EU constitution votes - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 06-03-2005, 06:10 AM

i ran across this edito in the guardian this morning and thought it came from an interesting vantagepoint, so launch the thread around it:

source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0...498257,00.html

Quote:

Europe's secure, well-paid leaders have caused the crisis

The public must be convinced that the EU is a safeguard against globalisation

Robin Cook
Friday June 3, 2005
The Guardian

A number of us from the pro-European wing of the trade unions and the Labour party got together this week for group therapy. Hilariously we had originally planned the meeting to decide how we would sell a yes vote in a British referendum that now lies buried beneath a mountain of French nons and Dutch nees. In the event our clandestine gathering in an attic room up a back staircase took on the character of an embattled resistance plotting how to fight back.

At least we are spared another wasted year trying to excite the interest of the British public about the finer points of the 448 clauses of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's draft constitution. I always did have my doubts about how long I could keep passers-by in my local shopping mall in conversation on whether it was time for the council of ministers to move on from a six-month rotating presidency.

There are many useful steps for the better in the new treaty and I have a lot of continental friends who have spent the best part of two years trying to perfect its text, but the harsh truth is that the whole exercise has been an extravagant diversion of energy, imagination and time that would have been far better put into addressing the legitimacy of the European project among the public. We have all behaved in a way that almost lives up to the caricature of Europe as an institution that exists for the perpetual extrusion of ever-longer treaties that meet the preoccupations of the political elites rather than the priorities of its peoples.

It would be a strategic blunder if Tony Blair was to let the British presidency waste the second half of this year in scrabbling around in the rubble of the recent referendums to find what can be salvaged from the collapse of the constitution. The priority must be to move the debate about Europe away from process and on to outcome. This is all the more essential as process is about how top politicians arrive at communiques in exclusive summits, while outcome is about how it all benefits the lives of the public.

There is an unhealthy tendency these days to regard a concern with the practical benefits to real people of European integration as some kind of sellout on the grand vision. This is not a perspective to which Jean Monnet and the founding fathers would have given house room. There could have been nothing more intensely pragmatic than where they started with the creation of a common market in iron and steel. If Monnet were to return now I suspect his first response would be delight that the seed which he planted has produced the largest, richest single market anywhere in the world, bigger even than the GDP of the US. His second reaction would be incomprehension that the current generation of politicians do not talk more about what this means to their public in terms of increased trade and jobs, and of greater competition that has halved the price of airline flights and telephone calls around the continent.

It is commonplace to talk about a democratic deficit in Europe, but in truth the immediate problem in the present crisis is a leadership deficit. The referendum debacles catch Europe at what is possibly the first time in its history when all the leaders of the big four nations are serving out their time, waiting to be replaced. What Europe needs are credible figures with a political future who can convince the public that the European Union is a necessary, effective response to the pressures of a globalised economy.

That must not be confused with turning Europe into the conduit by which those pressures are brought home most painfully to its people. There are too many people who believe they demonstrate they are modern by lecturing the workers on the need to work longer for less security and for poorer pensions. All too often they themselves turn out to enjoy well-paid jobs with good pensions and lifelong job security. It is for other people to make the painful adjustment to globalisation that they preach.

If the European Union allows itself to be labelled as part of the forces of globalisation it is doomed to fail in any project to rebuild public support. There are warning signs from the recent referendum campaigns, particularly from the hostility of the young, that too many people already equate the European Union with the pressures that are eroding their job security and quality of life. The challenge is to persuade them that the European Union is an intelligent way of meeting those pressures by forging a continental economy on the same scale as the US or China. Those who are most worried about globalisation are the very people who should be most supportive of the European Union.

If Tony Blair wants to use the British presidency to kick-start such a project to restore the credibility of Europe among its peoples, there are two changes of direction that would help.

The first is to stop talking about economic reform as if it were a threat. The French and German public may go along with our economic agenda if we present it as the road to full employment and prosperity, but not if we constantly lecture them on the necessity of giving up their job security and letting deregulation open the window to the chill winds of laissez-faire competition. A touch of humility before embarking on these lectures would also not come amiss. Both France and Germany after all have much higher productivity and greater investment than ourselves and, despite our superior conviction that we know how to handle the global economy, they have big trade surpluses with it while we have a whopping deficit.

The second is to stop standing in the way of the popular measures that do come out of Europe. Why should Downing Street make it an issue of principle that British workers be denied the European limit of 48 hours on the average working week, when they know it would be popular with the great majority of those who are forced to work excessive hours? Should it not be part of any progressive package of economic reform to remove one of the reasons why British business does not face up to poor productivity per hour?

In return the left should resist the Newtonian dynamic of being anti-Europe because Tony Blair is pro-Europe. There is no point in complaining about George Bush if we do not create in a united Europe the one alternative powerful enough to offer another world vision. Anyone who doubts that should pause to consider the balance of forces at the forthcoming G8 summit, where any progress on Africa or climate change will only happen if European leaders put up a more united front than their peoples have over the past week.

so from cook's perspective, the no votes from the left in france and holland stems from the association of the eu with globalization.
many articles from the french left talk more about the lack of democratic accountability in the institutions that the constitution would formalize.
what do you think the votes in france and holland mean?
what do you think drove them?
do you think cook is correct in his assessment?

there was also considerable far right opposition to the eu constitution in both places--for these segments, i expect that primary reason for opposition was fear of loss of national sovereignty.
i have little patience with this type of argument myself, but it appears to have mobilized folk.

what do you think the consequences of these votes will be?
who benefits? who looses?

