Spain voters approve EU Constitution

Roisin Dubh

This is good news. But what do you feel? How will you vote on the Constitution? I will vote "Yes" because of increased democratic safeguards in the constitution including more veto powers over EU laws for the European Parliament, and because of the increased powers for national parliaments e.g. if a parliament doesn't like a proposed EU law then the EU legislation is delayed 6 weeks for people to reconsider it.

In allowing countries to leave the EU after 2 years notice, the Constitution cannot fairly be described as "a federal EU superstate etc.". No doubt the usual crowd will disagree though. :rolleyes:

Even if we vote for it, the British will probably reject it because they hate the EU so obsessively. But let them take the blame then, rather than Ireland. As a small nation, we need to forge alliances with bigger EU states, and it is better to have most of the big states on our side. Hence, let's not alienate them e.g. France, Spain, Germany. we should also vote "Yes" to avoid insulting the electorate of Spain who have so resoundingly shown the way to a potentially better European future, with more secure peace and democracy in Europe.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4280841.stm

Spain voters approve EU charter
Spanish Yes campaigners
Most Spaniards admit they have little idea about the EU constitution
A clear majority of Spaniards have voted in favour of the European Union constitution in a referendum.

The blueprint for the EU's future was backed by 77% of voters, with 17% against, official figures showed.

Spain's prime minister hailed the result, but his opponents pointed to the low turnout of 42%.

It was the first of a series of European polls on the constitutional treaty, which must be ratified by all 25 EU member states to go into effect.

The deadline for ratification is November 2006.

QUICK GUIDE

The EU constitution

Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero told reporters: "Today has been a great day for all Europeans".

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, who called Mr Zapatero to congratulate him, welcomed "the very clear 'yes' which Spain has given to a Europe which moves forward and which makes a difference, a Europe united in diversity".


Like most Spaniards, I'm pro-European - but it's the wrong time for a constitution
Pedro Schwartz
Spanish voter

Slow going at polls
Send us your reaction

The EU constitution is designed to streamline the EU's decision-making process after the bloc brought in 10 new members - mostly from central and eastern Europe - last May.

The BBC's Katya Adler, in Madrid, says the turnout was embarrassingly low for the Spanish prime minister, who had promised to set a shining example for the rest of Europe.

Critics said the government's information campaign had been glitzy - with football and film stars calling for a Yes - but did not do enough to inform voters about the content of the charter.

In a recent poll, nine out of 10 Spaniards admitted they had little idea what the EU constitution is about.

The referendum was non-binding, with parliament set to have the final say.


Spanish voters say how they intend to vote and why

In pictures

Voters were asked: "Do you approve the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe?"

Early voters in Madrid included King Juan Carlos, who cast his ballot at a school.

The EU constitution provides for the first EU president and foreign minister and incorporates certain fundamental rights into EU law.

Nine EU members have definitely said they will hold referendums, with two more countries undecided. The remainder are ratifying the treaty by a parliamentary vote.

Spain joined the EU in 1986, and has since benefited from generous EU subsidies.

gurramok

Whats the point of voting on any EU referenda here when the govt will run it a 2nd time to get the 'appropiate' result ?
It will be interesting to see if the Irish referendum will be full of scare stories by both sides of the argument and if indeed the public will understand what this new EU constitution is actually about.

SkepticOne

gurramok wrote:

Whats the point of voting on any EU referenda here when the govt will run it a 2nd time to get the 'appropiate' result ?

Well if you really have objections you get to delay the constitution for about a year. If you don't care either way then there's no point in voting.

gurramok

I don't have the cash to lodge an objection through the courts.
I won't be voting anyway especially after my vote in Nice Part I was ignored.

oscarBravo

gurramok wrote:

I won't be voting anyway especially after my vote in Nice Part I was ignored.

It was? I assume you voted against it - didn't you notice that the "No" side won that round?

As for not voting, I'm not sure exactly what you expect that to accomplish.

Moriarty

I'm not sure how I'll be voting. I'm about as pro-EU as somone can get, but I'll be giving the text a good read before I make up my mind.

