NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: Some commentators, including this one, see the "no" votes for the EU Constitution as indicating a desire for greater "liberalism" ( European definition ), economic fears, and a distrust of the "European elites." Some help from European posters in sorting all this out would be greatly appreciated.


2 'No' Votes in Europe: The Anger Spreads ( Part one ) (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/02/international/europe/02europe.html?th&emc=th)

By RICHARD BERNSTEIN
Published: June 2, 2005

BERLIN, June 1 - Some are calling it a divorce; others, a disenchantment. Whatever you call it, the French "non" on Sunday and the Dutch "nee" on Wednesday have clearly left the European Union's proposed constitution a dead letter for now, frustrating the efforts of Europe's leaders to move to the next stage of integration.

The impasse could stall efforts to develop common foreign policies and push the euro, a potent symbol of unification, into a downward spiral.

But there is something at stake here far broader than the constitution itself, which the Dutch rejected emphatically on Wednesday, 61.6 percent to 38.4 percent, according to unofficial results.

There is a disaffection, perhaps even a rebellion, against the political elites in France, Germany and Italy.

The governing parties of the left and the right are saying the same things to their people: that painful, free-market economic reforms are the only path toward rejuvenation, more jobs, better futures. And the people, who have come to equate the idea of an expanded Europe with a challenge to cradle-to-grave social protections, are giving the same answer: We don't believe you.

A French lawyer and commentator, Nicolas Baverez, who once wrote a book titled "The Fall of France," called the French vote "an insurrection, a democratic intifada," that reflected the "despair and fears of the French in front of the decline of their country and the inability of their leaders to cope with the crisis."

The repercussions of this uprising will be felt widely.

"I think there's a revolt against the establishment that leaves governments from Great Britain to France to Germany to Italy singularly weak," said Charles Kupchan, an associate professor of international relations at Georgetown University and a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, "and that spells trouble for Europe and it spells trouble for an America that will be looking to Europe for help on many different fronts."

The public disaffection is different in each country, and more than economic matters are involved. Europeans are worried, among other things, that the rapid enlargement of the European Union, especially the prospect of Turkey's membership, will leave them more vulnerable to uncontrolled immigration, especially by Muslims. There is a sense, palpable in the Netherlands, that the whole European enterprise is controlled by unresponsive, unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels who have it in their power to rob countries of their national identities.

But in France, Germany and Italy, already beset by high unemployment, the worry that free-market reforms will only make matters worse predominates. A week before the French rejected the constitution, Germany's chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, called early elections, after local defeats had left him essentially without the authority to govern. Italy's prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, has promised reforms but failed to deliver them, out of concern for mass discontent.

The paradox here is that if the political elites and most economists are right in saying that free-market reforms and more competition are essential for these nations to match their economic competition, then the "democratic intifada" could rob the faltering core of Europe of the very means it needs to rejuvenate itself.

"Old Europe lacks confidence and is therefore defensive, trying to freeze things rather than look forward, feeling that any change is bad," Mark Leonard, a specialist on European Union affairs at the Center for European Reform, said in a telephone interview. "It's a toxic brew of failure to build support for reform, terrible economic circumstances and elites that are tarnished and shop-soiled."

It would make things a bit too simple to depict public distrust of politicians in Europe these days as purely resistance to economic reform. Indeed, in Germany most people seem to accept the idea of reform, at least theoretically. The nub is that Germans are more strongly attached to a countervailing idea - that even as a country enacts reforms, it has a responsibility to protect people against their effects.

2 'No' Votes in Europe: The Anger Spreads ( Part two ) (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/02/international/europe/02europe.html?th&emc=th)


"We do need more liberalism," said Janis M. Emmanouilidis of the Center for Applied Policy Research in Munich. He was speaking of economic liberalism in the European sense, meaning greater reliance on free markets, reduced benefits and less government protection for the work force.

"The problem is that you don't have that kind of tradition in France or Germany," he continued. "The intellectual elites in Germany argue in favor of economic liberalism in a couple of newspapers, like Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Süddeutsche Zeitung. But the rest of the elite looks at this from the standpoint of solidarity, of how you uphold solidarity in the face of reform."

