Jovitalk - Bon Jovi Fan Community
Home Register Members FAQ
 

Euro at Seven-Month Low After French Vote

NBJ - Everything Else


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #71  
Old 06-03-2005, 11:24 PM
ponrauil's Avatar
ponrauil ponrauil is offline
Senior Member
It's my post
 
Join Date: 12 Oct 2003
Location: Nantes - France
Age: 44
Posts: 4,962
Send a message via MSN to ponrauil
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex
I have to agree that the politicians could've done a better job in giving some information, but like I said: people could've done a better job finding the information they needed instead of waiting on it.
Then we agree here. Unfortunately that (people staying passive) is the case on many issues, not only this vote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexl
I meant that if your mind's already made up about your vote because your unsatisfied about your current situation and you want to make a statement about this, then decent arguments won't help to make you see the other side.
They actually might. That's what would have brought up hesitation in my mind.
Another thing is that the current situation, good or bad, is at least partly due to EU decisions, so even if it's vague, it's judgement based on facts rather than (as vague) arguments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex
We voted for our government in a democratic way. I expect them to have the knowledge about this, I expect them to have a better insight in this whole matter. So yes, I'd still see that as a democracy. If people could decide about all matters like these, it would take ages before we would be able to take the next step.
Two thoughts here :
1 - We elect our governments for national affairs, their propositions and programs during national campains are so seldom Europe related (In France anyway) that it's hard to figure out who thinks what about it.The European debate takes place when comes the time to elect our representatives at the European Parliament.
2 - It would take ages for each future step to be taken... so? The EU needs time and is strong enough as it is to take the time to think and explain things over to it's citizens. That's why the "no" won, the whole project was rushed, and that's also why the consequences of a reject are being overblown. It's all going to be reworked and revoted as many times as it takes until the best possible text is accepted by all 25 countries.

I also think they could change the rules of the validation of the constitution, and use the same rules as they did for the Euro zone. Those who accept get in, those who don't stay where they're at and will join when they want to and qualify.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex
What does the constitution add to this then?
It makes it all official and irreversible. Name me one organisation in the world that has a Constitution and is not a country?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex
All member states still operate by themselves. Again: the constitution only points out how we work in an already existing EU. The EU is a fact, there's nothing you can change about that. Don't you think it would be wise to have some rules or guidelines?
Yes there should be rules and guidelines, there already are. But this text, especially Part III, gives the EU the sole power to legiferate whatever the will of member countries on too many economical and social issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex
Where can I find that? As far as I know, it can be changed, after all member states approved this change. I can't find anything about not being able to change the constitution for 50 years.
I have to admit no reading this in the text either, but hearing it from Valery Giscard d'Estaing, who I think can be trusted to know the content.
And even if a modification can be made, it's with the unanimity of all members, that's the rule of the current ratification process, which made the validation impossible in the first place... the same would happen with proposed modifications.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex
Of course it's also wrong to vote yes because your national status is good. We vote for a constitution, not for our status or our personal opinions about that. Don't get me wrong: I understand that people do this, but I just don't agree with it.
Yet, even if it's hard to define, some part (and a bigger one everyday) of the national status is due to the EU and it's decisions. You can't just seperate the two "levels" from oneanother because they interact.

Ponrauil
__________________
Reply With Quote

  #72  
Old 06-04-2005, 12:11 AM
Alex's Avatar
Alex Alex is offline
Senior Member
Price of posting
 
Join Date: 26 Feb 2004
Age: 45
Gender: female
Posts: 5,975
Send a message via MSN to Alex
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ponrauil
Then we agree here. Unfortunately that (people staying passive) is the case on many issues, not only this vote.
Very true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ponrauil
They actually might. That's what would have brought up hesitation in my mind.
Another thing is that the current situation, good or bad, is at least partly due to EU decisions, so even if it's vague, it's judgement based on facts rather than (as vague) arguments.
In your mind, I'm sure. But after hearing several things from some vague excuses until plain stupid reasons, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people who just voted to make a statement to the government and no good reason would've made them to change their mind about that. And I still don't think this referendum was the place for that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ponrauil
Two thoughts here :
1 - We elect our governments for national affairs, their propositions and programs during national campains are so seldom Europe related (In France anyway) that it's hard to figure out who thinks what about it.The European debate takes place when comes the time to elect our representatives at the European Parliament.
2 - It would take ages for each future step to be taken... so? The EU needs time and is strong enough as it is to take the time to think and explain things over to it's citizens. That's why the "no" won, the whole project was rushed, and that's also why the consequences of a reject are being overblown. It's all going to be reworked and revoted as many times as it takes until the best possible text is accepted by all 25 countries.
1.But even so; I trust our government to make the decisions with the well-being of both the EU and The Netherlands in mind. It's their jo to do what's best for our country.
2.Rushed? It took them a year and a half for negotiating only. I don't think that's rushed. How slow do you want it to be? If you want a referendum for all 25 countries, I'm sure there will never be such a thing as 'best possible text'. Not in the mind of each and every country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ponrauil
I also think they could change the rules of the validation of the constitution, and use the same rules as they did for the Euro zone. Those who accept get in, those who don't stay where they're at and will join when they want to and qualify.
Hey! Don't you sneak another thought on me! You said two thoughts!
However, this I can actually relate to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ponrauil
It makes it all official and irreversible. Name me one organisation in the world that has a Constitution and is not a country?
I can't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ponrauil
Yes there should be rules and guidelines, there already are. But this text, especially Part III, gives the EU the sole power to legiferate whatever the will of member countries on too many economical and social issues.
I don't know how it is for the rest of Europe, but this already was the case for The Netherlands for the last 40 years. So there's no change for us here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ponrauil
I have to admit no reading this in the text either, but hearing it from Valery Giscard d'Estaing, who I think can be trusted to know the content.
And even if a modification can be made, it's with the unanimity of all members, that's the rule of the current ratification process, which made the validation impossible in the first place... the same would happen with proposed modifications.
I read about the unanimity. But I don't think it won't be changed for the next 50 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ponrauil
Yet, even if it's hard to define, some part (and a bigger one everyday) of the national status is due to the EU and it's decisions. You can't just seperate the two "levels" from oneanother because they interact.

Ponrauil
Of course you can separate this. We didn't vote for the EU, we vote for it's constitution. We're already in the EU, we can be pro or against that, but we didn't get to vote for that. We're voting for a text, which shows us how we work in this union, no matter what your thoughts about this union are.
__________________


Oh, and twisted thoughts that spin round my head
I'm spinning, oh, I'm spinning
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 06-04-2005, 01:06 PM
Iceman's Avatar
Iceman Iceman is offline
Senior Member
The Distance
 
Join Date: 11 Oct 2002
Location: Somewhere between heaven & hell.
Age: 44
Gender: male
Posts: 8,205
Send a message via ICQ to Iceman Send a message via MSN to Iceman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bon Jovi
Things were getting done long before the EU came into existence, they're still getting done without the need for the EU to extent its jurisdiction and power.
The whole point is that a union gets things done faster and better and has more strength behind the decisions.

Quote:
As for the 2nd half of that, it's a very Platonian way to look at things, the "uneducated" don't have a clue so shouldn't be allowed to have a say. Not very democratic is it?
I didn't say things shouldn't be voted on, but the fact is that most of the people voting don't have a clue about what they're voting for. Every counrty has a parliament of some sort, democratically chosen. They spend their days learning about the EU and they should hvae a bette understanding on how things work. The people who are being treated a fair dose of propaganda have no clue what they're actually voting about.

Ice
__________________
D.Barry:"People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them."
M.Brooks: "If presidents can't do it to their wives, they do it to their country."

Only dead fish go with the flow.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 06-04-2005, 01:16 PM
Alex's Avatar
Alex Alex is offline
Senior Member
Price of posting
 
Join Date: 26 Feb 2004
Age: 45
Gender: female
Posts: 5,975
Send a message via MSN to Alex
Default

Couldn't agree more with you, Ice; that's what I've been trying to say too.
__________________


Oh, and twisted thoughts that spin round my head
I'm spinning, oh, I'm spinning
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 06-04-2005, 04:43 PM
Jim Bon Jovi Jim Bon Jovi is offline
Senior Member
Crush
 
Join Date: 31 Jul 2002
Location: In my secret bunker hiding from the invasion
Age: 37
Gender: male
Posts: 22,444
Send a message via MSN to Jim Bon Jovi
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bon Jovi
Things were getting done long before the EU came into existence, they're still getting done without the need for the EU to extent its jurisdiction and power.
The whole point is that a union gets things done faster and better and has more strength behind the decisions.

Quote:
As for the 2nd half of that, it's a very Platonian way to look at things, the "uneducated" don't have a clue so shouldn't be allowed to have a say. Not very democratic is it?
I didn't say things shouldn't be voted on, but the fact is that most of the people voting don't have a clue about what they're voting for. Every counrty has a parliament of some sort, democratically chosen. They spend their days learning about the EU and they should hvae a bette understanding on how things work. The people who are being treated a fair dose of propaganda have no clue what they're actually voting about.

Ice
A union that isn't 100% compliant isn't as strong and forcing it isn't going to help matters.

True everyone votes in their parliament but for something as important to everyone as this it's inevitable that they get to vote. I'll let them deal with the day to day stuff, big events i want a say in.

with regards to the propaganda statement, that could be said about every single election taking place across the world since the inception of enfranchisement...
__________________
the dude abides
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 06-07-2005, 07:00 AM
ponrauil's Avatar
ponrauil ponrauil is offline
Senior Member
It's my post
 
