You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Europe
EU plan clears Spanish hurdle
2005-02-21
The European constitution cleared its first major hurdle last night when Spanish voters overwhelmingly endorsed the historic document in the first of 10 referendums that will be held across Europe over the next 18 months. With all the votes counted, 77% of voters approved the constitution, which is meant to simplify the work of the EU. Only 17% of Spaniards voted no and 6% of ballot papers were recorded as blank, said the interior ministry. European leaders, who had hoped that voters in one of the most pro-EU countries would turn out in large numbers, will be disappointed that nearly 60% of the population failed to vote. Turnout was 42%, the lowest in any Spanish vote since the death of Franco in 1975, and below the 45.9% in last year's European parliamentary elections in Spain.
The Iraqi election had better turnout.
Joaquin Almunia, Spain's European commissioner, admitted that the turnout was a disappointment. "The fact that it exceeded 40% is positive, although it is true we would have liked a larger turnout," he told state radio. But José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Spain's socialist prime minister, who gambled by holding the first referendum in the hope of impressing France and Germany, hailed the result. "I feel very satisfied that 14 million Spaniards went to vote," he said soon after the results were confirmed. "Today we Spaniards made European history because our vote is a message directed to the rest of Europe's citizens, who were waiting eagerly for our response." One in 10 voters in Spain, which has benefited by £60bn since joining the then EC in 1986, said they understood the constitution.
Posted by:Steve White

#46  It also means that 5 people or so supported the Constitution for everyone that opposed it.

This would be infinitely more impressive (and meaningful) if it weren't also true the 9 people had no idea what was in the Constitution for every one that had a clue.
Posted by: AzCat   2005-02-21 11:29:59 PM  

#45  What you're saying is that referendum results reflect the stance that society as a whole takes on an issue. When an issue is divisive, you'll get a hard-fought result which is split roughly in half. When there's lots of agreement on an issue instead, you'll get clear-cut results.

How is that bad?

The Spanish government gave out millions of free copies of the European Constitution I believe. Is that supposed to be bad or meant to intentionally hide information about it? Unless the opposing side has been suppressed from stating its argument, where's the undemocratic nature of this whole affair?
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-02-21 9:46:08 PM  

#44  Aris, it's not the lack of turnout that is un-democratic.
It's the wilful lack of information and voter motivation on the side of governments that is. Because it's done out of fear that the informed citizen is more likely to vote against it.

Whenever in the last year there was a real heated campaign on important European issues, voters either approved in much smaller margins or even refused the deal. The Danish and Swedish Euro decisions come to mind.
Posted by: True German Ally   2005-02-21 9:05:40 PM  

#43  why a super-majority ought to be required for the adoption or amendment of a constitution.

A supermajority of 79% isn't good enough for you, Kalle? Even *you* spoke only about a 66% supermajority.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-02-21 9:01:14 PM  

#42  My turnout #s are not registered voters, they are eligible voters.

Ah, well in Europe, these two tend to be the same thing. Turnout of eligible voters should be our concern.

You always focus on details and refuse to consider principles.

And you always focus on fantasies, and refuse to consider facts.

Here's the fact of the matter -- if you force a quota like 50% participation then all you end up doing is encouraging voters to boycott the elections. But you don't care about that -- that's just a detail for you.

And there's no country in the whole wide world that demands such a ludicrous turnout quota for referenda as 75%. But you don't care about that either. Another annoying detail for you.

I told you the solution, the solution that both encourages participation and does take into account how many people avoided. Insist that the winning percentage will include atleast 25% of eligible voters. Same as Hungary or the Czech Republic does. You ignored it.

If we just had 10% more people *objecting* to the Constitution, then Spain would have passed the 50% margin. Bad "no"-voters, that you don't exist in sufficient amounts.

Bulldog says that less one third of the electorate voted in the Constitution's favour. Ofcourse less that 7% of the electorate voted to oppose it.

It also means that 5 people or so supported the Constitution for everyone that opposed it.

And you are accusing *me* of focusing on details. Here's the non-detail of the matter - More than five people supported the Constitution for every one that opposed it. When Republicans were calling a 3% margin in the popular vote as a "landslide" and a "triumph", Spain's pro-Constitution vote occured with a 60% margin of victory.

A 60% margin of victory in a free and fair referendum. And still the anti-democratic crowd of Bulldog/Kalle/and so forth, don't seem to accept the legitimacy of the victory. Not enough turnout according to them.

