June 16, 2005
448-page constitution?
Much has been made on the right wing of the blogosphere about the French voting ‘non’ on the new EU Constitution. I haven’t followed it closely, because the EU Constitution would have just codified Europe’s problems, not actually changed anything. At worst, it actually would have defined Europe down to the quasi-socialist French/German model, and hampered the countries of Eastern Europe, who are following free-market principles to admirable results.
But now it’s starting to get fun. The New York Times (reg. req’d) is playing the blame game:
But now that his countrymen have rejected the constitution, setting off declarations that it is doomed, he assigns blame not to himself or his document, but largely to the man who currently inhabits Élysée Palace: President Jacques Chirac.
“This was not a vote on the constitution,” Mr. Giscard d’Estaing said in his first interview since the French rejected it in a referendum last month. “That is the key point that has been missed by the political leaders, because political leaders don’t normally like to say that the vote could have been against them.”
Speaking in English in the library of his Paris home, he added, “The French message was, ‘We want change in our political leadership.’ “
Yes, that is one theory. Convenient that the person who actually wrote the EU Constitution believes it’s a great document, and that voting against it just couldn’t reflect that the French didn’t want to give up their sovereignty to EU headquarters in Brussels. Some have said that it’s all Jacques’ fault, and it very well may be, but it’s odd how the people mainly advancing that theory are those who support the EU, and are scrambling for excuses why it didn’t pass.
A crucial turning point for the fate of the constitution in France came last March, Mr. Giscard d’Estaing said, when he phoned Mr. Chirac to warn him not to send the entire three-part, 448-article document to every French voter. The third and longest part consisted only of complicated treaties that have already been in force for years.
He said Mr. Chirac refused, citing legal reasons. “I said, ‘Don’t do it, don’t do it,’ ” Mr. Giscard d’Estaing said. “It is not possible for anyone to understand the full text.”
Wow. 448 pages, to every French voter? The printing and shipping costs must have been enormous. I’ve got a new theory. The French voters were so incredibly pissed off at the cost of sending out volumes of this Constitution that they simply voted ‘non’.
Of course, that doesn’t make any sense. Maybe d’Estaing’s point is valid. How do you expect someone to vote away their sovereignty based upon a text that “it is not possible for anyone to understand”? It would be much better if they just left it all to the “experts”, and didn’t read the document at all. After all, d’Estaing has a great reputation, can’t the French people just trust him?
Let’s contrast with the US Constitution. You can get a handy pocket reference at 12 pages long. A high-school education (perhaps not public school, of course) is all you need to understand it. It lays out, in fairly clear terms, how our government is set up, what its powers are, and what its limitations are. Perhaps if our government would send out a copy to every American voter before each election, we might actually hold our government to those limits, but perhaps that’s just my libertarian pipe dream. Either way, people can agree or disagree with what is in the Constitution, only because they can actually understand it.
In retrospect, Mr. Giscard d’Estaing said the Parliament should have ratified the constitution, even though he said he previously endorsed Mr. Chirac’s decision to put it to a referendum.
Still, Mr. Giscard d’Estaing said that until the end he believed the French people would vote “yes,” and pointedly criticized them. “I thought at the end the French people would be rational people,” he said.
…
He said the ratification process should continue across Europe, and envisions a sequence of events in which most members pass what he referred to at one point as “my document.” “In the end, it will pass,” he added. “There is no better solution.”
Can you just see the scorn dripping from his words? Do you see what he is saying? The French people are too stupid to support the EU Constitution. They’re too stupid to understand that the EU leadership is smarter than they are, and that they should cede control to the all-wise and honorable bureaucrats. It should have been done by Parliament, not the voters themselves. And if they keep trying to ram this down the people’s throats, eventually they’ll succumb to it.
Contrast that with the American founding fathers. This country was formed on the principle that individuals know what is best for themselves, and that the best thing that a government can do is leave them alone, as long as they are not infringing on the rights of others. It’s a lot easier to get people to rally behind that call. Certainly easier than calling them irrational.
The EU may or may not be dead at this point, it’s far too early to tell. But if they keep up this sort of wonderful rhetoric, they’re writing their own eulogy.
Hat Tip: Neolibertarian Network Blog
Eric's Grumbles Before The Grave linked with The EU Constitution
4 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Great post… I think we have more than a few EU wannabe’s in our own land. The elite must have better minds or why else would they be elected.
Individuals are where great ideas come from, the group mentality is stale and stagnent as a rule. Each time we permit the “group” to chop away at the individual’s rights, in the name of the common good of the group, we all take a step closer to the end of freedom for all the individuals who comprise that group.
I bet the EU judges, heck, maybe even our own SCOTUS, could still find a few “rights” not expressed in the 448 page EU constitution if given a chance.
Do you think the EU judges will cite U.S. decisions when deciding what the EU constitution means?
The EU Constitution
Brad, who refuses to repent, has a very good post on the elitist European approach to politics. An approach that many on the American Left apparently feel is a good one as they urge us to join the Europeans in…
http://donsingleton.blogspot.com/2005/06/what-europe-really-needs.html is my response on this subject