1
   

France + Holland say NO - signal of a political watershed?

 
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 09:41 pm
http://www.mahablog.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/davidbrooks.jpg


Quote:
"in Bobo's World, whenever a tree falls in the forest it discredits large swaths of American liberalism, whether anyone hears it or not. So I am less concerned about what an animated cabbage thinks of American liberalism than I am about what the rejection of the EU constitution actually signifies.

I think it signifies that the people of Yurp are not an alien species but folks like us Amurrkuns, folks who put on leurs pantalon one leg at a time and who are just as capable of making stupid decisions in the voting booth as we are.

This does not comfort me much."


http://www.mahablog.com/

brooks is a simpering little douchebag who could not think his way out of a wet kotex wrapper.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 09:49 pm
I like it when Kuv shows up...he has a way with words that resonates with me....
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 12:36 am
Quote:


Jeremy Warner's Outlook: Germany prepares for unthinkable? Not yet, but it may have to if attitudes don't change

Jeremy Warner's Outlook: Germany prepares for unthinkable? Not yet, but it may have to if attitudes don't change

02 June 2005


The euro was unnerved yesterday by a magazine report that the German finance ministry and the Bundesbank are already contemplating how to respond to the previously unthinkable - the collapse of monetary union. The report was immediately denied, but it is indicative of the fragility that exists in currency markets post the French "non" that for a while it was taken quite seriously, and it certainly makes my own hitherto sanguine view of the likely market fall-out from the death of the European constitution seem open to question.

Of course, it would be utterly astonishing if the German authorities did not have a contingency plan for the collapse of the euro. This is the sort of thing that central bankers and civil servants are paid to plan for. A bit like nuclear war, nobody expects it to happen but we would surely wonder why we have a government at all if it turned out nobody had bothered to think about what to do if it did.

The more concerning aspect of the Stern magazine story, again denied, is that the German government is planning to blame the euro for Germany's economic malaise. They've blamed just about everyone else, from the locusts of Anglo-American capitalism to European enlargement, so why not the single currency too?

Yet not even Gerhard Schröder, with defeat looming in the general election, could be that cynical. To turn round and damn a project which up until now he has been the main cheer leader for would surely lose him any remaining support he might have. You don't, in any case, need to be a trained economist to know that the euro is not the root cause of Germany's problems. The interest rate set by the European Central Bank for the European economy as a whole is undoubtedly too high for the stagnant German economy, but it is arguable what effect yet lower rates still would have on an economy where domestic demand is so subdued.

Would Germany be better off without the single currency? According to the polls, that's what a growing number of Germans believe, for they look back to a supposedly golden age of economic prowess that existed before the euro was introduced and draw a connection. This is a not unreasonable thing to do, but it is also largely a delusion.

Those of us in Britain who have supported the single currency have tended to do so in the belief it would galvanise Europe into free market economic reform. Indeed it is hard to see how the euro can ever properly work if this does not occur. As a collection of essentially national economies, each with their own employment and industrial protections, the euro is doomed to division and failure. It is only if the full force of industrial and labour market competition is unleashed on these economies that a single currency becomes economically sustainable and politically acceptable.

The French no was a vote against precisely this kind of vision. Europe seems intent only on looking backwards to a past ideal which never really existed as Continentals seem to believe it did and in any case is unachievable in a fast changing world. The euro is not yet a doomed project, but it will be if attitudes don't change.


[email protected]
Source
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 04:27 am
Quote:
Forgive me for making a blunt and obvious point, but events in Western Europe are slowly discrediting large swaths of American liberalism. [..]

The highest "no" votes came from the most vulnerable, from workers and the industrial north. The "no" campaign united the fearful right, led by Jean-Marie Le Pen, with the fearful left, led by the Communists. [..]

Over the last few decades, American liberals have lauded the German model or the Swedish model or the European model. But these models are not flexible enough for the modern world.

Like I was telling George in the other thread, there's something odd and somehow undemocratic in spirit about looking at what people have voted against (eg, the progressive dismantling of the welfare state, an unbridled free market) - and in reponse conclude that what it means is they need more of it.

