France says no to EU constitution

Ah,

I see its one big happy family in the EU to quote Rodney King “Can’t we all get along :p ”

Really boy this is funny so much for the United States of Europe what a crock of BS when will the Citz. of Germanu start demanding a real vote on the EU.

RER

PS My money is on Lux 😮 😀

Who’s talking about the US of E? It’s alled the EU, resembes more like the SU :diablo:

Mum “Kiddy, it’s not your fault”
Dad “Europe is to blame”

Fun photo:

http://www.europeanonion.com/images/pix/dutchnee.jpg

:p

Ah,

I see its one big happy family in the EU to quote Rodney King “Can’t we all get along :p ”

Really boy this is funny so much for the United States of Europe what a crock of BS when will the Citz. of Germanu start demanding a real vote on the EU.

RER

PS My money is on Lux 😮 😀

Yeah, it’s war. Last time we had a problems like this was in 1839 :D. De Gucht is what we call a moron. In the 6 months he’s FM now he already achieved to start a diplomatic fight in the UN, the Congo (not welcome anymore :)) and Holland. De Gucht is arrogant and stupid, but for once, he was right too.

Arthur, please be gentle to me if the invasion starts. (it actually already started some decades ago when rich dutchmen moved to b in order to avoid taxes)

One funny thing happened in the aftermath of the Dutch “Nee”.

Our FM has called the Dutch PM a mixture of Harry Potter and bourgeoisie, saying he has the charisma of a pan-cake (which he, with all respect, has :D). Very funny because we have a diplomatic quarrel between the Belgian and the Dutch gov’t now. Our embassador has some explenations to do on monday. The PM of Flanders though said our federal FM was an idiot, trying to ruin 50 years of cooperation between our two states.

And what a lovely spin-off this is 😀 Appearantly, the Dutch government now has found a scapegoat to vent it’s frustration with: Belgium! I really can’t see the problem with calling Balkenende a non-charismatic crossover between Harry Potter and rigid narrow-mindedness. Because that is EXACTLY how to describe Balkenende. Besides, De Gucht’s comments on the way the government handled it’s campaign were spot on. In fact, i think he read those comments here :diablo:, especially since the Belgian FM is an absolute moron himself: denying whatever you’ve said in an interview only to find out it’s all on tape? That attitude would fit very well in the Balkenende cabinet…

Really lovely to see the sore losers in The Hague now trying to make this a diplomatic row. Pathetic. Or was this what they ment when they said that a ‘no’-vote would cause war? 😀

Ben,

so its ok for us Brits to be critical of the eu in our own country but not elsewhere?
Barroso statement that the ratification process should continue in the rest of the eu even though under its own rules the constitution is a dead duck – it is that level of arrogance and hypocrasy that is so typical of the eu and why it is so out of touch with the people of europe.

Just how many more ‘No’ votes will it take for the unelected, unaccountable, corrupt politico’s in brussels to see that the ‘united states of europe’ is not going to happen.

If you want to use the argument of “national consciousness” one should not be afraid of adding in arguments which don’t find in that narrow concept of a state.

that is only true for one’s opinion in one’s own nation. If you’re trying to say this to others in their nations by starting with the conclusion of your opinion…oh boy…AROGANCE. Funny how that’s pretty clear when insinuations are being made against the US. :rolleyes: yea…yea…things are “different” when it’s us vesus them.

The Ottoman Empire existed for over 400 years. The Armenian Genocide was during WWI. However, in the 16/17th C the Empire was a haven of tolerance compared to the rest of Europe. After the expulsion from the Jews in Spain and Portugal most of them moved to Holland or the Ottoman Empire.

doesn’t matter…you should’ve pick a better example with Turkey instead of saying how tolerant the Ottoman Empire was…very bad example. On the one hand you talk about history, on the other you conveniently leaves out aspects of it to make your case. I don’t care what history says or doesn’t, i only care what people feel now.If you are British, of course you have every right within your country to voice that, however, if you go to other European counrty to tell them how and what they think matters not, that is quite arrogant in anybody’s dictionary. On the one hand you want one Europe, but how about we’re all just plain humans? What makes Europe so special if you count history the way you do it? That’s propaganda too isn’t it? So, the bottomline is….EU is nothing more than an European feel good propaganda too. Fortunately some Europeans see through it. EU as an economic entity is what most Europeans can accept, and IIRC this was the original intent and make sense, then all this other propaganda crap starts to creep in, how all Europeans are one, how “proud” some feel to be European, frankly this is very destabilizing and hypocritical from the “power’ perspective.

