Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Netherlands: Nee
According to exit polls, the Dutch have rejected the proposed EU constitution by a landslide.
|6.1.05 @ 3:57PM|#
Are there any other referenda scheduled?
Anyone keeping score on EU referenda? I remember Norway voted "No"
several years ago on the question of whether to join, and didn't
Denmark reject the Euro? What countries have held referenda and
have actually supported the EU?
Meanwhile, Switzerland and Iceland are in no hurry to join. Where
do the tiny countries of Andorra, Liechtenstein, San Marino, and
Monaco stand?
|6.1.05 @ 3:57PM|#
Great news! The Anti-Christ, the reformed Roman Empire and the mark of the beast has been put off for a later day.
|6.1.05 @ 4:27PM|#
Since this is Europe we're talking about, will these no votes
lead to the rest of the EU countries invading and enslaving the
Dutch and Franch?
Which side would the US intervene on?
|6.1.05 @ 4:37PM|#
We'd be on the side of the Dutch and French, of course -- because we like the Dutch and we'd like to rub French noses in the fact that we bailed them out again.
|6.1.05 @ 4:39PM|#
We'd sell arms to Europe, then 10 years later decide that a united Europe poses a threat to our security, or Andorra would find oil or something and we'd invade to liberate France, at massive expense and with questionable success. Meanwhile, the French still wouldn't appreciate us. On the bright side, they would be much too busy taking 6-week vacations to plan any insurgent attacks.
|6.1.05 @ 4:46PM|#
Maybe they were holding out a shrubbery...a nice one, but not
too expensive...
JSF
|6.1.05 @ 4:48PM|#
A good rule of thumb is to choose the most evil, not
specifically anti-American group on the scene, and assume that
we'll be supporting them.
Look for a National Review article describing that Belgian
pedophile ring as "entrepreneurial freedom fighters."
|6.1.05 @ 5:02PM|#
The only way to bring order to Europe and end these voter
insurgencies is to have a strong leader take control.
The Lady of the Lake should hand her sword to whoever is currently
in charge in Brussels, signifying by Divine Providence that the
French and Dutch are to submit to the EU.
|6.1.05 @ 5:05PM|#
Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of continental government. Supreme executive power comes from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. Why, if I went around claiming I'm the Chairman of the European Commission just because some moistened babe lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me a away in a state-funded psychiatric hospital and give me subsidized meds.
drf|6.1.05 @ 5:12PM|#
"Anyone keeping score on EU referenda? ..."
norway voted no to joining in 1995. Austria, Sweden, Finland, and
Norway were on the docket to vote in 1994. They held the referenda
in order they thought most likely to say "ja", so to encourage the
other countries to follow.
Austria went first in June of 1994, Norway went last.
denmark voted no on the maastricht treaty in 1992, but ratified
"maastricht lite" where it opted out of several parts, including
the euro.
ireland voted down the treaty of nice in 1998(?) but it was
resubmitted and they ratified it.
Remember that PM Thatcher pushed the Single Europe Act (SEA)
through in 1986, which paved the way for Maastricht and the
formation of the EU. She was fairly gung-ho in favor. See
Brugesgroup.com for her current view.
those votes are different from this, the ratification of the
constitution. the previous referenda were for treaties that further
defined the compentencies within the EU.
the "actually supported the EU" sentiment is a misunderstanding of
what the EU is trying to do. Many people I know in Denmark are
dissatisfied with the EU, but don't see a better alternative. I
know lots of people who want the EU to be the donkey that pulls the
apple cart in the world, and they like the idea of being a
superpower. So there are lots of motivations and reasons that
people are for.
Also, I feel that much of the economic justifications could be
accomplished through other means, and that the EU is mainly a
social-political entity. GG disagrees with me rather strongly on
this one. Matt Welch has also a slightly different POV. I recommend
his "two cheers" article to see his. I disagreed with the article,
for the most part.
