I see what you mean, but it seems to be more complicated than that.
A lot of French voters apparently voted on the "Chirac question" rather than the one that was written on the bit of paper. Chirac is quite unpopular at present and as such the French were taking the opportunity to give him a political beating. That appears to be the reason for the "let's ask them again" camp.
Chirac's influence will probably decline. The EU isn't going to go away, it'll just muddle on.
In the uk the people are very poorly informed on European issues and will be a tougher nut to crack for the pro-EU's.
I am personnaly very shaken by this result. I was a strong proponent of the yes, and I read the treaty in its entirety. I think that the truth for why this treaty was refused is probably somewhere in the middle. Some people definitely voted no to give the current government a bashing, as it is not doing a good job (Raffarin, our current prime minister has a 27% approval rating, which is really low). But I also heard that a lot of the no votes came from the countryside, whereas most of the yes votes came from the cities.
Chirac and the current government have been blaming the EU in internal politics for a lot of the issues that France is currently having. They are just right now receiving the effects of this policy. The French people in the country have enough of the agricultural EU policy, and they said no, not to the treaty, but to EU.
All in all, there were a million (bad) reasons for the the French people to vote no, and one, only one to vote yes, which was, because it was the right thing to do and because this treaty was a step forward in building the EU. In the end, the French people heard more about the million bad reasons, and not enough about the right reason.
Epee is the Louis Vuitton bag of fencing: only the best can get it, and the rest of the masses must content themselves with cheap knockoffs (sabre, foil)
To not recognize the power of the French grip is to be in denial
It is probably better for Europe now if some other countries also say no. Then the treaty can be renegociated and hopefully a new one, with a better popularity rating, be approved.
I personally think that such a treaty should be voted on by all Europeans, at the same time, in one European referendum. This would give more credibility for the treaty and also would be more democratic.
Epee is the Louis Vuitton bag of fencing: only the best can get it, and the rest of the masses must content themselves with cheap knockoffs (sabre, foil)
To not recognize the power of the French grip is to be in denial
Perhaps they should make Rene Roch President of France. He'd just ratify the thing personally and that would be that.
Seriously, why did Chirac even offer it for referendum? As I understand it he could just have submitted it to Parliament, where it enjoyed overwhelming support. Like they did in Germany. Why ask for a bloody nose?
I don't know. You'd have to ask that to him. Perhaps it was done by vanity, he felt he would leave more of a mark in history doing it by referendum. Most European treaties have been submitted to the French people using a referendum, so that might be the most obvious reason, but that's probably not the only one.
Epee is the Louis Vuitton bag of fencing: only the best can get it, and the rest of the masses must content themselves with cheap knockoffs (sabre, foil)
To not recognize the power of the French grip is to be in denial
Didn't deGaulle resign after a referendum he proposed was rejected?
It's not my issue of course, but from what I've read the constitution appears very non-democratic, with powers reserved to an essentially non-elected "government" in Brussels, with provisions that explicitly state that EU laws supercede national ones, and very limited accountability. I wouldn't want it for myself...
"In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different."
Well, the European construction is a very different one from the American construction, and as a result, the constitution is a very different one. In some areas, it definitely was only a tiny step in the right direction, in others it was proposing quite neat changes. Europe has to deal with all of the collective "bagage" from all of its member states, the US never had to do this.
The "government" is elected, via the european elections. The European parliament for example is completely elected via a direct vote, and it is the parliament who votes European laws / would define who would be president / foreign affairs minister IIRC.
EU laws supercede national ones in some specific areas, that were defined by the consitution, and that was the whole point: bring more uniformity on some specific matters in Europe (such as border control, a very important subject right now in Europe), as well as provide a guideline for future expansion, as well as many other things.
Not quite sure what you mean by "very limited accountability"... To whom, for what, in what circumstances?
Epee is the Louis Vuitton bag of fencing: only the best can get it, and the rest of the masses must content themselves with cheap knockoffs (sabre, foil)
To not recognize the power of the French grip is to be in denial
Didn't deGaulle resign after a referendum he proposed was rejected?
It's not my issue of course, but from what I've read the constitution appears very non-democratic, with powers reserved to an essentially non-elected "government" in Brussels, with provisions that explicitly state that EU laws supercede national ones, and very limited accountability. I wouldn't want it for myself...
Yes, he did. De Gaulle resigned in 1969 - was rather a brief affair, with a 3-line letter of resignation - after a non-relevant referendum he held (not long after the events of May '68). The issue of the referendum itself wasn't that significant (something to do with government reforms), but he took the 'non' more as a national vote of no confidence.
Amazing what revision does to you...
