NON au Trait

[Edric O]

Je vais commencer par

[Davidu]

I don't know how others feel, but I really don't want to be part of the union. I didn't even want to be part of NATO. The external policy, internal policies, economies, etc of the countries that are part of these organisations will be controlled by EU. I don't like that. The French are fiercely patriotic and won't give up easily their economical self-sufficiance and self-determination. Good for them, they know what they want, unlike the people from Central an eastern Europe that flock to the EU like it is the Promised Land.

Politically the EU is necessary to temper the US and Russia, but that's it.

As an example to what I mean, look to the Swiss, they rejected the EU because it would have destroyed their industry mainly based on milk, chocolate, etc. Did you know they were imposed to produce only a certain amount and destroy the excedent. That's why they said NO. That's the economical point of view.

[Edric O]

Patriotism has nothing to do with it. This constitutional treaty is ridiculously anti-democratic and neoliberal in the extreme.

Why anti-democratic? Because, first of all, it wasn't drawn up by a Constituent Assembly or any body elected by the people. It was dictated from above by unelected bodies. And, worst of all, it is insanely difficult to amend. In order to change a single word in this constitution, you first need all governments of all EU member countries to agree that something needs to be changed. Then all the national parliaments need to vote on the actual change, and they all have to agree on it. If a single government or parliament disagrees, the constitution can't be amended...

...except, that is, by the European Council of Ministers, which has the power to change certain articles of the constitution at will.

Why neoliberal? Because the constitution rants on and on about the principles of the "free market", declares that all barriers to trade should be demolished, market regulations should be removed and governments should not be allowed to interfere in the competition between private companies. Worse, the constitution gives transnational companies the right to employ workers based on the regulations of the company's country of origin, not on the regulations of the country where it is doing business. In other words, they can pay French workers (for example) wages on the level of Eastern Europe, despite the fact that nearly all goods and services that those workers will need to buy are far more expensive in France than in Eastern Europe. As for public services and social programs, they aren't even mentioned in this constitution (only vague statements about "services of general economic utility" are made).

The capitalist overlords of Europe are starting to believe they can shove anything down our throats. It's time to remind them what democracy means.

[Davidu]

I would REALLY like to mention the word "mason" here, but I think I'd start WWIII.

[Caid Ivik]

What do you have against masons? You would not be able to live in a peaceful place without them  ;D

This extreme focus we see pointed now at french referendum only shows the true nature of the Fourth Empire. EU is a business primarily of Germans, French and perhaps Benelux, Spain and Italy, with others taken as a playground for their social experiments. Constitution is a nonsense in this situation, as Fourth Empire works more on debates of its main countries, if our parliament would be so kind and grant us such referendum, I would also vote against. Constitution could perhaps set rules of confederal cooperation, instead of it it creates a centralized control. If it would be at least following some natural rules, that centralization would be mounted around the centers of power, but they are veiled by multiculturalism so much that they better push these centers against them. It is a truly Fourth Empire, but not only without an emperor, who would be shared by all, but also without even allowance to define how he should rule. For this should be constitution...

I would add to EdricO: yes for one democratic Europe, but confederal, not centralized. And yes for constitution, if it will be clear.

[ps501]

Why anti-democratic? Because, first of all, it wasn't drawn up by a Constituent Assembly or any body elected by the people. It was dictated from above by unelected bodies. And, worst of all, it is insanely difficult to amend. In order to change a single word in this constitution, you first need all governments of all EU member countries to agree that something needs to be changed. Then all the national parliaments need to vote on the actual change, and they all have to agree on it. If a single government or parliament disagrees, the constitution can't be amended...

It

[exatreide]

ps501, you are wrong about the NAFTA issue.

A RCA television factory that employed over 2,500 americans in my fathers old town of Marion, Indiana, was recently shut down and moved to mexico. Forcing all of those people to find new work, and shattering the towns econemy.

NAFTA is fucking over America hard core, I personly think we need to pull out of the damned thing it at once.

My step father is also a electrition and a card carrying member of the IBEW. He works industry building new buildings ect. Over the past three years he has only worked around 6 or 7 months total of that type of work. Why?

Because no one was building any new industrial plants in America, everyone has been exporting jobs to Mexico.

http://miami.indymedia.org/news/2005/05/1385.php

[Edric O]

We interrupt this topic for breaking news...

VICTORY!

The French people: 1

Neoliberalism: 0

According to exit polls, the results of the referendum are as follows:

NO - 55%

YES - 45%

The European "constitution" is now officially dead. And if it refuses to stay dead, I'm sure the Dutch will give it another good beating on Wednesday.

[otheymzefedaykin]

55,6 per cent precisely !

