France to vote non on EU constitution

[Atahualpa]

I heard Zapatero has recently spoken to the french about this. They seem to be trying everything.

Anyway, what will happen if France votes "non"? Will they write another constitution (I don't think so, because generally marketing applied, it's bad to repeat a failed project) or will we get something else or nothing at all? Could it be worse? Who will guarantee that it gets better? The same people that wrote the old one?

20 questions...

[planet]

is the eu con really that bad?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
Anyway, what will happen if France votes "non"? Will they write another constitution (I don't think so, because generally marketing applied, it's bad to repeat a failed project) or will we get something else or nothing at all?

We'll get nothing at all for a few years. At least 2-3. It'll take a European Council (a summit between heads of State) to start the machinery again, and I think the constitution won't be on the council's agenda til 2006, after the other referenda.
I think they won't rush the constitution this time, and that they'll take an approach where they try to understand why the voters said no. Especially if several countries vote no.

Could it be worse?

Yes it could. However, I don't see it coming. If the French say non, then the debate will be slightly stirred in a favourable direction to the French opinion (less liberalism). And I think the European elites will try to adress the unpopularity of the constitution in other countries as well.

Who will guarantee that it gets better?

Nobody can guarantee that it gets better. Especially since "better" is a subjective term when adressing the ideological stances of the constitution.

The same people that wrote the old one?

I think theyll change the political personnel at the convention, and that they'll keep most scholars.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by planet
is the eu con really that bad?

No. In many points it is good. And while I agree with some criticism, many critical things said about it are IMO due to certain political agendas. Of course it is ok to criticise it from any POV, but if it is justified thats IMO a totally other question.

I personally think that for example the "militarization of the Eu" as feared by some critics is a bit paranoia. Otoh I don't understand why "improvement of military abilities" is even mentioned in the con, I would say it just does not belong in a constitution.

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Spiffor

We'll get nothing at all for a few years. At least 2-3. It'll take a European Council (a summit between heads of State) to start the machinery again, and I think the constitution won't be on the council's agenda til 2006, after the other referenda.
I think they won't rush the constitution this time, and that they'll take an approach where they try to understand why the voters said no. Especially if several countries vote no.

Wishful thinking... I hardly believe that. Politics don't work that way. You have your agenda and you want to push it through with whatever legal (or sometimes) illegal means. If the people don't accept it, you put a nicer tissue around it and you're done.

Politicians have to work with masses, masses are stupid, understanding stupid masses won't get you further.

[DAVOUT]

If another vote is organized, the part III should be deleted. Part III was intended to rewrite all the previous treaties, but that was not required in a constitutional text, and it can be done separately. This deletion would reduce enormously the number of Non voters who are generally infuriated by the policies (part III), much more than by the chart of fundamental rights, or part I.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
Wishful thinking... I hardly believe that. Politics don't work that way. You have your agenda and you want to push it through with whatever legal (or sometimes) illegal means. If the people don't accept it, you put a nicer tissue around it and you're done.

It's not exactly that easy in European politics. The difference between European and national politics is that the team in power doesn't have one agenda, but plenty of competing agenda.

Many politicians were underwhelmed by the constitution, but they supported it because it was a consensual text that had been written after months of hard work. If the constitution fails in several countries, the politicians (save a few hardcore supporters of this particular constitution) will not try to get it passed, to the bitter end.

During the diplomatic negociations on the constitution, the question of a two-tier Europe was seriously considered, before being swept under the rug, because they strived to reach a consensus. This shows that the consensus was very difficult. Unless they put to vote the very same text (which is unlikely IMO, because Chirac's amazing unpopularity will probably result in an even stronger non vote, by a population that tires of being called the "bad pupils"), then a new text will have to be negociated.

Since the difficult consensus didn't work this time, I think the negociators won't be able to find a better consensus that has a better chance of resist the test of a referendum. That's why they will need imagination.

[LDiCesare]

If another vote is organized, the part III should be deleted. Part III was intended to rewrite all the previous treaties, but that was not required in a constitutional text, and it can be done separately. This deletion would reduce enormously the number of Non voters who are generally infuriated by the policies (part III), much more than by the chart of fundamental rights, or part I.

Yes. Part III should never have been put in the treaty we are asked to vote upon. Here's an excerpt (page 125), roughly translated: "Until 1998, blah blah. Afterwards, unitl 2001, more blah blah". Half a page for stuff that has been obsolete for years. Most of the stuff in Part III is either already in effect or obsolete, but people will vote against it mostly because of this part.

[Winston]

The first prognosis was just made public, it estimates a 54.5% share for "No".

[CapTVK]

Hmmmm, not good. I wonder what our Eastern European friends will make of this.

[BeBMan]

What about a recount

[Winston]

According to some commentators, many Frenchmen voted no because they are opposed to the 15-25 expansion. Remember, according to a certain President, the new member states are not true Europeans and should just shut up.

[BeBMan]

I wonder what this means for Turkey.

[CapTVK]

It´s official , the French left (plus some help from Le Pen) is now morally bankrupt...thanks to a brick-a-brack of half truths, lies and cheap appeal to nationalism and xenophobia as an answer to France's real economic and social problems.


Thanks France!!!

[Stefu]

(Yes, I know, it's Newsmax and I don't wish to remind anyone of the time everyone and their mother was designing those HILARIOUS political card decks, but still...)