PE, You've Been Quiet On EU Vote Recently

Annie

Diamond Member
Nov 22, 2003
50,848
4,828
1,790
http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-europe_constitution/EUconstitution_2542.jsp

The end of the European Union
Gwyn Prins
25 - 5 - 2005


Whatever the French and Dutch decide in their referenda on the European constitution, the European federal project is dying, says Gwyn Prins.

For the first time, fear really stalks the Rue de la Loi in Brussels, headquarters of the European Commission. It is visceral. We know this because of the increasingly hysterical register of the messages in which the commissioners are sending French and Dutch voters preparing (in their referenda on 29 May and 1 June respectively) to vote down the treaty establishing a federal constitution. If you do so, the European Union nomenklatura is saying, you will bring to Europe economic disaster, a return to internecine war or (most tastelessly and least forgivably) another Holocaust. It is ridiculous hyperbole and therefore all the more demanding of explanation. How did it come to this?

I watched, in voyeuristic fascination, the first two-hour television debate between the French protagonists on 16 May. Each side reached opposite conclusions from the same assumptions: that essential French interests were under mortal threat; that enlargement has already gone too far; that Turkey was a step too far. As voices rose, it sounded like a collective nervous breakdown.

My guess (and hope) is still that we will see a “Maastricht yes” in France: a vote for the constitution, but by the slimmest of margins. Perhaps President Chirac, like Francois Mitterrand in a similar predicament, will announce prostate cancer on polling eve. The “yes” camp may yet triumph, but it is a close call.

After two recent visits to Holland, it looks to me increasingly likely too that the Dutch will vote “no”, also for a mixture of reasons (in their case, much closer to English ones). There is no appetite there for federal union; much anger about being taken for granted in the past and now by the most unpopular Dutch government for a generation; there is mistrust of the French. A French “yes” and a Dutch “no” will mean that Tony Blair cannot escape his referendum in Britain; and a “no” there would write the obituary of the European federal project that is now – in any case – so plainly dying.

A dying fall

What a difference fifteen years can make! In 1990 the European Community (as it still was called) was still doing, more or less, what it had been intended to do since 1957: in essence, to ensure that the skilful French rider could ride the sturdy German horse, in Charles de Gaulle’s celebrated description (with, one might add, the Dutch and British stable-lads paying the bill for the cheerful French peasant to grow the fodder).

In 1991 the rider fell off.
The occasion was the death of Yugoslavia. Hans-Dietrich Genscher, Germany’s foreign minister, insisted that his newly-reunited country pursue an active foreign policy for the first time since 1945. Along with his Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, he forced the European Union in January 1992 to recognise two republics of fragmenting Yugoslavia – Croatia and Slovenia – as sovereign states.

Many other European capitals, and Washington, had grave doubts about this move. London, Paris, Rome, and Amsterdam were convinced – correctly, as it turned out – that this would lead to a Balkan civil war. The Germans insisted, and won; John Major, the British prime minister, consented to the decision after having secured from Kohl in exchange an “opt out” from the Maastricht Treaty’s “social chapter”.

The shock of German heavy-handedness and EU foreign-policy rudderlessness and division were the stimulus to accelerated federal steps in the 1990s. Some were taken on autopilot: the Brussels machine is programmed to legislate as a spider is to spin its web. Thus the Gulliver-like achievement of the single market was tied down by the myriad Lilliputian threads of the acquis communautaire legislation, advancing stealthily into ever-wider areas of member-states’ national life (especially under cover of “heath and safety” and “environment” regulation).

Among the historic errors of this period – when the heaviest-footed drivers were in Paris rather than Berlin – was the introduction of the single currency; a premature decision that has been severely punished by the capital markets, where the euro is now effectively traded as a debauched currency.

France and Germany’s violation of the fiscal rules they signed up to elicited the just fury of the Dutch, who had surrendered the second strongest European currency (after the Swiss Franc) in a community-minded spirit, only to discover that the translation of communautaire was “French national interest”. The Netherlands everywhere experienced small-item price inflation (compare the price of a cup of coffee in lira or guilders and now euro).

Then came Giscard d’Estaing’s extravagant federal constitution, which may yet prove to be the bridge too far.
[The definitive insider’s account of the gestation of the bizarre, constipated text written by Giscard and Sir John Kerr is by Britain’s principal parliamentary member of the drafting group: Gisela Stuart, The Making of Europe’s Constitution (Fabian Society, December 2003).]

This brutal acceleration of the European Union project in the post-1990 period has leaked so much legitimacy from it that it now starts to resemble that other superannuated, elite-created, imposed federal union “project” also conceived in Europe in the same period (1910s-20s): the Soviet Union.

One of John Kenneth Galbraith’s most ingenious contributions to social knowledge was his observation that above a certain size, large organisations replace their original motivation (for example, profit) with the goal of integrated control of its entire operating environment, and that they hide this pursuit of unaccountable power behind a myth of its opposite.