Join Date: 12 Oct 2003
Location: Nantes - France
Age: 44
Posts: 4,962
Send a message via MSN to ponrauil
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex
In your mind, I'm sure. But after hearing several things from some vague excuses until plain stupid reasons, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people who just voted to make a statement to the government and no good reason would've made them to change their mind about that. And I still don't think this referendum was the place for that.
It shouldn't be but fact is it was the governments fault. They had lost 3 national elections in a row and showed sign that they listened to the people and change their politics. They kept the same men doing the same things. The only way to get them out was to humiliate them on the international scene. But we're only half way there, Chirac is still there.
That's not how I think btw, but what I think happened in a lot of people's mind, and I can't blame them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex
1.But even so; I trust our government to make the decisions with the well-being of both the EU and The Netherlands in mind. It's their jo to do what's best for our country.
In theory yes, but fact is (at least in France) that few politicians remember what their job is about. Their main preoccupation is their career, whatever they pretend to think and whoever they betray. The trust is gone and the people are fed up.
To illustrate this, the new French Prime-Minister who's been in office for 5 days now, and was very popular for his actions as Foreign Affairs Minister during the build up to the war in Iraq, is starting is job with 68% of pessimistic beliefs about his actions to come.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex
2.Rushed? It took them a year and a half for negotiating only. I don't think that's rushed. How slow do you want it to be? If you want a referendum for all 25 countries, I'm sure there will never be such a thing as 'best possible text'. Not in the mind of each and every country.
A year and a half is a rush on the EU time scale. For comparison, negociations to get one country in can last twenty years.
I truely believe that all 25 countries have common hopes and aspirations that can be all be satisfied enough with one treaty. All it needs is to be is well and honestly negociated, written and explained.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponrauil
It makes it all official and irreversible. Name me one organisation in the world that has a Constitution and is not a country?
I can't.
Yet you don't think the EU is slowly meant, in Brussels officials minds, to become a country?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex
Of course you can separate this. We didn't vote for the EU, we vote for it's constitution. We're already in the EU, we can be pro or against that, but we didn't get to vote for that. We're voting for a text, which shows us how we work in this union, no matter what your thoughts about this union are.
But obviously if you're pro EU but unhappy about how it is today, you don't want it to go any further do you? You'll want the next step to be thought again.

Ponrauil
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 06-07-2005, 07:17 AM
ponrauil's Avatar
ponrauil ponrauil is offline
Senior Member
It's my post
 
Join Date: 12 Oct 2003
Location: Nantes - France
Age: 44
Posts: 4,962
Send a message via MSN to ponrauil
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceman
I didn't say things shouldn't be voted on, but the fact is that most of the people voting don't have a clue about what they're voting for. Every counrty has a parliament of some sort, democratically chosen. They spend their days learning about the EU and they should hvae a bette understanding on how things work. The people who are being treated a fair dose of propaganda have no clue what they're actually voting about.

Ice
Thing is parliament members are elected with as much propaganda as we've been fed with throughout this campaign. I'm not sure people really have a clue of who they give a seat to and why exactly.
On top of that, it's not for European issues that national parliaments are elected, and you'll seldom here pro/anti EU arguments during national parliament related campaigns.

Anyway, my question is : even then, if they spend their days learning and understanding how it works, how come they're so unable to explain it in a simple manner? Why the need for propaganda? (I'm on about both sides btw)

"What is conceived well is stated clearly."

Ponrauil
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 06-07-2005, 08:35 AM
Iceman's Avatar
Iceman Iceman is offline
Senior Member
The Distance
 
Join Date: 11 Oct 2002
Location: Somewhere between heaven & hell.
Age: 44
Gender: male
Posts: 8,205
Send a message via ICQ to Iceman Send a message via MSN to Iceman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ponrauil
On top of that, it's not for European issues that national parliaments are elected, and you'll seldom here pro/anti EU arguments during national parliament related campaigns.
Actually, that's one of the big issues, at least here.

Quote:
Anyway, my question is : even then, if they spend their days learning and understanding how it works, how come they're so unable to explain it in a simple manner? Why the need for propaganda? (I'm on about both sides btw)

"What is conceived well is stated clearly."
Talking is always hard. Why are there so few good teachers?

Ice
__________________
D.Barry:"People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them."
M.Brooks: "If presidents can't do it to their wives, they do it to their country."

Only dead fish go with the flow.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 06-11-2005, 07:34 AM
ponrauil's Avatar
ponrauil ponrauil is offline
Senior Member
It's my post
 
Join Date: 12 Oct 2003
Location: Nantes - France
Age: 44
Posts: 4,962
Send a message via MSN to ponrauil
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceman
Quote:
Originally Posted by ponrauil
On top of that, it's not for European issues that national parliaments are elected, and you'll seldom here pro/anti EU arguments during national parliament related campaigns.
Actually, that's one of the big issues, at least here.
Not in France, it comes after unemployment, security, education, health, social standards, immigration, environment... As I said earlier, it's only debated for real when come the EU parliament elections.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceman
Quote:
Originally Posted by ponrauil
Anyway, my question is : even then, if they spend their days learning and understanding how it works, how come they're so unable to explain it in a simple manner? Why the need for propaganda? (I'm on about both sides btw)

"What is conceived well is stated clearly."
Talking is always hard. Why are there so few good teachers?
Talking is their job, they've been trained to talk, they have an army of advisors for communication... I believe the problem's main sources are that most of (French) politicians :

1 - have their hands tied by their party's decision board
2 - have put their career above anything else
3 - are actually unaware of how disconnected they are from the people

Ponrauil
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 04:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11.
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.