The Brits ought to massively support the European Constitution

[Bereta_Eder]

Not that I have read it, of course.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You have a 265 page Constitution!?! How is anyone supposed to learn that?

Only experts are supposed to learn that, because the constitution is not a simple declaration of principles (the 2 pages long preamble does this job), but is a complete law document, which includes processes (and gawd there are many) and task repartition.

The preamble is what the Convention's presient hopes to be taught at school. Unfortunately, it is written in the exact same legalese style as European law

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by paiktis22


This falls under the 1t pillar and carries with it economic consequences which can be delivered by the commission I think.
Still there's a divide inside the EU in wether the stability pact should get more flexible.
There are conutries in favor of it (like italy) and countries definitely against (like holland)

The stability pact, IMVHO, should not be more flexible, but more explicit. It is clear that a country showing a 2% deficit when the economy grows an healthy 3.5% will have problems in meeting the 3% limit when the economy weaken badly à 0.2%. It was implicit that the Commission should have move sooner, that is when the circumstances would have made corrective action easier. Since it has not, this necessity must be explicited.

[Snotty]

Thanks for linking the constitution spiff. Its an interesting read.

[Spiffor]

Actually, countries are allowed to have a higher deficit than 3%. In a normal negative growth, such authorization can be given by the European Commission. And in an extreme negative growth (can't remember the exact figure), this authorization is automatically given.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Spiffor
negative growth

Is that better than a decrease ?

A negative loan would be a borrowing and negative love would be hatred.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Is that better than a decrease ?

That's actually a recession, if you want to go technical. But since "recession" can also mean "weak growth" in everyday language, I preferred to use obvious words.

[Snotty]

Negative growth and extreme negative growth = our very own doublespeak.

[Bereta_Eder]

And then of course there's the problem of how each country itself defines that its economy has entered "recession". For Germany I think it is two consecutive trimesters in negative growth? But I may be wrong.

[Dinner]

You can already withdraw from the Union any time you want. You just have to declare you are doing so. BTW I fail to see how formalizing this ability in any way addresses the main concerns which most anti-Federalized Europe (most of them aren't anti-Europe they just don't want foreigners forcing laws on them) Brits have. They are afraid the French & Germans will team up to force ever more agregious regulations upon them, ever more socialized this and that, ever less free market capitalism & privite ownership, and ever higher taxes to pay for all that socialist nonsense.

Does the new constitution make it easier for the Brits to defend themselves from these problems? No, it does not. In fact it makes it even harder for them to do so.

[Sandman]

It'll go through eventually, however much the Murdoch papers rant and rave.

You can already withdraw from the Union any time you want. You just have to declare you are doing so. BTW I fail to see how formalizing this ability in any way addresses the main concerns which most anti-Federalized Europe (most of them aren't anti-Europe they just don't want foreigners forcing laws on them) Brits have. They are afraid the French & Germans will team up to force ever more agregious regulations upon them, ever more socialized this and that, ever less free market capitalism & privite ownership, and ever higher taxes to pay for all that socialist nonsense.

Wrong on two counts. Firstly, they're concerned about loss of sovereignty and associated nationalist issues, rather than economic stuff. Secondly, the EU is capitalist as hell.

[Dinner]

Government ownership of key industries by several member states (France's ownership of Renault and Volkswagon is something like 25% owned by one of the German states just to name two examples) clearly puts most of the EU into the Socialist catagory. In poly sci a Socialist state has government ownership of key industries and/or major means of production while the rest of the economy remains privitized.

Government ownership of railways? Ckeck. Government owner ship of telcoms? Check.
Government ownership or undue control over Autos, steel, and other industrial areas? Check.

Face it. Many EU member states are socialist and not capitalist.

[Dinner]

BTW If magazines like the Economist are to be trusted, and I do trust them, the anti-Frederal Europe crowd is afraid of the lose of soveignty because it will lead to an unaccountable foreign government having control over every day life, economic or other wise.

I think their fears are over blown but the fact remains that Spiffor's reasoning as to why they should switch to supporting the new EU Constitution doesn't fly because it doesn't address these people's core concerns.

[Snotty]

Face it. Many EU member states are socialist and not capitalist.

You say that like its a bad thing.

[Dinner]

It has it's pluses and minuses; whither it's good or bad depends upon what you are aiming to achieve. The man point of that paragraph was to illistrate to Sandman that Europe was indeed socialist and that he was mistaken.