EU leaders set for crisis talks

[trumptman]

EU leaders set for talks (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4602035.stm)


A second no has come in at an even larger margin. It seems the EU Constitution is very much in danger of never being ratified.

What do you think?

Nick

[segovius]

Good news from one angle - this is political dynamite that will land smack in Blair's lap next month when the UK take over the EU presidency.

That could be a killer blow for Toady which is a very good thing.

From another perspective, the treaty will obviously not be ratified but that is not so much the issue. The bigger picture is what happens to the whole European project.

Imo, if we can rid ourselves of extreme-right wing nutters which seem to have taken root in Holland and made substantial inroads into France then so much the better.

If they don't want to be part of Europe they should bugger off - and the rest of europe should make it absolutely clear that we are taking a stand against the resurgent quasi-fascism that is behind these rejections.

[New]

They will redraft, repackage and re-campagin the whole thing.

It will be ratified the second, third or forth try...

(Meybe they'll even make two segments of the EU to allow both countries that ratify and those that don't. Like they did with EFTA).

[trumptman]

Originally posted by New
They will redraft, repackage and re-campagin the whole thing.

It will be ratified the second, third or forth try...

(Meybe they'll even make two segments of the EU to allow both countries that ratify and those that don't. Like they did with EFTA).

Wouldn't the redrafted constitution require re-ratification by the ten countries that already ratified the current one?

Nick

[New]

maybe, but I'm sure they manage to squirm it through.

[MarcUK]

I think the countries that have voted or otherwise said yes, about half of Europes population, should tell France, Netherlands and of course later the UK to go fuck themselves and carry on without them.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by MarcUK
I think the countries that have voted or otherwise said yes, about half of Europes population, should tell France, Netherlands and of course later the UK to go fuck themselves and carry on without them.

NO, I think that the people who have voted yes, said fuck you to the ones who voted no ;)

[Aurora]

Perhaps if they would have drafted a constitution on perhaps 1 or 2 pages and didnt centralize all the Power in Brussels it might have done better. Lets just face it people Chirac wants to be the Man. Chirac isnt the Man:lol:

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
NO, I think that the people who have voted yes, said fuck you to the ones who voted no ;)

the people who voted Yes, or think Yes, should just up and leave. Leave France, Holland, leave the UK to the narrowminded idiots to fuck up for themselves.

Allegience should be to people, not nationalistic boundaries.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by MarcUK
the people who voted Yes, or think Yes, should just up and leave. Leave France, Holland, leave the UK to the narrowminded idiots to fuck up for themselves.

Allegience should be to people, not nationalistic boundaries.

Except that it takes me years, to build my medical busisness, and that I will loose everything if I move away. In my job it takes 7 years before reaching the cruise speed.
Also, it's not because I am currently belonging to a minority that I should leave France, I will stay here, and continue to promote europe.

[Republic]

For Europhiles, this is a bad situation, but only the treaty is dead. This is not the first crisis to befall what we now call the European Union, and this like the others can be handled with the right people and solutions. The 1960s saw French President Charles de Gaulle halt the Community over possible British accession. The early 1980s saw stagnation before Jacques Delors tried to reinvigorate the Community.

If Europe is meant to succeed, a solution to the democratic deficit will have to be found, as will the agricultural subsidies, the growth and stability pact and the Dutch bad feelings toward the euro. Maybe the European elite will have the impetus to solve these growing problems after such a popular rejection in these two founding nations.

[trumptman]

Looks like Britain is shelving their vote.

No Vote for You! (http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/19046359?source=Evening%20Standard&ct=5)

Nick

[segovius]

Originally posted by trumptman
Looks like Britain is shelving their vote.

No Vote for You! (http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/19046359?source=Evening%20Standard&ct=5)

Nick

They've been shelving it for years.

At least France and the Netherlands had the balls to set a date and stick to it. Toady was just waiting for the right moment - and that will never come now.

Freedom and democracy are great ain't they ?

[Alex London]

Only if the vote is in accordance with yours and Marc's wishes segovius, otherwise it's fascism. Unless of course we could just ignore those two pesky results and impose it on them anyway. P.S, I'd vote yes given the chance, but I thinks it's dead for now.

[Gene Clean]

Referendums are not legally-binding. They're consultative. Granted, France and Holland will not just ratify the constitution, but the rejection by the referendum does not mean that it will never be ratified.

As New said, it will be re-drafted and it will pass. Too much is at stake to just let it go.

[New]

Originally posted by MarcUK
the people who voted Yes, or think Yes, should just up and leave. Leave France, Holland, leave the UK to the narrowminded idiots to fuck up for themselves.

Allegience should be to people, not nationalistic boundaries.

But the problem with the EU today is that it's not about people but BIg Cash™, so even though you disagree, you have to realize that much of the no vote was because of peoples resistance to a union that is more interested in big business than it's people.

[Fellowship]

I am not quite sure I understand all of the negativity. One thing I like about my feel of European countries is their lack of a homogenized nature. I do not see this uniqueness of each European country as a weakness rather a strength. The day Europe is one is the day lines begin to blur as well as culture and then things become boring in my humble opinion.

Life is not all about who can build the best jet, who has a bigger space program or who builds the most chips for computers I would argue it is about quality of life and cultural identity.

Fellows

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by New
But the problem with the EU today is that it's not about people but BIg Cash™, so even though you disagree, you have to realize that much of the no vote was because of peoples resistance to a union that is more interested in big business than it's people.

But what most of the no voters don't realise, is that to better serve the benefits of the people, you have to have Big Cash and a liberal social policy.

Social Policy means crap if you're all unemployed.

[Aurora]

Originally posted by MarcUK
But what most of the no voters don't realise, is that to better serve the benefits of the people, you have to have Big Cash and a liberal social policy.

Social Policy means crap if you're all unemployed. Or if everyone works for the Govt

[New]

Originally posted by MarcUK
But what most of the no voters don't realise, is that to better serve the benefits of the people, you have to have Big Cash and a liberal social policy.

Social Policy means crap if you're all unemployed.

But the thing is that all I see is Big Business getting better conditions, while social rights disappear. One by one.

[iMac David]

The problem for us NO voters is that we are being lied to by our leaders.

The German Chancellor Herr Schroder is quoted today as saying "I will not give up working for this constitution, for a united Europe".

Tony Blair says that this constitution is merely a tidying up exercise.

Can both be telling the truth? No - and I believe the Chancellor.

I don't want a united Europe - this nonsense that we have to be a unified body to couteract the Americans and the East (The East! Are they a united country? No. Do they have a unified curreny? No.)

I want to be able to influence the way my country is run, and the sheer undemocratitness (is that a word?) of the EU is not conducive to that.

David

[Gene Clean]

What do you mean by 'The East'?

[iMac David]

It's a phrase used in the UK a lot. I take it to mean China, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Korea etc.

The point being they are not a homogenous country with an overall parliament and single currency.

David

[Aurora]

Maybe instead of going against us all the time France should try to work more with the U.S????? Chirac is bent on countering the U.S for what reason? how many times have we bailed out France from a World War? I dont see Chirac being good for the EU because this guy is a power monger control freak wanting the say of the E.U. I dont see those other members having much influence but i do seem to see France & Germany trying to call all the shots. I would be voting No also if i new France would be making most of the decisions.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Aurora
Maybe instead of going against us all the time France should try to work more with the U.S????? Chirac is bent on countering the U.S for what reason? how many times have we bailed out France from a World War? I dont see Chirac being good for the EU because this guy is a power monger control freak wanting the say of the E.U. I dont see those other members having much influence but i do seem to see France & Germany trying to call all the shots. I would be voting No also if i new France would be making most of the decisions.

I think you misunderstand something. This is not about you (US) or about Euro-US relations.

And I also think you misunderstand how EU works.

And why France sometimes doesn´t agree with US politics.

[Aurora]

Everything involves the World Police:lol: But i do know this Anders i dislike Chirac as much as Bush. Imagine if nations would just let regular folks run things instead of the powermonger spinmasters. Anyways i think the E.U. should be based in England not France:smokey:

[Anders]

England?:lol:

Is it even member of EU? If it all moved there you would be guaranteed it would fall apart in no time.

And besides EU is not based in France. Some of its key institutions are but most are not.

[New]

I think he is confusing france and belgium.

[Gene Clean]

And UK with England.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by Aurora
Maybe instead of going against us all the time France should try to work more with the U.S????? Chirac is bent on countering the U.S for what reason? how many times have we bailed out France from a World War? I dont see Chirac being good for the EU because this guy is a power monger control freak wanting the say of the E.U. I dont see those other members having much influence but i do seem to see France & Germany trying to call all the shots. I would be voting No also if i new France would be making most of the decisions.

The no vote has nothing to do with US. It's only related to internal politic, and EU politic.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
The no vote has nothing to do with US. It's only related to internal politic, and EU politic.

Such is his/her scope of geopolitics, so let him/her be. :)

[iMac David]

Gene - he is right. The NO vote had little or nothing to do with US policies.

The NO vote was more about a lack of accountability of the EU institutions, a lack of transparency about what the constitution is, resentment over the ever increasing involvement of the EU in areas of life that no-one ever envisaged.

What did you mean when you wrote earlier "too much is at stake for the constitution not to be ratified"? Were you referring to the reputations of various politicians, or something wider?

David

[trumptman]

A few links and a few points from them that seem interesting to me.

The first relates a bit to a point Fellowship made.

Italian Euros (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;sessionid=1TAKPKLFOSKYBQFIQMGSM5OAVCBQW JVC?xml=/opinion/2005/06/04/do0401.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/06/04/ixop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=22098)

This is part of the fun of following politics: the relation to reality is generally delayed, but is always there in the end. Unreal schemes often appear and even dominate for a time - fascism, Communism, the League of Nations are examples. But the truth eventually finds them out. I am sure that the "ever-closer Union" on which the European Union has been built from the beginning is one of these unreal schemes, since it believes in two falsities - uniformity where in fact there is diversity, and the primacy of government over people. The two main instruments by which truth reaches politics are votes and markets, which is why political Utopians instinctively dislike both. In Europe, the voters have told the truth, and now the markets are watching.

How can a document demand uniformity where there is diversity? It can do so because it is an instrument of government over people and when the people were given a voice, they said no.

Many have been mentioning the ramifications of this for Mr. Blair. I do not pretend to know enough about the British political figures to know whom is attempting to outflank who and what that means but the quote was interesting.

Tony Blair. In everything he does, Mr Blair tries to learn from Conservative mistakes, and to adopt positions which crowd the Tories out. He will have studied the events of 1992. Then, the government of John Major staked its credibility on two incredible things - membership of the ERM and the glories of the Maastricht Treaty. Mr Blair's New Labour has kept its options open. It supports the modern, even more incredible equivalents - the single currency and the European constitution - but not so fervently that it will make the mistake of going into either in the face of mass hostility. Until now, Mr Blair has been a Europhile, to prove his centrism and in deference to where he thought power in Europe lay. But he is thinking hard. If the great edifice is crumbling, why be like Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder and let yourself be hit by falling masonry? Why let yourself be outflanked by Gordon Brown? Why give the Tories any electoral room by identifying yourself with something that is dying? Why repeat, over France and Holland, Mr Major's mistake of not using the Danish Maastricht referendum to ditch the whole wretched thing? Why not devise a less political, more free-trading order that at last gives a British shape to the affairs of our Continent?

This article addresses the no votes and makes some discussion-worthy claims as well.

Europe declines (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19269-1638939,00.html)

At home, the same moral relativism, bred by years of pampered prosperity, was creating its own destructive forces. Again, egged on by intellectual elites, Europeans were encouraged to despise the civilisation that had nurtured them. The nation state was pronounced a hateful anachronism that had to be replaced by a pan-European superstate. The West’s defining values of enlightened tolerance and freedom were not superior to anyone else’s. Crime was the fault of its own unfair societies.

Immigrants who came to its countries were not to be forced to live by its own rules but by theirs, even if that meant “honour” killings and jihad. The effort to produce tolerant, multicultural societies resulted in the paradox of radical liberal democracies such as the Netherlands enthusiastically nurturing forces at home that sought to destroy the freedoms in which they were being incubated.

This week, voters in France and the Netherlands sounded the alarm. Characteristically, while the Dutch seem to have got the message about the social costs of its ruinous ultra-liberalism, the French have got the wrong end of the stick and want to escape from globalisation behind high walls of social protection.

But the challenge is now upon Europe. The longer it puts off the inevitable reforms — economic, social and political — the harder it will get. And if it chooses to defer a real response for ever, the greatest civilisation in the history of the planet will simply continue to sink beneath the waves of its own economic irrelevance and moral ennui.

Nick

[Aquatic]

Fellowship, that was a great post. However I still hope that someday the world is one country. The efficiency will save enormous amounts of money, and environment. It will also bring world peace, or at least, stop World Wars and huge multi-national conflicts. Of course there will still be conflicts between "nations" (groups of people) like religious groups. However with one unified government, this will hopefully be easier to control. Interpol really can be the World Police, and there can be one Army, one world Space Program, etc. Also we can be better defended when aliens attack. ;)

[Aquatic]

MarcUK that was a really great post I have to add it to my sig. That wasn't a quote from someone already was it? "Allegience should be to people, not nationalistic boundaries."

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by Aquatic
MarcUK that was a really great post I have to add it to my sig. That wasn't a quote from someone already was it? "Allegience should be to people, not nationalistic boundaries."

Straight from the mind of MarcUK. Genuine Authentic.

I need to make it sound a bit Latin or Greek, then I can become famous, have lots of money, 360 wives, fast cars, an endless supply of coke and become cryogenetically frozen to a cross. My followers can make phallic statues of me and your women will become impregnated by my rays of light.

I am the god MarcUK, and I will lead you from your troubled lands to the kingdom of heaven. :D

Please donate.