[N8 v2.0]

The constituition is a total sham. France rejects it, Holland rejects it...

What do you Old Europe dwellers think about the recent events relating to the EU?

 

[Damn True]

Perhaps it's because centralized multinational government is a $hitty idea and people dislike the idea of surrendering soverignty.

 

[Changleen]

Central European banking is a really bad idea. The Constitution was actually hardly anything new, simply a restatement and simplification of most of the existing principals and structures. The votes against it were, in France, mainly a backlash against Chirac's economic policies and in Holland, a protest about the unballanced contribution they make to the overall costs of the EU, and their worries about certain countries that want to join. Mostly Turkey.

N8, Europe really isn't 'self destructing'.

 

[motomike]

N8, Europe really isn't 'self destructing'.

no, we're doing it for them.

 

[Kevin]

Central European banking is a really bad idea. The Constitution was actually hardly anything new, simply a restatement and simplification of most of the existing principals and structures. The votes against it were, in France, mainly a backlash against Chirac's economic policies and in Holland, a protest about the unballanced contribution they make to the overall costs of the EU, and their worries about certain countries that want to join. Mostly Turkey.

N8, Europe really isn't 'self destructing'.

Most Dutchies voted NO because of their lack of trust in the the EU.
Im pretty sure that 90% didnt really knew what the European constitution was about. The goverment has failed to inform the people what it was all about and in stead of informing peeps all they did was try and convince people to vote YES. Not a smart thing to do since we dont trust our goverment. They have been fukkin everything up for a couple of years now and everyone is getting tired of it.
Since the introduction of the Euro a lot of things like grocery's, going out on a saturday night and other every day things have become twice as expensive even though we were promised prices would stay the same.
Politicians are thinking of stupider (is that a word?) plans every day to make us pay more taxes and our Prime minister is a joke who has is hand way up george dubyas asshole.
The assasination's of Pim Fortuin and Theo van Gogh a while ago havent really helped creating a safe and happy climate either.
I think Holland is a failed experiment and so is the whole European Union.
We dont want to be one big happy Europe but some rich ass people who will only get more money out of this crap are gonna make us do it anyways.

 

[Changleen]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/europe_dutch_reject_constitution/html/1.stm

http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031783057122&path=!nationworld&s=1037645509161

Most people are saying the Dutch rejected the European Constitution over fears Europe is chaning to fast, economic imbalances and immigration. Neither France or Holland reject the constitution for it's content.

 

[Kevin]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/europe_dutch_reject_constitution/html/1.stm

http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031783057122&path=!nationworld&s=1037645509161

Most people are saying the Dutch rejected the European Constitution over fears Europe is chaning to fast, economic imbalances and immigration. Neither France or Holland reject the constitution for it's content.

Yeah that pretty much sums it up.
Its more of a protest vote. The general public have no id what the European constitution is about.
Anyways I think were all ****ed here, I even hate our goverment more then I hate the US goverment.

 

[Changleen]

Excellent article about he reasons:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,9061,1498404,00.html

The people of France and the Netherlands have killed the EU constitution. It is an ex-treaty. But if we must respect what the voters have done, we must also respect the reasons they have given for doing it. Commentators who impose their own romantic or apocalyptic scenarios on facts that do not support them are just as culpable as EU leaders in denial.

So we cannot just ignore the fact that 52% of French no voters told the exit pollsters on Sunday that the main reason they voted the way they did was that they were discontented with the current social and economic condition of France, while 35% of them said it was a chance to oppose Turkish membership of the EU. Sure, 40% of them said the constitution was too economically liberal for their taste. But any attempt to interpret the French vote as an intifada against globalisation is misleading.

Article continues
Likewise with the vote in the Netherlands. There, Dutch no voters gave exit pollsters 20 different reasons for doing what they did on Wednesday. First on their list was a fear that the Netherlands would lose influence in an EU that would favour large countries. Next was the complaint that Dutch politicians had failed to consult sufficiently. More than a quarter said they were voting to oppose Turkish entry.

Let those who wish to interpret the two referendums as a great shout on behalf of the European social model - but which one? - or as the rejection of the euro that they would like to see rejected by British voters one day - do so. A more accurate analysis is that these no votes were made up of many strands. While one of these may well have been leftwing opposition to market economics, another, at least as strong, was rightwing opposition to immigrants, black minorities and Muslims. The no vote would not have won in France without the forces of Jean-Marie Le Pen. And the no vote would not have won in Holland without the supporters of Pim Fortuyn.

Not one word of this is to belittle the results in France and the Netherlands or the crisis that now presents itself within the EU. It is merely to say that interpreting the mood among 450 million people is as complicated as it is necessary.

Here's my take. Many in Europe have not yet woken up to the changed, challenging but better world created by the end of the cold war. This goes for western Europe's politicians as well as its voters. On Europe's left and the right, there is a yearning for a politics that will make the perceived problems of the post-cold war era - market forces for some, black people for others - go away. Some of Europe's politicians occasionally imply that bits of this might be possible. But it is not.

In the aftermath of the death of communism, referendums provide an ideal weapon for backlash politics of the sort that we have seen this week. But these referendums are not the foundations of a serious alternative or a new kind of politics. They are a warning that Europe's politicians have failed to give Europe's anxious citizens an overarching explanation of how governments can help to manage their place in the globalised market economy of the post-cold war era. With the death of the EU constitution, they will simply have to go back and try again, because this is still the only game in town.

 

[fluff]

You have to be careful about what the media are saying are the reasons for the 'no' votes. Bear the following in mind:

Most of the information provided to the media on this issue coms from government sources.

These governements are pro-EU constitution and will be looking for a way to resurrect the process as soon as feasible.

Blaming something other than the EU constitution assists them in doing so.

The EU is not the only game in town, but it is the one the ruling cliques favour.

If the governments could get away without referenda (not referendums, geeze the Grauniad has gone downhill) they would, but they have found that they cannot.

If the governments cannot get people to support the constitution despite the huge use of money and a (generally) supportive media it is not becuase the people are stupid, it is that they do not want it.

 

[fluff]

Excellent article about he reasons:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,9061,1498404,00.html

Critique:


So we cannot just ignore the fact that 52% of French no voters told the exit pollsters on Sunday that the main reason they voted the way they did was that they were discontented with the current social and economic condition of France, while 35% of them said it was a chance to oppose Turkish membership of the EU. Sure, 40% of them said the constitution was too economically liberal for their taste. But any attempt to interpret the French vote as an intifada against globalisation is misleading.

As the current social and economic condition of France is closely allied to being part of the Eurozone (single currency) this is highly relevant to the question, as is the the 40%. That 35% wish to veto Turkish membership is as much a vote against globalisation as it is not - there is no reason to see it the way it is postulated here. Why do the percentages add up to 127?


Here's my take. Many in Europe have not yet woken up to the changed, challenging but better world created by the end of the cold war. This goes for western Europe's politicians as well as its voters. On Europe's left and the right, there is a yearning for a politics that will make the perceived problems of the post-cold war era - market forces for some, black people for others - go away. Some of Europe's politicians occasionally imply that bits of this might be possible. But it is not.

In the aftermath of the death of communism, referendums provide an ideal weapon for backlash politics of the sort that we have seen this week. But these referendums are not the foundations of a serious alternative or a new kind of politics. They are a warning that Europe's politicians have failed to give Europe's anxious citizens an overarching explanation of how governments can help to manage their place in the globalised market economy of the post-cold war era. With the death of the EU constitution, they will simply have to go back and try again, because this is still the only game in town.

Undoubtedly written by someone who supports the EU constitution, but begs the question how can Europe (especially the UK) be doing so well as they are at present if this constitution is so necessary. And if democracy is to deny referenda and the will of the people than what sort of freedom do we wish for?

 

[fluff]

Excellent article about he reasons:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,9061,1498404,00.html

While one of these may well have been leftwing opposition to market economics, another, at least as strong, was rightwing opposition to immigrants, black minorities and Muslims. The no vote would not have won in France without the forces of Jean-Marie Le Pen. And the no vote would not have won in Holland without the supporters of Pim Fortuyn.

This is the bit that causes concern but may have been overstated - there is little opposition to the inclusion of many other countries that have potentially higher volumes of 'immigrants' and there is also no mention of the fact that many oppose Turkish membership on the basis of their poor record on human rights