I see that less than a third of the Spanish electorate voted for the proposed European constitution.
Opinion polls had earlier found that only 10% of Spaniards claimed to understand it, and a good number of those probably abstained or voted against it.
Does this mean Spain has legally rejected the European Constitution?
Not a bit of it.
On the strength of about 1 in 15 Spaniards both understanding the European Constitution and voting for it, Spain has now officially approved it.
I look forward with eager anticipation to further examples of informed democracy in later Euro referenda.
Cheers,
Sid.
Spain rebuffs Euro Constitution!
Moderator: Commissar D, the Evil
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Wasn't it your funny country where a MP can be elected by a majority of one vote and all votes for the other candidates go straight into the waste bin, leaving up to 49% of the voters totally unrepresented in parliament? You Brits are surely the right people to tell others about "informed democracy"!
"Das Attentat muß erfolgen, Coute que Coute. Denn es kommt nicht mehr auf den praktischen Zweck an, sondern darauf, daß die deutsche Widerstandsbewegung vor der Welt und vor der Geschichte den entscheidenden Wurf gewagt hat."
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Stefan,
Absolutely. It is called "first past the post". And it can, in theory be worse than you say. Assume there were ten candidates and a 50% turn out of the electorate. If one got 9%, eight got 10% and one got 11% of the vote, the last person, with barely a twentieth of the vote, could be elected. (I don't think such an extreme result has occurred, but theoretically it could).
But, because we operate on a constituency basis, this does not mean the other electors are unrepresented. Unlike many forms of proportional representation and party list systems, each of our MPs is responsible for the entire population of a specific area, regardless of whether they voted for or against him. Therefore ALL electors are represented in Parliament.
We elect our Westminster MPs by "first past the post" and our Euro MPs by proportional representation. As a result, almost everyone knows who their Westminster MP is and almost no one knows who their Euro MP is. My Westminster MP is Anthony Steen, but I have absolutely no idea who my Euro MP is.
"First past the post" also usually ensures that the biggest party has a working majority in parliament and the UK doesn't usually suffer the awkwardnesses of coalition government or cohabitation breaking down in mid parliament. British governments therefore tend to last longer than continental ones and provide more stability and continuity.
Another happy result of the "first past the post" system is that it keeps minority extremist parties out of parliament. Britain hasn't had a Communist or Fascist MP for some 50 or more years and barely a handful before that. As a result, such minorities cannot hold the rest of the population to ransome in a hung parliament (as has happened in Israel, for example).
Finally, simply because the British system has failings doesn't in any way lift the criticism of the European electoral system. Are you happy that the European Constitution has been adopted by Spain when at most 10% of the population admits understanding it and rather less of these actually voted for it?
Britain has never traditionally held referendums. It is a concept imported here from Europe for European issues. As things stand, Europe is likely to be hung by its own petard, because it is very likely that the British population will reject the EU Constitution in a referendum.
Cheers,
Sid.
P.S. Why is the EU Constitution several hundred pages long, while the US Constitution was originally written on a single page?
Absolutely. It is called "first past the post". And it can, in theory be worse than you say. Assume there were ten candidates and a 50% turn out of the electorate. If one got 9%, eight got 10% and one got 11% of the vote, the last person, with barely a twentieth of the vote, could be elected. (I don't think such an extreme result has occurred, but theoretically it could).
But, because we operate on a constituency basis, this does not mean the other electors are unrepresented. Unlike many forms of proportional representation and party list systems, each of our MPs is responsible for the entire population of a specific area, regardless of whether they voted for or against him. Therefore ALL electors are represented in Parliament.
We elect our Westminster MPs by "first past the post" and our Euro MPs by proportional representation. As a result, almost everyone knows who their Westminster MP is and almost no one knows who their Euro MP is. My Westminster MP is Anthony Steen, but I have absolutely no idea who my Euro MP is.
"First past the post" also usually ensures that the biggest party has a working majority in parliament and the UK doesn't usually suffer the awkwardnesses of coalition government or cohabitation breaking down in mid parliament. British governments therefore tend to last longer than continental ones and provide more stability and continuity.
Another happy result of the "first past the post" system is that it keeps minority extremist parties out of parliament. Britain hasn't had a Communist or Fascist MP for some 50 or more years and barely a handful before that. As a result, such minorities cannot hold the rest of the population to ransome in a hung parliament (as has happened in Israel, for example).
Finally, simply because the British system has failings doesn't in any way lift the criticism of the European electoral system. Are you happy that the European Constitution has been adopted by Spain when at most 10% of the population admits understanding it and rather less of these actually voted for it?
Britain has never traditionally held referendums. It is a concept imported here from Europe for European issues. As things stand, Europe is likely to be hung by its own petard, because it is very likely that the British population will reject the EU Constitution in a referendum.
Cheers,
Sid.
P.S. Why is the EU Constitution several hundred pages long, while the US Constitution was originally written on a single page?
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi OMK,
I think I can safely say that we British have a very firm grip and understanding of our constitution.
This is made easier by the fact that we don't have one!
The proposed European Constitution would be our first ever!
Having got this far without a written constitution, and having already got in the Anglo-Saxon world the succinct and enduring US Constitution if we want a good example of one, it is hardly surprising that the British are deeply dubious of Giscard d'Estaing's hundreds of pages of verbiage.
Cheers,
Sid.
I think I can safely say that we British have a very firm grip and understanding of our constitution.
This is made easier by the fact that we don't have one!
The proposed European Constitution would be our first ever!
Having got this far without a written constitution, and having already got in the Anglo-Saxon world the succinct and enduring US Constitution if we want a good example of one, it is hardly surprising that the British are deeply dubious of Giscard d'Estaing's hundreds of pages of verbiage.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
derGespenst
- Associate
- Posts: 776
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 5:12 am
- Location: New York City
Hi Sid,
Remarkably I knew that Britain does not have a constitution. How many Brits know?
That point aside, there are a number of rules and regulations that, despite not forming a coherent constitution, performs the role of one. Not wanting to call Brits more stupid than Spaniards, neither do I think they are more clever. Full control of these things don't come easy. On that note, I think I agree with you when you say that a referendum is a pointless way to decide on this matter.
OMK
Remarkably I knew that Britain does not have a constitution. How many Brits know?
That point aside, there are a number of rules and regulations that, despite not forming a coherent constitution, performs the role of one. Not wanting to call Brits more stupid than Spaniards, neither do I think they are more clever. Full control of these things don't come easy. On that note, I think I agree with you when you say that a referendum is a pointless way to decide on this matter.
OMK
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi OMK,
You are right that continental Europe has no monopoly of ignorance.
Our problem is that we have a system that works fine for us already. It is not possible to justify a monarchy on intellectual grounds, but it works for us at the moment, so why change? Similarly we have a different constitutional tradition from the continent and a different legal system, both of which work adequately already.
This being so, the supremacy of European systems of government and law over our own perfectly functional systems presents us with cultural problems not faced by most continental countries. The French, for example, have changed their constitution on average about once a generation for two hundred years. We have had constitutional continuity, with only one fifteen year interregnum, for a thousand years. This EU constitution disrupts our historical continuity in a way it does for few other European countries.
Much of Europe has advanced from revolutionary change to revolutionary change. We have advanced by evolutionary change. In continental Europe constitutions are no big deal and they are changed regularly. However, Anglo-Saxon states tend to take their constitutional systems rather more seriously. I fear that, as with much European law, if we sign up we will take it seriously but others, notably southern European states, will abuse it outrageously.
Cheers,
Sid.
You are right that continental Europe has no monopoly of ignorance.
Our problem is that we have a system that works fine for us already. It is not possible to justify a monarchy on intellectual grounds, but it works for us at the moment, so why change? Similarly we have a different constitutional tradition from the continent and a different legal system, both of which work adequately already.
This being so, the supremacy of European systems of government and law over our own perfectly functional systems presents us with cultural problems not faced by most continental countries. The French, for example, have changed their constitution on average about once a generation for two hundred years. We have had constitutional continuity, with only one fifteen year interregnum, for a thousand years. This EU constitution disrupts our historical continuity in a way it does for few other European countries.
Much of Europe has advanced from revolutionary change to revolutionary change. We have advanced by evolutionary change. In continental Europe constitutions are no big deal and they are changed regularly. However, Anglo-Saxon states tend to take their constitutional systems rather more seriously. I fear that, as with much European law, if we sign up we will take it seriously but others, notably southern European states, will abuse it outrageously.
Cheers,
Sid.
I can't understand the problem you have with the Spanish decision. Geroge W. Bush became President, too, the first time, although more people voted for Gore than for him. In our age everything is possible.
The EU constitution is an essentially good thing, a step to streamline the EU a bit, and this organisation is certainly in need of as much streamlining as it can get.
But a conspiracy? I doubt it.
Only if the British people vote in favor of the constitution I will start to believe that the Illuminati are truly on the EU's side.
The EU constitution is an essentially good thing, a step to streamline the EU a bit, and this organisation is certainly in need of as much streamlining as it can get.
But a conspiracy? I doubt it.
Only if the British people vote in favor of the constitution I will start to believe that the Illuminati are truly on the EU's side.
"Tell my mother I died for my country. I did what I thought was best."
John Wilkes Booth
April 12, 1865
John Wilkes Booth
April 12, 1865
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Kitsune,
Conspiracy? Illuminati? I don't believe any of it.
I have no problem with Spain taking a decision either way on this issue. It is a Spanish matter. However, I would ask whether Spain actually did take the decision claimed for it, when only 10% of the population actually claimed to understand the EU Constitution. Whether they actually did understand it is another question, and whether they actually voted for it is a third. Perhaps all those who really understood it voted against it!
Only about 1 in 15 of Spaniards (and possibly even less) both understood the EU Constitution and voted for it. Even George Bush's entirely legal first election looks like an immaculate exercise in democracy by comparison!
Cheers,
Sid.
Conspiracy? Illuminati? I don't believe any of it.
I have no problem with Spain taking a decision either way on this issue. It is a Spanish matter. However, I would ask whether Spain actually did take the decision claimed for it, when only 10% of the population actually claimed to understand the EU Constitution. Whether they actually did understand it is another question, and whether they actually voted for it is a third. Perhaps all those who really understood it voted against it!
Only about 1 in 15 of Spaniards (and possibly even less) both understood the EU Constitution and voted for it. Even George Bush's entirely legal first election looks like an immaculate exercise in democracy by comparison!
Cheers,
Sid.
I, for one, will be voting against the EU Constitution when we get the opportunity. I don't even particularly care what it says! I'm simply against the EU on principle, and will be pleased to vote for any political party that wants to get us out of the damn organisation! I've removed the EU flag from my car's registration plates and defaced my driving licence by blanking out the EU flag which pollutes it! Nothing against the Europeans: nice people, nice scenery, love holidaying there!! Just the EU!!!
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Hans,
Because it is harmless fun and provides British audiences, at least, with endless amusement as they listen to Terry Wogan's ironic commentary.
However, in many smaller European countries it is taken far more seriously because it is virtually the only time the entertainment industries of many of them ever appear on the wider international stage.
Not only have Turkey and Israel won it, but Morocco has entered it as well, and Americans, Canadians (Celine Dion!) and Australians (Olivia Newton-John!) have performed in it, and probably others besides. And if we are going to be picky, Malta is basically a Semitic country and the Hungarians originated east of the Urals. So so any Euro-centric purist who wants to make it ethnically or geographically "European" has long since missed the boat.
In the end, who cares who is in it, let alone who wins it. It's just harmless, albeit pointless, fun. Long may it continue.
Cheers,
Sid.
Because it is harmless fun and provides British audiences, at least, with endless amusement as they listen to Terry Wogan's ironic commentary.
However, in many smaller European countries it is taken far more seriously because it is virtually the only time the entertainment industries of many of them ever appear on the wider international stage.
Not only have Turkey and Israel won it, but Morocco has entered it as well, and Americans, Canadians (Celine Dion!) and Australians (Olivia Newton-John!) have performed in it, and probably others besides. And if we are going to be picky, Malta is basically a Semitic country and the Hungarians originated east of the Urals. So so any Euro-centric purist who wants to make it ethnically or geographically "European" has long since missed the boat.
In the end, who cares who is in it, let alone who wins it. It's just harmless, albeit pointless, fun. Long may it continue.
Cheers,
Sid.