Article

2005-01-28 Europe

British Labelled "Most Ignorant" About EU 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 Duke Nukem 2005-01-28 00:00:00 AM|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Actually they are self-admittedly the most ignorant about the EU constitution. They have the least percentage of the population that claims itself informed on the issue.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 12:01:54 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 12:01:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Claiming yourself informed or uninformed does not make it so.

Posted by Dishman 2005-01-28 12:20:09 AM|| 2005-01-28 12:20:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 So, do any of you folks know the shelf life of SPAM? Is it measured in years, or decades? Does it even have a shelf life, for that matter? When it goes bad, is only some of the SPAM bad, or is most of the SPAM bad? Or is that the least of my worries?
What if there's a great difference between SPAM when it's the can, and SPAM when it's out of the can?

It probably isn't Halal, and it's only a daily delicacy in the Hawaiian Islands... which is far enough away from those other uninformed island nations for me.

Posted by Asedwich 2005-01-28 12:31:38 AM|| 2005-01-28 12:31:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Dishman> In my last post I was mainly thinking by an earlier Eurobarometer study on whether people of various member states called themselves informed or not on the issue.

But the study in this article is a bit more detailed:
"In its survey the commission also asked six "true or false" questions, designed to test detailed knowledge of the treaty. Two were trick questions, asking about policies that are not in the constitution: whether the constitution would abolish national citizenship and whether it would establish a direct European tax.

Four countries are named as scoring poorly: Britain, Ireland, Portugal and Latvia, a new accession state.

In the EU as a whole, the commission says, 63 per cent know that the constitution does not plan to remove national citizenship. But less than half of British voters answered correctly. On tax, 45 per cent of Britons wrongly think the constitution creates a direct EU tax, while only 23 per cent know it does not.

The commission draws its own conclusion about the lack of knowledge among Euro-sceptic countries such as Britain. The report says: "One can see a strong correlation between level of knowledge and support for the text."

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 12:38:54 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 12:38:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Trick questions? What a laugh. Does the EU think it is dealing with lazy or stupid "students"? Perhaps the EU should accept the obvious which is that UK citizens are openly hostile and contemptuous of becoming vassals of the power brokers in Brussels. How far the Brits have fallen to elect an anti-nationalist sellout like Blair. Yet some Americans think Blair is such a freedom fighter. Yes, maybe for Iraqis but not for Brits. Blair wants to be esconced as one of the power brokers in Brussels so to that end, he'll sacrifice the sovereignity of his countrymen. Sad.

Posted by 2xstandard 2005-01-28 1:26:56 AM|| 2005-01-28 1:26:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Damn, has anybody read the thing? It's as thick as a telephone book. And about as interesting.

Posted by Scott 2005-01-28 1:39:24 AM|| [http://balticblog.blogspot.com/] 2005-01-28 1:39:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Well, #6, evidently the majority of EU nations' citizens have read the telephone thick rules and regulations like good little lambie pies. Only dummie/hostile nations' citizens scored poorly on Brussels' generated test.

See the idea is the more you learn about the EU, the more you'll love it - that's what robots, err, I mean good lambie pies say.

Posted by 2xstandard 2005-01-28 1:52:13 AM|| 2005-01-28 1:52:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 What a surprise - the EU's own report claims to find that there's a high correlation between ignorance of its Consitution and opposition to it. I would never have been able to predict that!
Interesting to see that support for the Constitution seems to have halved in the UK during the past year, at least according to the EU's most recent Eurobarometer survey (p.79). Levels of ignorance seem to have shot up too. What a load.

Posted by Bulldog 2005-01-28 4:50:43 AM|| 2005-01-28 4:50:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 "Forty-five per cent of voters in Ireland say they have not heard of the constitution"

And last year's Eurobarometer claimed 59 per cent of the Irish supported it. What happened? LOL

Posted by Bulldog 2005-01-28 5:11:33 AM|| 2005-01-28 5:11:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 I welcome all our British friends to the "Too Stupid To Know What's Good For You Club". As an American in Fly-over country I was given my membership by our Socialist Weinie Democratic Elite for chosing to elect a "known idiot" for our president. I too have been told by the all knowing MSM that its because I'm not capable of making a proper logical decision, I think the phrase was unteachable ignorance. Again, welcome.

Posted by BrerRabbit 2005-01-28 6:47:48 AM|| 2005-01-28 6:47:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Aris, (I'm honestly not trying to be sarcastic here) I've always wanted to ask you what in your opinion is the point of the EU? What's the desired result?

Posted by Jarhead 2005-01-28 7:58:47 AM|| 2005-01-28 7:58:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Let me bring to the attention of you all something that was spoken here: http://www.losethedelusion.com/blog/2005/01/a_diplomatic_qu.html

"Toby, I would have to agree fully that the more exposure you have to the EU the more you favour it. Obviously, and as you pointed out, this is not always the case. But on the whole it seems to fit. For example, many of the Brit expats here in Cyprus used to be avowed Eurosceptics. However, since the island has joined the EU and they find that they don't need to queue up at immigration any longer, can set up their own businesses easily and can get work permits automatically they have changed their views. In fact, the Commission offices here are forever getting letters from Brit expats asking for help on a wide variety of issues. But, as people are discovering, there are actauly rather few areas where the EU can help. Cracked pavements and uncollected rubbish are still, much to their disappointment, outside the remit of the EU. In fact, it is almost as if we are seeing a new form of Euroscepticism based on the fact that the EU doesn't have nearly enough powers! :-)"

Bulldog> The most recent Eurobarometer survey was talking about support for *a* European Constitution. For the general existence of one. This survey about support for *this* proposed Constitution.

That may be a subtle (for some) but rather important (for others) difference.

"Forty-five per cent of voters in Ireland say they have not heard of the constitution" And last year's Eurobarometer claimed 59 per cent of the Irish supported it.

What happened is that you are illiterate. Last year's Eurobarometer talked about support for the general existence of a European constitution.

Jarhead> "I've always wanted to ask you what in your opinion is the point of the EU? What's the desired result?"

Bringing the Antichrist to Earth and beginning the war between the forces of hell and heaven in which our Evil Dominion shall overthrow God and replace him with the beast of Babylon. Or atleast that was the general plan in the last EU Conspiracy (tm) memo I received.

Sorry. That was sarcasm, but not directed at you.

The main point of the EU and its predecessors was to make another war between European nations impossible. And even more so: to make it unthinkable.

Beyond that, I'll refer you to some of the words of the preamble:

"CONVINCED that, while remaining proud of their own national identities and history, the peoples of Europe are determined to transcend their former divisions and, united ever more closely, to forge a common destiny,

CONVINCED that, thus "United in diversity", Europe offers them the best chance of pursuing, with due regard for the rights of each individual and in awareness of their responsibilities towards future generations and the Earth, the great venture which makes of it a special area of human hope,"

That's btw, if you want one Big Visionary Point (tm). The thousand smaller practical benefits are enough for most people to consider it worthwhile to enter. Even the Brits don't want to leave it, they simply incessantly whine about it.

As for what's the "desired result" that depends on who you are asking. I want a federal Europe with a common foreign policy. Others want it to stop short of that.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 10:15:16 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 10:15:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Only dummie/hostile nations' citizens scored poorly on Brussels' generated test.

Speaking of tests...in our junior year of high school we had to pass a US Constitution test in order to advance to the next year. At the size of the EU constitution, those kids are going to be spending an entire year just on it!

Posted by Angie Schultz 2005-01-28 10:17:41 AM|| [http://darkblogules.blogspot.com] 2005-01-28 10:17:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Angie Schultz> The whole Part III of the constitution (which is the portion that's weighing it down with a 200 plus pages) should be largely removed.

It's overdetailed, describing in extreme minutia all the bits on how European law can and should act. Parts I (functioning of institutions), II (rights) and IV (general provisions on amendment, withdrawal, etc) are largely what I'd believe this Constitution should contain.

Just removing Part III would remove 2/3rds of the size of the Constitution.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 10:30:27 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 10:30:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 It's a bureaucratic death wish for entrepreneurial citizens. The EU groupthink will now be: those who are ignorant should be forced to ~~eat their peas~~ do what's good for them - join up and sing along

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-28 10:31:38 AM|| 2005-01-28 10:31:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 Ignorance is bliss , thanks .

Posted by MacNails 2005-01-28 10:37:42 AM|| 2005-01-28 10:37:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_100061.shtml

"Europe boasts six of the 10 most economically free countries in the worldâLuxembourg, Estonia, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Denmark and Icelandâand each one became freer in 2004, according to the 2005 "Undex of Economic Freedom"

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 10:41:09 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 10:41:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 Aris - does it ever occur to you to question the method with which your goal is being attempted?

