Article

2005-03-18 Europe

French may vote no to EU constitution; Jacques may croak!

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 Tom 2005-03-18 00:00:00 AM|| || Front Page|| [11135 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Damn uncultured AFP hacks don't know what a "crescendo" is: you reach a climax via a crescendo.

Posted by someone 2005-03-18 12:17:00 AM|| 2005-03-18 12:17:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 The good news just keep coming.

Posted by phil_b 2005-03-18 12:17:27 AM|| 2005-03-18 12:17:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Oh yes, it's so close I "predict" it will pass by a slim majority. What else can you expect from "Le Worm"? You think he will let it fail? He is a crook. It will pass come hell or high water. I imagine R. Daley had nothing on old Jacques.

Posted by Sock Puppet Oâ Doom 2005-03-18 12:26:21 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2005-03-18 12:26:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Besides Turkey's membership, French objections concern the fact that they feel the Constitution is too much in favour of neoliberal free-market competition and doesn't include enough socialism in it.

So in short, if the Constitution fails in France it will fail for the exact opposite reason than people here would have wanted it to fail: It'd be a blow of communist and socialist statist-protectionism against the free market ideals of the EU constitution.

If you think *that* to be good news, then I am thinking insults to you right now.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-18 12:58:37 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-18 12:58:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 For once I agree with Aris: most people calling for the "no" are doing it for the wrong reasons: because it would dismantle the welfare state and of course, don't forget we are in France, because it would put the country in the orbit of the United States.

Nobody is mentionning the fundamental isuue and is one of democracy, that ancient Greek word some Greeks no longer understand. :-) Don't think for a minute that the 500 pages Constitution is a bug, it is a feature aimed at preventing people from reading it and noticing that the EU would be a soft dictatorship. Perhaps not as soft as that: the public prosecutor can jail you for six months without trial for "anti-european" activities.

Nobody is mentionning a second fundamental reason and is one of centralism: the reason the United States is viable is because the federal governemnt doesn't interfere that much in the daily life of people: Washington doesn't try to force a uniform thickness of coats both for Vermont and in Florida and most of legislature for Texas is voted by people from Texas instead of by people from Massachusetts. The EU Constution tries to force a highly interfering state on people who doon't have the sme climate, the same habits (food, clothing, working hours), history and religion. The prefect recipe for a Yugoslav-like implosion after a few decades.

But even if for the bad reasons, it would be a Good Thing (TM) for the EU "Constitution" going into the dustbins of history.

Posted by JFM 2005-03-18 2:09:57 AM|| 2005-03-18 2:09:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 That the European Constitution will fail is a foregone conclusion, the only open question is whether it will fail to be adopted or fail far more spectacularly thereafter. I, for one, sincerely hope the Constitution is adopted, I've much popcorn at the ready ....

Posted by AzCat 2005-03-18 2:33:18 AM|| 2005-03-18 2:33:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 JFM, I'd really like to know where in the world you read that about the public prosecutor. The only place where the Public Prosecutor is mentioned in the Constitution is article III-274, and nothing is said there for either "six months without trial" nor for "anti-european activities".

So, what's the game with the bizarre claims, JFM?

the reason the United States is viable is because the federal governemnt doesn't interfere that much in the daily life of people:

To take as an example drug laws, it seems to me EU allows much more flexibility to its member states to set their own laws than the US does. To take as another example abortion laws, it seems to me likewise. The degree of separation between church and state -- ditto. Same-sex marriage: I gather that in the US both sides worry that the other side will force their preferred solution on the whole of the nation.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-18 3:25:17 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-18 3:25:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Superbe, France! Keep it up...

Seems to me neither party should be forced into an arranged marriage if they don't want to be in it, irrespective of their reasons for objecting. Democracy: the antidote to elitist paternalism. Ain't it great?

