As much as the Europeans give us a hard time about our politics it looks like they're having trouble putting their own house in order. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/06/02/dutch.poll/index.html EU agonizes over fate of charter Dutch follow French and reject proposed constitution Thursday, June 2, 2005 Posted: 5:19 AM EDT (0919 GMT) AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (CNN) -- Europe's leaders are agonizing over the future of the EU constitution after voters in the Netherlands joined the French in rejecting it. Dutch voters on Wednesday followed their French counterparts in rejecting the draft constitution, but the bloc's Luxembourg presidency and France and Germany said the process of ratifying the charter must be allowed to continue in other member states. But Britain said the result raised "profound questions" over the future of the constitution, while other commentators said it was expiring fast. "This is a dangerous position to be in," said Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxembourg, the country holding the rotating EU presidency. "We need to show the outside world that we are sticking to the path of a better future." He expressed confidence in the bloc. "It's a difficult moment for Europe, but one that Europe will get through," Juncker said, but, "this evening, Europe no longer inspires people to dream." European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, seeking to head off a stampede of rejection, pleaded with other member states not to take any unilateral steps before the European summit in two weeks. Meanwhile, Latvia's parliament voted overwhelmingly to support the EU constitution on Thursday. Latvia's 100 member parliament voted 71 for the constitution with 5 votes against and 6 abstaining. Most European leaders said they were now looking toward a June 16-17 Brussels summit that has assumed crucial importance in determining the road ahead for the bloc. One of the leaders of the Dutch "No" campaign, Grondwet Nee president Willem Bos, told CNN it was "very clear the (Dutch ) people don't want this constitution." Bos said the result was not a vote against European integration, but rather against the way the EU was functioning. A provisional final result posted by Dutch news agency ANP shows a comprehensive 61.6 percent of voters were opposed to the charter, while only 38.4 percent approved. A final result will be known on June 6 after postal votes are counted. The Dutch parliament, which has the final say on ratification because the referendum was non binding, meets on Thursday to debate the results. Bos said ordinary people wanted to have some influence over Europe, and were concerned that Brussels (the EU headquarters in Belgium) instead had become a power over them. The new EU charter must be approved by all 25 EU members -- either by referendum or parliament -- to become effective in October 2006. The EU plans to hold a summit in mid-June where the balloting is expected to be the central issue. Shortly after polls closed, a disappointed Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende conceded defeat for the referendum he supported. "The Dutch voters have a clear and uncomplimentary solution, and we will have to respect the voters' choice," he told reporters. "No means no, and this is the choice of the people." But he said the positive aspects were the comprehensive discussion and the high voter turnout. Voter turnout for the referendum was 62.8 percent compared with just 39 percent of Dutch who voted in last year's European parliamentary poll. So far, 10 countries have ratified the constitution: Austria, Hungary, Italy, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, and Slovenia by votes of their parliaments; and Spain by a referendum. Supporters in the Netherlands had argued the constitution would streamline decision-making in the union, and create a single foreign minister to give Europe more sway in international affairs. The Netherlands was one of the EU's founding members. But many Dutch remained unconvinced. Critics feared the Netherlands, with just 16.4 million people, would be engulfed by a superstate headquartered in Brussels and dominated by Germany, France and Britain. Political analyst Maurice de Hond said some Dutch were still angry that the euro became Europe's currency, even though they voted against it. "So, they will now vote for what they wanted to vote five years ago." In addition, analysts said the murder almost seven months ago of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh and the earlier killing of populist politician Pim Fortuyn prompted the Dutch to become more conservative. The negative votes in the Netherlands and France were largely the result of poor economies, and concerns about immigration, EU expansion and the loss of national identity, said CNN European Political Editor Robin Oakley. Unemployment in the Netherlands has risen from 3.3 percent to 6.7 percent over the last three years, he added. The Dutch, he said, also had some leftover resentment that the guilder was undervalued when the Dutch adopted the euro. Former European Central Bank president Wim Duisenberg told CNN that while the euro had weakened in recent days, the currency would regain its value because of Europe's fundamental economic strength. In France, the rejection of the constitution referendum was considered a stinging blow to President Jacques Chirac. But he said after the vote was announced, that voters had made their "sovereign decision, and I note it." Chirac had campaigned heavily for a "Yes" vote. With the addition of more nations to the EU, including the possible admission of Turkey, there are fears in France that jobs could drift to new EU members in eastern Europe, where taxes are lower and workers work for less, he said.
I bet the rich nations do not want a single europe while the poor ones do. So it will get voted in by the eastern block but rejected by the western block.
Well, it was approved by Italy, Germany, Greece, and Spain... So, what's the deal...Europe would become one huge supercountry? Where would the capital of this "country" be?
Europeans to Muslim Immigration: "Non, Nee, Who Needs It?" http://www.newsforreal.com/ The United States of Europe, the E.U., is proving a hard sell to average Europeans. The British have never much cared for the idea. But the French, at least French officials have pushed hard for it, arguing that only a united Europe could compete in with the industrial and military power of the US. But those dreams went up in smoke this week as French voters resoundingly turned down the proposed E.U. constitution. The Dutch will be the next to say "nee." What's happened? Why have average Europeans turned sour on the idea? In a word - immigration. Well, not any kind of immigration, specifically Muslim immigration. That too is a change. Europeans had been like folks in California who, though they clucked their tongues about growing illegal immigration, are delighted to hire cheap illegal workers from south of the boarder to clean their houses and cut their lawns. For Europeans that source of cheap, and often skilled, labor has flowed largely from Muslim countries. The French in particular have absorbed huge numbers of Moroccan and Algerians, a legacy of their imperial past. So too have the British and the Dutch and to a lesser degree, Germany. For decades all went well. Then 9/11 happened. When those Arab-piloted planes destroyed 3000 lives and a hunk of lower Manhattan, they also destroyed something few noticed at the time -- the E.U. It did not happen overnight; in fact it kind of kind of snuck up Europeans. The Germans were first shocked to discover that much of the early planning for 9/11 took place in Hamburg. Then Spain learned that some of the last minute plans were hatched in right in downtown Madrid. The French started looking around too only to discover that their Arab immigrant community was crawling with bin Laden supporters. The 9/11 attacks energized radical Muslims in France and the became openly militant in not only their anti-western beliefs but recruitment as well. The French government tried to staunch this militancy by banning religious garb at schools, not because Christians and Jews were causing trouble, but because Muslims were wearing using traditional Islamic gear the same way American gangs use gang colors , as way of identifying sympathic followers and thumbing thier nose at the "enemy" by saying in effect, we're here, we hate everything you stand for, whatya going to do about it? Europeans citizens themselves began to notice, as if for the first time, just how many Arabs were now living among them. They also took note that there seemed only two kinds of immigrant Muslims: Those that openly voiced support for radical Islam's brand of anti-West, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic views, and those who simply said nothing about it, one way or the other. Was this silence complicit agreement with Islamic terrorism? Or was it the silence of fear -- fear of their own enemy within? Either way it was not a comforting silence. Then came the vicious train bombings in Madrid, a wake up call to all Europeans that they too were on radical Islam's hit list. Slowly the politically correct mantra, Islam is a peaceful religion, was eroded by Muslims themselves. Newsweek's story that the Koran might have been mistreated by American soldiers, and what happens? Muslims in Pakistan riot and kill 15 other Muslims. That sent this message to westerners: When infidels piss off Allah someone is gonna die, and if we can't get our hands on a western we'll kill one another. The Dutch got their first taste of radical Islam last August when a Dutch-Moroccan assassinated Dutch filmmaker, Theo Van Gogh. Van Gogh�s sin was making the film, "Submission," which he made with a Dutch politician who had renounced the Islamic faith of her birth. Dutch terrorist expert Edwin Bkker who works for the Netherlands Institute for International Relations, the Clingendael Institute also claims the Netherlands is relatively low down on the list of countries that faced the "wrath of Islam". Other factors, however, play a role, such as the willingness of the local Muslim population to support terrorist attacks. This is important in light of the fact the Dutch secret service AIVD said last year that at least 100 Islamic extremists are active in the country. Recent political concern in The Hague has also been expressed about the recruiting of Dutch Islamic youth for Jihad, meaning holy war....Furthermore, Colyn said terrorists could view the Netherlands as a "judicial paradise" due to the acquittals at the end of 2002 and mid-2003 of a group of terrorists ..." (Full Story) Here's what European voters were saying this week when millions voted -no- on the E.U. constitution: Unreconstructed, unreformed Islam is NOT a peaceful religion, at least not the way it is currently being taught to its masses. Instead it is a xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, uncompromising artifact of the mankind's brutal past. Its followers allow no distinction between secular and Islamic law. While mouthing respect for diversity Islam condemns and vilifies all things non-Islamic. While mouthing respect for women, it denies almost all the liberties afforded to Muslim men. And, infidels are fair game. It's become clear to Europeans that accommodating large numbers of poor and poorly educated Muslims is just asking for trouble. Suddenly that cheap labor has become potentially very expensive. Muslims immigrants are proving too unruly, too unreasonable and too destructive for modern, secular societies to accommodate, at least in large numbers. That's the emotion Europeans acted upon this week when they voted no on an E.U. constitution, a constitution that among other things liberalized immigration policies across E.U. member countries. Voters understood that among those E.U. members would eventually be Turkey the gateway of the Muslim world into Europe. When that happened it would mean lots more Muslims coming to Western Europe, an image that scared voters already worried about the Muslims living among them. Is this just further evidence of white European racism? Sure, some of that is always part of any anti-immigration movement. But it's not why so many voted no. It's may be the politically correct thing to do, to chalk the E.U.'s demise on racists, but it again lets the real culprits radical Muslims -- off the hook turning the victimizers into victims. This isn't about religion. It's about pathological Islamic-driven aberrant, anti-social behavior. It's crazy-person behavior and we all have to stop making excuses for it. And its long past time Muslims start carrying more of the weight on this issue than have been forced to do to date. Muslims have to do some serious housecleaning of their own, and soon. Because, fellow infidels, if you want to meet real racism, real prejudice -- industrial-strength, undiluted and unembarrassed prejucice -- say hello to radical Islam. The simple truth is that it's Muslim behavior itself is that's the driving force behind growing anti-Muslim paranoia. And, it's not just their misbehavior when in the West, but evidence that, even when among their own, they can't behave like responsible, critical thinking adults. KABUL, Afghanistan, June 1 - A suicide bomber set off a powerful explosion today at a funeral ceremony in a mosque in the southern city of Kandahar, killing at least 19 people, among them the Kabul police chief. The governor of Kandahar, Gul Agha Shirzai, told reporters that the suicide bomber's body had been found and that he was a member of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network. "We have found documents on his body that show he was an Arab," Mr. Shirzai said, The Associated Press reported. (Full Story) The real story here is not the E.U. vote. That's just a commonsense reaction to what's going on. But it's a warning Muslims worldwide should consider far more a threat to them than all George W. Bush's planes and troops combined. Because there will be -- can not be -- a military solution to Islamic terrorism. Only Muslims themselves can put a stop to such aberrant religious misbehavior. The trouble is, so far anyway, they seem disinclined to do so. There are really only two logical outcomes to this saga, and neither involves military agression from the West but passive agressive actions that will be far more damaging to the Muslim world in the long run. If this behavior continues unabatted much longer Muslim nations who refuse to modernize Islamic teachings will find themselves facing international isolation. Europeans have begun this process and if it continues Muslims will eventually find themselves virtual prisoners within their self-imposed, 12th century Islamic theme park nations. Visas to study and work in the West will dry up. Trade will be stifled as Western nations treat every shipment form an Arab nation as a potential national security threat. The Arab world will become a backwater of history. The best outcome for Muslims -- not to mention the rest of us -- would be for Muslim nations take a clue from Martin Luther and produce their own reformist principles bringing Islam into step with modern times. Rules that require that all Mosques and all Mullahs must toe the line and knock off teaching hate, or else. That would be start. It will take a while for those whose minds have already been poisoned by radical Islamic hate to die off. But they need to begin, and soon. In 1949 Justice Robert Jackson noted that, while the US Constitution grants citizens a wealth of personal and political rights, it was not intended as a a "suicide pact." For it to work everyone had to follow some common sense rules. The same goes for such valued Western concepts as political and religious freedom. These too are not suicide pacts. Compliance with some basic commonsense rules is required in order to keep the whole thing from devolving into a giant ideological/religious food fight. At the top of that list is respect for other's beliefs. It's a key and indispensable concept to the survival and prosperity of any modern, pluralistic society that is except when those beliefs include justifying murder and mayhem within that society. That crosses the line. That kind of religious bullyism breaks the contract and those that follow such a course should expect to be abscessed off from the rest of the body politic. I think that is not an unreasonable line to draw. But the world is still waiting to see Muslims in large numbers show the slightest willingness to draw that line, and draw it in an unambiguous, non-word-mincing and convincing way. So far they are still at the "wink, wink, nod, nod stage," when it comes to condemning radical Islamic terrorism. Until they do draw that line Muslims should not act surprised if they are met with growing suspicion, increased profiling and just generally a cold shoulder from the rest of us.
While I would agree that Islam could use a heavy dose of reform that piece was loaded with so much stuff that was factually wrong that its hard to take it seriously.
I don't have time to go into all of the details but a few highlights. 1. That the votes in France and Holland were primarily over fear of Muslim immigration. That was a factor but there were many other major factors such as anger over Chirac's handling of the economy in France (many French polled said they support the Constitution but wanted to send Chirac a message) anger over agricultural and trade policies (many farmers in countries like France and Holland fear they will get wiped out due to cheaper produce from other European countries), concern about the common currency (many Europeans haven't bought into the Euro and feel it has led to inflation), fear of loss of local control and for Holland anger over that per capita the Dutch put in more money than any other European state even though they aren't the wealthiests. 2. The fear isn't only of Muslim immigration but also as the EU expands into Eastern Europe there is a big worry about Europeans from poorer Eastern European countries. 3. That Muslim fundamentalism and terrorism snuck up on the Europeans. The Europeans particularly the French have been dealing with Muslim terrorism far longer than the US have and fought a protracted conflict against Algerian groups in the mid-90's. 4. That most Muslims in Europe are either terrorists or tacitly supporting terrorism. There is a large Muslim middle class in Europe along with many Muslim intellectuals who speak out quite a bit against Islamic fundamentalism. Its more likely that the main intellectual forces for modernization and moderation come from European Muslims. 5. Regarding the head scarf ban in particular. There were protests in France among Muslims about it but so did many from other religions since it actually applied to prominent displays of all religious wear Even with that polling in France showed though that a majority of Muslims there supported the ban and when some Iraqi insurgents captured some French journalists demanding that France rescind the ban opposition towards it evaporated with many of the groups opposed to it coming out in favor of it claiming they were French as well as Muslim and weren't goign to allow radicals to make an issue of it. 6. That racism doesn't play that big of a role in this. Yes there is fear of radical Islam but if you look at the positions of groups like Pym Fortyn's (sp) they oppose immigration of all non-Western (white) people and not just for security reasons. They don't want Asians or Africans no matter what their religion.
thanks Sishir Chang, I have come to really respect your opinion and insight on world affairs here. Thanks for the further explaination. I didn't post that blog as a definitive reason for the vote against the EU by the French and Dutch. But I do think that growing anti-Muslim sentiment, opposition to EU membership for Turkey, and fears over losing control of immigration policy (and the resulting effects on labor and jobs in Eastern Europe) were the main reasons for the no vote - and with good reason.
Thanks flamingmoe and next time I have some kids cough syrup in my house I'll have a flamingmoe in your honor. I'm not trying to deny that fear of Muslim immigration wasn't a factor in the EU vote but I felt the article had horribly mischaracterized the nature of that opposition and was factually innacurate. Hopefully Arno_Ed the BBS poster from Holland can weigh in on this.
Wow, what a piece of garbage! But interesting nevertheless So blame the Muslims for the French and Dutch no-vote? I guess simple economics had nothing to do with it? What about French uneasiness about the floodgate of 'outsourced' jobs that the EU Constitution would enable? That's wasn't the main concern for those rational secularists? Anyone else notice a strong ressurrection of nationalism in the world today? It seems like in every corner of the world people are affirming their ethnic/national identities and refusing to "blend in". So much for the American vision of a globalized world! I guess the vision of a McWorld is losing ground quickly to a world where tribalism reigns supreme.
Couldn't agree more. It might have been a factor, but no doubt it was nothing compared to the MAJOR factor that likely resulted in the French 'no' vote, and that can probably be traced back to simple economics. I am very interested though to see how the EU would move from here. What scenarios do you see possible here? Is it a draft of a new Constitution that countries would re-vote on again? Will the EU just dissolve and end the United States of Europe dream for good? Regardless, there is probably no one happier than the USA right now, we don't want a strong EU that can challenge us economically and militarily in the world. So I guess it is all for the better
I'm with Cohen on this one. I think Europe has gone too far down the road of integration to turn back now. The Euro regime is going to be too hard to break down back into individual currencies. I predict they will renegoatiate the Constitution again over the next few years and it will eventually be ratified. Its even possible that the French and Dutch parliaments will go ahead and ratify since there's strong support within those parliaments even if opponents won the resolution.
And if their parliaments defy public sentiments in those two countries and ratify the Constitution, wouldnt that be career suicide? I don't think it is likely this will happen.
Could they modify that and decide to strongarm states that don't ratify? The US Constitution only required 9 of 13 states to ratify. I wonder what procedures are needed for secession.
This fascinates me. As hard as it was to get a working constitution for this country...it's one million times harder to get it among nations in Europe with such distinct cultures and such histories of animosity. I'm in a seminar right now...one of the other lawyers in there is from Portugal. He lives in Portugal, and just came to town for this seminar. We started talking about this. He says he thinks this will never be workable because there is little respect for distinct cultures and values in this group...and because the EU has regulated EVERYTHING. For example...it used to be that in Portugal, every restaurant had its own house wine. It was a staple and part of the culture...but no longer. Under EU commerce restrictions, restaurants are no longer allowed to make and serve their own house wines. Also...baby eels are a delicacy in Portugal...but the EU outlawed them being harvested for food. As he said to me, "How do you ever get the UK and Turkey to agree on the part to a particular goal? Not that either is 'wrong' in their approach. But because they value different things. English common law is the backbone of English government. It's nowhere on the radar map among those in other nations in Europe." Just an example. Trade agreements...fine. No problem. Reaching some sort of governance...asking citizens to submit to the authority of the EU. Man, I just don't see it. I can see some ratifying it for economic reasons. But not all.
