A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » Europe
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

French vote NO on European Constitution



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old June 6th, 2005, 09:44 AM
Jim Ley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 09:16:37 +0100, The Reids
wrote:

Following up to Jim Ley

The Netherlands and Germany have run very well with coalitions, never
any extreme policies, no them and us attitudes ...


Er, I thought you were saying that the Netherlands constitution vote
was due to the populace voting against the establishment?

That sounds exactly like a them and us attitude in the political
parties.


the "them and us" in this case is the yah boo politics you get in
the UK and which is possibly mitigated by PR and coallitions.
Party v party not establishment v population.


Ah right, well I know exactly which one I'd prefer...

Jim.
  #153  
Old June 6th, 2005, 05:06 PM
Miss L. Toe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"The Reids" wrote in message
...
Following up to Miss L. Toe

All politicians lie.


When did Tony Benn lie ?


good one, an exception.


And from the other side
When did Maggie actually lie ?


  #154  
Old June 6th, 2005, 05:10 PM
Padraig Breathnach
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Miss L. Toe" wrote:


"The Reids" wrote in message
.. .
Following up to Miss L. Toe

All politicians lie.

When did Tony Benn lie ?


good one, an exception.


And from the other side
When did Maggie actually lie ?

When she said there was no such thing as society.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
  #155  
Old June 6th, 2005, 05:48 PM
Miss L. Toe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:06:01 +0100, "Miss L. Toe"
wrote:


"The Reids" wrote in message
.. .
Following up to Miss L. Toe

All politicians lie.

When did Tony Benn lie ?

good one, an exception.


And from the other side
When did Maggie actually lie ?


about her son's part in arms deals?


But that was after she was a politician


  #156  
Old June 7th, 2005, 08:55 AM
ALAN HARRISON
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Miss L. Toe" wrote in message
eenews.net...

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:06:01 +0100, "Miss L. Toe"
wrote:


"The Reids" wrote in message
.. .
Following up to Miss L. Toe

All politicians lie.

When did Tony Benn lie ?

good one, an exception.

And from the other side
When did Maggie actually lie ?


about her son's part in arms deals?


But that was after she was a politician

This raises the question: "What is a politician?" She didn't cease to be a
politician when she was stabbed in the back and shoved out by her own party
as PM.. History may well show that Mrs T was one of the most opportunistic
politicians of the late twentieth century....

Alan Harrison


  #157  
Old June 8th, 2005, 09:53 AM
The Reids
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Following up to Miss L. Toe

When did Tony Benn lie ?


good one, an exception.


And from the other side
When did Maggie actually lie ?


when she quoted the bible on gaining office, cant remember the
actual quote but I have a feeling she didn't live up to it? I
also cant remember what she actually said about the Belgrano and
other things at the start of the Falklands, I just remember
"Rejoice".
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
  #158  
Old June 8th, 2005, 09:53 AM
The Reids
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Following up to Miss L. Toe

When did Maggie actually lie ?


about her son's part in arms deals?


But that was after she was a politician


OK, she probably said "love honour and obey" to Dennis.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
  #159  
Old June 8th, 2005, 06:38 PM
Patrick Wallace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

What she quoted on arrival at No10 was a prayer from St Francis of
Assisi. I always thought that what she had in common with him was that
it was for the birds.

But although I couldn't stand the woman, to be fair , the 'rejoice'
remark came after the (entirely bloodless) landing on South Georgia,
which was meant to signal that the whole task force operation was
serious and capable of doing the job that was intended, just as the
Argentinians' original takeover of S Georgia was a test of British
responses. What she always said about the Belgrano was that, in the
judgment of everyone involved, it was a threat to British forces - and
if the Argentinians hadn't launched a naval invasion in the first
place the situation wouldn't have arisen.

PJW

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 09:53:39 +0100, The Reids
wrote:

when she quoted the bible on gaining office, cant remember the
actual quote but I have a feeling she didn't live up to it? I
also cant remember what she actually said about the Belgrano and
other things at the start of the Falklands, I just remember
"Rejoice".
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap


  #160  
Old June 9th, 2005, 09:53 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


I had never seen SO MUCH political debates organised on TV before and
everywhere else in fact... That's what makes me doubtfull for the
french to change their mind because I believe that the vote was really
democratical in the moderate center who really makes the choice. The
day before the vote I told to my father that the no will win because
all the people (generally from popular background) I heard talking
about it in the street were against.
On TV they were often refering to art. X.y or Y.z so I was obliged to
constantly use the booklet of the constitution to verify their
statement... Finally I gave up and virtually didn't watched TV at all
during the last week... The problem is that several articles were
talking of the same thing in different parts, sometimes favourably in a
general statement (objectifs/targets of the union or preambule of a
part) and sometimes in a more disfavourable way when it was coming to
the real competence of the union about it, notably their application
through the european laws (I finally understood that they were
replacing the directives...). The highly complete rights garantied in
the Charter of liberties and their difference of treatment in part III
was for example puzzling since you could find a general statement and
its contradiction. Since quotations of both kinds were of course used
by both... contradictors in TV debates and the campaign papers of the
parties and sometimes with inexactitude it was difficult to understand.
Journalists should have asked to lawyers to pick up the little dozen of
litigious points and to explain them very precisely, in a juridical
way, to the public. Many times too some generous statements were
followed later in part III with too many explicit market tough
interdictions. For the "services publics" for ex. wich preoccupied a
lot the french, I've been unable to understand their final fate, since
the expression appears indeed in the Charter but IMO nowhere else in
part III... So I supposed... that those finally choosed to enter (at
least now by co-decison...) in the union competence will be renamed
enterprise and submitted to the pityless conditions of the competition
chapter..., but I was unable to understand what would exactly remain.
Nevertheless those who pretended that the contested disposition of the
Bolkenstein directive, concerning the application of the law of the
country of origin, was in the constitution were lying. On that point
I'm very amased to hear that the critic of that precise disposition (if
really in the directive which I didn't read) is taken with irony in
anglo-saxon medias. That would mean for example that an afghan or a
cuban coming to USA shoud be submitted only to his own legislation for
everything concerning his work and production even on the US territory.
That would pose enormous problems in matters of consuption rights of
the client or quality of the product... and that would in fact destroy
the US legislation simply because there would be as many legislation
applied as there are foreign countries of which the lower will prevail
and of course nobody able to control their respect... Obviously you
must apply the legislation of the place were you live and work unless
you decide to unify those of different countries. The only way to
change that is IMO the harmonisation for ex. through the EU
directives...
didier Meurgues

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
French 'Non' to Constitution Would Plunge EU into Crisis Go Fig Europe 309 June 19th, 2005 02:31 PM
Euro Disney sees its losses increase Earl Evleth Europe 191 November 18th, 2004 09:26 AM
France, the culture wars over head scarves Earl Evleth Europe 342 January 12th, 2004 10:57 PM
I'm tired of the french bashing nobody Europe 143 December 31st, 2003 05:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.