NationStates Jolt Archive

As you may know, Chirac has officially announced that he will not be seeking re-election, so he will cease to be President in May.

Apparently, foreign media have been saying that he should not have held a referendum on the EU Constitution, but instead should have forced it on the French people despite their objections. I'd be curious to hear your views. These foreign media are essentially saying "who cares about democracy, give us the EU Constitution, whether the citizens want it or not". (Source (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/france/20070312-Chirac-world-reactions.html), the video, not the text.)

On a wider topic, if you want to follow what the media of various countries are saying about the upcoming French Presidential election, you can look here (http://observer.france24.com/).

I can only assume that the world media for some reason hate Chirac. If he had forced through the EU Constitution he would have been called a tyrant and dictator.

For once, I agree with Chirac. He should have held that referendum and I applaud him for it.

I really dont consider European countries on a par with Canada, when it comes to freedom (ex: most ban homosexual marriage and restrict freedom of speech). So I'm not surprised by a blatant disrespect for democratic process given that EU constitution would be a major change.

ex: most ban homosexual marriage

um... may I remind you that the first country to legalise it is not Canada, but the Nethelands, which is in Europe.

I'm glad it failed. This is clearly a step to a European Superstate, Something I would rather die then see.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the media 'thank' Chirac for EU Constitutional failure, especially among the UK press.

May I remind you "most"?

the point was that canada is not the leader in this.

um... may I remind you that the first country to legalise it is not Canada, but the Nethelands, which is in Europe.

May I remind you "most"?

I am not a big fan of Chirac however he did what he should have done. The people of France should have not had it forced upon them.

It is in the best interests of the global economy that a strong and healthy European Union is able to develop. The sinking of the Constitution by the voters of France (on parochial, nationalist grounds, nonetheless) is a severe detriment to the continued stabilization of Europe.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the media 'thank' Chirac for EU Constitutional failure, especially among the UK press.

Yes, big sigh of relief from Tony there. It allowed him to shelve a very sticky issue quietly.

the point was that canada is not the leader in this.

Let me clarify. Most countries ban homosexual marriage and currently not on a par with Canada on this. But those who dont ban it, restrict freedom of speech. Hence all European countries are not on a par with Canada, when it comes to freedom, tho they are much better than most of the planet.

I don't see why Chirac should be blamed

The Dutch rejected it, if the UK had a chance we would have overwhelmingly rejected it. There was no chance it was going in its current form. We in the UK do not like the word Constitution ;)

So long as the EU wants to pretend its democratic in any sense, yes he absolutely was right. One of the few bloody things he was right on at all actually.

Mr Chirac's power is authored by the people - if he wants to force things on them, then he should go ahead and declare himself to be a dictator. The EU would love this of course. Many in Europe do not want this piece of scrap paper it calls a constitution - maybe it should get the message, and begin rethinking its strategies instead of playing some puerile blame game.

Let me clarify. Most countries ban homosexual marriage and currently not on a par with Canada on this. But those who dont ban it, restrict freedom of speech. Hence all European countries are not on a par with Canada, when it comes to freedom, tho they are much better than most of the planet.

now thats a generalisation if I ever saw one

I don't think anything about the E.U should be forced the last thing it needs (or anyone but extreme right wingers) is bad public opinion

Let me clarify. Most countries ban homosexual marriage and currently not on a par with Canada on this. But those who dont ban it, restrict freedom of speech.

I want 7 names

Let me clarify. Most countries ban homosexual marriage and currently not on a par with Canada on this. But those who dont ban it, restrict freedom of speech. Hence all European countries are not on a par with Canada, when it comes to freedom, tho they are much better than most of the planet.

by saying that only some european countries are "on a par with canada" on gay right, you are assuming the whole legalisation of gay marriage thing started in canada. It did not, it started in Western Europe. The first country to start this civil union thing was Denmark, and the first country to legalise gay marriage was the Netherlands. Also, last time I checked, Canada does restrict free speech.

It is in the best interests of the global economy that a strong and healthy European Union is able to develop. The sinking of the Constitution by the voters of France (on parochial, nationalist grounds, nonetheless) is a severe detriment to the continued stabilization of Europe.

You forgot that other nations voted no as well.

by saying that only some european countries are "on a par with canada" on gay right, you are assuming the whole legalisation of gay marriage thing started in canada. It did not, it started in Western Europe. The first country to start this civil union thing was Denmark, and the first country to legalise gay marriage was the Netherlands. Also, last time I checked, Canada does restrict free speech.

We do?

now thats a generalisation if I ever saw one

Then I'm ignorant about exceptions to what I've said.

So long as the EU wants to pretend its democratic in any sense, yes he absolutely was right. One of the few bloody things he was right on at all actually.

Mr Chirac's power is authored by the people - if he wants to force things on them, then he should go ahead and declare himself to be a dictator. The EU would love this of course. Many in Europe do not want this piece of scrap paper it calls a constitution - maybe it should get the message, and begin rethinking its strategies instead of playing some puerile blame game.

