World Forums

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00857.html

The French Rejection:The rejection is not a disaster. Europe will carry on functioning under existing rules, although at some point it will need to fix the core problem that prompted the constitution's drafting: An enlarged European Union, comprising 25 countries today and probably more in the future, cannot function well when every member government enjoys a veto. Majoritarian decisions will have to become the norm in at least some areas, although the constitution -- an annex-laden, 191-page tome -- errs in centralizing too many policies in Brussels

Well, an American paper, considering the US Constitution would say that, wouldn't it? Well, it'd be right as well.

I thought the Constitution would have brought forth Qualified Majority Voting to deal with such things.

A qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55% of the members of the Council, comprising at least 15 of them and representing Member States comprising at least 65% of the population of the Union.

That seems better than the current method. I agree with you Synthese, it should be back to the drawing board and write a new constitution that the European public can agree on.

Although to be fair to the Constitution, it had some good ideas within it. It was too damn long but changing the current system of EU presidency was welcome (currently, each country gets six months as president, which is a bit silly), as was giving more power to the DEMOCRATIC European Parliament.

Marko:

I agree with you Synthese, it should be back to the drawing board and write a new constitution that the European public can agree on.

The problem is, every country has its 'red lines', as the Brits like to put it. For a constitution to be acceptable to all EU countries, it must, as a natural consequence, be a bit wordy. The Constitutional Treaty is a carefully drawn compromise with little room for radical change.

A rewrite of the Constitution will probably only bring more words in, by granting concessions and exceptions to France and possible other nay-sayers (unless the Constitution is defeated outright by a rejection in more than 5 countries, in which case there's little hope for the many good reforms that the Constitution would bring).

Although to be fair to the Constitution, it had some good ideas within it. It was too damn long but changing the current system of EU presidency was welcome (currently, each country gets six months as president, which is a bit silly), as was giving more power to the DEMOCRATIC European Parliament.

Exactly! And that's what the Constitution, and the referendum, is about.

Marko: it had some good ideas within it.

No doubt. They should have been accentuated and "marketed", that is, heavily promoted by the right people, educate the populace, try to get them infused with it. This document, as such, was a non-starter.

They figured that the populace would genuflect at the altar of "Europeanism" as they had in the past. They obviously figured wrong.

Boye: The Constitutional Treaty is a carefully drawn compromise with little room for radical change.

Folderol. Nothing is cast in concrete, and the next time around let's get some people who work on it from a more global prospective. Everyone wanted thier bit and it was the proverbial case of the committee that set out to design a race horse and came up with a camel.

Besides, lets have a pre-Constitutional convention to discuss ideas with real, live Europeans who give feedback on the "principles" of the document. I keep repeating the word "principles" because I don't think people distinguish between rules/regulations/laws/treaties and principles.

Talk about constitutional principles and people will listen. If they aren't listening, it is because we are not talking principles.

Not to worry, there is not a European who does not understand when he or she has been distanced from a democratic process that affects him but they are powerless to influence. The EU Parliament desperately needs more power and elections to it must be underscored by the weight of the legislative power that body may wield.

The Executive Branch will do well enough with an elected head, regardless of where from, either national PMs or parliaments or, though implausible, even a David Beckenham or a successful businessman! The role makes the person and not vice-versa. Europe is ready for a personality who has not spent his/her life in politics.

Bloomberg: Chirac Names Villepin as Premier After EU Vote Defeat

See what happens when you have « friends », you get made PM of a country despite the fact that you have never held an elected position in your life.

You are from the same school of administration as your “friend” the president, you passed years as his personal secretary and lapdog, you are tall and good looking, write poetry and have the technical competence of a nerd.

You become just what every democracy despises – an unelected head of government. A sort of talking head that does the bidding of his boss.

Nothing is cast in concrete

True, and neither would the Constitution cast anything in concrete. But it would have been a step in the right direction. People voted no to a step in the right direction, meaning they disagree with the direction. The French don't want more democracy at the EU level. That's a pity for the rest of Europe.

The EU Parliament desperately needs more power and elections to it must be underscored by the weight of the legislative power that body may wield.

I still don't figure out quite why you are against the Constitution, because you are in favour of everything in it.

