Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

For those of you who follow politics, this is a potentially big day in the international sphere. The French people have rejected the EU constitution in a political referendum. This is important for a variety of reasons.

All 25 member nations of the EU must approve the constitution in order for it to take effect. Nine nations have already done so, though most did it through their legislature. French President Jacques Chirac put it to the people, thinking it would easily pass. It may turn out to be the biggest miscalculation of an already floundering career. France is now the first country to reject it.

That France is the first country gives the rejection a special importance. France is a founder of the EU, and has long been seen as its leader, possiby sharing that role with Germany and contending for it against Britain, a country that would probably take the EU in a more Anglican/American direction. While people can only guess at the ramifications, many predictions are understandably pessimistic. Some are saying the constitution is all but dead, and that further European integration will be indefinitely stalled. For a region where many leaders and citizens want the EU to serve as a counterweight to established American and rising Chinese power and influence, this could do much to weaken Europe's collective political voice (though probably not its economic clout).

For France itself, the effects may prove much more devestating. Its position as Europe's leader will come into question. If nine countries can ratify the constitution, and France cannot, then how can it hope to lead Europe into this new century? If France's position as the leader of the EU weakens, so will its voice in the international community. Domestically, the future seems uncertain. Chircac, already unpopular, is sure to suffer only further ridicule. He can only take solace in that the opposition Socialist party will likely fall into disarray, as its leaders also supported the constitution while a breakway segment oppossed it. A call for Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin to resign seems highly probable.

I do not fall into the Bush camp of systematic French bashing, but this strikes me as one of the most absurd political decisions the French people could make. It seems to me that many French lament the loss of past greatness, and talk of restoring the country's standing and influence in the world. This is certainly not the way to do it. It seems to me that they have voted against their best interests. As stated in a BBC article:

Quote

Back at La Defense, Pierre Bouzin says he has heard all the arguments before, but thinks that it is the "No" camp that is out of touch.

Voting "No" will cause irreparable damage to France's reputation, he says, and there will be no big popular uprising.

"People will say 'what's wrong with those French people?'

Well, now it's out in the open. A few things to add though.

People says that the european consitution is now dead, but it's definitely not. To begin with, it wasn't a done deal, because it needed 25 yes and 0 no, which is far harder than it seems. Now it's sure that this one won't, but what's more important is that countries who have not yet decided might now reconsider things: after all, if France isn't on board, why should we, might they think... I hope that the next step will be for the remaining countries to use the same tool to decide wether or not they agree with this specific Constitution, to have a clearer view of europeans (and I mean the actual people, not the governments) feeling about this Constitution.

It is a stop nonetheless, but it doesn't mean that it's a bad one. A new Constitution will eventually be written (I give it a maximum of 4 years). Considering that any european decision takes at least 6 years to be in effect in all countries, it's not a "big" deal, imo. French international reputation will be tarnished of course, but who can ultimately blame a leader for deciding to let the people decides on important matters...? Let's not forget we're a democracy to begin with.

The real effects of this vote are France only: new government, and possibly a new deputy chamber if Chirac decides to dissolve "l'Assemblée Nationale", which he might do. For Chirac, it's not a problem anymore, since it probably won't affect his popularity that much: it's not that big to begin with, plus the fault falls on every major party in France, not really himself. Raffarin will serve as another safety, which has been done numerous times through french fifth Republic, and Chirac can then turn to a possible candidacy for a third mandate. A lot of people deem it unlikely, but I believe he'll try nonetheless: credibility has been lost on both left and right leaders, but he's an experienced enough politician to turn it for himself and let others take the fault. And France is not so different than USA on the matter of electing a president: it's first a question of a man, then of political party.

I'm sure that a lot of non-europeans do not fully understand why it happened, but maybe they should try and read the Consitution fully, and then try to understand parts of it. I find it unlikely that 25 countries would have said yes to it to begin with. And I very much like the fact that we, the french people, were given the right to say 'yes' or 'no' to it, and not the government in place at that time (especially considering that Chirac was elected as a default president...).

The people did vote, and they voted "no".

