Chirac is perhaps the most arrogant leader ever.
Good for the French people, make them go back to the drawing board.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at May 29, 2005 5:09 PM

Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia, Italy, Greece, Austria, Slovakia, Spain and Germany voted yes.
What other countries have voted no?

Posted by: Miss Moneypenney at May 29, 2005 5:09 PM

Shame is not a word you're likely to find in Chirac's dictionary. Resigning is too lofty an expectation to have of this toad.

France is probably going to have re-votes till it votes yes. The only alternative is revolution.... (yeah, am sounding marxist already...)

Posted by: voletti at May 29, 2005 5:14 PM

YIPPPPEEEEEEEE!!!!!!

Posted by: Interested at May 29, 2005 5:19 PM

Interested.
This is indeed the result you were favouring. It will be interesting to see now how other votes go, and how this affects our own chances of getting a referendum. Anybody here with enough connections with France to express an opinion on who voted how and why? Are you on line Dafferdys?

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at May 29, 2005 5:46 PM

A great day for Europe. Thank France for voting NO

Posted by: Franze at May 29, 2005 5:51 PM

Granny W - hasn't Blair already said there won't be a referendum here if the French vote 'No'?

Personally I wanted a referendum here anyway to wipe the smug grin off Blair's face. I loathe the EU - it has far too much power, and my gut feeling is that most Brits hate it.

It seems that the French voted 'non' for what we might call the 'wrong' reasons in some cases - the Trots thought it was too 'Anglo-Saxon' and pro-free markets!

Anyway it's a good result, though Mark Steyn had some words of caution (before the result came through):

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn29.html

An 'exit poll' must mean something very different in France.

Posted by: Interested at May 29, 2005 6:06 PM

Apparently Chirac said:

France has expressed itself democratically,” Chirac said. “It is your sovereign decision, and I take note.”

Which politician was it who said: The People have spoken....., the bastards!

Posted by: Interested at May 29, 2005 6:08 PM

Interested
I know he said that last week but 7 days is a long time in politics. But, as I agree with you that the EU is so unpopular a no vote is likely, I doubt we will get a chance to show it so.

BTW according to google it was a Dick Tuck, a Californian state senate candidate in 1966.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at May 29, 2005 6:21 PM

Run for the hills. The lights are going out all over Europe, just as the EU apparatchiks predicted. Its now a one way ticket to the Holocaust as one EU official predicts. If Holland says 'NO', then it will be all over for Europe.

What is more of a concern apart from the wild predictions in the event of a 'NO', is what EU politicians intend to do in the future. As they have said many times, there is no plan B. I'm fairly certain that the provisions of the EU constitution will be incorporated, properly disguised, into EU legislation piece by piece. This referendum is just show theatre.

The one good that may come from this 'NO', is that Turkey's entry will be delayed so far into the future, that it will be politically meaningless.

Posted by: DP111 at May 29, 2005 6:24 PM

May 29, 2004
This Date in History: Constantinople Falls
May 29, 1453: After a siege of several seeks, Constantinople finally fell to Turkish forces under the command of Mehmed II. The walls that protected Constantinople had stood for more than a thousand years; when they fell, the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) also ended.

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at May 29, 2005 6:43 PM

"I loathe the EU - it has far too much power, and my gut feeling is that most Brits hate it."

I think you're right.

"Which politician was it who said: The People have spoken....., the bastards!"

Politician??? do you mean JW'er, I think most of the people here would have had that thought running through there heads at some point.

Posted by: ia786 at May 29, 2005 7:56 PM

ia~ for once you are right- France said 'NO!' and we agree: the people have spoken.

The bastards have to find another way around the people. Meantime we have a bit of a respite.

Posted by: Gary at May 29, 2005 8:11 PM

From Samizdata blog, continuing my comment earlier that the French voted the right way for the wrong reasons:

'To all French crypto-communists, syndicalists, marxists, trotskyites, leninists, stalinists, national socialists, socialist nationalists, primitivists, Trade Union dinosaurs, student activists, greenie nutters, neo-fascists, old fashioned fascists, quasi-crypto-troglodyte-Pol-Pottist-year
zero-flat-earthers, looney tunes and enviro-goons....Merci Beaucoup!!!!'

