by John C. Dvorak
There is a lot of talk on the news about France and Holland rejecting the EU Constitution with public referendums. Few Americans follow this and I’d like to create a post and comment links that people can send to friends to try and clarify what is going on. Americans need this information more so than do the better informed Europeans. At the outset you should know that I have never personally thought much of the EU or its future. I’m also not a fan of NAFTA or other trading blocs that create more problems than they solve.
When I was in Switzerland a couple of years ago my hosts were bragging about their country NOT joining the EU. After the EU collapses, Switzerland will again look like the smart money country for not wasting its time and cash on the project. The main rationale for not joining was simple. “We don’t want Brussels or anyone else telling us how to run our banks.” It was that simple, at least for them.
Now with France and Holland voting no on the EU Constitution the other rationales are creeping into the mix. I invite my European readers to add to (and correct) this list, but as the buzz of complaint rises here’s what I see as the roadblocks.
1) Concern over distribution of wealth. The Dutch, it turns out would have to pay a higher-per-capita tribute to the EU than most of the other countries. In fact it’s expected to cost the so-called “rich” EU members so much that they will not receive commensurate services back. Instead it’s essentially a subsidy for the so-called “poor” EU nations from the former Soviet bloc who benefit. People do not like this idea.
2) Immigration policy. Again the Dutch made this an issue as they have been freaked out ever since the Muslim radical killed the controversial filmmaker in the streets in broad daylight with a message from Allah. The Dutch do not want Brussels controlling its immigration policies.
3) Turkey. This relates to item 2. Europe has a long memory and doesn’t like the idea of the vestiges of the Ottoman Empire becoming a full member. But the EU has put Turkey on track to do just that if it corrects some of its human right issues, or at least covers them up. There is a weird irony to the Turkey situation. Turkey has remained a viable Democratic state by remaining secular despite its Muslim roots. It has very strict laws regarding Muslim radicalism and sectarianism. If you even suggest Shar’ia or promote radical Salafism or Wahhabbism you’re likely to be arrested and thrown in jail if not executed. This sort of radical activity is not tolerated in any way and is very underground. And the Turks are not fooled by the notion that the radicals want a democracy too. They do, but it’s so they can gain a majority and then vote democracy out. By relaxing these strict laws (which the EU wants them to do) it’s likely that the country would radicalize like many Muslim countries. This is partly because the Saudi’s are pumping millions into “education” to promote this direction. That means Turkey would become an EU member and release untold numbers of radicalized Muslim immigrants into an already saturated Europe and potentially destabilizing one or more countries. Radical Muslims have already claimed that France will be the first to go Muslim and adopt a Shar’ia state as crazy as it seems. So the way I see it, Turkey situation cannot be resolved in any meaningful way. Everything is now a Catch-22 including doing nothing.
4) The Euro. All of a sudden the Euro itself is part of the problem. When you read enough of the literature you discover that its introduction went lockstep with inflation. Much of the problem has to do with countries mis-pricing the Euro in relationship to their old currency. Italy is supposed to be one of these countries and the place went from cheap to expensive in one day. The Dutch say the same thing happened to them and now it’s rumored that Germany will start complaining shortly. It’s possible that much of this is actually the result of the worldwide currency trading blocs which have jacked up the value of the Euro. When it was first introduced a few years ago it was worth about 85-cents to the dollar, then it slowly climbed to $1.35 and now it’s backing off but still high. Now with that you’d think that inflation would lessen, but apparently not. Somehow they botched the system and have both high-priced goods on a worldwide cost basis and subsequent unemployment and inflation too. Great. So they are starting to blame the Euro.
I’d be interested in hearing more complaints from the European readers.
The main concern with the Dutch has been that their government hasn’t represented their best interests. Plus, the moment our cabinet started campaigning to say yes in the referendum, everyone with a different point of view has been called stupid, ignorant, racist, fascist, a warmonger and a communist by them. Members of our cabinet said wars would start and the lights would go out the moment the population would say no.
Apart from that, the EU has always been used as a bogeyman over here, a lever to implement impopular policies. Brussels said so, and who could argue with that?