I think what some people are overlooking is the "why"... why did they not ratify it? Probably because of a provision or two that didn't fly with them. The U.S. Constitution wasn't written and ratified in one go, remember, it took first the failed Articles of Confederation and then the lengthy, debate-heavy process that yielded the Constitution. Some folks are probably just making too big a deal about nothing major here... the EU constitution isn't dead, it just has to be edited now.

--------------------

~Status Report~

* Completed... Dragon's Head
* Completed... Soldiers of the Empire: Disciples (release pending)
* In Progress/Undecided... Of Love and Betrayal
* Planning/Assembly... Where it all Began

It's all one word: Independence.

The EU Constituion, a bloated and complex disaster, conflicts with National laws, adds extra layers of red tape. It's too long, too complex. People are afraid of long and complex, becuase that hides things. There's far too much wrong with it, and too many people are worried by the notion of a federal europe.

This was NOT an "absurd" descion, this was NOT "against France's best intrests", this is France, standing up for freedom once more, with few allies, and instead of being mauled this time, it stands tall and proud. Another country that speaks a lot of freedom owes it existence to France. The reason nine other countries ratified it, is because they didn't ask thier people except for Spain. I hardly see how allowing democracy and freedom of opinon to play out is wrong. It's played out, and France has said no.

It's always needed editing. What is needed is a flexible, partly-written constitution that does not hand as much power to Brussels and Strasbourg. Do Americans truly want Ireland and the UK swallowed up by the EUSSR?

An exgaggeration, of course. The USSR was communist. The EU's more right-wing and bizzare. Fishing subsidies to landlocked countries while the UK fleet is mothballed, anyone?

The UK does not need anything else right now. This is a damaging route forward. We join the consitution, we lose some power. We lose our own control of our economy. Britian's a twitchy nation at best, and we currently have problems caused by too much red tape, legislation, legal wrangling, and general moneywasting on those. If we cut all that out, we save billions. Britian did not need the constituion force on us by peer pressure, nor did we need it just dropped on us by our own elected officials. We need this constituion sorted to work more for the people of europe, rather than the small elite of the politicians.

It's what I've always said. I Love France, as a country. Love (most of) France, as a people. Hate France, as a government. Just like the US. Like the country, like most of the people, hate the government.

As usual, any issue in what I say there, PM me.



--------------------

"Only the dead have seen the end of their quotes being misattributed to Plato."
-George Santayana

"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here..."
-Abraham Lincoln, prior to the discovery of Irony.

The European Union is not a country, and I beg for it to never become one.

Personally, I don't know yet if I'm for or against the constitution tractate, I just haven't made up my mind yet. I don't fully understand it (as I don't understand a great many things, but that's another point).
However, when I hear or read WHY the people voted YES or NO, my belief in the people twists with pain.

The people who said "yes" (not all of them I hope, but the ones I heard/read) said it was because they "want a good future for Europe" and that they don't care about what's badd in the constitution. That, in my opinion classifies them as retards or idiots.

Those who said "no" were all about how it's socially incorrect, makes work-law worse, is indemocratical, how they're tired of the European Comission... Wich, I daresay, classifies them as biased.

I still don't know what I shall say about the constitution, but I know for sure, I'll read it a few more times, and a lot more thoroughly first.

--------------------

"I fell off the mountain of words at around the 10,000ft mark. Tell my family...they owe me money." -Narratorway

"If you retort against this, so help me God I'll shove any part of your anatomy I can find into some other part. Figuratively, of course." - Josh

"We have more, can deliver tuesday." - Del S

Good old CoN

I just can't bring myself to care about the whole Europe thing. ^^ One way or the other.

All I want is to keep the pound because it's worth more than the Euro. ¬¬

Good fer France I say.

--------------------

The Arcana are the means by which ALL is revealed.

Quote (Mr Thou @ 29th May 2005 18:11)

Well, now it's out in the open. A few things to add though.

Quote (Del S @ 30th May 2005 04:10)

This was NOT an "absurd" descion, this was NOT "against France's best intrests", this is France, standing up for freedom once more, with few allies, and instead of being mauled this time, it stands tall and proud. Another country that speaks a lot of freedom owes it existence to France.

...

It's what I've always said. I Love France, as a country. Love (most of) France, as a people. Hate France, as a government. Just like the US. Like the country, like most of the people, hate the government.

