France / Ireland

Hello I'm a french girl, 28 years, from a little town near Paris, I am politically from Left ( French Socialist ), and I would like to speak with Irish friends about the Lisbon Treaty, maybe I'm not in the good place ?

I don't speak your language very well so excuse me by advance

For a lot of us in France, you, Irish citizens, represents our only hope to change the future in Europe, and when a majority of your people rejected the Lisbon Treaty we were very happy.

Our president, Nicolas Sarkozy, controls all our institutions in France. Because of a weakness in our constitution, he managed to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without consulting the french people. We are feeling this action like a treachery but we cannot do anything, what he has done is legal.

I want to encourage you to reject another time the Lisbon Treaty if they try to organize a second referendum in your country.

This treaty don't represent the general will of the european people, this treaty represents only the will of high placed politic and economic guys.

Please save us Irish friends.

anyone else smell a troll/sock puppet?

sandy, apart from the lack of consultation (despite the election being fought over the lisbon treaty) why do you not want it ratified? wasn't the defeat of royale a signal that france ratified the treaty?

Hi Sandy, we had a few posters here from France for the last referendum. We will certainly be discussing Lisbon II here in the coming months.

I don't understand well what you are asking

I don't want it ratified for a lot of reasons :

main ones are the presence of politics in this treaty, it should concern only institutions, these politics can't be changed easily, it's not democratic, and because these politics are not the result of the general will but the result of particular will, we feel like these politics are imposed to us and we cannot do anything to change this fact

another reason is the guys who wrote this text make it difficult to understand deliberately, and we think everyone should understand this kind of important text before to choose to accept or reject it because it is the future of all of us who is concerned

another reason, important for me, is the non democratic insitutions
governments controls everything in europe, and write laws that are applying in our countries, it is against all the democratic "division of powers" principle who should protect our liberty

there is also the 101 article who private us from control of monetary power who is important for people, it gives it to private banks

there is the independance of the central european bank, it's not democratic

there is a lot of things we are rejecting in this treaty

Quote :

wasn't the defeat of royale a signal that france ratified the treaty?

Royale defends the Lisbon Treaty

We have no leader who represents the "french no", LEFT in France is fragmented And Royale represents only 29% of the french socialist party, I personally don't like her personality and her ideas

We are defending a project of democratic elections to send representatives to an assembly to write an european constitution limited to the question of the institutions, without any politics in it, and who can't enlarge UE powers from actual powers granted by our countries

The text would be ratified by a referendum in every country the same day.
If people of a country rejects it, the assembly should rewrite it and process will be the same until everyone accept the project.

Would this kind of project be accepted in Ireland ? In France they say you won't accept because of difference of population and representation of our respective countries ?

sandy wrote:

We are defending a project of democratic elections to send representatives to an assembly to write an european constitution limited to the question of the institutions, without any politics in it, and who can't enlarge UE powers from actual powers granted by our countries

The text would be ratified by a referendum in every country the same day.
If people of a country rejects it, the assembly should rewrite it and process will be the same until everyone accept the project.

Would this kind of project be accepted in Ireland ? In France they say you won't accept because of difference of population and representation of our respective countries ?

I've heard this idea somewhere here recently, but can't remember who was putting it forward. There was quite a long process of making the Constitition, with some consultation too. Do you not think the consultation was satisfactory?

By the way, I think you are in a good place.

actually, i would prefer a europe wide referendum. it would put all the controversy to bed and if rejected then a real message would be sent to the law makers to write a constitution/treaty that the european people want.

welcome to the site sandy!

We would accept consultation only process in last choice, but the problem is we can't change what we want to change in UE by this way We need to send representatives to do that

sandy wrote:

We would accept consultation only process in last choice, but the problem is we can't change what we want to change in UE by this way We need to send representatives to do that

What kind of EU would you like? Do you think it is possible to reform the EU to make it democratic in the way you would like, or does it need to be built again from new?

By the way, do you know anything about the "Mouvement Pour La France" ?

We want a democratic EU ! At first

At long term we want a socialist and republican EU but we think politics are not the concerns of treaties but the concern of the parlement and institutions.

Actually we think even if all european countries were at majority socialist, UE will continue actual politics because they are imposed by the treaties.

"Mouvement Pour La France" is a little party in France, like 1% ou 2% of people are voting for them, it's a nationalist party for me.

I was under the impression that Nicolas Sarkozy was elected in 2007 on a platform which included a commitment not to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. I thought that the election of Sarkozy meant that the French did not necessarily want another vote on the Treaty, or at least were aware that they had committed to letting Sarkozy sorting out the issue on his own.

Sarkozy promised a short treaty, limited to the question of institutions, and promised to change what made the french people to vote no, it was the conditions to ratify the next treaty without a new vote in his project.
We said people it was a lie. But people elected him on national concerns ...

Everyone know now that the Lisbon treaty is the same text than the first one we rejected in 2005, Nicolas Sarkozy is a liar.
Every reasons what made people rejecting the first treaty are still valid for the second treaty.

If french people will vote again on the Lisbon treaty, we will say "no" again. It's why they used all these illusions to ratify the treaty without consultation.

It's why you Irish people are our only hope to stop them.

sandy wrote:

Sarkozy promised a short treaty, limited to the question of institutions, and promised to change what made the french people to vote no, it was the conditions to ratify the next treaty without a new vote in his project.
We said people it was a lie. But people elected him on national concerns ...

Everyone know now that the Lisbon treaty is the same text than the first one we rejected in 2005, Nicolas Sarkozy is a liar.
Every reasons what made people rejecting the first treaty are still valid for the second treaty.

If french people will vote again on the Lisbon treaty, we will say "no" again. It's why they used all these illusions to ratify the treaty without consultation.

It's why you Irish people are our only hope to stop them.

Does your group contest the European Elections?

No ? Why ?

sandy wrote:

No ? Why ?

Because your group has an alternative vision for Europe. Do you see that as being brought about through reform of the EU, or as a completely fresh start?

cactus flower wrote:

sandy wrote:

No ? Why ?

Because your group has an alternative vision for Europe. Do you see that as being brought about through reform of the EU, or as a completely fresh start?

Reform.
But at first we need democratic institutions to reform the EU.

Main politics are defined in the Lisbon Treaty.
It's too difficult to obtain a change in the treaty after its ratification.
And the treaty has been written by a convention.
This convention doesn't represent anyone.

We feel we can't change anything in this text. So we can't change these politics. It's not democratic.

905 wrote:

A few concerns of mine.

First, I don't know if any general election in the EU was fought along pro or anti-Lisbon lines. If we take the example of Ireland, we'd have had to have voted in Sinn Féin to register our disapproval of the treaty. I certainly don't think it's fair to assume that France voted for Lisbon when they voted for Sarkozy, and I wouldn't want to make that assumption about any EU country.

However, the other governments have, rightly or wrongly, accepted the Lisbon treaty. That is their concern, not ours. The upcoming referendum is an Irish affair that concerns the Irish constitution, and it will be settled by the Irish people. I accept that it affects other countries, but Ireland is where our priorities must lie. If we bring in the concerns of other countries, then it becomes a free-for-all. We must accept the pleadings of governments begging us to vote yes for the sake of the future. For every French or German or Austrian asking we vote no, we must accept the input of those who want a Yes. We had letters from the Croatians last time, berating us for betraying a fellow Catholic country. It is a double-edged sword.

I an unfamiliar with the state of French politics, and I would welcome any polls that could suggest the feelings of the French people. A poll on Sarkozy’s popularity would be helpful too, though of course it would not be seen as a barometer of feeling on the treaty. Forgive me, but one French person’s testimony is not enough.

On the subject of a Europe-wide referendum, it would not be difficult to foresee the enormous opposition nationally-minded would have to such a proposition, never mind the national governments. But it probably would have been the best option.

Sarkozy gained the title of most unpopular president, but I wouldn't be honest if I say his unpopularity is due to EU concerns. Sadly, the EU question is not very important for most french people. We can't know exactly the reasons of his unpopularity, but I think his popularity has fallen just after people knew his personality better. This president likes rich people and stars, they give him presents ( a trip on a yatch, holidays in luxuous palace etc ... ) , he married with a former model, and he likes gold and expensive things. And people can see he say a lot of things and he don't do a lot of things, and what he said don't correspond to what he is doing. All these things have a lot of negative effects on french people's opinion.

But only a few people understand his treachery with the Lisbon Treaty. Most people believed him because our national printing press and television news have spread a lot his lies without any criticism. In our country, our papers and some politics are beatific when it is question of the EU. I'm sure most of our politics who voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty didn't study it or at least read it. Same for our journalists.

As I said, you Irish peole are the only ones who can vote.
You are our last hope to make the EU more democratic and more usefull for all european people.

From what I read and heard, a lot of the reason that there was a No vote to the Constitution in France was opposition to Turkey joining the EU.

Do you think that was not the case?

It's not true, it was the main argument of "mouvement pour la france" you said me, he's representing only 1-3% of the opinion. His argument was false I think, I didn't see in the treaty something like he said. But in 55%, 3% is not insignificant too.

There was a lot of arguments, some were true, other false I think.
For the main reasons, there was :
- the difficulty to read and understand the text
- the difficulty to change the text while liberal politics are defined in it
- the non democratic institutions
- regressions for us with the chart of fundamental human rights compared to the one in our national constitution ( false I think too )
- the hope a "no" will open a best negociation for another treaty
- the responsability attributed to politics of the UE in the bad conditions of life
- because people didn't like 95% of the politicians and televisions said all the day to vote "yes" during 2 months, their feeling was they want to force them to vote "yes"
- there was people who voted against the president Jacques Chirac too, because they didn't like his politics

sandy wrote:

It's not true, it was the main argument of "mouvement pour la france" you said me, he's representing only 1-3% of the opinion. His argument was false I think, I didn't see in the treaty something like he said. But in 55%, 3% is not insignificant too.

There was a lot of arguments, some were true, other false I think.
For the main reasons, there was :
- the difficulty to read and understand the text
- the difficulty to change the text while liberal politics are defined in it
- the non democratic institutions
- regressions for us with the chart of fundamental human rights compared to the one in our national constitution ( false I think too )
- the hope a "no" will open a best negociation for another treaty
- the responsability attributed to politics of the UE in the bad conditions of life
- because people didn't like 95% of the politicians and televisions said all the day to vote "yes" during 2 months, their feeling was they want to force them to vote "yes"
- there was people who voted against the president Jacques Chirac too, because they didn't like his politics

In Ireland there were concerns about militarisation too.

So which were your own reasons for wanting a No vote?

@ Cactus

I said it in my second post just go up

sandy wrote:

I don't understand well what you are asking

I don't want it ratified for a lot of reasons :

main ones are the presence of politics in this treaty, it should concern only institutions, these politics can't be changed easily, it's not democratic, and because these politics are not the result of the general will but the result of particular will, we feel like these politics are imposed to us and we cannot do anything to change this fact

What politics are you speaking about?

Quote :

another reason is the guys who wrote this text make it difficult to understand deliberately, and we think everyone should understand this kind of important text before to choose to accept or reject it because it is the future of all of us who is concerned

Would you prefer it drafted in an open manner, capable of wide interpretation?

Quote :

another reason, important for me, is the non democratic insitutions
governments controls everything in europe, and write laws that are applying in our countries, it is against all the democratic "division of powers" principle who should protect our liberty

But the Lisbon Treaty would have increased the roll of directly elected national parliaments and the EP. Anyway is the French government undemocratic?

Quote :

there is also the 101 article who private us from control of monetary power who is important for people, it gives it to private banks

As far as i know article 101 isn't amended by Lisbon. I'm open to correction

Quote :

there is the independance of the central european bank, it's not democratic

there is a lot of things we are rejecting in this treaty

How is that part of Lisbon?

baldur wrote:

What politics are you speaking about?

I'm speaking particularly about liberal politics :
- monetary politics
- interior market politics
- fiscal politics

They are part of precedent treaties, and it's not democratic we, citizens, can't change what we want to change easily.
There is 3 ways to change something in the treaty.
One simplified way, directly by governments, but this way is limited to only some domains. These politics are not part of these domains.
And a normal way, requiring 3 or 4 unanimity votes. It's too difficult to succeed.

The 3rd way is when governments decide to write a new treaty and to replace the other ones. If we can't participate to the writing of the text of the new treaty, we can't change what we want to change by this way.

Quote :

Quote :

another reason is the guys who wrote this text make it difficult to understand deliberately, and we think everyone should understand this kind of important text before to choose to accept or reject it because it is the future of all of us who is concerned

Would you prefer it drafted in an open manner, capable of wide interpretation?

I don't understand well what you mean ?

Quote :

Quote :

another reason, important for me, is the non democratic insitutions
governments controls everything in europe, and write laws that are applying in our countries, it is against all the democratic "division of powers" principle who should protect our liberty

But the Lisbon Treaty would have increased the roll of directly elected national parliaments and the EP. Anyway is the French government undemocratic?

What is undemocratic is not the government by itsef, it is what they are doing.
A government is an executive power, its role is not to write and vote laws. If the government write and vote laws, he's concentrating executive and legislative powers, it's undemocratic.

And I don't agree, the Lisbon Treaty was transfering some skills to the EP, but only minor skills, the EP had only a very limited power, EP have no itiative in laws, in most important domains EP is only consulted they take no decision, so it was changing nothing to the problem. Governments are concentrating powers thanks to UE. But the Lisbon Treaty was transfering skills from our national coutries to UE too, aggravating the problem anyway.

The new subsidiary thing about national parliaments was a delusion. It don't change governments are deciding almost everything in UE, it don't change governments control european justice, european laws, and european executive.

One of our great politic guys in France named "Pierre mendès france" said in 1957 this thing in french :
"L’abdication d’une démocratie peut prendre deux formes, soit elle
recourt à une dictature interne par la remise de tous les pouvoirs à un
homme "providentiel", soit à la délégation de ses pouvoirs à une
autorité extérieure laquelle au nom de la technique exercera en réalité
la puissance politique, car au nom d’une saine économie on en vient
aisément à dicter une politique monétaire, budgétaire, sociale,
finalement une politique, au sens le plus large du mot, nationale et
internationale"

I'm not good in translation but I'll try :
The abdication of a democracy can take two forms, either it turns to an internal dictatorship by giving all the powers to a providential man, or by delegating its powers to an exterior autority which , by the name of technicity, will exercice in reality the political power, because by the name of a healthy economy we can easily dictate a monetary politic, a budgetary politic, a social politic, finaly a politic, at the most wide sense of the word, national and international.

It's what we are living today with the EU.
We can change this if we put an end to the control of governments and take this control as citizens.

Quote :

Quote :

there is also the 101 article who private us from control of monetary power who is important for people, it gives it to private banks

As far as i know article 101 isn't amended by Lisbon. I'm open to correction

Yes but the problem is we want it to be amended.

Quote :

Quote :

there is the independance of the central european bank, it's not democratic

there is a lot of things we are rejecting in this treaty

How is that part of Lisbon?

I don't understand again what you mean ?