Quake3World

what most people fail to see is that the idea behind the european union is not about politics. it's about ideals.

seeing the european union only as a unified economy zone is completely wrong. it allready started with the french revolution and the revolutions in 1848. if you want to know what it is about, listen to beethovens 'ode to joy':

Alle Menschen werden Brüder,
Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.

I obviously don't have any say in the process, but I personally think there should be more Euros looking at the comparisons to the US for this constitution. There are very strong analogies, but I don't really see anyone discussing them. Which seems very odd, considering the popular sentiment of Euros towards the US right now.

I'm not sure if it's because it just isn't noticed, or perhaps because you guys don't consider yourselves anything like us (which is probably true in a lot of ways, but still irrelevant).
But you should remember -- the United States started out as 50 states that were almost completely autonomous, except for very necessary nation-wide laws and regulations. The states were supposed to retain full control over decisions that affected the local populations, and the federal government was only there to provide a unified face to the world, to protect the country from aggressors, and to handle problems between states, or problems that just couldn't be handled at the state level.

It's been a little over 200 years now, and look how much has changed. I personally feel that if you guys think you are immune to this type of gradual encroachment of centralized decision-making, then it is at least a little short-sighted (at worst I might even say hubris).

The reason I say this, is because I love the diversity that's seen in European countries. It is wider than there ever was in the states (on a legal/institutional level) - and I would hate to see that character and diversity take a back seat to the ideology of international politics and economics, which is what this constitution seems to be all about.

Just my $0.02 of course.

MKJ wrote: i accidentally threw out my bill :icon27:

Oh yes Emka: Bij de afdeling Burgerzaken van het stadhuis kun je een nieuwe oproepkaart krijgen. Neem hiervoor wel een geldig paspoort of rijbewijs mee!

MKJ wrote:

Ryoki wrote:

MKJ wrote:i cant vote ( )

Why not btw?

i accidentally threw out my bill :icon27:

there can be only one :icon1:

Ryoki wrote:

MKJ wrote:

Ryoki wrote: Why not btw?

i accidentally threw out my bill :icon27:

Oh yes Emka: Bij de afdeling Burgerzaken van het stadhuis kun je een nieuwe oproepkaart krijgen. Neem hiervoor wel een geldig paspoort of rijbewijs mee!

im one of the many dutch0s who dont have passports on them unless needed

oh well

Going to vote Yes!

Heil Europa!

R00k wrote: ...

i certainly agree on some parts of what you said - if an european government is established and becomes an institution people can identify with, people will slowly start to see themselves as europeans, not as for example french anymore.

it is obvious that an union reduces cultural differences, as it reduces political differencies.
thinking that each country will completely maintain its political identity is wrong. and the economic unity you're speaking of is, to most parts, allready there.

concerning culture: i don't think that much will change. people in france will still be using a bol to drink their coffee in 100 years. and germans will still be eating bratwurst at the biergarten ... and english beer will still suck big time
the thing that reduces the rate at wich an equalisation will happen is the language barrier in europe. you could argue that european television will reduce differences (well... it certainly will. but not the essential parts of a culture) but i think the key aspect is migration - and this is where language becomes a huge obstacle for most.
but maybe we see a social cut: the eductated and rich will be able to choose their home freely but the uneducated will have to stick to their homecountry in most cases.

Ryoki wrote:Going to vote Yes!

Heil Europa!

I've saved a soul today

btw - are there any estimates yet?

It seems to me that European countries could achieve most of the things they are looking for, without drafting an internationally binding constitution. Countries can draw up agreements for economic and political solidarity.
It sounds to me almost like you guys are voting for a central, federal government over all of Europa, in order to maintain an outward appearance of solidarity, and give you more collective bargaining power in world events. At least that's the way the politicians seem to be looking at it.
That doesn't seem like much of a tradeoff for the general populace.

Aside from not having to show your passport and exchange currency when going to other European countries, what exactly are the benefits for you guys?

it's still 55-60 percent "no"

R00k wrote:It seems to me that European countries could achieve most of the things they are looking for, without drafting an internationally binding constitution. Countries can draw up agreements for economic and political solidarity.
It sounds to me almost like you guys are voting for a central, federal government over all of Europa, in order to maintain an outward appearance of solidarity, and give you more collective bargaining power in world events. At least that's the way the politicians seem to be looking at it.
That doesn't seem like much of a tradeoff for the general populace.

Aside from not having to show your passport and exchange currency when going to other European countries, what exactly are the benefits for you guys?

better trade options, more security, improved co-operation on fighting crime, environment policies, general health policies, more control of the national governments on "Brussel" (i.e. center of EU power)

And yes, more political solidarity and one stance on foreign policy (and no, it won't be only France, Germany's voice)

Count'em up.

Superpowers and New kids on the block:
-US
-EU
-China (South east Asia)

As Ryoki said, I hope the more regressive EU nations don't pull Europe back from the social progress it's made so far.

Be sure to ignore the pope whenever possible.

To clarify, I'm not necessarily supportive of the EU but I will watch this unfolding experiment over the next 50 years.

saturn wrote:better trade options, more security, improved co-operation on fighting crime, environment policies, general health policies, more control of the national governments on "Brussel" (i.e. center of EU power)

And yes, more political solidarity and one stance on foreign policy (and no, it won't be only France, Germany's voice)

What do you mean by 'better trade options'?

