French Parliament Backs Treaty the Majority of Voters Opposed

[frihetsivrare]

French parliament backs EU treaty 
 
Mr Jouyet said new life would be breathed into the European ideal
France's parliament has voted to adopt the EU reform treaty, three years after a French No dealt a fatal blow to the European Constitution.
MPs approved the law by a margin of 336-52 and the upper house, the Senate, later also approved the vote.

Now it has passed, President Nicolas Sarkozy will ratify the treaty.

Hungary, Malta, Slovenia and Romania have already done so. Ireland is the only EU member state due to hold a referendum on the treaty.

All 27 member states must approve the treaty before it can come into force as scheduled in 2009.

'Historic moment'

France's opposition Socialists were split on the issue and an attempt by the party to force a referendum was voted down by the National Assembly on Wednesday night.

President Sarkozy had refused to have a public vote.

Mr Sarkozy's spokesman David Martinon said of the parliamentary approval: "This is excellent news, a great victory for France which has gone from being the country holding up Europe to being the one that pulled Europe out of gridlock."

Europe Minister Jean-Pierre Jouyet told parliament on Thursday that ratification was a "historic moment for France" and would send a "strong signal" to the rest of Europe before the six-month French presidency of the EU begins in July.

Before the vote could take place, the upper and lower houses of the French parliament met in Congress at Versailles on Monday to delete a reference in the French constitution to the ill-fated EU constitutional treaty.
 

[frihetsivrare]

Why did Sarkozy oppose a public vote?

[dead0man]

You'll get your constitution whether you want it or not!


More proof Democracy doesn't work.

[Verily]

You'll get your constitution whether you want it or not!


More proof Democracy doesn't work.

Well, yeah. The people opposed the constitution for totally ridiculous nationalist and/or hardcore leftist ideals (depending on the voter). The government is making the right choice; elections are referenda enough.

[dead0man]

The right choice in your opinion, the voters thought otherwise.

[Verily]

The right choice in your opinion, the voters thought otherwise.

The voters are rarely worth trusting with anything, even when I agree with the majority. When they make the right decision, it's usually for the wrong reasons.

[frihetsivrare]

I would support trade blocs between European nations only because of their size.  However the European Union is too much.  The euro is also too much.  As I outlined before, similar nations should use the same currency (Scandinavian countries, British Isles, others), not a whole continent.  The EU is simply a bureaucratic mess, which needs to go.  

Sarkozy denied the people of France their voice because he does not agree with them.  The same thing happened in Denmark, which is worse because its Prime Minister previously said that there would be a referendum.

Governments can never be trusted.

[dead0man]

The right choice in your opinion, the voters thought otherwise.

The voters are rarely worth trusting with anything, even when I agree with the majority. When they make the right decision, it's usually for the wrong reasons.

I agree, but there is no better alternative is there?

[Verily]

The right choice in your opinion, the voters thought otherwise.

The voters are rarely worth trusting with anything, even when I agree with the majority. When they make the right decision, it's usually for the wrong reasons.

I agree, but there is no better alternative is there?

The alternative is to not hold referenda. The public is very easily swayed to the wrong side of an issue by irrational arguments. To some extent, so are legislators (and others are motivated by a desire to be reelected), but generally I am willing to put slightly higher trust in the decision-making skills of people who make decisions for a living. Legislatures will still get things wrong a lot of the time, but it will be less often than the public at large. Elections are still about issues, but when they are true elections, not referenda, they are about a broad spectrum of issues rather than a single issue, and legislators are elected who only agree somewhat with the wrong-headed population.

[dead0man]

I can't argue with that.  I still think there are times when referenda might be a good idea, but overall, I concur.

[Math]

Well, yeah. The people opposed the constitution for totally ridiculous nationalist and/or hardcore leftist ideals (depending on the voter).

Oh, please, not all the people. There is some good reasons to oppose the constitution...

[Hash]

Good. Hopefully Le Pen and Besancenot won't complain for too long.

[Hash]

Searched for results and found this:

Voting: 410
Valid Votes: 388
Majority: 195
FOR: 336
AGAINST: 52

UMP
For: 206
Against: 5
Abstain: 3
Not voting: 1

PS-PRG-MRC-DVG
For: 121
Against: 25 (Emmanuelli, Taubira, Hutin etc)
Abstain: 17

GDR
For: 2 (2 Greens)
Against: 18
Abstain: 2 (2 Greens)

NC
For: 6

NI
For: 1 (Thierry Benoit )
Against: 4 (1 MPF, 2 DLR, 1 MoDem)

The idiots Bayrou and Montebourg didn't vote. Surprising in Montebourg's case, IIRC he was very vocal against it. Fabius too didn't vote.

http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/scrutins/jo0083.asp

[Jens]

I would support trade blocs between European nations only because of their size.  However the European Union is too much.  The euro is also too much.  As I outlined before, similar nations should use the same currency (Scandinavian countries, British Isles, others), not a whole continent.  The EU is simply a bureaucratic mess, which needs to go. 

Sarkozy denied the people of France their voice because he does not agree with them.  The same thing happened in Denmark, which is worse because its Prime Minister previously said that there would be a referendum.

Governments can never be trusted.

Fogh Rasmussen never said that there would be a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, on the contrary, Lisbon was designed to ensure that a Danish referendum wouldn't be necessary.
That said, I completely disagree with your assumption that certain countries would corporate better together. Ethnicity isn't the only factor when working together. French and Polish politicians might find common ground and Danish and Portuguese likewise.

[Bono]

Anyone catching the awsome action in Slovakia? Seems the treaty is being blocked in parliament!

