European Constitution

[jpittelo]

As being not in Europe, and not involved in politics (neutral observer ?) some wondered on some theoretical reasons, why some countries refuted the European Constitution,

some arguments found were :

-fear in front of Turkey (the country), and other eastern countries,

-but what if there were other problems, such as laws on drugs (possibility to get them "legally"<-controversial!!, in some countries, such as Netherlands, which would contradict the European Constitution, or laws on prostitution ? Not knowing the details), which do not even take into account far away countries, or just langugages (we don't like languages outside the mother's one..argument like these..?)

-On the other hand, will the European Government apply democratical methods (BTW : democracy is sometimes, abusively, called "dictatorship of the majority") on several levels in Europa :

majority of countries,
majority of voters ?

or reseparate again at the level of the countries ? So why a Constitution anyhow, humans are nationalists (socialists in France ?)

Do you have other indices about this fact ?

Thanks for your losing of time (if any)

[Eclogite]

Some of us to not wish to become a federation, a United States of Europe. We wish to be part of an economic partnership, while retaining control over many aspects of our lives that the Constitution would have placed in the hands of Brussels.

Europe, under present management, is run by nameless beaurocrats. Democracy is being removed slowly from the process of government. This is objectionable to some of us.

[jpittelo]

In fact I found another source, very explosive, that I didn't remember :, take your breath, because....

"If France [...] want to get into the united Europe, it has to be an aryan France"..cite : "La ligue française", traduit, around 1944...quoi around..la traduction oubien...non le texte original...ils sont pas...(censored....death penalty...aso..??)

[Tormod]

The previous post is irrelevant - France is a member of the EU and it is not an Aryan nation.

Norway decided against EU membership due to several reasons, most of which are political. Being a small country, a (small) majority of the citizens were afraid that Brussels (the political capital of Europe) would simply take over the country, to put it bluntly.

There were also worries on behalf of everyone who is working in subsidized industries, for example farmers, that EU rules would be too strict for a country where we have a very widespread population with very small local communities.

And most of all I think Norway is culturally against joining anything that they can't rule.

Personally I used to be opposed to joining the union, but today I would have voted for it.

[Racoon]

Originally Posted by Tormod

The previous post is irrelevant - France is a member of the EU and it is not an Aryan nation.

Personally I used to be opposed to joining the union, but today I would have voted for it.

Why the change of Vote?
Couldn't Norway still join the E.U. if the majority likewise changed their minds?

Are the benefits of E.U. membership: a more solid Currency? protection under multiple armies? Trade leverage?

[Eclogite]

Originally Posted by Tormod

Norway decided against EU membership due to several reasons, most of which are political.

Since this thread does not seem to be going anywhere in particular I shall recount my Norway and the EU story.
During much of the nineties I visited Norway on a frequent basis, averaging eight or so trips each year. On every occasion but one the weather in Stavanger when I arrived would be better than the weather in Aberdeen when I left. The return trip was the same: no matter the weather in Stavanger, in Aberdeen it would be worse.
The one exception was the day after Norway voted to remain outside the EU: that day was gorgeous in Abderdeen and dreadful in Stavanger.
I took this as a sign.

[jpittelo]

Originally Posted by Tormod

The previous post is irrelevant - France is a member of the EU and it is not an Aryan nation.[...]

I'm not speaking about what it is...but what our predecessors wrote and told about the view of Churchill after WWII...which in some sense was a reaction of France towards the ideology at that time (a mimicking to ridiculize)...

but can you be member of Y and not accept the constitution of Y ?

For example in Switzerland, administrative subdivisions of the country are sometimes deciding above the Federal Country Consitutional Laws for some acts, whereas other are below...which is mixing up the stuff..so that we call this system : a confederation..there is the federation with a (hierarchical) mix of cantonal and other abitrary divisions (sometimes not even path connected by the way), some people would like to centralize the "orders", so that the chief is not only giving to the subchief, but to the whole underhierarchy...(slow and overheavy system..?)