Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Let's bury once and for all a pseudo-'oui' argument

by Laurent GUERBY Fri Jun 2nd, 2006 at 07:09:59 AM EST

Jerome says


[...]
3. Non not against Europe

Whether you want it or not, a small half (25 out of 55 in France) of the non vote was a soverienist non. The "we want a better Europe" "non" was, at 30%, a big minority of the pro-Europeans, and they chose to associate with the hard sovereignists to make their point, because they were losing the debate otherwise. Hell, at that time, most governments were of the right. Balkenende, Berlusconi, Aznar, Chirac, Barroso and Blair alongside. The European Council was pushing policies that reflected that majority across Europe. Instead of fighting this at the political level, the non chose the "atomic bomb" of the "non".
[...]

Yes, it's absolutely true that we have xeno/sovereign/extreme left about 15-30% total negative vote in France on European issues.

But, it has always been the case since we started (too rarely) voting on European issues whatever the proposal, there is absolutely nothing new in the latest referendum, it was 100% predictable and obviously predicted.

Now this means you have to achieve consensus amongst the remaining voters to make it to 50%. For Maastricht it was a big enough minority on the regular right side that allowed together with a majority of regular left for the yes to win. See here if you want a useful comparison [1].

The people writing the constitution knew the risk they took by alienating the founder left-meaning people by writing their "constitution", and they pushed it a bit too far.

And because xenophobe vote one of the two possible way that happens to be my vote, I'm by no mean "associated" to them, sorry. No wonder to me that the debate is quickly heating up if we allow such statements to be made.

So Jerome I'd pleased to know if you still stand by this one and why.

[1] Note the choice of possible answers for the reasons of the "no" of the IPSOS poll is a wonderful work of media manipulation.


Display:
Let me quote myself (from the same thread) on exactly this point:
The fact that both extremes criticize a proposal usually means the proposal is pretty good. However, in this case [the French 'non'] the centre was too thin so the proposal was not good enough. As has been pointed out, the non-sovereignist left-wing 'non' vote was the swing vote in this case: the "we want Europe but not this kind". And the failure to address their concerns is what made the centre not strong enought to hold.


A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 2nd, 2006 at 10:18:50 AM EST

Fabius tried to use the internal PS split as an ego trip, and it didn't work for him, which means there was something other than an ego trip at play.

Also applies :).

by Laurent GUERBY on Fri Jun 2nd, 2006 at 11:48:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Your numbers suggest that the identity of the President played a bigger role than the neo-liberal content of the Constitution.

The Maastricht Treaty, arguably a lot more neo-liberal than the Constitution, was supported by the left and not by the right under a socialist president.

So, how do we take into account the vote against Chirac in the Constitution vote?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jun 2nd, 2006 at 10:42:35 AM EST
The number I referered to were the per party yes/no (and cumulative left/right), as I said the "reason" poll is just manipulation, you cannot get a meaningful picture from it.  The anti-Chirac high score is in the extreme right not on the left anyway if you believe the poll. Also the PS as a party decided to be for the "oui".

If you talk about constitution content, remember that when comparing Maastricht to the constitution referendum, in the constitution case :

  • no more "end Europe wars" argument
  • no more "create new right for citizens" argument
  • no more "create useful institutions" argument
  • 13 years of the european legislative action could be used to better understand what future policies were implied by the words in the text and where to be careful.

That changes the balance quite highly and the weight to put on "neoliberal" content in both votes.

I voted yes to Maastricht since I was willing to trade powerful pro-Europe message and some useful institutions against bad voting system and biased policies.

But I voted no to the constitution since there was no trade at all and known democracy deficit problem was just magnified instead of solved (or at least contained).

by Laurent GUERBY on Fri Jun 2nd, 2006 at 11:25:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
  • no more "end Europe wars" argument

    maybe

  • no more "create new right for citizens" argument

    that's silly. What rights have ever been created by Europe? This document certainly formalised more existing rights than Maatricht or any other treaty did. It also included the charter of human rights.

  • no more "create useful institutions" argument

    that's false. The Constitution was reinforcing the Parliament, extending majority voting, creating a foreign policy representative and a president for the union, all of which would have been or could have been useful.

  • 13 years of the european legislative action could be used to better understand what future policies were implied by the words in the text and where to be careful.

    again, we are in a 25-year worldwide push to the right, and policies are going neoliberal in any case thanks to our own governments. the European bureaucracy and its structural love for regulation, inherited from its Frnehc roots is actually one of the few things that can effectively stand against big corporations. Reach. GSM. Big Wind. Kyoto. Cartel busting. By silencing France at the European level, we've killed the single most important supporter of the regulatory role of the EC.



In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jun 2nd, 2006 at 12:08:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Constitution was reinforcing the Parliament

...

by Laurent GUERBY on Fri Jun 2nd, 2006 at 12:50:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
and your point is?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jun 2nd, 2006 at 01:23:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ok, I did not discuss this point in this forum.

What real reinforcement did the parliament get in the TCE according to you?

by Laurent GUERBY on Fri Jun 2nd, 2006 at 05:39:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Your numbers suggest that the identity of the President played a bigger role than the neo-liberal content of the Constitution.

Which numbers do you mean? The linked numbers show the identity of the President only played a role for only 24% of all (22% of Communist, 26% of Socialist and 15% of Green "Non"-s,  but 38% of FN "Non"-s) - dead last among the reasons queried -, while economic [neo]liberalism ended up second most important reason overall (chosen by 40%).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Jun 2nd, 2006 at 03:28:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am not sure exactly what part of my argument you want me to stand by, but yes, I stand by my position that the "non" vote is very detrimental to Europe, and will be for quite a bit of time.

I'll be extremely happy to be proved wrong, but I want to see it before I believe it. So far, in the past year, all my predictions about increasing nationalism, loss of "European spirit", capture of the debate by the neo-liberals, lack of alternatives of the "non" left have come true, and none of the Cassen ones.

I also note that the French socialists were the only group of the European Socialist Group in the European Parliament to vote against the redrafted services directive, so how can anything they say be taken seriously in Europe - they are out of the reasonable social-democrat European mainstream - and how can anything they propose stand the slightest chance of going anywhere?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jun 2nd, 2006 at 10:49:14 AM EST
The argument that I'm "associated" with the xeno/sovereign because I voted no.

We're in a representative democracy, so if our representative aren't representative any more, bad thing happens and we have only two alternatives:

A. vote different (or "no" in this case) when we're asked and hope our representative propose something different later on

B. bloody revolution

About your predictions, I don't see what the no vs yes result have to do with them.

I'm curious of what would you predict for the service directive if a yes vote was passed. Same resulting text?

by Laurent GUERBY on Fri Jun 2nd, 2006 at 11:46:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]


 "I'll be extremely happy to be proved wrong, but I want to see it before I believe it. So far, in the past year, all my predictions about increasing nationalism, loss of 'European spirit', capture of the debate by the neo-liberals, lack of alternatives of the 'non' left have come true, and none of the Cassen ones."

  "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." (fallacy)


"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge

by proximity1 on Fri Jun 2nd, 2006 at 12:46:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's too easy. I did predict it before it happened.

Where's Plan B?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jun 2nd, 2006 at 01:22:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

 "That's too easy. I did predict it before it happened."

 Interesting.  It happens also that all of those things were well under way before the vote (except, notably, the "lack of alternatives of the 'non' left", which, apparently, you don't want to see.)   Not a very daring "prediction", that.


Where's Plan B?

 Interesting question.  Tell me, is it asked in good-faith?  I ask you because you're already on record as claiming that,


 Too many people are happy without a Constitution. It won't happen, as it required unanimity. It's too late now.

 If you believe that, then I suspect that nothing short of a bona fide replacement constitutional treaty, drafted, voted, accepted and ratified, shall satisfy your demands.

 And, since I don't have that, I'm left to say that "Plan B" is, among other things, already in the works among more optimistic people--you might look at that site linked to my post http://etienne.chouard.free.fr/Europe/index.htm
-- trying to get out from under the pessimism of those who insist that,


 Too many people are happy without a Constitution. It won't happen, as it required unanimity. It's too late now.

 The real question is not, "Where's 'Plan B', but rather, "Shall you help with it, or not?"


"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge

by proximity1 on Fri Jun 2nd, 2006 at 02:28:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

 And, with that, I've got to sign out.

  Toodles, everyone!

 P.

"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge

by proximity1 on Fri Jun 2nd, 2006 at 02:28:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I suspect that nothing short of a bona fide replacement constitutional treaty, drafted, voted, accepted and ratified, shall satisfy your demands.

Well, yes. What other kind of Constitution exists, apart from dream ones?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jun 2nd, 2006 at 03:47:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
 

"Where's 'Plan B'?"

"What other kind of Constitution exists, apart from dream ones?"

 I note--for you-- that these are very different questions.  The first one, "Where's 'Plan B' ?" I actually answered with an example--the best I know of--in the form of the site I posted the link to.

And, all the while, I anticipated your real demand--the one in which you now insist on being presented not "Plan B", which, once shown, you show little or no interest in, but, instead, the full-blown written and approved constitution on a silver serving tray.

  You've done me the favor of confirming that hunch of mine.  And, in the process, you've clearly answered my question, "Are you going to help with it ['Plan B']?"

  Obviously, the answer is "No," as, by the way, is the answer for the prior question posed-- are you asking for the whereabouts of 'Plan B' in good faith ?  Again, obviously, "No."  You're not.
 _______________

  For others here, I'd add that, having read much more in the link mentioned just above and found in the post to which Jérôme replies, is a truly devastating critique of the proposed "treaty"--a misnomer for what was in all respects a genuine constitutional founding document of the most blatantly undemocratic kind.  It is not the product of a single narrow point of view but, instead, a comprehensive critique, in detail, of all of the many important aspects of this proposed constitution, bringing together referenced citation from scholars, legal professionals and all sorts of people from across the political spectrum.

Attached to the same site are public discussion fora on alternatives to the defunct proposed constitution; fora the exchanges of which run to the many, many thousands.  All the work of people not content to say, 'It's over and nothing can be done now.'

"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge

by proximity1 on Sat Jun 3rd, 2006 at 11:02:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
 More on the continuing effort to draft a workable and acceptable alternative to the VGE Convention's document can be found at the following links:

 

L'Europe à construire
[Europe to build]

 http://www.urfig.org/europe-construire-pt.htm

Appel européen à pétition : La parole aux citoyennes et aux citoyens de toute l'Europe ! (décembre 2005)

[European call for petition: the speech of the citizens, men and women, of all Europe! (December 2005)]

http://www.urfig.org/Appel%20europeen-petition.doc

Pour une vraie Constitution européenne (22 juin 2005)
[For a True European Constitution (22 June, 2005)]

http://www.urfig.org/POUR%20UNE%20VRAIE%20CONSTITUTION%20EUROPEENNE.doc

Tous ensemble II (20 juin 2005)
[All Together II (20 June, 2005) ]

http://www.urfig.org/TOUS%20ENSEMBLE%20II.doc

Tous ensemble (14 juin 2005)
[ All Together (14 June, 2005) ]

http://www.urfig.org/TOUS%20ENSEMBLE.doc

Notre devoir, dimanche et après (27 mai 2005)
[Our Duty, On Sunday and Afterward (27 May, 2005) ]

http://www.urfig.org/Notre%20devoir%20dimanche%20et%20apres.doc



"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge
by proximity1 on Sat Jun 3rd, 2006 at 01:40:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

 The same site, in its english-language version:

 http://www.urfig.org/english.htm

 

"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge

by proximity1 on Sat Jun 3rd, 2006 at 01:41:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Where's Plan B?
Haven't you been paying attention? We're up to Plan E and counting.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 2nd, 2006 at 02:33:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

 "Plan B" is an all-purpose metaphor for "what comes next".  Jérôme obviously isn't counting which iteration is the latest in the series.

"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge
by proximity1 on Sat Jun 3rd, 2006 at 11:05:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I found the following interesting in the light of Jérôme's claims about the size of the isolationist vote:

La construction européenne

Etes-vous tout à fait, plutôt, plutôt pas ou pas du tout favorable à la poursuite de la construction européenne ?

    Ensemble
%
PCF
%
PS
%
Verts
%
UDF
%
UMP
%
S/T
FN-MN
%
Proche d'aucun parti
%
A voté
Oui
%
A voté Non %
Tout à fait favorable 29 25 31 38 39 36 9 23 46 21
Plutôt favorable 43 31 48 45 48 53 23 41 51 36
S/T Favorable 72 56 79 83 87 89 32 64 97 57
Plutôt pas favorable 10 11 9 7 9 5 22 13 1 17
Pas du tout favorable 13 26 9 8 2 4 43 15 1 23
S/T Pas favorable 23 37 18 15 11 9 65 28 2 40
Ne se prononce pas 5 7 3 2 2 2 3 8 1 3
  100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

That a lot of Chevènement voters (41%) and Arlette Laguiller voters (29%) voted "Oui" on the Constitution is also indicative that Dear Leader's calculation doesn't add up.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Jun 2nd, 2006 at 03:18:49 PM EST
"construction européenne" means?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jun 2nd, 2006 at 03:46:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What can it mean other than building the EU?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Jun 2nd, 2006 at 05:11:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
and what exactly does "build the EU" mean?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jun 2nd, 2006 at 06:14:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought it means further transnational integration and hence reduction of national sovereignity. What else?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Jun 3rd, 2006 at 06:15:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In the event of a revised text, all the non-sovereignists  who voted "no" the first time around, will then vote "yes" ... but this time I'll be the one voting "no", because between the lines of the revised text I'll have found a lot of hidden neo-liberal messages that they will have missed.
by Alex in Toulouse on Sat Jun 3rd, 2006 at 04:19:15 AM EST
Alex - you like to be a contrarian and against the majority view. On ET, that means you have to go against the "non". I'm a bit lonely here.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jun 3rd, 2006 at 09:03:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well I was being ironic, just paraphrasing what I heard from all my "non" friends for a long time prior to the vote (that apparently I wasn't good enough to see all the hidden neo-liberal messages).

I stand by my opinion that the text seemed open to jurisprudence in many areas, and this suited me far more than a "non" vote. So you're not alone, I stand by my "oui" vote.

by Alex in Toulouse on Sat Jun 3rd, 2006 at 09:37:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries