[The Dear Leader]

I replied in haste and jumped to conclusions, my apologies.

But if you see the benefits from cooperating in some fields, can you then explain to me how you choose in which fields Europe should cooperate and share sovereignity? ie. What should be decided by Brussels and what by, in your case, Berlin?

You see, I would apply cooperation and sharing of sovereignity to all fields where benefits are to be yielded, generally speaking matters of global or continental scale. Thinking like; "Sure, I see the benefits from cooperating but we can only apply it to this and this field because of this dogmatic approach I have, so let's not cooperate in this and this field even if they would be more beneficial." is alien to me.

I don't see anything beneficial in having a common foreign policy for example. It'll just lead to watered down views (see UN) and Europe would be even more sidelined.

[The Dear Leader]

Maybe you can answer this question then. Please list all of the democratic country's that you know of that polled a referendum to create their current constitutions.

Austria had a major overhaul of its constitution before it joined the EU and that needed the backing of the people.

All of this doesn't really matter though. Do you want people to be more involved in EU matters or not? Here in Germany nobody gave a crap about the constitution since we always knew it was going to be passed by parliament anyway. Hardly a healthy democracy, now is it?

[one very bored guy]

Austria had a major overhaul of its constitution before it joined the EU and that needed the backing of the people.

All of this doesn't really matter though. Do you want people to be more involved in EU matters or not? Here in Germany nobody gave a crap about the constitution since we always knew it was going to be passed by parliament anyway. Hardly a healthy democracy, now is it?


My point is several people including yourself has commented that due to the lack of referendums in many countries for the EU constitution, it somehow demonstrates the lack of democracy therein.

If this is the case, then why is virtually every existing constitution in the democratic world created without a constitution? Why is it ok for your country to have a constitution created without a referendum, but not ok for the EU?

It is a double standard.

Besides. Why should people vote in a referendum for the constitution? It's not like they ever read the damn thing. Why should people who have no knowledge on something be allowed to vote on it? It's an uneducated vote.

If you wanted to paint your living room purple, would you ask a group of blind people to vote on it?

[The Dear Leader]

If this is the case, then why is virtually every existing constitution in the democratic world created without a constitution? Why is it ok for your country to have a constitution created without a referendum, but not ok for the EU?

It's not ok for my country to have that. After re-unification a new constitution should have been drafted and put to a referendum. Certainly would have done a lot for German unity IMO if East Germany hadn't just been annexed by West Germany.

The point is that EU leaders (and European leaders) want people to be more involved in EU matters. If Chirac and Balkenende had actually made a decent case for the constitution, I'm sure they could have gotten a yes-vote.


Besides. Why should people vote in a referendum for the constitution? It's not like they ever read the damn thing. Why should people who have no knowledge on something be allowed to vote on it? It's an uneducated vote.

Then why note introduce literacy tests for all elections? I mean plenty of people have no clue about politics, yet they vote for some party come election day because they like that leader, because their parents voted for that party, because they're pissed off at "the system" etc. At least people in France actually had a debate about the document while here in Germany nobody knows anything about it.

[pricemazda]

Austria had a major overhaul of its constitution before it joined the EU and that needed the backing of the people.

All of this doesn't really matter though. Do you want people to be more involved in EU matters or not? Here in Germany nobody gave a crap about the constitution since we always knew it was going to be passed by parliament anyway. Hardly a healthy democracy, now is it?

Ironically contained within the constitution what would be perhaps the greatest improvement in democracy in the EU, Citizens Initiatives.

We have already seen how effective it could be with the Oneseat.eu campaign. Imagine over 1 million EU citizens demanding an end to the CAP, or for the EU to make sure its accounts are signed off, or the end of the British rebate.

It could be extremely effective in sorting out a lot of the mess and making sure the EU delivers on what its citizens want.

[Swede]

^Which is why I believe that breaking the "constitution" up into smaller bits before any referendum and have them go one at a time. That way people will hopefully see the vast improvements in democracy that the it brings to the EU structure - and thus not reject it for fear it brings about a centralized evil (communist or capitlist-fascist, pick one and run with it) beurocracy to rules us all without pity.

The current dcument is just simply too big to get a logical debate about it, let alone a vote based on facts not unbased fears.

[Chrissib]

I believe I am a Louisianan 1st and an American 2nd. Many people across the country believe the same way (especially Texas). I have not lost my heritage, but I enjoy all the benefits of the United States.

I think Europe is different. The US is one nation, and before 1776 it was 13 states, which had the same language and so on.
Europe is a union of 25 different Nations with different languages and different cultures. You can compare the US to Germany, which was united out of many States in 1871, but not with the whole EU.
I am Hessian when I communicate with other Germans, and I am German when I communicate with other people around the world.
Another way of thinking is to compare the EU to the NAFTA, the beginning of the united North America.

[Bergenser]

if there ever will be one state called: USE
what language will then be the official? English, French, or German? :???:

[one very bored guy]

I think Europe is different. The US is one nation, and before 1776 it was 13 states, which had the same language and so on.
Europe is a union of 25 different Nations with different languages and different cultures. You can compare the US to Germany, which was united out of many States in 1871, but not with the whole EU.
I am Hessian when I communicate with other Germans, and I am German when I communicate with other people around the world.
Another way of thinking is to compare the EU to the NAFTA, the beginning of the united North America.

Your point is true for most European's today in the EU. But of cause this is new. What will people's opinions be like in a hundred years? New generations growing up in the EU in a hundred years from now may have a different perspective they people do today.

By the way, the EU is nothing like NAFTA.

[Chrissib]

if there ever will be one state called: USE
what language will then be the official? English, French, or German? :???:

Thats the question. German is spoken by 95 million people in the EU, English and French by 60 million, also Italian. If it ever will come to the USE, I think that the five mayor languages German, English, Italian, Spanish and French will be official languages, or all languages. One language is impossible, because that language would be in the minority against all the others.

[jan966]

Thats the question. German is spoken by 95 million people in the EU, English and French by 60 million, also Italian. If it ever will come to the USE, I think that the five mayor languages German, English, Italian, Spanish and French will be official languages, or all languages. One language is impossible, because that language would be in the minority against all the others.

In Europe more people speak Polish than Spanish. I think it should be one of the official languages of the EU. At least 45 mln people are of Polish language, only in Germany more than 2 mln.

[Swede]

I fully expect that even if/when a full Federal Union is completed all the current official languages will stay as official. However, I don't see how any language other than English could ever be the sole working language in the federal structures.

[pricemazda]

if an Estonian wants to communicate with someone from Portugal, they will use English.

Domestic languages may survive, but English is clearly going to dominate on continent wide basis.

[Joka]

Your point is true for most European's today in the EU. But of cause this is new. What will people's opinions be like in a hundred years? New generations growing up in the EU in a hundred years from now may have a different perspective they people do today.

By the way, the EU is nothing like NAFTA.

You hit the nail on the head there. I see no conflict in feeling both Finnish and European the way Chrissib feels Hessian and German.

As for what languages should be official in a "USE"; The emotional side of me would wish for Europaio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europaio) to be established as a working language alongside existing languages. But the rational part of me recognizes that English has already spread to a point that it would be near impossible to try to implement any other language as a working language. While within the states themselves they could have whatever languages they wish as official plus the common language, so in France, French + common langauge would be official, in Italy, Italian + common language, etc.

[The Dear Leader]

Europaio? You've gotta be kidding me. Nobody's gonna learn that language. Let's just stick to English and keep all other languages official as well.

[pricemazda]

The French will never agree or accept the fact that French isn't the libgua franca anymore.