...is apparently the new word for when you get angry while you're blogging. I'm angry, well, I was already before I started on this post. I'm not angry with the French result as such; they are allowed to vote in any way they want, though I had hoped people would have voted on the issue at stake instead of expressing disatisfaction with the people in power due to high unemployment levels or what have you. But that's always going to happen to some extent.
No, I'm angry with the Swedish Left Party (aka the former communists). This is a party that's usually against the EU and the supranationality and transnationalism it entails. They want Sweden to remain sovereign and don't want to secede power to the EU and its member states. However, today the Left Party is saying that the French result means that Sweden can and should abandon its ratification process. To me, that, if anything, is saying that Sweden doesn't have its own say and to let France decide instead for us. Granted, the constitutional treaty may fall in the end but we're not there yet. Until that day we should let each member state have its say, irrespective of whether it's ratification (or rejection) through a parliamentary vote or a referendum. So the Left is contradicting itself by saying that today we accept supranationality (at least as a means, if not an end). "Listen to France when it suits us."
To make matters worse, the Left had threatened to leave the Government as a results of the French vote. The Left party is not actually a coalition partner and accordingly doesn't hold any ministerial posts, but in effect, together with the Greens, it functions as a partner to the minority Social Democratic government. They threaten not to agree to the budget which is scheduled for September unless Sweden opts out of ratification. Not sure whether they are serious or whether they are in the position to demand such actions, but the whole thing just pisses me off! It's perfectly understandable that France is in a crisis but Sweden??
The French didn't even reject the constitution for the reasons the Swedish Left Party would. Not even the French Left has the same opinions. Many voted no because they don't think the EU does enough on social issues (the European social model) and think they can amend the Treaty (in effect add) and have a new vote. I.e. they want Europe to do more (even common taxation in the future). The Swedish Left would cringe if they really understood this (which they don't seem to do) because they want to move power back to the nation state, not add to the European level. Oh well.
At least these nay-sayers voted on the basis of a conviction and had actually read the constitutional treaty. I heard one guy on the news who said "I haven't read it so I'm going to vote no." Sigh.
I will end with a thought that was voiced at the seminar I attended this morning on the topic: perhaps the positive thing that will come out of today's results is that the UK will vote yes to spite the French!
Go bloggressive Anna, go!
ReplyDeleteWell, It seems Jacques Chirac had a bitter wake-up call Monday following the referendum results on the European Constitution. First of al because the main losers in the wake of this exemplary call to the ballot box (80% participation, an intense campaign filled with debate and explanation at all levels) were Chirac, his Prime Minister and the arrogant French political class, both left and right, that demonized “No” vote supporters and used State resources and power to silence them.
ReplyDeleteBut to no avail: the French gave Chirac, his governing style, his foreign policy, the French-German axis and, of course, an archaic, aloof idea of Europe a big kick in the pants.
The French said “No” to a defective, poorly written, ambiguous and authoritarian Constitution, a Constitution that jeopardized the European construction process about which “Yes” supporters talked so much. In one of his historic campaign speeches, Chirac said whoever voted “No” was “des cons”, that is to say, a bunch of jerks. This is not about destroying Europe, but rebuilding it, reforming it and improving it. This Constitution was total foolishness: it could not be reformed or renovated; it was like Talmud or the Koran, a divine text for the exclusive use of bureaucrats and apparatchiks. The French understood this and voted it down.
Needless to say, Sunday’s results will force the main French political parties and, of course, the socialist and the entire left wing to undergo serious renovation and self-criticism. We already know Chirac will not step down like General De Gaulle did when he lost a similar referendum. He lacks the courage and grandeur. He will not resign, among other reasons, because when he leaves the Elysee Palace a bunch of judges will be waiting for him to resolve some pending cases of fraud that he has avoided up to now thanks to the immunity granted the French Head of State.
To many people, what happened in France is a torpedo aimed at the two principal parties that preferred to block debate and reflection on a text the citizens at best knew little about and instead tried to scare them into voting “Yes”.
Elena.
Anita,
ReplyDeleteYou better explain me how can i create an account....Any time i write my name it says that name it is not available . I am totally shocked!!!! :-))))
Elena
Elena,
ReplyDeleteAnna's annoying little Jewish friend here. I could not help but notice that you picked the Talmud and Koran as texts that can't be "reformed or renovated" in your little analogy to the EU constitution, while Christian texts are notably absent. Could it be that Christians are the only ones enlightened enough to reform, renovate, and so on? If so, that's sure news to me. I don't know about you, but the last time I looked, there were numerous interpretation of, say, the Koran. OK, that's all for now.
Elena,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, to put matters straight, it's actually not a constitution but a treaty to create a constitution, i.e. a constitutional treaty. That means it is not a constitution in the sense of form, structure, activities, character, and fundamental rules of a state/country, but remain (if ratified) a treaty between sovereign states. But for the sake of simplicity I will use the word 'constitution'.
Secondly, why do you think the constitution "defective, poorly written, ambiguous and authoritarian Constitution" and that is it "a Constitution that jeopardized the European construction process"?
In addition, though I'm not 100 % certain, I believe that the constitution can in fact be reformed or renovated. As mentioned above, it IS a treaty; in the same way that it has been preceded by many treaties it will probably be succeeded by just as many. The EU is a living organism which will continue to change. The development of the EU has throughout its history been two steps forward, one step back. Today (with the Dutch joining the French in rejecting the constitution) we're taking that backward step.
As regards the setting up of an account I'm not entirely sure how you do it when you don't have a blog of your own...
ReplyDeleteI think you either choose Anonymous or Other. When you click Other you should get the option of putting in your name and a webpage, if you have one. I don't think you can choose As a different user because that's if you have another blogspot account, I think...
Good luck!
Looking forward to more thoughts and comment from you!