European constitution?

[Bouter Boogie]

This issue has been really hot in Europe these days (and maybe in the other continents too?) 

Anyway, you guys think there must be a European constitution in the future?

I'd definitely say NO  Dun wanna lose the identity of Holland (which identity?  ) And I do have more reasons to say no..

Don't forget to add comment!

[greyrune]

I think it's a great idea.  I have to admit i don't know the details of what's in it but the core idea is excellent.  Why should a country lose it's identity simply because it has a partially centralised government.  Scotland and Wales are as fiercely not English and it's possible to be and have been for many many years but they're still goverened centrally.  Economically, while there may be initial problems it's a great idea.  If you could get rid of all barriers to trade within Europe we would easily economically rival the states and all the countries involved would become that much more prosperous.  As for freedom of movement of people, yes we'd be able to go where we want and move to other countries and cultures, this means people will be more educated about other ways of life.  While this may eventually lead to some blurring of distinctions between countries it's certainly not going to demolish all sense of cultural identity.  I lived in Belgium for three years and i feel no less English and i'm sure Belgium feels no less Belgian.  For one thing there's always language to keep countries from losing identity.  I just can't understand why people don't like it unless it's from simple xenophobic fear.

[TheHammer]

Hmmm, what really concerns me, is that the people voting against the EC (France & Netherlands) more or less
1. just think about economical reasons (low-cost worker from "the East" taking their jobs)
2. want to express their general disappointement of their current governments and politics in general
3. feel impaired in their national pride/identity

Of course, these are valid arguments. But they forget several things:

1. The EC is a compromise between 25 different countries, it took them countless conferences and debats to come to this. This Constitution is the best possible at the moment. There will be no better, but only worse.
2. Of course the French voters feel disappointed by their government, and now they thought they could just punish Raffarin and Chirac. But it had nothing to do with French policy, what they did was abandoning their own future as a powerful, respected and listened to nation.
3. Nationality in my opinion is a worn out concept. Noone needs it, and in my opinion/fantasy world it will soon be completely put down. What is the real misery here, is that some short-time problems are put a lot higher than long-term issues. A winegrower in the Champagne may think that the European Constitution will cost him his job. Well, besides the fact that it will well depend on his own policy, whether he will consider working for less money to remain competitive with East European competition, he also forgets World poltic.
Think about the world in 10 years. What will have become of the Iraq-campaign of the USA? What is happening to the oil, what role plays China, perhaps alsoRussia. Consider Iran, North-Korea, the Indian-Pakistani conflict (a possible Atomic War!!!). Now, I don't want to discuss all these problems, what I am talking about is the fact, that only a strong and united Europe can effectively act on the world's stage of foreign policy. We have seen what a splitted Europe has led too 2 years ago (okay, I admit it, I am no fan of the Iraq war), even today we see how a certain super-power tries to divide and (thereby) weaken Europe. I do not want to bother you with my theory on the development of the political structure in the next 10, 20, 50 years. What I clearly see is that Europe is IMO the only hope of a (at least nearly acceptable) peaceful world (it even seems idealism and utopia to me, and if I look at today's events...).

So, to make things short: Yes, I would certainly go for a yes (although here in Germany we weren't even allowed to vote, which led to some miscontempt...on the other hand, in this way, the decision could not have been misused for current politics. I am very sure that half a year ago, the referendum in France would have brought up a definite yes (let's say 65%). Now the people is frustrated and makes the vote expression of their current political opinion.). I don't say the EC is flawless, of course it isn't. I dislike many of the few aspects I am actually familiar with, but I still see the necessitiy for it. I can understand every no-voter, I know their fears (hey, I am living in a region were the rate of unemployment is 20%, if you now think of an open (job) market to Poland, you really can get afraid of your future), I am deeply disappointed by politics myself. Nevertheless, to change at least a tiny bit on this world, Europe has to unify. (Sorry, this paragraph is my idea of "making things short". )


PS: I did not mention the aspect of a European tradition (you know, the Occident, the Roman Empire, the reign of Charlemagne, the following Carolignian reign and the Holy Roman Empire unifying all Europe under them, Europe as the Catholic continent, Europe with its cultural traditions: music, literature, art, the political tradition: the continent of birth of democracy - I am talking Greek here, but you Americans get your point too - etc. pp.). Why not? There are at least as many aspects of tradition and history speaking against one Europe as speaking for it. Moreover, I don't think tradition should really guide our decisions nowadays, although it might help the process of integration and could also be used as a frontier to clarify what Europe actually is: I am quite doubting that Turkey would fit the cultural concept of Europe, still I am more on the pro-side of an admission to the EU.

[Daevren]

I don't think the EU constitution is democratic enough. The EU really needs that change but the constitution failed there. Personally I say, go back and rewrite it, you people made mistakes and failed.

Now, the problem is this is not going to happen, or it is not very likely. Seems that most people voting against it are just anti-Europe.

[Torp]

I just hope that the EU can make it all work out.  We need a serious group of unified countries to offset the USB...United States of Bush.

Jef

[thalbergmad]

I rarely speak my mind but after a few scotches i am feeling rather brave.

I have little interest in politics (I prefer piano) and have not studied the constitution, but as an Englishman I would vote no for the following reasons.

1. I don't trust Blair and he wants it. Initially he did not want a referendum. Why?

2. We would have even less control of our borders than we have already.

3. There would be an even greater loss of national identity.

4. We are doing rather well without the Euro.

5. I object to an unelected MEP dictating our laws.

6. I feel there is a general worry that we will get the crap end of the stick.

I have spent a lot of time in Europe especially France, Germany and Italy. I love the people and the countries. I just don't trust the politicians.

[Chrysalis]

Same here in holland.. we dont trust balkenende....
just look at him



lol

[thalbergmad]

That is extremely funny. I have just heard on the news about the large no vote in Holland. Well done.

I only hope President Blair gives me the chance to vote, but i doubt if he will as he knows what the result will be.

[pianonut]

i don't think the EC is waiting for Britain or the US.  They want us to lose all power and identity, which we may when the union becomes stronger than us.  if you are into socialistic everything (including health care, reforms, etc.) and want to wait in long lines - do it the german or french or whatever way the head of the EC sees it (dictator that they will be).  they may become violent.  then what?

ps. history is a good indicator of what could happen in the future.

[Bouter Boogie]

Holland voted NOOOOO 

Enne.. Mooi plaatje, Maarten 

We all don't trust Balkenende.. Just like Bush in the USA..

These days lotsa governements sucks  Too bad..

[Regulus Medtner]

I say yes to an eventual European Constitution, just not this one. The EU has to take the message that its first priority should be the well-being of its citizens and not of its corporations. As it is, this is a constitution for a market, not a society. And since you are asking citizens and not banks and companies to vote for it, should the results surprise anyone? The democratic deficit in the EU needs mending, let's hope they get the message.

I hate to say that here in Greece (as in the majority of the countries that have ratified it) the Constitution has been ratified in Parliament with little public dialogue and awareness about what it really is. Of course, it doesn't take effect until all EU countries ratify it, so it might have just been a political move, waiting for the French and Dutch to say "NO".

With incessant Turkish provocations in the Aegean  - notwithstanding our support for their aspirations for joining the EU - let's hope that Turkey gets the message too. They are very likely to stay outside after all.

[tenn]

The constitution is necessary to allow the EU to grow and function smoothly.
1. It shouldn't have been called a constitution.
2. An agreement as complicated as this between Governments can never be simple enough to be understood by the ordinary man/person in the street, therfore it can never be decided on by referendum. That's why we elect governments. They debate and enact new laws but they don't involve us in the nitty gritty. If they did, no laws would ever be passed.
3. The EU is a great project which has enabled very different peoples to get on with each other and sort out our differences peacefully.
4. Turkey shouldn't get as much as a smell of the EU until they cop on to themselves about human rights and allow people to talk openly about important issues like Armenia.

[TheHammer]

Well, yes, Netherlands did vote no. Sad day for Europe and the world.

However. Most people here seem to think that the people has spoken and the right and democratic decision has been made. I disagree. I even think the referendum is highly UNDEMOCRATIC. Seems paradoxical, for me it is true.

Small thought experiment: think of a state in which all decisions are made by the people. Directly. No parliament, perhaps a very small committee proposing laws or something, but the people has to decide, perhaps via Internet or something (the practical side can be ignored). Would this work? Of course not. I think there is not really one law 50% of the people, even if they would acutally be INFORMED about it, would agree on immediatly. After some debat, perhaps on some laws, but seriously, there are no perfect laws, there will always be a negative side about it. I mean, look at nowadays politics. 3 or 4 big partys, and they can not come to an agreement. But 40 million parties can? Of course not!
Additionaly, small groups spreading fear and painting a threatening picture of future may as well contribute to a disabled state. Look at Francebefore the election: the right- and left-wing parties were suggesting the most horrible visions of a Europe with the EC (by the way, very much alike the political movements and ideologies in early 20th century: how little people are learning form history: the nationalists and the rights speaking of national identity, pride, foreign criminals, chaos, the need for order and so, the socialists condemning the "neo-liberarian" power-capitalism of the Anglo-Saxon states. Nearly the same topics.)
Is it really the people that has spoken? Or have the threats and fears voted, inspired by the opportunistic paroles of Le Pen and the like? And how many of them were actually informed about the Constitution, and did not get their opinion from some third-class yellow press magazines?

