The London News Review, UK
May 24 2005

European constitution: why I am too stupid to vote ‘yes’
May 25, 2005

The most peculiar thing about this whole European constitution in-out
referendum yes-no-maybe business is how supremely ignorant most
people are as to what any of it actually means. And I speak as one of
the ignorant. I’m shamefully unaware of what the constitution
contains, implies, commits us to – but I suspect the blame can’t all
be laid at my door.

Because while I may be a thicko when it comes to the European
constitution, in the general scheme of things I’m a) relatively
un-thick; and b) reasonably up to speed with what’s in the news. For
the last 4 weeks or so a large part of my job has been to read the
newspapers, I fairly often watch the news on TV, I sometimes catch
Newsnight and Question Time – and yet I still don’t really know what
the hell the European constitution actually IS.

And I may be flattering my stupid (and lazy) self, but if I don’t
really know what it’s all about, there must be a wopping great wedge
of Britain that knows as little or less than I do. And we’re talking
about a referendum here. A referendum which is meant to gauge my
opinion. But my opinion on what?

And I don’t think I’m learning a whole lot from the debate itself.
Just witness the way the matter is thrashed out on TV: with
pro-consitution and anti-constitution lobby groups trying to convince
the public that their interpretation of the constitution is the
correct one. `No, the constitution means this’ – `on the contrary, it
means the opposite’ – so am I meant to make up my mind based upon
someone else’s interpretation of something I don’t understand myself?

It’s not like the fox-hunting debate. At least with that you knew
roughly what the deal is: you either think it’s an okay thing for
grown men and women to chase animals to their death in the name of
entertainment and ‘tradition’, or you don’t.Obviously I’m being a bit
flippant there… but my point is this: you can listen to the
arguments of pro-hunt and anti-hunt activists, and at least know what
it is, at some fundamental level, that they’re banging on about.

Not so with the constitution. If someone said to me: `all European
countries have to have the same flag’ at least I’d know what I was
meant to have an opinion about. As it is, I feel like I’m meant to
have an opinion about a bunch of other people’s opinions.

And I don’t want to be told what to think. I want to be told what to
think about.

It all smacks of a rushed job. I feel like I’m being hustled. It’s a
bit too much like the New Labour anti-terror laws, which skidded
through parliament on a slick of ignorance. A bit like the
anti-hunting laws, come to think of it…

What’s needed is a discussion of specifics. Actual graspable issues.
An example that springs to mind is the issue of Turkey joining
Europe. In France, the small matter of the Armenian genocide has been
brought up within the referendum debate:

The Armenian community in France, some 400,000-strong, has been
expected to lean towards a ‘no’ vote as a means to stop Turkey’s
accession. Community leaders have insisted that France urge Turkey to
acknowledge the 1915 genocide which left an estimated 1 – 1.5 million
Armenians dead, as part of the accession talks.
Obviously that’s a massively emotive issue, but at least it is
understandable. The Armenians are still pissed off at the Turks for
slaughtering them in their hundreds of thousands. Okay – so let’s
talk about it, see if we can’t find a solution. Find one. And move
on.

This is the level at which the consitution debate has to be
conducted: at the level of the particular. We need to address
particular fears, particular hopes, particular wants, and particular
problems. Only then can there be any kind of intelligent and
transparent progress.

In the meantime, vote NO. Unless you happen to know what the hell
this is all about, and think the consitution is a good thing, in
which case vote YES. And if that’s the case, perhaps you could
explain it to me. Because I’m stumped.