EU constitution

Falstaff

I am wondering what all the fuss is about a Constitution for EU members, and the negative effects of such a document, as we all know that documents of this type are ratified occasionally to meet the requirements of the members, what is all the FUSS about?

bug77

Well, it's supposed to be the next step in creating a united Europe (much like the US). Trouble is it's a 300 pages document that nobody knows what is it about - except for the politicians who made it (hopefully).
Being made by politicians and rejected by electors, it is becoming the sign of the political class' failure.

raid517

Sorry Jeff, I kind of beat you to this topic...

Dutch say no to EU constitution!

Hopefully this should help you understand what's going on...

GJ

Falstaff

got that already RAID, I guess I am responding to the French reaction, it in spite of its purpose does not appear to be a "bad" thing...

Dom

Another step towards a one world government.

raid517

Well that depends on your perspective. Why do you think it might not be a bad thing?

And Dom, I don't buy into that kind of stuff at all. Besides which if it was part of some divine and preordained plan for a one world government, God (or the Devil, or whoever) doesn't seem to have bargained on the democratic sentiment of the voters of France and Holland, who have rejected the consititution. It seems to me that as far as devine plans go, God will have to work a little better on his campain strategy next time round. (Although unfortunately there may not be a next time round, or at least not for another 20 years or so - and even then the outcome is equally uncertain).

What was is really needed is perhaps an education program lasting maybe a decade or two where we educate the people of Europe about what the consitution is and what it would mean for individual member states. I don't mean to be rude in this, but clearly by gauging some of the responses people gave for why they voted no, very few of them actually knew what the constitution was about, or had ever even attempted to read it. Moreover there was really very little investment made by most governments in terms of time and money to actually sell the consitution to the people. It was simply assumed by the politicians that most people would just pretty much unquestioningly regard it as a 'good thing.'

Unfortunately, as the results show, it really hasn't worked out that way.

GJ

radTube

Yeah, sad but true.

raid517

Man, do you even know what that means? Because if you are going to start talking about all that religious stuff that is exactly the point where I bail out.

Sorry.

GJ

Nacht

A one world government is where the world is going, and it is a good thing.

The farther we progress into the future, the smaller the world gets. Great distances are traversed in ever shrinking amounts of time, economies grow and merge, information is global.

The only thing stopping it now is a sense of nationalism...This occurs everywhere, but I will only describe what happens around where I live, because it is what I understand best; The southern USA for many years had a thriving textile industry. In the current world, the mills are gone and/or leaving quickly. The reason is a more profitable market elsewhere, due to labor, construction, and benefit costs. Another problem is the import of cheaper materials (such as foriegn beef) from elsewhere. Now, the first instinct of industries here is to say "hey, we're loosing business due to this foriegn market" - and thus the politicians create tariffs on foriegn imports and make it harder for businesses to leave. While this might "protect" American industry for a short while, anyone that has had entry level economics knows that it negatively afffects the economy of the trading nation, and in the long run, negatively affects the world economy and the economy of the originating nation (In this case, the USA).

The solution to this is Free Trade. Only if all nations come together and back free trade simultaneously will it work - and then we will all be able to see what the human race is really capable of. The global economy will be much better off, and a higher living standard around the world will result.

Falstaff

I was looking at the economic advantages of a United Europe, in spite of the ominous potentiol, it would be unprecedented and perhaps provide another huge economic power to counter the growing threat of
China and India in the world arena..

dj_stick

but is that really such a bad thing?

IF it was obtained in a fair manner (ie voting etc) it could mean the end of war, hunger (no trade tariffs, adequate funding for all provinces), aswell as advances in research as scientests from all over the world could join together in projects

radTube

I don't subscribe to all the crazy religious cult conspiracy theories, but I don't doubt that certain elements of the ruling elite in Europe would be more than happy to... enlarge their circles of influence, if you will. And you can replace 'Europe' in that sentence with 'the world' without compromising it's validity.

raid517

Mmm... well it seems we stand on opposite ends of the fence. I see fully open and free markets as the next step in the advancement of civilisation and a way to advance the cause of peace and prosperity in the world. The more you open markets, the less inequalities there will be - and everyone would be able to compete on an equal basis. I would of course add my own social/leftist twist on this - although that is why I believe that the UK model is a good one - in that it leaves such matters to be decided on a national level. This is useful because there are various countries in the world who would never agree with my own leftward leaning ideology on matters such as health, social justice. criminal law and so on. I don't think you can actually force other countries to adopt your own political and cultural practices - or to accept certain ideas or policies which they may ultimately have not been given the opportunity to vote for.

