NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: Why France is highly unlikely to vote "oui" on the proposed EU Constitution.


Just Say Non (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/opinion/27clarke.html?th&emc=th)

By STEPHEN CLARKE
Published: May 27, 2005
Paris

MAY is usually a relaxed time in France. In a good year, the French will spend as many days out at their country house or on the beach as they will at work. But this May, not only were May Day and Liberation Day on Sundays, Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin also told workers that they were losing their one remaining long weekend. They had to work on Pentecost Monday so that employers could donate 0.3 percent of the wages to the aged.

Right now Mr. Raffarin could not be less popular if he outlawed smoking, lingerie and nudist beaches. And this is one of the men heading the "oui" campaign for Sunday's referendum on the European Constitution.

All of which may not constitute a rational reason to vote "non," but the referendum campaign has not been at all rational from day one.

Vote oui, Mr. Raffarin and President Jacques Chirac tell voters, or the European Union will come tumbling down. A clever reworking of the ancient Gauls' fear that the sky was going to fall on their heads.

Vote non, the unions and the far right say (in a rare - and embarrassed - show of unity) or on Monday your jobs will be stolen by hordes of invading Poles. Protectionism and racism hand in hand.

In any case, the French are being asked to vote on something that they cannot possibly understand. The oui lobby sent the text of the Constitution to voters, but this was as productive as trying to sell swimwear with Mr. Chirac and Mr. Raffarin as models.

Want an example? Start with Article III-139, which declares: "This subsection shall not apply, so far as any member state is concerned, to activities which in that state are connected, even occasionally, with the exercise of public authority. European laws or framework laws may exclude certain activities from application of this subsection." You need a law degree to vote on a clause like that.

There is also a long section (Protocol 9, Article 61) on the purchase of holiday homes in Malta. There are probably few subjects in the world that interest the French less than this, except maybe the rules of cricket and American football.

But voters don't have to plow that far through the 450-page text to get turned off. I don't know any French person who'll vote in favor of a document that begins with the words "His Majesty the King of the Belgians ..." All of which explains why I would like to see a third box on the ballot paper. Let's make it a real test of opinion by adding, beside the "oui" and "non" slots, a "je ne sais pas" box. The French would choose "don't know" in a landslide. Then take the day off.

Stephen Clarke is the author of a book about an Englishman's year in France.

That's an awfully simplistic account of the French campaign. For a better analysis, Le Monde (http://www.lemonde.fr/) has a special section (http://www.lemonde.fr/web/sequence/0,2-631760,1-0,0.html) on the referendum.

As a French voter, I have been keeping up to date on the content of the Constitution, and the various arguments put forth pro and con. I will be voting no, based upon the content of the Constitution (not against the idea of a Constitution, and not against the French government, much as I dislike the latter).

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

We only get 8 public holidays A YEAR here!

Want an example? Start with Article III-139, which declares: "This subsection shall not apply, so far as any member state is concerned, to activities which in that state are connected, even occasionally, with the exercise of public authority. European laws or framework laws may exclude certain activities from application of this subsection." You need a law degree to vote on a clause like that.
:eek: They may need a lesson or two in Plain Language.

But voters don't have to plow that far through the 450-page text to get turned off. I don't know any French person who'll vote in favor of a document that begins with the words "His Majesty the King of the Belgians ..."
LOL!

:eek: They may need a lesson or two in Plain Language.

Problem is it has to say exactly the same in every single language in the EU, so its gonna be complicated no matter what.

AHA!

So the EU constitution is really a plot by the Belgians to take over Europe!

As a French voter, I have been keeping up to date on the content of the Constitution, and the various arguments put forth pro and con. I will be voting no, based upon the content of the Constitution (not against the idea of a Constitution, and not against the French government, much as I dislike the latter).
So why, excatly, are you voting against it?

I remember that many many years ago, there was the plan for some kind of 'European Defense Initiative', which basically died because the French said "non". I have the feeling something similar is going to happen again... :)

AHA!

So the EU constitution is really a plot by the Belgians to take over Europe!

Oh god, we are all going to get good beer and nice chocolates...oh wait...!

WE LOVE THE EU!!!

Vote non, the unions and the far right say (in a rare - and embarrassed - show of unity) or on Monday your jobs will be stolen by hordes of invading Poles. Protectionism and racism hand in hand.

Not to mention an odd claim - considering Poland already is a member of the EU which means in principle hordes of Poles can already "invade" France if they want.

Which however is related to what I find somewhat lacking in the new constitution... most of it is just formalizing and combining things that already exist in other treaties. Which is good, but it is not exactly what I would want to see in an constitution. Where are the ideals, the goals, the dreams ? The statements on what Europe wishes to accomplish ?

Allright, I am an idealist. But still...

Hmmm.

In the interest of American national security, Americans should letters to all the people France and tell them to reject the EU consitution.
France should not join Europe. France should go its own way.

Hmmm.

In the interest of American national security, Americans should letters to all the people France and tell them to reject the EU consitution.
France should not join Europe. France should go its own way.

That means France should say "oui". France already is an EU member - and there is currently no way to let them end that membership. The draft for the constitution however contains a leaving procedure - so if France wishes to go its own way it should vote in favour ;)

That's a really bad article, which isn't a surprise considering the author, a guy who only thinks he's witty and whose book on an enlgishman's year in France is called "A Year in the Merde."

As far as the EU "Constitution" is concerned, it is a really bad, no good document. There are ten hojillion reasons to refuse it, both because of form and content.

