Submit your comments on this article | ||
Europe | ||
EU constitution needs 'second chance': Giscard | ||
2006-05-24 | ||
France should give the European Union constitutional treaty a "second chance" after its voters rejected it last year, former French president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing said in an interview published Tuesday. Giscard told the Financial Times that the treaty, whose drafting he oversaw as president of the European Convention, should be reconsidered after next year's presidential elections in France. "I wish that we will have a new chance, a second chance, for the constitutional project," following its rejection in a referendum in May last year, said Giscard, 80. "There are 16 out of 25 countries that have ratified the European constitution. That's to say there's a qualified majority. There is an agreed text," he told the British daily. "The concern now is the modalities of adopting it," said Giscard, leaving open the possibility of another referendum or a vote in parliament. Giscard said voters rejected the constitution — which Brussels argues is needed to prevent decision-making gridlock in the expanding bloc — because of the French government's unpopularity and a poor campaign to sell it to voters. "If we had chosen to have a parliamentary vote last year the constitution would have been easily adopted. It is the method that has provoked the rejection," he said. "Legally, we could vote again," he said. Nor would it be "anti-democratic" to hold another referendum, he added. "People have the right to change their opinion. The people might consider they made a mistake."
| ||
Posted by:Seafarious |
#14 whahahahahahaaaa |
Posted by: Besoeker 2006-05-24 16:20 |
#13 I hear he's appealing the results to the 9th Circuit... |
Posted by: Seafarious 2006-05-24 16:17 |
#12 Ah, yes...the old "We failed to get it passed the last time so let's give it a second chance so we can really cheat the vote and make it come out the way we want it to" ruse. If at first you don't succeed figure out a better way to cheat. |
Posted by: FOTSGreg 2006-05-24 16:04 |
#11 Geez - quit beating that poor horse and let it die in peace. |
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-05-24 14:33 |
#10 When I said that the Yes side had a budget three or four times larger (1) I was speaking of ropaganda proper. I didn't include the editorializing and the pressuring of voters for the Yes made by MSM. If we were to include the cost of MSM advocacy then the Yes side outspent the No side ten to one at the vary least. And they were still blown out of the water. (1) due to the leadership of all big parties being for the Yes, the No side was, outside the Communist Party who is no longer a major party, composed from dissidents without access to party main bank account and of minor parties who have limited resources because they get no public funding. Also the access to public TV is regulated according to the number of represntatives of each party so there was virtually no space for the NO since party dissidents don't count and outside the Communists no pro-NO party had representatives. |
Posted by: JFM 2006-05-24 10:34 |
#9 "We'll keep voting on it til you idiots get it right!" |
Posted by: Frank G 2006-05-24 10:10 |
#8 It's a dead skunk in the middle of the road. The EU government would be so removed from the people that there would be NO accountability. Repackage the EU constitution for a second chance, Valery. Have a ball. It is still a dead skunk. |
Posted by: Alaska Paul 2006-05-24 10:06 |
#7 Well, Valery did write the thing, so I see the logic in him wanting the voters see things his way. Unfortunately, the voters caught on that Valery considers "the public" to be perhaps only slightly brighter than cattle. Also unfortunately, I've read elsewhere that the EU gov'ts have been quietly enacting many of the provisions anyway. |
Posted by: Seafarious 2006-05-24 08:55 |
#6 "People have the right to change their opinion. The people might consider they made a mistake." Would you be singing this tune if the treaty had passed the first time? No? Didn't think so. |
Posted by: Spot 2006-05-24 08:42 |
#5 polischticking Joe, there's a word which should make it's way in the language. |
Posted by: phil_b 2006-05-24 06:39 |
#4 Joe, activists are NOT going to be explaining, or not explaining properly, why the EU is necessary Simple, it isn't, so they don't really know what to say, properly or othervise. ("You can also become an EU freeloading bureaucrat!") |
Posted by: zazz 2006-05-24 03:57 |
#3 I don't know if rthe campaign was poor but it was massive with all the big parties on the Yes side, with the MSM shamelessly advocating for the YES and with a budget who was at least three or four times larger. And despite that they were crushed 45 to 55. |
Posted by: JFM 2006-05-24 01:37 |
#2 "Poor campaign to sell it to voters" - by accounts, this most basic of basic problems and polischticking hasn't changed. If the pols and activists are NOT going to be explaining, or not explaining properly, why the EU is necessary, then by definition are leaving it to be decided by the pocketbooks or butter-and-egg mindset of mainstream Europe. |
Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-05-24 01:07 |
#1 Translation - perhaps THIS time the stupid EU voters will listen to their betters. |
Posted by: DMFD 2006-05-24 00:10 |