Sarkozy rushes diplomacy, Carla upsets Colombia

Nicolas Sarkozy has a habit of getting carried away. His impulsiveness has often helped in domestic politics, where he comes over forceful and energetic. In foreign policy, which requires cold calculation, his excesses are proving a handicap.

We've had a few examples of Super-Sarko's bouncy diplomacy this week and George Bush is turning up this afternoon, giving France's "hyperpresident" a chance to overdo things again.

If, as it appears, Irish voters have killed off the new European treaty, Sarkozy's diplomatic skills will be tested hard. He will have to pick up the pieces as France takes over the rotating European presidency on July 1.   

Yesterday I watched Sarkozy going overboard in support of President Karzai of Afghanistan [above left]. Eighty governments and international organisations were here to pledge more aid to Afghanistan. They were also reading the riot act -- in diplomatic language -- to Karzai over his failure to control the corruption that is sabotaging reconstruction and helping the Taliban insurgents. Sarko raised eyebrows with his outspoken praise for "dear Hamid". "You are a man of courage whom France is proud to call a friend," he said.

Today a big fuss has been prompted by Sarkozy's invitation to Bashar-al-Assad, the Syrian President, to attend the Bastille day parade in Paris next month.

  For years, Assad has been a pariah for France, which held him responsible for political assassination in Lebanon. The Damascus regime that he inherited from his father is still associated here with a terrorist bombing that killed 56 French servicement in Beirut in 1983. Sarko's invitation is logical. He has invited the leaders of all Mediterranean states to confer in Paris with EU leaders on July 13 as part of his project for a French-led union covering the region. The trouble is that Sarkozy has gone too far with the parade invitation because France usually invites only friends to a ceremony that symbolises the values of the republic. He has caused offence. Even Bernard Kouchner, the Foreign Minister [on right in picture], registered his unhappiness over the invitation on the radio this morning. 

Sarkozy's diplomatic excesses have followed the same pattern since he took over a year ago. When he ran for election, he promised a revolution in foreign policy, in which France would put human rights at the heart of its diplomatic dealings. He would not rush to shake the hand of Russia's Vladimir Putin and he would break with France's support for unsavory dictatorships, especially in its old African colonies, he said.

Other politicians have made similar election pledges. Tony Blair promised an "ethical foreign policy" before winning office in 1997. But France, with its idealism, took Sarko seriously. Then, barely elected, he leaped into old-style French realpolitik. He behaved like an excited schoolboy in Putin's presence.  He has kept the special relations with "French Africa" and even removed a minister who questioned them. In December, he treated Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader and recent pariah, to a sumptuous five-day stay in Paris. This week, Gaddafi turned round and slapped Sarko in the face, refusing his invitation to join the Mediterranean Union, which he called a "humiliation" for Arab countries. This at least means that Gaddafi will not be on the grandstand for Bastille day.

The rest of Europe -- and Germany in particular -- are irked by Sarkozy's eagerness to grab the diplomatic limelight. Chancellor Angela Merkel has already neutered the Mediterranean scheme by putting it under the auspices of the European Union.

Sarkozy's pushiness does have the merit of getting things done. His energy was largely behind the fast negotiation of the European treaty last June, just after he took office. French and Dutch voters had killed the previous one in 2005. Now Sarko will be in the driving seat of a Union that has once again stalled.   

In the meantime, Sarko has another little diplomatic flare-up to douse. Colombia has taken offence over Carla Bruni's new song (last post), the one that likens her lover to the best Afghan heroin and Colombian cocaine. 

Fernando Araujo, Colombian Foreign Minister, said: "In the mouth of the wife of the President of France, this kind of utterance is very painful for Colombia". His country was trying to eradicate a trade that has caused so much death and violence, he reminded France.

Sarko should be thankful that President Karzai said nothing about Afghan objections to Carla's line on heroin. That would have been churlish, given that her husband's conference had just raised 21 billion dollars for his country.
   

Comments

[Romain]

There is a rumour that Eric Clapton sent an SMS to Carla, with his song "cocaïne" on the background : "if you stop everything, I'll come back".

[qwerty]

About realpolitik: Rocard said this morning that as a prime minister under Mitterrand, he had to deal with many a rogue head of state. That so long as you're not at war with them ("qu'on ne leur tire pas dessus"), you speak to them. That seems pretty realistic to me.

