Where is my country going ?

As you may know, France rejected the EU treaty by more than 55%

People are happy, they speak about a new Revolution.
Far right is happy, it just won another victory.
Far left is happy aswell. While it was almost dying, the Communist Party is back on the scene. The Trotskists are happy.
Some center left people (socialists) are happy.

The results are known since 10PM, and all these parties are already saying different things.
For the far right, the NO means "Chirac must leave"
For the far and centre left, the NO means "Liberalism must leave"

The YES guys from the left are accusing Chirac. Chirac is accusing the Prime Minister... And, except Sarkozy (and I really dislike him), nobody said that the social dream was just that, a dream, and that liberalism is a needed evil.
These people are dooming my country.
People are expecting the new gouvernement (the current PM will probably be fired) to put up a 'social' system. It has already proven to be uneffective in this crisis times, but well, who care ?

Far left and far right lobbies won the day. Reason lost everything. Europe lost.
France lost.
I have the feeling we're back to the 1900's or 1910's.
It might sound dull to you, but the debate about EU was so full or lies, so hypocritical, I just can't believe it. France is always bragging about the fact it has been at the 'avant garde' of historical ideas, but now, it's living in the past.

Well, lets not forget the referendum was done during an economical crisis. In such a time, people have the urge to say 'no' to something. Had the answers been reversed, maybe the result would be different. We will see what the people think when the economy is better again.

It's the EU, they'll get the constitution into place regardless of the outcomes of referenda (Dutch No vote is on about 60% in opinion polls, UK opinion polls are very strongly against yet no referendum date declared yet).
Some of the big guns of the EU have already been saying things like "If they vote yes the project will continue; if they vote no the project will continue".

Sorry to hear about any possible upheavals in France but I feel that the whole of the EU political classes need their heads knocking together.

Are you moaning about the actual result or the nature of the debate prior to it? I'm finding it hard to see which (or both) is attracting your ire here.

It has happened before, I think it was back in the 70s, when the french shot down an important proposal actually suggested by the previous government. They actually sang the national anthem after it was rejected (the communist party at least).

Europe was put on hold back then, however, i don't see that happening now. Sure the constitution wont pass and certain, important aspects won't get realized. But the European project will continue.

As I've said before, the people of Europe don't feel that they ARE Europe or have a significant say in it, we need to stop the 2nd level elections government currently employed and have the people choose the executive.

Also, more and clearer information about Europe is needed. And we need to stop the rapid expansion, I have nothing against Turkey or Romania, but there is a limit to the funds and power of the union, we've already done a lot of good for a lot of countries, but it takes time and a lot of money.

Politicians are too ambitious and don't respect the will of the people, this is what results. We need a strong union (economically speaking, not in terms of power over its nations) not a large union per se.

Well France is on the Eurasian Tectonic Plate so it is slowly drifting along. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Far left and far right lobbies won the day. Reason lost everything. Europe lost.
France lost.

---

Quite so.

:embarassed: ~:mecry:

long time no see louis... shame it failed

Can't really understand why France have a referendum at all. With this in mind we should create a large Baltikum instead......

What's so wrong about saying no to a text you can't comprehend? I've always been careful not to sign any contracts that aren't perfectly clear.

Quote:

---

What's so wrong about saying no

---

Everything.

Already the British foreign secretary has shamelessly hinted that it is a time to see what we 'really want' the EU to be, social or economic.. We are starting now to see completely the end of the social EU vision so many rights granted in the past could be in jeopardy because of this no vote. :(

Hey guys, finding myself with a little time on my hands here in Singapore and decided to pop in. Hope all has been well during my trek through China.

I saw this on the news this morning, and that's actually why I popped in here, I wanted to talk about the vote with some folks who know more than I.

Jag, Spetulhu made a great point. You're asking people to surrender their sovereignty, their identity and their decision making to a group of beauracrats they don't get to elect. You yourself said earlier it's so damn convoluted, it's hard to know what exactly is in that Constitution. I was surprised it was France that put the breaks on, as it stood to benefit the most, but I'm also glad somebody did.

I'm not saying a Unified Europe is a bad idea. I think it's a good idea. But don't you think on something so important as the power of life and death over the citizens, the citizens have a right to know what they're signing up to? With all the time the EU Constitutional Committee has been at it, they should have taken the time to put the rights and restrictions into plain language everyone could understand.

By the way, for as ardent as a socialist as you are, Jag, I'm surprised to see you so much in favor of it. I thought the EU crowd were in favor of liberalizing Europe's economies, and I thought that was one of the main knocks against it in France, that social welfare would be curtailed in the name of economic competitiveness.

Anybody who thinks the current social welfare system as it exists in the USA or Europe can continue needs to get on a plane and come visit China. There's a billion people over here, many educated, all desparate to advance their country's economy. They don't care about social welfare provisions, and frequently work 70+ hours a week. There's no job they cannot do. At the end of the day, if the West does not liberalize it's economies, we're going to find ourselves being the 3rd world countries.

So, I guess in conclusion, I say bravo France for injecting some reasonable pause into the discussion, but get right back to the bigger matter at hand... clarify the rights and restrictions and move on.

Hey Don, hope youre not smuggling any drugs. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Well France is on the Eurasian Tectonic Plate so it is slowly drifting along. ~D

---

Believe it or not, as I saw the title of this thread, I thought exactly the same. :thumbsup:

Good to see you Don, I hope you are having a good time.

As to the EU not being representative / elected .. It is. Not only do we elect our national govts which have a huge say in how the EU is shaped but we also elect the EU parliament which makes decisions. The constitution made the whole process even more democratic it is one of the crying shames about it being rejected, the system would be far more representative if the constitution passed yet one of the major lines against the EU is that it is unrepresentative, so people vote no!

Sure parts of the executive are appointed, but appointed by our national govts and the EU parliament, both of which are directly elected. To state that there is no democracy is a far cry from the truth.

I agree that the constitution should have been in better English, but it wasn't so there is no need to dwell, it was / is still readable. Plus after all the debate on the constitution everyone in France should have known exactly what the situation was about.

I support the EU, yes and I am fairly ardent in my views. Why? Well simply put I think the best way for social justice in Europe is through the EU. The best way for workers rights to be guaranteed and progressed is through a Europe working together. Plus, I am a realistic socialist, even if you would like to think I am not. I realise the huge benefits of being part of the EU for trade and the economy. I am not someone who is so idealistic I fail to see the situation for what it is, we are living in an era of markets and globalisation and it will not change. Knowing this the way forward for people like me is to understand then the best way of moving towards the fundamental goals we still hold dear in this unfair system. And those goals are best served by the EU, via market alterations and tinkering, by stronger workers rights EU wide, by free movement of labour which intergrates the whole of Europe, etc. You could call me a social democrat, but that way has been watered down so much by govts who declare themselves social democratic govts - Schroder's Germany, Blair's Britain - that I hesitate to declare myself one.

So, yes the EU has some liberalising elements to it in terms of the economy but it too has a very strong sense of social justice and the protection of those at the bottom. That has now unfortunately been compromised by this vote in France for no, but we will soldier on, I guess.

I completely disagree with you about the welfare state - of course :p - but that needs to be saved for another thread I fear. China can make their workers, people and society all the poorer for their treatment of them but I refuse to say that is the way forward for those in the west, through our prosperity we should support those at the bottom not build in abuses of them. To take advantage of those who work hardest is the biggest problem with capitalism, it is only compounded by the loosing of welfare rights.

By the way if you want to have a debate about the role of the private sector I think you would be surprised by my views, I am not such an unmovable idealist when it comes to the use of it in providing equality. We have never really debated it properly here so maybe you presume my position rather than know it, I have changed my views quite starkly over the last year and a bit from a complete anti private industry position to a selective use of it position. I have, in effect, been won round somewhat by the New Labour / Gordon Brown train of thought in some areas, how wise that is though is still being debated in my head. ~;)

[QUOTE=Don Corleone]I'm not saying a Unified Europe is a bad idea. I think it's a good idea. But don't you think on something so important as the power of life and death over the citizens, the citizens have a right to know what they're signing up to? With all the time the EU Constitutional Committee has been at it, they should have taken the time to put the rights and restrictions into plain language everyone could understand.
[\QUOTE]

The power over life and death of its citizens ? When did we surrender that ?
The justice systems are still nation based. ButI agree with your other point and I've said it before, the constitution was wriiten for lawyers and politicians, not ordinary people, that was really its one big problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Anybody who thinks the current social welfare system as it exists in the USA or Europe can continue needs to get on a plane and come visit China. There's a billion people over here, many educated, all desparate to advance their country's economy. They don't care about social welfare provisions, and frequently work 70+ hours a week. There's no job they cannot do. At the end of the day, if the West does not liberalize it's economies, we're going to find ourselves being the 3rd world countries.

