BBP wrote:
BatchainPartIV wrote:
Because the promise was so different from the subsequent legal realities that the unpopular moves made by the Dutch government would have been uniform across the Continent and no legal challenges to international exception would be possible. You'd have essentially what we have in the US: total, complete corporate rule and uniform de-regulatory law and without the right of any individual nation's laws to challenge any of its amendments. If you read the 18 stated goals for Europe's future it smells of all sweetness and light which ought to let you know right away that that's only the packaging and not the contents nor the subsequent legalities resulting from it would hold legal force uniformly, far beyond those of The Netherlands.
And many do give a big, fat rat's ass about "globalization" because it does narrow down the number of decision-makers for larger and larger areas of the world and without regard to the specifics only those intimately familiar with their own specific regions can accurately assess, not alleged "experts" or appointed "experts" to evaluate.
--Bat
The unpopular moves by the Dutch government have led to a slower economic recovery, a towering unemployment among the higher-educated and the not-so-young-but-below-50s, increase of age and racial discrimination, decrease of foreign students coming to The Netherlands, the death of refugees being sent to their "safe" home country, horrific "throwing out" of refugees that have lived here for more than 5 years, radical changes in college education leading to an organisatory madness, the changes in public health-care leading to much higher contributions, the privatisation of energy companies leading to unnecessarily high gas/electricity/water bills...
The only reason the inflation isn't huge in Holland is the "War of the Supermarkets", which started when the biggest supermarket chain decided to radically lower prices, causing others to follow, and causing many mini-markets to disappear. It also resulted in small stocks: there's no buying romanesco, kiwi jelly or English mustard now.
What could the European constitution do that's possibly worse?
I've said the following twice now, and I'll do it a third time since you didn't seem to have read it:
The European Constitution is essentially A SUMMARY OF EARLIER DECISIONS. There's nothing in it that wasn't already regulated before.Legal uniformity would be as impossible as it is in the States. I don't know much about the US and laws, but I do know that some things are illegal in some states, but not in others.
There's a big difference in the legislation between, say, Netherlands and Belgium. For instance, Belgium has a jury system, NL hasn't. There's absolutely no unifying the two systems, they're way too different. How wuld you unify 35 of these? Besides, a uniform legislation was never the goal of Europe, it would mean the demise of gay marriage, the euthanasia laws in NL and Belgium, possibly the abortion laws, the Dutch soft drug legalisation etc.
And what do you mean by "globalisation"? You're quite business-oriented in your argumentation, a bit melancholical even. It seems to me you consider it a disastrous scenario, rather than something that's happening and causing the world to be a little bit smaller every day. Thanks to globalisation,
I'm able to talk to you. If it weren't for the Internet, which is a bigger gateway to a unified culture than any legislation, I wouldn't be talking to any of the wonderful people on this site. Europe is currently a long way from the USA when it comes to corporate control, and I don't think the Constitution would have taken the EU any step closer to the disastrous environment you're telling us about.
Quote:
I've said the following twice now, and I'll do it a third time since you didn't seem to have read it:
The European Constitution is essentially A SUMMARY OF EARLIER DECISIONS. There's nothing in it that wasn't already regulated before.
Legal uniformity would be as impossible as it is in the States. I don't know much about the US and laws, but I do know that some things are illegal in some states, but not in others.
There's a big difference in the legislation between, say, Netherlands and Belgium. For instance, Belgium has a jury system, NL hasn't. There's absolutely no unifying the two systems, they're way too different. How wuld you unify 35 of these? Besides, a uniform legislation was never the goal of Europe, it would mean the demise of gay marriage, the euthanasia laws in NL and Belgium, possibly the abortion laws, the Dutch soft drug legalisation etc.
And what do you mean by "globalisation"? You're quite business-oriented in your argumentation, a bit melancholical even. It seems to me you consider it a disastrous scenario, rather than something that's happening and causing the world to be a little bit smaller every day. Thanks to globalisation, I'm able to talk to you. If it weren't for the Internet, which is a bigger gateway to a unified culture than any legislation, I wouldn't be talking to any of the wonderful people on this site. Europe is currently a long way from the USA when it comes to corporate control, and I don't think the Constitution would have taken the EU any step closer to the disastrous environment you're telling us about.
I've said the following twice now, and I'll do it a third time since you didn't seem to have read it:
The European Constitution is essentially A SUMMARY OF EARLIER DECISIONS. There's nothing in it that wasn't already regulated before. Legal uniformity would be as impossible as it is in the States. I don't know much about the US and laws, but I do know that some things are illegal in some states, but not in others.
There's a big difference in the legislation between, say, Netherlands and Belgium. For instance, Belgium has a jury system, NL hasn't. There's absolutely no unifying the two systems, they're way too different. How wuld you unify 35 of these? Besides, a uniform legislation was never the goal of Europe, it would mean the demise of gay marriage, the euthanasia laws in NL and Belgium, possibly the abortion laws, the Dutch soft drug legalisation etc.
And what do you mean by "globalisation"? You're quite business-oriented in your argumentation, a bit melancholical even. It seems to me you consider it a disastrous scenario, rather than something that's happening and causing the world to be a little bit smaller every day. Thanks to globalisation,
I'm able to talk to you. If it weren't for the Internet, which is a bigger gateway to a unified culture than any legislation, I wouldn't be talking to any of the wonderful people on this site. Europe is currently a long way from the USA when it comes to corporate control, and I don't think the Constitution would have taken the EU any step closer to the disastrous environment you're telling us about.[/quote] It really is simple and and I cannot understand why you think I've failed to read some part or any part at all of anything you've stated. "The Internet" is a lie. It is what global telecommunications systems have expanded into given the advances in digital technology during the 1980s. The original "ARPANET" was a scrapped piece of junk by the set up by the US Military in 1969 when they realized that it was a useless US-only network as vulnerable as the strings of hanging copper phone wire that had been around for nearly a century. What we still refer to as "The Internet" is better described as "The World Wide Web" -- telecommunications companies implementing the digital technology as it became available and profitable. The original "Internet" doesn't even constitute a skeletal fraction of it as "The World Wide Web" is only what the old
telephone companies have become.
Back to
globalization. No, the aims of a European Constitution would not be to alter the tradtional legal systems of individual European nations and their traditional functions, it would be to lay the groundwork for a uniformity of de-regulation strictly for purposes of not having to obey whatever individual
existing national laws restricted corporate ownnership and regulation on the basis that those laws were in conflict with the basic guarantees in the European Constituton.
And of course I'm presnting my arguments in "business-oriented" terms because it's exactly
who owns what that determines who gets jobs, which schools attract more students, what is taught and how many supermarkets can be owned in any given area. I don't think having a "melancholic" or "dark view" of any of this is quite so far beyond justification. If a "E.C." actually did mean
no change then who would waste time formulating it and trying to get Europeans to want to have it? Well, the WTO was no small influence in drafting it. Remember the furious rioting in places as distant as Genoa and Seattle when they convened there? A whole lot of people didn't like the fact that so few had so much say in what their lives were going to be like and they let it be known but to those inside they never heard a thing. And the US Constitution is nothing but a historical relic with no special relevance to anything anymore and its death knell was sounded by the Bush Administration once "9/11" happened and the Dictatorship of the President was firmly established. His current
approval rating is down to 35% but he would be re-elected tomorrow if a race were run.
--Bat (More later but I'm fading fast here.)[/quote]
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
