(political) We had it good…

[rgraham666]

you and I, but I weep for our children.

That was one of Poul Anderson's toasts. Today, I agree with him.

I was reading this morning that Holland rejected the EU Constitution. This probably means the EU will fail.

And I believe that the construct known as The West will follow soon after. With the EU's failure, power will pass out of the hands of the democratic nations and into the hands of transnational economic forces. This won't be good.

From now on, the democratic nations, and that means us people, will have little say in our lives. If we want minimum levels of pay, of safety, of health, we are going to be shit out of luck.

From now on, if we ask for these things the answer will be 'Fuck you' and the transnationals will go to some place that doesn't have the standards we demand. In order to get any business at all we're going to have to get on our knees and start sucking.

That won't be good for our futures, but a future as a slave is better than no future at all, I guess.

The EU was a good chance to make a nation large enough to balance off transnational economic forces. With it gone, we'll be in a race to the bottom.

I'm glad I won't be around to see it. And I'm glad I don't have kids or grandkids who will have to live through it.

OK, end rant.

 

[lil_elvis]

Rob,

Although the unpopularity of Chirac is the major reason why France rejected the constitution, I wouldn't drive the nails in the coffin quite yet.

The proposed EU "consitution" was a highly flawed document, just on length alone. If it takes four hundred some odd pages (depending the language of the translation) to make a constitution, there is something seriously wrong. Try reading it - a certain cure for insomnia. How could anyone expect the voters to know what they were voting for?

Moreover, many voters were very skeptical of the laws/regulations that would be issued by some vaguely (and indirectly) elected bureaucrats in Brussels and would lead to what you fear rather than preventing it. That is, loss of the current labor protections/rights currently on the books in France in favor of a more open labor policy that would make out sourcing easier, not harder.

 

[Guest]

Europe is shithole, anyway.

Asia is where the all actions' gonna the next 50 years or so.

The Middle East will always be fucked up, though.

 

[oggbashan]

Too much; too soon

The proposed constitution was so long and had so many contentious clauses in it that the real surprise is that anyone voted for it. It is and was a mess.

The constitution for the expanded Europe needs to address the political control of the EU Commission, how decisions are taken when not every country agrees, and how individual nations can preserve their identity in an enlarged Europe. The draft tried to do far more than that and there was something in it to piss off almost anyone.

We didn't have the drafting skills, nor the foresight, used by those who devised the US constitution.

Whatever happens now, the politicians cannot fudge serious issues about Europe any longer. They have to address the problems of the Euro, the European Central Bank, the corruption at the core of Europe and the stupidity of moving the Parliament from one city to another. The biggest problem is reform of the subsidy systems.

I hope that this will lead to a better Europe after a set-back.

Og

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I agree with the "too much, too soon" idea, and I also think it's way too early to let the European project fall. In fact, I think this was a setback to what was becoming a progressivel right-wing liberal project, that put too much emphasis on market. A good part of the "No" was a rejection of that Europe, and a call to return to a more social and solidary Europe.

This proto-Constitution has as expansion as a primary purpose, but I now believe the project will have to be redirected. Europe needs to be better (i.e. more cohesive and solidary) before it can be larger.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I agree with lil_elvis. This "no" vote did more to stop trans-national, faceless, unaccountable beaurocracy than to aid it. I would like to see a strong Europe that helps to balance the power of the US, but I don't think that that constitution was the way to get it. At the moment, we're looking at an EU beaurocracy that persistantly ignores grave constituent concerns about national identity, fair representation and the limits of federalist-style powers in favor of deciding how much a loaf of bread should weigh and who can ship bananas to whom. It's a mess, and there's a real tendency to try to solve most problems by beginning with "it will all be simpler and more efficient if we just force everyone to do this in exactly the same way." That's a great solution if you're a beaurocrat trying to make it easier to count and measure things, but not very appealing if you value any semblence of individuality, variety, or personal or national freedom. Granted, it's a damned tricky thing trying to weld a broad and diverse group of nations into a single political and financial body, but perhaps the Brussels crew might care to listen a little more closely to their constituents' opinions on whether that's what they want in the first place.

Shanglan

 

[Liar]

I was reading this morning that Holland rejected the EU Constitution. This probably means the EU will fail.

A bit of a hyperbole there. I suppose the EU project will develop slower, but fail? Naah, it's already too much of an institution to disintegrate.

Personally, I'm not convinced that the new constitution is optimal, especially when it comes to parliamental forms and procedures. Given the chance, I too might have voted to reject it. But I'm not well read to make that desicion yet.

#L

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I think that one of the greatest problems of the Constitution was calling itself "Constitution". It is not, and it could not be, because it wasn't drawn up by a duly elected constituent assembly. It tried to pass for a constitutional document so that later on, when the real Constitution of a European superstate came along, it would be accepted as a done deal.

Whether or not it would be ultimately beneficial for them, the people deserve a little bit more transparency than that.

 

[amicus]

Hmmmm....Very little in depth coverage has been available here in the USA concerning the rejection of the EU Constitution by Holland and France.

Thus I was pleased to see the subject under discussion here, however...

I watched an amazing television program a few nights ago, produced in Canada, filmed in England and Germany and aboard ship, mostly aboard ship, on the 'Super Ships' series on the Science Channel, titled: "Shanghai Express; Ocean Highway Haulers"

This program outlined the 'Hapag-Lloyd' shipping company and the history of 'container shipping' that has developed over the past decade or so.

I was thrilled to watch the automated loading and unloading of thousands of containers in Hamburg and the very high tech approach to shipping, navigation and business that was portrayed in the program.

For one of the first times ever, a program actually applauded technology and free trade to the extent that it extolled the virtues of market mechanics as it acted to supply goods and services of high quality with efficiency as the guiding force.

It gave me the eery sense that 'Germany' through technology and expertise, is on the rise again, in the economic chaos that the EU seems to signify.

This organization is fantastic! Computer directed Robots, with few human workers, completely run the Port facilities in several countries. There are no sick calls, no paid vacations, no labor disputes as the 'robots' work 24/7 and never show up late for work.

And, this is not small time. Ships such as the Shanghai Express and the Hamburg Express, carry 7500 containers the size of railroad boxcars in a 56 day round trip between the Orient and Europe. There are ships on the drawing board to carry up to 10,000 containers and new, hi-tech Seaports are coming on line to meet the demand.

From an American point of view, one could say that 'perhaps' it is a good idea for a closer relationship between European countries...in terms of trade agreements and less restriction and regulation in the market place.

But if many/most European countries wish/choose/vote, to continue on a path to socialism, with guaranteed wages, free health care, all the perquisites and benefits of a totalitarian society like the late Soviet Union, then, I predict 'conflict' is in your future.

Again, there has been little in depth coverage here, and I surely have not read the '400' pages of the EU Constitution and truly do not understand the underlying dynamics of 'why' such a constitution was voted on or is necessary, but I felt that the program I mentioned offered a small insight as to the inner machinations of the world of trade in the EU, and since, 'trade' is the heart of the matter, thought it might be of some import.

And while there is some truth in the 'size' of trading entities, I do not see it as valid to balance the USA against a combined EU to offset Asian, Russian and South American cooperatives.

I rather see it as an attempt to create an 'OPEC' mentality, to limit production and control prices and effectively restrain a free market place. I truly hope that is not the intent of the powers that be in the EU.

amicus the idiot....

 

[Guest]

Newsweek June6/June 13, 2005

Germany
What's Going Right
by Stefan Theil

 

[Colleen Thomas]

What the Constitution needed was GW to launch preemptive invasion of Iran some weeks before the vote. If that sounds crazy, there is method to the madness.

Referendums in France, seem to be a forum for the people at large to make their pleasure of displeasure with the current government known. There is alot of discontent with Chiraq and unemployment is high. Many voters took the opportunity to tell the government they were displeased, by voting against what it wanted. From exit poll comments I read, it seems to me a lot of folks, if not the bulk of them, didn't really know what was in the document they voted against.

Had the vote occured while Chiraq had a popular platform to rally folks around, it might well have succeeded in passing, with those who didn't know what was in it casting their vote in support of the current government.

It would seem, announcing this as the death knell of the EU is premature. They have operated fairly well on existing treaties. I haven't read that anyone in the Eu is looking to abrogate those treaties, although I did see an Italian politician is calling for a referendum to return to the Lira.

 

[oggbashan]

...

It would seem, announcing this as the death knell of the EU is premature. They have operated fairly well on existing treaties. I haven't read that anyone in the Eu is looking to abrogate those treaties, although I did see an Italian politician is calling for a referendum to return to the Lira.

The problem with the constitution is that we HAVEN'T operated fairly well under the existing treaties.

The Eurozone only works because virtually every country is breaking the rules that are supposed to govern the Euro. Germany's economy is a mess because it hasn't recovered from the leap of faith involved in reunification.

The European Commission is corrupt not just in political terms but in financial terms as well. Enron's accounts would be a better example of open auditting.

The European Community is fundamentally spilt between the free traders who want a flexible labour force and those wanting the old-style social welfare model that protects workers from outside influences. France is the leader of the social welfare camp. The UK is NOT the leader of the free traders but is held up as an example of what the social welfare countries do NOT want.

The expansion of Europe has brought within the European Community countries with low wage costs who want access to the whole European market as exporters of goods or labour. The French and Germans who have high unemployment want neither and are frightened of the competition. They are very worried about further expansion Eastwards to include the possibility of some Balkan states, Turkey and the Ukraine. They think their unemployment levels will rise even further if more 'poor' countries join Europe.

Britain's view is that the expansion of Europe is an opportunity to build a stronger economy that can compete on a global scale. The new additions to Europe bring younger workers that 'old' Europe lacks, brings skills and enthusiasm that will help as the European economy develops. The process of assimilation could be painful.

The constitution was a mess. If it had stuck to general principles and included a rationalisation of the treaties signed so far it could have succeeded. But it went much farther than that into such mind-boggling detail that we would need more lawyers than exist in the whole of the US just to interpret the constitution. Any document that provides massive employment for lawyers is BAD.

Og

 

[rgraham666]

I hadn't realised that the 'constitution' was such a product of bureaucrats and lawyers. My support for it would have been a lot less had I known.

I shouldn't post when tired but I stick to my original contention. The EU isn't going to make it and neither is The West. In order to 'compete', we're going to indulge in a race to the bottom.

We will, for the most part, lose many of the social necessities we have. They will be 'non-competitive'. Without these things we'll be, if we're lucky, living life much like in what used to be the Soviet Union. If we're unlucky, we'll be living in the Democratic Republic of The Congo.

Shrugs. It's happened before. It's gonna happen again. So sad.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Any document that provides massive employment for lawyers is BAD.

Sensible, sensible man.

 

[jill999]

you and I, but I weep for our children.

I'm glad I won't be around to see it. And I'm glad I don't have kids or grandkids who will have to live through it.

OK, end rant.

RG,

Oh my, the sky is falling!!!!

The standard of living in the west continues to rise. Certainly not all share equally, but in contrast to families who wondered how they would have enough to eat, we now have families wondering if they have the best cell phone or car.

I'm very optimistic that my children will have unlimited opportunities in their lives. The threat doesn't come from the politics of the day, but it comes from the religous fundamentalist that would prefer to see me dressed in a burka. I love my freedom and the opportunities to do as I please. I will never be a slave to anyone.

Now who is ranting? LOL

Jill

 

[rgraham666]

Lucky you, Jill.

I'm on a disability and will be for the rest of my life.

Or until someone decides I'm too expensive to support and I get thrown on the street.

Happened once before. Nearly killed me.

Oh well. Shrugs. It would probably be better if I did die and decrease the surplus population.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Several months ago, I started a thread about the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which was a part of the constitutional document. There was some discussion over the validity of a few articles, which could be viewed from the American perspective as markedly leftists.

Curiously, one of the main arguments of the No was that the Charter of Rights was too right-wing liberal, and it should include even more rights that are already protected by most national constitutions - environmental rights, for example.

 

[cantdog]

This, uh, characteristic of America, Lauren, is, of course, why the EU must not fail.

 

[jill999]

Lucky you, Jill.

I'm on a disability and will be for the rest of my life.

Or until someone decides I'm too expensive to support and I get thrown on the street.

Happened once before. Nearly killed me.

Oh well. Shrugs. It would probably be better if I did die and decrease the surplus population.

RG,

Your mind is as sharp as anyone I have known. You are so gifted with your ability to write. It takes a special person to overcome a physical disability and be helpful to those of us who have the good fortune of health. I know you have helped me and I know what a strong person you are.

Don't even think for a second that you are surplus. Nobody is kicking you to the curb RG. If you need my help let me know. I'm sure many others will be there too.

Now let's get you in a better mood darling.

How about a kiss for your girlfriend.......hehe

Jill

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Switzerland joins the Schengen accord after Yes wins in today's referendum.

 

[ishtat]

It's worth noting that about 85% of all referenda (with one exception ) are lost in all countries where they are held. Politicians tend to repeat the error of asking the question they want answered and are then outsmarted by the voters who respond to the question they believe should have been asked.

The exception apears to be Switzerland where they regularly ask voters for decisions on closely focussed particular issues.

As someone, Lauren ? said calling it a Constitution almost guaranteed failure.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

That's true. And the Swiss appear to be the only ones actually voting on the issues, instead of voting for or against whatever the government says.

 

[patrick1]

The EU has always felt a rather top-down organisation to me, a get-together for civil servants and ministers rather than people. I feel unconvinced that there's a popular desire for enlarging the Union even to its current extent. Certainly it feels to me like Britain is best outside the euro - it's a very tricky manoeuvre, trying to harmonise the currencies of so many nation states. In the Netherlands certainly there's a lot of hostility now to the Euro, and some Italian maverick minister is suggesting a referendum on returning to the lira

The French and Dutch no votes are popular protest votes, against all their leading political parties. A simpler, more comprehensible constitution, linked with more power to the European Parliament, might get somewhere in the medium term.

To be clear, though, this doesn't seem to me a vote against the EU as such at all, but against a long-winded compromise being foisted on people who are more worried about 'the Polish plumber' (a feature of the French campaign, i.e. someone with a right to work in your country and reap the benefits of your high taxes without paying them) than about the niceties of the constitution.

P

 

[oggbashan]

Swiss Yes; French No.

The Swiss voted for more open borders and freer trade.

The French seem in part to have voted AGAINST just those things.

The EU started as the Common Market. It isn't a common market even now with trade between EU states restricted by differing practices and protectionism. It isn't that long ago that French strikers were stopping UK lorries to burn English lamb meat to protest against the French Government.

The UK expects its citizens to follow laws set by the EU. Some other countries don't expect their citizens to follow their own laws, and certainly not Europe's. For example bars that sell food in France are supposed to be non-smoking zones. You might see the sign through the haze of Gauloise smoke...

The constitution tried to be all things to all countries and failed. Why some countries voted Yes and some voted No is very complex but this constitution is dead. No one is prepared to take the blame of being the first country to say that the corpse needs burying.

Perhaps now we could actually address the debate about what the EEC should be and how we get there from here.

Og

 

[Lauren Hynde]

No one is prepared to take the blame of being the first country to say that the corpse needs burying.

The Portuguese Minister of Foreign Affairs did it today, but unfortunately only as a private citizen. He said that it would be better to let the current document fall immediately instead of risking these two Nos turning into five, six or seven of them, and say, "ok, this constitutional project failed; let's think and start a new one properly from scratch."