Will Chirac Be Able To Save EU Credibility?

[Annie]

Captain Ed says it so well, with links, that I'm just putting his post on.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004267.php

French Still On Track To Derail EU
French popular opinion has continued to grow against the proposed EU constitution, creating a crisis for EU backers that threatens to undo years of work in creating a Continental government -- one that has ironically been dominated by France:

Yesterday the president of the European parliament, Josep Borrell, warned the French that they would plunge Europe into crisis if they rejected the constitution. Alarmed by opinion polls which show the 'Non' campaign in the lead, Borrell warned that rejecting the treaty on 29 May would have far more serious implications for the future of Europe than they imagine. ...
Successive opinion polls have bolstered the 'no' campaign - the latest, released last week, showed 55 per cent of the French public were opposed to the constitution, against 40 per cent a month ago - and the government and mainstream Socialists have redoubled their efforts to win over the electorate. They have resorted to gimmicks such as a tour of Casino supermarkets by astronaut-turned-minister Claudie Haigneré, visits by foreign politicians and explanatory meetings for homeless people.


Make no mistake: if the French reject the new EU constitution, it will cause a chain reaction of rejection across the entire continent, and the entire EU project will lose credibility. The EU has already made allowances for French instransigence on debt ceilings and other economic requirements. They have stood patiently while France refused to reform its anticompetitive policies while defending its work-hour limitations and extravagant vacations, rather than addressing its productivity crises. French unemployment stands at 10.1% for several good reasons, none of which the French government has dared to address, preferring to sell the electorate on the notion that the rest of Europe will solve the problem for them.

If the French bail out on the EU, Chirac will simply keep scheduling votes until they approve it, as some people have pointed out. However, the rest of Europe will probably not wait for France. The British in particular will certainly lose interest in pursuing full integration with the EU, and some of the Eastern European members may have second thoughts about providing economic support for French intransigence. This may be a one-time deal, and if France rejects it, it will likely lose whatever credibility it has left in European politics and whatever hope it had in exploiting Europe economically for the next generation.

 

[padisha emperor]

The No is at the head of the polls, but it doesn't mean that the "NON" would win. Remember the 04-21-2002, for the french presidential elections. Lionel Jospin and Jacques Chirac were at the top of the polls, but the vote made that in fact J-M Le Pen was second, not Jospin, after the first round of election.

And the French are not really informed. The State is taking some resolution to inform the population, there is a lot of debates on TV, between "NON" and "OUI" guys. And for the moment, i admit that the "OUI" guys are the best, the men for the No say stupid things, lies, to affraid the french population. Unfortunatly, the French are not all aware about the laws things, the constitutionnal laws, the european right. To well understand this Constitution, you have to be lawyer, jurist or law-student. i understand that the people is not the best to ratificate a such text. But it would be not democratic if France would have ratificate this Constitution with the Parliament. But the good side with the Parliament : the "OUI" wuld have win.

Wait and see.

 

[Annie]

The No is at the head of the polls, but it doesn't mean that the "NON" would win. Remember the 04-21-2002, for the french presidential elections. Lionel Jospin and Jacques Chirac were at the top of the polls, but the vote made that in fact J-M Le Pen was second, not Jospin, after the first round of election.

And the French are not really informed. The State is taking some resolution to inform the population, there is a lot of debates on TV, between "NON" and "OUI" guys. And for the moment, i admit that the "OUI" guys are the best, the men for the No say stupid things, lies, to affraid the french population. Unfortunatly, the French are not all aware about the laws things, the constitutionnal laws, the european right. To well understand this Constitution, you have to be lawyer, jurist or law-student. i understand that the people is not the best to ratificate a such text. But it would be not democratic if France would have ratificate this Constitution with the Parliament. But the good side with the Parliament : the "OUI" wuld have win.

Wait and see.

Well we will have to 'wait and see.' What if the non wins?

 

[padisha emperor]

Sorry, I was not meaning we have to wait and see the result.

The debates are more and more frequent, and the "oui" partners give best agruments. The real solution would be a final debate, watched by the whole population in age to vote (18 and older), where the arguments would be exposed. Then, people would see that the "non" camp has nothing real behind him to bash the Constitution.
i heard Henri Emmanuaeli, a memebr of the head of the socialist party (he is against, but officially the PS is for the Constitution), and he was saying dumb things, it was awesome. A real dumbass.
Same thing for Gilbert Collard, a famous lawyer, who is for the "non". He was saying also stupid and wrong things. But the basic citizen is not able to really know if the Collard's sentences are right or not.

If the "non" win, it would be really sad, and really dommageable for France and Europe, it would be a step back.

 

[Annie]

Sorry, I was not meaning we have to wait and see the result.

The debates are more and more frequent, and the "oui" partners give best agruments. The real solution would be a final debate, watched by the whole population in age to vote (18 and older), where the arguments would be exposed. Then, people would see that the "non" camp has nothing real behind him to bash the Constitution.
i heard Henri Emmanuaeli, a memebr of the head of the socialist party (he is against, but officially the PS is for the Constitution), and he was saying dumb things, it was awesome. A real dumbass.
Same thing for Gilbert Collard, a famous lawyer, who is for the "non". He was saying also stupid and wrong things. But the basic citizen is not able to really know if the Collard's sentences are right or not.

If the "non" win, it would be really sad, and really dommageable for France and Europe, it would be a step back.

So with these two 'dumb' speakers, have the polls been turning around?

 

[padisha emperor]

As I said, the population is not the best to have a really good advice about this point.
I know that when Emmanuelli said something wrong about the Human rights in the Consitution, that it is wrong, because I'm a law student. When Collard said that if the constitutionnal treaty would be adopted, the european Parliament would have not the power of initiative, for the laws.
This seems to be a real bad thing, no ? And i understand that the population think, that with this treaty, the democracy makes a step back. But in fact, the euro-parlimanent TODAY has not the initiative. But except if people study the laws of the EU, who knows ?
A perfect example of manipulation and demagogy.

They said stupid things for the people who know things about the laws, but for the basic citizen, it is believable. And these guys seem to be not stupid with their arguments.
Here is the danger.
that's what I mentionned.

 

[Annie]

As I said, the population is not the best to have a really good advice about this point.
I know that when Emmanuelli said something wrong about the Human rights in the Consitution, that it is wrong, because I'm a law student. When Collard said that if the constitutionnal treaty would be adopted, the european Parliament would have not the power of initiative, for the laws.
This seems to be a real bad thing, no ? And i understand that the population think, that with this treaty, the democracy makes a step back. But in fact, the euro-parlimanent TODAY has not the initiative. But except if people study the laws of the EU, who knows ?
A perfect example of manipulation and demagogy.

They said stupid things for the people who know things about the laws, but for the basic citizen, it is believable. And these guys seem to be not stupid with their arguments.
Here is the danger.
that's what I mentionned.

So only the lawyers should decide?

 

[padisha emperor]

If we would be pragmatic, yes, only the politicians and the jurists would have to decide (so, the parliament, the government). Why ? because these men are the most qualified to decide on a such text.
This Treaty has a lot of hard dispositions, hard to understand, when people doesn't know some things in constitutionnal laws, european laws, and politics.

This is why a ratification by the Parliament would have been a good thing. But it would have been a problem too : it is not democratic.

 

[Annie]

If we would be pragmatic, yes, only the politicians and the jurists would have to decide (so, the parliament, the government). Why ? because these men are the most qualified to decide on a such text.
This Treaty has a lot of hard dispositions, hard to understand, when people doesn't know some things in constitutionnal laws, european laws, and politics.

This is why a ratification by the Parliament would have been a good thing. But it would have been a problem too : it is not democratic.

Padisha says, "Bring on the oligarchy! Screw democracy." Why am I not surprised?

 

[nosarcasm]

I am pretty sure one of the countries will vote no.

The lack of democracy within the EU is appalling and
even if the constitution might be helpful there are many
reasons to make the will of the people known.

For now the appointment only technocracy has avoided
public scrutiny.

 

[padisha emperor]

Padisha says, "Bring on the oligarchy! Screw democracy." Why am I not surprised?

Kathianne...
I'm not for the olibarchy insetad of democracy.

It's only that ona such text, the Parliament is the best qualified. But France did the choice of the democratic referendum, and it was the good choice, the democtratic choice. i'm glad to vote about this text. i only said that the population is not the best qualified to vote on. But the referenfum was all the same the best clue, I don't wish that it would be ratificated by the parliament only.


I only mentionned that the population not aware can be influenced by some lies from the NON camp (also from the OUI, of course, but for the moment the NON cap lies more )


And tehcnically, we are in a semi-democratic system. the real democracy would be the athenian's one, of the Vth century before Christ.
above all in USA, where the election of the most powerful man of the country is undirect


But I never said that the referndum was a bad, bad thing. Only that I hope the population would be able to see the truth.

 

[nosarcasm]

http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=9&aid=18833

Top economist foresees currency crisis if France votes No

By Honor Mahony

A top German economist has warned of serious economic consequences if there is a No to the EU Constitution in the 29 May referendum in France.

The chief economist at Deutsche Bank, Norbert Walter, told FT Deutschland that a French No might cause a currency crisis in the new member states.

"There could be speculative attacks on currencies of the new EU member states", Mr Walter said. "These countries would then have to raise their interest rates. It could cause enormous exchange rate fluctuations", he warned.

Mr Walter explained that a rejection of the Constitution would jeopardise new member states' euro hopes, sparking the currency attacks.

The return on government stocks in the new member states have decreased heavily because investors believe that they will enter the euro quickly. The worry is that the process will now be reversed, writes FT Deutschland.

"One problem is that the EU has absolutely no strategy about how to react to a failure in the Constitution referendum," Mr Walter indicated. He added that a debate about closing the eurozone to any more new mebers is also conceivable.

Several countries are planning to have a referendum on the Constitution. Successive polls have predicted that the Treaty will fail in France and beyond, but the importance of France as a pioneer of European integration means that a French No could have grave implications for the 25-strong bloc.

(The EU- Observer is funded by some anti- EU pro local control conservatives)