NationStates Jolt Archive

On May 29th, 2005, the people of France rejected by an overwhelming majority (54.7% of votes) the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe.

On February 4th, 2008, the representatives, barricaded inside the palace of Versailles (from which Louis XIV ruled, and from which Louis-Adolphe Thiers decided the slaughter of the Commune), answering with teargas to "We want a referendum !", decided to overrule the sovereign decision of the people, and to accept a text which contains 98% of the text previously rejected by referendum.

Whatever your position on the text, how can this be acceptable ? That's a rape of democracy, an usurpation of popular sovereignty ! A treason from those who were elected to represent the people and serve, not bypass his opinion !

All around Europe, from 60% to 80%, people want referendums, they want to be consulted about the future of their European Union. All around Europe, governments are refusing this right to self-determination. This is a complete violation of all democratic principles.

And this is the death of Europe, by building it without the people, and even against the people, they're killing the whole idea of a united Europe !

On May 29th, 2005, the people of France rejected by an overwhelming majority (54.7% of votes) the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe.Um, 54% is not overwhelming...

Um, 54% is not overwhelming...

Well, 54.7% against 45.3%, is a very large majority, especially compared to Maastricht treaty which was accepted only by 51% against 49%.

Of course it sucks, but it's hardly a break from previous steps towards unifying Europe. All those stages were treaties between governments, in most cases with no direct involvement from the average citizen. I'd argue that only because of that did we get this far in the first place.

Unfortunately now things have reached an unfortunate stage: people don't know anything about Europe, many don't care and even those who know and care in different countries have very different interpretations. For example, the idea that the EU is "neoliberal", which I take it is quite popular in France, would sound ridiculous in Britain, where people are likely to argue the other way around.

So the choice is whether to stop everything and try to get electorates up to scratch or to keep going. Eurocrats of course want the latter because the former is bad for their job security.

On balance, if the decision-making mechanisms of this new treaty are really that much better than the old ones, this was probably the right decision. I just wouldn't want any more steps to be taken without public participation, which in turn is only possible once everyone is clear about what they think the EU is, should be and how to get there.

The Economist has a really good, fairly unbiased, column on Europe in every issue which very often deals with Eurocrats and what they're up to. Even for someone who'd normally stay well away from the magazine, it might be worth looking into: http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/display.cfm?id=3856661

So the choice is whether to stop everything and try to get electorates up to scratch
So what are you saying? Is it that anybody who's against further European integration needs "re-educating"?

On balance, if the decision-making mechanisms of this new treaty are really that much better than the old ones, this was probably the right decision. I just wouldn't want any more steps to be taken without public participation, which in turn is only possible once everyone is clear about what they think the EU is, should be and how to get there.
Isn't there a clause in this treaty, copied from one that was included in the rejected constitution, that would let the leaders of the EU's member-nations collectively make any further changes that they considered necessary for European integration without needing to have those ratified by their national legislatures, let alone by their peoples? I remember seeing such a clause mentioned back when the Constitution itself was being debated, and as this treaty allegedly contains just about everything that the older document did...

*does some research*

Clause I-18, the 'Flexibility clause', perhaps?

So what are you saying? Is it that anybody who's against further European integration needs "re-educating"?
No. But especially in Britain for example there is a lot of misinformation going around.

Anyways, the turn-out for European elections is notoriously low and in many cases the votes cast seem to be more about domestic issues than about choosing a representative at an EU level.

So there obviously is something wrong if you want representative government through direct election, and I suggest that it has to do with the way people see the EU.

I ultimately don't care which way they vote, but I prefer they vote at all, and think before they're doing it. Getting them to do that involves changing the image of Brussels on one hand and informing voters on the other.

Isn't there a clause in this treaty, copied from one that was included in the rejected constitution, that would let the leaders of the EU's member-nations collectively make any further changes that they considered necessary for European integration without needing to have those ratified by their national legislatures, let alone by their peoples?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Treaty#Content

I couldn't see anything that jumped out at me suggesting such a thing. There are parts limiting the influence of national parliaments, but also parts extending the influence of the EU parliament.

In the original constitution there was this clause:

ARTICLE I-18

Flexibility clause

1. If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in Part III, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Constitution, and the Constitution has not provided the necessary powers, the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously on a proposal from the European Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures.

Apparently they would have had to obtain the consent of the European Parliament, but their own national legislatures would no longer have had any power to veto the changes...
Now, given the number of people (including that constitution's own main author) who've publicly admitted that this "reform treaty" is just a thinly-disguised attempt at passing the constitution after all despite its previous rejection by the French and Dutch electorates, I'd insist on reading the treaty very carefully before agreeing that this idea had been dropped during the re-packaging... and that's something that I won't have time to do for at least a couple of weeks, maybe not until the Easter holdiays.

hyperbole much, do you?

hyperbole much, do you?

That's what I was thinking...

The treaty changes so little it would hardly be worth the paper for the ballots in a referendum. Which nobody wants anyway.

Of course it sucks, but it's hardly a break from previous steps towards unifying Europe. All those stages were treaties between governments, in most cases with no direct involvement from the average citizen. I'd argue that only because of that did we get this far in the first place.

Well, seeing how undemocratic the EU is, and the bad shape of Europe's economy (in 1992, when Maastricht was signed, there were 2 millions of poor in France, there 7 millions now... Maastricht and Europe is not the only culprit, but they have a share of responsibility in it), it's not a good thing we went "this far" ;) but that's not really the issue.

For example, the idea that the EU is "neoliberal", which I take it is quite popular in France, would sound ridiculous in Britain, where people are likely to argue the other way around.

You cannot honestly deny that articles like « Member States shall consult each other with a view to taking together the steps needed to prevent the functioning of the internal market being affected by measures which a Member State may be called upon to take in the event of serious internal disturbances affecting the maintenance of law and order, in the event of war, serious international tension constituting a threat of war, or in order to carry out obligations it has accepted for the purpose of maintaining peace and international security. », « The liberalisation of banking and insurance services connected with movements of capital shall be effected in step with the liberalisation of movement of capital. », « The Member States shall endeavour to undertake liberalisation of services beyond the extent required by the European framework laws », « Within the framework of this Section, restrictions both on the movement of capital and on payments between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited. » are not strongly neoliberal. You may agree or not with them, but you can't deny that.

So the choice is whether to stop everything and try to get electorates up to scratch or to keep going. Eurocrats of course want the latter because the former is bad for their job security.

The choice is either to continue building European Union without, and against the people, "for their own good" as any dictator will say, or to give back the European question to the people, for example by electing a Constitutional Assembly to draft a new Constitution for Europe.

In the long term, the choice of forcing Europe against the people will be the doom of Europe...

On balance, if the decision-making mechanisms of this new treaty are really that much better than the old ones, this was probably the right decision.

They are mostly the same undemocratic decision-making machanisms, in which the European Parliament, the voice of the people, is the weakest of all three bodies, and in which the Central Bank is kept completely unchecked by any elected body.

And half of the proposed changes are not about the decision-making process, but about internal policies.

But even that is not the question. The question is about democracy.

The treaty changes so little it would hardly be worth the paper for the ballots in a referendum. Which nobody wants anyway.

The treaty is almost the same than the one that was rejected in referendum in both France and Netherlands. Who are you to decide it's no "worth the paper" ? People decided they don't want this text. How can you dare to impose it ? That's not acceptable - whatever the content of the text is.

hyperbole much, do you?

Oh, so, a government deciding to ignore and overrule the decision of a referendum is a minor issue ? So is democracy for you ?

Oh, so, a government deciding to ignore and overrule the decision of a referendum is a minor issue ? So is democracy for you ?

Democracy is not necessarily a virtue in and of itself.

Democracy is not necessarily a virtue in and of itself.
Maybe not, but neither is European integration...

Oh, so, a government deciding to ignore and overrule the decision of a referendum is a minor issue ? So is democracy for you ?

I, for one, don't care.

I really don't care about people's petty nationalism, and that's all it is, taking precedence over a considered vote on the benefits or not of the European constitution. I, for one, am quite happy for this issue not to be decided by the people.

Given a choice between electing a pro-Europe representative over an anti-Europe representative, I'll go pro every time. I have to then accept their decisions but given the 50/50 balance, I want Europe.

I hate the fact that we can't have an honest referendum on this, that instead of being able to decide the direction of Europe, we're quibbling over how National we remain.

The entire issue depresses me.

Democracy is not necessarily a virtue in and of itself.

Democracy may not be perfect, but it is a necessary principle. As soon as governments start to bypass the will of the people, to neglect its opinion, we are on very dangerous slope... and it's, ethically, unacceptable. The government has power until because of the will of people !

I, for one, don't care.

Well, fine, at least you show on which side you are.

I really don't care about people's petty nationalism

The debate has nothing to do with nationalism or with being "pro" or "anti" european - many of those who are opposed to the treaty are internationalists (even many federalists oppose it), and many of those who support it are nationalists (like Sarkozy and his ministry of "national identity").