And what have the Dutch and French people actually gained by all this? Some say they voted no because they want to prevent Europe from a mistake, because they want a better Europe than the one of the EC. And what have they reached? A major crisis of the Union, a stop of all progressiv developments in the next 3 years. And what is even more dangerous: with the Constitution European Parliament could have made effective and FAST decisions, now we have a completely disabled legislative, powerless, disabled, incapable. French has lost all respect as one of the powerful European nations, and will now perhaps never come to the importance its people longed for. And the Dutch seem to evolve from multi-culturalism to a rather xenophobic people (well, although I can understand that there is this notion of too fast an integration). Ah well, however... they should never have introduced this referendum... the people is too short-sighted to vote. 

Oh and one more thing:

i don't think the EC is waiting for Britain or the US.  They want us to lose all power and identity, which we may when the union becomes stronger than us.  if you are into socialistic everything (including health care, reforms, etc.) and want to wait in long lines - do it the german or french or whatever way the head of the EC sees it (dictator that they will be).  they may become violent.  then what?

ps. history is a good indicator of what could happen in the future.

Most interesting of this post is the passage: "they may become violent." As I know, you, pianonut are from the USA. May I direct your attention to a not so small country in the Mid-East were American troops were/are invading a (theoretically speaking) peaceful and accepted country (sorry for the sarcasm)? You say Europeans will become governed by dictatorship (actually this is also my concern) and you refer to history as a "good indicator". Well, let's see, I think you have a KZ on Kuba too, what was it called, Guantanamo? The people there are interned without accusation, as did Hitler with his political opponents. Or your "Patriot Act", etc.? Sure history can be a good indicator. Get you a history book and indicate.
And if you think "health care, reforms, etc." are a completely "socialistic" concept, you should get you a dictionary (although I admit, it were the socialists first fighting for a social welfare system). Long lines??? Sorry, please elaborate.

"They want us to lose all power and identity, which we may when the union becomes stronger than us." If you are really concerned about anyone getting stronger than the USA, especially after the last 4 years, even you, a reasonable lover of classical music, I have my severest doubt about the world...


+ I agree with you tenn about 1-3. The Turkey issue is a bit more complicated. There are human right discussions all over the planet. I think, in the next 15 years Turkey should be able to solve most of them. And of course I don't just let them in, no, no, but please look also at China, Chechenya, Guatanamo, Abu Ghraib etc. In the so civilised Western World, human right seem to loose priority (although we should not measure with US standard... ).

[Daevren]

i don't think the EC is waiting for Britain or the US.  They want us to lose all power and identity, which we may when the union becomes stronger than us.

What are you talking about?

If you are into socialistic everything (including health care, reforms, etc.) and want to wait in long lines - do it the german or french or whatever way the head of the EC sees it (dictator that they will be).  they may become violent.  then what?

US health care is the most inefficient and expensive of all western countries. Socialist countries have the best health care. The head of the EU isn't a dictator. They don't even have a head without this constitution.

ps. history is a good indicator of what could happen in the future.

No it isn't.

I say yes to an eventual European Constitution, just not this one. The EU has to take the message that its first priority should be the well-being of its citizens and not of its corporations.

Yes, the EU was and is a economic cooperation. Most of the rules and systems aim towards economic growth and development.

1. It shouldn't have been called a constitution.

Tell this to Valery Giscard d'Estaing. He is the 'father' of the document and pushed calling it a constitution. Thanks to him the document legally is just as much a constitution as a treaty.

2. An agreement as complicated as this between Governments can never be simple enough to be understood by the ordinary man/person in the street, therfore it can never be decided on by referendum. That's why we elect governments.

Why not? It isn't like the people in the government are much more able to do understand this.

They debate and enact new laws but they don't involve us in the nitty gritty. If they did, no laws would ever be passed.

The 'democracy isn't efficient' argument? Who cares if it is efficient or not. The only thing that matters is: 'Is the government democratic or not?' You may not like democracy, I do. And most europeans like it too.

I even think the referendum is highly UNDEMOCRATIC.

Maybe you should look up the definition of 'democracy'. Personally I think 'representative democracy' isn't democratic enough. I only judge democracy on how democratic it is and this should be the only point to judge a government on.

Would this work? Of course not.

Really, this point is irrelevant. Also, your though experiment has happened in the past and it does work.

I think there is not really one law 50% of the people, even if they would acutally be INFORMED about it, would agree on immediatly.

Why not? There are tons of laws almost all people would agree upon. But why have laws when you have direct democracy? You don't even need them if it is decentralised enough.

After some debat, perhaps on some laws, but seriously, there are no perfect laws, there will always be a negative side about it.

Yes, but this is a point against indirect representative democracy. The people in the parlement do not know what laws the people need. But when the people themselves make the laws the problem is almost solved. Actually, most politicians think they can fix all problems with laws. They think they have complex perfect laws that fix all problems that in their minds can show up. But they are wrong. There are many practical examples where politicians think they solved a problem with a law but they actually made it worse. And it will take a year or so for them to find out.

I mean, look at nowadays politics. 3 or 4 big partys, and they can not come to an agreement.

Actually they can.

But 40 million parties can? Of course not!

Decentralise and it works.

Additionaly, small groups spreading fear and painting a threatening picture of future may as well contribute to a disabled state. Look at Francebefore the election: the right- and left-wing parties were suggesting the most horrible visions of a Europe with the EC (by the way, very much alike the political movements and ideologies in early 20th century: how little people are learning form history: the nationalists and the rights speaking of national identity, pride, foreign criminals, chaos, the need for order and so, the socialists condemning the "neo-liberarian" power-capitalism of the Anglo-Saxon states. Nearly the same topics.)

Doesn't this happen in every country? I don't see what this has to do with referenda or direct democracy vs representative democracy. Your link with WWII is sickening, I guess you are from the US.

Is it really the people that has spoken? Or have the threats and fears voted, inspired by the opportunistic paroles of Le Pen and the like?[/quoe]

Of course not. People are way smarter than that. The French and Dutch people stopped the EU politicians that were doing something no one asked them to do. They should serve the people, that is their job. But they failed and the people were able to call them back with the referenda.

And how many of them were actually informed about the Constitution, and did not get their opinion from some third-class yellow press magazines?

Have you followed the debates? The people in France and The Netherlands do not want a republic of Europe. They want their national governments to keep as much power as needed and cooperate on the international issues. The politicians had other ideas, not realising they were doing something they shouldn't. Because of the undemocratic character of a representative democracy they couldn't be stopped. Thanks to some direct democracy the French and Dutch people saved Europe.

And what have they reached? A major crisis of the Union, a stop of all progressiv developments in the next 3 years.

Thats because the politicians failed. I agree this is not a good thing. But what if the politicians could have gone on unchecked building a new Europe for another 10 years. What would have happened then?

And what is even more dangerous: with the Constitution European Parliament could have made effective and FAST decisions, now we have a completely disabled legislative, powerless, disabled, incapable.

You mean the Veto thing? Yes, the EU is kind of crippled now. And that is good because there isn't enough democratic control to make a powerful EU preferable. 

And the Dutch seem to evolve from multi-culturalism to a rather xenophobic people

Maybe, but this is happening everywhere. Thanks to the US turning their dirty wars into a east-west conflict.

Ah well, however... they should never have introduced this referendum... the people is too short-sighted to vote.

Actually, the Dutch politicians were so impressed by the effectiveness of the referendum there is now a big majority to change the constitution to add referenda.

But you are right about the thing Pianonut said. This is because some US media try to scare the people. China is evil, India is evil, Europe is evil, etc. That's where the fear of the american people comes from. Actually, I begin to find it funny.

They want us to lose all power and identity, which we may when the union becomes stronger than us.

Because I now realise you are from the US. What do you think the US wants? Don't they want power? They are already preparing for war against China or Europe. Identity? Does the US have an Identity? The people in Europe now have now realised they don't have a real identity. But the US...

[TheHammer]

First of all, to make things clear, I was quoting pianonut, and referring to her reference to "Germans" "becoming dictators". That's why I talked about WWII (so I am definatly not from the USA, and I think it shows that nowadays you can not have a political opinion without being labelled as an American), and because I actually think that there are right-wing parties playing with the opinion of the people, as they did in pre-war Germany (which was definatly not prepared for them, and the disappointement of the people and the weak constitution of that time, including the possibility of referenda partially led to the takeover of Hitler). Therefore my reference.

But thank you for your opinion on this issue, I find it most worth to think about.

I said referenda are undemocratic. Respectively, I think that was a bit exaggerated, and you pointed out that they would work perfectly fine with a decentrialised organisation of  a state. Anyway, although I really wish to live in such an ideal world I don't think it's realistic to become true in the near future. We have to face the global situation as it is. And to this situation, representative d. is the only form of democracy I can think of. Every other form, and especially the direct one, is, IMO, condemned to fail. (So when I said "undemocratic" I was referring to representative democracy, showing that referenda once led to the actual destruction of democracy itself...)
When has direct democracy ever worked? I recall the ancient Greek states of 40000 citizens (btw, not counted slaves and woman....), and perhaps the current Swiss system, but this is not directly direct, it is more a plebiscite, still with a parliament.

