Hey, it’s good to know that the French elites are not the only ones to be out of touch. This week’s Economist shows in its full splendor the real reaction of official Britain (from the “Charlemagne” column, which is the unofficial mouth of the British elite on Europe):
The triumph of perfidious Albion
IT IS perhaps tactless to point it out, but France’s rejection of the European Union constitution is, in lots of ways, a triumph for Britain. For at least 50 years, the British have had two main goals in Europe. The first was to blunt the drive towards European political union; the second, to prevent Franco-German domination of European politics. With the death of the constitution both goals have been achieved at once.
Let me tell you why this is really silly.
from the same Charlemagne column
That is why the purest statement of Britain’s European strategy is to be found not in any official document, but in an old television show, “Yes Minister”, which was a favourite of the then Mrs Thatcher’s. In an episode from 1980, Sir Humphrey, the feline civil servant, explains to his bewildered minister: “Britain has had the same foreign-policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe.” Enlargement of the European club, he adds, is the key: “The more members it has, the more argument it can stir up, and the more futile and impotent it becomes.” Any resemblance between a 25-year-old comedy show and real life is, of course, entirely coincidental.
So Chirac with a black eye, the Brussels elite brought down, and a disunited Europe in full headless rooster mode, with France and Germany at odds. Is that really in the UK’s interests? Seriously?
Yeah, what a great victory for provincialism and arrogance.
Just like the French “non” partisans, who think that the French can decide on their own what Europe should look like, the Brits are still stuck in a happy history when the only thing that matters are diplomatic and political games between the European powers, and where the British overriding goal is still to divide and rule. This would be pathetic if it weren’t so tragic.
Europe is no longer the center of the world, and making other European countries, and the European project itself, weaker is not going to make the UK stronger or more relevant. It’s just wishful thinking, worse, it’s shooting oneself in the foot.
Here’s what their main editorial says:
Rather than indulging in more backroom bargaining, Europe’s leaders should draw two broader lessons from the French and Dutch noes. The first is that rejection of the constitution signals that the dream of deeper political integration and, in the 1957 Treaty of Rome’s famous phrase, “ever closer union”, is over. Instead the EU should move in the direction of being a looser, less federalist and more decentralised club. The French and Dutch votes also surely rule out the creation of a more integrated core of a few countries, including these two, that moves faster than the rest towards a political union.
The second lesson is that the club must pass more powers back to its members, to make the EU’s supposed “subsidiarity” principle (decision-making at the lowest sensible level of government) a reality. It is true that opponents of the constitution have displayed contradictory views–some wanting more economic liberalism and freer markets, others a social Europe with more fettered markets. But the only way to accommodate such diversity of views is to give countries a choice.
(…)
This is not to say that there can be a free-for-all without a referee. Even opponents of the constitution mostly accept the EU’s single market, which embodies the Rome treaty’s principles of a free flow of goods, services, labour and capital. Such a market requires policing, for instance of state aid to companies, curbs on migration or the application of competition rules.
This is delusional in the extreme.
The majority of the French “non” was precisely a vote against that purely economic (“libéral”) vision of Europe, and pretty much all of both the “non” and the “nee” votes were against the “free flow of goods, services, labour and capital”. The vote was resoundingly a rejection of the enlargement, which has been the “single, consistent goal” of the UK, and of the accompanying economic and social pressure on “old Europe” and the increasing appearance of powerlessness of the original countries.
How the Economist can find satisfaction that their ideas have been resoundingly rejected, and this rejection somehow means that these ideas will prevail, is beyond me.
Even as the British pursued the single, consistent goal of enlargement, the French suffered from a lack of strategic vision. As one senior French commentator puts it, “we always go into European summits determined to fight to the death for something. Unfortunately it is always a different thing.” At Nice in December 2000, Mr Chirac’s goal was to keep the same number of EU votes as Germany, despite the much bigger German population. He succeeded; but only a few years later, France abandoned the point and conceded more voting power to Germany. Instead, Mr Chirac adopted new goals: an EU defence initiative, getting a Frenchman appointed to head the constitutional convention, protecting the status of the French language.
Such jumpy inconsistency reflected an underlying fear that the EU, France’s baby, was growing out of its control. In 2001 Le Monde asked on its front page: “Who will dare say no to enlargement?” The answer was certainly not France. Moral scruples may have played a part. But France also realised that blocking enlargement would cause an unthinkable rupture with Germany, which badly wanted its eastern neighbours in the club. French leaders were trapped; some of their fears may have been transmitted to the people who this week voted no.
So kudos to the UK for having a single goal (but of course, it is always easier to try to break things than to build anything), and for having less tactically mediocre leaders than France’s , which were not able to bring any new project to the fore. The above description about France fighting to death each time for a different thing is spot on, and probably the best description of Chirac’s oppostunistic and hollow politics, which are also one of the core causes of the French “non”. Yes, to all of you kossacks that hate Blair with a passion, you have to realise that Chirac, despite his (needlessly provocative) grandstanding against the US in 2003, is a lot worse and has brought nothing but stagnation to France in the past 10 years, along with the illusion of being important on the world stage.
And as the argument will certainly be brought up in comments – I am certainly not denying that France has always been fighting relentlessly for its own selfish interests in Europe, quite the contrary (and I hate agricultural subsidies with a passion and cannot stand the fact that France wastes so much political capital and energy on defending this mostly absurd system). What I am saying is that France HAS also made more compromises and concessions than anyone else to get Europe going.
As I have written elsewhere, Europe moved forward when France and Germany, with opposed views on most everything, forced themselves to compromise. Whenever national interests prevailed, Europe went nowhere. That was the lesson of the Nice Treaty in 1999, when each country defended its national interest so narrowly that the result what a Treaty universally considered a catastrophe. The lesson Chirac and Schroeder, both tepid Europeans, learnt from that was that, however little they enjoyed each other, they HAD to talk and compromise, and that was the impetus for the Constitutional Treaty, which, whatever its faults (many imagined) had two great qualities:
- it really improved the existing treaties, with which we are no stuck (including of course all the “free-market” stuff)
- it embodied the spirit of cooperation and compromise between all European countries, which is, in itself, a worthwhile goal.
From their main article on the French vote, the Economist’s “reality based” journalists (as opposed to its ideologically minded editorialists) acknowledge some of the consequences of the “non”/”nee”:
The French will kick up a fuss on other issues too. Mr Chirac will press harder than ever to scrap the rebate that Britain enjoys on its contribution to the EU budget, which will worsen his already bad relations with Britain’s Tony Blair, who will take over the EU presidency from Mr Juncker in July. France will also oppose further economic liberalisation, in direct opposition to the European Commission. Watching from Berlin, one senior German official predicts gloomily that “if France pushes its national interests even harder, others will do the same. We may be entering a new era of national egoism.”
How that’s good for the UK is something I need explained.
Because one thing is certain – the easiest way to make all of Europe agree on one thing is to excite their national interests against the UK’s, everybody’s favorite enemy.
Do the Brits really expect everybody to turn on the French or even the Dutch after last week’s votes? Do they expect the rest of Europe to come and tell the French to stop their silly whining, shut the fuck up, or else?
Yeah right.
The visionary French, inspirers and builders of the Europe as it exists, have legitimacy to be pains in the ass, a privilege they certainly use and abuse. The whiny Brits are pains in the ass, full stop. Europe has ALWAYS been a political project from the start, and if you still believe that it’s a purely economic union, well get rid of the past 30 years of politicians that have lied to you about that.
Remember how everybody was hoping to use a rejection of the Constitution by the UK as an excuse to kick them out?
And that’s how it still will be:
EU leaders to put Blair on the spot over rebate
European Union leaders on Friday piled pressure on Tony Blair to surrender part of the UK’s controversial EU budget refund or risk plunging Europe into deeper political turmoil.
The prime minister risks finding himself isolated in his rejection of a surprise deal on the new seven-year EU budget at an EU summit on June 16-17.
The comprehensive rejection of the EU constitutional treaty by France and the Netherlands in the past week has lent new urgency to European leaders’ attempts to strike a budget deal, and solidified the opposition to Britain’s position.
Did they seriously expect anything else?
I’ve written about this several times, so please don’t accuse me of the similar sin of loving to hate the Brits (despite my occasional rants!): either we start talking and forcing ourselves to compromise and find solutions, or we’ll ALL end up being irrelevant.
The Iraq war has demonstrated that the USA don’t listen to the UK any more than they listen to France. Following the USA blindly is as ineffective as opposing them systematically. But finding a compromise first and speaking with the backing of both sides works, as shown by the fact that the Big 3 European countries’ negotiations with Iran have credibility with both the iranians and the Americans and are not dismissed out of hand by either (that does not guarantee success, of course, but at least it provides a seat at the table.
