EUobserver: EU on brink of historic Turkey deal
Dag Øien
03.10.2005 - 20:44 CET | By Mark Beunderman
The start of EU accession talks with Turkey might still go ahead on
Monday (3 October), with Turkish foreign minister Abdullah Gul flying
to an EU foreign ministers' meeting in Luxembourg on Monday evening as
EU member states stood on the verge of formally approving the
negotiating framework.
Luxembourg foreign minister Jean Asselborn confirmed that Mr Gul was on
the plane at around 20:00 CET, explaining that the move means both
Turkey and the EU 25 have approved the framework text.
The EU ministers' formal consent is still lacking however, diplomats
said.
Mr Gul's plane is likely to land in Luxembourg before midnight, meaning
that the ceremony marking the opening of accession talks could still
take place on Monday as scheduled, albeit slightly later than expected.
News of the breakthrough agreement came after the Cyprus issue had
re-emerged as the main obstacle to the talks earlier this evening.
Ankara had put up strong resistance to an amendment in the framework
agreement secured by the Cypriots last week, which states that Turkey
is to refrain from blocking EU member states from participating in
international organisations.
But Austrian resistance against the negotiating framework had already
been neutralised by the presidency in the afternoon.
Austrian foreign minister Ursula Plassnik told journalists after lunch
that Vienna had given up its demand that the phrase "accession" as a
"shared objective" of the negotiations be scrapped in the first
paragraph of the text.
The initial demand reflected Vienna's objective to make Turkey an EU
partner instead of a full member, but Ms Plassnik told reporters that
"accession had never been in doubt".
Instead, the Austrians are said to have secured a tougher clause on the
EU's own "absorption capacity" to welcome Turkey as a new member state.
Final Austrian consent is likely to have been made easier this
afternoon following a positive report by chief prosecutor Carla del
Ponte on Croatia's co-operation with the UN tribunal in The Hague.
"Full cooperation" by Croatia has been an EU precondition for the
country to start negotiations on EU accession - something Vienna is
particularly keen on.
Dag Øien
referenda. The members of the council seems to be caught up in their
own momentum, unable to connect with public opinion with regards to
Turkish membership.
Thank god for France and Austria, who seems to have promised their
voters to hold referenda on Turkish EU membership, making these endless
accession negotiations just an expensive paper exercise in vasting EU
taxpayers' money.
-dag
Thomas Koenig
> Thank god
^^^^^^^^^^^
Sic, because ...
> for France and Austria, who seems to have promised their
> voters to hold referenda on Turkish EU membership,
John Stuart Mill, James Madison or Voltaire could not be thanked, since
vetoing Turkey accession is undemocratic, not only, because borders
cannot be democratically drawn (democracy is by heart a universalist,
not a nationalist concept), but also because a simple majority in a tiny
pork-chop-shaped country can overturn a sizable majority in other, much
larger countries, thus violating the "one man, one vote" principle.
J.M.
Referenda are crap when it comes to such issues. If we had used referenda
for admitting new members in the past, the EU would still consist of
exactly 6 members, maybe a few more.
"Poor" countries like Spain, Portugal, Greece or Ireland would never have
been admitted. People were scared stiff that they would "steal" our jobs,
much like people had the same fear of Poles. Certainly not a single Eastern
European country would have been let in, if it needed approval by
referendum in all countries. Or do you think French (or German voters)
would have let Poland in?
Even countries like the UK would have a had hard time getting accepting if
the French voters would have been asked. For that matter, only Scandinavian
countries and maybe Austria had decent chances of joining the EU if
approval by referendum in all member states were required.
Jan
Kristoff Bonne
Dag Øien schreef:
> Some seems surprised when the voters choose to vote NO in certain EU
> referenda. The members of the council seems to be caught up in their
> own momentum, unable to connect with public opinion with regards to
> Turkish membership.
Well, I had a simular discussion in another NG here in Belgium, but I
think the reason is very simple. The EU can simply do not say "no" to
Turkey because it would completely undermine its international politics.
The reasoning has always been "if you change your rule to adhere to our
European values, you get better economic relations and political
relations in return".
Europe has positions itself as the "better friend" then the US. While
they use force, we talk, discuse and use economic insentives.
But, in the end, you have to "put your money where your mouth is". The
discussion with turkey have dragged on for over 40 years now, and -with
the middle east changing because of the more-and-more appartent limits
of the power of the US overthere, e.g. in Iraq and in Iran- Turkey is
politically and militairy to important to be ignored.
(and for other reasons, like for energy).
> Thank god for France and Austria, who seems to have promised their
> voters to hold referenda on Turkish EU membership, making these endless
> accession negotiations just an expensive paper exercise in vasting EU
> taxpayers' money.
First of all, I think referenda is about the dangerous tool you can use,
especially concerning international politics.
The issues (and the concequences) are usually to difficult to e put out
in a 1-2-3 question anyway, and it is probably the best way to put
people against eachother.
If a gouvernement says to another gouvernement "we don't like you", OK,
that are "gouvernements" doing what they are supposted to do; and that
is more or less an "anonymous institution" and the next gouvernement can
vote completely different.
But when a people vote in a referenda saying "we don't like you, we
don't want you in our club", that are people you are talking about. This
makes it all much more personal!
Say that france would hold an referenda on this and 80 % of the people
say "no, we don't like Turkey", I would not want to be a french tourist
the Turkey the day afterwards!
It looks to me like the perfect way to put people up against eachother.
It's something you might do in a "reality-show" on TV, but not in real
life! :-)
I have sometimes the impression that there are politicians who use
referenda to push throu their point-of-view (especially if there is a
"fear" factor involved) but I find it a very dangerous tool!
A second question is this:
If the gouvernement who started the process of European integration in
the 1950s would have held a referendum saying (less then 10 years after
the end of world war II), "do you want France to form a union with
Germany to help stabilise Europe", how many people would have said
"yes", do you think?
And we wouldn't have had the EU now, if it wasn't for that.
Thirth, concidering the cost.
From a international politics point of view, there are certain things
that you simply have to do because of events taken place. (do you think
is somebody in -then- West-Germany in 1991 would have said "you know,
this reunification of East- and West-Germany will probably be to
expensive, so let's wait for some 10 years", that this would have been
accepted).
Some things just happen and you have to live with the cost of it.
The same thing applies about the latest expension, and the expension
towards the balkan (which will probably also be driven by political means).
The same things also applies concering Turkey. It is the "test" if the
EU is serious about being an big international player or not; and the
investment that comes with it, that you have to take with it.
Look at it from the bright side. Turkey has the 2nd largest army of NATO
(after the US), so bringing Turkey into the EU defence-structure is by
itself a the biggest injection of militairy means into the EU.
It would be interesting to see how much the cost of that would have been
if that would have been done by increasing spending into the armies of
the current EU member-states.
> -dag
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
Kristoff Bonne
Dag Øien schreef:
> Some seems surprised when the voters choose to vote NO in certain EU
> referenda. The members of the council seems to be caught up in their
> own momentum, unable to connect with public opinion with regards to
> Turkish membership.
Well, I had a simular discussion in another NG here in Belgium, but I
think the reason is very simple. The EU can simply do not say "no" to
Turkey because it would completely undermine its international politics.
The reasoning has always been "if you change your rule to adhere to our
European values, you get better economic relations and political
relations in return".
Europe has positions itself as the "better friend" then the US. While
they use force, we talk, discuse and use economic insentives.
But, in the end, you have to "put your money where your mouth is". The
discussion with turkey have dragged on for over 40 years now, and -with
the middle east changing because of the more-and-more appartent limits
of the power of the US overthere, e.g. in Iraq and in Iran- Turkey is
politically and militairy to important to be ignored.
(and for other reasons, like for energy).
> Thank god for France and Austria, who seems to have promised their
> voters to hold referenda on Turkish EU membership, making these endless
> accession negotiations just an expensive paper exercise in vasting EU
> taxpayers' money.
First of all, I think referenda is about the dangerous tool you can use,
Kristoff Bonne
Dag Øien schreef:
> Some seems surprised when the voters choose to vote NO in certain EU
> referenda. The members of the council seems to be caught up in their
> own momentum, unable to connect with public opinion with regards to
> Turkish membership.
Well, I had a simular discussion in another NG here in Belgium, but I
think the reason is very simple. The EU can simply do not say "no" to
Turkey because it would completely undermine its international politics.
The reasoning has always been "if you change your rule to adhere to our
European values, you get better economic relations and political
relations in return".
Europe has positions itself as the "better friend" then the US. While
they use force, we talk, discuse and use economic insentives.
But, in the end, you have to "put your money where your mouth is". The
discussion with turkey have dragged on for over 40 years now, and -with
the middle east changing because of the more-and-more appartent limits
of the power of the US overthere, e.g. in Iraq and in Iran- Turkey is
politically and militairy to important to be ignored.
(and for other reasons, like for energy).
> Thank god for France and Austria, who seems to have promised their
> voters to hold referenda on Turkish EU membership, making these endless
> accession negotiations just an expensive paper exercise in vasting EU
> taxpayers' money.
First of all, I think referenda is about the dangerous tool you can use,
Roman Werpachowski
Thank God some politicians still believe politics is not only doing what the
today's polls tell you to do.
--
Po co wybierać mniejsze zło? Cthulhu na prezydenta!
rosignol
wrote:
[zap]
> Referenda are crap when it comes to such issues. If we had used referenda
> for admitting new members in the past, the EU would still consist of
> exactly 6 members, maybe a few more.
Apparently the voting machines use old Pentiums, hm?
IMO, it looks like some politicians want to say 'no', but do not want to
deal with the personal consequences... so they have cleverly figured out
a way to let someone else say 'no' for them.
It will be interesting to see how well it works.
--
al Qaeda delenda est
Stegozor
Roman Werpachowski a écrit :
> > Some seems surprised when the voters choose to vote NO in certain EU
> > referenda. The members of the council seems to be caught up in their
> > own momentum, unable to connect with public opinion with regards to
> > Turkish membership.
> >
> > Thank god for France and Austria, who seems to have promised their
> > voters to hold referenda on Turkish EU membership, making these endless
> > accession negotiations just an expensive paper exercise in vasting EU
> > taxpayers' money.
>
> Thank God some politicians still believe politics is not only doing what the
> today's polls tell you to do.
Yes, but neglecting people's will can bring disastrous consequences.
Just remember the constitutional treaty... I don't think that too much
democracy could be a problem. But There's a big problem between
political direction and the basis about the union anyway.
> Po co wybieraæ mniejsze z³o? Cthulhu na prezydenta!
Cthulhu from Lovecraft's call of Cthulhu? Does "Cthulhu na prezydenta"
mean something like we want Cthulhu as president? What's that? :)
Roman Werpachowski
> Cthulhu from Lovecraft's call of Cthulhu? Does "Cthulhu na prezydenta"
> mean something like we want Cthulhu as president? What's that? :)
It means: "Why choose lesser evil? Vote for Cthulhu!"
Stegozor
> > Cthulhu from Lovecraft's call of Cthulhu? Does "Cthulhu na prezydenta"
> > mean something like we want Cthulhu as president? What's that? :)
>
> It means: "Why choose lesser evil? Vote for Cthulhu!"
Google is returning http://www.cthulhu.org/ where you can even buy
Cthulhu for president T-shirts. I'm just discovering...
J.M.
>
> Roman Werpachowski a écrit :
>
>> > Some seems surprised when the voters choose to vote NO in certain EU
>> > referenda. The members of the council seems to be caught up in their
>> > own momentum, unable to connect with public opinion with regards to
>> > Turkish membership.
>> >
>> > Thank god for France and Austria, who seems to have promised their
>> > voters to hold referenda on Turkish EU membership, making these endless
>> > accession negotiations just an expensive paper exercise in vasting EU
>> > taxpayers' money.
>>
>> Thank God some politicians still believe politics is not only doing what
>> the today's polls tell you to do.
>
> Yes, but neglecting people's will can bring disastrous consequences.
> Just remember the constitutional treaty...
The mistake was not the treaty, but holding the referendum. In an EU of 25,
referenda do not work. No matter how good a treaty or agreement in the EU
is, there is no way to make it acceptable to all 25 member states in a
referendum. Approval by parliaments is, however, a good alternative, as
parliaments are more likely to see that that a given agreement was the best
possible. If you want a referenda in the EU, then you something of the sort
Switzerland has: a measure passes if
1) a majority of the people approve
2) a majority of the Cantons approve
> I don't think that too much
> democracy could be a problem.
Holding referenda in the EU is not democratic. Democracy means: we do what
the majority wants. Referenda are not a good way to determine what the
majority wants and allow a tiny minority to block measures in the EU.
Jan
Stegozor
> > Yes, but neglecting people's will can bring disastrous consequences.
> > Just remember the constitutional treaty...
>
> The mistake was not the treaty, but holding the referendum. In an EU of 25,
> referenda do not work. No matter how good a treaty or agreement in the EU
> is, there is no way to make it acceptable to all 25 member states in a
> referendum. (...)
Yes, but the problem is that the Union is not a federation, and it
seems it's not going to become one in the foreseeable future. Such a
thing should be first approved by a referendum, simply because it's too
important. I don't think referenda were the problem, they just showed
that there was a huge incomprehension between the people and the so
called elites. I clearly don't agree with Mr. Bolkestein who told once
that referenda were bad, and once the people had elected its
representatives, these should be the only ones to decide. Vote every 4
or 5 years, and between, shut up? That's not the best way to expect
legitimacy.
> > I don't think that too much
> > democracy could be a problem.
>
> Holding referenda in the EU is not democratic. Democracy means: we do what
> the majority wants. Referenda are not a good way to determine what the
> majority wants and allow a tiny minority to block measures in the EU.
Indeed, but when it comes to truly important questions (like with whom
you're sharing your sovereignty), the veto right is necessary IMHO. If
the Union was explained in a better manner (I just can't get out of my
mind the words of Chirac telling new members had lost an oppotunity to
shut up), if it was also build in a different way, with more power to
the parliament, I guess the "non" and "nee" wouldn't have been there
today. As the post of Mc Bain puts it, "To forge such a Union, it is
extremely important that large majorities
of the inhabitants of all the member states feel themselves closely
associated with the project and the political process of unification."
Instead, the enlargement is going on as if everything was OK. Make no
mistake, I support the last enlargement, as I support candidacy of
future members. But there's a huge problem, and I see no answer from
anyone, especially from european institutions. You can fight the
symptoms and avoid referenda, or try to fight the disease itself.
Stegozor
> Dag Øien schrieb:
> > Thank god for France and Austria, who seems to have promised their
> > voters to hold referenda on Turkish EU membership, making these endless
> > accession negotiations just an expensive paper exercise in vasting EU
> > taxpayers' money.
French parliament asked for a vote recently on this issue. Chirac
refused.
> > -dag
>
> Referenda are crap when it comes to such issues. If we had used referenda
> for admitting new members in the past, the EU would still consist of
> exactly 6 members, maybe a few more.
>
> "Poor" countries like Spain, Portugal, Greece or Ireland would never have
> been admitted. (...) Or do you think French (or German voters)
> would have let Poland in?
I simply can't imagine French saying no to the last enlargement. You
have to look at yourself in a mirror after that. Anyway, it's well
known that accessions of Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland were
beneficial for all.
There's still the "social dumping" issue to resolve, though.
> Even countries like the UK would have a had hard time getting accepting if
> the French voters would have been asked.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK there's been a referendum
both in the UK and in France before the accessions of Ireland and the
UK. And when you know the deep love between each side of the Manche ;)
you can imagine your wildest dreams can come true.
J.M.
> J.M. a écrit :
>
>> > Yes, but neglecting people's will can bring disastrous consequences.
>> > Just remember the constitutional treaty...
>>
>> The mistake was not the treaty, but holding the referendum. In an EU of
>> 25, referenda do not work. No matter how good a treaty or agreement in
>> the EU is, there is no way to make it acceptable to all 25 member states
>> in a referendum. (...)
>
> Yes, but the problem is that the Union is not a federation,
Sure enough.
> and it
> seems it's not going to become one in the foreseeable future.
true. Hence referenda are inappropriate. The EU is an international
organisation and no country. You don't have referenda in the UN and NATO
either.
> Such a
> thing should be first approved by a referendum, simply because it's too
> important.
Sure,if the EU were to become a federation, it might be appropriate to have
a referendum, but that was not part of the constitutional treaty. For that
matter, in such a situation, a country that rejects such a referendum
should leave the EU, if enough other countries ratify it.
> I don't think referenda were the problem, they just showed
> that there was a huge incomprehension between the people and the so
> called elites.
No, that is not the problem. The UK wants a free-trade zone, France wants an
intergovernmental EU (i.e. decisions made primarily by the council) with
strong socialist leanings, many small states and Germany want more of a
federal EU (with decisions made primarily by parliament), countries like
Poland want a "neo-liberal" EU. These positions cannot be reconciled *in
the populations*. In other words, as there is no discussion between the
people of Poland with the people of France, these distinct positions will
remain. This is mostly a language problem that will not go away any time
soon. As long as these distinct positions remain, no constitution will be
able to obtain acceptance in all countries.
Instead, the reconciliation of the different positions has taken place
between the "elites" in the EU, because they can communicate and share
their thoughts. Hence, the constitution was a difficult compromise that
required all countries to make sacrifices. As a consequence, it is however
unable to obtain a majority by referendum in all countries. Similarly, no
other constitution would fare better. Indeed, if we stick with a
referendum, the best we can hope to achieve is to maintain the status quo.
> I clearly don't agree with Mr. Bolkestein who told once
> that referenda were bad, and once the people had elected its
> representatives, these should be the only ones to decide. Vote every 4
> or 5 years, and between, shut up? That's not the best way to expect
> legitimacy.
That depends. If you have a country, where you have a common public opinion
and a public discourse, referenda may work. If you do not have that,
referenda do not work.
>
>> > I don't think that too much
>> > democracy could be a problem.
>>
>> Holding referenda in the EU is not democratic. Democracy means: we do
>> what the majority wants. Referenda are not a good way to determine what
>> the majority wants and allow a tiny minority to block measures in the EU.
>
> Indeed, but when it comes to truly important questions (like with whom
> you're sharing your sovereignty), the veto right is necessary IMHO. If
> the Union was explained in a better manner (I just can't get out of my
> mind the words of Chirac telling new members had lost an oppotunity to
> shut up),
That hardly explains why France and the Netherlands rejected the treaty.
> if it was also build in a different way, with more power to
> the parliament, I guess the "non" and "nee" wouldn't have been there
> today.
No, but the UK would have rejected it in a referendum. The UK basically
wants a free trade area, and not a powerful parliament. I see no way in
which the treaty could have been changed so that it would have been
acceptable to all states in a referendum.
> As the post of Mc Bain puts it, "To forge such a Union, it is
> extremely important that large majorities
> of the inhabitants of all the member states feel themselves closely
> associated with the project and the political process of unification."
>
> Instead, the enlargement is going on as if everything was OK. Make no
> mistake, I support the last enlargement, as I support candidacy of
> future members. But there's a huge problem, and I see no answer from
> anyone, especially from european institutions. You can fight the
> symptoms and avoid referenda, or try to fight the disease itself.
Sure, the disease is that we are not a European people. If we were a
European people with one European public and one language in which all can
communicate, finding a compromise acceptable to all would be possible,
because everyone would be more sympathetic to the needs of other Europeans.
Currently, most people only care about their own country, but not other
people in other EU countries. That may change with time and it probably
will. So if you insist on having referenda, then you have to accept that we
will keep the status quo for quite some time and will not have a common
constitution for the next 50-1000 years.
Jan
J.M.
> J.M. a écrit :
>
>> Dag Øien schrieb:
>> > Thank god for France and Austria, who seems to have promised their
>> > voters to hold referenda on Turkish EU membership, making these endless
>> > accession negotiations just an expensive paper exercise in vasting EU
>> > taxpayers' money.
>
> French parliament asked for a vote recently on this issue. Chirac
> refused.
>
>> > -dag
>>
>> Referenda are crap when it comes to such issues. If we had used referenda
>> for admitting new members in the past, the EU would still consist of
>> exactly 6 members, maybe a few more.
>>
>> "Poor" countries like Spain, Portugal, Greece or Ireland would never have
>> been admitted. (...) Or do you think French (or German voters)
>> would have let Poland in?
>
> I simply can't imagine French saying no to the last enlargement.
A year ago, you could not have imagined France or the Netherlands rejecting
the constitution either.
> You
> have to look at yourself in a mirror after that. Anyway, it's well
> known that accessions of Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland were
> beneficial for all.
In retrospect, they were beneficial to all. Similarly, if the constitution
had been approved, 20 years from now, we would probably all agree that it
was good to approve it. In any case, I would guarantee you that in a
referendum in the 1980s in Germany, the chances are, Germany would have
rejected these enlargements. All countries were dirt poor and initially
cost the EU lot's of money. Furthermore, Spain, Portugal and Greece were at
best semi-stable democracies. They were permitted to join because the EU
hoped this would stabilize these democracies, which is what happened. But
that would not have convinced voters to allow these countries to join, just
as a similar argument will not convince voters to allow Turkey to join.
> There's still the "social dumping" issue to resolve, though.
>
>> Even countries like the UK would have a had hard time getting accepting
>> if the French voters would have been asked.
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK there's been a referendum
> both in the UK and in France before the accessions of Ireland and the
> UK.
I think you are wrong, but I am not sure. France initially rejected the UK
joining the EU though, but not be referendum.
Jan
Thomas Koenig
> J.M. a écrit :
[EU Constitutional Treaty]
> Such a
> thing should be first approved by a referendum, simply because it's too
> important. I don't think referenda were the problem, they just showed
> that there was a huge incomprehension between the people and the so
> called elites.
How did you leap from referend_um_ to referend_a_? There might be a case
for a EU-wide referendum, but I don't see any justification for national
referenda.
> I clearly don't agree with Mr. Bolkestein who told once
> that referenda were bad, and once the people had elected its
> representatives, these should be the only ones to decide. Vote every 4
> or 5 years, and between, shut up? That's not the best way to expect
> legitimacy.
There are plenty of other options to participate in the polical process:
Any citizen can become active in civil society actors such as social
movements or NGOs. You can also join a political party. Post on the
Usenet ;-) Etc.
Referenda circumvent the political process, which is (or at least should
be) designed to lead to a calibration of different interests. In
contrast, plebiscites may lead to what Toqcueville has so aptly called
/tyrannie de la majorité/[1]. Local/National referenda encourage on top
"not in my backyard" policies.
> As the post of Mc Bain puts it, "To forge such a Union, it is
> extremely important that large majorities
> of the inhabitants of all the member states feel themselves closely
> associated with the project and the political process of unification."
>
> Instead, the enlargement is going on as if everything was OK. Make no
> mistake, I support the last enlargement, as I support candidacy of
> future members. But there's a huge problem, and I see no answer from
> anyone, especially from european institutions. You can fight the
> symptoms and avoid referenda, or try to fight the disease itself.
In yesterday's Guardian, there was a similar argument:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1584982,00.html
I think that this problem must be tackled, but not by referenda/um, but
by making clear that the exclusion of any country (including, but not
limited to Turkey) through referenda is thoroughly undemocratic. If the
majority of current EU citizens is against accession, then this majority
must be ignored, because it violates the equality principle that is
non-negotiable for democratic practice. This violation should be
communicated to legitimize accessions, once the relevant countries meet
basic internal criteria for democracy. These criteria, of course, should
not be stricter than those demanded from current member states, who also
do not have impeccable records on democracy (Italy - media; Greece -
minorities; Germany - guest workers; Skandinavian Countries -
Secularization, to name a few hotspots).
[1] fr - http://www.panarchy.org/tocqueville/tyrannie.1835.html
en - http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/1_ch15.htm
Stegozor
> true. Hence referenda are inappropriate. The EU is an international
> organisation and no country. You don't have referenda in the UN and NATO
> either.
Turkey is blocking Cyprus' candidacy to NATO for years now. And you can
be sure that if a governement in Turkey allowed the accession, it would
lost power. There wasn't any referendum, but anyway, you don't need
one, as the results are easily predictable.
> Sure,if the EU were to become a federation, it might be appropriate to have
> a referendum, but that was not part of the constitutional treaty. For that
> matter, in such a situation, a country that rejects such a referendum
> should leave the EU, if enough other countries ratify it.
I don't agree, simply because that option was not clearly explained
before the ratification process.
> > I don't think referenda were the problem, they just showed
> > that there was a huge incomprehension between the people and the so
> > called elites.
>
> No, that is not the problem. The UK wants a free-trade zone, France wants an
> intergovernmental EU (i.e. decisions made primarily by the council) with
> strong socialist leanings, many small states and Germany want more of a
> federal EU (with decisions made primarily by parliament), countries like
> Poland want a "neo-liberal" EU. These positions cannot be reconciled *in
> the populations*. In other words, as there is no discussion between the
> people of Poland with the people of France, these distinct positions will
> remain. This is mostly a language problem that will not go away any time
> soon.
Why isn't there a pan-european TV channel and a radio station in order
to present lifestyles, histories, traditions and so on of different
countries of Europe?
> >> > I don't think that too much
> >> > democracy could be a problem.
> >>
> >> Holding referenda in the EU is not democratic. Democracy means: we do
> >> what the majority wants. Referenda are not a good way to determine what
> >> the majority wants and allow a tiny minority to block measures in the EU.
I see referenda as the most direct way for people to decide for
themselves. In the EU, as you explain, it could lead to problems, but I
still don't see any better solution on some specific concerns.
> > Indeed, but when it comes to truly important questions (like with whom
> > you're sharing your sovereignty), the veto right is necessary IMHO. If
> > the Union was explained in a better manner (I just can't get out of my
> > mind the words of Chirac telling new members had lost an oppotunity to
> > shut up),
>
> That hardly explains why France and the Netherlands rejected the treaty.
It parly does, IMHO. For years, French officials used to tell that
unpopular projects originated in Brussels. (and they still continue,
just think to Chirac currently accusing Barroso of doing nothing
against HP)
> > if it was also build in a different way, with more power to
> > the parliament, I guess the "non" and "nee" wouldn't have been there
> > today.
>
> No, but the UK would have rejected it in a referendum. The UK basically
> wants a free trade area, and not a powerful parliament. I see no way in
> which the treaty could have been changed so that it would have been
> acceptable to all states in a referendum.
That's pretty hard, indeed but I don't think it's impossible.
Stegozor
> How did you leap from referend_um_ to referend_a_? There might be a case
> for a EU-wide referendum, but I don't see any justification for national
> referenda.
IMHO, currently a referendum in the Union is irrelevant, if not
impossible. You can hold simultaneous referenda in each country, which
may look like a european referendum, but that's all. To be able to hold
a european referendum, as Jan told, there must be a european people
that doesn't exist yet. The main effort should be done in this
direction, and I don't think ignoring people's will because it was done
so before is the best way to achieve that. Sooner or later (at least I
hope so, I'm less sure these days) each country will accept to deepen
the cooperation, and will explicitly renounce to its veto right. But in
order to do that, one has to know what the union is, and where it will
end. Until then... Perhaps that shows we're in a transition, trying to
know in which scale a referendum would be really democratic.
> Referenda circumvent the political process, which is (or at least should
> be) designed to lead to a calibration of different interests. In
> contrast, plebiscites may lead to what Toqcueville has so aptly called
> /tyrannie de la majorité/[1]. Local/National referenda encourage on top
> "not in my backyard" policies.
You're right when you point out this side of the question. But would a
tyranny of a minority be better? Or ignoring people's will, even when
it's persistant and undoubtfully clear? Nothing is perfect...
> > Instead, the enlargement is going on as if everything was OK. Make no
> > mistake, I support the last enlargement, as I support candidacy of
> > future members. But there's a huge problem, and I see no answer from
> > anyone, especially from european institutions. You can fight the
> > symptoms and avoid referenda, or try to fight the disease itself.
>
> In yesterday's Guardian, there was a similar argument:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1584982,00.html
>
> I think that this problem must be tackled, but not by referenda/um, but
> by making clear that the exclusion of any country (including, but not
> limited to Turkey) through referenda is thoroughly undemocratic. If the
Formally, it is. How could you deny the right to decide about its
sovereignty to a country which wants to proceed via referendum, simply
because that's the most democratic way? As long as the cooperation is
not deepened in Europe, the basic frame is the state.
> majority of current EU citizens is against accession, then this majority
> must be ignored, because it violates the equality principle that is
> non-negotiable for democratic practice. This violation should be
> communicated to legitimize accessions, once the relevant countries meet
> basic internal criteria for democracy.
Ouch... That's a good way to kill the Union, isn't it?
The main question is : who decides if a country is relevant or not to
be a member of the Union? Why country A is more relevant than country
B? The best answer I have is that all members of the Union must agree.
> [1] fr - http://www.panarchy.org/tocqueville/tyrannie.1835.html
> en - http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/1_ch15.htm
Thanks for these links. Right now I'm on a public computer with limited
time to spend on it, but I'll read these pages as soon as I can.
J.M.
> Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
>> How did you leap from referend_um_ to referend_a_? There might be a case
>> for a EU-wide referendum, but I don't see any justification for national
>> referenda.
>
> IMHO, currently a referendum in the Union is irrelevant, if not
> impossible. You can hold simultaneous referenda in each country, which
> may look like a european referendum, but that's all. To be able to hold
> a european referendum, as Jan told, there must be a european people
> that doesn't exist yet. The main effort should be done in this
> direction, and I don't think ignoring people's will because it was done
> so before is the best way to achieve that. Sooner or later (at least I
> hope so, I'm less sure these days) each country will accept to deepen
> the cooperation, and will explicitly renounce to its veto right. But in
> order to do that, one has to know what the union is, and where it will
> end.
We have been trying to answer that question for 30 years and there is
absolutely no consensus on that matter. Ideally, would discuss this matter,
find a consensus, write a constitution that aims at implementing this
consensus and ratify it. However, I don't think that this will ever happen.
Instead, the EU should continue as it has always done: evolve, and adjust
its treaties as it does so. Every once in a while, these treaties will be
simplified and packed together. The last time this happened, was when the
EU replaced the EC. The constitution was another effort in this direction,
but I am afraid, this is the only way to proceed. But proceeding this way
cannot be done by referenda.
> Until then... Perhaps that shows we're in a transition, trying to
> know in which scale a referendum would be really democratic.
In the EU? It never is, until we form a federation.
>
>> Referenda circumvent the political process, which is (or at least should
>> be) designed to lead to a calibration of different interests. In
>> contrast, plebiscites may lead to what Toqcueville has so aptly called
>> /tyrannie de la majorité/[1]. Local/National referenda encourage on top
>> "not in my backyard" policies.
>
> You're right when you point out this side of the question. But would a
> tyranny of a minority be better?
Is it a tyranny? A political process involving lot's of different people
(i.e. a parliament or the various states of the EU and EU institutions)
will reach its compromise through the exchange of ideas and discussion,
hence no black or white results, but lot's of gray. Of course, not everyone
will be happy with the result, but it is no tyranny. Even within our
nations, our national parliaments sometimes enact unpopular measures, but I
would not call that tyranny. There is absolutely no reason why decisions
must always have majority support.
> Or ignoring people's will, even when
> it's persistant and undoubtfully clear?
That is fine. Our political institutions, whether the EU or our nations take
the political discussions of the streets and into parliament, where a much
more balanced and informed decision can be made, taking into account the
the insights that result from the discussion there.
> Nothing is perfect...
No, and referenda are very imperfect. Keep in mind that many people in
France voted against the constitution because they wanted to teach their
president a lesson, because they were poorly informed (they thought/hoped
there would be an alternative). Frankly, if it were possible, the votes
cast be such people should be ignored, but that is not possible. In a
parliamentary ratification process, such side-issues such the popularity of
the president do not play role.
>
>> > Instead, the enlargement is going on as if everything was OK. Make no
>> > mistake, I support the last enlargement, as I support candidacy of
>> > future members. But there's a huge problem, and I see no answer from
>> > anyone, especially from european institutions. You can fight the
>> > symptoms and avoid referenda, or try to fight the disease itself.
>>
>> In yesterday's Guardian, there was a similar argument:
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1584982,00.html
>>
>> I think that this problem must be tackled, but not by referenda/um, but
>> by making clear that the exclusion of any country (including, but not
>> limited to Turkey) through referenda is thoroughly undemocratic. If the
>
> Formally, it is. How could you deny the right to decide about its
> sovereignty to a country which wants to proceed via referendum, simply
> because that's the most democratic way? As long as the cooperation is
> not deepened in Europe, the basic frame is the state.
Agreed. It can't be denied, but we must realize that any deepening of the EU
is impossible if a significant number of countries use referenda. De facto,
a choice to use referenda is a choice to kill any change.
>
>> majority of current EU citizens is against accession, then this majority
>> must be ignored, because it violates the equality principle that is
>> non-negotiable for democratic practice. This violation should be
>> communicated to legitimize accessions, once the relevant countries meet
>> basic internal criteria for democracy.
>
> Ouch... That's a good way to kill the Union, isn't it?
Well, the EU needs to be good on its promises, or else it is worthless. The
EU promised Turkey that Turkey will be treated as all other candidates.
>
> The main question is : who decides if a country is relevant or not to
> be a member of the Union? Why country A is more relevant than country
> B? The best answer I have is that all members of the Union must agree.
We all agree that Turkey is entitled to be member. It was given candidate
status in 1999. Hence, Turkey should be treated as any other candidate:
once if fullfills all criteria, it must be admitted.
Jan
J.M.
> J.M. wrote:
>
>
>> true. Hence referenda are inappropriate. The EU is an international
>> organisation and no country. You don't have referenda in the UN and NATO
>> either.
>
> Turkey is blocking Cyprus' candidacy to NATO for years now. And you can
> be sure that if a governement in Turkey allowed the accession, it would
> lost power. There wasn't any referendum, but anyway, you don't need
> one, as the results are easily predictable.
What does one have to do with the other? You are using a logical fallacy.
What you say does not contradict anything I say. I said that referenda
often block important decisions and consequently should not be used in
international organizations. You point out that governments can do the
same. That is quite true, but that does not mean that referenda are better
or worse than government decisions.
>
>> Sure,if the EU were to become a federation, it might be appropriate to
>> have a referendum, but that was not part of the constitutional treaty.
>> For that matter, in such a situation, a country that rejects such a
>> referendum should leave the EU, if enough other countries ratify it.
>
> I don't agree, simply because that option was not clearly explained
> before the ratification process.
Sure, and legally it is not possible to kick any country out of the EU.
Nevertheless, that is how we should proceed. If enough countries reject the
constitution, then the constitution is dead. Else, it will come into force
and those countries that rejected it, should either approve it or leave the
EU.
>
>> > I don't think referenda were the problem, they just showed
>> > that there was a huge incomprehension between the people and the so
>> > called elites.
>>
>> No, that is not the problem. The UK wants a free-trade zone, France wants
>> an intergovernmental EU (i.e. decisions made primarily by the council)
>> with strong socialist leanings, many small states and Germany want more
>> of a federal EU (with decisions made primarily by parliament), countries
>> like Poland want a "neo-liberal" EU. These positions cannot be reconciled
>> *in the populations*. In other words, as there is no discussion between
>> the people of Poland with the people of France, these distinct positions
>> will remain. This is mostly a language problem that will not go away any
>> time soon.
>
> Why isn't there a pan-european TV channel and a radio station in order
> to present lifestyles, histories, traditions and so on of different
> countries of Europe?
Sure, there was. How many people watched it? That is not really the problem
- we have the problem of simply not being able to communicate with other
Europeans. The average Frenchman cannot speak with the average Pole if he
meets him. Hence, we do not really care enough about each other or feel as
one people. As a result, we have too much national egotism.
>
>
>> >> > I don't think that too much
>> >> > democracy could be a problem.
>> >>
>> >> Holding referenda in the EU is not democratic. Democracy means: we do
>> >> what the majority wants. Referenda are not a good way to determine
>> >> what the majority wants and allow a tiny minority to block measures in
>> >> the EU.
>
> I see referenda as the most direct way for people to decide for
> themselves. In the EU, as you explain, it could lead to problems, but I
> still don't see any better solution on some specific concerns.
It is better to involve the national parliaments rather than the people
directly.
>
>> > Indeed, but when it comes to truly important questions (like with whom
>> > you're sharing your sovereignty), the veto right is necessary IMHO. If
>> > the Union was explained in a better manner (I just can't get out of my
>> > mind the words of Chirac telling new members had lost an oppotunity to
>> > shut up),
>>
>> That hardly explains why France and the Netherlands rejected the treaty.
>
> It parly does, IMHO. For years, French officials used to tell that
> unpopular projects originated in Brussels. (and they still continue,
> just think to Chirac currently accusing Barroso of doing nothing
> against HP)
Sure, and from a French perspective, Chirac is totally right. The French
want a more socialist EU, Barroso and most of the rest of the EU do not.
From a French POV, the mistakes come from Brussels. There is nothing wrong
in saying that. Of course this makes the EU unpopular in France, but why
should the EU be popular in France if it is doing things the French do not
want? That is precisely what I said before. There is no consensus in the EU
what the EU should be or do. Hence, we can either
1) agree to work together anyhow, as best as possible. But that is not going
to be popular with the people
2) we let the people decide and they will decide against the EU because the
EU always does something that they don't like. The reason they will decide
against the EU is because we are no people. Simiarly, I don't like
everything done in Berlin, and in many ways, I might be better off if
Baden-Württemberg were its own country, but Germans feel that they belong
together, so no state wants to be its own country. In the EU, we don't feel
like we belong together.
>
>> > if it was also build in a different way, with more power to
>> > the parliament, I guess the "non" and "nee" wouldn't have been there
>> > today.
>>
>> No, but the UK would have rejected it in a referendum. The UK basically
>> wants a free trade area, and not a powerful parliament. I see no way in
>> which the treaty could have been changed so that it would have been
>> acceptable to all states in a referendum.
>
> That's pretty hard, indeed but I don't think it's impossible.
The best possible attempt was rejected.
Jan
Stegozor
> What does one have to do with the other? You are using a logical fallacy.
There are common points: enlargement, veto of one the members due to
nationalist feelings...
> What you say does not contradict anything I say. I said that referenda
I'm not trying to contradict everything you say, you know :) Actually,
it rather tends to confirm your arguments (the pressure of the average
dude on politics). Anyway, I was curious about your opinion.
> often block important decisions and consequently should not be used in
> international organizations. You point out that governments can do the
> same. That is quite true, but that does not mean that referenda are better
> or worse than government decisions.
Indeed.
> Sure, there was. How many people watched it? That is not really the problem
> - we have the problem of simply not being able to communicate with other
> Europeans. The average Frenchman cannot speak with the average Pole if he
> meets him.
And what about Switzerland where they speak French, German and Italian?
What about Belgium? If what you say was true, reunification of Cyprus
would be irrelevant.
Hence, we do not really care enough about each other or feel as
> one people. As a result, we have too much national egotism.
Everybody should learn French ! More seriously, such a TV channel and
radio station, possibly less "elitist" than Arte, could help to limit
each countries national egotism.
> > I see referenda as the most direct way for people to decide for
> > themselves. In the EU, as you explain, it could lead to problems, but I
> > still don't see any better solution on some specific concerns.
>
> It is better to involve the national parliaments rather than the people
> directly.
We don't agree. If you read french, I can try to explain my pov more
easily, and that should avoid you headaches due to my bad english.
My main idea is: there must an attempt to explain that europa is
beneficial for all, to form that european people in order to allow more
democracy in the _union_. We also need to change the way these
institutions work, and ignoring people's opinion can have disastrous
consequences.
> Sure, and from a French perspective, Chirac is totally right. The French
Oh no. Chirac should know the limits of the commission's powers.
Barroso simply can't do anything, but Chirac is trying to look
sympatethic to the French. As that happened very often, it just won't
work.
> want a more socialist EU, Barroso and most of the rest of the EU do not.
Hence, we can either
>
> 1) agree to work together anyhow, as best as possible. But that is not going
> to be popular with the people
There must be a way, and I believe there is one. Otherwise, the union
is doomed. Sooner or later...
> 2) we let the people decide and they will decide against the EU because the
> EU always does something that they don't like. The reason they will decide
> against the EU is because we are no people.
They voted yes many times, and that may very well happen again. Simply,
I think their will must not cannot be ignored. You seem too pessimistic
about the average dude.
> > That's pretty hard, indeed but I don't think it's impossible.
>
> The best possible attempt was rejected.
If it was the best possible attempt, it was a poor one. There must be
another one, without the third part if possible, with more guarantees
to little states, and with at least some social concerns. Otherwise,
for sure, wealthy nations' workers will be afraid by poorer countries.
Christian Feldhaus
> The last time this happened, was when the
> EU replaced the EC.
Side note - the EU did not actually replace the EC. The European
Community (formerly EEC) still exists, which is also why both the EC
Treaty and the EU Treaty apply. Amalgamating these two treaties into one
was actually one of the aims of the Constitutional Treaty that was
rejected by FR and NL.
Christian
Thomas Koenig
> Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
>
>>How did you leap from referend_um_ to referend_a_? There might be a case
>>for a EU-wide referendum, but I don't see any justification for national
>>referenda.
>
>
> IMHO, currently a referendum in the Union is irrelevant,
Why would a EU referendum be irrelevant (for the constititutional
treaty)? It might not be politically viable, but why would it be irrelevant?
> if not
> impossible.
What do you mean by "impossible"? An entity that sends rockets into
space would not be capable to manage the logistics of a referendum?
> You can hold simultaneous referenda in each country, which
> may look like a european referendum, but that's all. To be able to hold
> a european referendum, as Jan told, there must be a european people
> that doesn't exist yet.
I am unsure what you mean by "a European people". A "people" (as in
/Volk/, /ethnie/, or /έθνος/) surely cannot be required for democracy,
otherwise no current country (even Iceland, which usually is claimed to
be ethnically homogenous) could not hold referanda, as they all contain
more than one (anyways imagined) people.
You probably mean what is usually called a European public sphere (or
/Oeffentlichkeit/, as Herr Habermas more aptly termed it). It appears to
me that the current majority opinion in the social science says that a
European public is emerging:
http://www.fu-berlin.de/atasp/texte/030624_europeanpublicsphere.pdf
I personally disagree with that assesment:
But even if a European public sphere does not exist, that does not mean
that a referendum is fatally flawed. Sure, the deliberative dimension of
democracy would have defects, but these would hardly be damaging enough
to render such a referendum completely illegitimate. After all, the
national public spheres are seriously flawed, too. Or do you really
believe that every citizen has the same capacity to participate in the
national public sphere? Or that the rules for democratic deliberations
are followed?
[...]
> You're right when you point out this side of the question. But would a
> tyranny of a minority be better?
This wouldn't be a tyranny, as Jan already explained.
> Or ignoring people's will, even when
> it's persistant and undoubtfully clear?
If the will violates basic democratic principles, it should be ignored.
But I still have the feeling that most people would agree to accession,
once it would become clear that denying accession violates democracy.
[...]
> Formally, it is. How could you deny the right to decide about its
> sovereignty to a country which wants to proceed via referendum, simply
> because that's the most democratic way?
That is a different issue, and I have no satisfactory answer to that.
(Not that I have satisfactory answer to the other questions, but there I
can pretend.)
> As long as the cooperation is
> not deepened in Europe, the basic frame is the state.
Unfortunately, but this needs to be problematized rather than accepted
matter-of-factly.
[...]
> The main question is : who decides if a country is relevant or not to
> be a member of the Union?
If you agree with basic liberal democratic principles, it should be
clear that no country, be it the US, North Korea, or Iceland, should be
denied accession, once certain criteria for internal democracy are
fulfilled.
> Why country A is more relevant than country
> B?
Because unlike country A (say, New Zealand) the governemental system of
country B (e.g., North Korea) currently does not meet minimal democratic
standards.
> The best answer I have is that all members of the Union must agree.
That's an answer guided by pragmatism rather than democratic values.
J.M.
Yes, I know, but that is a technicality ;)
Jan
J.M.
> J.M. wrote:
>
>> What does one have to do with the other? You are using a logical fallacy.
>
> There are common points: enlargement, veto of one the members due to
> nationalist feelings...
Yes, but there is a fundamental difference. National concerns about
enlargement can be addressed effectively if that national government is
involved in the negotiations. For example, Germany, whether justified or
not, was afraid that Polish workers would take our jobs. Hence, Germany
(and other countries) achieved a transistion period during which people
from new states to seek may not automaticaly work in the old member states.
After negotiations are complete and all concerns have been addressed, it
would have been very unfair for Germany, for example, to reject Polish
membership. Hence, a referendum for admitting new states is always unfair.
The fact of the matter is that we have given Turkey candidate status (with
approval of all EU states) in 1999 and we have agreed in 2005 to have
negotiations with Turkey so that Turkey can become a member. If these
negotiations are completed successfully, it is unacceptable to reject
Turkish membership. Period. That is not a question about democracy, but
about living up to one's promises.
>
>> What you say does not contradict anything I say. I said that referenda
>
> I'm not trying to contradict everything you say, you know :) Actually,
> it rather tends to confirm your arguments (the pressure of the average
> dude on politics). Anyway, I was curious about your opinion.
>
>> often block important decisions and consequently should not be used in
>> international organizations. You point out that governments can do the
>> same. That is quite true, but that does not mean that referenda are
>> better or worse than government decisions.
>
> Indeed.
>
>> Sure, there was. How many people watched it? That is not really the
>> problem - we have the problem of simply not being able to communicate
>> with other Europeans. The average Frenchman cannot speak with the average
>> Pole if he meets him.
>
> And what about Switzerland where they speak French, German and Italian?
Switzerland and Belgium both have problems. On many issues, particularly
when it comes to relations with the EU, there is a cultural divide in
Switzerland. The francophone part of Switzerland is generally in favor of
cooperating or even joining the EU, whereas the German language area is
very much anti-EU. This divide has been the source of some dissatisfaction
in Switzerland. Nevertheless, in Switzerland is not at all comparable to
the EU. First of all, you have one ethnic group, the German ethnic group,
making up 60% of the population. Hence, its views dominate. Secondly,
communication is still possible as most people in Switzerland speak both
German and French. Thirdly, Switzerland does not require unanimous approval
by all cantons for a referendum to pass. It requires a majority nationwide
and a majority in a majority of cantons. Similarly, the tensions between
the various regions of Belgium are well-known....
> What about Belgium?
The only thing holding Belgium together is tradition and the king.
> If what you say was true, reunification of Cyprus
> would be irrelevant.
Well, who wants reunification of Cyprus? The Turkish side wants it because
it is worthwhile economically and because that would let them into the EU.
There is no actual desire to form a government with the Greeks. On the
other hand, the Greek side is not too excited about reunification based on
the UN plan, where they would not be able to dominate the Turkish side..
>
> Hence, we do not really care enough about each other or feel as
>> one people. As a result, we have too much national egotism.
>
> Everybody should learn French ! More seriously, such a TV channel and
> radio station, possibly less "elitist" than Arte, could help to limit
> each countries national egotism.
That would not do much. When I was on Crete this summer, I saw Europeans
from across the continent sharing the same beach: Germans, British, all
sorts of Scandinavians, Dutch, French, Italians and Greek.. None spoke with
the other.. Sure, most could probably have communicated to some degree in
English, but very well, hence I hardly ever saw people from different
nationalities speaking with each other. I don't see how Europe will work
without a common language. Only English can be this language and the sooner
we realize this, the better.
>
>> > I see referenda as the most direct way for people to decide for
>> > themselves. In the EU, as you explain, it could lead to problems, but I
>> > still don't see any better solution on some specific concerns.
>>
>> It is better to involve the national parliaments rather than the people
>> directly.
>
> We don't agree. If you read french,
I can decipher French ;-)
> I can try to explain my pov more
> easily, and that should avoid you headaches due to my bad english.
> My main idea is: there must an attempt to explain that europa is
> beneficial for all, to form that european people in order to allow more
> democracy in the _union_. We also need to change the way these
> institutions work, and ignoring people's opinion can have disastrous
> consequences.
I don't agree. I think your proposal sounds nice in theory, but in practice,
it would not work.
>
>
>> Sure, and from a French perspective, Chirac is totally right. The French
>
> Oh no. Chirac should know the limits of the commission's powers.
> Barroso simply can't do anything,
Oh, the commission and the EU can do quite a bit...
> but Chirac is trying to look
> sympatethic to the French. As that happened very often, it just won't
> work.
>
>> want a more socialist EU, Barroso and most of the rest of the EU do not.
> Hence, we can either
>>
>> 1) agree to work together anyhow, as best as possible. But that is not
>> going to be popular with the people
>
> There must be a way, and I believe there is one. Otherwise, the union
> is doomed. Sooner or later...
Sure, there might be a way in 100 years. There is no way right now.
>
>> 2) we let the people decide and they will decide against the EU because
>> the EU always does something that they don't like. The reason they will
>> decide against the EU is because we are no people.
>
> They voted yes many times, and that may very well happen again.