That kind of attitude - the haughty disregard by political or economic elite better-knowers about what people actually feel or favour - might be exactly what has gotten us in this mess in the first place. Faced with that kind of arrogance or ideological orthodoxy, its no wonder trust in mainstream politicians has plummeted and people are seeking refuge with far-right and far-left populists.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 06:35 am
So you're thinking maybe there is a reason that isn't a power struggle or squeamishness about the currency, Nimh? I wondered if Brooks, who is nobody's idea of a strong right winger, might be rather astute here. If so, those of us 'on this side of the pond' should sit up and take note or we will continue to see more and more extremism and much less willingness to compromise on anything. And that would be bad for everybody.
0 Replies
 
Atkins
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 07:04 am
This interests me.

A speaker from Holland on NPR said his country is worried about supporting all of Europe.

Perhaps, the no vote is an acknowledgment that bigger is not always better.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 07:40 am
Foxfyre wrote:
So you're thinking maybe there is a reason that isn't a power struggle or squeamishness about the currency, Nimh?

I don't think I understand the question. There's a reason for what? The rejection of the Constitution? You suggest a power struggle and squeamishness about the currency as reasons for its rejection?

(The Euro played a role in the background in the Dutch referendum, but wasn't the foremost one, and I don't think it played even such a role in France - and the role of "a power struggle" I can see in negotiations between governments, but in the results of the referendums?).
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 07:43 am
Atkins wrote:
A speaker from Holland on NPR said his country is worried about supporting all of Europe.

Yup. An exit poll showed that the #1 reason people gave for their NO vote was that the EU is "too expensive". Like Germany, Holland is a net payer of contributions, while South- and now East-European countries benefit. The Dutch government has been trying to renegotiate how much it pays, but so far without much success.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 07:46 am
The perception in much of the U.S. media is that resistance to the Constitution has come from those who fear giving others more power over their national affairs--a sense of nationalism perhaps--plus concerns re the Euro. I was just picking up that you see the issues running deeper than that Nimh. That was the question. No biggie.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 08:10 am
Foxfyre wrote:
The perception in much of the U.S. media is that resistance to the Constitution has come from those who fear giving others more power over their national affairs--a sense of nationalism perhaps

Yes, of course, that remains the prime reason of all.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 08:38 am
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 11:18 am
Just returning to Fox's question again more seriously:

Foxfyre wrote:
The perception in much of the U.S. media is that resistance to the Constitution has come from those who fear giving others more power over their national affairs--a sense of nationalism perhaps--plus concerns re the Euro. I was just picking up that you see the issues running deeper than that Nimh.

I think it's all related, an extension of each other, in fact.

The sovereignty/nationalism question, the vote against the interfering bureacracy from Brussels, is only a shade distinct from the class issue raised by the articles in this thread, which centres around a vote against globalisation, against the free market ideologues who dont take the interests of the little man in account, against employers who move their jobs out to China or move Romanian workers in.

The "red" (anti-capitalist) and "brown" (anti-Brussels, anti-foreigners) aspects of the protest in a way meet up with each other.

Walter in the Following the EU thread a while ago posted a report from a French "NON" campaign event that may be relevant here:

Quote:
Tribes of the left gather to celebrate a vote against hated EU constitution

By John Lichfield in Martigues
26 May 2005

The hall resounded with 6,000 voices chanting the war cry of the French left. "Tous ensemble, Tous ensemble, hoy, hoy." (All together, all together. There is no known translation for hoy, hoy.) They were all here, or almost all of them - the many tribes of the Gauche Française.

[..] They were here, in Martigues, a Communist-run town between Marseilles and the Camargue at the mouth of the Rhône, to celebrate the [upcoming] victory of the "non" in Sunday's referendum on the proposed EU constitution.

[..] Speaker after speaker, and there were 18 of them, called for the preservation of the "new unity" of the anti-treaty left [..]. These people hate [..] capitalism, globalism, liberalism and the EU. The treaty campaign has divided them from the "electable" core of the moderate socialists and greens.

[..] Before the rally began, I spoke to a score or more of "militants" of one persuasion or another. They were against the EU treaty because it was "ultra-liberal" and "not sufficiently social"; because it was "written for the bosses, not the people"; because jobs in France were being moved abroad; or because they feared an influx of Polish or Romanian workers, on cut-price wages.

But weren't all the references to "free-trade", "competition", and "markets", which they hated, copied into the constitution from existing EU treaties going back to 1957? Weren't they therefore challenging, not just the constitution but the whole basis - free trade, free movement of workers - on which French prosperity had been built in the 1960s? No, they weren't against free movement, they were just just against the Poles and Czechs coming to France on low wages. They wanted a united Europe but one with harmonised social protection, not free trade or "competition".

