User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » AppleOutsider »

France votes no to constitution (per exit polls)


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
France votes no to constitution (per exit polls)
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2  Next Thread Tools
Franz Josef
Passing by
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London, Europe
 
2005-05-29, 15:43

Per exit polls, France has voted no to today's referendum on the EU constitution. An important event here in Europe, the constitution needs unanimous acceptance by all 25 member states, without which it will not enter force. The Dutch have their referendum on Wednesday (1 June) and are likely to reject it based on current opinion polls. It's unheard of for a country such as France as a founder member of the EU in 1957 to vote down such fundamental legislation. The constitution was drafted by a committee chaired by a senior French politician.

http://www.tagesschau.de/aktuell/mel...V_REF1,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4592243.stm
  quote
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2005-05-29, 22:40

Yes, I read about this earlier today in the Times. Democracy in action I guess. So what I don't fully understand is, when they say "constitution" where does that fall in terms of how the member countries govern themselves? Obviously it doesn't supplant their existing constitution / equivalents... is it mostly for military / economic / cooperation purposes. Trading mandates and such?

...into the light of a dark black night.
  quote
Powerdoc
Cat's Dreamlands
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2005-05-30, 00:18

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moogs
Yes, I read about this earlier today in the Times. Democracy in action I guess. So what I don't fully understand is, when they say "constitution" where does that fall in terms of how the member countries govern themselves? Obviously it doesn't supplant their existing constitution / equivalents... is it mostly for military / economic / cooperation purposes. Trading mandates and such?
That's right the european countrie is a set of rules. It do no supplant for everything how countrie govern themselves.
This set of rules deal with many subjects :
- the way the european governement and parliement work (and it was important to change this with 25 countrie, instead the initial 7 countries)
- the economy exchanges
- the individual rights

France is in crisis, and unfortunately, a lot of people have voted no, because they do a connection between the current situation and europe.
  quote
Franz Josef
Passing by
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London, Europe
 
2005-05-30, 01:59

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moogs
when they say "constitution" where does that fall in terms of how the member countries govern themselves?
It's a little bit odd. In theory yes it overrides national written (or unwritten) constitutions but not uniformly. Germany's supreme court for example ruled a few years ago EU legislation (not just an EU constitution) could not overrule all of Germany's Fundamental Law (Grundgesetz) meaning in theory (but it hasn't happened in practice) under German national law, they could still pick and choose which bits of EU rules they liked. Mostly countries apply EU law and when they don't like it, apply it slowly and complain

It's very messy. I'm struck how much cleaner it is in the US - you unified a country in war (no bad thing perhaps) and when the states / federal government disagree, you go to court and the constitution is examined.

I'm not sure Europe will develop like that - but, again, perhaps no bad thing either.

Last edited by Franz Josef : 2005-05-30 at 03:03.
  quote
BenRoethig
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dubuque, IA
 
2005-05-30, 08:32

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franz Josef
It's a little bit odd. In theory yes it overrides national written (or unwritten) constitutions but not uniformly. Germany's supreme court for example ruled a few years ago EU legislation (not just an EU constitution) could not overrule all of Germany's Fundamental Law (Grundgesetz) meaning in theory (but it hasn't happened in practice) under German national law, they could still pick and choose which bits of EU rules they liked. Mostly countries apply EU law and when they don't like it, apply it slowly and complain

It's very messy. I'm struck how much cleaner it is in the US - you unified a country in war (no bad thing perhaps) and when the states / federal government disagree, you go to court and the constitution is examined.

I'm not sure Europe will develop like that - but, again, perhaps no bad thing either.
Our constitution is about 20 pages (opposed to 263) and doesn't require a juris doctorate from Harvard to understand. The french people were the first to say "we don't speak legalize, come back with something we can actually understand."
  quote
Franz Josef
Passing by
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London, Europe
 
2005-05-30, 10:03

I'm sure you're right, though to be fair to Giscard D'Estaing, the world was a simpler place back then.
  quote
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2005-05-30, 11:17

Seems like a very messy situation. I don't understand how the founders of this new EU Constitution can think it's a wise idea to try and "mix and match" legislative mandates.

