French No Vote on European Constitution Rattles Continent

The New York Times ^ | May 31, 2005 | ELAINE SCIOLINO

[DJ Taylor]

PARIS, May 30 - The shock waves of France's rejection of a constitution for Europe reverberated throughout the Continent on Monday, with Britain suggesting that it might cancel its own popular vote on the document and the naysayers in the Netherlands gaining even more confidence that a no vote will prevail in a referendum there on Wednesday.

In France, the vote plunged the center-right government into crisis. President Jacques Chirac will announce "decisions concerning the government" and make a declaration on French television on Tuesday.

The statement was interpreted to mean that he would dismiss Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin and reshuffle his cabinet as a direct result of the repudiation of Mr. Chirac's leadership in a referendum on the European Union constitution on Sunday.

There has been open speculation for months that Mr. Raffarin would be replaced if the constitution failed in France, and after a 30-minute meeting with Mr. Chirac in Élysée Palace on Monday, the affable but unpopular prime minister said, "There will be developments today or tomorrow."

[Smile-n-Win]

That is why even though one has already rejected it, it may not be the end.

Ah, they just voted against it before they voted for it. Now I understand. ;=)

BTW, I do recognize that there may be another version of the constitution proposed. But the death of this constitution is not likely but certain. (Assuming that things proceed as agreed upon--which I admit is not always how it happens in Europe. That is why I said "European logic.")

[aspiring.hillbilly]

The very idea of applying a constitution as thick as a phone book to the various countries in Europe is as nutty an idea as the eurowienies can devise, a building block to one world government. Finally the frog population has some sense.

[Bigh4u2]

So you are trying to say the the French would be NOT answerable to the courts in the Hague?

[dangus]

>> The question I am raising if when (if ever) a politician has the rigth to defy public opinion. <<

Absolutely... when the voting public has the right to use upcoming elections as a referendum on the initiative, or to say, "never again." Sometimes, a politican can believe that the public may oppose him on an issue, but that his support of the issue is consistent with larger themes which the public does support.

But this is different. There is no larger theme, the issue is whether the people will remain French, or become European citizens. And future voter disapproval cannot reverse what is done, nor declare "never again!"

[Bigh4u2]

"If you mean the international criminal court then YES. "

And you don't see this as a loss of sovereignty?? Of course it is. The French cannot ignore the Criminal Court because the Government of France gave up the Citizens rights to it.

[Bigh4u2]

They are already answerable to the courts in Hague - treaty or no treaty. "

Missed this part.

Bull.

If the French government hadn't signed on the Hague, then they would be no more answerable than the U.S. which DIDN'T.

[GOP_1900AD]

Yeee ha! EU Non!

[GOP_1900AD]

Now, let us silence the globalists here in the US.

[johnb838]

That is the one thing you gotta love about the French, they are even more bloody-minded than we are. They simply do not give a sh!t about what anybody else thinks about them. They are purely selfish.

They may be surprised, I think their stock just went up dramatically in the United states.