France 'rejects EU constitution'

French voters have rejected the proposed EU constitution in Sunday's referendum, according to an exit poll.

The poll quoted by French TV gives the "No" side 55% - in line with surveys published in the run-up to the vote. If confirmed, the result will be a blow to President Jacques Chirac and France's two main political parties, which campaigned for a "Yes". It could deal a fatal blow to the EU constitution, which the Union has been working on since the start of 2002.

The constitution cannot come into force unless it is ratified by all 25 EU members.
So far, nine countries have ratified it.

Eight other national referendums are still to come, including one in the Netherlands on Wednesday, where the "No" side is also leading in the polls.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4592243.stm

Or at least slow it down a bit?

I can't see how any modern European people can actually vote for what amounts to rule by global corporatism in exchange for their national pride, social safety nets, jobs and more human-friendly way of life. In the '90's it was possible to cover up what all this was about and make it more sellable, but they know what's going on in the world now. Why would they vote for this mess of pottage?

Corporate takeover of Europe? Corporations already have free reign over the world through free trade agreements, WTO, IMF, GATT, etc., etc.

The international corporate powers LOVE the idea of keeping people divided into old nation-states while having their own appointed world congresses of trade representatives, etc. to make laws and force nations to submit to their will. We need to start the process of expanding political governance with the intent of being more able to put a democratic check on the already existing corporate governance of this world.


The idea of nationalism is a fairy tale, an old conservative tale of chivalry and folk heroes that the multi-nationals feed us peons while they laugh with delight as they look down upon us from the clouds.

.. destabilize EU, the idea being (of course) that a united Europe challenges US hegemony.

In addition to some fairly direct statements from folks in the Administration, the campaign included a dire CIA prediction that the EU was destined to collapse, plus the usual crap from the rightwing thinktanks (Cato come to mind) cheering about all the new opportunities the collapse of the EU would offer.

If you read the original "Neocon Manifesto" of 1997 (PNAC), they explicit mention that, in addition to use the US military to establish a "Pax Americana," they request that the US should destabilize and boycott any other country or alliance that may become a competitor to America's economic hegemony in the world. The PNAC also advocates that the United States government should capitalize on its military and economic superiority to gain unchallengeable superiority through all means necessary, including military force.

I'm not surprised the neocons are working their asses off to break down the European Union. Want some proof? Check out how many American political think-tanks have opened branches in Europe. The Heritage Foundation alone has become a source of anti EU propaganda that feeds the ideological agenda of right-wing politicians and pundits all across the European continent.

For those who still don't get it: the PNAC really wants the US to become a modern version of the Roman Empire.

Yes, imperialists project their imperialism and think everybody playes the same game.

However, the European left, that of social internationalism which believes in solidarity and equality between all the people, has no interest what so ever to engage in childish sand box games of Imperialism. Imperialist Europe is no better that Imperialist US - for fucks sake, we INVENTED the thing and look what happened when we playd the game.

If we stop being adults and start to play their degenarete games, with their rules, we have allready lost.

The challenge of this time and age is globalization, meaning international socialism, gaining political power back from corporations to people. The same challenge as allways, building real democracy.

Or does this mean that there will be no more votes by the people, since they obviously don't understand it.

Vive la France!

has been slowed down? That they get to keep their jobs and social systems? Maybe we could send a few of our radical clerics like Dobson & Robertson over there to kick the European theocracy movement into high gear.

Chirac was counting on ignorance, complacency and inertia.

Amiens rally for “no” vote on EU constitution
The French left and the politics of evasion
By Peter Schwarz
28 May 2005

Francine Bavay of the Greens was the first speaker. She criticized the undemocratic and anti-social character of the constitution. The catalog of fundamental rights it contained was minimal and represented a considerable retreat from the famous Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789. Social rights, such as the right to work and receive job training, are entirely left out of the document.

She said, “We do not want competition between workers, but rather the same rights and social standards throughout Europe.” With regard to environmental policy, she noted that the word “bank” appears some 600 times in the constitution text, while the term “climate” occurs just once.

