United States of Europe?
It seems like a very significant world event is being widely ignored in the US, and that event is the creation (and rejection) of the new European constitution. Except for a light reading of The Guardian, I haven't found much information on this constitution or its ratification, so I'm turning to my European readers (yes, both of you) for clarification. Who supports the constitution, and who is against it? Do you think this is the first step in making Europe into one nation? And why did French and Dutch voters reject it?
posted by Meesher at 3:55 PM
11 Comments:
I don't pretend to be any kind of expert, however I've been really interested in this as well. Proponents of the EU Constitution feel it would give Europe a better bargaining chip against the US and China if they were more unified. Opponents are leery of the countries the EU is letting into the EU, and of losing their sovereignty etc.
To me it's the fact that too many proud nations will lose their identity.
I am English and very proud of that fact, we have been in the past told to do stupid things by the EU, things such as 'We can't call our chocolate, chocolate', Cornish pasties, can only be called cornish pasties if they are made in Cornwall.
These and many more traditions which are being targeted by the EU are ridiculous and let's not even get started on the economical problems which countries such as Germany are having at this time because of trading under the Euro and disgarding their heritage and the Deutchmark!
I am an American but I lived in Europe for a while. I'm not an expert on the subject either, but actually, I don't see anything good coming from that unification if it were to take place. The countries involved are as different from each other as night and day sharing one common goal, they are all smooshed together from across The Big Pond. I think it's best to keep them unique. When things go "uniform", what's the fun in that?
I am an American living in France. Here is a summary of why the French rejected the consitution, according to the biggest French polling institute:
In Referendum, French Reject Consitition
overseas will's post referenced the percentages listed below as principal reasons for the rejection of the eu constitution in france...
** 46% -- feared that unemployment would worsen under the constitution
** 40% -- were fed up with the current situation in France
** 35% -- believed a no would permit the constitution to be renegotiated
* 34% -- found the constitution too economically liberal and difficult to understand
** 19% -- thought the constitution threatened the identity of France
** 18% -- wanted to prevent the entry of Turkey to the EU
* 12% -- followed certain politcal leaders who asked them to vote no
i have taken the liberty of double asterisking (**) those items that potentially contain what i believe to be the underlying reason for the rejection, not only in france but also in the netherlands...
there has been a tremendous tide of immigration from eastern and southeastern europe over the past 20 years that has dramatically accelerated with the accession of the 10 new eu member states last may... the proposed eu constitution, rightly or wrongly, is perceived as a mechanism that will further increase that trend...
the situation in western europe is not unlike what's happening in the u.s. with talk of immigration reform, closing the mexican border, and the appearance of an armed militia in arizona... the fact that many of the immigrants to western europe are muslim only exacerbates the problem...
imho, that's the dirty little underside of the constitutional rejection...
So, as I feared, many of the "no" voters are afraid of letting Muslims into Europe. 18% said they were against Turkey joining, but a lot of people probably didn't admit that. I appreciate fears of "uniformity," but the whole thing just smacks of racist exclusion.
In a word:
Nationalism!
Sometimes I wish Maps had never been invented.
(You can't practise Nationalism unless you know the 'Shape' of your Country/Homeland)
It's a very scary phenomenon, Eddie, and I see you've read my profile.
The biggest problem with the EU constitution are those that wrote it. They decided it would be better to put it in legalize just in case any of the lower class might comprehend and say, "Non".
We had political science students on television here in France saying they had studied it for 4 years and still did not understand it.
If you decided you wanted to read the US constitution, you could and would be able to make reasonable sense out of it, unless you are a lawyer. Not so with the EU constitution. This is the problem.
People who would vote to affirm something they do not understand are foolish indeed.
Frenchie, you bring up the readability of constitutions. In that vein, the British constitution is impossible to read because it is a collection of court decisions, laws, decrees, and common law. What's wrong with doing the same in Europe and just letting a constitution develop organically? If a pan-European nation emerges, the problem of nationalism within the member countries will disappear and a constitution could then be written. If the nations retain their seperate identities, then maybe there can't be a constitution that fits all of them.
From what I understand, the EU's proposed constitution was over 300 pages long. No wonder people were worried about it!
The American Constitution is only four hand-written pages long -- and half of the fouth page is taken up with the signatures -- and is written in plain English.
Post a Comment
<< Home