Well, things have become more and more critical. The Treaty of Nice did not
pass initially and the Treaty of Amsterdam almost failed. In the first
case, we just ignored the Irish No and told them to vote again. This was
possible because Ireland was small and because some changes were made in
the Treaty. Revising the treaty was possible Ireland simply needed a few
opt-outs. Now the situation is different. Revising the constitution is
practically not possible. Furthermore, with 12 or 15 states, it was
feasible to secure approval in all states, even by referendum. Now with 25
and soon 27 states, getting approval in all states is more and more
unrealistic.
> Simply,
> I think their will must not cannot be ignored. You seem too pessimistic
> about the average dude.
Frankly, you are a bit too optimistic. Getting information about the EU and
its benefits is not too hard, reading the main part of the treaty would
have been simple. Instead of getting this information, a significant part
of the French population chose to remain ignorant and to cast their vote
irresponsibly, i.e. just to hurt Chirac. Furthermore, I followed the
discussion about the treaty in France, particularly the garbage ATTAC wrote
- they simply counted words: they compared the number of times social
matters were mentioned in the constitution and the number of times the free
market was mentioned. Not surprisingly, the free market, one of the prime
responsibilities was mentioned more often than social matters, one of the
prime responsibility of the nations. ATTAC concluded that the constitution
was unbalanced and recommended to vote against it. With stupid arguments,
how can you expect people to vote intelligently? To be more specific, I
live in Karlsruhe, right on the French border and many people from Alsace
work here. Our secretary is French. She lives in France and works in
Germany, and crosses the border twice daily. She voted against the
constitution because she said, the EU had provided her with no benefits. I
mean, how stupid and ignorant can you be???
>
>> > That's pretty hard, indeed but I don't think it's impossible.
>>
>> The best possible attempt was rejected.
>
> If it was the best possible attempt, it was a poor one. There must be
> another one, without the third part if possible,
There will not be one. We have reached a good compromise to which the French
representatives at the convention agreed. France can either approve this
constitution or we stick with the current treaties and eventually evolve
towards a common market.
> with more guarantees
> to little states,
Why do you say that? It seems to me they have more than enough voting power.
> and with at least some social concerns.
Social concerns are matters for the member states, not the EU. That is not
negotiable for countries like the UK or Germany, or even Poland. In my
opinion, the constitution overemphasized social matters. The EU should stay
out of that area totally.
> Otherwise,
> for sure, wealthy nations' workers will be afraid by poorer countries.
Jan
Dag Øien
how Europe evolves.
Keep people in the dark about European policies. Let the eurocrats and
the political elite decide what's good for the people of Europe.
Such ideas are crap for Europe. They are cowardly, and they assume
people are stupid. Such ideas will backfire on the EU in a spectacular
way. (It already has, as the EU constitution is now dead.)
Take democracy seriously! Or just disband the EU right now.
-dag
Roman Werpachowski
> So to summarize: Dictatorship is good. People don't deserve a say in
> how Europe evolves.
Of course they do. Your summary is just dead wrong.
BTW, Timothy Garton Ash wrote that EU is evolving towards not a superstate, but
a "commonwealth", something like the Union between Poland and Lithuania
centuries ago.
Dag Øien
> the majority wants. Referenda are not a good way to determine what the
> majority wants and allow a tiny minority to block measures in the EU.
The treaties define some areas where decisions has to be unanimous
among all EU member states. Accession of a new EU member state is one
of these issues which require unanimity.
Each member state decide for themselves. In some countries it might be
acceptable that the elite decides for the people, while other countries
need to decide major decisions by holding a referendum.
Not holding referenda is hardly more democratic than holding a
referendum.
Promises, suggestions or policies made by current or former governments
are not binding for the people at a referendum. The political leaders
ultimately get their power from the people.
-dag
J.M.
Good to know that you don't think breaking promises is wrong. I am glad we
don't have to depend on Norway for our defense ;-)
> The political leaders
> ultimately get their power from the people.
In other words, if your leaders agree today to a long term agreement with
other countries, then the people have the right to kill that agreement a
year later? Better not to make treaties with Norway, they are not worth the
paper they are written on.
Jan
>
>
> -dag
J.M.
> So to summarize: Dictatorship is good. People don't deserve a say in
> how Europe evolves.
>
Do you believe the garbage you write? You think countries that do not have
referenda but only parliaments are dictatorships?
> Keep people in the dark about European policies. Let the eurocrats and
> the political elite decide what's good for the people of Europe.
The political "elites" are elected persons, particular our parliament.
>
> Such ideas are crap for Europe. They are cowardly, and they assume
> people are stupid.
Many people are stupid. Not all people are stupid, but enough. Particularly
the motivation for many persons voting against the constitution (i.e. to
hurt their own government) was stupid.
> Such ideas will backfire on the EU in a spectacular
> way. (It already has, as the EU constitution is now dead.)
Any other constitution would have been killed the same way.
>
> Take democracy seriously! Or just disband the EU right now.
Don't tell us what to do. If you don't like the EU, don't join. Not having
Norway in the EU is really not a loss. I don't particularly care for
countries that wait ages to join the EU until the disadvantages outweigh
the advantages of joining and join out of pure egotism.
Jan
>
>
> -dag
Roman Werpachowski
> In other words, if your leaders agree today to a long term agreement with
> other countries, then the people have the right to kill that agreement a
> year later? Better not to make treaties with Norway, they are not worth the
> paper they are written on.
This is not exactly what he said. Just signing a treaty and later failing to
ratify it does not count as refuting this treaty. It never came into existence
in the first place. I do not recall the EEC signing a formal treaty with Turkey
which said "Turkey will be offered full membership by such and such date".
Turkey has been given a promise, and it should be kept, but it wasn't a formal
treaty equivalent to, say, NATO.
J.M.
> On the Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:31:22 +0200, J.M. wrote:
>> In other words, if your leaders agree today to a long term agreement with
>> other countries, then the people have the right to kill that agreement a
>> year later? Better not to make treaties with Norway, they are not worth
>> the paper they are written on.
>
> This is not exactly what he said. Just signing a treaty and later failing
> to ratify it does not count as refuting this treaty.
True, it is not *exactly* what he said, however, we have a very *strong*
tradition in the EU, which says:
"If you are a candidate country, if we have negotiations, and if that
country completes negotiations successfully, then it can join".
In other words, if a country does not intend to approve Turkish membership
in the EU, then it should cast its veto before giving it candidate status
or before negotiations start. Furthermore, not negotiating in good faith is
about the nastiest thing one can do and double standards for membership
requirements are about the second nastiest thing one can do ;-)
> It never came into
> existence in the first place. I do not recall the EEC signing a formal
> treaty with Turkey which said "Turkey will be offered full membership by
> such and such date". Turkey has been given a promise, and it should be
> kept, but it wasn't a formal treaty equivalent to, say, NATO.
Formally, you are right. But given the number of treaties broken in the
past, a mutual defense treaty is really nothing more than a promise...
>
J.M.
> Stegozor wrote:
>> Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How did you leap from referend_um_ to referend_a_? There might be a case
>>>for a EU-wide referendum, but I don't see any justification for national
>>>referenda.
>>
>>
>> IMHO, currently a referendum in the Union is irrelevant,
>
> Why would a EU referendum be irrelevant (for the constititutional
> treaty)? It might not be politically viable, but why would it be
> irrelevant?
>
>> if not
>> impossible.
>
> What do you mean by "impossible"? An entity that sends rockets into
> space would not be capable to manage the logistics of a referendum?
>
>> You can hold simultaneous referenda in each country, which
>> may look like a european referendum, but that's all. To be able to hold
>> a european referendum, as Jan told, there must be a european people
>> that doesn't exist yet.
>
> I am unsure what you mean by "a European people". A "people" (as in
> /Volk/, /ethnie/, or /έθνος/) surely cannot be required for democracy,
> otherwise no current country (even Iceland, which usually is claimed to
> be ethnically homogenous) could not hold referanda, as they all contain
> more than one (anyways imagined) people.
As I brought up the term, I will explain what I mean. Public sphere is
certainly not what I mean. I am not going to get into a discussion as to
whether or not "Volk" is the correct term, for obvious reasons ;-). Instead
I will describe what I believe needs to exist before a Europe-wide
referendum makes sense, i.e. one, where not the "NO" in a single country
means "NO" for all of Europe.
1) more or less the possibility for people to communicate with each other in
Europe easily, i.e. at very many people being able to speak English at such
a level that they can communicate in English in political matters and
obtain news in English.
2) a strong sense of belonging to one another. In other words, if some
foreign force split Europe into two halves, then the British people will
demonstrate by the millions because they Finns want nothing more
desperately than to live in the same country with Bulgarians (after all,
Bulgaria will soon be in the EU). Ok, I am exagerating, but you get my
point.
>
> You probably mean what is usually called a European public sphere (or
> /Oeffentlichkeit/, as Herr Habermas more aptly termed it). It appears to
> me that the current majority opinion in the social science says that a
> European public is emerging:
>
> http://www.fu-berlin.de/atasp/texte/030624_europeanpublicsphere.pdf
>
> I personally disagree with that assesment:
>
>
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/mmethods/research/case_studies/berlusconi/berlusconi-schulz_thessaloniki.pdf
>
> But even if a European public sphere does not exist, that does not mean
> that a referendum is fatally flawed. Sure, the deliberative dimension of
> democracy would have defects, but these would hardly be damaging enough
> to render such a referendum completely illegitimate. After all, the
> national public spheres are seriously flawed, too. Or do you really
> believe that every citizen has the same capacity to participate in the
> national public sphere?
No, but you have a national public opinion - which essentially requires all
to speak the same language and to have access to the same media. On many
issues, the different views slowly shift because a national debate takes
place and you move from one consensus (which translates into law) to the
next consensus. In the 1950s, in Germany we had a consensus that we want
nuclear power, that our rivers best used as a dumping ground for industrial
waste, that gays are sick people needing psychological treatment and
abortion is possible only in extreme exceptions. Our laws reflected this
consensus. Today, the consensus is that no more nuclear power plants should
be built, that rivers need to be clean, that gays should be given (almost)
the same rights as heterosexuals, and abortion should be legal whenever the
mother wants it (although a few strings remain attached). Although other
western countries have moved in similar directions on a number of issues
(such as gay rights and clean rivers), there is hardly a consensus on many
others: abortion, nuclear power, just to name a few.
Jan
Roman Werpachowski
> Formally, you are right. But given the number of treaties broken in the
> past, a mutual defense treaty is really nothing more than a promise...
Yes. Poland knows that (quite painfully).
Dag Øien
The outcome of these negotiations will directly influence my country,
as we are a part of the internal market. The result will probably
influece Norway just as much as Sweden or Germany.
So f*** off and let me use my freedom of expression to voice my opinion
on issues which directly will influence me and my country as well as
Europe as a whole.
> Not having Norway in the EU is really not a loss. I don't particularly care for
> countries that wait ages to join the EU until the disadvantages outweigh
> the advantages of joining and join out of pure egotism.
My view on Turkey is not the official Norwegian view, as you probably
know. Just as my view on Norwegian EU membership and federalism in the
EU is not the same as the government in my country.
I fear the Turkey thing will break the EU. It is hugely controversial
in most parliaments, in the European Parliament and among the
electorate all over Europe. Yet this thing is pushed through the
system.
We have more experiece with European politics being controversial here
in this country, while it seems EU politics has been swept under the
rug in many countries on the continent, until now.
-dag
Dag Øien
> don't have to depend on Norway for our defense ;-)
No, you only depend on us (and Russia) for your energy supply.
F*** off, Jan. Make a case with arguments, not attacking the person or
the person's country of residence.
> > The political leaders
> > ultimately get their power from the people.
> In other words, if your leaders agree today to a long term agreement with
> other countries, then the people have the right to kill that agreement a
> year later? Better not to make treaties with Norway, they are not worth the
> paper they are written on.
The EU treaties clearly state that all EU member states has to agree
unanimously in order to admit a new EU member state.
-dag
Roman Werpachowski
> F*** off, Jan.
Stop it, please.
J.M.
>> Good to know that you don't think breaking promises is wrong. I am glad
>> we don't have to depend on Norway for our defense ;-)
>
> No, you only depend on us (and Russia) for your energy supply.
So, what are you trying to say?
>
> F*** off, Jan. Make a case with arguments,
I am glad that at least you are making such strong and convincing arguments.
> not attacking the person or
> the person's country of residence.
I think it is quite to the point. I am genuinely interested in what your
promises are worth.
>
>> > The political leaders
>> > ultimately get their power from the people.
>
>> In other words, if your leaders agree today to a long term agreement with
>> other countries, then the people have the right to kill that agreement a
>> year later? Better not to make treaties with Norway, they are not worth
>> the paper they are written on.
>
> The EU treaties clearly state that all EU member states has to agree
> unanimously in order to admit a new EU member state.
Treaties are not everything. Every institution or country has a certain
legal tradition, and that tradition has been in the EU that this final
approval is a mere formality. The agreement and consensus has been: if a
country is given candidate status, all you need to do is to fullfill the
same requirements that all candidates have to fullfill. It is unfair to
change the rules for Turkey. And the consensus in the EU has been: this
formality is taken care of by the national parliament, not referendum. Why
do you think different rules should apply to Turkey?
Jan
>
>
> -dag
J.M.
>> Don't tell us what to do. If you don't like the EU, don't join.
>
> The outcome of these negotiations will directly influence my country,
> as we are a part of the internal market. The result will probably
> influece Norway just as much as Sweden or Germany.
Sure, but Norway has opted out of having its say in these matters. That is
the price for being part of the market, but for not being part of the EU.
That was your choice. Don't whine about the price.
>
> So f*** off
Geez, you're really doing a great job of convincing me and others that you
are making valid points.
> and let me use my freedom of expression to voice my opinion
Oh, you're free to say whatever you want, but the opinion of someone outside
of the EU simply does not have the same weight when it comes to who should
be in the EU -- just as your vote doesn't count here either.
> on issues which directly will influence me and my country as well as
> Europe as a whole.
>
>> Not having Norway in the EU is really not a loss. I don't particularly
>> care for countries that wait ages to join the EU until the disadvantages
>> outweigh the advantages of joining and join out of pure egotism.
>
> My view on Turkey is not the official Norwegian view, as you probably
> know. Just as my view on Norwegian EU membership and federalism in the
> EU is not the same as the government in my country.
Of course, hardly anyone posts here to regurgitate his government's view.
>
> I fear the Turkey thing will break the EU. It is hugely controversial
> in most parliaments, in the European Parliament and among the
> electorate all over Europe. Yet this thing is pushed through the
> system.
Yes, because of a promise we made a long time ago, a promise we reiterated
1999. Politics isn't just about pleasing the electorate.
Jan
Stegozor
> Hence, a referendum for admitting new states is always unfair.
IMHO, it depends: if you're told before the beginning of the
negociations that the issue will be set by a referendum, I see no
problem. I know we disagree, and you have valuable arguments.
Nevertheless, I feel comfortable with the idea of holding referenda.
> > What about Belgium?
>
> The only thing holding Belgium together is tradition and the king.
I never understood why people are so loyal to a king, just because he's
a king.
They like him not because he's done nice things, but just because of
his ascent.
But I begin to be used to the idea that there are many things I will
never be able to understand, anyway... Also, note that a same language
is not enough : in nearly all Latin America except Brazil the official
language is Spanish, yet they are unable to build something similar to
the EU.
> I don't see how Europe will work
> without a common language. Only English can be this language and the sooner
> we realize this, the better.
Don't forget Spanish (Castilian). As a second language, it could be
interesting, and IMHO, Europe has much to do to build a true
relationship with Latin America.
> >> It is better to involve the national parliaments rather than the people
> >> directly.
> >
> > We don't agree. If you read french,
>
> I can decipher French ;-)
Raaaahh ! Ce doux sentiment qui fait suite à un voyage au WC après
une longue et douloureuse constipation, vous connaissez ? Comme je me
sens léger... :) Bon, je me serais attendu à un compliment comme "
mais non, votre anglais est proche de la perfection", mais bon, je sais
depuis un bout de temps que le monde est cruel.
Passons au sujet : au sujet de l'adhésion de la Turquie, bien
évidemment, les promesses devraient être tenues, mais les opposant
vont invoquer l'exception : "Personne ne nous a demandé notre avis, on
l'a quand-même donné, on ne nous a pas écouté, et on ne nous
écoute toujours pas. Eh bien, le jour du vote, on se retrouvera. Peur
de l'étranger, surtout s'il n'est pas chrétien certes, mais peur
aussi de la dissolution de l'Europe dans un espace vaste, totalement
incapable d'avoir une position commune." Il faut répondre à ces
questions, sinon l'avenir de l'Union me paraît être gravement
compromis.
> I don't agree. I think your proposal sounds nice in theory, but in practice,
> it would not work.
What's the alternative ?
> >
> > Oh no. Chirac should know the limits of the commission's powers.
> > Barroso simply can't do anything,
>
> Oh, the commission and the EU can do quite a bit...
Almost all articles I've read about this issue in french newspapers
tell that the commissions is not willing to do much, but it can't
anyway.
> >> want a more socialist EU, Barroso and most of the rest of the EU do not.
> > Hence, we can either
> >>
> >> 1) agree to work together anyhow, as best as possible. But that is not
> >> going to be popular with the people
> > Simply,
> > I think their will must not cannot be ignored. You seem too pessimistic
> > about the average dude.
>
> Frankly, you are a bit too optimistic. Getting information about the EU and
> its benefits is not too hard, reading the main part of the treaty would
> have been simple. Instead of getting this information, a significant part
I tried. It was as boring as a religious book :) The main problem was
that neither the supporters of the no nor the supporters of the yes
were honest.
There was too much disinformation.
> of the French population chose to remain ignorant and to cast their vote
> irresponsibly, i.e. just to hurt Chirac. Furthermore, I followed the
I think there were three main reasons for the no: First, French thought
that too much free market could hurt the already struggling welfare
state, second, the loss of influence and sovereignty, and third, the
accession of Turkey, issue on which Chirac denied the right to the
parliament to cast a vote.
> discussion about the treaty in France, particularly the garbage ATTAC wrote
> - they simply counted words: they compared the number of times social
> matters were mentioned in the constitution and the number of times the free
> market was mentioned. Not surprisingly, the free market, one of the prime
> responsibilities was mentioned more often than social matters, one of the
> prime responsibility of the nations. ATTAC concluded that the constitution
> was unbalanced and recommended to vote against it. With stupid arguments,
> how can you expect people to vote intelligently? To be more specific, I
Attac's arguments were not so stupid IMHO. They simply pointed out that
economic matters shouldn't be present in a constitution, and if so,
then the social matters should be also taken in consideration at the
european level. What they didn't tell enough is that some other
countries would never agree on that.
Please note that in France, opinion polls showed that before the
beginning of the debate, the yes was winning with 60%. Before and
during the debate, the no camp did an efficient job, using mainly
Internet, while the yes camp's efforts were disastrous. They had the
monopoly of TV, radios, newspapers, and rather than a true debate what
they did was a (bad) propaganda. And at the end, both camps lied pretty
much. Here's the result.
> live in Karlsruhe, right on the French border and many people from Alsace
> work here. Our secretary is French. She lives in France and works in
> Germany, and crosses the border twice daily. She voted against the
> constitution because she said, the EU had provided her with no benefits. I
> mean, how stupid and ignorant can you be???
lol... Could you give me the adress of her dealer? I don't know what
she smokes, but I'd gladly give it a try... :)
> > with more guarantees
> > to little states,
>
> Why do you say that? It seems to me they have more than enough voting power.
Seems that the Dutch didn't think so. Anyway, I'm convinced small
countries must be overrepresented in some way.
> > and with at least some social concerns.
>
> Social concerns are matters for the member states, not the EU. That is not
> negotiable for countries like the UK or Germany, or even Poland. In my
> opinion, the constitution overemphasized social matters. The EU should stay
> out of that area totally.
And that will lead inevitably to a social competition between member
states, and then to the death of the welfare state. That's the main
reason why French voted no...
--
Stegozor na prezydenta!
Stegozor
> I am unsure what you mean by "a European people". A "people" (as in
> /Volk/, /ethnie/, /έθνος/ or ) surely cannot be required for democracy,
> otherwise no current country (even Iceland, which usually is claimed to
> be ethnically homogenous) could not hold referanda, as they all contain
> more than one (anyways imagined) people.
I don't mean "ethnos" simply because there is not one in Europe, but
many.
To give a legitimacy to a referendum, all european countries should
previously agree on how to deal with such a vote. Today, if a country
cast a vote against the proposal, that proposal is dead. And there
still is not an agreement between the EU members.
> You probably mean what is usually called a European public sphere (or
> /Oeffentlichkeit/, as Herr Habermas more aptly termed it). It appears to
> me that the current majority opinion in the social science says that a
> European public is emerging:
>
> http://www.fu-berlin.de/atasp/texte/030624_europeanpublicsphere.pdf
>
> I personally disagree with that assesment:
>
> http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/mmethods/research/case_studies/berlusconi/berlusconi-schulz_thessaloniki.pdf
Thanks again for the links. I should definitely buy myself a video
card...
> But even if a European public sphere does not exist, that does not mean
> that a referendum is fatally flawed. Sure, the deliberative dimension of
Could you imagine allowing a foreign country (say New-Zealand) decide
about your homeland matters? As for me, I'm not allergic to the idea, I
can accept a discussion, but I'm unsure that the majority will.
> > Or ignoring people's will, even when
> > it's persistant and undoubtfully clear?
>
> If the will violates basic democratic principles, it should be ignored.
> But I still have the feeling that most people would agree to accession,
> once it would become clear that denying accession violates democracy.
Sometimes, you have to make hard choices: would you follow a principle
like a religious dogma, even if it can lead to the end of the union, or
would you be a pragmatic? The best option is to avoid such a choice:
Turkey is now a candidate, negociations have just begun, and there will
be referenda before the accession. Let's hope that during that time
enough work will be done to build a common public sphere. Otherwise, we
will end up with a free trade area, an economic animal with no politic
will.
> > As long as the cooperation is
> > not deepened in Europe, the basic frame is the state.
>
> Unfortunately, but this needs to be problematized rather than accepted
> matter-of-factly.
We totally agree. The problem is, if you want to become a federation,
there must be a common public sphere, and people of different regions
must feel close enough to accept to share their destiny. If you're
going to accept a country from the far east, I doubt you can achieve a
federation. As Roman told it, Turkey has still 10 or 15 years before
the accession, and will change a lot during that time. But if it can't
conquer europe's heart and mind, there will be a big problem to deal
with.
> Because unlike country A (say, New Zealand) the governemental system of
> country B (e.g., North Korea) currently does not meet minimal democratic
> standards.
Er, we're talking about the _european_ union, not the UN, aren't we? ;)
> > The best answer I have is that all members of the Union must agree.
>
> That's an answer guided by pragmatism rather than democratic values.
Yes, but it's still the best I can find. If you have a better one, I'd
like to hear about it.
--
Stegozor na prezydenta!
J.M.
> J.M. wrote:
>
>> Hence, a referendum for admitting new states is always unfair.
>
> IMHO, it depends: if you're told before the beginning of the
> negociations that the issue will be set by a referendum, I see no
> problem. I know we disagree, and you have valuable arguments.
> Nevertheless, I feel comfortable with the idea of holding referenda.
It is unfair to require the Turks to convince the European public that they
should be let in, but not the Romanians. Frankly, they would not have been
let in either if referenda were required. Why do you require it of one but
not of the other?
>
>
>> > What about Belgium?
>>
>> The only thing holding Belgium together is tradition and the king.
>
> I never understood why people are so loyal to a king, just because he's
> a king.
> They like him not because he's done nice things, but just because of
> his ascent.
> But I begin to be used to the idea that there are many things I will
> never be able to understand, anyway... Also, note that a same language
> is not enough :
I never said that it was enough. I said it was a requirement, although not
the only one...
> in nearly all Latin America except Brazil the official
> language is Spanish, yet they are unable to build something similar to
> the EU.
>
>
>> I don't see how Europe will work
>> without a common language. Only English can be this language and the
>> sooner we realize this, the better.
>
> Don't forget Spanish (Castilian).
I didn't. It is as unsuitable as French is. English is de facto not just
becoming the lingua franca of the EU, but of the world as well.
> As a second language, it could be
> interesting, and IMHO, Europe has much to do to build a true
> relationship with Latin America.
Sure. We will use English to do that ;-).
>
>> >> It is better to involve the national parliaments rather than the
>> >> people directly.
>> >
>> > We don't agree. If you read french,
>>
>> I can decipher French ;-)
>
>
> Raaaahh ! Ce doux sentiment qui fait suite à un voyage au WC après
> une longue et douloureuse constipation, vous connaissez ?