The debate is about democracy, and about which Europe we want.

decided to overrule the sovereign decision of the people, and to accept a text which contains 98% of the text previously rejected by referendum.
Since the text is different, the decision of the parliament is legitimate.

All around Europe, from 60% to 80%, people want referendums, they want to be consulted about the future of their European Union.
I support the referenda, but... source?

And this is the death of Europe, by building it without the people, and even against the people, they're killing the whole idea of a united Europe !
You're a bit exaggerating, but yes, I have to agree to some point. Anyway it's just a parliamentary regulation - not a real constitution, although they give it a pompous name.

I should hope if our Government tries a similar thing the British people will tell them where to shove their assumption we want to be a fully unified part of the EU.

Since the text is different, the decision of the parliament is legitimate.

The text is nearly the same. They changed the form, removed few words, and that's it ? Everyone agree the text is nearly the same, including Giscard d'Estaing who wrote the first one !

I support the referenda, but... source?

http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualites/international/europe/20070618.OBS2368/traite_simplifie__les_europeenssouhaitent_un_referendum.html?idfx=RSS_europe for example, it's in french, but it says 75% of Spain 71% of Germany, 69% of UK, 68% of Italy, and 64% of France wants referenda, and I saw other similar figures from other sources.

You're a bit exaggerating, but yes, I have to agree to some point. Anyway it's just a parliamentary regulation - not a real constitution, although they give it a pompous name.

I agree it's not a constitution, but it's not "just parliamentary regulation", it's a very big text, of hundred of pages, changing hundred of articles of both the working of institutions and the internal policies of the European Union. And it's deep enough to require a change of France's Constitution (that was the vote of yesterday).

Well, fine, at least you show on which side you are.

The debate has nothing to do with nationalism or with being "pro" or "anti" european - many of those who are opposed to the treaty are internationalists (even many federalists oppose it), and many of those who support it are nationalists (like Sarkozy and his ministry of "national identity").

The debate is about democracy, and about which Europe we want.

Like I said, I don't care - there's a great antipathy to the union, a union which has only brought great benefit to Europe - from single passports to one currency - thank the bejesus Lord for them all.

Yet tell me one good argument against other than 'foriegners will tell us what to do'.

In an ideal world, we really would be debating the merits of this constitution, which, in my opinion, sucks - but I'd rather have it than the union derailed.

Democracy may not be perfect, but it is a necessary principle. As soon as governments start to bypass the will of the people, to neglect its opinion, we are on very dangerous slope... and it's, ethically, unacceptable. The government has power until because of the will of people !

And that government is comprised of the elected representatives of the people. To whom the people of France have entrusted the legislative and executive powers to, and who, by the French Constitution, have the authority to contract and ratify treaties.

In this case, what I support is constitutionalism, which has an important role for democracy, but not an absolute role.

And that government is comprised of the elected representatives of the people. To whom the people of France have entrusted the legislative and executive powers to, and who, by the French Constitution, have the authority to contract and ratify treaties.

Not exactly. They elected to do the will of the people. Article 2 of French Constitution: "Its principle is government of the people, by the people, for the people". It may be true from a legal pov (and we'll see, because the Human Rights Court will be asked for a ruling on the subject), but that doesn't make it legitimate from the ethical point of view.

The decision of the people, by referendum, is sovereign. Overruling it is usurpation of popular sovereignty. It's like if you say to your driver "never drive me through street B" and later on "I want to go street A", and he goes thought street B saying "you entrusted me to lead you to street A". Well... no, he also has to respect what you said to him before. That's exactly how democracy works: the people elected representatives, but they are bound to respect what the people decided before, they are only here to fulfill the will of people, not to change it.

Like I said, I don't care - there's a great antipathy to the union

And for a reason: because this union, since the beginning, was built without, or against the people.

a union which has only brought great benefit to Europe

1992, before Maastricht, 2 millions of poor in France. 2007, 7 millions of poor in France. The EU economical policy, through the stability pact, the support to neoliberal globalization, the forced privatizations, the insane monetary policies that favors so much outsourcing, all that have a huge responsibility in it.

Yet tell me one good argument against other than 'foriegners will tell us what to do'.

That it is insane to open the borders to capital and goods without, at the same time, harmonizing taxes and social conditions. That it is insane to forbid to the parliament to have any control over the central bank or over flaws of capital. That it is insane to bind Europe to NATO, to impose militarism. That it is unacceptable to give so few power to the EU parliament, to national parliament, compared to an over-powerful Commission. And I could continue for long...

In an ideal world, we really would be debating the merits of this constitution, which, in my opinion, sucks

Which is exactly what we debated in France in 2005, and we leaded to we massively voting NO, not against EU, but because we want a *differnt* EU.

but I'd rather have it than the union derailed.

Going faster when you see the wall in front will just make the crash even worse, if you like comparisons with trains.

Not exactly. They elected to do the will of the people. Article 2 of French Constitution: "Its principle is government of the people, by the people, for the people". It may be true from a legal pov (and we'll see, because the Human Rights Court will be asked for a ruling on the subject), but that doesn't make it legitimate from the ethical point of view.

The decision of the people, by referendum, is sovereign. Overruling it is usurpation of popular sovereignty. It's like if you say to your driver "never drive me through street B" and later on "I want to go street A", and he goes thought street B saying "you entrusted me to lead you to street A". Well... no, he also has to respect what you said to him before. That's exactly how democracy works: the people elected representatives, but they are bound to respect what the people decided before, they are only here to fulfill the will of people, not to change it.

And what of the text of the Constitution of the Republic of France, in Article 53, which reads:

"Peace treaties, commercial treaties, treaties or agreements relating to international organization, those that commit the finances of the State, those that modify provisions which are matters for statute, those relating to the status of persons, and those that involve the cession, exchange or addition of territory, may be ratified or approved only by virtue of an Act of Parliament. "

I think that is pretty explicit, and brings into question whether the referendum was even Constitutional to begin with.

The text is nearly the same. They changed the form, removed few words, and that's it ? Everyone agree the text is nearly the same, including Giscard d'Estaing who wrote the first one !
Still it's legitimate. The real problem is that EU needs a real Constitution. And to write a Constitution we need a large Constitutional Assembly, elected by popular vote, like Italy did back in 1946 when the Republic was born.

http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualites/international/europe/20070618.OBS2368/traite_simplifie__les_europeenssouhaitent_un_referendum.html?idfx=RSS_europe for example, it's in french, but it says 75% of Spain 71% of Germany, 69% of UK, 68% of Italy, and 64% of France wants referenda, and I saw other similar figures from other sources.
Ok, thanks.



I agree it's not a constitution, but it's not "just parliamentary regulation", it's a very big text, of hundred of pages, changing hundred of articles of both the working of institutions and the internal policies of the European Union. And it's deep enough to require a change of France's Constitution (that was the vote of yesterday).
Well, you know, this happens almost half the times the EU Parliament approves something... at least, it happens with the Italian Constitution.

And what of the text of the Constitution of the Republic of France, in Article 53, which reads:

"Peace treaties, commercial treaties, treaties or agreements relating to international organization, those that commit the finances of the State, those that modify provisions which are matters for statute, those relating to the status of persons, and those that involve the cession, exchange or addition of territory, may be ratified or approved only by virtue of an Act of Parliament. "

I think that is pretty explicit, and brings into question whether the referendum was even Constitutional to begin with.

The "treaties", both the "European Constitution" and the Lisbone one, were considered by the Constitutional Council (hardly leftist) to be incompatible with French Constitution, because of their wide scope and change in national sovereignity, requiring to change the Constitution.

This change of the Constitution should, according to the French Constitution, be done through a referendum. There is a clause allowing, as an exceptional case, to change the Constitution through the Congress. This clause is, in itself, a big democratic flaw - it would allow, legally, any party which controls 3/5th of the Congress (which is doable with 30% of votes, due to the non-proportional vote we have here) to do whatever change they want - including suppressing any election. Which would be as legal as what they just did. Would you protest, then ?

And this time it's even worse, because the text was ALREADY refused by a referendum - so they are not just deciding to not do one for whatever reason, they are deciding to OVERRULE THE PEOPLE !

I think that is pretty explicit, and brings into question whether the referendum was even Constitutional to begin with.

There is no reason why parliament could not hold a referendum and respect the outcome.

Of course, if it is actually a good thing to let people who barely know the issue have a say equal to the people that do is another question. But that is one of the problems with democratic principles.

1992, before Maastricht, 2 millions of poor in France. 2007, 7 millions of poor in France. The EU economical policy, through the stability pact, the support to neoliberal globalization, the forced privatizations, the insane monetary policies that favors so much outsourcing, all that have a huge responsibility in it.

As opposed to French refusing to have it any way but their way?

