[prospect]

I was just wondering how our TSG friends from across the big pond thought about the EU. I would like to hear the positives and negatives.

The reason I'm asking is because president Bush wants open borders from the North Pole to the southern tip of South America.

If this happens, Europe will have to start to pay for its own defense because America will be turned into a third word corrupt cesspool just like most of our southern neighbors. America will not survive without its constitution,
culture, or sovereignty.

[dugq]

The biggest advantage is that there hasn't been a major war in europe since the EU was established (this, after all, was the main point of the EU). Other advantages are easier trade, travelling etc.

The disadvantages really depend upon your point of view, there has been some loss of national sovereignty for example, and others are just myths (the massive bureaucracy, for example, when the EUs bureaucracy is the smaller than most local authorities in the UK)

To my mind, the biggest problem with the EU is the Common Agricultural Policy (subsidies for farmers), which is just a very expensive joke. The Euro is also of questionable worth.

As for the US, I have no idea what the plans are for an American Union, but Europe had to go through two massive wars before we accepted that there were more important things than national sovereinty (being alive, for example). Since America hasn't had to go through this, I doubt whether there will be the political will to introduce an American version of the EU.

[prospect]

dugq, If I understand you right, the EU came about because of past wars?
Does that mean England has to bow down to France?

I've been reading reports that France doesn't like the EU constitution now.

An EU type thing here just wouldn't work. We (except for Canada) are surrounded by third word countries bloated with corruption. The EU is primarily
first world countries.

[dugq]

Not quite sure what you mean by England bowing down to France. Every country in the EU has given up some of its sovereignty. France are probably the biggest net gainers from the EU through the CAP, but the UK receives a rebate from the EU so we don't contribute much to it, most of the money for CAP comes from Germany.

As for the Constitution, France vote in June whether to accept it or not and there are lots of rumours that they won't. However I think this has as much to do with dislike of the French Government than dislike of the EU. Best to ask a Frenchman though.

[Big-K]

So there goes our chance of war with Uraguay?

[Wino]

Originally Posted by dugq

..................As for the US, I have no idea what the plans are for an American Union, but Europe had to go through two massive wars before we accepted that there were more important things than national sovereinty (being alive, for example). Since America hasn't had to go through this, I doubt whether there will be the political will to introduce an American version of the EU.

Won't be any need for it after Bush has conquered the world.

[xico]

Originally Posted by Wino

Won't be any need for it after Bush has conquered the world.

I find what Shamir says interesting. The Russian weltanshung hasn't died yet.


Christ is Risen, dear reader! This is the Easter greeting from Moscow, as today is the Resurrection Sunday of the Eastern Churches. Read about it below; next Friday, May 6th, we shall launch my new book, the Pardes, in London. You may come and get the book signed between 4 p.m. and 8 p.m. in a yet unspecified location near Cambridge Circus in the West End (Tube: Leicester Sq, Trafalgar sq, or Piccadilly Circus). Call on May 6, after 3 p.m. on 07979022139 (from abroad +447979022139) for exact location.



Red Easter
By Israel Shamir



Easter has no fixed abode; this most important movable feast of the Orthodox Christian year flies like a shuttle between March and May and weaves the diverse important dates into a single metaphysical narrative. In the memorable year 2000, it coincided with the Western Easter proclaiming Christendom’s underlying bedrock unity. Last year, the Good Friday fell on April 9, the Deir Yassin Massacre Day, when apostles’ children were slaughtered by Jewish terrorists in the land of Christ. This year, Resurrection Sunday comes on May Day, weaving back the unnecessary tear between the Reds and the Christ. The Russians, among whom I celebrate today, christened it Krasnaya Pascha, “Red Easter”.

In this unique country – nay, civilisation, - thousands of men and women stand up for the all-night long Easter service and in the morning join mass demos under the Red banner. Paradox? Not really. Even universal faiths have some local colour, and Russian Communism and Russian Orthodox Church share the same background. On every turn of their development, whether in their old Pravoslav Tsardom, or in the Red Republic, the Russians strove for unity and brotherhood of Man, were motivated by compassion and acceptance of losers. They consistently rejected Mammon. The Russians despise money and material belongings; for them, poverty is a welcome sign of an honest man rather than a mark of social leprosy as in the West. They suspect rather than admire a moneybag. The old adage of ‘the Spiritual East’ as opposed to ‘materialistic’ West still holds true: who does not like East, does not love Spirit.

