Marine Le Pen On Immigration

While the French MSM were full of articles on Zoé's Ark and the French prisoners, Nicolas Sarkozy's Minister of Immigration Brice Hortefeux got his immigration law passed by Parliament and will soon begin to implement his selective immigration program. Marine Le Pen weighs in:

At the very moment when Nicolas Sarkozy justifiably condemns the traffic of human beings organized by Zoé's Ark, his minister Brice Hortefeux makes it official with the launching of his "selective" immigration. With conscious immorality, here too camouflaged beneath good feelings, the government is organizing a new modern slavery for the benefit of a few businessmen eager for profit.

In the framework of the project of demographic globalization, France is now officially on the dubious list of clients in the great world market of cheap labor.

This sweeping influx of cheap workers will, more than anything, result directly in a lowering to the minimum of the salaries in those sectors affected. How can they expect us to believe, as the government does, that young French college grads would refuse to exercise the professions of geometrician or programmer, to cite just two fields?

Marine Le Pen, vice-president of the Front National and French deputy to the European Parliament, solemnly requests that the government renounce this project, and offer vacancies to the unemployed French, and if necessary create the needed training programs. She calls on all workers in the affected sectors to oppose this plan that aims to lower their pay and to turn their professions into "third-world jobs."

Note: In this communiqué she is referring to the fact that Sarkozy is "head-hunting" in Africa. He wants the best and brightest and most skilled Africans to come to France. My question is: how many geometricians and programmers are there in Africa? Of course, there may be some. But if there are numerous vacancies Sarkozy will have to allow lesser-skilled Africans to move into jobs meant for highly skilled Europeans. Then, not only the salaries will be lowered, but the quality of work, which in turn will result in a degraded profession.

Zoé's Ark - Part Three

The latest news, dated October 30, is that the Frenchmen arrested last week in Chad have been indicted on charges of "kidnapping minors, compromising their civil status, and fraud":

They risk 20 years of forced labor if found guilty. The seven Spanish crew members have been indicted as accomplices, as were two Chadians. No charge was formulated against the Belgian pilot of the plane, arrested separately in N'Djamena. The sixteen Europeans were to be taken to N'Djamena, the capital.

In front of the courthouse in Abéché, a small group of angry residents demanded that the Europeans be tried in Chad. "The Black slave trade was abolished, wasn't it? Trafficking children is not acceptable in the 21st century," said a man wishing to remain anonymous.

Two French journalists on assignment figure among the indicted. The ministry of foreign affairs has requested that the Chadian authorities take into account their profession, explained a spokesperson for Quai d'Orsay, Pascale Andreani.

The Spanish Foreign Minister, Miguel Angel Moratinos, said he hoped his compatriots would be quickly released "because they are responsible for nothing."

Journalists authorized to see the prisoners and to film them at the Abéché courthouse, declared that they looked tired. One of the Frenchmen struck his face with his fist, as if to imply that he had been hit. Another, stretched out on a mat, seemed to be suffering, while his colleagues examined him.

The affair, that is hindering diplomatic relations between Paris and N'Djamena on the eve of the deployment of EU forces known as Eufor, on the Darfur border, has embarrassed the French authorities to the highest degree. On Tuesday, it took a political turn, when the Left imputed a "fiasco" to the government and demanded the return of the nine Frenchmen.

Jean-Louis Bianco, socialist deputy from Alpes-de-Haute-Provence, challenged the Prime Mininster during a stormy session in the National Assembly, in the course of which the secretary of State for Human Rights, Rama Yade, speaking in the absence of Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, was booed.

"From the beginning, we have had the impression that they were abandoned," deplored Bianco.

A judicial agreement of cooperation links France and Chad, but French Minister of Justice Rachida Dati declared on Tuesday (October 30) on French radio Europe 1, that Chadian justice was "sovereign."

According to the information coming out of Chad, the 103 children were in the majority of Chadian origin and "many of them were not orphans," declared Pascale Andreani.

The above-cited article reports that Prime Minister François Fillon declared to the National Assembly:

"Chad is a sovereign State whose laws we respect but I want to say that we will be extremely vigilant with respect to the rights of our nationals. This affair must not discredit the NGO's that are doing a remarkable job in Chad and Darfur and that are today victims of suspicion, rock-throwing and violence."

Nicolas Sarkozy, traveling in Corsica, declared that the French authorities would try "to reach an accord so that no one loses face in this affair."

The photos show Rama Yade and Jean-Louis Bianco addressing the National Assembly on October 30.

Zoé's Ark - Part Two

Another Yahoo article, from which the following excerpts are drawn, reveals that:

N'Djamena (the capital of Chad, and seat of the government) verbally accused those responsible for the operation of "kidnapping and traffic of children." President Idriss Déby even wondered if they intended "to sell the children to the NGO pedophiles" or "kill them for their organs."

These repeated accusations, before a formal indictment was even issued, led Socialist Party chairman François Hollande to warn that "the Chadian president must not be allowed to use the prisoners as an element of pressure."

President Déby nonetheless guaranteed Nicolas Sarkozy that the EU forces to be deployed in the coming weeks in eastern Chad and the northeastern part of the Central African Republic would not be affected.

Zoé's Ark insists that Paris never explicitly forbade the operation, and according to Rama Yade, Sarkozy's secretary of State in the Foreign Ministry, "it was a group of idealists who set this thing up because they believed in it, I suppose".

The French Ministry of Justice opened an investigation last week and suspects that the Zoé's Ark Association was trying to act as an illegal intermediary in the field of adoption.

The photo from Yahoo is of the courthouse in Abéché, in eastern Chad, where the prisoners were taken before being transferred to N'Djamena.

Zoé's Ark - Part One

This story has been in the headlines for over a week, but it took me a while to get interested. Possibly it has appeared in English-language newspapers since it involves both children and Darfur, a region much in the news. It seems a French NGO called Arche de Zoé (Zoé's Ark) authorized nine persons to "kidnap" over a hundred children and bring them back to France in a humanitarian rescue mission. The children were said to be ill and in need of treatment in France. But the facts proved otherwise. There are dozens of articles from Yahoo, Figaro and other sources. Here is a condensed version of Yahoo, dated October 26:

On Thursday the Chadian police arrested nine Frenchmen accused of "kidnapping" a hundred children from Chad and from Darfur, the Sudanese border region in the throes of a civil war, to bring them to France, in exchange for payment.

