Thanks Frenchie's

All of you EU hopefulls just got stabbed in the back by France!

Now you know how we here in the United States feel about the French.

If I lived in Europe, I would ratify the constitution and leave out the French,
plan your new EU government and do it with out the French.

The EU just got it in the arse!

French in disarray as they admit EU treaty vote is lost.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Originally posted by SIRR1
All of you EU hopefulls just got stabbed in the back by France!

First of all calm down, this is simply the first of many constitutions to throw at the people, there will be re-votes with new constitutions in the future.

If I lived in Europe, I would ratify the constitution and leave out the French,
plan your new EU government and do it with out the French.

We can't leave out the French as they are a main part of the EU, removing any of the big names would cripple the EU.






[edit on 26-5-2005 by UK Wizard]

Originally posted by UK Wizard
We can't leave out the French as they are a main part of the EU, removing any of the big names would cripple the EU.
[edit on 26-5-2005 by UK Wizard]

I'm afraid SIRR1 has it right this time, Including the french is what will cripple the EU. Why? Because they still think they are #1 (what????), in charge and their s**t doesn't stink. The EU is doomed until the french realize that all three of the above are false.


BTW, I'm still boycotting all french products (especially their wines) - except french fries and french kisses, of course.

[edit on 5/26/2005 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by centurion1211
I'm afraid SIRR1 has it right this time, Including the french is what will cripple the EU. Why? Because they still think they are #1 (what????), in charge and their s**t doesn't stink. The EU is doomed until the french realize that all three of the above are false.

Why not read up on the history of the EU?
France was a part of te EU even before Britain was.
They even vetoed Britain's request to join on more than one occasion.

en.wikipedia.org...

The European Union grew out of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), which was founded in 1951, by the six founding members: Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg (the Benelux countries) and (West) Germany, France and Italy. Its purpose was to pool the steel and coal resources of the member states, thus preventing another European war. It was in fulfilment of a plan developed by a French civil servant Jean Monnet, publicised by the French foreign minister Robert Schuman. On May 9, 1950 Schuman presented his proposal on the creation of an organised Europe stating that it was indispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations. This proposal, known as the "Schuman declaration", is considered to be the beginning of the creation of what is now the European Union, which later chose to celebrate May 9 as Europe Day. The British were invited to participate in it, but refused on grounds of national sovereignty; thus the six went ahead alone. (See Text of the Schuman declaration (europa.eu.int...)).

The French are an integral part of the EU and if it survived that long with them as a part of it, I don't see any reason why it wont continue to survive.

After this monstrosity that is the proposed EU constitution goes down in flames, Europeans should take a look at either maintaining the treaty system they have now, or, if they really want a federal government, looking at the beautiful simplicity of the U.S. Constitution and make something more along those lines.

Yes, and there are other countries still to vote. Actually, France had parties that didn't want the referendum (the "Yes!" side). In my country, at least all the parties agree on the referendum.

Article I-12 (how they define "shared competence"):
"The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised, or has decided to cease exercising, its competence."

And then, in Article I-14, just about everything falls under this category of "shared competence": social policy, agriculture and fisheries, transport, energy, freedom, security and justice, health, etc, etc.

They will want bigger taxes, and then they will grow in order to absorb more and more competences.
Imagine giving your democratic representative rights to politicians that escaped to Europe because they weren't good enough at home (like the current president of the European comission, he was a do-nothing, and now he is a yes-man).

Originally posted by StarBreather
Yes, and there are other countries still to vote. Actually, France had parties that didn't want the referendum (the "Yes!" side). In my country, at least all the parties agree on the referendum.

Article I-12 (how they define "shared competence"):
"The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised, or has decided to cease exercising, its competence."

And then, in Article I-14, just about everything falls under this category of "shared competence": social policy, agriculture and fisheries, transport, energy, freedom, security and justice, health, etc, etc.

They will want bigger taxes, and then they will grow in order to absorb more and more competences.
Imagine giving your democratic representative rights to politicians that escaped to Europe because they weren't good enough at home (like the current president of the European comission, he was a do-nothing, and now he is a yes-man).

Hey Ace, this person is 'reporting from the scene' and I'd say it doesn't sound like a real recipe for success, now does it. In fact, it kind of makes the EU sound 'incompetent' - sorry, couldn't resist on that one.

Of course you'll ignore this simply because it doesn't fit yor views.

