We are already in CEFTA, but nobody seems to care.Kharn said:
French No Wins?
- Thread starter John Uskglass
- Start date
[Rusty Chopper]
Vault Dweller
Sander said:
I don't have any idea of what is in the constitution. But! If I could, I'd vote "no".
Just for the hell of it!
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
I thought everyone in Europe got a free copy? Or was it just every voter?Sander said:
Not really. This issue seems to have divided the Socialists and the Left in general more then the UMP.
Everyone in the Netherlands should have received a summary of the constitution, of course not everyone got one, as they were distributed house-by-house, and mistakes happen. But besides that, most people didn't even read the damn thing, and every single argument I've heard, either for or against, has revolved around nothing but 'EU sucks (undemocratic etc.), so vote no!' or 'This will make the EU better!!!111one', I haven't heard anyone go any further into it than that (granted, I haven't watched or read much about it, but I've talked a bit with people about it and heard enough comments like that), and polls indicate that about 10% (IIRC) know something about the constiution. So really, I think this whole referendum is worth jack shit like this, except as a poll on how much the EU is liked here.John Uskglass said:
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Huh. Seems to have been the opposite in France. About 80% of the population said they had discussed the Constitution at home, and a similar number had gone over it I think. Maybe this is why they rejected it; they actually read the damn thing?
Oh, the constitution is certainly discussed here. But usually at the level I described, ie. 'EU sucks so the constitution too!!!'John Uskglass said:
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I doubt 80% of the French population read a 1,000 page document.
Hovercar Madness
Still Mildly Glowing
I don't think one party being more devided over an issue than the other will matter that much. Labour was divided over Iraq, but did this cost Blair his... um.. gazillionth term? It's more important to look on what grounds the majority of the french rejected the constitution. Immigrant workers taking honest french worker's jobs, companies moving to countries with more favourable labour conditions. In short, everything Sarkozy stands for. I suspect UMP would be better off in delivering another nationalist Chirac-type candidate next term. They'd win fo sho.
Here, no-one's been sent anything, and as far as I can tell, most people really don't give a shit. Then again, we haven't even decided yet if we're going to have a referendum in the first place and the president now argues the whole thing is moot after the French vote.
Me, I've read the thing (well not exactly all of it, it's almost 500 pages after all) online, and wasn't too impressed. The way it's being pushed down our throats isn't exactly helping things either.
Heh.
"I am the Shover Robot. I push the European Constitutional Treaty down their throats. We are here to protect you. We are here to protect you from the terrible secret of space."
Me, I've read the thing (well not exactly all of it, it's almost 500 pages after all) online, and wasn't too impressed. The way it's being pushed down our throats isn't exactly helping things either.
Heh.
"I am the Shover Robot. I push the European Constitutional Treaty down their throats. We are here to protect you. We are here to protect you from the terrible secret of space."
DJ Slamák said:
I read it too, and I was impressed.
It's a fantastic constitution. If it would've passed, it would've ensured all Europeans would've had the best constitution imaginable. It would've given Europeans constitutional rights never seen before, and it would've changed the beaurocratic, incredibly confusing and gigantic mass the EU is right now into an efficient, transparent and -most imporantly- democratic body.
I simply don't *get* where all those criticisms come from. Perhaps I can't read, perhaps I read the wrong damn constitution, but I haven't heard a *single* goddamn anti-constitutional claim up till now that had any foundations in the truth. Nothing. I challenge each and everyone of you ant-constitutionalists (cool word) to actually *show* me the part where your complaint is about. It's absurd. The constitution would raise taxes? Not true, you'd still need an unamimous decision by all member states to do that. The EU would be less democratic? Not true, the power of the European Parliament would be raised substantially, and its members raised to a minimum of a *whopping* 750 MP's. The EU would be too 'liberal'? Bullshit, it barely even says anything that has to do with economy, and then it's mostly about the rights the workers have. The EU would not be social enough? Humbug, the constitution has mostly the same worker rights like, for instance, France has. The EU would be *too* social, bordering on Marxism? That's even more stupid.
I don't get it. I just don't get it. All you have is a bunch of uninformed people opening their big uneducated mounths attacking what could've been a milestone in the history of Europe for no damn good reason. In my humble opinion, they just tried to introduce this constitution on a bad time. Things are going bad economically, AND IT'S ALL EUROPE'S FAULT! Lately, EVERY damn thing that goes wrong is ALWAYS Europe's fault. The EU is just forced to take that shit because national politicians want to protect their own damn cowardly hide, and blame everything that goes wrong on Europe. They are passing a bill that people don't like? Europe made them do it! They are passing a brilliant bill that everybody applauds - and that was passed by Europe too? No way, it was their idea! THEY should get the credit!
Fucking cretins.
John Uskglass said:
You're funny in how you twist all European events to make them look like you want them to.
All major news sources in the Netherlands are reporting roughly the same thing; one of the main reasons the French voted against was to protest against economic policy (liberalization) that Chirac introduced into France.
You're assuming that just because people are against Chirac, they'll be in favour of a more right-wing option. That might be so, true, but it's highly unlikely. While the PS still has its own problems, it's a lot more popular with the people than the options farther to the right.
You're also wrong on the French citizenry calling themselves more informed. France voted against for the same non-relevant reasons as are used in Holland to vote against, wonderful things such as losing French jobs or over-liberalization. Things they fear and that are not always directly related to the const.
Jebus said:
In Holland's case, we got the Euro and the new countries shoved down our troath without being able to protest even a little bit. This has pissed a lot of people off. It's not bad timing, the EU is just impopular, period, which might be because its a monstruous and badly run machine that'd be better of dead.
As for that nationals politicians blaming EU stuff. That's true, yes, sucks to be them, no, as they now have to defend the constitution from the same institution.
The Constitution is just a piece of paper, though, it's mostly existing treaties with a few de-democratisation (loss of veto), re-democratisation (stronger parliament (who cares, we only have a 40% turn-out in parliament, they'll always be powerless until people care) and open council of minister meetingss) and mostly empowerement of the EU (single foreign minister, etc. etc.)
It's not that relevant as a piece of paper, it's relevant because of what it represents. The EU has been a wildly liberalizing right-wing institution for the past few decades whereas the people it governed were mostly *not* wildly liberalizing right-wing people. The EU represented everything its citizenry didn't want and, that's the important bit, it was never halted or braked in any way. Never did anyone say "we're going too fast" or "the people don't want this", it was always the back-door bureaucratic shite leading to people getting countless things shoved down their throats that they did not want.
Now this constitution isn't permanent, but it's a one-question only issue. We've had several treaties that some countries held referenda on (like the Treaty of Maastricht), but most of the country's people never had a chance to say anything.
If you say yes now, the brake is off and the EU will cruise onwards in hyperdrive as it is. If you seriously think it'll deviate from its powerful liberalization standards you're fooling yourself, it'll do whatever the shit it wants and the powers given to national parliaments and the Euro-parliament aren't nearly sufficient to stop it.
Say no now and you're making it clear that you're fed up and want a completely different EU. This constitution is a step forward and a lot of bits of it are a definite step in the right direction, but it's not enough. It's not a perfect constitution, it has omissions, 50% of it are exceptions on its own rules, it is multi-interpretable and overly malleable and full of emotional claptrap with no meaning.
It's better than what we have, but considering the fact that we're only going to be asked once, not nearly good enough
Briosafreak
Lived Through the Heat Death
The Treaty for an European Constitution isn´s a true constitution in the first place, wich is just the first of many misunderstandings. Wich leads me to the weirdness in all of this, the fact that the discussion in France was excellent; people really did an effort to inform themselves, the discussions were passionate but revealing and in the end...
...well in the end Jebus is right, all those criticisms don´t make any sense. I`ve read the thing, i followed the process that lead to the final document and i don´t get it. I really don`t. Nothing in the text would lead to more burocracy, less democracy, an american style economy or a marxist backlash. Nothing...i honestly don`t get it, even if i`m not convinced the text is perfect or that i would vote yes in a referendum, since there are problems there, as always, still the No arguments in France and the Netherlands are legitimate, a few seems dificult to dispute but in no way they have anything to do with the Treaty. They do have everything to do with a general malaise against the EU, the fears of erosion in power in a larger EU, and the difficulties of Europe in this Globalization age, but i really don´t see how the Treaty would make things worse on that, and it could help out in the things Jebus already talked about.
Bah i wish i had more time now to discuss this things (and Fo3 Kharn, that has to wait too) but i`ll check your views, maybe they can enlighten me a bit more since i honestly don`t get where the No camp arguments are validated on this Treaty. I honestly don`t.
...well in the end Jebus is right, all those criticisms don´t make any sense. I`ve read the thing, i followed the process that lead to the final document and i don´t get it. I really don`t. Nothing in the text would lead to more burocracy, less democracy, an american style economy or a marxist backlash. Nothing...i honestly don`t get it, even if i`m not convinced the text is perfect or that i would vote yes in a referendum, since there are problems there, as always, still the No arguments in France and the Netherlands are legitimate, a few seems dificult to dispute but in no way they have anything to do with the Treaty. They do have everything to do with a general malaise against the EU, the fears of erosion in power in a larger EU, and the difficulties of Europe in this Globalization age, but i really don´t see how the Treaty would make things worse on that, and it could help out in the things Jebus already talked about.
Bah i wish i had more time now to discuss this things (and Fo3 Kharn, that has to wait too) but i`ll check your views, maybe they can enlighten me a bit more since i honestly don`t get where the No camp arguments are validated on this Treaty. I honestly don`t.
Ehehe... I just noticed I used way too much profanity in my previous post for no apparent reason.
This board has a bad influence on me, it has.
This board has a bad influence on me, it has.
I already knew the French weren't as bad as I had always imagined. Now I know the Dutch aren't too bad either.
I read the text two weeks ago (well, about two thirds of it, falling asleep now and then) -- you can get a free copy at city hall, apparently (if you are patient enough). It's not too bad, but I think the main argument to vote against it is simply this: this is probably the only chance people will get (for a long, long time) to say: "STOP! Europe is expanding way too rapidly, we want to know where the hell all of this is going to." People are pretty scared about these changes, I think, and the fact that Europe isn't doing very well economically plays a huge role in their decision. Plus, not everything in that constitution is great. The loss of veto is one of the scariest things in it. Say what you will, but the loss of veto isn't democratic at all. I'd vote "no" if I could, but my country decided that its citizens are too stupid to understand complex issues like these. I just love my country and its government.
Not.
I read the text two weeks ago (well, about two thirds of it, falling asleep now and then) -- you can get a free copy at city hall, apparently (if you are patient enough). It's not too bad, but I think the main argument to vote against it is simply this: this is probably the only chance people will get (for a long, long time) to say: "STOP! Europe is expanding way too rapidly, we want to know where the hell all of this is going to." People are pretty scared about these changes, I think, and the fact that Europe isn't doing very well economically plays a huge role in their decision. Plus, not everything in that constitution is great. The loss of veto is one of the scariest things in it. Say what you will, but the loss of veto isn't democratic at all. I'd vote "no" if I could, but my country decided that its citizens are too stupid to understand complex issues like these. I just love my country and its government.
Not.
alec said:
Well. The Liberum Veto right was one of the reasons for the collapse of the Polish Rzeczpospolita. Every nobleman could nullify all the proceedings of a given sejm, a parliament.