Should Sarkozy have invited Assad for the 14th of July? Rocard said that there was the option of having him over just for a work session, with a few photos of shaking hands on the perron of the Elysée and basta. i.e. downplay the media exposure. Or invite him for July 14 and have maximum media coverage, public outrage etc. But what's teh actual difference? Symbols? This is just a bone thrown to the media (and the public) who want drama vs. boring truth.

Rocard is hard to listen to but always makes sense (except the time he wanted S. Royal to move over so he could step in - a mad moment).

[Romain]

Referendum, I saw it coming :

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=siQtzrI5w88

[richard jones]

Sarko was here in Athens last week and addressed the Voulis (Parlement) a rare honour.
He overdid it here by making too much of his maternal grandmother's origins in Jewish Saloniki and recounting how that city became Greek (1912-3) thus playing into the hands of the radical parties in FYR Makedonia (I don't like the radical language but Greece is wrong and in the long-term stupid to keep Makedonia out of OTAN and EU).
He also went to town on support for his 'Mediterranean Union' playing the 'we helped Greece get into the EU card' in an effort to garner Greek support. As the opposition (PASOK)leader - Georgiou Papandreou (yes you've seen the name before - his Dad) said afterwards 'La France a rien offerte pour aider la Grèce
à assimiler les migrants africains sur le plan économique, comme nous avons demandé à la Commission depuis des années'
Sarko also went on about how France had supported the current Prime Minister's uncle (Karamanlis - Greek politics are run by dynasties) when he was in exile in France before he became the first democratically elected Prime Minister after the junta was kicked out n 1973?. The faces and body language in the Voulis reflected 'how many more times is France going to play these long time ago entry to EU cards when they want something.
Sarko then, almost summarily thanked Greece for ratifying Lisbon which they did on July 12th 2008 despite a huge national outcry to make this vote a national referendum not a 'Voulis wrist-flick' as the press call it. He went on to mention the Irish vote and mimicked Kouchner's
dark phrase at the Afghan knees-up by referring to 'des impediments qui peuvent encombrer les pays en désaccord avec Lisbon' dans le temps.'
The man started off so well but clearly, starting with his curious speech after meeting Putin last year he is not emotionally equipped for the job he now holds. He may manage things internally quite well and perhaps Sec of Int was the height of his natural competence. In the Foreign Affairs field (typically along with defence the chosen overarching portfolio of the president rather than Parlement) he is a disaster.

[Gilles]

Is it forbidden to recall that Afghanistan and Columbia are the main producers of heroin and cocain in the world ? (Afghanistan produces 93% of the opium. Source UNODC, August 2008).
Why Carla should keep silence about these facts? (And she sings as Carla Bruni, not Carla Bruni-Sarkozy...)

[Roger Goodacre]

The following comments in today's Times would seem to support Charles' assessment of current French foreign diplomacy. They come from an analysis by Charles' colleague David Sharrock, the Times' Ireland correspondent, of the reasons for the apparent rejection of the Lisbon Treaty/European constitution by the Irish electorate:

" Bernard Kouchner, the French Foreign Minister, did nothing to unpick that impression with a disastrous intervention in the final week of the campaign. “The first victims would be the Irish. They have benefited more than others,” he warned No voters.

Rather than trying to sell the positive reasons for voting Yes, his threat simply raised the temperature.

The French role in Ireland’s referendum is one of the more controversial aspects of the defeat. A leaked memo from the British Embassy in Dublin reported Irish diplomats describing President Sarkozy as “completely unpredictable”.

The memo, sent on 29 February to the Foreign Office, summarised a briefing about Irish government thinking over the referendum, emphasising that the campaign would not focus on the detail of the treaty which was “largely incomprehensible to the lay reader”.

The Irish government preferred a referendum in October but decided on an earlier date because of the risk of President Sarkozy making comments during the French presidency of the EU which might alienate Irish voters.

The memo said Dublin viewed Mr Sarkozy as “completely unpredictable”, and that the earlier date was chosen because “the risk of unhelpful developments during the French Presidency - particularly related to EU defence - were just too great”. "

Bravo to the Irish, I say. Maybe the rest of us will now be allowed to give an opinion of how Europe is to evolve.