Calvinball all the way for the anti-democrats!
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-02-21 8:58:33 PM  

#41  Aris, it's so irritating to try to discuss something with you. You always focus on details and refuse to consider principles. Sometimes it seems you do it on purpose. Naughty boy. I suggest you read John Locke's 2nd treatise of government. Maybe you'll get a notion of what the source of a compact is, and why a super-majority ought to be required for the adoption or amendment of a constitution.
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever)   2005-02-21 8:18:41 PM  

#40  Afterthought - As you can see, About 170,000 people left it blank for president or spoiled it. They didn't want Bush, Kerry, Nader, or the half-dozen mini-minis. So I guess they should be counted as abstensions. How that would figure in your referendum scenario, I am not sure...
Posted by: BigEd   2005-02-21 7:35:49 PM  

#39  My turnout #s are not registered voters, they are eligible voters. Some of which are not registered, if you include registered voters, your turnout will average higher, because most states require registration before the vote, and not all eligible voters register. Turnout percentage of registered voters runs about 70-85%, depending on registration rules, and state. A few states allow same-day registration with a driver's license or passport... North Dakota and Wisconsin being two that I know of. California's deadline is two weeks before the election.

For example California :
Eligible voters : 22,075,000
Registered Voters : 16,557,000
Votes Cast : 12,590,000 - 76% Registered, 57% Eligible
Valid Votes President : 12,421,000
Posted by: BigEd   2005-02-21 7:22:17 PM  

#38  The Spanish referendum will be remembered for three things:

1) "You don't need to read it to know that it's good".

2) Low turnout, with less than one third of the electorate actually voting in the Constitution's favour.

3) Nine out of ten Spaniards saying they didn't know anything about the contents of the Constitution.

And possibly "Spain has experienced a net cash inflow from the EU of £60bn", and
"The referendum is not legally binding and will now need to be ratified in the Cortes".

What's to celebrate?
Posted by: Bulldog   2005-02-21 7:20:22 PM  

#37  Big Ed, my reference to Oregon was a response to Kalle's comments before you.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-02-21 6:54:24 PM  

#36  My last comment was in response to Kalle.

All States Turnout over 50%

Yes, but they had no turnout *quotas* that they ought to pass, right? Because if they *did* have a 50% turnout quote, then the opposing side could have boycotted the election, and thus invadidate them.

Check the calculations:
75*53=39.75%
75*56=42.56%
75*58=43.50%

Etc, etc, etc. Geez, seems none of these would have passed a 50% quota if the other side had chosen to boycott.

I think the 60% avg turnout in the US Prez Election beats the heck out of the 42% in the Spanish referendum....

Ofcourse. Most US Prez elections are much more hard-fought than this Spanish referendum was when the result was as clear as that. In hard-fought elections and referenda the turnout is always greater.

When Malta had a hard-fought referendum on EU membership, the turnout was 90.86% and the even-harder fought presidential battle was 96.95% turnout.

Here you go
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-02-21 6:53:02 PM  

#35  Was I talking about Oregon Tax Measures?

I must check my notes.

Now, here in California, you need 2/3 by vote of the people to approve tax increases. Don't know about the Oregon laws. Never lived there.

And deceitful? He he he... Aris, You made a big thing about the turnout on the Gay Marriage Amendments in the 2004 election, appearing to be requesting the actual numbers. I provided such numbers.

If I was unclear, I apologize....

Excuuuuuuse me!
Posted by: BigEd   2005-02-21 6:44:30 PM  

#34  And now you are comparing the attendance of a few hundred elected legislators with the turnout quotas in a population of dozens of millions citizens. Yes, our national legislations have similar quotas when amending the national constitutions. But that's not what we were talking about. Did America have referenda at all when passing its amendments or did it not? What were the turnouts in the *referenda*?

You're being intentionally deceitful.

And "Three fourth of states" is not a turnout quota --the equivalent in the EU is after all "ALL the member states".

The only actual turnout quota you mentioned is when you mentioned the 50% quota that exists in Oregon to pass "certain tax measures". But from what I read of the Constitution in general, it seems to me that amendments in the entirety of the Oregon Constitution need pass no such turnout.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-02-21 6:38:04 PM  

#33  In every state except Utah the Yes on Marriage Amendment was higher thean the vote for PresBush.

