Alarm grows at prospect of French and Dutch no votes

[T_i_B]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,1489171,00.html

European Union leaders desperately appealed yesterday for a yes vote in the French and Dutch referendums on the new constitution, warning that rejection of the treaty in either country would be a "failure for Europe" that would set the EU back 20 years.

A growing sense of alarm is gripping EU capitals that both France and Holland could reject the treaty in their respective referendums on May 29 and June 1 out of anger at their governments, poor economic growth and rising unemployment, mounting unease over immigration and "de-localisation" of jobs to new EU members in eastern Europe.

French polls this week have put the no camp back in the ascendancy. The latest poll, for the news magazine L'Express, showed 53% against the treaty and 47% in favour, with 69% convinced there could still be a renegotiation.

In Holland the most recent polls show the no vote rising to 55% against 45% for yes, with 62% planning to abstain, an astonishing figure for a traditionally pro-EU country. Jan Peter Balkenende, the prime minister, claimed to be confident the government's campaign, slow to get off the ground, would change people's minds.

[dutchdemocrat]

1. Since van Gogh was murdered

By an extremist, this country has spun. Not to mention the fact that the current government is centre-right christian. The Dutch are circling the wagons methinks.

[xchrom]

2. the issue is corporatism.

both the french and the dutch have strong workers rights issues -- and issues of what they want from their states.

those are the issues -- and they should be addressed.

while i'm for the eu as a balance between the u.s. and china another corporate oligarchy we don't need.

btw -- these are the same issues that keeps the scandanavian countries skeptical.

[dutchdemocrat]

3. What is corporatism

and how can you relate that to Mussolini's version? Or for that matter the Scandi point of view? The Netherlands is not part of "Scandinavia" BTW.

The bottom line is... the EU and it's model have spread south and north of US borders from Canada to Brazil and Venezuela in the south.

I can't believe you have your blinders on. Tough luck. Really.

[xchrom]

5. lol -- you really are funny!

imagine that -- the netherlands are not part of scadanavia --- shocking really.
:wow: :sarcasm:

[dutchdemocrat]

7. It would help if you spell it properly

And No.

The Netherlands is not part of Scandiland.

[xchrom]

10. you even answered it.

duh.

[dutchdemocrat]

13. Whatever

American ignorance of geography is nothing new.

The Netherlands is nowhere near Scandanavia.

I find it insulting that you are insulting me over this issue.

Doh.

[Chicago Democrat]

14. Are you in a bad mood? This is for liberal comraderady and debate

Yes Americans are mostly stupid.


But mostly the ones here are way above average..


Plus, we are all supposed to be Democrats at least....


Here at DU we are more liberal than the average Democrat...


(That's why its Underground)


Please lighten up a little. Noone is confusing Scandinavia with the Netherlands.

[dutchdemocrat]

15. Sorry

I am in a bad mood.

I just get SO FUCKING ANGRY when Americans run around the world killing people.

It's hard.

[Chicago Democrat]

16. Its so hard..Here's a hug....

(BIG HUG)

:hug:

[DemExpat]

4. Yes, I believe you are right....

I fear for Europe becoming more and more like the US, and until I, and many fellow Dutchmen, receive assurances that it will not become a copy, remain skeptical.

Most Dutchmen support Europe, but under what conditions?

DemEx

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. What does the new constitution do to strengthen corporatism

compared with the current EU treaties? The main change I see is the new majority voting method - which I regard as a democratic improvment.

[xchrom]

9. it does in some measure strengthen corporate interests.

there is a tradition of mistrust inside europe of placing corporate interests over union, worker interests.

it will for example ease some restriction for corporations to move to cheaper labour eastern european countries.

europe faces many of the same problems as the u.s. with growiong{controling?} interests of corporations.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. What are the specific parts that ease the restrictions?

I'm expected to vote on this in the next year or so - I'd really like to know what the differences the constitution would make from what the EU has now.

[DemExpat]

22. This new majority voting method - yes it is more democratic,

but little Holland will lose any say whatsoever in EU policy because of its size, and the people feel therefore that we won't have much to say about anything even in our own country with policy set by the bigger countries with different issues (Poland, for example, and possiblities for Turkey).

I think it is a protest vote for the EU as a whole, not just for this Constitution, and, within Holland, people are very unhappy with the center-right government (approval rate in the 20-30% now!) so this is also a referendum on this government.

Hard to separate issues sometimes for people....

DemEx

edit: also, when you read the complicated language of the pamphlet sent to every voting citizen to inform them on this new Constitution, it is everything BUT enlightening....:-(

[T_i_B]

25. National self-interest

"This new majority voting method - yes it is more democratic, but little Holland will lose any say whatsoever in EU policy because of its size, and the people feel therefore that we won't have much to say about anything even in our own country with policy set by the bigger countries with different issues (Poland, for example, and possiblities for Turkey)."

That's the thing in all this. People naturally want the best for their own country and as such governments will always fight for their own national interest. No country can be expected to vote yes in a referendum to something that cannot be shown to be in the national interest.

[Wright Patman]

8. How can the UK retain its own currency

and yet portray itself as part of the EU? It doesn't make any sense to me.

The fact that individual countries vote on this shows how much actual democracy exists in Europe as compared with the U.S. No one ever asked me if I wanted to vote on NAFTA or any of the sovereignty-destroying measures hatched by the globalist corporate controllers on this side of the pond.

All they did was blare the MSM megaphone 24/7 for a year about how great it would be and then trotted out VP Gore to slaughter Perot on "Larry King Live."

[loftycity]

12. Good !Europe has to stop US Corporations from exploiting

workers and small businesses..
Voting machines will have no paper trails...that will be the next step. No, the EU is just for the ELITE to gain control(again)over the people.
If it can happen in the US it will happen here.

[cascadiance]

17. Could it also be that Netherlands and France more in favor of a secular...

constitution than one that wraps Christianity in it? Certainly looking at our trends towards "Jesusland" here, has to keep their consciousness afraid of this happening.

From the following page:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/const_eu.htm

"Other countries with a growing secularist tradition, led by France, assert that pluralist modern Europe is beyond the need to reference religion in the EU constitution. Some political leaders feel that a reference to "Christian values" would make it more difficult to expand the EU in the future to include mostly Muslim countries such as Turkey."

Netherlands is also noted as a country where there religious tolerance is favored, where there's a substantial portion of the population that isn't Christian and they have gay marriage, etc.

A later article here notes that this effort in the above page to have the European Union include references to making the European Union note it's "Christian heritage" in the constitution had failed. So perhaps this is not the real reason, but perhaps there are other such efforts to have this constitution not be as secular as Netherlands and France want?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/18/news/church.html

"Certainly, secularism, particularly in the separation of church and state, is strictly enforced in many countries in Europe. In 2004, the campaign by some European governments to include a reference to Europe's Christian heritage in the draft European Union Constitution failed."

From this latter article, perhaps France and Netherlands are more afraid of what might be later to come in terms of their religious freedoms, since the article is noting a resurgence of Christianity in Europe and that the line between church and state might be crossed if European Union is given more power.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. I don't understand what you're saying

This constitution kept all mention of Christianity out of it. If they were concerned about keeping Christianity out of running the European Union, then France and the Netherlands would surely be more in favour of this constitution, rather than any revision of it that would be forced if they reject this one?

[cascadiance]

20. I don't know the details of the constitution...

So I'm not claiminig to be an expert here. Just reporting on what I think might be another issue that is of concern to France and the Netherlands. It could very well be that corporatism is the primary concern now that is of issue. I would probably see that as a big reason as well.

But just because the verbage isn't in the constitution and has been taken out now, there are perhaps other loopholes in the language that let other EU countries more power in this regard over what France and Netherlands want to have as rights for their citizens that they may be worried about. Kind of like Dems wanting to be extra careful on legislation that makes it a crime to "kill an unborn fetus" that would make Scott Peterson guilty of a double homicide, which by itself might not be of concern to them, but would open up the door for other judges to conclude that Roe v. Wade is invalid and throw it out, based on that legislation that got put in place if it is worded in such a way to allow this to happen. Much like the "head note" of Santa Clara case snuck in "corporate personhood" in the worst incident of judicial activism in our history.

Just like corporatism is a concern for both us and Europeans right now (I'm a big fan of documentaries such as "The Corporation", "Yes Men", and "The Take"), I think we shouldn't ignore extreme religious fundamentalism that is becoming a threat both here and perhaps there as well too, now with a more conservative pope, etc.. Hopefully, from the Europeans' point of view, they've *completely* weeded out planks from the EU constitution that would potentially destroy it's secularism, and that it is just something like corporatism that is of issue now.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. I think it's pretty secular

Mentions of religion:

(Preamble): "DRAWING INSPIRATION from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, from which
have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person,
freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law,"

"Article I-52
Status of churches and non-confessional organisations
1. The Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and
religious associations or communities in the Member States.
2. The Union equally respects the status under national law of philosophical and non-confessional
organisations.
3. Recognising their identity and their specific contribution, the Union shall maintain an open,
transparent and regular dialogue with these churches and organisations."

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes
freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in
public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance."

"The freedom to found educational establishments with due respect for democratic principles and
the right of parents to ensure the education and teaching of their children in conformity with their
religious, philosophical and pedagogical convictions shall be respected, in accordance with the
national laws governing the exercise of such freedom and right."

"Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic
features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national
minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited."

"The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity."

So, it's basically: don't discriminate, and your national laws cover everyting else to do with religion.

[T_i_B]

23. If you ask me....

....it is for the better if religion is kept out of this anyway. The EU is too big and covers such a religiously diverse area that such matters really are best left to the nation states. And this will be even more so if Turkey joins the EU.

[Rainscents]

18. What is all this means? I really don't know...

[T_i_B]

24. From Paris to The Hague, the answer is definitely 'maybe'

Another article about the referendums from the UK Independent. make of this what you will.

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=640388