I want to see a draft as the draft I have for last December's attempt is pretty pathetic. Hopefully thsi one limits the power of the Comission a bit more. What do you Europeans think (or interested non-euros)?

The EU is nothing more than a re-creation of a Sovietisk Bloc.

As you said, looking at the constitutions the countries have signed backs up this belief. One day, we will all regret not fighting this mass-governing move.

Mwehehe

This is really interesting comming from you. I did not expect that at all.

I am very pro-integration and I think it's a great thing for europe. However, thsi constitution is pretty bad (if it is anything liek the draft I have). The commission still is the instigator of all the decision making in the EU, with the parliament only acting after suggestions have been provided by the comission. Basically, the people of Europe have no say, either direct or indirect, about what should be done in governing europe. That is pretty scary.

The only thing that give the peopel a check is the advisory role of the parliament and what this integration professor I met from Denmark called "willful consent" (or something liek that. It basically meant that as long as people don't complain too much, then whatever the government initiates is ok.

i haven't read it yet, but from what i gathered the role of the eu-parlament has been strengthened in the new version. i also do think that the whole eu isn't going far enough. it's concept should be a bit more like the US, with a stronger central government etc. but we still have about 300 years time to get rid of our nationalisms, which currently prevent this. i see myself as a european with austrian origin, not as an austrian which is also a european

Originally posted by jczeroman
This is really interesting comming from you. I did not expect that at all.

I am very pro-integration and I think it's a great thing for europe. However, thsi constitution is pretty bad (if it is anything liek the draft I have). The commission still is the instigator of all the decision making in the EU, with the parliament only acting after suggestions have been provided by the comission. Basically, the people of Europe have no say, either direct or indirect, about what should be done in governing europe. That is pretty scary.

The only thing that give the peopel a check is the advisory role of the parliament and what this integration professor I met from Denmark called "willful consent" (or something liek that. It basically meant that as long as people don't complain too much, then whatever the government initiates is ok.

I aim to confuse. As much as I love Russian history, I am also well aware of the fact that Soviets were doing fine until they applied pressure to neighbors who wanted to be with them, but were unaware of how powerful the "father-figure" would become in the next 20-30 years.

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new"> see I'm going to have to pick up the Economist this week.</font>

Originally posted by severin
i haven't read it yet, but from what i gathered the role of the eu-parlament has been strengthened in the new version. i also do think that the whole eu isn't going far enough. it's concept should be a bit more like the US, with a stronger central government etc. but we still have about 300 years time to get rid of our nationalisms, which currently prevent this. i see myself as a european with austrian origin, not as an austrian which is also a european

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">You'll never get rid of Nationalistic sentements. I mean Texas wasn't even a country for very long but we still act like we are.</font>

America could be so lucky as to have pedophiliac rulers drafting up Marxian bullshit.

well, anything can happen.

:banoonoo:

Originally posted by The Omega Concern
America could be so lucky as to have pedophiliac rulers drafting up Marxian bullshit.

well, anything can happen.


<font color=#007AAA face="Courier new">Marxist you mean?</font>

ya, i was wondering if I made up a couple words in that sentence. if not, shit. that'd be some cool power.

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros


<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">You'll never get rid of Nationalistic sentements. I mean Texas wasn't even a country for very long but we still act like we are.</font>


exactly. half the south still thinks they are fighting the Civil War, erm, I mean "THE WAH OF NATHUN AGRESHUN!"

Originally posted by jczeroman



exactly. half the south still thinks they are fighting the Civil War, erm, I mean "THE WAH OF NATHUN AGRESHUN!"

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new"> I noticed that Yankees tend to somehow mention that "they" won the Civil War when presented with a person from the South. My friend wouldn't shut up about it once we passed the Mason-Dixon.

I'm of the opinion that everyone lost the Civil War except for black folk and they didn't even really win.</font>

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros


<font color=#007AAA face="courier new"> I noticed that Yankees tend to somehow mention that "they" won the Civil War when presented with a person from the South. My friend wouldn't shut up about it once we passed the Mason-Dixon.

I'm of the opinion that everyone lost the Civil War except for black folk and they didn't even really win.</font>

I'd say that ideals were won and lost. Federalsits won and confederalists lost.

Originally posted by jczeroman


I'd say that ideals were won and lost. Federalsits won and confederalists lost.

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">Well, the federalists of the North really didn't have much control over the South even after the war. The colossal failure that was Reconstruction and the Jim Crow laws that arose in its aftermath is testament to that fact.

Also, I'd go out on a limb and say that everyone loses when the president has too much power. I think the Civil War really rose the level of the power of the cheif execuitive. TR took it into entirely new demensions, of course, but he was a force of nature.</font>

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">I also think I remember reading that during the Contenental Congress to draft the Constitution many felt that it was just and right that a state or group of states had the option of peacably disaccociating themselves from the nation if they so wished. I may be talking out of my ass when I say that, though.</font>

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros


<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">d say that everyone loses when the president has too much power. I think the Civil War really rose the level of the power of the cheif execuitive. TR took it into entirely new demensions, of course, but he was a force of nature.</font>

I agree 100%. Lincoln spat on the constitution with what he did. He took money from the treasury and gave it away to private individuals to do his bidding. He suspended Habeas Corpus. And he grew the army and navy. All of these were aginst the constitution (although they;ve become regular now). Let us all remember that when seekign to gain short-term benefits, we must not sacrifice the long term costs.