Chirac Names Villepin as Premier After EU Vote Defeat

France's political system is a mix of the presidential and parliamentary systems. In a presidential system, the president appoints his administration. In a parliamentary system, the parliament appoints the administration. In France, there's a combination, but the executive ultimately lies with the president. I fail to see how that is necessarily undemocratic. The president was elected by the people.

That being said, by giving in to protesters' demands, Chirac has shown that hijacking a referendum to force changes on the government is possible. That sets a dangerous precedent. The next time the French vote about an EU treaty, they may seize that opportunity to bring down another unpopular French government. That's making a mockery of democracy.

People voted no to a step in the right direction, meaning they disagree with the direction. The French don't want more democracy at the EU level.

I think you seriously misunderstood the French vote, which is not terribly difficult for a northener.

They voted thier emotions as Latins are wont to do. The document did not "inspire" them, they are fed up with the economic crisis that has made them poorer and, for the first time, made them think that thier offspring will NOT live a better life than they have.

Instead of answering the question "Do you want this constitution?", they answered the question "Do you want more of the same?" The answer was Non!

It is all about emotion, Boye, something I sense that northeners do not quite understand. I hope I am wrong about that and I mean no offense.

I still don't figure out quite why you are against the Constitution, because you are in favour of everything in it.

I would have accepted if it were passed. It would have done well enough, if not very well indeed.

Since it has not passed I am suggesting that we get back to basics - state some simple principles that people can understand and build (by much patience and pedagogy) a concensus around them. In a few years, when this vote is lost in the mist of time, a new constitution, better written, WILL pass.

Nothing has changed, the EU is still marching in the right direction, though at a slower pace. At least people are thinking seriously about the constitution for the first time ... which is salutary.

What happened was not the least bit catastrophic and more a non-event.

Oh yes, it was about emotion alright. Xenophobia on the far right, anti-globalisation, anti-capitalism, anti-liberalism on the far left. Trust me, we have that in Norway as well. That is why we are a member without voting rights. Because just like the French voted 'no' to a more democratic EU, the Norwegians have voted 'no' to democratic participation in the making of Norwegian laws.

What happened was not the least bit catastrophic and more a non-event.

The significance of the French 'non' cannot be exaggerated. It was nothing less than the greatest set-back in the history of the EU, not least because, apart from frustration with the sitting government, the 'non' vote was motivated in large part by nationalist and isolationist sentiments toward the latest enlargement and toward future enlargements.

If the Dutch vote 'nee' tomorrow, which they likely will, the Constitution is effectively dead and the best we can hope for is a watered-down version which we will be stuck with for quite some time given that everyone is now calling for the process of integration to be slowed down or even reversed.

It was nothing less than the greatest set-back in the history of the EU

Not in the least. Just watch, the sun will continue to rise tomorrow morning ...

The idiocy of the vote yesterday and the one tomorrow is that they supposedly "send a message". People want change.

They simply do not realize that what has to change is their attitude. French workers swallowed whole the myth about the 35 hour week, which reduced their productivity. French and German ministers that continue to manipulate mergers (or prevent them as in Italy) that would rationalize further some industry sectors that deserve it (namely banking). Fiscal laws that make creative minds high-tail it for venture capital nirvanas in California. Labour regulations that are fossilized and make further rationalization impossible, meaning when the jobs are have left for points eastwards; the workers are doomed to long-term unemployment. Regulatory red tape that makes it really, really difficult for entrepreneurs to set up shop, hire and do business. Bankruptcy laws that are hand downs from the 19th century. An accounting system that is struggling to have common reporting across Europe so that investors can make decisions based upon a common understanding of financial results. An integrated transportation policy that allows rationalizing of train transport for goods across Europe. Bringing real competition in provision of electricity to households.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. The answers are lurking in the nuts and bolts of a working economy. Europe isn't working.

There is much to be done. So, let's stop worrying about a constitution that did not in the least address the workings of the economy. Neither should it have.

Just watch, the sun will continue to rise tomorrow morning

That is hardly a measure of the state of European integration and unity. The sun rose every morning in the Dark Ages as well.

The idiocy of the vote yesterday and the one tomorrow is that they supposedly "send a message". People want change.

Well, if you want change, then don't vote for the status quo.

French workers swallowed whole the myth about the 35 hour week, which reduced their productivity. ...etc. etc.

Fine, but completely irrelevant. Again, the referendum was about the Constitutional Treaty.

Europe isn't working.

And the voters' response is: "Great! Let's keep it that way!"

So, let's stop worrying about a constitution that did not in the least address the workings of the economy.

Well, we can be glad the services directive won't be subject to a referendum, because it would never pass.

Press release issued by Jeunes Européens France:

C’est la société civile qui, pour une grande part, a fait campagne et tenté de convaincre les Français du bien fondé de la construction européenne sur le terrain... Les arguments racistes et populistes entendus en fin de campagne étaient à ce titre particulièrement révoltants, il est temps que la classe politique effectue de profondes réformes en son sein ! L’Union européenne ne peut pas plus longtemps faire les frais du mécontentement ou de la crise politique de la France !

Full text: http://www.jeunes-europeens.org/article ... rticle=539

Fine, but completely irrelevant

I've tried to explain what happened in the simplest terms possible.

You don't get it. You keep looking for rational explanations. There are none.

We are talking politics.

I see that. My point is that the voters too have to take the responsibility for their decisions. The consequences of the 'no', that they have voted against a simpler, more democratic, more accountable and more transparent EU, need to be communicated to voters so that they won't take the next referendum so lightly.

hehe... here are a couple of Norwegian reactions to the 'non' vote:

The debate was wide and thorough. If the decision was stupid, at least it was made in a sober condition. France's poor consolation is that Norwegian voters and politicians keep them company.
- Leader in Dagens Næringsliv, a leading business paper

Instead of being part of the process of making the rules, Norway's Prime Minister wants the others to agree on the rules first before he asks them to be allowed to join in and play. It's so stupid he could have been French.
- Leader in same paper

Q: "Will the French 'non' put off a Norwegian membership application in the next parliament?"
A: "Our view on EU membership cannot be based on the vote of French communists and fascists"
- Per-Kristian Foss, Norwegian Finance Minister for the Conservative Party

Mark Steyn

A couple of days before Sunday's referendum on the European constitution, Jean-Claude Juncker, the "president" of the European Union, let French and Dutch voters [the Dutch vote tomorrow] know how much he values their opinion:

"If at the end of the ratification process, we do not manage to solve the problems, the countries that would have said 'No,' would have to ask themselves the question again," "President" Juncker told the Belgian newspaper Le Soir.

Got that? You have the right to vote, but only if you give the answer your rulers want you to give. But don't worry, if you don't, we'll treat you like a particularly backward nursery school and keep asking the question until you get the answer right. Even America's bossiest nanny-state Democrats don't usually express their contempt for the will of the people quite so crudely.

Ah well, but that's precisely the kind of president that the French deserve. They were offered the prospect of an elected EU president rather than the rotational system of "everyone gets a go". But no, they didn't want that. They wanted rotation. And that, of course, is how Juncker became EU president.

That being said, the terms of ratification are clear: the Constitution is only defeated outright if more than five member states reject it. The text calls for a "political agreement" in the event that one or a few member states reject the Constitution.

That agreement could be e.g. changing some parts of the Constitution to take into consideration what caused the people to vote 'no'. Following such an agreement, the Constitution would have to be put to a second vote.

Or it could be granting exemptions to nay-sayers from parts of the Constitution. E.g. when Denmark voted 'no' to Maastricht in 1992, they negotiated four opt-out clauses based on the key issues of the no campaign. The Maastricht light version was then put to Danish voters in a second referendum, this time resulting in a resounding yes. To this day, Denmark retains those four opt-out clauses.

Or it could be the nuclear option: all-or-nothing. That is, the question asked to voters would be whether they want to be a full EU member or not an EU member at all. I don't think that's feasible if more than one country rejects the Constitition, though. But if only one country would stand in the way of the rest, I think it would be fair to ask the people in that country to decide whether they want to be in or out.

Boye

We wish you luck, but we would also like European politicians to realize that their current mindset has to go, if making Europe a better place for living, investing, working and creating is their true task.

My point is that the voters too have to take the responsibility for their decisions. The consequences of the 'no', that they have voted against a simpler, more democratic, more accountable and more transparent EU

Perhaps YOU saw that in the this version of the Constitution - but that is simply not what many, many others understood was a mishmash.

It was a tiresome tome, and no one thought of Keeping It Simple to Sell! The result is that there was a high probability of rejection, given underlying sentiments presently in Europe.

