|
French/British Relations
I will be travelling to France in July to stay near Epinal in Lorraine. The holiday was booked a long time ago. <BR><BR>I just don't know what to think and feel anymore. We are renting a gite in a small village therfore we will be off the tourist trail and I'm worried we will come up against a "cool" reception to say the least. Who wants to go on holiday if it's going to be like that?<BR><BR>At the moment our Prime Minister is fighting for his political life and the French government have helped that to happen. He's the best leader the country has had in decades and Chirac is thwarting his every move. I feel hopless about this.<BR><BR>I really feel that relations between Britain and France will be damaged for a long time as a result of this.<BR><BR>I would just like to hear some views on the travel situation etc. I would particularly like to hear from some French people if possible.<BR><BR>
|
I think that your life won't be in danger!!!!<BR>Maybe some people will ask you questions and start a discussion because they would like to understand the different points of views, but that's all!
|
Buzzy,<BR><BR>I hear you but I beg to differ on your leader Mr. Blair. While I like him.....Maggie was your best leader in decades!<BR><BR>US
|
As a British person living in France, I can't say I've felt that people's reactions have changed towards me or the British in general. <BR><BR>From the discussions I've had with French friends, it's clear that those who are against the war feel angry at Bush and Blair's actions (similar to the anti-war stance in the UK), but it's only the extremists that are going to let those feelings flow over to Joe-tourist. <BR><BR>Incidentally, many of the French people I've spoken to have made it clear that they realise Chirac's anti-war stance may have a lot more to do with trade than pacifism. They aren't all blind jingoists!<BR><BR>If you were planning a summer holiday in a small village in Iraq, then I imagine you'd have cause for concern, but I think it's unlikely that, while on holiday in France, you will be held personally responsable for the actions of your government. Of course, if you go courting arguments and trying to enter into political discussions, then you may come up against some bad feeling. But on the whole, I think it's unlikely.<BR><BR>Remember, you're going on *holiday*!! It's supposed to be fun!!
|
Hanl: excellent reply!!!
|
Buzzy<BR><BR>I'm basically a fan of Blair (voted for him in the last 2 elections), and was thrilled when he got elected, but I don't think you can blame the French for his current predicament - IMHO he's pretty much brought it on himself.<BR><BR>Like many people, while I had my reservations about the Iraq issue, I was willing to give Blair the benefit of the doubt and was ready to be convinced - something that he just hasn't done. <BR><BR>I don't doubt his conviction & sincerity for a moment, but unfortunately his argument now boils down to nothing more than "I believe this is the right thing to do" - which just isn't good enough.<BR><BR>Personally I am so angry and disappointed with him; angry because he is taking absolutely no account of the opinion of people in the country and in his party, and disappointed because I can't belive he's p***ing away his political career over this - what a waste!
|
As a PS to the above, before Uncle Sam starts calling me an appeaser/socialist/weasel/naive :-) , here are the current opinion poll figures in the UK:<BR><BR>70% would support military action endorsed by the UN<BR>20% would support it without UN backing.<BR><BR>If Blair goes ahead without UN backing, and it all goes pear-shaped, he can't say he wasn't warned.<BR><BR>
|
I would never dream of starting up political dicussions with locals while on holiday and I have never been rude or unpleasant to anyone while travelling. I am not that way inclined as a person anyway. <BR><BR>I just feel that due to the fact that some English abroad have let the country down in the past many other nations have reservations about the English. I though that this certainly would not be helped by the current situation. Although goodness knows what will have happened by July.<BR><BR>Re: Blair "throwing away" his career over this. I have to say there is no better measure of someones sincere convictions, than to be prepared to sacrifice your own future for them.
|
Buzzy<BR><BR>As I said, I don't disagree about Blair's sincerity; I actually think it's admirable, and I don't think anyone could argue now that he's acting from cynical motives. My concern is that, even if he's proved right, because of the way it's been handled, it's going to be a pyhrric victory.<BR><BR>Anyway, to get back on topic, I don't think the French would be cool towards you. As has been said many times before on this site, most people across the world are intelligent enough to make a distinction between national politics and individual people. Sure, you'll find the odd rude person anywhere, but if you're unlucky enough to do so, I'd just rise above it & not stoop to their level.
|
Just a small thing I wanted to add.<BR><BR>I work in adult eduaction and have a student of 81 in my class who fought in the 2nd world war.<BR><BR>My neighbours on either side were both in the same position.<BR><BR>They all support Blair and tell me their friends still living do also. <BR><BR>Having been subjected to the most awful experiences, they saw first hand the consequences of leaving a dictator in power. They basically feel that the younger generation have led such comfortable lives that they find it difficult to get passionate about issues in the wider world.<BR><BR>They feel that this is the real reason for the "No War" lobby gaining the upper hand. That and the fact that is is so un politically correct these days to advocate war at all.<BR><BR>We need to listen to the older genration as well.
|
Bonjour Buzzy,<BR><BR>As a Frenchwoman, living in a small village, I can tell you that, unless they indulge in the kind of hawkish and rude comments parts of the American press, Uncle Sam, and government enjoy presently, British and American tourists will be received as welcome guests.<BR><BR>Discussing politics is a pastime in France, not something to spoil your appetite on. <BR><BR>BTW, my parents, grandparents, and neighbours in their 80's lived and fought through WW2, are without exception anti-war, and are absolutely shocked by the intelligence-insulting notion that Saddam's is to be compared with Hitler's menace ...
|
Florence<BR><BR>Remember that the rude anti-French sentiments in Britain are published in papers like the Sun. I wouldn't use that paper to line my cat's litter tray in case she caught a horrible disease. Most people respect the suffering and heroism of the ordinary French people in WWII.<BR>
|
Hi Maccy,<BR> I am not trying to start an argument, but I wonder; Would Blair jeopardize his career, his party and his country unless he knew something that he could not tell because his intelligence sources would be killed?
|
I think Blair is showing the courage of his convictions, just like Bush. Remember how things were prior to WWII. Britain thought that Hitler was their friend and not a threat! What a major boo boo that was!
|
How many people has Saddam killed in acts of aggression? 2 million. Who will put a stop to it?<BR><BR>As far as political discussions, the best advice I heard here on this board was to simply be up on another French subject and change the subject of international politics to something else when and if it comes up.
|
Bonjour Sylvia,<BR><BR>I know about the Sun. We got a few rags like this here too. Just good enough to give people diseases of the mind ;-)<BR><BR>Ira,<BR><BR>"We would like to apologize for the way in which politicians are represented in this programme. It was never our intention to imply that politicians are weak-kneed, political time-servers who are more concerned with their personal vendettas and private power struggles than the problems of government, nor to suggest at any point that they sacrifice their credibility by denying free debate on vital matters in the mistaken impression that party unity comes before the well-being of the people they supposedly represent, nor to imply at any stage that they are squabbling little toadies without an ounce of concern for the vital social problems of today. Nor indeed do we intend that viewers should consider them as crabby ulcerous little self- seeking vermin with furry legs and an excessive addiction to alcohol and certain explicit sexual practices which some people might find offensive. We are sorry if this impression has come across. (Monty Python)"<BR>
|
Hi Ira<BR><BR>Re your point "Would Blair jeopardize his career, his party and his country unless he knew something that he could not tell because his intelligence sources would be killed?"<BR><BR>The thing is, while Blair has talked about terrorist threats which he could not give details of (and I wouldn't expect him to), he is not using the "I know something you don't" argument re: Iraq. <BR><BR>Last night, he was quizzed on TV by members of the public and was asked just that - he in fact glossed over it, and moved on to his other points. <BR><BR>Also, presumably, if he did have clinching evidence, you can bet he would have shared it with the other members of the Security Council by now.<BR><BR>Finally, any leader is asking a huge amount of his public to say "I can't tell you anything, but I'm right, so you all just have to trust me".<BR><BR>
|
... continued <BR><BR>What I think it really boils down to, as the poll I mentioned earlier, is that Blair does have some good arguments and most British people would back miliary action - *with the consensus of the International community*. <BR><BR>Remember, this is not just about a war in Iraq, it's about what happens afterwards. The US and UK don't need the help or approval of the UN or other countries to win the war - they'll need it to win the peace though. Otherwise we'll find ourselves in the same position again 10 years from now, just with a different bunch of head-cases in charge. <BR>
|
Buzzy,<BR><BR>I completely agree with you & share your concern. I am an American and my husband and I's trip to France & Germany this April/May is something we've been dreaming about for years. As the days go on my stomach sinks a bit at what we might encounter in our travels.... doesn't make for an enjoyable dream trip.....or if in fact we should even go. American/French relations are certainly very poor as well. <BR><BR>We really respect your Prime Minister. Both he and our President are trying to face a sitiuation instead for hoping it'll go away like most the world. <BR><BR>I too am interested in travelers who have been to Paris or major european cities and their experiences. We plan to still go as of now....<BR>
|
I haven't been lately, but my neighbor travels to Europe monthly. I asked him how his trip to Paris was last week, and he said he definitely felt a chill in the air and a heightened "attitude" towards him as an American. <BR><BR>One taxi driver even stopped the taxi, turned around and started asking him why he wanted to start a war! This is a guy who's lived overseas in the past. He said he definitely received a frosty reception last week.
|
Actually his exact words were "They hate us".
