Mainly for the European members : The Constitution

Post Reply New Topic

Currently, in France, a debate is going on about the European Constitution. People here have to vote in May about whether this Constitution should be ratified by our country. As of today, polls say that 55% of the French population would vote NO, and 43% would vote YES, 2% being undecided.
Have you read it ? What do you think of it ?

In it's entirety, no. I did a google search and found it in pdf, all 265 pages. Will anyone read it all? No. What purpose does it serve, other than to keep swill in the trough for the hogs?

Individual citizens in political unions of culturally-diverse nations don't generally tend to do too well. Unless, that is, you're a member of the ruling elite, or have aspirations of serfdom.

(Jeez that was so negative . Nothing personal, though.)

Deleted

AntiEverything, that is an interesting point. Trouble is, most of Europes economies aren't that competitive compared to ours here in the UK. We could end up tying ourselves inextricably to some economic dinosaur. Europe, with it's plethora of bureaucracy can never compete with China or India. Even now, regulations imposed on us by Brussels are eroding our ability to compete in the World market.

And of course, important though it is, the economy is not necessarily the most important thing. How about freedom? Granted, that can never be absolute, but when you look across the world at the various peoples striving to break free from centralised control, you can't help but doubt the wisdom of building a European superstate.

Deleted

Antieverything, I'm not malignant or recalcitrant; I'm trying to engage you in a dialogue . I'm not rich, or a rogue, either. I have, however, worked hard for everything I have; it's not been handed to me on a plate. Perhaps, this might, to an extent, have shaped our views: I understand you're a student, correct? When you have broadened your horizons a little, you may see why the transfer of wealth, via taxation, or the thought of centralised economic policy that condemns you to perpetual poverty, is so unpopular. Because that's what your proposals boil down to. You may then also understand why I vehemently oppose some overpaid bureaucrat in Euroland telling me what to do. I'm not trying to be patronising, btw.

I understand your motives are altruistic, but even still, losing our nations sovereignty to that end can surely not be a good thing. Do you not think a rich UK, separate from Euroland could still not achieve much? Or, is it still not possible to have an EU without the centralised authoritarianism? There are many problems inherent in the proposals for further European integration; it's not some panacea, as I've hinted at previously.

Being opposed to further integration with the EU and wanting a better world are not mutually exclusive, Antieverything. Idealism is not necessarily a bad thing, either; but, realism must procede implementation. Please consider that.

Oh, perhaps I'm a little recalcitrant.

Deleted

I'll start at the end: that contemptible chap Howard. You seem to dislike the Conservatives as much as I dislike Labour(not that I'm a great fan of any political party). Blair and Howard are, or were, both barristers. They are both, likely as not, as contemptible as each other. Though one can reserve special contempt for Blair as he stands at the head of the "working mans party". Lovely irony: £100k+ p.a barrister doing that.

So, while considering the contemptible and amoral, should we perhaps look at the way politicians in general behave? How all human beings behave when in power, or when vying for such. These are the people who, in your centralised socialist type society, will be pulling the strings. You wish to substitute one band of despots for another? This is what worries me, you see. I don't trust people with power. We need government, naturally; but there should be limits on how it can control individuals and business. That's where are differences lie: you believe in socialism, I don't. Well, perhaps not totaly true because nothing's black or white, somewhere in the middle's the place to be: between corporate tyranny at one extreme and that of the 1984 style Euroland at the other.

I'm not totally against the EU, I just think the ambitious plans are motivated more by the egos of politicians than by any tangible benefit. It would be better for everyone if it had stayed an economic rather than political body, it would have satisfied some of your goals in providing favourable trading terms for some of the newer, less prosperous nations, and wouldn't have upset people like me by meddling too deeply with the affairs of individual countries.

I think one day there maybe a European superstate, but that day's a long way off. People are too keen to do things within the timeframe of political office, or that of a human lifespan. In their haste to achieve their dreams they inevitably postpone the fulfilment. These things must evolve, slowly for them to be a success.

I live in the U.S., but from my view it looks like the EU will strip the countries of the individualism that most value so highly.

Not much more to say about it then..
A two hundred sixty five page constitution!? That's going to become HELLISH!

Ehhh..I just think it'd be hard to enforce. Lawyers 'll make mincemeat of it.

Deleted

Deleted

to be honest I don't understand the stuff that well either but my gut response to anything to do with Europe is that we should definitely be part of it as much as we can - you're absolutely right AA, the only chance the world has of not becoming culturally/militarily American and economically Chinese is for there to be a strong, unified Europe: I don't really care about the relative strength or weakness of the UK economy and I certainly don't care about some feeble sense of British 'identitiy'. I don't relate to being British at all, I think we'd be much better off becoming more European. England sucks, IMO.