This explains what might seem a paradox in the German situation: namely that in repudiating Mr. Schröder because they do not like his reform program, the Germans are turning to the conservatives' candidate for chancellor, Angela Merkel, who is likely to enact even tougher reforms than Mr. Schröder did. Of course, it does not help that unemployment keeps rising, to 12 percent now, just as Mr. Schröder's reforms have started to take a real bite out of the public welfare.

In the view of many analysts, Mrs. Merkel will have a grace period in which to enact her program, during which Germany will have a real chance to lift itself out of its stagnation. The risk is that if the conservatives' reforms do not show results fairly quickly, the political pendulum will swing against her just as it has swung against Mr. Schröder.

In France, too, those who favor liberal reforms say there is one figure who may have the convictions and the political skill to carry them out: Nicolas Sarkozy, who is expected to be reappointed interior minister and is a likely candidate for president in the next elections, in 2007.

But Mr. Chirac himself seems to have reacted to the crushing defeat he suffered on Sunday by reaffirming his attachment to what he called the "French model," which seemed a coded way of putting tough reforms on the back burner, as he has done at similar moments in the past.

"There is a gap between what reality demands and what the French people want," said the political philosopher Pierre Hassner. "The elites weren't courageous enough to explain things."

In this sense a great part of the problem, many here say, is that French leaders themselves seem to be uncertain about the need for reform, or at least are inconsistent. "Chirac is a victim of his own contradictions," said Guy Sorman, a French commentator and a rare proponent of free-market liberalism in France. "He said, 'I am for Europe but against liberalism,' but this is completely absurd because people understand that Europe is a liberal construction."

What? No one wants to talk about the furture of Europe??? :(

I had heard that in the case of the French it was more culturally and economically, rather than politically motivated. They voted against it in order to protect their identity and their jobs. It's possibly the same reason why the Dutch did.

It would be like having a common constitution between Canada, the United States and Mexico. There are many cultural and political differences that it would be unwelcomed by most as well.

The only way a common constitution might've worked is if it just was a guarantee of basic rights so that no matter what country you visited, you wouldn't get persecuted for something legal in yours. (this excludes some of them quirkier laws).

the whole thing is yet another case of the elites jumping on board with the failed policies of the neoliberal 'washington consensus', and the people those policies would hurt telling them to fuck off. now if only they can roll back some of the ones already enacted in the various treaties, they can get this whole united europe thing rolling properly.

With the introduction of so many new member states (in the EU) the EU itself has become broader culturally and politically and as such a greater political union is unfeasable. Instead what many people in Europe want is the greater economic benefits (such as the single currency and the common market). Besides the French and Dutch votes are very much protest votes against their own governments and the European political elite. An example of this is how the current leader of the EU (Italian bloke I think, I forget his name) said that he wanted ratification of the EU Constitution from other countries to continue (e.g. he wants a referendum in the UK). This is clearly being done because it would be too politically embarassing to publicly drop the whole thing but it signals to many Europeans how the politicians are just not listening to the public. Incidentally it's not really like having a treaty between USA Canada and Mexico (or whatever) because the relative histories are very different but I think what many of Europe's leaders want is a system in some ways similar to USA (though not as closely bound because Europeans are too proud)

With the introduction of so many new member states (in the EU) the EU itself has become broader culturally and politically and as such a greater political union is unfeasable. Instead what many people in Europe want is the greater economic benefits (such as the single currency and the common market). Besides the French and Dutch votes are very much protest votes against their own governments and the European political elite. An example of this is how the current leader of the EU (Italian bloke I think, I forget his name) said that he wanted ratification of the EU Constitution from other countries to continue (e.g. he wants a referendum in the UK). This is clearly being done because it would be too politically embarassing to publicly drop the whole thing but it signals to many Europeans how the politicians are just not listening to the public. Incidentally it's not really like having a treaty between USA Canada and Mexico (or whatever) because the relative histories are very different but I think what many of Europe's leaders want is a system in some ways similar to USA (though not as closely bound because Europeans are too proud)
So perhaps all they need do is wait, give people a chance to get adjusted to the ( largely economic ) changes made so far, change the proposed Constitution a bit, and resubmit it to the people?

So perhaps all they need do is wait, give people a chance to get adjusted to the ( largely economic ) changes made so far, change the proposed Constitution a bit, and resubmit it to the people?
That and maybe the constitution should be very basic? All these nations are diverse. To have a single set of laws is not suitable. the constitution should be constructed as a basic set of rights.