SkepticOne

gurramok, why not vote yes this time. Since that's what the Government wants too, there's less chance of a repeat referendum. Your vote counts!

gurramok

Yes, I voted No in Nice Part I, guess I should vote yes this time in EU constitution referenda to save the govt lots of money from holding another referenda if its a No vote.
Knew I'd play my part in balancing the budget some day

Wonder how many 'rounds' of referendums will we have this time to get a Yes to the EU constitution.
I'm just a skeptic voter in actually voting in these EU referendums when a vote can be ignored like Nice Part I

cdebru

have not read but i would imagine it will be a NO

Memnoch

Ireland has benifited tremendously from being a part of Europe, I cannot see why would want that to change to drift further away.

Also I think its good to have a commen set of laws so that countries can't just ignore human rights.

Its good to see the UK being taken for task over ignoring human rights.

And i hope the Irish government is smililarly held accountable for imposing ridiculous working hours on junior doctors, in complete defiance of the european working time directive.

chewy

of course they are many good things in being full part of the eu, but 90% of the people voting yesterday didn't have a clue what was in was in the fine print, i reckon there should be a set up multiple choice questions (with some trick questions) , on your ballot paper and if you don't answer them correctly whatever your vote is t isn't counted :P

Amz

I'm not going to make any decisions on how I'll vote until I educate myself more on the constitution etc.

mycroft

chewy wrote:

of course they are many good things in being full part of the eu, but 90% of the people voting yesterday didn't have a clue what was in was in the fine print, i reckon there should be a set up multiple choice questions (with some trick questions) , on your ballot paper and if you don't answer them correctly whatever your vote is t isn't counted :P

1. where do you get the 90% statistic? Do you have a source for that.

2. The trick question thing. Thats easily the stupidest thing you've ever said chewy. Lets pause and release how momental a moment we're witnessing. Chewy part of the florida debacle came from voters not being able to understand the voting form was laid out. and now you want to have "trick questions" How about disenfranchising voters who haven't completed basic education and are partially illiterate who'll now be even more intimidated by the voting process. Not to mention how every aspect of the voting system is challenged and now you want to try and trip up voters? Because hey people want to feel stupid when they step into a polling booth and this will totally get the vote out.

seedot

Having a test for the franchise is an old idea - Robert A Heinlein proposed having a quadratic equation on the ballot paper. Anybody who couldn't solve it would not have their vote counted.

My problem with a test about the constitution is who sets the questions - the referendum commission?
The EU Constitution is a) a very good thing b) only a minor change to rationalise existing laws c) necessary to help the east europeans / developing world / poor people d) only opposed by weirdos and frwaks e) all of the above.

Can I propose that the best thing for the EU would be to have the constitution defeated on the grounds it is too long, too political (enshrines neo-liberalism, euratom, low inflation as monetary objective etc. etc. - all political not constitutional matters) and the result of a flawed drafting process. At some point we will have an EU vote where people who propose the policy will not cast those against it as EU wreckers. Until this happens we will not have a European polity. The European left need to look at the cause of the democratic deficit which sees regular votes of below 50% - and falling in every country, every vote.

Roisin Dubh

The European left need to look at the cause of the democratic deficit which sees regular votes of below 50% - and falling in every country, every vote.

The low turnout happened because everyone knew it was going to be a "Yes", like with the British General Election in 2001 when the turnout fell from 71% to 58%. Nothing more nothing less.

To be utterly frank about it, laziness and the above are more to blame for such low turnouts. It's not the EU's fault if some people are lazy!

And anyway, a No vote would show disrespect for the democratic choice of the Spanish people.

seedot

a No vote would show disrespect for the democratic choice of the Spanish people.

Thats exactly the type of argument which exposes the lack of democracy in these votes. Don't read the document, don't discuss it's content, if you vote no you show disrespect for the Spanish vote.

Will the people in Kildare show disrespect if they don't select a FF'er to replace McCreevy? Since when is it disrespectful to vote the way you believe?

D

I have some doubts about this referendum. I particularly don't like how it will affect Ireland's neutrality, even though at this stage it is in name only. If we ratify this then we will be obliged to increase spending on military and defence and part of the reason that we have had a boom of late was because our spending in this particular area was so little.

Roisin Dubh

D wrote:

I have some doubts about this referendum. I particularly don't like how it will affect Ireland's neutrality, even though at this stage it is in name only. If we ratify this then we will be obliged to increase spending on military and defence and part of the reason that we have had a boom of late was because our spending in this particular area was so little.

Oh yawn! Now where have we heard those arguments before!??! :rolleyes:

Irish Governments are always looking for excuses to cut military funding and after 32.5 years in the EU I doubt this Constitution is going to change anything. These arguments you and others are making are the political equivalent of crying wolf.

pickarooney

I agree that voters should have to demonstrate in some way that they've (at least partially) read and understood the constitution. Is it enough for one country to veto it for it to be scrapped or is adopting the constitution optional as with the euro currency?
I might actually vote on this if I'm allowed, though have no idea which way yet, as I haven't read it.

Roisin Dubh

pickarooney wrote:

I agree that voters should have to demonstrate in some way that they've (at least partially) read and understood the constitution. Is it enough for one country to veto it for it to be scrapped or is adopting the constitution optional as with the euro currency?
I might actually vote on this if I'm allowed, though have no idea which way yet, as I haven't read it.

Yes but it is also important that people, when judging the constitution, is able to compare it to present arrangements, so as to realise if it is better or worse.

One of the most annoying tactics I find that the No campaigns use in EU referendums is trying to make out that when later EU treaties repeat something mentioned in earlier treaties, that these references are entirely new, and therefore somehow a threat. I am tired of that cynical carry-on.

When the referendum comes up, I expect a certain party linked to bank-robberies, kneecappings, and murders, to again campaign for a "No" vote like it did in previous EU referendums. I wonder will the Irish people want to side with it, or with truly democratic parties, when the referendum comes?

D

Wow Roisin, I'd just like to thank you for that reply, I don't post often on this forum, generally becasue I don't have all the facts, but when I do it's so refreshing for my opinions to be treated with such respect. Thank you once again for being so civil and replying to my post with your views in this particular area and explaining your side of the story so clearly. I posted my previous comment so that hopefully someone like yourself who is fully aware of the situation could further explain things to me. Why do you feel this way and why do you feel that defence spending is such a moot point?

pickarooney

I'd favour a ban on political campaigning, the delivery of a copy of the constitution to every home and a short, multiple-choice, test to be handed in completed in exchange for a voting card. It might sound radical or even stupid, but what the hey.

D

Picka, do happen to know where it's possible to find more information on this subject as I really would like to know more.

Roisin Dubh

D wrote:

Wow Roisin, I'd just like to thank you for that reply, I don't post often on this forum, generally becasue I don't have all the facts, but when I do it's so refreshing for my opinions to be treated with such respect. Thank you once again for being so civil and replying to my post with your views in this particular area and explaining your side of the story so clearly. I posted my previous comment so that hopefully someone like yourself who is fully aware of the situation could further explain things to me. Why do you feel this way and why do you feel that defence spending is such a moot point?

Well first of all, I have read the Constitution and there is NOTHING in there about losing the veto on defence issues, nor taxation issues. Hence, there is no way the Constitution could "force" us to raise defence spending.

The fact that the No side have made claims to the contrary literally every time we vote on European issues also undermines the argument.

Here is a link to the text of the Constitution. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2004:310:SOM:EN:HTML

More specifically, protection of our abortion laws is enshrined here:

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/c_310/c_31020041216en03770377.pdf

This is a protocol (legally-binding) and relates to abortion law. It makes it clear that the Constitution does not affect this part of the Irish Constitution. So Justin Barrett, don't go around claiming otherwise!

It should be noted though that the EU Constitution is the first EU document that will amalgmate all the relevant parts of the EU treaties that have gone before. This is necessary because at present, parts of the Maastricht Treaty are null because they were deleted or amended in Amsterdam and Nice Treaties. So from the point of view of being an understandable document, in which the curious EU citizen can find all the relevant information on separation of powers between EU institutions and between them and the national governments, it is a good step forward.

