The W - Current Events & Politics - Man who wrote the EU constitution thinks it failed in France because people actually read it This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
In an interview with the New York Times, his first since the French rejection of the constitution two weeks ago, the former French president apportions most of the blame to president Jacques Chirac for failure in the referendum campaign.
One crucial mistake was to send out the entire three-part, 448-article document to every French voter, said Mr Giscard.
I would think it would depend on the actual physical size of the document. I would be a little bothered if it was sent to me instead of a small notice that I could pick up a copy of the document at an easily accessible location. That way maybe you don't waste materials on people who don't care or wouldn't read it anyway. But to have a potentially large thing show up at your door when you am either against it or don't understand it could instigate negative thoughts toward the campaign.
"Lita holds a Stone Cold Steve Austin home pregnancy test. What will the Bottom Line say? “Hell Yeah” or “Eh-EH”?" - Raw Satire, 6/15/04 (Apparantly ours said "Hell Yeah", 03/08/05)
I think he's just saying he thinks people will have a natural aversion to nigh on any proposal if the first they see of it is in such an unwelcoming format. Sending them a summary of the constitution highlighting the impacts it would have for the average Joe would have seemed more sensible. I get what they were going for though in the sense that they were trying to go for total transparency.
I disagree with him mind. The French would likely have rejected it anyway. The No vote was more borne of a feeling that a large portion of the population feeling that they've been railroaded into numerous changes without consultation by the EU in recent years. This was their first real chance in a while to stick two fingers up at them.
That and the fact that their economy's for shit right now with many people blaming the EU in general, the euro and or Chirac for it.
But if the practical stuff is being taken on by private enterprise, then what in the name of the Cato Institute is this spending? Impractical? Wasteful?