The French Say "No" To The New European Constitution

[Siamanto]

The french said no and I'm extremely disapointed!!!

It pleased me!

Most of them voted because they were disapointed at the current governement. And since the governement was for the YES, they voted NO.

That is far from being true! I believe that is called "demagogie" in French. That's exactly what the partisans of "Yes" wanted everybody to believe!
The main issues are different, the following were the most commonly evoked ones:
1- "Social Europe" vs "liberal Europe." "Liberal" does not mean what it means in the US: it rather means "capitalistic." nairi is right to think that the "US" i.e. Anglo-Saxon model may not fit the European Social Values.
2- Non-independence in foreign policy
3- Existence of many pro-NATO countries in decisions related to defense issues
4- Exclusion of the people in decisions concerning the process of enlarging Europe to other countries
5- A relative loss of France's political weight
6- ...

Now lets talk about the people who actually understood what was the referendum about. It was about constructing a stronger europe, reinforcing its institutions. People whined during years that the EU was too liberal and not social enough. The constitution was mainly social, it had rules every country should respect. Equality, democracy, everything was in there!

Saying "No" to a particular Constitution does not equate to refusing the concept of a constitution and/or construction of Europe. It simply means that some of the language needs to be revised. Isn't that part of the "democratic process?" That's how businesses are conducted and contracts prepared/finalized!
The partisans of "yes" tried to create fear among the people and manipulate them with such cheap "demagogique" and "politicard" arguments. It seems that they have succeeded with you!

There was even an article that attacked denial of historical massacres.

What the denial of historical massacres has to do with the Constitution?

Everything was in there to prevent Turkia entering the EU. SO I especially despise the armenians that voted no. Because guess what, the process to integrate Turkia has already begun. No constitution? Good luck.

How? Didn't you confess that you did not read the constitution?

ANd then, many people voted NO because according to them, the EU is too present in each country. There's a central bank, the Brussel parliament, etc.... Everyone whines about it. But it's the only way to stand a chance against other big powers such as the US, Japan or China.......just being united for christ sake.

You're confusing the issues.
(To repeat myself) Saying "No" to a particular Constitution does not equate to refusing the construction of Europe. It simply means that some of the language needs to be revised. Isn't that part of the "democratic process?"

To be continued....

[Siamanto]

Now, tell me if the following thing is coincidence or not.
10 days ago, China said it would instaure taxes on its textile exportations to prevent the crumbling of the european textile market. Thanks to Brussel..... now that France, has voted NO, there's a chain reaction in Britain and Holland. The EU has weakened and today, China announced he isn't going to instaure those taxes anymore.

I'm aware of the mentioned negotiations with China and I don't think that the French "No" would have an impact on it. There's no need to dramatize, Europe will continue to function as it did and the European process will continue. The "No" is simply a warning to leaders that says: "you need to consider our opinions when you make decisions."

edit: I actually have red the constitutions, since I'm french too, they sent it to me. As Tigran stated it before, the vote wasn't if Turkia should enter or not! Turkia had nothing to do, you just watch the many debates. The people for YES and the people for NO alike all involved Turkia and the Armenian genocide to try to convince people.

Read my reply to Tigran! Realities and my views did not change since!

PS: Oh and let me add one more thing! There were mainly three political parties against the constitution.

1- The communist party. True, they have an interesting agenda....make everyone happy and close the borders

2- The socialist and its right wing twin (udf). They are against the constituion, they are for another europe, but do they have a PLAN B? A clear nono

3- The extreme right wing party. They don't want any europe, any foreigners, anything...its only true force is appealing to the misery of people but when it comes to handle the troubles...

1- That is completely untrue. Both sides included members from all major parties. Please get your facts straight! Only minor parties were either "pro" or "con."
2- LOL! Since when the UDF is the "right wing" of the socialist party? That is a bit absurd! Please! They are ideological opponents! UDF is right wing!
3- The Siocialist Party was in favor of the Constitution! Only a fraction, lead by Fabius was against it!
Please check your facts! Thanks!

So Siamanto, since you at least took interest in the debates, you either got brainwashed by one of those parties, or you just find that voting NO makes you a rebel of some sort.

The advantage of being brainless like me is that you can't be brain washed! So it has Of course, it can't be otherwise!
The advantage of being brainless like me is that I can't be brain washed! So it has to be the second one! to be the second one!

Europe has done a lot for us, and since the beginning, 1957 Rome, people knew the aim was to have a common root..a single constitution to bring us together. When you're in Europe, you either give your fullest to make it work, or you just forget about it. How do you want to work in a community where some are more involved than others.
I just hate the idea of "We want a Europe, but not too much of it."

(To repeat myself) Saying "No" to a particular Constitution does not equate to refusing the construction of Europe. It simply means that some of the language needs to be revised. Isn't that part of the "democratic process?"
The partisans of "yes" tried to create fear among the people and manipulate them with such cheap "demagogique" and "politicard" arguments. It seems that they have succeeded with you!

[Siamanto]

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.

I apologize to be a bit rude, but you don't seem to make an effort to read: I tried to make it easier by "reversing" the question; but apparently I failed to convey the message!
It's more about how the process of enlarging Europe is regulated and how and by what authorities the decisions are made.
If you're interested, I can scan and post articles.

