« On a French “No!” to the EU Constitution | Home | Recent Comments | Categories | Miffy is 50 ! »
Why the EU Constitution is bad for Britain and bad for the US
[Quote:]
It is natural for Americans to like the sound of the word “constitution”. They have the best one ever written in a single document. It consists, in the copy I have before me, of 12 pages, 11 if you exclude the list of the men who signed it. There are also amendments added over the past two centuries: they amount to another nine pages. If President Bush tucked himself up with it at his famously early bedtime of 9.30, he could finish it well before 10.
I should be surprised if the State Department, the Washington faction keenest on turning Mr Bush into a Euro-enthusiast, has encouraged him to go to bed with a copy of the European Constitution. My copy, published by TSO (note that the former name Her Majesty’s Stationery Office has quietly been relegated), is 511 pages long. I do not claim it would keep Mr Bush up all night – in fact, I guarantee that, if he tried to read it, he would still be asleep by 10 – but it would wake him and the First Lady up with a start as it slipped from his nerveless hands and crashed, all 2lb 8oz of it, on the floor.
If he did spend 20 minutes with the document, however, the President would see that it was not what is normally meant by a constitution. Rather than confining itself to the division of powers by which a country should be governed – head of state, parliament, judiciary, what’s local and what’s national – it lays out scores of pages telling people how to run their lives. It supports positive discrimination, outlaws the death penalty in all circumstances, commits itself to high public spending, compulsory consultation with trade unions about changes at work, “the exchange of youth workers”, “fat-free breakfasts”, “distance education” and “the physical and moral integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen” (I made one of these up). And it imposes all these on nations that have their own governments and electorates.
It also contains a great bundle of miscellaneous provisions about such things as abortion in Malta, “Hot Rolling Mills Nos 1 and 2″ for a steel company in the Czech Republic, some rather frightening-looking stuff about the nuclear power plant in Slovakia and “the right to provide services by natural persons who do not enjoy hembygdsrätt/kotiseutuoikeus (regional citizenship) in Åland”. This is not a constitution, certainly not a constitution intended to be understood by those it affects. It is a vast agglomeration of decisions made by governments to take power over citizens of vastly differing countries.
If one had to point out only two aspects of the treaty to Mr Bush, I would first draw his attention to Article 1-16, which commits all member states to a “common foreign and security policy”. “Member states,” it goes on, “shall actively and unreservedly support the union’s common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the union’s actions in this area.” That would seem, at a stroke, to prevent Britain (or any other member country) from acting unilaterally in military or political alliance with the United States ever again. In his interview with Alec Russell in today’s paper, the President expresses his objections to the EU as a means of projecting global power and supplanting Nato: that is exactly what the European Constitution is trying to bring about.
Second, I would draw attention to the opening words of the two documents. The US Constitution begins, famously, “We the People…”. The European Constitution begins, “His Majesty the King of the Belgians…”. That gives you a fair idea of the different spirit of each document.
On a French “No!” to the EU Constitution
[Quote:]
Car ce non en profondeur n’est pas du tout l’effet d’un «travail du négatif» ou d’une pensée critique. C’est une réponse en forme de défi pur et simple à un principe hégémonique venu d’en haut, et pour lequel la volonté des peuples n’est qu’un paramètre indifférent, voire un obstacle à franchir. Il est évident que pour cette Europe conçue selon un modèle de simulation qui doit être projeté à tout prix dans le réel et auquel chacun est sommé de s’adapter, pour cette Europe virtuelle, copie conforme de la puissance mondiale, les populations ne sont qu’une masse de manoeuvre qu’il faut annexer de gré ou de force au projet pour lui servir d’alibi. Et les pouvoirs ont bien raison de se méfier partout du référendum et de toute expression directe d’une volonté politique qui, dans le cadre d’une véritable représentation, risquerait de tourner mal pour eux. Ce sont donc les parlements qui, la plupart du temps, seront chargés de blanchir l’opération et d’avaliser l’Europe en douce.
Mais nous sommes habitués à cette malversation de l’opinion et de la volonté politique. Il n’y a pas si longtemps, la guerre d’Irak a eu lieu grâce à une coalition internationale de tous les pouvoirs contre la volonté exprimée, massive et spectaculaire, de toutes les populations. L’Europe est en train de se faire exactement sur le même modèle. Je m’étonne d’ailleurs que les partisans du non ne fassent pas usage de cet exemple éclatant, de cette grande première dans le mépris total pour la voix des peuples.</p><p>Tout cela dépasse de loin l’épisode du référendum. Cela signifie la faillite du principe même de la représentation, dans la mesure où les institutions représentatives ne fonctionnent plus du tout dans le sens «démocratique», c’est-à-dire du peuple et des citoyens vers le pouvoir, mais exactement à l’inverse, du pouvoir vers le bas, par le piège d’une consultation et d’un jeu de question/réponse circulaire, où la question ne fait que se répondre oui à elle-même.
