Only in the EU....

[rmnunez]

With 84% tallied, 57% "non":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...900141_pf.html

This will bring the Euro down (has already).

The aversion for sweatshops is fine, but the 35 hour workweek and 3 months paid vacations have to go. There are people in Britain, Germany and France retiring from a lifetime on the dole receiving paid job retraining, and they never held a job. The EU has to compete with the US and China. One has most of the same benefits and entitilements, the other rarely any, their market is places where their labour standards rarely apply. Those standards cost a lot making EU outputs much more expensive.

[tusaki]

The lower rate of the euro is a good thing, because it was hurting our exports. And it is fear of the American deficit and it's unilateralism, the price of oil etc which drove investors to the euro, because they see (saw?) it as a "stable" "safe" bet in these awkward times. I agree that the grand social schemes as they currently exist must be moderated, not because they are bad in essence, but because it is unrealistic to expect them to survive the torrent of the retiring baby boom generation. I think a middle way can and will be found.

Having said that, I'm sad France voted no, however I already expected such a thing to happen. I also expect the Netherlands to vote no. Although the people actually voting down the constitution are hard to find. Fear for loss of worker's rights, unhappiness with our respective governments, unhappiness with turkey joining, the euro coin which they believe has made everything more expensive and a ton of other non-EU-constitution reasons drove the people to vote no. Like I said before, this should not have been called a 'constitution', because it isn't, really...

I expect a watered down treaty to be created later this year, basically omitting the controversial stuff, while keeping the updated administrative and legislative rules. Because a way must be found to keep the decision making process efficient with 25 members.

I will still vote, and I will still vote yes, even though it might be an act of futility.

Europe needs a rejuvenation: Britain's last Minister for Europe, Denis MacShane, said it best:

"Europe has been in economic stagnation for a decade in part because of wrong decisions by the European Commission with its obsession on over-regulation and by the failure of the European Central Bank to respond to the economic standstill," MacShane said. "Political-constitutional advances have to be based on economic and social confidence. Until Europe accepts the need for reform it will be hard to move forward to our common wish to see Europe as a powerful actor for peace and democracy in the world." "The French Non is a symptom of a deeper European crisis - the failure of adapt to the new economic and social and environmental order in the world since the end of communism and the arrival of open trade called globalization," MacShane went on. "The answer will not be found by the gentlemen of Brussels but by the willingness of political actors in Italy, France, Germany, Spain, Britain and the rest of Europe to rethink out-of-date 20th century economic and social ideology. We need a new 3-way historic compromise between economy, society and environment. Unfortunately we only hear the shrill protectionism and rejectionism of those who know how to say No to the future rather than work collaboratively to build a new Europe." "I hope this shock will force pro-Europeans to unite and defeat the reactionary forces of the left and right who have unleashed a politics of fear in place of the hope all Europeans need," McShane added.

[castille]

Quote by: G. Adams What puzzles me is why they are against it at all. (in relation to supporting a EU)

Have you considered the notion that perhaps, not everyone thinks exactly like you? When you become socialist dictator you can force everyone to think the same. But until then, individualism reigns free.

[rmnunez]

There is the “no” of the disappointed European lover, just as we have the inevitable “yes” of the resigned. This constitution does not carry with it any substantial move towards a political union, nor does it herald the arrival of some social union or the emergence of a democratic European nation. There are inconsistencies in the arguments on both sides of the issue. The truth is that this rejected constitution revokes the Nice Treaty, restores EU decision-making capacities, advances better organization of internal jurisdictions, reaffirms fundamental rights and allows the European Union to advance. The question is whether something better will be accomplished with a “no” vote. Why would a new treaty negotiated with all 25 be better? The French ‘non’ will accelerate the Franco/German divorce. There are just 2 scenarios; either the EU forges ahead, despite the “no” and advances with the common market and Euros, or we will witness its desintegration. ´Il Sole 24 Ore´, 26 de mayo

http://www.lavanguardia.es/web/20050...185941116.html

[Nono]

Quote by: MacShane We need a new 3-way historic compromise between economy, society and environment. Unfortunately we only hear the shrill protectionism and rejectionism of those who know how to say No to the future rather than work collaboratively to build a new Europe.

