Treaty on the European Constitution

Last Sunday, the French voted NO to the Treaty on the European Constitution, in what was a very participated campaign. Unlike other elections for the European Parliment and referenda on european matters, this election had a reasonably low abstention rate (~30%). Equally important, it was preceded by a very broad and participated debate. For this reason, this No cannot be argued to be a result of ignorant antagonism about the treaty itself. There were many public deabtes (french style tv debates are nothing like US style hardball, one actually hears most people talk, and they have informative things to say), and books on the constitution were bestsellers. One might claim voter-ignorance, for instance, in the referendum on the treaty that took place in Spain, where there was hardly any public debate on the treaty and discussion of its content. But there the vote was 60-so-% YES, with a very high abstention rate.

This NO-vote came despite the very strong appeals of President Chirac and the the pilgrimage of many european leaders to France to try and convince the French people. But there arguments hardly mentioned the content of the treaty, rather they attempted to blackmail the voters by warning them that France would be placed outside the EU if the vote was negative.

What does the treaty contain anyway? Its hard to sumarize. The proposal of a European Constitution is 473 pages long. The protocols and annexes, which are considered an integral part of the European Constitution, yet hardly discussed, are a further 382 pages. That's a total of 855 pages. Granted some have very little content. But still, its far from being the simple, readable ,and interpretable text that a constitution is should be. Constrast this with the new Venezuelan Constitution that is so embraced by its people, that it has become a bestseller and is sold on street corners.

In its vast numbers of articles, it deals with most aspects of social-economic, political, cultural, and military life. It refers less to citizen's rights than to the market-economy it institutes constitutionally. And when it does refer to rights, it constitutes a step back from some national constitutions. For instance, the French and Portuguese Constitution grant to the "right to a job" to all citizens, whereas the European Constitution grants the "right to work". It also devalues the social system that has been achieved in most of Europe, while giving greater emphasis to the development of a military and security system. These are but a few reasons to oppose the treaty. It may certainly seem strange to an outsider, how or why people from the whole political spectrum are opposing this proposal. They are doing so for different reasons. The proposal is so extensive, that it poses a target for the extreme right, the communists, more than half of the socialist voters, and a considerable minority of right-of-centre parties (in government). This also makes it very hard to imagine how one could go back to the drawing board if this proposal is abandoned.

Tomorrow, Holand is very likely to also vote no in its referendum. Thats two down, but the UK has still to decide whether to have a referendum or not, whether to consider the process alive or dead. If it drops out, thats it. And the EU commission has no idea where to go from there.

WWII: corrections

Today we celebrate the end of WWII, or rather its European stage. But a few corrections need be made to most of what the commentators say. Its sad to them downplay or simply ommit the crucial role of the USSR in the defeat of Nazi-fascism. One need only look at a map and compare the size of the eastern and western fronts to realize the largest front was in the east, where most of the combats were taking place. One need only compare the numbers of dead, to see how Germans lost many more soldiers in the Western front, where the URSS resisted under extremely harsh conditions with millions dead. It is unfair to criticize Stalin for having decided to resist in Moscow, Stalingrad, and Leningrad (the latter with different names now), when Churchill did the name. The difference was simply that Germany placed much greater force on the eastern front, whereas it was only capable of attacking Great Britain in the sea and air. The facts are clear, if one had to assign one single member of the allied forces as the victor over Germany it would be the URSS. It fought longer, suffered more, and travelled longer to reach Berlin first. And George W. Bush using this ocasion to spew attacks upon the URSS and make it out to be the worst scourge in Europe's history is uncalled for.
It is also necessary to remember that the end of WWII did not mean the end of fascism in Europe. It persisted in Portugal and Spain, until 1974 and 75. It Portugal it lasted 48 years, a record for fascist rule. Both countries were officially neutral during the war, playing both sides, although Spain profitted highly from German support during its civil war. However, the allied victory was celebrated by the people. The pictures show portuguese in the Lisbon streets, bearing flagless poles, as the exhibition of the flag of the USSR was prohibited.