A year on and a year to go

French voters killed the European Constitution one year ago this weekend so the politicians and media have been doing a little stock-taking. The conclusion seems to be that things have got worse.

The "no", voted by 54.67 percent, was of course not really about Europe but about France's malaise. It was a protest against a discredited governing class and a cry of alarm over France's loss of prosperity and protection in the face of globalisation, or le libéralisme, as the free market is called. The revolt was followed by two other convulsions -- the immigrant riots of last autumn and the student rebellion early this spring.  The "no" voters are now telling pollsters that they feel their vote achieved little but that 90 percent would do it again.

Le Monde today devoted a page to letting non voters sound off about their disappointment. A standard line came from Kader Tighilt, a 43-year-old from Marseilles. "The Constitution was too liberal... but we get the impression that the 'yes' won: everything is going on as before: délocalisations, ultraliberal politics, the rising power of the religious activists." I hear a similar line from my friends who do not belong to the chattering classes. Those of course largely favoured the constitution and lamented the misguided revolt of the lower orders.

The naivety of the leftwing "no" camp continues to amaze. Many believed that France was blazing a trail that would be followed by grateful citizens in neighbouring states. Brussels would be forced to put together a "Plan B" that would endow Europe with French-style labour regulation and erect barriers against the outside world.  In reality, the "no" (joined by the Dutch) did serve as a wake-up call for the Union and its seemingly relentless expansion. But it also sidelined France and left the whole European enterprise wallowing in uncertainty.

In the oui camp, which included President Chirac and most of the leadership of the opposition Socialist party,  the feeling remains a jaded "we told you so". It is hard to imagine how a Government could have reacted more ineptly than Chirac did to the vote. In response to a revolt against the arrogance of the elite, Chirac appointed as Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, the un-elected quintessence of the Gallic nobility.

One year on, de Villepin's credibility has been shredded. He is clinging to office by the grace of the President -- and of Nicolas Sarkozy, the Interior Minister and presidential contender, whose own ambitions are suited by the long agony of the Chirac circle. 

With elections only 11 months away, it seems at times that Chirac is setting the country up for a replay of the 2002 campaign, when Jean-Marie Le Pen, the racist far-right leader, beat the left to second place. Polls are showing Le Pen enjoying a wave of support. The President's latest act -- the granting last week of a pardon to a recently-sentenced crony  -- seems to have been designed to blacken further the governing class. Even Chirac allies were appalled by the amnesty for Guy Drut, former Olympics champion,  minister and friend, only six months after he was convicted of corruption in a case arising from Chirac's days as Mayor of Paris. 

A less predictable outcome from the Constitutional "no" is shaping up on the left. The referendum was expected to strengthen the hand of the Socialist "no" leaders and the far-left, mini-parties for which France has such a soft spot. Yet, a year on, their emerging champion is Ségolène Royal, who hails not from the Trotskyites or the Socialist "no" faction but from their pro-European mainstream. The possibility of a Royal candidature, and even presidency, long derided by her colleagues as media fantasy, is becoming credible. Ségolène has yet to come up with a real manifesto, but it is no secret that she is an old-fashioned European in the French sense.

Where does all this take us ? Chirac just wants to reach 2007 without more trouble so we have to wait a year, until France comes under new management. Le Pen may spring another electoral ambush, but it looks likely now that the mainstream candidates will be Sarkozy and Royal,  both of whom are pragmatic pro-Europeans. They both know that reconciling France to the Union will first mean restoring the country's confidence in itself. 

Comments

[Craig McGinty]

Chirac's pardon for Guy Drut smacks of an attmpts to scuttle his own party ahead of the elections. He knows de Villepin is dead in the water, and clearly dislikes Sarkozy, so why not try and drag everyone down?
But as you note, the great worry is that Le Pen appears ready to fill any vacumn and cause greater devision within the country.

[Frank Schnittger]

Your piece illustrates the banruptcy of both the yes and the no camp in the EU constitutional treaty referendum. Neither have a coherent vision of where to take France (or the EU) from here. Sarkosy may think he is playing a clever waiting game and allowing Chirac/De Villepin to slowly strangle themselves with their own rope. But he may be disappointed. The disillusion with the ruling class may run so deep in 11 months time that the final run-off election may once again feature Le Pen - this time in opposition to a Socialist candidate.

In that scenario I would imagine the Socialists will win - but possibly not with a very clear majority or mandate to take France in any particular direction - unless Royal shows as yet undemonstrated powers of vision and leadership.

The rest of Europe can only look on in horror. Blair is on his last legs, Prodi has a wafer thin Majority and Italian Governments are not noted for their stability. Merkel's powers as a unifying force in Europe are as yet unknown. Zapatero has not exerted much influence beyond his native Spain. EU decision making structures are too cumbersome to make up for such a deficit in charismatic leadership.

The Eurosceptics may yet get their wish - an EU which becomes geriatric, scerotic, and incapable of inspiring its citizenry in any direction. Meanwhile Christian and Islamic fundamentalists make war, Global warming continues apace, and the world economic boom shows signs of becoming unstuck. Unhappy times ahead for all who seek peace and prosperity!

[Robert Marchenoir]

It is rather common to read comments on French blogs calling to vote for Le Pen, not for the usual racist reasons, but as a rejection of the traditional political class.

[Valentin]

I don't exactly remember where I've read this, maybe it was a Times analysis: while a certain part of the European Left turned modern, following Blair's New Labour, there are leftwingers getting not only more to the Left, but even reactionary. It is the weirdness of these years: Liberalism is sometimes considered at the right (when the term itself opposes conservatism), while Left looks more and more conservative, opposing for instance globalisation.
In any case, it is what happens in France. In my opinion, this reactionary part of the French Left, composed of about a dozen small pieces (often fighting amongst themselves), from José Bové to Besancenot to Emmanuelli, basically opposes anything new, modern, evolutive, any reform, any pragmatic approach. They avoid rational debate, stick on the field of populism, utopical idealism, slogans ("the heart is on the left side !" - I almost had a heartattack on hearing that), playing on people's fears and so on.
Or this being the No camp in the referendum (together with extreme right), they can only be united in their populism and negationism. By nature, they cannot have a coherent vision on Europe - or on anything really, other than keeping on saying no.
On the contrary, I found the Yes option quite coherent and reasonable, considering that the EU is at the base a union of economical interests (mostly dealing with trade and finances), quite well managed (here I'm quoting Chris Patten for instance, who's a Tory), not so bureaucratic as it is said to be; leaving all social domains to the national governments is an actual choice of the member states.

As to Chirac's recent pardon, to me it rather looks like yet another exaggerated media hit. I thought it was an example of cronyism too, before learning that Guy Drut had actually admitted guilt, payed the fine, the conviction was suspended ('avec sursis') - there wasn't much to lose for him anymore, or to gain from a pardon.
This isn't like Bill Clinton pardoning felon Marc Rich, while Rich's wife was making huge campain contributions to the Democrats.

[anna de brux]

All political parties like to use old Le Pen and his extreme right wing party as some kind of a whip to excite party militants (and voters too) into action.

Rabble rouser Le Pen becomes useful around election time - good topic for media but really, he's just one of 'em old dogs and not even a good guard at that.

[Robert Marchenoir]

Anna de Brux, I agree that Le Pen is an old dog of a politician and would not have a clue how to govern the country, apart from some xenophobic and anti-left censorship moves, similar to what his party has done at local level when it won elections.

The problem is, a lot of citizens seem to take his anti-establishment stance at face value, and are prepared to vote for him -- or his daughter, who does not bear her father's stigma -- in order to punish the political class.

