EU Constitution

On this occasion I have to disagree with you, Lim, and here's why:
Maybe you know there exists what we call a French European model economy and an American style economy that we had in Britain for decades. Now the European model economy has the disadvantage of slower economic growth but standards of welfare are far higher than in the U.S. As a Spanish friend of mine once remarked, a long-term unemployed American is literally left on the street, while a long-term unemployed French person or German can be almost prosperous. I mean that if you're out of work in France you're on 100 sterling a week and you're allowed to keep any money you earn working on the side.
Now, consider the cost of the U.K. and America's poor welfare, cheap labour ethic. Sure, they have fast economic growth but massive crime and a massive prison population. Most of the profit they get from fast economic growth is spent on keeping people in prison and in the U.K. there isn't enough space left in prisons to house the numbers of people who opt for crime.
This is what the French protest is about, standards of living. They don't want an Anglo/American style economy but they do want lower working hours, time with the family, high welfare and health care and high pensions.
The U.K. may have faster economic growth than, say, Spain but no way can we compare living standards in the 2 countries. We have poorer pensions, lower wages and worse health care. By the admission of a Texan I knew who worked with me as a business partner in Spain, he says living standards in northern Spain are light years ahead of the part of the U.S. he came from.
Good for the French, I say. If they don't want low benefits, cheap labour and high crime, they should say "non" and bring the constitution down. After all, the E.U. was France's project and France should be able to dictate what model economy we choose. I'd rather live slower and better than let rich companies make big money while we all work till 70 years old for a miserly wage.

limerickman said:

This week, France has to vote "Oui" ou "Non" to ratify the EU Constitution in their country.

The issue of an EU Constitution is a vexed question.
The Constitution is neither left leaning or right leaning.
The Constitution does enshrine workers rights, human rights but it also takes away some sovereign powers from member states.
It does have implications for trade between the EU and non-EU countries.

Each EU member country has to ratify the Constitution before it is enshrined and
enacted throughout the EU.

Personally, I would like to see an EU Constitution and I hope that the French do vote Yes this weekend.

limerickman said:

This week, France has to vote "Oui" ou "Non" to ratify the EU Constitution in their country.

The issue of an EU Constitution is a vexed question.
The Constitution is neither left leaning or right leaning.
The Constitution does enshrine workers rights, human rights but it also takes away some sovereign powers from member states.
It does have implications for trade between the EU and non-EU countries.

Each EU member country has to ratify the Constitution before it is enshrined and
enacted throughout the EU.

Personally, I would like to see an EU Constitution and I hope that the French do vote Yes this weekend.

When the time comes, would England, Scotland, & Ireland vote independently or as "The U.K." 😕

davidmc said:

When the time comes, would England, Scotland, & Ireland vote independently or as "The U.K." 😕

:eek:

Just out of interest did Chili and Argentina vote in the American presidential elections. It was for America, right? No really, its an equally daft question.

Thanks for the heads up MountainPro 🙂

davidmc said:

When the time comes, would England, Scotland, & Ireland vote independently or as "The U.K." 😕

England and Scotland will vote as part of the UK, Ireland isnt part of the UK so it will vote the way Ireland feels. It is a pro-European country so the Irish will probably vote YES in large numbers.

StartledPancake said:

:eek:

Chilli

i could murder a burrito right now, i'm starving...

limerickman said:

This week, France has to vote "Oui" ou "Non" to ratify the EU Constitution in their country.

The issue of an EU Constitution is a vexed question.
The Constitution is neither left leaning or right leaning.
The Constitution does enshrine workers rights, human rights but it also takes away some sovereign powers from member states.
It does have implications for trade between the EU and non-EU countries.

Each EU member country has to ratify the Constitution before it is enshrined and
enacted throughout the EU.

Personally, I would like to see an EU Constitution and I hope that the French do vote Yes this weekend.

Unfortunatly theres only a yes or no response, I would vote no and vote yes for a greatly simplfied version. 200 pages is insanity, a constitution shouldnt be something thats beyond the average citizens comprehension.

MountainPro said:

i could murder a burrito right now, i'm starving...

Careful you dont get one loaded with E coli 0157 or it might murder you right back again...

I'm hoping the French vote "non". So far as I can fathom, the E.U. has been built up from zilch by France and Germany, while many other countries scoffed at the whole idea of an E.U. superpower. So, if the French now feel Europe is losing the values it was built on (high welfare, high pensions, high salaries e.t.c.) they should ground the present constitution.
The danger is that the zeal to overtake the U.S. economy will give rise to a drop in living standards, higher crime and worse protection against poverty.
I think it would be a mistake for Europe to try and copy the U.S. since Europe is totally different than the U.S. and you can't compare each culturally diverse E.U. State with an American State. It would also be a mistake to drop standards simply in order to try and rival China's fast economic growth (at the price of cheap, exploitative labour).

Carrera said:

I'm hoping the French vote "non". So far as I can fathom, the E.U. has been built up from zilch by France and Germany, while many other countries scoffed at the whole idea of an E.U. superpower. So, if the French now feel Europe is losing the values it was built on (high welfare, high pensions, high salaries e.t.c.) they should ground the present constitution.
The danger is that the zeal to overtake the U.S. economy will give rise to a drop in living standards, higher crime and worse protection against poverty.
I think it would be a mistake for Europe to try and copy the U.S. since Europe is totally different than the U.S. and you can't compare each culturally diverse E.U. State with an American State. It would also be a mistake to drop standards simply in order to try and rival China's fast economic growth (at the price of cheap, exploitative labour).

Blimey Carrera, I am finding myself agreeing with you. I can't see much point in working yourself to death and being miserable while you do it. That is way too puritanical for my tastes.

darkboong said:

Blimey Carrera, I am finding myself agreeing with you. I can't see much point in working yourself to death and being miserable while you do it. That is way too puritanical for my tastes.

Im a Brit living on the continent, people in the UK dont realise that they have nothing to fear from Europe except a general increase in their living standards. Im suprised that the Labour Party dont point this out, unless of course it would also let the UK populace know they are doing a [censored] job!

StartledPancake said:

Im a Brit living on the continent, people in the UK dont realise that they have nothing to fear from Europe except a general increase in their living standards. Im suprised that the Labour Party dont point this out, unless of course it would also let the UK populace know they are doing a [censored] job!

Aren't you at ALL CONCERNED with being at the mercy of politicos in Brussels?

Seems to me, that as power becomes centralized, it trends toward tyranny. History is replete with examples.

coolworx said:

Aren't you at ALL CONCERNED with being at the mercy of politicos in Brussels?

Seems to me, that as power becomes centralized, it trends toward tyranny. History is replete with examples.

Are you talking about the United States? Oooh controversial!! That country isnt confined to history though, well just yet anyway.

As I work nights, I've been watching these kinds of debates on Dateline London on the B.B.C. There's a problem, of course. The Americans have a very loose, flexible economy that was totally reflected in the U.K. during the Thatcher years. The said system favours the employer and allows an employer to fire an employee with relative ease, welfare is low if you lose your job, pensions are lower and living standards aren't as high as they are in Europe. I had a friend from Texas who agreed with me totally since he left the U.S. to run a language school in Spain. He openly stated the Spanish work less, spend more time with the family and have excellent pensions and health care, plus the numerous public holidays.
The U.S. system works fine when the global economy is in good shape and you can walk from one job into another. But this is no longer the case since the American worker who loses his job may face a far tougher time than a French worker who has more access to welfare. This is why crime in America is such a problem and why we also have so many problems with crime in the U.K. In my opinion, poverty and crime go hand in hand so it's a case of low welfare= high crime or high welfare= less crime.
How much does the U.S. spend per annum keeping people in prison? How much does it cost to simply keep one street mugger behind bars when half the money could have been directed towards a payment in welfare that would have eliminated the mugging it may have led to. Not that I'm justifying crime or muggings but I am convinced you can greatly reduce crime by investing in welfare and this is why France and Germany have far smaller prison populations.It's less of a rat race.
So, my point is why should the French want to sign up to a constitution that's going to lower living standards in France, encourage sweat shop labour, lower protection against poverty and weaker trade unions? No way will the French put up with it in the long run.
Germany isn't happy either. Germany is being urged to reduce welfare spending and lower working standards but the German people may well rebel. The problem is Germany's economy is in trouble and falling well behind the U.S. due to the expenses involved running a company in Germany (as opposed to, say, China). Germany's huge economy has been very much underminded by cheaper labour Asian economies and this is a tough problem to solve.
But my final point is the U.K. has been dragged kicking and screaming towards a more European model economy with a minimum wage and slightly better labour rights than we had in the past. This is why people voted for Labour but the truth is these rights were pushed forward by Europe and the Labour Party simply signed up to the Social Charter.
Still, another good post by Limerickman and one that is being discussed a lot these days.

darkboong said:

Blimey Carrera, I am finding myself agreeing with you. I can't see much point in working yourself to death and being miserable while you do it. That is way too puritanical for my tastes.

StartledPancake said:

Are you talking about the United States? Oooh controversial!! That country isnt confined to history though, well just yet anyway.

The United States certainly is becoming more federally centralized (a function of both major Political parties, as well an activist federal Judiciary).

And that is exactly the scenario that the founding fathers warned against. That is why they included this passage:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

When the pencil pushers start regulating every bit-o-life around you, remember my warning.

StartledPancake said:

:eek:

Just out of interest did Chili and Argentina vote in the American presidential elections. It was for America, right? No really, its an equally daft question.

Thanks for the heads up MountainPro 🙂

Apparently you've never heard of The U.K. 😕 It doesn't suprise me. They are also potential candidates for the E.U., non 😕

I have been following the debate quite closely.
The French people who are willing to vote "oui" appear to be doing so because they think that they will earn more money by making their economy more liberal.
The "non" vote want to retain their more social economy.

I worked with some German collegues, years ago, and they were made redundant by their parent company.
For the first six months on social security, they get 3/4's of their finishing salary.
If you're made redundant here, you get €150.00 (£100.00 stg) a week.
So we are in Europe, but we don't have the fully social economic model in this country.

I would like to see the "non" vote win - but I want to see the full social economy applied throughout Europe and not just Germany/france/Spain/italy.

limerickman said:

If you're made redundant here, you get €150.00 (£100.00 stg) a week.

AFAIK on the UK Mainland the rate is £55 stg/week and it's means tested. Further : Any work you do (paid or unpaid) is subtracted from that.

darkboong said:

AFAIK on the UK Mainland the rate is £55 stg/week and it's means tested. Further : Any work you do (paid or unpaid) is subtracted from that.

It's the same here : any money earned is deducted for welfare.
There is no state help for mortgage repayments/utility bills (subject to means test).

A mate of mine went from earning €50k per year to the dole (made redundant, with no redundancy).
Banks were practically terrorising him over the mortgage and his repayments.

StartledPancake said:

:eek:

Thanks for the heads up MountainPro 🙂

no probs....i would love to visit Chile one day..