Shorttake of my arguments against the constitution.
– The constitution assembly was not elected in a democratic process. The constitution paper was made by elites mostly behind closed doors. There are no alternatives – it is take it or leave it.
– It is simply MUCH too long (and yes, that is an argument – if constituents can not read their constitution in simple short sentences and paragraphs, they will not stand by it. As soon as some “need” comes up to change the constitution, people will not understand what happens because they can not understand the constitution in the first place . This is -longterm- very dangerous as it will be easy to manipulate it).
– The role of the European Parliament is much too small. The role of the buerocracy and national governments is too big.
– Seperation of powers is much too vague
– Where is the “social responsibility of ownership”?
– Only 594 Germans have voted ‘Ja’ on the constitution.
To cite my old law professor K.A. Schachtschneider:

“The Charter fundamentally underestimates liberty: It diminishes the middle-class way of life of citizens, who are allowed insignificant rights to help them endure their subservience. […] The draft is a masked manifesto of globalised capital. […] As a political act the Charter endangers the status of the people and citizens of Europe.”

Europe is century project. What´s the rush? Lets elect a constitutional assembly. Let them prepare alternatives. Let people vote on alternatives. Please France, vote “non”.
C’mon Jérôme, I´ll by you a drink.

Posted by: b | May 26 2005 16:13 utc | 3

i just hope that its not a setback in the strength of the EU. a strong EU is necessary in todays world as a sane voice among the extremes of bush, putin, and others.

Posted by: lenin’s ghost | May 26 2005 16:21 utc | 5

Israel? In the EU? Not anytime soon. Morocco maybe, eventually, but also not soon.

Posted by: Colman | May 26 2005 16:22 utc | 7

Israel and Palestine will join together, eventually. It’s the only way out for both that does not involve war.

For large values of eventually.

Posted by: Colman | May 26 2005 17:31 utc | 9

@Jérôme – – Where is the “social responsibility of ownership”? – what’s that
This is how it is expressed in the current German constitution:

Article 14 (Property, right of inheritance, taking of property)
(1) Property and the rights of inheritance are guaranteed. Their content and limits are determined by the laws.
(2) Property imposes duties. Its use should also serve the public weal.
(3) Expropriation is permitted only in the public weal. It may take place only by or pursuant to law which provides for kind and extent of the compensation. The compensation shall be determined upon just consideration of the public interest and of the interests of the persons affected. In case of dispute regarding the amount of compensation, recourse may be had to the ordinary courts.
Article 15 (Socialization).
Land, natural resources and means of production may for the purpose of socialization be transferred into public ownership or other forms of publicly controlled economy by a law which provides for kind and extent of the compensation. With respect to such compensation Article 14, para. 3, sentences 3 and 4, apply mutatis mutandis.

(imagine KRB making a wholesale bid for EADS – what is your reading on the constitution in this case?)
—
In General:
How can you be more representative and democratic?
By directly electing the constitution assembly – 50% of delegates in direct district votes (first past the pole), 50% in party lists under equal conditions in one day in all countries.
So we live with what exists, and we improve it in small steps. This is a not-so-small improvement.
So how will you improve after this “improvement”. This is supposed to be a constitution – not law 10356 on the maximum size of Whiskey glasses. The constitution, if enacted, can not be changed next year. It is there to stay.
That’s why I demand the highest possible representation. Not a third or fourth level one.
That is also why I demand a SHORT constitution. Something that people can understand and live along. Anything else is just fog to hide the deads of those who are on the lever.

