EU constitution

[Winner]

I think your language is quite revealing. "Very high progressive taxes", "rampant welfare benefits". Yes this is socialism allright, and if those people mentioned were prsuing those goals I would agree that they would be socialists. However it so happens that I am over 40, I grew up in a society based on those principles and I have myself seen how neo-liberal principles have taken over the ideological hegemony and the welfare state gradually been shrinked.

Well, Norway is a country which CAN afford to have welfare state. You can't apply these principles of welfare states on new member countries such as Poland, because they are in completely different situation. From my point of view the liberalism is EXACTLY what they need. Social democracy messed up everything what it could and now is the time to clean up this mess.

Welfare state is inefficient compared with state based on liberal ideas. We can see how welfare states ends up on the examples of Germany or France - high unemployment, enormous budged deficits, stagnation. Therefore I really don't want it to continue.

You are the one joking if you claim that Marek Belka has anything to do with what you yourself define as socialism. I have spent quite a lot of time in Poland recently and have seen for myself the "socialism" of Miller and Belka, thank you very much.

In central-east Europe, it is nearly socialism. Go to Slovakia and look on their government, maybe you'll realize the difference

I also think you will have difficulties proving that it is the rich that will bleed from Herr Schröder's "reforms".

So what? I don't see the reason to tax the rich more than the other people. (That's why I want flat tax.)

This is just rhetorics. They don't have to do those "reforms", in politics there are always choices, one idea would be strenghtening public sector for instance and impose those "very high progressive taxes".

Well, rich people, companies are the MAIN provider of jobs. If you tax them too much, they won't have enough capital for investments and unemployment grows. Again, we can see it in Germany, France. And again I'll say - look at Slovakia. Their unemployment was about 20% three years ago. Now, after LIBERAL reforms (including flat tax), it is about 15% and still droping.

If you look on so-called Euro Constitution, you'll see it is very socialistic in comparison with what new members of EU plan to do with their economies in the future. That's why the (right-wing) opposition in CZ is against it. If you said them, that you think Euro Const. is neo-liberal, they would probably laugh to the death

I will vote for it just because I don't see any other option. I want it more federalistic and less socialistic, but I'll be satisfied with this compromise.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Well, Norway is a country which CAN afford to have welfare state. You can't apply these principles of welfare states on new member countries such as Poland, because they are in completely different situation. From my point of view the liberalism is EXACTLY what they need. Social democracy messed up everything what it could and now is the time to clean up this mess..

Yes I can apply those principles. No it wasn't social democracy that messed everything up - check out the development after 1989 and if you call that economical politics imposed on Poland for social-democratic then I will die of laughter.

Welfare state is inefficient compared with state based on liberal ideas. We can see how welfare states ends up on the examples of Germany or France - high unemployment, enormous budged deficits, stagnation. Therefore I really don't want it to continue.

Completely wrong. It is only strong welfare states that has been able to secure almost full employment with decent conditions for the labourers. Can you please reflect over why the most affluent country in the world - USA - has such an appaling amount of poverty and misery? Is that also a very socialistic country? Or does such issues not interest you?

In central-east Europe, it is nearly socialism. Go to Slovakia and look on their government, maybe you'll realize the difference

Now you are contradicting yourself. First you tell me that I can't compare Norway and Poland, and so you compare Poland and Slovakia! Besides the logic in that reasoning is anyway difficult to grasp. That Slovakia is worse does not make Poland any different. I might as well say that your country was liberalistic and capitalistic in 1980, just compare with Romania...A country I know very ell, by the way, I lived there for a while. I suppose that country was also forced by IMF and the World Bank to be "very sosialistic" after 1989.

So what? I don't see the reason to tax the rich more than the other people. (That's why I want flat tax.);

The reason is obviously a principle of fairness, check in your dictionary on solidarity. Those who have more should contribute more to a community.
I for one strongly oppose flat tax but that is not the issue here.

Well, rich people, companies are the MAIN provider of jobs. If you tax them too much, they won't have enough capital for investments and unemployment grows. Again, we can see it in Germany, France. And again I'll say - look at Slovakia. Their unemployment was about 20% three years ago. Now, after LIBERAL reforms (including flat tax), it is about 15% and still droping.

Corporations would not survive without the generous support from their national states -what is described as wealthfare and due to the neoliberal ideological hegemony not an issue in mainstream media. If all states imposed regulations it would be impossible for those corporations to play countries out against each other. That is precisely why a good effective constitution should emphasize this.
Regarding Slovakia, I am not an expert on the country, but I know pretty much about Eastern Europe and economical history and I can assure you that this will not solve basic social problems.

If you look on so-called Euro Constitution, you'll see it is very socialistic in comparison with what new members of EU plan to do with their economies in the future. That's why the (right-wing) opposition in CZ is against it. If you said them, that you think Euro Const. is neo-liberal, they would probably laugh to the death

First you tell me that those new countries are so socialistic and so you say that they have some sinister agenda. Perhaps you agree with me after all?
I think I am the one who has most reason to be amused by all this ...

I will vote for it just because I don't see any other option. I want it more federalistic and less socialistic, but I'll be satisfied with this compromise.

Then it is your right to do so and I respect your opinion.
However read this very carefully: then you must please respect that I don't want to participate in this debate anymore and stop commenting my posts. OK?

 

[Scuffer]

However read this very carefully: then you must please respect that I don't want to participate in this debate anymore and stop commenting my posts. OK?

That's not the way it works. You can't expect to have the last say if you are walking out of the debate. You've commented on him, he gets to comment on you now. Don't reply if you don't want to participate, especially if you say things like 'completely wrong', 'you are contradicting yourself' and

 

[Richard Cribb]

That's not the way it works. You can't expect to have the last say if you are walking out of the debate. You've commented on him, he gets to comment on you now. Don't reply if you don't want to participate, especially if you say things like 'completely wrong', 'you are contradicting yourself' and

It is not about having the last say or not, I couldn't care less about that. However this thread is about opinions of the EU constitution or not,both he and I have answered that, and I think I have contributed enough.
Those words you quote are taken out of context and I would agree if I only had written that. Regarding the I can hardly see what is wrong with some good mood around here...
There is a thing to agree to disagree, especially when arguments are starting to be repeated, I never discuss for discussions sake.
I also think that Winner is a mature and intelligent person and that he does not need anybody to step up for him.
I find your intervention to be out of place, if you don't have anything to say about the topic you should refrain from posting, but if it makes you feel better I will assure you that this will be my last post in this thread no matter what.
Edit: Almost no matter, anyway....

 

[Scuffer]

The words are out of context because I didn't want to quote a whole post. They do not represent a mis-quotion of you.

If someone starts a paragraph telling me I am completely wrong, or contradicing myself, I believe I have the right of reply whether they like it or not.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Yes!

A clear majority of Spaniards have voted in favour of the European Union constitution in a referendum.

With nine out of 10 votes counted, officials figures showed 77% of voters backed the charter.

Turnout was only about 42% - an embarrassingly low figure for the government, a BBC correspondent says.

Mmmm... nope. In fact turnout was much higher than it was expected. About a 10% more.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Lets face it – this is not a vote on the constitution (nobody understands it) but is more a vote on the EU itself. A turnout of only 42% by Spain is appalling and very bad news indeed for pro-Europeans when you consider Spain is one of the biggest supporters of the EU.
(And so would your country be a big supporter if it received £3bn per annum in grants; £60bn in total so far! And that’s real money I am talking about – pounds, not Euros )

The fact that only 42% turned out (compare that with 60% in Iraq) sums it up. And this is after millions were spent by the Spanish government supporting the Yes vote. How unfair and undemocratic is that? Why did the No vote not get the same money spent on it? If this sort of vote manipulation occurred in, say, Zimbabwe, we would all be shaking our heads and saying “That’s what you get in undemocratic countries”.
But, as we all know, the words “Undemocratic” and “EU” go hand in hand.

If only c 29% of the voting population in a pro-EU country like Spain can be bothered to say “yes” to the EU, there is something seriously wrong here.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

No necesarily. It was obvious who would win it. People vote massively only if there is some fight involved. 77 % to 17% is far more significative than that 42%. In fact it was expected a 30-35%.

 

[Winner]

Yes I can apply those principles. No it wasn't social democracy that messed everything up - check out the development after 1989 and if you call that economical politics imposed on Poland for social-democratic then I will die of laughter.

I don't have to check it out, I live in Czech republic and I can see it at first hand

I know the first right-wing governments were bad, but the times were bad as well, I cannot blame them for all. After crises in 1996 we were on the best way towards prosperity, with the lowest unemployment in former eastern bloc (about 5%). After 5 years of soc-dem government the unemployment is doubled. With soc-dem governments, we are just wasting our time, what we need is Irish-style liberal economy.

Completely wrong. It is only strong welfare states that has been able to secure almost full employment with decent conditions for the labourers.

Where, except Scandinavia?

Can you please reflect over why the most affluent country in the world - USA - has such an appaling amount of poverty and misery? Is that also a very socialistic country? Or does such issues not interest you?