Yes, but it’s also arrogant (and wrong) to say Brussels is controlling everything while it’s not. Bringing in arguments is not arrogant. The nice thing about “history” is you can use it to back any argument, using single facts. Facts can prove anything, H. J. Simpson once said. Well, it this national consciounce is soooooooo important and we are all so sure about our national history, than why be afraid of counterarguments. If there’s one thing I’ve learned here so far after studying nearly 3 years history is a nice tool of propaganda, widely used. In fact, you don’t even need to lie, just forget certain events. 11th july 1302 for example, the date Flanders defeated the French King. 11 july is now our national holiday. Shame though the King conquered Flanders two years later again and 🙂

If you want to use the argument of “national consciousness” one should not be afraid of adding in arguments which don’t find in that narrow concept of a state.

The Ottoman Empire existed for over 400 years. The Armenian Genocide was during WWI. However, in the 16/17th C the Empire was a haven of tolerance compared to the rest of Europe. After the expulsion from the Jews in Spain and Portugal most of them moved to Holland or the Ottoman Empire.

as to the Ottoman Empire you’ve mentioned…is this the same empire that committed the other major ethnic cleansing of the 20th century? How “tolerant”…. :rolleyes: What history :rolleyes: Look, irregardless of your “history”, the reality is people care about the soverignty of your so called overated nation states. A nation state can even be just a decade old and if the people there feels the identity there’s nothing you can do about it. Trying to convince otherwise is quite arrogant.

One funny thing happened in the aftermath of the Dutch “Nee”.

Our FM has called the Dutch PM a mixture of Harry Potter and bourgeoisie, saying he has the charisma of a pan-cake (which he, with all respect, has :D). Very funny because we have a diplomatic quarrel between the Belgian and the Dutch gov’t now. Our embassador has some explenations to do on monday. The PM of Flanders though said our federal FM was an idiot, trying to ruin 50 years of cooperation between our two states.

Look, the importance of the nation-states in Europe are overrated. It’s a 19th century construction, but people have the wrong idea states exist since fish got feet, to quote Arthur. The fact that each country has different needs and problems is not really true: Europe is geographically too small and we all need oil, food and other basic products. The power of the national capitals is now bigger than ever! Brussels could give some sovereignity back, not to the national gov’ts, but to the people itself. London is as bad as Paris trying to get a grip on everything. Thatcher has centralised the whole country so Dowing Street still has a lot of power, don’t underestimate this.

That’s what I mean with informing people on history. They know some dates like 1066 and they’ll say ‘we never want to be ruled by France again’, totally out of context, forgetting all major events which followed 1066. And so is the “myth” of the nation-state. Arthur already talked about invented identities and traditions.

Ohh and Arthur, I see another paradox. IMHO Turkey can join the EU, however, I still think the Judeo-Christian values (and the enlightment) should have been mentioned in the constitution. The Ottoman Empire indeed was more tollerant than any other country in Europe (Jews for example), and I think 40% of the inhabitans were even Christians. And since Turkey today is secular, the fact that 99% of the inhabitans are muslims should not be an argument to stop them from joining the EU. However, Turkey is not truely democratic (in practice) but neither is Albania or Serbia.

