Way to go France!

[bmolsson]

Hehe it has nothing to do with that. Germany can be strong on her own, as well as France, ect.

That is the common imperialistic answer. If so, why didn't US let the confederate states become strong on their own ??

[PanzerJaeger]

Imperialistic? lol. Maybe nationalistic.

I dont know why the US didnt let the CS go. To me it was their right to leave if they wanted to and I think they should have been let go.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

The US didn't let the CSA go because Lincoln was a psychotic dictator who thought sacrificing 200,000 American lives to keep the nation firm under his grip was well worth it.

[bmolsson]

The US didn't let the CSA go because Lincoln was a psychotic dictator who thought sacrificing 200,000 American lives to keep the nation firm under his grip was well worth it.

I disagree. I think that he made the right decision. He could forsee the importance to stop insurgents from proving their point through treachery and terrorism.
EU should do the same thing with France......

[bmolsson]

Imperialistic? lol. Maybe nationalistic.

Since Europe is yet to be a part of USA, it can't be nationalistic.......

[Proletariat]

The worst political concept the world has ever known is "making government more efficient." That always is the "cri de coeur" of totalitarianism. Our Founding Fathers created a messy form of government for a reason.

The E.U. is a an idea that seems reasonable in the abstract, but in practice, would merely make the citizens of Europe have less and less a voice in their own government.

Messier is better, I think, but I can see the other side.



Also wrt the unspoken elephant in the room: the anti-Turkish/Muslim sentiment is what unites the extreme left and right here.

From a U.S. and from a global perspective, the integration of Turkey into the E.U. is something that is incredibly important. For two reasons. One, it furthers the Turkish modernizing model as the alternative to medieval Islamism. Two, it mitigates any fictional notion of a Clash of Civilizations.

[Proletariat]

May I also make an obvious rhetorical point? It's somewhat ironic that French public opinion -- so outraged by U.S. unilateralism and refusal to go along with U.,N. multilateral strictures -- basically unilaterally scuttled a multilaterally decided upon constitutional structure because it feared that it compromised French interests over those of the whole.

I personally think the U.S. should have valued multilateralism more, and also that even if one had particular objections to clauses in the constitution if one is pro-European then one should have put those to the side.

[JAG]

So is the advantage from quantity or quality?

With the Euro in theory there should be more trade and and better trade between countries.

PJ - you show your lack of knowledge of the situation over here yet again.

And a 'tumbling' EU would be just as bad for the US.

[Papewaio]

Surely a common currency does not require a common consitution?

[JAG]

Surely a common currency does not require a common consitution?

Completely right and this constitution is nothing to do with the Euro, it was brought up by someone in this thread as a separate issue - but however the Euro is being used by the NO campaign to dilute the issue of the constitution and get more people voting their way.

The constitution is needed so the 25 countries can actually work together.

[Xiahou]

Well, I'm not sure the French did it for the 'right' reason- but I'm happy to hear they voted it down nonetheless.

I think it's interesting that had France decided to pass it via the legislature instead of referendum it would've won easily. It's sort of disturbing that there can be such a huge disconnect between the people and their elected leaders on an important issue like this. I wonder in how many of the countries where it has or will be passed by their legislatures it would've failed if left to a referendum?

[JAG]

Why are so many right wing Americans on this board so anti EU and cheerleading opposition to the constitution? It baffles me.

[InsaneApache]

I think it's worth repeating here some of the reasons that I believe the EU could be in real danger.

The whole premise of the 'EU' was to create a trading bloc, without tariffs and barriers. It was believed that this was a way to prevent the disasterous wars that had ravaged Europe over the previous 30 years or so. (This was in the '50s)

I still firmly believe that this is a good idea and worthy of respect. However in the last 25 years or so there have been, what has been described as the 'salami' effect. This mean that very, very small slices of national sovereignty are surrendered up to the supra-national organisation, known as the EU commision and Parliament.

Although there may well be people who are happy with this, there are many more who are not. The political elite have pushed this agenda for decades without bothering to ask the people in their countries if this is what they want. When they have and havnt got the result they wanted, they have either ignored the wishes of the voters or hold more plebiscites until they DO get the answer they want.

