France to vote non on EU constitution

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


absolutely.

The immigration experience, the public school system, the desire of the children of immigrants to fit in, to move up, to get away from the ways of their "embarrassing" immigrant parents, is almost cliche over here. Americans of european origin only started really celebratring"ethnicity" when it was dilute enough to not be dangerous.

That's the opposite model. The one most feared. That people would lose their roots. (And there weren't any immigrants either). That's why you see a mass return of young kids to tradition. Of course ethnicity isn't as dangerous as in the US since things are or were pretty homogenious in those hereby societies.

BTW when you say fitin you assume that there was a "prototype model" in the US, if I'm notmistaken.

[lord of the mark]

I think the de minimus standard for a democracy is that theres no barrier to citizens understanding what their pols are saying, without need for translation. Otherwise you have fundamentally different political discourses going on.

I suspect that Europe is actually in a better way in this regard than most Americans realize, as multilingualism is very advanced there, esp among young people. Whether its enough to have a common polity, I dont know.

I also realize that we're moving in the opposite direction here, as pols have started to give speeches in Spanish. For now I dont see that as extensive enough to be a danger to the common discourse.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by paiktis22


That's the opposite model. The one most feared. That people would lose their roots. (And there weren't any immigrants either). That's why you see a mass return of young kids to tradition. Of course ethnicity isn't as dangerous as in the US since things are or were pretty homogenious in those hereby societies.

BTW when you say fitin you assume that there was a "prototype model" in the US, if I'm notmistaken.

fit in varies - an italian american striving to "fit in" at city college in NYC was trying to fit in to something different than say a Japanese American in Los Angeles, as there were subtle differences in culture in outlook between NY and Los Angeles, say. But in all cases an English speaking culture, with much in common across regions, classes, professions.

[DAVOUT]

In my job I have had to visit several European countries (G.B., Sweden, Denmark, Nederland, Belgium, Germany, Swiss, Italy, Spain and Portugal). I always and everywhere felt at home. From that repeated experience, I was inclined to think that the inhabitants of these countries were not significantly different from me; they were not perfectly like me, only different enough for making possible to recognize an English European from a German European. For me, this is the definition of my sense of belonging to Europe, and I am unable to understand what Pekka is saying on the European identity.

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Pekka
no we hate the ****ers.

The question is who we don't mind, or only hate them little enough to still be able to cooperate realistically.

The European Super Love Unity is something the leftists wants to believe in. Typical of them really. 'BUT IT'S A NICE THOUGHT! DON'T YOU WANT THAT?'. SUre. But it's not true. I tend to live in the REAL world. Another reason why leftists are the plague of this world. And no, democrats are not leftists in my book.

There was a guy who tried to take it by force and he came from the ultra right. Ofc he failed as well.

GODWINZED

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
So, the erection of a Superpower Europe, to rival and inhibit the USA world overlord, founders because of, guess whoo, French leftists, socialists and commie-dummies. How predictable. Commie-dummies continue their unstoppleble march to failure and obscurity.

1. French leftists are far from being the onyl ones opposed to the constitution.

2. This constitution is no step in the construction of a European superpower.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Pekka
oh and PS. there is no european identity. Or if there is... show it. Prove it. 'oh but you can't prove an identity+!+1'.

You can prove an identity, but it's actually a tedious academical task (the study of the European identity was my first serious academic research, which is why I know a bot about it).

The figure I gave isn't perfect, but it's a rough indocator: ca. 45% of the Europeans have no feeling of identity toward Europe at all. ca 45% do feel European, but their national identity is stronger. ca 8% feel primarily European, but still have a national identity, and only ca 2%, a very small margin, feel exclusively European.

[Bereta_Eder]

what are the basics of this constitution anyway?
I heard that basically there not much more than simply all the existing legislature writen in a shorten simplified format.

how could you compare this with let's say the maastricht treaty (and the additional 2 pillars it created?)

[Spiffor]

The constitution is nothing revolutionary, and brings in slight changes. However, in comparison with Amsterdam or Nice (that saw negligible change), the constitution looks revolutionary in the eyes of the political microcosmos.

The constitution is a small step in the right direction actually. The decision-making will be slightly less inefficient, and slightly less antidemocratic. The Charter for Human Rights will now be binding. The constitution also modifies the balance of power in the Council.