[edit on 5/26/2005 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by centurion1211
Hey Ace, this person is 'reporting from the scene' and I'd say it doesn't sound like a real recipe for success, now does it. In fact, it kind of makes the EU sound 'incompetent' - sorry, couldn't resist on that one.

Of course you'll ignore this simply because it doesn't fit yor views.

That constitution that he posted is what the French are going to be voting against. It sounds like you agree with the French when you say it doesn't sound like a recipe for success so why are you not supporting them in the vote against it?

Originally posted by SIRR1
All of you EU hopefulls just got stabbed in the back by France!

- Er, no.
The vote hasn't even happened yet so how can anyone be said to have "just got stabbed in the back"?!

Now you know how we here in the United States feel about the French.

- Er, no.
We don't call the French people exercising the democratic right to disagree a "stab in the back" or any such childishly melodramatic nonsense.

They are a free people and if they reject the 'constitution' (as it is their right to do) then we will all have to re-examine the thing.

You are however speaking volumes about you own (American) mentality.

You don't know much about Europe, do you?

Try and have a look into the Nice Treaty.
That was rejected by the Irish people, their concerns were addressed and then subsequently the Irish people voted for the modified treaty,

No "stab in the back" idiotic BS, just grown up politics at work with the grown ups.

If I lived in Europe, I would ratify the constitution and leave out the French, plan your new EU government and do it with out the French.

- Well that just shows your own silly prejudices about the French and nothing more.

The EU just got it in the arse!

- Er, no, actually.
For a start the treaty vote in France isn't even until Sunday.

Just look at the respective preambles of the U.S. vs. proposed EU Constitutions to see the stark difference:

U.S. Constitution
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

as opposed to this:

Proposed EU Constitution
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE CZECH
REPUBLIC, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF DENMARK, THE PRESIDENT OF THE
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
ESTONIA, THE PRESIDENT OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC, HIS MAJESTY THE
KING OF SPAIN, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT
OF IRELAND, THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA, THE
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE
GRAND DUKE OF LUXEMBOURG, THE PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
HUNGARY, THE PRESIDENT OF MALTA, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE
NETHERLANDS, THE FEDERAL PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA, THE
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND, THE PRESIDENT OF THE
PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA, THE
PRESIDENT OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
FINLAND, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF SWEDEN, HER MAJESTY
THE QUEEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN
IRELAND,


Drawing inspiration from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, from which
have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person,
democracy, equality, freedom and the rule of law,

Believing that Europe, reunited after bitter experiences, intends to continue along the path of
civilisation, progress and prosperity, for the good of all its inhabitants, including the weakest and
most deprived; that it wishes to remain a continent open to culture, learning and social progress; and
that it wishes to deepen the democratic and transparent nature of its public life, and to strive for
peace, justice and solidarity throughout the world,

Convinced that, while remaining proud of their own national identities and history, the peoples of
Europe are determined to transcend their ancient divisions and, united ever more closely, to forge a
common destiny,

Convinced that, thus "united in its diversity", Europe offers them the best chance of pursuing, with
due regard for the rights of each individual and in awareness of their responsibilities towards future
generations and the Earth, the great venture which makes of it a special area of human hope,

Determined to continue the work accomplished within the framework of the Treaties establishing
the European Communities and the Treaty on European Union, by ensuring the continuity of the
Community acquis,

Grateful to the members of the European Convention for having prepared the draft of this
Constitution on behalf of the citizens and States of Europe,

Have designated as their plenipotentiaries:
(list...)

Who, having exchanged their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:

I think even you sminkey can admit there's a problem with this drivel your bureaucrats call a constitution!

I really applaud the Europeans for seeing this thing as it is, a piece of [insert explative]!

Originally posted by SIRR1
All of you EU hopefulls just got stabbed in the back by France!

France is doing the right thing. The EU constitution will give too many power to Poland. That will result in the fall of Germany.

We Germans should be thankful for France for what they are doing. They are saving us. If the constitution will be accepted then a Union empire under Poland's leadership will be built on the ruins of Federal Republic of Germany.

[edit on 27-5-2005 by AtheiX]

Originally posted by AtheiX
France is doing the right thing. The EU constitution will give too many power to Poland. That will result in the fall of Germany.

We Germans should be thankful for France for what they are doing. They are saving us. If the constitution will be accepted then a Union empire under Poland's leadership will be built on the ruins of Federal Republic of Germany.

