EU Constitution

The brand new EU Constitution seems to be in trouble in France. The number of French voters who are against the signing of the agreement is steadily growing and no amount of coaxing from Chirac is changing their minds, according to several polls in France.

http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/050413112513.rv1dr3jx

If they happen to maintain this status when the referendum takes place in May 29, what will happen to the European Union?

Nothing. As it would have happened if Spain said no to this pseudo-constitution.

It is not a constitution but an agreement between countries, therefore, if this treaty is not supported by France and/or other countries, the previous one will still be in effect. The previous treaty is the Nize's Treaty.

I'll be glad if this constitution is rejected (althought I'm very pro-european).

Fernando

I cannot imagine the EU lasting over the long haul. People are foregoing their rights by joining an organiztion such as the EU. Look at all that it dictates to each country. The EU dictates the tax policy over capital gains on real estate. They dictate capital punishment, and the list goes on and on. It is ironic that the French, of all people, are the fly in the ointment. The idea of the EU was originaly conceived by none other that Charles DeGaule after WWII. Sixty years later it is still not in full force, the way that he dreamed of it.

It is the loss of souvernty that has caused the loud cry for the US to withdraw from the UN in the past several months. I am one of many that feel it is time that we Americans reexamined our role in the UN.

Yeah desert dweller, "it dictates capital punishment". It forbids capital punishment, which most of us europeans only see as a guarantee of that our union won't include governments who see taking lives as their right.
I also think you should re-evaluate your role in the UN. You should try to remember that the "United" part indicates that you're not the only ones in it.

I am one of many that would be very happy to see the US withdraw from the UNITED Nations. The US is the prime source of funding for the UN, yet in the past several years has been on the short end of the stick many times over. If the U stands for United then that means all should pony up an equal and proprotional share, something that many countries including Sweden, seem have to forgotten.

Watching third world countries deal out their abuse, then turn around and run to the UN and insist that the US fund one of their programs with US taxpayer dollars is getting old. We the American taxpayers are fed up with it.

Capital punishment is very effective at driving home a point.

We as Americans are getting tired of being the international whipping boy, yet look who everyone runs to when they get in trouble.

Well said, Desert Dweller, I couldn't agree more.

I read that the French are likely to use the EU constitution referendum as a chance to lodge a protest vote against Jaques Chirac, with whom they're fed up apparently and would vote no primarly for this reason. Incidentally, the complete constitution in English is downloadable from the BBC website. All 325 pages of it!!

Can't agree with you Desert Dweller:

Yes once they are dead, they hardly ever commit crimes again!

ditravelphoto,

When mercy is shown, does good or evil triumph? Only evil triumphs when we deny justice to victims of violent crimes. I don't think we have to look very far to find evidence of this.

Way to go Desert Dweller. I certainly want to see the corrupt, inconsequential UN dry up and blow away.

I have for once disagree with both gazpacho and desert dweller.

I'm staunchly against death penalty. The main human right is the right to live, and a state should never have the right to decide who lives and who doesn't.

What if the court make a mistake? Why should someone pay with his life for that mistake?

Is death penalty effective lowering crime rate? Clearly no. Many countries without it have lower crime rates than the US.

As for UN I also disagree with you on this. US is the main contributor true, but has also the the biggest debt. Don't forget also that US has a permanent vote in UN, as well as the main site for UN workers (which is a good source of money for the US).

UN is a necessary forum, and it is an error, in my opìnion, to weaken it.

It is true, though, that its current administration is far from good.

As for the current topic, I think that EU is a great forum for european countries to solve their differences and work together. With EU we europeans have had the longest period of time in peace (with the aid of US).

I would want to see the EU reinforced, but not in the way stated by the current EU Constitution.

Fernando

I think most EU citizens agree with Fernando on the death penalty, and for that reason I don't think you can say that the EU "dictates" capital punishment, but rather lets its citizen's view be reflected in legislation.

Let me make one thing clear to you Fernando, and anyone else reading this. If the UN was to leave New York City tonight, it would have little or no effect on one single American. They could move that farce to Madrid, Paris, or take it to h--l as far as we are concerned, and no American would miss it. It cost far more in US tax dollars, that could be far better spent, than we ever get back in return from it. The monetary value of it being in the US, to the US citizen is nil. Not one American would miss so much as one meal if it left tonight. To be rid of it would be nothing but an improvement on the NYC landscape.

As far as the EU is concerned it is a system that is doomed before it getts off the ground. Any agreement that has to take 325 pages is going to be so full of loopholes and special interest provisions that it cannot possibly pass the test of time.

It's a pitty it can't move to Madrid. I'm sure UN will be very welcomed here...

But DD, talking seriously, if UN didn't exist, another international forum would be necessary. Don't you think?

The problem with the EU Constitution is not the lenght (which makes it unreadable) but its content. It has been written by Valery Giscard D'Estaing, a chauvinist, corrupt and biased ex-president of France.

Fernando

Hi!

Are you sure? Not a single American?

In fact, the UN Facilities in NYC are probably the most famous ones; however, we do have UN Headquarters in Vienna (European Union) and as far as I'm concerned I've never heard any complaints about it.

http://www.unvienna.org

It is true tha the US pays for 22% of the UN Budget; It's also true that the US founded the UN after WWII and that it helped it to avoid Communism from spreading during the Cold War.

It is also true that the UN has been considered a huge advance in international policy as well as being one of the most powerful weaopns of Propaganda ever. It's been criticised by the USSR, China, some Arab nations including Irak and Iran, and lately the US Government. I find it contradictory, but I must admit that it hasn't dealt some issues properly in the last decade.

With regard to the EU constitution I'd like to say a couple of things. First, I voted Yes because I think that it's an important step for the EU. I know it's not as serious at it seems but I think that any law can be changed or improved at any time so why not changing the constitution if we don't like it now, or in 50 years.

The Spanish constitution (30 million people when it was written) has in comparison somehow a similar percentage of pages because we take into account both amendments and annexed articles. The EU "beta" (450 million people) follows the same pattern. Now, I'm not a lawyer but I know that no loophole is valid within a constitution since it's a "Carta Magna" List of Rights and Musts (I'm not sure if I'm using the correct terms, sorry about that), so what we would have to analyse is not the constitution but the law itself.

I do love my country and my meta-country too, the EU . And I think we're doing pretty well with the union process. Since the Roman Empire there has been nothing but wars and several tries to rejoin Europe unsuccesfully but now we've got another opportunity.

THE US DID NOT FOUND THE UN. The US was instumental in getting other countries to form the UN, after WWII. Frankly I don't know who's idea of a UN was. I do know the reason it is in NYC was to prevent an attack by the USSR. Long before the days of ICBMs. Now Russia is one of the biggest benifactors of the UN, and Putin could knock it out with the push of a button.

Fernando,

What in the world is having the biggest debt got to do with how much we waste on the U.N????? Desert Dweller is correct, for the benefits it provides ordinary U.S. citizens, I wish they would move it to Timbuktu or h__l. Then they could pass all the stupid environmental, CO2, or whatever you want to call them "accords" and leave us out of it, thank you very much. Let all the European doctors figure out which blonde animals can detect earthquakes.

As far as the death penalty. What nations do they use as a participants? The U.S. is very mixed as far as which states support it and which don't. You're free to have your opinion though. I would agree that any country whose justice system is purely arbitrary has no right instituting it.

Well, I really think the right to live is not a matter of opinion, and luckily the majority of europeans seem to agree with me.

As for the environment part, you really made me feel sick. Your **** affects the air I breathe, and that air you don't have the right to monopolize no matter how much you pay.

Sueco,

Justice is a derivative of the right to life. It's the people who are sentenced to death that are denying the right to life....Get it?

Yeah I get it: they don't have the right to but the government does? Besides, I think only the slight chance of someone innocent being sentenced to death makes it worth having the criminals sentenced to life instead. And we all know that's happened in the US.

Sueco,

Isn't that what a government is? What is the purpose of government if it isn't to abdicate our own personal use of force against someone who harms us? So, yes, the government has the right to use a commensurate amount of force against one of it's governed who would deny another this right. Seems simple to me. Denying a victim of a crime justice seems evil.

Oh, now I get your point, let's show criminals mercy, and to heck with the victims and justice. Great. I sure would want to live in Sweden if I were a criminal. Not so sure if I wasn't.

Yeah, I know MM. I'm getting way off-base.

Locking someone up for life is not punishment enough to you? Ok, if you want to go for the "eye for an eye" mentality, but risking to kill innocent people while doing it is, in my view, unforgivable.

Unfortunately governments and courts consist of people and they tend to do mistakes.

Desert Deweller said:Capital punishment is very effective at driving home a point.

If Capital Punishment was effective, then why is your state of Arizona so crime ridden and so many murder occur in Arizona ???

I have always been a big supporter of the EU...and wish that Canada would be given associate/special status in the EU..

Agent: As per your comment about Arizona haveing a high crime rate, I will not make an effort to deny that we have our problems. Per capita we are one of the lower for murder. In Arizona as with all states that have the death penalty the decision to give the death penalty is made by a jury now as opposed to a judge. Since that has came down via the US Supreme Court the average citizen seem more ready to hand out the death penalty than did the judges previously. There seems to be concern that an innocent person could be sent to the death chamber. That is always a concern. That is one of the reasons that it takes so long between the time a murder is commited until the execution. With the new DNA evidence being admitted in court, more people have been exonerated via DNA than have been convicted. We had a man that had been on death row for 18 years when DNA from the crime scene was tested he was released from prison.

To point of the death penalty is not a deterant to murder. It gives closure to the victim's family, and lets the criminal know in no uncertain terms that "society owes him nothing." Someone made the comment that doesn't locking a person up for the rest of their life punishment enough. To the criminal that would seem fair, however in our system of justice a life sentence usually means twenty years. The average life expectancy in prison is twenty years, therfore that creep would be eligable for parole in seven years, on life sentence. Even on the rare case where the judge imposes "life without parole" I for one do not feel obligated as a taxpayer to feed, clothe and shelter this maggot for the next thirty or forty years. All the while he is sitting around at my expense writting books and making paintings to sell.

My point in mentioning the death penalty earlier was to say that the EU has dictating powers over the individual countries as to say "Well you have this, or you do that, so you cannot belong to our organization." The death penalty is one thing that is keeping Turkey out of the EU at this time. I was using the death penalty as an example as to how the EU meddles in the affairs of an indvidual country. I never intended to start a debate over the death penalty. However it does seem to have lit up the board.

Now can we all get back to picking on the EU, and should anyone want to start a forum about the death penalty that can be done on the Non Spain thread.

My sincere apology MM for veering so far off track.

Yes, you're right, the US did not found it. My mistake. It's a group of nations there was an agreement:

"The name "United Nations", coined by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt, was first used in the "Declaration by United Nations" of 1 January 1942."

It's just the name, the concept, the place, the goals and the design of its bodies which the US planned. The members became part of it freely.

