Europe without France?

[Jazzzoline]

French are about to say NO to European union. Is it the end of it yet?

[Tom Storer]

No, France is about to say no to the European constitution. The European Union will continue as before under the rules of the Nice treaty, which none of the EU countries is happy with. Scuttling the constitution will stall continued European political integration, which is likely to lessen European influence in international diplomacy and weaken cohesion within the European Union. To pass, the proposed constitution needs to be accepted by all 25 countries, and chances are that won't happen even if France votes yes. But since France is a founder and leading member of the European Union and was instrumental in organizing and writing the constitution, a French no will have all the more weight. It will of course weaken France within Europe, too. In my opinion the French are taking good aim and are about to shoot themselves squarely in the foot.

[crawjo]

Based on my very limited knowledge of this, it seems that government officials are all for it (the European Constitution), but the public is not. Do you have any sense for why that is, Tom?

[Tom Storer]

It's not certain that a majority of the European public is opposed to the constitution. Only some countries are submitting it to a referendum, and therefore those are the ones where polls reveal public attitudes (well publicized polls, in any case). Spain was the first country to hold a referendum and approved it by over 75%. In France the public has been going back and forth and although polls seem to be pointing now to a victory for the no vote, it might not be a landslide.

The European Union's big problem is that the process of integration has been driven by governments and European institutions without enough effort to get the population involved, informed and committed. Because Europe has generally been identified with economic benefits, especially for the poorer countries, people have reacted favorably when governments presented new European initiatives. In France, the French involvement as a founding member and powerful force in European institutions has flattered the French public's chauvinism.

Now, however, the EU has expanded, taking in Eastern European countries whose lower standard of living is seen in France as a source of dangerous competition. France is still a big fish but in a greatly expanded pond. Europe was fine as long as it was seen as a way to magnify French influence, but now that this is less the case, national sovereignty seems more important. People are anxious about unemployment and desperate to hang onto the generous French social security system (which is running a huge deficit). In general they see free-market capitalism and globalization as a threat to all that, and language in the proposed European constitution committing to free trade is seen as an attack on the beloved French welfare state. The hazy idea of the mainstream no voters is that if the Constitution is approved, the French way of life will be condemned. But it already is, in many ways. This constitution was heavily influenced by the French government, and was presided over by former president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing (a European heavyweight since forever). There's probably a good majority of European countries who are much more pro-free-trade than France is, so any renegotiation of the constitution will probably result in a document that pays less attention to French concerns, not more. But there is a panicky feeling among many that this is the last chance to head off certain doom.

The fact that Chirac is hugely unpopular doesn't help. Many will vote no just because Chirac wants them to vote yes.

But other countries have completely different concerns. I've read that the Germans don't pay much attention to the free trade stuff (which in any case is nothing revolutionary) but pay a lot of attention to the efficiency of institutions, which this constitution was designed to reform and streamline. The Danes, who are apparently also getting ready to vote no, worry about waste in the European budget and would like more leeway to keep out immigrants. So there's a lot of different no votes, in fact, within countries and from country to country.

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by Tom Storer

The fact that Chirac is hugely unpopular doesn't help. Many will vote no just because Chirac wants them to vote yes.

Indeed, and perhaps you could expand that to another expression of general dischuffment with the political establishment.

Although I've not really paid much attention to the campaigns, I did see some of the campaign ads yesterday evening when they were shown back-to-back. The UMP ad spent more time making Sarkozy look presidential than bothering about garnering support. There was also a careful choice of words in one (for PS, I think) that was a veiled appeal to anti-Americanism.

[mke]

This campaign has brought out an incredible amount of xenophobia and/or antiquated nationalism/protectionism, IMO. Beyond the usual far right-wing suspects (Le Pen, De Villiers), everybody (even the left-wing, whether voting yes or no) is suddenly a great patriot and for a strong France. The talk is such that you get the impression that Poland (allied with Estonia) is about to economically crush France and deprive it of all its jobs. That is, if China doesn't get that done first, while our ressources are drained internally by the flood of immigration. On the yes side, the Constitution is about fighting the American, Chinese and Indian threats (they are all menaces out to crush us, regardless of the fact that trade with them goes both ways...) as a strong European bloc.