I came to Russia for the last weeks of their Lent and for Easter. The spring was unusually long and cold; until recently, white snow covered the eternally green boughs of the pines and naked white bodies of birches in the forest. Thick ice allowed fishermen to drill holes and catch fish in the frozen streams until mid-April. It was good: Russia is beautiful like a bride in her white dress of snow and ice, while pink-cheeked and blue-eyed Russian girls in their modest fur coats are irresistible in the frosty days. And the churches with their multicoloured onions and domes are clad in exquisite icons and frescoes, glorifying Our Lady.

The Russian Christianity is centred on the Lady. Her image occupies the place usually preserved for the Cross in the Western churches. She is often presented as the Queen sitting on the throne with the crowned Child on her lap. If Dan Brown were to visit Russia, he would never write his Da Vinci Code, for the female divinity is not suppressed or replaced in this country. In his very American bestseller, the Catholic Church tries to suppress the cult of Mary Magdalene as it is afraid of femininity; while the Jews (of all people) protect and guard Mary’s remains. In real life, Jews have no female saints and dislike Our Lady even more than they dislike Her Son, while the Church venerates the Lady and adores the female saints. But Dan Brown had to fit his perfectly normal, true and justified longing for the Earth-connected Mediatrix into the Judaeo-American neo-Calvinist picture of the world, where Jews are always right and the church is always wrong. That is why he turned everything upside down; the New York Times spread its fame and the public bought it.

In Russia, he won’t be able to misrepresent: here, the Lady reigns supreme, and the Russians have no need or fear of the Magdalene’s remains. If recovered, she would be venerated like every saint; for indeed the Orthodox Church grants her the highest rank of holiness, ‘equal to Apostles’. That is why the Gnostic heresy does not fascinate the Russians as it does the Westerners. Russian priests are married men; and it completely undermines another complaint of Dan Brown.

On a deeper level, relationship of Man and Nature in the Russian Orthodox Universe differs from the Western view. The Nature represented by the Mother of God is divine, connected with the Spirit and bears Him in Her womb. The Russians do not feel the need to change Nature; they try to fit into their landscape.

This attitude is successful as we can learn from mass attendance of churches – in no place in the West you will find so many believers; but again, Russia is not in the West. The Western Churches will do well if they draw from this reservoir of spirit and tradition.

Today, the Russian Reds are reconciled with the Church; Zuganov’s Communist Party is in favour of the Pravoslav tradition. It is a good change, for the Reds’ advent to power and subsequent loss can’t be understood but in context of Russian spiritual quest. The Russian communists did not overthrew the Tsar as it is claimed. In October 1917, they removed the liberal Westernisers who seized the power in February same year. The liberals were for introducing capitalism in Russia; but the Russian soul had a very strong faith-based rejection of Mammon. The Communists were as anti-Mammonite as anybody; they modernised Russia, they created a society of mutual support. They could not give villas and Cadillac cars to everybody, so they gave what they could. Everybody had more or less the same: they had their safe and assured employment, their free accommodation, free electricity, telephone, heating, public transport.

But they forgot to attend to spiritual needs of the Russians. They forgot the teleological ‘What for’. And people can’t live without a purpose. This lack of purpose became obvious when the pressing material needs of the people were satisfied. The Russians accepted Communism – not in order to live better; they had a greater goal of spiritual perfection. The trouble began from the top: the de-spiritualised Soviet elites of the last decades drifted to the right; they loved Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, and accepted the neo-liberal world-view long time before the collapse.

Indeed, in the West, the neo-liberals solved the problem of “What for” by creating massive social insecurity: people are not liable to think of spirit if they can be thrown out of their homes by a bank. Gorbachev copied their solution when he allowed the Soviet ship to capsize. He was supported by the pro-Western liberals, the heirs of February 1917 reformers.

The West is full of variety and contains many ideas and paradigms. But the Russian Westernisers were narrow-minded lot; they embraced the Chicago school of Milton Friedman with fervour, despised Russian people, their history and tradition. They privatised Russian property, sold it to the trans-national companies and tried to integrate Russia as a supplier of raw materials. However, their victory was not as final and conclusive as they thought.