Now, on the issue of neutrality, I urge D and others concerned to read Page 79 of the document linked to here:

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/c_310/c_31020041216en00550185.pdf

which states:

The European Council shall act unanimously on a recommendation from the Council, adopted by the latter under the arrangements laid down for each area.

See? Each country keeps its veto on defence issues. If that doesn't reassure you, D, I don't know what will!

seedot

Roisin Dubh wrote:

One of the most annoying tactics I find that the No campaigns use in EU referendums is trying to make out that when later EU treaties repeat something mentioned in earlier treaties, that these references are entirely new, and therefore somehow a threat. I am tired of that cynical carry-on.

When the referendum comes up, I expect a certain party linked to bank-robberies, kneecappings, and murders, to again campaign for a "No" vote like it did in previous EU referendums. I wonder will the Irish people want to side with it, or with truly democratic parties, when the referendum comes?

If you remember my earlier test on the constitution:

The EU Constitution is a) a very good thing b) only a minor change to rationalise existing laws c) necessary to help the east europeans / developing world / poor people d) only opposed by weirdos and frwaks e) all of the above.

I think you've come up with a) b) and d) so far Roisin Dubh - now tell us about the poor people this constitution will help and we've got a full set.

This is a Constitution. That is different to a treaty or a law or whatever. It is the foundation of a state. It is different to include a policy of low inflation (vs. full employment) or of free flow of capital in a constitution.

Telling us it won't change anything is a great way to get the vote out and legitimise the EU isn't it. Of course Nice was just minor changes, sorting out some loose ends, and Amsterdam and Maastricht and ....

Name a reason we need this unwieldy, ambiguous, neo-liberal piece of crap - not why anyone who votres no is misguided.

Roisin Dubh

I think you've come up with a) b) and d) so far Roisin Dubh - now tell us about the poor people this constitution will help and we've got a full set.

Read page 89 of this document to see the part about EU humanitarian aid:
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/c_310/c_31020041216en00550185.pdf

Union development policy shall have as its priority the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty. The Union shall take account of the objectives of development cooperation in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries.

This is a Constitution. That is different to a treaty or a law or whatever. It is the foundation of a state. It is different to include a policy of low inflation (vs. full employment) or of free flow of capital in a constitution.

Telling us it won't change anything is a great way to get the vote out and legitimise the EU isn't it. Of course Nice was just minor changes, sorting out some loose ends, and Amsterdam and Maastricht and ....

The GAA has a Constitution, but it is hardly a state! It is a Constitutional Treaty. That is the proper term and indeed all the other EU treaties were also. The underlying need for a Constitution-style document in the EU comes from the fact that we need a single document containing all the powers of the EU instutions as distinct from national governments. At present, it is too cumbersome to found this out, as you start with one treaty e.g. Single European Act, and then move on to Maastricht, only to find large parts of the Rome Treaty and SEA have been changed by Maastricht, only to find that Amsterdam changes parts of Maastricht, which are then changed by Amsterdam to a small extent, and changed by a little bit more in Nice. One document containing all the relevant information is much easier for the information-seeking citizen to comprehend.

Also, the EU Constitution allows EU member states to withdraw from the Union, after giving 2 years notice. This shows that a state is not being created.

Page 125 of the Constitutional Treaty includes anti-fraud measures to prevent fraud in the EU. Surely this is to be welcomed.

Also, the incorporation of The Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution is welcome. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/c_310/c_31020041216en00410054.pdf

Among the rights protected therein, are the right to life, including a ban on the death-penalty, the prohibition of slavery, the right to privacy, the rights of freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the freedom of the media and the right to free expression, the right to multi-party democracy (thus preventing the more extreme predictions of the eurosceptic Nostradamus's in their dire warnings of an EU 'dictatorship'), as well as the right to an education, and a prohibition of discrimination against gay people. A progressive document, taking account of social justice and freedom I would call this Constitution.

BTW Seedot, given your reference to "neo-liberalism", I have heard such accusations pencilled against previous EU treaties including Nice where we were warned about some Article 133 (I think that was the one) that supposedly would force us to privatise everything. Considering we only ratified Nice in 2002, I have not seen the sudden rush of privatisations that were predicted. Which were they exactly and remember, we are talking about SINCE Nice. I'm waiting!

If you include competition being introduced by the private-sector against semi-state companies in your definition of "neo-liberalism", I can only reply that customers are entitled to choose what companies provide their services. If Dunnes were the only retail chain in Ireland, do you seriously believe prices would not be even higher than they are now? The same principle applies in other sectors. The Irish Left are just trying to protect unions ability to hold Ireland to ransom, but we are sick of strikes and fed up of the unions in the public-sector moaning all the time.

seedot

BTW Seedot, given your reference to "neo-liberalism", I have heard such accusations pencilled against previous EU treaties including Nice where we were warned about some Article 133 (I think that was the one) that supposedly would force us to privatise everything. Considering we only ratified Nice in 2002, I have not seen the sudden rush of privatisations that were predicted. Which were they exactly and remember, we are talking about SINCE Nice. I'm waiting!

Just will deal with this section.

Article 133 passed the ability to sign the EU up to GATS to the article 133 committee and, in Nice, removed the veto from Nation states over the negotiating position in areas such as public transport, waste management, telecommunications etc. We were of course told that this posed no danger to the ability to deliver these public services despite the negotiations being secret. In fact, the collapse of the WTO negotiations on GATS had more of an impact.

IN the first draft of the constitution the veto was also removed from health, education and cultural / audio visual services. This was the focus of quite a large campaign, especially in France and Germany and within the European Parliament (sample ). So the veto was restored - where there was a danger of the deal "seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them".

This is an acceptance, in this constitution that you have read so carefully, that article 133 and the loss of the veto can result in privatisation: despite everything we were told during Nice. The fact that this conditional veto is not defined nor is how the danger is to be assessed is just another ambiguity contained in the 300 odd pages of the current draft.

(BTW - airports, waste management, electricity supply, postal services were all included in the Nice version - can you really tell me you have seen no moves towards privatisation in these sectors since 2002?)

mycroft

seedot wrote:

Having a test for the franchise is an old idea - Robert A Heinlein proposed having a quadratic equation on the ballot paper. Anybody who couldn't solve it would not have their vote counted.

And in 50s/60s US in order to disenfranchise poor southern black voters, corrupt racist election boards, presented uneducated black voters with complex alegbra problems, as part of the registration process, the many who failed were unable to vote.

A mathamatical problem disenfranchises uneducated people, numerically dyslexic people, people with learning difficults, and people with conditions like asbergs (sic) syndrome, a form of autistism.

Roisin Dubh

(BTW - airports, waste management, electricity supply, postal services were all included in the Nice version - can you really tell me you have seen no moves towards privatisation in these sectors since 2002?)

In all but the waste-management sector, the answer is yes, I have seen no moves towards privatisation in these sectors since 2002. However, I have seen moves towards the separate issue of allowing the private-sector to compete against public-sector companies, thereby ending monopolies. Monopolies are usually bad for customers, because the monopoly knows that it can raise prices to high heaven and that no matter how much the customers grumble, they have no choice but to do business with the monopoly. Hence, they are usually bad. The EU is supposed to be Single Market, and that was set out in the Maastricht Treaty. If you oppose competition then you should have voted against that. I prefer the right to choose from whom I get my services, thank you very much. I can think of a few unions though that wouldn't like that...

In respect of some local-authorities privatising waste-management, I fail to see any evidence coming from you of a link to Nice in this. I'd be most grateful if you could provide it. Anyway, an advantage of doing this is that the contract can be put out to tender so that the company willing to do the job for the cheapest price to the taxpayer gets the job.

IN the first draft of the constitution the veto was also removed from health, education and cultural / audio visual services. This was the focus of quite a large campaign, especially in France and Germany and within the European Parliament (sample ). So the veto was restored - where there was a danger of the deal "seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them".

This is an acceptance, in this constitution that you have read so carefully, that article 133 and the loss of the veto can result in privatisation: despite everything we were told during Nice. The fact that this conditional veto is not defined nor is how the danger is to be assessed is just another ambiguity contained in the 300 odd pages of the current draft.