Sometimes a government should go against popular public opinion and force an issue, the governments job is to do what's best for the nation, not necessarily what the nation wants.

"In 1995, when the issue of reinstating the death penalty was debated and subsequently defeated in Parliament, 76% of British respondents supported the death penalty."

Sometimes a government should go against popular public opinion and force an issue, the governments job is to do what's best for the nation, not necessarily what the nation wants.

"In 1995, when the issue of reinstating the death penalty was debated and subsequently defeated in Parliament, 76% of British respondents supported the death penalty."

True. But in this particular case, I don't see how it could be argued that the EU Constitution would have been worth imposing against the wishes of the people. Kind of self-defeating, no, if you end up with a Constitution that people don't want?

Which is why I was rather dismayed to see some media state that it was wrong to organise a democratic consultation of citizens on the issue. Are they pushing for an undemocratic EU, or what?

In terms of political machinations...wouldn't it have been better for Chirac to take the stance of: The EU is good for the people of France but I understand many do not yet see that. For that reason I will not hold a referendum, as I may well lose and that will simply play into the hands of anti-EU forces.

It wasn't just the constitution that was derailed, the entire pro-EU camp lost momentum. That was his failure.

For that reason, Chirac, who should have been fairly aware the he was likely to lose the referendum, should have made the decision to ratify it without going to referendum.

Or...he should never have championed such a useless document in the first place - but that's another debate

In terms of political machinations...wouldn't it have been better for Chirac to take the stance of: The EU is good for the people of France but I understand many do not yet see that. For that reason I will not hold a referendum, as I may well lose and that will simply play into the hands of anti-EU forces.

It wasn't just the constitution that was derailed, the entire pro-EU camp lost momentum. That was his failure.

And what of the Dutch? They voted against it as well. Why are we laying all of this on the feet of Chirac?

For that reason, Chirac, who should have been fairly aware the he was likely to lose the referendum, should have made the decision to ratify it without going to referendum.

Which would be unlike him but typical French Like. He did the right thing by giving the people the right to vote for or against it. Imagine the uproar if it was ratified without the referendum. Besides, would this thing pass Parliment?

Or...he should never have championed such a useless document in the first place - but that's another debate

Actually, it is the same debate.

We do?

your response makes me think you only read part of the post.

The EU needs a constitution. We don't need the EU. It's two seperate issues.

We already have the EU, and though we in no way need a constitution with special considerations of Polish Bible thumpers and the fucking Pope, we do need one to limit, organise and clearly structure the powers and political process of the EU. Because in it's absence, all sorts of nasty shit is taking place.

That said, even though the French apparently shot it down based mostly on a combination of being fed up with their national political wank and being a bunch of xenophobic little twats throwing a fit over the future of Turkey, the constitution as it was, was no good at all. It would severely limit and undermine several civil liberties, rights and mandatory public services in half the EU countries. Like taking away the right to work for the French, for example.

We either need to get the fuck out of EU, or get a constitution. Not THE constitution, but a proper one. One that isn't based on the needs of the economic, religious and political elite, but on the needs of our collective societies, coherency and economies.

Sometimes a government should go against popular public opinion and force an issue, the governments job is to do what's best for the nation, not necessarily what the nation wants.

"In 1995, when the issue of reinstating the death penalty was debated and subsequently defeated in Parliament, 76% of British respondents supported the death penalty."


Actually the job of the government if they are elected by the people is to do what is best for the Nation.....as the people they represent beleive. So that means following the will of the people, and if the politicians see it different then they need to try to change the way the people view it. If they fail then they need to do as their constituents beleive or they should be removed from office.

The EU needs a constitution. We don't need the EU. It's two seperate issues.

We already have the EU, and though we in no way need a constitution with special considerations of Polish Bible thumpers and the fucking Pope, we do need one to limit, organise and clearly structure the powers and political process of the EU. Because in it's absence, all sorts of nasty shit is taking place.

That said, even though the French apparently shot it down based mostly on a combination of being fed up with their national political wank and being a bunch of xenophobic little twats throwing a fit over the future of Turkey, the constitution as it was, was no good at all. It would severely limit and undermine several civil liberties, rights and mandatory public services in half the EU countries. Like taking away the right to work for the French, for example.

We either need to get the fuck out of EU, or get a constitution. Not THE constitution, but a proper one. One that isn't based on the needs of the economic, religious and political elite, but on the needs of our collective societies, coherency and economies.

It will never happen in your time...I could be wrong but for it to happen the people of the various EU nations will need to give up national Identity, and I do nto think any of them are ready to do that....because in all honesty to adopt an EU constitution would be to give up each and every seperate country and while they may still be french it will no longer be a national identity. They will all become more like the individual state here in America....and I do not think most europeans are ready to do that.

Actually the job of the government if they are elected by the people is to do what is best for the Nation.....as the people they represent beleive. So that means following the will of the people, and if the politicians see it different then they need to try to change the way the people view it. If they fail then they need to do as their constituents beleive or they should be removed from office.In a multi-party representative democracy of coalition governments, a politician's responsibility is to do whatever s/he's promised to do, unless it happens to alienate his/her own voter base.