As stated, this humongous document is ridiculously badly written. It is overburdened both with grand statements of principles which don't mean anything and needless detail. That means that the Court of Justice, an already smelly institution to begin with, will have to interpret the constitution, since it can be interpreted to say anything and its opposite, making it into an omnipotent constitutional judge. It includes adherence to NATO, which precludes any chance of the EU being a valid political union with a foreign policy. It's nothing like what a Constitution should be. That's not how Constitutions are written: if only for formal reasons, it should be scrapped and the European Convention sent back to the drawing board.

As far as content goes, it grants more power to the Commission, i.e. the unelected, corrupt technocrats of Brussels, which will have precedence and power over the Council and the Parliament, which should be the powerful institutions. It also grants complete independence to the European Central Bank, a reckless move if there ever was, considering the impact that the state of the Euro can have on the already faltering European economies. Most importantly, it grants most power to the Court of Justice to interpret both the Constitution itself and its Charter of Human Rights, leaving open additional, unwritten ways for member states to lose soverignty, paving the way for uniformization of life inside member countries and the building of a European federation.

*sigh*

Well I wouldn't worry too much about it, it seems that most of Western Europe at least is going to vote against the constitution.

Well I wouldn't worry too much about it, it seems that most of Western Europe at least is going to vote against the constitution.

Eeehm, no - the opposite actually. Every nation that has voted sofar has voted in favour. The Netherlands and France will most likely be the first no's.
Quite a lot of nations will not ask the population and leave the decision to parliament btw.

Eeehm, no - the opposite actually. Every nation that has voted sofar has voted in favour. The Netherlands and France will most likely be the first no's.
Quite a lot of nations will not ask the population and leave the decision to parliament btw.

The UK will also be highly likely to vote no as well.

The UK will also be highly likely to vote no as well.As well as Denmark, Czechoslovakia, Poland...

But voters don't have to plow that far through the 450-page text to get turned off. I don't know any French person who'll vote in favor of a document that begins with the words "His Majesty the King of the Belgians ..."

Oi! Got a problem with us Belgians, mate? :p
We're only upfront because this part of the document is constructed alphabetically (duh!). And our "king" is just a straw-puppet. And besides, the French have no problems with us Belgians. At least not that I know of. After all, maybe our Flemish nationalists celebrate "a great victory over the French" in 1302 (yes, WAY BACK) as the end of their "enslavement" - but the French know that it is the ONLY victory EVER, and that their knights came back to kick the crap out of the Flemish populace three years later. It'd be a lot more problematic if the constitution had a first line like "in their great wisdom, the English and Germans have decided...". That'd be something :cool:

And I also wonder who has actually read the constitution. Most naysayers quote aspects that aren't even part of it, like the (possible) admission of Turkey. And I also hear lots of people say "its going too fast", which is kinda an irrational and emotional outburst - but perhaps very true, nonetheless. The only problem is politicians saying things like "it's all going to be alright" while not adressing any of the particular points of the constitution (like the liberalisation of the economy)...
Us Belgians even had NO explanation of the constitution whatsoever, let alone the full text discussed in public! Yesterday, for the FIRST time, some newspaper actually went like "well, this is what the constitution says actually..." Can you believe that?

Hmmm.

In the interest of American national security, Americans should letters to all the people France and tell them to reject the EU consitution.
France should not join Europe. France should go its own way.Good Idea :D

And I also wonder who has actually read the constitution. Most naysayers quote aspects that aren't even part of it, like the (possible) admission of Turkey. And I also hear lots of people say "its going too fast", which is kinda an irrational and emotional outburst - but perhaps very true, nonetheless. The only problem is politicians saying things like "it's all going to be alright" while not adressing any of the particular points of the constitution (like the liberalisation of the economy)...
Us Belgians even had NO explanation of the constitution whatsoever, let alone the full text discussed in public! Yesterday, for the FIRST time, some newspaper actually went like "well, this is what the constitution says actually..." Can you believe that?
Which, if you consider the EU Constitution as foresadowing any future Planetary Constitution, should give all of us pause for consideration.

Hmmm.

In the interest of American national security, Americans should letters to all the people France and tell them to reject the EU consitution.
France should not join Europe. France should go its own way.


That's been suggested:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=412927

Which, if you consider the EU Constitution as foresadowing any future Planetary Constitution, should give all of us pause for consideration.
Indeed... *nods*

The current European governmental policies seem geared (or are, at least, received as such) to be "pushing" a Constitution that means squatt to the bigger part of the Union's populace, or is interpreted very differently amongst the particular nations. This constitution, how ironic, should unite the nations, but particularist structures and inter-nation aloof content and discussion among parties within the nation will serve no end but further division - it puts the spotlight on our differences, and that's just plain stupid. A people that is as divided as the Europeans now, in a society that is as fast-paced and changing as the European one is now, does not need to be stuffed with a constitution - not because it's a bad idea, or because the constitution is wrong (it will always be, because of the difference in culture), but because it will eventually turn against its creators.

The French are probably not the only ones to vote "No!". Here in Luxembourg, the referendum takes place the 10 july and recent polls say that now 52% are against the constitution. Also our prime minister made the mistake of saying that he'd resign if the Luxembourgish voted "Hell No!", so all those who don't like him will vote against the constitution.

I have one question: there used to be discussion about wether they should refer to God in the constitution, or not. How did they finally decide??

I have one question: there used to be discussion about wether they should refer to God in the constitution, or not. How did they finally decide??

Against - God was not included.

This is an LBN Goobergunchian Update.

France 'rejects EU constitution'

French voters have rejected the proposed EU constitution in Sunday's referendum, according to exit polls.

The polls give the "No" side 55% - in line with surveys published in the run-up to the vote.

If confirmed, the result will be a blow to President Jacques Chirac and France's two main political parties, which campaigned for a "Yes". Article continues at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4592243.stm.

French Interior Minister announced that over 57% of the people voted AGAINST the EU Constitution.

