GreekChat.com Forums
Celebrating 25 Years of GreekChat!

Go Back   GreekChat.com Forums > General Chat Topics > News & Politics
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

» GC Stats
Members: 326,161
Threads: 115,586
Posts: 2,199,958
Welcome to our newest member, BillWitt27
» Online Users: 885
0 members and 885 guests
No Members online
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-31-2005, 01:23 PM
Rudey Rudey is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Taking lessons at Cobra Kai Karate!
Posts: 14,928
France rejects EU constitution

Well this is a hilarious turn of events for Europe and Chirac given France's push for big corporate taxes, socialist moves, farm subsidies, desire to push debt limits and jabs at Eastern Europe.

-Rudey
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-31-2005, 02:14 PM
Rudey Rudey is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Taking lessons at Cobra Kai Karate!
Posts: 14,928
Article:

May 31, 2005
French No Vote on European Constitution Rattles Continent
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
PARIS, May 30 - The shock waves of France's rejection of a constitution for Europe reverberated throughout the Continent on Monday, with Britain suggesting that it might cancel its own popular vote on the document and the naysayers in the Netherlands gaining even more confidence that a no vote will prevail in a referendum there on Wednesday.

In France, the vote plunged the center-right government into crisis. President Jacques Chirac will announce "decisions concerning the government" and make a declaration on French television on Tuesday.

The statement was interpreted to mean that he would dismiss Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin and reshuffle his cabinet as a direct result of the repudiation of Mr. Chirac's leadership in a referendum on the European Union constitution on Sunday.

There has been open speculation for months that Mr. Raffarin would be replaced if the constitution failed in France, and after a 30-minute meeting with Mr. Chirac in Élysée Palace on Monday, the affable but unpopular prime minister said, "There will be developments today or tomorrow."

He declined to say whether he had offered his resignation, telling reporters: "I'm going for a stroll around Paris. See you later."

The euro fell sharply on Monday as traders in the United States sold the currency a day after the French vote, slipping to a seven-month low of about $1.25 in late afternoon trading.

Farmers, workers and the unemployed were among those who led the way to the defeat of the European Union constitution in France, voting no in high numbers largely over concerns about the economy. European leaders who had promoted the constitution as the logical, if revolutionary, next step in the growth and unification of the 25-member bloc could not hide their disappointment.

The most serious potential foreign fallout from the no vote in France came on Monday from Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, who called for a "time for reflection," saying it was too early to decide whether a popular vote could go ahead in his country.

"Underneath all this there is a more profound question, which is about the future of Europe and, in particular, the future of the European economy and how we deal with the modern questions of globalization and technological change," Mr. Blair told journalists during a vacation in Italy. Nine European Union members ratified the constitution before the French referendum. But France's no vote is likely to kill the constitution - at least in its current form - because it requires approval by all of the union's member countries.

In a sense, consideration of the constitution by other member countries, including the Dutch vote on Wednesday, is only a political exercise in democracy to allow each of them the right to proclaim approval or rejection. But the Dutch vote is important nonetheless.

At the moment there is no plan to revise the constitution and put it before member states again. If the Dutch also reject the constitution, it would be that much harder to persuade the rest of the member states to go forward with putting any document up for ratification, particularly those that plan to do it by popular vote.

"This is a critical moment in Europe's history," said Jean-Luc Dehaene, a former Belgian prime minister and one of the architects of the constitution, in a telephone interview. "It is clear that the French no brings Europe to a kind of standstill." The French, he said, "are completely without orientation and in a period of complete uncertainty."

The Netherlands, which like France was one of the six founding members of Europe's original union, "will not be in a position to play its leadership role in Europe if it votes no," Mr. Dehaene said. As for Britain, he added, "It is not impossible that the British government will hide behind the back of France to avoid the difficult discussion in Britain."

For the time being, the British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, said he would announce a decision on whether to go ahead with a vote no earlier than next week.

Mr. Blair's tentative remarks contrasted with the bold approach taken by other European leaders, including Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany and Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxembourg, who said the ratification process must go on despite the French vote.

"Life continues," Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, said at ld a news conference at the union's headquarters in Brussels after France's repudiation of the treaty. "For me, the worst that could happen is if, as a consequence of that, you or the citizens of the European Union or the leaders of the European Union enter into a zone of paralysis psychologically."

In Washington, the State Department, in a brief statement on the vote, emphasized continuity in trans-Atlantic relations, not concern. The administration has remained aloof from the particulars of the constitutional debate.

"We welcome a strong, integrated Europe that is an effective partner for addressing the many challenges we face together," said a spokesman, Noel Clay. "We have such a partnership now with the European Union and expect to continue to build on this relationship, however the E.U. evolves."

The constitution is intended to provide an ambitious, streamlined system for growth and greater unity in the newly expanded 25-country bloc. If the document is abandoned, member states will have to continue working together under a cumbersome and limiting array of existing treaties and rules adopted when the union was smaller.

In an effort to salvage the European unification process, some European figures were sugarcoating their earlier dire predictions of the consequences of the French veto.

Not long ago, for example, Romano Prodi, the former president of the European Commission, had predicted that a French no would mean "the end of Europe." On Monday he called the outcome "a disaster," but insisted that the union would continue to function under current rules and that things could be worse.

"This is still better than a war of secession like the United States once had," he said in a telephone interview. "I'm serious now. We must keep this perspective in mind. We don't have a treaty, but we also don't have wars."

That is certainly true, but the lowest-common-denominator approach was not what the leaders of Europe had in mind when they embarked on the drafting of the constitution, a process that took two and a half years.

After the French vote, the European Commission president, José Manuel Durão Barroso, warned of "a risk of contagion."

Indeed, contagion could come as early as Wednesday, when voters in the Netherlands go to the polls to pass judgment on the constitution.

After the French vote, the Dutch prime minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, told reporters, "The Dutch, of course, do not take any orders from France." But a new Dutch poll taken after the French vote and made public on Monday for NOS public television showed an increase in voters intending to vote no to 55 percent, up from 51 percent just two days ago. Only 38 percent said they planned to vote in favor of the constitution.

President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic, whose country has yet to decide whether to support the charter, declared it "a thing of the past." He added, "The French referendum, and its result, clearly demonstrated the deep division that exists between the European elite and the citizens of Europe."

That view was underscored by the voting trends in the vote in France.

According to the Ipsos polling agency, 70 percent of farmers voted no, despite the fact that France is the largest recipient of European Union farm subsidies.

Public and blue-collar workers and the unemployed, all low-pay groups vulnerable in a country with more than 10 percent unemployment, voted no by 60 percent to 79 percent.

Although most of the Socialist Party hierarchy lobbied in favor of the treaty, 56 percent of Socialist voters rejected it. On the political extremes, 98 percent of the Communist Party and 93 percent of the extreme right National Front voted no.

Paris and Lyon, two of France's biggest cities, and pro-European regions like Alsace, Brittany and the Loire Valley voted yes, while rural France and smaller cities and towns voted no. Most surprisingly, 55 percent of people ages 18 to 25 rejected the treaty, underscoring what appeared to be a lack of trust in the future of Europe and the leadership of France.

Humiliated and badly weakened in the eyes of both his own citizens and the world, Mr. Chirac is now at one of the lowest points of his 10-year presidency. The French media openly mocked him today.

"Did he manage to sleep so well on Sunday night?" the weekly L'Express asked in its latest edition on Monday. "He must realize to what extent the failure of the referendum is a personal disaster."

Serge July, the editor of the left-leaning daily Libération, referred today to "the disastrous end" of Mr. Chirac's "reign," while the daily Le Monde said the president "begins the end of his mandate discredited."

In Poland, the daily Zycie Warszawy joked Monday about the "Polish plumber who petrified France," a reference to the mythical worker from new European Union members like Poland who is free to move west and willing to work for lower pay than Frenchmen.

More at this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/31/in...gewanted=print

Raffarin was replaced this morning I believe.

-Rudey
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-31-2005, 03:07 PM
Kevin Kevin is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Posts: 18,656
Re: France rejects EU constitution

Quote:
Originally posted by Rudey
Well this is a hilarious turn of events for Europe and Chirac given France's push for big corporate taxes, socialist moves, farm subsidies, desire to push debt limits and jabs at Eastern Europe.

-Rudey
It may be that Chirac and Europe's leaders in a rush to socialize and incorporate have really awakened a conservative national movement. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the next presidential election cycle.
__________________
SN -SINCE 1869-
"EXCELLING WITH HONOR"
S N E T T
Mu Tau 5, Central Oklahoma
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-31-2005, 03:23 PM
moe.ron moe.ron is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Southeast Asia
Posts: 9,023
Send a message via AIM to moe.ron
Re: Re: France rejects EU constitution

Quote:
Originally posted by ktsnake
It may be that Chirac and Europe's leaders in a rush to socialize and incorporate have really awakened a conservative national movement. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the next presidential election cycle.
Actually, it was the left wing that was against the EU constitution.

