| Original message (3334 Views )
|
Replies: |
| Iggy 6606th Post
 
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
     
     
     
     
     
|  "Re(1):Re: EU Referendum" , posted Tue 31 May 07:18
Every asshole working in politics in France has been a crook for years, but at least Mitterrand had class. Now, the ones we have now try to do the same but without the highly literate talent of François, and everybody can read their tricks 3 miles away.
So, the problem of Europe is that it has all been developed without our control ("us" as "the people living in the European countries", not just the French), and on some kind of phantasmal liberal model of "let's do like the US do". Unfortunately, the US government is pragmatic, it is liberal, but when it likes it, it can become protective again. The asses in Brussels don't understand that their fascist doctrine is completely absurd and want to feed it to us without giving us any choice ; this stupid doctrine has shown its weaknesses with the recent Chinese textiles, where the US somehow protected themselves and the EU couldn't because of the rules it created for itself. But it doesn't mean Brussels will take them back : Those morons wanted to set them in stone in an half assed constitution, and go even further after it.
The problem in Europe is that the French are the most socialist country, with strong public services and so on. Which means, they were the hardest to convince they had to vote for that travesty of a constitution. (a constitution where they put all those stupid liberal treaties that were signed without the agreement of the population ; a yes to that constitution meant a yes to all those treaties, which would have made them even stronger. They said they were placed there "as a reminder" but were actually there to be strengthened again). French people had to be convinced first : if the most socialist country votes yes, then all the other less socialist countries won't see any problem to it.
So, to write it, they called the vilest crook of all : VGE.
VGE screwed France when he was president after Pompidou and De Gaulle during the major crisis of the '70. But he's a clever asshole, and nearly managed to convince us the international crisis didn't affected anything in France. Nearly convinced us. In other words, he knows the mentality of French people, and knows how to screw us without we notice it. This is the only reason why Brussels took him out of his retirement home ; there was no reason to pick a French guy, and him especially, to write this text beside that.
Also, all those treaties were signed by both left and right governments, which is the reason why both left and right wanted us to vote yes : now we voted no, the treaties may (if we are lucky) be renegotiated, but not by them. The asshole leader of the socialists was extremely funny to hear yesterday.
But there was no valid argument to make us vote for that mindless liberalist constitution-like thing. So, during the campaign, instead of telling us to vote yes and why, they told us those who would vote "No" would be weird, dangerous, terrorists, not really European, oh look Le Pen wants to vote No if you vote No you vote Le Pen.
I think the politics never took us for retards as much as they did during this campaign. There was not the beginning of a rhetoric of “why you have to vote Yes” beside” those who vote No are demons that will eat your children, so vote Yes if you don’t want to be considered as a demon”.
So, the “No” won. Since one of the biggest European countries voted No, many others will do like us, the English the first (just because they don’t like Europe, and they needed a reason to throw the constitution away without being called isolationists asshole, which they really are). The constitution will take years to be canned, and it will take even more years to write a better one. During this time, both the US and the Chinese will grow, and we will be late and weak. But it was worth it ; the socialists told us to vote yes even if it’s bad, then they’ll do their best to change it once they’ll have the power, which is one of the most retarded idea I’ve ever heard.
Instead of beginning on wrong bases and try to correct them while you build on them, you’d better raze everything and try to have good bases for a new start ; at least that’s what my construction workers game taught me.
And the “No” wasn’t a “No” like Le Pen’s no. In Europe, we are the most socialist country, and the message will be heard as a demand for a more social Europe. We’re not one of those countries who want God to be mentioned in the constitution, we want warranties that the model of our society, which is, I really believe it, a great model, will continue and eventually be brought to the other countries. Le Pen doesn’t mean anything. If there is ever a new constitution, and a good one, even in 10 years, it will be better than this one, and more on the left. We will be late, but – eh, we’re already late, who cares ! Let’s be late but in good shape.
Sorry, if my rant doesn’t mean anything, I’m a little drunk, but…. Eh.
You can’t believe how relieved I am the No won, and a lot of my friends think as I do.
And I am really an apolitic person.
ねんがんの ネ申ゲーをてにいれたぞ！
|
| Time Mage 2147th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
| "Re(2):Re: EU Referendum" , posted Tue 31 May 16:59
quote:
This is not a "no" to Europe. French people are deeply pro-European. This is a "no" to that particular Europe, a liberal Europe that could make the US or Margaret Tatcher's England mistaken for a sovietic country.
That's what the politics doesn't want us to think, yeah. Here in Spain, the "Yes" won quite clearly, but only 40% of the people went to vote, as opposed to the 70% of the people that voted in France. In my case, this has been the first time since I have the right to vote that I haven't voted, just because I didn't wanted to be taken as a toy of the politics: I had some reasons to vote "Yes", and others to vote "No", I was quite indecise. But seeing that the politics treated us like stupid lambs that would follow whatever they said without explaining the constitution at all (The only arguments were "Vote yes, vote for Europe" or "Vote no, vote for Europe"), I decided not bothering even in going to vote.
About the constitution... I still don't know what to think about it. It has bad points as Iggy said, and I agree with all the critics he's explained. However, the constitution has also good points: The simple sense of a stronger Europe, is a quite solidary and socialist text regarding human rights and such (it's really only clearly liberal in economy, which yes, it's important), makes Europe more even among all it's members, etc.
Overall, as I've said, I don't know what to think, but really, being in favor of "No" doesn't make you antieuropean, and being in favor of "Yes" doesn't make you an emotionless capitalist, either.
|
| Iggy 6609th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
| "Re(3):Re: EU Referendum" , posted Tue 31 May 17:33
quote:
is a quite solidary and socialist text regarding human rights and such (it's really only clearly liberal in economy, which yes, it's important)
Not really.
The part on the human rights was not constrainant (english?). which means everything that was said there didn't overwrite the local legislation : if your country doesn't allow women to vote, then the constitution won't change anything.
On the other hand, the chapter 3, with all the economic garbage, is constrainant. It overwrites all the local laws, and it doesn't allow any rewriting afterwards.
The chart of human right has been put in the constitution as an alien text, and is immediatly sterelized (Art. II-111-2). On the other hand, the economic treaties in part 3 are part of the constitution, which has been written around them. It asks european citizen to not only acknowledge the liberal nonsense that has been happenning for years without any popular control in Brussels, but also to transform it into a right even higher than the human right. With this, the economic right, the law of the strongest over the weakest, become stronger than any law. Law has been created to protect the weakest and allow him to survive, but this constitution clearly protects the strong from any law that could prevent him from eating the weak. Of course : the few happy strong guys created a text just for them.
The constitution also make the entire military decisions of the EU one with the NATO. Which means is gives our military to the US. In other words, if another war like GWBush vs Irak happens, people won't be able to say "no" like some (like we) did.
It doesn't strengthen Europe, in weakens it without any possibility to come back afterwards.
This is an extremely dangerous text.
That's why I think no constitution and a weaker Europe is better than a constitution with this text.
ねんがんの ネ申ゲーをてにいれたぞ！
|
| Time Mage 2148th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
| "Re(4):Re: EU Referendum" , posted Tue 31 May 18:01
quote:
The part on the human rights was not constrainant (english?). which means everything that was said there didn't overwrite the local legislation : if your country doesn't allow women to vote, then the constitution won't change anything.
Oh, I didn't knew that. After all, I didn't read the constitution, I just informed myself here and there. If that's the case, you're saying that those human rights parts were basically aesthetics? That's... Ugh.
Also, and thank you for reminding me, I forgot THIS:
quote:
The constitution also make the entire military decisions of the EU one with the NATO. Which means is gives our military to the US. In other words, if another war like GWBush vs Irak happens, people won't be able to say "no" like some (like we) did.
This got me really upset. Why have we to be subordinated to US military? Who the hell wrote this? It's a Constitution, something that will put the bases to all further legislation, so why including explicitly NATO? That's really bad.
|
| Sensenic 1302th Post
Red Carpet Executive Member
| "Re(5):Re: EU Referendum" , posted Wed 1 Jun 06:15
quote:
The part on the human rights was not constrainant (english?). which means everything that was said there didn't overwrite the local legislation : if your country doesn't allow women to vote, then the constitution won't change anything.
Oh, I didn't knew that. After all, I didn't read the constitution, I just informed myself here and there. If that's the case, you're saying that those human rights parts were basically aesthetics? That's... Ugh.
The constitution also make the entire military decisions of the EU one with the NATO. Which means is gives our military to the US. In other words, if another war like GWBush vs Irak happens, people won't be able to say "no" like some (like we) did.
This got me really upset. Why have we to be subordinated to US military? Who the hell wrote this? It's a Constitution, something that will put the bases to all further legislation, so why including explicitly NATO? That's really bad.
This is what I understood, from the different sources (uncomplete, I admit) I informed myself from. That's why I gave the 'no'.
But, it still feels... can't find the word... -eeew- seeing myself voting the same as LePen-like extreme right people. As someone near to me said, the referendum should've been:
-Do you want A Constitution for Europe?
My answer: YES
-Do you want THIS Constitution for Europe?
My answer: hell, NO.
Za Peepaa Yomiko chan!
My philosophy professor was a flan Myself
|
|
|