Yes, but this is a point against indirect representative democracy. The people in the parlement do not know what laws the people need. But when the people themselves make the laws the problem is almost solved. Actually, most politicians think they can fix all problems with laws. They think they have complex perfect laws that fix all problems that in their minds can show up. But they are wrong. There are many practical examples where politicians think they solved a problem with a law but they actually made it worse. And it will take a year or so for them to find out.

Now, I am not saying the current system is flawless. It is bullshit. A direct democracy with a lot of decentrialised communities would be perfect. But it is also impossible. As I said, 40 million people will never be able to make a decision. Let's narrow this down to "hard decision". I don't think the people in France were disappointed about the Constitution itself, they were afraid of Europe. I am not so sure with the Dutch, also this is all based on media input anyway... In brief, the people themselves do not know what laws they need. And they will probably never be able to debat them in a way that they can agree to them (I am talking about the states in their current form).

Doesn't this happen in every country? I don't see what this has to do with referenda or direct democracy vs representative democracy. Your link with WWII is sickening, I guess you are from the US.

Just because it happens in every country does not mean it isn't relevant. When people vote for a party, they get the whole programme of each party. Before a referendum, these parties just have to say what they think the false vote (i.e. Yes to the EC) will bring to the people. Thus scaring them. Thus making them voting because of fear, not of reasoning. I didn'T mention WWII directly. I don't see why it would have made me an US-citizen. I agree that not everybody is so stupid to listen to such parties. But then again, the stupids are in the majority.

Of course not. People are way smarter than that. The French and Dutch people stopped the EU politicians that were doing something no one asked them to do. They should serve the people, that is their job. But they failed and the people were able to call them back with the referenda.

I think we disagree here. That is okay for me.

Thats because the politicians failed. I agree this is not a good thing. But what if the politicians could have gone on unchecked building a new Europe for another 10 years. What would have happened then?

I agree that the current European policy is not perfect. I am concerned about the high rate of getting new members, and I actually think it is good that this (after the referenda) will probably stop for a while. Still, you (the people) actually have full control over the politicians. You vote them (through the elections in your country and to the European parliament, which would have become a powerful instrument through the EC. Would.)

Maybe, but this is happening everywhere. Thanks to the US turning their dirty wars into a east-west conflict.

I agree. But I think Europe has to show an alternative to the Arabic World. It has to show that the Muslims have to interact peacefully with the West, and it has to show them that we are not like the US. Therefore we need an open-minded and strong Europe. The best way for this seemed the EC for me. You are of another opinion, and you have declared why. Thank you for your time responding, it has provoked some thoughts in my about my understanding of democracy. Still, I stay with my opinion, I think, although I am not as sure about it as I was before. Thanks again.

[Daevren]

We need more debate about the EU.

There is a fear for europe in both France and The Netherlands. But this is not strange.

I see myself as a kind of pseudo-itnellectual, one of the elite, one of those people that can easily follow complex politic games. But most people cannot. This is not really because they are stupid. Its because they do not care, do not have time etc.

I don't really disagree strongly with the idea of a european state. It does kind of conflict with my ideas about direct democracy. But the reason I voted against the constitution are different. They have to do with the subtleties of the text itself. Actually I almost voted for the document.

The prolem is that the european politicians lost their citizens on the path of building a new europe. The people feel they lost control. They were left out in building the new europe. Now this has several problems. One is the lack of democracy in the EU system. Of course we elect those people directly or indirectly. But that does not matter. Other problems that have to do with this is the lack of media coverage, the sheer size of the European parlement. I must admit I never saw a debate of the EP.
The other is that desisions have been made that are very unpopular. Of course they have been made by people elected directly or indirectly but they have been made nonetheles. The people in most countries never wanted the euro. Their politicians did.
Another is that Europe is used as a shapegoat in national politics. When politicians want to push unpopular laws they claim that Europe forces them to do this, which may in some cases be (somewhat) true. This damages the EU.

The people said: Stop. They pulled the emergence brake. Extremists may have campaigned against the constitution in France, this is not the reason they voted no. They aren't in the Le Pen camp now. They just felt left behind, ignored.
The politicians need to build a Europe with support of the majority of the population. And this is possible. A large majority of the people in all EU countries are pro-Europe. In a democracy politicians represent the people. They should not really have a mind of their own. And in broad lines the shape of the EU can be debated in public by a majority of the people.

And if it is really impossible to get the people on board, it is no use really.

A big mistake that was made is that just before the fall of the wall/USSR the European politicians had to make a choice: Expand the EU or add depth to the EU. They picked the last. But when the wall fell they were kind of forced to do the first. They ended up doing both. Expanding and trying to make Europe more state-like at the same time. This was a big mistake.

The problems European democracies face in these modern times are because people are more independent now. In some way smarter. They refuse to blindly follow their leaders as they once did.

A direct democracy with a lot of decentrialised communities would be perfect. But it is also impossible.

I disagree. And even if you are right, I will still support the decentralised direct democracy system. I know it is very very hard, but I have no reason to assume that it is impossible. BTW it worked in Spain before the civil war and in Israel before the Israeli state. Both places had communities without governments. They could really be called anarchistic societies. They were destroyed from the outside. In Spain by Franco's facists and in Israel they were forced to join the Israeli state when it was created.

[pianonut]

israeli state?  israel is a country! you need a passport to travel there.  the people who were dispursed (wonder why!) were simply returning.  i suppose using that terminology makes other countries feel better about themselves.  i say history proves a lot!  the jewish people ended up being thought unneccessary by the germans.

what about the us and britan.  a lot of europeans hate our guts.  how can we trust them if they hate us so much?  what, in your mind, would stop the eu from becoming a power that is much bigger and more threatining than ours?  why do you want to give away freedoms that we have fought individually for all over the world (by our own blood) and just say 'that's ok, we'll follow you like a roman citizen of old - dictated to in every part of life.' 

i'd rather die.  of course, there is always the pope's involvement in politics, too, that facinates me.  how, of all the various religions, is the catholic church the only one allowed to pontificate ideas about government in europe?  this is very strange to me...though not that strange when you read the bible carefully.  there WILL be an armageddon, there will be powers that we don't fully understand (making wars and rumors of wars - increase instead of decrease in PEACE).  i believe God is the only ONE who will bring peace.

[TheHammer]

We need more debate about the EU.

I whole-heartedly agree.

I see myself as a kind of pseudo-itnellectual, one of the elite, one of those people that can easily follow complex politic games. But most people cannot. This is not really because they are stupid. Its because they do not care, do not have time etc.

Well, yes I was talking about political interest/understaning. I think though that this also has to do a lot with one's intellectual abilities (as well as with his up-bringing, environment, etc.)

The prolem is that the european politicians lost their citizens on the path of building a new europe. The people feel they lost control. They were left out in building the new europe. Now this has several problems. One is the lack of democracy in the EU system. Of course we elect those people directly or indirectly. But that does not matter. Other problems that have to do with this is the lack of media coverage, the sheer size of the European parlement. I must admit I never saw a debate of the EP.
The other is that desisions have been made that are very unpopular. Of course they have been made by people elected directly or indirectly but they have been made nonetheles. The people in most countries never wanted the euro. Their politicians did.
Another is that Europe is used as a shapegoat in national politics. When politicians want to push unpopular laws they claim that Europe forces them to do this, which may in some cases be (somewhat) true. This damages the EU.

1. We have already agreed to disagree on the advantages of representative democracy compared to direct. Okay.

2. Media coverage / politicians lost contact to the people: I agree that this is a problem. But consider that media is a business based on the principle supply and demand. I think there was "some" media coverage e.g. before the last election to the EP. But nobody watched it, or read the articles in the newspaper. So the media thought, noone is interested in Europe so just stop reporting about it. Same is with the politicians: they talked and talked, but nobody listened. That is also the fault of the people, of a general (negative) attitude to politics.

3. Unpopular decisions: Well, let's take the Euro. After it had been introduced there was a huge debate in Europe (as there is now, for example in Italy again), also in Germany. The people did not want it. They thought it would make things more expensive, they did not want to adjust themselves to the new currecy. But without the Euro, especially Germany would now be in a much more severe situation, due to currency fluctuations which would have affected the export balance, Germany now would have a grown-out recession. But instead of thanking the politicians for this brave decision, people here call it "Teuro" (teuer = expensive), and debate about bringing back the old currency which would be a financial disaster.
I think this is a good example for "saving the people of itself" (perhaps a bit drastic). And it also illustrates how the people probably never will make the hard decisions, although they are the best for them (and welcome to the wonderful field of anthropology).

4. I agree that some national politicians misuse the European politics for there own prospects.

The people said: Stop. They pulled the emergence brake. Extremists may have campaigned against the constitution in France, this is not the reason they voted no. They aren't in the Le Pen camp now. They just felt left behind, ignored.
The politicians need to build a Europe with support of the majority of the population. And this is possible. A large majority of the people in all EU countries are pro-Europe. In a democracy politicians represent the people. They should not really have a mind of their own. And in broad lines the shape of the EU can be debated in public by a majority of the people.