Which is exactly what we debated in France in 2005, and we leaded to we massively voting NO, not against EU, but because we want a *differnt* EU.

You want your own version of the EU, rather than a properly integrated EU that takes in the combined opinions of every nation within the EU.

So does any country, let's not lie here - but it's about control and power not about the good future of Europe.

Well, 54.7% against 45.3%, is a very large majority, especially compared to Maastricht treaty which was accepted only by 51% against 49%.Overwhelming starts at 2/3rds at the very least. A margin of 10% may seem like a lot, but it really isn't all that much.

Overwhelming starts at 2/3rds at the very least. A margin of 10% may seem like a lot, but it really isn't all that much.

Well, if you want. That's a vocabulary issue, this word may have been a bit too strong, but the idea is still the same - and AFAIK there is no absolute definition of where "overwhelming" starts. For me it starts at 55-45, so in this case we were just a tiny bit behind it, but my usage was justified, IMHO, by the high turnout rate, and the fact that the margin was much higher than the previous one (Maastricht).

As opposed to French refusing to have it any way but their way?

Once again, I'm not opposing the idea of an European Union. But the way this one is done, the policies it follows, and the internal structure it has.

You want your own version of the EU, rather than a properly integrated EU that takes in the combined opinions of every nation within the EU.

That's not at all what is being built. There is few integration in this EU, only competition. It doesn't take the best of all countries, it puts everything (tax systems, social systems, ...) under competition, forcing them to align to the worse, and at the same time it *prevents* any real integration, as would be an european minimal wage, an european health care, an european tax system, an european control over flaws of capitals, ...

Once again, I'm not opposing the idea of an European Union. But the way this one is done, the policies it follows, and the internal structure it has.



That's not at all what is being built. There is few integration in this EU, only competition. It doesn't take the best of all countries, it puts everything (tax systems, social systems, ...) under competition, forcing them to align to the worse, and at the same time it *prevents* any real integration, as would be an european minimal wage, an european health care, an european tax system, an european control over flaws of capitals, ...

Some nations are leaping at the chance to join the EU, some nations are very much against it - which is which?

I think you'll find it's the privileged countries against it, wanting to maintain their 1st tier status in the world rather than share it with, heaven forbid, Latvia!

Turkey? ...but they're not even white!!

Don't take this personally,, I'm quite sure you're more aware of the issues than I - but it's churlish to pretend that the No vote is not driven by nationalism - given a 10% difference, I suspect that's easily covered by 'My country' votes.

Prediction: Opposition parties take up this issue. They make a promise to hold referenda on future EU treaties a centerpiece of their platforms. They win the next elections, and hold the aforementioned referendum.

Well, if you want. That's a vocabulary issue, this word may have been a bit too strong, but the idea is still the same - and AFAIK there is no absolute definition of where "overwhelming" starts. For me it starts at 55-45, so in this case we were just a tiny bit behind it, but my usage was justified, IMHO, by the high turnout rate, and the fact that the margin was much higher than the previous one (Maastricht).That's not a vocabulary issue at all. "For me overwhelming starts at..." should not end in "...one side kind of won." "Overwhelming" carries a meaning that implies little to no opposition, which clearly wasn't the case if a good 45% voted yes.

The treaty is almost the same than the one that was rejected in referendum in both France and Netherlands. Who are you to decide it's no "worth the paper" ? People decided they don't want this text. How can you dare to impose it ? That's not acceptable - whatever the content of the text is.
And? Governments do things against the will of a majority of their population almost on a daily basis.

And? Governments do things against the will of a majority of their population almost on a daily basis.

That's already a big problem, especially if they claim to be "democracies".

But it's not just "the will of a majority" in an abstract way. They hold a referendum ! They asked the question officially, and we officially answered "NO" ! How can they now decide to sign nearly the same text ?

It's not just they more or else knew that the will of the majority people is not with them. They asked for the people's opinion, which gave it after three months of intense debate, and then they say "you said no ? fine, we'll do it anyway... we don't care". That's outrageous !

And don't wonder, with such kind of attitude, why people end up so fed up about politics that they burn cars or vote for the extremists... you can't say to the people "well, we just don't care about what you think" so openly without disastrous effects.

That's already a big problem, especially if they claim to be "democracies".

Not really - that is what constitutions are for. If 60% of the population believes it is fine to slaughter and eat the remaining 40% the constitution (hopefully) still forbids it.

You talk of rape, but sometimes progress has to be thrust upon people

Not really - that is what constitutions are for. If 60% of the population believes it is fine to slaughter and eat the remaining 40% the constitution (hopefully) still forbids it.

If 60% of population want to slaughter the remaining 40%, you're doomed, anyway, as soon as you have a bit of democracy. This argument would just allow dictatorships to exist. Hopefully that's not the case.

Constitutions are here to protect the people from abuse of power of the government - not the other way around. According to democratic principles, especially to Enlightenment, the Constitution is a social contract by which the people delegates some power over the government, because they can't decide everything by themselves. That's it.

In a really democratic system, no change of the Constitution could be made without a referendum, and any change to it asked for by enough people would be proposed by referendum. That would a democratic system. Sadly, that's not the case in most of Europe. Most of the time, it doesn't matter too much. But sometimes like now, it's used by the government to abuse from its power, and impose to the people something the people rejects - and that's unacceptable, if you are a democrat.

And if you want to argue that democracy is bad, well, feel free to do it... but I won't argue with you. I was only saying how horrible this act is, *in respect to democracy*. If you don't like democracy and support this act, at least you're coherent with yourself.

I see your Captain Britain and raise you one Captain France:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/Capitaine-France.jpg
CAPTAIN EURO to the rescue!

http://www.in-sect.com/scr/captain_euro.jpgThe opportunity was just too much for me to resist :D

(Captain EURO) looks like a complete douche?LOL, yeah he does.

Wait, wait, wait! Who got raped and did they tape it?

Marianne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marianne) and it was broadcasted on all TV news.

You talk of rape, but sometimes progress has to be thrust upon people

So you'll do their good against their own will ? And where does that stop ? This argument was the one used by Stalin and by nearly all other dictators. You can't do the good of people against their will. You can't force them to accept something they don't want. All what you'll do is make them hate even more EU, politics, and to react even more violently, and to be much easier targets for the extremists. Wonderful.

Constitutions are here to protect the people from abuse of power of the government - not the other way around.

Wrong. Constitutions do not just protect the people from the government; they also protect people from the other people. And in some cases, like in the USA, are supposed to protect the ideals of the nation against the people (though admittedly it is failing miserably there).

That's already a big problem, especially if they claim to be "democracies".

But it's not just "the will of a majority" in an abstract way. They hold a referendum ! They asked the question officially, and we officially answered "NO" ! How can they now decide to sign nearly the same text ?

It's not just they more or else knew that the will of the majority people is not with them. They asked for the people's opinion, which gave it after three months of intense debate, and then they say "you said no ? fine, we'll do it anyway... we don't care". That's outrageous !
That's hardly different to any kind of legislation. You could likely list hundreds of bills laid before the French Parliament and argue that they would have been rejected by a popular referendum, but nonetheless were passed by the FrenchParliament. I'd like to see a more democratic system of government in the UK, for example, but popular will is not and should not be the be all and end all of government. I think the hypocrites on bith sides of the referendum debate prove this.

And don't wonder, with such kind of attitude, why people end up so fed up about politics that they burn cars or vote for the extremists... you can't say to the people "well, we just don't care about what you think" so openly without disastrous effects.
I don't think that kind of behaviour is ever justified. But there you go.

You talk of rape, but sometimes progress has to be thrust upon people

I'm sure the Native Americans and the African people are all thanking us for thrusting progress upon them.

I'm very much pro-Lisbon Treaty.

The clause about transfering powers to the Union without further treaties seems common-sense - it's only meant to give the Union the power to carry out what's already been agreed to, and only then with the assent of the Council and Parliament.

What I would have liked to see would be a clause making the President of the Commission directly electable or at least electable by the Parliament - this would hopefully encourage a more european political view for the european sphere of politics so referendums on europe don't just become an opportunity to bash the national government.

The treaty also seems to give more power to the Parliament and the national parliaments in some places, and while it could/should have gone further, it's a good development.

As for democracy in France... well, I think you have to take into account the fact that France has had presidental and legistative elections recently, and that in a representitive democracy, and if the constitution allows for it, that's how it works. Did the candidates in the elections not put their policies on europe forward when you elected them last year? I would have thought that it'd have been an important topic.

I'd also like to point out that the EU has done a lot of good - membership's been highly successful here in Ireland - you point out that France's unemployment has gone up a lot since '92, but things are improving rapidly in the Eastern member-states and have improved vastly in Ireland. I don't think you can really say whether or not the EU has been a good or bad thing in economic terms if you can't show how much better or worse France would have done without the single market and EU. National economic stratigies do carry a lot of responsibility and weight in these matters.
While I'd like to see the EU agreeing a basic health care/social care/minimum wage level, I think it definity should be up to the member-states to vary these levels (& they should have a large range in which to do so).