Posted by: b | May 26 2005 18:11 utc | 11

“Are you saying that representative democracy is not democracy?”
I’m saying that, yes. In an age of digital telecommunication, democracy has fallen way, way behind the technological curve. The problem is no longer accessibility as some would have it. The real question is whether or not you trust the common people to act responsibly and in everyone’s best interests. If you do not trust them, you are not an advocate of democracy at all but aristocracy.
The common people may or may not be capable of self-governance; I will not comment on that here, since I am already deviating from the larger topic. I will say, though, that a republic is designed to divorce the class of plebs from the workings of policy. The multitudo are expected to trust their leadership explicitly, whereas the leadership of a republic, in making criminal law, is similarly expected to implicitly distrust the citizens they “represent”. The disconnect that follows is especially evident in the American model. The multitudo feel unqualified to govern themselves and become increasingly apathetic about the political process. The leadership, on the other hand, make the political process increasingly more occult to obscure any transparency in their dealings (which would certainly jeopardise their status as the “elect”). A republic guarantees that the people, who are given the rôle of an unruly and ignorant herd, will become more ovine and the leadership, who are regarded as initiated high priests, will become less transparent and more self-serving. Obviously, the capability of the people to govern themselves can not be gauged in this kind of arrangement and corruption by the self-serving is the inevitable result.
No political decision should ever occur “behind closed doors”. If the uninitiated masses are incapable of understanding the process anyway, then legislation can occur before their very eyes with no detriment to the process. The only reason a “representative” would have to justify a closed session is that they are hiding something which is not in everyone’s best interest. I can not recall who originally said it but democracy is like a plant; it requires light to flourish and can only wither and die if left in the dark.

Posted by: Monolycus | May 26 2005 19:49 utc | 13

there are very few, if any politicians – at the hauteur of the question, unfortunately. there have been interventions by habermas, baudrillard & toni negri for th oui but there has been precious little of grandeur
especially so politcally. though the ‘no’ has some good argument in relation to liberalisation & attack on the poor & disenfranchised – it has not had good spokespeople. as clueless joe sd – in the socialist party – the no is coming either from the corrupt or the pious. devillier, pasqau & le pen say what you would expect them to say – but hunger for the days of vichy – work, family country – & have offered nothing
cohn benit except for his occassional pomposity & know-it-all manner has spoken well & harshly for the less
as i sd i regard u s imperialism as the prinicpal threat of humanity at the moment & i am not the only one – it is reflected in poll after poll after poll – on every continent.
that empire undertands only resoluteness & force
the victory of the no will comfort the comprador class in europe prepared to sleep forever with monsters

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 26 2005 21:23 utc | 15

A French ‘non’ will not be the end of Europe, let alone that of the world. The EU has always been an uncertainty, an unreliable non-force, an undisciplined choir of many voices. Thus, not a monolithic entity at all – and that may turn out to be its main strength. Europe is everywhere and nowhere, hard to pin down and hard to hit.
In the end, everyone knows that we are unified in diversity; history and the millions of dead we have piled up bind us to each other. Let the French speak their non, and let the Brits in particular use it. Nothing new under the sun.

Posted by: teuton | May 26 2005 22:20 utc | 17

anyway .. what’s the deal about a constitution, habeas corpus, and all this crap …

Posted by: Jose Padilla | May 26 2005 23:02 utc | 19

i still think jérôme – had chirac the humility to offer his mandate for sacrifice to clarify matters & for europe – it would have swung the vote towards yes. & it would have been consistent with his reputation after refusin bush, iraq
clearly i dreamt
clearly their own self interest is too great & the people have witnessed that
if he had offered himself tonight – in stead of this exercise in post gaullian pomposity & vanity – his destiny would have been of a man who ‘created’ europe but instead he will be remembered fo his crimes of office – which have been essentially provincial by nature
he coulda been a contender – but no. self evidently no

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 26 2005 23:32 utc | 21

Agenda for a Sustainable Europe — the argument is that the EU Constitution is not a make or break deal, that there are far greater issues on the table. It is lengthy but imho worth a read. one brief excerpt:

In creating such a new democratic ideal, we shall have to debate and define four kinds of distinctions:
1) between areas of economic life that are best continued at today’s high level of technologically driven productivity and those in which ecological and social considerations mandate a return to small-scale or even pre-industrial production units;
2) between decisions best taken at a continent-wide level and those best left to local or regional authorities ;
3) between areas of production and service which, as necessities, no one should be deprived of because of insufficient funds (for example, energy, food, housing, health care, transportation), and those areas that can be left to profit-oriented non-public producers — production and distribution of necessities should be largely removed from corporate ownership and transferred to democratic public control;
4) between harmful and innocuous forms of advertising.

I think these are indeed key issues for debate. It is also interesting that the author takes for granted, in passing, the decline of American hegemony:

Third, the diminution of American global influence is already occurring and will continue, regardless of whether Europe opts for this constitution. Shifts to the Left have occurred in so many South American countries, that the U.S. could not even impose its own man for head of its chosen instrument of imperial control, the O.A.S. Moreover, India, China, Russia and some Latin American states are already finding common ground outside the American hegemony on a number of geopolitical issues, and some believe that it will be easier for European states to join them outside the EU framework than inside.

Needless to say I am in strong general agreement with the author’s critique of energy and agricultural policy and the fundamental physical impossibility of limitless-growth economic theory;

This leads me to my second main point: that, regardless of the fate of the present draft constitution, the response of the Left to this coming collision between neoliberal utopia and material reality must be a program for a fundamental restructuring of our existing industrial society, one which will involve the tradeoff of a better and sustainable social order against a diminution of the amenities and mobilities currently enjoyed by a minority of humankind.

[italics mine] material reality always wins…
anyway, cher J, I am not sure the non vote is historically relevant at this point. however, it is only from thirty years later that we will know what was historically relevant. I wonder if those of us who are still around will consider ourselves lucky or unlucky.
I’m not really back, y’all, just dropping by…

Posted by: DeAnander | May 27 2005 0:11 utc | 23

For me the issues are clear. No matter what the EU constitution says, no matter how social democratic it sounds, it is a means to neoliberalise Europe yet more. In theory it is good that potentially fractious countries are politically and economically tied, but these ties will be at the elite level, where the actual needs and wants of people are always ignored. What is heartening is that people realise this at a gut level, and can see their are being led by the nose by the arrogance of Blair, Chirac, Berlusconi and the rest of them. They are creating a EU-wide business concern with France, Britain, Italy et al as the local franchises. The ‘non’ argument has been comadeered by the right, who push their own xenophobias and sub-fascist agendas. The EU constitution would further alienate the mass of Europeans under mountains layers of rules and clauses and ‘represenatatives’ of whom they know nothing. What to do? Political parties (Greens, maybe) should get off the bandwagon and argue and organise for a truly social democratic Europe, one that is explicity anti-neoliberal and pro- a relevant social democracy that accepts the logic of market mechanisms in appropriate contexts and explicitly social control in others–such as health, education and the distribution of social wealth. Same with the use of ICTs: they are wonderful for many things, but they are not a ‘solution in search of a problem’ as Neil Postman characterised it. I only hope that if their is a ‘non’ vote on Sunday, then it will be followed by a rejection of the parties who campaigned for ‘oui’ and the ‘just leave it to us’ attitude the pervades it.

Posted by: theodor | May 27 2005 1:04 utc | 25

You people need pills: you are seriously depressed.
And you gmac, really need a megadose of pills.
You pay of course. No free lunch.

Posted by: Spanky Ham | May 27 2005 2:00 utc | 27

Pfaff
Because I like the way he reads the problem. Any problem, come to think of it.

Posted by: alabama | May 27 2005 2:40 utc | 29

Jérôme, I think the EU is just experiencing the pains of process common in a federal democracy. Being used to that kind of democracy here in Switzerland, I believe the ‘non’ is not the end of the EU. It is just part of a process – which though uncomfortable is definitely healthy in my opinion. I feel people are to often impatient – the EU has gone a long way in just 50 years. I too have a feeling a new constitution should be way shorter to start with and politicians didn’t really integrate the people in the process of creating the constitution. I know, I know – that would have been another slowing down in writing it, but in the end it would have been faster.
What I think politicians also failed to do, is first of all to present a clear ‘common vision’ of the EU – talking with some Germans and French people from just across the border, most of them do not have a clear picture for what kind of EU this constitution is supposed to build the foundation. They have no idea on how it would affect their daily lives. I think this is an error. It is a natural reaction to vote ‘non’ for something you can not crasp and understand, and thus have an uncomfortable feeling towards.