France and the UK, as two of the largest European countries, the oldest nation states, with military and diplomatic presence around the world, need to talk and forge compromises together. anything that is acceptable to both is likely to be acceptable to most Europeans, as the two countries represent two opposed poles on pretty much everything, and anything agreed by both will be hard for anyone else to fight against (just as was the case between France and Germany in earlier days).
But the UK needs to show that they are willing to join the game. France did it with Germany, so the ball is not in our court as much. Both countries need to acknowledge their deep seated mistrust and basically say: okay, this is distateful, but we NEED to find an agreement with these $%ù*, or we’ll both become irrelevant.
(And I’ll get back to the relative economic performances of France and UK in recent years in a future diary. One word: oil)
I understand the neo-cons gloating. I don’t understand the Brits. Nationalism in Europe is a game they’ve survived, but shouldn’t we have more ambitious objectives than surviving these days? The UK in or out of a weak Europe is essentially irrelevant, and it will be only a minor consolation that France is just as irrelevant.
Thanks for this Jerome. It’s interesting to see the dynamics unfold.
How do you feel about Dominique de Villepin’s promotion?
de Villepin is is right hand man, the quintessence of the hated elites. JHe has zeron legitimacy og his own and Chirac will not give him any, seeing how he has been humiliated. It’s going to be long, sad 2 years for France.
Have you seen my first comment over at dKos on the same diary? Dropping hints…
This will probably sound silly and ignorant, but I’ve been desperately rooting for the E.U. because I want so badly for the EU to emerge as the dominant world force, taking the title from the U.S., which doesn’t handle it well (understatement).
I see Europe’s soft power and fighting-by-bureaucracy-instead-of-by-army as a reason for hope in this world.
Yes. And since Canada so far is stubbornly refusing to invade (damn you, Sybil, get goin’), the EU is our only hope.
I feel this is a very important discussion…and I don’t think it is just “UK gloating” that is dangerous. I believe there is a very danger that the meaning of the “non” and “nee” votes are being spun by a number of sources, with a number of agendas…which could possibly result in a worse outcome…and think that the Constitution and the Constitution process needs to be clearly and objectively assessed. What is good about it? What needs to be improved? How to educate and involve the people more in the process, so there is a sene of what is really being done. I think, bottom-line, is that the people are asking to be heard. How can this be done?
Europe has been for 50 years focusing on building the European Institutions, and it was probably necessary to do so until the last years.
What I believe is that we are entering a new phase: the Europe of actors. Since a few years, numerous groups of citizens and organisations (companies, trade unions, local authorities, NGOs, organised civil society…) have started to work together in Europe in different fields (economy, social, environment, culture…), building many networks that are weaving the new fabric of Europe.
It might sound overoptimistic these days, but I think this fabric is more robust than it seems. I’ve been working with many European people and organisations in the past years (and I still do), and I’ve met a lot of people who see themselves as Europeans, including in the new member states. Now the European Institutions are stalling, the only way to overcome the crisis is to mobilise these actors to create a new dynamics in the building of Europe.
So far, these actors have been overlooked by the politicians and institutions. The main problem we have is how to make institions accept to rely on these actors and empower them. For the existing institutions and politicians, it’s a big change of paradigm…
Something few seem willing to address is rejection of the bankrupt federalist political system. There are lessons for all in the world there.
Given the degree to which you rely upon the Economist for so many of your posts, it is sad to see that you not only find their arguments invalid in this instance but also characterise them by such words as “gloating”.
I am, and all my life through my affiliations, been a supporter of the concept of the European Community.
I have been to Brussels many times on formal delegations and met many of the Commissioners. I have defended its ideas in government committees and as a speaker at national forums.
Of late, I have been concerned by the determination of Germany and France to dominate the agenda and appalled by their own sanctimonious and discreditable disregard for the rules that they created for the Eurozone countries under the Maastricht Treaty.
By doing so, I have watched their economic performance decline to the point that it threatens the economic stability of the whole of Europe and which, only a few days ago, was so strongly condemned by the OECD in Paris.
I regret the difficulty that you have in accepting that the need for the UK, as the fourth richest nation in the world, to protect its own economy in the face of what you acknowledge is a failure of Schroeder and Chirac to tackle the urgent issues in this regard within their own countries.
