Monday, May 30, 2005
The constitution. No, really.
I find constitutionalism one of the most opaque parts of political science. Arguments over a piece of paper invested with power it actually doesn't have - it's like counting angels on pinheads.
A constitution is nothing more than words on paper - unless it becomes a rallying point for alternative social visions. So, hear me out. Voters in France rejected the EU constitution by a 10% margin, throwing the future of the EU in doubt.
Why Non?
An EU constitution would have bound France to neo-liberal 'reforms', dismantling pension, welfare & job rules i.e. the welfare state. Which is why the 'irrational' French opposed it: they like pensions, holidays & unemployment insurance. Quelle surprise.
A member of League de Jeunes Revolutionaires (LJR), a large Trotskyist organization, menacing the very fabric of Europe.
But of course the media doesn't mention that. The Guardian warns that anti-EU countries could "retreat into navel-gazing and narrow national agendas." So now workers' rights are narrow, national things; increasing the exploitation of labour is modern.
The CBC (Canadian national radio network) outdid its usual right-wing platitudes by claiming "the Communist Party" supported the No vote. Which, in North-American-speak, means total loonies voted No.
Then it interviewed two yes supporters, who said France was "divided", and that a "new Europe" would be harder to form now. The future was "cloudy". That was it. No reason why the French might oppose the EU constitution, or who opposed it, or what was at stake. Just that non-Communists (i.e. you or me) should be worried. The 5 Ws, first year journalism courses... meh.
The following report said Canadians had 'lost faith' in journalism. "Until there's more substance and less political drama", the trend will continue, the reporter said. I think I've used the "breathless naivete or rank hypocrisy" comparison before, but I keep having to repeat it.
A social no
The EU is sold on the left as a counterweight to U.S. domination. But if it means destroying the welfare state, what's the difference? Capitalist ruling classes work on both sides of the Atlantic. Whatever their differences, they'd love to have workers in two massive economic blocs competing to work for less. And liberals everywhere cower at the prospect of workers standing up for their rights. Nope, I'm well chuffed by this result.
History repeats itself
Of course, they'll probably just reword the question and ask them again. Check out this interview that discusses the ramifications of a No vote. I'm reminded of Bertolt Brecht's poem The Solution:
A constitution is nothing more than words on paper - unless it becomes a rallying point for alternative social visions. So, hear me out. Voters in France rejected the EU constitution by a 10% margin, throwing the future of the EU in doubt.
Why Non?
An EU constitution would have bound France to neo-liberal 'reforms', dismantling pension, welfare & job rules i.e. the welfare state. Which is why the 'irrational' French opposed it: they like pensions, holidays & unemployment insurance. Quelle surprise.
A member of League de Jeunes Revolutionaires (LJR), a large Trotskyist organization, menacing the very fabric of Europe.
But of course the media doesn't mention that. The Guardian warns that anti-EU countries could "retreat into navel-gazing and narrow national agendas." So now workers' rights are narrow, national things; increasing the exploitation of labour is modern.
The CBC (Canadian national radio network) outdid its usual right-wing platitudes by claiming "the Communist Party" supported the No vote. Which, in North-American-speak, means total loonies voted No.
Then it interviewed two yes supporters, who said France was "divided", and that a "new Europe" would be harder to form now. The future was "cloudy". That was it. No reason why the French might oppose the EU constitution, or who opposed it, or what was at stake. Just that non-Communists (i.e. you or me) should be worried. The 5 Ws, first year journalism courses... meh.
The following report said Canadians had 'lost faith' in journalism. "Until there's more substance and less political drama", the trend will continue, the reporter said. I think I've used the "breathless naivete or rank hypocrisy" comparison before, but I keep having to repeat it.
A social no
The EU is sold on the left as a counterweight to U.S. domination. But if it means destroying the welfare state, what's the difference? Capitalist ruling classes work on both sides of the Atlantic. Whatever their differences, they'd love to have workers in two massive economic blocs competing to work for less. And liberals everywhere cower at the prospect of workers standing up for their rights. Nope, I'm well chuffed by this result.
History repeats itself
Of course, they'll probably just reword the question and ask them again. Check out this interview that discusses the ramifications of a No vote. I'm reminded of Bertolt Brecht's poem The Solution:
After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
