NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't think there's been an actual vote by NSers on the matter yet; if there has been, I apologise. In any case, since the debate is gradually taking hold of NS General, I thought it would be interesting to see how everyone plans to vote - or would vote, if they could. Feel free to explain your reasons.

(You're an EU inhabitant not able to vote, obviously, if you're too young or if your country is not organising a referendum).

I'm voting against it.

I'd vote against it, if Germany did a referendum. But our politicians suck, fat arrogant assholes, so we don't get to vote on this piece of crap and throw it out :mad:

Europe does not want to integrate further with each other, the people want accountable national governments who are directly elected by the citizens of that State. The EU parliament does not act in the interests of indivdual nations and so there there will be no benefit overall, just a vast amount more beurocracy. Ultimately, the EU will lead to a United States of Europe, all our National identities will be humiliated as we become the lapdogs of European federalists.

Don't let the ruling elite rule Britannia or Europe, vote no.

My country are too stuck up to join the EU.
Fuck the UK.

Europe does not want to integrate further with each other, the people want accountable national governments who are directly elected by the citizens of that State. The EU parliament does not act in the interests of indivdual nations and so there there will be no benefit overall, just a vast amount more beurocracy. Ultimately, the EU will lead to a United States of Europe, all our National identities will be humiliated as we become the lapdogs of European federalists.

Don't let the ruling elite rule Britannia or Europe, vote no.

What is this great national identity thing that is so important to hold onto? so unique that we cant be one? This one is confusing me!!!

my country (Norway) has stongly opposed even joining the EU twice. theres no way i or my countrymen would vote for this constitution.

My country are too stuck up to join the EU.
Fuck the UK.

thats a bit harsh!!!

Europe does not want to integrate further with each other, the people want accountable national governments who are directly elected by the citizens of that State. The EU parliament does not act in the interests of indivdual nations and so there there will be no benefit overall, just a vast amount more beurocracy. Ultimately, the EU will lead to a United States of Europe, all our National identities will be humiliated as we become the lapdogs of European federalists.

Don't let the ruling elite rule Britannia or Europe, vote no.
i want a Federal Europe. i want further integration. i don't care about national sovereignty. i don't care about "tradition". i see integration as a long term plan - the greatest benefit will come some years down the line.

i'm going to vote yes.


i don't see what the big deal is. we went through the constitution in one of our European Integration tutorials and all it is is an amalgamation of existing treaties into a single document - little changes, and it will cut down on the beurocracy. whats the big deal?

whats the big deal?

Not everyone would like to be part of a European superstate, and the "constitution" is just one more step in that direction. It needs to be nipped in the bud.

As a citizen of Sweden, I don't want anybody else than a Swede to have control over us, especially not anyone from the new members, who have shown themselves to be backwards social-conservatives with a religious agenda to peddle.

The only good thing I see about the constitution is that it would grant member nations cessation rights (something they probably already have, but not officially). My simple motto about this is: Sweden out of the EU.

Not everyone would like to be part of a European superstate, and the "constitution" is just one more step in that direction. It needs to be nipped in the bud.

As a citizen of Sweden, I don't want anybody else than a Swede to have control over us, especially not anyone from the new members, who have shown themselves to be backwards social-conservatives with a religious agenda to peddle.

The only good things I see about the constitution is that it would grant member nations cessation rights (something they probably already have, but not officially). My simple motto about this is: Sweden out of the EU.
but the constitution does not integrate Europe any further, it basically just consolidates what already exists as seperate treaties into one, making what we already have more efficient.

i know its not 100% on topic, but what is your distain for the EU based on?

but the constitution does not integrate Europe any further, it basically just consolidates what already exists as seperate treaties into one, making what we already have more efficient.

i know its not 100% on topic, but what is your distain for the EU based on?

I agree and the sooner we can break down barriers and walls and fences between peoples of different backgrounds the better, the sooner we have a wider understanding and acceptance of each other...

I agree and the sooner we can break down barriers and walls and fences between peoples of different backgrounds the better, the sooner we have a wider understanding and acceptance of each other...
that's the attitude i'm talking about! :)

I read lots of people complaining that the EU will take away your sovereignty, give you more bureocracy, etc..

Well, those are reasons to vote YES. You see, none of the European countries, alone, stands for nothing. Even the largest, alone, are nothing, powerless in front of the big 21th century powers, the USA, China, India.. if we do not want to fall into political irrelevance, we must unite, so that our voice can be heard. There is no other solution. Unless you want to be political slaves of the USA, offcourse. This constitutional treaty gives provisions for that. It makes sure that our voice will be listened. Remember, like shown in the Iraq war, Europe's divisions are our prime weakness

About the bureocracy.. well, the entire corps of Bureocrats of the EU stands on..30000 souls. Not that many bureocrats. And the Text of this treaty is basically a condensation of all previous treaties, not only it doesnt bring much new, but its actually simpler to operate the EU with it.

I, as a EU-citizen, am voting for :)

but the constitution does not integrate Europe any further, it basically just consolidates what already exists as seperate treaties into one, making what we already have more efficient.

Poppycock, and you know it. The only way you could claim that is if you haven't read it.

Nevertheless, you're making a point against the constitution by claiming that it is what we already have - in that respect, it is not needed. No, the constitution is all about building an expansive, federal Europe.

i know its not 100% on topic, but what is your distain for the EU based on?

You mean apart from the fact that it is an elitist, corrupt and unelected politburo that for some unknown reason is given influence over the lives of hundereds of millions of people?

You mean apart from the fact that it is an elitist, corrupt and unelected politburo that for some unknown reason is given influence over the lives of hundereds of millions of people?

The parliament is directly elected.

The members of the Council of ministers are directly elected (Hell, they are our ministers).

True, the members of the Comission are not elected.. but then again, you don't elect your finance minister, do you? You elect representatives to a parliament, that then gives its support to a goverment. Same thing in the EU.

The parliament is directly elected.

And its powers are laughable when contrasted to those of a real parliament. It is one of the weakest institutions in the EU - a simple show for the galleries.

The members of the Council of ministers are directly elected (Hell, they are our ministers).

"but then again, you don't elect your finance minister, do you?"

Do you even read what you write? The council of ministers is not directly elected - it isn't elected at all. And it meets behind closed doors. The lack of transparency, for a Scandinavian like me, is sickening.

True, the members of the Comission are not elected.. but then again, you don't elect your finance minister, do you? You elect representatives to a parliament, that then gives its support to a goverment. Same thing in the EU.

The commission is in no way depandant on the support of parliament - the only thing the parliament can do is vote for no confidence. The EU does not practice parliamentarianism, so your allusion that it does is flawed.

