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.