Marriage Definition Amendments
........... .. Yes .. T/O .. GWB ..
Arkansas... .. 75 .. 53 .. 54 W
Georgia.... .. 76 .. 56 .. 58 W
Kentucky... .. 75 .. 58 .. 60 W
Michigan... .. 59 .. 66 .. 48 L
Mississippi .. 86 .. 55 .. 59 W
Montana.... .. 67 .. 64 .. 59 W
N Dakota... .. 73 .. 65 .. 63 W
Ohio....... .. 62 .. 67 .. 51 W
Oklahoma... .. 76 .. 57 .. 66 W
Oregon..... .. 57 .. 71 .. 47 L
Utah....... .. 66 .. 59 .. 71 W
Posted by: BigEd   2005-02-21 6:18:39 PM  

#32  I think the 60% avg turnout in the US Prez Election beats the heck out of the 42% in the Spanish referendum....
Posted by: BigEd   2005-02-21 6:12:04 PM  

#31  American states changed their constitutions recently believe in anti-gay marriage amendments, so why don't we check the turnouts and quotas there, shall we?

Yes, Let's :

Marriage Definition Amendments
State .. Yes .. T/O
Arkansas... .. 75 .. 53
Georgia.... .. 76 .. 56
Kentucky... .. 75 .. 58
Michigan... .. 59 .. 66
Mississippi .. 86 .. 55
Montana.... .. 67 .. 64
N Dakota... .. 73 .. 65
Ohio....... .. 62 .. 67
Oklahoma... .. 76 .. 57
Oregon..... .. 57 .. 71
Utah....... .. 66 .. 59


All States Turnout over 50% 2004 was the largest turnout in a presidential elecion since 1968

Data Source : George Mason Univ., USA Today, Various Secretaries of State
Posted by: BigEd   2005-02-21 6:08:59 PM  

#30  You insist that people who don't participate in a vote should simply be ignored. Have you heard of the concept of a quorum?

Quorum requirements are standard in formal organizations, and are standard throughout the US political system. To conduct business in Congress, a majority of U.S. Senators must be in attendance; the same is true for U.S. Representatives. In the Oregon Senate 20 of 30 senators must be present; in the Oregon House it's 40 of 60 representatives. Three of five Portland City Commissioners are required to conduct business: that's a 60 percent turnout. Further, to pass certain tax measures in Oregon, 50 percent plus one of those casting ballots must vote in favor of it -- HOWEVER Article XI, section 11(8) of the Oregon Constitution states a second condition that must be met: "at least 50 percent of registered voters eligible to vote" must cast a ballot.
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever)   2005-02-21 5:56:26 PM  

#29  Aris, here is an example -- the US Constitution requires 2/3 to propose (both Houses) and 3/4 to accept (the States). The principle is that the law of the land should require an extraordinary majority to be adopted and/or changed -- because it is a binding compact for all the people. Anything less than that is an insult to the decency of the people.


U.S. Constitution: Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress...
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever)   2005-02-21 5:49:35 PM  

#28  Just talking about the adoption of a new Constitution

Then tell me what's the turnout quota for ratifying Constitutional amendments via referendum in America or Britain or any other place in the world. Many American states changed their constitutions recently believe in anti-gay marriage amendments, so why don't we check the turnouts and quotas there, shall we?

If more than 25% can't be bothered to participate in the vote then it's not a worthy change

When you place any such quota (or atleast any quota that's over 50%), what you're doing is strongly encouraging "no" supporters not to vote at all, so as to invalidate the referendum.

That has always been the case wherever such a quota has existed -- the minority side always urges voters not to vote, knowing that's the only way it has to invalidate the result.

Let's illustrate with a concrete example

Let's not. Nations aren't "groups of friends", and even if your example were to apply, that'd mean that the non-voters had given a blank-check to the other people to do as they will.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-02-21 5:11:05 PM  

#27  Just talking about the adoption of a new Constitution. The Law of the Land. Nothing is above it.
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever)   2005-02-21 4:50:44 PM  

#26  Kalle, that might be an exaggerated claim given the average turnout in US predidential elections
Posted by: True German Ally   2005-02-21 4:47:42 PM  

#25  What we see is 8 Spaniards having a proposal put in front of them, 3 of them accept to vote and 5 aren't interested, and of the 3 voters only 2 are in favour.
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever)   2005-02-21 4:45:35 PM  

#24  Let's illustrate with a concrete example: a group of 8 friends are meeting. One of them makes a proposal.

If 3 or more of those 8 refuse to even vote, isn't that a problem?

Assuming that the remaining 5 (let's say) do take a vote, and 3 at most are in favour of the initial proposal, isn't that a problem?

Respect for people's opinion and their representation should be a pretty simple concept to grasp.
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever)   2005-02-21 4:43:04 PM  

#23  Not deceit, just decent concern with the opinion and representation of the people.

If more than 25% can't be bothered to participate in the vote then it's not a worthy change. If more than 33% of the participants won't say yes then there is a lack of legitimacy.

But we already know the EU is not about representation.
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever)   2005-02-21 4:39:25 PM  

#22  A poll would have been cheaper
Posted by: True German Ally   2005-02-21 4:38:33 PM  

#21  According to my dictionary (Oxford Concise) if its not binding, its not a referendum.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-02-21 4:37:38 PM  

#20  ", I consider that to be a problem with the political elites of each country, not with the EU."

Jeez Aris, what do you think the EU bureaucracy is all about? Political elites of each countries with no motivation for a real democratic structure.
Posted by: True German Ally   2005-02-21 4:36:36 PM  

#19  E.g. at least 66.66% of yes (vs the nos and blanks) with at least 75% of registered voters participating.

Hah. How very deceitful. In this case it would not be 33.33% of nos and blanks, but a mere 25% that would simply need to avoid voting, and would also be augmented by all the people that didn't bother voting.

Tell me, in such a scenario, what motivation would you (as a "No" voter) have to go and vote? You'd do a much better job for your cause by abstaining.

The turnout quota which has been established in atleast one country which has tinkered with such things (either Czech Republic or Hungary, I forget) is this: For the vote to be valid you need a 50% majority of the votes cast, plus that result to also represent a 25% of the eligible voters.

In which case, Spain's vote still qualifies: 77*41.5 = roughly 32.5%, which is over the 25% barrier.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-02-21 4:35:43 PM  

#18  TGA, I consider that to be a problem with the political elites of each country, not with the EU.

Perhaps the European Union should *force* nation-states to use referenda when approving treaties. I'd have no problem with that.

IIRC, there *did* use to be a suggested version of one of the articles in the Constitution that said IIRC that new versions of it would be ratified via EU-wide referenda, and you'd need to have a majority of voters and qualified majority of member-states, for such amendments to the EU Constitution to pass.

But ofcourse that'd be a radical departure from the "all member-states must ratify amendments" which currently governs the process-- it was perceived as an even more dangerous loss of national sovereignty by eurosceptics and a true move towards this being a real Constitution instead of a treaty. So that article was dropped and further changes keep on needing the member-states ratify "according to their constitutional requirements".

Hold on a sec, and I'll try to find the version I am talking about.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-02-21 4:28:32 PM  

#17  A decent concern for the opinion and welfare of the people would translate into a requirement for a super-majority with a sufficiently high degree of participation.

E.g. at least 66.66% of yes (vs the nos and blanks) with at least 75% of registered voters participating. That would be a mandate for such a fundamental change as adopting a new Constitution.

Instead of this Giscard d'Estaing and his friends are bringing a con to the EU.
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever)   2005-02-21 4:25:11 PM  

#16  Aris, the German Basic Law doesn't allow for national referenda at all.

Yet the German parties changed another paragraph of that constitution in a heartbeat to suit the new "European Warrant". The German Basic Law didn't allow German citizens to be extradited from Germany. The provision was changed and I doubt that most Germans are even aware of it.

No such changes are planned concerning the referendum. But actually my comment was more directed at the "but significant opposition is not expected".

This is what has happened with major decision concerning the EU: The Euro, the European Warrant and now the EU Constitution.

"Significant opposition is not expected".
Posted by: True German Ally   2005-02-21 4:18:12 PM  

#15  Aris :no democratic parliament would dare go against such a clear-cut statement

Watch 'em - If not them, then somebody will balk. I Predict at least one country will have to go through the process a second time with either threats, or what we call in this country, PORK! (And I don't mean the kind you eat)

We grow by making them grow!
Posted by: BigEd   2005-02-21 4:14:54 PM  

#14  The referendum is not binding because the 1978 Spanish constitution only allows consultative referenda.

"This sums up what is wrong about the EU"? TGA, I expected better from you than to blame the EU for the contents of the 1978 Spanish constitution.

Better to thank the EU that it becomes the cause for referenda (or atleast the cause to open discussion on referenda in countries where there doesn't exist such a tradition) continent-wide. Spain has has only had two referenda since 1978 -- one in 1986 about remaining in NATO, and this here now.

Consultative or no, 77% of the voters said yes. And Spain is a democracy -- no democratic parliament would dare go against such a clear-cut statement.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-02-21 4:06:26 PM  

#13  In other words, "Thank you for your input. Run along -we'll take it from here"?
Posted by: Pappy   2005-02-21 3:53:56 PM  

#12  You missed the real goodie. The Telegraph reports:

"The referendum is not legally binding and will now need to be ratified in the Cortes, the Spanish parliament, but significant opposition is not expected."

