Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Announcements

Journal jawtheshark's Journal: Non! 60

Journal by jawtheshark
I wanted to write this journal for a long time, but I waited for the French vote on the European Constitution. Not surprisingly they voted "Non!". I usually don't write much about politics and I can understand that the majority of my audience is American and doesn't care. So, I understand that you bail out at this point.

Let me first say that I owe a lot to the European Union. I owe them my education. Well, okay, my parents paid for it but I went my whole schooling to the European School Luxembourg. (Only parents working directly for the EU could get their kids on that school for free. It was a huge burden for my parents.) So, my bias certainly is pro-european. (Em dubbed me "Euroman" after all ;-) ) Let's just say I have been brainwashed to like the European Union.

Still, this constitution goes very uneasy with me. I will explain why: my main point is that the constitution is huge. About 400 pages. What European citizen in his right mind is going to read that whole (boring) legalese in order to be informed? I mean, I can consider myself an educated man (you can of course think differently), but even I don't have the time nor the motivation to ploug through it and try to understand every implication. How exactly do you want that people like my brother, a simple bus driver, is going to make an educated choice? They most certainly are not going to read it. Flipping a coin is more than enough to make a choice.

Compare it to the US constitution, which I didn't read either, which is four pages long. It is covered during your education in civic classes. Yet, even you guys don't agree on what everything means in the document. (Example: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." could be interpreted in many different ways... but please let's not start a flamewar about it, okay?)

Clearly, our constitution is not close to the people because simple people can't read it and understand it. Considering that most of us are taught to never sign something you haven't read and understood, voting "Yes" to the constitution is equivalent to signing such a contract.

This is my main gripe with the constitution: it's not what is in it (because I don't *know* what's in it), but that it's too far from the people.

On the other hand, I asked my father what he understood from the constitution. He usually is much better informed on politics than I am. He summarized it this way: "The constitution is simple a summary of all treaties that are already ratified (Treaty of Rome, Treaty of Maastrich, Treaty of Schengen and many more) and will just replace those. Voting 'Yes' will make things more simple because the constitution will replace those treaties and voting 'No' just leave things as they are. Politically few things will change" Of course, this really doesn't help with my choice, does it?

The Luxembourgish referendum is 10 July 2005. Only 10 out of 25 countries actually get a referendum and some of them are only consultative. This means: we can vote "No" but the government can still do whatever it wants. This is the case for Luxembourg, but our premier (Jean-Claude Junker) told he would follow our wishes. Not that I believe him after the Software Patent legislation they pulled through at the European level under his presidency.

I really don't know what to vote in a month. My pro-european side says I should side with the European Union and vote yes. My common sense says that I shouldn't vote for something that I know squat about.

Finally: the French voting "No" hasn't any meaning for the European Union. Months ago, they said that it would be the death blow for the constitution if any country voted "No". The French referendum was binding, which means the government has to follow the will of the people. Death blow? Nah, of course not... by now they just are thinking of doing the same as for the Euro. Fraction the EU in those that accept the constitution and those that don't. We know this as "L'Europe à deux vitesses" ("Europe at two speeds"). Very typical....

Makes you wonder if even the most rabid pro-european had doubts, doesn't it?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Non! More

Non!

Comments Filter:
  • I agree with you on Constitution size, replacing existing treaties with new versions of the same thing seems kind of...silly.

    And there's only one way to understand the second amendment, people retain the right to arm themselves to kill government types. That's how Madison et al. meant it. Nothing about hunting or what types of weapons are appropriate. ;-)

    (Let's have a flamewar)
    • replacing existing treaties with new versions of the same thing seems kind of...silly.

      Exactly. That's just like rewriting a program that functions "okay" with a program that you say will function "better", but in the end it just functions "okay" and has more bugs. Programmers can pretty much understand what I mean by that ;-))

      I wanted to avoid a flamewar... If you really want to know how I interpret the second amendement, then I'll give it a shot. The amendement doesn't mean that every single citiz

      • The trick being that a "well regulated milita" does not necessarily mean one run by municipalities.

        As far as an insurgency being ineffective against the US military, I strongly disagree. First example is how successful the Iraqis are against various coalition forces. But that's a useless example. Why? Because for an insurgency to have any chance of success, it must have popular support. If it has popular support, there will be US soldiers, commanders, etc. who will go AWOL or switch sides. Witness the US C
        • I know you're going to invoke Godwins law, but I need to make a point.

          it's entirely different to shoot the other guy who was on his high school football team.

