Question
Should the United Kingdom approve the treaty establishing a constitution for the European Union?
Nosemonkey edit: For those who think this sounds a tad familiar, the wording was originally set at the start of December (although the article linked in that post is now behind a subscription wall). It is now, however, as final as these things get. You'll also notice that it cunningly leaves room for future maneuverings should this particular constitution prove not up to scratch, as it's only "the treaty" which is to be approved, not necessarily the constitution itself, which in any case is referred to only as "a" constitution... Not quite as dodgy as the 1975 referendum, but no doubt the more hardened Eurosceptics among you can find some ammunition here.
By the way, here's a summary of what changes the constitution will bring, and a quick look by Martin Stabe at a major problem with the referendum which today's bill should be addressing.
3 Comments:
I don’t think there is much room for argument, the title of the document is “the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe”. It does not strike me that there is an attempt to divide the issue but it is an interesting point.
I suppose technically that even if we vote yes, it is possible that we could say that we approve of the treaty but not the constitution
also the common foreign minister seems a little odd, as there is no common foreign policy, just look at iraq
also does seem a shame they made the constitution itself so boring and long to read compared to most of the other constitutions available
alan
The Guadian has also picked up on this point
"The draft proposes that voters will not be asked to ratify the constitution, but the treaty that establishes it. The distinction is unlikely to attract much attention once the campaign starts"
I dont read it that way but, obviously some do!
Post a Comment