What Giscard d'Estaing Said

P. Breathnach · 17-09-2009 12:47am #1

Campaigners on the "no" side are very fond of picking two sentences from Valery Giscard d'Estaing and quoting them outside their context:

Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly ... All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.

The context is here: http://vge-europe.eu/index.php?post/2007/06/12/Simplifier-ou-mutiler-le-traite-constitutionnel (en français).
He is actually quite negative about the strategy:

Elle est peut être un bon exercice de prestidigitation. Mais, elle confortera les citoyens européens dans l’idée que la construction européenne est une machinerie organisée dans leur dos par des juristes et des diplomates. [My translation: It might be a good piece of prestidigitation. But it presents European citizens with the idea that the European project is a mechanism organised behind their backs by lawyers and diplomats]

He says things that would hearten anti-federalists, including:

Nous sommes loin de l’appel tonique et courageux de Robert Schuman de 1950... [My translation: We are a long way from the stirring and brave call of Robert Schumann in 1950...]

[If you don't read French, feed the url to Google Translate, which doesn't munge the piece beyond reasonable recognition.]

BlitzKrieg · 17-09-2009 12:59am

it matches the date for the Le Monde article at least.

edit: Btw you have probably given Scofflaw a migrane by bringing this back up.

P. Breathnach · 17-09-2009 1:06am

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

it matches the date for the Le Monde article at least.

I found it when looking for the Le Monde piece. I think it is what he gave to Le Monde.

edit: Btw you have probably given Scofflaw a migrane by bringing this back up.

That wasn't my intention, nor do I think it will be the result. Context is everything. The much-quoted piece is taken out of context, and the context invites quite a different interpretation from that made or implied by most of those who quote the short excerpt.

marco_polo · 17-09-2009 1:07am

Who is this guy anyway*, he must really important, like the supreme leader of the EU or something since I see him mentioned so much.

* I know really

Scofflaw · 17-09-2009 1:26am

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

it matches the date for the Le Monde article at least.

edit: Btw you have probably given Scofflaw a migrane by bringing this back up.

Not at all - I'm happy to discuss the quotes. I'm just not happy to see them used as quotemined copypasta in the course of a discussion, where they either turn the discussion into a round of Googling for comeback quotes, derail it into a debate of the authenticity and authoritativeness of the quotes, or are left to stand as if they were worth something without analysis or context.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SkepticOne · 17-09-2009 5:39am

marco_polo wrote: »

Who is this guy anyway*, he must really important, like the supreme leader of the EU or something since I see him mentioned so much.

* I know really

For the benefit of others he was one of the main architects of the proposed constitution which was rejected by the French. In the quotation, he is abhoring the way in which the content of the treaty is inserted into the Lisbon treaty in such a way that it is not obvious that the content remains that of the democratically rejected constitution.

Scofflaw · 17-09-2009 9:14am

SkepticOne wrote: »

For the benefit of others he was one of the main architects of the proposed constitution which was rejected by the French. In the quotation, he is abhoring the way in which the content of the treaty is inserted into the Lisbon treaty in such a way that it is not obvious that the content remains that of the democratically rejected constitution.

Or, if one was less dramatic, he is regretting the fact that the constitutional project embodied in the EUC is being dropped, and all that remains is the toolbox of reforms, chopped up and harder to read by virtue of being an amending treaty.

less dramatically,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach · 17-09-2009 10:12am

I think he feels a bit hard done by, because the original brief was to draw up a constitutional document, and the work was effectively eviscerated. There are some changes in moving from the constitutional document to the treaty, notably the removal of the symbols of statehood, but it looks to me as if VGE simply shrugs his shoulders with mild regret about that.

Oddly, those who now want to read a consolidated version rather than the Lisbon Treaty itself are effectively affirming the original brief.

K-9 · 17-09-2009 10:31am

The 90% quote from Bertie would seem to be from a different viewpoint, more from the view that 90% of the Constitution Ireland negotiated is still there.