I find this utterly revolting. It has become a house of cards built by idealogues who havnt got a democratic bone in their bodies....Mandleson spring to mind....did anyone see this idiot on tv yesterday? Already he was paving the way to ignore this vote (and no doubt the Dutch one as well) by saying that the French dont hold a veto on Europe (tell the French that Mandy). This guy was never voted into office but appointed and then debases the democratic process...incredible arrogance and duplicity.

Ignore the electorate at your peril....truth will out.

[el_slapper]

(.../...) I wonder in how many of the countries where it has or will be passed by their legislatures it would've failed if left to a referendum?

Most of them. Referendum was a massive yes in Spain, but that's because Spain had a huge growth the las 30 years(after centuries of decline). Therefore Spain people feel confident in the future. France unfortunately does have economic problems since the same time. Confidence is not there. People fear the future - and say no to whatever(which make me sad).

But Holland will be the same Wednesday, for similar reasons(maybe more cultural, though). Germany's representants did vote yes, but a referendum would have been random. UK is more complex, people's choice will be a no, while representant's choice would be tough to anticipate.

That's the weakpoint of democracy : managing a state/local authority is a professional's work, & those professional are not standard citizens. They're specialists - as the job requires specialists. And this leads to distortions between representatives & commoners. This is also true in other forms of government(dictature, monarchy, theocracy, etc...), but is more a problem in democracy as it does not fit with democracy's own principles. But hell, I do like living in a democracy anyways, I can shout "hell to Chirac" & not risk being emprisoned.

[English assassin]

Why are so many right wing Americans on this board so anti EU and cheerleading opposition to the constitution? It baffles me.

I would have thought that was also obvious. Although to be fair the EU is also profoundly dirigiste, how could it be otherwise when you consider who gave birth to it, so there may be a philisophical as well as a self interested reason.

What is NOT obvious to me is why the French rejected this. No doubt dislike of chirac and turkophobia may have played their part. But can it be la France profound has suddenly noticed that they may be required to make some sacrifices in the name of integration, as well as stuffing their faces full of the CAP, and they don't like it? After all, if this really is about fear of the "polish plumber" (who, presumably in distinction to French plumbers, comes round when he says he will, does a good job at a fair price, and leaves without shagging your wife), free movement of labour and the right of establishment are hardly new concepts in the EU are they?

And what a sad little country if it is so afraid of getting good services at a fair price. No no, I WANT crappy services no choice and a waiting list, the plumber mustn't work too hard must he. nmever mind the customer, the worker must come first. How will their economy grow?

And why would I want to throw my currency in with theirs, it would be like giving a corpse a blood transfusion. (Euro-enthusiasts really are beginning to sound like fundamentalist christians in their denial of obvious truths. I remember when it was introduced we were warnmed the UK would surely go down the pan in a few years if we didn't join. Curiously the very same person who would be quick to tell us what a brilliant ecomony the UK has had ever since is also a cheerleader for the view that we must join the Euro immediately. Mmm, German unemployment, yes please.)

Of course I should say I have only the UK media to go on for the reason for the no vote so its probably complete bollocks as usual.

Anyway, the French won't vote for this, the UK won't ratify anything any less liberal, alors, et maintenant?

[Idaho]

The whole Europe issue confuses the hell out of me. I really haven't got a clue about the whole thing! For every arguement on one side, there seems to be a counter arguement on the other. I have no core issue that grabs my attention and alleigance.

For: The people who are against it are weird right-wing nationalists
Against: Why should I have any faith in an undemocractic beauracracy?

For: Reduces the power of national governments - UK government has had many poor decisions overturned by Europe - civil rights laws, labour rights laws.
Against: Big business loves it.

For: I like the idea of changing currency. I'm bored with pounds.
Against: Changes in money are inevitably used by companies to up prices.

For: I like the idea of being able to live, work, etc anywhere in Europe, and for all of Europe to do the same here - mixes things up and makes things interesting.
Against: Is it going to become an insular club? Can it even work?

