sector could add up an other 7% at best. Switzerland could not give a **** about the european single market as most of their exports are made outside of the EU unlike Germany.

@fb55255

Жыл бұрын

@@SP95 you are literally proving my point. "Switzerland could not give a ** about the european single market" your sentence should give you an answer as to why they are not interested in joining the union. About the economy your numbers are wrong, more than 70% of Swiss economy is services which is payed much higher than say farming or factory work which are predominant in Germany. In conclusion Germany produces actual products and food while Switzerland get money out of thin air.

No it wouldn't be a good idea As Countries will be told what they have to do without a say Plus any of there laws they want to bring in will be overruled if the EU disagree like what happened with Poland and Hungry being fined daily Look at imagination the EU wants all Countries to take there share if they don't they pay other Countries to have them Plus certain Countries France and Germany would be the ones who make most of the decisions

Will Schwab sith Ursula write ths new Consitution.?

It *could* be a good idea, if it enshrine a confederal model into said constitution.

I would be for a constition, but only if this new country have for only language the french (and all the territory will learn this latter). I would like also that France become the center of europe, with all the economy and politic infrastructures in it. So I would like that France take the Europe XD.

Why should the trade union have a constitution?

Why is there no UK on map, if it is 2004?

@RealConstructor

Жыл бұрын

You erased yourselves, no need to put you back in the picture.

It depends on how they write the Europe constitution

No need for a Constitution: For the entire duration of the 3rd French Republic, there was no such thing as a Constitution (essentially making possible a return to monarchy). Powers were organized by a simple law passed by 353 votes to 352: the law of February 25, 1875 on the organization of public powers. France's Third Republic lasted the longest, from 1870 to 1940...

"..and why they mostly got it anyway, just with a different name." I remember this, the "period of reflection" where the EU did no actual reflecting, and the stitch-up that followed. The French and Dutch votes were ignored, and the British government given a loophole to avoid a referendum it was certain to lose. Not the EUs finest hour.

Every country is having own constitution to be country As proud Nation 🎉 🌲🌹 TMC

I was one of the people who was against this constitution in The Netherlands. To me, it was always an objection of autonomy. I don't mind abiding by different EU legislations, and I don't mind finding common grounds, but I do mind other EU members determining our laws for us. Especially when there still are a lot of cultural differences between the member states. Take for example the stance of The Netherlands vs the stance of Hungary and Poland on LGBTQ+-rights. What would happen if we would have an EU law that would determine for us how we should deal with those rights? I would love to see more cooperation within Europe, but right now, the differences between countries are just too big to use a shared constitution.

We will end up in a united Europe someday anyway, so why hurry if we have to get this right to ever form a united Europe that can survive in the first place.

@definitlynotbenlente7671

Жыл бұрын

i am hoping for a united europe to

@elisebellier9336

11 ай бұрын

with europeans

It all depends on which competences the EU will have. Certain competences should be going to the EU (like foreign policy and defence). While others I would be against lifting them to EU competences (like health-care and social benefits). Also, I'd like to stress that I follow the Germanic line in financial solidarity: the Germanic world is NOT responsible for the poor choises the Latin world makes or refuses to make. Otherwise, we end up like Belgium, where the Frencophones are abusing the Flemings to pay for everything the Frencophones want, while they rule over Flanders against the wishes of any Flemish majority. This leads to an independence movement in Flanders, which will gain a majority in the Flemish parliament in 2024.

Les français n'étaient absolument pas d'accord, Sarkozy a signé le traité de Lisbonne sans l'accord des Français et absolument rien n'ont été changé entre "La constitution européenne" et le traité de Lisbonne, la seule différence, c'est qu'on ne nous a pas demandé notre avis. Et ça, on ne l'oublie pas.

Why is it always: "United States of", could be "United Kingdoms of" or "United Nations of"

@definitlynotbenlente7671

Жыл бұрын

i prefer united federation of Europe