NESSAholics.com
Other Topics => Completely Off-Topic => Topic started by: Will on May 29, 2005, 06:11:49 pm
-
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/05/29/france.eu/index.html
Congratulations France!
-
lol
Holland is up next, wednesday.
I'm going to vote "NO".
-
Mind talking about why you're voting no?
-
I'm more than angry about the French voting no. It's always inevitable in this kind of situations to make it about internal politics rather than what it's actually about, so it's no surprise. Still, I'm not particularly angry because I support 100% the Constitution (which I don't) but I don't see where the French saw the inconvenience. This is a treaty that gives them and Germany the most power, some of it lost to smaller countries in Nice. I would have understood Spain voting no cos we were definitely much better off in terms of voting with Nice - instead, we were dumb enough not to find out what it was all about and voted yes like sheep - not my case, thank god. Now we see the French voting no cos they have an internal crisis and everyone basically hates Chirac. On the one hand, I respect their decision cos I know there HAS been a much bigger public debate than the poor attempts we made here - seriously, I live in such a dumb country - on the other hand, it makes me angry that while they're actually benefitted as a country by this treaty, they allow themselves to vote no.
Seeing as we're probably going to see this repeated in Holland and the UK at least, it's back to Nice. Personally tant pis, Nice is much better for Spain. Ha. The worst thing though is that this is only going to please Bush, we just showed, as Europeans, that we're incapable of creating a powerful united front that would reomtely outweigh the US :evil:
EDIT: Will, mind talking about why you're congratulating the French?
-
EDIT: Will, mind talking about why you're congratulating the French?
I think you answered that question here Nere.
The worst thing though is that this is only going to please Bush, we just showed, as Europeans, that we're incapable of creating a powerful united front that would reomtely outweigh the US :evil:
-
Mind talking about why you're voting no?
Nope.
Just wanted to say what I did, and that's it. :)
-
EDIT: Will, mind talking about why you're congratulating the French?
I think you answered that question here Nere.
The worst thing though is that this is only going to please Bush, we just showed, as Europeans, that we're incapable of creating a powerful united front that would reomtely outweigh the US :evil:
That was uncalled for, Rosie.
I have several reasons for not liking this treaty. It enshrines reverse discrimination as a fundamental human right (II-83), it gives the EU legal personality like a nation while emphatically denying it is one (I-7), it contains a massive loophole similar to the commerce clause in the US Constitution (I-18 ), it promotes militarism in countries that may have objections to such things (I-41 3ΒΆ2), there is tons of language in it that is vague and not rigorously defined in a failed attempt to make it understandable to the common man (I-42, II-61, etc etc etc...), it enshrines discrimination against children (II-84), it uses weasel words to imply euthanasia is a fundamental human right (II-85), and it dictates that the EU shall be a welfare state (too many references to list.... try most of article II).
This is just me flipping through a copy of it and pulling specific things I don't like about it out. I haven't even touched the larger overall issues I don't like about it. There are other issues, such as that it encompasses too much for a constitution. A constitution should delineate competencies, describe the organization, and define the basic rights of citizens. This constitution does far more than that. As you can see, I've already stated areas where political ideology is being proposed as fundamental law. It isn't democratic enough for my tastes. I believe that the European Commission should be directly elected. It's rather appropriate that they removed the Thucydides quote from the preamble in the final revision. It also largely leaves the organization the same, ignoring badly needed reorganization and reform. Overall, it takes all the current problems with the EU and sets them in stone.
A Constitution of Europe should be done right. It's a grand undertaking that has never been attempted before. This current document simply isn't good enough. It's a massive, ugly document written by career politicians more interested in securing their current power than writing a document that will stand the test of time.
@ Nerea
I'm looking at this from the view of an outsider. I'm rather interested in hearing about the internal politics of the proposed European Constitution. That's why I started this thread.
-
Lmao Will, your humour relapse strikes again.
What a lot of people say is that this document shouldn't really be termed a 'Constitution' because it makes it seem like its different from just another significant treaty (such a Nice)- so people question it and judge it in the wrong way.
I haven't really paid enough attention to the actual document for it to be worth me commenting on properly. What i do think is interesting is the fact that the French viewed it as an Anglo-American laissez faire document, and we view it as a 'soggy socialist' flowery french document. While its clear that France did reflect their country's internal problems onto their decision on the Constitution, its also clear that at least this will make people seriously reconsider the structure and purpose of the EU.
I still think the EU is a huge force for good- its just got bogged down in specific rubbish like individual date stamps for every egg in the EU. People here have got completely the wrong idea about the EU and see it as a corrupt never-ending party for fake tanned showboaters like Silvio Berlusconi.
-
Obviously, I have been sleeping under a rock.
-
One thing that lots of people don't seem to notice is that the proposed European Constitution actually concentrates more power in a central government than the US Constitution. The only area where this treaty is weaker than the US Constitution is in foreign policy. That is to say, nations can still conduct their own foreign policy and sign treaties on their own.
It's silly to say a superstate won't result from this. Not that I'm saying that's a bad thing, but the people of Europe are being hoodwinked.
-
Obviously, I have been sleeping under a rock.
Yeah, me too. I knew that they were talking about it, but that was like a year ago that I last heard about it.
-
Can someone sum this up for the ignorant? What is the EU Consititution supposed to be for?
-
Can someone sum this up for the ignorant? What is the EU Consititution supposed to be for?