[edit on 27-5-2005 by AtheiX]

Wow this either a complete joke or the best example why a united Europe will never happen.

djohnsto77, there is a huge difference between american and european constitution.
The american constitution was written in 18th century and it marked the START of USA as such. The laws are based on it, it is simply a first stone, written for the people who lived back then to serve as a foundation of your law system, hence the simplicity of it, so that even an uneducated 18th century cowboy can understand it.

EU constitution was written in 21st century as a FINAL document of ALREADY existent laws, treaties, countries, presidents, parliaments, legas systems,etc, etc.
We ALREADY have laws that regulate freedom of speech, equality, human rights, and so on. We already have that. We do not need the constitution to teach us how to do it. We already know.

While your constitution serves as a foundation of your society because it was written at the begining of it, our constitution is the finalisation of already civilised and modern 21st century society. WE EXISTED as a Union even before that piece of paper was written. Everything we have now existed before the constitution. It is a symbolic document that sumarizes everything we have already achieved and ads a few bits and pieces here and there.
If it gets a no vote, everything we have will still exist, the constitution will be modified and voted again. It has happened before with other treaties, it is nothing new to us.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Just look at the respective preambles of the U.S. vs. proposed EU Constitutions to see the stark difference

- Well there is your first misconception.

This so-called 'constitution' is really nothing of the sort.

The term 'constitution' is being used as mere handy short-hand for what it is which is basically a rationalisation and restating of nearly 50yrs worth of various treaties and agreements between the developing EEC/EU as it grew and changed over the years.

If you knew much about it you might understand that what has grown from the original immeadiate postwar Council of Europe and then the early 1950's European Coal and Steel Community into the 1957 EEC's original 7 member countries eventually growing to the EU now comprising 25 (27 soon) might just need this kind of thing.

I think even you sminkey can admit there's a problem with this drivel your bureaucrats call a constitution!

- This is simply ridiculous slanted nonsense. The problems curently being experienced are nothing to do with what you imagine them to be, actually.

Firstly it is nothing like the US constitution nor has it ever been intended as such.
To attempt to compare it as if it were is simply to pretend it has a purpose which it does not have.

I really applaud the Europeans for seeing this thing as it is, a piece of [insert explative]!

- Obviously you do not have the first clue about what you are talking about here.

Unfortunately like so many Americans here you you are either just plain ignorant of the EU and deeply mistaken (which is fine, I don't pretend to know the full ins and outs of the USA) or attempting to push a ludicrous line of propaganda.

Sadly it seems many Americans here just can't get their heads around the EU unless it is put in terms which always attempt to approximate everything to 'something a bit like x, y or z in the USA'.

So this so-called constitution becomes equated with the US constitution when in actual fact it is nothing like similar and the US constitution is not what is called for nor nothing at all like it at all.

I really applaud the Europeans for seeing this thing as it is, a piece of [insert explative]!

- Who are these 'Europeans' you are talking about?
Everyone who has voted on the matter so far has agreed the 'constitution'.
The French might not, many of their polls say it is too close to call.
We won't know until after they vote (which is on Sunday 29th).

The problem the French have with this so-called 'constitution' is that in business practices they thing it too 'Anglo-Saxon'; nothing at all to do with the complaints about state 'socialism' your imagination has conjured.

.......and even if the French do vote "no"; so what?
Everybody just goes away and addresses the concerns raised and then a revised draft will be put before the people.

Check out Ireland rejecting the Nice Treaty for an example of a country which rejected a major treaty; that treaty then being revised and the people of Ireland subsequently saying "yes" to that revised treaty.
That is how the grown-ups do things.
No big deal and no sky falling in; nor EU paralysed, stricken with damaging rows, close to collapsing or any of the rest of these lurid and rather silly fantasies.

That's what we have in Europe; adult, responsive, free and open democracy in action.

We don't spend the next x number years years going in for the kind of counter-productive idiotic and ultra childish "stab in the back" stupidity that, sadly, seems so current amongst so many in the USA today.

(although I note that 'Mr Freedom Fries' himself now regrets his moment of dull, small minded, petty, vicious and utterly absurd nonsense -

Walter Jones, the Republican congressman for North Carolina who was also the brains behind french toast becoming freedom toast in Capitol Hill restaurants, told a local newspaper the US went to war "with no justification".

Mr Jones, who in March 2003 circulated a letter demanding that the three cafeterias in the House of Representatives' office buildings ban the word french from menus, said it was meant as a "light-hearted gesture".
But the name change, still in force, made headlines around the world, both for what it said about US-French relations and its pettiness.

