International Policy(4): Maturing Europe
Mark Leonard, director of foreign policy at the Centre for European Reform and author of Why Europe Will Run the 21st Century, says that Europe will survive a French Non. In his article for Foreign Policy he states that "the only thing that will be destroyed by France’s voting no will be its claims to a leadership role within Europe... that moral leadership within Europe will remain out of France’s grasp as long as it is anti-enlargement, anti-American, and anti-change. And the crisis will be in France, not Europe." Any opinions or comments about the French referendum on the EU constitution and it's wider implications? From the online edition of Foreign Policy:
It’s easy to argue that the European Union (EU) has been in a state of crisis since its inception more than 50 years ago. France voted “No” to European defense cooperation in 1954 and vetoed British EU membership in the 1960s. Denmark dealt a blow with its nej to the 1992 Maastricht Treaty and to the single currency in 2000. The Irish rejected the Treaty of Nice in 2001, and the Swedish voted no to the euro in 2003. Yet, somehow, the European project has taken Samuel Beckett’s injunction to heart: If at first you don’t succeed, “Fail, fail again, fail better.” It has emerged stronger from every setback.
Should, as recent polls suggest, the French vote non to ratifying the European Constitution on May 29, there is no reason to imagine the EU won’t emerge from that experience stronger once again. Of course, opinion polls have a tendency to be wrong, and there are hopes in Europe that the pro-constitution lobby will now come out fighting. But even in the event of a Gallic no, the Euroskeptics should not take too much heart. Rather than spelling the end of the European project, this referendum points to an EU that is maturing politically...
What do French voters want from the European Constitution? This Policy Brief by the Federal Trust contrasts the differing public discussion of the European Constitution in France and the United Kingdom. It argues that any interpretation of the Constitution which might make it more acceptable to French opinion would risk making it less acceptable in the United Kingdom. How can you link this to the debate about the Constitution in the Czech republic?
International Policy(3): Vatican Foreign Policy
International Policy(2): United Nations Reform
International Policy(1): Web of Influence
posted by Robert Micallef at 4/27/2005 08:04:00 PM
European constitution
In the 50 years long lasting history of European Union there has not been so controversial document to be approved as is today’s European constitution. After more than year long negotiations a mile stone for an existence of the European Union has come. European Constitution has been given a final appearance. Now it is up to each member state to either go for a plebiscite or to deal with the acceptance and ratification just on parliament level.
Next with voting is coming France and Britain, two countries having different attitudes to concept of EU. The whole EU is now impatiently awaiting their plebiscite results. Since France is one of the cofounders of the whole EU, French “NO” (even thought it wont be as big surprise it) would cause partial troubles inside EU. European leaders would most probably face a question, how to change the constitution to the way it would be acceptable for French. But there is not much place to move in because want is good for France is bad for GB and vice versa. There is in fact no general solution for a negative plebiscite result coming from any member country. Each will be studied individually to see why it was negative. Then a way to a solution will probably follow. It is as well possible that people will try to express their opinion on being in EU and not on accepting the European Constitution. There is still a big minority of unsatisfied people.
There are several scenarios from having 2 Unions, one obliged by the European Constitution and the other not. Or even an exclusion of countries that are not willing to accept the Constitution may happen. Nobody knows right now and the whole problem will be dealt with after the last plebiscite.
I hesitate if to say yes or no to the European Constitution. There are certain facts (like canceling right of veto) that appears to be negative to me. But for example a system of voting (increased power for small countries) is not so bad. I feel that some members are trying to do anything to catch up with United States of America; to be at least as economically powerful as USA. On the other hand they want to have a big “social net” for poor(er) people. It is not possible to have both. You can either have strict rules on open market or be a socially oriented state but you cannot be in such growth as pure capitalistic country. And since there are different opinions inside EU about this, EU can never catch up with USA.
European Constitution
European Constitution it should be an important document or not. Will it destroy European Union?
No it will not. I agree with author of Foreign policy. European Union is like a person, and all presons should grow up. Everything is question of pressure and time. And pressure is not the best way, how to solve problems. And french YES or NO do not play major role in European Union life.
European Union is assembly of people and nations. And also people should decide how strong constitution they want. (Parlaments sometimes dont work for their voters.) European Constitution is quite huge document. It should be basic and clear. That everybody will understand it.
I will suggest to split European Constitution into separate topics´parts. Everyone will vote, which part he wants in European Constitution now. And parts, which pass in all states, will be base of European Constitution.
European Constitution should be for European not for itself.
In the history of EU, France wanted that everything to go by its way and even know this is why the EU is not going on ,and why is not developing more and more. Its all there France, and how France can get more and more, and refusing everything that is not fitting in their program to be the leader of the Europe. For the European constitution France will not be so much pro about it .France forget that European Union is not just about to complete the France goods but it the union of countries that they want to work together for a better future of all these union.
If u see all these u can not be sure to give a o straight opinion about the accepting of the European constitution because we all hope for the mature politic of Europe and how serious they have to take this problem, and to collaborate with each other. If France and UK want both of them can fine them self in Europe Union in liberal os socilly asscpet . We have to admit that even they are two stats who are playing an very important role in the future of Europe so we can not say they are just a small part in EU .
At first, I think European Constitution is huge and really complicated document and weather it will or won’t be in each country accepted should not have been decided by referendum. People cannot exactly understand to this document that is scheduled by specialists and ambassadors and hardly anybody have read it. People might to vote not about European Constitution, but about their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with membership their country in EU. So, my opinion is that about acceptance of European Constitution should decide every country`s parliament.
According to the article above, I mean France should definitely vote yes. If they deny the Constitution, French “NO” could become precedence for other countries, which still have not voted about it and which probably have some serious reservations to the Constitution. France then could become leader to these unsatisfied countries, but there would ensure two deferent parts in EU: those who agree and on the other hand those who disagree with Constitution. This situation can hardly destabilise EU, but it could be once again seen like another question on which EU cannot completely agreed. I think there are too many such a questions in EU and European Constitution might be a trial of harmonisation and unification not only EU legislation, but of the EU policy at all.
The EU constitution is likely one of the most debated topics (not)concerning further EU orientation and driving. Prior to the questions related with French YES or NO, purely opposite idea crossed my mind. Everybody knows that French are about not to adopt the Constitution in plebiscit, and why. We all know about British remarks to that. But who is the one promoting and pushing foreward, the one strongly in favour? Are these corporrations? Certain countries? Or EU Commission, from any reason?
Any coin has two sides, both of them must ever be taken into consideration. Liberal markets doubtlessly bring positive elemets, alike negative ones. On a concrete case, open labour markets, underlying the flexible economies, help to GDP and living standard growth. However, apart from this they increse social tensions within nations and promote nacionalism.
This has happend to France. With purpose to enhance flexibility they strongly opened labour markets, especcialy to previus colonies (Algeria). But Algerians were not able to integrate into the French culture. They created camps or ghettos and were (are) causing huge problems. This idea was also mentioned in the original article, when speaking about "gap between social integration and liberal expansion".
In France's No I see a distinct threat. As was said before, this is one of the first European topics highly disscussd amid common people. It is since they feel chance to influence this process, that was till this time kept out of their reaches, living its own independent life. But if anybody says no (moreover in plebiscite) and Europe despite will be able to find a way, which will get it out of the situation (this is generally perceived to happen), won't it destroy the public believe in the whole project? Won't people say "OK we said NO, but it has changed anything."? In my eyes than the entire Europe project would lose a piece of seriousnes.
Most of the issues of French complaints, have not that much to do with the Constitution. It is not aimed to solve niether Economic governance nor social dumping. Constitution has some new elements but mainly all the issues included are already working somehow in practise. The question that would desire much more concern is, at least in my mind, the veto cancelation. This can reflect in many (perhaps all) areas tackled in EU famework. Some proposals, sooner not acceptable, could now become more plausible.
In Czech Republic, there is almost no debate, or at least the discussion does not stick out from the domestic issues. More place in media is devoted to the President's quarell with EU parliamentary representatives, than to the object of this row, the EU constitution.
By any way, this case will show us how the Europe stands today, as well as it will reveal some from the future.
EU constitution - No made by France
For me European Union is something very important in the history of Europe. It is a good step, that follows very “exciting” aim. Europe is the most partitioned continent on the Earth. So many nations living on the no space at all. Compare it to Africa, America or even Asia and you will see the difference. You can “touch” 10 different cultures driving by car trough the borders in 5 hours. Americans are not able to understand so many borders on our small continent. It is something we can be proud of. We, together, are a group of most developed countries on the Earth, living by each other and we used to fight with each other in places out of Europe /with exceptions like WWI and WWII/ like Africa and Middle East. All the time we respect each other, because we knew, that attack somebody’s else national territory will have huge consequences.
