A no vote could be just what Europe's constitution needs

[T_i_B]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1488223,00.html

There may even be something salutary about a French no, and I say that as a Europhile. Take the no meeting I watched here. It was typical of what is going on in scores of French cities. In a shabby hall, with a dozen speakers and no bright logos or star guests, it was refreshingly old-fashioned.

Speaker after speaker insisted the issue is the type of Europe they want for all Europeans: one where competition is not the overriding principle and market forces remain regulated. They did not see why economic principles had to be enshrined in a constitution, a document that ought to stick to democratic rights and values.

Sending Europe's planners back to the drawing board will not happen fast. The backroom consensus is that other countries' referendums, including Britain's, must go ahead regardless of French or Dutch no votes. France's presidential election in 2007 is also a hurdle to cross before any revised text is offered.

But a pause for reflection on how to produce a short, clear and eloquent constitution, not dominated by a particular economic ideology, will do no harm. Delay will not doom every institutional change proposed in the current text. Javier Solana, Europe's foreign minister- in-waiting, is already active in a virtually equivalent job and can continue. The council of ministers could endorse the idea of a European president, if it wishes. Europe will not go backwards, let alone collapse.

[Demeter]

1. A VERY Good Point

Since the market couldn't care less about democratic principles, there shouldn't be any language enshrining a market psychosis in the Constitution. But even without that protection, the US is still getting screwed over. There ought to be language to regulate the market in the Constitution, ensuring that robber barons never have the fig leaf of law to hide their greed and corruption.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. The pro-market langauge is in the original 1957 Treaty of Rome

accoding to this article:

As an example, they point to the phrase used in Article I-3 (2) which states that there shall be "an internal market where competition is free and undistorted".

One of the leading French critics, Socialist Senator Jean-Luc Melenchon, commented in a recent radio interview: "This is the law of the jungle turned into a constitution. I do not want a constitution that imposes a principle - free and unfettered competition - with which I do not agree."
...
The original Treaty of Rome from 1957, which established the then European Economic Community, also said, in Part One, Article 3 (c) that there should be "an internal market characterised by the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital".

And further, it said there should be "a system ensuring that competition in the internal market is not distorted".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4538249.stm

So, should there be a complete rethinking of the European Union? Few of the left wing who reject the constitution want to leave the EU entirely. So what of the existing EU would they get rid of?

[T_i_B]

3. Anti-Globalization rears its head

So, should there be a complete rethinking of the European Union? Few of the left wing who reject the constitution want to leave the EU entirely. So what of the existing EU would they get rid of?

This is all linked to the Globalization debate. The EU is the mother of all free trade agreements and it's that part which many of the Globalize Resistance crowd don't like. It reminds them too much of NAFTA and the WTO. I think that a lot of the anti-EU left do want a complete re-thinking of the whole EU project.

And looking at the far left in the UK, a lot of people on the far left do want to pull out of the EU as they don't think it's socialist enough. Indeed looking at old coverage of the 1975 referendum in Britain it is noticable that the likes of Tony Benn and Michael Foot were campaigning for a no vote.