The 103 children "kidnapped' on the Sudanese border, and about to be transported to Paris, on the pretext of need for health care, were recovered Thursday morning by the police of Abéché, before they could board the plane.

The Chadian secretary of State in the ministry of the interior, Abderamane Djasnabaille, affirmed that the nine Frenchmen were suspected of "trafficking children" and had been placed in custody in Abéché, the main city in the eastern part of Chad.

The French families assembled since Thursday at the Vatry airport (Marne), to greet the chartered plane from Chad with 103 children on board from Darfur, spent the night at the airport in sleeping bags and on mattresses.

The secretary of State for Human Rights, in the French Foreign Ministry, Rama Yade, judged the kidnapping of the children by the Zoé's Ark Association to be "illegal and irresponsible", adding that "from July 22, all the NGO's working in Darfur that I met with were unanimous in condemning this operation." "We know nothing about the conditions in which these children were gathered. We do not know their origins, their nationalities, or the facts of their family and community life." Reiterating that she had called on the ministry of justice to "determine all those responsible for this operation," Rama Yade indicated that those responsible will "have to account for their actions."

Earlier, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs (Bernard Kouchner) had denounced "firmly" the operation. "We firmly denounce the conditions in which this operation seems to have been organized," he said in a communiqué. "A criminal investigation is currently underway at the Paris Tribunal to shed light on this affair."

The airplane was expected at the Reims-Vatry airport, 160 km east of Paris, where about 50 families were waiting to welcome the children. Eight of the Frenchmen arrested were members of the Zoé's Ark Association, a French NGO that was once called Children Rescue. This small association had announced in June a controversial plan to evacuate 1000 children from Darfur, "to save them from a certain death," and to place them in French families.

Eric Breteau, president of the NGO and one of those arrested, affirmed that the 103 children were to be evacuated to Paris, for health reasons, according to Chadian radio. But, according to the radio, "these children were not at all sick, and the members of the NGO had placed bands around their heads and feet to make it look as if they were sick." The ninth person arrested is a journalist for the Capa agency, Marc Garmirian, announced a communiqué from his agency.

Members of the UN Commission on Refugees visited the children in the social center. "The children were afraid, very shocked, but appeared to be in good health," declared Annette Rehri, a spokesperson for the Commission, stressing that they needed "water, milk, and food." She said the children were age one to nine, but most were four or five years old.

A diplomatic source in Paris stated that the majority of the children were probably from Darfur, and from Chad also. Many refugee camps from the Sudanese region are installed in Chad. The same source added that some 3000 families, mainly French, had paid between 2800 and 6000 euros to receive a child. Europe 1, the French radio station that revealed the information, said that the children were kidnapped in Sudan, then transported to Chad as part of an "adoption traffic."

"This is not about trafficking children. The goal of the operation was to save children from death," declared Delphine Philibert, a mother who volunteered to adopt one of the children. According to the UN, some 236,000 refugees from Darfur are now in Chad, while 173,000 Chadians were displaced by the violence in the eastern part of their country.

The war in Darfur and its consequences has resulted in 200,000 deaths since February 2003, and more than 2 million displaced persons, according to most estimates, but denied by Khartoum.

The map shows the region under discussion; the photo is of some of the prisoners. Both are from Yahoo.

Dissolving the Gendarmerie

An article at Notre Patrie, the website of the MSP (Social and Patriotic Movement), a minor nationalist party, discloses that the French government is about to dissolve the national gendarmerie - the military police force that is under the jurisdiction of the Defense Ministry. Gendarmes are employed to protect public officials and are called in to assist riot police in the event of an uncontrollable uprising. In general, gendarmes have more freedom to use firearms than do the national police or the special riot police:

According to a report published within the framework of State reform, the government has hinted at the possibility of gradually dissolving the national gendarmerie. The plan calls for the dissolution of one brigade out of two.

The gendarmes were quick to react strongly to this measure. They made their displeasure known to their military and political hierarchy regarding this reform.

Furthermore, since the creation of the national gendarmerie, it has always been under the authority of the Defense Ministry, Another administrative reform projects that between now and 2009, the gendarmes will come under the Interior Ministry.

Attentive citizens will note the troubling coincidence of this anti-patriotic measure, almost an exact copy of the reform implemented in Belgium in January 2001.

Note: I know nothing of the Belgian reform, but it must have been a measure to reduce the power of the police to shoot at criminals.

It is obvious that one week after the ratification of the European Constitution in Lisbon against the will of the French people, President Sarkozy is preparing to trade, on the altar of Brussels Eurocracy, the gendarmerie, a symbol of national unity and a guarantee of French sovereignty.

On a similar note, an article in Le Monde from last week speaks of the demoralized gendarmes, their poor pay compared to the national police, and the dominating presence of Sarkozy who seems to be doing the job of the interior minister. The following is a summary of the article:

On Thursday November 15, Nicolas Sarkozy, accompanied by his Interior Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie and Defense Minister Hervé Morin, will meet with 1800 police and gendarmes to explain the government's "orientation" in the matter of internal security.

"This is a first," says Nicolas Comte, general secretary of the police union SGP-FO. "If the security policies are piloted by Elysée, what is the role of the minister of the interior?"

The day before, on November 13 and 14, Alliot-Marie, who has just received the reports on the morale of the gendarmes, will attend the traditional convention of gendarmerie leaders who meet every year in Montluçon.

One report, dated September 24, indicates a serious worsening of the ambiance in which the gendarmes work. "The morale of the units is judged to be very bad. In the year to come, it is expected that it will worsen even more. No one is spared, not even the leaders. The now-famous slogan 'work more to earn more', is in flagrant contradiction with the reality of the gendarmes' working hours, compared to those of the national police."

"The gendarmes are aware that, in the end, to agree to work longer hours in the service of the State than their counterparts in the national police brings them no rewards, since they are systematically passed over in favor of those who have nuisance value."

The article closes with the warning of a possible street protest similar to the one in 2001, when for the first time, the gendarmes held a demonstration.

In the photo we see Sarkozy and Alliot-Marie in July 2007 at the Malakoff barracks, where a gendarme had killed his sergeant-major and his own two children, before taking his own life.

Petition For A Referendum

For those French readers interested in signing a petition against the Treaty and for a new referendum, click here. So far over 6000 persons have signed. Thanks to the reader who provided the link.

