PARIS - French voters rejected the
European Union's first constitution Sunday, President Jacques Chirac said — a stinging repudiation of his leadership and the ambitious, decades-long effort to further unite the continent.

Chirac, who urged voters to approve the charter, announced the result in a brief, televised address. He said the process of ratifying the treaty would continue in other EU countries.

"France has expressed itself democratically," Chirac said. "It is your sovereign decision, and I take note."

Earlier, the Interior Ministry said that with about 83 percent of the votes counted, the referendum was rejected by 57.26 percent of voters. It was supported by 42.74 percent.

All 25 EU members must ratify the text for it to take effect as planned by Nov. 1, 2006 — and nine already have done so. The Dutch vote Wednesday, with polls showing opposition to the constitution there running at about 60 percent.

France's rejection could set the continent's plans back by years. The nation was a primary architect of European unity.

"There is no more constitution," leading opponent Philippe de Villiers said. "It is necessary to reconstruct Europe on other foundations that don't currently exist."

De Villiers called on Chirac to resign — something the French leader had said he would not do — and called for parliament to be dissolved.

"Tonight we face a major political crisis," he said.

Extreme-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen, who campaigned vigorously for the constitution's defeat, also called for Chirac's resignation.

Chirac "wanted to gamble ... and he has lost," Le Pen said.

The rejection could kill any hopes Chirac may have had for a third term. His approval ratings have plunged to 39 percent in recent weeks, and there was widespread speculation a "no" vote would prompt him to fire unpopular Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin.

European leaders negotiated the treaty in October in Rome. EU officials said before the vote that even if France rejected the treaty, efforts to ratify it in other countries would proceed.

On Friday, the constitution's main architect, former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing, said countries that reject the treaty will be asked to vote again.

-----------------

This is excellent news. The people of France were asked and they responded with a big No!
Personally i think that the European Constitution is a godawful idea. It would essentially be the first stepping stone to the 'United States of Europe'.

How on earth would the countries of Europe, who are Politically, Social and even Physiologically very different get on well enough to make decisions that were beneficial to all. What helps the Spanish may well hurt the Swedes.

Hopefully we will see at least a dozen nations vote no on the Constitution, stopping it in it's tracks.

Does anybody else have an opinion on this?

Well I'm glad to see that happen.  Now I hope Britain gets to vote on it so they can show France how to REALLY vote it down.

Time to sit back and watch the Euro's value drop.

Gee, Alcoholica, you took the words right out of my mouth.  I tip my hat to the French people, who have wisely shot down the claptrap that is the "European Constitution".

The concept of a united Europe is folly, and in the end, dangerous.  Hitler rose to power scapegoating Versailles and the Jews.  The concept of a "European Constitution", which usurps national sovreignity, is exactly what an ultranationalist megalomania would need to build a following and a power base.  He'd scapegoat this constitution and use it to do the continent dirty.

For once... Vive la France!  8)

They're already talking about a re-vote, so the French probably won't really get a say.

I have a feeling they're going to make the French people vote on this over and over and over again until they give the "right answer."

But still they delayed this "constitution."

The concept of a united Europe is folly, and in the end, dangerous. Hitler rose to power scapegoating Versailles and the Jews. The concept of a "European Constitution", which usurps national sovreignity, is exactly what an ultranationalist megalomania would need to build a following and a power base. He'd scapegoat this constitution and use it to do the continent dirty.


That's an excellent point. We do of course already have a Megalomaniac who has proven he'll tread on anybody to retain power.. I am of course talking about out Glorious Emporer Prime Minister Mr Blair.
Consider the fact that Pim Foortane was looking set to take a vast amount of power in Holland with his Neo Nazi ideas before he was shot and the Far Left & Far Right factions that have a lot of power in Spain & Italy could just spread across Europe.

The countries of Europe are incredibly diverse.. something that should be encouraged instead of quashed. Through our differences we can establish closer links, but as seperate nations with different ideas and values. Not as one Carbon Copy of the 'ideal' Europe.


They're already talking about a re-vote, so the French probably won't really get a say.
I have a feeling they're going to make the French people vote on this over and over and over again until they give the "right answer."
But still they delayed this "constitution."


Not a big suprise really. The French are very nationalistic though. I think the more they vote on it the more people will vote no. I doubt they will vote more than one more time.


Well I'm glad to see that happen. Now I hope Britain gets to vote on it so they can show France how to REALLY vote it down..


That'll be the day. ;D

Mr Blair has been fairly hazy about the E.U Constitution. I think he would like to test the water, especially due to the growing factions in the Labour Party that would like to see him ousted from his position.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/h_3_ill_655536_oui_non_referendum-thumb.jpg

Well I'm glad to see that happen.  Now I hope Britain gets to vote on it so they can show France how to REALLY vote it down.

Time to sit back and watch the Euro's value drop.

Best hope the Euro's value drops.  If the Chinese stop investing in the dollar and switch over to Euros, the whole phony-baloney "supply side economics" operation the Bushies have been propping up goes up in a puff of smoke! 

I can't say I'm surprised to see a few of the comments I have from a few of the contributors here. I don't think it infeasible at all that a strong governmental coalition amongst member states in Europe could exist and work, while still allowing all member-states the final say when it comes to their home countries. There are cultural differences between said member states but none too significant to ensure that no coalition could ever succeed in Europe. I take it that a lot of folks might be relying on old nationalistic boasts to come to this conclusion. The English have a fiat sense of superiority considering their once vast (and largest ever) empire. The French have a sense of not liking the English at all and vice-versa. Everybody's afraid of those ambitious but sneaky Germans, and their Germanic buddies (the Austrians and the Swiss). The Irish want to be as much of an asset as possible compared to their former masters next door, so conformity with the continent in all things is necessary. Nobody cares what the Scandinavian countries think because they're all too socially advanced and militaristically weakto care anything about it. Same goes for the Dutch. And of course, the Eastern states are still counting their lucky stars that they were even invited.  All this is BS! It's not based on statistics and facts, it is based on these old fool's notions of how all the foreigners act. The EU is a good thing, economically, socially, and democratically speaking. Economies and currency values have been looking up (with small setbacks of course), commerce is well, social standards in all member countries are raised, and each countries' sense of literal independence has not waned. France can pull out any time they want to... the question is, what for? It's all looking upward from here.

And all the far-right Americans would do well to just drink a nice cup of STFU, because anyone can recognise the real reason they don't want the EU to succeed... If Europe unites and does really well... like perhaps better than the US, that would prove that Social-Democracy really is better than wrong-wing fascism, where the government lets corporations use slash and burn techniques on the population and we beg for more in the name of Jesus Christ (the guy who wanted us to help eachother live better lives). What would happen to your right-wing sense of (in)security-by-numbers if you actually saw undeniable, visual proof that your outdated mindset is useless and that you might actually have to use your brains if you want to take part in a proper democracy?

You might want to start preparing or thinking (yes, thinking) about that, because I have a feeling the EU is going to live up to all the aforementioned standards.

And all the far-right Americans would do well to just drink a nice cup of STFU,

Please.  Both the far-left and the far-right in this country are happy.  The far-right simply because it makes the French president look bad, while the left says it "stops the corporate takeover or Europe," "stops England from ruling the other 24 EU nations," and "stops the Anglo-Saxon takeover of Europe."

If fact, read for yourself.  On the most popular far-right messageboard on the internet, the freerepublic, and the most popular far-left messageboard on the internet, the democraticunderground.

FreeRepublic: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1412846/posts

DemocraticUnderground: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1509751

It's all looking upward from here.

I can't find the source (we talked about it in another thread), but why is it that the experts are saying that India will rise, China will rise, Russia will decline, Japan will rise, and the EU will fall apart?  The euro is at a seven-month low, currency traders are coming back to the dollar.  Don't give me the "Europe is fine and rolling."  German unemployment is at it's highest rate since Hitler took power in 1933...the German unemployment rate in 12.6%!  In fact, the two biggest economies in the EU have had nothing but unemployment going up since the euro was adopted.

your outdated mindset...

Is that why the BBC reported that younger people were more opposed to the EU constitution than the older set?  They said younger people feared the constitution would hurt their chance of holding their jobs.

because I have a feeling the EU is going to live up to all the aforementioned standards.

I BEEEELIEEVE!

The thing I find most amusing is the way the French "no" vote is for reasons diametrically opposite to the UK opposition: they wanted a more united Europe while simultaneously protecting the French "way of life" (i.e. subsidies for their farmers, etc).  Their view was that the constitution was too liberal (another confusing one from our French friends: the word "liberale" in French is an economic liberal - basically open market, free trade economics: quite the opposite of its use t'other side of the Atlantic.

(another confusing one from our French friends: the word "liberale" in French is an economic liberal - basically open market, free trade economics: quite the opposite of its use t'other side of the Atlantic.


So an economic liberal in France is the same thing as an economic conservative in Britain and America?

Those wacky French.

The thing I find most amusing is the way the French "no" vote is for reasons diametrically opposite to the UK opposition: they wanted a more united Europe while simultaneously protecting the French "way of life" (i.e. subsidies for their farmers, etc).


Which is one of my main concerns. I have a feeling that if power were to shift from Downing Street to Brussels we would see a slow shift away from the way of life we are accustomed to.

I wouldn't want to see the U.K pull out of Europe in any way, shape or form. However i don't think we should throw ourselves any further in. European Nations provide us with good trade links and Defense against Hostile nations.

Another problem is that with the influx of poor nations in to the E.U would we not eventually find ourselves propping them up?

Crazy Frog? Non, monsieur!

So an economic liberal in France is the same thing as an economic conservative in Britain and America?

Those wacky French.

As Obelix might say: "Ils sont foux ces Français"  :)

Please.  Both the far-left and the far-right in this country are happy.

Dude, don't tell me about the far left, I am the far-left... I'm farther left than the far left, and I think that the EU is a good thing which will raise quality-of-life standards across the continent and help to ensure that dictatorships and fascism does not arise in Europe ever again because member-states will be able to watch eachother's backs.


On the most popular far-right messageboard on the internet, the freerepublic, and the most popular far-left messageboard on the internet, the democraticunderground.

FreeRepublic: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1412846/posts

DemocraticUnderground: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1509751


Here is an example of one of the key differences between the two of us, and that is that you rely on the popularity of a certain opinion to "prove" its verity, while I don't really give a hell about which idea is more "popular" than the other... Just because a lot of people are saying something, doesn't make it the truth.


I can't find the source (we talked about it in another thread), but why is it that the experts are saying that India will rise, China will rise, Russia will decline, Japan will rise, and the EU will fall apart?  The euro is at a seven-month low, currency traders are coming back to the dollar.  Don't give me the "Europe is fine and rolling."  German unemployment is at it's highest rate since Hitler took power in 1933...the German unemployment rate in 12.6%!  In fact, the two biggest economies in the EU have had nothing but unemployment going up since the euro was adopted.


Like I said, there have been some setbacks (but don't be so ignorant as to think that setbacks are indicative of certain failure), but nothing that can be factually traced to the adoption of the Euro or the formation of the EU. One could also say that "since Czechoslovakia split, Germany's unemployment rate has gone up and down" and while this statement is true, it does not mean that the latter is a direct effect of the former. "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" has never been an acceptable logical method in coherent debate, yet the Wrong uses it all the time.

This constitution will probably not succeed, especially after the Netherlands votes a presumable "no." But make no mistake that it will be followed by another until eventually one is ratified. It's the writing on the wall.

So an economic liberal in France is the same thing as an economic conservative in Britain and America?

Those wacky French.

It's simple, really.  What the American "conservatives" believe in econimically is extreme neo-libralism for corporations and their profits, for capitalists and their capital.  For everybody else, American "conservatives" believe in social reaction.  The central message of this social reaction is "shut up, go to church, and do as you're told."  In order for this extreme neo-liberalism to work, you have to keep the rabble under constant surveillance and subjection!
http://pplp.tripod.com/neoliberalism.html

This constitution will probably not succeed, especially after the Netherlands votes a presumable "no." But make no mistake that it will be followed by another until eventually one is ratified. It's the writing on the wall.


Well that's basically what I said in reply #3.  They'll just change a few words, and resubmit it again in a few years, and force France, the Netherlands, Britain, and all the other countries which will vote it down to vote over and over again until the "right" answer is reached.  Democracy at work.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2005/05/30/PH2005053001124.jpg
Members of the Socialist Party react at their headquarters in Paris on Sunday after French voters rejected the proposed European Union constitution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2005/05/30/PH2005053001124.jpg
Members of the Socialist Party react at their headquarters in Paris on Sunday after French voters rejected the proposed European Union constitution.


And what did you do here except for point out that they're Socialists? 2/3 of Europe is Socialist, didn't you know? Just because you were conditioned from an early age to despise and fear the evil forces of Socialism and Communism (probably thinking that they are the same thing, which they aren't at all) because of the Cold War doesn't mean that everyone else was. I wish we could get past that stigma in the US and get people a little more educated, then maybe we could organise a more effective and present Social-Democratic party.

And what did you do here except for point out that they're Socialists? 2/3 of Europe is Socialist

Exactly where in Europe does the socialist party hold two-thirds of anything?  Or even a majoirty, expect for maybe Spain?  France's socialist party is not the majority party, socialists don't have a majority in Germany, and especially not in Britain.  Hmm....

Exactly where in Europe does the socialist party hold two-thirds of anything?  Or even a majoirty, expect for maybe Spain?  France's socialist party is not the majority party, socialists don't have a majority in Germany, and especially not in Britain.  Hmm....

Two-thirds of any given European country may not be affiliated with an actual "socialist" party, but their beliefs about the government's role in society is what YOU would consider socialist!

OK, so it's an annoying plug for a parody (of sorts), but this story inspired the following: Three Cheers for Jean

Two-thirds of any given European country may not be affiliated with an actual "socialist" party, but their beliefs about the government's role in society is what YOU would consider socialist!


Thank you. And here I was thinking that I would have to do all the explaining, though I think he knew exactly what the sentence meant but chose to be disingenuous in order to perhaps make me look like a fool. Or was he thrown off by my mistaken capitalisation of the 'S' in the word 'socialist'? (Yeah, right  ::)) Anyway, Max, you've got it spot on. Even the vast majority of conservatives in Europe would never utter even a syllable about scrapping the national health programmes or other such social accomplishments. It would be political suicide (this is true in Canada as well).

Here is an example of one of the key differences between the two of us, and that is that you rely on the popularity of a certain opinion to "prove" its verity, while I don't really give a hell about which idea is more "popular" than the other... Just because a lot of people are saying something, doesn't make it the truth.

ok, you dont base your opinions on what is popular and what other people think....respectable


Like I said, there have been some setbacks (but don't be so ignorant as to think that setbacks are indicative of certain failure), but nothing that can be factually traced to the adoption of the Euro or the formation of the EU. One could also say that "since Czechoslovakia split, Germany's unemployment rate has gone up and down" and while this statement is true, it does not mean that the latter is a direct effect of the former. "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" has never been an acceptable logical method in coherent debate, yet the Wrong uses it all the time.


ok, so you dont base your opinions on facts either.  I see. 

Just because you were conditioned from an early age to despise and fear the evil forces of Socialism and Communism (probably thinking that they are the same thing, which they aren't at all) because of the Cold War doesn't mean that everyone else was. I wish we could get past that stigma in the US and get people a little more educated, then maybe we could organise a more effective and present Social-Democratic party.


Ok, lets start out here:
Communism=horrible failure.  After revolution turns into totalitarian rule and gives people under it less rights than they had prior to revolution. 

Socialism is not Communism.  Communism (lets use Russia as an example since Im pretty sure most people are familiar with it) in Russia was based in the Socialism that Karl Marx (In The Communist Manifesto..dont get mixed up here, its socialism, not Communism) and later Vladimir Lenin wrote and preached.  It all turned upside down after Lenin's death and the fight for power between Stalin and Trotsky, yada yada yada, the Great Purge (no one cares about that, right?), repression of rights, yada yada yada.  Ok, Ill stop the sarcasm. 

Communism is very different than Socialism, youre right.  The problem is, Socialism as what Karl Marx preached is not much better.

Have you read The Communist Manifesto?  I have.  Here's Marx's main problem.  He doesnt understand human nature.  Marx was more of a econimist than a political theorist, and that's why he gets it wrong.  Im sure Marx read Hobbes and Locke, and Plato, but I dont think he took much of it in since he just denys everything that they wrote.  Instead Marx based his ideas on a combination between the naiveness of Rousseau (who i really think just wrote his discourses as jokes) and the power in numbers argument of Alexis De Tocqueville.  But wait, he says that associations are bad because they pacify the people.  Yet he wants workers of the world to unite.  He wants unions with people coming together, but doesnt want this as well.  He contridicts himself within ten pages.  But I digress.  Marx took his view of human nature from Rousseau (who based it slightly on Aristotle in the Politics but then cites it wrong and credits it to Plato, and then takes lines from Plato out of context in order to misinterpret them...reminds me of our current government), but anyway, he takes from Rousseaus view that human nature is good. Now I can see one beleiving Locke's view that some are bad and some are good, and I can see people calling Hobbes a pessimist for saying all is bad, but I can not believe that a person can really believe that all human nature is good.  THis Pollyana view of the world has proven itself a failure numorous times.  Want examples?  Turn on the news. 

Now Marx rationalizes this view point by saying human nature has only been corrupted by the capitalist society.  That's why it's bad.  He talks about how capitalist society alienates the worker from his product, himself, his fellow workers and his labour.  He discusses alienation (some of this is in another work of his as well...the name is escaping me currently, Ill look at my bookshelf later and get you the name) and how it affects the workers, etc etc.  He insists that this is why human nature has been corrupted. 
So alienation and isolation is bad.  So the obvious answer would be then to get together in groups.  Power in numbers.  Now, as I mentioned before, Marx contradicts himself here.  He first says that he's for unions, and groups (channleing De Tocqueville, which if you havent read, you really need to), then he says that groups are bad because they pacify the people.  All Marx wanted was revolution.  That's it.  He didnt want people to join groups because they pacify.  He doesnt want people to be isolated because they can't revolt alone.  He doesnt have answers, he has complaints.  He has loose ends.  He has a pandoras box of problems. 
And a whole government system is based on this? 

so, ergo, communism=bad, failure. 
Communism not socialism
but socialism...doesnt even get off the ground due to its problems.

If you would like to argue about human natue, be my guest, but I may not be back on this board until Monday...so dont worry if I dont reply right away. 

Well explained, Billy - that was well worth reading :)

And the Dutch have rejected the EU constitution by about 62%.

Well explained, Billy - that was well worth reading :)


thank you Phil

Ever notice how the closer our economy gets to the Milton Friedman ideal, the more our country falls apart?
It wasn't the 70% top marginal tax rate of 1980 that got us in the pickle we're all in now!
::)

ok, so you dont base your opinions on facts either.  I see. 


And how exactly were yopu able to gather that out of my pointing out that much of the time, anybody can use what are technically "facts" to prove their point. Just take a look at my example... "Since the splitting of Czechoslovakia, Germany's economy has greatly fluctuated."

That sentence is also a "fact" but it doesn't mean that the latter clause is a direct effect of the former clause. I happen to think that the EU is a positive force, and that the ratification of a constitution will help to improve things in the lesser fortunate member states (like those in the East) to meet the standards already held in Western Europe. If this constitution fails (which it is clear that it will) then the democratic process will give birth to one that is more suitable to all member states.

As for Communism, of course it has proved to be a failure, but that doesn't make the concept itself detestable... it's a nice notion, but it's unrealistic... you don't have to preach that to me. But the brand of Socialism that is practised in Western Europe today is nothing like a "horrible failure." It's an economic priniciple that says the state and its citizens have a responsibility to support one another, and to facilitate a constitutional democracy committed to freedom and human rights. But right-wing, American loudmouths like GW would love nothing more than for the strong European welfare state to fail, just to give them a final assurance that though the dog-eat-dog political and economic system in this country they so vociferously support isn't perfect, it's the very very best.

For the record, I have not read the Communist Manifesto in its entirety, not because I have no interest, but because I would like to wait until my command of the German language is strong enough to read it in its original German. Be that as it may, I am well educated and informed in political science, and I think that is enough qualification to state an opinion about Social-Democracy. I don't need to debate with you on human nature, because there is an almost definite chance that we both agree on the issue.

I mean, is there any reason I should think what the Republicans have been up to over the past twenty-five years has made America a nicer place?
(No bypassing the truth for rhetorical convenience, mind you, I can hear Rush Limbaugh do that any day of the week, and he's much better at it than any of you!)

I mean, is there any reason I should think what the Republicans have been up to over the past twenty-five years has made America a nicer place?
(No bypassing the truth for rhetorical convenience, mind you, I can hear Rush Limbaugh do that any day of the week, and he's much better at it than any of you!)


well, define "nicer".  What do you think makes the world "nicer".  In my opinion, "nicer" shouldnt be as much a concern as safer and stronger.  Who are we being nice to?  Our government nicer to other nations governments?  Other nations citizens?  Our government nicer to its own citizens?  Our citizens nicer towards each other?  You know that will never happen. 

And how exactly were yopu able to gather that out of my pointing out that much of the time, anybody can use what are technically "facts" to prove their point. Just take a look at my example... "Since the splitting of Czechoslovakia, Germany's economy has greatly fluctuated."

That sentence is also a "fact" but it doesn't mean that the latter clause is a direct effect of the former clause.

i was just pointing out that you were ignoring the facts that were presented that went against your arguement. 

Oh, and when you structure the sentence in a cause and effect fashion, of course you are going to get people that beleive one is the cause of the other. 


As for Communism, of course it has proved to be a failure, but that doesn't make the concept itself detestable... it's a nice notion, but it's unrealistic... you don't have to preach that to me. But the brand of Socialism that is practised in Western Europe today is nothing like a "horrible failure." It's an economic priniciple that says the state and its citizens have a responsibility to support one another, and to facilitate a constitutional democracy committed to freedom and human rights. But right-wing, American loudmouths like GW would love nothing more than for the strong European welfare state to fail, just to give them a final assurance that though the dog-eat-dog political and economic system in this country they so vociferously support isn't perfect, it's the very very best.

well, I didnt say anything about the current socialist democracy system, but I dont think your definition of it is correct.  "Its an economic principle that says the state and its citizens have a responsibility to support one another, and to facilitate a constitutional democracy committed to freedom and human rights" I think this is much more of an idealist definition that a realistic one. Every "democratic" government claims its committed to freedom and human rights.  (I highly doubt the people would enter into a social contract with said government if they didnt claim that...unless of course they were forced).  Hell, even countries like the former USSR and China claimed/claim that they are "Democratic" (THe "Democratic peoples republic of china"), but we see how much they stand up for human rights and freedom in those countries. 

Further, you call its an economic system where the state and its citizens have a responcibility to support one another.  Well, first Ill just say, that with your definition (specificly this part) Im not sure where the socialism even comes into place, since none of this is really socialist.  Secondly Ill say that this doesnt make sense.  It expects the state to support its citizens and its citizens to support the state?  Well, I know capitalism is the state and the citizens working to support themselves.  Communism is the citizens, or servants working purely to support the state, and socialism is the citizens working to support all the citizens and the state is no where in the equation.  (though Marxian socialism is the the citizens work to support themselves, and the government regulates and controls it).  I dont see socialist-democracy falling anywhere in those formulas.  The state working to support the citizens and the citizens working to support the state?  It just seems backwards and full of unneeded steps.  Unless of course youre wrong on the definiton. 

 
For the record, I have not read the Communist Manifesto in its entirety, not because I have no interest, but because I would like to wait until my command of the German language is strong enough to read it in its original German. Be that as it may, I am well educated and informed in political science, and I think that is enough qualification to state an opinion about Social-Democracy. I don't need to debate with you on human nature, because there is an almost definite chance that we both agree on the issue.




thats fine then.  The communist manifesto though, while written in German initially, was translated into Englishfor the English version in 1888.  It was done though under the supervision of Marx himself, so I doubt anything was translated incorrectly or Marx (who knew English) would have said something.  But whatever

I don't think that either the fact that the translation to English was a good one, or the fact that Marx himself knew English matters. I think that my choice to first acquire skills in a foreign language and then tackle a very important piece of literature in that language would be justified simply by my will to do it, and not by the fact that it's easier to read the English version.


Oh, and when you structure the sentence in a cause and effect fashion, of course you are going to get people that beleive one is the cause of the other.

My point exactly. The "facts that were presented" to me in order to dispute my argument were of that exact type... the faux cause-and-effect sentences. (Are you familiar with GW's posting tendencies? If you aren't, spend enough time here and you soon will be.) They were intended to convince a third-party once and for all that the EU is an iminent failure, and I was only pointing out that the way these statements were structured made them reek of bullshhh. Your assertion that I don't base my opinions on facts was misplaced.

I dont think your definition of it is correct.  "Its an economic principle that says the state and its citizens have a responsibility to support one another, and to facilitate a constitutional democracy committed to freedom and human rights" I think this is much more of an idealist definition that a realistic one.

Here you are indeed correct. I misworded my "definition," admittedly. My diction and syntax made it seem that "one another" referred to the state and the citizens when I meant for it to refer to the citizens only. What I intended to say was that it is an economic (and social, let's be real) principle which says that the state and the citizens work to take care of and sustain the population (i.e. with basic needs, health care, education, etc...), and to facilitate a constitutional democracy committed to freedom and human rights. Now, I include the last part (though I admit it is not entirely objective, as I tend to agree with the Social-Democrats quite often) because I think it's important to differentiate between the Social-Democracy practised in Western Europe today and the attempted Socialism (in bed with Communism) that was in the USSR.

well, define "nicer".  What do you think makes the world "nicer".  In my opinion, "nicer" shouldnt be as much a concern as safer and stronger.  Who are we being nice to?  Our government nicer to other nations governments?  Other nations citizens?  Our government nicer to its own citizens?  Our citizens nicer towards each other?  You know that will never happen. 



If we say it will never happen, you can be certain it never will.  We can compete like Spartans against one another for crumbs in the marketplace while the corporations rob us blind and rape our ecology.  We the people will always lose to the government-business complex. 
We are not safer now than we were twenty-five years ago.  The USSR is no more, but an infrastructure of nuclear weapons that could blow us all sky high is still intact.  The Bush Administration has plundered Iraq for oil and alienated most of the our allies.  On top of that, the saucy Bushies say they don't care what the rest of the world thinks, and if you're not with us you're against us.  The arrogance of the Bush Administration has fanned the flames of terrorist rage more than anything I have ever seen in my life.  If mankind survives long enough for the truth about 9/11 to gain currency, the general public may begin to understand the wrath that is now bubbling under us.

The christo-fascists and the neo-cons running the government as the handmaidens of big business have made America a greedier, angrier, more cut-throat, and more materialistic nation than it was when I was a kid.  Americans measure wealth as a degree of righteousness, and aquisition as a patriotic duty.  We cheer bubba-redneck preachers screaming about the evils of abortion, but we don't bat an eye at the fact that we have the highest infant mortality rate in the civilized world.  Our arrogant politicians tell us it makes us lazy and immoral to grant ourselves equal access to healthcare and food money, but it builds character to send poor mothers out on "workfare" jobs in which they scrub floors for sub-minimum wages.  What's worse?  We believe them.

This is the legacy of a wicked old man who died one year ago, Ronald Reagan.  His successor George Bush, pere, declared America should become a "kinder, gentler nation."  He had no intention of moving in that direction.  Like Reagan, he was dishing out insipid slogans instead of policy.  Under George Bush, fils, the methods of governing can be summed up into two devolved concepts: Fear and Daddy.

Americans are once again buying it, and behaving in a compliant and stupid manner, sheepishly following leaders so vile you wouldn't turn your back on them at the bus stop!

Am I alone in finding it ironic that here we have three American males arguing over Europe and it's policies.

Just to make a couple of points, I think you will find that Germany's economy started going pearshped when the Berlin wall came down and not when Czechoslovakia split.
Finally, personaly I think the French voted the right way. I think the idea of one ruling body for Europe is a big, big mistake and I will never vote to be part of it and to be honest I can't be arsed to go into why I believe that, because I'm not going to change my opinion and you aren't going to change yours and I can't be bothered to argue................

Am I alone in finding it ironic that here we have three American males arguing over Europe and it's policies. Probably. It isn't particularly ironic at all, and it doesn't matter what our nationality is or which sex we are... How are those two things at all consequential?

Just to make a couple of points, I think you will find that Germany's economy started going pearshped when the Berlin wall came down and not when Czechoslovakia split. I really don't think you understand our conversation very well. Of course the splitting of Czechoslovakia is completely irrelevant to Germany's present economy... that sentence was crafted merely to make a point that "facts" structured as cause-and-effect dependant clauses can be twisted to "prove" anything. This has been mentioned at least three times already.

I'm not going to change my opinion and you aren't going to change yours and I can't be bothered to argue................
Then why be bothered to post at all?

I'm not in favour of one government controlling all of Europe either, I'm in favour of many European governments working together and agreeing on things and setting standards with one another.

I'm not in favour of one government controlling all of Europe either, I'm in favour of many European governments working together and agreeing on things and setting standards with one another.


We have that. It's called the EU. The people elect representatives to represent the different areas in the European Parliament. It dosen't really seem to work all that well as the Individual governments just ignore whatever is said.

I don't think that either the fact that the translation to English was a good one, or the fact that Marx himself knew English matters. I think that my choice to first acquire skills in a foreign language and then tackle a very important piece of literature in that language would be justified simply by my will to do it, and not by the fact that it's easier to read the English version.
My point exactly. The "facts that were presented" to me in order to dispute my argument were of that exact type... the faux cause-and-effect sentences. (Are you familiar with GW's posting tendencies? If you aren't, spend enough time here and you soon will be.) They were intended to convince a third-party once and for all that the EU is an iminent failure, and I was only pointing out that the way these statements were structured made them reek of bullshhh. Your assertion that I don't base my opinions on facts was misplaced.

but once again, at the top of your post you were ignoring facts.  You said they werent good facts, but they were...facts!  We cant choose which facts to ignore and which to beleive. 

If we say it will never happen, you can be certain it never will.  We can compete like Spartans against one another for crumbs in the marketplace while the corporations rob us blind and rape our ecology.  We the people will always lose to the government-business complex. 
We are not safer now than we were twenty-five years ago.  The USSR is no more, but an infrastructure of nuclear weapons that could blow us all sky high is still intact.  The Bush Administration has plundered Iraq for oil and alienated most of the our allies.  On top of that, the saucy Bushies say they don't care what the rest of the world thinks, and if you're not with us you're against us.  The arrogance of the Bush Administration has fanned the flames of terrorist rage more than anything I have ever seen in my life.  If mankind survives long enough for the truth about 9/11 to gain currency, the general public may begin to understand the wrath that is now bubbling under us.

The christo-fascists and the neo-cons running the government as the handmaidens of big business have made America a greedier, angrier, more cut-throat, and more materialistic nation than it was when I was a kid.  Americans measure wealth as a degree of righteousness, and aquisition as a patriotic duty.  We cheer bubba-redneck preachers screaming about the evils of abortion, but we don't bat an eye at the fact that we have the highest infant mortality rate in the civilized world.  Our arrogant politicians tell us it makes us lazy and immoral to grant ourselves equal access to healthcare and food money, but it builds character to send poor mothers out on "workfare" jobs in which they scrub floors for sub-minimum wages.  What's worse?  We believe them.

This is the legacy of a wicked old man who died one year ago, Ronald Reagan.  His successor George Bush, pere, declared America should become a "kinder, gentler nation."  He had no intention of moving in that direction.  Like Reagan, he was dishing out insipid slogans instead of policy.  Under George Bush, fils, the methods of governing can be summed up into two devolved concepts: Fear and Daddy.

Americans are once again buying it, and behaving in a compliant and stupid manner, sheepishly following leaders so vile you wouldn't turn your back on them at the bus stop!


so we should be nicer to each other?  Im sorry to say that this is completely a naive theory.  Human Nature forbids people to act like this.  That's what this all comes down to, a discussion about human nature.  People only act in their own best interest.  They only do actions that make themselves benefit, whether that be some tangible reward, fame, or a feeling of goodness.  No one does a selfless act.  If you feel good about what you did, then you benefited in some way. 
This is human nature...humans will only do something if they get a benefit out of it. 

So this is why your theory of being "nicer" to each other will never work.  People are acquisitive, people are materialistic, people are greedy, people are selfish.  This is what Jean Jacque Rousseau and Karl Marx never understood....ironicly, Rousseau accused everyone else of being bad social scientists, when it was him who didnt understand what he was preaching. 



and on a side note...I loved Reagon, but hate Bush.  The reason for this is that Reagon actually benefited our country and made us better...and tried to end the welfare state, and helped end the cold war, and helped bring down the Berlin Wall, and made us more powerful, and seccured our place as a future superpower, etc etc etc.  Bush on the otherhand hasnt done anything beneficitial for this country since the Iraqi War started.  In fact, he's only gotten me mad. 

but once again, at the top of your post you were ignoring facts.  You said they werent good facts, but they were...facts!  We cant choose which facts to ignore and which to beleive. 


Who said anything about ignorance to those facts? I acknowledged them as facts of a certain type, but just because something is technically a fact doesn't mean it has any relevence or bearing on a particular issue, and so one puts irrelevan "facts" aside and concentrates on relevant ones.

GW said that the recent recessions in the German economy happened after the adoption of the Euro, and I disregard that statement because I have yet to see any evidence which will link the two, the former being the cause of the latter. What exactly is the problem with this? I'm not ignoring "facts" I'm calling their accuracy and validity into question because they seem to be based on assumption rather than actual research. Link Germany's adoption of the Euro several years ago to its present economic recession and prove it before trying to construct a possibly (and likely) false statement which will link them without merit of proof... that's basically what I was telling GW with my post. I don't see a problem with this, and I'm having trouble recognising your problem with it.

What hit the German economy hardest was not the Euro, but reunification: trying to shoehorn the economic black hole that was East Germany into the prosperity of the West.  If that hadn't been happening at the same time, there's a fair chance the Euro zone would be a whole load more economically stable.

What hit the German economy hardest was not the Euro....


Why hasn't Britain adopted the euro?

Why hasn't Britain adopted the euro?


Because evidently the Euro hasn't met the Chancellor's (the guy in charge of the econonmy) 5 Key Specifications. If it met these then there would be a referendum.

However Bliar knows that if he were to put it to the people it would be voted down.

so we should be nicer to each other?  Im sorry to say that this is completely a naive theory.  Human Nature forbids people to act like this.  That's what this all comes down to, a discussion about human nature.  People only act in their own best interest.  They only do actions that make themselves benefit, whether that be some tangible reward, fame, or a feeling of goodness.  No one does a selfless act.  If you feel good about what you did, then you benefited in some way. 
This is human nature...humans will only do something if they get a benefit out of it. 

So this is why your theory of being "nicer" to each other will never work.  People are acquisitive, people are materialistic, people are greedy, people are selfish.  This is what Jean Jacque Rousseau and Karl Marx never understood....ironicly, Rousseau accused everyone else of being bad social scientists, when it was him who didnt understand what he was preaching. 



and on a side note...I loved Reagon, but hate Bush.  The reason for this is that Reagon actually benefited our country and made us better...and tried to end the welfare state, and helped end the cold war, and helped bring down the Berlin Wall, and made us more powerful, and seccured our place as a future superpower, etc etc etc.  Bush on the otherhand hasnt done anything beneficitial for this country since the Iraqi War started.  In fact, he's only gotten me mad.   


The deeper philosophical question is how to define self-interest.  Your hero, Ronald Reagan, got millions of working class people to accept "selfishness" as a virtue and to vote for him against their own self-interest. 
You see, they did not act in their own self-interest because Reagan lied to them, and they believed it.  You STILL believe Reagan's philosophical deceptions: selfishness works, government regulation doesn't.  Dismantle regulatory agencies and allow us to cut taxes on rich people.  This will open the "Magic of the Marketplace" and the flood of wealth will "trickle down" to you in the form of business investment in our economy.  Reagan was lying.  The fat cats pocketed the money, and had the government PAY THEM to divest blue collar jobs from our economy.  To this day the Reagan apologists, you know, the Dinesh D'Souza types, cover for the old f**k.  They say in essence, "What he meant was, if you're not a capitalist, you're a loser."  By the late '80s, they were declaring the information age.  Now the information sector is being outsourced just like the manufacturing sector.  That's what it all boils down to.
Vote Republican, we believe in self-interest...and guess whose interest we're looking out for now!
::)

"'Buy my soda!,' said the moose diarrhea salesman."
--Jello Biafra

Because evidently the Euro hasn't met the Chancellor's (the guy in charge of the econonmy) 5 Key Specifications. If it met these then there would be a referendum.

However Bliar knows that if he were to put it to the people it would be voted down.


There's ages of tradition and pride involved here. There's also a comfort in the security of a currency which is backed with actual sterling silver, I'm sure.

There's ages of tradition and pride involved here.


That's always what I thought.  I think the British people like the pound to much to dump it.

Uh, The French also let Roman Polanski shack up there...apparently they love sexual lawbreakers :-\\