Otherwise neither voters nor competing/cooperating parties will know what the hell's happening.

It will never happen in your time...I could be wrong but for it to happen the people of the various EU nations will need to give up national Identity, and I do nto think any of them are ready to do that....because in all honesty to adopt an EU constitution would be to give up each and every seperate country and while they may still be french it will no longer be a national identity. They will all become more like the individual state here in America....and I do not think most europeans are ready to do that.A constitution doesn't need to take away more of our autonomy and sovereignty than the EU already has. The most compelling argument for having one is precicely that it can limit the powers of the EU. And we've desperately needed that for nearly a decade.

Whether it happens in the manner I want or not, I'll happily bet you a fistful Euro's we will get a constitution within the next 15 years. Hell, let's just say 10 years. Why? Because a constitution is needed almost regardless of what it says, if the EU is to remain a functional political entity. All our politicians knows it. All our media knows it. It's just a matter of time before our general populations gets to feel it enough to vote on the consitution instead of using it as an outlet for their fears and local frustrations.

The EU needs a constitution. We don't need the EU. It's two seperate issues.

We already have the EU, and though we in no way need a constitution with special considerations of Polish Bible thumpers and the fucking Pope, we do need one to limit, organise and clearly structure the powers and political process of the EU. Because in it's absence, all sorts of nasty shit is taking place.

That said, even though the French apparently shot it down based mostly on a combination of being fed up with their national political wank and being a bunch of xenophobic little twats throwing a fit over the future of Turkey, the constitution as it was, was no good at all. It would severely limit and undermine several civil liberties, rights and mandatory public services in half the EU countries. Like taking away the right to work for the French, for example.

We either need to get the fuck out of EU, or get a constitution. Not THE constitution, but a proper one. One that isn't based on the needs of the economic, religious and political elite, but on the needs of our collective societies, coherency and economies.

Did you actually read it?
Most of it was about human rights and how the extended EU government should work.
In my opinion the only reason why it failed was that most pepole didn't bother to read the thing and just went to vote NO because they were afraid of "Polish plumbers".
The mistake Chirac made (and he was not the only one) was that the EU constitution needed a popularization since the original document is too long and in some parts too much "legalese". People thus didn't bother to read it and, god forbid, understand it.
Apart from this, I think that a referendum should have been called in all the EU states in the same day. So, for France, Chirac did well.

I hope that soon a new Constitution will be worked out, one shorter and easier to read.

Did you actually read it?
Most of it was about human rights and how the extended EU government should work.
In my opinion the only reason why it failed was that most pepole didn't bother to read the thing and just went to vote NO because they were afraid of "Polish plumbers".
The mistake Chirac made (and he was not the only one) was that the EU constitution needed a popularization since the original document is too long and in some parts too much "legalese". People thus didn't bother to read it and, god forbid, understand it.
Apart from this, I think that a referendum should have been called in all the EU states in the same day. So, for France, Chirac did well.

I hope that soon a new Constitution will be worked out, one shorter and easier to read.

That is the way of politicians the world over their paperwork is done in language no common human can understand and they make it long and boring and confusing hoping to be able to pull things over on people so they can serve their own benefits. It will not change and anyone who expects it too is a fool....only if the people anywhere get together and "make" it so will it ever happen, but most people are basicaly lazy and prefer to say "it is not my problem".

I can only assume that the world media for some reason hate Chirac. If he had forced through the EU Constitution he would have been called a tyrant and dictator.

And that would have been much different from forcing through the nuclear tests on Mururoa, despite the overall public objection and worldwide protests?

Did you actually read it?Yes. I'm pretty sure it's still on our bookshelf somewhere. And before you ask; yes, I had to read it. I doubt I would have otherwise.Most of it was about human rights and how the extended EU government should work.As you might have gleaned from my previous posts in this thread, I'm veru much aware of that, and argue for just that.In my opinion the only reason why it failed was that most pepole didn't bother to read the thing and just went to vote NO because they were afraid of "Polish plumbers".I thought the popular media opinion was dread of the Muslim Menace (tm), misplaced fears of dwindling subsidies and general loathing of local government. Still, I'm one of those 'Polish Plumber' fearing ones, but the proposed consitution had nothing to do with that, nor is it the EU or the Poles that worries me, it's the local authorities and our unions.The mistake Chirac made (and he was not the only one) was that the EU constitution needed a popularization since the original document is too long and in some parts too much "legalese". People thus didn't bother to read it and, god forbid, understand it.I agree, though I disagree it would've goon through if the vote had been seen as a vote on the constitution. Many of us would be significantly worse off than we are, with regards to rights, services and liberties. The French included.Apart from this, I think that a referendum should have been called in all the EU states in the same day. So, for France, Chirac did well.

I hope that soon a new Constitution will be worked out, one shorter and easier to read.Couldn't agree more.

