Posted on 05/30/2005 4:18:09 PM PDT by nwrep
Even though well forecast, the French rejection of the EU constitution is stunning.
It throws the future direction of the European Union into doubt.
That it should be France which has dealt this blow is the real shocker.
France has been at the heart of the post-war construction of Europe.
It has been the mover and shaker. Now it has certainly done a bit of shaking.
The original agreement by France and Germany to pool the raw materials of war, iron and steel, was the idea of far-sighted Frenchmen like Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman.
They realised that three wars between the two countries since 1870 was enough and that Europe now required co-operation not confrontation.
The Coal and Steel Community grew into the Common Market, then into the European Community and finally into the European Union.
Good deal
When I went as a reporter to Brussels in 1982, French thinking absolutely predominated. It soon became obvious that when the French said that something was "good for Europe", they also meant that it was good for France.
Something is rotten in the state of Europe
The working language was French. The Commission spokesman spoke only in French and an attempt by the many non-European correspondents to get at least a translation into English was blocked on the grounds that this would "discriminate" against other languages.
Not that the Commission cared much about communication - it was too lofty.
Indeed the concept of the Commission as the guiding force of Europe was very much a French one. Here was a powerful, unelected civil service which actually had the sole power of proposing legislation. It still does in fact.
France had Germany, still racked with guilt, at its beck and call and the Germans poured vast sums into the budget, most of which went to farmers and much of it to French farmers. That was the deal. In exchange, the Germans got access to a common market for their manufactures. It worked pretty well.
So to have the French now saying a decisive "No" to the constitutional treaty is not only important. It is fundamental.
Options
This is not like Britain saying "No". That would be a problem. This is a crisis.
It means that something is rotten in the state of Europe.
The institutions of the EU have got ahead of the peoples of the EU.
European heads of state and government will creep to Brussels on 16 June to try to pick up the pieces. On 1 July, the British government takes over the EU presidency for a six-month stint and will be in the interesting position of having to come up with ideas.
There is no Plan B. All the constitutional treaty says about this situation is buried away in Article IV-443-4.
It states: "If, two years after the signature of the treaty amending this Treaty, four-fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council."
The two years is up on 29 October 2006.
There is no clear way forward. For the moment, the EU will stagger on under existing treaties.
It is possible that some bits of the constitution could be picked out and put together in a modest bundle - a more permanent presidency for example, rather than the everyone gets a turn principle which operates at the moment.
Future unclear
But more systemic plans, like an extension of majority voting and a change in the definition of a majority, will have to be put aside, for now.
And more broadly, Europe will not really know how or even whether it intends to act together in the future.
Does it want to forge a closer union or does it want to remain a looser collection of nation states?
To judge from the way it has failed to resolve this tension in the past, it is likely to continue somewhere in the middle.
The vision of Jean Monnet for a "United States of Europe" is not going to be realised. The EU is now far too big for such a project. And the French vote even casts doubt as to how big the EU will become.
There are grave implications in this vote for the accession of Turkey which featured in some of the hostile arguments against the constitution.
Talks with Turkey are due to start on 3 October. These talks could last for several years.
And right now, nobody knows what kind of Europe Turkey might one day join.
How curious that the countries of Eastern Europe are now the ones advocating OPEN markets, much to the dismay of "Old" Europe, which is still trying to perfect the socialist pipe dream by imposing it in every nook and cranny of society and culture.
Perhaps Chirac is trying to play Napoleon. Recall his arrogant, snide statement, "They lost a perfect opportunity to remain silent," uttered when Poland offered its support to President Bush in the war in Iraq.
Obviously, when a socialist "man" speaks, REAL men must fall silent in the presence of "superior intellect," HAHAHA.
Does the council have the authority to order it enacted, anyway?