Each country should have its own (i.e. keep its existing) common law for the people (criminal statutes, civil statutes, federal statutes that apply to individuals, etc). While the EU Constitution should provide the common law for the nation-level activities between states. Military jurisdictions and levels of cooperation, trade law (the equivalent of interstate commerce in the US I suppose), extradition rules, etc etc.

You can't have a psuedo government like the EU making common law rules for 25 nations, and just let them pick and choose what and when to follow. That's a recipe for failure (or worse).

...into the light of a dark black night.
  quote
Powerdoc
Cat's Dreamlands
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2005-05-30, 13:28

Moogs : exceptions are very uncommon in europe. They are necessary : without them, nothing would have been possible. But time after time, the convergence happen.
  quote
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2005-05-30, 18:26

I'm certainly no expert; it just seems strange to me how they're going about it. Do they want to effectively become one nation or just a close-knit trade federation or something else?

...into the light of a dark black night.
  quote
Amadeus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Massachusetts
 
2005-05-30, 19:29

I wish the EU well. Pray that it will all work out for the best in the end.
  quote
Powerdoc
Cat's Dreamlands
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2005-05-31, 00:46

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moogs
I'm certainly no expert; it just seems strange to me how they're going about it. Do they want to effectively become one nation or just a close-knit trade federation or something else?
The answer is not clear at all.
Personnally I want more europe, but I don't know exactly what I want. In fact it depend on the subjects.
Speaking of defense, I want a common defense, because in the current state we are weak
Same for foreign policy, for the same reasons.
For economy, and particular aspects, I want that countries keeping their independances.
For individual rights, I think that a european consensus is good.
  quote
Banana
is the next Chiquita
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2005-05-31, 12:46

I took International Law as part of my International Relations minor. Interesting stuff.

EU, WTO, World Bank and the like all impose a huge obstacle, as the current paradigm is that all states are sovereign. You cannot be sovereign while pledging allegiance to another. This is what basically EU wants from their states; to sarifice their sovereignty in exchange for more "uniformity." The international laws, as it stands now, is not anything like staturory laws; it's more or less based on the princple "do unto others as you would they unto to you."

From what I've read, (someone over there please correct me if I'm horribly mistaken), French (and other Europeans?) people are much more zealous of their privacy, their identity than us (Americans). There was some controversy over McDonald's in France, genetically engineered foods being forced in the market, and companies wanting to organize a marketing list of customers, all which are contrary to France's national laws. If EU continues to threat this, I wouldn't be surprised to see people opposed to this, however strongly the French leaders may be in support of.

The ugly thing about trading is it is so far reaching, and thus difficult to keep it contained to strictly international level. A case in point is USA's clean air act (or clean water?) was the subject of a case by Argentina's banana exporters. Apparently they polluted their environment in manufacturing, and USA would not take in their banana, but WTO forced USA to do so, arguing this was unfair restriction of trade.

Until someone figure out the schizo relationship of State's sovereignty and the need for international cooperation, we're going to be pretty much in same position as we are now and ten years ago.

My 0.00000002 cents.
  quote
Powerdoc
Cat's Dreamlands
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2005-05-31, 14:05

Personnaly as long, you don't touch to my cheese and wine, I don't care if the laws tend to be uniform in Europe. In fact it's the contrary Europe do not let french politicians to do anything they want : I am not at their mercy.
  quote
Squonk
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ancient Capital of Cleveland, UK
 
2005-05-31, 14:44

I am English and, for my part, I totally resent the huge amount of ridiculous legislation seeping into this country via the back door from Europe. The effect of the Human Rights Act, which sounds on the face of it to be a much needed piece of law, is that very often, when people do wrong and are brought up for it they scream 'Human Rights' and invariably get away with it. The judicial system is bogged down with appeals due to this legislation, much to the glee of our P.M's wife, a Human Rights Barrister! The UK is a soft touch for scroungers from elsewhere pouring over here from mainland Europe. Can't blame them really. We provide them with the cash to purchase designer clothes, mobiles, Nike trainers etc! I don't believe that the UK could survive by being totally isolated from mainland Europe but I think there should be balance. Our Legal System, flawed though it may be, does not need weakening by beauracracy from Brussels pen pushers.
I should add that not all who come to the UK are scroungers and that we have enough of our own anyway!

