See site in english Voir le site en francais
Website skin:
home  download  forum  link  contact

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: (Off topic - politics) French refendum for Euro Constitution ...  (Read 3088 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline StarLost

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • Country: Canada ca
  • Karma: 10
28 May 2005, 09:24:10
Canadian news media have been paying some attention to the issue, though not as much as I like. And I've been reading some in
the Irish Times and Le Monde.

However, what will be the effect if France votes "Non" in the referendum Sunday?



This query is, of course, directed mainly to our European colleagues, but it is an honest question, so please keep responses
reasoned and reasonable.


Offline McBrain

  • Legend
  • ******
  • Posts: 1190
  • Karma: 0
Reply #1 - 28 May 2005, 11:23:33
As far as I've heard the constitution won't accomplish if one county votes with "no".
But I'm not completely sure.


Cheers,

McBrain

----------------------------------------
In a world without walls and fences, who needs windows and gates?

Offline Simonpro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
  • Karma: 0
Reply #2 - 28 May 2005, 12:26:04
The constitution will be put back by an amount if the French vote no. However, the constitution is not "doomed" or
a "failure" if the French don't say yes, as the opposition to the consitution would like you to believe ;)


-------------------------------

Offline DocHoliday

  • Legend
  • ******
  • Posts: 2474
  • Karma: 1
Reply #3 - 28 May 2005, 21:42:36
I believe another round of negotiations usually follows a categoric no, trying to determine why it was a .. no :)

Other than that I haven't been following the events yet. Will from now tho.


~~~

"Mood is a matter of choice. I choose to have fun!" -Vidmarism No 15

fort

  • Guest
Reply #4 - 28 May 2005, 22:14:58
Quote
DocHoliday wrote:
I believe another round of negotiations usually follows a categoric no, trying to determine why it was a .. no :)

Other than that I haven't been following the events yet. Will from now tho.


   There is different possible scenario in case of no but i'm not sure that an other round of negociations can be expected
before a long time. But who knows... I just know that  it is not planning ( planified ? planned?) as usual  in the european's
institutions concerning the convention actually in debate. It's really complex and what can happens if there is a majority of
no tomorrow evening : televisions and newspapers, radio,are on the subject since many weeks, from 8 AM to 8PM or later, and
the comments are  really 'multiples'.  Fog, smog, peasoup. Really hard choices.Really.


Offline StarLost

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • Country: Canada ca
  • Karma: 10
Reply #5 - 29 May 2005, 05:07:10
Thankyou guys. Sounds as clear as mud. Typical political garbage. If we don't like the people's answer we'll manipulate it
until they give us the answer we want. Political classism is alive and well.

News here has been pretty balanced about the issue, rather unusual that. I just wanted decent opinion from the folks on the
ground.

Thanks, again.


Offline DocHoliday

  • Legend
  • ******
  • Posts: 2474
  • Karma: 1
Reply #6 - 30 May 2005, 01:23:49
Well, the last I head was that about 55% or so French were against it.

I somehow think this may actually be the French way of trying to sabotage the French gov't. They are not happy with it, so
they block things they are trying to get through. Which is basically good if you ask me. :)


~~~

"Mood is a matter of choice. I choose to have fun!" -Vidmarism No 15

Offline DanSteph

  • Administrator
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 15002
  • Karma: 178
  • Hein, quoi !?
    • FsPassengers
Reply #7 - 30 May 2005, 03:38:22
Quote
DocHoliday wrote:
they block things they are trying to get through. Which is basically good if you ask me. :)

This is one of the reason wich is plain idiot if you want my advice...
sabotage one things because you don't like another one is childish.
(but at 40 old I really things that 70% voter don't even know the subject
they vote on)

What is fun is that no sayer are from every side, ultra nationalist,
left anarchist, middle left middle right, right winged etc etc....and each have different reasons...

But the main concern I think is that the third part of the constitution
is really ultra-liberal...  (I mean "thatcher" style)

The two first part are cool but the last one really smell bad...

I must say my heart balance ... I'm a strong europe supporter, at first I would have voted
yes but when I see were goes the europe I start to wonder if I really want that...
(I didn't voted I don't have the right now in france)

I want a strong feeling to be european, I want a constitution that is strong
and say clear and lovelly things as "ya shal not kill others" or such things not 400 pages
of uncomprehensible economical article...

Making each country voting separately was plain dumb if you want my opinion, we are far
from a "european feeling" it would have been cool to make 400 million peoples
voting in same time were each voice count... not per country.

Anyway as we said here "the wine is open, now we should drink it"

Dan


Offline StarLost

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • Country: Canada ca
  • Karma: 10
Reply #8 - 30 May 2005, 06:58:18
"the wine is open, now we should drink it"  more like, "we're out in the pasture and just stuck our foot in it".

I see the results went pretty much as predicted.  Do you guys realize just how "Canadian" you sound? Canada is a
confederation of 10 provinces and three territories. When we want our constitution changed (and it's a relatively new one) it
does need a plurality of the provinces and the federal government (rarely do we use referenda, that invariably ends up as
judging the politicians, as the French have just shown us). However a province can block such a change within its
geographical jurisdiction by invoking a "notwithstanding" clause. Also a province can enact a law that may be
"unconstitutional" (and declared so after review by the Supreme Court), but can continue with the law by again invoking a
"notwithstanding" clause.  In many ways it does make a mockery of even having a constitution, until you realize the rarity of
the use of a "notwithstanding" clause and the ramifications when it is invoked.

400 pages, eh? That's not a constitution. That's administrative bullying.  Maybe Heinlein was right: "In a mature society,
civil servant is semantically equal to civil master."

Good luck with the next step.


Offline Azam

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 26
  • Karma: 0
Reply #9 - 30 May 2005, 08:02:58
190 pages, exactly and the third part is a compilation of previous treaties.
A majority voted 'non' because they didn't read the constitution and believed arguments such "french cheeses would
disappeared" (I heard that !!), "cloning would be allowed"...

disappointed...



Eric

Offline DocHoliday

  • Legend
  • ******
  • Posts: 2474
  • Karma: 1
Reply #10 - 30 May 2005, 08:41:32
190 or 400. I agree with Dan. A constitution should look like the "10 commendments". Straight, simple and directly to
the point. All the rest should be ammendments or annexes or whatever. I am still not sure of all the rest of 189 or
399 pages are necessary, but since so many nations are working at this, everyone must have a say and if Slovenia
thinks up we want to have pink grass, it will have to be included in there somewhere otherwise we will "go French"
(no pun intended) - in other words sabotage or veto.. It's ridiculous, BUT if you EVER manage to get it all sorted out
noone can yap around that their interests were not protected or ackowledged.

In my country the gov't handed out little booklets descibing in short what EU constition is all about, what it gives the
countries, EU citizens and how it changes the country itself. It's like 20 pages A5 format, and I admit I STILL didn't get
around to reading it. But if I am asked to go vote on this I'm sure I will..


~~~

"Mood is a matter of choice. I choose to have fun!" -Vidmarism No 15

Offline Simonpro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
  • Karma: 0
Reply #11 - 30 May 2005, 09:32:24
Gah, a no vote :(


-------------------------------

Offline DanSteph

  • Administrator
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 15002
  • Karma: 178
  • Hein, quoi !?
    • FsPassengers
Reply #12 - 30 May 2005, 15:59:40
Quote
DocHoliday wrote:
190 or 400. I agree with Dan. A constitution should look like the "10 commendments".


Notice in fact they "mistakly" called this a constitution but it's not , it's a treaty that rules the
way each country should deal with others... (as Nice treaty)

they thougt that calling it a "constitution" would look more appealing , people took words on this
and now they are f***

I think there is an urgent need for european politic to DO something to make us feeling european
or there will be a really long time before anything good would happen...

Something like a REAL constitution (as you said 10 commandment)
or a MASSIVE vote of the 400 million european in same time.. I don't know. something...

Dan


Offline DocHoliday

  • Legend
  • ******
  • Posts: 2474
  • Karma: 1
Reply #13 - 01 June 2005, 07:25:08
Heh, we'll se what Holland does on their referrendum :)


~~~

"Mood is a matter of choice. I choose to have fun!" -Vidmarism No 15

Offline freespace2dotcom

  • Legend
  • ******
  • Posts: 2251
  • Karma: 1
Reply #14 - 01 June 2005, 09:21:04
hehe. I'm not saying anything about my opinions on europe here, but I will say, I also agree that constitutions, laws,
even little political farts should be as simple as humanly possible, so that people WILL read it, and understand.

I like to say that anything that I personally cannot mentally grasp, is far too big and I wouldn't like any part of it.
While I originally meant that in reference to huge corporations that have near-impossible to trace ownerships, and
that sort of thing, it also applies to this sort of thing. I'd never give my personal approval to something if I coulnd't
read it, and I'm 100% sure I couldn't read that all and comprehend it, and even if someone gave me a 20 page copy
to summarize it, I still wouldn't approve of it, as there's WAY too much that wouldn't be covered to pass it on the
summary alone.  

and I SHUDDER to think of how that 190 page thing was translated 100% faithfully into all of the official languages of
europe, (if Indeed it actually was, or as I suspect, only the english or french copies count if there's an error
somewhere).

hehe.. remember the KISS method, "Keep It Simple, Stupid" :badsmile:



Offline Strogoff

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 731
  • Country: France fr
  • Karma: 0
Reply #15 - 01 June 2005, 14:59:58
Well. I voted no last sunday. And not because i'm nationalist or other "extrem wings", but because I don't find this text was
a real constitution.

