Why the 'NO' vote

Christopher Caldwell of the Weekly Standard gets it right by quoting a French teacher:

1. A constitution has to be readable to permit a popular vote; this text is unreadable.
2. A constitution doesn't impose a political ideology; this text is partisan.
3. A constitution is revisable; this text is locked in . . .
4. A constitution protects people from tyranny through separation of powers; this one doesn't have real checks and balances and separation of powers.
5. A constitution is not handed down by the powerful; it is established by the people themselves, to protect them from arbitrary power, through an independent constitutional assembly elected for the purpose and disbanded afterwards; this text entrenches European institutions designed 50 years ago by the men in power.

Exactly. Dutch PBS is tirelessly endeavouring to spin the 'NO' vote as the result of Dutch xenophobia and (just a few moments ago) our alleged fear of cheap Polish labour (which was a French concern, and by the way, my bathroom really needs new tiles. Bring 'em on).

Quite ironic it takes an American journal to get it right.

< self-indulgence mode >
Good thing there's blogs.
< /self-indulgence mode >

1:50

permalink comment(s) (2) trackback(s) (0)

« 

 »