Thinking about it, this really is the same argument as "the Treaty hasn't changed" and "the Guarantees are worthless".

SkepticOne · 17-09-2009 12:34pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Or, if one was less dramatic, he is regretting the fact that the constitutional project embodied in the EUC is being dropped, and all that remains is the toolbox of reforms, chopped up and harder to read by virtue of being an amending treaty.

Less dramatic but also less accurate. The full translated quote is:

"The latest brainwave is to preserve part of the innovations of the constitutional treaty, but hide them by breaking them up into several texts. The most innovative provisions would become simple amendments to the treaties of Maastricht and Nice. The technical improvements would be regrouped in a colourless, harmless treaty. The texts would be sent to national parliaments, which would vote separately. Thus public opinion would be led to adopt, without knowing it, the provisions that we dare not present directly. This process of 'dividing to ratify' is obviously unworthy of the challenge at stake. It may be a good magician's act. But it will confirm European citizens in the idea that the construction of Europe is organised behind their backs by lawyers and diplomats"

Note his sarcastic use of the word brainwave. I think you will agree with me that there's no tone of regret here. He is objecting to the way the Lisbon treaty was cynically designed.

sink · 17-09-2009 12:43pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

Note his sarcastic use of the word brainwave. I think you will agree with me that there's no tone of regret here. He is objecting to the way the Lisbon treaty was cynically designed.

It is a translation so he did not use the word 'brainwave', whoever translated it used that word instead of 'idea' which is a much more neutral tone of phrase but carries the same meaning in this context. You have to be careful when reading translated text because the translators bias can creep in. The only reliable source is the original French.

SkepticOne · 17-09-2009 1:02pm

sink wrote: »

It is a translation so he did not use the word 'brainwave', whoever translated it used that word instead of 'idea' which is a much more neutral tone of phrase but carries the same meaning in this context. You have to be careful when reading translated text because the translators bias can creep in. The only reliable source is the original French.

It is actually Lara Marlowe's translation in the Irish times.

P. Breathnach · 17-09-2009 1:15pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

It is actually Lara Marlowe's translation in the Irish times.

It's not a bad translation, but I would prefer "bright idea" to "brainwave". It's about equally valid, but does not carry the same largely negative set of connotations. Giscard d'Estaing's tone tends towards the dispassionate, so words loaded with connotation should be avoided in translating what he said.

PHB · 17-09-2009 1:51pm

If you want to actually hear his views on the Lisbon Treaty and Europe in general, watch this video. http://iiea.com/events/what-europe-would-we-like-to-see

His stuff is taking massively out of context, massively, and often translated into a particuarly misleading way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vTLnLci6MQ

PopeBuckfastXVI · 17-09-2009 1:55pm

PHB wrote: »

If you want to actually hear his views on the Lisbon Treaty and Europe in general, watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vTLnLci6MQ

His stuff is taking massively out of context, massively, and often translated into a particuarly misleading way.

PHB,

If you are embedding youtube you need to use the following format:

<YOUTUBE>2vTLnLci6MQ</YOUTUBE>

(replace < with [ etc)

So you just provide the youtube ID of the video, not the full URL.

SkepticOne · 17-09-2009 2:14pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's not a bad translation, but I would prefer "bright idea" to "brainwave". It's about equally valid, but does not carry the same largely negative set of connotations. Giscard d'Estaing's tone tends towards the dispassionate, so words loaded with connotation should be avoided in translating what he said.

I'm happy with "bright idea" also. There's no single way of translating it.

"The latest bright idea is to preserve part of the innovations of the constitutional treaty, but hide them by breaking them up into several texts. The most innovative provisions would become simple amendments to the treaties of Maastricht and Nice. The technical improvements would be regrouped in a colourless, harmless treaty. The texts would be sent to national parliaments, which would vote separately. Thus public opinion would be led to adopt, without knowing it, the provisions that we dare not present directly. This process of 'dividing to ratify' is obviously unworthy of the challenge at stake. It may be a good magician's act. But it will confirm European citizens in the idea that the construction of Europe is organised behind their backs by lawyers and diplomats"

Dr Pepper · 17-09-2009 4:15pm

Sorry, I'm not following this at all

I don't see how the meaning of the 'mis-quoted' lines is changed when put in the context of the above paragraph. I'm not saying it's not changed, I just don't follow what the he's talking about (and as a result what any of you are talking about!).

Can somebody please explain it to me in simple terms and maybe include some of the wider context of where this guy is coming from? (because it still looks like killer material for the No campaign to me!).

Thanks

BlitzKrieg · 17-09-2009 4:23pm

there are a series of quotes going around that are used when someone has no other argument which essentially kill any thread.

They propose to paint members of the EU as undemocratic manipulative men who care nothing about the will of the people.

Giscard's quote is one of them, and the quote is usually given as such:

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly ... All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."
V.Giscard D'Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007

followed by:

Contempt for democracy !!!

reality is of course not so.

Dr Pepper · 17-09-2009 4:28pm

Thanks BlitzKrieg,

I know that much about it alright (i.e. I have seen more than 2 minutes of Declan Ganley in the past 2 years)

However, if that comment is taken out of context, I still don't understand from this thread what the context is. (When put into the quoted paragraph, to me he still appears to be saying the same thing)

PopeBuckfastXVI · 17-09-2009 4:39pm

Dr Pepper wrote: »

Thanks BlitzKrieg,

I know that much about it alright (i.e. I have seen more than 2 minutes of Declan Ganley in the past 2 years)

However, if that comment is taken out of context, I still don't understand from this thread what the context is. (When put into the quoted paragraph, to me he still appears to be saying the same thing)

I think in context he is saying that if you did it that way, you could expect a lack of confidence from the public.

When the quote normally appears it is suggesting that VGD the 'Architect of the Constitution' is planning this as a way of pushing through his nefarious constitution.

Notice the crucial change from would to will above...

BlitzKrieg · 17-09-2009 4:40pm

However, if that comment is taken out of context, I still don't understand from this thread what the context is. (When put into the quoted paragraph, to me he still appears to be saying the same thing)

the context is he is actually quite critical of the change, rather then in favour of it.

There is another similar quote going around from the Independent, where he explains that he was against the process that formed the Lisbon Treaty. he explains that it was done by the legal staff of the EU rather then the politics and that it took no consideration to be anything more then a legal document.

SkepticOne · 17-09-2009 5:48pm

Dr Pepper wrote: »

However, if that comment is taken out of context, I still don't understand from this thread what the context is. (When put into the quoted paragraph, to me he still appears to be saying the same thing)

The way I see it is that both the full in context version here and the out of context quote could be seen as an indictment of the way cynical politicians have gone about creating the Lisbon treaty. The difference is the side Giscard is on. In the out of context quote he is seen as endorsing the cynicism whereas in the full quote he is seen as abhoring it.

Naturally I prefer the full context version as it doesn't misrepresent d'Estaing. I had to correct someone on this about a week ago.

Dr Pepper · 17-09-2009 5:56pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

The way I see it is that both the full in context version here and the out of context quote could be seen as an indictment of the way cynical politicians have gone about creating the Lisbon treaty. The difference is the side Giscard is on. In the out of context quote he is seen as endorsing the cynicism whereas in the full quote he is seen as abhoring it.

Naturally I prefer the full context version as it doesn't misrepresent d'Estaing. I had to correct someone on this about a week ago.

Thanks, so it's basically still an effective piece of ammo* for the No campaign because he is saying this was the case whether he is agreeing with it or not. Am I right?

* (one of the only remaining ones - the great conspiracy theory)

PopeBuckfastXVI · 17-09-2009 5:59pm

Dr Pepper wrote: »

Thanks, so it's basically still an effective piece of ammo* for the No campaign because he is saying this was the case whether he is agreeing with it or not. Am I right?

* (one of the only remaining ones - the great conspiracy theory)

He appears to be speaking hypothetically originally, and speaking prophetically in the 'out of context' version.

Note again the change from would to will.

Dr Pepper · 17-09-2009 6:22pm

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

He appears to be speaking hypothetically originally, and speaking prophetically in the 'out of context' version.

Note again the change from would to will.

True. The 'would' makes all the difference!

lykoris · 17-09-2009 7:00pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Campaigners on the "no" side are very fond of picking two sentences from Valery Giscard d'Estaing and quoting them outside their context:

The context is here: http://vge-europe.eu/index.php?post/2007/06/12/Simplifier-ou-mutiler-le-traite-constitutionnel (en français).
He is actually quite negative about the strategy:

He says things that would hearten anti-federalists, including:

[If you don't read French, feed the url to Google Translate, which doesn't munge the piece beyond reasonable recognition.]

I think it's more disappointment than anything else

I find it ironic you complain about quotes taken out of context and then only quote half a paragraph yourself, like the anti-federalist one at the end.

P. Breathnach · 17-09-2009 7:06pm

lykoris wrote: »

... I find it ironic you complain about quotes taken out of context and then only quote half a paragraph yourself, like the anti-federalist one at the end.

First, I made it clear that I was quoting excerpts. Second, I gave a link to the context.

lykoris · 17-09-2009 7:14pm

you say the no campaign take quotes out of context from the text given

and then you take specific lines/quotes yourself and draw two conclusions

a) he is quite negative about the strategy

b) he says things that would hearten anti-federalists

like I said, I find it ironic

lykoris · 17-09-2009 8:14pm

it's very funny reading that blog of VGE and French responses to his statement releases for Ireland.

There are a lot of angry French giving out about his perception of democracy. But then it is the French, fiery revolutionists.

P. Breathnach · 17-09-2009 8:29pm

lykoris wrote: »

it's very funny reading that blog of VGE and French responses to his statement releases for Ireland...

How did you find that?

Oh, yes. I gave you the link. As context. Ironic.

lykoris · 17-09-2009 8:39pm

no, the difference I put everything in and translate :pac:

if nothing else we should take a leaf from the book of Jean-Marc and have a laugh once in a while, I like satire and it's comment 11 from the blog

http://vge-europe.eu/index.php?post/2009/02/14/VGE-a-Dublin

La démocratie c'est démodée, c'est du "vieux-talk". Ce qui est à la mode aujourd'hui c'est:
- la démocratie directe, les sondages, les blogs
- le mondialisme de droite, l'internationnalisme de gauche
- la pensée verte, l'écologie bobo
- l'Internet, le peer-to-peer
- les nouvelles religions, le New Age
- les régions mondiales, les continents
- l'interdépendance entre les états
- la monnaie unique
- le virtuel
- la standardisation
- l'argent dette
- la pensée unique, la langue unique
- les "experts"
- tout ce qui est nouveau, les "news"
- le relativisme moral
- ...
ce qui est vraiment rétrograde c'est:
- la démocratie locale et nationale
- le protectionnisme
- les religions vieilles de 2000 ans
- l'indépendance économique
- l'argent papier
- les livres
- la souveraineté des pays
- les provinces et l'héritage historique
- les valeurs, l'éthique et la morale
que des gros mots...

Democracy is old fashioned, it's "old talk", what is fashionable today it's

- direct democracy, opinion polls, blogs
- globalisation of the right, internationalization of the left
- eco talk, wishwash ecology
- internet, peer to peer
- new religions, the New Age
- global regions, the continents
- inter-dependence between states
- a single currency
- virtuality
- standardisation
- debt money
- a single thought, a single voice
- the "experts"
- everything that is new, the "news"
- relative morality

what is really backwards is

- local and national democracy
- protectionism
- religions that are 2000 years old
- economic independence
- paper money
- books
- the sovereignty of countries
- provinces and historic inheritance
- values, ethics and morality
....only swear words

I have to applaud his concept of satire

What Giscard d'Estaing Said

Comments