Posted by Bulldog 2005-03-18 3:33:38 AM|| 2005-03-18 3:33:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 And as a sidenote the only way for EU to turn out like Yugoslavia is if we allowed Russia to join it -- if Russia ever gets membership, *then* it becomes times for the rest of the members to start fleeing the EU.

Important reasons for the Yugoslavia's demise was Serb nationalism and the way one constituent republic (namely Serbia) had enough power to attempt to take on most of the other ones at the same time -- including having minority populations in the neighbouring regions that attempted secession: The obvious parallel here is Nazi Germany with its Germanic populations in Czechoslovakia and elsewhere -- and now Putin's Russia with its large Russian, Russophone (or other) minorities in Moldova, Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine and so forth.

Without such desire for dominance of one over all, or such destabilizing minorities in other nations to be used by pawns, there's no Yugoslavia in the making. At worst the fall of the EU will be a peaceful dissolution Czechoslovakia-style.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-18 3:41:27 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-18 3:41:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 be used *as* pawns, I meant.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-18 3:43:44 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-18 3:43:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Ah Ã§a ira Ã§a ira Ã§a ira, les eurocrates a la lanterne!
Ah Ã§a ira Ã§a ira Ã§a ira, les eurocrates on les aura!

Posted by True German Ally 2005-03-18 8:44:20 AM|| 2005-03-18 8:44:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Aris you are really incredible. The Treaty of Amsterdam states that any European legislation, even derived laws is superior to national laws, even Constitutions. In contrast the US constitution enumerates limitatively the powers of the federal governemnt and stetes the remainder will be assumed by the states or by the people.

Second: You give an example on drugs. Meaning that the liberal legislation on the Netherlands coupled with Schengen will end in my daughter being poisoned by some bastard based in Amsterdam.
In other words she would be affected by Netheralnd laws.

Third: The US federal government doesn't mingle on the size of beds, EU does. Or in if restaurants can put the traditional bottles of olive oil and vinegar on table, EU does. Or about the composition of moussaka and ouzo (you can bet EU will end doing it). And doesn't put Helsinki and Santiago de Compostela in the same time zone (part of the dead from the 2003 heat wave were due to people leaving office at 18h00 but at 16h00 on solar time).

Also you know nothing about what happenned on Yougoslavia. It was not thne bad Serbs against the good everyone else, in fact one of the problems was that was everyone against Serbia and the rotating presidency meant Serbia faced a hostile president 7/8ths of time.

About the peaceful dissolutioj that is wishful thinking. The Constitution can be amended only if there is unanimity for modifying it. Meaning that in practice that Constitution cannot be modified. And there is no right to secession. So when people will have enough of a having a parliamnt who can merely tell yes or nay to propositions of the commisiison when people will have enough of having a Finn deciding on the ways of making olive oil and they want to leave then the only way out will be violence.

Posted by JFM 2005-03-18 8:44:53 AM|| 2005-03-18 8:44:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 TGA

I see with pleasure that you know a lot about French history. But the text of the song is:

"Ah Ã§a ira Ã§a ira Ã§a ira, les eurocrates a la lanterne! Ah Ã§a ira Ã§a ira Ã§a ira, les eurocrates on les pendra!"

"They will, will go, will go, the eurocrats to the lamppost. They will go, will go, will go, the eurocrats we will hang them"

Posted by JFM 2005-03-18 8:52:10 AM|| 2005-03-18 8:52:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 JFM, your are not correct about the secession right.

Article 59: Voluntary withdrawal from the Union

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the European Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention; the European Council shall examine that notification. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council of Ministers, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

The representative of the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in Council of Ministers or European Council discussions or decisions concerning it.

3. The Constitution shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, decides to extend this period.

4. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to re-join, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 57.

In shorter words: A state that wants to secede can do so anytime, either after negotiating the terms or, if negociations fail, after 2 years WITHOUT the consent of the remaining EU States. The 2 years period can only be extendend WITH THE CONSENT of the seceding state.

