NUN!
Yeah, the French voted NON yesterday on the EU constitution. I’m happy to see there is gridlock in Europe!
Way back when in the U.S., each individual state was like it’s own little country. But as the federal government grew, states’ rights slowly disappeared and nowadays states have very little purpose. Let’s not have this happen to Europe.
I hoped for a big OUI. So I’ve been sulking all day.
I happen to favor Turkey’s membership in the EU; I didn’t like the way Le Pen et al. promoted their NON something like “Turkey in Europe? NON!” Now they’re going to interpret it so that Europe is only for white Christians.
Another reason for a OUI was that the Catholic Church failed to get their view on religion written in the Constitution. Now the Vatican is going to tell as NON was God’s voice telling us to write his name down there, if we ever try to make a new constitution. Pope Benedict is also known as a principled opponent of the infidel Turkey joining the Christian Club, a.k.a. the EU.
Still, it’s nice to see you Phil happy with all the communists and extreme right people and other authoritarians who’ve been partying in Paris all night. Don’t take it personally, like I said I’ve been sulking. Thankfully I predicted a NON from the very first day, even if I hoped for a OUI, I never for a moment believed in it. The French government were asking for it and now the only appropriate course is for PM Raffarin to resign.
Comment by Helsinkian — Mon, May 30th, 2005 @ 5:52 pm
Do you really think this will stop them or is this just a bump in the road? And did this constitution have anything to do with Turkey’s membership? I heard that “Turkey” wasn’t mentioned at all in the constitution.
Comment by Phil — Mon, May 30th, 2005 @ 6:05 pm
The constitution had nothing to do with Turkey. There were several different NON campaigns, I can’t blame all of them. The extreme right NON campaigners claimed that NON was against Turkey. Many commentators believe that this will de facto worsen Turkey’s chances. Probably it is only a bump in the road. The left NON campaigners said this was against Polish guestworkers who will bring down the wages of the working class.
All of the NON campaigners said this was a big no to Chirac and Raffarin. That message seems to have hit home as I believe Raffarin’s days as PM are numbered. Whereas Chirac won’t do a de Gaulle and resign, he will be seen as a lame duck after this one. The focus will be on his succession, whenever that happens.
The NON campaign was never about the constitution. Everyone is going to interpret it their own way. The talk has been about everything but the constitution all the time.
Comment by Helsinkian — Mon, May 30th, 2005 @ 6:18 pm
What has been even more of a foregone conclusion than the French no, is that the Dutch will vote NEE! That could very well stop the whole constitution project. It’s very difficult for the EU to deal with more than one no vote at a time. So, Phil, to get you on an even better mood, check out the Dutch NEE posters:
http://www.grondwetnee.org/
Comment by Helsinkian — Mon, May 30th, 2005 @ 6:28 pm
Of course Phil didnt like the constitution. hes a libertarian. And i havent yet heard of a libertarian who likes centralisation of power, protectionism or subsidies for big-business.
Therefore it is weird that the no-camp sees this a some victory over liberalism(libertarianism) when there hasn’t been a single liberal/libertarian who would have promoted the constitution
Comment by Hunser — Mon, May 30th, 2005 @ 6:40 pm
Many (most?) NON-votes came from (perhaps misguided) people who feared that the constitution is a neo-liberal project that will mean the end of the welfare state. I was a little surprised Phil agrees with the French socialists…
Comment by Erik — Mon, May 30th, 2005 @ 6:47 pm
Yeah I think much of the NO-camp vote no for all the wrong reasons.
Comment by Phil — Mon, May 30th, 2005 @ 6:49 pm
In Europe, where the majority has tended to be pro-European, the EU has often been called a “liberal” project. A common market, free competition, no borders etc. In America, where the EU is often seen as a threat (especially the euro is seen as a threat to the dollar’s position as central reserve currency, maybe not today but in the long run), the European project is seen as the antithesis of everything liberal/libertarian.
In fact, it’s a bit of both. The EU is a centrist compromise between dirigiste (central authority, plan economy etc.) and laissez-faire (classical liberal) views. The socialist yes camp will say the EU is a socialist project, whereas the socialist no camp will say the EU is libertarian. The conservative yes camp will say the EU is a pro-market solution above all, whereas the conservative no camp will say the EU is statist.
Whereas libertarians would probably oppose any government (world, European, national, provincial, local) for the same reasons, I think people of a liberal worldview (such as the German FDP) are often the most honest pro-Europeans who don’t tend to see a rosy socialist or conservative fantasy in the Europe they support.
Comment by Helsinkian — Mon, May 30th, 2005 @ 7:02 pm
I don’t support protectionism, although I think the constitution can be a good thing. I also think that the free trade and the fair trade people tend to be rather fuzzy. There are many pro-states’rights Southern Conservatives in America who would never want to have a welfare state but who have the most varying opinions for or against protectionism. A referendum on free trade could lead to even stranger coalitions and arguments than a referendum on the EU constitution.
Comment by Helsinkian — Mon, May 30th, 2005 @ 7:23 pm
“The left NON campaigners said this was against Polish guestworkers who will bring down the wages of the working class.”
So much for international solidarity, eh?
Comment by Hank W. — Mon, May 30th, 2005 @ 9:07 pm
???The left NON campaigners said this was against Polish guestworkers who will bring down the wages of the working class.??Â
Those lefties are a mean bunch!! What’s wrong with us Polacks?!?
- the half Polish, half German Phil
Comment by Phil — Mon, May 30th, 2005 @ 9:42 pm
The no vote is good news, as the whole European project had not been thoroughly thought out. It will be interesting to see what they’ll come up with when they’re are forced to go back to the drawing board. Most likely, though, this was not a learning experience that something might be wrong. Rather, the usual exhortations that we must try harder, we must be more concerned, we must listen more, etc. will be repeated.
From the US point of view, the vote is rather irrelevant, as Europe occupies a diminishing role in the world economy anyway, and will be even more buffeted about by outside forces that it won’t be able to control or influence.
Comment by Finnpundit — Mon, May 30th, 2005 @ 10:55 pm
“From the US point of view, the vote is rather irrelevant, as Europe occupies a diminishing role in the world economy anyway..”
Ha! From a US point of view anything that might shake the position of US dollar should be very relevant. US public probably don’t see anything interesting or important in Europe but the politicians and central bankers should keep a close look on what’s happening around here. I guess they are now a little more relaxed as the French shot Europe in foot.
Comment by Tom — Mon, May 30th, 2005 @ 11:06 pm
The euro was never in the position of becoming a reserve currency for the world, as the Europeans are unable to control the value of the euro. As one economist said, it was never a case of the euro being high, it was a case of the dollar being low.
Another way of looking at it: as long as Europeans opt for not developing a consumer society (through low taxation and liberal labor markets), then the euro will not be a long-term, desired currency to be accumulated in reserve.
What is more important than the dollar-euro relationship is the dollar-yuan relationship. The focus of central bankers has shifted to the US/Far East, away from US/EU. That’s where the action is.
Comment by Finnpundit — Mon, May 30th, 2005 @ 11:27 pm
Many of the NON voters’ comments have been about rejecting a Europe of low taxation and liberal labor markets. The French press seems to be a bit shocked but the Communist L’Humanit?© has apparently joined Phil in the NON party. And Finnpundit seems to have put great faith in Communist China providing the “liberal” alternative to Europe.
I don’t think the NON vote is irrelevant to the Bush Administration. They have been trying to help Turkey’s bid to join the EU, which hasn’t exactly increased Turkey’s popularity in France and Germany. In that project, the Republican administration has had great allies in Tony Blair and Gerhard Schr?¶der. Even if the NON vote wasn’t about Turkey, it is more convenient for everyone to interpret that the problem was Turkey rather than France itself. If I’ve interpreted Olli Rehn’s comments right (and he should know what impact the French vote has on Turkey), exactly because of the French vote EU will be taking a harder line on Turkey.
Whereas I support Turkey’s EU bid, I have nothing against the same criteria being applied to them as to everyone else. What I’m worried about is that Turkey will pay the price for France’s internal problems. According to a poll, about 20% of those who voted on Sunday actually felt that they voted on the constitution. A far larger group felt that the vote was about French domestic politics. We all pay the price for the French NON in the end. The Dutch will be happy because they would have voted NEE anyway; now they are not the founding member who shot EU in the foot first.