And it's a pitty that the US has to pay for 22% while the EU is only paying 29,51% of the total budget knowing that we've got no international debt and we encourage our governments to develop enviromental policies.

As for our national policy I don't think it "dictates" anything. Firstly because that term is a clear allusion to a non-democratic regime and secondly because EU States have more independence than US States.

What I've noticed is a tendency from the US Government to criticise any EU movement in our internal issues. Some people here say it's fear for a growing competitor; we'd break your monopoly, etc. I'd say that would be a big mistake for we're their best allies (for obvious reasons), at least, that's my feeling.

Amleth: I am curious as to just what monopoly you are talking about. As far as an allie is concerened, most of Europe is a good allie to the US. With the notable exception of France. Few if any Americans would trust a Frenchman as far as we could throw him. Chirac has made it clear that whichever way the US wants to go in the UN he will go in the opposite direction deliberatly.

Our view of the EU is that it meddles in the affairs of the individual countries to much and proclaims that in order to belong to the EU certain laws that each country must change. When the US constitution was being drafted the founding fathers wanted as much authority as possible to be left to the individual states as opposed to the federal level. The EU wants as much authority as possible at their level, and that is the reason the EU will not last over the long haul. One example of this is the real estate capital gains tax. I read an article that the EU was on to Spain that in your tax laws, one did not have to pay tax when a property was sold if the gains were then reinvested in another property. That is the way it is here in the US. The EU wants Spain to change that so that every time one sells his home he pays capital gains tax on the profit from selling his own home, even if he purchases another home right away. This would remove some incentive to upgrade ones standard of living. The EU also dictates trade policy over the individual countries. Yet the EU nor the UN, did not have anything to say to France and Germany when they were violating international trade sanctions by trading with Saddam Hussein. That was one of Chirac and Shroeder's big complaints over the invasion of Iraq. Although neither admitted so publicly. Both countries were making big money trading with Iraq in clear violation of trade sanctions, yet the EU had nothing to say about the matter. By the way, look at both of their economies now that Hussein is in prison where he belongs.That alone should tell you how much they were profiting by doing business with a tyrant.

You are right, any American that has studied the EU does not have a very favorable opinion of the EU. For the most part it is viewed as a thinly veiled mouth piece for France to be telling the rest of Europe what to do and how to do. It is going to interesting to see how the French vote turns out.

So you're saying that France and Germany opposed a war, fought by the US for economic reasons, for economic reasons? Well whatever the reason, they were right in doing so as the US presented no proof for the claimed reasons to attack the country and a vast majority of their own citizens, as most europeans, were stronly against it.

(about the death penalty issue still: yeah, you would probably rather be a crime victim in Arizona than in Sweden; in Sweden you'd be much lonelier which you notice by looking at any crime statistics. )

I've not been on the board for 2-3 months and the first time back - the same people are arguing - the same old arguements - ....
and the few cool voices of reason are the same ones as always.

Sueco- Please don't assume to know what the vast majority of American citizens want. I tend to doubt you feel the pulse of America from Stockholm.
If you were right I think Kerry would have won the US election, don't you ?

Puna, as the thread indicates, the initial content of this discussion was the EU Constitution. Somehow, it went off topic as most political discussion do.

But, getting back on the topic, Fernando, I have also been reading that there is also a strong likelyhood that the Dutch, also an incipient supporter of the EU, may not vote for the constitution.

I guess my question then becomes, why have a constitution if there are other treaties already in place that act as a center of policy?

ColinK, I was referring to the opinion of the vast majority of germans and frenchmen.

Sueco- I apologize for misreading your post.

I'm asking myself the same question Booklady: "Why have a constitution if there are other treaties already in place that act as a center of policy?"

I think that we need a new treaty from time to time to make EU construction slowly deeper. That means that each european country must loose some sovereignity and give it to the EU bureaucracy.

This works as long as there is a good will and spirit between the EU countries. And as long as EU bureaucracy remains efficient.

The problem is that the current french and german administrations are the most anti-european ones ever. Chirac is a corrupt, short-sighted president, and Schroeder is a fool who has rised Germany's unemployment rate to 12%. They both agreed to manage the EU as if there were no other countries.

Nize's Treaty was a fair and balanced treaty which made the EU a democratic institution. Countries' weight in the European Parlament was proportional to its population, but with a correction factor that prevented big countries to decide on their own in the name of all.

This constitution blows up that and allows Germany and France to decide things pretty easily. Our "mighty" president Zapatero gave up Nize's Treaty for nothing and placed Spain in a secondary position.

In conclussion: Yes, perhaps a constitution is needed, but not a new treaty disguised as a constitution (imagine any country which had two constitutions!!!), and what's more, not a treaty like this one which is thought, agreed, written and forced to be aproved by France and Germany (or what's worse, by Chirac, his puppet Giscard and the worst german president in the last decades, Schroeder).

Fernando

okay, I am not really "into" politics, but my brother is over in Iraq right now fighting a war on terrorism, so I have to post something. I think that Saddam killing of scores of Kurdish people was ENOUGH of a reason to go to war in Iraq. And I also think that he DID have WMDs, we were just naive enough to give him enough time to send them to other countries.
Although I do not like how the Bush Administration went about entering the war, I do know that the world is SO MUCH better off than before.
I did not vote for Bush last year, I believe the U.S. had better international relations when a Democratic President is in office.

Frankly, and sorry if I offend any Republicans here, but Bush is a COWBOY President and I don't think he is very bright. His own father did not invade Iraq because there is "no exit strategy."
I feel that Bush should have been more clear on justifying the reasons to go to war, but as I mentioned earlier, Saddam HAD to be removed. I just wish that the PLANNING on the war in Iraq would have been THOUGHT OUT MORE THOROUGHLY.

And as far as the dealth penalty vs. life in prison...do you know how OVERCROWDED our jails are in America???? Taxpayers are supporting all of these people and WE ARE SICK OF IT!!
I support the death penalty only if DNA evidence proves the suspect commited the crime. Yes, we have put to death innocent people, which is why in the state of Illinois, Gov. Ryan lessened the sentences of many jailed people.

On the UN, it is NOT a government, and personally, I would not miss it if the U.S. exited.

Ok, I have vented...thank you.

Sueco: If I am to understand your post, it is okay to be in violation of international sanctions and do business with a man of Saddam Husein's caliber and not go to war for whatever the reason. Why then have organiztions such as the UN and the EU? Germany and France had their econmies shored up with illegal business transactions with Iraq. Now that Hussein has fallen, look at the German and French economies. It is easy to do business with men like Hussein, they are willing to pay top price, and did not ask a lot of questions.

Question: Why hasn't your beloved EU taken sanctions agains Germany and France for their violations of the trade barriers? Answer, the beuracrats of the EU are not going to bite the hand that feeds them. It is okay for France and Germany to meddle in the affairs of other countries and call it EU business, but the EU better not be sticking it's nose in France and Germany's business. Here in the US we have a word to describe men like Chirac and Shroeder, "HYPOCRITS."

No, I didn't mean that it's ok, I was just pointing out that I do not think that was their main reason for being against the war and whatever the reason, it was definitely right of them to be so.

And after all democratically elected governments your country has helped in overthrowing to replace them with authoritarian regimes I'm surprised that you'd be so shocked.

No, the EU isn't perfect, but look who's talking.

And ILbunny, I really understand your view even though I definitely don't think Bush did it to "free the iraqi people"; otherwise he'd be freeing people all over, but people in economically insignificant areas don't seem to interest him. Nor do I believe in the weapons of mass destruction. I do, however, agree with you on that the world is better off without people like Saddam in charge.

And I do understand your overcrowding problem, but I think it's be wiser to try to do something about the problem itself and not just to eliminate the result.

Sueco: I am one of many that feel it was Chirac and Schroeder's only reason for not going to war. They both came up with some very thin arguments for not invading Iraq, none of which would hold water. Look at the economy of both countries now. As the years go by and more and more information is revealed we will all find out just how much those two were in bed with Saddam.

You made the comment about the EU not being perfect and said "look whose talking" I don't think you can look back at any of my posts and find one where I have ever implied, or said, that the US is perfect. I will be the first to say WE HAVE OUR SHARE OF PROBLEMS. Just which one would you like to discuss.

IlBunny: I don't think you offended very many of us Republicans with your comment about the President being a "cowboy." I think he would actually feel complimented by it. If you think about it, when officals from around the world come to the US, his idea of a "state dinner" is to invite them to his ranch in Texas and have a barbaque complete with ranch beans, corn on the cob, server on paper plates, out doors. Now we both know, his mother and dad raised him better than that. His mom was asked about his idea of a state dinner by reporters, and she just shook her head and walked away. As far as him not being overly bright. When he first was elected he gave the commencment speech at his old school Yale. He said "to all you honor students who are graduating with As and Bs, I say thank you for your hard work." "To all of you C students, you to can become President." Now how much more honest and plain spoken can you get than that?

Desert dweller, we obviously think very differently so it's probably quite useless to continue the conversation. Your Bush quote was funny though, for more check out http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushdumbquotes2.htm
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

there was an interesting opinion expressed in the Economist magazine not too long ago. The author compared the EU to the U.S. in that the U.S. is basically a union of small independant countries (states). Each state (country) has its own laws and customs and these laws cannot easily be trumped by the federal system. The federal system acts as a facilitator of resources to better serve the common needs of the various states.

She included some interesting examples of how Washington D.C. allows the group of states to function better than if they were individual republics. I think some of her examples were organized networks of highways and railways (NOT better railroad companies), easier movement of qualified labor from one state to another, common monetary policies, common defense budgets.....

There was a list of items she mentioned but her view was that the United States is really a commercial union of independant political entities; we just don't tend to think of ourselves in that manner. Most of us don't call ourselves by a state label - when asked, we say we are American. We don't say "Texan or Michiconian or Californian". However, much of our daily lives are controlled by city, county, and state laws and regulations.

I thought it was interesting. She absolutely had a valid point about movement of labor. I live in Florida and after the hurricanes, we needed hundreds, if not thousands of roofing contractors. Because there are no formal or informal barriers to someone from NY moving to Fl. to work for a year or two, we were able to supply employment to someone from another state as well as provide much needed labor for Florida companies.

But I think that will be the downfall of the EU. You're asking people to give up their national identity. Well, maybe not give it up but to put it secondary to the EU. I don't understand why anyone would want to do that. Really what do the northern Europeans have in common with the southern Europeans ? Not much. I actually hope the EU pans out, I just don't see that happening.

Sueco: That would be something that he would say. He has been known to have his tonge in motion before he engages his brain. I've enjoyed the dialog with you. I will check out the web site, thanks. Feel free to contact me at my E mail for private contact.

ColinK: I agree with you, I hope for the best for the EU, but I don't see it working out. Fernando made the comment that each country would have to forego some rights, and customs, and when that happens nerves start to grind, troops start to mass. Here we go.

In what way are EU members asked to give up their national identity? Finland, where I'm from, has been a member since 1996 and I definitely haven't seen that happening, not even after the euro.

Pia- the euro is one example. Very small, yes, but still an example. Correct me if I'm wrong but the whole ideal behind the EU is to put the supposed good of all its member nations ahead of the wants or needs of an individual member. That right there is a sacrifice of national identity. Isn't there also discussion of an international police force ? I'm not sure of this I just heard something about that in the past. I hope not. That is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard of.

I won't mind to give up some rights to EU for one.

• I would prefer to have a unique european police so criminals can't hide in one country.
• I like to have a common currency.
• I would like to see a common army.
• I also think that having similar laws will favour comerce.
• I think that it is great not to have comercial barriers and be able to buy or sell products in any european country.
• I like the fact that I can travel without my passport to any european country without been asked where am I going or what am I doing.
• If I ever choose to move my residence to another european country and work there I won't have to ask for a residence or working permission.
• I like to have a public health care system, unemployment secure when I'm in any other european country.
• I like that my university degree is equivalent and accepted in any other european country.
• I like to have a finance and economic aid if I wan't to course part of my university studies abroad.
• I like to be able to travel out of the EU and be able to go to any other EU embassy and be treated as if I was in the spanish embassy (specially when there is no spanish embassy in that country).
• I like that spanish companies are able to buy or be bought by european companies and run their businessess in any european country, sharing technology and other resources.
• I like... I like the European Union. Yes. Definitely. For hundreds of reasons. And I won't mind to give up an amount of sovereignity

Fernando

Good Fernando, I hope it all works out, I really do.

Fernando, I wouldn't have said it better. The European Union is not perfect at all. It does have disadvantages, as all unions have, but its advantages are much larger. Plus, giving up sovereignity does not mean giving up our national identity. The EU is rich in diversity. We do have different customs, languages, traditions.... and we love it that way.

One of you wondered what could northern europeans have in common with southern europeans... I wondered that too... until I went to the US. I had a great year, I do have quite a few really good american friends and european friends that I met there. I was surprised when I realized I had a lot more in common with those northeuropeans than I thought.

Fernando, in many ways in which you describe the European Union, I see our own United States. The facility of trade among states, no unfair tariffs to worry about when one goes from one place to another, etc.

But what binds us together is our wonderful constitution, which is much more than a series of treaties among the states. So going back to my initial question... if there is not an over-reaching constitution that sets and levels the playing field for all states, in your case, countries, how is the EU going to fare, when one country decides to ignore certain treaties?

Would they be thrown out of the Union? What happens?


Here we send the national guard if Maine decides to misbehave and go against the Constitution. what are the consequences in the EU?

Is it one of the purposes (written or not) of the EU to compete with the US? I think that the EU is awesome. However, you can argue that it will be more challenging for the Europeans to become a super power and a homogeneous country than it was for the U.S. centuries ago.

When the U.S. was "growing up" they didn't have to deal with so many languages, religions, and cultural backgrounds as the EU is today. Yes you can argue that there have been people from all over the world in the U.S. for centuries. However, the U.S. became what it is today based on a common language, common moral beliefs, slavery, and a strong sense of capitalism or entrepreneurship. The EU has to deal with much more and different complex issues today that when the 16(?) Colonies became one nation.

Maybe it is crazy, but when I think about the EU, especially its fist steps, the whole idea just sounded like the American continent was trying to become one super nation, from Alaska to the Patagonia. Here also there’s money to do it, especially in the U.S. and Canada, and countries like Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina have economies the size of many eastern European countries. And even though, the idea of one American supra state sounds today more like a dream (or nightmare) and premature, this example and not history of the U.S., gives me a better idea of what are the challenges of the European constitution. Am I explaining myself? What am I missing on this picture? (Leaving aside obvious differences, like the size of the continent and cultural-racial backgrounds).

My point is that it makes no sense to compare the U.S. to the E.U. since their time and realities are totally different.

ColinK, for me "national identity" is something that can't be threatened by a currency or an identical education system; or even by a common police force especially as the national laws and police forces will still be there. Why do you think that police force would be such a bad idea? I feel very finnish and we do have a very strong "national identity", as most european countries, but it doesn't mean we can't be europeans too.

Finland has been a member since 1995 and I really haven't felt that many negative changes in everyday life. Of course the EU has tried for example to prohibit tax free sales on boats between Finland and Sweden and our gambling monopoly (from which benefits go to important charity), but both issues have been negociable and we've been able to maintain them, which tells me that it's not at all as dictatory as some people seem to think. Overall, the negative changes have not been so important that I feel they would have made it worth missing out on the positive ones: it's really easy and cheap for me to travel, study or work in the other european countries, as Fernando pointed out well. This is very encouraged, which I appreciate knowing what a huge benefit it is to get to know different people and cultures, and it's made very easy as you don't have to go through all the procedures that many of the people here on this message board seem to be struggling with. Even the euro has been a really positive change even though I feared it wouldn't be. It's weird that people seem to think EU is some big bad imperialistic organization trying to homogenize the area. You guys should be more concerned about US policies towards for example Latin America

jbach, writes:

Jbach, it is obvious to me that you know very little about the U.S.

The U.S. is a conglomorate of people from other nations, primarily the European countries, but Asian ones as well.Immigration began well before the U.S. constitution was even a decade old! And it continues strong and heavy even now. Oppressed people from all over the world come to this wonderful country!

The U.S. cannot be described as a homogenous country, by any standard. In Miami Dade Community College, alone more than 78 languages are spoken!!!

The U.S. did not become a super power until the late 20th century.
There is no argument about it, it is a fact, we are a nation of immigrants, and proud.

For a time Spanish and French were the languages of politics and the marketplace.

I will grant you that after the U.S. became a nation English was selected as the language of choice, Spanish came in a close second. Now the language of the marketplace is English, but other languages are spoken in New York with the same fluency. Ever go to the Polish, Jewish and Chinese neighborhoods in cities like New York? Cajun, Spanish and French in New Orleans? Miami? Chicago? Key West/Cayo Hueso?

No, this is not true. Never has been! Just look at our latest election. :p

Brought to the Americas well before the U.S. became a nation by the Spanish, English, Dutch, Portuguese, French, and other European countries.
Ending it in the bloodiest civil war any country could ever have. By the way, Spain did not end its slavery in Cuba until it lost the island, 1898!

Amen, brother! Brought to us by the wonderful English immigrants. A trait which we share with other developed countries like those in Europe.

I disagree, the EU has a model to diverge from or follow, the 16 colonies were the first of their kind, the pioneers... These poeple did not have the technology that we have today. However, if you mean keeping the Germans and the French from killing each other or keeping their hands out of the cookie jar, then I agree with you!

For me the absolute best thing about the EU is the freedom of movement it gives us. I like knowing that I can for example move to France or Germany or even Hungary and I won't need a work permit, residence papers or anything like that. Here in Cambridge, many restaurants and similar business seem to be staffed by Europeans i.e. Italians, French and Spanish. One of my workmates is a young Polish guy. They come over to work for a while, improve their English and see a bit of the UK. I think that's marvellous and if the UK weren't in the EU, they wouldn't be here.

How did we get from "What will happen to the EU if the consititional referendum isn't passed?" to Martin Luther King, Jr and rich white people???

TJGuy: That's my fault. I will delete my comments. Don't really belong here.

Jabch: The lanugage issue is one that has been with the US long before it was the US. One of the first things that had to be settled at the constitutional convention in 1787 was what langauge to write it in. It came very nere to be written in German. It was not until the the 1820s that English took over and become the dominant language when a world wide famon hit as a result of a volcano eruption. At that time there were hundreds of thousands of Irish arrived and that is when English became the dominat language. Here in Phoenix, Arizona I can assure you that many people speak Spanish only and are long past the third generation. If you should ever travel to the east side of Arizona and tune your radio into station KRES you will hear a language that you have never heard before, NAVAJO. The Navajos are an indian tribe and language that gave great assitance to the US during the second world war.

How we got from the EU to MLK and rich Ameircans, it seems that some in Europe feel that because we have muliple economic classes, that we still have slavery. The forum started out on the EU constitution, and how it will encroach on the rights and freedoms when the EU starts to starts to make Europe one country. The EU will be succesful as long as it is pretaining to trade and economic issues. When it starts to meddle in local laws and it starts to tell one or two countries that "you must change this law, or that law" then it will collapse. An organization such as the EU cannot abridge the rights and freedoms of so much as one country without resulting in failure.

DD: But then it came down to English or German, when for example just in Spain there are 4 official languages so the dimensions of the language issue in Europe are absolutely larger. I was just mentioning this because a few moths ago I saw on the Spanish news that some groups wanted the EU constitution drafted in their local dialects. So I think that if the Europeans have to deal with this kind of things in every state-country it must be something that slows the process of becoming a united strong "nation". But probably this is just a secondary issue.

Booklady,

Sorry I just got to your last post just now. Touche.

You are certainly correct, Dessert Dewler when you state:
Particularly in the incipient stages, once the countries of Europe bond in every sense, then they can develop more cohesive cultural and societal structures. Otherwise, there will be serious problems.

Jabch, I also agree with your statement that the multiplicity of languages is secondary. It is a challenge and will remain a challenge for some time. But, I would not consider that the major challenge, like say the challenges posed by the marketplace, or the challenges posed by cultural norms.

Do you think that some time in the future there will be a dominant language for Europe? One which every citizen must learn?

Thanks, Gazpacho!

he he...depends if the French have it their way!!

I saw a program on PBS about the language issue in Switzerland. Basically, there's a movement to make English official in Switzerland. Many of the interviewees in the program argued that it already is the language of communication among not-English native speakers. For example, if a German speaker and an Italian speaker try to communicate with each other usually they do it in English; also in many Swiss colleges study papers are required in English. However, at the time the proposal arrived to the government it wasn't very welcomed.

Booklady,

I was going to suggest English. Though I believe Spanish to be a more beautiful language. From what I've seen of the world, English is quite prevalent. Especially in countries that are either economically properous or have great economic potential.

I have great sympathy for anyone having to learn our horribly inconsistant language, but it seems to be the way things are.

Don't all europeans already have to learn english? At least I haven't heard of any country where it's not mandatory even though many spaniards, french and even german people aren't too successful in learning it ( ), but that I think is much due to dubbed TV. If the question was if we think there'll be a language that's dominant within the different member countries, I definitely don't think so.

I would not suggest one language over another. It is my personal observation that unless it is adopted naturally over time in the marketplace, it would be best to continue with many languages.
Just look at Spain's esperience with their many languages.

But, Bricamb, said something to make us ponder. He said that the facility to travel without papers has allowed people from all over Europe to go to England to learn English, practical english that you can only really learn as a member of that community, as a worker. I am sure the same is happening in other countries.

Which leads me to believe that instead of following a monolingual model, the people of the EU may seem to be more comfortable in mastering many languages. I believe that whatever makes the marketplace more adaptable and flexible will be what will eventually occur over time.

Booklady, I think in most EU countries people speak really good english, also without ever having been there, and in most countries you have to study at least 2 foreign languages at school. When I was studying spanish last summer I definitely noticed that it was much harder for americans (and maybe brits) to learn the language: probably because they had never studied a foreign language before and didn't always understand that you can express things very differently than in english but also because they aren't exposed to so many other languages. I've heard english daily since I was a kid through TV, music etc. and that's where I've learned the most. I study at a monolingual university and my studies are not at all language-oriented but still I've had to read books in 5 languages so far, and for every exam the books are at least in finnish, swedish and english. Just as an example.

The concept of a monolinguitic society was proposed by US presidential candidate Pat Buchanan. You see where that idea got him. Most of you in Europe have never heard of him, count your blessings. No doubt when the issue is brought about, Jerk Chirac will insist on French. You read it here first.

I don't believe that will happen, Desert Dweller!
From listening to Bricamb, Fernando, and Pia, modern Europeans are able to handle a multi-lingual Europe.

Whatever happened to that man, anyway?

I have a purely pedagogical sub-question: how early do European children begin learning other European languages? Fernando in Spain? In Britain? In Finland, Pia?

When I went to school english started when I was 10 years old, German/French when I was 14 and Swedish when I was 15. I don't know if the school my little brother went to was special in this sense but I think he started to learn easier English already when he was 7-8 and German when he was 13, and then Swedish at 15.

Hi Booklady. It's been some time since I was at school but we didn't start studying other languages until our first year of secondary school, when I was 12. However, many schools are now introducing foreign languages, albeit informally, at an earlier age. The bad news is that it is no longer compulsory to study a foreign language after the age of 14 in English schools at least.

Thank you Pia and Bricamb,

It is my suspision, from personal observation, not from scientific inquiry, that the younger the child is introduced to a foreing language the more likely the child becomes fluent in that language. I believe that anyone with language abilities and inclination can learn a language at fairly much any age. But fluency is another matter. Fluency defined as the ability to speak and understand the nuances of a language as a native of the language.

I often wonder why, if children develop their language skills generally before 8 years of age, as Gagne, Vygotsky, and others have researched, do educators wait to introduce other languages to children when the child is in secondary school.

I started to learn english when I was 3 years-old (God I still remember those songs and those pictures with the name in english at the bottom ).

From 3 to 5 years-old I had half the classes in english, then until I was 17 5 hours a week. In the college only two of more than 60 subjects were in english.

I started to learn german and french by myself some years ago, in the college.

Now it is compulsory for every child to learn english in the school (at least in Madrid's Autonomy) since they are 3 years-old.

Only a small percentage of spaniards speak english well, but a good amount can understand it.

We are no good at speaking foreign languages (sweedish, hollish and in general northern europeans are really good), but we are improving our language skills slowly

Fernando

The EU will not erase the cultures of the Countries makeing up the EU...Look at Canada, a country of 10 Provinices and three special territories, each with it's own very destinctive culture with Eastern Ontario, Quebec, and half of New Brunswick speaking French...this will never change...

Booklady: Which man are you asking about Jerk Chirac or Pat Buchanan? Jerk Chirac still thinks he runs France and the rest of the world. Although you can see from the news reports that the average Frenchman thinks about as much of him as I do.

Pat Buchanan, he still sticks his head out in public every once in awhile. Most commonly on the right wing radio talk shows. He came on like gang buster in the 96 primaries, until he got to Arizona. HA, we showed him a thing or two. Him and G.Gordon Liddy are about the last of the old Nixon/Watergate gang that are still around. Even Rose Mary Woods passed away last year.

I have to fote in june for the constitution and I will fote NO.

Why?. My country has an good constituion. The new one would make things on a lot of points worse. I believe in human rights. But does a country that refuse to obay them chance by the constitution. But it's not only about human rights. It's about privatising health, electricity, public traffic and very important about the army forces.

In the Netherlands is a lot privaticed in the last ten years and that showd a lot of bad stuff. General managers that suddenly earn 810.000 euro on year base. Healt incurances that will get in 2006 super expesive and since the privaticing the montly fee went form 7 euro's to 50 euro's to in 2006 96 euro's and less stuff is insured. Hospitals with huge waiting list. electricity en public traffic unpayable. I have read the whole constition and compared almost every points with the dutch one and I can't agree. Sorry

The constitution says on human rights that people are equal BUT that in jobs still is aloud to make promoting rules for woman and colorod people. So we are equal?????? why an exeption then. If somebody discriminate kick his but I would say. The constitution say nothing about gay rights, law above churge and more important stuff. Very very important points because we talking about huge diffrent countries and opinions and the army forces are getting a super strenght.

France and Germany al didn't kept the rules about national debts so why would the EU keep the constitution rules????

After reading this thread, I'm beginning to wonder why we even bothered to fight WWII to free Europe from the Nazis.

Since the whole concept of the new EU is heading exactly where Hitler wanted, why didn't we just let it happen then?

As for the UN, I've gone on record a long time ago as saying it's a corrupt entity that sits on it's collective arses, watching genocide take place throughout the world, quibbling over symantics in how "stern" a warning should be to the people who are killing people by the thousands each day. Those opposed to any sanctions whatsoever usually win, because by the time anything is done, a race of people has once again been summarily murdered.

If you want the UN in Europe, as another crutch for the inability of your individual nations to do anything more than posture at the devil, be our guest. We don't really need it to protect the sanctity and rights of the US.

As for EU, it's turning into a tyrant that will "demand" allegiance from each of its member states in the end. Of course, as Hitler predicted, the powers that make these decisions will be German, won't they?

Wolf

Wolf, althought I share your concerns on UN corruption and its inability to deal with certain international conflicts, I think that comparing European Union, a paneuropean entity created by the main european powers after WWII and blessed by the US, with the III Reich is going quite afar.

There are lots of things to be critized in the EU, and it is far from working correctly. Seeing it as a counterpower to the US, or as a european equivalent to the UN is a big mistake.

Seeing the EU as the union of France and Germany alone, when it is componsed by 25 countries, some of them the main US allies, is giving these pathetic leaders (Chirac and Schroeder) the reason.

Let EU be what it was intended to: a union of nations which wanted to live in peace and preserve freedom, after centuries of killing each other and two world wars which let here a balance of dozens of millions of deaths.

Fernando

Because he was killing million of people and it was based on dictatorship. I think any perons pro ore against the EU constitution doesn't agree with murder and dictator ship. The Eu is based on the diffrent uppinions of countries so that's why we also can say now agains the presentated constitution.

I agree with you Fernando. The EU greated a lot of good things: Spain and France working together agains ETA. Borders gone end you can work and live where you want and much and much more. For that we didn't needed the constitutrion.

Hmmmmmm. Wolf and Fernando,

I'm with Wolf. Seems to me there was a whole lot of treaties enacted prior to World War II. Seems to me that Britain had a treaty with Chechoslavakia. (sorry for the spelling). Didn't seem to matter much. It seems to me, especially in light of the U.S.-Iraq conflict that Europeans are good at making treaties but lousy as expecting anyone to adhere to them. Does it really make any difference to anyone in Europe whether these treaties are passed or not?

Gazpacho,

Treaties - according to historical significance relating to Europe - Have been enacted to "protect" a nation from others. As long as there was Hitler, and as long as there was a Soviet Union, the European community looked west for help, to the US.

Now that the cold war is over, and the big strong beach bully is gone, and the US isn't a concern for war, the 90# weaklings are posturing on the beach to impress the girls.

No matter how you slice it, their Napoleon complex is beginning to show.

Napoleon hahahahahaha.

Europe never looked for that US help (talking from Dutch opinion). Though The USSR was a huge world power we never saw it as the BIG danger agains our country. There is a diffrent in not agreeing in Comunism and seeing it as a world danger. I think you are over reacting. USSR was ****ed up, agains every human right there existed, but for Europe never a danger of war. The danger for us was the situation between US and USSR and Europe between it. Next to that situation there where a lot of other matters withion europe that needed our attention. Serval dictatorships, ETA, IRA and RARA....etc....etc.

Supertubbie, I strongly disagree with your statement:
Europe was in clear and present danger. Pope John Paul II, who had a complete understanding of this issue as Karol Wojtyla Bishop of Krakow, would have vehemently disagreed with you.

To begin with, half of Germany was under the Soviet Union's control. Not to mention Poland, Hungary, the Baltic countries, unless you do not think these countries were part of Europe.

If you don't believe me look at what happened in Hungary when they tried to revolt. I can tell you that the Germans were very happy that the U.S. had men stationed on their side of the border. Ask the Poles!

Whatever you say about the U.S. today, remember that during the years of the cold war it was the only bastion of strength, keeping Holland from being like East Germany, for many years, a satellite of the Soviets.

After the War most European countries could not even feed their people much less defend their borders. Your own cities were bombed out, Rotterdam was destroyed, could Holland have defended herself, if the mighty Soviets had attacked in the late 1940's, the 1950's, the 1960's? Doubtful.

Also remember that the U.S. did not stay in Europe, it left as soon as it could, with a nice little package called the Marshall Plan. The only bits of earth the U.S. has claimed has been a cemetery here and there to bury our dead.

Frankly, I think we need to bring them home.

Booklady, I know the Marshall Plan saved much of Western Europe from starvation but it was not an entirely alturistic gesture. At the end of the Second World War, the USA needed foreign markets where it could sell its good and services. Otherwise, it's own economic prosperity would be in danger as no nation can live without foreign trade. In effect, it created the markets it needed at that time in Europe. America granted Britain a loan to keep it going after 1945 but the terms and conditions of this loan were particularly harsh and it took the UK many years to pay it back.

I think it's worrying though that there seems to be a growing animosity towards Europe in the States, which has increased since the invasion of Iraq. I do believe that America helped to keep the peace in Europe after WW2 and that Europe and the USA still have a great deal in common and much to lose by turning their backs on each other.

Supertubby,

I think Booklady already stated it, but to make it plainer. The U.S.S.R. readily took over half of Europe after World War II. You don't think, do you, that it wouldn't have taken it all over given the chance? Wow.

I suppose it's just a matter of time, if they haven't already, until history is rewritten in Europe to show that the U.S. was the real author of this war.

I feel as if I had missed something...

You are mixing WWII, the Cold War, european countries' position in the Iraq War and the European Union in the same pot.

We could argue for hours on one of these topics alone, but let me said that the EU is not (yet) a political or military union.

You are judging all europeans for what Chirac and Schroeder told you, intentionally forgetting that twenty of twenty five EU countries supported Bush point of view in Iraq, including UK, Polland, Italy, Portugal and Spain.

The EU had nothing to say in that conflict since it doesn't have an army, nor a foreign affaires minister.

Even those who opposed the right, in my opinion, had the right to do so, no matter how grateful they should be for the US aid they received in the past.

Are you saying that if Bush decided to launch ten atomic bombs in Iran (for example) all european countries should back that decission becuase US defeated the nazis, delivered the Marshall Plan and protected all of us from the USSR?

As I have said... I think that I have missed something.

Fernando

Gazpacho, perhaps you should read other newspapers and watch other TV channels... I suppose the history has been already rewritten in the US to show that Europe is the evil to defeat in the XXIth century.

Fernando

Fair enough Fernando,

It's just when I hear someone like Supertubbie saying that the U.S.S.R. was never a threat to his country, that I wonder what they teach in Europe. I also worry about the philosophical base of a people who are against the overthrow of a tyrant, whereever he may exist.

I myself want to see the U.S. and Europe grow even closer, but not if that means following the leftist pragmatism of your continent. Your former leader was the epitome of the type of moral courage I would like to see more of.

Leftist pragmatism.. I thought you guys were over this mccarthyism thing. I have understood that you think high taxes etc. limit your freedom, but while I understand your point of view, I'd think you'd understand mine, which is that also the equal right to education, health care etc. regardless of what you or your family earn add to freedom. Why not let us have it our way.

I have a question for you, just out of curiosity: why Iraq? Why not free all people lead by cruel, authoritarian leaders? Why were Pinochet, Stroessner, Trujillo etc. worth your country's support? I think that's what makes some of us suspicious.

Pia: To truly understand the way that we Americans think you would have to live in the US for a couple of years. If you happen not to have a couple of years to take and live here so that you can understand us better, then get a copy of the Woodstock album from the rock concert in Woodstock, New York in 1969. There is a song on that album sums up American foriegn policy very well it is by Country Joe MacDonald titled The Fish Cheer. When you listen to that song a couple of times, then you will better understand why we think and feel the way that we do.
"now come all you big strong men, Uncle Sam needs a helping hand, got himself in a terrible jam,...

Pia,

A right to an equal education? No government could ever provide this. A right to health care? Sorry, not by our constitution, although many would claim different. We only have the inaliable rights here of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If anyone requires an equal education, (although they would be better off with a better education) or health care, it's available, provided they produce well enough to afford it.

As for why we don't go after other tyrants, why don't you ask this about your own country? Well? Lip service excluded, do you think it right that your government permits tyrants to exist? As far as the U.S. goes, one S.O.B. at a time. The Taliban is gone, Saddam is gone. When are the other free people of this earth going to step up to the plate? This is a rhetorical question. They never have, never will.

Gazpacho, you have readen my posts and you know that I have a great respect for the US and most of its values, but when I hear certain things and lines of argueing I make myself some questions:

Every european country have free quality education.

Even poors should have the right to have the basic health care. That is something guaranteed in european countries.

Life: But the USA is one of the unique first-world countries with death penalty.

Liberty: But there are hundreds of presumed terrorists prived of liberty and all rights (even the right to have a lawyer).

Pursuit of happiness: How can someone pursuit happiness if he doesn't have a proper education and a basic health care?

I believe in equality of opportunities. Everyone should have the opportunity to pursuit happiness.

Of course there is a little bit of demagoguery when people asks "why the USA don't pursuit all tyrants?" as there is in the answer "we go one at a time". We all know that the US interventions are not only intended to free people from their tyrants. Anyway, it is true that european countries have shamingly tolerated crimes like the ones committed by serbs against bosnians in Svrenica.

The thing is that there are things our countries do that can't be justified. We live in democratic countries which should make a special effort to be very scrupulous when trying to spread their values over the world. For example, tortures in Iraq by US soldiers are out of place, as they were out of place in Bosnia by european soldiers.

Fernando

Pia, and others, please don't read desert dweller's and gazpacho's posts and then conclude that you understand how we Americans think. Millions of us are horrified that we might be put in the same category as these two. And it's quite ironic that desert dweller uses Country Joe and the Fish's song to illustrate his point of view. That song is vehemently anti-war, (the Vietnam war), and anti-"establishment." Quotes: gimme an F....gimme a U.....gimme a C....gimme a K.....What's that spell F--K What's that spell F--K....and "Come on fathers, don't hestitate, send your sons off before it's too late, be the first ones on your block to have your boy come home in a box....and it's one two three, what are we fighting for? Don't ask me I don't give a damn...." "open up the pearly gates.... there ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee, we're all gonna die!" Desert dweller didn't understand it?!

And, Pia, we all know why Iraq....

Yes, Bricamb, it's sad and frightening that there is so much anti-European sentiment in the U.S. And anti-U.S. sentiment in Europe. Ultimately, we need each other. The EU and the United Nations are not "irrelevent" as Atilla the Rum has said.

Fernando, you are right on with your last post.

The truth is, we are all one, as MLK used to say. We have a lot to learn from and give to each other.

Whether or not the EU nations ratify the constitution is not so important. The important thing is that nations who have been torn apart by wars for centuries are now successfully working together to prevent them.

Bricamb, let me attempt to answer your observations to me. I really wish that we could all be having this conversation face to face, preferably at the Plaza Major in Madrid, because many misconceptions and misinterpretations can occur in communicating in this manner, but here goes:

I think that we can agree that aid was needed in the aftermath of W.W. II. Yes, the plan did stave off starvation for most of Europe. At least for the first five or so years, when factories had to be rebuild; the infrastructure such as water, electricity needed to be rebuild. The drought of 1947 destroyed what harvests Britain and France were able to muster.

Why the U.S.?

The U.S. was the only country that was not significantly harmed by the war.

Were there other alternatives to U.S. aid at the time?

Initially named the Economic Recovery Program (ERP) it was known as the Marshall plan after that speech in Harvard.

These men were correct, thanks to the Marshall Plan Europe was given the grants and loans (17 billion dollars)available to rebuild their infrastructure, and it was not taken out of Germany’s hide. Today Germany is one of Europe’s top economy, would it have been if the Morgenthau plan was followed? No way.

Bricamb you add:

I would agree that the reasons were partially altruistic and partially to the self-interest to both the U.S. and Europe, but not for the reasons you give.

At the time that the Marshall plan was drafted 1947 the concern was more political than economical.

The U.S. just got out of a huge depression, the war economy kick started our economy, however, at this time our factories were old and not quite ready to reach out to Europe, that did not happen until about 15-20 years later.

If you want to accuse the U.S. of self-interest, it would have to be to help Europe rebuild itself so that the Soviets would not take over more of Europe, so that the U.S, would not have to fight another war in Europe.

Here’s Wikipedia’s description of one of the U.S.’s concern:

The effects of the Marshall Plan?

Call it what you like altruism or self-interest, the end result speaks for itself. Most Americans are happy that this was the wisest course of action, and if by helping Europe financially to recreate itself into vibrant, strong and growing econmies that buy our goods, we are most happy about that too!

The Wikipedia article was most informative and had a balanced view of this topic.

Bricamb you also add:
Bricamb, if there is a growing anymosity it is not widespread; Europe is still America's number one travel destination, and many Americans hold their European roots dear.

However, there is a recent concern among many travellers of their treatment while visiting some European countries, which is readilly dispelled in their visit. We are just people like everyone else.

I would say that the growing anymosity is more towards the ineffectiveness of the United Nations, than any specific European country. But, as Fernando points out, that is a different topic.

Gazpacho, I think in my country everybody has the exact same possibilities regarding education. Universities are free and you get paid a specified amount of money by the government each month in order to be able to pay for your living costs. Additionally, you can borrow money if you feel you need more. We get to eat a subsidized, healthy lunch at campus every day and have free health care and for university students even almost free dental care.

As Fernando said, which I totally agree with, we see this as giving people equal opportunities. I understand it can't happen with your constitution.

And aidance don't worry, I don't put people in categories according to nationality

Fernando, Pia,

Wishing you both the best for a successful E.U.

I guess it's never going to occur to anyone in Europe, much less many in the U.S. for that matter, that for everyone benefiting from a government give away program, someone is being denied the rewards of his labor. I will always sympathize with the person who works hard only to have his efforts stolen from him by his own government and never with the people (almost used another word) living off of him. Ah well, no use arguing, reality proves me right. You're already seeing the effect in your own country that comes with killing the geese that lay the golden eggs.

Peace, I'm done.

Aidance: That song very well sums up American international policy. "come on Wall Street don't be slow our man has sworn a for sure go, plenty of money to be made suppling the Army with the tools of the trade." What he is talking about is the use of war to pump up a weak economy. If you listen to that song he hits on almost ever part of foreign and economic policy. The verse you quoted was to wake up the over zealous patriots, that blindly accept some of the b.s. our great elected officals put out.

If you truly knew the Desert Dweller, you would know how he hates war, but he will not stand by while the US or one of it's allies are crapped on. There are times when war has to be used. When your sitting at a negotiation table, your opponant needs to understand that you can and will use war as a last resort if need be.

Pia and Fernando: Explain something to me. If I own a business or via my labors, 60 or 75 percent of my earnings are taken in taxes and given to someone else so that they can go to college, have a free meal at school. Then get the same medical care that I get. The taxes are taken from me with the might and power of government, IE at gun point. The fruits of my labor are being taken from me for the enrichment of some else. HOW, is that equal opportunity? Draw me a picture, and explain to me how that is equal opportunity. I believe that a book was written on this issue in the late 1800s. The author called it "the redistribution of wealth," his name was Karl Marx.

I wish everyone in Europe all the best with the EU, and hope you do have lasting peace and prosper. I can tell you that an unjust tax system only accomplishes two things, it discourages production, and encourages corruption.

Desert Dweller, I've heard many of my american friends point the same things at me. That's one of the reasons that made me realize Americans and Europeans are much more different than I thought at first.

American system has a lot of good things. It does encourage production. It does encourage self-improvement. It does encourage hard working. All of that makes american economy usually a very active and fast growing one. European system, as you wrote, may discourage production. The benefits of my work, as you said, pay someone else's healthcare. I do understand that for an american that is something impossible to accept. For us it isn't.

If you are american and have little money, you will live in a poor neighbourhood. Your district's high school gets little money, since it is paid with resident taxes (which are poor). As a result, your education is much worse than the one a rich guy gets. Even if you are a pretty good student it will be hard to get scholarships since the good universities will believe your high school didn't give you the best education you can get. It will be difficult for you to be a college graduate, and probably you will make little more money than your parents. Of course there is people who can get out of that wheel, but it is not easy.

In Europe, the school system pays the same for every single high school. Being a poor student you can have the same education (good or bad) than a rich guy going to a public high school. Universities are almost free, so you don't even need a scholarship, and admission depends on your academic achievements. The same applys to health care.

Our system is far to being perfect. Actually, many times is completely unfair.... But for most of us europeans, those who vote right or left, our taxes pay for other's health care, education... but it also pay for ours if things are not right. What you guys see us unaceptable we find it the thing to be.

I don't expect to convice you. I've never been able to convince my american friends, just as they have never been able to convice me. That's why I say we, europeans and americans, are really different. But, we can be friends, actually they are some of my best friends.

Jas,

Would it really surprise you to know that more money is spent on education in poorer neighborhoods in the U.S. than more affluent neighborhoods. This is so because much federal money, on top of residential taxes go into the school system.

This is the type of corruption that Desert Dweller writes about. The Board of Education is so corrupt in the inner cities that they buy each other "official" new cars so they can make it to their meetings, and to heck with inner city youth. Go figure?

This is a thing about a country's culture, not being wrong or right.

I'm making my college lecture on a topic related to culture. The most important writer on this is Hofstede, who discovered time ago some variables with which a culture could be measured.

One of these variables is the tendency towards individualism or collectivism. While european cultures (probably saving nordic cultures) value collectivism, US culture values individual achievements, probably as a heritage of a country founded by pioneers in the colonies.

Also, the USA didn't have direct contact with socialism/comunism during the Industrial Revolution and the Cold War.

It is ok if you prefer to have as much of your profits not being kept by the state to cover the basic needs of everyone. One of the things I admire from the US is the culture of self achievement and motivation to improve your own situation.

But it is also ok if we prefer to have some of our profits (35% of businessess profits and 30% in personal profits more or less in Spain) be used by the state to provide us with a coverage for our basic needs (basic health care, education, unemployment insurance, disablity insurance, public transports, a salary for life beyond 65 years-old,...).

Equality of opportunities means that even if you are born in the poorest estate of the poorest village you may be able, via public education, to achieve a good economic and social position in our society. Also, I think that leaving someone die because he/she doesn't have the money to pay a health insurance is inmoral.

It is a cultural matter as you may see. The thing is that most european countries agree more or less with this point of view on how to deal with social problems.

Fernando

Fernando I agree with you that there is no clear cut right or wrong here. But don't think that people are left to die here in the US, they aren't. Whether people have medical insurance or not, they cannot be turned away from a hospital.
Otherwise you're right, it's just a matter of where you're raised pretty much, that determines which system you're more comfortable in. All of my friends in Europe prefer the system over there. And all my friends here certainly prefer the way things are done here. Nothing wrong with that.
I see the pros and cons of both sides.

Fernando: If I take a gun and rob someone at gun point, that is called armed robbery in the US, and is considered a selfish act. If the government puts a gun in someones face and take their money it is called tax collection, for the good of public welfare

Then people around the world wonder why we Americans are an impossible group to get along with.

Read the following article titled Europe v. America, published online at: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005242

Europe vs. America
Germany edges out Arkansas in per capita GDP.
Sunday, June 20, 2004 12:01 a.m.

The growing split between the U.S. and Europe has been much in the news, mostly on foreign policy. But less well understood is the gap in economic growth and standards of living. Now comes a European report that puts the American advantage in surprisingly stark relief.

The study, "The EU vs. USA," was done by a pair of economists--Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag--for the Swedish think tank Timbro. It found that if Europe were part of the U.S., only tiny Luxembourg could rival the richest of the 50 American states in gross domestic product per capita. Most European countries would rank below the U.S. average, as the chart below shows.

The authors admit that man doesn't live by GDP alone, and that this measure misses output in the "black" economy, which is significant in Europe's high-tax states. GDP also overlooks "the value of leisure or a good environment" or the way prosperity is spread across a society.

But a rising tide still lifts all boats, and U.S. GDP per capita was a whopping 32% higher than the EU average in 2000, and the gap hasn't closed since. It is so wide that if the U.S. economy had frozen in place at 2000 levels while Europe grew, the Continent would still require years to catch up. Ireland, which has lower tax burdens and fewer regulations than the rest of the EU, would be the first but only by 2005. Switzerland, not a member of the EU, and Britain would get there by 2010. But Germany and Spain would need until 2015, while Italy, Sweden and Portugal would have to wait until 2022.

Higher GDP per capita allows the average American to spend about $9,700 more on consumption every year than the average European. So Yanks have by far more cars, TVs, computers and other modern goods. "Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near," the Swedish study says.

But what about equality? Well, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line has dropped to 12% from 22% since 1959. In 1999, 25% of American households were considered "low income," meaning they had an annual income of less than $25,000. If Sweden--the very model of a modern welfare state--were judged by the same standard, about 40% of its households would be considered low-income.

In other words poverty is relative, and in the U.S. a large 45.9% of the "poor" own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, which remains a luxury in most of Western Europe. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet.

So what is Europe's problem? "The expansion of the public sector into overripe welfare states in large parts of Europe is and remains the best guess as to why our continent cannot measure up to our neighbor in the west," the authors write. In 1999, average EU tax revenues were more than 40% of GDP, and in some countries above 50%, compared with less than 30% for most of the U.S.

We don't report this with any nationalist glee. The world needs a prosperous, growing Europe, and its relative economic decline is one reason for growing EU-American tension. A poorer Europe lacks the wealth to invest in defense, a fact that in turn affects the willingness of Europeans to join America in confronting global security threats. But at least all of this is a warning to U.S. politicians who want this country to go down the same welfare-state road to decline.

Fernando,

We are two people worlds apart. To me, opportunity is the ability to create wealth, not to stand in a bread line and wait for someone to dole out your daily meal. , hospitalization, schooling, etc. Heck, why isn't housing and a car a right?

The problem is that it's hard to make a living with a fat, dumb, business partner with a hand in you pocket(the government) to ensure that wealth is distributed equitably. This is not unique to Europe, we have the same moochers over here.

But, you are wrong all the same. It isn't just a matter of preference. Because existence exist, your economic system is in greater peril than ours, and because everyone over there thinks its right to rob from their creators of wealth, your potential is less. But like I said before, reality proves me too right for my own liking even. I really wish I was wrong.

Fernando: I have to agree with Colin and Gazpacho, we will never agree on these issues. The peoples of Europe, Asia, Africa and South America have great difficulty understanding our economic mind set. Australia does not have that much trouble with our mindset, they think a lot like we do. The vast majority of Americans do not grasp the "collectivism mindset." We are individuals, that is not to say that we let our people starve in the street. We don't let them lay in the street sick or injured and refuse them medical care because they do not have money. It is no secret that some of our school districts leave a lot to be desired. There are methods for anyone with a desire and the will to get it,to obtain a university level education. Our country was founded by the individual that had the mindset of "I'll make by myself or die trying" and that mentality remains today, especially in the Western US. Some of those individualist may have been your ancestors.

We as Americans are not a perfect people and we do not have a perfect government. We may not agree with our friends and allies around the world and Europe. The one thing that you can count on is this, should the day ever come, and we all pray that it never will come, that should an allie of the USA ever need help, that help is as close as a phone call from Moncloa to the White House. Within 24 hours those Navy ships, and Air Force planes, loaded with troops and equipment will be headed your way.

I really don't have anything else to add to this forum. Some reading this wish that I had not said what has been said. We will be communicating on other forums with an exchange of ideas on other issue. I will be returning to Spain next year and maybe we can enjoy some vino and fryed mushrooms together. I wish you and all Europeans nothing but the best, h-ll I wish nothing but the best for the French. I hope your EU and it's constitution works out for the best and you can all live in peace and economic prosperity.

To quote USMC Staff Sgt Jimmy Lopez from Globe, Arizona, "viva la roja, blanco y azul." Symbol of freedom, where ever it flies.

Gazpacho and desert dweller, I think we've all said that we understand how you see things and nobody's tried to convince you to start supporting our system; we've just been trying to make you understand how we think. I am, really, very aware of that my country's economy will never be as efficient as yours but I still think that's a price I want to pay for the security I and the people around me have. I have never seen anyone homeless in Finland and yeah, some alcoholic has asked me for a euro sometimes but I've never seen a person begging for money on the street. I think this also contributes to that we don't have any slum areas and it's very safe everywhere, we're topping the OECD country comparisons for education and we're rated the least corrupt country. As I said I don't think the system is perfect and I know the billgateses of Finland have an easier time moving somewhere else but hey, you can become rich here too (the Swedish Ikea guy is the second richest in the world right?) and after what I've gotten I am happy to pay something back too.
But again, I understand you don't think the same way and I'm not asking you to, I'm just asking you to try to understand our view and stop preaching in a big brother kind of way like we wouldn't understand what we're "giving up". You probably think it's as amusing as I find your dramatic stories about the red-white-blue flag that comes and makes everything right and kick's bad guys' asses liberating the world but let's just understand each other and try to cooperate, and maybe we'll get something good done.

Pia, that was just what I was trying to say. I guess my poor english didn't let me express myself properly. I don't think our system is better than theirs. I do know our system affect our economic growth, but yet I wanna pay that price, as you said. One of my american friends had a very severe heart problem when she was just 26. She had a good and well paid job (she's got an MBA in a well known university) but she had a pretty lousy health insurance which didn't cover the surgery and hospital expenses. She paid the 35,000$ by making a loan on her house, and she almost lost it... Now she pays for a great insurance and she won't have that problem any more... But how about those, not poor enough to be covered by the system, but not rich enough to pay for their insurance??

American system works great for those with good education and willing to work hard. That has a lot of advantages. But it does not work so well for those who, even willing to work, didn't have the chance to get a good job. In the end we will probably have to lose many of our privileges, you guys are right, but in the meantime I already made my choice.

Well, now that each of us has sorted out our lifestyle choice,and are individually pleased, with your permission, I would like to pursue, with those that are interested the question of the EU constitution, as the thread indicates. This is history in the making

A recent article in Bloomberg.com [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000100&sid=aZWa9KoPowR8&refer=germany] cites that part of the problem that French workers have with the constitution is fear of job loss if the constitution passes:

In further reading the purpose of the constitution is to streamline decision making:
But what really has the French people upset according to this article is the EU plan to deregulate the markert for services:

As Fernando stated earlier the Treaty of Nice will allow the EU to continue to function until 2009; but will the EU be able to accomplish all it set out to do without a constitution?

Desert Dweller wrote: Here in Canada, like the EU...we have free medical care, and we have subsidized college/university...and no business owner pays 60-75 % tax here...

Acutally...the taxes that a Canadian Employer pays (which includes a payment to the provincial health care system) is less then what most American employers pay when taxes and the private insurance fee for their employee's coverage are combined ...

Two things in one:

Agente Municipal - What strikes me as a little odd is why so many Canadians who can afford it, have private insurance, so they can get what they deem "better medical attention" in the US instead of waiting for assistance through the socialized program. The same situation exists in Spain, where those who can afford it, opt to carry private insurance so they can get "the best help available" for a problem. Therein lies the problem with socialized medicine. The best facilities, doctors, and equipment, are available in the private sector, not through the socialized programs.

My comment wasn't made to cause conflict, just pointing out a fact.

Changing subject - EU Constitution

I have no quarrel with EU having a constitution. The UN has one as well. Of course we know how well the UN abides by it's own rulings, don't we?

My problem is that there are members of EU who are using the theory behind the group's existence as a "weapon" against the US. To say that France and Germany aren't would be wrong.

As far as the collectivization that the constitution seems to want to include, there are very few countries that would abide by such restrictions, and rightfully so. Why would they destroy their own potential for someone else to have an "equal share of the pie?" It's not logical.

In the end, any Constitution that's written will be watered down with no teeth in it, and it will only consist of teeth where the Germans and French want the teeth to exist.

As far as EU ever catching the US in spendable income, etc, you can enact all the programs you want, but the only thing that makes people achieve higher levels is through their ability to gain through personal enterprise, and work. You can't socialize these things into existence.

On education. One poster said it best. We spend more money on inner-city education than anywhere else in the US. Our system may not be perfect, but an education is available to everyone through our public schools. The same holds true beyond HS, where there are colleges that offer curriculums at not only an affordable price, but free to those who need assistance. If an American does not get a college education, it's usually because they chose not to, not because it's only available to those with money. If there's enough desire in anyone, in the US, they can get that education.

We may not be perfect in how we handle things in the US, but in all honesty, I'll take our system in a heartbeat over collectivized living. It rewards us for hard work.

Wolf

In Canada we have a system that says the person most in need of medical attention get it first...some people who have some extra money lying around don't want to wait and pay for private care in the US instead...

Why should a wealthy person with a cold get to see a doctor before a person who is having medical complications due a serious disease like cancer ???

Tens of thousands of uninsured Americans lose their homes every year due the cost of medical bills...

Wolf, I noticed that you live in Wisconsin, most states in the US do not have as in-depth assistance with medical bills for the uninsured as does Wisconsin...

The EU/Canadian way of Healthcare/Education systems is the best to me...but I've been raised in this system...

This topic started out about the EU constitution, and swerved into lengthy discussions about the past and the philosophy of social welfare programs, etc.

Everyone has so far avoided talking about the snarling beast that is stalking Europe's future. It is this: many of today's European toddlers will become grandparents in majority Muslim states in Europe that will be invoking Sharia law as a matter of public will. Women's rights, homosexual rights, equal justice will all become the providence of the clerics at such places as the Finsbury Mosque and its ideological counterparts across Muslim Europe. So all this talk about the future of the EU is wasted breath. What is left of 'Europe' will be making the second great migration to America near the turn of the 22nd century.

Ghost,

Where did that come from? You honestly believe that Europe is going to be "overrun" by the "Muslim hordes?"

I certainly don't prescribe to that belief whatsoever. It's kind of scary that you'd even mention it.

Wolf

Back to the EU constitution discussion, there is an interesting piece in the International Herald Tribune online:

Floyd Norris: Who cares about the EU charter?

International Herald Tribune
FRIDAY, APRIL 29, 2005

PARIS Chicken Little would feel at home listening to the political class in Europe as the French prepare to vote on the proposed European Union constitution.
 
A no vote on May 29 would create a "political cataclysm," said Jacques Delors, a former president of the European Commission. Romano Prodi, who was the commission's president when the constitution was written, made Delors sound sanguine. "The problem won't be just a catastrophe for France, but the fall of Europe," he prophesized.
 
But while the politicians fret, the financial markets go on about their business. Since March 18, when the first poll was published indicating a majority of French voters were opposed to the constitution, European stock markets have done a little worse than those in the United States, but better than the Japanese market. The euro has lost a little ground, but remains high. So far in 2005, European stock markets have lost less than those in either the United States or Japan.
 
Some point to widening interest rate spreads between Germany and Greece as a sign of growing alarm, but you need a magnifying glass to find the evidence. Germany, still viewed as the safest euro credit despite budget problems and high unemployment, now has 10-year bonds yielding 26 basis points, or about a quarter of a percentage point, less than Greek bonds. That spread is up 6 basis points since the French poll results. If investors thought Prodi was right, the gap would be far larger.
 
The reality is that Europe isn't working, at least not as it was supposed to when politicians were campaigning for ratification of the Maastricht Treaty that led to the adoption of the euro in much of the Continent. Some thought the euro would force economic reform, but the pace of change has been slow at best, and the halting nature of it has made consumers less willing to spend, fearing that generous state pensions may not be there when they retire.
 
Instead, there are signs that the inability to adjust exchange rates within the euro zone is making some areas, notably Italy, less competitive relative to Germany, which itself is facing economic stagnation. The news within many a European country is of various groups and unions fighting to preserve and expand their benefits, with no regard for the country's overall competitive position, let alone that of the Continent.
 
In Greece last week, Kathimerini, a leading Athens newspaper, counted eight demonstrations and job actions announced in advance. The protesters included Olympic Airlines workers angry over plans to privatize the airline and shop employees upset over planned changes in working hours. Plumbers demanded more training and judges staged a work stoppage to protest transfers of court officials. Music teachers were upset about working conditions. Accountants marched to demand bonuses for preparing balance sheets. During the same week, Greece's Parliament ratified the European constitution without consulting the voters.
 
It is not that French voters are really upset about the proposed constitution. It would establish a method for making decisions in the European Union that would please Rube Goldberg even though it is said to simplify the process. It would establish a foreign minister for all of Europe, although it would do nothing to assure that countries like France and Britain actually had a common foreign policy. Its defeat would leave things as they are, with a possible paralysis of decision making in Brussels. That is a prospect that does not appear to scare voters as much as it does politicians.
 
Instead, West European voters seem united in opposition to whatever party is in office and in fear of new competition, whether it is from Chinese textiles or from workers from East European countries that joined the European Union a year ago in an enlargement approved without consulting the voters. Jacques Chirac, the French president, urged support for the constitution on the ground it would prevent economic liberalization, but polls indicate that did not help rally support for the constitution.
 
The dream of the European Union was that it would make Europe a strong world player, able to compete with Japan and the United States, with national governments not needing to do much to promote the process. Europe may do better if that dream is laid to rest, leaving each country to fend for itself.
 
Floyd Norris can be reached at fnorris@iht.com

Copyright © 2005 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com

 

Atahualpa's Avenging Ghost (interesting nick to have in this board...), I think that you don't have a deep knowledge on how moslems behave in Europe after the first generation. Moslems in France consider themselves french and have relaxed their original customs. They are like any other french, just a little bit browner and with some particular customs (those related to their religion, their original language and still a certain discrimination against women).

They are certainly not like thalibans.

Fernando

I don't think that's accurate at all Fernando. There have been many problems with Muslims in France, and in Holland. Many of them seem to not want to assimilate to their new county's customs. That certainly was the case in Holland where a couple of extremists assasinated a Dutch film director because his film cast a bad light on their religion. And there are countless cases of Muslims settling in countries like England, Germany and Spain and still being involved in all sorts of terrorist planning.

Depends on how you see it ColinK...

There are a coulpe of million moslems in France, 5 in Germany and 1,5 in Spain. Perhaps a hundred or so have commit crimes based on their extremist understanding on their religion. In Spain there are moslem terrorists, that's true, but the great majority of them behave in a proper manner (though they still have to integrate into our society.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that we can't judge a collective of millions for the actions of a hundred (or a thousand).

Fernando

I agree Fernando.

Wolf, there isn't going to be a 'muslim horde' pouring over the borders, its a simple matter of demographics. The present birth:death ratio in European societies simply cannot sustain European populations. The worst off is Russia (by 2050, a smaller population than Yemen. Russia is suffering from an unprecedented population decline in a nation not at war)followed by Germany, Italy and, yes, Spain. The populations of these nations and Europe as a whole are simply not replacing themselves. It is a death-spiral that Europe seems disinclined to snap out of.

Compare this to the exploding populations in Muslim lands and among Muslim populations in Europe. For every European baby born in Europe there are almost two Muslim babies born. As I said, Europe is well on its way to having a majority Muslim population by the end of the century.

The icing on this cake is the socialist utopian welfare states that Europeans have concocted for themselves. The massive public entitlements and anemic economic growth intrinsic to these systems is a disaster sure to happen. European welfare states need young workers to support the burgeoning pension obligations of the rapidly expanding retiree class, as well as the subsidized housing, health care, etc. that Europeans claim as a 'right'. European families can't (or won't) supply these needed workers, so the only solution is immigrant labor (legal or, increasingly, illegal). The overwhelming source of these workers are from muslim lands of Arabia and North Africa. When (not if) Muslims become the majority in European lands, they will be free to change societal norms to suit themselves.

And the Muslims of Europe are growing more, not less, Islamist. Every report I've seen suggests tha second-generation Muslim-Europeans are more isolated, less assimilated, less secular and more radical than their parents. Don't forget that Mohammad Atta was a middle class Egyptian engineering student until he came to Hamburg and was exposed to the radical Mosques there. Same goes for all of his 9/11 cohorts. How many Muslims with European citizenship have been found in Afgahnistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Chechnya? many, but not the majority by a long shot.

I'll stick by my assertions that the EU is a dead letter and Europe's future is as part of Dar al-Islam. The future of Europe's nationalities lies in America, Canada and Australia.

Ghost,

You offer a convincing argument. If you're anywhere near being correct, what you say could become reality in at least some of the nations of Europe.

It's not a picture that makes me too confident in the future.

Wolf

Most of the new immigrants coming into Britain at least are from the new EU members states like Poland, Hungary etc. These new countries (there are ten of them I think) together with Romania and Bulgaria who will hopefully be joining in 2007 mean that the EU population has increased substantially so hopefully that will result in economic benefit, more taxes, access to new markets etc. Also Turkey could be joining within the next 10 years together with Croatia, Serbia. What we have to remember is that the vast majority of muslim people in Europe are law abiding people and they are sometimes driven to despair by the antics of a few young,radical muslim men. And I'm not talking about terrorists here who are another thing alltogether. The general election is happening here on the 5th of May and there was a news report of young muslim men somewhere in England encouraging people on the street not to vote as voting is 'unislamic.' The muslim elders in that town were very angry about what these young men were doing. But they could see that in the end these guys were just rebelling against the system...in the same way many young people do. Wait ten years and these same guys will probably be married with kids and living in Stoke Newington! I'm not saying that muslim terrorism is not a threat - it is but we musn't tar all people with the same brush.

Here in the Uk there used to be the same arguments about Irish catholics, many of whom came to seek work (and I believe the same is still muttered in Northern Ireland by extremist Unionists). They're fanatics, they're breeding far faster than we are, they're nearly all terrorists...etc etc etc. All alarmist scare-stories.
I am concerned about terrorists - whether they be Islamists from Algiers, Continuity IRA from Derry, Anti-abortionist extremists from Alhabama or right-wing freedom bombers from Oklahoma. Tarring whole communities with the same brush is however self-defeating.
PS In the Uk I meet the worst behaviour on a daily basis (aggressive actions, swearing, fighting, binge-drinking, hooliganism etc) and 99.9% of the time it's white English born and bred young men (and occasionally girls too). I expect civilised and polite behaviour only from continental and/or asian young people now. Luckily I am sometimes proven wrong (ie a white youth shows considerate or polite actions).

I think it's really scary how afraid some of you people are of anything that's not exactly what you're used to.

In Response to Atahualpa's Avenging Ghost vision of a future Europe:
I respectfully disagree!

What becomes of Europe, or America for that matter, will largely depend on Economics.

A see a different scenario, than you Ghost. Bruce Walker wrote an interesting article in
Mensnewsdaily http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/w/walker/2005/walker031505.htm titled: Our Futre Allies, which paints a more realistic and positive scenario.
Once the middle east is as economically viable as Europe and America, much of the discontent that the Atta's of this world feel will be moot.

What will happen to Europe? In my world view they will continue as they have done in the past. But their societies will be more pluralistic. They will be welcoming and competing with America for the bright and productive Muslim young immigrants!

I hope France can save Europe at the next polls voting non to European Constitution.
I dislike this constitution first because it does not recognice the christian roots of Europe (i’m more aware of being and behave catholic since 9-11 and 3-11). Second because is the Constitution of France and Germany. I prefer Niza treaty.

Related to health, I like the Spanish Social Security system, although governments, as a reason for having more votes, are accustoming to people to get most things free. Free medicines, bus tickets,... for retired people whatever the incomings these people have, for instance. And Spaniards are voting the party who gives them more things free, either school books, subsidies for building a house, for buying a computer or for a vacation in Mallorca or Torrevieja!!.

I have a question for you Ghost.... You say, and you are right, that there is a severe population decline in many european countries, including Spain, and you compare it to the huge birth rate of the muslim population. I am one of those who believe the muslim population will slowly become european citizens, proud of their culture, but proud europeans too. It will be slow, with a lot of problems (as it has happened in the netherlands or France) but at the end everything will be fine.

How about the hispanic population in the US? I have read many of them don't even speak english and they have a huge growth rate compared to the rest of the US population.... If what you say about muslims in Europe is right, will California and Florida be taken over by them in a few decades?? Will they became independent countries controlled by hispanics???? I myself don't think so.

Jasmadrid- I think the big difference is that many of the workers who come here illegally from Mexico only do so for 10 or 15 years and then head back to Mexico. Quite often their wives and kids don't even come with them. They just come here to work, and they do work hard. Then head home to Mexico with a nice little nest egg to 'retire' on.
But there is also a large population that settles here, and do not speak much English, if any. Not sure what the solution is yet, but it's certainly not declaring all illegal aliens legal, as some politicians want to do.

JasMadrid, I can tell you about the Cubans that settled in Miami and South Florida in the 1960's, and later migrations.
Your question:
Many of them don't speak English... when the first wave came 1960-1962, they did not speak English and it is true that many of the elders failed to learn english, even thought many tried. However, their children did, I am an example of this generation, we assimilated very well, and can and do speak English like native-speakers. Our children, speak English, but speak spanish with an English accent!

I cannot speak about California, but here in Florida the third generation Cubans assimilated to the American culture, and while it is true that we have more children on the average. It is expected that those of Hispanic descent will be the largest population by 2030 in Florida.
What does this mean?

It means that genetically and historically our roots are from spanish-speaking lands, our culture is flavored by these lands including Spain, in the case of Cuba, and the restaurants will have our food. But, in every other way, socially, governmentally, legally, the "hispanics" are as American as those of other European extraction that settled here decades before. We have assimilated to the dominant culture while maintianing roots in our past.

What is the dominant culture in the U.S.? A wonderful mixture of every land where people sought FREEDOM from some type of coercion, be it political or economical.

You add:
I agree; we have not and we will not. But, with the number of Hispanics increasing, you will see the marketplace accommodating our culture as it did the culture of the Irish-Americans, the Polish-americans, etc.

Booklady, I can't agree more with you, and that was actually my point. You really think hispanic are being and will be assimilated to american culture, and that's what I believe too, then, why do you guys think it is going to be so difficult for us in Europe??? Most inmigrants, as those who go to the US, what they really want is make some money, work hard, and come back to their countries. Those who stay, try to adjust to our culture, trying to preserve as much as their own as they can. Adjusting is not easy, but if it is possible in the US, it is possible here.

I believe the inherent problem from having Muslims becoming more influential in a nation is that there's always that element that will push for creation of an "Islamic nation." They don't necessarily have to be the majority, since they'll use whatever means at their disposal to make it happen.

That's the difference between the influx of Cubans, and people from various nations around the world, and the Muslims.

Wolf, where do you get that? It's pretty obvious that your view on muslims is based on TV, as the ones you see there are radical fundamentalists. The muslims I know here in the nordic countries are completely normal people who just don't eat pork, usually don't drink and if they're girls they normally don't go to the beach or other places where you tend to wear revealing clothing.

JasMadrid, I believe you included me in the group that does not believe in positive assimilation. I am not among those that believe that the Muslims will not integrate in Europe.

I really do not know enough about this community in Europe to make an assessment. I can only speculate based on "my own" past experience and observation of my parents who were Spanish immigrants to Cuba and my own immigration to the U.S. Personally, I believe people in general want to live well and freely without imposing their culture on others.

However, Wolf does make a cogent point. Past immigrants to the U.S. did not want to make the U.S. into another copy of their homeland. If there is a group with this type of interest then there may be the posibility of a problem.

In Spain the case in point is Al-Andaluz, Andalucia, certain islamic groups, still fervently believe that it should not be Spanish or controlled by Spain.

Pia, your generalizations about Muslims are also incorrect. I know many muslim physicians and academicians and their families that do eat pork, drink wine and when they go to the beach they wear a bikini! While those you know may exhibit those behaviors, it does not mean that the whole population does. Be careful about those generalizations!

Booklady, those are very muslim habits and I know very well that there are muslims that don't follow any of them, but I tried to give examples of people that are "apparent" muslims but whose customs definitely won't hurt anyone

Booklady: When Fidel finally goes in the ground are you going to return to Cuba and see it? That place has been on my list for a long time. I have friends that have gone via Mexico City. They tell me it is great. Based on the cigars that are made in Cuba, that I have had, I am looking forward to it. Realizing of course, that there is more to a good country to visit than a good cigar. After Castro is gone, how long do you think it will take for things to stablize?

Pia and Booklady: I think Pia is only making a generalization based on her own experience. Pia says: “the Muslims I know,” and then makes a generalization. When you say something “in general,” you are making a statement that applies to most members of a group. Obviously, there will always be exceptions, like those mentioned by Booklady. Since most Muslim dads or moms won’t buy a bikini for their teenage daughter to wear during a pork-&-wine feast at the beach, those Muslim parents that do so are only an exception. Probably, we should be more careful about pointing out who is right or wrong.

As to why Latin-Americans have an easier time adapting to the U.S. lifestyle, than Muslims in Europe. First, many Latin-Americans are of European descent, especially from Spain and Italy, and consequently have Western values and lifestyles; Second, most Latin-Americans are Catholic or Christian, a very well settled religion here in the U.S., so their moral values are in accordance with those of most people living in the U.S.; Third, the U.S. is a country formed by immigrants, and some say, for immigrants. So Americans have a different attitude towards immigration. This does not mean that immigration is totally welcomed here in the U.S., however, Americans don’t feel like they are loosing their country to immigrants. Most Americans have a parent or grandparent that is/was an immigrant.

Hola Desert Dweller,
I really miss Cuba, but as long as Cuba is under Castro's regime I refuse to go!

But as soon as Cuba is free once more, I will sure be over there. I pray that there will be a peaceful transition. The Cuban people have had 45 years of suffering, they deserve a break.

Jabch,
One cannot extrapolate generalizations from anecdotal observations.

Anyone heard if the French have changed their mind about the EU constitution?

Hi Booklady. France may indeed be changing its mind. According to a poll published in Le Monde on the 1st of May, out of the 63% of the French electorate who have made up their minds and intend to vote, 33% will vote yes and 30% will vote no. Interesting to see what will happen on the day!

Booklady: Of course you can! The difference is whether these generalizations are true or not. For example: -All people participating in this thread are really smart- this is a generalization, whether it’s true or not, that's different. Anyway, this is really silly.

No you can't Jabch, that's fuzzy thinking! It is called a Hasty Generalization Fallacy! Silly, yes!

Just read that the French actor Gérard Depardieu, has joined the "Yes" group. "Moi, je dis oui!", Me, I say yes!

French mount big push for the EU constitution

The Associated Press, Reuters

TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2005

It is still too close to call.
------------------------
French Opponents of EU Constitution Hold Lead in Latest Poll

May 14 (Bloomberg) -- French opponents of the European Union constitution hold the lead in the latest opinion poll, a day after a survey showed a majority in favor, signalling the May 29 referendum is still too close to call.

Today's poll, conducted by Ifop for Web site Wanadoo.fr, showed 54 percent of 1,016 people surveyed on May 12 and May 13 plan to reject the EU's new rulebook, four points higher than a survey on May 3 and 4. A TNS-Sofres poll for Le Monde conducted on May 9 and May 10 put support for the treaty at 52 percent. Neither survey has a margin of error.

Polls throughout March and early April showed the French likely to reject the constitution, which would have killed the treaty that's meant to make European institutions work more smoothly after the EU expanded to 25 from 15 members last year. Supporters of the treaty retook the lead in late April after strong appeals from political figures such as President Jacques Chirac and former Socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin.

The recent dip in support is due to ``the marked return of Laurent Fabius,'' the number two in the opposition Socialist party and ``identified as the principal leader of the `no' camp,'' Ifop said. Appeals to support the treaty from Socialist Leader Francois Hollande and Nicolas Sarkozy, head of the governing Union for a Popular Movement Party, in a Monday night television debate failed to convince voters, the polling company said.

Holiday Issue

Opposition to government plans to suppress the May 16 public holiday is also boosting opposition to the treaty, Ifop said. Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin has earmarked 2 billion euros ($2.5 billion) in extra tax revenue from the suppression of the holiday to fund care for elderly and disabled people after the death of 15,000 people in France's August 2003 heat wave.

The Ifop poll showed 67 percent of those planning to vote ``yes'' and 76 percent of those planning to vote ``no'' have made up their minds.

The EU treaty, which needs approval in all 25 nations, foresees the creation of a permanent president and foreign minister, and strengthens the European Parliament. Its rejection by France could scupper both the constitution itself and Chirac's chances of running for a third term in 2007.

Well, as was expected the 55-56% of the French citizens voted "NON" to the EU Constitution.
A difficult blow for Chirac.

EU faces crisis after France rejects EU charter
Sun May 29, 2005 10:41 PM ET

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=8637163

Spanish President Jose Rodriguez Zapatero, along with other EU leaders went to France prior to the vote to cajole the French to vote Yes.

Spanish papers today are filled with the news story.