# la nouvelle constitution



## Eddie

Doudou a une question.

C'est quoi exactement dans la nouvelle constitution européenne que les Français rejettent? (Moi je ne suis ni pour ni contre du seul fait d'ignorance).


----------



## Benjy

Eddie said:
			
		

> Doudou a une question.
> 
> C'est quoi exactement dans la nouvelle constitution européenne que les Français rejettent? (Moi je ne suis ni pour ni contre du seule fait d'ignorance).



noone really knows. thats half the problem :s


----------



## fetchezlavache

seul should be masculine in your sentence eddie ! (agreeing with 'fait')

benjy, you ditch accents, do you ditch apostrophes as well ? muuuuuahahhaha !!!

<runs>


----------



## Eddie

Thanks, Fetchez. I'm embarrassed. I don't know how that slipped past me; I must be reaching that age. En tant que bon étudiant, j'ai corrigé ma faute.


----------



## fetchezlavache

ahem, add an extra 'r' and i will be 'aux anges' !! 

anyway, was that your best shot to lure me in this thread ? i ain't disclosing my political views, no way jose !!


----------



## Eddie

You must be a mind reader, Fetchez; when I saw your name, I was sure I would find out what your opinion is on this issue.


----------



## Edwin

Eddie said:
			
		

> Doudou a une question.
> 
> C'est quoi exactement dans la nouvelle constitution européenne que les Français rejettent? (Moi je ne suis ni pour ni contre du seul fait d'ignorance).



From the Reuters news story Why did French voters reject the EU constitution?



> Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, the head of the EU's executive Commission, said, "....We cannot draw a very simple message from the result except that a majority voted against...."


----------



## Sev

Benjy said:
			
		

> noone really knows. thats half the problem :s


Hey Monsieur Benjy, you can't say that. It's as if you were saying that french people who chose the "NON" are fools who are not able to think about political issues. Ok, keep quiet, I know this is not really what you meant   , but more probably that it is a complicated issue. At least I hope this is what you think...
Ok I'm at work now (la honte!), when i'll have a little bit more time, I'll tell you why I said NON.


----------



## Jana337

One of the most interesting texts on the referendum that I have read:
http://www.reason.com/hod/jvlb052905.shtml

Jana


----------



## Sev

Here are my reasons. Please excuse me if it’s not that clear, but sometimes it’s hard enough to explain in French, so in English…. 

First of all I’d like to point out three things :
- A majority of french people are pro-Europe. This is not a vote against Europe, but against the text. Of course, there are a part of the “NON” that comes from the “FN” and from Devilliers (who are extreme-right and “souverainiste”, please help me for the translation !) : these people fear Europe, but I’m sure they are a minority.

- Many people said that it is a vote against the government. Well, just like the above, maybe it’s true for one part. But I insist on the fact that the debate was very strong in France, and that all the people were aware that they were voting for their future in Europe, and not to blame Chirac or Raffarin (prime minister, in French “Premier ministre” but we say “Premier sinistre”   = prime disaster or prime portentous). On TV, of course politicians were talking about politic in France (as usual, moreover because we’ll have to vote for a new president in 2007), but all the people around me were talking about Europe.

- I’m fed up with people saying that frenchies are against everything, that f people are afraid, that people are lost, to explain the vote…this attitude shows a strong contempt (?) for all french voters. I’m sure that at least for THIS election, if you see all the debates, people took the time to really think to the consequences of their vote, and to the political reasons why they said yes/no.

That said, here is why I said no :

1. This text is too complicated and too long. Who had the time to read it entirely, annexes included ? 2% of french voters ?  Have you ever signed a contract without reading it, small letters and footnotes included ?

2. Once the constitution will be accepted, it’ll be impossible to revise it. You’ll need the unanimity of both people and governments. I agree that we have to be careful to be sure that it won’t be changed every 2 days, but here it’s too strong. 

3. There is one part of the Constitution that is interesting : “la Charte des droits fondamentaux”, “the Bill of essential rights” I suppose in english. Let’s call it “La Charte”. There are very good points in it, about social protection especially. But unfortunately, this “Charte” will apply only if it is not contrary to the other parts of the constitution, i.e. the parts about free market and so on.