Posted by: Fran | May 27 2005 4:35 utc | 31

Wow, now this is a convincing reason to vote yes. From the timesonline: Turmoil as Chirac plots to disregard ‘non’ vote

PRESIDENT CHIRAC of France is preparing to throw Europe into confusion and put Britain on the spot by backing moves to keep the European constitution alive if it is rejected in Sunday’s referendum.
French diplomats say that M Chirac is expected to urge other countries to proceed with ratification because France does not want to be seen to be blocking the European project. Any attempt to persuade other countries to go ahead will dash the hopes of those in the British Government who believed that a French rejection would make a British referendum unnecessary.
…
A “no” vote would leave M Chirac seriously weakened. His rival Nicolas Sarkozy, the UMP leader who aspires to become president in 2007, was blaming the Chirac Government’s policies for fuelling the voter rebellion. M Chirac is expected to react to a French “non” by promising to listen to the people before making a second attempt at ratification.
He and other “yes” campaigners have said repeatedly during the campaign that there is no “Plan B” if the treaty is rejected and that there would not be a second referendum.
But one option being discussed in senior diplomatic circles is for candidates in the French presidential election in 2007 to promise to ratify the treaty in parliament rather than by referendum.

So if I understand this article correctly, the motto is – ignore the people. No more referendum, just ratifying it in the parliament. How democratic – guess this will go over well. 🙁

Posted by: Fran | May 27 2005 7:42 utc | 33

jerome, you say you have not yet heard a single rational argument fo vote against the so-called european constitution.
i would recommend that YOU, and indeed all visitors of this forum, take a look at the document. if you are against globalization, against corporate welfare, against further disenfranchisement of the working and productive classes, against power without accountability, against secret services and a police (europol) with powers which would make the gestapo pale of envy, against military adventurism and recolonialization of the 3rd world a la USA, against software patents, against genetically manufactured garbage on your plate, you will have enough rational, objective reasons to vote a big NON against this infamy our unaccountable bureaucracies in brussels want to call a “constitution”.
you people in france at least have the opportunity to vote. we here in austria they probably knew everybody would be against it and decided to ratify it in parliament without further discussion, and after that they condescended to announce that EU subventions for milk products had been cut by half. assholes.
mon reccommendation por mes amis francaises: VOTEZ NON A LA INFAMIE !
and, of course
JOSE BOVE FOR PRESIDENT OF FRANCE !
to look at the constitution, look here,
http://european-convention.eu.int/
french version
http://europa.eu.int/constitution/index_fr.htm
english version:
http://europa.eu.int/constitution/index_en.htm
or write your MEP to send you the document (and tell them – politely – to go to hell).

Posted by: name | May 27 2005 10:39 utc | 35

Thanks name. There’s nothing quite like a reasoned objection to something to put things into context.

