So what does everyone think of the French vote then?

[Vladimir]

I am quite happy, but a bit dubious as to how much this will count. I am also dubious as to whether the left groups in France which united so admirably to combat this monument to bureaucratic wankery can stay united for the elections... but if they do, and manage to translate at least some of the support they gained during this campaign into parliamentary seats, it could be a very good year for the French left.

A selection of comments on this:

From the Guardian:

Now let's pick up the pieces: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1495428,00.html

Europe stunned: http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,1495443,00.html

The heart says no to the body: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1495488,00.html



BBC roundup of reaction to the vote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4592415.stm

A blog with a pretty comprehensive analysis: http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/05/the_massive_def.html


The Telegraph rejoices...

Mere democracy won't stop the EU machine: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/05/30/dl3001.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/05/30/ixopinion.html


Times comment...

A thousand times non: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1070-1633439,00.html

C'est non: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,542-1633339,00.html

[radwriter0555]

1. EXCELLENT analysis... just to grasp who supports opposing the

Constitution gives you solid idea of who is behind it and why it's being rejected.

Clearly they don't have Diebold machines.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

2. I think it was the wrong result

An EU President and EU Foreign Minister would have been a step in the right direction.

EDIT: I think the biggest winner from the 'no' vote is Rupert Murdoch. He wants a disunited Europe and that's what he may get. His UK newspapers aren't holding back on their glee on the 'no' vote.

[Vladimir]

3. But what price this European unity?

I for one want very much to see a united Europe, but not like this. Five years ago I thought that shoving more power to the EU would force it to democratize, and I have been hoping for a no half-heartedly throughout this, but listening to the chief of the EU comission last night trying to explain how this would change nothing and how France couldn't be allowed to stop the European dynamic finally convinced me. These people don't give a shit about the public, or democracy - only about their European project. Well screw that and the stars it rode in on. I sincerely hope to see in my lifetime a democratic and socialist Europe, but this treaty would not have helped us get there IMO.

[aneerkoinos]

14. Yuu-Huu!

United Socialist States of Europe!

Rest is tactical decisions, and if this is the wave, then let's ride it!

[bennywhale]

4. The victory is not with the French left but the right wing europsceptics

across Europe and in Britain. I thought the constitution was akin to the biggest business plan in Europe and didn't like it, but this is a victory for the small minded xenophobic, isolationist little Englanders in this country who's reactionary view of the world will ensure we are a subservient 51st state rather than a strong member of a united Europe.

If only the constitution had embedded more rioghts for the peoples of Europe and improved democracy, bringing it to the people. As it is D'Estaing fucked up on all counts, offending the Left due to its free marketism and the right due to its percieved democratic deficiencies and "attacks" on sovereingty.

I ndon't want to sound like the many doomsayers but i do genuinely believe this is a crisis. This will embolden anti-Europeans everywhere and will stall and may dismantle some of what has been built up.

The technocrats have been ploughing on regardless for decades and this is the first time they have lifted there heads up from their desks to see what anyone thinks, and its not good.

I think there will be a reversal of integration from this point which i find depressing.

[Apollo11]

5. This is good news for Bush ...

The European Constitution (or Constitutional Treaty) was a compromise that had already been agreed between the national governments of the 25 Member States. 90% of the new Treaty was repeating what is in the Treaties that have already been ratified by the 25 Member States. Around 10% was new - and mostly positive, because it would have made the European Union function in a more open and democratic way. It would also have allowed Europe to be stronger and more united on the world stage - and not always following the US lead.

Many in France (especially on the left) see the Constitutional Treaty as a sell-out to free-market capitalism. Many in Britain (especially on the right) are afraid of too much regulation that would inhibit economic growth. But most of the Treaty was just setting out the rules of the game - not setting policies in stone.

The Constitutional Treaty was supported by all of the main political parties in France, including the main opposition parties - the Socialists and the Greens (at least their leaders - although most left-leaning citizens voted no yesterday).

55% of French people have voted no - for many different reasons. Many because they don't like the Chirac-Raffarin government. Unemployment is high and people are feeling insecure about the impact of EU enlargement and economic globalisation. Companies closing factories in France and shifting production to eastern Europe - or to Asia (what the French call "delocalisation"). Workers are worried about competition from low-cost labour in eastern Europe, and maybe in a few years Turkey joining the EU as well ...

But there is no single meaning to the result of the French referendum. Some of those who voted no are fascists and nationalists, who want a strong France unconstrained by European laws. Some are communists who believe that global capitalism can be replaced by another economic system based on democratic or state control. Others are regular leftish voters who are unhappy with the conservative government of Chirac and Raffarin. This was in many ways a referendum on 10 years of President Chirac - two years before the next Presidential election which is not due until 2007.

In France there has a been a leadership vacuum on the centre-left of the political spectrum since Chirac was first elected as President in 1995. The socialist candidate in that election was Lionel Jospin - who ran again at the next election in 2002 and lost badly. He came third after Chirac and the fascist Le Pen. So in the final round (as happens under the French electoral system) - French voters had to choose between Chirac and Le Pen. There was no left-of-center candidate on the ballot.

For the past 10 years (at least), the French Socialist party has lacked a confident and charismatic leader who could win elections. So the anti-Chirac feeling has expressed itself in another way - in yesterday's referendum.

The view of most British media is that the Constitutional Treaty is now dead. This will almost certainly be the case if the people of the Netherlands also reject it when they vote this coming Wednesday, June 1st.

So now we are left with a weakened European Union - which can only be good news for the Bush Administration, who see the USA as the dominant political, economic and military power on the planet.

[aneerkoinos]

15. Crisis is good

Or rather the people starting to realize how deep in crisis we are, and that neoliberalism is not the answer, but the problem.

The corporate media (and BBC) tries very hard to put it's spin around this vote and frame it as xenophobic and nationalistic, anything but to admit that this was people of the left, the majority, saying no to capitalistic globalisation. Very socialist, very internationalist.

[bennywhale]

26. That may be true in France but not in Britain. The main insights into

European integration you'll hear in our great country will be on the lines of "they stink of Garlic and eat snails" "They want to take over Britain" And the classic without a hint of irony "What did my dad fight the war for?" Peace in europe possibly.

The French reaction to European integration and big business, and globalisation is not the same reaction we'll get in Britain. And, if another constitution comes forward more socialist in nature the British Press will have problems with their blood pressure they'll be so excitable.

[aneerkoinos]

27. Well poor you

No other possibility for you than staying with the Oceania, then? ;)

[aneerkoinos]

32. Seriously

What needs to happen in UK is that Respect, Greens and Scottish Socialists pull their shit togethere and form an allience that challenges New Labour from the left. Many former Labour supporters, including MP's, will abandon the sinking ship of Blair and Brown and join the new left.

[bennywhale]

34. Won't happen. The best we can hope for is for the Blairite New Labour

project to die with Blair's depature in a year or so, and for Brown to take Labour back towards what it stands for. Brown will certainly be a more socially progressive PM than Blair, in Britain, Europe, and across the world. And one thing Brown definetely won't do is pray with Bush at camp David.

[Vladimir]

35. If Brown is more progressive, I'll eat something inedible n/t

[bennywhale]

37. What are your views on Brown? What are they based on? In what way is he

less progressive than Blair?

[Vladimir]

39. I might ask you much the same thing really

Brown has been central to the New Labour project and its implementations for the last 8 years, going along with every major package Balir seriously wanted to implement. PFIs, tuition fees, the war on Iraq, ID cards - you name it. Sure he postures a lot, and gets his 'supporters' to make noises about how he really hates Blair, but when push comes to shove they all magically line back up with the government. Usually after extracting some phantasmic 'concession'. Here are a few recent examples:

http://deadmenleft.blogspot.com/2005/05/gordon-brown-work-longer-for-less.html

http://deadmenleft.blogspot.com/2005/05/browns-ambitious-plans-for-increasing.html

Brown will, IMO, be neither substantially more nor less progressive than Blair. The cosmetics may change, but the rotten neo-liberal core will remain there.

[bennywhale]

44. A Brown led initiative out of Whitehall this week calling for developing

countries to be allowed to use protectionist measures on their industries, and to spend molney from these industries on socialist policies such as building up their education, health and infrastructure. This is completely against the neo-liberal grain that exists in American led global economics in the WTO, IMF, and World bank.

[Vladimir]

45. And yet...

Gordon Brown claims his new proposals for debt relief amount to 100 percent debt cancellation for the poorest countries. But in reality they amount to very little indeed.

What’s on offer is “debt service relief” between 2005 and 2015. This means the British government will pay the debt repayments to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for some countries.

However only 23 countries are eligible for this help — less than half the 53 countries that the Jubilee 2000 campaign identified as needing immediate and full cancellation.

And after ten years, even the countries that are eligible for this help will still be left with 70 percent of their debts outstanding.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php4?article_id=6641

for example. Brown postures a lot for good publicity, but the devil is in the details. Besides, all of Brown's initiatives on Africa are fully backed by Blair - heck, Blair has given plenty of speeches on how he sees Africa as a personal crusade - so the claim that he would be more progressive than what we have now is still not upheld.

[bennywhale]

46. You're talking of Debt relief. Thats a diiferent initiative to the one

i mentioned. Go onto the Whitehall website, it came out this week. And as i said is a proposal by Brown for developing countries not to be forced to adhere to neo-liberal dogma as a condition of loans from the IMF. Check it out you may be surprised.

[Vladimir]

48. Do you mean this paper?

Its hard to know, because I can't find any central whitehall website as such, but this paper by Hillary Benn is the closest I have seen to what you talk about. Presumably Gordon has since endorsed it and that represents this initiative you mentioned. If it isn't, I'd appreciate being pointed to the one you are referring to.

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/conditionality.pdf

No doubt it talks something of a good talk, but again, the details are the problem. When it talks about "promoting good governance" or "act(ing) to prevent the misuse of funds through corruption or weak financial management" it leaves all sorts of loopholes for the IMF, World Bank and Britain to slap governments around as they choose. Whereas I believe our demands must be far simpler: full debt cancellation, no more interference, zero lecturing to the third world on governance.

[bennywhale]

50. I agree with all but your last point, although i wouldn't put it as

lecturing. I don't think the West (i'm not talking particularly about governments here)should stay silent as millions of pounds is siphoned off into the pockets of the greedy and the innocent suffer. Just because they have Black skin and used to be subject to our shameful empires does not mean they cannot be corrupt, greedy, and immoral. They can and they are, and it would be a crime if people like you or i denied that, or remained silent, due to some blinded anti-neoliberalism which dictates we can't criticise the leaders of those we wish to prevent from its harm.

[Vladimir]

51. The problem is precisely though

that this issue is used by our governments in order to manouvre the third world around. Look, I agree that we shouldn't stay silent - it is perfectly fair to critique the government of any country where we see faults. But when this is done by our governments, it is not a critique but a political weapon. And when it is done by people like Bob Geldof, the publicity feeds into the government's criticism. We know, from places like Uzbekistan, that our government is hardly interested in good governance - it is interested in useful governance. So that is why I am always reluctant to enage in this sort of thing, and also because I do not see the liberal-democratic form of government as particularly enlightened (though it is no doubt better for its own citizens than what most of the third-world has). But you are right that we should not be silent, and I think the useful way of helping is through links and solidarity with progressive movements throughout the third-world. It is our hypocritical bastard governments that need to keep their mouths shut.

[bennywhale]

57. Agreed. But i'm interested in what, if you don't believe in

liberal democracies, would you prefer as a form of government. I would agree that our liberal democracies are contorted, and corrupted in a variety of ways and are very good at giving the impression of freedom. But i believe in true liberal democracies, my problem is that most governments are masquerading as liberal democracies.

[aneerkoinos]

58. Sorry to pop in

I prefer the form of governement where elections are not this easily bought of. The plutocratic aspect of representative democracy gotta go and be replaced with participatory and direct forms of authentic democracy.

One major fault is current muddled distribution of powers. Partisan politics have lead to the unintended situatian where practically all legislation is initiated not by the legislative branch, but by the executive branch. So one major improvement would be to deny the executive branch possibility to initiate and draft legislation, and leave legislation solely to the legislating branch.

One good idea is to make two chambers of legislating powers, one chamber elected to draft legislation (full time job with some expertize required) and second chamber statistically representative take of population, drawn by lot, to vote (home via intranet) on the bills presented by the elected chamber. This could be called the modern day Athenian model.

[Vladimir]

59. Short answer: socialism

long answer: who knows? I think that different government structures will suit different economic and social conditions better, and that is why I don't really believe in a sort of one-shoe-fits-all model. Of course, that does not mean that I don't see some forms as flat out wrong - but beyond that is sadly a vast sea of grey. Liberal democracy can work well in Sweden, as an easy example, but look at how is 'works' in the USA. Not every country could live with Cuba's model, but in Cuba I think its on balance quite a good one. A lot has, IMO, to do with economic conditions, size of country, ethnic and religious divides, etc. So I think its a question with no easy answer except the one I gave you: in the long run, socialism is best. But even then, do you go for democratic centralism, or decentralised socialism, or what? I don't pretend to know enough to be able to give a reasoned answer, except to state what is plain to me : the present system is bankrupt.

[bennywhale]

60. I agree to a certain extent that liberal democracies are corrupted

by the powerful and the rich. There is no REAL democracy in Britain. Democracy lasts for about 5 minutes every 4-5 years and even then only for a minority who are in a seat worth voting for, and even then if there were ever a real choice. But i do still fundamentally agree with the concept of liberal democracies.

To make them more democratic would indeed involve making them more socialist. Ensuring that money couldn't buy influence and ensuring that a country's first priority is its people not its big businesses.

I still strongly believe in freedom, liberties and democracy at every level and therefore could not support anyone like Castro and his paternalistic dictatorship, even though he has brought benefits to his people.

[LeftishBrit]

61. Agree with bennywhale

My view, to put it briefly, is that liberal democracy is necessary, but not sufficient, for a good government.

I also think that many countries call themselves 'democracies' when they aren't really. Just because people vote does not mean that a country is a true democracy: it also depends on the extent to which obstacles are put in the way of voting; how fairly the votes are counted; how fairly they are converted into political representation; and how responsive the government is to its people.

[aneerkoinos]

47. How very undecently neocolonialist

Even the US model, if I've understood right, let's really cancel (some) of the debt and pay it from development aid, is better than that of Brown the Rah Rah Imperialist, Brown and Blair "White Mans Burden to Decide for the Stupid Wogs".

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. I nominate a week's diet of turkey twizzlers

you could make you own Supersize Me!

[Vladimir]

41. I think Prescott has already made that n/t

[Taxloss]

6. I'm enormously relieved.

Hopefully, not we can renegotiate and get a far better and more inclusive treaty, one that actually captures some hearts and minds. Thedore Zeldin, writing in the Observer before the vote, said it best for me:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1494851,00.html

"A constitution penned by lawyers, not poets"

A French "Oui" would have left us Brits with an unwinnable referendum campaign, and the resulting "no" would have left us dangerously isolated.

I hope for a prolonged period of EU soul-searching. We need a genuine European debate, not a shouting match dominated by the rejectionist right. We need "We, the people of a united Europe..." not "We, the elite statesmen and businesses of a united Europe...".

[fedsron2us]

7. What puzzles me is why there is any surprise at the result

When the Maastricht treaty was presented to the French people in 1992 the 'Yes' vote was only 2% higher than the 'No' vote. It was clear at that time that France was losing some of its enthusiasm for EU expansion. There is no doubt that many British eurosceptics will be delighted with the result. I think, however, their celebration are likely to prove premature. If the EU was to break up it will not necessarily fall apart into a free trade grouping of sovereign states dedicated to the furtherance of the Anglo-American capitalist model. The powerful historical forces that have caused the Benelux states, France and Germany to come together originally have not gone away. I think the turmoil might lead to the recreation of a smaller and more integrated European project based around the Euro zone. The British as perpetual European party poopers may once again finds themselves excluded with their noses up against the glass door of Europe just as they were in the 1950's and 1960's. Given that the UK is now much more dependent on Continental trade than it was 30 years ago this is not a prospect to be taken lightly. English speaking critics of the EU also make the mistake of assuming that all those on the right of European politics, who opposed the new constitution, share their agenda. As Brian Walden pointed out so well on the BBC some have not forgotten the ruthless way the US divested them of their overseas empires in the immediate post war era.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4586755.stm

In many ways current Anglo-American and European relations can all be traced back to the Suez crisis. Britain and France drew two different lessons from that fiasco. The British felt that they could not oppose the US on any major foreign policy issue in the future and, apart from a brief show of defiance over Vietnam, have basically cravenly followed Washington's lead for the last 50 years. The French by contrast decided that they never again wanted to be beholden to the US. This explains their reluctance to be a full member of NATO, their pursuit of a completely independent nuclear deterrent and their support for European integration around a social market economic model. I think they have rejected the current constitution because they fear the new voting rules for the enlarged EU will once again make them vulnerable to social, economic and political economic initiatives emanating from across the Atlantic and smuggled into the EU via Britain and the new members states of eastern Europe.

[Frederik]

8. I find myself agreeing more with

Murdoch's Times than with the Guardian, for a change. Those who erroneously see this as a victory for George Bush, remember that it wasn't the EU that stood up against the anglo-saxons in the runup to Iraq - it was France and Germany. The majority of EU governments were pro-war. What would have been the stance of an EU foreign minister? He or she wouldn't have been able to take the strong anti-war stance of Dominique de Villepin and Joschka Fischer.

This was a working class revolt against an elite that they feel is detached from the concerns of ordinary people, whether that elite is socialist or conservative. It was a revolt against Thatcherist economic policy, and against what is perceived as an unelected and unaccountable Eurocracy.

70% of all French citizens over the age of 18, that is quite formidable for en EU referendum. And the 12 percentage point lead of the "non" deals a crushing blow to the French elite, and to the direction in which the EU is moving. A blow that will probably be repeated, though not with the same margin, in the Dutch referendum on Wednesday. It shall certainly be interesting to see what happens after that. Tony Blair promised a referendum in Britain - will he change his mind? After a Dutch "nee", the Constitution will be stone dead anyway, and Blair might be better advised to spare himself the defeat of a British no.

If the euro will weaken as a result of this referendum, that may turn out to be a good thing, as it should boost European exports.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. The Minister wouldn't have taken the pro-war stance of Blair either

So I don't see that Iraq is particularly relevant to the constitution. Without agreement, the Foreign Minister wouldn't have taken any stance - so there would be no difference from now.

I feel it's unfortunate that the constitution has been turned down - it wasn't going to change a great deal, but has now stirred up anti-EU feeling that will make it more difficult to get anything agreeed from now on. If the tidying up of the existing treaties had been a separate process (there's an interesting post from BushSpeak here about how Giscard d'Estaing expanded his remit), then I think the bits of the treaty that really do look like a constitution, parts I and II, might have passed. I certainly think the majority voting method that the Treaty of Nice introduced is fundamentally undemocratic, and if anything is salvaged from this, it should be the reform that the constitution had.

[Vladimir]

10. I think it will be easier to get something progressive

agreed now actually, in part because the left has led the 'Non' camp and nailed its colours to the slogan 'another Europe is possible'. So if this comes back renegotiated properly, meaning without the free-market bullshitisms and with more democratization, they will be hard pressed to oppose it.

PS That *is* an interesting post from BushSpeak, cheers.

[bennywhale]

12. But there is no way, if that happens ,that the great anti european public

of Britain would accept. Led my Murdoch and the Mail there would be the most virulent nasty campaign against it. Britain would vote no to the present one, but because they are led to believe that it is a Franco socialist plot. If it was more social, the constant anti Europe drip feed that has been on for decades would burst across the press, the Tories would join in, probably get voted in if it was in a few years, and we'd probably fucking pull out.

[fedsron2us]

11. Thanks for the link to the BushSpeak post

It was something of an eye opener. When I read the Constitution its wording seemed uncannily like so many of the UK statutes that I have spent a good part of my life trying to decipher. I put the similarity down to a sympathetic translation into English, little realizing that a former British civil servant had been involved in the drafting of the document. My personal reading of the Constitution was that the first two parts were largely uncontroversial. It was only when I came to the third part that the alarm bells began ringing. This was packed with concepts that would have essentially undermined the social market as it is currently constituted in many European nations. It even held the nasty little clause that gave companies the right to employ staff from low wage EU states in high wage states under terms and conditions that would have applied in their native countries. This fact alone would have led me to reject the treaty. These proposals seem to have been added to the Constitution at a very late stage in the drafting. This may have been an attempt to sneak a neo-liberal economic agenda into the Constitution at the last minute. Alternatively, and perhaps more sinisterly, some people might have recognized that these proposals would be anathema to the French and included them knowing the Constitution would be rejected. The outcome has certainly undermined the credibility of the EU as a political and economic force. It has also humiliated the French government. One of the few potential beneficiaries this side of the Atlantic is Tony Blair who will probably be able to avoid holding his own embarrassing referendum. There are probably also quite a few people in Washington who are happy to see the European project run aground. They should enjoy themselves while they can. Events may not necessarily go the way they plan. I expect some nasty fall out to come heading Blair's way later in the year when Britain has the EU presidency.

[aneerkoinos]

17. The voting method

in the constitution is hardly better. Very much slanted to the big nations, while fair would be double majority of 50% of governements representing 50% of population.

There is not a single thing I really like in the constitution, except the citizens initiative, which is not much compared to European wide referendums, what we wouldn't get.

[aneerkoinos]

16. Bullcrap

The majority of EU governements were not pro-war. And no nation, except perhaps rotten Denmark, was pro-war.

All the governements, except those participating in the aggression, were fence-sitters, none took any decisive action against the illegal war, like denying use of bases etc. (well some non-Nato countries didn't offer any support, so perhaps there were some that deserve to be called opposers).

>>> This was a working class revolt against an elite that they feel is detached from the concerns of ordinary people, whether that elite is socialist or conservative. It was a revolt against Thatcherist economic policy, and against what is perceived as an unelected and unaccountable Eurocracy. <<<

Well yes, with the caveat that the "social democratic" elite is not socialist, but market-liberal. The current tide is going left and authentic socialist, and the "third way" so called social democratic parties are dropping out.

[Frederik]

19. Bullcrap

Remember the 8 EU governents that signed the open letter in the Wall Street Journal supporting Bush and denouncing France and Germany?

Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Poland, Czeck Rep, Hungary, The Netherlands, wasn't it?

[aneerkoinos]

20. I do remember

It was Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and UK that signed as EU members. 5 of 15 does not a majority make.

Netherlands was offered chance to sign, but it refused.

Hungary, Poland and Czech signed, but not as members of EU. And even if they were at that time, 8 of 25 does not a majority make.

[T_i_B]

13. Good and bad

I'm neutral on this issue as I have not actually read the thing just yet, and I think that there are good and bad things to come out of this vote. The No vote is far too diverse to be a victory for any one political faction. We have far right nasties such as Le Pen as well as vast swathes of the French Left (usually on an anti-globalization basis) campaigning for a "Non" vote.

The "Non" will be for the better if the EU actually bothers to listen and re-think the constitution. If they simply tell the French to keep voting until they say "Oui" then that will be for the worse though. The EU is badly out of touch and this needs to be remedied.

[aneerkoinos]

18. Agreed

The Non has great potential of being good for social Europe, but nothing is certain. It is unthinkable that French would revote on the same paper; however it is very important to continue the process, at least untill it's been rejected by five members, we are all equal, the French (or British) are not more equal than the rest of Europe.

[non sociopath skin]

21. I tend to agree with Thanx on this one too.

There doesn't appear to have been one straightforward reason or common factor for the "no" vote except for dissatisfaction with Europe and, in particular, with the Chirac government. Not sure that M. Le President is going to mend things much by replacing a bumbling bourgeois Tory with an unelected Aristocratic one. It will be interesting to see how Sarkozy, the Gallic Michael Portillo, plays it.

The divided left thing worries me greatly. That, of course, is how Chirac got where he is in the first place. Perhaps one of the outcomes will be that Jospin gets an unexpected second crack at the Presidency. He got a raw deal last time, thanks to the Trots.

The Skin

[aneerkoinos]

22. Go Trots!

So perhaps the French left should unite under a Trot candidate or some other authentic socialist, as PS leadership just defamed itself very badly in their support of constitution.

The tide in the left is towards more left, real left, away from the market liberal "social dems".

[non sociopath skin]

23. We tried that here in the 80s, if I recollect aright.

The Trots had a great opportunity and spent the time beating up each other and the rest of the left while Thatcher buggered off with the family silver.

Not the way forward for La Belle France, I suspect.

The Skin

[aneerkoinos]

24. Yup

Perhaps they are incurable infighters. Yet I see no other way to answer the neoliberal globalization but socialist internationalism.

[non sociopath skin]

29. That's if you can get the buggers to talk to each other (grin)

The Skin

[Vladimir]

25. Anyone but Jospin, surely?

I think this is a chance to unite the French left around a genuinely progressive candidate. Jospin would show a real lack of imagination IMO - if the rallying cry is going to be "back to the early 90s!", it stands about the same chance as the British left wishing the 70s back. Or maybe I am just fantasising about president Buffet and premier Besancenot! :P

[non sociopath skin]

28. Candour compels me to suggest ...

... that it wouldn't be your first political fantasy, Vlad.

Have to say that IMO your Mr. Galloway was impressive in the Senate, though!

The Skin

[aneerkoinos]

31. Real politics...

...is the art of making impossible happen!

[Apollo11]

30. President Buffet?

Lionel Jospin lost the Presidential elections in 1995 and also in 2002. Since then he has effectively retired from professional politics. Therefore he would not be a credible candidate in 2007.

I was watching some of the debates on French TV during the last few days. I also like Marie-George Buffet (for those who don't know - a Communist! I think France is the only country in Europe where someone is proud to say they are a communist ...) She is very intelligent and a very effective communicator.

But as someone who thinks the European Constitutional Treaty was not so bad (although I admit - I have not read it - so maybe I am wrong!), I think the former Finance Minister Dominique Strauss-Kahn would make a good President (last year he published an excellent report on "Building a Political Europe").

I also like Francois Bayrou of the UDF - especially if he would work with the Socialists. Can you imagine a government with Strauss-Kahn, Fabius, Buffet and Bayrou all working together? Not really a question for the UK Forum - but we don't have a France Forum here ...

[aneerkoinos]

33. I agree

this is a real opportunity that should not be wasted. I guess you read this:

"People are asking whether an alliance with the Socialist Party is acceptable for the 2007 election. The rank and file of the Communist Party have had enough. Millions of workers think the same.

They could turn towards a left anti-capitalist alternative. But this means breaking with the traditional parliamentary configuration of the French left. It is unlikely that the leadership could do that.

However, a significant minority in the committees, the Communist Party and the trade unions would be ready for such a break.

Working class hopes are focussing on what Marie-George Buffet and Olivier Besancenot will do now. This is the opportunity that the radical and revolutionary left has been waiting for."

More:
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php4?article_id=6632

[Vladimir]

36. I've read it now

and it makes a fair bit of sense. Fingers crossed it makes sense to those whose views actually matter in this, i.e. the French progressives.

[aneerkoinos]

63. French socialists

They just kicked out all non-campaigners from party leadership. Methinks they will come to regrett that.

[T_i_B]

65. French socialists expel former PM

Looks like the Millbank tendency have crossed the channel IMHO

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1499784,00.html

Mainstream French socialist leaders attempted to reassert their authority over the divided party yesterday by expelling former prime minister Laurent Fabius from its executive committee as punishment for leading the campaign against the European constitution.

The gamble by Socialist party first secretary François Hollande of sacking Fabius potentially sets him at odds with the estimated 54 per cent of the party's traditional electorate which voted 'non' in the referendum - against the agreed party line.

[Vladimir]

66. Now is the time for an alliance of French socialist groups

come on CP, PCF, LCR, ex-SP, unite! These bastards are there for the taking...

[aneerkoinos]

67. Hear hear

Best hope for Europe, only hope for Europe, that they put aside infighting and unite! I think there is much hope that with the lessons learned and activatiom from non-campaign they can stay united under the banner "economy for the people, not people for the economy".

[T_i_B]

43. Well now the Dutch have voted no

This may well have killed the constitution as it stands. The ball is now back in the EU's court IMHO. It's time for the EU to wake up to what the citizens think.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldbriefing/story/0,15205,1497349,00.html

The depth and ferocity of French and Dutch opposition to the EU constitutional treaty undoubtedly caught Europe's political elite by surprise. Now they may be forced to piece together a Plan B, having maintained all along that no such alternative exists.

Opponents of European integration are gleefully anticipating the EU's imminent collapse. Optimists suggest a stronger Europe could emerge. The truth about what happens next probably lies somewhere in between. The EU has suffered an unprecedented blow, reflecting a massive miscalculation at the top.

Doubts about whether this voters' message will actually be absorbed and acted upon in Brussels and elsewhere potentially undermine such upbeat assessments. Even before the referendum results were known, Euro-enthusiasts were examining ways of implementing key parts of the treaty whatever the verdicts.

[fedsron2us]

49. Schroeder urges EU to forge ahead

German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has urged EU nations to continue ratifying the EU constitution despite "No" votes in France and the Netherlands.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4602035.stm

This is not the news Tony Blair wants to hear. There is presumably no truth in the rumour that Schroeder and Chirac want to force Britain to hold a referendum so that the Prime Minister can share in their pain.

[tjwmason]

52. This is one of the major reasons why the E.U. is increasingly unpopular

We have now seen 2 referenda within a week reject the constitution, in one case by an large margin, what is the response of the E.U. leadership?

"Push ahead, everybody else ratify."

Quite frankly they would sound less like Marie Antionette if they just admitted straight off "we don't care what the people say, this is our beloved project and we're not going to let a few peasants get in our way".

People increasingly feel that the E.U. is out of touch, profoundly undemocratic, and utterly unresponsive to popular opinion - and by their recent actions its leaders have proved the point.

[aneerkoinos]

53. I don't agree

The increasing unpopularity goes for the whole political establishment of representative democracy, which seems to guarantee a leadership of corrupt and incompetent wankers no matter how people vote or don't. People want authentic democracy, but are still generally too apathetic to take action against the formidable foes they face.

Every nation should be given a chance to reject (or accept) the CT in a referendum. What is more undemocratic than the elite, in fear of being humiliated, don't give people chance to discuss the CT and make their own mind about it.

I certainly would like to cast my vote against this CT and for a better Constitution, drafted by Constitutional Counsil whose members are directly elected by people, e.g. 4 representatives per member state, and then voted upon in a singe European wide referendum, which asks two simple questions:

1. Do you accept the Constitution?
2. If constitution is accepted by the majority of European citizens, but rejected by your country, do you accept the will of majority and join new constitutional union, or do you wan't your country to leave it?

[T_i_B]

54. Very much my own thoughts

What these Eurocrats almost always fail to mention is that in all but one of the countries that have ratified this, no referendum has been held. Two of the three countries that have held referendums have voted no and if more referendums go ahead more No votes will surely follow. Evidently they are not too keen on listening to ordinary people.

The European Union may not want to change, but change it must.

[LeftishBrit]

56. Agree...

I think that this arrogant attitude is turning off a lot of people who were not previously Euro-sceptic. If the people in power are so prepared to ignore the views of ordinary people, it doesn't bode well for the future. It's bad enough being ruled by an arrogant super-managerial government in the UK itself, without having to deal with similar stuff at a Europaean level.

[fedsron2us]

55. Why should n't Britain hold a referendum ?

Are the people of the UK not entitled to vote on the issue of the EU constitution? Eurocrats may be smug and out of touch but the British government's keeness to ditch any chance of its populace to have their say smacks far too much of political expediency on the part of Blair. He knows that the likely result will weaken his standing both at home and abroad. If the EU is to have any chance of progressing then it is vital that those who draft its treaties know exactly what the voters in each country actually think about the institutions not just what their leaders believe. The description of the EU as 'out of touch, undemocratic and utterly unresponsive to popular opinion' could just as well describe the national governments of Britain, France or Germany. In reality they have made Europe in their own image.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. the Vicky Pollard scenario

I love this description of asking France (and the Netherlands?) to vote again:

Then there is the Vicky Pollard scenario, in which France is persuaded to say "no but yeah", as Ireland and Denmark once were.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1496370,00.html

[sweetheart]

42. It was poorly drafted

As i figured, i'll never reach a vote in the UK, making it not really
worth reading. It is too large and cumbersome a document. It is as well
drafted with the intent of perpetuating an unfairly large french dominance
of the result. It is a good sign that it has been dished, as then we
can look forward to a better draft next time round, one where 35
countries are equal and not the french-german previous revision of old.

A NON vote is a the first words of a well-needed europe-wide "grand
discussion" that really needs to take place on the natural monopolies
of federalism.

[fedsron2us]

62. How Britain first fell for Europe

Good documentary on BBC2 tonight about the UK's one and only referendum on Europe in 1975. Michael Cockerell showed how the Yes campaign was able to turn its original huge deficit in the opinion polls into an eventual triumph. Interesting to note that like France in 2005, the No campaign in the 1970's consisted of an unlikely combination of left wingers and nationalists on the extreme right pitted against the establishment. Maybe Chirac failed to win his vote because he did n't have 'Europe or bust tee shirts' and failed to come up with a catchy little ditty such as 'Lets stay in the Common Market'. All those Tory Eurosceptics will be left writhing in their arm chairs by the sight of Mrs Thatcher, the newly elected leader of the Tory opposition, dutifully campaigning in 1975 for us to stay in Europe. History is a funny old game.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4609131.stm

[T_i_B]

64. I was very keen on watching that.....

......because my own parents were strong supporters of the "No" campaign in the 1970's. Although it was before I was born I know that we had a No poster in the front window, and that my parents thought the whole thing a bit of a fix.

As the documentary showed though, the Yes campaign back then had all the money, all the organization and were not at each others throats in the same way the various factions of the No campaign were. Add to that that the Yes campaign was staffed by far more mainstream people then the No campaign, and you can see why a lot of people voted yes.

Next time we have a referendum on this one though, the Euro-sceptics will be in a much stronger position.

[Kipling]

68. I'm torn.

On the one hand I want to see it as a resounding blow against economic liberalism. On the other hand I suspect it could cause problems for the EU, and may have been largely motivated by booming French racism.

[Vladimir]

69. Update: UK shelves EU treaty vote plans

Downing Street has confirmed the UK has put on ice plans for a referendum next spring on the European constitution.

It comes after "No" votes in France and the Netherlands which analysts said had effectively killed the treaty.

Tony Blair's spokesman said: "We are in uncertain times and we do not proceed until we have got certainty."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4612021.stm

[fedsron2us]

70. No surprise at that announcement