As for ratification:
germany, lithuania, Austria, Slovenia, Slovakia, Hungary, Italy,
and Greece have ratified the constitution through their national
parliaments. Cyprus, Malta, Latvia, Estonia, Sweden, and Finland
are expected to submit the constitution to a vote in their
parliaments between now and early 2006 (Finland).
Luxembourg, Denmark, Portugal, Ireland, UK, and the Czech republic
will be holding referenda, probably between now and june 2006
(tentative date of Cz). The results of the referenda are binding in
Dk, Port, Pol, Ire, and Cz. It is not binding in Ned, for
example.
The major parties said they would respect the vote if turnout were
high enough, and if the result were decisive. It appears that both
(around 63% each) are. Their parliament takes this up in the
fall.
Fianlly, for those who think that "defeat of the constitution =
positive for US interests" should think again. This is a left-wing
derailment in france, in part. Although there are tons of issues
afoot, and this is a complex issue. So those opposed don't appear
to be doing it for the "anti big, bureaucratic giant" reasons.
Rather, the opposite is at play, it seems.
Initial breakdown of the voting revealed that reasons for voting
"non" included (more than one option chosen):
Current economy (52%)
the constitution was "too Liberal" (40%)
potential ascention of Turkey (35%) (given as #4)
Demographics:
"People in leadership positions" returned 65% oui
while
Workers (unionized, "laborers") 80%
Farmers 70%
18-24 year olds 56% (unemployment, probably).
Race (Turkey) and religion (Islam) play a role here. In my
experience of living in Austria and Denmark, those topics were
taboo, but the "social conscious" was analogous to the US in the
late 50s, with a very well defined "them and us". Among preppies in
each society, racist jokes that would be inappropriate in similar
circles here were still being made (i moved back from denmark in
1999, but heard several jokes back then. i don't want to rule out
change since then, and i'm not saying that this is how it "really"
is).
either: thanks for reading, or sorry for the long post.
have a great evening, all.
drf
R C Dean|6.1.05 @ 5:27PM|#
A good rule of thumb is to choose the most evil, not
specifically anti-American group on the scene, and assume that
we'll be supporting them.
Based on our long history of supporting evil just for the hell of
it. Gosh, if we had only thrown in with the Nazis and the Soviets
and the Chicoms instead of with their enemies, what a jolly place
the world would be today.
But nooo, we had to go thwarting the totalitarian imperialists time
and again. Goddam Americans.
|6.1.05 @ 5:53PM|#
The EU should climb into a giant wooden rabbit, wait until the
guards are asleep, climb out and unlock the gates, and then storm
the castle...
Perhaps they should build a giant wooden badger...
JSF
|6.1.05 @ 5:53PM|#
This is a good thing. A plan for REALLY BIG GOVERNMENT is being
crushed.
drf, Thanks for the info!
thoreau, Shouldn't you really be polishing your thesis defense? :)
Good luck with it!
drf|6.1.05 @ 6:03PM|#
hi Rick!
good luck thoreau.
(send word about how you did. we're cheering for you!)
kind regards,
drf
|6.1.05 @ 6:04PM|#
It seems like the EU wasn't pushing a constitution like any
other ever enacted. The basic fundamentals of a government should
fit on a single page and be understandable to all the people (even
if disagreed with).
An analogy that I think fits is that this would be the equivalent
of proposing the entire United States Revised Code instead of the
Constitution and Bill of Rights we know.
I think this is why you see so many different motivations for
turning a thumbs down.
|6.1.05 @ 6:10PM|#
Rick-
Just at the tweaking stages right now. And I'm trying to readjust
my sleep schedule this week so I can be lucid for my 9:30 am
defense this Friday.
|6.1.05 @ 6:18PM|#
drf- When they say they rejected it because it's "too liberal," do they mean the good kind of liberal or the contemporary liberal?
|6.1.05 @ 7:25PM|#
he means the good kind of liberal. Many French were concerened the EU Constitution was too skewed towards anglo-like ideas such as competition and open markets.
|6.1.05 @ 8:04PM|#
GWPULP,
Here's a map that sums up the referenda results and schedule:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EU_Constitution_Ratification_Map.png
drf|6.1.05 @ 8:21PM|#
hi Shem:
what Scott said.
good kind. "classical" or Manchester Liberal.
anglo saxon philosophy (JS Mill, CS Pierce "Purse", etc.)
and can you believe that criticism? those early exit polls (from:
derstandard.at) said 40% of nay sayers cited that, among other
objections!
cheerio.
|6.1.05 @ 8:40PM|#
"Actually, we did throw in with the Soviets and Chicoms for
several years..."
Yes, back when they weren't specifically anti-American.
There there, RC.
|6.1.05 @ 10:08PM|#
It better be, that and prostitution too. I should be there in 2 months, and without weed and prostitutes I'll just be stuck with absinthe, windmills, and raw herring. Now that I think about it, that still sounds far nicer than Ohio (minus the raw herring).
|6.1.05 @ 10:17PM|#
Perhaps the EU should be constituted as an anarcho-syndicalist commune. Every citizen could take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decisions of that officer would have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting -- by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more --
|6.1.05 @ 10:50PM|#
It better be, that and prostitution too. I should be there
in 2 months, and without weed and prostitutes I'll just be stuck
with absinthe, windmills, and raw herring. Now that I think about
it, that still sounds far nicer than Ohio (minus the raw
herring).
You'll need to use that herring to cut down the mightiest tree in
the forest.
|6.2.05 @ 12:19AM|#
Thanks for the clarification, Scott and drf. It's that attitude that makes me wonder if they'll ever move away from their statism. I can't forsee the problems brewing doing anything other than pushing them closer to their state-controlled everything.
|6.2.05 @ 2:03AM|#
Drf:
Thanks for the summary. It appears that when put to a vote, the EU
(or its predecessor treaties) isn't as popular as some would have
us believe. On the other hand, I'm not sure that the US
constitution would pass if we were to put it to a vote today, so
it's not like a "No" vote in Europe automatically casts a shadow on
the various EU treaties and constitution.
Crimethink:
Nice map! Thanks!
MP|6.2.05 @ 8:42AM|#
I'm not sure that the US constitution would pass if we were
to put it to a vote today
That is a chilling, albeit honest, sentiment. I hesitate to think
of a Constitution that the current US electorate would agree
on.
R C Dean|6.2.05 @ 9:52AM|#
"Actually, we did throw in with the Soviets and Chicoms for
several years..."
Ah, but only when it was consistent with the overriding principle
of opposing the most malignant totalitarian empire in view (in
those cases, the Nazis and the Japanese)(Not sure how much we
supported the Chicoms - I think we tended to ally more with the
Nationalists against the Japanese, anyway).
See, fellas, its all about context. From a narrow, anti-American
view, it is easy to carp about what the Americans have done on the
world stage, but only by editing the context to eliminate the
strategic goals and enemies of the Americans (see also Chomsky,
Noam). When you factor in the overriding, consistent goals and
enemies that America has had, well, all of a sudden things look a
little different, no?
|6.2.05 @ 10:43AM|#
It's amusing to see Americans applauding the demise of the EU constitution as the defeat of some sort of evil big government. If the French or German governments tried to Join Bush's military adventure in Iraq, popular protests would bring them down. The American big government does pretty much anything it wants with barely a peep from the sheep. Invasion, occupation, torture? Pass me the sports page.
|6.2.05 @ 11:06AM|#
RC, just so I'm clear, we're going with "the Nazis were worse
than the Soviets" for this thread?
But as for your larger point - failing to see the forest for the
trees is a weakness. But failing to see the trees for the forest is
one, too.
gaius marius|6.2.05 @ 11:26AM|#
we had to go thwarting the totalitarian imperialists
i like mr dean's version of history so much better than what really
happened. we're always the good guys! yay!
gaius marius|6.2.05 @ 11:45AM|#
It's amusing to see Americans applauding the demise of the
EU constitution as the defeat of some sort of evil big
government.
and difficult to understand, mr alan. schadenfreude for american
imperialists and machiavellians, i suppose, who somehow see
themselves as "small government" -- but from a economic
perspective, the eu promises to be the economic betterment of a
multitude of large american trading partners. as a pragmatic
matter, a successful eu helps ensure a successful american future.
moreover, a powerful eu could materially help police the western
hegemony -- perhaps saving america from the bankruptcy which is a
consequence of imperial militarism. only those reductive-darwinian
idiots who would hope for a future of perpetual war to prove
American Superiority can imagine the retrogression of the eu as a
good thing.
universal states may be inevitable constructs but don't have a
radiant future, as toynbee noted -- something we americans should
acknowledge as we continue to drop the 'states' from the 'united'.
but this is a setback all around, i fear, because of the reform a
european confederacy might have allowed -- and largely because of
some nationalist demagoguery before inherently selfish
electorates.
|6.2.05 @ 2:05PM|#
That a segment of the American right sees all government as evil is not surprising. What is surprsing, for me at least, is the ease with which Americans become flag-waving chauvinists when their government launches a military action and how they greatly fear "socialized" medicine. Americans seem to love government only at its worst. The core of American culture harbors a profound irrationality, I'm afraid. It's not schadenfreude; it's just an observation.
gaius marius|6.2.05 @ 2:32PM|#
The core of American culture harbors a profound
irrationality, I'm afraid. It's not schadenfreude; it's just an
observation.
a fundamental truth of all democratic electorates, i'm afraid, but
particularly now the american one. decades of an imperial "twilight
standoff" have taken their toll in paranoia and militarism, as has
the rapid advance of what toynbee would call the 'syncretic
promiscuity' of nietzschean philosophy and protestant
pietism.
|6.2.05 @ 2:47PM|#
I think the Economist has it about right: The economicu union
promoted by the EU has, on balance, been a liberalizing force. Yes,
there are real problems with it, but on balance it has moved Europe
in a more liberal direction (in the best sense of the word).
However, the proposed EU Constitution would change
the character of the EU from a union that (mostly) knocks down
barriers into even more of a continental government, and a
government that starts off bloated right from the start. Yes, all
governments get bloated over time, but some at least start off
lean, and the leaner they start the longer it (usually) takes to
get fat.
drf|6.2.05 @ 3:05PM|#
thoreau:
i disagree. if you're looking for reasons, i feel the fall of the
berlin wall and the rapid convergence of the eastern countries
(incuding their need to reach out to non-protected markets, like
the US; or their need to go into high tech etc.) shows more promise
for liberal forces in europe than the "liberalizing force of the
EU".
check out the treaty of the EC and you'll find a myriad of social
guarantees, too. i'd say there's a 1:1 increase. and fundamental
features of protectionism, for example, forbidding of certain
selling arrangements are still permitted.
the economist is one of those pro EU rags in the Matt Welch form,
and I disagree with the fundamentals of their arguments. GG and I
have discussed this, too.
As for Alan's comments, i'd say that he shouldn't confuse those of
us who are against super government and those who are for it when
it's our side. that's a fundamental difference between libertarians
and republicans. and this post 9/11 ultra nationalism, which i
would describe as "new", certainly revels in the "failure" of the
constitution. as i said yesterday, enemies of big gov't shouldn't
cheer this failure, as it was a victory of the left wing.
and i guess we're maturing: we're starting to act like the
europeans with the cut-off-our-hand-if-you-lose-your-balls
mentality.
good luck tomorrow, thoreau!
cheers,
drf
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245