European Politics Thread.

[denoir 0]

Well, that may very well be so.. but again, the proposed constitution has little to do with any of that. It's not about how the Netherlands are run, it is about how the European Union will be organized.

Ironically the answer to your problem might just lie on the EU level, rather than the national one. If you think all the Dutch parties suck, perhaps your answer is more in voting for a block of your liking in the European Parliament. I say ironically, because through the new constitution the directly elected European Parliament would gain greater power, becoming equal to the Commission while at the same time under the new Qualified Majority Vote system, the Netherlands would have a stronger voice ( as would all smaller member states ).

Other relevant changes what the constitution will do in that regard are (Source: Wikipedia):

Quote[/b] ]

[*]It will extend the power of codecision to virtually all policy areas. This means that Parliament will become an equal legislative partner with the Council for virtually all EU-level decision-making.

[*]It will require the Council to meet in public when legislating.

[*]It will ensure that national parliaments receive information about new EU legislative proposals in enough time to mandate ministers on how to vote in the Council.

[*]It will also give national parliaments a new power to send any proposal back to the Commission for reconsideration if they believe the proposal lies outside the EU's competence (i.e. if they believe it covers a policy area for which the treaties do not allow EU-level decision-making).

[*]It will confirm the principle of subsidiarity as a fundamental principle of the Union.

[*]It will provide for the European Parliament to approve or reject the Council's candidate for President of the European Commission independently of the rest of the Commission. (At present, Parliament may only approve or reject the entire team of candidates en masse.)

[*]It will create a new citizens' right of initiative, obliging the Commission to consider any proposal for legislation that has the support of 1 million EU citizens.

[Ares1978 0]

Democracy is not about people micro managing political decision. It is about electing a professional to do the job.

If your electrical system breaks down, you can choose between different repairmen. That doesn't however mean that you should interefere with their job, deciding which wire goes where.

Yer, but not all 'electrical repairman' turn out to be preofessionals, you may get the cowboy who does the quick job and wants you to pay an overcharged amount.

Then you kick his arse out and get an another repairman not start messing with the wires.

Something you can't do with a politician. You have to wait for him to finish his crappy job to get rid of him, then you have to hire another one who will screw you over just like the first one did. All you can do is hope that the result is something that works.

[Donnervogel 0]

Well, yes, in Switzerland you do have far more referendums. But does it really work well?

Yes it does work well but the Swiss situation is different. We are not a fully representative democracy but it's called half direct democracy. Our people have direct influence on certain decissions in the parliament. That's why we have periodic referendums. Those referendums are legally binding for the government and the people can demand those referendums on constitution changes and certain federal laws. Also people can propose their own referendum text. The parilament will ususally make a counter proposal if they don't agree and then the people can vote on which they want or say no to both.

You have a far too negaqtive view of referendums anyway. The problem is just that referendums don't work as they should if you only have them exceptionally. Then the people often vote on the government policy and such instead of the question asked. But if you have them regullary it's a normal procedure and people are used to it. People don't have an exceptional situation to take revenge for the bad things the government did. It's normal political business and thus it becomes boring to most people so that they, if they don't care about the issues simply don't vote. Those that do vote are often well informed (media and government provide a wide and objective overview on the issues and the different positions in the government) and they do vote on the questions posed in the referendum. The "human behaviour" isn't that much a problem. People are cerntainly capable of understanding even complex issues if you provide them the right informations in a good way. That's something our political landscape has become used to. Of course sometimes people are scared and prefer to vote no than yes. But in the end that doesn't have to be bad. In Switzerland everything takes longer than in Germany for example. While that is some disadvantage in short term it appears that it provides a lot of stabillity in the long term. Also you can be sure that when we decide something big (like joining the UN or EU) our population and member states wanted it (such decissions need popular majority and cantonal majority). That's the essence of democracy in my opinion. To govern a country as the people wanted it. Not to govern a country as some political elite wants it only to find out the people are getting pissed off and don't trust the government anymore and then create totally blocked politics like in Germany for example. Here everything needs time but it takes effect when the people are ready and it prooved to be a good thing in many cases. Switzerland is developing slowly maybe but steadily and pretty much stable if you compare it to our neighbouring countries. We also don't get involved in short term political hysteria that can lead to catastrophies.

What I try to say is that referendums tend to become "the chance to take revenge" if you don't do them regullary. Because thats like a unique chance for many people to have direct influence on the government for once and they will use that influence for all kinds of intentions. If people are used to having direct influence it's not all that speacial. It's pretty boring for most people actually (our voter turnouts are like 35-55% usually). That way most of the ignorant uninformed people stay away from referendums but they can be allways sure they can have their influence on the government whenever they want.

Said all that I want to say also that I do very much support the EU constitution.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]You have a far too negaqtive view of referendums anyway.

My negative view comes first from practical experience in Sweden, where every referendum we've had, but one has proved to be wrong.

The first referendum as such (not quite a referendum by modern standards since certain groups were excluded) decided in 1909 that women shouldn't be allowed to vote. This was overturned in 1921 by act of parliament.

The second referendum was in 1955 about switching traffic to right as the rest of Europe. The answer was a big no. Fortunately the parliament ignored the result (referendums are not binding in Sweden).

The third referendum was in 1980 about the future of nuclear power. The result was that they should be shut down around 2010 but that all further development of the technology should be banned. As a result we have 30 years old technology today - and we still have nothing to replace it with.

The fourth referendum was about joining the EU. The result was a marginal yes. This is the only referendum that has worked out so far. To get that result, there was a massive scare campaign. The leaders of the largest Swedish corporations (Volvo, Ericsson, Electrolux..) promised to the public that if there was a no, these companies would pack their bags and move elsewhere.

The fifth referendum was about joining the Eurozone. The result was a big now and we are paying through our nose for that one today. As a practical example the costs of interests and currency exchange for my company are so high, that if they were eliminated, we would be able to hire 2-3 people more. And we're not a very large company.

It's not referendums that I don't trust per se, it's the people who in general are scared of any change or of anything they don't understand (which is a lot).

Speaking of Switzerland, I watched BBC's show "Talking Point" today. They had a French political expert there who was commenting on various issues. One thing that made me laugh was when he said that there was a risk that without the constitution "Europe could become irrelevant in international context - like a big Switzerland."  

[Donnervogel 0]

"Europe could become irrelevant in international context - like a big Switzerland."

Yeah but Switzerland is irrelevant in international contexts because it wants to be irrelevant. It's our surviving strategy in the world full of big nations. If no one cares about us and we don't take too much party in international affairs people won't bother us too much and we can live as we want it and not as some protectorate ;)

All I wanted to say. Referendums and different types of democracies do work. It depends on the country you apply it to. I think the Swiss system is nothing for the EU. But it's a good thing for Switzerland. But ironicly the EU constitutions will make the EU organisation very similar to the Swiss organisation ;)

[Colossus 2]

It's gone get bad if France says 'non' to this constitution.

[Necromancer- 0]

Denoir..

You seem to change my point of view concerning the EU constitution..

I wonder.. what is your vote? if i may ask?

[ran 0]

non

[denoir 0]

I wonder.. what is your vote? if i may ask?

I don't get to vote, it will be decided by vote of parliament here, so I don't have that burden  

If I had to vote, I'd probably end up voting for "yes". The proposed constitution is far from perfect - I wouldn't even call it good. But I think it is better than the set of treaties that are currently in place. If it gets approved the Union will become a little bit less bureaucratic and a little bit more democratic. Primarily the rules will be simplified somewhat. The biggest advantage is the new voting system (double majority), which will be more fair while protecting the smaller countries from complete French, British and German dominance. It will also somewhat strengthen Europe's position in international affairs (although all too little in my opinion).

There is however a further complication. Even if the French and the Dutch accept the constitution, the British will almost certainly reject it. In the case of a re-negotiation, the British will be in a stronger position, and the constitution will have to be changed to suit them better - something that is not good for continental Europe. So looking at it that way, it is better if the French or the Dutch reject it, than if the British do it.

At the same time, it will hurt the idea of a united Europe if core members like France and the Netherlands reject it. Everybody knows that the Britons aren't too fond of European cooperation, so it wouldn't be a big blow to morale if they rejected it. If the Netherlands or France rejects it, it will hurt more and have a higher symbolic value as a vote of no-confidence in the united Europe project.

Bottom line, although I'd probably vote for the constitution, I'm quite happy that I don't have to

Ran:

Quote[/b] ]non

Mind if I ask why?

Edit: Breaking news from BBC:

France 'rejects EU constitution' according to exit polls (that are usually fairly accurate)

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Damn, I am bit angry now.   saw the first results!

Now you can discuss about the "situation nationale" but what about "les relations avec vos voisins"?

Everything can be worked on (as Denoir said) but next time I hear european euphoria from France I call it "opportunistic". Ran, you vote you chose! You did chose against us!

[ran 0]

note my posting time I respected the french CSA rules concerning the results (not a single word before 10pm)

I'm relatively clueless when it comes to this constitution. My father has been pushing me really hard to vote against this constitution throwing in my face a whole lot of points relative to social issues.

I voted no as this answer can't be that bad for Europe as a whole. I appreciate the European Union but from what I gathered on this constitution I guess it was time to sit down and look back before going headfirst into an ultra-liberal European Union, but will the other countries actually stop and wait for us ?

I read the constitution and saw it, as has already been pointed out a few times here, as some kind of super economical treaty. As such, I don't see this negative answer as an immediate threat.

What I'm waiting for now is a REAL constitution and not some paper block filled with economico-rethorical masturbation bordering onto bullshit.

I won't say much more as I'm still somewhat tied to rules of neutrality due to my job when it comes to internal politics (I know it's the internet but I stand by my principles, well I try )

I had no real stance on the Maastricht treaty 13 years ago either and had other preoccupations when the Nice treaty saw the light of the day and it's roughly the same here.

I have to add that I don't think this "non" will change our relationships with our neighboors all that much.

And another reason for my vote was the apparent and progressive alignment of the European defence policy on NATO, a think I strongly disagree with. I'm in no way against partnerships but I can't stand the idea of basing our policies on external bodies.

[Mr_Tea 0]

non

This will cost us years.

[ran 0]

non

This will cost us years.

Why rushing things in the first place ?

[kavoven 4]

Because we need to come forward... This has always been the problem of countries in the EU, look at germany for example, always this "chill out, don't do things too fast" opinion.... It's gettin on my nervs, because with that we'll never reach anything..

But now the french, who I expect mostly have no idea about the real purpose of the constitution (as most people in other countries have as well!), stopped the whole thing and throw Europe back in years...

[denoir 0]

Damn, I am bit angry now.   saw the first results!

Now you can discuss about the "situation nationale" but what about "les relations avec vos voisins"?

Everything can be worked on (as Denoir said) but next time I hear european euphoria from France I call it "opportunistic".

Don't worry, it's not the end of the world. As a matter of fact, nothing has changed. And the constitution was 90% just a simplification of already existing rules. It's a three year project that was blown out of the water, but what's three years anyway?

Besides in practical terms, it's probably better that the French torpedoed it than if the British did. Otherwise the British would have an extremely powerful position in the next set of negotiations. If several nations have dismissed it, the negotiations will probably be more fair.

For France specifically it was probably bad in terms of status in Europe. Indeed, it looks rather selfish and short-sighted and will put a dent on France's image. Not the best of days for La Gloire.

What remains to see is the political fallout from this. There is a possibility of this leaving France very weak on the European level ( and probably Germany along with it ), which again will make the British side stronger. I hope however it won't come to that.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

You are absolutely right (as always and I hate that   ). The only thing that anoys me was what I read just a few minutes ago in different right wing american newspapers. They denounce the french and call the european idea a big failure and today the great proof.

Irrelevant I know, but still anoying. And the sad part about it, I care!

[ran 0]

Because we need to come forward... This has always been the problem of countries in the EU, look at germany for example, always this "chill out, don't do things too fast" opinion.... It's gettin on my nervs, because with that we'll never reach anything..

But now the french, who I expect mostly have no idea about the real purpose of the constitution (as most people in other countries have as well!), stopped the whole thing and throw Europe back in years...

no, the same treaties are still in place, that's all, we didn't go back in time, we just put the whole thing on hold.

You may want things to go fast but believe me, what has been done in 50 years is incredible and on the scale of human history that's quite fast.

[denoir 0]

You are absolutely right (as always and I hate that   ). The only thing that anoys me was what I read just a few minutes ago in different right wing american newspapers. They denounce the french and call the european idea a big failure and today the great proof.

Irrelevant I know, but still anoying. And the sad part about it, I care!  

I know, I read some as well. Perhaps the French should have been given a few US right wing references to read before the elections - the result would have been different

Yepp, the US conservatives are and will be absolutely thrilled with those results. They will indeed see it as a proof that the concept of a European Union has failed. So will the British Euro-sceptics.

In reality however, the European Union has been around long enough and has been too economically successful to be seriously hurt by one referendum. While it of course is a failure for Europe, it's not a devastating one.

As for those pesky American conservatives.. well, let them be happy for a while. We both know that ultimately they're wrong, so why not let them have some fun. Besides, I like reading their polemics about how the "people of Europe have overthrown the Brussels political elite" and how there is no democracy in Europe etc etc

[Necromancer- 0]

Don't worry, it's not the end of the world. As a matter of fact, nothing has changed. And the constitution was 90% just a simplification of already existing rules. It's a three year project that was blown out of the water, but what's three years anyway?

Besides in practical terms, it's probably better that the French torpedoed it than if the British did. Otherwise the British would have an extremely powerful position in the next set of negotiations. If several nations have dismissed it, the negotiations will probably be more fair.

For France specifically it was probably bad in terms of status in Europe. Indeed, it looks rather selfish and short-sighted and will put a dent on France's image. Not the best of days for La Gloire.

What remains to see is the political fallout from this. There is a possibility of this leaving France very weak on the European level ( and probably Germany along with it ), which again will make the British side stronger. I hope however it won't come to that.

It took just 3 years to write this constitution?

3 years are quite short to immediately vote for a constitution.. and only the last 3 months there were hefty debates about this constitution. That's not practically enough time to let the people "study" or get a well reasoned vote.

In my opinion.. it should take 5 more years till we get a constitution.

[Donnervogel 0]

patience is a virtue.

Besides I assume most of the new things regulated in the constitution will now be slowly imposed without referendums anyway. Many things simply need to be done and because the parliament has no say in this, thanks to rejected constitution, the prime ministers and presidents (especially german and french ones) will use their power and probably push for many things to be done through new regulations. ;)

[denoir 0]

It took just 3 years to write this constitution?  

3 years are quite short to immediately vote for a constitution.. and only the last 3 months there were hefty debates about this constitution. That's not practically enough time to let the people "study" or get a well reasoned vote.

In my opinion.. it should take 5 more years till we get a constitution.

Well, it toook the Americans only five months to write theirs in 1787. On the other hand ours is 10 times longer, so I guess it makes it even  

Notable however is that it took them two years of political fighting before it was ratified by most member states.

Writing a constitution for a collection of independent states/countries is difficult at best.

Donnervogel :

Quote[/b] ]Besides I assume most of the new things regulated in the constitution will now be slowly imposed without referendums anyway. Many things simply need to be done and because the parliament has no say in this, thanks to rejected constitution, the prime ministers and presidents (especially german and french ones) will use their power and probably push for many things to be done through new regulations. ;)

Yes, I agree that it's the most likely way it will happen. I

[Gordy 0]

EU constitution was rejected because it is a vague pile of crap. IT is full of wishfull thinking and mixture of contradictory BS.

Not that I am a pro-US but how come their constitution remained practicaly unchanged for over 200 years and yet it is so universal and basic.

WHy EU is not capable of producing sth very simple that states all basic rights.

Because we have France and Germany that want lead the EU at all cost even though thez are practically econimicaly worst old EU countries in teh organization

[Supah 0]

To quote the late and great Edith Piaff

"Non je ne regrette rien!"

[Necromancer- 0]

EU constitution was rejected because it is a vague pile of crap. IT is full of wishfull thinking and mixture of contradictory BS.

Not that I am a pro-US but how come their constitution remained practicaly unchanged for over 200 years and yet it is so universal and basic.

WHy EU is not capable of producing sth very simple that states all basic rights.

Because we have France and Germany that want lead the EU at all cost even though thez are practically econimicaly worst old EU countries in teh organization

Don't be so harsh..

[EiZei 0]

Not that I am a pro-US but how come their constitution remained practicaly unchanged for over 200 years and yet it is so universal and basic.

WHy EU is not capable of producing sth very simple that states all basic rights.

Yeah, the US legal system is real simple.