The EU politicians are excellent wordsmiths, but when it comes to explaining the mess to the people, they become wordless. Signals that they were getting out of touch with the base have been going to Brussels for about a decade.

Did they listen? Sunday they did. And, today they will as well.
If you are in politics, Boye, and you truly want to serve your constituents, learn to listen. Ask questions about political matters that pertain to their daily lives. They have much to say to anyone paying attention. (Which would be a novelty for most of them.)

Synthese:

It was a tiresome tome, and no one thought of Keeping It Simple to Sell!

There's a difference between the product and the marketing of it. The Constitution is the product, the campaign was the marketing.

Most successful businesses will agree that KISS is a good principle to follow in marketing. However, I'm not sure they will agree it is a good principle to follow in the production of their products. You can sell a car with a supermodel waxing it, but the production requires a thousands of small details. The customers don't understand most of the technical specifications in a car, but that's no reason for engineers to skip attention to details.

The Constitution is a technical document. Most people don't understand the details on power-sharing, voting procedures, and the complicated process through which the Constitution can be amended. Removing those details from the Constitution would make the final document easier to understand, but it would hardly make for a better Constitution.

As for the marketing of the Constitution, the campaign to sell it to the people may have gone overboard with the KISS principle. The 'yes' campaign shot themselves in the foot when drawing up scare stories to deter the people from voting 'no', rather than explaining to them that the Constitution would give people a more direct say in the day-to-day running of the EU.

If you are in politics, Boye, and you truly want to serve your constituents, learn to listen.

The reason I went into politics was that I want to change the world in a more liberal direction. I listen to people and discuss with them, and that's a good way to pick up on new ideas and learn about local conditions. However, at the end of the day, if they don't agree with my policies, then they should vote for someone else. I'm not interested in serving a conservative, or communist or populist constituency. I present an ideological platform and a package of policies. Voters have to decide whether or not they agree.

Not that I'm going to get elected anyway this time around - I'm only ranked 14th in my party's nomination for a 16-seat constituency where the Liberal Party will do well to win two.

The Constitution is a technical document.

No way, José.

It is a referential document for courts to inevitably decide, in a given context (i.e.. judicial proceeding) how to interpret it in order to relate to that context - thereby making a precedent that guides further decisions.

Your thinking of the Civil Code where all questions are answered in the code ... which is why it is always out of date by the time it is printed.

The Constitution is for a supreme court to interpret, which is why it should be based upon principles and not an archive of treaties or a wish list for a "social Europe". In that way, it remains dynamic, being referred to continuously. It becomes a norm or marker or reference. Which is why it must be drawn in large terms and not in a too specific manner.

As I said, there was an example that has stood the test of time, but nobody gave a damn to consider it. Too bad, back to the drawing boards.

Boye, one country rejecting the constitution is an "accident", two is a reason for concern, and three is a snowball rolling down a snowy hill on a very cold day. It has a way of accumulating itself ...

WATCH OUT!

I present an ideological platform and a package of policies.

Good luck ... anyway.

You might want a product marketeer to look at your platform and image.

http://www.economist.com/agenda/display ... id=4030538

Chirac makes a risky choice

A spot-on analysis of what was going on in Chirac's alleged mind in choosing an aristocratic nerd of an Enarque (Ecole Nationale d'Administration).

Control-freak Jacquo cannot take his hands of the reigns, for fear of free-fall from his summit of grace. When it does inevitably happen, however, the landing will be hard. There are a number of magistrates quite anxious to have a chat with him.

Maybe him and Berlu could share lawyer fees?

... the voters have shown themselves in no mood for liberal reforms, for all their cries for change. One of the main reasons they gave pollsters for deciding to vote non was their fear that it would allow the EU to impose “Anglo-Saxon” free-market policies on France.

Right, we can't have any of that ... it would only lower unemployment ...

Synthese:

It is a referential document for courts to inevitably decide, in a given context (i.e.. judicial proceeding) how to interpret it in order to relate to that context - thereby making a precedent that guides further decisions.

The primary purpose of a Constitution is to provide a guarantee for fundamental right and create a political framework with checks and balances.

Those checks and balances can be very detailed, and they have to be. But I for one would rather have a technical Constitution with many checks and balances than an easy-to-read Constitution with no checks and balances.

The easiest-to-read constitutions are those that offer no guarantees and no checks and balances.

There's plenty of room for interpretation of the constitutional treaty. E.g. the charter of fundamental rights is a very general document, and the courts will need to apply them to specific cases.

The Constitution is for a supreme court to interpret, which is why it should be based upon principles and not an archive of treaties or a wish list for a "social Europe".

The Constitution does not include a "Social Europe" or any other agenda or policies. The Constitutional Treaty is a political framework, detailing how the EU should make its decisions. One of the criticisms by the 'no' camp in France was that the Constitution didn't contain social policies, along with the allegation that freedom is "ultra-liberal" and that it's inherently a bad thing.

Anyway, of course the Constitution is for "a supreme court" to interpret. The European Court of Justice is that supreme court, and it already does interpret the EU's treaties, which the ECJ has ruled to be a de facto Constitution for the EU. With regard to the ECJ, the new treaty only formalises this.

Boye, one country rejecting the constitution is an "accident", two is a reason for concern, and three is a snowball rolling down a snowy hill on a very cold day. It has a way of accumulating itself ...

Yes. The Constitution is dead. The EU is not ready yet for:

- More power to the European Parliament
- An elected EU president
- Council of Ministers meetings open to the public
- National parliaments to have a say in EU legislation
- The citizens initiative where 1 million signatures would force the Commission to draft legislation

It's a pity, but that's democracy. But now the voters must accept the consequences of their actions. Those who voted 'no' to the Constitution have no right to complain about the democratic deficit in the EU, because they voted against closing it.

Synthese:

You might want a product marketeer to look at your platform and image.

Certainly image is important. But as for my platform, I'm not sure what you mean. Should I take on opinions that are popular, rather than the opinions that I believe in? What's the point of being in politics if you don't fight for what you believe in? There are enough people who say what they think the people want them to say. Adding one more wouldn't change the world one bit.

I'll stand on a platform of social liberalism, and that's what I'll sell. Those who don't like that platform can vote for someone else.

The point is very fair and lucid, Boye, even when nobody's buying what you sell. At which point you'd have to decide, whether to remain in the perpetual opposition or adjust your beliefs. Either way there is nothing wrong about it.

I too believe that politicians, let alone great statesmen, mustn't simply follow, rather they have to educate and lead masses.

Unfortunately, Eurocrats neither follow nor lead. They dictate and ignore.

At which point you'd have to decide, whether to remain in the perpetual opposition or adjust your beliefs.

Well, I wouldn't adjust my beliefs, but some parts of a platform may be more appealing than others. Obviously, in a campaign you might want to focus on the parts that you think will attract voters and not talk so much about those of your opinions that you know to be unpopular. Most people vote not on the basis of a careful analysis of each platform, but on the basis of a few issues that are important to them.

However, I think there's a fundamental difference between, on the one hand, focusing your campaign on those of your policies that are popular and, on the other hand, lying about those of your policies that are unpopular.

I too believe that politicians, let alone great statesmen, mustn't simply follow, rather they have to educate and lead masses.

That's a crude way of putting it, but yes, the masses have to be led. And the two recent referenda in France and the Netherlands are an example of that. When the government and the major parties failed to lead the masses, opportunists filled the void.

Boye

Just to clarify myself - I didn't mean to use "masses" in any condescending way whatsoever. I may or may not consider certain individuals as mere simpletons, but voters, in their entirety or as different groups of people with varying interests and beliefs, are not to be trifled with, in my opinion.

People as voters have to be won over. Education in this particular case has more than one connotation, and I wouldn't like the "brainwashing" part of it to be implied.

Chicago Boyz

Abandonment of the Euro Becomes Conceivable
From FT.com:



The under-fire euro fell further on Wednesday, slumping to an eight-month low against the US dollar amid rumblings over the long-term future of the eurozone.

The fresh selling was prompted by a report claiming that Hans Eichel, the German finance minister, and Axel Weber, the president of the Bundesbank, were present at a meeting at which the possible break-up of European Monetary Union was discussed.

The German Bundestag is also said to have commissioned a report on the legal repercussions of a country wishing to leave the EMU.

Germany’s finance ministry labelled the talk “absurd”, while Mr Eichel and Mr Weber issued a statement saying the euro was a “unique success story”. But the damage had been done.



Of course there are pro forma denials, but it looks like the French and Dutch referendum results have allowed the German govt to raise the obvious questions about why the Bundesbank should continue to support Europe's weaker economies. The bigger question is why Germany went along with the Euro scheme in the first place. But having done it, and finding the going perhaps harder than they anticipated, the German pols and finance bureaucrats may now be looking for a place to get off the train.


Although most currency analysts regard the break-up of the eurozone as an extremely faint prospect, they said the potentially disastrous repercussions of such an event mean it could not be totally ignored.

Tony Norfield, global head of forex strategy at ABN Amro, put the probability of a splintering of the eurozone at “5 per cent or less”.

“Our view is that EMU will not break up. That will be way down the line as the last resort because of the political capital eveyone has got invested in it,” he said.

Nevertheless Mr Norfield added that if a break-up was to occur, it would be a “disaster” for the euro.



When people start talking like this it means that the odds of the events they are trying to dismiss are now high enough to be undismissable. This doesn't mean Euro abandonment is a certainty, only that the odds of it are increasing. Look for more such talk in Germany and elsewhere.

If the Euro falls apart it won't happen suddenly, just as Euro introduction was planned over an extended period. Governments are usually slow and deliberate about such major policy changes. Nonetheless, EMU failure would be like a giant fish hook ripped from the guts of the European political class: painful, messy and very interesting to watch. And it just became more likely.

The Dutch version of NON:

NEE

Given that the French are from a collectivist culture and the Dutch from an individualist culture, what do the two referenda refusals regarding the constitution tell us?

My suggestion: They indicate that there were two very different motivations working simultaneously behind the refusal, both populist. The first was a fear that a "social Europe" was not being guaranteed by the constitution and the second was a base fear of enlargement further of the EU zone, particularly the inclusion of Turkey.

The French were particular concerned about their "social Europe", and if the populist vote on the left went against the constitution a good number of conservative voters also crossed the Rubicon to protest at the pall-mall enlargement of the EU in directions that do not correspond with their liking. Those curious bedfellows carried the vote above 50%

The Dutch care far less about a "social Europe" and, because they are Anglo-Saxon-like in their individualist culture, were more driven towards the arguments about a Europe that is opening its doors a bit too widely and too quickly to just anybody. (The fact is, however, that because of demographic growth predictions, Europe has a real need for foreign workers to sustain economic development. So, once again, common sense did not prevail over base sentiments.)

There is merit in this latter question. The last inclusion was done hastily in that the eastern countries accepted terms that were not favourable. At the heart of their discord is the CAP, which somewhat arbitrarily favours (in terms of net receipts) French and German agriculture. The terms that they were obliged to accept (in a "take it or leave it" fashion) were niggardly as regards farm subsidies for countries that have substantial populations cultivating the land.

This latter aspect of European politics is special in that it underscores a cultural attribute that is ingrained in most European people. It is their affection for rural communities and particularly farming, even if they are city dwellers. There is rarely an agricultural show in a large city that does not attract a great number of people, usually children who are brought to see what a "cow" actually looks like. The children are likewise fascinated - the sight seems to beckon to an inner sentiment lost in the millennial mist of human development but nonetheless latently alive.

The fact of the matter is that European farms are too small to support their populations without subsidies. So, farmers are relegated to a position of "caretakers" of the countryside where people like to live whilst they commute to their jobs in the city or retire to once those jobs are over. Since this is a cultural necessity it is obvious that agriculture will need subsidies far into the future, but it is less clear who should pay for it.

For instance, why should the south of Italy, patently unable to sustain an agricultural existence, have subsidies to do so? Why not simply create an Agricultural Disneyland near each large city and charge admission? Better yet, why not have those countries that want a caretaker agriculture pay for it themselves, thereby releasing the CAP funds for other, more productive, investments.

Many people feel that the "social Europe" that has been built is sufficient in its present form. Anyone who disagrees is invited to go live in America, where personal fortunes are lost as a consequence to a debilitating malady in the family - because one was too poor and whatever work they had did not include medical insurance. (Hilary's "safety net" was shot down in flames and the consequences in terms of lives are obvious.)

The net result of the two elections is that there has not been sufficient dialog with the people about the Europe that they want. This is the first job of politicians, to understand what are the needs and concerns of their constituencies. When they've done that, maybe there can be derived a constitution that the people can believe in?