COMECE

Who is FOR the new European Treaty (besides its promoters)? COMECE is happy about the agreement last week in Lisbon. COMECE stands for (in Latin) Commissio Episcopatuum Europensis, or the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community. According to their website:

It is made up of Bishops delegated by the Catholic Bishops' Conferences of the European Union and it has a permanent Secretariat in Brussels.

There are 24 delegate bishops from the Bishops' Conferences in the EU: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, England & Wales, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Scandinavia, Scotland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain – and the Archdiocese of Luxembourg.

Croatia and Switzerland have associate status.

The objectives of COMECE are as follows:

- To monitor and analyse the political process of the European Union
- To inform and raise awareness within the Church of the development of EU policy and legislation
- To promote reflection, based on the Church's social teaching, on the challenges facing a united Europe

Read more about them here.

COMECE praises the new treaty, known in English as the Reform Treaty, in this communiqué posted at their website in French, English and German. The first paragraph below introduces the communiqué:

COMECE’s Secretary General Mgr Treanor greets the announcement of an agreement on the new treaty for the European Union. The agreement, reached by the 27 Heads of States and Governments at the European Council of Lisbon last night, brings an end to four years of difficult endeavours and to the institutional crisis following the rejection of the EU constitutional Treaty in France and the Netherlands in 2005.

COMECE welcomes the fact that concern for the European common good and the interest of 500 million citizens finally prevailed over threats linked to issues of national interest.

COMECE particularly welcomes the introduction of article 15b in the Treaty establishing the European Community, which stipulates that ‘The Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States.’ And especially alinea 3: ‘Recognising their identity and their specific contribution, the Union shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with these churches and organisations.’ On the basis of this article, which introduces a new provision into the Treaties, the EU institutions will engage in a deeper dialogue with the Churches, thus allowing Christians to accompany more effectively the process of European construction. This should lead to a Union characterized by more Justice and Solidarity and an enhanced Responsibility for major global challenges.

COMECE notes with interest that the Reform Treaty introduces a preamble to the Treaty on European Union that recognises the cultural, religious and humanistic inheritance of Europe. Nevertheless, Mgr Treanor considers that ‘The debate about the Christian roots of Europe is inseparable from the reflexion on the European identity; thus, it needs to be continued’.

The Reform Treaty will be officially signed by the 27 Heads of States and Governments on December 13th in Lisbon. The ratification process will then start: through referendum in Ireland and presumably by parliamentary decision in all the other Member States.

The COMECE Secretariat encourages Christians to follow closely the issues and challenges of the European debate during the following months. The Reform Treaty, despite its shortcomings and complexity, represents a satisfying institutional solution for the enlarged EU; it introduces necessary reforms into the decision-making process that should allow European construction to continue in an efficient and just way.

In the light of the outcome of the Lisbon Summit, it is worth recalling Pope Benedict XVI’s recent remark: ‘If (…) on some points justified criticisms can be raised about certain European institutions, the process of unification remains a most significant achievement which has brought a period of peace, heretofore unknown, to this continent, formerly consumed by constant conflicts and fatal fratricidal wars..’

Le Salon Beige and its readers weigh in on the position of COMECE, with some harsh criticism of the bishops and of the Church's un-Catholic progressivism (or liberalism, as we would say). Here are a few excerpts:

We will skip over the lack of gratitude on the part of COMECE for the European country that has most ardently defended Christian values - Poland, obviously the target of the allusion to "threats linked to issues of national interest." However we will send out a few reminders that won't be pleasant for the members of this Commission:

1. COMECE judges the treaty in the same way it judged the proposed Constitution in 2005, and for the same reasons. (...) Must it rejoice to see that "the churches" and the "religious communities" are mentioned while the recognition of the Christian roots of Europe is still excluded from the treaty? For the bishops of COMECE, are there many churches or one church, one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?

2. More serious still, with this new treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes law. It is sad to see that COMECE does not see the dangers inherent in this charter. On the one hand the spirit of the text restricts the domain of protection of respect for human life, and on the other, it opens the way to a legalization, in the EU, of "marriage" between persons of the same sex, as article lll-21 implies (...)

Note: Here is the first part of article lll-21 in its entirety, taken from the website of the European Commission:

1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.

Based on this we see that the bishops are signing on to a sweeping liberal agenda. Why they would do this is a valid question. Are they ideologues? Are they misled by the siren songs of current trends? Are they afraid of appearing retrograde? I tend to think many are ideologues and the others are afraid. One LSB reader speaks of the infiltration of the monasteries by the soviets a few decades ago (I'm not familiar with the authors he mentions):

Seeing the French bishops lash out against everything that is right-wing, I cannot help but think of the infiltration of the French seminaries and monasteries by soviet agents in the 70's and 80's as described by Marc Dem in his book Rome Must Be Destroyed. One of the main topics: bishop wannabes skilled in the art of group dynamics who become the "locomotives" during meetings (see the book by Monsignor Gaidon on those who always take the floor and drag the others with them). Is it by chance that all these not very Catholic declarations always point in the direction of the destruction of Christian France?

Harris Poll On Referendum

A tip from Le Salon Beige led to this Lou Harris poll on the new European Treaty. We learn, first of all, that many Europeans are not even aware of the treaty, and that a majority of them, in five countries, are favorable to a referendum preceding the adoption or ratification of such a document. However we also learn that only the British (51%) feel such a treaty would have a negative impact on their country. Here are the opening paragraphs:

A new Financial Times/Harris Poll examines public opinion in the five largest European countries, Britain, France, Italy, Spain and Germany, on issues related to the so-called "reform treaty" that would re-shape the institutions of the European Union. The treaty, if adopted, would change voting procedures, expand the role of both the European Parliament and national legislatures, and include a charter of fundamental rights. EU leaders, meeting in Lisbon on October 18, endorsed the proposed new treaty.

This poll which was conducted just before the EU Summit finds that hardly anyone in these five European countries is very familiar with the treaty and most people are not at all familiar with it (between 54% and 68% say they are not at all familiar).

This survey also finds that majorities of adults, who are at least somewhat familiar with the treaty in all five countries, from 63 percent in France to 76 percent in Germany, want their countries to hold referendums on the treaty before it is adopted. Another key finding is that modest pluralities of those who are familiar with the treaty, but far less than majorities, believe a new reform treaty would have a positive effect in four of the countries, but that a 51 percent majority in Britain believes it would have negative effect. Britain is, and has been, far more hostile to the European Union than most other European countries, influenced permanently by the anti-European editorial policies of most British newspapers.

