The EU Constitution

[///M-Spec]

I would like to hear the opinions of people who live in EU countries why they think the EU constitution vote has failed to pass in France, and now possibly in the Netherlands. I've read a little on the voting, but so far haven't seen any concrete examples of what people are actually voting NO to in these countries.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

EDIT: Thanks Famine. A Reuters article calls it a charter, but I see now it was a misnomer.


M

 

[Famine]

It isn't a Charter - it's a Constitution.

In a fiercely nationalist country, saying they must join Europe and ratify a European Constitution is always going to be a bad move.

Constitutions are the basis of countries, not organisations.

 

[DemonSeed]

i think french dont like the idea of bigger europe, which will mean they do not have as much power in eu as they used to have. or that they will have to share this with other countries, which of course must be ooo la la unacceptable. as famine said - nationalists.
they already, with germany, broke eu laws and refused to pay for consequences, making a clear statement that they do not want to be treated equally to other countries.
also, ive heard that voting 'no' was because they were afraid of losing jobs to cheap labour from eastern europe, and they already have around 10% unemployment.

i actually welcome the outcome, because personally i am against the idea of eu. and the constitution is first step to united states of europe - which i hope won't happen in my lifetime, but most probably will sooner or later. [my use of 'united states of europe' is not a comparison to usa]

 

[Max_DC]

i think french dont like the idea of bigger europe, which will mean they do not have as much power in eu as they used to have. or that they will have to share this with other countries, which of course must be ooo la la unacceptable. as famine said - nationalists.
they already, with germany, broke eu laws and refused to pay for consequences, making a clear statement that they do not want to be treated equally to other countries.
also, ive heard that voting 'no' was because they were afraid of losing jobs to cheap labour from eastern europe, and they already have around 10% unemployment.

i actually welcome the outcome, because personally i am against the idea of eu. and the constitution is first step to united states of europe - which i hope won't happen in my lifetime, but most probably will sooner or later. [my use of 'united states of europe' is not a comparison to usa]

Infact the power of the French would increase ( size of population would matter more than at the moment )... The reason is simple : The people punished the french governement ( many don't like the actual political situation ) and some also feared the loss of jobs because of cheap workers from poland etc...

 

[DemonSeed]

Infact the power of the French would increase ( size of population would matter more than at the moment )... The reason is simple : The people punished the french governement ( many don't like the actual political situation ) and some also feared the loss of jobs because of cheap workers from poland etc...

just the opposite. population size used to be important but now it will not matter, because they all got scared that spain and poland would have too many votes. in the constitution, the size of the population has no effect on the country's voting power.

 

[smellysocks12]

The EU "constitution" isn't even a constitution, all countries still get to keep their own constitutions. It's just a treaty that clearly defines the rules and activity between countries in the European Union.


It has failed in France because there shouldn't have been a referendum to begin with. The topic of whether or not to accept the constitution is way too complex (and dull) for the average person to understand. The reason why the majority of the French voted "Non" is because they weren't happy with their own government. So with their own government being for this constitution many decided to vote no, without even looking into the topic of the constitution.


I pretty much followed all the debates on tv and read about it (though I didn't read the actual constitution) and to me all the people against the constitution came with irrelevant arguments. For example, they argued that the bullfights in Spain aren't forbidden by the constitution, so it's supposedly wrong to say yes to it. I'm personally against bullfighting, but the constitution does improve the situation for animals. It's better than keeping the current situation because now bull fighting is allowed. Besides that it's something for the Spanish government to decide, things like that shouldn't be a 'constitution' like this.


This is why I voted yes less than an hour ago, though I'd be surprised if the final results will be yes. I expect the majority of the voters in the Netherlands to say no, for very pointless reasons.


*edit*

I actually just saw on tv that the result is no, I don't like it, but it doesn't surprise me either.

 

[DemonSeed]

The EU "constitution" isn't even a constitution, all countries still get to keep their own constitutions. It's just a treaty that clearly defines the rules and activity between countries in the European Union.

it doesn't say what coutries can do or can't do [well, it has a point about quitting eu, ok]. rather it sets out rules for eu governement, and outlines powers this eu gov has. it changes a bit the way eu is run at the moment [giving for example 2.5 year for eu presidency instead of 6 months] but it doesnt really 'clearly define the rules and activity between countries...'

both main french parties were supporting the 'yes' vote, so it is a failure for a current ruling forces as well as for the opposition.

french seem to generally dislike being put in the company of others, i think that maastricht [spelling?] treaty also barely made it through in france. so, the most obvious reason for rejecting eu constitution in france is what famine said before:

In a fiercely nationalist country, saying they must join Europe and ratify a European Constitution is always going to be a bad move.

 

[smellysocks12]

Like I said, the rules between countries, not the rules for countries.

 

[DemonSeed]

Like I said, the rules between countries, not the rules for countries.

it sets out rules and resposibilities for eu government. nothing about policies between coutries.

or maybe i just dont understand what you are trying to say, sorry .

 

[smellysocks12]

it sets out rules and resposibilities for eu government. nothing about policies between coutries.

or maybe i just dont understand what you are trying to say, sorry .