|
baemel,<BR><BR>We are in the same boat as you. We plan on going to France/Italy in May-June.This is the best time in out lives to go on this type of vacaction regardless of all this political stuff. Our tickets are booked, so we are going. My friend has a brother that lives in paris(also American), and he has not experienced any bad blood. If we experinace anything like that we will have to politely remind them that "We" are not trying to start a war. "We" are just trying to have a very nice vacation in your country. Americans have individual views and that often don't reflect what the elected leaders are currently. Remeber Bush did not even win then popular vote - only the Electoral <BR><BR>
|
Margaret Thatcher Milk Snatcher was England's greatest PM?? Are you nuts?? She is a falling-down drunk with a limited scope and a narrow mind. I have a family friend who worked for Betty Boothroyd and she told me Maggie can't get through the day without her flasks of gin. What a way to run a country.
|
As I finished reading everyone remarks I just couldn't help but add...<BR><BR>To Florence: Not everyone thought Hitler was a menace early on either!<BR><BR>To Maccy: in regards to your words"disappointed because I can't believe he's p***ing away his political career over this - what a waste!" I am completely with Buzzy: "there is no better measure of someone's sincere convictions, than to be prepared to sacrifice your own future for them." I admire him for it and sorry if you feel defending FREEDOM is a waste. It was a waste that thousands of people dies on Sept 11th. <BR><BR>I don't understand how people can just sit back and ignore the situation with Iraq. Everyone came together after Sept 11th to show support, to realize we're all vulnerable for such unpredictable and devastating attacks. Instead of turning around and bombing the hell out of every terrorist nation we dealt with it diplomatically and tried to gather the rest of the peaceful world to join us in stopping and preventing any further devastation. In turn, they all crawled back into their holes and pretend not to hear. Cowards. I am not a huge fan of war. But in sometimes you need to make sacrifices for the bigger cause.<BR><BR>enough of my soapbox.... just had to join with Buzzy on this. Guess I'll still be spending my money in France this spring...<BR><BR>
|
Read this, you might be suprised at what you learn.<BR><BR>http://www.petermandelson.com/uofkent.shtml<BR>
|
Baemel<BR><BR>First of all, I think we need to separate the issue of terrorism and the issue of Iraq - they are NOT the same thing. <BR><BR>Note: how much dissent was there about going into Afghanistan and removing the Taliban, who were proven sponsors of terrorism? Practically none. On the other hand, the links between Iraq and Al-Qaida have been shown to be tenuous at best. There are reasons for getting rid of Saddam, but if you're going after terrorists, Saudi Arabia is a much better place to start IMHO. <BR><BR>Second, re: the issue of being cowards/appeasers. If, as an example, Iraq invaded Kuwait again, or launched an attack against Turkey, you would see a lot of support for miliary action - in fact, in the case of Turkey who is a Nato ally, there would be practically zero opposition, except from those who disagree with war under any circumstances (I am not one of them). <BR><BR>The current case is not as clear-cut, and is much more difficult, since we are talking about rebuilding a whole country, not just defeating an army, which is why people are being more cautious about it.<BR>
|
John, <BR><BR>as I understand it, Ms Boothroyd's one to talk about gin being the staple of life!!<BR><BR>I bought a house in France today, having been there last weekend. Nae bother at a'
|
Baemel<BR><BR>First of all, I think we need to separate the issue of terrorism and the issue of Iraq - they are NOT the same thing. <BR><BR>Note: how much dissent was there about going into Afghanistan and removing the Taliban, who were proven sponsors of terrorism? Practically none. On the other hand, the links between Iraq and Al-Qaida have been shown to be tenuous at best. There are reasons for getting rid of Saddam, but if you're going after terrorists, Saudi Arabia is a much better place to start IMHO. <BR><BR>Second, re: the issue of being cowards/appeasers. If, as an example, Iraq invaded Kuwait again, or launched an attack against Turkey, you would see a lot of support for miliary action - in fact, in the case of Turkey who is a Nato ally, there would be practically zero opposition, except from those who disagree with war under any circumstances (I am not one of them). <BR><BR>The current case is not as clear-cut, and is much more difficult, since we are talking about rebuilding a whole country, not just defeating an army, which is why people are being more cautious about it.<BR>
|
oops! double post - sorry :-)
|
Many people forget that Iraq has loads of oil that can be used to finance its rebuilding, altho it may take a few months to get everything back on line depending on how many bombs Saddam plants. There are also other Arab states and countries that can lend assistance in rebuilding Iraq. The US doesn't have to do it alone.
