Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

EU Constitution

20:29 / 29.05.05

So the French have voted no in their referendum on the EU constitution. The Dutch are likely to follow suit and the UK will probably not bother with a vote at all, thanks to Tony Blair.

On the one hand, this has got to be one of the most profound attempts to change the nature of Europe and it's place in the world yet I get the feeling that no one really cares. I mean, how many people have even looked at the document?
At that length it isn't hard to see why, though I've been surprised at how readable it actually is. The worst thing about it is that the European project is somehow the province of bureaucrats and politics nerds, when it really should interest everyone.

Anyhow, how do you think this will affect the EU? Not at all? Or will it have a serious impact on the next round of admissions? - I have a Romanian friend who is a little concerned about this. And is this really just a way for Europeans to keep out the undesirables? That is, the Turks.

20:59 / 29.05.05

I was watching C-SPAN earlier on and one of the callers (a relatively sane one) made the point that the elites who decide on European policy have made relatively little effort to involve people in the process of integration - admittedly, the elites who decide on UK policy don't either, but at least they make the effort to look like they sort of care, and people appreciate it when you make the effort.

Personally, while generally in favour, I'm a bit concerned that the proposals will turn Europe into even more of a neo-liberal paradise than it already is, but christ, Mr Blair is doing that already. Sold out by unrepresentative politicians here, or sold out by unrepresentative politicians in Brussels? At least with the latter I might get a 35-hour working week.

I don't know what sort of an impact it will have. I certainly don't believe Chirac's pronouncements that it means the death of European integration. I can see that it will mean back to the drawing board on some things, but I find it very hard to believe that the whole project will be ruined.

21:00 / 29.05.05

I mean, how many people have even looked at the document?

I don't know if you're referring to people on Barbelith specifically, but from what I've heard on American public radio, most people in France actually did read the constitution.

Not being in Europe I have no idea whether or not people there care about the EU, but it seems to me that a "no" vote on a referendum doesn't necessarily translate as apathy, and could in fact be informed disapproval. No?

21:06 / 29.05.05

The trouble is that referendums always end up being about the current government as well. People use the opportunity to cast a protest vote by voting against whatever the government thinks they should.

21:09 / 29.05.05

Actually, you are right ibis, in that the turnout for the French referedum was actually very high. They are clearly pretty engaged. That said, the French Left's reasons for voting "non" seem a little misguided to me. If I'm reading them correctly they are to do with what fridge mentions, the economic neo-liberal agenda. But I agree with fridge that this is happening regardless and the EU constitution also has a section on rights which makes it far more mixed than an "Anglo-Saxon" treaty.

Then again, the EU really does need democratic reform and that may not happen until people vote against stuff.

22:49 / 29.05.05

I'm not convinced that heightened participation translates into mass understanding of the complexities of the constitution. The broad support the 'non' camp has managed to draw from right accross the political spectrum from the far right to the far left seems to underline the fact that there is something for everyone in the treaty, and equally something to scare everybody.

lord henry strikes back

23:02 / 29.05.05

I'll begin by saying that I am saddened by the French vote, and further more that this is (whatever certain politicians may have to say about it) the death of the constitution in its current form. As to what this will mean for Europe, my feeling is that nothing will change. That said, so much could have changed if the constitution had gone through.

I have been hearing in the media that the French took a good long look at what was on offer, had an even handed debate about the issue, and have voted against a constitution that they feel would not be in their interests. However, the few French people that I know personally have told me that good, old xenonphobia has played just as big a part as it would do if we had a vote in the UK. To be fair they have also said that the 'vote against the government' feeling has been very strong.

I would like to suggest that this idea of voting against the constitution because it will make Europe more neo-liberal is misguided. Neo-liberalism is simply a fact of global ecconomics at the moment, and this document reflects that. The only way to fight this trend is to draw Europe together into a solid ecconomic block with the power to set its own rules. Voting against the constitution can only retard this process.

02:58 / 30.05.05

lord henry has hit the nail on the head. The EU constitution is the best way for Europe to maximize its ability to exert control on a global scale. Sadly for Europe (but perhaps not so much for us Americans), the French seem to be taking a short-sighted and somewhat selfish stance on the matter. That's just my opinion, of course.

The French voters had a turnout rate of about 70%, by the by.

unheimlich manoeuvre

10:02 / 30.05.05

fridgemagnet - Sold out by unrepresentative politicians here, or sold out by unrepresentative politicians in Brussels?

Exactly how I feel.
While I am a Europhile I'm not particularly disheartened by the French rejection of constitiution. The proposed referendum in Britain was always going to fail, which would have lead to us being out in the cold. Many of the articles I've read on the vote suggest that fear of Turkey joining the EU was a major factor.
The document doesn't seem fundamentally neo-liberal to me. It is all things to all people. Too socialist to British right wing press and too thatcherite to the French left.
What do you expect from a document written in legalese?

unheimlich manoeuvre

09:15 / 31.05.05

What I am confused by is why French President Chirac called a referendum at all? He could of got the constitution ratified by Parliament, like Germany and some of the others?

Darumesten's second variety

21:47 / 31.05.05

There was a referendum too here in Spain not long ago, where the YES option was voted .. from my experience I must say a high percentage of the people who voted didn't even give a look to the constitution ( and that's the people who voted, which were fewer comparing to france, for example ) ..

When every major party in every country makes propaganda for the YES option .. it just makes me shiver. I think the results in france have been a "reality-in-your-face" for all the politicians/government .. what happens from here ( if something ever happens ), who knows ..

22:43 / 31.05.05

Here in Catalunya there was a significant movement against the constitution - largely for reasons to do with regional autonomy and the lack of provision thereof within the constitution - but this was, predictably and perhaps ironically, largely swamped by the pro-European sentiment in the rest of Spain.

While I am very much in favour of the European project, I think it would be better if this rejection by the French and tomorrow by the Dutch is not swept under the carpet and dealt with as a series of technicalities, to be consigned to dense agreements that no one votes on. I hope that the outcome of all this is that people get more of a say in the direction of the EU.

23:27 / 31.05.05

Do citizens vote for their representatives to the EU or are they selected by the local politicians?

00:07 / 01.06.05

Well, kind of both. As far as I'm aware, and please someone correct me if I get anything wrong, people get to vote in European elections to elect MEPs, Members European Parliment. Unlike the Westminster elections this is done under a form of proportional representation so the results more accurately reflect what the public have actually voted for. Then there is the Council of Ministers, which consists of all the cabinet ministers of the members of the EU. Obviously these are directly elected by by each member state.

Both these groups are aided by roughly 25 European Commissioners who are appointed directly by member governments, although they can be sacked en masse by the European Parliment. The Commissioner's act like a kind of Civil Service that both initiates and implements policy approved by the European Parliment and the Council of Ministers.

There is a handy Euro Glossary from the BBC here, but it is a little out of date since it refers to pre-enlargement Europe...

Darumesten's second variety

11:48 / 02.06.05

Dutch voters also said no to the constitution .. what do you think is gonna happen ?

14:42 / 02.06.05

The "no" vote sucks ass.

I believe the most important parts of it are the changes to the voting system. So there would be more qualified majority voting. Without this decision making is going to be slowed down in an enlarged union. So I don't think Chirac is exagerrating.

Reading the exit poll opinions about why people voted for or against the "no" vote seems to be either a weird "not yet europe needs more time" (for what exactly? years of slow, overly bureaucratic decision making because the current procedures were dodgy for a community of fifteen but far worse for one of twentyfive?) or from a protectionist angle.

07:25 / 03.06.05

I remember Ian Hislop once said that Giscard d'Estaing, the man who is responsible for bringing in the EU constitution would be in prison if he were British - the equivalent of "Jeffrey Archer in charge of Europe". I support the principle of European Union, but there is so much corruption, a no vote is probably a good thing at this stage.

10:45 / 03.06.05

Yeah, but the stream lined decision making procedures in the constitution are required to cut down on corruption.

How is a no vote going to lessen corruption? Surely you need better procedures to cope with the increase to 25 member states.

It also seems a very, very narrow minded reason for voting against the entire constitution.

16:39 / 03.06.05

Okay I'll just say, that I'm not as informed on the EU as I should be, and that was a gut reaction really Buk, I'm still making my mind up on this.

It would be politically unrealistic for a referendum on the same document now, so there either needs to be a significant revision in the design, or a scrapping of the constitution. The fact that Germany doesn't have enough votes for its population size and the presence of twenty five new member states means that change will inevitably come to the voting system. Most likely the streamlined decision making you've been talking about will be achieved by a seperate treaty anyway. I just feel that EU integration is occurring too rapidly, it's elitist and decision making seems to be very poorly scrutinized in the media.

lord henry strikes back

20:57 / 03.06.05

This claim that the EU is elitist, what does that mean?

Having studied EU legislation I know that it is two things: massively technically complex and unbelievably boring. It is true that it is not well covered in the press, but that is because it is about a 0.1% change in CAP, or which architectural details should appear on the euro. You cannot make a story out of it because it is just so dull. So, by elitist, is it meant that technocrats are making technically demanding decisions, that only 35% of us can be bothered to vote in European elections, or something else?

11:40 / 04.06.05

technocrats are making technically demanding decisions, that only 35% of us can be bothered to vote in European elections?

These are both of the reasons I consider the EU elitist. Obviously technically demanding decisions are unavoidable to some extent in a venture like the EU, but I also think that when we centralize power to a higher level, that should really be matched by more serious attempts to encourage popular involvement/comprehension of what is really going on. I think the no vote not just a rejection of the constitution but a demonstration of overall distrust of the EU.

As I said before, newsgathering tends to focus on national issues and key figures. An elected President probably would begin to make EU news more 'digestable' for the public - however the EU will have two presidents according to the present constitution! Kirsty Hughes of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels said:

The President of the European Commission drafts the strategy but another President - a new post called President of the European Council - is responsible for presenting it to Europe's leaders and ensuring its implementation, though in fact most implementation will be done by the President of the Commission.

European leaders will put one name forward - yes just one - for the European Parliament to vote on for President of the Commission. Some members of the Convention which drafted the text described this as a "'Baghdad process' where you can vote for any candidate as long as it's this one".

That doesn't sound like clarity or democracy to me. Anyway I'm still trying to learn about all this so my thinking is still a bit wooly. I'll keep out of this for a while.

Darumesten's second variety

13:20 / 04.06.05

Also one of the points I didn't like at all from the constitution was the fact all the members have to invest an important portion of the budge into militar technology development .. there is more stuff regarding the military like this through the constitution

19:01 / 05.06.05

That doesn't sound like clarity or democracy to me

The thing is that the European project has always been one of negotiation and compromise. Compromises often lack clarity in order to remain acceptable by all sides. I'm uncertain as to weither negotiation and compromise is more or less democratic.

Darumesten's second variety

11:51 / 06.06.05

I heard Blair's government has decided not to do the referendum for the moment .. what do you people from the UK think about this ?? What's the point of going to do a referendum and then stopping it because of being afraid of the results ?? Is this democracy ? Please share your thoughts ...

14:25 / 06.06.05

Well, although it is politically convenient for Blair not to have a referendum, it is also the correct decision. That is, given the constitution is dead, what question could a referendum be plausibly asking?

16:44 / 06.06.05

As Lurid points out, to be adopted, the treaty on the EU constitution needed to be ratified by all 25 member states, with two states, so far, failing to ratify the constitution the treaty as it was negotiated is dead.

It's also probably worth pointing out that not all EU states actually put the treaty on the EU constitution up for a referendum, and nor did they need to. Germany ratified the treaty in parlement - had the Dutch and French followed suit it is likely that there would still be a treaty for other member states to vote on...

Sjaak at the Shoe Shop

14:02 / 13.06.05

What I am confused by is why French President Chirac called a referendum at all? He could of got the constitution ratified by Parliament, like Germany and some of the others?

Some interpretations say he saw an opportunity to hit the French Parti Socialiste, who were hopelessly divided on the subject, and at that he succeeded. Apparently he didn’t realize that the vote could also backfire against him.

Having just voted myself there were a couple of thoughts I wanted to add.

As mentioned earlier reasons for voting against the treaty have been quite diverse, but none of them seem very well defined. However there seems to be a pattern that in countries where there is little support for the current government and possibly a general distrust against the government/politicians the vote have gone ‘Nay’ (where the government strongly supported the ‘yes’). The situation seems to be different in countries where this was less of an issue (like Spain).

I would guess this is also linked with the fact that it was similarly undefined what people were really voting about. Here it was not clearly presented what was going to be new with the treaty, and what was already addressed in existing treaties. The pro-campaign failed dramatically (never got beyond the 'trust us' level) and was defensive from the beginning. As such it quickly became more of a confidence vote which is always risky. Confidence in what? In our national government?, EP?, Turkey?, Euro?, so many issues to feel uncomfortable about, but which had actually little to do with the subject. In doubt, people will be conservative, say ‘No’ and stick with what they have.

Would like to know how others feel about the use of referenda, but better start a separate threat about that..