What's to stop Chirac from going back to the parliament and pushing it through the way Schroeder did? That way asking the people what they want can be avoided. The EU was geared from the beginning to avoid that inconvenience. Rather than more of the wars that devastated the continent, the elites decided every important decision (and all the small ones into the bargain) would be made by a centralized bureaucracy unaccountable to no one. Surely there's a middle way.

Chirac has gone on TV and said he accepts the results. But let's wait and see what happens in the other countries and if a revised document is presented any time soon ...

Recall, the euro was not a popular electoral result, it was pushed through by the PTB and is very successful. La plus ca change...

The effects of the euro are open to question, Ruth ... while sharing a currency can remove inefficiencies in trade, the economic regime has been breached by France and Germany, in particular. Italy and Greece lied to get into the common currency, faking their economic stats. And that regime has been a shackle in other ways to some of the smaller economies in the union.

I guess the wind in the face from France's exciting GDP growth rate of 1 3/4 percent just was too exhilirating for the French.

widespread disenchantment over a variety of issues ...

Existential Nausea Rules.

Hey, I just drafted a new EU constitution. Will they put it to a vote, or just install it by aristocratic fiat?

I don't think Europe knows what "Europe" is. I'm positive that Europe doesn't know what Europe is for. They do seem to know that they don't want the Turks, so maybe Europe is best understood as a paranoid gene pool.

On the other hand, this might be the vital crossroads. European nations can choose reforms and more democracy which might make the EU solid in the future, or they can go the other way and the EU can die a slow, sullen death like the Soviet Union did.

If you want more evidence that France is not quite ready for the 21st century - maybe not quite ready for the 20th - Trotskyists will storm the Bastille as soon as the results are officially announced.

In triumph or in protest? What's the difference?

Hahahaha.

Well, the barking moonbats marching in New York dreaming of the day when all those "enemies of the people" inside attending the RNC will be dispatched to their new Gulag dont make us look a lot better.

But instead of closing down transportation, the streets closed was those set aside for their march, and to provide space for the crowds, and to faclitate people movement, not to thwart it.

The most loyal of all Democrat voters respoded to this kindness with assault on cops and children, but we dont plan on thwarting their next attempts in response.

I wonder Just how much the left would really like it, if we reacted to their act-up routine like the french ? Ya know, be more like the french.

hehehehe

The sheer page count of the thing is scary, amd a good indicator of what you will find if you read it.

I wonder if the incoming new Govt of Germany is gonna uphold this panic move by the Bundestag ?

Seems Germany is worse off than france, or do I have it inverted ? Rejected by the left as not socialist enough ? Yes votes coming from members of the CDU and FDP ? (Conservative Christian Democrats,, Free Democrats)

Gulp, so considering how far Germany has to come to claw, climb, out of the abys, France must be in full swan dive into the event horizon.

It must really suck to be them ...

Perhaps we can build a power plant powered by the Hawking radiation emitted by the self annihilation of france.

For a different angle on this:

Juncker himself put his finger on the key problem. "It may be in France that the no camp has won but if they were to be asked to produce a new text they would be incapable of doing that."

Despite the French rejection of the proposed Constitution, there is no institutional equivalent of the Brussels bureaucracy advocating an alternative EU vision or the vision of no EU at all.

In other words, the European 'process' remains a one-party show and the French rejection has no more significance than Kim Il Sung's failure to get a certain percentage of votes. Interesting but irrelevant if he is the only candidate.

One axiom from the Watergate years was that it was "the coverup that gets you". In this case, it is not the rejection by the French voters that is most significant but the failure of the rejection to have any significance at all.

The cavalier dismissal of the French vote describes the 'process' for what it is: a project in the hands of an elite.

The real challenge for Europeans, especially Eastern Europeans and the British, is to articulate an alternative vision for Continent. The European vision needs a second party in order to make up a debate.

Belmont Club

So, his take, is the french non wont mean a thing, And he may be right.

The true opposite to all the splinter flavors of EuroSocialism, From Lenins Bolshvics to the madness of the "Third Way", would be the cause of freedom, but that seems so distant, out of reach, beyond all hope, in a land so bluntly glactically stupid backward and morally inverted that they name Schools after Karl Marx

At the polling place at the Karl Marx primary school in downtown Bobigny, a working-class suburb of Paris, by contrast, there was no sense that Europe's future hinged on the constitution.

With 18 percent unemployment and a large ethnic Arab and African population, 72 percent of the voters there said no.

Bernard Birsinger, the suburb's Communist mayor, accused Mr. Chirac of fear-mongering and dissembling when he predicted political and economic doom for France if the country rejected the constitution.

"We are already in a Europe of unemployment and regression," said Mr. Birsinger, adding, "We know that the destiny of France is not threatened."

A communist Mayor, Schools named after the Supreme diety of Mass Murder Mountian, You got to know what the kids are brainwashed with is little different than Castros cute little Pioneers get.

They should really get to work on that Hawking radiation collector ...

This is what happens when you draft a constitution in the age of word processors, email and air conditioning. You get a 550+ page "click to accept" license package masquerading as a covenant for the European polity.

Note to the Iraqis drafting their constitution: put the assembly members in a single hall, no computers - just parchment, ink and quills. The resulting document is guaranteed to be understandable and concise. (If it's legible - penmanship isn't up to 18th century standards these days. Mine sure isn't.)

First of all:

WE WONNNN!!!!

Please check some points:

The people has spoken. European socialburocrats should accept what Democracy means and Chirac should resign.

Europe goes east. European mass center is shifting eastwards. Yesterday's result might reinforce it. Maybe France looses ground before Germany, especially if a new government is elected there and the economy begins to grow.

A new draft Constitution may take years to be ready, allowing the new members from Eastern Europe to negotiate the 2007-2013 budget before it, which means that they will not be under pressure again. (Eastern European countries have a more pro-atlantist, classic liberal vision).

(The new eastern members will recieve in the next budgetary period European Funds for infrastructures)

Not only Italy and Greece, but also Spain lied in its statistics. GDP growth was corrected downwards in order to get more European Funds. Those funds explain the Spanish abstention (58%) in last February's referendum. Italy used to plant cardboard olive trees in order to get agriculture subsidies and today Germany, France and Portugal are not fulfilling the Eurozone budgetary rules... there is a whole subculture on cheating Brussels.

Finally, the Euro has left many European countries without the old keynesian trick of devaluating the currency in an economic recession. In Europe, with almost no production of raw materials, that means a hidden fall in wages. I personally prefer to notice that my income has been reduced from my payer (he must explain why) than to see it at the gas station while the OPEC is blamed for it.

EU just won't take 'no' for an answer

Precisely. And it's the willingness to subordinate individual liberty to what Hutton calls "the primacy of society" that has blighted the continent for over a century: Statism -- or "the primacy of society" -- is what fascism, Nazism, communism and now European Union all have in common. In fairness, after the first three, European Union seems a comparatively benign strain of the disease -- not a Blitzkrieg, just a Bitzkrieg, an accumulation of fluffy trivial pan-European laws that nevertheless takes for granted that the natural order is a world in which every itsy-bitsy activity is licensed and regulated and constitutionally defined by government.

Mark Steyn echos.

Joe A, perhaps,,, it might indeed look brighter elsewhere, just not so well for france, being the most leftist, will reap the most misery, as the rest of Europe turns the other direction.

Yup, it could happen.

Constitutions ought to enumerate which powers the people convey to government and how those powers are to be distributed, shared and used. The EU document instead sought to take a rather leftist political stance, enshrining a long laundry list of special-interest policies as a constitutional mandate, and informing the people of what (few) rights the government would graciously allow them to exercise. It is a sad commentary on Europeans in general--my in-laws are European and I speak five European languages comfortably to fluently--that voters in several nations have already approved this monstrosity. Clearly they value apparent social and economic security over freedom. It ought to have been voted down by a 3-to-1 margin.

