The Brits ought to massively support the European Constitution

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The English don't massively support anything. It's not in our nature.

We're an old and decadent people, so we'd rather just take the piss, if that's OK?

[MOBIUS]

Look, the EU in its current guise is f*cked up, corrupt and bureaucratically bloated with Giscard D'Estaing (sp?) seemingly inventing the constitution as he goes along - why the hell would we want to get in any deeper than we are already?

Hey it's a great idea on paper, but I'd rather that the Krauts and Frogs sort the mess out first and when it is all cleaned up and pristine-like - then invite us!

[Kuciwalker]

Re: The Brits ought to massively support the European Constitution

Originally posted by Spiffor
Well, real pro-Europe Brits already do. But the throngs of anti-Europe Brits should really love the constitution as well, because it allows at last a country to leave the EU if it wants.

Didn't Virginia technically have the right to leave the Union if it wanted?

Look how that turned out (not that I'm complaining).

If the Brits don't want to risk surrenduring their national sovereignty, to them.

[Sandman]

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.

The French government have been privatising Renault since 1994. They now only 44% of the company. And what about Peugeot/Citroen? It's a gross exaggeration to suggest that key industries are government owned. The vast majority of the EU's GDP comes from private enterprise.

The new EU members had to privatise lots of stuff in order to qualify for membership. EU rules forbid the nationalisation of failing industries (to preserve competition) and prevent governments from having controlling percentages of private companies. It also works tirelessly to ensure that capital can flow freely within Europe. What do you think the single currency is for? That's why your claim of

"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."

is nonsense.

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

Railways? Big deal. They own the roads too. And unless I'm mistaken, it's the same in America. Telecoms is still partly state-owned, but don't kid yourself that it's moving anywhere but towards privatisation, largely thanks to the EU. The EU loves private telecoms, but the states are still putting up resistance. Cars and steel are hardly state-owned at all.

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

The character of EU state-owned industries is that of islands in a sea of private capital. And the tide is rising.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
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.

I don't know where you studied political sciences, but in my book, a "socialist" economy is an economy where there is no private property over production means, except for individual businesses. A "socialist" economy is a transition period that aims to get to the "communist" economy.

What you describe happening in the EU is what the Germans call "social market economy" (soziale Marktwirtschaft). Or a social-democratic economy if you want. Such economy doesn't deny private property over production means, quite the contrary, but considers the State has a role in articulating and managing the general interest.

[Spiffor]

The character of EU state-owned industries is that of islands in a sea of private capital. And the tide is rising.

This is so sadly true

[Dinner]

Ok, Sandman. You can feel free to make up your own definitions but I'll stick with the real definitions they tech at reputable Universities. In socialist countries the majority of the economy is privitely owned! Do you understand the difference between asocialist and a communist system?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I don't know where you studied political sciences, but in my book, a "socialist" economy is an economy where there is no private property over production means, except for individual businesses. A "socialist" economy is a transition period that aims to get to the "communist" economy.

In my poly sci classes the difining feature was the degree to which the government owned or controlled the means of production.

What you describe happening in the EU is what the Germans call "social market economy" (soziale Marktwirtschaft). Or a social-democratic economy if you want. Such economy doesn't deny private property over production means, quite the contrary, but considers the State has a role in articulating and managing the general interest.

Hmm, we seem to be talking about the same thing but calling it two different names. Of course that wouldn't be the first time different sides of the pond had different names for the same thing.

[Bereta_Eder]

You're talking about the social democrat model Oerdin.
In Europe Socialism means Social Democracy.

[VetLegion]

Some industries are just too important to let go.

French government saved Renault and USA govt saved Chrysler.

Same thing.

[Dinner]

It's not the same because the US government only loaned money to Chrsyler while the French government took ownership of Renault.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It's not the same because the US government only loaned money to Chrsyler while the French government took ownership of Renault.

In 1945, as a punishment because the Renault family cooperated closely with the Germans during the war. As Sandman already told, Peugeot and Citroën (the main competitors to Renault on the French market) have never been nationalized, and such nationalization has never been on the agenda AFAIK.

[Sandman]

Ok, Sandman. You can feel free to make up your own definitions but I'll stick with the real definitions they tech at reputable Universities. In socialist countries the majority of the economy is privitely owned! Do you understand the difference between asocialist and a communist system?

Well, if we're using Marxist terminology then a socialist system is one where the majority of the economy is controlled by the state. A communist one would have no state.

Even using non-Marxist terminology, your idea that the EU is socialist is pretty much unsustainable.

"Government ownership of key industries".

They don't own cars or steel. And even if there are a few remaining dribbles of state ownership in these industries, it's not clear that these can be considered 'key' industries. I mean, what's so 'key' about them? The European economy doesn't revolve around them, like a one-product developing nation. If they ceased to be viable, it would be bad, but it wouldn't destroy us in the same that oil ceasing to be valuable would destroy Saudi Arabia.

[Dr Strangelove]

Don't forget to honor the sacred right to bear arms. If your constitiution doesn't include such a guarentee then it's a farce and need not be heeded.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Don't forget to honor the sacred right to bear arms.

Impossible !
Our constitution explicitely states that "Europe is a continent that has brought forth civilisation; that its inhabitants, arriving in successive waves from earliest times, have gradually developed the values underlying humanism: equality of persons, freedom, respect for reason". How can you expect it to support the Afghan-style right to bear arms?

Now, if the constitution begun by "Europe is a Barbaric continent and we sure intend to continue being so", then you'd be talking