What is REALLY the status?
Due to the spun and confusing reports we read everywhere, I now copy out the entire thread of BBC online to HIGHLIGHT what I find will have importance when it goes to the next step, by inserting my comments into the BBC overview:
Ratification has to take place by 1 November 2006, unless the deadline is extended.
Ten countries have ratified the treaty: Austria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain.
((THIS MAY WELL BE SO, but DENMARK and UK have now postponed,
one maybe only temporarily, the other with intent to move away. It could also well be that after the Schroeder re-election or Merkel election or grand new coalition, the Germans will be asked or offered to vote. At this point nothing is impossible.))
CZECH REPUBLIC
Referendum: The main parties in government and opposition are both in favour of holding a legally binding referendum, but plans are now on hold.
After the British decision to shelve its referendum, Prime Minister Jiri Paroubek said it would be "impossible at the moment" to hold a referendum in the Czech Republic.
Earlier, after the French and Dutch "No" votes, he said ratification should continue - but that he would propose extending the deadline.
Mr Paroubek's governing Social Democrats wanted to hold the referendum in June 2006 at the same time as a general election.
The opposition Civic Party, which opposes ratification, wanted to hold the referendum earlier.
There is currently no law providing a legal basis for referendums in the Czech Republic. The Social Democrats have drafted a bill that would allow referendums to be held on any major issue, while the Civic Party has drafted a bill for a one-off vote on the EU constitution.
If the legislation fails, parliament could be called on to ratify the constitution. The Civic Party would then have a good chance of voting it down.
President Vaclav Klaus, one of the founders of the Civic Party, has described the constitution as "a revolutionary document, which will change everyone's lives".
He has also written the introduction for the Czech translation of an anti-constitution booklet.
A poll released in mid-May by the country's CVVM institute suggested 26% of Czechs would vote against the constitution, while 58% of those canvassed said they would vote in favour of it.
Czechs delay constitution vote
DENMARK
Referendum: Danes are set to vote on 27 September 2005. The result will be legally binding.
Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen has said the referendum should still take place as planned, as long as "there is clarity about what the Danes should vote about."
Denmark is one of the more Eurosceptic members of the EU.
Opinion polls since the French and Dutch "No" votes suggest the Danish public has been turning against the constitution.
A Gallup poll gave the "No" side 38%, against 34% for the "Yes" side. A poll by the same agency in May had the "No" side on 25%, compared with 45% for the "Yes" side.
Denmark rejected the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 but adopted it in a second vote, after winning opt-outs, in 1993.
Danes also voted No in a 2000 referendum on acceptance of the euro.
FRANCE - REJECTED
Referendum: A legally binding referendum on 29 May 2005 resulted in a "No" vote.
Almost 55% of people voted "No", with 45% in favour, according to official figures.
Both the main parties - the governing, conservative UMP and the Socialist Party - were in favour of the constitution, but both parties also had dissidents campaigning for a "No".
The far left and far right were also opposed to the constitution, as were some trade unions, some farmers' groups, some Greens and the anti-globalisation movement.
Some critics said the constitution embodies unfettered free-market economics that would undermine the French welfare state and allow countries with cheaper labour to take French jobs. Others said it did not go far enough to promote European integration.
Another category of opponents focused their criticisms less on the constitution itself, than on wider developments in the EU, such as the imminent start of membership negotiations with Turkey, and France's loss of influence in Brussels as a result of the accession of 10 new members in 2004.
The last time a European treaty was put to a referendum in France - the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 - it was passed by a margin of just 2%.
French No an 'unmistakable message'
IRELAND
Referendum: Ireland is going ahead with its referendum despite the French and Dutch "No" votes. No date has been set, but it is likely to be late 2005 or early 2006. The result will be legally binding.
The main political parties, in government and opposition, are in favour of the constitution.
The debate, to the extent that there is one, focuses on the impact the constitution might have on the country's neutrality and on social issues such as abortion.
In addition, the Irish Republican party, Sinn Fein, says the constitution will erode national sovereignty in a number of areas.
As with other small countries, there are also concerns that Ireland may find itself trampled upon by the larger member states.
If Ireland votes "No" in the referendum, it would not be the first time. Voters rejected the Nice Treaty in 2001, then approved it in 2002.
A Eurobarometer poll in November 2004 found 28% of voters favoured the constitution and 5% opposed it; 67% had no opinion.
Irish Yes vote not a done deal
LUXEMBOURG
Referendum: On 10 July 2005. The result will not be legally binding.
Luxembourg's referendum will be the first since 1936 in the tiny duchy, one of the six founding members of the EU.
Every parliamentary party is backing the constitution, and until recently a "Yes" vote seemed guaranteed.
However, a poll carried out in May suggested that opponents of the constitution in Luxembourg had multiplied to 41%, from 24% in October.
Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker has said he will resign if the "No" vote wins.
One reason the governing coalition decided to call a referendum was to stimulate debate on EU issues.
One of the few political groups lobbying against the constitution is a far-left "di Lenk" party (the Lefties), which says the text is too market-orientated and does not do enough for workers.
EU apathy reigns in Luxembourg
NETHERLANDS - REJECTED
Referendum: Dutch voters registered a resounding "No" in a vote on 1 June 2005.
Some 61.6% rejected the charter.
It was the Netherlands' first ever referendum.
The vote is not legally binding, but pro-constitution Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said he would honour the result.
All the Netherlands' biggest political parties said they would respect the outcome if turnout exceeded 30%. It reached 62%.
All the main parties were in favour of a "Yes" vote, as were the trade unions and most newspapers.
However, recent elections have shown that Dutch voters lack confidence in their political elite, blaming them for doing too little to restrict immigration, among other things.
There was also considerable dissatisfaction with the euro currency, which some Dutch blame for inflation, and anger that France and Germany have got away with breaking EU rules on budget deficits.
One anti-constitution MP, Geert Wilders, told voters that the constitution would result in a loss of power for small countries at the expense of larger ones. He also campaigned against the plan to start membership talks with Turkey.
POLAND
Referendum: Poland plans to hold a legally binding referendum, despite the French and Dutch "No" votes, but the date has yet to be decided.
Some Polish leaders wanted the referendum to coincide with the presidential election on 9 October, but President Aleksander Kwasniewski has hinted that it could be postponed.
Prime Minister Marek Belka has said Poland would emerge stronger if it voted in favour of the constitution, while parliamentary speaker has suggested that a Polish "Yes" would raise Poland's profile at a time when France's role is weakened.
Centre-right opposition parties, which are likely to do well in parliamentary elections that are also expected in the autumn, have called for the referendum plan to be dropped.
One of them, Law and Justice, had earlier called for a rejection of the constitution. The other, Civic Platform, stopped short of calling for a "No" vote, but is lukewarm towards the charter.
Poles' two main concerns are the lack of a reference to Christian heritage in the preamble of the constitution, and changes to the voting system in the Council of Ministers, which reduce Poland's influence compared with the four largest states.
However, the Catholic Church hierarchy is in favour of the constitution.
Polish Euroscepticism has also been on the wane since the economic boom that followed the country's entry into the EU in May 2004.
According to a survey by the CBOS institute in February 2005, 64% of Poles support the constitution and 7% are against, while 29% do not have an opinion. Some 66% said they intended to vote.
Turnout of 50% is required for the referendum to be valid. This would certainly be met if the vote was held at the same time as an election.
PORTUGAL
Referendum: A vote is likely to be held in late 2005. It will probably not be legally binding.
Both main political parties - and most opinion formers - favour ratification, but there is some Euroscepticism at both ends of the political spectrum.
The Communist Party says the constitution moves the EU further away from the people and that a small core of countries will run it.
On the right, the leader of the New Democracy party, Manuel Monteiro, warns of a centralised European state that will encroach on citizens' freedoms.
But most Portuguese are instinctively pro-EU, aware of how membership since 1985 has helped to entrench democracy after four decades of dictatorship.
A Eurobarometer poll conducted in November 2004 found 40% of voters favoured the draft constitution and 7% were opposed; 53% had no opinion.
Portugal has not held a European referendum before.
Portugal vague on EU referendum
SPAIN - RATIFIED
Referendum: A consultative referendum was held on 20 February 2005. Some 77% of those who voted were in favour and 17% against. Turnout was only 42%.
Ratification was completed by votes in the lower house of parliament in April, and in the upper house in May.
All of Spain's main political parties were in favour of the treaty.
There was opposition to the constitution from regional parties in Catalonia, who want Catalonia to be represented in EU institutions and Catalan to be recognised as an official EU language.
Spain's mixed EU signals
UNITED KINGDOM
Referendum: The UK government was preparing to hold a referendum in spring 2006, but shelved these plans after French and Dutch voters rejected the constitution.
Critics of the constitution say that it undermines British sovereignty and continues the construction of a European superstate. The opposition Conservative Party says it wants a new treaty, which would shift some powers back to nation states.
The governing Labour Party supports the constitution, but has never been very enthusiastic. If a referendum was held on the constitution and voters said "No", Prime Minister Tony Blair could be obliged to resign.
Given the strength of British euroscepticism, the government has usually found itself on the defensive with regard to the constitution. Before the referendum was postponed, ministers warned that a "No" vote would leave Britain on the sidelines of the EU, and focused on rebutting Conservative criticisms, rather than putting forward positive arguments in favour.
Correspondents say that a general lack of knowledge about the EU's activities, and widespread distrust of Brussels in some quarters, will make it difficult to run a pro-constitution campaign, if the referendum ever returns to the agenda.
Results of opinion polls on the constitution vary, depending on the precise phrasing of the question. The ICM polling agency found in February that opinion was evenly balanced when respondents were asked the question that will actually be used in the referendum: "Should the United Kingdom approve the treaty establishing a constitution for the European Union?"
To this question, 39% said "Yes", 39% said "No", and 22% did not know.
But ICM simultaneously asked a second group of people a slightly different question - "If there were a referendum tomorrow, would you vote for Britain to sign up to the EU constitution or not?" In this case, 54% of respondents said "No", 26% said "Yes", and 20% did not know.
The UK last held a referendum on 6 June 1975, two-and-a-half years after joining the European Community, on whether to remain a member. Two-thirds of those who voted said "Yes".
Uphill EU battle for Blair
AUSTRIA - RATIFIED
The upper house of the Austrian parliament completed ratification on 25 May 2005. Three members of the far right voted against the constitution, while 59 other representatives approved it.
The lower house voted nearly unanimously in favour of ratification on 11 May.
Some Austrians have voiced concern about the constitution's inclusion of a mutual defence pact, on the grounds that it could affect the country's neutrality.
The leader of the far-right Alliance for Austria's Future, Joerg Haider, has also objected to the idea of the EU constitution overriding Austria's own national constitution.
He has said he will ask the Constitutional Court to rule on whether it is legal to ratify the EU constitution without a plebiscite. However, legal experts say the ratification by parliament is final.
BELGIUM
Belgium has opted for parliamentary ratification of the constitution.
It has already been approved by both houses of the federal parliament, but has yet to be approved by the regional assemblies.
A Eurobarometer poll in November 2004 found 70% of respondents in favour of the constitution, compared with 13% against. Only Italians were more enthusiastic about the constitution.
CYPRUS
Cyprus did not have a referendum on joining the EU and will not hold one on the constitution.
ESTONIA
Estonians are among the more Eurosceptic of the new members.
The Estonian government has decided not to have a referendum on the constitution - a decision the majority of the country's parties agree with. The final decision on ratifying the treaty will be taken by the parliament.
FINLAND
Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen has ruled out the need for a referendum, saying that the EU would not change so much under the new constitution that a referendum would be warranted.
However, there has been disagreement from a number of prominent Finnish politicians, including Minister of Trade and Industry Mauri Pekkarinen as well as Justice Minister Johannes Koskinen, who suggested a public vote should be held together with the next Finnish presidential elections in 2006.
GERMANY - RATIFIED --(FOR NOW))--
Germany does not hold referendums, so it ratified the EU constitution in parliament. A two-thirds majority was easily gained in both houses.
The lower house, the Bundestag, approved the constitution on 12 May. The upper house, the Bundesrat, voted on 27 May - two days before the French referendum, in a deliberate attempt to set an example to French voters.
The main political parties are in favour of the constitution, which increases Germany's voting power in the Council of Ministers. However, there are critics on both Left and Right.
The successor of the former East German communist party, the Party of Democratic Socialism, is against the constitution. Representatives from the eastern state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern abstained during the vote on ratification in the upper house of parliament, because the PDS is a junior partner in the state government.
One right-wing critic, Peter Gauweiler of the opposition Christian Social Union, has taken a case to the Constitutional Court, challenging parts of the EU constitution and the way it was approved. He says the EU constitution undermines important elements of the German national constitution.
Experts say the case could delay for months the final stage of ratification - signature by President Horst Koehler, which would otherwise have been a formality.
A poll in mid-May by ARD television suggested that 59% of Germans supported the constitution, 15% were against it, and 26% were undecided.
Correspondents say that although most Germans are in favour of European integration, there is anxiety about the impact of further EU expansion on German unemployment, and concern that liberal economic reforms could damage the country's social model.
GREECE - RATIFIED
Greece has a tradition of ratifying treaties through parliament, and the constitution will be no exception.
As well as the support of the government, the constitution also has the backing of the main opposition party - the recently defeated socialists Pasok.