Posted by: Interested at May 29, 2005 8:22 PM

Screw the Zeropeans and their EU. Almost all Zeropeans are socialist anti-semitic, and anti-American. The real reason they hate the Jews is because they think that showing Jews any kind of friendship will cut off their oil from the middle east, and the real reason they hate America is because Americans are free market capitalists. America will always be able to out-compete the socialist Zeropeans precisely because they are capitalists and this bugs the sh_t out of the Zeropeans. Fu_k the Zeropeans and the French. The death of Europe is at hand and this is just the first sign.

Posted by: SnowDawg at May 29, 2005 10:11 PM

"To all French crypto-communists, syndicalists, marxists, trotskyites, leninists, stalinists, national socialists, socialist nationalists, primitivists, Trade Union dinosaurs, student activists, greenie nutters, neo-fascists, old fashioned fascists, quasi-crypto-troglodyte-Pol-Pottist-year
zero-flat-earthers, looney tunes and enviro-goons....Merci Beaucoup!!!!"

Interested,
Like list! :-)

Posted by: skidd at May 29, 2005 10:26 PM

The thing is, the EU would work very well without France and its emotional insecurities. They could use one official language (English), dismantle the Common Agricultural Policy, and let EU consumers choose whether or not they wanted to buy cheap food and clothes. Any good European should vote to expel France from the EU.

Posted by: Cedric J Krumpacker at May 30, 2005 12:53 AM

It will be interesting to see if Turkey gets more fundamental from the rejection here they will want to lick their wounds and seek some kind of succor.
I have read a few things coming out of there They think the answer to the problem is more Muslims in Europe showing the ones there how to be Muslims.
They also think if the west was more like turkey Europe would be stronger .They think Turkey is the model for the world .So basically nothing new coming from them. Next.
http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=1216

http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=1217

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at May 30, 2005 2:05 AM

Please, Violetti, Crapeaud, not Toad.

Posted by: Kepha at May 30, 2005 3:33 AM

Granny Weathermax,

Its funny, here I am as a person who openly welcomed immigrants now finding that some of the immigrants are the wrong type and that I have been tolerent to the intolerent.

For years I have struggled with Europe and its undemocratic ways, it has been one of those I know its better to be in Europe, but I am not convinced that this is the right way. Airfrance, Krups, one rule for them the Brits etc and we (the French/German axis) ignore the rules.

If you look at at in one way only, France has always played the EU as its baby, now that baby has grown up and has a life and approach of its own, it will no longer listen to its parent.

The French suddenly realised that they no longer controlled Europe, for years other countries have been subsidizing French farmers and that was now about to end (does any one know that Chirac's first post was Agriculture minister.)

Anyway, the majority of those that voted non were the extremes of both sides of the political spetrum (though note that a right wing politician in France in the UMP is to the left of Tony Blair's Labour party (excluding the extreme right of course.)) The Union vote was non, because of fear of losing their jobs and social protection, but the EU has nothing to do with this at all, unless they want to put tariffs up on all non-French goods and services (and they can't do that with a non either.)

The extreme right voted non because they of course do not want to see France submerged within Europe.

The Farmers voted no, because they are desperate to protect their slice of the cake, but in voting no they really screwed themselves, because it would have been better if they voted yes.

The vast majority of middle of the road people and business people voted yes. My wife voted yes and I would have voted yes, though with huge reservations.

Sure there was the votes against the government, by the left, Chirac painted himself into a corner with this one, today he stated that their would be a re-shuffle of his government, pap, those people who voted non to get at the government are as bad as allahbots, because they did not use their brains.

Anyway here I am, left with the usual EU feeling, both sadness and happiness at the result, the part of the constitution that protects the rights of minorities and that protected that school girl in Luton are still there, and I am left with the same old undemocratic Europe, I know that the new treaty improved it, but still made dealing with Islam impossible.