These are some of the results of a Financial Times/Harris Poll conducted online by Harris Interactive among a total of over 1,000 adults in each of the five countries between October 3 and 15, 2007.

Given that so many people are not familiar with the new reform treaty it is no surprise that many people have no opinions, positive or negative about it, even after some information about the treaty was given to them. After the first question on familiarity, those interviewed were told that the new treaty "establishes a Permanent President of the European Council, appointed by national governments for a period of two and a half years. This would replace the present system where the President of the European Council rotates every six months".

Other interesting results of this poll include:

* There is no consensus in these five countries as to which institutions in Europe have the most power. The European Parliament, the European commission, the national governments of European Union countries, or the European Court of Justice.

Very large numbers of people have no opinion on whether or not the new treaty would:

* Increase the power of the E.U;
* Provide greater continuity;
* Create a European superstate;
* Enable the E.U. to operate more effectively.

However pluralities in most of the countries (and majorities in a couple of cases) think that on balance the new treaty is more likely than not to have all these effects.

Read the rest of the poll here.

As for the reasons why so many citizens are unaware of the Treaty, Le Salon Beige offers this explanation:

(...) it is not surprising when you recall that in 2005 the major media sources (newspapers and television) had all without exception advocated a "yes" vote!

Another tidbit of information about the new European Treaty can be found on the home page of Philippe de Villiers' website, where we learn that the "mini-treaty" contains 3000 pages that are not available for perusal:

No integrated version of the text was prepared and the agreement being discussed will take the form of modifications to existing treaties, that is, 250 pages of amendments to be inserted in the 3000 some pages of the existing treaties.

If I may attempt an interpretation of the above: The European Constitution is over 3000 pages long, and is in several sections called "treaties". The document that was approved in Lisbon last week consists only of 250 pages of amendments to be inserted in the proper place in the body of the document.

I'm not sure that is accurate, and if it is I still don't understand it, but I doubt that it matters. What citizen of Europe is going to read 3000 pages of legalese? The American Constitution, beginning with "We the People..." and up to the 27th amendment, is about 10 or 12 pages long, and is relatively easy to read.

Since the EU is so averse to translations, as I've recently reported, I'm wondering if the 27 member States will ever see this document in their own language.

A Battle That Changed History

According to Le Salon Beige October 25 is the anniversary of the Battle of Poitiers in 732, when Muslim forces were defeated by Frankish forces under Charles Martel, although Wikipedia gives the date as October 11. The discrepancy could be due to different calendars. Here is a tiny excerpt from a very long Wikipedia page detailing the magnitude of this historic event that Edward Gibbon believed saved Europe from Islam (not that Gibbon was a friend of Christianity).

Despite this, the Franks did not break. It appears that the years of year-round training that Charles had bought with Church funds, paid off. His hard-trained soldiery accomplished what was not thought possible at that time: infantry withstood the fierce Umayyad heavy cavalry. Paul Davis says the core of Martel's army was a professional infantry which was both highly disciplined and well motivated, "having campaigned with him all over Europe," buttressed by levies that Charles basically used to raid and disrupt his enemy, and gather food for his infantry. The Mozarabic Chronicle of 754 says: "And in the shock of the battle the men of the North seemed like a sea that cannot be moved. Firmly they stood, one close to another, forming as it were a bulwark of ice; and with great blows of their swords they hewed down the Arabs. Drawn up in a band around their chief, the people of the Austrasians carried all before them. Their tireless hands drove their swords down to the breasts of the foe."

The painting of the battle is by German artist Charles de Steuben. Charles Martel is depicted on horseback to the left.

Casualty figures are uncertain but early Christian chronicles report 1500 Franks killed. It is estimated that possibly 10,000 Muslims were killed.

The next-to-last word goes to Voltaire, quoted by Le Salon Beige as saying: "Without Charles Martel, (...) France would be a Mohammedan province."

The last word will go to one of LSB's readers:

It's the Republican values (by that I mean the Revolution) that made the implantation of Islam in France possible. Sarkozy is but a consequence of what was programmed long ago. May the French restore the Catholic monarchy and get rid of the usurpers!

Rejecting the Treaty

In an interview with Le Figaro Philippe de Villiers adds his long-silent voice to the chorus of protests against the European mini-treaty, aka Constitution, that has generated heated reactions from so many bloggers, writers and critics.

It is too soon to know if PDV is returning to his former role as political adversary of Nicolas Sarkozy, or if this is a one-time foray back into nationalist territory. I certainly hope he gives up the idea of being both a Sarkozy critic and a Sarkozy supporter. It will soon be impossible to maintain such a charade.

Figaro: Is this European mini-treaty, less ambitious, so it seems, than Giscard's Constitution, acceptable to those who voted "No"?

PDV: This treaty is unacceptable because in reality it's a second Constitution. I'm not the only one saying it. Angela Merkel admitted: "The entire substance of the Constitution has been retained."

Figaro: Why do you speak of a second Constitution?

PDV: We find in this text the four constitutive elements of a European State: the legal personality accorded to the European Union, that is, the capacity to sign treaties. The juridical superiority of European laws over the national Constitutions. A supranational diplomatic service, which means an autonomous diplomacy of the European Commission. And finally, a decision-making system independent of the States, with the absolute record of transfers of sovereignty contained in this so-called mini-treaty (forty new powers).

Note: The last line above may not be clear. He seems to be saying that there are forty new areas where the EU has wrested sovereignty from the States.

Figaro: François Fillon reminded the National Assembly yesterday that Nicolas Sarkozy had warned the French of a ratification by Parliament during the presidential campaign. Therefore he did not betray them...

Note: This is true. But the most nationalistic websites caught on right away, even if the people didn't.

PDV: The French could not possibly have imagined that behind the packaging of the simplified treaty was the made-over Constitution, the very one that had been massively rejected by the people on May 29, 2005. Only the French people are entitled to rule on the new treaty. Our leaders want to kidnap the debate and preserve it from a verdict of the people. A Parliament is so much more docile, especially when it says "Yes"!

Figaro: What do you think of the declarations of Jean-Pierre Jouyet, who has suggested abolishing the referendum, decreed by Jacques Chirac, that is supposed to be held before any new expansion of the EU?

