Here Today... Gone To Hell!

France said "No" to the European Constitution, Netherlands is likely to "say" No also tomorow. As a consequence, England will probably reject it also.
Today, Jacques Chirac decided to fire the prime minister and to change the governement. It's a pretty big "bordel" (= desorder) in France right now (I mean in a political way). What do you think? How does your country judge the French "No"? and more generally, do you think Europe is living a political crisis? How do you see the future in Europe?
I'd like to have Europeans point of vue and foreign (Americans for exemple)? point of vues. Where is Europe going?

The French no is great although I would like a chance to be able to say no aswell.

Although knowing the EU they will tinker with the wording and bring it back with more money behind it and eventually get it through. Ah the good old EU, so democratic and fair.

U know, The UK pays 2 n 1/2 times as much as France into the EU and it will soon be 17 times as much if the EU scraps the (cant remember what its fuckin called, o well)

yet another person who cannot tell the difference between england and britain...your european history/geography lecturers dont teach very well do they...

Europe's politicians can stick their straight bananas up their arses...

as soon as the no vote occurred, then they elect a new prime minister...another person to try and convince voters that integration a good idea when it is clearly not going to work...politicians will try to get what they want and not what the voters want...a new prime minister will do little to convince the public to vote otherwise...

ahhh come on England or Britain is barely the same for me. I think people understood. I spoke about the country of Tony Blair. :P

In Germany, the majority of the people are against the EU constitution too, but they are not allowed to vote for or against it like the french. The german people were not asked, not even informed.

A lot of germans support the french in voting against the EU constitution, but they can't do much cause their own politics are fucked up. In October, Germany will have early elections. Cancellor Schroeder won't resign, but since his party lost all power in the country, he had to call for early elections.

But it will not change much. The new cancellor will be Angela Merkel who unlike Schroeder is not best friends with russian and chinese commies. Her party is also against Turkey in the EU and leans more towards good relationships with the USA and Israel. So expect Germany to convince France to support the next war - on Iran.

That's where Europe goes - wherever the "politicians" want it to go. Votes are shows held in our so called democracy so people think they are in charge and shut up. But it's the banks (Rothchild etc.) that are in charge of politics. Business as usual...

In my opinion, Europe should reconciliate with America and things will be better. Europe and America will be stronger. It's a bad sign when Europe and USA are divided. Europe is way to weak for the moment to exist "alone". It's an illusion. It's too soon. Europe needs good relashionship with America, and vice versa, because Europeans will never agree all together (25 or 27 countries? WTF? how could so much countries agree on everything? It's impossible!) and America needs its European aliee.
The only obsession for Mr Chirac was to "fight" against USA...but he forgot? his own citizens. He should have used his energy to resolve intern French problems instead of using his energy to "fight" against America over these last years, wich was an useless thing. More generally, Europe should stop thinking of "fighting" the USA and had better make effort for its own European citizens. Go back to the citizens. That's the message of the last week-end in France.

Personally, I think that the Europeans should just keep to their own busininess and the hell with the americans. Reason bieng, simplt put, It's mostly America's fault that the world is screwed up. With a country bombing innocent countries, potentailly approving gay marrige, abortion, and stem cell research, its best to avoid them. Not to mention the racial tension around them and all the corruption. Europe should stay clear of America because of the fact it is in termoil. In a country where the white rich men live in paradice and the poor black man live the the ghettos, its best to avoid the spreading of its propaganda and corruption.

Simply put, you are an idiot if you believe that.? Now that is a scary if you actually believe that.? It is also sad that your mind could be so warped.? You really think that America is the cause for the parts of the world that are screwed up?? That is such an ignorant statement.? The sad thing is you arent the only person that feels this way in Europe and around the world.? That is specifically why we are distancing ourselves from the UN and other world bodies.? Many ask why we dont sign on to the criminal court?? Well, because there are many people like this guy that believe we are the evil of the world.?

We either do too much, or we dont do enough.? We cant win.? Basically most countries just want to utilize our resources how they see fit.?

Look at nightrain, throwin' out the insults early.

You sure don't like opinions different than yours do you?

Your answer to everything is that everybody hates America for no reason, and that is why we have to not abide by the world court, and commit war crimes around the world.

America is the ONLY COUNTRY in the world found guilty of terrorism in world court. We ignored that. Just like you ignore all the other shit we have done over the years.

Although I don't agree with N.I.B., I don't think it's fair to call him an idiot. He's only 14 years old. However, his sentiment isn't uncommon. It's safe to say that America is pretty much hated by most countries. But this topic isn't about America. Let's leave the big A out for once.

Nightrain told a 14 yr old off?  :hihi:

Good one!  : ok:

******

Guess you'd say this story is just because Europe blindly hates America.


France's top anti-terrorism judge, Jean-Louis Bruguiere, has warned that al-Qaeda is now more fragmented and a bigger threat than before.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that al-Qaeda had attracted younger recruits radicalised by the Iraq war.

"We have a multiplication of all the cells, groups and connections," he said, warning that "unknown elements" were being recruited very quickly.

Judge Bruguiere stressed the importance of identity cards to prevent terrorism.

He also said the courts should be allowed to consider evidence gathered by wire-tapping - as in France, but unlike the UK, where it is inadmissible.

On the al-Qaeda threat, he said "the difficulty that we have is especially with the problem of Iraq... the situation is more confused, more complicated than before".

He said compulsory ID cards had proved "very important" in his country's effort to thwart attacks.

"We have a lot of legal means you (the UK) don't have and these legal means allow us to control and possibly prevent terrorist activities.

"You have the capacity right now, despite the fact there are tough immigration controls, to go from France or continental Europe to the UK with false papers.

"And if you don't have this possibility, to have a database, to know exactly and to control individuals which would be suspected to use false papers in terrorist activities, you miss things."

In the 1990s, Mr Bruguiere focused on the activities of Arab veterans of the 1980s war against Soviet troops in Afghanistan, especially Algerian militants who carried out several attacks in France.

He became an expert on the various cells of Islamist militants operating around the world, many of them loosely linked to Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda organisation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4595313.stm

So you are saying that what he said is not an idiotic statement? ?There are certain things that are just opinions and there are certain things that have no ground in the facts and are based on hatred and bias. ?His statement was one of them. ?I consider it no different than making a racist statement that blacks are the reason for poverty in America. ?It would be an idiotic statement. ?I dont care if he is 14. ?If he wants to discuss on this board and throw his opinion out there, then he should be willing to accept criticisms.

And dont worry, I acknowledged that his criticism is not uncommon. ?That is the sad thing. ?Again I emphasize, this is the reason that the US is distancing itself from world organizations and Europe. ?If people truly believe this over there, then we have a complete different view of history and a completely different view of morality and what is right. ?If that is the case, then we shouldnt devote our resources to an organization that doesnt share our views on morality and what is right.

Sorry, I didnt know he was 14.  Jarmo doesnt exactly put our ages under our names.  I would think if you are willing to put your opinion out there then you could take the heat.  Anyway, glad to see that you would try to persuade him that he is wrong.  Of course, something tells me that you concur in his view.

Certainly, this was a possiblity of the war, and a troubling thing if it is true.  Certainly stories such as Isikoff and the many SLC Punks in the US that claim that the war was for oil and revenge dont help the view of America overseas.  As long as they believe that our motives are as you say, recruitment will skyrocket.  That is why it is essential that the press has actual scredible ources for their stories.

SLC Punks in the US that claim that the war was for oil and revenge dont help the view of America overseas.

I never said revenge.

 Gee wonder why they didn't invade any dictators in Africa? Maybe because they weren't sitting on a fuckin' ton of oil?!?

That is why it is essential that the press has actual scredible ources for their stories.

Like Fox and the intelligence that Bush used to go to war.

Oh....wait a minute......

So you are saying that what he said is not an idiotic statement?  There are certain things that are just opinions and there are certain things that have no ground in the facts and are based on hatred and bias.

Countered ONLY by your bias.

If people truly believe this over there, then we have a complete different view of history....

Yea people actually believe that we were founded on Christianity now.


and a completely different view of morality and what is right.

Yea abortion is bad, but blowing up kids (especially brown ones) is ok.

  If that is the case, then we shouldnt devote our resources to an organization that doesnt share our views on morality and what is right.

And distance ourselves from people who call us on our bullshit.

I think it was a misinformed statement/opinion.

It's great that you're passionate about your country, but a line has to be drawn between pride and self-righteousness. ?I love my country too, but I know that other people don't. And that's probably, because they've never lived in it. So, negative comments should be taken with a grain of salt.

Ill let this post stand on its own.  Ill let people figure out the flaws in the substance of your post.  Ive pointed them out so many times I think people on the board are beginning to see them for themselves.

Ill just ask one thing, you do realize that you we have used more oil in the war in Iraq than Iraq has pumped out of its wells since the war began?

fair enough.  While I have pride, this isnt just based on pride.  Making the statement that he made about any country is misinformed.

but doesnt that mean Europe needs an organization like the EU to become stronger?  Why did the French people vote against it?  Is it more economical reasons or that you dont like the political leaders of the EU? 

My other question is what does good relationships with the US have to do with the existence of an EU?  Cant you have both?  ???


well, 50 states dont always agree on everything either!

You know, Holland pays the most of the entire EU per head of it's population....and it will only become more...
Did you also know that the english receive the most compared to what they pay/burden they carry...i mean they still don't have the Euro as their currency, so they don't carry the burden of all the other EU countries yet they intend to cry the hardest about this EU.

Oh yeah...THAT"s way better! Sure Turkey shouldn't enter the EU (since most of it's land isn't in the EU), but to tighten the relationships with USA and Isreal...get real...we are going to be (atleast i hope that the politicians have enough backbone to) our own union, the only thing we can "use" from the USA and Israel is to use them of an example of how NOT to do things! And Germany convincing France to do certain thnings...wow that will be the day...

You can't ignore other countries, especially not the USA...they've been thorugh this too a long time ago...so we can learn from their huge mistakes. unfortunatly the politicians don't see that yet/don't do that yet...

Great excuse...and i know with diffrent situations you can make some more up...

Yeah as the Americans are known for their changing of history...usually in their favor...

Apperantly not ::) ..that's what the dutch politicians state also: we need this EU to be able to work together on crime/terrorisme....like we are not doing that now...
Sure I'm pro EU but not with this constitution, and yes i believe the EU will be a good thing for this world as long as they stick to their (known) goals.




Anyway...it's my time to vote today, and ofcourse i will vote against it...not that it matters alot since our government already stated that this referendum will not be binding...but atleast they know what the ppl want...although that doesn't make a diffrence either since the ppl didn't want this government either...and yet they sove it down our throaths..

Reasons why I'm against it...it's not a complete constitution, so if we say yes to this then we say yes to everything else they want to add. Second Holland will loose it's "power" on decisions made, so we will be a handpuppet (with our current primeminister we already are...but he isn't here to stay and this constitution is) and also there are not sufficiant rules about animalrights, sure there are some great rules but still this is something that should be more complete when you're making a constitution in the 21st century! Also living in a country like Holland (where we do things most other countries reject like abortion, gay marriages, permitting the use of softdrugs etc) things might change and not for the better. Since none of the politicians could make me believe otherwise and that things like these will not be effected by the EU constitution i vote against it. Let them come up with a constitution that is fit for the 21st century and i will give my support.

It's great that you're passionate about your country, but a line has to be drawn between pride and self-righteousness.

This may be one of the best statements I have ever read on this board in any political thread. Brilliant!

Ill just ask one thing, you do realize that you we have used more oil in the war in Iraq than Iraq has pumped out of its wells since the war began?

Says whom?

Anyway, all that does is prove our complete dependency on oil.

Yea, it wasn't about oil at all...........

Taken from the Toronto Star:

Not only does Iraq have vast quantities of easily accessible oil, but its oil is almost untouched. "Think of Iraq as virgin territory .... This is bigger than anything Exxon is involved in currently .... It is the superstar of the future," says Gheit, "That's why Iraq becomes the most sought-after real estate on the face of the earth." Gheit just smiles at the notion that oil wasn't a factor in the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He compares Iraq to Russia, which also has large undeveloped oil reserves. But Russia has nuclear weapons. "We can't just go over and ... occupy (Russian) oil fields," says Gheit. "It's a different ballgame." Iraq, however, was defenceless, utterly lacking, ironically, in weapons of mass destruction. And its location, nestled in between Saudi Arabia and Iran, made it an ideal place for an ongoing military presence, from which the U.S. would be able to control the entire Gulf region. Gheit smiles again: "Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath .... You can't ask for better than that."

There's something almost obscene about a map that was studied by senior Bush administration officials and a select group of oil company executives meeting in secret in the spring of 2001. It doesn't show the kind of detail normally shown on maps cities, towns, regions. Rather its detail is all about Iraq's oil. The southwest is neatly divided, for instance, into nine "Exploration Blocks." Stripped of political trappings, this map shows a naked Iraq, with only its ample natural assets in view. It's like a supermarket meat chart, which identifies the various parts of a slab of beef so customers can see the most desirable cuts .... Block 1 might be the striploin, Block 2 and Block 3 are perhaps some juicy tenderloin, but Block 8 ? ahh, that could be the filet mignon.

The map might seem crass, but it was never meant for public consumption. It was one of the documents studied by the ultra-secretive task force on energy, headed by U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney, and it was only released under court order after a long legal battle waged by the public interest group Judicial Watch. Another interesting task force document, also released under court order over the opposition of the Bush administration, was a two-page chart titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfields." It identifies 63 oil companies from 30 countries and specifies which Iraqi oil fields each company is interested in and the status of the company's negotiations with Saddam Hussein's regime. Among the companies are Royal Dutch/Shell of the Netherlands, Russia's Lukoil and France's Total Elf Aquitaine, which was identified as being interested in the fabulous, 25-billion-barrrel Majnoon oil field. Baghdad had "agreed in principle" to the French company's plans to develop this succulent slab of Iraq. There goes the filet mignon into the mouths of the French!

The documents have attracted surprisingly little attention, despite their possible relevance to the question of Washington's motives for its invasion of Iraq. In many ways the defining event of the post-9/11 world but one whose purpose remains shrouded in mystery. Even after the supposed motives for the invasion weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Qaeda have been thoroughly discredited, talk of oil as a motive is still greeted with derision. Certainly any suggestion that private oil interests were in any way involved is hooted down with charges of conspiracy theory. Yet the documents suggest that those who took part in the Cheney task force including senior oil company executives were very interested in Iraq's oil and specifically in the danger of it falling into the hands of eager foreign oil companies, rather than into the rightful hands of eager U.S. oil companies.

As the documents show, prior to the U.S. invasion, foreign oil companies were nicely positioned for future involvement in Iraq, while the major U.S. oil companies, after years of U.S.-Iraqi hostilities, were largely out of the picture. Indeed, the U.S. majors would have been the big losers if U.N. sanctions against Iraq had simply been lifted. "The U.S. majors stand to lose if Saddam makes a deal with the U.N. (on lifting sanctions)," noted a report by Germany's Deutsche Bank in October 2002. The disadvantaged position of U.S. oil companies in Saddam Hussein's Iraq would have presumably been on the minds of senior oil company executives when they met secretly with Cheney and his task force in early 2001. The administration refuses to divulge exactly who met with the task force, and continues to fight legal challenges to force disclosure. However a 2003 report by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, concluded that the task force relied on advice from the oil industry, whose close ties to the Bush administration are legendary. (George W. Bush received more money from the oil and gas industry in 1999 and 2000 than any other U.S. federal candidate received over the previous decade.) ............................


(cut)

As CEO of oil services giant Halliburton Company, Cheney had been alert to the problem of securing new sources of oil. Speaking to the London Petroleum Institute in 1999, while still heading Halliburton, Cheney had focused on the difficulty of finding the 50 million extra barrels of oil per day that he said the world would need by 2010. "Where is it going to come from?" he asked, and then noted that "the Middle East with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies." Cheney's focus on the Middle East and its oil continued after he became Bush's powerful vice-president. Within weeks of the new administration taking office, Cheney was pushing forward plans for regime change in Iraq and also devising a new energy policy which included getting control of oil reserves in rogue states. His central role in these two apparently urgent initiatives is certainly suggestive of a possible connection between the U.S. invasion of Iraq and a desire for the country's ample oil reserves ? The very thing that is vehemently denied.................




The entire article can be found here:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2004/0920crude.htm

I'll try to answer the best I can ! That's a pretty compliated topic. I'm pro-european. And I voted NO on sunday. I can try to explain why I did. For eight months politicians kept telling us we were to vote for an European Constitution ... That's great I'm totally for a constitution. But when I tried to read the piece it wasn't a constitution at all ... It's a whole book :

Part I The Constitution's fundamental provisions
Part II Charter of Fundamental Rights
Part III The Union's policies
The final clauses
Protocols and Annexes I and II
Declarations

http://www.unizar.es/euroconstitucion/Treaties/Treaty_Const.htm

I was ok for I & II when I began reading III it only deals with economic regulations ... I was for a constitution not for yet another economic treaty !  :P

To answer your second question : good relations w/ the US have nothing to do w/ the EU. Well as long as the 25 countries that compose the EU now have a similar views on what the USA are doing at the worl level. And as you know since the beginning of the Iraq war EU foreign policy is inexistant.

And to end my post you cannot compare the 50 american states to the 25 countries that compose the EU. The USA are a federal state. The EU isn't. The EU is composed of 25 nations !

There are three reasons that I dont think we went to war in Iraq for the oil, (now Bush could have a hidden agenda, i dont know) but for one Bush is somewhat evil but I dont think he would cost the lives of innocent americans just to gain some oil, secondly Bush alone cannot declare war, congress has to vote as well and Im pretty sure democrats and republicans all were for it and thought it was a good idea at the time.

3rd and my biggest reason is, I dont think the U.N. would allow us to control that oil anyway. Other countries would have a huge objection to us invading Iraq and controlling their oil, I think the Iraqi people will get to control it and they will have a great export and will become a thriving country in a couple of decades.

I mean who ever thought Japan would be a world leader in exports?

Bush couldve had alterior motives, maybe he was trying to get back at Saddam and that was personal but I just dont see any possible way that we could take control of their oil even if we wanted too.

Actually I apologize to SLC, I misquoted him.? Here is his standard, written in response to the Newseek story:

In other words, he will believe anything that is printed until it is proven false.? An odd approach for such an independent thinker.  But it actually explains a lot.

I will actually vote for these statements as two of the best I have read in the political threads.? Glad to see that you figured out the argument in the Newseek thread.

Very true. that was my though too.

...thats the way the courts work...though only in civilised countries...

i doubt slc believes everything he reads as what he has posted here is only a miniscule amount of the information and sources available...and i doubt that you analyse every piece of information you post here either...the truth is, neither of you know the truth on most points


uhhh no its far from being the same...from my perspective its like calling Scandanavia Sweden or Guns N Roses = Axl Rose...and besides, even Wales is just as big as Belgium and Scotland is twice the size of Austria...im sure you know Austria and Belgium well enough hmmm

alright IQ I'm not a specialist of britain, england or wales. I was taugh that when I was 12 in English class but I forgot it. I remember the teacher brang a map and explained us all the differencies.

Journeys right, im 14. I dont feel unconfertable on this board.


I can take criticism, dont worry.


Not so much misinformed, but more like what i see myself
____________________________________________________________________________


I say that it's Americas fault because they have the power to puch other countries around without any apparant reason. I respect and understand that you are American, but heres my side: i live in Canada true, but im from Croatia, where we have suffered opression from the Serbs for a very long time. So when i see countries bombed like Iraq and Afganistan because they dont like one person, i cant help feel sorry for them. Afganistan, why? I know what Bin Laden did, but do you really have to kill innocentsto find him? And Iraq. Those weapons of mass destruction still wern't found, they just wanted an oil cut. Do you really want to see why i dont like how corrupt America's government is? Watch "Bowling for Columbine". Close to the beggining, there is a timeline of America's tretury and killing of innocence from the 1940's to 9/11. I appologize for offending any Americans on this board, but honestly, I call 'em as I see 'em. May not be right, but thats what I see.


P.S Who gives a fuck if im 14. Say what you want about me, i dont care  :P

The fact that Michael Moore is continuously the source of choice for those that hate America overseas is troubling.  Perhaps you should do some fact checking on the Moore's propoganda films instead of taking them as the truth.  Im sure you will find that not everything that you have been led to believe is the truth.

Certainly, and SLC is about as consistent using this standard as the Juries that apply it everyday at the court house.

Or what he writes hopefully :hihi:  He does seem to be a bit selective in what he believes if you ask me.  Oddly, it all seems to be the stuff that implicates the Bush Administration and the United States.

I absolutely agree.  The difference is this: I dont sit here and say that I apply a reasonable doubt standard (noting SLC's response to his lack of condemnation of the Newseek story) and then apply it only in situations that I choose. 

Tell me where I shown an inconsistency as apparent as SLC showed in the Newseek thread.

Mickeal Moore is not a credible person in my opinion.

im not going to debate what slc thinks, thats for him to say and not me...but from my perspective you are both biased...you believe something and you find information to ratify your own position, ive seen both of you do it, ive did it too...to say that you have a more balanced viewpoint is absurd from what ive heard you say in the past...thats why i dont take part in these discussions anymore...its pointless, noone convinces anyone of anything and nobody listens or takes in the viewpoints of others...its not a democratic debate, its a heavyweight bout where opinions dont matter to anyone...and personal attacks render the debate even more pointless...just my opinion

That's a mouthful right there, my man, but heavyweight?

What does USA in Iraq and Michael Moore have to do with the problems in the EU?

 ???



/jarmo

How is the job search going?

Not sure, no matter what the topic is someone always decides to bring up the evil US.

sorry. thats all my fault that i brought up why the EU should avoid america. Sorry.

You've picked a good time, I've been in a fairly good mood lately, being nice to people... :)

EDIT - One little mistake. Corrected... :yes:

...yea as in slugging it out...how about fat-assed-heavyweight instead? which kind of gets back to the EU doesnt it hahaha

I would have went with uncouth. Heavyweight tends to put one in mind of someone who's good at what they do rather than someone who's...ah...not... :-\

It's so easy to criticize as an observer outside of the discussion. 

Maybe you should spend more time filling out job applications and less time trying to be funny.  Or maybe you should go back to school, it sure helped me find better employment.

Isn't it?


We're not of the same ilk; you know, different kinds of people? And as a consequence, my pedantic friend, we house our genitalia in different places. So you're a little off the mark here with your rather anemic kick in the proverbial nuts.

In the future, when attempting to appeal to my sense of manhood, try to bear in mind that I might measure a man differently than you do.

What else ya got?

youre right, uncouth seems much more appropriate

How?? By sitting in the stands and criticizing the players that are playing the game?? Very manly.? All you do is just sit back and take jabs at people here and there.? I have never said anything to you.? Why do you have to be such an ass in the first place?? Instead of attacking the substance of one our posts, you simply take shots here and there.? Very manly.? I guess we do measure a man differently.

Of course this is the response that I thought you would give.  Usually when people have not achieved their goals in life they claim it was because of their choosing.  This is especially true for someone as self-righteous as you.

Thank you Nightfall.  I like your style  :yes:   You guys have a unique oppurtunity to create a truly modern constitution.

Since American viewpoints were requested in this thread, I'm gonna give one from the New York Times. However, it is rather critical of Europeans...it claims that the European public is fearful of change, losing its generous 'cradle to the grave' government social support & benefits, and desires to hold on to the past.   :-X

---

2 'No' Votes in Europe: The Anger Spreads
By RICHARD BERNSTEIN
June 2, 2005


BERLIN, June 1 - Some are calling it a divorce; others, a disenchantment. Whatever you call it, the French "non" on Sunday and the Dutch "nee" on Wednesday have clearly left the European Union's proposed constitution a dead letter for now, frustrating the efforts of Europe's leaders to move to the next stage of integration.

The impasse could stall efforts to develop common foreign policies and push the euro, a potent symbol of unification, into a downward spiral.

But there is something at stake here far broader than the constitution itself, which the Dutch rejected emphatically on Wednesday, 61.6 percent to 38.4 percent, according to unofficial results.

There is a disaffection, perhaps even a rebellion, against the political elites in France, Germany and Italy.

The governing parties of the left and the right are saying the same things to their people: that painful, free-market economic reforms are the only path toward rejuvenation, more jobs, better futures. And the people, who have come to equate the idea of an expanded Europe with a challenge to cradle-to-grave social protections, are giving the same answer: We don't believe you.

A French lawyer and commentator, Nicolas Baverez, who once wrote a book titled "The Fall of France," called the French vote "an insurrection, a democratic intifada," that reflected the "despair and fears of the French in front of the decline of their country and the inability of their leaders to cope with the crisis."

The repercussions of this uprising will be felt widely.

"I think there's a revolt against the establishment that leaves governments from Great Britain to France to Germany to Italy singularly weak," said Charles Kupchan, an associate professor of international relations at Georgetown University and a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, "and that spells trouble for Europe and it spells trouble for an America that will be looking to Europe for help on many different fronts."

The public disaffection is different in each country, and more than economic matters are involved. Europeans are worried, among other things, that the rapid enlargement of the European Union, especially the prospect of Turkey's membership, will leave them more vulnerable to uncontrolled immigration, especially by Muslims. There is a sense, palpable in the Netherlands, that the whole European enterprise is controlled by unresponsive, unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels who have it in their power to rob countries of their national identities.

But in France, Germany and Italy, already beset by high unemployment, the worry that free-market reforms will only make matters worse predominates. A week before the French rejected the constitution, Germany's chancellor, Gerhard Schr?der, called early elections, after local defeats had left him essentially without the authority to govern. Italy's prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, has promised reforms but failed to deliver them, out of concern for mass discontent.

The paradox here is that if the political elites and most economists are right in saying that free-market reforms and more competition are essential for these nations to match their economic competition, then the "democratic intifada" could rob the faltering core of Europe of the very means it needs to rejuvenate itself.

"Old Europe lacks confidence and is therefore defensive, trying to freeze things rather than look forward, feeling that any change is bad," Mark Leonard, a specialist on European Union affairs at the Center for European Reform, said in a telephone interview. "It's a toxic brew of failure to build support for reform, terrible economic circumstances and elites that are tarnished and shop-soiled."

It would make things a bit too simple to depict public distrust of politicians in Europe these days as purely resistance to economic reform. Indeed, in Germany most people seem to accept the idea of reform, at least theoretically. The nub is that Germans are more strongly attached to a countervailing idea - that even as a country enacts reforms, it has a responsibility to protect people against their effects.

"We do need more liberalism," said Janis M. Emmanouilidis of the Center for Applied Policy Research in Munich. He was speaking of economic liberalism in the European sense, meaning greater reliance on free markets, reduced benefits and less government protection for the work force.

"The problem is that you don't have that kind of tradition in France or Germany," he continued. "The intellectual elites in Germany argue in favor of economic liberalism in a couple of newspapers, like Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and S?ddeutsche Zeitung. But the rest of the elite looks at this from the standpoint of solidarity, of how you uphold solidarity in the face of reform."

This explains what might seem a paradox in the German situation: namely that in repudiating Mr. Schr?der because they do not like his reform program, the Germans are turning to the conservatives' candidate for chancellor, Angela Merkel, who is likely to enact even tougher reforms than Mr. Schr?der did. Of course, it does not help that unemployment keeps rising, to 12 percent now, just as Mr. Schr?der's reforms have started to take a real bite out of the public welfare.

In the view of many analysts, Mrs. Merkel will have a grace period in which to enact her program, during which Germany will have a real chance to lift itself out of its stagnation. The risk is that if the conservatives' reforms do not show results fairly quickly, the political pendulum will swing against her just as it has swung against Mr. Schr?der.

In France, too, those who favor liberal reforms say there is one figure who may have the convictions and the political skill to carry them out: Nicolas Sarkozy, who is expected to be reappointed interior minister and is a likely candidate for president in the next elections, in 2007.

But Mr. Chirac himself seems to have reacted to the crushing defeat he suffered on Sunday by reaffirming his attachment to what he called the "French model," which seemed a coded way of putting tough reforms on the back burner, as he has done at similar moments in the past.

"There is a gap between what reality demands and what the French people want," said the political philosopher Pierre Hassner. "The elites weren't courageous enough to explain things."

In this sense a great part of the problem, many here say, is that French leaders themselves seem to be uncertain about the need for reform, or at least are inconsistent. "Chirac is a victim of his own contradictions," said Guy Sorman, a French commentator and a rare proponent of free-market liberalism in France. "He said, 'I am for Europe but against liberalism,' but this is completely absurd because people understand that Europe is a liberal construction."

---

who is this Sarkozy guy?

I could fart and blow all that right out the window... ::)

But tell you what...

... :D...

...I'll let you decide whether or not I should deconstruct your fallacies and shit 'em back to ya.

So, what's it gonna be?

Please enlighten me. ::)

It's settled then. But not tonight, Professor. Even unemployed losers like myself need their rest.

See ya tamarra... :-*

He's at the head of the UMP the largest right wing party. He's a liberal but he never really says he is because even in his own party they are a minority. He's also somewhat of a populist, as minister of the interior he used to move all over the place but with no real results ... Well I really don't like him very much ... it's the kind of guy you love or you hate  :P (Chirac does hate him a lot even if they're on the same team - Sarkozy kinda betrayed Chirac in 1995 when he chose to support Balladur for the Presidency - One of the few times he bet on the wrong horse ;) ).
(http://puteaux.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/sarkozy1.jpg)

yes. personaly I love him. For non-french people, you have to know Sarkozy has been the most popular french politician (by far) for a couple of years. He is a very charismatic guy. Very energetic also...and very competent. Pretty young. He doesn't live in the past like 90% of the others. He is also close to America, he has definitely a different point of vue that Mr Chirac ...wich could just be a good thing. :yes:
Jacques Chirac is not good enough for an as important country as France. We need a more competent guy, in my opinion, Sarkhozy is the best.

Take whatever time you need.

Take it to fucking PMs ladies. It's really boring reading you two go on and on about nothing!




Here in Sweden the parliamant are supposed to vote on this later. Some people want a referendum instead and some think it's a waste of time to vote on it all together since it's a dead issue.....





/jarmo

...The causes lie deep and simply - the causes are a hunger in a stomach, multiplied a million times; a hunger in a single soul, hunger for joy and some security, multiplied a million times; muscles and mind aching to grow, to work, to create, multiplied a million times. The last clear definite function of a man - muscles aching to work, minds aching to create beyond the single need - this is man. To build a wall, to build a house, a dam, and in the wall and house and dam to put something of Manself, and to Manself take back something of the wall, the house, the dam; to take hard muscles from the lifting, to take the clear lines and form from conceiving. For man, unlike any other thing organic or inorganic in the universe, grows beyond his work, walks up the stairs of his concepts, emerges ahead of his accomplishments. This you may say of man - when theories change and crash, when schools, philosophies, when narrow dark alleys of thought, national, religious, economic, grow and disintegrate, man reaches, stumbles forward, painfully, mistakenly sometimes. Having stepped forward, he may slip back, but only half a step, never the full step back. This you may say and know it and know it. This you may know when the bombs plummet out of the black planes on the market place, when prisoners are stuck like pigs, when the crushed bodies drain filthily in the dust. You may know it in this way. If the step were not being taken, if the stumbling-forward ache were not alive, the bombs would not fall, the throats would not be cut. Fear the time when the bombs stop falling while the bombers live - for every bomb is proof that the spirit has not died. And fear the time when the strikes stop while the great owners live - for every little beaten strike is proof that the step is being taken. And this you can know - fear the time when Manself will not suffer and die for a concept, for this one quality is the foundation of Manself, and this one quality is man, distinctive in the universe.

--John Steinbeck/excerpt from The Grapes Of Wrath, pages 204-5--


Just a couple of things I want to get out of the way before we start:

First of all, I'm a much better writer than you. And in an arena where the medium through which we interact happens to be the written word, I've got the high ground pretty much every time we meet.

Secondly, and this is perhaps the most important part, as I lay in bed last night obsessing (I have a very real penchant for exhibiting obsessive-compulsive tendencies) over this little fiasco, I came to the rather stark conclusion that the production costs of the very product I wanted to deliver weren't worth it; i.e. the trivial expenditure of both my time and creative energy towards what would have been a much longer post than this.

You see I'd fully intended to give you a very organic and personalized post; a small piece of my soul. But due to my...epiphany...I came to realize that I'd probably begrudge you the sweat off my bag, let alone such a vibrant creation as that which sprang to life in my mind last night during the obsession fit I had.

So instead I give you the following; something much more mechanical in nature that attempts to deal singly with the surface aspects of your last response - the typical MCT style of rebuttal that you've come to know and love:


You're going in circles. I already told you what I thought of your pathetic pursuit of appealing to my manhood.


That's not all I do, but it does happen quite often, yes. And people usually either love me or hate me for it. So it's entirely up to you which side you take.


Wrong. But it doesn't matter anyhow, as I've always found you personally detestable for as long as I can remember. I mean, you're not all bad; no one is; I just find the overt ballyhoo that surrounds a man of your artfully advertised caliber to be more than a little overbearing.

Now, before you get thinking that I'm not much different from the type of person I just described, I would remind you that I don't go around boasting my education and whatnot in a veritable whirlwind of pomposity, in an attempt to garner respect for where I've been, what I can do and say, other such nonsense. Rather I just come in, do my thing, and leave again. And my own version of the universal air of pomp is merely a controlled element of the way I write; at least to a certain degree anyway.

Granted I used to be more like you, but now my boasting is pretty much limited to that "read between the lines" style that I employ, as well as to what I lay on the table when I choose to post on certain things. Lead by example, you know?


I go the extra mile for my friends. I'm very loyal toward those who enter my inner circle, but I'm a real prick to just about everyone else. This is how I operate in the real world, and it obviously carries over into the digital.

I have only so much generosity to go around you know...I'm a very cynical person...


Once again you're going in circles. Please, don't bring the manly stuff up again.

However, you do have a point with the first sentence there. Yes, I tend to do that a fair bit. But in my defense, I wasn't directly referring to you in the little exchange with my buddy, Q. Nor did I intend to be here where we are now. You took it to me, and I'm just being me.

As an aside, I'd ask you why you're not in Q's face as well, but I don't intend to continue our little exchange beyond this post.


... :rofl:...

It's true, it's true...I am a self-righteous and oftentimes indignant asshole. I admit that. But as for not having achieved my goals in life and claiming it was because of my own choosing (truly said, that's the very antithesis of dear ole ME) well, again we come back to you and I being two very different individuals. You know, you just can't throw out your blanket statements with the expectation of covering everybody that you meet. It doesn't work that way, life. And I think that's a lesson you desperately need to learn.

One more thing there, Professor - I'm only 22 years old pal. I'm not sure I can even come close to knowing and defining all my goals in the unitary sense of reality that you espouse, where in truth I instead adhere largely to my own piecemeal philosophies.

And with that I must bid you adieu, for our beloved patron has decreed it to be. And it would be folly to fight a battle that cannot be won... ;)

fight the ? new world order

Maybe they can have a referendum on  a diffrent issue..one that gives more insight of why ppl are against it...i think that the politic parties here in holland should start query on their inet page so they can find out what we want..coz i'm affraid that this no that is given isn't just about the constitution...
I still think it's important that every citizen of every EU country should get the oppurtunity to speak their mind.

Do you know why Europeans are saying "No"?
Because the politics tried to "erase" the national identity in each European country, and that's why the fashism is growing in Europe, people fell like their politics let them down. It's like "forget you're french, german, italian or swedish, now you are just an European". What a mistake. Fuck that. I feel European, sure, but firstly I feel FRENCH. It's a shame that the economic, social or fiscal politic may be determined by Brussels. I live in France so it should be decided in PARIS. You can't put of people's identity. Europe is an old, very old continent with a big History. You can't tell the European to "forget" their native country and their identity. Nobody is ready for that, and never will be. You can't erase thousands years of History for a stupid Brussels governement far from the people and from reality.

In Sweden?  :hihi:

The answer would be "Uhhh, because we need others to try it first and see if it works. Then if it works, we'll think about it".

That's what Swedes do.

This country said "no" to the Euro too. Swedes want to be part of Europe as long as they're not expected to give up anything "Swedish". They'd like everybody to take after Sweden instead of the other way around.

Many things are great here, and many countries could probably learn from countries like Sweden, Finland etc, but then other things aren't as good....



/jarmo

This sentence explains all. It's what I was talking about 2 posts above. Europeans don't want to loose their native identity. Europe, the way it is currently constructed, is a joke for me. On top of that nobody agree. AS if it wasn't already enough complicated like that...
Believe me, the day Turkey enters Europe it could turn into a civil war. Europe will explode. The people are not ready to accept such a catastroph concerning their identity. The damages are already too important. It's all about the lost of the European identity, and also a social and economical problem. I voted "yes", but finally I think I should have voted "No". I'm not satisfied of Europe the way it is currently constructed.

that's not the reason why i voted no....and i'm not alone in that ;) so don't generalize the european population. With this comment you are no better then our politicians (the dutch) when they said that the ppl from the lower parts of society shouldn't vote because they don't understand what it is about....

I wanted to say it's one of the reasons, sure this isn't the only one. But it's an explanation. Governements in Europe should return to the people. I want the french governement and the french president to resolve french problems in France, not in Brussels. European governements should be free to decide what's going on in their own country. I don't see why it should be in Brussels. In the name of what?

Some problems are better off solved together with the rest of the EU countries.

For example, it makes a lot more sense to have European enviromental laws than to have different laws in each country.





/jarmo

but then Europe would feel that they'd be lossing thier indivuality

as much as i advocate the protection of the environment, i think this is probably going to do more harm than good...in order to get environmental laws ratified over all countries, some countries would have to make concessions and remove some of their laws...some countries may have far superior laws that protect the environment, other countries may find it hard to meet targets...if laws like this were europe-wide then some of the laws would have to meet the levels of the poorest countries...if all the countries were at a similar level of progress then it would be easier to implement...but thats not the way it is

so out with the eastern european countries..and let the western countries first make a solid Europe, once that's accomplished then let 1 by 1 the eastern countries return....

I think once the socials and economics problems will be resolved (or at least improoved), Europe will works again. But this isn't the case as we speak now.
In the late 90's, Europe went great because the Economic growth was high. It's way easier when things are fine.