I think that staying out of a tighter EU cooperation, because of fears that it will lead to lower wages in one's country, is extremely short-sighted and selfish. The fact of the matter is that jobs are moving to countries with lower wages regardless of whether you're part of the EU or not. The way to deal with this is not to isolate oneself, but to find the ways in which you excel, and grow these areas.

quote:

Originally posted by h0tsweetbabyd0l well the referendum is on sunday and now 54% of the french would vote no for the constitution but i heard on the medias that it's possible that the jobs get relocalized in different countries of europe for example in the eastern europe where the wages are lower i heard stories about compagnies wanting to pay the people 100 € by month because they would adapt the salaries of the law of the country so now im getting scared that it happens if we vote yes ....maybe im just wrong but im more and more tempted to vote no on sunday what's your opinions? i know we need a constitution for the EU but this one don't appeal me a lot i don't want a europe becoming too liberal ...this constitution is good on some points but i think we should get a better one well i don't know tell me what you think !

well, as far as i know the constitution wont change anything here, free movement of capital and labour is already in place

what they might be talking about is the "service treaty", but if that will pass or not really has nothing to do with the constitution!

and really, there is no way a less liberal constitution would pass either, then countries like the UK and eastern countries would protest it instead! We gotta try to get somthing that everyone can be happy about!

and in the long run i would say that the more liberal the constitution, the better

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I think that staying out of a tighter EU cooperation, because of fears that it will lead to lower wages in one's country, is extremely short-sighted and selfish. The fact of the matter is that jobs are moving to countries with lower wages regardless of whether you're part of the EU or not. The way to deal with this is not to isolate oneself, but to find the ways in which you excel, and grow these areas.

exactly. And what many ppl misses too is that there is many good sides with some jobs moving to other countries, first of all its obviously good for the countries they are moving too, and secondly its good for all the consumers since they get cheaper goods. and its also good for competition, it forces country A to get more competitive and hence provide better/cheaper products....

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/int...,357433,00.html

France Is Self Destructing Prior to EU Constitution Vote

By Romain Leick in Paris

All eyes in Europe are now on France as the country prepares to vote on the EU constitution. The political wrangling is reaching a fever pitch as each side accuses the other of populism and treason. But why, exactly, are the French so skeptical of the treaty?

Just days before the EU constitution vote in France, surveys indicate the No camp is in the lead.
The boxing match is entering the final round -- and the gloves are coming off. Now, at this late date, anything goes and the rules of political decency have long since been discarded. One week before the French referendum over the European constitutional treaty, opponents and supporters are at each other's throats, almost as if the fate of Europe and the Republic were up for decision. The rest of the European Union can't help but ogle at the tug-o-war in morbid fascination.

Opponents, like parliamentarian Henri Emmanuelli -- a former president of the French parliament, current leader of the Socialist Party, and an angry spokesman for the left wing -- have likened a Yes vote to the shameful poll that put aging Marshall Philippe Pétain into power after France's defeat at the hands of the Germans in 1940. In other words, voting Yes is tantamount to treason. Supporters of the constitution on the other hand -- most prominently President Jacques Chirac -- see a No vote as a stab in the nation's back. In other words, voting No is a cowardly attack preventing the nation from future greatness.

Judging by the rhetoric in fact, an outside observer could be forgiven for thinking that everyone in France is a liar and a traitor.

But the bitter dispute in France over the pros and cons of the planned EU constitution has extended far beyond the nation's borders. What began months ago as a domestic political power struggle across party lines, has developed into a pan-European campaign. Last Wednesday, prominent members of the European left came together at Paris' Cirque d'Hiver to meet with their French comrades.

"A No vote is destructive," said Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn. Josep Borrell, the Spanish President of the European Parliament, implored his comrades not to "give your government a kick by kicking Europe in the ass." Other European politicians, including German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, have also urged French voters to approve the EU constitution.

An historic rift in Europe?

It's beginning to look as though the old continent is facing an historic break, just as it did in 1789. Are the French getting ready to export their revolutionary ideas, in a sudden outbreak of passion and violence, beyond their own borders? By voting No to the constitution, do they intend to deal a deathblow to the European Ancien Régime in Brussels, with its bureaucracy, its democratic shortcomings and its insatiable appetite for imposing regulations? And will the remaining Europeans be forced to join forces to oppose this danger, just as the Prussians, Austrians and English once joined forces against the Jacobins and murderers of kings in Paris?

