Andre:
Crudely said, this is one reason indeed. One can imagine such a document to
be riddled with legalistic/ bureaucratic jargon which would the most apt of
constitutional lawyers argue a point for days on end in the High Court.
A pamphlet was produced, (sort of an EU Constitution for Dummies) but this
was so confusing, so badly thought through even some politicians interviewed
on radio and TV contradicted eachother on its meaning. It turned out to be a
real farce.
woods:
Wow! That is so dangerous. If nobody could hardly understand
the EU constitution, then it could be subjected to all kinds of
interpretation by those in power. Nobody could argue with them.
Even if the politicians didn't know the precise meaning, then who
could one depend on to stand up for any illegal procedures that
might arise from a supposed misinterpretation. Same with
a constitutional lawyer, if they didn't know exactly how to interpret
this document, then the only true interpretation would come from
those in power. Hardly anybody would know when to step in
to stop a supposed misinterpretation. This means people would have
to increasingly depend on a spirit of the law, instead of the law itself. I
wonder why other countries voted for the EU constitution? Did
they know what they were getting into? Did they care if they
understood a political document or not; or are they putting all
their trust into those in power positions to provide their
political worldview for them? This is why self-reliance is not
just about making a garden. It's also about cultivating a world
view for ones own self that is agreeable and tolerant to the larger
political view/ social view. It's a path where the intellectual
patterns of the individual can open up to the larger society. If so
much is in dispute and not clearly understood in the larger societies
intellectual patterns, such as an EU constitution, then it seems to
lock out people from contributing, because nobody would know what
is expected and appropriate to contribute. It leaves the understanding
of the EU constitution to a group of experts locking out everybody else.
I mean, these seem to be the possibilities.
woods previously:
This political powerbase. Was this move and centralization
first inherent in this constitution whereas before this, the EU
was a way to make economic activity easier? Was this
political powerbase thus also voted against when the constitution
was voted against? Or am I mixing up events?
Andre:
No you're not, but let me unravel: for simplicity's sake: first there was
the European Economic Community (EEC) which sought to regulate economic
activity in an easier way within Europe (then consisting of 9 countries)..
This is what I spoke of in my previous post.
woods:
Ok.
Andre:
But, of course the thing grew, other countries saw benefits (and lots of
subsidies, so lots of countries joined) going their way to help improve
their local economic base. Soon the benefits and succes of this economic
co-operation was taken up by Int. PoV's to look at other areas of
co-operation e.g.a joint stance on immigration,drugs,police powers,
criminality ,emissions etc etc.
Now with the expansion of these issues, problems started to arise because
most countries had their own social/intellectual patterns regarding these
issues.
woods:
hmmm, so it gets more politically based... I see.
Andre:
Where they overlapped there was no problem but, where there was disagreement
or down right opposition ( eg the tolerant soft-drugs laws in Holland are
opposed by virtually every other EU country) problems could arise and
(staying with Holland for a minute) the 'person in the street' saw these
hard won (sometimes over a period of 20-30 years) PoV's threatened.
Now, woods, you may imagine that each European country has their own
cultural traditions, habits and peculiarities... and language of course,
that's what makes a country what it is. That is, they all have things to
share, protect and lose.
woods:
ok.
Andre:
So, to continue, the success of the co-operation at the economic level was
taken as a basis for developng this further and creating a EU proper. A huge
bureacratic system was already in place to formulate policy on
aforementioned issues (including immigration/drugs/police powers/privacy
laws etc, etc), the EU forced its new monetary system on its citizens (I'm
exaggerating a bit because its is damned handy when you go on a holiday
somewhere with your euro's without confusion of franks or lires or peseta's
and exchange rates etc)
and, as said, wanted the whole lot organised within one politically
strong EU complete with Constitution. This was rejected.
And, as Bodvar correctly points out re Ireland, that country has benefitted
tremendously under the EEC arrangement but have rejected the EU
(political/constitutional)arrangement.
A number of countries see it as a threat to their own...achievements and...
call it... national identity.
woods:
I see. I initially brought this up with a threat to Ireland. They were
threatened with "disastrous consequences" if they will not join:
"Elmar Brok, described as an influential German Christian
Democratic Union member of the European Parliament, has
threatened Dublin with “disastrous consequences” if the Irish
leadership refuses to impose yet another referendum on the
Irish people, who rejected the treaty in June..."
woods continues:
So, they voted against it, but I hear the vote will come up again. It
sounds
like trolling. They voted against it, but the politicians are going to
keep bringing up this vote until they vote yes. I can see bringing up the vote
within a longer period of time, but the politicians seem to be forcing this
vote until they get what they want:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/14/dl1401.xml
woods continues:
As this link points out, Britain would probably voted against it too, but
crisis' are being spooned upon the public if they vote "no". All across
Europe this is how the politicians are trying to get the public to vote
"yes". They are trying to use fear, not intellect. Meanwhile the Irish
leaders
are saying they'll get their country to vote yes by March when the EU
parliament voting occurs. Supposed sanctions are rumored against Ireland, and
they may not have a representative in the EU if they don't vote "yes". This is
all strong arming by those that have the power to enforce such policies it
would seem.
Andre:
As an aside I strongly believe in a strong EU. If only to make a strong
stand against US hegemony. The US has always had the upper hand because of
their 'divide and rule' tactic to get 3/4 of Europe 'on side'. This has for
many Europeans been a frustrating experience.(Yes, I know that you guys were
there in '45 but does that mean eternal servitude on our part?) I'll repeat
what I mentioned before somewhere: The best way to thank your teacher is to
criticise him/her).
woods:
The founding leaders of the U.S. were against dabbling in foreign countries,
for
they foresaw how this dabbling in foreign affairs would be disastrous. This
was
also why the concern over pre-emptive war that Bush went ahead with. It goes
against the founding idea that to fight only in defense, here in our country.
All
this foreign affair dabbling creates an atmosphere of an empire. The last
thing
the founding leaders of the U.S. would have ever wanted. That's what they
wanted to break away from - British Empire. They knew first hand what a gov't
that dabbled in the affairs of other countries felt like and how disastrous
this foreign
dabbling could be. Yes, they were apart of the British Empire, but they had
no say on the affairs in the colonies. There was no correspondence. The U.S.
involves itself in Europe, but yet Europeans have no say, unless the powers in
Europe get stronger. Why can't the individual European countries stand up to
U.S. hegemony? Why do they need a formalized structure that has to do this
for them?
Andre:
Poor Belgium, country of nothing, wonderful people, hundreds of different
brews of beer, incredibly friendly, historically magnificent, birthplace of
the greatest chansonnier ever, Jacques Brell...votes officially, as only
country in Europe, against the American invasion of Iraq. "We will destroy
you through economic sanctions, Bush said". Pathetic really.
woods:
Ah, I see. See. The U.S. is an empire and fascist. A fellow democratic
nation with no threat to the U.S. and the U.S. strong arms them with brute
force. When will people wise up in Europe to these U.S. tactics and join
together? I don't see why they would have to with a political EU. They could
do it together as individual counties. But see, it would seem individual
countries value the U.S. hegemony, and don't feel offended by U.S. strong
arm fear and brute force tactics, such as with Belgium. If the individual
countries aren't against a U..S. hegemony now, then they will arguably not be
against U.S. hegemony in a political EU.
Andre:
I am at present not convinced that the light comes from within ( having
followed some of your posts of late...like an online version of CNN).
woods:
Are you referring to the Domestic Intelligence Agency? If so, I find this
move by the U.S. to institutionalize such an agency, a great threat.
This is an enlightening discussion. Good, good. Thanks
woods
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
