French voters reject EU charter (constitution)

BBC ^ | May 30, 2005

[Betaille]

French voters have rejected the proposed EU constitution in Sunday's referendum, according to an exit poll. The poll quoted by French TV gives the "No" side 55% - in line with surveys published in the run-up to the vote.

[leprechaun9]

The French must also be injected with the DARE gene (just like the DEMOCRAPs). They just say NO to everything!

[Destro]

I singled out Boeing as one example because it was in the news vs the EU - of course other industries exists that can be said to be in the same boat.

I will dumb it down for you - we conservatives used to call indirect govt subsidies to American companies 'corporate welfare' - ring a bell?

[RightWhale]

France is on a losing streak that goes back a ways. The business with Algeria was the kind of thing that would cause a lot of peoples to turn inward, on a small scale much as the loss of Baghdad to the Mongols caused the Muslims to retreat to square one and stay there for a long time. It would not be a surprise for many French to be distrustful of outside aliiances--they have not been well served.

[wolf78]

"The American Civil War was one of the bloodiest in the history of the world up to that point. Sherman's march through the south was devastating--every field of crops, building, village, and city burned to the ground in the wake of his path. We Americans are quite familiar with the suffering and carnage and hell of war."

Ok, maybe my irony didn't work in this case. I apologize. I actually took a course on the American Civil in unversity, so I actually studied the history of the civil war a bit (we also read a few novels like "The Red Badge of Courage"). And you are right, it was bloody.

I'll give you an example of what I mean: When my father was 9 years old, he and my grandparents fled to the countryside, because in 1944 basically every city was burnt to the ground. Unfortunately some Waffen-SS idiots still continued to fight for a lost cause, so he had to witness American soldiers and said Germans killing each other on the streets from his hinding place in the cellar.

My father fervently hates the French, because he had to grow up in the French-occupied zone, and everybody there could see how much better off those in the American and British zone were. While the French were dismantling the last factories, American soldiers distributed chocolate among children. But despite all the negative feelings towards the French he still prefers having the European Union. Why? Because he had to witness the killings at the age of nine.

And yes, I am quite aware that Germany brought this on itself. The biggest enemy of the German people was actually Hitler himself.

And no, I don't wanna compare numbers. I just wanted to be sarcastic.

"Yes, I do see. You want to play a numbers game. You are saying that you Europeans have suffered so much and therefore we Americans just don't understand you."

Most Americans don't, just as most Germans and other Europeans don't understand the inner workings of the U.S.. Personally I find this tragic.

" The only reason you Europeans haven't continued to kill millions over the past 60 years is the presence of American troops in your country. But don't worry, those American troops will be gone sometime over the next 10 years. Let us hope that your great suffering will have given you some sense of maturity not to repeat your past predilections."

That is pure nonsense. I am too young to "have suffered" anyway, just as you probably haven't partaken in the Civil War. Again: My sarcasm was out of place, apologize. BUT: Different peoples made different experiences - and these experiences play into the decisions politicians make. The main reason for that stupid anti-americanism here in Europe, was above all, LACK OF UNDERSTANDING. Just like with those prejudices about Europe on the other side of the Atlantic... but that's exactly why I find it better to talk to each other.

"But don't worry, those American troops will be gone sometime over the next 10 years. Let us hope that your great suffering will have given you some sense of maturity not to repeat your past predilections."

That would be most regrettable. Although Germany doesn't NEED American army bases for finacial reasons, the vast mayority of the people that live close to these installations WANT their neighbors and friends to stay. Practically all of the American soldiers I spoke to also prefer Germany to Romania anyway ;-).

[wolf78]

"Oh, of course. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise, in fact, Napoleon had a sort of proto-EU in hand before the first exile.

In any case the "philosophy" of AH was entirely derivative. What was new, what shook the foundations of Europe in the 1930s, was the emotion, the fusion of the romantic with the modern and scientific."