A Frenchman of Polish extraction whom I met on my travels this week said: "The French left is like a radish. It is red on the outside and white at its heart." In other words, fiercely nationalist. Much of the left-wing rhetoric in this campaign has resembled far-right rhetoric: anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner.

For low-paid Poles, read low-paid Arabs, I suggested. George Capozi, 58, secretary of the Martigues branch of the CGT, objected to that. "We are not far right. We are not against foreigners," he said. "My own grandparents came here from Italy in the 1930s..."

Would they be welcome today?


Source
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2005 01:45 pm
Quote:
PARIS DISPATCH
Class Conflict


by David A. Bell Only at TNR Online
The New Republic
Post date: 06.01.05

Behind France's solid rejection of the European Union constitution on Sunday, there were a number of stunning exit poll results. One of the most widely reported was that among those who identified with either the extreme right or extreme left, more than 94 percent voted no. Historically, this situation is known as "the extremes touching." Another was that the only age group where a majority voted yes was made up of those over 55, who remember the early post-war enthusiasm for a united, peaceful Europe. But even more important, and less widely reported, is the fact that while around two-thirds of professionals and executives voted yes, a huge percentage of the working class--more than 80 percent--voted no. In other words, the result was strongly linked to class.

To understand why the lower classes voted no, one really needed to do little more than listen carefully to the French politicians who rushed into the television studios to argue about the vote on Sunday night. While of course they all expressed their respect for "the will of the people," they did not seem to take "the people" very seriously. On Channel Two, Henri Emmanuelli, a dissident socialist who had campaigned against the constitution, pointed out that since close to 90 percent of the deputies to the National Assembly had supported it, the referendum amounted to a vote of no confidence in them, and should be followed by new parliamentary elections. Immediately, the mainstream politicians on the panel accused Emmanuelli of "populism." Throughout the night, and in the newspapers over the next few days, warnings against "populism" were repeated with tedious regularity and carried more than a whiff of contempt for ordinary voters supposedly governed by fears and anxieties rather than rational calculation. It was easy to see why France's wage earners feel ignored and disdained by the country's political and economic elites--and easy to see why they had seized this opportunity to express their frustration.

Of course ungrounded fears and anxieties are part of the equation--notably the fear that the constitution would lead to Turkey's entrance into the EU and a new flood of Muslim immigration to France. But there was also anger that many previous decisions about Europe had been taken without directly consulting the people or considering the effects on workers. These include, most importantly, the recent entrance into the EU of ten countries with generally lower labor costs, weaker regulations, and meeker unions. Already, jobs are starting to flow east as a result, and the number of Polish, Hungarian, and Slovene trucks bringing cheap manufactured goods into France is visibly increasing.

There was also understandable confusion and resentment in the face of a document hundreds of pages long, written in grinding bureaucratese, and mentioning matters as specific as coffee prices, while providing no means for its own amendment or revocation. While the constitution took this form because it codified earlier treaties, this did not change the fact that it was tedious and rebarbative. And then there was the almost irresistible urge to stick a thumb in the eye of Jacques Chirac, who campaigned in 1995 on a promise to lower an unemployment rate that hovered around 10 percent. Ten years later, the rate has barely budged. [..]

Yet most important, perhaps, was the simple problem that French elites could give the rest of the population no strong reason to vote yes. Mostly, they resorted to the shibboleth that they were building Europe. Except they forgot that "Europe" means very different things to different segments of the populations. It means one thing to well-off professionals who vacation in Italy or Spain, send their children to Britain or Germany on educational exchanges, and routinely interact with their counterparts from other members states of the EU. To them, earlier steps in building Europe, such as the introduction of the Euro three years ago or the establishment of university exchange networks, have had a palpable, beneficial effect. But to wage earners who do not attend university and can barely afford to travel, Europe remains far more of an abstraction, and a threatening one--the idea, not entirely false by any means, that decisions that affect their livelihoods are going to be made even further from home.

Among the best reasons for voting yes was the argument that the Constitution would make the existing EU work better, providing it with a president, with a more responsible parliament, with better-defined governing institutions. Presented more forcefully, it might conceivably have carried the day. Yet the only way to have made this case with real force would have been to criticize the existing institutions, to have run against them, to have denounced them as the distant and overly bureaucratic morasses that they often are. But to do this would have been to admit that mistakes were made in the past, and made in large part by the French elites who have been the greatest driving force behind the EU. Needless to say, this was not done.

