FRENCH BEGIN EU VOTE

[Robbien]

Voters in French overseas territories have begun voting in the country's referendum on the European Union's constitution with the "No" camp holding its lead in the opinion polls.

One survey on Friday showed a sharp drop in the size of the majority opposing the treaty, giving its supporters some hope going into the vote. The lone poll could be a lifeline for the "Yes" camp, led by President Jacques Chirac.

. . .

Voters as far away as French Polynesia in the Pacific Ocean vote on the treaty this weekend, along with those in Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Guiana.

Voters in mainland France have their say this Sunday.

A poll by Ifop research group on Friday showed the "No" camp on 56 per cent support. But a survey by CSA polling group showed 52 pc of voters who have decided how to vote will oppose the charter, a drop of three percentage points since Thursday.

http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=112635®ion=3

[GarKeeper]

1. How many pages is the EU Constitution?

Thanks

[Adelante]

2. 450 pages in French

I just read that figure today. I knew it was way too long, but not that long! It's absurd. They deserve a no vote just for that.

[Selatius]

4. Any constitution should be concise, clear, and as bare-bones as possible

450 is bloat. There's probably crap in there that doesn't need to be there. It deserves a no vote just for that alone; I agree.

[GarKeeper]

6. Maybe regulations on toenail polish in Andorra?

Just guessing.

[Dirk39]

12. Forgive us!

Hello from Germany,

if it would be just about 100 pages long, maybe some voters and citizens would have started to read and understand it:-)

As you might know very well, people who write stuff like this know what's good for us. It would seriously harm democracy, if ordinary citizens would disturb the work of well-educated experts!
O.K., you were right, I just wanted to give it a try...

Dirk

[Adelante]

17. We "forgive" you the people

And you the person.

:pals:

[SRSU]

25. "There's probably crap in there"

Of course you never read it yet know what's "probably" in there.

Fortunately I have read it. If you had read it you would know it provides a VERY nice set of protections for civil rights all across the board. So much so it puts the bill of rights to shame.

On the other hand you are right about crap. American corporations have somehow managed to influence it as well as other aspects of the EU in very negative ways. I am still not sure how they managed to do this, but the EU would become to puppet of american corporations... (others as well, but mostly american ones) I believe many in the EU have realized this based on my trips there recently and the conversations I had with people.

[GarKeeper]

5. Agreed

If I haven't read it I would certainly vote no.

[Adelante]

7. Imagine how many Europeans have not read it

Who would even have the time, but academics and political junkies? I've seen selections of the language, as well, and it is dense, dense, dense legalese. The average person anywhere would struggle through maybe a few pages and put it down; wisely.

[beyurslf]

8. Ah but how many here do you think have read our Constitution?

[Adelante]

11. We're not voting on it, though

So I don't get your question.

[beyurslf]

18. Shouldn't we know the document that governs our land.

In fact, if asked just that question, how many could get it right out there is Bushland?

[Adelante]

20. I can only say -- well, duh

I will also go out on a limb and say, if there were a vote on our Constitution today, people could easily read it.

[beyurslf]

24. They could.... if they could find time between their video games, fox

news, starbucks coffee, and trips to walmart that is.

[AngryAmish]

15. I have

My favorite amendment is the one that allows us to waterski drunk on the 4th of July.

[beyurslf]

19. Or the one that allows us stay up all night drinking on our bdays

[AngryAmish]

23. I love that one.

[bennywhale]

13. If France vote Yes the British will vote no.

Even if the Constitution scrapes through in France it will be rejected in Britain. Its funny cos the French are rejecting it as they see it as an Anglo-liberal economic project, whereas the British see it as a Franco-socialist plot.

I'm British but will be voting No if given the chancde for quite different reasons.

1. Its not a constitution its a business plan

2. It does nothing to aid democracy

3. It has nothing in it which enshrines the rights of the peoples of Europe.

4. I'm sick of lying politicians telling me what to do.

If the constitution cemented the relationship and friendship of the peoples of the member states, giving inalienable rights to all citizens of Europe on an equal footing, brought the EU back to the people, and improved democracy, i'd wlk 100 miles to vote Yes. however its a business plan.

[Adelante]

30. What was the thinking?

Why was this business plan or trade treaty ever termed "constitution"?

Why didn't they just write a constitution? And a treaty? A treaty negotiated between the governments and a constitution voted on in referendum by the people?

I'm confused by the mechanism.

I think very many people happy enough to be in EU, may be opposed to a treaty masquerading as a constitution, although I know there are many other reasons people have.

But what were the framers thinking?

[bennywhale]

36. Calling it a constitution was the biggest mistake they made cos it gives

it a sounding of finality. Like "this is the end result, full stop EU forever. "Constitution" makes it sound eternal. The politicians in Britain have been desperately trying to call it a "constitutional treaty" whatever the fuck that means.

So, as its THE EUROPE CONSTITUTION it will be rejected by the far right nationalists in all countries and the Socialists and far left as it enshrines the rights of business.

The funny thing is it doesn't actually do anything knew, it just cements the cumulative effect of all past treaties, and takes into consideration the ten new members, and tries to construct a common foreign policy.

Its crap really, and doesn't deserve the title of constitution. People need to be inspired by it.
It needs to reflect the original European dream which was friendship, cooperation, and brotherhood between all european peoples, to bring peace to the most violent continent on earth, and unite it.

That noble mission has taken a back seat to business interests unsurprisingly and they thought they could dupe the people.

[cestpaspossible]

3. over 400 hundred

such a document is hardly a proper subject for a referendum. I say no for that reason alone... when an informed choice is impossible, I go with the status quo.

And the predictions of disaster if the French say no is just fearmongering.

[D-Notice]

14. If you wanna read it

go here

The English version has 474 pages. So far I've only managed to read to Charter of Fundamental Rights.

[Dirk39]

9. Some background...

"EU Constitution

Political centralisation, economic liberalisation, austerity policy and militarization - not much left for the left in EU's constitution, says Jonas Sjöstedt, MEP

Reading the proposed EU constitution it's hard to see what's in it for the left. There is no improvement in the content of the Union's policies when it comes to workers' rights, social issues, the environment or gender equality. There are some beautiful words, but no obligations made or tools created for progressive politics. On the other hand, it's made clearer than ever that the Union is a political project created with free market capitalism as its basic ideology. This is spelled out again and again. Any policy contradicting the free market is simply not possible for the Union, which of course limits the possibilities for progressive politics in almost any field. The single market is still the core of the project and the failed EMU policies remain unchanged, imposing austerity measures on the member states and the dictates of a central bank beyond democratic control. The goal of continued economic liberalisation is clearly spelled out in the treaty.

The EU is a legal system and the constitution decides what will be within that system's scope. Thus, unlike in other constitutions, not only are the democratic rules spelled out, but the central political goal. That's why the constitution has to be criticised from the left, regardless of whether we like or dislike the idea of transferring more powers to the EU institutions. If this were a football match, the Left team has no chance of winning because the constitution means that the rules of the game are fixed by their opponents, the referee is paid by the opposition and they have a 5-0 lead at the start ."

http://www.spectrezine.org/europe/Jonas.htm


EU "Constitution" is
a political programme

A massive “no” in the referendum which the Netherlands’ government has promised to hold early next year - a “no” to what is in reality no constitution but instead a neoliberal manifesto – would be good for Europe, argues Dutch Socialist MP Harry van Bommel.

The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe does not deserve to be called a “Constitution". It is a political manifesto of neoliberal design which, while doing nothing to make Europe more democratic or (in fulfilment of the goal originally laid out at the Laeken Summit) to bring the EU closer to the people, will lead to an undesirable militarisation of the Union. For all of these reasons a massive “no” in the referendum would be good for Europe.

The existing Fortress Europe did not come into being because the citizens of its member states wanted it, but because international business saw that it would be to its advantage. Its central goal, as stipulated in Article 3 of the current Treaty on European Union, is to establish ‘an internal market within which competition is free and unhindered` and this without any distinction being made between private and public sector.

