The French Say "No" To The New European Constitution

[!IKE]

On the contrary, things have changed since the last time something "big" happened. Maastricht is 13 years old and did not involve any social aspects.....it was just the step further Rome, signed 48 years ago. Since the beginning of the union, people were ranting about it. Now that we present it to them, they don't want it?

You want us to wait? 50 years? Who knows if Europe would still be there in 50 years because of the way we act.

where are you from nairi...

[Thai-Samurai]

Hey great job !IKE, I really had no idea what the issues were about but you laid it out pretty clear. People maybe were afraid to vote yes because they would be overwhelmed by all the changes that would immediately happen once power went from their own countrie's gov't to the Interests of the whole of Europe. I guess that can be both good and bad. However I still have no idea what really goes on in Europe so please go ahead and continue to enlighten us.

[!IKE]

You're welcome Thai.

Nowadays, Europe is about helping the regions in need and instauring a european market. Those worked great because many deserted regions of europe are now relatively active and the european market is very promising. The EU is the first trader, altough the results take notice of the trades in the EU too... for exemple trades between France and Germany.

The aim is to have real political institutions and a real social value to Europe. We should have the same foreign policies (and of course admit some twists depending on the subject) and why not a common army? (thats going too far if you ask me). The deal is creating an european identity and distinguish ourselves.

The fact that France said no isn't very important, just sad....but if we don't get this constitution, nothing will change. We'll just blindly expand...accepting any countries. Turks must be rejoicing as we speak....


Another "NO" fact was that people were scared of eastern europeans taking their jobs("the Polish plumber"). They tend to forgot that the same thing happened when Portugal and Greece joined in (at that time, they freshly got out of dictatorship and both were extremely poor, along with Spain).)

[Red Brigade]

The French Media is trying to terrorise the french citizens , as if the end of the world came.They learned that well fom the american media, when they were showing that plane crashing in the towers 24/7 , so they can justify their wars later.
The EU constitution was about officialy declaring Free Trade , which means Europe would become another USA.A capitalistic Europe in which if you dont have this $ you are not considered a human being, like in America.Read the constitution and check how many times the word ''free trade'' & ''antagonism'' are mentioned.Then check how many times those words are mentioned in the French Constitution and you will see why they voted NON.
By the way there is an article in the EU constitution that it says :If in a European country there is a revolution from the people , the EU countries can send their armies to ''help'' and restore the previous status quo.
Well, no thanks keep your armies in your countries we don't need your ''help''.
Either way you are not going to force anyone to accept something that he doesnt want.The French NON was about YES to EU BUT NO to CAPITALISM and FREE TRADE in the EU.This NON will make the drift between America and Europe bigger and at last Europe will take its place as a balance power.It is not surprise that that the US Secretary of State started to whine again after the NON , that we should allow Turkey to come in EU.Anything suggested by America to EU is a danger for EU.

US Secretary of State warns of Turkish-EU divide

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned on Friday that the failure of the European Union to eventually admit Turkey could have dire consequences. She said it was important that Turkey be admitted after it meets EU standards “because what we cannot afford to have is a divide between Turkey and the rest of Europe.” She said that “might look like what was once described as the clash of civilizations” between Muslim Turkey and Christian Europe. “That would be a very terrible thing,” she said.

USA should stop puting their noses in everything , or there will be more planes landing on their buildings.

[Siamanto]

This European ''Constitution'' would be catastrophic for all the European Socialist countries.It is legally making EU a free market , which means EU and its people would live in a capitalistic system in order to create more antagonism.I am glad for Europe , that they voted no.Next time before they decide to create any constitution it would be wise to ask what the European people suggest , and not what a bunch of technocrats, lawyers and economists in the Brussels decided.

Yes! Those were among the main reasons behind the French "No."

About Turkey's issue ,i think they should not stop the negotiation for the access. It would be very beneficial for Armenia to open the border with Turkey.
I am 100% positive for them to start the talks and start the negotiations, but eventually i don't want Turkey to become 100% member.
So in final analysis :Yes for the talks of the accesion which would mean perhaps , border opening for Armenia , and recognition of the Armenian Genocide, and full grants of human rights to ALL the minorities.

All depends on the future geopolitical situation and how skillful we - Armenians - will prove to be! We should attempt to act and manage situations instead of reacting. Personally, I believe that the current Armenian Authorities and the Armenian Diaspora are doing a better job than we would like to admit! Of course, we should continue to improve our skills and strengthen our organizations.
On many occasions, Europeans have broken promises they've made to TEMPORARILY SO CALLED Turkey. Yes, it may happen as you have suggested. A very likely scenario!

No for Turkey to become a full member:It would undermine some of our goals.

I agree! A stable country would be hard to dismantle!

I would prefer not open borders with Turkey; I would much rather shun them for their evil deeds until they fix all their problems.

The question is: what will be the political, national....and economic costs of an open border with TEMPORARILY SO CALLED Turkey?
I think that the price that *urks are asking seems to be too high. No deal for now!




Note: I have chosen to auto censor the words "*urk" or "*urkish" because it is commonly perceived as unpleasant and offending, evokes unpleasant emotions and imagery and is pregnant with immoral and evil connotations!