In the coming days, Chirac will undoubtedly make changes and concessions--he started this process yesterday with the appointment of Dominique de Villepin as prime minister--and many bold noises about assuaging the fears of the anti-constitution voters. But he will almost certainly not give them any real reason to support the building of Europe, and will not do anything to address their concerns about the French elites, which he and Villepin so perfectly represent in their family backgrounds (big business, the old aristocracy), their educations (the ultra-selective National School of Administration), and their suave, confident, often-arrogant manner. Villepin is so little a populist that he has never even run for elected office (in France, you can be prime minister without being a member of parliament). And so Chirac is unlikely to assuage those who have voted no, and is almost certain not to advance the cause of the EU any further. Indeed, the attempt to construct a larger, continental political structure has now not only stalled, it has rebounded upon the political structure of the French state, exposing and exacerbating serious cracks in its own political foundation. Far from the referendum bringing Europe closer together, it is fragmenting it in profound and troubling ways.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jun, 2005 10:06 am
In the thread about German politics and the upcoming national elections, Walter pre-empted me <grins> and posted a news story about the new-fangled party on the far left that's promised anything up to 18% in the polls: the Democratic Left.

This party, still in the process of being formed, brings together former Socialdemocratic leader Oskar Lafontaine and Georg Gysi, the charismatic former leader of the ex-communist, East-German PDS.

Its possible success fits perfectly in the theme of the thread. This is what I posted there, submitting how I think it does show up a European trend:

nimh wrote:
I find the story of the emerging "Democratic Left" party fascinating, myself. I've been collecting bits and pieces from news stories about it from the moment the possibility was first mentioned, wanting to bring it to this thread sometime, but just never found the time.

The "Democratic Left", for those who havent caught up, is the newly patched-together alliance between the PDS, the party of East-German former communists, and the WASG, the party of disillusioned trade unionists and assorted leftists who are "cobbling together their own SPD without Agenda 2010", as one newspaper put it. Talk of an alliance was triggered when the WASG went from 0 to 2,2% in the North-Rhine Westphalian elections despite lack of money or well-known candidates.

Well, the latter problem sure has been solved now. In a "Return of the Titans" set-up, Lafontaine will head the new alliance (formally a renamed PDS that will open its lists for WASG representatives), which is being forged in torturous negotiations now, together with Georg Gysi. Gysi was the one charismatic leader the PDS ever had, who led the party to successive gains in the 90s before giving up over the party's un-reformability.

Today is both these men's big chance - and their last one, too. Two men out to get their personal revenge, before turning definitively too old? Or a unique opportunity for an aging PDS and budding WASG to jump over their own shadows - and create something Germany hasnt known in fifty years: a country-wide party of the far left in Parliament?

If Oskar and Georg's project will indeed make it (big), that would make a European trend.

First, the French (mostly Trotskyite) far-left garnered enough support in 2002 to push the mainstream Socialists' leader, Lionel Jospin, into third place in the presidential elections; without the 10% of the vote that went Trot and the 11% that went to other far-left candidates, Jospin didnt have enough support to get past Le Pen anymore.

The result was echoed in this year's French referendum on the European Constitution, with Communists, Trotskyites and nationalist leftwing Socialists playing a pivotal role in the "non", leaving the mainstream Socialists looking lost.

In Holland, the (once upon a time Maoist) Socialist Party fulfilled the same role. With a campaign strongly emphasising national sovereignty, it played a decisive role in rallying a leftist vote against the European Constitution, to match the opposition against it in far-right circles. The SP has benefited proportionally in the polls, rising from 9% to 15% in the course of two months - its best ever poll result.

On a sidenote, there was Galloway and his Respect! party, giving New Labour a black eye in London's Eastend and almost in Birmingham Yardley as well. And now Oskar and Gysi in Germany?

If they do get significantly over 5%, it would be sensational - and if that helps bring the mainstream Socialdemocrats down to a record low, we're talking watershed moment. All in all, we'd be talking a rebirth of red politics, to the left of the Socialdemocrats, in West-Central Europe.

The return of Marxism-Leninism it is not, but after a decade or two in which you had only the post-materialist Greens left of the moderates - and them going ever more pragmatic/liberal at that - it signals the return of the reds. Who would have thought?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jun, 2005 10:33 am
I have to admit that - unlike what my earlier tut-tutting may have suggested - I'm looking at all this ever more with an irrepressible, brewing sense of glee.

