Attached Link: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4033514

The Constitution of the United States of America begins:

"We the People..."

The proposed constitution of the European Union begins:

"His Majesty the King..."

Which should be a good guide (to US citizens at least) as to why the European effort is such a diabolical, elitist non-starter.

Vive la diffence!

Um... Call me a newbie... But what happened to the other thread? Looks like you deleted it, but I'm trying to figure out why exactly since you apparently just restarted it. Ummm... ?

What is amazing - although we shouldn't really be surprised - is the fact that the EU stated that if ONE country denouced the 'Consitution' the whole thing was supposed to end up in the garbage.

Now that TWO countries have said 'Non' or 'Nej' the Eurocrats are trying to keep the dead-duck afloat. This we should see as the TRUE spirit of a future Euro Super-State.

Democracy will be the first casualty and the people will be ignored.

In the final analysis, France & Germany want to rule a united Europe and demolish the UK. They tell us we should 'Stop behaving like an island off the coast of Europe'.....excuse me but just where did you learn geography.

fin.

Message edited on: 06/05/2005 18:29

where did all my replies go???

The Australian constitution starts with "Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania..." We also don't have any constitutional rights :)

hmm Mahray, you forgot Western Australia in there as well. Then again that is a typical easterner for you ;)

Attached Link: Preamble to the Australian Constitution

"The day we stop believing in Democracy is the day it fails". This corny line from one of the Star Wars films nevertheless rings true. Please, guys... please don't go for a democracy. Go for a Republic. Democracies almost never last very long, because sooner or later you end up in a situation like we have here in America, where everybody votes because that's what's "cool" (and a lot of people don't vote), but it's really just a giant popularity contest and relatively few people actually vote for the guy that would be best. Instead they just vote because they are "Democrats" or because they are "Republicans". At least America is (mostly) a Republic, and so the impact of this problem is lessened. And, like UVDan on the previous thread that was deleted/moved for some reason, I can understand why some countries would want to keep their sovereignty intact. Even if they retain a measure of it, it's still one step in that direction. Just my $.02

Well Bryster, this might be Germanys third and most civil chance after the World War I and World War II massacres to finally get control. France, well, thats entirely another storyI truly think this time they would love it if the Germans regained control over them. Hasnt anyone taken notice in the UNs Food for oil program over there? Sure says a lot about those countries. Both, Chirac and Schroder need to be replaced. Maybe this last election there sent a clear signal to those condescending countries. It certainly signals here that there still is hope for them. America and Great Britain have already made their choices in recent elections.

Message edited on: 06/05/2005 20:36

Help! Help! Politics in the forum!! Quick, lock the thread, ban people!!!

LOLin case you hadnt noticed that the Economist also caters to politics:

Economist.com is the premier online source for the analysis of world business and current affairs, providing authoritative insight and opinion on international news, world politics, business, finance, science and technology, as well as overviews of cultural trends and regular industry, business and country surveys.

Further note on its cover page for the above article:

Dead, but not yet buried:

Comprehensive rejection by voters in France and the Netherlands has killed the European Union constitutioneven if some of the EUs leaders cant yet bring themselves to admit it. How is the 25-nation club to get out of this crisis?

The Econonmist

I still like Winston Churchill's admonition: Democoracy is the worst form of government,.........except for all the rest.

ok.. maybe I missed something during this weekend, but isn't this a potential dangerous thread?!?!? ...and , moreover, totally CG OT?

VOTE 1 VOTE Drac

we are your best allies. what happened to rusia is happening to the usa too, 2 new world powers will emerge europe and china. choose your side and be polite. ROFLMAO! Someone pinch Ysvry to make sure hes awake or not hallucinating. You need to do some serious research. Your statement is off all the way around. Yes, a strong Europe to fend for itself militarily and economically would finally be a welcomed sign. Those that cater to socialism and communism would be well advised to take in the lessons of what was once the mighty Russia. Vast parts of Europe are essentially socialist democratic as it stands now and the reason for their economic woes can, in part, be directly traced to this (welfare states).

