I hope I can be perversely gleeful to echo tigermission's sentiment: there may be something good coming out of this. US perhaps would perceive EU as a lesser threat, thus pursue somewhat non-jingoistic foreign policies - fewer military interventions (in hayes' term) against sovereign nations simply for securing natural resources (in chase's words, keeping up American way of life). But I doubt I could ever underestimate the insatiable appetite of our industrial-military complex and the corporate greed in general. Hey look, there is China!
i'm really not concered with the "check" against the US. rather, i'm really interested in this sort of process. it's like a big sociology/negotiation/mediation/cultural/whatever experiment. very interesting.
What's the main goal of all this? To create a political entity to counter the US? I know that the EU is planning on creating its own diplomatic corps, how about a military one. I've read quotes from the EU pres talking about flying an EU flag during the 2008 Olympics. The same guy (forgot his name) was even bragging about how the combined medal count of the EU countries far surpassed that of the US or PRC. A loosely-confederated free-trade zone is one thing - but tampering with sovereign/local immigration laws and labor laws may encroach upon a nation's cultural identity.
ok you called for me my take on the EU Constitution. I'm one of the 61,9% dutch people who voted against the constitution. I do not believe a fear of islamic immigration had any influence on the votes in holland. Immigrations might be a reason some people voted no, but not necaserily immigration of islamic people. With this government the dutch have a pretty harsh immigration policy. And it would become less social with the new constitution. I actually think some people voted against the constitution because of this. I shall summarize the biggest reason why dutch people voted against the constitution. 1 Fear of losing control of our own country, alot of dutch had the feeling that to much power was givin to europe and they feared we would loose the control over our own country. 2 Fear of a super state called Europe. Unlike some might think the dutch do NOT want a super state. We do not want a united nations of Europe. 3 The government gave almost no information about the constitution, most people did not even know what would change and what woud stay the same. 4 There is alot of critisisme on the current dutch government. People did not want to vote in favour of what the government wanted. I have to say that the government was not very smart in this case. When it became clear there would be alot of people who would vote no they started a propaganda campaign. They started to promote to people that they should vote yes. Some quotes: "if people do not have good reasons to vote no, they should tay home and not vote" "the only people who won last night were the comunists and the racists"(after it was clear the french rejected the constitution) "people should not be influenced by the french, They should think for themselves and have their own opinion, and just vote Yes" 5 some people thought it was not liberal enough and other thought it was not social enough. it was not clear who was right. I do not think it is because of the Euro, people in holland seem to think it is going to fast in europe and we are losing control. (the unemployment is not that high, it is about 5%, still one of the best in Europe). The problem is that before this government we had a pretty balanced government, but now it is pretty liberal and unsocial.(all the fault of Pim Fortuyn(the dutch politician who was killed a couple of years ago) i think those are the most importent reasons. Ofcourse some people voted against because they did not want to include the poor eastern country's but that was not a main reason. I had alot of problems with the social and justice(sp) parts of the constitution.(i want it more social, and less power to the EU in the justice department). That is why i voted against the constitution i also do not want a super state. In franch the biggest problem was that alot of people are not happy with the current government. Also the english would also have voted against the constitution, but know they will probably not have a chance to vote.(blair will call the referendum off). I also think the EU constitution is inevitable. The dutch will not vote against it in a couple of years(when there was more objective and better information). And the politicians will keep trying until they get it. i hope i made it a little more clear for you all. Is there anything else you want to know? just ask. i would like to add one more thing, the dutch government and some media do try to keep the dutch as scared as possible for the islam and terrorism. that is one of the reasons i'm against this government(also the fact that they are just to liberal and unsocial). The murder on van gogh was terrible, BUT van Gogh was an complete idiot, and i'm more surprised he was not killed earlier. He did everything in his power to piss off people(well it worked). But don't get me started on the current dutch government. i cn rant on for about 12 pages.
arno -- that's really interesting. thanks. the guy i met from portugal said the constitution was really long...and was not explained well at all. that few knew exactly what they were "signing up for" by voting yes. he saw it as an attempt by intellectuals to shove stuff down the throats of common people by saying, "oh, it's good for you...just do it."
that is exactly what happened in holland. They did not tell us anything, untill they heard people would vote no, and then they just said that it was better to vote Yes. it was pretty anoying.
There's no reason to blame the US for this matter. Besides, the US doesn't invade other countries because of a possible EU. They might do so in spite of one. Even before the referendums derailed the Consitution, there was great debate on where the EU was headed in regards to the US. The former soviet bloc members, Spain, Italy and Britain wanted to maintain close Atlantic ties while the French and German bloc wanted the opposite. Chirac made veiled threats of a second tier status for nations opposing the will of the EU. His attitude whenever the Eastern nations speak up for the US is to know where their place is. The question of American relations exposed a divide over a strong EU or a confederated EU. Both the EU capital and NATO headquarters are located in Brussels. They're miles apart but worlds away in ideology. As an aside, no matter how it turns out, the concensus is towards more treaty making and formations of NGOs to regulate matters such as trade (WTO), environment (Kyoto Protocol, Montreal Protocol, Stockholm Convention, ISO standards), and manufacturing (ISO standards). The only triumph in this matter is to preserve the sense of culture and national identity. We are still evolving into a unified world, whether through overt or hidden measures.
Surprised that he wasn't killed earlier? I don't know, seems a bit of an extreme statement to make. The guy was pissing people off, yes, but no one deserves death for an opinion. Radicals will always exist, though, I think the media is zooming in on things like this. I do think immigration had something to do with this, but not as much as one would think. I think many people are pissed off enough as it is with the Dutch identitiy they have lost so far, think people might need a bit more time to adapt to changes such as the Euro. If and when these changes prove to be good or at least satisfactory, then things might go the other way. I think Holland just still remembers some of the bad things, and so voted no with this in the back of the mind. I don't think the constitution is inevitable, but then again I do think it might/will happen at some point in the not too distant future. As mentioned earlier, many people are also annoyed that Holland has had to pay more per capita than any other state in the EU without getting enough of a say. Why be one of the founding members, one that gives the most per capita, without any benefits? I think this vote is a reflection of Dutch mood, not necessarily ideology. This is not to say I believe we will vote yes at some point soon.
It is not 'may', but it does in fact encroach upon a nation's cultural identity. I for one have never really understood this insane drive to make everyone similar to you, to eliminate the difference and create a common culture/entity among a group of people. I just don't get it. I tend to agree with MadMax in that I too am fascinated by this experiment called the EU, and wonder if it will ever work. The Arab world, btw, is looking at the EU as a possible future model of economic cooperation, but they want nothing to do with the political model the EU is attempting to build, and they share more of a common culture than the EU countries ever will. So I really think that the political aspect of EU Constitution is not going to work, and I skeptical about the workability of the proposed economic model as well. arno-ed, thanks a lot for that insight, what you said made a lot of sense, especially after I talked to a friend of mine (who is French) who was opposed to the EU Constitution as well, although she never got to vote on it. And frankly, I don't blame the French or, especially, the Dutch for doing so. Interesting stuff nevertheless.
Over 400 pages and overly bogged down by boring specifics and, yes, most people who voted had no idea what was in it. This constitution is dead, but another should replace it eventually. From what I have read/heard there was quite a bit of really good policies and quite a bit of really bad ones. The whole thing needs to be better discussed and streamlined so that people can feel better about it. Otherwise this would keep repeating.
The French government was reported as saying "If our citizens vote yes for the EU constitution, we will provide them with plenty of free cake to eat."
Ok it is a bit extreme. (it was more true for Fortuyn, but he also did not deserve it). I have to say I think it is terrible that they were both murdered. It is terrible they were murdered for their opinion. But the thing i do not like is the fact that after they were killed they were worshiped by alot of people. And that is strange because most people ignored van gogh before he was murdered, and suddenly when he died everybody said how a brilliant man he was and how he would have wanted things to be. IMHO he was an idiot. but he did not deserve to die. Nobody deserves to die for their opinion.
I have a hard time seeing how the EU will devolve back to separate countries even with these referendums going down. What I predict will happen will be something more along the lines of a looser federation with strong checks and balances like the US. The problem that I see is that the EU as it was evolving was towards greater centralization because Western Europe since the WWII has ideologically favored a social democrat model of more centralization, regulation and social welfare than the US. So naturally this would be reflected in the EU. What they're finding is that while that might work for a single country with something of a unified culture and language its not going to work for a diverse Continent. The Europeans might not want to do it but they should look over the debates in the US regarding states rights vs. the fed and adopt a model like the pre-civil war Constitution.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050610/1/3swxx.html EU crisis deepens as France and Germany gang up on Britain A crisis in the European Union sparked by French and Dutch voters' rejections of the EU's constitution worsened when France and Germany ganged up on Britain ahead of an important summit next week meant to reorganise the bloc's budget for 2007-2013. French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, meeting together in Paris, told a joint news conference they wanted Britain to give up a hard-won five-billion-euro (six-billion-dollar) annual rebate it gets from the EU budget -- something British Prime Minister Tony Blair has bluntly and repeatedly ruled out. "Above all our British friends must recognise how things have changed and the need for greater equity in the financial charges that each country bears," Chirac said. The two leaders, representing the Franco-German axis that has long driven the European project, also urged the process of ratifying the moribund constitution to continue, despite the two referendum defeats that theoretically kill it off and Blair's decision to suspend a plebiscite on the charter next year. "We are both in agreement in reaffirming how much the European Union... needs above all to unite and to reflect," Chirac said. Schroeder, at his side, said it was "premature" to consider the EU constitution a dead letter. France and Germany's forceful and shared stance, and Britain's refusal to yield set the scene for a dramatic summit of EU heads of state and government in Brussels next Thursday and Friday. The atmosphere was expected to be especially tense between Chirac and Blair, whose usually polite relationship has degenerated into acrimony at times in the past over EU matters. Chirac said the EU rebate Britain won in 1984 after tough negotiations by then-prime minister Margaret Thatcher was "now old". He said each EU state "must make an effort" so that the union's financial problems do not exacerbate the political ones revealed by the resistance to the EU constitution. But British Prime Minister Tony Blair has refused to give way, calling instead for a "fundamental review" of EU spending -- implied to mean a revision of costly EU agricultural subsidies from which French farmers greatly benefit. The French president, whose authority at home has been enormously weakened by his country's rejection of the EU charter, countered by saying he would not overturn a deal he and Schroeder struck in 2002 to keep the agricultural subsidy system intact until 2013. "Everyone must pay his share... but I am not prepared to compromise" on the EU Common Agriculture Policy, he said. Schroeder did hold out the promise that France and Germany were ready to make a unspecified, "constructive compromise" at the summit. It was the leaders' second get-together in the wake of French and Dutch rejection of the EU charter in the past two weeks. A former European commissioner, British parliamentarian Neil Kinnock, accused Chirac of using the row over the British budget rebate as a diversion from his own problems over the EU constitution. "Chirac playing these diversionary games simply adds to the discredit," said Kinnock, who is a member of Blair's Labour Party. Commentators noted that Chirac and Schroeder will be going into the summit severely weakened. Chirac faces a lame-duck presidency to the end of his mandate in 2007 because of the referendum debacle, while various electoral defeats in Germany have left Schroeder with little prospect of holding on to power in polls next year. On the other hand, Blair last month won a third mandate and is governing one of the rare vibrant economies among the major EU members. A veto from him would scuttle the summit and delay EU budget decision to early next year. "Tony Blair may not have the intention of ruining the European summit. But he has the power to do so. That's his strength," the French newspaper Le Figaro said.