No, your argument is completely wrong. I am not telling you the social security is bad at all and should be abolished. I am telling the social security in "welfare state countries" is rampant. In CZ, it is obvious that high benefits for the unemployed people actually discourage them from working. They simply live from the benefits, not from the work, because it is easier.

Now you are contradicting yourself. First you tell me that I can't compare Norway and Poland, and so you compare Poland and Slovakia!

No, again. Norway cannot be compared with Poland, because Norway is highly developed, VERY rich country with huge income from oil exports. Poland and Slovakia can be very well compared, because both countries are post-communist states and therefore also their problems are similar.

A country I know very well, by the way, I lived there for a while. I suppose that country was also forced by IMF and the World Bank to be "very sosialistic" after 1989.

I have absolutely no idea what are you talking about

The reason is obviously a principle of fairness, check in your dictionary on solidarity. Those who have more should contribute more to a community.
I for one strongly oppose flat tax but that is not the issue here.

Very funny. Rich people pay much more even with flat tax, isn't it obvious? If some businessman pays 15% income tax, he pays much more than for example factory worker because his income is much higher. 15% from 100,000 is 15,000, but 15% from 10,000 is 1,500. Therefore his commitment to the society is fulfilled.

Corporations would not survive without the generous support from their national states -what is described as wealthfare and due to the neoliberal ideological hegemony not an issue in mainstream media. If all states imposed regulations it would be impossible for those corporations to play countries out against each other. That is precisely why a good effective constitution should emphasize this.

Ach jo I am not talking about big TNC's, but about small and medium-sized companies. These companies provide MOST of jobs. If they are taxed too much, the unemployment grows because they don't have enough capital for further investments (and also they have bigger motivation to avoid such a high taxes). Again, I can give you an example from CZ. Our "glorious" social democratic government imposed "minimal" tax for small tradesmans (I hope I've translated our "živnostník" right). The result is that about 1/3 of them were forced to cease their businesses and now they are unemployed. Oh, that's great, isn't it?

Regarding Slovakia, I am not an expert on the country, but I know pretty much about Eastern Europe and economical history and I can assure you that this will not solve basic social problems.

Well, I can assure you that their economy grows about 5% per year, their unemployment drops and average wages are increasing. Something the former leftist governments failed to do.

First you tell me that those new countries are so socialistic and so you say that they have some sinister agenda. Perhaps you agree with me after all?

I am talking about their future plans (mostly plans of the opposition parties, as I said). Now the governments know that welfare states in the Scandinavian style (Sweden was a great example for our former prime minister, now Comissar of EC) doesn't fit very well on post communist countries and are planing to do more liberal economic policy.

I think I am the one who has most reason to be amused by all this ...

Don't be so sure

Then it is your right to do so and I respect your opinion.
However read this very carefully: then you must please respect that I don't want to participate in this debate anymore and stop commenting my posts. OK?

Sorry, but I can't help myself, you are ignoring the facts and believe in something what is proven to be wrong.

 

[Scuffer]

The fact that only 42% turned out (compare that with 60% in Iraq) sums it up. And this is after millions were spent by the Spanish government supporting the Yes vote. How unfair and undemocratic is that? Why did the No vote not get the same money spent on it?

Heh, it won't matter if the UK votes no. The no campaign gets an absolute fortune's worth in newspaper 'advertising' here.
I don't think that having the French and German leaders turn up here on voting day will do anything to help the yes cause either!

 

[Winner]

Lets face it – this is not a vote on the constitution (nobody understands it) but is more a vote on the EU itself.

Yes, it is about the future of EU.

A turnout of only 42% by Spain is appalling and very bad news indeed for pro-Europeans when you consider Spain is one of the biggest supporters of the EU.

Not at all. People usually don't vote about something they don't understand or if they are satisfied with it. Almost half of the voters, this is actually very good. In CZ, it will be about 30% at maximum.

And this is after millions were spent by the Spanish government supporting the Yes vote.

Quite common. Every government want to persuade its people. If they voted for pro-EU party, they must accept it will pursue pro-EU policy.

How unfair and undemocratic is that? Why did the No vote not get the same money spent on it?

Because of what I wrote above The government would be foolish to give money to its opposition, especially if the opposition would do exactly the same.

But, as we all know, the words “Undemocratic” and “EU” go hand in hand.

Oh...

If only c 29% of the voting population in a pro-EU country like Spain can be bothered to say “yes” to the EU, there is something seriously wrong here.

