"Approuvez-vous le projet de loi qui autorise la ratification du traité établissant une Constitution pour l'Europe?"

"So if you can read the thread title, I'll assume you are expected to vote on the referendum this weekend."

Or maybe just Canadian.

I'd vote no because of the Frankenstein Directive, which I think is part of the Constitution. According to one website:

The effect of the Bolkestein/Frankenstein directive

A qualified Greek painter moves to Belgium and begins to sell his services. What taxes will he pay? What salaries for his employees? Which labour laws will apply?

According to the (draft) services directive the painter could pay Greek taxes, pay his staff Greek wages and can stick to the less stringent Greek labour laws. That will make him much cheaper than his Belgian competitors.

Free market supporters will be happy: more choice and lower prices for Belgian consumers. Belgian companies are forced to decrease their prices.

On the other hand: Belgian painters start losing work, have to fire employees, even have to close their business.

Another possibility: a Belgian painter goes to Greece, qualifies himself there and comes back to Belgium to sell his services under Greek conditions.

Either way, in Belgium the Greek qualified painter has to pay local taxes and charges and abide by local rules.

One thing this doesn't consider is that most workers are not self-employed painters, but are employed by organisations that under this charter would simply declare their 'country of origin' to be whichever has the least restrictive labour laws and pays the lowest wages. Imagine if that happened in the States in relation to Mexico! And as we all know, Greek wages are now no longer the lowest in the EU - you employer in Dublin could declare themselves Polish (there are all sorts of ways to do this) and completely ignore local conditions.

As I say, I may be wrong and this might not be part of the proposed constitution. But it seems to be fairly typical of what's being offered - if there's a no vote in France I think it will be seen as a clear reaction to this kind of thing, rather than right-wing euroskepticism.

Anyway, I'd vote yes if I was properly registered (I recently moved and didn't have the time to re-register myself...), not really because I'm super excited about the text, but because the arguments against it are either false (see above) or completely unrealistic ("we'll say no and re-negotiate a draft that's more in line with the French Socialist Party's platform" - Yeah, right).
On the other hand, I work for the EU so what else could I say?

could we have a positive argument in favour of it? also an explanation of 'realism' (the EU accounts are 'realistic'?) would be nice.

I am uncomfortable with this kind of argument but I have to agree and considering the amount of support that extreme parties got in the last presidential election (MNR, FN, FO, LCR...) I don't want to see them more empowered. The division in the Socialist party is especially depressing to see.

I'm voting yes because I'm pro-Europe, and the constitution sets a technical framework for an unwieldy 25-member organisation to operate. If the "no" vote wins, we go back to the Nice treaty, which is unworkable and will lead to stalemate and a weak Europe unable to act for another decade. The constitution was a tough compromise between 15 countries nutted out over several years, I don't see how it can be successfully renegotiated. The people who are against it in France are such a mixed bag, and are voting no for such a variety of reasons, there's no way they could agree on anything concrete anyway.

Having said that, I'll be very surprised if this constitution passes in France and I'm pessimistic for Europe.

Yeah, well you could reverse the argument. What's a good argument to vote no? What would that achieve? We'd fall back on the previous texts that the treaty is supposed to compile, governments would probably just agree that there is no consensus in Europe to go forward and and leave it at that. Quite an achievement.

I'm surprised at the emphasis on economics which no one can ever possibly predict, while no one talks about the whole "creating a balancing superpower" factor. Many of the arguments for 'yes' are about counterbalancing the US' power, but the "no"s don't seem to bring it up. Perhaps because it overshadows their nitpicking?

"Not since May 1940 has the rest of Europe looked with such attention and trepidation at what is happening in France."

ahahahahahahahaha. hahahaha. haha. ha.

"Jean-Marie Le Pen and French communists make the strangest of bedfellows. Yet one thing these French noes do have in common: the emotion of fear. Spending a few days in France last week, I found a nation gripped with fear. Fear of the unknown. Fear of foreigners. Fear of change. Fear of the now proverbial "Polish plumber" taking your job, of an enlarged EU with Paris no longer in the driving seat, of a world increasingly dominated by "Anglo-Saxon liberalism". But fear is a bad counsellor...."

in 1940, fear was a pretty good counsellor, no?

"How can two peoples see the same object [ie the constitution] so differently? Well, partly because the French and the British have different eyes. Programmed by contrasting versions of the Enlightenment, we have different ways of seeing. But, more seriously, this seemingly paradoxical effect is possible because the constitutional treaty, being a complex compromise between national governments, does indeed contain major elements of both. And rightly so."

a constitution that tries to reconcile radically different worldview: WINNER. leaving aside the (french) ideological victory inherent in the concept 'written constitution'.

"But it's the best treaty we've got."

TGA says it's a treaty, not a constitution. doesn't that ring any alarm bells?

is this sarcastic?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4592243.stm

back to the drawing board? sack Rafferin and try again? Renegotiate? Give up on 'Ever closer Union'? come up with something with vision?