nimh wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:In the first place I haven't detected any American "glee' at the French rejection of the EU constitution.
That's odd, though you did already say so before. What about Bill Kristol writing, "Vive la France!"? Or Radek Sikorski of the American Enterprise Institute cheering at the result because it weakened "the most anti-American of European politicians"? .
I have never expressed any delight or pleasure whatever on these threads concerning the French/Dutch rejections of the EU constitution.
More than a month ago I did express the opinion that, at 400+ pages, the document was more a body of settled law than a constitution, and that I thought it an unsuitable charter for such a rapidly expanding political body with so many, as yet unresolved, local differences. Francis and Walter pointed out that the constitution, of necessity, incorporated the provisions of the several layers of previous treaties which defined the Union and governed the admission of member states, albeit in a more compact form. I acknowledged the logic of that argument, and that the EU had previously put that kind of complexity to good use in working out things over time. It has indeed been a component of its success so far. Then came the polls suggesting wavering support in France for the constitution, accompanied by reassurances from Francis, and many others in the press as well, that as the hour drew near French voters would see their responsibilities and vote yes. I believe the result surprised us all equally.
The two commentators Nimh quoted represent the element of the American political spectrum most offended and enraged by French political opposition to policies they have advocated -- their comments are no surprise. However even the comments were anecdotal and not representative of their larger views of our relations with Europe. Moreover they are a minority view in this country. I don't follow any political Blogs, but suppose you can find one or two advocating just about anything.
The fact remains is that I have yet to hear a single expression of "glee" or schadenfreud concerning the French rejection of the constitution from friends, associates, and the people with whom I discuss these things, including several fairly prominent figures at the Hoover Institute. Instead there are expressions of the general surprise at the election result, and sadness at yet another continental European rejection of the competitive realities that confront them. The attitude is much more regret at the irrational behavior of a former friend who is bent on self-destruction and harm to his former associates, but who will likely injure only himself in the process. The overtones here are more of sadness and regret than of condescension. This represents my own reactions as well.
It isn't America's fault that Europe faces social competition and challenge from both the Islamic and Asian worlds and serious economic competition from Asia. It isn't America's fault that Europe cannot sustain the illusion of a risk free life, protected by an all-encompassing social welfare system, and a foreign policy/strategy based on the illusion that challenges will always be met through either negotiation or the sacrifice and struggle of others, not themselves.
Finally, no one here has criticised either the French/Dutch or German process for ratification of the constitution. Helen has correctly noted that we did it through the state legislatures (as did Germany). However that occurred after those states, as a formal confederation, fought and won a bloody five - year revolutionary war, filled with setbacks but ultimately successful. Finally the Constitution so approved served only to define and limit the powers of the new Federal government it created - a very different thing, compared to the European document.
:
