Originally posted by StarBreather
Yes, it will continue, but not as before.
- Quite. The connection with the people will be strengthened.
The democratic process must be fundamentally redesigned.
- What do you mean?
Are you suggesting the national sovereign states rip up and redesign their democracies just because the EU appears to be somewhat out of touch and
(you do realise the EU has been deliberately maintained in this condition because the national sovereign states intend to keep most if not all of
their meaningful powers to themselves, hmmm?
This complained of 'democratic deficit within the EU is entirely deliberate.)
At least now your are calling it a treaty, not a Constitution. Humility is always a nice touch.
- Look through the threads; I have been quite deliberate in challenging those who would attempt to contrast and compare this proposed Treaty as
anything like the US constitution.
The term 'constitution' was merely used as handy short-hand, as I have said myself here on many an occassion.
I have not seen anyone seriously deny this was a Treaty with the expressed intent to rationalise and reorganise 50yrs worth of old European Treaty in
addition to codifying the role of the EU and that of the nation states.
(mostly to a British/eastern European version of what Europe might have been, actually, with a more 'liberal market' approach and the national
sovereign states role enhanced and protected by subsidiarity and derrogation.......but that doesn't quite suit the anti-EU mob's agenda to admit
The reaction of the french goverment says it all:
Chirac, having lost, with a lowest of lowest 20% approval rate, refuses to step down and instead fires the person who had given the greatest
contribution to the "no" side.
Did you really think that the outcome would be different?
If so you have little idea about French politics.
The French PM was fired to demonstrate to the French people that Chirac had heard their complaints (mainly about domestic French affairs....ie
pensions, unemployment etc etc) and was making changes to accomodate them.
Let us suppose this is true (which it isn't).
- Actually it is.
France voted "no" mainly on domestic issues as has been widely reported (even if not in your neck of the woods).
Holland voted "no" on both domestic and EU issues (especially the Euro and the price rises accompanying it.......and various other reasons along
with a general feeling that the EU was not listening to the people's concerns).
Neither primarily IMO on the actual clauses and points of this so-called 'constitution'.
Even so, it is a clear vote of no-confidence.
Why should a free non-partisan national vote on an EU Treaty be necessarily seen as a "vote of no confidence"?! (Particularly when each side had
members of the gov on them!)
How does that work?
why should they trust their politicians with higher matters if they can't even solve the problems at home?
- You can play 'all or nothing' if you like; thankfully it appears most people are a lot more reasonable than that and see these things as a
balance of what is realistic and not a quest for (an unobtainable) perfection.
Hence the fact that there have not been serious calls or movements for fresh elections and a new government in France or Holland.
[edit on 7-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]