Link to the Story
__________________
Spambot Killer

Last edited by moe.ron; 05-31-2005 at 03:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-31-2005, 03:27 PM
Rudey Rudey is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Taking lessons at Cobra Kai Karate!
Posts: 14,928
Re: Re: Re: France rejects EU constitution

Quote:
Originally posted by moe.ron
Actually, it was the left wing that was against the EU constitution.
I thought in Europe conservative meant left wing, non? Plus I think Le Pen and his buddies were against the constitution as well.

But here is how you can tell whether things will be good or bad for France. Just go to Yahoo and look at the market movements for a French market index.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-31-2005, 03:32 PM
moe.ron moe.ron is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Southeast Asia
Posts: 9,023
Send a message via AIM to moe.ron
I don't think so. Aren't the left wingers the communist, socialist, the greens, etc?
__________________
Spambot Killer
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-31-2005, 03:46 PM
Rudey Rudey is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Taking lessons at Cobra Kai Karate!
Posts: 14,928
Quote:
Originally posted by moe.ron
I don't think so. Aren't the left wingers the communist, socialist, the greens, etc?
Yes they are, but it gets confusing because of economic policies. Fascism is a combination of right-wing ideologies with left-wing economic policies...

-Rudey
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-31-2005, 09:04 PM
Optimist Prime Optimist Prime is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: somewhere in richmond
Posts: 6,906
maybe it was because the proposed constitution was flawed. Federalism is tricky, especially at the begining. Berlin barely agreed to part of Germany after the wall came down.

Back to the drawing board and give Nations more power and the EU will thrive.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-01-2005, 11:33 AM
Rudey Rudey is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Taking lessons at Cobra Kai Karate!
Posts: 14,928
Here is a comment from Daniel Drezner's blog:

Open 'non' thread

Well, the French said no to the EU constitution, and they said no with a pretty firm voice. Jacques Chirac said in response to the vote:

France has democratically expressed itself. You have rejected the European constitution by a majority.

It is your sovereign decision and I take note of it. Nevertheless, our ambitions and interests are profoundly linked to Europe....

[L]let us not be mistaken. The decision of France inevitably creates a difficult context for the defence of our interests in Europe.

We must respond to this by uniting around one requirement - national interest.

Yeah, good luck with that, Monsieur Chirac -- it's not that the French don't want to act in their national interest -- it's just that the French are quite split about defining that national interest

The BBC analysis by Kirsty Hughes provides four reasons for the rejection:


Dissatisfaction with the current French government


Worries (mostly misplaced) that the constitution moves the EU in an "Anglo-Saxon" direction economically


General concerns at the development of the EU, especially a perceived reduction of France's influence in the enlarged Union


Concerns at possible future membership of Turkey in the EU.
Given reason number two, I'm skeptical of the Christopher Adams' speculation in the Financial Times that, "Britain is likely to use the result, particularly if the Netherlands also votes against the treaty on Wednesday, to push its case for economic reform across the EU more vigorously." Or, rather, Britain can try, but I doubt their efforts will fly.

In advance of the referendum, Greg Djerejian and Henry Farrell had very good analyses about the politics and prospects of the European Union in a post-'non' environment -- so go click on them and then come back here and post your comments. And check out Glenn Reynolds' collection of links.

UPDATE: Wow -- go check out the Ipsos breakdown of exit poll questions on the referendum. It makes for fascinating reading. [But it's in French--ed. Then enter the URL in Babelfish and read it anyway.] Two things stand out immediately:

1) The only employment category that supported the constitution were Professions libérales, cadres supérieurs -- i.e., the French elite.

2) 40% of the "non" vote thought the constitution was too economically liberal

-Rudey
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-01-2005, 11:56 AM
Kevin Kevin is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Posts: 18,656
Re: Re: Re: France rejects EU constitution

Quote:
Originally posted by moe.ron
Actually, it was the left wing that was against the EU constitution.

Link to the Story
From what I can tell, reading different articles, what you say is true, but the distinction between right vs. left and liberal vs. conservative is fuzzy.

Not unlike the United States.
__________________
SN -SINCE 1869-
"EXCELLING WITH HONOR"
S N E T T
Mu Tau 5, Central Oklahoma
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-01-2005, 07:13 PM
AKA_Monet AKA_Monet is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Beyond
Posts: 5,092
Curious...

Is this the time to sop up as many Euros as possible for their rebound in the long term?

I think the French took reactionary measures to ensure a partly "francophone" identity in the whole of Europe. But given the climate of leading economic indicators, which appear to more dictated by the Pacific Rim economies, Europe cannot compete at a business level if they do not change their market economy...

United States may survive as a union, barely... But, for 1000s of years, Europe has NEVER survived as a union and world wars were fought because it...

Very interesting turn of events...
__________________
We thank and pledge Alpha Kappa Alpha to remember...
"I'm watching with a new service that translates 'stupid-to-English'" ~ @Shoq of ShoqValue.com 1 of my Tweeple

"Yo soy una mujer negra" ~Zoe Saldana
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-01-2005, 07:21 PM
DeltAlum DeltAlum is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Mile High America
Posts: 17,088
"Yesterday, France; Today, Holland"
__________________
Fraternally,
DeltAlum
DTD
The above is the opinion of the poster which may or may not be based in known facts and does not necessarily reflect the views of Delta Tau Delta or Greek Chat -- but it might.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-02-2005, 11:24 AM
Rudey Rudey is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Taking lessons at Cobra Kai Karate!
Posts: 14,928
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/02/op...brooks.html?hp

June 2, 2005
Fear and Rejection
By DAVID BROOKS
Forgive me for making a blunt and obvious point, but events in Western Europe are slowly discrediting large swaths of American liberalism.

Most of the policy ideas advocated by American liberals have already been enacted in Europe: generous welfare measures, ample labor protections, highly progressive tax rates, single-payer health care systems, zoning restrictions to limit big retailers, and cradle-to-grave middle-class subsidies supporting everything from child care to pension security. And yet far from thriving, continental Europe has endured a lost decade of relative decline.

Western Europeans seem to be suffering a crisis of confidence. Election results, whether in North Rhine-Westphalia or across France and the Netherlands, reveal electorates who have lost faith in their leaders, who are anxious about declining quality of life, who feel extraordinarily vulnerable to foreign competition - from the Chinese, the Americans, the Turks, even the Polish plumbers.

Anybody who has lived in Europe knows how delicious European life can be. But it is not the absolute standard of living that determines a people's morale, but the momentum. It is happier to live in a poor country that is moving forward - where expectations are high - than it is to live in an affluent country that is looking back.

Right now, Europeans seem to look to the future with more fear than hope. As Anatole Kaletsky noted in The Times of London, in continental Europe "unemployment has been stuck between 8 and 11 percent since 1991 and growth has reached 3 percent only once in those 14 years."

The Western European standard of living is about a third lower than the American standard of living, and it's sliding. European output per capita is less than that of 46 of the 50 American states and about on par with Arkansas. There is little prospect of robust growth returning any time soon.

Once it was plausible to argue that the European quality of life made up for the economic underperformance, but those arguments look more and more strained, in part because demographic trends make even the current conditions unsustainable. Europe's population is aging and shrinking. By 2040, the European median age will be around 50. Nearly a third of the population will be over 65. Public spending on retirees will have to grow by a third, sending Europe into a vicious spiral of higher taxes and less growth.

This is the context for the French "no" vote on the E.U. constitution. This is the psychology of stagnation that shaped voter perceptions. It wasn't mostly the constitution itself voters were rejecting. Polls reveal they were articulating a broader malaise. The highest "no" votes came from the most vulnerable, from workers and the industrial north. The "no" campaign united the fearful right, led by Jean-Marie Le Pen, with the fearful left, led by the Communists.

Influenced by anxiety about the future, every faction across the political spectrum found something to feel menaced by. For the Socialist left, it was the threat of economic liberalization. For parts of the right, it was the threat of Turkey. For populists, it was the condescension of the Brussels elite. For others, it was the prospect of a centralized European superstate. Many of these fears were mutually exclusive. The only commonality was fear itself, the desire to hang on to what they have in the face of change and tumult all around.

The core fact is that the European model is foundering under the fact that billions of people are willing to work harder than the Europeans are. Europeans clearly love their way of life, but don't know how to sustain it.

Over the last few decades, American liberals have lauded the German model or the Swedish model or the European model. But these models are not flexible enough for the modern world. They encourage people to cling fiercely to entitlements their nation cannot afford. And far from breeding a confident, progressive outlook, they breed a reactionary fear of the future that comes in left- and right-wing varieties - a defensiveness, a tendency to lash out ferociously at anybody who proposes fundamental reform or at any group, like immigrants, that alters the fabric of life.