No violence. No EU army will cross the Channel if the UK calls it quits.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-03-18 8:57:51 AM|| 2005-03-18 8:57:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 JFM, you're right about the hanging but I guess there's a EU directive against using lampposts this way.

"Et leur infernale clique
Au diable s'envolera."

Posted by True German Ally 2005-03-18 9:01:54 AM|| 2005-03-18 9:01:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 JFM, the idea of a Finn dictating anything about olive oil production is pretty funny (much as I like the Finns - Finnair is my favourite airline).

Posted by phil_b 2005-03-18 9:05:08 AM|| 2005-03-18 9:05:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 JFM, I did study French history and literature quite a bit and dealt with Giscard's politics on a daily basis at times. Rest assured that I admire French culture. One of my favorite authors is Montaigne. One French intellectual of the 20th century I came to like a lot was Raymond Aron, who was a personal friend.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-03-18 9:08:58 AM|| 2005-03-18 9:08:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 Aris you are really incredible.

Thank you.

But whereas I'm "incredible" because you simply don't like what I said, you were pretty incredible when you outrageously LIED about what the EU Constitution says about the public prosecutor.

In contrast the US constitution enumerates limitatively the powers of the federal governemnt and states the remainder will be assumed by the states or by the people.

You are all about the theory and never care about the practice of the matter ain't ya? You get your anti-marijuana laws and they can justify that because it affects "interstate trade" and you get you animal cruelty laws and they can justify that because it affects "interstate trade".

Don't be deluded about the US constitution enumerating "limitatively the powers of the federal government".

Second: You give an example on drugs. Meaning that the liberal legislation on the Netherlands coupled with Schengen will end in my daughter being poisoned by some bastard based in Amsterdam.

Oh, I see. What you mean is that you like the right of member-states to set their own laws only if you agree with said laws.

Tell your daughter not to travel to Amsterdam: Problem solved.

And there is no right to secession

How big a liar can you become, before you fall down under the weight of your lies?
Yes, there is a fucking right to secession in the EU Constitution, stated quite clearly and explicitely, you absurd absurd LIAR. No, there's *nothing* about the European Prosecutor imprisoning people for "anti-european activitities", you absurd absurd LIAR.

The Constitution can be amended only if there is unanimity for modifying it. Meaning that in practice that Constitution cannot be modified.

Just like all the previous treaties of the EU, just like the Treaty of Nice, which I guess means that the Treaty of Nice will never be modified, I guess. In which case why are you so wasting so much time talking about the EU Constitution which will never come to be?

Also you know nothing about what happenned on Yougoslavia. It was not thne bad Serbs against the good everyone else, in fact one of the problems was that was everyone against Serbia and the rotating presidency meant Serbia faced a hostile president 7/8ths of time.

What the hell does that have to do with the butchery at Bosnia? The Yugoslavian constitution gave the republics the right to leave the federation -- and so they left: the Serb minorities throughout the region wanted to create a "Greater Serbia" using bits and pieces from all the now-independent states in the regions.

*That* was the problem, that was the imperialism, that was the cause of what we now call "the example of Yugoslavia", the problem was not some kind of "hostile presidency".

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-18 9:19:55 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-18 9:19:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 TGA said:

No EU army will cross the Channel if the UK calls it quits.

I don't see the pitiful european armies succeed where both the Grande ArmÃ©e and the almighty Wehrmacht failed. :-)

Posted by JFM 2005-03-18 9:50:15 AM|| 2005-03-18 9:50:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 I'm glad I didn't say "cross the Rhine if France calls it quits" :-)

Posted by True German Ally 2005-03-18 9:53:04 AM|| 2005-03-18 9:53:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 pass the popcorn. JFM, you rock! To the lampposts!

Posted by Frank G 2005-03-18 9:57:09 AM|| 2005-03-18 9:57:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 JFM, you rock!

For a person who hasn't actually managed to make a single accurate claim about the EU Constitution and what it contains.

