Article

2005-02-27 Europe

Steyn: U.S. can sit back and watch Europe implode

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2005-02-27 10:27:21 AM|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The thing that amazed me about Bush's trip to Europe is that the press lapped up all those platitudes like Fido and the famous Dog's Breakfast. Bush appealed to their better natures, saying the right things, but the ball was placed squarely in Europe's court. If they want to join in helping to get Iraq on its feet, well, we could sure use the help. But if they don't, then we go on and do the mission.

Steyn is correct. It is not the job of the US to meddle in the EU constitution. It is not our business. However, it is our business when countries like France and Germany actively undermine our interests and have covert trade with a dictator like Saddam.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2005-02-27 4:00:38 PM|| 2005-02-27 4:00:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 The irony is Bush is saving Europe from it's destiny. Who makes better immigrants: the current fascist islamists fostered by the wahabbis, or the future democrats from Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and eventually Iran and Arabia (formerly know as Saudi)?

Posted by john 2005-02-27 5:00:22 PM|| 2005-02-27 5:00:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Yo, Aris. You'd better go set Mr Steyn straight. I think he just dissed the shit out of your beloved phonebook.

Posted by .com 2005-02-27 5:12:44 PM|| 2005-02-27 5:12:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 If so many smart people hadn't assured me that Bush is a moronic chimpanzee, I would say that his trip to Europe was a piece of diplomatic genius. First, he seizes the moral high ground in his second inaugural address by talking about freedom from tyranny. Ten days later eight million Iraqis -- in whom Bush never seems to have lost faith-- validate Bush's right to hold the moral high ground. Then Bush goes to Europe and figuratively speaking asks Jacques, "Now, you oppose tryanny, don't you, Jacques?"

Jacques' honest answer is, "Well, George, as long as I'm the tyrant I really don't have a problem with tryanny. You think some truck driver in Cherbourg knows more about governing France than I do? Besides, the money's good." But Jacques can't say that publicly because doing so would blow the lid off the whole EU constitution thing: Jacques really doesn't want those troublesome English getting the idea that a vote for the EU constitution means giving up their rights. So Jacques just sort of mumbles his way through the visit.

The appearance, which Steyn seizes on, is a consensus of sorts on Bush's terms. And meanwhile Bush turns Mistress Condi, she-wolf of the State Department, loose on Mubarak...

Posted by Matt 2005-02-27 5:19:43 PM|| 2005-02-27 5:19:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 "Mistress Condi, she-wolf of the State Department"

ROFL!!! Bravo! She-Wolf - I love it!

Posted by .com 2005-02-27 5:25:54 PM|| 2005-02-27 5:25:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Thanks,PD

Posted by Matt 2005-02-27 5:56:18 PM|| 2005-02-27 5:56:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 The future european austronaut is planning to carry the EU "contitution" into space. The over 800 pages (Mark Steyn has forgooten the annexes) of it. Weighing over 1 pound. Cost of sending one pound into space: probably in excess of a million dollars. Better to be an American: they have a much lighter constitution.

Posted by JFM 2005-02-27 6:02:48 PM|| 2005-02-27 6:02:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Bush as Border Collie on trip to Europe...

Posted by .com 2005-02-27 7:21:56 PM|| 2005-02-27 7:21:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Have either of you, JFM or .com, ever bothered to check the length of the NAFTA treaty?

It's about 1700 pages, including annexes and footnotes.

Try to carry *that* around in your pockets.

My "beloved phonebook" would be even more beloved by me if it was the much shorter definition of a supranational government, rather than the mammothical expression of the hybrid entity that the EU currently is, filled with the opt-outs and results of years of compromises happening every time a new member-state negotiated an accession treaty as it accedes into the Union.

And I may not be able to carry the whole constitution around, but no worries, I will be able to carry Parts I & II that are the truly constitutional bits and the Charter of fundamental rights. I'll leave out Part III and the various protocols and annexes; namely the bits which contain most of the treaty-ise.

