French Voters Soundly Reject European Union Constitution
PARIS, May 29 - Turning its back on half a century of European history, France decisively rejected a constitution for Europe on Sunday, plunging the country into political disarray and jeopardizing the cause of European unity.
The victory for the no vote - 55 percent to 45 percent - came in a nationwide referendum on the European Union constitution after a bruising campaign that divided France and alarmed Europe.
Foreshadowed in recent polls, the no vote could doom the 448-article treaty because all 25 members of the European Union must ratify it before it can take effect.
Full Story @ New York Times
It's funny how france seemed so "one world government" yet wants to remain independent.
Posted by Muddy at May 29, 2005 11:38 PM | TrackBackYou missed the point.
1 the constitution proposed was not democratic. The european parliament could vote only some laws, it could not propose laws, it had little control on budget, could not decide to borrow or create new taxes, it could not overthrow the government (commission). The commission still was an unelected body etc.
The complete document was more than 300 pages long. I doubt any of you would have voted for it.
2 This "constitution" included lots of stuff that were clearly not of constitutional level : especially economic policies.
The constitution made it so that the market was king, everybody and everything, had to abide to the "Market". Democracy itself was not a higher value than the market laws. For instance the constitution made it impossible to have economic federal policies of support to given industries, to run budget deficits and create lots of money to support the economy.
It was in fact a recipy for a disaster.
These are the reasons why the constitution was voted down.
In fact there had been no debate about the constitution before this referendum, no equivalent to the federalist papers in your history. The debate is only starting. So far the constitution proposed was no constitution made by the european people, but a minimum agreement between 25 governments of 25 sovereign countries, each trying to get its fair share. It's about the same as if the constitution of the USA had been written mostly by confronting the views of the 13 colonies, virginia first or New york first ...
French people want to be part of europe, but they want to be part of a democratic europe, where economic policies can be chosen democratically.
First off you're not even describing a democracy...you're describing a republic.
Second, you will never get a democratic or republican EU because the people designing it are beaureaucrats. They are all looking out for their own best interest. They are career politicians. Not to mention that you're talking about 25 sovereign nations...try convincing 25 millionaires that each is going to have to give up a little bit of his money so that he might make more money down the road - let me tell ya, it isn't easy!
In our history, it was a little different. It was not career politicians, it was people who were generally well known in their colony who were more or less chosen by a concensus of colonial (then state) legislatures. These were new states that had only recently been colonies of another nation, they had very little to lose and much to gain by banding together.
I've heard people try to make the comparison, yet, there really isn't one.
Posted by: skywalker at June 8, 2005 03:27 AMFirst off what you call republic I call democracy (or representative democracy), and what you call democracy, I call it direct democracy. We have had this debate already. A republic is something different. For instance, we leave in the French republic, and the UdSSR was the United Soviet Socialist Republic. France is a republic and a democracy. The UdSSR was a republic and not a democracy.
The notion of republic is related to the enactment of common good, people in a republic are motivated by the common good, they are tought to act so, in a democracy, laws are more compromises between different interest groups.
The best solution is of course a republic and a democracy, France that is ... :-)
Well I won't convince you to use my categories, but please do not try to teach me yours.
Now you are right that Europe has been built so far by national governments. That is the problem.
THis is why citizen right now voted no. They want to build a europe made for the european people, and not for the 25 national government heads.
That's a hard job. But contrary to your belief, the creation of the US federation was no small job.
It has involved a secession war. The debate of what is and is not a federal competency is still going on, for instance, can the federal government ban homosexual marriage or should states handle freely the cases.
We're only starting the process. But if your ancestors had been defeatists like you are now, I bet there would not be much of USA to see around.
After all many of the founders of your nation were career politicians. They still did a good job. ANyone will do if monitored carefully.