Much of this I laid at Chirac’s door and his persistent and much proclaimed insistence on the importance of the overriding authority of French influence and his very public demands that his electorate protect French interests above all other considerations.
I have read your posts, Jerome, and have been disturbed by your apparent inability to understand and give space in your considerations to the democratically expressed views of the Dutch electorate and those of your own citizens.
In this latest post, you single out the views of the British for the expression of your disappointment.
You write:
Remember how everybody was hoping to use a rejection of the Constitution by the UK as an excuse to kick them out?”
There is little of fact or intellectual worth in this statement that I can comment upon. I will only say that in your unyielding indignation at all those Europeans that will not bend to your views here and on DKos may well lie in microcosm the reason why the 66,000 words of the proposed constitution have been rejected by our nations.
This is tragic and I am fearful of the vacuum created by the political elite in Europe. I cannot accept your – forgive the choice of word – arrogant assumption “so the ball is not in our court as much.” Before scapegoating others in Europe, you first need to fix your problems at home.
I find in your posts the same type of reaction to the result of the French and Dutch votes as that of Chirac. Instead of meeting with his European partners, including the Dutch and the British, his first response has been to rush to Schroeder in Germany to see what together they can contrive behind closed doors to circumvent the people’s clear and unequivocal cry for a different type of Europe.
It is this unacceptable concept that has caused the destruction of a vision of Europe that I held dear. This, also, is the message that Holland, as one of the founder members of the Union, has sent back.
You have persuaded me to side with the people.
Hit a nerve, have I?
All I’m saying is that we’re in the same boat, and you say “oh no, you’ve been rejected, you’re out of touch, and we’re not in the same drowning boat as you guys” – and you want me to believe that you are pro-European?
It would be nice if you took a moment to actually read what I wrote instead of using your post as an opportunity to show how so much richer and more democratic you are than us arrogant continentals…
Right. It would also help if you did not make so many factual errors.
Given the degree to which you rely upon the Economist for so many of your posts, it is sad to see that you not only find their arguments invalid in this instance but also characterise them by such words as “gloating”.
Actually, I usually quote the Financial Times, which has a much healthier variety of point of views.
I am, and all my life through my affiliations, been a supporter of the concept of the European Community.
You know, the EEC’s name was change to the “European Communities” in 1986 and to the “European Union” in 1991. The only people that I still see using the expression “European Community” are all from one country. I wonder why?
I have been to Brussels many times on formal delegations and met many of the Commissioners. I have defended its ideas in government committees and as a speaker at national forums.
Of late, I have been concerned by the determination of Germany and France to dominate the agenda and appalled by their own sanctimonious and discreditable disregard for the rules that they created for the Eurozone countries under the Maastricht Treaty.
You mean, France and Germany were not detemined to dominate the agenda previously, or you were not concerned by it? And why should you care about the eurozone’s policies as the UK is not part of it and should not have a say in how it’s run?
By doing so, I have watched their economic performance decline to the point that it threatens the economic stability of the whole of Europe and which, only a few days ago, was so strongly condemned by the OECD in Paris.
You mean the fact that Germany is the world’s first exporter again? or that per capita growth in France and the UK throughout 1995-2004 was identical at 2% per annum? Only in 2002-2003 have there been significant differences in GDP growth between the UK and France, but of course, that allows to make sweeping, grandstanding generalisations about “threatening the economic stability of the whole of Europe” and it has nothing to do with (i) the unsustainable housing bubble and (ii) the oil bonanza of the past few years.
And presumably, France and Germany presumably need more of the (sadly tentative and half-baked) reforms that have been so resoundingly rejected by the voters?
I regret the difficulty that you have in accepting that the need for the UK, as the fourth richest nation in the world, to protect its own economy in the face of what you acknowledge is a failure of Schroeder and Chirac to tackle the urgent issues in this regard within their own countries.
” the fourth richest nation”. Yep, and I pee farther than you. And you make the whole point of my diary here again: “to protect its own economy”: the “non”/”nee” will lead to more national selfishness and I have yet to see how that can be a good thing on either side. It’s so easy to indulge in nationalism (and we both do), and that’s precisely the problem, which you do not acknowledge.
Much of this I laid at Chirac’s door and his persistent and much proclaimed insistence on the importance of the overriding authority of French influence and his very public demands that his electorate protect French interests above all other considerations.
