French Reject E.U. Constitution

[Spiffor]

Funny, I always thought the Gypsies were Christian. And white also

[Pekka]

"does it matter? racism is racism, no matter who it is directed against. the thread that units european hate for others is that they are not judeo christian or white."

Depends. We don't like Russians either. They are white and christians. Sure, racism is the same thing no matter who the group targeted is, but since this was about turks, I said turks in here are not looked down upon, so you had to reply that roma people are. I thought this was turning into Turkey in EU, not racism in Europe. So no, it's not the same.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Funny, I always thought the Gypsies were Christian. And white also

no, they come out of india.

Depends. We don't like Russians either. They are white and christians. Sure, racism is the same thing no matter who the group targeted is, but since this was about turks, I said turks in here are not looked down upon, so you had to reply that roma people are. I thought this was turning into Turkey in EU, not racism in Europe. So no, it's not the same.

yeah i know we dont like russians or the swedes, but we dont like them because of history, not because they are russian.
but yeah, i was talking about racism in europe in general.

[Pekka]

We don't not-like Swedes, that's mostly good and fun games. We really like them.

Ok racism in Europe in general, yes there is racism in Europe. Breaking news.

[Winston]

Swedes

You can't live with them, ... pass the beer nuts.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Winston
Swedes

You can't live with them, ... pass the beer nuts.

Could we please get the kammertone ? I'm 1/4 swedish - even got some family over there

[Lawrence of Arabia]

the SNCF, the french railway workers union is going on strike on june 2nd.

[Solly]

And now so do the Dutch..

[BeBMan]

Latvian parlament just agreed to it. I think people there where mostly of the "Pro" side too (between 60-70% in polls IIRC). Of course these are the people which were told to shut up by some guy earlier, so their positions are irrelevant. I wonder if they are even real Europeans......just strange that nobody there seems to be afraid of losing its job to some evil invasion of workforce from the west..... /sarcasm

[Ned]

It does appear that the reason the treaty was rejected was because of the immigration problem, whether from the fear of loss of jobs, racism or religious bigotry.

We would have the same problem here in the US if NAFTA required open borders.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
It does appear that the reason the treaty was rejected was because of the immigration problem, whether from the fear of loss of jobs, racism or religious bigotry.

In the Netherlands: maybe (and I'm underwhelmed by the explanation). In France: not. I've repeatedly provided facts about it.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

? what? in that link you provided, 35% of those who voted no voted so because it would prevent turkey fromt joining.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
? what? in that link you provided, 35% of those who voted no voted so because it would prevent turkey fromt joining.

Yup. 65% of the Non voters didn't take Turkey into account at all. You'll actually find many (though not most) people in the Non who favor Turkey's membership (they're from the left), and a large majority of Oui voters that oppose it (they're from the Parliamentary right).

Remember that the item you're quoting lets people pick whatever statements they want. Unlike a question where the total is 100%, that question helps determine who weighted a factor in their decision, and who didn't weight it at all. 65% of the Non didn't weight it at all.

This, despite the fact that a large majority of French people oppose Turkey's membership.

Le cumul de ces facteurs explique l'ampleur et la constance du refus de l'entrée de la Turquie dans l'Union européenne. Un tiers seulement de la population en âge de voter y est favorable contre 55% opposé en novembre 2002, 37% contre 50% en décembre 2004, 28% contre 57% en février 2005 (sondages CSA). Et l'opposition est nettement plus forte à droite, où la peur de l'Islam et le rejet des immigrés et des "autres" sont plus prononcés qu'a gauche. En décembre dernier si 56% des personnes interrogées se disaient "plutôt"ou "tout a fait" opposées au principe de l'adhésion de la Turquie (Canal Ipsos/Le Figaro) la proportion varie de 34-35% à l'extrême gauche et chez les Verts, 39% au PC, 55% chez les proches du PS, à 63% chez les proches de l'UMP, et 72% chez ceux de l'UDF, attachés à la défense de l'identité chrétienne de l'Europe, proportion presque aussi élevée que chez les proches du FN et du MNR (74%).

La question turque n'est pas le seul enjeu sur lequel se prononceront les électeurs le 29 mai, et les positions sur la Turquie et sur le traité ne se recoupent pas nécessairement. Ainsi les proches de l'extrême gauche et du PC sont à la fois les plus favorables à l'adhésion de la Turquie et les plus décidés à voter Non, presque autant que les proches du FN qui sont les plus hostiles à la Turquie. Mais l'enjeu divise profondément l'électorat de la droite modérée, écartelé entre son soutien au gouvernement, son attachement à l'Europe, et son rejet majoritaire de la Turquie. Selon un récent sondage (CSA / Marianne réalisé par téléphone le 23 mars 2005), l'entrée de la Turquie arrivait en tête des motifs invoqués pour le "non" (31% des personnes interrogées), et cette proportion atteint un niveau record de 55% chez les électeurs et électrices proches de la droite.

http://referendum2005.tns-sofres.com/news/europe/0,,3220258-VU5WX0lEIDM4Mg==,00.html

(Nonna Mayer is a specialist of the French far-right)

[LDiCesare]

The most significant stats in the link you provided, Spiffor, is that the votes were mostly split along education/revenues: The most educated/wealthy the most French voted yes, and the poorest/less educated voted no.
I guess this shows, too, that ecnomics reasons were the most important ones. People are afraid of losing their job (or welfare) to other countries.
I think the main problem with the treaty was it was so big and full of useless stuff. I read all of it except part 3, which I only partially read. I stopped at page 125 when the text explained what would happen until 1998. They really should never have put a text like that to the vote, where it was impossible to make out easily what was new and what was old.
As for Villepin, isn't that the man who advised Chirac his first dissolution of the Assemblee Nationale, meaning 5 years of Jospin as prime minister? Let's hope he'll avoid making such smart moves when he's in office.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
As for Villepin, isn't that the man who advised Chirac his first dissolution of the Assemblee Nationale, meaning 5 years of Jospin as prime minister? Let's hope he'll avoid making such smart moves when he's in office.

Well, I think this was Chirac's brightest move during his whole reign (Either Chirac won in 1997 and became the undisputed ruler for 1997-2002, or he won in 2002 and became the undisputed ruler during that term. Besides, with the 5-year term, France's political system is now firmly presidential).

But seriously, I think De Villepin is a terrible choice, that still puzzles me. I suppose Chirac was willing to sacrifice his last heir so that his last years at the helm wouldn't be too painful.