Last edited by Squonk : 2005-05-31 at 15:02.
  quote
BenRoethig
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dubuque, IA
 
2005-05-31, 15:17

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moogs
I'm certainly no expert; it just seems strange to me how they're going about it. Do they want to effectively become one nation or just a close-knit trade federation or something else?
I think you'll get 25 different answers to that question and that's why its such a mess.
  quote
Crusader
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Westminster, MD
Send a message via AIM to Crusader  
2005-05-31, 22:09

Man I wish I could truly appreciate the meanings behind this event. The BBC says that the France "No" vote was most likely a "bad thing" for Europe and that it has caused a crisis for Jacques Chirac and his government. I wish I had some time to study the entire situation but the politics of the entire thing make it hard to approach. The creation of a European super-nation makes sense to my mindset... it would help counter India and China and allow Europe to keep pace with both nations, but I can also understand the loss of control and identify most nations would feel.

"It's a good thing there's no law against a company having a monopoly of good ideas. Otherwise Apple would be in deep yogurt..."
-Apple Press Release
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2005-06-01, 10:09

With respect, Squonk, you sound like a page out of the Daily Mail or the Telegraph. Of course I can't know whether you arrived at your position after careful consideration of the information available to you, or whether you merely regurgitated what those publications and others have shamelessly fed the British public for three decades. If the latter, I urge you to dig deeper and find out what the EU is really about. It is terribly sad (and terribly common) to see the British, of all people, decry human rights as "ridiculous legislation". Additionally, statistics are widely available which prove that the net effect of immigrants to the UK's economy is strikingly buoyant; the effect on our culture is open to debate of course, but I for one think London (the most diverse city on earth, with 400 languages and 15 religions) is a pretty cool place to be.

The EU is the most ambitious and progressive political entity in the world, and its ambit today includes social, political, and economic cooperation with the aim of creating a society in which fairness, opportunity for all, tolerance, and above all, proportionality are prevalent. Freedom of goods, services, and movement are enshrined in the Treaty, and eventually it is hoped that the people of Europe will take advantage of these rights to the extent that Americans currently do. And as Banana said, in Europe the rights of the consumer against big business are taken much more seriously than in America. For example the European Court of Justice is the only court in the world to have really taken Microsoft to task over its illegal business practices (in the ongoing antitrust case).

The EU has other goals as well, depending on whom you ask. Mr Blair, in what many people consider a fantastic failure of judgement, is of the opinion that European states should appease America if at all possible, in the hope that America will return the favour with some small concessions on issues that concern Europe. This is the unipolar worldview, basically a feel-good utopian optimism in which one is expected to suspend disbelief and ignore Lord Acton's epic warning that "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". The latest Iraq war, the Guantánamo Bay fiasco, America's refusal to ratify the Kyoto protocol, and many other events such as America's recent decision to take the Boeing/Airbus subsidy dispute to the WTO, show beyond reasonable doubt that this policy does not work. America gleefully takes what it can get from an amenable Europe, but when the time comes for Europe to rightfully expect something in return, the US blithely ignores its pleas.

Which leads us to the bipolar worldview, famously held by President Chirac but also by many Europeans including many in the UK. From this perspective, the current American hegemony is seen as a threat to world peace and economic growth, and ultimately undesirable even for America itself. These people hope to use the EU as a political counterweight to America's huge worldwide influence. Again, depending on whom you ask, they would like this counterweight used for different purposes. Chirac would like to see it used to prevent America forcing its culture and language on the rest of the world (presumably so that French culture, rather than European, could take its place), while people like myself would like to see it used to strategically undermine America's current power. A practical example would be to encourage the adoption of the euro across all EU members. OPEC has signalled that it would likely sell oil in euros if this happened, which would tremendously change the balance of power. At present, America effectively gets oil for free, because it can print dollars to buy oil without causing significant inflation (after all, all states including European states need dollars to buy oil).