Note: Jouyet is secretary of State for European Affairs in the foreign ministry under Bernard Kouchner. Chirac had advocated an amendment requiring a referendum before each new addition to the EU. This was meant to be a safety valve against over-expansion, and especially against the entry of Turkey.

PDV: I'm concerned because Elysée has not officially denied them. During the campaign, Nicolas Sarkozy was perfectly clear on the topic of Turkey in Europe: "I will brandish France's veto." There was no veto this summer, and France has agreed to the opening of new talks with Ankara. Bernard Kouchner went to tell the Turks that they were "expected" in the EU. And now they tell us there is no longer any need for a referendum before new States are admitted. After the formal promise made by the former president of the Republic, and continued by his successor, Nicolas Sarkozy, before he retracted it, this is a forcible violation of the Constitution.

Philippe de Villiers closes the interview with some thoughts on the upcoming French presidency of the EU - a rotating presidency, where France takes over in June 2008 for six months. He questions France's alignment with the United States, Iraq, Iran, Kosovo and NATO. He refers to this new alignment as "atlantisme", i.e., a rapprochement with the US and its policies, a position he deems harmful to France's role as a counterweight to empires.

De Villiers' opinion of "atlantisme" and the United States are dubious, but at this point they are too sketchy to comment on.

Exploiting the New-Born

This article is somewhat off-topic but so indicative of the determination of certain lobbies to alter profoundly the mores of Western nations, that I thought I would post it. The scene is Italy, in Tuscany, and once again a poster is used as a means of persuasion. Nouvel Obs reports:

A poster featuring a new-born wearing a bracelet with the word "homosexual" instead of a given name, and published as part of a campaign against discrimination towards homosexuals, has aroused a turbulent debate in Italy, reports the press on Wednesday October 24.

"Sexual orientation is not a choice," reads the poster that was published in Tuscany and reproduced in the Italian newspapers. "To exploit new-born babies in order to make people believe that homosexual impulses are an innate characteristic is a lie and a shameful thing," responded Luca Volontè, a Christian Democrat deputy.

This campaign is in "bad taste" said the philosopher Gianni Vattimo, a homosexual, judging that the slogan was "only partly true."

The main association for the defense of homosexual rights in Italy, ArxciGay, for its part, applauded this initiative that shows that homosexuality is an "immutable given that must be respected."

Several thousand copies of the poster have been printed, and will be displayed near administrative buildings and schools in Florence and in all of Tuscany.

Le Salon Beige quotes French psychiatrist Tony Anatrella:

"Homosexuality cannot become a norm among others. By presenting it as such, you will trigger a considerable change in society that will no longer be organized around the common good but around aberrations ('singularités') that, in the end, render a disservice to social relationships and social cohesion."

The Rape of Europe

The signing of the European "mini-treaty", aka European Constitution, in Lisbon last week has unleashed a great deal of angry commentary at the websites. This treaty, strongly supported by Nicolas Sarkozy despite his campaign promises to the contrary, extinguishes any hope for national sovereignty, and tightens the yoke of Brussels around the necks of what used to be independent nations.

The comments center on two themes: first, obviously, the betrayal by President Sarkozy of the trust the French had placed in him, and second, the urgent need for a new referendum. When the French people rejected the Constitution, in a referendum in May 2005, they were perhaps influenced by an economist and professor of computer science, Etienne Chouard, whose website informed readers of the dangers of such a Constitution. Here are excerpts from a recent interview, conducted by the left-leaning daily Libération, with Professor Chouard:

Lib: The new European treaty was adopted on Friday in Lisbon. Does this document resemble the Constitution that was rejected in 2005?

EC: It is not an watered down version, it's the same version and I violently oppose it. They removed three unimportant details: the flag, the hymn, the reference to money, the word "Constitution", as if removing the name removed the danger. And then, they impose on us through parliamentary channels what we had just refused through referendum. For me, it's a rape, a political rape, it's cause for civil war. And the journalists who defend it are underlings. They are not doing their job as journalists.

Lib: For you, a new referendum is a minimum?

EC: Yes, that's obvious, for five reasons. (...) The confusion of powers in the hands of the executive branch, with its "special legislative procedures" and its "non-legislative acts". (...) The dependence of European judges on the executive branch for their careers. They are named for 6 years by the governments, renewable. In democracies that isn't done. The independence of the magistrates is one of the foundations of democracy. The prohibition on the individual States to print money. They're crazy to accept that. (...) It goes against the general interest. Political sovereignty depends on monetary sovereignty. If you abandon it, you have lost everything. Fourth point: revising the Constitution: it's done without consulting the people. And finally, in this Constitution no entity is responsible for its acts. (...) The Council of Ministers, the European Council, the Parliament cannot be overturned or dissolved by anybody. The Central Bank is not accountable to anybody. Who is responsible for his acts in this? (...)

Lib: Do you think that the German Chancellor Angela Merkel had more influence than Nicolas Sarkozy?

EC: No. For me, they are in complete collusion. They agreed on the game Sarkozy was going to play. He spoke badly of them, but he knows very well that he can do nothing. He has only one wish: to see his treaty enforced, like the other European leaders. (...)

The photo of the big shots in Portugal last week is from EU Referendum, a good site to consult regularly on EU happenings.

Another reminder that the Constitution was approved in Lisbon, not ratified. Ratification is set for December 13.

The NYT Accuses France

If you just read Reichman's dismissal of DNA testing as useless to the cause of stemming immigration, you may enjoy the view from the Left provided by this New York Times editorial, entitled "Pseudoscientific Bigotry in France", on Sarkozy's plan to test the DNA of immigrants for purposes of family reunification. As one might expect from the arch-liberal newspaper, the French are treated as Nazis, extremists and everything else, and Sarko is an "immigrant-basher"!!

Immigration issues bring out the worst instincts in politicians who should know better. Congress showed that earlier this year. Now it is the turn of France’s Parliament. It is moving toward final approval of an ugly new law that would introduce DNA testing as a potential basis for excluding prospective immigrants hoping to reunify with family members already living in France.

DNA testing can be a useful tool in establishing criminal guilt or innocence. But it has no rightful place in immigration law. Modern French families, like modern American families, are constituted on many bases besides bloodlines and genetics. This is something most French politicians and voters should be aware of.

They should also be aware of the cautionary lessons of modern French history. Under the Nazi occupiers and their Vichy collaborators, pseudoscientific notions of pure descent were introduced into French law with tragic consequences.

The DNA provision, proposed by a member of Parliament close to President Nicolas Sarkozy, has been angrily denounced by the center-left opposition, principled members of the center-right majority and a member of Mr. Sarkozy’s cabinet. As a result, the legislation has been hedged with some cautionary language, but not enough. Meanwhile, Mr. Sarkozy, who could have intervened to stop this bill at any point, and still can, has not, and is not very likely to.

Though himself the son of a Hungarian immigrant, Mr. Sarkozy has made his political name with harsh criticism of more recent immigrants, especially North African Arabs. His pandering on this issue helped win him votes that used to go to far-right extremists like the perennial presidential candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen.

Immigrant bashing is an effective vote-getter. Unfortunately, it leads to bad laws, bad policies and needless human suffering for the individuals and families it targets and exploits. Mr. Sarkozy wants to be seen as a statesman. He should act like one.

I really think the New York Times should read GalliaWatch! This is the most offensively uninformed editorial I've seen in a while, but I don't read the papers. Any measure, however small, however ineffective, that purports to stem immigration, restore traditional family life, toughen sentences for criminals, etc., etc., etc., is regarded as "Nazi" by the Left.

Warnings Unheeded

An angry article from Claude Reichman, leader of the Blue Revolution, is always welcome:

It was an item of just a few lines in the newspapers: in the school cafeterias of Lyons, when the menu includes pork, more than 30% of the children request an alternative. That means that one third of the school children of Lyons are of the Muslim faith. (...) The reality of immigration is unveiled to us by the city of Lyons, which surely does not have the same reputation as Seine-Saint-Denis. If, in the capital of Gaul, one-third of the children are Muslims, that means that we are in the presence of a massive phenomenon which is forcefully hidden from the French people, but which is about to explode in their faces.

That is why the debate on the DNA tests is laughable and goes against a true understanding of the immigration problem. Especially since these notorious tests are in reality aimed at facilitating family reunification, not to make it more difficult, and its promoters are the ones who say so! (...)

How is it that in our country we refuse to ask the most basic and sensible question from which everything else derives: Do we need immigrants and how many must we let in? There are 6 billion human beings on earth. The developed countries contain less than a billion. Therefore there are 5 billion men, women and children desiring to immigrate into the richer countries. Question: how many millions, hundreds of millions or (why not?) billions of migrants are we ready to accept? I speak deliberately of the possibility of a billion immigrants. Because everyone knows that it's ridiculous and any sentient person would reject the idea. This rejection is the beginning of wisdom, for it forces each person to admit that there are limits (...)

Note: As usual Reichman is counting on human reason to save the day. He had better brace himself...

So long as this debate is not taking place, it is vain to hope for a lucid and well-organized immigration policy. Let me remind those who fear such a debate that two eminent left-wing personalities did not hesitate to deal with the problem. François Mitterand declared, on December 10, 1989: "On the matter of immigration, the threshold of tolerance has been reached." And on January 7, 1990, Michel Rocard proclaimed that France could not "take in all the world's misery." That same Michel Rocard observed on May 22, 1990: "France is no longer a land of immigration. We cannot receive a massive and uncontrollable influx, without seriously impairing first the social equilibrium of the nation, then the chances for integration of the foreigners who have settled, and finally the very future of additional newcomers and their countries of origin. But we are also, if we are not careful, on the eve of a new massive wave coming from a more distant South and from a more uncertain East. And I say clearly, this wave must be stemmed."

It's been 17 years since these warnings were issued. Seventeen years during which the governments of France, at a standstill, allowed this "new massive wave" to swarm over our country. And we are still suffering the consequences.

It's interesting that the socialists back then had perhaps a shred of common sense. Today they do not, and the so-called Right is even worse.

Long before Mitterand and Rocard, Jean Raspail predicted the invasion of Europe by unassimilable "immigrants" in his book The Camp of the Saints.

Sarkozy - The First Six Months

A few weeks ago Lawrence Auster of VFR asked me if I was interested in writing a summary of Sarkozy's presidency up to now. I said I would try, but kept putting it off, until last Saturday and Sunday when I finally put my nose to grindstone. Thankfully, he found it worthy of publication. Those readers who are interested can click here. There is little in it that has not already been discussed here, except for some e-mail exchanges and excerpts from a long and controversial speech Sarkozy delivered in Senegal last July. And I do not claim that it covers everything he has done, just those topics that I have featured at GalliaWatch.

I will eventually post my summary in the January 2006 section of GalliaWatch, where I place articles too long for the home page.

Marine and the Poster Wars

It is interesting to follow the trajectory of Marine Le Pen's comments with regard to the Swiss "black sheep" poster, now that the poster has proven its worth. According to Novopress, Marine initially chastised the UDC party:

Marine Le Pen considers the poster campaign of the Swiss UDC party, denouncing massive immigration, to be "dangerous because there is a risk of associating immigration with skin color." (...) The regional councillor of the Front National added that it was all a lot of "publicity", just as "the Benetton campaigns are" and that "never" would she allow her party to launch this kind of advertising.

A couple of days later a contributor to the very nationalistic Novopress tore into Marine, reminding her of her own campaign posters from back in late 2006 when she made use of numerous images of immigrants as part of the "new look" of the FN (which, in this case backfired completely, because they were hypocritical). He reminds her also of this very important fact: the UDC is not exactly anti-immigration, but anti-crime, most criminals being, in the circumstances, immigrants:

(...) In this electoral period, the UDC is being demonized by the Swiss and foreign press. A little more understanding on the part of the woman who is likely to take the reins of the Front National some day would have been welcome. But Marine chose to howl with the wolves. (...)

Am I bitter? Certainly! On the one hand we have the UDC creating a poster for a popular initiative, which has an unprecedented success and whose provocative tone guaranteed an enormous media coverage during the campaign. (...) And on the other, we have Marine Le Pen, the inspiration behind a campaign reaching out to "young people", symbolized by the poster of the young Maghrebin girl. The result: one part of the French national electorate falls under the sway of Sarkozy, while her father fares poorly in the election. Yes, Marine is certainly in a position to teach lessons.

Following these accusations, Marine Le Pen responded in a communiqué:

At its website, Le Point published an article entitled "Marine Le Pen criticizes the UDC's campaign" in which my remarks were distorted.

I indicated that the poster was effective publicity by the impact it could have in Switzerland, but that the history of this country is completely different from that of France.

Le Point omitted to say that, when I brought up the impossible use of such a message by the Front National due to the association between immigration and skin color, I also indicated that it was because of the risk that our compatriots over-seas would perceive the message as a rejection. A rejection that is inadmissible since they are an integral part of the French nation.

She is referring of course to Martinique, Guadeloupe, and other French possessions.

Whatever she said, or meant, it will be fascinating to see what kind of campaign she leads in the future, and how she deals with taboo subjects. She has to learn at least three lessons: one from her father's anti-Semitic comments that caused so many to turn away from the FN, another from her own naive attempts to pander to the immigrant population, and finally from the Swiss who decided that truth was better than fiction. Maybe she should appropriate Philippe de Villiers' program that is now lying in mothballs: stop all immigration, deport all illegals, force those who remain to adapt to France or kick them out, stop building mosques, encourage family and cultural values that are recognizably French...

We're back at square one. I feel as if I've said all this before. Nothing has changed since the election of Nicolas Sarkozy.

Those interested can review my post from last year, entitled Campaign Uproar, on Le Pen's poster controversy.

Swiss Elections

Two recent posts at GalliaWatch dealt with the Swiss election that took place last week. One big issue was the poster chosen by the Swiss People's Party (known in French as the UDC) where a black sheep was being kicked out of Switzerland by a white sheep. While I pointed to the controversial nature of the poster, I also indicated (in a comment) that if the poster won votes, then it had served a good purpose.

And indeed, the poster won votes. The anti-immigration, anti-crime party, with it's clear message that those who cannot adapt to Switzerland must leave, pulled a victory from the jaws of racial controversy. Here are excerpts from an English-language article from Yahoo (note the accusatory tone of the article):

GENEVA - A nationalist party rode an anti-immigrant wave Sunday to the best showing of any party in parliamentary elections since World War I, while the Greens made gains by appealing to environmental concerns, according to projections.

In one of the most bitter political campaigns in memory in this usually tolerant Alpine nation, the Swiss People's Party called for a law to throw out entire immigrant families if a child violates national laws.

The party gained seven parliamentary seats in the 200-seat lower house of parliament, while the Green party added five, according to projections from widely respected experts for the state-owned SRG television and radio networks, which base forecasts on voting returns.

The Social Democrats, the second-largest party, were the big losers, dropping nine seats.

Switzerland's population of 7.5 million includes about 1.6 million foreigners, including many workers from southern Europe and refugees from the Balkan wars of the 1990s.

The People's Party claims foreigners are responsible for much of the crime in the country.

Party posters featuring white sheep kicking out a black sheep sparked outrage blamed in part for a riot two weeks before the election - a rare show of violence against a political party.

The People's Party will now turn its attention to reducing crime, cutting taxes and keeping Switzerland out of the European Union, said its president, Ueli Maurer.

"I'm very happy," he said. "The idea of EU accession should at last get out of everyone's heads."

A Swiss bid for EU membership filed in the 1990s has been suspended by the Cabinet in recent years. The People's Party, which campaigns for strict adherence to Swiss traditions of neutrality and independence, wants the application withdrawn completely.

The party became the largest in Switzerland four years ago under the leadership of charismatic billionaire Christoph Blocher.

It was projected to win about 28.8 per cent of the vote, or 62 seats in the lower house - the largest share of seats any party has won since Switzerland's proportional voting system began in 1919.

Although the party will have more leverage in the formation of the next government, Maurer said it would still share power with the three other major parties. Those include the Radical Democrats and the Christian Democrats, which each won a projected 31 seats.

The Social Democrats, which focused its campaign on rejecting the People's Party proposal, won a projected 19.3 per cent of the vote and fell back to 43 seats.

"I'm very disappointed that the Swiss people fell for such an election campaign by the People's Party," said Matthias Weller, a 30-year-old physician in Zurich. "People don't realize that their campaign is just made with money. They don't have a program except for cutting government spending." (...)

Creating Amnesia

A few weeks ago I reported on the approval by the French National Assembly of the London Agreement, which abolishes the requirement to translate European patents into the various official European Union languages and allowing them to be registered only in English, French or German, thus making the obtaining of a patent an obstacle course for those who don't know one of the three obligatory languages. Now the issue of translations comes up again.

Le Salon Beige, using as its source a website called Euro-Fam, reveals that the European Parliament must have a lot to hide, since it is putting an end to the translations of the parliamentary debates:

There will no longer be any translation of the plenary session debates of the European Parliament. This decision is to be ratified next week by the plenary session. (...)

Going against the promises made in the Treaties on the European Union, and against its own ruling, the Office of the European Parliament decided, on January 16, 2006, to cease publication of the translated versions of the "report in extenso" that covers the totality of the plenary session debates in the European Parliament. This decision goes into effect beginning in September 2007.

Behind this daring anti-European initiative is the former Secretary General of the Parliament, Julian Priestly (SOC, UK), who upon retiring in the Spring of 2007, was knighted by the Queen of England for having scrupulously rendered services to British interests (...)

Note: SOC apparently refers to the section of the European Economic and Social Committee on which he served. There is more on the SOC at the end. Priestly's reason for endorsing the initiative was to save money - the same excuse they used for the London Agreement.

In the absence of a written record of the debates, translated into the official languages for the Official Journal of the European Union, the only record will be a video tape of the interpretations made in the interpreters' booths during the session.

Note: The source article at Euro-Fam points out the chaotic and inaccurate renditions that often result from hasty oral translations. Le Salon Beige continues:

No integral document would ever again be accessible in an official language of the European Union! This opens a fine period of historical and cultural amnesia for the European parliament! Might the Parliament be afraid of the democratic transparency that results when each citizen is able to read the debates between the elected representatives of the people? How are we to know the ethical positions they take on sensitive issues?

The article closes with a rundown of the exorbitant cost of amenities lavished by Brussels on its functionaries: internal video systems, swimming pools and sports center, new operations center the cost of which will forever remain unknown, total refurbishing of the 782 parliamentary offices at an estimated cost at 2 million euros. All paid for by the taxpayer. The cost for interpretations and translations is only about 2 euros per year per citizen...

Now about the SOC, the committee on which Mr. Priestly served, here is a description that may help shed some light on the type of person he is:

The SOC Section covers a broad range of policy formulation including employment, working conditions, occupational health, social protection, social security, social inclusion, gender equality, combating discrimination, improving free movement, immigration/integration and asylum, education and training, citizens' rights, and participatory democracy (sic!) in the EU. (...)

Key themes recently highlighted in the SOC Section programme include job growth and quality employment, lifelong learning, training and productivity, occupational health and safety in the new Member States, healthcare for the elderly, women's representation, people with disabilities, and EU 'civic citizenship'.

Hearings on such themes are regularly held with experts and civil society organisations.

One thing isn't entirely clear: is it the Office of the European Parliament that made this decision alone, or the Parliament itself?

The last word goes to the source article at Euro-Fam:

Western tradition is based on writing and any published debate can serve as a basis for any type of juridical action, and can serve legislators on the national, regional or local level.

No violation of these principles is to be tolerated, for it immediately results in linguistic, geographic, economic or cultural discrimination, among others.

P.S. Couldn't they use Babelfish? It's chaotic and erroneous like the EU, but at least it provides a few side-splitters.

Quotas Lifted

Novopress had this brief article on Chinese imports to France:

Who now remembers that during the presidential campaign Nicolas Sarkozy frequently advocated a "Europe that protects", while his second, current Prime Minister François Fillon, promised that France "would fight" to delay beyond 2008 the end of the quota system, and thus avoid an invasion of Chinese imports?

Well, Brussels has once again capitulated before Beijing and renounced the maintaining of quotas on imports of Chinese textiles, beginning in 2008. Fearing a "flood of cheap Chinese products that could definitively ruin our industry in this sector," Bruno Mégret deplores that "once again the thundering declarations of the new president have produced no results. There is no rupture and Sarkozy is proving himself to be as impotent as his predecessors," accuses the head of the MNR... who, without much enthusiasm it is true, had called on voters to choose Sarko in the second round.

The accusation here is that Sarkozy did not put up a fight against Brussels. But since they just adopted his "mini-treaty", such a fight is wishful thinking at its maximum.

Fifty Million and Growing

These words of Moammar Qadhafi are posted at Amor Patriae, without a link to the source. I'm translating them anyway and will add the source later if I find it:

"In order for Islam to spread, we have no need for a sword or a bomb. There are 50 million Muslims in Europe, and bear in mind that there are signs that Islam will appear in Europe without recourse to violence or conquest. These fifty million Muslims will transform Europe into a Muslim continent within a few decades. God will make Turkey an integrated part of the European Union so that the number of European Muslims may grow to hundreds of millions. Albania, a Muslim nation, is already a part of Europe. The same is true for Bosnia where 50% of the population is Muslim. The statistics show that there are thousands of mosques in Europe and that Muslim organizations and associations flourish there.

Europe, like the United States, is caught in a trap: either they admit that they will, in the future, become Muslim nations, or else they declare war on the Muslims.

The statistics that I cited have been proven. I have the figures in my possession. The number of Muslims in Europe is about 50 million while the number of mosques and Islamic centers is approaching 14,000, besides the 1500 organizations, associations and Islamic institutions. The number of these institutions will grow with the passing of time, not to mention the Turkish, Bosnian and Albanian populations. In other words, the word of God is about to be carried out to place Islam above all other religions despite polytheists."

As I indicated, the source is unknown, therefore these words have to be regarded, for now, as speculative. There was a German report published several months ago giving the figure of 50 million, but that included Russia and the European part of Turkey. Possibly Qadhafi is using those figures. His figures on institutions and mosques reflect the information that I read on a daily basis at the websites.

Update: The administrator of Amor Patriae was kind enough to send me this link. If you read French you may be interested in checking out Qadhafi's speeches.

The Winter Of Discontent

As I announced a few days ago, the European Constitution, disguised under the appellation of "mini-treaty", was approved by the 27 member States of the EU in Lisbon on October 19. Final ratification is set for December 13. Here is the reaction of Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, former presidential candidate, and founder of Debout La République (DLR), a political party that he describes as "republican and Gaullist". He penned these comments the day before the Lisbon agreement:

OK. I'm going to yield to the prevalent trend and talk about the official separation of the first couple. No. Don't worry, I will not comment on this private matter that has become public news, but I simply want to say how bewildering it is to see the disproportion in the treatment and commentary between this divorce and the opening of the summit in Lisbon.

If, as is probable, the Treaty is adopted, it will usher in a new winter for the individual European nations, and the emergence of a European super-State, by nature oligarchical, hence anti-democratic. Let us just hope, now that the news of the divorce is known, that the French will have the right to know more about this surrealistic Treaty that calls itself "simplified", but is only more complicated.

While the French are kept amused with stories about romance and rugby, their freedom to choose their own destiny is being compromised.

The President of the Republic is free to renege on his campaign promise by signing a Treaty identical to the European Constitution that he considered "dead" at the height of his electoral campaign! However, he does not have the right to deceive the French people by leading them to believe that this Treaty is a compromise between the Yes and the No of May 29, 2005.

Note: May 29, 2005 was the date of the referendum when the French rejected the Constitution.

He does not have the right morally or democratically to have this second Constitution adopted by parliament, without a referendum.

The moment has come to mobilize the French people and end this imposture!

He ends with a call to the people to sign a petition he has drawn up for a new referendum.

Those interested can click here, then click the link to the "Pétition nationale."

Other websites have commented on the coincidence of the divorce, the train strike and the Lisbon summit. Distracted by Cecilia's woes, by the striking national rail (over threats to end early retirement), the people are hardly aware that a European Constitution is a fait accompli (almost). There will be a final ratification in December, thanks in part to Sarkozy's energetic push to advance the date from January 2008. Yves Daoudal explains:

(...) Sarkozy wants to move quickly: "I want this ratification to take place as quickly as possible, that is, in December 2007," he said during a press conference.

The Treaty is to be signed on December 13. Which leaves a little more than two weeks for Parliament...

Note: I assume he means that the current session of Parliament has two weeks left to do something urgently - like rejecting the Treaty?

"I would be happy if France could be one of the first countries in Europe to ratify this simplified treaty since, having blocked the Constitution, you understand that as head of State I can only see advantages if France sets an example in the adoption of new institutions."

Nothing is more urgent than to eradicate the referendum and to insult the French people.

Daoudal's readers call for a rapid mobilization to stop final ratification.

The poster from Dupont-Aignan's website says: "Sixteen million voters bamboozled. And you?"