> * At three hundred pages, it is far too ambitious and defines things
> such as military and economic policy that shouldn't be laid down in a
> constitution.
Why not? Isn't it better to have EU-wide control over the military, rather than allowing individual states to wage evil neocolonial wars?
> employment, environment. Particularly controversial is the
> liberalization of services (cf, services in the internal market
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_services_in_the_internal_market>,
> the so-called "Bolkestein Directive"). This in particular has brought
> the unions up in arms.
This is true. Admittedly, there's nothing in the directive which hasn't already been implemented by EU neolibs. But it's always nice to see neoliberalism get clobbered at the polls.
> * It will give more power to the large European countries (Germany,
> France) at the cost of the smaller members, like the Netherlands.
Well, it would have allowed for majority voting on certain issues, whereas consensus is required right now (meaning, a tiny minority can block certain issues). But over the long haul, why should voters in Luxembourg have more per capita voting clout than German voters?
-- DRR