EdricO, you speak French well. Your French is better than my English!  :D

[Edric O]

It

[Caid Ivik]

We interrupt this topic for breaking news...

VICTORY!

The French people: 1

Neoliberalism: 0

According to exit polls, the results of the referendum are as follows:

NO - 55%

YES - 45%

The European "constitution" is now officially dead. And if it refuses to stay dead, I'm sure the Dutch will give it another good beating on Wednesday.

cest bon!  ;D  raise Champagne with me, comrade!

[ps501]

As exatreides pointed out, lots of jobs have gone down to Mexico. But that is not to say that the Mexicans like NAFTA.

It always saddens me to see a city that is dependent on a company (or a division) have serious issues when that company goes defunct (or sends the jobs away)

[exatreide]

He works residential sometimes, but it only pays 1/3-1/4 of industrial.

[Dude_Doc]

At first I saw the European Union as something good, something that would unite Europe and bring things closer, make things better. But time passed, and more and more I saw that the whole EU is made only of one thing: to make the EU another corporate empire similar to the US.

Today, it was truly a victory for all men and women who wants to be free.

[Davidu]

Vive l'Europe mes amis!

Well, it's settled then!

As for me, I'd like to stay out of EU as long as possible.

[Wolf]

The Dutch just voted the Constitution down hard -- 63-37.

[nampigai]

ps501, you are wrong about the NAFTA issue.

A RCA television factory that employed over 2,500 americans in my fathers old town of Marion, Indiana, was recently shut down and moved to mexico. Forcing all of those people to find new work, and shattering the towns econemy.

NAFTA is fucking over America hard core, I personly think we need to pull out of the damned thing it at once.

My step father is also a electrition and a card carrying member of the IBEW. He works industry building new buildings ect. Over the past three years he has only worked around 6 or 7 months total of that type of work. Why?

Because no one was building any new industrial plants in America, everyone has been exporting jobs to Mexico.

http://miami.indymedia.org/news/2005/05/1385.php

the only one we can thank is ourselves, as long as we want to keep the prices as low as possible and also want a fair salary the companies will have to find cheaper productions, so they move their productions otherwhere. This is no secret, so in the end you can only blame yourself!

[exatreide]

No, we blame texas, for even getting us involved with Mexico...

[VigilVirus]

You can't stop economic globalization, it's simply inevitable. As globalization takes hold of the world, it is obvious that the corporation will seek cheaper sources of labor and materials and therefore the standards of living will gradually start equaling out towards the low end, even in countries with really high standards of living. It's something we have to live with or remain in the past and whine about those foreign devils who took our jobs.

[Anathema]

Still waiting for Edric to write up a text in Dutch and to announce our victory, hehe.

About the point of Polish companies being able to hire workers in France under Polish laws, if memory serves this particular piece of legislation is already in place- it's part of the legacy of our very own ex-commisioner Bolkestein, and it's only a guideline- it orders member states to do something, but they can't easily (if at all, I don't think it ever happened) be punished for not doing it and civilians can't claim any rights from it. Unless I'm wrong about this it can't be a reason to oppose the constitution. Nor the fact that it allegedly forbids subsidies of all kind- there are already articles in the existing EU treaty that can be interpreted as such, however, they are not interpreted in that way.

The reason why the constitution is so huge is because it contains all the existing treaties, albeit in edited form. It makes me wonder why you, Edric, oppose the constitution for its liberal undertones, while not opposing the EU in general or his country's entrance into it.

The "democratic deficit" of Europe is certainly a problem, and giving the European Parliament more power seems like the ultimate solution. However, governments don't like to have to deal with a powerful European parliament along with their parliaments at home. National parliaments fear a powerful EP because there are bound to be tensions between them, 2 very different but both democraticly enforced entities. People don't want a powerful EP wich afterall, will mostly consist of foreigners.

I voted yes, because I do believe it will improve the inner workings of the EU. I don't agree with everything in it- the constitution is a compromise, meant to appease the majority of the political spectrum. Some don't like it as much as he could because it doesn't abolish all private property, so be it. I'm sure everyone has their ideas about how much better the constitution could be better. We can't all get it our way.

[Caid Ivik]

Perhaps that is the problem, that constitution lacks any true defining sense, follows no special interesting values, perhaps instead of its calling it has no resemblance to other constitutions. Actually I have no idea why should I spend my taxes on some more bureaucracy, if it brings no positive change. Problem with constitution is simple: convent was too fast. That's a thing for at least a decade, even longer, as if we mean it with the Fourth Empire seriously, extreme diversities between us and its central countries must be softened first. This is not about money and production, very thinking of masses must be closer if we are to make something for each other.

