Posted on 06/02/2005 5:59:12 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Do you believe in Utopia?
"For the rest of Europe it is a great pity that the treaty is going to be scrapped.
It would have meant a step to the right."
It was a step away from national sovereignty and democratic rule towards elitist bureaucracy. Not a healthy thing, and not a 'step to the right' unless you think right=nouveau-Vichyism.
"The reason you dislike it so it is because of your American context."
I dislike it because I like democracy and freedom and this attacks both ...
" Right to healtcare for example is the law in most European countries."
So what? (Acutally there is no 'right to healthcare', you have some budget paying for healthcare is all)... You call it a step to the right to put semi-socialism welfare 'rights' at an EU instead of a national level ... it is NOT.
Far better to have healthcare a matter that at least the people can vote on state-by-state then to embed such things in an un-democratic constitution that the people have no influence on. Then at least different states can learn what is good and what is bad; What greece needs is not what denmark wants etc.
The US Govt spends more on health care than Euro Govts do, and we now have a situation where viagra (!!) is showing up as an expense. At least having some democratic influence on this is necessary from dumb decision being propogated.
The "Commission" is NOT elected directly.
In Europe, to call something a "liberal" document is to say that it is pro-free market.
Over there, there are three political positons ... left-socialist, liberal and conservative.
In many countries, the "center-right" includes both liberal and conservative sentiments, and is distinct from the far right which is populist and nationalistic.
Over there, politics involves parties of the center tip-toeing between the far right and the far left, accomodating some of the concerns of those at the edges of the mainstream, and keeping those remaining in the extremes small and off-balance.
Politics over here is very different, with only two major parties, each of which is a mixed bag. (Our Republicans combine some liberalism with some conservatism, and our Democrats being increasingly a left-socialist party, which is why they're in the minority, and our fringe parties being very small.)
In the referendum in France, it was revealed that the center is not necessarily a majority. The far right and the far left combined to overwhelm the center. Why? I would say because of a mix of economic and social concerns. But, let us bear in mind that we're talking of France.
In Holland, there was a different coalition. The majority that voted against ratification was very large and included much of the middle.
First of all, Holland is, after Switzerland, the most liberal (i.e., free market) country of the continent. They have a vibrant, open economy.
The people of Holland have little to fear from foreign competition, whether from Poland or America or China (which is not to say that the Dutch are secure in their jobs ... people in capitalist countries are not secure in their jobs, their security is in themselves). Economically, their risk is having to subsidize the ambitions of France and Germany to dominate Europe.
Secnd, turning to the cultural issues, the people of Holland combine a free market orientation ("liberalism") with traditional social values, including pro-religion, pro-family, pro-work and pro-country ("conservatism"). Their center-right is a healthy mix of liberal and conservative values. (In contrast, the center-right of France is heavy on nationalism and light on free-markets.)
What does this say for us?
I think it is increasingly obvious that the Democrats (American left-socialists) cannot return to majority status without some kind of political realignment. They have to figure out how to appeal to more people. But, to whom can they appeal without disaffecting their current members?
Well, Hillary is thinking of combining socialism with populist, anti-immigrant values. Isn't this what Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussilini did? (They re-positioned socialism on the right-wing of the political spectrum, being nationalistic and anti-minority.)
I don't think this attempt at re-positioning will work, because I think there are still some Democrats who are liberals (in the European sense), who will be turned off by populist, anti-immigrant values, and who will see that the Republicans are committed to an acceptable combination of liberal and conservative values.
I think the overwhelming majority of people in this country combine the best of liberalism and conservatism, wanting freedom and wamtomg people to use their freedom for good. This is the emerging concensus of conservative Protestants and Catholics, which explains why the center-right is in the ascendency in Holland and Germany, in New Europe and in the United States.
All EU countries ratifying the constitution have been by Parlimentary Vote - Not Referenda! (Except one - Spain, who has been admonished by their Dhimma masters)
Lesson learned? Letting the people vote on such important matters is a bad (almost sheesh American) idea.
Austria
Austria has ratified the Constitution by parliamentary vote - lower house on 11 May 2005 – upper house on 25 May 2005
Belgium
Parliamentary ratification - process is underway.
Cyprus
Parliamentary ratification, scheduled for June/July 2005.
Czech Republic
No final decision taken on whether a referendum will be held.
Denmark
Referendum scheduled for 27 September 2005.
Estonia
Parliamentary ratification, date not yet fixed.
Finland
Parliamentary ratification, date not yet fixed.
France
Voters have rejected the Constitution in a referendum held on 29 May 2005 - No 54.9%, Yes 45.1%.
Germany
Germany has ratified the Constitution by parliamentary vote - ratified in lower house 12 May 2005 – in upper house on 27 May 2005 – formal signature by President still outstanding
Greece
Greece has ratified the Constitution by parliamentary vote on 19 April 2005 (268 votes in favour, 17 against and 15 abstentions).
Hungary
Hungary has ratified the Constitution by parliamentary vote on 20 December 2004 (323 votes in favour to 8 against with 12 abstentions)
Ireland
A referendum will be held - no date has yet been announced.
Italy
Italy has ratified the Constitution by parliamentary vote on 25 January 2005 in the Chamber of Deputies (436 votes in favour, 28 against and 5 abstentions) and on 6 April 2005 by the Senate (217 votes in favour to 16 against).
Latvia
Latvia ratified the Constitution by parliamentary vote on 2 June 2005.
Lithuania
Lithuania ratified the Constitution by parliamentary vote on 11 November 2004.
Luxembourg
Referendum scheduled for 10 July 2005.
Malta
Parliamentary ratification, likely in July 2005.
Netherlands
Voters have rejected the Constitution in a referendum held on 1 June 2005 - Against 61.6%, for 38.4%
Poland
Referendum will be held, no date has yet been confirmed.
Portugal
Referendum will be held, no date has yet been confirmed.
Slovakia
Slovakia has ratified the Constitution by parliamentary vote on 11 May 2005
Slovenia
Slovenia has ratified the Constitution by parliamentary vote on 1 February 2005 (79 votes in favour to 4 against with 7 absentions).
Spain
Voters in Spain approved the Treaty in a referendum on 20 February 2005 (76.7% in favour to 17.3% against with 6.03% blank ballots). This result has been formally ratified by both houses of the Spanish Parliament.
Sweden
Referendum, no date yet set.
United Kingdom
Referendum, no date yet set.
1) it really was not a step toward Liberalism, it was as step toward fascism. The "liberalization" would have only taken place in term of the internal EU market, and the state control only transfered to the "federal level." It is perhaps overstating the case to say that the liberalism in the Constitution is an illusions, but it would not be far off the mark.
2) The member states must solve their problems internally before they take up the issue of a "Federal Europe." It is not the case as it was at the time of America's founding where the 13 states we small, immature and independent polities. Even in the American experience it took almost 100 years to cement the notion of a "Federation." In fact, one could argue that the American nation as we know it did not really become a practical reality until the beginning of WW1. But is particularly dangerous in the case of the EU, for the Eurocrats will start pushing the EU as some sort of united military power when in fact it is a house of cards. This would be a disaster for the EU (end everyone else) for when the first body bags started piling up the unity would splinter. It would also mean a nuclear Germany and all that goes with it.
Europe needs to go very slowly toward a "superstate," and by slowly I mean take a couple of generations.
Free trade does NOT require a 400 page Constitution...
exactly. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness sums up most of what is needed (and hated in France).
You're ignoring the grave defects of this political monstrosity. The EU constitution guarantees cradle-to-grave socialist caretaking of the kind that severely degrades economic productivity and efficiency. Factor in the plunging birth rates of most European countries and the rapid influx of militant Muslims to fill the vacuum, and the spectacle of a colossal Brussels deathwish begins to take shape.
bookmark
Exactly. On your next trip to Brussels, take an hour to visit the neighborhood of the EU. Have a drink at the Swisshotel off the Rue de Terveren. It and other watering holes are rife with the limo drivers, 'courtesans' and minor luminaries of the 'Court.' Billions of Euros have been spent on attempting to create a 21st century version of Versailles. Let them eat cake is not dead.
well - enshrining into law a commitment to letting the people decide how to live their lives, to be free so long as they do not restrict others' freedom, and to be happy as they feel is best for them not what some elite bureaucrat decides is not where France is politically these days.
My quote was from a slightly larger context that bases our system of government on premises that were not obvious in the 18th century to europeans.
That citizens of this new country will primarily decide their lives for themselves and not be subjects to royalty or a governing class. That is still an extremely powerful and somewhat rare idea in the world today. And it was and is America's unique mark in history.
Quoting VDHanson: "More government, higher taxes, richer entitlements, pacifism, statism and atheism."
That is not right wing philosophy. That is a recipe for deeper socialism, and increasing lack of productivity.
"Even in the American experience it took almost 100 years to cement the notion of a "Federation." "
INDEED. America had 4 progressions from a continent of independent States in a confederation to a national "USA".
1) 1789 - US Constitution replacing articles of confederation strengthens what was a weak Congress and President, and creates a Federal judiciary.
2) 1865 - Civil War and consideration of United States as 'one nation' not a bunch of independent states. 14th Amendment codified that into law; we became United States citizens with equal rights and privileges of such in all states.
3) 1913 - Income tax and direct election of Senators change national Government into working for 'the people' instead of as representatives of states. national govt powers expand.
4) 1930s - New Deal; "federal regulation" create on large scale and national regulatory and govt spending scheme. high federal income tax rates imposed.
5) 1960s - Great Society; welfare state expanded greatly on the national level.
EU *already* has #4 via the Brussels bureaucrats, and already redistributes budgets, something the United States didnt do until recent decades (great society and 'bloc grants'). So the EU Constitution is giving great powers and involvement than the US Federal Govt had for most of its history.
EU ought to try the kind of EU Government USA had from 1789 to 1865 for, oh, say, 70 years: No budget re-distribution from one state to another; no imposition of Federal law over State law except in very specific areas (eg creation of money); no Federal-level welfare-state spending ...
Do that and then take the next step later.
"I would think that the French are quite fond of their lives, liberty and also happiness."
I've heard of French farmers marching for farm subsidies (not freedom), unions protesting reasonable reforms to improve economic efficiency ... but I havent heard of French protests demanding lower taxes or and end to Govt overspending in that over-taxed country.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think they love dirigiste myths and socialist featherbedding more than they love liberty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.