          How is this different from the times that SS deported jews that had been their neighbours for ages?

          I'm sorry, but in my eyes, that doesn't mean anything. I also know that soldiers usually are reprimanded for desertion and/or insubordination. American soldiers are well trained in following orders. Also, don't forget that these days, not a

          • There's a big difference. Jews and gentiles had had ~1500 years of separation, culturally and racially.

            As far as reprimands for desertion, it wouldn't matter if someone truly deserted with the intent never to return.

            Despite our posturing to the world, the US Army isn't all that. As far as the individual members. They're just regular guys. They aren't the brainwashed clones of George Lucas' movies. When they hear that their hometown was wiped out due to a pissed off general, they're going home. If you look
            • Not to mention that the State guard units are under the authority of the State governor as well and made up of people who live in those states.

              If Federal troops were slagging Detroit I don't doubt that there would be more than a few members of the Michigan Guard defending it especially if the Michigan governor called on them for help.

              I would also look at it from this view: suppose we have no weapons at all, only those controlled by the government. What is to prevent government oppression? Not a damned th
      • I wanted to avoid a flamewar... If you really want to know how I interpret the second amendement, then I'll give it a shot. The amendement doesn't mean that every single citizen should have a gun and be able to subvert those evil government types. No, the key in the whole second amendement is the "Militia" part. People should be able to organize in governent-independent militia where they training is regular and the guns are kept at the militia headquarters. The point is indeed to be able to defend themselv
        • I'm just a dumb euro that never understood the 2nd Amendement, and probably will never...
          • I don't think you are dumb, nor do I think you won't ever understand the Second Amendment. Heck it is a complicated subject that even most Americans don't understand.

            Some want the Federal Government to ban all private ownership of firearms nevermind the political or legal realities of doing so.

            Others want the government to "keep their hands off my guns" and go nuts over even commonsense and legal firearms regulations.

            Politicans don't really understand the issue and pander to one side or the other with br
        • Now the Federal Government could try to overrule my state on this issue but then you get into all of those sticky Federal vs. State issues. Mind you the SCOTUS overturned some Federal firearms regulation on the grounds that Congress lacked the authority to regulate in the area the regulations covered.

          Wow groovy! Usually in such cases, someone will point out that if you have a gun, you may sell it to your friend in the neighboring state, and thus gun ownership would fall under the dreaded commerce clause.

    • Despite your near-Objectivist views on many things, at least you understand the 2nd amendment properly. Guns are there to kill people. The American Indians showed that you could easily decimate animal populations by merely running them off cliffs. To do the same to humans, you need lead or nasty NBCs.
  • the second ammendment is an ammendment, and part of the bill of rights [wikipedia.org], a document that is separate from the us constitution [archives.gov].

    since the us constitution is a brief document, a lot of specifics have been filled in over time by the three branches of government.

    the biggest caution i have for the eu is to watch out for federalization. do not try to erect a thorough government over all the eu member states. it will erect itself and be more thorough than you ever imagined.
    • Well, as said: I didn't read the US constitution and I tought that the Amendements were part of the constitution (even when they were added later). Seems I was wrong. Please excuse the silly European

      I don't really understand what you mean by federalization. None of the countries want to lose their complete sovereignity, so the EU becoming a federation is pretty much impossible. That would imply losing a great deal of sovereignity. Well, that's how I interpret it.

      • A 'federation' (at least to my American understanding) is just a division of powers through different levels. For example, Paris has a Mayor and town council (or something similar) I assume, yet there is also a national government. 'Federalism' doesn't have to mean what it is in the US. Go back before the US Constitution and look at the Articles of Confederation for another way of divvying up power between states and the nation. Go back to pre-1860 for another way. And then there is the way we are now.

        I th
      • Well, as said: I didn't read the US constitution and I tought that the Amendements were part of the constitution (even when they were added later). Seems I was wrong. Please excuse the silly European

        I always was taught that the Amendments were part of the Constitution as they amend the original document. They carry the same legal weight as anything in the main body of the text.

        I don't really understand what you mean by federalization. None of the countries want to lose their complete sovereignity, so t
    • The "Bill of Rights" was just a marketing phrase to serve up a platter of stuff the writers of the declaration realized they forgot to codify. The amendments are in fact part of the US Constitution. They are, in fact amendments to said document. They expand, contract, or clarify pieces of the original document. In fact, these are the only bits of 'filling in' that count.