It is a thorough pleasure to read your insightful remarks, really! And yes, that is a valid point you make there.

"I lived in Europe in the 70s, and the young soi-disant Europeans who constantly repeated "we're not French, we're not Germans, we're Europaischers" were not at all convincing to me. Maybe things have changed.

There was and is, though, a deep spiritual longing to believe."

But I think the "longing to believe" is an integral part of the human psyche, or, as one could say, a construction flaw. This flaw probably doesn't doom us to destroy each other (As I said, I am rather optimistic in this regard), but it is factor to be reckoned with. The fusion of "the romantic with the modern and scientific" actually isn't the only example of this longing to believe. The typically anglo-saxon "philosophy of history" actually served more or less the same purpose, as it presented a "course of the empire" (from east to west" to justify anglo-saxon supremacy.

Although I'm aware that the German history and identity can be very problematic at times, I find it necessary to point out that this line of thinking isn't purely German or European. It was, to a certain degree, the "esprit du temps" of the 20th century. Also, almost every kind of religiously motived politics goes into a similar direction.

"To believe in what-that's the question. To believe in Man, to believe in community, to believe in the primacy of the (greatly expanded) tribe (which still does not include God's chosen)-Arbeit macht frei.

Beware."

Yes. I fully agree. That's why I, personally, believe in democracy, in society (Gesellschaft) rather than community (Gemeinschaft), in the seperation of church and state and so forth... that's why I consider myself a conservative (with a touch of classical liberalism) and not a nationalist.

Nationalism, i.e. the belief in the supremacy of one's extended tribe, is a threat to every democracy, not only in Europe.

[Jim Noble]

But I think the "longing to believe" is an integral part of the human psyche, or, as one could say, a construction flaw. This flaw probably doesn't doom us to destroy each other (As I said, I am rather optimistic in this regard), but it is factor to be reckoned with

Well, I think it's part of the design, which should lead us towards God-but when we turn away from Him, the desire is still there, and is easily abused.

Nationalism, i.e. the belief in the supremacy of one's extended tribe, is a threat to every democracy, not only in Europe.

I don't think nationalism as a healthy and normal regard for one's own extended family necessarily implies supremacy, much less an aggressive, hostile supremacy.

THAT requires something extra-which in the case of the Austrian corporal was the fusion of a certain mythology with modern technology.

By the way, welcome to FR. Sind-Sie Deutscher?

[stripes1776]

That is pure nonsense. I am too young to "have suffered" anyway, just as you probably haven't partaken in the Civil War.

Thanks for clearing this up. I thought you were using national (not personal but vicarious) suffering of the past to make sure there was no understanding of national intentions in the present. I see now that was not your meaning, though it seems that irony and sarcasm helped to cloud your words.

The main reason for that stupid anti-americanism here in Europe, was above all, LACK OF UNDERSTANDING. Just like with those prejudices about Europe on the other side of the Atlantic... but that's exactly why I find it better to talk to each other.

Yes, a conversation is a good thing if it brings understanding of the argument into focus. We may not always agree, but at least we should try to be clear about what our differing points of view are. We may even find areas of agreement.

I do believe that Germans and Americans have more in common than not, even though our national histories are quite different. The ideas upon which America is founded are European to the core in that that is where they originated from. And though those European ideas developed in somehwhat directions in American soil than they did in Europe itself, we are still more alike than not.

[wolf78]

"I don't think nationalism as a healthy and normal regard for one's own extended family necessarily implies supremacy, much less an aggressive, hostile supremacy.

THAT requires something extra-which in the case of the Austrian corporal was the fusion of a certain mythology with modern technology."

I wouldn't call that nationalism. In the case of "a healthy and normal regard for one's extended family", I would rather speak of "patriotism". But that is, as so many other things, only a question of definition (Speaking of which: It's even worse with the term "liberalism", which in Europe means more or less "Republican-style market economics" *LOL). On the subject matter I mostly agree with you.