4. The Nice Treaty (not nice as beautiful   , but Nice, as a town of the southern France where the text was signed). This treaty is a part of the third annex, the one everybody was talking about. Because this text is very libéral in the french sense, which means that all human activities have to be ruled by the free market theory. Everything is open and the strongest wins. Nice treaty is today the one that we are living with in Europe, and that rules our european lives. But this was only a treaty, not a constitution. For me, a constitution is what set up the rules of the game : democracy and so on. It has nothing to do with any economical theory, even if the theory is the one that runs today. If we say yes to the constitution, we accept the fact that the way our europe has to be led IS free market theory, for ever : I don’t. Just imagine one second that we write in a constitution that communism is the rule !! I add that whereas the “Charte” applies only after all economic rules, the texts in the IIIrd Annex apply first.

Please consider that it is these arguments TOGETHER that made me decide to choose to reject the text, and that I have dozen of other good ones (power of the central european bank, lack of separation of powers…), but I don’t have enough time to explain all the issues.

And now, what is going to happen ? Only one solution for me : explain the other european people why we said no, wait for their vote and re-negotiate (don’t know if it’s the right word ???) that constitution, so that all together we can have a text who is acceptable and fair for everyone. 

Feel free to answer, this is for me a very interesting debate, especially with YOU (other europeans, and non-europeans too).
And if you’ve got time to waste, you can also correct my english mistakes    (maybe only the main ones, otherwise it’ll take you one week !)

Séverine.


----------



## LV4-26

Eddie said:
			
		

> Doudou a une question.
> 
> C'est quoi exactement dans la nouvelle constitution européenne que les 55% des Français rejettent? (Moi je ne suis ni pour ni contre du seul fait d'ignorance).


Eddie, je me suis permis de modifier légèrement ton post pour mon propre usage, j'espère que tu ne m'en voudras pas.

The texts mentionned by Jana and Edwin are interesting.
What you have to keep in mind is that there are two very distinct categories among the people who voted "non". Two categories that would never ever vote alike in other polls.

1.





> Some balked at having an economic model imposed on the EU which they say puts market interests ahead of social concerns.


 (Reuters text)
You're more likely to find these in the left wing although a substantial part of the socialists (and of the "greens") called for a "oui" on the basis that there was no such thing in the project of constitution.

2.





> Other reasons cited for opposing the constitution included a perceived loss of French sovereignty


 (Reuters again)
These are more likely to be found in the "very" right wing (although there are some "souverainistes de gauche" like Chevènement) and extreme right wing of the population (supporters of Mr Le Pen)

Hope this helps. Of course it's very simplified as I've put it. But I think you can get at least on overall idea.
Jean-Michel

EDIT : I can see that Sev posted before me. Sorry Sev. I've just read it. You explained the issue far better and in a far more complete way than I did.

As for your potential "mistakes", _je suis mal placé pour les relever_, but I'll just point the only one I've found. I think you've used "think to" instead of "think of".

Have a great day


----------



## DDT

I am really afraid that the victory of "yes" or of "non" is irrelevant...politicians will do what more corresponds to their particular interests...
As an Italian I am particularly aware of the fact 

DDT


----------



## Jana337

Sev said:
			
		

> 3. There is one part of the Constitution that is interesting : “la Charte des droits fondamentaux”, “the Bill of essential rights” I suppose in english. Let’s call it “La Charte”. There are very good points in it, about social protection especially. But unfortunately, this “Charte” will apply only if it is not contrary to the other parts of the constitution, i.e. the parts about free market and so on.
> 
> 4. The Nice Treaty (not nice as beautiful   , but Nice, as a town of the southern France where the text was signed). This treaty is a part of the third annex, the one everybody was talking about. Because this text is very libéral in the french sense, which means that all human activities have to be ruled by the free market theory.



Let me speak for the other part of Europe (both from the viewpoint of geography and ideology).

Many people in Europe (especially in Britain and in the new member states) are horrified at the prospect of living with a constitution that opens the vent for an unbridled statism.

From my viewpoint, the French chose the right answer, albeit for wrong motives. If they believe that they will be able to negotiate a constitution tailored to their "social model", I hope they will be disabused of this illusion soon.

I am browsing the chat pages of the Czech press. The flood of joy is overwhelming. Merci!

Jana


----------



## LV4-26

Just a correction to my post : it isn't 55% of the electorate but 55% of the people who *actually voted.*


----------



## Jana337

A couple of quotes by French politicians:


> * "[The EU Constitution] embodies the French vision of Europe. A 'yes' vote will reinforce the French model in Europe, a 'no' vote will weaken it." - _Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin (AP, 29 and 30 March)_
> 
> * "We have finally obtained this 'Europe à la française' that we have awaited for so long. This constitutional treaty is an enlarged France. It is a Europe written in French." - _Justice Minister Dominique Perben (Times and AFP, 4 April)_
> .
> .
> .



Many more can be found here.

Jana


----------



## Sev

Jana337 said:
			
		

> A couple of quotes by French politicians:
> Jana


I'd just like to point out that they are all members of the government. Anyway thanks Jana for finding interesting sources in english.
And I'm fed up with all those politicians, proud to impose to Europe a "French model", a "French vision". I don't care about "French ambition", I only want a text which is fair for every single european citizen, being from Czech Republic, Greece, Spain, Lettonia etc etc


----------



## Jana337

Sev said:
			
		

> I'd just like to point out that they are all members of the government. Anyway thanks Jana for finding interesting sources in english.
> And I'm fed up with all those politicians, proud to impose to Europe a "French model", a "French vision". I don't care about "French ambition", I only want a text which is fair for every single european citizen, being from Czech Republic, Greece, Spain, Lettonia *Latvia* etc etc



As far as I know, most members of the socialist opposition were in favour of the constitution, too, with similar arguments.

I do not want a text at all.

Jana


----------



## timpeac

Thanks, Sev, for your summary which was very interesting. I also have to congratulate you on excellent English throughout. Almost no mistakes.

All that occurs to me is 

- you say "Nice treaty" somewhere instead of "the Nice treaty".
- European should have a capital letter
- At the end you should say "it will take you *a* week" or if you want to stress it "it will take you a whole week.

All tiny tiny points though!


----------



## LV4-26

Sev said:
			
		

> I'm fed up with all those politicians, proud to impose to Europe a "French model", a "French vision". I don't care about "French ambition", I only want a text which is fair for every single european citizen, being from Czech Republic, Greece, Spain, Lettonia etc etc


I second this.


----------



## Eddie

When I first posted my question, little did I realize I would receive such a thoroughgoing exposition of carefully thought-out responses. I have taken the time to read each contribution with a great deal of care; and I have a much clearer idea of the issues and their ramifications. I imagine the Dutch, enheartened by the French response, will follow suit.

I thank you all for explaining the controversy and detailing your reasons for a negative vote.

Sev, you had the courage to write in a language that you did not grow up speaking. Let me assure you that your written English is far better than that of many of my American compatriots. Whatever mistakes you made, and who hasn't, are so negligible as not to deserve mention. I wish I were able to express myself in French as well as you do in English.

Merci infiniment à tous.


----------



## Benjy

Sev said:
			
		

> Hey Monsieur Benjy, you can't say that. It's as if you were saying that french people who chose the "NON" are fools who are not able to think about political issues. Ok, keep quiet, I know this is not really what you meant   , but more probably that it is a complicated issue. At least I hope this is what you think...
> Ok I'm at work now (la honte!), when i'll have a little bit more time, I'll tell you why I said NON.



salut sev 

i actually mis-read eddies post  i thought he was asking about *what* the constitution is and then *why* the 55% of the people who voted (jm ) are saying no.

i meant noone really knows what the constitution is totally, all the ramifications it could have etc etc.. the gov in england said it was very simple  and easy to understand then produced a 500 page document trying to exaplain what it was.

that said i'm not saying that everyone who voted was ignorant. il ya des points qui se dégagent au premier abord qui sont facile à sasir..

voilà ce que je voulais et aurais dû dire


----------



## gliamo

Sev said:
			
		

> I'd just like to point out that they are all members of the government. Anyway thanks Jana for finding interesting sources in english.
> And I'm fed up with all those politicians, proud to impose to Europe a "French model", a "French vision". I don't care about "French ambition", I only want a text which is fair for every single european citizen, being from Czech Republic, Greece, Spain, Lettonia etc etc




and your previous explanation was outstanding!

