On Jun 4, 2005, at 13:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The one that has particular resonance is:
"NO" is only an interim response.
France and Holland have each had a referendum on the new European
constitution, with a 'no' response in each country. After the French
one, which was held first, someone, a French poltitcian, I think, said
it didn't matter as the
referndum could be repeated until a 'yes' response was produced.
Apart from
hearing the result I didn't listen properly to the rest of the news
item until
that was reported when its blatant cynicism penetrated my absent brain.
Battering people ad nauseam is one way to get a response that's *both*
- preferred and democratic; 10th time around, who knows... France may
agree that one, European, constitution is "a good thing"... just to get
rid of the pesky question :)
But, sitting on the other side of the ramparts, and with a part of one
leg on the other side of the fence (current Poland is *both*: a puppet
of Bush's administration, via the long-standing awe of "all things
American", and a new zealot of "all things European" Talk about having
a fence-stake up your uhm... <g>), I can't help but wonder just how
important the ratification of this constitution is. Or how valid...
Because, in some countries, it was ratfiied by the parliament of the
country, and we all know that what's voted in, in the parliament, is
not necessarily reflecting the will of the people; it's reflecting the
will of the elected to remain that way :)
In some countries (like France), the ratification of the European
constitution would have been a "shoo-in", had the decision been left in
the hands of the elected representatives. When it went to the the
popular referendum for the final decision, it collapsed. That might
suggest that the elected representatives aren't, *really*, as
representative of the majority (democratic) as we'd like to think.
But... How much of the population voted for the representatives? How
much of the population participated in the referendum? As the numbers
multiply, so does the grey area composed of people who're sick and
tired of trying to figure out what the heck "it's all about", and then
seeing their - wobbly - choices go down the drain.
In the case of the European Constitution in particular, the populace
seems to be totally disoriented as to "what the heck is it supposed to
mean?". Can't say I understand the flap either <g>
*All* member countries would have had to ratify it, before it could be
valid (and, then, how much would it *change* things? Nobody knows,
since the document is longer than the Bible, and few have read it). If
any country objects, it's not ratified. But, no bolt from the sky
descends, and the EU doesn't disintegrate; the show goes on, sans the
constitution...
So, from where *I* am at, France and Holland took a chance to "vent"
(and more power to them <g>) but the *reality* wasn't altered a whit
because of their objections; all that's improved is their self-image
:)...
Me, I think the most important "rule of Washington DC" is not "NO is an
interim response"; it's "truth is a variable"... I'll need to get ahold
of Orwell's 1984 (83?) to beef myself up, but I *know* I'm right... :)
--
Tamara P Duvall http://t-n-lace.net/
Lexington, Virginia, USA (Formerly of Warsaw, Poland)
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line:
unsubscribe lace-chat [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
