The sheer gaul of them

“no one will be pouring French wine into the gutters.” Which contrasts with what the French have been “doing recently with Spanish and Italian wine”:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wwine01.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/05/01/ixworld.html . So “communautaire” of them!

Well, in one aspect they may find that now oil goes up, since the Euro is down more that one percent respect the Dollar.

DSW

Perhaps the French blogosphere will now develop some more momentum, and begin to undermine the complacent shoddiness of their own elite media as has occurred in the US. 2005 may turn out to be more significant than 1968.

Vive La 55% of France!

And they’ve brought down the Euro by 1%: a communitaire action which will have German and Italian manufacturing workers thanking them. Here’s hoping the Dutch no knocks another few points off it.

To the Euro-elites: next time you try to get us to sign up to a constitution, please can you keep it framework for decision-making rather than bolting a whole bunch of policies onto it? Thank you.

Well, if the constitution requires unanimous assent, and the French say No, in what way is it not dead? Is the expectation that the rest of Europe will approve it and then the French will change their minds and go along?

Maria: Right on, ma’am!

Jake: That’s pretty much the official plan. Until tomorrow when the Dutch say “Nee, hoor!”. There isn’t really much of a plan after that, official or otherwise.

“I, for one, am very much impressed by ‘em Frenchies voting contrary to all their elites, media, the freakin establishment. Something to admire, folks.”

Posted by abb1

Nah, you’re happy that the French electorate voted against the interests of an elite that you consider to be Evul Librul.

The equivalent in the good ol’ USA might be the voters chucking the GOP out of power.

I don’t want to defend the French, so I won’t.

One thought. If you had been against the EU constitution, you would be saluting their decision. For some reason the losers of a democratic vote feel the need to vilify those who vote against them. Welcome to life in a Democracy. You lost. People disagreed with your point of view. Deal with it.

You can literally see a part of Europe becoming old, imagine the old folk on the muppet-show:

-how can you call it constitution?
-why is this in it?
-why is this left out?
-who wrote this?
-how much are we paying for this?
-who do we benefit with this?
boo-hoo!

I wonder if this Plan B of Marijnissen you mention is so easy to perform. Maybe France ought to fall. “At least I know Holland will adapt.”
-Jared Diamond,13th May, Leiden.

I guess Maria, that the French should strive to be like the British, with no laws for the maximum hours of week you can work before you start getting paid overtime.

I guess they should not have a minimum wage law, like some other European countries.

I guess they should start privatizing their health and education, like the British would like them to.

I guess they should also start speaking English, none of that silly Froggie stuff

And, of course, they should start thinking and voting exactly like you, because although you spew the rhetoric of democracy, you don’t seem to respect it when someone votes in a way that you don’t like.

Kind of like George Bush actually. Talks the talk, but doesn’t walk the walk.

remarkable. so many ostriches in these comments.

the ‘problem’ isn’t some ‘anglo-saxon’ vision being imposed on france. the problem is that china and india, and even eastern europe, will eventually hollow out any economic viability that the French ‘social model’ has.

how high does the unemployment rate need to go, before the social model lovers agree that something needs to change? what’s the threshold? 15%? 20%? even higher? all for the love of your 35 hour work week?

zm:

the 35 hour work week has nothing to do with Frnehc unemployment rates. (And incidentally, I would much, much rather be unemployed in France than flip burgers in the US. Admittedly the US model is slightly better for burger consumers, and much better for burger-shop owners.) If inflexible labor markkets were the cause of European unemployment, we would expect to see more capital-intensive growth there — i.e. the ratio of employment to GDP growth would be lower.

The reality is that European unemployment is high because European growth rates are low because European interest rates are high. And the blame for that lies exactly with the neoliberalismthat you and Maria want to further entrench. From this side of the Atlantic, it looks like ordinary French voters undertand their interests pretty well.

You know, y’all are seizing on a couple of paragraphs of Maria’s fine rant to start up the tedious old “what’s wrong with Europe — too much capitalism, or not enough” debate.

You’re ignoring her good points about the dishonesty, corruption and general creepiness of Supermenteur;

the uselessness of the French PM’s office (he’s on his fourth in seven years now) and the baleful effects of that on French politics;

the underlying French assumption that France is the guiding light of Europe;

and of course the CAP.

Nice one, Maria. Do it again sometime.

Oh, and — hello — you can think that the Constitution sucked rocks and still have issues with how and why it was rejected.

Doug M.

Actually, as Larry Elliott has pointed out, and as the French voters most definitely pointed out, scale has meaning, here. An economic policy that is good for France and Germany won’t necessarily be one that is good for Poland. The insane idea that liberalism means the dissolution of the national state doesn’t come out of liberalism, it comes out of some Thomas Friedman bestseller. It is also really cute calling people racist or blind or selfish for thinking that those who take cosmopolitanism is about the confederacy of states each of which is to a scale that is acceptable to the population of those states. But those who do go for that kind of thing should seriously be trying to join together the U.S., Canada and Mexico in an Uberstate in which economic policy is dictated by the appropriate bureaucrats, and the happy population can vote on who gets to be dogcatcher and who gets to win the American Idol award.

French public opinion made it very plain that it did not want the EU to extend to Eastern European States. Gee, the wonderful example of the economic fruits borne by Germany absorbing East Germany might have been a little object lesson, eh? But of course, the people who will sacrifice nothing — the tenured academics, enarques, and upper level management — are always very enthusiastic urging sacrifice on the uninsulated middle class and working class. Just lose a little more of your social rights. Because, as we all know, we can’t afford them in the contemporary world. (This, of course, is the most laughable claim of all. We can more than afford them — the contemporary world is about three times more wealthy than the world in which they were instituted. What we can’t afford is a political economy that doesn’t give a lion’s share to the upper ten percent investor class).

But, you know, when they dig in their heals and say no, it is always racism and nationalism that prompts such bad dog behavior. And even though the system they are rejecting is built from top to bottom on self interest, their own self interest is somehow seedy. Yeah, those French, pouring out that Spanish wine — not at all like those American researchers popping off to patent the latest cod gene they discovered with state funding and will immediately sell to a company.

As for the facts of Maria’s case –we will see what Europeans, in the shape of Netherland’s voters, think of the French refusal. Oh, but I keep forgetting that they aren’t real Europeans. Real Europeans go to conferences, and write papers up about freeing up the labor market to become more competitive. Those are Europeans we can be comfortable with.

An economic policy that is good for France and Germany won’t necessarily be one that is good for Poland.

or Ireland, or Greece ….

In which case, Roger, why not focus your attention on the creation of an enormous common currency area governed by a central bank whose remit, thanks to German folk-memories of Weimar, is currency stability at all costs (rather than growth). Again, _not_ the creation of les anglo-saxons, and nothing to do with EU enlargement as such (which is perfectly compatible with multiple currencies).

Well that drop in the Euro seems to have more to do with the present financial difficulties of Italy. But the main questions are: what kind of Europe do we want, and how can we get there?
Not with relinquishing democratic rights to non elected bodies or delevering public services to the deficiencies of the market economy.
“Well there might be a tribe in the Amazonas region that could do this callcentre work for 50 cents a day.”

Highly recommended: “The Future of Money”, by Bernard Lietaer.

Well I do defend the French, for reasons Michele and Lemuel Pitkin have given, amongst others.

I do wonder, how can anyone think the constitution – and the specific tendency it embodies, not all of the EU project per se – sucked, but take issue at how it was rejected?

Would a closed doors decision provoke less of a “oh the sheer gaul” reaction? (funny I don’t even remember all those impressive majorities of approval in parliamentary votes and referendums across the continent…)

It was a referendum, we can choose to consider all those who voted non as a mass of imbeciles frightened by the hysterically anti-eu right wing populists, or childish ‘protest voters’, or maybe actually go and listen to the reasons given for that non. In France as in the Netherlands – and last I checked, the Dutch don’t even suffer from supposed gaul and euro-protagonism ambitions.

Yes, there is a facile and dangerous “blame it on the euro” tendency that many governments have exploited; but there are also legitimate concerns about the direction the EU is taking on that ‘economic competitivity’ level. It would be nice to see them addressed.

For instance, I wonder why no one seems to mention the opposition to the wretched Bolkestein directive, I guess that did play a not so insignificant part in shaping the results of the French vote, considering the decisions about the directive will have to be taken this very month.

РIf you want a laugh, see this other bit of unbiased and not at all clich̩d analysis of the vote results:

Having voted against the European constitution, many on the French left could be waking up to a nasty surprise.

If their goal had been to halt the unfettered spread of free-market Anglo-Saxon style economics, their ‘No’ vote may be worse than futile

Who says that?

Guess?

A political party representative?

A European MP?

A EU commissioner, even?

No… it’s…

… according to the investment bank Merrill Lynch.

You really couldn’t make the point about why people are suspicious of ‘EU reforms’ clearer than that.

“For the assumption that if France votes no, then the constitution is automatically dead. Just how democratic is that, protest voters? (Don’t Austria, Germany, Belgium, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain count? They’ve all voted yes – in parliament or referendum – and by overwhelming majorities.)”

Doesn’t this betray the total sham of the EU? Doesn’t this show that it isn’t possible to have a homogenous political entity of Europe? Or, it is possible until something happens that a significant minority dislikes and everything falls apart at the seams.

The only person who has forged a union out of disparate entities was Lincoln and he did that via extreme violence.

Chris, your attempt at mind reading confuses me.

I just think it’s extremely funny and ironic and sad altogether, to happen to come across a statement about how those from the left who voted non might be disappointed to find out that their vote will not change a thing in terms of economic policies that they are protesting against, and to find that statement is being made by an investment banker.

I really cannot explain what’s so sad and ironic about it, if you don’t see it yourself.

It’s just a silly thing, only a statement in an article, but it’s rather symbolic of something larger.

(I also liked that ‘If their goal had been to halt the unfettered spread of free-market Anglo-Saxon style economics’ – about three levels of cliché, assumptions, code words, etc…)

I mean, come on, you have someone from Merryll Lynch telling the citizens of a country that their referendum vote doesn’t count anyway because it went against the direction the EU is going to take regardless – how much clearer does it get? He’s validating the point of the no voters. You just have to laugh.

The irony is precisely that his conclusion – nothing will change, in fact, the economic changes will get even more unpopular – is most likely accurate, and probably a lot more honest than anything you’d hear from a EU commissioner or politician on the yes side. It just goes to show how impotent the whole democratic process is. Like something tacked on after the facts to give them an appearance of having been voted upon.