The reason why I oppose this constitution is not because of the text in itself (which is terrible, but slightly less so than the prequels), but because of the waste of a historical opportunity: It is the first time that much work has been devoted by a supranational institution (the convention) to think about the future of the EU. It is a first, and like man firsts, it is a failure. The text sucks.

Now, if we accept this terrible text as it is, we won't see another convention anytime soon. Actually, we won't see one until we have a major crisis in the EU, that affects every country at once.

We won't answer the real questions about the future of Europe: do we want an integrated political Europe, yes or no?

We won't tackle the problem that has stopped the evolution of the EU ever since France-Germany have stopped being the undisputed bosses: who wants to be in a politically integrated Europe, and who doesn't?

And this is why I think that we'll remain utterly stuck with the pathetic EU as it is now, if the text becomes accepted. OTOH, if the text is rejected, the European elites will probably stop to give in to complacency, and they'll ask the real questions. They'll seize the historical opportunity, but only if we give them another one.

[Bereta_Eder]

Ok, but some things shouldn't be rushed either. You remember the case about the common military that the french parliement undertook in the '50s IIRC. And was rejected by alittle majority but was indeed rejected.

maybe the question about a political europe is not yet ready to be answered?

I'm just saying, I dont have a definite opinion on this.

OTOH the pro constitution camp claims that if this treaty is rejected then things would simply stay as they are now. which would actually be a drawback.

[Atahualpa]

Actually now that I think about it, I am fine with the EU as it is. I don't want more and I don't want less.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by paiktis22
OTOH the pro constitution camp claims that if this treaty is rejected then things would simply stay as they are now. which would actually be a drawback.

They are probably sincere hen they say it (they also say many other things on which they aren't sincere at all - in the campaign, they're the ones most guilty of scaremongering).

But I think that they haven't been thinking about what to do if the referendum brings up a new deal. It's only once push will come to shove that they'll realise that something must change, and that they can bring the change. And the more countries say NO, with other reasons than France's, the more urgently the European political elites will have to adapt to the new deal.

A non vote would be a tiny political crisis. It'll bother the French government, and some ministerial seats will swap. It will bother the EU political microcosmos, and they'll be brooding for weeks. But it will force an actual change (especially so if more countries vote no as well). And the EU has only undergone a serious change after a major crisis.

I'm willing to pay the price of a tiny crisis like that if it means change. It sure beats waiting for a major destructive crisis any day

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
Actually now that I think about it, I am fine with the EU as it is. I don't want more and I don't want less.

Don't you want significantly more democracy in the EU? Like the idea that the main centre of power is the parliament, rather than unelected bureaucrats?

[Bereta_Eder]

I understand what you're saying but I admit I think that you are a bit "pre-emptive" when you say that this change will be for more integration...
If I understand correctly you think that this constitution doesn't go far enough. However the groups that opposite it all have different ideas why they're doing it. So how could one be sure which exactly direction the new constitution would take?
Just some questions that came up from reading your post.

Although I think I understand where you're coming from. If I followed the negotiations correctly the original text was much bolder than the final one... After the negotiations it had to be "diluted" a bit.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by paiktis22
I understand what you're saying but I admit I think that you are a bit "pre-emptive" when you say that this change will be for more integration...
If I understand correctly you think that this constitution doesn't go far enough. However the groups that opposite it all have different ideas why they're doing it. So how could one be sure which exactly direction the new constitution would take?
Just some questions that came up from reading your post.

Although I think I understand where you're coming from. If I followed the negotiations correctly the original text was much bolder than the final one... After the negotiations it had to be "diluted" a bit.

Actually, I think that the Europeans must decide on their general visions for the future fo the Union before a constitution is drafted.

I don't think that so many European countries want political integration. At least, some countries (Britain, Denmark, Poland) are very adamant about their sovereignty, and I don't think it'll change.

If the constitution is rejected by the people, I actually expect the European political elites to ask the real questions about the future of Europe, and to acknowledge the deep division among countries on that issue. The reason why our European institutions are nearly stuck is because we can't "agree to disagree", which is something the EU dramatically needs.

I think that our European elites will finally be forced to "agree to disagree" if France and Britain (and maybe Poland) reject the constitution, especially for different reasons. The issue has been hinted enough in the past (actually, there are occasional talks about it since Maastricht), but it has never been dealt with seriously.

If we finally agree to disagree, maybe the pro-political Europe will stop dragging the reluctant British along. And maybe the British will stop hindering the trailblazing European countries.