France Rejects EU Constitution
 

By WILLIAM J. KOLE, Associated Press Writer

PARIS - In a stunning rejection of the
European Union's latest ambitious move to unite its 25 nations, French voters shot down the bloc's first constitution, dealing a potentially fatal blow to the charter and humiliating President Jacques Chirac.


Sunday's referendum in France, a cradle of continental unity for more than half a century and the country where much of the constitution was painstakingly written, threatened to set back plans for broader European integration by years.

About 55 percent of voters opposed the treaty — the first rejection in Europe. France's repudiation came ahead of Wednesday's referendum in the Netherlands, where polls show even more resistance to the constitution, and had EU leaders scrambling to do damage control.

"The result raises profound questions for all of us about the future direction of Europe," British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said.

But the European Union's industry commissioner, Guenther Verheugen, said the vote was not a catastrophe and that the situation should not be over-dramatized.
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, while conceding the outcome was a "serious problem," insisted: "We cannot say that the treaty is dead."

Chirac had waged an all-out campaign to persuade nearly 42 million sharply divided voters to approve the charter. But the electorate was in a rebellious mood, with unemployment running at 10 percent and unease about the direction Europe is taking.

Turnout was close to 70 percent — testifying to the passions that the treaty and the debate surrounding it aroused.

Chirac argued that the constitution would streamline EU decision-making and make the bloc more accessible to its 450 million citizens. But opponents feared it would strip France of its sovereignty and generous social system and trigger an influx of cheap labor.

They feared the treaty would open the EU to unfettered free-market capitalism, trampling on workers rights.

Treaty opponents chanting "We won!" gathered at Paris' Place de la Bastille, a symbol of rebellion where angry crowds in 1789 stormed the Bastille prison and sparked the French Revolution. Cars blared their horns and "no" campaigners thrust their arms into the air.

"This is a great victory," said Fabrice Savel, 38, from the working-class suburb of Aubervilliers, distributing posters that read: "No to a free-market Europe."

Ahmed Meguili, a militant leftist, noted the significance of the Bastille for the "no" camp's celebrations.

"In 1789, the revolutionaries freed the prisoners and frightened the king," he said. "This is the same thing. This is yet another divorce between the leaders and the people."

All 25 EU members must ratify the text for it to take effect as planned by Nov. 1, 2006. Nine already have done so: Austria, Hungary, Italy, Germany, Greece, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain.

The constitution's main architect, former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing, said countries that reject the treaty will be asked to vote again.

Chirac said the process of ratifying the treaty would continue in other EU countries.

"It is your sovereign decision, and I take note," Chirac said. "Make no mistake, France's decision inevitably creates a difficult context for the defense of our interests in Europe."

But Philippe de Villiers, a leading opponent, declared the treaty dead.

"There is no more constitution," he said. "It is necessary to reconstruct Europe on other foundations that don't currently exist."

De Villiers called on Chirac to resign — something the French leader had said he would not do — and called for parliament to be dissolved.

Jean-Marie Le Pen, the extreme-right leader who campaigned vigorously against the constitution, also called for Chirac's resignation. Chirac "wanted to gamble ... and he has lost," Le Pen said.

Chirac and other European leaders had said there was no fallback plan in the event of a French rejection. But voters did not believe that. Many, especially on the left, hoped their "no" vote would force the EU back to the drawing board and improve the 448-clause document.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the head of Chirac's ruling Union for a Popular Movement and a leading campaigner for the "yes" camp, called Sunday's defeat "a major political event."

Looking ahead to France's next general elections in 2007, Sarkozy said: "We must decide on an innovative, courageous and ambitious plan of action."

Chirac's popularity ratings have plummeted in recent weeks, and in his television address, the president said he would announce "my decisions concerning the government and its priorities" in coming days. There was widespread speculation that he would dump unpopular Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin.


interesting...................

The Dutch are going to vote this wednesday. Public polls say it 'll be a big NO from us as well. I can't make up my mind yet..

I do not know what to think about this. The EU is a good idea on its face, but Europe has never really wanted to be united and WWI was fought essentially to break up the Germanic empire, which in a twisted way was what Hitler was fighting to regain, though Hitler had other horrid alternative motives. So, the thought of an EU is not without trepidation. But, in general, it sounds like a good idea.

