Post by righteousnesous on Jun 1, 2005 2:38:03 GMT -5
Due to popular demand, the present on-site debate, about the benefits/problems of the French "non" to the EU constitution, has been moved here, to the off-site forum, in order to extend the laughs...
Righto, it started with some generally positive remarks made by Micheallaccio and Allers about the French verdict in the referendum, to which I responded:
The Estados Socialistas of Righteousnesous: Well done??? The economic models which parts of the French left feared are already in existance. Whether the vote was oui or non, the economic model would still be the same. All the negative vote means is that the process of European unification is slowed, and so the ability of the EU to create a counter weight to the US in the economic, diplomatic and, potentially, (limited) military spheres is greatly reduced. Thus, a great vote for the status quo, and a shackle on the further development of the European Project.
And then,
The Anarcho-Trickster of Michelaccio: The economic models are in place for now, yes, but let's take one step at a time. Slowing the growth of a superstate is at least a start, if only a small step in the right direction.
Do you really think that the EU is meant to be a counterweight to the US? Kind of like how the Democrats are a counterweight to the Republicans, or New Labour is a counterweight to the Tories?
And then,
The Anarchist Federation of Workers Communes:
Righteousnesous, do we need a second military superpower? Wouldn't a better solution be to weaken the military might of the US, rather than matching it? The prescence of two superstates instead of one would simply lead to twice the danger.
And then, once again,
The Anarcho-Trickster of Michelaccio:
Yeah, this whole US versus EU business is just good cop-bad cop posturing by the elites to keep the masses away from issues like class. Wolfowitz gets the World Bank gig, Lamy gets the WTO gig, and it's all the same to the elites.
It's just the man in the street who's supposed to believe in the colossal struggle between American neocons and European democratic socialists, and cheer one side on against the other, as in a sporting event. But it's worse than a sporting event, because instead of cheering on millionaires in a meaningless contest, we're supposed to root for one set of billionaires against another in a game where it's actually our asses that are up for grabs and the future of the planet in the balance.
To which I responded,
The Estados Socialistas of Righteousnesous:
You're absolutely right Mico. It is our asses and our planet that is at stake here. However, while you may view the US and (potential) EU as two sides of the same coin, I do not.
The US, although a democracy, is a sick nation. It's underbelly weakened by intolerance, hate, fear, exploitation and ignorance, all dressed up in the guise of morality. Witness the US' positions on the death penalty, climate change, worker's rights, tax brackets, social security, its mania for the "right to life" at the same time it ignores genocide like in Darfur, and the ravages of diseases such as AIDS, and even the easily preventable ones such as malaria. Witness America's continuous interference with other democracies, such as Venezuela, Chile, Nicuragua, and to a much more limited degree, even in Australia during our last election.
The EU, traditonally led as it is by the more social-democratic nations of the continent, is far more benign, and indeed, actually capable of effecting vital reforms to what is perhaps the most critical issue facing us all today, the sustainability of the Environment that sustains as all. The EU, guided as it is by far more ethical principles than the US, would, if it were to be built up, offer a counter weight to international affairs. A stronger, more confident Europe, willing to stand up to the machinations of the US, would deprive the US of much of its credibility and influence.
And, Workers Communes, as for demilitarisation: I totally agree with you. US, indeed, global demilitarisation is vital. However, this is not going to happen in current circumstances. If, by combining their resources, the EU were able to create a common defence force, this would not only leave individual European nations with more resources to direct at, for example, health and education, but would also give the more ethical EU the freedom to deploy these forces around the world, in ventures that the US are not interested in, such as Darfur. The idea, of course, would not be to achieve military parity with the US, for this would be impmractical, and in any case, this would hardly be desirable. Rather, the idea would be to create an alternative source of support and activism in the World, rather than just contiuing to rely on the dodgy empire.
And then WC parried with,
The Anarchist Federation of Workers Communes:
Righteousnesous, you could easily argue that the USA was more 'benign' superpower than the USSR. Does it therefore follow that the US was a force for good in the world at the time of the cold war? Supporting the EU just because it isn't America seems to make as much sense as cheering on the US because it isn't Russia. Or voting Labour or Democrat just because they aren't the Conservatives or Republicans. Yes there are differences between the two, but I don't want variety, I want change.
Would you include the UK and Italy, two of the most powerful voices in the EU, in your list of benign 'social democratic nations'? Or Denmark, the Czech Republic, Spain, Hungary, the Netherlands or Poland? I think you know what I'm getting at
Yes I'm sure the EU would make a most benevolent superpower...
And, Micco of course added,
The Anarcho-Trickster of Michelaccio:
Just to add to what WC's said, not only did said member nations of the EU sign on to the war (and line up for "reconstruction" contracts in its aftermath), they did so in most cases despite extreme public protest. Would it be your contention, then, Righters, that the remedy for this obvious lack of moral courage and concern for the public on the part of certain national leaders in Europe would be to move such decision-making to an even higher level, yet another step further removed from the people whom they supposedly "represent"? Is this the level at which benevolence and ethical principles would kick in? Seems unlikely.
Then Allers joined in with,
The Free Land of Allers:
Hey Righteousnesous did you read the constitution?if not/yes begin a new topic by tACA forum please,i will be pleased.(i'm sure other people too)
To which I responded by posting all this here so that no-one would be lost....
Righto, it started with some generally positive remarks made by Micheallaccio and Allers about the French verdict in the referendum, to which I responded:
The Estados Socialistas of Righteousnesous: Well done??? The economic models which parts of the French left feared are already in existance. Whether the vote was oui or non, the economic model would still be the same. All the negative vote means is that the process of European unification is slowed, and so the ability of the EU to create a counter weight to the US in the economic, diplomatic and, potentially, (limited) military spheres is greatly reduced. Thus, a great vote for the status quo, and a shackle on the further development of the European Project.
And then,
The Anarcho-Trickster of Michelaccio: The economic models are in place for now, yes, but let's take one step at a time. Slowing the growth of a superstate is at least a start, if only a small step in the right direction.
Do you really think that the EU is meant to be a counterweight to the US? Kind of like how the Democrats are a counterweight to the Republicans, or New Labour is a counterweight to the Tories?
And then,
The Anarchist Federation of Workers Communes:
Righteousnesous, do we need a second military superpower? Wouldn't a better solution be to weaken the military might of the US, rather than matching it? The prescence of two superstates instead of one would simply lead to twice the danger.
And then, once again,
The Anarcho-Trickster of Michelaccio:
Yeah, this whole US versus EU business is just good cop-bad cop posturing by the elites to keep the masses away from issues like class. Wolfowitz gets the World Bank gig, Lamy gets the WTO gig, and it's all the same to the elites.
It's just the man in the street who's supposed to believe in the colossal struggle between American neocons and European democratic socialists, and cheer one side on against the other, as in a sporting event. But it's worse than a sporting event, because instead of cheering on millionaires in a meaningless contest, we're supposed to root for one set of billionaires against another in a game where it's actually our asses that are up for grabs and the future of the planet in the balance.
To which I responded,
The Estados Socialistas of Righteousnesous:
You're absolutely right Mico. It is our asses and our planet that is at stake here. However, while you may view the US and (potential) EU as two sides of the same coin, I do not.
The US, although a democracy, is a sick nation. It's underbelly weakened by intolerance, hate, fear, exploitation and ignorance, all dressed up in the guise of morality. Witness the US' positions on the death penalty, climate change, worker's rights, tax brackets, social security, its mania for the "right to life" at the same time it ignores genocide like in Darfur, and the ravages of diseases such as AIDS, and even the easily preventable ones such as malaria. Witness America's continuous interference with other democracies, such as Venezuela, Chile, Nicuragua, and to a much more limited degree, even in Australia during our last election.
The EU, traditonally led as it is by the more social-democratic nations of the continent, is far more benign, and indeed, actually capable of effecting vital reforms to what is perhaps the most critical issue facing us all today, the sustainability of the Environment that sustains as all. The EU, guided as it is by far more ethical principles than the US, would, if it were to be built up, offer a counter weight to international affairs. A stronger, more confident Europe, willing to stand up to the machinations of the US, would deprive the US of much of its credibility and influence.
And, Workers Communes, as for demilitarisation: I totally agree with you. US, indeed, global demilitarisation is vital. However, this is not going to happen in current circumstances. If, by combining their resources, the EU were able to create a common defence force, this would not only leave individual European nations with more resources to direct at, for example, health and education, but would also give the more ethical EU the freedom to deploy these forces around the world, in ventures that the US are not interested in, such as Darfur. The idea, of course, would not be to achieve military parity with the US, for this would be impmractical, and in any case, this would hardly be desirable. Rather, the idea would be to create an alternative source of support and activism in the World, rather than just contiuing to rely on the dodgy empire.
And then WC parried with,
The Anarchist Federation of Workers Communes:
Righteousnesous, you could easily argue that the USA was more 'benign' superpower than the USSR. Does it therefore follow that the US was a force for good in the world at the time of the cold war? Supporting the EU just because it isn't America seems to make as much sense as cheering on the US because it isn't Russia. Or voting Labour or Democrat just because they aren't the Conservatives or Republicans. Yes there are differences between the two, but I don't want variety, I want change.
Would you include the UK and Italy, two of the most powerful voices in the EU, in your list of benign 'social democratic nations'? Or Denmark, the Czech Republic, Spain, Hungary, the Netherlands or Poland? I think you know what I'm getting at
Yes I'm sure the EU would make a most benevolent superpower...
And, Micco of course added,
The Anarcho-Trickster of Michelaccio:
Just to add to what WC's said, not only did said member nations of the EU sign on to the war (and line up for "reconstruction" contracts in its aftermath), they did so in most cases despite extreme public protest. Would it be your contention, then, Righters, that the remedy for this obvious lack of moral courage and concern for the public on the part of certain national leaders in Europe would be to move such decision-making to an even higher level, yet another step further removed from the people whom they supposedly "represent"? Is this the level at which benevolence and ethical principles would kick in? Seems unlikely.
Then Allers joined in with,
The Free Land of Allers:
Hey Righteousnesous did you read the constitution?if not/yes begin a new topic by tACA forum please,i will be pleased.(i'm sure other people too)
To which I responded by posting all this here so that no-one would be lost....