The EU government mostly is about rules and responsiblities between different countries. Import, export, defense, etc. It also shows a face to the world outside of Europe, at least that was the idea of the new constitution that just got thrown into the sewer.

 

[DemonSeed]

what is in EU constitution

 

[skicrush]

I think the French voted NO because they enjoy being contrary. That, and they are snobby, selfish pricks, who refuse to give up what little bit of world influence they have to be part of a conglomerate of other nations. I'm sure they would lose jobs, but the admission of eastern European countries would help destroy the welfare state and unions that are crippling growth in both France and Germany (ie, the 35 hour work week). But, being aristocratic, self-entitled snobs, they will probably never go for it. They'll drive their economy into the ground before they compromise.

 

[smellysocks12]

You shouldn't forget that 45% of the French still voted yes.

 

[skicrush]

From the Economist: (if you have an account, http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4008583

"For the no camp, the most reliable panic button is the word libéralisme or, better, ultra-libéralisme. The constitution, says Attac, “is a text of ultra-liberal inspiration”. The EU services directive, it argues, “revealed what is hidden in the constitutional treaty: a veritable liberal project of délocalisation, an end to public services, the dismantling of the right to work.”

It is not just the hard-left that makes such claims. The “Socialist No” group condemns the text as the unacceptable expression of “free and unbridled competition”. Mr Fabius, a former centrist finance minister who has now teamed up with the likes of José Bové, an anti-globalisation sheep-farmer, rails against a “Europe dictated by finance”. These claims can be surreal. Some no campaigners trumpet the fact that the document mentions the word “competition” 27 times. Yes campaigners, hitting back, claim there are 89 mentions of the word “social”.

Illuminating for voters or not, the debate is no bad thing for France. The country's high-cost, state-heavy model has served it well in the past, but has become a drag on growth. It has not escaped the French that Britain has less than half as much unemployment, that British income per head overtook the French back in 1995, and that French growth has been more sluggish. Last week, GDP growth for 2004 was revised downwards to 2.1% (see chart 2), and annualised growth in the first quarter of this year fell to just 0.8%.

Yet very few French voices are advocating a more liberal approach. France's political centre of gravity sits well to the left of other European countries. Mr Chirac himself often uses the language of the left. The influence of France's communist intellectual heritage lingers, on campuses and in political rhetoric. “Competition” and “profit” remain dirty words. The Communist-backed CGT is the country's most powerful union. François Bayrou, the UDF leader, puts it well when he says that “France has never been démarxisé”. "

 

[DemonSeed]

could expect this from french

 

[ledhed]

The Dutch voted no also . The French vote makes no friggin sense because they are the biggest instigators and the self styled " leaders ' of the EU . its going to be tough to get a strong constitution together for so many different types of governments . If the constitution is not strong then its just a waste of time any way .Somehow you would think the leaders are supposed to mirror the people they represent..in the case of France I have no friggin clue what they are about. Maybe we should go liberate them next. Make the world safe for democracy or something.

 

[smellysocks12]

You don't get it, there IS democracy in France. The leaders wanted to get the constitution to pass, the people thought it shouldn't and that's what happened. The French don't like their government, that's why the current government will feel it with the next elections. I hope you were being sarcastic in your post.

 

[skicrush]

I guess you missed this part:

Yet very few French voices are advocating a more liberal approach. France's political centre of gravity sits well to the left of other European countries. Mr Chirac himself often uses the language of the left. The influence of France's communist intellectual heritage lingers, on campuses and in political rhetoric. “Competition” and “profit” remain dirty words. The Communist-backed CGT is the country's most powerful union. François Bayrou, the UDF leader, puts it well when he says that “France has never been démarxisé”.

The vote was defeated because of the French sense of entitlement. They are lazy and selfish. They will ride their economy into the ground before they will let their gov't change things to allow business more freedom. Right to Work is a JOKE. Their leaders realize this, but the people as a whole are too stupid, selfish, and stubborn to back off.

 

[ledhed]

Why is it that the French are the only country to surrender to the communist AFTER they ( the commies ) lost the cold war ?

 

[vladimir]

the people that voted for or against the constitution have not even read it, the majority most probably did not really inform itself about the contents of it.

so its useless to search for the answer within the constitution itself.

the constitution was actually supposed to improve the EU in parts that were often criticized like the lack of power of the european parliament.

the problem is that the vast majority of people always expects the politicians to give them quick solutions while politics are usually focused on long term aims.

 

[regulate]

Im just suprised The Netherlands voted against it.

 

[Arwin]

The no vote is due to the failure of national politicians to communicate the importance and benefits, or even to gain the trust of their own voters. The treaty itself (I refuse to call it a constitution) is a clear improvement over what we have now.

Nevertheless, the voting public isn't blameless - if they vote no against something that 80% of their representatives in parliament are supporting, they make the assumption that apparently these professionals don't know what's good for them. If that is so, then they should make a conscientious effort to know what the constitution is about, and vote on that subject independent of national politics. In my view, the voting public has in that sense foregone its own responsibilities.

