Dutch Voters reject EU Constitution, have hilarious names

June 2, 2005 10:46 AM

Is somebody taking the piss with this NYT reporter?[NYT, use bugmenot] Seriously, I thought it was a complete joke when I read this line: "The Dutch people won against this crazy constitution," said Tiny Kox, a member of the small Socialist Party, which was pivotal in the "no" campaign. That aside, I'm curious why all these EU member nations are rejecting this. First the French, now the Dutch, what is going ON here?
posted by antifuse (54 comments total)

A protest vote of sorts against the globalization of Europe (i.e., resentment of immigrants).
posted by Doohickie at 10:48 AM on June 2, 2005

Not a joke, it would appear. But brilliant.

Oh, and why Europeans are rejecting it: it's not a constitution, it's an unwieldy, unreadable, non-cohesive bunch of treaties that don't really belong together, and do very little to improve democratisation and accountability of EU governance. You could say that it's not the anti-Europe right who've caused these defeats, it's the pro-Europe left. I'd imagine that the various treaties will now be split apart, and voted on seperately, with some being re-negotiated. Or something.
posted by flashboy at 10:56 AM on June 2, 2005

Doohickie, where did you read that?
posted by gsb at 11:01 AM on June 2, 2005

A protest vote of sorts against the globalization of Europe (i.e., resentment of immigrants).

Well, I think that may be the case on the right-wing side of the "no" vote, doohickie -- though as flashboy notes, it's not really the right that drove home the numbers on the "no" side. The more significant force is the left-wing side of the "no" campaign, which can be seen as a protest against neoliberal policies of the past deade of so that have meant a significant dismantling of social welfare programs (and which many feel will be further accelerated by the EU constitution).
posted by scody at 11:02 AM on June 2, 2005

gah! "deade of so" = "decade or so." note to self: do not type without morning cup of tea.
posted by scody at 11:04 AM on June 2, 2005

People are rejecting the European Constitution because of a return to a pseudo-patriotic isolationist mindset of fear in the minds of Europeans, due in part to the war on terror and in part to the threat of Eastern European workers undercutting Western ones in a free market. The left-wing stuff is small potatoes.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 11:07 AM on June 2, 2005

My impression, from a few NPR interviews I've heard, is that the left and the right extremes of the "NO" camp are pretty embarrassed to be in bed with each other on this one.
posted by gurple at 11:09 AM on June 2, 2005

That aside, I'm curious why all these EU member nations are rejecting this.

I won't say for sure, but it is telling that of all the constitutional votes so far only three (or four) have been by referendum and two of those have failed. I'd guess it is a failure of the politicians to motivate the people.

Here's what others have had to say. From the second page of the Marlise Simons article:

Dutch voters, who knew little about the drafting process, had different objections. Among their main complaints, reflected in opinion polls, is that they feel the Netherlands is pushed around by the big nations and that the decision-making process in Brussels lacks transparency and democracy.

The Dutch, including their government, have also loudly criticized France and Germany for their recent flouting of budget rules, while the Netherlands and other countries have been pressed to make painful cutbacks to keep their budget deficits within prescribed limits.

From Max Boot in the LA Times:

So why are the guardians of the new Europe so hated? Words such as arrogance and elitism come to mind. Although the EU has its own parliament, there is a well-founded fear throughout the continent that decisions are being made by unelected mandarins. The populations of the 25 EU member states may not agree on what should be done. What unites them is a desire to determine their own destinies, which is impossible as long as Brussels is calling the shots.

Nothing symbolizes the disconnect between the people and their rulers more than the European Union constitution, a 300-page monstrosity drafted by former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing and heartily endorsed by current French President Jacques Chirac. This was supposed to be another step toward creation of a European state with its own president and foreign minister. For Gaullists like Giscard and Chirac, it was also part of a cherished ambition to build a great power in competition with les Anglo-Saxons. The skepticism of Poles and Britons to this project was well-known, but ultimately it was undone by the yawning indifference of the French themselves.

