| Monday, May 30, 2005 |
| Looks familiar, non?? |
And then there's this.....
I dunno. I just think the French are going to appear even more xenophobic and arrogant than they already do (are), and the Dutch are going to use this as an excuse to retaliate against many recent things: the Van Goh murder last year; the increasing influence of Turkey (read "Muslim")in France; and the fear that their rather "high" standard of living would be compromised by a European Union.
Welcome to change and progress, France. It's a global economy, and we need to find ways to make certain that there aren't "first world, second world, third world" distinctions, but rather; One World. One in which our individual cultures and heritage are protected as much as possible, but also one in which our borders are open and free trade is the standard currency.
Perhaps someday. France has now made it highly unlikely that the EU Constitution, and models of state, are delayed as much by 5 years, and may get derailed completely. I hope not - this change needs to happen. |
posted by Broadsheet @ 11:21 PM   |
|
| 2 Editorial Opinions: |
-
Ok, may as well slog back in and take some abuse. Disclaimer: I sure as hell haven't read the proposed EU constitution so I may be full of it to some extent. That said . . . .
First off, um, no actually it doesn't look that familiar. Sure, Paree was national centre of support for the constitutional ratification. But, um, France does have other cities and one is being perhaps even a little charitable in describing their returns as "mixed."
Also, the USA election (I hate that usage, but we're trying to be Euro friendly here) didn't exactly have hulking swaths of bluevosity in predominantly rural-dwelling states. But nearly all of Brittainy seems to have gone for the constitution, despite a complete absense of cities. Why? I'm seriously asking. Is this the Marin County of western France? I dunno, but I'd like to.
Moving on . . . .
Like Broad, I'm a NAFTA lover too. Or at least a conceputal pro-"free" trader. But here's my problem: many free trade-leaning policies were put into effect under the rubric of the EEC; France and Germany especially found or created loopholes. So, first, do we really expect those loopholes would close with the constitution? And second, what baggage does that constitution bring along for the ride?
That is to say, I feel comfortable having supported NAFTA, with Clinton, but I would never seek to establish some kind of trans-national legal framework encompassing Canada, the US, and Mexico -- because I would be seriously concerned, for instance, that Canada's press censorship would somehow bleed through. Does that make me a xenophobe?
In any case, I don't seriously doubt that the French vote played out as a referendum on Chirac. But it does seem to me that there are serious problems, REALLY serious problems with the EU constitution as it stands that aren't getting discussed that much because it's more fun to cover the referenda themselves horserace style.
As to the Dutch, I would simply ask: let's say we accept that there is a great deal of tension about Muslim immigration into Holland and its consequent political ramifications.
We have a situation, it seems pretty clear, where a minority population is undergoing intermitent abuse at the same time that it is, politically, attempting to take away rights from the majority.
See also, inotherwords: Southern Baptists. Here at home, you are a proponent of individual rights over religious totalitarianism, at least when it comes to Christian right wingers.
Abroad, apparently, you are eager to frame a defense of Renaissance Voltairian values as xenophobic. And sure, some true xenophobes may hide behind that defense, but that's no refutation of the position itself.
Am I overreaching? Fine, then articulate the line you draw between the defense of minority religious values and the preservation of individual rights (particularly women's rights).
Nuf said. Sorry if I sound crabby; Cabrerra was doing so well tonight until the middle of the game.
-
Mark, I totally agree, but try to apply a little more scutiny:
According to the graphic I lifted courtesy of Gawker, here's the breakdown on France's vote this weekend:
"There is a solid red 'non' stretching clear across the country, save for the blue-colored western edges of Brittany, with its close ties to Britain; eastern France, where many families trace their roots to Germany; Paris; and the French Caribbean islands, where French overseas citizens still have the vote."
So, there you go - THAT'S why the map is important, that's why Brittany is pissed off, and THAT'S why it bears a correlation to the US Map.
Otherwise - dead on, man...
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
Ok, may as well slog back in and take some abuse. Disclaimer: I sure as hell haven't read the proposed EU constitution so I may be full of it to some extent. That said . . . .
First off, um, no actually it doesn't look that familiar. Sure, Paree was national centre of support for the constitutional ratification. But, um, France does have other cities and one is being perhaps even a little charitable in describing their returns as "mixed."
Also, the USA election (I hate that usage, but we're trying to be Euro friendly here) didn't exactly have hulking swaths of bluevosity in predominantly rural-dwelling states. But nearly all of Brittainy seems to have gone for the constitution, despite a complete absense of cities. Why? I'm seriously asking. Is this the Marin County of western France? I dunno, but I'd like to.
Moving on . . . .
Like Broad, I'm a NAFTA lover too. Or at least a conceputal pro-"free" trader. But here's my problem: many free trade-leaning policies were put into effect under the rubric of the EEC; France and Germany especially found or created loopholes. So, first, do we really expect those loopholes would close with the constitution? And second, what baggage does that constitution bring along for the ride?
That is to say, I feel comfortable having supported NAFTA, with Clinton, but I would never seek to establish some kind of trans-national legal framework encompassing Canada, the US, and Mexico -- because I would be seriously concerned, for instance, that Canada's press censorship would somehow bleed through. Does that make me a xenophobe?
In any case, I don't seriously doubt that the French vote played out as a referendum on Chirac. But it does seem to me that there are serious problems, REALLY serious problems with the EU constitution as it stands that aren't getting discussed that much because it's more fun to cover the referenda themselves horserace style.
As to the Dutch, I would simply ask: let's say we accept that there is a great deal of tension about Muslim immigration into Holland and its consequent political ramifications.
We have a situation, it seems pretty clear, where a minority population is undergoing intermitent abuse at the same time that it is, politically, attempting to take away rights from the majority.
See also, inotherwords: Southern Baptists. Here at home, you are a proponent of individual rights over religious totalitarianism, at least when it comes to Christian right wingers.
Abroad, apparently, you are eager to frame a defense of Renaissance Voltairian values as xenophobic. And sure, some true xenophobes may hide behind that defense, but that's no refutation of the position itself.
Am I overreaching? Fine, then articulate the line you draw between the defense of minority religious values and the preservation of individual rights (particularly women's rights).
Nuf said. Sorry if I sound crabby; Cabrerra was doing so well tonight until the middle of the game.