[This is from a discussion I had with Dave, my libertarian friend in Maryland, about the proposed European Constitution. I put it here as a draft and forgot to publish it, but here it is, a month late; this all happened during the legal and familial difficulties of late June, and the date I assigned it (July 1st) is essentially arbitrary. Anyway, I thought my reply was pretty good, and I hated to waste it. The first part is Dave’s message to me. The second part is the text of a USA Today article he forwarded me (sorry, don’t have the issue listed anymore…Dave, if you have it, would you append a comment citing it?). And the third part is my response. Feel free to discuss, if there’s anyone out there besides us who gives a good goddamn about European politics.]
* * * * * * *
Dave wrote:
"On the topic of France and the European Union [we had been discussing this previously], this piece is from USA Today. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I just don't see how they can take such a diverse collection of cultures and try to meld them together as a makeshift "country." People have different priorities in different places. That's what the left doesn't understand about trying to centralize a government for a large expanse of land and people/cultures..."
"On the topic of France and the European Union [we had been discussing this previously], this piece is from USA Today. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I just don't see how they can take such a diverse collection of cultures and try to meld them together as a makeshift "country." People have different priorities in different places. That's what the left doesn't understand about trying to centralize a government for a large expanse of land and people/cultures..."
* * * * * * *
The USA Today wrote:
Before the Netherlands rejected a new European constitution Wednesday, something out of the ordinary happened: Voters held hundreds of debates about it in town halls and coffeehouses.
A similar raging discussion preceded France's resounding "no" vote three days earlier - with a more in-your-face French flavor. In a typical scene, finger-jabbing sheep farmer Jose Bove told gathered crowds that "200 years after the (French revolution's storming of the) Bastille, the people of the left today are going to wreck this constitution!"
With their votes, the French and Dutch people did indeed shatter the proposed constitution. They sent another message as well: Europe is not dead; it is being democratic. And that's important, too.
The constitution had to be ratified by each of the European Union's 25 members before it could take effect. Nine countries had ratified it so far.
The constitution was an effort to give Europe, already an economic powerhouse, more unified political and military clout. It would have committed members to common policies of defense, asylum and immigration, and to stewardship under a single president. And it would have simplified decision-making that has gotten impossibly cumbersome as the union has expanded.
But instead of the rubber stamp that leaders expected, the two referendums morphed into a popular debate over where Europe is headed. The European Union has been taking in former Soviet satellites at breakneck speed, changing its character. Protesters said Europe's leaders have lost touch with regular people. Gripes, though, are the specialty of the "Old" Europe rather than that of the new members emerging from a repressive, Soviet-dominated past.
Europe isn't going to die for want of adopting the 191-page constitution, but it will be weaker and will operate under old rules. For the USA, that's a mixed outcome. It undermines joint approaches on terrorism and other issues with trans-Atlantic allies. On the other hand, it makes Europe less of a political competitor. The French, in particular, had wanted EU power to be a counterweight to the United States in the world.
Naysayers expressed a range of concerns. French workers feared losing their social safety net. For the Dutch, a chief issue was whether Muslim Turkey should be admitted. But the fears had a common link. Politicians failed to explain clearly how the constitution would benefit average people. They will now have to listen and come up with a Plan B, possibly a streamlined version.
The process forward will be slow, painful and humbling. It is called democracy.
Before the Netherlands rejected a new European constitution Wednesday, something out of the ordinary happened: Voters held hundreds of debates about it in town halls and coffeehouses.
A similar raging discussion preceded France's resounding "no" vote three days earlier - with a more in-your-face French flavor. In a typical scene, finger-jabbing sheep farmer Jose Bove told gathered crowds that "200 years after the (French revolution's storming of the) Bastille, the people of the left today are going to wreck this constitution!"
With their votes, the French and Dutch people did indeed shatter the proposed constitution. They sent another message as well: Europe is not dead; it is being democratic. And that's important, too.
The constitution had to be ratified by each of the European Union's 25 members before it could take effect. Nine countries had ratified it so far.
The constitution was an effort to give Europe, already an economic powerhouse, more unified political and military clout. It would have committed members to common policies of defense, asylum and immigration, and to stewardship under a single president. And it would have simplified decision-making that has gotten impossibly cumbersome as the union has expanded.
But instead of the rubber stamp that leaders expected, the two referendums morphed into a popular debate over where Europe is headed. The European Union has been taking in former Soviet satellites at breakneck speed, changing its character. Protesters said Europe's leaders have lost touch with regular people. Gripes, though, are the specialty of the "Old" Europe rather than that of the new members emerging from a repressive, Soviet-dominated past.