But as for my platform, I'm not sure what you mean. Should I take on opinions that are popular, rather than the opinions that I believe in?

Politics and product marketing are similar. In both instances one is trying to convince someone to "buy in", that is to purchase a product or support a policy. So, the basics are the same.

For people to "buy in", they must be convinced of two attributes of whatever is proposed:

1) That they really need and want it because it will be beneficial to them.

2) That they can afford it, because to refuse to "buy", they would be forgoing a splendid opportunity.

As regards politics, the only way to know whether an idea (ideas constitute platforms) has the above characteristics is to ask the people. The response will depend upon your constituency: What is their social complexion (meaning incomes), What concerns "prevail" (meaning what is it TODAY that really interests them), What are their aspirations in the near future (forget an horizon that is more than a year away), What is it LOCALLY that concerns them (not what is happening in some capital far away that amuses journalists on television).

In short, ask questions ... good, simple questions ... all sorts of questions - and sit back to listen. Then reflect on what you've heard and propose to them a platform that responds to their opinions/notions/aspirations/hopes/needs/etc. It need not be "all things to all people", meaning a hodgepodge of the most common denominator. Common sense can do wonders and preposterousness will do the opposite.

Just being well groomed, smiling at people, kissing babies, having a beer at the pub with the guys, handing out pamphlets, passing a sound bite on the telly ... will not suffice. (Unless the constituency is a bunch of mindless jerks, in which case none of the above applies.)

Leo:

Just to clarify myself - I didn't mean to use "masses" in any condescending way whatsoever.

I didn't take it as that either. In fact, I think we're very much in agreement on this matter.

Surnami:

Why exactly are you, a Republican France-basher, celebrating the victory of communism and French nationalism over capitalism and Europeanism? Do you not see the irony?

Synthese:

Why not simply create an Agricultural Disneyland near each large city and charge admission?

I like that idea.

Better yet, why not have those countries that want a caretaker agriculture pay for it themselves

You couldn't do that without erecting new trade barriers, and that's the last thing I want to see. If one country hands out subsidies to its industry and the other don't, then you'll distort competiton. Other countries, seeking to protect their industry from unfair competition, will then either have to throw in an equal amount of money, or levy punitive tariffs on subsidised products. Equal subsidies across the board are, IMO, better than trade barriers.

Synthese:

Politics and product marketing are similar. In both instances one is trying to convince someone to "buy in", that is to purchase a product or support a policy. So, the basics are the same.

There are two kinds of politicians. There are those who believe in an ideology and a political message, and there are those who are in it for the lust of power. I like to think I belong in the former category.

And for the ideologist, changing your platform as the wind blows is not an option. A product marketeer will change the specifics of a product according to what is popular here and now. And so will a populist politician who is in it for the power. But IMO a great politican is one who carries a conviction and is able to sell that message, turn the people over, with good and sensible arguments.

I wouldn't be in politics if it was only about administering the majority opinion on every issue. In fact, the only reason I am in politics is because I want change. I'll stand for my own opinions, and if people disagree, they can vote for someone else.

As regards politics, the only way to know whether an idea (ideas constitute platforms) has the above characteristics is to ask the people. The response will depend upon your constituency: What is their social complexion (meaning incomes), What concerns "prevail" (meaning what is it TODAY that really interests them), What are their aspirations in the near future (forget an horizon that is more than a year away)

Well, of course you'll ask the people because that's how you learn about how things work on a personal level. I mean, as a single person, you can only know so much from personal experience. But basically, building your platform exclusively on the wishes of those whose vote you seek, is what an administrator would do. A politician, however, would present a platform and ask people to vote for it. I'm not going to ask my constituency what they think about farm subsidies and let them decide what I should think about farm subsidies. On the contrary, I'll say I'm against farm subsidies and those who agree with me should vote for me.

What is it LOCALLY that concerns them (not what is happening in some capital far away that amuses journalists on television).

Ah well, but this is a national election. What happens locally, unless it's a result of national policy, is irrelevant.

In short, ask questions ... good, simple questions ... all sorts of questions - and sit back to listen. Then reflect on what you've heard and propose to them a platform that responds to their opinions/notions/aspirations/hopes/needs/etc

So in short, you're asking me to lie? Is that what makes a good politician in your book?