With the French voting overwhelmingly against the EU constitution, and with a predictable Dutch following of "no", the progress of the EU will pretty much grind to a stand still as the entire union forgot a Plan B for such circumstance.
For those of you who question why, well France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries are the founding members of the EEC (EU), and when the core members throw out a constitution, it's a pretty critical development.
Anywho, I think it's a pretty exciting chance for Ye Olde Britannia to get in there and do some Anglo-Saxonizing on their continental arses. With our presidency starting this July, I really think it's a one-time chance to push the entire stifling-beauracratic Union in to something more progressive, more open, and with Blair talking about economic reform and the like, I think he's in the same frame of mind.

So just a question, as this really is a historical turning point for the EU, could the rejection of the constitution and Britain's leading role this next half year, mean new things? For better or worse? (mostly for the Euro's on this board, I guess).

Sort of tangental and bound for some NAG-style action, but why does anyone give a damn what France thinks about anything? They haven't been a truly relevant power since two centuries ago and their continual denial of that was a root cause of at least half of the major international angst and quite a few wars in the 20th century .. something that doesn't seem to be changing at all. I don't claim to have my finger on the pulse of European politics but it seems to me that if Britain and Germany really felt like, they could make it happen just to spite France, and frankly that would be a swell idea.

So just a question, as this really is a historical turning point for the EU, could the rejection of the constitution and Britain's leading role this next half year, mean new things? For better or worse? (mostly for the Euro's on this board, I guess).

Well, kinda hard question to answer (unless you can see the future that is).

Of course the EU will go on without the constitution but further integration might prove difficult to achieve.

I think the reason for the constitution's failure that it is (or it was) not good enough for anyone. It was a compromise.

The informed voters:

There are people (I would count myself among them) who would love to see the EU to grow into the United States of Europe eventually with a fancy federal system, European citizenship, EU armed forced etc etc
The constitution isn't good enough for these folks since it aims waaay below these goals.

Then there are the folks who are let's say a bit anti-globalist (maybe a bit anti-american even) and a bit pro-socialist, and would rather not see global free trade and the multinational enterprises dominating their fate.
For them the constitution isn't good enough because its stated goal is to protect free and uninfluenced trade.


The not-so-informed voters:

There are of course the peeps who are afraid of the Unwashed Masses of the East (tm) and would rather not see the EU expanded any further thus the only way to prevent the disaster from happening (i.e. Turkey joining) is to throw a temper tantrum and vote NOOO on the constitution to get the political elite's attention.

And finally there are the people who feel that their quality of life has eroded or bound to erode due to the EU thus voted no on the EU and not the constitution itself.


The thing is, these arguments are not mutually exclusive but unfortunately the current constitution didn't offer guarantees to these issues since its aim was simply to cut down on bureaucracy and provide a constitutional framework for the future.

Sort of tangental and bound for some NAG-style action, but why does anyone give a damn what France thinks about anything? They haven't been a truly relevant power since two centuries ago and their continual denial of that was a root cause of at least half of the major international angst and quite a few wars in the 20th century .. something that doesn't seem to be changing at all. I don't claim to have my finger on the pulse of European politics but it seems to me that if Britain and Germany really felt like, they could make it happen just to spite France, and frankly that would be a swell idea.


It is a bit more complicated. It is true that France is in political minority in the EU right now (mostly due to the new members) but the constitution won't come into power until all member states ratify it.

I think about half of the 25 current members decided to ratify it parliamentary and make it the political elite's decision but the other half decided to hold referendums on it to let the people decide.

Imho holding a referendum on an international treaty is stupid and a political suicide (bye bye French government) but whatever...

What was even stranger was reading some of the rationale given, by various and sundry French citizens, as to why they voted 'Non'; many of them said that they didn't actually *have* anything against the constitution, but voted no in order to send a protest to, and effect change in, *their* country's government (Chirac and his PM, principally). The vote seems to have achieved some of the desired effect (the new PM is a charismatic diplomat who was passionately anti-Iraq war and is pro central control of the economy), but this seems to be kind of a case of the French people 'cutting off their nose to spite their face'...