I know you said to PM you about such matters, Del S, but I really felt this deserved a public rebuke because I think you and Mr. Thou may have gotten the wrong impression from my original post.

I, likewise, do not hate the French. I very much appreciate French language, history, and culture. However, as a student of law and politics concentrating in international affairs, I'm afraid I simply do not understand the way in which the French public conceptualizes politics. It seems many want the EU to stand against American hegemony, yet they voted against a constitution that would strengthen Europe. I know there were other issues involved as well. The French welfare state, the constitution being too "British/capitalistic," and then groups I don't think anyone on this board would hesitate to label as crazy, like the French National Front, which is probably still lamenting the loss of Vichy France.

As for the socialists, perhaps the move away from a welfare state to a free market is what they voted against. But perhaps it is the efficiency of that more "British" model that gives the British and the Americans a bigger say in the world. I've heard the socialist argument that "progress is a myth" but I'm afraid I simply don't believe it. Progress is real, and the reason why we can talk to each other with no difficulty despite being on opposite ends of the ocean. The result of this decision will be, for the time being, that France's standing in the world either stays where it was or lessens. Which is fine, if that's what you want, but then don't complain when France's voice is ignored in the international community.

On a personal level, I'm rather ambivalent about the whole thing. A weaker France and a weaker Europe means better standing for the US in the world. However, I also worry that "better standing" might translate into encouragement of Bush policies, most of which I do not agree with. From the standpoint of a rational free-thinker, though, my reaction is simply shock. It seems to me, to repeat my earlier statement, that the French have voted against their best interests, and using my own logic the vote simply makes no sense to me.

Quote (MetroidMorphBall @ 30th May 2005 20:21)

It seems to me, to repeat my earlier statement, that the French have voted against their best interests, and using my own logic the vote simply makes no sense to me.

Well, to put it bluntly: how do you define our best interest? You're not french, you don't live in France, you're not european, so how would you judge that the french people voted against their best interest...?

Despite all that you may know about french politics (and you do know more than the last person I had a conversation with about french politics), you do not know how this vote will turn out to be judged in the future. It may appear as a mistake now (which is definitely open to debate, because once again I don't see how a people consultation can be a wrong thing), but it may well be a foundation for another Constitution later on, deprived of what some people might think is wrong with this one.

You only perceive it as a mistake: once again, France appears as the ugly duck, the country who do not fall in line. Well, I must say I see nothing wrong with that. History proved many times that the ones who do not fall in line can achieve great things. Like France and USA for example...

This post has been edited by Mr Thou on 30th May 2005 18:52

Mr Thou summed it all up when he put it bluntly. You aren't here, so how can you define out best intrests? I am here, and I can define my best intrests: A constituion that is beneficial to the member states, rather than the bloated and flawed mess that it currently is. I don't think Progress is a myth, but I also am pretty sure this Constution would only be progress to a federal Europe. That's bad for Europe because we're all too different. Each area is too independent to suddenly merge and be governed by local parlaiments, the cprocess of changing would cost too much for very little real gain. I call myself Scottish first, British Second, European Third. I also call myself a Socialist. I also have the progress of Scotland and the UK in my interestes, and I fail to see how becoming reliant of Brussels is progress.

What I'd want from an EU constituion is one that only makes it easier to get things done, not one that hands power to Brussels to do anything it likes , when so much of it isn't elected, and those who are elected are elected in elections with such low turnout. Most Europeans care about thier country first. National Identity is at risk.

You can't understand why we do not want it: I cannot understand why you think we'd want it. The EU constituion is regressive to everyone but Federal Europe in it's current guise.

Beyond that, us Brits are paranoid. we fear loss of identity, of power, we fear the fact that it means our border controls rely on people who are not us, it means our economy is dictated to us by people the majority of us may not have wanted, it means we might becoem the same as all the 'blue' states in America, having to grin an bear it as some rednecks drag the domestic side backwards to the 18th centrury and the foreign side forward into world war three. We don't like Europe's politicians much. We distrust our own, but we really don't like the idea of some German running the show, of some Frenchman telling us what to do. We're the UK, and we have our own problems. We don't want the new ones the Constituion dumps on us. We don't want the Euro. Some of us want out of the EU. We hate the stupid descions, red tape, lack of democracy. We truly fear change here, because we know it's a change for our worse. It may be beneficial to Europe, but it will be agnoy for the component bodies.

