Netherlands to vote Nee on the European Constitution

[BeBMan]

I'm not that optimistic what those "new ideas" would be though.

[DanS]

There's no harm in talking, although from the news reports it seems that Europe is hysterical right about now. I find it refreshing to see nobody at all "talking from the script" forced upon Europe by its crazy desire for consensus.

[BeBMan]

Well, the desire for consensus is to a large degree a neccessity IMO, since we are talking about so many different nation states not only with differnt POVs, but also with their own sensitivities. OTOH, you are right that it often means we are going down to the lowest common ground, which means crap results. But this is a dilemma which does not go away anytime soon IMO ....

[DanS]

I don't know how conensus is a realistic goal and I think it harms Europe by trying to have a consensus on everything.

For instance, consider the constitution. Everybody must ratify it for it to go into effect. That's crazy! We know it's crazy, because we tried it over 200 years ago.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by BeBro
But this is a dilemma which does not go away anytime soon IMO ....

I think this is precisely the dilemma that will disappear in the near future. The current "crisis"* shows that a very difficult compromise has been shattered for different reasons, and you can't improve the compromise, because going one way would utterly dissatisfy the other.



*The word "crisis" deserves quotation marks, because I think this is nothing like an actual crisis. 66 years ago, a European crisis would have resulted on the death of untold millions. 12 years ago, a European crisis would have resulted in millions of unemployed. Today, the "crisis" results in politicians being dazed for a few weeks.
This "crisis" is much better than what would have undoubtedly awaited Europe if this unadaptable constitution had been accepted for the 30-50 years to come. Now, there would have been a real crisis.

[CapTVK]

Originally posted by DanS
I don't how you can be so optimistic about the state of EU democracy, Trajanus.

I can assure you that the EU optimism is shared. Or would the EU countries step out and like to go at it alone?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by BeBro
I'm not that optimistic what those "new ideas" would be though.

They are very diverse:

One possibility is that the ratification process stops prematurely. Blair wants it, because British ratification would mean a referendum, and a referendum would mean Blair's political suicide.

Another possibility is that the ratification process continues unabated. That's what Schröder, Juncker and Chirac want. In these circumstances, the Council would decide of what to do in late 2006.

Another possibility is that the Nice Treaty become "Nice Plus", i.e. that the treaty gets amended, so that it has some new things from the dead constitution.

Another possibility is that there is a new convention that is elected by the Europeans, or that a new Constitution gets ratified by an Europe-wide referendum.

Somebody defends the idea that the constitution is inherently good, and can be accepted if the politicians explain ("dialogue" as in "Plan D") its contents.

Some believe that a new constitution should be rewritten, so that it becomes more democratic, more open to the wishes of the people. I am under the impression that, if there is any new constitution, it will be significantly more democratic indeed (several international presses and politicians see both Noes as a rejection of a top-down Europe)



As you can see, it's pretty much open.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by DanS
I don't know how conensus is a realistic goal and I think it harms Europe by trying to have a consensus on everything.

For instance, consider the constitution. Everybody must ratify it for it to go into effect. That's crazy! We know it's crazy, because we tried it over 200 years ago.

Purely on rational grounds, yes.....and if you look exclusively on a certain desired outcome, yes too - but it is also an emotional issue, and it touches the basic idea of the union, that it does not want to be a simple continuation of old national powerplay. I can just imagine the outcry if the majority of members implements a constitution over the heads of some smaller states (and I think the outcry would be even justified then).....of course in the long run, with an even bigger Eu something like a majority rule must be found, else the Eu isn't going anywhere. But to come to such a point is damn difficult.

[DanS]

I think it's well past time for Europe to work on majority rule, as democracy requires.

I understand the problems with this for the EU, but there are 25 members or whatever now! I would not wish to live under a system that isn't democratic, and I doubt that, in the final analysis, Europeans do either.

Some believe that a new constitution should be rewritten, so that it becomes more democratic, more open to the wishes of the people. I am under the impression that, if there is any new constitution, it will be significantly more democratic indeed (several international presses and politicians see both Noes as a rejection of a top-down Europe)

Good show.

[CapTVK]

Originally posted by Spiffor

*The word "crisis" deserves quotation marks, because I think this is nothing like an actual crisis. 66 years ago, a European crisis would have resulted on the death of untold millions. 12 years ago, a European crisis would have resulted in millions of unemployed. Today, the "crisis" results in politicians being dazed for a few weeks.

Spiffor, there ARE millions of unemployed in Europe! Just at what level does this constitute a "crisis" for you?15%? 20%? 25%!?

This "crisis" is much better than what would have undoubtedly awaited Europe if this unadaptable constitution had been accepted for the 30-50 years to come. Now, there would have been a real crisis.

And meanwhile we have a "crisis" now, we have the Nice treaty which everybody agrees is worse than the "constitution" (treaty) plus 3-5 years of deadlock.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Spiffor

As you can see, it's pretty much open.

I hope you're right. I just have the impression that currently the Eu has lost much appeal for many, and while some may be right about that due to certain negative aspects (what we mentioned here in various debates over and over; not enough democracy, transparency etc.) I think in other issues these feelings are pretty irrational.

Therefore I wonder if the next steps would have more success than the current con. I have sometimes the impression to many it plays not really a role if the Eu works good or bad, since they have already fallen back into a national mindset (not neccessarily nationalist), which simply does not need a union, or at least not a more integrated one (I don't mean a superstate, because I don't think that's a good idea myself for the foreseeable future).

But maybe these are my irrational feelings here

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by CapTVK
Spiffor, there ARE millions of unemployed in Europe! Just at what level does this constitute a "crisis" for you?15%? 20%? 25%!?

I wasn't aware these millions of unemployed were due to the Noes. I was under the impression that they were due to a variety of economic factors

Please tell me how the current "crisis" compares to the dastardly attacks on national currencies in 1993. Now that was a real crisis.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by BeBro
Therefore I wonder if the next steps would have more success than the current con. I have sometimes the impression to many it plays not really a role if the Eu works good or bad, since they have already fallen back into a national mindset (not neccessarily nationalist), which simply does not need a union, or at least not a more integrated one (I don't mean a superstate, because I don't think that's a good idea myself for the foreseeable future).

Well, I think the divide on the future of the EU is fairly consistent. For example, the Netherlands have mostly rejected the treaty because they feared a superstate, while most Germans want further European integration, and support a re-negociation of the treaty (unless my German is that rusty )

Some countries are now having a national mindset, while other countries are having a more European mindset. If anything, the French Non is mostly a victory of those who want to see Europe deal positively with quality-of-life issues (wages, employment, public services, etc.)

[DanS]

It seems likely that many people fear a superstate in the absence of a clear constitution that is understandable to the layman. "Superstate" is a vague concept.

A much more detailed 10th Amendment to the US Constitution could solve this problem, or at least could be a good basis for negotiations and discussion. Colon wants this, for instance, and he seems set against a European superstate. Unfortunately, the US Constitution is durable on this point, but very weak.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Spiffor]

DanS:
I have no idea how it works in the US, but the question of competences is one of the reasons why the EU one is so bloated. When you say precisely what kind of policies the Union is competent for, and what kind of policies it isn't competent for, you get bloated monsters.