Euro at Seven-Month Low After French Vote

Then we agree here. Unfortunately that (people staying passive) is the case on many issues, not only this vote.

They actually might. That's what would have brought up hesitation in my mind.
Another thing is that the current situation, good or bad, is at least partly due to EU decisions, so even if it's vague, it's judgement based on facts rather than (as vague) arguments.

Two thoughts here :
1 - We elect our governments for national affairs, their propositions and programs during national campains are so seldom Europe related (In France anyway) that it's hard to figure out who thinks what about it.The European debate takes place when comes the time to elect our representatives at the European Parliament.
2 - It would take ages for each future step to be taken... so? The EU needs time and is strong enough as it is to take the time to think and explain things over to it's citizens. That's why the "no" won, the whole project was rushed, and that's also why the consequences of a reject are being overblown. It's all going to be reworked and revoted as many times as it takes until the best possible text is accepted by all 25 countries.

I also think they could change the rules of the validation of the constitution, and use the same rules as they did for the Euro zone. Those who accept get in, those who don't stay where they're at and will join when they want to and qualify.

It makes it all official and irreversible. Name me one organisation in the world that has a Constitution and is not a country?

Yes there should be rules and guidelines, there already are. But this text, especially Part III, gives the EU the sole power to legiferate whatever the will of member countries on too many economical and social issues.

I have to admit no reading this in the text either, but hearing it from Valery Giscard d'Estaing, who I think can be trusted to know the content.
And even if a modification can be made, it's with the unanimity of all members, that's the rule of the current ratification process, which made the validation impossible in the first place... the same would happen with proposed modifications.

Yet, even if it's hard to define, some part (and a bigger one everyday) of the national status is due to the EU and it's decisions. You can't just seperate the two "levels" from oneanother because they interact.

Ponrauil

Very true.

In your mind, I'm sure. But after hearing several things from some vague excuses until plain stupid reasons, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people who just voted to make a statement to the government and no good reason would've made them to change their mind about that. And I still don't think this referendum was the place for that.

1.But even so; I trust our government to make the decisions with the well-being of both the EU and The Netherlands in mind. It's their jo to do what's best for our country.
2.Rushed? It took them a year and a half for negotiating only. I don't think that's rushed. How slow do you want it to be? If you want a referendum for all 25 countries, I'm sure there will never be such a thing as 'best possible text'. Not in the mind of each and every country.

Hey! Don't you sneak another thought on me! You said two thoughts!
However, this I can actually relate to.

I can't.

I don't know how it is for the rest of Europe, but this already was the case for The Netherlands for the last 40 years. So there's no change for us here.

I read about the unanimity. But I don't think it won't be changed for the next 50 years.

Of course you can separate this. We didn't vote for the EU, we vote for it's constitution. We're already in the EU, we can be pro or against that, but we didn't get to vote for that. We're voting for a text, which shows us how we work in this union, no matter what your thoughts about this union are.

The whole point is that a union gets things done faster and better and has more strength behind the decisions.

I didn't say things shouldn't be voted on, but the fact is that most of the people voting don't have a clue about what they're voting for. Every counrty has a parliament of some sort, democratically chosen. They spend their days learning about the EU and they should hvae a bette understanding on how things work. The people who are being treated a fair dose of propaganda have no clue what they're actually voting about.

Ice

Couldn't agree more with you, Ice; that's what I've been trying to say too.

A union that isn't 100% compliant isn't as strong and forcing it isn't going to help matters.

True everyone votes in their parliament but for something as important to everyone as this it's inevitable that they get to vote. I'll let them deal with the day to day stuff, big events i want a say in.

with regards to the propaganda statement, that could be said about every single election taking place across the world since the inception of enfranchisement...

It shouldn't be but fact is it was the governments fault. They had lost 3 national elections in a row and showed sign that they listened to the people and change their politics. They kept the same men doing the same things. The only way to get them out was to humiliate them on the international scene. But we're only half way there, Chirac is still there.
That's not how I think btw, but what I think happened in a lot of people's mind, and I can't blame them.

In theory yes, but fact is (at least in France) that few politicians remember what their job is about. Their main preoccupation is their career, whatever they pretend to think and whoever they betray. The trust is gone and the people are fed up.
To illustrate this, the new French Prime-Minister who's been in office for 5 days now, and was very popular for his actions as Foreign Affairs Minister during the build up to the war in Iraq, is starting is job with 68% of pessimistic beliefs about his actions to come.

A year and a half is a rush on the EU time scale. For comparison, negociations to get one country in can last twenty years.
I truely believe that all 25 countries have common hopes and aspirations that can be all be satisfied enough with one treaty. All it needs is to be is well and honestly negociated, written and explained.

Yet you don't think the EU is slowly meant, in Brussels officials minds, to become a country?


But obviously if you're pro EU but unhappy about how it is today, you don't want it to go any further do you? You'll want the next step to be thought again.

Ponrauil

Thing is parliament members are elected with as much propaganda as we've been fed with throughout this campaign. I'm not sure people really have a clue of who they give a seat to and why exactly.
On top of that, it's not for European issues that national parliaments are elected, and you'll seldom here pro/anti EU arguments during national parliament related campaigns.

Anyway, my question is : even then, if they spend their days learning and understanding how it works, how come they're so unable to explain it in a simple manner? Why the need for propaganda? (I'm on about both sides btw)

"What is conceived well is stated clearly."

Ponrauil

Actually, that's one of the big issues, at least here.

Talking is always hard. Why are there so few good teachers?

Ice

Not in France, it comes after unemployment, security, education, health, social standards, immigration, environment... As I said earlier, it's only debated for real when come the EU parliament elections.

Talking is their job, they've been trained to talk, they have an army of advisors for communication... I believe the problem's main sources are that most of (French) politicians :

1 - have their hands tied by their party's decision board
2 - have put their career above anything else
3 - are actually unaware of how disconnected they are from the people

Ponrauil