4 ms·

this is the general principle behind the EU Commission: that of a technocracy the head of the Commission, Jean Claude Juncker, on the 2005 French referendum on

this is the general principle behind the EU Commission: that of a technocracy the head of the Commission, Jean Claude Juncker, on the 2005 French referendum on the Lisbon Treaty: "If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'." the result being that the French rejected it, but it was adopted regardless

jimnotgym 8y ago
Wikipedia suggests that 1. The French didn't hold a referendum on Lisbon 2. The treaty was ratified in 2008 Presumably you are either confusing the referendum on the EU constitution with the Lisbon treaty, or trying to suggest that they are one and the same? They are not of course, the Lisbon treaty was drafted specifically to address the concerns with the EU constitution. "The electorate rejected version 1, so we redrafted until it was acceptable" sounds like a pretty good policy to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_Lisbon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_...
- blibble 8y ago
  as I'm sure you are aware: the texts of the constitution and the Lisbon Treaty are essentially completely identical the Treaty was a device created to pass the constitution while bypassing the need for referendums > "The electorate rejected version 1, so we redrafted until it was acceptable" sounds like a pretty good policy to me well yes, that sounds reasonable, except the electorate were not given the option to reject it a second time, because they might actually do that
  - jimnotgym 8y ago
    > as I'm sure you are aware: the texts of the constitution and the Lisbon Treaty are essentially completely identical I am not aware of any such thing, in fact I reject your statement completely. > the electorate were not given the option to reject it a second time Isn't that a matter for France to address, rather than the EU
    - candiodari 8y ago
      Well, I for one agree with the GP statement. The Lisbon treaty was specifically designed to override the will of voters, and is essentially identical to the EU constitution. This is a view, I feel, that's shared by the entire Western European press. Needless to say, this has now been repeated, again, and again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_related_to_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_related_to_the_Eur... And of course, one might say that the EU treated the election results in Greece, Italy, France and Germany with utter contempt. Greece most of all, of course, but the others aren't far behind.
- sievebrain 8y ago
  It wasn't redrafted until it was acceptable. It was passed as is, but as a massive series of "amendments" that effectively rewrote the entire previous document into the new one.
JeanMarcS 8y ago
French referendum was the exact opposite of Brexit referendum. The question asked was « Do we accept this constitution ? » As you can imagine, barely anyone read it, so on the end most of voters choosed their response on this question : « Do I like my actual government ? » But my point is, for the Brexit the question was simple, and could have been summarized as « Leave or stay ? » which is very easy to have an opinion on (even if the consequences were not that clear and, as many have stated in other comments here, an elaborated exit treaty should have been thought before asking). So one one side, a complex question (due to the complexity of the text), and on the other a simple one. And in the end, most of voters voted emotionally. Maybe not that different after all.
- mikeash 8y ago
  The lack of a complex text doesn’t make the Brexit question simpler. It really makes it far more complex: a massively complex agreement is implied as part of Leave, but at the time of the vote nobody knew just what it would say! It’s like asking, “Do you accept this constitution we’re going to write soon?”
  - JeanMarcS 8y ago
    I didn’t meant that the problem was easy. What I tried to say is that for the French one, the question was too complex to be understood by most, so it ended simplified in their (our) heads. So even if there had been a pre exit agreement to be vote for in the Brexit one, it might ended the same. Leave or stay. And I’m not sure UK people would have read it (but I may be completely wrong by projecting how we did in France)
    - mikeash 8y ago
      I’m just saying that the Brexit question was ultimately the same: too complex to comprehend, so people understood it in a ludicrously simplified form. It’s just less obvious when the complexity isn’t even known yet. I think your conclusion is right. Having an agreement worked out first probably wouldn’t have changed much.
    - 8y ago

jimnotgym 8y ago

Wikipedia suggests that 1. The French didn't hold a referendum on Lisbon 2. The treaty was ratified in 2008 Presumably you are either confusing the referendum on the EU constitution with the Lisbon treaty, or trying to suggest that they are one and the same? They are not of course, the Lisbon treaty was drafted specifically to address the concerns with the EU constitution. "The electorate rejected version 1, so we redrafted until it was acceptable" sounds like a pretty good policy to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_Lisbon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_...

blibble 8y ago
as I'm sure you are aware: the texts of the constitution and the Lisbon Treaty are essentially completely identical the Treaty was a device created to pass the constitution while bypassing the need for referendums > "The electorate rejected version 1, so we redrafted until it was acceptable" sounds like a pretty good policy to me well yes, that sounds reasonable, except the electorate were not given the option to reject it a second time, because they might actually do that
- jimnotgym 8y ago
  > as I'm sure you are aware: the texts of the constitution and the Lisbon Treaty are essentially completely identical I am not aware of any such thing, in fact I reject your statement completely. > the electorate were not given the option to reject it a second time Isn't that a matter for France to address, rather than the EU
  - candiodari 8y ago
    Well, I for one agree with the GP statement. The Lisbon treaty was specifically designed to override the will of voters, and is essentially identical to the EU constitution. This is a view, I feel, that's shared by the entire Western European press. Needless to say, this has now been repeated, again, and again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_related_to_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_related_to_the_Eur... And of course, one might say that the EU treated the election results in Greece, Italy, France and Germany with utter contempt. Greece most of all, of course, but the others aren't far behind.
sievebrain 8y ago
It wasn't redrafted until it was acceptable. It was passed as is, but as a massive series of "amendments" that effectively rewrote the entire previous document into the new one.

JeanMarcS 8y ago

French referendum was the exact opposite of Brexit referendum. The question asked was « Do we accept this constitution ? » As you can imagine, barely anyone read it, so on the end most of voters choosed their response on this question : « Do I like my actual government ? » But my point is, for the Brexit the question was simple, and could have been summarized as « Leave or stay ? » which is very easy to have an opinion on (even if the consequences were not that clear and, as many have stated in other comments here, an elaborated exit treaty should have been thought before asking). So one one side, a complex question (due to the complexity of the text), and on the other a simple one. And in the end, most of voters voted emotionally. Maybe not that different after all.

mikeash 8y ago
The lack of a complex text doesn’t make the Brexit question simpler. It really makes it far more complex: a massively complex agreement is implied as part of Leave, but at the time of the vote nobody knew just what it would say! It’s like asking, “Do you accept this constitution we’re going to write soon?”
- JeanMarcS 8y ago
  I didn’t meant that the problem was easy. What I tried to say is that for the French one, the question was too complex to be understood by most, so it ended simplified in their (our) heads. So even if there had been a pre exit agreement to be vote for in the Brexit one, it might ended the same. Leave or stay. And I’m not sure UK people would have read it (but I may be completely wrong by projecting how we did in France)
  - mikeash 8y ago
    I’m just saying that the Brexit question was ultimately the same: too complex to comprehend, so people understood it in a ludicrously simplified form. It’s just less obvious when the complexity isn’t even known yet. I think your conclusion is right. Having an agreement worked out first probably wouldn’t have changed much.
  - 8y ago