There are clear signs of Russians reasserting their history after the clean break of 1991. It is not only churches lovingly restored and filled with worshippers; not only restoration of historic names – thus Kalinin Avenue (named after a Soviet leader) became again the Invention of the Cross street. It was done by the winners of 1991. But the Soviet past is being reasserted, too. The great celebrations of V-day due on May, 9 are a sign of the change. The liberal reformers of 1991 asserted that there was no difference between the Communists and the Nazis, between Hitler and Stalin. They mocked the veterans saying “Pity you weren’t defeated: we would live like Germans”. They forbade celebrations of the V-day: not out of love to Hitler, but because of their hate to the Soviet anti-Mammonite past.

This year, every street in Russia bears some congratulatory poster blessing the vets for their great victory. Here again, it is not a sign of hate to Germany or to Nazis, but of reconciliation with the Soviet past. Stalin is referred to in much more positive words. It’s not that the Russians miss Gulag or industrialisation; but Stalin and his rule are a part and parcel of Russian history.

The struggle for Russian future is far from over; it just started. Some people may think that this great country became an irrelevancy, a rusty oil pipeline and a consumer of Chinese goods and American ideas. But Russia is alive: the Russians write great books still unknown in the West, make new great cinema, and think of new solutions to the problems. Their problems are our problems, too: the Soviet collapse coincided with (or ushered in) the global Ice Age of social deep freezing. More and more people in the once-protected West find themselves marginalised; the Third World outpoured unto New York and London; compassion is outlawed; spiritual search is non-existent.

But Russians had additional problems, too. The US rulers are too ruthless, too keen: they try to use the critical moment to strip Russia of its assets and enslave its people. Thus a new challenge to Russia came into being; and great civilisations are formed by their responses to the challenges. The recently demised Russian thinker Alexander Panarin wrote of invigorating cold wind of challenge waking up the Russian soul from its long slumber. He believed that the Orthodox Christian paradigm has a way to deal with the coming neo-liberal Ice Age by bringing in the Christian Eros as the force to revitalise the Universe. Russia may yet raise again the banner to summon the defeated, the outcast, the disenfranchised, the discarded against the new Masters of the World, he wrote.

Will it happen? Russia is on the crossroads. While President Putin’s ability to change and lead powerful reform can’t be dismissed out of hand, there are other options. The Americans are fomenting an Orange revolution in Russia like they did in the Ukraine; but destabilisation can have unpredictable consequences. Nobody could expect the Bolshevik victory even a few months before it occurred. Yes, the Bolsheviks were supported by the German General Staff, by New York Jewish bankers and by the British Intelligence – but in the end they dispatched the yesteryear supporters without a thankyou. This eventuality can be repeated. While return to Soviet Communism is as unlikely as restoration of the Pravoslav Empire, creative forces of the Russians may still move mankind forward, out of the present impasse. The divine spark in Man’s soul is not easy to extinguish, the Spirit will win as sure as Christ is Risen.

Resurrection Sunday 2005, Moscow

[treespirit]

Maybe we should all join the EU, hmm no more wars, truly a global community, sounds good. Don't think it would happen really, but it's possible because I actually got an email saying that anyone could join regardless of geography. Oh well, nice thought I guess? Anybody else feel the same?

[Mulderator]

About the only currency I can think of that's worth less than the Canadian dollar is the Mexican Peso! I think we should stay separate!

[prospect]

I was hoping to get more replies from our European friends.

[Dude044]

The Eu,while i agree that its good to have closer links with the rest of europe,i think the uk has given up far to much of its independence,i cant see the uk ever signing up for the euro.As for France and Germany both champions of the eu but i get the impression that public opinion is not so keen any more.So imo the Eu is a Utopian idea that is never going to work

[MSM Hobbes]

Following is from a BBC link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2950276.stm - gives a pretty decent overview of the proposed EU constitution.

I am quite interested in what those esp. in Europe thing in regards to this issue. Myself, I am curious to see how this plays out, esp. since company I work for has many products and interests in this arena.

What the EU constitution says. A constitution for the European Union was agreed in Brussels on 18 June, 2004.