---

Or the people of China can get fed up with working so hard and start demanding worker rights. After all, isn't communism supposed to be about worker rights ?

A rose, by any other name, eh Doc Bean? The Chinese are about as communist as Warren Buffet. In terms of them threatening to quit/strike.... what have you...even with all of the prosperity and growth they've seen, in many, many ways, China is still a very poor country. One of the ways this shows up immediately is the 15% unemployment. Go ahead and tell your boss you're knocking off at 40 hours this week. Come Monday, there's 3 guys ready to take your place.

I'm not arguing this is how it should be. I'm arguing this is how it is and we had better quit pontificating and realize that we are at a serious competitive disadvantage. I'm not saying this because I don't like China, or I want to stay one up on them. I actually like China and most Chinese very, very much. I just think before we all go talking about workers rights protections too much, and of course, they are important, to a reasonable extent, we need to recognize that there is a highly trained, highly motivated workforce out there that is eager to work 60+ hours a week. Should we adopt that as our model? I don't know. If that's what it takes to remain competitive, yes. If we can maintain our competitive edge in other ways, then so be it.

And I've noticed I'm engaging in a very liberal use of the word 'we'. In truth, I view China much the same way I view an EU of the future, or France/Germany/UK now. Of course, we should be friendly and fair, but we're rivals. What's good for the US economy is not necessarily good for the German economy. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do what's good for us, but we shouldn't act clueless when Germany gets a little resentful at us for doing this. Substitute any 2 market economies of scale into that equation.

Jag, you're right. Color me tickled, and thank you for the welcome. I am having a delightful time. Every red blooded male, and any woman with an eye for aesthetics should be allowed to visit Singapore at some point in their life. When the day is done, walk down to the river, sit and enjoy a nice pint, and behold the handiwork that is the female form. Mmmm... Right, where was I...

I think I'm going to start a few economic driven threads. I think we've done politics to death around here, and let's admit it fellas, sometimes we really have to scrounge to keep our moral outrage at peak capacity. ~D

For example, I've spent the past week explaining to just about every Chinese I've met about why the EU is reintroducing market quotas on textiles. They honestly believe in many ways it's because Westerners don't like China and want to see it remain poor. Part of that is government propagada, but another, important part is the viewpoint from their side. We'd be the same way if China slapped a bunch of import limits against us. They don't understand why the EU, and to a lesser extent, the US is going to such great lengths to protect jobs that represent such a small percentage of the workforce. In their eyes, they look at us as spoiled, bratty friends.... we've already moved on and we're not using those jobs anymore, but we don't want them to have them either. To them, we're being spiteful, and several admitted they thought it was racial... that we gwai-lo want to see Asians remain poor and dependent. I did correct them of that notion, asking if that was the case, explain Japan, which in many ways has the highest standard of living in the world, hands down. They kinda agreed then, but they still don't understand. Honestly, as a uncompromising capitalist, I'm having a hard time understanding it myself sometimes. Anyways, this is all for another thread. I'm doing the typical American thing and injecting economics into a political debate.

I've talked about the need to protect certain jobs and sectors in another thread already, but I'll gladly do it again ~D

I think China's main assets is that the Chinese LIKE China, they are proud of their country and (most) are willing to work there, even if they could get better paid jobs in the first world.

Well, I don't want to turn this into "cultural & economic observations of China & it's people" so I'll just let that whole sub-thread die at this point, maybe start a new thread on the topic.

In the meantime, you questioned my use of the term 'life & death' as relating to capital punishment and that each member nation would retain it's own judicial system. What you're overlooking is that while you're correct, you will be merging your foreign policy, your national defense, and most importantly, your tax policy. All of these are vital aspects of a 'nations' survival, if you will. I am a firm believer in the axiom 'the power to tax is the power to destroy'. I think the EU is a good step for the majority of Europe, but I think you ought to be very careful about what is and is not spelled out in the contract before you sign in blood. Once made, there's no unmaking. Take the time to get the details right, make sure there's no loopholes that can be exploited by blantant opportunists, and your EU government doesn't wind up like an EU clone of the UN.

Quote:

---

Well, lets not forget the referendum was done during an economical crisis. In such a time, people have the urge to say 'no' to something. Had the answers been reversed, maybe the result would be different. We will see what the people think when the economy is better again.

---

This is an unfair justification for the French people to vote no. The argument that: The French are voting no on the EU because their economy is in a bad state is fair enough, but could this not simply be a reflection of another possible point:
The French economy is in a bad state because of the EU.

Which is the cause and which is the effect?

The EU doesn't have the authority to claim new domains of taxation (I even think this is expressly forbidden in the constitution, but it's been a while).

A significant part of the budget comes from the countries donating a percentage of their GNP, but this amount is not set (I think it is limited), and the amount has to be approved by the individual nations (the 'council of ministers').

Besides, if the constitution was approved, any country would have been able to leave the Union.



(I really should read that damn constitution again to make sure that what I'm saying is right, but let's assume it is until someone proves me wrong ~:) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Far left and far right lobbies won the day. Reason lost everything. Europe lost. France lost.

---

On ne va tout de même pas se livrer au désespoir. L’avenir est aux jeux sans frontières, Meneldil. Although I have to say this is more than a hiccup for both France and the European Union.
You see, this is why I am against referenda : voters get to say ‘Yes’or ‘No’ without being able to motivate their choice. We see a rather massive rejection of the Constitutional Treaty in France, but nobody really knows why. I think that after a brief period of paralysis there will be calls for a new Treaty, and we’ll be in for a tremendous debate about what that new Treaty should look like in order to gather majority support. Remember there are two majorities to be found here: either Centre + Right, or Centre + Left. Should a new treaty cater more to the Right with its penchant for closed borders, closed minds and closed (or should I say ‘closet’) social policies? Or should it cater more to the Left with its penchant for closed markets, social policy demands and pacifism? Both have their disadvantages, but I suppose you and I would favour a less neoliberal treaty that finds a Centre/Left majority. Let’s work toward it. Some good may yet come of this, maybe more than we imagine. In politics every loss is a new challenge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Well, lets not forget the referendum was done during an economical crisis. In such a time, people have the urge to say 'no' to something. Had the answers been reversed, maybe the result would be different.

---

Le Monde has a good breakdown this morning of the facts and numbers (La France dans son jardin by Bernard le Gendre). There is no mention of an economic crisis because there is none. Growth has been lagging throughout (most of) the EU economy for half a year or so, but that doesn’t qualify as an economic crisis.
This crisis is purely political. Several trends of the past ten years have concurred to make le Non happen. In the 1992 Maastricht referendum the ‘Yes’ had it by a small margin (51+) because the government still enjoyed a true majority among voters. This time round the government majority exists merely by default. The French Left only voted for Chirac in the second round of the last presidential election because his opponent was Le Pen. A large proportion of the Left voted ‘No’ on the basis of the treaty’s supposed Neoliberal bias whilst the extreme right voted ‘No’ because it supposedly destroys French identity. France will have to chose between politics and anti-politics now. It has never made the wrong choice yet. La réforme oui, la chienlit non.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat

Quite so. :embarassed: ~:mecry:

---

Good to hear from you, Louis. I’ve missed you. But please don't cry; shut up and start working on a better deal. ~:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

You're asking people to surrender their sovereignty, their identity and their decision making to a group of beauracrats they don't get to elect.

