The hidden agenda to the EU Constitution referendum

………..and like Comet said so very well……….what ultimately happened to them? They were politically, industrially, economically and demographically destroyed. They are no more. They a ex-countries. Deceased. Gone and forgotten. They started war after war and those wars were responsible for the deaths and the suffering of millions. All because people like you are on a power trip.

Power trip 😀 Ohh well, there have been worse accussations at my adress so far. So all of Habsburg are now failed states: Spain, Germany, Belgium, Austria, Hungary, only because they were under one rule for a period.

That’s an understandable point, and from what i can tell over here that is roughly the basic philosophy of American libertarians and a good part of the Republicans. But what i absolutely can’t understand in this respect is that US foreign policy has been the total opposite of this philosophy: while domestically, the US government (primarily the federal, but from what i know in most states also the local ones: state, county, what else have you got) try to keep a hands-off approach trying to keep their involvement (and with that, spending and with that, taxation) to a bare minimum. Now i find it perfectly agreeable that you need to drive cars with sloppy suspension because you don’t allow your governments to spend any money on decent roads, nor do i mind that your parks are often barren wastelands of former grass with an occasional sponsored tree or veteran’s memorial (especially not if the latter is a nice Skyhawk 😉 ). After all, if there is one country which can claim it has grown the sort of government it’s population wants it is the USA.

On the other hand, the US government is far more intrusive on the lives of people outside it’s own borders than any government i can think of. It’s even more paradoxical: while the US federal government hardly spends money on education or infrastructure in the US itself because (basically) the US people refuse to pay taxes for such issues and doesn’t trust the government to do a good job, that very same US government is using US taxpayer’s money either destroying and/or rebuilding that sort of infrastructure all around the world.
So while, according to you, the US government (just like any other government) can’t be trusted to be working effectively for the people it actually depends on (being the voters of course), then how can you expect that very same government to be doing a good job for the people which have absolutely no influence on that government?

I’ve said it a number of times before and it will be rightfully ignored again this time: if the US would like to live up to it’s moniker of being a Democracy (not only in a political sense, but in an Ideological sense), it should either back off to being a domestic-oriented government or allow some sort of international influence in it’s election process 😉

It basically reflect my point of point.

You’re right that’s democracy. And democracy allows everyone the express is own opinion even if it’ s not yours.

Fair enough. I was not aware that I was stifling anybody’s opinions. My appologies sir. 😮

…………….and the difference is?

Thats democracy now stop ramming your Euro Federalist crap down out throats you are just annoying people.

You’re right that’s democracy. And democracy allows everyone to express his own opinion even if it’ s not yours.

It depends how you look at History Comet. Habsburg made stability in Europe as well. The Soviet-Union collapsed because it was not multi-ethnic but Russians dominated. Same for Yug. Tito’s rule however made Yug. into one of the best states to live in Central-Europe, much better than it’s neighbours from the warshaw-pact. So your arguments are not correct.

………..and like Comet said so very well……….what ultimately happened to them? They were politically, industrially, economically and demographically destroyed. They are no more. They a ex-countries. Deceased. Gone and forgotten. They started war after war and those wars were responsible for the deaths and the suffering of millions. All because people like you are on a power trip.

huh? Are you on dope? Where did I say you are part of my empire. Expansionist ideals. Go out and take some fresh air, mate, and read it again. Ohh yes you can read it between the lines, ofcourse, how dumb of me to forget.

I didn’t call British arrogant, I said the idea of an independent England for economic motives only was arrogant. Sorry if my English (British/Anglo-saxon whatever it is) is not understandable enough for you. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxi culpa.

…………….and the difference is?

In any case its hard won experience and an ability to read between the lines that make Britons so wary of continental Europe. In the 70s we signed up to a free trade agreement and nothing more. Now we are seriously looking a federal state and guess what? I did not get a choice in the 70s I was too young to vote. Now I’m not, so I am making my voice heard. You don’t like it? Tough. Thats democracy now stop ramming your Euro Federalist crap down out throats you are just annoying people.

It depends how you look at History Comet. Habsburg made stability in Europe as well. The Soviet-Union collapsed because it was not multi-ethnic but Russians dominated. Same for Yug. Tito’s rule however made Yug. into one of the best states to live in Central-Europe, much better than it’s neighbours from the warshaw-pact. So your arguments are not correct.

Look at history – where countries have been thrown into these large masses to be ruled from one place. What always happens? Civil wars. It happened in the Soviet Union, it happened in Yugoslavia. There will come a time when the cou8ntries of the EU want their independence back. What will happen then? Why do you think some countries want a European army? So that any dissenting contries can be invaded and crushed or silenced like happened in other places.

Arthur,

From an American perspective, there are very few areas where the government does a good job. There are far more areas where the government does an inefficient, wasteful, and inferior job. The less government the better! A population or nation who rely on the government for their well-being is a stagnant, listless, and uninspired people.
Take care,
TTP

That’s an understandable point, and from what i can tell over here that is roughly the basic philosophy of American libertarians and a good part of the Republicans. But what i absolutely can’t understand in this respect is that US foreign policy has been the total opposite of this philosophy: while domestically, the US government (primarily the federal, but from what i know in most states also the local ones: state, county, what else have you got) try to keep a hands-off approach trying to keep their involvement (and with that, spending and with that, taxation) to a bare minimum. Now i find it perfectly agreeable that you need to drive cars with sloppy suspension because you don’t allow your governments to spend any money on decent roads, nor do i mind that your parks are often barren wastelands of former grass with an occasional sponsored tree or veteran’s memorial (especially not if the latter is a nice Skyhawk 😉 ). After all, if there is one country which can claim it has grown the sort of government it’s population wants it is the USA.

On the other hand, the US government is far more intrusive on the lives of people outside it’s own borders than any government i can think of. It’s even more paradoxical: while the US federal government hardly spends money on education or infrastructure in the US itself because (basically) the US people refuse to pay taxes for such issues and doesn’t trust the government to do a good job, that very same US government is using US taxpayer’s money either destroying and/or rebuilding that sort of infrastructure all around the world.
So while, according to you, the US government (just like any other government) can’t be trusted to be working effectively for the people it actually depends on (being the voters of course), then how can you expect that very same government to be doing a good job for the people which have absolutely no influence on that government?

I’ve said it a number of times before and it will be rightfully ignored again this time: if the US would like to live up to it’s moniker of being a Democracy (not only in a political sense, but in an Ideological sense), it should either back off to being a domestic-oriented government or allow some sort of international influence in it’s election process 😉

Good point Geforce, however where will the buck stop?

At present there are several levels of law court in the UK ultimately ending with the House of Lords. The right of appeal goes all the way from the County Courts to the House of Lords which gives the ultimate ruling. Where will the European legislature fit into this? Will Europe be able to overturn a ruling by the house of lords?

But why do we need another military force?! With the UN and our own national armies what is the point?!

I’m not a lawyer but I think I’m right in saying that England, Wales and the Irelands are probably the only countries in Europe who use Common Law for the basis of their legal system as do the US and most of the Common Wealth with one or two exceptions.

However Europe uses the Civil system, which I assume EU law is also aligned with. Therefore for Europe to impose it’s laws on the UK won’t it mean that eventually the UK will have to gradually adopt the Civil legal system?

A very good question. However, this constitution is not going to replace the national law systems. The EU has a court in Luxembourg, but that’s more an institution to solve problems between the nat gov’ts, EC etc. I don’t think the EU should have courts to solve problems between citizens individually, leave this to the national states. Each country has individual habits. Because you can smoke pot in Holland doesn’t mean it should be possible in the UK for instance. However, there should be some agreements, like respect for human rights and a constitutional ban on the death penalty for instance. The US also has federal courts on a lower level, however, I don’t think that should be necessairy in the EU.

I’m saying it again, domestic issues should return to national capitals again: agriculture, fishery etc. The ultimate goal is a common foreign policy and a military force, which is not going to replace the national armies.

I’m not a lawyer but I think I’m right in saying that England, Wales and the Irelands are probably the only countries in Europe who use Common Law for the basis of their legal system as do the US and most of the Commonwealth with one or two exceptions.

However Europe uses the Civil system, which I assume EU law is also aligned with. Therefore for Europe to impose it’s laws on the UK won’t it mean that eventually the UK will have to gradually adopt the Civil legal system?

I find it extremely arrogant however to think England is better than Scotland, N-I or Wales. As an outsider I see the differences between the 4 different nations the UK has. However, politically, the UK is still one. If England wants to be independent so be it, because nothing will depend on England anymore. Utter utter separatist crap.

You know many of our thoughts on the Utter utter seperatist crap notion, how can we be seperatists if we are not part of you? As for the idea that England is better than Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland? I like to think this bloke is in a minority, Britain is as Britain does, if you feel more English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish (Northern) that is your law given and upheld right. Thats the beauty of being British. BTW will you please stop calling us arrogant you still haven’t mastered the notion that if you insult us you WILL NOT bring us round to your expansionist ideals. You should try to be nice to us. Smilies do not work so you will have to assume a big cheesy grin accompanies this post.

Phil

huh? Are you on dope? Where did I say you are part of my empire. Expansionist ideals. Go out and take some fresh air, mate, and read it again. Ohh yes you can read it between the lines, ofcourse, how dumb of me to forget.

I didn’t call British arrogant, I said the idea of an independent England for economic motives only was arrogant. Sorry if my English (British/Anglo-saxon whatever it is) is not understandable enough for you. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxi culpa.

I find it extremely arrogant however to think England is better than Scotland, N-I or Wales. As an outsider I see the differences between the 4 different nations the UK has. However, politically, the UK is still one. If England wants to be independent so be it, because nothing will depend on England anymore. Utter utter separatist crap.

You know many of our thoughts on the Utter utter seperatist crap notion, how can we be seperatists if we are not part of you? As for the idea that England is better than Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland? I like to think this bloke is in a minority, Britain is as Britain does, if you feel more English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish (Northern) that is your law given and upheld right. Thats the beauty of being British. BTW will you please stop calling us arrogant you still haven’t mastered the notion that if you insult us you WILL NOT bring us round to your expansionist ideals. You should try to be nice to us. Smilies do not work so you will have to assume a big cheesy grin accompanies this post.

Phil

to be honest, even prior to expansion the eu is is a bomb waiting to go

BANG!!

It is not a union. Its an attempt to rival the united states and china economically by some mad Belgian :rolleyes:

Arthur,

From an American perspective, there are very few areas where the government does a good job. There are far more areas where the government does an inefficient, wasteful, and inferior job. The less government the better! A population or nation who rely on the government for their well-being is a stagnant, listless, and uninspired people.
Take care,
TTP

It depends from what perspective you’re looking. The gov’t is made up of the people as well. I wouldn’t call it uninspired. Social-democracies (not socialist !) have the highest standards of living, for instance Scandinavian countries. Compare this to the liberal-democracies like 19th century Belgium-UK. Utilitarism in its purest may be inspiring, it’s surely not the best for all people, and you don’t have to be a marxist to think that (unless Clinton was one).

However, in the case of the USA I can understand the problem. For a country the size of a continent, and as much people too from different ethnic groups, I find it amazing it still functions, already more than 200 years (ok not the civil war). But the gov’t in Washington focusses more on foreign policy, not? There’s not even a minister of the interior, which I find quite strange. How important is the federal gov’t in the life of the average American? Not much I can imagine.

Arthur,

From an American perspective, there are very few areas where the government does a good job. There are far more areas where the government does an inefficient, wasteful, and inferior job. The less government the better! A population or nation who rely on the government for their well-being is a stagnant, listless, and uninspired people.
Take care,
TTP

It’s not a constitution, it’s a draft paper to make distinctions between the different institutions. It contains some basic human rights but that’s it.
Even the UN has some sort of ‘charter’. In fact, this constitution will even make the European Commission weak, compared to the Council made up of national ministers 😡

Arthur why the hell should we trust the government now with this constitution.
Not only this but for example why were AF allowed to take-over KLM when BA were told they couldnt merge with IB?! (I know this is not Blair!)
However, Blair has lied to the UK people many times. He now says it would be a good thing for us to join the Euro. Why should we believe him when he has lied to us before? Ted Heath said there would be no absolutely no chance of Brussels being allowed to overrule the UK’s laws. And yes Arthur you are right we are TOTALLY clueless about what the government entails, we have been all along as rules are bypassed by certain countries, Brussels discriminates against the UK in some ways (for example the French farmers stopping the UK delivery lorries taking British meat into France. This is against EU policy. What did the French or Brussels do about it?! Nothing). So why do the British people stick to the EU laws anyway? So no a constitution would not be good for the UK and I want what is best for the UK, not anyone else. Look after your own before you look after others. It would be a step towards a Federal Europe because you have to have a Constitution in order to have a federal Europe.