And to think they made it sound as if the no vote was going to have such dramatic effects, even bury the EU, no less. They’ll just renegotiate the constitution, just like with the Bolkestein directive and all such initiatives. It’s not even possible to scrap something like that altogether and come up with a different approach. Taboo.

I’m not “anti-EU”, I just don’t like this sort of thing.

NB: I’m aware this sort of concerns can and have been used by the hysterical anti-brussels populists to attack anything done at EU level, even the most sensible things. But that’s not to say the concerns themselves must be hysterical or populist.
Last night I heard one of the Dutch socialists campaining for the No vote interviewed and asked that very question and he said, well sometimes the wrong people have the right arguments. In this case, I think he was right – that’s why there was such a consensus for the no vote from all kinds of political positions. Instead, from reactions of those who didn’t like the result, it seems like there’s no alternative to unconditional approval and hysterical populism. Like citizens couldn’t possibly have legitimate concerns and refuse to approve something they find unconvincing, not just be ignorant or swayed by populism or nationalism.

Wow, Maria. You’ve really brought them out. Now you’re an anti-French racist. (French is a race?)

Modest reality check: the non vote was disproportionately male, rural, and undereducated. In US terms, Bush voters.

Note that the self-identified far left went for “no” by 10 to 1, but the far right went for it by 24 to 1. And if everyone who had voted for Le Pen in ’02 had stayed home, the “ouis” would have won comfortably.

So if it was really about social justice… strange bedfellows, is all I can say.

Doug M.

I particularly enjoyed Michele’s implicit opposition between France and English-speaking countries. Presumably Belgium _is_ (at least half) chopped liver, after all.

But Doug, do you got a source for that? J’amerais bien le voir …

“strange bedfellows”

Well, bin Laden was against the war in Iraq too, so I guess now we can safely declare the opposition to the war a worthless, disturbing position because of this strange bedfellows thing. See how it works?

Again, thanks for making the point clearer and clearer.

May I anticipate comments to the Dutch no vote: the majority will be uneducated, rural, male pim fortuyn supporters who hate muslims and the rest will be clueless socialists who blame everything on the euro. Not refined enough to understand the complex advantages of voting yes.

There, you can now go home and feel superior.

“Well, bin Laden was against the war in Iraq too, so I guess now we can safely declare the opposition to the war a worthless, disturbing position because of this strange bedfellows thing. See how it works?”

Posted by moni ·

Uh-oh. We’ve got timeline crossing again.
We need a reference check. Moni, I’m posting from the timeline where Saddam and OBL were enemies, and where OBL wanted Bush to invade Iraq, for reasons that are obvious.

From which timeline are you posting?

Barry, I’m posting from the timeline where we lost track of what exact relationships there were between OBL and Saddam according to the infallible intelligence that gave us the pretext for war.

Because the mention of the ineffable Osama was merely for the sake of responding to that ‘strange bedfellows’ rhetorical tool, substitute the ineffable ‘Osama’ with the ineffable ‘Al Qaeda/Islamist terrorists/fundamentalists, mullahs and lunatics’ and so on.

The far right in Europe was against the war in Iraq too. We’ve heard all about the red-black-green alliance of strange bedfellows, ad nauseam, for the past three years. I didn’t think that kind of alliance, whether actual and solicited or purely a journalistic invention, was enough, in itself, to disqualify a position, particulary one expressed through a vote, but then again, I didn’t think lacking a university degree would be enough to do that, either – or that it took a vote result one doesn’t like to turn the French into Bush supporters.

I’m here to learn…

I made a simple statement of fact.

One which, presumably, you thought had some relevance to the debate here. I’m still waiting to hear what that is.

Wow, there I was blasting about supermenteur (not half enough, mind you) as I’ve done many’s the time in a Paris cafe amongst French friends, and now it turns out I’m a racist who should go live with the other ‘French-haters’…

For the record, there are (personally known to me) plenty of French people who pretty much agree with my rant above and aren’t planning to move any time soon. And there are plenty of people who don’t agree but who still voted yes. And there are even some people who voted no because they’d read the constitution, thought about it, and figured it was a plain bad idea. So I guess the drama queens amongst our commenters will just have to live with all of them.

It’s worth mentioning, though, that it is possible to believe the majority of the French electorate has done the wrong thing for some very stupid reasons reasons, and not necessarily believe the entirety of the French social model needs to be chucked in the bin. But as Doug says, you only have to mention France these days to be propelled into the too much capitalism versus not enough debate.

(Doug – I had heard the news about de Villepin when I posted, but was too disgusted to even think about what to say on that front. Supermenteur on the news last night, straight to camera, using the royal ‘we’; ‘we have heard the people’s concerns and we have listened. I give you…. more of the same!’)

Anyway, for Mona who seems to imply that I made all that up about the other 9 or 10 countries who’ve ratified the constitution with overwhelming majorities, don’t take my word for it. Oh, you didn’t. Well anyway, check out the results yourself here.

Speaking of drama queens, how’s this for a dramatic opening:

“Turning its back on half a century of European history, France decisively rejected a constitution for Europe on Sunday, plunging the country into political disarray and jeopardizing the cause of European unity.”

