Dutch say no to EU constitution!

raid517

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4601439.stm

Personally I think the Dutch and the French are crazy. (The French also said no BTW). The problem for the Dutch and the French is that they have not seen any significant gains through their membership and the expansion of the EU. Or rather they have - but this has been offset hugely by funding their social style ecconomies. They are both countries with notoriously generous levels of social security, government funded health benefits and liberalised working practices (read short working hours and so on). While all of this might seem like a good idea, it is less of a good idea at times when their ecconomies in general are simply not prospering (and indeed in the case of the French it is genuinely stagnating). However rather than look to themselves and make the tough choices that are needed in order to bring their ecconomies up to speed, they (as seems natural under such conditions) attempt to find some external scapegoat to blame - which in this case really quite tragically appears to be the EU.

The problem with this is that the EU has in reality been fantasically prosperous for these countries - and it has only been their managment of their own ecconomies that has served to hold them back. Which leaves them very much in a catch 22 situation. Because anything that damages the EU is likely to damage their own ecconomies - so if their own ecconomies become damaged, they are likely to blame the EU even more and wish to move further away from intergration. The further they move away from intergration, the more harmful this will become for them and their ecconomies - and so on the cycle goes.

It seems the only hope is that at some point or other, someone takes these countries by the kneck and shakes them hard (a bit like Margret Thatcher did in the UK in the 1980's) and make them realise that the time may be long over due to make some radical changes. Because if they don't, they may well consign themselves - and the EU in it's current form to the dustbin of history.

The EU project will not end, but these countries risk becomming very minor players on the international and world scene - as countries like the UK, Germany and former Eastern Block countries like Poland, Rumania, Slovakia and so on move further towards political and social rationalisation - and a model of intergration based almost excusively on free market ecconomics.

GJ

mkk

But the british may very well say no soon too, and the swedish people would definitely have said no if the government had dared to have a referendum. (when you can't win, don't fight...) I haven't really cared to analyse the results in France and the Netherlands, but I don't think it's necessarily bad that parts of a union disagrees. We're talking about changing the constitution and that's not something to push through in a Thatcherism manner, unless like Thatcher one is prepared to put democracy in the second room. What if some countries (not having analysed I'm just stipulating one possibility) don't feel for the moment that the so called free market should rule everything and that a little more time is needed to craft the constitution, does that have to be a bad thing?

Then lastly I certainly agree that the EU project is nowhere in jeopardy, that's just the typical knee-jerk news talk. The emperor of France may have been revealed to be naked, but there is no EU crisis yet. I could see one on the horison like if, as there was much talk about after the french voting, most countries decides to push on like nothing worth happened leaving several others behind. In countries like sweden where there was no vote the sceptical majority would feel ever more detached from the powers in Brussels.

radTube

Why exactly should capitalism become even more pronounced in Europe? And how exactly would smaller EU countries like Finland benefit from giving more power to large central European businesses (because that's what this seems to be all about). I for one don't believe for a second that any attempt to push all the diverse and very different nations of the EU into one, centrally governed federation is anything but an arrogant display of profound greed and idiocy.

I'm actually very surprised that you, raid, are that eager to live in the US (so to speak). At least the American states were infinitely more compatible from the start.

If you think I'm talking out of my ass here, please enlighten me on the matter .

raid517

Lol well I retain my left leaning credentials as such. But I am also very much a pragmatist. I believe in fairness and helping others less fortunate than us and so on - but I also think it is perfectly reasonable that at times when the ecconomy of a particular country is not prospering as well as some might hope that we must do our utmost to attempt to live within our means. If this means 'tightening our belts' so to speak then so be it.

The Dutch were crazy in many ways. I mean just take a look at some of the statistics. The Dutch for example sell 46 percent of their exports to the Germans alone - with perhaps another 20 percent split up between other EU countries. How can it be said that the Dutch do not therefore benefit from the EU common market ideal? Sure their ecconomy has problems, but these problems have more to do with their refusal to accept that for such a relatively small country, their rate of investment (at least currently) in their social welfare system is simply unsustainable. There are other factors too of course, like poor management of the domestic ecconomy on behalf of the government - but all of these are factors that would need to be addressed if they stood any chance of any hope for a longer term and sustainable recovery. Just about the last thing on the list they should blame is very possibly the EU - because given the state of the Dutch and French ecconomies - it may be just about the only good thing they really have going for them right now.

The problem with the Dutch was that they saw themselves becomming less and less influential within the EU. When it was just 12 member states, they were really actually quite major players within the European project - people listened to them and often what the Dutch said within the context of the EU really had a major influence. (And still does in many ways in my view). But what the Dutch were afraid of was that the process of expansionism (to 25 states currently) was greatly erroding their influence - and that if this process were to continue, eventually they would become really quite marginalised. They, like the French, feared too that the constitution was somehow a British/Genrman inspired project - in that it focused almost excusively on the ecconomic aspects of the EU charter - as in seeking to promote the EU as a free market zone almost wholly focused on free market/global ecconomics - which sought in some senses to errode the social welfare aspect of their own national ecconomies.

However while it is true that as a traditional trading nation the British would like to have seen a much greater emphasis on purely the free market aspects of the constitution - while leaving out any centrally imposed ideals on social welfare, national and international justice, working practices, human rights and so on (if only in the sense that the British believed these to be a matter of national sovereignty, that should not be surrendered to some unelected unrepresentative faceless EU beurocrats) the British still by no means had it all their own way. With 25 member states to contend with and a huge array of competing interests, the doccument that we ended up with (as in terms of the constitution) was actually a very significant compromise between all the various (and often significantly) competing positions.

Pervesely it is true that the British were also on course to reject the constitution - but for almost exactly opposite reasons to the French and Dutch. This was because there was a certain section of the British elite who were afraid that greater European intergration would mean that the British tradition of free trade and free market ecconomics would be erroded - and that we would have to live with uncompetative and damaging social policies imposed on us by the French, the Dutch, the Swedish or whoever else you might care to name. So while the Brits feared that the consitution focused too much on the social aspects of EU intergration - the French and the Dutch and so on were afraid that it didn't focus nearly enough on these aspects of the treaty.

So in the end no one won.

I personally supported the consitution, because unlike many here it seems I do believe in the EU project. I have always considered myself European first and British second. I supported the consitution because also unlike many in both the yes and no camps, I have actually taken the time to read it and consider what it would mean for our country and for the EU as a whole. I suppored it too because in the end it very much was a compromise between all the possible positions. The Brits would have undoubtedly had to put up with quite a few things they didn't like - and the French and the Dutch would have had to put up with some stuff they didn't like aswell - but there was also a lot to it that in the end was really very good everyone.

Such is of course the nature of compromise. No one in such a large project with 25 competing nations and a whole host of competing interests can really have it all their own way. I suppored the constitution because even though there were things in it that I personally didn't like, it was probably the only possible compromise that could be reached - and more than that it was a very hard won compromise too, it was a compromise won over several years of intense negotiation - and in this sense it will not be won again easily - if indeed ever. (After all, given the message from the Dutch and French electorate - which European govenment going to be in any mood to compromise now?)

The French result is even more bemusing to me than the Dutch one. The French it seems wanted to give their govenment a 'bloody nose' because of the state of the French ecconomy - and even though the vast majority of them are hugely in favour of the EU project, the way they opted to do this was to vote against the EU constitution. Maybe my mind is too feeble to grasp such concepts - but I freely admit that I do not understand this kind of reasoning at all.

GJ

raid517

As for how small countries (and large countries) in the EU benefit from membership, you could take a look at this.

It is not a hugely detailed breakdown of trading statistics (although these are avaiable if you wish to dig a tad deeper) but it does at least give you a breakdown of the EU membership, of who the main players are - and more significantly perhaps who their main trading partners are.

The question of how does capatalism benefit small countries like Finland and so on is I think somewhat moot. Clearly free trade promotes exports, exports brings jobs, jobs bring prosperity prosperity means the quality of our lives iimprove - so in the end everyone wins.

Indeed if you do wish to sustain any kind of social welfare framework within your country, you are quite simply going to need to find a way to pay for it. Like it or not such programs cost money - and if you are not making any money there is no way you can pay for them. Anything then that holds out the prospect of better prosperity and more trade has even for the most ardent of socialists got to be a good thing.

The EU in many ways supplies exactly this kind of mechanism. Free trade, minimalist import and export tarifs, reglatory standards that are the same accoss countries and ecconomies are all things that serve to reduce costs and increase prosperity. Where exatly are the negatives aspects in this?

There is no real downside as far as I can see.

GJ

radTube

I didn't have the time to read those magnificently large posts of yours yet, but from what I did read, it seems you got me slightly wrong. Not belonging to the EU might very well be economical suicide for the smaller countries (I must admit I'm not convinced either way though), but I just can't see how this proposed constitution would make Europe a better place for anyone other than maybe large businesses. Isn't the constitution what the Dutch said no to? I can't help but wonder if this is just another, 'peaceful' way of building a world power primarily to back central European egos and wallets. Maybe the Germans wanted another try? (Yeah, I know, bad joke)

But now I gotta run again...

BTW: I do know that the only things going up in the Finnish economy since we joined the EU seem to be the prices and the (real) unemployment rates, but I might be missing something...

EDIT: fixed that last sentence to actually mean something in English

raid517

Well Like I said, even the most ardent of of socialist states can't survive without trade. Maybe you should try to read what I wrote to understand a little better why this is so. If you can suggest another way where socialist countries can live without money, without the need to be competative - and without needing to export their goods, feel free to let us know, because I am certain that there are more people than me that would be very keen to hear of it.

If you have problems on the domestic front, this is much more likely to have something to do with the management of your own local ecconomy by your government than it has anything to do with the EU. How exactly are improved trading links and reduced export costs likely to be harmful to the Finish economy (or any other ecconomy for that matter)? If you reduce costs, ease export restrictions, bring in common regulatory practices accross the various individual states, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that the only possible outcome from this is that your export costs (and therefore your production costs) will go down.

I don't think it is any way crazy to think that this probably a very helpful, and very beneficial thing.

Slogans are often nice. But you have to work through them and figure out whether or not the always actually make any sense.

GJ

radTube

Heh, are you trying to be funny or just trying to pick a fight? Well, you won't get very far in trying to get me to fight back (due to my complete lack of an ego ) and calling Finland a socialist state is just about as funny as calling Great Britain one... And who needs trade anyway ?
That's true, but wasn't the EU supposed to help instead of making things worse?
Well duh, I'm not stupid (at least according to my mum I'm not), even if I'm not very well versed in economics or politics. But I'm sure reduced reasons for large businesses not to move their production lines to 'less expensive' countries doesn't help much either...
How exactly would the proposed constitution be helpful to our trade? May I once again repeat, that the Dutch (and the French for that matter) didn't vote against making trade easier. They voted against turning Europe into a federation. And probably they were against turkey getting accepted as a member also...
Which slogans are you talking about?
JR

raid517

Ohh don't overeact. I didn't call Finland a 'socialist country.' I just said even the most ardent of socialist countries (which clearly Finland isn't) will need to be able to find a way to pay for their social programs. I'm only saying that it's widely known that Finland does have one of the most generous social welfare systems in the world. The only point I made is how can you pay for that without trade? I haven't got anything against it (nor have I particularly got that much against socialism) providing that is as I said you can find a way to pay for it.

I trust that was a joke? I mean obviously trade is the foundation on which the vast majority of prosperous ecconomies survive. Trade is like the lifeblood of a nation. Cut it off and slowly (or not so slowly) that nation will bleed to death.

Unfortunately the EU free trade agreements can only help those who are able to help themselves. Such is the nature of captitalism I'm afraid. Like it or loath it, even those who believe in a 'fairer society' with a high level of social welfare and care for everyone, will still need to find a way to pay for it.

I guess to answer that one fully you would have to understand a little about how trade and free market economics works. Not that I'm saying you don't, but it is certainly an interesting topic, if you ever chose to study it. Also it might help somewhat if you actually ever tried to read the EU constitution) before that is deciding whether or not it was a good or a bad thing. How can you decide something is a bad thing, if a) you have never read it and b) you have no clue what it's about? Additionally one thing is certain and that is that no matter what happens - if say Finland (or any other country) were to pull out of the EU tomorrow - that country would still need to trade. Rejecting the free market ideals of the EU serves only to do the opposite of what I said above, in that your export costs go up, regularory standards become fragmented and more barriers are put in place that prevent both foreign investment in your ecconomy and which stop your own local businisess from being able to compete against cheaper markets abroad.

Moreover just because you may choose to 'spit on the EU and the pricipals of globalisation' and so on (sorry just paraphrasing) this will not in any sense prevent businesses (even from within Finland) seeking to lower costs by moving their production (and jobs) to other countries. Clearly therefore the only real option is to find a way to improve your own domestic competativeness rather than seek to become less competative? A deregulated open EU wide market would certainly serve considerably to do this.

You could (as certain 'unnamed' countries here have attempted to do) try your hardest to shutdown and/or restrict foreign imports and to force your citizens to rely heavily on your own domestic produce - but that only works in (oh crap I guess I have to say it) places like America, where they have a vast population of pretty much captive consumers. The difficulty here is that again this can be extremely uncomperative and costly - and can often lead to the production and sale of inferior quality goods which are promted (and subsidised) over their often cheaper (and superior) international counterparts. Nor (as we have seen) dose this approach stop companies seeking cheaper production bases elesewhere either.

But for a small ecconomy like Finland such an approach is clearly unsustainable, you can't produce everything you need in order to survive and prosper - nor can you simply import everything - because importing everything will eventually bankrupt you. Clearly to be able to import anything you need to be able to sell things too - which mean exporting. Which is pretty much what is meant when people talk about a 'balance of trade.'

Unfortunately in the end they voted against both - because both were to a greater and lesser extent included in the constitution. Which ultimately probably won't help anyone. Like I said the doccument we ended up with was a genuine compromise. The French wanted a more fedralist appraoch, while the Brits and others wanted a less fedralist approach and an EU more focused towards open markets.

No one got everything they wanted - but most of them got something. It will be a long cold hard day in hell before you can get them all to agree to a similar compromise again.

Anyhoo... I wasn't trying to be insulting to you or your country. I just wonder if sometimes the people who say they object to these things have really thought their objections through?

Best regards,

GJ

raid517

Oh and BTW the French didn't vote against 'a more fedralist state' the French are in fact ardent fedralists - who voted against it beacuse (first they wanted to hurt their govenment) and second because a lot of them were suspicious (again without reading it) that it was really a British inspired doccument that watered down greatly the French fedralist and socio ecconomic ideal. France is still now very much like the UK was in the 70's when we had our brief and unsuccessful experiment with socialism - although in this instance the French government are too terrified of the French people and of the unions to try to make any serious attempt to change anything. Nor is there any prospect of a Margret Thatcher on the horizon for them who is willinging to do what ever it takes, no matter how painful, to make the changes that are needed.

I am a very leftward leaning kind of person myself - however I do think that without Margret Thatcher in this country in the 80's having pretty much kicked the crap out of the unions and having modernised our ecconomy - I doubt the UK would be in as strong a position as it is in today. She was tough for sure - perhaps even too tough for my own tastes - but sometimes when you need a tough job doing, you need someone who has the balls to do it and to see it through to the end.

Best regards,

GJ

radTube

I just wrote a nice long reply, but my browser didn't seem to think it was worthy, as it decided to crash just when I was about to submit... So here's a highly compressed recap:

- I have nothing against (free) trade. 'Who needs trade anyway?' was a joke, and I thought that the suspicious-looking smilie after it made that clear.

- I never thought you were trying to slight my country. It's obvious that you're very proud of your own though.

- I haven't read the constitution. What I know about it comes mostly from newspapers and the Internet.

- I guess I'd have to be British to think that the French voted against the constitution just to annoy the Brits. I don't believe they did it to hurt their own government either.

- You're right in that certain powerful figures in the French government would probably be more than happy to see a European federation (where they hold the reins), but that doesn't mean that the common people agree.

That's not all, but I'm in a hurry...

raid517

Aint it shit when that happens? You make a brilliant reply, come up with a dazzling riposte to all of the pevious posters comments - and then blamo! In an instant you loose it all... I have taken to the habit of copying everything I write before hitting the post button, but even then you can still run into snags.

I think to be honest though I would be very much more proud to be a full blown European. I think all divisions are dangerous - and utimately I despise all forms of nationalism. However I do think that in the UK we must at least be doing something right, as despite an apparently deep and European wide recession our own ecconomy has been booming for perhaps over 10 years now, with record levels of prosperity, minimal unemployment, low inflation and a very healthy trade surplus.

Trust me, google and the tabloid press really aren't the best sources for this kind of information. For something so profound and significant I felt it deserved some study - and even though it did not quite promise everything that I wanted - and contained some more things I genuinely didn't like - I believed that given the extent of the effort required to put it together originally and to get all the various governments to agree, that it was still a wothwhile doccument.

Lol, there may be a grain of truth in that. We have never exactly been 'kissing cousins' after all. I do though think that the Americans are very much better at disliking the French than we are - although sometimes they do stray a little too far into genuine hatred and xenophobia. But at least someone else in the world knows what we have had to put up with for all these years. After all, it isn't exacty the first time we have heard the French say non! The French/British thing is just a rivalry though - at the end of the day if push comes to shove we usually can and do get over it.

Well I'm not so sure what the French people think. The only noises I have ever heard comming out of France have been from the government - and they have always touted the idea of a fedralist Europe, with France at the head of it, pretty much calling the shots. But if you do take a look at the French ecconomy and at their unemployment (12%) and so on, with the entire country in a state of what seems like genuine decline, it does seem as though there is a sense of deep disalusionment with the performance of Jacques Chirac as president. They too in many ways were promised that the European project would bring about fantatic prosperity - which in may ways it seems has not emerged. But what they refuse to accept is that their own ecconomy is very clearly and very obviously mismanaged. (Or perhaps they do accept this since the constitution was pretty much a personal pet project of Jacques Chirac - so a defeat for the constitution is very much a defeat for him also). Were the French suspicious that the constitution was an overy British doccument? Possibly. Possibly not. But some of the propaganda I read comming out of the French campaign certainly painted it that way.

Anyway, what can you say about it. It's over with. The only thing now we and are governments can do is try to pick up the peices and move forward. No matter how difficult that may now have become.

GJ