Russia has much to learn from the European experience - and not only Russia but the rest of the world. But there is a big difference! The emerging Russian states that rose from the ashes of the old USSR is not fired up with same ultra-nationalism that motivates the individual European nations that comprises the present day Federation of United Europe. The Americans was the first nation in history to successfully put up a federal government and the American experience was widely copied in the constitutions of the world during the last two centuries. But a federation form of government is totally a new concept of government in world politics and in this respect, Europe leads and has much to teach the world. The difference between a federal government and a federation is the degree of control the federal government has over the member states. Generally, a federal government exercises a greater degree of control over the state government than a federation. In a federation, the exact opposite prevails. In a federation, the federal government has a much less degree of control over the state governments than a federal government. In a federation, the principle of equality of all member states is the most overriding concern. How unity could be achieved when each of the member states in a federation are completely sovereign and are endeavoring to increase such sovereignty and independence as the decades pass by is the principle problem of a government organized under the aegis of federationalism. In a federal government it is generally conceded that the federal government is supreme over the state government although the state government is given wide latitude to conduct its affairs independently in accordance with the Constitution.
Although Russia has much to learn from the European experience, the situation in Russia is vastly different from the situation in Europe. The Russian Constitution, in my opinion, is adequate for the needs of the entire former Russian empire.
Interesting comments bump! (Thanks for posting)
They're gonna try. Cant you just feel it coming?
Flyover regions of the world unite!
The United States tried the "federated states" concept with the "articles of confederation" which preceded our constitution. It was obvious that a simple confederation of member states would not survive and would have fallen easily to the British, French even the Spanish if they had only the time and determination to test it. In short we're lucky to be here at all.
Yup. I question all the blah blah coming out of France about the reason for the vote. I think there was a lot more going on than just anti-English, anti-Market sentiment, anti-Turkish.
Remember how filtered the news is in France. It's even worse than in the heyday of the old media here. So what we are hearing is the official line about why there was a no vote. I trust the official line in France even less than I trust it here.
I can feel it in the air. After all, it's not a democracy we're talking about here. It's the EU
Perhapse the french are tired of their constant stand for nothingness.
This is a devastating blow to Chirac and the Eurocrats, and there's no way to spin it otherwise.
What I want to know is why has this come as a shock? The French say no to everything, it doesn`t matter what it is. "Monseir, would you like a million dollars?" NO! "Do you know what time it is?" No! And that`s if you can even finish the sentence.."Monseir, do you.." No! Have they ever said yes to anything? Normany doesn`t count because the Germans ran France, but considering how France treated the US afterwards I would say they even said no to that!
Best thing France could do is swear allegiance to the Queen, and become an English speaking colony.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Pail of depression. Is that where they cry 'buckets' over this?
the United States of Europe is finished. What is left is the European Union Club for Effete EuroSocialist Elites.
There is a big difference between the "federated states" as practiced by the American Continental Congress and the federated states as currently found in the Constitutions of United Europe and Russia. The federated states in the Constitution of the American Continental Congress tried to reduce the role of the Federal Government to a mere debating society, not a real government with actual powers. The Federation of the United Europe and Russia possesses actual powers and these governments are not reduced to a role of a debating society. The difference is the manner in which the federal government of Russia and Europe possesses their declared powers. Attaining powers in a federation is extremely complicated procedure which is so hard to understand unless you are an expert in legal theory.
The legal framework of the present day United Nations follows the principle of the American Continental Congress. The United Nations is just a debating society not a real government. The real power really belongs to the individual member states of the United Nations.
The reason why the Americans choose this kind of government arrangement is because of the fear of the American republic sliding into despotism. Prior to the establishment of the American government, all republics just fell into despotism. There was no successful republican government at that time. The ancient Greeks were the first to practice democracy, but an objective study of ancient Greek history showed that these Greek republican states were gravitating between democracy and despotism just like what is happening in the present day South American republics. As a way to strengthen democracy, the early American constitutionalist argued that keeping the federal government weak is the best way to maintain democracy.
When the present-day American constitution was finally ratified replacing the Continental Congress, proponents of this Constitution said that the present-day arrangement of strengthening the federal government was the best way of maintaining democracy in the American states. This was the theme of the Federalist Papers, a book that explained the theoretical background of the American Constitution.
