'Non' means "(they think) I'm stupid"

 Obviously it is idiotic to submit a constitution to a popular referundum. Constitutions are not quite a type of thing to be adopted by majority vote - they should reflect the type of stuff that is beyond the mere opinion of the majority allowing the globality of citizens to accept the outcome of the democratic process based on mere majorities.

Nevertheless, if such idiocy rules in the political establishment and the majority is against proposals for constitutions submitted to popular voting, then the long and short of it is that it is the proposal that is flawd and not the vote. The individual reasons for voting 'non' are quite beside the point as is, consequently, the indignation of established politics that this or that individual reason is uncalled for. As it is rather more ridiculous than merely quite beside the point that political leaders threaten voters with all types of chaos - up to and including the threat of a new holocaust - into accepting what's proposed as a constitution.

"Aprés nous, la déluge." That seems to be the main argument of many politicians for accepting almost 400 pages of text (referring to thousands of more pages of text included by reference) as something we should take as a constitutional treaty. But an argument like that fails on two counts.

First, we are doing relatively nicely and as yet there are no definite signs of Armageddon, certainly not on the mere condition of loosing a couple of authors of the proposed constituational treaty. Less so even considering none of these authors (and likewise almost none of the other politicians supporting them), have any real desire of leaving European politics for whatever reason - let alone because the popular vote turns against them.

But secondly, and more importantly, this proposal is not a constitution. It is a complex diplomatic treaty limiting the liability of current politians as to what may or may not be decided in future. It is the result of a bunch of obsessive-compulsive know-it-all perfectionists with a basic distrust not only in their citizens but also in the future generations.

Nowhere and not even from lightyears distance can the European proposal live up to previous examples (and certainly not to the American example). It is a grotesque failure to grasp what a constitution is combined with a hypocritical attempt to involve European citizens in its adoption. Everything but running the risk of being confronted with a clear European public opinion. More exactly, everything to avoid being confronted with such public opinion as it might turn out to be economically too much to the left & socially too much to the right for the comfort of the typical European no-risk types of politics (do everything the US does, just do it a bit more gently).

Fair enough, I guess, if our politicians at least go to the trouble of not adding insult to injury, and, maybe - but that's probably just a dream -, accept that the blame and stupidity are entirely theirs as a class (and not that of the supposedly stupid French voters).

11:54 Gepost door despreker | Permalink | Commentaren (0) |  Facebook |

De commentaren zijn gesloten.