Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Just Say 'Non' to Progressive Values

By Ian Williams, AlterNet. Posted June 1, 2005.


In voting against the EU constitution, the French left allowed its hatred of Jacques Chirac to trump good sense.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Ian Williams

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The French predictably voted "non!" to the proposed EU constitution this weekend. While the outcome of the referendum was hardly surprising, the reactions of some U.S. commentators to the vote were as collectively incoherent as the motives of the voters themselves.

Diehard conservatives in the United States cheered on French Communists and leftists for their success in frustrating a multinational challenger to U.S. global dominance, while many on the American left expressed solidarity with their French comrades who joined with fascists to vote down a “capitalist” constitution. The irony of this blinkered endorsement is redoubled by the rejected constitution itself, which guarantees rights undreamt of by any liberal in the United States. This is a constitution derided by the conservative Weekly Standard for guaranteeing “entitlement to social security benefits and social services providing protection in cases such as maternity, illness, industrial accidents, dependency or old age, and in the case of loss of employment.” How can so-called liberals in a country that has 45 million uninsured citizens dismiss a document that ensures the right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical treatment?

The draft constitution even has a clause on animal rights -- whither Brigitte Bardot? -- and recognizes equal rights for religions and “philosophical” associations for all those born-again atheists.

Who needs that kind of Anglo-Saxon capitalism?

The weakness of the constitution is not so much its alleged corporate agenda, but its dense and prolix prose, which reflects the attempt to accommodate everyone from British conservatives to East European emulators of American excess that has led to far too much ambiguity. In the end, those ambiguities gave a wide spectrum of the French public the excuses they needed to vote against the real issue on the ballot: Jacques Chirac. This includes the French Socialists and Communists who, albeit with deep anguish, voted for Chirac at the last election to keep Le Pen’s rightwing and ultra-nationalist party from winning. This time around, the same folks voted "no" alongside Le Pen’s racists and fascists -- a sight that should at least give U.S. progressives some pause for thought.

French workers have every reason to want to defend their social benefits against the encroaching Anglo-Saxon free market capitalism. But perhaps they should first have looked across the English Channel, where British conservatives oppose the constitution because of all the benefits it guarantees ordinary people. Indeed, most British labor unions that once opposed joining Europe as a capitalist plot now recognize the superior protections offered by Brussels. And while much has been made of the threat of immigration, if that mythical Polish plumber turns up in Paris with his wrench in hand, the constitution entitles him to the same, considerable statutory benefits of his French colleagues.


Digg!

Ian Williams writes on the United Nations for AlterNet. His work has appeared in Foreign Policy in Focus, the Nation, and Salon.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Not really
Posted by: Jamesberry on Jun 1, 2005 12:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IS it not possible the French where saying Non to being drawn further and further in the Globalization agenda. By many accounts the proposed is a mangled mess. Hundreds of pages. What would be so smart about basicly giving up large amounts of national soveignty? The Eu doesn't strike me as democratic really. I suspect it actually designed to more decisions further and further away from the people's oversight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nein to this mess
Posted by: sapatatanka on Jun 1, 2005 1:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ian, you misunderstand the reasons for the French vote - and the upcoming Dutch one, which will be even more negative.

Firstly, the EU is a deeply anti-democratic conglomerate of bureaucracies where non-elected people make decisions for 450 million people who have essentially no say whatever.

Secondly, the French vote largely was censorship of Jacques Chirac's policies.

Thirdly, if I got to vote on this so-called constitution (being German, I won't), I would also vote against it, because a) a 450-page document with another 480 pages of protocols, addenda, and understandings does not deserve to be called a 'constitition' - it's a mess; b) there was no public debate whatsoever about this so-called constitution anywhere in Europe; c) it is indeed a document outlining the path to a corporation-controlled EU. There's no way on earth, in heaven or in hell that would make this document acceptable to me.

Finally, I wonder if Europe's politicians will find it in their corrupt hearts to even think about creating a public debate about the future course of the EU - but I doubt it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nein to this mess Posted by: bry1050
» RE: Nein to this mess Posted by: dlf
Utopia in a philosophical vacuum
Posted by: IanA on Jun 1, 2005 3:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For Europeans to understand the dynamic of Europe is difficult, for Americans, who need things in 15 second sound bites and in clear white hat or black hat scenarios it is impossible.

The EU is mainly a union of states, although the “parliament” is a representative but not so effective union of people. As such Europe is still expanding and struggling to find an sensible expression of this balance. But, along with an over glorification of self interest, I believe there is a great deal of disillusion and depression going around these days, like a viral allergy. The symptoms are that nausea and attention disfunction that one feels at listening to Blair or Chirac speaking “symbolically” in codes and spinning six to the half dozen yet again pretending like Bush that they are leaders and visionaries. From Portugal to Poland the politician is so far divorced from his electorate by his arrogance and ego aswell as the amount of taxes required to maintain their delusions that we now face a “reality” crisis of continental proportion.

Our problem is not a question of confronting the criminal behaviour of the USA with some agreed foreign policy posture from a balanced political or economic block called Europe. Personally I believe America will eventually destroy itself or implode, much as the Soviet Union did, under the weight of its own criminality and social injustice without any help from Europe or China.

No, launching a constitution at this stage was a big mistake because it was trying to satisfy too many grand expectations from too many diverse directions, which is not bad in itself and should be the essence of European diversity, but it has come at a time when we have lost all grasp of the relationship between moral, social, political philosophy and grass roots economic reality, In short few people can keep their eye on Utopia while unemployed and with the bailiff banging on the door, and even less so when they are being sold a bag of damaged goods by greasy smooth hair splitting liars like, Blair, Berlisconi, Chirac and the rest that pretend to be leaders.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How progressive is mandatory more military money?
Posted by: dearkitty on Jun 1, 2005 4:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ian Williams is wrong on this pro big business and militarist constitution, and on its Left opponents.

Today, the Dutch referendum on this. As in France, the majority are expected to vote no.

Yesterday, a national "mock" election for secondary school students: 69,9% voted no.

Today, 1 June, the real referendum in The Netherlands.

I'll do live blogging in the evening (Central European time after 9) on the results; at my main blog, here.

If there is ModBlog downtime then, blogging is on my backup blog; here.

As in France, a Dutch No vote is a grass roots victory against big odds.

Supporters of a Yes vote spent thirty times as much money as No supporters.

Most of this was taxpayers' money by the pro constitution Rightist Balkenende administration (allies of George W. Bush. Pollsters: probably the most unpopular in Dutch history; under 20% support).

Like in France, most leaders of political parties in parliament supported a Yes vote.

The main party in united opposition to the constitution is the Socialist Party: third Dutch party in membership (over 44.000), but with only 8 seats in a parliament of 150.

Jan Marijnissen, the popular Socialst Party leader, got ill, so could not campaign. Another handicap for the no vote.

Most media one sidedly propagated: vote Yes. They gave much space to, eg, Mr Boekestijn, Rush Limbaugh style propagandist for the Iraq war because of these terrible atomic bombs which Saddam Hussein supposedly had, and now at ease with a constitution with mandatory higher military spending, but no such stipulation for working people's benefits. Such people got lots more media space than critics.

In spite of this, as in France, opponents will probably win.

As in France, most Labour and Green voters are expected to vote No. As in France, the less well off a voter is, the more likely to vote no (France: of blue collar voters, 80% voted no).