Gérard Filoche of the Socialist Party said there was a close relationship between social resistance to the government and rejection of the constitution. He pointed out that there was also substantial resistance to the constitution in other countries. In Greece, the parliament ratified the constitution although 10,000 demonstrated in favor of a referendum.

<snip>

Filoche called for a renegotiation of the constitution. He said that as a trade unionist he knew, “If one wants something, then one must say no.” The rejection of the constitution by the French people, he continued, was not an “expression of the crisis, but rather the maturity of Europe.” He then described in detail the implications for workers’ lives of the “free market” liberalisation of the economy embodied in the constitution. He concluded his contribution with the demand for a common European minimum wage and the abolition of the so-called Bolkestein directive.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/fran-m28.shtml

PARIS—To experience just one of the 450 meetings organised by the French Socialist Party to drum up support for the European Union (EU) constitution confirms one’s conviction that the referendum will most likely fail on Sunday.

The realities of everyday life were left behind as soon as one entered the meeting. None of the speakers referred to unemployment, welfare cuts, poverty and all the other ills that plague the lives of millions of people in France and throughout Europe. Instead, speakers painted an illusory picture of a democratic and harmonious continent.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/soc-m27.shtml

while the term “climate” occurs just once."

Not much one can add to that, is there?

Kind of sums it all up perfectly.

The treaty details how the European Central Bank works, so 'bank' is going to get used a lot. Remember that the EU started as an economic agreement, so there's going to be a lot of talk about money in it - the new treaty includes all the old treaties. Mentioning 'climate' once is probably once more than most countries' constitutions.

If that's the limit of your criticisms of the treaty, then I'd said the constitution would be perfectly acceptable. In fact, there's far more to it than a simple soundbite about word frequencies tells you.

For a more informed criticism of the constitution, I'd recommend the link in post #58.

.



.

proposition for them all the way around!!! France being out of it is a almost certainty that the EU constitution won't be ratified!!!

Like I believe 'Exit' polls.

longer without actually having to produce a competitive economy.

France 'rejects EU constitution'

French voters have rejected the proposed EU constitution in Sunday's referendum, according to exit polls.

The polls give the "No" side 55% - in line with surveys published in the run-up to the vote.

If confirmed, the result will be a blow to President Jacques Chirac and France's two main political parties, which campaigned for a "Yes".

It could deal a fatal blow to the EU constitution, which the Union has been working on since the start of 2002.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4592243.stm

Wonder if exit polls match up with the vote count over there in France.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

vive la France!

Time to go back to the drawing board, and perhaps pay more attention to workers's rights in the new constitution.

Sometimes, you just can't fool enough people completely enough.

it was a strange coalition, indeed.

Everyone had their own agenda.

n/t

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

There is nothing necessarily wrong with that, although I am sure there will be portentous articles in the North American press about "the death of the European Union" or something along those lines.

Former President Giscard d'Estaing, one of the negotiators of this one, thinks there should be no renegotiation.

I meant the European Union idea, in the wider sense. Here in Canada we have went through three constitutional bargaining sessions in my adult lifetime (I won't bore you with the details of The 1981 Constitutional Accord, the Meech Lake Deal, and the Charlottetown Accord). Some have succeeded and some have failed. Each time there have been doom-sayers on both sides, with a prime minister once famously ripping up a copy of the constitution for dramatic effect. But the country carries on, and I think the same will be true of the European Union.

If the people had more of a say in how the document was written, perhaps this wouldn't have come to pass. No, big business groups do not represent ordinary workers.

If the European Union does not happen, who will back all those Euro's and what will it mean for our own wealthy here that have moved their money from greenbacks to Euro's.

Unless there is good place to store the wealth, then the Straussians better rethink taking down the USA. If we go down, so do they.

Be interesting this Tuesday, in the currency markets, to see their take on this.

They still have to work out the political structure they will end up with, but the EU as it stood yesterday stays in place until then.

will be open in Asia and a few hours after that in Europe. You won't have to wait until Tuesday.

at first, but that's just psychological. This simply means status quo, not the dismantling of Europe or anything like that. Business as usual.

and they will simply rewrite the constitution, and vote again.

It was meant to be a simple statement of principles, but ended up over 100,000 words of legalese, and no one understands it.

road to hoe in EU. They have to fight for everything they take instead of it being given to them on the EU Constitution silver platter.

nothing of the sort.

Please stop confusing American political ideas of the 1930's with the realities of today in Europe.

what Robbien did? confuse American political ideas of the 1930's with the realities of today in Europe ???

:wtf:

Where'd that come from?

For some reason some people equate globalization with corporations and nothing else.

The UN is globalization. Kyoto is globalization.

What corporations do or don't do, is a very minor part of a very big, planet-wide, change.

This is not some 'workers unite against the capitalist pigs' class struggle thing of the past.

It's a different era, and a different world altogether.

None of the old labels or theories apply.

your characterization of your own ideas; rather, with your characterizations of other people's ideas.

People on here are tickled about it, without the slightest idea of what's going on.

Most of them are attributing it to the 'people' winning a victory over 'corporations and big money'

And viewing it through an American lens.

Not one of them has actually read the proposed EU constitution.

Not the commentary by like-minded people, not the hype or propaganda...but the actual constitution?

Because until you have, you know nothing about it

I couldn't possibly have read this document, because I obviously know nothing about it. Stop insulting me, please, if you want to sell the treaty sell it on it's merits, not by accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being uninformed.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I would be hard pressed to believe that you have actually read it.

Sorry you couldn't make your way through it.

The only way to resist corporate globalism is by creating the infrastructure of democratic globalism... if that infrastructure is bought and paid for by the corporations, then so be it. The people will take it over as they do the streets when rallied.

>>> What corporations do or don't do, is a very minor part of a very big, planet-wide, change. <<<

That's what an uninformed corporate lover would say.

>>> This is not some 'workers unite against the capitalist pigs' class struggle thing of the past. <<<

In your wishes, the strugle of working class, precariate class, self-employed and unemployed, the strugle of people against plutocratic oligarchy of capitalism, against corporate fascism, has never stopped and never will stop. We are winning in Venezuela and other parts of South America.

History has not stopped, Marx's basic analysis of historical dialectics is still valid, you can stuff your Fukuyama and end of history where the sun don't shine.

As green socialist internationalist I strongly support globalization based on equality and human dignity, and oppose neocolonialist globalization, all the people's of the world becoming colonialized by corporations in an "ownership society".

And yes, I've red the thing, and wouldn't know how to vote.

The UN is corrupt and outdated. I'm sorry but it's the dang truth. But maybe Bill Clinton will become sec. gen.

I cannot accept your labeling my beliefs as 1930's American confusion.

For instance, this Irish progressive site says:
http://www.pana.ie/idn/291104.html

The Constitution of any normal State lays down the rules and institutional framework for political decision-making. It does not seek to forestall the ideological content of those decisions. That is left to political debate between the political parties of Left and Right, abiding by those decision-making rules. The EU Constitution contained in the "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe", which we will have a referendum on in 2005, is different in that it lays down such rules, but it also lays down a right-wing economic ideology which those rules must implement.

1. THE CONSTITUTION ENSHRINES EXTREME NEO-LIBERALISM AS THE BASIS OF THE EU ECONOMY

. . .

2. IT ENCOURAGES THE PRIVATISATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES and enshrines a heavy bias against public enterprise in favour of private capital.

. . .

3. IT ENSHRINES THE PERMANENT DOMINANCE OF CAPITAL OVER LABOUR
Article III-156 provides that there shall be no control on the movement of capital

. . .

4. IT MAKES THE MONETARIST ECONOMIC POLICY OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATORY

. . .

6. IT MILITARIZES THE EU

. . .

7. IT CENTRALISES THE EU FURTHER AND TAKES AWAY MORE POWERS FROM NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS AND CITIZENS, TRANSFERRING THEM TO A TINY HANDFUL OF EU POLITICIANS AND CIVIL SERVANTS

. . .

8. IT ALLOWS THE POLITICIANS TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION WITHOUT NEED OF FURTHER TREATY RATIFICATION

. . .

