Mouloud
Akkouche, Novelist
Lately, the leader of all French Companies' Chief Executives did not
hesitate in stating that the minimum salary was too high in France.
So, why not tax the oxygen breathed by unemployed people while you're
at it? He's really full of dead air.
With respect to that constitution project, I didn't want to be
opposed in principle.And the idea of Europe seemed interesting
to slow down
the carnivorous intentions of Bush and Poutine. Therefore I would
have been tempted to vote yes.But unfortunately the special
issue of the
daily l’Humanité dedicated to this subjectshaterd by beatitude.
Then the articles of an economist ended by smothering my 'yes' vote
intentions. Then, I relly started to get information.
And came this conclusion: they want to even further shear the
coat the "european people". To ring out even more. Maximum profit
is the fuel to this constitution.One sees everyday the effects of this
feverish race. Through more of less discreet removal of local decision
centers, through personel cuts in schools, through longer & longer
lines at the soup kitchens. The list is already long & they want
to lengthen it even further.
But, who are THEY?
They are the international virtuosos of computer mouse and calculator,
often incapable of just look outside of their office windows.
Misery gives them vertigo. They are humans like you and I,
with highs and
lows. But the big difference is: they have power. And, with
an eye on the fluctuations of the stock market, they auction
off
other human
beings on the altar of the economy.
You, the virtuosos of computer mouse and calculator, you have
to stop only thinking about the 'steak options ' in your
plate. And to raise
your salaries ( + 23% in 2003 ) with one hand while the other
fires all those who don't bring enough revenue to the stockholders.
Shattered
families and depleted regions from the simple clic of a mouse.
While the average of your salaries borders on the 200.000
euros. And the
profits of companies like Total are rising sharply.
This project of constitution has only one goal: raise the
profits of a few and the misery of many. We want neither
one or the
other.
Therefore it is urgent to vote no!
Why
not
Robert
Deleuse, Writer
De Gaulle and Mitterrand had set their own dates with history. The
first one made his famous London speech on the 18th of June 1940
and not on the 17th or 19th. It must be said that the 18 coincided
with the one of 1815, date of the French defeat at Waterloo. In the
case of Mitterand, he punched his calendar on Sunday September 20,
1992 for his general election on Maastricht. In other words exactly
200 days after the victory at Valmy. Chirac (who has never believed
in much of anything and even less about Europe)set the date of his
general election on the European Constitution on Sunday May 29th,
which is Mother's Day, a celebration created by Marshall Pétain
who sadly also had a certain idea about Europe.
All things and times being considered, can we detect links there?
In the renouncing by the Old Continent to become an original
model and
not simply the operative mode of a dominiering power: surely.
In so far as this Constitution is not the product of constituting
assembly,
does not ratify popular sovereignty, does not set any frontiers
for the Union and excludes any European citizenship but favors
national
citizenships: certainly. In the social regression that it mandates
when it erases any mention to a minimum wage, to unemployment
benefits, to decent housing, to continuing education: evidently.
One can see
it: there's no lack of motivations to say NO. Nonetheless some
will not miss the opportunity to the path of collaboration
in saying yes.
On Sunday May 29, 2005 any sincere European citizen will condense
the verbs " to resign" and "to desist" into one single
slogan: RESIST. There is only one way to do it: to say NO to this Constitution
of the Guillotins on the right and to the Trissotins on the left.
Disarmament
is Anti-Constitutional
Christian
v. Dirfurth, writer
Translation:
Claire Gorrara
It
is scarcely believable but Lenin, this great terrorist, could have
been right all along. He wrote that the creation of a
United States
of Europe in a capitalist world would be either reactionary or
impossible. In
any case, amongst the 250 pages of the draft Constitution are hidden
paragraphs that make no sense, such as article 41 which stipulates
that member states must strengthen their military capacity.
There
is probably no other Constitution in the world which calls
for that. There
is nothing more absurd than considering disarmament as contrary
to the Constitution. It is also stated that the combined armed
forces
can intervene in world events in line with the United Nations
charter – which
of course goes without saying. It was by using such a slippery
form of words that NATO assumed the right to go to war.
Yet
despite all
this, this is not the Constitution that will make Europe into
a great democracy. The notion of a free Europe that emerged from
the aftermath
of war and oppression risks being suffocated by overwhelming
bureaucracy.
Europe needs a Parliament that is the result of collective, similar
and freely held elections, a parliament that can make full use
of its powers and not the commissions which represent the interests
of national
governments. But the draft Constitution will probably die a death
as a result of the forthcoming referendums and in Europe everything
will
be just as bad as it was before. This draft Constitution will
only make things a little better. Europe needs a real push forward
or
nothing at all.
More
like Consumers than Citizens
Nacho
Faerna
The
bad thing about the European Union is that it has its origins in
market economics. These governments, driven by mercantile interests,
are a sign of the times. Personally, I would prefer a Europe of
citizens rather than a Europe of consumers. I would bring together
ideas rather than economies and parliaments rather than banks.
A Spaniard shops at Carrefour, drives a Volkswagen and dresses
in Armani but he barely understands French, German or Italian.
Europe has become a tower of Babel based around the single currency.
But
on the other hand, the good thing about this European Union is
how it has broken down barriers. I am completely opposed to all
forms of nationalism, and especially those based on racial or religious
criteria. The good thing about Europe is that it is not predicated
on religious belief or has limited geographical boundaries and
it is diversely defined from an ethnic point of view. I like the
Europe that draws on the heritage of the Enlightenment, the French
Revolution and the Goddess Reason.
But
Reason has already inspired one constitution – in 1787 -
that of the United States of America.
Rather
I am in favour of a utopian ideal, one that would represent the
final defeat of nationalistic narcissism. If I were asked for my
opinion, I would say that the EU should adopt that American Magna
Carta. It would need a few adjustments but the humanist and liberal
spirit (in the best meaning of the term) that inspires it would
do well to make a reasoned return journey to Europe. This journey
would build, at least symbolically, a bridge between the end of
the 18th century and the beginning of the 21st, a bridge that would
rise above the infamous 20th century and its two World Wars.
As
well, this would be a useful feat that could challenge the imperialist
impulses of our American friends, because, as everyone knows, empires
are imposed by force – that is their whole rationale. But
they are helpless when faced with ‘active submission’ if
I can use this paradoxical expression. Thus, we could guarantee
that this magnificent constitution is in force somewhere in the
world as, in its country of origin, its most ardent enemies have
been in power for some time.
We,
Europeans, with the aim of creating a perfect union, establishing
justice, affirming our co-existence, providing for our common defence,
promoting general well-being, and maintaining for ourselves and
for our descendents the benefits of Freedom, we propose adopting
this constitution for the United States of Europe.
In
my opinion, this wouldn’t be a bad starting point.
Cynicism or exacerbated mercy
Artur
Gorski, journalist,
war reporter, novel writer
translated from polish by Ursula Kiermeier
In
Poland, if you ask somebody what he thinks of the debate about
European Constitution, probably he will not know what file you
are
speaking of.
Those who heard of it know, above all, that the struggle concerning
the foreword of this document – just as the French people intended
to – has lead to avoid, within, any reference to God, and to
mention solely the christian roots of European civilisation.
Moreover, it seems that most of polish politicians consider the European
Constitution as an ordeal between pros of secularisation of social
life in our continent, and pros of christian orthodoxy.
With
no intend to focus on details, who, in this debate, considers he
is right, reacts as if the debate concerning this fundamental text
for European union
(at least in Poland) were engaged on a wrong way, from which it never will
be able to get out, then.
Deeply involved in their catholic values, Polish don’t consider as serious
such a document which – for them – looks as if it considered
with some casualness the basis assumptions and truths driving their social
life.
This means that you cannot base a European Treaty on a Constitution that
jeers at the Commandments of God.
What
means social and economic progress if you don't rely, above all,
on the Ten commandments and on the prayers issued from the ancient
founders of Church.
The fact, issued from last opinion polls, that 56 percent of French people
also reject the project of constitution enforces, in Poland, the group of
cons.
So, you can see that cynical politicians rely most on Christianism. For them,
any form of opposition can be utilized in their own strategy of campaign.
If later, it turns to be necessary, they will be fully disposed to support
this Constitution, even if within, there is no reference to God.
So, one could, secretly, change his mind.
Arthur
Gorski, born en 1964, journalist, war reporter, novel writer. AG
is involved (one of its creators) in the Society of Friends of
Crime, and in the movement “TRUP W.SZAFIE” (the corpse
in the cupboard). He wrote about the subject of mafia in the balkans,
in his best seller "Gucci boys", and in "The corpse
hunter". "Puma", the last book from this trilogy,
should be published in autumn 2005 (editor : Dorn Krakowen).
A
Realistic and Optimistic Yes
Hervé Jaouen, writer
First
of all, a misunderstanding must be cleared up: this is not
a constitution but rather a constitutional treaty designed
to help with the organization of an economic Europe of 25 nations.
It is the result of many and varied compromises.
There
is no pulling back from the treaties of Maastricht and Nice.
It
is not a beginning but rather a step towards a supranational
organization. It is a treaty that follows on from previous
treaties and will be followed by others.
The
debate today is not about the possibility of creating a political
Europe.
The
problem is not about voting for a Europe of the right or left.
As a political Europe has yet to exist (maybe in 50 or 100
years?), it is down to the regimes in the member states to
be left or right-leaning and to act consequently. The new treaty
does not alter this point of view one bit.
Yes,
this new treaty is based on ‘liberalism’ or
the law of the market. Some may deplore
this but it is self-evident
that since the fall of the Eastern
Block no other model exists. This reference
to the law of the market has existed
since the
treaty of Rome and to realise this
only
now seems a little strange. In a Europe
of 25 nations, it will be the responsibility
of national politicians (and the citizens
who will elect people
from the right or the left) to correct
any eventual distortions, as before.
The
creation of Europe has more positive
than negative aspects. Its impact on the growth of member states
has been phenomenal.
The pursuit of European construction is vital for everyone.
As
fully paid up members of Europe, the new accession countries
will evolve in political terms, as have other countries like
Ireland, Spain and Portugal.
Those
who support the no campaign
(the extreme right, those in favour of national sovereignty)
exploit the fears of the millennial
man – it’s the end of the world tomorrow – or
peddle the same old demagogy – the
bureaucratic tentacles
of Brussels reaching out.
To
carry on like this would
be shameful.
I
suspect that Chirac chose the referendum option to spread chaos
in the ranks of the left (in this respect, it has been very
successful).
I
am not sure that the laborious renegotiation that would follow
a victory for the no campaign would lead to a better compromise.
For
all these reasons and for many others, I will vote yes in the
referendum – a realistic and optimistic yes.
No
Thanks!
Michèle
Lesbre, writer
‘Because
ultra liberalism brings about poverty and stirs up revolt and is
the breeding ground for the resurgence of racist ideologies.’ wrote
Louise Lambrichs in her work, We will Never See Vukovar.
So,
on 29 May, I am being asked to vote yes or no for a constitution
for Europe but which Europe?
A
Europe that looks on as the ‘democrat’ Putin ravages
Chechnya?
A
Europe that claims to abolish frontiers but yet turns back those
who have escaped poverty?
A
Europe that sells arms to Africans and allows them to die of hunger
and AIDS.
A
Europe that, under the guise of European norms, destroys social
protection here and elsewhere, where unemployment is on the rise?
A
Europe that is unable to create the conditions that could banish
the ravages of bloody massacres from the last century so that we
can build on something other than ruins?
A
Europe that allows a fanatical and dangerous American president
to act ruthlessly a little everywhere because it refuses to look
closely at the real causes of terrorism?
I
could add a good number of other grievances to my list. We are
all responsible for this Europe that I, for one, cannot support.
I will vote no! I have no other way of registering my views.
Fernando
Martinez Lainez
I
am sceptical about the present-day reality of Europe. It is a Europe
that has no illusions, a Europe without a common political project,
without even the will to make its presence felt with conviction
in the world and without the hope of creating a better balance
of power on the international scene. At the moment, we play a minor
role alongside the USA in world politics and we continue to be
a continent divided by self-interest and the memory of old disagreements.
The recent enlargement of the EU to 25 member states has not only
left this key problem unresolved but worsened it and, with a decided
lack of enthusiasm, it will doubtless be very difficult for this
diffuse conglomeration that we call Europe to meet the challenges
that await it.
This
overview is made worse by the role of an excessive and self-perpetuating
bureaucratic elite ensconced in Brussels that manipulates control
of the EU.
Yet,
despite all this, I voted yes to the draft European Constitution
because, in all likelihood, it offers a ray of hope for a future
Europe that would be united, respected and free.
Mouloud
Akkouche,