Sunset over the Elysée

[Louis VI the Fat]

Some of you may be aware of the 'Clearstream affair' that has rocked French politics over the last month. I didn't post about it before, because it is very complicated, it has daily new developments and revelations, and it would require a post several pages long.

And also because, in the end, I do not think it is altogether that important. I saw a documentary not long ago that claimed that the meteor that drove the dinosaurs into extinction, was only the straw that broke the camels' back. Their's was a world already dying. That is my opinion of this affair too. The end of a political class was near already.

The great Guardian has a good, brief article about the current state of politics in France, A slow sunset over the Elysée (http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,1774421,00.html).
(L'Elysée being the French equivalent of the 'White House' or 'Downing Street')

Some key excerpts:


'In the short term, the damage has been done by the riveting, if sometimes impenetrable, revelations of what is being called 'the Clearstream affair'. It is a hugely complicated story involving secret agents, high finance, impossibly complicated legal procedures, an unidentified informant who is probably a maverick businessman, and obscure, Machiavellian machinations at the heart of government'

'Clearstream is merely the latest in a string of disasters for Chirac and his conservatives. After a terrible 2005 - which saw the French vote 'no' to the European constitution, the failure to win the 2012 Olympics and riots in the suburbs in the autumn - Chirac declared that 2006 would be 'useful'. But the spring has been marred by the failure of the government to force through a key labour reform, the 'First Job Contract', which provoked massive demonstrations. The summer is not shaping up much better.'

The problem is not that a political wing has discredited itself. Political shifts happen all the time. No, the shock is that 'In real terms, we simply do not have a government at the moment.'

And the real issue, more apparent and of more concern within France than cliches abroad would have - and the cause of much soul-searching - is that

'France is living on the vestiges of its former glory, stuck in out-dated values and practices. Chirac is part of the old world that is gradually disappearing,' he says. 'We haven't yet found whatever it is that will set us going forward again.'

Other than my recommendation of it as a well-informed article to bring you up-to-date, I do not know how to turn this into a constructive discussion, but any comments are appreciated.

[cegorach]

[QUOTE=Louis VI the Fat]


I agree generally. True I don't like French policy for about last... 60 years I guess, still it is a problem for Europe when France doesn't really know what it is.

There are too many remarks to its former glory, a desperate need to be important in the world affairs and truly lack of any idea what to do in future.

It seems that one of the stronger factors is anti-americanism, but you can't build a sensible policy on this. There is no real vision nor plans for future you can see as French vision of the world - only a temporal activity to get something like a big arms contract with China.

If France was smaller and less important itwouldn't be so bad, but now it looks terrible when entire EU policy is affected because France wants something.

There is a question of alliances as well - who can really be seen as Fench ally in the EU ? Belgium ? Germany ??
Hard to say, it was obvious that French position will be weakened ny the enlargement of the EU - much thanks to earlier French blunders regarding the 'new' countries of the EU - but there was no activity to change it, it seems even that France never woke up from the illusion that the 'new' countires will listen to it without any opposition... THis was unrealistic and when the reality at last reached French society ( not only politicians) suddenly it felt almost offended by the newcomers beeing so rude to have different ideas. Old mistakes of Mitterand era together with Chirack's arrogance weakened French position out there, but not only here, I think.

I see it with much spite, but not without realising how important Fance was and is. I can only hope that Sarkosy will do something with this apathetic state of affairs, but it seems that it will be incredibly.

Regards Cegorach:book:

[KukriKhan]

Sunset over the Elysée

Perhaps, but certainly not the end of France. The sun will rise again in your Spring '07 elections.

Between now and then, you have a long, hot summer to contend with - and its aftermath, if it's bad (riots, heat-deaths, more corruption scandals or rumors). That aftermath will (probably, I think) drive the fall and winter 'national conversation' on "Who are we (French) really, and in what direction do we go?".

I agree with cegorach1 that "We are not American", is an inadequate answer to the question - the leader with a fuller, deeper answer - that French voters agree with, will be the new boss.

Of course it's too early to tell, but the article lists Mme Royal as a top contender. Are the women taking over worldwide? I winder if that trend will produce a female US president in '08.

[Rodion Romanovich]

The problem is not that a political wing has discredited itself. Political shifts happen all the time. No, the shock is that 'In real terms, we simply do not have a government at the moment.'

And the real issue, more apparent and of more concern within France than cliches abroad would have - and the cause of much soul-searching - is that


Other than my recommendation of it as a well-informed article to bring you up-to-date, I do not know how to turn this into a constructive discussion, but any comments are appreciated.

- The current government has been weak in not being able to enforce a completely legitimate reform (the job reform), and weak in not caring to explain why that job reform even improves the situation for the young rather than making it worse (at least in my interpretation it's an improvement for the young, but if there are strong arguments against that opinion I'm all ears).
- As for the no to the EU constitution I fail to see why that would be a sign of a distaster for France. If it's both what the people and the government support, then I suppose it's good that they said no to it. The problem with saying no to the new EU constitution is really that it implies making the EU more firmly united, which in the long run could turn Europe into a single, large country, which isn't a good idea. The security of citizens, the freedom, and allowing different political and cultural opinions in different regions is something that gradually disappears if the union becomes too firm. Rather, EU is a good place to discuss things that must be decided together - environmental treaties, trade deals, and similar. As such EU doesn't need to be firmer than it is today to fill it's function. What's negative about a no to the EU constitution is that the new constitution proposal at the same time would increase the democracy within EU - basically today the leaders of EU aren't democratically elected, which is dangerous. Only the parliament, which at this time has no formal power at all other than talking, is elected, but since there are other institutions that hold the power there's presently no democracy to speak of within EU. While the Union doesn't need to be firmer, it needs to be more democratic. I believe that's what most nay-sayers are complaining about, and it's a valid complaint IMO.

There is IMO a good hope for a better government by next election - the problems aren't more serious than that they can be overcome. France still has quite a few non-extremist parties to choose from. But there are quite a few actions the current government could do to improve the situation already now - does the constitution make it easy enough to start new parties to make up for the parties that aren't considered modern enough? If not, a constitutional change to make starting new parties easier would improve things a lot - people have less abilities to complain and riot about lack of democracy if democracy is increased not only formally but also practically, so it would apart from increasing the safety against extremists also calm down current violent riot problems as I see it. Or why not allow for referendums about major political questions - such as the new labor law, and the EU constitution? Also they need to encourage the peaceful demonstrations, and firmly use methods such as water cannons against demonstrations that end up vandalizing common property, throwing cobble stones etc., while encouraging those demonstrations that are carried out peacefully. Whenever arresting people (who throw cobbles) for using violence against a still legitimate government (as the current one is according to the constitution), also mention how none of the peaceful demonstrations - even those demonstrations that were about the same political questions the violent ones were about - were stopped in the same way. Finally, why doesn't the government try to find out more about where the dissent lies? If there are so many demonstrants ready to complain, they should be able to state what makes them so discontent. If they have no solution for the problems they're complaining about, they aren't in a position to call the government bad. If they have solutions that would work in practise, if they presented them (the government could encourage them to do so by letter or political Internet forums or similar), the government could take inspiration from them and solve the problems a bit more. I think a coming French government has a realistic and good chance to solve the problems that France are facing at the moment. Nobody really know where all the current dissent comes from. Find out, make statistics, and present the statistics. Currently the traditional "bend to the will of violent protests, and ignore the peaceful protests" mistake is being made - it's usually taken by violent people as a sign of weakness that only fuels more violence. We all know that demonstrants who under circumstances like these, where there's no urgent crisis - France isn't at war with anyone or anything like that, there's no immediate threat that must be removed in a matter of a day, a week, or even an entire year - demonstrants who just vandalize common property and throw cobbles aren't demonstrants representing a political view, but a type of people who travel around to all large cities to find a situation where they can vandalize things without risk getting caught.

edit: changed some serious typos that altered the meaning of the post

[Louis VI the Fat]

I agree generally. True I don't like French policy for about last... 60 years I guess, still it is a problem for Europe when France doesn't really know what it is.