To be sure, main french argument for "non" only showed how they are thinking nationalistically yet.

[Edric O]

cest bon!

[Edric O]

Going back to the debate over the EU constitution, perhaps I should point out who the 4 sides in this argument are:

Right-wing yes (the neoliberal side): "This constitution enshrines the principles of the free market into the very fabric of the EU and guarantees a continued movement towards ever more capitalism. We like it."

Right-wing no (the nationalist side): "The whole EU was a bad idea in the first place. It is a threat to our national identity, traditions and culture. We will oppose any attempt to move the EU further by giving it a constitution."

Left-wing yes (the Europe-at-any-cost side): "We need a strong, united Europe as soon as possible in order to stand up to America and China. Any constitution is better than no constitution."

Left-wing no (the socialist side): "This constitution aims to destroy the European model of a socially responsible economic system. It enforces ultra-capitalist economic practices against the wishes of the people. It leads directly to lower wages, longer working hours, less workplace safety, less welfare and unemployment benefits, weaker social security, less public services and a smaller public sector. It calls for a permanent policy of ever-increasing deregulation and gives far too much power to private companies and corporations. Worst of all, it is almost impossible to change, even if the vast majority of people want to change it."

[Edric O]

Still waiting for Edric to write up a text in Dutch and to announce our victory, hehe.

How many languages do you think I know? I don't look like Nema, do I? :D

About the point of Polish companies being able to hire workers in France under Polish laws, if memory serves this particular piece of legislation is already in place- it's part of the legacy of our very own ex-commisioner Bolkestein, and it's only a guideline- it orders member states to do something, but they can't easily (if at all, I don't think it ever happened) be punished for not doing it and civilians can't claim any rights from it. Unless I'm wrong about this it can't be a reason to oppose the constitution.

Ah yes, the Bolkestein Directive... Well, the constitution features a more binding form of it.

Nor the fact that it allegedly forbids subsidies of all kind- there are already articles in the existing EU treaty that can be interpreted as such, however, they are not interpreted in that way.

The mere fact that they can be interpreted that way is dangerous enough. It means that, at some point in the future, they could be used by the EU to force member countries to ban all subsidies. If you were asked to sign an ambiguous document that could be interpreted to mean that you have to do something very harmful to yourself, would you sign it? Of course not. Don't count on the idea that "oh, they'd never do something like that"...

The reason why the constitution is so huge is because it contains all the existing treaties, albeit in edited form. It makes me wonder why you, Edric, oppose the constitution for its liberal undertones, while not opposing the EU in general or his country's entrance into it.

My support for the EU hangs by a very thin thread. The only redeeming feature of the EU is that it can grow into a new world superpower to oppose the USA and China. But if this comes at the cost of becoming as capitalist as the US or China ourselves, it's not worth it.

I used to support Romania's entrance into the EU. Right now, the only thing keeping me from strongly opposing it is the fact that, at this point, we're already just as neoliberal as the EU itself - if not even more so. We have a flat income tax of 16%, for God's sake!

I would, however, very strongly oppose the entrance of Norway into the EU, since it would be very bad for the Norwegians. Similarly, it would be good for Sweden, Denmark and possibly Finland to leave the EU.

Finally, I'd like to point out that a European constitution need not - and should not - contain a summary of all existing treaties. It should be a constitution, not a collection of international treaties. The treaties should be turned into laws, not included in the constitution. Especially since they should be more easily revised or replaced than the basic principles enshrined in the constitution.

The "democratic deficit" of Europe is certainly a problem, and giving the European Parliament more power seems like the ultimate solution. However, governments don't like to have to deal with a powerful European parliament along with their parliaments at home. National parliaments fear a powerful EP because there are bound to be tensions between them, 2 very different but both democraticly enforced entities. People don't want a powerful EP wich afterall, will mostly consist of foreigners.

True enough. The solution, IMO, is to draw clear distinctions between the jurisdiction of the EP and those of the national parliaments, so that they cannot get into conflicts with each other because they don't legislate the same issues.

I voted yes, because I do believe it will improve the inner workings of the EU. I don't agree with everything in it- the constitution is a compromise, meant to appease the majority of the political spectrum.

Economically speaking, this constitution is the kind of "compromise" that would be drawn between the US Republican Party and your average European conservatives. Not exactly very representative of the whole political spectrum - or the wishes of the people, for that matter.

I'm sure everyone has their ideas about how much better the constitution could be better. We can't all get it our way.

You seem to forget that if the constitution is adopted, it will be practically impossible to change anything in it, ever. So you'd better agree with all of it before voting yes. Don't cling to the hope that the bad parts can be changed later. They can't.

[otheymzefedaykin]

*toasts with Caid*

Debout, les damn