At least the Dutch had the common sense to make their referendum non-binding on the government, although I expect things will get messy there as well, binding or no.

To Halo: One of the things that *did* come up among the various reasons folks in France voted no was concerns about the 'Anglo-Saxonization' of the EU, although perhaps you were aware of that ;)...

It was also interesting reading some of the feedback from folks who voted on both sides of the issue vis-a-vis their attitude about the result; several folks said things along of the lines of "Well France has always led culture in Europe and here it is a shame that/here we are leading once again"... Call it delusional or not, they definitely believe it :).

Regards,
Nydia

many of them said that they didn't actually *have* anything against the constitution, but voted no in order to send a protest to, and effect change in, *their* country's government (Chirac and his PM, principally).


Good point.

Though it is kinda sad isn't it?

I think it was Kinuvan who once told me that the French populace by in large despise Chirac. That there were actual charges waiting to be filed against him the minute he steps out of office.

Also of note, I think it's France that has the largest multicultural populace in Europe isn't it? With one of the largest being the Muslim populace who are constantly a thorn in general votes.

I might be wrong, as much as I like to try and keep abreast of the EU's formation, it's far to diverse for me to totally grasp atm.

Halo, methinks UK joining in the EU is going to be fuel for a big fire for awhile to come non? ;P

Fandros

Loss of national identity via the EU is one of the oft-repeated reasons I have seen with regard to being against passing the constitution; I suppose this could be broken down into trade, economics (including the change in currency), immigration/emigration policies,
military power, racial/religious attitudes, etc.

By having conflicts such as this they are more likely to have a stronger union, when all is said and done.

And, they just announced on CNN that the Dutch have also voted no.

Overwhelming dutch no to the constitution. I'm not surprised.

Hopefully now we will forget all that nonsense of Turkey joining the Union and stop the mindless expansion eastwards. The creation of an inner group of more integrated states (western Europe minus the UK) would be my preference. Why did the UK ever join up anyway?? what a pain in the arse they can be.

It has all gone too far too fast.

NON NEE NEJ NO NEIN

I respect your opinion Linlaweniel, I might even go as far as saying that the enlargement should be much slower in case of Romania/Bulgaria as well since the gap between them and let's say Hungary is as big as the gap between Hungary and Germany.
And when I'm talking about a gap then I don't only think about GDP per capita but the level of democracy and 'psychological distance' as well.

Also, no matter how tolerant and diverse the European Community is, it might not be able to bridge the distance between Turkey and the EU ever.

It's like trying to integrate the USA and Mexico (no, the NAFTA is not really integration).


However, voting NO on the constitution is really the only way to stop EU from expanding?
Sounds more like a sabotage than expressing political views to me.

It was effective though, sabotage or not. The French (and now the Dutch) are going to force the rest of the EU to rethink everything from scratch in order to come up with a compromise all can agree to.

The France vs UK overtones of the debate are interesting to an outsider. I have to wonder if the rest of Europe shouldn't cut a deal minus those two countries and let them catch up later. I don't think either is indispensible should the rest decide to integrate.

I'd have to disagree Gulor. When you look at GNP and sheer global clout ( UN Security votes etc) France and England are HUDGE players. I don't think the EU could float on a global scale without both of them.

I said this last year sometime, not sure which thread. But I think the EU is going to have a very long road to haul to be the global power the US is. There is sooooo much history of animosty that methinks alot of their recent advancement was due to a shared AntiAmerican Bias. They need much more than that to actually make it work true? The hate for US is going to fade, but will their thousands of years of hatred fade enough to make it work?

Fandros

However, voting NO on the constitution is really the only way to stop EU from expanding?
Sounds more like a sabotage than expressing political views to me.Not agreeing with the constitution, with the text itself, doesn't mean you don't agree with the idea behind.

For myself I voted "Non" because too many points in the constitution were ambigeous, and subject to wide interpretation (mainly economic points).
And like a friend said, going with this consitution means no turning back, and it's better to go on with Europe with something everyone agrees on.

I'm all for Europe, being an international player, being a computer engineer working with less french customers than european's, being a soft traveler, living 40 km from a border, I'm only waiting until we reach a unity.

Now this constitution wasn't fitting my views on what path Europe should follow.

And to finish...
There is sooooo much history of animosty that methinks alot of their recent advancement was due to a shared AntiAmerican Bias.I think China is more a concern to European nations than USA since last year. Hate is between people, Europe is meant to be an econonic strength, I think this feeling has little value in EU progression. (Did AntiFrench Bias cut fries sells down in USA?)
Or you could say that France and Germany are the best buddies now, knowing past century history?

There is sooooo much history of animosty that methinks alot of their recent advancement was due to a shared AntiAmerican Bias

Well, as much as I don't particularly care for the rest of the world lining up to kick my country in the balls, perhaps a little competition is what the US needs. The world has other options now, which means the US as a trading partner could face being kicked to the curb by nations whom we would never have even considered as being anything less than a good trading partner and ally. Be it for political reasons or whatever. The days of the dollar as the only grease that lubricates the world's economic wheels are drawing to a close. Suddenly we may find that certain international treaties and initiatives can't be flipped the bird anymore without reprocussions. The US will have to play ball with the rest of the planet instead of being the planet's bully.


Halo, Britain joining the EU? Doesn't that strike you as being slightly....fucked? Is there not an informal understanding that there is Europe and than there is the UK and the two are mutually exclusive?

'Halo, Britain joining the EU? Doesn't that strike you as being slightly....fucked? Is there not an informal understanding that there is Europe and than there is the UK and the two are mutually exclusive?'

- Only to some.
Sure, we have one foot in America and one foot in Europe, but does that mean we can't have the best of both worlds? There'll always be warm-relations between those Anglo-Saxon countries around the world, but if Quebec were an independent country, I'm sure the same would be said of France and Quebec.
Just because our ethos of Free-trade and international-approach differs from Franco-German issues such as Protectionism and a rigidly united Europe, does that mean we should be considered a seperate entity?
Ever since the Brits and the Yanks came to the continents aid in WW1 there has been complicated integration and acceptence issues, but god knows it won't let the majority of us Brits hold us back.
The French have held Europe back long enough, and the enlargement swings the leadership role over to us, for a change. Our Presidency hasn't even begun and Blair has already roamed Europe talking about economic reform, broadening the EU spectrum and an improvement in international relations.
Step back continentals, the English are a-coming, and we'll get this stuffy, beauracratic machine cranking.
The French and Germans would love to see Europe become another Great Power, to counter-balance the Americans, where-as we, and the Eastern Countries would rather see Europe as place of trade and research, cooperating with America and China, keeping the peace, not necessarily as a bi-polar force.

I'm looking forward to our term in office, as it were. Now the crappy constitution has been shattered and Chirac will - with any luck - shut up for 6 months, we might beable to bully the Germans and rally the rest to some sort of progressive Union. Less focus needs to be paid on integration and constitution, more focus needs to be paid to structure, trade and policy.
Maybe this bitch needs to be Anglo-ised. God knows it's been flagging under Franco-German leadership.

Oh, and just for your info, Britain is already in the EU, you may be getting confused with the monetrary system.

Soo... I'm ignorant about this... whats wrong with turkey?

Poor human rights record, poor economically, rather backward, an immigrant gateway, and for some - completely muslim. And another one, a rather large one, is that it's about as European as Tunisia.

The EU has a set of standards that applicant countries must meet before they can enter (certain amount of economic growth, for example), Turkey, if I remember rightly, hasn't met all the criteria, and is still in occupation of half of Cyprus, a military occupation the EU doesn't agree with.

Soo... I'm ignorant about this... whats wrong with turkey?

Halo summed it up pretty well.

Police beating peaceful women's rights protesters on the International Women's Day (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4325347.stm) didn't help the issue either.

By the way, I have read an article about the oppinion of a professor of economics on the CEU (Central European University - Soros' private university so to say) regarding the rejection of the constitution.

Since I only have the link to the Hungarian language version I will paraphrase it:


According to Laszlo Csaba, a professor of economics on the Central European University, it isn't a big problem if a bad constitution gets rejected.

The tutor of the CEU feels that the document rejected on Sunday in France and Wednesday in Holland comprises of formal compromises and left a series of important questions unanswered, for example the principle of the distribution of power and funds while a whole lot of unimportant issues got regulated, for example EU foreign policy and the matter of majority decisions.

According to the expert, without the ratification of the document - which is more of an international treaty than constitution - the Union is still functional based on the treaty of Nizza [Nice].
The crisis caused by the rejection is more symbolic in nature.

....

According to the tutor of the CEU, the workings of the Union shouldn't be regulated with a constitution but much bigger results could be achieved if they [the politicians] focused on the really important matters and reached solid agreements on issues which weren't governed by the constitution anyway.

...
As an example, among others he mentioned the issue of agricultural subsidies since right now each cow receives two euros subsidy each day while the subsidy for university tutors doesn't reach this sum.

...

The economist feels that the opinion of the citizens of the member states regarding the EU is bad and it is primarily not due to the Union itself but the people who run it.
[insert a drivel about cheap selfish bureaucratic politics here]




Sorry, didn't feel like translating the whole two page article.

I'd have to disagree Gulor. When you look at GNP and sheer global clout ( UN Security votes etc) France and England are HUDGE players. I don't think the EU could float on a global scale without both of them.

They are big, but there are still a couple of G8 countries left (Germany and Italy) plus the other twenty odd countries. That ought to be big enough from an economic standpoint to get a start until France and the UK stop pissing in each other's cornflakes. The UN security council votes would be lacking under the present system, but the setup may be changed in the near future anyway (probably giving Germany or the EU a vote).

It will be interesting to watch what happens now. Is Halo right and the Brits will be able to push economic reform during their tenure? Or will the inertia of Germany and France be too large to overcome?

France is the heart of Europe, a European Union without them is an absurd proposition. France did not vote against Europe or the European project, some did of course (Le Pen supporters), they voted against the direction things are going. They voted against expansion and economic liberalisation.

The people of the UK in the other hand (stop referring just to England plz) when voting and invariably rejecting the constitution, would be doing so out of absolute hatred and disaproval of everything the EU stands for, hatred of what the EU is, hatred of what Europe wills to become, nothing but hatred and fear.

The early defeat of this Constitutional draft has spared TB's need to hold a referendum in Britain, but eventually they will have no choice but to choose, in or out.

Twice they were refused entrance to the party, and when they were finally allowed to come in, they did nothing but whine and complain, Music is too loud! I dont like the people in here! Its too dark! lets invite in those nice looking Turks from accross the street, that'll liven things up innit?

As for Turkey, they could conceivably be offered membership of the EEA, but never outright EU membership, not on our lifetime anyway. A simple economic arrangement, never a political one. Something along those lines could have been done to new entrants, a process of accession involving several stages tailored to each country. Blanket accession is absurd, The Check Republic was ready and it was right to admit them now, but Poland? nothing but uncultured zealously religious peasants, Europe's rednecks.

None of this is ever gonna work until at least 1 large country in Europe BESIDES Great Britain has an economy that doesn't suck. When people are in a good mood, they're more open to new ideas.

The people of the UK in the other hand (stop referring just to England plz) when voting and invariably rejecting the constitution, would be doing so out of absolute hatred and disaproval of everything the EU stands for, hatred of what the EU is, hatred of what Europe wills to become, nothing but hatred and fear.

Blanket accession is absurd, The Check Republic was ready and it was right to admit them now, but Poland? nothing but uncultured zealously religious peasants, Europe's rednecks.

Anyone else see the irony here?

Sounds to me like it's not just the UK with "hate" issues holding back the EU.

France is the heart of Europe, a European Union without them is an absurd proposition.

Some would argue that Germany, not France, is the heart of the European Union (more people with a bigger economy). In any case, the rest of Europe would do just fine without French participation if they decide to. France is only indispensible in it's own mind.

Couple of questions come to mind.

If France is the heart of the EU and France's economy is absolutely in the shitter then isn't the EU bankrupt before it begins?

How are the Poles rednecks any more poisonous to the formation of the EW than the hedonistic French?

Until France gets it's act together I find it hard to believe they can be the core of anything. They've got a corrupt, by their own laws, leader and horrible horrible economic woes. What is France sitting at, 10% unemployment with it growing worse daily?

Fandros

Had wrong unemployment data, edited to correct

Sounds like the EU is needs a big dose of affirmative action to balance things out and create some cooperation.

"Check Republic"?

You're also beyond help in common knowledge and basic spelling.

Dammit Halo, I hate it when you're all subtle and coy with your words.

Come out and say what you mean...

Fandros

Blanket accession is absurd, The Check Republic was ready and it was right to admit them now, but Poland? nothing but uncultured zealously religious peasants, Europe's rednecks.

Rednecks....religious peasants? Hello?

Aren't those a tad too strong words?

Shit, thought he was talking about USA for a minute.

Dear Halocunt;

English is my third language. And Check Republic (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=check+republic&btnG=Google+Search&meta=lr%3Dlang_ca%7Clang_en%7Clang_fr%7Clang_it%7C lang_pt%7Clang_es) albeit wrong, seems to be a popular spelling of the much too complicated Czech Republic (http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&q=Czech+Republic&btnG=Search&meta=lr%3Dlang_ca%7Clang_en%7Clang_fr%7Clang_it%7C lang_pt%7Clang_es). I would hardly refer to it as basic spelling, and since there is no Academie of the English language, there is no real standard to follow, therefore any commonly used form can be accepted.

I do apologise for the Pole bashing though, Europe does need cheap labour after all, and a peasant can make a good gardener.

Shit, thought he was talking about USA for a minute. Today 08:35 PM

I WAS!!!! Certain Eastern European countries have a rather un-European propensity to side with America, hence that particular pole bashing.

You all seem rather too concern about the current economic circumstances of each individual nation. We are talking about the drafting of a Constitution, a document that is notoriously difficult to change once enacted and that should function for many generations. Whether Germany, Britain or France have the biggest economy at this point in time is beside the point. In this matter historical, cultural, political and philosophical arguments take precedence.

Who are we, what do we wish to become and which route do we take there?

Heh, with attitudes like that I'm surprised the rest of the EU isn't trying to vote France out :>

In this matter historical, cultural, political and philosophical arguments take precedence.

The history, culture and political/philosophical arguments of Europe as a whole is not dependent upon that of France. France is a part of Europe, yes, but only a part and not even the dominant part in this day and age. This is an age of economic power and in that arena both Germany and the UK have the edge today.

Would the EU be better off with both France and the UK as an integral part? Absolutely, *if* the two countries can overcome centuries of rivalry for influence and stop working at odds with each other. While they are still jockeying to get the upper hand on one another, the rest of Europe should consider sidelining both and advancing union on their own.

As far as the constitution goes, I haven't read it or know the details, so there very well could be a plethora of good reasons to vote it down. The pundits are saying the reasons in France differ from the reasons in the Netherlands though, so at the heart of the matter is each country is still thinking of its own advantage and not necessarily what is best for Europe overall.

I do wish you guys luck in getting the whole thing sorted out. You certainly have your work cut out for you.

I WAS!!!! Certain Eastern European countries have a rather un-European propensity to side with America, hence that particular pole bashing.


You know, I would rather side with America if being "European" equals to French arrogance. :rolleyes:

Welcome to America Sumamael :) I do believe that even if europe could reach a resolution or comprise. China is going to be the biggest threat to the capitalist world. but that's another thread.

I'm sorry, but you cannot simply wish away France's economic and cultural poisons. If the EU as a whole injests the cancer that is France right now then it's doomed to die a short and painful death.


The parts must be whole before the entity can grow... Not vice versa....

Gods, I can deal with French arrogance. What I cannot tolerate is arrogance coupled with sheer ignorance.

Fandros

france is the head of philosophy in europe? what about greece? Head of culture? how about the Medici's etc in Italy? Political? Again i'd side with Rome being the start of modern government.

If you wanna go by your argument. You'd have to say Italy is the heart of Europe. That's not the argument I'm trying to make, i'm just going by your reasoning.

You can keep the french culture. It has added nothing good to the history of the world.
As for france being the "heart" of europe... do you have any idea how much the rest of the europe laughs at france? Do you realize what kind of political joke we consider it to be? They're like a millstone around our necks, drowning us all. Its political leaders need to grow the fuck up and get serious, because right now they're the laughing stock of the world.

It's a tragedy France developed nuclear weapons, but I guess it knew it was the only way it'd remain somewhat of a political player in the modern ages. To which I say "good going, you succeeded".

Heh, with attitudes like that I'm surprised the rest of the EU isn't trying to vote France out :>Like what? :( (as so far I'm the only french posting here...)

I'm sorry, but you cannot simply wish away France's economic and cultural poisons. If the EU as a whole injests the cancer that is France right now then it's doomed to die a short and painful death.Not like France is part of EU since its creation...
Gods, I can deal with French arrogance. What I cannot tolerate is arrogance coupled with sheer ignorance.Pot. Kettle. Black?

I can't argue that France's economy is the best, the top notch and the kicker of EU growth. But I wouldn't argue neither it's the worst of the 25 countries constituing it.

The pundits are saying the reasons in France differ from the reasons in the Netherlands though, so at the heart of the matter is each country is still thinking of its own advantage and not necessarily what is best for Europe overall.Yeah, and UK thought that this constitution was too "leftish", while frenchs thought the opposite. Go figure!

Halo, while I'm agreeing that EU needs some fresh blood for thoughts and directions, and the fact that I hate that french politics usually don't put enough energy in EU advancement (most french EU politics are unkown, parties send their 2nd roles, and media doesn't follow), I have a hard time believing that the "no" sayer for 20 years will be the engine of changes.
Wait and see!

Anterak:

I think that Malse, and some of the other guys, presume that Linlaweniel is from France. If I recall correctly, he is Spanish, specifically, from the Catalan region? It's been a while...

It seems to me that, asothers have said, taking the proposed EU constitution back to the drawing board may not be all bad; it may have been a very good and necessary step for people of the core member nations to express their concerns both with the constitution and with their own governments' approach to the EU becoming a more formal body, because it gives them time to think seriously about and get their minds around the idea before being saddled with it. In the end, hopefully you guys will get something that all your member nations can at least live with out of the process and be stronger for it. And if I were living in Western Europe, I would want the EU to hold off on eastern expansion as well until it was well satisfied with its own process of closer integration among member nations and that any prospective new members were well and truly ready and able to fit into that scheme...

Regards,
Nydia

'Heh, with attitudes like that I'm surprised the rest of the EU isn't trying to vote France out :>'

- If only we had the option.
The EU can go two ways. As a protectionist, isolated, arrogant Great Power, existing to protect its own interests as a federation of armed states, to produce a bi-polar, competitive world, ala the French way, or as a union of international policy and free-trade, open markets working in conjunction with America and China, delivering aid, pioneering things such as the elimination of African debt, boosting peace keeping missions and generally being a positive factor in a maturing political world, ala the British way.

Whatever happens, as long as the French are involved, we'll keep subsiding their backward, agricultural economy out of the whazoo.