The lives of ordinary French people are not dominated by dreams of lost glory; they simply want a decent job and public services that work. It was telling that only professionals and senior executives — i.e., France's top occupational rung — voted for the constitution last week. Everyone else opted for "non."

From Craig Whitlock in the WaPo:

"Europe is big now, and that's a good thing," said Peer van der Wonde, a 52-year-old artist and furniture designer, after he voted no at city hall in The Hague, the Netherlands' seat of government. "But we have to be careful. In the last 10 years, the people in Brussels have tried to minimize the input of regular people in democratic decisions."

(sorry for the y2karlism)

I don't think it is simply xenophobia at work here. The Dutch want to remain Dutch and the French want to remain French. They want to keep their independence and cultural identity. What's so wrong with that? If the political elite want to overturn centuries of cultural identity then they need to be a little more persuasive.
posted by sbutler at 11:14 AM on June 2, 2005

Ah, the good old "if you can't beat 'em, slander the hell out of 'em" tack. It's not possible that the Europeans want no part of the neoliberalism and the rollback of hard-won social democratic reforms which has been central to the EU project; it couldn't even be that they want more input on a process that determines much about their lives but is run by a few bureaucrats and at the behest of industry. No, the Europeans are doing this because they don't like foreigners.

The EU constitution is bad; it deserves to be rejected on its merits. I think this has a lot less to do with the immigrant issue than people assume it does.
posted by graymouser at 11:16 AM on June 2, 2005

P_G, I don't think that's true. I went to a few "town hall type" meetings for the NO camp to see what it was all about. Isolationism was not part of the crowd's rhetoric. Unemployment was there but it was more, "fuck the Treetop Propaganda" stuff.
posted by gsb at 11:17 AM on June 2, 2005

My personal favorite:

Elout Barendrecht: "No"

Owner of tourism business, 59

I'm in favour of the EU but I voted "No" because it moves too quickly.

I fear that Brussels could halt some of our traditions, such as the children's market on the Queen's birthday, when children take things from the attic and sell them on the street, and adults get completely drunk.
posted by jsavimbi at 11:19 AM on June 2, 2005

A TNS-Sofres opinion poll for Le Monde and TF1 television showed yesterday that the most important factor motivating the no vote - cited by 46% of all respondents and 51% of blue-collar workers - was the fear that the constitution would "increase the unemployment rate in France".

The second main reason for voting no, given by 40% of voters and 48% of blue-collar workers, was to express "a feeling of dissatisfaction with the present situation in France".

The third, cited by 34%, was the preceived neo-liberal, pro-market nature of the text itself. The entry into the EU of Turkey was not significant.
posted by flashboy at 11:19 AM on June 2, 2005

Actually, pretty_generic, from what I've read about the situation in France, the main component (roughly two-thirds) of the "no" vote there was from the left (i.e., Greens and Socialists).
posted by scody at 11:19 AM on June 2, 2005

The Dutch were also worried about the EU taking away their hookers and drugs.
posted by delmoi at 11:30 AM on June 2, 2005

Who says leftists can't hate foreigners?
posted by davy at 11:46 AM on June 2, 2005

First:
sbutler, nice post. Can anyone with knowledge expand on the fear of Brussels exclusion of the populous, and the source of their perceived elitist powers. (As in: How did they get the powers?)

Second:
delmoi, nice job stealing a fark post's headline. /snark
posted by Merik at 11:49 AM on June 2, 2005

Yeah, the operative word was Localization concerns as far as I could tell. The French realize that all things French are superior to anything else on this god forsaken planet, so are somewhat horrified when fine French wines become more and more fine European wines, especially when European comes to mean that area including, for example, Estonia.

Similarly, the Dutch realize that their policies of tolerance make them the only country in the world to maintain some semblance of honesty before God and the universe at large. They are rightfully worried that as the legal body of Europe becomes larger and more important, the Dutch legal niche and sovereignty to maintain the same will be diminished.

In general the countries of Western Europe are extremely proud of their separate, distinct heritages, their skill of artisanry, and their cultures.