French President Jacques Chirac has been pleading with his nation for a Yes vote.
While such a scenario may sound alarmist, for proponents of the constitution, the French have begun a rampage that could transform Europe into a political disaster zone next Sunday. But for opponents, today's descendants of French EU founders Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman are the only ones who have the courage to clearly express their concerns -- that the expanded EU is no longer a bulwark against globalization, largely perceived as a threat in France. Rather, it is actually accelerating globalization's progression.

French opinion-poll watching has become something of a favorite past time in Europe of late and the trend has reversed itself twice in recent months. In the week before the vote, the No camp is ahead of the Yes camp by 54 percent to 46 percent according to the most recent survey conducted by the Ifop agency for Paris Match magazine (no margin of error was given) -- and pro-European elites from across the political spectrum are in a panic.

Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, still recovering from gall bladder surgery and sporting an artificial tan to give the impression of good health, sounded almost hysterical when he predicted, at the sight of the supposed apocalypse, chaos and "long months of economic crisis." "A No vote," Raffarin said, "would expose France to attack from all sides."

But even some of his own cabinet ministers felt his argument somewhat self-serving. After all, France is already experiencing more than 10 percent unemployment, declining purchasing power, growing job insecurity, a lack of growth and confidence in the administration plunging to record lows.

Former Socialist Minister of Culture and Education Jack Lang, one of the most eloquent proponents of a Yes vote on the left, brusquely called upon Raffarin to keep his mouth shut: "You should go into hiding. Let's be honest, every time you make an appearance we lose two percentage points."

French socialists experiencing a meltdown

But the Socialists are having difficulties exorcizing their own political demons. A century after its founding by the great internationalist, Jean Jaurès, the party has embarked on a suicidal course. The controversy over the EU constitution threatens to turn into a fatal schism. The party leadership surrounding First Secretary François Hollande is enmeshed in a life-or-death power struggle with the dissidents, whose most intelligent spokesman has been former prime minister and finance minister Laurent Fabius.

In the process, domestic politics and European politics have become so hopelessly intertwined that rational debate now seems virtually impossible. Populists and demagogues haven't shied away from even the most viciously disparaging rhetoric, as both sides stir up fears by grossly exaggerating and dangerously simplifying the issues.

Most concerning for many on the left, the draft constitution declares right near the top that the Union's goal is to be "a domestic market with free and unadulterated competition." The word competition appears more than forty times in the constitution. For Fabius and his supporters, this stance -- casting economic liberalism in stone as a supreme principle -- would deal a deadly blow to left-wing policies in Europe. On the other hand, the constitution also defines "social security and social support" as a fundamental right of citizens.

To proponents of a Yes vote, this serves as clear evidence of the constitution's ideological neutrality. They like to list how many buzzwords important to modern enlightenment the constitution contains: human dignity, freedom, democracy, the constitutional state, tolerance, justice, solidarity, non-discrimination, gender equality, a high level of employment and steady growth.

Opponents counter that this is all nothing but a smokescreen -- that the constitution's noble objectives are non-binding and, if it comes to it, will take a back seat to the small print, namely that establishing the supreme importance of free competition. But one thing they overlook is that Europe began just under 50 years ago as an economic community, not a political union. The free movement of people, goods and capital was already established as a stated goal and fundamental value in the 1957 Treaties of Rome. The fathers of the constitution, guided by former French President Giscard d'Estaing, couldn't exact rewrite European history without sparking controversy. The result of their efforts is a compromise -- and one that must make allowances for the idiosyncrasies and traditions of 25 members -- and not a uniform economic and social model for all.

Contradictions, but also national differences in perception and assessment, make it difficult to take an unbiased view of an opus that is complex, confusing and, with its 448 articles, far too long. For example, the constitution guarantees the right to strike, but also paves the way for lockouts -- not a big deal for Germans, but an enormous provocation for the strike-prone labor unions in France, where lockouts are still illegal.

The German parliament approved the constitution earlier this month in a landslide.
The constitution strengthens the European Parliament's right to participate in the Brussels legislative process, but denies it the right to initiate legislation nor can it exercise any control over the European Council. It calls for the possibility of "heightened cooperation," giving some members the chance to move forward more quickly than others. But it also sets higher barriers: At least a third of EU states must be participants in such an acceleration and the European Commission, Council and Parliament must approve. The German-French economic engine, easily capable of spurring growth in a smaller Europe, could just as easily be shut out in a larger EU consisting of 25 or, at some future date, perhaps even 30 members. Paris and Berlin would no longer automatically be able to find a sufficient number of allies to form a solid core within the EU. "The opportunity to move forward with the Germans along the road of democratic integration no longer exists," complains Socialist Senator Jean-Luc Mélenchon.

A runaway bestseller

The text of the constitution, more than 200 pages long and by necessity a balancing act of political juggling, has become a bestseller in France, with book stores selling copies of the document by the hundreds of thousands. In addition, the government has mailed a pamphlet containing the draft copy and directions for participating in the referendum to everyone entitled to vote. But few are likely to be intimately familiar with the constitution. Uncertainty and lack of knowledge are turning the referendum into a risky venture -- and into a "propaganda vehicle," as Fabius now admits. He says that he has "never experienced such a strong movement of intellectual intimidation" as in this current debate.

In some cases, the referendum is even splitting families, like the Mitterands. The former president's widow plans to vote No, while one of his sons will check the box marked Yes. At times, the feud among Socialists is even taking on some of the characteristics of civil war, leading former Socialist Minister of Finance Dominique Strauss-Kahn, a staunch supporter of Yes, to warn against a "night of long knives" -- a reference to Adolf Hitler's violent settling of scores with his political enemies in 1934.

But even such ominous warnings have done nothing to prevent most party members from whipping up the public mood. Former Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, attending a mass rally for the first time since his spectacular election defeat three years ago, accused opponents of the constitution within his party's own ranks of "demagoguery, excessiveness and fraud." The leaders of the No camp, who have warned against corporate flight to the EU's recently acquired members in Eastern Europe, have branded Jospin's henchman, Jack Lang, as an "administrator of nationalism, xenophobia and the extreme right." And former delegate to the EU Parliament Olivier Duhamel, himself a member of the constitutional convention, even sees France "on the road to Bolshevist regression. The word 'liberal' has become pornographic," he complains.

The new constitution and an enlarged Europe could mean an end to German-French dominance of the club. Here, European cheerleaders Helmut Kohl and Francois Mitterand.
President Chirac, who high-handedly launched the referendum movement to boost his stature as a great European statesman, now fears a catastrophe: for Europe, for France and for himself. Under the current circumstances, even a victory for Yes would only be a small triumph. But a victory for No would be a tremendous setback, says Chirac's chief rival -- but constitution supporter -- Nicolas Sarkozy.

At the summit meeting of the so-called Weimar Triangle -- made up of Chirac, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski -- in the northern French city of Nancy last Thursday, Chirac was practically pleading with the French people to approve the constitution, noting that a French rejection would not be followed by any new rounds of negotiations: "With whom should we negotiate? And over what?" he asked plaintively.

No re-negotiation possible

Schroeder loyally echoed Chirac's words. It would be an illusion, said the German chancellor, to believe in the possibility of subsequent improvement of the constitution. He is probably right, and German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer agrees, saying that "a second chance" is probably not in the cards.

But a No vote, on the other hand, would also not plunge Europe into an institutional vacuum. As it has done in the past, the EU would have to continue to make do with the treaty negotiated in Nice in December 2000, and perhaps revisit the issue of a constitution at some point in the future. It would be a less social, less democratic, weaker and more ponderous Europe, and France's and Germany's votes in the European Council would carry less weight than called for under the new constitution.

But German Foreign Minister Fischer, who visited France a number of times to campaign for the constitution, says philosophically that "the world will not go under." Daniel Cohn-Bendit scolded his leftist and Green Party friends who are succumbing to the temptations of No, saying that France should finally stop "dreaming that it can rule Europe." His comments were rewarded with a barrage of eggs and tomatoes in Montpelier, and he was drowned out by protestors brandishing megaphones at the Sorbonne in Paris. "Liar! We no longer want to listen to you!," shouted his disappointed fans, facing the bitter realization that "Dany le Rouge," the legendary figure of May 1968, has become an upstanding European liberal, now well-integrated into the institutions against which he once planned to lead protest marches.

"They see me as a traitor," says Cohn-Bendit, "but I don't make a drama out of it." As Cohn-Bendit well knows, the worst possible thing for the romantic left is to make peace with reality. In 1965, the great Charles de Gaulle was still able to hold Europe hostage with his policy of the "empty chair." All he had to do was boycott meetings in Brussels to preserve France's vital interests. But those days are long gone. De Gaulle's wannabe successor, Chirac -- while exhibiting a certain aplomb -- occasionally seems to be moving around the European stage like a master hovering on the brink of absurdity.

From agriculture policy to the euro to the appealing dream of a European superpower ("Europe-Puissance"), all major initiatives have always come from Paris. For France, Europe became the foundation of a greatness it has long since lost. Now, the planned EU constitution recognizes the goal of a common security and defense policy, but only if it is compatible with NATO's requirements. This concession, indispensable for almost all other members, consigns France's vision of a Europe on par with America to the garbage heap of symbolism. Seen in this light, the constitution represents a step in the direction of progress and emancipation for most EU states, but for many Frenchmen a step backwards into the banality of a perfectly ordinary nation. The question is whether, in a narcissistic flight of fancy, the French will once again revolt in the face of this painful realization. It is, however, a no-win situation.

___________________
Nathan Fake - Outhouse (Valentino Kanzyani Remix) || ID PLZ! PVD ID!!!
Disco and classical had sex while watching a sci-fi movie. Their child: trance.

great article it describes perfectly the situation of france right now tears appart between the yes and the no

Yes, I agree with the article. Personally I think that all this fear of cheap workers is exaggerated. They still have that 10 or so year period where they can't freely move around, and by that time polish and czech workers will become just as expensive as german and french ones. And moving factories to places where the workforce is cheaper is not an invention of the EU and will go on regardless of the constitution. As for the bureaucracy, a vote for no seems to me pretty much like shooting yourself in the leg, because the constitution will lessen the bureaucracy and will make the EU parliament at least a little more transparent.

___________________
1+1=10

It does seem that the "NO" vote is merely based upon protectionism of domestic markets. In an age of globalisation and economic rationalism i'm not quite sure how this attitude can survive in such an educated and developed country like France.. (well, Southern and Mid-west America are exempt from such rational thought )

It's strange how a country like Germany had passed the constitution in a landslide vote, even though they've been hammered by the introduction of the EU (in an economic sense). Germany is still reeling from the transitional effects of the Euro but are still open to even further change..

Personally, i dont know much of the EU constitution but from what i've gathered a "YES" vote signifies your acceptance for a brighter future, while a "NO" vote signifies your acceptance of a substandard status quo

___________________
A witty saying proves nothing.
-Voltaire

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic The fact of the matter is that jobs are moving to countries with lower wages regardless of whether you're part of the EU or not. The way to deal with this is not to isolate oneself, but to find the ways in which you excel, and grow these areas.

Well put!
I'd go for yes too, just too many good things in the text; I took a look just a moment ago.

Competition???? H-O-L-Y S-H-I-T!!!

We will have to COMPETE?

You expect us to give up the comfort of our all-knowing, all-caring, beautiful, protectionist, paternalistic, oppressive governments and actually EARN a living by being the BEST at what we do?


You want us to live in a truly free society?

TERRIFYING!

Last edited by Capitalizt on May-26-2005 at 18:42

quote:

Originally posted by Dupz It does seem that the "NO" vote is merely based upon protectionism of domestic markets. In an age of globalisation and economic rationalism i'm not quite sure how this attitude can survive in such an educated and developed country like France.. (well, Southern and Mid-west America are exempt from such rational thought ) It's strange how a country like Germany had passed the constitution in a landslide vote, even though they've been hammered by the introduction of the EU (in an economic sense). Germany is still reeling from the transitional effects of the Euro but are still open to even further change.. Personally, i dont know much of the EU constitution but from what i've gathered a "YES" vote signifies your acceptance for a brighter future, while a "NO" vote signifies your acceptance of a substandard status quo

That being said, it's not like the status quo is working out for the EU as it is:

quote:

We can’t go on like this May 26th 2005 From The Economist Global Agenda A new report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development slashes growth forecasts for Europe and Japan, and shows that the dangerous imbalances in the global economy continue to widen. But though there are clear policy steps that will make a crisis less likely, policymakers worldwide are reluctant to take them “IF SOMETHING cannot go on forever,” said Herb Stein, “it will stop.” The subject of this now-famous dictum by the late chairman of Richard Nixon’s Council of Economic Advisers was a balance-of-payments crisis stemming from the dollar’s exchange rate, which was then at an unsustainably high level. Sound familiar? If you have been reading the world’s financial pages, it should. The overvalued dollar—and the massive interventions by Asian central banks, particularly China’s, to keep it that way—have created a global economy that is growing quickly but unevenly. The result has been a ballooning current-account deficit in America, an overheating economy in China and a global economy dangerously dependent on American consumer demand, which in turn is dangerously dependent on heavy borrowing and ever-increasing house prices to keep consumers feeling flush. In rising numbers, at rising volumes, economists have been telling governments that this cannot go on forever. But when—and how sharply—will it stop? Not yet, says the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a club of mostly rich countries, in its latest economic outlook, released on Tuesday May 24th. The organisation has raised its growth forecast for America to 3.6%, citing continuing strong consumer demand; obligingly, on Thursday America's Bureau of Economic Analysis revised its estimates of first-quarter GDP growth upwards by 40 basis points, to 3.5%. But while American consumers are still fulfilling their role as the locomotive of the world economy, the report makes it clear that should they falter, there is no back-up waiting at the next station. While Japan has been recovering from the slow patch it hit in 2004, it is still plagued by deflation, and economic activity has fallen in recent months as industrial demand has weakened. The OECD cut its projections for Japanese GDP growth from 2.1% to 1.5%, and slashed estimates of euro-area growth even further, to 1.2% from 1.9%, as Italy slips into recession and German business confidence continues to sink. Consumer demand in both Japan and Europe is weak, which not only stymies their own economic growth but would also leave the world’s other exporting nations with nowhere to go should a slowing economy or a depreciating dollar cause American demand to dry up. So far, the Federal Reserve seems to be engineering a longed-for “soft landing”. Notes from the Fed's May 3rd meeting reveal that despite high oil prices, the bank thinks recent slow growth is a transitory dip, and plans to continue raising rates at a measured pace. But there is a risk that America's impressive monetary management may be undone by its profligate fiscal policy: government borrowing is helping drive up a current-account deficit that the OECD expects to approach $900 billion by 2006. The government has balked at the kind of fiscal discipline the OECD report urges, however, and is instead reaching for protectionist measures to help bring things back into balance. A proposal is afoot in Congress to slap tariffs on Chinese goods unless the yuan’s tight peg to the dollar, which keeps its exports artificially cheap, is relaxed. The Bush administration has begun pressing for a revaluation, telling China that a 10% adjustment will be necessary to stave off Capitol Hill’s protectionists. This, however, is unlikely to make much difference to America’s staggering current account (see article). Unless they stop spending and start saving, Americans—and the world—remain vulnerable to a sharp correction in the dollar. Just how vulnerable is made clear by the fact that six out of seven of the largest OECD economies last year ran cyclically adjusted budget deficits approaching or exceeding 3% of GDP (Canada is the notable exception). Should export demand dry up, these countries have very little room to use fiscal policy to compensate by stimulating domestic demand. In Japan and the euro area, monetary-policy options are also sharply limited: the Japanese central bank’s interest rates are already zero, and have been for four years; and the 12 countries that have adopted the euro have surrendered control of their money supply to the European Central Bank. Perhaps because it feels it needs to establish its credibility as an inflation hawk, the ECB has been very reluctant to cut rates, which have stayed at 2% for the past two years despite slow growth throughout much of the euro area. Indeed, the bank’s hawkishness has spurred much speculation about a possible rate increase in the autumn, though increasingly dismal economic forecasts and Italy’s recent slip into recession might put the kibosh on this. The OECD report favours a looser European monetary policy, which would be a welcome relief to Europe’s governments. Less welcome will be its other recommendations. Though it says all the big players must take action to alleviate the growing imbalances, it puts the greatest onus for change on Europe, where economic performance is weakest. Like other multilateral institutions and many economists, the OECD urges governments to get their fiscal house in order, and euro-area members in particular to free up their markets to make their economies more robust and more integrated with those of their monetary partners. That includes easing their tightly regulated labour markets, which would also help lower Europe’s high levels of unemployment and stimulate growth. But while some governments have taken halting steps in this direction—France has eased its 35-hour work-week rule and Germany has reformed its unemployment benefits—much more remains undone. Politicians have so far been unwilling to confront the fierce public resistance to any change in continental Europe’s generous work rules. Without those sorts of reforms, however, Europe’s economies remain vulnerable to external shocks from exchange rates or oil prices. That said, not all is doom and gloom. France is showing signs of recovery from its recent economic doldrums, and the OECD report forecasts steady growth in both its GDP and its domestic demand for the next few years. America is borrowing heavily to spend on consumer goods but is also seeing strong growth in business investment, which should help generate income to pay the bills when they come due. And even Japan is showing signs of a sustainable recovery from its decade-long stagnation. With a little luck, some fiscal prudence and a managed easing of exchange rates, by the time the locomotive comes to a stop, the global economy will be out of the woods. http://www.economist.com/agenda/dis...tory_id=4006049

It sounds like the labor reform everyone is so afraid of is exactly what's needed.

___________________
Retro ...

A "Yes" vote for the Constituion could prove disastrous for France in the long run. The economical threats are clear, but there is also another aspect of the problem.

France has a unique culture, and has always been in the spotlight on the European Stage, through tradition, architecure, ideological enlightment, literature, music, painting, science. If voted "yes", the French people, from main actors, will become figurants. They don't deserve such a treatment. They don't deserve to share the money, attention and political power with boorish eastern people that have discovered the hygiene 10 years ago.

For all the French people :"Stay French and be proud of it! Vote No!"