The prediction of the Founding Fathers of the American Constitution proved to be true. Not once did any of the American states or the federal government slide into despotism during the more than 2 centuries since the Americans experimented with the concept of the Federal Government in their republic.
When the Russians launched her Constitution, they had no hard time convincing the member states to ratify their proposed Constitution. There is now a Constitution that governs the Federation of Russia and this Constitution was ratified by all the members of this federation.
However, in the Federation of Europe, the ratification of the Constitution of United Europe is facing rough waters. At present date, only 9 members have chosen to ratify the Constitution. The French vote represents the first instance in which one member state of the Federation of Europe has refused to be governed under this Constitution.
Why is the Federation of Europe facing rough waters while the Federation of Russia is trailing on smooth waters since the present Constitution of Russia was ratified easily by all the member states belonging to this federation?
The answer lies in the nature of a federal government in particular and the nature of federalism and federationalism in general. Proponents of the concept of a federal government argue that the federal government is the best government for all nations to adopt since the local government officials will have more power to act on local concerns that a national government. Governments like the Philippines or Greece are organized under a national government. In Greece as well as in the Philippines, there is only one national legislature and one judiciary and one executive branch of government. The government of these countries are not divided into several states which their own respective executive, legislative and judicial branch of government.
Yet in spite of these obvious advantages that a federal government offers to a nation, only 10 per cent of the governments in the world are organized under a federal type of government. The majority of governments in the world subsist under the national type of government in which there is only one executive, legislative and judicial authority.
What is the most important factor that decides whether a government should choose a national government type of governance rather than a federal government? The answer lies in the degree of local autonomy that the people desire residing in a common territory within a state. When the people residing in regions comprising a state do not inordinately desire local autonomy, then the best form of government for that state is the national government type of government.
The issue of federalism has been amply discussed in the American public debates. Many people feel that the federal government dominates American politics too much and the American states have been reduced to mere provinces as found in national government types of governances. The question is how to increase the powers of the state government. In fact, the administration of President Reagan was dedicated to increasing the power and scope of the state governments.
Yet informed observers have repeatedly pointed out that the most important factor in federalism is the constituency. How much does the constituency in a particular region desire local autonomy. For federalism to function well, the people must desire local independence. Without this desire for local independence by the local population, no federalism is ever possible. For as long as the people in a state are happy in the way the national government runs their nation and do not desire more local autonomy, the best government for that nation is the national type of governance in which there is only one executive, legislative and judicial authority in the nation.
In the American nation, the majority of Americans are satisfied with the way the federal government handles their problems so they do not desire more local autonomy than what is presently available to them in the law and the constitution. Hence, increasing the role of the state governments in the face of the contentment of the American people in the present setup of their government is difficult.
What is happening in the federation of Russia and Europe is the degree of local autonomy desired by the inhabitants of the members’ states. The member states of the federation of Russia are not fired by the degree of ultra-nationalism that presently characterizes the states in Europe.
During the 2,000 year of European history, each state in Europe managed to maintain their independence against all threats and dangers. Great Britain is one country that managed to successfully found an empire and yet for their genius in governance and administration, never did the British ever desired to control a colony that happen to be one of the European nations. They could satisfy the aspirations of their subjects in their colonies for as long as these subjects were not Europeans. There was one time when the British tried to colonize France during the 11th century but they soon gave up this colonization of France when a 13 year old French peasant girl named Joan of Arc beat all her armies of occupation. The Russians tried to colonize Europe after World War II by placing local communist in positions of power in Eastern Europe, but all of these officials in Eastern Europe are all gone now because the Europeans themselves managed to kick them all out.
The degree of ultra nationalism of individual European nations is very high. In fact, a Spaniard has more nationalism in Spain than a Texan has in his native state of Texas. A Spaniard would consider himself more as a Spaniard rather than a European. A Texan would consider himself first as an American and secondarily as a Texan.
Because of the ultranationalism of the Europeans, the Constitution of the Federation of United Europe must reflect that degree of ultra nationalism in their Constitution.
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.