Comment by Helsinkian — Tue, May 31st, 2005 @ 9:08 am
Germany’s position on Turkey is bound to change next September if and when Angela Merkel becomes Chancellor. So far, Schr?¶der has been Turkey’s key supporter in Europe. Until then, Germany will try to speed up Turkey’s progress and make it smooth. After that, Germany will come up with all the excuses to hinder Turkey’s accession. If any election has ever been a foregone conclusion more than three months before Election Day, it is the fate of Schr?¶der’s Bundestag majority. That will also be interpreted as an anti-Turkish vote, even though the Germans (just like the French) have their internal reasons for a protest vote to bring down their government.
Comment by Helsinkian — Tue, May 31st, 2005 @ 9:24 am
Don’t you think that the no vote(s) will postpone all activities around EU enlarging? That’s what I think.
Comment by Majava — Tue, May 31st, 2005 @ 1:43 pm
All enlargement activities can’t be postponed. The process with Romania and Bulgaria may eventually slow down a bit but that doesn’t have to happen. The no votes will be used for all sorts of excuses but the EU can function and go about its business with the current treaties in place. The EU would function more smoothly with the new constitution in place but since the voters have other priorities, the new constitution is what is going to be postponed, maybe indefinitely.
Comment by Helsinkian — Tue, May 31st, 2005 @ 2:01 pm
I’ve felt tempted to see the connection between Phil’s and Finnpundit’s opposition to the constitution to similar views held on the authoritarian left and authoritarian right. Still, Czech president V?â€clav Klaus who is an arch-Thatcherite economist could be called the respectable face of the anti-welfare state anti-Europeanism that Phil is espousing. He has his TEN POINTS on the European Constitution, called “the ten commandments” by his opponents:
http://www.klaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clanek.asp?id=A1esXWD27Wvb
It’s a long article but the ten points should be there. Klaus is a diehard opponent of the welfare state who got elected President thanks to the votes of hardline Communists. Both factions are obviously united by a wish to stop the EU and soon. As the Czech government disagrees with him on almost everything, there is a bitter dispute all the time about who has the right to utter the official Czech point of view.
The problem is that even if there are people like Thatcher and Klaus in Europe who may share Phil’s opposition to the welfare state, their main reason to oppose the EU is not an economic one. Klaus is above all a nationalist. The Conservatives like him (a minority of European Conservatives) oppose the EU because they love the centralized nation state. So I’m still wondering if there’s any notable politician in Europe who would agree with Phil on what the right reasons to oppose the constitution would be. There are plenty of right-wing people with right-wing reasons but these have only one part in common with Phil’s libertarianism.
Comment by Helsinkian — Tue, May 31st, 2005 @ 2:29 pm
Btw. Czech President V?â€clav Klaus (the anti-constitution guru) will be coming to Finland tomorrow for an official state visit. There was a threat of him not coming as the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic threatened to refuse the state money for the presidential visits, so that the President could not make his official statements abroad. I suppose everything is cool and he is coming.
Comment by Helsinkian — Tue, May 31st, 2005 @ 3:03 pm
The diverse takes on the EU constitution that Helsinkian has outlined point to the prematurity of the attempt to write a constitution. All throughout the process one got the impression that the constitution was a wishlist of all the special interest groups within Europe, all of whom had to be placated at once. Brevity would have helped: some simple concepts that are easily understood, and easily agreed upon. The nitty gritty can be added later, as time goes on.
It is also too soon to be writing a constitution when the economic foundation of the EU has not solidified. And that is proving to be a much bigger challenge, given stagnant growth rates which don’t show any sign of abating, and welfare state resistance to the necessary cures.
The whole project is still irrelevant to the US, as Europe with or without a constitution shows no signs of even wanting to give up its freerider status.
Comment by Finnpundit — Tue, May 31st, 2005 @ 7:50 pm
Helsinkian is right in someway over the French position on the constitution-treaty as they thought is was an Anglo-Saxon plot to overthrow the French social-economic model (la Britainnque), while the British think is a Franco-German plot to destroy their economic prosperity and enforce a lot of red-tape, which are both nonsense.