Now I wasn’t given the gracious chance to vote in a referendum, so I cannot say I’m sure what I’d have voted. I am not saying I believe with absolute certainty that a no vote is the right choice, for every country who’s asked to vote, and that no one should question the results because ‘the people have spoken’.
But the reactions of that kind, or those referring to classic national clichés, or to the ignorance and lack of education of the voters, or to how unreasonable it is to be attached to a certain social model, that is what I personally find most irritating. It is not just the condescension, it’s all the things that are being taken for granted.

That’s all, sorry for going on about it.

“It’s worth mentioning, though, that it is possible to believe the majority of the French electorate has done the wrong thing for some very stupid reasons reasons, and not necessarily believe the entirety of the French social model needs to be chucked in the bin..”

While that is undoubtedly true, I would suggest that you go back and read your post. Lines like:

For running a corporatist closed shop of unions and business leaders who don’t give a damn about the excluded unemployed and the perpetually damned ‘sans-papiers’.

For bringing the country to a standstill every five minutes to protest Canute-like about global economic forces.

Do not lend themselves to an interpretation that is friendly to the notion of the French social state.

Accurate though the bits quote in #63 may be…

Just how democratic is that, protest voters?

While the French complain about Supermenteur, democracy, capitalism and all of that, the newspaper commenters in the UK aren’t exactly what you’d expect of a democracy either. They predict that the Poodle will take the decision not to ratify all by himself. Bypassing parliament, no referendum, no discussion. Don’t ask, don’t tell, and the UK will look like a good european citizen while being president.

Whatever it takes to get out of this mess, and maybe Blair is the person for it.

And finally I do look forward to the comments about the Dutch, if they have voted no. The problem is that everybody likes our Harry Potter lookalike.

The sheer gaul of the Dutch!

the ‘problem’ isn’t some ‘anglo-saxon’ vision being imposed on france. the problem is that china and india, and even eastern europe, will eventually hollow out any economic viability that the French ‘social model’ has.

Uh, if the French ‘social model’ was geographically illustrated by the North Pole, and the US social model by the South Pole, then China and India’s are pretty much located in the vicinity of The Sun.

So if there is no way for France to preserve its model, then there is no way for even America to do that either. Short of at the business end of a gun, that is.

Not that we Yanks would ever consider that. Ahem.

Michele – Obviously something has struck a raw nerve. With which particular line exactly has Maria made a racist remark? Or are you reading in other peoples’ reactions into her remarks, which seem to me mostly to bash Chirac – whom I think should be bashed. So well done Maria! (I’ll take that back, though, if Michele points out a racist remark!)

Michele, I think you are mistaken to blame the euro exclusively for France’s high unemployment. When the euro was seriously undervalued (0.80 to the dollar), the U.S. still had a much lower unemployment rate than France. France has a high unemployment rate because it makes work expensive; it’s hard to fire people, you have to pay them a lot, and you have to give them lots of vacations. I’m not saying I’m against any of those things; in fact since I live in France and I have a job so I get the benefits but not the disadvantage of being unemployed. But please be honest and admit there is a trade-off. We don’t live in a fairy world; and magic wands don’t create high-paying, low-work jobs for everyone. If you want to keep the French social model, then you will have high unemployment, or at least higher unemployment than other countries.

You really should go back to where you came from, Maria and stop stirring the pot of racism.

That’s about the funniest thing I’ve read all day.

Re: 68, Many of the more specific provisions, particularly those in the third part of the constitutional treaty, are there because there are similar provisions in the existing treaties.

The EU does have a constitution: the Treaties of Rome, as subsequently amended up to and including the Treaty of Nice. It just isn’t a very good one.

This constitutional treaty was a good attempt to tidy up existing structures and make them ready for a Union of up to 40 members. If readers here (or voters in France) thought the constitutional treaty was a dog’s breakfast, I don’t know what they think of the existing accumulation of treaties. But that’s what Europe has.

Incidentally, current rules on majority votes in the Council make decisions at that level less democratic, less transparent and more subject to blockades than the rules in the constitution. So voters have chosen to keep the EU less democratic. Go figure.

I think that a just God would lean forward and tell the French and Dutch that (s)he had decided that those countries that had voted NO to the Constitution would find that their contributions to and receipts from the EU budget were in future always in approximate balance. French tax payers would then have the opportunity to subsidise their farmers themselves. It would also be a very fair consequences for the lovely long-suffering Dutch.

79 hum dutch are the main net contributors to the EU per capita and french give a little more than they receive (even taking into account the PAC)
th mechanism you describe applies to one country no sane people will accuse of egoism: the brits…

it is rather frustrating to watch the french sabotage their own economic future to indulge the fantasies of the far left (who oppose foreign labour and capital) and the of the far right (who oppose foreign everything else). Anti-globalisation fanatics have nothing to offer humanity, regardless of whether they are from the left or the right.
get this into your thick skulls: THERE IS NOTHING “PROGRESSIVE” ABOUT OPTING OUT OF THE MODERN WORLD!!!!

re 68 Doug is quite right – there were many institutional improvements in the constitution, needed for an EU of 25 member states, that have unfortunately been lost.

I think personally it was a mistake to call it a constitution. It is really another Treaty. If it had been called that then the argument might have been more about what the concrete provisions of the new Treaty were, rather than the largely unconnected debate about the nature of Europe.