Charlatan · 06-03-2005, 06:23 AM

I don't pretend to know all that much about what is happening in the EU but my take is that the general vote against the constitution was grounded in the beast of nationalism...

The French were reacting to losing jobs in France to other parts of the EU. The Dutch seemed to be reacting to the potential of having their liberal laws (euthenasia, drugs, same sex marriage, etc.) somehow tempered but the larger political entity of Europe as a whole (i.e. the Catholics in Italy, Spain and France might try to force them to the right of the social spectrum).

I'm not sure what the answer is as I don't think I fully understand all that is at stake.

Ultimately, I think the EU must goe back to the drawing board with their constitution.

jwoody · 06-03-2005, 06:29 AM

To many people on this continent Europe is a place in Belgium where our taxes are squandered.

My guess is that the NO vote is a message to the un-elected career politicians, telling them to get their arses back home and find a proper job.

stevo · 06-03-2005, 06:44 AM

I'm not sure about those votes themselves, but I do think the EU constitution moves away from freedom and toward a larger government role that supercedes that of individual nation's rights. Why someone in one european country would want to subjugate themself to a power outside their own country is beyond me. I can try and understand the rational behind the EU constitution, but the EU would make more sense to me if it were aimed at being an association of european countries rather than an extra layer of government above nation's freely elected leaders.

The more power the EU is given, the more freedoms of the european people will be degraded along with a worsening economy.

Here's a short blurb I found that provides just one example.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2005/0425/097.html

Quote:

Liberty, European-Style Dan Seligman, 04.25.05

The EU has funny ideas about human rights. For example, the idea that free speech is not among those rights. Viewed from 3,000 miles away, the European Union looks like a kind of parallel United States. On both sides of the Atlantic, living standards are high, government is democratic and educated people speak English.

View it up close and you see striking differences. One of them is that America has the First Amendment and Europe doesn't. You can argue endlessly about whether the Founding Fathers intended the free speech clause--"Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech"--to protect flag-burning and nude dancing. But news stories from assorted Old World democracies make a persuasive case that they badly need a First Amendment over there. Not impeded by one, governments engage in a degree of speech suppression unimaginable in the U.S.

A lot of the suppression takes place via national "speech codes" somewhat similar to those imposed on numerous American campuses in the 1990s but repeatedly struck down by First Amendment rulings. Here, for example, is a news story (broadcast by the BBC) reporting that Croatia, currently a candidate for EU membership, is broadening its laws against "hate speech" so that it would be criminal to engage in "spreading racism and xenophobia." Here is another story reporting that a respected political scientist in Finland--he happens to be the father of the country's prime minister--was being investigated by the "central criminal investigation department" for an interview he gave to a newspaper, in which he expressed the view that Africa's economic problems reflected low intelligence, not the heritage of colonialism. (He was eventually cleared.)

Sweden has a law barring "inflammatory" remarks directed at racial or religious groups, or homosexuals. A pastor who had delivered an anti-gay sermon was sentenced to a 30-day jail term, was then acquitted on appeal and is now awaiting the outcome of a further appeal to the country's Supreme Court. Sweden also has a "minister for gender equality," who has decreed that male-female behavioral differences "are created by upbringing, culture, economic conditions, power structures and political ideology." The gender equality minister's ruling was recently assailed by a columnist for the influential Stockholm newspaper Aftonbladet, who said the ruling had prevented publication of a book that included an interview with a neurobiologist discussing male-female brain differences. Many of the speech codes target neo-Nazi sympathizers who deny or minimize the Holocaust, and there have been numerous prosecutions under these laws in France and Germany.

It sounds incredible, or possibly not, but among the greatest threats to free speech in Europe is a document called the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The charter, proclaimed at an EU summit in 2000 and now incorporated into the provisional EU Constitution, comprises a blizzard of rights: rights for children, for women (they have a right to preference in areas wherein they are underrepresented), for asylum-seekers, for workers and employers (both are said to have a right to collective bargaining), for murderers (they have a right not to suffer capital punishment) and for the disabled. There is a right to marry, a right to privacy, a right to a good education and a lot more--including a right to freedom of expression. These rights are enumerated in 53 articles. But the final article is not a right. Headed "Prohibition of abuse of rights," it states: "Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as implying any right to engage in any activity … aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized in this Charter or at their limitation."

This seems highly problematic. If someone were to mount a campaign favoring the death penalty, or opposing collective bargaining, or opposing preferences for women, or limiting the options of asylum-seekers, this would plainly constitute an effort to destroy rights recognized in the Charter--an activity characterized as an "abuse of rights" and therefore prohibited. The Bruges Group, a think tank in London, has published an essay arguing this case. The essay was written by Brian Hindley, a British economist, and was endorsed (in a prefatory note) by Oliver Letwin, who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Tory "shadow cabinet."

The threat posed by the final article has thus far received little publicity, and it seems safe to say that very few Brits are aware of an EU threat to freedom of speech on their island. It also appears that very few members of the EU bureaucracy are aware of Hindley's argument. It was certainly news to the bureaucrat I discussed it with--a European Commission spokesman on cultural issues--who immediately pronounced it nonsense.