G.


----------



## rainbow

La democracie française est admirable and respectable! 
Salut au peuple Français! Faut pas dire rien d'autre.
rainbow


----------



## cuchuflete

I'm very pleased that 55% of 70% voted against it.  Here is why:

--I don't care for laws and regulations imposed by unelected bureaucrats who are far from their supposed constituents
--European "culture" in the very best sense of the word, is locally developed and practiced, without benefit or detriment of elected, much less appointed officials.
--only one of the three points of the proposed 'triangle' is elected

In the US we find the federal government constantly usurping local state/province rights and authority, despite clear constitutional prohibitions against this.  I have read much of the proposed EU constitution text, and the defense of local rights is very weak.

Efficiency should not be equated with "goodness".  The document seems to have been created by people who are accustomed to working with fellow functionaries, with little apparent sense that they should be responsible to the people they 'rule'.    

When it comes to protection of local rights and responsibilities, the US constitution is a stronger document, and it is not nearly strong enough.  

I appeal to my European colleagues to learn from our mistakes, and follow the lead of French voters, who, for whatever combination of motives, displayed good sense.


----------



## Sev

Thanks everyone, I only wanted to share my point of view, as I feel concerned by all what's going on in Europe today.


			
				Benjy said:
			
		

> salut sev
> i actually mis-read eddies post  i thought he was asking about *what* the constitution is and then *why* the 55% of the people who voted (jm ) are saying no.
> i meant noone really knows what the constitution is totally, all the ramifications it could have etc etc.. the gov in england said it was very simple and easy to understand then produced a 500 page document trying to exaplain what it was.
> that said i'm not saying that everyone who voted was ignorant. il ya des points qui se dégagent au premier abord qui sont facile à sasir..
> voilà ce que je voulais et aurais dû dire


C'est bien ce qui me semblait, merci pour ces éclaircissements...



> Sev, you had the courage to write in a language that you did not grow up speaking. Let me assure you that your written English is far better than that of many of my American compatriots. Whatever mistakes you made, and who doesn't make mistakes, are so negligible as not to deserve mention. I wish I were able to express myself in French as well as you do in English.


 Thanks Eddie <getting red smiley>. "Courage" is a bit exaggerated, I only took the time to write this text because I consider this topic as a major issue. And you're not so nice with your compatriots  !


----------



## Sev

DDT said:
			
		

> I am really afraid that the victory of "yes" or of "non" is irrelevant...politicians will do what more corresponds to their particular interests...
> As an Italian I am particularly aware of the fact
> DDT


Ah, notre ami Berlusconi <ironie>. 
In this case, politicians have no choice as for the adoption of the constitution. They can't adopt it whithout people's agreement, now that they chose the referendum way. [otherwise : re-vo-lution  !!]
Even if the constitution is changed, they'll do what they want, is this what you meant ? Yes, maybe, but when you've got the law on "your" side, it's always better, isn't it ? 
If that was not so important for them, they wouldn't have made such a fuss about it.


----------



## rainbow

Congrats Severine,
Both for your good English and for showing openly your points of view!!!
Mes sincères salutations.


----------



## Nocciolina

Sev said:
			
		

> I'd just like to point out that they are all members of the government. Anyway thanks Jana for finding interesting sources in english.
> And I'm fed up with all those politicians, proud to impose to Europe a "French model", a "French vision". I don't care about "French ambition", I only want a text which is fair for every single european citizen, being from Czech Republic, Greece, Spain, Lettonia etc etc


Hi Severine, I think you mean Lithuania. You wrote Lettonia


----------



## Sev

Nocciolina said:
			
		

> Hi Severine, I think you mean Lithuania. You wrote Lettonia


Well I meant *Latvia*, but Jana has already corrected my mistake in post #17.


----------



## Lluna1977

Hello...

I just wanted to say taht I'm soooooooo  glad that french people voted NO !

I did it when I was given the opportunity to do it, and I really can't understand how people in Spain voted for the YES.

I'd like to congratulate french people for being sensitive and taking this issue seriously.


----------

