The new European constitution, part deux

[Meshugger]

Well, the finnish congress voted for the treaty by by 155-27. Ironically, it was the hardline leftist and rightists that voted against it. I highly doubt that anyone actually read the damn thing.

 

We're now one step closer to the Federalist Union of the Democratic States of Europe

Edited June 11, 2008 by Meshugger

[Xard]

moar liek Federalistic Union of Business and Capitalism of Europe

 

Suffice to say I'm not happy with giving more power to something that works on basis of business and businessmen and other elite. They already have too much power, no need to constitutionalize it

[Moatilliatta]

So no comments on the Irish vote? (They voted no to the Lisabon treaty for those of you who don't know)

[SteveThaiBinh]

It's hard to know what will happen next. I don't see how they can modify the treaty to get the Irish to agree, and I don't see how the other 26 can move ahead without Ireland.

[Walsingham]

I think that the notion of EU is just strange. I like Europe. I like the Economic Union. But what is all this other bureaucracy actually FOR?

[Humodour]

Interesting.

 

I think that the notion of EU is just strange. I like Europe. I like the Economic Union. But what is all this other bureaucracy actually FOR?

 

Because they're scared they'll fall back to imperialism but don't know what to do without it?

[taks]

But what is all this other bureaucracy actually FOR?

the first step towards socialism...

 

oh, and brdavs, while it may be true that treaties are more powerful than european constitutions, the same cannot be said for that of the US.

 

taks

[Moatilliatta]

I think that the notion of EU is just strange. I like Europe. I like the Economic Union. But what is all this other bureaucracy actually FOR?

I think Walsinghams comment when put up against the europen leaders talking about better democracy and how the EU needs to solve problems instead of falling back into a depression outlines well enough why the EU is failing. The EU cannot expect to continue properly without the support of the citizens of Europe and to get that support the citizens of Europe needs to know what the **** is going on.

 

I'm myself becoming more and more disillusioned with this elitist project.

the first step towards socialism...

I'm sad to say that that is one of the most stupid comments I've ever seen from you Taks. The individual countries are plenty good at falling back into that dark pit all by themselves, they don't need the EU for that and that isn't what the EU is about.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Moatilliatta

[taks]

I'm sad to say that that is one of the most stupid comments I've ever seen from you Taks. The individual countries are plenty good at falling back into that dark pit all by themselves, they don't need the EU for that and that isn't what the EU is about.

ignorance from the likes of you is what socialism counts on. one of the requirements of a socialist "country" is an untouchable governing body... which is precisely what everyone in here is complaining about. you can't even see the forest through the trees, but they count on that.

 

taks

 

edit: ignorance is a more appropriate term... apologies for being as inflammatory as i was. it was unintentional.

Edited June 13, 2008 by taks

[Moatilliatta]

ignorance from the likes of you is what socialism counts on. one of the requirements of a socialist "country" is an untouchable governing body... which is precisely what everyone in here is complaining about. you can't even see the forest through the trees, but they count on that.

 

taks

 

edit: ignorance is a more appropriate term... apologies for being as inflammatory as i was. it was unintentional.

Define an 'untouchable governing body' and tell me just how it is supposed to lead to socialism, you did after all say that it was the first step and not just a part i.e. you have to have some idea of a slippery slope.

[taks]

Define an 'untouchable governing body' and tell me just how it is supposed to lead to socialism, you did after all say that it was the first step and not just a part i.e. you have to have some idea of a slippery slope.

i did not say it would lead to socialism, i said it was required (not completely, but it makes such a thing simpler when the peoples' voices no longer matter).

 

what it seems is happening here, and everyone seems to be complaining about, is that the will of the people w.r.t. the EU is becoming less and less a factor, and hence, the "governing body" that rules the EU is slowly becoming more and more untouchable.

 

taks

[Gorgon]

The bureaucracy is for making money, don't kid yourselves. Integrated markets and legislation. Theres no way on earth the EU is ending up a planned economy.

[Gorgon]

By the way Taks is mistaking Socialism for Communism this time. Some one has to, it's tradition after all.

[Gorgon]

The Irish no forces the EU to move ahead slowly and democratically, this is preferable I think. Merely having the parliaments ratify the treaty can't be considered democratic, politicians aren't exactly an accurate sample of the population.

[Moatilliatta]

A bit optimistic? The EU will probably just get it through piecemeal over the next 10 years trying their hardest to avoid a plebiscite.

 

i did not say it would lead to socialism, i said it was required (not completely, but it makes such a thing simpler when the peoples' voices no longer matter).

The peoples voices do matter as we still have something called a constitution on a national level.

 

Also, simply having a so called 'untouchable governing body' doesn't lead to socialism (communism) nor is it neccesarily bad.

 

The will of the people isn't becoming less of a factor (I actually think they could become more of a factor), the problem is the way the EU communicates, just look at this "Vote YES" poster:

This is goddamn redicilous and exactly why I'm calling the EU an elitarian project and why I'm tired of bumbling morons trying to be politicians.

 

The EU has a PR problem that it has to solve if it wants to prevent these roadblocks everytime they try to change something.

[taks]

By the way Taks is mistaking Socialism for Communism this time. Some one has to, it's tradition after all.

no, i'm not. not at all. you just don't get it - all forms of socialism are tyrannical, the only difference between socialism and communism is that communism lies to you by stating that some day you won't need the oppressive government, i.e., communism's stated goal is utopia.

 

taks

[taks]

The peoples voices do matter as we still have something called a constitution on a national level.

the USSR also had a constitution... that has no bearing on whether the people's voices mean anything. you'll note, too, that the context in here has also been one of the EU constitution trumping national constitutions (which i commented on, too). i don't know enough about how the EU works to state that it is one way or the other, however.

 

Also, simply having a so called 'untouchable governing body' doesn't lead to socialism (communism) nor is it neccesarily bad.

why are you stuck on this point that i never made? this concept is your invention, not mine, get over it please. yes, btw, an untouchable government is very bad. if you don't know why, i cannot be of help.

 

The will of the people isn't becoming less of a factor (I actually think they could become more of a factor), the problem is the way the EU communicates, just look at this "Vote YES" poster:

perhaps, and i don't really know. my original point was directed squarely towards walsh's comment about additional bureaucracy... why is it needed? for socialsim, IMO.

 

taks

[Gorgon]

By the way Taks is mistaking Socialism for Communism this time. Some one has to, it's tradition after all.

no, i'm not. not at all. you just don't get it - all forms of socialism are tyrannical, the only difference between socialism and communism is that communism lies to you by stating that some day you won't need the oppressive government, i.e., communism's stated goal is utopia.

 

taks

Calling an elected form of government in an informed democracy 'tyrannical' is opinion, not fact.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Gorgon

[Moatilliatta]

the USSR also had a constitution... that has no bearing on whether the people's voices mean anything. you'll note, too, that the context in here has also been one of the EU constitution trumping national constitutions (which i commented on, too). i don't know enough about how the EU works to state that it is one way or the other, however.

I'm pretty sure that the Lisbon Treaty doesn't trump any national constitutions as we would have had to have a plebiscite then. In fact the argument for carrying it through without plebiscite here in Denmark (as far as I remember) was that it didn't trump the constitution in any way and is just (they argue) another legal document.

Also the USSR is a really bad example.

 

why are you stuck on this point that i never made? this concept is your invention, not mine, get over it please. yes, btw, an untouchable government is very bad. if you don't know why, i cannot be of help.

Well you called it a stepping stone and... Never mind I guess it isn't important.

You have yet to actually tell me what you mean by 'untouchable gonverning bla bla' as I'm really not sure exactly what you mean. Is it that they aren't all elected by the people or something else?

perhaps, and i don't really know. my original point was directed squarely towards walsh's comment about additional bureaucracy... why is it needed? for socialsim, IMO.

So what, you think the EU is some huge crypto-socialist scheme?

I also think that Walsh's comment was about the EU in general and the general EU beauracracy has a lot of nooks and crannies, some of them being very expensive black holes of silly compromises and other being close to outright red (farm subsidies etc.). The EU beauracracy can't be said to socialist as much of it has a liberal agenda (economic liberal) of creating common foreign policies and common policies on global warming and similar fun stuff.

The Lisbon Treaty essentially tries to help the EU in uniting Europe even more on some of these points.

Simply saying that the beauracracy is needed for socialism is a bit naive as most of the beauracracy is probably furthering liberal agendas.

[Meshugger]

I would like to thank the Irish for the outcome on this referendum, i am drinking a Guiness right now, cheers!

 

This is a reminder to all the EU politicians, if you want to do some significant changes, do not pass bills through the back door when the people voted "no" in the first place. Create an open debate, release the papers in full before, not after the ratification, and you're more or less obligated to inform and create a debate on matters as these on a grass-root level.

 

And no, this isn't an issue on the political philosophy of socialism. It's about power being centralized from the people to the politicians in Brussels without the voters content. It's about the fallacies of an represential democracy, where a rift is created between the common man and those in power, i think that it leans more to aristocratic than socialistic.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Meshugger