Cheap shot Halo, I can't remember anything UK did for EU advancement. You can go all wordy about what they will do, yet your table is clean.

boosting peace keeping missions and generally being a positive factor in a maturing political world, ala the British way.
No comment needed, I guess...

Cheap shot Halo, I can't remember anything UK did for EU advancement. You can go all wordy about what they will do, yet your table is clean.


UK was one of the three countries that opened up its labour market to the 10 new members last year.

Since one of the primary pillars of the union is the free movement of labour (other two being the free movement of capital and goods), UK is a pioneer on the field of integration.

Halo can correct me but as far as I know this move didn't cause any domestic problems within the UK (unemployment etc).

While the rest of the old EU15 is still trembling in fear from the thought of the Proverbial Polish Plumbers waiting on the eastern borders to take away their jobs.


PS: I appologize for my previous post, didn't know that Linlaweniel wasn't French. Looks like I'm easy to provoke. :p

To return to the original topic, the Swiss just voted yes on the Schengen Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Treaty).

Coming that from the last truely neutral country, is interesting to say the least.

Back from week end!
UK was one of the three countries that opened up its labour market to the 10 new members last year.

Since one of the primary pillars of the union is the free movement of labour (other two being the free movement of capital and goods), UK is a pioneer on the field of integration.
I'm not sure what you are talking about here, how can a pillar (and a law as well) of the union can be "firsted" by anyone? It's set as is it, no country part of EU can't refuse it. I tried a search on it but didn't find anything related (other than definitions of those pillars), could you enlight me with this last year opening in UK?

While the rest of the old EU15 is still trembling in fear from the thought of the Proverbial Polish Plumbers waiting on the eastern borders to take away their jobs.Don't they already? As part of EU, can't they find equivalent jobs whereever they want?

I'm not sure (to answer as well L2 last post in the split thread) how voting "no" to the constitution has anything to do with fear of immigrants. Even more when those possible immigrants are already european! :confused:

Most countries imposed temporary restrictions on the free movement of workers from new entrants in order to appease their voters and minimise opposition to enlargement. Britain didn't if only because there is a severe shortage of unskilled workers, plumbers and construction workers in the UK. The Conservative party tried to capitalise on that during the last election, but the move backfired, the middle classes love their cheap gardeners and plumbers.

I'm not sure (to answer as well L2 last post in the split thread) how voting "no" to the constitution has anything to do with fear of immigrants. Even more when those possible immigrants are already european!

All Europeans are equal, but some Europeans are more equal than others. And some (Turkish) are not European at all.

Anterak, you can read about it here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4497309.stm

Just to give you an example, with my Hungarian passport (like anyone else from the 10 new EU members) I can walk into the UK, Ireland and Sweden and get a job there without any real restrictions.

However I can not do the same in the rest of the old EU15 countries, if I wanted to work in Germany or France for example then I would have to apply for work permit and fit into a quota just like a worker from outside the EU has to do.

There is a transitional period of 7 years during which the old EU15 can freely deny access to their labour markets to the citizens of the 10 new members in order to protect their economies. The EU regulations regarding the free movement of labour is suspended for these 7 years.

Only the UK, Ireland and Sweden waived this possibility right off the bat last May when the 10 new members joined.

Please don't misunderstand me, it doesn't impact me any way personally (and no I'm not bitter, really) since my area of expertise is highly specialized to Hungarian laws and regulations (I'm a chartered accountant) so even if I wanted to work anywhere else in EU it would take me considerable effort to re-learn my job (all the little details of the local regulations) and that's a bigger barrier to my movement of labour than work permits and quotas.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here, how can a pillar (and a law as well) of the union can be "firsted" by anyone? It's set as is it, no country part of EU can't refuse it. I tried a search on it but didn't find anything related (other than definitions of those pillars), could you enlight me with this last year opening in UK?


The EU does not have the power to put laws on the statute books, it produces directives that individual member states produce laws to comply with. This is normally within a set timeframe (unless said country uses its power of veto) but open to some interpretation. The same directive can therefore produce different laws in different countries or be ignored altogether.