Also, it is interesting to note that you don't even try to combat the claim of corruption, because the EU is wrought with it.

I think it's the point where Britain has to say Yes or NO to the EU as a whole. Our consititution isn't codified, and we like it that way. It's efficient, evolves in line with public opinion and isn't riddled with contradiction like many written constitutions are. The EU constitution will go down like a duck with no wings here, and in eastern europe and scandinivia as well...maybe even in France by the looks of things.

It's a lost cause as far as I'm concerned, and I don't even agree that it's a very good constitution either.

Poppycock, and you know it. The only way you could claim that is if you haven't read it.

Nevertheless, you're making a point against the constitution by claiming that it is what we already have - in that respect, it is not needed. No, the constitution is all about building an expansive, federal Europe.

the constitution will reduce bureaucracy and make the EU more efficient. this is the intended purpose - not necessarily further integration, and not necessarily a Federal Europe; those decisions will be taken as and when we come to them.
and no, i have not read through the whole constitution myself, but as i have already said, i went through it (the important bits) with my European Integration tutor in a seminar a couple of months back. plus i have done a little bit of my own research into the constitution for those same tutorials.

You mean apart from the fact that it is an elitist, corrupt and unelected politburo that for some unknown reason is given influence over the lives of hundereds of millions of people?
i know the EU has its problems but that's no reason to turn one's back on the idea completely. the 'unknown reason' is because that is better than the alternative - the EU has seen in the longest period of peace ever in Europe's long and violent history, for a start - and what is the possible alternative to that? secondly, economic collusion is, empirically, a good thing. thridly, "united we stand, divided we fall" - as has already been pointed out, the only way to compete with the US and the emerging (economic) superpowers of China and India is to unite our comparatively small economies into a larger, stronger European economy.

the constitution will reduce bureaucracy and make the EU more efficient. this is the intended purpose - not necessarily further integration, and not necessarily a Federal Europe; those decisions will be taken as and when we come to them.
and no, i have not read through the whole constitution myself, but as i have already said, i went through it (the important bits) with my European Integration tutor in a seminar a couple of months back. plus i have done a little bit of my own research into the constitution for those same tutorials.

And yet you miss the creation of a presidential mandate and one for foreign ministry, along with a compulsory duty to help other members if they are attacked, and not to mention the creation of a European military force.

Methinks you need to read what you support before you support it. Anything else would be sheer ignorence.


i know the EU has its problems but that's no reason to turn one's back on the idea completely.

Not the only reason; it's just one of the many, many reasons as to why the EU is not something that needs to be persued.

the 'unknown reason' is because that is better than the alternative - the EU has seen in the longest period of peace ever in Europe's long and violent history, for a start - and what is the possible alternative to that?

Peace, without the EU. The EU is not the reason Western Europe has had peace (Eastern Europe has not had peace). WWII and the cold war are why Western Europe has had peace, and why Eastern Europe hasn't.

secondly, economic collusion is, empirically, a good thing.

Then, why is the EU trying to be more than an economic collaboration? Why does it have to be more?

thridly, "united we stand, divided we fall" - as has already been pointed out, the only way to compete with the US and the emerging (economic) superpowers of China and India is to unite our comparatively small economies into a larger, stronger European economy.

We can compete with them on an economic level through an economic collaboration. Which does not explain why the EU has become a political organisation.

It seems as though some people want a federal Europe because they want more say in international politics - want Europe to become a superpower on its own, again. Why is that such a coveted position? We've been there, done that, and it got us two world wars. We see the US and the other ones and we see what sorts of messes they are getting from it. Europe, and some Europeans, need to start learning from history - being a superpower is not all it's cracked up to be.

Economic collaboration, fine, that might very well be necessary. But why should we make the EU into a federation of states, with political power over us, especially as it is so undemocratic already?

And its powers are laughable when contrasted to those of a real parliament. It is one of the weakest institutions in the EU - a simple show for the galleries.

It can veto any appointment of the European Comission (and as done so in the past).
It can dismiss the Comission.
It can still not make laws on its own, but it can make laws in conjunction with the European council..
The European Parliament also enjoys important powers over the EU budget, based on its ability to decide the final balance of spending priorities other than CAP. The Parliament and Council together constitute the EU's joint budgetary authority. Through the "assent procedure", moreover, the European Parliament has the power to approve or reject, by simple or absolute majority, all trade, co-operation, association or membership agreements concluded between the EU and third countries.

Yes, it still lacks some of the powers of a real parliament, but this constitutional treaty that you seem to loathe, increases such powers. But you don't seem pleased.



"but then again, you don't elect your finance minister, do you?"

Do you even read what you write? The council of ministers is not directly elected - it isn't elected at all. And it meets behind closed doors. The lack of transparency, for a Scandinavian like me, is sickening.


The council of ministers is composed of the ministers of our goverments. We elect our goverments, therefore giving legitimacy to that supra national organ (The words supra national here are important).
And that organ is quite transparent, you can find the conclusions of every meeting they ever had here (http://ue.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=549&lang=en&mode=g)





The commission is in no way depandant on the support of parliament - the only thing the parliament can do is vote for no confidence. The EU does not practice parliamentarianism, so your allusion that it does is flawed.

Absolutely wrong. Read above.



Also, it is interesting to note that you don't even try to combat the claim of corruption, because the EU is wrought with it.

Actually, I didnt bother to combat it. But if you insist.. the last time accusations of corruption in the EU were made, the Santer comission fell. Assuming that those were true (And most likely were), then the cancer was extricated from the system. Further corruption (and you don't have many stories of it recently) will surely be detected and fought. Do you have news of corruption in the EU lately?

And yet you miss the creation of a presidential mandate and one for foreign ministry, along with a compulsory duty to help other members if they are attacked, and not to mention the creation of a European military force.

Methinks you need to read what you support before you support it. Anything else would be sheer ignorence.

Everything true. But it is you that should read more. Everything that you pointed out had been predicted in the 1999 Amsterdam treaty. This constitutional treaty merely refers it again.



Not the only reason; it's just one of the many, many reasons as to why the EU is not something that needs to be persued.

Well.. we can't agree in everything, can we? But remember: Without the EU, take 10% of your GDP and throw it away, that would be the cost of a non-Europe.



Peace, without the EU. The EU is not the reason Western Europe has had peace (Eastern Europe has not had peace). WWII and the cold war are why Western Europe has had peace, and why Eastern Europe hasn't.

