EU constitution
Since everybody else has in some way made some highly intellectual comment on the EU constitution I thought I’d have my say:
What have they been buggering about at all this time for every single country§ to go ahead and reject it?
It makes me wonder to what lengths they went to ensure that there were at least one or two clauses for each country to pick out and complain about. It seems to me to be a pure work of genius.
Tags: General
June 1st, 2005 at 10:02 pm
By the look if it there is a split half way, not one sided like you seem to imply.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3954327.stm
has more details on it.
June 1st, 2005 at 10:14 pm
Lies! All lies, I tell you!
I was trying to go for a particularly tongue-in-cheek post to make light of the situation. I’m a little bored of hearing the same thing over and over from various other people.
June 2nd, 2005 at 2:45 am
Deep Breath...I think…...:
Firstly:
It was rejected in France and the Netherlands for different reasons.
The ‘non’ was primarily a (long awaited) reaction against the arrogance of the French political elite, as personified by Chirac and Valery Giscard d’Estaing (The ex french president who drafted the sodding thing, and whose title, incidentally, is fake, and moved to a village called d’estaing for the same reason… Delusions de grandeur, moi?)...
There were also some predictable splits. The cosmopolitan elite supporting, and the agricultural majority rejecting. This is the thanks that the cinquieme republique (or whatever) gets for totally fossilising and padding its agricultural economy with lots of [mainly British and German] common agricultural policy money, whereas we were sensible enough to turn our agriculture over to the english tourist board (along with the coalmines and steelworks), and move into the nice, shiny things like ‘meeja’, ‘IT’, and other nice high return sectors that will soon be filling our wallets as graduates.
The Dutch ‘nee’ was more an efficient low-country rebuttal of the treaty itself that was voted down, mainly due to the way the Dutch are horrified at the great waste of their money, as the greatest per capita contributors (BBC).
The Dutch rejection, then, is the more important rejection. Particularly for such an outward looking, and previously EU committed founder member country.
You are correct about the treaty. The same self same Valery Giscard d’Estaing (lets just call him Giscard from now on. I don’t like bought titles…) presided over a mess. The treaty was pretty schizophrenic. On balance, and having read the thing, I believe that it actually goes no further than most of the other unhelpful directives that have run out of Brussels like stinking bilge for the past 25 years. In some areas, it does indeed clarify/limit the EU’s power.
The great mistake, perhaps, was to have ‘constitution by committee’, trying to incorporate the ‘open market’ ideals of the English and eastern europeans, the social model of the French, and Giscards’ desire for a place in history all in the same document. The hilarious thing is that the text was actually written by Lord Kerr, a famous British ex-civil servant-someone practised in the dark arts of making a document meaningless.
So yes. The rejection of the treaty was a great waste of money. But a necessary one. The arrogant technocrats who run the European institutions will initially mutter about how we must make the french vote again, until they ‘get the right answer’...(To paraphrase Henry Ford “You can have any answer, so long as its yes”...). In reality, the German/Italian/French social welfare model is dying. Britain is presently the dominant economic force in the region. Lets hope Bliar has the nous to realise that with the 6-month EU presidency coming up, we can once and for all throw out the delusions about ‘ever closer union’, and begin to put the EU back to what it does best…as a peaceful trading association of countries, adept at destroying agriculture in the third world.
The death of this document is good news for British interests, and particularly good news for me. There is nothing so guaranteed to put my spirits up before an exam than seeing the (metaphorical) smiles wiped off the bright-eyed, idealistic europhile students in Bristol, who have nothing better to say than ‘of course they support the EU on the tedious grounds that ‘it was nice not to have to change currency 5 times on my interrail journey across europe last summer’.
Yours ever, le Rosbif tory-boy demagogue DWL.
now back to convolution integration…procrastination or what!
June 2nd, 2005 at 3:03 am
First of all: you don’t need to sign your comments. I don’t think there has been one occasion where I haven’t known it was you ;)
It feels a little like skipping to the back page of The Times (not that I’ve read a newspaper for… hmm, far too long, actually) for Lord Such and Such’s view on [current political event] (I felt like pre-fixing Lord Such with “Screaming” there!). On that topic, every now and again when working at PA I receive calls from similar people—it almost goes without saying that such people are the most friendly and understanding “customers” I receive.
Certainly interesting to read but here’s another question for you: why not set up a blog and talk about these things? Of all of the blog entries I’ve read about the EU constitution (and there are quite a few) not one has come as close as your comment (!) in terms of insight and interest.
June 2nd, 2005 at 3:11 am
well, how do you know i’m not just talking a load of right wing crap pedalled by the BNP, but put in nicer sentences? (although at this time of night…the syntax goes right down the pan, im afraid)...doesnt this newfangled web thingie have a grammar checker…am horrified at some of my above mistakes!
The thought of a ‘DWL blog’ briefly interested me, if only for the amusement value :-p, but a nice suggestion all the same.
June 2nd, 2005 at 3:25 am
You could be doing. Another wonder of the phenomenon that is blogging—there is no way to tell who is telling the truth. At least, not without wading through countless similar topics and making a so-called “informed” decision.
DWL blog sounds good to me. Let me know when you get it sorted so I can add it to my RSS viewer!
Anyway. Back to the graphics notes. My exam isn’t until Friday but I’ve got to get to the Chinese embassy tomorrow to sort out a visa. So far it seems fairly straightforward but I don’t think I can answer any of the exam questions with the information I’ve “learned”.
June 2nd, 2005 at 10:57 am
Every country hasn’t rejected it, in fact there are at least six or seven which have already ratified the treaty, although if I recall correctly only Spain did so through a referendum. If you look at the split it’s mainly between the smaller and poorer countries who have recently joined the EU and the large founding countries who want to keep things working the old way (i.e. loads of subsidies for French farmers, the EU bank in Germany etc.). Oh and then there’s us in Britain who have never been quite as enthusiastic on EU expansion as everyone else is.
BTW, get rid of that damn annoying registration system, or at least let people sign their posts/add their URL in the reply form. It’s annoying having to sign up for an account with every blog I read.
Paul
June 2nd, 2005 at 1:03 pm
I was actually wondering why people weren’t typing a name in. I must have accidentally changed a setting that to prevent entering URL, name, email, etc. I’ll have a quick look now.
June 2nd, 2005 at 1:11 pm
Okay, comments should be sorted now. Sorry about that, not done on purpose ;)