So much rhetoric. He's one of those guys who says "We absolutely must make the sacrifices needed (don't worry, he personally won't be making any...) to remain competitive blabla." What he means by building the future is racing to the bottom along with the Bangladeshis and Chinese.

Quote by: Il Sole 24 Ore The question is whether something better will be accomplished with a “no” vote. Why would a new treaty negotiated with all 25 be better?

It won't be better for being negotiated by 25 but for the knowledge that the European people won't tolerate the baby going out with the bathwater.

There are just 2 scenarios; either the EU forges ahead, despite the “no” and advances with the common market and Euros, or we will witness its desintegration.

Yeah, yeah, we've heard that one before.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: castille Have you considered the notion that perhaps, not everyone thinks exactly like you? When you become socialist dictator you can force everyone to think the same. But until then, individualism reigns free.

I don't know why I waste my time replying to you

Tell me where did I make it appear that I believed everyone thought like me? I asked why they were against it, because I can't see anything in this constitution that is objectionable. I was asking for information. Is it really too much of a leap to expect even you to understand that, or is your eagerness to jump in with insults just too damned strong?

[rmnunez]

I do believe a constitution negotiated among all members would be preferable to one by some single luminary from just one, better to have more active particiation, for those subjected to the constitution to feel there is something of their aspirations and concerns in the product.

I also think constitutions are something to result from a natural need rather than some prerequisite for subsequent progress. Governments in the past have sometimes sought to lay some foundational keystone through constitution drafting, we see it in Iraq, as in Afghanistan and across the ex-Soviet satellites. Seems to me it would be wiser to work with the established rules until the need for change appeared, to correct and tinker with the receding document until, through amendments it is refashioned into what is sought from a new document at once. But that is with individual countries, we haven't seen this constitutionalizing process in the fusion of states or fashioning of 'suprastates', perhaps the diversity of multinational membership requires some sort of overarching consolidating document with a specified kickoff point.

[Nono]

I agree. It's a difficult challenge. Either way it just ain't gonna work if people's real concerns aren't addressed by it.

[rcne]

Well, it's a 'non' for France and the EU constitution. Just as in Bastille day - heads are beginning to roll in the government of France. Chirac can kiss his hope for a third term goodbye. Such is life when you spend all your political capital pushing an issue that the populace doesn't want.

They way they presented it, as 'We your Leaders know what is Best for You', doomed it from the beginning.

England, will now consider the entire concept of the EU constitution. It looks like it will be years before an acceptable to all EU constitution will be approved.

Now my question is, the ones who have accepted it, since it is bound to be changed, do they (such as Germany) have to hold another referendum to approve EU II?

[Nono]

Actually, rcne, Germany (to take your example) didn't hold a referendum for this text. It was voted on in parliament. It's up to them to decide what the procedure will be for any future text. There's no rule.

[rcne]

Quote by: Nono Actually, rcne, Germany (to take your example) didn't hold a referendum for this text. It was voted on in parliament. It's up to them to decide what the procedure will be for any future text. There's no rule.

It seems that it would be back to square one wouldn't it.

I did not expect, nor do I expect the 25 nations to ever be able to agree on a constitution as presented. The nationalistic cultures are just to diverse to fit under that one umbrella. I think the phrase 'The United States of Europe', is a grand concept and does have potential to present a united face of Europe to the world.

Kinnock's suggestion of a simple constitution may be the best way to present it to all 25 members.

Those who have already accepted the current constitution, such as Germany, are they still bound by it or will they also need to approve a modified EU constitution?

BBC: Kinnock says EU treaty now 'dead' Kinnock: Referendum results have to be listened to Ex-European Commissioner Neil Kinnock says the treaty on the EU constitution is dead after the French voted "No". But the former Labour leader said the UK government could not be seen to say that ahead of the Dutch vote on 1 June and its pending presidency of the EU. Lord Kinnock warned that it would be "a mistake" for EU leaders to set aside any votes that reject the constitution. He said the constitution was overly complicated and the EU needed to "strip it to essentials". Almost 55% of French people voted "No" and 45% "Yes", in the country's vote on Sunday. No doubts? The Dutch are also predicted to return a similar result when a referendum is held in Holland on Wednesday. Tony Blair said it was too early to say whether Britain will hold a referendum on the constitution - a vote that was expected next spring.