I'd also like to point out that the EU has done a lot of good - membership's been highly successful here in Ireland
Yes, they've given you a lot of our money... a policy that, for some reason, hasn't been as popular on this side of the border & the sea...

Yes, they've given you a lot of our money... a policy that, for some reason, hasn't been as popular on this side of the border & the sea...
We aren't the only country to put in more than we take out.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40613000/gif/_40613196_net_givers2_gra203.gif

Their French, they have to be difficult in times like these...

Ireland recently became a net giver I think.
Plus now we're rich enough to buy stuff off all the other member states so it all works out for the best.
And hopefully it'll work as well in eastern europe.

Yes, they've given you a lot of our money... a policy that, for some reason, hasn't been as popular on this side of the border & the sea...

Well, we'll just call it "paying your debt" :)

Thanks though to everyone for their help. *waves*

That's hardly different to any kind of legislation. You could likely list hundreds of bills laid before the French Parliament and argue that they would have been rejected by a popular referendum, but nonetheless were passed by the FrenchParliament.

But the point is that it not just *would* be rejected, but it *was* rejected ! That's completely different.

I'm very much pro-Lisbon Treaty.

I'm not, but it's not the issue, so I won't argue much about it. Being for or against the treaty is one thing, accepting to have the popular vote overrule is a completely different one. To take an example of which I'm on the other side, look at the constitutional reform in Venezuela: I was in favor of it, it was rejected by referendum, I would strongly oppose Chávez if he dared to force it and to overrule the popular decision.

The clause about transferring powers to the Union without further treaties seems common-sense - it's only meant to give the Union the power to carry out what's already been agreed to, and only then with the assent of the Council and Parliament.

Well, since EU is very undemocratic (the only elected body, the Parliament, is the weakest of all, only able to block things), any transfer of power towards EU is a shrinking of democracy - I don't oppose transfers towards EU in general, but I do oppose them as long as EU will be so much undemocratic.

The treaty also seems to give more power to the Parliament and the national parliaments in some places, and while it could/should have gone further, it's a good development.

No, it grants a tiny bit of power to European Parliament (but very few), but lowers the power of national ones.

As for democracy in France... well, I think you have to take into account the fact that France has had presidental and legistative elections recently, and that in a representitive democracy, and if the constitution allows for it, that's how it works.

In no way a general election, mixing a lot of subjects, is more significant on a specific issue than a referendum held on this issue. And that it is legally possible doesn't mean it's in any kind right.

As I said before, the French Constitution contains a very deep democratic hole, because it allows 3/5 of the Congress to change it - without limits. It was designed as an exceptional measures NOT as a normal one, but it is allowed. Since the elections are not proportional, you can easily have a party representing 30% of votes having those 3/5 (that was the case of UMP between 2002 and 2004). So a single party could change the Constitution in whatever way. That was not the spirit of the text (the "Congress option" was seen as an exceptional measure, and never used by the one who imposed this Constitution, De Gaulle), but it is legally possible.

Did the candidates in the elections not put their policies on europe forward when you elected them last year?

If you look to those elections, all the parties either rejecting any new treaty (a few) or promising to hold a referendum in the case of any new treaty (most of them) won 69% of voices on the presidential elections, and 60% on the legislative ones.

The only candidate who refused to held a referendum, Sarkozy, only got 31% of votes on the first round (the one which matter because it's where people voted for their favourite candidate, not for the "less worse"), and won by 53% on the second round.

And even then, there is a fundamental lie: Sarkozy said he would ratify a treaty through the parliament, but he said again and again that it would be a "mini-treaty" or "simplified treaty" that only takes care of institutions. The Lisbon treaty changes 359 articles and contains 13 additional protocols, over hundred of pages, all with the same legal value. Half of the modified articles are not on the institutions part, but on the policies of the union. So even according to what he says, it's a betrayal of his promises.

While I'd like to see the EU agreeing a basic health care/social care/minimum wage level, I think it definity should be up to the member-states to vary these levels (& they should have a large range in which to do so).

Well, we don't agree on that - I agree that the EU should let, of course, member states give more favourable protection to workers. And I agree that you can't put the most protective laws instantly in countries which are very different. But the situation in which you've a completely free flow of capitals and goods in a space without any common regulation (in social protection, in taxes, in environmental protection and in customer protection) is disastrous. It creates a downward spiral, everyone being incitated to lower social protection, their taxes, their customer protection, ... to drag the companies towards them. That's what Ireland did, and that works... as long as you're the only one to do it. If everyone starts doing it, no one is more attractive, but the rights of workers, customers or environment is lowered for everyone.

If you are familiar with game theory, that's a Prisonner's Dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma), or more generally a Nash equilibrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_Equilibrium), that is, situations in which competition gives the worse equilibrium, and cooperation (that is, common decision enforced to anyone) the best equilibrium.

Or if you look at it historically... two of the most important causes of the 1929 crisis were... the tax competition between the states of USA, and the complete liberalisation of finance (stock markets and banks). Both those were broken by the New Deal and the Bretton Woods system, to prevent any new 1929 crisis. Both those are now made mandatory (no tax harmonisation, no regulation of bank and capitals) by EU treaties. Isn't that insane ?

They are mostly the same undemocratic decision-making machanisms, in which the European Parliament, the voice of the people, is the weakest of all three bodies, and in which the Central Bank is kept completely unchecked by any elected body.
I'll only have time to respond quickly to this one.

The Central Bank must be independent. Otherwise it can't do its job. It prints money, and the government spends it - if you put the two together that's a bad situation. And because people realise that, they also lose trust in the ability of the bank to keep the currency's value stable and start asking for nominal wage increases accordingly, which gets the whole thing moving.

If you are familiar with game theory, that's a Prisonner's Dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma), or more generally a Nash equilibrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_Equilibrium), that is, situations in which competition gives the worse equilibrium, and cooperation (that is, common decision enforced to anyone) the best equilibrium.
Dude, please stop using these in the context of entire market economies. Unless you can show that they apply, you are wasting bandwidth - and you can't show that because calculating the Nash equilibrium of a game that size incidentally has exactly the same problem as calculating the general equilibrium of an entire economy (and some economists have shown that they are indeed the same), hence that you face the calculation problem that brought down the USSR, among other things.

And not just that, but even if you had the equilibrium, and even if it was different from the market result, you'd have to somehow implement it, which is the second thing that brought down the USSR. Cooperation is easy with four or five people. It gets rather more of a pipedream with forty or fifty million.

So here we go: firstly you can't show that the market isn't working, and secondly even if it didn't, that doesn't mean the government would do any better.

On May 29th, 2005, the people of France rejected by an overwhelming majority (54.7% of votes) the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe.

On February 4th, 2008, the representatives, barricaded inside the palace of Versailles (from which Louis XIV ruled, and from which Louis-Adolphe Thiers decided the slaughter of the Commune), answering with teargas to "We want a referendum !", decided to overrule the sovereign decision of the people, and to accept a text which contains 98% of the text previously rejected by referendum.

Whatever your position on the text, how can this be acceptable ? That's a rape of democracy, an usurpation of popular sovereignty ! A treason from those who were elected to represent the people and serve, not bypass his opinion !

All around Europe, from 60% to 80%, people want referendums, they want to be consulted about the future of their European Union. All around Europe, governments are refusing this right to self-determination. This is a complete violation of all democratic principles.

And this is the death of Europe, by building it without the people, and even against the people, they're killing the whole idea of a united Europe !
The referendum failed because it was more a referendum on Chirac than of the actual EU constitution.

It was the electorate who failed to see it as anything much more than "Chirac likes this treaty, I don't like Chirac, therefore I'm not going to vote for it" that was the problem.

Well, since EU is very undemocratic (the only elected body, the Parliament, is the weakest of all, only able to block things), any transfer of power towards EU is a shrinking of democracy - I don't oppose transfers towards EU in general, but I do oppose them as long as EU will be so much undemocratic.
The EU Parliament is going to get more power in this reform, so I don't see why you're complaining.

So what are you saying? Is it that anybody who's against further European integration needs "re-educating"?
That would be entirely in keeping with previously asserted European idals.

Recall the election of Jörg Haider in Austria. The EU openly opposed his installation, even though he'd been fairly elected under Austrian law. But because Austrians had chosen a leader with whom Europe disagreed, Europe pressured Austria to ignore the choice of Austrians.

That would be entirely in keeping with previously asserted European idals.

Recall the election of Jörg Haider in Austria. The EU openly opposed his installation, even though he'd been fairly elected under Austrian law. But because Austrians had chosen a leader with whom Europe disagreed, Europe pressured Austria to ignore the choice of Austrians.
"Nazis not allowed in Europe shocker"

"Nazis not allowed in Europe shocker"
Even if they're elected?