GJ

radTube

That would probably be true if everyone had equal access to things such as resources and means of production. It's more complicated than that. We don't live in a perfect world, so there's no such thing as a perfect system.
Exactly. We are all different. There's no way you can change that. Not even by force.

raid517

Mmm... I don't think it's that compilcated at all. I never said that it was possible to erradicate unfairness. Indeed I think it is very possible that we live in a fundamentally unfair world. You either have to deal with that in a pragmatic way - or risk becoming uncompetative by handing over (as it were) the 'means of production' to those who might otherwise - given their own resources - lack the means or the ability to compete. You either live in a soft fuzzy wuzzy world where everything in that world is viewed through blurry rose tinted glasses, or you wake up and accept that there will be casulties. Sure we should help, sure we should be responsible, sure we should try to help those who are genuinely incapable of helping themselves, but that doesn't mean that we should simply write a blank cheque any time anyone asks for it.

Nor can just 'turn over the means of production' to just anyone, because often in such senarios the people charged with these responsibilties lack both the skills and the motivation to know what it even means to be competative. Look what happend in Soviet Russia when many unskilled workers were elevated and promoted over the management classes. In the end the ecconomy pretty much collapsed. Which is why we very much do need good managers within the context of a democratic and/or capatalist society.

Like I said, you can't eliminate unfairness completely - but having open and free markets will certainly help to elliminate at least some of that unfairness by (both in theory and in practice) making new markets potentially open to everyone.

GJ

Captn

No thank you & no its not a good thing. You're not going to get Russia, North Korea or Iran for that matter to buy into this.

Zorg

raid517

Europe is a long way short of being poor and bancrupt thanks very much! And China's ecconomy is still tiny. Tiny indeed even when compared to the ecconomy of the UK. (they are not even members of the G8 - which means they aren't even in the top 8 ecconomies in the world. (We haven't quite got a hammer and sickle in the logo of the G8 yet). They of course have a vast potential, which is why people pay them so much attention, but it may be another 20 to 30 years before the ecconomy is fully modernised.

As for the rest of it, I guess you are another one who has actually read the consititution. Because if you will forgive me for saying so, it doesn't sound like it at all.

Are you somehow connected with Europe? I ask because there are lot's of things you wouldn't say if a)you were European and b) that you wouldn't say if you had actually followed the debate closely.

GJ

Zorg

You may "laugh" about my statement but it will exactly go down this way. Watching public debates means watching more or less lies - simply, coz it's meant to comfort people instead of truthfully educating them. I can not talk about Britain since I am no Brit but I am of European heritage. There are too many evil minds in EU politics and in the construction of the EU. That's why the proposed constitution is voted down in every public referendum to come. You just can't trust in politics or even politicians.

that's just IMHO

radTube

You're getting me all wrong, once again. I just pointed out, like you just did, that a) people are not perfect and b) people are different which is why we'll never see a perfect world. Even free trade can't do much about that, even though it is mostly a good thing as long as it isn't brought to the point where anyone with enough capital is free to do as they damn well please (ie. capitalist fundamentalism).

Centralization of power is the issue we don't agree on. Whenever you give enough power to a single human being or a select group of people, elected or not, there will be some among them will exploit their position to gain more or just to fulfill their sick little agendas. I'm actually starting to think that the world would be a better place if there were no super powers. Yes, there would still be problems and disputes, but at least they would be smaller in scale. (Don't think about that too seriously, though )

So once again, I'm not calling for the communist ideal "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" kind of world. What we're talking about here is the EU constitution, and I'm still of the mind that accepting it would be a big bloody mistake in the long run.

Zorg

raid517

Lol the irony is that you are closer to the official British government position in this regard than even I am. I want even more intergration - not less. Or at least I see one of the main dangers in the world as being nationalism and isolationism - and anything that serves to tear barriers down has to be a good thing. I think in the end we would gain more than we could ever possibly loose by it.

But anyway, we are talking about a dead doccuments - and possibly a dead project.

Lets see what, if any sense our politicians can make out of it all.

GJ