Reply With Quote
Would you like to explain how France will stop being France because of the EU?
Here are five arguments put forward by the Oui and Non camps in France on the EU cons ution:
YES CAMP
Efficiency; The cons ution will replace voting rules that were designed for a smaller bloc and will make decision-making easier in the EU following its enlargement to 25 member states. More decisions will be taken by "qualified majority" voting, rather than unanimity, to enhance efficiency.
Foreign policy; The cons ution will increase Europe's influence in world affairs, strengthening the EU's common foreign and defence policy. The charter also gives a face to EU foreign policy by creating the post of an EU foreign minister.
Social policy; The cons ution strengthens social policy in the bloc by setting out social goals such as full employment and equality between men and women.
Best option; The cons ution that has been drawn up was the best compromise possible after long negotiations. A better deal cannot be found, and the treaty will not be renegotiated.
Fairer voting weight; The cons ution will increase France's voting weight in the EU from nine per cent of the total votes to 13 per cent. The current system, agreed at a summit in Nice in 2000, awards countries weighted votes that bear no relation to their size.
NO CAMP
Anti-liberal economics; The charter enshrines an "ultra-liberal" economic model which puts market interests ahead of social concerns. It does not protect workers enough and will drive firms out of well-established members such as France to states with lower wages and costs in eastern Europe.
Defence; On defence, the cons ution makes the EU dependent on NATO, and therefore the United States.
Loss of sovereignty; French influence will decline inside the bloc as the cons ution strips countries of more sovereign rights and moves power to Brussels.
Turkey; The cons ution paves the way for Turkey to enter the EU.
No discussion; The cons ution is hard to understand and read, and a better treaty can be negotiated that takes more account of social concerns. A French No would also encourage a wider debate on the merits and goals of the EU.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html
Would you like to explain how France will stop being France because of the EU?
You realize that with this post you've disproved almost all of your own previous posts. Look at the NO column and tell me which of those is really a good argument - except maybe the one about the new cons ution being difficult to understand.
As for the article about the cost to the UK it's written by a EU sceptic (nothing wrong with that) but I've seen articles showing that just the savings made by the adoption of the Euro by England would mitigate most of those costs. Of course talking the British out of using their beloved Pound is not something that might happen soon.
AHF
You claim not to be racist in your 1st post and then go on and bash the Muslims some more. You of course also forgot to mention your racist bashing of the French and the Germans in that 1st post.
What is especialy ridiculous is you claiming that the new cons ution is giving too much power to France while one of the main arguments of the "NO" sayers is that it takes away too much influence (which btw is true).
The biggest problem with the French is the farmers lobby. They are extremely strong and the one group in the EU that receives the biggest chunk of money from Brussels. Their position got tougher already during the last EU expansion and under this new cons ution their position could (would?) get even worse. At the end it's always a money matter.
Taking away the cultural uniqueness? Please! You can't make that call when yourself admits you have no idea what it looks like. It's like saying that Chicago's deep pan pizza's will destroy Tex-Mex food because Illinois and Texas are both part of the USA. Most expert agree that our "uniqueness" is more threatened by the hugely successful entertainment industry of America than by anything else.
Please realize that if the cons ution passes we would have an alliance who would put each country in a position very similar to what the states are in the USA. A position that would be very similar to the current position, minus the very complicated and bureaucratic decision process in place now.
exactly, in the u.s. the federal gov is the more important than the states. are 25 countries willing to give up power to the eu? i don't think so.
and i posted this just to show some pro/cons. i am not a europe hater. i loved living in europe. i just don't think this new cons ution will fly for a majority of the countries.
Well countries have already relenquished almost all their powers to Brussels - the only new category in the new cons ution is foreign policy (which is encountering most oposition in the UK). Everything else is about relenquishing some authority to make the process quicker and easier (but the process itself is already in place since years). France (and to some extend Holland) are using the ratification process to score political points at home (as I said previously strong lobbies like the farmers) and by doing so are actually slowing down the EU process - something that will cost them (and us) a lot in missed opportunities, if nothing else.
Oh and btw most EU countries have already spoken in favour of the new cons ution.
