From: Philippe Verdy (verdy_p@wanadoo.fr)
Date: Thu May 19 2005 - 08:00:33 CDT
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk@qaya.org>
> The French may well reject the new European Constitution because it seems
> too Anglo-Saxon - and we may reject it because it seems too French!
This Constitutional Referendum is a so hot topic in France these days, with
so many meetings, and contradictions within the same parties... But the more
it goes, and the more it is likely to pass with a moderate but sufficient
Yes.
In fact these days, the supporters of yes have much stronger and numerous
arguments than those of No, that have simply forgotten to demonstrate they
can propose an alternative. People that wanted a Yes but did not express
themselves are now very active after being frightened with the supporters of
No. So the Yes vote intentions are now growing again above 53%. France does
not need a strong Yes (or No) to accept and endorse the decision of a
democratic vote.
In fact, most of those that want to vote no are those that have not been
able to read the effective text (for example I have still not received a
copy of it, so I have read it on the Internet), just to see what was
effectively new in it: about a dozen of articles only in part I, and nothing
new in part II.
Even in my department, which is headed by a strong denfender of "No" (De
Villiers), all the people I know feel very implied. During those debates,
lots of articles of the Treaty were effectively read by them, ad everybody
recognizes that part II of this Constitution is already in application, and
there's not much new in Part I. Part III is judged too much technical.
I'm not sure that rench will accept to risk voting No, and leave France on
the side, under the terms of the previous Treaty of Nice. If it happens,
France will assist to the start of lengthy discussions with other European
countries, and to the impossibility to advance. But I don't know what France
can claim in the existing treaty to other countries to adopt it. Most
probably, another vote would be organized one year after, with very minor
changes in part III.
Some (socialist) supporters of "No" feel that part III should not have been
part of the text, but negociated, and renegociable over time, because all
this part is made of transitory articles to adapt the national legislations
with the II first parts of the Treaty.I think that fundamentally, the left
parties are not opposed to the Treaty; but it is wellknown that Frenches do
not always obey in their vote to the logic of parties. So even the left and
right parties that are divided on the subject have a large base of
supporters of yes.
Many people in European countries are envying the Frenches for these
constitutional debates, and they learn from it. Well, if it passes on Sunday
May 29, nobody will say after that the text was not ratified democratically
and without asking public opinions. (I've learnt that Greeks want a
referendum now and people reject the silent ratification by the Greek
parlement).
(Side note: I vote Yes, if you have not understood).
> But we did accept this paper size system, and in fact before the French
> did.
It's still not effective in all administrative documents: many of them use
very unusual formats, and you can't reproduce them easily on copiers: see
for example the revenue tax billing paper (only the annual declaration uses
A3 form now that this declaration can also be performed over the Internet),
bank accounting notes, Social Security accounting notes, VAT declarations,
medical prescriptions, and all sorts of documents that you often need to
provide copies.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 19 2005 - 08:01:29 CDT