Talk:2005 French European Constitution referendum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Currently (as of April 3rd) the opinion polls in France give consistently 55% of No.

I think there should be a section called "Consequence of a No" which explains what happens when a country refuses the Constitution. 82.127.206.17 05:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    • BEGIN XENOPHOBIC RANT**

[red]Maybe the section's headline could be 'Fear will keep them in line', and it could contain random threats of 3 million plus job losses, becoming a pariah state, starting the third world war, or fulfilling the prophecy of Saint John. Wait a minute...we will have to think of some new threats, for all of those have been used up ob the United Kingdom.

Maybe we could threaten them with becoming a second rate country with a false sense of superiority in culture, cuisine and language. Second thoughts, that wouldn't be threat, more of a reality check.[/red]

    • END XENOPHOBIC RANT**

I have expended the Opinion polls and campaign section, trying to briefly sum up arguments on the various sides. On the other hand, I disagree that there should be a section called "Consequence of a No" in this article. Maybe in the general article about the Treaty. After all, France is far from being the only country where the result is uncertain, so there is no reason that there should be anythingg special in the article about France. 16 May 2005 Olivier

Ok now everybody says the no is going to win next Sunday ... so what's next ?194.183.196.141 11:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The main thing is that the consequences of a no are largely unknown, and there are no specific rules that apply -- no suspension of French EU participation, no automatic change to the rights or requirements that French or other EU citizens and companies face inside or outside France. The odds are that France will attempt a renegotiation, and, if renegotiation is refused or is unsuccessful, the EU will muddle through on the existing (informal) constitution for an indefinite period, which may or may not halt other EU business. The political position of France or the EU may be weakened, but any practical consequences of that may not be clear for years. In the short term, expulsion of France from the EU or the collapse of the EU are fairly remote possibilities. Willhsmit 21:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does anyone know when the result will be announced?[edit]

It should be announced on monday (and known on sunday evening). → SeeSchloß 12:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exit polls will be given on Sunday at 10:00 pm (8:00 pm UTC). Right now the polls are at 55% of No. 194.183.196.141 13:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NOS in Holland is reporting 6 o'clock exit polls. I added this to the article under a separate sub-header. This should probably be deleted when official results start pouring in. Paul079 20:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voter Turnout?[edit]

We say it is 30 %, Wikinews is reporting over 70%. Which one is right?

Clearly Wikinews, as the number of registered voters is 42 million and the number of votes from the table amounts to roughly 70% of that.

It is definitely not 30%, I'm not sure where that came from. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abstentions?[edit]

The article gives the number of abstentions at 30% and 12,814,573 votes, greater than the Yes vote (12,806,394). Is this unusual in French referenda? Seabhcán 15:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not really... the last referendum (for 5 years presidential mandates instead of 7) had something like 70% of abstention (!), but the one before (Maastricht) was 30% abstention and 51% Yes, so there was just slightly more Yes votes than abstentions. → SeeSchloß 21:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
70% is actually quite an impressive turnout for a referendum, particularly over such a Byzantine document. — Trilobite (Talk) 21:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


relative objectivity[edit]

the figures given on the right as an overall percentage misrepresent the actual voting in as much as the abstention rates differed vasitly between france and spain. i would recommend ponderating both percentages based on the abstention/participation figures in order to provide a more objective overview.

A NON! foretold[edit]

Actually, it was clear from start the French weren't buying their Government and opposition parties' pro-referendum campaigns. The number of reasons is so compelling that it would take too long to expose here. For those interested, a detailed account of what went wrong in both the campain and government policies, explaining the massive 55% NO to the referendum, can be found on http://artslivres.com/ShowArticle.php?Id=748

  • everybody nows why:
    • massive 2004 enlargment (social dumping possibility raised)
    • 2007 enlargment
    • other enlargments
    • Turkey
    • and home affairs.

I think the result will be a good one if the Eu leaders finnaly hear the people. -Pedro 02:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

fr:Sondages français avant le référendum du 29 mai 2005 talks about the surveys before the referendum. gren 01:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Margin of Error[edit]

I don't like this line: "By May, the "Yes" campaign's lead was smaller than the opinion pollsters' margin of error." As explained in Margin of Error#comparing percentages,

  • Stating the margin of error is useless without the corresponding confidence interval
  • A margin of error is useful only for a single survey
  • The difference between two results is rarely statistically significant, even if greater than MoE

My inclination is to remove the sentence entirely, but I'm not sure what should be put in its place. --BlackTerror 14:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:European constitution.jpg[edit]

Image:European constitution.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Map and figures for the departements don't match.[edit]

There is obviously a mistake. A number of departements that are shown to have voted yes in the map have a no-majority in the table of results below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.223.121.178 (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm fairly sure that's the map for the 1992 Maastricht treaty referendum result. Perhaps the map from the French language version of this article should be imported. 132.181.211.209 (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on French European Constitution referendum, 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]