A federal Europe, with a common policy is not a bad goal. An unelected body at the top of it is much different than federal Europe with a common foreign policy.

EU hates the US so much that it fails to look to us to see what we've done right. They made the same mistake during the French revolution too.

Maybe it's time you broke from the thundering hooves to look around and see what the unelected bureaucrats are really proposing - ultimate, unaccountable power at your expense.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-28 10:45:53 AM|| 2005-01-28 10:45:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 "The usefulness of a document is inversely proportional to it's weight."

Posted by mojo 2005-01-28 10:59:23 AM|| 2005-01-28 10:59:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 An unelected body at the top of it is much different than federal Europe with a common foreign policy.

The "unelected body" currently has no power to force through anything which the "elected bodies" object to, and it'll have even less if the EU constitution passes.

EU hates the US so much that it fails to look to us to see what we've done right.

*sigh*. I need more detail on this to understand what the hell you are talking about.

USA was created by breaking away from British control -- USA was thus a move towards independence. EU are dozens of nations bringing themselves together -- it's a move towards interdependence and union.

So what are you talking about exactly? Perhaps you should stop assuming that USA is the best example possible about how to make a union of separate peoples happen. Europe has its own examples also of federal unions, you know. It's not as if you're the only federal nation around, you know.

Maybe it's time you broke from the thundering hooves to look around and see what the unelected bureaucrats are really proposing - ultimate, unaccountable power at your expense.

So I'm blind for not agreeing with your ignorant phobias? Screw you, dearie. That patronizing attitude you are showing I'm returning it to you doublefold.

Spain's people gonna be voting soon and supporting the EU constitution with a large percentage. Mark my words, and be prepared to eat yours.

And the British people, though they won't agree to the Constitution, neither do they want to leave the European Union. They will never vote for that one either. They are scared of the unknown, and the polls show it that the more they learn about the constitution the less scared they become.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 11:05:35 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 11:05:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 "The main point of the EU and its predecessors was to make another war between European nations impossible. And even more so: to make it unthinkable."

-Okay, that's understandable. Though my feelings were that since WWII and the fall of the Berlin wall, the countries in Europe were functioning democracies, is there some underlying tension I'm not privy to within Europe that is a cause for this concern of another war on the continent? Will such a document really make a war impossible or unthinkable?

I understand your desired result of the union, so my second question is what is the desired result of the union from the viewpoint of the mass euro populance or those who pioneered the effort? Bit of a loaded question for sure since your not a mind reader.

Posted by Jarhead 2005-01-28 11:07:10 AM|| 2005-01-28 11:07:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 What happened is that you are illiterate. Last year's Eurobarometer talked about support for the general existence of a European constitution.

You're splitting hairs, fucktard, and you're wrong. The previous EU Barometer itself confused 'a Consitution' with 'the draft Constitution', even though the actual wording of the draft had yet to be ratified. Hence their conslusion is: The draft European Constitution is supported byr [sic] a majority of public opinion in fourteen of the fifteen Member States. Your second sentence is an outright lie. Or are you just as stupidly illiterate as you are ridiculously arrogant?

Posted by Bulldog 2005-01-28 11:10:25 AM|| 2005-01-28 11:10:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 The "unelected body" currently has no power to force through anything which the "elected bodies" object to, and it'll have even less if the EU constitution passes.

Here's a question for you Aris - and I really don't care what the answer is, since my tax dollars won't be affected - but here's a question to quietly ask yourself if you know the answer....how much power will that unelected body have when all is said and done. . Spare me the answer, if you know it, it's irrelevant to me. But I will note, that in the US, we know exactly which elected individuals to complain to when we are unhappy with the smallest things. You pride yourself on just ignoring laws such as...for example... no cruets on the table. If a majority of people don't like something like that, we don't need to ignore, we know exactly who in our government to hold accountable....ie: fire. Do you?

USA was created by breaking away from British control -- USA was thus a move towards independence. EU are dozens of nations bringing themselves together -- it's a move towards interdependence and union.

Wow, Aris, I'm surprised at your ignorance. We are a nation of 50 individual states. Each state has more rights than your nations will have under your new EU. Each state has it's own government and representatives at both a state and Federal Level. They have to work together to pass each and every law at a Federal Level.

Furthermore, when our country formed, the individual states united to make a federal government to control money, commerce, defense, roads and other areas that need to cooperate, much like the EU is trying to do now.

I find the rest of your comments interesting. Rather than debate the actual merits or lack thereof of any particular portion of the EU, you just trust that it's all good and would rather tell me that I'm stupid and paranoid rather than to take up an argument with your countryment to assure your own personal rights are protected.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-28 11:32:56 AM|| 2005-01-28 11:32:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 when our country formed, the individual states united
So as not to confuse..I should have said, colonies, which upon ratification were renamed "states".

Posted by 2b 2005-01-28 11:39:42 AM|| 2005-01-28 11:39:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 "Though my feelings were that since WWII and the fall of the Berlin wall, the countries in Europe were functioning democracies, is there some underlying tension I'm not privy to within Europe that is a cause for this concern of another war on the continent?"

Ah well, that's the "unthinkable" part, isn't it? It's worked pretty well, so far. Making nations cooperate ends up training them to the custom of cooperation. Because you'll be seeing them the next day, and the day after that, and you'll be needing their votes on this issue, and they'll be needing your votes on that issue, and you can't as easily use them them as scapegoats or scarecrows anymore in internal rhetoric. And very soon it becomes unthinkable to even suggest war.

Sometimes national politicians try to play macho(Chirac is particularly common at doing this) and all they discover is that they earn contempt and lose influence. Chirac told Poland and other eastern nations to shut up, and he soon realized that it was he who should have shut up -- he did nothing but lose influence. Berlusconi's Italy insulted Germany with a Hitler comparison, and all that happened was that people got contemptuous towards Italy.

Armies can't gain you resources when enemy armies can't deny you resources -- when land and movement and money can flow freely according to free rules, borders become less important. Industries can't urge and profit for war when they have common interests in all nations in question.

Right now, no, I don't see war becoming possible among *Western* Europe (like Germany and France or Spain), even without the presence of the European Union, not anymore, not for another half century at least -- that's how "unthinkable" war became. But as it's expanding, I believe the EU is now having a great stabilizing influence among the *Balkan* nationalisms. I've already mentioned how the EU made Greece stop a catastrophic embargo against FYRO Macedonia. Serbia and Croatia are cooperating with the court at Hague at indicting war criminals because they want to become members of the EU. The EU almost made the Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriots be reunified again, and if the Cyprus issue was resolved you'd be sure it'd be the beginning of the end of the wider Greece-Turkey hostility as well.

The other issue is Russian expansionism. Once the EU has expanded to the borders of Russia, it will be less able to intimidate the neighbouring regions.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 11:43:15 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 11:43:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 "The other issue is Russian expansionism. Once the EU has expanded to the borders of Russia, it will be less able to intimidate the neighbouring regions."

Interesting issue, one I had not considered. I was not aware that Russia was still considered a possible threat to Europe or attempting to intimidate them, (other then to the Ukraine).

After or if all Euro countries sign on to join the EU, will you have one standing military? Or, will each nation still retain its own as is?

Posted by Jarhead 2005-01-28 11:56:17 AM|| 2005-01-28 11:56:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 Wow, Aris, I'm surprised at your ignorance. We are a nation of 50 individual states.

Yeah, right. And Wyoming just coincidentally happened to be a nice rectangular, it's not an artificial creation.

You can probably find as much differentiation between the people and lands of Spain *alone*, as you can find in the whole of the United States.

You have 50 states and probably 6 or 7 geographical cultures, only two of which are significantly visible. And differentiation between all of them is minor indeed.

Each state has more rights than your nations will have under your new EU.

LOL! That's a laugh! Try to be a tiny bit more ignorant, why don't you?

Each state has it's own government and representatives at both a state and Federal Level. They have to work together to pass each and every law at a Federal Level.

And other than Mormonism in Utah, which is the dominant brand of Christianity in the rest of the states? Are you all majority-Protestants?

And outside Hawai, how many states have a language outside English as official?

And how many wars has Nevada had historically against California? How many wars has Washington state had with Oregon?

Yeah, all your states are so very "individual" that in most of them one cab hardly know the difference between one and its neighbour.

Furthermore, when our country formed, the individual states united to make a federal government to control money, commerce, defense, roads and other areas that need to cooperate, much like the EU is trying to do now. I find the rest of your comments interesting.

And nonetheless you are pretending to believe that individual nations have less rights than USA states, even though US states from the beginning have had no rights at all to determine defense or foreign policy, even though US states have no right at all to go independent.

I know what position Estonia took in the Iraq war. What's the position that Oregon took? What's the position that Massachussets took?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 12:10:20 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 12:10:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Jarhead, here are a couple of websites that will give you a feel for the EU:
http://www.euobserver.com/
http://www.euabc.com/
Here's an example of the "straight jacket" of the EU that UK citizens are contemplating joining. I love the use of words like Brussels "slams" so and so countries or Brussels "warned" so and so or Brussels "singled out" the following countries. You get the picture.
http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=9&aid=18267

Then there's the headline about Brussels wants a clamp down on cross border gangs and for starters Brussels proposes there should be a common definition of a criminal organization lest bozo policemen in the hinterlands of Marseilles are too clued out to figure it out by themselves. Franco Frattini, Commission's Vice-President responsible for justice, pontificated about all the fine theories he and other pencil pushers in Brussels had put together to put the fear of God into "criminal organizations" like sharing criminals records from country to country. Huh? I thought that's what Interpol has been doing all these years already?
http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=9&aid=18271

Also, powerful EU nations like France and Germany can force new tax measures down the throats of small EU countries - the EU is not entirely a group of countries on equal footing as the ratifying an Constitution makes one believe. Chirac is now pushing his infamous AIDS tax on EU countries and he's got his mush-head putz of a political soulmate, called Herr Schroeder, thinking AIDS taxes are swell, too. Dollars to donuts Brussels implements the AIDS tax in the near future.

So, Aris, from what I've read there is ample justification for the Brits to not want to approve the EU constitution. Right now they have the best of all worlds, because they have the trade benefits of the EU bloc but are otherwise an independent entity. For small struggling Eastern Bloc countries, the EU is great because it gives them more benefits than negatives. For the UK, it's the opposite. Here are some of the issues I think are negatives for the UK:

a. immigration and asylum policies to be set by Brussels, who would determine quotas and rules for who should be taken in and how many, etc. The UK is a prime destination for immigrants and the UK is now trying to cut back on their immigration levels and tighten the rules for asylum seekers. But Brussels' rules would outrank what the UK taxpayers and politicians want.
b. criminal justice - Brussels would define the rules and penalties for serious crimes and a central office of EU prosecutors would prosecute cases in courts across the EU. The UK originated the Magna Carta and Common Law and now the Brits would be told how to properly determine rights of citizens and criminals and penalties of crime?
c. employment and social policy - Brussels would co-ordinate regulations for Social Security, trade unions, standard hiring policies across the EU. The UK has had major problems with trade unions in the past. The last thing the UK needs is giving more legitimacy to trade unions who would get extra powers by joining a band of brothers on the continent. Blair and the Labor Party have done enough damage to the UK with all their social engineering policies. Does the UK need more "progressive" thinking from Brussels on top of Labor's damage?
d. foreign policy and common defence policy- a single EU minister would be responsible for a one size fits all foreign policy and a uni-tard EU military defence policy. The UK would get nailed on this all for one and one for all approach. Who has the strongest( maybe the only)functional military in Europe? The UK of course so who would be the first responders to any terrorist threat across the continent - the British military, of course. This is totally unfair to the proud British military to be taking orders from some EU Defense Minister ninny esconced in Brussels. And foreign policy one size fits all-we can only imagine how that would work with Monsieur France and Herr Germany working out a common outlook on world affairs with the UK. HA,HA,HA Then there are the smaller countries' conflicting viewpoints to consider: Italy vs Spain. HA,HA,HA
WWIII would have come and gone before Brussels would reach "consensus" about a common foreign policy that suited all the EU nations.

I think Blair has long been a one world gov't fan. He is not looking out for what the Brits want. He knows what is the best for Brits even if they don't want it, because he sees himself as a worldly genius. I hope the EU referendum is voted down in the UK and Blair is embaressed beyond belief for being so smug.

Posted by 2xstandard 2005-01-28 12:16:51 PM|| 2005-01-28 12:16:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 I was not aware that Russia was still considered a possible threat to Europe or attempting to intimidate them, (other then to the Ukraine).

The Russian military still holds territory of Moldova, and of Georgia. And given that 30% of Latvia is ethnically Russian I wouldn't feel too secure if I was in Latvia's shoes either.

After or if all Euro countries sign on to join the EU, will you have one standing military? Or, will each nation still retain its own as is?

There's no provision for one standing military yet, and certainly no provision for abolishing the national ones. The "one standing military" may happen, but I don't see nations as ever agreeing to abolish their national armies. Nor do I find significant need for it.

There's been cooperation however at forming joint battle groups. See here, a wikipedia article I largely wrote myself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_battle_groups

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 12:21:23 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 12:21:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 "Brussels would define the rules and penalties for serious crimes and a central office of EU prosecutors would prosecute cases in courts across the EU"

When you lie like that, doublestandard, what's the point of discussion?

foreign policy and common defence policy- a single EU minister would be responsible for a one size fits all foreign policy and a uni-tard EU military defence policy

Yeah, a single EU minister which would however only be empowered to act with UK's (and every other nation's) approval. So if UK didn't want him to do something, he wouldn't be able to do it, and UK would be as utterly free foreign policy-wise after the Constitution as it would be before it.

You are proving the point of the article that the more ignorant one is about the EU and the constitution, the more he supports it.

However I don't know much on immigration policy - in particular I don't know how much of it is controlled by Schengen rules (which UK isn't part of) and how much of it is controlled by EU rules.
But yeah, when one of the points of the EU is free movement of people inside it, cooperation in immigration issues becomes a necessity.

I've been urging for UK to leave the Union, as it's allergic on the issue of "cooperation", but no luck there.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 12:29:36 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 12:29:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 The other issue is Russian expansionism. Once the EU has expanded to the borders of Russia, it will be less able to intimidate the neighbouring regions.

In all, you're presenting it as being fairly similiar to our own situation when we wrote our constitution.

After the Revolution, we operated under "The Articles of Confederation". That was found to be insufficient.

In my High School US History class, we ran a simulation of that period. The issues I remember being significant were external threats, internal threats to other colonies (particularly by myself), printing money, slavery, relative representation of large and small colonies, and individual egos. It's left me with the distinct impression that what was recorded in the history books is a glossy version of an ugly process. However, many of the things we got right were a direct result of the ugliness. One problem that got papered over (both in the simulation and in history) turned to real ugliness.

The EU process, on the other hand, strikes me as entirely too civilized. It leaves me wondering what problems are being papered over, to come bite you (and maybe all of us) in the ass later.

Posted by Dishman 2005-01-28 12:30:24 PM|| 2005-01-28 12:30:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Aris, I can't even begin to work with you your unfamiliarity with our country, you are so far off the mark.

May I suggest that you come here sometime see it for yourself?

The 13 individual colonies had individual power structures and were much like individual nation states. They realized, in much the same way that the EU is realizing now, that it would be beneficial to cooperate on matters of money, commerce, defense, roads. The other states that were "created" as you say, were territories first and then states. They "joined" the union.

Our civil war was about "states rights" v/s "federal rights". Slavery was just the flashpoint that made it happen.

Instead of telling Americans how stupid they are for pointing out that you might want to make sure your leaders are accountable to you.... you might want to ask yourself if your leaders really will be accountable to you or if you will end up fighting for the same reason that Americans did in 1700's. taxation without representation.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-28 12:31:26 PM|| 2005-01-28 12:31:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 The 13 individual colonies had individual power structures and were much like individual nation states

Why do you keep on trying to persuade me on points I never disputed? Yeah, you had individual power structures. I know, and I've always known it. But it's irrelevant. So do the Laender of Germany.

Our civil war was about "states rights" v/s "federal rights". Slavery was just the flashpoint that made it happen.

No it wasn't. Slavery was the one and *only* state's right that you fought over, and the Constitution of the Confederacy provided even *fewer* rights on the individual states on the issue of slavery, forcing each member-state to uphold it.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 12:46:36 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 12:46:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 I can't argue with ignorance, Aris. It might do you some good to go grab an encyclopedia and enlighten yourself.

Have a nice day.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-28 12:50:30 PM|| 2005-01-28 12:50:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 I think we should just let the UN run the whole world. Their would be instant peace and harmony.
I love the UN. I think Kofi is like a god.

We don't need a EU we need the UN.

Posted by Sike Mylwester 2005-01-28 12:50:49 PM|| [http://www.unluvers.net] 2005-01-28 12:50:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 2x:"Brussels would define the rules and penalties for serious crimes and a central office of EU prosecutors would prosecute cases in courts across the EU"

Aris: "When you lie like that, doublestandard, what's the point of discussion?"

Aris, obviously you'd fail the EU knowlegability about the constitution test if it were ever administered to you. From the EUABC Dictionary website:

Topic: Eurojust and accompanied by a photo of the Headquarters of Eurojust in La Haye, The European Judicial Co-operation Unit.

A body of national prosecutors, magistrates or police officers from the Member States. Established in 2002 under the Treaty of Nice to co-ordinate the fight against crime.

Posted by 2xstandard 2005-01-28 12:57:19 PM|| 2005-01-28 12:57:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 2b> Go on and try to convince me that the Confederacy gave one damn about "state's rights" on the issue of slavery. I dare ya. Then I'll quote you the articles of the Confederate constitution that FORCE its members to uphold it.

On a different note, I believe that US citizens can be brought to a federal charges on a "civil lawsuit" even after they've been acquitted on murder charges under state courts. Federal agents, whether security services or FBI, can run throughout your 50 states, with no state power to stop them. Drug prohibition has happened at a *federal* level in the United States, and once upon the time even alcohol was (federally) prohibited.

And yet you've still not taken back your utterly ludicrous "Each state has more rights than your nations will have under your new EU".

Idiot.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 1:06:29 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 1:06:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 2xstandard> A body of national prosecutors, magistrates or police officers from the Member States. Established in 2002 under the Treaty of Nice to co-ordinate the fight against crime.

Ofcourse. I even wrote an article about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurojust

And it has absolutely nothing to do with "establishing rules and penalties for serious crimes". It has to do with "enhancing the effectiveness of the national authorities when they are dealing with the investigation and prosecution of cross-border and organised crime."

Idiot.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 1:09:07 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 1:09:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 "CONVINCED that, while remaining proud of their own national identities and history, the peoples of Europe are determined to transcend their former divisions and, united ever more closely, to forge a common destiny,--

Well, that worked well the last times it was tried....

Posted by anonymous2u 2005-01-28 1:20:04 PM|| 2005-01-28 1:20:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 Aris, why don't you, as such a staunch defender of the EU - go read up about the American successes and failures when creating a similar union.

And the federal level of control that you abhor in your comment #37 is exactly the control that you seem so intent on providing your EU.

BTW, we can, by a majority vote of the people, undo those laws you note in #37. Will you be able to?

Stop worrying about whether or not the EU is a good idea - it is. Stop worrying about if America is a better or worse union. Put your focus on where it counts - what it will mean to you if you are unable to undo unjust laws and if you will recieve adequate representation for your taxation.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-28 1:21:12 PM|| 2005-01-28 1:21:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 --prosecution of cross-border and organised crime--

There won't be any borders, Aris, they want to do away w/the nation-state.

Posted by anonymous2u 2005-01-28 1:21:16 PM|| 2005-01-28 1:21:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 What does it mean to be "European?"

Posted by anonymous2u 2005-01-28 1:21:50 PM|| 2005-01-28 1:21:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 --No it wasn't. Slavery was the one and *only* state's right that you fought over, --

No, Aris - it morphed into slavery.

Secession was the original reason for the Civil War.

Does a state or group of states have the right to Secede from the Union?

Sound familiar?

Posted by anonymous2u 2005-01-28 1:25:43 PM|| 2005-01-28 1:25:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 I'll openly admit to being ignorant to the fine details of the EU. Omnipotence through verbosity seems to be an effective strategy for its proponents. However comma I believe I do get the general idea.

The EU was originally advertised as a âcommon marketâ. Seems like a great deal. Economies of scale, economic cooperation, lowering economic barriers, etc. etc. Whatâs not to like. Oddly enough, I canât think of why you would need a constitution to implement this though.

Ahh, but that was only the bait, wasnât it? France and Belgium wanted to reverse their irrelevancy, but lacked the power to do so. Now the EU has grown into a tranzi utopia and once-free nations of Europe will be ruled by the Axis of Weasels without the AoW having fired a shot.

I stand corrected. Soft Power and Nuance can conquer without anything to back it up. That is, so long as the conquered are offered enough carrots and are gullible enough.

As far as preventing war between European nationsâ¦Didnât the League of Nations already take care of that? IIRC, they outlawed warfare altogether!

And Aris, as ignorant as I may be about the EU, you are doubly so about U.S. government and history. Donât believe the hype, my friend. If you want to know the position that Oregon or Mass. took on the Iraq war, go look up the votes their respective Senators made on it. If you want to get more granular, look at the positions of their Representatives.

But in the end, it really doesnât matter to me. I am all in favor of self-determination. So if thatâs what the people want, thatâs what the people get. Additionally, anything France leads will eventually come to a disastrous end so I donât think the EU will come to be the rival Superpower France hopes it will.

It just saddens me that some many will trade their freedom for convenience.

Posted by Psycho Hillbilly 2005-01-28 1:32:42 PM|| 2005-01-28 1:32:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 Aris:
You need to look at the reasons the states threatened and actually tried to seceed. Look up the "Nullification" and "Interposition" fights in South Carolina in the 1830s. They had nothing to do with slavery.

Now, in 1861, Slavery was important, and I'm willing to stipulate that it was the most important single issue, but remember that Lincoln also campaigned on a very high tariff (and his successor implemented it).

So, if the EU broke down trade barriers between the member states, that's good, but what if they also decided to erect very high barriers to import/export. I could see some countries hurting more than others, a lot more perhaps. Perhaps enough to leave the EU.

Posted by jackal 2005-01-28 1:46:42 PM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2005-01-28 1:46:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 BTW, we can, by a majority vote of the people, undo those laws you note in #37.

LOL! By a majority vote of the people of which state? You'll need a majority vote on all 50 states. And you were just arguing that your states are all so very *individual*.

Will you be able to?

Yes. We'll even be able to do it on a national level, by withdrawing from the Union if we want to. Which is more than I can say for your 50 "individual" states.

Does a state or group of states have the right to Secede from the Union? Sound familiar?

Well we seem to have avoided this crisis, by making it very explicit in our Constitution that *our* member-states indeed do have the right to secede.

Ofcourse the *current* treaties don't give such a right, which is the flaw of the *current* treaties. If you want the right of member-states to withdraw from the EU, same way as *I* do, I suggest you start supporting the Constitution.

Because currently they don't seem to have it. Such a right will only appear explicitely through the constitution.

And Aris, as ignorant as I may be about the EU, you are doubly so about U.S. government and history. Donât believe the hype, my friend. If you want to know the position that Oregon or Mass. took on the Iraq war, go look up the votes their respective Senators made on it.

Two senators for each state. So I'm guessing that several states have a split personality.

And what about the representatives? Don't they count?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 1:52:52 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 1:52:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 Perhaps enough to leave the EU.

And under the Constitution they'll have the right, as I feel they should.

Are we still arguing about the Constitution and a correlation between ignorance and lack of support thereof?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 1:55:24 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 1:55:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 good point about the common market, PH. Your right, many Euopeans seem to think that they will be just entering a common market, rather than handing over their rights to a brand new nation state....where many of the most powerful individuals will be unelected bureaucrats, sheltered from the will of the people they "represent".

What's ironic is all of the things that what they will be getting will be laws similar to what Aris noted in 37 as well as that bland uniformity of WallMart and chain food stores. But it doesn't appear that they will have is an adequate means to demand the heads of those who don't support the will of the people. Today it's the cruet - which they just plan to "ignore". But what will they do when it is a law they all wish to ignore but find it is to be inforced? They really don't know.

Like Aris, they seem to just want to take it on faith that the people in charge will work in the interest of the people (hahahaaaaa! scuse me while I wipe away the tears).

Posted by 2b 2005-01-28 2:04:38 PM|| 2005-01-28 2:04:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 Aris..no..it's 2/3 of the states. And if a law is unpopular enough it happens. Stop pretending you understand how America works. It's painfully obvious that you do not. You would be better off spending your time seeing exactly what it is you are signing yourself up for - as it appears that you are pining for everything that you think sucks about us.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-28 2:10:16 PM|| 2005-01-28 2:10:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 And what about the representatives? Don't they count?

Yes, they do. I thought I covered that.

And a question for you, Aris. Is the EU a tranzi utopian dream?

Posted by Psycho Hillbilly 2005-01-28 2:10:38 PM|| 2005-01-28 2:10:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 Aris - When we decide when to go to war here, no, the representatives don't get to vote on it. Just the senators. It's in the Constitution. Nothing stops the representatives from voting on a motion to support or oppose going to war....it just doesn't officially count.
And, yes....it is possible to be brought up on civil charges after being declared not guilty of murder. No one, technically, is ever acquitted or declared innocent in our courts for any crime. Generally that is only used in high profile cases, cases in where there is pretty damn good evidence to the contrary (ie. O.J. Simpson), but for whatever reason there is a strong case for miscarriage of justice in that particular incident. Collecting the fines on that verdict are a whole 'nother story, though. I don't think the Brown family are ever going to get a dime from Simpson...and I don't think they expect to.
BTW, just got back from New Orleans, Louisiana. It's as different from my home state of Arizona as can be. Check it out, sometime.....

Posted by Desert Blondie 2005-01-28 2:10:45 PM|| [http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com/] 2005-01-28 2:10:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 We'll keep our right to withdraw and our armies to protect said right with.

If your problem is supposedly that we're handing power to "unelected bureaucrats" -- then why haven't I yet heard you (or anyone else here) supporting the direct election of the President of the Commission by the people? I'd support such a thing. Would you?

What do *your* individual states possess in order to protect them from the infringement of their rights by the federal administration?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 2:11:51 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 2:11:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 Would you? What do *your* individual states possess in order to protect them from the infringement of their rights by the federal administration?

Isn't that the question you should be asking yourself about the EU?

Posted by 2b 2005-01-28 2:15:05 PM|| 2005-01-28 2:15:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 Aris..no..it's 2/3 of the states.

Ah, in short it's even more difficult than a mere majority nationwide, you need 2/3rds to make it happen. Thanks for correcting me on that.

And what about the representatives? Don't they count? Yes, they do. I thought I covered that.

Sorry, didn't notice it. I had started skipping sentences when you started speaking of "Axis of Weasels" and "tranzi utopia" and so forth. Not much of such rhetoric I can stomach. My bad.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 2:15:48 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 2:15:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 Isn't that the question you should be asking yourself about the EU?

Except that I answered it for you. Nations still retain their armies.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 2:17:35 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 2:17:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 #54 - it's meant to be difficult. It's a union, remember, like you want? It's meant to be possible only if the majority of the people and the majority of the states agree. Because the states are different. It's meant to assure that individual nature of the states that you do not believe exists.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-28 2:22:22 PM|| 2005-01-28 2:22:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 BTW, just got back from New Orleans, Louisiana. It's as different from my home state of Arizona as can be.

I'm indeed interested in Louisiana, especially because it seems to have a differentiated culture from its neighbours. French influence, I believe? Alongside with Hawai and New York, I'd say it's one of the two regions of USA that I'd be most interested in visiting.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 2:23:54 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 2:23:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 I'll resist the urge to say, "what armies".

Well, let me just say, that I'm glad that we have methods to change laws that are unacceptable to the majority without haveing to use our armies or leave the union to do so.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-28 2:24:40 PM|| 2005-01-28 2:24:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 Aris:
To quote the great French philosopher Pierre Joseph Proudhon "Few people defend the present state of affairs, but the distaste for utopias is no less widespread." You've made some excellent points in favor of the EU, especially on the foreign policy front. I believe that many of the objections to a strong European federal union you have encountered here at Rantburg spring from the fact that several of us have a very deep, very American distrust of our own central government. Most of us also distrust, fear, and hate the kind of socialist bureaucracy which many Europeans seem to embrace. This is an American *thing* so don't take it, or any angry comments, personally. Many of us are coming from a different world, philosophically speaking.

It has been our cultural experience that the bigger and more powerful a government, the less freedom individuals who live under it have. California is a wonderful example of this. Its is pretty much an institutionalized one party state (Gov. Arnold is an anomaly). Its government is autocratic, bureaucratic, and by design largely politically unaccountable. Its citizens are considerably less free than, say, Nevadans in several significant ways. The difference? Nevada has a different, more libertarian approach to government.

Even given some of the convincing reasons for federalization you have listed, I wouldn't voluntarily join the EU if I were a European for this single reason: more government is inherently a bad idea.

Dishman:
Read Albert J. Nock's Our Enemy the State if you want to understand the backroom maneuvering that took place at the constitutional convention.... or, as it was publically announced, a meeting to make "minor adjustments" to the Articles of Confederation; a document that worked quite well as far as many Americans of the time were concerned.

Posted by Secret Master 2005-01-28 2:26:57 PM|| 2005-01-28 2:26:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 Sorry, didn't notice it. I had started skipping sentences when you started speaking of "Axis of Weasels" and "tranzi utopia" and so forth. Not much of such rhetoric I can stomach. My bad.

No problem, Aris. You're quite fun to debate with when you're on your game. I'm a sarcastic SOB and will use it liberally, but it's not my intent to personally attack you. But, you do have a lot of well publicized buttons to push on this issue. ;)

I was sincere in using the terms âAxis of Weaselsâ and âtranzi utopiaâ when it comes to France/Belgium/Germany and the EU, however.

Posted by Psycho Hillbilly 2005-01-28 2:28:57 PM|| 2005-01-28 2:28:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 it's meant to be difficult. It's a union, remember, like you want? It's meant to be possible only if the majority of the people and the majority of the states agree. Because the states are different. It's meant to assure that individual nature of the states that you do not believe exists.

Ah, so you retain your state individuality only if the majority of the states give you the right to retain it.

While in the European Union we kinda do the opposite: it's the states that give the right to the Union, not vice versa.

The right of the states to fully withdraw from the Union if we so choose to, kinda helps assure that the EU won't try to infringe on our individuality.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 2:29:05 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 2:29:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#62

Robert Kagan, a sensible neo con, says nice things about the EU.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-01-28 2:29:47 PM|| 2005-01-28 2:29:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 Aris, yes, there is a French influence, but I'd say the Caribbean/African influence is very strong, too. Along with a surprising Italian influence in New Orleans. I just wouldn't tackle that city sober. ;)
Secret Master - What you said to Aris, x2.

Posted by Desert Blondie 2005-01-28 2:30:56 PM|| [http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com/] 2005-01-28 2:30:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#64
Opening point

"In the unfolding drama of Ukraine, the Bush administration and the European Union have committed a flagrant act of transatlantic cooperation."

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-01-28 2:31:04 PM|| 2005-01-28 2:31:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#65 indeed interested in Louisiana, especially because it seems to have a differentiated culture from its neighbours. French influence, I believe?

Well, I can certainly agree with you there! I lived there for a year and it is certainly different. Very friendly people and fantastic food are the fond memories I have of LA.

As far as French influence, there are definitely traces of that still to be found. Not only is the government corrupt, but it's a source of pride how corrupt they are! 43% of the adult population does not have a full-time job (when I lived there 3.5 years ago anyway). The laws are based on the Napoleonic code, so the only reciprocity lawyers have is in France. And you have to over-complicate spelling of the 'o' sound by spelling it 'eaux'. I'm sure there are other influences as well, but these are the ones that seemed to stick with me.

Posted by Psycho Hillbilly 2005-01-28 2:44:14 PM|| 2005-01-28 2:44:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#66 So you are going to withdraw from the Union if you disagree with a cruet law? You make it sound like it's just a common market Aris. I don't think it is. And who decides if half of the union wants to do go to war against Russia and half does not. You gonna split the union everytime there's a disagreement of that sort?

We have the ability to change the laws within the union itself.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-28 2:45:18 PM|| 2005-01-28 2:45:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#67 So you are going to withdraw from the Union if you disagree with a cruet law?

Who'd be interested in passing cruet laws? Who'd *care* about cruet laws? Even if people were stupid enough to pass them who'd care enough to enforce them?

Start thinking about issues that matter.

And who decides if half of the union wants to do go to war against Russia and half does not.

If the states ever give up their rights to individual foreign policies, it'll be in the same way that some countries gave up their rights to individual currencies and formed the Eurozone. It will be a subgroup of EU nations, choosing to go forward alone, while other nations hold back.

Anyway, for *now* and still after the constitution, the situation will be as we saw in the war on Iraq.
Each country decides on its own. The EU ends up taking a position that expresses the lowest common denominators. That's what's been happening now, and that's what'll keep happening for a long time.

Now, I want that situation to change -- I do want the EU to become more of a federation. But at each point there'll be safeguards that ensure state participation to decision-making, and state rights of veto and of abstention, to a far greater degree than USA does.

Europe's federal government will never be as centralised as the United States'.

You make it sound like it's just a common market Aris. I don't think it is.

It's not. It's a political union where nations share sovereignty. But it's their free and voluntary choice to share it.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 3:07:12 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 3:07:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#68 ok. Aris. I'm glad you are happy with it.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-28 3:17:28 PM|| 2005-01-28 3:17:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#69 "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none." -- Thomas Jefferson

Posted by Tom 2005-01-28 3:24:08 PM|| 2005-01-28 3:24:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#70 Was it TJ who said that?? I thought it was GW? I paraphrased that quote a couple days back and attributed it to the founders and LH told me it was GW.

Posted by Jarhead 2005-01-28 3:47:27 PM|| 2005-01-28 3:47:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#71 Aris, re: your #38 post:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3960981.stm#ancram
"As Europe's leaders gathered in Rome to sign the new EU constitution seven politicians and business leaders gave their thoughts on what it could mean for Britain"
Paul Sykes, Tory supporter and businessman says:
With this constitution the EU will have the powers of a state giant, but the democratic stature of a pygmy. Is that what we want? There is nothing in this document which will cut the 97,000 pages of accumulated EU laws and regulations that now dictate how we are governed and how we do business with our trading partners.
If the British people voted for this constitution in a referendum, they would set in stone the supremacy of EU laws over those made by national parliaments.

Shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram says:
This constitution makes all the old, lazy assumptions that have done so much damage to the EU: that every power it has is used well, that none should be returned to the nation states of Europe, that the European Commission needs more powers to regulate and that the power of the European Court of Justice should be boosted at national governments' expense.

This constitution would give the EU a new president, its own foreign minister and diplomatic service and turn the European Court of Justice into a kind of Supreme Court.

The EU's powers over criminal justice would be widely expanded, including the creation of one post - the 'European Public Prosecutor' - that the Labour-dominated committee of MPs described as potentially 'an instrument of oppression'.

The EU would also increase its power over include energy policy, trade, social security and civil rights.

The biggest winner from all this would be the European Court of Justice. It would decide what all the new powers and rights mean in practice. That court has an important role in making sure that European countries stick to common rules.

Only four years ago Tony Blair said he saw no need for an EU constitution. Labour opposed almost all the new measures in the constitution. They put down 275 amendments to the text but got only 27 of them accepted: not a great score.

Posted by 2xstandard 2005-01-28 4:03:00 PM|| 2005-01-28 4:03:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#72 All that was regarding my #38 post?

Oooh, it was described as "potentially" an "instrument of oppression". Thank you, that it was described as such by some people will surely change my mind.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 4:15:40 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 4:15:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#73 now i have heard everything..being lectured by aris the booty slamming greek on the american culture and state rights...what the hell do you really know about state rights?

Posted by Dan 2005-01-28 4:17:21 PM|| 2005-01-28 4:17:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#74 Does the EU Con. mention potted meat products? Self Propelled Armoured Meat is a favorite when when break out the laptops around here. We also like Nola but it's best to be sober in the greek quarter.

Posted by The IRS 2005-01-28 4:17:42 PM|| 2005-01-28 4:17:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#75 Jarhead, you've got to double check everything these liberals tell you! It was TJ who said it:
http://www.bartleby.com/59/11/entanglingal.html

Posted by Tom 2005-01-28 4:21:27 PM|| 2005-01-28 4:21:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#76 what the hell do you really know about state rights?

That people pretend to have had a war about them, when they want to play a PC game of revisionism on the fact that the only "state's right" they actually warred over was slavery.

But as a sidenote you'll note that anything I ever said about American state's rights was in response to "booty slamming" 2b and his utterly ludicrous claim that US states have more rights that EU member-states do. Idiotic and ridiculous, but that's the kind of EU opposition we find in Rantburg.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 4:22:13 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 4:22:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#77 Was it TJ who said that?? I thought it was GW? I paraphrased that quote a couple days back and attributed it to the founders and LH told me it was GW.

A quick search shows it was TJ. I thought you were quoting or paraphrasing GW. GW DID express such sentiments, and WAS aiming at TJs sympathy for France. Its quite possible that TJ was trying to show himself to be moderate - see Hillary lately :) And dont get started on my Hilary comparison as some kind of sacrilege :) its nothing to what the Founding fathers said about each other, at various times (though they also said more positive things, of course) See "Founding Brothers" by John Ellis.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-01-28 4:28:26 PM|| 2005-01-28 4:28:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#78 I am SICK, SICK I tell you of all this fighting on Fred's Blog.

I propose a conference, complete with fois gras, roast lamb and ouzo. I give big discounts for lots of participants.

If interested, call me at 1-800-notkofisson, but leave out the son at the end

Posted by AnnansDiscountCatering 2005-01-28 4:31:35 PM|| 2005-01-28 4:31:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#79 wow 78 posts and Aris remains arrogant and unlikeable as always....

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-28 4:35:01 PM|| 2005-01-28 4:35:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#80 Oooh, it was described as "potentially" an "instrument of oppression". Thank you, that it was described as such by some people will surely change my mind.

Aris, daahhh-link, writing entries in Wikipedia does not automatically give you the title of being the sharpest knife in the drawer. The Tory Shadow Foreign Minister related what other UK Labor elected officials said about the European Public Prosecutor:
The EU's powers over criminal justice would be widely expanded, including the creation of one post - the 'European Public Prosecutor' - that the Labour-dominated committee of MPs described as potentially 'an instrument of oppression.'

One might assume that some of these elected MP's are lawyers and know what they are talking about. Sheesh.

Posted by 2xstandard 2005-01-28 4:39:47 PM|| 2005-01-28 4:39:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#81 LH, you know better then think that I would lambaste you for comparing Hillary's laughable attempt to move to the right comparison w/the founders. I realize the founders did some good backstabbing as well. I think Hamilton & Jefferson had a feud of grand proportions w/much intrigue. And don't get me started on A. Burr; Clinton would not even make a good prison patsie in Burr's cell block.

Posted by Jarhead 2005-01-28 4:40:04 PM|| 2005-01-28 4:40:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#82 doublestandard> One might assume that some of these elected MP's are lawyers and know what they are talking about. Sheesh.

Wow, they're elected, so they must be right. And I thought that arguing-from-authority was considered a logical fallacy. In the meantime some Russian elected parliamentarians were putting forward a thingy talking about the conspiracy that supposedly Jewish people everywhere are part of.

Anyway *I* didn't elect those UK Labour politicians, so I have no reason to trust their judgment. If you want to support the claim that European Prosecutor would be "potentially" an instrument of oppresions, find some argument *besides* "Buh... buh... buh... but *these* people say he'll be."

Anyway, tell me, the 500 also elected MEPs that voted in favour of the EU Constitutions (as opposed to merely 137 that voted against), do *those* people know what they are talking about (being elected and all) or don't they?

Because if our arguments become about what elected politicians think about the Constitution, then my numbers will trounce yours most overwhelmingly.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 5:12:53 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 5:12:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#83 Its not just Jefferson vs Hamilton. Theres also Jefferson vs Adams (although they become good friends in later years) And yes, there was significant bad feeling at times between Jefferson and Washington (TJ would not actually say that GW was a baddie, just that he was senile and manipulated by Hamilton - GW did NOT appreciate this) ANd there was the soap opera of Madison - who switched sides from Hamilton to Jefferson. Burr vs Hamilton was of course the worst, but there was plenty of other bad feeling.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-01-28 5:25:20 PM|| 2005-01-28 5:25:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#84 That people pretend to have had a war about them, when they want to play a PC game of revisionism on the fact that the only "state's right" they actually warred over was slavery.

Sorry Aris but that's not accurate. Some of the North vs. South tension that led up to the outbreak of the American Civil War was due to economic matters. The Confederate states wanted to export a majority of their cotton crops to France and England rather than to the industrial centers of the Union, where is was badly needed for textile manufacture. Various tariffs were proposed in the Senate and, well, you get the idea. Other tensions were due to the fact that the two cultures had been slowly drifting apart for years over a variety of matters that I doubt you would find terribly interesting. Slavery was a very big part of the conflict, but certainly not the only matter at its heart.

But as a sidenote you'll note that anything I ever said about American state's rights was in response to "booty slamming" 2b and his utterly ludicrous claim that US states have more rights that EU member-states do. Idiotic and ridiculous, but that's the kind of EU opposition we find in Rantburg.

I oppose the EU because I oppose the idea of a centralized government that lacks a proper set of checks and balances, or one in which those checks and balances can be easily subverted or eroded. We have a pretty good system here in the US for maintaining that balance, but even so it has been steadily eaten away at for the last century at least. I am not here to insult you but to warn you against surrendering your nation's autonomy to a rather dubious federal structure.

Posted by Secret Master 2005-01-28 5:38:44 PM|| 2005-01-28 5:38:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#85 oh gross, what's that sticky stuff.... has Aris finished?

Posted by Macedonian Barbie 2005-01-28 5:54:33 PM|| 2005-01-28 5:54:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#86 Wow, they're elected, so they must be right. And I thought that arguing-from-authority was considered a logical fallacy
Aris, calm down, take a deep breath. Perhaps I didn't phrase my sentence well. My point was that this was the opinion of Labor Members of Parliament who were not just any run of the mill politicians but politicians who presumably were favorably disposed to the EU Constitution{their leader is promoting it} yet they were worried about the EU Prosecutor's office and powers. Also some of these MP's were likely lawyers themselves( as often ids the case with politicians) so these concerns were being expressed in part by trained professionals not by some emotional anti-EU British blokes on the street.

