And you can say all you want that I am simply repeating the bullet points of the non campaign, because you claim I cannot say anything specific about what it's adoption would have done. In this, you present a red herring, because of course the purpose of a constitution is not to be overly specific, to provide broad guidelines, and, well, those broad guidelines, as drafted, were neo-liberal in intent and the bias it would have had on further interpretation of national statute equally would have been neo-liberal. No one argued that the constitution would expressly do away with the 35 hour week, RTT, 5 weeks vacation, right to housing, income supports, access to health care, farm subsidies or whatever via specific language in the constitution. What was argued was that this would be the logical eventual conclusion, a conclusion whose ineluctability was demonstrated by the attempt to ram the Bolkestein directive down everyone's throat at the same time.
And, you are free to dispute that interpretation but at least be frank enough to admit that, on the left, your viewpoint was quite a minoritarian one, mine very much the majority, and not just of those of us "unserious" ones. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