Ask a New Yorker how he feels about the federal government as the rural Texas red states exert influence in his world...
posted by nervousfritz at 11:50 AM on June 2, 2005

SORRY EUROS: YOU"RE STILL JUST AN ASSORTMENT OF DECADENT SOCIALIST DO NOTHINGS. ENJOY YOUR VACATIONS, AS YOU SLOUCH TOWARDS POVERTY.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:50 AM on June 2, 2005

COOL POST PARIS THANKS FOR THIS
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:54 AM on June 2, 2005

Socialists and commies? I thought it was anglophones and the ethnic vote.
posted by j0hnnyb at 11:59 AM on June 2, 2005

GREAT COMMENT A+++++++ WOULD DEFINITELY BE SWAYED BY HIS NUANCED, INSIGHTFUL ARGUMENTS AGAIN!!!!1!!!
posted by scody at 12:00 PM on June 2, 2005

Reminds me of the UN and the WTO.
posted by Carbolic at 12:08 PM on June 2, 2005

I exaggerate and simplifiy, but try starting a small business in France (as I have with old girlfriend), and you'll understand where I'm coming from. In fact, I recommend that all Left-leaning Americans spend a year in France without the benefit of a rich dad. You'll return enlightened, and far more appreciative of fiscal conservatives back home.

I actually have a second law degree in "European Law," which provided a great forum for deriding French notions of...well...everything having to do with business.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:08 PM on June 2, 2005

SORRY EUROS: YOU"RE STILL JUST AN ASSORTMENT OF DECADENT SOCIALIST DO NOTHINGS. ENJOY YOUR VACATIONS, AS YOU SLOUCH TOWARDS POVERTY.

Just because social democracy doesn't work in the long run (it was only accomplished in Europe by actual mass work on the ground which forced the governments to implement reforms, and once the pressure is gone, business naturally wants to remove them as quickly as possible), doesn't mean the Europeans don't have it better than Americans on the average. Can't help it if you're jealous.
posted by graymouser at 12:12 PM on June 2, 2005

gapingvoid put it well:
France says "Non" to the 250-odd-page, intellectually bankrupt train wreck that is the EU Constitution (beta version). As France was one of the founding six members of the European Union (Britain wasn't), it's big news.

Hey Guys, next time you draft a proposed constitution, try to keep it under 1000 words. If you can't, it probably means you haven't really given it sufficient thought.

Frankly, even the Wikipedia article broadly summarizing the constitution isn't that brief. Note that the constitution required approval by all 25 member nations, and since that won't happen, the document's future is unclear. I was always curious how this process would turn out; while the original drafting was seen as the next step in creating a "federal Europe", that's a step that the document itself was unwilling to take, and as a result it resembled more an attempt to constitutionalize a federation. Many of the unimaginably complex political consultative processes which are the true underpinnings of the EU exist for the simple reason that the members of the federation are sovereign states unwilling, as of yet, to fully cede that sovereignty (e.g. in creating a common foreign policy). It seems a waste of time, and perhaps somewhat suspicious and elitist, to codify those processes and call it a constitution; it's almost the opposite of a constitution, in the sense of a document which is the foundation of a common state. In other words, it seemed much more like an encyclopedia-length version of the Articles of Confederation. It was only the failure of that attempt at a federative government which led the US to create its own constitution, which effectively nullified the individual sovereignty of member states. But that solved a problem. It's not clear at this point what the EU constitution is intended to solve.
posted by dhartung at 12:13 PM on June 2, 2005

PP MAY HAVE TEH CAPS LOCK BUTTON BUT WE STILL HAVE TEH TINY KOX OMGLOLB0MBZ0RS I DIDN'T KNOW PP WAS BACK FROM HIS BADGER SHOOTING VACATION

EVEN IF ONE DOES IT Y2KARL STYLE IT'S STILL SHOUTING AND DOESN'T HELP ONE'S ARGUMENTS

I ESPECIALLY APPRECIATE HIS CAREFUL USE OF PROPER PUNCTUATION DESPITE BLATANT DISREGARD OF TYPE CASE. HE LIKES IT SO MUCH HE EVEN PUT TWO APOSTROPHES IN "YOU'RE" IT WAS FANTASTIC YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE I MAY PUT UP SOME PICTURES LATER ON MY LJ

I exaggerate and simplify because I love. I also imagine PP and Bevets together in a log cabin somewhere, one using the laptop while the other makes coffee or gives gentle, sweet backrubs.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 12:23 PM on June 2, 2005

But surely it's the vast bulk of the US working class that are currently slouching towards poverty?
posted by fingerbang at 12:35 PM on June 2, 2005

What we're seeing here is the burst of the dot-com-government bubble. The EU started as a good idea in extreme federalism, a system of laws that tie people together economically without any of that messy "provide for the common good" stuff.

Predictably, it worked very, very well on the small scale, with its original members. Then, bouyed by their runaway success, they expanded too fast into "new markets" (read: Eastern Europe, Turkey) that didn't fit very well into the original business plan. Now, it's collapsing under its own weight as the original investors bail.
posted by mkultra at 12:39 PM on June 2, 2005

what is going ON here?

The implication being that it's virtually inconceivable people wouldn't vote for whatever damn thing they're handed, like the proverbial grand jury indicting a ham sandwich? People vote against all sorts of things, and from what I've seen of this, I wouldn't have voted for it either if I were European.

Can we please try to post like adults, without the CAPS and wide-eyed gee-whiz approach?
posted by languagehat at 12:52 PM on June 2, 2005

But surely it's the vast bulk of the US working class that are currently slouching towards poverty?

Nah. The Europeans are too (the "benefits" of neoliberalism, which is a big part of the EU project)...they just see it more clearly than the Americans, who have a more craven and abject press.
posted by graymouser at 12:56 PM on June 2, 2005

I have had the distinct, um, experience of actually working with Brussels on things and I'd vote NO too. It's not a proper government, it does not have the interests of the people in mind at all. The EU grew out of a trade organization remember.

A lot of people in Europe have actually READ the thing (it was mailed to all French homes) so it's not a media victory for anyone: the constitution is being rejected on it's own merit. It really is a sort of "we have to make ourselves competitive in the global market" panic document. Competing with China and the US is not paramount in the minds of the regular European person. Quality of life and social reform is.
posted by fshgrl at 1:22 PM on June 2, 2005

Word count of the US constitution: Approx 4500 words.
posted by teatree at 1:22 PM on June 2, 2005

ENJOY YOUR VACATIONS

Wait, you mean Europeans get vacations? Hell, sign me up.
*slouches toward work/college burnout.*
posted by elwoodwiles at 1:24 PM on June 2, 2005

fshgrl: A lot of people in Europe have actually READ the thing (it was mailed to all French homes) so it's not a media victory for anyone: the constitution is being rejected on it's own merit.

I've gotten that impression as well. The thing people really have to look at in the French coverage of the "non" vote in particular is how invested the French media were in "oui" - at the behest of the media owners, pretty much all the commentators and intelligentsia in France were behind the EU Constitution. Their coverage of its loss is deeply colored by the fact that it's egg on their faces as well as on the government's (from all sides, even groups like the Parti Socialiste which should've had the good sense to oppose). Some reports I've read say that the media's bias was actually a significant factor for the "non" campaign, drawing sympathy away from the media-backed "oui."
posted by graymouser at 1:53 PM on June 2, 2005

Most of the French that I know voted against the Constitution as a way to censure Chirac's government. As in the last mid-term elections, when the left swept the boards as a reaction to LePen's first-round triumph 2 years earlier and Chirac's mismanagement of his round 2 rout, this was yet another way to say 'no'. Jospin's prior leftist government and the 35-hour workweek were ways to say no to earlier rightist governments. Back and forth it goes. The Constitution took the fall for this malaise this time around.

The French have high expectations of their government, desiring job creation, youth employment, health care, pensions, reasonable work conditions and pay, holidays and vacations, and basic social rights (unemployment, maternity leave, back-to-school money, money for children, housing allocations, work replacement training...). They consider the Raffarin government to have broached the social contract by extending the time till retirement age, cutting thousands of teaching and teaching assistant and 'intermittents de spectacle' (people who set up art festivals and provide entertainment, artists) jobs, redoing Social Security, all the while without really consulting the other parties (or with Bush-like pretending to have a dialogue, especially with Nat'l Education). Ironically, while the working class (those who mostly voted against the Constitution) feel they're less and less heeded nowadays, they actually have the economy at their mercy with constant strikes. The government is so afraid of offending people that they sort of do this strange waltz of implementing serious changes without consultation all the while fearing their own citizens. Really strange. In my opinion, there's just not enough money to live like this, considering that the new EU members to the East have so much more to gain than the French have to lose - and what's good for your neighbors might be good for you as well. I wish they had thought more of their neighbors when making this historic vote.
posted by faux ami at 1:58 PM on June 2, 2005

Graymouser, that's interesting. A few days after the results in France, I was at a friend's house and happened to pick up the latest issue of French Glamour that she had on the coffee table -- and I was a bit surprised by the rather vociferous "why you must vote 'oui'!" articles throughout.
posted by scody at 1:59 PM on June 2, 2005

forgot to add this on preview:

The French have high expectations of their government, desiring job creation, youth employment, health care, pensions, reasonable work conditions and pay, holidays and vacations, and basic social rights (unemployment, maternity leave, back-to-school money, money for children, housing allocations, work replacement training...).

They hate freedom, in other words. ;)
posted by scody at 2:00 PM on June 2, 2005

Competing with China and the US is not paramount in the minds of the regular European person. Quality of life and social reform is.

One of the things the "no" voters have not understood is that the latter will go down the drain in the not-so-long run if we don't achieve the former.

And I really would appreciate an explanation from someone why this constitution is undemocratic or bad, or "not a constitution". I have read that uncounted times today alone, but the best explanation given so far is "it's too long and complex". That is true, but does not say anything about democracy.

Also, how will it destroy local customs or culture (a thing I think is very important to keep)? What do human rights and economic regulations have to do with your local customs?

It comes down to fear by the old members of the EU of cheap eastern labor from the east, France and Germany being too powerful, and the opportunity to "stick it to the government", which is perceived to be detached from the people.

On a certain level I can understand the no voters. I can only hope they will someday realize what they have done to Europe and themselves.

You can't fence yourself in forever.
posted by uncle harold at 2:01 PM on June 2, 2005

Regarding the frequent Monday-morning QB comment that this thing might have stood a chance if it were simpler, like the US constitution: Would 50 US states ratify the US constitution today? Would 25?
posted by beagle at 2:22 PM on June 2, 2005

One way to help picture what's going on is look at Europes tribal history. The "Franks" (French), for example, were not a "people", but a tribal confederation, composed of many small Germanic tribes who agreed to be lead by a strong warrior elite family band. Same with the Goths, Huns, Vandals, etc.. This pattern of confederations has remained a strong element in European history, so now today we have an attempt at a confederation of nations, where the atomic unit is no longer the tribe but the nation. Im not saying its historically determined to happen, but there is a strong historical influence in that direction. It also helps to know these early European tribal confederations did not just happen for no reason, they happened because of the external pressures of the Roman Empire, just as Europe is currently under external pressure from Americas economic and cultural influences.
posted by stbalbach at 2:34 PM on June 2, 2005

Would 50 US states ratify the US constitution today? Would 25?

Although it's remarkably simple to draw parallels, this is a huge case of apples vs. oranges. Current European states have seen a sense of nationalism that has existed for decades, if not centuries in some cases. National defense, a modern economy, solid currency, recognition of other states and vice versa, etc. are all problems our original colonies had, versus the far more modern problems current European countries face.

This type of comparison, while interesting to ponder, is completely irrelevant and silly.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 3:02 PM on June 2, 2005

The two "no" votes were completely different. In the Dutch case it's a deep dissatisfaction with all things European -- Holland pays more than any other country per capita to Brussels, and in return they've had to deal with a stronger Euro in the past 2-3 years, which is no good for a trade-based economy (like Holland's).

As a result Holland has been getting poorer every year since Maastricht went into effect, while at the same time their government is severely restricted from spending by EU guidelines. Moreover those are rules which only affect the smaller Union countries; larger countries like Italy can pretty much exempt themselves from them (and Italy has).

The Dutch don't feel that they're getting a good deal.
posted by clevershark at 3:17 PM on June 2, 2005

The constitution is being rejected because it is 500 pages of drivel , a goodly proportion of which were such insanities as the setting in stone of the common agricultural policy.

Essentially, much in the way of anti-democratic bureaucracy but nothing like as much in defining how the EU relates to the individual citizens who live within its borders. I say anti-democratic with serious intent uncle harry. What business does a thing like CAP have in a constitution of any kind? That's carrot and stick, not a declaration of the rights of man.

If we are to have a consitution first we must decide quite what the EU is to be. Until we have done that we cannot begin to define what role the EU must play, whether it be a simple watchdog for a wide ranging free trade agreement or a stepping stone to a supra national state, and without that we cannot define how it relates to its citizens.

This is a very interesting time for Europe and these two votes have brought the major decisions on the EU's future into sharp relief.

There are some parallels here with the US in the mid nineteenth century. I'm not saying we're in the same situation and we can only resolve our problems in the same way, but this really is a major turning point in what we have been and what we will become.

Just as the US was expanding west whilst still coming to terms with what it really was, we have rapid expansion east, even into the former Soviet Union, and a great deal of disagreement over what form the EU needs to take to deal with that. The French and others want protection for their local economies. The Eastern Europeans best advantage is that there is very little protection and their low wage economies can compete in a rich open market whilst at the same time the EU raises conditions through the same legislation which applies elsewhere. Those two views are diametrically opposed.

Your other major problem is the near total lack of democratic accountability within the major decision making branches of the organisation. It truly is the ultimate invisible bureaucracy.

I strongly believe in the aspirations of the EU. If nothing else much closer economic ties gives the near total guarantee of an end to in fighting on the continent. That's reason enough to go for it imo. Before we go any further though, in whatever direction we decide to head off in, we must make the organisation democratically accountable.
posted by vbfg at 3:32 PM on June 2, 2005

From the International Herald Tribune:

Many Dutch who opposed the constitution fear being swallowed by a superstate ... Pierre Wind, a well-known chef in The Haque, said Wednesday that he was not against Europe but against this Constitution. He said that it would allow the Union to have more and more power over daily life and tha the country would lose its identity.

"Countries are like restaurants," he said. "We could be turning into a chain, like McDonalds."
posted by Lady Penelope at 3:43 PM on June 2, 2005

Somehow even after previewing I missed that typo. My apologies.
posted by Lady Penelope at 3:45 PM on June 2, 2005

Word count of the US constitution: Approx 4500 words.

Word count of legal judgements explaining what those 4500 words mean: a bit more than 4500.

Most of the American reporting on this (especially NPR's) has been rubbish: at best ignorant, at worst, deeply misleading. If you read French, there's a site that was embraced by the 'Non' campaigners explaining some principled criticisms of this particular constitutional draft. (If you don't, a summary of the complaints: it's unreadable, partisan, hard to amend, doesn't handle separation of powers well, and empowers EU institutions rather than the people.) It's not a constitution, it's more like a business contract.

Others in this thread (esp. dhartung and vbfg) have made the salient points better than the US media. One thing I'll add: the new member nations have barely had time to 'bed down' in the EU, and the transitional arrangements for mobility of labour, economic assistance etc won't expire for a few years more. Which makes it the wrong time, as well as the wrong text. Lets Tony Blair off the hook, though.
posted by holgate at 5:07 PM on June 2, 2005

jsavimbi - great pickup. Absolutely made my morning.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 5:25 PM on June 2, 2005

The entry into the EU of Turkey was not significant.

It was in Holland. Halfway down this, it says: "More than half of the Dutch supporters of the no" camp said they wished to block Turkey's EU bid."

That was a poll before the election. The Financial Times claims similar numbers after the fact. I'm guessing there were other voters uncomfortable in admitting to it.
posted by IndigoJones at 5:46 PM on June 2, 2005

I don't understand why anyone would object to giving up their sovereignty to a massively bloated central power.
posted by nightchrome at 5:54 PM on June 2, 2005

When Napoleon conquered the Netherlands, he forced all the inhabitants to take last names, for record-keeping purposes.

Many of the Dutch, to show their contempt for the invader, took names that were vulgar puns.

Thus, "Tiny Kox", or so I've heard.
posted by orthogonality at 7:20 PM on June 2, 2005

The constitution is basically a bunch of trade and subsidy agreements that people do not want set in stone. A perfect example is the Common Agricultural Policy, which I happen to know a bit about and which is basically utter madness.

Brussels needs to go back to the drawing board if they want an actual constitution. Which I don't think they do, I think they just want a better means of imposing their trade agreements and to be the bargaining power for all of Europe.
posted by fshgrl at 11:18 AM on June 3, 2005

Er...when was NAFTA submitted to a popular vote in the US?

Anyway, I'd be a bit more careful about criticism of "bloated" Brussels. In real fact, the European Commission (the EU's executive) employs "just" 20000 civil servants. That may sound like a lot, but it is dwarfed by the national administrations, with payrolls going into their millions. I would also be careful about "Brussels' waste". While it is true that the Court of Auditors hasn't approved the EU's accounts in I don't know how many years, there is *one* part it has consistently accepted in the last few years, and it is that referring to the Commission's own running expenses. The real fraud and waste is actually happening to the money administered by the national governments. Finally, it is far easier for the politicians running the show (those running the national governments, and, through the EU Council, the EU) to blame "Brussels" for their own ineptness and worse than to point the public's attention to these uncomfortable facts.

BTW, I utterly despise the use of the word "Brussels" in this context. Brussels is just a city. The EU has four decision making bodies: Council, Commission, Parliament and Court of Justice. Basically, Council and Parliament are the legislative, Commission the executive and the Court of Justice the judiciary. However, the Council, in which the national governments are represented, has a strong primacy over the Parliament. And while the Commission has the exclusive right to propose new legislation, on the other hand it has close to none enforcement powers (not having a police, never mind armed forces): if a country decides to ignore EU legislation and decisions by the Court of Justice, there's little to do against it, short of expelling the offending country from the EU. In short: while it's handy for national politicians to blame "Brussels", the main decisions (including most of the proposed Constitution) are still taken in national capitals.

The Constitution would have had introduced a necessary dose of transparency in the decision making. However, it was also a bit of a dog's breakfast, because everybody and their dog managed to get some piece of pork inserted into it. The result is that it is (unsurprisingly) rejected by the public, which however paradoxically probably suits quite a few of those people involved in drafting it. This, BTW, may also explain why much of the "yes" campaign in both France and Holland was so incredibly inept...Or maybe I'm just too cynic...
posted by Skeptic at 5:42 PM on June 3, 2005

There is another 'body' working in Brussels:

'According to Commissioner for Administrative Affairs and Anti-Fraud Siim Kallas, there are currently about 15,000 lobbyists in Brussels (consultants, lawyers, trade associations, corporations, NGOs) seeking to influence Commission officials and MEPs. Some 2,600 special interest groups have a permanent office in Brussels, making 60 to 90 million euros of revenue every year.'

Another reason for the French and Dutch to feel that the citizens of Europe have diminished influence on the decision makers.
posted by asok at 3:13 AM on June 4, 2005

asok: And pray, how is the rejection of the Constitution going to diminish the number of lobbyists?
Lobbys and special interest groups will stay, with Constitution or without Constitution, with EU or without EU. If anything, it is more difficult to capture the decision-making of a large entity as the EU than of smaller entities (if you want some proof, just have a look at how decisions are taken at your town council...never mind its "closeness" to the citizens, you'll always see local politics is always a great deal closer to certain citizens than to the rest).
posted by Skeptic at 7:27 AM on June 4, 2005