 |
| |
|
|
BeBro
|
 |
of the Krauts
Mar 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
I know it's not your fight. But you miss the point. IF this constitution is installed, it's not valid except technically. I ask you, you don't see this as a problem? No you don't. |
Why on earth should it be not valid (except technically) if the government your people voted for agrees to it? As said, I can understand why you don't like it, but just because of that it isn't wrong. Why is any international treaty your gov agreed to valid even if you weren't asked personally for permission? As said, I don't kow why there is no referendum in Finland, if it is a general praxis not to hold them etc. But since you think it is such an important issue for your country - why are there no serious political forces which implement changes for a referendum?
Or do you have usually direct participation, but aren't allowed for it in this case? Then it would be really serious. But as long it is normal praxis in Finland I see it as a national problem.
quote:
I say, doesn't this trouble you, and lower the value of this constitution everywhere? You say 'stop whining, it's not my fight'. |
But that is the case - look, I don't wanted to be rude, but wouldn't you complain if I would claim that I have a say in internal Finnish stuff? So why should I have in this case?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:23
|
|
"But that is the case - look, I don't wanted to be rude, but wouldn't you complain if I would claim that I have a say in internal Finnish stuff? So why should I have in this case?"
Because this way you are interfering our internal business more than not. You see, if the consitution gets voted YES with someone who actually can vote, it'll be implented in here. If you would stand up adn fight that we can't vote about it, you don't intervene into our business, rather fight for more freedom for us. It's as if there was elections and only one candidate, if you come and say 'you need free elections' then it's not so much interfering in the same sense, if you'd came here and force one candidate, THEN it would be interfering.
Why do I think it's not OK since we have elected this people? Because there are things people should get to vote on, and this would be the #1 thing if not electing anyone. This will concern everyone equally. Look, here's the basic rule. If there's thinkin 'should this be voted on?' then the answer is YES it should.
Why do I think it's not so valid now in the whole region of Europe? Well, because we didn't get to vote while several other places did.
It's not in the nature of democracy. In democracy, it SHOULD be freedom if you can give it away. I mean, if we were to elect a dictator, we should be able to, yes? Because it would be the choice of the majority. But if I belong to the minority, not wanting a dictator to be placed who will further strip down my freedoms, that surely is not democracy, because it's not in the nature of democracy.
If 50.1% votes that we should be able to oppress the 49.9%, that's not democracy, even though the majority voted so. Besides, none of the dudes I voted for is now in the parliament, basically meaning I have no representation in there, thus I did NOT elect these fools there to decide for me.
This is the welfare mind, socialist mind. We get our representors, and they decide everything for us, the state decides, because they know better. I don't share that view. I think some of the more 'unimportant' things should be decided in there, but the major issues, LIKE INSTALLING NEW CONSTITUTION, should be voted. And the reason we don't vote for it is because it wouldnt' pass in here. I say that smells foul, instead it seems you, and lefties in spesific don't smell foul but call technicality.
It's against the nature of free, if my choice is limited. I understand there's lots of people here so it's not like my view would win automatically. But at least we need to have a chance to vote on it and express our views and they'd be REALISTICALLY taken into account.
Not to mention we joined to the EU with false premises. It was promoted as 'there will be no federation, there will be no common currency. It will be merely to join to a common business region where the borders don't matter so much when doing business, and we don't need so much passport stuff. Also people will be able to move more freely inside EU. This means the prices in here will go down, especially food.'. NONE OF THESE HAPPENED. The OPPOSITE happened. Now I know you don't give a **** about this, and lefties don't give a **** about this, but when this was voted upon, these were the promises. So we are going with a false premise to begin with, I think that now the play has revealed itself, we should be ****ing able to vote about this constitution, that's the LEAST they can allow us to do.
This means, that the leaders of this country thinks, that we are too stupid to vote, because we would most likely vote No in majority. That would screw up some things, thus we can't allow that to happen.
That means that the politicians do know it won't go through in here, because this nation is rather skeptic by default, that means the constitution is not popular for sures, that means they are goign against the majority and forcing and bypassing what the people want. I say this sucks and is not the way it's supposed to go and that it makes the whole constitution lesser than it would be when it would be voted through (after it would be fixed few times so it would be popular). Now, case seems such where this constitution might be forced upon millions of people, where the ACTUAL majority did not want to be installed, what do you call that? I call it a scam. You call it OK because TECHNICALLY it can be done.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Colon
Treaties are a different creature than a constitution. The purpose of a constution is that it lays down the basic organisation of a government and how its power is limited. They're required to be relatively concise and coherent so that it can be understood by the general population. Additionally, it's a great bonus if its inspirational.
Is this the case? |
It isn't the case but the EU is not like anything done before either. Not that I'm justifying the absence of those elements youmention at the constitution.
Also unfortunately there was the historical in the EU accomodating to the political elites factor of the "silent consent". We go forward, the people don't really know, don't really care so we go forward (crudely stated).
That silent consent collapsed with the adventures of the maastricht treaty.
BTW if the con is voted down tomorrow I do think a large part will be also because of social frustration about the price hicks the introduction of the euro brought...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ted Striker
You guys will find your unification when you least expect it. It will involve meeting an external threat and uniting against it. Right now there is nothing that is galvanizing enough. You are just laying the foundation for something bigger later on.
Chirac tried to galvanize with Iraq, but it didn't quite work out.
|
The issue is wether there is an insentive to strengthen a common political voice, that's true, that's the basic question. And I'm pretty sure it will have to be viewed under the microscope of each national government separately. If economic integration is any indication then it does point out to a specific direction. Also I don't think the repercussions from the Iraq issue are absorbed just yet inside the EU.
In that issue Habermaas proposition gives some weight to the theory that low politics will crossover to high politics. That economic integration will lead "naturally" to a furthering of political integration. It discovers a concrete link between economic and political affairs and bases it on one of the most differantiating and self defining aspects of the European Union, the social state, that's why I thought what he said was interesting.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BeBro
Yep, I think the people should have their say about something like the EU con. OTOH even the governments of those countries which don't have a referendum have usually the legitimacy to decide about the con, because they were voted in by their people - that is representative democracy. |
There is a huge gap between the French political class and the French population on the European issue, and I suppose it's the same everywhere (I haven't precise data, but it's already been studied that there is a large value-gap between the German parliamentaries and the German people)
In the case of France, I've heard that the constitution would have been adopted by more than 90% of the seats in Parliament, which is a very different picture from what we'll have in the polls tomorrow.
This huge gap comes from the simple fact that the European issue isn't salient in domestic elections. During the parliamentary elections of 2002, I don't remember Europe being mentioned at all (the main issue was whether we wanted to have a right-wing president and a left-wing Parliament again).
Besides, the political class is a small world in itself, which teaches its own values to its members. The EU, as it is built today, is largely in accordance with the general values of this class. Much less so with the general population.
(In a few months, I should be able to tell you whether I pull this out of my ass or not. A friend of mine is currently making a comparison between the European opinions of the EU/national parliamentarians, and the general European population. If I think about it, I'll update this thread when I have the results.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:23
|
|
I have sorted those out for you guys in the first page of this thread. Mainly, the value owning thing.
Where classical example is Republicans owning the flag, and if you're not one of us, you're not a patriot. Or even if it's not played out like that, you can be accused to be unpatriotic when time and situation works for you. And unquestionably you would, as a conservative, be automatically more patriotic even though the man next to you might be 'a little patriotic' too.
The left complains about this, rightfully so. However at the same time they claim to own values too. And if you are not one, certainly if you are a conservative, you are anti-workers rights, you are against more liberal family models and what not. And most of all, you definitely believe in globalization which is automatically bad because it is run by big and rich corporations so the race isn't fair to begin with, making the rich more rich and poor more poor, and if not more poor then at least hogging the future opportunities.
Now, many lefties do believe this way without trying to force a stereotype on lefties. So, by default, because you are for this, you are for corporate freedom which means you somehow support giving them tax money to ensure their business 'edge', which ultimately just means giving money to businesses who are already the biggest, so that the small ones can't challenge them realistically, making the point of why globalisation will fail to provide anything else than extending the current power of large corporations where they yesterday weren't, now they are, and the only benefitors of that are really just the stock holders (rich people) and CEOs and they are ready to make unethical moves to ensure they are playing their 1st priority and responsiblity to the owners, stock holders, who don't give a crap because it's not them doing it, but they reap the rewards of it.
So, it leads to a situation where you support this, you are automatically for making rich people rich, against wealth distribution (an honest one), and you just want to keep yourself in the position you are now and keep others from gaining to you, or your friends.
So by that, the lefties claim to own the 'humanitarian' and other values, free healthcare, which is automatically good for all and at least better than other styles of handling the health care situation etc etc etc.
So while conservatives hog on other values, lefties hog on other values. Hey, it's not wrong, but it's wrong when you think, and conservatives think, that if I'm against your idea of something, I'm automatically for the other circle jerk club's ideas. There's the automical 'you think that? Then this and this rules out for you'. So this is the very same thing.