I do not think you're an EU hater, and I also do not expect you or anybody to agree with me just because I wrote something. It would be nice if some people would bring some substance to the discussion or God forbid some facts.
I do believe on the other hand that your views of the politics in the EU is skewed by the current US political mantra that "you're either with us or against us". Since quite a few EU countries did not agree with your Iraqi policy, now most American think we're against the US on all subjects (when we actually disagree on just one or two) - which in turns has convinced many European that you're against us...
The only aspect of that that really pisses me off is that people on both sides of the Atlantic that are loudly promotiong isolationism are usually the biggest idiots who haven't even tried to understand what the other side is about. Hoping that they would actually know what they're talking about is a lost cause anyway.
Just because I am skeptical of the ability of the leaders of Germany and France to not try and pervade Europe with their economic, social, and cultural mindset doesn't mean I'm racist against the people of both countries.You claim not to be racist in your 1st post and then go on and bash the Muslims some more. You of course also forgot to mention your racist bashing of the French and the Germans in that 1st post.
, one of my best friends and college roommates is French, and he thinks Chirac is a piece of (for proper perspective, he thinks both Bush and Kerry are corrupt and cheats, but said he'd take either one any day over Chirac).
As for the Muslims, I've studied Islam and the Qur'an. Muslims and Islam in and of itself isn't bad.
But I'm not talking about the general population, I'm talking about the street thugs who are invading Europe and turning it into for its native citizens (things like the Van Gogh murder, the problems in Denmark, Norway, even Germany is having problems with Muslim street gangs).
Did you know 3/4 of reported rapes in Denmark in the last three years were committed by Muslim street gangs?
In Germany you've got sheiks giving sermons saying the people of Germany are no better than the Jews, and deserve to die.
I could go on and on...
If acknowledging that what's happening on the streets of Europe and being concerned about it makes me racist, well so be it.
With all due respect this post is a lot different from the one I called you upon. Whenever someone says all the French are dum or all American are idiots - that person is making a racist statement.
I agree with most of what you are saying in the above - I just do not see how it is relevant to the new EU cons ution.
The muslim problem in some west European countries is an increasingly worysome issue. But it's primarly a social problem. The muslim groups that are responsible have many of the same problems than for example the black or hispanic people had/have in the US. The majority lives below the poverty line, high percentage of school drop out, inadequate employment politics....
Those problems must be addressed before unscrupulous "leaders" take advantage of them and turn them into a political fight.
Many of the laws are not adequate and will require many tough decision on the part of the European people if we are to make it work. A good example is how the English are handling it. With one of the highest percentage of ethnic/religion diversity in Europe they have far lesser problems than others.
And finally as a person that grew up in a Chirac controlled Paris I agree that he's an incompetent and corrupt moron, but thank God most French are not. The EU cons ution is more important than him and the few idiots that have not realized that fact yet.
I've been listening to reaction of voters exiting the polling stations in France all day long and most nay sayers said it was a vote against Chirac and not necessarily against the cons ution. That further proves my opinion about Chirac since he failed to explain to his people what this election is about.
FYI, it seems that the French voted NO.
only a handful have ratified the new treaty and most did so without a public vote.
9 countries that represent a little less than half of the EU population have already ratified the treaty. Every country ratifies the treaty according to its own legislation that may or may not include a popular referendum - regardless of that all country have to assess it's voters opinion on the subject, not doing so would result in a political suicide.
Slovenia ratified the treaty without a referendum but only after a lengthy public debate that showed the public support for the ratification.
Most analyst (in fact all that I've read this morning) attribute the French vote as a NO vote to the Chirac government and not to the EU cons ution. Anyway the process will now go on and I expect negotiations with France.
It is an unpleasant delay that will cost us - but only a delay non the less.
In order for the EU to remain compe ive and strong, it needs the next step, wether with this treaty or another. Standing still in today's world means moving backward.
why else do you think they chose not to ask the public? they knew the vote would fail. and 9 out of 25 is not very many.
This doesn't happen overnight. Public referendums are expensive, and if there are obvious signs that the public overwhelming supports it, whats the point?
It depends on the legislation of the country. In any case it's done by people who were elected in a general election - that's why I said they wouldn't dare vote in favour if the public was against it since it would be political suicide. Not all the countries even have laws for referendums, while others (i.e. Switzerland) use referendums as a method of government all the time.