[john gregory Flinn]

You say that the 'Non' vote was about 'France's malaise'. So what caused the Dutch to say 'Nej'? And the UK would have voted 'No' also.
Anyway, nothing has happened either within France to reconcile its malaise nor in the EU. The political system in both places is incapable, and unwilling, of changing direction because it does not want to do so.
I saw Borroso on TV yesterday (Arte-5) being quizzed. His reply on Turkey epitomised much that is wrong with the political class today. He seemed to assume that 15 years of negotiations was long enough to cover all the objections and all the doubts about Turkey's entry. The fact that the EU should pause and reflect on this,(and the other expansion plans) following the 'non & nej' votes had'nt occurred to him.
'Le Figaro' expressed the view last May 2005, that Europe is not infinite, and that other groups of nations could form their own unions on the EU model.
What happens if a French referendum vetoes Turkey's entry?
This almost total failure to recognise the changing mood, probably explains the rise of support for Le Pen, which also must include De Villiers who should not be forgotten as a potential substitute.
The political class throughout Europe needs reminding it serves the people of Europe not itself. Perhaps the voters in France and Holland - and probably also the UK - are in the vanguard of delivering this message in no uncertain terms.

[Victor Tan]

Most fascinating piece in the Comment & Analysis section of The Financial Times today, headed "Less exceptional: how globalisation is shifting France's political fault lines." by John Thornhill. www.ft.com

In essence, he writes that "As the left hardens in defence of the country's social model, there are signs that traditionally paternalistic strains of Gaullism are starting to give way to an accommodation with economic liberalism."

He quotes Jacques Marseille, a historian at the Sorbonne university and author of "Du Bon Usage de la Guerre Civile en France" "France is a society that is ill at ease with itself, uncomfortable in its skin and unhappy about globalisation, which it makes the scapegoat for all its problems and difficulties. We are in a state of collective depression and need a cure."

If we accept that Marseille's analysis of the state of affairs in France is correct, then the French must be courageous enough to vote for the right candidate to lead them to economic liberalism, and to the path of redemption and prosperity, If China, on a monumental scale, and a smaller state like Ireland can achieve economic prosperity, I for one have no doubt that France with the right leader can do the same.

[Frank Schnittger]

Robert and Anna: Le Pen must be about as unattractive a politician as it is possible to imagine - which his why his performance at the polls is so remarkable. Think what would happen if there was a truly charismatic figure on the extreme right!

My feeling - as an outsider - is that the disillusion with the ruling class runs so deep that the French would vote for such a figure in droves. The problem is that Hitler also had a certain charisma for those disillusioned with the established order. As it is Le Pen just acts as a safety valve for the protest vote - my fear is that a truly charismatic and electable figure will emerge on the extreme right who will completely stop France and the EU in its tracks and take it one giant step backwards. Has France really absorbed the lessons of the Petain regime?

Valentin – you will find an interesting discussion about left versus right, conservative versus liberal etc. on David Aaronovitch’s Blog “Progressives versus Reactionaries”.

john gregory Flinn – I agree with you on Turkey. What the ruling elite have yet to grasp is that if they want to move the EU towards becoming not just a common market, but also a political union – then people have to actually like each other – not just be prepared to work with or tolerate each other. National political entities are formed as much by the bonds of common culture, shared values, and belief systems – as they are by economic interests. It is possible to have huge rivalries within a Nation – think Celtic vs. Rangers, Scots versus English, Basques versus Gauls etc. – and yet still have a common political structure if there are enough social, political and cultural bonds between people.

My gut feel is that the recent eastward expansion of the EU has stretched that sense of a shared European identity to the limit. But western Europeans do not feel that sense of togetherness with Turks and countries further east. That is not to say that one culture is necessarily better than the other – just that they are different. At root, Western European civilisation is still a Christian one (even with all the Schisms contained within that tradition) and even secular political values of democracy, equality before the law etc. have their roots in enlightened Christian tradition. There is no reason why Europeans should feel comfortable with joining up with (and largely adopting) a very different Islamic based political culture and every reason why they should resist. It is not racist to suggest that people generally want to associate with others of similar background and outlook and we have enough that divides us within Europe without taking on entirely different cultures as well.

The key to a democracy is that people willingly sign up for the Laws of the State and the rules of political engagement. You cannot force huge numbers of very different people to live together in harmony – both sides will feel threatened and insecure. It I time we recognised that even the EU project has boundaries – and one of the failings of the rejected constitution was that it did not set out clearly enough precisely what those boundaries should be.

[Clementine]

I just don't understand why 90% of people would vote that way again . One of the consequences of the "No" is that after the referendum, Europe has become taboo in France and no one dares talking about it anymore because it's too sensitive. So what are we doing now?

[john gregory Flinn]

Frank Schnittger - 'Think what would happen if there was a truly charismatic figure on the extreme right' - Phillippe de Villiers could claim this mantle.
He is president of the 'conseil general' in the Vendée and, apparently, has done good work there.
His image is popular especially with the young; he leads the MPF (Mouvement pour la France), whose 'Non' campaign (both to the Constitution and Turkey) was heard very clearly last year.
Currently he trails Le Pen in the polls and has not agreed to join Le Pen's "union patriotique". But that might mean 'not yet'!

[anna de brux]

Bah! Philippe de Villiers is no more charismatic than Jean-Marie Le Pen!

The Vendée conseil générale may take pride in having Villiers for its chief but elsewhere, Villiers is just one neo-conservative of the old kind.

Needless to say, we need a few strong conservatively spirited leaders in France today to get things going.

The Socialists went on a destruction rampage for 14 years; hell bent on "nivellement par le bas", they killed whatever spirit of competitivity that France had left and which the country badly needed to compete on an even keel with the rest of Europe.

Having said that, I cannot vote for an outdated, terribly old-fashioned conservative like Villiers.

[Valentin]

Victor: France is an extremely-complicated society (and I've only seen a small part of it) with unbelievable backwarded sides, mind-boggling nuances and sophistications, high value and arrogance and in the same time a fundamental self-doubt, this gives such fragile spiritual balance, j'ai presque envie de dire: it takes a revolution to move things.

Frank: you challenged Charles a few times, with no apparent success, guess it must be your turn now: could you be more precise on "outsider" please ? I'm trying to map you to a place for some time :) and I had almost decided you must be French, and now what do I read ? "outsider" ! (I wouldn't have gotten personal if Victor hadn't disclosed a bit of his background)

More to the point: we mustn't underestimate the French, I don't think they would vote an extremist President as a way to protest. 20% is as much as it can go, I guess. (well, here some might say Chirac actually did become president with that kind of support !) But they could do it if what happened in Montfermeil repeats and the rule of law is not upheld.

Regarding the ecclecticism (don't make me pronounce this, I won't !) of Europe with Turkey, Georgia, Armenia &co inside: aren't the US of A a country which is based on the differences of all those immigrants (despite the english predominance) ? Can we really dismiss the US of E ? Personally I think we can - Europe is actually made up of little villages, different, but sharing a certain ... togetherness, indeed. But who knows !

[Frank Schnittger]

Valentin: People on this blog are under no obligation to reveal their background and you shouldn’t get personal if they don’t. However, if you had read my earlier posts - a few threads back - you would have seen I make no secret of my Irishness. In fact I irritated a few people on this Blog by extolling the merits of the Irish economic model just a bit much!

I'm afraid my knowledge of France is limited to School French, some fine holidays (and one disaster) and an active interest in current affairs throughout the world. So I'm always a bit wary of commenting on French affairs in conversation with people who obviously have a lot more experience of France and a greater personal stake in how France developments.

I do have an interest in how the EU develops, however, and I think an outside perspective can sometimes be useful if only to remind people that English/French rivalry is not the only game in town.

My direct personal experience of the USA is equally limited, but what struck me more than anything else, when I was there, was the overwhelming and suffocating pressures for conformity in all things. My theory is that this is because of, not despite, their diversity of origins: America as a cohesive entity only manages to be stable by behaving like a police state at home (over 2 Million prisoners in abominable conditions) and by constantly seeking to exacerbate conflicts abroad as a means of creating an external threat which frightens people into cowed conformity at home.

Thus we had the Cold War, numerous covert operations and coup d’etats, the War on drugs, the war on terrorism, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Any enemy, real or imagined, will do so long as it can be used to help stifle dissent and non-conformance at home. When Gorbachev ended the Cold War he said: "we have taken your enemy away from you, America: What will you do now?" The answer is America needs to come up with external threats all the time to evoke a unifying patriotic response and enforce conformity at home.

In my experience most Americans get very upset when you say this to them because they genuinely believe America is "The land of the Free" and is seeking to extend freedom and democracy abroad. Personally I never felt less free than when I was there. You are only free if you conform in almost all things. And what is sold to Americans as the extension of freedom and democracy often feels like naked imperialism to those on the receiving end.

If the price of a further enlarged and diversified EU is to become more like the USA - a police state at home, and a belligerent war monger abroad - then I would prefer the EU to remain smaller and more beautiful - even if that beauty includes a lack of clear and accountable decision making structures at home, a degree of ineffectuality abroad, and a great deal of confusion as to where we need to go from here.

[Valentin]

Frank: mes excuses ! Re-reading my post I see I've been quite blunt - of course everyone is free to disclose as much or as little as he likes to - even nothing. In my mind that was already clear, and a no-reply from you to that point of my post wouldn't have even made me raise a brow - it was all written in a jest.

As to America, even if on the whole I feel the same, if we speak about the mere individuals, I can't ignore the fact that the people I know that settled there (in Seattle, California, or New York) didn't give me the impression you're speaking about.

[anna de brux]

Valentin,

Your description of "France is an extremely-complicated society ...with unbelievable backwarded sides, mind-boggling nuances and sophistications, high value and arrogance and in the same time a fundamental self-doubt,...", etc., etc., applies to practically all nations in Europe, Britain included.

Nothing wrong with having self-doubts but if we allow "self doubts" to overwhelm us - then we have a real problem. We must really stop whimpering over this and that!
The problem of the French is simple: we complain about almost anything, yet fail to do something about it. We can't go on behaving like this. We like to have our "acquis" and eat it too but are not prepared to give up an iota of the social privileges we've acquired at the expense of a looming national bankruptcy.

This is where the English and the rest of Britain are kinda good at - they take the bull by its horns and they get cracking. Just look at where they were some 30 years ago - almost totally bankrupt, had to call in IMF but they got over the hump. They gave up many of their privileges to put the country back in shape and to think that France today is about to face the same financial, social debacles that Britain faced 3 decades ago yet when Raffarin tried to do something to avert impending disaster, what did we do? We threw him out. And why? Coz, we like the idea of whimpering, complaining and wallowing in self-doubts perpetually.

France is one of the greatest countries in the world and has some of the most wonderful social sytems and some of the most well trained brains too but in order to keep them, the French must shape up!

I am married to an Englishman but boy, am I furious when the Brits beat us at every turn. For instance, the Olympics games disaster in Singapore really was our fault - we could have had it but we gave it to the Brits without a fight!
.. I hate it because, I know we got what it takes to beat the hell out of them too but we aren't too keen on being victors.

Time to get cracking I say!

[Valentin]

Ok. Anna, I'm gonna say this: Brits won the Olympics, became an empire, defeated the Germans and so on, because of the nature of their national character. Me, I believe in national personality, I really think each nation is different and even if not reductible to, still describable by certain very specific traits of character. Brits did all those things because of who they are: a pragmatic kind of people, of protestant spirit, with explorer fiber, and who don't hesitate to dirty their hands, such great civilization as they are. Pioneers. Buccaneers :) Maybe now not so much, but it still is somewhere deep inside them. (and I do speak in general)
Like I was saying, I'm reading Patten's book, and the manner they thought and brought into fact the handover of Hong Kong to China 10 years ago was yet another example of their national personality.

About French : all foreigners I know, no matter their origin, feel the superior finesse and sophistication of even newspapermen. I have never in my life saw beggars to introduce their begging by so many polite phrases. And I did travel my bit. On the other hand, this finesse and delicacy is prone to becoming weakness at certain difficult times. And again, I've never seen French so down as these days, thing confirmed by all confidence-level polls. And that, despite a purchase power in net increase, a stable unemployment rate, a moderate yet continuous economical growth and a very solid CAC40. Politics are far better than before, the age of big corruption scandals and power abuses is gone with Miterrand. Briefly: all is going fine, and I'd really wish all had your spirit, Anna :)

[john gregory Flinn]

For anna du brux; your view of de Villiers is wellcome, but it might be thought curiously at odds with your last post, where you praise the UK for 'how they got cracking to get back in shape 30 years ago'.
I think Mrs Thatcher, who was the architect of those changes would be generally regarded as an "old-fashioned conservative".
I'm sure less polite views might emerge, but she made a mark in British politics which was'nt anticipated, and which lesser beings try to emulate.
I do'nt know enough about French politics to be able to identify an "old-fashioned conservative" so, all suggestions are welcome because I think I have a vote in Frace now.

[Valentin]

I knew I forgot something :) As to the backwarded society thing: there's a canadian journalist couple having traveled a lot and having written a book called "60 million French can't be wrong" or so, on the French miracle (briefly, how can a country defying not only economic rules, but sometimes common sense, still be not only successful, but at the top!).
They point exactly to those contrasts of present-day France - hypermodern and medieval in the same time etc. Their term of " aboriginals" is superb and I find more examples each and every day, to prove that.

[anna de brux]

Thanks Valentin for acknowledging that things aren't all that bad in France.

It irritates me to destruction when I hear the French going French bashing as if we are a lost cause (although I do it too but definitely not to make a Brit or another European feel better, no way!) because I know we are as good as any other national folks around.

One thing I'm certain of is that I don't allow creeping self doubts about France and its system deviate me from believing that we can all give as good as we get and am prepared to do my bit to make sure that we achieve what we want to achieve!

My children are loyal to both countries, England and France yet will not hesitate to stand up for France and fight it out against the English, the Brits, etc when they believe a French cause is just (i.e., Iraq invasion).

I remember when my kids were at the receiving end of much trouncing at the British school over the French stand, my daughter one day came home in tears because she was told that the French were "salopes" and "salauds", and I told her to get up there and fight!

Funny, it was at that moment when my son who already knew that he wanted a career in the military decided that it would be Saint Cyr for him!

[anna de brux]

Good heavens John! I think you are wrong - Margaret Thatcher was an extremely MODERN Conservative! No way could she have gotten away with "handbagging" her ministers on the head to make sure they toe her party line if she wasn't a modern Conservative.

You sure you aren't talking about Heath here?

Sorry John but Villiers is not just an outdated, old-fashioned Conservative, he's worse, he doesn't have half the brains and courage of Thatcher!

[Valentin]

John Gregory Flinn: I second that too ! :)
Unfortunately there is no one in France (or Britain) with Mrs. Thatcher's span and vision (if we forget some of her actions regarding the EU).

[Frank Schnittger]

Apologies accepted Valentin - and I like challenges. I also had the pleasure of meeting some very fine people in Seattle - one of the most beautiful places in the world. My comments on America were of course huge generalisations - but unfortunately nevertheless true as generalisations go.

At an individual level I found Americans almost invariably courteous - and very often willing to go to extreme lenghts to help you out in whatever way they could. It is also a country of amazing extremes - of huge public ignorance about what is going on outside America - and yet also the finest minds in very, very many fields of specialist expertise.

How a Nation of such overwhelming goodwill at a personal level can also become so destructive at a National level has never failed to fascinate me as a student of political science. This is where the concept of "a national personality" sometimes falls down. The Official national personality can become very estranged from the reality on the ground.

john gregory Flinn - the intersting thing about Margaret Thatcher is that at the time she was seen very much as an upstart and not as a traditional old fashioned Tory at all. The Tories at the time were dominated by a paternalistic quasi aristocratic patriarchy - who preached "one Nation" doctrines in opposition to the socialist class war. They were conservative but also pragmatic and in some respects quite liberal - as exemplified by leaders such as Macmillan and Heath.

Margaret Thatcher, on the other hand, was seen as a lower middle class doctrinal dogmatist who risked tearing the country appart by her enthusiastic adoption of class politics. Her policies where as much a break from the Tory traditions of the time as they were from the state welfarism of the labour party. In Marxist terms, could could probably argue that she was the representative of the Bourgeoisie - taking over the leadership of the state from the traditional aristocracy - and from the working class.

Perhaps the parallel in France would be a leader from the small business classes who is beholden neither to the ancien Regime of the public service establishment nor to the socialists/trade unions. Does that match the Sarkozy profile?

[anna de brux]

Tell you what Frank, your analyis is hugely spot on!

If you really want to know, Sarkozy is of the 'petite noblesse' and so should be nearer Thatcher's social and educational background.

Tell you what again, although Villepin and Sarkozy are both brilliant, I will choose Sarkozy over Villepin.

At their level, all those guys are good, including Socialist Holland but one's gotta make a choice and I prefer to choose someone whom I think will inject new blood in France.

As I said, time we got cracking!

[john gregory Flinn]

I have heard that M.Sarkosy admires Mrs Thatcher's policies and wants to adapt a few for France when he gets into power.....?!
But then again so does Tony Blair, and Segolene Royal admires (some of) his policies which may be ex-Mrs Thatcher's.
So, La France might be in for a dose of Thatcherism whichever way it goes.
Frank Schnittgers description of Mrs 'T' sounds like an old-fashioned conservative to me!
By the way Frank, I said conservative with a small "c", not Tory, which as you point out is different.

[Valentin]

This thread is getting too long :)

"The Official national personality can become very estranged from the reality on the ground."

Mmmaybe, maybe not... in my view, it is just like a person's innate qualities (it isn't for nothing that they were personalizing nations - btw I find the image of France as Marianne just so sweet :) ). One can change by education, life experience, but his inner natural inclinations still remain down there somewhere.
Eastern European countries have been so torn apart by the communist dictators, both at micro and macro level, both physically (that is, economically) and spiritually (complete loss of self-confidence and self-respect above all, at individual level) that sometimes we can't even talk about nation personality anymore - but only of people needing to be fed.
And still, and still, deep inside, there still is something left...

[anna de brux]

John Gregory Flinn,

Firstly, tell me, which current sensible politician today doesn't admire Thatcher for the way she handled Britain's financial problems in the 70s?

Secondly, allow me to point out that Segolene Royal never had, does not have and will never have the stature of a Margaret Thatcher.

Royal may admire Thatcher - even try to emulate her and borrow some of the great Tory leader's ideas but she'll never get anywhere near Thatcher.

Royal will never dare offend labor union bosses for crying out loud. Her political stand is heavily intertwined with left leaning labor unions! How do you expect her to be anywhere near Thatcher who didn't kowtow to the whims of union bosses?

Lastly, Tony Blair if more conservative than the most conservative of the Tories - and that's what's wrong with Blair. He's too hypocritical to admit it and that goes for Segolene Royal too!

[john gregory Flinn]

For anna de brux;
Sorry, I've been busy what with the better weather etc, and missed responding to your post earlier.
I bow to your better knowledge of the French politics and take it you do'nt recommend Segolene Royal then.
I think Mrs Thatcher had great courage to face down the entrenched vested interests of the day in Britain (including the labour unions and the nationalised industries).
I do hope there is a French politician who can do the same. Do you have anyone in mind?

[anna de brux]

Yes, John Gregory Flinn... I do!

[Richard Jones]

Ah! This European Constitution. You've spent a lot of time talking about what's wrong with Europe in economic and social terms and blaming the lack of Constitution on these issues (or not).
I would suggest we all read the US and the Swiss Constitution - reflect - and then deduce that those excellent, proven constitutions address governance (competences and constraints etc.) rather than prescribing the nature of the animal that will be governed as our European Constitution sets out to do.