I don't undestand, if the Constitution is rejected by
any member, it doesn't go into effect. The idea is that either the EU moves forward as
a whole or not at all, unlike in the US, where only a certain number of states had to ratifiy it in order for the Constitution (or at first the
Articles of Confederation) to go into effect (for those who did ratify it).
Under the plan, the treaty would be voted on again by the French after its ratification by all other EU states.
However, if France votes against the treaty by a big majority, a possible outcome dubbed a "grand Non", many EU leaders accept that the constitution
would in effect be dead, and it would be futile to try to shore it up with an emergency statement
So it looks like this 'plan b' is to stump for the Constitution in the other states, and not just drop it merely if france votes against it, and
then have a re-vote in france. I can't see how it would make a difference, surely no one is voting against it becuase they think other nations will
vote against it, and obviously the French don't have any issues with being seen as 'obstructionists'.
Certainly a turning point in history, this bit, might set the standard for the EU superstate. I don't think that its inevitiable that it will happen
in modern times, if there is widespread support against the constiotution, which
does'nt even form a federal state, then there's not going to
be more for such an integrated federal state. This constiution doesn't even provide for an EU army, no? All it does is give more power to the
parliament and create an EU foreign minister, while not even getting ride of State Foreign Ministers. Its a very weak constitution, to say the least.
