Blocking the EU constitution.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Azaghal

Well if things are fairly devided they will notice I'm sure.

then look at the seats in the parilament. they are already MORE THAN fair devided.

It's going to make a lot more trouble in the future. When all the babyboom-people are ~65+ and stop working.

and what exactly does this have to do with the euro? its not like people become older faster with the euro than without. the problem exists, thats true, but it would exist without the euro aswell.

ofc, and I was exagerating a bunch. Still, it's being pushed too far, and I get the impression especially France doesn't consider the EU as equal states with the same rights, but as France the 'super power' who will lead the EU, and get support from his little buddies like Holland, and his brothers like Germany, UK, ...

ofc france (and germany aswell) have a lot of infleunce, but we started the whole thing, together with belgium and the netherlands. the uk for example never did much more than trying to block everything that was going on. you dont get more influence by doing such things.

Like, breaking treaties by using loopholes in the treaty which benefits France, but is bad for the EU.

Ofc this doesn't only count for France. Even Holland is perhaps too selfish at some points (drug policy).

like what for example? these loopholes exist for everyone (read: the EU doesnt regulate everything), not only for france.

Perhaps, but even then the countries should have been more aware of what their actions meant for the EU. They should've seen it coming really. Not just shouting out what they think, but first try to make a common statement with the other countries. But that ofc gets espcially difficult if you're trying to use it as a campaign slogan.

i hope once we have acommon foreing affairs policy the goverments will take it serious. up to now there was no reason to not to voice your opinion (although it would have been a good idea to try to find a common position)

[Bunga]

Originally Posted by Azaghal

No "country" was as devided as badly as the EU was.

´In every single country in the world were there some people who thought it was a good thing and some who thought it was a bad thing. In many countries opinions even varied within the government as to wether it was a good or bad thing.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Azaghal

No "country" was as devided as badly as the EU was.

not the "country" was devided, only the goverments. thats an important difference.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

then look at the seats in the parilament. they are already MORE THAN fair devided.

Wow! The EU has found a way to make something more than fair!

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Wow! The EU has found a way to make something more than fair!

for the smaller countries that is.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

for the smaller countries that is.

Oh.

Here was me thinking the EU had actually achieved something and you go and ruin it.

[Bunga]

But then its unfair per defenition.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Bunga

But then its unfair per defenition.

maybe, but which small country would accept an institution in which they close to no influence?

[Bunga]

Not many. I wish the EU had solved the representation problem when there were only 12 members. Or before that, even. Then the smaller, joining countries wouldn't be able to stop the democrisation process. Like my country, for instance. What idiotic leaders my country has.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Bunga

Not many. I wish the EU had solved the representation problem when there were only 12 members. Or before that, even. Then the smaller, joining countries wouldn't be able to stop the democrisation process. Like my country, for instance. What idiotic leaders my country has.

we have been fighting each other for the last 2000 years, you cant just put a democratic representation on all that. at least not yet. there is still too little trust. look at all these paranoid brits for example who get a medium heart attack, if the eu decides how to mark energy saving office lamps.

[Bunga]

I know. Look at the paranoids in my country who voted no to the Euro.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

maybe, but which small country would accept an institution in which they close to no influence?

The US Constitution had exactly the same problem with respect to large vs. small states. Hence, the Senate. :/

[Mushroom]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

The US Constitution had exactly the same problem with respect to large vs. small states. Hence, the Senate. :/

yeah, Rhode Island was a bitch*!

(* obviously not just Rhode Island, i'm just using that as a selective example of a state that was)

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Azaghal

It's not only about the parlement.

but it should be. what is it there for if it cant take decissions?

Because France,Germany,Italy(?) will say once more: **** europe and they will devaluate the euro, while countries like Holland have their actually thought about the problem and have made preparations for it earlier on. That's all for nothing now, because France and Germany will devaluate our currency which without a euro would be their own problem. If they are already crossing the 3% line now, why wouldn't they cross it when they have more economical problems?

i already said: see other thread. the euro currently is VERY far away from having any devaluation problems, in fact there still is a threat of deflation with this slow economical growth. its more like the opposite.

Holland was there from the start buddy. Because we had a lot to gain from free trade. It wasn't like France+Germany had the sole initiative.

i already explained it in the other thread: things were handeled in a very ****ed up way and i do not agree at all with what my goverment did. but meanwhile i think the 3% limit wasnt such a good idea after all.