There are too many remarks to its former glory, a desperate need to be important in the world affairs and truly lack of any idea what to do in future.

It seems that one of the stronger factors is anti-americanism, but you can't build a sensible policy on this. There is no real vision nor plans for future you can see as French vision of the world - only a temporal activity to get something like a big arms contract with China.

If France was smaller and less important itwouldn't be so bad, but now it looks terrible when entire EU policy is affected because France wants something.
France, the Republic, is a country with a vocation, with a universal calling. She has a mission to fulfill. It is part of the identity. There is no Republic without the battle cry of liberty, equality and fraternity.

How that has translated into real politics is a different matter, yes. In recent history, the left betrayed it until recently by thinking these were the ideals of communism, and hence swapped the ideology of freedom for that of tyranny. The right betrays it by thinking that by advancing the interests of France, her ideals are advanced automatically too. Often, they don't even bother with that in the first place.

That France should be so staunchly pro-European and pro-supranational organisations is not only a matter of imperialism or power politics. If Napoleon couldn't beat the Eastern despots, perhaps our ideals can.

Hence the shock to the pro-Europe camp after the referendum. The no-vote showed that ultimately France is a nation of a petty, scared, defensive and reactionary bourgeoisie after all.



There is a question of alliances as well - who can really be seen as Fench ally in the EU ? Belgium ? Germany ??
Hard to say, it was obvious that French position will be weakened ny the enlargement of the EU - much thanks to earlier French blunders regarding the 'new' countries of the EU - but there was no activity to change it, it seems even that France never woke up from the illusion that the 'new' countires will listen to it without any opposition... Eastern Europe listened by joining, not by accepting overlordship.

That natural ally is of course Germany. Not in a militaristic alliance sense, but in a sense of a combined future. We are interdependent. A recent report showed that 91% of Frenchmen trusted Germany, a higher rate of trust than any other country had for any other major power. The reverse was in the low 80's, still a lot higher than for Canada/ America, or the UK /America.

[Louis VI the Fat]

That aftermath will (probably, I think) drive the fall and winter 'national conversation' on "Who are we (French) really, and in what direction do we go?". Alas, the identity question is being raised in setting of despair:

'Bankrupt France", "France in tatters", "France in free fall", "Scared France", "France is rotting from within","Doomed France". That is just a small selection of essays and pamphlets published in the past three years in France, some interesting, some mediocre, but all bestsellers. There is a word for their authors, one especially made for them: they are the "déclinologues"

Forget post-modernism - Declinology (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1741630,00.html)is teh new French buzz-word.



I agree with cegorach1 that "We are not American", is an inadequate answer to the question - the leader with a fuller, deeper answer - that French voters agree with, will be the new boss.Anti-Americanism is never an answer. It is the modern-day equivalent of anti-semitism: a miserable ideology for the miserably mediocre to blame their ills on others.


Of course it's too early to tell, but the article lists Mme Royal as a top contender. Are the women taking over worldwide? I winder if that trend will produce a female US president in '08.Ah, that'll be the day! Germany, France, the US led by women. :2thumbsup:

[Divinus Arma]

I never paid much attention to France.

France always seemed to be a little yapping dog; sometimes cute, but usually just annoying. To rephrase, I get the impression that France attempts to exert a political will in international affairs that is excessive of its capability.

I also get the impression, and confirmed from your posting, that France has outgrown itself. It seems to be hanging on to something it sees as sacred but has ultimately become irrelevant in the new era of globalization and secularism. France allows seems to be edging towards a social evolution. It is not quite on the verge yet, but is still "molting", so to speak.

I think that once France recognizes what it must do, than it shall become a Global leader in a way not experienced by the world yet. Not economic, not religious, but something else. Some type of modernization that recognizes the past but focuses on the future. Not sure what though. We'll have to see. One thing is sure to me: Once France reaches this, it sure as hell won't give a damn what America's policies are.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Finally, why doesn't the government try to find out more about where the dissent lies? If there are so many demonstrants ready to complain, they should be able to state what makes them so discontent. Because, and that is part of the tragedy, what the demonstraters want is to not move on. What France desperately craves, is to move ahead, to get out of the deadlock.

