The status quo is disaster

Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Overreaction or idiocy?

THE leader of France’s ruling party has privately admitted that Sunday’s referendum on the European constitution will result in a “no” vote, throwing Europe into turmoil.

“The thing is lost,” Nicolas Sarkozy told French ministers during an ill-tempered meeting. “It will be a little ‘no’ or a big ‘no’,” he was quoted as telling Jean-Pierre Raffarin, the Prime Minister, whom he accused of leading a feeble campaign.

Although Europe would be thrown into disarray, the Government would be greatly relieved if M Sarkozy were right.

Ministers have privately told The Times that Britain is prepared to ditch its commitment to a referendum if France, or the Netherlands next Wednesday, vote against the constitution. They believe that if the French say “no”, President Chirac will have to declare the constitution dead or promise a renegotiation.
Click to expand...

Times Online
 
PRESIDENT CHIRAC of France is preparing to throw Europe into confusion and put Britain on the spot by backing moves to keep the European constitution alive if it is rejected in Sunday’s referendum.
Click to expand...

Isn't that acting *gasp* unilaterally?

Times Online
 
Time for turmoil?

PARIS - In a stunning rejection of the European Union's latest ambitious move to unite its 25 nations, French voters shot down the bloc's first constitution, dealing a potentially fatal blow to the charter and humiliating President Jacques Chirac.

Sunday's referendum in France, a cradle of continental unity for more than half a century and the country where much of the constitution was painstakingly written, threatened to set back plans for broader European integration by years.

About 55 percent of voters opposed the treaty — the first rejection in Europe. France's repudiation came ahead of Wednesday's referendum in the Netherlands, where polls show even more resistance to the constitution, and had EU leaders scrambling to do damage control.

"The result raises profound questions for all of us about the future direction of Europe," British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said.

But the European Union's industry commissioner, Guenther Verheugen, said the vote was not a catastrophe and that the situation should not be over-dramatized. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, while conceding the outcome was a "serious problem," insisted: "We cannot say that the treaty is dead."

Chirac had waged an all-out campaign to persuade nearly 42 million sharply divided voters to approve the charter. But the electorate was in a rebellious mood, with unemployment running at 10 percent and unease about the direction Europe is taking.

Turnout was close to 70 percent — testifying to the passions that the treaty and the debate surrounding it aroused.

Chirac argued that the constitution would streamline EU decision-making and make the bloc more accessible to its 450 million citizens. But opponents feared it would strip France of its sovereignty and generous social system and trigger an influx of cheap labor.

They feared the treaty would open the EU to unfettered free-market capitalism, trampling on workers rights.
Click to expand...

The communists win.

I'm surprised at how little press this story is getting.
 
Gonz said:
The communists win.
Click to expand...

:lol2:

Seriously, way too much self-righteous nationalistic fervor for something like this to work (the French getting along with everyone else?). Similar to what's going on in this country today, everybody want so to be a little more "equal" than anyone else.
 
One of the first problems is that *guffaw* it's not a constitution it just ties together all the previous treaties. Calling it a constitution just made everyone nervous about a federalist superstate run by unknown bureacrats (sp?).

Different sides see the constitution in different ways, the French see it as Liberal Anglo - saxon and to free market. We see it as gallic socialist protectionism at its worst.

The constitution will be passed in the most undemocratic way. I like the idea of Europe, but just not with such a French "lets ignore globalisation" way.
 
Lopan said:
Calling it a constitution just made everyone nervous about a federalist superstate run by unknown bureacrats (sp?).
Click to expand...

It's pretty easy to make a case that western civilization (oxymoron?) is completely run by unknown bureaucrats. :shrug:

Oh, and I further believe that for us to ultimately survive as a species, globalization must ultimately occur one way or another. This EU charter has little to do with globalization and much to do with trying to put Europe on a more equal trade footing with the US though.
 
Winky said:
The only hope fer hoomanity is the abolition
of the third werld.
Click to expand...

Actually, the third world seems to have an important part to play. Next time you have to call for support on and electronic device, ask the person your speaking to where they are.
 
I never call those people in South Africa (AOL)
nor any other silly-assed phone support.
My Guess is Americans could code our software
just as well as the Indians.
No the third werld is merely a drag on the planet
an infestation if you will.
 
Winky said:
My Guess is Americans could code our software
just as well as the Indians.
Click to expand...

Sure they could, just not for forty cents an hour. :lol2:
Now think about it. Will the US become more like the third world or will the third world become more like the US?
 
Depends on your perspective, don't it?

Being an optimist,
I'd say the primitives in the third world will drift up towards the standard of the first werld.

But there sure are vast parts of our cities that have fallen
to second world levels.

A shrinking middle class in the US is not a good thing.
 
RUSH: I'll tell you what, folks. one of the things that gets really frustrating is when I hear anybody -- I don't care what party they're from or ideology they're from -- say, "I am concerned about America's image in the world." Well, can I tell you something? I'm not concerned about our image in the world. I'm going to raise my hand. "I am not concerned about our image in the world, because right now, we got priorities that supersede our image and one of them is national security and the protection of the future of the country." That doesn't mean I'm not interested in our image around the world, but I think I know what it already is. Our image around the world is pretty damned good. Our image around the world is one that's great; you're just listening to the wrong people. You can take a look at our image around the world by checking how many people are storming our borders. You can check our image around the world by asking and looking at how many people are demanding or begging of us that we help. We know damn well what our image is around the world! We are the envy of the world, and we are the envy of the world because of our prosperity. I got into a discussion the other day with somebody about Africa.

"Well, we need to send money to Africa," they said. "We need to help Africa. We need to show people we really care."

I said, "Do you know how much money we've been sending to Africa and the rest of the world for all of our years? You know, the problem is not that we don't send enough money." The problem is the people over there don't have any freedom! "Have you ever sat and wondered," I asked this person, "Why after only 225 years we running rings around civilizations that have been here thousands? I don't care where you look. We got better airplanes, better toilets, better phone systems. We have better everything. Why? We're only 225 years old. They're thousands of years old. Why is this the case? Why do we have more money than anybody else? Because we have freedom and they don't and that's what they need!"
 
Well Rush if I can just quote you there.
"Why after only 225 years we running rings around civilizations that have been here thousands? I don't care where you look. We got better airplanes, better toilets, better phone systems. We have better everything. Why? We're only 225 years old. They're thousands of years old. Why is this the case? Why do we have more money than anybody else? Because we have freedom and they don't and that's what they need!"
Click to expand...

Maybe all the hard work had been done before. Writing being developed in Sumaria, democratic governance in Greece, toilets in Rome. 10 points to naming the guy who invented telephones and 20 points for who invented modern sewerage systems.

Getting a head start isn't proof of a superior society. If America had been around as long as all the European, African or Asian societies and had developed at the same speed would it be in decline or Growth? I'm just thinking about levels of natural resources, population growth, epidemics, wars on your own soil and all the other factors that can determine a countries economic situation.

China is an interesting case. 1000 + years ago it was a major empire then it went into decline and now its coming back. Yet freedom has never played a large part in its society, afterall the wall was built to keep people in not out.
 
Lopan said:
Getting a head start isn't proof of a superior society.
Click to expand...

Head start? In the 1650s, we had a country full of forests & plains, grasslands & marshes, mountains & valleys. The rest of the planet had civilization. We started at zero. Those who created writing & sewage systems & democracy & Reopublics did so & then stopped advancing. They did those things 1,2,5, 10 thousand years ago...not 200.

Ultimately, what so many (including most here) miss is what makes the USA the greatest...freedom. We're not necessaritly smarter or better, per se. Notice how all those immigrants come here to invent good stuff. Why didn't they do it at "home"? Lack of freedom. Today, we (all of us, including the US) think that we need government to do stuff (embryonic research) when private indusrtry & freedom allows so much more...faster, better & cheaper, Space Ship One
 
Yeah if we'd been 'round half as long as them other societies we'd a advanced the hooman race a zillion light years by now. Just you wait, Between the Neo-cons and Paris Hilton we will soon rule the werld, Buhahaha!
 
Gonz said:
Head start? In the 1650s, we had a country full of forests & plains, grasslands & marshes, mountains & valleys. The rest of the planet had civilization. We started at zero. Those who created writing & sewage systems & democracy & Reopublics did so & then stopped advancing. They did those things 1,2,5, 10 thousand years ago...not 200.

Ultimately, what so many (including most here) miss is what makes the USA the greatest...freedom. We're not necessaritly smarter or better, per se. Notice how all those immigrants come here to invent good stuff. Why didn't they do it at "home"? Lack of freedom. Today, we (all of us, including the US) think that we need government to do stuff (embryonic research) when private indusrtry & freedom allows so much more...faster, better & cheaper, Space Ship One
Click to expand...

The point is, the mechanisms to build a society were already in place. Americans or British, French, Dutch etc as you were back then already had the know how to make a society. Starting at zero would be inventing democracy or housebuilding. America was more flatpack than built from scratch.

America isn't the same fantastic place we all wanted to move to a few years ago. It looks and sounds very different.
 
Lopan said:
America isn't the same fantastic place we all wanted to move to a few years ago. It looks and sounds very different.
Click to expand...

I don't think it ever really was that place, but we used to have better PR. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top