The important thing is that, for me, patriotism is the exact opposite of an agressive, hostile nationalism / strife for supremacy. But my president, Horst Koehler (of whom I am great fan), put it so much more nicely:

"Patriotism and being cosmopolitan are not opposites, but complement each other. Only those who respect themselves can also respect others."

Other speeches by Horst Koehler: http://bundespraesident.de/en/-,11165,0/Speeches.htm?link=bpr_liste

Und damit ist natürlich auch klar, daß ich Deutscher bin. Wobei ich als Mitt-Zwanziger nicht unbedingt auf das "Sie" bestehe. Duzen ist schon ok ;-).

[wolf78]

I too, like so many (but by far not enough) of my compatriots, agree that we "have more in common than not, even though our national histories are quite different" and that although "those European ideas developed in somehwhat directions in American soil than they did in Europe itself, we are still more alike than not." That is my firm belief and also my vision for the future.

The regrettable recent estrangements between the US and the EU always remind me of Abe Lincoln's closing words of his first inaugural adress:

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, [...], will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

I believe this ideal also holds true with regard to the American-European cooperation.

[bert]

.....To find working solutions that benefit all the states, you have to get them to work together.....

For this reason the assimilation will continue to occur gradually and incrementally unless a charismatic leader arises that can unite the various factions.

It is difficult to imagine a charismatic leader who can campaign all over and magically get people to follow his lead down a path to assimilation.

[Jim Noble]

Duzen ist schon ok

Danke schön

[Ramonchito]

Russia has much to learn from the European experience - and not only Russia but the rest of the world. But there is a big difference! The emerging Russian states that rose from the ashes of the old USSR is not fired up with same ultra-nationalism that motivates the individual European nations that comprises the present day Federation of United Europe. The Americans was the first nation in history to successfully put up a federal government and the American experience was widely copied in the constitutions of the world during the last two centuries. But a federation form of government is totally a new concept of government in world politics and in this respect, Europe leads and has much to teach the world. The difference between a federal government and a federation is the degree of control the federal government has over the member states. Generally, a federal government exercises a greater degree of control over the state government than a federation. In a federation, the exact opposite prevails. In a federation, the federal government has a much less degree of control over the state governments than a federal government. In a federation, the principle of equality of all member states is the most overriding concern. How unity could be achieved when each of the member states in a federation are completely sovereign and are endeavoring to increase such sovereignty and independence as the decades pass by is the principle problem of a government organized under the aegis of federationalism. In a federal government it is generally conceded that the federal government is supreme over the state government although the state government is given wide latitude to conduct its affairs independently in accordance with the Constitution.

Although Russia has much to learn from the European experience, the situation in Russia is vastly different from the situation in Europe. The Russian Constitution, in my opinion, is adequate for the needs of the entire former Russian empire.

[AFPhys]

>>>>"One of my liberal friends delights in saying to me, "Communism has never failed - It hasn't been tried yet." He maintains that the whole world must be communist for the experiment to be properly conducted."

>>"That kind of makes sense in its own perverted way. The communist ideal is a world where everyone has equal wealth--and if the whole world were communist, then everyone would indeed be equally poor. "

Indeed, it does make sense. That is exactly the utopia these folks are striving for.

I outgrew this when I was about 16 years old (before college - I was precocious): Communism is a GREAT system if you have PERFECT PEOPLE, who always will have uppermost in their minds the best welfare of the whole society, not just themselves. You and I know that isn't true. Marx and the liberal idiots never heard of Cain and Abel, and Adam and Eve, so they missed the most important lesson of the reality of human beings.

Communism won't and can't work unless ALL people are perfect - working without thought for their own good, but only for the good of the society. There can be no competition or it fails.

[inquest]

Und damit ist natürlich auch klar, daß ich Deutscher bin.

"And dammit, it's naturally clear that I'm German"?

I probably didn't get that right. ;-)

[Moorings]

The US Democrats are dangerously flirting with this idea, and when they fully embrace it, which they will if they lose a few more elections, they will become truly socialist.

