FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION

No, Nimh, I didn't misread you - was simply counting under "conservatives" rather more than the Front National.

Giscard was very conservative indeed when he was Secretary of the Treasury, less so subsequently as President, but I count him as conservative still. He had wanted to include a number of items in the text (e.g. exclude Turkey's adherence to the EU in perpetuity) but had to drop them after the 5-year process of "consultation".

Chirac himself was and is a conservative in many ways; he fell into the "Fin de règne" trap (as did de Gaulle before him). Fact is that if you keep repeating "après moi le deluge" at some point your listeners get so fed up they decide "let's see some deluge for a change!"

0 Replies

P.S. Sorry I only had an accent grave handy, so deluge had to go without its accent.

0 Replies

I read the thing in English - over 400 pages. It says this, except when that applies, unless a certain other condition may exist in some fashion, depending on the majority vote of partners, which partners each have differing voting power, which can vary under particular circumstances, while washing is done on tuesdays and goats must be licensed.

Well, to be fair, I just tossed in the part about tuesdays. I think.

0 Replies

From the same article in Der Spiegel (hardly a conservative paper) shades of psychiatric explanation:

"Paris - Es war ein Aufschrei des Zorns, des Schmerzes, der Angst und der Verzweiflung, der die Bürger massenhaft an die Urnen trieb. "
_________________________________________

("It was a massive call of pain, of fear, and of doubt, that drove citizens to the polls.")

_________________________________________

That was a very quick translation - I'm sure Walter can improve on it. Leaving tomorrow for the Middle East again, will look in then Smile

0 Replies

Timber - that's exactly what it said, plus there were 35,000 pages of addenda concerning the exact process of getting licenses for those goats! <G>

0 Replies

Then it was no constitution at all - rather an entire structure of legal governance, filled with the inevitable contradictions and ambiguities, put out for acceptance or rejection in a plebiscite. To succeed with 25 or more nations Europe will have to focus on exactly what it is creating in a new EU government, a clear enumeration of its powers and just where is the line limiting them to the respective states. Twenty pages should do nicely for that purpose.

Despite this the EU has succeeded so far with a more or less equivalent overlay of numerous treaties which were the apparent source for the now dead overlong document rejected by French voters.

Perhaps the lesson here is that, to proceed farther down the road to political unity, Europe must squarely face the issue of sovereignty. The Union is now too big and varied to be long dominated by a Franco-German partnership. The EU has beaten the odds so far in growing, both in extent and in its powers, while preserving the ambiguity of shared sovereignty. One step too many may have ended that.

0 Replies

George - you're right, and if they've learned one thing it's not to call it "constitution" next time!

Thomas, thank you for clearing this up for Walter >>

Thomas wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
HofT wrote:
QED, Walter! You read the German text and still you have no idea what was in it; neither did your legislators who voted on it, as they freely admitted themselves.

(I do hope, the weather will change soon to the better - or whatever the reason is.)

It isn't the weather. On the first part, I guess HofT misread the part about your not knowing everything that's in the old treaties and compacts for your not knowing what's in the constitution. On the second part, about many German legislators freely admitting that they don't really knew the constitution they were voting on, and not even having read it in many cases, I have heard Deutschlandfunk confirm her in a recent feature about the constitution. As you know, Deutschlandfunk has a reputation for well-researched journalism, so this means something.

>> I didn't misread him, was simply noting that the text explicitly incorporates a number of old treaties and agreements, i.e. makes them an "integral part" of the whole. As to the legislators - that was remarked many others in addition to Deutschlandfunk which you quote. Thanks again.

0 Replies

HofT wrote:

No, Nimh, I didn't misread you - was simply counting under "conservatives" rather more than the Front National.

Giscard was very conservative indeed when he was Secretary of the Treasury, less so subsequently as President, but I count him as conservative still. [..] Chirac himself was and is a conservative in many ways; he fell into the "Fin de règne" trap (as did de Gaulle before him).

Well, yes - exactly. So perhaps I am misunderstanding you, then.

You wrote, previously, "2/3 of conservatives voted non". That is simply factually untrue if you do indeed "count rather more than the Front National" under "conservatives".

Chirac is a conservative; his UMP (Union pour la Majorite Presidentielle) is, as well. And the people who support the UMP have voted in favour of the Constitution by a massive 76/24% margin.

Giscard is a conservative; his UDF is as well. And the people who support the UDF voted in favour of the Constitution by the same unambiguous percentages.

There are far more UMP and UDF voters than there are voters of the National Front or de Villiers' MPF, who did indeed vote "non". Therefore, if you add up all the conservative voters, the total is: 65% Oui, 35% Non. France's conservatives voted "Yes" for the Constitution. It's the left's electorate that (sadly) sank it.

This is not rocket science, even if it might confound entrenched preconceptions:

http://www.multicultureelplein.nl/assets/mcplein/extra/images/pref_partisane.gif

(image is a cropped version of the graphs at Le Monde)

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Then it was no constitution at all - rather an entire structure of legal governance, filled with the inevitable contradictions and ambiguities, put out for acceptance or rejection in a plebiscite.

There I think you've pinpointed the problem with the whole project - and I dont just say that for the sake of alliteration.

If the Constitution had been something more corresponding with the spirit of one - a basic declaration of founding principles - you would have had an honest, straightforward vote on whether people wanted to develop Europe further or not.

But now its so totally intransparent what people are exactly voting about in the first place, that wild stories about whats all in there get free reign, people dont feel any personal affinity with the thing, and they feel free to vote according to any (un)related impulse. Result is that the second main reason given by French opponents is that they wanted to express their general "ras-le-bol" (being fed up) with "the current situation".

0 Replies

One of the interesting repercussions as expressed by several pundits from the French non is the fear that the value of the Euro and stock market will go south. Any comments?

0 Replies

I read this the other day and found it rather interesting:

Quote:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2005-05-25-dollar-usat_x.htm

*snip*

The U.S. economy is expected to grow 3.6% this year, three times the rate of growth in the eurozone economies, according to a report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development out Tuesday.

On Monday, the head of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, said he saw "no clear signs as yet of a broadening or strengthening of the growth dynamic" in countries that use the euro.

The high value of the euro is not only hurting European exporters, but also has opened the continent to a surge of Chinese-made clothes and fabrics.

On top of that, high oil prices are burning up corporate profits, Trichet said.

The European Central Bank has little choice but to keep interest rates low, to encourage companies to borrow and invest in their businesses, hire more people and help the economy.

Rising rates in USA boost dollar

Meanwhile, the U.S. Federal Reserve is trying to ward off inflation and raise rates to a more neutral level that neither stimulates nor slows the economy. The Fed has raised its target for short-term interest rates eight times since June, to 3%, and is expected to continue to raise rates through much of 2005 and possibly into 2006.

The widening gap between the two interest rates attracts investors in search of higher returns to the USA. That demand helps boost the value of the dollar."You could see further weakness in the euro, but a "no" vote is priced into the exchange rate as we speak," Quinlan said in an interview.
He predicted that if the French support the constitution instead of turning it down, the euro could rise a few cents to $1.29.

What should U.S. investors do?

William Hummer, chief economist at Wayne Hummer Investments in Chicago, warns against putting too much money in European stock or bond funds. Asian investments are relatively more attractive, he says.
His other piece of advice: "Now's the time to go" to Europe.

Many Americans are already calling their travel agents.

June hotel reservations at the Novotel near Charles de Gaulle airport outside Paris, manager Corrine Ciochon, says, "are the best they've been in six months

0 Replies

JW, Interesting article. Thanks for posting it. Will need to keep up with the news about the competing economies of the EU vs the US and Asia.

0 Replies

NIMH - thank you for the chart; if you read it carefully you'll notice that at the bottom of the first column it says "sans preference partisane: 61%", first, and that Front National, UDF, etc are totalled separately in the same column.

As I observed to Walter the same 2/3 conservative majority for NON is the result of reclassifying the votes - specifically the "for the purposes of this referendum we are non-aligned with any party" i.e. 61% of the total, which is conclusive; hope that's clear to you now and sorry if I didn't make spell it out in detail earlier.

Timber - you and I mentioned the goats, but since I know you love animals as much as I do I'm sure that you too will want to add the reindeer to our list; to their credit, the main editorial of today's Wall Street Journal remembered them:
___________________________________________________________

"The document itself is a monstrosity running to 485 pages. As a flavor of its character, consider that one of the treaty's "annexes and protocols" concerns the right of the Sami people to husband reindeer. "
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006756
___________________________________________________________

With apologies to all animals other than goats and reindeer (inadvertently left out by Timber and me) and renewed thanks to NIMH for letting us all know how to say tomorrow evening "Long Live Holland" in Dutch, may I close until late next month with the resounding call of "Vive la France!"