If the EU is allowed to overturn (effectively) the elections of its member nations, all semblance of independence and sovereignty is lost.

Even if they're elected?
Damn fucking right.

If people are stupid enough to vote for people with Nazi tendencies, then they shouldn't get to vote. I know that's extremely ironic, but there we go.
If the EU is allowed to overturn (effectively) the elections of its member nations, all semblance of independence and sovereignty is lost.
Ah well. The coalition utterly collapsed, which was the main thing.

Damn fucking right.
Fine. So you openly oppose self-determination. You openly oppose democracy.

At least you're honest about it.

I'll only have time to respond quickly to this one.

The Central Bank must be independent. Otherwise it can't do its job. It prints money, and the government spends it - if you put the two together that's a bad situation. And because people realise that, they also lose trust in the ability of the bank to keep the currency's value stable and start asking for nominal wage increases accordingly, which gets the whole thing moving.

That's a completely neoliberal and antidemocratic view of things. It's accepting to remove a very important set of policies - monetary policies - from the hand of democracy and giving it to the ploutocrats. You may agree with that, I definitely oppose it from all my strength. And the results of this policy are catastrophic, as you can see it with the disaster of the "strong euro" policy.


Dude, please stop using these in the context of entire market economies.

I'm using them about taxes, social and environmental protection inside an area in which the market is free but the policies are not global - and it does totally apply to it. I'm not using it to "entire market economies", I leave the stupidity of general equilibrium and "laws" explaining everything to neoliberal economists.

So here we go: firstly you can't show that the market isn't working, and secondly even if it didn't, that doesn't mean the government would do any better.

You completely misunderstood my point. I was not arguing against market economy in general, but only about having freedom of movement for capital and goods without a common policy. I was here arguing with all the social democrats or (noe)keynesians wanting free market with some regulations, not about a "post capitalist" economy - I'm perfectly aware a post capitalist economy (as necessary as it is in absolute) is not doable in any near future in the EU, while a less fanatic form of market economy is a perfectly reasonable demand.

The referendum failed because it was more a referendum on Chirac than of the actual EU constitution.

It was the electorate who failed to see it as anything much more than "Chirac likes this treaty, I don't like Chirac, therefore I'm not going to vote for it" that was the problem.

That's totally false, and shows your ignorance of french politics. The rejection of Chirac played a role, but not in the way you say it. The people understand that the neoliberal policies it was rejecting (because they were not rejecting the man Chirac, they actually have sympathy for him, but his policies) were exactly the same at national and european level. They rejected privatisation of public services, lowering of working rights, competition of everyone against everyone - exactly what was inside the treaty.

But anyway, that's not the point. You may disagree with people. You may think they were wrong. If "democracy" has any value to you, you HAVE to accept a sovereign decision taken by the people - whatever you agree with it or not.

The EU Parliament is going to get more power in this reform, so I don't see why you're complaining.

The EU parliament is about to have a crumb of additional power, at the cost of many safeguards being removed... and at the cost of it being even more strictly bound (for example, forbidden to restrict in any way the flaw of capital... very smart idea when we are facing a global crisis and that we all know that during the 90s, Asia managed to recover quickly from the crisis by... freezing capital flows for a while !)

That's totally false, and shows your ignorance of french politics. The rejection of Chirac played a role, but not in the way you say it. The people understand that the neoliberal policies it was rejecting (because they were not rejecting the man Chirac, they actually have sympathy for him, but his policies) were exactly the same at national and european level. They rejected privatisation of public services, lowering of working rights, competition of everyone against everyone - exactly what was inside the treaty.
If about 7% of those who voted against voted for the referendum because they were looking at it objectively (that one in fourteen voted against it as a protest vote is a conservative estimate), it would have passed.

But no, Chirac was unpopular, and called the referendum at the wrong time.
But anyway, that's not the point. You may disagree with people. You may think they were wrong. If "democracy" has any value to you, you HAVE to accept a sovereign decision taken by the people - whatever you agree with it or not.
It has no intrinsic value for me, so there we go.
The EU parliament is about to have a crumb of additional power, at the cost of many safeguards being removed... and at the cost of it being even more strictly bound (for example, forbidden to restrict in any way the flaw of capital... very smart idea when we are facing a global crisis and that we all know that during the 90s, Asia managed to recover quickly from the crisis by... freezing capital flows for a while !)
Two things here -

1) Government intervention in banking is a terrible idea, and does nothing to help - the reason why the banks in Asia (and hence Asia) lost so much was due to some serious intervention by governments such as South Korea.

2) The Parliament now votes for the President of the Commission (no small thing) and gets more power in checking the Council and Commission, which is what it was there for anyway.

Fine. So you openly oppose self-determination. You openly oppose democracy.

At least you're honest about it.
Exactly. No point in lying about it, that's the kind of dishonesty that I dislike about democracy.

That's a completely neoliberal and antidemocratic view of things.
Do you think what a court decides does should first be put to a public vote?

And the results of this policy are catastrophic, as you can see it with the disaster of the "strong euro" policy.
Firstly, there is no disaster. Secondly, there was no such policy.

However, I have to admit that I quite like seeing a stronger euro at this point. Much like the US economy was externally a little bit imbalanced by importing and spending a lot more than it was exporting and saving, the Eurozone (and particularly Germany) was imbalanced the other way around. A stronger euro is the sort of self-regulating market mechanism that fixes this imbalance, as is the weaker dollar. Most high-tech exports aren't all that price elastic anyways.

I'm using them about taxes, social and environmental protection inside an area in which the market is free but the policies are not global - and it does totally apply to it.
No, in that case it applies even less, because we're not talking about closed, zero-sum games.

A few questions as I was travelling in Europe at the time the French and Belgium voted against this referendum and was all over the local news I know a bit but perhaps some with more info could clarify with me

1) Even if the French government passed this after a strong vote against it by its own constituents it still won't go ahead because Belgium voted aginst it correct?

2) Doesn't it still need referendums from other countries still to go ahead such as the UK?

3) Isn't the EU writing up another one to put to the europeans?

1) Even if the French government passed this after a strong vote against it by its own constituents it still won't go ahead because Belgium voted aginst it correct?
No idead what the Belgians are up to at the moment, their interim government is having serious trouble getting anything done - if they rejected the new treaty, then it wouldn't pass for Europe, aye.
2) Doesn't it still need referendums from other countries still to go ahead such as the UK?
No, it could have been passed without a referendum in Holland and France.
3) Isn't the EU writing up another one to put to the europeans?
The Lisbon Treaty, which is now done and being discussed by various European governments, yeah.

On May 29th, 2005, the people of France rejected by an overwhelming majority (54.7% of votes) the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe.

On February 4th, 2008, the representatives, barricaded inside the palace of Versailles (from which Louis XIV ruled, and from which Louis-Adolphe Thiers decided the slaughter of the Commune), answering with teargas to "We want a referendum !", decided to overrule the sovereign decision of the people, and to accept a text which contains 98% of the text previously rejected by referendum.

Whatever your position on the text, how can this be acceptable ? That's a rape of democracy, an usurpation of popular sovereignty ! A treason from those who were elected to represent the people and serve, not bypass his opinion !

All around Europe, from 60% to 80%, people want referendums, they want to be consulted about the future of their European Union. All around Europe, governments are refusing this right to self-determination. This is a complete violation of all democratic principles.

And this is the death of Europe, by building it without the people, and even against the people, they're killing the whole idea of a united Europe !

That sucks! C'mon France, riot like you've never rioted before!

If anything the election of a conservative majority (and President) in France proves more than anything the absolute ineptitude and uselessness of the socialist opposition, and their cynical reformist approaches.

No idead what the Belgians are up to at the moment, their interim government is having serious trouble getting anything done - if they rejected the new treaty, then it wouldn't pass for Europe, aye.

Cheers that's what I thought

No, it could have been passed without a referendum in Holland and France.

But isn't that why it failed because the French and dutch (sorry I thought it was Belguim) referendums voted against it and so countries which were yet to hold one didn't because of that I know Blair stopped plans to hold one

The Lisbon Treaty, which is now done and being discussed by various European governments, yeah.

And won't that require referendums in each country to pass before being ratified?

If about 7% of those who voted against voted for the referendum because they were looking at it objectively (that one in fourteen voted against it as a protest vote is a conservative estimate), it would have passed.

That's exactly the same the other way around (if a few of those who voted Yes for "stupid" reasons - and there are some - voted No blablabla). You can't say "oh those voted bad so let's ignore them". The result of a vote IS law.

But no, Chirac was unpopular, and called the referendum at the wrong time.

When Chirac decided to call for a referendum, he was unpopular, but all the polls were giving a >60% victory for the Yes. After three months of debate on the text and on Europe, while Chirac was not less popular, the No won with 54.7%. The decision was not taken on Chirac, but on the text.

It has no intrinsic value for me, so there we go.

