EU summit a failure after talks break down - Page 4

Bereta_Eder · December 14, 2003, 21:24

thats how the EU has went forward, silent consent.

VetLegion · December 14, 2003, 21:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Monk
because it's very important for the development of a strong union that we don't actually ask the people what they want. We'll lose valuable time if we resort to democracy and people somehow gets it wrong

Man, include a smiley with scary stuff like this, will ya?

although sadly that seems to be the way things are

Gangerolf · December 14, 2003, 21:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

I am a big fan of referenda. I think it is the best way to take important decisions in a democracy.

OK. It just sounded like you had a "the people don't know what's best for them"-attitude. The EU does have a huge public information challenge and the message is quite complicated. But I think it should be possible to simplify things. And as you mention, campaigns (if given enough time) before a referendum will do that. Hey, that's actually a great argument for holding a referendum!

Spiffor · December 14, 2003, 21:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Monk
Spiffor, it seems to me that you're saying there's been a major shift of opinion since half the French population rejected Maastricht the one time somebody bothered to ask?

I was too young to really see what happened back in 1992 (or was the referendum in 1991?

). But from what has been said to me, the debate was surprisingly high-level, with even near-tabloids printing the whole text etc.

Besides, the political parties weren't as monolithic as today. A significant chunk of Chirac's party was against Maastricht, and voiced it on TV. Today, both major parties would voice only the pro-Europe message.

The next European elections, in June, will help us see the feelings towards Europe. Although the results won't indicate Europe's popularity perfectly (they'll too indicate both parties' popularity, and they'll be marked by terrible abstention), we'll see how many votes the usual suspects of anti-Europeism get.

But I must admit, I come from an educated middle-wlass background, and I live in an upper-middle class city, a part of the population most likely to support Europe. Sociologically, France is mostly a middle-class country, and that can explain a wide (yet shallow) support for Europe. However, the poorer classes seem generally hostile to Europe.
Maybe the main difference with 10 years ago is that there are much fewer remains of gaullism, and of the wet dream of a powerful France that's independent. The progressive disappearance of this idea may sway many conservatives in favor of a constitution.

Monk · December 14, 2003, 21:39

Man, include a smiley with scary stuff like this, will ya?

I found that it would increase the dramatic effect if I chose not to

One of the reasons I'll probably vote no at the next referendum is that I'm one of relatively few Europeans that actually has a say in all of this. One of the biggest political problems we're facing these days is the constantly increasing gap between the elite and the rest, and the alarming speed with which the EU is expanding these days doesn't help that at all.

The European Union may be a great project in some regards, but as a significant amount of people either don't want it or don't care to even find out what it is, I'm happy whenever it suffers a setback.

Sikander · December 15, 2003, 00:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

HEY! Those are MY evil plans !

Sorry, Greeks get more votes per capita, so Paiktis is in.

Sikander · December 15, 2003, 00:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

I am a big fan of referenda. I think it is the best way to take important decisions in a democracy.

Actually, I'd LOVE that the governments would shut up, and that a Europe-wide referendum was taken, on whether the people of Europe accept or reject the constitution. But sadly it won't happen.

But even though I like referenda, it doesn't make it any less clear that people are widely uninformed about the EU. Heck, I'm almost done in my studies of political sciences, with a significant knowledge and serious interest for Europe, and even I didn't read the constitution entirely (only the 60 first pages on the ~260).
Of course, if a referendum was held, the campaign would make people aware of the general consequences of a YES or NO vote. But for now, the immense majority of people are having uninformed feelings about the issue. Those feelings seem to be rather sympathetic to Europe (which goes in my way), but they're uninformed nonetheless.

Now if we could just agree on some questions to ask....

Spiffor · December 15, 2003, 00:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Sikander
Now if we could just agree on some questions to ask....

You mean, like asking whether the Europeans agree on the massive document that required 18 months to a convention of 300+ people to write?

The draft of the constitution that has been tore down because individual countries were haggling over their share of power rather than on the principles or policy aims?

Sikander · December 15, 2003, 01:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

You mean, like asking whether the Europeans agree on the massive document that required 18 months to a convention of 300+ people to write?

The draft of the constitution that has been tore down because individual countries were haggling over their share of power rather than on the principles or policy aims?

No, I'm just kibbitzing and pointing out that at some point a few representatives in a room are going to have to make a deal, whether they themselves are empowered to create and ratify that agreement, or merely creating an agreement to be voted on by the public at large. I like referendums too, but it can be difficult to simply agree on the question to be asked sometimes.

Spiffor · December 15, 2003, 01:06

Well, since the complicated part has already been written (the 260 pages document written by the Convention), I think the suestion could look like:
"Do you agree with [title] to become the constitution of the European Union?" "YES/NO"
I know the European countries love to quibble over useless things, but I'm sure they could find an agreement fairly quickly over the question. What's behind [title] has already been written anyway.

axi · December 15, 2003, 11:35

Quote:

Greece - protection of networks and IT systems

Vesayen · December 15, 2003, 11:39

France claims the utter importance of acting unilateraly, why should a union of democratic countries be a dictaroship ruled by the elite countries?

Bereta_Eder · December 15, 2003, 11:42

why not?!
greece was the first to have full mobile internet infrasctructure in europe. the net crimes unit is the most well equipped (and has busted many cases of net crime)

but of course greece suuuucks in everything blah blah blah

ooooh adelfe

Spiffor · December 15, 2003, 11:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Vesayen
France claims the utter importance of acting unilateraly, why should a union of democratic countries be a dictaroship ruled by the elite countries?

The Union can only be ruled by the elite countries if they agree together. Since Britain and Italy are in the club of the "elite countries" as well as France and Germany, you see ruling like a dictator is no easy thing.
Poland and Spain were not defending any principle. They were just wanting to be in the group of "elite countries" whose opinion must always be taken into account. They were not opposed to the dictatorship, they wanted to be the dictators.

Bereta_Eder · December 15, 2003, 11:57

Germany and France have nothing to do with dictatorships. the UK is not pissed off that it isnt in the club, it's pissed off cause it's not allowed to act like a dictatoship. and as long as they keep that "mentality" they'll remain OUT of the freakin club.

VetLegion · December 15, 2003, 20:22

Didn't De Gaulle veto British EEC application twice?

So it seems that when they wanted them out they were desperate to get in, while now that they are allowed in they are desperate to keep out

Spiffor · December 15, 2003, 20:27

Quote:

Originally posted by VetLegion
Didn't De Gaulle veto British EEC application twice?

Yes, because the Brits are American worms in the great European apple

The Brits wanted to join a free trade organization. They ended up in an organization much more ambitious than just that.

Most poorer countries join the EU for the massive EU investments. They generally don't imagine at first how horrible EU bureaucracy is.

VetLegion · December 15, 2003, 20:31

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
why not?!
greece was the first to have full mobile internet infrasctructure in europe.

Really? How about some evidence of this? Panag also brought it up once but did not back it up and at the same time it was also claimed by one Finn for Scandinavia. Of course, do I need to add we had the same ad in Croatia too - "Join XYZ, first provider in Europe to have GPRS coverage in entire territory of the country!"

Blah, blah silly propaganda. In truth does seem likely that scandinavians did it first

Quote:

the net crimes unit is the most well equipped (and has busted many cases of net crime)

Hehe, in Croatia it is just an excuse for cops to be even more lazy than usual. What do they do here? Simply surf the newsgroups and forums and when they find a "criminal", usually a teenage kid pirating something, they call the ISP to get his address and then "bust" the "criminal". At the same time newspers are full of ads by pirates, but since the police switched over to "cybercrime" they are too lazy to catch those

VetLegion · December 15, 2003, 20:36

Quote:

Most poorer countries join the EU for the massive EU investments. They generally don't imagine at first how horrible EU bureaucracy is.

It is funny but true that the more country is developed, the less EU prone it is. Among all the referenda about joining EU Slovenian had the most "no" answers, and Slovenia is the richest and most advanced new member.

Bereta_Eder · December 15, 2003, 21:34

Greece didnt have cable TVs, so it was easier to upgrade technoilogy for full mobile internet. and yes we were the first to do it. there are ebvidence (lol) but you have to find them out for yourself.

im glad panag also knows this.

as for crimes busts I dont know what happens in nazi croatia but in greece only serious crimes get cought. not like in the UK

Bereta_Eder · December 15, 2003, 21:35

and besides since when did little nazi croatia get internet???

haha you got me there vetty

no go ride your donkey and deliver your pot to the albanian mafia

Spiffor · December 15, 2003, 22:01

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh

Nothing like watching a good ol'fashioned quibble between Balkanics

I'd just hope we'd have a Macedonian here, for all the FOPGians (Markos first) to be crazy about it

Japher · December 15, 2003, 22:03

I think every thread that has come up on the EU in the past year or so I have posted that they will fail because Foreign policy and domestic economics DON'T MIX... THE EU IS DESTINED TO FAIL!@!!

Spiffor · December 15, 2003, 22:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Japher
THE EU IS DESTINED TO FAIL!@!!

It is, if we continue trying to have everybody on the same boat, while don't agree on the destination.
Let's have a boat for those who enjoy "Economic Confederation" as their holiday paradise, and let's have a boat for those who call for "Political Federation" as their aim.
Otherwise, we're indeed doomed to failure.

Japher · December 15, 2003, 22:13

The problem, IMO

You have a common monitary unit and market, thus everything any nation does effects everyone where it hurts; the pocket book.

Every nation under the EU has different alligencies on an international basis. Support for the US being one, I am sure there are many others.

Italy wants to help us; the Euro is effected, despite everyone elses, or at least some of the others, desires.

This is going to, and has - as I predicted a year ago - , problems... It will continue to do so unless you unite under one common government like the US vis a vis states...

TheStinger · December 16, 2003, 05:48

What I don't get is and this may be because I am British is where the impetus for the constitution come form. Did any of the current euro govts campaign for it in their elections.

AFAIK old valerie set up his little group and here we are.

I can see why the Poles are pissed off only 2 years ago they signed up to a voting structure and now its being changed.

Heresson · December 22, 2003, 10:30

I will not comment some idiotic stuff in this thread. I'll post a part of the article that somehow even the thread-starter missed.

Quote:

The smaller countries argue that the proposal essentially gives the larger countries carte blanche in the EU, while the larger countries argue that a constitution must make voting less complicated and more democratic on the basis of population.

Berlusconi said: "Spain and Poland did show openness, and we discussed with them some possible alternatives for change. They found the alternatives proposed valid. We proposed them to the other countries and the other countries found them not to be suitable."