As you may know, Chirac has officially announced that he will not be seeking re-election, so he will cease to be President in May.

Apparently, foreign media have been saying that he should not have held a referendum on the EU Constitution, but instead should have forced it on the French people despite their objections. I'd be curious to hear your views. These foreign media are essentially saying "who cares about democracy, give us the EU Constitution, whether the citizens want it or not". (Source (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/france/20070312-Chirac-world-reactions.html), the video, not the text.)

On a wider topic, if you want to follow what the media of various countries are saying about the upcoming French Presidential election, you can look here (http://observer.france24.com/).

from what i remember at the time, there was a lot of voting against chirac himself due to his unpopularity rather than voting necessarily for the issue at hand.
which is a shame of course

but still democratic process is important.
then again, we're talking about a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, so in theory chirac could well have been within his rights to force this through on behalf of his people.

short answer: :confused:

You forgot that other nations voted no as well.

And my criticism applies to them as well.

Oh deary me. The EU constitution failed. However will I cope?

Tragic though it is for some, why should any failure for the EU concern me? I wnat to be rid of the bloody thing as soon as possible.

Oh deary me. The EU constitution failed. However will I cope?

Tragic though it is for some, why should any failure for the EU concern me? I wnat to be rid of the bloody thing as soon as possible.

Why? Me, I've got a lot that I owe to the EU. My job, the right to stay in the country of my choice, no hassle when visiting home, and my boyfriend.

My life such as it is would not have been possible if it wasn't for the EU.

Good for you. Without the EU, my country could afford markedly better public services, reduced taxes, a judiciary system not hamstrung by that perennial irritant, the European convention of human rights, and the absence of successive waves of european immigrants.

I'm guessing your country is doing something wrong, then...

Why? Me, I've got a lot that I owe to the EU. My job, the right to stay in the country of my choice, no hassle when visiting home, and my boyfriend.

My life such as it is would not have been possible if it wasn't for the EU.

Good for you. Without the EU, my country could afford markedly better public services, reduced taxes, a judiciary system not hamstrung by that perennial irritant, the European convention of human rights, and the absence of successive waves of european immigrants.

For every pro there is a con.

I'm guessing your country is doing something wrong, then...

Of course we are, we have Tony Blair as Prime Minister.;)

The point stands, however. The Eu is fundamentally counter-productive for the UK, and disadvantages the country in the interests of Eastern Europe and other such dumps.

Of course we are, we have Tony Blair as Prime Minister.;)

The point stands, however. The Eu is fundamentally counter-productive for the UK, and disadvantages the country in the interests of Eastern Europe and other such dumps.

I don't understand countries, sorry. I never did... the concept puzzles me. I understand individuals and organisations. And as an idividual, I'm happy to remain in the instituton EU.

Good for you. Without the EU, my country could afford markedly better public services, reduced taxes, a judiciary system not hamstrung by that perennial irritant, the European convention of human rights, and the absence of successive waves of european immigrants.

Human rights? Nasty, foreign idea, not suited to Britain at all! Brits have been saying so since the 1790s. Those were the days...

The point stands, however. The Eu is fundamentally counter-productive for the UK, and disadvantages the country in the interests of Eastern Europe and other such dumps.

i disagree. futher integration with the EU is the only chance this country has of suriving, in a manner to which we are used, faced with the rising economic powers of india and china in the 21st century.

i wholeheartedly disagree that the EU is bad for the UK, and nothing i learned while i was studying economics and politics at uni convinced me otherwise.


the EU may have problems, like most institutions, but that is no reason to abandon it, and that's what i felt was the most discouraging thing about the Consitution referendum... i'm sure many people would have voted Yes to the idea, but No to that particular iteration had they had that option

i disagree. futher integration with the EU is the only chance this country has of suriving, in a manner to which we are used, faced with the rising economic powers of india and china in the 21st century.

i wholeheartedly disagree that the EU is bad for the UK, and nothing i learned while i was studying economics and politics at uni convinced me otherwise.


the EU may have problems, like most institutions, but that is no reason to abandon it, and that's what i felt was the most discouraging thing about the Consitution referendum... i'm sure many people would have voted Yes to the idea, but No to that particular iteration had they had that option

I quite agree that a federal Europe is, in all likelihood, the sole means by which Europe can withstand the economic rise of China and the subcontinent, however, the current form of the EU, and the attendant shortcomings, far outweigh the theoritical allure it holds for the future. Were the EU to allow states to remain sovereign over all issues, and simply act to protect European interests, I would endorse it fully, however, I see only a weakening of Britain in the current EU.

In France, everything is either:

1. The fault of foreign nations
or
2. The fault of foreigners on French streets
or
3. Bush's fault

I don't understand countries, sorry. I never did... the concept puzzles me. I understand individuals and organisations. And as an idividual, I'm happy to remain in the instituton EU.

Whereas I like countries. I like divisions, and I don't give a flying fuck whether poor old Pavel would be richer if the Eu lets him work in the UK, since we have unemployed who could be forced to do the same job.

In France, everything is either:

1. The fault of foreign nations
or
2. The fault of foreigners on French streets
or
3. Bush's fault

Just out of curiosity, whose fault is it in the US?

In truth, whilst I fully agree with human rights, the complications of the European convention preclude our dealing with terrorist suspects as we ought to, and allow for such niceties as votes for prisoners.

What's wrong with votes for prisoners???

Human rights? Nasty, foreign idea, not suited to Britain at all! Brits have been saying so since the 1790s. Those were the days...

In truth, whilst I fully agree with human rights, the complications of the European convention preclude our dealing with terrorist suspects as we ought to, and allow for such niceties as votes for prisoners.

In France, everything is either:

1. The fault of foreign nations
or
2. The fault of foreigners on French streets
or
3. Bush's fault

Amen.

In France, everything is either:

1. The fault of foreign nations
or
2. The fault of foreigners on French streets
or
3. Bush's fault

Leaving aside your ridiculous xenophobic ignorance for a moment, have you actually read the OP? Or did you just decide to veer off-topic for no particular reason?

Everything. They evidently have no respect for the laws of society, hence why they have committed a crime, and been incarcerated. Thus, why should society accord them a right, whilst enduring a punishment, to influence society?

Equally, prison involves the removal of fundamental liberities so as to punish, amongst which, in a democratic context, in universal franchise.

Because they still form a part of society. Society will continue to influence them, therefore they need the right to influence society.

What's wrong with votes for prisoners???

Everything. They evidently have no respect for the laws of society, hence why they have committed a crime, and been incarcerated. Thus, why should society accord them a right, whilst enduring a punishment, to influence society?

Equally, prison involves the removal of fundamental liberities so as to punish, amongst which, in a democratic context, in universal franchise.

Because they still form a part of society. Society will continue to influence them, therefore they need the right to influence society.

No they don't, and that argument is as watertight as the Titanic. Millions of African farmers are influence by British society, do we accord them a vote?

Sometimes a government should go against popular public opinion and force an issue, the governments job is to do what's best for the nation, not necessarily what the nation wants.
Nonsense. Of course, this mentality is consistent with how the EU thinks. Too bad it still tries to call itself democratic. "Joke" would be a more apt self-identification.

The EU needs a constitution. We don't need the EU. It's two seperate issues.
Most certainly.

We either need to get the fuck out of EU, or get a constitution. Not THE constitution, but a proper one. One that isn't based on the needs of the economic, religious and political elite, but on the needs of our collective societies, coherency and economies.
All I want is an EU that coordinates trade, fiscal and monetary policy and allows for the removal of all trade barriers. No more. From there on, what goes on is up to the Member-States.

Actually the job of the government if they are elected by the people is to do what is best for the Nation.....as the people they represent beleive. So that means following the will of the people, and if the politicians see it different then they need to try to change the way the people view it. If they fail then they need to do as their constituents beleive or they should be removed from office.
As long as a country is a democracy, indeed. Either the EU and its Member-States should drop any pretense at being democracies, or they should actually begin responding to the demands of the governed (who, if it escapes the notice of some, are the source of the governors' authority). So my congratulations to Chirac on this.

I quite agree that a federal Europe is, in all likelihood, the sole means by which Europe can withstand the economic rise of China and the subcontinent, however, the current form of the EU, and the attendant shortcomings, far outweigh the theoritical allure it holds for the future. Were the EU to allow states to remain sovereign over all issues, and simply act to protect European interests, I would endorse it fully, however, I see only a weakening of Britain in the current EU.
Indeed - a reformed EU aimed at providing a robust free market zone would be delightful. Yet no more than that. It should simply insure that there is complete freedom of movement of capital, goods and services and that fiscal and monetary policy are constrained, and leave all other decisions at the level of the Member-States. Useless programmes like the CAP must be given the axe.

I quite agree that a federal Europe is, in all likelihood, the sole means by which Europe can withstand the economic rise of China and the subcontinent, however, the current form of the EU, and the attendant shortcomings, far outweigh the theoritical allure it holds for the future. Were the EU to allow states to remain sovereign over all issues, and simply act to protect European interests, I would endorse it fully, however, I see only a weakening of Britain in the current EU.

well that's a fair stance and one i can understand, but personally i don't believe any state is sovereign any more, and furthermore have very few problems with willingly handing over sovereignity to a federal power, as i see little difference between many european states (certainly in western/'old' europe anyway) bar a few small cultural idioms and the obvious language differences.

i suppose in short, since it doesn't bother me to 'lose' sovereignity to a Federal EU, then... i'd be more than happy to see it happen for the longrun socioeconomic benefits and protection it would bring :)

i would, however, want to see a slow federalisation process (if there is such a word) whereby states retain autonomy for as long as possible to ease the process along
[/hijack] (or is it? *shifty*)

Leaving aside your ridiculous xenophobic ignorance for a moment, have you actually read the OP? Or did you just decide to veer off-topic for no particular reason?

Yes, I read the OP, and I voted that he should not have held the referendum.

It's not ignorance. I just happen to read enough French to read the news and watch French news on TV over here.

You would think that most of the problems France has originate everywhere else.

Indeed - a reformed EU aimed at providing a robust free market zone would be delightful. Yet no more than that. It should simply insure that there is complete freedom of movement of capital, goods and services and that fiscal and monetary policy are constrained, and leave all other decisions at the level of the Member-States. Useless programmes like the CAP must be given the axe.

That's a confederation. Confederations do not work; they must either be federalized or dissolved.

That's a confederation. Confederations do not work;
It's working pretty damn well in Switzerland.

they must either be federalized or dissolved.
Assuming you are correct though, the latter is preferrable.

Damn right he should have, not only was it the right thing to do but this way our country didn't get cast as the evil bastards who hate everyone which is the way everyone in the EU looks at us it seems.

Guess where I'm from!!

Damn right he should have, not only was it the right thing to do but this way our country didn't get cast as the evil bastards who hate everyone which is the way everyone in the EU looks at us it seems.

Guess where I'm from!!
Blighty!? :D You do make it so very easy to surmise though.

i see little difference between many european states (certainly in western/'old' europe anyway) bar a few small cultural idioms and the obvious language differences.

[/hijack] (or is it? *shifty*)

Quite an uninformed view perhaps?

Maybe these "few small cultural idioms" are important to us and maybe we don't want our culture thrown by the wayside.

Where are you from to have such an insightful view of Western Europe?

It's not ignorance. I just happen to read enough French to read the news and watch French news on TV over here.

You would think that most of the problems France has originate everywhere else.

Good for you. What are your French news sources? I'm curious, because I don't see any of what you're saying in the French media.

It is in the best interests of the global economy that a strong and healthy European Union is able to develop. The sinking of the Constitution by the voters of France (on parochial, nationalist grounds, nonetheless) is a severe detriment to the continued stabilization of Europe.

The French voters were very concerned about certain parts of the EU constitution. First off, it gives more power to the very undemocratic EU power hierarchy. The people of France had every right to not want to ratify the EU constitution.

Yes, I read the OP, and I voted that he should not have held the referendum.

It's not ignorance. I just happen to read enough French to read the news and watch French news on TV over here.

You would think that most of the problems France has originate everywhere else.

but what does your post have to do about it.

Blighty!? :D You do make it so very easy to surmise though.

And you win... well nowt but well done all the same I am a devilish Brit.

It's working pretty damn well in Switzerland.

From what I've read on Wikipedia, confederation, in the context of Switzerland, is a misnomer; it's a federation. However, also according to Wikipedia, the CSA was a federal republic, something it most definitely was not.

The problem with confederations is that they leave too much power with its member-states and only a token amount in the national legislature. These states eventually begin competing with each other, which is disastrous for the nation at large. Should federalization not occur at that point, secessionist parties begin cropping up, eventually ending with the dissolution of the nation. This is what nearly happened in the US under the Articles, and what would've happened in the Confederacy had they won the war.

The problem with confederations is that they leave too much power with its member-states and only a token amount in the national legislature. These states eventually begin competing with each other, which is disastrous for the nation at large.
I'd welcome more intergovernmental competition. Many EU nations have horridly high taxes. Nations such as Switzerland, Lichtenstein and Monaco end up becoming havens for the over-taxed, forcing the other European nations to work harder to please their populace.

Should federalization not occur at that point, secessionist parties begin cropping up, eventually ending with the dissolution of the nation. This is what nearly happened in the US under the Articles, and what would've happened in the Confederacy had they won the war.
The EU is not a nation, nor should it be. It's an economic union. The only purpose it serves is facilitating trade between its member nations, and at most coordinated defence policies. And that's it.

I'd welcome more intergovernmental competition. Many EU nations have horridly high taxes. Nations such as Switzerland, Lichtenstein and Monaco end up becoming havens for the over-taxed, forcing the other EU nations to work harder to please their populace.

The EU is not a nation, nor should it be. It's an economic union. The only purpose it serves is facilitating trade between its member nations, and at most coordinated defence policies. And that's it.Exactly. And this is exactly why we need a constitution.

Exactly. And this is exactly why we need a constitution.
Gah, I included Switzerland and and Lichtenstein as EU nations! -_- Should've been "other European nations".

Gah, I included Switzerland and and Lichtenstein as EU nations! -_- Should've been "other European nations".At this hour, most posters are Americans. I somehow doubt they'll notice ;)

It is in the best interests of the global economy that a strong and healthy European Union is able to develop. The sinking of the Constitution by the voters of France (on parochial, nationalist grounds, nonetheless) is a severe detriment to the continued stabilization of Europe.

wrong

The EU Con-stitution was sunk because it would have set in stone the EU's fundamentally anti-democratic ways.

European peoples do not want majorities of foreign politicians forcing laws on them they don't need. European peoples do not want the EU's 'one size fits all' approach to be applied to everything (= EU 'Gleichschaltung').

The EU elite politicians want to continue appointing eachother to the jobs that matter and fob European peoples off with that phony toy parliament.

EU Con-stitution would have meant loss of national sovereignty.

Although I do not like Chirac I think he did the right thing. Every nation has a right to self determination and Chirac gave his people the right to determine if they supported the EU Constitution or not.

Although I do not like Chirac I think he did the right thing. Every nation has a right to self determination and Chirac gave his people the right to determine if they supported the EU Constitution or not.The irony of the situation is that the EU is about as undemocratic as it can possibly be, and that both governments and peoples of the EU are presently under siege by EU legislators and legislation, as the limitations of it's powers are very, very poorly defined.
That's what the constitution was supposed to address.
Then again, it gets better, as most voters (outside France as well) didn't actually vote for anything to do with the constitution, but rather their local governments, fear of Schengen, fear of cuts in subsidies, and fear of Turkey's membership of the EU. Again, none of that shit had anything at all to do with the constitution.

But as already mentioned, the consitution was massively broken, so it's not a bad thing it got shot down. We need a new one though, and we need it 8 years ago.

It doesn't matter if you're for or against EU, or how keen you are on the idea of a federation. It wasn't what the last constitution was about, and it won't be what the next proposition's about either.

If you're of the opinion that everything the EU does is bad and should be opposed, then you should be for a constitution, sooner rather than later, because the primary function of it will be to limit the powers of the EU. In other words, it's like taking one for the team so you won't get hit by the next gazillion. But I don't know why I'm bothering trying to talk sense to irrational EU opponents. It's not like it ever worked before.

TBH, I don't care what Europe does. I don't live there, I never plan to. I think that the idea of taking people with widely different cultures, languages, backgrounds, and with a history of trying to kill each other and having them become one nation without changing any of that is a bit idiotic. But again, I don't live there, so I have no say in the final decision.

TBH, I don't care what Europe does. I don't live there, I never plan to. I think that the idea of taking people with widely different cultures, languages, backgrounds, and with a history of trying to kill each other and having them become one nation without changing any of that is a bit idiotic. But again, I don't live there, so I have no say in the final decision.It's not what it's about. You should care though, as our coherency and economy has a massive impact on your own economy and foreign policy.

Hang on, I just remembered something of your posting history. No, you shouldn't care. Please don't ever start.

Hang on, I just remembered something of your posting history. No, you shouldn't care. Please don't ever start.

Elaborate, please.

Elaborate, please.It's something we won't see eye to eye on, thus I prefer you continue not looking, so to speak.

It's something we won't see eye to eye on, thus I prefer you continue not looking, so to speak.

Though from your sig I can hazard a guess as to what you're speaking about, I cannot know with any certainty. For all I know you may be confusing me with someone else, say, MTAE. So again, please, elaborate. This is, after all, a political forum founded on free and open discourse, and debate.

Though from your sig I can hazard a guess as to what you're speaking about, I cannot know with any certainty. For all I know you may be confusing me with someone else, say, MTAE. So again, please, elaborate. This is, after all, a political forum founded on free and open discourse, and debate.I'm under the impression you're a semi-nationalistic authoritarian rightwinger, though perhaps less extreme than most your ilk on NSG.

I'm under the impression you're a semi-nationalistic authoritarian rightwinger, though perhaps less extreme than most your ilk on NSG.

Semi-nationalistic? No. I do not, on any ways, preach the inherent superiority of the American political system over all other systems. How the British, French, Indians, Chinese, what-have-you choose to rule themselves is fine by me, nor do I say that the American model would work everywhere. Some cultures, quite simply, work better with certain political systems.

That being said, I am very patriotic, and I want what's best for my country. And, as history has proven, everyone has a different opinion on what's best, so when it comes to my country, I will defend my beliefs tooth and nail.

Authoritarian?! Bite your tongue! Never will I swear allegiance to a monarch, king, or emperor, nor would I seek to impose such a rule upon my fellow countrymen! On a similar page, nor am I happy about the current over-empowerment of the executive branch; I would like very much to see several powers currently being executed by the president (whatever his political beliefs be, even if the mirrored my own) curtailed back to what they were when my country was founded.

Rightwinger? Though I am no neocon (nor paleocon, though I once erroneously called myself one), judging by your sig, you would consider me one. Little contest to be offered on that part.

I think that the idea of taking people with widely different cultures, languages, backgrounds, and with a history of trying to kill each other and having them become one nation without changing any of that is a bit idiotic.

There's your problem, then. The EU isn't trying to be "one nation". Also, you're a few decades out of date... A new war in Europe is quite frankly unthinkable.

Gah, I included Switzerland and and Lichtenstein as EU nations! -_- Should've been "other European nations".

Monaco isn't a member of the EU either, although it does produce its own Euros.

Semi-nationalistic? [...] I want what's best for my country.I think it's implicit you want what's best for your nation, even at the expense of other nations. That's what I call semi-nationalism. Semi, because no delusions of superiority was implied.Authoritarian?! [...] I would like very much to see several powers currently being executed by the president [...] curtailed back to what they were when my country was founded.Meaning you want for you and your peers to submit to and obey authority. That's the definition of an authoritarian.Rightwinger?I seem to remember you regarding US type liberals as lefties. Regardless of how you class yourself, I'd say identifying fairly extreme rightwingers as belonging on the left, makes you a rightwinger.

I don't get what you're objecting to though. It's not like I called you an idiot or cast you as something you're not, is it?judging by your sigOK, you've got me curious. What did you deduce from my sig?

Monaco isn't a member of the EU either, although it does produce its own Euros.

Switzerland is considering joining the common currency as well, although not joining the EU as such.

I do think that it was a bit premature trying to tie down all of the political systems in the constitution.

That being said, it is most likely the fate of Europe either as a whole (which is problematic due to differing opinions of whate Europe is) or as the majority of the current EU countries is to be a single nation (more than likely as a federal state). I support that future, however I find it sad that the rejection of the constitution, which should have forced a major upheavel in the political structure and flexibility of it (which would be crucial for further countries intergrated into the EU post-constitution referendums.

I'd have to disagree with the pure grassroots politicians opinion of some people. It, like many other relationships is one of comprimise. Whilst the people supply legitimacy to the elected official it is the role of the official to act as both a focus of power and a comprimise of the differing wants of the people; allowing the unified implementation of wants and needs of the people whilst also allowing the elected official to be able to be given enough flexibility to implement legislation that he/she/it think is in the benefit of the community. Of course a balance of power is needed to stop the official from abusing that position or making his/her/its opinion of what is best the only one.

It is my opinion that if it was between forcing/electing it through his cabinet (not too sure if that is accurate for the French Presidential Republic system) or using a referrendum I would stick with the referrendum (it is too big to be considered nothing but executive/legislative policy). However that should not have meant the end of a cohesive force to try to develop a viable European Union constitution.

Then there is the problem that not enough was done to explain the constitution, allowing/formenting voter apathy towards the entire European Union debate and not enough reformist policies in both the national and supranational organisations.

There's your problem, then. The EU isn't trying to be "one nation". Also, you're a few decades out of date... A new war in Europe is quite frankly unthinkable.

To the best of my knowledge, should the constitution been ratified, it would've given the European Parliament the power to tax its member-states, fully integrate the economies (more so than they are right now), set a foreign policy, raise an army, and pass binding legislation. If that doesn't define a nation, I don't know what does.

The Cold War's been over for, what, little more than a decade? Throughout all that time there was the danger that conflict could've erupted, hence the reason for so many US military bases in Europe, NATO, and Operation REFORGER. Though, yes, it doesn't look like a new war will erupt any time soon, I'm not willing to bet that that'll last forever. Today's friends are tomorrow's enemies and visa-versa.

I think it's implicit you want what's best for your nation, even at the expense of other nations.

Nope, I can't stomach imperialism.

Meaning you want for you and your peers to submit to and obey authority. That's the definition of an authoritarian.

This has me confused. Are you an anarchist? All governments exercise authority, from a monarchy to a democracy.

OK, you've got me curious. What did you deduce from my sig?

Your sig includes the phrase, "class war." That pretty much tells me you're an advocate of Marxism.

I don't get what you're objecting to though. It's not like I called you an idiot or cast you as something you're not, is it?

You said that, due to my politics, you never want me to care about what Europe does, also implying that you don't want me to have a voice in what happens to that continent. I wanted to know why, and then defend myself should I perceive that I am being wrongly judged.

My best memory of Chirac was when he aimed a comment at the UK..something along the lines of.

"any country that does not ratify the EU constituiton should leave the EU" :p

It is my opinion that if it was between forcing/electing it through his cabinet (not too sure if that is accurate for the French Presidential Republic system) or using a referrendum I would stick with the referrendum (it is too big to be considered nothing but executive/legislative policy). However that should not have meant the end of a cohesive force to try to develop a viable European Union constitution.
The Constitution is a necessity if the EU is to continue existing - but it won't be suitable for adoption until it's been revised. Once this is done, then perhaps it'll merit serious consideration.

To the best of my knowledge, should the constitution been ratified, it would've given the European Parliament the power to tax its member-states, fully integrate the economies (more so than they are right now), set a foreign policy, raise an army, and pass binding legislation. If that doesn't define a nation, I don't know what does.
I am sure the EU has aspirations of becoming some massive federal nation. This is precisely why so many in the EU want limits to its powers, and also have a greater say in how it's run; few in the EU want it to turn into a nation. The Constitution that was proposed would not achieve this. Thus, its rejection was logical. At most, the EU should aim to be a confederation with a degree of coordination on monetary, trade, fiscal and defence policies, and no more than that.

Is it me, or is Prodi saying we should dig up the Constitution and implement it as it is, despite it having been rejected? Or is he just saying "we can use it as a basis to design a new one"? In this video (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/europe/20070325-europe-fifty-years.html), shortly after the middle.