French may vote down EU constitution

[Sava]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Tomorrow, I'll be having a joint

unfair editing is great!

[DanS]

If communists and conservatives agree, you know we're right. If DanS and I agree, you know we're right.

I'm no conservative. More like Main Street pro business, free trade, etc.

[Spiffor]

DD:

It would be a mistake to believe that the Constitution will be repeatedly put to vote until we accept it. The Constitution is a concept much more complex than "Do you want to be an EU-member Y/N?". And as such, if the Constitution is rejected, it will change. There will be another time where our Parliament or our people will have to ratify a constitutional treaty, but it won't be the same, and I actually think it will be drastically different.

You cannot compare France rejecting the Constitution and Norway rejecting EU membership. In the case of France, a no would strongly affect internal EU politics, and there would be (at the very least) great efforts to accomodate French voters. Actually, if more countries reject the Constitution, it would even be possible (it is actually what I expect) that the European elites decide to adress our deep divisions before trying to write a new document.

[Pekka]

This is the fundamental difference. If we decided to vote against EU constitution, which is something we won't get the opportunity to do, thanks to your dictators, it would mean Finland needs some fixing. If the French vote against it, the constitution needs fixing. Of course, some of yous, mostly euronites and TRUE EUROS will come and say that's not true, but deep inside our hearts we know it's true.

However in this case it's cool, because the french are thinking correctly and properly, so this is good, for now.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
You cannot compare France rejecting the Constitution and Norway rejecting EU membership.

I don't believe I was. I think I was refering to the Irish rejection of the Nice Treaty (I'm not aware if it was renegotiated before the revote) as a point of comparison. However, I thank you for the informative post nonetheless.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Spiffor
DD:

And as such, if the Constitution is rejected, it will change.

As it is, the Constitution is the result of a tremendous effort made by 25 countries represented by 200 MP, experts and ministers, during 18 months, with the aim to find a consensus.

The result is necessarily the minimum possible, but it reflect also the absolutely required result.

A new text could only result from a reduction of the liberal/US influence, due for instance to a change in GB politic (not forecasted for the two centuries to come )

[MikeH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I'll admit I'm not an expert on either, but I know that will all the regulations being built into your Constitution you don't have a constitution, but a whole set of laws. A consitution should be a legal framework. It should be short and sweet, not detailing regulations.

Imagine if someone tried to draft a US constitution today, what things they'd have to put in for all the different special interest groups etc. to get it passed...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MikeH
Imagine if someone tried to draft a US constitution today, what things they'd have to put in for all the different special interest groups etc. to get it passed...

None, though we might have a more expansive Bill of Rights, and the 2nd Amendment would be out. You forget that we in the U.S. frequently write new constitutions for our states.

[MikeH]

Nope you won't imagine?

[Az]

USoE

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
As it is, the Constitution is the result of a tremendous effort made by 25 countries represented by 200 MP, experts and ministers, during 18 months, with the aim to find a consensus.

As it is, the constitution is the failure of hundreds of bright people who worked their ass off for 18 monthes. This failure comes from the very fact that they did not attempt to adress the deep divisions existing in the EU, and because they saw the statu quo as the only viable option.

This commission (which was created after the Nice treaty, precisely because we understood the EU was unbearably unable to adapt its rules to the new situation) was supposed to give a vision to the EU. A Constitution was only part of its more encompassing job, i.e. provide ideas for the future of the EU.

In its 18 months of hard work, the commission has proven one thing: the EU is now too big to provide any coherent vision for the future, if we force ourselves to find consensus. This constitution (I think you'll agree it sucks) is the evidence that we cannot budge any significantly while we continue not to "agree to disagree". This constitution is the prime example of the excesses of the culture of consensus that we have in the EU. Consensus is useful for some aspects of the EU, but this constitution is a charicature.

Should the constitution be repelled, the European political elites will face the fact that the convention was a failure. And there will be a serious debate about the EU, where the new ideas will be seriously pondered. The "Convention on the future of Europe" was a failure in that domain, because they hadn't faced any serious crisis, of the kind that motivates a real change. If the Constitution was rejected by the people, the crisis -that has loomed for years- will finally become apparent to our elites, and they'll seriously think about it.

Historically, the EU has always made significant changes after a crisis. The Euro has come to existence because of the 1993 monetary crisis ; it was but a dream before. The fact that our trade policies now belong to the supranational level is due to the Uruguay Round charade, where the EU countries (each erpresented independantly) couldn't agree and seriously oppose the American juggernaught ; we are now an equal to the Yanks in trade bargainings. The beginning of a serious common foreign policy (as examplified with the Iranian talks and the proposal to sell weapons to China) is the result of the 2003 diplomatic debacle.

A NO vote to the constitution would be a "crisis". It would provide the incentive for our elites to change their views on the overall organization of the EU. I prefer this kind of painless crisis (18 months would have been lost. Big effing deal, when we are talking about upcoming decades of inferior governance) over the one that will inevitably happen when the real world will come to bite us in the ass, should we accept this terrible text.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MikeH


Imagine if someone tried to draft a US constitution today, what things they'd have to put in for all the different special interest groups etc. to get it passed...

About 10 changes would be needed if we're to use the US as an example.

[DAVOUT]

Spiffor

I agree that there is a cost in the excesses of the culture of consensus, but I am also convinced that it is more profitable than forcing nations to accept what they dont like. Life is long, and long enough for good arguments finally to convince people.

[Spiffor]

Davout:

Actually, I too don't wish that the EU forces a good chunk of its member-States to accept something they seriously dislike. And pretty much every clear-cut position about the EU will be a slap in the face of some nation's political culture.

I differ with you, however, in that I think the nations' opposition to some clear-cut vision doesn't stem from reason, but from passion. It's not rational of the Brits to hang on their sovereignty so hysterically. It's not rational of the French to behave the way we do when it comes to religion. It's not rational from the Germans to emphasize on economic stability more than on growth. Etc.

Rationality is out of the equation for some issues, including some very important ones. On such issues, arguments won't convince nations one way or another. So, I don't think our deep divisions can be soothed with arguments. At the contrary: our deep divisions will remain the same for generations to come, because it takes a long time to change collective mentalities.

We shouldn't be shy about our divisions. When it comes to the future of Europe, there are some countries that are more prone for federalism and supranationalism than others. There are some countries that are more prone to create a bloc in the multipolar world than others. These ideas are not a matter of argument, because both sides have merits. The nations can't be convinced one way or another.

Since we have these emotional deep divisions, we should simply "agree to disagree". The Convention has shown that we are now reaching fundamental disagreements (it was already hinted at Nice) and that's why the Constitution is so weak. If anything, the Convention has successfully shown that we have now reached the point where consensus isn't a tool for progress anymore, but a tool for stagnation.

That's why I think we should have a two-tier Europe, i.e. a Europe where both main types of ideals (1. free-trade area with intergovernmental governance vs 2. federation aspiring to great power status) could be really satisfied.

The idea of a two-tier Europe has re-emerged in the wake of the diplomatic debacle in 2003, but has been silenced as we forced ourselves to strive for consensus during the constitutional bargainings. This idea (which I favour) is but one among other fresh ideas that regard the future of Europe. Should several countries reject the Constitution, especially for different reasons, these ideas will be seriously pondered. In other words, the future of the EU will at last be seriously pondered. And the failure of the first convention will tell our new brain-stromers which path not to follow

[DanS]

A new text could only result from a reduction of the liberal/US influence, due for instance to a change in GB politic (not forecasted for the two centuries to come)

As I know constititions, such details of politics aren't discussed in the text.