[!IKE]

Sure, red brigade, that was the main reason ....I just think that the average french believed the vote was "for or against the current governement."


The constitution had "free trade" and "commerce" because, unless you prove me wrong, the constitution took many of the points of Maastricht and made them rules. And why blame them? Thats the only thing we have.! How do you want to be non capitalist if the only way you are a member of the EU is to trade with your partners and talk about money. EU is all about economics....and because of the "non", it'll stay that way.

And another thing, the people of the "non" seem to be very effective at scrutinizing a random article and then try to explain its stupidity. But when we ask them whats planned for the future.......anyone?!
You exactly act like this Olivier Besancenot from the extreme communist party. He amplifies the only right point he has.
During his speech, just count the number of time he says "change"....that's not very convincing since it never gets further than that.


I used to feel pity for the people bragging about a more social union, because they were right. THe majority is for the union, the majority knows there's a lack of social and political value, surprisingly, the majority also voted no. Whats wrong? I don't think there was anything wrong with the constitution; just something terribly wrong with the country.
France had nothing to loose, on the contrary.....If only the EU could ban a country for a limited time. We'll see how those that voted no will react to that. "Suuure, we don't need the EU...."....no more financial aid, no more exclusive trade partners, and open boundaries.
I'll be laughing my a$$ out





So you're french and you voted no right?

[Red Brigade]

How do you want to be non capitalist if the only way you are a member of the EU

Ehm... it is not mandatory to have capitalistic system to trade.

EU is all about economics....and because of the "non", it'll stay that way.

I don't agree the way EU was before either.But this ''constitution '', was the bible of capitalism , given by the Americans to the Europeans.Why does it surpise you that they voted NO.Europeans despise the world ''capitalism'' and ''liberal economy''.

You exactly act like this Olivier Besancenot from the extreme communist party.

I agree that the communist parties , lack of organisation and a counter proposal.It is hard to have one after the collapse of the Eastern Block, it seems.

I used to feel pity for the people bragging about a more social union, because they were right. THe majority is for the union, the majority knows there's a lack of social and political value, surprisingly, the majority also voted no. Whats wrong?

That majority still wants a stronger Europe , but not the way Brussels wanted it.Stronger Europe means better life quality , not more wealthy and rich companies.

If only the EU could ban a country for a limited time.

Ban France?Nice democratic Union that would be, ban everyone who opposes

By the way if you check the results , in wealthy big cities like Paris the majority of the result was yes , but in the country generaly, where simple people live the NO was the majority.That mean's something, and prooves who would really bennefit from this ''constitution''.
The Brussel bureaucrats really thought that they can pass whatever anti-social law they wanted and not get punished.Well the People spoke.

PS.The way the Goverment and the Press treats to the French people is fascistic, calling them idiots and barbarians that don't know what the constitution is about.

[TJ]

Now would you please enlighten us and explain why "Turkey's candidacy had nothing to do with the Constitution?" Or, more pertinently, why the Constitution had nothing to with TEMPORARILY SO CALLED Turkey's candidature?

Because nothing in the Constitution addresses Turkey's candidacy or anything that would directly affect it.

Now please, would YOU enlighten me as to why YOU think it has anything to do with their candidacy.

Oh, and spare me the part about you having heard something on television and following it like a sheep. I already heard about that part. thank you.

[Red Brigade]

Because nothing in the Constitution addresses Turkey's candidacy or anything that would directly affect it.

Now please, would YOU enlighten me as to why YOU think it has anything to do with their candidacy.

Oh, and spare me the part about you having heard something on television and following it like a sheep. I already heard about that part. thank you.

Turkey's candinancy indirectly has to do with the European Constitution.That is because if the European Constitution was aprooved , no country would be able to put veto to Turkey , simply because the decisions would be from now on based on the majority of the votes of the countries, and not with unaminity like now.

[!IKE]

What happened in france, was a referendum, not a parliament vote. What happened was the anger of the french people. The EU isn't as capitalist as you state it, and the average people aren't cast aside. The PAC is one exemple....who's the main beneficiary? France! Besides, why is that the UK said the constitution was too social and not liberal enough?

AGain, this isn't about Turkey entering or not. Without a constitution, turkey will soon enter the union. It isn't the few armenians living in europe that have a real impact on the decisions. Besides, Chirac already signed with Erdogan in order to start the process.
The constitutions had essential rules, that may seem logical to us, that all the current countries, as well as the futur joiners would have had to cope with. Turkey transgresses most of them.

Well it's only a matter of time now before Turkey joins us.




And about the banning, it was just to make it clear the we need Europe more than it needs us. You'd tell me that we existed before the EU....well yes...we existed, along with the hundreds of wars taking place on the continent. And no Marshall plan anymore to help us out. The US has become our main concurrent and thats why I couldn't help burst a laugh when you said our constitution was directly handed by the americans. I think we're just a tiny bit step further from the Mexico, USA and Canada partnership.


edit: About Brussel having too much power...you're right. Because the power Brussels holds, is the common power of all members. THe union's voice should be well above a single country's opinion. It's for the convenience of all. We should stand united rather than work against each other.