Under pressure from the EU large parts of our country’s public sector have been farmed out to the market. Privatisation of state concerns – telecommunications, public transport, electricity and a section of the postal service – has offered scant advantage to the consumer. Parts of the education system and the health service are also, under pressure also from global developments, on the privatisation wishlist, with again few or no obvious benefits.

In Neelie Kroes, the Netherlands is sending to the European Commission a powerful advocate of privatisation. As part of this regrettable development from Fortress Europe to Europe plc, more and more of the family silver will be sold off.

http://www.spectrezine.org/europe/Harry2.htm


ON edit:
"Without a doubt, Brussels is beginning to look a lot like Washington DC. More than just being the site of the EU's bureaucratic functions, it's also home to some 20,000-30,000 professional and full-timelobbyists: 70% pushing the needs of their corporations on to EU policy-making. In the United States the adverse effects of corporate lobbying are seen all the time: someone working for a corporation running out of California can go to Washington and win a few votes over from representatives in, say, North Carolina or Georgia, and this will have profound consequences for people living in Illinois. This is the ugly face of Federalism: by signing up, you are pulled into whatever agreements are made by your counterparts. In the EU, transnational corporations can lobby a Spanish representative or Italian representative for policy that ultimately hurts French working people, and, if successful, France must be dragged along. As such, Federalism is the political form most convenient for neoliberal economics and its need to spread beyond national boundaries. The logic of the market mantra is "what's good for you, must be good for us," and, of course, this has never proven to be the case."

http://www.spectrezine.org/europe/Reichel.htm


I did never feel more european than now, as the French people will give "Europe" a lesson in democracy and about people, not being THAT stupid.

Vote "Non!" Un autre Europe est possible!

Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[GarKeeper]

10. Thanks Dirk!

Hello from the US.

Chris

[rfkrfk]

16. several questions

I'm looking at 'July, 18, 2003, Brussels, English text, if that matters.

part 1, article 19.3, page 16
the president of the European parliment, has what powers?

part 1, article 20.2, page 16
the president of the European council, is the same person?

part 1, article 23.4, page 18
the president of the council of ministers, WTF ?

part 1, article 25.5, page 21
the president of the European commission, has what powers?

one or several of the above would be similiar to what
other countries would call,
Head of State,
same, Head of Gov't,
or not?

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. All different people

the final version of this section of the constitution is here.

President of the European Parliament: rough equivalent of the US House of Representatives Speaker. Is an elected memeber of the parliament.

President of the European Council: leads the European Council, which consists of the Heads of Government of each member state (and the president of the Commission). Chosen by this council for 2.5 years (can be renewed once). This Council sets the direction of European policies, but does not deal with legislation.

President of the Council of Ministers: in charge of the Council of Ministers when it meets. Goes by rotation through the representative of each member state.

President of the Commission: head of the EU bureaucracy, appointed by the European Council (ie the heads of government) as long as the Parliament approve the candidate as well. The Commission is roughly the equivalent of the US cabinet - each member has a department, staffed by employees, and they're not elected.

The nearest equivalent of a Head of State would be the President of the European Council; you might say the President of the Commission is the equivalent of the Head of Government.

[DuaneBidoux]

21. I know it deserves a no vote, but you can be sure Bush is celebrating

such a vote. The no vote could be the beginning of the end of the EU, and the dissolution of the only other power that had a chance to counterbalance the Neocons here.

[bluedonkey]

26. Nobody expects this to go through

the first time.Too bloated!Too wishy-washy!

Second addition coming soon.

[Robbien]

27. High turnout in French vote

PARIS, France -- A high turnout was reported Sunday in France's crucial referendum on the EU constitution which promises to set the ground for the political future of Europe.

CNN's Jim Bittermann said that by noon local time (1100 GMT) a quarter of France's 42 million voters had cast their ballots -- 4.6 percent more than by the same time during the referendum on the Maastricht treaty of 1992.

The effect of a high turnout on the vote is unknown, Bittermann said -- though it could boost the "Yes" campaign led by President Jacques Chirac, making at "a real horse race."

. . .

French territories began voting Saturday, and those results from 1.5 million ballots are to be announced Sunday night when polls close in France's largest cities.

http://egyptelection.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1226

[cliss]

28. Sorry....can someone fill me in on the implications?

As usual, my attention is focused on the war in Iraq. But this is big news, too.

If France votes 'no', what's the fallout?

[Mr.Green93]

29. Nothing

they will vote again until it passes.

[Adelante]

31. Fallout

The Dutch are voting on Wednesday. Popular wisdom seems to be they will follow the French, whether yea or nay. That would make two EU founding nations in a row to reject the constitution if the French voted it down. I tend to think the Dutch seem pretty firm in their No preference and probably will think for themselves.

Tony Blair wants not to have a vote, just as the Germans did not have a vote, but the British public seems to want a referendum. If the French vote No, Blair wouldn't be able to chance a No vote in Britain. Coincidentally, he is set to preside over the EU beginning this summer and would have to deal with the outcome of these referendums.

As I get it, all nations in EU have to accept the constitution for it to become operative. Now, somebody in another thread told me they could just keep on forcing re-votes, which they did with Ireland on another treaty occasion.

The EU rests on treaty agreement already, so the union would not come to an end in either case, but there does seem to be a lot of genuine opposition, possibly half and half. That promises a lot less unity than the EU was hoping would come about from this process.

Maybe Europeans would please correct me anywhere I have it wrong :hi:

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. The British position on voting for the constitution

Blair has already said that Britain won't ratify the constitution without a referendum. Blair is in favour of the constitution, but realised he had to put it to a referendum (if he had refused to do so, he would have further decreased the Labour vote in the last election). If the French vote 'no', then there will probably be no point in the UK having a referendum - because they won't be able to pass the constitution - as you say, all countries must ratify it.

I can't see that sending the same constitution back to the French would help it get passed - in the case of Ireland and the Treaty of Nice, there had been a very low turnout, and a lot of those voting against it were doing an 'anti-government-off-the-day' vote. With this French vote, the turnout is high, and there has been a serious discussion - you can't just write it off as a protest vote. And the French populace can be as bloody-minded as anybody - I don't think they'd stand for a "you'll vote until you get it right" approach.

I think you're right that the Dutch won't be influenced that much by the French vote. Whether they'd find some way to fudge their result, I'm not sure.

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. Leaked exit poll result: 53-55% No

according to Channel 4 News in the UK. I think they said Paris and Lyon are still voting, while all other polls have closed.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[femmecahors]

35. Yes, France is a miserable country . . .

I'm moving there permanently on Wednesday.

Adios Bush.
Hasta la vista Arnold.
Bonjour Morning After Pill.
Hellllllloooooo secularism.
Bon appetit non-GMO foods.

[Flagg]

40. What's with the French and the freepers ?

Couldn't resist, could you ?

[seriousstan]

37. Europe holds breath in final hours of French vote on EU constitution

PARIS (AFP) - Europe held its breath as French voters turned out in high numbers for a referendum on the European Union's first-ever constitution, with opinion polls pointing towards a "no" that would have far-reaching consequences for the continent.

Voter participation was put at 66.24 percent at 7:00 pm (1700 GMT), one hour before polling stations were to close in most of the country. Voters in Paris and Lyon were granted an additional two hours.

By comparison, the final turnout figure in 1992, when France went to the polls on the Maastricht treaty to create the euro, stood at 69.7 percent.

After a hard-fought campaign that polarized the country, the last opinion polls released Friday indicated that opponents of the landmark EU charter would prevail, with between 51 and 56 percent of the vote.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050529/wl_afp/euconstitutionfrance_050529182701

[ooglymoogly]

38. viva la difference

a basic french concept that has kept france on the cutting edge of fashion for centuries. though i'm hoping for the best for europe.

[Robbien]

39. A no vote might not mean no

The treaty says EU leaders will discuss what to do if, by October 2006, four-fifths of member states have ratified the treaty, but one or more others have "encountered difficulties" getting it accepted. It is not impossible that countries would be asked to vote again.