True, but my point was that using a loophole is almost as bad as simply breaking the treaty. And France+Germany are breaking that treaty for their own advantage, but at the disadvantage for the euro countries that do have their balance OK.

its not for our advantage. if we would break the treaty to pay for investements and by doing so to create jobs, then we would break it for our own advantage. right now we break it to pay for our normal costs. and that doesnt have any advantage for anyone.

And the unity thing: I stick to my point that the EU isn't a unity (yet), the differences are way to great still. And give your definition of a unity then.

no, not yet, but that doesnt mean it cant be, does it? my idea of unity would be a federal state with a strict seperation of what the EU handles (like foreign affairs, defence, some security issues, some economical issues, etc.) and what the national states decide. we should never try to build a centralist state like france is right now. there are many different cultures within europe and we should try to preserve them.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

The US Constitution had exactly the same problem with respect to large vs. small states. Hence, the Senate. :/

at least your federal system seems to work as it is. look at this poor attempt of federalism we tryed in germany. nothing happens here, because noone can get a majority and it has been that way for the last 20 years.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Azaghal

It *will* be with the ageing of the population. The baby boomers will go with retirement, and they need to get paid. In especially France that will mean they will have to be financed (for a large part) by the working force at that moment. We in Holland pay for our own retirement. That means in the future France will get huge economical pressures.

lets assume you pay for your retirement. for that you buy shares. once you are old many people will be old and will want to sell those shares. this means the prices drop and you get very little money out of this. the same problems arise if you bring oyur money to a bank or borrow it to the state or whatever else you can think of. there is no simple solution for this (besides more babys ). but in general i also think its a better idea to safe for yourself than count on some system that probably will collapse in the next 50 years.

Ok so if it is not an advantage, why are you not cutting down (enough) on your expenses like Holland is? It is better on the long run and you wouldn't need to break the stability pact.

dont ask me, ask my goverment . basicly both larger parties know what to do (and they do so for the last 20 years), but because of our nice federal system (a perfect example of how NOT to do it) they are able to constantly block each other, just because they want to make sure the other party doesnt succeed.

Pretty much what everyone wants, and it sounds good in theory. But it's a bit naive, how would the relation big countries-small countries be? Would large countries still push through their agendas in the EU government? Just to name something...

as i said: give the power to the parliament. let the parliament elect the commision.
sure, even in the parilament the larger countries have more seats than the smaller ones, but there are already EUROPEAN parties in that parilament, thus decisions are made by a party not by the largest countries. there still should be some us-senat-style institution which represents the different countries and have to agree on the more important problems (like changes in the constitution) but that should be about it.
we cant go on like the way it is forever and the constitution is a first step in the right direction.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Azaghal

No like in California being 80% against the war, Texas 80% pro, (and the same split for all other states), and the one half the states calling the other half ass kissers, while the other half signs a letter they support the war.

All that seems to do is support my idea that groups can work together despite differences of opinions in some areas. As does

Originally Posted by Proteus

Not here there isn't.

The vast majority of people here don't even consider themselves "British", but rather "English" or "Scottish" or whatever.

Some of these arguments are pretty dumb though. Like the EU isn't united on some issues so clearly all members of EU states have different opinions which doesn't do anything about the point that the EU appears un-united because there are a number of voices all of which are given equal precedence (I doubt if you gave every state in America an equal voice internationally and diplomatically that the US would appear that united).

[queball]

Isn't the EU supposed to promote the wider aims of humanity anyway?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by queball

Isn't the EU supposed to promote the wider aims of humanity anyway?

You know who else wanted to promote the wider ai










oh forget it.

[Deffeh]

Im scottish, im british, im european, and im a citizen of the free world. I support any form of union or unity

[Weeks]

cnutrags.
Breaking the stability pack is ness if there's going to be a flexible montery union. I'm with Gordo on this.

Unless we go with what France and other countries seem to be suggesting and ignoring current effective economic ideas and forming a European-wide economy based on waving different colour flags on days with more vowels than usual in the array of different European languages. Although Spain wants a weighted advantage in the Spanish languge even though they have a lesser population than some of the other countries.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Bunga

He is saying that since the citizens Europe and the USA are acting in the same way, the two countries are just as united/disunited.

There's no way that Europe is anywhere near as homogenuous (sp?) as the United States.

[Radical Edward]

This is just the next attempt at the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT

the antichrist will soon be here !!!! repent!!! or the lizard men will get you!!!

http://stargods.org/

[Marilyn Manson]

What a poor debate.

[Weeks]

I'm sorry.
Commence the killing hordes.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Weeks

I'm sorry.
Commence the killing hordes.

What was the original purpose of the thread? You seemed to be under the impression that the government had the actual intention of blocking the constitution.

[lokken]

The EU is based on a great idea but it needs a massive overhaul to make it more efficient and more coherent in setting out its policies.

I think we should all be given the chance to have a vote on this constitution, as the last thing we want is making the paperchase and red tape worse.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by lokken

I think we should all be given the chance to have a vote on this constitution, as the last thing we want is making the paperchase and red tape worse.

do you really think people will care enough, so that they actually read what all this is about or will they just stick to the usual brussles-paranoia and vote no no matter what?
other than that i dont think there is enough time to hold a referendum in all the countries.

[lokken]

I don't care what other countries do; this is more than just an 'overhaul' and while Britain should be involved in the EU, it should also be active in making sure it's an efficient, accountable body.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by lokken

I don't care what other countries do; this is more than just an 'overhaul' and while Britain should be involved in the EU, it should also be active in making sure it's an efficient, accountable body.

all fine with me, but didnt answer my question.

[Weeks]

Marilyn darling,
The goverment is blocking it (or vetoing it depending on what kind of verb mood you're in).

[lokken]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

all fine with me, but didnt answer my question.

Well most people are too retarded to get involved in difficult things like the European constitutions. On that basis, most people on council estates shouldn't have a right to vote.

That's why we have remedials (politicians, or alternatively the Sun or the Mirror - or news of the world if it's a sunday) to explain things to people.

We could live in the hope that above remedials get it right of course. I mean, what 'the sun says' goes for most people, right?

It's about sovereignty, if this is a European 'constitution' as European law is supreme, of course people are going to be concerned.

So in short, Tina from Warrington, Sharon from Chigwell and Dave from Kingston upon Hull do deserve a view on such a pressing matter.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by lokken

Well most people are too retarded to get involved in difficult things like the European constitutions.

Most people aren't retarded, they simply don't care.

A lot of them just want to live their lives with their families, friends, and sometimes their communities. They don't necessarily have the time or energy to care about what some super-state monstrosity is doing hundreds of miles away. They have more pressing concerns like their weekly shopping, the county court judgements piling up against them, the local bus service being crap, etc.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Most people aren't retarded, they simply don't care.

A lot of them just want to live their lives with their families, friends, and sometimes their communities. They don't necessarily have the time or energy to care about what some super-state monstrosity is doing hundreds of miles away. They have more pressing concerns like their weekly shopping, the county court judgements piling up against them, the local bus service being crap, etc.

exactly my point. if these people vote at all, theyll make a purely emotional decission. most people wont care much about facts. because of that the goverment would have to start a huge promotion-campaign to convice the people with some easy to understand pseudo-arguments (like the economical tests for the euro) if they ever want to stand a chance in winning such a referendum.

On the other hand a constitution is a very important thing that will influence how the EU develops in the next decades. im not sure if its a good idea to decide such an issue without asking the people.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

the goverment would have to start a huge promotion-campaign to convice the people with some easy to understand pseudo-arguments (like the economical tests for the euro) if they ever want to stand a chance in winning such a referendum.

I'm not quite sure if that would be a responsible way to spend government revenue.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'm not quite sure if that would be a responsible way to spend government revenue.

how else would they stand a chance against the sun or other equal newspapers in other countries?
(and wouldnt it be close to political suicide to push through the whole thing without a referendum in a country like UK?)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

how else would they stand a chance against the sun or other equal newspapers in other countries?

They probably wouldn't stand a chance. I'm not pro-EU particularly, so this doesn't bother me. Private individuals holding too much sway via their owning newspapers, etc is a wider issue.

And yes, it would be suicide to go without a referendum. But any money they give to a 'Yes' campaign would need to be equally given to a 'No' campaign also, to preseve any semblence of equity. IMHO of course. Otheriwse you've got a bizarrely self-replicating government/state system where the state funds campaigns for people to vote for more state, which then funds....etc.

