I’m sure you are right that many Chinese workers are being exploited - it’s the same in many developing nations, and even in some of the new EU member states.

On China. Bear in mind that France and Germany are more than happy to do with business with the Chinese, and even wish to sell arms to China as well as the new Airbus. Yet, at the same time they want to restrict China from selling its goods in the EU.

Is there something schizophrenic about their policy stance on China, or is it simply a case of wanting to have their cake and eat it. On the face if it looks like a combination of both. Personally I think these politicians are being less than honest and will say one thing to the public at home and quite another in their summit meetings with the Chinese.

Given the existing levels of European business investment in China I suspect that any protectionist measures sought by Chirac, if they come to fruition, will in effect be discreetly watered down. The devil is in the detail, and I expect the reality is that the situation would remain much as it is now.

As for the carrot of arms sales, it is no longer much of a carrot for the Chinese; the likelihood of the arms sales being approved in the European Parliament is very slim. France may of course choose to act bilaterally on the issue …..

The pressure of market forces will, I believe, force reform in China far more quickly than coercion; free trade and consumerism are dragons that even the Chinese Communist Party is finding difficult to control.

I’d say this happens all the time in parliaments. It’s not like Labour and the Conservatives agree on desirable end states for Britain, for instance…

And, if you call something “constitution”, with all that psychologically implies, than you should better be ready to face a comparison with other constitutions. You can’t have it both ways.

It improves decision-making by abolishing national vetoes in several areas of policy. This is crucial for any further enlargement of the Union. The treaty of Nice, decided with 15 member-states, can’t remain functional with a union of 27, 29, 33 or 41. So the first thing you can expect from a “no” to the Constitution is a final bye-bye to any chance of Ukrainians or Georgans or Moldovans of ever joining the Union in the next half-century.

(That’s also the reason why standing still on the treaty front is actually moving backwards — enlargement without integration means de facto dissolution. Like Alice we need to keep on moving just to stay where we are — if we want to progress we need to move twice as quick.)

It introduces the European citizens’ initiative which provides the first elements of direct democracy on a pan-European level.

It abolishes the rotating presidency which has been the cause of much woe and arbitrariness.

Instead of bargained arbitrary numbers of votes which insanely gave Germany (with much larger population) as many votes as France and only 2 more than half-the-size Poland, we have a simpler method of double-qualified majority (population represented and number of states) in the Council of Ministers.

It introduces the charter of fundamental rights.

It introduces the idea of the mutual support of member-states in the case of terrorist attack, and provides a mechanism where countries may abstain but yet not hinder from military operations taken by the European Union.

And finally it may seem unwiedly to you, but you need to compare it with the treaties it’s abolishing, not with the US Constitution. The European Constitution is not replacing the US Constitution (with which some people *love* to compare it, not seeing it’s an apples and oranges thingy), it’s replacing the Treaty of Nice and the Treaty of Rome as have been amended so many times we’ve lost count.

I have to say though, that the rhetoric of Chirac and Schroeder makes me shiver - this view that Europe needs to protect itself against competition is, in the long run, the road to ruin. Perhaps they are just playing to the gallery - but I suspect not.

You’ll have to read NATO’s other official language to get much out of it, though…

(See also on this site:
http://fistfulofeuros.net/archives/000078.php
and
http://fistfulofeuros.net/archives/000123.php )

Shorter Publius: Not perfect but good. Adopt and amend.

It would be nice to have someone actually defend the document, as opposed to scaremongering or appealing to some kind of idealistic “united europe”.

In no news reports do I hear politicians in favor of a yes vote actually discussing the pros and cons of the new constitution. Where are the federalist papers?

As an American married to a Greek/EU citizen it seems that there are many positive and populist arguments that should be made (on a pan-European scale): prosperity and peace from sea to shining sea (North/Baltic to Mediterranean/Black); common borders common security; etcetera. It seems maddening how each referedum, etc. is so parochial. Hell, forget sticks and carrots, how about irony? “Vote No! Bush Says So!”

It’s easy to talk about free market economics, when the Chinese themselves don’t have the right to enjoy such freedoms.

You may call it “reactionary” to object to competing with the Chinese under such terms, I on the other hand think it’s reactionary to ignore Chinese internal oppression and therefore force Europe’s truly free workers to compete on equal terms with slaves working under the whip of their masters. The outcome of such a thing can only be that the workers in both the free world and the enslaved one end up crushed.

If on the other hand European acceptance of Chinese goods hinged absolutely on the Chinese state allowing its workers actual rights, that would be good for both sides of equation: Wages would increase for Chinese workers, and this would mean that European workers wouldn’t have to compete with slave-labour either. The playing field would truly become even.