And if it is really impossible to get the people on board, it is no use really.

Voters don't have to identify with the whole programme of one party to listen and be convinced of the argument. That's is the problem with referenda. If they would take into account the whole Le Pen - programme, they probably would think about how they should vote. Instead they just listen to what they want to hear.

And I disagree that the European population can debate about something as complex as the EC. The current form is a compromise, the best that could be found. There will be no changes (IMO).

I agree that several mistakes were made, especially with the end of the Cold War. Europe should have grown much more slowly. But this is only dreaming. It cannot be revoked. Your emergency brake is indeed a brake, not the reverse gear. What we have now is the worst case one can imagine. Although one has to wait probably what our "great leaders" will decide in mid-June conference. But I don't think it will get any better.

The problems European democracies face in these modern times are because people are more independent now. In some way smarter. They refuse to blindly follow their leaders as they once did.

You could also say they are too blind to see the necessity of the leaders' decisions. I agree that the changing world will probably require new systems. And I think one of these new ways would be a supra-national organization as the EU, and not the small national states we have now (escpecially in regard to foreign policy and environmental issues).
To your last comment on direct democracy. Again I reinforce my opinion that this is no suitable form of organizing a state (in the near future). As you say, such democracies were destroyed from the outside, and this would happen again (due to the human aspiration of power). Only one single and strong (centrialised) state could then easily control all direct democracy. Never will a people willingly adjourn to such a powerless situation (although this is mere speculation).
Of course I would like it very much to live in such a democracy. If you have a plan to reach this, tell me. As long as I am not convinced, I will base my political opinions on real and current politics, not on wishful thinking. But I am thankful for your inspiration.

[TheHammer]

israeli state?  israel is a country! you need a passport to travel there. the people who were dispursed (wonder why!) were simply returning. i suppose using that terminology makes other countries feel better about themselves.  i say history proves a lot!  the jewish people ended up being thought unneccessary by the germans.

what about the us and britan.  a lot of europeans hate our guts.  how can we trust them if they hate us so much?  what, in your mind, would stop the eu from becoming a power that is much bigger and more threatining than ours?  why do you want to give away freedoms that we have fought individually for all over the world (by our own blood) and just say 'that's ok, we'll follow you like a roman citizen of old - dictated to in every part of life.' 

i'd rather die.  of course, there is always the pope's involvement in politics, too, that facinates me.  how, of all the various religions, is the catholic church the only one allowed to pontificate ideas about government in europe?  this is very strange to me...though not that strange when you read the bible carefully.  there WILL be an armageddon, there will be powers that we don't fully understand (making wars and rumors of wars - increase instead of decrease in PEACE).  i believe God is the only ONE who will bring peace.

Tzzz pianonut you have a very strange way of articulating your thoughts (not necessarily bad, but hard to follow).
The State of Israel is a country. Is there actually a real difference between state and country (nowadays that is)? And the Jew were not thought unnecessary by the Germans. They were thought to be a threat to the pureness of the "German blood" and therefore worth on destroying. Of course this is utter bullshit (I think it is not worth to debate this, is it?). But "unnecessary" is hardly the word I would use to explain the Holocaust (and antisemitism is not only German "invention". See 11th century.) And I agree that history can tell some things about the future (but not directly and doubtless).

Your second paragraph amuses me. Do you really think US foreign policy is the best that could have happened to world? I don't even want to comment on the Irag war, the military-industrial complex actually reigning the "land of the free". Sorry, but I think the world will be much better off with the EU being able to oppose the USA. And I seriously doubt the possibility that the Europeans in the near future will become globally aggressive as for example the USA did. This derives from their historical responsibility. And btw, I don't think that a majority in Europe hates the USA. We are just concerned that they destroy this world.

I don't want to talk about the pope, because the new one hasn't done much things yet, so you can't be sure about his political involvement (although in general I agree that religion has too much influence on politics these days, not only the Catholic Church). One sentence strikes me though: "there WILL be an armageddon, there will be powers that we don't fully understand (making wars and rumors of wars - increase instead of decrease in PEACE). "
You realise that the last two wars in the Mid East were initiated not by the pope, but by the American impera...ehh, president? It's him making wars, not us peaceful Europeans.

[pianonut]

if the us did not defend israel, it would not exist.  because God cares for israel, it continues to exist and be defended.  what european nation has cared about that little country one whit?  only the us.  do you know why?  it is because we and britan have the bible.  we are defending that piece of ground that God gave Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.  i think it is because we are the descendants of israel (there were many tribes, only one of which was judah and levy=jewish people).  why else is the us, britan, australia and various places that were part of the british empire or under us control most widely hold to christian beliefs and the bible?  God said to Abraham that his seed would become two nations (ephraim and mannassah).  even the word 'british' has a context in hebrew.  hebrew for covenant is 'brit' or berith, and man is 'ish.'  the israelites are called 'the house of issac' or saxons (issac's sons).  this is not insignificant.  especially at this time in history. many of the other tribes are also nations in europe, i believe, because if you trace the names back they are somewhat relation.  there was the tribe of dan (danish).  you can spell it dan, den, din, don, dun.  in ireland, you find a lot of these names (dunn in irish means dan in hebrew)  the ancient history of ireland is interesting because it is thought that jeremiah brought some remarkable things (harp, ark, and stone called 'lia-fail' or stone of destiny).  it is interesting that this stone is used under the coronation chair and used to rest or still rests in westminster abbey with the coronation chair built over and around it.  a sign labels it 'jacobs pillar stone.'

i believe that the throne of David exists today through the throne of England.  why else would such an outdated form of government still exist (if God did not wish it) since He promised that the throne of David would continue forever.  the blessings on ephraim and mannasah were contingent upon them obeying God and staying in covenant with Him.  But, as history usually makes clear, they turned to idolatry.  just as promised ACTUAL land was given to israel as a birthright, so the Kingdom of God is offerred to those who accept it and move away from the slavery of sin.  when many of the tribes of israel were dispursed, they regarded themselves as 'gentiles' for perhaps 2000+ years.  america is a relatively young country.  the blessings that we inherited (with the british empire) were staggerring.  but, many have been lost - yes, greed, etc. and not realizing who are blessings were from.

Christ is said to return to the mount of olives, but during a time of great disagreement over the holy land.  so much disagreement that ALL the nations will be gathered.  if God says this in the bible, i believe it.  it is simply a matter of letting the nations TRY to form peaceful alliances and see where it leads.  we cannot just MAKE peace. there are too many disagreements.  but, there will be a KIND of peace right before a lot of trouble.  peace at a cost.  basically giving up our individual blessings.

abraham lincoln said "we find ourselves in the peaceful possession of the fairest portion of the earth, as regards to fertility of soil, extent of territory, and salubrity of climate....we ....find ourselves the legal inheritors of these fundamental blessings.  he called for a day of fasting and prayer for men to own their dependence upon God.  now, prophecies exist for the removal of these blessings.  we often see anti-us demonstrators, see our money decreasing in value, and are allowing others to take power over us in accepting their version of a better government.

speaking of slavery, old testament, etc. etc.  i think those people that buy into the troubles of history aren't so wrong.  what if we end up being a sort of slave to our enemies when we lose much of our independence to a sort of world homeowner's association that comes around assessing our wealth and taking away whatever is deemed too much, or whatever freedoms are deemed too free.  the curses of lev. 26 include 'laying waste cities' (vs. 33).  sudden destruction is mentioned in micah 5: 10-11.  '...cut of the cities of the land, and thow down all the strong holds.  a time of 'great tribulation' is often mentioned in various places in prophecy as well.  ezek. 6:6; joel 2:2 'blow the trumpet in zion (alarm of war) the day of the Lord comes...' i believe if God says it, He will do it.  it is not a cause of alarm for those who know it probably will come from our enemies who smile and think other thoughts.  God also mentions a remnant (always somebody left over) that hold to his commandments and remember Him.  there is no destruction that anyone can give that God does not have control over.  especially since he controls life and death.  so, in the end, governments can appear all powerful, but in the end they can be reduced to nothing!

ps.  i read that reuben is probably the ancestor tribe of france.  interesting that he was the brother that sold joseph into slavery.  the french have always been defended by us, but will we receive treachery?

[TheHammer]

Thank you for turning this very interesting thread about the problems of a European Constitution into a collection of your thoughts on a completely different issue (well, several issues: Israel's legitimation, old Jewish tribes being the forefathers of today's nation, which seems senseless to me, especially connecting characteristics of persons of the OT with today's French population, sorry that's stupid, then David's throne, a little excursion to the causes of America's arrogance towards the rest of the world, etc....). what has this to do with the actual discussion??? Go and please make your own thread or respond to the questions!!!

(Although I admit I have never been all too much into the Bible thing, I think several of your claims are false, some interesting, others irrelevant and incomprehensible, and others utterly stupid. If you want to discuss them, again, feel free to open a new thread, I will give reasons for my opinions, but not in this thread about the EC. That is too much off-topic for me.)

[Daevren]

I have no idea where Pianonut is going. I am only saying that there were once jewish direct democracy communities.

I won't respond to anything  you said, because you start to talk franticly about the bible and stuff. Actually, to be rude, I am afraid I would hurt or offend you.

I don't know if I should laugh really hard or be shocked. Are you alright? Seems you need to stop reading European conspiracy books.

On topic.

The Chech prime minister proposed to stop the ratification and write a new very minimalistic text. Sounds like a good idea. All 25 members need to accept the new treaty and two said no already. Its stupid to continue because the treaty will never be adopted anyway.

Sounds like a good idea. We could have the essential changes in the system needed for 25 members and claim we fixed the current crisis.
Personally I would vote 'yes' if there is going to be a new treaty that is actually an improvement. Even if I still don't like it.

[pianonut]

ok. i'll opt out. and, don't plan to start another thread because it's just something personal that i believe.  BUT, if you look at WWI and WWII - they both started with little disagreements (one over a small country like Serbia).  we don't understand sometimes the importance of historic disagreements and tend to think that everyone like us lives in the present.  some disagreements are long term and have complicated reasons for being.  if you ask someone who is iraqi, iranian, turkish, syrian, etc.  they don't want israel to exist. WHY, because their ancestor is ishmael.  they also have abraham as a father...so they both claim the same land.  the only test of the truth of prophecies is if they come true.  none have failed in the past, and so i expect that to be the same for the future.

the book of daniel mentions world empires - up to the present day.  the last empire being much like the holy roman empire.  seems fanatical to us, but europe is much older than us and it's governments have more intriege that we might not suspect.  i don't wait for the nations to start gathering around iraq (and jerusalem)...just feel in my heart that when it happens, no one will say the bible is wrong.  i believe a united europe will be our downfall.

[Torp]

I'll reiterate what I said earlier and I suppose I'll be in direct opposition to pianonut on this one, but, I think the earth would be far better served by having a stong, unified, but historically/culturally diverse, group, such as the EC might create, being in direct political and economic competition with the US.  Not sure which one made the comment (Hammer or Daevron) about at least showing the Arab world that they can get along with the western world.

I have enjoyed the discussion between you two.  As you can imagine, as an American, the media coverage here is pathetic.  Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Jef

[pianonut]

if you ever visit an arab country, you will find yourself outnumbered by enemies.  yes, you can get along with a few, but the majority are not wishing for peace because of the factions involved.  who would have wanted saddam hussein still in power, yet no one thanks us for getting rid of him.  even the arabs disliked him.  are they thanking us.  no, because they think we're trying to get something from them.  all we want is stability in the region (WHICH IS HELPING EUROPE btw) as they stand aside and watch and criticize. 

if you are truly for democracy, women's rights, and the basic human rights (instead of getting your hand chopped, beheadings, merciless killlings) you will consider the stability of the region as helping them learn a different way.  AGREED that not all of our military is 'sane'  but even so, most have sacrificed their lives FOR ANOTHER COUNTRY and their FREEDOM!

[whynot]

This isn't exactly a reply to the original question on the EU, because I don't know enough about it-- as Torp said, very difficult in the U.S. to be informed about things that actually matter.  If it ain't Hollywood, it ain't news.  But in light of a side subject that has been brought up a lot, maybe it's okay to mention this website here:     

www.sorryeverybody.com

This site has tens of thousands (maybe more) Americans apologizing to the rest of the world for our role in current world events.  Many people are absolutely heartbroken at the death and destruction.  That's all I have to say.         

[pianonut]

why didn't saddam hussein do this?  because he has no conscience.  even americans feel pity for their enemies!  this shows we have heart, and conscience.

[Daevren]

Pianonut, the average arab longs for peace alot more than you do. Do you even realise what war means for those people? And what war means for americans. War for americans means watching CNN, wasting money and maybe losing a friend/family member that is a soldier.

For the arab it means his/her house will be bombed.

That they have a hatred for the US doesn't mean they don't want peace. Actually they hate the US because they want peace. If we talk about Saudi Arabia, which is really the major country in this story considering that most 9/11 terrorists and OBL are from SA, then this is easy to see.

SA has enormous oil reserves which are worth an insane amount of money. But the average saudi is poor. The countries government is a monarchic dictatorship. They get almost all the money. The royal family is huge but they all get alot of oil dollars. Yes, dollars because the US buys all the oil from them.

Now the US has to support these dictator regime that is suppressing their population and stealing all the money because if there were to be a revolution oil production would stagnate and that would harm the US economy. If SA stopped exporting oil for a week, oil price would go sky high and alot of US, and also EU companies would be destroyed. Stocks would evaporate, etc. Our economic system is very weak.

These arabs want peace and freedom. So they oppose their government. Now we have religious leaders and they blame everything on the US as the head of the snake. In fact, the US had troops in SA after the first war against Iraq. Did you ever listen to a OBL tape? He says this stuff all the time.

if you are truly for democracy, women's rights, and the basic human rights (instead of getting your hand chopped, beheadings, merciless killlings) you will consider the stability of the region as helping them learn a different way.  AGREED that not all of our military is 'sane'  but even so, most have sacrificed their lives FOR ANOTHER COUNTRY and their FREEDOM!

Do you know the opinion of the student opposition in Iran? They rather live another 20 years oppressed than overthrowing the cleric regime tomorrow with US help.

Secondly, the war in Iraq wasn't about democracy and human rights, which the US themselves do not always respect. It was about Iraq being a treath to the existence of the US. That's the point on which the senate gave the president permission to use military force. To protect the US against an Iraqi attack. This is obviously false. But the US propagandha made their citizens believe that Iraq was behind 9/11 and that they had WMD. Check the polls on this held just before the war started.

Now we know this is false. Actually, the whole world knew this.

And about teaching the Iraqi people democracy, human rights etc. Do you really think you will have any succes this way? The US broke democratic systems and violated human rights so they could teach other people democracy and human rights, through the killing of almost 40,000 people?

Lets not forget the US supported and helped Saddam Hussain, together with the UK and some more Europe countries, through and with his biggest crimes, namely the gassing of the kurds and the Iranians.

Actually, Saddam Hussain isn't even charged with gassing the Iranian. Why not? The Hussain trial is already politicialized and has already failed to be a just trial.

[Torp]

why didn't saddam hussein do this?  because he has no conscience.  even americans feel pity for their enemies!  this shows we have heart, and conscience.

Oh, is that why we went to Iraq?  Somehow I was led to believe it had something to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction.  With all the subsequent screw ups by this current administration and their amazing ability to spin the story to something else, I had almost forgotten why we invaded a sovereign nation in the first place.

I'll stick by my opinion, the world would be a much, much safer place if the current right-wing, mysoginistic, xenophobic, homophobic, good-ole-boy-bubba of a president were back spoutin' one-liner-John-Wayne-wannabe quotes in the press box of a baseball stadium.

I suppose there will always be two schools of thought and thus no convergence.  You can either kill your enemies or you can make your enemies your friends.  Either way you no longer have that enemy.  Of course, in the first method you usually create a 10-fold return of increased enemies.

We need a stronger European Union.  Since the US only responds to economics and military power (real or not), anything that strengthens Europe in those regards will probably get my vote.

I am glad to see though that the individuals discussing this from Europe ultimately have the people of Europe in mind.  Only the corporations matter in the US.  The people no longer have a voice.  Only $$$ talks.

[musik_man]

I't nice to see a thread on the EU has turned into America bashing.

Torp, you're right that there are two schools of thought, but I don't think you went deep enough into it.  There are really two different ideologies, those who believe people are imperfect, and those who believe men are perfectable.  If you think that people are inherently good, you're strategy for winning the War on Terror makes alot of sense.  Unfortunately, men aren't perfectable, and the groups that believe that always need to find some sort of scapegoat to explain why they still are evil.  Such scapegoats include America(in your case), Jews(Nazis), Capitalists(Marxism), Trotskyite-Fascists(Stalinists), Hollywood(some misguided Christians).  The base case is that you need some group to blame for everything, and you'll drop any sense of fairness when looking at this group.

People like you blame the US for everything.  IF the US does nothing(Rwanda, Sudan), it's wrong.  If it uses it's economic powers to affect change(Cuba, Iraq in the '90's) it's wrong.  If we use our military, (Vietnam, Iraq) it's wrong.  I don't think most anti-Americans can be pleased.

BTW the following little tirade isn't really directed at you but at the blame America first crowd in general, so don't freak out if you don't hold all of the views I attacked.

Daevren, I was unaware that only the US consumed SA's oil.  Good to know that Europe is clean of the influence of oil, so it doesn't do stuff like say, accept bribes to support taking the sanctions off of Iraq, or refuse to put sanctions on Iran because of hte oil flow.

[Fugue]

And its also good to know that Russia is a safe democracy where free enterprise is encourged and France is a country with a vibrant, healthy economy that shows no sign of slowing down. And neither one of them has ever let their corporations dictate foreign policy, like in selling WMD technology to Iraq or Iran.

By the way, if you couldn't tell, that was sarcasm.

[TheHammer]

I't nice to see a thread on the EU has turned into America bashing.

Not before it turned into America praising & Arabic bashing.

Torp, you're right that there are two schools of thought, but I don't think you went deep enough into it.  There are really two different ideologies, those who believe people are imperfect, and those who believe men are perfectable.  If you think that people are inherently good, you're strategy for winning the War on Terror makes alot of sense.  Unfortunately, men aren't perfectable, and the groups that believe that always need to find some sort of scapegoat to explain why they still are evil.  Such scapegoats include America(in your case), Jews(Nazis), Capitalists(Marxism), Trotskyite-Fascists(Stalinists), Hollywood(some misguided Christians).  The base case is that you need some group to blame for everything, and you'll drop any sense of fairness when looking at this group.

I agree (a bit), though you have forgotten one major group: Arabs, and especially so called terroristic groups in the countries of the Arabic world. The group needing this scapegoat, as you put it, here, is obviously the US government, which uses the threat of terror as their general explanation for everything they do (Patriot Act, invasion of peaceful and international accepted countries, violation of human rights and international treaties, for example in the construction of concentration camps for enemy soldiers, as Guantanamo Bay).

People like you blame the US for everything.  IF the US does nothing(Rwanda, Sudan), it's wrong.  If it uses it's economic powers to affect change(Cuba, Iraq in the '90's) it's wrong.  If we use our military, (Vietnam, Iraq) it's wrong.  I don't think most anti-Americans can be pleased.

Military actions and doing nothing is obviously wrong, you have nothing to complain about. Economic powers may be a useful mean, better giving an embargo to Irag then supporting it for ten years in committing massacres (see Daevren's post). However, you forgot one thing, and it is not too clear why: diplomatic approaches. Really, there were inspectors in the Irag searching for WMD, but no, although without any proof, USA just decided to attack an till then completely unaggressive country (towards USA, that is). People don't freak out because they need somone to blame for everything, they freak out because USA do what they want - including illegal actions.

Daevren, I was unaware that only the US consumed SA's oil.  Good to know that Europe is clean of the influence of oil, so it doesn't do stuff like say, accept bribes to support taking the sanctions off of Iraq, or refuse to put sanctions on Iran because of hte oil flow.

So it would be correct to conquer oil-producing countries if Europe would approve it? And who is Europe btw (one of the main questions of this thread, probably, yet completely ignored)? Check Daevren's post (with which I agree) again:

SA has enormous oil reserves which are worth an insane amount of money. But the average saudi is poor. The countries government is a monarchic dictatorship. They get almost all the money. The royal family is huge but they all get alot of oil dollars. Yes, dollars because the US buys all the oil from them.

Now the US has to support these dictator regime that is suppressing their population and stealing all the money because if there were to be a revolution oil production would stagnate and that would harm the US economy. If SA stopped exporting oil for a week, oil price would go sky high and alot of US, and also EU companies would be destroyed. Stocks would evaporate, etc. Our economic system is very weak.

First highlighted phrase is clearly an exaggeration, which is a literal mean of emphasis. Second phrase shows that of course the whole Western industry is dependent on the oil market. BUT, this does not lead European countries (at least not all of them) to attack and conquer other countries. Btw, I think many of the European coalition member were misled by the US or by their own greed, which would then make them more alike the current US government than the ideal of European politics (which is, of course, not an ideal at all).

pianonut: Your generalisations and prejudices on Arabic population are unbearable. If you want to look at your human rights, take a ride to your Gulag in Guatanamo.

Torp and whynot: I don't think there is need to apologize or be ashamed of the US policy, especially not to us Europeans. There was election in Germany 2002, and by a very small percentage the "pacifistic" parties made it. It could have gone the other road, and there would be German soldiers dying and killing now in Iraq.
As Daevren put it so well: We need more debate.
And I appreciate your interest in European politics.

[TheHammer]

And its also good to know that Russia is a safe democracy where free enterprise is encourged and France is a country with a vibrant, healthy economy that shows no sign of slowing down. And neither one of them has ever let their corporations dictate foreign policy, like in selling WMD technology to Iraq or Iran.

By the way, if you couldn't tell, that was sarcasm.

Very good point. Russia itself never was a democracy (and probably never will be). Therefore it is highly necessary to form a strong opposition, which would best be  realised by a strong and unified EU. (Just if you couldn't tell, Russia is NOT part of the EU (yet))

What France's economy has to do with it, I cannot see (please elaborate). I admit that they sold such technology. But seriously, if I have to choose between a French hypocrite or an American mass murderer... (not serious here, although otherwise announced )

[pianonut]

musik man has a good point about man either being thought perfectable or imperfect.  out of all the imperfect governments, our government started and continued immigration, naturalization, and acceptance into the usa regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, etc. - so you can't claim that other governments are more merciful to people of other races.

most christians (and us citizens) treat their neighbors (no matter what race) with respect and dignity.  if they are caught, however, committing a CRIME - in ANY COUNTRY they would be locked up, and probably treated the same or worse.  because i have a soft heart, i would not be good at watching the holding of criminals - but in a war - usually your enemies are killed so they don't come back to haunt you.

the unfair 'stick' in this game is that our country is so wealthy, and as daevern or the hammer said - the majority in many of the arab countries are so poor.  this truly is not the kind of peace that Christ will bring (ignoring the poor - making life miserable for so many people and their families).  even though i couldn't fathom living the lives that they have to temporarily - we (as christians) have an opportunity to show love to people of all nationalities where we live.  there is an arab woman that often goes for walks in the morning in my neighborhood.  noone waves at her when they see her but me (that i've seen).  back in lancaster, there was a syrian woman who befriended me and told me that she had an abusive husband and needed some advice on how to make some side money.  i hired her to do some things and paid her for them as she had a hard time finding a job at first.

it's not that all americans hate all iraqi's or visa-versa.  it's that we do not trust each other.  if iraq builds up weapons (not even mass destruction - just short range missles) it is going to aim them wherever they please.  israel would possibly be one target.  the us one of israel's few allies, thank God.  israel has a purpose for existing (otherwise it would be long gone).  i believe that Christ will truly return to the mount of olives - but not before a world war breaks out starting in that region.

[Torp]

People like you blame the US for everything.

People like me?  You mean an American?  Yes, that's what I am.  Most of the time I'm proud of it.  Our invasion of a sovereign nation under false pretenses, however, is not something I am proud of.

Come to think of it, I don't think I blamed the US for anything.  If I were to place blame it would be on George Bush.  I think his policies suck, and I'm not just talking about international policies.  And as far as I'm concerned he does not represent me.  He respresents himself and the interests of his friends.

George Bush has the gall to ask Newsweek to apologize for running a story using unsupported data (which eventually turned out to be true), but he INVADED a country using unsupported data (which has never turned out to be true), killed thousands of people, and instead of apologizing to Iraq or his own constituents he changes the story and says the reason we're there was to overthrow Saddam.  The guy lives in a fantasy land of his own creation.

[Daevren]

I never said only the US buys oil from SA. I wanted to put emphasis on the relation between SA, US companies and the US government. Its the US arabs terrorists see as the head of the evil snake. Not Europe. I thought you guys were 'fighting terrorism'.

Plus I think I kind of bashed the EU already. So

I also missed Fugue's. Point. I am not part of the russian government and the fact that the French economy isn't going very well doesn't prove I am wrong. It doesn't even prove France is doing something wrong.

the unfair 'stick' in this game is that our country is so wealthy, and as daevern or the hammer said - the majority in many of the arab countries are so poor.

Doesn't that make us guilty already? We are rich thanks to the oil, their oil. But then our governments go about and try to make sure that we stay rich. And yours even started a war, which my country supported.

i hired her to do some things and paid her for them as she had a hard time finding a job at first.

I never said you were a bad person or anything like this. Plus, the niceness of the population is kind of irrelevant. The governments of Poland, Italy and Spain supported the US war. But 90% of their populations were against it. Now I know that the majority of the people in the US are also opposed to war. Unless they believe they have no choice. Problem is they were told lies.

it's that we do not trust each other.

No one trusted Saddam Hussain. I fail to see your point. But you think you know things about the Iraqi people. Where did you get this information? You realise the US national media have all been creating consensus for a war against Iraq wanted by the neocons? You know that because of this the US people were misinformed about Iraq?

Also, do you realise what would have happened if Iraq turned into a real democracy?

if iraq builds up weapons it is going to aim them wherever they please.

They weren't building up weapons. They already had those a long time. They build those in the 1980's and then it was no problem. Iraq was an ally against Iran. When the war started Iraq only had a small fraction of the weapons they once had. Their defence budget was 1/3rd of that of Kuwait. They almost didn't have an army anymore.

israel would possibly be one target.

Where do you think Israeli's illegal nuclear weapons are aimed at? They may even be aimed at US, UK, French and Russian nuclear weapons.

Israel has a purpose for existing (otherwise it would be long gone)

This is a fallacy. The logic of this eludes me completely.

i believe that Christ will truly return to the mount of olives - but not before a world war breaks out starting in that region.

So you forget about the crimes of Israel because of the bible? We talked about this before. You want Christ to return. But you believe we need a world war first. So you will support a warmongering leader for the sake of Christ. I am not sure Christ likes this idea.

I suggest stop reading this strange christian conspiracy stuff. We don't have an antichrist in Europe. And the bible doesn't say the antichrist will be an European politician using the EU or UN to get to power.

Really, things like this scare the crap out of most Europeans. I know part of the fundamentalist christians in the right wing are waging a war on Europe already. Don't be part of it.

And about americans apologising for their government. By this reasoning half of Europe would be just as guilty.

[musik_man]

TheHammer, thank you for proving my point about America's critics being unfair.  Really, you couldn't have done it better.  I guess I'll start with the worst part, you calling Gitmo America's "Gulag."  I would appreciate it if you never did that again.  More than 20 million people died during Stalin's reign.  At one point literally more than 10% of the population of the USSR had been(or was) in the Gulag(Gitmo has 500 people.)  In the Gulag, people were put in freezing conditions, working 10 hours a day 7 days a week, given 400 grams of bread a day, and forbidden to own things like fur boots or coats.  At some of the camps less than half the occupants would survive their first winter.  I don't care if you think that Gitmo is a terrible horrible thing that needs to be closed today.  Comparing it to the Gulag, is absolutely disgusting.  Don't do it again.

I'll also clear up your misreading of the Geneva convention.  Soldiers have many protections under the convention, but they are contingent on several things.  One of which is that the soldiers are required to wear uniforms that clearly and correctly identify which side they fight for.  If you are caught in civilian clothes fighting, our military has every right to execute you as a spy.  There's a very good reason for this.  Another thing that the convention does, is try to minimize the impact of war on the civilian population.  When anyone fights outside of uniform, he helps to transform the civilian population into targets.  Similarly, when some "Freedom fighter" blows up his truck at a US checkpoint, he  is responsible for when an American patrol shoots up an innocent driver who wasn't slowing down enough near the checkpoint(like that Italian journalist.)  By violating the rules of war, these people cause innocents to suffer much more than they need to.  So before you claim that the US is breaking the Geneva convention, remember that we have every right(under said convention) to round up every prisoner at Gitmo and shoot them like dogs, yet we don't.  America certainly wasn't this merciful in WWII.

I won't argue with your knowledge of the Coalition's intentions in the Iraq war, as it would be pointless.  You think you know Bush's real motivation, and if he can't persuade you that you're wrong, no one can.

We need a stronger European Union.  Since the US only responds to economics and military power (real or not), anything that strengthens Europe in those regards will probably get my vote.

I am glad to see though that the individuals discussing this from Europe ultimately have the people of Europe in mind.  Only the corporations matter in the US.  The people no longer have a voice.  Only $$$ talks.

Torp, it seems that you're blaming America there.  If I misread that, sorry.

On Newsweek, you're wrong.  The story never was substantiated.  The story doesn't even pass the smell test.  Go take a Koran-sized book and try to flush it down your toilet.  Unless the US military has been covertly designing some sort of "super toilet", specifically designed to flush Korans, the story is false.  What you're refering to is that there were 'abuses' of the Koran.  These were all very minor.  I've accidently done worse stuff to my Bible.  One of the "incidents" involved a guard searching a Koran with gloves and a clean towel.  Oh the horror!  Another occured when a couple water baloons thrown by guards splashed a Koran.  Juvenile? yes. an International incident? no.  Here's an article detailing some of the incidents https://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/698fxmcs.asp

You're also wrong about the WMD on two counts.  Firstly, he did not change the rationale for war.  Prior to war a big complaint among Bush critics was that Bush had too many different reasons for war and couldn't stick with one.  You're also wrong that the issue of WMD's can no longer work as a rationale.  This is a subtle but important point.  We didn't invade Iraq because they had WMD's.  We invaded because they wouldn't allow inspectors everything they needed to verify that there were no WMDs.  For example, Iraq wouldn't let us interview scientists without a member of Iraqi intelligence there.  I don't know why Saddam wouldn't cooperate, but that, and not the existance of WMD's, is why we invaded.

Daevren, it's nice to know that US's wealth comes from stealing oil.  I had thought it was because US workers were very productive and because America has a stable society that has little corruption and encourages entrepeneurship(sp?).  But I guess I was wrong.

[TheHammer]

Musik_Man: I admit that the conditions in Guatanamo are not as bad as in the Sovietan working camps. But I didn't really used it in this connotation but more emphasising the unlawfulness of the Guantanamo camp by comparing it to one of the symbols of tyranny in general. I find this disgusting too! So please shut it down and I will have no problem stopping to call it anything.
And I don't even think that there isn't a parallel between 20th centuries' dictatorships and USA today. Take Hitler's KZs for example. At first they were only quite comfortable camps in which his political opponents were hold (without any accusation btw...*hint*). Ten years later millions of people were killed there (don't want to say this will happen in USA, still, the Guantanamo Bay camp is a stain of shame to the USA and it may only be the beginning...). But enough of this, Gulag was the false expression, not meant to draw a direct comparison, but more used as a literal mean...whatever.

Interesting that I should misread the "Geneva Convention", I don't recall myself writing about it in this thread...but okay. Perhaps it will interest you that US judges have misread the Convention all the same:

https://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/31/gitmo.ruling/

And of course you are completely right when killing 15 year old boys like dogs, who are defending there home country against aggressors invading without reason, destroying their families, homes, etc., "You" don't do that, of course. But as you said, it would be pointless to argue about US motivation. Discussion can be rather annoying, I guess?

Anyway... might I remind the actual purpose of this thread...?

[Torp]

But I guess I was wrong.

It's ok, we all make mistakes.

One question though, if a war requires uniformed soldiers, who exactly has Bush been at war with in his War on terror?

It is such a typical response of a proponent of this administration to use the Geneva convention to support one position and then deny it's applicability for other positions.  The whole reason that the Bush camp has continued to maintain its "right" to hold the prisoners at Gitmo is the very fact that they are NOT prisoners of war because the Geneva convention does not apply.  It is very convenient that we can have a war that implies soldiers, but all prisoners are not afforded the rights because they're not really soldiers.

[Daevren]

Alberto Gonzales was Bush's legal advisor and he told Bush he could ignore Geneva if he wanted. For this 'good advice' he was later promoted to Attorney General.


Its now a public secret that the US has torture prisons all over the world. A while ago Amnesty International supported this rumors.

Daevren, it's nice to know that US's wealth comes from stealing oil.  I had thought it was because US workers were very productive and because America has a stable society that has little corruption and encourages entrepeneurship(sp?).  But I guess I was wrong.

You missed the point. The Saudi monarchy steal the oil. The western world then buy the stolen oil.

[musik_man]

TheHammer, I don't know what it is about Bush that drives his opponents crazy enough to make stupid statements, comparing him to Hitler, Stalin, Satan etc.., but it really just helps him.  First, none of Bush's opponents are in camps.  Kerry, Clinton, Reid etc are all still in the Senate opposing Bush.  Hitler on the other hand had his main opponent for Chancellor General Schleicher shot up by a bunch of Brown Shirts(this was before he even siezed power.)  Hitler had openly tried to overthrow the government only a few years earlier.  He also publicly stated his hatred for the Jews.  Bush=Hitler is a terrible analogy.

I took your reference to the Geneva Convention from when you said that the US violated "international treaties."  If you were refering to something else I apologize. 

About the article you linked to.  First of all, I disagree with lots of things that federal judges say.  Different judges often issue contradictory rulings(just like in this case) which means I have to disagree with at least one court. 

I'd also like to point out that I never said I support the killing of Gitmo detainees.  I merely stated that under the Geneva convention, it was completely legal.  What I meant to do, was show you that the US is not only abiding by the convention, but is actually going several steps further than it is required to.

I'd also like to clear up what I meant about not arguing motivation.  You think that Bush invaded Iraq for oil.  He's never said anything publicly to support this claim, and has actually given other reasons for his actions.  Neither you nor I can really know Bush's true motivations so why argue it.  Instead we can argue whether his actions were wise.

Torp, I never said that war requires uniformed soldiers.  I said that in order to have POW status you need one.  But there of course have been uniformed soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they aren't in Gitmo now.  They were treated as POWs.  I don't see where I had a hypocritical position on the convention.

Daevren, I believe what you are refering to is when Gonzales said that certain provisions of the Geneva convention were "quaint."  The Democrats made a huge fuss about this statement when he was in his confirmation battle for AG.  The problem is that his statement was correct.  The provisions he spoke of were really quite quaint.  I believe one of them required nations to provide items such as scientific equipment to POWs.  If you don't think that that's quaint...

You also happen to be talking about the same group that originally started the Gitmo=Gulag.  Because of my belief of the incredible lack of judgement this sort of analogy shows, you'll excuse me if I take their statements with a grain of salt.

[Daevren]

Thats what I said. The US government declared the Geneva Conventions 'obsolete', 'quaint', 'not applyable' and now violating them.

So now the US is torturing people all over the world and Bush believes that international law do not protect the people he calls 'enemy combatants' and 'president's detainees' from torture. You may not view it this way. But the US has lost alot of credibility.

I don't think its strange that the democrats made 'a huge fuss' about it considering we are taking about justifying torture.

