Way to go France!

[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.

[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.

[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.