So, British nationalism, good. French nationalism, bad. Now that’s substantive criticism.
I have read your posts, Jerome, and have been disturbed by your apparent inability to understand and give space in your considerations to the democratically expressed views of the Dutch electorate and those of your own citizens.
I have written that the fact that the Constitution was the embodiment of cooperation and the spirit of compromise was a lot more important than its actual content, and I do think that the “non” people have focused too much on narrow arguments about the detailed content of the treaty and not the context of it. Our dialogue here shows what the future holds – increasingly bitter recriminations and oneupmanship – which was precisely the risk I flagged.
In this latest post, you single out the views of the British for the expression of your disappointment.
You write:
“The visionary French, inspirers and builders of the Europe as it exists, have legitimacy to be pains in the ass, a privilege they certainly use and abuse. The whiny Brits are pains in the ass, full stop. Europe has ALWAYS been a political project from the start, and if you still believe that it’s a purely economic union, well get rid of the past 30 years of politicians that have lied to you about that.
Remember how everybody was hoping to use a rejection of the Constitution by the UK as an excuse to kick them out?”
There is little of fact or intellectual worth in this statement that I can comment upon. I will only say that in your unyielding indignation at all those Europeans that will not bend to your views here and on DKos may well lie in microcosm the reason why the 66,000 words of the proposed constitution have been rejected by our nations.
Is it not a fact that the French are pains in the ass?
Is it not a fact that they have more legitimacy to be so in Europe than the Brits?
Is it not a fact that Europe has ALWAYS been a political project?
Is it not a fact that British politicians have always said it is not?
Is it not a fact that everybody was hoping to use a rejection of the Constitution by the UK as an excuse to kick them out?
This is tragic and I am fearful of the vacuum created by the political elite in Europe. I cannot accept your – forgive the choice of word – arrogant assumption “so the ball is not in our court as much.” Before scapegoating others in Europe, you first need to fix your problems at home.
I am not writing about France’s domestic problems. I am writing about the fact that the “non” is opening the door to nationalism and egoism at the European level, and your post only seems to confirm this. As regards to the “ball”, I was saying that I have the consciousness that nothing good will happen in Europe if France and the UK cannot agree on it, but the people in the UK do not even seem to be aware of that, or to care. And my conclusion was – you should become aware of that, or we will both become ultimately irrelevant. You may disagree with this, and think that the UK will do just fine on its own, but don’t call yourself pro-European then.
I find in your posts the same type of reaction to the result of the French and Dutch votes as that of Chirac. Instead of meeting with his European partners, including the Dutch and the British, his first response has been to rush to Schroeder in Germany to see what together they can contrive behind closed doors to circumvent the people’s clear and unequivocal cry for a different type of Europe.
It is this unacceptable concept that has caused the destruction of a vision of Europe that I held dear. This, also, is the message that Holland, as one of the founder members of the Union, has sent back.
The French and the Germans are not the motor anymore, but nothing happens without them trying, so what’s wrong with trying – and talking? Or do you think that our domestic problems are because we talk so much with each other instead of pursuing out own interests, as the third and fourth richest sconomies in the world?
You have persuaded me to side with the people.
yep, against Europe – in practice if not in intentions.
enjoying very much this little flame war. I hope one of our German members jumps in to complicate matters 🙂
Your assumption that I had not read your post before writing is not correct. You repetition of the same points, therefore, does not in all honesty introduce much new to which I can respond.
You choose to describe my statement on the economic performance of the Eurozone countries led by France and Germany as “make sweeping, grandstanding generalisations about it “threatening the economic stability of the whole of Europe” . I am sorry that you feel it necessary to respond in such terms and do so despite my specific reference to the May OECD report which I commend to you to read:
In the latest blow to hopes for European economic revival, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development cut its forecast for eurozone growth this year to just 1.2 per cent — down from its previous 1.9 per cent projection.
The OECD projection of forecast growth is anything but grand or generalised:
Clearly, I am not finding this a very illuminating debate but I enjoy your posts on Peak Oil, however, and will not fall out with you because you have put you toe into the waters of the more difficult and contentious wider political arena.
I am saying that a couple of years of data going in one direction is not enough to talk about “threatening the economic stability of the whole of Europe”.
I am saying that “threatening the economic stability of the whole of Europe” is a sweeping, grandstanding generalisation.
