timberlandko wrote:The two votes, coming days apart, signal that the dream of a unified Europe is just that; a dream. June 1 2005 marks a significant turning point in European History.
I don't know, why you put this date - the constitution in its actual form was dead when one country (here: France) opposed.
As far as I know - and you said, you've read it, too - the constitution wasn't about a unifying Europe but a constitution for the member states of the European Union.
georgeob1 wrote:Perhaps then the real challenge for Western Europe is to find political leadership with the persuasive power, foresight and endurance required to tackle the fundamental causes of the economic sclerosis that I believe is at the heart of these events. The threats to their continued social and economic security don't come from new competition from the rising economies in the East or "Anglo Saxon" concepts of ruthless competition, or even the demands of increasingly global markets. They come instead from the fixed idea that they can somehow cling to their protectionist social welfare systems unmodified in the face of new demographic and economic facts, which will ultimately compel them to change, like it or not.
That doesnt seem very democratic, though. To look at what people have voted against and in reponse conclude that what it means is that they need more of it.
Not that it would be a first. Take politics here, in Hungary, or in Poland for that matter. For a good decade after the first free elections of 1990, the Hungarians and Poles kept voting out their governments, deeming them to have implemented all too stringent market reforms. (After all, their living standards did drastically drop for several years, and only reached back the level from before 1989 a decade on.) They kept instead voting opposition parties into power that promised to take more heed to the social aspects of the transition. But as soon as the new government started work, it would revert to privatising and streamlining pretty much the same way, or more enthusiastically, than their predecessors.
That has made turnout and trust in politicians an ever precarious affair, not to mention the boosted support (in Poland) for far-right protest parties. One could well say that, in the EU, the same kind of thinking is exactly what got us in this mess in the first place.
nimh wrote: That doesnt seem very democratic, though. To look at what people have voted against and in reponse conclude that what it means is that they need more of it.
That's true, it isn't democratic at all. But reality is not subject to majority vote. The Tennessee state congress discovered this 100 years ago when it passed a law defining the numerical value of pi to be 3. And legislatures all over Europe are discovering it now, as they pass laws ignoring that to share the wealth, you must first produce it, so your high taxes and overregulation shouldn't drive your most productive people out of the country.
On matters of reality, there is no merit in majority vote, and no vice in doing what's unpopular but correct.
I don't mean to imply that any of this should be done in a way that defies the Democratic process. On the contrary I hope that some political leadership will arise that can effectively paint a realistic picture of the situation and alternatives for fixing it to the voting public. I don't think the present governments of Western Europe are doing that now. Chancellor Schroeder is making a fairly good effort at it now and meeting with strong resistance in the process - a situation that undoubtedly will test him. Margaret Thatcher faced these issues a couple of decades ago in the UK and solved them in a Democratic way, much to the lasting benefit of that country.
Walter Hinteler wrote:timberlandko wrote:The two votes, coming days apart, signal that the dream of a unified Europe is just that; a dream. June 1 2005 marks a significant turning point in European History.
I don't know, why you put this date - the constitution in its actual form was dead when one country (here: France) opposed.
As far as I know - and you said, you've read it, too - the constitution wasn't about a unifying Europe but a constitution for the member states of the European Union.
I'd say the French gut-shot the "Constitution", and the Dutch administered the
coup de grace. Now, I don't postulate this means the end for the EU - just that things will be very interestingly unsettled there for some time to come.
Thomas wrote: According to the standard economic analysis of optimal currency areas, introducing the Euro never was a sensible choice from a strictly macroeconomic point of view
A fellow poster with greater expertise than myself just pointed out to me in a PM that my above statement "wasn't quite accurate as written." Several reputable economists, disagree with it, and _do_ think the Euro was a sensible choice from a strictly macroeconomic point of view. One of those economists is Robert Mundell, who had invented "the standard economic analysis of optimal currency areas", and received the 1999 Nobel Prize in economics for doing so.
My understanding, from reading the relevant chapters in Macroeconomics 101 textbooks by both liberal and conservative authors, is that most macroeconomists have reached conclusions different from Mundell's when they took the framework he'd developed and applied it to the European Union. On that basis, I continue to believe that the EU is not an optimal currency area. Nevertheless, I did overstate my case on this point. Sorry.
Perhaps just a slight overstatement, Thomas. I think, the "Class Warfare" excuse-making aside, that the "Constitution"'s woes come down in large part to sovereignty - simple nationalism. The nations of Europe have developed over the past couple of millenia. Lots more folks see themselves as "French" or "Dutch" or "British" (even "English, Welsh", "Scots", "Irish") than "European". The global economic retrenchment of the late '90s, early 21st Century coincided with the widespread adoption of the Euro, which is the most tangible symbol of the EU. As recession gripped the European economies, many saw not global conditions - macroeconomics - but the Euro as the proximate cause of risng unemployment, inflation, and declining growth.
Of course, that begs the question - was the Euro merely along for the ride, or did its adoption play a part in general economic stagnation? I think the latter unlikely, though some do not. To my mind, the Asian market collapse kicked off the recession; the Euro was just unfortunate to be coming of age when recession went global. Naturally, the rise in petroleum prices as the Asian economies - particularly China - recovered and began devouring the stuff hasn't helped a bit.
Folks tend to blame what they see, and the European, worried about job, pension, and inflation, sees the Euro, and, by extension, the EU. That may explain why "The Elite" were more in favor of the Constitution; they saw beyond the obvious, while "The Average Guy" looked no further than his own wallet; "Things were better", the thinking goes, "when we had the Mark or the Franc or the Guilder, or the Pound". By definition, "The Elite" are a minority demographic. They may have the Right Idea, but unless they can put their Idea into terms The Average Guy will buy, the Idea ain't gonna sell to the Average Guy - without whom, in a democracy, nothing happens.
Thomas, I'm not as well read as you are on macroeconomics, but I believe as you do that a common currency for Europe is a bad idea. Once they lose control of their currency, they can do nothing to control inflation - a major problem with economies that over-heat. Also, economic stability is based not on the currency, but on the ability of the country to ensure that its infrastructure is well established - such as communication, roads, education, health, responsible government spending, and access to energy. A currency in and of itself is not the answer.
timberlandko wrote:the "Class Warfare" excuse-making aside
I take that as meaning you're not going along with my take on the situation then ;-)
timberlandko wrote: Lots more folks see themselves as "French" or "Dutch" or "British" (even "English, Welsh", "Scots", "Irish") than "European".
I would have thought it to be exactly the other way around. (Based on on life experience and travelling through Europe plus what media report[ed].)
What, however, is broadly noticed, is the growing regional identity.
Over in the other thread, I posted the "exhibits" for the case that the referendum results showed up a clear divide by class, which cuts right through several parties - and that it might well presage a revival of collectivist politics (and thus a downturn for liberalism):
Exit poll Dutch referendum: results by level of education
Shows an enormous contrast in vote between highly educated and lowly educated
France has a class struggle again (translation from Dutch)
That article I'd still promised to translate; the French vote as a protest of the "France from below" against the "France from up high"
The common man settles scores (translation from Dutch)
Report from Rotterdam polling stations: working-class voters vote against government, Brussels, studied folks and the whole lot
Dutch referendum: Map of results by local council with list of Top 10 places with highest YES and NO vote
The richest towns in the country voted YES, as did some middle-class suburbs and the odd university town; the fiercest NO was heard in the Bible Belt, rural Communist/Labour strongholds, Rotterdam and the working-class "white flight" suburbs of Rotterdam and Amsterdam
Finally, Walter posted the
Announcement of Dutch PM Balkenende on the referendum
My, my, what a fascinating read this has been. And the list of posters is impressive. Nimn and Walter, of course And cicerone whom I know from his travel theads. Timberlanko, who could drive my blood pressure up. And geogeob and thomas who I have just started following in detail.
The fall in the euro is of no great consequence, I think. It's great for ci, whose next trip to Europe will be cheaper. But in terms of trade where a weak dollar helped US exporters or a weak euro helped European exporters; those days are pretty much over due to the internationalism of manufacturing and distribution.
The collapse (or at lease the postponement) of the concept of a EU is due to the failure of the leaders to convincingly make the argument for the necessity for putting Public Needs above Private Wants.
The leaders failed badly in making their case in France and the Netherlands and, as Nimh suggested in his comments about voting by class, and as Walter suggested in his comment about voting by region.
Is the concept of a EU dead? I would say yes. The great stumbling block to overcome is "Private Wants vs Public Needs." I don't see a politician or groups of politicians who can alter that. -rjb-
rjb, Good post; it includes your personal opinion about the outcome of the EU. Your opinion about the 'high' value of the Euro is spot on, but the Euro countries are suffering from more than just their exchange rate. Their (the big 3) social programs are costing their governments an arm and a leg, and it's a matter of time before something is gonna go BANG! Class warfare not only within each country, but withing the EU itself - country against country. At least, that's my take on this whole mess. It'll be interesting to see how all this plays out in the near and not-so-near future.
I agree with most of realjohnboy's analysis, except his final conclusion.
I do not believe the EU and the collective desire of the European states for unity under some form of rule by law that will preclude wars and promote greater freedom of movement and commerce throughout much of the continent is dead at all. Certainly this has been a serious setback for the current generation of leaders and for the process immediately underway, but I doubt seriously that the larger goal of European unity is badly injured.
I do agree that, in the areas of social welfare programs and other basic competitive processes of life, Europe is beset by a general placing of "private wants above public needs". The generation of Europeans now approaching retirement grew up in the aftermath of the destruction of WWII. They emerged from that to create a sustained period of rapid growth and social development that has few equals in history. During the Cold War a feeling of detachment from the struggles of the contending powers grew slowly and imperceptibly. Perhaps a result of all this is a pervasive desire to insulate Europe from the struggles of an unruly world, even in the face of the serious economic and demographic contradictions that now face them. Western European states cannot long maintain the expensive social welfare systems they now enjoy, and the new member states in Eastern Europe cannot attain their longed for economic growth without exporting competition to the West.
However, Europe must face these challenges with or without a European Union. There is no option to avoid them, and I believe that when that fact is accepted there may follow a general realization that the issues can be far better dealt with as a Union than as individual states. Certainly the previous collective attainment of equivalent goals resides in the living memory of Europeans today. They can do it again if they choose to do so.
I wonder if Maggie Thatcher has any relatives in France?
Thomas wrote:That's true, it isn't democratic at all. But reality is not subject to majority vote. The Tennessee state congress discovered this 100 years ago when it passed a law defining the numerical value of pi to be 3. And legislatures all over Europe are discovering it now
I dont think the economic recipes George is proposing are quite the matter of mathematical law you're trying to make them out to be, Thomas...
ni (I remember the last time a strand of ideologues passed their economic theories off for nothing much less than historical law and scientific fact) mh
Spotted in Le Monde: forget about such oldfashioned creatures as socialists, communists, reformists and Trotskyites; the battle in the Parti Socialiste is now between "ouists" and "nonistes"
nimh wrote:I dont think the economic recipes George is proposing aren't quite the matter of mathematical law you're trying to make them out to be, Thomas...
ni (I remember the last time a strand of ideologues passed their economic theories off for nothing much less than historical law and scientific fact) mh
Marx & Lenin proclaimed that the governing political and social dynamic in the world was a class struggle and that capitalism and private ownership of "the means of production" would collapse as a result of its own internal contradictions - all in accord with a unique understanding of history and its supposed laws which they alone posessed. History has proven them wrong on all counts. I don't think it fair at all to compare this with the simple observation that the social welfare systems and highly regulated labor markets of France, Germany, and other Western European countries cannot be long sustained in the face of the chronic high unemployment, low economic growth, and demographic decline now before them. There is no claim of a novel objective theory of history in this conclusion - just observable, verifiable facts that have already been encountered and successfully dealt with by other countries. Even Chancellor Schroeder has recognized that and begun some half-hearted attempts at reform.
If, as inferred in the article provided by Walter above, Chirac succeeds in persuading the body politic that the defeat of the constitution was a result of the insidious intrusion of Anglo Saxon concepts of brutal competition and implied assaults on a superior French (presumably) concept of social perfection, then he will have done the people of France and of Europe as well a great disservice. This will only deepen the crisis, delay constructive action, and increase the tensions between East and West in Europe.
I believe there is an interesting comparison to be made between this reaction of Chirac (and perhaps the French) to the challenges of EU expansion, and that that of Kohl and Germany at the collapse of the GDR. By comparison the Germans were quite heroic in their readiness to share the economic burdens of lifting the decrepit product of socialism in the GDR out of the seedy torpor into which it had slipped. Unfortunately Germany appears to have become a bit infected with the Socialist disease itself, however again they have begun to deal with its ill effects. Chirac, on the contrary, demands special privilege and protection for France, while he ignores challenges before him that he must face - with or without a European Union.
