Bloggers Frustrate EU
Bloggers were instrumental in voting down France's approval of the EU constitution, according to this article by the BBC.
Their isolation can only speed Google's conquest.
The Netherlands also voted against it, proving that socialist narcissists in Europe are largely the same regardless of which nostril they speak from.
posted by RJ @ 12:30 PM
12 comments
12 Comments:
Geeze. I don't even know where to start with this.
1.) What does this have to do with France, the Netherlands, or the EU?
2.)
depent = depend
sattalites = sattelites
bing = bring
beleive = believe
You've got to give me a coherent, well reasoned thought here if you want a real response, and it would also be nice, sensible and polite if you'd stick with the topics I'm posting on. If you want to talk about this caveman-utopia you're always ranting about, post about it on your own blog.
Yeah, caveman, go back to your freakin' cave and stop ruining the earth by using technology, you freakin' caveman. God, I am so sick of cavemen who can't spell and who ruin the earth!
I don't know what to think about this EU business. Daniel Altman and David Brooks had similar takes on it (both can be found at the International Herald-Tribune) as did Friedman in his NYT article this morning. I don’t even know enough about the pros and cons of the EU Constitution for the nations in question to have an opinion. What do you think redhurt?
I don't know a whole lot about the EU constitution either. Maybe it really isn't a good deal for the people of either country. From the articles I read, it sounded like the people reacted against what they perceived as a move by "big business" and other power-monger elements at the top who would benefit from ratifying this constitution at the expense of their respective nations. But in France and Netherlands, it's hard to tell - they're perspective seems generally shifted so far left that I wonder what their notion of a "big business conservative" looks like.
Right, but I'm saying I don't know that the populations of France and the Netherlands are really going to suffer from the constitution, since their notion of our moderate center is John Kerry, and their "big business" conservatives are probably closer to Ted Kennedy than J. P. Morgan.
Have any of you tried to read the EU constitution? Just google it sometime. I gave up after about 70 pages. The thing is a pile of law speak that I imagine very few people took the time to actually read. After those 70 pages I still had no idea what the makeup of the EU government would be, or where the limits of their power are defined. I'm sure that is in there somewhere, but that sort of thing should leap out fairly quickly.
Hmm. Maybe then this is just a good case of a bad presentation? Maybe no one backing the constitution in either country took the time to present a simplified version of the document for people to read, whereas the leftist bloggers easily made the case against it understandable and compelling.
I have to think that all modern constitutions will be bogged in the same load of legalese. 200 years of ammendments and interpretations hasn't made ours any easier to read, that's for darn sure.
Our constitution and its amendents are pretty easy to read. They are all very clear and concise. Most of the first ten amendments are no more than two sentences long. Now if you try to get into the long tangled mess of precedents good luck.
Our constitution has the clear purpose of setting out the organization of our government and the limits of its power. The EU constitution was a mess full of platitudes and obfuscation.
I don't know if this factored into the french decision but I refuse to sign onto a document that requires a legal team to interpret. Our constitution was written to be readily accessable by an educated man. My greatest frustration with recent judicial decisions is that even after reading their decisions I cannot buy their constitutional justifications.
You're right that our constitution was written to be readable by an educated man, and that in its original form it's very clear and concise. I know absolutely nothing about constitutional law and the ammendments and whatnot, but it seems to me that legal jargon is more a product of the complicated judicial system we live with today than the EU. As such, it seems to me that if our actual real working "constitution" itself hasn't been effected, the the surrounding legislation is (our bills, laws, etc) definitly has. Maybe that's not a factor - I suppose you don't need to understand all of that stuff to grasp the essence of our rights in America. Fair enough.
I think the genius of our constitution is that it cleary sets the boundaries of federal power. The tragedy of our age is that we allow them to ignore those boundaries. The last time our government actually paid attention to the limits imposed on it by the constitution was the Coolidge administration.
Laws can be confusing as all get out, but as long as a the constitution remains clear we at least understand our basic rights and can go from there. The EU constitution is nothing like ours.
Also I would suggest reading our constitution sometime:
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html
It really is amazing how clear and concise the first ten amendments are. The first three are one sentence each.
I find it really telling that we allow people to get away with stating that 'the seperation of church and state' is in the constitution. Read the actual first amendment, it doesn't actually say that, it says something similar but profoundly different. The problem I have with discussions of the constitution these days is that no one actually quotes the text of the document.
I just reread the bill of rights, not one of the ten amendments is longer than one sentence.
I have read it before, and I concede that it's clear and easily understandable. It's a great document.
Post a Comment
<< Home