And JFM, I googled about it and the cost is far far less than what you say. A kilo into space is nowadays less that 10000$, and may be less that 2000$. I can't be more specific not knowing what kind of propulsion they'll use.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-02-27 9:15:37 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-02-27 9:15:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Anyway, the guy is making assumptions that I disagree with.

For example he seems to think that the European Constitution will be ratified for sure, and I happen to think that's the less probable scenario by far.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-02-27 9:19:30 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-02-27 9:19:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 The future european astronaut is planning to carry the EU "contitution" into space. If he doesn't hurry, it may be the Koran. Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!

Posted by Tom 2005-02-27 9:22:48 PM|| 2005-02-27 9:22:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 NAFTA? WTF? Focus. On topic.

The strawman shortage grows ever worse. Straw futures approach platinum levels.

Posted by .com 2005-02-27 9:53:19 PM|| 2005-02-27 9:53:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 NAFTA? WTF? Focus. On topic.

You what the fuck, .com. Focus? On topic? It's you people who first compared the length of the the EU constitutional treaty with the US constitution. If *that's* an apt comparison, then the NAFTA treaty is just as apt a one, like it or not.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-02-27 10:17:03 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-02-27 10:17:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Bullshit.

Posted by .com 2005-02-27 10:22:24 PM|| 2005-02-27 10:22:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 NAFTA ain't a constition I think is what .com is trying to point out. What Steyn and .com are also pointing out I think is that this "constitution" can't accurately be called a constitution if its as long as treaty papers, spending and defense bills, and legislation for new bills will all possible annexes combined. Call it a "Bible of Treaties" or the "Tome of Bills of Neverending Agony" or something, but it ain't a constitution by most defintions. (Unless of course you're planning on whipping out this 1700 page monstrosity and throwing it at one of your MPs just to get their attention...that might work as a way to make sure the people get some usage outta it).

But I gotta give it to you Aris you're claim awhile back that you much prefer this constitution because it pretty much guarantees "Europe will never go to war" (with one another or anyone else it seems), I can pretty much agree with. I dont think the EU will ever be much of a military threat to anyone once it passes.

Posted by Valentine 2005-02-27 10:59:58 PM|| 2005-02-27 10:59:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Valentine> "NAFTA ain't a constitution I think is"

No, the NAFTA treaty is a treaty between nations.

And the "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe" is also a treaty between nations.

It says so there in the name.

What Steyn and .com are also pointing out I think is that this "constitution" can't accurately be called a constitution if its as long as treaty papers

There are several treaty papers which are much shorter than the US constitution.

"but it ain't a constitution by most defintions"

I'd say it holds most of the function of a constitution, so calling it one is quite accurate. Ofcourse it also holds most of the function of a treaty as well. So calling it one is also quite accurate.

You have a hybrid entity between a federation and international organization, you get a hybrid document describing its function.

And you get a hybrid name that includes both the words "treaty" and "constitution" in the title.

But I gotta give it to you Aris you're claim awhile back that you much prefer this constitution because it pretty much guarantees "Europe will never go to war"

I said that? I don't remember it. I believe that the EU itself already assures that its members nations won't go to war against theselves again. With or without Constitution.

But it's certainly possible I meant that the Constitution is required for the EU to expand further until it covers the whole of Europe.

I dont think the EU will ever be much of a military threat to anyone once it passes.

So, our eeeevil EU troops won't be invading Britain to overthrow democracy there? IIRC, Anonymouse will be pleased to hear it.

Anyway, what *I* think is that you don't know what the Constitution actually says or what changes it makes from the current treaties.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-02-27 11:35:27 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-02-27 11:35:27 PM|| Front Page Top

15:59 Shipman
15:59 Shipman
15:58 Shipman
15:58 Shipman
00:20 Alaska Paul
23:47 Alaska Paul
23:47 Sobiesky
23:43 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:42 .com
23:41 GK
23:35 Sobiesky
23:35 Aris Katsaris
23:32 Alaska Paul
23:20 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:03 BH
23:01 3dc
22:59 Valentine
22:52 3dc
22:43 BH
22:42 Lone Ranger
22:40 Bomb-a-rama
22:36 BH
22:30 Rex Rufus
22:30 Pappy