You put in the same sentence "Cold war" and "peace".. your reasoning is wrong. Yes, it is true that with the common Enemy that the USSR was made us stay togheter, but the project of the European construction is more than that. It is not only a way to stop tragedies such as the two world wars fought on our continent ever to happen, but also a way to enrich ourselves, and give our nations a chance of political survivability in the 21th century. No matter what you think, the puny Sweeden, or the puny Portugal (my country), or the puny France, can do anything in this world all by themselves.


[QUOTE=Fass]
Then, why is the EU trying to be more than an economic collaboration? Why does it have to be more?

Things are connected: In order to fully connect an economy, you need to connect your legislations, your fiscal policies, etc. But there are things that you can gain by collaborating. Defence, for example: With one single European Army, you could have a stronger defence, for less money, leaving more resources for things that really matter, such as welfare, and stuff like that.




We can compete with them on an economic level through an economic collaboration. Which does not explain why the EU has become a political organisation.

For this.. ill give you an example: In the nineties, Airbus made a contract to sell planes to the Saudis. Hearing this, Clinton interfered on behalf of Boeing, remebering the Saudi's who protected their asses. Result: Airbus lost its contract to boeing. Again, things are connected. You cannot have economical strenght if you don't have the political strenght to defend your economy.



It seems as though some people want a federal Europe because they want more say in international politics - want Europe to become a superpower on its own, again. Why is that such a coveted position? We've been there, done that, and it got us two world wars. We see the US and the other ones and we see what sorts of messes they are getting from it. Europe, and some Europeans, need to start learning from history - being a superpower is not all it's cracked up to be.

Yes, more say in the international politics would be nice, but not to be a superpower in the sence that the USA is, for example. But we need to be stronger in order to defence our economy, our way of living, our liberty. Alone, we are too weak.



Economic collaboration, fine, that might very well be necessary. But why should we make the EU into a federation of states, with political power over us, especially as it is so undemocratic already?

Even amongst Europhiles like me :p there is disagreement about the ways we should unite. I defend a Europe of Regions, were the power of each nation is shattered not upwards to Brussels, but downwards to the individual regions of each nation of Europe. But that can only happen if you integrate not only your economy, but also public goods such as defence, foreing policy, and so on.

What people don't seem to realise is that the Constitution proposes very little: it just summarises other EU laws and precedents into one document.

It can veto any appointment of the European Comission (and as done so in the past).
It can dismiss the Comission.

That is inadequate. As you said, and as I wrote, all it can do is topple the entire commission. It cannot move for removing single commissioners, and its supervisory duties are pitiful, at best.

It can still not make laws on its own, but it can make laws in conjunction with the European council..

Hah, here it comes, the glossing over the fact that it is a "parliament" with no real judicial powers. Pathetic that the only democratic institution in the EU is so weak.

The European Parliament also enjoys important powers over the EU budget, based on its ability to decide the final balance of spending priorities other than CAP. The Parliament and Council together constitute the EU's joint budgetary authority. Through the "assent procedure", moreover, the European Parliament has the power to approve or reject, by simple or absolute majority, all trade, co-operation, association or membership agreements concluded between the EU and third countries.

Even more of a display of the inadquacies it enjoys as a "parliament". As I've said, for a "democratic" institution, it has no teeth.

Yes, it still lacks some of the powers of a real parliament, but this constitutional treaty that you seem to loathe, increases such powers. But you don't seem pleased.

Some? Say most, especially of those that actually make parliaments parliaments.

The council of ministers is composed of the ministers of our goverments. We elect our goverments, therefore giving legitimacy to that supra national organ (The words supra national here are important).
And that organ is quite transparent, you can find the conclusions of every meeting they ever had here (http://ue.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=549&lang=en&mode=g)

As you wrote yourself: We do not elect those who are part of the most important of the EU institution. Thus it is not elected, and is completely out of touch by either the commission or the "parliament". It is an undemocratic politburo.

And I would like you to find records of how the ministers voted. You'll see that those are secret, and that anything it wishes, the council can make secret.

Absolutely wrong. Read above.

I do believe you are the one who needs to start reading, not just what I write, but what you write yourself.

Actually, I didnt bother to combat it. But if you insist.. the last time accusations of corruption in the EU were made, the Santer comission fell. Assuming that those were true (And most likely were), then the cancer was extricated from the system.

Haha. That is the most naive, self-delusional thing I've heard today.

Further corruption (and you don't have many stories of it recently) will surely be detected and fought. Do you have news of corruption in the EU lately?

http://www.ipsnews.net/new_nota.asp?idnews=28315
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3027212.stm
http://www.spectrezine.org/europe/Meijer2.htm
http://www.transparency.org/working_papers/country/brussels_memorandum.html

And yet you miss the creation of a presidential mandate and one for foreign ministry, along with a compulsory duty to help other members if they are attacked, and not to mention the creation of a European military force.

Methinks you need to read what you support before you support it. Anything else would be sheer ignorence.


well i have obviously heard that the ideas of an EU President, collective foreign policy and EDF are on the table, but thought they were being discussed in seperate IGCs, and were not included in the constitution. i could be wrong, but either way, i support those ideas as it is - hence i still support the constitution.


Peace, without the EU. The EU is not the reason Western Europe has had peace (Eastern Europe has not had peace). WWII and the cold war are why Western Europe has had peace, and why Eastern Europe hasn't.

i disagree. the EU was partly formed as part of America's plans to counteract communism, and they only gave us help in the form of Marshall Aid if European nations cooperated and unified. had it not been for the EU, had we rejected the EU, it is quite concievable that US aid would have been less forthcoming, our economic recovery more slow, and our economic problems throughout the rest of the 20th century compounded. destabalisation and current EU nations retaining a nationalistic interest (as opposed to a Euro-centric focus, as exemplified by West Germany prior to reunification) after the War would have been more likely to lead to war, imho.


Then, why is the EU trying to be more than an economic collaboration? Why does it have to be more?

political union, preferably to form a Federal state, will, in the long term, be beneficial for Europe (imho). remember that i'm not too fussed about national sovereignty and will happily give it up to something i think will benefit both/either my country and/or other member states. plus, i don't give a fuck about tradition - it gets in the way of progress, imo. scrap the pound and lets have the Euro.


We can compete with them on an economic level through an economic collaboration. Which does not explain why the EU has become a political organisation.
ok, i'm confused. you want economic cooperation, which the EU delivers, and then some, but don't want the EU in any shape or form? ok, so what do you propose we have instead?

