Habermaas speaks about EU constitution.

[DanS]

... 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.

I feel sufficiently qualified to state the obvious.

[Spiffor]

Re: Habermaas speaks about EU constitution.

so it would seem that according to habermaas the safeguard of the social state goes through more integration and political coherence....

And you don't need this constitution to that effect.

The rules regarding the distribution of power will probably be taken into account in the next Treaty, should the con be shot down. Same with the idea of a guy who attempts to harmonize foreign policies (though the guy will probably not be called "EU foreign minister").

There are two things that could be provided in the constitution and not in an ordinary treaty: the majority-rule when amending the constitution, and making the Parliament more iportant than the Council (or the democratization of the Council).

These aspects aren't present in the current con. better luck next time.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Colon
- Very, very few people who comment on the constitution have actually read it, or at most just parts of it, and they just derive their opinion from other people's analyses and comments (who probably haven't read it either)

This is certainly the case in countries that have no broad debate, but in the current French debate (which is near hysterical), many ordinary citizens have read the whole thing. They are probably not the majority, but "Very, very few" doesn't correspond to the situation here.

The other Europeans aren't more stupid than the French, and I imagine many people from other countries would have read the constitution, if an active debate happened in the country.

[Pekka]

I still haven't recieved an answer to the double standard thing. I still haven't recieved anyone who says that the value of constitution is lesser because nto everyone gets to vote, and I still haven't recieved an answer why some of you think it's ok to impose a constitution when it's not even popular.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by BeBro
Yep, I think the people should have their say about something like the EU con. OTOH even the governments of those countries which don't have a referendum have usually the legitimacy to decide about the con, because they were voted in by their people - that is representative democracy.

There is a huge gap between the French political class and the French population on the European issue, and I suppose it's the same everywhere (I haven't precise data, but it's already been studied that there is a large value-gap between the German parliamentaries and the German people)

In the case of France, I've heard that the constitution would have been adopted by more than 90% of the seats in Parliament, which is a very different picture from what we'll have in the polls tomorrow.

This huge gap comes from the simple fact that the European issue isn't salient in domestic elections. During the parliamentary elections of 2002, I don't remember Europe being mentioned at all (the main issue was whether we wanted to have a right-wing president and a left-wing Parliament again).

Besides, the political class is a small world in itself, which teaches its own values to its members. The EU, as it is built today, is largely in accordance with the general values of this class. Much less so with the general population.



(In a few months, I should be able to tell you whether I pull this out of my ass or not. A friend of mine is currently making a comparison between the European opinions of the EU/national parliamentarians, and the general European population. If I think about it, I'll update this thread when I have the results.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Oerdin
If continentals want to retain relavence in the world then they should seriously reform their economies. Money is the source of power yet most of Europe has enacted laws which have chased away wealth, discoraged new companies from hiring, and just made those countries uncompetitive.

And yet they're much richer than most countries that followed the IMF's prescriptions.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Spiffor

There is a huge gap between the French political class and the French population on the European issue, and I suppose it's the same everywhere (I haven't precise data, but it's already been studied that there is a large value-gap between the German parliamentaries and the German people)

(...)

(In a few months, I should be able to tell you whether I pull this out of my ass or not. A friend of mine is currently making a comparison between the European opinions of the EU/national parliamentarians, and the general European population. If I think about it, I'll update this thread when I have the results.

I have no doubt that you're correct. But you know that these opinions are always kinda volatile, that is nothng special. Just look on the opinions in Europe about more Eu members from Eastern Europe - they were quite high (at least in Germany) during the 90ies, and much lower when the new members came in. Thing is, a public vote does not automatically grant an optimal decision in long-term aspects.

I agree that for the legitimacy of such an important decision it would be better to have a referendum about it, though.

[Pekka]

point, set, match.

[BeBMan]

[Pekka]

none of you answered my accusations of huge double standards. I accept the answer that yes, there are double standards. That would be a honest answer, and to acknowledge that is something I would respect.

[BeBMan]

What exactly are those double standards?

[Pekka]

I have sorted those out for you guys in the first page of this thread. Mainly, the value owning thing.

Where classical example is Republicans owning the flag, and if you're not one of us, you're not a patriot. Or even if it's not played out like that, you can be accused to be unpatriotic when time and situation works for you. And unquestionably you would, as a conservative, be automatically more patriotic even though the man next to you might be 'a little patriotic' too.

The left complains about this, rightfully so. However at the same time they claim to own values too. And if you are not one, certainly if you are a conservative, you are anti-workers rights, you are against more liberal family models and what not. And most of all, you definitely believe in globalization which is automatically bad because it is run by big and rich corporations so the race isn't fair to begin with, making the rich more rich and poor more poor, and if not more poor then at least hogging the future opportunities.

Now, many lefties do believe this way without trying to force a stereotype on lefties. So, by default, because you are for this, you are for corporate freedom which means you somehow support giving them tax money to ensure their business 'edge', which ultimately just means giving money to businesses who are already the biggest, so that the small ones can't challenge them realistically, making the point of why globalisation will fail to provide anything else than extending the current power of large corporations where they yesterday weren't, now they are, and the only benefitors of that are really just the stock holders (rich people) and CEOs and they are ready to make unethical moves to ensure they are playing their 1st priority and responsiblity to the owners, stock holders, who don't give a crap because it's not them doing it, but they reap the rewards of it.

So, it leads to a situation where you support this, you are automatically for making rich people rich, against wealth distribution (an honest one), and you just want to keep yourself in the position you are now and keep others from gaining to you, or your friends.

So by that, the lefties claim to own the 'humanitarian' and other values, free healthcare, which is automatically good for all and at least better than other styles of handling the health care situation etc etc etc.

So while conservatives hog on other values, lefties hog on other values. Hey, it's not wrong, but it's wrong when you think, and conservatives think, that if I'm against your idea of something, I'm automatically for the other circle jerk club's ideas. There's the automical 'you think that? Then this and this rules out for you'. So this is the very same thing.

And who has been the most vocal about the value owning thing? THe lefties. Because the conservatives have been bringing it. What makes it a double standard is when you guys do the same. But you haven't been challenged for it, because the conservatives are more busy hogging on their own values. It's not like they're going to stop doing it. ANd it's not like the lefties are going to stop doing it. But we know when it comes to conservatives, it's BS the value thing, when supposedly others are not for it, or at least not so much as they are. But for a long time no one has called BS on lefties for the same thing.

And that's a double standard right there. I wish people wouldn't blame others so much for things they do themselves.

You see, I'm not right wing. I'm not left wing. It's difficult for a leftie to believe, but I'm not conservative, really. And it's difficult for right winger to believe I'm not leftie, which proves my point and position. I'm more of an outsider looking in a big match and bashing where monkeys throw poo on each other, and what lefties don't realize is their BS is exactly the same as the right wing BS. And vice versa. It's ridicolous. There's no limits to the hypocricy.

Does it make someone automatically a value claimer if they belong to left wing or right wing? Of course not. But.. the fact is most do it. And it woudl be counter productive to join any side, since the answer in most cases are A in some things and B in some things. That's why I oppose any freedom taking from myself. I don't want the right wing to take my freedom away, I don't want the left wing to take my freedom away. They can fight for the general procedures and things, but when it comes to individual stuff, I oppose ANYONE to restrict what is already gained. Freedom is universal value, not right wing or left wing. Right wing tries to hog and claim it though. Then again, left wing ideas sometimes are against freedom for individual by nature. So what you people should understand is when i came here to bash everyone of you, is that I don't like you limiting what I have gotten since I was born, and I don't like anyone else taking them either. I don't care which side or which flag the freedom limiter carries. They're going all down .

I value the fact that I can play my position, which is no position. I don't want to belong to a society that is one or the other. I like ym society to just be, and let everyone think for themselves. If it leads to chaos, then **** it, it's not like we are going to live forever .

[Pekka]

And you play the same game, the both of you. Both of you point out to people like me with no position, that it's easy when you don't have to take a stand so you can just bash everyone... Well.. I don't like to join someone because I think I need to avoid that critique. What you must realize that both sides will accuse you of this, so in fact you might get even more bashing than one on the other side, you get both bashers on your ass if you start attacking someone. But it'snot something one should cry about, that's the.. that's what will happen so either accept it or join some side then. The most important thing is you have to be true to yourself and your own values, be it 'right wing or left wing values'.

I think, frankly, that it's stupid to have a side in bigger scheme of things when it comes to politics. What kind of track horses people are with blinders on, supporting your own side because there's the power and if you don't support it even when going against some issues in your own head, you od it because if you wouldn't, the whole power of the side and party would crumble. So basically, that's why I tihnk most people are whores.

And when someone comes to tell me about the plans implemented on me, OK, if I still have all the same freedoms it's OK by me MOST likely. If it's restricting in any way, THEN I want to be able to veto it. Because I believe freedom is a universal value. Everyone should have that value and if they don't,. well then they don't. But it's something everyone should be concerned about when making new rules and free society.

Because to implement new rules that will restrict everyone some, I do not believe it's a simple 50.1% majority, ok let's do it. And I do believe that freedom means that we can all operate on the same map. You can do your left wing thing, right wingers can do their thing, but none of them sure as hell won't start doing their thing over everyone else that means I have to give up for something, if I don't agree and it's against my freedom (this wouldn't mean if raising some tax 1%, I don't consider that a freedom issue).

[BeBMan]

I'm having difficulties to understand what you mean concretely, because I think you touch dozens of issues in your post. If we are still talking about the constitution - I already said over and over that I personally think it would be better to hold a referendum about it.

But if you can't vote for it it is a national issue. And I also do not understand really what you mean exactly by this 50,1 % talk - let's assume you would have public vote, but lose it (even if only with a small difference). Would you say then too the vote isn't valid? That is like saying "Ok, let's vote, but if I lose the result is illegal!" That has nothing to do with democracy. Similar some comments you made earlier, like:

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.

Sorry, but if the guys you wanted had no success it does not mean that the guys who won make less valid decisions. You're basically saying they have no legitimacy because you do not like their POVs, and because the guys you like lost. That has nothing to do with democracy, and IMO it is contradicting your freedom talk of your last post.

[Pekka]

Congrats, you missed everything I said.

And no, I was talking in general, not about the constitution.

And you avoided the issue I just layed for you, because you asked for them.