Its fully irrational. I know, for one, that an upsurge of the far-left at the cost of the Socialdemocrats would likely cost the Left any chance of dominating government for time to come. I also know that when it comes to the issues, on almost each and every one I'm closer to the Greens than the Reds. I resent the Socialist Party's anti-European rhetorics. They have nothing to offer on the issue I care perhaps most about - defence of multicultural tolerance; the opposite, rather. And they indulge in much unsupportable rhetorics.

On the other hand, there simply is a sizable potential for leftwing-populist - specifically nationalist - politics, politics that greens and socialdemocrats have long let their scruples keep from appealing to. If Oskar goes for it - if the politically correct ex-communists let him get away with it - he could score big. He could take the wind out of the sails of the neo-nazis and other far-right populists - and then some. In this part of Europe, so many disenfranchised working-class voters have either long given up altogether, or instead vote for the likes of Pim Fortuyn or Joerg Haider - never mind that those far-right leaders espouse free-market policies that will hit them hardest. To give them a leftwing alternative again ... to mobilise that vote ... it could change the whole dynamics. It might work. It might be well worth a try.

The thing is, we've tried Socialdemocratic/Labour government, in the past decade or so. What did it bring us? More liberalisation and privatisation, more free-market ideology, more of the grabbing culture - in exchange for the laborious maintenance of this or that social or public employment programme. Its done nothing to keep the public discourse from sliding ever more rightward. The Greens, always sensible and pragmatic, cant help either there, especially not with their leaders starting to talk of "left-liberal" perspectives. For Germany, at least, Gysi was right when he said in a Taz interview:

Quote:
The Greens have sensible positions, which I share: on the environment, the integration of foreigners, equal rights for women. But when it comes to soico-economic questions, I don't trust them a meter on the road. They are ever more similar to the liberals. The Greens are an elitarian party. They have the attitude of former squatters, who now own houses.

The newly resurgent politics of a red left, whether it be Lafontaine/Gysi, Jan Marijnissen or Besancenot/Laguiller/Chevènement, may be the only way we've got left to finally, dammit, give the political compass a sharp tug to the left again. My head, anyway, is still with the Greens - I'm a life-long fan of Joschka Fischer - but if I were German, I'd probably actually vote Oskar & Gysi Shocked
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jun, 2005 07:32 pm
Nimh - any chance you've read this?

'Tis wonderfully entertaining Razz
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 05:17 am
The wisdom of the masses, huh? No, I havent read it. But it would fit in with my post above, I guess ... out with those sensible, intellectual Greens, in with the populist, rabble-rousing Reds who know how to rouse the masses!

/tongue-in-cheek
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2005 04:48 pm
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/06/26/international/poland184.1.jpg

Quote:
Unlikely Hero in Europe's Spat: The Beckoning 'Polish Plumber'

By ELAINE SCIOLINO
Published: June 26, 2005

PARIS, June 25 - Blond, buffed and blow-dried, a come-hither half-smile on his face, the man in the travel ad grips the tools of his trade as he beckons visitors to Poland.

A Polish ad features a model as a plumber who assures the French that he is staying in Poland (away from their jobs).

"I'm staying in Poland," the man says, a set of strategically placed pipes in one hand, a metal-cutter in the other. "Lots of you should come."

He is the "Polish plumber," a mythical figure who became a central actor in the debate in France over the European Union constitution, which was roundly rejected by French voters last month. Portrayed as a predator who would move to France and steal jobs by working for less pay, this "plumber" has come to personify French fears about the future.

Now the Polish Tourism Bureau is using the character to try to allay French fears and attract visitors at the same time.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/26/international/europe/26poland.html

This is gonna help what?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 09:42 am
I'm betting its gonna help against that crucial gay Eurosceptic vote.

(I mean, what?)
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 05:31 pm
One of the funniest politically-related things I've seen in ages.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

THE BRITISH THREAD II - Discussion by jespah
FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION - Discussion by Mapleleaf
The United Kingdom's bye bye to Europe - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
Sinti and Roma: History repeating - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
[B]THE RED ROSE COUNTY[/B] - Discussion by Mathos
Leaving today for Europe - Discussion by cicerone imposter
So you think you know Europe? - Discussion by nimh
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2022 at 04:53:04