As for France, they will never supoport it IMO because they still want to consider themselves a superpower to which the world must genuflect, when the fact of the matter is they have not been one since Napoleon, and even that was shortlived. Of course, the Fench could have hated it because Chirac wore a tie they considered in poor taste :laugh: This is a country whose rail workers went on strike because the they were horrified at the color the rail stations were painted :eek: :laugh:

I don't think that's true, and without wishing to be disrespectful, I think this is a commonly-held view of the French in several countries like the US and the UK. I've been to France a zillion times and they are just very independent-minded people (bloody-minded?) and many of them clearly feel that European integration is fantastic up to a point, beyond which it gets in the way of how individual countries want to run themselves. I believe many people in the UK feel that way too, and should we get a referendum here it would go the same way.

Having said that, Mr Blair has effectively admitted that if the UK said 'no' in a referendum we would have more referendums until we said 'yes', then there'd be no more referendums...

It's funny (not really), a Dutch politician has said the same thing...

I guess I'm one of the many Europeans who feels like that, European integration could be a good thing up to a certain point. I'd certainly wouldn't want to loose some of the good things we have in our country like our social security and laws on discriminiation etc.
I'm also not so sure of the benifits of no economic borders... I've experienced it twice already that companies I work(ed) for went bankrupt or moved the factory to Poland because wages were less expensive there. And so many other companies up here in the north have closed down already :( But this referendum hasn't got much to do with that, I guess :confused:
That's exactly the 'danger' of this referendum, people aren't voting on the constitution, they're voting to express their opinion on the EU on the whole.

Exactly - I really don't think many people have actually read the constitution, but they vote based on their personal experiences and feelings. Especially when things happen like factories closing down and moving to Poland, putting people in western Europe out of work...

Well, and who would read a constitution? I've got some leaflets and official info (with the official texts), but it's pretty tough reading. And I do have some experience with reading texts like that back from when I studied sociology.
That's another point I've heard made, is this the kind of thing you should hold a referendum about.

Oh don't get me wrong, I LOVE France and go there often. But, the French are supercillious and there kind of is no denying that. In fact, the Parisians are downright proud of it :laugh: They also want to be a global player, but have a history of not being able to do that, making a mess, and then needing a bailout. I mean can you say "Maginot Line" (sp.?) :laugh: But and again, I relly like France and the French :cool:

I, of course, have read it :laugh:

For those interested:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2950276.stm

The Maginot Line suggests more failed military tactics than anything else. With the US and the USSR turning a blind eye to European affairs, France and UK had little choice BUT to declare war on Germany when Hitler invaded Poland. I don't see how that translates into a desire to become a "global player".

Actually in the case of France, the constitution was rejected more on the grounds of an impopular government than the EU question itself. :distress:

I agree they had no choice. But, at least GB exercised military superiority and actually fought for what they believed in and to save her citizens. France, on the other hand, essentially rolled over and let Hitler have his way them them, to the death of tens of thousands of French, esp. gays and jews. Here is an okay site about it http://www.sunderland.ac.uk/~os0tmc/occupied/final.htm - though a google on this topic reveals some hard to take stuff about how people seem just to hate jews to this day :eek:

But, my point about the ML was that since the defeat of Napolean, France has not been able to defend itself and must rely on us to help them. Yet, they act as if they are a world leader, when in truth, they cannot defend themselves, a position hardly supported by their arrogance and rank hypocrisy.

As for them desiring to be a Global Player, they already are because they are on the UN Security Council, which IMO is a position unsupported by their mostly irrelevant place in the military world.

Finally, I like France and go often. I just think their politics are insane and they are irrelevant in today's world save for their UN Security Council position.

Did Chirac where a tie of an objectionable color - thus they strike against him :D :D :D

(sorry - couldn't resist and, of course, you are correct :wavey: )

:mad: I don't understand why they haven't done something like this in the Netherlands. This is really good. I can get this. Love the bbc.

uhm, and actually I guess that's at least partly the case over here too.

Sorry no sale. The British were just as guilty as the French. They waited, waited and waited for something to happen after declaring war to Germany, packed behind the Maginot Line along with their French allies. No military operations of any consequence were attempted. And we all know what happened afterwards. France's fall served as the UK's wake up call. They had no other choice, they were alone until US relief came along.