It is supposed to consolidate all the treaties that currently make up the EU into a single, simpler, shorter document. It also reads like a national Constitution that caught cancer, to me at least.
-
One thing that lots of people don't seem to notice is that the proposed European Constitution actually concentrates more power in a central government than the US Constitution. The only area where this treaty is weaker than the US Constitution is in foreign policy. That is to say, nations can still conduct their own foreign policy and sign treaties on their own.
It's silly to say a superstate won't result from this. Not that I'm saying that's a bad thing, but the people of Europe are being hoodwinked.
I think, Will, you are looking at this from a very different and non-European perspective (well, thats fairly obvious). The fact that it concentrates more power than the US to me bears no relevance at all. The US is not Europe. The European Union has never aimed to be a federal state like the US and as far as i'm concerned its unfair to compare the two in such a way. Nations still have control over foreign policy, immigration, taxes and numerous other pivotal issues. In the vast majority of countries Union membership is not written into any constitution meaning membership merely consists of a repealable act of parliament.
What i don't like is your tone as if the people of Europe are stupid and being 'fooled'- the depth of debate that has occured in France and the Netherlands is admirable and clearly two of the original members are not being 'hoodwinked' as they have (or are about to) voted no. What the constitution is bringing about is a full and intellectual discussion of the EU's direction and purpose- i don't see this as a murky path to some superstate in which millions of europeans suddenly wake up to find themselves in a United States of Europe.
-
Bah.
Some form of this will pass eventually.
Then the US and Canada will do a big giant treaty.
And Mexico will do one with all the developed nations of central and SA.
Then NA and SA will team up.
And everyone will keep consolidating till we have one big giant world government and many 'states.'
It's inevitable..... assuming the human race lasts that long.
-
We'll kinda have to unite if we ever plan to join the United Federation of Planets. :?
-
Central governments, in general, are more trouble than they're worth.
-
I really don't see how any democratic process involving 25 parties with largely disparate agendas and all armed with their own vetos can yield any kind of useful document.
Democracy is a joke. It's just a pity that there's no better alternative.
-
Democracy is a joke. It's just a pity that there's no better alternative.
My thoughts exactly.
-
Democracy is a joke. It's just a pity that there's no better alternative.
Emperor Andrew has a nice ring to it.
but you can call me Darth Grak.
-
Democracy is a joke. It's just a pity that there's no better alternative.
My thoughts exactly.
Referendums in particular are crap. A yes or no answer to a document like this, or indeed to many of the issues put forward in referendums, is too simple to convey any kind of coherent message.
-
Democracy is a joke. It's just a pity that there's no better alternative.
My thoughts exactly.
Referendums in particular are crap. A yes or no answer to a document like this, or indeed to many of the issues put forward in referendums, is too simple to convey any kind of coherent message.
Truth.
-
Referendums in particular are crap. A yes or no answer to a document like this, or indeed to many of the issues put forward in referendums, is too simple to convey any kind of coherent message.
Being Californian, I have a different view. By law in my state, certain things MUST be passed by referendum. It keeps the legislature in check. If we want to pass our own law and bypass the legislature entirely, we can use referendum too, providing we get enough signatures to place an issue on the ballot. The point isn't to convey a certain message with a yes or no. The point is to give the common man a say in a major decision that will affect him, instead of leaving it to a bunch of slimy career politicians.
-
I aspire to someday be a slimy career politician!
-
Referendums in particular are crap. A yes or no answer to a document like this, or indeed to many of the issues put forward in referendums, is too simple to convey any kind of coherent message.
Being Californian, I have a different view. By law in my state, certain things MUST be passed by referendum. It keeps the legislature in check. If we want to pass our own law and bypass the legislature entirely, we can use referendum too, providing we get enough signatures to place an issue on the ballot. The point isn't to convey a certain message with a yes or no. The point is to give the common man a say in a major decision that will affect him, instead of leaving it to a bunch of slimy career politicians.
I agree with the Californian system and the Swiss one too-i think they work effectively. (Maybe thats because one day i will go to switzerland and persuade everyone to pass a law to give me chocolate everyday) I just think referendums as an answer to something like this are bollocks- i'm not sure that Californians vote on matters as huge as this? What i'm not objecting to is the process of referendums and the way they give the 'common man' a say- but that the options presented in them are too limited a vast amount of the time.
-
I just think referendums as an answer to something like this are bollocks- i'm not sure that Californians vote on matters as huge as this?
Under the California Constitution, three things require referenda: amendments to the California Constitution, most bond measures, amending a law passed by referendum. Additionally, if enough signatures are gathered, anything can be put on the ballot.
It's funny. I believe the exact opposite you do about referendums. They shouldn't be over the small stuff. That's what the legislators are for. Major decisions should be left to voters.
-
It's funny. I believe the exact opposite you do about referendums. They shouldn't be over the small stuff. That's what the legislators are for. Major decisions should be left to voters.
No no, we don't think the opposite. We are just coming at it from different angles. I completely agree with the concept of popular sovereignty and voters having the final word- i just don't like the way in which referendums do this. I don't think yes or no is enough- i think maybe a consultative process with the electorate and then a range of options could be far more effective. People vote 'yes' or 'no' for reasons other than a straight answer to the question a lot of the time, and yes or no is often too blunt an instrument to make an informed decision on an issue.
-
I aspire to someday be a slimy career politician!
And you will be very successful :D