Anyway, the European constitution: I'm unsuprised of the outcome. In my opinion, the 'non' was less a vote against the EU, and more one against the Chirac government and being told to vote 'oui'. A more sensible campaign would have been to ask the electorate to vote 'non', then they'd have voted 'oui'...
Personally, I'm in favour of a 'oui'. But then, it's a complicated issue. I was surprised at the relative speed with which the constitution was drawn up last year and, as veeco says, I'd rather it be slowed down and mulled over a little more now, rather than a headstrong approach.
It'll be interesting to see the result of the Dutch referendum on Wednesday...
with powers reserved to an essentially non-elected "government" in Brussels, with provisions that explicitly state that EU laws supercede national ones, and very limited accountability. I wouldn't want it for myself...
Out of curiosity, how would the EU government enforce the laws it creates?
Out of curiosity, how would the EU government enforce the laws it creates?
"Directives" - as Jeff says, they prime over national law. For example, the French Constitutional Court had to amend the French constitution so that it would fall in line with the proposed EU one.
If a member country - or even one of its citizens or companies - feels hard done by, then it can appeal to the European Court. This court's decisions outweigh those taken at a national level. Similarly, if someone misbehaves in front of EU law, they can be brought before the European Court.
The main area that influences us all is what's called 'stands and norms'. Like, before the EU, British chocolate wasn't considered chocolatey enough by France - not enough cocoa - to be considered as chocolate. The Germans are really particular about their beer, and so on and so on... in the end, over 400 stands and norms had to be agreed for the whole of the community. Long live Cadbury's chocolate
What is it with Europeans and their inability to comprehend the difference between a Constitution and mere legislation and regulations? A Constitution is supposed to set forth the basic first principles, from which the law is to be derived. The UK doesn't even bother writing it down, it's so ingrained in the national character.
A Constitution (1) defines the main branches of government, (2) sets forth what they have the authority to do, (3) limits what government can do, and (4) establishes a means of evolving as times change.
A European Constitution, on the other hand (1) micromanages every little last detail about who can do what with whose resources on what day of the week and with whose permission, pursuant to the exception for special interest group A as set forth in codicil 311.45(A)(3)(d)(iv); (2) at the same time, manages to be infuriatingly vague about what actual principles underly a given set of regulations, so that any change must be done by rewriting the whole damn thing, instead of applying the policy to the regulation and either re-interpreting how it is to be enforced or simply overruling it as unconstitutional; (3) maximizes the accountability of the individual citizen, while burying governmental accountability in a melange of agencies and a morass of unelected bureaucracy enforcing myriad regulations as the bureaucrats themselves interpret them; and (4) is uncomprehensible to those most affected by it.
Nobody said the French were fools. I'd say they knew full well what they were saying "non" to.
Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots.
... But I also heard that a lot of the no votes came from the countryside, whereas most of the yes votes came from the cities. ...
Early results from Le Monde -- although I haven't seen final results. Interesting results.
I'm also curious -- in what countries in Europe was a public vote made on the EU constitution, and in what countries was it adopted by a sitting government (such as a vote in the Bundestag, national parliament, etc.)? What countries passed the EU constitution by popular vote?
Nobody said the French were fools. I'd say they knew full well what they were saying "non" to.
Yup. And according to exit polls, a whopping 21% admitted their decision was influenced by the Constitutional Treaty. The rest, apparently, were saying 'non' to something else...
Even though it's called Constitution, it's not one. It's Constitutional Treaty of European Union, an attempt to clarify the gazillions of treaty pages controlling the life of every EU citizen and business already. It also tries to define what the EU is all about, and how it should function and for what purpose. In it's very base, it's an attempt to make things simpler after 40 years of unguided and hasty development with parallel, overlapping, contradicting and bargaining treaties. With some federalism thrown in, of course.
If one takes the overall lack of trust in politicians in EU, lack of analytic discussion in member countries (or in EU parlament) and the ever present 'we have to do it NOW' attitude, it's no wonder people begin to feel swindled regardless of if they really are.
For all I know, the politicians and bureacrats in any member country have been, are and will be much less inclined to give away even an ounce of the power the've worked so hard to get than their merry subjects -- and they're the ones negotiating the treaties...
"...assess, analyze, adjust..." a desperate chant in 1 to 14 situation in quarterfinals
...Europe has to deal with all of the collective "bagage" from all of its member states, the US never had to do this....
Veeco,
Please don't forget that the U.S. fought a Civil War largely due to the collective "baggage" from member states that couldn't be solved during the second constitutional convention.
Quote from Raffarin's statement when he stepped down: "I have always been aware that what is healthy for the nation does not go unblamed by public opinion."
Okay, is this just ordinary French arrogance, his own self-pity, or a revelation of how the European governing classes are out of touch with the citizens they serve?
Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots.
Originally Posted by jeff 
