"Leave everything else out and the constitution will pass"--------MJT

But they can't ,and that is the problem.The EU is nothing really but an overgrown 'trade'organisation.It is a 'free-trade'zone with delusions of grandeur(Gallic grandeur I might add),and the constitution was an attempt to DIRECT how Europe was going to be governed by an un-elected bureaucratic elite. In VAST DETAIL.This intent was not just an accident;it was a deliberate choice.A bankrupt choice,but a choice nonetheless.Is it resonable to expect the same class of 'experts' who wrote the useless mess in the first place to rewrite it from a completely different perspective.Not bloody likely.

The Dutch didn't just vote against the Constitution;they drove a MASSIVE spike through its dirigiste heart. Frankly whether the opponents are 'liberal'Dutch or anti-future French matters little. The Constitution would have enshrined a corrupt and corrupting elite in Brussels, allowed the continued erosion of 'national'purpose,and continued Old Europe's ANTI attitude towards the US.

Good riddance to very bad rubbish.Looks good on them,to be honest.

According to my sources (let them remain anonymous for 30 years), strong anti-immigration sentiment played a larger part in the results than is widely acknowleged by the MSM. Even Dutch "liberals" (i.e., most Dutch) are fed up withthe disruption to their society caused by the Islamo-facsists in their midst who have taken advantage of the welcome accorded them. Many Dutch are now openly talking about the need to revive such outdated concepts as love of country and being hostile towards those who will not play by the rules of the country they have come to.

Exactly right.

I downloaded the EU draft constitution some months ago, and I've not been able to read more than 3 pages at a time without stalling out.

It is not a constitution at all.

It is a sticky cotton-candy fluffball, mostly air, melting down on your hands in a moist ooze as you hold it.

It defies understanding.

Makes me glad my father and my mother's parents left Europe when they did.

There are basic principles that the French, the Dutch, the Poles, etc. can rally around

And those would be? Mind, they can't be just mom and apple pie or the vote or some such general good. They've got to be principles everyone is willing to see embodied in a central government having coercive force. And then everyone has to agree the proposed government does embody the principles.

And then there are questions like what is fundamental. Is the economic system fundamental? I suspect the French think so and would be unwilling to sign on to anything that didn't treat it as such.

I am very happy to see the EU Constitution rejected. I think the EU idea is great, but the implementation is truly horrendous. I think the earlier the EU develops very serious problems, the better, since in this case, the damage can be limited, and a sane restart can be achieved.

I also downloaded the EU constitution, and I compared it to the US constitution. My (very rough) opinion. The US constitution is something 500-1000 lines, and the EU constitution is 500-1000 pages. Go figure. The EU constitution talks about topics like the Danish National Bank, about a Slovakian nuclear station, and other things which clearly don't belong there.

All in all, I am happy to see this monster is rejected. But I am sad, since I already see that the powers, who lead the EU and in the same time blindly derail it, well, they are blind, and they think that all they have to do is to re-vote the Const in the rejecting countries. They think that even more EU is the solution to the problems regarding the too much EU.

Vilmos

Michael: You're right, but that analysis is too rational and dispassionate. It isn't just about the number of pages of the fusty constitution; this vote was a passionate response to the growing Eurabic conflict in Holland. The young Dutch are increasingly conservative and truly resentful of their parents (the 60s generation) dangerous and impetuous experimentation with the Dutch model society through mass immigration, granting of instant citizenship for 'refugees,' and subsequent fearful pampering of the non-assimilationists in the large Islamic minority. The mass exodus of well-educated (and alarmed) Dutch citizens to Australia, Canada and the US has been receiving major play in Holland MSM for the last two years. Their society is broken and this was the best opportunity to give voice to their despair and anger. The tolerant Dutch have tolerated the excesses of the EU bureaucracy and their subordination to the EU's aggressive French-German hegemony, but the threatened loss of their historic identity is intolerable. Semiotically speaking, this is an encoded response to the murders of Pym Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh--and an angry vote against Eurabia.

New European Constitution in one (admittedly long) sentence. Even sanitized for sexisim. To wit:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Gee... wonder where we've heard THAT before?

But Michael, the excess specification and overlapping areas of authority are deliberate. It makes a good pick list for those who have already made up their minds on any given issue and simply need an appropriate justification afterwards. The rulers legally choose to do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it, and that pesky rule of law can be done away with.

JohnR,
Are you a Dutchman yourself? I am, and living in the Netherlands, and I can't find myself at all in your Eurabia argument. I feel that the emotional trigger based on the Fortuyn and Van Gogh murders could have played a role, but only on the fringes. The threat of a looming Eurabia played an even smaller role, if one at all. The possible acceptance of Turkey into EU, however, did play a role.

As far as I can see it, the debate has mostly centred on key European issues and the possible threat that Brussels will be dominating the Dutch national policy even further through the constitution - as you stated yourself. That, the Dutch debacle of the Euro and the general feeling the European project is spinning out of control were reasons aplenty.

The debate was passionate enough without involving Eurabia.

This one seems to work pretty well, for all its faults. They could do much worse.

"Leave everything else out and the constitution will pass"--------MJT

I appreciate your post, but I think you misunderstand the purpose of a “constitution” in a civil law system. A civil law constitution serves a far different purpose than a constitution in the English/common law system. The basic difference is that a common law constitution can outline law out basic principles (e.g. freedom of speech) and allow judges to fill in the details, whereas a civil law constitution must be far more explicit because judges are more akin to administrative bureaucrats than the American understanding of a “judge.” It is therefore much harder to craft an effective civil law constitution that contains only basic principles.

For comparison’s sake take a look at the German constitution (140+ articles):
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html
and the French Constitution (89 articles):
http://www.affaires-publiques.org/textof/C04-10-58/plan.htm

You're obviously wrong about Europe needing a [EU] Constitution -- since most of the 25 nation states ALREADY have national constitutions (the UK doesn't). The "EU" as a free trade zone has been created, by some 5000 pages of various treaties, and there is no need for more EU power in Brussels.

Of course, if Austria wants to object to the next door Slovak old Russian style nuke-u-lar power plant, Brussels is a convenient place to complain.

I'm glad it failed. Most of the EU's job should be trying to make sure the member countries do THEIR jobs.

Michael wrote: "The European Union needs a constitution."

Since my early teen years, I've been hearing that it was rich, white, conservative slaveholding elitist slimebags who wrote the U.S. Constitution back in 1789. From what I've heard, the opposite is quite true of those who wrote the EU deal. Hey, these guys -- and gals ;), were the real "social Democrat" deal, folks!

Question: Should we perhaps call for town meetings en mass, and a new "feel your pain" approach to constituional writing? Hey, let us write a constitution via the latest Pew "entitlement" ("From each according to his means, to each...") poll results.

Or will some age-old wisdom, and a bit of "brevity is the soul of wit" ala the Jeffersonian Greeks, suffice for the radical notion of some decent common sense in this quest for republican democracy?

Please, no answer, or batteries, required.

The possible acceptance of Turkey into EU, however, did play a role.

Ben,

curious. If Eurabia did not play a role, then why would the election hinge on letting Turkey in? You appear to be contradicting yourself.

"If Eurabia did not play a role, then why would the election hinge on letting Turkey in? You appear to be contradicting yourself."

No, Turks aren't Arabs.

Turks are muslims. When the Dutch cite "immigration" as one of the reasons they voted no, they aren't talking about Swedish immigrants.

Patrick has an excellent good point on the different roles played by constitutions in civil/vs common law countries (and why a US style constitution won't work in most of Europe). Also, in some countries, a constitution should include invocations of particular values, rather like a mission statement (more than a blueprint for government or law). That's why the Polish delegation wanted an invocation of Europe's Christian past, not for any legislative purpose, but for them a constitution needs to have that kind of thing.

I'm generally in favor of some aspects of the EU but don't think it needs a constitution at all and should stay well out of almost all member state internal politics.
Free movement of people and products through member states? Good.
Ever increasing integration? Bad.
Developmental aid to poorer new members? Good.
Brussels-based micro-management? Bad.

Unlike some here, I think a strong Europe is needed to counterbalance uninhibited US power (if power corrupts, what happens to the US as the world's sole superpower?) but the EU certainly doesn't have to speak with one voice to achieve that.

Liberals voted no because they wanted to keep smoking dope and screwing whores: "Dutch liberals worried a more united EU could weaken the country's liberal social policies, such as tolerating marijuana use, prostitution and euthanasia."

Conservatives voted no because they want to save their country:

"Geert Wilders, a prominent opponent who argued that the charter would open the Netherlands to more migrants and lead to Turkey joining the EU, said voters were angry about "the country's identity slowly being eaten away."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/01/AR2005060100265_pf.html

Interesting point, Patrick. Personally, I'd consider that to be as much an indictment of Continental civil law as a defense of the Constitution.

"Personally, I'd consider that to be as much an indictment of Continental civil law as a defense of the Constitution."

Why? If nothing else, it means there are none of those nasty "activist judges" in civil law countries.

One seldom commented on aspect of this, is that while conservatives in the US hate the EU (and it's constitution) both are essentially rightist in orientation and rejection of the constitution is essentially leftist. I guess politics does make strange bedfellows.

I've also read that some Dutch people voted 'nee' because they didn't want Brussels tampering with valued Dutch traditions like tolerated open drug use and gay marriage.

"The European Union needs a constitution."

Why? That presupposes that closer political union is inevitable and desirable. Quite the opposite is true. What the EU needs is to be cut down to size, ideally without the UK as a member at all.

It sounds like Eurabia played a large part, in spite of the lady protesting too much. If the entire identity of european nations is under threat from culturally foreign immigrants who are militantly hostile to the host country's original residents, it becomes more than a looming crisis. The only surprise is that the mild mannered europeans are at least groggily aware of the problem.

Spaniard,
I'm not surprised you ask. I think that there is a distinction and that most Dutch made that same distinction. The largest immigration conflict we now have in the Netherlands does in general not involve Turks. They constitute one of the largest immigrant groups in the Netherlands, working hard and are largely respected for that.

The Eurabia concept isn't even mainstream in the Netherlands. The concern is immigration. Not Swedish immigrants, no. Right now, there are raising concerns about the increased level of Polish workers that are arriving here. So, how about Romania? Bulgaria?

There are huge concerns here that immigrants from poorer EU countries or even non-EU countries possibly start flooding the Netherlands. Concerns that companies will increase out-sourcing and transplant to Eastern Europe. Plus the fact that immigration will now be handled by Brussels, and the Dutch no longer have a say in it.

The same arguments apply for Turkey plus the fact that, yes, the majority of Turks are muslims. But that's about the identity of the EU as a whole, not about starting dhimmitude of secular EU nations. Geert Wilders is a populist politician and most of what he says about Turkey expresses how people feel about the Arabic/Maroc/Berber immigrant group.

In my view, Eurabia was far away from this discussion.

Ben

Michael, your premise is wrong for several reasons -

1) The more the EU puts in the more power they can claim if they could sell it and ram it through.

2) There are so many interest groups within the bureaucrats that they have to keep happy so they keep adding things to this ridiculous 'Constitution' to keep them happy, like the thing on friggin reindeer? However, Europe is so divided and made up of so many interst groups, ethnic identifications, and political groups that it becomes almost impossible.

3) How brilliant do the founders of the America and the Constitution look now? 200 years later and the Europeans still don't get it. And getting the passage in all the states back then was no easy political feat.

I believe nationalism trumped integration into a homogenized Europe. Dutch bastards affirmed their right to be Dutch bastards and French bastards affirmed their right to be contrarian French bastards and not dutiful adherents to a squishy European "social model."

Patrick and Michael F.
It's always been my impression the Legislature played some role in that law stuff, not just the Constitution and judges. It's been awhile since my last stint in a US Government class, but isn't the system (at least in theory) that Congress writes laws and then the courts strike down those they feel color outside Constitutional lines?

I think that the general point is (warning: simplification/possible distortion ahead) that any law (whether constitution or enacted by legislature) in a country governed by civil law will have to be more precise (and longer) than in countries with common law or precedence.

I just checked the constitution of Poland (where I live) and it's 243 articles and over 50 pages.
The great majority of EU member states practice civil law.

In civil law countries, judges mostly enforce the pertinent legislation (and/or decide which legislation is pertinent in cases where it seems to conflict).

Another result contracts are much shorter since they are in part governed by pertinent legislation (usually referred to specifically in the contracts).

"Why? That presupposes that closer political union is inevitable and desirable. Quite the opposite is true. What the EU needs is to be cut down to size, ideally without the UK as a member at all."

Speaking of the UK, it's functioned (reasonably) well for a long time without a Constitution at all. (Yeah, I know about the Magna Carta, but ferchrissakes, that was from a time that still believed in Kings and such). That plays into Michael Farris' point.

Actually, something like the Magna Carta forced on the Eurocrats by the chatterring classes might not be a bad idea. After all, that document (IIRC) was all about delineating the powers of the Monarch. Doesn't sound like the professional politicians see much good in setting limits on the beaurocracy's power...

Michael, why don't you take a shot at those 100 sentences? Maybe they'll catch on, and Europe could have a Flash Magna Carta.

Forgive me for asking the obvious question, but, well Why-Europe-Anyway?

Why exactly >must

Forgive me for asking the obvious question, but, well Why-Europe-Anyway?

Why exactly >must< the various individual nations of Europe surrender soveign nationality to a larger more distant bureacuracy? Why exactly is it determined to be preordained manifest destiny? Who gets to decide what is pre-ordained?

Bigger is not really always better. Really small nations such as Portugal and the Netherlands were once global powerhouses in their own right. Why? In part because they did not have to get a consensus and permit slip from all other parts of Europe before their ships did an end run to chase the spice trade.

I would not say that Brittan is doing better in their overall economy right now over France and Germany just because of neo-Liberalisms performance over traditional parochial socialism. It is in part because they retain the ability to make choices and put forward changes in policies with greater dexterity than Paris or Berlin.

Darwin, I think, once said that the species most likely to survive is not always the strongest or the largest or even the smartest. It is the species most able to adapt to a changing environment that is selected by nature for survival.

But what do I know? I'm just an unrepentant Bush-voter from across the pond....

"Right now, there are raising concerns about the increased level of Polish workers that are arriving here."

I don't think Polish workers (generally well educated and trained and with a strong work ethic if they're paid well) are a problem. I'd say if anything the whole Polish plumber syndrome has done a lot to harm France's (and now the Netherlands') image in the new member states.

The UK and Ireland (maybe Sweden to a lesser extent) are the only old EU member states to treat Poland and Polish citizens (and other new member states) as equals. The rest have generally treated them as inferiors who must know and stay in their place) and the Netherlands vote just contributes to that.

Michael,
Please know that I'm not an adherent of that opinon, I simply made an observation.

I consider it a sign of times. We're in economic decline, people are frightened of losing their income. The (Polish) plumber syndrome is reality, however. Whether they're a problem, quite many people think so. I don't. We have the baby-boomers generation on their way to stop working. The Netherlands can use a fresh influx of motivated, young people willing to work.

I'm still hopeful things will turn around a bit. After all, the Maroccan immigrants have completely lost their appeal in the Netherlands. I think when the demand for workers goes us again, people would much rather prefer European immigrants, instead of non-European.

Ben