For: I would like to live in a country with a formal constitution and outlined rights - like in the US - and the EU is one path to that.
Against: I can't imagine the beauraucrats producing a simple meaningful bill of rights.

[InsaneApache]

For: I like the idea of changing currency. I'm bored with pounds. Against: Changes in money are inevitably used by companies to up prices.

I think you may well have hit on something here...

In 1970 the UK changed its currency...and prices doubled overnight....and guess what happened in Europe when they changed to the Euro?

A cigar goes to the winner......

[Al Khalifah]

Changing the currency is one of the oldest tricks used by the powerful to exploit the populace out of their money.
I doubt they'll drill holes in pounds or shave the corners anymore though.

Oh, why in Denmark do they seem to have a price system, where nothing seems to cost less than £1 (equivalent in DKK)?

[doc_bean]

Although there may well be people who are happy with this, there are many more who are not. The political elite have pushed this agenda for decades without bothering to ask the people in their countries if this is what they want. When they have and havnt got the result they wanted, they have either ignored the wishes of the voters or hold more plebiscites until they DO get the answer they want.

I'm pro-EU, and i agree with you completely on this. The EU has been forced on the people by ambitious politicians that never asked what was best for the people.

And yes, prices have gone way up since the Euro, especially things like food. But the people are mostly to blame for that, you can often find the exact same item (same brand even) much cheaper in one store than in another, we're just to lazy to look, so the price-setting theory of the free market doesn't work anymore.

I think the Euro is/was good, especially for smaller currencies, but I don't really see why a strong currency like the pound has to join, especially since your economy is very different from the rest of Europe and you're not likely to benefit from it.

[InsaneApache]

*a King Edward V on its way to doc_bean*

[Fragony]

I'm pro-EU, and i agree with you completely on this. The EU has been forced on the people by ambitious politicians that never asked what was best for the people.

And yes, prices have gone way up since the Euro, especially things like food. But the people are mostly to blame for that, you can often find the exact same item (same brand even) much cheaper in one store than in another, we're just to lazy to look, so the price-setting theory of the free market doesn't work anymore.

I think the Euro is/was good, especially for smaller currencies, but I don't really see why a strong currency like the pound has to join, especially since your economy is very different from the rest of Europe and you're not likely to benefit from it.

Well, the rise in prices in Holland is most definately because of the euro, because we pay to much for it. An euro should be worth 2 guilders, and we got sold for 2.20. Since we get most products from european countries we pay wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy to much for just about everything, this sort of inflation is just unheard of. Thank you europe.

[Ldvs]

What is NOT obvious to me is why the French rejected this.

Perhaps I will manage to make it clearer.
First off, Turkophobia hasn't played any part in it and people's dislike toward Chirac a minor one. Actually the problem is simpler than that. While I'm certainly not a liberal, I found the economic part of the text acceptable (except the last paragraph of the Art III-145). I know that a well-regularized market is better for the customer because it generally means lower prices. Unfortunately, some people in France suffer from a terrible phobia, which blinds them: globalization.
Liberalism is of course associated with it.

Now if you take a text where words such as "market" and "competition" appear so often, it inevitably causes hysteria. However hard you'll try to show them it can be positive it will fail.
On the other hand can we truly blame them for fearing the liberalism? When I see what has happened to the UK or the USA I don't think so.

Of course your GDP is growing faster than the rest of EU, of course your unemployment is low but the UK is such in a poor shape that I pity your country. If the phobia of the liberalism seems to blind people, excess of liberalism blatantly has the same ill-effects. If you're rich enough, it won't bother you at all, you may even come to despise the poor.
Do you know how many poor are there in the UK? Ten million (1/6 of your population)
Your healthcare system is only acceptable when compared to that of under developed countries.
Diseases due to overwork are plaguing the UK. Sooner or later the doc's bill will have to be paid.
Only the rich can access to the best schools, no matter how much you're skilled.

Nonetheless, I agree with you, it wasn't the purpose of the Constitution and the "No" supporters brandished it wrongly. Yet, some people have voted no, and not because of this propaganda. I voted "No" because despite the relative progress the Constitution would have brought, it's not enough. What lacks in the EU is democracy.

While the new majority system was better, a decision still needed the assent of 15 countries, no matter the percentage reached and all the crucial subjects would have required unanimity and the Parliament wouldn't have received enough power to oppose properly the Commission (whose members are NOT elected!). In short, the situation would have been as locked as it is today.

For a certainty criticism is easy and viable proposals rare. I voted "No" because I hope Joschka Fischer's (German Foreign Minister) project -see below- will finally get due consideration. It's a shame our half-witted former Foreign Minister Védrine didn't want to hear about this project, which is in my opinion the only one that could avoid the foreseeable crisis.

DISCLAIMER: the content of this speech may highly shock the "Tories". I cannot be blamed for heart-attacks or nausea consecutive to the reading of it.
http://www.free-europe.org/blog/english.php?itemid=273

[BDC]

I don't think it's any difference from France. I stayed with some French people in a pretty poor part of France, and the school system was dire compared to richer bits of France, your country is crippled by payments to unemployed people etc. Your comments about here stand though. We have an unfair society, our healthcare system has been neglected for a long time thanks to Maggie, etc.

[English assassin]

No France bashing intended, no doubt the UK is not paradise either.

Where I see a problem though is if one of the big beneficiaries, and obviously the principal architect, of Europe, is rejecting this treaty, where now? In truth it seemed to me the treaty was no more liberal than the current treaties. Possibly in the UK this does not worry us because we are already so used to other member state nationals working here. There's a French and an Italian lawyer down the corridor, my hair is cut by a Pole and my local pub has long had Czech barstaff.

In the old days, you might have gone away, come back with a more "french" approach, and if the UK rejected it, well, maybe the Islanders were more trouble than they're worth anyway. But I can't see the new members agreeing to anything that might look like freezing their workers out of the affluent western employment market. Indeed if we are going to develop eastern Europe, which is in all of our interests, we should be hoping that migrant workwers will come to the west for a while to earn wages that they will then use back in their own economies.

So it looks like an impasse. I imagine they will try again with a much, much shorter document covering only reforms in governance.

As for Fischler, at least she's honest.

[Franconicus]

I think the European concept is very powerful and very successful. At least it provided peace and wealth for a big part of Europe.
However, Europe has three challenges:
First, the integration of new members. Europe managed to integrate poorer countries like Greece, Portugal and Spain. It was quite difficulty, but finally we made it. Integration of the new members is still going on. Nowbody knows the problems that the integration of Turkey would bring. I thibk the people in the EU need to know what will be the final borders of the EU.

Second, this bigger Europe needs a new constitution. I think that is obviously. And it is more complex than it was before. There are countries that will proceed and others that will keep their independencies. Today the more concerned ones slow everything down.

Third, this is the position of Europe in the world. You see that Europe cannot even stop the US from war. There has to be more integration with joined defence and foreign politics.

Anyway. I am sure that Europe will overcome these probs. Maybe there will be a Europe of three degrees:
1. The main Europe with nations that want to form a new United States of Europe.
2. Others that do not want to do that step but still are members.
3. Associated countries with the same trade rights.

[Ldvs]

I don't think it's any difference from France. I stayed with some French people in a pretty poor part of France, and the school system was dire compared to richer bits of France, your country is crippled by payments to unemployed people etc. Your comments about here stand though. We have an unfair society, our healthcare system has been neglected for a long time thanks to Maggie, etc.

Yes, we have many poor too (about 6 million), but they're still given the necessary amount of money in order to survive, which costs the State a lot.
In France you can go to University even though you're poor (entry fees are worth 15 € meaning about 10 £ for a year) and receive as good a teaching as in highly reputed Schools (your diploma will lack the reputation though).

I agree with you though, unemployment are our real bete noire and debts are not far behind now...

Where I see a problem though is if one of the big beneficiaries, and obviously the principal architect, of Europe, is rejecting this treaty, where now? In truth it seemed to me the treaty was no more liberal than the current treaties.

