View Full Version : Your definition of the EU
edyzmedieval
04-16-2006, 22:32
Modern democratic communism.
My definition of this stupid thing called the EU. Yours? :juggle2:
HMM democratic communism which is paying polish farmers for not working :2thumbsup:
Devastatin Dave
04-17-2006, 00:34
A debate club for bureaucratic P-U-$-$-I-E-$.
An attempt to make every country in Europe French.
Marcellus
04-17-2006, 01:18
A great idea, poorly executed.
LeftEyeNine
04-17-2006, 01:27
Democracy Stickers
Louis VI the Fat
04-17-2006, 04:22
An attempt to make every country in Europe French.
An attempt to make every country in Europe civilised.:frog:
InsaneApache
04-17-2006, 08:50
An attempt to swindle me out of my hard earned cash to forever disappear into a murky financial black hole to line EU appointees pockets.
Justiciar
04-17-2006, 11:02
A great idea, poorly executed.
Sounds about right.
Banquo's Ghost
04-17-2006, 11:42
The European Onion is a classic example of politicians being unable to trust the voters.
As an economic policy, it was inevitable. As a political union, it has great potential to demonstrate diversity of culture does not mean constant war. But it has to be a confederacy based on democracy, not bureacracy.
Devolve power to the lowest practical level (away from the nation state towards the people) and strip away the meddling bureaucrats and quasi-governmental institutions, and we might just have something worthy of a constitution.
Sun Tzui
04-17-2006, 12:47
A good idea poorly execute sounds about right.
As for me, national governments should be replaced by a sistem of governors (1 of each nationality, appointed to any other country), and a truly central european government.
This could probably make the politicians open their eyes on other countries worries/problems/difficulties and potential, thus governing for all the european people instead of just for themselfs (its wishful thinking i know.....).
Sjakihata
04-17-2006, 15:02
A good way to isolate the British on their stinking island :p
Strike For The South
04-17-2006, 19:40
Europes precurser to there own Majlis as-Shura.
An attempt to make every country in Europe French.
LeftEyeNine
04-17-2006, 19:49
Identity Melting Pot.
Somewhere We Are Forced But Never Belong To.
Cheap Democracy Stickers (revised version 2.0).
I see the current European Union structure much like the early Articles of Confederation of the early United States. A good idea, but lacks proper direction and structure to be successful.
An idiotic confederacy that is doomed to go the same way as all of the other confederacy's.
Originally posted by Redleg
I see the current European Union structure much like the early Articles of Confederation of the early United States. A good idea, but lacks proper direction and structure to be successful.
Thats precisely what comes to mind when I think of the EU. The way it seems to be working the EU is almost identicle to the Articles of Confederation. Kind of curious if it will take near civil war to get it to work though. From what I've heard on this board, the French seem to be egging on the arguments.
Without a strong central government unions are always doomed to fail. The EU's authority has no bite, and when your trying to unite countries that have been waring against each other for centuries it wont work. If the EU ever starts to look like a real entity the governmental structure will more then likely mimic the USA's federal republic. Seeing as becoming more like the USA would be the bane of France and alot of other countries over there at this current time I doubt the EU will last much longer.
Strike For The South
04-17-2006, 20:41
Fedral goverments are the bane of human excitince.
The biggest problem with the EU is that nobody defends but everyone is willing to blame it.
When something good comes out of it every politician try’s to take credit for him or his party.
When something bad happens it’s always the EU who’s to blame.
No wonder negative thoughts arise.
I’m not saying mistakes haven’t been made, I’m not saying it doesn’t need a lot of work.
But be reasonable and look beyond the obvious.
If the EU fails every country in it will go with it sooner or later.
We just can’t compete if we don’t unite!
And remember that Rome wasn’t built in a day.
I consider the European Union as one of the hardest schemes man has ever attempted.
To bring so many cultures, nationalities, languages, borders,… together isn’t something you do lightly.
Plus, if so many different people with so different ideas can unite under on concept.
Maybe, just maybe we proof we can live amongst each other without the endless fighting for petty differences.
Be patience and help the construction of this great and noble undertaking.
In the long run it will payoff.
Originally posted by Redleg
I see the current European Union structure much like the early Articles of Confederation of the early United States. A good idea, but lacks proper direction and structure to be successful.
This is very true, but pleas remember that you can’t compare the EU with the USA.
Al these countries have gone trough centuries of development.
Every single nation has established it own ideas and believes “long ago”.
The biggest problem is we have to unite without the loss of certain traditions, believes or specific privileges.
Sure, some will have to do a lot of water in their wine.
The question is, is everybody willing enough to discard certain things for a greater cause?
L'Impresario
04-17-2006, 22:04
Actually the EU project can't be compared with anything in the past. That's why there are so different views regarding which path should be taken, no historical examples exist. Rather, the EU itself will set a precedent for all similar future attempts. It's been already mentioned as a model for latin american integration during the Cuzco Summit (with a timeline which actually focuses around 2020 heh).
I wouldn't support the notion that the EU is a well defined idea that has gone astray in its implementation, because there were simply no certain plans, only broad strokes about some basic steps that at some point would lead to a federation/confederation. I 'd say that when refering to the EU, one should keep in mind that it's a constant process, not a condition. After all the EU is just the sum of its members.
I should add:
To bring so many cultures, nationalities, languages, borders,… together Peacefully isn’t something you do lightly.
Upxl, I thank you to save me to write that, with more talent that I have. EU started in order to make peace in a continent which never had a so long peaceful period, thank to EU. Development of Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain are on the credit of E.U after suffering years of dictatorships. Not as vassals, but as partners. And it is new under the sky.
I should prefer a Federation than a Confederation, but I know the obstacles, languages, States prerogatives, foreign policy etc. However, I think a Constitution, minimal but on the basic agreed values, I think like the one of the U.S of A, adapted to the old continent should be a plus. Not like the one proposed last year, this was too constraining. Or perhaps my idea of the US constitution is wrong.
The EU is the way we remain relative and important in international relations - we being the EU nations - while strenghening and improving the lives of every member of it. Without the EU every nation would be lost and insignificant, not to mention worse off.
This is very true, but pleas remember that you can’t compare the EU with the USA.
Al these countries have gone trough centuries of development.
Every single nation has established it own ideas and believes “long ago”.
The biggest problem is we have to unite without the loss of certain traditions, believes or specific privileges.
Sure, some will have to do a lot of water in their wine.
The question is, is everybody willing enough to discard certain things for a greater cause?
Wasn't comparing Europe with the United States. Just the closest past description that I know of that somewhat models what is going on with the EU at this time.
Its weak comparsion but as you noted there are some similarities that bring it as a relative comparsion for the discussion.
InsaneApache
04-17-2006, 23:12
The EU is the way we remain relative and important in international relations - we being the EU nations - while strenghening and improving the lives of every member of it. Without the EU every nation would be lost and insignificant, not to mention worse off.
Now I know you have an advanced sense of humour. :laugh4:
Was that cut and pasted from the New Labour website? :inquisitive:
Taffy_is_a_Taff
04-17-2006, 23:48
the great civilisation suicide club
Now I know you have an advanced sense of humour. :laugh4:
Was that cut and pasted from the New Labour website? :inquisitive:
Sorry, but fail to see the amusing part in this?
Brenus, I thank you to add important matters which I have forgotten.:bow:
Papewaio
04-18-2006, 03:47
EU: What happens when you bypass the democratic stage of voting for your leaders and put the civil servants in charge. It is a self-serving bureaucratic entity that in a bizarre way gives EU members a third entity to blame on their inability to get along. This dissipation of mutual hatred to a third party means that in effect the EU bureaucracy acts as a heatsink more then a place of intellectual strategy.
Modern democratic communism.
My definition of this stupid thing called the EU. Yours? :juggle2: A Social Experiment (much like the rest).
Bigger does not make it better. Local control rather than global.
rory_20_uk
04-18-2006, 16:08
The EU:
Unwanted by the majority of the people involved.
Papers over any cracks that arise
As has so little purpose presses forward lest its existence is questioned
Has no constitution that can be agreed upon
Has rules that few of the countries abide by - and why bother as no attempt is made to enforce them
Has a moving capital
Has a growing number of recognised languages
Has yet to have a year where the budget can be audited.
There is nothing that the EU achieves that can not be done better with a free trade area and treaties. In fact, that would do a better job, as then they'd be less problems as things get bigger.
Rome wasn't built in a day. They had the sense to create a firm foundation before adding more chaos to the mix - and things fell apart when the empire grew too large and was rotten to the core. Yes, a very good analagy, except that we are powering towards the end.
Jag, as usual you are in a land of your own. Countries that at the moment have a small say over themselves loose even the vote that they have when they join the EU, or get lumped with a different country as a unit as the pen pushers like it that way. Never mind what the locals want.
And better? How did you work that one out? As the UK for example gives more money than it receives, we are worse off thanks to the EU.
One voice? Please! A cacophany of voices that rarely seem to agree. Or one voice that is undermined by the states themselves. Import tarrifs on shoes? Half say yes, half say no. A fitting example of how unified we truely are.
~:smoking:
Originally posted by Upxl
This is very true, but pleas remember that you can’t compare the EU with the USA.
Al these countries have gone trough centuries of development.
Every single nation has established it own ideas and believes “long ago”.
The biggest problem is we have to unite without the loss of certain traditions, believes or specific privileges.
Sure, some will have to do a lot of water in their wine.
The question is, is everybody willing enough to discard certain things for a greater cause?
The Articles of Confederation and all the chaos they created are quite close to what you are attempting. For all attempts and purposes the new colonies were all seperate countries at the time. The culture differences were already virgining from south to north, and even more pronounced was the cultural diferences between eastern and western, Shays rebelion is a good example. Confederation like this have been attempted before, Iroquios had a loose confederation for centuries. There is always a historic president for governments. As I said before, confederations are doomed to fail.
Originally posted by Brenus
I should prefer a Federation than a Confederation, but I know the obstacles, languages, States prerogatives, foreign policy etc. However, I think a Constitution, minimal but on the basic agreed values, I think like the one of the U.S of A, adapted to the old continent should be a plus. Not like the one proposed last year, this was too constraining. Or perhaps my idea of the US constitution is wrong.
Yes, USA's constitution is very short and to the point. Like a constitution should be, its only a few pages long, and the amendments take up one.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article I
Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.
Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies.
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
Section 4. The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.
Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.
Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.
Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.
Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
Article II
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;-- between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall
be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.
No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Article VII
The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
G. Washington-Presidt. and deputy from Virginia
New Hampshire: John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman
Massachusetts: Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King
Connecticut: Wm: Saml. Johnson, Roger Sherman
New York: Alexander Hamilton
New Jersey: Wil: Livingston, David Brearly, Wm. Paterson, Jona: Dayton
Pennsylvania: B. Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robt. Morris, Geo. Clymer, Thos. FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouv Morris
Delaware: Geo: Read, Gunning Bedford jun, John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jaco: Broom
Maryland: James McHenry, Dan of St Thos. Jenifer, Danl Carroll
Virginia: John Blair--, James Madison Jr.
North Carolina: Wm. Blount, Richd. Dobbs Spaight, Hu Williamson
South Carolina: J. Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler
Georgia: William Few, Abr Baldwin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Amendment XI
(1798)
The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.
Amendment XII
(1804)
The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Amendment XIII
(1865)
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment XIV
(1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Amendment XV
(1870)
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment XVI
(1913)
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.
Amendment XVII
(1913)
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
Amendment XVIII
(1919)
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.
Amendment XIX
(1920)
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment XX
(1933)
Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.
Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission.
Amendment XXI
(1933)
Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.
Amendment XXII
(1951)
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.
Amendment XXIII
(1961)
Section 1. The District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:
A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous state; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the states, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a state; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment XXIV
(1964)
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment XXV
(1967)
Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
Amendment XXVI
(1971)
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
“And better? How did you work that one out? As the UK for example gives more money than it receives, we are worse off thanks to the EU.” If you just calculate on money going to Brussels, probably. However, your complain look like the one from a billionaire complaining he didn’t get the social benefit, ignoring the fact that he is protected by the police, has access to high technology for his health, etc.
Now, if you put ALL aspects (no more customs charge, the free access to a very HUGE market, etc), UK earns more money from EU than it pays.
“Unwanted by the majority of the people involved”: Under the actual design, as a machine to enforce free-market and only for business, you are right.
“Has rules that few of the countries abide by - and why bother as no attempt is made to enforce them” Every country has to agree before the law apply. Brussels makes recommendations and guide-lines, and each Parliament has to agree: That is called Democracy.
“Has a moving capital” And?
“There is nothing that the EU achieves that can not be done better with a free trade area and treaties”: Like going to the less expensive (cheaper) cost, not caring about their own employees, exploiting without mercy the weak, destroying natural resources without considerations of the overall interest, what else?
“Has yet to have a year where the budget can be audited.” ERON showed how audit are effective in a free market…
InsaneApache
04-18-2006, 23:04
Nice disingenuous application Brenus.
The fact is, the EU needs the UK, much, much more that the UK needs the EU. :juggle2:
Ianofsmeg16
04-18-2006, 23:42
The EU = A Shining attempt to outclass Texas in Everything!
The EU = A Shining attempt to outclass Texas in Everything!
Well The EU does have Texas beat in one thing -
Corruption
Strike For The South
04-19-2006, 03:00
hahaha Owned /puts out respect knuckles for Redleg
Eu: a whole lot of nothing, a undemocratic bureaucratic expensive monster. The bin for failed national politicians, who now have the very important job of earning money.
InsaneApache
04-19-2006, 09:21
Talking of which, the Welsh Windbag gets done.
Former Labour leader Neil Kinnock is to appear in court in south Wales to face two separate charges of speeding.
Still, with the millions that he and his missus have gleaned from the EU, (read our taxes), he shouldn't have any trouble paying the fine.
Kinnock (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4906554.stm)
:idea2:
“The fact is, the EU needs the UK, much, much more that the UK needs the EU” So, where will we buy our cars? Even Renault will close the last car factory we have in England!!!! They said it wasn’t competitive… What? With our flexibilty, with the destruction of our Unions, with the low wages, they still prefer the Spanish, the Slovenes and even the French!!! Thank you St Free Market.
In doing what exactly? A unique money, deciding to go in war against the opinion of the majority of its citizens, in sabotaging the Social Services, School and all what left from Thatcher’s period in order to sell to the private companies and to make money. Ah, in finding a new form of corruption, as you give me a loan and I give you a Title/Peerage. Mind, can’t be done in most of the European Country, they are not Monarchy.
Concerning corruption, in Europe, at least they keep the appearance of legality. Not the good one like Halliburton, when the Former Company, of personal friend of the President, who still received money from his former employer, got a contract that nobody was allowed to apply for…
The US is definitively in advance on as, but Blair is working hard to fill the gap. But, we still have to learn a lot from Texas…
InsaneApache
04-19-2006, 10:53
Did I touch a raw nerve? :laugh4:
EU: a possible career opportunity.
Ianofsmeg16
04-19-2006, 12:06
hahaha Owned /puts out respect knuckles for Redleg
Gah! I shouldn't even be sticking up for the EU, I'm not part of it. :isleofman:
Texas owns the EU, I retract my earlier statment:2thumbsup:
Concerning corruption, in Europe, at least they keep the appearance of legality. Not the good one like Halliburton, when the Former Company, of personal friend of the President, who still received money from his former employer, got a contract that nobody was allowed to apply for…
The US is definitively in advance on as, but Blair is working hard to fill the gap. But, we still have to learn a lot from Texas…
Oh someone is upset with the little joke, to bad get over it. :laugh4: :laugh4:
The corruption in the EU is well documented and goes far beyond the scope that a single state in the United States is capable of. Then your mixing national and state levels of corruption, national corruption is a different animal then the corruption that a single state is capable of.
The corruption your attempting to retort with is within the United States Political system, not just a single state, so your retort is mote.
BTW Halliburton was founded in Oklahoma not Texas. LOL
Yes I know I am leaving something out, but lets see if you can figure it out.
Louis VI the Fat
04-19-2006, 15:13
And better? How did you work that one out? As the UK for example gives more money than it receives, we are worse off thanks to the EU.Oh what nonsense.
Firstly, the EU is not a fund redistributing agency. The largest share of members contributions are not redistributed but used for administrational services. Therefore, with the exception of the underdeveloped rim, all countries are net contributors. Unfortunately, in the public opinion the mistaken belief persists that the EU is some sort of zero-sum game, where one country's contribution is another one's income.
Secondly. Only a minority of the budget is redistributed amongst the member states, like the UK's annual tribute to France. :knight:
The remainder of these funds are used for structural investments. In the recent past, this helped to turn Ireland and Spain into vibrant economies. Currently, the 10 new Eastern European members are developing at a rapid rate, thanks in no small deal to the EU.
British economy benefit's a great deal from this expanding market. And as British businesses are traditionally internationally oriented, they benefit even more so than most others.
Thirdly. The biggest part of the EU budget is used for administrative purposes. For a start, each nation would have had to pay for these administrative services anyway, only not to the EU, but to their own governments.
More importantly, it saves member states money: things are done only once, instead of twenty-five times over. Economy of scale and all that.
Louis VI the Fat
04-19-2006, 15:15
The fact is, the EU needs the UK, much, much more that the UK needs the EU. :juggle2:I think the UK public would be in for a nasty surprise if Britain's economy were to cut itself off from the worlds biggest internal market.
Notwithstanding the daily rubbish the British tabloids spout about the EU, there is a reason why British bossiness is almost universally in support of the EU...
From an ideological perspective, the British continent could do without the EU, whereas personally I think an EU without the UK would be pointless.
Much as I relish in De Gaulle's ability to work the perfidious Anglosaxons up, he was sorely mistaken in trying to keep the UK out.
Also, the UK is indispensable as the only viable, durable counterbalance to the German-French axis.
Louis VI the Fat
04-19-2006, 15:21
Texas owns the EU
Hence the hidden agenda behind the EU: to make Europe French, extending the delight of owning Texas to you all.:balloon2:
Louis VI the Fat
04-19-2006, 15:22
Yes I know I am leaving something out, but lets see if you can figure it out.
http://img.tfd.com/wiki/2/2f/EnronLogo.png
:idea2:
Hence the hidden agenda behind the EU: to make Europe French, extending the delight of owning Texas to you all.:balloon2:
LOL - a fiting retort. :laugh4: :laugh4:
Oh someone is upset with the little joke, to bad get over it.. Yes, I know, Texas belong to Mexico.:laugh4:
"The corruption your attempting to retort with is within the United States Political system, not just a single state, so your retort is mote." Noooo!!!! Argh!!!! Corruption in Political System in USA? And where is the corruption in EU?
InsaneApache
04-19-2006, 17:17
Oh someone is upset with the little joke, to bad get over it.. Yes, I know, Texas belong to Mexico.:laugh4:
"The corruption your attempting to retort with is within the United States Political system, not just a single state, so your retort is mote." Noooo!!!! Argh!!!! Corruption in Political System in USA? And where is the corruption in EU?
hhmmm...let's see. Ten years of the accountants refusing to sign off the books. First class travel expenses for MEPs, even though hardly any of them do. No need to show receipts for expenses, they are just waved through. The chief auditor for the commission sacked for pointing out to 'windbag' Kinnock that upteen millions of Euros seemed to have disappeared. A new motorway built in northern Greece that cost more, yard for yard, than the M62 (that crosses the Pennines), even though the M62 was dug to a depth of 10-15 feet and the Greek motorway was just tarmac thrown onto grass and rollered. Also it goes from nowhere to nowhere. I could sit here all day and still not make a dent in the dishonesty of some member states.
Oh someone is upset with the little joke, to bad get over it.. Yes, I know, Texas belong to Mexico.:laugh4:
The actuality is Texas belonged to Mexico for a short period of time, Just like Spain had control over the terrority that became Texas before Mexico. I have absolutely no problem with that fact. Just like the fact that for a short time France attempted to subject Mexico to the tyranny of France.
"The corruption your attempting to retort with is within the United States Political system, not just a single state, so your retort is mote." Noooo!!!! Argh!!!! Corruption in Political System in USA? And where is the corruption in EU?
All you need to do is read a paper it will show up about montly. Would you like the news reports posted for you.
How about the conclusion of a study?
Hoover National Fellow Carolyn Warner Investigates Corruption and Fraud in the European Union
Hoover national fellow Carolyn Warner, associate professor of political science at Arizona State University, discussed corruption and fraud in the European Union at the Hoover Institution's U.S. and World Affairs Seminar on May 8.
"In the effort to create a common market, did the European states also create a common market for fraud and corruption?" Warner asked in her investigation of the European Union and its member-states.
"I think the European Union (EU) has created a common market for fraud largely due to the EU's structures and programs, which the member-states helped establish," she said. "In some ways the member-states are the fundamental source of fraud, but it's the structures and programs of the European Union that create these opportunities."
Warner explained the trend toward corruption is partly due to EU-induced changes in fiscal policies in the member-states coupled with state policies of decentralization and the incessant demand for increased campaign financing.
On this last point, Warner said, "Political parties are hungry and they've gotten hungrier. This is starting to nudge things toward a common market of corruption."
Additionally, Warner found the monitoring system intended to prohibit corruption and fraud was itself ineffectual.
"Because the governing and administrative agencies with the true discretionary power over the administration of subsidies and the implementation of rules are member-state based, that is where the corruption is going to be," she said. "The monitoring system is in the hands of the people who have the most motivation to exploit the system.
"If you want to stamp out corruption in the EU you really do have to target the individual member-states."
Warner's research interests range from religion and politics to patronage and corruption. Supported by a National Science Foundation grant, she has conducted research on corruption and fraud in the European Union. She is a Jean Monnet Fellow at the European University Institute near Florence, Italy, and is the author of Confessions of an Interest Group: The Catholic Church and Political Parties in Europe (Princeton University Press, 2000).
Or how about a poll of citizens from the countries concerned.
http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri=tcm:29-150846-16&type=News
Then there was the news not to long ago about the EU having its officals leave office under allegation of corruption.
There is more - all one has to do is open their eyes about the system that is the EU.
:laugh4: :laugh4:
Louis VI the Fat
04-19-2006, 17:50
Blegh, corruption. :no:
The EU is not the worst institution in the world in this respect, but if it ever wants to be taken seriously, it should indeed tackle several seriously severe issues it has with corruption. The structural funds are a means of serial corruption, nepotism in Brussels is rampant and the EU's spending needs much tighter monitoring.
Also, not necessarily corruption in itself, but too much money is spend in catering to particularistic interests.
Redleg, did I guess correctly with Houston-based Enron?
Blegh, corruption. :no:
The EU is not the worst institution in the world in this respect, but if it ever wants to be taken seriously, it should indeed tackle several seriously severe issues it has with corruption. The structural funds are a means of serial corruption, nepotism in Brussels is rampant and the EU's spending needs much tighter monitoring.
True - the EU has several measures against corruption but it seems that from my readings that the measures are not enforced in a consistent manner.
Also, not necessarily corruption in itself, but too much money is spend in catering to particularistic interests.
Yes indeed that is the same problem with the riders attached to bills in the United States.
Redleg, did I guess correctly with Houston-based Enron?
Nope, but its a good attempt.
I will give you a hint.Look into the history of Halliburton especially in acquistions, if you look you will discover the missing part.
“Just like the fact that for a short time France attempted to subject Mexico to the tyranny of France.” Not far, but still not right.
Short History: in 1860, Juarez is elected President of Mexico. He decided to suspend the payment of the debt to the Foreign Country. Spain, England and France decide to make him pay.
Just for the fun, it was worst than the I.M.F: The Mexican Government (Conservator/Republican in US language) of Miramon asked for a loan of 750.000 dollars (3.750.000 Gold Francs) in a Swiss Bank Jecker. In exchange, they gave bounds for a value of 15.000.000 dollars (75 millions of Gold Francs) which could be ask at any moment from the Mexican Government. When Juarez got elected, of course, the Bank demanded to be paid immediately. Juarez refused, the Bank got bankruptcy, the bounds are bought by various European speculators, and it gave an official reason to invade Mexico.
England and Spain withdrew after a short period, and Napoleon came with an idea to make the Republic of Mexico (which is a Federation, if I remember well) a Monarchy Latino-Catholic, kind of counter weight of the USA, Protestant and Anglo-Saxon Federation (even if if wasn't so sure at this moment because Civil War in the U.S), with as a king the archduke Ferdinand-Maximilien, Austrian Emperor François-Joseph 1st's young brother.. Napoléon III hoped, in doing that, to ally with Austria.
According to legend, it was on the insistence of his wife, Eugenie, that Napoleon gave his support to Maximilien.
Musical interlude:
“ Eugenie ma belle enfant,
Nous partons la voile au vent,
Nous partons pour le Mexique
Nous partooooons la voile au vent,
Adieu donc belle Eugenie,
Nous reviendrons dans un an…”
Foreign Legion song… I won’t translate…
It was during this campaign that the Foreign Legion fought the battle which became their “legend”: Camerone. 30th of April 1863: The 65 légionnaires of the 3rd Company of the 1st Infantry Regiment of Foreign Legion, under the captain Danjou resisted one day (to protect a large convoy carrying three million into innumeracy, of the material of siege and the ammunition was on the way for Puebla., not without purpose) against 2.000 Mexicans under the command of the colonel Milan.
During eleven hours, they resisted to two thousand enemies, killed some three hundreds and wounded as much. With no anmunition left the 5 survivors charged with bayonnet the 1.700 mexican. With not so much sucess, I have to say.
They have, by their sacrifice, by saving the convoy, fulfilled the mission which had been entrusted to them.
A monument was built on site in 1892 to commemorate the combat, with this inscription:
"They were here less than sixty
Opposed a whole Army
It masse crushed them
Life rather than courage
Gave up these French Soldiers
APRIL 30, 1863
Since then, when the Mexican troops pass in front of the monument, they
present the weapons.
“And where is the corruption in EU?” Oops, my fault: I wanted to say was also the Political System in EU which is corrupted. Not that there is no corruption in E.U. SORRY…:shame:
Louis VI the Fat
04-19-2006, 23:18
Oops, my fault: I wanted to say was also the Political System in EU which is corrupted. Not that there is no corruption in E.U. SORRY…:shame:I read your post in this way, in the way you intended it. Only now do I see that it could be taken literally.
You wrote:
[Redleg:]"The corruption your attempting to retort with is within the United States Political system, not just a single state, so your retort is mote."
[Brenus:] Noooo!!!! Argh!!!! Corruption in Political System in USA? And where is the corruption in EU?
You intended to show your frustration about the fact that you were talking about the same thing as Redleg: corruption within the political system, be it within the US or the EU political system.
The Englishman and American read 'And where is the corruption in EU?' as a question and reply by summing up where in the EU the corruption is.
Hmm, your reply is a bit ambiguous perhaps. Maybe linguistic traditions make an English speaker more prone to expect a literal question in a reply like yours, whereas you and I read a rhetorical question in it. Cultural and oratorial traditions can cause stuff to get lost in translation.
Hehheh, the thought creeps in that underneath your differences maybe Redleg and you are actually always agreeing, without being aware of it. :balloon2:
Louis VI the Fat
04-19-2006, 23:21
Yes indeed that is the same problem with the riders attached to bills in the United States.Aye, but there is a serious problem with the EU that is rather unique to a first world political institution. Politics in Brussels are not subject to constant close public scrutiny to the same extent as they are at the European national level, or at the US state or federal level.
The catering to lobbyists or special interest groups is a problem in Washington as well as in the European capitals. But unique to Brussels is the outright serving of particularistic interests.
Local politicians in Southern Italy, French peasants, Greek contractors can get things done in Brussels for which they would get lynched in their respective capitals. Brussels and the EU institutions just lack the transparantness, the democratic control, the scrutiny of the press that prevents or punishes this sort of behaviour at the national level.
Local politicians in Southern Italy, French peasants, Greek contractors can get things done in Brussels for which they would get lynched in their respective capitals. Brussels and the EU institutions just lack the transparantness, the democratic control, the scrutiny of the press that prevents or punishes this sort of behaviour at the national level.
Egads, a system like that is even more prone to abuse then what we have in the states.
I would image that if it wasn't for the economic benefits of the trade union the EU would of failed years ago with a system that allows such abuse.
L'Impresario
04-19-2006, 23:51
It's only normal that institutions that surpass national boundaries will not have neither a perfect checks & balances system, nor a satisfying degree of transparency, but this is exactly the reason that a project like the EU should not only expand vertically, but also horizontally.
Many similar issues can't be effectively combated within most individual states, but that can't be an excuse. It's the responsibility of the public as well to discard a lot of its preconceptions and reservations about the EU and mobilize, otherwise the cause for transparency can't be furthened. The general lack of knowledge about the workings and nature of the EU can't be solely attributed to politicians wanting to keep the people in the dark.
It's only normal that institutions that surpass national boundaries will not have neither a perfect checks & balances system, nor a satisfying degree of transparency, but this is exactly the reason that a project like the EU should not only expand vertically, but also horizontally.
This makes absolutely no sense. Why have a governmental agency that does not have a system of efficient checks and balances established?. Without a satisfying degree of transparency the institution becomes rife (SP) with abuse, corruption, and waste.
as one can note the United States government does have an efficient system of checks and balances, unfortunately for the US one branch of government is neglecting its responsiblities, and two other branches are attempting to seize additional power, but alas we are discussing the EU
Many similar issues can't be effectively combated within most individual states, but that can't be an excuse. It's the responsibility of the public as well to discard a lot of its preconceptions and reservations about the EU and mobilize, otherwise the cause for transparency can't be furthened. The general lack of knowledge about the workings and nature of the EU can't be solely attributed to politicians wanting to keep the people in the dark.
Now this makes since - but not when I include the first paragraph, as part of the thought. Transparency must be established before expansion. A system that allows a group to fix similiar problems within their areas - is always a great idea. Economy of effort reduces cost, time, and benefits the whole..
L'Impresario
04-20-2006, 01:32
This makes absolutely no sense. Why have a governmental agency that does not have a system of efficient checks and balances established?. Without a satisfying degree of transparency the institution becomes rife (SP) with abuse, corruption, and waste.