WAY TO GO FRANCE!

My respect for you rose up a few points. :D

French Reject EU Constitution, Gov't Says (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050529/ap_on_re_eu/france_eu_referendum;_ylt=Ak66M_Om6SBCCcDBIu6SeO2s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2MTQ3MTFjBHNlYwN0cw--)

I'm glad, because it's a bad constitution. I'm sad, because the EU is a good idea, if they would just try to stop trying to make it into a nation. I hope they think about this and make it work next time.

and yet another prediction comes true. don't say I never told you.

I've heard that if the Constitution was adopted, then all our embassies would be replaced with one big embassy for the whole of Europe. Is this true? If it is, I'm definately not supporting it.

and yet another prediction comes true. don't say I never told you.

Yeah, because it's not like this has been expected and predicted by polls for several months now. :rolleyes:

I've heard that if the Constitution was adopted, then all our embassies would be replaced with one big embassy for the whole of Europe. Is this true? If it is, I'm definately not supporting it.

Yea pretty much true. I like to know what is going to happen to the EU Military force now.

I've heard that if the Constitution was adopted, then all our embassies would be replaced with one big embassy for the whole of Europe. Is this true? If it is, I'm definately not supporting it.

No, that's not true.

Yea pretty much true. I like to know what is going to happen to the EU Military force now.

No, that's not true.

Okay, now I'm confused even more. :confused:

Yeah, because it's not like this has been expected and predicted by polls for several months now. :rolleyes:
interesting. too bad I'm not privy to every poll that comes around.
But thanks for letting me know bout them now that it doesn't really matter.

Okay, now I'm confused even more. :confused:

The Constitution did not abolish the nation states in any way. Embassies to the member nations would not be affected by the constitution at all.

interesting. too bad I'm not privy to every poll that comes around.
But thanks for letting me know bout them now that it doesn't really matter.

Actually it does, as it shows how unimpressive any of your "predictions"/gibberish really were.

Okay, now I'm confused even more. :confused:

The EU Constitution would effectively set up one state. Therefore, there would be a huge fight on wether it is one state or not. Frankly, I wanted to see that showdown.

Since it is one state, you cannot have embassies by different nations inside said state. If the EU is allowed to do that, then the US should insist on having all 50 states of the Union have the same privaleges as the EU.

The EU Constitution would effectively set up one state.

No, it would not.

Therefore, there would be a huge fight on wether it is one state or not. Frankly, I wanted to see that showdown.

Since it is one state, you cannot have embassies by different nations inside said state. If the EU is allowed to do that, then the US should insist on having all 50 states of the Union have the same privaleges as the EU.

Poppycock.

The EU Constitution would effectively set up one state.

...

Not even the most backwards, reactionary Tory would argue that the EU constitution in principle is the founding act of the one state Europe[an Union].

No, it would not.

Yes it would. If it didn't then why is there going to be a military for a United Europe? It would EFFECTIVELY set up one state. Learn to read.

Poppycock.

Prove it.

The EU Constitution would effectively set up one state

....

Not even the most backwards, reactionary Tory would argue that the EU constitution in principle is the founding act of the one state Europe[an Union].

READ!!!!!!

Yes it would.

No it wouldn't. Read the Constitution.

If it didn't then why is there going to be a military for a United Europe?

There isn't going to be one. Several of the member nations have strict principles when it comes to military neutrality, which were guaranteed them by the constitution, by the way. You really should read it before you spout off.

It would EFFECTIVELY set up one state. Learn to read.

Ironic, since you don't seem to have read the constitution.

Prove it.

The constitution is avaliable at any of the homepages of the EU organs, most notably the Parliament and the Commission. In all the official EU languages, even.

There isn't going to be one. Several of the member nations have strict principles when it comes to military neutrality, which were guaranteed them by the constitution, by the way. You really should read it before you spout off.

Then you need to brush up on Current Events. We talked about the EU military force in my Global Politics Class.

The EU Constitution would effectively set up one state. Therefore, there would be a huge fight on wether it is one state or not. Frankly, I wanted to see that showdown.

Since it is one state, you cannot have embassies by different nations inside said state. If the EU is allowed to do that, then the US should insist on having all 50 states of the Union have the same privaleges as the EU.

Actually, I've done a bit of digging and found this from Spain's prime minister, José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero:

“We will undoubtedly see European embassies in the world, not ones from each country, with European diplomats and a European foreign service.”

“We will see Europe with a single voice in security matters. We will have a single European voice within NATO. We want more European unity.”

Seems I was right to be suspicious.

Actually, I've done a bit of digging and found this from Spain's prime minister, José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero:

“We will undoubtedly see European embassies in the world, not ones from each country, with European diplomats and a European foreign service.”

“We will see Europe with a single voice in security matters. We will have a single European voice within NATO. We want more European unity.”

Seems I was right to be suspicious.

That is a pipe dream by the federalists. Nothing that the Constitution brought on and something which would have been unacceptable to several member nations.

Actually, I've done a bit of digging and found this from Spain's prime minister, José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero:

“We will undoubtedly see European embassies in the world, not ones from each country, with European diplomats and a European foreign service.”

“We will see Europe with a single voice in security matters. We will have a single European voice within NATO. We want more European unity.”

Seems I was right to be suspicious.

Always be suspicious. I knew the EU Constitution was going to be voted down because it limits the power of Individual states. No nation wants to give up the power that they have. I know that Germany approved of it but I'm glad that France didn't. Other countries will follow France's lead and vote this sham down.

Then you need to brush up on Current Events. We talked about the EU military force in my Global Politics Class.

You mean the one that is volontary and is only to be used as a sort of relief agency? The one the Constitution in fact did not establish, and the one that all the member nations are guaranteed not to have to participate in? Yeah, "EU military force" - I think you should get a refund on those classes.