This post has been edited by Del S on 30th May 2005 19:41

--------------------

"Only the dead have seen the end of their quotes being misattributed to Plato."
-George Santayana

"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here..."
-Abraham Lincoln, prior to the discovery of Irony.

Quote (Mr Thou @ 30th May 2005 13:52)

Well, to put it bluntly: how do you define our best interest? You're not french, you don't live in France, you're not european, so how would you judge that the french people voted against their best interest...?

Quote (Del S @ 30th May 2005 14:40)

You aren't here, so how can you define out best intrests?

I edited this post a few times because I was, frankly, angry at the suggestion that because I'm not French or European I can't have an opinion about French or European affairs. When writing a reply I was caught between trying to be civil, and trying to be angry, and now that I've had time to collect my thoughts I think that I can write a response.

You're both right that I'm not French, and I'm not European. However, I take a lot of offense at the suggestion that because of this I have no right to an opinion on French and European affairs. I did not come up with this opinion on a whim. My opinion is the result of having studied foreign affairs, especially the development of the European Union, for the past five or six years. True, my view comes as an outsider, specifically as an American. But in the small amount of time I spent living in Europe (and yes, I have lived there) I observed that Europeans had no reservations expressing their opinions about America and George W. Bush. You have no right to tell me I can't express my views on Europe and France unless you have never expressed your own opinions about the United States. Judging by Mr Thou's staff profile, which says that he spends his time "opposing governmental decisions from the USA, as does every good French on his sparetime," I would say this is certainly not the case. Likewise, a quick search of your posts, Del S, reveals an extensive analysis of the US election in this thread, despite the fact that "you aren't here."

Quote (Mr Thou @ 30th May 2005 13:52)

Despite all that you may know about french politics (and you do know more than the last person I had a conversation with about french politics), you do not know how this vote will turn out to be judged in the future.

You only perceive it as a mistake:

Quote (MetroidMorphBall @ 29th May 2005 16:40)

It seems to me that they have voted against their best interests.

Quote (MetroidMorphBall @ 30th May 2005 13:21)

It seems to me, to repeat my earlier statement, that the French have voted against their best interests, and using my own logic the vote simply makes no sense to me.

Notice how in both posts I said it seems to me. I made it quite clear that this is my opinion. I also made no claims that my predictions were a certainty. And it is certainly not "me only" that perceives this vote as a mistake. This same opinion is being voiced elsewhere, including, not surprisingly, in France.

I have no desire to force my view upon you. I also had no desire to offend anyone's sensibilities, and that's the reason I felt the need to make my second post. But I certailny will not apologize for or retract my view simply because you feel that, as an American, I am not informed enough to have an opinion.

Mr Thou, if you felt I was in any way undeservedly bashing your country, I can only tell you that was not my intention. It does not, however, change the way I feel about this vote.

Quote (Mr Thou @ 30th May 2005 13:52)

France appears as the ugly duck, the country who do not fall in line. Well, I must say I see nothing wrong with that. History proved many times that the ones who do not fall in line can achieve great things. Like France and USA for example...

I do appreciate the rest of your response. I would like to say, in response to this, that there is nothing wrong with standing outside the norm. Being a liberal, such as myself, was not popular in the United States for the past four years. We took a lot of abuse, though perhaps not as much as the French. Through it all, I stuck to my convictions. I can therefore respect your right to an individual opinion, even if I do not agree with it in this situation.

This post has been edited by MetroidMorphBall on 31st May 2005 05:36

As an American I'd think you'd get the importance of independence. France simply realised as an EU founder that things were going too far. The countries under the EU can't do what they think best for themselves if the countries around them don't agree. If there is a negative effect for France it's a price one pays for independence. I hope we do the same because the EU really needs to sort itself out.

--------------------

The Arcana are the means by which ALL is revealed.

TWO NIL TO LIBERTY!

This is probably the deathblow for the constitution in it's current format. I hope it is, and I hope that, should any other referendum's take place, this bloated and flawed current idea is wiped out, and sent back to be repaired.

And on the subject: I was merely asking, and you answered: you've built up your knoweldge upon it over the years. But will the EU constitution affect you for better or worse? Is your national independence at stake? Your rights, your freedoms? Does this constitution affect you daily?

It will affect us. So we must decide for ourselves. I never at any point stated you had no right to comment, merely wonered as to why you felt that it was some sort of error. It may be ebest for Europe, but it's very bad for the individual person's freedoms and democracy. We're too different to integrate that much further tight now, and like hell the current, hopefully dead, constituion, would serve to do anything but further complexify the entire European process, drive people even further from any real concern about European issues, and ultimatley leas to even more problems for the people. It's a very local issue, for local people, so we can decide that it was not a mistake. As an outsider, you can think that it was a mistake as it will cause problems for the main body, but the fact remains that EU integration is hurting nations whilst expanding the Union. The best intrestes of the individual are difined by the individual. If you were to be in Europe, your best intrests may have been to go for the constitution: but for the vast majority of people who have seen the EU flounder, blunder, dither, and generally mess things up, and take more and more power over more an more things, people are beggining to fear for thier independence and freedom. This constituion, a large and complex document, is doubly fearsome as not only is it so long and complex, but people fear such things, and since they already fear it, they relaise that since it's so long, there may be problems nestling away there, ready to assault local democracy in the name of federal law. The US may work on that system but most US states are fundementally very similar, speak the same langauegs, do the same things, watch the same TV, read the same books and newspapers. Europe is a collection of independent states, we do different things, we speak different langauegs, we used to have different currencies.

Another problem I have is that its a 'my way or the highway' approach mostly, and I despise having to choose from only 2 options in major things. I prefer to seek middle ground, somethign where the vast majority is pleased, not where the economy of europe as a whole does well at the currency of national independence. Why can't the Euro be adopted in addition to the previous currencies? Why can't the EU constituion be only about EU issues rather than running the risk of superceding national constitutions?

So, you may think it was out best interest, we may think otherwise. This current constituion, I stress again, was too complicated, toolong, and above all, too far reaching. It was only in the intrests of a few, and would ultimatley be worst for the majority.

But anyway, looks like two-nil on referendums, and looks liek they'll need to fix the thing before it dies totally.

--------------------

"Only the dead have seen the end of their quotes being misattributed to Plato."
-George Santayana

"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here..."
-Abraham Lincoln, prior to the discovery of Irony.

The Dutch voted 'no'. I'm glad we did; the constitution as it's lying on the table right now is one I'd rather not have. I voted no myself as well.

I don't know what will happen next. The government is still in a position where they can give their thumbs-up for it, but that's political suicide if I ever saw it. They could try another referendum and see if we're going to swallow a constitution with a few points on it changed; it's happened before.

What made me mad today was how the politicians who are in favor of the constitution blamed it all on the campaigning of the no-side, which is simply ridiculous. First, the larger parties all were in favor, including the leading opposing ones. The political parties against the constitution were, among others, the extreme right-wing Geert Wilders, the overly strong left-wing SP, the religious zealots of the SGP and, oh goodness, the Party of the Animals. None of the above have a significant consistency whatsoever. The money was on the Yes-side. The media presented the dilemma with having two choices: You're in favor, or you're misinformed. Everything was pushing us to go vote in favor or the constitution.

But despite all that, they didn't keep the majority of the Dutch people from thinking that the United States of Europe isn't a logical progression, that a European Constituion isn't wanted, and that there is no reason whatsoever to go make a superpower out of ourselves at the cost of, you know, being able to have full control over your own army and other logical and basic liberties of a country.



--------------------

The Collapse of Heaven and Earth

You're right that I have no personal stake in this. That's why I never said anything along the lines of, "I should get to vote about this." However, I have studied international affairs and currently plan on doing the same when I return to school. On a personal basis, this could be relevant to my future studies and, at some point in life, my job. Besides that, however, I just find it interesting. So that's why I expressed my opinion.

Now, about the Dutch vote:

Momentum may have had an influence. If the French had voted "yes" that very well may have carried over into the Dutch vote. The reverse, that a "no" vote encouraged "no" votes in The Netherlands, is also likely. Even though the polls, pre-French vote, indicated the Dutch would vote "no" that margin was much closer than the eventual results. I think that indicates the French vote helped widen the gap. It reminds me of how John Kerry was fourth in New Hampshire and then, after winning Iowa, was first within a week.

Regardless, two countries have now voted no, and there are certain to be consequences. It could turn out that these two votes force the European leaders to create a new and improved constitution that strengthens Europe and is beneficial to the majority of its populace. They're certainly going to have to do something if, as you say, they don't want the idea of a constitution to die.

It could also turn out that this will ultimately weaken the voice of Europe, and each member state, when it comes to world affairs. Your political leaders are clearly disappointed. That could be because, as you put it, they are the only ones that would have benefited by increased power. Of course, that increased power could have been just what they needed to compete with us, China, and India economically; to make their voice stronger in international affairs regarding situations such as Iran; to modernize a European military so that they could handle a situation such as the Balkans, etc.

Perhaps their regret comes from realizing how much harder it will be to make the rest of the world hear Europe's collective voice, if Europe is to have a collective voice at all. Since you "prefer to seek middle ground, somethign where the vast majority is pleased, not where the economy of europe as a whole does well at the currency of national independence," and Djibriel thinks, "there is no reason whatsoever to go make a superpower out of ourselves at the cost of, you know, being able to have full control over your own army and other logical and basic liberties of a country," I assume this wouldn't bother the two of you even if it was definitely the case. That's fine. You'll be directly affected by this, so you should certainly determine what is right for you and vote your conscience.

As I said earlier, on a personal level I'm rather ambivalent about the whole thing. My interest comes largely as an outside observer. As an outside observer, however, my observations still stand. We'll only know with time how this will actually turn out.

I'm not really following the issue, but I'm not liking the idea of a united Europe. Every time Europeans try being "buddy-buddy" with each other, there's a World War.

--------------------

"I had to write four novels before they let me write comic books."
-Brad Meltzer

Quote (Dark Paladin @ 2nd June 2005 03:17)

I'm not really following the issue, but I'm not liking the idea of a united Europe. Every time Europeans try being "buddy-buddy" with each other, there's a World War.

Well, think about it this way. The UK and France combined would create a nuclear superpower with about the 2rd or even 2nd largest arsenal of nuclear weapons. As an added fear factor, they'd be Submarine-based. If we go by convwentional forces, take 1 Red Army, + US-style/superior to US equipment = US Army utterly owned. The EU could feild a larger, better trained, conventional force and the US army would be wiped out.

But really, thinking that an alliance wil spark a war again is unfounded: the first world war was years of tensions being released when a suitable excuse, I mean, significant reason, came along, and the 2nd World War, most of the nations were trying diplomacy to avert the war, and it failed. That last fact is probably to blame for the fact America seems to ask questions to smoking craters and weeping widows.

The entire point in the EU was that it was orginally a trade pact between France and Germany, and other nations joined in. It's helped prevent inter-member conflict at anything but 'I'm not talking to you so there' level and of course, football, for about 60 years. But a large federal europe, allied and armed... Why, the US would see something not just similar to, but larger than, themselves, and then the usual mass paranoia of America will spring up. If we don't see war, we'll see more trade wars. Maybe the first world trade war, with China on hand to reap the spoils from both sides.

I'm not too worried about "Europes Voice" I'm more concerened about "America's Ears". Jeez, guys, ever heard of cotton buds? CLEAN 'EM OUT, DEAFIE! By that, I mean that they (The US Government) won't listen anyway, and so, why bother trying to speak louder? We'll just strain our throats. I don't think this will really damage Europe's voice at all: after all, the only people who listened to us before were listening for other reasons.

No one want's to listen right now. Why waste time, effort, and independence to have them ignore a louder voice?

This post has been edited by Del S on 2nd June 2005 09:32

--------------------

"Only the dead have seen the end of their quotes being misattributed to Plato."
-George Santayana

"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here..."
-Abraham Lincoln, prior to the discovery of Irony.