The only thing that's left accurate in his posts here is the kind of complaint about issues that don't have anything to do with the changes the EU Constitution makes, but are rather complaints about the EU as a whole -- namely the bureacratic product standardization nonsense that's been true already under the Treaty of Nice and the ones preceding it.

If you want a fucking right to secession, JFM, *then* vote for the EU Constitution, because it's the current treaties that don't contain such a right, and it's the EU Constitution that contains it. When you are wrong about something as fundamental as that, it's time to reconsider your attitude about the EU Constitution as a whole.

JFM, I hope you'll be happy with the more socialist, less free-marketeer version of the EU Constitution that will make its appearance if France rejects the Constitution for reasons of lack-of-socialism. When a vast construction falls, you should very damn well hope it falls on the side you'd prefer, and not on the opposite one.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-18 10:08:22 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-18 10:08:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 Aris I apologize, I saw an allegation in an anti-EU website and didn't cross-check it with the text of the Constitution

Posted by JFM 2005-03-18 10:31:12 AM|| 2005-03-18 10:31:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 Okay, that's nice and honest of you. I apologize for raging against you the way I did.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-18 10:34:08 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-18 10:34:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 Croaking Frog. Heh. Funny.

Posted by BrerRabbit 2005-03-18 10:45:39 AM|| 2005-03-18 10:45:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 And I have to add that I already caught one site lying so I have still less excuses.

Posted by JFM 2005-03-18 10:58:59 AM|| 2005-03-18 10:58:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 phil_b, you worry me....first you admit you like durians, then you like hanging out with Finns? ;)

(Although I do have to agree that Finnair is top notch.)

Posted by Desert Blondie 2005-03-18 11:03:25 AM|| [http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com] 2005-03-18 11:03:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 It's all good if the Froggy electorate turns down the EU Constitution. At the higher levels where it counts, the EU is a repulsive, unelected aristocracy. Damn pro gay atheists too as recently demonstrated

Posted by sea cruise 2005-03-18 11:17:54 AM|| 2005-03-18 11:17:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#29 TGA

You have known Raymond Aron? Then perhaps you know about that slogan of French leftists: "It is better to be wrong with Sartre than right with Aron".

But after thinking in Nietzche I told "People who drink in the fresh water of Sartre's lies and errors instead of Aron's bitter water of truth are failing the camel stage. And they are taking the first step toward becoming untermenschen". :-)

Posted by JFM 2005-03-18 11:21:55 AM|| 2005-03-18 11:21:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#30 I had also seen the allegation that dropping out of the EU was a no-go. I think the mistake came from a quote/or misquote of a politican and not from the Constitution. I'm glad to read that's not true because I had a tough time understanding why any nation would sign up for such a deal with no exit strategy if things turned sour.

The other question then is does the Constitution have any comments on the member states voting to expel a member?

Posted by rjschwarz 2005-03-18 11:29:17 AM|| [http://rjschwarz.com] 2005-03-18 11:29:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#31 Doesn't matter there's always a right of session provided you can whip the central government.

Posted by Shipman 2005-03-18 11:31:30 AM|| 2005-03-18 11:31:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#32 The other question then is does the Constitution have any comments on the member states voting to expel a member?

Sort of. Not exactly expelling, but rather suspending member voting rights in the Council if there's a breach of the fundamental values of the EU by a member-state ("human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law"). Hold on a sec, and I'll find you a link to the exact article.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-18 11:40:29 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-18 11:40:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#33 rjschwarz> Here you go: Article I-58: Suspension of certain rights resulting from Union membership

And these are the "Union's Values" referred to: Article I-2: The Union's values

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-18 11:44:35 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-18 11:44:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#34 TGA-That agreement shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council of Ministers, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the CONSENT of the European Parliament.

consent? isn't that like, "When Hell Freezes..."?

That is an invitation to violence.

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-18 12:28:01 PM|| 2005-03-18 12:28:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Tom : THE FRENCH STREET??????

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-18 12:30:13 PM|| 2005-03-18 12:30:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 BigEd, for chrissakes, read the article again. The agreement is not *required* for the member state in question to withdraw. The member state can withdraw *without* an agreement.

But BigEg, yes, if such an "agreement" is deemed desirable, the very word "agreement" indicates that both sides need to "agree" aka "consent" to it.

I'm sorry that the concept of *consentual* agreements so much offends you. I suppose that you would have preferred an article that said: "Any member state can impose any terms it likes on the rest of the European Union, retaining all rights of memberships but not having any obligations. No consent is needed by the European Parliament or the Council."

Would you have preferred that?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-18 12:38:37 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-18 12:38:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 the very word "agreement" indicates that both sides need to "agree" aka "consent" to it.

Still if the bulk of the EU does not want one member to go, and that member wants to go, if the EU resists, then there will be violence...2 year cooling-off period not withstanding...WORLD EVENTS CAN HAPPEN A LOT FASTER THAN 2 YEARS...

Then we can talk of a repression, and Brussels installs a puppet governmwent in the capital, and seeks to procecute the people who wanted to leave the EU in the first place.

In the US Civil war, the underlying issue was whether the slave states could defy federal law... Unlike the situation in the US in the 1860s, where there was only 80+ years as a nation, how many of the individual nations have national identities stretching back 1000 years or more? (Greece 3000) Some meddlesome bureaucrat in Brussels is going to suppress that at the snap of his fingers? I think not. And if the EU Constitution goes forward as is, JFM's concerns may be valid. TGA may be an optimist...

Besides, if some repressed bureaucrat is determing the size beds can be, you are done before you start.

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-18 1:26:16 PM|| 2005-03-18 1:26:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 BigEd, I have a contract with my mobile phone company over 24 months. I think I can expect from a member state to accept 2 years as well before leaving.

Violence is impossible per se because Brussels has no means to exact it.

This is really a non issue of the EU Constitution.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-03-18 1:45:09 PM|| 2005-03-18 1:45:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 BigEd, am I supposed to reply to such insanity? Which among all those "ifs" and "thens" have anything to do with the Constitution or the EU whatsoever? Installing puppet governments? Repression? Prosecuting people that want to leave it?

Which national army in the EU shall do this? Name it. Don't use the vague "Brussels". Tell me which president of which nation shall sign the order to send troops of his across another member-states's borders without the consent of the other state's government.

And then tell me, why he would be *more* willing to do it with the EU Constitution, than without it.

You are not discussing either the Constitution nor the EU anymore. You are discussing fevered imaginings which would require neither, if such possibilities as you discuss were remotely conceivable. Shall Germany invade France again, you imagine, at the call of Brussels? If Germany was such a nation nowadays as to do it, then it wouldn't require either the Constitution, nor the EU, nor Brussels.

There's a mantra that Frank and others repeat several times about me -- that I supposedly "know nothing about the United States" (I mean they repeat it even in times when I'm not actually discussing anything specific the US, they just like to mention it in random time, just to annoy.)

Here's however what must be said to you a hundred times more strongly than I've ever been told about the US: YOU, BigEd, KNOW NOTHING ABOUT EUROPE. You don't even comprehend how far removed from reality the scenarios you describe are.

"If the EU resists" - oh, start with the ifs.
"Then we can talk of a repression" -- through what enforcement agents?
"Brussels installs a puppet government in the capital" -- with what army?
"seeks to procecute the people who wanted to leave the EU in the first place" -- with what courts? EU Court of Justice can't even prosecute civilians, only member-states and institutions can be brought to it.

You make mention of "how many of the individual nations have national identities stretching back 1000 years or more? (Greece 3000) Some meddlesome bureaucrat in Brussels is going to suppress that at the snap of his fingers"

and you don't understand that that's EXACTLY part of the reason that such a EU dictatorship can't happen. You claim that a "meddlesome bureaucrat in Brussels" can impose dictatorship with a snap of his fingers.