People reject the EU Constitution becase most people don't want to be ruled over by an undemocratic central government in Brussels.

What? No one wants to talk about the furture of Europe??? :(
Three quick examples:
In Britain, people returning from the continent will often have their car searched by customs. If they have a large amount of anything that costs more in the UK it will be confiscated. So the free trade between member states is a joke.

In Ireland you must register all vehicles so that they have an Irish licence plate. You must pay to have this registered. The registration fee is based on the value of the car in Ireland. So if you buy a car abroad to save money when you get back you get the price bumped up automatically. So the free trade between member states is a joke.

In France VAT (Value Added Tax) is (IIRC) about 5% for fast food and 18% for restaurant food. They wanted to drop it but the EU won't allow it.

So as citizens of the EU our experiences of the EU are: that they won't enforce anything they claim is a fundamental tenet of the EU (free trade) but that they will basically work to ensure all member states take as much tax off us as possible.
Why has the EU not objected to a group of American companies declaring us to be unfit for American products (DVD Regional encoding)? Because the EU proper always sells the Citizens out to multinationals.
I don't know of any government or bureaucrat that gives a damn about any of us citizens so why should we support anything they want?
If the EU were to copy the American Constitution and put a little more emphasis on States rights and a little less emphasise on the Federal government most citizens would like it.
A coalition of independent states working together for defence/trade/international relations? What's not to like? But the amount of change that the Bill of Rights would force on Europe would terrify governments.
So it will never happen.
So no USE.

The only way a common constitution might've worked is if it just was a guarantee of basic rights so that no matter what country you visited, you wouldn't get persecuted for something legal in yours. (this excludes some of them quirkier laws).
Sounds good to me. I suspect the next draft might include something of the sort.

The public disaffection is different in each country, and more than economic matters are involved. Europeans are worried, among other things, that the rapid enlargement of the European Union, especially the prospect of Turkey's membership, will leave them more vulnerable to uncontrolled immigration, especially by Muslims. There is a sense, palpable in the Netherlands, that the whole European enterprise is controlled by unresponsive, unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels who have it in their power to rob countries of their national identities. as i understood it, this is something of a greater issue then the article covers it as. although, to be fair, brown people are icky. :D

What? No one wants to talk about the furture of Europe??? :(


Why would they, with great threads like "Favourite Star Wars Character", "What is the best beer?" and "The Babe Thread". You can't expect them to deal with something so trivial as the future of Europe when there's beer and boobs to talk about.

Note: I'm being sarcastic.

Crap, now Eutrusca can answer me in my mother tongue when I mention the subject "granddaughters".

What? No one wants to talk about the furture of Europe??? :(
Lots of people are, but in posts that have already been established before this one.

Eutrusca, you do seem to have a trait that involves creating threads for the sake of it when there are already existing topics going on the same subject.

What would preclude you from posting one of your many newspaper articles in an existing article and then perhaps add some narative to it on what your opinion is... just a thought ;)

As for the future of Europe, please see my contributions in the other exisitng posts for my opinion... thanks.

No, I dont think the constitution is a call for more liberalism, not at all.
In France, the constitution has been rejected for three reasons:

- Chirac didn't stop the rise of the unemployment, nor dynamized the french economy as he promised in the beginning of his mandate. Figures show that criminality didn't decrease dramatically, education and welfare funding aren't a priority anymore. Massive demonstrations and strikes were simply ignored by the power; Extremely unpopular reforms and laws have been passed, and none of them benefit to the lower classes or even the middle ones. There have been several scandals with the officials too.(cf. Hervé Gaymard's appartment)

- Job outsourcing, social dumping and similar practices haven't helped the French in believing in an ultraliberal Europe. Moreover, some right-wing parties and media tend to blame Brussels for their problems and highlight negative aspects of belonging to the european union (i.e: Quotas, taxes, bureaucracy, immigration, monetarism..) and the government appropriates it's advantages.

- The people are currently more interested in keeping their jobs than establishing a stronger french hegemony over the other european countries, and old colonies (Ivory Coast..). The president doesn't seem to understand that, since the army hasn't been as well funded as it is nowadays. However, he decided that going on a war against Iraq along with the UK could not only tarnish the country's reputation, but also his and could provoque a major civil unrest, resulting in anticipated elections and a certain socialist victory.