  • U.S Constituion (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Iamthefallen ( 523816 ) * <Gmail name: Iamthefallen> on Monday May 30, 2005 @08:52AM (#12675825) Homepage Journal

    The U.S constituion is very simple and straight forward. High level and fairly clear. I'm hoping to at some point take civics classes and be able to study them a bit more. The thinking, the process and the events behind the U.S constitution are fascinating.

    While not a part of the U.S constitution, the Declaration Of Indepenence [usconstitution.net] provides an important backdrop for the other documents. I think it gives the spirit in which to interpret the others.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security

    This establishes the purpose of government, so now on to the Constitution [usconstitution.net] specifying how it is to be structured.

    Finally, the Bill of Rights [usconstitution.net] where we find articles such as freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms etc etc.

    OTOH I have read the EU constitution, and it's a mess. There is so much junk written in legalese that has no place in a document such as that imho. The rights, restrictions and laws in a founding document shouldn't be ones susceptible to changes in political climate (18th/21st Amendements for instance).

    • I have read the EU constitution, and it's a mess. There is so much junk written in legalese that has no place in a document such as that imho.

      Pretty much what I thought. I downloaded the PDF once, but never got much farther than page 3. It's too high level for me.

      Just one question: when did you actually have the *time* to read this thing? (And why would you want to since you pretty much are going to become a full-blown American sooner or later)

      • Heh, can't remember, there was some discussion comparing the two constitutions and I read them both as well as did some research into the history behind them. Keep in mind, I've been unemployed for a few months at a time on a few occasions so I had plenty of time. :-)

        It's an interesting read though, even if you just browse through it.

        And very interesting to note the contrast.

        • Discussion on comparing the two constitutions? Man, that's easily discussed: there is one that is big bloated and not understandable for the common man, and the other that is short and old. You can probably make out yourself which one fits to the EU constitution.

          The EU Consitution is the Windows XP of the consitutions and the US constitution more something like NetBSD (because it's dying... okay, joking...)

          Keep in mind, I've been unemployed for a few months

          Aaaah... that explains... Yeah, if I'

          • One is written by visionaries and one is written by lawyers and committees.

            Again, let's make a (unfair) comparison of founding documents:

            American:

            We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

            European: Art III-182:

            1. The Union shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States an

            • I was reading some commentary on the EU vote last night. IIRC, they made the point that the US is founded on 'We the people...' whereas the EU document starts out mentioning the goodness and grace of the King of Belgium or something similar. Umm... WTF? It's 2005 folks.

              • I could do this all day :D

                Or well, I have to do some work too...

                Anyway, straight from the horses mouth:

                U.S Constitution preamble:

                We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

                EU Constitution preamble:

                Our Const


              • Never underestimate the King of Belgium, or we`ll colonize you!

            • Pick a page at random and you'll find something that looks remarkably similar to a kitchen sink in there.

              Here is one of the rare places where it is the other way round:

              American (Section 8 Clause 8):

              [The Congress shall have Power To] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

              European (Part II, Article 77, Paragraph 2):

              Intellectual property shall be protected

  • Let me first say that I owe a lot to the European Union. I owe them my education. Well, okay, my parents paid for it but I went my whole schooling to the European School Luxembourg. (Only parents working directly for the EU could get their kids on that school for free. It was a huge burden for my parents.) So, my bias certainly is pro-european. (Em dubbed me "Euroman" after all ;-) ) Let's just say I have been brainwashed to like the European Union.

    Recommend inspect cart and horse. The government taxes

    • Well, that might have been true if I went to a state school which I didn't. You have to understand what exactly happened. My parents came here in order to make some good money, and go home after 10 years or so. In order to make sure that we (their kids) could follow an education in our home country (being the northern part of Belgium, where one speaks dutch) I had to have an education that included this language.

      Do you really expect that the Luxembourgish school system would make sure that I could lear

      • Do you really expect that the Luxembourgish school system would make sure that I could learn dutch?

        My point is to be careful with the use of the word 'expect'. If you want to learn Dutch, then why not learn Dutch? I'm having trouble grasping why we have to require the government to drive what we learn and know.
        Certainly, if it's particle physics, then underwriting the cost of the accelerator from the public pocket makes good sense.
        The bureaucratic means become ends unto themselves, until the independ

        • If you want to learn Dutch, then why not learn Dutch?

