NationStates Jolt Archive

So? Will they?

I doubt the EU could agree on one.

If they ever do, hope above all else it's strict constructionist

Yes, I think so. I don't think integration is reversable, even if it might hit obstacles occasionally.

Hell, even this particular attempt isn't quite dead yet. In Summer the Austrians will take the topic up again, and either there will be modifications or (more likely) a new discussion about the fundamental principles underlying the EU which will result in a constitution much less a legal document, and much more a basic guideline.

They will keep having referenda on it until one passes.

It may take 1000 years, but it'll happen (nice Reich III reference there).

I think it will be like the UK. Not a single document, but a series of decisions and agreements over a long tradition.

As long as it doesn't name NATO as the pillar for the common defence policy.

Yes because the EU is currently an unwieldly body and is only growing more chaotic as it adds new members.

After a few generations, Euros will begin to see themselves as one and will demand a Federalist Constitution, as happened in America when the Articles of Confederation were discarded.

I've already seen this, somewhat: the younger generation of Slovaks back home don't remember Czechoslovakia, and so have no ties/nostalgia for it, nor for Communism. In turn, their children will be used to the EU... and so it progresses.

It'll take time, of course. 21st century Europe is much larger and complex than 18th century America was. But ultimately it must happen if the EU is ever to be anything more than a zone using the same currency and with open borders.

My bet is somewhere around 2020 or 2030.

As long as it doesn't name NATO as the pillar for the common defence policy.

True. The EU definitely needs to spend more on defense and rapid deployment, and let NATO be a common defense pact instead of a shield.

Ideally, the EU should be militarily equal to Russia and approaching the US within two generations, though I doubt this will happen.

I'm quite convinced we'll have one not too far away :D

You talk like we're just one big country... Frankly, many of our so-called "allies" could just rot and die, in my utmost humble, humble opinion...

Eventually yes. What is needed is a politician who wont compromise, 'cos as soon as the compromises come in is where it becomes a mockery.

Upon the assumption that I, or at least Ken Clarke, writes it, then it would be excellent, if not then I shudder to envisage what will happen.

I certainly hope not. I've got my reservations about the benefits of a united Europe, and I just plain don't like constitutions, as they seem entirely un-necessary. Britain doesn't have one, and we avoid the silly debates that come with them, and I've yet to see anyone suffer for it.

You talk like we're just one big country... Frankly, many of our so-called "allies" could just rot and die, in my utmost humble, humble opinion...

Now, that's just hurtful :confused:

What good will a constitution do?

What good will a constitution do?

A federal structure would allow the EU to become on country. It'd put an end to lots of the petty disputes such as the French and the "Polish Plumber" crisis, or overfishing in the North Sea. As states, each "ex-country" would have to abide by the Constitution.
Further, it would reduce costs: the pooled resources of Europe would make for a much more efficient structure.

Of course, one loses cultural identity taking this route. But then, I would argue that cultural identity is always evolving. A Frenchman taken from 1921 would never recognise 1956 France, much less that of today. Too much change. Not enough? Go back a little more to an 1867 Frenchman.

Whether Europe adopts a constitution or not, depends on the nature of the constitution. And I'm not just talking about the fine details of the document. I'm talking about what we understand by a 'constitution' in the first place.

For example the US Constitution is a relatively brief document outlining the broad philosophy behind the country. The current EU constitution is a tome the size of a phone directory, aimed at forming the blueprint for the operation of a federalist Europe.

To say there is a difference is an understatement. I am sure the EU could agree on a broad philosophical declaration of what Europe aspires to be. But what we are seeing is arguments over an exhaustive description of the entire structure of transnational government itself. That's always going to be a more ambitious project.

Call me a nut, but I really don't feel that a Constitution is the right place to spell out farming agreements. :D

Whether Europe adopts a constitution or not, depends on the nature of the constitution. And I'm not just talking about the fine details of the document. I'm talking about what we understand by a 'constitution' in the first place.
And what the people want who are supposed to abide by it. So far the Eurocrats did everything behind closed doors. Only coming out to tell us what "wonderfull" things they have come up with again. Always assuming we want it because they want it.

True. The EU definitely needs to spend more on defense and rapid deployment
Which was a point of the constitution.

and let NATO be a common defense pact instead of a shield.
It would be better to abolish it. And get the enemy foreign occupation forces (the Americans) off of our soil and out of our purses.

Britain doesn't have one, and we avoid the silly debates that come with them, and I've yet to see anyone suffer for it.

Blair's current autocratic centralization of power into his and his government's hands is precisely what a Constitution is supposed to prevent.

Where’s the yes, but I don’t give a damn option?

And what the people want who are supposed to abide by it. So far the Eurocrats did everything behind closed doors. Only coming out to tell us what "wonderfull" things they have come up with again. Always assuming we want it because they want it.
Yes, as much as I am an EU nationalist, I have to question the wisdom of not asking the public for input on what they understand by a constitution. Handing people a thousand-page document describing financial processes just doesn't inspire unity and patriotism, you know? Just disillusionment on the part of poorly-informed people, who really need to be educated on this.

Had the guys upstairs produced an aspirational document lacking any legislative content, but setting out common values with which the majority could identify, that could have been a real PR coup. Instead the opportunity was squandered because they just don't get it.

There is no need for a federal Europe. Sharing a country with the Poles or Italians makes my skin crawl.

Sharing a country with the Poles or Italians makes my skin crawl.
Why?

Why?

I like how my country has grown more liberal and secular over the years. We've worked hard for that. Theirs haven't. We stand to lose more than they by "merging" our societies.

I don't think Eruope will ever have a Constitution because there is really no need for Europe to have a constitution. Certanly not in the American (United States and Canada) sense of a constitution because there is no need to either define precisely a "federal" government nor is there a need to enumerate universal rights.

The Articles of Confederation failed in the United States for a number of reasons, but by contrast the European Union has been quite successful. The loose confederation of nations that has become the European Union has established a cross border freedom and common currency system that has been working and continues to meet the needs of the members. NATO allows for the federal equivalent of a military, nicely seperated from the actual economic engine of the EU.

Eventually I think there will be a need to re-organize the European Union. I think that this will happen naturally as Europe becomes like the US in one critical aspect ... a land of immigrants. (Poor native Europeans ... they be a dying breed you know.) But I think that the EU is better served more by a UN like charter than a US consistution.

Which was a point of the constitution.


It would be better to abolish it. And get the enemy foreign occupation forces (the Americans) off of our soil and out of our purses.

Unfortunately the French and the Dutch found themselves to be "more equal" than others.

Yeah, because lord knows Europe can stand on its own. :rolleyes:
Don't you agree that the bastions of Western Democracy (USA, CAN, EU) should support each other??

Europe has gained *far* more than it ever spent on NATO.
Also, the US bases in Europe are as INVITED GUESTS. The German Luftwaffe trains in the USA. I know lots of people that remember the German guests we had at Sikorsky helicopters in the 70s and 80s as well.

Why?
Psst. It's called racism.

I like how my country has grown more liberal and secular over the years. We've worked hard for that. Theirs haven't. We stand to lose more than they by "merging" our societies.

Hasn't the overall tendency of European federalism been against cultural reaction, particularly in the case of Poland?

Of the reasons to oppose European federalism, the potential neoliberalization of the Western and Northern European economies seems most compelling to me, though that seems inevitable anyway.

Psst. It's called racism.

Poles and Italians are of a different race? Please, if you're going to insinuate something, insinuate it correctly - in this case the proper label to use to dismiss baselessly, as people like you like to do, would be "xenophobia."

Anyway, I do not like their societies, filled with Catholic reactionaries and conservatives stuck in the past, with "values" that belong on the junkyard of history.

Poles and Italians are of a different race? Please, if you're going to insinuate something, insinuate it correctly - in this case the proper label to use to dismiss baselessly, as people like you like to do, would be "xenophobia."

Anyway, I do not like their societies, filled with Catholic reactionaries and conservatives stuck in the past, with "values" that belong on the junkyard of history.

Ah. So you just don't like people who think differently from how you do. That's intellectual fascism.

Hasn't the overall tendency of European federalism been against cultural reaction, particularly in the case of Poland?

It works both ways - they're actually trying to run an anti-abortionist agenda in the EU, not to mention what they've been doing to gay rights, and even insisted on references to God, for Christ's sake, in the rejected constitution. I do not care for foreigners to use the EU to undermine the liberties of our society.