I think that statement is extremely unfair. While I would never dream of belittling the incredible British war tenure, no one disputes the fact that had there been no sea to protect it, the British army wouldn't have fared any better than France's against the onslaught of Panzers. Neither country was prepared for THAT.

And while the attitude of quite a few individuals during the occupation was despicable, a defeated country generally has little other choice than to yield to the demands of the victor.



France fared pretty well during WW I. It was pretty much a stalemate until the US decided to intervene.



Is that the arrogant American speaking? :D What's the matter, don't like a little dissension in world affairs? :D



While I would tend to agree that France and UK do get involved more often than other European countries in world affairs, what would you have them do? Relinquish veto power and nod to anything the US, Russia and China decide? The UN is supposed to be a democracy, you know. Ok that last one was a joke. :)

Well don't laugh but the rail people are supposed to go on strike this week... again. Seriously ;)

Bless their hearts :laugh: It seems they are ALWAYS on strike :eek:

I think that if France had any valor, it would have fought the Germans with all it had. But, it did not. Once the Germans went around the ML, which was built in anticipation of an attack mind you, France essentially immediately caved and said in return of you Hitler being nice to the other French citizens, here are around 70,000 Jewish and gay souls for you to kill.

As for being an arrogant American - I am just stating facts. If it had not been for us, the French would be under German rule. I did not make those up. That is the way it was. Interestingly, had it not been for us, all of Europe would be under German rule. So, it is not arrogance, it is factual.

As for France and WWI - they were in general okay, but they were still mostly self serving as demonstrated here http://www.firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm

In the end and back to my point, the French are most certainly not a superpower and they have deservedly little respect in the military world. Moreover, they are quick to take assistance when they cannot and will not defend themselves.

Funny how you dismiss an entire country based on what happened during WW II, as if it were the end all be all of History.

As for the trade of souls comment, don't even go there. It's so very easy to believe you would have been the shinning hero under the same circumstances while you're sitting in your comfy chair.



I don't believe anyone disputed that fact, you never even mentioned it. I asked you in jest if you were an arrogant american for saying: "Yet, they act as if they are a world leader, when in truth, they cannot defend themselves, a position hardly supported by their arrogance and rank hypocrisy".





I didn't know the debate had shifted to motives. I don't see how it's relevant, the US also entered WWI for its own self-serving reasons (to protect the interests of its economy). What's the point?


No France is not a superpower, it's rather obvious. But once again, judging the military worth of a country on the sole events of WWII is rather astonishing.

Well, I believe I mentioned Napoleon earlier and if you really want, we can go into the whole Indochine debacle and what they are curently doing in Africa :EEK:

On first read, I actually thought you were validating Frances trade of souls :eek: But, I think you were not doing that :NOD: As for my comfy chair, though it is indeed that, I never said what I would do, I was just comparing France to the other nations in Europe who fought Hitler instead of essentially caving in immediately and noting that the US also fought Hitler and liberated France when France would not do that itself to any significant degree.

I think French are just afraid to lose their first class status in EU (shared with Germany and Great Britain). With the new countries that have joined aren't allowed any longer special treatments about economic deficit, export quotes, etc. In my opinion that vote is ridiculous. There isn't any risk to lose national sovereignity, and France wouldn't have any future outside EU. In last years they've received a large amount of EU funds, especially to support their agricolture. They just want to stay more influential than others, and punish their transparent Prime Minister Raffarin who would say goodbye soon. IMO, it's just a matter of time, and probably in 5 years they'll revote under a left government, and French would make us the honour :rolleyes: to approve a very revised EU constitution.

Romy

ITA that they would consider it as them bestowing the honor - :laugh:

But, I agree, it is only a matter of time and the economics of it will necessitate it.

I agree and it is multi faceted. However, I think the fact that France still considers itself more relevant than the rest of Europe, save, perhaps GB, played a large part in it. But, I agree with you that that certainly was not the only part.

Do you realize this is the second time in a day that we agree.

Dutch say 'No' to EU constitution

Voters in the Netherlands have overwhelmingly rejected the proposed European Union constitution.

Exit polls suggest 63% voted "No" in the referendum. Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, who urged a "Yes" vote, says he will respect the result.

The BBC's William Horsley in Brussels says the ballot has probably delivered a death blow to the constitution, at least in its present form.

It was also rejected by the French in a vote on Sunday.

Mr Balkenende said he was "very disappointed" with the result.

The vote was consultative, and not legally binding, but Mr Balkenende said his government would honour it.

The Dutch parliament is widely expected to endorse it when it meets on Thursday.

Turnout is reported to have been as high as 62%,(wow!!) more than the double the level politicians said was needed for the vote to be accepted as the public's verdict on the treaty.

Mr Balkenende said that despite the result, the ratification process should continue in other countries.

This was echoed in Germany by Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.

Popular discontent

Nine countries have backed the constitution. It needs to be approved by the EU's 25 member states to become law.

The constitution was signed last year, after lengthy negotiations between members states. Its aim was to streamline EU institutions after the admission of 10 new members in 2004.

The government and major opposition parties, making up 80% of the country's MPs, had supported the draft constitution and argued that it would enhance Dutch influence in Europe.

But observers say voters are unhappy about higher prices since the euro and discontented with the centre-right government.

Many also feel threatened by what they see as a superstate that could interfere with liberal policies such as those on gay marriage and euthanasia.

Others disagree with the swift enlargement of the EU, and oppose the possible inclusion of Turkey.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4601439.stm

Well, I expected the outcome, not the huge turnout.. I voted yes, in vain.

Funny how WWII WAS the end all be all of history. The world completely changed after WWII. No matter which side would've been victorious, the world would no longer be the same as before WWII. Events of today are STILL being decided on things that happened during and immediately following WWII.

Man, you guys...

Don't ever underestimate the state of western Europe after WWI - the grand irony is that in many ways Britain and France hadn't really recovered from it by the time WWII came along, but the Germans had, fuelled by their bitterness at their treatment at Versailles etc. It's true that the sea saved the UK - no doubt about that, but the French did not roll over. They were steamrollered, make no mistake. As for the Germans annihilating those groups of people they sought to wipe out - well, if you stood in the way then you were taken as well. How many of us can honestly say they'd have given their lives in that way? Thankfully none of us can imagine what it was like to be occupied, so it's a big mistake to make judgments about the behaviour of those who were occupied. To suggest the French had no valour is really not on, to be honest.

The role of the US in WWII is well-documented, but the role of the USSR is just never acknowledged, is it? More dead than the US, UK, France and Germany put together, for a start. The majority (something like 70%) of the German forces were tasked throughout the war with fighting the eastern front against the Russians, and every time an army of Russians was defeated another load came over the hill and started shooting. The Germans were worn down by the sheer numbers of opponents, and the Russian winters - Germans who would otherwise have been crossing the English Channel and taking over, and kicking the Americans out of Europe. The Russians saved our skins, no doubt about it. 27 million of them died doing it.

me too, dear. this one was my only chance ever to win, but I chose for the underdog opinion....again....it's the story of my life.

I guess we should have stayed out of WWII then :shrug: Why is it every time I say the US did something good, it just sets you a flame. I mean we saved Europe in WWII. I am unsure how that is hard to deny. And - other than for the better good of mankind, which is significant, and the bombing of Pearl Harbor, that war did not really concern us :shrug:

BTW - I had drinks with a Sydney Aussie this evening - he did not know you, but I told him to be on the lookout :woohoo:

Shall I add more fuel to the fire? If France had agreed with the Brits and Americans about the reduction and/or elimantion of War repreations after WW1 for the Germans, the economic downfall following the war may not have been as great. Add to this the occupation of the Rhine, Navel blockaids, hyper inflation.....etc. Had the French not been so "Frenchy" (And I won't get into the rest of the Treaty of Versailles (sp)) There is chance Hitler may not have been able to use that current climate to come to power. So I blame the French for setting the stage for WW2.

The defeat of the Germans in Russia had more to do with the extreme winter, multi-front war, and too expansive supply lines, than actual russian numbers. (Not dismissing the numbers, just form a military standpoint the numbers would have had a less effect if the other varibles weren't there.)

Yes, I will admit their contribution to the US in the early part of our history, but their track record since then is just deplorable. (As far as backing it's allies)

I have no use for the french except for the Staue of Liberty, Jacques Coustou and crepes.