9. IT TRANSFERS POWER TO THE NEW EU TO DECIDE OUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN THE LARGE AND EXPANDING AREA COVERED BY EU LAW.

. . .

10. AS A CONCESSION TO EUROPEAN EMPLOYERS, THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS FAILS TO STRENGTHEN WORKERS' RIGHTS TO ORGANISE AND ACT COLLECTIVELY

. . .

11. EURATOM, THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY TREATY,WHICH PROMOTES NUCLEAR POWER, IS MADE PART OF THE CONSTITUTION

and so on
go read for yourself please.

in your Irish 'progressive' site. PANA of all things. 'WHY THE LEFT SHOULD OPPOSE THE EU CONSTITUTION'

In other words they agree with you.

Perhaps if you had read the actual document, not commentary on it by PANA you'd know it is nothing like this.

http://ue.eu.int/igcpdf/en/04/cg00/cg00087-re01.en04.pdf

So let's say you have read this document... do you really approve of the method of establishing the reference values for deficit spending :eyes:

Just pretending that everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant is about as weak a form of argument as I can think of.

And all of this stuff has already been agreed to.

The 'constitution' which should have been a simple statement of principles, ended up as a collection of things already passed.

See..you have to keep up with these things.

as well as you think you do.

:rofl:

This kind of exchange happens often in movies, but I never saw it happen in real life.

Investigator: "So did you play in the hockey team of University XYZ?"
Suspect: "Hm, no, but a few friends of mine did."
Investigator: "University XYZ never had a hockey team."

be beneficial because I have read about 25% of it and saw nothing which contradicts the idea that corporations would rule.

The legalise of the actual document is overwhelming.

Sorry you do not like PANA, but it was the best site for a summary of what many non-American progressive sites also state.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Have a nice day.

Moving on.

with no left, no right, and anybody who hasn't read all 400+ pages of the treaty should just shut up, vote Oui, and trust in their Leaders.

you willl NEVER get a chance to pass a unified Europe constitution WITHOUT it being a corporate sponsored document. Once we get a United Europe, we can force democratic reforms, once we get a united Europe we can start dispelling the myths of nationalism that keep the people helpless against the powers of global corporatism. The only way the people can fight corporate globalism is by asserting some democratic globalism. We do not threaten their power by joining up with ultra-nationist conservatives... the show just goes on for them, they do not need a unified Europe to control Europe.

because it's the first one anyone has shown me that actually has specific objections to bits of the constitution, rather than hand-waving "it's obviously neo-liberal" arguments. If I am going to get a meaningful vote on the constitution, I'll study that page carefully.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

(EU as a counterbalance to US globally) but could produce a better agreement down the road.

Now it's time to go back to the drawing board. The People is back !

we need to fight the good fight here as well and reject the corporate/corrupt government

Once again, France leads the way.

to break-up the E.U. I don't share the enthusiasm of the constitution's rejection like others on here.

break up the EU, however much they might want to. The constitution was an elite project with little democratic legitimacy (like all the EU treaties, but they were treaties, not constitutions). I think the French did the right thing. This is nothing less than a triumph for democracy in Europe, in my opinion.

Dick Cheney too...

unfortunately I think that hope may be in vain. But it would certainly be better for the French to face a clear choice in the next election instead of the disaster of the Chirac-LePen runoff.

Britain is going to hold the EU presidency next.

This mess is going to fall into Blair's lap.

which was going to be a headache for him. He has the option of setting up another committee - which won't report back till after his 6 month term is over.

Without Blair winning his anti-social red lines, French would likely have accepted the treaty.

And Blair can only postpone the referendum, not cancell it (unless France + 4 other members have allready rejected it).

I do remember that it looked as though no-one had actually tried to cross them anyway, and that I thought he was just trying to look as though he was "batting for Britain" to stop the Eurosceptic right saying his representatives were 'weak' in the negotiations. What did his 'red lines' actually change?

Charter of Fundamental Rights not legally binding, at least re labor laws (UK thatcherite anti-strike legislation), no European minimum wage, no common European tax policy, no common European foreign policy based on majority decision, no common purely European defence (but NATO). Something in those lines, I'm sure there's lot's of significant details.