Such a grand debate obn the nature of Europe is needed of coursev – no doubt about that – but in a way it is unfortunate that it was bound up with this treaty which, in the main, tidies up a lot of institutional loose ends, but changes the fundamental nature of the EU relatively little.

Well, I think Michele’s funniest line is “you don’t have any superior academic or professional credentials.”

Typical supercilious attitude expressed by a snotty overeducated-but-ignorant bore, I’d say.

Is this attitude “typically” French?

Obligatory disclaimer: I live in NY and only know what I read in the papers and online.

Having said that, here’s what strikes me about the non vote. Substantive considerations aside, it looks like the French electorate looked at a structure that moved decisionmaking even further away from them than it already is and threatened to affect their lives without also giving them the ability to do anything about it. It looked like it was going to empower a structure without providing adequate accountability. Faced with that perception, “no” is a perfectly rational answer.

I happen to think that what the French call “Anglo-Saxon liberalism” works pretty well, and better than the so-called French model, but the French don’t have to agree with me, and evidently they don’t. They have the right not to. If they want to structure their society differently, that is their right and their privilege. I think the “no” vote was a good thing for precisely that reason: different peoples and different cultures can arrive at different societal consensuses (consensi?). Setting up a superstructure that is overly invasive and removes decisionmaking to remote levels is insufficiently respectful of the populace. This “no” vote was a victory for democracy and for cultural diversity.

They should go back to the drawing board and come up with something simpler, less threatening to the member states’ cultures, and more respectful of the citizenry. I’m not recommending that they emulate the US constitution – Europe is different from the US and what worked here may not work there quite the same way – but the general idea that a federal constitution should be a brief document focused mainly on structure and procedure has a lot to recommend it. The US constitution, with all the amendments, can print onto less than 20 pages. That is what has been running the US, this huge continental behemoth, for over 200 years
now. It’s not a European tenet, but sometimes simpler really is better.

SO MIchelle. .if you express ANti – US sentiments are you now also a racist? Or does that only apply to statements made against EUropean countries?

I may have over-stated my case just a tiny little bit.

¿¡¿¡¿¡¿ Tiny little bit ?!?!?!?

Maria, do you call the Eiffel Tower “slight” ? I don’t want to meet your definition of “noticeable” :)

Jim,

“No, the people don’t want totalitarian socialism, and no, the poeple don’t want “free”-market capitalism; they want a system that lets them live in a civilized manner, with health care and dignity, and yes, long vacations… Now if you all, you with all the letters after your names, can’t come up with a way to do that, then you are just lame”

Actually, there is a third way, and this has been applied for many years now in France and Germany: steal from the next generation.

Maintain full or near-full employment for older workers, and send unemployment soaring for young workers.

Protect stagnant old economy firms that employ older workers, and inhibit the creation of new economy firms that tend to employ young workers.

Provide extremely generous health insurance benefits to everyone (but disproportionately to the middle aged and elderly) today, and let the system go bankrupt. Lay the burden of financing it upon future generations.

Suppress the conditions that yield high economic growth, especially mid- to long-term growth, and redistribute income.

See, it’s easy. Just remember: the 1968er generation always comes first. They changed the world, they’re brave, they’re bold. Don’t let anyone tell you that they’re reactionary. Au contraire.

Antoni Jaume, that happens to be somewhat true (more on that below), but that’s an even stronger argument in favor of a limited central government with strong local government that will protect existing cultures. That’s my point precisely. When you’re trying to unite disparate peoples, less is more. Prescribe less, let the disparate areas govern themselves, and provide mediating structures for dealing with friction and areas of common interest. More than that will likely cause problems.

As for pre-independence America, the 13 colonies actually did have constitutions, after a fashion. Each had a charter of some kind. And between independence in 1776 and ratification of the US constitution in 1789, each of the new states did have a constitution of its own, many provisions of which were unique to the specific state. Remember, the thirteen American colonies pre-independence viewed themselves as distinct from one another, in some ways more so than the current European countries do. A charming speech by a legal scholar/historian that I watched on CSPAN (for those who might recognize the name, it was Walter Dellinger) pointed out that until at least the late 1760s, the place where representatives from Massachusetts were most likely to meet representatives from Virginia was in London, not in America. South Carolina society, for example, was very very different from Connecticut society. These were distinct cultures (and remained so even after the US Constitutions) even though they spoke the same language. They even had different populations – the Southern whites were from a different part of England than the Northerners (and of course the South had a large African population, mainly enslaved). So while I agree with you that there is much more and much more diverse governmental and legal infrastructure already existing in Europe than there had been in America in the late 18th century, I still don’t think the concept of how to deal with it is that different. If you take seriously the idea of democracy, people should be able to govern themselves through institutions that are close to them, and that will respect the diversity of different regions and cultures.

All I’m saying is that the panjandrums trying to put “Europe” together should at least consider looking at a model that has been tried before and worked pretty well. It won’t fit Europe exactly, obviously, but some of the elements and concepts have stood the test of time and might be worth trying. They can pick out the good elements and not use the ones that don’t fit well. At the very least, respecting the electorate – the idea at the core of democratic theory – is well worth placing at the center of the venture going forward.

