None of that may be deemed to be ‘bad’ on the surface (and no one is using the equivalent of Bush/Blair=Hitler agitprop and rhetoric against it), but it’s all a constitutional document, no mere charter of a subsidiary, non-constitutive agency functioning for and with a group of nation/states (as the WTO for example, essentially, is). One fundamental concern, thus, is elitist distancing of critical components that would otherwise remain within the scope of more direct and transparent democratic accountability.

Additionally, even in pure economic and power oriented terms, in facing global markets and competition, the case has not been made, certainly not definitively that I’ve read, that such a constitutionally based system is in fact the best route to go. If the economic interest per se is the sole interest, why has the argument for a “oui” vote not been forwarded via comparisons with various other alternatives (std. treaties, alliances, intra-EU competitive frameworks, etc.)? Instead, at least in the case of France, which is only the first (or second?) of nine nations to subject acceptance to a popular vote, we’ve seen MSM styled blitzes on their national media outlets, further evidencing the “elitist” motif and further clouding the quality of information rather than providing more clarification.

I don’t have any clear or definitive answer, but what has been manifested is far more troubling than reassuring, both in terms of the economic interests per se and in terms of both the short and certainly longer term potential political pitfalls as well. Why are central-state, or central-pan-state economic controls via such a fundamental constitutional mechanism deemed to be better than inter-national competitive/alliance frameworks? I’ve yet to see that answered on any printed page whatsoever.

DSW

The closest I’ve ever heard anyone come to defending the constituion offered is that it would be too politically difficult to start over again. Which in context is a pitiful argument. Although I haven’t read the European constituion, I think the quietness of the yes campaigners on the topic of whether, say, clause 2.2 will bring major benefits, or arguing that the proposed separation of powers is better than a number of possible alternatives, is a pretty strong argument for rationally voting No. Or Non.

I advise any Europeans out there to vote No. A good constitution may be a very good thing for Europe. That doesn’t mean that any constituion is a good thing.

…nice turnout!

Hektor Bim: well, any world government is 100% evil, except when it’s led by the President of the United States, then it’s 100% good. :)

But no, rather expend all that grey matter on Pat Robertson, because, no doubt, of his massive influence upon the French electorate.

My sense is that Pat Robertson hates the EU because he sees it as a step towards world government, and in his eschatology, Satan will inevitably control such a world government. Seems intensely wacky to me, but that’s my impression of the roots of the opposition.

Well, seems like a pretty clear result against the proposed constitution. They are just going to have to modify it and try again later.

It doesn’t seem to me like the world is ending.

I’m not sure why, but he hates anything to do with European unification.

The Constitution as we know it is dead. Probably most of the rather uncontroversial elements (I guess about 70%) of the draft text will be incorporated in a new simple intergovernmental treaty on a much more modest basis.

The left no made a difference. Problem is they opposed an unperfect constitution to get nothing, or worse, much later. Now they’re planning on some renegociation. But with whom?

On the positive side, that raffarin freak is going to be dumped quickly now (villepin, alliot marie or even sarkozy next, i’d bet). Chirac should leave, but he won’t.