Full article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4595189.stm

[Lou Minotti]

Vic, this is pretty common for the EU. When the Nice Treaty was voted down what did they do? Amped up the propaganda and held another vote. Pathetic.

[rcne]

We may be watching the EU self implode. The euro is taking a hit, the 25 member agreement on principle is further away than ever, and France is circulating Chirac cronies in office.

[blibbka]

Quote by: rcne We may be watching the EU self implode. The euro is taking a hit, the 25 member agreement on principle is further away than ever, and France is circulating Chirac cronies in office.

I think that's a bit over-dramatic... "self-implode" is not the word I'd use. It seems to me that this is a set-back, but it's not the end of the EU, it's an indication that important sections of the EU do not agree or are not comfortable with the direction that the politicians seem to be setting us on. That's not the end though, it just means we have to discuss what's wrong with the constitution and try and address the problems. That will, or should, involve a diaolgue between the actual peoples of the EU over what we want from Europe. It seems to me that this will be difficult as there really isn't that much of an interchange of ideas and dialogue amongst Europeans outside of the European parliament. Frenchmen discuss the EU with Frenchmen, Englishmen with Englishmen, etc... but not really with each-other. So perhaps it's just too early to expect us to be making grand statements of common interest and policy; we're still trying to figure each other out.

I do think that there is a lot of ignorance over the role of the EU in the everyday lives of Europeans (and I include myself in that). I think this is reflected in the fact that France has rejected the constitution largely on the grounds that it is too "free-market", yet at the same time the majority of Britons seem to think it is too interventionist (forgive me if that is not the correct word).

Another point: I was attempting to read the constitution today. I didn't have tiime to get too far in but it struck me that what I read sounded rather idealistic: By which I mean a lot of words about wanting freedom, equality, solidarity, peace, etc... it sounded a little lacking in pragmatism. Don't we all want those things? Of course, but saying "we all want bla bla" doesn't get us any closer to it. Perhaps it gets more practical later.

[rmnunez]

Implosion may be the fate of the EU if they try to impose this constitution that just failed again. Seems to me the core problem is that the EUers are much more economically and socially integrated than they are politically and that this deficiency in political integration is at the root of this constitution's failure. What in France is tantamount to a neoliberal sell-out in Britain is often seen as a weak effort to window-dress leftist excesses. The political experience in the EU is very diverse, they don't share a common perspective on the role of the government, rights of the citizens, social responsibility, accountabiity for wealth, imperance of human rights...

In my view its premature to push a constitution for the EU, its not really needed, the EU's members must travel a bit in political unity before they can develop enough shared concerns to fill a political constitution with preclusions or mandates for authority. The US constitution emerged as a brake on authority's excesses, power yielded to the government grudgingly from individuals. In Europe these constraints on governmental excesses are reflected, but there hasn't been much need for them based on EU authorities excesses.

[Nono]

The constitution may be premature, but what was really premature was the expansion. Yet failure to expand would have led to frustration in tricky places.

As for gleeful predictions of doom by Americans who rightly recognize the European challenge ... les jes wait n see.

[blibbka]

Quote by: rmnunez ... the EU's members must travel a bit in political unity before they can develop enough shared concerns to fill a political constitution with preclusions or mandates for authority.

I think that sums up the problem nicely.

[G. Adams]

I've heard rumours that despite what D'Estang and Delors have said, there is a plan B waiting to be enacted if this dies. It will be a stripped down "constitution" that really is just a tying up of all previous treaties, and the bits they want that are a little more controversial will be tacked on in time as treaties, rather than articles of the consitution, so they won't be subject to referendums.

But I do think we need to get rid of the national vetoes. You will never get 25 nations to agree on something if vetoes exist, especially if we pain in the ass repeats of Thatcher who will veto everything on principle.

[castille]

Quote by: G. Adams Tell me where did I make it appear that I believed everyone thought like me? I asked why they were against it, because I can't see anything in this constitution that is objectionable. I was asking for information.

No you weren't. You were implying that people who disagree with the constitution are stupid. Just like you've implied anyone who disagrees with socialism or votes for Bush are dumbasses.

Perhaps you can't see anything objectable in the constitution because you refuse to. Only fanatics agree 100% with anything.

[Matt W]

Whatever, castille. Shall we return to the topic at hand? Continue that discussion with G.Adams by PM, if you want.

Do not respond to me within this thread.