 |
|
I haven't been following this closely, but Mark Goldberg says it looks like votes on the EU constitution are slated to fail in Holland and France. What are the implications? I look forward to hearing from some of my EU readers.
Update: Dutch reader B writes:
Dear Laura,
You said you wanted to hear from EU readers about why the Dutch would vote against the upcoming EU constitution.
This is a rather tricky issue, but the way I see it, most of the people here are rather discontented with government lately and because the government is actively campaigning in favour of the constitution, people are doing the opposite.
The major problem is, that apart from some slogans and advertising phrases, hardly any education has been done on the meaning of this new treaty. The constitution is way too much to read for one person, so nobody does. The general idea most people have is that this constitution will largely end Dutch autonomy and transfer a lot of power to Brussels.
This has a largely short term historic background; the introduction of the Euro coincided with a slowdown of economic growth, which was consequently blamed on the Euro, which was 'caused' by the government.
So as more people have blogged, it's more an anti national government vote than an anti European vote. Personally I'm going to vote in favour of the constitution, I have great faith in our politicians, who are from a Dutch era not long ago, when issues instead of personal infamy ruled our dutch democracy...
More from Reader J in Holland:
And from an American BR married to a Dutch woman living in Holland:There is a general tendency within continental western european states of declining public trust in the political elites and their coteries. This is at least the case in the Netherlands. Since the '80s privatisation and globalisation have been on the political agenda. However, the specifics have never been mentioned beforehand in the election campaigns, neither have the short and longterm consequences.
The gradual evaporation of public services, amenities and the wellfare state (health, social security, affordable housing and education) has not been felt immediately, but years later. Partly this has been blamed on the EU and partly because of general economic trends.
In short, social issues that are of prime importance to large segments of the electorate are not taken up by the mainstream political parties. Furthermore, the elite acts as if the electorate are peasants living in the middle ages; the elite knows what is good for the population and for the voters. We just have to convince them.(Business as usual).This bodes ill when placed within the inflammable context of the threat of local islamistic fundamentalism (whether real of perceived), and continuing social and economic decline.
Voters are aware of developments in neighbouring countries. If, for example they have travelled to the UK they have seen the new standards of services like the railways. Higher prices, more taxpayers money allocated to the private firms then ever before and (of course) declining standards. However for years one of the main papers in the Netherlands has written in very positive terms about the privatised railways in the UK (more choice, etc. etc.).
Not many people here have had objections against the entry of countries of Eastern Europe into the EU. However, the financial costs of this extension is being paid by taxpayers in western Europe. The benefits of these transfers are not felt by the population here as jobs in the manufacturing industry disappear to these countries. And of course the political tune is & more cutbacks.
As one can see this is not what people want and if they can't have much influence on political agenda setting on the national level, how would that be on a European level. But what they can do is giving the elites a signal: enough is enough.
And from reader JW in France:From this morning's Volkskrant, a moderate/left newspaper in the bNetherlands, Ja and Nee op-ed pieces on the European constitution.
The Ja article, written by a board member of a political think tank argues that without a constitution, the EU will lack the necessary unity to pursue and ensure its economic and geopolitical interests. America will continue to dominate, especially regarding military solutions to terrorism and rogue states. "A vote against the constitution is a vote for the American approach." Likewise, the EU will be weaker dealing with the growing Asian powers, particularly China and India.
The Nee article was written by Geert Wilders, the new Pim Fortuyn, populist spokesman for the discontented anti-government folks. He sees Dutch interests weakened within a European "super state." The Dutch pay relatively too much money to Brussels compared to the Germans and British. The Dutch will no longer "remain boss in its own land." Essential policies regarding asylum and immigration will be compromised. The reality is that Europeans didn't ask for this constitution. It's a construct of the political elite in search of a European people that doesn't exist.
My Dutch is limited, which prevents me from having nuanced conversations
with people here, but I can read the papers and follow the gist of things on TV. The Nee voters aren't that nuanced anyway. The Dutch are primarily interested in themselves these days, and fear what is happening to their small country and vulnerable culture. My wife, who is Dutch, will vote Ja, but I'm afraid that the tide is running the other way. I've always had mixed feelings about the EU, given the historic diversity of Europe, and I tend to agree that the EU is more politically elite than democratic. But this is a critical time, and a No vote will be a significant step backwards. The US needs both a strong partner and check on its power.
Hmmm. People want "Europe" but they don't love this constitution, or the rules being made from Brussels......Here in France the no vote has a slight lead in the polls over the yes but the result could go either way next Sunday. The leadership of the UMP party in power and that of the opposition socialists both support a yes vote in the name of European solidarity for peace and prosperity. Also they argue that it is important to maintain the possiblility of a coherent opposition to American hegemony and excesses when they occur. The no camp contains a good number of right wing extremists and people who remember the Vichy collaboration with the Nazi occupation with fondness, and others who simply rail that Europe is taking away French sovereignty. But there is also a different kind of no vote. As your Dutch reader pointed out, a lot of people feel that too much economic power is transferred from their own country to Brussels. Right now in France unemployment is 10% and rising, and multinational companies continue to outsource jobs that used to be French. The new constitution will do nothing to stop this trend; it requres "a highly competitive social market economy," and any social policies must respect "the need to maintain the competitiveness of the Union economy." (Article III-209)
I had originally planned to vote yes because I have always been for European solidarity, but was shocked by how an unfettered free market economy is written in stone by this constitution just about impossible to amend, so now I plan to vote no. The constitution is very undemocratic. The only elected body, the Parliament, has very limited powers, and none at all in the areas of defense or monetary policy. The powerful executive is not elected.
Not only is it "way too much to read," as your Dutch reader wrote, it also contradicts itself in key areas. For example it outlaws the death penalty (Article II-62) but in the fine print of the Final Act, there is the "explanation" that it can be imposed by any member state "in time of war or imminent threat of war." (Declaration 12) A not so nice example of how things are with this constitution. I have less faith in our politicians than your Dutch reader. They will be able to continue to blame "Europe" for their own failures to implement policies the people want, which is why they wrote the constitution this way in my opinion.