HUNGARY - RATIFIED
On 20 December 2004, Hungary became the second country to ratify the European Union constitution with a parliamentary vote, by a margin of 304 votes to nine.
The Eurobarometer poll in November 2004 found 60% in favour of the constitution and 9% against, while 31% had no opinion.
ITALY - RATIFIED
Italy ratified the constitution on 6 April with an overwhelming majority in the upper house of parliament - 217 votes to 16.
The text, which was signed by EU leaders in Rome last year, was approved by the Italian lower house (the Chamber of Deputies) in January.
Centrist parties backed the constitution. However, the Northern League, which is part of the coalition government, and the Communist Party, argue that it erodes national and regional sovereignty.
A Eurobarometer poll in November 2004 found Italy was more enthusiastic about the constitution than any other EU country: 72% of respondents were in favour, 10% were against and 18% did not know.
EU drama overshadows Italy's plans
LATVIA - RATIFIED
Latvia ratified the EU constitution in parliament on 2 June 2005, just hours after the Dutch had rejected it. Latvian MPs backed it by an overwhelming 71 votes to five.
The Latvian Prime Minister, Aigars Kalvitis, said other EU countries should follow the Latvian example in ratifying the treaty, because it was "important to know the views of all member states".
Latvian Foreign Minister Artis Pabriks insisted that the treaty was "not dead". "We think this treaty is the best compromise we could find. We know it's not perfect, but we have to go on," he said.
LITHUANIA - RATIFIED
Lithuania became the first country in the EU to ratify the new EU constitution on 11 November 2004, passing it by 84 votes to four with three abstentions.
It was argued that a referendum was unnecessary given that one had been held on joining the EU in 2003, in which 91% voted "Yes".
MALTA
The Maltese parliament is expected to vote on the constitution in July 2005.
All three political parties in the country are in favour of ratification. The traditionally Eurosceptic Malta Labour Party, which has 48% of the seats in parliament, took a decision to back the constitution in May 2005.
Debate on the constitution has focused on the question of whether there is a clash with traditional Maltese Christian values, and possible threats to Maltese sovereignty.
The November 2004 Eurobarometer poll found 31% in favour of the EU constitution and 13% opposed, making Malta one of the five most Eurosceptic EU states.
The March 2003 accession referendum passed by a narrower margin than in any other new member state: 54% to 46%, which may be one reason why the governing pro-European National Party rejected calls for a referendum.
SLOVAKIA - RATIFIED
The Slovak parliament ratified the constitution on 11 May, by 116 votes to 27, with four abstentions.
The head of the Christian-Democratic Party, Pavol Hrusovsky, voted against the treaty, accusing it of failing to overcome the European Union's "lack of democracy".
"This treaty again reinforces a more centralised decision mechanism in Brussels without any real influence of national parliaments," he said.
The Eurobarometer poll in November 2004 found 61% in favour of the constitution and 11% against, while 28% had no opinion.
SLOVENIA - RATIFIED
Slovenia's parliament voted overwhelmingly to ratify the European Union constitution on 1 February 2005. MPs supported the move by 79 votes to four.
SWEDEN
The Swedish parliament is expected to ratify the constitution by December 2005, though there is still a possibility of a referendum being called.
The main political parties - conscious that Swedes rejected the euro in 2003 - say a referendum is unnecessary because the constitution does not make fundamental changes.
However, Eurosceptics from a number of parties have been lobbying for a referendum. A petition of 120,000 signatures was handed in to the government in March.
Eurosceptic members of the governing Social Democrats have also been gathering signatures in the hope of forcing the party leadership to change tack.
An opinion poll in March suggested that 58% of Swedes would favour a referendum.
Some left-wing critics of the constitution say it introduces right-wing economic policies. Another criticism is that the constitution will consolidate the power of larger states at the expense of the smaller ones.
Debate has also touched on the question of whether or not the constitution makes the EU more democratic and what effect it would have on Sweden's non-aligned status.
Prime Minister Goran Persson said after the Dutch "No" vote that Sweden would continue with ratification unless other EU members demanded a re-negotiation of the treaty.
"As soon as we have such an indication, we would naturally break off the ratification process. It is meaningless to take a position on something that others have already thrown out," he told the Dagens Nyheter newspaper.
According to the Eurobarometer poll in November 2004, only 27% of Swedes were in favour of the constitution, while 25% were opposed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3954327.stm
follow all the links on that bbc.co.uk main EU page,
and
keep track with this RMN thread developed, starting here below:
Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, Ireland, Estonia and Portugal will re-align.