C’est donc, au coeur même du politique, la faillite de la démocratie. Et si le système électoral, déjà miné par l’abstention, doit être sauvé à tout prix (avant même de répondre oui, l’impératif catégorique est de voter à tout prix), c’est qu’il fonctionne à l’envers d’une véritable représentation, dans l’induction forcée de décisions prises «au nom du peuple» même si, secrètement, celui-ci pense le contraire.
Il y a donc, derrière l’abréaction immédiate à la «pensée unique» de l’Europe, incarnée par le oui pensée libérale d’une Europe qui, faute d’inventer une autre règle du jeu, n’a d’autre solution que de se dilater et de s’agrandir par annexions successives (à l’image de la puissance mondiale), il y a donc, dans le non dont nous parlons, dans le refus de cette Europe-là, le pressentiment d’une liquidation bien plus grave que l’emprise du marché et des institutions supranationales la liquidation de toute représentation véritable , au terme de quoi les populations seront définitivement assignées à un rôle de figuration, dont on sollicitera de temps en temps l’adhésion formelle.
Quant au résultat final, un certain suspense demeure : si c’est bien, selon toute vraisemblance, l’hégémonie insolente du oui qui a suffi à générer le sursaut révulsif du non, alors la recrudescence de la campagne en faveur du oui devrait logiquement engendrer un renforcement du non. Mais il n’est pas sûr que ce non venu des profondeurs de ce qu’on a pu appeler jadis les majorités silencieuses, résiste à une intoxication massive. Il y a fort à parier que nous allons repartir vers une régulation consensuelle, sous l’autorité spirituelle de tous les pouvoirs.
Quel que soit le résultat d’ailleurs, ce référendum, coincé entre le oui et le non comme entre le 0/1 du calcul numérique, n’est qu’une péripétie. L’Europe elle-même n’est qu’une péripétie de plus sur la voie d’une échéance bien plus grave, celle d’une déperdition de la souveraineté collective à l’horizon de quoi se dessine un autre profil que celui du citoyen passif ou manipulé : celui du citoyen-otage, du citoyen pris en otage par les pouvoirs, c’est-à-dire la prise d’otage étant devenue la figure même du terrorisme une forme démocratique de terrorisme d’Etat.
translation:
Because this No is not, fundamentally, the effect of a “work of negation” or of critical thought. It is a response of defiance pure and simple, defiance of a hegemonic principle which descends from a great height and to which the consent of the people is only an indifferent consideration, even an obstacle to be overcome. It is obvious that for this Europe, designed following an abstract model which must be made real at any price and to which everyone is expected to adapt himself, for this virtual Europe, certified image of a world power, the people are only a mass to be manipulated, which one must harness to the project, willingly or by force, to serve as an alibi. And the powers everywhere are quite right to be wary of referenda and of any direct expression of political will which, in a framework of true representation, might very well turn out badly for them. It is thus the parliaments which, most of the time, will be charged with whitewashing the operation and endorsing Europe on the quiet.
But we are accustomed to this embezzlement of opinion and political will. Not very long ago, the war in Iraq took place thanks to an international coalition of powers against the expressed will, massive and spectacular, of all the populations. Europe is being built on exactly the same model. In fact I am astonished that the partisans of No do not make use of this striking example, of this great First Prize in total contempt for the voice of the people.
All this goes far beyond the episode of the referendum. It means bankruptcy of even the principle of representation, insofar as the representative institutions no longer function in the “democratic” sense, that is to say, of the people and of the citizens confronting power; just the opposite, of power towards underlings, by a feigned consultation and a circular charade of question and answer, where the question does nothing but reply Yes to itself. Yes to Yes.
There it is, in the heart of the political: the bankruptcy of democracy. And if the electoral system, already undermined by non-voters, must be saved at all cost (even before answering Yes, the categorical imperative is to vote at all cost), it is because it functions as the reverse of true representation, as the imposition of decisions taken “in the name of the people” even if, secretly, each of the the people thinks the opposite.
There is thus, behind the immediate abreaction to the “single thought” of Europe, incarnated by Yes, the liberal thought of a Europe which, even without making up any more rules for the game, has but one destiny: to expand and increase by successive annexations towards the image of a world power. There is thus, in the No of which we speak, in the refusal of this image of Europe, a foreshadowing of a liquidation much more grave than the intrusion of market forces and supranational institutions: liquidation of any true representation, at the end of which the populations will be assigned a the role of a figurehead, which is asked now and then for rubber-stamp approval.
As for the final result, a certain suspense remains: if all is well, in all liklihood the insolent hegemony of Yes which sufficed to generate the revulsive awakening burst of No, the recrudescence of the campaign in favor of Yes should logically generate a reinforcement of No. But it is not certain that this No, arisen from the depths of what one could formerly call the silent majority, can stand up against mass intoxication. It is a very good bet that we will once again set out toward rule by consensus, under the spiritual authority of the powers that be.
Whatever other results there may be, this referendum, jammed between Yes and No as between the 0 and 1 of numerical calculation, is only one adventure. Moreover, Europe itself is only one more adventure on the way to a much graver expiration date, that of the loss of collective sovereignty on the horizon of which another image beyond that of the passive or manipulated citizen takes shape: the citizen-hostage, the citizen taken hostage by the powers, that is to say, hostage-taking having become the face of terrorism, a democratic form of state terrorism.
We Are Family
Cartoons
Officers Plot Exit Strategy
[Quote:]
Army Capts. Dave Fulton and Geoff Heiple spent 12 months dodging roadside bombs and rounding up insurgents along Baghdad’s “highway of death” — the six miles of pavement linking downtown Baghdad to the capital city’s airport. Two weeks after returning stateside to Ft. Hood, they ventured to a spartan conference room at the local Howard Johnson to find out about changing careers.
Lured by a headhunting firm that places young military officers in private-sector jobs, the pair, both 26, expected anonymity in the crowded room.
Instead, as Fulton and Heiple sipped Budweisers pulled from Styrofoam coolers next to the door, they spotted nearly a dozen familiar faces from their cavalry battalion, which had just ended a yearlong combat tour in Iraq.
The shocks of recognition came as they exchanged quick, awkward glances with others from their unit, each man clearly surprised to see someone else considering a life outside the military.
“This is a real eye-opener,” said Fulton, a West Point graduate who saw a handful of cadets from his class. “It seems like everyone in the room is either from my squad or from my class.”
[..]
Last year, Army lieutenants and captains left the service at an annual rate of 8.7% — the highest since 2001. Pentagon officials say they expect the attrition rate to improve slightly this year. Yet interviews with several dozen military officers revealed an undercurrent of discontent within the Army’s young officer corps that the Pentagon’s statistics do not yet capture.
A Wave Maker Moon in Saturn’s Rings
[Quote:]
Explanation: What causes small waves in Saturn’s rings?
Observations of rings bordering the Keeler gap in Saturn’s rings showed unusual waves. Such waves were first noticed last July and are shown above in clear detail. The picture is a digitally foreshortened image mosaic taken earlier this month by the robot Cassini spacecraft now orbiting Saturn. The rings, made of many small particles, were somehow not orbiting Saturn in their usual manner. Close inspection of the image shows the reason – a small moon is orbiting in the Keeler gap. The previously unknown moon is estimated to span about seven kilometers and appears to have the same brightness as nearby ring particles. The gravity of the small moon likely perturbs the orbits of ring particles that come near it, causing them to shimmer back and forth after the moon passes. Since inner particles orbit more quickly than outer particles, only the leading particles of the inner rings and the trailing particles of the outer rings show the wave effect.
Want the Sith DVD? Go to Usenet
[Quote:]
Usenet newsgroups dedicated to piracy are seeing a resurgence in activity as file sharers seek less-policed areas of the internet to trade illegal data.
Some pirated movies are now even appearing in newsgroups before being released worldwide across popular P2P systems like BitTorrent. The alt.binaries newsgroups — which mostly carry pirated software, ripped movies and MP3s — have logged a steady and substantial rise in traffic over the last few years.
Posts to a key “warez” newsgroup, alt.binaries.multimedia, have quadrupled from 700,000 in 2001 to 2.8 million last year, according to Microsoft’s Netscan System, which logs all Usenet traffic.
Meanwhile, more than 60 GB of complete DVD rips are now being posted each day to a single Usenet forum, according to stats at NewsAdmin, which tracks Usenet usage.
Many pirates are being driven to Usenet by the threat of lawsuits or by fear that their ISPs will soon be slapped with subpoenas from the Recording Industry Association of America or the Motion Picture Association of America.
Newsgroups offer relative anonymity compared to Kazaa, eMule and BitTorrent, which are now heavily monitored by the RIAA and MPAA.
[Quote:]
Princess Leia: The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
Newsmap
Weblog Jan Marijnissen
[Quote:]
Gisteravond had NOVA de drie belangrijkste voorstanders van de Europese Grondwet aan tafel:
Premier Balkenende en de vice-premiers Zalm en Brinkhorst.Balkenende op het CDA-feest in januari 2003
Tsja, wat moet je nou van zo’n optreden zeggen?Eén ding weet ik wel: Het is dubieus hoe de publieke omroepen zich in deze campagne opstellen. Wat is er journalistiek aan het besluit om drie voorstanders aan tafel te zetten, zónder tegenstanders?
Komt er nu ook ‘n uitzending met slechts tegenstanders?Nee, natuurlijk niet: aanstaande vrijdag zit ik er samen met Geert Wilders…én Wouter Bos. Ik vind dat niet erg. Ik hou van debat. Erg vind ik dat onze publieke omroep z’n objectiviteit dreigt te verliezen en daarmee zijn waarde.
(Na afloop even geluisterd naar ‘Het Oog’ op R1. Weer Thijs Berman, PvdA-Europarlementariër, en fervent voorstander van de Grondwet. Omdat ie voormalig NOS-verslaggever is, krijgt ie met de regelmaat van de klok de totale vrijheid om zijn propaganda de ether in te slingeren.)
Balkenende waarschuwt
[Quote:]
De premier waarschuwt ervoor dat het buitenland met grote verbazing op een Nederlands nee zal reageren.
Hoezo? Lezen ze daar geen kranten dan? Of heb je ze iets beloofd dat je nu niet kan nakomen?
Kabul
Afghan widows line up to get their monthly ration food stuff at a CARE International food distribution center in Kabul where Italian Clementina Cantoni worked on Sunday, May 22, 2005. The May 16 kidnapping of Cantoni was the latest in a series of attacks targeting foreigners in Kabul, reinforcing fears that militants or criminals here are copying tactics used in Iraq. (AP Photo/Musadeq Sadeq)
Imad Shakir Mahmoud
Daughter, Shams Imad holds a photo of her father at a tribute parade held Sunday, May 22, 2005 to honour the memory of her father – police hero Maj. Imad Shakir Mahmoud who died whilst stopping a suicide bomber on Sunday, May 15, in the city of Baqouba, 60 kilometers (35 miles) northeast of Baghdad in Iraq Sunday, May 22, 2005. (AP Photo/Mohammed Adnan)
Comité Grondwet Nee sleept staat voor de rechter
[Quote:]
Het Comité Grondwet Nee heeft bij de rechtbank in
Den Haag een kort geding aangespannen tegen de Staat. Volgens het
comité is de inzet van 3,5 miljoen euro extra voor de ‘ja-campagne’
voor het referenum over de Europese grondwet onrechtmatig.Het comité zegt dat in de referendumwet is bepaald dat er een
bedrag van 1 miljoen beschikbaar is voor overheidscampagnes en dat
de onafhankelijke Referendumcommissie dit geld moet verdelen.Ook voldoet de beslissing over het inzetten van 3,5 miljoen
extra volgens het comité aan geen van de randvoorwaarden die zijn
vastgesteld door het kabinet zelf om eventuele extra
overheidsgelden in te zetten voor het voeren van een ja-campagne.Het comité zal de rechter vragen de Staat te verbieden de extra
middelen aan te wenden, een nieuwe gemaakte folder te verspreiden
en de radiospotjes en advertenties waarin wordt gewezen op het
belang van een ja-stem uit te zenden danwel te publiceren.Het Comité Grondwet Nee zal geen verbod eisen wanneer de rechtbank het
comité in staat te stelt op gelijke wijze het publiek te benaderen.
Het kort geding dient dinsdag voor de rechtbank in Den Haag.
Het is kennelijk geen enkel probleem om afspraken te schenden. Dat op zich is al reden genoeg om “Nee!” te stemmen…
Als ze het nou gewoon “Maastricht II”hadden genoemd in plaats van “de grondwet” en het referendum over hadden geslagen was er volgens mij nooit veel ophef over geweest.
Ik denk dat je daar helemaal gelijk in hebt.