Political troubles in Europe

[MCT]

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...

[GnRNightrain]

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.

[MCT]

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

Isn't it?

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.

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?

[Axls Locomotive]

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...

youre right, uncouth seems much more appropriate

[GnRNightrain]

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.

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.

[Doc Emmett Brown]

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.

Thank you Nightfall.  I like your style     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.   

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?

[MCT]

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.

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

But tell you what...

... ...

...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?

[GnRNightrain]

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.

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

But tell you what...

... ...

...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.

[MCT]

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

See ya tamarra...

[Rain]

who is this Sarkozy guy?

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  (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 ).

[nesquick]

it's the kind of guy you love or you hate? ?

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.
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.

[GnRNightrain]

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

See ya tamarra...

Take whatever time you need.

[jarmo]

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

See ya tamarra...

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

[MCT]

...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--

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.

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:

How?? By sitting in the stands and criticizing the players that are playing the game?? Very manly.

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

All you do is just sit back and take jabs at people here and there.

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.

I have never said anything to you.

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?

Why do you have to be such an ass in the first place?

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...

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.

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.

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.

... ...

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...

[zosobob6]

fight the ? new world order

[Nightfall]

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

See ya tamarra...

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

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.

[nesquick]

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.

[jarmo]

Maybe they can have a referendum on? a diffrent issue..one that gives more insight of why ppl are against it...

In Sweden? 

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

[nesquick]

Swedes want to be part of Europe as long as they're not expected to give up anything "Swedish".

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.

[Nightfall]

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

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....