Another feeling is that this changes nothing for France, she will be embarrased, she will lose standing, but that will not hinder her, she will play the same hand and play it well, though the ability to play that hand for at least the next two years is simply impaired.

Britain will have an improved hand for a while, but it won't last long.

Anyway, more Euromuddle!!!

But for you people who think that a non vote makes any difference to the war against Jihad, think again, it makes not one iota of difference, in my opinion it may even weaken it as the elites can still play their games without listening to the people.

Posted by: Daffersd at May 30, 2005 3:42 AM

Daffersd,

What do Europeans think of the Article in the EU Constition that EUROPOL, the police force, are above the law, that they cannot be prosecuted for any crime they might commit in the course of work. This article would create a police state, like the ones we just went through, the Gestapo, the KGB.

There is another Article that said the elected EU Parliament cannot make any laws, only the EU Commission can, and it is un-elected and cannot be fired.

I have always thought that no one would tolerate such totalitarian structures, this being 2005, and we had experienced Nazi Germany and the USSR. But nobody took to the streets, nobody was shouting left and right that these 2 articles were blatantly undemocratic and dictatorial, and every mainstream news report I read swept these under the rug with "the EU Constitution is designed to streamline decision making in the EU government."

Perhaps by "streamline decision making" they mean allowing the Police to do anything they want, and allowing the EU political elite to make whatever laws they like.

Posted by: skidd at May 30, 2005 4:53 AM

Skidd,

Your comments about EUROPOL and the European Commission are two of the reasons I had reservations on the EU constitution, the issue for me is that the EU is undemocratic in its structure and its that because nations states do not want to give up sovereignty, so we end up with a European parliment that is basicly a worthless talking shop and UNELETCTED failed politicians holding key decision making and law making posts.

I have no issue about becoming the United States of Europe, or continuing as the UK and France as nations states, but I have an issue with this fudge and its lack of democracy and voter participation in the top decision making process of the EU.

I and many others saw the constitution as imprefect but a step forward, as I especially dislike that a person in Luxembourg is between 5 to 10 times more powerful in the EU then a German based on current allocated votes.

That is the issue of trying to please too many, you please no-one.

I think France threw out the treaty because of its failing economic system more than anything else, they think that all their ills is based on cheap labour in eastern europe, it is true that items produced for the home market are now under threat, but they are wrong, their problem is that their own labour costs are far above most other countries and as France was a major exporter they are losing in world markets, it is as simple as that.

Like I said I can't make up my mind whether to laugh or cry! Funny how the EU always has that effect on me.

Posted by: Daffersd at May 30, 2005 5:37 AM

Daffersd
First, my apology for spelling your name wrong. I should have taken the trouble late last night to look up one of your previous posts.

My husband is more pro Europe than I, and the best point that he makes is that we should have the benefits of things like the employment laws which are better in Europe, or seem so to him. While I only see bureaucratic lunacy from Brussels in the shape of funspoiling regulations. Although I know that EU regulations are used as a good jobsworth excuse when they are not the reason at all.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at May 30, 2005 5:37 AM

No need to apologise, I love your posts.

I think that there is no benefit in those employment laws, I should call the unemployment laws. I run a small business and I contract too, my social security payments are awesome!!

I happen to be a free market anglo-saxon, but with a caring side to my nature and an extreme dislike of CEO's putting their hands in the tills.

French socialists are really sick, they had this issue with the pension for years and they did nothing, they wait for a right wing government to turn up and make the difficult decisions, so they can say look at what they are doing, but because they let it drift it is they who made it worse then it should have been, to me they are unfit to govern.

I know some declared socialists who spend a lot of time doing things on the black, but of course its alright to spend other peoples money isn't it?

The left want to use Islam to make the Capitalist system fail, then the Commumists can then pick up the brain washed who are disillusioned with religion into their system, its the only reason I can see for this unholy alliance!! Am I being cynical or what?

Posted by: Daffersd at May 30, 2005 5:52 AM

"Victory to the Crusaders!"

You should never use the word ‘victory’ and ‘Crusaders’ in the same sentence, they're not compatible.

Posted by: ia786 at May 30, 2005 6:31 AM

In that case Ia: Defeat to Islam!

Posted by: Gary at May 30, 2005 6:41 AM

You forgot their partners in this unholy alliance: Defeat to the Left!

Posted by: epg at May 30, 2005 6:51 AM

ia786,

The battle of Arsulf, always interesting to read the limited Muslim account of it, that Saladin refused to eat afterwards and was disconsolate says it all.

As a student of Byzantium history I have to say that they had many victories against the Arabs and it was only the arrival of the Turks and the battle of Manzikert that started their long fall which ended with the fall of Constantinople in 1453, it was the Turks was it not.

As for the Arab conquest the Persians and the Byzantiums had exhausted themselves in a long and bitter war, I have wondered exactly what would have happened if the Byzantiums and the Persians had not had that war...

Posted by: Daffersd at May 30, 2005 6:56 AM

Ah good! young ia is up, but not neccessarily about, on this Whitsen bank holiday Monday.
So, what's your answer to my questions on Saturdays thread then?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/006391.php#comments

How significant is the disapproval of Naqshbandi Tariqah as shown in the articles I found?

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at May 30, 2005 7:00 AM

Daffersd,

Thanks for your reply.

Still, 45% of France said YES to a police state where the police is immune from prosecution for any crime they may commit, and YES to having their laws dictated by an oligarchy whom they didn't elect and can't fire.

And France is a first-world nation, not a banana republic... or am I wrong?

I'm stunned.

It's a tragic day if the EU Constitution is ratified. You won't become the United States of Europe. You will be the Soviet Union of Europe.

Posted by: skidd at May 30, 2005 7:32 AM

The unelected Commission is a fact, it is something I heartily dislike and disagree with, like I said this is a serious problem with the EU because it is fundementally undemocratic and open to abuse.

As for the police part I did not see that in the constituion, which I should have pointed out in my first reply, if you can direct me to the relevent part I would appreciate it, Article III-276 looks ok to me if this is what you mean.

Posted by: Daffersd at May 30, 2005 7:52 AM

Miss Moneypenny

All the others must have voted 'yes' as France was the 10th.

Posted by: Elephant at May 30, 2005 8:14 AM

Yes, "Defeat to islam" has certainly occurred often enough throughout history. (The "Big One" is yet to come, however. Keep watching - it won't be long now!)

And I think the Crusaders did just fine in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Let's see . . . who's next?

Posted by: CGW at May 30, 2005 12:08 PM

Why don't the Europeans just enjoy their unique identities, individual border security and national monetary controls (sadly already ceded), and live in a loose coalition?

They have no functioning military power, so all of their other BIG proclamations and GRAND intentions are the de facto erections of eunuchs.

This urge to unite 'just to unite' will undermine their real strengths. (The parts are greater than the whole.)

If the French derailed the bullet train to collective oblivion for the wrong reasons, the result is still a good one.

Now let the Dutch put some Holland 'mayonnaise' on top of the French 'patat frites'!

Posted by: BigSleep at May 30, 2005 12:43 PM

Daffersd,

It seems Europol is already so empowered since the Treaty of Amsterdam:

"Under Article 8 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, members of the new federal 'Europol' are 'immune from legal process of any kind for acts performed... in the exercise of their official functions.' Thus, no Europol officer can be charged or brought to trial for false imprisonment, violence against a suspect, the destruction or seizure of private property , or harassment of any individual."
(See 'D-Day + N')

The Daily Telegraph confirms this in 2001:

"Unlike national police officers, Europol staff are not compelled to testify in court and are immune from prosecution for "acts performed by them in the exercise of their official functions".
(See 'Euro police HQ raided')

This from the Burges Group:

"It is proposed that Europol will be transformed into a body resembling a mix of both the FBI and the CIA. Europol, with a jurisdiction over ever citizen and subject in the European Union, will have powers worthy of any Police State.

* It will be completely unaccountable to the Governments of member states and any democratic institution, even the European Parliament.
* Its officers, unlike Britain's police, are immune from prosecution should they commit a criminal offence in the course of their duties."
(See 'EU threat to civil liberties')

Posted by: skidd at May 30, 2005 12:59 PM

How about..

Islam Delenda Est.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at May 30, 2005 1:43 PM

Skidd,

Thanks for this, a police force not accountable to anyone and with full immunity is not acceptable, what drug are these people smoking to allow this.

I think that at times respecting civil liberties has gone to far, making it virtually impossible to deal with wrongdoers. However I think that this is a step to far the other way, there has to be checks and balances.

I think that this stupidity is as a result of the issues I had pointed out in my earlier posts in regards to the structure of the EU.

Wow, the mind boggles.

Note I said yes with reservations, that are close to no, and like I said earlier I don't know whether to welcome the no or be sad about it.

A large part of me really hates these elites sitting in their ivory towers in Brussells, these are the sort of twats that allow Turkey to add Islamophobia next to anti-semitism as a crime and tie themselves in knots to please anyone apart from the people they are supposed to serve.

Posted by: Daffersd at May 30, 2005 4:01 PM

Gary: Defeat is not enough.
Eradication will do!

Posted by: Terminator at May 30, 2005 4:54 PM

Daffersd,

Be definitely happy for the NON.

The EU Constitution will set up a Soviet Union of Europe. You don't want that. With it defeated, Europeans have an opportunity to either reclaim their national sovereignty (I think you're still ruled by all the past EU treaties, so probably no change), or work towards a United States of Europe that enshrines life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for its people, and a transparent, democratic, limited accountable government.

And dump this bunch of twisted, blatantly lying, outrageous Eurocrats who tried to push the EU Constitution on you, saying things like "it makes Europe more democratic" -Chirac (the elected EU Parliament can't make any laws, the unelected EU Commission makes them all).

I liked Blair when I first saw him speak on TV. He has candor, like an honest schoolboy. Now I think he is selling your national birthright to foreigners, wholesale - Parliament, the Magna Carta, your liberties, England herself. I don't know what he gets in return. If I were English I'd be hopping mad... Then again, I'm not English, and I'm hopping mad.

Posted by: skidd at May 31, 2005 12:04 AM

"Almost all Zeropeans are socialist anti-semitic, and anti-American."

A more xenophobic, paranoid statement one cannot make. I think this about sums it up.

Posted by: KingTolerance at May 31, 2005 8:10 PM

Daffersd: Long ago,young King Jamie VI of Scotland failed to do his Latin conjugations and got birched for it, in good 16th century pedagogical fashion. It good 16th century fashion, his guardian, the Countess of Mar, rebuked the aged Dr. Buchanan, the royal tutor, for striking "the Lord's Anointed." Peering over his spectacles, Buchanan said, "Madam, I have whipped his arse, you may kiss it if you please."

Since that time, the Anglophone world has been seeking ways to limit power in order to avoid its abuse (whether we've succeeded or not is another question). Hence, in his study of the Puritan, Glorious, and American Revolutions, the British historian Pocock speaks of _Three British Revolutions_. Hence, the British sought safety in numbers (Parliamentary supremacy); while the Americans drafted a constitution that seeks to separate and balance the powers of government.

Against this, the European continent has long seen a centralized bureaucratic state as the ultimate "rationalized" expression of political life. France led the way in shaping the practice of such statism, while Germans forged its ideological defense.

Re Maggie Thatcher: It's said she was once talking history with the French Ambassador, who commented on how the British navy was such a superb fighting machine, seldom defeated at sea.

"That's simple," said Thatcher. "It's because we always pray before we go into battle."

Being a devout Catholic despite his government, the French diplomat was nonplussed. "Mais, zut alors, so do we!"

"Ah yes," said La Thatcher, "But we pray in English."

Posted by: Kepha at June 1, 2005 12:34 AM

"Ah yes," said La Thatcher, "But we pray in English."

Kepha, sweet!

Posted by: skidd at June 1, 2005 5:17 AM

Kepha, brilliant, loved it and yes I agree about the political systems, Switzerland is a good example of the European method, it is described as a democratic police state!!!

Posted by: Daffersd at June 3, 2005 8:04 AM