Habermaas speaks about EU constitution.

[BeBMan]

That's whining Pekka, and you know it.

It is not my ****ing responsibility to fight for another process of decision making in another country than mine. I can understand that you don't like it, but if you want to see a change there, I'm certainly the wrong person to ask. Now if we had an Europe that was unified politically much more it would be probably my responsibility too to care about Finland's internal issues, but we aren't at this point now, and I think you are the one who would argue if we ever reach that point.

[Pekka]

No it's not whining. You are making an excuse to dodge the point.

"Now if we had an Europe that was unified politically much more it would be probably my responsibility too to care about Finland's internal issues, but we aren't at this point now"

Exactly. Screw European Identity. We don't have enough common identity to give a ****.

I know it's not your fight. But you miss the point. IF this constitution is installed, it's not valid except technically. I ask you, you don't see this as a problem? No you don't.

This is almost the same if US wanted new constitution. Except not all states can vote. But they will be binded to it anyway. You live in the state that can vote. I say, doesn't this trouble you, and lower the value of this constitution everywhere? You say 'stop whining, it's not my fight'.

[Ted Striker]

You guys will find your unification when you least expect it. It will involve meeting an external threat and uniting against it. Right now there is nothing that is galvanizing enough. You are just laying the foundation for something bigger later on.

Chirac tried to galvanize with Iraq, but it didn't quite work out.

It's possible Iran could be that issue, but it's too much of a quiet sideshow, and is too much associatied with the US and Bush ("give your weapons or else!") to have a European signature on it.

[BeBMan]

I know it's not your fight. But you miss the point. IF this constitution is installed, it's not valid except technically. I ask you, you don't see this as a problem? No you don't.

Why on earth should it be not valid (except technically) if the government your people voted for agrees to it? As said, I can understand why you don't like it, but just because of that it isn't wrong. Why is any international treaty your gov agreed to valid even if you weren't asked personally for permission? As said, I don't kow why there is no referendum in Finland, if it is a general praxis not to hold them etc. But since you think it is such an important issue for your country - why are there no serious political forces which implement changes for a referendum?

Or do you have usually direct participation, but aren't allowed for it in this case? Then it would be really serious. But as long it is normal praxis in Finland I see it as a national problem.

I say, doesn't this trouble you, and lower the value of this constitution everywhere? You say 'stop whining, it's not my fight'.

But that is the case - look, I don't wanted to be rude, but wouldn't you complain if I would claim that I have a say in internal Finnish stuff? So why should I have in this case?

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by DanS


Who has read the bloated mess in its entirety?

If you have not read it, how could you call it a bloated mess?

[Colonâ„¢]

If it smells like a bloated mess, looks like a bloated mess and feels like a bloated mess, it probably IS a bloated mess.

Originally posted by paiktis22


So... you haven't read it either...?

I've tried to, but I think went playing Victoria after a few pages.

[chequita guevara]

Habermass is a lousey philosophy and a worthless theoretician. The EU constistution is fatally flawed and if it is adopted, it will lead either to the dissolution of the EU or a constitutional convention to adopt a new constitution.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Habermass is a lousey philosophy and a worthless theoretician

... which would make him as much qualified as you or DanS for giving an opinion on the constitution, if he was not an European of course.

[CapTVK]

Originally posted by Colon
If it smells like a bloated mess, looks like a bloated mess and feels like a bloated mess, it probably IS a bloated mess.

You´ve never seen the rules and regulations of the WTO treaty then? That weighs in at 900 pages (all the rules and regulations per subject), but that´s probably a bloated mess too, right?

[Bereta_Eder]

bloated mess?
Actually it is supposed to be a stripped down blueprint of all existing legislature (and let me tell you they are bloated )

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Habermass is a lousey philosophy and a worthless theoretician. The EU constistution is fatally flawed and if it is adopted, it will lead either to the dissolution of the EU or a constitutional convention to adopt a new constitution.

I've long stopped paying attention to you after I found out you don't know what you're talking about

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by CapTVK


You´ve never seen the rules and regulations of the WTO treaty then? That weighs in at 900 pages (all the rules and regulations per subject), but that´s probably a bloated mess too, right?

Treaties are a different creature than a constitution. The purpose of a constution is that it lays down the basic organisation of a government and how its power is limited. They're required to be relatively concise and coherent so that it can be understood by the general population. Additionally, it's a great bonus if its inspirational.

Is this the case?

[Pekka]

"But that is the case - look, I don't wanted to be rude, but wouldn't you complain if I would claim that I have a say in internal Finnish stuff? So why should I have in this case?"

Because this way you are interfering our internal business more than not. You see, if the consitution gets voted YES with someone who actually can vote, it'll be implented in here. If you would stand up adn fight that we can't vote about it, you don't intervene into our business, rather fight for more freedom for us. It's as if there was elections and only one candidate, if you come and say 'you need free elections' then it's not so much interfering in the same sense, if you'd came here and force one candidate, THEN it would be interfering.

Why do I think it's not OK since we have elected this people? Because there are things people should get to vote on, and this would be the #1 thing if not electing anyone. This will concern everyone equally. Look, here's the basic rule. If there's thinkin 'should this be voted on?' then the answer is YES it should.

Why do I think it's not so valid now in the whole region of Europe? Well, because we didn't get to vote while several other places did.

It's not in the nature of democracy. In democracy, it SHOULD be freedom if you can give it away. I mean, if we were to elect a dictator, we should be able to, yes? Because it would be the choice of the majority. But if I belong to the minority, not wanting a dictator to be placed who will further strip down my freedoms, that surely is not democracy, because it's not in the nature of democracy.

If 50.1% votes that we should be able to oppress the 49.9%, that's not democracy, even though the majority voted so. Besides, none of the dudes I voted for is now in the parliament, basically meaning I have no representation in there, thus I did NOT elect these fools there to decide for me.

This is the welfare mind, socialist mind. We get our representors, and they decide everything for us, the state decides, because they know better. I don't share that view. I think some of the more 'unimportant' things should be decided in there, but the major issues, LIKE INSTALLING NEW CONSTITUTION, should be voted. And the reason we don't vote for it is because it wouldnt' pass in here. I say that smells foul, instead it seems you, and lefties in spesific don't smell foul but call technicality.

It's against the nature of free, if my choice is limited. I understand there's lots of people here so it's not like my view would win automatically. But at least we need to have a chance to vote on it and express our views and they'd be REALISTICALLY taken into account.

Not to mention we joined to the EU with false premises. It was promoted as 'there will be no federation, there will be no common currency. It will be merely to join to a common business region where the borders don't matter so much when doing business, and we don't need so much passport stuff. Also people will be able to move more freely inside EU. This means the prices in here will go down, especially food.'. NONE OF THESE HAPPENED. The OPPOSITE happened. Now I know you don't give a **** about this, and lefties don't give a **** about this, but when this was voted upon, these were the promises. So we are going with a false premise to begin with, I think that now the play has revealed itself, we should be ****ing able to vote about this constitution, that's the LEAST they can allow us to do.

This means, that the leaders of this country thinks, that we are too stupid to vote, because we would most likely vote No in majority. That would screw up some things, thus we can't allow that to happen.

That means that the politicians do know it won't go through in here, because this nation is rather skeptic by default, that means the constitution is not popular for sures, that means they are goign against the majority and forcing and bypassing what the people want. I say this sucks and is not the way it's supposed to go and that it makes the whole constitution lesser than it would be when it would be voted through (after it would be fixed few times so it would be popular). Now, case seems such where this constitution might be forced upon millions of people, where the ACTUAL majority did not want to be installed, what do you call that? I call it a scam. You call it OK because TECHNICALLY it can be done.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Colon


Treaties are a different creature than a constitution. The purpose of a constution is that it lays down the basic organisation of a government and how its power is limited. They're required to be relatively concise and coherent so that it can be understood by the general population. Additionally, it's a great bonus if its inspirational.

Is this the case?

It isn't the case but the EU is not like anything done before either. Not that I'm justifying the absence of those elements youmention at the constitution.
Also unfortunately there was the historical in the EU accomodating to the political elites factor of the "silent consent". We go forward, the people don't really know, don't really care so we go forward (crudely stated).
That silent consent collapsed with the adventures of the maastricht treaty.

BTW if the con is voted down tomorrow I do think a large part will be also because of social frustration about the price hicks the introduction of the euro brought...

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
You guys will find your unification when you least expect it. It will involve meeting an external threat and uniting against it. Right now there is nothing that is galvanizing enough. You are just laying the foundation for something bigger later on.

Chirac tried to galvanize with Iraq, but it didn't quite work out.

The issue is wether there is an insentive to strengthen a common political voice, that's true, that's the basic question. And I'm pretty sure it will have to be viewed under the microscope of each national government separately. If economic integration is any indication then it does point out to a specific direction. Also I don't think the repercussions from the Iraq issue are absorbed just yet inside the EU.

In that issue Habermaas proposition gives some weight to the theory that low politics will crossover to high politics. That economic integration will lead "naturally" to a furthering of political integration. It discovers a concrete link between economic and political affairs and bases it on one of the most differantiating and self defining aspects of the European Union, the social state, that's why I thought what he said was interesting.