This, folks, sums up nicely what is wrong about the EU
Posted by: True German Ally   2005-02-21 3:46:04 PM  

#11  Has one of the Pips arrived?
Posted by: Glady Knights   2005-02-21 3:37:10 PM  

#10  "The tribe is whatever we believe it is. We become one tribe because we say we are one tribe. Then we are one tribe, and our greatness is your greatness, and yours is ours. You say to us, we must see all other tribes the same way. As one tribe, our tribe all together, so that we grow by making them grow."

OOOOOH OOOOOH NOW WE CAN ALL SING DO WAH DIDDY!!!!
Posted by: BigEd   2005-02-21 3:14:19 PM  

#9  Not his best work, but the series is an interesting development on the concept.
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-02-21 3:04:18 PM  

#8  2b> "Where's Aris"

[waves] Here I am, laughing and pointing at y'all. :-)

Mrs. Davis> I'd bet that's not even true of he-who-shall-not-be-named.

Hmm, no, I *was* waiting for it eagerly actually. 4 down, 21 to go. :P

Let's see what were the euro-hating chaps saying before now, whenever the Constitution was being ratified via parliament in countries of "New Europe"? That the eeeevil undemocratic EU wasn't letting the people approve via referenda (ofcourse in all those cases those countries had approved via referenda their membership in their Union just the past year when the shape of the Constitution was already clear enough for all to see and there was no further significant dispute about it).

Now the "Old Europe" is letting people vote on it, and the doublethinking duckspeakers ofcourse seek to focus on the turnout instead. The turnout is ofcourse always smaller whenever a contest is clear-cut, so that leaves the naysayers an automatic out. Just count all abstentions as if they were "no" instead and you'll always have a majority opposing the Constitution. Calvinball whenever you lose! :-)

--

Anyway, dedicating this to the occasion, from "Speaker for the Dead" by Orson Scott Card:

"The tribe is whatever we believe it is. We become one tribe because we say we are one tribe. Then we are one tribe, and our greatness is your greatness, and yours is ours. You say to us, we must see all other tribes the same way. As one tribe, our tribe all together, so that we grow by making them grow."
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-02-21 1:27:07 PM  

#7  "Turnout was 42%..."
"...77% of voters approved the constitution..."

Thus 23% did not approve it. 23% of the 42% turnout is 10% of the voters in Spain, or one in 10.

"One in 10 voters in Spain... said they understood the constitution."

Thus the percentage that said they understood the constitution is equal to the percentage that turned out and not approve of it.
Posted by: Tom   2005-02-21 12:53:10 PM  

#6  having a Big Mac! lol!
Posted by: 2b   2005-02-21 12:43:17 PM  

#5  He's observing President's Day at the Athens Wal-Mart Supercenter.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-02-21 12:41:53 PM  

#4  Where's Aris...it's about time for him to give us another big YEEHAH! as he rides the EU train into hell.
Posted by: 2b   2005-02-21 12:37:26 PM  

#3  our vote is a message directed to the rest of Europe's citizens, who were waiting eagerly for our response."

I'd bet that's not even true of he-who-shall-not-be-named.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-02-21 12:05:31 PM  

#2  Yesterday, I made a comment late to a posting about the Kum-By-Ya nature of the EU Constipation.
It should be repeated here, as Zappy got his minions to the polls and the rest of Spain was disgusted...

Convinced that, while remaining proud of their own national identities and history, the peoples ofEurope are determined to transcend their ancient divisions and, united ever more closely, to forge a common Convinced that, thus "united in its diversity", Europe offers them the best chance of pursuing, with due regard for the rights of each individual and in awareness of their responsibilities towards future generations and the Earth, the great venture which makes of it a special area of human hope,

There was a clause that was later deleted, particularly at the behest of the Poles, Brits, Italians and Czechs...

We proclaim; There she was just a-walkin’ down the street,
Singin’, do-wah diddy-diddy down diddy-do
Snappin’ her fingers and shufflin’ her feet,
Singin’, do-wah diddy-diddy down diddy-do
She looked good, looked good
She looked fine, looked fine
She looked good, she looked fine
And I nearly lost my mind
Posted by: BigEd   2005-02-21 12:03:07 PM  

#1  One in 10 voters in Spain, which has benefited by £60bn since joining the then EC in 1986, said they understood the constitution.

Posted by: gromgoru   2005-02-21 11:54:41 AM  

00:01