          Enough dutch in order to be able to follow University courses in my own language? Because that's what I did in the end. Besides, where would I learn dutch? There are only adult courses... not for kids. The market would probably be too small too. My parents couldn't do it themselves. We saw what happened to my sister: she went into the Luxembourgish education (because by then my parents had decided to stay). My mom tried to teach her writing and

          • Hey, I had 6 years of English and I can assure you that I can't read Shakespeare.

            I can assure you, nobody can. Shakespeare wrote plays. They are meant to be seen, not read.

            (FWIW, I'm just being pissy. I actually took a couple of Shakespeare classes in college.)
            • There is a flaw in your logic: In order to be able to perform a Shakespeare play, the actors would need to learn their roles. Evidently they could only do that by reading the play in the first place. (I just needed to react on your "pissy" comment *grin*)

              The 6 year English was more a way to point out that you can know different levels of a language. I am good enough in the English language in order to keep up a conversation on a website. Wait for the day that you will actually hear me speak English a

          • Re:Ahem (Score:2)

            by ces ( 119879 )
            Hey, I had 6 years of English and I can assure you that I can't read Shakespeare. At least not the original texts.

            Well to be fair a good number of US college students can't really handle reading Shakespeare, even a text that attempts to modernize the language some.

            I highly reccomend getting the Riverside Shakespeare (one of the best compilations of his works), reading the plays or sonnets out loud (they really do make more sense that way), and watching a TV or movie version of whatever play you are readi
            • I have bought a Shakespeare collection. To be precise this one [anybook4less.com]. Looks really nice on my bookshelf. It is, alas, completely useless to me. You'll probably find it funny, but I got interested in MacBeth because of a cartoon series [imdb.com]. Probably the worst exuse ever to buy literature. For my own defense: the storyline of the cartoon series is really good.

              I have read Dickens and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (I think I even have at least a Dickens bundle in my bookshelf), but I thought that those qualified

              • Re:Ahem (Score:2)

                by ces ( 119879 )
                I have bought a Shakespeare collection. To be precise this one . Looks really nice on my bookshelf. It is, alas, completely useless to me. You'll probably find it funny, but I got interested in MacBeth because of a cartoon series. Probably the worst exuse ever to buy literature. For my own defense: the storyline of the cartoon series is really good.

                As I said get yourself some recordings of the plays you are interested in. Some of the Hollywood versions aren't bad and some are considered classics in their
  • I've been following the EU situation with a lot of interest because I plan on moving to an EU country some time in the next few years.

    You say you aren't surprised at the no vote, yet just a few weeks ago the polls in France had yes at 68%. What was that about? Was it poll error or was there some 20+ point swing right before the election?

    I listened to a lot of commentary about the issues on the BBC and the english services from the Netherlands and DW, there seemed to be a bit of a consensus around the no
    • Why in hell would you want to leave the US in favour of the EU? Get read to adapt yourself to a very different lifestyle. It is commonly known that a European more easily accepts US lifestyle than the inverse. Not that I care: you're welcome here :-)

      The problem is that France mainly voted to kick in Chiracs balls. Chirac wants the EU Constitution, but we think you have a sucky domestic politics. We'll show you! That's about it....

      That and the "No" people really went for the emotion. They told tha

      • That's surprisingly close to my take on the situation. At least Chirac was candid enough to ask people not to punish *him* by voting "non," I think people did it anyway, defiance demands no less.

        I want to live somewhere that better suits me personally. I don't aspire to great wealth or economic optimization, I want to live in a community that more resembles my values. I have no illusions about the fact that I will be trading six problems for a half dozen others, I just want different problems.

        I think t

        • Yep, globalization plays a big part in it, but here we call it the "lack of a more social europe". Most countries in Europe are still very socialist, especially France and Germany. This is where Holland and Luxemburg differ quite a lot, so it`s not entirely sure if they will vote no tomorrow. There is a need to put a social fair context next to the economic Europe that we know today, because otherwise regions risk being treated unfair just because they have less or other resources. This is the 'Europe of
        • I've watched an interview with Jean-Claude Juncker (our premier, as I said) yesterday. I think he put it quite well. He said there were two kind of "no" voters:
          • Those that want less Europe, and think Europe is already gone too far
          • Those that want *more* Europe and think that the constitution doesn't go far enough

          The first kind essentially live in a dream world. If you want less Europe, the only way would be to leave the EU and go solitary. However, nobody even speaks of that because Europe actual

    • I forget where, but I heard the french voted 'no' mostly to express their dislike of Chirac rather than their dislike of the constitution.

      Kind of like voting for Kerry because you hate Bush, not because you like Kerry...

