I shall emulate you and place my answers to your answers in line.  They will
be highlighted with:  [DPB:  xxxxxx]

Denys
-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Christian Lheureux
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 3:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Between Moscow and Paris - Central Europe's
Emerging Reality

Denys, at least once in this lifetime, I agree with you ! At least
partly.

[DPB: That's a little white lie and you know it.  :-)  You agree with me
much more often than you want to admit.]

You said :

> David wrote in part:  "...The French & Dutch votes are no big deal.
> The European political process always has gone in fits & starts...."
>
> To which I reply,
>
> The fact of the matter is the repudiation of the proposed EU
> constitution by
> France and The Netherlands is huge deal.

It's akin, if you allow me an easy comparison, to Massachussetts and
Virginia voting to reject the US Constitution. It's indeed a major blow.

[DPB: Yes, it's a very big blow and the analogy is pretty good.]

> The proposed constitution was a monstrosity that evolved in secret
> over a period of several years by a team of "pseudo-intellectuals"
> led by an ex-president of France, Valery Gizzard Disdain.

Personal opinions standing apart, and out of simple politeness, I would
refrain to spoil a former President's name. Remember the fuss in the
States when Whoopi Goldberg issued a questionable joke about President
Bush?

[DPB: I was writing it down the way the name was being pronounced on US TV.
And for the life of me, I could not remember exactly how to write VGE's
name, but my spelling does correspond to his feelings toward the average
European.

BTW, what is a Whoopi Goldberg?  Sounds like a cushion for tasteless
practical jokes, (but I am probably repeating myself.)]


The real name of the former French President ('74-'81) is Valery
Giscard d'Estaing. And, while his European credentials are beyond
questioning, his appointment as President of the Committee which drafted
the EU Constitution was widely seen as a retirement assignment for a
78-year old man holding no publicly elected mandate.

[DPB: That last bit is VERY critical.  I think a lot of Europeans are very
tired of being told what to do by folks who have never been elected.  It's
one thing to vote against someone and lose the election (at least you VOTED
against the person.)  But it's something entirely different dealing with
someone who was never elected by anyone and whom you can't even look forward
to voting out of office.]

That being said, IAWD to say that the proposed Constitution is (was ?) a
monstrosity. It's an assembly of about 360 articles, with paragraphs,
sub-articles, etc. It's almost 80 pages (small font !) long. It goes to
great lengths to describe rights, and it says next to nothing about
duties. Like an EU Citizen has no duties ! It goes into great detail to
describe social protection, environment protection, etc. While these
subjects are perfectly laudable, they would be better served by law, not
by a Constitution. AFAIK, a Constitution is (or should be) designed to
ensure a smooth functioning of government, of institutions, of
Democracy.  It should not go into such detail.

In a nutshell, the proposed EU Constitution micro-manages a vast array
of competencies that should have been better left to member states,
regions, or even smaller administrative bodies.

The French 1958 Constitution has 143 articles, and I've always thought
of it as too long, and going into too much detail.

As a comparison, the US Constitution has 7 articles and, correct me if
I'm wrong, 26 amendments. It easily fits on 7 or 8 pages. And it's been
in effect for 218 years.

[DPB: And even with such a short document, there are differing opinions all
the time.  Just imagine how it would be with a 500 page constitution.  Also,
the US constitution sets the limits of powers of the Federal government
(said limits, which have been largely ignored in recent years, which is why
you have Medicare, Medicaid, Social (in)Security, the (mis)Education
department, and so on and so forth.  It's actually quite funny reading
ignorant posts that decry the money "wasted on defense" by the federal
government when it "should be used to educate people."  Defense is one of
the few things spelled out in the constitution that the federal government
is supposed to be concerned with.  Education, medical care, retirement, etc
are NOT in the constitution and it can be successfully (but not acted upon)
argued that it is illegal for the federal government to deal with these
issues.)]

Besides the proposed EU Constitution, contrary to what its proponents
assert, instills a very high dose of rigidity into EU processes, which
are already not known for being easily bent. The fear, if such a
Constitution is ever ratified, is that all EU political processes will
have to be carved in concrete. Forever.

> One should remember that France was the original prime mover of this
> whole concept of a unified EU and the Dutch signed onto the journey very
> early on.

That's true, but only partly.

It's true that Frenchman Jean Monnet was one of the chief negotiators of
the Rome Treaty (1957), which founded the Common Market, which later
morphed into the EU. He simply was not alone. It's only fair to add
German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, Belgian Prime Minister Paul-Henri
Spaak, Italian prime Minister Alcide de Gasperi, and many others.

[DPB: every idea, no matter how grandiose, starts with someone saying "what
if..."]

> When the prime mover rejects the constitution written by one of its
> own ex-prez, I should think it torpedoes the whole concept.  The results
> were not even close and the repudiation was even more pronounced in
> Holland.

True. I'm not sure how to read the Dutch results, as I do not have
sufficient exposure to Dutch domestic politics. As far as France is
concerned, I simply say that, once again, it's a major rejection of the
political establishment, right and left, by the Nation, i.e. the voters.

[DPB: In this day and age of Internet, one does not have to be on site to
get a flavor of what's happening elsewhere.  And one certainly doesn't have
to rely on the (heavy) filter of the MSM, like the BBC.  The Dutch voted
against the proposed constitution for the same reasons a majority of French
voters did the same a few days before them.  The emphasis may have varied
for some people but the end result was the same.]

It seems that the French Political establishment did not properly read
the April 21st, 2002, election result. Oh well, no wonder, they've been
living in a parallel universe for a whole generation !

[DPB: True enough. It's the case in many countries.  One prime example of
this is The Peoples Banana Republic of Canada where people are now finding
out the government has been totally corrupts for decades, yet no one cares.
(You have no idea how sad this makes me, but I now fully support the
separation of Quebec from Canada. It is the only way to save what's left of
a once great and honorable country.  Quebec is dragging down the rest of
Canada and it must go it's own way before it's too late.)]

In other words, the current political establishment in France no longer
represents the Nation. Why French Presidential election first ballots
now yield unpredictable results (extreme candidates making 10 times what
they usually score in polls, very high -for France !- abstention rates
...) is now clear as springwater.

The fact that the EU Constitution was written by an ex-President who was
himself rejected by 55 % of the population in an election is only partly
relevant. Let's not forget that, since 1981, a whole new generation of
voters, numbering about 15 million, has come of voting age.

> In Germany, the government didn't even trust its own people to vote
> "properly" on the constitution so they simply had the legislature ratify
> it.

I'm not a specialist, and I guess a German citizen with more knowledge
than me in the Federal Republic's Grundgesetz (Basic Law) should clarify
this point, but I'm not sure that the German Constitution allows
referendums on such subjects. I stand ready to be corrected, though.

[DPB: From what I have read in various analysis, the German government
rightly figured out the population would reject the proposed constitution
and simply did not ask the people.  I doubt very much they could not have
had a referendum if they wanted one.]


> That is probably one of the reasons Gerhard's ratings are almost in
> the single digits and why the Germans had better start getting used to the
> idea of a lady Chancellor.  (Can you say Merkle?)

Oh, oh ... this is an easy assertion, and it's highly questionable at
best. Chancellor Schroeder's poor ratings can be blamed on a stubbornly
high jobless rate, pension reform, the East still lagging behind the
West in economic terms, the Euro being adopted in spite of 66 % of
opinion against it, and more. I'd guess that the EU Referendum, if it
had happened in Germany, would have been, like in France, more a
rejection of domestic policies and politicians than of the Constitution
itself.

[DPB: notice the operative words I used:  "probably ONE OF THE REASONS", I
did not say it was THE reason.   There are many reasons for Gerhard's
troubles, not the least of which is his propensity for misdirection.  At any
rate, under the present climate, it is unlikely Germany will ever grow its
economy and reduce its jobless rate.  That would require that many labor
laws be abolished and tax rates be cut dramatically, something a leftist
government will NEVER do.]

Denys, it's not "Merkle", it's Merkel. Angela Merkel. And, I agree, we'd
better get used to her name. There's a snap election next fall in
Germany, and it's gonna be interesting.

[DPB: I was writing her name the British way.  :-)  And I only asked you if
you could say it.  Does your spelling sound different than mine?]

Oh, BTW, my best guess is that, should the EU Constitution vote have
been held in Parliament instead of put to a nationwide referendum here
in France, the vote would have been like 85-90% yes. And they claim to
represent the Nation ? Which one ? On which planet are they living ?

[DPB: I could give you some names of planets, but that would only enflame
the discussion.  :-)  I agree with you completely on this one.]

> In fact only a few countries have voted on this issue and about the
> last one
> who voted for it was the same country who voted to surrender to the
> Islamo-facist terrorists.

If you mean Spain, then we have a problem. While I agree that Spain has
voted yes to the proposed EU Constitution by referendum , I don't see
where they surrendered to whatever flavour of terrorism. Perhaps a
little less frustration with the fact they elected a Socialist Prime
Minister would be welcome. In fact, Spain has arrested a number of
prominent Islamist terrorists in the past few months.

[DPB: A few days before the attacks, the socialist party was quite a ways
behind in the polls.  A few hours after the attacks, the leader of the
socialist party promised to accede to the terrorists demands and withdraw
Spanish troops from Iraq if he was elected.  He was and he did.  It's called
a surrender.  But if you don't see it, I can't make you see it.  So let's
move on.]

Unless I'm confused and you meant another country ? Which one ?

> Now Britain is going to scrap its constitution referendum.

That's probably right, unless Tony Blair can figure out how to make
political capital out of a no vote. He's smart, so I would not rule that
option out.

[DPB: Tony is a smart politician however he has been knocked about quite a
bit in the last election.  He lost a number of seats precisely because of an
issue that would not only NOT be remedied by the proposed constitution but
would actually be made worse.  This is about immigration.  BTW, this is one
of the reasons the Dutch voted against the proposed constitution.  They do
remember the van Gogh atrocity. They are also very worried about the
changing demographics in their country.  I have been reading a lot about
this for the last few years.]

> I would say that at this point the whole outlook for the EU is cloudy
> and the Euro has taken a hit.

No, it's not cloudy at all, it's 1) the EU as it used to be since the
last treaty (Nice, in 2000, I believe) was signed and 2) back to the
drawing board for a possible EU Constitution. Unless the EU Constitution
is scrapped altogether, which could happen. Or unless the political
establishment and the media jump on to other subjects and the EU
Constitution fades into obsolescence.

[DPB: Again we disagree.  In a journey, when your next waypoint, the one you
have been working toward so hard to get to, is denied to you, that's a hit.
You just can't say, "well, we just carry on as before."  Things have
changed.  You now know what other people think of the journey and the final
destination is suddenly more remote and may be seen as many as unattainable.
Time will tell.]

And, if I believe the recent exchange rates, the Euro has not
significantly moved since the 2 referendums were held.

[DPB: Keep telling yourself that.]

> What is even more interesting is why the French and the Dutch rejected
> the constitution.  When you understand these reasons, you will realize
> that short of a sea change in the people's outlook or a MAJOR revamp of
> the constitution, there is little chance it will ever be accepted by
> France, Holland, the UK and other countries where people would be allowed
> to vote on it.

Maybe, maybe not. As we've seen above, the reasons why the French
rejected the Constitution are mostly domestic, not European. Some people
even joked that the EU vote was in fact a "Raffarin-dum", along former
Prime Minister's name Jean-Pierre Raffarin. I agree that a major change
is needed, but it's in the political establishment, not necessarily in
the EU Constitution itself. But with President Chirac having appointed a
long-time ally, former Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, as Prime
Minister, I do not see such a tidal wave of a change happening anytime
soon. In a nutshell, the mountain has laid down a mouse, and it's
business as usual in the French political circles. Whew, the next
Presidential Election first round, in April 2007, will be funny to watch
!

[DPB: Of course the reasons the French (and the Dutch) rejected the
constitution are domestic issues.  That's exactly correct.  You have a way
with the obvious, don't you?   :-)   I also think DDV being appointed PM by
JC is a nice slap in the face to the average Frenchman.  If anyone is more
detached from reality that DDV, I haven't heard about it.

In a Democracy the political establishment usually reflects the wishes of
its people (except for in the Peoples Banana Republic of Canada, as we now
know.)  I simply do not see how this constitution can ever be adopted by the
European populations in its present form.  It will have to be radically
changed.  Then again, people are gullible and can be fooled once or twice on
a grand scale (can you say "Clinton"?).]

> Denys

Christian

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *