The European Constitution: What is it, what does it change and why are people saying no?
It combines the existing treaties into a single document and is aimed at streamlining the structure of the EU and its institutions, whose decision-making process is straining under the enlarged weight of its 25-country membership.
It strengthens the European Parliament's powers, putting it on an equal footing with the Council of Ministers on major decisions, and reaffirms national parliaments' voices.
New chiefs
It also brings an end to the rotating six-month presidency of the EU and instead establishes the office of president, appointed by member states. The president, along with a union minister for foreign affairs, would act as a figurehead for the Union throughout the world, and a European diplomatic corps would be created. However, it does not create a centralized superstate.
Majority voting was introduced in 26 policy areas, including asylum, which was largely responsible for galvanizing the 'no' vote. However, the Constitution has no central, unifying theme, unlike earlier legislation voted on by nations, which could be characterized in a few crucial key points. The text is, like much European legislation, complex and confusing.
'No' history
This is not the first time that a major European treaty has been rejected by a member state. In 1992, Denmark repeated a vote on the Maastricht Treaty, which paved the way for the single currency, after negotiating several opt-out clauses, and Ireland rejected and subsequently accepted the Nice Treaty in 2000, which allowed for the expansion of the EU to the current 25 members, only after a clause was inserted into the text recognizing Ireland's military neutrality.
However, advocates of the Constitution will take little solace from these events, as the Constitution is a new document with little room for opt-outs, compromises and additional texts. The disputes the Danes and the Irish had were over very specific issues, whereas the French and Dutch 'no' vote is seen as a widespread rejection of what many in Europe view as a flawed document. France is a founding member of the EU, and its former president, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, oversaw the creation of the European Constitution. A rejection of the document by what is essentially its country-of-origin, would seem to indicate an EU out of touch with its population.
New friends
The Constitution is all but dead in the water. Despite some members insisting that they will push ahead with ratification, it is unlikely that countries where the vote is in the balance, the UK and Ireland to name just two, will be in favor of the document after it has been rejected elsewhere. There is little chance of a new version and were an entirely new vote to take place it would most likely require a new Constitution - something which, after years of discussions, negotiations, bartering and, ultimately, failure, few member states will have the stomach for.
This will almost certainly push back enlargement for new members and hamper the effectiveness of other new EU legislation, such as the much-maligned Lisbon Agenda.
It strengthens the European Parliament's powers, putting it on an equal footing with the Council of Ministers on major decisions, and reaffirms national parliaments' voices.
New chiefs
It also brings an end to the rotating six-month presidency of the EU and instead establishes the office of president, appointed by member states. The president, along with a union minister for foreign affairs, would act as a figurehead for the Union throughout the world, and a European diplomatic corps would be created. However, it does not create a centralized superstate.
Majority voting was introduced in 26 policy areas, including asylum, which was largely responsible for galvanizing the 'no' vote. However, the Constitution has no central, unifying theme, unlike earlier legislation voted on by nations, which could be characterized in a few crucial key points. The text is, like much European legislation, complex and confusing.
'No' history
This is not the first time that a major European treaty has been rejected by a member state. In 1992, Denmark repeated a vote on the Maastricht Treaty, which paved the way for the single currency, after negotiating several opt-out clauses, and Ireland rejected and subsequently accepted the Nice Treaty in 2000, which allowed for the expansion of the EU to the current 25 members, only after a clause was inserted into the text recognizing Ireland's military neutrality.
However, advocates of the Constitution will take little solace from these events, as the Constitution is a new document with little room for opt-outs, compromises and additional texts. The disputes the Danes and the Irish had were over very specific issues, whereas the French and Dutch 'no' vote is seen as a widespread rejection of what many in Europe view as a flawed document. France is a founding member of the EU, and its former president, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, oversaw the creation of the European Constitution. A rejection of the document by what is essentially its country-of-origin, would seem to indicate an EU out of touch with its population.
New friends
The Constitution is all but dead in the water. Despite some members insisting that they will push ahead with ratification, it is unlikely that countries where the vote is in the balance, the UK and Ireland to name just two, will be in favor of the document after it has been rejected elsewhere. There is little chance of a new version and were an entirely new vote to take place it would most likely require a new Constitution - something which, after years of discussions, negotiations, bartering and, ultimately, failure, few member states will have the stomach for.
This will almost certainly push back enlargement for new members and hamper the effectiveness of other new EU legislation, such as the much-maligned Lisbon Agenda.
