What Giscard d'Estaing Said

P. Breathnach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lykoris

P. Breathnach wrote: »

How did you find that?

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

I can fill in the parts of what you left out of your last paragraph if you like ?

lykoris

actually I will translate the entire link I gave above(which you gave me) so nothing can be taken out of context.

for anybody that doesn't know who Valéry Giscard d'Estaing is these may provide some info, he is extremely important - a key player in the E.U.

Valéry Giscard d'Estaing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val%C3%A9ry_Giscard_d%27Estaing


from his blog


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

VGE à Dublin



V. Giscard d’Estaing était à Dublin du 11 au 12 février 2009, où il a rencontré le Taoiseach Brian Cowen avant de tenir une Conférence, devant le Trinity College, sur les conséquences du non irlandais au référendum sur le Traité de Lisbonne.
Vous pouvez lire les principaux extraits en cliquant sur les liens ci-dessous.

VGE in Dublin

VGE was in Dublin from the 11th to 12 of February 2009, where he met Taoiseach Brian Cowen before holding a press conference before Trinity College Dublin(they have missed the D from TCD) on the consequences of the Irish no on the Treaty of Lisbon.

You can read the principal extracts on clicking on the links below

lykoris

Nous sommes engagés dans l’action de « Continent building »

We are engaged in the action of "Continent building".

the content of the file entitled Dublin_1.pdf ( I will put the French and translate)


Nous sommes engagés dans l’action de « Continent building »
We are engaged in the action of "Continent Building"

Je vous parlerai aussi librement qu’Edmund Burke a osé le faire sur la Révolution française, mais chaleureusement, comme un ami de toujours de la belle Irlande, et comme partageant avec vous notre commune condition d’européen. Nous sommes engagés en Europe dans une action que nous pouvons appeler « Continent building ». C’est une action que l’on peut comparer à celle des Pères fondateurs américains, Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison et Adams.

I will speak to you as freely as Edmund Burke dared to on the French Revolution, but warmly, as a dear friend of the beautiful Ireland and as sharing with you in our common european condition. We are engaged in Europe in an action that we can call "Continent Building". It is an action we can compare to those American founding fathers, Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and Adams.

Leur tâche était plus facile. Ils étaient moins nombreux – trois millions et demi – parlaient la même langue, et partageaient des valeurs chrétiennes communes. Ils ont réussi leur entreprise, et nous sommes, aujourd’hui encore, témoins de leur succès.

Their task was easier. They were less numerous - three and a half million - speaking the same language and sharing common christian values. They succeeded in their goals, and we are, still today, a witness of their success.

Allons-nous réussir ? Ce n’est pas certain. Nous sommes 500 millions. Nous
parlons plus de vingt langues différentes. Et nos origines culturelles et religieuses sont différentes. Pourtant lorsqu’on regarde une mappemonde, on y aperçoit un cap, bordé d’un océan et de mers, c’est l’Europe. L’Europe existe.

Will we succeed? It is not certain. We are 500 million. We speak more than 20 different languages. And our cultural and religious origins are different. Yet when we look at a world map, you can perceive an outline, bordered by an ocean and a sea, it's Europe. Europe exists.

Serons-nous capable de l’organiser ?

Will we be capable to organise it ?

lykoris

I will put up the others as well but will translate them offline as I find it faster to word on word than use the reply box here....obviously though, I will not edit or take anything out of context as you will see - these are his words but I can help translate them to English.

but that is only if somebody on here wants me to?

lykoris

well I went ahead and translated part 2/8 of his speech and it's a fine speech so why not put it up. The bold in the text is from the original document. http://vge-europe.eu/public/Dublin_2.pdf


Aussi longtemps que l’Irlande n’aura pas ratifié le Traité de Lisbonne, il ne
pourra pas entrer en vigueur

As long as Ireland will not have ratified the Lisbon treaty, it will not come into effect.


L’Irlande d’aujourd’hui pose un problème, à elle-même, et aux autres européens.
The Ireland of today poses a problem, to itself, and to other Europeans.

Alors que vingt cinq Etats sur vingt sept, représentant plus de 95 % de sa
population, sont d’accord sur le Traité qui fixe ses règles de fonctionnement à venir,
l’Irlande exprime son désaccord, et vote « non » au Traité de Lisbonne.

Whilst twenty five states out of twenty seven, representing more than 95% of its population, are in agreement on the Treaty which determines the future rules of operation, Ireland expresses its disagreement and votes ‘no’ to the treaty of Lisbon.


