Chirac dumps his own prime minister

source

French President Jacques Chirac dumped his prime minister Tuesday following rejection of a new European Union constitution by French voters in a Sunday referendum.

Chirac, shaken by the 55 percent vote against the constitution, appointed Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin as the new prime minister. A close ally of Chirac, the new premier was France's most visible spokesman against the war in Iraq as it was being debated two years ago.
He replaces Jean-Pierre Raffarin.

Meanwhile, European leaders held out hope that they could move forward with their decades-long drive to unify the continent under a single economic and political banner but braced for a potentially fatal setback as Dutch voters threatened to join France in rejecting a proposed European constitution.

Chirac, meanwhile, ignored calls from the opposition to quit, but political analysts said his popularity was so low that it was unlikely he would revive a push to pass the constitution before his term ends in 2007.


i dont see how dumping his prime minister is gonna persuade the Frenchies to vote yes, its already too late and in ani case the French have spoken and dont want the EU consititution cause it sucks to them.




[edit on 31-5-2005 by deltaboy]
//ed to shorten link//

[edit on 31-5-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

The EU will continue perfectly normally as before.

A Treaty has been rejected (or more realistically large parts of it put on hold) that is all, it has happened before and it will no doubt happen again, pity and all but not exactly the end of the world either.

As for the French gov's reaction?

Well you have to understand that referendums have a nasty habit of throwing up an answer to a question that was not asked.
You can ignore this if you like but it is still the fact of the matter.

The French are worried about domestic issues, not the EU particularly. They are angry at their current level of unemployment, they are worried about gov 'reforms (they see 'attacks') on their pensions and the French social model in general. They don't like globalisation much and they saw this referendum as a way of punching this message home loud and clear to their government.

That is why so many voted no .

Just as the Dutch vote will be heavily influenced by Dutch anger at the way some traders took advantage of the introduction of the Euro to raise prices.

In many cases the vote will have nothing to do with the actual 'constitution'.

I think Chirac accepted Raffarin's resignation because he wanted to send a signal to the French that he understands their preoccupations (pretty much all domestic, as sminkey said) and he's willing to offer change.

At least that's the public reason. The real one is that Raffarin had become too unpopular - like Juppé, Chirac's PM in the 90's. In this case, a presidential election is two years down the road, and although Chirac isn't running, he needs a popular prime minister in power if he wants his party reelected in '07.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
The EU will continue perfectly normally as before.

Yes, it will continue, but not as before. The democratic process must be fundamentally redesigned.

A Treaty has been rejected (or more realistically large parts of it put on hold) that is all, it has happened before and it will no doubt happen again, pity and all but not exactly the end of the world either.

At least now your are calling it a treaty, not a Constitution. Humility is always a nice touch.

As for the French gov's reaction?
Well you have to understand that referendums have a nasty habit of throwing up an answer to a question that was not asked.
You can ignore this if you like but it is still the fact of the matter.

The reaction of the french goverment says it all:
Chirac, having lost, with a lowest of lowest 20% approval rate, refuses to step down and instead fires the person who had given the greatest contribution to the "no" side.

In many cases the vote will have nothing to do with the actual 'constitution'.

Let us suppose this is true (which it isn't). Even so, it is a clear vote of no-confidence. And it must be respected: why should they trust their politicians with higher matters if they can't even solve the problems at home?

Originally posted by StarBreather
Yes, it will continue, but not as before.

- Quite. The connection with the people will be strengthened.

The democratic process must be fundamentally redesigned.

- What do you mean?
Are you suggesting the national sovereign states rip up and redesign their democracies just because the EU appears to be somewhat out of touch and have problems?

(you do realise the EU has been deliberately maintained in this condition because the national sovereign states intend to keep most if not all of their meaningful powers to themselves, hmmm?
This complained of 'democratic deficit within the EU is entirely deliberate.)

At least now your are calling it a treaty, not a Constitution. Humility is always a nice touch.

- Look through the threads; I have been quite deliberate in challenging those who would attempt to contrast and compare this proposed Treaty as anything like the US constitution.

The term 'constitution' was merely used as handy short-hand, as I have said myself here on many an occassion.
I have not seen anyone seriously deny this was a Treaty with the expressed intent to rationalise and reorganise 50yrs worth of old European Treaty in addition to codifying the role of the EU and that of the nation states.
(mostly to a British/eastern European version of what Europe might have been, actually, with a more 'liberal market' approach and the national sovereign states role enhanced and protected by subsidiarity and derrogation.......but that doesn't quite suit the anti-EU mob's agenda to admit that, huh?)
news.bbc.co.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...

The reaction of the french goverment says it all:
Chirac, having lost, with a lowest of lowest 20% approval rate, refuses to step down and instead fires the person who had given the greatest contribution to the "no" side.

- So?
Did you really think that the outcome would be different?
If so you have little idea about French politics.

The French PM was fired to demonstrate to the French people that Chirac had heard their complaints (mainly about domestic French affairs....ie pensions, unemployment etc etc) and was making changes to accomodate them.
news.bbc.co.uk...

Let us suppose this is true (which it isn't).

- Actually it is.
France voted "no" mainly on domestic issues as has been widely reported (even if not in your neck of the woods).
Holland voted "no" on both domestic and EU issues (especially the Euro and the price rises accompanying it.......and various other reasons along with a general feeling that the EU was not listening to the people's concerns).
news.bbc.co.uk...

Neither primarily IMO on the actual clauses and points of this so-called 'constitution'.

Even so, it is a clear vote of no-confidence.

- Why?
Why should a free non-partisan national vote on an EU Treaty be necessarily seen as a "vote of no confidence"?! (Particularly when each side had members of the gov on them!)

How does that work?

why should they trust their politicians with higher matters if they can't even solve the problems at home?

- You can play 'all or nothing' if you like; thankfully it appears most people are a lot more reasonable than that and see these things as a balance of what is realistic and not a quest for (an unobtainable) perfection.

Hence the fact that there have not been serious calls or movements for fresh elections and a new government in France or Holland.

[edit on 7-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]