0 Replies

And for those who missed NIMH's post this is the day after tomorrow's headline:

"Lang Leve Nederland"!

0 Replies

HofT wrote:

NIMH - thank you for the chart; if you read it carefully you'll notice that at the bottom of the first column it says "sans preference partisane: 61%", first, and that Front National, UDF, etc are totalled separately in the same column.

As I observed to Walter the same 2/3 conservative majority for NON is the result of reclassifying the votes - specifically the "for the purposes of this referendum we are non-aligned with any party" i.e. 61% of the total, which is conclusive; hope that's clear to you now

Not in the least I am afraid. I have now quite lost you, I think. There is a "2/3 conservative majority for NON" because those without party-preference voted against the Constitution?

Let me sort this out here. Le Pens Front National, Giscard's UDF and Chirac's UMP are indeed totalled separately in one row, where it says "Droite (UDF, UMP, RPF, FN, MNR)".

These are the parties whose leaders (Chirac, Giscard) you dubbed conservative in your post just above.

Counted altogether, their vote was, as you see, quite clear: 35% du Non, 65% du Oui. Two thirds of these conservative partisans voted in favour of the Constitution.

The left-wing parties are similarly totalled together separately in the top row, where it says "Gauche". Of their supporters, 67% voted du Non, and 33% du Oui. Two thirds of the leftwing partisans voted against the Constitution.

But indeed, at the bottom of the column there is another row that says "sans preference partisane". Here you'll find how those without party preference voted. 61% Non and only 39% Oui: those without party preference voted clearly against the Constitution.

So, there we are. Back to your post. Am I to understand that supporters of the conservative parties voted overwhelmingly in favour of the Constitution, but because those without party preference voted in majority against there is nevertheless a "2/3 conservative majority for NON"? That doesn't make sense, at all.

0 Replies

Doch! Mais oui! Si! Yes, NIMH, that's exactly what it does mean! Damn I never learned any Dutch (or Danish, either, I would have loved to read Kierkegaard in the original and pronounce Rembrandt van Rijn correctly, but life is brief) or I would be able to explain this better - sorry and pls excuse me for vanishing until end of June. Walter, George, Blatham and others here know how to reach me overseas - how's Hungary doing btw, still murdering Gypsies and so on, eh?! <G>

0 Replies

First random, gut thoughts (not fbaezer's style), without enough reading done (not fabezer's style either).

The French made a big mistake.
The Dutch will make another one.
The Americans are joyful: a setback for the one superpower able to contend the US.

This tells me there has been a big underlying problem in the building of the EU and it only has surfaced now.

The EU will be consociative or will not be.
Germans understand this. Italians understand this. Spaniards understand this. Why? They were never liberal economically. The State had a lot to do with their modern nation building.

The opposite occurs in old capitalist nations, with a long long story of economic liberalism: the ever euroskeptic UK being the most significant case.
France and the Netherlands, nations with a similar economic history can not be that different.

-----

And I would like to know more about the mores of the Sami people Smile

.

0 Replies

Anyone who wants to know about the Sami people can look them up - they're the peoples of the Arctic circle in northern Scandinavia. I've gone hunting there since I was a little girl and can assure posters that the Sami people abide by the ancestral religion of other northern peoples when it comes to Arctic sled-dogs (this being the only religion that ever made perfect sense to me). The main precept of their religion is:

"The Gates to Heaven are Guarded by All the Dogs You Had in Your Life" Smile

0 Replies

HofT, An addendum to that quote is "The Gates to Life Is Your Dog."

0 Replies

fbaezer wrote:

First random, gut thoughts (not fbaezer's style), without enough reading done (not fabezer's style either).

The French made a big mistake.
The Dutch will make another one.
The Americans are joyful: a setback for the one superpower able to contend the US.

fbaezer,

I don't know just what Americans you had in mind in your third point above. I haven't detected any pleasure in the outcome of the French referendum either in our media or among friends or associates. On the contrary it is very much in the U.S. interest that the European states overcome their current economic sclerocis and the political and social tensions that go with it. There is still an EU and it will presumably function more or less as before. The political unity of Europe on issues that affect the United States is neither increased nor decreased as a result of this election. The fact is that Europe, even if united is not a superpower and is not likely to seriously challenge the United States any more than it has already done - we have far too many interests in common. Europe faces serious economic and demographic issues which it must correct to be able to long sustain the standard of living it enjoys now. I believe the U.S. government would warmly welcome any action on the part of the European states to seriously address these issues - whther united or not.

0 Replies

FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know