The vetoes mentioned in the first paragrpah of this quote were already scrapped in the Nice Treaty. You see, this is another example of what I was talking about: the No side bringing up EXISTING parts of EU treaties and claiming that them being restated amounts to "something new" in the new document. I have already stated that since the EU Constitution is mostly a codification of existing EU treaties in a single updated document, that of course you are going to have existing provisions being repeated! It is highly mischievous to try to deceive the Irish people into thinking that restatements of existing EU rules constitute "new" rules. This tactic is used by the hard-left and hard-right at every referendum on the EU. I suppose its just the way they are!

I strongly disagree with your second paragraph. Name 1 privatisation in Ireland that you know for a fact was ordered by an EU institution, and maybe I'll take what your claiming seriously!

seedot

The move from An Post out of package deliveries. The establishment of seperate airport companies. The talks about talks on privatising ESB. All of these are moves towards privatisation.

Roisin - reread the text - Nice explicitly excluded Health Education and Culture/Audio Visual Services from the areas which went to QMV. The constitution is the first time these areas are under QMV - with a qualified veto in place after much campaigning. My point is that the constitution explicitly recognises a danger to the deliver of public services by the loss of the veto in these areas. By implication this means that danger is also there in the other areas - something which has been consistently denied before and since the dual Nice votes. I was responding to your dismissal of the claims regarding Article 133 during Nice - not implying these vetos are newly lost in the constitution.

On waste management, in April 2003 Pascal Lamy offered to open access to waste management services throughout the EU. This means that if GATS come into place govt's will have a level playing field with private companies on waste mgt. i.e. they will be de facto privatised. Because of Nice no govt. can veto this.

Roisin Dubh

seedot wrote:

The move from An Post out of package deliveries. The establishment of seperate airport companies. The talks about talks on privatising ESB. All of these are moves towards privatisation.

The Government has not proposed privatising the airports. The separate airport companies are still state-owned. There's a big difference between "talks about talks" about privatisation and actual privatisation. Different ministers are going to discuss these issues while disagreeing from time to time. Besides, Bertie is trying to project a more "socialist" image at the moment, so he is unlikely to go down the road of major privatisations. Regarding An Post, I attribute their behaviour to their woeful loss making and attempts to clean up the mess.

Roisin - reread the text - Nice explicitly excluded Health Education and Culture/Audio Visual Services from the areas which went to QMV. The constitution is the first time these areas are under QMV - with a qualified veto in place after much campaigning. My point is that the constitution explicitly recognises a danger to the deliver of public services by the loss of the veto in these areas. By implication this means that danger is also there in the other areas - something which has been consistently denied before and since the dual Nice votes. I was responding to your dismissal of the claims regarding Article 133 during Nice - not implying these vetos are newly lost in the constitution.

No the Constitution recognises that some countries feel there are dangers. That doesn't necessarily mean the dangers exist. Rather, this language about safeguards reflects the view among some of the more protectionist countries like France who resent English language audio/visual media, seeing it as a threat to French culture, which I think is just being silly on their part. Anyway, wouldn't it be nice if education qualifications could be recognised in all 25 EU countries? And wouldn't it be nice if the overburdening of the Health Service could be relieved by sending patients that can't be treated here to other EU hospitals where they could be? These are positive developments.

On waste management, in April 2003 Pascal Lamy offered to open access to waste management services throughout the EU. This means that if GATS come into place govt's will have a level playing field with private companies on waste mgt. i.e. they will be de facto privatised. Because of Nice no govt. can veto this.

Why not have a level playing field in waste-management? If other companies will do the job at lower cost than at present then that is better for the taxpayer.

Another reason to vote Yes is to ensure that if the Constitution is voted down by the UK, that they get the blame instead of Ireland. Ireland, as a small country, can only have its interests protected by alliances with the other countries, whereas the UK is a big country with naturally more clout. The Constitution falls anyway if one country rejects it, but in the interest of good relations and Ireland's standing and influence within the EU, it is better, regardless of how Britain votes (and we all know they will reject it because of their fanatical hatred of Europe) that we vote Yes. Let Britain get the blame for it not going through! They'd probably like that anyway!