In general though, it would be the task of politicians to make a better point. The excuse that people aren't really interested so why bother is at least partly true, but stops once you decide to put something to a referendum. At that point, you changed the game and your responsibilities in terms of informing the public properly likewise. But communication and transparancy has traditionally been a weakness in many politicians.

The only good thing about the referendum is that at least for a few weeks we took an interest in Europe.

I'm starting to think I may need to go into politics myself. :S

 

[Carl.]

It's about the same issue than France then.

I'm starting to think I may need to go into politics myself.

If your overall communication skills are on the same level as your written ones, you should, really.

 

[Melaneimoon]

Anything a politician suggest, be against it! It's an illusion if you believe the government serves us, they only serve themselves. It's always and only evil and selfish people who seek power (be it religious or financial) and hence, take it. Our goverments do not represent the people, they put themselves in place of the people. If elections could change anything, they would have been abolished!
In Belgium we weren't even asked if we want that constitution or not. It was approved by our politicians who actually admitted they DID NOT EVEN READ IT.
I mean, if a government represents the people's opinion, they should support the people saying "no". But instead, they act like they failed. In what? In doing their job and representing the people's opinion? I don't think so. Obviously they're all bother by the fact that they failed to convince the people to approve whatever it is they're up to. And ofcourse, the media is just one of their tools. Democracy... HAH! "It's all dick"

 

[Arwin]

In Belgium we weren't even asked if we want that constitution or not. It was approved by our politicians who actually admitted they DID NOT EVEN READ IT.

So, tell me how that is different to our referendum, where most people voted no also admitted they did not even read it.

I look forward to how see how you handle anarchy or at the very least explain to me how that's better. Also, I would like to know why you think there's politicians and then there's people, and they are somehow different.

 

[smellysocks12]

Your politicians were elected to make decissions like this for the entire population, many other things are decided by them as well, without directly asking the people. That's how it is supposed to be done. In the Netherlands there shouldn't have been a referendum either. Of what use are politicians to begin with if you should have a referendum for everything? A referendum is simply moving the responsibility of the politician to the population of a country, while they were hired to take their responsibility.

 

[Melaneimoon]

So, tell me how that is different to our referendum, where most people voted no also admitted they did not even read it.

There's not much difference. People should read it. But this is not an argument against a referendum. Especially when you consider the availability of the document and what you can excpect of it. However a politician's individual vote automatically counts for a lot of people who have no power at all over how this person uses their votes.

while they were hired to take their responsibility.

Yes they were, and I think we shouldn't (hire them). Giving the power of a whole people to a small group is an undemocratic concept. And regardless what our theories are (weither it's an undemocratic concept or not) we see that in the reality it turns out te be undemocratic. It's logic to conclude that this is the purpose of the system.
It's obvious that politicians, be it legally or illegally, defend their own interests and not the public's. All means (manipulation of media, propaganda, the electorial system, laws) are used by the establishment to maintain their power, preferably in a legal way and with as little resistance as possible from the public.
As I said, if elections could change anything, they would have been abolished.

I look forward to how see how you handle anarchy or at the very least explain to me how that's better

Why should I handle anarchy? It seems you're suggesting that's the only alternative to the current system. First of all, the lack of alternative does not say anything about the nature of something. If you can only afford a ****ty car, the fact that there's no alternative doesn't change the fact that the car is ****ty. It seems a natural law for evil to rule the system, but if it doesn't, autarchy wouldn't be such a crazy idea.

I would like to know why you think there's politicians and then there's people, and they are somehow different.

Politicians have power over the people. Well publically at least. In reality it's obvious that either financial or religous groupes or persons have the power.

 

[smellysocks12]

Yes they were, and I think we shouldn't (hire them). Giving the power of a whole people to a small group is an undemocratic concept. And regardless what our theories are (weither it's an undemocratic concept or not) we see that in the reality it turns out te be undemocratic. It's logic to conclude that this is the purpose of the system.

They have a program which they present to the public, you vote for them if you like it. If they don't do what the promised they will be gone with the next elections. This IS democratic. It's more democratic than having a referendum about each topic since people who know what they are talking about are making decissions. With a referendum the outcome will be decided by whatever has been the main topic on tv lately.

 

[Melaneimoon]

If they don't do what the promised they will be gone with the next elections.

I don't know why you say that. That just doesn't happen in reality, this isn't an opinion. Ofcourse the establishments makes sure the system works fine theoretically, but ofcourse that's just a part of the manipulation.

This IS democratic. It's more democratic than having a referendum about each topic since people who know what they are talking about are making decissions. With a referendum the outcome will be decided by whatever has been the main topic on tv lately.

You may argue this is "better", but it surely isn't more "democratic". The people ("demos") making decisions ("kratein"), wether they know what they're doing or not, IS more democratic than an elite making these decisions. Regardless of which one is better, this is simply a matter of definition.

 

[smellysocks12]

It is democratic, since the majority agrees to have this elected 'elite' make decission for the people. Asking the people directly about every political item isn't more democratic at all, if the majority agrees with a parliament making decissions for them.




Not all politicians leave when they make a mistake, and might get re-elected, but that's a flaw in the system and having a daily referendum won't make it any better.