The pinnacle of this is the Sarkozy-led UMP (yes) ad, which is so incredibly pompous, rabble-rousing (grandiose Romantic music, Sarkozy loudly shouting slogans such as "For a strong Europe!" while military images are shown...) and propagranda-laden that I really thought it was a parody.

I won't be voting because I haven't signed up at the French consulate here, but I would probably have voted yes, even though I'm far from 100% convinced.

[Tom Storer]

Yes, the greatest irony is that the "yes" camp says, "A vote for the constitution is a vote for a strong Europe--the best way to resist the dreaded Anglo-American model of society!" while the "no" camp says, "A vote against the constitution is a vote for a strong France--the best way to resist the dreaded Anglo-American model of society!"

Many politicians are cynically playing one side or the other for personal ambitions--especially Laurent Fabius (a "no" lefty) and Nicolas Sarkozy (a "yes" righty), each of whom is eyeing the next presidential election and seeking to appeal to France's ever-present anti-"Anglo-Saxon" sentiment. If they run the country into the ground doing so, so be it.

A friend of mine laments, "Nous avons la gauche la plus bête du monde" (we have the world's dumbest left).

[Enforcer]

Tom, don't you pretty much run the place? I'm sure you'll do what it takes to get this mess cleared up.

Putting it all on you,
Larry

[Gary Sisco]

The Dutch may well reject it, also.

I'd vote no, myself.

[Tom Storer]

Originally Posted by Larry Nagel

Tom, don't you pretty much run the place? I'm sure you'll do what it takes to get this mess cleared up.

Not this time. I told Chirac, "Look, Jacques, you're the president. Fix it yourself, just this once." This éminence grise stuff gets old.

[Uli]

I am all for an integrated and expanded Europe.

Hover my homies are some of the most stubbornly agin it.

[Jazzzoline]

So Tom, what's that thing about immigration becoming "uncontrollable" ?
How can immigration become uncontrollable?

[Gary Sisco]

All you have to do is look at the US, ma cherie.

The entire American economy is now based on the labor of illegals (which concept I don't accept but which working conditions I don't accept, either) but the way the law is set up -- and emotions manipulated by the rabid right -- it's impossible to change the situation.

[Gary Sisco]

On the border

May 19th 2005
From The Economist print edition








The best solution so far to one of America's thorniest problems

Get article background

THERE are many reasons for moderate pragmatists to be irritated by the culture wars that are consuming American politics. They are polarising an already polarised electorate; they are reigniting the politics of personal destruction; and they are filling the airwaves with mind-numbing debates about filibusters. But the biggest reason is that they are diverting attention from other pressing problems.

Immigration is a good example. There is no doubt that America's system is badly broken, with, perhaps, 10m immigrants working in the country illegally and another 1m arriving every year; there is equally no doubt that this imposes huge costs on the country in terms of lawlessness and human misery. On May 12th, two powerful senators, Ted Kennedy and John McCain, proposed a sensible solution. Yet their arguments risk being lost in the babble about John Bolton and judges.


America's present immigration law flies in the face of economic reality. The economy is creating far more low-end jobs than American workers are willing to take (the proportion of native-born Americans dropping out of high school has fallen from half in 1960 to just 10% today). Entire industries—agriculture, food-processing, construction—rely on cheap immigrant labour. But America's yearly quotas are far too small to satisfy its needs.

The resulting black economy undermines the rule of law. Check into a hotel, and you may be the beneficiary of a complex chain of law breaking. The hotel owner may have hired illegal immigrants. The valet-parker may have paid $2,000 to be smuggled across the border by a criminal gang. Several of his friends may have died trying to get in (last year 200 immigrants, including a three-year-old child, died in the Arizona desert). The criminal gang may have engaged in shoot-outs with immigration officials or rival gangs. His $2,000 fee may have been used to subsidise drug-smuggling. Tamar Jacoby, a Manhattan Institute scholar who is a beacon of light in a foggy debate, likens the current immigration laws to prohibition: impossible to enforce, they encourage a whole sub-culture of criminality.

The black economy also threatens two things pretty much all Americans hold dear. The first is the cherished tradition of assimilation. Illegal immigrants live in a shadow world where they are reluctant to put down roots and even visit their children's schools. The other is national security. The easiest way for a terrorist to enter the country without a trace is through Arizona. Forget about visas and background checks. All you need to do is hire a coyote: he will smuggle you across the border, no questions asked, and then plug you into a criminal network that specialises in giving people false identities and hiding them in a huge illegal sub-culture.

The Kennedy-McCain bill is the result of ten months of hard slog. The two senators were still hammering out the details the day before they unveiled their plan. But the product is a hard-nosed law that tries to align America's immigration laws to the economic realities without rewarding illegal behaviour.

The bill provides both illegal workers and law-breaking employers with a ladder out of the shadow world they now inhabit. Illegal workers will be allowed to apply for temporary work permits (which will not be tied to specific jobs, as in earlier schemes). And employers will be allowed to hire immigrant workers if they can demonstrate that no Americans want their jobs. But at the same time the bill avoids being soft on illegal immigration. Any illegal immigrants in the country will pay hefty fines, as well as their back taxes, and go to the back of the queue for green cards. Employers will also face much stricter penalties. Money will be pumped into border security and a new system of tamper-proof identity cards.



Jumping over the congressional barrier
Plenty of people on both sides of the spectrum want to stop this bill. The AFL-CIO union combine has declined to endorse it. A mainly Republican anti-immigration caucus in the House contains around 70 diehards united behind the idea “What part of illegal don't you understand?”; they have just demonstrated their legislative muscle by pushing through a bill that makes it harder for illegals to get driving licences. John Cornyn, the chairman of the Senate sub-committee on immigration, has made it clear that he's opposed to any bill with a “work and stay” provision. Meanwhile, the White House, which has been badly burned on Social Security reform, is reluctant to spend significant amounts of political capital on an issue that so divides Republicans.

Yet immigration reformers also have muscle on their side. Employers' groups and some unions are behind the bill. So are many border-state politicians who know the status quo means chaos. And there is the clout of the two sponsors. Mr Kennedy remains the most determined legislative warhorse in the Senate. Mr McCain is a charismatic reformer with a broad constituency (particularly in the media). Both men are past masters at pushing complicated bipartisan legislation through Congress, including far-reaching reforms of education and campaign finance. They have already recruited Joe Lieberman and Sam Brownback.

The reformers' most important ally, though, is common sense. America has spent millions of dollars trying to tighten up its borders only to see the situation get worse. It now relies on illegal workers to pick its vegetables and build its buildings. Closing the border is impossible without some sort of legalisation for the millions in the country; mass deportation would do irreparable harm both to America's economy and to its traditions as an immigrant-friendly nation.

The problem for Messrs Kennedy and McCain is that common sense needs the oxygen of publicity if it is to breathe. And for the moment all that oxygen is being consumed by tedious debates about the virtues of filibusters.





Copyright © 2005 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

[Gary Sisco]

Immigration has nothing to do with why I'd vote no if I were voting, however.

It's clear that the logic of the whole thing leads to only one political conclusion: A European state.

No, thanks. Not that I have anything to say in the decisionmaking, but since as a gringo I've received more than enough commentary from Europeans about how I ought as an American to behave ....

[Tom Storer]

Originally Posted by Jazzzoline

So Tom, what's that thing about immigration becoming "uncontrollable" ?
How can immigration become uncontrollable?

That's just a predictable reaction to economic and cultural anxiety. In France these days they've been talking about the emblematic figure of "the Polish plumber"--imagine Polish plumbers, willing to work for much less money than French plumbers, invading France. All the French plumbers will be out of work! And all because of those damned foreigners! Therefore, keep out the damned foreigners! France for the French! etc. "Uncontrollable" just means "Help! They're invading!"

A Scottish friend remarked, "Believe me, France could use an invasion of plumbers."

[Jazzzoline]

Originally Posted by Tom Storer

That's just a predictable reaction to economic and cultural anxiety. In France these days they've been talking about the emblematic figure of "the Polish plumber"--imagine Polish plumbers, willing to work for much less money than French plumbers, invading France. All the French plumbers will be out of work! And all because of those damned foreigners! Therefore, keep out the damned foreigners! France for the French! etc. "Uncontrollable" just means "Help! They're invading!"

A Scottish friend remarked, "Believe me, France could use an invasion of plumbers."

lol

Well, I could understand people wanting to migrate to the USA, until a few years ago. But I didn't know France was so attractive to a bunch of them.

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by Tom Storer

In France these days they've been talking about the emblematic figure of "the Polish plumber"

You mean Mr. Skowerski? We hired him.

[jazzy mary]

Originally Posted by Tom Storer

Not this time. I told Chirac, "Look, Jacques, you're the president. Fix it yourself, just this once." This éminence grise stuff gets old.

Tom, shouldn't the "e" be left off? Wouldn't it be gris? Not to be a nit picker, but both of my girls are studying French and since I (did) speak it, it's been great for me to go over things with them. So, I'm thinking the gris should be masculine. Am I right? French speakers?

Speaking (ha, ha) of French---I am certainly planning a trip with my girls to Paris sometime in the next year. They want to see Paris--as do I --it's been 16 years for me! And, of course, now that I know Tom and have had the joy of meeting him--I want to go back even more. Hey, Tom, what good music will be around in 2006?


Seriously, we would ADORE seeing something at the Paris Opera (I don't know how to do the accent mark). Is it hard to get tickets? Do they have particular seasons, like the Met does here in NYC?

[Jazzzoline]

Originally Posted by jazzy mary

Tom, shouldn't the "e" be left off? Wouldn't it be gris? Not to be a nit picker, but both of my girls are studying French and since I (did) speak it, it's been great for me to go over things with them. So, I'm thinking the gris should be masculine. Am I right? French speakers?

On dit: une éminence grise

[Jazzzoline]

My son will be in France in may 2006 with his hockey team and school.
If you ever feel like watching hockey...
Hah!

[jazzy mary]

Originally Posted by Jazzzoline

On dit: une éminence grise

Pas "un eminence gris"? When one is talking about a man? How do you do the accent mark?

[hornplayer]

Originally Posted by jazzy mary

Tom, shouldn't the "e" be left off? Wouldn't it be gris? Not to be a nit picker, but both of my girls are studying French and since I (did) speak it, it's been great for me to go over things with them. So, I'm thinking the gris should be masculine. Am I right? French speakers?

JM, La Belle France is feminine!

[jazzy mary]

Oui, je sais! But, if a *man* is an eminence gris(e), wouldn't the adjective (gris) be in the masculine form? Whether an e is added depends on whether the subject is masculine or feminine.

Jazzzoline, Aidez-moi, svp.

[tippy]

eminence is the noun which grise is describing.

[jazzy mary]

Yes, and Tom is the eminence--right? If the eminence one is talking about is masculine--isn't the gris masculine?

I wish I had my Harraps with me.

[Jazzzoline]

Originally Posted by jazzy mary

Pas "un eminence gris"? When one is talking about a man? How do you do the accent mark?

Éminence is always feminine

for the accent: easy, I got a french canadian keyboard.

[jazzy mary]

Eminence is a feminine noun (whether the person who is the eminence is a man or woman). Thus, Tom was correct all along--he is the eminence grise. If I had any power (shadowy or not) I'd be an eminence grise too.


Enfin, je comprends.

[hornplayer]

je comprends

French lesson: Je le comprends.

[jazzy mary]

I wanted to say: "I understand", not "I understand it." But, you're right, HP, if I wanted to say it that way.