Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The French Say "Non!"

Expand Messages
  • Dan Minette
    ... From: Robert G. Seeberger To: Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 7:09 PM Subject: The French Say Non! ... I m
    Message 1 of 17 , Jun 1 10:26 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Robert G. Seeberger" <rceeberger@...>
      To: <brin-l@...>
      Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 7:09 PM
      Subject: The French Say "Non!"


      > I'm sure most of you ran across the news that the French rejected the
      > Euro constitution.
      >

      I'm switching the order of the questions around because the answers to the
      first question are highly dependant on the answers to the second.

      > Do you think this will torpedo the EU?

      Torpedo strongly overstates it. The EU is not going to fall apart
      tomorrow, next month, or next year because the French said no to the new
      constitution. It is unlikely that there will be significant pullback (such
      as the elimination of the Euro or the withdrawl of a number of countries
      from the EU. But, at a minimum it will slow the expansion and strengthing
      of the EU. Even more likely, IMHO, is that this will represent a turning
      point in this process. I'm guessing, to first order, that the EU is about
      as strong as it will ever get now. By the time that a new agreement might
      be ratified by all countries, the demographics of the shrinking Europe will
      probably take over. The relative power of the EU vs. the US will continue
      to diminish over the next 20 years to the point where the response of
      Europe to any US actions will be significantly less important than the
      response of China, and may be less important than the response of India or
      Latin America.

      The complementary part of this is the lessining of the already slim chance
      Turkey has to join the EU. Up till now, the EU has expanded by
      incorporating countries that decrease it's average fertility rate. If it
      included Turkey, it would be incorporating a large, Moselim population into
      Europe, which still has a fertility rate of 2.7 (compared to the EU average
      of about 1.4). It would be hard to incorporate that many workers into the
      French, Italian, German cultures, if they emmigrated, but there would be
      some ability to at least soften the effects of the aging/shrinking of the
      EU. But, reports from those that voted "No" in France indicated that
      uneasyness with incorporating Turkey was part of the decision making
      process in the "No" vote. I think that the EU politicians are smart enough
      to pick this up.

      So, I predict that, within 10 years, we will see the start of the
      marginilization of Europe on the world stage.

      > How do you think this will effect the US?

      Clearly the direct effects will be on Europe, with only secondary effects
      for the US. From a geopolitical point of view, the US will need to focus
      more on Asia and less on Europe. Pacific relationships will be the key to
      international relations for the US. China will stand out as the other
      significant player in the world. Within 10 years, it's actions/opinions
      should clearly be much more important than those of Europe. It will have
      it's own demographics problem, but at a significantly later date than
      Europe (I'm guessing that it will be in the '40s or so). If the US doesn't
      get its act together with regard to deficits (national and trade) and the
      effects of aging on it's populaton (Medicare and SS), then it may not have
      as much relative advantage as it needs to keep China from having enough
      ecconomic and conventional military power to be considered the second
      superpower.

      Even throwing in nuclear weapons, we still have Europe going to the
      sidelines....but that would be an interesting thread on it's own.

      Dan M.



      _______________________________________________
      http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
    • PAT MATHEWS
      ... One commentator(1) noted that the people who voted for the EU were all older people with first-hand memories of World War II. I think this is a fairly
      Message 2 of 17 , Jun 1 12:24 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        >From: "Dan Minette" <dsummersminet@...>
        >
        > > I'm sure most of you ran across the news that the French rejected the
        > > Euro constitution.
        > >
        >
        >I'm switching the order of the questions around because the answers to the
        >first question are highly dependant on the answers to the second.
        >
        > > Do you think this will torpedo the EU?
        >
        >Torpedo strongly overstates it. The EU is not going to fall apart
        >tomorrow, next month, or next year because the French said no to the new
        >constitution. It is unlikely that there will be significant pullback (such
        >as the elimination of the Euro or the withdrawl of a number of countries
        >from the EU. But, at a minimum it will slow the expansion and strengthing
        >of the EU. Even more likely, IMHO, is that this will represent a turning
        >point in this process. I'm guessing, to first order, that the EU is about
        >as strong as it will ever get now. By the time that a new agreement might
        >be ratified by all countries, the demographics of the shrinking Europe will
        >probably take over.

        One commentator(1) noted that the people who voted for the EU were all older
        people with first-hand memories of World War II. I think this is a fairly
        strong indicator of which way the wind is blowing.

        Pat

        (1) John Xenakis and generationaldynamics.com


        _______________________________________________
        http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
      • Warren Ockrassa
        ... And overwrought in each. Yikes. When your constitution *starts* with codification of a flag, an anthem, a motto, a currency and a union day definition,
        Message 3 of 17 , Jun 1 6:13 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          On May 31, 2005, at 1:19 PM, Dave Land wrote:

          > On May 31, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
          >
          >> Yeah. What I've been missing in the flurry of coverage is the actual
          >> constitution itself. Anyone have a link handy to the text of the
          >> document?
          >
          > http://europa.eu.int/constitution/index_en.htm
          >
          > Available in 21 languages.

          And overwrought in each. Yikes. When your constitution *starts* with
          codification of a flag, an anthem, a motto, a currency and a "union
          day" definition, you've become FAR too bogged down in details.


          --
          Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
          http://books.nightwares.com/
          Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
          http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf

          _______________________________________________
          http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
        • Gary Denton
          ... The Constitution was a mess and should have been voted down - everything was in that thing. Long, complicated, cumbersome,and complex is not what you want
          Message 4 of 17 , Jun 1 10:49 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            On 6/1/05, Warren Ockrassa <warren@...> wrote:
            > On May 31, 2005, at 1:19 PM, Dave Land wrote:
            >
            > > On May 31, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
            > >
            > >> Yeah. What I've been missing in the flurry of coverage is the actual
            > >> constitution itself. Anyone have a link handy to the text of the
            > >> document?
            > >
            > > http://europa.eu.int/constitution/index_en.htm
            > >
            > > Available in 21 languages.
            >
            > And overwrought in each. Yikes. When your constitution *starts* with
            > codification of a flag, an anthem, a motto, a currency and a "union
            > day" definition, you've become FAR too bogged down in details.

            The Constitution was a mess and should have been voted down - everything was
            in that thing. Long, complicated, cumbersome,and complex is not what you
            want in a Constitution. Check out all the protocols:
            http://europa.eu.int/constitution/en/allinone_en.htm

            Here is a tiny bit of one:

            > 11. The business plan for the benefiting company Válcovny Plechu Frýdek
            > Místek (VPFM) shall be implemented. In particular:
            >
            > (a) Hot Rolling Mills Nos 1 and 2 shall be permanently closed at the end
            > of 2004;
            >
            > (b) restructuring efforts shall concentrate on the following:
            >
            > (i) making the necessary investment in order to reach a higher quality of
            > finished product in the short term after the signing of the Treaty of
            > Accession,
            >
            > (ii) giving priority to the implementation of key identified profit
            > improvement opportunities (including employment restructuring, cost
            > reductions, yield improvements and distribution reorientation).
            >
            It is also interesting French liberals rejected it for being too
            conservative and tied to big business after nearly all the media and over
            80% of the politicians supported it.

            --
            Gary Denton
            Easter Lemming Blogs
            http://elemming.blogspot.com
            http://elemming2.blogspot.com
            _______________________________________________
            http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
          • Ronn!Blankenship
            ... It sounds like someone may finally have written a worse constitution than the Alabama constitution of 1901 (which is still in effect) . . . -- Ronn! :)
            Message 5 of 17 , Jun 1 10:52 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              At 12:49 AM Thursday 6/2/2005, Gary Denton wrote:
              >On 6/1/05, Warren Ockrassa <warren@...> wrote:
              > > On May 31, 2005, at 1:19 PM, Dave Land wrote:
              > >
              > > > On May 31, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
              > > >
              > > >> Yeah. What I've been missing in the flurry of coverage is the actual
              > > >> constitution itself. Anyone have a link handy to the text of the
              > > >> document?
              > > >
              > > > http://europa.eu.int/constitution/index_en.htm
              > > >
              > > > Available in 21 languages.
              > >
              > > And overwrought in each. Yikes. When your constitution *starts* with
              > > codification of a flag, an anthem, a motto, a currency and a "union
              > > day" definition, you've become FAR too bogged down in details.
              >
              >The Constitution was a mess and should have been voted down - everything was
              >in that thing. Long, complicated, cumbersome,and complex is not what you
              >want in a Constitution. Check out all the protocols:
              >http://europa.eu.int/constitution/en/allinone_en.htm
              >
              >Here is a tiny bit of one:
              >
              > > 11. The business plan for the benefiting company Válcovny Plechu Frýdek
              > > Místek (VPFM) shall be implemented. In particular:
              > >
              > > (a) Hot Rolling Mills Nos 1 and 2 shall be permanently closed at the end
              > > of 2004;
              > >
              > > (b) restructuring efforts shall concentrate on the following:
              > >
              > > (i) making the necessary investment in order to reach a higher quality of
              > > finished product in the short term after the signing of the Treaty of
              > > Accession,
              > >
              > > (ii) giving priority to the implementation of key identified profit
              > > improvement opportunities (including employment restructuring, cost
              > > reductions, yield improvements and distribution reorientation).
              > >
              >It is also interesting French liberals rejected it for being too
              >conservative and tied to big business after nearly all the media and over
              >80% of the politicians supported it.


