What Giscard d'Estaing Said

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.