[!IKE]

Excuse me, but about the parties....they all mentionned the same things. Be it a big or minor party. I just gave you the main ones campaigning for the NO.
It was rather scary of hearing the same ideas from the extreme droite to the extreme gauche. So, sorry if I disapointed you: I got my facts straight.

Anyways, explain me how you could be for a better europe by voting no? This is part of the evolution, you just sound like you want a revolution.

"It simply means that some of the language needs to be revised"
Because you sincerely think that the french were aware of the whole constitution? It' s been like 6 times I already told this. They voted against the rulers. How come so many people participated at elections concerning the EU? You talk about democracy...but oddly, the normal rate was of 40% while it was much higher for this referendum....people seemed to use this referendum as an unoficial presidential election..

I mean, the first reactions of the "no" voters when they won was to shout "Chirac Dismissal".......what do you think they care about the constitution.

Yes, I'm afraid....full of fear right? Because it's shocking to see that french people are incapable to understand a simple question.

[nairi]

Ike, I think you have to accept the fact that European citizens have become rightfully skeptical of Euro-politricks. Maybe when things have calmed down, everyone will follow the lead and vote yes. Not right now though.

[!IKE]

the whole idea of a referendum is just screwed up. I admire Belgium in the way that referendums are anti constitutional and that voting is compulsory.
If everyone had voted, the results may have been different.
I can't stand people that don't care about voting. So many people have died to grant us that right....besides, it compromises everything since it's mostly the extremes that votes....but that's another story.


PS: I didn't approve the whole media coverage about it too. THe media was clearly for the "YES" altough they cleverly hid it. This just adds to the so called "demagogie"....and to the feeling the NO voters have. Uniqueness....

[Siamanto]

Excuse me, but about the parties....they all mentionned the same things. Be it a big or minor party. I just gave you the main ones campaigning for the NO.
It was rather scary of hearing the same ideas from the extreme droite to the extreme gauche. So, sorry if I disapointed you: I got my facts straight.

Those who voted "No" did not necessarily agree on the reasons to vote "No." Fabius, de Villiers, Sarkozy, Chevenement...or Le Pen had different reasons.
The same applies - to a lesser degree - to those who voted "Yes."
Two weeks ago, Delors , who voted "yes," said that voting "No" did not mean a vote against Europe. By the way, I always liked his honesty.
With all due respect, you seem to be confusing the parties and issues!

Anyways, explain me how you could be for a better europe by voting no? This is part of the evolution, you just sound like you want a revolution.

Gamats gamats! Revising a constitution is not a revolutionary act! But a revisionist one?

"It simply means that some of the language needs to be revised"
Because you sincerely think that the french were aware of the whole constitution?

Compared to their neighbors, they made the effort to read, understand and debate it during the last 4 months. They may not completely understand the issue - you don't neither!!! - but, I would say that they probably understand the issues much better than the Spaniards who voted based on "superficial" reasons!
That's the "kaghiatsi" way!

It' s been like 6 times I already told this. They voted against the rulers. How come so many people participated at elections concerning the EU? You talk about democracy...but oddly, the normal rate was of 40% while it was much higher for this referendum....people seemed to use this referendum as an unoficial presidential election..
I mean, the first reactions of the "no" voters when they won was to shout "Chirac Dismissal".......what do you think they care about the constitution.

Just curious! When was the "normal" rate was 40% in France?
With all due respect, your "facts" and numbers are as accurate as your knowledge os the French Political Scene!

You can repeat it another 6 times, but it won't cease from being far from reality. The "ras-le-bol" vote was only a non significant part of it!

As an Armenian, I'd rather see a strong Sarkozy and a weakened Chirac!

Yes, I'm afraid....full of fear right? Because it's shocking to see that french people are incapable to understand a simple question.

What question?

[!IKE]

What question?

And I'm feeling bad laughing at this.

40% is averagely the percentage of people voting when it comes to European issues.

Again, just hear the no-voters speak. They all have the same ideas put in different ways. Thats not so hard

ANyway, as you stated it before, only time will tell. I feel bad saying this, but I hope Turkey joins the EU soon, just to prove you wrong and the failure of an european democracy...because in my opinion, democracy isn't traduced by a referendum.

[bell-the-cat]

Also, during the last three months, I have watched at least one televised debate every week including ministers, deputies, senators, European deputies, economists, sociologist, journalist etc. During every single debate, the candidature of TEMPORARILY SO CALLED Turkey has been mentioned and [n] NONE [/b] of the pro-constitution participants suggested that the concerns were exaggerated or irrelevant

Which is exactly why Turkish membership was not an issue!!!

The slime that you mentioned above are all the so-called EU "elites", the French bureaucrats, politicians, and other assorted and mostly unelected parasites that make a fat living from the EU and that are the prime reason why a "no" vote was the only sensible and honourable course to take.

So of course these individuals would want to divert the blame for a "no" vote by saying that it is about Turkey - and for that reason all those who vote no are just a bunch of racists and islamophobes (and war-mongerers and fascists as well, of course) and the result can thus be ignored and the constitution adopted anyway since racist islamophobic fascistic warmongers don't deserve to have a vote.

[TJ]

all those who vote no are just a bunch of racists and islamophobes (and war-mongerers and fascists as well, of course) and the result can thus be ignored and the constitution adopted anyway since racist islamophobic fascistic warmongers don't deserve to have a vote.

woah woah... slow down there...arent we getting a bit carried away, there are plenty of good solid reasons against Turkeys membership.