ysvry-- I'm all in favor of a strong Europe. Not that it's any of my business. I think that the reason America seems sort of standoffish to the whole affair is because our policy has classically been isolationist. Let the rest of the world deal with its own problems (which is why we aren't supposed to go to war unless there is a "clear and present danger" to the US--something that has been abused and outright ignored at times, but that's OT the OT lol). We've stopped this a bit in recent years, but I think we still feel that way somewhat. But America has always been this way. Nevertheless you'll notice that I never said I was against a strong European union. But it MUST be a very good, long-lasting government in order to work properly. If I am afraid of anything in this manner, it would be that our allies would hurt themselves, and therefore weaken us, by damaging themselves with weak government. America had to completely revamp her government because the first one we had after the Revolution didn't work. Personally I would rather that such a thing didn't happen to Europe as well. There is no reason for history to repeat itself, and with so many countries involved, let's just say there is potential. I just said that democracies generally and historically don't work for long. Republics do. So I suggest that Europeans consider a Republic rather than a Democracy. vasquez-- Quite possibly. However, I'm not terribly worried myself, since if someone flames me I just shrug it off. They're only hurting themselves and revealing how shallow they really are (flamers, that is). Besides, Zhann was the one who started this thread (and deleted draculaz's original one, for some reason that I still can't fathom).

@ shinyary2, it's okay to post a link to content on another site, but not okay to cut and paste it in entirety to the forum, hence I edited Drac's post. People please remember that you can't post another's works, words, pictures, etc., without prior permission, as copyright infringement is frowned upon by the PTB. And I don't want to see anyone get into trouble accidently....=|

Overall it is welcome to me. It will be a nightmare to administer an European Union with all the different languages and ethnic groups. I think getting them to agree on anything is an accomplishment. As far as economically speaking it will be an important player. As far as militarily it will not. Although Britain and France have sizable militaries getting the differt countries to agree on anything for a venture outside their borders will be close to impossible. I like some of the things that have been done so far. I like having one currency instead of loosing on multiple money exchanges when I travel from Denmark to Austria. Needing only one visa to enter the Union is a big plus too. Under its curent guise the EU will be to difficult to administer it will need to change to be able to work. A lot of countries in the union will object to that because noone wats to give up soverignty. Ther eis too much history between the countries of the EU.

bryster said "In the final analysis, France & Germany want to rule a united Europe and demolish the UK. They tell us we should 'Stop behaving like an island off the coast of Europe' IMO as Frenchy is that France and Germany got a lot to learn about UK's economical behaviour and French politicians now start to take T. B. as the exemple to follow.

Pidjy: If you're French I meant no disrespect to you personaly. And I agree with you entirely. But in IMHO some elements in France would dearly like to pull the plug on the UK. We lost millions of souls fighting on French soil and it seems that gratitude is beginning to wane. We (UK & France)should be the best of friends but it seems to me that relations with France are becoming strained to say the least. I'm not talking about Political relationships - I'm talking about how we the people see each other. On the economy - Things aren't all they're cracked up to be here in the UK. We are being royaly ripped off at every opportunity by the Gov. There seems to be no end to the ways a Gov can inflict taxes and levys on its people. In a new move for example against the car owner it is being proposed that instead of paying Road Fund licenses and Fuel Taxes they should be replaced by a 'Pay As You Drive' levy on every vehicle. ie: You drive - you pay a charge per mile. Yeah right! I've been saying this for years. Only the rich and the VIPS will have access to Britain's roads in the coming future. 'How is the 25-nation club to get out of this crisis?' (From the Economist) We're not in a crisis. We tried something - it didn't work - move on and try something else. Finaly - A big thank you to Jan for not locking this thread or moving it to somewhere else. We don't so this too often and it makes a change from the usual 'how do I do this' threads.

The Bryster, I did not feel any disrespect in your words. I'm french.. but I'm a human first. And how can I have some bad feelings against England, the country is beautifull, English History is amazing and there are so many great Artists that I admire. I even like English food.. Maybe that's because my Grand Mother is English. ;-p I was heard about those driving taxes but I thought that it was only for the "center" of London...

I'd also like to that Zhann & AS for not pulling this thread. Its my personal policy not to chime in on things political or religious. So, I'll say onlythis. Its been very informative reading the comments from Europeans. In my news I only get the opinion from North America, which is skewed at best. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you Europeans. I sincerely hope things work out for the best (in the people's favour). As for the Democracy/Republic debate. I'll add this. I believe there is only 1 Democracy on the planet "Switzerland". They are the only country whose citizens vote directly on every national subject. Every other voting nation are various forms of republics. Including my country, Canada. We have a British parlaimentary system. We vote for representatives that make executive decisions. If we don't like their decision we as a people are powerless to stop them until the next election. So, in effect, we have an Elected Dictatorship. :-P

It's times like these that makes me glad to be a Martian. :^)

Oh, how I'd love for Britain to be a republic! It irks me to be considered a 'subject' of the Queen, rather than a citizen of the country. And I can see myself getting more angry still if the idiot Charles ever gets to be king. As for the European constitution, I'm delighted that it's a dead duck. The total disregard for democracy in the EU chills my blood.