It's easy to see what I mean, because I 've obviously used a systemical approach here. It's the nature of international law that doesn't allow this cognitive reasoning outlined in the quoted passage and easier to implement at the national level.
Having said this, the EU has made significant steps forward in this respect, with some accountancy enforced by its courts.
But to project the norms of the national political scene at the international one, namely international institutions, such a task needs time, and without ideas like the EU, it'll never be achieved.
Sequencing can only be done if you already have an organisation in place, because any charters and theoretical framework can't be translated automatically in its practices. Experience and political will patch the legal part and public involvement provides legitimisation and ensures fair governance. Ofcourse the EU has a hypertrophied economic section that has started nourishing the political one only recently. Should the aforementioned political will promote the notion of a political union, then we could see greater pressure from the population for the resolution of the problem called "democratic deficit".
And this brings us to the second part of my previous post. Since vested interests (the concept of "national interest" being a hazy one here) still govern much of the countries' attitudes towards a possible political integration, the EU is unable to act. Member states also prioritize their own internal problems. As I had said before, the EU is mostly the sum of its individual members and by adding new members you also inherit their problems and their structural deficiencies.
The "deepening - enlargement" debates still rage on. The first ones say that admiting so many new states hampers the EU's ability to face the outlined problems while the others claim that it was important to embrace a part of Europe that was long excluded from its rightful place among the western nations, helping them restructure their economies in the process.
Naturally there's much more to this, but I generally think that all these general issues are interconnected, creating a "chicken or the egg" situation.
It's easy to see what I mean, because I 've obviously used a systemical approach here. It's the nature of international law that doesn't allow this cognitive reasoning outlined in the quoted passage and easier to implement at the national level.
Then you need to explain what you mean by systemical. Establishing a larger governmental or international agency without checks and balances established prior to the growth of the system is not a systemical approach.
A systemical approach would entile that the agency develops a comprehensive plan on how it will execute its growth, with established check points. A system to inplace to insure that the execution goes according to the plan as much as possible. A systemical approach also plans for the fact that no plan survives contact with reality - and has a system in place to insure adjustments can be made.
Having said this, the EU has made significant steps forward in this respect, with some accountancy enforced by its courts.
Care to explain the study alreadly posted that directly contradicts this sentence?
But to project the norms of the national political scene at the international one, namely international institutions, such a task needs time, and without ideas like the EU, it'll never be achieved.
Agreed - but that is a different concept then growth of an agency without ensuring a system of checks and balances is established or that transparcy is apparent in that agency.
Sequencing can only be done if you already have an organisation in place, because any charters and theoretical framework can't be translated automatically in its practices. Experience and political will patch the legal part and public involvement provides legitimisation and ensures fair governance. Ofcourse the EU has a hypertrophied economic section that has started nourishing the political one only recently. Should the aforementioned political will promote the notion of a political union, then we could see greater pressure from the population for the resolution of the problem called "democratic deficit".
Sequencing seems to be a different then what you first expoused in your previous post. Rapid growth without a plan means an increase in fraud, waste and abuse. Before growth can be done a plan should be on hand. Without a sound plan - the implementation of checks and balances, transparency, and sound governmental practices is impractical. To propably sequence growth - one must have a plan of action. A plan of action that does not include checks and balances to insure proper utilization of resources is doomed to failure (at worst) or inefficiency (at best).
And this brings us to the second part of my previous post. Since vested interests (the concept of "national interest" being a hazy one here) still govern much of the countries' attitudes towards a possible political integration, the EU is unable to act. Member states also prioritize their own internal problems. As I had said before, the EU is mostly the sum of its individual members and by adding new members you also inherit their problems and their structural deficiencies.
I understand this thought of reasoning - but it does not explain the espousing of rapid growth prior to the implemenation of checks and balances on the governing body.
The "deepening - enlargement" debates still rage on. The first ones say that admiting so many new states hampers the EU's ability to face the outlined problems while the others claim that it was important to embrace a part of Europe that was long excluded from its rightful place among the western nations, helping them restructure their economies in the process.
Naturally there's much more to this, but I generally think that all these general issues are interconnected, creating a "chicken or the egg" situation.
What you seem to be advocating will cause more problems then it fixes.
Runaway governmental agency growth causes more problems then it fixes. It becomes an ever increasing devourer of resources - with little to no output in relationship to the consumption of that it takes in. Eventually such a system becomes so bloated that it explodes creating more havoc then what was initially present.
What you are advocating in your arguement, would be what is currently happening in the United States concerning its three branches of government - but without a system to self-correct itself over time. These lack of a check and balance, and transpracy would end in the failure of the European Union as a governing body of any type. I would hate to see the European Union system suffer the failures of previous confederacies because it failed to learn from the past.
Zalmoxis
04-20-2006, 02:49
I was gonna write a bit more, but just saying that I don't trust the whole thing is enough.
I was gonna write a bit more, but just saying that I don't trust the whole thing is enough.
One should never fully trust any governing body.
L'Impresario
04-20-2006, 15:44
Then you need to explain what you mean by systemical. Establishing a larger governmental or international agency without checks and balances established prior to the growth of the system is not a systemical approach.
Lots of missunderstanding here. I mentioned a "systemical approach" in regards to "how" I'd be analyzing the subject, not as the method used in the EU project. My second sentence explains that the international legal framework and system doesn't allow (and for a long time I suppose) the proper implementation of checks and balances, because international institutions fundamentally work through each country's executive body, with parliaments having a secondary role, usually called for the ratification of treaties, a typical process.
So you can't actually accuse the people behind EU for this, don't forget that it's composed by communities founded and developed by democratic nations. It’s a process that’s still evolving and, ofcourse, plans are being made, but political visions differ and, to repeat myself once more, the public isn’t participating for a variety of reasons.
And to connect it with this:
A systemical approach would entile that the agency develops a comprehensive plan on how it will execute its growth, with established check points. A system to inplace to insure that the execution goes according to the plan as much as possible. A systemical approach also plans for the fact that no plan survives contact with reality - and has a system in place to insure adjustments can be made.
and to answer to this:
Care to explain the study alreadly posted that directly contradicts this sentence?
and also include this:
Sequencing seems to be a different then what you first expoused in your previous post. Rapid growth without a plan means an increase in fraud, waste and abuse. Before growth can be done a plan should be on hand. Without a sound plan - the implementation of checks and balances, transparency, and sound governmental practices is impractical. To propably sequence growth - one must have a plan of action. A plan of action that does not include checks and balances to insure proper utilization of resources is doomed to failure (at worst) or inefficiency (at best).,
I'll point out that no international body has ever gone so far (the US is a totally different animal) as the EU. And while the differences with the national way of things are striking for many, the same struggles that ensued over the course of hundreds of years at the state level between the executive, legislative and judicial powers, are taking place within the EU, albeit at a different pace and with the head start the executive power has.
This is explainable by the first part of my post, elected governments do wield the greatest powers and decide how the whole system will work. The part of the EU that has been consistently blamed though, is the Commission, because its members are appointed and it often clashes with the national governments. And to do that it needed extra authorities, and along with the courts, they are the only ones who can pass judgement on all member-states (almost exclusively in their economic obligations due to EU being a virtually inexistant political entity, with no single voice), something unseen in other international bodies. And the Commission was also forced to resign following the report of the European Court of Auditors and the close failure of the censure motion by the European Parliament in 1999.
Therefore we aren’t dealing here with a “massive blob of corruption”, but with a series of more complex situations that need closer examination. Certainly the negative aspects are making better headlines in the news, but with corruption, resource waste and all, it’s also a fact that there has been progress at many levels, esp. in countries with weak infrastructure; in a lot of cases the cost was higher than it should have initially been, but there is a great number of completed works and without the EU support I can imagine that some of them would have been half-finished for a long time.
Lots of missunderstanding here. I mentioned a "systemical approach" in regards to "how" I'd be analyzing the subject, not as the method used in the EU project. My second sentence explains that the international legal framework and system doesn't allow (and for a long time I suppose) the proper implementation of checks and balances, because international institutions fundamentally work through each country's executive body, with parliaments having a secondary role, usually called for the ratification of treaties, a typical process.
That makes it more clear. And shows the fundmental weakness of the EU as alreadly mentioned.
So you can't actually accuse the people behind EU for this, don't forget that it's composed by communities founded and developed by democratic nations. It’s a process that’s still evolving and, ofcourse, plans are being made, but political visions differ and, to repeat myself once more, the public isn’t participating for a variety of reasons.
Oh yes the accusation can be leveled against the governing body and those advocating implementation of greater responsiblity of the EU governing body. Its a valid point. Growth without proper planning leads to problems especially in any type of governing body.
I'll point out that no international body has ever gone so far (the US is a totally different animal) as the EU. And while the differences with the national way of things are striking for many, the same struggles that ensued over the course of hundreds of years at the state level between the executive, legislative and judicial powers, are taking place within the EU, albeit at a different pace and with the head start the executive power has.
This is explainable by the first part of my post, elected governments do wield the greatest powers and decide how the whole system will work. The part of the EU that has been consistently blamed though, is the Commission, because its members are appointed and it often clashes with the national governments. And to do that it needed extra authorities, and along with the courts, they are the only ones who can pass judgement on all member-states (almost exclusively in their economic obligations due to EU being a virtually inexistant political entity, with no single voice), something unseen in other international bodies. And the Commission was also forced to resign following the report of the European Court of Auditors and the close failure of the censure motion by the European Parliament in 1999.
Therefore we aren’t dealing here with a “massive blob of corruption”, but with a series of more complex situations that need closer examination. Certainly the negative aspects are making better headlines in the news, but with corruption, resource waste and all, it’s also a fact that there has been progress at many levels, esp. in countries with weak infrastructure; in a lot of cases the cost was higher than it should have initially been, but there is a great number of completed works and without the EU support I can imagine that some of them would have been half-finished for a long time.
So are you still advocating rapid growth of the EU governing body, in light of the fact that the commission and the body itself is rife with corruption, and does not have the necessary safeguards - ie a check and balance system that allows for transparcy of the governing bodies actions.
Regardless of you answer the benefits of the Trade Union aspects of the EU have far outweighed the costs of the corruption, but as the EU attempts to go beyond this area - the graft and corruption will become worse if a system is not established and maintained that provides the needed transparcy on then governing body. Advocation a rapid growth without considering will lead to failure of the overall system
Papewaio
04-24-2006, 08:02
Dresser Industries... Brown & Root with Kellogg
AggonyDuck
04-24-2006, 10:06
Something that people just love to bash, whether it actually deserves it or not is irrelevant.
Nominally democratic kleptocracy, with a base of money sinks, a crust of corruption and a topping of unaccountability.
Strange thing is I quite like the idea of a federal Europe, but the EU as it stands is a sad mess.
Dresser Industries... Brown & Root with Kellogg
Correct -they are all Texas Companies initially that were taken under the Halliburton umberalla.
Placid Tramp
04-25-2006, 10:29
For the UK:
A cost of £11 billion a year + loss of earnings from farming, fishing, etc. and the end of any meaningful democracy.
The European Ulcer ... The European Unappealable ... The European Unapt ... The European Unartful ... The European Unashamedly
Take your pick...
For the UK:
A cost of £11 billion a year + loss of earnings from farming, fishing, etc. and the end of any meaningful democracy.
How has the EU hurt the UK farms? I know how they've hurt the fishing industry. I'm of the opinion they needed the regulations becuase they were going to fish the sea's till they were dry. Though it would have been far more efficient to have the industry self regulate, its always better that way. So how did the EU screw up farming, I always thought farming couldn't really be regulated to death, just plant a seed let it grow and sell the fruit.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
04-25-2006, 19:33
How has the EU hurt the UK farms?
quotas and red tape ( I think)
Kagemusha
04-25-2006, 19:38
How has the EU hurt the UK farms? I know how they've hurt the fishing industry. I'm of the opinion they needed the regulations becuase they were going to fish the sea's till they were dry. Though it would have been far more efficient to have the industry self regulate, its always better that way. So how did the EU screw up farming, I always thought farming couldn't really be regulated to death, just plant a seed let it grow and sell the fruit.
Maybe it has little something to do with that Southern countries in EU can produce food lot cheaper then the Northern so it will have an impact to the farming industry of the Northern countries.For example it have already killed most of it over here.And the most peculiar thing is that while it has done that to our farming industry the actual prize of food hasnt went down at all.:juggle2:
Louis VI the Fat
04-25-2006, 22:11
Maybe it has little something to do with that Southern countries in EU can produce food lot cheaper then the Northern so it will have an impact to the farming industry of the Northern countries.For example it have already killed most of it over here.And the most peculiar thing is that while it has done that to our farming industry the actual prize of food hasnt went down at all.:juggle2:
http://www.my-smileys.de/generator/signs3/31c3091a5290ff9684bd7bc90b61da2a.png
Kagemusha
04-25-2006, 22:22
http://www.my-smileys.de/generator/signs3/31c3091a5290ff9684bd7bc90b61da2a.png
I know too...Now that we are in EU.We have to support the French farmers.By putting ours out of their business.Oh those poor French farmers...~:mecry:
Seamus Fermanagh
04-25-2006, 22:44
The EU:
Unwanted by the majority of the people involved.
Papers over any cracks that arise
As has so little purpose presses forward lest its existence is questioned
Has no constitution that can be agreed upon
Has rules that few of the countries abide by - and why bother as no attempt is made to enforce them
Has a moving capital *(added by quoting poster)
Has a growing number of recognised languages
Has yet to have a year where the budget can be audited.
There is nothing that the EU achieves that can not be done better with a free trade area and treaties. In fact, that would do a better job, as then they'd be less problems as things get bigger....
One voice? Please! A cacophany of voices that rarely seem to agree. Or one voice that is undermined by the states themselves. Import tarrifs on shoes? Half say yes, half say no. A fitting example of how unified we truely are.
~:smoking:
Aside from the asterisked point above, could I not also replace the letters EU with UN and make an equivalent claim? Yet many wonder why the USA is so "luke-warm" towards that older international body.....
Louis VI the Fat
04-26-2006, 00:38
We have to support the French farmers.By putting ours out of their business.That's called progress. Imagine all them poor Fins, tilling their land at minus 40 degrees. :no:
Now, you all can devote your full attention to manufacturing Nokia's, which we then buy with the money you've send us. :idea2:
Kagemusha
04-26-2006, 00:46
That's called progress. Imagine all them poor Fins, tilling their land at minus 40 degrees. :no:
Now, you all can devote your full attention to manufacturing Nokia's, which we then buy with the money you've send us. :idea2:
Lol!Well Sayed Louis!:thumbsup: Maybe we should just trade the Nokias for food.I like French Cuisine.:chef: Then we could spare ourselves from all this money transferring.~;)
Louis VI the Fat
04-26-2006, 17:18
Maybe we should just trade the Nokias for food.I like French Cuisine.:chef: And I love anything Finnish!!:jumping:
Hah! We've once again discovered just what the benefits of the EU where again. You sell your telephones to Germany, they sell their cars to France and France sells Finland food. That way, the Fin, German and Frenchmen all end up with a Nokia, a Mercedes and the finest champagne.
Of course, free trade can be achieved through less cumbersome means than via this Brussels bureaucratic monstrosity. But a fully functioning internal market can not. Would Finland be able to spawn another global succes story like Nokia if it had to start it's operation within a domestic market of a mere five million? Corporations with a domestic market of 450 million are better suited for the fierce challenges of a globalised economy.
Ah, the French farmers… Perhaps some should go and check what the purpose is for the “subsidies” to the French Farmers. Guys, it will be a shock for you. It was done to stop them to overproduce, and to make the rich farmers richer, in all countries. A farmer, in order not only to survive but to live normally has to sell his production. So he has to produce a lot of what even product. But, more he produce, more the prices are going down. So he has to produce more to keep up, etc…
So, the E.U got the idea to organise a little bit in helping, first the development of new product, and trying to keep agriculture (and fisheries) alive and against their own short view interest (like over exploiting the fishing zones, for ex) for a long term advantage, like stopping the use of fertilizer which make the well polluted and now we need to filter the water coming from springs… That why we have quotas. Doesn’t always work, but that is the idea.
The Free Market, unrulled like in Brazil, is driving massive extinction of wild species, deforestation and little bit of ethno-genocide, acculturation and murder of the poor, local and natives. So, if you are a poor local native, yours chances are slim.
However, apparently, it is the way some of you prefer. The fact you are able to read and probably answer to this will be the proof you don’t belong to the above describe category.
Now, right, that stop the poor country (South of Europe, it is Africa) to export their food to us, cheaper. Well, if fact, that stopped the RICH owners/farmers for Africa to sell their products to as, that we can enjoy to have lemon, oranges, apples kiwis, all the year. That prevents the same rich owners to expel, by force if necessary (again, see Brazil) the poorest from the field where they cultivate their food and grow up their cattle, goats, sheep in order to survive, and to plant Cocoa, tea and coffee we so need after we finished the steak coming from Brazil (again). And because we want cheaper product, we organise the concurrence between Africa and South America, Asia: Who will sacrifice his poor for our coffee? Sorry guys, I see a more competitive product there (translation: they accept to make their population to starve for us), so I buy their coffee. What you have to do: Burn your product or low the price. By the way, if you burn it, that against the regulations against pollution you signed last year, so you have to burn it in OUR factories, here is the bill.
The EU was built fist to prevent a fourth war between Germany and France (Coal and Iron Agreement), secondly to create the conditions of a regulate market (not at all a free market) and a place where states will negotiate instead to fight.
Not useful the EU? How many wars occurred with EU?
“the EU as it stands is a sad mess” Quiet right, because every country looks only on their own interest. “I want my money back”. This selfish attitude just makes me crazy. Others can died, who care? Not me, if I can have my SUV.:wall:
Louis VI the Fat
04-27-2006, 21:50
Yes, good post Brenus. Good to see a plea for the EU from a left perspective. I also like the social aspect it has. Countries should not compete by lowering their social or environmental standards indeed. Although, personally, I would prefer the EU to adopt a bit more liberalism (in a European sense of the word, not American).
Also, I think the contradiction between a regulated or a free market within the EU is incorrect when speaking about a common internal market. EU regulations are exactly what created the free internal market between the 25 members. Without harmonisation, the free flow of goods, capital and people would be hampered. For once, more market regulation led to more market freedom.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.