Ainsi apparaissent deux questions : quelle sera désormais la place de l’Irlande en
Europe ?
And thus appears two questions: what will be the place of Ireland from now on in Europe?


Et que vont faire les autres Européens, immensément majoritaires, après
le « non » Irlandais ?

And what are the other Europeans going to do, the immense majority, after the Irish ‘no’?



L’histoire des Etats Unis nous fournit un élément de réponse
The history of the United States provides us with a basis of response

: à partir du moment où neuf « colonies » sur treize soit les trois quarts des Etats donnaient leur
accord à la Constitution, celle-ci entrait en vigueur.

When nine colonies out of thirteen, being three quarters of the States (what today is north America was once 13 colonies) gave their agreement to the Constitution, it came into immediate effect


Et les autres « colonies » disposaient d’un délai pour se prononcer. Elles ont toutes fini par ratifier, y compris Rhode Island, qui fût la dernière.
And the other “colonies” disposed of a delay before announcement. They all finished by ratifying it, including Rhode Island, which was the last.


Le cas du Traité de Lisbonne est différent, puisqu’il est soumis à la règle de
l’unanimité. Aussi longtemps que l’Irlande ne l’aura pas ratifié, il ne pourra pas entrer en
vigueur.

The case of the Treaty of Lisbon is different, because it is subject to the rule of unanimity. As long as Ireland has not ratified it, it cannot come into effect.

lykoris

Actually I have a question for you guys.

Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, is the architect of the previous EU constitution and given his importance, surely a translation of his speech outside TCD in Feb. to the Irish people is somewhere.

Obviously I'm missing something, they must have translated from French to English so a copy must exist?

Good night, early start tmrw.

Scofflaw

lykoris wrote: »

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.

He has a very patrician view of the whole thing, and a very federalist one, which is what makes him such an opportunity to quotemine.

However, when all this exegesis is finished, all one has obtained is a better understanding of Giscard d'Estaing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

lykoris

Scofflaw wrote: »

He has a very patrician view of the whole thing, and a very federalist one, which is what makes him such an opportunity to quotemine.

However, when all this exegesis is finished, all one has obtained is a better understanding of Giscard d'Estaing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I completely agree he is an easy target and taking sentences out of their context(quote mining) is not fair play which is why I wanted to quote everything entirely with the French text and subsequent translation in English. (didn't have time to do the other 6 pages late last night...which would be pointless if a translation already existed.)


You will have to forgive my ignorance as I was unfamiliar with the word ‘exegesis’.

Which I have since learnt means a ‘critical evaluation of a text’. So, in your view, by directly translating the words in their entirety I am critical of the text? I think that is an unfair conclusion to reach. Scofflaw and illustrates my point further below.

I have looked for an English version of the entire 8/8 pages and would ask the question again is an English version available?

I don’t agree with your singular view that “all one has obtained is a better understanding of Giscard d’Estaing”.

In understanding the man, you also gain a thorough understanding of his vision of Europe and to me that is important. Why? Well as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, he wrote the draft EU constitution, the main body of which has subsequently become the Lisbon treaty.

This video is the man in his own words that illustrates to a degree this vision.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvb9UYIKGF8&feature=related


On a final note I have the distinct impression this forum has a definite pro bias and in a similar fashion politics.ie has a negative bias towards the treaty. Actually that’s not quite true, the no bias in politics.ie is blatantly apparent and to use an American expression it’s very much ‘in your face’. They’re like rabid dogs which set upon anybody remotely in favour of the Treaty. Perhaps misplaced but that is my perception of that place of ‘debate’.

Both sides on this campaign have lied, there is no denying that. It would be nice for the facts of the treaty to be presented to the people without the ‘spin’/emotive reasoning/sensationalist ideas(*) of x number of organizations both pro/anti

At best, it must really confuse &/or alienate the average person from the political scene, at worst it must nearly drive him/her to boycott the entire affair altogether and add to the apathy towards modern day European politics.

Naivety, thy name be idealism.

Scofflaw

lykoris wrote: »

I completely agree he is an easy target and taking sentences out of their context(quote mining) is not fair play which is why I wanted to quote everything entirely with the French text and subsequent translation in English. (didn't have time to do the other 6 pages late last night...which would be pointless if a translation already existed.)


You will have to forgive my ignorance as I was unfamiliar with the word ‘exegesis’.