And I'm not sure I follow the more security. It seems that having to show identification between countries would actually provide more security than otherwise. I can understand the improved crime-fighting cooperation, but by the same token, if I had to show a passport to enter every state in the US, then it would be fairly easy to track down any criminals to begin with. I don't know what the current extradition laws are like over there, but isn't it fairly easy to have criminals prosecuted where their crime was commited in most European countries already?

As far as general health policies, you're a doctor with a lot of experience in that area so I should probably take your word on it. But if there are centralized decisions made on healthcare, and everyone in the EU pays taxes for public healthcare, how long do you think it would take for serious issues to arise about cultural things such as the Netherlands' more lax drug laws, and the health issues that arise from them? People will complain about paying for drug addicts' healthcare until something has to be done about it.

And you say that larger, more influential countries won't have a stronger voice in foreign policy matters than all the others, but that doesn't sound very realistic to me. Any delegated, decision-making body is a power struggle by definition, and to assume that the countries with the most at stake, the most invested, the largest populations, the largest economies, and the strongest previous foreign connections will allow the other countries to have a strong influence over the way they operate and/or make decisions, is a mighty dangerous assumption.

Also to consider is the reason the politicians have been pushing for the constitution to begin with: political solidarity for more influence, economic solidarity for more influence... These are selfish ideals to begin with, so it seems like quite a stretch to me that the people drafting this constitution are doing it for "the greater good of all of the peoples of Europe" as much as they're doing it out of a desire for more power and influence.

And I want to be clear that I'm not trying to undermine Euros' quest for more power and influence - I think you should have it. But I also think there are other ways to have it without putting the entire population under a single umbrella of law.

Also, like seremtan said earlier, historically democratic/republican representation has only worked when it is a grassroots movement from the people. If the people aren't yearning for it, and the politicians are, then I don't see how it's much different from what the best-case-scenario in Iraq could have been -- a people who don't respect what they have because they did not ask for it, and possibly later a growing resentment when they find that their identities and self-determination might be in the hands of someone else they don't even know, who is claiming to represent them.

saturn wrote:And yes, more political solidarity and one stance on foreign policy

Seriously, Sat, I have no idea what that means.

I also have a serious problem with the unified healthcare thing. The working time directive has already totally fucked up medical training in the UK to the point at which doctors are hired preferentially from outside the EU because they actually have the necessary experience (I accept that this is partly because the NHS can't find its arse with both hands). Healthcare isn't one homogeneous entity, different areas have different needs.... and I'm sure you've noticed that trying to treat someone with whom you have no common language is practically impossible. Because of cultural differences, generally speaking even when you can get a translation, it doesn't make any fucking sense; trying to educate the patient is insanely hard.

More to the point, answer me this: If the EU's so fucking great, why is it that the Scandinavian countries have a much higher standard of living?

Don't the EU want to set the maximum speed limit over the whole of europe to 60mph? Fuck that, and fuck those Euros too. I'd vote no if weget the vote.

speedlimit 120 km/h is great. you're so much faster. we were doing ~120 km/h in belgium on our way back from the UK... and as soon as we crossed the frontier to germany (no speedlimit there...) we were forced down to 100 km/h because every one was driving 'as fast as possible'.

speed cap is usefull.

Ah well 2 greens so far

37% yes - 63% no atm

saturn wrote:

Ryoki wrote:Going to vote Yes!

Heil Europa!

I've saved a soul today

im sure he was kidding

i agree with rook on the issue. just look at our (the US of A) situation. our federal government has severely overstepped it's boundary and is continually undermining our states' rights to govern themselves. i've always been, and always will be anti EU.

R00k wrote:I obviously don't have any say in the process, but I personally think there should be more Euros looking at the comparisons to the US for this constitution. There are very strong analogies, but I don't really see anyone discussing them. Which seems very odd, considering the popular sentiment of Euros towards the US right now.

I'm not sure if it's because it just isn't noticed, or perhaps because you guys don't consider yourselves anything like us (which is probably true in a lot of ways, but still irrelevant).
But you should remember -- the United States started out as 50 states that were almost completely autonomous, except for very necessary nation-wide laws and regulations. The states were supposed to retain full control over decisions that affected the local populations, and the federal government was only there to provide a unified face to the world, to protect the country from aggressors, and to handle problems between states, or problems that just couldn't be handled at the state level.

It's been a little over 200 years now, and look how much has changed. I personally feel that if you guys think you are immune to this type of gradual encroachment of centralized decision-making, then it is at least a little short-sighted (at worst I might even say hubris).

The reason I say this, is because I love the diversity that's seen in European countries. It is wider than there ever was in the states (on a legal/institutional level) - and I would hate to see that character and diversity take a back seat to the ideology of international politics and economics, which is what this constitution seems to be all about.

Just my $0.02 of course.

OTOH, there's Canada -- provincial powers are gradually increasing to the point where the Federal government is becoming little more than a redistributor of taxes to the provinces.

There was a really great article that gave a history of this process over the last 20 years in February's Walrus, but I can't seem to find the text of the article online. If I can dig it up at home, I'll scan it (if you're really interested in recent Canadian politics....)

dnoyc wrote:i agree with rook on the issue. just look at our (the US of A) situation. our federal government has severely overstepped it's boundary and is continually undermining our states' rights to govern themselves. i've always been, and always will be anti EU.

Like that slavery thing

i was going to post a big praise be to rook speech, but i'll just say: rook, you sir, rock :icon14: