Article

2005-03-14 Europe

Leviathan: the grand deception of the European Constitution

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 2005-03-14 09:20|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Pretty much everything that this article says is an utter lie from "There is no balance of powers" to "No powers are reserved to member states" to "Individuals will have no rights".

Instead of Americans rebelling in the streets if someone tried to pass off the European Constitution to them, why don't we think about the opposite, how many Europeans would be rebelling if someone tried to pass off the American constitution to them. What would the application of the American constitution mean for the European nations:

* No rights of national foreign policy at all.
* No rights to secede. Once in, you're in for eternity, and prepare to have your cities be burned ala-Atlanta if you attempt a secession.
* No national armies or right to send them anywhere.
* No national veto power on *any* issue.
* EU President declaring war and sending citizens from any member-state to war regardless of what the member-state itself thinks.
* The constitution can be amended by a mere 2/3rds majority, not by unanimity as is currently the case.
* Supreme court being able to redefine the meaning of the Constitution as it will with a "Common-law" attitude that gives the federal judiciary, powers that it oughtn't have. And the member states being incapable of doing anything about it since they wouldn't have the right to secede.

Oh, yeah the Europeans would rebel alright if anyone tried to force the American constitution on them.

So screw the arrogance of comparisons with the sacred American constitution, which created a new nation, as opposed to the EU constitution which tries to united dozens of ones each with their own traditions.

True, there are elections for the European Parliament --- but the Parliament is an empty front. It is not permitted to make laws, only to rubber-stamp them.

Ooh, another lose-lose situation. If the extremely supranational European Parliament had been allowed to make laws of its own without right of veto from national governments, that'd have been yet another "loss of sovereignty".

But as for EU Parliament being empty, or a "rubber-stamp" parliament, that's again either ignorance or deception. Have people already forgotten how it forced the Santer Commission to resign, and how it forced members of the Barroso Commission to be dropped? It's been turning back or rewriting laws, and on the whole the EP is definitely not there just for rubber-stamping.

All major nations of Europe were once great empires: Spain, France, Austro-Hungary, Germany, Sweden, Italy, Russia, Britain, even Belgium and the Netherlands. They have not forgotten

No, we have not. And we decided "never again shall we go to war against each other", and then we built the EU to make it happen. That's the lesson Europe's learned that ignorant Americans, babbling ignorantly about Europe, have in their ignorance not even begun to comprehend.

And UK, still having delusions of grandeur and Empire, also largely fails to get, which is why it should go on its way and be alone until it perceives its own present-day situation and stops whining.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-14 12:06:25 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-14 12:06:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Aris, that's the best argument I've seen yet in favor of the EU Constitution.

Posted by Matt 2005-03-14 12:17:28 PM|| 2005-03-14 12:17:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Personally I'd like to see the UK join the United States... There are some eastern European countries that one day I might consider but today are still to underdeveloped. The rest of Europe is culturally incompatiable with the US. Good luck to you guys though, I hope this little unity thing works for ya... it's gotta be better than the fascism thing you were trying last century.

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2005-03-14 12:26:00 PM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com] 2005-03-14 12:26:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Well we are diferent from Americans, I dont have anything against Greece and fellow European Aris. But I am Portuguese and i 'll vote NO to any European treaty that goes beyond Europeans economic cooperation. I'll probably loose.

The War argument is like medieval language like "Marry me if not i'll rape you" ?!
So we are supposed to trust and build an organisation based in untrustiness.
We Europeans are only able to behave if we dismiss our personalities and traits? Germans, French, Britons, Spainiards are by definition rapists that makes them by definition a threat?
So based in that argument Europe will be threat to everyone...

EU is a collective suicide build in a negative proposition. 50 years of live...then probably Yugoslavia scaled up...

Posted by Hupomoque Spoluter7949 2005-03-14 12:36:09 PM|| 2005-03-14 12:36:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Hey - when did Aris turn into Lysander Spooner?

Posted by mojo 2005-03-14 1:23:31 PM|| 2005-03-14 1:23:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Hupomoque> You have, ofcourse, every right to vote "no" -- European Union must always be voluntary, not enforced. The majority of your people will decide.

But you are misconstruing my war argument. You said: "The War argument is like medieval language like "Marry me if not i'll rape you" ?!" But that's not what I'm saying at all -- nobody has forced, is forcing or will attempt to force e.g. Switzerland, or Norway, or any other nation, to join that doesn't desire it. The opposite: EU has largely always been *more* reluctant to accept new members than the new members have been to join. It was reluctant to accept UK and postponed its membership for 10 years -- it was reluctant to accept Cyprus and Greece had to essentially blackmail EU into accepting it -- it's now reluctant to accept Croatia and Romania and even more reluctant to accept Turkey or Ukraine. All these countries urge for membership, and EU is the reluctant one.

So "marry me or I'll rape you" is not what I'm saying at all. A better explanation is this: Nations are not monolithic. Every country has both its butchers and its saints. And the butchers (or rapists) use certain kinds of means and rhetorics and tools to get into power and launch imperialist wars against other nations.

Every nation in Europe once ruled over territory over all its neighbouring ones. For ordinary people this means: "Why shouldn't I be able to live *there* where my grandfather's house was before his whole family was expelled?" And for industries it means "Why shouldn't we be able to use *those* resources which we really really desire even if they lie on the other side of the borders?"

And the EU says: now you can. If you want to travel to the other side of the borders, and live and work and even vote in municipal elections there, you can -- and so can they. And if you want to use the resources there, you are allowed to compete for them using the same rules as native companies -- and so can they in your own land.

It used to be that every nation had to drive out the other one to make room for itself. Now every nation's citizens and industries have the whole *continent* to make themselves at home in, if they so desire -- playing by the same rules and no longer dominating by force over one another.

You aren't losing your nation, you are getting the continent instead.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-14 1:24:03 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-14 1:24:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Behind its elaborate faÃ§ade, the European Union was built mainly by France and Germany. Both are deeply traumatized nations, obsessed with their own bloody histories. Significantly, they blame their national failures not on their politicians, but on the people. The EU therefore was structured around a maze of political committees, like the old Soviet Union.

Neither France nor Germany has enjoyed a stable, democratic government for very long. As Paul Johnson points out, France has had twelve constitutions since 1789. The Western half of Germany had elections for half a century, but the East has no more experience of democracy than Russia. Just two years ago, Chancellor Schroeder won re-election by using the old Bismarck gambit of abusing foreigners -- in this case, America. Yet the Franco-German axis controls the EU. If Britain joins, it will be surrendering to an unaccountable power elite. And nobody seems to care.

France & Germany

France & Germany

France & Germany

France & Germany

Tweedledee / Tweedledum

Does everybody get the same warm fuzzies about this? {BARF}

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-14 1:54:55 PM|| 2005-03-14 1:54:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 "And we decided "never again shall we go to war against each other", and then we built the EU to make it happen."

Bullshit. Its only after AMERICANS rebuilt the continental economy back from nothing, and AMERICANS stood watch to keep you eurosavages from trashing the place again , as you have done since time immemorial, with the 2 worst bing inthe 20th century, and after AMERICANS stood watch on the borders and placed our own nation at nuclear risk to keep western europe free - only AFTER all that di you Europeans finally wise up.

And now you hate us for forcing you to be peaceful with each other.

Posted by HistoryCallingAris 2005-03-14 2:29:40 PM|| 2005-03-14 2:29:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 "eurosavages" and "time immemorial" and other such bullshit from Anonymous Coward. *yawn*.

and after AMERICANS stood watch on the borders and placed our own nation at nuclear risk to keep western europe free

You dare say that to a *Portuguese* and to a *Greek* about how free we were for the duration of the Cold War?

Know why Portugal is gonna have a tremendous majority voting "Yes" in the European Constitution? Same as Spain did, and same as Greece would have if it also held a referendum?

Because we saw the European Union (then European Community) helping support our democracy and freedom, we didn't see the United States do that.

History calling Anonymous Coward with all the truths that you like to forget.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-14 3:10:38 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-14 3:10:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 And I didn't notice Americans standing watch over Cyprus to prevent its European allies (Greece and Turkey) from trashing the place either. What I saw was the European Union now coming in and offering the best chance for peaceful reunification that the island had in 30 years.

So, if you want to make this thread a pissing contest, be prepared to be pissed on, Anonymous Coward.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-14 3:15:04 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-14 3:15:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Because we saw the European Union (then European Community) helping support our democracy and freedom, we didn't see the United States do that.

So, Aris, myopia is now a positive trait?

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-03-14 3:19:50 PM|| 2005-03-14 3:19:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 That is not an invitation to pissing contest, it is a serious question.

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-03-14 3:21:39 PM|| 2005-03-14 3:21:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 You dare say that to a *Portuguese* and to a *Greek* about how free we were for the duration of the Cold War?

So you'd blame America for your lack of freedom? LOL

Posted by AzCat 2005-03-14 3:22:49 PM|| 2005-03-14 3:22:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 AzCat> No, it's Anonymous Coward who claimed America was protecting the freedom of our nations all that time. I didn't blame America for our lack of freedom, but neither will I praise a protection that didn't actually exist.

Think of Chirac saying to an Iraqi that France consistently protected Iraqi freedom, and you'll understand the feeling.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-14 3:35:19 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-14 3:35:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Bullshit. Its only after AMERICANS rebuilt the continental economy back from nothing, and AMERICANS stood watch to keep you eurosavages from trashing the place again , as you have done since time immemorial, with the 2 worst bing inthe 20th century, and after AMERICANS stood watch on the borders and placed our own nation at nuclear risk to keep western europe free - only AFTER all that di you Europeans finally wise up.

Aris I think whoever HistoryCalliing should have ID'd himself to you. That was not fair, as was the namecalling. However having said that, I agree with about 90% of what he said, except your points about the military governments in Portugal, Greece, and Spain... Though those governments did oppose the Communist Hegemony of the USSR, and thus were allies of neccesity...

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-14 3:48:33 PM|| 2005-03-14 3:48:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Think of Chirac saying to an Iraqi that France consistently protected Iraqi freedom, and you'll understand the feeling.. Chirac/Iraq as a metaphor for the US/Cold War? AK, where DO you get these nuggets?

If it weren't for US forces in 1947, lead by Gen. Van Fleet, Greece would have been behind the Iron Curtain. You know, that thingy that those behind it didn't like? The one, you know, where US forces kept Greece on the other side? The one that finally fell in 1989? From the pressure of US forces. Berlin Wall? Check. 'Merican forces. Do ya ......... notice a itsy-bitsy, tiny link there, old buddy?

In any case, how is it the USAs responsibility for "your lack of freedom"? It seems to me, AK, that is due to a lack of balls (otherwise known as fortitude, resoluteness, bravery, etc.) on the part of the peoples of the EU. If they want to be sheep, let me be sheep I say. Americans aren't like that, AK. And you see that evety day in Iraq where our fine young men are facing the most ruthless, hellish opposition and winning.

And as for your comment "a protection that didn't actually exist", are you unaware of the US commitments and costs we shouldered to make sure the Red Army didn't do to, say Greece, what they did to the Hangarians in 1956 and the Czechs in 1968? Do ya think it was the power and glory of the Greek, or even European military that kept T-54 tanks from the streets of Athens? Not a chance, Bubba.

What kept Western Europe 'open' after their latest adventure was the US forces. Things like SAC and Carriers and multiple Corps of US Soldiers. So, we made Europe free to choose and if the citizens of some states like *Portugal* and *Greece* allowed themselves to be run by a small clique, that is your choice.

See, AK, Americans fought for, and gained, our freedom. Against the greatest power seen on God's green earth up to that time. We have even gone forth to help others gain their freedom at great cost to ourselves. But I guess that is just part of the American physche, huh? Wild cowboys always ~~supporting~~killin' bad guys and ~~oppressing~~freeing the ~~good~~poor oppressed people, eh?

It is obvious to me that no matter how much you read about (and secretly admire) the USA, you really don't understand us. We have taken the dregs and cast-offs of other societies and made a new culture that dominates almost all areas of human endeavor. We aren't the world, we are only the future of the world.

Posted by Brett 2005-03-14 4:24:19 PM|| 2005-03-14 4:24:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Aris (#9) "Because we saw the European Union (then European Community) helping support our democracy and freedom, we didn't see the United States do that."

Really? Greece has been a major U.S. aid recipient since the late 1940s except during military rule from 1967 to 1974. Greece and Turkey have been the largest recipients of U.S. foreign aid, primarily military, outside of Israel and Egypt.
http://www.fpif.org/papers/turkey/index_body.html
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/86-065.htm

Posted by Tom 2005-03-14 4:50:00 PM|| 2005-03-14 4:50:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Chirac/Iraq as a metaphor for the US/Cold War?

More like Chirac/Iraq as metaphor for USA/Greece but I'm probably being too lenient on the USA.

Tom> Greece has been a major U.S. aid recipient since the late 1940s except during military rule from 1967 to 1974

True, in that period American aid primarily came in the form of torture implements. http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/weapons/US-Torture.html

Greece and Turkey have been the largest recipients of U.S. foreign aid, primarily military, outside of Israel and Egypt.

Yes, and the military aid you provide to Greece is being used in efforts to counterbalance the military aid you provide to Turkey. Thank you for the protection, America.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-14 5:20:41 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-14 5:20:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Chirac/Iraq as metaphor for USA/Greece but I'm probably being too lenient on the USA. Ya. Uh-huh. Your making no sense, AK. Do you even know what a metaphor or analogy is? 'Cause from your usage, it seems your unclear.

in that period American aid primarily came in the form of torture implements. http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/weapons/US-Torture.html Is the screw mentioned the Lockheed or Acme version? Like we 'Mericans need to teach the Greeks about torture.

Aris, did you see the pictures from Lebanon today? Look closely as that is a people yearning to be free, in a place where car bombs were born and still breed.

Why didn't the Greek people protest the junta, AK? I think it is a testicular problem, AK.

Posted by Brett 2005-03-14 5:39:23 PM|| 2005-03-14 5:39:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Why didn't the Greek people protest the junta, AK?

They did protest it. Students at Polytechneio. Many died for it on November 17th. More arrogant ignorance yours.

I think it is a testicular problem, AK.

One could write a book on the not-too-hidden misogyny of American male conservatives.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-14 5:53:51 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-14 5:53:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 To get back to the failure of the EU constitution, and why it is a failure, let us compare. The US constitution was written to define everything permitted to the government, by people who distrusted government. When subsequent governments disobeyed the document, and performed acts not permitted, it was to our loss as a nation. And yet the foundation of the document still exists: that if it is not the constitutional function of government, it is prohibited for the government to do. Then, on top of that, it contains a Bill of Rights, as insurance that these things specified within are especially protected from government intrusion. In all of this, it is a minimalist document, based on the principal that "things change", and the assumption that the government must change with the times--yet retain a framework of limitation, always questioning whether it, the government, was "permitted" to do these new things. A demand that the will of government, and the actions of the people within the government, must be *justified*, *before* they can carry out what they wish to do. And that it can be challenged after the fact on the grounds of failure to do so.

Now compare this with the EU, and its guiding principal, based in Roman law, that "what is not specifically *AUTHORIZED* by the government, for the PEOPLE to do, is prohibited." I cannot imagine how terrible it must be for creativity, initiative, and ingenuity to be dampened so. That you must have "permission" to act before you, as a citizen, can act. But it is this principal which is the guiding light of the EU constitution. Why that document is enormous and attempts to be *inclusively controlling* of what its *citizens* do. And, I might add, why the British will be almost incapable of embracing it, living as they have for so long under Common Law. If they fall for it, the change will be worse for their freedom than what happened to Hong Kong with its return to Red China.

So compare the two. The US constitution speaks in clear and concise terms of the "rights of men", and its framework for government can be understood in an hour. The EU constitution sets forth a regime of bureaucratic regulation, and tries to define permanently what the rules under which its citizens will live. It has no bold and explicit "rights of men", just poorly written bureaucratic rules the government currently wishes to bestow on the masses, and very subject to change based on pragmatism or whim.

Such a document cannot survive. Even under continuous revision it offers nothing to the people, instead it takes away their liberty, their substance, their initiative. It drains their will to succeed, to accomplish, to excel. In such circumstances, there is no longer a reason to propagate, no future for European posterity. And finally, when some, any force arises that promises to sweep it aside, none shall stand up for it, none shall be inspired to defend it, and it shall be consigned to the ash heap.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-03-14 6:31:55 PM|| 2005-03-14 6:31:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 It's good to see Aris's anti-American sentiments increasingly coming to the fore. He'd have preferred a Greece under Nazi or Soviet occupation to the regime the Americans supported. Says everything you neeed to know. What an utter twat.

Posted by Bulldog 2005-03-14 7:16:52 PM|| 2005-03-14 7:16:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Now compare this with the EU, and its guiding principal, based in Roman law, that "what is not specifically *AUTHORIZED* by the government, for the PEOPLE to do, is prohibited."

Is that the propagandist's view of what Civic Law means?

Why that document is enormous and attempts to be *inclusively controlling* of what its *citizens* do.

Actually if you had cared to give it even the slightest passing glance you'd have seen that it's extremely controlling of what the *EU* does. The American constitution has some general principles about where your government can't interfere, but the EU uses separate articles to describe each of the only areas of competency in extreme detail, to the point of mentioning even animal rights.

On the other hand, when your federal government decided to make a law about animal rights, it used "interstate trading laws", as it seems to use it (from what I hear) on every issue when it wants to violate federalist principles.

The way the EU constitution is so utterly long is because it restrains the EU in such detail taht it ends up going into issues of policy. That's a big flaw, but it's a flaw in the *opposite* direction of what you indicate, not in giving the EU institutions too much freedom of action, but in giving them too little.

has no bold and explicit "rights of men",

Yes it does.

Your whole post is poetic babble of things you've heard and repeated and never bothered to check out if they held or not.

Bulldog> He'd have preferred a Greece under Nazi or Soviet occupation to the regime the Americans supported.

No, I wouldn't. Too bad for you that such a dilemma is utterly false.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-14 7:35:40 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-14 7:35:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Does anyone have a place where one can download the EU Constitution? I've only been around a little these days, but I haven't seen it.
It isn't in Phrench, is it? Are commoners forbidden from reading it, like the early Bible?
I've only heard anecdotal evidence about the lack/prescence of check/balances/lawmaking power, and I'd really like to check it out.

The only other option is that it's a lie that it even exists. Which looks highly viable right now.

Posted by Asedwich 2005-03-14 8:10:14 PM|| 2005-03-14 8:10:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Here you go

It's in all official languages. You get to choose.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-14 8:27:05 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-14 8:27:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 I saw you can also go to Wikisource here if an html version broken into several pieces will please you more than PDF files.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-14 8:37:43 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-14 8:37:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Behind its elaborate faÃ§ade, the European Union was built mainly by France and Germany. Both are deeply traumatized nations, obsessed with their own bloody histories. Significantly, they blame their national failures not on their politicians, but on the people. The EU therefore was structured around a maze of political committees, like the old Soviet Union.

Neither France nor Germany has enjoyed a stable, democratic government for very long

This is true. Neither has Greece or Italy. Britain, on the other hand, has.

What many Americans don't easily appreciate from within is the huge risk aversion that characterizes the western part of Europe. Europe doesn't trust itself because in truth, it has done some pretty horrid things and has failed to show a knack for success. So the EU Constitution is an attempt to lock down risks of all sorts.

And yes, Aris, I've read it. And worked with Europeans closely on and off for several decades, besides having married someone with many close family members on the Continent.

Aris, I do think your focus on the Colonel period in Greek history distorts to some degree your understanding of the relationship between Greece and the US since the 40s. As for Cyprus, I can make a good case that at the time, Turkey was a far better and more reliable ally to the US than Greece -- perhaps one reason we did not step further into that messy situation.

Posted by too true 2005-03-14 8:41:15 PM|| 2005-03-14 8:41:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Aris (#18): "Yes, and the military aid you provide to Greece is being used in efforts to counterbalance the military aid you provide to Turkey. Thank you for the protection, America."
I'm sorry we bothered, Aris. Billions of dollars in U.S. aid just to draw the Cold War boundary between Greece and the Soviet Union. And you're pissed because Turkey was on this side of the line too. What a twit you are. You deserve whatever d'Estang and Chirac do to your sorry ass.

Posted by Tom 2005-03-14 8:48:11 PM|| 2005-03-14 8:48:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Billions of dollars in U.S. aid just to draw the Cold War boundary between Greece and the Soviet Union.

Yes, it was all selflessly for our benefit. Chile, Brazil, Nicaragua, the torturers, the money to the Contras, everything you ever did to Latin America or to Greece was always selflessly for the good of the nations in question.

"Twit" I'd be indeed if I ever believed that.

You gave "Military aid" as part of a business deal, an alliance called NATO that was to everyone's interest. Stop pretending that you wouldn't have anything to lose if Turkey and Greece both fell to Soviet control, and stop pretending that it was all selflessness on your behalf whenever you militarily assisted them. You had bases in these countries, you had troops. You gave and you received.

Here's what I think: that if both Greece and Turkey had been like Sweden or Austria instead, not taking part, then they'd both have been far better off. USA might have been worse off, though. And possibly the world too.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-14 9:01:07 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-14 9:01:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Aris, I do think your focus on the Colonel period in Greek history distorts to some degree your understanding of the relationship between Greece and the US since the 40s

Anger arises only when people demand gratitude for supposedly "protecting our freedom".

When the moment actually came to "protect" our freedom, they failed to protect it. We weren't invaded by Soviet troops, our freedom fell from within. And USA didn't give a damn because the tyrant were still faithful allies, the best damn government according to US officials, since the time of Pericles.

So, stop demanding gratitude for what USA failed to do in regards to Greece, and you'll stop receiving scorn in return.

You want to know the difference between your true anti-American Greek and someone like me? The true anti-American is angry towards the USA all the time for its betrayal at the time of the colonels. I only get angry instead when Americans demand *gratitude* for the worse-than-nothing they offered us at the time.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-14 9:08:05 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-14 9:08:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Thanks Aris, I do prefer the html.

"Article III-146

2. The liberalisation of banking and insurance services connected with movements of capital shall be effected in step with the liberalisation of movement of capital."

OK, I withhold my misgivings. If the people are willing, this is going to be better than Animal Farm.
Obviously, there has been a breakthrough. It is now possible to mobilize (liberalise?) capital in discrete, easily measureable, and predictable chunks, lumps, and globs. And THEN we'll get to the banking and insurance services! :)

Posted by Asedwich 2005-03-14 9:09:48 PM|| 2005-03-14 9:09:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 "You gave 'Military aid' as part of a business deal, an alliance called NATO that was to everyone's interest."
We gave a lot, you gave a little, and you were closer to the front line than we were. If it was indeed to your interest, why did we foot most of the bills?

You have clearly shown your anti-American side today. You're not worth our aid and you're not worth my typing time.

Posted by Tom 2005-03-14 9:12:00 PM|| 2005-03-14 9:12:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 "You want to know the difference between your true anti-American Greek and someone like me?"

No, not really.

Posted by Dave D. 2005-03-14 9:13:19 PM|| 2005-03-14 9:13:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 USA didn't give a damn because the tyrant were still faithful allies

There's some truth to that. There's also some - a lot, by my experience - truth to the assertion that the left wing partisans in Greece were so rabidly anti-American *before* the Colonels took power that the latter seemed the better of two evils.

Posted by too true 2005-03-14 9:16:17 PM|| 2005-03-14 9:16:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 We gave a lot, you gave a little, and you were closer to the front line than we were. If it was indeed to your interest, why did we foot most of the bills?

It's you who seems to claim it was only for our interest alone, so it's you who should be asking yourself that question.

If it was indeed just for our interest, why did you foot so many of the bills?

You have clearly shown your anti-American side today.

Idiots that demand gratitude for the "freedom" you never gave a damn about but still be claiming to have protected, tend to bring that out to me.

You're not worth our aid and you're not worth my typing time.