It's clear that without UK, the treaty would have been more progressive, how much so is of course impossible to estimate.

This Nicolas Sarkozy?

Sarkozy had to campaign for the "yes" camp but it wasn't sincere.

I do hope that the defeat will weaken the UMP and other neo-liberal cheerleaders as much as it weakens Chirac personally. People are clearly pretty angry at the way things are going.

I'd say rather that the intraparty politics trumped the policy and that's the reason his campaigning was perhaps half hearted... this thing with his wife is probably fabricated as a diversion and an excuse.

But without the competition with Chirac he probably would have pushed harder for le oui.

Glad to read France gave a big "NO!" to that "constitution."

If he's happy it's only because he may not have to lose a British referendum, which he would have if the British people were to vote on this constitution.

Yes Tony B.liar is safe that's true but it's no good news for eurosceptical UK neither it is for Cheney and * misadministration. That Constitution was a very good deal for UK and globaly the course of the EU was much more in favour of the british liberal/eurosceptical view since a few years. UK was playing a very good game since 10 or 15 years. They were the outsiders at the beginning but since the new countries joined they were in a position of force and dictating. But tonight France is back, they will have to re-negociate because now everyone knows that's it is with us or nothing and Poland can do nothing about that. We're back in the game UK !

:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:

:toast:


I think there are a lot of big, complex, messy issues yet to be grappled with, but at least now all of Europe is forced to confront them. The leaders have no choice now but to hear the people.

:toast:

was the fear that French manufacturers would pack up and go after cheap labor in Eastern Europe.

For that reason, it never made sense to me to include all those Eastern European countries in the EU but to limit it to countries of similar economic levels. I think that the Eastern European countries could benefit greatly from a union of their own, where they could each develop according to their own strengths and compensate for one another's weaknesses.

has already caused some corporations to move work to this area. However, given that the populations of the new member states is dwarfed by those of France, Germany, Italy and the UK the scope for outsourcing to these areas is not truely comparable to India or China. In addition many skilled workers from the former Eastern block have already simply migrated to western Europe in search of higher earnings. I think it is the prospect of 100 million cheap Turkish workers joining the EU and undercutting wages that is really worrying the French.

.. this is one fear-tactic that worked. Anti-EU groups have been using the image of Bulgarian truck-drivers & Polish workers to create that fear, despite most of the cheap labor in France today, comes from the former African colonies, SE Asia & China. I have an older sister who's about to finish her University with a paper on the eastern european impact on France - and surprisingly enough, they haven't been invaded yet, as most of the Eastern Europeans prefers working in the German industry.

I weep for the European Union today.

Without integration with EU, there would be half a dozen or more Yugoslavias and Belarussias in Central-Eastern Europe. And those countries would be left totally at the mercy of neoliberalism, US lead IMF and World Bank colonialism, without even the meager social protection that EU provides.

What EU is about, is peace and shared values, human rights. Peace through economical integration. How socialist or capitalist that economical integration is, is the main dividing issue, and this time socialists scored a tactical win.

Socialism means international solidarity, nationalistic and xenophobic "socialism" is doomed to loose.

That's why I say many posters on here have no idea what it says.

"Europe has been a cash cow for U.S. multinationals and their shareholders, with earnings from the continent topping a record $100 billion last year.

Simply put: A unifying Europe is a bullish signal for the U.S. and European markets, while a fractured one is bearish."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/sundaystartup/stories/052905dnbusinside.f121be34.html


PLEASE find out what you're cheering and booing before you do so.

Multi-nationals LOVE the idea of nationalistic populations... it keeps the people divided and keeps them from being able to call up a legislature that has political jurisdiction over the current corporate governance of the world. Corporate globalism will be the unchecked rulers over all nations until the people abandon the nostalgic comfort of nation-states.

and know what I'm talking about. Trust me, the last thing Bush wants is a unified Europe with France and Germany in the lead. If you think you're right, then go check out how the right wing web sites are responding. Just because it is good for the European or American stock market doesn't mean it is good for anything else. Check out (in France) who was pulling for the vote (socialists) and who was opposing it (right wing). Keeping Europe split will make it even easier for American corporations to exploit the countries individually. It does not serve the interest of the world to have one superpower unchallenged in the political domain.