You are babbling without restraint. I've wasted way too much time to even attempt to wrap my mind around such insanities as you claim. If I argued "What if George W. Bush is a zombie who launched the war on Iraq in order to have fresh supplies of newly-dead brains?" that's how far removed from reality you are.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-18 2:08:17 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-18 2:08:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 Or just read TGA's post at #38. It says everything I said above, yet more succinctly. :-)

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-18 2:10:27 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-18 2:10:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Jacques may croak!

We could be so lucky.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-03-18 2:36:37 PM|| 2005-03-18 2:36:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 "Still if the bulk of the EU does not want one member to go, and that member wants to go, if the EU resists, then there will be violence"

still, if the bulk of NAFTA does not want one member to go, and that member wants to go, if NAFTA resists, then there will be violence.

On to Ottawa, boys :)

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-03-18 2:52:10 PM|| 2005-03-18 2:52:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Typical liberal nonsense. The 10th Mt. is aimed at Montreal with an airdrop by the ready brigade of the 82nd on Quebec City. Ottawa is a non issue for all involved.

Posted by Shipman 2005-03-18 3:39:46 PM|| 2005-03-18 3:39:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 Or just read TGA's post at #38. It says everything I said above, yet more succinctly. :-)

More diplomatically, too.

Posted by Pappy 2005-03-18 7:20:14 PM|| 2005-03-18 7:20:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 AK sez:
Sort of. Not exactly expelling, but rather suspending member voting rights in the Council if there's a breach of the fundamental values of the EU by a member-state ("human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law").

In that case, Belgium is hosed.

Posted by mrp 2005-03-18 8:38:53 PM|| 2005-03-18 8:38:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 I think it's silly to try to argue about interpretations of the EU constitution. For one thing, it's pretty clear that France and Germany do pretty much whatever they want to anyway. And even if these interpretations of the craziness are right, it's a waste of good breath to suggest it.

The fact is that most Euros *like* giving up responsibility to an unaccountable elite, especially if that elite gives them a suitable appearance of participatory democracy. They *like* having things equal a lot more than they like freedom of action and choice.

I wish I were more optimistic about the future for western Europe. But unless something fundamental changes - and that would take decades - I think the continent is a write-off on the western side. I just hope the French and Germans don't bleed Poland and the emerging states so dry that they can't achieve their economic and political potential.

Posted by anon 2005-03-18 8:54:32 PM|| 2005-03-18 8:54:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 Comment #46 is right on the mark!

Posted by Rafael 2005-03-18 9:13:50 PM|| 2005-03-18 9:13:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 Ship: The 10th Mt. is aimed at Montreal with an airdrop by the ready brigade of the 82nd on Quebec City.

Just don't damage the historic buildings.

Posted by Rafael 2005-03-18 9:17:02 PM|| 2005-03-18 9:17:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 anon - well said - see: Gov't deficit limits and theGerman and French attainment of such. Also, Greek debt

Posted by Frank G 2005-03-18 10:08:00 PM|| 2005-03-18 10:08:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by anon 2005-03-18 8:54:32 PM|| 2005-03-18 8:54:32 PM|| Front Page Top

23:58 Spaimble Hupaiper3886
23:50 nada
23:35 Spaimble Hupaiper3886
23:34 Bobby
23:12 Alaska Paul
23:10 Alaska Paul
23:09 Bomb-a-rama
23:05 Bobby
23:02 JosephMendiola
23:02 Bobby
23:00 Bobby
22:58 Desert Blondie
22:56 Bomb-a-rama
22:48 Silentbrick
22:42 Alaska Paul
22:29 James
22:25 Alaska Paul
22:23 James
22:21 Alaska Paul
22:17 Desert Blondie
22:09 Big Sarge
22:08 Frank G
22:03 Desert Blondie
22:01 3dc