And then, suddenly the same people suddenly say the EU is our Lord and saviour, the answer to everything, and they didn’t seem to notice that message was rather inconsistent with previous ones.
The Euro played a role indeed, because news broke recently that the guilder was undervalued when the EMU went into force. The fatal policies of our Treasury department haven’t been cause to much discussion yet, even though they did much to cause the current recession.
Turkeye may have played a role for some, not the most bright elements in Dutch society, as the Turkish entrance has nothing to do with the Constitution.
I think you’re mising the overall point. The EU system is set up so that unelected people run everything. The EU parliament cannot even promote legislation. Right now, an Albanian can be arrested for actions that are legal in Albania because of the EU arrest warrant. This happened with a writer there, who was violating the speech codes of another country. The basic idea is some people wish to rule Europe but make it appear democratic. They propose ideas, and the elites vote them in without letting people decide. The EU itself was rejected in numerous referenda.
All you need to know about the problems with the consitution – and, by extension, Europe – is that France and The Netherlands rejected the same treaty for exactly opposite reasons. The French think it will inject too much free-market competition into their social system whereas the Dutch believe that it will reduce their competitiveness in the existing free market even further.
The European ideal espoused by the Brussels elite will never come to pass whilst the consituents of Europe have such different ideas about the purpose of the EU.
I still don’t see contributors addressing questions that mattered the most to voters. People who think of life as a business or a political venture may agree with folks higher up the page — or you, John. But, the rank-and-file electorate in Western European nations care about democracy and attendant freedoms — and they don’t want anything that is supposed to be constitutional law premised on businesses taking precedence over individual and national freedoms.
Virtually all the work that went into the body of that proposed EU constitution dealt with the “importance” of economic decisions. It just wasn’t that the framers presumed everyone’s democratic rights were already sorted out — an area where the Dutch are light years ahead of the US and many years ahead of some of the stodgier Euros. Chirac and his peers went merrily about their business under the presumption that “what’s good for GM is good for the country” — in 21st Century terms.
That would probably pass in GeorgeW. Bush’s Amerika. But, Europeans, even three generations after the last continental war, remember what happened the last time they left control of their lives in the hands of the dudes who presume that corporate well-being is all that really counts. Mussolini was more succinct and less of a Republikan than Hitler. The result was the same.
The reasons on the street for Non and Nein are rooted in legitimate fear of losing freedoms that have been fought for, again and again — and contempt for the politicians who don’t think that’s important.
Incidentally, the US Civil War started over something similar. As Paul Johnson pointed out in his book The History of the American People, many of the decisions to secede from the Union were undertaken by a small number of people who were not necessarily representative of their states.
Well since you are welcoming criticism over your posts i would like to correct some mistakes you seem to have made.
On Point 1 you so simply say that the idea of a big and richer nation paying to the “EU account” is not liked by people.
Do you think that before the richest nations were giving fewer money? The answer is no.
This “EU account” is a giant bucket of money that are invested throughout the EU for the economical development of especially the poorest nations. The thing is that this development affects everyone and offcourse the richest nation’s whose companies can go “abroad” (to another EU member) and invest money knowing that the treatment there is as fair as in their home country but with cheaper costs. As far as nationwide problems are concerned, such as low development and high unemployment, the money are indirectly spent for these problems no matter how impossible this may seem.
In a few words support for EU mainly by the richest nations is not only normal but essential for their own development as well. That’s why they do not decrease it through the years.
I am from Greece and i tell you that no matter how impossible it may seem for Turkey to become a member in 20 years it will be true. I t seems far far away in the future but it is True because from an economical point of view Turkey is a nation that can provide several geostratigical benefits to the EU beacuase then the EU borders will reach Asia.
Hey, Here we are all aging. We are 750 millions in a continent and every single day that passes we are becoming less able to work and offer to the development. So a few million young Turks can make some difference.
The biggest problem of the EU NOW is China’s exports and how we will protect from them especially in the clothing business. If EU was not there the Asian Giant called The republic of China or another Giant called US would send their goods over here and we would simply buy them like cows. This would kill our own productors but who cares in Chine or in the White House about that. A single european nation could never oppose them. A super state like EU can.
BESIDES OVER HERE IN EUROPE WE ARE A LITTLE IDEALISTS. WE CARE FOR OUR POOR FRIEND AND WE OPPOSE TO ABSOLUTE COST – PROFIT VIEW IN MONETARY TERMS OF THE EU.
EU IS ALSO A PLACE WERE IDEAS LIKE CIVILIZATION, STATE THAT CARES FOR THE POOR, PUBLIC MEDIA THAT DON’T LIE, ARMY ONLY FOR DEFENCE E.T.C. REALLY MATTER.
> I live in Spain, a country that voted in favour of the
> constitution. I’ve lived here for 20 years and seen the country
> change radically since it joined in the EU in 1992, from a
> backwater with beaches (as far as the rest of Europe was
> concerned) to the fastest-growing economy in Europe. Even the
> euro was adopted without fuss, apart from later grumbling about
> the inflation it caused, but that’s mostly seen as the price for
> becoming “real” Europeans after decades of isolation.
>
> The main comments I’ve heard about the constitution – which was
> distributed free to everyone before the referendum – are that
> it’s probably the most boring and unreadable document ever
> produced, but that some sort of constitution is better than
> none, at least as a starting point.
>
> Most seem to think that the EU constitution will not alter the
> freedoms already enjoyed here (which are vastly greater than
> those “enjoyed” in the USA, btw).
>
> Taking your points:
>
> 1. Distribution of wealth. A lot of it has been distributed here
> and it has brought Spain into the 21st century at last. With the
> new additions to the EU, Spain now has to get used to receiving
> less and will one day join the givers instead of being a taker.
> EU funds have helped us to improve our standard of living
> immensely and will enable us to help others one day soon. Not a
> problem.
>
> 2. Immigration. There are an estimated 800,000 illegal
> immigrants in Spain, mostly from Morocco, Ecuador and Colombia,
> plus former Soviet Bloc countries. Crime has risen (mostly in
> the cities) and the usual complaints are heard about immigrants
> taking nationals’ jobs. This is a problem, but it’s not seen as
> a specifically EU problem.
>
> 3. Turkey. Spain is the second most popular tourist destination
> in the world – over 50 million tourists a year. So where do
> Spaniards go for their holidays? A lot go to Turkey. That’s
> about the sum total of Spanish interest in Turkey, as far as I
> can gather.
>
> 4. The euro. As mentioned above, the only complaint has been
> over inflation. For example, a pre-euro glass of beer cost 100
> pesetas, a handy price, since you paid with a 100 peseta coin.
> Now it costs 1 euro, also handy, because you pay with a 1 euro
> coin – except that 1 euro is 166 of the old pesetas! The
> inflation was caused partly by rounding up but mostly by sneaky
> price increases taking advantage of everyone’s initial
> confusion. By the time we all realised what was happening, it
> was too late. But despite that, we still enjoy a lifestyle and
> standard of living that is better (to our way of thinking) than
> anywhere else in Europe!
The EU sounds like one big welfare state to me. Bravo to the Dutch for taking a stand and declairing the soviergn right as a nation!
And how yuo can link Hitler, the Civil War and the EU in one paragraph is beyond me. Anyone that spells “America” with a “k” needs to take American History and Civics 101 again…
Since the French and Dutch seem to regard their votes as referendums on the EU itself, instead of a new EU Constitution, I suppose we can make the same mistake, too.
It’s been over a year since the document was finalized, so the details are murky in my mind. I’ll need to dig up my issue of the Economist that listed the parts and functions of the new constitution. But then that may be beside the point for this discussion?
These are the main parts I remember:
1) Reforms in the voting procedures and rights in the various branches of the EU government. This was to make it easier to reach consensus and accomodate a membership of 25 states, while still respecting a sizable minority that may object (like the filibuster :-).
On the one hand, it makes the institution more workable, while also introducing more posts (like an EU Foreign Minister) and bureaucracy to centralize more power in Brussels.
2) A whole section of the document similar to our Bill of Rights, that lists all and sundry manner of rights and priviledges that the EU is sworn to protect. Not surprisingly, the Economist called this a lot of meaningless blather. But its existance flies in the face of Ed’s characterization of the constitution as being a corporatist harbinger of globalization. In fact, I don’t remember much of anything having to do with business and the economy being in the new Constitution.
The document itself is a mix of good and bad that depends heavily on your point of view. Perhaps one thing is for certain: at 450 pages, it’s way too long. And yet too vague in many places.
Short and sweet has served the U.S. well over the years. Eloquence can come from simplicity. They don’t have to spell everything out, most of which will be ignored anyway.
2 corrections to your text, John:
(3) The current government in Turkey and it’s prime minister Erdojan (?) were an Islamist party that was elected into government. They had advocated a Muslim state, but moderated their views once coming to power, lest the military throw them out as they have in the past.
Turkey is odd in that they are a Westernized, Muslim country. But the government and military go to extremes in enforcing their secularism and “Turkish culture” by persecuting religious and minority groups, like the Kurds. So the source of their human rights problems is their desire to be so Western. Ironic. As sufferrers of this persecution, it will be the religious fanatics come-to-power who liberalize Turkey’s society and culture, and bring it more in line with the EU.
(4) The Euro was introduced and its exchange rates finalized in 1999, 3 years before Euro notes and coins were introduced. At the time, the Euro was pegged at about $1.15 to the dollar. It subsequently fell to $0.85 to the dollar and then rose back up again, and then some. So the overall appreciation in the Euro is not nearly what you implied.
You’re missing the point. Switzerland just this week voted for closer ties with the EU, joining in the shared policing and surveillance system. For the Swiss to turn over someof their border controls to a shared system is big news!
Few Empires in history have ever given their subjects a chance to vote to approve their enlargement. Do you think that the Roman citizens were consulted when the conquest of Gaul or Britannia came up?
Closer to modern times, have any of the citizens of the US ever been given a popular vote to approve the annexation of creation of a new state? No, Congress reserves that right absolutely. Had people in the rich north east of the US been given a chance to vote yes/no on the annexation of pooer, border territories, I think there would have been more than a few NO! results along the way.
It’s the US that operates under a democratic deficit when it comes to expansion, not the EU.
Living in what I always call the Banana Republic of the EU, my point of view is biased because of who I am: my father being Italian and my mother Belgian, I’ve always felt more European then the next kid on the block.
With something like the new EU constitution, it came down to the same thing as ever: most people don’t like change… They don’t want any new procedures at work, they don’t want any new local regulations, they surely don’t want any national laws to be changed (those are state laws to you, US citizens) and heaven forbid: a new constitution! Evolution is fine for most, but revolution isn’t…
As most people have had enough change lately here in Europe (Maastricht, Schengen, the €, …) they just don’t want any more change: they just want to go on with their life and what’s important to them: their kids, their holidays, their house, whatever.
Neither in France nor in the Netherlands was any of the campaigns directed at the most important thing: the constitution itself.
In France it was a 55.5% ‘Non’ to 44.5% ‘Oui’ because even the majority party couldn’t make up it’s own mind if it was a good or a bad thing and the opposition made sure all their members voted ‘Non’.
In the Netherlands the 63% ‘Neen’ was cleverly put into a local newspaper heading: ‘Whereas France put the constitution in the hospital, Holland put it in it’s grave!’. Again the no-voters didn’t vote for or against the constitution but for or against the government. (And their current constitution not being broken, why fix it?)
Even in this so-called ‘information age’ voters were badly informed. Although only just a few clicks away, hardly anyone actually read the whole of the constitution (I checked with a few French and Dutch friends). As I wasn’t able to vote, I have an excuse for just skimming through the bits that I was most interested in, but even if I would have had to vote, I don’t think I would have read all that dry and boring stuff. 🙂
So is it a good constitution or not? Well, who gives a damn about my opinion anyway? My government surely doesn’t, so why should you? 🙂 Better to make up your own mind: http://europa.eu.int/constitution/en/allinone_en.htm
Boring though…
Fabrizio