[dot king]

Romain: The Dubliners - you got to them before I did, but I might have chosen "whiskey in the jar".
Luvvem!

Richard, that's a very interesting run-down of NS's visit to Greece, in France it was reported as having been a huge, nay, uproarious success.
I have always found Sarkozy's style somewhat sycophantic, particularly with foreign leaders, a blatant need to be liked.
Maybe it's only the French he fools (well, some of them).

[richard jones]

I totally concur with Mr. Goodarce whom I seem to remember correcting my misinformed history of French rugby - what rubbish my friend Delmas told me.
Anyway, if nothing else the Irish NIL should wake up the arrogant EU politicos. You cannot lay down a Constitution that says more about how the EU should look in socio-economic model terms (more statist than free market)than how it should be run and organisationally and procedurally and legally ordered, then unhelpfully produce a document amends that Constitution and expect this level of opacity to generate popular support and participation in the EU project.
Yes, I've read both documents the 'Lisbon job' is extremely frustrating in repealing many 'Constitutional clauses' without any other reference than their number.
Go back to the Constitution and try and find that clause only to discover they've been 'reconfigured' look at Addendum (can't remember the number).
Sorry, but fellow RU citizens THIS WILL NOT DO!!

[qwerty]

Let the Irish just withdraw from Europe, like Denmark, and let the rest of us get on without them. They've already picked the apple tree bare anyway, they've probably nothing more to gain from being a member.
Ungrateful - as Rocard said this morning.

[Sam Young]

As an Irish citizen, permit me a little gloating today.
Interestingly, at the bookmakers Wednesday, the "Yes" was only at 1.55 while the "No" was at 2.45. Which i can't understand, since it was was pretty clear from talking to a wide pallet of voters that the "No" was going to win.
It'll be interesting to see now how the cretins in Brussels react.
I feel that we, the Irish, have voted in the same way as many other EU countries would have voted, had the had a chance. Except for the new arrivals (Poland, etc.) who are are Pro-Eu because they are getting cash. Totally mephistophelian. Otherwise they too would have voted No.
Anyone want to join me for a Guinness?

[qwerty]

Sam Young: the Irish have got their cash, and eaten it too. They moved from poorest country in the Union to second richest thanks to all the EU subsidies.
(Notwithstanding my comments, I'll move to Ireland as soon as I've written a bestseller - the taxation of authors is just too cool).

[rocket]

CB

"His energy was largely behind the fast negotiation of the European treaty last June, just after he took office"

Well, that was then and today is Today June 13 or Friday the 13th

[richard jones]

Dear QWERTY,
The trouble is that if the people had been empowered to decide on THEIR FUTURE you would have already probably had quite a series of No's and thin Yes's by now rather than benign Parliamentary acquiescence. Mr. Young is quite right. If the rest of you who want to carry on regardless is France and Germany please remember that France was a player in the first problem sowing - Non à la Constitution, and dare I say it by that same token you know there's something profoundly wrong when the most politically laid back and shrug shoulder compromise country like Holland signals disenchantment.
Finally I perceive some rust in the Franco-German axis that makes France's rôle much more difficult.
On the French home front having to 'save the EU from free market, free trade disorder and free social movement' will now replace the necessary reforms needed in France to ensure it continues to figure in EU leadership.
Sarko you have completely blown it!
Make a CD - Ladino songs my granny tort me! - Little countries, little countries they all live in little boxes! - Eidelweiss get up and work!
The only way forward pour assurer la grandeur de la France.

[Daniel Strohl]

Qwerty,

"Let the Irish just withdraw from Europe, like Denmark, and let the rest of us get on without them".

I agree.

