Sunset over the Elysée

[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 - Declinologyis 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.

[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.

[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.

[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).
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. and

[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.

[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.

[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.


'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.

(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.)

[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.

Dead right.

(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.

[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”…)