Always be suspicious. I knew the EU Constitution was going to be voted down because it limits the power of Individual states. No nation wants to give up the power that they have. I know that Germany approved of it but I'm glad that France didn't. Other countries will follow France's lead and vote this sham down.

They don't have to follow France. This is a veto.

President Chirac: "France has Rejected the EU Constitution"

It is now 100% Official. THANK GOD!!

They don't have to follow France. This is a veto.

I know that Fass. THat is why I'm rejoicing and Dancing in the Streets.

I know that Fass. THat is why I'm rejoicing and Dancing in the Streets.

Your dancing is premature. The EU has seen worse setbacks and gotten around them. This is temporary, as all else. And mind you, I'm anti-EU and think Sweden should leave.

Your dancing is premature. The EU has seen worse setbacks and gotten around them. This is temporary, as all else. And mind you, I'm anti-EU and think Sweden should leave.

Sweden is in?

I always thought they were determined to stay neutral.

Sweden is in?

I always thought they were determined to stay neutral.

Swedish neutrality is of the military kind. I think you are confusing Sweden with Switzerland.

I know that Fass. THat is why I'm rejoicing and Dancing in the Streets.

Every revolution eats its childreen.
When the European Monetary System failed, we devised the Euro.

There is the political will to go forth with the European Integration, hell, most of the people that voted "non" aren't anti-European, just against this particular constitution (and in france, mostly against chirac).

What this probably marks, is the beggining of the two speed Europe: Some choose further integration, other get left behind.

Le Monde: (http://www.lemonde.fr/web/articleinteractif/0,41-0@2-631760,49-655407@51-655472,0.html)

"Jacques Chirac est rapidement intervenu après l'annonce de ces résultats qui, pour lui, résonnent comme un échec personnel, au regard de son engagement en faveur du oui pendant toute la campagne. "L'Union européenne va continuer à fonctionner sur les bases des traités actuels" a dit le président qui a assuré qu'il entendait à défendre les intérêts de la France au sein des instances européennes "en tenant compte du message des Françaises et des Français". Réaffirmant sa volonté de donner "une impulsion nouvelle et forte à l'action gouvernementale", Jacques Chirac s'est engagé à faire "part dans les tout prochains jours [au peuple français] de [ses] décisions concernant le gouvernement et les priorités de son action"."

Your dancing is premature. The EU has seen worse setbacks and gotten around them. This is temporary, as all else. And mind you, I'm anti-EU and think Sweden should leave.

Good! Then you should rejoicing this vote too. I knew this was going to fail from the moment I heard about it.

Good! Then you should rejoicing this vote too. I knew this was going to fail from the moment I heard about it.

I knew it would fail to, so I don't rejoice, as it's been completely expected. The EU will go on, and there is thus no need for any "rejoicing".

Btw it wasn't Germany that ratified it, but the German political elite. The people largely rejected this constitution, but our politicians refused to have a referendum, since they knew what the result would be. :mad:

Your dancing is premature. The EU has seen worse setbacks and gotten around them. This is temporary, as all else. And mind you, I'm anti-EU and think Sweden should leave.

Sweden cannot leave without this constitution :p
Or at least some other document that actually provides a procedure for leaving the EU.

Sweden cannot leave without this constitution :p

Formally, no. Practically? We could leave at any time. They would have no means to stop us.

Or at least some other document that actually provides a procedure for leaving the EU.

A formal procedure is not necessary for the practicality of leaving. The two Swedish political parties that oppose the constitution are the ones who want Sweden to leave the union. They, as everyone, know that the EU has no means of forcing us to stay should we leave.

Hmmm.

In the interest of American national security, Americans should letters to all the people France and tell them to reject the EU consitution.
France should not join Europe. France should go its own way.
No. France needs to be controlled. They're too much like the USA. You don't want to let them be too free.

they said non (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4592243.stm)

they said non (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4592243.stm)

Old news. Do keep up!

This is a sad day for the EU, but nevertheless the EU will go on.

Ein Deutscher']Btw it wasn't Germany that ratified it, but the German political elite. The people largely rejected this constitution, but our politicians refused to have a referendum, since they knew what the result would be. :mad:

Thanks for the Correction. My apologies :)

No. France needs to be controlled. They're too much like the USA. You don't want to let them be too free.

Now this is comical. France is NOTHING like the USA

This is a sad day for the EU, but nevertheless the EU will go on.

Unfortunately.

Now this is comical. France is NOTHING like the USA

Seconded.

I'm pleased that France has rejected this sham of a constitution. While I realise that this constitution wasn't about to form a Federal Europe, it was one step closer in that direction. That's something I never want to see. I think it also has the pleasant bonus of the French public telling their political elite that Turkey's not wanted in the EU. A good result all round I think.

Old news. Do keep up!
shhhhh

Unfortunately.

That is true only for those that are against the EU.

Regardless of whether you are for or against the constitution, it's just sad to see that so much of the debate and argument centred on matters that did not relate to the facts of the contents of the constitution.

It's also worth noting that whilst it's true that many French rejected this because they thought the document was too liberal and too anglo-saxon, it's also true that a lot of them voted Non simply to register a vote against the present unpopular Prime Minister and government.

That is true only for those that are against the EU.

And there are many of those.

And there are many of those.

And not just in Europe Either.

Actually it does, as it shows how unimpressive any of your "predictions"/gibberish really were.
actually it shows you know how to push people's buttons

actually it shows you know how to push people's buttons

*Pushes Whittier--s' button*

Look at the pretty lights...