The significance of this rejection, however, is nevertheless deeper than most people, even those on the scene, may recognise, for it is a repudiation of the dreams of an entire generation whose core principles have always been pluralism, social justice, and 'process.' That same generation in the US failed to elect even one of its own as President and in Congress is now reduced to obstructionism as its own last gasp attempt to hold back the tide of younger, more confrontational generations. Rather poignant, really.

The rejection also reflects a turning of the tide of prevailing social optimism that has predominated in the West since the end of the Second World War. Such eras of optimism generally tend to focus on unity and cooperation, and as a new era of social pessimism takes hold, expect additional failures of similar initiatives, particularly in trade, along with increasing protectionism and great social anger. These were certainly amongst the prevailing elements in the failure of the EU referendum in France.

Finally, it is one more indication that la Cinquieme Republique is getting very long in the tooth. Since 1789 French governance has been inherently unstable, and the increasingly evident failure of French social institutions--particulary when combined with nearly-uncontrolled Muslim immigration--does not presage well for the medium-term future. The European Union has been perhaps the signature project of the entire Fifth Republic, and when viewed in social context it suggests that the current incarnation of French governance may do well to arrive at its 50th anniversaire in 2008.

The significance of this rejection, however, is nevertheless deeper than most people, even those on the scene, may recognise, for it is a repudiation of the dreams of an entire generation whose core principles have always been pluralism, social justice, and 'process.'

The rejection of the treaty means that we are sick and tired of those socialburocrats and European elites. Don't mislead it, the European Union is much more than those 25,000 mussel eaters and much more than France.

Raymond (#12)

I'd like to make clear that European Union, for an European, means many things, that vary between countries. As always, some of them are good and some bad. The European Government, that is, a part of the European Union, not the whole, has been built following French leadership, as an command structure very similar to what is France's centralized government. Federalists have argued against it, they were looking for a smaller corps with a clear structure and well defined powers, but French influence has always prevailed.

However, some branches of this "monster" of 25,000 souls that live in Brussels work pretty well and are the original cause of many changes, such as the liberalizaton of the air transport market (now we have low cost flights) or nuclear fuel production. Both save Europeans a lot of money.

Especially for Mediterranean countries, pan-European laws have meant that they had to reach the level of the most advanced nations, which in Industrial development usually means Germany. Tight rules have preserved our environment.

Finally, European Union also means Freedom, freedom to travel, live and work everywhere, freedom to move goods and capitals through Europe with almost no cost. An example, the many western Europeans that are coming to Spain to enjoy our good climate, Mediterranean diet and kind people (and low wages, but they keep coming). They are protected under EU law, and can, and have done it sucesfully, appeal Spanish laws before European instances, and vote and be elected in local elections.

European Union means many good things. Don't confuse it with political union, especially following the French model, building a burocratic structure with no control (still today the European parliament is a consultive body, and cannot be in other way, because there is no European public opinon they can represent). I think that is what most Europeans are against.

Again, don't forget that the Treaty of Nice is already into effect. That treaty can keep the Union going, but maybe not to where Chirac wanted.

A reasonably strong argument can be made that a hundred years ago Europeans enjoyed as much freedom to travel as they do today, significantly more economic freedom, and--if you didn't meddle in foreign affairs, the military, or call slander the emperor/king/whatever -- probably greater political freedom as well. This was particularly so in the Austro-Hungarian empire, and also to a large degree in Germany.

Given that we're talking about pre-1931 Britain, a case can even be made that if the US intervened to protect "democracy," it came in on the wrong side.

Travel? It isn't about that. Today they live and work (no lincence needed), they learn a new language, they marry local people, they fly back home on weekends, they appeal unfair laws, they edit newspapers, they vote and they get elected... It's worth to see it.

Check this link, an English-German newspaper from the Spanish coast:
www.costablanca-news.com

Tell me, could, for instance, a Spaniard appeal a Kaiser's law back in the 19th century?

There may be a stall in political union, but we are in our way and we can't turn back.

JoeA, thanks for filling in so much detail, Yes just the page count is scary, and the content confirms your fear.

Ive heard Leftist cretins there voice concern about getting their socialist-lock-in, before the public balks

Heres to hope that what follows resembles less of a socialist lock and more of a path to freedom.

Regulations of the kind that grounded that old WWII bomber from flying any more dont seem a step forward to me.

It is important not to follow those arguments that said that a "No" against that Constitution was a "No" against the European Union. That is simply not true. Europeans are happy with many things the Union has brought, but I think they don't want a political one, especially in the way Chirac had envisioned it.

Again, the Union can work with the Nice Treaty. Decission-making will be slower, but member Nations will retain its political independence. There is already a plan B, and I think it grants more freedom.

The Europens want a common market, but not common politics.

Joe A,

The alternatives to a reduction in income due to inflation is a reduction in the number of people working.

If direct wage reductions were easy I would be inclined to agree with you.

Joe A,

Tight rules are fine. You get protection in exchange for a static economy.

Now given European's declining birth rates please explain what the Euro social welfare system will look like in 2030.

To support it you can do a couple of things - immediately increase the birth rates.

Accept less social welfare.

Adopt economic policies that foster growth.

Europe is interested in none of these. Thus economic protection leads to a European death spiral.

Direct wage reduction is easy. It is called the longer working week. Why do you think France will leave the 35 hour work week?

Increasing the birth rate will not do anything in 2030. Most of those extra babies will still be below 20 and thus consume instead of being productive.

less social welfare will decrease total number of births, mostly by having the same number of kids on a later age. Not something you want to have but this is a problem for 2050 and not 2030. It is also not what the voters want. They want social welfare that is more economical.

Economic policies that foster growth like investing in Eastern European roads and new technology, larger and easier excesible markets, strickter regulation which requier that producers need to develop new technology, something in which Europe is stronger than China (especially when you only enact it when European producers have the technology)

"a", it isn't a question of what happens on solely the year 2030 but the direction of trends. And the trends are that old Europe's social welfare isn't sustainable.

a, why do you wast thought on something that does not function except as a program for a garranty decline untill collapse and ever increasing misery?

Leftism dont work, never did work, never will work.

Well, unless you aim is to mass murder by the 10s of millions, its proven very effective at that.

It takes longer to build an economic base that it does to destroy it, assuming you undo the leftism that began the decline, to reverse the collapse before it collapses, it will require radical moves.

A longer work week aint gonna do it, it wont even slow down the death spiral.

Can you see france cutting 40 years of regs and lowering the top aggregate tax rate below 28% ? thats whats needed to get even 4% growth.

And they are a galaxy away from that happening.

So you can stick a fork in France, they are doomed, sadly the rest of Europe will prob be forced to prop them up, basically seting up france as the massive weight to drag the lot of them over the cliff.

It will take Russia perhaps 50 years to build out of the socialist ashes, if france dont turn around,, and since they left rule they wont, only the total collapse example of the USSR will end it.

I could be wrong, they might abandon leftism and embrace freedom, and replay the postwar German Miracle.

But they wont, what they will follow, to the end, is the post Miracle Leftist swan dive into the abys.

Developed countries with more social welfare have more kids so claims that Europe's social welfare is not sustainable may be true but that doesn't mean that not having a social welfare system is more sustainable.

Developed countries with more social welfare have more kids

Again you state the direct, stark utter total opposite of the truth.

The declining birthrate commented on with some alarm is specifically in those countrries with the larger leftist largese.

Its an apparent direct correlation, and problably causally linked.

What is "a" anyway, what did those call you that knew you ? Mr Backwards ? upside down sally ? wrong way willy ?

OK, I point out that now we are entering economics. The problem with that Treaty called Constitution I think, as I have said, is more about politics.

M. Simon (#21)

The alternatives to a reduction in income due to inflation is a reduction in the number of people working.

No, it isn't. It is, and it has always been, an increase in productivity. That's the point, devaluating a currency is an easy trick the politicians and businessmen use to escape from economic crises, avoiding any reform in laws or production means. Now the only way to escape is reform, from the government side, and an increase in productivity, from the businessmen (and worker) side. It's not either about hours worked (a Spaniard works as many hours as an American and many more than a French or German, but earns much less), it is about productivity.

Tight rules are fine. You get protection in exchange for a static economy.

I meant tight rules for environmental protection.

The key question about economics in Europe is public employment. Many people live from the money transfered from the State, either wages (civil servants, public company workers, subsidized private companies or organizations...) or pensions (illness, former militarymen, retiremnent...), which are far better than the average. That is, there is an economic privileged class, protected by the State, that doesn't want to loose a cent in their incomes and that doesn't mind either about the 10 percent of the population that has no job or the public deficit. They only want to receive the money and they don't see beyond that, because that privilege is usually for life. That is the problem.

Raymond, i don't consider social welfare left. You can be rightwing and still be for social welfare but with different reasons than the left.

Can you see france cutting 40 years of regs and lowering the top aggregate tax rate below 28% ? thats whats needed to get even 4% growth.

Why not go for 25%. That is easy. Just spend as much as you did before but slash all the taxes to 0%. The economy will collapse in 2 years time but untill than you have fantastic growth.
In my opinion it is impossible for France to grow at 4% because growth = growth in working age population + improvement in productivity. The French are already one of the most productive workers in the world so growth in that is unlikely to be high nor do i see a large growth in the working age population.

It will take Russia perhaps 50 years to build out of the socialist ashes, if france dont turn around,, and since they left rule they wont, only the total collapse example of the USSR will end it.

I hope you know that the system in the USSR was totally different than that of France. Nor would i say that the left ruled in either countries

#27

So please proof that i'm wrong. That countries with smaller "leftist largese" have higher birthrates.

ps. Developed countries so not Mali but one of the OECD

Just spend as much as you did before but slash all the taxes to 0%.

Why don't you try to spend less?

The French are already one of the most productive workers in the world so growth in that is unlikely to be high nor do i see a large growth in the working age population.

Well, if you don't see your 10% of working age population without a job...

Why don't you try to spend less?

Because than you wont get 25% year on year growth.

Well, if you don't see your 10% of working age population without a job...

They get social welfare. You get that if the state beliefs that you don't have a job but is that always true, especially in the case of the longterm unemployed. The rest of the unemployed are the least productive workers so is it productive to let them work?
France will also have to deal with a decrease in its working population due to aging population and for that it is wise to have a buffer of unemployed

Because than you wont get 25% year on year growth

Why not? Keynesian economics are outdated. Let the people and companies, not the State, decide where they spend their money...

... of course, that would mean that public wages are at stake.

are the least productive workers so is it productive to let them work?

Sure, you see in America there are jobs even for Mexicans. More workers is translated into more wages, that is more money to spend, that makes the economy going better. I don't know who invented Capitalism, but it is great.

France will also have to deal with a decrease in its working population due to aging population and for that it is wise to have a buffer of unemployed

I disagree. I think what is wise for some is to keep their privileges, enjoy life, that is so short, and try to forget the 10% of the working population that suffers the consequences. It is called Socialism.

You don't have 25% GDP growth in China and in that country it is comparetive easy as people buy things that they couldn't buy ten years ago, like for example cars.

_Sure, you see in America there are jobs even for Mexicans. _

Mexicans don't compete with Americans but with washing machines and farm machinery just like Bulgarians don't compete with Frenchmen.

try to forget the 10% of the working population that suffers the consequences.

A different 10% would suffer the consequences under a different system so i don't see why it is so bad.

a

Raymond, I don't consider social welfare left.

Yes you do seem to have a few perception problems, course that isnt the only thing it means to be leftist, but its certainly one of the most well known, firmly defined and well established.

So again, what did they call you? Mr Backwards ? Backdoor sally ? wrong way willy ?

(the geeks) The human tri state reality Inverter ?

If you hear some of us say we dont intent to outrate abolish such programs cold turkey (im one of those) prefering evolution vs revolution ( its so much more orderly) so that we can transistion the welfare state down to only the orphan disabled (we will never let people starve in the streets like the pure leftist tyrannies do) thats not the same thing as a positive view of the welfare state.

But thats me attempting to reason thru your reality inversion, I should perhaps dismiss you as a nuron burnout stuck in the reality inverted state, and reflect on the goodness of the dear angel that feeds you and helps you get your pants on frontwards.

Jerry:
"What's to stop Chirac from going back to the parliament and pushing it through the way Schroeder did?"
Germany is different in this regard: plebiscites and referenda on most issues at German federal level are made difficult by the postwar constitution of Germany; presumably becuase of their use by the Nazis. It would require a constitutional amendment to hold one.
So in Germany the European "centre" consensus that predominates among the politicians tends to prevail.

But where a referendum has been held, even if technically advisory not binding, politicians would fear that blatantly overidding the popular will would prouduce at election time.

In France Laurent Fabius, a socialist politician who broke with his party's line to campaign for "Non" is now well placed to become party leader and lead the Socialists in a political attack on the "centre/right" government if they tried to simply ram the constitution through or carry out a cosmetic modification and resubmission. At the same time le Pen's FN poses a similar threat from the "right" flank.
So the anti-Constitution forces in France might end up forcing either abandonment of the whole mess, or renogiation to that panders to the concerns of the left.

The problem that option faces is the UK referndum, and the upcoming tenure of Tony Blair as chairman of the EU Council of states. He is disinclined to do Chirac any favours, and compelled by economic realism and UK politics to fight against a protectionist, anti-market centralism. With likely support from the eastern Europeans.

The likely Dutch No will reinforce the politial consequence: the Constitution is toast.

John

According to JoeA, that would suit plenty of people just fine, they keep local rule and some autonomy, common currency seems so good so far etc...

More Freedom of movement etc ...

Ya know, what made things so succesfull in the USA was the weakness of the fed govt, the states ran their own affairs, the fed was a rights garrator, a system of fed courts and interstate issues.

Govt was kept close to the people.

Its far less so now, to the extent its gone too far, and rollback is in the future, even if the politicos dont know it.

Too bad Europe did not learn from that example, it could have worked for them.

The European constitution is so complicated because they want to keep most of the power on a national level. The EU member states are infinently more powerfull that US states.
Besides it is also not like the US has such a brilliant constitution. The fact that it takes three months between being elected and becoming president is IMHO way to long and the electoral college is also not something one should emulate.

The fact that it takes three months between being elected and becoming president is IMHO way to long and the electoral college is also not something one should emulate.

If it ain't broke don't fix it but the time would be way shorter if you would start from a clean sheet. The time is so long because that time was needed 220 years ago.

ps. there are other countries with a constitution. I know it will surprise you but they really have.

Besides it is also not like the US has such a brilliant constitution.

Mr. backwards does it again.

Im in awe. show one in effect for longer eh ?

Its durability is one of the cheif things cited for its example of brilliance.

the time is so long because that time was needed 220 years ago.

And now the pols complain they dont have enough time to get ready, even the gov of Minnisota was complaining of the lack of time.

Everyone bitches about the mad rush for transition.

So once again, your unbroken record of inverted reality. is this a deliberate troll mechanism you use ?