Tag Archives: European Union

Denmark, Sweden and Finland to Continue With Ratification

Posted on by

For now, at any rate, the Nordic countries are to continue with the ratification process. We will see how this eveolves as the days pass.

We naturally respect the decision of the French people but it is crucial that Danes be allowed make their own decision in the autumn,” Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark’s prime minister said.

There would be no change of plans should Dutch voters also reject the treaty on Wednesday, he added

.

Goran Persson, Sweden’s prime minister, described the French result as “a severe setback for the treaty” but pledged to continue the Swedish ratification process.

Matti Vanhanen, the Finnish prime minister, said he would proceed with the ratification process and expressed hope that other EU states would do likewise.

Barroso Changing His Position?

Posted on by

This piece in the FT seems to suggest that Barroso may in fact be moving away from the ‘bsuiness as usual’ line:

The European Union was on Monday braced for a wave of possible No votes against the EU constitution, after French voters decisively rejected it.Officially EU leaders stuck to the line that all member states should ratify the treaty as normal, but privately there are growing doubts about whether that is possible.

José Manuel Barroso, European Commission president, admitted there was “a risk of contagion” with hostility to the treaty spreading to other countries. ….

The Economist On The Result

Posted on by

The Economist is more or less positive about the outcome, of course it probably didn’t favour the constitution anyway:

French voters have rejected the proposed European Union constitution by a decisive margin. The flawed constitution is now probably dead, though the EU will get by without it. For President Jacques Chirac, however, it is a crushing defeat

Incidentally the Economist is now putting virtually all the Glbal Agenda section. I don’t know what this portends for their online influence.

Here Comes the First ‘Issue’

Posted on by

The Chinese, as is often the case, are showing that they have an uncanny knack for putting their finger exactly on the sore spot:

“Beijing on Sunday criticised the European Union’s plans to restrict imports of textile products amid heightened controversy surrounding the threat Chinese clothing exports pose to the world’s manufacturers.”

“A spokesman for the Ministry of Commerce, Chong Quan, said that the EU’s efforts to limit importsof some clothing products from China were rash and unfair…..It is an inaccurate assessment and an incorrect decision,? said Mr Chong of the EU’s latest move. ?It not only sends the wrong signal of trade protectionism to the European industry, but also seriously harms the rights that Chinese enterprises are allowed to enjoy in the global textile trade.?

Really I would say that the timing of this response from China is very much to the point. The EU has now to ‘interpret’ yesterday’s vote and answer. Do Europeans want more protectionism, or should we press ahead with a new and improved Doha round (including the reform of agricultural subsidies, which of course, will not be popular in France). After giving the Bush administration the runaround on currency reform over the last six months, it appears Beijing may now be about to give the EU a little more attention. The really interesting detail will be to see the response. I think this is what might give financial markets a first hint of where we are going.

First casualty

Posted on by

North Sea Diaries:

Raffarin, as expected, is to get the chop. Le Monde reports:

In a televised speech on Sunday evening, President Jacques Chirac announced that he had ?noted? the significant No vote on the European Constitution and that he would make a decision ?in the coming few days? about his government? Jacques Chirac said he would take a decision quickly about his government and his ?priorities”, suggesting an imminent replacement of his prime minister Raffarin.

Eulogist:

The ?no? was won by the extreme left (PCF and other far-left supporters voted 94-98% against) and the extreme right (Front National supporters voted 93% against). The moderate left was moderately against (PS supporters 56% against). Supporters of the EU-federalist liberal UDF party voted massively in favour (76%), as did supporters of President Chirac?s UMP pary (80%).

(Comments are closed. No need to split the discussion on separate threads.)

Voting strength

Posted on by

I wonder about something… One of the arguments for the constitution, (and for the whole Nice treaty before it), is the changed voting rules are necessary because the increase in members would make the EU dysfunctional, and unable to make decisions. I was always kind of sceptical of that, but it was almost me alone against the conventional wisdom.

Well, now we don’t have to speculate, and it seems to me the EU functions perfectly smoothly. The council adapted, there was no gridlock. I haven’t heard the punditocracy claim otherwise either, and yet people still argue as streneusly that it’s vitally important to reform the rules. They’re just don’t acknowledge that they’re now arguing against the status quo, rather than a a threat in the uncertain future. It’s a bit odd.

Where’s the problem?

The one area where I have read people argue against the status quo is forein affairs. I don’t think the constitution will in practice change much, no government will defer to others on natinal interssts. I think we’ll see increasing cohesion, but because attitudes and habits are changing. But if I’m wrong it could only mean because the constitution takes away much more nat’l sovereignty than I think. I don’t think the pro.constitution pundits really should want to argue that.

(I’ll deal with the principal arguments some other time.)

Roses in Picardy

Posted on by

In part this vote may be decided by differing participation rates across the regions. It is clear that in some Departments the participation rates are very high. I just heard a reporter in Picardy. Apparently the anti-Maastricht (remember even the Maastricht vote was only a ‘petit oui’) sentiment was high in Picardy. Today they have a high participation. It is such factors, local and regional ones like this, which may in the end decide the vote. Strange to think that the future of Europe may be in the hands of a number of voters ‘on the margin’ over in Piccardy, and similar.

Update One: An estimate for Radio France by CSA suggest a participation as high as 82.5%. One thing is sure, the big news about this referendum, apart from the result that is, will be the participation. No-one can say this isn’t representative. Meantime the metro stations around the Chanmps Elysee have been closed – the police fear spontaneous demonstrations (of joy presumeably). The left have called for a celebratory ‘fevstival’ in the Place de la Bastille at 22:00.

BTW: it is now 20:00. All stations outside Paris and Lyon are now closed.

Update 2: The CSA has now backed off a bit, and the participation will be something in the 70’s %.

If they say no

Posted on by

People will vote no for many different reasons, some for opposite reasons. But it seems clear to me some complaints will be shared by nearly all no voters, as well as many yes voters. Namely, that the EU is undemocratic, that the elites don?t care what the people say, that integration has been pursued without any input from them. Furthermore, I think an appropriate reaction to defeat would be humility. Therefore I think the proper way to rewrite the constitution would be to discard with most of the expansions of the EU’s powers, and as a side dish to introduce more robust measures to make the EU more democratic and accountable. This seems like the right thing to do, and also like a politically wise thing to do. It would make it likelier that people would vote for it, wouldn’t be that vulnerable to criticism that you rerun the vote and ensuing bitterness and still get the important things from this constitutions passed

If they’d scrap language that would invite judicial activism too, I myself could vote for it with enthusiasm.

While it’s not unthinkable that they’d actually do what I’ve suggested, I wouldn’t bet on it. More likely, they’ll either have a new IGC and make some less substantial changes to the constitution, or they will just give up for a few years. Neither scenario strikes me as worse than a yes vote.

What would be worse is if they give up and then go back to IGCs without any referendums or conventions, but I don’t think they could get away with it. In a sufficiently long run I’m sure they won’t, but heightened contradictions will be a mixed blessing. One dismal scenario would be for the French government to promise never to let Turkey in, and then rerun the referendum without changes, which would also be worse, at least if it succeeded, but again I don’t see it as likely.

Over on Publius.fr

Posted on by

No one’s asking me, but I’d vote “oui”. Should you be interested to know why, I’ve laid out my reasons in luckily idiomatically edited French in my replies to publius’ questions, which they posted yesterday. They also posted the Eulogist’s replies as well as a plethora of their own reasons for their personal final decisions (publius).
Continue reading →