All I'm saying as I did from the very start(post #28) is that the UK has far more to lose than to gain by approving the EU constitution. The UK has the best of all worlds as it stands - independence with a trade bloc nearby.

If nothing else the UK needs to protect its North Sea oil industry which is worth 20 Billion pounds, from the Brussels kleptoclaws. About a year ago the UK's oil industry told Blair that it worried that the EU draft constitution
could give Brussels the right to control oil tax, regulation of pipelines and security of oil supplies.The latter would be particularly open to interpretation: Industry bosses fear that it would give Brussels the power to transfer British supplies to other EU countries in the event of an energy crisis.
One doesn't to look any further than Alberta to see how a central governing body can royally screw the small partner owning the fossil fuel resources in the name of "for the good of all." Riigggttt. In the very near future all industrialized nations are going to be scrambling for oil. The UK could be sitting pretty if it keeps its independence. None of the EU nations have oil. All they have is the need for oil.

Posted by 2xstandard 2005-01-28 6:15:15 PM|| 2005-01-28 6:15:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#87 booty slamming? Huh?

Posted by 2b 2005-01-28 6:28:44 PM|| 2005-01-28 6:28:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#88 Today 's lesson was Why You'd be a Fool to Trust Wikipedia.
This thread was brought to you by the letter ' A ', and the number ' ∞ '.

Posted by Bulldog 2005-01-28 6:44:19 PM|| 2005-01-28 6:44:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#89 LOL - BD!

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-28 6:49:11 PM|| 2005-01-28 6:49:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#90 UK has the best of all worlds as it stands - independence with a trade bloc nearby.

UK will eventually discover that it can't sabotage all other nations for ever. If 24 member-states ratify the constitution and only UK refuses, how soon before UK will have to choose one way or another, to swim with the others or to get out of the pool?

If UK wants to be a part of EFTA instead, it already was before it joined the European Community. If it wants a customs union, then EU and Turkey already have one.

"yet they were worried about the EU Prosecutor's office and powers."

Let's see what the Constitution actually says about the Prosecutor's office.

1. In order to combat crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union, a European law of the Council may establish a European Public Prosecutor's Office from Eurojust. The Council shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

2. The European Public Prosecutor's Office shall be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment, where appropriate in liaison with Europol, the perpetrators of, and accomplices in, offences against the Union's financial interests, as determined by the European law provided for in paragraph 1. It shall exercise the functions of prosecutor in the competent courts of the Member States in relation to such offences.

3. The European law referred to in paragraph 1 shall determine the general rules applicable to the European Public Prosecutor's Office, the conditions governing the performance of its functions, the rules of procedure applicable to its activities, as well as those governing the admissibility of evidence, and the rules applicable to the judicial review of procedural measures taken by it in the performance of its functions.

4. The European Council may, at the same time or subsequently, adopt a European decision amending paragraph 1 in order to extend the powers of the European Public Prosecutor's Office to include serious crime having a cross-border dimension and amending accordingly paragraph 2 as regards the perpetrators of, and accomplices in, serious crimes affecting more than one Member State. The European Council shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament and after consulting the Commission.

Let's see one of the important points of the above paragraphs: namely the fact that the European Constitution doesn't actually create the Prosecutor's office, it simply *allows* for the creation of the Prosecutor's office.

The other crucial point is that it also instigates that such an office can only be created or amended with a unanimous vote of the Council. Do you know what that means? It means that UK will *still* need to consent to the specifics of the law in the future, before any such Prosecutor is created.

So tell me, all those legal experts, what exactly were they objecting to? Were they objecting to what actually exists in the Constitution, or were they objecting to the as-yet-uncreated future European law that United Kingdom will "potentially" be fooled into agreeing with?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 7:35:47 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 7:35:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#91 All in favor of even more detail from Aris, say "aye"

Posted by Tom 2005-01-28 7:42:56 PM|| 2005-01-28 7:42:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#92 Sorry, that's all the mentions there are of the Prosecutor's Office in the Constitution, so any objections you have on it must be focused there. No more detail on him around.

But I know you don't need no steenking facts in Rantburg. Facts are loathed here. I mean we can get a ton of commentary about what some Labour MPs *think* of the Constitution's provisions on the Prosecutor's office, but nobody would consider actually going to the source and *reading* what the Constitution itself says.

That would require literacy, for starters. That would require forming your own opinion on the issue, rather than getting your opinions after the British MPs have chewed it up for you first.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 7:50:23 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 7:50:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#93 Those opposed...

Posted by Tom 2005-01-28 7:52:54 PM|| 2005-01-28 7:52:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#94 Aris, a couple of points. In terms of local power in the United States in absolute relativity, the legal powers of a county Sheriff still trump those of any Federal authority outside a ruling of law.
In regards to your derision of the States power to revoke law "imposed" on them at the Federal level, hey, just look up Prohibition. It worked before, it's still working now.

Posted by Asedwich 2005-01-28 7:58:57 PM|| 2005-01-28 7:58:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#95 Hey, did someone mention SPAM? Pressed meat product?

Posted by Asedwich 2005-01-28 7:59:59 PM|| 2005-01-28 7:59:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#96 Asedwich, we're kinda talking about *individual* states having such power. If you need to get a consensus of 2/3rds throughout your union, that's not "states' rights" by any definition of the term.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 8:15:53 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 8:15:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#97 It's the same thing as needed for ratification at the federal level, so I really fail to see the difference in terms of balance between what it takes to make an amendment, and undo one.

Posted by Asedwich 2005-01-28 8:18:55 PM|| 2005-01-28 8:18:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#98 It means that UK will *still* need to consent to the specifics of the law in the future, before any such Prosecutor is created.
And, you think that the UK representative will not be brow beaten by pressure from France and Germany? Oh yes that sounds like an evenly balanced match. I can hear it all now: "Hey, UK, if you don't vote for this Prosecutor thingey, then we will not vote for that immigration measure that you want."

Aris, the UK doesn't need to get into the nasty quid pro quo game playing with if it remains an independent nation.

It's not like the UK would be the first to say thanks, but no thanks to the EU. Norway gave the EU a pass on 2 different public referendum votes.
From the EUABC dictionary:
Norway has twice refused to join the EU in popular referendums. The Prime Minister, from the Christian Peoples party, Kjell Magne Bondevik, who himself voted âNoâ twice in Norwayâs referenda, has implied that he expects a third referendum before 2010, at which he might recommend membership. His party still recommends a "No", though.

Norway has not suffered by staying independent of the EU. In fact, Norway has been ranked as a top country by different measures (although Americans may not want to officially recognize the validity of those rankings).

Coincidently, Norway has oil resources like the UK. Hmmm, maybe the Brits should pay more attention to why Norwegians thought joining the EU was a bust.

Posted by 2xstandard 2005-01-28 8:19:56 PM|| 2005-01-28 8:19:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#99 I like SPAM now and then. I like Aris now and then. Yesterday I liked him, but today he's back to being his usual verbose, arrogant self. Why the British would want an alliance with Jacques Chirac and Aris Katsaris is beyond me.

Posted by Tom 2005-01-28 8:23:24 PM|| 2005-01-28 8:23:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#100 2xstandard, I keep on rereading your posts and I can't understand something: do you know that the United Kingdom is already a part of the EU?

And do you understand that my annoyance is them is NOT for refusing to enter the EU, but rather for refusing to LEAVE it?

It's not like the UK would be the first to say thanks, but no thanks to the EU.

I wish it *did* say "no thanks" to the EU. But it doesn't. It still remains a part of the EU, and unfortunately the EU lacks the power to send it away, even if it wanted to.

And, you think that the UK representative will not be brow beaten by pressure from France and Germany

And you think that if the European Prosecutor's office is "potentially dangerous" it's only those intelligent Brits that will figure it out, while the other 24 nations will be totally duped by it.

Once again if Britain is so worried about the freedom-loving feelings in the whole rest of the continent, then they better leave -- they have no business dealing with such a corrupt freedom-hating group of nations.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 8:28:29 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 8:28:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#101 Why the British would want an alliance with Jacques Chirac and Aris Katsaris is beyond me.

Yes, neither do I.

So why don't they leave the EU? Hmmm?

That's the question you people still can't answer.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 8:29:40 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 8:29:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#102 itn got to be the cheeeze

Posted by muck4doo 2005-01-28 8:31:52 PM|| [http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/] 2005-01-28 8:31:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#103 That's it! The cheeeze!
"My kingdom for a cheeze!"

Posted by Tom 2005-01-28 8:34:28 PM|| 2005-01-28 8:34:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#104 ...they have no business dealing with such a corrupt freedom-hating group of nations.

Agreed, but I wouldn't call it 'business' or 'dealing'. It's more like charity. Actually, it's more like welfare.

So why don't they leave the EU?

When we oiks reject the Consitution, we may be permitted a referendum on membership. One thing at a time...

Posted by Bulldog 2005-01-28 8:35:35 PM|| 2005-01-28 8:35:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#105 And other than Mormonism in Utah, which is the dominant brand of Christianity in the rest of the states? Are you all majority-Protestants?

It depends on the state and region. Primarily Roman Catholic in the areas with high Hispanic, Austrian, Italian, Polish etc. immigration. "Mainline" Protestant in New England, or a devolved Unitarianism there. (Note to theologians - I don't consider Unitarians within the Christian tradition myself but please don't quibble about that right now.) Eastern Orthodox in the town I grew up in -- and in my family on my father's side, I was Chrismated in the Assumption of the Theotokos Church there. Evangelical or charismatic congregations in many parts of the country, more dominant in the southeast. This question is misleading, however, because religous diversity in the US is substantial and is geographically spread about.

And outside Hawai, how many states have a language outside English as official?

It certainly is true that having English as the official language helps things along here. However, ballots and other information are routinely translated into multiple languages in many states: most often into Spanish, but Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and other languages are not uncommnon.

Don't know about the latter. There were armed skirmishes re: some borders between Nevada and California in the 19th century. The larger conflicts were the "range wars" between farmers, sheep breeders and cattle breeders. Completing the transnational rail lines diffused some of that and increased migration and development pretty much finished it out.

I think, Aris, that you may be missing one point about the US due to the time spans involved. When the US Constitution was written and then the Bill of Rights added, there were considerable differences of law, custom and religion between the states (previously colonies) in the short-lived Confederation. Maryland, for instance, was founded by a devout Catholic and tolerance for Catholics was written into its founding Charter. Pennsylvania, my home state, was founded by Quakers, Massachusetts by Puritans. Virginia was dominated by Anglicans and there was a move to make it the official state religion. That's one reason that many royalist Scots left Virginia to form North Carolina.

This is why the very first words of the First Ammendment, which opens the Bill of Rights, are: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". CONGRESS shall not do so -- but the STATE governments were quite authorized to do so. It wasn't until after the 14th and 15th ammendments, and subsequent Supreme Court rulings in the early 20th century, that US courts imposed uniform definitions of rights on the states.

So in fact, we have substantial historical experience in blending different cultures, religions and expectations of rights into a functioning whole. Doesn't mean it's the only way to do it -- but you are a bit off base to suggest that the EU faces challenges re: diversity we haven't already overcome. You're seeing the result of nearly 300 years of that process, but you're not quite seeing the effort and achievement that it took to get here.

Posted by rkb 2005-01-28 8:53:19 PM|| 2005-01-28 8:53:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#106 Ooops ... it appears my comment lost a quote ... the part about Nevada and California refers back to Aris' rhetorical question about war between those stats.

Posted by rkb 2005-01-28 8:56:05 PM|| 2005-01-28 8:56:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#107 Aris, while I recognize that the UK joined the EU in the days of the old "federation" referred to as the European Common Market, the UK has kept a good deal of independence from Brussels. By that I mean the UK has managed to side step total EU immersion, if you will, until recent years as Tony Blair has steadily led the Brits by their ears into more of the one world government bureaucracy that has its evil power based in Brussels. It's not like the UK alone has been motoring along in this informal arrangement, with one foot in and the other foot out of EU affairs. There's Denmark and Ireland, for example, as well as the UK.

Blair overshot himself when he gave tacit approval of the UK's embrace of the EU constitution, because what he didn't count on was that the ordinary UK citizens were not so doozy after all and that in fact they still had some sense of nationalism left that had not been kicked out of them by socialism. So now Blair has been shamed into holding this public referendum on the EU Constitution, which might represent a big flop for Blair's future career plans to eventually become one of the EU manadarins in Brussels. Good. I hope the Brits vote against the EU constitution and then as BD says, they can back out of the EU, which would be the next step obviously.

This sentence made me see how the elites view nations in relation to the majesty of the EU. As reported in the BBC:
The easiest new members for the EU to digest would be Norway and Switzerland, which have at times come close to opting for membership.
"Q&A: EU enlargement"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2266385.stm

Posted by 2xstandard 2005-01-28 9:10:50 PM|| 2005-01-28 9:10:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#108 It's not like the UK alone has been motoring along in this informal arrangement, with one foot in and the other foot out of EU affairs. There's Denmark and Ireland, for example, as well as the UK

What "informal arrangement"? The opt-outs are quite formal.

Denmark and Ireland have opted out of some areas of the acquis (Ireland simply hasn't accepted Schengen and only because UK hasn't joined Schengen - that's it) but neither are they obstructing the rest of the nations. It's UK that's constantly obstructing and sabotaging.

This sentence made me see how the elites view nations in relation to the majesty of the EU. As reported in the BBC: The easiest new members for the EU to digest would be Norway and Switzerland, which have at times come close to opting for membership.

The BBC article-writers are the "elites" of the EU? Whatever. You took your opinion about the Prosecutor simply from the Labour MPs, you take your opinion on how EU "elites" feel from the BBC, you wrote a bunch of untrue nonsense back at #28...

... and I bet you still can't tell me one real change that the EU Constitution will make. Or atleast you've definitely not bothered to mention any real element of the EU Constitution in the whole thread.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-28 9:42:37 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-28 9:42:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#109 Europe boasts six of the 10 most economically free countries in the worldâLuxembourg, Estonia, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Denmark and Icelandâand each one became freer in 2004, according to the 2005 "Undex of Economic Freedom"--

They want Ireland to increase their taxes, Estonia has very low taxes, so the the UK compared to others.

What's the tax rate on the others?

Aris, the Constitution might say this now, but they've already said they're going to work on a new one tightening up flaws in the original once the original passes.

228 years - Not that many amendments. That monstrosity will never be perfect to them. They'll keep revising it. It's top/down not bottom-up and it won't work.

I've seen you at EU Referendum. What's your opinion about Britain and immigration?

Posted by anonymous2u 2005-01-28 10:35:48 PM|| 2005-01-28 10:35:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#110 It's UK that's constantly obstructing and sabotaging
How so? And how is this different from what Germany and France do?

and I bet you still can't tell me one real change that the EU Constitution will make. Or atleast you've definitely not bothered to mention any real element of the EU Constitution in the whole thread
Of course I mentioned changes that EU constitution would make for the UK and it might involve issues like asylum, immigration and criminal procedure laws, foreign policy.

According to the Tory Party leader, Michael Howard, there are at least 43 new policy areas where majority voting would mean measures being "imposed" upon Britain.

Mr Blair said qualified majority voting was being extended where needed but vetoes remained on key areas and Britain could opt out of measures affecting asylum, immigration and criminal procedure laws. He also insisted the new Charter of Fundamental Rights would also not affect British industrial laws. But the Tory leader said the president of the European Court of Justice had offered no guarantees on that claim and he argued the charter was "a case study in government surrender".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3824553.stm

Aris, I am not a Brit and therefore I have no vested interest in reading the EU constitution from cover to cover so I might argue the finer points of the tome point by point with you. By reading viewpoints of knowlegeable reputable UK people like Michael Howard and Shadow Foreign Secretary Michael Ancram and multi-millionaire UK businessman, Paul Sykes, I think I've given you more than enough information re: the Brits' concerns about adopting the EU constitution.

On a personal note, I despiese socialism and Tony Blair is a poster child for the insidious evil of socialism that's promoted through a pretty boy sophisticated package. So anything Blair would want for the UK's "best interests", I find highly suspect right off the bat.

As for the EU monster "digesting" mouthfuls of nations, I thought it was rather humorous if not true. The sad thing was that the BBC didn't see how abhorent that image was. But don't agonize about whether or not I had the right to refer to the BBC as a symbol of elitism. It was the picture of King Kong devouring wee little former nations that stuck in my mind and which validated the Brits' fears that I had been reading about earlier. Obviously you did not think anything of the "digesting" imagery.

Posted by 2xstandard 2005-01-28 10:57:18 PM|| 2005-01-28 10:57:18 PM|| Front Page Top

00:00 trailing wife
23:49 trailing wife
23:48 trailing wife
23:44 Mike Sylwester
23:40 Sobiesky
23:34 Mark E.
23:30 Glosing Slang5997
23:20 Pappy
23:11 Zhang Fei
23:05 JosephMendiola
22:57 2xstandard
22:54 Glenmore
22:49 JosephMendiola
22:46 trailing wife
22:42 Robert Crawford
22:39 trailing wife
22:39 Rafael
22:37 Mike Sylwester
22:35 anonymous2u
22:35 Alaska Paul
22:34 Desert Blondie
22:28 Mike Sylwester
22:27 RWV
22:27 Duke Nukem