"...There is a second fallacious claim: that a no vote in France or elsewhere would bring Europe to a standstill. In reality, post-no Europe would be the same as pre-referendum Europe: the texts that govern the EU, including the Nice treaty, would continue to apply. There would be plenty of time to negotiate a new, more acceptable constitution.
“But the governments would never agree to sit down and start negotiating again” is the reply. On the contrary. The member states would be only too anxious to create a less cumbersome system for governing the expanded union than the current one, which was designed for a six-member community.
A likely outcome is that the first section of the current constitution, which deals essentially with the institutional functioning of the EU, would be submitted for ratification on its own. The second section would be no great loss and it would be good riddance to the unabashed neo-liberal manifesto that is section three.
If the electorates of 10 nation states are being asked to vote yes or no to a treaty, we are entitled to assume that either answer is legitimate, and that neither represents a danger to the nation or to the union. Otherwise it would be irresponsible, even treasonable, to call the referendum in the first place."
"So the American yes on the EU referendums is not only coherent good sense, but also an investment. An [American] official, sitting in his office here, couldn't have been clearer on the European constitution: "If they think it would get them a few yes points, we've told the French we're ready to condemn the thing in minutes.""
« Older Bury Me Not on the Lone Prairie | Poetry magazines Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments