PDA

View Full Version : Non, biatches.



Vera
05-31-2005, 07:47 AM
Thoughts on the future of the EU now that the French said no the Constitution.

ShadowPyro
05-31-2005, 09:58 AM
Thoughts on the future of the EU now that the French said no the Constitution.
They are all different countries with different views. They should have their own different rulers and governments.

wheelchairman
05-31-2005, 10:08 AM
Note: WCM can't multi-task.
End note.

I'm quite satisfied with the French no. The EU should not develop as an entity, as it's existance is already the bane of millions in the 3rd world today, certainly does not hold the interest of the people at heart. (Hence the french 'non'.) Despite what the media politicians say, they were educated about the constitution. They all had the possibility of recieving the constitution. Internet and local forums were created to discussing the constitution. This was something that was explained and analyzed by the french to a large degree.

So if your politicians are trying to blame this on French ignorance, say 'non' to them and walk away.

Vera
05-31-2005, 11:18 AM
Yeah, also a lot in the news about how this was "just" a statement toward their current government.

I wish they didn't look at this like "Well, this won't stop us from doing what we want!" but rather, "Okay, how can we make the constitution better so that the people will actually be for it?".

wheelchairman
05-31-2005, 11:32 AM
Yeah. The result of this vote should be breaking the hearts of young politically idealistic kids Europe-wide. When they realize that because the population doesn't do what the leaders what, they are suddenly 'uneducated', and must have 'education' on the said subject to 'teach them how to respond properly' when asked. *sigh*.

I shouldn't read Orwell anymore if it will put me in moods like this.

Piedude
05-31-2005, 01:35 PM
Bribing them with lower resturant prices and stuff was just low...

RXP
05-31-2005, 02:37 PM
A lot more gay debate that leads nowhere.

Vera
06-01-2005, 06:19 AM
I've always been pro-EU and I think I will continue to be pro-EU but I'm also quite scared about the democracy void that seems to exist in the EU and how much leaders are willing to keep it that way. Of course a German citizen has more power in the EU than a Finnish citizen does and it'll probably always be that way but I hope that if they do want to have a constitution, it should be more about underlining the fact that people in the EU area actually have some SAY in what decisions are being made.

And of course it should be less about making the EU a fucking militarist power. I know that's partly just extreme left & right propaganda but from everything I know, it feels like that's where things would be heading.

The EU can compete with the US economically but it's an alliance of countries, not a STATE like it's trying to make itself be. No United States of Europe, kthnx.

Mota Boy
06-01-2005, 07:57 AM
As as American, I'm all for keeping Europe weak and divided. Multipolarity my ass.

NOAMR
06-01-2005, 08:49 AM
I'm against it, cuz it creates another superpower who only look to the rich, and let the poor be poor. How can it still be democratic when you got an area so big? Nope, it's a bureacratic dictature, people don't even now what the EU is doing, and so they can't make a good choice dor the European Parlement. And the European Parlement doesn't really got a lot of power. The EU just want that the big company's can stay rich and mistreaten the 3rd world and people of Europe. And no-one can get influence on the EU, only the big politicians(and politicians can only become big if they have a powergreed).

ermdevi@tion
06-01-2005, 03:38 PM
Well, we got a "nee!" to the contitution too. So thats good :D.

wheelchairman
06-02-2005, 01:52 AM
The EU-constitution underlines a neo-liberal economic policy. As a communist and a proponent of the welfare state, I obviously can't support that. Then again there is also the horrible trade practices and 3rd world dumping that we are a part of.

The EU acting as a single militar entity is just terrible, for all the same reasons that America having a military and being able to use it, is terrible. It's a tool of foreign policy in which to ensure the interests of the status quo of the EU (obviously, not the interests of the common European but of the slightly better off European). It won't lead to anything good.

Then of course, there is the democratic area of things. I come from a country of 5,5 million people, with a parliament of 278 seats. We have 14 representatives in the EU parliament. Obviously we lose a lot, don't we? Not to mention the fact that the EU, generally, is in practice of terrible directives. The service-directive for instance. The incorporation of Eastern European states to use as a cheap source of labor as another.

But these are all my thoughts, the list could go on.

Jesus
06-02-2005, 05:23 AM
I'm happy with the no vote in both Holland and France. Mostly for different reasons than the ones already stated in this topic. Since I don't believe in complete sovereignty in a globalized world, nor is it wishful (also some reasons were directed at the EU and not the constitution).

The thing that annoyed me was that it (the constitution) mostly uses a QMV for economical issues, but requires unanimity for most social issues. Thus it's a highly ideological constitution when it comes to issues (it rates some higher than others). Which would mean it would become basically what Britain, a lot of Western Europe and almost all of Eastern Europe want: a "neo-liberal" playground since a consensus would/will almost never be reached on social issues (also almost no control over the European Central Bank either). The race towards the bottom could begin, so saying it's for the rich to stay rich and the poor to stay poor is actually being too optimistical.

So drop the crap (basically the 3rd part of the "constitution"), make a constitution that outlines the powers of the institutions and gives the elementary rights of the people. Basically what a constitution is supposed to do and then i'm happy to vote yes. Because in the end we need to work together, sovereignty of the nation states won't solve all the problems either (it's not like the european countries who aren't as strongly involved in the EU have better policies dump dump dump).

This said, people weren't educated about the constitution, since, well people are stupid and selfish all over the world. BOOYA.

JoY
06-02-2005, 08:38 AM
Yeah, also a lot in the news about how this was "just" a statement toward their current government.

in that case the Netherlands also made a statement. result; "Nee".

0r4ng3
06-02-2005, 02:24 PM
"Nee"? Do you guys mean "Ni!"?

I should've read the posts before voting. I voted no, but everyone here convinced me otherwise.

JoY
06-03-2005, 03:05 AM
no, "Nee", as in "No" in Dutch.

offspringueuse
06-05-2005, 10:30 AM
I'm french and I'm very mad ans disappointed that the french voted "no"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it's so stupid to say "no" pour the europe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 'im mad against the french even if i'm french!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

Nina
06-05-2005, 10:37 AM
i am happy with any no a country can give to the eu constitution.

but i disagree when it comes to the way it was decided. i dont think the entire humanity is stupid, but i am convinced that the majority of the people in a country are not interested enough to understand politics. letting them vote on things like the euro i think is okay, but letting them vote on a *constitution* i consider too much for most people to handle. surely they have the WAYS to find out more about politics, but quite frankly, the question is still whether they actually do care and are competent enough (competent as in having the knowledge which is needed to actually make a choice) or not. and the answer is no IMHO.

wheelchairman
06-05-2005, 10:49 AM
I'm french and I'm very mad ans disappointed that the french voted "no"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it's so stupid to say "no" pour the europe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 'im mad against the french even if i'm french!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:
Le 'non' francaise, est le plus meilleur choissi pour l'europe. Vous avez lu la constitution? Ce n'est pas une constitution normale, il y a des politiques du droit en la constitution. Ce n'est pas acceptable.

wheelchairman
06-05-2005, 10:53 AM
i am happy with any no a country can give to the eu constitution.

but i disagree when it comes to the way it was decided. i dont think the entire humanity is stupid, but i am convinced that the majority of the people in a country are not interested enough to understand politics. letting them vote on things like the euro i think is okay, but letting them vote on a *constitution* i consider too much for most people to handle. surely they have the WAYS to find out more about politics, but quite frankly, the question is still whether they actually do care and are competent enough (competent as in having the knowledge which is needed to actually make a choice) or not. and the answer is no IMHO.
The french weren't ignorant about it though. The Constitution was sent to everyone (or everyone who requested it), countless meetings, debates, public forums, internet forums, information pamphlets, classes, were set up, all for the sole purpose of understanding the constitution. Despite the fact that all established politicians today are saying that the French 'no', is simply a sign of ignorance and racism, that is a lie.

Although, I'd disagree with you fundamentally. The idea that a group of political elite should be creating constitutions for the people (and not holding referendums) is an absolutely disgusting idea.

NOAMR
06-05-2005, 12:35 PM
Yup; a constition is about you're rights and duty's, it influences you're life a lot. To say that people can't choose what life they want, is totalirism. Well, we, here in Belgium, doesn't got a referendum, the parliament just choosed himself to say 'yes' to it, and that makes the people a lot more uninformed. There is almost no-one up here who knows what it is about, and I've the feeling the French and Dutch really informed them( well, that's at least what I think of the Dutch I hearded on a forum and so on, I don't really have so much contact with Frenches). Even if we can't change a thing anymore, it's still better to have a referendum(the Flemish Parlement hadn't voted yet/decided to have a referendum, when the French 'NO' was reality).

Nina
06-05-2005, 12:47 PM
Yup; a constition is about you're rights and duty's, it influences you're life a lot. To say that people can't choose what life they want, is totalirism. Well, we, here in Belgium, doesn't got a referendum, the parliament just choosed himself to say 'yes' to it, and that makes the people a lot more uninformed. There is almost no-one up here who knows what it is about, and I've the feeling the French and Dutch really informed them( well, that's at least what I think of the Dutch I hearded on a forum and so on, I don't really have so much contact with Frenches). Even if we can't change a thing anymore, it's still better to have a referendum(the Flemish Parlement hadn't voted yet/decided to have a referendum, when the French 'NO' was reality).

do you really think that people will be more interested if they get the chance to vote? i still highly doubt that. maybe in a very small country like belgium the number of votes are going to be high, but in germany, with over 80million people, it is quite difficult to expect every single person (or even 2/3 of the population!) to have an opinion on this based on actual knowledge. and if only half of the population vote (and i could imagine that in germany!) what use is there for a referendum?

oh, and i didnt see your reply wcm. whats up with the bbs, this happened twice today.

Nina
06-05-2005, 12:59 PM
The french weren't ignorant about it though. The Constitution was sent to everyone (or everyone who requested it), countless meetings, debates, public forums, internet forums, information pamphlets, classes, were set up, all for the sole purpose of understanding the constitution. Despite the fact that all established politicians today are saying that the French 'no', is simply a sign of ignorance and racism, that is a lie.

Although, I'd disagree with you fundamentally. The idea that a group of political elite should be creating constitutions for the people (and not holding referendums) is an absolutely disgusting idea.

i didnt call the french or anybody else ignorant, though. even if classes were set up, i simply doubt that every single vote was based on knowledge and understanding concerning politics. because i doubt that everyone has the ability to grip the whole subject so easily. dont get me wrong, while politicans have that as their job, i sometimes ask myself if THEY even know anything, but thats besides the point. just because a few politicans cant do their job right, doesnt mean the whole thing has to be in the hands of million of people who dont know a lot either.
as i said, in GENERAL, it should always be the population to decide, obviously because its them who live in the country and who have to live with the rules. but
1) not when it is extremly complicated decisions that are connected to SO many things that its just difficult to overlook if you're not absolutely interested in the subject
2) its the job of the politicans to lead them, because not everybody can do it (and this sentence can be seen in many different ways).

i replied because i didnt want to be rude, but if you are "fundamentally" against what i say, i really dont want to argue with you, because there is no point to it. i have my own opinions and so far i havent been convinced otherwise; if that ever happens, and its not even so unlikely to happen because we discuss this in classes a lot, then it's going to happen in school, the place i can sort out my thoughts early in the morning, and not 10pm at night :x

wheelchairman
06-05-2005, 01:25 PM
i didnt call the french or anybody else ignorant, though. even if classes were set up, i simply doubt that every single vote was based on knowledge and understanding concerning politics. because i doubt that everyone has the ability to grip the whole subject so easily. dont get me wrong, while politicans have that as their job, i sometimes ask myself if THEY even know anything, but thats besides the point. just because a few politicans cant do their job right, doesnt mean the whole thing has to be in the hands of million of people who dont know a lot either.
as i said, in GENERAL, it should always be the population to decide, obviously because its them who live in the country and who have to live with the rules. but
1) not when it is extremly complicated decisions that are connected to SO many things that its just difficult to overlook if you're not absolutely interested in the subject
2) its the job of the politicans to lead them, because not everybody can do it (and this sentence can be seen in many different ways).

i replied because i didnt want to be rude, but if you are "fundamentally" against what i say, i really dont want to argue with you, because there is no point to it. i have my own opinions and so far i havent been convinced otherwise; if that ever happens, and its not even so unlikely to happen because we discuss this in classes a lot, then it's going to happen in school, the place i can sort out my thoughts early in the morning, and not 10pm at night :x

Generally we are viewing the role of politicians in two different ways.

If I've understood correctly, you believe that Politicians (or the majority of them at least) do their work to try and properly represent the people who voted for them, and their interests. And that for this reason, ordinary people don't have a business in complicated matters (like the EU constitution.)

This is more trust in politicians than I have. Politicians, especially mainstream politicians, are corrupted entities. Politicians, in my opinion, basically spend most of their time tricking voters. Call this the 'americanization' of European politics. If we allow politicians, to take every single important (and the constitution, is of an importance that most laws, ever passed, could ever equal up to.) And faithfulness in any institution of authority, would be wrong. Had we allowed the parliaments to decide, for example, whether or not they wanted the constitution. They almost all, would've voted for a yes. This is true of the French parliament, this is most certainly true of the Dutch Parliament (seeing as, the leader of the Dutch government has even said before that 'the Dutch referendum, is more of a guide than any defenitive action, and the decision of accepting the constitution or not is up to the parliament.' or something along those lines.) No institution of power has the right to make all decisions for the people, that isn't really democracy.

So that's the fundamental difference in our views. I have a lack of trust in politicians, you have a lack of trust in the population.

And you probably didn't see my reply, because I was basically replying directly after myself, so it would appear to be the same reply as before, or something. Anyways thanks for your reply if I didn't change your mind, or if you feel like you have nothing to add, I won't be offended if you stop replying. (although feel free to keep on replying, I enjoy debate, as you know.)

Edit: And on the question of Public Interest in politics. (this is an afterthought, because I didn't truly address it in the post.)

People, tend to have a severe lack of interest in politics, because politics has divorced itself from the people. It's become a tool of the intellectual elite (speeches, books, laws, programs, they are all written in a complicated and technical manner. The average American for example, won't be able to understand most of what is written) which is one degree of separation. The centralization of the decision making progress also makes people feel farther away from politics (for example when Berlin makes decisions *for* the people in Wiesbaden, or in your federal state that really should've been left for the individual City or Federality to decide.) What needs to happen is a reversion, if people aren't interested in politics, it's because they
1. Don't understand it.
2. Can't connect to it (obviously, a bad thing for any democracy.)
3. None of the parties represent what they want, or the parties, in writing do, but in action *betray* their voters.

P.S. I'm glad you are against, as I recall, you supported the EU.

felix_leiter
06-05-2005, 03:34 PM
Well any constitution can get out of my face.

People say Europe's needed to compete with China and America ECONOMICALLY.

What does that have to do with us being connected with a constitution? Other European countries have their own constitutions. Britain doesn have one, cos the British ethos and experience is that we dont need one. We are all free people and not bound to bureaucrats and bullshitters in London or Brussells.

All the EU is is another layer of crap keeping the little guy from having a voice and hurting our rights and democracy. I'm not a European, I'm a Brit.

brothadave79
06-05-2005, 05:04 PM
No idea there was even a vote or porposed constitution. Us news is quite blinding.


Not totally. I knew about the votes against the EU Constitution. It just depends on what news channels you watch. You're not going to see it on the local news at 5 o'clock, that's for sure. And newspapers do a marginally good job of recording international news. I'm pretty sure there'll be a nice article about it in Time and Newsweek. So, maybe the US is just blind to the news delivered to them.

Jesus
06-06-2005, 02:41 AM
I'm not a European, I'm a Brit.

and a moron, god I wish Britain would finally hold a referendum to leave the EU, and not let them get back afterwards when they start whining to come back (like what happened in the 70's). Blair has to be the least leftist social democract in Western-Europe (pretty obvious since the tories are so much to the right + a majority system). Britain has and still wants the EU to be exactly what I don't want it to be: only a free trade zone.

*anyway back to studying :-/*

wheelchairman
06-06-2005, 03:01 AM
I'm not a European, I'm a Brit.
Not like Europe really wants you guys either.

felix_leiter
06-06-2005, 07:16 AM
Then I'm happy that's settled then.

Nina
06-06-2005, 07:58 AM
Generally we are viewing the role of politicians in two different ways.

If I've understood correctly, you believe that Politicians (or the majority of them at least) do their work to try and properly represent the people who voted for them, and their interests. And that for this reason, ordinary people don't have a business in complicated matters (like the EU constitution.)

[...]

So that's the fundamental difference in our views. I have a lack of trust in politicians, you have a lack of trust in the population.

[...]

People, tend to have a severe lack of interest in politics, because politics has divorced itself from the people. [...] What needs to happen is a reversion, if people aren't interested in politics, it's because they
1. Don't understand it.
2. Can't connect to it (obviously, a bad thing for any democracy.)
3. None of the parties represent what they want, or the parties, in writing do, but in action *betray* their voters.


actually, no. i neither believe in the population nor do i believe in the politicans. i dont think that humanity will ever be able to be as democratic as (almost?) everybody wants to me. but what i believe is that there is a *higher* chance for politicans and politically interested people to make somewhat "right" and "good" decisions than every single citizen as a whole.
as you said yourself, one reason for people not being interested in politics is because they simply dont understand that. that's what i have been saying as well. not that EVERYBODY doesnt understand it, but SOME dont. and these "few" people arent just litterally a few, but a few THOUSAND. i get upset when i think of so many people who vote for something they dont know jack shit about. yes, many french people now have the eu instituation at home, but i doubt that even 1/4 of them has ever looked in it. thats bad enough. dont get me wrong, i dont blame them for anything, i myself havent read all of it either, but then again i am not voting for anything.

a pure democracy will probably never exist. its too much of an utopia to me. besides, i never said that politicans should make all the decisions..in one of your quotes you cleared this up yourself (at the beginning of your reply), but in another quote you said "No institution of power has the right to make all decisions for the people, that isn't really democracy.", which is quite obvious :/ so i didnt quite get why exactly you said that.

and i agree that a lot of parties are absolutely unable to represent what they actually want to do. but god, thats a whole different thing which i better not get into right now.

aaand you said that people dont connect with politics...i'd reply to this but i dont have time right now, so later today it shall be.

wheelchairman
06-06-2005, 08:41 AM
Well first of all, I never said you believed in anything, since I really didn't think you did. I used the term 'lack of faith', seeing as you have a larger lack of faith in the people than in the politicians. It's just, I fundamentally disagree. I guess I need to know more by what you mean with " "right" " and " "good" ". Because obviously you don't mean right and good. Right and Good in a political context can only be decided on a set of pre-determined criteria (or interests), and I generally think most established politicians have very different interests than I do, and than most of the population in general.

Ignorance is to be expected. But I'd rather have choices left to a few ignorant voters and to the rest of the voting population who desperately want to get heard. The majority of people who voted had to have some information and a basic opinion on the EU before they voted even if it was as simple as "EU bad, thus EU constitution very bad." And I would go as far as saying, that reading the EU constitution is almost pointless for the majority of the people. I own it myself, and it's a very complicated text, with vocabulary relevant only to people who study things like law. That is why I think it's great there was such a generally large campaign of information in France, so that even if it was written in a way that was too complicated for them, they'd have opportunities to know what it was about, and that if these things were something they considered good or bad.

Pure democracy is a broad term that has a different definition to everyone. I'd say the democratic system of Libya is very progressive. That's something I might consider 'true' democracy.

felix_leiter
06-06-2005, 08:48 AM
Jesus, what the fuck are you talking about? Try to make arguments that make sense rather than just reeling off a load of worthless facts. Is that possible?

Vera
06-06-2005, 10:01 AM
Why I wish we had an election about this in Finland:

1) The politicians seem to be all, "Let's do it! OMG EU RULZ, UNCONDITIONALLY!" and I just feel like they're doing it because if Finland would say no and be the only one to do so, everyone'd be all ">:0 Finland sucks!" and we're a small country, we have to "look good" in the EU. Voting "no" or just mere taking the risk that Finns would vote "no" is not looking good in the EU.

2) Having an election would bring the topic into breakfast tables, newspapers, suddenly everyone would *have to* know SOMETHING about it and of course both sides would give out information on why to vote for or against and then people would have to start forming their opinions on the issue.

Right now it's all "I don't know shit so I don't have an opinion".

If there is an election, people would *know* - it would just be unavoidable. Even if you don't give a shit about politics, if the topic is in the news, in the papers, if it's talked about ALL OVER THE PLACE, people would know.

3) Sort of what WCM said. I don't have a lack of trust toward politicians but then again, I'm underage, I've never voted so they don't represent me, currently.

wheelchairman
06-06-2005, 02:17 PM
Jesus, what the fuck are you talking about? Try to make arguments that sense rather than just reeling off a load of worthless facts. Is that possible?
The person(s) I've argued with in this topic, have all completely understood what I've talked about. And the only thing I mentioned that might take some research is that thing about Libya, but I was feverish and in a hurry to a political meeting so didn't elaborate.

However, instead of being a dumbfuck (which you are, since everyone else could figure out what I was saying. And because the options I am about to show to you are incredibly logical), here is what you could've done.

This is a very good link that should almost always be used, when in doubt. (http://fuckinggoogleit.com/)

Should you want more exacting knowledge, there is a great fountain of knowledge here, at this link as well: http://en.wikipedia.org

Vera- Now our goal, should be that a French and dutch 'no' was a veto. Cuz quite honestly, I don't want to spend my summer propagating and agitating against a dead constitution.

Not Ozymandias
06-06-2005, 10:30 PM
I'm an American, the last thing we need is you clowns uniting.

felix_leiter
06-07-2005, 04:35 AM
Wheelchairman, don't be a fuckin idiot, I wasnt even talking to you, I addressed Jesus.

Maybe you should take the time to move up the page to see who I might be talking to before jumping to conclusions. You can retract that "dumbfuck" comment now.

wheelchairman
06-07-2005, 05:28 AM
Wheelchairman, don't be a fuckin idiot, I wasnt even talking to you, I addressed Jesus.

Maybe you should take the time to move up the page to see who I might be talking to before jumping to conclusions. You can retract that "dumbfuck" comment now.

I thought you were saying the name Jesus as in 'jesus christ you annoy me' or something. Either way, my comment still stands. Jesus' reply makes sense, and I re-direct you back to my former links if you still can't understand Jesus.

JoY
06-07-2005, 05:33 AM
my GOD, this makes me hate Brits. *vomits*

felix_leiter
06-07-2005, 08:50 AM
Yeah, what i was saying was that whatever he had to say, regardless of whether it was true, was not relevant to what I was talking about, and it did not justify deeming me a "moron".

wheelchairman
06-07-2005, 09:38 AM
Yeah, what i was saying was that whatever he had to say, regardless of whether it was true, was not relevant to what I was talking about, and it did not justify deeming me a "moron".
The fact that he quoted your really useless comment 'I'm not European, I'm a brit' and then went on a rant on, what is a truly awful political mindset in England, seemed quite relevant and made a lot of sense, to everyone else here, but you.

felix_leiter
06-07-2005, 02:11 PM
Please explain what makes the quote you mentioned 'useless' and that 'mindset' 'awful'. I need enlightenment on this please.

wheelchairman
06-07-2005, 02:35 PM
The saying:

'I'm not European, I'm a brit.' is purely nationalist. That is my major problem with it. The French 'no' was not 'I'm not European, I am French.' 'I'm not European, I am dutch.' etc. etc. They all had social and political backgrounds for their nay-saying. The opposite of that statement.

The awful political mindset, I thought, was obvious. That the left-wing opposition in England is 'New Labour' which is every bit as bad as the Conservatives when it comes to privitization and all that. Other 'European' nations, tend to function well with multiple parties, that include a left-wing.

felix_leiter
06-09-2005, 02:00 PM
Nationalistic feeling and the state of the Labour party are utterly unrelated. Labour and its supporters are supporters of the EU and the constitution.

What's wrong with nationalistic attitudes, when your national identity is what's being compromised in the constitution.

wheelchairman
06-10-2005, 09:52 AM
Nationalistic feeling and the state of the Labour party are utterly unrelated. Labour and its supporters are supporters of the EU and the constitution.

What's wrong with nationalistic attitudes, when your national identity is what's being compromised in the constitution.
Everything is wrong with British nationalism, because Britain *is* and *was* a colonial oppressor. The feelings of nationalism are justification used by the political elite to abuse the masses into supporting oppressive campaigns in nations, they otherwise shouldn't care about.

And how does the constitution compromise your national identity?

The labour party is in every way a part of the nationalist movement, because they try to use British nationalism and patriotism to their own advantage, like every other major party, they just fail at it more.

felix_leiter
06-10-2005, 12:01 PM
Well that first bit has nothing to do with anything. Colonial Oppression? Europe's the only body guilty of that.

By definition of there being a constitution. The aim of the EU is to create a European superstate-a nation of Europe. Different nations are different nations for a reason-the economic and political diferenecs are being bulldozed by the constitution right now. But physical ones (the channel, the alps etc.) and cultural ones remain, and can't be destroyed by cunts in Brussels.

Well so every party's nationalist-and so what does it matter about how right wing the labour party is anyway?

wheelchairman
06-10-2005, 12:08 PM
Do you have selective hearing or what?


Well that first bit has nothing to do with anything. Colonial Oppression? Europe's the only body guilty of that.
fucking hell....
Does Ulster not exist? The entire reason for the British presence in Ulster, is solely of Nationalist grounds. The fact that Scotland doesn't have full independence yet, is another nationalist cause forced on by Britannia's waves of nationalism.

Not to mention Canada and Australia to a lesser extent.



By definition of there being a constitution. The aim of the EU is to create a European superstate-a nation of Europe. Different nations are different nations for a reason-the economic and political diferenecs are being bulldozed by the constitution right now. But physical ones (the channel, the alps etc.) and cultural ones remain, and can't be destroyed by cunts in Brussels.
So the British nationality is solely defined by it's political and economical situation? Meaning if you were ever to change a political or economical state, you would completely lose your bearing as a culture and nationality?



Well so every party's nationalist-and so what does it matter about how right wing the labour party is anyway?
Not every party is nationalist. Every party uses nationalism as a way to sway voters. There is a difference. And it's a matter of great importance because they are the LEFT WING opposition. If they are the farthest power to the left, then it's almost pointless to have two parties.

felix_leiter
06-10-2005, 01:44 PM
The reason those places still have a British connection is, amazingly, because they're British! The people there feel British-if there was a referendum in any of those places, they'd probably wish to keep that connection.

But of course now you're gonna tell me that all those people's opinions are implanted and controlled by the media and/or the state, and that only enlightened ones like yourself can see the real situation.

What you've just said about British identity is the complete opposite of what I said, read it again, and dont skim read. It is the other factors I mentioned (aside from economic and political factors) that show the idiocy of the idea of the European State, and the fantasy Europhiles are trying to enforce with the constitution.

The Labour leadership may not appear Left Wing, but the grass roots and backbenches remain it. They have many left wing policies still-the European constitution being one of them in fact!

wheelchairman
06-10-2005, 02:24 PM
The reason those places still have a British connection is, amazingly, because they're British! The people there feel British-if there was a referendum in any of those places, they'd probably wish to keep that connection.

But of course now you're gonna tell me that all those people's opinions are implanted and controlled by the media and/or the state, and that only enlightened ones like yourself can see the real situation.

What you've just said about British identity is the complete opposite of what I said, read it again, and dont skim read. It is the other factors I mentioned (aside from economic and political factors) that show the idiocy of the idea of the European State, and the fantasy Europhiles are trying to enforce with the constitution.

The Labour leadership may not appear Left Wing, but the grass roots and backbenches remain it. They have many left wing policies still-the European constitution being one of them in fact!

Okay so tell me something, did the constitution mention anything about re-naming the English word for 'the channel?' No. I don't think it even tried to get rid of established 'Britishicity' like the Royal Family or 'Rule Britannia.' That will all exist afterwards. What exactly bothers you about the constitution that you fear will destroy British culture?

Despite the fact that there are more Irish in Ulster now, that's a pretty blank statement. Not to mention the fact that the Irish in Ulster are far more politically active than the 'Brits', and tend to have more children. And no, I don't think they are brainwashed. Anyone who goes to Ulster (and I lived in Coagh for a while) can see this. The Irish are proud to be Irish and the British minority certainly doesn't suffer from the usual inferiority complex of the British nationality. British control over Ulster was always meant to be temporary after the 1916 resolution.

And anyone in Scotland will tell you that they don't feel very British. That should be rather obvious to anyone who goes to Scotland, even for a day.

felix_leiter
06-10-2005, 02:40 PM
What bothers me about the constitution? It's very nature and existence. Where's it leading to-a European superstate-which is bad for everyone apart from corrupt bureaucrats, who can sit at the top of an even bigger pile than they're on top of now.

If those Catholics in Ulster wanna separate from Britain, then they can if they want. The majority of Catholics in Ulster is a relatively recent change, so if that's how they feel, then I'm sure they will soon.

Scotland? Scotland is Britain-fact. There's no colonialism about the British in Scotland. A more appropriate call would be for the end of British (ie. Scottish) colonialism in England, especially if they (ridiculously I might add) have their own assembley anyway.

Either way, both countries would want independence from the European Superstate

wheelchairman
06-10-2005, 02:48 PM
Well then we basically agree about the constitution on that point.

I was waiting for that, when you would claim Scottish colonialism (it's a classic conservative trick in the US to act like the victims of wars, racism, etc. all the things they are famous for.)

Their own assembly is really a joke. It's rather submissive to the English, remember the case of the homosexual scottish couple that tried to get married?

felix_leiter
06-10-2005, 02:59 PM
Both the Prime Minister and Chancellor of BRITAIN are Scottish.

The Scottish parliament is a joke and half-baked. It's an attempt to satisfy the devolutionaries, while also leaving Scottish politicians free to stay in the BRITISH parliament.

Westminster is not the English parliament, it's the British one, which means that Scottish members can vote on legislation for England, while English members cant have a vote in matters effecting Scotland (on those areas the Scottish parliament has control of).

wheelchairman
06-10-2005, 03:14 PM
Both the Prime Minister and Chancellor of BRITAIN are Scottish.

The Scottish parliament is a joke and half-baked. It's an attempt to satisfy the devolutionaries, while also leaving Scottish politicians free to stay in the BRITISH parliament.

Westminster is not the English parliament, it's the British one, which means that Scottish members can vote on legislation for England, while English members cant have a vote in matters effecting Scotland (on those areas the Scottish parliament has control of).
Having a Scottish Prime Minister, while applaudable, doesn't truly mean much when you only have two identical parties. If he had been some kind of radical or something, then I would step back and say I was completely wrong.

Again, are you ignoring the incident of the Gay Scottish couple?

felix_leiter
06-10-2005, 03:31 PM
Yeah in that case, the British parliament (not the English parliament) bossed the Scottish parliament, but I think that was a case more of the MPs (Scottish or English) personal conservatism than a great example of the Scottish people being oppressed or not listened to.

wheelchairman
06-10-2005, 03:44 PM
Yeah in that case, the British parliament (not the English parliament) bossed the Scottish parliament, but I think that was a case more of the MPs (Scottish or English) personal conservatism than a great example of the Scottish people being oppressed or not listened to.
oh sorry, I just realized I mixed up the words British and English earlier (it's a late night for me).

Conservatism yes, and it shows really who is *boss.*