Two countries to have EU Constitution referendum

! This post hasn't been updated in over a year. A lot can change in a year including my opinion and the amount of naughty words I use. There's a good chance that there's something in what's written below that someone will find objectionable. That's fine, if I tried to please everybody all of the time then I'd be a Lib Dem (remember them?) and I'm certainly not one of those. The point is, I'm not the kind of person to try and alter history in case I said something in the past that someone can use against me in the future but just remember that the person I was then isn't the person I am now nor the person I'll be in a year's time.

The Republic of Ireland will hold a referendum on the EU not-a-constitution thanks to the provisions of their constitution.

Denmark was expected to hold a referendum when it was reported that a majority of Danish MPs wanted one but this appears to have fallen by the wayside.

Enter Alex Salmond:

When the constitutional treaty was alive, the Labour Party promised a referendum before the General Election of 2005.  While there are some differences between the constitutional treaty and the reform treaty, in substance they are almost identical.

Scotland will be holding its own referendum on the EU not-a-constitution.  It won’t be binding on the British government but it will be an opportunity for 10% of the population to make their views known and a blow to the One Eyed Wonder of Wankistan who is determined not to allow the mostly eurosceptic electorate throw the constitution out of the window.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , ,

9 comments

  1. Charlie Marks (365 comments) says:

    It appears that Sinn Fein will be the only big party opposing the Lisbon treaty… Will this change?

  2. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    UKIP are sending people to Ireland to support the “no” campaign there, as are a few of the other Ind-Dem parties. I think, sadly, that the Irish are too reliant on EU handouts to say no. Belgium now has a government formed urgently and temporarily so that they can sign the constitution so they’re not going to hold it up.

  3. Charlie Marks (365 comments) says:

    You have to look at it from a class perspective – for Ireland’s large middle class of affluent workers the EU is viewed as being a good thing, the aid and the foreign direct investment feeding the Celtic Tiger.

    For less affluent workers, who face greater competition in the job market because of the free movement of labour within the EU, there might be a good reason to kick against further EU integration as a protest against being left out of the boom.

    Irish PM Bertie Ahern called the election this year to avoid facing corruption inquiries – this and the fact the Irish economy is moving towards bust (housing market collapse and the knock-on effect of job losses in construction) make a narrow defeat for the Euro-federalists possible.

    From what I have heard, there are concerns that a greater number of people are uncertain of how to vote – so there’s all to play for, I reckon, so it’s good there will be support for the “no” campaign.

    Anyhow. Have a happy Christmas, Wonko.

  4. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    Ireland will be losing a lot of the handouts to the poorer new entrants to Federal Europe but I doubt that the eurosceptics will be able to get the Irish people to understand this in significant enough quantities to vote against the not-a-constitution.

    Merry Christmas to you too Charlie.

  5. Axel (1214 comments) says:

    why did the french and dutch get a vote on the last one but not on this one?

  6. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    Because they’ll say no, Axel.

  7. Axel (1214 comments) says:

    were they, the politicos, dumb enough to think they would have said yes the first time?

    no, there must be a reason and legal one at that as to why they got a vote on one attempt at it but not on the second attempt, or is this the reason it is not a ‘constitution’ but a ‘something else’?

  8. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, the way they’ve got around it is the constitution replaced existing treaties with its illiberal filth whereas the not-a-constitution amends existing treaties to bring in the same illiberal filth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.