This is the chief problem with the welfare state, which has nothing to do with the success or efficiency of any individual program. The liberal project of the postwar era has bred a stultifying conservatism, a fear of dynamic flexibility, a greater concern for guarding what exists than for creating what doesn't.

That's a truth that applies just as much on this side of the pond.

-Rudey
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-02-2005, 02:26 PM
RACooper RACooper is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Calgary, Alberta - Canada
Posts: 3,190
Send a message via Yahoo to RACooper
Sorry Rudey but your last post's author seems to be trying to make a sad attempt at linking EU issues to American Liberals... even though it was both the right and the left that pushed for the no vote - the author or your article seems to have seized on one aspect, that supports his political outlook.

For the most part it looks not to be a question of economics or social programs - but rather representation, status, and nationalism within the EU. The arguements being made are strikingly similiar to ones being made about the formation of the United States - the debate over what falls into the purview of the state, and what is the purview of the federal body.

Now in the case of the Netherlads, surveys showed that the Dutch felt some of their liberal institurions where under threat in the face of a more conservative EU:
<quoting from the Deutche Welle link listed below:>
Surveys also show that the Dutch fear a rapidly expanding EU could swallow up their nation and that focusing power in Brussels could eventually force the Dutch to revise liberal laws on cannabis, same-sex marriages and euthanasia. While at the same time right-wing parties also had a strong showing, pushing arguements that the EU would be too liberal, and would destroy the traditional/national character of the Netherlands by opening the flood gates of immigration, challenging the role of the Monarchy, or allowing the Netherlands to be bullied by the larger European states.

So for the article to make comparisons or allusions to liberal or conservative policies in the US is a little simplistic and more than a little problematic, particularly when presented in a partisan light - both left and right, conservative and liberal had problems with the EU constitution, all citing a miriad of reasons other than economics - in fact the Netherland's economy was/is growing at a faster rate because of the Euro.

Some articles on the EU votes:
Varied reasons behind Dutch 'No'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4601731.stm

The EU, a unique organization of nations
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/eu/
(Good background and FAQ site)

Dutch Reject EU Constitution
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,...603076,00.html
__________________
Λ Χ Α
University of Toronto Alum
EE755

"Cave ab homine unius libri"
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-02-2005, 02:28 PM
Rudey Rudey is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Taking lessons at Cobra Kai Karate!
Posts: 14,928
Perhaps you should read the economic factors which were much greater than you make them to be. The Dutch had quite the problem with subsidizing the EU at the rate they were going at and the French had quite the problem accepting free-markets given the fact that they run a socialist state and are afraid of losing jobs.

-Rudey

Quote:
Originally posted by RACooper
Sorry Rudey but your last post's author seems to be trying to make a sad attempt at linking EU issues to American Liberals... even though it was both the right and the left that pushed for the no vote - the author or your article seems to have seized on one aspect, that supports his political outlook.

For the most part it looks not to be a question of economics or social programs - but rather representation, status, and nationalism within the EU. The arguements being made are strikingly similiar to ones being made about the formation of the United States - the debate over what falls into the purview of the state, and what is the purview of the federal body.

Now in the case of the Netherlads, surveys showed that the Dutch felt some of their liberal institurions where under threat in the face of a more conservative EU:
<quoting from the Deutche Welle link listed below:>
Surveys also show that the Dutch fear a rapidly expanding EU could swallow up their nation and that focusing power in Brussels could eventually force the Dutch to revise liberal laws on cannabis, same-sex marriages and euthanasia. While at the same time right-wing parties also had a strong showing, pushing arguements that the EU would be too liberal, and would destroy the traditional/national character of the Netherlands by opening the flood gates of immigration, challenging the role of the Monarchy, or allowing the Netherlands to be bullied by the larger European states.

So for the article to make comparisons or allusions to liberal or conservative policies in the US is a little simplistic and more than a little problematic, particularly when presented in a partisan light - both left and right, conservative and liberal had problems with the EU constitution, all citing a miriad of reasons other than economics - in fact the Netherland's economy was/is growing at a faster rate because of the Euro.

Some articles on the EU votes:
Varied reasons behind Dutch 'No'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4601731.stm

The EU, a unique organization of nations
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/eu/
(Good background and FAQ site)

Dutch Reject EU Constitution
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,...603076,00.html
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.