The 70% no vote of Dutch students would also confirm the French result of young voters being more likely to vote no.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Progressive Europe
Posted by: Ninjafish on Jun 1, 2005 4:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many of the progressive aspects that were encluded such as the 48 hour week were opted out of by British Chancellor Gordon Brown before the debate even kicked off. Given the increadably low turnout in european elections even MEP's have only a very limited mandate in Europe, let alone the unelected beurocrats which seem to breed in european politics. The argument that a second world superpower to off set the criminal actions of the USA is dangerous, another set of people who have more in common with the Neo liberal values of Clinton and Regan than with regular people will only worsten the situation surely? Europe as a Super Power would never be a progressive utopia and haven for liberal values, it would be instead a haven for neo-liberalisation, particularly of the labour market. It is a system of government created by the ruling classes as oppossed to the hard won but still deeply imperfect democracies created in part by internal pressure for social change. A more sensible possition for the left to take is, through such tools as the European Social Forum and international co-operation between unions create a European voice for those values, it seems unlikely that without such pressure the parliamentary structure will ever represent any interests other than those of the people who created it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Progressive Europe Posted by: sapatatanka
» RE: Progressive Europe Posted by: Armafied
» RE: Progressive Europe Posted by: Angie
Are you, sir, an elitist plant?
Posted by: Pepper on Jun 1, 2005 6:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Globalization is not the answer to anything. Good for the French. As usual they take the lead in giving the giant finger to the bankers of Europe who are promoting this union. I salute them and their independance and good common sense.

I don't think their vote was a reflection of some political agenda (which this author wishes us to focus on; that is called "deflection" or "disinformation") rather it was a vote against globalization and all that it brings in the way of elitist control and dictatorship of the monied elite over the general masses. Once again, the French have declared independance! To bad they did away with the guillotine. LOL!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

EU/France/EUCon ALL socialist
Posted by: ChrisBieber on Jun 1, 2005 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
your and 99% of editors and Americans think that the European Union and its "opponents" are "conservative" freemarketeers....
Well why dont you do modicum of research and you will find that the FOUNDERS of the EU and the EURO and half of the "opponents" of the EUCon WERE and ARE socialists.
Jean Monnet, Jaques DeLors, Helmut Schmidt, John Retinger TONY BLAIR were/are GLOBAL SOCIALISTS and AND DID NOT CREATE THE EEC/EU/Euro/Council of Europe to promote "free market" economics and a "free" political entity....learn a little from the FABIAN SOCIALISTS in how gradual socialism is the means to the end....now the mass of CONDITIONED petty Europeans will demand "action" and a NEW and "BETTER" constitution.....they will DEMAND "being thrown in the briar patch". And the equally-conditioned American sheeple will go YAY! and say it is promoting democracy and "free market"..........

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Isn't the EU Constitution just like media consolidation in the U.S. ?
Posted by: maxpayne on Jun 1, 2005 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just look at how media consolidation destroyed and continues to destroy America. For the EU Constitution to exist would give potential pro-Nazi groups the potential to take over the continent though it wouldn't be as easy as it is in America what with more than half the Democrats refusing to stand boldly for anything and the Republicans breaking all the rules and ethical codes and abandoning principle to win any way they can including off year redistricting and undemocratic recalls.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ian was way off the mark
Posted by: pachamama on Jun 1, 2005 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is not a lot to add as the Alternet readers have properly upbraided the author for his misinformed views on the nature of the opposition to the EU consitutution. I myself am delighted to hear this good news from France, and can only hope that this sort of independent thinking and action take hold in the US some day soon, as it has in Latin America where I live.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ian Williams' Incoherence
Posted by: Scott Griffith on Jun 1, 2005 7:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With respect, Ian Williams' comments on the result of the referendum in France on the proposed EU constitution are fully as incoherent as those others which he deplores.

No one in Europe is setting himself up as a "multi-national challenger to US global dominance". That's a characterically belligerent and simplistic US reaction. No one on the left "joined with" the fascists. Many in both groups simply voted the same way: no. The alternative was yes. Thus there is no "blinkered endorsement", no irony, simply different reasons for voting no.

Yes, it may be generations, if not centuries, before voters in the US can aspire to the quality of the rights promised by the proposed constitution. That's their problem, not the Europeans'. The latter are defending rights which the former have never yet possessed.

The section with most merit in Williams' piece of modern journalism comes, for me, when he makes reference to Rube Goldberg and ad hoc European politics. In his cliched "blessing in disguise" remark, he comes closest to acknowledging an interesting possibility, namely that the French referendum result may turn out to be the best thing that could have happened for France and for Europe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NON!
Posted by: Frenchie on Jun 1, 2005 8:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We said 'Non' for a variety of reasons and Mr. Williams attempt to brandish us all as fascist or communist is offensive. We listened to interviews with people from all walks of life in France on their reasons for the 'Non' and there were many who lived in areas or were involved in work that would have benefited from the Constitution. They voted 'Non' with integrity. This was not just a vote against Chirac or the UMP although it was just that for some. In fact, I imagine if the elections were held today, Sarkozy would be a shoo-in. I hope not, but the 'little atlanticist' is on a roll and he is UMP.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

thanks
Posted by: karyse on Jun 1, 2005 10:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I want to thank everyone who commented on this issue of which I am hopelessly clueless.

I'd also like to thank Alternet for allowing commentary from readers, be they ill informed or well informed. It's almost like going back to the day when Washington D.C. had eight major daily newspapers (and just as many that were published weekly) from all political perspectives. Here I get different views all in the same place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

French no vote
Posted by: Dick and Bush on Jun 1, 2005 11:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes just more of the same ignorance. This article, from what I have been able to see, is the opposite of reality. The French voted against fascism and globalization.

Thank You French People!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Did you really read the EU constitution Mr Williams ?
Posted by: Laurent on Jun 1, 2005 12:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am really surprised in reading your paper. Where are the :“social security benefits, social services.." that you described in the EU constitution ? All these subject are only mentioned in the EU constitution but with no obligation. The only values that are really written and that all European nations DO WILL have to respect according to this constitution is free trade market, privatization of public services, competition with workers from different countries with different social regulations... in a word : the end of what US citizens call the wellfare state. All this is in the third part of the EU constitution. Read it ! And you will understand why a large majority of french people voted against it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm ignorant.
Posted by: WhatNow? on Jun 1, 2005 2:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do not know alot about this issue, but what little I've learned from some average Europeans is that it is too complex and loaded with unneccesary legalese.

I totally agree with what IanA says about the US. We may very well follow the path of the Soviet Union and destroy ourselves. About the worst thing Europe could do right now would be to blindly follow the US in it's numerous blunders. If there is one thing the EU could look to the US for an example would be a simple or even simpler Constitution than our own. But you must follow it as we seem to be so unwilling to do now.

Laurent mentions Americans think of Europe as a welfare state. I think of it more as a socialist state. FDR did great things for the US with his socialist programs. It strengthened the US and made alot of peoples standard of living much better. This country would have struggled much more to help Europe fight oppression without those programs.

I like socialism with a touch of capitalism thrown in for good measure. The free market practices of the US such as deregulation and privatization have caused an awful lot of problems with only a few rich benefitting from these practices.

With the complexity and the lack of debate, voting against the EU constitution seems to be a wise thing for the people of Europe.

As for challenging the US or wanting to be a superpower that is foolhardy. I hope you can strengthen yourselves through good economic principles and human rights values. I'm afraid the US may need your help via humanitarian missions someday.

Last of all, I hope the best for you all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

simplistic response for a simplistic article
Posted by: samuel on Jun 1, 2005 5:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this article is a very simplistic evaluation of the EU constitution, and the reasons why the french voted "no". if the french are only voting against chirac, then what explains the overwhelming "no" vote from the netherlands?
the EU is a complicated, and questionable organisation, and as i read this article i seriously doubted whether the writer really knows much about europe or has actually spent much time there? ever spoken to real europeans? i feel he doesn't really understand.

to say that europe should be embracing the constitution because it gives rights that the usa can only dream of is completely besides the point. Everybody knows that the usa is pretty messed up right now and that it doesn't take much to "do better" in terms of social services, etc. What a joke to say that europeans should simply be happy cause we've got more rights than the americans!

anyway, other people have made much better comments below, which i agree with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Babies & Bathwater
Posted by: jambro on Jun 2, 2005 6:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This discussion is much like the Franco-Dutch vote, re-active not pro-actave. Although I do not entierly agree with the author’s analysis, it does merit consideration as representing a slice of the analytic pie. Tuned to TV5, the international Francophone chanel, I heard an amazing series of fora and debates that the US has probably not heard since the Constitutional Congress.

Confusion can at times be a good thing if it communicates what is unclear and leads to a struggle for clarity.

My personal 2 cents in contribution to this discussion concerns an immature expansion that rushed into the former Soviet camp as ill advised as the US long arm of seductive hegemony. Eastern Europe needed a transition period, with EU assistance to clean up their post-Soviet messes, especially mafia captalism so embraced by the Anglo Saxon concept of free market globalization, which is a false rhetoric to cover the inside trading among US corrporations to dominate world markets & control resources.

Here, I agree that the US viewed and used the East as a Trojan horse — Rumsfeld’s sick joke of “New Europe” to cover a US drive to replace Soviet hegemony. This same should be said about Greece, a clutter of confused post-Ottoman ambiguity between pro&anti-Slavomania (East), pro&anti-EU (West), anti-Turk/Islam, and muddling internally in a state of general political-economic chaos.

Greece should have been a lesson to Western Europe to begin integration step-x-step with arms-length assistance and cooperation, as it is now doing with Turkey. East is not West, especially when emerging after two generations of Russian oppression — not Socialism. But the key is Russia itself, with all the natural resources that are indispensible to European development, sustainable or not.

In short, globalisation has spawned proponents & opponents from both right & left persuasions. This reactive vote against the constitution is also against complexity and contradictions inherent in present global reality. Both French & Dutch have voted their emotions not their intellect.

The present question is how to repair a messy consortium of nation-states sharing geography more than common ideals. It is a thorny challenge, but one the world must witness as there is no other option to counter Anglo-Saxon turbo captialism wrapped in a banner of globalized free trade.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I voted NO... and I'm proud of it
Posted by: Delilah on Jun 3, 2005 4:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really wonder while reading the paper if the author ever read the Constitution itself... I have the draft at home and I read it carefully, going thru the legalese and here are few points the author seems to have overlooked :

- what about the privatization of the public services ?
- what about the absolute non control of the Central Bank by any governing body ? Even the Fed is accountable to the Congress.
- what about having the right to work indeed - ooops, should I say the right to LOOK FOR a job ?
- what about the revision modalities for the Constitution ? The US Constitution allows revision with a majority of 2/3 states. It shall require UNANIMITY of 25 states for that Constitution - imagine the mess...

And the like. I studied law and economics at school and I can tell you that there's nothing as such as a Constitutional Treaty. It doesn't mean anything per se. Second thing, a constitution is a text organizing power and the way to get power in a given country. It has nothing to do with planning economic policies. Third, I know America well and I have an US constitution at home, along with a French one. Both are really short compared to the draft we were given.

The "economics" 3rd part is very long and most useless in such a text. Another point is that the real democracy would have been to make ALL Europeans vote on the same day. We all have a say and when I voted NO, I voted thinking of my European fellows who did not have the luck to do so.

Finally, yes, some folks in France wanted to punish Chirac. Our politicians are so much divorced from our people (I guess it happens the same on your side of the Atlantic too), that they were completely off the mark. Well, that's not the first issue they are off the mark anyway - sorta we get used to it.

But that's not the real concern. Our concern goes primarily to what we want to do with the best idea since WWII. The French voted NO because their idea and ideal of Europe is not what is in stock in the draft Constitution.

I for one is favorable to an idea of a constitution. Yes to a true political text with a real vision for the future. No to a text blocking our future with ultracapitalist visions and projects which are not ours.

Thanks for all the people from America and Europe who commented - very inspiring and reassuring at the same time. I'm proud of y'all !!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]