And, if I may say so, the European Constitution could (can) be explained in so many ways that anyone could righteously vote against it or for it - and still be a formidable candidate... Politically seen, the European Constitution meant for France a steadier hold on controlling European affairs. On the other side, accepting the Constitution would sacrifice a number of dearly cherished French privileges. So voting both yes and no would give a politician credit - in my mind. That, in a very, very brief is how I remember the analysis for France's position during the run-up to the referendum.
Care to enlighten?
(I don't know how you set your preferences, but you can have the comments threaded so it's easy to see what is a reply to someone else's comment).
As to the referendum, I think (don't want to force Jérôme's hand on this) that he and I agree that Socialist leaders (essentially Fabius) who campaigned for the "non" were motivated by personal ambition alone, and did a great deal of harm by using demagogy to divide the left. He (again, disclaimer, he's free to set the record straight if I'm wrong) and I are more favourable to PS leaders who were on the "oui" side. Personally, I wouldn't support a "non" candidate like Fabius.
Hope that makes it clearer.