They accuse Republicans of tyranny, to cover up their own shift away from democracy. They try to keep people looking elsewhere, while they circumvent the will of the people through the judiciary.

[Happy2BMe]

Unless the GOP sobers up real, real fast and comes to grip with the border invasion, it will be the dims who will get the last laugh.

Wait and see.

[Vicomte13]

It was in the air.
It was obvious.

It is now obvious what will happen next: Chi-chi will fire Raffarin, and appoint his poodle, Dominique de Villepin. If Chirac had real vision, he would appoint Dominique de Villiers as his Prime Minister!

But, of course, this would be reaching outside of his crony circle. And that is inconceivable for him.

There is so much hand-wringing on the part of the frustrated in France over this that it is almost comical. The sun came up this morning in spite of the "non", and it will come up tomorrow and the next day too. Nothing has fallen apart other than a certain approach to European construction which was akin in people's minds to bringing Mexico into the United States.

I have read with some interest and much fatigue the multitude of threads on this site concerning the referendum, and I am amazed at the very strange view that many Americans have of France and Europe.

Let us put to rest one notion: this was not a vote to protect some sort of socialist utopia. The equivalent in America to this referendum would be if a failed American President, President Carter, had negotiated a treaty whereby Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama and Haiti were all to simultaneously join the United States, not as states of the US, but as co-equal countries, without borders for the flow of goods and people, and with transfer payments from the US to all of them. American business elites would look and see the opportunity to cut labor costs by 90%, and would be enthusiastic. This is why the American President and his Republican Party do not close the US border with Mexico: because the economic advantage of very cheap labor to business interests outweighs the complaints of nationalists. American people would, rightly, look at these cuts of "Labor costs" by 90% as being a prescription to lose every manufacturing job in America to people in very poor countries without labor laws or protections. The people in America today who want to close the borders are not socialists. And people who see the threat to jobs in throwing open the doors wide to export jobs and import cheap labor are realistic.

[Sonny M]

Free trade zones can't last very long without there being powerful calls for some type of superintending authority, especially in Europe.

There version of a "Free Trade Zone" is actually based on the United States.

Which is part of the reason they are in a rush to dump soverignty, so they can be states in a Union like us, but they have totally screwed up.

[FranceForBushInAustin]

By market value I meant what is the difference between a $10M contract and a $20M contract? The answer is : $10M. The government will only check if the money has been spent.

Agree on the product but which one ?

the future airliner or the next military gizmo ?
That is what Boeing is doing, take from Peter to pay Paul.

I am all for bids in a free market but when it is rigged between Boeing and Lockheed ... ( see scancal that cost Boeing exec's job )

There is market value in building airplanes ( I am in that business btw) and Boeing, Airbus are my clients and they both received R&D money from their government. The SBIT, STTR,... programs are no different from the EU sponsored projects

[dervish]

"The SBIT, STTR,... programs are no different from the EU sponsored projects"

SBIR and STRR are grants to small companies. This does not apply to Boeing or Airbus.


"By market value I meant what is the difference between a $10M contract and a $20M contract? The answer is : $10M. The government will only check if the money has been spent.'

Not understanding you here.

"the future airliner or the next military gizmo ?
That is what Boeing is doing, take from Peter to pay Paul."

Are you saying that Boeing is subsidizing its own commercial lines through its profits in military lines?

So what. We have now gone from calling the purchase of a product a subsidy to labelling it a subsidy how a company spends its money internally. Diversified product lines are not a subsidy.

"The new approach from Mr Mandelson came at a critical time for Airbus's latest aircraft, the A350. Airbus is applying to the UK, France, Spain and Germany to receive billions of pounds of state financing for the launch of its A350 jet. The company has warned that if the UK Government does not rubber-stamp a £400m aid package for the A350, development and production due to be carried out in the UK will have to go elsewhere. "

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/story.jsp?story=642819