Europe isn't going to die for want of adopting the 191-page constitution, but it will be weaker and will operate under old rules. For the USA, that's a mixed outcome. It undermines joint approaches on terrorism and other issues with trans-Atlantic allies. On the other hand, it makes Europe less of a political competitor. The French, in particular, had wanted EU power to be a counterweight to the United States in the world.
Naysayers expressed a range of concerns. French workers feared losing their social safety net. For the Dutch, a chief issue was whether Muslim Turkey should be admitted. But the fears had a common link. Politicians failed to explain clearly how the constitution would benefit average people. They will now have to listen and come up with a Plan B, possibly a streamlined version.
The process forward will be slow, painful and humbling. It is called democracy.
* * * * * * *
My Reply:
I kept this piece overnight to think about it a bit. I didn't want to give you a flippant answer to it, because I've been following the story closely as it developed (as I must, given my major and my interests). I've been a little distracted by what's happening in Belarus, but I've been making an effort to keep up with the EC.
I myself am torn on the refusal of the French to ratify the constitution, and the way the Danes followed them. It is certainly a setback to the forces who want to unify Europe, although (as both this article and the people pushing ratification say) it certainly demonstrates that democracy is alive and well on the continent.
It's a mistake (and probably a characteristic one) on your part to ascribe this defeat to leftists who "don't understand." For example, the quote from this story that "the people of the left today are going to wreck this constitution!" could be interpreted as a promise or a threat; the fact that the guy made reference to the Bastille implies that he himself was a leftist celebrating the death of the measure.
In actual point of fact, the move towards a Constitution was very much a centrist effort, or it could never have gotten off the ground (witness the effort W has had convincing America to privatize Social Security, even with a secure majority in both houses: something this big can't be pushed through by one side of the political spectrum; it requires cooperation). The principal difficulty faced by pro-Constitution advocates has been from the fringes of both left and right. And frankly, both have valid points of view.
The left in Europe fears the loss of the social safety net. Yes, that thing which American rightists so hate and fear, people in France and Denmark were willing to fight to protect. This, I'm afraid, is a valid concern. Also, the left fears that, for example, Tony Blair could drag the EU into wars that the European majority believes to be illegal or unethical (you'll have to ask yourself where they got that idea). The new EU Constitution is very much a laissez-faire document, calling for steep decreases in social programs; and it expands itself tacitly but tellingly into the military arena by calling for a joint Euro foreign policy.
The French don't want to have to spend their entire lives working, the way Americans do. They think it might be nice to actually live their lives. The Dutch believe, rightly or wrongly, that they will end up paying for French and German excesses, while being stuck with budget policies that don't reflect the priorities of their people. And neither country wants to get their boys sent away to die the next time a US President feels the old imperialist itch (and whether that's true or not, that's what both conservative and liberal Europeans believe is happening).
The far right is concerned about the loss of sovereignty. This, too, is probably legitimate. As you say, a central government in Brussels isn't likely to care too much about problems in Ipswich. On the other hand, that's why the EC allows for a federal system. But federal systems can work both ways, both with and against the common interest or any sense of justice or decency, as our own has proved. A federalist system can work, but you really gotta keep an eye on it; and little people do have reason to fear it.
Probably both sides are making too much of their concerns. Still, they need to voice them. And frankly, having read the European Constitution (have you? If you were an International Affairs major you would have), I can understand them. But to automatically say that this is a brushback of the left is disingenuous. I like to think of it as a crying out in the wilderness, an attempt by the true believers of both right and left to make themselves heard in this artificial-consensus, play-to-the-soccer-moms world (and though Europe isn't as bad about this as we are, our superficial politics have surfaced over there; they're our least attractive export). Don't forget that one of the leading opponents of the EC in Denmark was the Socialist party; and that the French Socialists refrained from advertising prior to the referendum because their party was so deeply divided.
If you're interested in my personal opinion, I am (of course) an internationalist. I tend to see nationalistic arguments as weak on their face; at the same time, I think that the paper as drawn up has serious deficiencies. In short: I want a European Constitution. I am simply not sure that I want this one. Having said that,
I remain, as always,
your own,
OgreVI
* * * * * * *
P.S.--Incidentally, I'm kinda proud of the French. There have been doubts about the Constitution for some time, but several nations have already ratified it. There was a feeling that every country was afraid to be the one to shoot it down. Give the French credit for courage; they didn't care what anyone else thought. They thought it was a bad idea, and they fucking killed it. Good for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment