A french "NON" to the Constitution?

Discussion/News about Europe, EU, politics

Moderators: Phaseolus, Fons

User avatar
francky
Euro-Expert
Euro-Expert
Posts: 613
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2002 3:13 pm
Location: Marly la ville -Europa
Contact:

Post by francky »

alex77r wrote: If the France say "No" to the constitution I will be shame to be french... :evil: :evil: :evil:
Why???
Francky [fr][en :?: ]
User avatar
Dakkus
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 4734
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2003 3:59 pm
Location: No Helsinkiem, Somijas / Iš Helsinkio, Suomijos
Contact:

Post by Dakkus »

Mostly because then they're ruining everything for the rest of EU.
Ko saka āboliņš? Pēk pēk pēk!
User avatar
francky
Euro-Expert
Euro-Expert
Posts: 613
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2002 3:13 pm
Location: Marly la ville -Europa
Contact:

Post by francky »

Dakkus wrote:Mostly because then they're ruining everything for the rest of EU.
i've ear that in some survey in NL, the No 'll win.
Is it better to have a bad constitution now or a better tommorow?

If the majority of the countries where there is a referendum, people say NO, it's significant that it's a bad constitution and we have to make an other

For me, it was necessary to make the constitution before accept the 10 new states. NOw i'm affraid that's it's too late.
Francky [fr][en :?: ]
tabbs
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 1002
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 1:25 pm
Location: NW · DE · EU

Post by tabbs »

francky wrote:If the majority of the countries where there is a referendum, people say NO, it's significant that it's a bad constitution and we have to make an other
Hmm, it takes only one single member state's "No" to bury the Constitution, no matter whether this No comes from an obligatory referendum or a parliamentary vote. Also, as far as I know, the only decision to be made is a Yes or No concerning the current version of the constitutional treaty. Whether you are against this version because you would like to see it amended in some way, or if you are against it out of principle, will not be asked ...

Christian
User avatar
Olivier
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 3358
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 9:58 pm
Location: Evian

Post by Olivier »

helicase00 wrote: on the other hand i wish if we had an EU wide referendum on the same day in all states of the EU - Yes or No! if 50%+1 of EU citiziens vote yes, then the constitution would come in force
A European vote on the same day would have been more logical.
If the French vote no and the Dutch vote no a few days later... I imagine the hapiness at the White House.
User avatar
Olivier
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 3358
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 9:58 pm
Location: Evian

Post by Olivier »

francky wrote:
Dakkus wrote:Mostly because then they're ruining everything for the rest of EU.
i've ear that in some survey in NL, the No 'll win.
Is it better to have a bad constitution now or a better tommorow?

If the majority of the countries where there is a referendum, people say NO, it's significant that it's a bad constitution and we have to make an other

For me, it was necessary to make the constitution before accept the 10 new states. NOw i'm affraid that's it's too late.
But the 15 tried to get one, with the Treaty of Nice. Unfortunately, the heads of State and Gvts acted very selfishly at the summit of Nice. Now, everybody say the Treaty of Nice is bad. The Constitution has been writen to fix it. If the French say no, we'll stay with a bad treaty for the 25, and soon 27 Member States.

It takes years and years to get a treaty! A new treaty could not come before the end of the decade.
User avatar
Elmo
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 4184
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 4:16 pm
Location: Leiden (Netherlands)

Post by Elmo »

francky wrote:
Dakkus wrote:Mostly because then they're ruining everything for the rest of EU.
i've ear that in some survey in NL, the No 'll win.
Is it better to have a bad constitution now or a better tommorow?

If the majority of the countries where there is a referendum, people say NO, it's significant that it's a bad constitution and we have to make an other

For me, it was necessary to make the constitution before accept the 10 new states. NOw i'm affraid that's it's too late.
In the Netherlands, 80% of the people know what they are going to vote. 48%
of them is going to vote yes, and 52% is going to vote no. But 20% is doubt-
ing what to vote. I hope they will vote yes.

I agree it isn't a perfect constitution, but a constitution will be necessary to
keep the EU together. It is a tiny step forward, but rejecting it will be a
giant leap backward.
Of all the words of mice and men, the saddest are 'It might have been.' - Kurt Vonnegut
User avatar
pinguino79
Euro-Expert in Training
Euro-Expert in Training
Posts: 313
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 5:44 pm
Location: Vicenza, Italy, EU

Post by pinguino79 »

The European Constitution is a result of a compromise; it'a almost impossible to satisfy everyone! Nevertheless, this is probably the most important step in the history of our continent; dropping the Constitution would mean losing an occasion.
Also, keep in mind that this Constution is essential: the enlarged EU cannot work with the old system!
4 gmail invites available. Send a PM providing your e-mail address.
User avatar
Ernst
Euro-Master in Training
Euro-Master in Training
Posts: 943
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 6:13 pm
Location: Frankfurt a. M.

Post by Ernst »

I have not spent much time getting aquainted with the constitution (shame on me!), but I also don´t get to vote on it.

Yet, I feel that if you hold a referendum everyone should be free to vote yes or no. From what I read the opposition in France is not mainly motivated by some anti European sentiment, but by the belief that it cements a fundamentally wrong direction in Europes economic policy. And I must agree that it feels a little bit strange to have free trade as a constitutional principle, not the least because what we have today is still far away from that (and often for good reasons).
I would not vote yes just because a "no" would make things complicated, I think a constitution is such an important thing that I would have to be able to agree at least with its general tendencies.....
an-148

Post by an-148 »

I really think a referendum on a case involving so much elements referring to so much involvments not known to joe-six pack citizen is ANTI-democratic and demagogic.
It took some years to qualified deputees, unions(syndicats), representatives knowing all corollars of a specific sentence or even word related to his speciality, knowing the desires of the population HE represents 105 of them representing different tendencies and at least arriving to a compromise:
that job should never be to be decided by people who maybe never read it or read it without knowing for what this ir this is good or bad, not having (and that's normal) all elements to make a clear opinion.
Many people are following the ones which are preaching NO only because of a national based revenge against the governement in place, without ANY consideration for the future of Europe ( They are , knowing it or without knowing it the very best allies of Uncle Sam!!!)

Just a reminder : if the introduction of the Euro had to be sealed by referendum, we would never have it (Remember: apart from UK, who decided to decide later, DK and SE which had a referendum -result:NO-all other countries decided at parliament level. Joe-sixpack doesn't even imagine that with the sole French Franc, France would have dared to oppose an illegal invasion at UN: their economy would have been cut in pieces by Uncle Sam. The average citizen, would have voted no for the euro only because of not wanting headaches at transition period! If somebody told him that its for a stronger power of all Europe, he wouldn't believe it.

All subjects involving so important matters for a peaceful and wealthy for the next generations should never be voted by referendum: demagogy is not far!
User avatar
groentje
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 2890
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 6:47 pm
Location: Brussels Capital Region, Belgium

Post by groentje »

What's the difference between a referendum and elections? Both times you get people who don't know why they should vote for party X or Y, Yes or No. Still, I wouldn't dare saying elections are undemocratic. Direct democracy, like in ancient Athens, is not possible anymore.
I was a very cool defender of the European Constitution, far from ideal, but still a strong symbol of EU integration. Now, I read a summary of the Constitution, I read opinions pro and contra, the arguments contra won... I want a strong European Parliament, I want more social and environmental issues in the Constitution, but what did I read? Almost nothing of that kind. The only important argument I heard of the pro left side, was that the EU would be a total chaos, even fall apart, if this Constitution would not be accepted. I'm not so pessimistic, the EU works, even with some problems, without the Constitution at the moment, a "no" would not necessarily mean that no constitution would be agreed upon, on a later date.
I now regret there is no referendum in Belgium on this issue...
User avatar
Dakkus
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 4734
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2003 3:59 pm
Location: No Helsinkiem, Somijas / Iš Helsinkio, Suomijos
Contact:

Post by Dakkus »

Does anyone have any idea how long it would take building a new constitution? I don't think it could take as long as building the current one has taken, because big parts could remain intact.
Having free trade mentioned in a constitution is already almost a valid reason not to accept it..
Ko saka āboliņš? Pēk pēk pēk!
User avatar
Elmo
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 4184
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 4:16 pm
Location: Leiden (Netherlands)