Crazymainer, the protagonists of the cold war were the USA on one side, and the USSR on the other. Europe was merely a foreseen battlefield for the case things went wrong, composed of “satellite” states which would have permitted the two superpowers to gain some hours.

wow, that’s pretty cold….washing the hands clean already. :rolleyes: Should’ve made western Europe just as bad as the east if this is the overall sentiment of today’s western Europe, i sure hope not. Very cold. Explains a lot though…. 😡
I don’t think EU would work for a very simple reason….these are distinct countries with distinct needs. Integration would eventually mean graying soveringty and this is exactly what most people who vote against it is worried about, the fundamental issue of cultural/national identity=soverignty. About this war thing if no EU, that’s just playing on fear…if indeed each nation gets to retain true soverignty would mean there’s no guarantees that war among the members won’t breakout. Things change very fast, there’s nothing to stop one from leaving the EU, declare war on another and politically prevents other members to get involved. Even if there’s a “central” army, it can always break up quickly with people from different member nations constituting another army…in fact this happens quite often, it’s called a civil war.

Always a pleasure to debate with a gentleman, Mike. 🙂

No-one is denying this, Mike.

But the Cold War was not confined to Europe, being as it was a global stand-off between the USA, the USSR and – to a lesser extent – the PRC.

That’s why we questioned its relevance to the discussion in hand. 🙂

Point taken and my sincere apologies. I made that remark before I’d read the rest of the thread.

I agree 200 % with you Arthur. The constitution is more of political compromise between the 25 memberstates (negative rights mostly) than what it really should be: a constitution build upon civil rights, social rights, 250 years of European enlightment values, and “Judeo-Christian” values as well.

Word 😎 ! A constitution should only lay out the fundaments of a state (euuhh…. ‘state-like-entity’ in the EU case 🙂 ) with the rights it grants to it’s inhabitants, and the way it is organised. Nothing more because that’s what other laws should deal with, nothing less because then it wouldn’t be a constitution anymore.

The constitution now looks like a half baked pie consisting of some ingedrients (Robbespiere mostly :D).

Yeah, with Giscard d’Estaing as an editor… seriously, i would prefer a slightly more serious staff behind such an important treaty rather than a failed former French president who just had the bad luck to celebrate Christmas 1993 with a few really, really horrible Dutch UN soldiers (don’t ask – a friend of mine was serving as a comms guy at a French base in former Yugoslavia, and has really fond memories of Gd’E).

I think the EU’s main problem is that it is focussing mostly (only) on socio-economical and political problems. Now it looks like the EU is nothing more than the price Germany had to pay for re-uniting after that particular 9 november 1989. (which it also is, else Mitterand would not have “pulled back” the French Army :D)

Yep, there is a serious marketing issue at hand. And everyone is to blame: the EU (which has, at least until now, been more worried with staring at it’s own bellybutton instead of trying to rallye support for what it’s doing), the governments of the member states (which gladly take pride in whatever good Europe does, and point the finger at Brussels for everything unpopular), the media (for which the EU is a lovely enigmatic, bureaucratic, kafkaïan entity) AND the populations of the countries (which could have been a bit less lethargic, the fact that France and NL have vote ‘Non’/’Nee’ was only because information on the EU was for once stuffed down their throats).

However, there doesn’t seem to be any attention to the broader cultural heritage which unites us all. There’s not enough attention for our common history, and not only in the political meaning of the word.

I think people aren’t really opposed to such idealist views, but they want to have a bit of security first. With the current economies being less than they should be, people are far more wary of anything that they might percieve as a threat. Fear breeds xenophobia, narrow-mindedness and reluctance to accept change when the results are neither clear nor immediate. Bad, bad timing was also an issue IMHO. Ten years ago, this very same constitution would have had a far better chance.

The constitution could have been the “cherry on the cake” (sorry for literally translating a Dutch expression but you know what I mean) of 500 years of Modern European History. I’m not saying this because this is academic BS, or because I want the EU to hire me later so I get a hell of a salary (this too ofcourse :D), but because history and culture is what really bothers the people. There’s not enough focus on this.