I'd also like to clear up what I meant about not arguing motivation.  You think that Bush invaded Iraq for oil.  He's never said anything publicly to support this claim

Yes, Bush went to war and he never said why, which I find kind of strange for a democratic country. But Wolfowitz did. He said something that suggests oil was the motive. He also said WMD was a constructed justification.

"Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

"for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction."

[musik_man]

Daevren, did you even read my post?  He didn't call the Geneva conventions quaint.  He called a couple minor provisions quaint.  IF you want to argue that he's wrong on those counts, go ahead, but to completely distort what he said makes you look like someone who cares more about scoring a cheap shot on America than someone interested in the truth.  Here is the actual quote from Gonzales you refer to...

In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privileges, scrip (i.e., advances of monthly pay), athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments.

I don't see where he justifies torture.  Please point it out for me.  Do you consider asking a terrorist(one who doesn't actually qualify for the conventions protections) for more than his name rank and serial number(two of which he doesn't even have) torture?  Do you think it torture not to give terrorists uniforms to exercise in?

If you look at my posts below, I already explained why enemy combatants don't qualify for Geneva protections.  If you think I'm wrong, please debate the point.  Don't just say that the US is wrong, that doesn't help anyone.  You also haven't given any evidence that the US even tortures prisoners.  You just state these sort of claims as irrefutable facts that you don't need to prove.

Bush did give a reason for war.  He gave many.  Remember all those speeches where he gave reason after reason.  You may think that they're bad reasons, but he gave them.

BTW can you give me your source for that first Wolfowitz quote?

[Daevren]

I don't see where you made that point.

Do you mean 'unlawful combatants'? According to Geneva you can't just call someone an unlawful combatant. The US does. So the term 'unlawful combatant' is meaningless. According to Geneva the people in Guantanomo aren't 'unlawful combatants' and Geneva does apply to them. Gonzales may argue otherwise, and you may agree with him. But he is really going onto thin ice.

Do you deny people are tortured at Guantanamo? Do you even know what types of torture are being used? They aren't just asking people for more than a name and serial number.

The US claims that the people in Guantanamo have no access to US courts because it is officially Cuban territory. In 2004, the Supreme Court rejected this argument in the case Rasul v. Bush with the majority decision and ruled that prisoners in Guantanamo have access to American courts, citing the fact that the U.S. has exclusive control over Guantanamo Bay.

The people in Guantanamo aren't charged with anything. They are tortured and interrogated. Many of them are very probably totally innocent. They just may have some information the US government may like. Or they might be terrorists but there is no proof and they just hold the people there so they can't do anything in case they are.

Gonzales didn't just point out some 'quaint' passages to Bush. Gonzales argued that laws prohibiting torture do "not apply to the president's detention and interrogation of enemy combatants", and that the pain caused by interrogation must include "injury such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions — in order to constitute torture".  We don't have the memo's where Gonzales, or someone else, advises Bush to call these people 'unlawful combatants' so Geneva doesn't apply to them. Plus, even 'unlawful combatants' must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial". But they are tortured and are not put on trial before they are punished.

Just read the human rights reports on Guantanamo torture. We all saw the pictures from Iraq and Afghanistan where pictures leaked out. Plus the story from the Afghan people being tortured to death. And we know very little about the secret torture camps in Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Oezbekistan, Jemen and Jordan. Guantanamo is only the visible part of the torture prison networks.

Maybe the problem is that in the US even their own criminals are treated as pigs. Really, if these 'unlawful combatants' were treated as the average US prisoner this would already be unacceptable.

So we have the US president that got very controversial advice on torture, prisoners and the Geneva Conventions. And we have a network of prisons where people are tortured.

Even if Gonzales is right, or if the Geneva Conventions didn't exist this would still be a horrible crime.

Bush gave all kinds of reasons; WMDs. war on terrorism, 9/11, Al Quada, Ansar-al-Islam, democracy, Kurds, human rights, war crimes, Saddam Hussain, freedom, the list goes on.

But what is the official reason? What did the resolution passed by the US senate say?

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire

Not a reason to go to war if you ask me. Plus you could argue about the correctness of this

* Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"

Admittetly false. Actually this point is even absurd. Saying Iraq was a threat to the US is ridiculous.

* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
Supported by the US. The US even switched sides in 1991 when the Shiites started to rebel. They helped Hussain kill them off. Reason was that unstability in the Golf region was bad for the oil price and thus the international economy.

* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
False.

* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of George Bush Sr, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War

That was in 1993. Not in 2003. Not a reason to go to war.

* Iraq's connection to terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda
False. Actually, Saddam Hussain hated these people. He put them in jail for torture etc.

* Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
False.

So what is the reason for attacking Iraq? I don't know. It may be oil or it may be american imperialism. Or maybe someone else. I have no idea.

Wolfowitz said that at an Asian security summit in Singapore. Journalists from Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt were there to report it. The Guardian reported the story in the US but later removed it.

[musik_man]

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

This is text from the convention.  The people at Gitmo don't meet the requirements of B and C and are therefore not entitled to be treated as POWs.  I don't see how any confusion can arise here.  The convention is quite clear.  Don't just tell me I'm wrong.  Show me what part of the convention proves me wrong.

I deny that the US commits systematic torture, as I've yet to see compelling evidence that it does.  Show me the evidence and I may change my mind.  The pictures from Abu Graib do nothing more than to prove that some soldiers, in violation of American policy, abused(not tortured) detainees.  The ironic thing about Abu Graib is that it only became a news story because the US military was investigating it.  Why would we investigate and bring public acts of torture if it was official US policy.  Were that the case, we'd keep it secret.  If you wouldn't mind, I'd like some real evidence for your charges.  If you can't produce it, then stop slandering my country.(and I'd like links to your evidence so I can evaluate it)

Once again, I'd like to ask for sources on your quotes.  Stuff like links to the transcripts, so that I can evaluate the statements in their full context.(since as I showed with the Gonzales 'quaint' quote, the media often twists statements around to make them mean different things)

For your last bit.  You may think that they are bad reasons, but they still are reasons given by Bush, that contradict your claim that he gave no reasons for this war.

[Regulus Medtner]

We are talking about people being incarcerated for unspecified periods of time, under questionable methods of detention and  interrogation, accused with no specific charges whatsoever. I find it disturbing that some people fail to see this and babble about conventions and political agenda. Is tolerating this situation a sign of a civilized country?

The present US administration doesn't represent the US of A in its entirety, so accusing Mr. Bush for this or that doesn't mean that America itself is accused as a country. Those who skillfully blend the two notions seem to me as using a cheap political tool, which is disturbingly close to fascism (Mr.Bush is America? ). Many people just think that the USA are misguided at the present point and shoot their complaints at the present government. And that's that.

[pianonut]

i believe, after thinking about this for some time, that pres. bush is giving our enemies a little of their own medicine.  after all, they did not show us anything but senseless beheadings on tv.  now they are seeing their own people in jail.  it hasn't stopped them, and caused them to be concerned and try to get them out by stopping terrorism.  but, it may cause them to think about their own stupidity.  granted, not all iraqis are wanting the war, and not all that are caught are guilty.  this is a war.  war is not just always, but should be ended soon, imo.  it seems that there has been little gained because it is terrorism and it is crazy!  there is really no sense to either side anymore.  if people don't want help (some iraqis are very grateful for any help from us) then let them fight for their own freedom and stop killing us for helping their country become whatever they want it to be.

[TheHammer]

For further discussion on the issue of US foreign policy (or rather, Mr Bush's foreign policy, as Regulus Medtner put it), please see and post in this thread:

https://www.pianoforum.net/smf/index.php?topic=9758.0

It deals with the problem of Guantanamo detainees and can also be used for further discussion on the whole subject of US policies, Israel, bible prophecies, etc. At all, this is a thread dealing with the European Constitution. That is perhaps a bit pedantic, but I think it's no harm to transfer this discussion to the other thread...

[Daevren]

[edit]

I moved my reply to the other topic.

[TheHammer]

Okay, while we were having our little excursion to US foreign policy some things happened concerning the European Constitution. Blair has postponed the referendum, it's likely that it will never be held. Poland and Denmark are thinking about.
Blair is quite clever. He has seen how the Constitution has been misused as a mean to punish the government and therefore, after the Constitution is probably "dead" and to be spared of such punishment by the people, has denied the Britains to vote. What is a good thing.
Also developments in Poland prove my point a bit (about direct democracy). One month ago, 60% favoured the European Constitution. No wonder, Polands gets massive support, the economy is growing again, there is a huge market for its product. But the leftist government, just enduring a major crisis (corruption, splitting of the parties...), tried to use this success to change the opinion in the country towards them. They (of course) failed. Polls have not improved concerning the government. Instead now only 40% seem likely to vote for the EC. By German press it is called: the death kiss from the left. So seemingly, a good thing will not be approved by the referendum, just because it has been institutionalised by the governments opponents. You cannot bring the people to vote for or against the EC. They will always vote for or against current politics.

Anyway, EC seems quite dead to me, which is sad.... Next week is this conference, then we will see (I hope so, at least).

By the way, Musik_Man, do you have an opinion on this topic, actually? Would just interest me how you see Europe (no offense here).