Now Mr Jones appears to agree. Asked by a reporter for the North Carolina News and Observer about the name-change campaign - an idea Mr Jones said at the time came to him by a combination of God's hand and a constituent's request - he replied: "I wish it had never happened."

Although he voted for the war, he has since become one of its most vociferous opponents on Capitol Hill, where the hallway outside his office is lined with photographs of the "faces of the fallen".

"If we were given misinformation intentionally by people in this administration, to commit the authority to send boys, and in some instances girls, to go into Iraq, that is wrong," he told the newspaper. "Congress must be told the truth."

www.guardian.co.uk... )



[edit on 27-5-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Well I can assure you the U.S. Constitution will still be law for like 300 million people long after the last strips of your shredded EU constitution has been utilized by a hamster.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Well I can assure you the U.S. Constitution will still be law for like 300 million people long after the last strips of your shredded EU constitution has been utilized by a hamster.

- Why do you keep making this incorrect and utterly ridiculous comparison with the US constitution?

The EU's so-called 'constitution' (which in any case isn't a constitution at all, that is mere short-hand and an attempt at easy reference) is not intended to be anything like the US constitution.

It is a rationalisation of 50yrs worth of international treaty and agreement between the sovereign nation states.

Are you having trouble understanding those words or just trolling for a reaction?

Whatever happened to 'deny ignorance'?
This is pure ya-boo nonsense, based upon a total fallacy.

[edit on 27-5-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

I think even you sminkey can admit there's a problem with this drivel your bureaucrats call a constitution!

- This is simply ridiculous slanted nonsense. The problems curently being experienced are nothing to do with what you imagine them to be, actually.

Actually, they are. An overlong text that gives free rein to bureaucrats is reason for suspicion, even on formal grounds. Even without reading 400 pages, something that starts with "His majesty XYZ" must be crap. Face it: this so-called "constitution" is the creation of politicians that wouldn't stand a chance in their own countries. So, they want to create their own playground by other means.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

- Why do you keep making this incorrect and utterly ridiculous comparison with the US constitution?

Why do you keep defending what any reader with an ounce (a couple grams) of brains can tell is indefensible? Did you help write it, or something?

Regarding your '50 years of rationalization" comment, reminds me of that old saying about a camel being a horse that was designed by a committee (after making all their rationalizations).

Any reader with an ounce (a couple grams) of brains can also see that while you could certainly do worse than using the U.S. Constitution as a model, it would be hard to find a better model.

And can you imagine if the U.S. Constitution started out with "The Governor of Alabama, the Governor of Arkansas, ..., instead of "We the People"? Those two different opening sentences really do create a different sense of what the documents are about and who they are really for.

[edit on 5/27/2005 by centurion1211]

"Robert Herrmann, a socialist leader in Strasbourg and a strong supporter of the treaty, notes that historically, French governments have used referendums as plebiscites designed to boost their support.

The referendum, Mr Herrmann concludes, was a mistake. "The right forum to discuss the EU constitution was parliament," he says. "

Thanks God I am not French.

Although the French are likely to vote NO, it is because of protectionism. The french political system is not right versus left, but center versus periphery. The disenfranchised want more care & feeding, so they vote NO. The bureaucratic monster is never mentioned by them. They are also afraid of Turkey and Polish plumbers (I learnt this watching a debate on french TV).

While I welcome Turkey and have no problem with Poland, I will vote NO for other reasons.

Originally posted by StarBreather
Actually, they are.

- No they are not.

The French problem with this so-called 'constitution' is it's (to them) 'Anglo-Saxon-ism'.

It has nothing to do with the tosh people here have been opportunistically wittering on about.

An overlong text that gives free rein to bureaucrats is reason for suspicion, even on formal grounds. Even without reading 400 pages, something that starts with "His majesty XYZ" must be crap.

- This is ridiculous.
The document is a rationalisation of 50 or so years worth of treaties and agreements between sovereign nation states.
It is a highly legal and complex document.

Attempting to compare and contrats this with the USA's constitution as some are trying to here is laughable in the extreme and ignorance of the highest order.

Face it: this so-called "constitution" is the creation of politicians that wouldn't stand a chance in their own countries. So, they want to create their own playground by other means.

- This so-called 'constitution' is a hugely complex document and to pretend it might have an easy populist appeal is just ludicrous.