By the same token, neo-absolutist political institutions like the EU depend upon the maintenance of a fiction of democratic accountability. The claim is periodically challenged by the public refusal to vote for the European Parliament – hardly surprising when the parliamentarians vote to continue inflating their expenses, when an entire commission has to resign over corrupt practices, when the organisation as a whole fails to produce reliable, honest financial accounts, and when “whistleblowers” like Paul van Buitenen and Marta Andreasen are excommunicated and threatened.

The fundamental issue is that the EU, like the failed Soviet experiment, cannot meet Alexis de Tocqueville’s tests of democratic legitimation. The organisation is trapped by the local effects of a worldwide crisis of institutional trust, and a breakdown in the essence of the social contract between citizen and state.

The French effort to mount the German horse – an exercise first conceived in hope by Aristide Briand and Jean Monnet in reaction to the slaughter of Verdun and the Somme – is newly exposed as bloated and unlovely. The “European Union” is just another episode – now drawing to a close – in the long history of Europe and its peoples
. It has no inherent identity except in the minds and worldview of the Brussels elite who depend on it for their privilege and power.

Least of all is the “EU” coterminous with Europe. The Eurobarometer opinion surveys reveal that the generational gradient of affinity to a primary European identity is the reverse of what Monnet and his colleagues expected in 1945. They were the strongest enthusiasts for the federal project; the soixante-huitards (like me) were still keen, but less so; “Generation X” and today’s rising 20-somethings are just not interested. They take for granted the four basic qualifications for successful modern living: convenience of travel, the universal need to speak English, computer and mobile phone skills, and car-driving. And they feel Dutch, English, French, German or Italian, first of all.

The castle is all lit up; the flag is flying, the wardens peer out anxiously, but the people aren’t at home. It is not what many would have predicted in 1991.

Gwyn Prins is a professor at the London School of Economics and author of The Heart of War (Routledge)
 
Not looking good for your "Yes." PE!

From the 'rag':


http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1494414,00.html


....All leaders will wait for Jacques Chirac to pronounce. If he abides by a French no vote, the measure will be effectively dead. All sides agree that the EU will not shudder to a halt on Monday morning if France votes no; the Nice Treaty of 2003 ensures that an enlarged Europe of 25 members can still function.

But European leaders will have been exposed as out of touch and they will watch as the EU's principle achievements of the past 20 years, integration and enlargement, are stopped in their tracks.

"You cannot build a Europe that wise people want to build," Charles Grant, director of the London-based Centre for European Reform, says of the elite. "We live in an age of populism where lots of countries are having referendums. Someone once said to me that the EU exists in a bubble and has never touched down on planet earth."

If this failure to connect is confirmed tomorrow, severe pressure will be placed on the delicate compromise which has defined the EU over the past two decades and lies at the heart of the constitution. This has seen the six founding member states, plus other enthusiasts, living up to their commitment to create an "ever closer union" by such integrationist measures as the euro.

As a quid pro quo for agreeing to this, the likes of Britain have been granted their wish to see the EU expand. "If the French vote no ... you break the momentum to deepen; you also break the momentum to widening," Mr Grant said.

With such warnings ringing in their ears, no European leader wants to deliver the last rites to the constitution.

A European summit in mid-June, which is meant to discuss the British budget rebate, will be cleared of all business as leaders work out how to salvage core elements of the constitution, such as a reformed voting system and a president of the council of ministers.

An equivocal response from Mr Chirac, in the case of a narrow no vote, will still provide a headache for Europe's leaders, some of whom fear that the French might try to cherry pick the bits of the treaty they like.

However, Alex Stubb, a visiting professor at the College of Europe in Bruges, who is also a Finnish MEP, believes the EU will muddle through: "When [the EU] has its back against the wall it usually makes its most bold decisions."

Opinion polls

France 45% yes 55% no


· source: CSA, May 27


Netherlands 36% yes 52% no


· source: TNS NIPO, May 23


Britain 24% yes 45% no


· source: YouGov, Feb 1

Then again, it appears that the French may be heading for 'non' along with the Netherlands, because they fear that it might bring reform, now with so many members. Of course, since the US is not a party to this, best to attack the surrogate:

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/n...ml&sSheet=/portal/2005/05/28/ixportaltop.html

Chirac ready to turn his anger on Blair if France votes Non
By Toby Helm, Chief Political Correspondent
(Filed: 28/05/2005)

What's all the fuss about?

Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac will be pitched into a furious six-month dispute over the future direction of the European Union if the French people vote No to the EU constitution tomorrow.

Government sources are braced for the French president to round on the Prime Minister and blame him for making the constitution too "Anglo-Saxon" on economic issues and for plunging Europe into crisis as a result.


The French people go to the polls on Sunday
They also expect Mr Chirac to launch a fresh assault on Britain's £3 billion rebate from the EU budget.

British diplomats believe that Mr Chirac will call for France, Germany and other nations to form a "core Europe" in which they can push ahead with integration without being held back by laggards such as Britain.

However, Mr Blair and Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, want to use Britain's six-month EU presidency, which begins on July 1, to argue that eurozone economies need flexible British and American-style economies rather than heavy regulation and tax harmonisation.
 
padisha emperor said:
No, I had problem with the access to the board all day. It's the first time that the connection is successfull.

for the vote

..........................................


oh shit.


:pat, pat back smilie: I know. :blowup: Well you know what they say about every black cloud!
 
It's an awesome, a very very huge black cloud ! For France, for the couple France-Germany, for the french population and for the EU.

(Do you know something about my connection problem ? Did you have some too or just me ? ;) )
 
All the high person in Bruxelles are disapointed, Barroso said that it was a big problem.
In Spain, they're really disapointed, sad. In Italy too. In Poland they don't understand....it hurts the whole EU - except probably UK - .The progression of the EU in the political and democratic domain is quite stopped.
it was a great opportunity.

I'm really sad tonight.
 
padisha emperor said:
It's an awesome, a very very huge black cloud ! For France, for the couple France-Germany, for the french population and for the EU.

(Do you know something about my connection problem ? Did you have some too or just me ? ;) )

See Jim's post. I gotta tell you though, while the board was down, I 'cheated' on USMB and went over to Canadian boards. They are happy it was turned down! I guess US/UK/AU aren't the EU's only questioners?

Nevertheless, PE, I am sorry you are sad. :thup:
 
padisha emperor said:
All the high person in Bruxelles are disapointed, Barroso said that it was a big problem.
In Spain, they're really disapointed, sad. In Italy too. In Poland they don't understand....it hurts the whole EU - except probably UK - .The progression of the EU in the political and democratic domain is quite stopped.
it was a great opportunity.

I'm really sad tonight.

Don't be so sad. Here is something from someone I think is very bright. I think he's probably correct, though like him I do NOT think it's a good thing from our perspective. I understand Europe is not 'populist' like US, it would bother me to have such a document that only the 'elite' thought so highly of, they really haven't done that great of a job:

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/007599.html

Non will mean oui
Brian Micklethwait (London) European Union
(1)
For what it may or may not be worth, Channel 4 News has just said that a leaked exit poll gives the Non side victory with between 53 and 55 per cent of the vote.

Meanwhile, the EU Referendum blog reports that it has read a document which explains that Non will not actually mean No:

In short, the authors conclude that, in the event of one or both countries voting "no", the ratification process should be neither suspended nor abandoned. They assert that all member states have expressed a commitment to proceed with ratification by virtue of Declaration 30, appended to the Constitutional Treaty. Member states cannot unilaterally or collectively decide to change the ratification process.
Thus, member states which have not already ratified should continue with the process whence, once 20 members have done so, the matter should be referred to the European Council.

In the meantime, the authors caution that "the European Union must not remain paralysed". Rather, they say, "it must continue and intensify its efforts to relaunch its policies, even by implementing in advance, where possible, the provisions of the Treaty that do not meet with open opposition".

Thus, the considered response in the event of a rejection of the constitution should be "full steam ahead". Member states should implement it even faster than they are doing already.


Very helpful. I wish I could be equally helpful in return on this question:

So what, precisely, do we have to do to stop this thing?
I read the EU Referendum blog in the hope of getting answers to questions like that. If they have to ask that, what is the chance that anyone else will have an answer?
 
Personally I think this sucks, but he probably has this right:

http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=9&aid=19168

French and Dutch treaty referendums should be re-run, says Juncker
26.05.2005 - 09:57 CET | By Elitsa Vucheva

If the French and the Dutch reject the EU Constitution on Sunday and Wednesday, they should re-run the referendums, the current president of the EU, Jean-Claude Juncker, has said.

"If at the end of the ratification process, we do not manage to solve the problems, the countries that would have said No, would have to ask themselves the question again", Mr Juncker said in an interview with Belgian daily Le Soir.

His words come despite a statement by the French prime minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin on Tuesday (24 May) saying that another referendum is "not a perspective that France could accept".

The Luxembourg leader went on to say: "And if, even after the European Council deals with the problem, we do not manage to find the right answer, the treaty will not come into force".

Mr Juncker stressed that a French No would be a "disaster" and excluded the possibility of imminent re-negotiations.

"The idea circulating in France that there could be an immediate re-negotiation (of the treaty) is absolutely unimaginable", he said.

According to Jean-Claude Juncker, it would take "10 to 15 years" for another treaty to be established.

And a rejection of the Constitution would also lead to "external observers" not knowing what direction Europe wants to take anymore, which means that the "economy will not get better with a No", Mr Juncker pointed out.

This is why the ratification process should go on in other countries, even if France says No, the current EU president stressed.

"I would find it extraordinary to say to the other nations that they can stay home, as France has decided for everybody else", Mr Juncker said.


But according to The Times, ministers in the British government do not find it likely that the ratification would go on if both the French and the Dutch say no.

Instead, they believe President Jacques Chirac will have to either promise renegotiation or declare the constitution dead.

And although renegotiation looks doubtful, it is possible that the incoming British presidency might be able to bring into force parts of the constitution that can be enforced without a treaty, such as mechanical changes, like scrapping the six-month rotating presidency of the EU.
 

Forum List

Back
Top