              It sounds like someone may finally have written a worse constitution than
              the Alabama constitution of 1901 (which is still in effect) . . .


              -- Ronn! :)


              _______________________________________________
              http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
            • Julia Thompson
              ... How much worse than the Texas constitution is it? The Texas constitution requires that the legislature, then the voters, pass all sorts of amendments to
              Message 6 of 17 , Jun 2 6:05 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
                > At 12:49 AM Thursday 6/2/2005, Gary Denton wrote:
                >
                >> On 6/1/05, Warren Ockrassa <warren@...> wrote:
                >> > On May 31, 2005, at 1:19 PM, Dave Land wrote:
                >> >
                >> > > On May 31, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
                >> > >
                >> > >> Yeah. What I've been missing in the flurry of coverage is the actual
                >> > >> constitution itself. Anyone have a link handy to the text of the
                >> > >> document?
                >> > >
                >> > > http://europa.eu.int/constitution/index_en.htm
                >> > >
                >> > > Available in 21 languages.
                >> >
                >> > And overwrought in each. Yikes. When your constitution *starts* with
                >> > codification of a flag, an anthem, a motto, a currency and a "union
                >> > day" definition, you've become FAR too bogged down in details.
                >>
                >> The Constitution was a mess and should have been voted down -
                >> everything was
                >> in that thing. Long, complicated, cumbersome,and complex is not what you
                >> want in a Constitution. Check out all the protocols:
                >> http://europa.eu.int/constitution/en/allinone_en.htm
                >>
                >> Here is a tiny bit of one:
                >>
                >> > 11. The business plan for the benefiting company Válcovny Plechu Frýdek
                >> > Místek (VPFM) shall be implemented. In particular:
                >> >
                >> > (a) Hot Rolling Mills Nos 1 and 2 shall be permanently closed at the
                >> end
                >> > of 2004;
                >> >
                >> > (b) restructuring efforts shall concentrate on the following:
                >> >
                >> > (i) making the necessary investment in order to reach a higher
                >> quality of
                >> > finished product in the short term after the signing of the Treaty of
                >> > Accession,
                >> >
                >> > (ii) giving priority to the implementation of key identified profit
                >> > improvement opportunities (including employment restructuring, cost
                >> > reductions, yield improvements and distribution reorientation).
                >> >
                >> It is also interesting French liberals rejected it for being too
                >> conservative and tied to big business after nearly all the media and over
                >> 80% of the politicians supported it.
                >
                >
                >
                > It sounds like someone may finally have written a worse constitution
                > than the Alabama constitution of 1901 (which is still in effect) . . .

                How much worse than the Texas constitution is it? The Texas
                constitution requires that the legislature, then the voters, pass all
                sorts of amendments to get a good number of things done.

                Julia

                _______________________________________________
                http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
              • Gary Denton
                If you consider all the protocols, understanding, and extensions it is much worse than the Texas which requires amending every two years for simple matters. I
                Message 7 of 17 , Jun 2 8:48 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  If you consider all the protocols, understanding, and extensions it is
                  much worse than the Texas which requires amending every two years for
                  simple matters.

                  I am not sure if these protocols and understandings should be
                  considered as the EU Constitution as they deal with such important
                  issues as individual factory modernizations and property rights of
                  citizens of the EU in Malta for properties of various prices.

                  The right nationalists, the anti-bureaucratise, and the socialists had
                  much to dislike as well as proponents of a common sense democratic
                  union.


                  On 6/2/05, Julia Thompson <julia@...> wrote:
                  > Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
                  > > At 12:49 AM Thursday 6/2/2005, Gary Denton wrote:
                  > >
                  > >> On 6/1/05, Warren Ockrassa <warren@...> wrote:
                  > >> > On May 31, 2005, at 1:19 PM, Dave Land wrote:
                  > >> >
                  > >> > > On May 31, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
                  > >> > >
                  > >> > >> Yeah. What I've been missing in the flurry of coverage is the actual
                  > >> > >> constitution itself. Anyone have a link handy to the text of the
                  > >> > >> document?
                  > >> > >
                  > >> > > http://europa.eu.int/constitution/index_en.htm
                  <snip>
                  > >
                  > > It sounds like someone may finally have written a worse constitution
                  > > than the Alabama constitution of 1901 (which is still in effect) . . .
                  >
                  > How much worse than the Texas constitution is it? The Texas
                  > constitution requires that the legislature, then the voters, pass all
                  > sorts of amendments to get a good number of things done.
                  >
                  --
                  Gary Denton
                  Easter Lemming Blogs
                  http://elemming.blogspot.com
                  http://elemming2.blogspot.com
                  _______________________________________________
                  http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                • Ronn!Blankenship
                  ... So does Alabama. For all sorts of local matters. How many times has the Texas constitution been amended? IIRC, in now a little over a century, Alabama s
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jun 2 9:13 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 08:05 AM Thursday 6/2/2005, Julia Thompson wrote:
                    >Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
                    >>At 12:49 AM Thursday 6/2/2005, Gary Denton wrote:
                    >>
                    >>>On 6/1/05, Warren Ockrassa <warren@...> wrote:
                    >>> > On May 31, 2005, at 1:19 PM, Dave Land wrote:
                    >>> >
                    >>> > > On May 31, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
                    >>> > >
                    >>> > >> Yeah. What I've been missing in the flurry of coverage is the actual
                    >>> > >> constitution itself. Anyone have a link handy to the text of the
                    >>> > >> document?
                    >>> > >
                    >>> > > http://europa.eu.int/constitution/index_en.htm
                    >>> > >
                    >>> > > Available in 21 languages.
                    >>> >
                    >>> > And overwrought in each. Yikes. When your constitution *starts* with
                    >>> > codification of a flag, an anthem, a motto, a currency and a "union
                    >>> > day" definition, you've become FAR too bogged down in details.
                    >>>
                    >>>The Constitution was a mess and should have been voted down - everything was
                    >>>in that thing. Long, complicated, cumbersome,and complex is not what you
                    >>>want in a Constitution. Check out all the protocols:
                    >>>http://europa.eu.int/constitution/en/allinone_en.htm
                    >>>
                    >>>Here is a tiny bit of one:
                    >>>
                    >>> > 11. The business plan for the benefiting company Válcovny Plechu Frýdek
                    >>> > Místek (VPFM) shall be implemented. In particular:
                    >>> >
                    >>> > (a) Hot Rolling Mills Nos 1 and 2 shall be permanently closed at the end
                    >>> > of 2004;
                    >>> >
                    >>> > (b) restructuring efforts shall concentrate on the following:
                    >>> >
                    >>> > (i) making the necessary investment in order to reach a higher quality of
                    >>> > finished product in the short term after the signing of the Treaty of
                    >>> > Accession,
                    >>> >
                    >>> > (ii) giving priority to the implementation of key identified profit
                    >>> > improvement opportunities (including employment restructuring, cost
                    >>> > reductions, yield improvements and distribution reorientation).
                    >>> >
                    >>>It is also interesting French liberals rejected it for being too
                    >>>conservative and tied to big business after nearly all the media and over
                    >>>80% of the politicians supported it.
                    >>
                    >>It sounds like someone may finally have written a worse constitution than
                    >>the Alabama constitution of 1901 (which is still in effect) . . .
                    >
                    >How much worse than the Texas constitution is it? The Texas constitution
                    >requires that the legislature, then the voters, pass all sorts of
                    >amendments to get a good number of things done.


                    So does Alabama. For all sorts of local matters. How many times has the
                    Texas constitution been amended? IIRC, in now a little over a century,
                    Alabama's has been amended over 600 times (and those are just the ones
                    which actually passed through that process and got approved . . . many more
                    have been tried.)


                    -- Ronn! :)


                    _______________________________________________
                    http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                  • Gary Denton
                    ... ... As of 2003 (78th Legislature), the Texas Legislature has passed a total of 606 amendments. Of these, 432 have been adopted and 174 have been
                    Message 9 of 17 , Jun 2 1:30 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 6/2/05, Ronn!Blankenship <ronn.blankenship@...> wrote:
                      > At 08:05 AM Thursday 6/2/2005, Julia Thompson wrote:
                      > >Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
                      > >>At 12:49 AM Thursday 6/2/2005, Gary Denton wrote:
                      > >>
                      > >>>On 6/1/05, Warren Ockrassa <warren@...> wrote:
                      <snip>
                      > >>It sounds like someone may finally have written a worse constitution than
                      > >>the Alabama constitution of 1901 (which is still in effect) . . .
                      > >
                      > >How much worse than the Texas constitution is it? The Texas constitution
                      > >requires that the legislature, then the voters, pass all sorts of
                      > >amendments to get a good number of things done.
                      >
                      >
                      > So does Alabama. For all sorts of local matters. How many times has the
                      > Texas constitution been amended? IIRC, in now a little over a century,
                      > Alabama's has been amended over 600 times (and those are just the ones
                      > which actually passed through that process and got approved . . . many more
                      > have been tried.)
                      >
                      >
                      > -- Ronn! :)

                      As of 2003 (78th Legislature), the Texas Legislature has passed a
                      total of 606 amendments. Of these, 432 have been adopted and 174 have
                      been defeated by Texas voters. Thus, the Texas Constitution has been
                      amended 432 times since its adoption in 1876.

                      --
                      Gary Denton
                      Easter Lemming Blogs
                      http://elemming.blogspot.com
                      http://elemming2.blogspot.com
                      _______________________________________________
                      http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.