Posted by: Colman | May 27 2005 10:48 utc | 37

I too thought Chirac might have made a grand gesture. But no.
The largish % of NO votes predicted is also the outcome of muddled, devious and secret international politics. The EU leaders are paddling in a sea of hypocrisy and have not even vaguely spelt out the key issues for the coming 10 years: energy, agriculture, (etc.), how to contain but keep alive the US, what to do about Africa, how to deal with China. Amongst others.
Not new, naturally – a question of degree, coupled with the fact that the mega issues are slowly becoming linked to micro issues on the ground, and these can no longer be anchored to general political or ideological options in one stable and somewhat circumscribed society, even though many (perhaps particularly in France) tend to act as if this were still the case. (E.g. just one minor point: delocalisations and new EU countries or China, etc.)
In this ‘have your cake and eat it too’ way clarity and focus are lost, there are too many covert agendas, too many unspoken strategies, and the Constitution ends up a rambling mess rife with unhappy or even useless compromises. (e.g. about buying property in Malta!)
A more pragmatic problem – as I see it from Switzerland, where we vote in the coming days on the Schengen / Dublin accords – is that the nationalist stance (in the sense of group cohesiveness and common aims) has been appropriated more efficiently by the Right, particularly its populist, neo-con or even fascistic wing, than the left, who continues to be wary of such messages and cannot construct any kind of novel grip or spin on their supposedly universalist and internationalist message. Damn the softie lefties – they are more hypocritical than anyone else. (Hum. Say. My personal disapointment…)
I believe it is crucial for the French to vote YES, but I am not going to waste my breath or fingers here, parly because of all the cogent NO arguments above.
Hopefully, this will just be a minor blip and the EU will adjust.
———
bl*ck** is now: Noirette

Posted by: Noirette | May 27 2005 14:13 utc | 39

Noirette, it finally clicked in my brain, as to who you are – up to now I always read your name as noisette. 🙂

Posted by: Fran | May 27 2005 14:51 utc | 41

i have & will support the oui becauce i think the threat from us imperialism is both real & present
i have never believed in exceptionalism. i think everything is possible. hardened as i am i would have never imagined the empire would do what it has done in the last ten years & especially those under reichsführer bush
many europeans underestimate the threat – i think wanting to believe things will return back to normal – a legal & moral leadership will return to the us. all the facts would say otherwise
even this recent collaboration over judges proves the strength of the right & not their weakness. karl rove & whoever pays him are having their perfect world
they will within the year have complete & total control of the judiciary. the patriot act & the elaborations of it will be well hidden by murdoch but will become more concrete, none the less
the legislature is almost unredeemable & not even an obama or a boxer can change that
europe is then confronted with an imperial power – that will do all in its power to destroy europe. it is ion the empire’s interest to do so. as cloned poster sd what the u s wants is clients & not competitors & they want clients to shut the fuck up
i am frightened for europe but i am much more frightened for americans who must live under the coming & present realities of the american dictatorship
as i’ve sd there is many good & solid criticism in the no – but they underestimate the threat of the empire – they are in my mind deeply underestimating that threat
if the ‘no’ wins – we will see much quicker than expected the division within europe being widened by the efforts of the american empire
old europe can be very confused but she has within her – the honor of humanity because she has understood its shame

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 27 2005 21:11 utc | 43

To me, the French’s center-left refusnikism on the treaty is just absolutely asinine.
What do they expect is going to happen? The no vote just about guarantees the continued ascendance of the “liberal Anglo-Saxon” bogeyman, what with Angela Merkel all but in power in Germany. Where is the great will for “social Europe”? Indeed, the very same French public could well vote in Sarkozy in 2 years.
These non voters need to get their heads out of their collective asses. I don’t think France, Germany, et al. necessarily needs the kind of radical Thatcherite prescription that some on the continental right and in much of the British chatting classes say they need to swallow. But they do need to think seriously about the plusses and minuses of the current system, and that having a structural unemployment rate of 10% might in fact now be necessary if one doesn’t want to make the labor markets more flexible and privatize at least some of the state run enterprises. Additionally, the ECB needs to get a clue and instigate a looser monetary policy. Cut interest rates, let the Euros’ value slide. Loosen the rigid Bolkenstein directives and let Germany and France indulge in some good old Keynesianism.
So what do I recommend to France?
-Vote “oui”
– relax Bolkenstein
– have the ECB cut interest rates
– break the power of the public sector/white collar unions
– privatize prudently
Its either this or something much more radically right wing.

Posted by: Ben P | May 27 2005 23:03 utc | 45

The length of the constitution, as submitted to French voters, is about 80 pages including transitory disposition. The rest of the document is protocols and additional declarations on fringe issues (nuclear power plants in the former Eastern bloc, oil refining in the Dutch caribbean, etc.)

Posted by: Submarine | May 29 2005 16:08 utc | 47