Valet om fördraget om en konstitution för Europa - En studie om hur Frankrike och Nederländerna röstade ner EU:s konstitution utan att rösta ner den
(2006)Department of Political Science
- Abstract
- 2005 was the year that all of the 25 member states in the European Union were to ratify the treaty of a constitution for Europe. The year did, however, offer a series of unexpected and slightly shocking events as both France and the Netherlands voted no to the constitution. Because of this the already planned referendums across many of the other member states were either postponed indefinately or the debates simply died down. The fact that two of the most pro-EU countries didn?t ratify the constitution was not only something that certainly raised the question of how future referendums in other, more EU-negative, states would turn out, but it could also be seen as harsh criticism against the EU as a whole.
This is a theory consuming study,... (More) - 2005 was the year that all of the 25 member states in the European Union were to ratify the treaty of a constitution for Europe. The year did, however, offer a series of unexpected and slightly shocking events as both France and the Netherlands voted no to the constitution. Because of this the already planned referendums across many of the other member states were either postponed indefinately or the debates simply died down. The fact that two of the most pro-EU countries didn?t ratify the constitution was not only something that certainly raised the question of how future referendums in other, more EU-negative, states would turn out, but it could also be seen as harsh criticism against the EU as a whole.
This is a theory consuming study, as it uses different theories of integration to explain the development of the EU, which in turn supports and strengthens the essay's conclusion. To reach the conclusion presented in the study it was important to go through what changes the new constitution actually would bring forth and what effects it would have had on the member states, if it had been implemented. The answer to the question is that the constitution would have imposed changes in the EU, for the citizens and for the member states, but that the constitution most of all is a clearer and better structured version of the earlier treaties that today regulates and controls the union. Besides the theories of integration I have also covered other possible reasons and variables that could explain the two states? no-votes. The study determines that variables such as national factors and anxiety over the future development of the EU, which are not directly related to the actual contents of the constitution, were in fact important factors to the outcome of the referendums.
The study shows that the people in France and the Netherlands did not vote no to the actual constitution in the referendums, but that they actually voted no to a number of other variables and factors such as the EU's future enlargement and their national political leaders and governments. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/1328150
- author
- Kjellberg, Hans
- supervisor
- organization
- year
- 2006
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- EU, integration, konstitution, författning, valkampanj, Frankrike, Nederländerna, Social sciences, Samhällsvetenskaper
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 1328150
- date added to LUP
- 2006-02-10 00:00:00
- date last changed
- 2006-02-10 00:00:00
@misc{1328150,
abstract = {{2005 was the year that all of the 25 member states in the European Union were to ratify the treaty of a constitution for Europe. The year did, however, offer a series of unexpected and slightly shocking events as both France and the Netherlands voted no to the constitution. Because of this the already planned referendums across many of the other member states were either postponed indefinately or the debates simply died down. The fact that two of the most pro-EU countries didn?t ratify the constitution was not only something that certainly raised the question of how future referendums in other, more EU-negative, states would turn out, but it could also be seen as harsh criticism against the EU as a whole.
This is a theory consuming study, as it uses different theories of integration to explain the development of the EU, which in turn supports and strengthens the essay's conclusion. To reach the conclusion presented in the study it was important to go through what changes the new constitution actually would bring forth and what effects it would have had on the member states, if it had been implemented. The answer to the question is that the constitution would have imposed changes in the EU, for the citizens and for the member states, but that the constitution most of all is a clearer and better structured version of the earlier treaties that today regulates and controls the union. Besides the theories of integration I have also covered other possible reasons and variables that could explain the two states? no-votes. The study determines that variables such as national factors and anxiety over the future development of the EU, which are not directly related to the actual contents of the constitution, were in fact important factors to the outcome of the referendums.
The study shows that the people in France and the Netherlands did not vote no to the actual constitution in the referendums, but that they actually voted no to a number of other variables and factors such as the EU's future enlargement and their national political leaders and governments.}},
author = {{Kjellberg, Hans}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Valet om fördraget om en konstitution för Europa - En studie om hur Frankrike och Nederländerna röstade ner EU:s konstitution utan att rösta ner den}},
year = {{2006}},
}