Posted on 06/02/2005 7:56:39 AM PDT by SmithL
OUR BETTERS in Europe learned two new words this week: non and nee.
In soundly rejecting a proposed European Union constitution, French and Dutch voters told EU bureaucrats in Brussels they don't like what they see.
When the French voted non, Eurocrats announced that the French vote wouldn't change anything -- despite a rule that required all EU countries to support the new constitution before it takes effect. No doubt they figured the French Parliament could step in and vote the right way, so the people's vote wouldn't count. Now, with two countries saying "no," and the Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende pledging to respect the popular vote, no might actually mean no.
From the get-go, ratification was supposed to be a done deal. Nine countries dutifully approved the pact.
Figure that pro-EU French President Jacques Chirac never considered that he actually had to sell the constitution to his constituents. After all, it was the voters' duty to cede to their leaders' better judgment, n'est-ce pas?
Yes, there had been grumblings from the voters, but for years the Eurocrats successfully had ignored them. Reasonable fears that unfettered immigration could depress wages in established economies or tear their social fabric? Anxiety over how the admission of Turkey to the EU might open the door to new immigrants who oppose Dutch or French values? Calls, when the document was being drafted, that the new charter recognize Europe's Judeo-Christian roots? Eurocrats turned a deaf ear to all such suggestions.
After all, Brussels knew best. It didn't need to listen to the European electorate.
At least not until it was too late. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Sheesh, the document is only 200+ pages of bureaucratic double speak. What's so hard to sell?
Debra has written a column here that is more than mere paycheck words. This is hugely insightful! She has lassoed and served up piping hot, under transparent glass, the exact crucial issue: that business about "well-established fact" (i.e., the academic/left-leaning-politicians' witch doctrine, the all-wise, all-knowing) has been exposed and rudely challenged by the little boys (the ones who saw that the emperor was stark-naked).
I mean, when a lady sees it as clearly as it is, you've got to give her some love.
1) Russia was a backward and primitive place. The Czarist system was moving into the modern world too slowly, was hanging on to outmoded ideas and did not fully appreciate the importance of liberty and democracy as embraced by more advanced nations.
2) The Ottoman Empire was the Sick Man of Europe and was in even worse shape. Basically stuck in the Middle Ages, the Turkish Empire was clearly an anachronism.
Now it is 2005. What was once true only of the 2 most pitiful regions of Europe is now true of the whole continent. Socialism was a dead-end and they now have a lot of ground to make up.
I doubt it. The Dutch and British will probably respect the choice of their people but I predict most of the continental European nations will find ways to weasel around any and all obstacles. European Elites have staked everything on an all powerful united Europe. Europe isn't likely to let a thousand year history of top down decision making be upset by a mere vote.
Tower of babel collapse alert!
So very, very true. The scary thing is that I just can't see the European Elite leadership admitting they have created a monster. Someone, somewhere will have to be at fault. Who do you think they'll blame?
???
France and Germany insisted on dominating Europe. However, with high unemployment and a 20% decline in GNP over the last ten years, they are not in a great position to be dictating to others who are doing a lot better, economically.
Parliamentary approvals:
Austria Germany Greece Hungary Italy Latvia Lithuania Slovakia Slovenia
Voter approvals:
Spain
Voter rejections:
France Netherlands
In France, 96% of their parliamentary representatives are from parties who urged approval. I don't know about Netherlands in this respect.
Readers of this column are familiar with my frequent use of the phrase "Our Betters in Europe." I don't use the term to denigrate Europeans, but instead to mock those -- European, American and the occasional U.S. Supreme Court justice -- who suggest that Americans should look to European elites for their superior judgment in foreign policy or criminal justice matters.
Now, it is clear that our Betters in Europe may be, as their acolytes suggest, Better Than We Are. But get this: Even Europeans don't bow to them.
Thank you.
"Europe Europe... Why do you spend words about it?"
Because the elite leaders of Europe believe in it regardless of what the people think. That's why so many of these votes are taking place in parliments and not by popular referendum. Parliments are much easier to control.
If you actually read through the document, as most Europeans haven't, you will find that it sets up a European-wide government and powerful court system, with a single foreign policy (They already control the money). This sounds to me like a pan-European government, denials to the contrary.
I have heard comments like yours several times that there is no such thing as Europe and am curious:
If Italians believe "Europe" doesn't/shouldn't exist, why are they allowing "Europe" to be created? A read of your new constitution (I believe Italy ratified) will demonstrate this. Read it to see just what powers Italy is giving up to Brussels.
Either Europeans with this belief are being fooled or they are being foolish in the face of ample evidence that your politicians are trying to set up a pan-European government.
I think it is tongue in cheek!
This is NOT my costitution!! Italy ratifield, but now it doesn't care. France said no and the bill did't pass. (Thank you France).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.