"as Rocard said this morning" :

He made also a commentary about Ms Royal :
http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2008/06/12/01002-20080612ARTFIG00190-par-crainte-de-royal-rocard-choisit-delanoe.php

[Sam Young]

Dear QWERTY,
I know what you mean, and i understand why people could think the Irish ungrateful. But, at the risk of sounding pompous, my vote is not for sale. It's not because the EU gives me money that i will vote for it. The US Constitution begins "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...". A Constitution should be about comprehensible shared ideals. It should not be: "We the People of Ireland, representing less than 1% of the population of Europe (but the others weren't asked), on the basis of opaque legalese do hereby...".
I recall the arrogance of Valérie Giscard d'Estaing ("l’opinion publique sera conduite à adopter, sans le savoir, les dispositions que l’on n’ose pas lui présenter ’en direct !’" Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, Le Monde, 14 juin 2007"). Who does this gentleman think he is (and worse again, who does he think we are...).
You will also recall that the EU accounts have not been approved by the auditors for about 13 years in a row now. So, not only do they waste our money, but they don't even know how they waste it.
Yes, i will concede that there are activities which, given their nature, lend themselves to a European framework (aviation, telecommunication, harmonization of diplomas, purchasing of energy, etc.) There is easily enough to keep a veritable army of technocrats busy, but these are practical ad-hoc considerations; they do not justify giving those wasters / preachers / elitists in Brussels more power.
Lastly, as I said, other countries (UK, France, Italy, Portugal) would have voted the same way.

[Robert Marchenoir]

"The Irish have got their cash, and eaten it too. They moved from poorest country in the Union to second richest thanks to all the EU subsidies." (Qwerty)

This is a common rigmarole among the French. Whenever an EU country is more successful than their own (which happens quite often these days), obviously it must be because of the vast EU subsidies they were fed (read: at the expense of the French).

That's mean and dishonest. The French conveniently forget that for decades, they were the largest net beneficiaries of European subsidies, thanks to their beloved farmers (maybe this is still the case).

Also, for instance, don't ever mention Norway's achievements: this is only because of their oil.

Same thing when France loses to a rival sports team. The referee was biased, the wind was blowing the wrong way, the moon was in its bad quarter.

Never, ever, is it because the French were inferior, or because rival countries worked harder and smarter.

That possibility is never on the table.

Ireland has vigorously applied the free-market policies that so many Frenchmen loathe. They succeded, as they mostly do wherever they are enforced.

Of course socialists don't want you to know that. Let's accuse Brussels instead -- while milking it on the side for our own benefit.

[David Powell]

Sam Young is right.

And I am a convinced and proud European, Welsh, British and living in France.

I want a simple constitution, despite Valery, something I can understand. And if Valery d'Estaing and his ilk cannot understand this, still less introduce it, then shame on them.

I am not saying that the United States' constitution is for Europe, but I am saying that its simplicity and comprehensibility should be a paradigm for ours.

I love Europe, the idea of Europe, but I am distressed by seeming inability of the Brussels bureaucracy to deal with corruption and waste.

I am further distressed by their seeming lack of accountability.

One definition of democracy is that in a democracy the government is afraid of the people. Is Brussels afraid of us?

I speak to my French friends and they feel the same.

They say though that change is impossible. . 'Le bifstek est trop bon'

I sort of agree, I say,'Turkeys don't vote for Christmas'

Please someone, tell me, how can it be changed?

[Fernandez]

Gilles:

"Why Carla should keep silence about these facts? (And she sings as Carla Bruni, not Carla Bruni-Sarkozy...)"

The two are the same now whether she likes it or not. She represents France now, whether she likes it or not (and whether France likes it or not). She can curse the heavens all she wants, but she married a President and she knew that going in. That's life.

Besides, making drugs sound alluring is hardly appropriate for la premiere dame is it?

Her cover for Vanity Fair might be the first time Annie Liebowitz asked a model to put more closes on.

[Fernandez]

The EU is none of my business, so whatever happens, enjoy.

However, there is something profoundly undemocratic about it. (Everytime the people vote, "No", it is repackaged and rammed down their throats in a new way they can't vote on. How about persuation? How about getting those books in order? How about making those EU-crats answerable to the people? Oh well, whatever...)

[Francois D]

We are very pleased that Sarko becomes Europe"s President for the 6 next months,for he will be "your" President and not only "our". So as good Europeans, you'll be like us, with the anguishing question each morning: what stupid thing will he do today?

What really shocks me, and now I d'nt smile, is the Syrian Hassad's invitation, and more on July 14. Has he not be enough ridiculized by Kadaffi and his circus in Paris, last November? Let us also not forget that the Syrian regime is very strongly suspected in the murder of the Ambassador of France Louis Delamare, in Beirut in 1981. Mitterand and Chirac have never forgotten. (It seems that France has answerded with an attack the following year at the heart of Damascus).

http://www.agoravox.fr/article.php3?id_article=4055

Unless this is explained by that...

http://www.leblogfinance.com/2008/06/lafarge-importa.html

As for Colombia, it is certainly offensive to refer to its role in drug trade, but a song is the the least offensive way to say that. That was less nice when the colombian President ordered to kill FARC n° 2 who was negotiating for Ingrid Betancourt' release.

[Romain]

Dot,

Ireland hauling away is no novelty, as you can see there:

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=bsQXHHUu5VM

Maybe we should claim Kouchner's head on that. Oh Yeah !

[Fernandez]

eek, 'put more closes on'

um, 'put more clothes on'

you know what I meant...

[Don]

From QWERTY: "Sam Young: the Irish have got their cash, and eaten it too. They moved from poorest country in the Union to second richest thanks to all the EU subsidies.
(Notwithstanding my comments, I'll move to Ireland as soon as I've written a bestseller - the taxation of authors is just too cool)".

This quote from QWERTY gives away the real reason the Irish economy has done so well. Yes, they got a lot of subsidies but the main reason so many companies from around the globe moved to Ireland is because of the LOWER TAXES. Just like QWERTY finds it "cool" that authors are taxed so little, so too for businesses. Subsidies were only a small part of the success of the "Irish Tiger". Bravo for Ireland!

[dot king]

Romain - you little Revolutionary, you! That song is definitely anti-Constitutional.

Mary - re "closes" - you were probably thinking in a French accent. :)

Francois D -

"That was less nice when the colombian President ordered to kill FARC n° 2 who was negotiating for Ingrid Betancourt' release."

If FARC wanted to release Ingrid Betancourt, they'd do it. No negotiations are needed. (Isn't she more 'Colombian' than 'French' anyway?)

That Colombia should miss any opportunity destroy FARC, after hundreds (thousands?) of kidnapped and murdered Colombians, to spare another 'faux-negotiator' is ridiculous. Besides, that attack has yielded more fruit than all the pleading anyone could muster - like getting Chavez to stop supporting them.

In short, a dead FARC is always a reason to celebrate, no matter what they purport themselves to be.

Since after kidnapping and extortion, they make their money off the drugs trade, maybe they can hire Carlita to be their spokesmodel.

Francois

BTW, I agreed with you on everything else.

[Haralambos Petrokolos]

Does anyone know - who was taller Napoleon or Sarkozy?

[Lily]

"Does anyone know - who was taller Napoleon or Sarkozy?"

Haralambos Petrokolos,

Napoleon: 1,61 m -Sarkozy: 1,68(?) m

Your conclusion?

[Mary Fernandez]

Napoleon was taller.

"After the famous general and emperor died in 1821, his body was autopsied in France, and his height was noted as 5 foot 2 inches. This measurement was in French feet (pieds de roi) and was never correctly converted to standard English measure. In English feet, Napoleon stood 5 foot 6.5 inches tall." http://ask.yahoo.com/20030724.html

Sarkozy is 5'5".

Somebody else will have to convert this into metrics. I insist on preserving Imperial Weights and Measures.

[Romain]

It seems G.Bush saw the light after visiting B.16, ans his eponym chappel 16. lol

[nata]

Why everybody is still speaking about Sarkozy s hight? Putin, Kaczynski, Slovak s former PM Dzurinda are not higher and no one care. It s unfair.

[Johannes, Berlin .Germany]

Sam Young,you express strange morals. Your country took the 20 billions from the European taxpayer which turned Ireland from a poor country to a wealthy one with greatest pleasure I guess but your ' vote is not for sale ' . As you are showing so much sense for ' honour ' then I strongly recommend you to pay those billions back. I for example as a German taxpayer would like to have my money back and Ireland out of the EU.

[sebastien]

Sam Young:
To give the insufferable Giscard his due, he was simply and rather bitterly predicting what would happen once the constitution ("his" precious constitution) had been rejected and other, less glorious politicians than he started trying to get its provision in through the back door. He wasn't speaking in a EU decision-making or executive capacity, as he has none; and he wasn't approving of what he said would happen, as it was costing him what he sees as his rightful place in that chapter of the history books.

[Monika]

I am curious on Charles' blog entry dealing with French perception (official and inofficial) of the Irish vote ...

[Thanks, Monika. I'm planning to write about the Irish vote tomorrow (Sunday)... I've been taking the day off, flying around Normandy and the (English) channel. All these quarrels take on a different light from 3,000 feet. CB]

[sebastien]

Napoleon: 1m68 or 1m69. Sarkozy: 1m68. Napoleon wasn't particularly short for his time, unlike Sarkozy.
But really, so what? (Cue for endless cliché-ridden amateur psychological insights into the motivations of short men.)

[christopher muir]

Well, the nimble Karzai got about half of the billions of dollars he was after. Of course Afghanistan needs money, but she doesn't seem to be stamping out war lords or drugs with very much success. Had Karzai been with Sarko a few hours later, a secretary would have interrupted him to say that 350-400 Taliban fighters had just escaped from Kandahar jail. No doubt the two dapper presidents would have put some sort of spin on that news to make us all feel good. (There are many videos on the net showing fire-fights with the Taliban. They are deadly encounters indeed.)

[richard jones]

France a net earner from the EU (notably CAP) said 'NON' to the Constitution. Nobody asked them to leave the EU. Rocard primped, pursed and preambled about 'rights to disagree'.
This whole thing needs to be rewound going back to the initial Free Trade Treaties and first of all updating and normalising them.
Next, underline some things about the € like getting DK and Sweden in tout de suite and the UK by 2012 (even if this means UK get the Pres of ECB job to go with it).
Start a program that gives incentives for the rapid adherence of Switzerland (and all they can teach about intra - thus supra-national differences of language and culture), Norway and perhaps Iceland.
Start a more powerful and meaningful than currently 'associate' program for the 3 just mentioned if they really don't wanna join, then the Balkan residue (ex- Yugo's, Albania, Makedonia or Kanedomia as the Greeks would have it) and Turkey. Start a program to make some very basic laws European laws - not regulations - laws - like no death penalty & basic fraud and deception laws.
Start an overarching policy group to bind Europe on a set of basic issues - the € - Agricultural policy (get rid of the *ç&%ç thing) - migration policy - as few as possible.
Then we need a genuine European
Parliament with REAL 'checks and balances' on the EU executive (which seems to mostly France and Germany at the moment). This body as in any national environment becomes the body which 'Ja's' or 'Oxi's' SUPRAnational (EU level) legislation, including the management of sovereignty transfer and EU ministerial representation.
You cannot throw such a nationally different set of cats into a bag and expect to get a lion without spending enormous time and money explaining to the PEOPLE what you are doing and why, such that the people can elect their representatives to an empowered EU Parliament in the knowledge (and hope - I'm not just a dreamer) that their needs and
attitudes will be reflected in EU law, structure and organisation.
The EU was doing a grand job at the right speed until somebody allowed Jacques Delors to write a new charter for his job as Pres of Comm.
Political integration is an issue that will take (I fully support it) at least one, probably two generations to happen. It is much more a function of young(er) people travelling , working, marrying, having children in other countries, and integration at the cultural, linguistic level than ever it is to do with "*%%% arrogant politicos deciding what they perceive is the best for the untermensch people they rule.
This will probably get me unblogged by Lord Bremner de Marais but I am an ancient and have seen a lot. What you see now in the attitude of some big countries politicos (some in UK) is the first building block of unassailable EU autocracy. Europe has had this nationally before it was called Charles I and Cromwell, Napoleon, the Kaiser and that funny little Charlie Chaplin mimic that ran Germany when I was a young man. The dangers are all there.
Europe needs to be given back to the Europeans who will do a better, more mature job, given a much longer timeframe in providing an (almost - I'm a realist) united Europe in social, poltical and economic terms than ever we could expect to get from the current elitist and exclusive EU political power base.
I have to go my doctor has told me it is time for me to decide on my necrosmusiki.

[richard jones]

Yassou pedi mou,

Sarkozy

[Francois D]

Sorry, let me speak, not about Sarko diplomacie but health policy. Those who understand French may listen to this video on the Elysée web.

http://www.elysee.fr/accueil/

It will probably remain on the site till next Nico's adventure (ie its next displacement or short speech), next week.
As an health professional, I am scandalized by this video. It's incredible. He explains us that NOTHING about pain's policy or palliative cares was done before 2007 Presidential election. In his mind he is persuaded to be our saver ! Incredible. His "ego" is so big that he may not imagine something existing before him (and without him).
How in this function, is it possible to say such nonsense with as much aplomb?
Irony of the story: the most important texts on this subject were signed by B Kouchner, his Foreign Ministry, when he was Health Ministry in a left gouvernment
I showed this video to friend, Psy: he said to be very worried about the case.

As in this Elysée video, Sarko speaks about pain, life and death.
I wait Psychanalist Miller commentaries.

http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/douleur%2Belys%25C3%25A9e/video/x4fr8s_miller-analyse-sarkozy-gerard-franc_news

[John Gregory Flinn]

The (possible) reasons for the Irish "No" remind me of that British TV comercial for 'Abbey National' - an English Bank/Building Society - which I'm sure those with access to British TV will have seen.

For those without I'll briefly explain.
A young investor goes into another Bank in which he has recently placed his savings asking why his interest rate has been reduced.
The complacent fat official jokes about how his Bank uses a high rate as bait to attract young investors, but once 'hooked' (like a fish) they drop them to the standard - rather lower rate!
The young investor is vexed and feeling deceived clears off with his money to 'Abbey National' which claims not to indulge in such underhand tricks!!

I understand the Lisbon treaty did downgrade much of Ireland's status and largesse, so perhaps the analogy is apt.
The only problem is finding the kind of Union that is like 'Abbey National' claims to be.

SAM YOUNG; I'm grateful for your "No", whatever the reasons.
Sarkozy has already made comments downplaying it. It remains to be seen if he is intent on creating a covert cabal (with Barroso, Merkel and Brown) to circumvent your vote.

[richard jones]

Francois D,
Miller uses exactly the same didactic and oratory methods as Sarkozy in rebutting Sarkozy's utterances which rather devalues it. He accuses Sarko of scare talk and then runs comparisons with what LePen the old fascist (scare word) would say. Sarkozy's response to Miller would be interesting,probably something like 'Casse-toi! Pauvre con!' in F minor.
Nevertheless,we are all worried about Sarkozy's emotional fibre and how long before he breaks down on the job but all he is doing is what every other politician in any mature democracy does - blame his predecessor either directly or by inference. Wait and watch the next US president, of whichever flavour, blame George for legating them an economic basket case.

[richard jones]

Mr. Flinn,

I'm sure the cabal which is Barroso, Blair, Brown, Merkel, Sarkosy are working hard right now to circumvent the impact of the Irish 'No'.
They have not heard the message but it is a message which in the years to come will be beaten on more and more drums more and more often. 'You cannot go where you want to go if you don't take the people with you'.

[Lily]

“…arrogant politicos deciding what they perceive is the best for the untermensch people they rule. - I AM AN ANCIENT AND HAVE SEEN A LOT. What you see now in the attitude of some big countries politicos (some in UK) is the first building block of unassailable EU autocracy. - The dangers are all there. - Europe needs to be given back to the Europeans who will do a better, more mature job”

Richard,

Your thoughts are worrying but you have good suggestions for change; it's even more worrisome that those who should be are not inclined to listen to your ideas: What I've been reading so far has been that words will be twisted and re-interpreted and reforms will be pushed through one way or the other, DESPITE the PEOPLE. -

You speak of fundamental change of the EU governing body to truly represent the people democratically. There aren’t enough visionaries who would share your view or LISTEN. These ideas can only be implemented after some revolutionary change of attitude.

I don't think that it's unlikely that the € will lose due to this political crisis and further aggravate the economic unease towards recession. If that happens, people will not only say 'no' when asked and otherwise bow to Brussels... - I have no idea or fantasy about what such 'revolution' could be like (mere ideological or violent change?) but it would have to be the first step…

---

The ‘other’ issue is Europe’s role in the world. It isn’t possible to judge this situation only from within. Europe’s geo-political role cannot be seen isolated from our globalising world. There is international (economic/political) pressure on the EU that cares little about the people but about socio-economic requirements that are supposed to confirm and strengthen the EU as a serious and competitive global player.

So, there is our fast-paced globalised world that might one day see a world government, and opposed to it, we have slow humans who need generations for change and who are yet expected to assimilate and integrate in no time to these fast changing superior economic requirements that undermine sincere democratic participation of the people at all levels.

----

Is there serious hope that Europe will be given back to the Europeans?

---

PS: I hope that a ‘necros musiki’ is a melody, not a maladie! – and that the doctor is a musician. ;)

[Amerloque]

As an American, I would rather be embarrassed by Sarkozy's excesses than by those of the awful man who is the American president at the moment. Actually, I am ashamed, not merely embarrassed, of his excesses. A great disservice to the USA.

[qwerty]

As far as I understand the point of the European constitution (watered down by the Lisbon treaty), it's to give Europe a set of institutions (including majority vote, a stable European president, etc.) that will make decision-making easier (especially in a 27-member entity) and that will maybe help to strengthen Europe in the face of new emerging world powers. I don't see how the Irish vote helps this, any more than the French and Dutch votes did at the time of those referendums. OK, let's all just stick in the mud and watch the world go by.

[rocket]

Hi Amerloque

Glad to see you back blogging. Hope all is well with you!

[Valentin]

Roger Goodacre:
"Bravo to the Irish, I say. Maybe the rest of us will now be allowed to give an opinion of how Europe is to evolve."

Sam Young:
"I recall the arrogance of Valérie Giscard d'Estaing ... Who does this gentleman think he is (and worse again, who does he think we are...)."

We - like the rest of the public - fully ignore the sheer complexity of European affairs today. What started as a "steel union" is now a immense economical, juridical and social monster, bigger and much more complicated than the United States. European "technocrats" work on policies covering industry, telecom, space, finance, taxes, air, agriculture, energy and many other fields.
This is not an army of "bureaucrats in Brussels", but people working on a mind-boggling job in terms of size and complexity. I don't say this from a pro-Europe or pro-Brussels point of view: I repeat, none of us has any idea of how huge all this is, and what it takes to organize it in something that makes sense.

We're all each in his little village playing with big words, political Europe, sovereignty etc when the Lisbon treaty has little to do with grand principles.
International treaties, like contracts, deal with myriad details and possibilities, which is why they are made by professionals, diplomats and lawyers, and not by the "man on the street".

I doubt Barroso or Juncker would ever give an opinion on how the French opr Irish factory worker approaches his screwdriver. The worker should understand that diplomacy, economy, finance, or law too are jobs done by professionals.

It's an absolute nonsense to ask voters decide on this or that law, international treaty, or economical contract. This is not the purpose of a referendum. Referendums are made to ask voters' opinion on clear issues, where a choice must be made, not on the intricacies of documents of hundreds of pages of diplomacy, law and economy.

We're not competent on anything and everything. As voters in a democracy, we can decide on choices put before us, dealing with questions of principle, where the implications of yes and no can be clearly explained to everybody, young and old, manual worker and university teacher, farmer and city dweller.

There's no point giving voters 200 pages of Brussels jargon: the debate will be hijacked by different pressure groups, exaggerations and simplifications will take the upper hand, and the vote will be given on "feelings" and "intuition", as in, I'm quite pro-european, or I'm rather not. The Irish, just like the French, didn't vote for or against the Lisbon Treaty, nor did they vote for or against Europe. They voted based on their fears and hopes, as they resulted following a besides-the-point debate.

It's the exact equivalent of a jury called to decide a trial, where, instead of clear instructions, the judge would give them his law books. The result will have the same degree of relevance as the Irish vote.

[Monika]

This is quite patronizing, what you suggest, Valentin. Well, as some people say that decision for parliament elections are beyond the competences of the electorate.
Or, to say it with Bert Brecht:
"Das Volk hat das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt. Wäre es da nicht doch einfacher, die Regierung löste das Volk auf und wählte ein anderes?"

in English
"The people has lost any trust from the government. Wouldn't it then be easier if the government dissolved the people and elected another?"

Of course, HE meant it to be ironic, perhaps with some sarcasm mixed in ...

[Monika]

On Napoleon's shortness:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_tall_was_the_emperor_Napoleon

Seems that French feet are larger than British :D

"We're not competent..."

It's this sort of elitist attitude that makes so many people turn against the EU.