31. května 2005
Dánský poslanec EP o Ústavě - Danish MEP about the Constitution
Jelikož dnes večer nemám dost času, abych napsal něco obsáhlejšího, nabízím vím alespoň názor dánského poslance Evropského parlamentu Jens-Petera Bondeho:
Francouzi odmítli navrhovanou Ústavu 55 % hlasů proti za překvapivě vysoké 70% účasti. Ústava už tedy není oficiálním návrhem.
Ústava byla navržena podle pravidel Smlouvy z Nice, které ke změně vyžadují jednohlasnost.
Jedinou možností, jak tento dokument oživit, je prostřednictvím nového návrhu připraveného novou mezivládní konferencí, která rozhodne jednomyslně a která bude zahrnovat podporu francouzské vlády.
K tomu by mohlo dojít 16.-17. června, kdy se v Bruselu sejdou na svém dalším pravidelném zasedání hlavy států a vlád zemí EU.
Kolik politiků s tím bude souhlasit? A s tímhle:
Potřebujeme jednoduchou základní smlouvu s 50 články na 20 stranách, která zahrne nezbytná hlediska evropské spolupráce. Nepotřebujeme Ústavu, která je tak komplikovaná, že dokonce ani francouzský prezident nezná její přesný obsah.
Ovšem pak by takový dokument byl tak jednoduchý, že by ho mohli pochopit dokonce i voliči. |
Not having enough time tonight for writing anything extensive, I offer you an opinion by Jens-Peter Bonde, a Danish MEP:
The French have rejected the proposed Constitution by 55 per cent of No-votes with a surprisingly high 70 per cent turnout. Therefore, the Constitution is no longer a formal proposal.
The Constitution was proposed under the rules of the Nice Treaty which demand unanimity for change.
The only possibility to revive the document is via a new proposal from a new intergovernmental conference, which decides by unanimity – and includes the support of the French government.
This could happen on 16-17 June when EU heads of state and government meet for their next fixed summit in Brussels.
How many politicians will agree to this? And this:
We need a simple basic treaty with 50 articles in 20 pages covering the necessary aspects of European co-operation. We do not need a Constitution so complicated that even the French president does not know the precise content.
But then again, such a document would be so simple than even the voters could understand it. |
30. května 2005
Some more thoughts about the euroconstitution
As one could expect, the politicians all over the EU are trying hard to salvage at least a little of what's left of the “Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe” after the French 'no' vote on Sunday. I would say it's good that the “Constitution” was rejected by France rather than by, let's say, Czech Republic. It is thus impossible to ignore there is probably something wrong about the whole concept. I mean, there is nothing inherently wrong about closer cooperation but why on earth do we need another treaty to achieve that? I confess I am not a big fan of, for example, an EU-wide foreign policy; the furious reaction of the French president Chirac to the decision of new EU members to support US-led invasion of Iraq was enough to make me think twice if it's good for my country to quietly accept what the big states in the EU would dictate.
But back to the Treaty for Europe (I shall not call it a “constitution” since it is not). It seems the politicians will not take no for an answer. “The ratification of the EU constitution should continue despite the French No, according to the leaders of the bloc's top institutions.” Of course, they probably hope the remaining 16 states will say 'yes' and then, maybe, a second attempt in French referendum would succeed.
They also try to spin the result so it looks like the 'yes' camp was actually bigger:
According to the Luxembourg prime minister and current EU chief, Jean-Claude Juncker, "If we were to add up all the votes of those who wanted ‘more Europe’ as a yes then I think that we would have had a yes vote".
Oh please, a no is a no. Not a qualified no, nor a qualified yes. Granted, the French 'no' camp is an odd mixture of ultra-right and ultra-left parties and moderates, and the referendum was more about internal politics rather than EU but I would think you can't separate these two. Clearly, it's difficult to convince voters the treaty is good for them when some depict it as “preserving the French model” while others claim it's ultra-liberal and will destroy the social(ist) achievements.
The next referendum is in the Netherlands on Wednesday. It is likely the Dutch say no, too. Even then, the EU business will go on as usual, only this time the politicians will really have to listen to what the EU citizens have to say.
29. května 2005
To je konec... - This is the end...
| Je to už hodně dlouho, kdy jsem naposledy něco napsal, ale tohle stojí za to: podle prvních výsledků Francouzi euroústavu opravdu neschválili. Je to konec EU? Neřekl bych, rozjetou byrokratickou mašinu jen tak něco nezastaví. Ještě k tomu řeknu své, ale teď jdu slavit spánkem. |
It's been a very long time since I wrote anything but this is worth it: according to the first results, the French did reject the euroconstitution after all. Is this the end of the EU? I don't think so; it's not that easy to stop a moving bureaucratic train. I will post my two cents worth but now I will celebrate by going to bed. |