So at least you're coherent. You don't value democracy, so you don't oppose a rape of democracy. End of discussion, and I hope to never see you again.

Do you think what a court decides does should first be put to a public vote?

Court are here to apply law. The central bank doesn't apply law, it takes *political* decisions. The value of the interest rate is not applying a law, it's a very political decision, that affects differently different kind of people (high interest will favor those who have savings and penalize those who have debts, and the other way around). That's the core of a political decision ! Same for strong or weak currency, and so on.

Firstly, there is no disaster.

Sure, Airbus going to produce its planes in USA because Euro is too strong for them to be able to produce them in Europe is not disaster - and that's one example among many.

Secondly, there was no such policy.

Of course there is. The Central Bank could decide to print a moderate amount of money - that would lower the value of the euro (positive for the european economy), and could be used for useful spendings at the same time. Not doing it is a *political* decision, taken by people who don't have any democratic legitimacy. That's unacceptable.

However, I have to admit that I quite like seeing a stronger euro at this point.

You're quite crazy...

Much like the US economy was externally a little bit imbalanced by importing and spending a lot more than it was exporting and saving, the Eurozone (and particularly Germany) was imbalanced the other way around.

Germany exports mostly to... Europe ! Not much outside of Europe. And that's only the case for Germany, not for other european countries.

No, in that case it applies even less, because we're not talking about closed, zero-sum games.

Thanks ! You just proved (as if it were needed) your complete of understanding about economics and game theory (which explains why you believe in the neoliberal dogma). Nash equilibrium are *NOT* about zero-sum games, in a zero-sum game, there is no such thing as "low equilibrium" and "high equilibrium". It is BECAUSE it is not a zero-sum game than Nash equilibrium do apply.

*snip*

In 1981, Le Figaro carried out a survey the day after the vote for abolition. It indicated that 62% of the French were for maintaining the death penalty.

Yet Mitterand abolished it!

Oh NOES! What a crime against democracy!!

If you can show me that the 10% difference in the NO vote cannot easily be explained by nationalists then I'll grant that the sensible majority of France voted no, because I personally believe that the majority of sensible France wants in to Europe.

The government reflects that in making its decision, a government elected by the people.

1) Even if the French government passed this after a strong vote against it by its own constituents it still won't go ahead because Belgium voted aginst it correct?

2) Doesn't it still need referendums from other countries still to go ahead such as the UK?

No, because the governments of all European countries concluded a pact to not call for referendums. Only in Ireland, because it's mandatory in their own Constitution, will there be one. All other people of Europe, even if they want referenda with 70% or 75% majority, will be denied this right. That's how Europe is built - against the people.

3) Isn't the EU writing up another one to put to the europeans?

That's the "Lisbon Treaty". They removed a few words, completely changed the shape (it's not a new treaty replacing and canceling all the other ones, but a text changing 350+ articles of all current treaties), but the content is almost the same. That's the one they forcing upon us.

Yet Mitterand abolished it!

Oh NOES! What a crime against democracy!!

There is a huge difference in that: Mitterand didn't do a referendum to then do the opposite !

I personally believe that the majority of sensible France wants in to Europe.

The question was not about being in or out of EU. The large majority wants France inside EU. That question was about *which* EU we want and about a *specific* text. When the French people rejected the first proposed Constitution in 1946 (to finally accept a modified one a few months later), they were against "Republic", they were against the text that was proposed to them. That's exactly the same here - people didn't vote because they were "against EU" but because they were against *this* text, and wanted another one.

And you may speak about the "nationalists", but you've also to count, then, those who didn't like the text but still voted yes just to not vote with the "nationalists" (that is people who would have voted "no" if there were no nationalists), and they quite a lot too. And you also have to remember that it is thanks to *those* "nationalists" that Sarkozy won the election... so if you disqualify then in 2005, you must disqualify then in 2007, and not accept Sarkozy as legitimate.

It's democracy's own fault for wearing such a short skirt..

Deplorable.

But the point is that it not just *would* be rejected, but it *was* rejected ! That's completely different.
How? When I last looked, democracy is about 'government by the people'. A non-binding referendum is only one way of looking at whether proposed legislation is accepted by a majority. Legislation to ratify the EU constitution/treaty is being passed despite popular opposition, in the same way that legislation to abolish the UK death penalty in the 60s was passed with popular opposition. Governments do this all the time.

How? When I last looked, democracy is about 'government by the people'. A non-binding referendum is only one way of looking at whether proposed legislation is accepted by a majority. Legislation to ratify the EU constitution/treaty is being passed despite popular opposition, in the same way that legislation to abolish the UK death penalty in the 60s was passed with popular opposition. Governments do this all the time.

Learn from the masses, and then teach them - Mao Zedong

How?

First because a poll captures a vague feeling at a point in time. A referendum is the result of a long debate, in which people vote knowing that their vote will affect the future. That's totally different. If you look at the "European Constitution", polls were giving >60% (close to 70% IIRC) of "Yes" before Chirac decided to do a referendum. That was an uninformed, vague opinion. Then we had a debate, with people of all side giving their argument. And after months of intense debate, the people decided. That was not longer a vague, not well-thought feeling, but a *decision*.

Then because the issue is totally different. Abolishing or not the death penalty is a reversible decision. A government coming after can reinstore it, as easily as it was suppressed. Governments can't hold referenda on every issue all the time, of course. But in this case, we have a "non going back" effect, which makes it much worse to not ask the people. If the Lisbon treaty is ratified, there is no going back. France may leave EU, but that's it, there is no more option of going back to the previous state - EU without Lisbon treaty.

And finally, because the Lisbon treaty, unlike the death penalty, requires a change in our Constitution. The government changing the Constitution against the will of the people is purely unacceptable. They are changing the rules of the social contract which give them right to govern ! You can't change a contract unilaterally.

When I last looked, democracy is about 'government by the people'.

Exactly. That's why some people deciding to overrule the decision taken by the people is *unacceptable*.

A non-binding referendum is only one way of looking at whether proposed legislation is accepted by a majority.

A poll is not a non-binding referendum. And the 2005 referendum WAS binding. But even then, they decided to overrule it !

Governments do this all the time.

As if it were an excuse... "murders happen all the time"...

Court are here to apply law. The central bank doesn't apply law, it takes *political* decisions. The value of the interest rate is not applying a law, it's a very political decision, that affects differently different kind of people (high interest will favor those who have savings and penalize those who have debts, and the other way around). That's the core of a political decision ! Same for strong or weak currency, and so on.
And applying a law does not affect different groups in different ways? Making a decision does not set a precedent? It doesn't make some groups feel different than others?

Excuse my French, but you're talking out of your arse. Setting an interest rate is a methodical, mechanical process involving data inputs on one hand and policy outputs on the other. It is not a subjective matter, it is not something that can be put to a public vote any more than deciding the punishment for a criminal is.

Sure, Airbus going to produce its planes in USA because Euro is too strong for them to be able to produce them in Europe is not disaster - and that's one example among many.
It is indeed not a disaster. At worst it's creative destruction, if you're familiar with the term.

And secondly, you will find the reasons that companies find it hard to deal with exchange rates in their underperformance, where they don't have the resources or the good sense to build up an appropriate hedging system. Airbus is struggling to make proper returns anyways, so for them it's hard - but that's because Airbus is a crap company.

Of course there is. The Central Bank could decide to print a moderate amount of money - that would lower the value of the euro (positive for the european economy), and could be used for useful spendings at the same time. Not doing it is a *political* decision, taken by people who don't have any democratic legitimacy. That's unacceptable.
All you're doing is proving why people like you or Sarkozy shouldn't get their hands on the ECB. Printing more money leads first of all to inflation, and to inflation expectations. That will over time eat up all the "useful spending" (face it, in France it's likely to be pensions of some form or another) you could be doing.

People will also find that imported things (which is most consumer items and clothing for example) are much more expensive - and companies importing raw materials or other inputs will too.

People will also see their savings being eaten up by inflation - across the board that is, including your normal middle class households. Low interest rates will add to that, since that's what's needed if you want to increase money supply.

Right now the eurozone has been shielded from high oil prices due to the dollar's fall compared to the euro. You want to reverse that, you will expose both drivers at the pump and companies of all types to much higher fuel prices.

And people will know this is happening because they're not stupid. So the first thing they do is go to their boss or their union rep and demand higher wages. Of course those won't be backed by higher productivity or longer work hours, so they'll just fuel inflation too.

And then, once you managed to let money growth get out of hand and you find that it has decoupled from economic growth and unemployment you'll come running back to the ECB and beg it to stop it. Only then it will take years and probably a bad recession, as Mr Volcker found out back in the day in the States.

But hey, at least it'll be democratic, right?

You're quite crazy...
I'm just not a mercantilist. That will only sound crazy in France, where it doesn't look like that particular philosophy has ever really been abandoned, but in the rest of the world it's quite reasonable.

Germany exports mostly to... Europe ! Not much outside of Europe. And that's only the case for Germany, not for other european countries.
The euro zone as a whole exports much more heavily to BRIC nations and the developing world than the US does. The euro's rise against the currencies of those countries has been minimal. Germany is also the largest economy in the eurozone and in turn affects the rest of the euro countries for good or bad.

Anyways, here's an article covering what I'm trying to point out to you: http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=348930&story_id=9993537

Nash equilibrium are *NOT* about zero-sum games, in a zero-sum game, there is no such thing as "low equilibrium" and "high equilibrium". It is BECAUSE it is not a zero-sum game than Nash equilibrium do apply.
Actually, Nash equilibria exist in zero sum games. What you mean is the prisoner's dillemma situation in which there are multiple Nash equilibria and one is better than the other. I'm too lazy to think, but perhaps even such a thing is possible if you think about it, the strategies would just be mixed, minimax combinations based on estimated probabilities. But then, I don't know anything about economics, that's why I'm such a neoliberal. :rolleyes:

Again, those sorts of games, the way you are portraying them, are however closed systems. They don't take into account that taking a "low" equilibrium actually has positive secondary effects. For example, we can have a sack of grain on an empty island. We can either make a lot of bread with it today or only use some and plant the rest to grow more food in the future.

You are suggesting that the latter is a bad equilibrium because both of us could be having more food right now. I'm saying that you need to take into account that the pay-outs and the entire structure of the game may change as time progresses. You're not honestly taking that into account if you suggest that some sort of mercantilist trade policy is a good idea.

I'm willing to bet that I'm not the first in this thread to point this out, but meh.

It's very, very rare (Has it happened at all? I'm unsure. I checked for Germany and the US, in both cases, the process was quite similar to the one in question) for a constitution to be accepted by a referendum - most usually, the decision is made by the elected representatives (Because they are, ya'know, elected for that job. Not to mention that in most cases, they're explicitly meant to decide not according to popular opinion, but according to their own convictions. Which is a good thing, what with at least trying to curtail populism a 'lil bit).

So, quite contrary to the op - while one can have issues with the content of the document, complaining about how it isn't accepted through a referendum is quite, quite silly. And claiming that 'Democracy is raped' because a quite inherently democratic process (Of which an overwhelming number of precedents exist) is occuring, well, that's just retarded.

First because a poll captures a vague feeling at a point in time. A referendum is the result of a long debate, in which people vote knowing that their vote will affect the future. That's totally different. If you look at the "European Constitution", polls were giving >60% (close to 70% IIRC) of "Yes" before Chirac decided to do a referendum. That was an uninformed, vague opinion. Then we had a debate, with people of all side giving their argument. And after months of intense debate, the people decided. That was not longer a vague, not well-thought feeling, but a *decision*.
The same happens with referenda. The ratification of the Treaty of Nice in Ireland is a good example. The fact that feelings can change is, IMHO, a good reason for parliamentary, rather than direct, democracy in many cases.

Then because the issue is totally different. Abolishing or not the death penalty is a reversible decision. A government coming after can reinstore it, as easily as it was suppressed. Governments can't hold referenda on every issue all the time, of course. But in this case, we have a "non going back" effect, which makes it much worse to not ask the people. If the Lisbon treaty is ratified, there is no going back. France may leave EU, but that's it, there is no more option of going back to the previous state - EU without Lisbon treaty.
You've made my point for me, I think. If France doesn't like the way the EU is going (something I doubt, considering the election of Nicholas Sarkozy) it is free to leave.

And finally, because the Lisbon treaty, unlike the death penalty, requires a change in our Constitution. The government changing the Constitution against the will of the people is purely unacceptable. They are changing the rules of the social contract which give them right to govern ! You can't change a contract unilaterally.
If the government violated the constitution then go to the courts. That's what they exist for.

Exactly. That's why some people deciding to overrule the decision taken by the people is *unacceptable*.
Yet, as I keep saying, governments frequently take decisions without recourse to the people when they know a referendum on the issue would fail. Either way, legislation is passed that a majority of people oppose.

A poll is not a non-binding referendum. And the 2005 referendum WAS binding. But even then, they decided to overrule it !
And the government was elected on a platform of doing so.

As if it were an excuse... "murders happen all the time"...
The difference being that we accept that governments can and will legislate against the will of a majority, and can in your case, judge them against their record every five years. We do not accept murder inder most circumstances. Analogy fails.

But isn't that why it failed because the French and dutch (sorry I thought it was Belguim) referendums voted against it and so countries which were yet to hold one didn't because of that I know Blair stopped plans to hold one
Basically, yeah.
And won't that require referendums in each country to pass before being ratified?
No, because it's being billed as something different. It isn't actually anything different, but there we go. The EU member states all really want it passed, and if the whole process gets held up by referenda failing, then that's a total waste of everyone's time, especially since I would highly doubt that people actually know what they're voting for, and more turn up to vote based on what their paper of choice says on the matter.
That's exactly the same the other way around (if a few of those who voted Yes for "stupid" reasons - and there are some - voted No blablabla). You can't say "oh those voted bad so let's ignore them". The result of a vote IS law.
Well yes.
When Chirac decided to call for a referendum, he was unpopular, but all the polls were giving a >60% victory for the Yes. After three months of debate on the text and on Europe, while Chirac was not less popular, the No won with 54.7%. The decision was not taken on Chirac, but on the text.
There was certainly an element of voting to spite Chirac on the matter. Yes, it was on the text for a lot of people, but there were others who decided to vote against the text to make Chirac look stupid.

Sure, Airbus going to produce its planes in USA because Euro is too strong for them to be able to produce them in Europe is not disaster - and that's one example among many.
No, Airbus is going to produce its planes in the USA because the unions in France and Germany are incredibly overpowered and have been on strike far, far too much in the last 2 years, whilst being a more expensive workforce than the US.

A lot of the posts here sum up perfectly the attitude of pro-EU people. "The public are ignorant scum, we should dispense with democracy and instead have the people ruled by our wise European masters, in their own interests of course". Unless they decided to do something you weren't too keen on. Then they'd be tyrants!

Mao and Stalin would be proud.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13426988']A lot of the posts here sum up perfectly the attitude of pro-EU people. "The public are ignorant scum, we should dispense with democracy and instead have the people ruled by our wise European masters, in their own interests of course". Unless they decided to do something you weren't too keen on. Then they'd be tyrants!

Mao and Stalin would be proud.
Kind of odd, considering the French government is doing what it said it would do when it was elected, and is following normally established democratic legislative procedures.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13426988']A lot of the posts here sum up perfectly the attitude of pro-EU people. "The public are ignorant scum, we should dispense with democracy and instead have the people ruled by our wise European masters, in their own interests of course". Unless they decided to do something you weren't too keen on. Then they'd be tyrants!

Mao and Stalin would be proud.
Seeing as most anti-EU types are against it because they read that it was Bad And Wrong in the Express or Mail, I don't see what's so odd about that.

The EU gives us freedom of movement and trade, pan-European standards on literally thousands of types of good and it also gives incredibly vast sums of money out to help those countries which are in a poor state. What's wrong with that?

Seeing as most anti-EU types are against it because they read that it was Bad And Wrong in the Express or Mail, I don't see what's so odd about that.

The EU gives us freedom of movement and trade, pan-European standards on literally thousands of types of good and it also gives incredibly vast sums of money out to help those countries which are in a poor state. What's wrong with that?

We could do that before the EU came along :rolleyes:

The problem with the EU and this is view that I, a right winger, shares with Tony Been , a noted left winger, is that there is a serious democratic defiect in the heart of the EU power structure.
You have the EU parliment, elected by propotional representation, which means the MEP's are appointed by the various political parties. we the people dont have choice except to vote for the other party if our mep is on the take.

The EU commision........... appointed by the member governments, we the people have NO SAY in who gets that bit of the power structure, eg Neil kinnock, Tony Blair's best mate and the french woman who appointed her friends to be 'advisors' on the EU's payroll

The EU presidency..... yeah right...... another proxy election, we vote for a national government who then appoints someone to do the job.

And yet we the people are expected to cede more powers from national governments to the EU without the ability to even say who governs us?

The EU power structure should be a directly elected presidency, a directed elected senate, and a directly elected parliment, without this ,the EU project will fail, and do you want to be around when it does?

Seeing as most anti-EU types are against it because they read that it was Bad And Wrong in the Express or Mail, I don't see what's so odd about that.

The EU gives us freedom of movement and trade, pan-European standards on literally thousands of types of good and it also gives incredibly vast sums of money out to help those countries which are in a poor state. What's wrong with that?
The people in those countries don't get any say in the matter. That's what's wrong.

The people in those countries don't get any say in the matter. That's what's wrong.
Hardly without precident though. It's standard practice to ratify EU treaties through national parliaments.

The people in those countries don't get any say in the matter. That's what's wrong.