KEY DEVELOPMENTS
February 2002: Convention starts work
June 2003: Draft submitted to EU Thessaloniki summit
December 2003: Brussels summit fails to agree final text
May 2004: EU enlarges to 25
June 2004: Text agreed

The constitution brings together for the first time the many treaties and agreements on which the EU is based. It defines the powers of the EU, stating where it can and act and where the member states retain their right of veto.

It also defines the role of the EU institutions.

POWERS OF THE EU

What the constitution says:

The Union is said to be subsidiary to member states and can act only in those areas where "the objectives of the intended action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states but can rather... be better achieved at Union level." The principle is established that the Union derives its powers from the member states.

What it means:

The idea is to stop the Union from encroaching on the rights of member states other than in areas where the members have given them away. Critics say that the EU can act in so many areas that this clause does not mean much but supporters say it will act as a brake and is an important constitutional principle.

DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES

What the constitution says:

The EU already has rights to legislate over external trade and customs policy, the internal market, the monetary policy of countries in the eurozone, agriculture and fisheries and many areas of domestic law including the environment and health and safety at work.

The constitution will extend its rights into some new areas, perhaps most importantly into justice policy, especially asylum and immigration. It does away with the old structure of pillars under which some policies came under the EU and some under "inter-governmental" arrangements.

What it means:

It means a greater role for the EU in more aspects of life. In some areas, the EU will have exclusive competence, in others a shared competence and in yet more, only supporting role.

DECISION MAKING

What the constitution says:

The principle of voting by qualified majority will be generally applied. It is felt that otherwise getting the agreement of all 25 members would be a recipe for inaction. There will however be a veto for members in foreign policy, defence and taxation. And there is to be what's called an "emergency brake" in which a country outvoted on an issue can take its case to the European Council, though it can still be outvoted there. The European Parliament will have an equal say on decisions requiring majority voting.

QUALIFIED MAJORITY VOTING (QMV)

What the constitution says:

"A qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55% of the members of the Council, comprising at least 15 of them and representing Member States comprising at least 65% of the population of the Union."

What it means:

This system replaces the old one under which countries got specific numbers of votes. There were objections that Spain and Poland had too many votes and this methods is felt to represent a fairer balance between large and small countries. The new one will still lead to complicated permutations of voting but the final results of the "double majority" should command more general respect.

An amendment does away with a proposed procedure under which the European Council could have changed an area of policy to QMV. Now such a proposal will have to go before national parliaments and if one objects the measure fails.

PRESIDENT

What the constitution says:

The European Council, that is the heads of state or government of the member states, "shall elect its President, by qualified majority, for a term of two and a half years, renewable once." The candidate will then have to be approved by the European Parliament. The President will "chair (the Council) and drive its work forward and ensure, at his level, the external representation of the Union."

What it means:

This is a new post. At the moment, the Council presidency rotates through the member states every six months, so continuity is lost. The new President will therefore be a permanent figure with much greater influence and symbolism. But since he or she will be subject to the Council, the powers of the post are limited.

FOREIGN MINISTER

What the constitution says:

"The European Council, deciding by qualified majority, with the agreement of the president of the Commission, shall appoint the Union Minister of Foreign Affairs... [who] shall conduct the Union's common foreign and security policy."

What it means:

It sounds grand, but the minister will only be able to speak on the EU's behalf when there is an agreed or common policy, for example over the Middle East roadmap which members have accepted. The post will combine the present roles of the external affairs member of the Commission with the High Representative on foreign policy so it will be more prominent, especially in negotiating trade and aid agreements. The EU is also to set up its diplomatic service which will strengthen the Minister's hand.

FOREIGN AND DEFENCE POLICY

What the constitution says:

"The Union shall have competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy."

What it means:

It does not mean that a common foreign or defence policy will be imposed on member states. Each one will retain a right of veto and can go its own way. There is nothing that could stop divisions over Iraq for example. The aim however is to agree on as much as possible. Defence is even more sensitive and has been ring-fenced by references to the primacy of Nato for relevant members.

REFORM OF THE COMMISSION

What it says:

The Commission, the body which proposes and executes EU laws, "will consist of one national from each Member State" for its first term of five years starting in November 2004. After that it will be slimmed down to "a number of members... corresponding to two thirds of the number of Member States, unless the European Council, acting unanimously, decides to alter this figure."

What it means:

As a transitional measure to reduce the fears of small states that they will be ignored, each member state will have a Commissioner (only one each) from November. The idea after five years is to slim down the Commission from 25 to 18 (or one or two more if there are more member states by then). It is felt that the current Commission is too big with not enough jobs to go round.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

What the constitution says:

The European Parliament is to have powers of "co-decision" with the Council of Ministers for those policies requiring a decision by qualified majority.

What it means:

The European Parliament has over the years acquired real power and the constitution confirms this. If the parliament does not agree to a piece of relevant legislation, it will not pass. This idea is to strengthen democracy because the parliament is the only EU institution in which voters have a direct say.

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

What the constitution says:

It sets out "rights, freedoms and principles." These include a whole list from the right to life and the right to liberty down to the right to strike.

What it means:

The Charter is wide-ranging but has to be tested in the courts before its exact status is established. The British government says that rules for interpreting the Charter mean, for example, that national laws on industrial relations will not be affected.

LEGAL SUPREMACY

What the constitution says:

The EU will for the first time have a "legal personality" and its laws will trump those of national parliaments: "The Constitution and law adopted by the Union institutions in exercising competence conferred upon it by the Constitution shall have primacy over the law of the member states."

What it means:

This really just confirms the status quo, which is that if the EU is allowed to legislate in an area of policy, its law will overtake any national laws. Equally in areas where it does not legislate, national law prevails.

By having a "legal personality", the EU will be able, as an organisation, to enter into international agreements. The old European Community had this right but the EU as a whole did not so its status in world diplomacy increases.

LEAVING THE EU

What the constitution says:

A new procedure describes how a member would leave the EU: " A member state which decides to withdraw shall notify the Council of its intention... The Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that state, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal."

What it means:

It was always the case that a member state could leave by simply repealing its own legislation. Now there is a formal procedure designed to show that the EU is a voluntary association. However a departing member would have to agree terms so there is an implied threat that it would not be that easy.

This clause is presumably designed never to be used.

[MSM Hobbes]

A FAQ via BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3825521.stm

An interesting map, showing all countries, and where they stand in relation to this issue, along w/ a summary of their positions, can be found at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3954327.stm

Q&A: EU - myths and realities
The new European Union constitution was agreed in Brussels on Friday 18 June. It now has to be ratified by all 25 member states.

Paul Reynolds, BBC News Online world affairs correspondent, looks at some of the myths and realities of the constitution.

Will this lead to a United States of Europe like the USA?

No, not in the sense that the EU will become, through this agreement, a country like the United States. The EU constitution is a compromise between the demands of those who want more integration and those who want to preserve the rights of the nation states. The US constitution set up a unified country.

However, the EU constitution does extend centralisation. There will be more joint action to be decided by majority voting, in immigration and asylum policy for example. But in other areas, member states can still go their own way, in defence and foreign policy and tax, for example.

The EU will now have a president and a foreign minister in addition to its parliament, supreme court, civil service, flag and anthem. Is it not therefore a state?

No, though some say it sounds like one. These institutions have limited powers and some sound grander than they are. Take the "president", for example. The EU in fact already has three "presidents" - of the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the European Parliament. What is new is that the Council Presidency, a post currently held by one member state for six months, will become a permanent position. But the powers of the president will be limited. He or she will be an EU spokesman but will not have executive powers like those of the US or French presidents.

Does a Foreign Minister mean a common foreign policy?

Not necessarily. It is true that the constitution does call for a common foreign policy and for all members to support it. However, the process of reaching such a policy is complex and each member state has the right to opt out. This was one of the British "red lines" in the negotiations. Each country therefore can have its own foreign policy, as happened over Iraq.

The aim though will be to have as much agreement as possible, as happened over the Middle East roadmap where all are agreed and it is a common EU policy.

There is already a "high representative" for foreign policy and although the new post will be bigger in that it will bring in the role of the external affairs commissioner, the foreign minister will be able to speak for the EU only to the extent that there is an agreed policy. He or she will not be able to make policy.

Does the constitution mean that this is a Europe of nation states?

No, despite claims that this enshrines the rights of the nation states. If that were wholly so, the EU would simply be a free trade agreement like the North American Free Trade Agreement between the US, Canada and Mexico. The constitution confirms that the EU is a halfway house. It has preserved some nation state rights but it confirms that the states have given up some of their rights - over the internal market, foreign trade, agriculture, fisheries and the environment for example. So they are not entirely sovereign, by choice. If they want to be entirely sovereign, they can leave the Union.

How much does the constitution really change things?

It will certainly lead to more qualified majority voting, within the the basic framework of Council, Commission and Parliament.

It also would allow those states who want to get closer together to do so, as most have done over the single currency, the euro.

Its opponents say that it goes far too far towards more collective action and that member states will be further swamped by the centre, eventually forcing those who opt out in various policies to join in. Its supporters say that it preserves a balance and there is a third group which says that it does not go far enough.

The constitution says that its law is supreme. Will the EU impose its law?

The procedures by which laws are passed have not fundamentally changed. Laws will still be proposed by the executive body, the Commission, and agreed jointly by member states in the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. EU law is supreme in those areas where it has the right to legislate, but that has always been the case. If the procedure allows for a majority vote, it is possible, likely even, that a member state will be outvoted and in that case the EU law will be imposed on it. That already happens. The constitution means that it might happen more often.

[this part IMHO will be very interesting...]

Will the Charter of Fundamental Rights interfere with national laws?

The Charter sets out a list of rights from the right to life to the right to strike. The UK government was worried that it might affect national industrial relations laws and says that it will not do so, but the Charter has yet to be tested in the courts.

This won't be the end of EU arguments, though?

No it won't. There will always be tension between those who want to go further and those who want to hold back. Some supporters of a federal Europe might forge ahead in some new areas like tax harmonisation and social security, as they have done with the single currency, the euro. The show goes on.

[MSM Hobbes]

And, lastly, for what its worth... one country today rejected this EU Constitution. Anyone wanna guess whom that this might be?



One of the largest and a founding country of the EU... France!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4592243.stm

French voters have overwhelmingly rejected the European Union's proposed constitution in a key referendum.

Almost 55% of people voted "No, with 45% against, according to final interior ministry figures.

The vote could deal a fatal blow to the EU constitution, which needs to be ratified by all 25 members states.

President Jacques Chirac accepted the voters' "sovereign decision", but said it created "a difficult context for the defence of our interests in Europe".

The French leader had campaigned hard for a "Yes" vote. ...more...

Analysis of this outcome at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4552937.stm

Europe's politicians were right to be nervous about the outcome of the French referendum on the EU's constitution.

The No from France is likely to plunge the EU into an unprecedented crisis.

It reflects a variety of factors:

* Dissatisfaction with the current French government
* Worries (mostly misplaced) that the constitution moves the EU in an "Anglo-Saxon" direction economically
* General concerns at the development of the EU, especially a perceived reduction of France's influence in the enlarged Union
* Concerns at possible future membership of Turkey in the EU.

But whatever the mixture of reasons, the French "No" means that, for the first time, a large founder member has directly opposed the current process of European integration.

Before now, no EU treaty signed by all member governments has been left unratified - another first that is now on the cards.

But the French "No" also means that one of the fundamental aims of the new EU constitution has failed: bringing the EU closer to its publics.

France and the EU face a tough political challenge: how to respond to the French public - how to find a way to get French support for either the current or any future version of the Union after the rejection of today's Europe.

More votes?

The immediate choice facing the EU's leaders is whether to continue with the ratification process elsewhere - as has happened in previous cases when the Danes and later the Irish said "No".

...more...

An EU gridlocked and inward-looking at a time of major international challenges is a likely outcome.

Another key issue will be whether the EU goes ahead with membership negotiations with Turkey in the autumn, or whether it reneges on a major international commitment.

The two biggest decisions of the enlarged EU of 25 members have been agreeing the constitution and the deal with Turkey on negotiations. If the enlarged Union fails on both, its record of achievements will be reduced almost to nil.

Some suggest the EU could take some of the key parts of the constitution - an EU foreign minister, new voting arrangements, the European Council presidency - and push these through separately.

But not only are these things at the heart of the constitution, making it a rather cynical exercise to push ahead, it also means what is left out is all the hard work done to clarify, simplify and make more consistent current EU structures.

Better would be to go back to the drawing board with the aim of producing a much more understandable accessible text: but for now this looks the least likely outcome.

[Dude044]

What the French no vote means for the EU http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4552937.stm

And if we do get to vote here in the UK, i will vote NO aswell