Libertas.org

"The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content ... the proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary ... But lift the lid and look in the toolbox: all the same innovative and effective tools are there, just as they were carefully crafted by the European Convention."

- Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, EU Observer, Brussels, 22 October 2007

"They decided that the document should be unreadable.  If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception.  Where they got this perception from is a mystery to me. In order to make our citizens happy, to produce a document that they will never understand!  But, there is some truth [in it]. Because if this is the kind of document that the IGC will produce, any Prime Minister - imagine the UK Prime Minister - can go to the Commons and say 'Look, you see, it's absolutely unreadable, it's the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, no need for a referendum.' Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new."

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly" ... "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."

" The most striklng change ( between the EU Constitution in its older and newer version ) is perhaps that in order to enable some governments to reassure their electorates that the changes will have no constitutional implications, the idea of a new and simpler treaty containing all the provisions governing the Union has now been dropped in favour of a huge series of individual amendments to two existing treaties. Virtual incomprehensibilty has thus replaced simplicity as the key approach to EU reform.  As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum."

"The substance of the constitution is preserved.That is a fact."

- German Chancellor Angela Merkel, European Parliament,  27 June 2007

"The good thing is...that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters - the core - is left."

"90 per cent of it is still there...These changes haven't made any dramatic change to  the substance of what was agreed back in 2004."

"The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable... The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success."

"The good thing about not calling it a Constltution  is that no one can ask for a referendum on it."

" It is true that we are experiencing an ever greater, inappropriate centralisation of powers away from the Member States and towards the EU. The German Ministry of Justice has compared the legal acts adopted by the Federal Republic of Germany between 1998 and 2004 with those adopted by the European Union in the same period. Results: 84 percent come from Brussels, with only 16 percent coming originally from Berlin ... Against the fundamental principle of the separation of powers, the essential European legislative functions lie with the members of the executive ... The figures stated by the German Ministry of Justice make it quite clear. By far the large majority of legislation valid in Germany is adopted by the German Government in the Council of Ministers, and not by the German Parliament ... And so the question arises whether Germany can still be referred to unconditionally as a parliamentary democracy at all, because the separation of powers as a fundamental constituting principle of the constitutional order in Germany has been cancelled out for large sections of the legislation applying to this country ... The proposed draft Constitution does not contain the possibility of restoring individual competencies to the national level as a centralisation brake. Instead,  it counts on the same one-way street as before, heading towards ever greater centralisation ... Most people have a fundamentally positive attitude to European integration. But at the same time, they have an ever increasing feeling that something  is going wrong, that an untransparent, complex, intricate, mammoth institution has evolved, divorced from the factual problems and national traditions, grabbing ever greater competencies and areas of power; that the democratic control mechanisms are failing: in brief, that it cannot go on like this."

" People say 'We cannot vote again.' What is this joke? We have to vote again until the French see what the stakes are."

"We need a European defence, a European army, not just on paper but a force genuinely capable of operating in the field, including beyond the European borders ... The philosophy behind all these proposals - economic, political, military - is always the same. I believe that the citiizens' doubts and uncertainty, as for example reflected in the two referendums, actually constitute a plea for more Europe, a strong Europe, and not for less Europe.  And I am also quite clear that I am advocating a more powerful Europe, also a more closely integrated Europe ... In short I am advocating a United States of Europe."

"A political union is the logical end-point of a currency union. But if that political union fails to materialise, then in the long term the euro area cannot continue to exist. Now that nobody appears to want that political union, you can begin to wonder whether monetary union was such a good idea. I hardly dare predict that, in the longer term, the monetary union will collapse. Not next year, but on a time-frame of ten or twenty years.  There is not a single monetary union which survived without political union. They have all collapsed. You invariably get big shocks. A monetary union becomes very fragile without a political framework. With the exception of a Don Quixote like Guy Verhofstadt, I see nobody who is pushing the case for a political union ... A large free trade zone remains the only feasible option for Europe. It's an illusion that we can realise a political union in Europe in the near future. Political unification has failed. But that is a big problem for the currency union. That is in danger."

- Professor Paul de Grauwe, economic adviser to Commission President J. M. Barroso, author of "The Economics of Monetary Integration" and other books, interview in De Morgen, Belgium, 18 March 2006

"The rejection of the Constitution is a mistake which will have to be corrected ? If the Irish and the Danes can vote Yes in the end, so the French can do it too."

"At every stage of this craze, from 1996 until 2005, a more reasonable choice could have been made, a calmer rhythm could have been adopted, that would not have deepened the gap between the elites and the population, that would have better consolidated the real Europe and spared us the present crisis. But in saying this, I understimate the religious fervour that has seized the European project. For all those who believed in the various ideologies  of the second half of the 20th century, but survived their ruin, the rush into European integration became a substitute ideology.

"They planned urgently to end the nation state.  Everything outside this objective was heresy and had to be fought. This was in the spirit of Jean Monnet, the rejection of self and of history, of all common sense. 'European power' was a variation, the code name for a counterweight to America that excited France alone for years and towards which the 'Constitution' was supposed to offer a magical shortcut. And let us not forget the periodic French incantations for a Franco-German union.

"As the train sped on, these two groups, instead of braking the convoy, kept stoking the locomotive, some to enlarge and others to integrate, deaf to the complaints coming from the carriages. Since we had to ask for confirmation from time to time, the recalcitrant peoples were told they had no choice, that it was for their own good, that all rejection or delay would be a sign of egotism, sovereignty, turning inward, hatred of others, xenophobia, even Le Penism or fascism. But it didn't work. The passengers unhooked the carriages?"

"If its a Yes, we will say 'On we go", and if it's a No we will say 'We continue.'"

"We decide on something. We leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most poeple don't know what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back."

"The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State"