The student demonstrations recieved some attention and praise from abroad as a sign of vibrancy. In reality, they were utterly reactionary. Here was the youth, the future of France: rioting with the demand that there be no change at all. Students, whose sole ambition is to become a civil servant and get a job for life.

Dear God, the spectacle of a conservative goverment, led by a 74-year old, being under fire from teenagers demanding that their government be less progressive. :wall:

The EU-referendum was more of the same. A scared, reactionary bourgeoisie voting no to whatever they can. The biggest political adventure of our time thwarted for fear of a few Polish plumbers and less government subsidies. :no:

[Louis VI the Fat]

France seems to be edging towards a social evolutionNo, social evolution is an Anglo thing. France is a reactionary country despised by it's progressive intellectual elite, who sometimes get things moving by managing to sway the population into a revolution.

France only moves forward by ruptures. We need another 1968.


I never paid much attention to France.But you're a man of intelligence and curiousity, and the world is a big place. It's never too late to aqcuire new fields of interests, like finding out how some people survive without 5 lbs steaks, rifles and cheap gasoline. :sweatdrop:


'France sure as hell won't give a damn what America's policies are.'
Hey, France is obsessed with America. You hold the place that is our's by birthright.

[Brenus]

I think the problem isn’t only in France. But in France it is more obvious.
Chirac was elected President because no choice. It was the Crook or the Fascist, the cholera or the Plague. Well, you can recover from the cholera (wit a lot of perfusions)…
The problem is after that he feinted to consider and to recognise this fact. He acted like if hew was really President by the will pf the Country.
That could be extended to the all lot of politicians. When elected, they take the right to vote in our names without our consent.
I vote against the EU constitution because I didn’t want THIS Europe. I didn’t vote against the Polish plumber, but I want the Polish Plumber to have the same right (and salary) than the French one.
I want a real Europe for the people, not only the market… Do you know that I can’t, being in England< take an insurance for my car in France. Nevertheless, a company can open a bank account in the Caiman Island without problem…
I get no subsidies from the France or England by the way…

France got the same problem than most of other countries. There are NO alternatives. The so-called Left wings are de facto the same than the “conservative” parties. Same politics, some goals, same schools, same training, some vocabulary, they are friends.

Managers firing people got HUGE rewards, disdain and patronising are the rules, and people who don’t accept this are archaic… You have to accept the modernity, except in this case modernity lay in the 19th Century.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Always the more socialist of the two of us, hey? :2thumbsup:

About Chirac you're spot on: he misses legitimacy and fails to recognize it. Then again, what is he to do? Hide in his office and pretend he is not governing?

There are NO alternatives. The so-called Left wings are de facto the same than the “conservative” parties. Same politics, some goals, same schools, same training, some vocabulary, they are friends.
I agree again. Nonetheless, I think that the populace is an even bigger problem. They refuse alternatives, they are the ones preventing change. Who cares about politicians and &#233;narques. In the end, we get what we deserve.

I vote against the EU constitution because I didn’t want THIS Europe. I didn’t vote against the Polish plumber, but I want the Polish Plumber to have the same right (and salary) than the French one.
I'm going to be awfully impolite and question your motive: somewhere deep down, is it not fear for your own position and not concern for the Polish that made you vote no?
Furthermore, if you don't want this Europe, and few would indeed, would you not agree that it is that no-vote that created the deadlock we currently find ourselves in?

[Strike For The South]

How can a country that gave us the cruton be in trouble. I refuse to beilive it. Well whatever happens wether the muslims take over or the economy splodes. Keep it under raps until about 2011 by that time I figure I could go to France and take down every French flag and put up a Texan one, HA

[Banquo's Ghost]

I have read this thread with great interest, being a Francophile. From what I know, I think you are spot on, Louis, and much of my own mind on the EU referendum.