But who never properly accounted for the plain wording of the Charter, or his continent's ragged record on free speech.

roachboy · 06-03-2005, 06:54 AM

http://www.unizar.es/euroconstitucio.../part_I_EN.pdf

here is the text of the proposed constitution.
it is quite long, and is downloadable as a series of pdfs.

jwoody · 06-03-2005, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

it is quite long,

You've hit the nail on the head there.

pac-man · 06-03-2005, 07:03 AM

When you work less, retire earlier and live longer than everyone else, is it any wonder you would oppose change?

<a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/27/business/wbmarket28.php">Off the Charts: French retire early and live long</a>

I don't have my finger on the pulse of the French people, nor the Norwegians - but I expect the quality of life issue played some role in the opposition to the EU constitution.

Ustwo · 06-03-2005, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pac-man

When you work less, retire earlier and live longer than everyone else, is it any wonder you would oppose change?

<a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/27/business/wbmarket28.php">Off the Charts: French retire early and live long</a>

I don't have my finger on the pulse of the French people, nor the Norwegians - but I expect the quality of life issue played some role in the opposition to the EU constitution.

And have major unemployment problems, and complain about every nation with lower taxes as being 'unfair'.

Every rose has its thorn.

ubertuber · 06-03-2005, 07:42 AM

This Thomas Friedman column was posted to the NY Times site yesterday.

Quote:

June 3, 2005
A Race to the Top

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Bangalore, India

It was extremely revealing traveling from Europe to India as French voters (and now Dutch ones) were rejecting the E.U. constitution - in one giant snub to President Jacques Chirac, European integration, immigration, Turkish membership in the E.U. and all the forces of globalization eating away at Europe's welfare states. It is interesting because French voters are trying to preserve a 35-hour work week in a world where Indian engineers are ready to work a 35-hour day. Good luck.

Voters in "old Europe" - France, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy - seem to be saying to their leaders: stop the world, we want to get off; while voters in India have been telling their leaders: stop the world and build us a stepstool, we want to get on. I feel sorry for Western European blue collar workers. A world of benefits they have known for 50 years is coming apart, and their governments don't seem to have a strategy for coping.

One reason French voters turned down the E.U. constitution was rampant fears of "Polish plumbers." Rumors that low-cost immigrant plumbers from Poland were taking over the French plumbing trade became a rallying symbol for anti-E.U. constitution forces. A few weeks ago Franz Müntefering, chairman of Germany's Social Democratic Party, compared private equity firms - which buy up failing businesses, downsize them and then sell them - to a "swarm of locusts."

The fact that a top German politician has resorted to attacking capitalism to win votes tells you just how explosive the next decade in Western Europe could be, as some of these aging, inflexible economies - which have grown used to six-week vacations and unemployment insurance that is almost as good as having a job - become more intimately integrated with Eastern Europe, India and China in a flattening world.

To appreciate just how explosive, come to Bangalore, India, the outsourcing capital of the world. The dirty little secret is that India is taking work from Europe or America not simply because of low wages. It is also because Indians are ready to work harder and can do anything from answering your phone to designing your next airplane or car. They are not racing us to the bottom. They are racing us to the top.

Indeed, there is a huge famine breaking out all over India today, an incredible hunger. But it is not for food. It is a hunger for opportunity that has been pent up like volcanic lava under four decades of socialism, and it's now just bursting out with India's young generation.

"India is the oldest civilization, the largest democracy and the youngest population - almost 70 percent is below age 35 and almost 50 percent is 25 and under," said Shekhar Gupta, editor of The Indian Express. Next to India, Western Europe looks like an assisted-living facility with Turkish nurses.

Sure, a huge portion of India still lives in wretched slums or villages, but more and more of the young cohort are grasping for something better. A grass-roots movement is now spreading, demanding that English be taught in state schools - where 85 percent of children go - beginning in first grade, not fourth grade. "What's new is where this movement is coming from," said the Indian commentator Krishna Prasad. "It's coming from the farmers and the Dalits, the lowest groups in society." Even the poor have been to the cities enough to know that English is now the key to a tech-sector job, and they want their kids to have those opportunities.

The Indian state of West Bengal has the oldest elected Communist government left in the world today. Some global technology firms recently were looking at outsourcing there, but told the Communists they could not do so because of the possibility of worker strikes that might disrupt the business processes of the companies they work for. No problem. The Communist government declared information technology work an "essential service," making it illegal for those workers to strike. Have a nice day.

"This is not about wages at all - the whole wage differential thing is going to reduce very quickly," said Rajesh Rao, who heads the innovative Indian game company, Dhruva. It is about people who have been starving "finally seeing the ability to realize their dreams." Both Infosys and Wipro, India's leading technology firms, received more than one million applications last year for a little more than 10,000 job openings.

Yes, this is a bad time for France and friends to lose their appetite for hard work - just when India, China and Poland are rediscovering theirs.

I do think that a large part of this popular opposition stems from the perception that unification will speed the effects of globalization in Europe by bringing the economies of Eastern and Western Europe closer. We see those same protectionist/isolationist instincts back here in the US as well when discussions of tariffs and living wages are brought up. I'm definitely not saying that these fears are unfounded either - for unification will necessitate an equalizing process in Europe.

I also put more of this into national identity than Friedman does. I wouldn't say that the French and Dutch are lazy or not hungry. I think they see their worker's rights as part of their unique national character and are loathe to give them up - especially when they see weaker economies such as Italy not playing by the rules. Similarly, much has been made of the specter of Turkish membership in the EU, and the demographic shift that it would bring. Nationalism and xenophobia are not so distant from each other - not on either side of the Atlantic. I'm sure the EU seemed like a grand idea while it was restricted to countries that saw themselves as springing from a common place - but it can be easy to get cold feet when you see what unification will really mean.

I also read an article in the NY Times about the content of the proposed constitution (I'm going to read the whole thing later today - thanks roachboy). It did seem to have a lot of silliness in it, including many empty words about things like affirming the dignity of athletes. It's a bloated document - which I believe will limit its usefulness by making it inflexible.

From an outside perspective, I see a more meaningful unification of Europe as bitter medicine for Western Europe. It would cause some hardship and some nations would have to sacrifice parts of their identity - but taking some of these lumps now will make Europe more stable in the future. I do think that these votes (and the fact that it doesn't seem that Chirac saw this result coming) show that the European leadership is out of touch with the people they work for. Certainly they have failed to sell their vision to the public.

pac-man · 06-03-2005, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

And have major unemployment problems, and complain about every nation with lower taxes as being 'unfair'.

Every rose has its thorn.

The never ending socialist vs. capitalist discussion.

I suppose it depends on your position - if you want your country to have lower unemployment (and lower unemployment support) you can sacrifice your own life expectancy, retirement age and personal time. In that sense, I suppose capitalism is the ultimate sacrifice and the socialists are greedy.

Cynthetiq · 06-03-2005, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

http://www.unizar.es/euroconstitucio.../part_I_EN.pdf

here is the text of the proposed constitution.
it is quite long, and is downloadable as a series of pdfs.

Thank you.

I have been trying to follow and understand this since I was in Madrid in February during their ratification of the EU Constitution. I wasn't able to follow it as closely as I wanted to because my Spanish isn't great and my Castillian is even worse.

I read over what text I could find when I was there and I was surprised at marked differences like the freedom of speech portion.

I shelved the topic not too long ago and am glad to see this thread so that I can continue to learning process to it.

Ustwo · 06-03-2005, 08:18 AM

Excellent article Uber, thanks.

I think Western society has gotten lazy as a whole, and we are getting the wakeup call. At some point we need to recapture the idea that hard work is a virtue not a burden.

Cynthetiq · 06-03-2005, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Excellent article Uber, thanks.

I think Western society has gotten lazy as a whole, and we are getting the wakeup call. At some point we need to recapture the idea that hard work is a virtue not a burden.

well stated.

Apparently we're more worried that Johnny's self esteem is going to be hurt because he didn't get picked first, or played tag and was demeaned because he was "it".

roachboy · 06-03-2005, 08:58 AM

i dont think american conservatives are in a position to say very much about the situation being created across the eu as a function of a neoliberal meta-state coming into conflict with the welfare states amongst members--too much actual detail, not reducible to claims about the moral superiority of total worker powerlessness dressed up as bromides about "hard work"--this latter perspective only makes sense, to the degree that it does, from the situation of somone who really knows nothing about what is at stake in these votes, nothing about the history of the welfare state, nothing about the history of the trade union movement, nothing about the idea that work in the capitalist mode is shot through and through with political questions--it is only possible to not know about these things in the context of the american system, which mobilized fairly massive repression against political trade union movements early in the 20th century, promoted the self-defeating model of sector monopoly once trade unions were seen to be inevitable (despite ongoing corporate and state violence through the 1940s--river rouge anyone?), and which developed collective bargaining as a mechanism for the total co-optation of these sector monopoly style unions....

the american order is but one options within a range, one historical model amongst others--folk who cheerlead this model from the inside do not for that have any particular vantagepoint on capitalism in general, its histories, its politics--rather, from this particular reactionary form of capitalism, organized around the total irrelevance of working people, characterized in the present in part by a sustained ideological assault on the whole idea of the public, which underpins the ability of citizens to organize themselves and take power from capital--from a conservative position within this particular context, based on no discernable information, this is how the european situation looks.

one of the more cogent arguments about the eu in its present form that has been advanced from almost the ouset concerns the lack of democratic accountability of the institutions. in its present form, the eu could reduce nation-states to a kind of political cul-de-sac--pressure could be brought to bear on the state previously, and existing models for doing so are all organized around the state--the nature of the eu is different, and the non-representative chacter of the institutions, and in particular of the professional cadres within those institutions, who appear to be almost uniformly neoliberal ideologically--this poses a real problem. so on those grounds, i would think the rejection of the constitution not entirely a bad thing because i would see it as a rejection of this particular version of the eu, not the eu as such.

that this would escape the attention of conservatives in the states is no surprise: much of their politics are about self-disempowerment reframed through the language of hortaio alger novels.

most analyses seem to understand the problem as having been insufficient marketing on the part of the governments like chirac's--and a reflection of opposition to the non-democratic character of this framework having been taken out on the governments in power--and a rather large fuck you to these same governments for local reasons.

Dragonlich · 06-03-2005, 10:26 AM

Being Dutch, I've seen the discussion about yes/no going on for a while now.
I'd say the main arguments for saying no are: (I was in favor of the constitution, by the way, so this isn't going to be an objective assessment...)

1) it's going too fast, and we don't like it. The EU is "out there", and we don't know what it does. There's a lot of shady politicians there, and who knows what they're up to.

2) It costs too much. We pay a lot of money, and the EU appears to spend it all on politicians' salaries and regional aid for southern Europe. What's in it for us???

3) The Euro has been a rip-off. There's been a heated debate recently about the introduction of the Euro a few years ago. Apparently, our former currency was valued too low when we introduced the Euro. People associate this with the fact that inflation was higher after the Euro.

4) We don't like the current Dutch administration. Voting "no" was seen as a good way to say FU to them.

5) The constitution goes too far. We'll lose a lot of influence, and who knows what'll happen? Maybe we'll be forced to put an end to our liberal drugs policies, and our liberal laws concerning abortion and/or euthanasia.

6) The constitution doesn't go far enough. The environment isn't mentioned enough. And various countries will be able to hurt poor innocent animals because it'll be protected as "cultural values".

Sure, there were some reasonable arguments, but mostly it was about fear. We know what we have, and don't know what we'll get.

Ustwo · 06-03-2005, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonlich

Sure, there were some reasonable arguments, but mostly it was about fear. We know what we have, and don't know what we'll get.

Then a no vote makes sense. If you don't know what you are getting out of something, jumping into it seems like a bad idea to me.

Dragonlich · 06-04-2005, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Then a no vote makes sense. If you don't know what you are getting out of something, jumping into it seems like a bad idea to me.

Yeah, that's what a lot of people keep saying: there wasn't a "yes, except for..." option, so they voted no.

Most people didn't care to read the European "constitution" they were supposed to vote on, but listened to various people highlighting their favorite negative element. Basically, the text was too complex and there was too much of it. Even I would have prefered a simple constitution (like the US constitution for example). But because it *isn't* a constitution, but a combination of lots and lots of older agreements, this wasn't possible.

The problem with this no vote is politics, of course. European leaders have boldly announced that there is no plan B. It's either this, or nothing. Since it's going to be nothing, we might get some economic fall-out. The future is uncertain, and uncertainty isn't good when your economy is already struggling.

Related news: more and more questions emerge about the Euro as a currency. People are asking for it to be scrapped, without looking at the negative consequences. They want back to the good olde days, which simply isn't an option. But the results are obvious: the Euro is already losing out against the dollar, and this may become worse.

(That last bit isn't totally bad, by the way. For the Netherlands, it may mean equal or higher exports to Europe, and definately higher exports to the rest of the world. Let's hope the negative bits don't ruin the overal effect.)

host · 06-04-2005, 10:40 AM

An "aside" about forces tugging at the euro:

Quote:

http://business.scotsman.com/economy.cfm?id=611292005
..........The other, is that last week's bonfire of assumptions about the common interests of Eurozone members could perversely work as a positive.

Even if the ECB is barred by treaty from bailing out profligate members, Italy for example, should its economy collapse, the markets implicitly assume that they would, hence the narrow spread between member governments' bond yields. Less solidarity means less fiscal co-ordination, and the chance the spreads between the bonds of Germany, with its 66 per cent debts, and Italy, with 106 per cent should widen.

If governments, tempted to over-borrow with impunity, have learned the folly of doing so from last week's effective political loosening, the euro may even emerge stronger.

ONE SIZE FITS FEW: ITALY ON THE BRINK

UNCHALLENGED as the sick man of the eurozone, Italy desperately needs to borrow more, and to devalue. But devaluation is the last thing needed by faster-growing euro members such as Spain and Ireland...........

roachboy, hilarious observation:
"that this would escape the attention of conservatives in the states is no surprise: much of their politics are about self-disempowerment reframed through the language of hortaio alger novels."

IMO, never have so many Americans voted against their own interests and those of the economic well being and future economic opportunities of their own families, as they have in the red states in 2000 and 2004. This phenomena is the tip of the "self-disempowerment" iceberg that you so aptly phrase it to be.

Seaver · 06-04-2005, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Related news: more and more questions emerge about the Euro as a currency. People are asking for it to be scrapped, without looking at the negative consequences. They want back to the good olde days, which simply isn't an option. But the results are obvious: the Euro is already losing out against the dollar, and this may become worse.

I dont want to sound smug or anything but everyone knew this was going to happen. Very few of the countries in Europe have good self-sustaining economies. It was an obvious FU when they set the Euro to such a high value compared to the Dollar. Unfortunately the economies of Europe could not sustain the high value, as well as the sudden added expense of tourism because of the exchange rate many Americans simply stopped going there, further hurting the economies.

Quote:

IMO, never have so many Americans voted against their own interests and those of the economic well being and future economic opportunities of their own families, as they have in the red states in 2000 and 2004. This phenomena is the tip of the "self-disempowerment" iceberg that you so aptly phrase it to be.

IMO "self-disempowerment" is those who seek to make the government forcably redistribute wealth. Now I'm not against a progressive tax system, but the extent of redistribution many people seek is simply rediculous. When I graduate I expect a well paying job. I paid for 4 years of college on my own because my family could not afford it. Why do I want to turn around and hand over more than 50% of my income to those people who dropped out of high school because they didnt like to learn? That is self-disempowerment IMO.

Dragonlich · 06-04-2005, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

I dont want to sound smug or anything but everyone knew this was going to happen. Very few of the countries in Europe have good self-sustaining economies. It was an obvious FU when they set the Euro to such a high value compared to the Dollar. Unfortunately the economies of Europe could not sustain the high value, as well as the sudden added expense of tourism because of the exchange rate many Americans simply stopped going there, further hurting the economies.

You make it sound as if the politicians are to blame for the exchange rate of the Euro vs. the dollar.

Initially, the Euro was set high against the dollar. During the next few months, the Euro lowered in value. I remember it being lower than 1:1. But recently, the Euro has gone up again. This can only happen if international trade forces the Euro up. It's not something the politicians can control.

Some European economies can sustain the higher value, while some can't. We in the Netherlands would prefer a lower Euro, because it'll mean more trade with the US. OTOH, unless Europe *also* increases it's imports from the US, the Euro would go up again. (and that increase is unlikely, given the higher price we'd need to pay!)

The fact that Europe is getting more expensive for Americans is a good thing. Your imports are too high compared to your exports. The exchange rates respond to that by making imports more and exports less expensive.

The whole discussion about getting rid of the Euro has little to do with the exchange rate of the Euro vs the dollar. It's about countries (such as Italy) wanting to control their economies using interest rates and exchange rates (vs the rest of Europe), at the expense of higher inflation.
Dutch people who want to do the same, seem to forget that our currency and interest rates had been linked to the German rates long before the Euro arrived.

Ustwo · 06-04-2005, 10:26 PM

From a self interest stand point, I see the EU as bad for the US, at least in the near term.

The EU allows Europe to take a united stand against the US (like with steel tarriffs) where if there was no EU it would need to be done country by country. Collectively the EU can get its way easier.

I also am not very comfortable with the EU supplanting NATO. Its apparent to me that one of the goals for some members of the EU is supercede NATO. This makes me uneasy as there may come a time in the not so distant future where a more united front against China or even Russia would be needed.

That being said I don't wish to see the EU totally fail. Europe has got to be the most bloody and fought over piece of land in the world which has seen very little peace. As unthinkable as it is to some people, you can't discount the possibility of there being another major European war. The EU could help prevent this by making such a conflict impossible, or at least uniting everyone against the future aggressor.

The problem of course is can nations and people who have been fighting over the same few 1000 square miles of land since before the Romans, ever really be united by a bureaucracy?

I'd like to think yes, but I don't see it happening.

Mephisto2 · 06-06-2005, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

From a self interest stand point, I see the EU as bad for the US, at least in the near term.

The EU allows Europe to take a united stand against the US (like with steel tarriffs) where if there was no EU it would need to be done country by country. Collectively the EU can get its way easier.

I also am not very comfortable with the EU supplanting NATO. Its apparent to me that one of the goals for some members of the EU is supercede NATO. This makes me uneasy as there may come a time in the not so distant future where a more united front against China or even Russia would be needed.

That being said I don't wish to see the EU totally fail. Europe has got to be the most bloody and fought over piece of land in the world which has seen very little peace. As unthinkable as it is to some people, you can't discount the possibility of there being another major European war. The EU could help prevent this by making such a conflict impossible, or at least uniting everyone against the future aggressor.

The problem of course is can nations and people who have been fighting over the same few 1000 square miles of land since before the Romans, ever really be united by a bureaucracy?

I'd like to think yes, but I don't see it happening.

Very well said.

Personally I'm sorry to see the referenda fail in France and the Netherlands. I think in both cases they were reactions against their respective governments more than a reflection on widespread disenchanctment with Europe (and the EU specifically).

Call me a European Federalist. The sooner we have a "United States of Europe" the better; at least in my book.

Mr Mephisto

Elphaba · 06-06-2005, 09:55 PM

I agree with you Mr. Mephisto. The swinging dick of the only super power needs to relearn the art of diplomacy. A unified Europe would go a long ways toward that.

Seaver · 06-07-2005, 12:42 AM

Quote:

I agree with you Mr. Mephisto. The swinging dick of the only super power needs to relearn the art of diplomacy. A unified Europe would go a long ways toward that.

A small hint... when talking about diplomacy it's a good idea to use tact in attempting to bring people to your viewpoint. Describing the US as a "swinging dick" is about as affective of declaring someone's mother as a whore... then expecting him to side with you.

Mephisto2 · 06-07-2005, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

A small hint... when talking about diplomacy it's a good idea to use tact in attempting to bring people to your viewpoint. Describing the US as a "swinging dick" is about as affective of declaring someone's mother as a whore... then expecting him to side with you.

And of course we all know that the majority of Americans show the utmost respect to Europe and, most especially, France; without whom, by the way, you would not have gained your much vaunted freedom so quickly or easily in the first place.

But no matter. Let's move on.

Mr Mephisto

Ustwo · 06-07-2005, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

And of course we all know that the majority of Americans show the utmost respect to Europe and, most especially, France; without whom, by the way, you would not have gained your much vaunted freedom so quickly or easily in the first place.

But no matter. Let's move on.

Mr Mephisto

No one in Europe likes the French either.

Quote:

Language, history, cooking and support for rival football teams still divide Europe. But when everything else fails, one glue binds the continent together: hatred of the French.

Typically, the French refuse to accept what arrogant, overbearing monsters they are.

