Comments on: Wrong question, wrong answers

By: The_Bee

The_Bee — Sat, 23 Apr 2005 09:35:27 +0000

Hello,
it’s quite funny to see that some questions are the same in GB and in France. I’m a 24 years old french and european citizen and I don’t know yet what I’m going to vote on may 29th at the French referendum for the constitutional treaty.
I feel 100% European, I like Europe and the fact to be a Eeuropean citizen. But I am not yet really convinced by the ‘YES’. Everyone says that the treaties in place are not good at all and the French ‘yes’-partisans say that the new treaty will be better. If you read the constitutional-treaty (I’ve read parts of the french version) you can see that it is only a mix of the applied treaties. The Nice treaty is the third part of the constitution and the second part which is about Human Rights already exists (for french speakers : http://www.ensemblepourleoui.fr/IMG/Constitution-europeenne.pdf) so I don’t really see what is new and what can improve the actual european policy. The problem that we encounter in France is that the ‘No’ is in a good place to win because everyone for the ‘yes’ that is interviewed on TV or Radio is far less convincing that a ‘no’-partisan.
This morning, I wanted to know what is the position of English people and what are the answers of English ‘yes’-voters to the questions of ‘no’ ones.
It’s a pity that the communication between European people on such subjets is not so great ! Because we have to vote for a European constitution and we don’t know anything about what are thinking our European neighbours on that constitution. It could be a good initiative to create a European tv or website where every European (from every country) could dicuss about that treaty without any pressure and in total objetivity. I say this because I know that most of my friends are thinking that a real and constructive European debate would be far more intersting that all the ‘debates’ already done in France. The only speech I found intersting wasn’t the speech that President Chirac as done on French tv TF1 but a meeting between the European Parliament President Borell-Fontenelles and the French members of Parliament.
Well, I have still a big number of questions in mind and I hope I’ll be well informed before voting. Then, I’ll continue to read blogs and articles on the constitution, French or European, and I hope that this vote will be impartial and not pollued by typical French questions for which the Frech Governement never gives the good answers.

By: Publius, la constitution europ�enne

Publius, la constitution europ�enne — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:29:32 +0000

Wrong question, wrong answers

European Democracy a ce post, Wrong question, wrong answers, (fausse question, fausses r�ponses) en anglais, sur la

By: David Weman

David Weman — Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:06:57 +0000

Welcome back! You were missed.

By: Ken

Ken — Sun, 13 Feb 2005 08:44:02 +0000

Interesting post, I believe however that you have misinterpreted the situation, this is not, and cannot be an EU wide referendum. It is in fact an internal matter for each member state, each must decide separately to either accept or reject the Constitution for their own reasons, because it transfers authority from their own state to the EU. As such the issues are contentious, that is why although suggested an EU wide referendum was rejected, we cannot for instance have the people of Spain deciding if the people of Britain can accept the document, that would be totally undemocratic because it affects each state differently. This is further complicated as several states are not holding a referendum so we have no way of knowing the feeling of the people in those states.

The real reason the British government are mounting an in or out campaign, is to frighten the people into voting yes, if they vote no obviously the present treaties are still in place. So it is dishonest of the government to pursue this line because that is not the question posed.

Neither of your suggestion are acceptable because they ignore the fact that each country has accepted the previous treaties in the clear understanding that any changes will require their agreement, in fact the Union has been built on that principal. So if that agreement is now to be removed, we must then look at the preceding treaties to see if they would have passed the democratic hurdle, if it had been clear that they did not have the power to veto any changes.

The only democratic way forward in the case of a rejection is to place the Constitution in the dustbin and start again, and this time to produce changes that are acceptable to all 25 members. That will have to include the answers to the problems you have outlined, because if they are unacceptable now, to find some way of forcing the issue, will not remove the disparity of views but will build them into the system, which will have consequences for the future stability of the Union.

By: early-days fan

early-days fan — Sun, 13 Feb 2005 00:16:10 +0000

You’re back :-D