Thanks for explaining a lot of what is going on is such a well-informed manner. Much to think about, for me.

Oh, and this is genuine signature material ...


Anti-Americanism is never an answer. It is the modern-day equivalent of anti-semitism: a miserable ideology for the miserably mediocre to blame their ills on others.

:2thumbsup:

[Brenus]

I didn’t vote for the Constitution because I am a BELIEVER. For the same reason I prefer the French Universal Human Declaration (Declaration de Droits de l’Homme) of 1789 than the one from the UN.

French:
Article first.
- Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be based only on considerations of the common good.
Article 2.
- The aim of every political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are Liberty, Property, Safety and Resistance to Oppression.
Article 3.
- The source of all sovereignty lies essentially in the Nation. No corporate body, no individual may exercise any authority that does not expressly emanate from it.

UN:
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Look the power of the First One, short and on target. Make me proud of our ancestors, isn’t it? Same when I read speeches of Victor Hugo…

The EU lost the goal for Europe. I am a Federalist, I am not a free marketeers (couldn’t resist on this one).:shame:
Europe should be a political (in the noble sense of the world, life of the city) entity, a place to make people equal, not a place where you will exploit the poorest, the newbie, who will be happy to earn 500 Euros/month, because it is still 200 more than what a teacher earn in their own country. Free market is killing people. And here I don’t speak in metaphors. I saw the preparation for the entrance on the Free Market in the East. Managers, newly converted to capitalism, firing workers, selling (at best) the tools to their family, to decrease the price of the factory, then re-buying it, and hops, machines came back and importing workers from even more poorer countries.
I saw the pensioners, still wearing the old suit, searching for food in the bins when their governments were working on the “adjustments” needed to be welcome in the EU.
And the constitution wanted to consolidate this situation.
I think that some industries shouldn’t be privatise. Water, electricity, shouldn’t. Our ancestors paid for it, and now they wanted to sell it to their friends. OK, for water it is done. But I remember when they did it. Promised, it will cut the cost, improve the system. Well, it went from a State monopoly to a private monopoly. Price increased and finished. Companies didn’t carry on the maintenance and quarter of the water in lost.
I am ready to loose the fromage au lait cru, if necessary for peace, I still don’t think that it is up to a government far far away to decide on this one.

And because it is late and I want to keep it short (ok, tomorrow is bank holiday), I refuse to have a State with the Ode a la joie (hymn to joy) as national anthem. :no: and:shame:

[Brenus]

"not fear for your own position and not concern for the Polish that made you vote no". Sorry I didn't answer. No, I am living in England, so I wasn't concerned by this. No, it is genuinely a political reason.
And the fact I don’t like Giscard.:shame:

[Divinus Arma]

Article first.
- Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be based only on considerations of the common good.
Article 2.
- The aim of every political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are Liberty, Property, Safety and Resistance to Oppression.
Article 3.
- The source of all sovereignty lies essentially in the Nation. No corporate body, no individual may exercise any authority that does not expressly emanate from it.
:
And if I remember correctly, in the United Kingdom and the former commonwealth sovereignty rests only in the crown.

And there is the difference between the United States aqnd everyone else in the world.

In the United States sovereignty rests in the individual and is granted in trust to the government for the common good.

This is a very important definition, at least to me.

[GoreBag]

No, social evolution is an Anglo thing. France is a reactionary country despised by it's progressive intellectual elite, who sometimes get things moving by managing to sway the population into a revolution.

Isn't that part of what France needs to leave behind?

[Soulforged]

And there is the difference between the United States aqnd everyone else in the world.

In the United States sovereignty rests in the individual and is granted in trust to the government for the common good. Not exactly DA, and going OT: Something that's common knowledge by now is that the Constitutions of all the countries in the rest of America were inspired by the one created a way back in the US, the spirit of independence and the foundamental basis of all american countries are similar (with the exception of Cuba perhaps), therefore I can asure you, for example, that in my country the same principle applies, but it's a principle. Besides when the article refers to the nation (probably in the spirit of Proudhon) it's talking about the people as a whole, and notice that it talks about soveringnity, it's the power of dominium that the people as a whole deliver to their representatives in the state. It's exactly the same principle that applies in the rest of the liberal world, the theory of the social contract, no more no less.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I prefer the French Universal Human Declaration (Declaration de Droits de l’Homme) of 1789 than the one from the UN.

Look the power of the First One, short and on target. Make me proud of our ancestors, isn’t it? Same when I read speeches of Victor Hugo…Hey, you're preaching to the choir. To me, today's date is still 9 Prairial CCXIV.


'I am ready to loose the fromage au lait cru, if necessary for peace, I still don’t think that it is up to a government far far away to decide on this one.'
Traitor! It's a fair casus belli. Wussy weak-stomached foreigners. I say we nuke Bruxelles and teach them a lesson or two. Nobody touches my fromage au lait cru. http://matousmileys.free.fr/miam3.gif


'And the fact I don’t like Giscard.'
Oh don't get me started. The 'constitution' was meant to be just a streamlining and updating of existing treaties. Then they made the mistake of digging up Valéry Giscard d'Estaing from his grave and appointing him as head of the commission. They should've known that that pompous twit would not be able to resist the temptation of putting lots of bells and whistles on it, and branding it a constitution, only for the honour of being known to posterity as the man who gave Europe it's first constitution. :furious3:

(See, that's why we need Europe. Any Scandinavian - less concerned with pomp and personal magnificence as with practicalities - would've given us a treaty within two working days.)

[Louis VI the Fat]

Isn't that part of what France needs to leave behind?You mean, become a normal, decent country...? ~:confused:



Nah...

[Ianofsmeg16]

You mean, become a normal, decent country...? ~:confused:



Nah...
Another war with England would sort out France :laugh4:

[Banquo's Ghost]

'And the fact I don’t like Giscard.'
Oh don't get me started. The 'constitution' was meant to be just a streamlining and updating of existing treaties. Then they made the mistake of digging up Valéry Giscard d'Estaing from his grave and appointing him as head of the commission. They should've known that that pompous twit would not be able to resist the temptation of putting lots of bells and whistles on it, and branding it a constitution, only for the honour of being known to posterity as the man who gave Europe it's first constitution. :furious3:

Dead right. :2thumbsup:


(See, that's why we need Europe. Any Scandinavian - less concerned with pomp and personal magnificence as with practicalities - would've given us a treaty within two working days.)

Or you could have given it to the Irish to sort out and it would still be in the pub along with the commission. :juggle2:

[Brenus]

“Another war with England would sort out France” How? England lost the most important (100 Years War, Bouvines, USA) and pretends to win some others (Napoleonic’s one for example, as the Russians say “the English shoot the last bullet and pretend they’ve won”…):laugh4: :laugh4:

[Red Peasant]

“Another war with England would sort out France” How? England lost the most important (100 Years War, Bouvines, USA) and pretends to win some others (Napoleonic’s one for example, as the Russians say “the English shoot the last bullet and pretend they’ve won”…):laugh4: :laugh4:

Or, the British shoot the last bullet and go home. Lucky for you guys. ~;)

[English assassin]

The student demonstrations recieved some attention and praise from abroad as a sign of vibrancy. In reality, they were utterly reactionary. Here was the youth, the future of France: rioting with the demand that there be no change at all. Students, whose sole ambition is to become a civil servant and get a job for life.

Dear God, the spectacle of a conservative goverment, led by a 74-year old, being under fire from teenagers demanding that their government be less progressive.

This caused much unfavourable comment in the Assassin household, where it had not escaped our notice that the rioters were profoundly conservative. Unflattering comparisons with 1968 were drawn. Indeed, if those youths truly represent the spirit of the young of France, then we went so far as to conclude that France is stuffed.

On the other hand she's been stuffed before, and generally survives. If she can't do evolution she will just have to do revolution, because she surely can't carry on like this.

I dare say in 50 years time they will still be drinking pastis before dinner...

[Brenus]

What we need is a kind of US constitution, short, principles to share, not a HUGE pile of regulations which once in a Constitution become very difficult to change.

We need a Europe with a vision, a destiny, not a guideline for entrepreneur…

“You mean, become a normal, decent country...?” Where did you find that France wanted to be either normal, either decent or even both, country? What a surprising idea…:inquisitive:

“I say we nuke Bruxelles” Not safe enough, they are too closed and we will get the radiations… No, let’s liberate them from the Tyranny of the pasteurised Milk.:2thumbsup:

[Vladimir]

“Another war with England would sort out France” How? England lost the most important (100 Years War, Bouvines, USA) and pretends to win some others (Napoleonic’s one for example, as the Russians say “the English shoot the last bullet and pretend they’ve won”…):laugh4: :laugh4:

Is this what you were referring to about France being stuck in the past?

France has tremendous potential but lacks the will to be great again. Maybe that will change in time.

[Brenus]

Is this what you were referring to about France being stuck in the past? No, that was a joke with my English friends... Old story...:laugh4:

[Vladimir]

Is this what you were referring to about France being stuck in the past? No, that was a joke with my English friends... Old story...:laugh4:

Ok, I sounded kind of rough but no insult was intended. A very insightful thread Louis. I have a lot of respect for France just not the political class (and Parisians). I think the French need a word for entrepreneur (j/k, to steal a quote).

[AntiochusIII]

Anyone who's a Francophile raise your hands! :help:

It seems to me the French are stuck with an identity crisis. Might anyone with a good knowledge of the lore of modern France provide a short context on how this came up in the first place? Right now I'm assuming it began after the Second World War (a continuation of "France's search for a place in the world" during the Interbellum?) and it gets progressively worse with de Gaulle and Mitterand and such...

To sum it up, these are my questions:

1. What do you think was the main effect of de Gaulle? What ties does Gaullism has with the current predicament?

2. What exactly happened in 1968? All I knew was a huge student riot, not the cause, the details, the results.

3. How bad is the atmosphere right now? A nation exhausted, or a fuming nation?

[Brenus]

As French, I have no crisis of identity. I strongly believe in the values of the Republic and I am more a Soldier de l’An II than a Gauche Caviar. So I believe in the Ideal of Liberty, I wish we could have equality at least in the chance to start (but I am also aware of the Social Determinism) and I want to believe in Fraternity as a symbol, but also I took action to fulfil this last ideal.
My roots are the land where I born, in the mist and the swamp of the Dombes. My (family) history is a fight against oppression and struggle against poverty.
As I use to say we were Soldiers, Peasants and Workers. I am an incarnated Soviet.
I don’t believe in the France of the valets, the people who always co-opt with in inevitable and make money with it.

Now, you questions:
De Gaulle, not so much influence as such. De Gaulle was a man of the 19th Century, Captain during the 1st World War, and his values dated from this period. I don’t deny he was one of the men who restore the Honour of France, but he wasn’t alone.
I recognise his genius in politic, especially in 1940-1945 when he succeeded bluffing the Great Powers even without having cards in his hands.
He knew to surf on the waves, and was flexible enough to recognise when to change direction…
However, the Party allegedly heir of his ideas is just betraying all what, for what I know, De Gaulle fought and built…

1968 was a World Protest (it happened in every –almost- countries: Mexico, USA, Budapest etc) and was a bottle neck of Conservatism (in French meaning) and the access of the first benefits of modern society. To summarise I will mention Hippy Movement and Vietnam War.
In France it was the Post Colonialism and end of the War in Algeria, mixed with the Pro-Vietcong movement, an idealist vision of USSR, the apparition (the recognition) of sexuality and the possibility to have sexe without the pregnancy, the new economical model imported from U.S.A, the result of the Marshall Plan opposed to the leaders of a country who were still 19th Century moralists and a political Instability.
This and the demand of better salaries from the workers crated a explosive situation which created the Events.

I don’t know for the atmosphere itself, I don’t live in France.