You say:
I will not fall out with you because you have put you toe into the waters of the more difficult and contentious wider political arena.
How so very kind of you. I apologise profusely for talking (and oh so arrogantly) about things I shouldn’t. Sorry.
What I was talking about was this: (from the Financial Times, 23 March 2005):
But to get back to your OECD numbers: so, growth prospects for 2005 (for pretty much everybody except the US) have been estimated downwards somewhat by the OECD. They are also, as is usual for them, arguing that France and Germany need to do more “reforms”, code word for labor market deregulation and the like, the type of stuff that has precisely been roundly rejected by the electorates you identify with. So what should we do? “Reform”, and ignore the wishes of the electorate, or listen to the people and do nothing of the “reforms” you presumably recommend to make continental Europe as performant as the UK?
I am genuinely curious.
As to the rest of my comments, you have not responded to anything that I wrote, so I won’t add anything to your silence.
And what do you think Blair should do in the coming 6 months when he is, you know, rotating president of the EU? Let’s have the pro-European and respectful-of-democracy version, please.
Welshman is right about one thing–the EU project is running into problems because it’s an elite project. The people pushing the constitution had little democratic legitimacy, and there was no democratic involvement in the drafting of the constitution. The people as a whole were simply expected to ratify what their wise men had decided upon.
Any document that starts off invoking the power of the King of Belgium is not a popular document–it’s part of a larger elite project.
But Welshman is wrong to blame Franco-German economic choices for the recent setbacks. Any working European project will have to marry the economic and social interests of all members, and it’s wrong to pick one country as a favorite and blame all failures on the unwillingness of other countries to conform to that standard.
As a non-European looking in from across the ocean, I think the mix of economic and social factors in the treaty is probably a pretty good compromise. But the lack of democracy in the process of drafting the constitution and in the current and proposed institutions leads those not involved to suspect the worst. A constitution drafted with democratic legitimacy with the same social and economic arrangements (though more concisely stated, and absent the elitist language that’s found throughout) would have passed.
My proposal is for a new constitution to be written by elected members of the European Parliament, and for it to be scheduled after the next round of European elections. That way, the people throughout Europe can debate and vote over the issues they want to see addressed in the constitution when selecting their MEPs, and will know that the result involved them democratically from the start. Ratification should be country-by-country rather than unanimously. I suspect the UK would not approve the constitution right away under these terms, but I think it would pass in the original six EC nations and in several others. This would confront the skeptical nations with a choice–be left behind by the increasing power of a democratic Europe, or come to terms with the importance of the European project.
I think this would be more likely if the European Parliament actually had more power in the proposed institutional arrangements. That way, countries who disagree with the current European consensus would know that they could seek legislative compromise after joining. This is one of the main reasons that any new constitution should be narrow and focused on rights and basic powers. Actual policies and compromises should be left for later legislation.
It’s tough to start over on the constitution, but I really think that the best way to kill the EU is to keep pushing an integration that is seen an unpopular, bureaucratic, and elitist.
As for my biases, I think the Franco-German economic and social model is superior, but the British have a better national legal system and could help bring in just enough pro-growth reform to reinvigorate the European economy. I also support total lifting of immigration and work restrictions within the EU as soon as practical, even if that means narrowing the membership of the organization. A big problem with the current arrangement is that it’s patchwork, particularly on these issues, and the membership grew too large before democratic consensus could be reached.
Thanks! I really like what you have to say, though have to think on it a bit more…but also believe the truth is in-between (somewhere). What keeps coming to mind is the question, how are people’s views represented? And is there a system of checks and balances? One example, what about a House of Representatives based on population and reflecting the proportion of parties in each country? Need to think on this more…but I think the Constitution is not dead…at all…but should be continued to be pursued…with the education and involvement of the People.
.
Voted NO! Why?
They fear God as much as an European Union, analogous to the Holy Roman Empire and the Church of Rome.
Except nowadays, the Dutch Reformed fear a secular state, with no church affiliation whatsoever.
A single line Election slogan: “God – Church – House of Orange”
Staphorst – Drenthe
No traffic on Sunday – no photos allowed – no inoculation for poliomyelitis.
Internet Site is Shut down today:
Vandaag is het zondag. We wijden deze dag in het bijzonder aan de dienst van God.
“Today it’s Sunday. We offer this day especially in the service of God.”
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
I am sorry that you characterise the Dutch in this way. I appreciate that you and Jerome feel that such stereotyping somehow assists political argument but this is not a view that I share.
The Dutch vote, in the opinion of all rational commentators, rejected the constitution because they felt that the European Union had distanced itself too far from the people it is intended to serve and that, as the largest per capita contributor to its budget, Holland was being given a diminished influence under the proposed changes.
Constructive rebuilding from where we have arrived requires a serious analysis of what has gone wrong and some fundamental re-work of project Europe. As with Jerome’s contribution, I would choose not to take the debate forward with you on the terms that you set out.
I am preparing a longer comment, but I wanted first to answer Jerome’s quiz:
Is it not a fact that the French are pains in the ass?
YES! And so are the Brits, and the Poles, and the Spaniards, and the Germans, and the… (add 20 more nations here, plus the Welsh). Well, that makes a community of pains in the asses! (and we can find a lot more for our fiture enlargments…)
Is it not a fact that they have more legitimacy to be so in Europe than the Brits?
NO They have grounds for being pains in the ass and they prooved it many times.
Is it not a fact that Europe has ALWAYS been a political project?
YES Definitely, Europe was founded to bring peace and shared prosperity to the people of a continent devastated by war.
Is it not a fact that British politicians have always said it is not?
NOT SURE Anyway, even creating a free-trade area is a political project.
Is it not a fact that everybody was hoping to use a rejection of the Constitution by the UK as an excuse to kick them out?
NO I, for one, was not “hoping to find an excuse to kick UK out” (even if sometimes, I really would like to kick some asses out there!)(well, over here, too…)
Melanchthon
Excellently stated. Of course there is some truth always on each side of these arguments, but we need soundly based discourse.
.
Maybe a temporary pause in a period of crisis.
I’m pretty fed up with the shallow discussion in Dutch media, commentators, op-eds, “social analysis” and the Dutch apprentice journalists cq. reporters with a single-minded approach in interviews.
When the foreign press comes over, once a year or so, they apparently ask their Dutch colleagues who they should interview. You get an overdose of the Geert Wilders view, one seat in parliament, and just a lack of research on the numbers and content. Here it’s called the parrot circuit.
Dutch independent right-wing deputyGeert Wilders, surrounded by body guards,
campaigns against the EU constitution. (AFP/ANP)
Most important number in the preliminary poll – 93% of eligible voters had no idea what the EU Charter was about. Therefore, the confidence vote on June 1 was on a perception, not based on facts, data or any knowledge of the fundamental issues or benefits of the European Union. The present generation has taken the existence of the EU for granted.
The post-war generation made the sacrifices and rebuild a destroyed country. The next generation received the benefits, not from economic performance. Without the discovery of the gas bubble of Slochteren in 1960, the favorable position of Rotterdam harbor and the export to West-Germany, life for the Dutch would have been quite different.
[Exploration Slochteren – gas reserves 1,500bn m³ Groninger grade – pdf file]
I myself prefer to look at the numbers of the election, not go along with the mainstream – Dutch MSM – opinions and lack of analysis. As I had stated in my diary before, the EU Election 2004 turnout of 39.1% is a better number of Dutch voters who are in touch with Europe. The high turnout this time is a large group of angry voters, anxious to hand out a RED card to the present administration, no matter what the referendum would have stated.
Poor performance of eight year ‘purple coalition’ with PM Wim Kok and Finance Minister Zalm, lacked decision making on social reform when the economy was booming. The present administration had to take tough decisions on social reform, decreasing government spending in an economy of zero growth. Decisions the large EU countries Germany, France and Italy dare not make. They prefer the easy route of a lower interest rate by the EU Central Bank to increase corporate investment and hopefully get the economic comfort and some wealth.
by Welshman
As I stated in my analysis, I distinguish a small portion of the electorate from the ordinary voter. This group, due to high turnout, and heavy NO vote was the cause the referendum started with a handicap of 6% NO vote!
Pretty tough to beat the odds when the majority want to voice their opinion, without knowledge of the EU. An usual high turnout among the young voters, increased the imbalance and led to the unfortunate result.
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
But, if people weren’t educated about the Constitution, who’s fault is that really? Especially something as important as a Constitution…I think it is up to the politicians who think it is important to educate and make the sale. If they just try to push it through without educating, the danger is a response of feeling left out and thus unsafe. And how are people’s interests protected, legislatively? Do they have any representation? This has to be answered.