I think now some of the areas which can be salvaged like consulting with national parliaments and interpreting the symbols ( the 12-star flag, Ode to Joy anthem, the Unity in Diversity (In varietate concordia) motto) etc…
Comment by Philip — Tue, May 31st, 2005 @ 8:13 pm
The choice of Villepin as PM is a guarantee that we will see a lot of hot air coming from Paris in the next few years. No doubt we will see a lot of trippy distortions of economic reality.
This is, after all, the man who claimed that Waterloo was actually a victory for Napoleon.
Comment by Finnpundit — Tue, May 31st, 2005 @ 10:06 pm
Hmm. The financial community is now openly questioning whether the euro will survive as a currency, given the debacle in France. What happens next is anybody’s guess, but it looks like the currency is coming under some heavy assault from speculators.
We live in interesting times. And y’all thought the dollar was going to be worthless paper…
Comment by Finnpundit — Thu, Jun 2nd, 2005 @ 6:33 am
“The euro was never in the position of becoming a reserve currency for the world, as the Europeans are unable to control the value of the euro. As one economist said, it was never a case of the euro being high, it was a case of the dollar being low.”
Reserve currencies idea is to be a good store of value. For that purpose Euro has a much better recored than dollar. For a very long time already dollar has been in a continuous slide if you look at the trend line. Dollar is a negative investment and doesn’t serve the function of a reserve currency. For USA the only way of “controlling its currencys value” is by using force to keep dollar as THE currency of commodity markets. That’s what the US military is for and the Americans pay more and more for this control. However, that doesn’t seem to be enough. U.S. consumers and the federal government are borrowing and spending more than they produce. Dollars inevitable slide is going to be healthy but painful.
Comment by Tom — Thu, Jun 2nd, 2005 @ 6:54 pm
Tom, the currency that’s in trouble is the euro. For the first time the discontinuation of the euro has become a very real prospect.
As to your attempt at suggesting the US military is using force to control the value of the dollar, please, go back to school and study some economics. Your ignorance is thundering.
Comment by Finnpundit — Thu, Jun 2nd, 2005 @ 9:24 pm
Heh, Finnpundit, I have already discovered while discussing with you that time and again I overly optimistically tend to assume that you could follow some reasoning without me explaining every little bit in detail. You can’t. As your blindly ideological relation to facts inhibits you from understanding anything I say, I won’t waste much words in this conversation. Here’s a hint:
Oil; most important commodity; sold globally in dollars; needed by everybody –> petrodollar, everybodys dependance on dollars –> artificially high value of dollar –> possibility for the US to boost it’s domestic economy by increasing money supply by large governments spending projects (wars) without a fear of dramatic inflation.
We’ll see what happens to the euro but considering the deeply rooted problems of the dollar there’s a substantial incentive for everybody to seek for an alternative reserve currency that’s value is based on real economical fundaments unlike that of the dollar.
Comment by Tom — Fri, Jun 3rd, 2005 @ 10:19 am
Your ignorance is not only thundering, it is that of a simpleton, as it refuses to factor in a little detail called 9/11 in its assessment of recent history.
The dollar’s recent lower evaluation has nothing to do with “spending projects”, but rather rates of taxation, which were put into effect well before 9/11. So the domestic economy gets a boost not from the war but by the fact that the consumer has more money to spend, fueling the economy.
And the old adage that the war was all about the oil falls flat when one realizes that, since the war, the price of oil has gone up. The economic gains from the war are nil.
As to your trust in the euro… things look quite bleak indeed for the euro. There’s even talk that the monetary union might eventually break up, as more and more welfare states decide that they want to hold on to their states’ welfare policies, and look to fund that through control of their own currency.
No, the euro will never be a reserve currency of any substance, precisely because the European welfare state consumer doesn’t have that much money to spend after taxes. However, the Chinese yuan certainly does have that possibility, sometime in the future.
Comment by Finnpundit — Fri, Jun 3rd, 2005 @ 5:14 pm
I will stop reading this thread now just as you have stopped a long time ago - you only write but don’t read. I have only talked about well known problems of the dollar but have not expressed my trust or distrust in the euro. I only acknowledge a need for a new reserve currency, whether that be euro or something else. As you didn’t understand what I wrote earlier, there’s no need to burden you with more information.
Comment by Tom — Sat, Jun 4th, 2005 @ 11:02 am