eurealist.co.uk

Although there is a protocol attached to the Constitution to the effect that if a percentage of countries vote against the draft Constitution (I think it is five countries) the others will go ahead anyway. Thus attempting to place the onus on those reluctant countries to either accept the Constitution as it stands or leave the Union.

If you think about it logically the present treaties stand until replaced by the Constitution, and they clearly state that any changed to them must be by 100% agreement. As the draft Constitution cannot come into effect until all countries have lodged their papers of ratification nothing in the Constitution can have any legal standing.

So therefore, the protocol is just so much hot air and should be treated as such.

If some countries do decide to go ahead with the Constitution they can only do that by going against international treaty law, they would in effect be declaring the treaties null and void and in that case, the EU would be on very sticky ground legally because it would be at base an illegal organisation.

They could perhaps renounce the treaties, but if they did that it would be them who would have the problems of sorting out the resultant mess. The question arises if they could keep the Euro as their currency, because that is based on the present treaties, questions would also arise about the present treaty agreements with other countries they would have to be renegotiated. They would actually be setting up a new Union based on their own Constitution.

The EU will try to do anything it can to get this Constitution through because there will be uproar if it is not ratified. But I believe that that would be preferable to accepting this agreement, because this agreement does not offer a democratic way forward, it just sets in stone all the undemocratic systems that are in the present treaties. I also does a lot more damage to democracy, because it also eases the procedures for changes to the Constitution, so that we would no longer have any veto in the future. It would place in the hands of our own Prime minister the power to accept changes without reference back to his own parliament who represent the people, and in some cases would institute QMV for such changes.

We either as a nation or as a people have just this one chance to demand that our future government in Europe is based on democratic principals and not left in the hands of unelected unaccountable Eurocrats.

All I can say to anyone who is seriously thinking about this issue is to read the Constitution see what it entails and decide if you want this for yourself and for you future generations. When the only way of gaining a voice in you own government would be by armed insurrection. It is better to sort this out now, even though it may cause some temporary disruption to the plans of those who wish to rule the whole of Europe but do not want to be accountable to the people.