You are getting two things confused: a political structure to rival US hegemony, confused with economics.

Having said all that, my family all voted no. The Constitution is an absolute monstrosity of 450 pages. No constitution should be longer than 30 or 40 pages max.

Murdoch hates the EU. Murdoch's UK newspapers are masturbating over this (The Times and The Sun).

Sure, international corporatists penned this constitution but it is the only train coming into the station. You will never get a non-corporate sponsored constitution that gets a chance of passage by corporate-controlled national governments. Listen, the "Non" vote won because French leftists united with conservative nationalists to defeat the corporatist center. Even if you COULD get a good constitution to get a referendum in EU countries, how would it pass with only the leftists voting yes? Corporate centrists governments would be against it and also the nationalistic right.

The international corporate powers LOVE the idea of keeping people divided into old nation-states while having their own appointed world congresses of trade representatives, etc. to make laws and force nations to submit to their will. We need to start the process of expanding political governance with the intent of being more able to put a democratic check on the already existing corporate governance of this world.

Yes, the corporations are sponsoring this because they have an agenda, but just like the kings have been overthrown when they called up their Lords to pass additional taxes to pay for his wars, so to can the people take over a United Europe... but not UNTIL there is a United Europe.


The idea of nationalism is a fairy tale, an old conservative tale of chivalry and folk heroes that the multi-nationals feed us peons while they laugh with delight as they look down upon us from the clouds.

I hope corporations get the karma they deserve.

good, cooperative little labor units and consumption units to them. They promote the global economy thing so we go along with the free trade thing... so we accept our roles as laborers and consumers... but the idea of us as global citizens?!? ***GASP*** think of it making laws that they have to abide by instead of them being able to keep one toe in the Bahamas and another in Bangladesh and then saying "No nation has jurisdiction over me.... I am MULTI-national Bwahhahhaaa".

The new age of feodalism, populations trapped and tied in their nation states, ruled by corporate superstructure, corporations that are the new aristocracy.

Its why there is so much debate on the issue. But this EU Constitution is a real piece of work which will make things a lot tougher for the non-elite in EU.

The next step is either,

1. A revote if 75% of the countries agree to the constitution as is

or
2. A revision

Getting a chance to rewrite is worth the delay in my opinion.

Here's the current status, 10 yes and now 1 no:
http://europa.eu.int/constitution/ratification_en.htm

The Treaty text is not easy to desipher (argument for dropping it ;)), but my interpretation is that the ratification process will be stopped (and the constitution abandoned) only after 5 members say no. If out of all 25 four or less reject the treaty, governements will meet to discuss what to do.

since commentators in the UK haven't been referring to anything in the treaty itself about what happens if one country won't ratify.

Can you point me to the rough (or specifc) bit of the treaty that talks about this? I'd like to try an interpretation my self :-)

The EU server http://europa.eu.int/constitution/index_en.htm is not functioning well know, perhaps overloaded. But it's the last part of the actual text, "general sumfink".

So that looks like at least 20 countries must ratify it. So the rumours going round Britain that there'd be no point in having a referendum once any country had voted 'no' were wrong. You're right, there's nothing specific about the size of country. It looks to me as though all countries would have to continue their ratification process - only if 6 reject it can the others stop.

But I can see why they'd like to stop the ratification process - whether or not it passes in Britain, the British right would object to any change to accommodate French public opinion (partly because that would be a move to the left, partly because the British right tend to object to anything French on prinicple). They'd then want another vote in Britain.

basically if 75% of the countries ratified, the non-ratifying countries would be asked to revote.

If less than 75% of the contries ratified, the members would meet to discuss and perhaps revise.

I read 4/5, isn't that 80%?

the phrase "75% of the member countries presenting at least 50% of the population" many times when reading through the document and the 75% figure stuck.

I wish the document wasn't so long.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/EU-Constitution

which says on the ratification process

In the event that 80% of EU member states have ratified the treaty after two years (i.e. by October 2006), while one or more member states have “encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification”, the European Council has agreed to reconvene and consider the situation. This agreement does not specify what it may decide to do, but it remains the case that no treaty can enter into force without being ratified by all parties to it.

You could remove almost any other EU state apart from Germany out of the equation and still have a chance of agreeing a constitution. I know the rules may say different but the reality is that without the French greater European unity is impossible.

There would only need to be one more no to kill it outright.

have not put the issue to their peoples in referenda. Instead, they have used their national Parliaments to agree the changes. The sad fact is that when this document has actually been put to a popular vote it is not getting mass support.

Spaniards voted yes by a majority of 80%.

Europe. Rich countries being selfish and all.

Read the story of King Canute.

This is globalization time, and no you can't stop it.

And pretending this is 1930, and some kind of class struggle is just silly.

Globalization is much more than your 'socialism dogma' stuff from a couple of centuries ago.

No wonder you are ineffectual when you don't even know what's going on in the world.

But keep snarking at me on here...I'm sure that will change the world.

Not.

Buh-bye.

Let's just pack up, shut up and go back to the cubicles. Class struggle is so 1930. Global capitalist exploitation is where it's at in the 21st century, so we better get used to it.

They voted on whether to enact http://ue.eu.int/igcpdf/en/04/cg00/cg00087-re01.en04.pdf">this specific treaty.

You can see in the graphs of the polls:



how the Non vote zoomed up after copies of the treaty were distributed to the French people. Once they'd actually READ it they rejected the spin and the overwhelming media bias.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Capitalistic globalization, which means plutocratic oligarchy and rule of shot-termist greed and gives capital all the power over people, is a suicidal direction for all the humanity. Without democracy based on social and enviromental responsibility, aka socialism, there is little hope of survival for our civilization.

Your wishfull thinking and denial based on your prejudiced ignorance of socialism is just that.

Buh-bye.

Because it has become very obvious that the EU as it's been moving is not working for very many of its people. This gives an opportunity for the EU to come up with something more acceptable.

I do have a question.

What happens with the ratifications of this constitution that have already taken place? Are they now automatically cancelled? Or do they stay in place, sort of hanging there for some future decision period?

Ratification process goes on, see post 119.

The political classes will keep on having votes until the voters get it right.

"Le traité n'est pas mort"
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-631760,36-655535@51-655472,0.html

How many "NO"s will it take before elections are dispensed with altogether and the treaty is ratified by the bureaucrats anyway?

Watch the Euro drop after this news...

I wanted a "Yes" vote, as to have a serious counterbalance to US power...

Our economy is a phantom which cannot possibly continue to evade the harsh realities of our mounting debt and trade deficits. Not to mention what the Iraq war is costing financially and in the costs in human life. Our military is strained to the breaking point, the recruiters can't convince anyone to join and the only way they are minimally fullfilling their numbers requirements is through "Stop-Loss" --- ironically a form of illegal indentured servitude forced on those who have volunteered to defend our democracy. Iraq has become the quagmire that Vietnam was - do we seriously pose a military threat to anyone else?

The EU has more to worry about from the U.S. economy crashing and taking down their own economies with it. This was planned by the current administration and the multi-national corporations that co-rule the U.S. - they've plundered us into oblivion; now it's time to move on to the next victims - the EU.

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_16735.shtml

Impossible to read, nothing to give people, alot to take, a joke.

:evilgrin:

This all began with one man's ego trip. Former French president Giscard d'Estaing wanted to end his political career on a high note and go down in history as the father of the European Constitution. (Un)fortunately his excessive paternal instincts gave birth to a bastard or a miscarriage (take your choice).

When the European Council of Laeken mandated the Convention in December 2001, the goal was to clean up the 97,000 pages of the four previous treaties and to introduce more democracy into the institutions in Brussels. At the end of the fourth objective, there is the phrase " and to eventually decide whether the European Union should begin the path towards a constitution".

In his opening address at the convention on February 28th, 2002, Giscard had already decided for the delegates and declared that the convention would end with the writing of a constitution for the citizens of Europe.

Sir John Kerr, ex-high official in the Foreign Office, was installed as head of the Convention Secretary Office, thus giving Tony Blair final say on the wording of all the Constitutional articles.

