Skip to main content

View Diary: I just voted NO in France - defense of the NO vote, which is the ONLY PROGRESSIVE VOTE (175 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  My dear Frank (none)
    the vast majority of the EU countries were for the War in Iraq. Bush has strong alliances with many countries, such as Britain, Estonia, Poland... He would LOVE for Europe to have a united foreign voice and to get those countries to dictate to the more reticent countries whether they should vote for war resolutions in the UN or not.

    I don't know what happened on November 2nd! But I do know what we will make happen starting on November 3rd!

    by FrenchSocialist on Sun May 29, 2005 at 03:56:03 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Naw. (4.00)
      Deciding only for your own country is different than having to decide a common outcome with other leaders. There would have been a bigger incentive to keep things together. I.e. you don't want to piss off France and Germany too much if you need to work closely together with them in matters of foreign policy (and others).

      Not having to consult with eachother is more likely to lead countries into Bush' arms.

    •  Several arguments (4.00)
      • Eastern Europe relies on the USA for their defense PRECISELY because the EU doesn't do that yet
      • they took a pro-USA line because Chirac told them to shut the fuck up in pretty insulting terms
      • they also took that line because they were not yet part of the EU. See how they behaved viz. Ukraine recently, helping to shape the EU voice and working through the EU. They've learnt that the EU can have a voice if it's united
      • any mechanism that forces the European countries to forge a compromise on foreign policy will make it possible for the voice of Europe to be heard, as a single loud voice. Instead, without Europe as such, you get 25 yapping dogs that everybody ignores.

      Europe works because it forces people to make compromises and work together. Yes, the result is messy and not pretty, but it works, and it is better than the increasingly selfish policies that we see when these cohesive forces disappear.

      in the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)

      by Jerome a Paris on Sun May 29, 2005 at 04:10:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It was a combination of (none)
        1)siding with the US on a single issue (that would have no impact on internal affairs) as a way of thanks for resisting the Soviet Union, and

        2)more prominently, using their declared independence on foreign policy to bolster their bargaining power on EU development, particularly in regards to voting weights, budget, and tax policy.

        I should point out that only in Poland was there a majority in support of the war among the populace; all other countries were overwhelmingly against it. But again, since US & Iraq would have no impact on domestic affairs, individual leaders saw it as a free pass from the public, which they could use to gain leverage in the EU.

        •  I didn't know about Poland (none)

             (I could have said I forgot just for the sake of the joke, but that would have been a lie :))

              As far as I knew, the only country in the world a majority of whose population supported the war (including the US) was Israel.


    •  oh Lord, that's really too much (4.00)
      Bush would LOVE for Europe to have a unitded foreign voice? - Are you dreaming? All the political rhetoric in the US proves the opposite, they are actively playing the game of divide and conquer with whatever subtle  sophistication or direct ideological criticism.

      The libertarian left and right in the US (and in Europe of course) are IMO in the process of appeasing divisive trends in Europe and are triggers for discontent in Europe. The fear of a united, compromising Europe in the US is just unbelievable strange. You play directly in their hands and I think you are a traitor when it comes to try to overcome divisiveness in Europe among the "diva" nations all over the continent.

      The vast majority of the EU POPULATION was against the war in Iraq. The so-called strong allies like Estonia and Poland were allies because they had fresh memories of authoritarian governments oppressing their rights. They could relate to Bush's freedom rhetoric and wanted to believe in its sincerety, they also needed the US support. That's an ally out of necessity for survival and a historical coincidence, which was smartly used by the Bush administration to sell their policies. As if the US has ever cared about Estonia before.

      I do think that the UK had morally sincere reasons to support the Iraq war. I trust Blair's ethical judgement and integrity and sincerety, I don't trust Bush's, Cheney's, Rumsfeld's, Feith ethical judgement one bit. That's the difference.

      Well I am very disappointed over the "lefties" in France and Germany. That's quite a strange thing to say the least. I can handle a right-wing NO, I am quite upset about the left-wing NO, because so far the reasons I do understand for the lefties' NO are not acute or dangerous enough to throw the baby out with the bathtub water.

      I doubt it will be the EU constituion that will make an abuse of civil and human rights abuses by a right-wing (or very ridiculously a completely non-existend possibility of acommunist) take over in Europe possible. The right-wingers, who are prone to violate human and civil rights, pop up in each European nation separately and independently and it their respective nation's own constitutions, not the EU constitution, that may lack the necessary constitutional check and balances to prevent such a power grab by extremist groups to happen. The right-wingers in France are motivated by different rhetoric and local problems than the right-wingers in Germany, I would assume.

      I have a hard time to believe that it would be easy to violate basic human and civil rights in Europe these days and certainly not because we try to create a "constitution" of a "European Union of Nations".  

      Human life should be governed by truth, freedom, justice and love.

      by mimi on Sun May 29, 2005 at 04:54:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In light of the Downing Street minutes (none)
        and the subsequent revelations in the London TImes:

        I trust Blair's ethical judgement and integrity and sincerety

        seems to be a weak basis for calling someone else a "traitor," which is a term that should be left to the Ann Coulters of the world.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site