Eu Constitution

[Mireille]

The EU and the Constitution are different IMO. Yes France and the UK are members, but they will not joing the Constitution

158976[/snapback]

 

It's not that obvious with France.

[Placid]

It's not that obvious with France.

159105[/snapback]

I thought it was, Jaque Chirrac was even annoucing on T.V attempting to pursuade voters in the refferendum, am I correct?

 

I just thought it was sort of a forgone conclusion with France, much like the UK.

 

Im probably wrong though

[Mireille]

I just thought it was sort of a forgone conclusion with France, much like the UK.

 

Im probably wrong though

159186[/snapback]

 

Actually, Jacques is doing his best to convince the French into voting "yes". Everything may happen.

 

And it's Chirac, with one r (as much as I detest him, it IS a name after all).

[Placid]

Actually, Jacques is doing his best to convince the French into voting "yes". Everything may happen.

 

And it's Chirac, with one r (as much as I detest him, it IS a name after all).

159276[/snapback]

Yes I meant persuade towards voting yes, obviously.

 

And thanks for the correction, I was showing my British Ignorance....again

[kl4Uz]

*lol* Placid you are talking a lot of crap.

 

The EU and its constituation are one thing. The constitution has to be affirmed by all memberstates (including UK and France) or IT WILL NOT come into effect for the WHOLE EU (ever heard of the veto right?).

 

In some countries such as France there are referendums, in other countries such as Austria or Germany only the Parliament votes.

 

Nearly all countries are positive towards the constitution, only in France it's vague.

Edited May 14, 2005 by kl4Uz

[Mireille]

Nearly all countries are positive towards the constitution, only in France it's vague.

162166[/snapback]

 

The problem, however, is that there are countries in EU which are more equal than others. Such as France. Noone would care if the referendum failed in Austria or Poland, but if it failed in France or Germany it would be a political catastrophe. There's a proverb that "in the EU you can do anything with France and nothing against France". I'ts France that started the integration after all...

[Placid]

*lol* Placid you are talking a lot of crap.

 

The EU and its constituation are one thing. The constitution has to be affirmed by all memberstates (including UK and France) or IT WILL NOT come into effect for the WHOLE EU (ever heard of the veto right?).

 

In some countries such as France there are referendums, in other countries such as Austria or Germany only the Parliament votes.

 

Nearly all countries are positive towards the constitution, only in France it's vague.

162166[/snapback]

Your misreading me. I meant the proposed constitution was different according to MY OPINION.

I know that we are member states. But the constitution IMO is something that the UK is against. We are already members of the EU (and yes, its constitution), but in 2006, there will be a referendum in the UK to vote yes or no for continued membership. Try and read what im saying before accusing me of talking crap (although most of the time I do ).

[Vanyel]

It's all very interesting, but... I don't really think the contemporary project of constitution will be aproved by all EU countries.

There are different reasons. Some of them are really essential, some are ridiculous.

Have to agree with Mireille "in the EU you can do anything with France and nothing against France" and I'm not sure if it's good or not (rather not though).

About voting in some countries. Politician are quite smart. The're doing public votings and waiting for decision of nation, but if it will not be they want to see they have other possibility - parliement voting.

Words are words, we have to wait to see what happens. Let's wait then.

[Captain_Smile]

Read it, saw nothing as crap as it.

 

NO

[Vanyel]

Read it, saw nothing as crap as it.

 

NO

163322[/snapback]

 

It's easy to say 'crap'. Harder is to say why it's 'crap'. Maybe you would like to say something more?

With regards

~van

[kl4Uz]

I don'r agree to Mireille, cause you can't do anything in the EU against the will of one single memberstate. All memberstates have an equal weight of their vote. Of course there's the unoffical importance of some countries.

[Vanyel]

Seems the problem was solved. We won't have constitution in form it is now. The topic could be closed I think.

Now we have to wait for rest of voting in EU and for next project (or lack of it - it depends).

Regards

vanyel

[Mireille]

Seems the problem was solved. We won't have constitution in form it is now. The topic could be closed I think.

Now we have to wait for rest of voting in EU and for next project (or lack of it - it depends).

166216[/snapback]

 

Yeah, and all because the French don't want to work. :/

 

Ph33r t3h Polish plumber!!!!11111

Edited May 31, 2005 by Mireille

[Vanyel]

Ph33r t3h Polish plumber!!!!11111        

166218[/snapback]

 

Roflmaoloooooool :D :D

[i92guboj]

This I dont understand, people are assuming that bush is no better than dictator with his ideals, yet if you really look into his governent policy, you will see he goes above and beyond just to AVOID that image. And the fact that he removed Saddam from power and gave Iraq freedom means nothing does it? I suppose you will bring up; BUT WAR IS HORRIBLE INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE! Btw, how many did Saddam kill before we removed him and how many might he have continued to kill?

 

As far as expanding our land, Bush has no such plans. If ANY country becomes a state it will be puerto rico, simply because of tis proximity and military usefullness, Bush knows better than to bite off more than he can chew, and I dont care what you say, the man knows what he is doing.

 

-stong bush supporter out.

157511[/snapback]

 

I'm not going to repeat that I think about this sh*t. If you want read this:

http://www.eternal-lands.com/forum/index.p...ST&f=11&t=15097

here are reasons from me and giannis. I don't know what in the hell does the TV in your country tells, but you are wrong for sure. Mahatma Ghandi was a peace keeper, Bush is an idiot cowboy that does have no notions on elemental geography and believes he is god over Earth.

 

And even if you were right, who in the Earth has given him that divine powers to be the god and career of the world? The world can live w/o him.

 

Now to the topic. I think that EU constitution is a good idea, but the actual implementation is just horrible (yes, I read it, because I'm an idiot who likes to know what am I voting for). I voted no when it was asked in my country, and would do the same again.

 

Maybe for less democratic countries it is a big step forward, for me, I consider that it is a step back. The same have decide France and Holland. But in my country it was sucessfull, damn it! <_<

Edited June 5, 2005 by i92guboj

[reciproque]

Simply put, you Europeans may look down on us Americans all you want, but anyone can see the EU as simply Europe trying to be after 1000's of years what we've been for 140 (gotta count that Civil War there...).

158960[/snapback]

 

One inspired decision two centuries ago doesn't make up for buying all the crap Bush dish out now.

 

The problem with the EU constitution as it were is that in the long run the pros are probably right, the resulting more united EU would have given to all its countries a firmer stand on the international scene and blabla. But the liberal governements who negotiated it made it an occasion to slip in all their liberal crap unnoticed, and then saying 'if you don't vote yes we are doomed'. Too bad some of the people in the union doesn't buy that sort of shit from their governments.

[Mireille]

But the liberal governements who negotiated it made it an occasion to slip in all their liberal crap unnoticed, and then saying 'if you don't vote yes we are doomed'. Too bad some of the people in the union doesn't buy that sort of shit from their governments.

167841[/snapback]

 

Instead they buy socialist crap and firmly believe that they will be better off when they build walls on their borders and work 35 hours a week or so. Come on. It's over. It didn't work.

[reciproque]

Instead they buy socialist crap and firmly believe that they will be better off when they build walls on their borders and work 35 hours a week or so. Come on. It's over. It didn't work.

167889[/snapback]

 

EU constitution will happen, only not this one, and maybe not in such big words. The contempt of those who were for it toward those who rejected it is trying. The gap between 'enlightened' opinions and popular one does exist, but who's fault really?

 

(P.S.: Mylene rocks me.)

Edited June 6, 2005 by reciproque

[Mireille]

EU constitution will happen, only not this one, and maybe not in such big words. The contempt of those who were for it toward those who rejected it is trying. The gap between 'enlightened' opinions and popular one does exist, but who's fault really?

 

(P.S.: Mylene rocks me.)

167908[/snapback]

 

Right, the word "constitution" was absolutely unnecessary. It would be much less controversial if it was just another amending treaty. EU is not ready yet for a single constitution (in the proper meaning of the word).

 

P.S. Not only you.

Edited June 6, 2005 by Mireille

[behindthemask08]

This may be a little off subject, but what the hey...

 

Pure democracy is not just bad but leads to anarchy. Luckily the USA is not a democracy, in fact we don't vote for our own president (which everyone already knows). Democracy is nothing more than mob rule. The guy with the biggest group wins. So in stead we have a mixed regime - a part rebublic, part monarchy (yes, monarchy - the president has the last say on many matters), and representative government.

 

I think that Europe will eventually become one union. That will be tough especially because of the many religions, which have been the basis of a large majority of wars.

 

Finally saw the Mylene video "souven tour de jour" or w/e

Rock on

[Mireille]

I think that Europe will eventually become one union. That will be tough especially because of the many religions, which have been the basis of a large majority of wars. 

 

175293[/snapback]

 

Religious wars ended in 1648. Noone cares about religions anymore. Or at least, most people don't.

[salun]

Religious wars ended in 1648. Noone cares about religions anymore. Or at least, most people don't. 

175493[/snapback]

 

Sorry, but that's not true - the whole balkan-war was based on religion and most of the other armed conflicts around the world has their ground in religions as well.

So even though a lot of people - mostly young people - don't take religion that seriously, it's still a problem.

 

I vote for a complete division of religion and politics - for a safer world

but that's just my opinion - and I won't even start spilling my theories on religion here, as I don't see them as part of this subject.

[Mireille]

Sorry, but that's not true - the whole balkan-war was based on religion and most of the other armed conflicts around the world has their ground in religions as well.

 

 

No, they were based on national and ethinc divisions (with some economic aspects). Serbs were killing Croats not because they were Catholic, but because they were Croats. On the same basis, the reason why Croats killed Serbs wasn't religion itself. Also, the problem with Bosnians is not that they were Muslim, but because they were Bosnians (oh well, almost all Bosnians are Muslims anyway). Religion MAY be a part of national and ethnic identity, but is not all of it.

 

And as for other wars - religion is just bullsmeg to make people believe that the cause is just (just to remind Bush's speeches on his "crusade" against terrorism), a vast majority of wars have political and economic background. The grass on the other side of the fence always seens more green.

Edited July 1, 2005 by Mireille

[salun]

True. Your right on that - I leave the scene to those wiser on this than myself

 

You're especially right on the religion = bullsmeg part. If anybody have any more doubts on that considder watching Kingdom of Heaven (What was Jerusalem worth??)

But again - I'm moving in to an area wher I already said I wouldn't go - that of religions, and my thoughts on them (please! someone make a topic for this so I can just let go )