I've always been against the EU, and this has become one of my biggest worries about it: That our values, which are better by any stretch of the imagination, will not rub off on them, but that theirs will be thrust upon us.

Ah. So you just don't like people who think differently from how you do. That's intellectual fascism.
Sign me up. After all, I despise religious fundamentalists. :)

Ah. So you just don't like people who think differently from how you do. That's intellectual fascism.

No, that's intellectual honesty. I do not like their politics, in fact I loathe their politics and conservatism and religious tendencies and the way they run their societies.

Sign me up. After all, I despise religious fundamentalists. :)

Ok, I'll provide plenty of warning the next time the Poles have to go on crusade to free Vienna of the infidel. ;)

Ok, I'll provide plenty of warning the next time the Poles have to go on crusade to free Vienna of the infidel. ;)
Good. You never know when those people may try to force their civil rights limiting interpretation of Catholicism on the rest of us. Another Ireland, we do not need.

No, that's intellectual honesty. I do not like their politics, in fact I loathe their politics and conservatism and religious tendencies and the way they run their societies.

Wow. So much for tolerance! You don't think that they deserve the right to run their countries the way they see fit?

But one must also take into account the history of nations, too. Poland and Italy are more religious nations because of their histories. Italy has been the seat of the Popes for centuries. Poland has been Catholic for a millenia, and (as our friends Marx & Engles said), "religion is the opiate of the masses". That faith was a major reason WHY Poland was a crack behind the Iron Curtain all through the 70s and 80s -- to the end of Communism in Europe.

Good. You never know when those people may try to force their civil rights limiting interpretation of Catholicism on the rest of us. Another Ireland, we do not need.

True! Who'd want yet another economic powerhouse that believes in right and wrong? :D

(Seriously: I agree with you. Religion and politics do not and should not mix. Neither should tread on the other's sphere.)

Wow. So much for tolerance! You don't think that they deserve the right to run their countries the way they see fit?

Oh, they do. I want no part of it though. I feel that Sweden should have done like Norway and never joined the EU, or that the Eastern countries should not have been admitted so soon.

But one must also take into account the history of nations, too. Poland and Italy are more religious nations because of their histories. Italy has been the seat of the Popes for centuries. Poland has been Catholic for a millenia, and (as our friends Marx & Engles said), "religion is the opiate of the masses". That faith was a major reason WHY Poland was a crack behind the Iron Curtain all through the 70s and 80s -- to the end of Communism in Europe.

In a sense I feel that Communism let them down the most in that area - failed to rid them of such religious societal tendencies, but Communism's status as a failure in most areas is hardly surprising. I also in a sense have come to a better understanding of how the better parts of the US must feel about places like Alabama or Kansas or Utah, but they're stuck with these yokes. For us, it is still not too late to escape them.

Oh, they do. I want no part of it though. I feel that Sweden should have done like Norway and never joined the EU, or that the Eastern countries should not have been admitted so soon.



In a sense I feel that Communism let them down the most in that area - failed to rid them of such religious societal tendencies, but Communism's status as a failure in most areas is hardly surprising. I also in a sense have come to a better understanding of how the better parts of the US must feel about places like Alabama or Kansas or Utah, but they're stuck with these yokes. For us, it is still not too late to escape them.
Rings very true. Considering my region has its roots in the biggest group of conservatives (even holland couldn't take them anymore) ever, we've pretty much moved past the hardcore religion and restricting social rights. We still have a very long way to go, but we've moved along as fast as we can when we have the ball and chain that is the south.

Might explain why I've agreed with you so much in this thread.

Oh, they do. I want no part of it though. I feel that Sweden should have done like Norway and never joined the EU, or that the Eastern countries should not have been admitted so soon.

Re: Sweden, that's your right. As for admitting the "Eastern" countries... that's not. The bar was set, and the countries made it according to their ability, the same as the rest. Slovakia didn't get in until 2004 -- that's hardly a rushed entry!

In a sense I feel that Communism let them down the most in that area - failed to rid them of such religious societal tendencies, but Communism's status as a failure in most areas is hardly surprising. I also in a sense have come to a better understanding of how the better parts of the US must feel about places like Alabama or Kansas or Utah, but they're stuck with these yokes. For us, it is still not too late to escape them.

Let them down? If you feel that Catholicism is some sort of plague that needs to be supressed, I've heard that before. Some painter from Vienna had that theory about another religion.

Actually, I live in Connecticut and work in New York City (read: liberal/blue states). No part of the country holds a lock on religion or punditry. You see, Americans MOVE AROUND a lot. I've spent considerable time in 9 states, including South Carolina, Washington, California and Texas.
The point I'm getting to is this: there are unsavory parts of any given population. I personally don't care for the Christian Coalition types. But they're FAR from running the place.

Yes, as much as I am an EU nationalist, I have to question the wisdom of not asking the public for input on what they understand by a constitution. Handing people a thousand-page document describing financial processes just doesn't inspire unity and patriotism, you know? Just disillusionment on the part of poorly-informed people, who really need to be educated on this.

Had the guys upstairs produced an aspirational document lacking any legislative content, but setting out common values with which the majority could identify, that could have been a real PR coup. Instead the opportunity was squandered because they just don't get it.
It's not just about the constitution. It's the whole deal. Enlargement by 10 without asking the people. Dumping Turkey on the people and expect them to like and respect without their consent. And unwilling in Turkey's case to even consider anything else but a full membership. The introduction of the Euro. The whole agricultural thing. And the list goes on and on and on.....
The EC/EU never made any attempts to inform the people let alone ask their blessing. No wonder it's eyed with suspicion. No wonder that when subjectet to popular opinion the constitution was rejectet by the Dutch and French. In the Netherlands the government spend millions on the 'Yes' campaign. While the 'No' had to do with a few hundred thousand. Yet an overwhelming majority still said no. Only weeks after that the EU shot itself in the foot again. The new enlargement commisionair said they wanted to listen to what the people want and they wanted a full membership for Turkey. (Brussels, not the citizens) They will have to do a lot of thinking if they ever want us to give them our full support.

Re: Sweden, that's your right. As for admitting the "Eastern" countries... that's not. The bar was set, and the countries made it according to their ability, the same as the rest. Slovakia didn't get in until 2004 -- that's hardly a rushed entry!

They did not reach the same bar we had no trouble reaching. Theirs was set a lot lower.

Let them down? If you feel that Catholicism is some sort of plague that needs to be supressed, I've heard that before. Some painter from Vienna had that theory about another religion.

Are you trying to beat some record in silly hyperbole and Godwin-like behaviour? Yes, I want Catholicism supressed like I want every other religion supressed: in the secular sense. Conservatism I want to see wiped out.

Actually, I live in Connecticut and work in New York City (read: liberal/blue states). No part of the country holds a lock on religion or punditry. You see, Americans MOVE AROUND a lot. I've spent considerable time in 9 states, including South Carolina, Washington, California and Texas.
The point I'm getting to is this: there are unsavory parts of any given population. I personally don't care for the Christian Coalition types. But they're FAR from running the place.

They hold you back, diminish the liberties your country likes to think it stands for. You've no choice longer but to sit and have to take their crap - for us it's not too late.

Unfortunately the French and the Dutch found themselves to be "more equal" than others.
Yeah. They actually got a say in something that could have changed their lifes forever. And not for the better.

Yeah, because lord knows Europe can stand on its own. :rolleyes:
Which is why a European army seperated from NATO should be brought to bear.
Don't you agree that the bastions of Western Democracy (USA, CAN, EU) should support each other??
No problem with Canada. But the US? I would never lift a finger in their support.

Europe has gained *far* more than it ever spent on NATO.
The maintanence costs for the hostile US occupation bases are over a billion dollars a year. Money which could be spend more usefull in other areas.

Also, the US bases in Europe are as INVITED GUESTS. The German Luftwaffe trains in the USA. I know lots of people that remember the German guests we had at Sikorsky helicopters in the 70s and 80s as well.
Oh. So now the Americans came as "invited guests". *laughs*

They did not reach the same bar we had no trouble reaching. Theirs was set a lot lower.

True. The wars in former Yugoslavia made them lower it. Before in the 1990's no one was considering the admittance of 10 countries at once. And certainly not by 2004.

The point I'm getting to is this: there are unsavory parts of any given population. I personally don't care for the Christian Coalition types. But they're FAR from running the place.

DOMA? All this paranoid muttering about the "gay agenda" corrupting our children? South Dakota's decision to ban abortion? The fact that our president is a Christian fundamentalist, and our last president was lynched by the opposition party because he fellated adulterously? Roberts and Alito? The widespread anger over someone challenging the invocation of monotheism in the Pledge of Servility? The fact that bigots like Falwell and Robertson can be cheered on by our current president, and few will protest? The fact that the ERA still hasn't been passed? The fact that in the one state where gays and lesbians actually have marriage equality, repeated and serious challenges are being leveled against it?

They're pretty fucking close, if you ask me. Far too close.

And if I had the choice, I would definitely choose to make that Jesusland/US of Canada split people talked about after the election.

Errr... WE DO HAVE A CONSTITUTION.

The E.U Constitution :rolleyes:
Read up.

DOMA? All this paranoid muttering about the "gay agenda" corrupting our children? South Dakota's decision to ban abortion? The fact that our president is a Christian fundamentalist, and our last president was lynched by the opposition party because he fellated adulterously? Roberts and Alito? The widespread anger over someone challenging the invocation of monotheism in the Pledge of Servility? The fact that bigots like Falwell and Robertson can be cheered on by our current president, and few will protest? The fact that the ERA still hasn't been passed? The fact that in the one state where gays and lesbians actually have marriage equality, repeated and serious challenges are being leveled against it?

They're pretty fucking close, if you ask me. Far too close.

And if I had the choice, I would definitely choose to make that Jesusland/US of Canada split people talked about after the election.

And if I were of the fundamentalist persuasion (which I'm certainly not!), I'm willing to bet that they could level the same sort of complaints against their opposition as well.
If SC wants to do something, that's their *right as a state to do so*. Same way that Massachusettes pretty much disarmed it's citizenry. It passed the vote, it's the law. No, I'm not particularly happy about either of those examples.

Thats a really silly concept, really. What? Ohio went 52% GOP in one election, so all liberals have to get out? C'mon now! That just isn't going to work... this political pundity division will die off, as others in the past have. :) (And wow, I can't wait until it does!)

Yeah. They actually got a say in something that could have changed their lifes forever. And not for the better.

As did all of the countries that signed on.

Which is why a European army seperated from NATO should be brought to bear.

No problem with Canada. But the US? I would never lift a finger in their support.

Which would be great, if only the EU would do so. The US is repositioning troops, but given the EUs lack of decisive action in Jugoslavia... well, let's just say that most of continental Europe is currently woefully underprepared for much at this time.

Ah, I love leeches. :rolleyes:

The maintanence costs for the hostile US occupation bases are over a billion dollars a year. Money which could be spend more usefull in other areas.

And, as I posted to you last time we debated this, the US spends 12 BILLION a year on Germany alone.

Since 1995, US spending on NATO has gone up 6.5%, while EU spending has gone down 2.2%. The EU is becoming MORE, not LESS dependent on the US! (Note the "The capabilities gap" section)
http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/Article.cfm?issuetocid=138&ArchiveIssueID=19

BTW: They're not hostile, and they're certainly not occupation: that was ended with the 1990 "Two Plus Four treaty". Particularly Article 7.
http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/2plusfour8994e.htm

Your continued cries of "we're still occupied!" are not true and do not impress. To me, you sound just like a guy I knew in college who hated all Germans automatically because he was Jewish. :rolleyes: As if Germans two or three generations later were responsible for their nation's past.

Oh. So now the Americans came as "invited guests". *laughs*

Not came as. Are still around as. Bit of a difference -- mostly, we came as liberators with the British and Free (insert name of occupied country) Forces. We had to remove some unwelcome houseguests from France, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy... well, you get the idea.

They did not reach the same bar we had no trouble reaching. Theirs was set a lot lower.

Link?

Are you trying to beat some record in silly hyperbole and Godwin-like behaviour? Yes, I want Catholicism supressed like I want every other religion supressed: in the secular sense. Conservatism I want to see wiped out.

Ah. In that case, there's really no point in discussing it as a point. You're in the same camp as the Christian Fundies, just from a secular POV.

They hold you back, diminish the liberties your country likes to think it stands for. You've no choice longer but to sit and have to take their crap - for us it's not too late.

Um... no. My liberties have in no way been restricted by anyone, thanks.

As did all of the countries that signed on.
Umm..no. Except Spain. In the rest the governments decided. Not the people.


And, as I posted to you last time we debated this, the US spends 12 BILLION a year on Germany alone.
Not on Germany. But on their occupation forces.

Since 1995, US spending on NATO has gone up 6.5%, while EU spending has gone down 2.2%. The EU is becoming MORE, not LESS dependent on the US! (Note the "The capabilities gap" section:)
http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/Article.cfm?issuetocid=138&ArchiveIssueID=19

Defence spending was one of the points in the constitution I liked.
BTW: They're not hostile, and they're certainly not occupation: that was ended with the 1990 "Two Plus Four treaty". Particularly Article 7.
http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/2plusfour8994e.htm
Ah Versailles light. But that doesn't change the fact of them still polluting German and other countries soil with their presence.

Your continued cries of "we're still occupied!" are not true and do not impress. To me, you sound just like a guy I knew in college who hated all Germans automatically because he was Jewish. :rolleyes: As if Germans two or three generations later were responsible for their nation's past.
Well I don't realy care to impress you. Your continued "we're not occupiers/hostiles" don´t impress me a bit either.

Link?

Read up on the Copenhagen and Madrid criteria. Then go back to before the new countries were accepted - there was a very outspoken, and rightly so, contingent of sceptics that argued that not only was enlargement going too fast, the criteria were never truly met. Something Poland and Latvia are very apparent examples of.

Ah. In that case, there's really no point in discussing it as a point. You're in the same camp as the Christian Fundies, just from a secular POV.

Except, of course, that secularism is a good thing. Being diametrically opposed to religious fundamentalism is something I pride myself in being. Religion is to be shut out of government and politics at every instance.

Um... no. My liberties have in no way been restricted by anyone, thanks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38861-2004Aug4.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022202424.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7964239/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62672-2005Jan10.html

Well, I guess as long as your liberties haven't been curtailed, then all is peachy.

And if I were of the fundamentalist persuasion (which I'm certainly not!), I'm willing to bet that they could level the same sort of complaints against their opposition as well.

Yeah, probably.

If SC wants to do something, that's their *right as a state to do so*. Same way that Massachusettes pretty much disarmed it's citizenry. It passed the vote, it's the law. No, I'm not particularly happy about either of those examples.

When South Dakota does it to undermine Roe v. Wade, it harms all of us. The US Congress will ban late-term abortions, for instance, with ease if that decision is overturned.

Thats a really silly concept, really. What? Ohio went 52% GOP in one election, so all liberals have to get out? C'mon now! That just isn't going to work... this political pundity division will die off, as others in the past have. :) (And wow, I can't wait until it does!)

I don't care about the political punditry, I find it to be meaningless. It's the fundamentalists I can't stand, and I want to eliminate their voting blocs. I'd be happy to incorporate the split states.

Actually, I live in Connecticut and work in New York City (read: liberal/blue states). No part of the country holds a lock on religion or punditry. You see, Americans MOVE AROUND a lot. I've spent considerable time in 9 states, including South Carolina, Washington, California and Texas.
The point I'm getting to is this: there are unsavory parts of any given population. I personally don't care for the Christian Coalition types. But they're FAR from running the place.
I'm from Connecticut too, go to school in Boston, and I have to say I disagree with you on a few points.
First of all, Americans CAN move around easily. Most tend to stay put unless there is a better job elsewhere. This could be said for anyone tho.
The areas that I disagree with are mostly the south and midwest. No, they aren't all people whom I disagree with, but that is the majority, and therefore dictates the state, regional, and national representation. That national representation is the part that means they do hold us back. New England would have no big debate about abortion or "intelligent design" and the like if it wern't for the fact that we have to defend it from the other regions. Gay marriage still has its fighters against up here, but they are far fewer than other regions of the country.
Fass is correct in the idea that Sweden will most likely be held back. Conservative countries like Italy and Poland will be dragged forward, where as liberal nations like Sweden will be dragged backwards, or stagnate where they are. It takes alot more power to move forward than to hold the status quo.