Post by Elmo »

groentje wrote:I want more social and environmental issues in the Constitution
Why more social issues? Europeans are already very expensive people, are
ill many times, and retire at ages of about 60 years, or sometimes even
earlier! IMO, the minimum retirement age should be 65 years, and
unemployed people shouldn't receive more money than needed, to stimulate
them to find a job. More social issues means the Europeans become even
more expensive, causing companies to move to poorer countries, where
people are cheap and working hard.

Why more environmental issues? The EU regulations concerning environment
already are far too strict. In Holland and some parts of Germany and Italy it
is not allowed to build new roads, buidings and offices. This will be a disaster
to the European economy. And why do we have to take strict measures
while the USA, China, Australia and India don't take such measures?
groentje wrote:I now regret there is no referendum in Belgium on this issue...
I regret there IS a referendum in the Netherlands, because many people
don't even take the time to read the constitution, and will vote no anyway,
because they they think Europe has a huge influence on our regulations,
while only 12% of all regulations in the Netherlands are forced by Europe.
Many people are not smart enough to know what is good for them, and
that's why there shouldn't be a referendum (yes, I am arrogant! :P).
Dakkus wrote:Having free trade mentioned in a constitution is already almost a valid reason not to accept it..
What is wrong with free trade? With no limitations to trade the European
economy will be stronger.
Of all the words of mice and men, the saddest are 'It might have been.' - Kurt Vonnegut
User avatar
Gauss
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2003 11:35 pm

Post by Gauss »

tabbs wrote:Hmm, it takes only one single member state's "No" to bury the Constitution, no matter whether this No comes from an obligatory referendum or a parliamentary vote.
Yes, but the consequences could be different, depending on which country rejects the constitution. If it would be France or Germany, the constitution is dead. (And in my opinion not just this constitution but the whole idea of a constitution. And with the Treaty of Nice the EU is not governable.)

If it were some of the 10 new countries, say Poland, or a country that has always been reluctant towards the EU, say Great Britain, or a small country, say the Netherlands, that could lead to the formation of a "core union" and a looser "general EU". This core could become a center of action which could react more flexible to worldwide developments and could be generally more efficient. Not necessarily a bad perspective. But it cannot work if one of the two largest Euro countries doesn't take part.
User avatar
Dakkus
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 4734
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2003 3:59 pm
Location: No Helsinkiem, Somijas / Iš Helsinkio, Suomijos
Contact:

Post by Dakkus »

If USA, China, Australia and India jump into a well, will you follow?
Would you kill yourself only because some other people are suicidical morons?
In the long term there the only way to stay alive is to stop raping the planet we live on.
There are two possible scenarios:

1) Nature is protected as much as now or less than now. In a few generations there are only half a billion humans left because everyone else has died.
2) Nature is protected more than now. We will stay alive.

I believe even those countries with not-so-developed abilities to look to future will eventually understand there's no other possibility than starting to protect nature.
If they don't, it's goodbye for life.
Because those countries start protecting nature several decades later than EU, they will have to use tremendeosly more money than they would if they did the unavoidable in time. When things are done well all the way from the beginning they're a lot cheaper in the long term.
The economy of EU will also get a huge boost when the nature destroyers start doing things reasonably, because then EU will already have huge amounts of technology and knowledge the suicidical countries do not.
They will have to pay us for their lives, which is often quite profitable ;)

And to some extent I also understand the urge to disallow building new roads. The Dutch population doesn't really increase. At least not as fast as he public transportation technology evolves. I think many roads could be removed and replaced with more ecological and economical methods of transportation. When the population density climbs over a certain ridiculously high limit, using cars is simply not a good idea anymore. Building new main roads in the Netherlands that already has an unbeliavably (and sickly) good motorway network is nothing but complete stupidity. I don't believe anyone has completely banned building small roads on the countryside.

Also city developing could be handled better by creating very fast rail transportation methods. Everything within a 10km radius from downtown could be made car-free, so that only delivery cars and other such cars would be allowed to get there.
There are better alternatives than building new roads and houses. If there was a more efficient method of transportation in use, there would be no need to stuff new houses to downtowns. They could be built even 100km away, and still they'd be only a bit over 15min away from downtown. There's absolutely nothing impossible in this. People just don't dare to save their asses by doing something sensible instead of the "good" old.
The power of USA, China, Australia and India will eventually decrease very drastically because of their short-sighted politics.

Free trade is no problem if it's done so that all people are equal. Currently it doesn't work that way. Opening small, developing countries to free trade practically always causes foreign corporations and through them also foreign governments to have an unbeliavably strong influence to the politics and developement of the country and its culture. Free trade in its current form is deadly. It doesn't serve people, it serves the holy corporate masters.
I support having free trade inside a country such as EU practically is, but in its current form I am extremely strongly against it in a global scale.

The main problem of free trade is it's founded on inequal conditions. Its foundations are built on the military force used a few hundred years ago. The idea of free trade is that different nations and peoples could trade with each others equally without any limits. That would help cultures exchange their best parts, thus developing all societies in the world with fastest possible pace both economically and culturally. In theory that's a good idea, but since currently countries can be divided (quite roughly) into two categories according to whether they're masters or slaves, the fundamental base of free trade doesn't exist.

Looking deep enough the very idea of free trade is to distribute the natural resources more evenly across the world. That helps the planet support more people with the same amount of natural resources. However, the current type of free trade in use does quite exactly the opposite. It takes from the poor and gives to the rich.

Let's think about bananas. (This could as well be tea, coffee, tobacco, or many other traded stuff)
During the time of imperialism we Europeans got a nice foothold in the areas where bananas are grown. We kicked the asses of the local people and submissed them under our rule. We forced them to grow banans for us. If someone didn't agree, we killed him.
Although there isn't any imperialist politics left in the scale of those days, the European banana farmers stayed there. They still had a hold of the farms and through them also the main natural resources. They pay very little salary for the local people. Even though the money we let the banana economies have is far less than what they should have, it's still money. And the banana economies will have to stay under the rule of the foreign banana farming corporations, because if they stopped that, they would have to start building their economies all the way from the beginning. Because other economies have had almost 10000 years more time to develop, there is no way they could develop to our level again, now that there has been the time of imperialism.

Maybe the most important thing why free trade can't work is its actually only a part of something far bigger. Letting economical resources flow freely isn't enough. We will also have to let people flow freele. As long as there is border control, free trade can't work.
The "free trade machine" is supposed to work so that when the people are not paid well enough, they will move to jobs where they are paid better. That way free trade will keep all salaries and possibilites of life equal.
However, the areas where the people who now work under inhuman conditions would be paid better don't accept them.
If a Cameroonian, Venezuelan, Bangladeshian or Moroccoan tries to come to Europe he's sent back or even killed. Why do we let people who are born in a certain area have different rights from the people living in some other area?

In the short term (maybe three generations) it might be a bad thing letting all immigrants in, but in the long term (some ten generations) it would help a lot.

Supporting free movement of goods, but being against free movement of people at the same time is nothing but self-centered domination and lying to one's self.

If everyone was allowed to move anywhere they wanted, a great amount of world's problems would be solved. Might sound absurd, but is true. If people could move freely there would be no labour left where the nature is destroyed and so the corporations couldn't destroy nature.
If people could move freely the economies and cultures would evolve faster.
If people could move freely they wouldn't have to fight over who is allowed to move where. (border conflicts)
If people could move freely any human could live the way he is happiest with.
If people could move freely there would be no countries of cheap labour and we could keep good pensions and good social benefits.
If people could move freely the crisis of the western system would end. (although for first it would surely get worse)

Freely taking the natural resources of other people, oppressing them in their own country and not letting them move to better places is cruel.

In the long term we will either have to change or starve. I support the first one of those options.
So, I will fight for freedom. And I will do my best to get also other people stand up for their rights.
Ko saka āboliņš? Pēk pēk pēk!
Post Reply

Return to “Europe-Board”