EU Constitution

[IBBoard]

OK, this may not interest people, and I normally don't want to bring politics up much, but this is national instead of local/party politics so it has more impact.

Following France and Holland's rejection of the EU Constitution, what do other people think and what would you vote (if you're willing to say)?

Personally I think Europe is a good idea, but that a constitution and lots of central rule is bad. They seem to be trying to create the United States of Europe, and with the various animosities between countries it just isn't likely to work. On top of that the average person on the high street has no input (we vote for MEPs, but all of this is decided by appointed commisioners).

The USA works because it has been two opposing factions, one was defeated and it spread across the continent. The USE that they want to create has too many opposing groups for something like that to stick, even if the physical size of the 'union' was smaller.

Personally, I think a referendum on the constitution is one of the few occasions when I'd actually bother to vote (local and party politics just leaves you with generally the same people, whichever party they are with)

[IBBoard]

I'm guessing no one else cares about the EU constitution then oh well, never mind, I didn't think it was that important anyway!

[omegoku]

im waiting for the god emperor to sort it out..

[SisterHelios]

Never heard of this

[IBBoard]

The EU or the Constitution?

[SisterHelios]

The UE...can't say I head of it lol

[IBBoard]

*shakes head* I was kinda joking when I suggested you hadn't heard of the EU

European Union? Most of the continent wanting to work together so that the USA isn't the only 'super power'? Only with Britain wanting to work together, but not merge by using a single currency and having one set of rules that override all national laws We may be part of Europe, but we always say things like "In Europe they do...." as if it's completely separate from us

[SisterHelios]

Oh sorry lol just an Uniformed Amamerican then lol

[Simguinus]

Disturbing. Most disturbing.

I think the thing we most need to get rid of from the EU (constitution of otherwise) is the rotational presidency. Or at least extend its duration. 6 months? It takes that long to draft a piece of legislation, nevermind get it through the Euro parliament. You're barely in the door before it's someone else's turn.

Recent summits have suggested greater transparency and public involvement. Bad idea. Never involve the public. They're idiots.

As Winston Churchill once observed "The greatest argument against democracy is five minutes with the average voter."

[IBBoard]

LOL, I like Churchill's comment

While there are numerous times that you sit there and think "why did they do that? it makes no sense and people don't want it", the amount of times people say "they should do what we want more" is a little worrying. It takes politicians long enough to decide on things anyway without involving generally uninformed Joe Public (who may even read Red Tops and have a severely sensationalised source of information). I don't know where I got it from, but I think the thing most people don't understand is (approximating the phrase) that "the government is voted in to do what it believes is best for the people, and not to do what the people beileive is best".

Maybe it was Yes! Prime Minister - that always has various insightful political-satire comments

[Simguinus]

One of my favourite "Yes, Minister" moments comes form the 2nd Season episode "Jobs for the Boys" - in which Sir Humphrey, Jim Hacker and Frank Wiesel are discussing Wiesel's QUANGO(Quasi Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisation) Abolition paper.

FW: "What did you think of it?"
SHA: "Most original and imaginative."
FW: "You liked it?!?"
JH: "Frank, 'original' and 'imaginative' are Humphrey's two most damning criticisms."

Another good anti-democracy quote can be found in Preacher - "We're ruled by fools whose only qualification is that a bunch of sheep found them more attractive than the other fools."

The public at large shouldn't be involved in the political process; it's just too dangerous. Ever since it started mattering what people thought about a politician, beyond what party he was standing for and what policies he believed in we've started losing the battle for sensible government. When 'newspapers' like the Sun can have an impact on political policy you know you're in trouble. John Reid's recent cock-up with sentencing and the judiciary serves to amply demonstrate this.

And you only have to watch the West Wing's election-time episodes to start worrying about the power of the pollsters.

[IBBoard]

When 'newspapers' like the Sun can have an impact on political policy you know you're in trouble

Cue another Yes Prime Minister quote:

The Times is read by the people who run the country. The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by the people who think they ought to run the country. The Morning Star is read by the people who think the country ought to be run by another country. The Independent is read by people who don't know who runs the country but are sure they're doing it wrong. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by the people who own the country. The Daily Express is read by the people who think the country ought to be run as it used to be run. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who still think it is their country. And the Sun's readers don't care who runs the country providing she has big tits.

Can't say I've watched West Wing, though.

[edit] and now that it's the morning, I'll post a bit more in here

One interesting thing with people and politics: They seem to believe at the moment that if Blair stands down then they should get the chance to vote again because they didn't vote Brown in. Hang on, didn't you vote the party in at the national level, not the individual?

I'm trying to remember what I read in the paper the other day (Times on Thursday or Guardian yesterday - I get them for the jobs sections). There was something interesting about who now wanted what in Europe. A good number of countries want what they were offered, or minor changes, a few have completely rejected it, and I think we're in the 'kinda rejected it and don't want a referrendum' camp

Also, always good for an alternate point of view: Eddie Izzard with 'Europe: It's crazy - but it works'. I've not read all of them, but some of the comments at the bottom are quite good.