Just in case everyone had forgotten, Luxembourg voted today in a referendum on the EU constitution. They voted yes, by 56.52% to 43.48% to be exact. Not that it changes much since Luxembourg has a population of just 465,000. Junker will soldier on as Prime Minister, and now someone else has to think up a good excuse for terminating the process, but that is about all you can say.
19 Responses
Feed: A Fistful of Euros
July 10th, 2005 at 8:18 pm
I do think there’s a point to every EU member making its position clear on the constitution, yes or no: clarity. Now we know at which position Luxembourg stands, no ambiguities. They’ve had their say.
This way we’ll have a better position for everyone to start (re)negotiations from.
July 10th, 2005 at 8:40 pm
Why, the Dutch voted No and there is no way that they will change their vote so this only makes renegotiations more difficult
July 11th, 2005 at 12:15 am
France and Germany should now propose an EU wide referendum on NATO- do Europeans want to be part of such a large American led military bureaucracy ?
The bureaucrats at NATO want to drag all of Europe into the Anglo American holy war on Iraq and Iran; time has come for Europeans to stand up and insist on an referendum on wether we should continue to be part of such a dangerous organization.
Most Europeans would prefer to be part of an EU led military organization; NATO is too American and the British have far too much leverage in this organization.
Germany and France should now pull the rug from under the NATO organization and pull out completely before the lying corrupt Bush/Blair duo try again to drag all of Europe into one of their illegal wars on innocent countries.
July 11th, 2005 at 12:39 am
That is about all you can say? I think you could add: Only 56% Yes for Luxembourg is a very petit oui.
July 11th, 2005 at 4:57 am
Please let the EU pull out of NATO. It is a huge drain on US forces for no apparent reason.
July 11th, 2005 at 8:06 am
“This way we’ll have a better position for everyone to start (re)negotiations from.”
First of all a partial apology. This was only a very brief post since I thought we should have something. With what happened in London this possibly is not getting the attention it deserves. I personally have to admit that at this moment in time I don’t have quite the same appetite for revisiting the constitution that I would have had otherwise. I see this now as a theme for the rentr?e, and the build-up to a probable October summit. Giving the issue a rest for a couple of months probably will do no harm at all, we may then see some things more clearly.
I said “now someone else has to think up a good excuse for terminating the process” because I do think a halt should be called. I think a ‘Constitution’ (commas in order to not beg the question) needs by its very nature a large consensus. (Here in Catalonia we are working on a new Statute and we need a two thirds majority, no-one complains about that). What I think is clear is that there is an evident substantial number of people who are not happy with the proposal which was being made (or with the way of doing things which it reflects) and I think this needs to be addressed.
I am mildly hopeful that under the Blair presidency, and possibly with the election of Merkel, a start can be made in a new direction. I certainly don’t consider Blair a Eurosceptic.
I just think its a pity that now countries like Denmark, Poland, Portugal, Czech Republic etc are left to decide for themselves what to do next. I think a collective decision to call a halt would have been much more coherent.
@ Otto
“That is about all you can say?”
Sorry, you are obviously right, for Luxembourg this was a ‘petit oui’.
July 11th, 2005 at 8:13 am
I just think its a pity that now countries like Denmark, Poland, Portugal, Czech Republic etc are left to decide for themselves what to do next. I think a collective decision to call a halt would have been much more coherent.
A treaty has been signed. As faŕ as ratification is concerned a country is on its own in all cases. That is the definition of a sovereign country. If they want to, they cannot be prevented. I guess we need to come to the point where not even the twenty needed for review may still ratify. That is, we need six noes.
July 11th, 2005 at 8:15 am
@ Sebastian
“Please let the EU pull out of NATO.”
While I obviously have no sympathy for the way of seeing things contained in the comment which drew your remark, Nato does seem to be an alliance which by its very nature reflected defence problems of an earlier age. I think we do gradually need to evolve a common EU approach to defence and foreign policy and we do need to restructure our thinking in terms of the real issues of the age, which would be terrorism, humanitarian action, and rapid intervention in critical situations (today is the tenth anniversay of Srebrenica which should concentrate all our minds in this sense).
“It is a huge drain on US forces for no apparent reason.”
I don’t think its as simple as that, there are logistical arrangements involved.
July 11th, 2005 at 9:29 am
I think we do gradually need to evolve a common EU approach to defence and foreign policy and we do need to restructure our thinking in terms of the real issues of the age, which would be terrorism, humanitarian action, and rapid intervention in critical situations (today is the tenth anniversay of Srebrenica which should concentrate all our minds in this sense).
East of the river Oder that statement will meet some vehement opposition. And if I may say so, the ideal of foreign interventions is quietly expiring in the sands of Iraq. Furthermore this unopposed ease of intervention is an artifact of a global full western dominance. That will not last.
July 11th, 2005 at 10:24 am
“the ideal of foreign interventions is quietly expiring in the sands of Iraq.”
What are you saying Oliver, that in the event of another Srebrenica, or another Ruanda, we sit back and do nothing?
July 11th, 2005 at 12:37 pm
Edward, the question is surely, “we and whose army?” The troops could be found for another Srebrenica. It’s on our doorstep, after all. But I think the Africans are out of luck.
July 11th, 2005 at 1:23 pm
@ Andrew
“But I think the Africans are out of luck.”
Well, this depends. This could come under humanitarian (which I favour) or under ‘digging up terrorism by its roots’ (which Blair & I favour). If you want to seriously stop terrorism you should not draw lines about where you may or may not go (Darfur?). I think the debate about this is only just begining.
And on Srebrenica, if we had intervened we would not only have prevented a horrible massacre, we would have reduced terrorism, since in the late 90s (see other posts at weekend) Bosnia provided a key link in the chain. It is early yet to speculate too much, but there are growing indications that the net involved in last Thursday may have ‘grown strong’ precisely in Bosnia.
July 11th, 2005 at 4:03 pm
“digging up terrorism by its roots’ (which Blair & I favour)”
I am prone to judge politicians by what they do, not what they say. The recent Blair’s rhetoric doesn’t impress me. I’m skeptic about how this rhetoric may be translated into action. Roots are difficult to identify (each one has his favourite theory) and still more difficult to act effectively against (each one his favourite strategy). Moreover Blair is too attached to Bush’ decisions and the latter has more leverage on the former than vice versa.
?or another Ruanda, we sit back and do nothing??
This is what we are doing with Darfur. I don’t think that ?a common EU approach to defence and foreign policy? would make a difference. It’s just a question of being indifferent to African people’s suffering and lack of will to risk european lifes on this issue.
In the Darfur case, maybe there are other constraints. Sudan is an ally in the WoT. They expelled Bin Laden and Al Qaeda from Sudan.
July 11th, 2005 at 4:38 pm
we sit back and do nothing?
Exactly that is happening outside Europe sensu stricto.It may be noted that Europe didn’t intervene in Bosnia. NATO, meaning the US, did. If they have to leave Iraq under less than happy circumstances they won’t do that again, especially if they have to still fight the WoT.
And on Srebrenica, if we had intervened we would not only have prevented a horrible massacre, we would have reduced terrorism, since in the late 90s (see other posts at weekend) Bosnia provided a key link in the chain. It is early yet to speculate too much, but there are growing indications that the net involved in last Thursday may have ‘grown strong’ precisely in Bosnia.
While we are speculating, are you sure that today you could sell to the general public the idea that secession from a muslim state is bad?
Thirdly, I must note that any succesful western intervention led to occupation troops stationed for an indefinite amount of time. In one case already a decade. We cannot afford that many such victories.
July 11th, 2005 at 5:51 pm
Oliver, at the time Bosnia was not a muslim state. It is still not. If there has been a turn towards more islamic ways it is a consequence of Occidental indifference, not the cause.
DSW
July 11th, 2005 at 6:02 pm
True, at least two years ago when I was there. Well: “a state a plurality of whose population is nominally adherent to the muslim faith”. Fair enough?
It wouldn’t matter in popular oppinion. And I may remind that it took popular oppinion in form of CNN to cause the intervention.
July 11th, 2005 at 6:53 pm
“I must note that any succesful western intervention led to occupation troops stationed for an indefinite amount of time. In one case already a decade. We cannot afford that many such victories”
OK, this point is a big one, and very important. When we move on from Iraq, I hope this is something we’ll all be able to talk about. I mean explore what are the viable alternatives in depth. I say ‘when we move on from Iraq’ since this is still attracting such a huge amount of all our attention (for, against, or whatever) that I doubt we are giving sufficient time and energy to analysing just what the long term consequences of ’short term’ interventions actually are.
July 12th, 2005 at 10:10 am
When we move on from Iraq
“When” captures the problem. There is no realistic date. It seems to me that if the troops leave this or next year, it would be in defeat. That wouldn’t need be a desaster. No strategy wins every battle.
But if we go back to basics, occupying countries like that is foolish. You win by forcing the enemy to fight in a way that is an advantage to you and a disadvantage to him. The West is dominating air and sea and has strike armies that are unmatched. They perform superbly at battles and invasions. However as soon as you occupy, you have armies that don’t know the language, the customs and the area. Nor can they blend in. And they are hampered by urban conditions. You may say that we need to reform our armies. But this will not work to the extent necessary. No amount of training will make you a local and secondly, demographics. We no longer have younger sons to spare aplenty for the empire. In addition, I am not sure we want armies trained in ruling a resentful population by force.
July 12th, 2005 at 10:27 am
“”When” captures the problem. There is no realistic date”
Obviously, but there will be a when, and what happened last week in London ultimately brings it nearer both in the UK *and* in the US. 2006 seems to be pencilled-in as the critical year.
What happens next? Well some sort of fragmentation of Iraq seems to be implicit. But then, as Collounsbury suggests, Baghdad could become (even more of) a nightmare.
“You win by forcing the enemy to fight in a way that is an advantage to you and a disadvantage to him.”
I think Oliver, that when we get back to more light than heat, this point will become obvious. Iraq is an ‘outlier’ not only because it marked a radical departure from criteria applied in the original gulf war, Kosovo, Afghanistan etc, but because even an ‘immanent critique’ (ie one which examined it for coherence simply on the military plane) would find it severely wanting. It sacrificed the tactical advantage that the coalition forces had, and had used previously, and it seems to have forgotten all the ‘counter-insurgency’ lessons that were learned with such cost in Vietnam. Part of the explanation for this may be institutional, a shifting in the balance of power and influence towards the Pentagon (and a relative trashing of the CIA), but again I think we will have to wait for the historians to get to the bottom of this one. Clearly I reject the simplistic explanation that the war was a ‘primitive attempt to grab oil’, but you have to ask yourself about the extent to which an increase in the level of influence of energy companies and defence contractors with the change of government may have influenced the mindset. Otherwise it’s difficult to see really how we can have arrived at the point where we are now.