Bryster-- This is OT twice removed, but just a quick answer from someone actually living there. I have gotten mixed statistics on this, depending upon who you talk to. So, what's the crime rate over there in UK? Zhann-- That makes a lot of sense, thanks. bandolin-- Remember all of those little Democracies of the 20th century? Gone, failed experiments. That's what I'm basing that belief on. Perhaps the reason that you can only find one true democracy in the world (Switzerland) is because the rest have failed? Switzerland is just a special place, in general. I've never been there, but I'd love to go. I think that this is a bit off the topic for this thread, so I'm just going to drop it unless someone else wants to discuss it. Fair enough? =)

Attached Link: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0304.html

Link above is to Crime in England and Wales 2003/04, the latest figures available. Scotland, whilst part of Great Britain and the United Kingdom, has a separate legal system to E&W, and reports separately. They're available through the
Scottish Executive web site. (BTW, the difference between 'Great Britain' and 'United Kingdom' is that UK includes Northern Ireland and GB doesn't.) Clear? ;-)

Broadly speaking, the overall trend in crime figures here is a slow creep upwards, with downward swings in various different kinds of crime. It's hard to be exact over long periods because the methods of counting change and, of course, recorded crime is not the same as actual crimes committed. The amalgamation of police figures covers recorded crime; the British Crime Survey asks the population about crimes committed against them. It's perfectly possible (and does happen) to have some years where government statistics show that crime levels have both risen and fallen, depending on which set of figures you're looking at. One thing is for sure though: levels of crime are nowhere near the heights that certain newspapers like to claim they are. The fear of crime is often a much bigger problem than crime itself. Message edited on: 06/06/2005 11:14

Thanks, cambert. Looks like you guys are on the down again, kudos to you and your police! =) I do notice a comparatively large rise from 1981-1991. Interesting.

What is "democracy"? Don't you mean, "capitalism"? Or, to clarify even further, "GREED"?

Democracy is a form of government. Capitalism is a form of market econonmy which allows each free market sector to determine the cost of its goods & services. I believe you are Scottish, LSD? Well, your own countryman Adam Smith was one of the worlds staunchest capitalists. There are entire web sites devoted to his market philosophy. It has long since been known that the common purse is governed by prodigality whereas the private one is governed by parsimony. A most reasonable question to follow would be, why? And the answer would be, responsibility in the latter, and the lack there of in the former. Adam Smith. He hated government, and believed that the common market was sufficient to govern itself w/o public interference.

Better say, hated big government. Personally I've never heard of him, but if he hated government period than he was an anarchist and a fool. But I think that's what you meant. And I agree with him. To a point, people should be permitted to govern themselves. The government should mind its own business and not interfere in our private affairs.

No, I'm not Scottish, Bandolin! I'm Korwegian... Close, though, just opposite sides of the world! I was merely being sarcastic in my references to democracy and capitalism. In America, they are the same thing. This country is ruled by money, and greed, and pride. The whole place reeks of malfeasance, to me. Which is why I never refer to myself as an American, even though I've lived by Seattle for twenty years. I personally don't care one way or another about Europe, America, or government. The reason I stay here is because the trees are lovely! And it's a great place to raise my family, while the tides of war sweep us by, for a time... "When I set out to lead humankind along my Golden Path, I promised them a lesson their bones would remember. I know a profound pattern which humans deny with their words even while their actions affirm it. They say they seek security and quiet, the condition they call peace. Even as they speak, they create the seeds of turmoil and violence. If they find their quiet security, they squirm in it. How boring they find it. Look at them now. Look at what they do while I record these words. Hah! I give them enduring eons of enforced tranquillity which plods on and on despite their every effort to escape into chaos. Believe me, the memory of Leto's Peace shall abide with them forever. They will seek their quiet security thereafter only with extreme caution and steadfast preparation." --The Stolen Journals (Frank Herbert, "God Emperor of Dune")

How is the 25-nation club to get out of this crisis?

Bryster, I think that the lead-in paragraph to the above article ended with a rhetorical question. In part I think it was more directed at Jean-Claude Juncker, the current president of the EU since he is so committed to the plan and seems to not be able to let it go. As it says in the article:

The legal position is that, for the constitution to come into force, all 25 members of the EU must ratify it. When they signed the text in Rome last October, EU leaders attached a declaration that if, two years later, four-fifths of countries had ratified, but some had encountered difficulties, an EU summit would be held to consider the situation. This declaration is the basis for Mr Junckers insistence that ratification must continue.

And for Dann-O, it seems that the future of the Euro is also in question especially now that the Constitution has taken an apparent defeat:

The French and Dutch referendums have dashed hopes of political union in Europe. As criticism of the euro grows louder, there are fears that monetary union, too, might be in peril

The Economist

LOLBandolin, as if the Canadian and European news networks arent skewed.

Message edited on: 06/06/2005 16:44

dang, I put in what I thought was a well-thought-out response to this (last time), only to find out the whole shebang went bust..;)
I listen to the Beeb in the morning if I'm in the car at the right time, and boy were they coy about not voting on something they'd have voted down anyway..;)
I just think that one the one hand they rushed this through without actually consulting the people. I haven't counted, but our Constitution keeps the supreme court busy with what, about 30 pages..imaging trying to understand (much less enforce) 500 pages..;)
Ahh.. it do make me miss the OT forum, tho..;)

...and LSD, you continue to prove that you are a Frank Hebert fanatic. =)

I swear that I'm going to read those one of these days. Oh, and all news sources are skewed. Doesn't matter where you are, or which one you are watching, they all have some bias. Pakled-- Yeah, same thing happened to me. Oh, well, that's life I suppose.

Message edited on: 06/06/2005 18:28

My apologies LordStormDragon. You always start your forum replies with, Aye. I assumed you were scottish. My bad. I too, enjoyed the Dune series. FH is the closest thing Sci Fi has to Tolkein (speaking in terms of epicness).

(laughs!) You can't even compare the two. Tolkien is themeless, lifeless, and entirely unskilled when placed against a backdrop of a master like Herbert... Tolkien's just popular. I can't say he's even in my list of top 1,000 writers. Even Dr. Seuss shows more talent than his boring, unemotional drivel. Perspective is the key. And before you say, "Yeah, that's just YOUR opinion, you elitist snob!", remember that I just said it for you first! But I digress from the topic... As usual. Continue, my friends!

Empirebuilding will always fail, sooner or later, if its forced upon people by those who thinks theyre the ones that are enlightened. It doesnt matter whether the intentions are good or bad. A long lasting community has to be established upon general ideas among the majority of the people. That doesnt have to mean that the majoritys opinions are the right ones to agree with. Personally I think borders of any kind are a silly invention, both around continents or my own country.

Stoner I am in your camp. I think I could be an Ex-patriot for life. I lived for 7 years of my adult life out of my homeland and for the most part it does not matter. I could be happy most places. Borders are artificial to me. Give me a decent job a good home and I'll be happy. I don't need a flag to wave.

LSD has never read the Silmarillion.

I thought the Dune series went downhill after the first one, now pass me some Feist.... @Shinyary2 Anarchism is actually the perfect form of government, but it is of course like any 'ism' not achievable. Often anarchy is viewed just by the idea that it's a lawless state so people can do what they like. The complete anarchy would have no law because its not needed, every person in the society correctly understands and fulfills their role in society to the betterment of the society. As I mentioned it can never happen, but a true anarchy would actually be pretty close to utopia. Calling someone an anarchist would therefore imply that they know their place in society are happy with it and fulfill it as required!

I've read all of Tolkien's works. Drac has never read : (insert list of well over 2,000 fantasy novels, INLCUDING Feist!)

LSD-- OT as usual my friend. This seems to happen constantly to both of us. It's a sign of genius I'm sure. =) Tolkien is not themeless. I'm sure how you can say that except in gross jest. Anyway, he's just a different sort of author. =) Gog_CA1-- Dictionary.com defines "anarchy" as: "1. Absence of any form of political authority. 2. Political disorder and confusion. 3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose." "a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)" I didn't mean to insult the guy. I was only trying to clarify. But being an Anarchist is bad, not good. Anarchy is simply the complete absence of any government whatsoever, which can never possibly work unless some radical changes are made to human nature. There MUST be someone in charge, because if there isn't, everyone else lacks cohesive direction. Besides which, even if it could be made to work, there will always be someone who wants to be in charge. Ergo, you have it turn immediately into a dictatorship. It's the same problem with Socialism.

It's a Second Foundation issue. If everyone could read others' thoughts and/or emotions, there would be no lies. Society would surely crumble in an instant, if this were to occur. Mind Control.

Getting back to reality, although artificial, borders do exist and many wars have been fought throughout the eons to make them so. Borders have been adopted internationally over a historic timeline. They delineate people of racial, cultural and political differences, which is the reason why borders were created to begin with and treaties written to protect them. They help to maintain sovereignty and peace between Countries. Although in modern times there are still wars fought over them, Israel and Palestine for example, imagine how many more wars there would be if there werent any borders or agreements to respect them. A signed agreement between countries, recognizing and respecting their borders, more often than not, leads to understanding of those agreements and less conflict between their people. Remember, throughout history, its always been about land, territory and resources. Very well put Shinyary (on anarchy)!

2nd Foundation..I've read them all (the first 3, and the 3 by the Killer b's..;) I actually read the Silmarillon too (the verbal equivalent of fruitcake..incredibly dense, but lasts forever..;) There's got to be borders of some sort, how am I going to know where to stop mowing?..;)

@ shinyary, I know that anarchy doesn't work, I point out that in my post, because of human nature it will fail, all I was saying that if you go beyond the dictionary definition, that theoretical anarchy is supposed to be a good thing - at least that's what we were taught in political and philosophical studies at college, we then went on to explain why, the theoretical state is unachievable and hence people forget the true essence of the ideaology. We actually did the same thing with democracism, socialism, and the other theoretical governmental types, none of which are actually attainable. For example what we have in most countries that regard themselves as a democracy is not in truth in a democracy, which in its purest form would require all citizens of a country to vote on every governmental decision - again an impossible state to realise. This is one of those areas which also covers how language evolves. The understanding of the word democracy or anarchy becomes the common idea rather then the pure form. A great example are the words awesome and awful which about 150 years ago meant the same thing, but over time awful has moved to become the opposite, just as it's spelling has moved from the original awefull.

True democracy will be made possible with neural-net computers, such as Arachne from Vonda McIntyre's books, or with the assistance of an Overmind for example. Again, our human minds need to mature, and reach for their untapped potential. It's not likely going to happen in our lifetimes, but something to look forward to for our progeny... Something aside from endless war and greed. I guess it's called, "Hope"?

But as a modern society we most certainly need to adhere to present-day definitions and modern connotations and not the definitions of yesteryear. An idea must be expressed as concisely as possible for it to have the desired ramifications. Mixing modern concepts with antiquated connotations is a recipe for misconceptions and misunderstanding. One cannot go beyond the dictionary definition, simply because there is only but an accepted meaning for a word in the present day. To do so would be making up words as we went along rendering words totally useless. As the etymology of words evolve, we must take stock in their most modern meaning and not allow ourselves to be lead astray by archaic semantics. The true definition of a word is temporally relative to the time of its usage. We cannot expect to be fully understood if we speak in the present using old definitions. It would be like using Shakespearian English, as lovely as it was, in the year 2005 and expect to be understood. The ideology of anarchy must then be interpreted in light of its modern day definition. Although we may not live in the purest of democracies, it nevertheless infers rule by formal government and systemic organization. If by todays standards we think we live in a chaotic world, imagine the chaos if we lived in a world with no government. The modern day tragedy in Rwanda is analogous and comes to mind when thinking about anarchy, as does the reign of terror in France during the French Revolution. Further, anarchists dont agree with each other, as there are different schools of thought on the ideology of anarchism.

Quest, you are intelligent, but unwise on this matter. Look around. It's pure anarchy. People dropping like flies, and for lesser reasons. A system is a structured order of events and ideas. I live in the USA, and it is NOT a system. It is a massive engine for vengeance and greed. Anyone who disagrees with this concept has never really known the system, or never taken part in it. I live near Seattle, which is the most female-ruled area in the enire country. Here, women kidnap children and ransom them for cash every single fucking day. And they call it "child support", and it is a state-sanctioned occurance. Why would I even consider supporting a "system" that legalizes kidnapping? What's next, rape? We already know that thievery is perfectly acceptable, given the central government. So exactly what IS moral about the USA? So I spend a lot of time in Olympia, trying to change the laws and trying to be "democratic" about it. But my experience is that there's nothing even remotely democratic about the USA, Washington State, or anything resembling "freedom" here. It's all a big front pt on by self-righteous, greedy rich people to make them feel better about themselves while they rape, burn, and pillage the land. Anarchy in the US? No. Imperialism? Yes. And now back ON topic, why would the countries of Europe want something like this? The entire world should have learned it's lesson by now. The USA is a shining example of what NOT to do with government, just like the USSR. It's really no different, except that here it will have a much, much costlier toll in human life to change things.

LSD: The people of Europe DON'T want this! That's why Holland and France said 'No' to the so-called constitution. Brits don't want it either, but the gov would have you bleive different.