Over my dead body surrounded by federast corpses!

I don’t think anyone is saying this. Having a rethink, doesn’t mean giving up. I think many people reject your premise: that this was simply a vote against Chirac. This has been coming in France since the 1992 Maastricht vote. The evolution is clear.

Sorry, yes it is, we had spam problems.

“Clause 30: If, two years after the signature of the treaty amending this Treaty, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council.”

Originally they had intended to put in wording that would have started the process of expulsion of the “offending” member states.

Looks as if it might be time to get the lawyers in!

PS. On another matter is your “Trackback” facility switched off? It always me gives an error message.

Also, if he does declare the constitution dead (forcing peoples’ hands again), he’s the only European leader I can think of offhand who could credibly propose an alternative. Rasmussen, maybe, but as head of a small country, lacks a bit of heft. So the Blair remarks are very interesting indeed.

Pft. What’s the alternative?

The FT proposes

Britain must continue its preparations for a referendum campaign - even though the likelihood that there will be a vote has greatly diminished.

Which doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. Okay, let’s act like we’re going to vote, even though we’re not, in order to avoid the stigma of delivering the death blow?

Come on. The chance of a British referendum voting “yes” at any time in the next year was never high. It is now very close to zero.

If two major countries vote “No” back-to-back, then delaying the referendum is an entirely reasonable response. Arguably, it’s pro-European rather than otherwise… the alternative would be to hold a referendum that would almost certainly result in another, even louder and firmer “No”.

Doug M.

I am sure the European debate will continue somewhere, but I am not so sure the people will be as involved as they were in France. Now, of course, would be a good time for politicians all over Europe to keep the heat going and to start informing people better… on a continuous basis. I know, I am naive.

To add to my earlier comment on the matter of shelving the consititution. The FT has an editorial today that advises Britain against this course of action. They put the matter this way:

“Britain cannot afford to be the first country unilaterally to say the new treaty is dead without weakening its influence among European governments that often see it as semi-detached. Recent British governments have striven to push the EU towards the flexible and lean organisation necessary in an era of globalisation. If the new treaty is shelved in an acrimonious atmosphere of protectionism, that influence could wane - damaging Britain’s interests, as well as Europe’s.” From Blair?s moment of destiny on Europe

There is certainly some truth in this as I alluded earlier. Yet it looks as if the above advice may be ignored. Elsewhere the FT reports that - “The European Union is poised to shelve its proposed constitution for several years after French voters rejected the treaty in a referendum on Sunday.” See EU to put new treaty on ice after French No

If the Dutch vote NO then I think shelving has to be the only option - Jean-Claude Juncker certainly won’t do the deed so it looks as if will be left to the “euoskeptic” Brits to do it and take the recriminations - a case of damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

PS. What about Straw as a replacement for Blair instead of Brown ….!