JustWonders wrote:
Doesn't this strike anyone else as nonsense? Everything is re-negotiable. Even our constitution has amendments.
No, at least not those, who know long it took to plan this constitution.
It isn't a question of amendments at all (other countries change it/write new paragraphs, articles) but the question is, if all 25 countries agree on a EU-constitution.
JustWonders wrote:nimh - did you see this quote in the Beeb's article that referenced the Dutch poll?
"The Dutch vote is purely consultative, but politicians have said they will take the result into consideration when it comes to a parliamentary vote."
Yeah, the referendum is still a new-fangled invention for us Dutch, with the possibility of having one only tentatively introduced to law five or six years ago.
It was the small liberal party the Democrats'66 who had made having it introduced one of the "crown jewels" of their raison d'etre (ever since 1966, yes). They finally got their chance when they forged together the "purple" government of previous archenemies Labour and VVD (rightwing liberal) in 1994, functioning as the necessary go-between. They used their role to demand the introduction of the referendum, which was duly entered into the government agreement.
Alas, in "the Night of Wiegel" (in 1999?), VVD Senator Hans Wiegel scuttled the proposal when it finally reached the Senate with his one dissenting vote. A government crisis ensued and eventually, this weak compromise came through: introduction of only a "consultative" referendum, to which Parliament would formally not legally be bound. (I think thats more or less how it went, it was a bit complicated).
Anyway, although local referendums have since been held every now and then (in Utrecht we got to vote on whether the central town square got to be adorned with a statue of a hare, one of an ugly woman or one of a group of abstract tubes - the hare won), this is the first time ever, I believe, there will actually be a nationwide referendum. Of consultative nature. Though I doubt the politicians will dare to ignore it.
Here are some views on the EU constitution, from people (not just Brits) writing in to a BBC Website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4558307.stm
I am just amazed that the Referendum in France is being held on a different day to other Countries within the EU. Why should France take the praise or blame (depending on how you see it) before any other Country has had the chance to have their say.
If it turns out to be "Non", and other Countries cancel their Referenda, surely it denies the EU leaders a true oversight on the feelings of most of its Citizens? And also denies these other Citizens the right to express their own "grass roots" opinions.
Why, oh why didnt the EU arrange for an "EU wide" Referendum on the same day? It would have been very interesting to see the results.
A very big chance of noting public opinion lost, I reckon.
Thanks for the replies, Walter and nimh. I still think it's possible to re-negotiate, but understand why D'Estaing and Chirac are saying it's not. If the French think this is their one and only shot, they'll probably vote 'oui'.
Thanks, Lord E, for the link. Very interesting comments from the 'regular' folks. Interesting to me that the name "D'Estaing" wasn't mentioned once. Perhaps it's not relevant is why
JustWonders wrote: I still think it's possible to re-negotiate, but understand why D'Estaing and Chirac are saying it's not.
How is this possible?
Giscard d'Estaing, btw, headed the work group, which worked out the constitutional convention.
Sure, he could/should have been mentioned as well.
Lord Ellpus wrote:I am just amazed that the Referendum in France is being held on a different day to other Countries within the EU. Why should France take the praise or blame (depending on how you see it) before any other Country has had the chance to have their say.
If it turns out to be "Non", and other Countries cancel their Referenda, surely it denies the EU leaders a true oversight on the feelings of most of its Citizens?
The idea I suppose was to string the referendums with temporal intervals in order to create the sense, as one after the other voted "yes", of momentum, of unavoidability, so that even the most sceptic countries, like the UK, would be carried along by the time it was their turn. Better that, I suppose the thinking was, than risking it all in a one-day gamble.
Kind of a gamble in itself to have the French go first, tho, considering how close its been there before.
I havent got a clue, btw, what will happen after a "non". And I have the unsettling feeling that "they" dont know, either. Could there be a renegotiation? Perhaps. Could it all fall apart? Perhaps. I do have the unnerving sense that, at the moment, they really dont have a Plan B. Like, there for the grace of god we go ...
nimh wrote:I havent got a clue, btw, what will happen after a "non". And I have the unsettling feeling that "they" dont know, either. Could there be a renegotiation? Perhaps. Could it all fall apart? Perhaps. I do have the unnerving sense that, at the moment, they really dont have a Plan B. Like, there for the grace of god we go ...
I think a "oui" vote means Lance Armstrong will again win the Tour de France
Other than that, I'm the most clueless of all
Let's get 25 people in a room; all come from different cultures, economy, religions, and education. What's the chance that all 25 will agree to accept rules and regulations developed by a minority of those 25? If I had to give it odds, it would be very slim, but I think this situation is wholly different from the scenario I painted. There are some motivations for all 25 to come to an agreement; namely the common interests of security, economy, and participation in the world arena. This consolidation will give them some voice.
JustWonders wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:JustWonders wrote: I still think it's possible to re-negotiate, but understand why D'Estaing and Chirac are saying it's not.
How is this possible?
Just my opinion, Walter, that everything has a Plan B.
Giscard d'Estaing, btw, headed the work group, which worked out the constitutional convention.
Sure, he could/should have been mentioned as well.
I meant that I was surprised none of the folks on Lord E's link (discussing their vote and the constitution's merit - or lack thereof) mentioned d'Estaing. Surely they know it's his 'baby'. As I said, it's probably irrelevant....unless he's as disliked in Great Britain as he seems to be in France.
<Perhaps that's just an unfounded rumor I've picked up along the way - that the French dislike d'Estaing>
To be honest with you, the English populace have the same disdain for French politicians as the French population have for ours.
If you asked the British "man in the street" who D'Estaing was, they would have heard of his name, but couldnt tell you what he does at the moment, or did in the past. It only seems to be Chirac that people focus on, and he hates the Brits (well, he hates ANYONE who disagrees with him, really).
Chirac is seen as a very arrogant (and corrupt) man here, and it seems to be the view that France does its best to team with Germany, and between them they run Europe.
If they had the British Referendum FIRST, they would have a resounding NO on their hands. Yet....if you ask the average Brit to explain what the Constitution means, they wouldnt have a clue.
They're not different from 90% of the EU population in this lack of knowledge/interest, I fear.
That 90% is much improvement over American knowledge of Chirac or D'Estaing. I bet no more than 1 percent knows either one! If we talk about "lack of knowledge and/or interest," the number in the US would jump to over 99%.
LOL, c.i. I was thinking that, too
<You can bet they know who Britny Spears is, though>
You have to look at a bit of recent history, to see where the "brits" are coming from on this issue.
When the Euro as a currency was first planned, certain rules were put into place for each Country, in order for them to put their economy right before they could enter.
Failure to achieve these conditions would result in some sort of penalty for non conforming Countries, we were told.
At that time in Britain, these conditions were taken seriously and it meant swingeing cuts in State spending (lots of redundancies in the Public sector), cuts in State borrowing, and massive restructuring of our State Pensions system for the future, with the emphasis on almost forcing people to take out private provision for their Pensions, so they wouldnt be a burden on the State when they retired.
By the deadline, we had met almost every requirement for entry into the Euro, unlike Germany and (I believe) France, (and Italy?, and possibly others), who were a long way off the mark.
When the time approached for the startup of the Euro, it was very apparent that the main players had not got anywhere near getting their houses in order, and this was one of the main factors for us not joining the Euro at that time, as it indicated that the Euro was being introduced on very shaky foundations.
Lo and behold, the rules were changed substantially, I believe (certainly for Germany....Walter can confirm this) and everyone signed up for the Euro on a totally different, much more lax, set of rules (apart from a couple of Countries who stayed out of the Euro, one being Britain.)
This is one of the main causes for concern in Britain....that rules and regulations are put into place, but then changed on a whim when it doesnt suit one or more of the major players.
Britain was warned by the EU, that staying out of the Euro would bring catastrophic results for our economy. Investment money would move away from the Pound Sterling, and into the Euro. Jobs would disappear from Britain, and into the Eurozone.
None of this has happened......quite the reverse, actually. Britain is now one of the leading economies in the EU....low unemployment, high inward investment and a strong currency.
Germany (and France to a lesser extent) are having serious problems at this time......high unemployment, high State spending, and a massive Pensions crisis looming, as it is forecast that their retired population will increase massively over the next ten to twenty years, with the vast majority requiring a pension to be paid by the State (where is this money going to come from?).
So.......the Brits are VERY sceptical about any constitution that is drawn up by main players who A) have been pretty well self serving for their own Countries interests in the past, and B) Have no qualms about changing rules to suit themselves in the future.
We all know it's more complicated than that....but it is my honest opinion that this is the way that Brits will think when/if they have a chance to vote in a Referendum.
Lord Ellpus, The Brits made the right move to stay our of the Euro. Not only are their unemployment rates higher, but their competiveness in the world markets has dramatically decreased resulting for their higher social benefit costs without any control over inflation. The Brits still has control over how your currency fluctuates against the other major currencies of the world by controlling interest rates. None of the Euro countries can do that. Your point about the major players of the EU, specifically Germany and France, changing the rules to fit their own situation doesn't bode well for anybody else. I'd be a little gun-shy to join anything where the control stays with the major players, and they're the only one's that doesn't have to play by the rules. I'd call all the other participants "suckers." They'll have to study the benefits vs liability before they sign on that dotted line.
The other feeling of animosity, comes from a much more basic "fair play" issue, which basically pits us against the French.
Geographically, if you study a map that focuses in on Britain and France, you will see that the nearest crossing point is from Dover (England) to Calais (France).
Now, this is THE main crossing point for imports/ exports to and from Britain.....and the French play on this mercilessly.
The EU's prime function is to ensure that free trade is established between all of its Countries. It theoretically gives a totally level "Playing field" when it comes to trade.
Many times, in recent years, the French Port of Calais has been blockaded by protesting French workers. These are normally a) Lorry drivers, or b) Farm owners/workers.
They are usually protesting against the French Government for some reason (fuel prices, French taxes or work benefits.....shorter hours per week, or longer holidays)......but they nearly always head straight for Calais and block it until they get their way.
The French attitude to the total halting of British exports is basically one of "F*ck the Brits", and causes no end of disruption for our export businesses.
You would not believe the power that these two workforces have in France.....it almost seems as if they run the place at times.
These actions have also included stopping our exports of live sheep as the British lorries enter the French countryside near Calais, threatening the driver and setting loose the livestock.
Why? Because the British had the nerve to supply Europe with Sheep that were cheaper than the French. And that was putting French farming jobs at risk.
So, the so called "free trade" is OK, as long as it suits the French, so it seems.
These actions get MASSIVE coverage in our newspapers, and obviously influence British opinion against anything "political" that comes out of France. It doesnt foster goodwill, to say the least.
So, another reason why the Brits would vote against the Constitution, would be to tell them that the main content was formulated by a Frenchman.
Dont get me wrong.....this is not my personal opinion ....indeed my Brother has lived in France for over twenty years, and I consider his French wife's family as an extension of my own....they are lovely people.
But the aforementioned bad publicity in our newspapers (mainly the downmarket tabloids which, unfortunately a fair proportion of our population take as "gospel") means that most Brits do not trust Europe.
I suspect it was the serious work the British did, partly to qualify fot the original Euro standards as Ellpus described them, ( pension reform; elimination of excess labor market controls;reduction of public debt; government services reform, etc.) that is behind the relatively better economic performance they are delivering. Continental Europe clings to social welfare programs their economies can no longer sustain, given the demographic facts before them. So far their remedy appears to be pressures for international tax harmonization to prevent governments from 'competing economically with one another'. What delusion !
georgeob1 wrote:I suspect it was the serious work the British did, partly to qualify fot the original Euro standards as Ellpus described them, ( pension reform; elimination of excess labor market controls;reduction of public debt; government services reform, etc.) that is behind the relatively better economic performance they are delivering. Continental Europe clings to social welfare programs their economies can no longer sustain, given the demographic facts before them. So far their remedy appears to be pressures for international tax harmonization to prevent governments from 'competing economically with one another'. What delusion !
I think the idea for this uniform tax scheme was inspired by Kurt Vonnegut in his book "Welcome to the Monkey house". In it was a section on a Ballet Troupe, where, because everyone had to be equal, some performers had lead weights attached to their ankles so they couldnt jump higher than their fellow artistes.
It is also a suspicion that these extra taxes will go into a central pot, to ensure that the aforementioned pensions burden in other Countries who have not pre-planned for the looming disaster, will be able to give their citizens a pension when they retire.
There have already been some sensationalised headlines in Brit Newspapers about how we will be paying for European Pensions. I wonder how far off the mark they were?