But I will keep replying in English.. That is easier for me. Well, I hope
that I can follow you and that you use nice and simple French ;-) Let's
see...
> Comme je me
> sens léger... :)
:-) I always found French humour a bit strange ;-)))
> Bon, je me serais attendu à un compliment comme "
> mais non, votre anglais est proche de la perfection",
Oh, I think your English is good and I think I understood you, but you gave
me the impression that there was something to say that you could only say
in French...
> mais bon, je sais
> depuis un bout de temps que le monde est cruel.
>
> Passons au sujet : au sujet de l'adhésion de la Turquie, bien
> évidemment, les promesses devraient être tenues, mais les opposant
> vont invoquer l'exception : "Personne ne nous a demandé notre avis, on
> l'a quand-même donné, on ne nous a pas écouté, et on ne nous
> écoute toujours pas. Eh bien, le jour du vote, on se retrouvera. Peur
> de l'étranger, surtout s'il n'est pas chrétien certes, mais peur
> aussi de la dissolution de l'Europe dans un espace vaste, totalement
> incapable d'avoir une position commune." Il faut répondre à ces
> questions, sinon l'avenir de l'Union me paraît être gravement
> compromis.
Well, that is basically what you said in English. And although I agree that
these concerns must be addressed, I don't agree to having a referendum to
see if these concerns have been addressed satisfactorily. First of all,
referenda tend to be used not just for referenda for the issue but often
all sorts of issues get mixed. A referendum on Turkey would not just be
about Turkish membership, but also about dissatisfaction with other
decisions the French government has made, just as the referendum on the
constitution. As you can tell, I am generally opposed to referenda ;-)
>
>> I don't agree. I think your proposal sounds nice in theory, but in
>> practice, it would not work.
>
> What's the alternative ?
Use the parliaments. I realize that no one can forbid France and other
countries from having referenda, but I do not like them as a political
tool.
>
>> >
>> > Oh no. Chirac should know the limits of the commission's powers.
>> > Barroso simply can't do anything,
>>
>> Oh, the commission and the EU can do quite a bit...
>
> Almost all articles I've read about this issue in french newspapers
> tell that the commissions is not willing to do much, but it can't
> anyway.
Well, it depends what you compare it with. In the UK, you have a prime
minister usually with a huge majority in parliament. Anything he wants, he
gets, especially as the upper house is not needed for approval. In Germany,
the situation is different, because the majorities are slimmer and the
upper house is powerful and often a different party has a majority. I don't
think the commission is weak from a German POV...
>
>> >> want a more socialist EU, Barroso and most of the rest of the EU do
>> >> not.
>> > Hence, we can either
>> >>
>> >> 1) agree to work together anyhow, as best as possible. But that is not
>> >> going to be popular with the people
>
>
>> > Simply,
>> > I think their will must not cannot be ignored. You seem too pessimistic
>> > about the average dude.
>>
>> Frankly, you are a bit too optimistic. Getting information about the EU
>> and its benefits is not too hard, reading the main part of the treaty
>> would have been simple. Instead of getting this information, a
>> significant part
>
> I tried. It was as boring as a religious book :)
Fine. All constitutions are. Most French people do not read their own
constitution for fun either. For that matter, you can read good summaries
that explains the constitution in easy words. That is no excuse.
> The main problem was
> that neither the supporters of the no nor the supporters of the yes
> were honest.
> There was too much disinformation.
True. That is one of the problems with referenda. If you listen to the
political parties on any emotional issue, they lie. Just listen to how
people argue when it comes to gay rights...
>
>> of the French population chose to remain ignorant and to cast their vote
>> irresponsibly, i.e. just to hurt Chirac. Furthermore, I followed the
>
> I think there were three main reasons for the no: First, French thought
> that too much free market could hurt the already struggling welfare
> state,
But why is France then in the EU? The EU is a free and common market. That
is its goal. That has always been the case. For that matter, rejecting the
constitution will change none of that.
> second, the loss of influence and sovereignty,
Very little additional power would be given to the EU, but the parliament
would be involved more...
> and third, the
> accession of Turkey, issue on which Chirac denied the right to the
> parliament to cast a vote.
Rejecting the constitution will have no influence on Turkey joining
whatsoever.
In short, those people voting NO failed to realize that voting NO will not
change anything.
>
>> discussion about the treaty in France, particularly the garbage ATTAC
>> wrote - they simply counted words: they compared the number of times
>> social matters were mentioned in the constitution and the number of times
>> the free market was mentioned. Not surprisingly, the free market, one of
>> the prime responsibilities was mentioned more often than social matters,
>> one of the prime responsibility of the nations. ATTAC concluded that the
>> constitution was unbalanced and recommended to vote against it. With
>> stupid arguments, how can you expect people to vote intelligently? To be
>> more specific, I
>
> Attac's arguments were not so stupid IMHO. They simply pointed out that
> economic matters shouldn't be present in a constitution,
Of course they should be present in a constitution. The German constitution,
for example, guarantees the right to own property, the right to choose a
job, the right to trade freely, the right for the government to regulate
the economy, etc.
> and if so,
> then the social matters should be also taken in consideration at the
> european level.
What do you want? Do you want a common retirement, health and unemployment
insurance for all Europeans? What is that supposed to mean concretely?
> What they didn't tell enough is that some other
> countries would never agree on that.
Exactly.
> Please note that in France, opinion polls showed that before the
> beginning of the debate, the yes was winning with 60%.
Sure. But even if they had shown 90% in favor, holding a referendum would
have been just as stupid ;-)
> Before and
> during the debate, the no camp did an efficient job, using mainly
> Internet, while the yes camp's efforts were disastrous. They had the
> monopoly of TV, radios, newspapers, and rather than a true debate what
> they did was a (bad) propaganda. And at the end, both camps lied pretty
> much. Here's the result.
Sure. A nice illustration as to why referenda do not work.
>
>> live in Karlsruhe, right on the French border and many people from Alsace
>> work here. Our secretary is French. She lives in France and works in
>> Germany, and crosses the border twice daily. She voted against the
>> constitution because she said, the EU had provided her with no benefits.
>> I mean, how stupid and ignorant can you be???
>
> lol... Could you give me the adress of her dealer? I don't know what
> she smokes, but I'd gladly give it a try... :)
>
>> > with more guarantees
>> > to little states,
>>
>> Why do you say that? It seems to me they have more than enough voting
>> power.
>
> Seems that the Dutch didn't think so. Anyway, I'm convinced small
> countries must be overrepresented in some way.
They are: in parliament and in the council you need the double majority.
Actually, I don't think the Dutch rejected the constitution for that
reason.
>
>> > and with at least some social concerns.
>>
>> Social concerns are matters for the member states, not the EU. That is
>> not negotiable for countries like the UK or Germany, or even Poland. In
>> my opinion, the constitution overemphasized social matters. The EU should
>> stay out of that area totally.
>
> And that will lead inevitably to a social competition between member
> states,
We need that. Competition is good. It makes our social systems more
efficient. Now they waste so much money.
> and then to the death of the welfare state. That's the main
> reason why French voted no...
We will have that competition anyway.
Jan
>
Stegozor
> >> Hence, a referendum for admitting new states is always unfair.
> >
> > IMHO, it depends: if you're told before the beginning of the
> > negociations that the issue will be set by a referendum, I see no
> > problem. I know we disagree, and you have valuable arguments.
> > Nevertheless, I feel comfortable with the idea of holding referenda.
>
> It is unfair to require the Turks to convince the European public that they
> should be let in, but not the Romanians. Frankly, they would not have been
> let in either if referenda were required. Why do you require it of one but
> not of the other?
And here we go back to the fundamental question: is Turkey european and
would its accession kill the Union? All other questions, IMHO (like the
fact that it's a rather poor country, not enough democratic etc. are
pushed just to hide the main question).
I think Turkey's accession could show that Western values are not
reserved to some rich countries, but it could also prevent the Union
from becoming a true Union. Poverty, lack of democracy are real, but
that will change during the negotiations, as it happened with previous
candidates. So, it is not only about keeping a promise, it is to know
what you want the Union to be.
> I never said that it was enough. I said it was a requirement, although not
> the only one...
Indeed. AFAIK they also have two languages in Norway, but I don't know
much about that.
> I didn't. It is as unsuitable as French is. English is de facto not just
> becoming the lingua franca of the EU, but of the world as well.
Yes.
> > As a second language, it could be
> > interesting, and IMHO, Europe has much to do to build a true
> > relationship with Latin America.
>
> Sure. We will use English to do that ;-).
Why? The Union has Portugal and Spain to deal with Latin America. The
native language is the same between both sides of the ocean, why use
another one? Common culture can be an advantage.
> > Comme je me
> > sens léger... :)
>
> :-) I always found French humour a bit strange ;-)))
Euh, c'est plutôt un humour personnel. Pipi-caca , gras et tout... :)
> >> I don't agree. I think your proposal sounds nice in theory, but in
> >> practice, it would not work.
> >
> > What's the alternative ?
>
> Use the parliaments. I realize that no one can forbid France and other
> countries from having referenda, but I do not like them as a political
> tool.
Perhaps you know better how to achieve a consensus in northern europe.
In the southern part, people trust less their "elites" and prefer to
decide by themselves for important questions, maybe...
> Fine. All constitutions are. Most French people do not read their own
> constitution for fun either. For that matter, you can read good summaries
> that explains the constitution in easy words. That is no excuse.
Hey, the constitution of the USA is far more understandable, and it
doesn't occupy a full booklet.
> True. That is one of the problems with referenda. If you listen to the
> political parties on any emotional issue, they lie. Just listen to how
> people argue when it comes to gay rights...
Socialists did a lot to improve gay rights in France, as it also
happened recently in Spain. There was a fair debate, and that helped a
lot to get more "open-mindness". I don't see how the gay rights are
related to the behaviour of the political parties.
> >> of the French population chose to remain ignorant and to cast their vote
> >> irresponsibly, i.e. just to hurt Chirac. Furthermore, I followed the
> >
> > I think there were three main reasons for the no: First, French thought
> > that too much free market could hurt the already struggling welfare
> > state,
>
> But why is France then in the EU? The EU is a free and common market. That
> is its goal. That has always been the case. For that matter, rejecting the
> constitution will change none of that.
France simply wanted it to be more than just a free and common market.
> Very little additional power would be given to the EU, but the parliament
> would be involved more...
Just a side remark : Not enough, IMHO.
> Rejecting the constitution will have no influence on Turkey joining
> whatsoever.
Don't be so sure. That's because of the constitution that there will be
a referendum before the accession of Turkey. (That was the deal of
Chirac: if you really want to refuse Turkey, you will be able to do so
later, so please vote yes now. It didn't work as expected...)
> In short, those people voting NO failed to realize that voting NO will not
> Of course they should be present in a constitution. The German constitution,
> for example, guarantees the right to own property, the right to choose a
> job, the right to trade freely, the right for the government to regulate
> the economy, etc.
Indeed. But the economical policy was very detailed it wasn't only
about basic principles, and it would be pretty hard to modify. You
should have a look to the arguments of the no-side if you have time to
waste, I don't remember them very well.
>
> > and if so,
> > then the social matters should be also taken in consideration at the
> > european level.
>
> What do you want? Do you want a common retirement, health and unemployment
> insurance for all Europeans? What is that supposed to mean concretely?
I think your examples are good enough.
> > And that will lead inevitably to a social competition between member
> > states,
>
> We need that. Competition is good. It makes our social systems more
> efficient. Now they waste so much money.
Yes, but who would benefit from such a competition? Imagine a
competition between the German and Chinese social systems: Would the
German workers earn something from that?
> > and then to the death of the welfare state. That's the main
> > reason why French voted no...
>
> We will have that competition anyway.
I fear that, indeed.
--
Stegozor na prezydenta!
Roman Werpachowski
>--
>Stegozor na prezydenta!
Over my dead body ;-))
J.M.
> J.M. a wrote:
>
>> >> Hence, a referendum for admitting new states is always unfair.
>> >
>> > IMHO, it depends: if you're told before the beginning of the
>> > negociations that the issue will be set by a referendum, I see no
>> > problem. I know we disagree, and you have valuable arguments.
>> > Nevertheless, I feel comfortable with the idea of holding referenda.
>>
>> It is unfair to require the Turks to convince the European public that
>> they should be let in, but not the Romanians. Frankly, they would not
>> have been let in either if referenda were required. Why do you require it
>> of one but not of the other?
>
> And here we go back to the fundamental question: is Turkey european and
> would its accession kill the Union?
The answer to that question depends on the state of the union and I franky
do not know the state of the union in 10-15 years. I do think that we need
to get the EU in such a shape that Turkey can be admitted once it fullfills
all requirements.
> All other questions, IMHO (like the
> fact that it's a rather poor country, not enough democratic etc. are
> pushed just to hide the main question).
> I think Turkey's accession could show that Western values are not
> reserved to some rich countries, but it could also prevent the Union
> from becoming a true Union. Poverty, lack of democracy are real, but
> that will change during the negotiations, as it happened with previous
> candidates.
Sure, the democratic deficits Turkey has must be addressed before it can
join. We all agree that this is a minimal requirement.
> So, it is not only about keeping a promise, it is to know
> what you want the Union to be.
>
>> I never said that it was enough. I said it was a requirement, although
>> not the only one...
>
> Indeed. AFAIK they also have two languages in Norway, but I don't know
> much about that.
They do, but as far as I know, they are sufficiently similar that this does
not present a true obstacle to communication.
>
>> I didn't. It is as unsuitable as French is. English is de facto not just
>> becoming the lingua franca of the EU, but of the world as well.
>
> Yes.
>
>> > As a second language, it could be
>> > interesting, and IMHO, Europe has much to do to build a true
>> > relationship with Latin America.
>>
>> Sure. We will use English to do that ;-).
>
> Why? The Union has Portugal and Spain to deal with Latin America. The
> native language is the same between both sides of the ocean, why use
> another one?
Hey, of course Spain and Portugal can and should use their languages.
Nevertheless, if we ever have an EU foreign minister, it is conceivable
that he does not speak either of these languages. In that case, the EU will
deal with Latin America probably in English ;-)
> Common culture can be an advantage.
Fine, use it if possible. Use English if not ;-)
>
>> > Comme je me
>> > sens léger... :)
>>
>> :-) I always found French humour a bit strange ;-)))
>
> Euh, c'est plutôt un humour personnel. Pipi-caca , gras et tout... :)
>
>> >> I don't agree. I think your proposal sounds nice in theory, but in
>> >> practice, it would not work.
>> >
>> > What's the alternative ?
>>
>> Use the parliaments. I realize that no one can forbid France and other
>> countries from having referenda, but I do not like them as a political
>> tool.
>
> Perhaps you know better how to achieve a consensus in northern europe.
> In the southern part, people trust less their "elites" and prefer to
> decide by themselves for important questions, maybe...
I doubt that it is a regional question. Switzerland, Denmark and Ireland
often hold referenda. Of course people *like* to vote on all sorts of
things. That doesn't make it wise.
>
>> Fine. All constitutions are. Most French people do not read their own
>> constitution for fun either. For that matter, you can read good summaries
>> that explains the constitution in easy words. That is no excuse.
>
> Hey, the constitution of the USA is far more understandable, and it
> doesn't occupy a full booklet.
The *written* US constitution is short. But because it is so short, much
more has been decided by the Supreme Court, things continental Europeans
put in their (national) constitutions. Reading the US constitution gives
you only a *very* poor idea about how American government actually works.
For example, the fact that the Supreme Court can declare a law
unconstitutional is not even mentioned in the constitution itself. Although
I agree that the EU constitutional treaty lacked clarity, the US
constitution should not be our model. Our national constitutions, which are
usually longer than the US constitution, would serve us better.
>
>> True. That is one of the problems with referenda. If you listen to the
>> political parties on any emotional issue, they lie. Just listen to how
>> people argue when it comes to gay rights...
>
> Socialists did a lot to improve gay rights in France, as it also
> happened recently in Spain.
So what? We are not talking about that at all.
> There was a fair debate, and that helped a
> lot to get more "open-mindness".
LOL. In Spain, Zapaterro simply forced it through parliament because he had
the majority.
> I don't see how the gay rights are
> related to the behaviour of the political parties.
I am merely pointing out that if you have a referendum on gay rights, the
debate is likely to be quite nasty and unfair in most countries. I am
trying to tell you that an intrinsic problem with referenda is that both
sides will prey on the fear and will debate unfairly with half-truths to
convince voters. A parliamentary debate is always more civilized and fairer
because scare tactics are less likely to work.
>
>> >> of the French population chose to remain ignorant and to cast their
>> >> vote irresponsibly, i.e. just to hurt Chirac. Furthermore, I followed
>> >> the
>> >
>> > I think there were three main reasons for the no: First, French thought
>> > that too much free market could hurt the already struggling welfare
>> > state,
>>
>> But why is France then in the EU? The EU is a free and common market.
>> That is its goal. That has always been the case. For that matter,
>> rejecting the constitution will change none of that.
>
> France simply wanted it to be more than just a free and common market.
Sure, and it already is. So why reject the constitution? It would not have
changed any of that.
>
>> Very little additional power would be given to the EU, but the parliament
>> would be involved more...
>
> Just a side remark : Not enough, IMHO.
Sure, I agree. But not parliament will be given NO extra power. Is that
better?
>
>> Rejecting the constitution will have no influence on Turkey joining
>> whatsoever.
>
> Don't be so sure. That's because of the constitution that there will be
> a referendum before the accession of Turkey. (That was the deal of
> Chirac: if you really want to refuse Turkey, you will be able to do so
> later, so please vote yes now. It didn't work as expected...)
We'll see what happens. I don't expect future French presidents to be bound
by promises Chirac made ;-)
>
>> In short, those people voting NO failed to realize that voting NO will
>> not
>
>> Of course they should be present in a constitution. The German
>> constitution, for example, guarantees the right to own property, the
>> right to choose a job, the right to trade freely, the right for the
>> government to regulate the economy, etc.
>
> Indeed. But the economical policy was very detailed it wasn't only
> about basic principles, and it would be pretty hard to modify. You
> should have a look to the arguments of the no-side if you have time to
> waste, I don't remember them very well.
I remember them quite well. Of course they are detailed, because the
document was more of a treaty than a constitution...
>>
>> > and if so,
>> > then the social matters should be also taken in consideration at the
>> > european level.
>>
>> What do you want? Do you want a common retirement, health and
>> unemployment insurance for all Europeans? What is that supposed to mean
>> concretely?
>
> I think your examples are good enough.
Ok, then let's be honest: Most other countries do not want common retirement
funds or unemployment funding. It is already bad enough that other poorer
countries have to fund French agriculture. I find it entirely unacceptable
that other countries should fund the defunct French social system, which is
really bad need of reform, but unlike most countries in the EU, France is
incapable of making the necessary reforms, as we have seen once more in the
recent strikes on Corsica. The bottom line appears to be: let other
countries pay for the French mess. No thanks. And we certainly don't want
to export the French incapacity to deal with globalization to the EU.
>
>> > And that will lead inevitably to a social competition between member
>> > states,
>>
>> We need that. Competition is good. It makes our social systems more
>> efficient. Now they waste so much money.
>
> Yes, but who would benefit from such a competition?
We all would. Because less money would be wasted in the system.
> Imagine a
> competition between the German and Chinese social systems: Would the
> German workers earn something from that?
No problem, we already have that competition. The situation is very simple:
only if we are better than the Chinese can we expect to have higher wages
in the long term and better benefits.
>
>> > and then to the death of the welfare state. That's the main
>> > reason why French voted no...
>>
>> We will have that competition anyway.
>
> I fear that, indeed.
Thank God.
Jan
>
Thomas Koenig
> Stegozor schrieb:
>>Indeed. AFAIK they also have two languages in Norway, but I don't know
>>much about that.
>
>
> They do, but as far as I know, they are sufficiently similar that this does
> not present a true obstacle to communication.
Sami belongs to the Finno-Ugric language group, it is more different
from Norsk than, say, French. Turkish, another minority language, is not
recognized by the state as such.
There are two different spellings of Norwegian, though (Nynorsk and
Bokmal), just as there is a gargeling pronounciation of Norsk, which is
usually called "Danish".
>>Perhaps you know better how to achieve a consensus in northern europe.
>>In the southern part, people trust less their "elites" and prefer to
>>decide by themselves for important questions, maybe...
>
>
> I doubt that it is a regional question. Switzerland, Denmark and Ireland
> often hold referenda. Of course people *like* to vote on all sorts of
> things. That doesn't make it wise.
The political apathy of the Iberian countries and Greece is easily
explained by the fact that until recently these were dictatorships. In
contrast, Emilia-Romagna has such a vibrant civil society that it is
frequently cited example of an active citizenry.
Roman Werpachowski
>> I doubt that it is a regional question. Switzerland, Denmark and Ireland
>> often hold referenda. Of course people *like* to vote on all sorts of
>> things. That doesn't make it wise.
>
> The political apathy of the Iberian countries and Greece is easily
> explained by the fact that until recently these were dictatorships. In
> contrast, Emilia-Romagna has such a vibrant civil society that it is
> frequently cited example of an active citizenry.
So, people go without referenda because they are apathical and accustomed to
dictatorship? This is unfair and simplistic.
Thomas Koenig
> So, people go without referenda because they are apathical and accustomed to
> dictatorship? This is unfair and simplistic.
Where did I write that? I pointed out, why the better alternative to
referenda, strong participation in civil society groups, is not as
popular in Spain or Greece as it is in, say, Sweden. That should rebut
Stegozor's suggestion that Jan's solution might be appropriate for
Northern Europe, but not for Southern Europe. People in Emilia-Romagna
engage much more frequently in active citizenship than those in
Calabria, because they have figured that the former state is more
accountable than the latter. That has nothing to do with some intrinsic
"Southern" or "Northern" values.
> Po co wybierać mniejsze zło? Cthulhu na prezydenta
Nah, I still rather support Stegozor.
Roman Werpachowski
>> Po co wybierać mniejsze zło? Cthulhu na prezydenta
>
> Nah, I still rather support Stegozor.
The Elders have been notified.
--
Po co wybierać mniejsze zło? Cthulhu na prezydenta!
Stegozor
J.M. wrote:
> > And here we go back to the fundamental question: is Turkey european and
> > would its accession kill the Union?
>
> The answer to that question depends on the state of the union and I franky
> do not know the state of the union in 10-15 years. I do think that we need
> to get the EU in such a shape that Turkey can be admitted once it fullfills
> all requirements.
Do you think that the Union would be strong and tight enough with
Turkey's accession? I guess nobody has the answer, and for the Union,
it's a quite dangerous game. If is succeeds, very well, but if it
fails...
> > There was a fair debate, and that helped a
> > lot to get more "open-mindness".
>
> LOL. In Spain, Zapaterro simply forced it through parliament because he had
> the majority.
Hey, is that what you call the "always more civilized and fairer
[solution] because scare tactics are less likely to work" ? :P (Just
kidding)
> > Don't be so sure. That's because of the constitution that there will be
> > a referendum before the accession of Turkey. (That was the deal of
> > Chirac: if you really want to refuse Turkey, you will be able to do so
> > later, so please vote yes now. It didn't work as expected...)
>
> We'll see what happens. I don't expect future French presidents to be bound
> by promises Chirac made ;-)
The problem is that from now on (except for Romania, Bulgaria and
Croatia) and for any further enlargement, there will be a referendum in
France. AFAIK, French constitution was modified to allow that, and now
it is written in law. Once again, the referendum targets only Turkey,
but to avoid to tell that, all next countries will have to be approved
via referendum. Greetings from Chirac...
> Ok, then let's be honest: Most other countries do not want common retirement
> funds or unemployment funding. It is already bad enough that other poorer
> countries have to fund French agriculture. I find it entirely unacceptable
> that other countries should fund the defunct French social system, which is
> really bad need of reform, but unlike most countries in the EU, France is
AFAIK, France gives more money to Europe than what it receives. Of
course that doesn't mean spending so much for agriculture is wise while
all this money could be far better spent for R&D for example.
> incapable of making the necessary reforms, as we have seen once more in the
> recent strikes on Corsica. The bottom line appears to be: let other
> countries pay for the French mess. No thanks. And we certainly don't want
> to export the French incapacity to deal with globalization to the EU.
> > Yes, but who would benefit from such a competition?
>
> We all would. Because less money would be wasted in the system.
>
> > Imagine a
> > competition between the German and Chinese social systems: Would the
> > German workers earn something from that?
>
> No problem, we already have that competition. The situation is very simple:
> only if we are better than the Chinese can we expect to have higher wages
> in the long term and better benefits.
Better benefits than what we have today, or better benefits compared to
emerging countries? ;) When reforms mean regression of their rights to
average employees, you can understand that they won't simply say "OK,
that's just another pain and there will be more, let's accept that
because we can't do anything else".
--
The European ministers of Justice and the European Commission want to
keep all telephone and internet traffic data of all 450 million
Europeans. What's wrong with that?
http://www.dataretentionisnosolution.com/
J.M.
>
> J.M. wrote:
>
>> > And here we go back to the fundamental question: is Turkey european and
>> > would its accession kill the Union?
>>
>> The answer to that question depends on the state of the union and I
>> franky do not know the state of the union in 10-15 years. I do think that
>> we need to get the EU in such a shape that Turkey can be admitted once it
>> fullfills all requirements.
>
> Do you think that the Union would be strong and tight enough with
> Turkey's accession?
Well, if the proposed constitution is ratified, then yes, if it is not, then
no. Put differently, because of the French and Dutch vote, the EU is not
well-prepared to admit other countries, but I don't think it is right to
punish Turkey for the problems we have because of the French and Dutch
vote.
> I guess nobody has the answer, and for the Union,
> it's a quite dangerous game. If is succeeds, very well, but if it
> fails...
If the EU fails then it will fail because the current constitution was not
ratified, and not because we admitted Turkey.
>
>> > There was a fair debate, and that helped a
>> > lot to get more "open-mindness".
>>
>> LOL. In Spain, Zapaterro simply forced it through parliament because he
>> had the majority.
>
> Hey, is that what you call the "always more civilized and fairer
> [solution] because scare tactics are less likely to work" ? :P (Just
> kidding)
You are mixing issues. I think Zapatero was right in what he did, and indeed
scare tactics did not work, which is why approval was relatively easy. I
don't think there was an extensive debate though.
>
>> > Don't be so sure. That's because of the constitution that there will be
>> > a referendum before the accession of Turkey. (That was the deal of
>> > Chirac: if you really want to refuse Turkey, you will be able to do so
>> > later, so please vote yes now. It didn't work as expected...)
>>
>> We'll see what happens. I don't expect future French presidents to be
>> bound by promises Chirac made ;-)
>
> The problem is that from now on (except for Romania, Bulgaria and
> Croatia) and for any further enlargement, there will be a referendum in
> France. AFAIK, French constitution was modified to allow that, and now
> it is written in law. Once again, the referendum targets only Turkey,
> but to avoid to tell that, all next countries will have to be approved
> via referendum. Greetings from Chirac...
Fine, but I think France underestimates sensitivity of such an issue.
Franky, if all countries approve Turkey coming into the EU, except France,
then France should leave the EU. Put differently, such a rejection by
France is much more likely to kill the EU (or to leave more of the EU than
a common market) than Turkey entering the EU. I begin to realize that
France and Germany apparently do not share enough values, that their views
of how the EU should be run are far too different for any deepening of the
EU to make sense. The more I discuss this matter, the more it seems that we
should just have a common market and forget about a politically united
Europe.
>
>> Ok, then let's be honest: Most other countries do not want common
>> retirement funds or unemployment funding. It is already bad enough that
>> other poorer countries have to fund French agriculture. I find it
>> entirely unacceptable that other countries should fund the defunct French
>> social system, which is really bad need of reform, but unlike most
>> countries in the EU, France is
>
> AFAIK, France gives more money to Europe than what it receives.
So it want to change that now? ;-) I certainly see no advantage to a common
EU social system.
> Of
> course that doesn't mean spending so much for agriculture is wise while
> all this money could be far better spent for R&D for example.
>
>> incapable of making the necessary reforms, as we have seen once more in
>> the recent strikes on Corsica. The bottom line appears to be: let other
>> countries pay for the French mess. No thanks. And we certainly don't want
>> to export the French incapacity to deal with globalization to the EU.
>
>
>> > Yes, but who would benefit from such a competition?
>>
>> We all would. Because less money would be wasted in the system.
>>
>> > Imagine a
>> > competition between the German and Chinese social systems: Would the
>> > German workers earn something from that?
>>
>> No problem, we already have that competition. The situation is very
>> simple: only if we are better than the Chinese can we expect to have
>> higher wages in the long term and better benefits.
>
> Better benefits than what we have today, or better benefits compared to
> emerging countries? ;)
Better benefits than when we work less. It is easy to have generous
unemployment benefits if you have 2% unemployment, not if we have 10%. So
discussing unemployment benefits is the wrong issue. We need to talk about
unemployment, and the reason it exists is because
1) difficult to fire workers once hired
2) workers are expensive because the employers have to pay so many social
benefits
3) too many regulations make it hard to start a business
If you fix these three things, then the economy will pick up, unemployment
will decrease and we can afford decent social benefits.
> When reforms mean regression of their rights to
> average employees, you can understand that they won't simply say "OK,
> that's just another pain and there will be more, let's accept that
> because we can't do anything else".
No, I don't understand it. Right now, the social system is the primary
reason for poor ecnomic growth and high unemployment. It is simply to
expensive, wastes too much money. For that matter, the current rules are
made for those that have work: to keep the status quo. It is hard to fire
workers (which means companies don't like to hire either). Economic growth
is poor, so no new jobs are created. Hence, we are really just doing
something for those that have a job, but we are doing nothing to help those
without one.
>
> --
> The European ministers of Justice and the European Commission want to
> keep all telephone and internet traffic data of all 450 million
> Europeans. What's wrong with that?
Another reason we would be better off just having a common market.
Roman Werpachowski
>
> J.M. wrote:
>
>> > And here we go back to the fundamental question: is Turkey european and
>> > would its accession kill the Union?
>>
>> The answer to that question depends on the state of the union and I franky
>> do not know the state of the union in 10-15 years. I do think that we need
>> to get the EU in such a shape that Turkey can be admitted once it fullfills
>> all requirements.
>
> Do you think that the Union would be strong and tight enough with
> Turkey's accession? I guess nobody has the answer, and for the Union,
> it's a quite dangerous game. If is succeeds, very well, but if it
> fails...
The same could be said about any major EU reform.
>
> The problem is that from now on (except for Romania, Bulgaria and
> Croatia) and for any further enlargement, there will be a referendum in
> France. AFAIK, French constitution was modified to allow that, and now
> it is written in law. Once again, the referendum targets only Turkey,
> but to avoid to tell that, all next countries will have to be approved
> via referendum. Greetings from Chirac...
If France is going to block the development of the EU, France will bear the
consequences.
Stegozor
J.M. wrote:
> >> > And here we go back to the fundamental question: is Turkey european and
> >> > would its accession kill the Union?
> >>
> >> The answer to that question depends on the state of the union and I
> >> franky do not know the state of the union in 10-15 years. I do think that
> >> we need to get the EU in such a shape that Turkey can be admitted once it
> >> fullfills all requirements.
> >
> > Do you think that the Union would be strong and tight enough with
> > Turkey's accession?
>
> Well, if the proposed constitution is ratified, then yes, if it is not, then
> no. Put differently, because of the French and Dutch vote, the EU is not
> well-prepared to admit other countries, but I don't think it is right to
> punish Turkey for the problems we have because of the French and Dutch
> vote.
But these problems were related to the candidacy of Turkey. Many people
voted no to prevent it, and many other would have done so if other
referenda were not postponed or cancelled.
> > I guess nobody has the answer, and for the Union,
> > it's a quite dangerous game. If is succeeds, very well, but if it
> > fails...
>
> If the EU fails then it will fail because the current constitution was not
> ratified, and not because we admitted Turkey.
> > Hey, is that what you call the "always more civilized and fairer
> > [solution] because scare tactics are less likely to work" ? :P (Just
> > kidding)
>
> You are mixing issues. I think Zapatero was right in what he did, and indeed
I know. I was kidding. :)
> > The problem is that from now on (except for Romania, Bulgaria and
> > Croatia) and for any further enlargement, there will be a referendum in
> > France.
> Fine, but I think France underestimates sensitivity of such an issue.
I fully agree.
> Franky, if all countries approve Turkey coming into the EU, except France,
Actually, many countries seem to be circumspect about Turkey's
candidacy, including France, Austria, Denmark, Germany amongst others.
> then France should leave the EU. Put differently, such a rejection by
Sorry to say that, but I hate talking about kicking off a country from
the Union. Some people were dreaming of kicking the UK if it was the
only one the reject the constitutional treaty, Chirac told once that
new members had lost an oportunity to shut up: that's not the best way
to deepen the cooperation. Have you ever thought about kicking a town
from Germany?
> France is much more likely to kill the EU (or to leave more of the EU than
> a common market) than Turkey entering the EU. I begin to realize that
Should I conclude that you now think that
> France and Germany apparently do not share enough values, that their views
> of how the EU should be run are far too different for any deepening of the
> EU to make sense. The more I discuss this matter, the more it seems that we
> should just have a common market and forget about a politically united
> Europe.
Hey, if you think that way because of our discussion, I'm just going o
stop answering. Seriously, I often compare the Union to the Antique
Athens and Rome, or to the Renaissance. That's something new, never
seen before: the best international cooperation ever.
> Better benefits than when we work less. It is easy to have generous
> unemployment benefits if you have 2% unemployment, not if we have 10%. So
> discussing unemployment benefits is the wrong issue. We need to talk about
> unemployment, and the reason it exists is because
>
> 1) difficult to fire workers once hired
> 2) workers are expensive because the employers have to pay so many social
> benefits
> 3) too many regulations make it hard to start a business
>
> If you fix these three things, then the economy will pick up, unemployment
> will decrease and we can afford decent social benefits.
I agree, except for the part concerning decent social benefits. Simply
look at the US or to the UK: They have a healthy economy, with not so
much unemployment and so on, but social benefits are better in France.
I don't mean France can continue without changing anything, what I
remark is that even with a fast growing economy, it seems to be
difficult to have correct social benefits compared to say ten or twenty
years ago.
> > When reforms mean regression of their rights to
> > average employees, you can understand that they won't simply say "OK,
> > that's just another pain and there will be more, let's accept that
> > because we can't do anything else".
>
> No, I don't understand it. Right now, the social system is the primary
> reason for poor ecnomic growth and high unemployment. It is simply to
> expensive, wastes too much money. For that matter, the current rules are
> made for those that have work: to keep the status quo. It is hard to fire
> workers (which means companies don't like to hire either). Economic growth
> is poor, so no new jobs are created. Hence, we are really just doing
> something for those that have a job, but we are doing nothing to help those
> without one.
Fair enough.
> > --
> > The European ministers of Justice and the European Commission want to
> > keep all telephone and internet traffic data of all 450 million
> > Europeans. What's wrong with that?
> > http://www.dataretentionisnosolution.com/
> Another reason we would be better off just having a common market.
Sorry, but I don't see why. You can also sign the petition ;)
Stegozor
Roman Werpachowski wrote:
> > Do you think that the Union would be strong and tight enough with
> > Turkey's accession? I guess nobody has the answer, and for the Union,
> > it's a quite dangerous game. If is succeeds, very well, but if it
> > fails...
>
> The same could be said about any major EU reform.
There's a difference: if a major reform doesn't work as expected, then
you can always change it. As for the accession of a country that is too
big, too different, too... (anything you want, you can add any of the
arguments of the opponents of Turkey's candidacy), there's no way to go
back.
> If France is going to block the development of the EU, France will bear the
> consequences.
As I alreday told in my reply to Jan, I don't like "threats" (my
English is bad enough, I don't know if that word really fits, sorry) at
all. We should rather consider that no country wants to block the
development of the EU, and that anything possible and even more must be
done to achieve a consensus. Is there any other way?
> --
>
> Po co wybieraæ mniejsze z³o? Stegozor na prezydenta!
As for my presidency, and your "over my dead body", well, we can manage
that :P But first, you'll have to come to France, and if you visit the
town I live in, I'd be pleased to "guide" you. After that, we can
always talk politics, elders, presidency and serious things :)
J.M.
>
> Roman Werpachowski wrote:
>
>> > Do you think that the Union would be strong and tight enough with
>> > Turkey's accession? I guess nobody has the answer, and for the Union,
>> > it's a quite dangerous game. If is succeeds, very well, but if it
>> > fails...
>>
>> The same could be said about any major EU reform.
>
> There's a difference: if a major reform doesn't work as expected, then
> you can always change it.
In theory, not in practice.
> As for the accession of a country that is too
> big, too different, too... (anything you want, you can add any of the
> arguments of the opponents of Turkey's candidacy), there's no way to go
> back.
>
Sure, but enlargements always require reforms. If Turkey joining the EU only
works if the EU reforms, then there is nothing wrong with that....
>> If France is going to block the development of the EU, France will bear
>> the consequences.
>
> As I alreday told in my reply to Jan, I don't like "threats" (my
> English is bad enough, I don't know if that word really fits, sorry) at
> all.
It was a threat ;-)
> We should rather consider that no country wants to block the
> development of the EU, and that anything possible and even more must be
> done to achieve a consensus. Is there any other way?
Not really, but sometimes you achieve a consensus, for example at the
constitutional convention, and then several countries block it anyway.
After that, there is no way left to proceed. What is the point of finding a
consensus, if it's worth nothing?
Jan
>
>> --
>>
>> Po co wybierać mniejsze zło? Stegozor na prezydenta!
Roman Werpachowski
>> If France is going to block the development of the EU, France will bear the
>> consequences.
>
> As I alreday told in my reply to Jan, I don't like "threats" (my
> English is bad enough, I don't know if that word really fits, sorry) at
> all. We should rather consider that no country wants to block the
> development of the EU, and that anything possible and even more must be
> done to achieve a consensus. Is there any other way?
When Poland was fighting to keep the Nice treaty voting system, it hadn't
received so much understanding.
J.M.
>
> J.M. wrote:
>
>> >> > And here we go back to the fundamental question: is Turkey european
>> >> > and would its accession kill the Union?
>> >>
>> >> The answer to that question depends on the state of the union and I
>> >> franky do not know the state of the union in 10-15 years. I do think
>> >> that we need to get the EU in such a shape that Turkey can be admitted
>> >> once it fullfills all requirements.
>> >
>> > Do you think that the Union would be strong and tight enough with
>> > Turkey's accession?
>>
>> Well, if the proposed constitution is ratified, then yes, if it is not,
>> then no. Put differently, because of the French and Dutch vote, the EU is
>> not well-prepared to admit other countries, but I don't think it is right
>> to punish Turkey for the problems we have because of the French and Dutch
>> vote.
>
> But these problems were related to the candidacy of Turkey.
How was the constitution related to Turkey? The people thought if we reject
the constitution then the EU will be in such miserable shape that it can't
admit Turkey? In other words, we sacrifice the future of the EU in order to
keep the Turkey out of the EU? Sorry, that is disgusting.
> Many people
> voted no to prevent it, and many other would have done so if other
> referenda were not postponed or cancelled.
>
>> > I guess nobody has the answer, and for the Union,
>> > it's a quite dangerous game. If is succeeds, very well, but if it
>> > fails...
>>
>> If the EU fails then it will fail because the current constitution was
>> not ratified, and not because we admitted Turkey.
>
>
>> > Hey, is that what you call the "always more civilized and fairer
>> > [solution] because scare tactics are less likely to work" ? :P (Just
>> > kidding)
>>
>> You are mixing issues. I think Zapatero was right in what he did, and
>> indeed
>
> I know. I was kidding. :)
>
>> > The problem is that from now on (except for Romania, Bulgaria and
>> > Croatia) and for any further enlargement, there will be a referendum in
>> > France.
>> Fine, but I think France underestimates sensitivity of such an issue.
>
> I fully agree.
>
>> Franky, if all countries approve Turkey coming into the EU, except
>> France,
>
> Actually, many countries seem to be circumspect about Turkey's
> candidacy, including France, Austria, Denmark, Germany amongst others.
True, but none have decided to hold referenda. That is a big difference.
There had been a consensus in the EU that once a candidate country
qualifies by meeting the Copenhagen criteria and by completing negotiations
successfully, that it would be allowed in. Of course, all EU countries have
to agree, but in the past, this has been a formality done by parliament. It
is simply not acceptable to reject a country after negotiations have been
completed because "they do not fit in", If France wants to reject a country
"because it does not fit in", then it needs to reject its candidacy and
needs to reject holding negotiations.
>
>> then France should leave the EU. Put differently, such a rejection by
>
> Sorry to say that, but I hate talking about kicking off a country from
> the Union. Some people were dreaming of kicking the UK if it was the
> only one the reject the constitutional treaty, Chirac told once that
> new members had lost an oportunity to shut up: that's not the best way
> to deepen the cooperation. Have you ever thought about kicking a town
> from Germany?
The EU is not a country. For that matter, a single town cannot block
everything. The EU works based on consensus. A single country can block
everything. If a country like France rejects a constitutional treaty that
we reached in consensus, then the EU cannot work. We sent members of our
national parliaments, of our governments, of the European parliament to
draft a constitutional treaty. The drafted the best treaty possible. If we
can't get that treaty approved, the EU is dead. The same is true for our
consensus regarding the admission of new members. France has "left" the
consensus here as well. Yes, France is a problem for the EU.
>
>> France is much more likely to kill the EU (or to leave more of the EU
>> than a common market) than Turkey entering the EU. I begin to realize
>> that
>
> Should I conclude that you now think that
>
>
>> France and Germany apparently do not share enough values, that their
>> views of how the EU should be run are far too different for any deepening
>> of the EU to make sense. The more I discuss this matter, the more it
>> seems that we should just have a common market and forget about a
>> politically united Europe.
>
> Hey, if you think that way because of our discussion,
No. Prior to France rejecting the constutional treaty, I was in favor of
slowly building a federal Europe. I would have liked to have seen a strong
EU in charge of foreign policy and defense, having a strong parliament,
etc. Of course, I didn't think the constitution was perfect, I was afraid
that the UK would reject it, but I realized it was the best possible
compromise. Now that France has rejected the constitutional treaty, it has
become clear that there is no way to form a united Europe. The people of
Europe are still too isolated from one another so that building a common
Europe is not possible. The various people and countries are to egotistical
and just look at what is best for themselves, not Europe. I think the main
reason France rejected the constitution is because too many people asked:
"what is best for me" and "what is best for France" and not "what is best
for Europe". There is nothing wrong with that - Germans would behave no
differently. But as a consequence, we can forget a political union. We
should just have a common market.
> I'm just going o
> stop answering. Seriously, I often compare the Union to the Antique
> Athens and Rome, or to the Renaissance. That's something new, never
> seen before: the best international cooperation ever.
>
>> Better benefits than when we work less. It is easy to have generous
>> unemployment benefits if you have 2% unemployment, not if we have 10%. So
>> discussing unemployment benefits is the wrong issue. We need to talk
>> about unemployment, and the reason it exists is because
>>
>> 1) difficult to fire workers once hired
>> 2) workers are expensive because the employers have to pay so many social
>> benefits
>> 3) too many regulations make it hard to start a business
>>
>> If you fix these three things, then the economy will pick up,
>> unemployment will decrease and we can afford decent social benefits.
>
> I agree, except for the part concerning decent social benefits. Simply
> look at the US or to the UK: They have a healthy economy, with not so
> much unemployment and so on, but social benefits are better in France.
The US is not the example we should be looking at. No one wants a US-style
economy here. The UK is a better example of what we should aim for. The
social benefits are better in France? So what? You are giving the wrong
answer to the right question. The right question is: In which country is it
best to become unemployed? The wrong answer is: "In France, because the
social benefits are best". The right answer is: "In the UK (Ireland,
Denmark) because it is easiest to find a new job."
> I don't mean France can continue without changing anything, what I
> remark is that even with a fast growing economy, it seems to be
> difficult to have correct social benefits compared to say ten or twenty
> years ago.
Of course. Paying the same amount of benefits to 10% unemployed costs twice
as much as when 5% are unemployed. If you want decent benefits for the
unemployed, you need more people who are employed.
Jan
gregor herrmann
>>> Franky, if all countries approve Turkey coming into the EU, except
>>> France,
>> Actually, many countries seem to be circumspect about Turkey's
>> candidacy, including France, Austria, Denmark, Germany amongst others.
> True, but none have decided to hold referenda. That is a big difference.
Well, unfortunately the current Austrian government has declared
several times that there will be a referendum on Turkey's admission
...
Of course any future government can become a little more intelligent
;-)
gregor
--
.''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ | gpg key ID: 0x00F3CFE4
: :' : infos zur usenet-hierarchie at.*: http://www.usenet.at/
`. `' member of https://www.vibe.at/ | how to reply: http://got.to/quote/
`- NP: Nick Drake - Saturday Sun
Roman Werpachowski
> The US is not the example we should be looking at. No one wants a US-style
> economy here. The UK is a better example of what we should aim for. The
> social benefits are better in France? So what? You are giving the wrong
> answer to the right question. The right question is: In which country is it
> best to become unemployed? The wrong answer is: "In France, because the
> social benefits are best". The right answer is: "In the UK (Ireland,
> Denmark) because it is easiest to find a new job."
You're 100% right. The long-term psychological effects of being out of work are
devastating even if you receive high benefits.
J.M.
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:25:24 +0200, J.M. wrote:
>
>>>> Franky, if all countries approve Turkey coming into the EU, except
>>>> France,
>>> Actually, many countries seem to be circumspect about Turkey's
>>> candidacy, including France, Austria, Denmark, Germany amongst others.
>> True, but none have decided to hold referenda. That is a big difference.
>
> Well, unfortunately the current Austrian government has declared
> several times that there will be a referendum on Turkey's admission
> ...
> Of course any future government can become a little more intelligent
> ;-)
>
Becoming more intelligent should not be very difficult ;-)
Jan
>
> gregor
Stegozor
>>>>>> And here we go back to the fundamental question: is Turkey european
>>>>>> and would its accession kill the Union?
>>>>> The answer to that question depends on the state of the union and I
>>>>> franky do not know the state of the union in 10-15 years. I do think
>>>>> that we need to get the EU in such a shape that Turkey can be admitted
>>>>> once it fullfills all requirements.
>>>> Do you think that the Union would be strong and tight enough with
>>>> Turkey's accession?
>>> Well, if the proposed constitution is ratified, then yes, if it is not,
>>> then no. Put differently, because of the French and Dutch vote, the EU is
>>> not well-prepared to admit other countries, but I don't think it is right
>>> to punish Turkey for the problems we have because of the French and Dutch
>>> vote.
>> But these problems were related to the candidacy of Turkey.
>
> How was the constitution related to Turkey? The people thought if we reject
First, you told : "Rejecting the constitution will have no influence on
Turkey joining whatsoever." After that, you replied "Well, if the
proposed constitution is ratified, then yes, if it is not, then no. Put
differently,(...)" when I asked if the Union would be tight&strong
enough with the accession of Turkey.
Now, please let me remind a part of a previous post : "To forge such a
Union, it is extremely important that large majorities of the
inhabitants of all the member states feel themselves closely associated
with the project and the political process of unification."
You still didn't answer the question : " is Turkey European and would
its accession kill the Union?". What I mean there is not the fulfillment
of some criteria or preparing the institutions, but how the average
European _feel_ about Turkey. If people _feel_ that they were forced to
build the Union with a country they never wanted in, then you can't
expect them to have a positive attitude towards EU. Avoiding referenda
won't be a solution.
Finally, please read again messages against Turkey: they don't care
about Copenhagen criteria. They talk about poverty or religion, but
their main fear is that, Turkey, unlike Poland or Bulgaria or Albania,
is _not_ European. Keeping a promise, tradition of negotiations always
ending with full membership? Many don't care. You'll have to find an
answer to that question. And forget about dropping the dream of a
political union, I can't accept that ;)
> the constitution then the EU will be in such miserable shape that it can't
> admit Turkey? In other words, we sacrifice the future of the EU in order to
> keep the Turkey out of the EU? Sorry, that is disgusting.
Indeed, life is a b.tch you know... :) As people did not have their say
often enough (pov of a supporter of referenda :) , they simply seized
the opportunity. I guess they don't think they killed the future of the
EU. They must (at least some of them) think there will be another treaty
in a few years, and that idea doesn't seem so unrealistic to me.
Anyway, you now have three options:
1) Forget about a political union. That's the worst one.
2) Tell that Turkey will never be a member, and then go back to work for
a common future.
3) Do a Herculean work to build a European public, let Turkey begin the
negotiations, and 10 or 15 years later, do what you can to convince
people that a Muslim and big country can very well become European,
especially because it was a loyal ally for decades, and did truly a lot
to westernize itself and to meet Copenhagen criteria. Explain them that
irrational fears are not the best way to build international relations.
But if that doesn't work, forget about kicking out the countries which
could still say no. Prepare yourself for a big crisis, and build a
special partnership. Needless to say, that seems the best option to me.
>>> Frankly, if all countries approve Turkey coming into the EU, except
>>> France,
>> Actually, many countries seem to be circumspect about Turkey's
>> candidacy, including France, Austria, Denmark, Germany amongst others.
>
> True, but none have decided to hold referenda. That is a big difference.
As told Gregor Hermann, Austria will also hold a referendum, and other
countries may well do so. France is not the only one. Sorry, but you
can't build the Union behind closed doors, and say "it's disgusting" the
day when people will ask the right to give their own opinion, even if
this opinion is truly disgusting. Sooner of later, there will be
referenda in some countries (we think differently about referenda, I
know, but the fact is that some countries will hold them). That's why I
insist so much about forging a European public.
An example: Poland strongly supported Turkey's candidacy, not because
they like (or dislike) Turkey, but just to be able to say later: "if
Turkey is allowed in, how could you let Ukraine out". What did they get?
Referenda about Ukraine's accession and further enlargement...
> There had been a consensus in the EU that once a candidate country
> qualifies by meeting the Copenhagen criteria and by completing negotiations
> successfully, that it would be allowed in. Of course, all EU countries have
> to agree, but in the past, this has been a formality done by parliament. It
> is simply not acceptable to reject a country after negotiations have been
> completed because "they do not fit in", If France wants to reject a country
> "because it does not fit in", then it needs to reject its candidacy and
> needs to reject holding negotiations.
You can simply imagine arguments of the opponents: "these rules are
supposed to work for the sake of the EU, not for themselves. Now,
there's something fundamentally different, and the survival of the EU is
in danger. Hence, it is justifiable to reject that country. Also, before
the beginning of the negotiations, we told clearly we didn't want that
country in, but we were told that we had to shut up for now, and that we
could decide later. We will do so, then."
A related argument is that the accession of Turkey will prevent the
Union from being a federation: Guardian's Timothy Garton Ash writes :
(...) It [EU] chose to become an all-European commonwealth, not the
part-European superstate of Tory nightmares. (...)" (
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5302453-103390,00.html ,
text-only version) Also, Austria will permanently seal off its labour
market to Turkish workers when Turkey joins the EU, Austrian chancellor
Wolfgang Schussel told German newspaper Die Welt...
Reading your comments, how could I think Ash's suggestion is wrong?
Still, holding negotiations was the best solution IMHO: Turkey will have
its chance 10 or 15 years later.
> The EU is not a country. For that matter, a single town cannot block
> everything. The EU works based on consensus. A single country can block
> everything. If a country like France rejects a constitutional treaty that
> we reached in consensus, then the EU cannot work. We sent members of our
> national parliaments, of our governments, of the European parliament to
> draft a constitutional treaty. The drafted the best treaty possible. If we
> can't get that treaty approved, the EU is dead. The same is true for our
> consensus regarding the admission of new members. France has "left" the
> consensus here as well. Yes, France is a problem for the EU.
No, sir :) Once again, France was not the only one. The Netherlands also
rejected the treaty, and other countries probably would have done so
(Poland, Czech republic, UK were considered as risky). Was it the best
possible treaty? Maybe, maybe not, but anyway nothing is irreplaceable
(except me, of course :). If you want to continue the journey, you
should better be prepared to face other major problems, no doubt that
there will be many. But that's not a reason to stop everything.
>> Hey, if you think that way because of our discussion,
>
> No. Prior to France rejecting the constutional treaty, I was in favor of
> slowly building a federal Europe. I would have liked to have seen a strong
> EU in charge of foreign policy and defense, having a strong parliament,
> etc. Of course, I didn't think the constitution was perfect, I was afraid
> that the UK would reject it, but I realized it was the best possible
> compromise. Now that France has rejected the constitutional treaty, it has
> become clear that there is no way to form a united Europe. The people of
> Europe are still too isolated from one another so that building a common
> Europe is not possible. The various people and countries are to egotistical
> and just look at what is best for themselves, not Europe. I think the main
> reason France rejected the constitution is because too many people asked:
> "what is best for me" and "what is best for France" and not "what is best
> for Europe". There is nothing wrong with that - Germans would behave no
> differently. But as a consequence, we can forget a political union. We
> should just have a common market.
Oh no. The Union has already come a long way, and I see absolutely no
reason to stop now. If the "failure" of a referendum is a reason to
abandon all political will, then it was pointless to even try to build
the Union. Would Europeans need a big threat or a war again to go
further? That's a crisis, for sure, but not the end of the future
political union. It shouldn't be.
>> I'm just going to
>> stop answering. Seriously, I often compare the Union to the Antique
>> Athens and Rome, or to the Renaissance. That's something new, never
>> seen before: the best international cooperation ever.
Limited time on a public computer, and I wasn't able to finish my
message... Offer yourself some innocent idealism: What if those miracles
of the past were abandoned due to a crisis?
> Of course. Paying the same amount of benefits to 10% unemployed costs twice
> as much as when 5% are unemployed. If you want decent benefits for the
> unemployed, you need more people who are employed.
Are social benefits or the health system of say the UK are decent? For
many people, reforms simply mean less benefits, whether unemployment is
high or low. Of course, if less unemployment meant higher benefits,
there would be no problem. But when you hear something like "less
welfare state means more jobs", and when you see Hartz IV laws allowing
labor for 1 Euro per hour in some cases, well, some people are not too
excited. They still dream of the "glorious 30s" after WWII, when
unemployment was low, wages were growing, and benefits were correct.
J.M.
> J.M. wrote:
>
>>>>>>> And here we go back to the fundamental question: is Turkey european
>>>>>>> and would its accession kill the Union?
>>>>>> The answer to that question depends on the state of the union and I
>>>>>> franky do not know the state of the union in 10-15 years. I do think
>>>>>> that we need to get the EU in such a shape that Turkey can be
>>>>>> admitted once it fullfills all requirements.
>>>>> Do you think that the Union would be strong and tight enough with
>>>>> Turkey's accession?
>>>> Well, if the proposed constitution is ratified, then yes, if it is not,
>>>> then no. Put differently, because of the French and Dutch vote, the EU
>>>> is not well-prepared to admit other countries, but I don't think it is
>>>> right to punish Turkey for the problems we have because of the French
>>>> and Dutch vote.
>>> But these problems were related to the candidacy of Turkey.
>>
>> How was the constitution related to Turkey? The people thought if we
>> reject
>
> First, you told : "Rejecting the constitution will have no influence on
> Turkey joining whatsoever."
In the sense that the EU still started negotiations with Turkey and intends
to complete these successfully.
> After that, you replied "Well, if the
> proposed constitution is ratified, then yes, if it is not, then no. Put
> differently,(...)" when I asked if the Union would be tight&strong
> enough with the accession of Turkey.
Sure, so what is your point?
> Now, please let me remind a part of a previous post : "To forge such a
> Union, it is extremely important that large majorities of the
> inhabitants of all the member states feel themselves closely associated
> with the project and the political process of unification."
>
> You still didn't answer the question : " is Turkey European and would
> its accession kill the Union?".
The union you are talking about, a political union, is already dead. France
(and the Netherlands) killed it.
There were two option: we adopt the constitution, slowly form a political
union and allow Turkey to join as part of this emerging political union.
That union would have been strong enough to absorb Turkey. The other option
is: we reject the constitution, we bury a political union, but remain an
economic union and allow Turkey to join this economic union. As an economic
union, we are strong enough to allow Turkey in, even without the new
constitution.
Put differently: the vote on the constitution was precisely that - nothing
more. It was about the future of the EU: a slowly emerging political union
-- yes or no. It was not about Turkey.
> What I mean there is not the fulfillment
> of some criteria or preparing the institutions, but how the average
> European _feel_ about Turkey.
That is totally *irrelevant* because rejecting Turkey because "we don't like
them" is too late. If "we don't like them", we should not give them
candidate status and should not negotiate with them. Period.
> If people _feel_ that they were forced to
> build the Union with a country they never wanted in,
People were "forced" to do that quite often. I would not be surprised if you
could find a majority in some "old" member state that was against Poland's
admission as well. A referendum would have failed there as well -- knowing
that, no country held a referendum on admitting Poland. Why hold a
referendum on Turkey? Why do Turks not deserve the same treatment as other
human beings? If I am not mistaken, France agreed to admit 19 countries
(starting from the original 6) without holding a referendum and will admit
another 2-3 without a referendum. Holding a referendum just on Turkey is
not democratic, it is *racist*.
> then you can't
> expect them to have a positive attitude towards EU. Avoiding referenda
> won't be a solution.
>
> Finally, please read again messages against Turkey: they don't care
> about Copenhagen criteria. They talk about poverty or religion, but
> their main fear is that, Turkey, unlike Poland or Bulgaria or Albania,
> is _not_ European. Keeping a promise, tradition of negotiations always
> ending with full membership? Many don't care.
Fine, and I don't care about them. Everyone one of your governments for the
past 30-40 years has promised Turkey it would be allowed to join when the
time is right - when the criteria are met. If the French government ignores
the will of the French people, then this is a French problem. Blame your
government, but keep your promises.
> You'll have to find an
> answer to that question. And forget about dropping the dream of a
> political union, I can't accept that ;)
The political union is dead. Let's not pretend otherwise. It is not just
dead because the constitution failed, but because fewer people then ever
want a political union. There is little agreement as to what a political
union should look like, and the constitution was the best possible
compromise. But we have gone through that before...
>
>> the constitution then the EU will be in such miserable shape that it
>> can't admit Turkey? In other words, we sacrifice the future of the EU in
>> order to keep the Turkey out of the EU? Sorry, that is disgusting.
>
> Indeed, life is a b.tch you know... :) As people did not have their say
> often enough (pov of a supporter of referenda :) , they simply seized
> the opportunity. I guess they don't think they killed the future of the
> EU. They must (at least some of them) think there will be another treaty
> in a few years, and that idea doesn't seem so unrealistic to me.
>
> Anyway, you now have three options:
> 1) Forget about a political union. That's the worst one.
It is also the likeliest one. A new proposal will be similar to the old,
maybe not as long, because they will be smart enough to put the "details"
in a separate document, but the content will be similar. It will be
rejected in France for the same reasons as this one was rejected - it will
"neo-liberal", "Anglo-Saxon" and not be sufficiently socialist for French
tastes.
> 2) Tell that Turkey will never be a member, and then go back to work for
> a common future.
We have just begun negotiations...
> 3) Do a Herculean work to build a European public, let Turkey begin the
> negotiations, and 10 or 15 years later, do what you can to convince
> people that a Muslim and big country can very well become European,
> especially because it was a loyal ally for decades, and did truly a lot
> to westernize itself and to meet Copenhagen criteria. Explain them that
> irrational fears are not the best way to build international relations.
That might be feasible if there was a brought consensus that Turkey should
be a member in each member state. But the right wing will prey on the
irrational fears and multiply them..... Just as the opponents preyed on
fear in the referendum on the constitution.
> But if that doesn't work, forget about kicking out the countries which
> could still say no.
That can't be done anyway.
> Prepare yourself for a big crisis, and build a
> special partnership.
Turkey already has a special partnership. No need to negotiate that. It is
quite interesting that all people who talk about a special partnership
(Merkel) never say what they mean. What is that supposed to be?
> Needless to say, that seems the best option to me.
>
>>>> Frankly, if all countries approve Turkey coming into the EU, except
>>>> France,
>>> Actually, many countries seem to be circumspect about Turkey's
>>> candidacy, including France, Austria, Denmark, Germany amongst others.
>>
>> True, but none have decided to hold referenda. That is a big difference.
>
> As told Gregor Hermann, Austria will also hold a referendum,
Not quite. The current government has said that there will be a referendum
-- but will Austria's government in 15 years be bound by such promises?
It's not a law...
> and other
> countries may well do so. France is not the only one. Sorry, but you
> can't build the Union behind closed doors, and say "it's disgusting" the
> day when people will ask the right to give their own opinion, even if
> this opinion is truly disgusting. Sooner of later, there will be
> referenda in some countries (we think differently about referenda, I
> know, but the fact is that some countries will hold them). That's why I
> insist so much about forging a European public.
Sure, I don't object to the French people voicing their will - and of
course, I accept France rejecting Turkey. Similarly, I hope you accept that
I (and many others) will reject a political union in the EU as a result.
>
> An example: Poland strongly supported Turkey's candidacy, not because
> they like (or dislike) Turkey, but just to be able to say later: "if
> Turkey is allowed in, how could you let Ukraine out". What did they get?
> Referenda about Ukraine's accession and further enlargement...
I think it is clear that the Ukraine will eventually be a candidate,
regardless of Turkey.
>
>> There had been a consensus in the EU that once a candidate country
>> qualifies by meeting the Copenhagen criteria and by completing
>> negotiations successfully, that it would be allowed in. Of course, all EU
>> countries have to agree, but in the past, this has been a formality done
>> by parliament. It is simply not acceptable to reject a country after
>> negotiations have been completed because "they do not fit in", If France
>> wants to reject a country "because it does not fit in", then it needs to
>> reject its candidacy and needs to reject holding negotiations.
>
> You can simply imagine arguments of the opponents: "these rules are
> supposed to work for the sake of the EU, not for themselves. Now,
> there's something fundamentally different, and the survival of the EU is
> in danger. Hence, it is justifiable to reject that country. Also, before
> the beginning of the negotiations, we told clearly we didn't want that
> country in, but we were told that we had to shut up for now, and that we
> could decide later. We will do so, then."
>
> A related argument is that the accession of Turkey will prevent the
> Union from being a federation: Guardian's Timothy Garton Ash writes :
> (...) It [EU] chose to become an all-European commonwealth, not the
> part-European superstate of Tory nightmares. (...)" (
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5302453-103390,00.html ,
> text-only version) Also, Austria will permanently seal off its labour
> market to Turkish workers when Turkey joins the EU, Austrian chancellor
> Wolfgang Schussel told German newspaper Die Welt...
Fortunately, Schüssel does not get to decide that by himself. In all
likelihood, when that part is negotiated, Schüssel will no longer be
Chancellor.
>
> Reading your comments, how could I think Ash's suggestion is wrong?
Ash is right. Admitting Turkey will finish what France started: killing the
political union.
>
> Still, holding negotiations was the best solution IMHO: Turkey will have
> its chance 10 or 15 years later.
>
>> The EU is not a country. For that matter, a single town cannot block
>> everything. The EU works based on consensus. A single country can block
>> everything. If a country like France rejects a constitutional treaty that
>> we reached in consensus, then the EU cannot work. We sent members of our
>> national parliaments, of our governments, of the European parliament to
>> draft a constitutional treaty. The drafted the best treaty possible. If
>> we can't get that treaty approved, the EU is dead. The same is true for
>> our consensus regarding the admission of new members. France has "left"
>> the consensus here as well. Yes, France is a problem for the EU.
>
> No, sir :) Once again, France was not the only one. The Netherlands also
> rejected the treaty, and other countries probably would have done so
True. I never said that France was the only country leaving this consensus,
but it was the most critical And now that enough countries have left it,
the political union is dead for a *very* long time.
> (Poland, Czech republic, UK were considered as risky). Was it the best
> possible treaty? Maybe, maybe not, but anyway nothing is irreplaceable
> (except me, of course :). If you want to continue the journey, you
> should better be prepared to face other major problems, no doubt that
> there will be many. But that's not a reason to stop everything.
It is not that I want to stop the process because of setbacks, but because I
no longer think that the goal is worthwhile. In other words, I no longer
see the political union as a desirable goal. Hence, I don't even care if
another constitution comes - well, I do care a little: I don't want it.
>
>
>>> Hey, if you think that way because of our discussion,
>>
>> No. Prior to France rejecting the constutional treaty, I was in favor of
>> slowly building a federal Europe. I would have liked to have seen a
>> strong EU in charge of foreign policy and defense, having a strong
>> parliament, etc. Of course, I didn't think the constitution was perfect,
>> I was afraid that the UK would reject it, but I realized it was the best
>> possible compromise. Now that France has rejected the constitutional
>> treaty, it has become clear that there is no way to form a united Europe.
>> The people of Europe are still too isolated from one another so that
>> building a common Europe is not possible. The various people and
>> countries are to egotistical and just look at what is best for
>> themselves, not Europe. I think the main reason France rejected the
>> constitution is because too many people asked: "what is best for me" and
>> "what is best for France" and not "what is best for Europe". There is
>> nothing wrong with that - Germans would behave no differently. But as a
>> consequence, we can forget a political union. We should just have a
>> common market.
>
> Oh no. The Union has already come a long way, and I see absolutely no
> reason to stop now. If the "failure" of a referendum is a reason to
> abandon all political will, then it was pointless to even try to build
> the Union.
The referendum and the analysis of the reasons for its failure has made me
realize that a political union is in fact not desirable, at least not in my
lifetime (I am not very old.) ;-)
> Would Europeans need a big threat or a war again to go
> further? That's a crisis, for sure, but not the end of the future
> political union. It shouldn't be.
>
>>> I'm just going to
>>> stop answering. Seriously, I often compare the Union to the Antique
>>> Athens and Rome, or to the Renaissance. That's something new, never
>>> seen before: the best international cooperation ever.
>
> Limited time on a public computer, and I wasn't able to finish my
> message... Offer yourself some innocent idealism: What if those miracles
> of the past were abandoned due to a crisis?
>
>> Of course. Paying the same amount of benefits to 10% unemployed costs
>> twice as much as when 5% are unemployed. If you want decent benefits for
>> the unemployed, you need more people who are employed.
>
> Are social benefits or the health system of say the UK are decent?
They allow people to have housing, food, clothing, health care. No, they
don't have 4 weeks of vacation on the Cote d'Azur. I think it is enough,
especially, because in the UK they can find a new job relatively easily.
> For
> many people, reforms simply mean less benefits, whether unemployment is
> high or low. Of course, if less unemployment meant higher benefits,
> there would be no problem. But when you hear something like "less
> welfare state means more jobs", and when you see Hartz IV laws allowing
> labor for 1 Euro per hour in some cases, well, some people are not too
> excited. They still dream of the "glorious 30s" after WWII, when
> unemployment was low, wages were growing, and benefits were correct.
LOL, the benefits after WW2 were not very high. All our countries were
relatively poor. But jobs were widely available, so people did not care
about low benefits, especially because it was true when someone said: "Only
the lazy are unemployed". That is no longer true, but it would be nice if
it were true.
And indeed, less benefits mean more jobs. Why do companies not hire workers?
Ever thought about that? Most people just say "companies transfer jobs,
that is not nice" or "companies should hire, but don't" without thinking
about why it is happening. Just saying "globalization" is not the answer.
Why is unemployment in many western European countries less than in France
or Germany?
BTW, people in 1-Euro jobs get 1 Euro in addition to their benefits, so they
are not really working for 1 Euro/hr.
Jan
Stegozor
>> What I mean there is not the fulfillment
>> of some criteria or preparing the institutions, but how the average
>> European _feel_ about Turkey.
>
> That is totally *irrelevant* because rejecting Turkey because "we don't like
> them" is too late. If "we don't like them", we should not give them
> candidate status and should not negotiate with them. Period.
So you feel truly bound by the promises your leaders make? Honestly,
would you feel so committed with such a promise if you were not
supporting the idea? For many people in France, really important
promises have to be confirmed by... referendum, because it is often
considered as the most democratic way. I know, we already discussed
that, but you can understand that many people don't feel bound by
promises that Chirac can make :)
>> If people _feel_ that they were forced to
>> build the Union with a country they never wanted in,
>
> People were "forced" to do that quite often. I would not be surprised if you
> could find a majority in some "old" member state that was against Poland's
> admission as well. A referendum would have failed there as well -- knowing
> that, no country held a referendum on admitting Poland. Why hold a
> referendum on Turkey? Why do Turks not deserve the same treatment as other
> human beings? If I am not mistaken, France agreed to admit 19 countries
> (starting from the original 6) without holding a referendum and will admit
> another 2-3 without a referendum. Holding a referendum just on Turkey is
> not democratic, it is *racist*.
You are mistaken. France already hold a referendum before the accession
of United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland. Excerpts from
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/europe/c-rendus/c0109.asp
" (...) Après avoir rappelé qu'à ce jour, seul l'élargissement de 1973
au Danemark, à l'Irlande et au Royaume-Uni avait donné lieu à
l'organisation d'un référendum en France, il a estimé que cette
disposition contribuait à l'approfondissement démocratique de l'Union (...)"
As for Poland, maybe a referendum in France would have had a no as the
result, but I'm quite sure that 1 year later there would be another
referendum and people would have voted yes recognizing their mistake.
I'd like to say the same about Turkey, but unfortunately, I can't. :(
> Fine, and I don't care about them. Everyone one of your governments for the
> past 30-40 years has promised Turkey it would be allowed to join when the
> time is right - when the criteria are met. If the French government ignores
> the will of the French people, then this is a French problem. Blame your
> government, but keep your promises.
Here's a copy&paste of my previous post : You can simply imagine
arguments of the opponents: "these rules are supposed to work for the
sake of the EU, not for themselves. Now, there's something fundamentally
different, and the survival of the EU is in danger. Hence, it is
justifiable to reject that country. Also, before the beginning of the
negotiations, we told clearly we didn't want that country in, but we
were told that we had to shut up for now, and that we could decide
later. We will do so, then."
As for me, I think that the 10 or 15 years of negotiations are the only
remaining opportunity to avoid a big crisis.
>> 3) Do a Herculean work to build a European public, let Turkey begin the
>> negotiations, and 10 or 15 years later, do what you can to convince
>> people that a Muslim and big country can very well become European,
>> especially because it was a loyal ally for decades, and did truly a lot
>> to westernize itself and to meet Copenhagen criteria. Explain them that
>> irrational fears are not the best way to build international relations.
>
> That might be feasible if there was a brought consensus that Turkey should
> be a member in each member state. But the right wing will prey on the
> irrational fears and multiply them..... Just as the opponents preyed on
> fear in the referendum on the constitution.
For that candidacy as well as for a future constitution, I think you're
too pessimist. As I already told, French approved by referendum UK's
accession. Anything is possible :) , but hard work to begin to forge a
common european public is needed.
> Turkey already has a special partnership. No need to negotiate that. It is
> quite interesting that all people who talk about a special partnership
> (Merkel) never say what they mean. What is that supposed to be?
Fair remark.
>> Reading your comments, how could I think Ash's suggestion is wrong?
>
> Ash is right. Admitting Turkey will finish what France started: killing the
> political union.
And do you feel comfortable with that? Let's say that the political
union is not dead, but ill. IMHO, There's still a chance. Time will tell...
> True. I never said that France was the only country leaving this consensus,
> but it was the most critical And now that enough countries have left it,
> the political union is dead for a *very* long time.
If you have time to waste or if the TV show is boring, have a look at
news:41b8c2e9$0$8119$8fcf...@news.wanadoo.fr . I posted this message on
december 2004, and I thought almost like you. I still do, but I also
tend to think that even if the chances of success are tiny, the Union
still deserves to be built.
>>>> I'm just going to
>>>> stop answering. Seriously, I often compare the Union to the Antique
>>>> Athens and Rome, or to the Renaissance. That's something new, never
>>>> seen before: the best international cooperation ever.
>> Limited time on a public computer, and I wasn't able to finish my
>> message... Offer yourself some innocent idealism: What if those miracles
>> of the past were abandoned due to a crisis?
No answer? So much for poetry? :P
J.M.
> J.M. wrote:
>
>
>>> What I mean there is not the fulfillment
>>> of some criteria or preparing the institutions, but how the average
>>> European _feel_ about Turkey.
>>
>> That is totally *irrelevant* because rejecting Turkey because "we don't
>> like them" is too late. If "we don't like them", we should not give them
>> candidate status and should not negotiate with them. Period.
>
> So you feel truly bound by the promises your leaders make?
I don't, but *I* am not negotiating, the EU or Germany is. And I feel that
Germany or the EU is bound by the promises it makes. That is one of the
main reasons, I don't find the referendum acceptable.
> Honestly,
> would you feel so committed with such a promise if you were not
> supporting the idea?
Yes, if you have an agreement you have to stick to it, even if you don't
like it. Fine, it is not an agreement, but a promise. Similarly, I don't
find it acceptable to have higher hurdles for Turkey than for other
countries -- yes, a referendum is a higher hurdle. Treating one country
different than other countries, is, well: racist.
(If we were having a fundamental discussion about the EU's "natural"
boundaries and were to put that into a constitution or treaty and then put
that to a referendum, things would be different. But that it is not being
done. France introduced a referendum just for one country, namely to keep
it out.)
> For many people in France, really important
> promises have to be confirmed by... referendum, because it is often
> considered as the most democratic way.
Fine, then you should have held a referendum about giving Turkey candidate
status in 1999 or beginning negotiations now. You did not. Your problem.
Instead, France has followed a path of saying YES when France wants to say
NO, only to possibly say NO at the end of a lot of work. Do you have any
idea about how cruel France is being to the Turkish people? Giving them
candidate status and giving them hope that they can join the EU, if they
meet the criteria? Beginning negotiations increases that hope and requires
Turkey to implement lots of changes, to adjust lots of its laws. If Turkey
makes these changes, amends its constitution to make it EU compatible, then
it is so CRUEL to slam the door shut in their faces after 50 (!!) years of
trying to join the EU. It is sickening.
And frankly, I don't want a closer political union with a country like
France that seems to get some kind of perverted pleasure out of playing
with the Turkish people in this way.
> I know, we already discussed
> that, but you can understand that many people don't feel bound by
> promises that Chirac can make :)
France, not Chirac, made that promise.
>
>>> If people _feel_ that they were forced to
>>> build the Union with a country they never wanted in,
>>
>> People were "forced" to do that quite often. I would not be surprised if
>> you could find a majority in some "old" member state that was against
>> Poland's admission as well. A referendum would have failed there as well
>> -- knowing that, no country held a referendum on admitting Poland. Why
>> hold a referendum on Turkey? Why do Turks not deserve the same treatment
>> as other human beings? If I am not mistaken, France agreed to admit 19
>> countries (starting from the original 6) without holding a referendum and
>> will admit another 2-3 without a referendum. Holding a referendum just on
>> Turkey is not democratic, it is *racist*.
>
> You are mistaken. France already hold a referendum before the accession
> of United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland.
> Excerpts from
> http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/europe/c-rendus/c0109.asp
> " (...) Après avoir rappelé qu'à ce jour, seul l'élargissement de 1973
> au Danemark, à l'Irlande et au Royaume-Uni avait donné lieu à
> l'organisation d'un référendum en France, il a estimé que cette
> disposition contribuait à l'approfondissement démocratique de l'Union
> (...)"
Ok, fine, but that is long ago and for a different EU - it was mostly a
common market, so enlargement was no big deal - it was mostly a free trade
agreement. Holding referenda in an EU the size it is today, almost
certainly results in it being rejected somewhere.
> As for Poland, maybe a referendum in France would have had a no as
> the result, but I'm quite sure that 1 year later there would be another
> referendum and people would have voted yes recognizing their mistake.
Wow, wonderful attitude. Has it occurred to you what a rejection of Poland
for entry into the EU would have done to the Polish people?? Has it
occurred to you how they would have felt? Like I said before: it is one
thing never to begin negotiations, but it is quite another to reject a
country after 15 years of negotiations!!! If there is an absolutely great
way to get people from country to really begin *HATING* people from another
country, then let them reject that country for membership in the EU. There
is absolutely no way that such damage can be undone - even approving that
country a year later.
> I'd like to say the same about Turkey, but unfortunately, I can't. :(
>
>> Fine, and I don't care about them. Everyone one of your governments for
>> the past 30-40 years has promised Turkey it would be allowed to join when
>> the time is right - when the criteria are met. If the French government
>> ignores the will of the French people, then this is a French problem.
>> Blame your government, but keep your promises.
>
> Here's a copy&paste of my previous post : You can simply imagine
> arguments of the opponents: "these rules are supposed to work for the
> sake of the EU, not for themselves. Now, there's something fundamentally
> different, and the survival of the EU is in danger. Hence, it is
> justifiable to reject that country. Also, before the beginning of the
> negotiations, we told clearly we didn't want that country in, but we
> were told that we had to shut up for now, and that we could decide
> later. We will do so, then."
Sure, but is it Turkey's fault you did not think about whether or not you
want to let it in before you begin negotiations?? Blame your government for
not giving you a say earlier, but having a referendum at the end is grossly
unfair towards Turkey.
> As for me, I think that the 10 or 15 years of negotiations are the only
> remaining opportunity to avoid a big crisis.
>
>>> 3) Do a Herculean work to build a European public, let Turkey begin the
>>> negotiations, and 10 or 15 years later, do what you can to convince
>>> people that a Muslim and big country can very well become European,
>>> especially because it was a loyal ally for decades, and did truly a lot
>>> to westernize itself and to meet Copenhagen criteria. Explain them that
>>> irrational fears are not the best way to build international relations.
>>
>> That might be feasible if there was a brought consensus that Turkey
>> should be a member in each member state. But the right wing will prey on
>> the irrational fears and multiply them..... Just as the opponents preyed
>> on fear in the referendum on the constitution.
>
> For that candidacy as well as for a future constitution, I think you're
> too pessimist. As I already told, French approved by referendum UK's
> accession. Anything is possible :)
It was the UK's accession to the common market.. not quite the EU.
> , but hard work to begin to forge a
> common european public is needed.
>
>> Turkey already has a special partnership. No need to negotiate that. It
>> is quite interesting that all people who talk about a special partnership
>> (Merkel) never say what they mean. What is that supposed to be?
>
> Fair remark.
>
>>> Reading your comments, how could I think Ash's suggestion is wrong?
>>
>> Ash is right. Admitting Turkey will finish what France started: killing
>> the political union.
>
> And do you feel comfortable with that? Let's say that the political
> union is not dead, but ill. IMHO, There's still a chance. Time will
> tell...
Sure, time will tell. But it is fair to say that I for my part no longer
want it.
>
>> True. I never said that France was the only country leaving this
>> consensus, but it was the most critical And now that enough countries
>> have left it, the political union is dead for a *very* long time.
>
> If you have time to waste or if the TV show is boring, have a look at
> news:41b8c2e9$0$8119$8fcf...@news.wanadoo.fr . I posted this message on
> december 2004, and I thought almost like you. I still do, but I also
> tend to think that even if the chances of success are tiny, the Union
> still deserves to be built.
Like I said, I no longer want it.
>
>>>>> I'm just going to
>>>>> stop answering. Seriously, I often compare the Union to the Antique
>>>>> Athens and Rome, or to the Renaissance. That's something new, never
>>>>> seen before: the best international cooperation ever.
>>> Limited time on a public computer, and I wasn't able to finish my
>>> message... Offer yourself some innocent idealism: What if those miracles
>>> of the past were abandoned due to a crisis?
>
> No answer? So much for poetry? :P
I think I have answered. I no longer want a political union. Period.
Jan
Roman Werpachowski
> An example: Poland strongly supported Turkey's candidacy, not because
> they like (or dislike) Turkey, but just to be able to say later: "if
> Turkey is allowed in, how could you let Ukraine out". What did they get?
> Referenda about Ukraine's accession and further enlargement...
That is not true. Many Poles support Turkey just for the sake of Turkey,
ordinary people do not make such calculations in their decisions. Poland
has a long history of love-hate relationship with Turkey which tied us a
bit closer to Turkey than other European countries. Polish culture has
been significantly shaped by Turkish in the past, mostly through wars
and commercial links. Also, Poland as a country which was and is quite
poor has an understanding for other poor countries.
Roman Werpachowski
> Fine, and I don't care about them. Everyone one of your governments for the
> past 30-40 years has promised Turkey it would be allowed to join when the
> time is right - when the criteria are met. If the French government ignores
> the will of the French people, then this is a French problem. Blame your
> government, but keep your promises.
I think that this should be particularly strongly pushed through: international
cooperation depends on making promises come true. France made decades ago a
promise it will eventually accept Turkey in the EU. But France also made a
promise, decades ago, that it will fight to defend any member of NATO who is
attacked. If France does not want to live up to its first promise, how can its
NATO allies feel comfortable it would live up to the second?
>
> Ash is right. Admitting Turkey will finish what France started: killing the
> political union.
Right now, I think it is a good thing. We are not ready yet. We are not even
sure if we need it.
> They allow people to have housing, food, clothing, health care. No, they
> don't have 4 weeks of vacation on the Cote d'Azur. I think it is enough,
> especially, because in the UK they can find a new job relatively easily.
In Poland, unemployment benefits alone are not sufficient for that. This
should give Stegozor a frame of reference ;-)
gregor herrmann
>>> True, but none have decided to hold referenda. That is a big difference.
>> As told Gregor Hermann, Austria will also hold a referendum,
> Not quite. The current government has said that there will be a referendum
> -- but will Austria's government in 15 years be bound by such promises?
> It's not a law...
Right, and even if it was a law it could be changed/abolished again
and easily.
Those "promises" are worth nothing, they are just cheap populism with
regard to the next national elections.
gregor
--
.''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ | gpg key ID: 0x00F3CFE4
: :' : infos zur usenet-hierarchie at.*: http://www.usenet.at/
`. `' member of https://www.vibe.at/ | how to reply: http://got.to/quote/
`- NP: Alanis Morissette - Princes Familiar
Stegozor
Roman Werpachowski wrote:
> That is not true. Many Poles support Turkey just for the sake of Turkey,
According to Liberation newspaper, that is true. Here's an excerpt,
with machine translation from Google :(...) Will then remain to rule on
Ukraine and Bielorussia, also potential candidates: "We defended the
accession of Turkey so that one cannot refuse these two countries" ,
recognized a Polish diplomat, in margin of the meeting of Luxembourg
(...)
http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=328738
I also read similar articles more than once.
> ordinary people do not make such calculations in their decisions. Poland
> has a long history of love-hate relationship with Turkey which tied us a
> bit closer to Turkey than other European countries. Polish culture has
> been significantly shaped by Turkish in the past, mostly through wars
> and commercial links. Also, Poland as a country which was and is quite
> poor has an understanding for other poor countries.
For sure, this side of the issue is interesting, and honours Poland.
Stegozor
> > Honestly,
> > would you feel so committed with such a promise if you were not
> > supporting the idea?
>
> Yes, if you have an agreement you have to stick to it, even if you don't
> like it. Fine, it is not an agreement, but a promise. Similarly, I don't
But the fact that future Austrian governments may not keep the promise
of holding a referendum doesn't seem to bother you that much. :)
> find it acceptable to have higher hurdles for Turkey than for other
> countries -- yes, a referendum is a higher hurdle. Treating one country
> different than other countries, is, well: racist.
It's hard to compare the EU to something else, many consider it as
something sui generis. Too much diffrences in the culture, way of life,
and so on can justify a different approach. Still the sovereignty
thingy, but I agree with you that there's something disturbing with
that higher hurdle.
> (If we were having a fundamental discussion about the EU's "natural"
> boundaries and were to put that into a constitution or treaty and then put
> that to a referendum, things would be different. But that it is not being
> done. France introduced a referendum just for one country, namely to keep
> it out.)
In fact, France introduced a referendum to allow the approval of the
costitutional treaty. Please note that formally the referendum is not
introduced just for one country, and France will not be the only one to
hold a referendum. Just a precision.
> > For many people in France, really important
> > promises have to be confirmed by... referendum, because it is often
> > considered as the most democratic way.
>
> Fine, then you should have held a referendum about giving Turkey candidate
> status in 1999 or beginning negotiations now. You did not. Your problem.
That is one of the weak points of representative democracy: sometimes,
the parliament has to take into account the will of the ordinary
people, but does it too late. As I told before, Chirac refused a vote
of the parliament on that issue. France's problem? Yes. But as you know
how slanted the work of politicians can be, you can understand that
really important issues can't be definitely bound by the promise of a
president. That's true for all countries.
> Instead, France has followed a path of saying YES when France wants to say
> NO, only to possibly say NO at the end of a lot of work. Do you have any
> idea about how cruel France is being to the Turkish people? Giving them
You can call it hypocrisy or uncertainty...
> candidate status and giving them hope that they can join the EU, if they
> meet the criteria? Beginning negotiations increases that hope and requires
Things are clear: there will be referenda in some countries, and that
was told before the beginning of the negotiations.
> Turkey to implement lots of changes, to adjust lots of its laws. If Turkey
> makes these changes, amends its constitution to make it EU compatible, then
You seem to forget that all these changes are first for the benefit of
Turkey. There will also be financial support, so even if the accession
is rejected, the negotiations period can only be beneficial to the
candidate.
> it is so CRUEL to slam the door shut in their faces after 50 (!!) years of
> trying to join the EU. It is sickening.
>
> And frankly, I don't want a closer political union with a country like
> France that seems to get some kind of perverted pleasure out of playing
> with the Turkish people in this way.
Perverted pleasure? Are you quite sure that these words are justified?
As I already told, many people here consider that the referendum is the
best way to approve a treaty, especially when it comes to sovereignty
issues. It was done so before, and the result is not invariably no. A
simplistic legalist approach may lead to an automatic approval because
Chirac told something some years ago, but things are unfortunately more
complicated.
> > You are mistaken. France already hold a referendum before the accession
> > of United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland.
>
> > Excerpts from
> > http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/europe/c-rendus/c0109.asp
> > " (...) Après avoir rappelé qu'à ce jour, seul l'élargissement de 1973
> > au Danemark, à l'Irlande et au Royaume-Uni avait donné lieu à
> > l'organisation d'un référendum en France, il a estimé que cette
> > disposition contribuait à l'approfondissement démocratique de l'Union
> > (...)"
>
> Ok, fine, but that is long ago and for a different EU - it was mostly a
> common market, so enlargement was no big deal - it was mostly a free trade
> agreement. Holding referenda in an EU the size it is today, almost
> certainly results in it being rejected somewhere.
Please note that as long as you will refuse to tighten the political
union, things will remain the same and you will have to support
consequences of French referenda. Only a stronger union can deliver you
from that pain ;)
> Wow, wonderful attitude. Has it occurred to you what a rejection of Poland
> for entry into the EU would have done to the Polish people?? Has it
> occurred to you how they would have felt? Like I said before: it is one
> thing never to begin negotiations, but it is quite another to reject a
> country after 15 years of negotiations!!! If there is an absolutely great
> way to get people from country to really begin *HATING* people from another
First, please note my "maybe". It was a simple hypothesis, nothing
more. Second, there wasn't any referendum for Poland, simply because
noone ever told there would be one before the negotiations began.
> country, then let them reject that country for membership in the EU. There
> is absolutely no way that such damage can be undone - even approving that
> country a year later.
You're right.
> Sure, but is it Turkey's fault you did not think about whether or not you
> want to let it in before you begin negotiations?? Blame your government for
> not giving you a say earlier, but having a referendum at the end is grossly
> unfair towards Turkey.
I agree, but that situation gives an opportunity: if French were to
decide today, they would say no, no doubt about that. 10 years later,
they could change their mind. And going back to the beginning of our
discussion, I don't see anything from European institutions to help
things to get better in the future.
Stegozor
> I think that this should be particularly strongly pushed through: international
> cooperation depends on making promises come true. France made decades ago a
> promise it will eventually accept Turkey in the EU. But France also made a
> promise, decades ago, that it will fight to defend any member of NATO who is
> attacked. If France does not want to live up to its first promise, how can its
> NATO allies feel comfortable it would live up to the second?
There's a difference between a clear commitment towards NATO, and a
"promise" without any signature made by some presidents about the EU,
which implies shared sovereignty. As for the negotiations, once again,
things were clear before they began (referendum, open-end etc.)
Anyway, France's behaviour in the EU and previously in the CEE shows
whether it deserves trust or not; or in which cases it deserves trust.
Anyone can make his own mind about that.
PS: I tried to answer further this promise issue in my previous reply
to Jan.
> > They allow people to have housing, food, clothing, health care. No, they
> > don't have 4 weeks of vacation on the Cote d'Azur. I think it is enough,
> > especially, because in the UK they can find a new job relatively easily.
>
> In Poland, unemployment benefits alone are not sufficient for that. This
> should give Stegozor a frame of reference ;-)
AFAIK, in the UK, the uneployment benefits are about 80 Euro per week,
regardless of your previous salary. How one could ensure food and
clothing with that? Add to that some Britons have to wait for years for
a surgery or a scanner, and some of them are sent abroad for health
care... But I must recognize I lack knowledge about the social system
of the UK, so any precision is more than welcome.
Roman Werpachowski
>
> Roman Werpachowski wrote:
>
>> That is not true. Many Poles support Turkey just for the sake of Turkey,
>
> According to Liberation newspaper, that is true. Here's an excerpt,
> with machine translation from Google :(...) Will then remain to rule on
> Ukraine and Bielorussia, also potential candidates: "We defended the
> accession of Turkey so that one cannot refuse these two countries" ,
> recognized a Polish diplomat, in margin of the meeting of Luxembourg
> (...)
> http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=328738
> I also read similar articles more than once.
You're talking about Polish diplomats, I'm talking about ordinary people. Also,
articles in Western press speak more about how Poles are perceived abroad, less
about who the Poles really are.
J.M.
> On the Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:27:54 +0200, J.M. wrote:
>> Fine, and I don't care about them. Everyone one of your governments for
>> the past 30-40 years has promised Turkey it would be allowed to join when
>> the time is right - when the criteria are met. If the French government
>> ignores the will of the French people, then this is a French problem.
>> Blame your government, but keep your promises.
>
> I think that this should be particularly strongly pushed through:
> international cooperation depends on making promises come true. France
> made decades ago a promise it will eventually accept Turkey in the EU. But
> France also made a promise, decades ago, that it will fight to defend any
> member of NATO who is
> attacked. If France does not want to live up to its first promise, how
> can its NATO allies feel comfortable it would live up to the second?
I agree. From the discussion here, it would seem that some people think that
it would be the ultimate triumph of democracy if a country could only go to
war after a referendum. Talk about unreliable allies ;-)))) *just kidding*
>
>>
>> Ash is right. Admitting Turkey will finish what France started: killing
>> the political union.
>
> Right now, I think it is a good thing. We are not ready yet. We are not
> even sure if we need it.
I would have liked to have seen some sort of political union, you know that.
But let's be honest: in an EU of 6 or 9, a political union giving the
nations a strong role would have worked and would have been acceptable to
most of those member states. In an EU of 25, a politcal union will de facto
only work if we give the EU all say over foreign and defense policy - you
can't consult all 25 states on these matters, if you want a common policy.
But which state is ready to give up its say in these matters in the next 50
years?
J.M.
>
> AFAIK, in the UK, the uneployment benefits are about 80 Euro per week,
> regardless of your previous salary. How one could ensure food and
> clothing with that? Add to that some Britons have to wait for years for
> a surgery or a scanner, and some of them are sent abroad for health
> care...
That is true - but that is mainly the result of government run health care.
Health care in the UK is *pure* socialism. You pay nothing, but get
everything you need, ideally. Of course, it does not work. Socialism
*never* works.
Jan
J.M.
> J.M. wrote:
>
>> > Honestly,
>> > would you feel so committed with such a promise if you were not
>> > supporting the idea?
>>
>> Yes, if you have an agreement you have to stick to it, even if you don't
>> like it. Fine, it is not an agreement, but a promise. Similarly, I don't
>
> But the fact that future Austrian governments may not keep the promise
> of holding a referendum doesn't seem to bother you that much. :)
No, it does not bother me at all, because it is clear that it is Chancellor
Schüssel promising his voters that *he* will hold a referendum. There is a
fundamental difference between what a government promises its voters and
what a government promises other countries. A government is bound by
promises to its voters only as long as it is in office. The new government
is not bound by promises of the old government, because the people voted
for a new government and for the promises it made in the election campaign.
Suppose Chirac promises that there will be not cuts in welfare spending the
next 10 years. Is the future president bound by that promise? Clearly not,
as it is clear that this promise was made by Chirac for as long as he is
president. On the other hand, if Chirac promises Germany something, then it
is not Chirac making that promise, but France. And indeed, France and not
Chirac is tied to that promise. The same is true for Austria.
BTW, it is precisely because of this difference that the French Constitution
has been amended: to bind all future presidents to Chirac's promise to hold
a referendum. And it is precisely why the Austrian constitution has not
been amended: no one wants to bind future governments. The situations are
not at all comparable.
>
>> find it acceptable to have higher hurdles for Turkey than for other
>> countries -- yes, a referendum is a higher hurdle. Treating one country
>> different than other countries, is, well: racist.
>
> It's hard to compare the EU to something else, many consider it as
> something sui generis. Too much diffrences in the culture, way of life,
> and so on can justify a different approach. Still the sovereignty
> thingy, but I agree with you that there's something disturbing with
> that higher hurdle.
It all boils down to a simple question: do we treat all allied countries and
friends equally or not? If not, you had better give a good justification.
France has not.
>
>> (If we were having a fundamental discussion about the EU's "natural"
>> boundaries and were to put that into a constitution or treaty and then
>> put that to a referendum, things would be different. But that it is not
>> being done. France introduced a referendum just for one country, namely
>> to keep it out.)
>
> In fact, France introduced a referendum to allow the approval of the
> costitutional treaty. Please note that formally the referendum is not
> introduced just for one country, and France will not be the only one to
> hold a referendum. Just a precision.
I don't care about formalisms. Formally, France declared war on Prussia in
1870, but we both know who wanted the war ;-) And we both know why France
will be holding referenda in the future.
>
>> > For many people in France, really important
>> > promises have to be confirmed by... referendum, because it is often
>> > considered as the most democratic way.
>>
>> Fine, then you should have held a referendum about giving Turkey
>> candidate status in 1999 or beginning negotiations now. You did not. Your
>> problem.
>
> That is one of the weak points of representative democracy: sometimes,
> the parliament has to take into account the will of the ordinary
> people, but does it too late.
If your system sucks, don't make others suffer for it.
> As I told before, Chirac refused a vote
> of the parliament on that issue. France's problem? Yes. But as you know
> how slanted the work of politicians can be, you can understand that
> really important issues can't be definitely bound by the promise of a
> president.
France made that promise, not the president. And in France wants to change
its promise, then we should talk about it. Breaking promises is very
different...
> That's true for all countries.
>
>> Instead, France has followed a path of saying YES when France wants to
>> say NO, only to possibly say NO at the end of a lot of work. Do you have
>> any idea about how cruel France is being to the Turkish people? Giving
>> them
>
> You can call it hypocrisy or uncertainty...
It's much worse than that.
>
>> candidate status and giving them hope that they can join the EU, if they
>> meet the criteria? Beginning negotiations increases that hope and
>> requires
>
> Things are clear: there will be referenda in some countries, and that
> was told before the beginning of the negotiations.
>
>> Turkey to implement lots of changes, to adjust lots of its laws. If
>> Turkey makes these changes, amends its constitution to make it EU
>> compatible, then
>
> You seem to forget that all these changes are first for the benefit of
> Turkey.
You say that from your outside perspective, how arrogant! Many Turks do not
see that this is for their benefits. Many Turks probably feel that many of
these changes are not for their benefit!
> There will also be financial support, so even if the accession
> is rejected, the negotiations period can only be beneficial to the
> candidate.
LOL. The sad part is, you're not even trying to be cynical.
>
>> it is so CRUEL to slam the door shut in their faces after 50 (!!) years
>> of trying to join the EU. It is sickening.
>>
>> And frankly, I don't want a closer political union with a country like
>> France that seems to get some kind of perverted pleasure out of playing
>> with the Turkish people in this way.
>
> Perverted pleasure? Are you quite sure that these words are justified?
> As I already told, many people here consider that the referendum is the
> best way to approve a treaty, especially when it comes to sovereignty
> issues.
Admitting Turkey is *not* a sovereignty issue. France's sovereignty is in no
way affected by it.
> It was done so before, and the result is not invariably no. A
> simplistic legalist approach may lead to an automatic approval because
> Chirac told something some years ago, but things are unfortunately more
> complicated.
Not just Chirac made promises to Turkey....
>
>> > You are mistaken. France already hold a referendum before the accession
>> > of United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland.
>>
>> > Excerpts from
>> > http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/europe/c-rendus/c0109.asp
>> > " (...) Après avoir rappelé qu'à ce jour, seul l'élargissement de 1973
>> > au Danemark, à l'Irlande et au Royaume-Uni avait donné lieu à
>> > l'organisation d'un référendum en France, il a estimé que cette
>> > disposition contribuait à l'approfondissement démocratique de l'Union
>> > (...)"
>>
>> Ok, fine, but that is long ago and for a different EU - it was mostly a
>> common market, so enlargement was no big deal - it was mostly a free
>> trade agreement. Holding referenda in an EU the size it is today, almost
>> certainly results in it being rejected somewhere.
