Good and Bad Vision

Today's CS Monitor offers bad vision on the resulting "non" to France's European Constitional Treaty Referendum. In their editorial When 'Non' Means So Much More:

"If just the Constitution itself had been discussed, it's hard to see how it could have been trounced so thoroughly by French voters in a Sunday referendum. In isolation, it's nothing more than a useful simplification of the European Union's existing treaties - a way to smooth the workings of the cumbersome 25-member EU, and to give Europe as a whole more foreign-policy oomph."

What a poor rendition of the debate around the Constitution and its contents! Sure, that was the "Oui" camp's mantra: "It doesn't change anything", a mantra often coupled with the contradictory "But it's very important!" So which is it: benign or important?

Good vision is to be found elsewhere. The wikinews has the best, most faithful analysis of the referendum that I have come across:

Arguments of the "No" vote

Proponents of the "No" vote, both on the left and right, argued that the proposed constitution enshrined what they claim is an undemocratic Europe, with much of the responsibilities granted to a body of unelected political appointees, the European Commission and not enough checks and balances. They also point out that it vests much legislative power in the European Council, representing the executives of the various countries; this is seen as a bad arrangement with respect to Separation of powers. While the treaty adds supplemental powers for the directly elected European Parliament, many opponents, particularly on the left, consider that they are still insufficient in order to provide checks and balances.

Much criticism was directed at the length of the proposed Constitution. The real treaty submitted to French voters is about 80 pages long, which many argue is too long and complex for a constitution. It is followed by 100 pages of appendices, declarations and protocols, some of them dealing with matters such as oil refining in the Dutch West Indies or specific nuclear power plants in Eastern Europe.

Opponents of the treaty argue that the proposed constitution will largely hamstring the French government and prevent it from leading its own policies in matters as diverse as social services or foreign policy.

Much of the opposition was targeted at Part III of the proposed constitution, which sets the policies of the European Union. Opponents point out that the constitutions of most countries, including France, do not specify policies explicitly, except for a limited number of fundamental rights, but rather are limited to specifying the core principles and procedures of how governmental institutions work. Part III, they argued, sets in stone a number of economic and social choices, while these should be a matter of political choice depending on democratic votes.

That's very much the motivation for my "Non" vote: this treaty doesn't propose a Constitution but the end of public service and social standards, not to mention the end of democracy itself in Europe, installing an oligarchical political system led by the twin evils of the European Commission and the Europe Council, neither required to uphold decisions made in the European Parliament.