Voting Statement
Tomorrow the Dutch will have to cast their votes in an important
referendum about acceptance of a European constitution.
I will vote "Yes"; in favor of the new constitution. But I ham not happy about it. Most of the discussion and propaganda has not been to the point and has not been based on a lot of emotion instead of arguments.
Some thoughts on the whole issue.
Consolidation of the existing treaties, a huge amount of text, is most
probably a good thing. From what I am led to believe the Euro citizens
get more influence through the Euro Parliament and have the
opportunity to set agenda items (I have one, see below). Besides
individual nations loose their possibility to "veto". The current
"Nice" treaty was established in the times Europe was small, it was
not designed to work with a number of nations more than 3 times bigger
than then. Unfortunately we are still talking about a legal text that
non of the 'demos' will have read before casting their votes. The
problem is that this constitution is just not a constitution. Its not
a statement of simple principles, it is a complex multi-nation treaty. Only "part II" is what I as a constitution.
I believe in democracy. The representive is the particular flavor of democracy is the one that I think works best. I trust a number of my peers to have a particular critical quality and spend time to make informed decisions. That in practice this does not always work well and our representatives are a bunch of nitwits is besides the point. I have the possibility to become a representing nitwit myself and I can choose others when I think that is needed.
I do not believe in referenda. An issue like this treaty has been prepared for years, the yes/no choice is often influenced by the "hype-of-the-day" which has nothing to do with the issue itself.
One of the more important influences on the "Non" result in the French elections has been the "Bolkestein Directive". Although this directive is an important European result and may touch many of the French workers directly in their wallets, the directive is just not related to the treaty. Besides many of the French just casted a "Non" vote as a sign they are not happy with their current French government.
Many proponents argue that the political elite is trying to force the this treaty down our groats. That that political elite has been elected by us seems to be beside the point. On the other hand I think that in a representative democracy important decisions, such as the change of the (or in this case "a") constitution should be left to our chosen representatives. If the issue is important enough new elections should be organized, so that the people have a change to influence the decision by choosing new representatives. I am realistic enough to know that our representatives are to much of a polical elite that reelections are never going to work.
I am pretty convinced that the new treaty will cause us, the Dutch, to lose prosperity. Europe is getting bigger and the prosperity will need to be shared among all of us. Actually (although it scares me) the prosperity will need to be shared on a global scale.
Finally a stable Europe with a colon economy is a safeguard against new wars. I have eared stories about the horrors of war from first-hand account -- Both my parents are from 1932 and grew up in Arnhem, they know.
The first agenda item that the citizens of Europe should push forward is "One office for the parlaiment". Strazbourg and Brussels is just a waste of resources.
(This has the possibility to turn into an Essay, but I just do not have the time to precisely phrase all my thoughts and arguments on this issue.)


After last weeks debacle with the
The
same chapter describes that Louis Pasteur, we owe fresh milk to that
bloke, was a researcher that actually studied why wine went bad.
That is something I did not know. He scientifically demonstrated (with one vacuum and
one open tube) that wine exposed to air will go bad. The picture
shows the pigments separate and fall to the bottom to the tube.
