| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Panicked Chirac may call early vote on EU Constitution |
| 2005-02-20 |
| President Jacques Chirac may consult all French political parties in the next few days on an early date for France's referendum on the European Union constitution. Faced with opinion polls, published and unpublished, showing a draining of support for the treaty, M. Chirac is said to be considering a referendum on 22 May, instead of in early or mid June. Opponents of the treaty say the government is showing signs of "panic". The longer the French people consider the treaty, the more likely they are to vote against it, they say. M. Chirac has therefore been forced to consider a snap poll. The Elysée Palace said a referendum "could take place in May, just as well as June" but rejected suggestions that the President's hand was being forced. Pro-government members of parliament said June was a "bad month" for elections in France because it was littered with public holidays. Opinion polls have shown a gradual erosion of support for the treaty in France. In part, this is because the question has become infected by other issues, ranging from Turkish membership of the EU to the unpopularity of Jean-Pierre Raffarin's centre-right government. At the same time, arguments against the treaty by the extremes of left and right have begun to shake the support of a mainstream electorate which has barely considered the text. The "no" campaign has been in full swing for several weeks; the "yes" campaign has not begun. The Senate, the upper house, gave a first reading yesterday to a change in the French constitution, allowing the referendum to go ahead. It has been passed by the National Assembly, and M. Chirac is expected to announce this week the date of a meeting of both houses to amend the constitution. This would lift one of the remaining obstacles to a referendum. The others are largely technical and relate to how soon copies of the proposed constitution and the wording of the referendum question can be printed and distributed to the 41.5 million voters. Officials suggest 22 May is the earliest feasible date. Opinion polls originally showed support for the new constitution above 65 per cent. Private polls by the government have warned it is likely to be lower, and recent public surveys have shown support of below 60 per cent. If France rejects the constitution - which streamlines EU decision-making, solidifies some EU powers and creates a permanent president of the EU council - the treaty would be as good as dead. The text could barely survive rejection by popular vote in any member state, and certainly not in such a large and key founder state as France. Government confidence was high in December when a vote within the main opposition party, the Socialists, showed it was strongly in favour of the treaty. Many more radical Socialists, and parties further to the left, reject it as an "ultra-liberal" Anglo-Saxon conspiracy to abolish the continental model of the welfare state. On the right, although formally supported by all mainstream parties, the treaty is seen by some as an erosion of national sovereignty. Despite a government promise that Turkish membership would be put to a separate vote, many right-wing politicians argue that a vote against the constitution would be the best way to kill Turkish membership stone dead. |
| Posted by:Bulldog |
| #26 The GAO is a Bulldog (apologies, Bulldog, heh) and can account for all non-black expenditures. They regularly testify before Congress regards where the money went - for any member who wants to chase it. Our money is being watched carefully, but that doesn't prevent Congress from spending it on asinine pork barrel projects. That's legal - we elected the jerks. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-02-20 7:35:11 PM |
| #25 #24 do you think this is a case of THE FOX IN CHARGE OF THE HEN HOUSE? It seems that way to me. Andrea |
| Posted by: Andrea Jackson 2005-02-20 7:32:52 PM |
| #24 The auditors cannot clear 95 per cent of that. We simply cannot tell what is happening to that money; the system does not allow us to say even if the money is well or fraudulently spent. ..." Question, for comparison: I know the U.S. government accounts are supposed to be audited. How well are they able to account for the monies disbursed (other than, I assume, CIA and Military, at least part of which is supposed to be secret)? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-02-20 7:26:11 PM |
| #23 Thanks, JFM. May I ask where you got the above material? I need the short, concise form for homework in April; #3 daughter has Asperger's Syndrome, also known as high functioning Autism, and has a hard time with cause and effect, so I need to be able to reduce things dramatically without sacrificing the point. |
| Posted by: mom 2005-02-20 6:46:05 PM |
| #22 Mom The Declaration of Rights of Man has more in common with Us Constiution than you believe: let's review the two first articles. First Article: "Men are born and remain free and equals in rights" Second Article: Those rights are freedom, property, security and resistance to oppression" (Notice that this implies the right to bear arms). Of course that part was quickly "forgotten" by the revolutionary authorities. The problem was not the Declartaion of Rights but what happenned later. In order to understand contemporary France you have to realize the French Revolution was basically a scam. The people was sant to die in the battlefields of Europe with promises of liberty and democracy but in the meantime the bourgeois who controlled the Constituante made that you only were allowed to vote if you were rich enough on the basis that the poor were not learned enough. But they also closed the free schools set by Monarchy and Clergy and who allowed the people to get instruction. You see for the French Enlightenement philosophers instruction was bad for the people. The Revolution leaders had also the State sell the lands of Nobilty and Clergy in a such way that the bourgeoisie was able to buy them at a fraction of their value while the peasants or workers weren't able to buy. They also suppressed syndicates and Napoleon put workers under watch of the police through a booklet any worker had to keep and present to the police or employer whenever he moved or chnged jobs. In America workers were able to escape their condition through governement's distribution of free lands or by creating their own company (partly because they had had instruction: at the time of the Civil War over 90% of men in New England were able to read and write). But in France the oppressed, police-controlled and unlearned workers never had those opportunities (1): instead they became resentful and embraced socialism (1) It is difficult to create a business if you can't read, write and count. In addition it ws much harder for badly paid French workers (no syndicates) to get enough funds to start it or to get loans from the banks. |
| Posted by: JFM 2005-02-20 3:41:30 PM |
| #21 Cool, #19 Bulldog. Glad to see the lawyers are useful for something after all. Of course, the way things seem to be going, the British government will probably just change the law. :-( |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-02-20 2:33:50 PM |
| #20 For a concise and clear description of the development of Common Law, referred to in #2 above, check your local library for the book "Magna Carta," written by an excellent legal scholar with the unfortunate name of William Swindler. The book was written for junior high students years ago; very few students probably see it today, probably. I have used it in home schooling my daughters. The idea that the king could be answerable to the law was revolutionary; everywhere else the law depended on the king's whim. In England, as successive kings renewed the Charter, economic conditions helped the crown to evolve from personal rule to an institution larger than the king himself. The barons and politicians responsible for the Hundred Years' War and the Wars of the Roses killed each other off and left the field open for new leadership and, compared to the rest of Europe at the time, a more stable and prosperous nation. Note the differences between the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man" and the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. The French Clergy had become so corrupt under the Bourbons, and the religious behavior of the Bourbon kings had become such a travesty of faith, that the French threw God out of their reckoning entirely. I believe that abandonment of principles led in part to the horrors of the French Revolution. |
| Posted by: mom 2005-02-20 2:30:37 PM |
| #19 DB - I was reading a letter in the Times (IIRC) recently about a chap who's taking the British Government to court over its payments to the EU (£1,500,000 per hour). under British law, it's illegal for HMG to hand over taxpayers' money to businesses or orgnisations which do not have audited accounting and open books. Our payments to the EU, quite obviously, are therefore illegal. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2005-02-20 2:07:54 PM |
| #18 No disagreement there, TGA. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-20 2:07:49 PM |
| #17 Mrs Davis, thinking of the "iron" Stability Euro Pact, a very valid point. Greece should not even have made it into the Euro. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-02-20 2:04:35 PM |
| #16 Bulldog - 95% can't be accounted for? I guess the other 5% aren't trying hard enough? Makes the UN look good by comparison....sheesh. |
| Posted by: Desert Blondie 2005-02-20 1:39:15 PM |
| #15 That's the way treaties work. You can withdraw completely from it, or you can respect it, or you can renegotiate it with your partners and reach a compromise solution. But you don't get to pick and choose which chapters to respects and which not to. Unless you're frogland or Germany |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-02-20 1:29:18 PM |
| #14 The EU's idea of accountability: "... The National Audit Office found that in 2002 alone there were 10,000 examples of possible fraud in the EU’s accounts. For nine consecutive years the EU court of auditors has refused to sign off the budget. The numbers are huge. The annual EC budget is around 100 billion [Euros] (£65 billion). The auditors cannot clear 95 per cent of that. We simply cannot tell what is happening to that money; the system does not allow us to say even if the money is well or fraudulently spent. ..." Nine. Consecutive. Years. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2005-02-20 1:24:30 PM |
| #13 I'm curious: are there provisions from withdrawing completely from the bureaucratic lunacy while remaining completely within the economic union? Yeah, there's that article that says "Any member stay may withdraw completely from the bureacratic lunacy, while remaining completely on those parts of the agreement it still likes. Also pink elephants fly in happy circles." There are provisions to negotiate the terms and aspects of your withdrawal, yes, and reach an agreement after consultations. But the absolute right retained under the Constitution is that of having the treaty cease to apply to you in its entirety. That's the way treaties work. You can withdraw completely from it, or you can respect it, or you can renegotiate it with your partners and reach a compromise solution. But you don't get to pick and choose which chapters to respects and which not to. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-20 12:55:47 PM |
| #12 Raptor You atre right, we have no way short of armed revolt to get rid of corrupyt and incompetent leaders, except it would be unarmed revolt. Btw, one of the nice things in that EU Constitution we are invited NOT to read is that there are many provisions who can be translated as "liberty is guaranteed until the government decides it not longer suits it" or "property is guaranteed unless the governement decides it is in public interest to expropriate you". |
| Posted by: JFM 2005-02-20 12:49:07 PM |
| #11 I'm curious: are there provisions from withdrawing completely from the bureaucratic lunacy while remaining completely within the economic union? If not it might not be a stretch to call the withdrawl provisions illusory. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-02-20 12:42:51 PM |
| #10 The people only have an indirect influence through their national governments and parliaments, and a very limited influence through the European Parliament. Not good enough. The EU commission already affects our daily lives as much as our national government. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-02-20 12:42:25 PM |
| #9 Thanks,TGA.Now let me see if I've got this straight. The EU is going to be an un-elected government, ran by un-elected beuracrats,with a judiciary un-accountable to the people they are supposed to protect.All this and the people of Euorpe have no way(short of armed revolt)to correct problems,or get rid of incompetant,corrupt,or inneffective leaders.Are my conclusions correct,TGA,JFM,BD,Howard? I find it hard to believe,Aris,that you are in favor of this hegmonic dictatorshp.Aris,thier are a lot of examples that are much,much worse than U.S. Federalisam,after all how many Euoropean Democracies have lasted over 200 hundred years.Just where the hell do the Euros get off calling the U.S.hegomnic when they are in favor of this crap? |
| Posted by: raptor 2005-02-20 12:37:30 PM |
| #8 Just sign along the dotted line. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-02-20 12:31:40 PM |
| #7 Actually the Spanish minister of Justice has said to the citizens: "No need to read the Constitution to know it is good". |
| Posted by: JFM 2005-02-20 12:29:53 PM |
| #6 Someone should suggest to the Europeans a simple idea: take the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, and replace the words "United States" with "Europe". LOL! Bravo for the innovative idea of the "United States of Europe" which has never ever been proposed before! But let's see, a single foreign policy, a standing army and single defense, a single currency throughout the Union (too bad UK or Sweden, no opt-outs allowed for you), federal taxation, the federal government enforcing a full separation of church and state throughout the continent no matter what the regional traditions are (sorry UK, sorry Greece), no state vetos at *all*, no right to secede from the Union... Most of this is a federalist wet-dream for me (though even *I* wouldn't go that far towards federalism -- for example I'm in full favour of the rights of any state to secede), but when some people loathe it whenever the EU takes even tiny, *tiny* steps towards federalism, do you really think that they would currently accept the full-blown United States of Europe that you are talking about? |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-20 10:53:51 AM |
| #5 Quick quick, let vote before the citizens start - gasp - READING the proposed constitution!! raptor: 1) EU parliament yes (limited power), EU commission no 2) No 3) No 4) No |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-02-20 10:20:07 AM |
| #4 Personally I don't really understand all of the hoopla surrounding the EU Constitution. Population demographics will once and forever unite |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-02-20 9:37:43 AM |
| #3 I've stayed clear of this EU/EU costitution debate,because I know very little about it.But I would like to ask a couple of questions. 1)Do the citezens of the EU have the right to vote on thier Representatives to the EU? 2)Do they have the right to vote on laws proposed by the EU? 3)Do the citzens of individual countries have the right to recall/impeach thier EU reps? 4)Do the citezens of the (collective)EU have the right to impeach members of the Executive Branch(ex:EU priesident)? How are EU judges chosen and do the citezens have any say as to who sits on the bench? |
| Posted by: raptor 2005-02-20 9:20:48 AM |
| #2 Someone should suggest to the Europeans a simple idea: take the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, and replace the words "United States" with "Europe". Then, ask the question: "Would life be *intolerable* living under *just* this minimal document?" That is, accepting the notion that the purpose of a constitution is to limit government, *not* to detail every possible thing that government *could* do. This would entail abandoning the Roman and Napoleonic Law idea that "That which is not allowed by the government is prohibited", and replacing it with the Common Law idea that "That which is not expressly forbidden by government is legal." And then, to add the part that is the most essential, most important, and the most precious part of the US constitution, its Bill of Rights. Because nothing matters in the composition of a state that allows the government to trample the rights of its citizenry. A constitution is just words unless it has a Bill of Rights, a recognition that the state is there *solely* to serve the people, and not the other way around. That, of itself, the state has no intrinsic value AT ALL. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-02-20 9:07:29 AM |
| #1 Maybe we should take out ads in LeMonde that say the EU "Constitution" will make it easier for Britons to buy Brittany. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-02-20 8:31:55 AM |