      Not a good way to vote, eh?
      • You heard that everywhere in the aftermath + Chirac explicitly asked his people to try to vote without considering the domestic political climate. They voted for a very wrong reason, since Chirac wasn't going to leave the power if "no" was voted. The French showed their dislike for his domestic politics by voting "no" to something that has absolutely nothing to do (nor an impact) on domestic politics.

        It's more like voting to abolish free speech, because you dislike Bush.


  • As far as you and your father`s explanations go, I can completely follow. Your father is right saying that nothying much will change on a political level, it just sort of 'cleans up' the other texts, which have been amended, changed, rewritten and revoted hundreds of times. The texts of the constitution do not differ from what we have now, it`s more like a complete summup, without some of the smallest details that make things very complicated.

    In that sense, I also don`t know the constitutional texts enou
    • Sometimes I think that our Europe with 2 velocities may be a good thing, because it would make transitions a bit smoother. Germany was the big test to see if one nation could do this. Obviously, the French (and the Dutch) think that we should not make the same mistake on an even larger scale. Germany has barely recovered from the unification, and lost a lot of it`s economic power and pride. Personally it also feels like the politicians don`t really have a clue. They just accept new states, without talking o
      • are there any limits on people from the 'new' member states moving to the 'old' member states?

        Nope, the Schengen treaty would prohibit such restrictions. The Schengen treaty is an integral part of becoming a member state of the EU.

        Didn't most of the states that joined recently have to vote on it?

        No, you are confusing adhesion treaties with the constitution vote. Take a look at Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]. It will tell you that there are only 10 countries that will do referenda. Many new countries didn't hav

        • Nope, the Schengen treaty would prohibit such restrictions. The Schengen treaty is an integral part of becoming a member state of the EU.

          I was under the impression that some sort of deal had been cut with the 'older' EU members on letting some of the Eastern European countries in that would allow say France and the UK to place resrictions on people from the east coming in looking for jobs. Perhaps I'm thinking of the 'pre-EU' process Rumania and Bulgaria are currently going through.

          In any case I recall s


          • In any case I recall something about temporary immigration restrictions coming up in the context of EU expansion within the past few years.

            As far as I know there were no restrictions on migration, except that during a transition period, border control would be sustained (or moved) to make sure that the countries ability to intercept criminal activity is at least up to par with the western EU countries. But Shengen means freedom of goods and people within the EU.

            It`s exactly this point that has given
            • As far as I know there were no restrictions on migration, except that during a transition period, border control would be sustained (or moved) to make sure that the countries ability to intercept criminal activity is at least up to par with the western EU countries. But Shengen means freedom of goods and people within the EU.

              Well it was an EU issue so I'm sure that between my own media and only passing understanding I missed this.

              BTW I think if Europe did this the US, Canada, and Mexico should be able to


          • In any case my point stands. The voters in France probably wouldn't have taken their frustrations out on the constitution vote if they had legislative elections every 2 years or if they had some way of forcing new elections to be called.

            Even if you may be right, it`s hardly an option for a country to change it`s legislative system (i.e. change it`s own constitution) to be able to vote on a new constitution for a ne virtual unity. The reason why France voted no and TheNetherlands will vote no as well,
            • Even if you may be right, it`s hardly an option for a country to change it`s legislative system (i.e. change it`s own constitution) to be able to vote on a new constitution for a ne virtual unity. The reason why France voted no and TheNetherlands will vote no as well, is because they both FAIL at explaining the good and bad of the nex constitution.

              I was thinking more in the sense of a general reform rather than as a method of getting the EU constitution passed.

              Then again as an American in a state with an
          • Still my question still stands are any countries other than France and The Netherlands expected to reject the EU consitution?

            Difficult question. I think that countries without referenda will accept the constitution. Those with a referendum, will probably vary a lot. Luxembourg for example is considered an "easy win". (Due to our size, rejecting Europe is the worst choice, even if we don't win out everywhere with Europe... see my comment about taxes on gas in this journal. Of course, the common man

            • If I had to guess I'd say Ireland is probably an easy win as well, the EU has been VERY good for Ireland taking them from one of the poorest countries of Western Europe to one of the richest.

              Then again as you say the NO votes in France and The Netherlands were more about punishing the government than any real rejection of the EU or the EU Consitution. So I would imagine the people's satisfaction with the current government will be a factor in all of the other countries having a vote.

Slashdot Top Deals

Pascal is a language for children wanting to be naughty. -- Dr. Kasi Ananthanarayanan

Close