Maria:

First of all, what a fine rant that kicked off this thread. As an American, I enjoy a lusty hate/hate relationship with most things French and most French people I know. They call us ignorant and arrogant, I call them smelly and condescending without cause – it all works, nice and out in the open- preferably wide open, given the way these people smell.

Have a bit of a quibble with one of your points though- you make mention of the ratifying states and how they were overwhelmingly pro-Constitution either by referendum OR via Parliament.

That’s where things go a bit off the rails…. spent some time over at medienkritik and got the definite impression there were more than a few Germans quite bitter that they never got the chance to vote on the unflushed poohstick that is the EU constitution- it was decided for them by their governmental uberlords. Don’t know about the other ratifying countries, but it seems strange that you’d use the instance of a bunch of elites (yeah yeah yeah, duly elected) voting for the EU constitution in the cause of bashing a bunch of other elites. But then again, ’tis a minor quibble and of little importance in light of the fine punking you perpetrated on the reptilian Chirac.

But regardless of why the French (and the Dutch) deep sixed the Constitution, it was the right choice. This document purported to be the governing instrument for millions, and took into account such nonsense as fishing rights and the “right” to look for a job? Yup, the Lizard King’s lackey did a fine job crafting that stillborn piece of filth- perhaps he should stick to pushing his self published poetry, yeah?

Also, I missed the part where the executors of this “guidebook” had any accountability to the people it purported to guide- as in the ability to throw the bums out if necessary.

Finally, when the clowns in Brussels start to work on “EU Constitution- the paper brick of duncery, part Deux” they might want to look at the problems encountered in the US regarding federal powers versus state powers and how they were solved when we drafted a REAL Constitution. They might, yet again, learn something from a successful system of governance.

No need to thank us Europe, just keep sucking down our Coke, eating our crappy McDonald’s and watching our simple minded movies in the vast amounts you do over there.

michele,

I for one wish to see the French keep their system.

The fewer the competitors the greater the profits.

Simon – a pro democracy everywhere American

Thibaud, I think your description “Actually, there is a third way, and this has been applied for many years now in France and Germany: steal from the next generation” isn’t a very good one when applied to France and Germany — the proper metric is in savings, when applied to the next generation — but an excellent description of American economic policy over from the Reagan years on. What other economy could exist with trade deficits for thirty years that simply massively increase — that intentionally destructures its manufacturing base — that destroys social insurance and replaces it with a credit market that effectively destroys the average person’s propensity to save, or even ability to save — except the good old U.S.A.? And then there is the little matter of taking a trillion plus dollar surplus and not only spending it all in the course of two years, but managing to put in place a budget deficit that will — given the entrenchment of the tax cuts which is sure to come — take up the whole space of future government spending. Fine work, Americans. This is economic growth a la Steve Martin: “You too, can be a millionaire. First, borrow a million dollars. Second, don’t pay it back.” The amaxing wisdom of the Americans never ceases to astonish the rest of the world. Which is why the U.S.A. is so wildly popular in the rest of the world.

Roger, on your theory the easiest way for the other countries to stop making the US rich is to stop lending them the million dollars. But they don’t. Because doing so is good for them. Which means there is more going on than your rather simplistic anti-US screed would let on. In any event, I find it interesting that in a thread about analyzing the “non” vote in France and what it portends for the EU, you can’t resist finding a way to convert it into pot shots at the US. If people in Europe spent half as much time thinking about how to solve their own problems as they do trying to show how much better they are than the US, both they and the US would be better off.

Re 89 “French electorate looked at a structure that moved decisionmaking even further away from them than it already is and threatened to affect their lives without also giving them the ability to do anything about it.”

Except that it didn’t. The European Parliament would get more power, and it’s directly elected. Blocking minorities would be harder to form, so there would be less need for the un-representative back-room dealing than there is at present. And so on. Maria’s example of bringing Justice and Home Affairs into a more accountable structure is important, and one of several.

I think the question for the UK referendum has it just right: “Should the United Kingdom approve the treaty establishing a constitution for the European Union?” It is a treaty, one of a series, and it establishes a constitution, which is novel.

“If people in Europe spent half as much time thinking about how to solve their own problems as they do trying to show how much better they are than the US, both they and the US would be better off.”

Exactly. Quit blaming all your ills on the jews Americans.

I would love to see a unified and vibrant Europe -but not as a sheep under the socialist elites. The “old europe” cocktail party crowd in Brussels is corrupt and incompetent.

1) Toss them out and redraft the Constitution along the line of the US Bill of Rights.

2) Keep it short and simple without claiming everything under the sun as a “right”.

3) Ensure that EU leaders are accountable to the public and can be removed from office due to malfeasance, corruption, etc.

4) Look to Britain for guidance – their legacy around the globe is one of good administration. They know how to set up a nation state.

