| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Europe | |
| "Sometimes the electorate has to be protected from making the wrong decisions" | |
| 2004-08-03 | |
| Hat tip: Instapundit. EFL. The German government is under growing pressure to hold a referendum on the new European constitution after 30 of the country's most eminent legal scholars declared that federal law could easily be changed to allow a vote. Opinion polls show that 70 per cent of Germans want a vote on the treaty but Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has refused to follow the British and French in staging a referendum. "Even if we wanted to have a vote, Bet they'd go nuts in California! he said last week, declaring that his government would override public opinion The legal scholars have, however, undermined Mr Schröder's claims. In a joint statement published last week, 34 professors, led by Hans Herbert von Arnim from the university of Speyer, declared: "A small addition to the text of the [German] constitution could enable the German people to vote in a referendum." But what's a little lie among friends, eh, Gerhardt? The letter said that a vote was "necessary" because Germans had been denied the chance to elect directly members of the European convention, which drew up the EU constitution. No, really? Previously, they had been denied a vote on whether to join the euro. What do they think they live in, a democracy? It must suck being German. German politicians were surprised when Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, caved in to pressure for a referendum earlier this year, and shocked when President Jacques Chirac followed suit last month. Mein Gott in Himmel! iiiiieeeeeeeeeee! Edmund Stoiber, the conservative Bavarian prime minister who ran against Mr Schröder in Germany's 2002 general election, declared last week: "If the French, the British and the Spanish are to hold a referendum on this issue, the Germans cannot be barred from the process." Mr Stoiber's views are echoed by Roman Herzog, Germany's former conservative president, who argued recently that Germany faced the prospect of being the "only country in Europe" not to hold a referendum. Other advocates include Guido Westerwelle, the leader of the country's liberal Free Democrat party, Wolfgang Thierse, Germany's Social Democrat parliamentary president, leading Green party MPs and at least five of Germany's 16 regional branches of Mr Schröder's governing party. Ooooo, looks like they're ganging up on Gerry-baby. GOOD!
Reflecting the prevailing mood in the Berlin chancellery, Michael Muller, the deputy head of the Social Democrats' that's redundant parliamentary party, added: Wait for it...... "Sometimes the electorate has to be protected from making the wrong decisions." Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding! The leftist elite crawls out from under his rock. And how, exactly, is this different from having a king in charge? Shrillery and the Dems would love this guy. | |
| Posted by:Barbara Skolaut |
| #9 LH, True about the communists, but about on the neocons. The Russians exterminated an entire breed (the Russian wolf-hound or borzoi) because they were associated with royalty. Fortunately, the royals had given these beautiful and regal dogs as gifts to royals in other countries. So thanks to the ex-patriot dogs, the breed survived. http://www.akc.org/breeds/recbreeds/borzoi.cfm As for the neo-cons â theyâd be more ruggedly individualist on the issue. Theyâd make three points: 1. dogs and cats belonging to responsible pet no longer have fleas (improved technology thanks to research profit-incentives in the free market); 2. if you donât like fleas âstay away from dogs and the beach (sand fleas). Liberals, invoking logic so nuanced that âonly a thinking manâ can understandâ, would start a movement to protect the sand fleas, demanding a $6,000,000,000 environmental impact report to determine the dangers that beachgoers pose to the sand fly breeding cycle. 3. personal injury awards over flea bites is how John Edwards made his millions |
| Posted by: B 2004-08-03 7:44:18 PM |
| #8 "But whatâs a little lie among friends, eh, Gerhardt?" Let's not have Rantburgers distort facts either. If you'd actually read the sentences you were commenting on you'd understand that he spoke the complete and absolute truth when he said that such referendums are illegal under the current constitution. Those other people didn't disagree with him, they simply said that they should *make* them legal by *changing* the German constitution. It's interesting to see one paragraph from the beginning thta you chose to cut away -- the one that said: "Mr Schröder insists that Germany cannot do so because the country's post-war constitution expressly forbids extra-parliamentary plebiscites, to make it harder for an extremist party to seize power." Ofcourse *that* paragraph wouldn't help your nice parallels with Nazi Germany. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-08-03 5:40:33 PM |
| #7 lie down with social democrats, rise with a program to combat flees,financed by a tax on dog owners. Conservatives will denounce its incompetence and bureucracy - libertarians will call for owners to be responsible for their dogs flees, and if a flee jumps from their dog to you, sue em - conservatives will get mad when dog owners are sued and will call for limits on damages. Meanwhile harder core socialists will call for greater expenditures, and will blame the programs problems on the insecticide industry, which should be nationalized. Third wayers will attempt to reduce the programs costs by allowing the govt to contract to private exterminators, in place of civil servants, and by eliminating services to wealthy dog owners. Communists will call for the deaths of dogs, other than those historically associated with the working class. Paleocons will blame the entire problem on flee bitten foreign dogs, and their immigrant owners. Neocons will develop a plan to transform the global attitude towards pets, but will forget to provide adequate resources. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-08-03 1:54:18 PM |
| #6 I hate to be in the position of agreeing with an EUnuch, but he has a point: there are limits to democracy. We have no method of initiative, recall, or referendum at the federal level. Nobody asked the people to vote whether to join the UN, or any of the various international treaties we've signed. Heck, we don't even let the House vote on it. The Constitution also says that even if we wanted to, you can't "democratically" vote to impose slavery, shut down the Catholic church, and so on. The ratification of the Constitution was by representative assemblies (albeit elected specifically for that purpose), not by a popular vote. Eeeeeuuu. I am going to take a shower now. You lie with socialists, you rise with fleas. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2004-08-03 1:14:09 PM |
| #5 "Sometimes the electorate has to be protected from making the wrong decisions." When I first read that I thought it was part of the Dems talking points. "Germans had been denied the chance to elect directly members of the European convention." Back in 1776, we called that "Taxation without representation." You know the rest of the story! |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-08-03 10:35:51 AM |
| #4 not holdoing a referendum is the equivalanet of Nazism?? |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-08-03 10:27:42 AM |
| #3 " argued recently that Germany faced the prospect of being the "only country in Europe" not to hold a referendum." European leaders remind me of my High School student council. Prime motivator: 'They might laugh at me! Come to think of it, the same goes for M. Kerry. |
| Posted by: markwark 2004-08-03 9:52:34 AM |
| #2 That's cold, Don. Accurate, but cold. :-p |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-08-03 8:51:11 AM |
| #1 Berlin 2004, Berlin 1938, the arguement is still the same. |
| Posted by: Don 2004-08-03 8:11:13 AM |