Banana, you are incorrect about EU sovereignty, though you are probably a victim of deliberate distortion by American law schools. Sovereignty is no more than an abstract concept that is totally irrelevant to how we live today (if one is so arrogant or xenophobic that one cannot contemplate being governed by people who aren't exclusively from one's own country, then one has a problem with humanity rather than sovereignty). But in order to prevent the philosophical gnashing of teeth that ceding sovereignty to the EU would cause in countries like the UK, member states are theoretically able to withdraw from the EU at any time. In the case of the UK, this would involve Parliament repealing the European Communities Act 1972 (this would be possible because no British Parliament can bind a future Parliament, otherwise it wouldn't be sovereign either). Of course no sane government would do this, including a Conservative government, because anyone who has looked at the facts is forced to come to the conclusion that the EU is overwhelmingly a positive thing for the UK.

The French no vote reminds me of the Americans voting Bush in for a second term: in both cases a masochistic undercurrent seems to have made voters hell-bent on self-destruction. In America, a large majority of factory workers and farm hands voted themselves out of a job, while in France fully 80% of blue-collar workers voted against the constitution. These figures indicate to me two things: an effective FUD campaign by the press, and a lack of general understanding of the issues at stake among the population (this also a failure of the press). The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe is almost 500 pages long. I am very interested in such matters, but I haven't read the whole document. I really doubt more than one in five people have read any of it at all, and those who haven't are utterly vulnerable to whatever view the press decides to spin. Which is why I always maintained that it was exceedingly foolish to have a referendum on such a technical decision in the first place.

Last edited by Dorian Gray : 2005-06-01 at 10:26.
  quote
Franz Josef
Passing by
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London, Europe
 
2005-06-01, 11:03

We will see today how the Dutch vote in their referendum. It isn't binding but the Dutch government has confirmed they will abide by the result - a "No" vote is likely.

It's interesting that in France, Dominique de Villepin has become the new Prime Minister - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4598849.stm . One of the recurrent themes of the French cammpaign was a disillusionment with a European elite who were perceived to be aloof from normal people (and particularly re unemployment, around 1 in 9 in France or 11%). I'm struck that Villepin is practically the archetype of the French political elite, and has never been elected to public office in his entire life.
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2005-06-01, 11:14

Very true Franz. I thought Chirac would finally embrace reality and get Sarkozy on board.

I think a Dutch "no" is inevitable at this point, but I don't want to think what that will mean for the proposed constitution. I guess you're happy to see how how events are unfolding!
  quote
Squonk
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ancient Capital of Cleveland, UK
 
2005-06-01, 12:06

Dorian Gray, you may not like what I say but I say it regardless. My comments are not, as you suggest the regurgitated result of reading the Telegraph or Mail, neither of which I cast an eye to. My views are the result of life experiences and I am entitled to them just as you are to yours. The UK will be much the worse off if the idiots in Brussels have their way.
As for your comments about London....what a dump that place is turning into. I took my two young children there for a long weekend recently and was embarrassed by the disgusting state of the place. Compared to places like Seattle or Vancouver, London is a pig sty. Anyone who visits the UK on holiday would do well to avoid London or at best, to pay a flying visit to the main attractions, take some photos and get the hell out. Instead they should visit some of our 'lesser' cities, towns and villages and get a feel for real England. London is not representative of the UK as a whole and people in London should not think that they represent the views of people elsewhere in the UK.
As for your comments on the Human Rights Act, I have personal experience of this ridiculous act as a result of my occupation and can tell you it is one of the most abused pieces of legislation ever imposed upon us.

To get back on track, I am pleased to see that the Dutch seem to be voting no!