And who has been the most vocal about the value owning thing? THe lefties. Because the conservatives have been bringing it. What makes it a double standard is when you guys do the same. But you haven't been challenged for it, because the conservatives are more busy hogging on their own values. It's not like they're going to stop doing it. ANd it's not like the lefties are going to stop doing it. But we know when it comes to conservatives, it's BS the value thing, when supposedly others are not for it, or at least not so much as they are. But for a long time no one has called BS on lefties for the same thing.
And that's a double standard right there. I wish people wouldn't blame others so much for things they do themselves.
You see, I'm not right wing. I'm not left wing. It's difficult for a leftie to believe, but I'm not conservative, really. And it's difficult for right winger to believe I'm not leftie, which proves my point and position. I'm more of an outsider looking in a big match and bashing where monkeys throw poo on each other, and what lefties don't realize is their BS is exactly the same as the right wing BS. And vice versa. It's ridicolous. There's no limits to the hypocricy.
Does it make someone automatically a value claimer if they belong to left wing or right wing? Of course not. But.. the fact is most do it. And it woudl be counter productive to join any side, since the answer in most cases are A in some things and B in some things. That's why I oppose any freedom taking from myself. I don't want the right wing to take my freedom away, I don't want the left wing to take my freedom away. They can fight for the general procedures and things, but when it comes to individual stuff, I oppose ANYONE to restrict what is already gained. Freedom is universal value, not right wing or left wing. Right wing tries to hog and claim it though. Then again, left wing ideas sometimes are against freedom for individual by nature. So what you people should understand is when i came here to bash everyone of you, is that I don't like you limiting what I have gotten since I was born, and I don't like anyone else taking them either. I don't care which side or which flag the freedom limiter carries. They're going all down  .
I value the fact that I can play my position, which is no position. I don't want to belong to a society that is one or the other. I like ym society to just be, and let everyone think for themselves. If it leads to chaos, then **** it, it's not like we are going to live forever .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:23
|
|
And you play the same game, the both of you. Both of you point out to people like me with no position, that it's easy when you don't have to take a stand so you can just bash everyone... Well.. I don't like to join someone because I think I need to avoid that critique. What you must realize that both sides will accuse you of this, so in fact you might get even more bashing than one on the other side, you get both bashers on your ass if you start attacking someone. But it'snot something one should cry about, that's the.. that's what will happen so either accept it or join some side then. The most important thing is you have to be true to yourself and your own values, be it 'right wing or left wing values'.
I think, frankly, that it's stupid to have a side in bigger scheme of things when it comes to politics. What kind of track horses people are with blinders on, supporting your own side because there's the power and if you don't support it even when going against some issues in your own head, you od it because if you wouldn't, the whole power of the side and party would crumble. So basically, that's why I tihnk most people are whores.
And when someone comes to tell me about the plans implemented on me, OK, if I still have all the same freedoms it's OK by me MOST likely. If it's restricting in any way, THEN I want to be able to veto it. Because I believe freedom is a universal value. Everyone should have that value and if they don't,. well then they don't. But it's something everyone should be concerned about when making new rules and free society.
Because to implement new rules that will restrict everyone some, I do not believe it's a simple 50.1% majority, ok let's do it. And I do believe that freedom means that we can all operate on the same map. You can do your left wing thing, right wingers can do their thing, but none of them sure as hell won't start doing their thing over everyone else that means I have to give up for something, if I don't agree and it's against my freedom (this wouldn't mean if raising some tax 1%, I don't consider that a freedom issue).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BeBro
|
|
of the Krauts
Mar 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
I'm having difficulties to understand what you mean concretely, because I think you touch dozens of issues in your post. If we are still talking about the constitution - I already said over and over that I personally think it would be better to hold a referendum about it.
But if you can't vote for it it is a national issue. And I also do not understand really what you mean exactly by this 50,1 % talk - let's assume you would have public vote, but lose it (even if only with a small difference). Would you say then too the vote isn't valid? That is like saying "Ok, let's vote, but if I lose the result is illegal!" That has nothing to do with democracy. Similar some comments you made earlier, like:
quote:
If 50.1% votes that we should be able to oppress the 49.9%, that's not democracy, even though the majority voted so. Besides, none of the dudes I voted for is now in the parliament, basically meaning I have no representation in there, thus I did NOT elect these fools there to decide for me. |
Sorry, but if the guys you wanted had no success it does not mean that the guys who won make less valid decisions. You're basically saying they have no legitimacy because you do not like their POVs, and because the guys you like lost. That has nothing to do with democracy, and IMO it is contradicting your freedom talk of your last post.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-05-2005 23:49
|