*First, it was too long to read. (but i did it... twice).

*Secondly, it was too complex to read. The first and second part are clear, but when you read the others parts (third parts
and annexes, I found a lot of texts saying "gnagnagnagnaga in exception of II-5 articles, blblablabl". I found this text very
confused and very badly written. (even it was in french :!) .

*Thridly, the repartition between the powers is not very clear. For exemple, the european parlement didn't have the right to
propose a law. The European Bank had this right for monetary field.. etc ... As a french, I studied "l'esprit des lois" de
Montesquieu at school, and this constitution wasn't equilibrated

* Fourth, they thought we were idiots. They wrote that if one million of european made a petition about a subject ...
[suspens] ... the commition will read the petition [/suspens] and put il in the trash ... :)
They wrote that each member of the commission is independant of his country... and wrote six articles to say how each country
will have at least one member in the commission !!

* Fifth, I think europe of today isn't democratic enough and this text ddidn't change a thing to this point. It's just a
compilation of old treaties, who changes mainly the system of votes (no more unanimity of the 25 countries) but mainly  for
economic field.

I discover that i'm european, and a federalist one. And this constitution isn't enought federalist for me.



Offline DanSteph

  • Administrator
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 15002
  • Karma: 178
  • Hein, quoi !?
    • FsPassengers
Reply #16 - 02 June 2005, 05:04:20
Quote
Strogoff wrote:
Well. I voted no last sunday.

We can agree or disagree with you about your voting but one things I find good
is that at least your have good logical arguments to justify your vote...

That's too often not the case and I don't speak specifically for one side or another...

Democracy it too often "Dumbacy" in my opinion (but it's the better system of course,
all others are even worse)

Dan


Offline DocHoliday

  • Legend
  • ******
  • Posts: 2474
  • Karma: 1
Reply #17 - 02 June 2005, 07:32:00
Well, now the Dutch said 62% no. :) They are pushing against the wall with this "constitution" and should stop, reexaming
what went wront, if they want any kind of progress.. Otherwise ALL countries will vote no, out of principle at this point.

It's too early obviously and as Strogoff said, the countries are too different and you need a few more years for things to
equalize and balance more. Social systems differ, democratic rights differ - compare most western EU countries and compare
them to say Turkey or other easterns countries use to socialism. It doesn't add up. You can't force countries with different
customs to change overnight even if they want to. Also my country for example has only 15 years or so experience with modern
capitalist/democracy, others have practiced it for centuries. There are subtle differences in the way people are brought up
and their attitudes towards making money, pursuing happines and doing fair business. Some may have extreme views that what
you earn should be yours, others believe what you earn should be partly channeled to social security... also some may believe
it is alright not to pay a fair price for services, while others deem it the basic principle. Capitalism vs. communism mentality.

And as Strogoff says, current "constitution" is basically a multi-lateral economic agreement. On the other hand I am STILL
not sure whether EU is to be a federation, confederacy or a damn monarchy....


« Last Edit: 02 June 2005, 10:09:45 by DocHoliday »
~~~

"Mood is a matter of choice. I choose to have fun!" -Vidmarism No 15

Offline StarLost

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • Country: Canada ca
  • Karma: 10
Reply #18 - 02 June 2005, 10:09:45
Quote
DocHoliday wrote:


And as Strogoff says, current "constitution" is basically a multi-lateral economic agreement. On the other hand I
am STILL
not sure whether EU is to be a federation, confederacy or a damn monarchy....


Hmmm...

Any possibility of the re-emergence of the House of Merovee?

From this side of the pond, the European Union looks very much like a confederacy.  You folks are trying to build one out of
territories that have been and are sovereign states. Perhaps this will make it that much more difficult to achieve. It was
easier over here to form a new nation out of territories that had been colonies, not sovereign states. When the United States
developed its union, only two of its states had been independent nations (Vermont and Texas). The rest had been colonies.
Easier to begin from scratch. And Canada is still very much an experiment. We talked our way into existance. We didn't use
the gun.

We'll probably talk our way out of existance, too.

I think the semanticists will be at work before the next attempt.  A constitution is normally a  relatively short document.
It sets out the ideals of the union.  What you are trying to pass is really a charter.  If you take a look at the UN Charter,
you will see how long it can be.

Unifying Europe.  I pray it will not take aggression to unite your continent (once again). Europe has seen enough of the dark
side of humanity.  But in hindsight, would it have been easier to form a European Union in 1946-1950 without the interference
of the then superpowers (I know ... a moot point)?

« Last Edit: 02 June 2005, 10:09:45 by StarLost »