Saying NO from France will stop the leading rule belonged to France. France has the right to get a lots of money for its agriculture, France is with Germany the part of the base treaty that stands by the beginning of EU. I would say, saying NO by France will be next Waterloo. Waterloo for France. Do they want to get one? It can be said: “You cant even imagine the mistake you are making till you made the wrong decision”. France wants to keep its national diversity. Everybody wants it. But I don’t think, that the best solution for the national is to keep the national sovereignty by being less successful in the worlds business. UK is the worlds leader in the bank system, Germany is the worlds leader in industry, Italy is worlds leader in the fashion, Spain is the worlds leader in entertaining, north countries are worlds leaders in crude oil and self phones production. What is France followed by Poland? I think, counties focused on agriculture are very important for Europe, but they mustn´t expect big role on the continent, unless...
In the case the France will say NO to EU constitution I, personally, expect self reflection inside the EU. I expect the bigger role of us, EU-citizens. Because, I see, that for me, as Slovak citizen there is not any more only one government with its headquarter in Bratislava, there is the other one with its headquarter in Brussel. I think, people sitting there are far away for the reality, because they are making decisions about us without us. The best question for the EU is: “Don’t ask how will we, the citizens of EU, vote for the EU constitution, ask how much can we, the EU citizens, influence the text set in, how much do we even understand it”. We all, we hope in the EU unity, we hope in no borders at all, we hope in the new times represented by Brussel. But don’t force us to something, in what we can be easily controllable by ours politicians. I hope, the EU politicians don’t want to be compared by the politicians in our courtiers, the ones we don’t believe and those, whose disappointed us. Isn’t the future NO by France only the answer on the other question as set on the voting list?
Whole Europe inpatiently waiting for the results of French plebiscite. Will it influence people in Czech Republic? My opinion si NO.
The Czech rep. is consider as eurosceptic country and our President is now maybe the most critizied politician in Europe. In spite of these facts, according to enquiry of public meanings, czechs will in EU constitution plebiscit vote YES, if the plebiscite take part (not yet decided).
I read an article about economy in EU and USA from mr. Stiglitz. He said that Europe will never catch up USA unless reduce social system. People in Europe are used to working 35 hours per week, have a lot of holiday and feast-day. People in USA work harder and longer. If we want to catch up USA we will have to change our comfortableness.
And that is the problem of attitudes in France and German. People will not want to give up their social benefits.
Mr. Barosso leading the EU to the right. In most of EU countries election won right wing parties. This means reducing of social system. French attitude to EU constitution reflects fear of loosing their social benefits.
Do you know what?
Did Mr. Klaus ask us about the dividing of Czechoslovakia?
No?
Why is he asking us now?
Hi, boy's & girls.
Well there is an interesting topic.
Of course France one of the leader in the EU, and of course it has a lot of power in his hand and can influence all way of the development of EU, and NO vote of a such member like France cost something, no doubt. But in another hand it’s just a one member from other 25.
Question is if this NO will be another political move of a Paris against other countries or it’s forced action to protect own economy, own citizens and in their face citizens of all European Union.
As I already has mentioned France is leader, and France prepared to any turn more than half other members. And what do we have at the present? We have that this leader is going to say NO. My opinion is that it not political but economical and social move to protect future of France and EU.
And there is a hole in system, which should be closed. So YES or NO doesn’t matter because it is a question of what will happened if such a piece of EU will be against.
The looming upheaval of France rejecting the European constitution is
causing apprehension in the countries of Europe warnings about the future of
the European Union. Here is the deal since France was the center of icon
behind the construction of the EU, so the wrong doing ( NO voting instead)
and the power of founder vote that leads to The French ,this is the year
that the accelerating of the EU to the dead line.
I believe rejection by a founder member of the EU, France, would mark the
fall of Europe. In short ,France rejected the treaty there will be no more
Europe we will see in near future what the majority EU members dreamed of
beating other countries like, USA in the 21st century in economy and power
. In this point I do agree in full with the author. Here is what makes me to
share the fear with the author of ,France Non
In conclusion, the 50 years of up and down with full of crisis of this
Union to reach in agreement and to form strong and united Europe , I as a
person, believe and share with the author its up to the country so called
France. Its single vote will lead the Europeans the strong counter part of
the strongest USA, a word yes.
To Kamil:
Did Mr Klaus ask us about the dividing of Czechoslovakia?
Who wanted to split up? Slovaks. (and it was not just Mr Meciar, was it?.) What was he supposed to ask us? If we wanted the Slovakia to stay with us? That's a nonsense, isn't it? You wanted to split and that was the only thing that mattered. Howgh.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home