The people don't have much of a say anyway.

The idea of voting is the very antithesis of democracy. Even the Athenians, originators of democracy, opposed voting. They much preferred to have their leaders chosen by lot. In this way, they avoided the tendency of voting to select those with ambitions of power, and enacted true 'rule by the people'.

Voting is a method of getting the populace to give assent to their ppressors, of denying the rights of the public. It removes the public from their position at the core of a democracy, and instead substitutes a new oligarchy --- the political class. They are not concerned with the wishes of the people, at least not beyond their next re-election. How is it a choice to pick Suit A or Suit B?

Therefore, why are we surprised that the government are ignoring the wishes of the people, instead focusing on their own power. This is the inevitable consequence of having representatives who are voted in; they will act in their own interests. Again, look at the Athenian model, where representatives were chosen by lot and served for one day. That is a method by which you can get a government truly running in the interests of the public*.

It was nice of them to pretend they would listen, anyway.

*Well, to the extent that any government can, of course. Of course, any sort of State is simply a vehicle for oppression, and should be fought tooth and nail. Just because it represents the wishes of the people as some abstract whole does not make it good, or even legitimate.

Hardly without precident though. It's standard practice to ratify EU treaties through national parliaments.
At least those people tend to be elected representatives.

I wonder what would have happened if Jörg Haider had refused to ratify some EU treaty.

We could do that before the EU came along :rolleyes:


You could have free movement of people before the EU came along?

Think again.

We could do that before the EU came along :rolleyes:
No, we couldn't. Before Maastrict, we couldn't move around and have equal rights in terms of work and housing to other EU members.
The problem with the EU and this is view that I, a right winger, shares with Tony Been , a noted left winger, is that there is a serious democratic defiect in the heart of the EU power structure.
Which is now going to change...

*edits* also - Tony Benn, not Tony Been.
You have the EU parliment, elected by propotional representation, which means the MEP's are appointed by the various political parties. we the people dont have choice except to vote for the other party if our mep is on the take.
Same is true of local politics...
The EU commision........... appointed by the member governments, we the people have NO SAY in who gets that bit of the power structure, eg Neil kinnock, Tony Blair's best mate and the french woman who appointed her friends to be 'advisors' on the EU's payroll
So, we don't get to pick our own cabinet, do we?
The EU presidency..... yeah right...... another proxy election, we vote for a national government who then appoints someone to do the job.
The EU parliament is going to be in charge of electing the President of the Commission.
And yet we the people are expected to cede more powers from national governments to the EU without the ability to even say who governs us?
Well yes.
The EU power structure should be a directly elected presidency, a directed elected senate, and a directly elected parliment, without this ,the EU project will fail, and do you want to be around when it does?
It's not going to fail, because of its use as a customs agreement and the CAP, which is going to make it a permanent fixture in Europe for quite a while yet.
The people in those countries don't get any say in the matter. That's what's wrong.
1) Actually fairly common practise to avoid a referendum on the matter

2) Since most people don't know what's on it, and an uninformed voter is a worthless voter, why bother?

Maybe not, but neither is European integration...

Neither are.

Democracy leads to inefficiency, the EU simply leads to a further level of inefficiency.

Given that some changes caused by the treaty are fairly important to the very political structure of most countries in the EU, I believe its only reasonable that they hold referenda (is that a word?) on the issue. However, as we in the UK have opted out of the most important parts of the treaty I don't see any point here.

You could have free movement of people before the EU came along?

Think again.

Is "free movement of people" inherently beneficial?

Is "free movement of people" inherently beneficial?

The movement of people for employment purposes is a major benefit, allowing workers to move from areas of high unemployment to areas with job shortages, or people with specialist skills to move to areas where those skills are in high demand. What exactly are the disadvantages?

The movement of people for employment purposes is a major benefit, allowing workers to move from areas of high unemployment to areas with job shortages, or people with specialist skills to move to areas where those skills are in high demand. What exactly are the disadvantages?

Firstly, why should I care if a few thousand Poles have jobs? The British government has an obligation to provide employment for its own populace before seeking unskilled migrant workers. Simply put, you cannot contend that the majority of Eastern European migrant workers are skilled; they are not, and herein lies the flaw immanent to your argument. The model you propose is a chimaera.

Immigration conducted upon selective grounds, meeting gaps in the demographic of skilled, qualified professional work, is wholly sensible. Unskilled, unrestricted immigration en masse, in the presence of native unemployment, is irrational, and is both encouraged and endorsed by the free movement permitted by the EU.

Firstly, why should I care if a few thousand Poles have jobs?
Because it helps your economy.

The British government has an obligation to provide employment for its own populace before seeking unskilled migrant workers.
Show me this "obligation" in legislation or law.

Simply put, you cannot contend that the majority of Eastern European migrant workers are skilled; they are not, and herein lies the flaw immanent to your argument.
Skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled workers add to the economy. Your point is mute.

Because it helps your economy.


Show me this "obligation" in legislation or law.


Skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled workers add to the economy. Your point is mute.

My point cannot be mute, it never had the capacity to speak at all...

In any case; please explain to me why unskilled migrant workers are necessary when extant, resident unemployed could be forced to take the jobs filled by migrants?

In any case; please explain to me why unskilled migrant workers are necessary when extant, resident unemployed could be forced to take the jobs filled by migrants?

Forcing people to work?

Arbeit macht frei?

In any case; please explain to me why unskilled migrant workers are necessary when extant, resident unemployed could be forced to take the jobs filled by migrants?
http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286197
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286177
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286165
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286153
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286141
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286131
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286121
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286111

Firstly, why should I care if a few thousand Poles have jobs? The British government has an obligation to provide employment for its own populace before seeking unskilled migrant workers. Simply put, you cannot contend that the majority of Eastern European migrant workers are skilled; they are not, and herein lies the flaw immanent to your argument. The model you propose is a chimaera.

Immigration conducted upon selective grounds, meeting gaps in the demographic of skilled, qualified professional work, is wholly sensible. Unskilled, unrestricted immigration en masse, in the presence of native unemployment, is irrational, and is both encouraged and endorsed by the free movement permitted by the EU.

We don't just need skilled workers. Two of the largest employment sectors for immigrant workers are farm labour and carework. Both jobs types are hard to fill among British workers as they are considered highly undesirable. Migrants usually have a positive effect on the economic growth rate in the country they are migrating to, allowing for the creation of more jobs for native or migrant workers. Unemployment for the UK remains low - I fail to see what problem with employment the government is failing to resolve.

http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286197
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286177
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286165
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286153
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286141
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286131
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286121
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286111

I actually dug out my copy of the special report on immigration just to answer the criticisms of free labour movement.

In any case; please explain to me why unskilled migrant workers are necessary when extant, resident unemployed could be forced to take the jobs filled by migrants?Wouldn't this require the businesses in question to, well... Want them? See, there are actually (Negative) sanctions for unemployed people who don't take jobs offered to them - the problem is, a good number of them don't get any offers.

Why? Lack of qualifications, of course.

Now, I don't mean 'Qualifications' as in 'Masters in Electric Engineering'. I mean qualifications such as 'Can read and write', 'Is there on time', 'Has a positive attitude' (The latter best described as the difference between "What will I get if I do this extra work?" and "Sure, I'll do it. What will I get for it?"), the likes.

Your native unemployeds remain unemployed not because there's some fiendish plot to keep them out of work and take immigrants instead, they're taken because the immigrants are simply more productive, show more dedication to their work.

Now, so far, so good. You could still get rid of the (Qualified) immigrant labour and replace it with the (Less qualified) bottom of the native labour pool. By force.

This would now get you

Added expenses to force the labour(ing)
Annoyed businesses who don't actually want to employ these people (Read: You need to force them to actually accept your true-blooded brits into work. Either by force, or by subsiding these businesses for taking in the undesirables; needless to say, either way, your present welfare expenses would merely be shifted around, but not actually reduced)
A lower product quality
And while we're at it, a free market economy requires competition. You just removed this competition. Make that much lower product quality at higher costs

Are you sure this is a good idea?

2) Since most people don't know what's on it, and an uninformed voter is a worthless voter, why bother?
Why don't the voters know what's on it? Is it secret? OR do you just not trust them to understand it?

If the latter is the case, then you're being incredibly paternalistic. You're deciding what's best for the people without bothering to ask them.

That's authoritarian rule.

Why don't the voters know what's on it? Is it secret? OR do you just not trust them to understand it?

While it would be nice if humans could just get knowledge on a given subject by waving their arms, we currently seem to still require something called "studying". Studying that sometimes takes a few years to grasp a concept sufficiently. Not everyone can do that. That does not make them inferior or anything - it just means they devoted their attention elsewhere.

Example: who is "better": the rocket scientist, the doctor or the famous poet ?
Would you follow the democratic majority if both the poet and the scientist believe that you do not need surgery while the doctor thinks it very necessary ?