[wu_trax]

so in your system the goverment should not be able to support any side?

i disagree, they got elected to take decisions for the people, because of that they should be able to spend some money on a campaign to convice people that the constitution is a good thing.
we are not talking about a general election here. in that case i woud agree with you and either not allow to spend tax-money on this at all or give all parites the same money for their campiagn.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

so in your system the goverment should not be able to support any side?

My system isn't necessarily comparable, so that's a non starter.

But more generally under the current system, I don't think the government should spend (tax) money on what has become in this country, a party-political matter. Yes, they've been elected but there should be limits on where they can spend treasury funds on. Why stop with the EU? Why not produce propaganda on every single issue the Labour Party (for instance) support that the opposition don't. Why not produce newspapers, etc on why the Iraq War is a good thing?

[JonnyBGood]

In Ireland it was great because the government didn't bother to inform anyone about anything regarding the Nice Treaty and then got horribly shocked when we rejected it because the only people who had campaigned were the ultra-left wing nutjobs who think the EU is here to subvert Irish culture. Of course the government then ran the referendum again because we'd made the wrong choice!





<3 Fianna Fail

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

My system isn't necessarily comparable, so that's a non starter.

But more generally under the current system, I don't think the government should spend (tax) money on what has become in this country, a party-political matter. Yes, they've been elected but there should be limits on where they can spend treasury funds on. Why stop with the EU? Why not produce propaganda on every single issue the Labour Party (for instance) support that the opposition don't. Why not produce newspapers, etc on why the Iraq War is a good thing?

ofc there always need to be limits, but you dont always have to take the extremes.
who else could convice the people of the whole thing? noone seems to have a problem with private newsservices who support only one point of view.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

ofc there always need to be limits, but you dont always have to take the extremes.
who else could convice the people of the whole thing? noone seems to have a problem with private newsservices who support only one point of view.

The justification is that we have a degree of choice whether we fund Mr Murdoch and his cronies. I don't buy the Sun, and so therefore don't care what they say/do. I am forced to pay my taxes (on pain of imprisonment) and so therefore it's a different issue.

Similarly, the BBC (which we are compelled to pay for if we have a TV) are forced to be "unbiased" (whatever that means).

You don't need to convince me of the evils of monopolistic media groups (I agree), but it doesn't necessarily follow that we have to balance everything out with tax money. If no-one wants to support the EU, then why is there a problem?

More realistically, if all the UK exporters/companies who would be negatively affected by anti-EU sentiment (or not having the single currency, whatever) got together (people like Unilever, BP, those sorts) they could easily threaten to withdraw advertising revenue from any newspaper/TV station acting against their interests. The amount of money spent by those type of firms is extraordinary, and so I'm sure they can summon the clout, if they care.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Weeks

Marilyn darling,
The goverment is blocking it (or vetoing it depending on what kind of verb mood you're in).

Errr, no the government has (weakly) threatened to veto it, if it doesn't meet up to some vague requirements.

This way, it appeases (momentarily, at least.) both the anti-EU press, and shows off it's pre-negotiation sabre rattling-skills, you see.

If the government had actually meant what it said, Blair would have issued the statement, and not Straw.

It's easy-peasy when you know stuff!

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by lokken

I don't care what other countries do;

I DON'T CARE WHAT DA OTHER COUNTRIES DO, WHEN DA OTHER COUNTRIES SEZ IT'S RAINING.

[lokken]

LOL

[Weeks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Errr, no the government has (weakly) threatened to veto it, if it doesn't meet up to some vague requirements.

This way, it appeases (momentarily, at least.) both the anti-EU press, and shows off it's pre-negotiation sabre rattling-skills, you see.

If the government had actually meant what it said, Blair would have issued the statement, and not Straw.

It's easy-peasy when you know stuff!

You seem to be too clever for this thread.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Weeks

You seem to be too clever for this thread.

Story of my life.

[Intrepid00]

Originally Posted by Phang

the EU constitution is a sacred document that cannot be changed or disrespected.

What no Admendments? Its doomed.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

What no Admendments? Its doomed.

Our Constitution will have god in it, you ****ing secular heatens.

Get down on your knees and pray five times a day and god just might not make your face implode.

[Intrepid00]

We have the Deceleration of Indpendence

No worries, the Pope will save me.