For most of fifteen months, the delegates debated essentially the First Part of the Constitution on institutional procedures.

The Second Part, the Charter of Fundamental Rights had been written by a previous convention and received only slight attention, mostly to add subtlety worded escape clauses to allow Blair the possibility to avoid having to apply the many of social aspects of the Constitution. This caused Guy Braibant, vice-president of the original convention that had written the Charter, to state on French television, "When friends in Brussels informed me of the changes that had been made, I finally understood that they had renounced the essence of the Charter". It was only in the final months that the decision was taken to include the Charter in the Constitution.

The famous Third Part or Neo-liberal economic policies and the Fourth Part - annexes and Protocols, were drafted by a special group of experts appointed by the Commission in Brussels. They were finally presented to the Convention three weeks before the end, leaving so little time to debate the issues, that the final draft presented to the European Council in Thessalonica on June 20, 2003 only contained the First and Second Parts. This was very confusing and several members of the Council were ready to accept the Constitution in this form, without the Third and Fourth Parts.

Finally, an additional month was granted to allow the Convention to finish it's work (in haste).

Giuliano Amato, Vice President of the Convention, even stated that "if they keep the article requiring a unanimous decision to modify the Constitution, I will commit suicide". At last news, both Mr. Amato and the unanimous decision article were still alive and kicking.

In October 2003, the Constitutional Treaty was presented to the Inter-Governmental Council in Rome and during the next eight months the governments integrated additional modifications. The most notable being changes to the decision procedures in several areas, mostly financial, requiring unanimous approval instead of a qualified majority. Also restrictions were placed on future European Court and the budget powers of the European Parliament. The article allowing the pursuit of fraud and tax evasion was suppressed.

On June 18th, 2004 the final text was adopted by the 25 member countries.

_____________________________________________________________________

In resuming, we have a Convention that wrote a Constitution when this wasn't it's principle mandate. Only one of the four parts was democratically debated, the other three were given only token attention. The final draft was father modified by an Inter-Government Council.
_____________________________________________________________________


AND THIS IS THE TEXT THAT IS SUPPOSED TO GOVERN 450 MILLION PEOPLE FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS!


The real question that should be asked is:
Is Europe mature enough to need a Constitution?.

The previous treaty of Nice was considered a failure because the 15 countries couldn't reach a common accord on most of the issues.

We are now 25 with large differences in economic and social standards.

2 more countries are on the waiting list and they are talking about eventually including 38 countries.

Doesn't it seem more logical to allow time for the dust to settle and the economic/social standards to grow closer before setting out on a Constitutional journey?

BushSpeak in Brittany

PS I would be interested in exchanging with DU members in other European countries to learn about the mood in their country. Also if you need additional documents, we've pretty much dissected the Constitional Treaty here in France.

Maybe we can start a thread in a more appropriate section.

The voters in France have thrown the spokes into the wheels of this so-called Constitution so that people are now starting to examine more closely what it really is about.

Thanks for your excellent post.

I thought parts of the Constitution read uncannily like British statute law. Now I know the reason. It seems that there has been a concerted effort by some parties to circumvent the orginal intention of this document.

Dutch Set To Reject EU Treaty, Chirac Dumps PM



By REUTERS
Published: May 31, 2005
Filed at 5:02 p.m. ET

PARIS (Reuters) - A crisis over the European Union's constitution claimed the French prime minister as its first victim on Tuesday as EU leaders braced for Dutch voters to follow France and reject the charter.

Skip to next paragraph ``We had hoped for a neck-and-neck race (but) ... it looks as if it is going to be a 'No' vote,'' Dutch Foreign Minister Bernard Bot said after opinion polls put the ``No'' camp on course for a big win in a referendum on Wednesday.

Concerns that the charter, intended to ensure the enlarged EU runs smoothly, is now close to death have helped drive the euro down to seven-month lows against the dollar and unsettled stocks and bonds.

...>

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-eu-france.html

The Euro can replace the dollar and we will become a 3rd world country. hopefully The repugs will dissaper when they're broke!