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

Re: The French Say "Non!"

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 17 , Jun 1, 2005
    • 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 2 of 17 , Jun 1, 2005
      • 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 3 of 17 , Jun 1, 2005
        • 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 4 of 17 , Jun 1, 2005
          • 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 5 of 17 , Jun 2, 2005
            • 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 6 of 17 , Jun 2, 2005
              • 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 7 of 17 , Jun 2, 2005
                • 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 8 of 17 , Jun 2, 2005
                  • 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.