Is the EU Constitution now dead?

capistrano

With the decisive rejection by France today the chances of the EU Constitution ever being adopted is practically zero.

The Dutch will reject it on Wednesday and the British won't dare hold a referendum unless everyone else has already ratified it. In this atmosphere of rejection, it is also like that referendums could be lost in Ireland, Denmark and Poland.

If you ask me, what has happenned in France just goes to prove that a referendum is not the best way to ratify international treaties. People voted no for a multitude of reasons, almost none of which had anything to do with the treaty itself.

I think it was Charles De Gaulle who said that he couldn't get the French people to answer the question put to them in a referendum.

Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose!

Where lies the future for the EU now? I think we will be left with the status quo, which with an enlarged union means total stasis. A great shame!

Sparks

capistrano wrote:

If you ask me, what has happenned in France just goes to prove that a referendum is not the best way to ratify international treaties. People voted no for a multitude of reasons, almost none of which had anything to do with the treaty itself.

Interesting. Denied the right to vote on a specific topic when it arises, they express themselves by voting against the government at a later date on another topic; and the people are the problem?
Seems like a poor assessment of the underlying problem to me.
Plus, you don't know that's why they voted no...

thejollyrodger

sure its dead... dead as a dodo

capistrano

Sparks wrote:

Interesting. Denied the right to vote on a specific topic when it arises, they express themselves by voting against the government at a later date on another topic; and the people are the problem?
Seems like a poor assessment of the underlying problem to me.
Plus, you don't know that's why they voted no...

Would you allow the people make the decision on any issue? Taxation, justice, foreign affairs etc.? No, issues of great complexity should be decided by our democratically elected representatives - that's what they are there for.

As regards the reasons for voting no in France, I base my opinions on the campaigns. On the one side a no vote was explicitly anti-Turkey and all about French nationalism, on the other side it was a vote against globalisation, liberal economics and simply against the UMP (Chirac) government. All of these reasons have very little, if anything at all, to do with the content of the constitution.

murphaph

capistrano wrote:

Would you allow the people make the decision on any issue? Taxation, justice, foreign affairs etc.? No, issues of great complexity should be decided by our democratically elected representatives - that's what they are there for.

As regards the reasons for voting no in France, I base my opinions on the campaigns. On the one side a no vote was explicitly anti-Turkey and all about French nationalism, on the other side it was a vote against globalisation, liberal economics and simply against the UMP (Chirac) government. All of these reasons have very little, if anything at all, to do with the content of the constitution.

I haven't decided myself about the constitution but I see your point. The thing is like 370 odd pages. What percentage of the voters today read it?

AngelofFire

what has happenned in France just goes to prove that a referendum is not the best way to ratify international treaties. People voted no for a multitude of reasons, almost none of which had anything to do with the treaty itself.

Or perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the constitution was not in the best interests of the people in Europe.

Lennoxschips

The same is happening here in Holland. People are voting against the constitution because they're worried about losing gay marriages and a liberal drugs policy (even though the constitution guarantees that those freedoms will continue to be decided on a national level) or because they're annoyed at the euro (which the constitution has nothing to do with) or because they are against Turkey.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

coolhandluke

Personally i think the problem is that the EU institutions are moving too far ahead for the people.European integration needs to be done over generations,not years.
The euro is only in a few small years,everyone see's the benefits if there was a vote tomorrow i don't think anyone would vote to go back to the punt.The euro is practically a duel currency in parts of the north,in a few more years even the most pro pound people will see the benefits of it.
I think at the moment the EU is a bit like david trimble in the sense that in trying to cut a deal with nationalists he moved to far for his own people and thus suffered the consequences.
If the EU is to work properly the commision/parliment/politicians must bring the people with them,not be 5 steps ahead trying to drag them along.

TomF

I expect the vote will be repeated until the voters of every EU member "get it right" just as the Irish voters were made do for the Nice Treaty.

Hobbes

While you might be correct TomF, you do know that the Nice treaty was reworded to remove the parts that those who had a clue had a contention with. Also a lot of people had no idea what the Nice treaty was about the first time.

Villain

With a turnout in the region of 70% and a no vote of 55% it's hard to see anyway back here apart from the Constitution being renegotiated which will still not gurantee other countries will pass it. I think the Dutch are set to vote no too.

Can't see anyway back for this.

capistrano

Exit poll on reasons for voting No (from Morning Ireland):
46% Unemployment
40% Generally Fed up/Unhappy
35% Want to Renegotiate

The unemployment problem is down to the French governemnt at a national level, and greater economic openness would probably help them there.

Thhe 40% who were "fed up" were probably just giving a kicking to Chirac.

Finally, for the 35% who want a renegotiation, we don't know what changes they would like. Probably diametrically opposed changes like a stronger nation state on the one hand and a more social Europe on the otherhand.

ressem

Not quite dead yet,
from the final clauses

"
If, two years after the signature of the treaty amending this Treaty, four fifths of the
Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in
proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council.
"

So the thing was designed to go ahead despite a number of "bad" referenda results.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1220255,00.html
"
Following the summit attended by the EU's 25 member states, Britain, Ireland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal and the Czech Republic will put the treaty to a public referendum in their own countries before ratifying the treaty. France is reportedly mulling a similar move.

The decisions have reaped criticism from some European leaders, among them German leaders, who fear national referendums would reject the constitution, scuttling two years of painstaking work. France and Germany were reportedly planning to go ahead with the current draft even if it wasn't ratified by every EU member, according to reports.
"

capistrano

ressem wrote:

So the thing was designed to go ahead despite a number of "bad" referenda rsults.

Sending it back to the Council after two years is not the same as going forward without those who failed to ratify. Anyway, it seems inconceivable that other countries could go ahead without France and the Netherlands, whatever about Ireland, Denmark and the UK.

Quantum

The Constitution is dead.

I was planning to vote yes - but even if it comes to referendum now I will vote no. It is an exercise in futility, in that the Fench have voted no, the British will vote no and it looks like others will too.

- The whole Constitution process was mishandled by the Fench and by Chirac - who created a monumentally bloated, misguided and disorganised process and then mis-named it as a "Constitution".

- The Constitution is not really a Constitution at all - it is a consolidation of existing treaties with a few added sections, some of which were ok and some not so ok. 90% of people had and have no idea what is in the document and their negative attitude is based on the fear of the unknown mixed with a natural instinct that the job was botched.

I planned to vote yes simply because I saw nothing in it that was so bad. But I am not sorry it has been torpedoed.

The document needs to be TERMINATED and buried.

Two new processes should then be started - the consolidation of existing treaties in an administrative process that can or can not be dealt with through the Council or by referenda. The process needs to be done in a transparent way with NOTHING added.

The second process should be a simple and SHORT Constitution that is based on the lowest common denominator of the basic rights and freedoms of the people of the EU. Nothing fancy, nothing adventurous. It can be added to in the future if need be. Just keep it simple stupid.

bonkey

capistrano wrote:

Would you allow the people make the decision on any issue? Taxation, justice, foreign affairs etc.?

I would. No question.

No, issues of great complexity should be decided by our democratically elected representatives - that's what they are there for.

As I pointed out in another thread....its not what they are there for. Its what you want them to be there for. I'm wondering, incidentally, would you be so supportive of a government when it made a decision that you strongly disagreed with.

On the one side a no vote was explicitly anti-Turkey and all about French nationalism, on the other side it was a vote against globalisation, liberal economics and simply against the UMP (Chirac) government. All of these reasons have very little, if anything at all, to do with the content of the constitution.

Being "anti-Turkey" is showing opposition to the inclusion of Turkey in the EU. Voting against the EU constitution is therefore a signal of displeasure with the direction the EU is currently taking, and an attempt to force it to reconsider its position and direction, and as such is highly relevant.

French nationalism - do you not see how ratifying a constitution that in places would supercede your national laws and constitution, represents a loss (no matter how small) of national independance? Whether you agree with it as an issue or not, it most certainly has to do with the content of the constitution.

Liberal Economics - the EU Constitution sets about liberalising intra-EU economics. This will require significant change in the more-socialist-leaning-than-most French economy. So again - its an issue which is relevant.

And as for its being a vote against the government....well, consider your own position that we elect them to make these decisions. If you have no faith (or have lost faith) in whoever the majority selected, then it only stands to reason that you will also not have faith in the deals they have negotiated and/or the deals that they are advocating a yes vote to. So if its legitimate to argue that a decision made at election time is a valid reason to not allow the public to decide in these cases leaving them in the hands of the government entrusted to run the nation, then its just as legitimate to argue that while that is not the case, it is acceptable to vote against the government you don't trust when asked to express your own opinion.

And if you're still not convinced...what if the various nations had suggested a US-style unified Republic in their Constitution? Do you think our government - as our elected chosen representatives - should be allowed to make that decision without asking the public?

jc

Hobbes

Quantum wrote:

The Constitution is dead.

I was planning to vote yes - but even if it comes to referendum now I will vote no. It is an exercise in futility, in that the Fench have voted no, the British will vote no and it looks like others will too.

I am curious.. Have you read it? Or are you voting no because others have/might?

capistrano

bonkey wrote:

I'm wondering, incidentally, would you be so supportive of a government when it made a decision that you strongly disagreed with.

I disagree with lots of our governemnt's legislation and I don't think I should have a say other that at general election time. Going to the people all the time would end up in mob rule.

Being "anti-Turkey" is showing opposition to the inclusion of Turkey in the EU. Voting against the EU constitution is therefore a signal of displeasure with the direction the EU is currently taking, and an attempt to force it to reconsider its position and direction, and as such is highly relevant.

It still has nothing to do with the constitutional treaty. Turkey has begun accession negotions already and we don't have the treaty. Voting against the Constitution for this reason is akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

French nationalism - do you not see how ratifying a constitution that in places would supercede your national laws and constitution, represents a loss (no matter how small) of national independance?

Of course! But EU Law currently overrides national law so there's no change there! Anyway, I prefer to look at it as a sharing of soverignty rather than a loss of soverignty.

Liberal Economics - the EU Constitution sets about liberalising intra-EU economics. This will require significant change in the more-socialist-leaning-than-most French economy. So again - its an issue which is relevant.

The constitution doesn't mandate any liberal economic changes for France. The economic topic that caused most controversy during the referendum campaign was the proposed Bolkenstein Service Directive, which would allow companies to offer their services in any member state subject to the regulations in their own member state (or something along those lines). This is currently proposed legislation and therefore has nothing to do with the constitution.

So if its legitimate to argue that a decision made at election time is a valid reason to not allow the public to decide in these cases leaving them in the hands of the government entrusted to run the nation, then its just as legitimate to argue that while that is not the case, it is acceptable to vote against the government you don't trust when asked to express your own opinion.

We give them a mandate to make decisions on our behalf for the term of a parliament. Of course, you might lose confidence in them during that time; but is it really rational to vote against a proposal purely to express dissatisfaction with the government, disregarding the merits of the actual proposal? What's the point in going to the people at all on a specific proposal if they're only going to use it as a opportunity to express their unhappiness with the government?

And if you're still not convinced...what if the various nations had suggested a US-style unified Republic in their Constitution? Do you think our government - as our elected chosen representatives - should be allowed to make that decision without asking the public?

On something as fundamental as this I would expect plenty of notice and that there would be a general election between the announcement of the proposal and the intended date of commencement.

murphaph

bonkey wrote:

I would. No question.jc

Just curious here. How exactly would you allow the general public to set our tax rates?

Quantum

Hobbes wrote:

I am curious.. Have you read it? Or are you voting no because others have/might?

As of a few weeks ago I have actually read every single word of it.... and I haven't seen a single argument about it make a single quotation of what they object to.... which says it all.

ressem

capistrano wrote:

I prefer to look at it as a sharing of soverignty rather than a loss of soverignty.

Apart from the exclusive compentency bits, like preserving marine stocks, competition, common commercial policy.

Or if I want to stir the pot, what percentage of the EU are in NATO countries again?

2. Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union's action in this area. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair its effectiveness.

capistrano wrote:

The economic topic that caused most controversy during the referendum campaign was the proposed Bolkenstein Service Directive, which would allow companies to offer their services in any member state subject to the regulations in their own member state (or something along those lines). This is currently proposed legislation and therefore has nothing to do with the constitution.

The constitution could be read to suggest that a services directive is an aspiration.

ARTICLE III-148
The Member States shall endeavour to undertake liberalisation of services beyond the extent required by the European framework laws adopted pursuant to Article III-147(1), if their general economic situation and the situation of the economic sector concerned so permit.
To this end, the Commission shall make recommendations to the Member States concerned.

Don't mind most of it myself, though I think that a treaty being heralded as a constitution is the wrong place. There are some oddities
Why the exception in
Article iii-133

2. Any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment shall be prohibited.
...
4. This Article shall not apply to employment in the public service.

Sangre

capistrano wrote:

The constitution doesn't mandate any liberal economic changes for France. The economic topic that caused most controversy during the referendum campaign was the proposed Bolkenstein Service Directive, which would allow companies to offer their services in any member state subject to the regulations in their own member state (or something along those lines). This is currently proposed legislation and therefore has nothing to do with the constitution.

Are you sure? I would just imagine that it would be an expansion of already existing ECJ caselaw based on the Treaties which basically state that there can be no dual burdens on services i.e. have to be licensed in both countries. You can't inhibit intra state trade unless it is objective and proportionate.

Of course you can prohibit a service if the same prohibtion exists in your own country e.g. gambling or prostitution but you can't treat a German prostitute less favourably.

Anything else would never get pass the Council because what you suggest would allow a lowest common demoninator system involving services and morals with gambling, prostitution etc., becoming legal in all member states.

Quantum

I congratulate you Ressem on posting the first post I have ever seen anywhere - that actually posts quotations from the document.

ressem wrote:

Don't mind most of it myself, though I think that a treaty being heralded as a constitution is the wrong place.

I agree. I was willing to vote yes on the broad content of the document - but now that it is critically wounded by the French vote... we have to tell our EU people that this is a job that needs to be split into two or more transparent tasks....
1. a Treaty Simplification
2. a Constitution
3. New treaty provisions - if any.

capistrano

Sangre wrote:

Are you sure? I would just imagine that it would be an expansion of already existing ECJ caselaw based on the Treaties which basically state that there can be no dual burdens on services i.e. have to be licensed in both countries. You can't inhibit intra state trade unless it is objective and proportionate.

TBH I've only read about the Bolkestein Directive in the press so I don't know all the details. But it is currently with the European Parliament. The idea is to liberalise the trade in services. Public Services are excluded and no doubt other kinds of services will also be regulated. For example, it's inconceivable that Marie Stopes Clinics will be able to offer abortion services in Ireland.

Sangre

Yeah so this would actually just be putting ECJ case law into legislative form which is greatly needed tbh after having spent a year studying. Basically there is an emphasis on allowing trade of services unless objective and non-discriminatory (including direct and indirect) and also non-protectionist.

There is a lot of judicial confusion in the area regarding whether medical services of a countries health system can constitute services. Hopefully the directive will clarify this, might give it read though before I comment further.

mike65

Damned pesky Polish plumbers.

The treaty is dead, sure they'll give a faux kiss of life and threaten all sorts if its not voted on again in those states that say No. But there's no way back for this document. So they'll just have to start again and perhaps consider calling it what it is. Constitution must be the dumbest description they could have thought of after all it suggests a single state for the document to apply to.

While I think the EU has been braody a good thing, I kinda think enough is enough on "integration" beyond getting the single market to operate properly which wont happen cos the French are in la la land.

Mike.

Quantum

Wll personally - I have always favoured integration in the past.

However I think it would be no bad thing if we took a five year pause, to let the system bed-in as it were.

I was also opposed to much of the hell-for-leather expansion which was triggered by Thatcher in my opinion as a strategy to dilute thr power of France and germany. However now that they are in, lets PAUSE and not allow any more in for a period of at least five years.
I don't accept the attitude that appear to be prevalent in the political classes that no country is barred from joining and to oppose a country is in some way bigotted or racist or anti Islamic.

murphaph

Quantum wrote:

Wll personally - I have always favoured integration in the past.

However I think it would be no bad thing if we took a five year pause, to let the system bed-in as it were.

I was also opposed to much of the hell-for-leather expansion which was triggered by Thatcher in my opinion as a strategy to dilute thr power of France and germany. However now that they are in, lets PAUSE and not allow any more in for a period of at least five years.
I don't accept the attitude that appear to be prevalent in the political classes that no country is barred from joining and to oppose a country is in some way bigotted or racist or anti Islamic.

Yeah, I kind of feel the same. It's time to relax for a few years. The boys and girls in charge at both national and EU levels have completely lost touch with we the people of Europe, and I do consider myself very pro-europe.

capistrano

Quantum wrote:

However I think it would be no bad thing if we took a five year pause, to let the system bed-in as it were.

Speaking as a pro-integrationist, I have some sympathy for this idea.

The only thing is that such a period will have to be carefully managed. The danger is that if we're not going forwards we'll be going backwards.

I'd like to know why they went for the controversial title of constitution in the first place.
Why not have sold and titled it as an amalgamation of treaty's with E.U effecient running aforethought and call it exactly that,given that, that is more or less all that it is.