France rejects EU constitution

[lookout123]

I have been really busy here the last few days and haven't had time to read the news like i prefer... so as i always do when multiple viewpoints are needed, i turn to the cellar.

Why did France reject the EU constitution? (other than french = suckwad)
Is this the end for ol' Jacques?
Are the Dutch going to follow suit?
If they do, what does that mean for the EU?

If the EU is permanently, irreparably damaged is that good/bad for the world? for the US? for the arizona diamondbacks?

i think those are all the questions i have for now.

[melidasaur]

From what I understand, the proposed constitution was extremely long, difficult to read and didn't make sense in a lot of places... that's the main reason why they rejected it.

In theory, the EU seems like a good idea. In practice, it is impossible.

[BigV]

1 -- french said no to eu constitution in an effort to tell their gov't to "le fuck off". less about the eu than about nat'l govt.

2 -- not just yet. one more round left in him.

3 -- yes.

4 -- the eu will continue to exist. This is a refinement process of the constitution. I thought about this question as the news rolled on yesterday... think how much easier it was when our consitution was created by a smaller universe of stakeholders, with much less (not zero) propoganda, more aligned stakeholders... and ours wasn't a slam dunk. The effort to get 25 sovereign nations to all put in at the same time, the same amount... I shudder to think of how difficult that will be.

I wonder if in the compromise the result will be stretched so thinly that it will be useless. It makes me appreciate the genius of our bicameral system, that offers proportional reprsentational support for populations (house) and for states (senate). One factor in the prev question is that the Netherlands have expressed concern at the prospect of having their influence diluted.

5 -- Like all realistic responses to such large questions, the answer is "it depends". reasons it would be bad: everything more expensive and complicated. multiple trade agreements and borders. and for defense too. and still, that same heterogenity preserves spaces for creativity to spring up.

I don't think the dbacks have any talent in their european farm system, so this is a wash for them. Look east. Far east.

[lookout123]

i personally feel it is as flawed and destined for failure as the League of Nations. i don't have any specific facts or figures, just a gut feeling.

individual nation states giving up their ability to do what is in their own best interests on individual issues for the primary purpose of building a global powerblock to offset the dominance of the US. i just don't see it working.

when the US was formed it was difficult enough even with 1) fewer people involved, 2) less interruption to current systems, 3) the individuals in SC were multinational as were the people in NY, so old ethnic and national jealousies weren't as ingrained, 4) the federal gov't was necessary for national survival, i.e. defense, commerce, etc.

[jaguar]

I'm glad the constitution failed, there needs to be a long and serious debate about the future of the EU and this was the French's way of saying so. And giving the finger to jaques. Don't rule that guy out, he's seriously teflon. Dutch will can it too.

It's not just about creating another pole to counter the US, it's about making life easier for everyone inside, whether it be leisure or business. The EU does work, I can travel from Dublin to Vienna without more than a vague wave of the passport, I can move goods and do business with ease, most of the way I can even use the same money. Legislation is standardised to a certain degree, banking regulation is better and clearer (even more so with Basel2) it's easier to study in other EU countries, the list goes on and on. That is really good and won't go away. The question is where it goes from here. The EU is opaque and corrupt, people don't understand how it works, how it is governed, how legislation comes into force and who their representatives are. That needs to be resolved before the EU will work. Now the constitution has been defeated it's time for this debate to happen, if it does not in the long term the EU is in my opinion, rightfully doomed.

The as a superstate could work very well with a small 'core' of EU countries and a much more transparent power structure but I don't see that happening. The ideal solution from my perspective is a 2-tier system, putting Slovenia and France on the same level is stupid and yes, doomed, just like the League of nations. I don't know if all the new EU countries were a good idea, my gut says no, this goes double for Turkey. If they can't be gotten rid of the only answer that will allow the EU to continue to work well will be a 2 or multi tier system that allows the founders and big countries their rightful influence and power.

The other issue is that Germany, France and Italy need to pull their fingers out and reform their economies, Shroder tried but was too weak, Chirac is too weak to do it now and Belisconi is too busy playing party politics and stuffing his own pockets to worry about little things like the economy. Until that changes there is going to be economic stagnation at the heart of the EU Zone.

[jaguar]

Dutch went 61% against, there's hope after all.

[Radar]

Awesome! France does the right thing again!!! First they did the right thing by opposing the war in Iraq, and now this. Woo Hoo!! Good for them. The EU must be stopped. Europe is not one big nation. It's a group of individual nations.

The EU should call itself what it really is...Oceana. A regional government that will be perpetually at war with another regional government created by the FTAA which has all of North, South, and Central America. And one or two other huge governments.

We're living Orwell's nightmare.

[Griff]

Amen brother Radar. It's time to get the ball rolling on devolving government back to human scale.