But now after the publication of a survey of their neighbours' opinions of them at least they no longer have any excuse for not knowing how unpopular they are.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

So your point is moot.

Mephisto2 · 06-07-2005, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

No one in Europe likes the French either.

Well, I think that says it all.

It's funny how if I said "the whole world hates America" I'd get ripped a new (internet)asshole right here on this board, but such sweeping generalizations as the one above are perfectly acceptable.

By the way Ustwo, I'm European and I like the French, their language, their food, their wine, their culture. I like it all. Very much.

So your point is moot.

Mr Mephisto

aKula · 06-07-2005, 05:14 AM

Yes such views are certainly outdated. My grandparents live a whole 10Km from the French border (in Germany). One of the most memorable days I've spent with them is when we drove to a park where some Generals were buried from the world wars and even the Franco-Prussian war (if I recall correctly). We also drove to another cemetery and memorial in France (on a hill overlooking the area). My grandfather reflected on how many people have died in fighting over these hills and the border is still nearly exactly where it used to be, it's rather arbitrary as to which government controls the land. So I think you'll find that surrounding the feeling of nationality is that the French are just our neighbours, they live their lives in much the same way as we do. There is, I guess, a feeling of unity between the people. Living so close really puts things in perspective, it is much better when the countries are on good terms with each other, so the people don't feel as if they cannot be.

Seaver · 06-07-2005, 09:38 AM

Quote:

By the way Ustwo, I'm European and I like the French, their language, their food, their wine, their culture. I like it all. Very much.

I'm American and I like the French. It's the Parisians I dont like. Many people dont know the difference. I've had great contact with many French people, but every single Parisian I've met has waited a whopping 15seconds before telling me everything wrong with America, how arrogant I am because I'm American, and how I (personally) should stop trying to conquor the world.

Mephisto2 · 06-07-2005, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

I'm American and I like the French. It's the Parisians I dont like. Many people dont know the difference. I've had great contact with many French people, but every single Parisian I've met has waited a whopping 15seconds before telling me everything wrong with America, how arrogant I am because I'm American, and how I (personally) should stop trying to conquor the world.

I've met plenty of Americans I don't like.

I've met Americans who, honestly, believe that the US should nuke Iraq and Iran. I've met Americans who think the US should "withdraw" from Europe and stop all trade (obviously they have not even the beginnings of an understanding of economics). I've met Americans who hate Mexicans and Latinos. I've met Americans who don't know where Ireland, Australia (or even, in one circumstance) the UK were. I've met Americans who congratulated me [sic] on how well I spoke "American".

But I don't hate Americans. I really like them in fact. My wife and I
(and this may raise a few heckles) consider America our second favourite place after France (my wife may even say before France).

What's my point?

The fact that you meet some people who annoy you, should not mean that you hate that nation entirely.

If that were the case, then I would hate Americans, Israelis and Lebannese. But I don't. I just hate assholes.

Mr Mephisto

Cynthetiq · 06-07-2005, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

If that were the case, then I would hate Americans, Israelis and Lebannese. But I don't. I just hate assholes.

Mr Mephisto

exactly me too, hence the sig.

let's get past the generalizations of stereotypes...

you guys agreed it was moot above, it's still moot now.

06-03-2005, 06:23 AM	#2 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I don't pretend to know all that much about what is happening in the EU but my take is that the general vote against the constitution was grounded in the beast of nationalism... The French were reacting to losing jobs in France to other parts of the EU. The Dutch seemed to be reacting to the potential of having their liberal laws (euthenasia, drugs, same sex marriage, etc.) somehow tempered but the larger political entity of Europe as a whole (i.e. the Catholics in Italy, Spain and France might try to force them to the right of the social spectrum). I'm not sure what the answer is as I don't think I fully understand all that is at stake. Ultimately, I think the EU must goe back to the drawing board with their constitution. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

06-03-2005, 06:54 AM	#5 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	http://www.unizar.es/euroconstitucio.../part_I_EN.pdf here is the text of the proposed constitution. it is quite long, and is downloadable as a series of pdfs. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-03-2005, 08:18 AM	#12 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Excellent article Uber, thanks. I think Western society has gotten lazy as a whole, and we are getting the wakeup call. At some point we need to recapture the idea that hard work is a virtue not a burden. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

06-03-2005, 08:58 AM	#14 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i dont think american conservatives are in a position to say very much about the situation being created across the eu as a function of a neoliberal meta-state coming into conflict with the welfare states amongst members--too much actual detail, not reducible to claims about the moral superiority of total worker powerlessness dressed up as bromides about "hard work"--this latter perspective only makes sense, to the degree that it does, from the situation of somone who really knows nothing about what is at stake in these votes, nothing about the history of the welfare state, nothing about the history of the trade union movement, nothing about the idea that work in the capitalist mode is shot through and through with political questions--it is only possible to not know about these things in the context of the american system, which mobilized fairly massive repression against political trade union movements early in the 20th century, promoted the self-defeating model of sector monopoly once trade unions were seen to be inevitable (despite ongoing corporate and state violence through the 1940s--river rouge anyone?), and which developed collective bargaining as a mechanism for the total co-optation of these sector monopoly style unions.... the american order is but one options within a range, one historical model amongst others--folk who cheerlead this model from the inside do not for that have any particular vantagepoint on capitalism in general, its histories, its politics--rather, from this particular reactionary form of capitalism, organized around the total irrelevance of working people, characterized in the present in part by a sustained ideological assault on the whole idea of the public, which underpins the ability of citizens to organize themselves and take power from capital--from a conservative position within this particular context, based on no discernable information, this is how the european situation looks. one of the more cogent arguments about the eu in its present form that has been advanced from almost the ouset concerns the lack of democratic accountability of the institutions. in its present form, the eu could reduce nation-states to a kind of political cul-de-sac--pressure could be brought to bear on the state previously, and existing models for doing so are all organized around the state--the nature of the eu is different, and the non-representative chacter of the institutions, and in particular of the professional cadres within those institutions, who appear to be almost uniformly neoliberal ideologically--this poses a real problem. so on those grounds, i would think the rejection of the constitution not entirely a bad thing because i would see it as a rejection of this particular version of the eu, not the eu as such. that this would escape the attention of conservatives in the states is no surprise: much of their politics are about self-disempowerment reframed through the language of hortaio alger novels. most analyses seem to understand the problem as having been insufficient marketing on the part of the governments like chirac's--and a reflection of opposition to the non-democratic character of this framework having been taken out on the governments in power--and a rather large fuck you to these same governments for local reasons. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 06-03-2005 at 09:01 AM..

06-04-2005, 10:26 PM	#21 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	From a self interest stand point, I see the EU as bad for the US, at least in the near term. The EU allows Europe to take a united stand against the US (like with steel tarriffs) where if there was no EU it would need to be done country by country. Collectively the EU can get its way easier. I also am not very comfortable with the EU supplanting NATO. Its apparent to me that one of the goals for some members of the EU is supercede NATO. This makes me uneasy as there may come a time in the not so distant future where a more united front against China or even Russia would be needed. That being said I don't wish to see the EU totally fail. Europe has got to be the most bloody and fought over piece of land in the world which has seen very little peace. As unthinkable as it is to some people, you can't discount the possibility of there being another major European war. The EU could help prevent this by making such a conflict impossible, or at least uniting everyone against the future aggressor. The problem of course is can nations and people who have been fighting over the same few 1000 square miles of land since before the Romans, ever really be united by a bureaucracy? I'd like to think yes, but I don't see it happening. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

06-03-2005, 06:29 AM	#3 (permalink)
jwoody Shackle Me Not Location: Newcastle - England.	To many people on this continent Europe is a place in Belgium where our taxes are squandered. My guess is that the NO vote is a message to the un-elected career politicians, telling them to get their arses back home and find a proper job.

06-03-2005, 07:03 AM	#7 (permalink)
pac-man Loser	When you work less, retire earlier and live longer than everyone else, is it any wonder you would oppose change? <a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/27/business/wbmarket28.php">Off the Charts: French retire early and live long</a> I don't have my finger on the pulse of the French people, nor the Norwegians - but I expect the quality of life issue played some role in the opposition to the EU constitution.

06-03-2005, 10:26 AM	#15 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	Being Dutch, I've seen the discussion about yes/no going on for a while now. I'd say the main arguments for saying no are: (I was in favor of the constitution, by the way, so this isn't going to be an objective assessment...) 1) it's going too fast, and we don't like it. The EU is "out there", and we don't know what it does. There's a lot of shady politicians there, and who knows what they're up to. 2) It costs too much. We pay a lot of money, and the EU appears to spend it all on politicians' salaries and regional aid for southern Europe. What's in it for us??? 3) The Euro has been a rip-off. There's been a heated debate recently about the introduction of the Euro a few years ago. Apparently, our former currency was valued too low when we introduced the Euro. People associate this with the fact that inflation was higher after the Euro. 4) We don't like the current Dutch administration. Voting "no" was seen as a good way to say FU to them. 5) The constitution goes too far. We'll lose a lot of influence, and who knows what'll happen? Maybe we'll be forced to put an end to our liberal drugs policies, and our liberal laws concerning abortion and/or euthanasia. 6) The constitution doesn't go far enough. The environment isn't mentioned enough. And various countries will be able to hurt poor innocent animals because it'll be protected as "cultural values". Sure, there were some reasonable arguments, but mostly it was about fear. We know what we have, and don't know what we'll get.

06-06-2005, 09:55 PM	#23 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I agree with you Mr. Mephisto. The swinging dick of the only super power needs to relearn the art of diplomacy. A unified Europe would go a long ways toward that.

06-07-2005, 05:14 AM	#28 (permalink)
aKula Psycho	Yes such views are certainly outdated. My grandparents live a whole 10Km from the French border (in Germany). One of the most memorable days I've spent with them is when we drove to a park where some Generals were buried from the world wars and even the Franco-Prussian war (if I recall correctly). We also drove to another cemetery and memorial in France (on a hill overlooking the area). My grandfather reflected on how many people have died in fighting over these hills and the border is still nearly exactly where it used to be, it's rather arbitrary as to which government controls the land. So I think you'll find that surrounding the feeling of nationality is that the French are just our neighbours, they live their lives in much the same way as we do. There is, I guess, a feeling of unity between the people. Living so close really puts things in perspective, it is much better when the countries are on good terms with each other, so the people don't feel as if they cannot be. Last edited by aKula; 06-07-2005 at 05:15 AM.. Reason: spelling