9 of 25 is not many, but it is also not just a handful especially if you take into consideration that they represent almost half of the EU population. As far as I can remember beside Holland (and obviously France) nobody else is predicting a NO vote. In any case let's see how it unfolds.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn...t-steyn29.html
EU President: "vote yes. If you vote no, we'll keep making you vote until you say yes."
Nice "democracy" they've got going over there.
Well I guess it's still better than to have a president appointed by corporations. This article is just bashing and making fun of something the author has absolutely no clue.http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn...t-steyn29.html
EU President: "vote yes. If you vote no, we'll keep making you vote until you say yes."
Nice "democracy" they've got going over there.
You want the real statement you can find it here.
And I agree, if France does not want to sign the new treaty, it should not prevent the others to go ahead - and if it happens, yes they might change their minds. It's their choice - but I can see how free choice can be confusing to you.
Really? Who has one of those?
Just how many EU Countries were allowed a referendum? The fact is that most Europeans, given the chance to vote, would vote non -- just as have the French.
If the EU rams this cons ution through it'll be confirmation of the elitists behind the whole scam.
Yeah, politicians in Europe are I'm sure above taking bribes from corporations, that's why prosecutors are going to be arresting Chirac's ass the day his reign ends.
Why are you taking this so personally Slomo? Several of the countries who have ratified this have done it without so much as a vote of their country's people, and somehow that's supposed to represent democracy or the wishes of the people of Europe?
At least we get to vote here...
Well I for one appreciate this thread filling me in on what is going on over there. Im sure that no one here will find it any sort of surprise that I agree with Slomo's opinions on the matter. Will it be hard for them to set up? Sure! Shoot we had growing pains in the US as far as what type of government we should have and how much power states vs federal should have. we even had a whole war over it in the 1860's. Fact of the matter is that we worked, why shouldnt they.
You must be new here.
You must have a problem reading. No EU country were "allowed" to have a referendum. Each has to ratify the treaty according to its own legislation (they decide - actually they don't - they have to do it according to their own existing laws). The EU doesn't have the power to force any members to do anything that wasn't agreed to unanimously - how's that?Just how many EU Countries were allowed a referendum? The fact is that most Europeans, given the chance to vote, would vote non -- just as have the French.
If the EU rams this cons ution through it'll be confirmation of the elitists behind the whole scam.
the dutch rejected it too now
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) -- European leaders faced the possibility of having to scrap the proposed EU cons ution Thursday after Dutch voters rejected it by a massive margin, voicing their concern over dwindling national iden y in a rapidly expanding union and increasingly powerful bureaucrats.
Really interesting thread. I believe that the EU is an excellent idea, it's the way the world is going to work in the future. The different regions will create their own representative goverments to deal with regional issues. Of course, when moving this idea to the practise, it will bring some problems, this always happens.
There are several issues that should be taken into the table for the EU to really work. Like the incorporation of Turkey. Unlike the Western European countries, where a secular, post-modern society is the representation of the majority of the population, Turkey and some of the Eastern Europe nations are completely different.
I believe Turkey was accepted too early, while other nations that are closer to the European culture haven't joined yet. A massive amount of Turks immigration to Western Europe could represent problems, specially if they are not assimilated into the country where they'll be moving.
It is a remarkable stat that in the French referendum, both the extreme left and right voted for "No". Of course with different motives, the right because of their nationalism, anti-immigrantion, ultra-catholic stance, while the left because they considered the cons ution to be ultra-liberal in the economic matters. I'd like to add that "liberal" does not mean left in Europe or South America like it does in the U.S.
The term liberal is used to refer someone with an economic tendency towards free market, while the left is closer to a Keynesianism. This for the moderate left and right, the extremists have more radical views.
Another issue is the authonomy request of different regions for different reasons, like Euskadi, Catalonia, Lombardia, etc. where the population sees the EU Cons ution approval as the end of the posibility of an independent state.
Last edited by Manu'sMagicalLeftHand; 06-02-2005 at 02:02 PM.
turkey is not a member.
turkey leg is though.
They will be acepted after 2007 if things keep at this pace.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