I just returned from Paris, there on a brief family holiday which just happened to coincide with the “non” vote. I have long been a a lover of all things French, cultural, not political, of course. I have lived there and traveled there on several occasions over the years and as much as I love being there, I have to confess with some smugness that I was very much wallowing in Schedenfreude during their post-referendum angst and confusion. The vote was actually much worse than even they expected. It is my sincere belief now that the French will not recover from their slide, political and economic, any time soon. The overwhelming ethos of the Parisians I spoke to (and it was obviously a small anecdotal survey) was that: they live in abject fear of a free-market; that they will protect their dying socialist state at almost any cost (and the costs are more and more crushing); that they are becoming more and more xenophobic and anti-semitic, but are trapped by their ridiculous immigration policies and their overly-generous social programs, which they are not willing to dramtically curtail; that they are still unwilling, even after this debacle, to turn Chriac and his cronies out on their flabby, wrinkled asses, even though Chirac’s idea of a shake-up is to put Villepin into the driver’s seat, a man who personifies elitism and patronage and Chirac is demonstrably corrupt and has been for decades; that they don’t care if the country is stagnant, as long as they still get everything for free and barely have to put in a full work week; that they really hate the Eastern Europeans for their pro-Americanism and their desire to work hard and for appearing so ungrateful to “Old Europe;” and they are about to become even more isolated and left in the dust since the Germans are starting to figure out that their system sucks and are poised to usher in a more right-of-center government next time when they elevate Angela Merkel to the Chancellorship. It was a real eye opener. The US has absolutely nothing to fear from the French, politically or economically in the near future. We just need to keep this US economy moving, keep growth rates up and unemployment low, keep taxes as low as possible and keep regulations as reasonably unobtrusive as we can, keep working hard and welcoming legal immigrants who share our values, keep our military strong and continue bludgeoning radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, and we will be OK, at least vis a vis the “European Union.”

Oh I’d been missing this anglo vs. french, free market vs. ‘socialist elites’ (LOL), we are better than you, no we are, no you aren’t, schadenfreude, you can’t compete, all you want is government handouts, Europe is sinking, the US rulez, Europeans hate Americans, Americans hate Europe, French hate everyone plus Jews and Eastern Europeans, everyone hates the French anyway, ah it is so refreshing to come across it once in a while. I was almost fearing the discussion had actually evolved.

112 – and he has a son that models for Prada. Don’t forget that one!

I don’t know if it is relevant to anything at all but it’s cute, isn’t it.

Roger, why is this relevant to this thread? I could rebut this stuff point by point, but it’s off topic.

Look, you obviously have a lot of hostility to the US, based (so far as I can tell from your post) on selection of factoids to use a partial picture of the facts, which you then erect into a straw man you can knock down. This doesn’t in any event have much to do with the consequences or implications of the “non” vote.

Stuart,
Outstanding posts. Cogent, unified and sincere. You put into words exactly what I was thinking much better than I could have.

#34 Jim,
WOW. “…ruthless capitalism…” huh? Be careful, with incredibly short-sighted statements like that, I, and may I be so bold as to speak for the rest of us here and say, we, may come to the logical conclusion that you really are a Lit major. Far be it for me to point out the obvious, but any system that puts your destiny in your own hands, and requires nothing of you except your own drive and desire, is singularly the most humane, or “civilized” as you put it, system ever seen anywhere, at any time, in all of history. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if you are “poor” in America, in which case you are still a helluva lot better off than the “poor” on 95% of the rest of the planet, and you suffer from no mental/physical disabilities that would keep you from making a decent living, you are an immoral person. Simply put, if you are so lazy that you can’t make it here, you can’t make it anywhere.

Stu, and #73 Andrew Boucher, you nailed it. Let the French live with whatever social model they want. Devise it however they want, change it however they want, etc. ad nauseum. If they want to set up a social safety net that ensures that every single swinging Richard has at the very least a $40,000 equivalent per year income, no matter what they do, great, more power to ’em, good on ’em. I just think that their leaders should level with them and ensure that every person in France/Germany/wherever is fully cognizant of just how big that price tag is going to be, and what they will have to sacrifice and put up with in order to get what they want.

surf-actant

Stuart, it seems you have found the relevance of my post to the thread and been refreshed in your conviction that Europeans should stop picking on the Americans. Good. Since Maria’s post included a number of references to what she takes to be France’s blind defense of an unsustainable economic system, and since the alternative most discussed is the Anglo-American model, I don’t think it is irrelevant to criticize the latter in support of the thesis that European social democracies don’t require macro-economic adjustments from above — the destructuring of the social democratic state — but can generate Keynesian solutions from within — adjustments relevant to the stagnation of economic growth can be made that will accomodate both social democracy and the growth that pays for it.

Those adjustments — and any adjustments relevant to changes in the business cycle — are definitely blocked by inscribing economic programs in constitutional cement. To take another American example — if Congress had succeeded in creating a constitutional amendment banning deficit spending in the 90s, the U.S. would be in depression today. Luckily, they did not bind Bush’s arms like that.

On a somewhat lighter note, I have a question. Every year in January (well, almost every year) I take my daughter (now 16) on a trip to look at historical sites. The last trip we took was to London and environs. This coming year I’m torn between going to Flanders (using Brussels as a base, but going to Brugge, Ghent, Antwerp, etc.) and going to Paris. We’re more interested in actual historical sites than museums. Any views on where to go? Paris is somewhat easier to get to and from, and the flights are somewhat cheaper and shorter, though not by a lot.

So I see that while I was typing up a post about taking a trip to Europe, I got roasted as a right wing crazy theocon who hates Europe. Interesting.

Roger, I think I see where you saw the connection. Thanks for explaining it. I actually wasn’t saying Europeans should stop picking on Americans – anyone can criticize anyone else, as long as it doesn’t get gratuitously nasty – but rather, I was suggesting that for Europeans, flinging turds at the US wasn’t much of a useful substitute for trying to come up with useful ways to solve some serious structural problems they have. It’s the policy equivalent of the McDonald’s that Europeans (and this particular American) love to bash – it might give you a short rush of satisfaction but it’s not very healthy to indulge in on a regular basis.

Look, as I said elsewhere, different cultures are entitled to structure their institutions differently. One size does not fit all. And that’s what I thought was wrong with the EU constitution: people perceived that it took away from them the ability to have input into some serious decisions about how their lives are to be structured. I’m not sure they were wrong.

If France’s citizenry likes the setup that they have, then they have every right to vote to keep it. And if it turns out not to be sustainable in its current form, that will become apparent, and I have to believe that there is enough flexibility in human institutions that people will figure out a way to avoid a societal trainwreck. It might look a bit more “liberal” or it might not, we won’t know until and unless it happens.

Flinging turds at the US isn’t going to change any of that.

Moni,

Back on topic, I’d be interested to see the French voting results broken down by age group. From what I’ve seen, it would appear that the highest correlation with “non” votes are to be found among young Frenchmen, which is one of the reasons I focused on the huge disparity between employment levels for those under 30 and those over 40.

thanks, Thibaud. I started planning early, so I have plenty of time to figure out what to do and where to go. Although, des von bladet asks “Surely no self-respecting daughter would want her first trip to Paris to be with her father?” and suggests we go to Flanders.

I suspect we’ll end up going to Belgium because my daughter finds the entire concept of the Maneken Pis totally hilarious.

the poet Villepin? methinks you confuse him with a pompous scoundrel of the same name.

Well, it is most enjoyable viewing the multitude of jabs thrown in the direction of the US on this thread.

Those hamburger flippers in the US seem to be doing quite well.
GDP Per Capita Rankings

2. United States $35991.96 per person

20. Germany $26214.12 per person

22. France $25888.77 per person

24. United Kingdom $25426.55 per person

On top of these dismal EU GDP numbers, the US economy is growing steadily faster. In fact, the per Capita GDP of most of the major European economies is down there with some of the poorest states in the US.

Try Chicago, those people are work horses. They are fighting each other for the overtime hours offered, whether they are flipping burgers or designing Motorola wireless systems.

I find it amusing when Europeans attempt to belittle the US on economic grounds.

You have a severe misconception about the burger flippers in the US. They are normally teenagers, learning work ethic, or retirees who haven’t figured out how to stop working. I realize in most of your countries, these things are done by imported labor. Hence, France becomes majority Muslim by 2025. Enjoy.

Re: neonknight
“I find it amusing when Europeans attempt to belittle the US on economic grounds.”
Global Competitiveness Report 2004-2005, Country Rankings 2004-2005
1. Finland
2. USA
3. Sweden
Two free market champions: Finland and Sweden.
Re: burgerflippers
What are the typical jobs for imported Latin American labor? CEOs?

Re: 108 “Watch out for that commerce clause, though.”

Single European Act. 1986.

A few reasons why I am still rather fond of “nos amis français”…

1. They do not generally pepper their attacks on us with the same handful of English words, hackneyed national stereotypes and atrocious puns which have already been recycled ad nauseum by the editorial staff of the Economist.

2. They do not, for the matter, share the Anglo-american belief that the discipline of
Economics is the crowning achievement of modern intellectual life and enhancing GDP growth
the only legitimate aim of public policy.

3. The French education system has a tendency of producing people deserving of the name
“intellectual” rather than the armies of tedious specialists and “policy intellectuals” so
obsessed with the technicalities of their own disciplines they can no longer connect with
the rest of the human race and are also frequently phillistine, illiterate and boring.

4. French wine and beer make life worth living. English wine is non-existent and American
wine is crap. American beer tastes like watered down piss.

5. French women are more attractive then British and a fortiori American women. (Note, to
forestall the inevitable faux outrage: This doubtless also applies to men.)

6. Iraq.

7. France has a fantastic cultural heritage and its people have the time to enjoy it.
American culture is a contradiction in terms.

8. Culture, again.

9. In France it is possible to admit that capitalism may not be perfect and, gasp, debate
the alternatives.

10. The working class French stand up for themselves and are smart enough not to buy into
the political world view which is fucking them up the ass. Probably something to do with not
having been crushed by a system which gives them the “freedom” to flip burgers on pain of
death.

11. Did I mention culture?

etc, etc (I’m not French by the way)

(And incidentally, I would much, much rather be unemployed in France than flip burgers in the US.)
-lemuel pitkin
Well, Lemuel, that’s exactly the problem with people like you. You’d rather sit on your ass and live off of someone else’s earnings than work a menial job to support yourself. Well it’s the burger flippers of the world who do an honest days work who pay the taxes to support you while you leach off the welfare teat. Living off of welfare saps iniative and destroys the work ethic, and breeds long term poverty. Socialism belongs in a museum of failed oddities, like the Dodo bird, and hydrogen airships.

There was no referendum in Germany, a ratification only. But Bild Zeitung polls where 390,000+ voted: 96.9% Nein, 3.1% Ja

We’re all democrats in high standing, indubitably, though some more coersively than others.