Last edited by Squonk : 2005-06-01 at 12:50.
  quote
Banana
is the next Chiquita
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2005-06-01, 12:32

[quote=Dorian Gray]Banana, you are incorrect about EU sovereignty, though you are probably a victim of deliberate distortion by American law schools. Sovereignty is no more than an abstract concept that is totally irrelevant to how we live today (if one is so arrogant or xenophobic that one cannot contemplate being governed by people who aren't exclusively from one's own country, then one has a problem with humanity rather than sovereignty). But in order to prevent the philosophical gnashing of teeth that ceding sovereignty to the EU would cause in countries like the UK, member states are theoretically able to withdraw from the EU at any time. In the case of the UK, this would involve Parliament repealing the European Communities Act 1972 (this would be possible because no British Parliament can bind a future Parliament, otherwise it wouldn't be sovereign either). Of course no sane government would do this, including a Conservative government, because anyone who has looked at the facts is forced to come to the conclusion that the EU is overwhelmingly a positive thing for the UK.[quote]

I will gladly concede that my International Law teacher and I are of old school, but not necessarily an American old school. Several europeans politicans has subscribed to this old school. I also have considered the latest thoughts. I am not opposed to EU per se; only that there will need to be something on scale of Einstein's theory of relavitiy in field of physics to transform the present thought in political science before we can make any further progress.

As to whether sovereignty is abstract, I also ask, is human right more concrete? What about peace, justice, goodwill, and democracy? All are pretty heady words with little substance nowadays. Regardless of the side one is with, will almost invariably spew those meaningless words.

Furthermore, I have not seen why you feel that sovereignty is irrevelent, as you go to describing that future parliaments cannot be binded by past legislation, that they "theoretically" can withdraw from EU. Both, I can agree with, and still feel that sovereignty counts for something. As I said, international law is different realm from national law, as there are people in power (i.e. police officers, judges, politicians) who has some authority over the people and can execute it. But among states, all are equal by virtues of sovereignty. They are free to sign or veto a treaty as they see fit; they are free to commit or decry atrocities; they are free to go to war or keep peace as they think fit. The only restraints among equals is the principle of doing unto others as you would unto yourself. Thus, if a country wantonly slaughter their neighbors, they will get the same treatment in return and so on.

With treaties, it is essentially a contract between two equals (even assuming it is truly equal), without third party to arbitrate. Only in last century, has democracies, and the variants thereof, has became the government of choice for various states over the world, and many international entities only has came in existence not more than one fourth, or at most, one half century. Even with those new developments, several states cling to the doctrine of sovereignty. USA's refusal to sign numberous treaties, Saddam's decision to invade Kuwait in 90s, Iran and India's nuclear weapon program, China's belligrence toward Tawian all cry "sovereignty" and what exactly has UN/WTO/Bank/EU done? "Go away, or we will taunt you for a second time!" Hardly impressive.

When you factor in the fact that there are no equals (in terms of economical and military power), among states beyond the sovereignty, it's easy to see that they must make "right" friends, sign "right" treaties, to maxmize their rewards while minimizing their risks. Somewhat like locked in at a high brow black tie party where everyone is carrying a weapon of a kind, and has motives for murdering everybody else.

One more point to consider; WTO's conferences in Seattle few years ago was met with protestors. Now, any big conferences has their share of protestor, but what was unusual about WTO was it attracted a mixed bag. WTO, which should deal with "trade" was so far-reaching, with so many implications, it actually gathered protesters from greenpeace to tree loggers, from xenophobes to illegal immigrants, from union organizers to small business owners, they all pretty much united to protest again this great evil, the great whore, the terrible beast, WTO. If WTO elicts such drastic reactions, why should we expect any less for EU or other similar organizations that are supposedly built "to facilicate trade"?

So to reassert my stand; there will have to be a big change of mindset before we can make any progression. Until then, any international organizations is really meaningless and at best, superficial.
  quote
thuh Freak
Finally broke the seal
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2005-06-01, 13:00

Quote:
Originally Posted by Powerdoc
Personnaly as long, you don't touch to my cheese and wine, I don't care if the laws tend to be uniform in Europe. In fact it's the contrary Europe do not let french politicians to do anything they want : I am not at their mercy.
uproarious.
  quote
Franz Josef
Passing by
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London, Europe
 
2005-06-01, 16:37

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Gray
I guess you're happy to see how how events are unfolding!
I think on balance it's probably the right answer for now. But there's no Schadenfreude here - the No's (if they do kill off the constitution) will help bring more reality to the debate. I was struck at the joy and relief when France voted 51:49 to ratify the Maastricht Treaty and very few people pointed out at the time how astonishing it was that a country like France, which has contributed so much to European integration, could only muster such a slim majority for a major reform.
  quote
aplnub
New Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
 
2005-06-01, 21:59

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Gray
America gleefully takes what it can get from an amenable Europe, but when the time comes for Europe to rightfully expect something in return, the US blithely ignores its pleas.
That is why America bailed France out of two world wars and my great lies buried in France?

That is an extreme point of view against America. The sword cuts both ways.

The way a lot of Americans see it, the French people voted "no" because they love their lazy enduced society. Not my opinion but a definite radical view when compared to your radical view.


  quote
Powerdoc
Cat's Dreamlands
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2005-06-02, 00:32

Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub
That is why America bailed France out of two world wars and my great lies buried in France?

That is an extreme point of view against America. The sword cuts both ways.

The way a lot of Americans see it, the French people voted "no" because they love their lazy enduced society. Not my opinion but a definite radical view when compared to your radical view.


US as very few to do with the NO vote. People fear the effect of world globalisation, and are effraid of the loss of jobs due to "the invasion" of products coming from China and india.
They forgot that europe is a big exportator with these countries. In fact world globalisation induce major changes, and of course it hurt people (who loses their jobs, and have to find a new one in an another branch).

And yes compared to US or UK, there is a certain amount of lazy induced society. There is probabiliy also less stress in work, but I am not even sure of this.
  quote
Franz Josef
Passing by
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London, Europe
 
2005-06-03, 00:35

A Dutch rejection by a margin of 26% on a high voter turnout - that's food for thought from a founder member of the EU and a country which has historically been an open, relaxed trading nation not given to petty nationalism
  quote
Banana
is the next Chiquita
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2005-06-03, 01:46

Well, as I said before, anything that has to do with trading, almost invariably attracts opposition from those originally divided over irrevelent issues. So to me, that's not really a big surprise.

Someone should start looking for Albert Einstein of political science.
  quote
julesstoop
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Leiden, the Netherlands
 
2005-06-03, 02:05

I'm dutch and know for one that quite a large minority of those against this specific treaty are generally pro-europe. They have only voted against this so called constitution because it gives the EU power in cases which should remain under national sovereignty and secondly: the factual documents making up the treaty are very poorly written, not intelligeble for anyone but the legislators themselves.

The majority of nay-sayers in the Netherlands though voted no because of populist items, nothing to do with the treaty. One of those items is an understandable discontent with our present administration which could be called rather authoritive, not listening to the citizen. Another reason is politicians trying to cash-in on this problem by succesfuly putting even more rather populistic items on their agendas: one of those being against the enrollment of Turkey in the EU.
  quote
Franz Josef
Passing by
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London, Europe
 
2005-06-03, 02:09

Thanks julesstoop - it's good to hear first hand comment.
  quote
midwinter
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Utah
Send a message via ICQ to midwinter Send a message via AIM to midwinter  
2005-06-03, 02:23

What are the odds that they'll go back to the drawing board? That is, go back and make a much more streamlined document? 400+ articles and 200+ pages is absurd, and I think the voters are right to demand something more, um, elegant.

Frankly, I don't understand why they need a constitution anyway. Sure, England hasn't exactly been the poster-child for constitutionlessness throughout its history, but these are all, for the most part, constitutional democracies/monarchies as it is.

God it's exciting to watch Europe do this. I'm incredibly excited to be heading there in a few weeks so I can read the papers and hear the discussions in the pubs. No, wait. I meant libraries. I'm going to work in libraries, not hang out in pubs.

Cheers

angry people are not always wise
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

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

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2  Next

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:07.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova