News Future of European Constitution After French Vote

[Art]

Vanesch, Do you believe this would be the last treaty proposed by the EU (not counting provision for new members) or do you think as a lot of people think that this is just one more step along the way to a federal europe.
Also what is your opinion of Chirac's motivation in pushing for the rest of the EU members to continue with ratification? Do you think this is because he intends to overturn in some way the French and Dutch votes?
IMHO Chirac is wasted in europe there are in the world I'm sure several banana republics crying out for a leader such as he.

 

[vanesch]

Vanesch, Do you believe this would be the last treaty proposed by the EU (not counting provision for new members) or do you think as a lot of people think that this is just one more step along the way to a federal europe.

I think, if ever there will be a federal Europe, this will be in a long, long time, which I won't live, and maybe my children won't live. After that, it is difficult to foresee, because I think environmental problems will be so terrible that cultural differences which separate nations don't make much of a difference anymore (when southern Europe will be changed into something like the Sahara for instance).

I'm myself a fan of a quite important European integration, however, without resolving nations, but in "framing" them ; and that's why I like the bureaucratic/technocratic aspect of the current construction. It is a blind machine which imposes rules to national politicians, without itself being exposed to the pressure of the commerce of votes.

One of the reasons why I like it is that this system saved my native country (Belgium) from absolute bancruptcy. I still remember Belgian prime minister Martens (who led 13 ! gouvernments in the 80ies) digging a monumental hole in public finance (under pressure by "the people"): at a certain point, yearly deficit was 13% ; my country is still paying back those 15 years or so of popular christen democrat gouvernment (*). At a certain point the guy was even proud of having negociated a devaluation I think of about 12% of the Belgian Franc. It was technocratic Europe which obliged Belgium to reduce yearly deficit to within 3% ; nobody else would have done it until a very very hard wall was hit. It wasn't popular. It is much easier to spend state money you don't have and not raise taxes. No politician could have sold to the people his politics of reducing state expenses and increasing taxes to get the balance right, if it weren't for "we are obliged to do so by evil Europe". So I see this "undemocratic" Europe more as the wise technicians who stop politicians from doing really stupid things.

But in order for this "technocratic and undemocratic" Europe to be able to do its thing, it needs a well-organized set of rules by which it functions, and with the 25 members, the current rules don't work anymore. There's just to many of them.

On the other hand, I don't want, for the moment, a federal Europe. You see in the US what it does: too much power in the hands of too few, which then think they should play master of the world (I don't think I have to give names). It is another reason why I like the European construction: there are no "heroes" but just almost anonymous employees who make the machine run according to the rules. As a guardian of the free market, I think they do a great job, btw.

Moreover, I think it is great, in Europe, that there are different cultures, mentalities, languages, etc... so that not everybody is doing the same (right or wrong) thing everywhere, and that we can learn from each other. The other thing that is great with the European construction is that it is a meeting place, for people, organisations and so on, who want to do something together. Research is probably the best example. Education too, with, at this moment, about the right mixture between national differences and international compatibility: allowing for different systems to work according to different rules, and enough compatibility that you can go from one system to another without being completely lost). That doesn't need any federal Europe. But a tight working together.

Europe could have been a great lesson to the rest of the world that different people can do things together without sacrifying their individuality and in respect for each other ; that's gone now: everybody thinks again that his/her way of doing things is the best and that the "foreigner" is only a load of misery.

Also what is your opinion of Chirac's motivation in pushing for the rest of the EU members to continue with ratification? Do you think this is because he intends to overturn in some way the French and Dutch votes?
IMHO Chirac is wasted in europe there are in the world I'm sure several banana republics crying out for a leader such as he.

Well, I do have some respect for Chirac: as much as he hasn't got a clue of leading a country and giving a line to internal politics, as much he does have some "panache" on the international scene. I don't think only Chirac is wasted in Europe: France is wasted in Europe. (as well as the Netherlands)

I don't think there is any hope of overturning the French vote or the Dutch vote: what happened, happened. In any case, I think Chirac has done his time: in his own party there is a very bright and popular candidate (Sarkozy), and the left is killing itself (due to the division between the yes and no proponents). The only alternative is Le Pen (fascist) who became extremely popular thanks to this no vote.

I have to say I don't understand why he didn't resign: it is almost sure that the left couldn't win. There was a real danger of Le Pen winning of course, but it was almost sure that Sarkozy would win. True, Chirac and Sarkozy are rivals (but he took him nevertheless as minister of internal affairs) but they are from the same party. Ok, there are some reasons of course: there's a financial scandal hanging over his head, but in France there's a law which makes the president, during his mandate, immune to persecution for any crime he didn't commit during the mandate (legal procedures are frozen until after his return of his mandate). So he will probably go directly from the Elysee (presidential palace) to La Sante (prison in Paris) :-)

cheers,
Patrick.

(*) Edit: Martens (a lawyer by education) re-invented the concept of second derivative, and explained it to the public, with his famous phrase: "the increase of the increase of the deficit is lowering"

 

[Art]

I think, if ever there will be a federal Europe, this will be in a long, long time, which I won't live, and maybe my children won't live. After that, it is difficult to foresee, because I think environmental problems will be so terrible that cultural differences which separate nations don't make much of a difference anymore (when southern Europe will be changed into something like the Sahara for instance).

I'm myself a fan of a quite important European integration, however, without resolving nations, but in "framing" them ; and that's why I like the bureaucratic/technocratic aspect of the current construction. It is a blind machine which imposes rules to national politicians, without itself being exposed to the pressure of the commerce of votes.

One of the reasons why I like it is that this system saved my native country (Belgium) from absolute bancruptcy. I still remember Belgian prime minister Martens (who led 13 ! gouvernments in the 80ies) digging a monumental hole in public finance (under pressure by "the people"): at a certain point, yearly deficit was 13% ; my country is still paying back those 15 years or so of popular christen democrat gouvernment (*). At a certain point the guy was even proud of having negociated a devaluation I think of about 12% of the Belgian Franc. It was technocratic Europe which obliged Belgium to reduce yearly deficit to within 3% ; nobody else would have done it until a very very hard wall was hit. It wasn't popular. It is much easier to spend state money you don't have and not raise taxes. No politician could have sold to the people his politics of reducing state expenses and increasing taxes to get the balance right, if it weren't for "we are obliged to do so by evil Europe". So I see this "undemocratic" Europe more as the wise technicians who stop politicians from doing really stupid things.

But in order for this "technocratic and undemocratic" Europe to be able to do its thing, it needs a well-organized set of rules by which it functions, and with the 25 members, the current rules don't work anymore. There's just to many of them.

On the other hand, I don't want, for the moment, a federal Europe. You see in the US what it does: too much power in the hands of too few, which then think they should play master of the world (I don't think I have to give names). It is another reason why I like the European construction: there are no "heroes" but just almost anonymous employees who make the machine run according to the rules. As a guardian of the free market, I think they do a great job, btw.

Moreover, I think it is great, in Europe, that there are different cultures, mentalities, languages, etc... so that not everybody is doing the same (right or wrong) thing everywhere, and that we can learn from each other. The other thing that is great with the European construction is that it is a meeting place, for people, organisations and so on, who want to do something together. Research is probably the best example. Education too, with, at this moment, about the right mixture between national differences and international compatibility: allowing for different systems to work according to different rules, and enough compatibility that you can go from one system to another without being completely lost). That doesn't need any federal Europe. But a tight working together.

Europe could have been a great lesson to the rest of the world that different people can do things together without sacrifying their individuality and in respect for each other ; that's gone now: everybody thinks again that his/her way of doing things is the best and that the "foreigner" is only a load of misery.



Well, I do have some respect for Chirac: as much as he hasn't got a clue of leading a country and giving a line to internal politics, as much he does have some "panache" on the international scene. I don't think only Chirac is wasted in Europe: France is wasted in Europe. (as well as the Netherlands)

I don't think there is any hope of overturning the French vote or the Dutch vote: what happened, happened. In any case, I think Chirac has done his time: in his own party there is a very bright and popular candidate (Sarkozy), and the left is killing itself (due to the division between the yes and no proponents). The only alternative is Le Pen (fascist) who became extremely popular thanks to this no vote.

I have to say I don't understand why he didn't resign: it is almost sure that the left couldn't win. There was a real danger of Le Pen winning of course, but it was almost sure that Sarkozy would win. True, Chirac and Sarkozy are rivals (but he took him nevertheless as minister of internal affairs) but they are from the same party. Ok, there are some reasons of course: there's a financial scandal hanging over his head, but in France there's a law which makes the president, during his mandate, immune to persecution for any crime he didn't commit during the mandate (legal procedures are frozen until after his return of his mandate). So he will probably go directly from the Elysee (presidential palace) to La Sante (prison in Paris) :-)

cheers,
Patrick.

(*) Edit: Martens (a lawyer by education) re-invented the concept of second derivative, and explained it to the public, with his famous phrase: "the increase of the increase of the deficit is lowering"

There's not a lot there I would disagree with. The only major point is I do not think It will lead to the breakup of the EU. I think a new simpler treaty will be drafted consolidating the existing ones without any revisions with the exception of possible changes to the QMV.
I have lived in both England and Ireland and from the English viewpoint I understand fully their deep distrust of the EU. However like your comments re Belgium the more control the EU takes away from the Irish government the better for the Irish people. The amount of sleaze and corruption over the years is simply astonishing. Even when exposed nothing is done! But putting that aside even if they were scrupulously honest their total inept mismanagement of everything from the economy to society itself has been breathtaking. The EU without a doubt was a lifesaver for Ireland.

 

[vanesch]

I think a new simpler treaty will be drafted consolidating the existing ones without any revisions with the exception of possible changes to the QMV.

If there was one big objection I had to that constitution was indeed its complexity (what was it, 265 pages ?). So I can only approve any simplification of it ; but is that going to be possible, it being the result of long negociations and compromis ?
Also, was it such a bad idea to put forward some general principles (like universal rights - even though that is completely superfluous in that most member states already individually have such bills) ? So I don't see what can fundamentally be changed and simplified from the current text. The current treaties ARE complicated, and the result of negociations, power games etc...

The only thing you can do to simplify is to send home the European parliament, but that will in general be disapproved by the public I'd think (I mean, many of those favorable to any European treaty will probably NOT want to see less apparent (fake) democracy in it :-) That parliament will have to get or more decision power, or go home. As it is now, it is just a parking lot for failed national politicians (which is maybe not a bad idea, after all - a sort of european waste disposal :-) which get a big salary for driving between Brussels and Strasbourg and keep their mouth shut. In fact there is, on one hand, no need to give more "democracy" to the European construction: after all, it is put in place by democratically mandated governments. You can just as well complain about a lack of democracy in, say, justice or the army, where people don't vote for who will become judge or general. On the other hand, the existence of a democratic representation of the people of Europe without going through their national governments was an ideal vehicle to counter purely nationalistic powergames, and to try to have an emergent "voice of the European people". But then you have to DO something with that representation, and that is something that was missing up to now, and could have changed (moderately) with the current text.

I have the impression that this no-voting just pushed people back into their nationalistic reflexes and discredited the entire European construction, and that, to me, is quite dramatic. I think it was, overall, something very positive. It will take a long time, I think, to change this tendency now. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe people just wanted something less complex and ambitious, but I wonder if such a thing is possible.

cheers,
Patrick.