Which I have since learnt means a ‘critical evaluation of a text’. So, in your view, by directly translating the words in their entirety I am critical of the text? I think that is an unfair conclusion to reach. Scofflaw and illustrates my point further below.

I wasn't referring specifically to your translations, rather more to the whole process of trying to work out what d'Estaing meant when he said what he said (that kind of 'critical'). As I said, at the end of that process, one has a better understanding of the man, and of his views on the process of treaty creation. Whether that tells you anything about the process of treaty creation as it relates to anything except d'Estaing is a rather moot point.

The reason for using 'exegesis' specifically is to indicate exactly that point - the normal context in which one finds it used is 'Biblical exegesis', and the point of Biblical exegesis is to come to a better understanding of the mind of God, not of the quasi-historical record in the Bible.

lykoris wrote: »

I have looked for an English version of the entire 8/8 pages and would ask the question again is an English version available?

I don’t agree with your singular view that “all one has obtained is a better understanding of Giscard d’Estaing”.

In understanding the man, you also gain a thorough understanding of his vision of Europe and to me that is important. Why? Well as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, he wrote the draft EU constitution, the main body of which has subsequently become the Lisbon treaty.

Well, no, that's not accurate. He chaired the drafting convention, which had 105 delegates and involved 25 countries. On his own authority he insisted on the insertion of various elements (all of which were subsequently removed as objectionable to the French and Dutch), but to describe him as writing the draft is totally inaccurate. What one gets from studying d'Estaing is a highly coloured, highly federalist, and extremely lopsided view - satisfactory as that may be to those whose views are equally lopsided in the opposite direction.

lykoris wrote: »

This video is the man in his own words that illustrates to a degree this vision.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvb9UYIKGF8&feature=related


On a final note I have the distinct impression this forum has a definite pro bias and in a similar fashion politics.ie has a negative bias towards the treaty. Actually that’s not quite true, the no bias in politics.ie is blatantly apparent and to use an American expression it’s very much ‘in your face’. They’re like rabid dogs which set upon anybody remotely in favour of the Treaty. Perhaps misplaced but that is my perception of that place of ‘debate’.

That's reasonably accurate, I think.

lykoris wrote: »

Both sides on this campaign have lied, there is no denying that. It would be nice for the facts of the treaty to be presented to the people without the ‘spin’/emotive reasoning/sensationalist ideas(*) of x number of organizations both pro/anti

At best, it must really confuse &/or alienate the average person from the political scene, at worst it must nearly drive him/her to boycott the entire affair altogether and add to the apathy towards modern day European politics.

Naivety, thy name be idealism.

As has been pointed out before, that is a problem common to politics in western democracies, although it nevertheless remains a real problem.

cordially,
Scofflaw

lykoris

Scofflaw wrote: »

I wasn't referring specifically to your translations, rather more to the whole process of trying to work out what d'Estaing meant when he said what he said (that kind of 'critical'). As I said, at the end of that process, one has a better understanding of the man, and of his views on the process of treaty creation. Whether that tells you anything about the process of treaty creation as it relates to anything except d'Estaing is a rather moot point.

The reason for using 'exegesis' specifically is to indicate exactly that point - the normal context in which one finds it used is 'Biblical exegesis', and the point of Biblical exegesis is to come to a better understanding of the mind of God, not of the quasi-historical record in the Bible.

well that clarifies my confusion.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, no, that's not accurate. He chaired the drafting convention, which had 105 delegates and involved 25 countries. On his own authority he insisted on the insertion of various elements (all of which were subsequently removed as objectionable to the French and Dutch), but to describe him as writing the draft is totally inaccurate. What one gets from studying d'Estaing is a highly coloured, highly federalist, and extremely lopsided view - satisfactory as that may be to those whose views are equally lopsided in the opposite direction.

of course you are correct and I'm wrong. It comes from the tone of his articles in lemonde/le figaro as the father of it all, the instigator in a way.

Scofflaw

lykoris wrote: »

well that clarifies my confusion.

of course you are correct and I'm wrong. It comes from the tone of his articles in lemonde/le figaro as the father of it all, the instigator in a way.

That was, as far as I recall, part of why rather a lot of people felt at the time that he was an inappropriate choice. After all, a treaty would have come into being with or without d'Estaing. Without him, it might not have suffered the slings and arrows of outraged voters to quite the same degree.

cordially,
Scofflaw

lykoris

I think implementing significant change at a European level in anticipation of the future geopolitical balance of power would always meet resistance irrespective of the personalities involve.