---

Don, you big fat guai-lo, you are parroting the Extreme Right version of the treaty. I’m not kidding, Jean-Marie le Pen would be proud of you. I know that is not your intention, and you know this is not meant as an insult (hold that baseball bat). In the European context though, such words on the Constitutional Treaty smell foul, I can’t help it.
It just isn’t true. Under the proposed Constitution, all major decisions would be made by the 25 democratically elected Heads of Government on condition of unanimity. If there is no unanimity behind a proposed rule of policy decision, it doesn’t happen. Period.
Asking people to raise the level of sovereignty to a European layer of government instead of a national layer of government does not equal loss of sovereignty if it is done in the right way. Bar calamities, this Constitution would have been a major step on the way to a fully functioning European democracy, something that is much more dear to me than the ‘social Europe’ of JAG, even though I fully agree with him that Europe should be a social democracy.
I can see the question coming : what about the corruption of ‘Brussels’? Well, Brussels is always corrupt in the eyes of those whose darlings are killed inEuropean decision making, those who are more attached to their silly little opt-outs than the future of their nation, and those who see their proposals turned down by Brussels bureaucrats because there is a better alternative. They call ‘Brussels’ corrupt because such talk about ‘big’ government is the cliche of our day and age, not because it is corrupt.
If you want to unite 25 nations of different size, history, language, religions, economy and social systems into one decision making apparatus, it requires bureaucracy in the original meaning of Weber: an impersonal body that unites interests , standardises rules and practices and sees to it that these are implemented.

"...If you want to unite 25 nations of different size, history, language, religions, economy and social systems into one decision making apparatus...", AdrianII wrote.

Which has been the goal for what...500 years? Bravo Europe that this time the "how" of implementing that goal is done with bureaus and ballots, vs blades and bullets.

Too bad a consensus hasn't been found the first time 'round. My sympathies. But these things hardly ever resolve the first time.

I still fail to see a reason for Europe to unite into anything more than an economic union. There is no common cause for Europe, no uniting factor.
At least in the early days of the EU there was a sort of mission, but now there is nothing that bonds its peoples together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Le Monde has a good breakdown this morning of the facts and numbers (La France dans son jardin by Bernard le Gendre). There is no mention of an economic crisis because there is none. Growth has been lagging throughout (most of) the EU economy for half a year or so, but that doesn’t qualify as an economic crisis.

---

Well, what an economical crisis is, is subjective but people speak of an economical crisis. Except Le Monde maybe. Of course, in reality things aren't so bad, but unemployment is said to be high in France and Germany, and both countries don't manage to fulfill the Stability Pact year after year. People are worried. And that affects such a vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Khalifah

There is no common cause for Europe, no uniting factor.

---

One of the uniting factors is that our ancestors have spend lots of time to kill each other and we all don't want to repeat that.

Europeans are as much a 'people' as the Chinese or the Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Khalifah

I still fail to see a reason for Europe to unite into anything more than an economic union. There is no common cause for Europe, no uniting factor.

---

Except the will to unite, which is really the decisive factor here. Provided there is enough goodwill, people will work together.

What is the reason for me to unite with my neighbour?
Because together, we can accomplish more.

What is the reason for my neighbour and me to unite with other villagers and elect a council?
Because together, we can accomplish more.

What is the reason for European nations to unite in the face of global economic competition; changes in the world's power balance; social, political, environmentel and criminal challenges?

You get three guesses, Al Khalifah. ~:cool:

Non à la Constitution, Non à la Constitution, Non à la Constitution. Death to the Constitution, Death to Europe. It is the first step towards a United States of Europe, an event which should never take place. I think the Eu should go back to its old role as an area of free trade.

It is a sign of the character of the opposition to note that almost all naysayers in politics are extremists. That certainly says something about their motives. Ask them once about what the hell the constitution actually means and silence ensues. It's a power game -- they want to see their foul extremist asses on the President's chair.



~Wiz

Quote:

---

One of the uniting factors is that our ancestors have spend lots of time to kill each other and we all don't want to repeat that.

---

So we're uniting out of a sense of guilt and a sense of fear? A poor reason to force people together is that in the past they have been unable to get on. A bad motive.

The problem for the 'yes' campaign in France was that it operated purely on fear tactics of what would happen if the constitution wasn't accepted and what would happen to Europe if it didn't go ahead. They promised nothing of benefits.

There is no guarentee that Europe will achieve more as a union. It may encourage exchange of ideas and free flow of labour markets, but there is also a danger that its underlying social agenda will lead to stiffling of creativity and limitations of innovation. France, Germany and Italy are currently suffering as a result of being united.

The European nations are very different, there are 20 official languages spoken by the European nations. There are over 500 other languages spoken in its member nations. Each nation has its own social agenda and its own cultural way of doing things, will a one size fits all scheme really work? I'd like it too but I'm sceptical.

Is Europe an example of many hands make light work as AdrianII suggests, or is it a case (with the expansion in particular) of too many cooks spoil the brough?