>
> Please note that as long as you will refuse to tighten the political
> union, things will remain the same and you will have to support
> consequences of French referenda. Only a stronger union can deliver you
> from that pain ;)
Oh, the pain is quite bearable. Like I said, France is free to hold all the
referenda it wants to hold. Feel free to kill the EU ;-). I mean, the
current treaty is dead. In a few years, we will probably try again, maybe
France will approve, but then some other country will kill it. In an EU of
25, that will invariably happen. So the question is, indeed, do we want
Turkey in a common market or not. Maybe in 15 years, when we it has become
clear to everyone that we have a common market and nothing more, Turkish
membership will be a non-issue.
>
>> Wow, wonderful attitude. Has it occurred to you what a rejection of
>> Poland for entry into the EU would have done to the Polish people?? Has
>> it occurred to you how they would have felt? Like I said before: it is
>> one thing never to begin negotiations, but it is quite another to reject
>> a country after 15 years of negotiations!!! If there is an absolutely
>> great way to get people from country to really begin *HATING* people from
>> another
>
> First, please note my "maybe". It was a simple hypothesis, nothing
> more. Second, there wasn't any referendum for Poland, simply because
> noone ever told there would be one before the negotiations began.
>
>> country, then let them reject that country for membership in the EU.
>> There is absolutely no way that such damage can be undone - even
>> approving that country a year later.
>
> You're right.
>
>> Sure, but is it Turkey's fault you did not think about whether or not you
>> want to let it in before you begin negotiations?? Blame your government
>> for not giving you a say earlier, but having a referendum at the end is
>> grossly unfair towards Turkey.
>
> I agree, but that situation gives an opportunity: if French were to
> decide today, they would say no, no doubt about that. 10 years later,
> they could change their mind. And going back to the beginning of our
> discussion, I don't see anything from European institutions to help
> things to get better in the future.
No, of course not. Whatever happens in the EU, we always know who to blame,
don't we ;-) ?
Jan
Roman Werpachowski
> I would have liked to have seen some sort of political union, you know that.
"Some sort" we have by now. I read once that more than half of new laws passed
in some EU countries originate in Brussels.
> But let's be honest: in an EU of 6 or 9, a political union giving the
> nations a strong role would have worked and would have been acceptable to
> most of those member states. In an EU of 25, a politcal union will de facto
> only work if we give the EU all say over foreign and defense policy - you
> can't consult all 25 states on these matters, if you want a common policy.
> But which state is ready to give up its say in these matters in the next 50
> years?
Yet I think we should try to cooperate more closely in foreing policy. It does
not have to mean that we need to have an EU minister of foreign affairs, just
to have some stable body in which certain issues can be brought up.
Roman Werpachowski
>> You seem to forget that all these changes are first for the benefit of
>> Turkey.
>
> You say that from your outside perspective, how arrogant! Many Turks do not
> see that this is for their benefits. Many Turks probably feel that many of
> these changes are not for their benefit!
Some changes required by the EU were not seen as beneficial by Poles, too.
Like, for example, the need to introduce tighter visa requirements for citizens
of Byelarussia and Ukraine. There was quite a resentment in Poland because of
that. But the EU required it and it had to be done. Stegozor, you ought to know
that adapting to the EU standards is a huge effort, sometimes painful. It is
done *only* because there is a goal at the end -- a full EU membership.
Otherwise, requiring a nation to bear this burden but make it impossible for it
to achieve this goal is simply *cheating* this nation. If Poland had been
treated by France the way Turkey is, we'd come close to declaring war on France
;-)
> Oh, the pain is quite bearable. Like I said, France is free to hold all the
> referenda it wants to hold. Feel free to kill the EU ;-). I mean, the
> current treaty is dead. In a few years, we will probably try again, maybe
> France will approve, but then some other country will kill it. In an EU of
> 25, that will invariably happen. So the question is, indeed, do we want
> Turkey in a common market or not. Maybe in 15 years, when we it has become
> clear to everyone that we have a common market and nothing more, Turkish
> membership will be a non-issue.
I think we already have something more than just a common market and that it
will stay that way.
Nicolas Krebs
> Health care in the UK is *pure* socialism. You pay nothing, but get
> everything you need, ideally. Of course, it does not work. Socialism
> *never* works.
lol
Elie Arié
"Nicolas Krebs" <nicolas...@netcourrier.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: djf9uo$hpo$1...@domitilla.aioe.org...
don't pay anything and you don't get anything: liberalism *always* works.
J.M.
We already cooperate closely, whether in a formal body (like the foreign
ministers meeting) or clandestinely like the letter of 8 ;-))). At least
western European countries have done that for 50 years through NATO and the
EU. But let's not fool ourselves: our common foreign policy works when we
all want the same thing and agree on the way to achieve it. But when this
sort of consensus exists, Germany's common foreign policy with Sri Lanka
works fine too. The difference lies in the fact that due to historical
roots, geographical proximity, and values, the EU members agree on goals
and methods more often than say Germany and Sri Lanka. But whenever we
disagree, each state can and will pursue its own foreign policy. And you
are right, of course, an EU foreign minister would not have fundamentally
changed any of that - with the possible exception that third parties might
have contacted him before contacting the various member states. And of
course, it would have been a step towards a true common foreign policy in
the future, where the EU decides on this policy without having to consult
member states. But now, not even a small step in that direction will be
taken and there is no and there will be no common foreign policy.
Jan
>
J.M.
Has it ever occurred to you that the world is not black and white, but that
there are shades of grey in between? Where did anyone here say that he
wanted 1) a USA-type health care system 2) pure liberalism? So don't
suggest that someone did.
*plonk*
Jan
J.M.
Yes, unfortunately. You don't need democracy to have a functional common
market for free trade, so the EU was fine until the early 1980s (except for
the common agricultural policy, which has nothing to do with a free
market). As the EU added more political elements (Schengen, Euro, all sorts
of legistlation, a common arrest warrant, growing expenditures), this was
done without correcting the EU's democratic deficit, i.e. giving parliament
significant powers. I could live with that because it was fairly clear that
the powers of parliament would grow as time passes because of a major EU
reform. That reform was the proposed constitutional treaty, which did very
little to give the EU more competences, but did a lot to increase the
powers of parliament and would have gone a long way towards correcting its
democratic deficit. Without this reform, I have my doubts that the people
will tolerate in the long term this democratic deficit. As it is clear that
reforming the EU is not possible, the only solution is to curb the powers
of the EU and to return powers to the member states. And I think the
pressure in that direction will be *much* greater than to attempt to write
another "constitution".
Jan
>
>
Roman Werpachowski
It's not true that if you're not insured, you haven't got any access to any
medical care. Besides, some people are not insured not because they can't
afford insurance, but because they choose not to be, preferring to spend the
money on other things (drugs, for example).
Roman Werpachowski
> We already cooperate closely, whether in a formal body (like the foreign
> ministers meeting) or clandestinely like the letter of 8 ;-))). At least
> western European countries have done that for 50 years through NATO and the
> EU. But let's not fool ourselves: our common foreign policy works when we
> all want the same thing and agree on the way to achieve it. But when this
> sort of consensus exists, Germany's common foreign policy with Sri Lanka
> works fine too. The difference lies in the fact that due to historical
> roots, geographical proximity, and values, the EU members agree on goals
> and methods more often than say Germany and Sri Lanka. But whenever we
> disagree, each state can and will pursue its own foreign policy. And you
> are right, of course, an EU foreign minister would not have fundamentally
> changed any of that - with the possible exception that third parties might
> have contacted him before contacting the various member states. And of
> course, it would have been a step towards a true common foreign policy in
> the future, where the EU decides on this policy without having to consult
> member states. But now, not even a small step in that direction will be
> taken and there is no and there will be no common foreign policy.
I could imagine that there could be a common foreign policy in specific
matters. For example, the EU nominates a man responsible for the policy towards
Byelaruss, and agrees to follow the line.
J.M.
Even that is hard to imagine, because policy towards Byelaruss is not
isolated from foreign policy towards Russia, and that will remain with the
members...
Jan
>
Roman Werpachowski
>> I could imagine that there could be a common foreign policy in specific
>> matters. For example, the EU nominates a man responsible for the policy
>> towards Byelaruss, and agrees to follow the line.
>
> Even that is hard to imagine, because policy towards Byelaruss is not
> isolated from foreign policy towards Russia, and that will remain with the
> members...
Well, yes. It seems we're far from being united when it comes to foreign
policy. This of course weakens Europe as a whole on the global scene, but I
have a question: do we really aspire to be a world power? Should we?
--
"Kiedy widzę kto nam proponuje IV Rzeczpospolitą, to poproszę o piątą"
Nicolas Krebs
> Elie Arié schrieb:
[...]
> *plonk*
lol (bis)
J.M.
> On the Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:56:03 +0200, J.M. wrote:
>
>>> I could imagine that there could be a common foreign policy in specific
>>> matters. For example, the EU nominates a man responsible for the policy
>>> towards Byelaruss, and agrees to follow the line.
>>
>> Even that is hard to imagine, because policy towards Byelaruss is not
>> isolated from foreign policy towards Russia, and that will remain with
>> the members...
>
> Well, yes. It seems we're far from being united when it comes to foreign
> policy. This of course weakens Europe as a whole on the global scene, but
> I have a question: do we really aspire to be a world power? Should we?
>
Well, I would look at it a little differently: on a world scene, the bigger
powers bully the smaller powers. Being bullied by the Soviet Union sucks.
Being bullied by the US, is not nice either, but quite a bit better than
being bullied by the Soviet Union. I would prefer being bullied by the US
over being bullied by China too. In that sense, I think the world would
benefit from a fairly powerful EU. On the other hand, as you say, we have a
lot of common interests, and we can protect these interest better, if we
work at that together...
Jan
Roger Gustafsson
> The *written* US constitution is short. But because it is so short, much
> more has been decided by the Supreme Court, things continental Europeans
> put in their (national) constitutions. Reading the US constitution gives
> you only a *very* poor idea about how American government actually works.
> For example, the fact that the Supreme Court can declare a law
> unconstitutional is not even mentioned in the constitution itself. Although
> I agree that the EU constitutional treaty lacked clarity, the US
> constitution should not be our model. Our national constitutions, which are
> usually longer than the US constitution, would serve us better.
I belive all EU treaties have the same issues, because a lot of
countries need to get the favourite parts of there system inside the
treaty. In the US, it was a few men who did the drafting, and there was
hardly any debate. The drafting process was hardly democratic - but the
product is magnificent.
I think it is almost impossible to write a treaty, which has to be a
compromise, that is as simple and elegant as the US constitution. We
have to much history, in to many countries that are working quite well
but in totally different traditions.
That is perhaps a reason to keep the muliti-treaty structure in the EU
until the union is a bit more mature, until we have one common history
together AND real European leaders. Today every leading figure is far
more national than European. If the founding fathers of the US would
have been more interested in Virginia than in the US, they would perhaps
have had the same problem. And finally, if the American history would
not have been so short in the time of drafting - they would have had so
many more history to take into consideration.
Atually, writing a constitution for Iraq seems quite easy compared to
writing one for Europe... and actually quite similar to the job the
Founding fathers of the US had to do. Perhaps the post-conflict
situation is the best one if you want to write a decent constitution?
//Roger
--
Roger Gustafsson
g...@acc.umu.se
Roger Gustafsson
> J.M. wrote:
>> Stegozor schrieb:
>>>Indeed. AFAIK they also have two languages in Norway, but I don't know
>>>much about that.
>>
>>
>> They do, but as far as I know, they are sufficiently similar that this does
>> not present a true obstacle to communication.
> Sami belongs to the Finno-Ugric language group, it is more different
> from Norsk than, say, French. Turkish, another minority language, is not
> recognized by the state as such.
Are you sure that Sami is finno-ugric? The different kind of sami spoken
here in sweden does not look or sound at all like finnish.
Roger Gustafsson
> J.M. wrote:
>> > And here we go back to the fundamental question: is Turkey european and
>> > would its accession kill the Union?
>>
>> The answer to that question depends on the state of the union and I franky
>> do not know the state of the union in 10-15 years. I do think that we need
>> to get the EU in such a shape that Turkey can be admitted once it fullfills
>> all requirements.
> Do you think that the Union would be strong and tight enough with
> Turkey's accession? I guess nobody has the answer, and for the Union,
> it's a quite dangerous game. If is succeeds, very well, but if it
> fails...
Is the union "strong and thight" today? Why should the union be tight
just to be strong?
The strength could come from a union with differences, as long as there
are a few basic principles that everyone share. Freedom of religion
should be one of those basic principles.
> The problem is that from now on (except for Romania, Bulgaria and
> Croatia) and for any further enlargement, there will be a referendum in
> France. AFAIK, French constitution was modified to allow that, and now
> it is written in law. Once again, the referendum targets only Turkey,
> but to avoid to tell that, all next countries will have to be approved
> via referendum. Greetings from Chirac...
Actually, I do not see a big problem having a EU without
backward-looking countries like France and Germany. :)
> AFAIK, France gives more money to Europe than what it receives. Of
> course that doesn't mean spending so much for agriculture is wise while
> all this money could be far better spent for R&D for example.
If France had a more effective structure of the agriculture sector,
France would have to net-pay much more. There is no reason why France
should pay less per Capita than Sweden or Germany.
And the ever so popular debt-relief for African countries will have no
effect whatsoever unless we let them compete with our agricultural
sectors.
If French products were so good as many French people seems to belive,
how come the same people are so afraid of competition? As long as you
are best, free competition are just in favour of you...
Roman Werpachowski
> If French products were so good as many French people seems to belive,
> how come the same people are so afraid of competition? As long as you
> are best, free competition are just in favour of you...
<shameless marketing plug>Because French food is not that good. Polish food is
much better.</shameless marketing plug> ;-))
J.M.
> J.M. <jm_jm_re...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> The *written* US constitution is short. But because it is so short, much
>> more has been decided by the Supreme Court, things continental Europeans
>> put in their (national) constitutions. Reading the US constitution gives
>> you only a *very* poor idea about how American government actually works.
>> For example, the fact that the Supreme Court can declare a law
>> unconstitutional is not even mentioned in the constitution itself.
>> Although I agree that the EU constitutional treaty lacked clarity, the US
>> constitution should not be our model. Our national constitutions, which
>> are usually longer than the US constitution, would serve us better.
>
> I belive all EU treaties have the same issues, because a lot of
> countries need to get the favourite parts of there system inside the
> treaty. In the US, it was a few men who did the drafting, and there was
> hardly any debate. The drafting process was hardly democratic - but the
> product is magnificent.
Well, it's magnificence is debatable. There were a number of lousy
compromises that are rather reminiscent of our compromises in the EU. For
example, counting slaves as 3/5 of a person ;-) And a large number of
issues were simply not answered in the US constitution, which meant that
the courts had to interpret it very liberally. Some of these questions (may
a state leave the union) required a civil war to be answered..... Sorry,
not so magnificent ;-)
>
> I think it is almost impossible to write a treaty, which has to be a
> compromise, that is as simple and elegant as the US constitution.
No, because we are in much more complicated times. Government does much
more, there are many more issues that a constitution needs to address. All
modern constitutions are longer and more complicated than the American
constitution...
> We
> have to much history, in to many countries that are working quite well
> but in totally different traditions.
>
> That is perhaps a reason to keep the muliti-treaty structure in the EU
> until the union is a bit more mature, until we have one common history
> together AND real European leaders. Today every leading figure is far
> more national than European. If the founding fathers of the US would
> have been more interested in Virginia than in the US, they would perhaps
> have had the same problem. And finally, if the American history would
> not have been so short in the time of drafting - they would have had so
> many more history to take into consideration.
Not just that - but the issues were simpler: what does the federal
government do, what is its structure. Answering these questions today are
much more complicated, as government as a whole does more today than 200
years ago.
>
> Atually, writing a constitution for Iraq seems quite easy compared to
> writing one for Europe... and actually quite similar to the job the
> Founding fathers of the US had to do. Perhaps the post-conflict
> situation is the best one if you want to write a decent constitution?
It certainly helps ;-)
Jan
>
> //Roger
>
Christian Feldhaus
> If French products were so good as many French people seems to belive,
> how come the same people are so afraid of competition? As long as you
> are best, free competition are just in favour of you...
Part of it may be pure protectionism. On the other hand, if things work
that way where you live, great. In some other parts of the world it is
not necessarily the best product that "wins" the market ...
Christian
Roman Werpachowski
State should not point out and say "this is the better product".
J.M.
> On the Mon, 24 Oct 2005 22:55:00 +0200, Christian Feldhaus wrote:
>> Roger Gustafsson <g...@acc.umu.se> wrote:
>>
>>> If French products were so good as many French people seems to belive,
>>> how come the same people are so afraid of competition? As long as you
>>> are best, free competition are just in favour of you...
>>
>> Part of it may be pure protectionism. On the other hand, if things work
>> that way where you live, great. In some other parts of the world it is
>> not necessarily the best product that "wins" the market ...
>
> State should not point out and say "this is the better product".
That really depends. I am not fond a US-style let "the best product" win
scenario when it comes to setting product norms, whenever some degree of
compatibility is desired, see cell phones. I think we have a better cell
phone system in Europe than in the US precisely because we did not let the
market decide. The same is true for some cultural issues. For some people,
food is a cultural issue ;-)
Jan
>
Stegozor
>>But the fact that future Austrian governments may not keep the promise
>>of holding a referendum doesn't seem to bother you that much. :)
>
>
> No, it does not bother me at all, because it is clear that it is Chancellor
> Schüssel promising his voters that *he* will hold a referendum.
Are you quite sure he really told that? "You want a referendum in 10 or
15 years? If so, you'll have to keep me"? Nice deal, indeed.
Nevertheless I have doubts about how he managed this referendum issue.
I hope Gregor Hermann will give us more details :)
I agree with the other part of your reply, but keep in mind that
international relations are full of cancelled promises. I don't like
this, but a country can consider that it made a mistake, and reconsider
its position exceptionally. That happens to everyone, and in our case,
there's no signed treaty.
> It all boils down to a simple question: do we treat all allied countries and
> friends equally or not? If not, you had better give a good justification.
> France has not.
It has not, obviously, and that's regrettable. Many French, as I tried
to explain, think that's an exception, that there is something truly
different about that issue.
>>>Instead, France has followed a path of saying YES when France wants to
>>>say NO, only to possibly say NO at the end of a lot of work. Do you have
>>>any idea about how cruel France is being to the Turkish people? Giving
>>>them
>>
>>You can call it hypocrisy or uncertainty...
>
> It's much worse than that.
You mean racism? I don't think French truly feel superior to Turks, and
I hope they don't. Many of them fear a big&poor country, more fear
differences of culture, but the main issue is whether the Union wants to
deepen the cooperation or not. As a matter of fact, accession of Turkey
will probably prevent it. That's also why most eurskeptical Tories (or
the president of the Czech republic) are strongest supporters of Turkey.
And I still didn't find a satisfactory answer to the question: "how
would it be possible to tighten the cooperation in the Union with Turkey
as a member?" Give that answer, and you won't have to fear French
referendum.
Robert Badinter, a lawyer and former socialist minister who is
considered as the father of the ban of the death penalty in France
opposes Turkey's candidacy for that reason. He can hardly be called a
racist. Well, I guess you'll answer that as the constitutional treaty
was rejected, the political union is dead anyhow. I recognize I greatly
under-estimated the consequences of the "no", but I still think that in
a few years, other opportunities will appear.
>>You seem to forget that all these changes are first for the benefit of
>>Turkey.
>
> You say that from your outside perspective, how arrogant! Many Turks do not
IMHO not really. I regularly read Turkish press. Some said that they
should adapt to European conditions for their own sake, and that way,
accession would become easier. When Kemal Atatürk decided to westernize
the country, he didn't so to please Europe, but for Turkey's interests.
And he didn't wait for Europe's pressure to give the right to vote to
women, he did it before most of European countries.
> see that this is for their benefits. Many Turks probably feel that many of
> these changes are not for their benefit!
Probably, but they are wrong. We both know that, don't we?
>>There will also be financial support, so even if the accession
>>is rejected, the negotiations period can only be beneficial to the
>>candidate.
>
>
> LOL. The sad part is, you're not even trying to be cynical.
I know that doesn't sound nice, and that's the worst possibility. But
even in that case, the negotiations period will be beneficial both for
the Union and the candidate. That's the reality.
>>Perverted pleasure? Are you quite sure that these words are justified?
>>As I already told, many people here consider that the referendum is the
>>best way to approve a treaty, especially when it comes to sovereignty
>>issues.
>
> Admitting Turkey is *not* a sovereignty issue. France's sovereignty is in no
> way affected by it.
Of course it is. What is the Union if not shared sovereignty?
>>It was done so before, and the result is not invariably no. A
>>simplistic legalist approach may lead to an automatic approval because
>>Chirac told something some years ago, but things are unfortunately more
>>complicated.
>
>
> Not just Chirac made promises to Turkey....
Indeed, AFAIK de Gaulle did so too. Many French don't feel comfortable
with especially Chirac's promise, and they tried (strongly) to oppose
it. Simply, they refuse to bear the consequences. That's not very fair,
but not so difficult to understand, IMHO.
A side remark for fun: I hope you don't think that Italians are bound by
promises Berlusconi can make, that would be so cruel, really. :D
> Oh, the pain is quite bearable. Like I said, France is free to hold all the
> referenda it wants to hold. Feel free to kill the EU ;-). I mean, the
> current treaty is dead. In a few years, we will probably try again, maybe
> France will approve, but then some other country will kill it. In an EU of
> 25, that will invariably happen. So the question is, indeed, do we want
> Turkey in a common market or not. Maybe in 15 years, when we it has become
> clear to everyone that we have a common market and nothing more, Turkish
> membership will be a non-issue.
This is possible. The question is, do you want that? Anger and
disappointment are often bad councillors... I'll keep hoping that 15
years later, Turkey will demonstrate if can become a full member and
French will begin to understand that. The Union will avoid the first
class-second class membership idea, and some sort of political union
will emerge. That's very uncertain. But how many people would have bet
50 years ago for the Union as it is today?
> No, of course not. Whatever happens in the EU, we always know who to blame,
> don't we ;-) ?
:)
Roman Werpachowski
> It has not, obviously, and that's regrettable. Many French, as I tried
> to explain, think that's an exception, that there is something truly
> different about that issue.
All racists think this way.
> And I still didn't find a satisfactory answer to the question: "how
> would it be possible to tighten the cooperation in the Union with Turkey
> as a member?" Give that answer, and you won't have to fear French
> referendum.
I find it hard to believe that the French people really think this way. If they
really wanted to deepen the integration, they'd vote for the constitution --
thus, they'd force Turkey to accept it upon entry.
> Robert Badinter, a lawyer and former socialist minister who is
> considered as the father of the ban of the death penalty in France
> opposes Turkey's candidacy for that reason. He can hardly be called a
> racist.
Leftist people can also be racist. Being a socialist is not a diploma of good
conduct.
>> You say that from your outside perspective, how arrogant! Many Turks do not
>
> IMHO not really. I regularly read Turkish press. Some said that they
> should adapt to European conditions for their own sake, and that way,
> accession would become easier. When Kemal Atatürk decided to westernize
> the country, he didn't so to please Europe, but for Turkey's interests.
> And he didn't wait for Europe's pressure to give the right to vote to
> women, he did it before most of European countries.
But instead of recognizing it, you prefer to reject Turkey.
>
>> see that this is for their benefits. Many Turks probably feel that many of
>> these changes are not for their benefit!
>
> Probably, but they are wrong. We both know that, don't we?
They're not always wrong.
>> Admitting Turkey is *not* a sovereignty issue. France's sovereignty is in no
>> way affected by it.
>
> Of course it is. What is the Union if not shared sovereignty?
France has already given away a part of it sovereignty. It does not matter how
many countries share it now. Turkey is giving its sovereignty to France, at the
same time.
> Indeed, AFAIK de Gaulle did so too. Many French don't feel comfortable
> with especially Chirac's promise, and they tried (strongly) to oppose
> it. Simply, they refuse to bear the consequences. That's not very fair,
> but not so difficult to understand, IMHO.
> A side remark for fun: I hope you don't think that Italians are bound by
> promises Berlusconi can make, that would be so cruel, really. :D
Italian soldiers in Iraq are (or were?).
Thomas Koenig
[Poles supporting Turkey Accession: Utalitarian decision to faciliatate
Ukraine accession vs. cultural links]
> You're talking about Polish diplomats, I'm talking about ordinary people. Also,
> articles in Western press speak more about how Poles are perceived abroad, less
> about who the Poles really are.
Another reason for Poles being on average more favorable towards Turkey
accession, might simply be compassion that results from Poland's own
recent struggle to enter the EU. Slovenian public opinion is similarly
favorable to Accession, although it would be difficult to imagine
special cultural ties in the Slovenian case (the utalitarian argument
applies to Slovenia with respect to the Balkan countries, of course, too).