Whittier--,

I just got curious. How does a non-unified Europe further American national security? I thought the opposite would be true as a strong EU would make USA's foreign trade smoother. Bringing down national barriers decreases the prices of many commodities that are vital to America's economy. Besides, military cooperation would be smoother if the Union had its own task forces. I can't think of any realistic EU scenario where America's security is under threat.
Enlighten me here.

Now now, stop this fighting or I'm raise a point of order that the general assembly shall hereby consider the proposition of a resolution sighting disapproval of member nations to the disputes of indicated parties in that the general assembly does not condone these actions thereby requesting that.....zzzzzzzz *snore*

As a French citizen, I should clarify a few things. There were two kinds of people who voted 'no' today. The first, a minority, were people who felt the EU was robbing France of its sovereignty; these people, for the most part, were also opposed to Turkey entering the EU, and were, to varying degrees, anti-European. Thankfully, their position was very much a minority one, and is not the one that will be carried forward by the majority No vote.

The second kind of people who voted No, the majority, did so for two reasons. One was the feeling that this Constitution was too "libéral", in the French meaning of the word - that is, too capitalistic, strongly lacking in social aspects. The second was deeply tied in with that first one, and was a way of condemning the policies of our present, very much capitalistic government.

Even those on the Yes side have had to concede that, overwhelmingly, this No vote was a vote in favour of more social rights, a vote against unregulated capitalism, and for that I feel extremely glad. I would like to emphasise very strongly that it was not a vote against the EU; quite the contrary. It was a vote against a certain way of conceiving the EU, and in favour of exploring new alternatives. It was a No vote that was very much pro-European all round.

Just to help you foreigners understand the French perspective. ;)

In the interest of American national security, Americans should letters to all the people France and tell them to reject the EU consitution.
France should not join Europe. France should go its own way.Today is a good day for the US...

thank you Cheese eating surrender monkyes...Thnk you for messing up the EU.

Today is a good day for the US...

thank you Cheese eating surrender monkyes...Thnk you for messing up the EU.

And thank you for ignoring every informed opinion on this thread. Start reading, you might learn something useful.

Today is a good day for the US...

thank you Cheese eating surrender monkyes...Thnk you for messing up the EU.
yes yes, it is celebration time. France very good country.

As a French citizen, I should clarify a few things. There were two kinds of people who voted 'no' today. The first, a minority, were people who felt..Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.
who cares...the EU loss is the US gain...

who cares...the EU loss is the US gain...

I don't see how, the EU as an institution is really a neutral to the US. Militarily it's defeat is a negative since the US will be forced to continue being their police force. (We all saw what an excellent job the european community did taking care of the Kosovo situation.)

It's all moot though. The EU is damned to failure as long as the member nations are sovereign countries. It'll be a mini-UN, with nothing to compel any of the members to do anything passed by the main body.

who cares...the EU loss is the US gain...

You're simply wrong. Explain your reasoning, since your opinion is against that of practically every expert on global economics.

In case you guys didn't get it yet, USA needs a strong, stable, unified Europe.
That's why it encouraged the Union's creation in the first place. Or did you think it started as a movement to unseat America? :D

You're simply wrong. Explain your reasoning, since your opinion is against that of practically every expert on global economics.


Reasoning? In view of his past posts, do you really believe he's capable of anything like reasoning? Some people just like things to be simple, and to wallow in their own ignorance of the wider world and the realities of other countries.

Does this mean the rest of Europe is going to start calling their french fries "freedom fries"?

I wonder what they're going to call french kisses and french cut panties?

Does this mean the rest of Europe is going to start calling their french fries "freedom fries"?

I wonder what they're going to call french kisses and french cut panties?

LOL

Calling them "freedom kisses" would be... somewhat amusing.

Does this mean the rest of Europe is going to start calling their french fries "freedom fries"?

I wonder what they're going to call french kisses and french cut panties?
Smoochin', and "Uncomfortable".

Does this mean the rest of Europe is going to start calling their french fries "freedom fries"?

Considering the rest of Europe knows that french fries are Belgian, and that the word french does not refer to the country, I doubt it :P

I wonder what they're going to call french kisses and french cut panties?
Well.. most European countries do not speak English anyway, and as such will probably keep calling them by their native names :P

Seriously: why should Europeans be upset ? *A* constitution would be a good thing for Europe in my opinion. I am (probably) still going to vote against *this* one though.

who cares...the EU loss is the US gain...

Quite wrong, as others have said. Economics isn't a zero-sum game. Quite the opposite, in fact. A strong and productive European economy is better for everyone else, including the US. If you're talking about global power or something, then that's pretty irrelevant as the European constitution, despite the whole 'EU Foreign Minister' thing, really made little difference to that.

You're also assuming that the vote against the EU constitution was the EU's loss. Many would disagree with that.


Even those on the Yes side have had to concede that, overwhelmingly, this No vote was a vote in favour of more social rights, a vote against unregulated capitalism, and for that I feel extremely glad. I would like to emphasise very strongly that it was not a vote against the EU; quite the contrary. It was a vote against a certain way of conceiving the EU, and in favour of exploring new alternatives. It was a No vote that was very much pro-European all round.

I'm sure you're right about why most of the French no-voters voted that way. However, I highly doubt that the vote will therefore see a new constitution drawn up to reflect that anti-capitalist mood. The UK may not get the chance to vote now, but it is no secret that it would have voted no, and for precisely the opposite reasons that the French did. The British look at the French social model with a kind of morbid fascination, as not many here would want to be forced to work no more than 35 hours a week, or give an average of 50% of their earnings over to the state in tax. The UK would not touch a more 'socialist' constitution, because it would be seen as endangering our prosperity.

The relative merits of each model can be discussed in another thread. The important point as far as the constitution is concerned is that it is fairly clear that a rigid constitution that enforces one type of EU will never pass all the referendums. What is needed is a constitution that does not specify too much, yet does not allow the Courts to impose a rigid stricture either. It should allow each state to take its own path in a looser confederation. What the French vote and the presumed UK vote together show is that closer European harmonisation is not currently possible for all 25 member states.

I just wonder why they still want to keep the referendum in Netherland and Luxembourg... anyway they can't ratify it now
I still hope that our prime minister will forget about the referendum.. (it would be better for him too, because it looks like a luxembourgish "No", as a consequence of which he'll reseign)

I just wonder why they still want to keep the referendum in Netherland and Luxembourg... anyway they can't ratify it now
I still hope that our prime minister will forget about the referendum.. (it would be better for him too, because it looks like a luxembourgish "No", as a consequence of which he'll reseign)

Why the hell should i let the French vote for me? My country will hold a referendum were i will vote Yes. Not holding a referendum would mount to say that the only opinion that matters is the French one.

Does this mean the rest of Europe is going to start calling their french fries "freedom fries"?


No, chips :)

I just wonder why they still want to keep the referendum in Netherland and Luxembourg... anyway they can't ratify it now
I still hope that our prime minister will forget about the referendum.. (it would be better for him too, because it looks like a luxembourgish "No", as a consequence of which he'll reseign)

You have a point. Perhaps it would be best to bury the constitution for now and get to work on a new proposal.

I'm glad, because it's a bad constitution. I'm sad, because the EU is a good idea, if they would just try to stop trying to make it into a nation. I hope they think about this and make it work next time.That's right on the money.

You have a point. Perhaps it would be best to bury the constitution for now and get to work on a new proposal.

You have the name of a Mathmatician.. shame on you! :p


Well, it will be nearly impossible to negotiate a new proposal for a constitution. I mean, the negotiation of this one was a chaos, and it was negotiated by 15 countries.. if we are to re-negotiate it again, this time it will have to be a consensus amongst 25 countries!!!

Still, as someone said, this might be the end of this Constitution, but it will also be the end of the Democratic deficit of the Union. The people of Europe have shown that they can't be patronized, things will change, and i am hopeful that for the best.

I'm glad it was a NON!. It would otherwise have placed the EU even more under NATO and thus US control. That alone is enough to oppose it.
Hopefully now we will get one that is in our and not the US's best interests.

I'm glad it was a NON!. It would otherwise have placed the EU even more under NATO and thus US control. That alone is enough to oppose it.

Well, that's a view, some guy in here was claiming how this was a "french" constitution, but this text suited alot more the british interests..


By the way, it seems CDU is going to win in germany, how lackey are they to the Americans?

Does this mean the rest of Europe is going to start calling their french fries "freedom fries"?

No, we will continue to call them "pommes frites," "patatas fritas," "chips" and so on and so forth.

I wonder what they're going to call french kisses and french cut panties?

French kiss = tungkyss. French cut panties = regular panties.

Well, that's a view, some guy in here was claiming how this was a "french" constitution, but this text suited alot more the british interests..
The constitution emphasizes NATO as the bases for the EU defence policy.


By the way, it seems CDU is going to win in germany, how lackey are they to the Americans?
Well, if there would be a worldchampionship for cocksucking US dick the CDU members would take home the goldmedals.
But, on the plus side they are against Turkish EU membership. So, it's not all bad. Unless Merkel forgets that next time Bush waves his cock at her mouth.

The constitution emphasizes NATO as the bases for the EU defence policy.

Well, if there would be a worldchampionship for cocksucking US dick the CDU members would take home the goldmedals.
But, on the plus side they are against Turkish EU membership. So, it's not all bad. Unless Merkel forgets that next time Bush waves his cock at her mouth.Damnit, I'm just me-tooing over here, but I really couldn't have put it better than this.

I'm torn concerning the upcoming german elections. On the one hand, the right would revive the German economy but on the other hand an atlantist German government would be a Bad Thing.

On the points regarding the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) and the Rapid Reaction Force I believe the failure of the French vote on the EU Constitution, (with the Dutch and British votes being of a similar vein), is a clear indictation that any further integration on an independent force in contrast to those within NATO is going to go nowhere fast.

"Vive la France!"

Damnit, I'm just me-tooing over here, but I really couldn't have put it better than this.
Thankyouthankyou.*bows* Your a wonderfull audiance.

I'm torn concerning the upcoming german elections.
I know the feeling.
On the one hand, the right would revive the German economy
Aah. Well. That remains to be seen. I don't harbor any illusions about a more rightist government eguals good economy. It's of course possible. But by no means certain. In the Netherlands we have a rightists government but when it comes to economy they are as clueless as the greens.
but on the other hand an atlantist German government would be a Bad Thing.
Amen to that.

On the points regarding the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) and the Rapid Reaction Force I believe the failure of the French vote on the EU Constitution, (with the Dutch and British votes being of a similar vein), is a clear indictation that any further integration on an independent force in contrast to those within NATO is going to go nowhere fast.
Actually one of the main arguments against the constitution was not against an independ force. But rather that that force wouldn't be as independent in reality as it would be on paper. With the constitution emphasizing NATO as the foundation for the common defence policy.
So the no voters also voted against further submission to the US.

Aah. Well. That remains to be seen. I don't harbor any illusions about a more rightist government eguals good economy. It's of course possible. But by no means certain. In the Netherlands we have a rightists government but when it comes to economy they are as clueless as the greens.It's by no means a general rule, but in Germany there has to be some serious trimming of the State and taxes, which is on the CDU's agenda. Schröder's Agenda 2010 was a step in the right direction but it was too little too late, and he can't go that extra mile with the Grüne in his cabinet.

It's by no means a general rule, but in Germany there has to be some serious trimming of the State and taxes,
Unless I'm mistaking all parties want to cut taxes. Some more then others. But I can't help but wonder where oh where they plan to get the money from if they cut it even more. They are already 40/50 billion short. Taxcuts alone can't revitalise an economy. Not if people don't have any perspectives for the future. Jobwise. If they don't know if they will have a job next week or if they will be standing in the endless unemployment line. And untill someone will be able to reassure the people that things will finally look up they won't be willing to start spending more money. The domestic consumption, or lack of it, is the problem here. The Union doesn't have any real answers either as to how to fix this. But I do like their plans for the excellenz netzwerk in the universities.
Schröder's Agenda 2010 was a step in the right direction but it was too little too late, and he can't go that extra mile with the Grüne in his cabinet.
No argument here.

Bravo to all french citizens who voted non.
And to European citizens : the great majority of french non voters is pro-European, the far-right nationalists did not make the non win, but the left people did !
A big majority of the less than 25 years old voted against too.

I want a real European Country, with a real democratically writen and approuved constitution.
This treaty was a joke designed for big business, just like the maastricht and nice treaties.
What the french leftist people want is a true union of peoples, organised under a real constitution, protecting the citizens equally throughout Europe.

And I know that in many countries where the representatives have voted yes, the people would have voted no, if he were asked. Like in germany may be. And in France, the Assemblée Nationale would voted yes at 90% ! It's the gap between elites and the people that we can observe in every country nowadays.

So for the next EU "constitution" (not "treaty establishing a constitution for the E.U." :mp5: ) EU citizens will have to elect a real "assemblée constituante" : an assembly elected only to write a constitution, and dissolved once it's done. That's how democratic constitutions are written !
Then the result of this assembly should be presented to all countries of Europe for acceptance ("ratification") by referendas on the same day.

This could be a good way to build a real political Europe, where citizens get really involved.

Uh...and, yeah, dissolve that Napoleo-stalinian illegitimate "European commision", that is proposing and approving laws, without being elected, and the constitution would have confirmed that status!

Some french politicians must have "un peu mal aux fesses" today :p

Snip snip. The domestic consumption, or lack of it, is the problem here. Snip.People don't consume because they don't have enough money, and why is that? Because they pay too much taxes.

Actually one of the main arguments against the constitution was not against an independ force. But rather that that force wouldn't be as independent in reality as it would be on paper. With the constitution emphasizing NATO as the foundation for the common defence policy.
So the no voters also voted against further submission to the US.

And thats the point. If a founding member cannot agree to a Constitution, with other major members most likely going to reject it as well, how can we agree to a European Defence force which poses the same fundamental problems in the sense of what different nations interpret as their national interest. For France is was an Anglo-Saxon liberalist mercantalist policy she rejected, for the UK she'll probably reject it from the opposite viewpoint, a further integration of socalist economic policy(s). When it comes to a deployment of force, what happens when France sees the deployment as not in her interest but for the Brits it is, (eg Iraq). The ESDP and the Rapid Reaction force represent what the Constution represented, a divergence of interest amongst member states. The EU is simply duplicating and wasting her forces on a pipe dream because certain members dislike America from a political and cultural standpoint. Why have independence outside of NATO when or more likely IF there is a EU force it has major obstacles to overcome to begin with?

People don't consume because they don't have enough money, and why is that? Because they pay too much taxes.
Yeah right. Whats the current taxrate? 16, 33, 42/41%? The Scandinavians have rates nearly twice that high. And they don't seem to have our problems. Simply saying the taxes are to high cutting them will make everything right is oversimplifying the matter. If there are no jobs availebal and thus people, who are still employed, don't have any prospects to find a new one if they should lose their job they automaticly will spend less and rather save it for a rainy day.

And thats the point. If a founding member cannot agree to a Constitution, with other major members most likely going to reject it as well, how can we agree to a European Defence force which poses the same fundamental problems in the sense of what different nations interpret as their national interest. For France is was an Anglo-Saxon liberalist mercantalist policy she rejected, for the UK she'll probably reject it from the opposite viewpoint, a further integration of socalist economic policy(s). When it comes to a deployment of force, what happens when France sees the deployment as not in her interest but for the Brits it is, (eg Iraq). The ESDP and the Rapid Reaction force represent what the Constution represented, a divergence of interest amongst member states. The EU is simply duplicating and wasting her forces on a pipe dream because certain members dislike America from a political and cultural standpoint. Why have independence outside of NATO when or more likely IF there is a EU force it has major obstacles to overcome to begin with?
A common defence force would be a great tool to finally shut the US agency known as NATO down for good. But not if NATO is supposed to be the bases for it as it was in the constitution.

Yeah right. Whats the current taxrate? 16, 33, 42/41%? The Scandinavians have rates nearly twice that high. And they don't seem to have our problems. Simply saying the taxes are to high cutting them will make everything right is oversimplifying the matter. If there are no jobs availebal and thus people, who are still employed, don't have any prospects to find a new one if they should lose their job they automaticly will spend less and rather save it for a rainy day.Income taxes are only a side of the coin. Firms don't hire beause hiring is too expensive. Why? Because of taxes!

;)

I'm playing devil's advocate here obviously. I'm not a small government thatcherian dogmatist by any means, but we do need more economic liberalism here in Europe. How else can you kickstart the economy? Keynesian deficit spending into great works? What great works? There isn't a Tennessee river to dam in Europe.

The problem of European economy is that the money isn't injected into the economy to keep its pulse up because the big money owners, rich people and corporations (the two great devils in the lefty cosmology) are taxed into oblivion. Recently in Germany a flat income tax of 30% was proposed. 30% is a lot, and it would still allow for a lot of healthcare and public education, but rich people would have lots of money and they would invest it into the economy.

This is classic liberal propaganda and I'm by no means an ideologue, but in the current situation it's just what works, just like during the Great Depression in the U.S. more State was the answer. Blair applies thatcherian policies simply because they work, and this is why the UK have the healthiest economy in Europe.

A common defence force would be a great tool to finally shut the US agency known as NATO down for good. But not if NATO is supposed to be the bases for it as it was in the constitution.

But that's not going to happen if founding members cannot agree on a common Constitution. The deployment of troops is, for some, far more serious and important. An independent EU force is unlikely because of our ability to agree. And even then there are, as stated before, the same fundamental problems in regard to the ESDP. And then there are the tricky realities of funding and creating the infrastructure for such a force, then command problems, language probs, opertional probs, equipment integration......

I don't see the NATO being shut down anytime soon.

Blair applies thatcherian policies simply because they work, and this is why the UK have the healthiest economy in Europe.

That point is debatable. The bloated, over-taxing Scandinavian economies seem to beat the UK in terms of competitiveness. A 30% flat tax rate may guarantee public education, but not excellent public education.

Income taxes are only a side of the coin. Firms don't hire beause hiring is too expensive. Why? Because of taxes!

Bull. They want to produce in low income countries and sell in high income countries. In which they continue to destroy jobs which leaves people insecure not to mention unemployed.

but we do need more economic liberalism here in Europe.
Oh yeah. What a wonderfull idea. Let's do the income dumping game. Where workers from eastern Europe are free to travel to France, Germany, the Netherlands etc....and are allowed to offer their labour for 3-4 Euros an hour. They actually planned doing that. Only problem with that it leaves the locals 2 choices. Either become unemployed or compete in the same way. Which means they still have no money.
The problem of European economy is that the money isn't injected into the economy to keep its pulse up because the big money owners, rich people and corporations (the two great devils in the lefty cosmology) are taxed into oblivion.
Yeah, taxed into oblivion...... :rolleyes: Thats why all the poor, struggeling businesses had record profits in 2004. And because they are taxed into oblivion the struggeling Deutsche Bank AG had a nett profit of 1.1 billion Euro's in the first quarter of this year. So naturally they had no choice but to lay off another 6400 employee's.
but rich people would have lots of money and they would invest it into the economy.
Fucking hell. Are you an American?

Fucking hell. Are you an American?Fucking hell. Are you a socialist?

What do you suggest should be done?

Fucking hell. Are you a socialist?
I'm politicly flexible.

What do you suggest should be done?
All money should be given to me to do with as I see fit.

Bull. They want to produce in low income countries and sell in high income countries. In which they continue to destroy jobs which leaves people insecure not to mention unemployed.

Both wage differentials and high taxes play a part in making the Eurozone uncompetitive. I think you're both right to a degree, and in some ways making the same point: fundamentally, all companies want to make a profit, so they are less likely to invest in countries where it is more expensive to do so. So both higher wages (incomes) and higher taxes are going to put them off. European countries can't do much about their high wages (though being too generous with minimum wage laws can be a problem), but they can do something about their taxes.

One thing that can work well for everyone, and to which too little attention is often paid, is deregulation. Regulations mean expenses, and unlike taxes the money isn't put back into the economy - it's just spent on the effort of compliance. It is therefore more damaging, and universally unpopular. It is also a common cause of complaint for businesses in Europe, where EU Regulations can sometimes be a nightmare.


What is never the answer is protectionism, because when you start trying to protect your workers from the market then others will do the same to you. Your exports fall, your imports become more expensive - basically, you're just throwing yourself deeper into the mire. It's politically very difficult to resist, and populist movements have used the arguments for years (US Populists, Fascists, the Democrats in the last US election), but there are no serious modern economists who suggest that it is a generally good policy. Occasionally specific industries need protection, but as a general policy it is a killer.

Bravo to all french citizens who voted non.

Thank you! :D


And to European citizens : the great majority of french non voters is pro-European, the far-right nationalists did not make the non win, but the left people did !
A big majority of the less than 25 years old voted against too.

I want a real European Country, with a real democratically writen and approuved constitution.
This treaty was a joke designed for big business, just like the maastricht and nice treaties.
What the french leftist people want is a true union of peoples, organised under a real constitution, protecting the citizens equally throughout Europe.


And thank you for underlining these very important facts. I'm not sure the media abroad always explain correctly to foreigners why people voted No in France, and what we want.

In case you guys didn't get it yet, USA needs a strong, stable, unified Europe. :Dhaha...

we need a bunch of small countries...very rich countries...with small militaries...and little political clout...

BTW we want all other countries to be like that...

we would love it if china was like that...17 small countries...that do not trust each other...just like LatinAmerica.

haha...

we need a bunch of small countries...very rich countries...with small militaries...and little political clout...

.

Then you should love Luxembourg :D

Way to go comrades, lets hope we can do the same here in Denmark :fluffle:
The media has tried to smokescreen why it was turned down, but we on the left now why.

As a side note:
Who ever said that a Keaynasian kick had to be logic, as i recall when he advised Rosevelt, he said that you would get the same result out of buring money in abondened mines, and letting people dig after them. ;)

But it is a serius problem that europe is in, and their is no easy solution, i'd say that the only solution i can see is socialism, but i am of course biased in my opinions.

haha...

we need a bunch of small countries...very rich countries...with small militaries...and little political clout...

BTW we want all other countries to be like that...

we would love it if china was like that...17 small countries...that do not trust each other...just like LatinAmerica.

Who's "we"? America?
It's hard to discuss the subject when you apply that strategy board game logic to international economy. However, like it was mentioned earlier, this is not a zero-sum game. A more integrated Europe, given stability, will be a better trading partner than those 17 small countries put together.