Don’t underestimate the way history is percieved by most people: as a purely Nationalist issue rather than a Regional one. From the 19th century on, history was taught as if the current borders have existed ever since fish grew feet, and WW1 effectively killed off the chance for serious internationalism which was slowly growing around 1900. Unfortunately, part of the common European heritage we now share is a firm belief in national borders… changing that will take time and effort, and (at least here in the Netherlands) a massive sway in even a nominally pro-European government.

The EU-leaders should have done this: exhibitions on European History, fund this instead of sending a copy of this “cold” constitution to everyone.

Most definately. The EU should be positively AND visibly be part of everybody’s life, to a further extent than just the signs at all the fun stuffs that are built all across Europe. School-exchange programs (not just for students, but for highschools and such as well), consumer organisations on a EU level, transnational exhibitions, the lot. Don’t tell people we’re Europeans, show them! (and yes, i’m available for a nice job talking like this in Brussels too 😀 ).

* Strang you are talking about “dogma’s” now. I am busy now studying the philosophy of Karl Popper :). I thought I once heard you saying you liked his work, however, it’s the first time I read something of him, but he sure has some interresting views on “science” and the historical process.

It’s been a long time since i read him, but the word ‘dogma’ is definately one i like to use a lot. Implementing Popper’s basic idea definately is a lot of fun: just keep bashing until you lose :diablo: . See, there is a philosophical background to my behaviour :p

Not to **** of the Turks, but because I consider it to be a part of Europe as well.

It’s pretty weird that states which grew under the Ottoman empire, despite what their heritage is, are considered to be European while Turkey itself is not. Especially if you look at the demise of the Ottoman Empire after WW2, Turkey just as European as Germany, Austria or Hungary. And in my eyes even more so than Estonia or Latvia, which never really existed except as proto-fascist bits of lands after the fall of the Russian Empire. And most definately different from Belgium, Greece, Ireland or Slovakia which all had to (re-)invent some kind of national identity after having been part of another country for a good part of Modern History.

No-one is denying this, Mike.

But the Cold War was not confined to Europe, being as it was a global stand-off between the USA, the USSR and – to a lesser extent – the PRC.

That’s why we questioned its relevance to the discussion in hand. 🙂

GA and Ben,

Ok then how about all those Aircraft that where shot at or down durning the whole Cold War peroid. If that isn’t a shooting War then what is?

Also Europe could have stop the whole Cold War before it started by stepping up when the Russians start to play there card in the first place.

RER

Well said, anyone who doubts that the so called cold war was not a shooting war should read a book called ‘By Any Means Necessary’

I’m sorry , but which kind of rule did we break?
When you talk about “blindly obeying” are you talking about the UK financial contribution to the EU ???

Does the British £ makes you more independant since it’s just following the US $??? Please explain me but I don’t understand very well.

I have the feeling that I’m reading The Sun here :rolleyes:

Oooops , you’re right I broke a rule : to stay away from this forum 😀 :diablo:

I think the reference was to EU regulations which this country accepts without question but France and Germany have the sense to ignore the ones they don’t like.
As for the single currency, folow me through and then tell me you still want it.
1) Since adopting the Euro most of the countries involved have seen inflation of up to 50% in the first twelve months of use.
2) The concept of a single currency across coutries with different levels of taxation and inflation is not going to work.
3) The only countries in Europe with healthy economies at the moment are the countries that don’t use the euro.

So Does this mean the end of the Eu? I ask this as some one who really doesn’t know th praticulars of the whole EU Charter.

Also how will this out-come effect the UK and other larger EU Countrys.

I was talking with some of my European friends a few days back and they said if France vetos it that it could un-due the whole charter and it also might see the end of the Euro what say it to that my EU friends. Personally I would like to see the Euro go and each Country re-enstate their old money. I think it would help the World Economey.

You’re not the only one who doesn’t know the particulars. The European Governments seem to have been hell bent on keeping their citizens from actually finding out what is in the draft constitution. If they expect me to vote for something they are making sure I cannot get information on they can forget it. I want to know just what I’m voting for before I say yes.