|
Maccy,<BR><BR>Tony Blair may be the rarest of politicians....someone willing to do what he believes is right regardless of the price!<BR><BR>Too few of them around if you ask me!<BR><BR>We had a President here in the US for eight years that wouldn't head to the "loo" without taking a poll...no core values and it showed!<BR><BR>Blair may be costing himself in any future elections but he is doing so because he believes in what he is doing!<BR><BR>US
|
Uncle Sam<BR><BR>I have no doubts whatsoever about Blair's sincerity and conviction. However:<BR><BR>1. Just because someone thinks he/she is right, whatever others think, does it automatically make them so? Dangerous line to take, if you ask me.<BR><BR>2. More to the point, how far should a politician be accountable to public opinion (not to mention his own party, not to mention international opinion) in a democracy? <BR><BR>At the end of the day, if Blair decides to go ahead without UN backing it is down to him to make the case to the country for doing so - something he has NOT done. <BR><BR>It is precisely because I like Blair, and I DON'T want to see him go that I'm worried that he may be making such a huge political miscalculation. Call me cynical, but I would rather see Blair IN power, even if that means some compromises & horse-trading, than the candidates who are likely to replace him.<BR>
|
Maccy,<BR> Thank you for your courteous reply.<BR><BR>Florence,<BR> Thank you for your funny remark.<BR><BR>
|
Maccy,<BR><BR>You make a valid point particularly if the politician is taking the country off a cliff wihtout a reason.<BR><BR>I personally believe that Blair has far more information upon which to make this decision than the general populace. And I also beleive that he is a man of principle and is willing to risk his career on soemthing that he believes is right!<BR><BR>Its lonely at the top and its sad that we have become so cynical and have so little faith in our leaders to do the right thing...I believe that he is...but only time will tell!<BR><BR>US
|
I would question a trip to France, but only because of the divisions I see in the world right now. The primary purpose of the UN is supposed to be maintaining international peace and security. However, some countries, notably France, are preventing the UN from carrying out that mandate. <BR><BR>Blair and Bush see Saddam and Iraq as being a threat to world peace and security with what appear to be very good reasons. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam has already used them on his own people and a neighboring country. Under Saddam, Iraq has already started two wars. At the end of the first Gulf War, Iraq agreed to disarm. It didn't and twelve years of UN resolutions haven't changed that simple fact. Even with inspectors and British and American forces massing on its borders, Iraq continues to hide those weapons. If Iraq really wanted peace, all it had to do is disarm. We can only imagine what would happen if Saddam is left in power and is finally able to develop some type of nuclear arsenal. What would the world be like then? <BR><BR>Despite all those facts, the French are opposed to taking any action against Saddam and are threatening to use their veto power at the UN to prevent a UN resolution that would allow a regime change. Why? Its certainly not because the French are particularly anti-war. I am not sure I understand all the reasons, but I don't think it has anything to do with Saddam or Iraq. I also don't think it is for purely economic reasons, although that may play a part. Rather, I think it simply has to do with France wanting to put the British and their American cousins in their place. A veto at the UN is the only way France can attempt to reclaim its relevance as a world power. Sadly, this search for meaning and status ignores the real and present threat posed by Saddam.<BR><BR>No right thinking person wants to see a war. It is something that is done only as a last resort. I do not belive that Blair or Bush are taking that step lightly as they are both staking their political futures on the outcome. <BR><BR>What really bothers me most, however, it that when Briton and American soldiers are finally engaged in what will probably be a horrible war to depose Saddam, Frenchman will be sitting in their cafes reaping the benefits. The thought of being in France while that is happening is enough to keep me from going there.
|
Maccy<BR><BR>Public opinion changes with the wind. You should vote for a person on what he stands for. If a leader changes his mind each time public opinion changes nothing would ever get done.
|
If there is a regime change in Iraq, France's oil contracts with Iraq could be null and void. They have a lot to lose if we go to war.<BR><BR>As Bush has said time and again, there doesn't have to be a war. All Saddam has to do is disarm.
|
Jack and eric502, <BR><BR>Hope I'm not the proverbial "kiss of death " on this board for the two of you...but those were great posts!<BR><BR>US
|
Eric502<BR><BR>Fair play, no you can't govern by focus group. However...<BR><BR>A few weeks ago, 1-1.5 million people gathered in London to protest against what Blair is doing. <BR><BR>This was not just your usual rent-a-mob either - we are talking about people of all ages, backgrounds and political persuasions, many of whom had never been on a march before, who were exercised enough about this to get up at 5 in the morning and travel by coach down to London to make their voices heard. <BR><BR>That's a pretty strong indicator to me that the government should sit up & take notice
|
Also (I know I'm really rambling here, but this is a good thread so WTH! :-) )<BR><BR>Uncle Sam mentioned Thatcher - who offers a very instructive example of what happens when you do ignore public opinion.<BR><BR>She was unassailable for many years, but then made the massive mistake of forcing through the Poll Tax. This was against the wishes of Parliament, and it was LOATHED by the public, who refused to pay en masse. Result? She was ousted. Lesson? When people get angry, you should listen.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:08 PM. |