And yet you keep on typing.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-14 9:20:04 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-14 9:20:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Aris: the controls on the EU you mention is deceptive. The US constitution evolves power from the governed. Framed in terms of "rights", those authorities not expressly given to the federal government, are reserved to the individual states and to the people. And not just to people as individuals, but as organized, non-governmental groups, such as militias and even modern home owner's associations.

But as the President of Spain has recently said about Britain, they have already surrendered much of their sovereignty, with only defense and foreign policy still outstanding. I also guess he assumes that Britain will have no choice but to eventually join the Euro and the constitution.

And once again, this shows up a fatal flaw seen over and over in the evolution of the EU, the great and beneficial nature of some promise turns out to be a lie, and there is nothing the member states can do about it. Seriously, in your wildest imaginings, do you think the EU will permit a member state to leave, ever? Or will they just use some bureaucratic treachery and subterfuge to deny them departure?

Civil rights are not given by bureaucrats. They do not come to be because they are written down on a piece of paper. They exist at a fundamental level, because if they do not, then a people are not free. And whether you believe that we are "endowed by our creator with inalienable rights", or that rights are the product of the social contract between all people, they are not, never the creation of government, nor are they bestowed on us out of the kindness of our leaders' hearts.

They are something we *cannot* delegate away to some pencil pusher. They are naturally ours and can only be taken away if we let them be, or have them coerced from us at gunpoint.

The EU constitution will fail, either because so many nations will reject it out of hand, or because it has no heart; or because when it is imperiled, none shall rise to its defense.

In past, I, like so many other Americans, have sworn to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States. I *knew* what I was defending, and I *knew* what it meant. And more than anything else, I *knew* that, even at the cost of my own life, it was *worth* defending.

Will a European ever feel or say such a thing?

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-03-14 9:22:58 PM|| 2005-03-14 9:22:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Seriously, in your wildest imaginings, do you think the EU will permit a member state to leave, ever?

Yes. How the hell do you think they could even forbid it, even if they wanted to? Unlike in the US, each nation has still retained our national armies and has no interest in foregoing it.

You see that's a fundamental "check and balance" right there that you haven't shown interest in at all in discussing. Perhaps because it's the US that lacks it and the EU that has it. That has allowed your federal government to take powers for itself that the EU isn't even dreaming so far to have. The war on drugs. The prohibition. Abortion. You are even discussing to have a federal ban on gay marriage.

Our checks and balances so far are proving stronger than yours where state rights are concerned.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-14 9:35:12 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-14 9:35:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Happy Lent - making friends?

Posted by Frank G 2005-03-14 10:02:13 PM|| 2005-03-14 10:02:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Better talk about what you know Aris. It was US CIA money with Embassador Frank Carlucci
(also West german money ) that supported the Portuguese socialist party and Social Democratic party against communists.

Frank Carlucci had to fight against Kissinger that
was dismissal of any democracy in Portugal.
And funny thing one of the guys that helped him against "Mr. Realpolitic" was Rumsfeld :)

Of course without USA.... Europe would be Red with guerrilla movements ,maybe except Britain.

Posted by Hupomoque Spoluter7949 2005-03-14 11:02:42 PM|| 2005-03-14 11:02:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 That has allowed your federal government to take powers for itself...

Every government is a beast that has to be re-tamed once a while. That is, if there are means available to people which the government is supposed to represent. As a rule, it is far more difficult when the goverment rules, rather than governs.

...that the EU isn't even dreaming so far to have.

Don't be a pessimist! Give it time and I am rather positive it will make its dreams come true. ;-)

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-03-14 11:47:54 PM|| 2005-03-14 11:47:54 PM|| Front Page Top

17:41 Usagotohell
01:17 phil_b
01:17 phil_b
23:53 DMFD
23:53 trailing wife
23:47 Sobiesky
23:38 Phil Fraering
23:25 Phil Fraering
23:13 Frank G
23:02 Hupomoque Spoluter7949
22:54 Ol_Dirty_American
22:54 Sobiesky
22:52 trailing wife
22:43 Bon Scott
22:42 Bobby
22:36 Bon Scott
22:31 Bomb-a-rama
22:30 Frank G
22:30 Bobby
22:24 Bobby
22:21 Bobby
22:21 Gleaper Cleregum9549
22:20 Eric Jablow
22:17 Frank G