The number is almost the same as the turnout in EP elections. Democracy isn't made by turnouts. In CZ, only about 20% of people go and vote in the Senate elections. When the turnout is small, it usually means only the educated or dissatisfied people vote.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I don't have to check it out, I live in Czech republic and I can see it at first hand

I know the first right-wing governments were bad, but the times were bad as well, I cannot blame them for all. After crises in 1996 we were on the best way towards prosperity, with the lowest unemployment in former eastern bloc (about 5%). After 5 years of soc-dem government the unemployment is doubled. With soc-dem governments, we are just wasting our time, what we need is Irish-style liberal economy.



Where, except Scandinavia?



No, your argument is completely wrong. I am not telling you the social security is bad at all and should be abolished. I am telling the social security in "welfare state countries" is rampant. In CZ, it is obvious that high benefits for the unemployed people actually discourage them from working. They simply live from the benefits, not from the work, because it is easier.



No, again. Norway cannot be compared with Poland, because Norway is highly developed, VERY rich country with huge income from oil exports. Poland and Slovakia can be very well compared, because both countries are post-communist states and therefore also their problems are similar.



I have absolutely no idea what are you talking about



Very funny. Rich people pay much more even with flat tax, isn't it obvious? If some businessman pays 15% income tax, he pays much more than for example factory worker because his income is much higher. 15% from 100,000 is 15,000, but 15% from 10,000 is 1,500. Therefore his commitment to the society is fulfilled.



Ach jo I am not talking about big TNC's, but about small and medium-sized companies. These companies provide MOST of jobs. If they are taxed too much, the unemployment grows because they don't have enough capital for further investments (and also they have bigger motivation to avoid such a high taxes). Again, I can give you an example from CZ. Our "glorious" social democratic government imposed "minimal" tax for small tradesmans (I hope I've translated our "živnostník" right). The result is that about 1/3 of them were forced to cease their businesses and now they are unemployed. Oh, that's great, isn't it?



Well, I can assure you that their economy grows about 5% per year, their unemployment drops and average wages are increasing. Something the former leftist governments failed to do.



I am talking about their future plans (mostly plans of the opposition parties, as I said). Now the governments know that welfare states in the Scandinavian style (Sweden was a great example for our former prime minister, now Comissar of EC) doesn't fit very well on post communist countries and are planing to do more liberal economic policy.



Don't be so sure



Sorry, but I can't help myself, you are ignoring the facts and believe in something what is proven to be wrong.

Sorry too, I know I promised to refrain from more posts in this thread but I need one last comment.
First of all, my reasons for terminating this thread, is primarily that I have a rather heavy work schedule this week and it is then difficult to mobilize for writing high-powered posts .This also means that I don't have the time to dig up references, and under those circumstances I feel that it is wrong to continue this. Furthermore I get the feeling that we are not getting anywhere on this, and then it is better to agree to disagree, at least for the moment.
I will just say that:
- You haven't really argued against me, but mostly pouring out right-wing rhetorics.
- I was refering to Poland, not the Czech republic.
-The differences between the post-communist countries are huge indeed, like Poland and Slovakia.
- There were never any "Scandinavian style" Social Democracies in Central and Eastern Europe.There is hardly much left of that in Scandinavia, unfortunately.
- Social security is not "rampant" in welfare states. It must be possible to write an entire post without using the word "rampant"...
- Flat tax is not funny. 15% of a low income is much more than 15% of a high one and thus unfair. A fair principle is that the rich should contribute relatively more.It is not a question of nominal amounts, it is a question of the impact on ones personal economy.And a question of economical power.
- Medium-sized companies are also dependent on public support. You might say that modern "capitalistic" states are partly sosialistic insofar that expenses are socialized, only profits privatized.
- You haven't "proven me wrong", just demonstrated that you have a certain skill in political rhetorics.
- I don't feel like I am the one ignoring the facts, but I am afraid this sums it up:

I have absolutely no idea what are you talking about .

And with this I wish you a good day!

 

[Winner]

Sorry too, I know I promised to refrain from more posts in this thread but I need one last comment.
First of all, my reasons for terminating this thread, is primarily that I have a rather heavy work schedule this week and it is then difficult to mobilize for writing high-powered posts .This also means that I don't have the time to dig up references, and under those circumstances I feel that it is wrong to continue this. Furthermore I get the feeling that we are not getting anywhere on this, and then it is better to agree to disagree, at least for the moment.
I will just say that:
- You haven't really argued against me, but mostly pouring out right-wing rhetorics.
- I was refering to Poland, not the Czech republic.
-The differences between the post-communist countries are huge indeed, like Poland and Slovakia.
- There were never any "Scandinavian style" Social Democracies in Central and Eastern Europe.There is hardly much left of that in Scandinavia, unfortunately.
- Social security is not "rampant" in welfare states. It must be possible to write an entire post without using the word "rampant"...
- Flat tax is not funny. 15% of a low income is much more than 15% of a high one and thus unfair. A fair principle is that the rich should contribute relatively more.It is not a question of nominal amounts, it is a question of the impact on ones personal economy.And a question of economical power.
- Medium-sized companies are also dependent on public support. You might say that modern "capitalistic" states are partly sosialistic insofar that expenses are socialized, only profits privatized.
- You haven't "proven me wrong", just demonstrated that you have a certain skill in political rhetorics.
- I don't feel like I am the one ignoring the facts, but I am afraid this sums it up:

And with this I wish you a good day!

I would have to negate everything you wrote (it is very common in discussions with left-wingers, in CZ too ), so I agree this discussion is senseless (and off-topic ) and I won't continue

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Quite common. Every government want to persuade its people. If they voted for pro-EU party, they must accept it will pursue pro-EU policy.
Because of what I wrote above The government would be foolish to give money to its opposition, especially if the opposition would do exactly the same.

Do you seriously think it is OK for a government to use tax payer’s money solely to further their cause in a referendum? What would be the point of a referendum if the government can manipulate the result in such a way? You might as well just leave it up to the government to decide anyway. (I know this was not a binding ref. in Spain but it will be in Britain).

A referendum is a means of the people of a country reaching a correct decision on something and not just following what the government thinks. How can a correct decision be reached if the two sides of the argument are not explained in equal terms.

I think you have hit on one of the fundamental differences between Britain and mainland Europe – our sense of fair play and equality and our sense of what is democratic and what is not are inherently different to you guys. Maybe this is why you don’t mind the EU railroading policies and decisions through irrespective of what the people think; and why we Brits continue to object to them.

 

[Winner]

Do you seriously think it is OK for a government to use tax payer’s money solely to further their cause in a referendum? What would be the point of a referendum if the government can manipulate the result in such a way? You might as well just leave it up to the government to decide anyway. (I know this was not a binding ref. in Spain but it will be in Britain).

I don't think it is OK, I only said it is quite common.

Government is using public money for reaching the goals that it consider to be important. If the people voted for party that is known for its pro-EU and pro-constitution stance, you CANNOT expect it will discourage people from voting fot it.

A referendum is a means of the people of a country reaching a correct decision on something and not just following what the government thinks. How can a correct decision be reached if the two sides of the argument are not explained in equal terms.

Well, do you seriously think the YES campaign can completely shift the public opinion? In my country, people don't believe everything the government says. We are very suspicious towards it

I think you have hit on one of the fundamental differences between Britain and mainland Europe – our sense of fair play and equality and our sense of what is democratic and what is not are inherently different to you guys.

Don't be so sure.

Maybe this is why you don’t mind the EU railroading policies and decisions through irrespective of what the people think; and why we Brits continue to object to them.

Oh, well. You Brits are constantly trying to avoid deeper integration in Europe, although this "federalization" would also remove so-called "democratic deficit". You must admit that EU isn't state, but organization and it can be only as democratic as its members want. Also I find it amusing, that NATO is much more undemocratic, but no one complaint of this.

This euro "constitution" actually gives more power to European parliament, which is directly elected by the european people, therefore making EU more democratic.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Government is using public money for reaching the goals that it consider to be important. If the people voted for party that is known for its pro-EU and pro-constitution stance, you CANNOT expect it will discourage people from voting fot it.

You still don’t appear to understand – I did not say the government must encourage you to vote No. If it believes Yes is right for the country they must tell you so.

What I am saying is that the No camp must be given an equal say and must have the same amount of taxpayer’s money to fight their cause. Otherwise we might as well not bother as it becomes a rigged poll and therefore we should just leave the decision up to the government and not have a referendum at all.

 

[Winner]

You still don’t appear to understand – I did not say the government must encourage you to vote No. If it believes Yes is right for the country they must tell you so.

What I am saying is that the No camp must be given an equal say and must have the same amount of taxpayer’s money to fight their cause. Otherwise we might as well not bother as it becomes a rigged poll and therefore we should just leave the decision up to the government and not have a referendum at all.

Oh no, I perfectly understand your point (I know my english is bad, but not so bad ). I am just telling you this isn't realistic - no government will use public money to fund its opposition.

If you think I am wrong, OK. Let's see the other referendums.

 

[Elrohir]

Winner, why did you stop responding to my posts on page 3?

 

[Winner]

Winner, why did you stop responding to my posts on page 3?

Is there anything else to discuss about? I've thought our conversation is over...

 

[Elrohir]

You never answered about the way the EU Constitution handles a country leaving, you just asked about how the US would handle it.