It seems as though some people want a federal Europe because they want more say in international politics - want Europe to become a superpower on its own, again. Why is that such a coveted position? We've been there, done that, and it got us two world wars. We see the US and the other ones and we see what sorts of messes they are getting from it. Europe, and some Europeans, need to start learning from history - being a superpower is not all it's cracked up to be.
Europe, by its very nature, is a more multilateral actor than the USA is, and has proven this time and time again - Kosovo for example. not only does this multilateralism cause fewer problems, but is a more effective, long term way of sorting out international incidents - we give reigimes, which the Americans would just love to invade & kick out, the opportunity to change their ways, to fall in line. why? the carrot and the stick. we give defiant nations (on our borders) the chance to join the EU and enjoy all the benefits therein if they comply - the carrot - while the Americans go in (by themselves) with all guns blazing - the stick.

Economic collaboration, fine, that might very well be necessary. But why should we make the EU into a federation of states, with political power over us, especially as it is so undemocratic already?
first, this is not what the constitution is about.
second, i believe it will benefit us all in the long term. in the short term there will be problems, but we must hold fast and keep on the path of a Federal Europe. just look at the USA - a bunch of indipendent states brought together under a Federal government. worked for them didn't it?

Everything true. But it is you that should read more. Everything that you pointed out had been predicted in the 1999 Amsterdam treaty. This constitutional treaty merely refers it again.

Actually, no. Had the Amsterdam treaty, which is from 1997 by the by, heralded those things, we would have had them now, as it entered into force in 1999. It didn't, and we don't have them.

Well.. we can't agree in everything, can we? But remember: Without the EU, take 10% of your GDP and throw it away, that would be the cost of a non-Europe.

Yeah, sure.


You put in the same sentence "Cold war" and "peace".. your reasoning is wrong.

No, it isn't. The cold war meant peace in western Europe.

Yes, it is true that with the common Enemy that the USSR was made us stay togheter, but the project of the European construction is more than that. It is not only a way to stop tragedies such as the two world wars fought on our continent ever to happen, but also a way to enrich ourselves, and give our nations a chance of political survivability in the 21th century. No matter what you think, the puny Sweeden, or the puny Portugal (my country), or the puny France, can do anything in this world all by themselves.

A bunch of naive rhetoric which can only apply to you southerners. Sweden doesn't need more say on an international level - what matters to us is our own business, and that we tend to it ouselves. The breach of neutrality that is the EU is a regrettable part of our nation's history, and one that needs to be brought to a halt. There are other ways of collaborating economically - the Scandiniavian countries managed to do that a long time before Finland, Denmark and Sweden joined the EU, and we continue to be able to do it with non-EU members, and seperately from the euro-zone, which, unsurprisingly, can be but envious of our economic growth and unemployment figures.

For an economic collaboration, the EU is a failure. For a political organisation, the EU is dangerous and needs to be curtailed.

Things are connected: In order to fully connect an economy, you need to connect your legislations, your fiscal policies, etc.

That is too high a price to pay to be in such a failed experiment.

But there are things that you can gain by collaborating. Defence, for example: With one single European Army, you could have a stronger defence, for less money, leaving more resources for things that really matter, such as welfare, and stuff like that.

We like our military neutrality, thank you very much, and people here see no need to give Poles or Portuguese power over our foreign affaires.

For this.. ill give you an example: In the nineties, Airbus made a contract to sell planes to the Saudis. Hearing this, Clinton interfered on behalf of Boeing, remebering the Saudi's who protected their asses. Result: Airbus lost its contract to boeing. Again, things are connected. You cannot have economical strenght if you don't have the political strenght to defend your economy.

Economic strenght in the WTO is what matters in cases like these. That can be had far cheaper than the cost of national soveriegnty, no matter how wet your pants might get at the thought of some United States of Europe.

Yes, more say in the international politics would be nice, but not to be a superpower in the sence that the USA is, for example. But we need to be stronger in order to defence our economy, our way of living, our liberty. Alone, we are too weak.

"Our way of life." Your country and mine share very little of that, and we face no real threat to our liberty that would warrant an EU military.

Even amongst Europhiles like me :p there is disagreement about the ways we should unite. I defend a Europe of Regions, were the power of each nation is shattered not upwards to Brussels, but downwards to the individual regions of each nation of Europe. But that can only happen if you integrate not only your economy, but also public goods such as defence, foreing policy, and so on.

That is undesirable price to pay, and an undesirable condition to live with, especially as it means having to listen to what the socially conservative and inferiour countries of southern Europe think about our ways of doing things.

That is inadequate. As you said, and as I wrote, all it can do is topple the entire commission. It cannot move for removing single commissioners, and its supervisory duties are pitiful, at best.


I never understood that toppling an entire commission was pitiful. I mean, the power to bring it all down, pitiful! I am in shock.



Hah, here it comes, the glossing over the fact that it is a "parliament" with no real judicial powers. Pathetic that the only democratic institution in the EU is so weak.

A parliament with Judicial powers? A parliament has only legislative powers. And you constantly forget that there is a principle that states that decisions must be made in a spirit of co-decision. It is because individual states have sovereignty, that the parliament must consult, and work with the Council of ministers, to make laws.



Even more of a display of the inadquacies it enjoys as a "parliament". As I've said, for a "democratic" institution, it has no teeth.

What do you wanted? Power to declare wars or something like that?


[QUOTE=Fass]
Some? Say most, especially of those that actually make parliaments parliaments.

Are you sad that it doesnt have more powers? But don't you want less powers to the EU?





As you wrote yourself: We do not elect those who are part of the most important of the EU institution. Thus it is not elected, and is completely out of touch by either the commission or the "parliament". It is an undemocratic politburo.

What is the prime minister of Sweden? Did you not elected him? He is a member of the Council.



And I would like you to find records of how the ministers voted. You'll see that those are secret, and that anything it wishes, the council can make secret.

They can choose not to make their votes public, but their conclusions have to me (and are made) public, that is what matters.



I do believe you are the one who needs to start reading, not just what I write, but what you write yourself.

I grant that I may not make my point get across well, but trust me, I have read enough.



Haha. That is the most naive, self-delusional thing I've heard today.

You should consider that it is your bitterness that blinds you.



http://www.ipsnews.net/new_nota.asp?idnews=28315
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3027212.stm
http://www.spectrezine.org/europe/Meijer2.htm
http://www.transparency.org/working_papers/country/brussels_memorandum.html

Good. Foulplay that has been detected. And as the past experience as shown, this will also be fought.

well i have obviously heard that the ideas of an EU President, collective foreign policy and EDF are on the table, but thought they were being discussed in seperate IGCs, and were not included in the constitution. i could be wrong, but either way, i support those ideas as it is - hence i still support the constitution.

Wow, you really need to read it. And a lot of people in Europe do not like the thought of a president or foreign minister to a Europe skipping on its way down to federacy.

i disagree. the EU was partly formed as part of America's plans to counteract communism, and they only gave us help in the form of Marshall Aid if European nations cooperated and unified. had it not been for the EU, had we rejected the EU, it is quite concievable that US aid would have been less forthcoming, our economic recovery more slow, and our economic problems throughout the rest of the 20th century compounded. destabalisation and current EU nations retaining a nationalistic interest (as opposed to a Euro-centric focus, as exemplified by West Germany prior to reunification) after the War would have been more likely to lead to war, imho.

Wow, way to omit all the countries who did very well, even better, without the EU than with it, and who continue to outperform its euro-circle.

political union, preferably to form a Federal state, will, in the long term, be beneficial for Europe (imho). remember that i'm not too fussed about national sovereignty and will happily give it up to something i think will benefit both/either my country and/or other member states. plus, i don't give a fuck about tradition - it gets in the way of progress, imo. scrap the pound and lets have the Euro.

Yes, shoot yourself in the leg.


ok, i'm confused. you want economic cooperation, which the EU delivers, and then some, but don't want the EU in any shape or form? ok, so what do you propose we have instead?

Economic cooperation. Simply, and exclusivelly. I don't need any Portuguese or Pole or even Brit to try to dictate to me what my interal or foreign policy should be.

Europe, by its very nature, is a more multilateral actor than the USA is, and has proven this time and time again - Kosovo for example. not only does this multilateralism cause fewer problems, but is a more effective, long term way of sorting out international incidents - we give reigimes, which the Americans would just love to invade & kick out, the opportunity to change their ways, to fall in line. why? the carrot and the stick. we give defiant nations (on our borders) the chance to join the EU and enjoy all the benefits therein if they comply - the carrot - while the Americans go in (by themselves) with all guns blazing - the stick.

Ah, here it comes. "We are better than the US, but we are so envious of its position. We deserve it more! Waah!"

first, this is not what the constitution is about.

That's all it is about. Why, it's even called a "contitution" - only countries have those, and guess what the EU and folks like you want it to be?

second, i believe it will benefit us all in the long term. in the short term there will be problems, but we must hold fast and keep on the path of a Federal Europe. just look at the USA - a bunch of indipendent states brought together under a Federal government. worked for them didn't it?

We are not the US, and we should not emulate them.

i disagree. the EU was partly formed as part of America's plans to counteract communism, and they only gave us help in the form of Marshall Aid if European nations cooperated and unified. had it not been for the EU, had we rejected the EU, it is quite concievable that US aid would have been less forthcoming, our economic recovery more slow, and our economic problems throughout the rest of the 20th century compounded. destabalisation and current EU nations retaining a nationalistic interest (as opposed to a Euro-centric focus, as exemplified by West Germany prior to reunification) after the War would have been more likely to lead to war, imho.

Wasn't the EU formed from the expansion of the trade deals between Germany and France in the late 60's, early 70's after the Marshall plan had finished.

Personally I believe that the further intergration in Europe would be benifical to everyone in the EU a nd currently it is a greater economic power then the US. However I don't believe that bringing the Euro to Britain at the moment is a good idea because our economy is not enough like the continents, and would cause economic instability in this country.

I never understood that toppling an entire commission was pitiful. I mean, the power to bring it all down, pitiful! I am in shock.

Yes, it is pitiful, because then it can't be used in a directed manner. The situation has to escalate to become unbearable before the parliament can take action, instead of just removing those who need to be removed. You know, like a real parliament.

A parliament with Judicial powers? A parliament has only legislative powers.

Damn my Swenglish. The Swedish word for "legislative" is a false friend to the english "judicial".

And you constantly forget that there is a principle that states that decisions must be made in a spirit of co-decision. It is because individual states have sovereignty, that the parliament must consult, and work with the Council of ministers, to make laws.

But the council can make them themselves. It is clear who is the weaker party.


What do you wanted? Power to declare wars or something like that?

No, but I do want for the democratic insitution to be the most powerful one, and not as it is today, the weakest.

Are you sad that it doesnt have more powers? But don't you want less powers to the EU?

I am arguing against the undemocratic status of the EU. The lack of power over EU policy that the parliament has is a big part of it. It doesn't mean I want the EU to have more power - I want the parliament to have more power in the EU.

But, most of all, I want Sweden to leave the EU.

What is the prime minister of Sweden? Did you not elected him? He is a member of the Council.

He is Göran Persson, and, no, I did not elect him. And he is not the only member - all ministers are, and I didn't elect them either.

They can choose not to make their votes public, but their conclusions have to me (and are made) public, that is what matters.

No wonder. You're used to the secrecy and lack of transparency that is so endemic to southern nations.

You should consider that it is your bitterness that blinds you.

Refrain from ad hominems.

Good. Foulplay that has been detected. And as the past experience as shown, this will also be fought.

What a silly circular argument. "Corruption is not a problem, as we seem to have caught it once. Forget that it is something that keeps happening over and over again, and the the EU is constantly criticised by NGO's for its lack of oversight and its towering shadow of corruption that continiues to go undetected, expecially in the poorer nations like Portugal, Greece, the Baltics and Eastern Europe..."

Actually, no. Had the Amsterdam treaty, which is from 1997 by the by, heralded those things, we would have had them now, as it entered into force in 1999. It didn't, and we don't have them.

Here. (http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/cfsp/intro/)

I'd go dig the Amsterdam treaty text, but i'm lazy. We don't have those things due to lack of political will and money, nothing else. And I was wrong, these things were heralded in the Maastricht treaty... long before.



Yeah, sure.


Yes (http://pacific.commerce.ubc.ca/keith/Papers/eu.pdf) , you can be sure of it.




No, it isn't. The cold war meant peace in western Europe.


A rotten peace.


A bunch of naive rhetoric which can only apply to you southerners. Sweden doesn't need more say on an international level - what matters to us is our own business, and that we tend to it ouselves. The breach of neutrality that is the EU is a regrettable part of our nation's history, and one that needs to be brought to a halt. There are other ways of collaborating economically - the Scandiniavian countries managed to do that a long time before Finland, Denmark and Sweden joined the EU, and we continue to be able to do it with non-EU members, and seperately from the euro-zone, which, unsurprisingly, can be but envious of our economic growth and unemployment figures.


What your country thinks of its neutrality is its own business. Still, the Euro Zone is extremely diverse. Ireland is growing 5% this year, Spain 3%-4%. Then you have Germany and France :p



For an economic collaboration, the EU is a failure. For a political organisation, the EU is dangerous and needs to be curtailed.


Every number makes you wrong on this one..





That is too high a price to pay to be in such a failed experiment.

Nope. Sucessful Experiment.



We like our military neutrality, thank you very much, and people here see no need to give Poles or Portuguese power over our foreign affaires.


Legitimate argument, can't say much about it, just disagree.




"Our way of life." Your country and mine share very little of that, and we face no real threat to our liberty that would warrant an EU military.

Its not a question just of threat, but of cost. A single EU army would be as effective to defend us, but also cheaper, thus leaving more resources to other things.




That is undesirable price to pay, and an undesirable condition to live with, especially as it means having to listen to what the socially conservative and inferiour countries of southern Europe think about our ways of doing things.

Ahhh, the polished, Educated, socially minded Swedish puts is claws out! Well, i may be a "socially conservative inferior southerner", but it is not I that am making the racist comment.
You know what? Perhaps you are right. Get out of the EU. I don't want to be in the same Union than a bunch of bigoted racists.

Wasn't the EU formed from the expansion of the trade deals between Germany and France in the late 60's, early 70's after the Marshall plan had finished.

Personally I believe that the further intergration in Europe would be benifical to everyone in the EU a nd currently it is a greater economic power then the US. However I don't believe that bringing the Euro to Britain at the moment is a good idea because our economy is not enough like the continents, and would cause economic instability in this country.
the EEC and, concequently, the EU were built on the same institutions established under the Marshall Plan. so the link is indirect, but strong.



Wow, you really need to read it. And a lot of people in Europe do not like the thought of a president or foreign minister to a Europe skipping on its way down to federacy.
i do need to read it. but i am one of the people who want Federacy, hence i support the constitution (whether it is a stepping stone on the way to Federacy or not)


Wow, way to omit all the countries who did very well, even better, without the EU than with it, and who continue to outperform its euro-circle.
evidence? data?


Economic cooperation. Simply, and exclusivelly. I don't need any Portuguese or Pole or even Brit to try to dictate to me what my interal or foreign policy should be.
it boils down to this. you are evidently proud of your nation and see distinct differences between nations & their people. me, i dislike my country immensley, don't care about our national sovereignty (something which you obviously do) and would like to see the UK move more towards the socialised models, incliding many social & political aspects, of our continental counterparts - further integration with the EU is a good way of achieving this.


Ah, here it comes. "We are better than the US, but we are so envious of its position. We deserve it more! Waah!"
multilateralism is better than the US' unilateralism.


That's all it is about. Why, it's even called a "contitution" - only countries have those, and guess what the EU and folks like you want it to be?
there is nothing radically new (to the best of my knowledge), only existing (and already legally binding) treaties. you are reacting to the name, not the content.


We are not the US, and we should not emulate them.
we should emulate a system which obviously works, we can improve on, and which has clearly been hugely beneficial to those states in the system.

@Owweeee: The EU was more or less and over a couple of steps the follower of a economic cooperation between Germany and France concerning coal and steal. The Marshall Plan has, if anything, little to do with it.

Concerning the suspicions concerning a European army: joint european fighting forces already exist and have been on duty for quite a while.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurocorps.htm

To the question of the effectivness of the european parliament:
Well, why does it have relatively few democratic "rights"? Obviously because at the time of its creation, and also today, the european nations were not willing to give away parts of their national sovereignty. Which is perfectly understandable as nobody likes to give away rights to make decisions on your own.


In the end I agree with those that do not want the EU to become a mirror of the United States. But i do not see that danger, since Europes democratic traditions are a lot deeper then those of the US. After all, we (with wich i refer to Europeans) created the ideas on which their nation was once founded. I am optimistic that Europe will find an own way to become a democratic whole.

As you can see I am a person who is for further European integration. Nationalism was too often the cause for sorrow, mistrust and grief. If Europe wants to continue playing an important role in the world in the future it needs to become united. No single european nation can stand tall in the world, we're just all way too small on our one to leave a big mark. And I for my part are too worried to put the faith of our world into the hands of american corporations or chinese militrais dictatoric parties alone. There has to be a strong united Europe or it will be a big loss for all of us.

Also a further uniting of Europe wouldn't necessarily mean a loss of identites. I would rather think that the traditional would be able to exist right next to something new that ill be created by the unification of all those different sights and (national) personalitites that make up what we call Europe.

Have the people ever been asked if they want closer integration? No, when the UK signed up to the EC we were told it was an economic alliance........and for years the public payed no mind to it. Then almost over night, it became illegal to trade in Imperial measures, a system which many Brits never used. Then we find that 70% of our laws are made in Brussels.
The EU is undemocratic and corrupt, and the only way to make it more democratic is to form it into a super state. As A Brit, I find this offensive in the Extreme. Being Welsh, I in many ways oppose being governed from London, yet if Wales gains independance, our idiot leaders would sign us up to the EU, and move power to Brussels.
Do you think I would allow that? We have been governed from a foriegn Capital for almost a 1000 years, and when we gain freedom, we get governed from elswhere again!!

Supporters of closer integration are fools, Europeans have too much history to be peacfully integrated at this level.....The French already attack us, because their much loved EU is being 'subverted' by 'Anglo-Saxon' ideals. Then you have Chirac and Schroader going on about being a counter weight to America(US)......Where have we heard that sort of idea? I believe it was the Soviet Union!!

Europe would be strong if it reveted back to the original economic plan, and opened up it's markets...only then would it be competative with China/India.
People fear the return of nationalism and fascism so much that they would accept an equally devious and evil system.....the EU is borderline communist, an system which slaughtered endlessly more people than fascism.

I hope for a French 'NON' and then a Dutch no three days later.....then in the UK vote.....No again, a no which will happen during the UK presedency of the EU, a NO which will hopefully finally destroy Blairs credibillity and force him to resign....at which time we should get Gordan Brown. (assuming the tories don't win the election)

Have the people ever been asked if they want closer integration? No, when the UK signed up to the EC we were told it was an economic alliance........and for years the public payed no mind to it. Then almost over night, it became illegal to trade in Imperial measures, a system which many Brits never used. Then we find that 70% of our laws are made in Brussels.
The EU is undemocratic and corrupt, and the only way to make it more democratic is to form it into a super state. As A Brit, I find this offensive in the Extreme. Being Welsh, I in many ways oppose being governed from London, yet if Wales gains independance, our idiot leaders would sign us up to the EU, and move power to Brussels.
Do you think I would allow that? We have been governed from a foriegn Capital for almost a 1000 years, and when we gain freedom, we get governed from elswhere again!!


there will always be somebody else to govern you unless you make all your decisions by yourself without excepting orders from anybody else.That's called anarchy.
Those who prefer one's rule over another just because one person way born in the same area is foolish. the person still thinks differently from you. I mean...come on. Birth is in my oppinion the last thing decisions should be based on.



Supporters of closer integration are fools, Europeans have too much history to be peacfully integrated at this level.....The French already attack us, because their much loved EU is being 'subverted' by 'Anglo-Saxon' ideals. Then you have Chirac and Schroader going on about being a counter weight to America(US)......Where have we heard that sort of idea? I believe it was the Soviet Union!!



So you would prefer if the US are just left to do whatever they think is right? I'm sorry if you don't like that but I could never accept that. To think in regional dimensions when it comes to decisions concerning large parts of the world is a luxury none of us can afford anymore. Not in this globalized world. And not everything the United States do is good. In fact a lot ot the stuff that happened in the last years was bunch of bullshit (sorry for the language). So yes, there is need of a counterweight to America. It is not important if the Soviet Union had the same aim. All that counts is if it is necessary. And that it definitely is.



Europe would be strong if it reveted back to the original economic plan, and opened up it's markets...only then would it be competative with China/India.
People fear the return of nationalism and fascism so much that they would accept an equally devious and evil system.....the EU is borderline communist, an system which slaughtered endlessly more people than fascism.



Communism didn't slaughter anybody. It's a political systme, it could not kill a mosquito. The only thign that slaughtered people were ruthless dictators using teh idea of a communist state as a cover for teir dictatorships. There has never been a real communist nation on the face of this planet. There were some that went to take that road but they all ended up being dictatorships. (which is NOT the same as should be pointed out) Communism is not evil. And I will stan with that until somebody can show me a valid example. And don't come with China, they have turned into a kind-of communist-like dictatorship with capitalist influences long ago.




which will hopefully finally destroy Blairs credibillity and force him to resign....at which time we should get Gordan Brown. (assuming the tories don't win the election)

again...national or regional thinking musn't interfere with a decision that goes far beyond the borders of one's nation. Maybe that's way too radical for some but we will go down in being of no importance at all if we desperatly keep on sticking to our puny little own countrys and our fight for personal power, influence or the illusion that everythign will become better once a Gordan Brown is elected. (or any other politician, i just picked him because you used that name too)

The big deal is what everyone has shown in the debate in the forum, Europe is divided, there is no sensible way of proceding when half of the population detests Europe and other embraces it. The EU constitution does not merely set out regulations that are already in place, it takes further powers from national governments. Who should be accountable therefore? The 70 or so European MPs sitting in a Parliament for each major country of over 600 MEPs? Or should national parliaments be held accountable for their actions? Europe will be a Federal system one day and Liberals and Socialists it seems do not care about the needs of the country, all they care about is pushing their own Socialist agenda.

the EU is borderline communist, an system which slaughtered endlessly more people than fascism.


The EU is nothing of the sort. If it were more socially-oriented, and if the Constitution were not firmly grounding it in a capitalistic identity, then I would be approving the Constitution. Also, there has never been any communist nation. The communist ideal is incompatible with the gross perversion that was Stalin's USSR. I suppose it's conveniant for you to pretend that communism and Stalinism are one and the same thing but, pray do tell, how on earth do you leap to the conclusion that the EU is bordering on Stalin-like mass-murder??


I hope for a French 'NON' and then a Dutch no three days later.....then in the UK vote.....No again, a no which will happen during the UK presedency of the EU, a NO which will hopefully finally destroy Blairs credibillity and force him to resign....at which time we should get Gordan Brown. (assuming the tories don't win the election)

May I remind you that if we in France vote 'no', then the whole thing stops. No-one else will be voting.

I'm undecided. I like the idea of a constitution but not this one.
It will kill social rights but at the same time it is a political progress.

I'm undecided. I like the idea of a constitution but not this one.
It will kill social rights but at the same time it is a political progress.

*nods*

That's exactly the dilemma I went through, and I was hesitant for a while too. I do approve the idea of a Constitution. I eventually decided I'm going to vote 'no'. I can't possibly approve something so damaging to social rights.

I'm undecided. I like the idea of a constitution but not this one.



There won't be a european constitution for a long time if this fails...

Europe is Socalist, not communist.

I'm pro-Europe, but at the moment, I'm anti-consitution. I would like to see further intergration, but not under this consitution.

Cons:

1. Parliament should be more powerful than the commission. To say that this will be sorted out AFTER the consitution is voted in is a mistake. How hard will it be to change the consitution to give the parliament more powers? It needs to be sorted out now.

2. The RRF (EU army). This is both a con and a pro for me. I'm Irish, and as such I hold on to my neutrality as the symbol of our independence (we were neutral in WWII). Also this would mean that we'd be under pressure to pay huge amounts to upgrade our frankly crap army to come into line with the rest of Europe.

3. The anti-nationalism front of the EU (because it's held as the root of all wars and evil) is distrubing because this gives way to a Pan-Europe nationalism that's vague enough to not have the "sting in the tail" lessons of, say, Germany's history, or British and French Imperial systems. There's no "never again" side to Europeanism.

4. The desire to be a "counter-weight" to the US. I actually agree that there needs to be a counter-weight to the US, but I'm worried that it will be pushed too far. Anger at US policy can't be the sole thing that forms the EU.

5. It lays out an economic policiy. A Consitution shouldn't do that, it should be left to the people to change and improve economic policy. This would be hard to change if necessary in the future.

Pro:

1. Economic growth and greater stability in Europe. War between EU nations is unthinkable, and the Eastern EU members are benefitting from the economic pluses - far sooner than they thought, too.

2. An EU army would provide the stability that until now was provided by US troops. The EU is also set to take over operations in Kosovo. It's already controlling the economics of the place - Kosovo has the Euro.

3. A greater international voice. The EU's policies are extremely successful - look at Turkey. It no longer has the death penialty, etc.

4. The EU model is becoming the new political format in the world. It's already adopted by the AU (African Union) which is helping to bring stability to that region, though it is still quite weak, and in South America there is also a customs union, much like the EEC.


All in all, I'm in favour of a more intergrated Europe, but they'll have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better consitution. And improve the democratic deficit as well.

There won't be a european constitution for a long time if this fails...
I agree. Maybe I should vote for and then fight for it to be changed on the street. I believe mass protests and strikes will be organized after that.
This is maybe the only way forward. A constitution is indeed needed if we want to build a real social Europe and this constitution is maybe the only thing we can have for the moment. Maybe we can't have something final at first shot.

3. The anti-nationalism front of the EU (because it's held as the root of all wars and evil) is distrubing because this gives way to a Pan-Europe nationalism that's vague enough to not have the "sting in the tail" lessons of, say, Germany's history, or British and French Imperial systems. There's no "never again" side to Europeanism.

Good point. Having said that, I'm not all that sure there will ever be a European nationalism. Those prone to nationalism are precisely those who will oppose the idea of a European identity transcending the national ones.


4. The desire to be a "counter-weight" to the US. I actually agree that there needs to be a counter-weight to the US, but I'm worried that it will be pushed too far. Anger at US policy can't be the sole thing that forms the EU.


Anger, no. But a firm intent to establish a socio-economical, political, diplomatic, whatever-you-will system which is clearly distinct from that of the US, which frees us from conforming to their model and which affirms a way closer to what the people of Europe hold dear.


5. It lays out an economic policiy. A Consitution shouldn't do that, it should be left to the people to change and improve economic policy. This would be hard to change if necessary in the future.


I agree with you here mainly because I disagree with the nature of the economic policy laid out by the Constitution. ;)

Your four 'pro' points are excellent, but these are things that can still be achieved and maintained without the proposed Constitution. We need a revised Constitution proposal.

We need a revised Constitution proposal.
That would be excellent. I doubt it is possible though. Maybe it is better to have a constitution to be revised than nothing at all.

I agree. Maybe I should vote for and then fight for it to be changed on the street. I believe mass protests and strikes will be organized after that.
This is maybe the only way forward. A constitution is indeed needed if we want to build a real social Europe and this constitution is maybe the only thing we can have for the moment. Maybe we can't have something final at first shot.

I have to disagree with your logic. If you vote for it, then, when you protest against it, the authorities will simply be able to point out to you that you are in a minority and that the majority were in favour if it.

If we vote no, however, we will be creating a crisis, and forcing them to listen to what we want. You can bet there will be a Constitution eventually, but one they'll have to write in accordance with the fact that the first one was rejected. They'll have to make sure the second one isn't rejected as well. So they'll have to take into account what the people want.

That would be excellent. I doubt it is possible though. Maybe it is better to have a constitution to be revised than nothing at all.

I see what you mean. But I think it would be much more effective to put them into a position where they'll have to create a new proposal in order to have a Constitution, rather than try to change one that has been approved and implemented.

Here. (http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/cfsp/intro/)

I'd go dig the Amsterdam treaty text, but i'm lazy. We don't have those things due to lack of political will and money, nothing else. And I was wrong, these things were heralded in the Maastricht treaty... long before.

That mentions none of the things I mentioned, especially not a President.

Yes (http://pacific.commerce.ubc.ca/keith/Papers/eu.pdf) , you can be sure of it.

There doesn't seem to be any such conclusion in that paper; care to point it out? And care to point out where Sweden fits into it?

A rotten peace.

Nevertheless, nothing the EU can take or be given credit for.

What your country thinks of its neutrality is its own business. Still, the Euro Zone is extremely diverse. Ireland is growing 5% this year, Spain 3%-4%. Then you have Germany and France :p

And Portugal. And those other small, stagnant countries. France and Germany are large enough to pull you all down, and they are.

Every number makes you wrong on this one..

Yet you fail to present.

Nope. Sucessful Experiment.

Sure, that's why the economy in the Euro-zone is in the toilet at the moment.

Legitimate argument, can't say much about it, just disagree.

It is one of the biggest arguments.

Its not a question just of threat, but of cost. A single EU army would be as effective to defend us, but also cheaper, thus leaving more resources to other things.

NATO is there if you're too poor to have the army you think you need.

Ahhh, the polished, Educated, socially minded Swedish puts is claws out! Well, i may be a "socially conservative inferior southerner", but it is not I that am making the racist comment.
You know what? Perhaps you are right. Get out of the EU. I don't want to be in the same Union than a bunch of bigoted racists.

I wasn't aware that Portuguese people were of another "race". Or is just that you don't know what "racism" means? Anyhow, Portugal was the poorest country in the EU before the new members joined, and it was basically kept afloat by handouts from the EU, handouts it should no longer need, but still wants. For Bob's sake, you were a dictatorship well into the second half of the 20th century, you have a 6.7% illiteracy rate (illiteracy in a Western European country!) and things like abortions are banned there! In my eyes, that makes you inferior. Also explains why the EU would be good for you - the gravy train needs to be on time...

If it comes to that (voting) here i'm going to vote no.
Although I might not know enough yet, but I have the
basic concept and I can always read more. I said that just to
make room to change my ruling.

If we vote no, however, we will be creating a crisis, and forcing them to listen to what we want. You can bet there will be a Constitution eventually, but one they'll have to write in accordance with the fact that the first one was rejected. They'll have to make sure the second one isn't rejected as well. So they'll have to take into account what the people want.


I agree that this constitution is not the non plus ultra. BUT if we don't get it through now, it will be years or even decades until there will be a new proposal. Looking at todays political world I have severe doubts that Europe has the time to sit this out...




NATO is there if you're too poor to have the army you think you need.



NATO is an institution left over from the past century where it was used to confront the soviet union. Today it has no real...what's a good word...right to that would make its existence reasonable. NATO today, is in my oppinion not much more then a conflict increasing organization...I mean seriously. What happens if you have a more or less aggressively oriented organization (and directed against soviet influence it was aggressievly oriented) whose enemy is suddenly gone? It needs a new enemy to still justify its existence which ahs been found in international terrorism. But that is a different subject so I'll shut up about it now.

I wasn't aware that Portuguese people were of another "race". Or is just that you don't know what "racism" means? Anyhow, Portugal was the poorest country in the EU before the new members joined, and it was basically kept afloat by handouts from the EU, handouts it should no longer need, but still wants. For Bob's sake, you were a dictatorship well into the second half of the 20th century, you have a 6.7% illiteracy rate (illiteracy in a Western European country!) and things like abortions are banned there! In my eyes, that makes you inferior. Also explains why the EU would be good for you - the gravy train needs to be on time...

Would you prefer if i were to consider you a xenophobe?

Would you prefer if i were to consider you a xenophobe?

Go right ahead. I couldn't be arsed to care. But the truth hurt, especially about the illiteracy and abortions, didn't it?

Go right ahead. I couldn't be arsed to care. But the truth hurt, especially about the illiteracy and abortions, didn't it?

How is it the saying? Never discuss with an idiot, he will lower you to his level and beat you out of experience.

Not going to discuss with you no more, son.

Be well.

How is it the saying? Never discuss with an idiot, he will lower you to his level and beat you out of experience.

Be well.

By lowering yourself to ad hominems and personal attacks, you have exposed your lack of further argumentational ability. In the future, please do refrain from wasting my time if you're going to stoop this low.

If I could, I'd vote against this piece of tripe. Luckily, there are plenty of people willing to do it for me. :)