[Hash]

Anyone catching the awsome action in Slovakia? Seems the treaty is being blocked in parliament!

Well the government is composed of Social Democrats and fascists/racists. Not that surprising.

[Јas]

Anyone catching the awsome action in Slovakia? Seems the treaty is being blocked in parliament!

The opposition are simply playing games with the government. When it comes down to it, they'll back the Treaty.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Well, yeah. The people opposed the constitution for totally ridiculous nationalist and/or hardcore leftist ideals (depending on the voter). The government is making the right choice; elections are referenda enough.

For sure this treaty hasn't been mainly removes for far-right or far-left reasons.

I live in France, am French, and followed the campaign.

French didn't understand anything to this treat, and no one really succeed to clearly explain it, they didn't see where this could lead them, they were not happy about the way that was taking our economy and our country. So, mostly lost, frightened and/or irritated by all of this, they said NO.

Well, it was in May 2005. Now we're in February 2008 and there was a general election in may 2007. By these last elections French massively voted (85%) and, enough largely for a general election, chose Sarkozy (53%).

Sarkozy has always been clear with the treat saying he was ok with it and saying he'll give the "new" to the parliament. Then, all parties, except far-left and far-right ones, are ok with this treat. And now that this last general election has been done, I think that French don't really care anymore about this "new" treat and the fact it goes by parliament. It gives only poor not heard claims for extremist far-parties, just a kind of small politicking agitation...

Concerning my opinion on this treat, I think it's the first step to a less and less strong political Europe, I think that this one is done. To me, the only credible future for Europe is to strengthen its links with North America. I think the future will must these 2 regions of the world to do it, let us see...

[frihetsivrare]

I don't understand why there has to be one European culture.  Why can't each nation be separate from the others?  There is no need for one Europe.  As I said before, there should only be trade blocs between countries (size), and separate currencies.  However, areas of one country that are close to neighbouring countries should accept money from those places.  I would say within 100 kilometres.

At this point each nation is essentially a province of the European Union. 

[Jake]

I don't understand why there has to be one European culture.  Why can't each nation be separate from the others?  There is no need for one Europe.  As I said before, there should only be trade blocs between countries (size), and separate currencies.  However, areas of one country that are close to neighbouring countries should accept money from those places.  I would say within 100 kilometres.

At this point each nation is essentially a province of the European Union. 

Uh, economics? A Europe united under the same trade/monetary policy has advantages over a Europe of 30 some odd trade policies using 30 some odd currencies.

The second part just makes no sense at all, unless you're using an extremely bastardized definition of province.

[Hash]

I don't understand why there has to be one European culture.  Why can't each nation be separate from the others?  There is no need for one Europe.  As I said before, there should only be trade blocs between countries (size), and separate currencies.  However, areas of one country that are close to neighbouring countries should accept money from those places.  I would say within 100 kilometres.

At this point each nation is essentially a province of the European Union. 

Uh, economics? A Europe united under the same trade/monetary policy has advantages over a Europe of 30 some odd trade policies using 30 some odd currencies.

The second part just makes no sense at all, unless you're using an extremely bastardized definition of province.

I agree. The Euro is quite beneficial to the European economy and makes travel between countries much easier. After all, we live in an age of globalization and exchange. The Euro is much better than 27 currencies.

[Хahar 🤔]

I don't understand why there has to be one European culture.  Why can't each nation be separate from the others?  There is no need for one Europe.  As I said before, there should only be trade blocs between countries (size), and separate currencies.  However, areas of one country that are close to neighbouring countries should accept money from those places.  I would say within 100 kilometres.

At this point each nation is essentially a province of the European Union. 

Uh, economics? A Europe united under the same trade/monetary policy has advantages over a Europe of 30 some odd trade policies using 30 some odd currencies.

The second part just makes no sense at all, unless you're using an extremely bastardized definition of province.

I agree. The Euro is quite beneficial to the European economy and makes travel between countries much easier. After all, we live in an age of globalization and exchange. The Euro is much better than 27 currencies.

We're dealing with a conspiracy theorist here.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Europe has always been a dream since Roman Empire felt, but never reality.

Some as Charlemagne, Charles Quint, Napoleon and even Hitler (ok, this one took a very special way which I really disapprove but it was one), and maybe others I forget, tried by force. No one succeeded.

From 1945, after Hitler's defeat, we tried to do it by peace and dialog.

It began to become more concrete with Roma Treat (1957) and that's now 51 years we try to continue on this way.

Clearly, from 1957 Europe has never really been political, Europe has always been a market and peoples who wanted Europe thought the market will carry the politics. Well, it didn't, or just on few things, not relevant.

But the will, the "dream", to go over economy and to do a political Europe was still present in some minds here or there, there was just a minority who really wanted it but it was here and the majority of minds were in a sort of "why not". And so that, some were in charged to do a constitution and it was an ancient president of the French Republic, Valéry Giscard Destaing, who led it. It gave the ancient project of constitution, and France said "NO" so did Netherlands a few time after, both of them by referendum. To me, here died the "dream" of Europe.

Personally, a long time ago, when I wasn't aware of such or such realities I would have liked a big powerful Europe, but I had to go back on Earth and to realize it was impossible, French and Dutch vote were to me a big confirmation of it.

I think this Lisbon treat is the maximum that Europe can politically do. As I said, to me, its future is across the Atlantic, and so is the future of the US, this for maximum the middle term. I think there are big chances for that big geopolitical events force these 2 regions to more and more link themselves.

Well, again, let us see...