Now back to our regulary scheduled programming. :p

Then again, lets not forget the agreement Russia and Germany made over the division of Poland and other reastern Block countries, which Hitler made with the Russians before he invaded them. (Which Hitler broke and kept going). I wonder if the Russians would have tried to "save" the UK if Hitler hadn't gone east? I doubt it. And as far as dead. We hear about Hitler's atrocites all the time, yet very little is said about Stalin's little ethnic cleansings. (And the Japanese atrocities are a whole other subject) Just a thought. NO SIDE is ever a saint, the winners just get to write the historical version of what happened.

Woof. I know what you mean!

You have that power all the way down under?

Yes - don't get me wrong, I know the Russians weren't fighting out of any kindness to us or anyone else - they were fighting for their own reasons. They helped us out a great deal, sure it was inadvertent, but it's still true.

Strand - no-one's denying that the US made an enormous contribution to the war, but sometimes people seem to make out that the US were fighting alone... and the war had more implications for the States than you think. If Europe had been overrun and the Russians subdued, Germany could in theory have then helped the Japanese fight the US. The US would have stood alone against Nazism and Japanese aggression - they sure didn't want that. The US were not solely acting for the benefit of mankind.

Japan was part of the Axis of Power and was already aligned with Germany and Italy :shrug: So, they were helong Japan in that sense, though in the end I have no doubt Hitler would have stabbed Japan and Italy in the back because those two nations hardly fit into the Aryan profile.

But, I agree, the US did not enter the war until it had to. But, that is not the point I was making. The point I was making is the facts indicate the remainder of free Europe, save perhaps Russia and to a lesser extent GB, was losing badly until the US came into the war. Thus, I think it is accurate to say the entrance of the US into the European theatre of WWII is what turned whast appeared to be a certain defeat for the free European nations into a long road to the now historical win - for which we are all blessed :nod:

Interestingly, people talk of the horrors under Hitler, which were indeed bad, but what the Japanese dod to the Chinese and had been doing for a long time prior to then, was IMO somewhat worse, though both Hitler and the Japanese had shops of horror - sad, very true.

On edit - here is a fairly cool site with a WWII timeline

Also, I LOVE to talk about WWII and WWI - I think it is fascinating, though I know the horrors were significant.

Geeze... Perhaps you should take into account that France was a battleground during WWI. The country was left bloodless and dry and devastated. The US and the UK suffered far less casualties and no loss of infrastructure. Not one shot was fired on their respective territories. Can you blame a ruined country for harping to obtain maximum concessions after the war? Was it excessive? Probably but please put the events into context.

The Versailles Treaty was but one factor among many in the rise of Hitler. The consequences of the 1929 depression was the MAJOR one.

Iraqi sour grapes? :D
Funny how expressing a differing opinion is interpreted as a betrayal. Allies are not vassals.

Your xenophobia is duly noted. :shocked:

Actually, I think it is more "The French are historically smug and hippocritical and I am gonna learn from that" than fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign :shrug: In other words, the French make it easy to hate them, though I do not.

And WHAT caused the depression to be more severe in Germany? Could it be ....The large war repreations?


Was suppose to be taken lightly. Obviously you can't condem a whole nation by steriotypes. Although Mimes are hard to like. :p

I am referring to not allowing the use of their airspace with Lybia, the outlawing of certain English terms...etc. They have a long track record of being a pain in the butt at times. And I wonder how long these "Vassals" would have survived without other Allied support in the past and now. Nice of us to pay for the protection of Europe during the cold war with our defenses. And one last thing:

I still don't like Mimes. :laugh:

There may have been a few, maybe 8. Okay how about 23. 23 acted soley for the benefit of mankind. And no other reason. ;)

Actually no :)
Germany had been rebuilt mostly with US funds and was completely and totally dependent on that incoming cash flow. And when the Wall Street crisis rocked the world in 1929, the US investors panicked and withdrew their funds & savings. Germany suffered the most during the depression for these reasons.


Fight the stereotypes. I'm quite often provoked for having lived in the USA and I never tire of telling these ruffians that not all Americans are fat ignorant bible-thumping TV addicted gun-wielding arrogant weirdos who can only place two countries on a world map besides the USA: Canada and Mexico. ;)


Once again, no one's disputing the fact that Europe owes its freedom to the US. It's just that it marvels me that it should translate into obedience and compliance with any US whims.

As for the "outlawing of certain English terms", the whole affair was laughed upon and the minister who suggested it is/was a joke. Talk about blowing nothing out of proportion :rolleyes:

Don't worry, no one does. :p