As I said, as soon as they spot the word "market" they panick and shout for social rights. With the tense social climate we're experiencing now (unemployment broke through the 10% psychological line), I'm not surprised at all they took the occasion to blame the EU for all what happens here. That's stupid, but sadly true nonetheless...

So it looks like an impasse. I imagine they will try again with a much, much shorter document covering only reforms in governance.

That's what they should have done from the beginning, it was supposed to be a Constitution after all, not an economic treaty...

[doc_bean]

I think Europe should focus on the free market primarily, that's what's bringing us all together, the political body should only be as powerful as is needed for that purpose. Preferably with less power for the commission. How can things like the Bolkenstein directive, which radically change the way Europe works, be allowed without being passed by Parliament and Council ?

I think the biggest challenge that Europe *must* face in order for the free market to successfully survive is a harmonization of TAV rates.

[Ldvs]

Preferably with less power for the commission. How can things like the Bolkenstein directive, which radically change the way Europe works, be allowed without being passed by Parliament and Council ?

Yes, that was scandalous and a bit of that text remains if you looks carefully at the Constitution (Art III-145):

Without prejudice to Subsection 2 relating to freedom of establishment, the person providing a
service may, in order to do so, temporarily pursue his or her activity in the Member State where the
service is provided, under the same conditions as are imposed by that State on its own nationals.

"Temporarily" turns out to be 2 years in France, which means that a Polish (not to blame them again ) employer working in the UK can pay his employees according to Poland's wage basis. No need to tell you it's simply human exploitation. Sadly we just faced such a situation a few weeks ago, when the matter was exposed: France Telecom's supplier was exploiting Portuguese employees...

In my opinion, the biggest challenge would be to harmonize the tax policies towards companies. I daresay it won't be achieved considering how disparate the tax levels are.

[Meneldil]

"Temporarily" turns out to be 2 years in France, which means that a Polish (not to blame them again ) employer working in the UK can pay his employees according to Poland's wage basis.

Actually, I think the Bolkestein's directive doesn't concern work hours and wages (according to what my teachers told me and to what I read on wikipedia - yeah, there's a whole huge article about the bolkenstein's directive on wikipedia).

The main problem about France is that liberalism is considered as an insult, while socialism is some seen as some kind of great ideological theory (not to speak about communists, who used to have a huge impact on public opinion until the late 80's/early 90's, mainly because of the communist partisan and french revolutionary myth). People in France think that, for example, they have one of the best railroad system because it's owned by the state, while it does in fact quite suck.

First off, Turkophobia hasn't played any part in it and people's dislike toward Chirac a minor one.

Sorry to disagree, but Turkey and Chirac played quite an important role in the referendum. A good part of the people who voted 'no' were from the far right wing, whose main argument was "No to the turkish europe" (while the Constitution was a way to prevent Turkey from entering the EU - and I'm all for turkey to join the EU, as it would, as someone said, show an other way of developement for muslim nations). A lot of people from moderate and far left wings also voted 'No' because they wanted to sack Chirac.
During the TV show that took place a few days before the vote, more than 2.500 people asked questions about Turkey.

[Ldvs]

Actually, I think the Bolkestein's directive doesn't concern work hours and wages (according to what my teachers told me and to what I read on wikipedia - yeah, there's a whole huge article about the bolkenstein's directive on wikipedia).

Blatantly I'm mistaken on the name but unfortunately the consequences are the same

Sorry to disagree, but Turkey and Chirac played quite an important role in the referendum. A good part of the people who voted 'no' were from the far right wing, whose main argument was "No to the turkish europe" (while the Constitution was a way to prevent Turkey from entering the EU - and I'm all for turkey to join the EU, as it would, as someone said, show an other way of developement for muslim nations). A lot of people from moderate and far left wings also voted 'No' because they wanted to sack Chirac.
During the TV show that took place a few days before the vote, more than 2.500 people asked questions about Turkey.

I suppose I obliterated the far right and far left supporters from my mind because I don't consider them sensible
Yet, even though Turkey and Chirac have played a role, I still think it's the unreasonable fear of liberalism that sealed the doom of this Constitution.