Thank you, Ireland!

On the other side, Ireland is acting like complete fuckers, because they were by far the poorest country to join the EU, got billions of money from the EU to get rich again, are now one of the richest EU countries and act like this. Fuckers. Bite the hand that fed them.

If you are pissed now, just wait until all of Europe is called "The United States of Europe" (just guessing on the name) with individual countries dissolved and becoming states of a larger entity. Already individual countries currency has been wiped out, there are no more formal borders; soon there will be only one language. Take a wild guess what that will be.

If you thought the Civil War in America was bloody....
 
It will go this way: The central european states like BeNeLux, Germany, France, Italy etc will just do it, the rest will be left out as "second class eu". As easy as that.

On the other side, Ireland is acting like complete fuckers, because they were by far the poorest country to join the EU, got billions of money from the EU to get rich again, are now one of the richest EU countries and act like this. Fuckers. Bite the hand that fed them.

Uhm interesting, I was wondering, whether the hostile proclamations of the German politicians actually reflect the views of the German people and it seems they may as well do. It's true that Ireland used to be getting ridiculous money from the EU, even in times, when it already was a rich country. But than just doesn't impair it's right to veto treaties. I'm all for reducing the level of redistribution of money in the EU, especially when it comes to agricultural subsidies, but that is, on the other hand, blocked by France. And lets not forget about the German populist obstructions when it comes to one of the core values of the EU, the free movement of workforce.

The countries that you mentioned will just do what, actually? The rhetoric of the europhiles seems pretty similar to the one of the environmentalists to me - if you don't agree with us, you're a bad person and as a result, apocalypse will follow, but I fail to see any substance behind all the florid language. And that, I think, is essentially why the Irish rejected the treaty of Lisbon. The opponents offered clear arguments, possibly largely untrue, but who knows, since hardly anyone in the world has ever read the treaty.

I was using the 1st amendment and free speech as the easiest examples. Insert whatever you want in there, but a succinct document is better. See Jetsetter's posts.

Still, regardless of the fact that the document in question was called the constitution at a certain point, it still is just an international treaty and it cannot really be compared to constitutions of actual countries.
 
It will go this way: The central european states like BeNeLux, Germany, France, Italy etc will just do it, the rest will be left out as "second class eu". As easy as that.

That remind you of anything? The original EU was just 12 member countries, and when the UK realised it was missing / when De Gaulle let the UK in, then it enlarged.

If you are pissed now, just wait until all of Europe is called "The United States of Europe" (just guessing on the name) with individual countries dissolved and becoming states of a larger entity. Already individual countries currency has been wiped out, there are no more formal borders; soon there will be only one language. Take a wild guess what that will be.

If you thought the Civil War in America was bloody....

This seems a bit 'doom-and-gloom'. For one, a common currency is a great idea - think of how awkward and difficult it would be if each state of the US had a separate currency. The Euro gives Europe as a whole greater purchasing power and greater financial stability. It's also incredibly handy if I go on holiday to Spain from here. Formal border removal is equally great - no more queueing to enter countries, be it by road, train or aeroplane. Freedom of movement and all that. Again, think how annoying it would be if there were formal borders between US states.

The 'one language' thing will never happen, though. For one, in schools across the EU (even in England), kids grow up learning another European language. For two, yes, as English gets more and more useful odds are more and more people will speak it. That doesn't mean it will take over, though. National language is too much linked into national identity in most European countries for that to happen. In France alone there's a dedicated institution that protects and promotes the language.


As for the Lisbon Treaty itself; again, I've not read it nor really read summaries, although I plan to, so I can't comment.
 
An interesting thing to consider is that each U.S. state has its own constitution, many quite a bit longer than the United States Constitution (8,700 words). For example, California: 35,000 words, Maryland: 47,000 words, Texas: 98,000 words, Alabama: 172,000 words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_constitution_(United_States)

STATE CONSTITUTIONS

It must be clearly understood- whether the reader of this be a native-born American, a naturalized Citizen of the United States (no matter how long ago or how recent the naturalization) or even a citizen of another land- that, in the Federal System that makes the United States of America a federation of just those- united STATES, these States are the essential Unitary bodies in this System: that is, the political equivalent- without, of course, the independence- of Unitary Nation-States elsewhere in the World. In the closing years of the 19th Century, political scientist Hannis Taylor correctly- and wisely- pointed out that the equivalent of Parliament in Great Britain was not the Congress of the United States (although those two bodies do have in common being the legislatures of independent Nation-States recognized as such under International Law) but, rather, the legislatures of the constituent States of the Union.

The American Revolution itself was fought, at least in part, on the political theory (at least according to the ultimately victorious Patriot side in that conflict) that the colonial assemblies (which would soon evolve into State legislatures) were, in fact, "mini-Parliaments" and that the newly independent States were, therefore, "mini-Englands", the legislatures of which were as capable of making law on behalf of their citizens as Parliament in Westminster itself was for the subjects of the British Crown on the "home island"; therefore, as far as the Patriots were concerned, there need not necessarily be either interference or oversight from London. Along with the Loyalist side, the British Crown and its Ministers, of course, most strongly disagreed with this assumption- but, after all, they ended up on the losing side in this particular dispute- and, while the average American most likely has very little, if any, cognizance of his or her State's legislators being much more the lineal descendants of 18th Century MPs than his or her Congressman might claim to be, it would behoove the reader to recognize this simple truth in attempting to understand the American Federal System.

Thus, each State of the Union has its own written Constitution- one of the fundamental theses of American politics so requiring just such a written instrument of governance as the fundamental charter, the fountainhead of Law, of any jurisdiction with its own inherent Sovereignty. The fact of the matter is that the Federal System is, indeed, "federal" precisely because of its containing dual Sovereignty- that of the Federal Government on the National level and that of each constituent State of the federation known as the United States of America- and, in America, where there is Sovereignty, it must be defined by a written Constitution. Let there be any doubt of the truth of the first two paragraphs of this piece and it is shown most effectively by accessing this "Constitution.phtml" table and sorting its contents by other than the default alphabetical arrangement: 15 American Constitutions are seen to have been in force before the delegates to the Convention of 1787 which would frame the Federal Constitution had even arrived in Philadelphia in May 1787 (there were 11 of the "original 13" States which had drafted at least one Constitution by 1787 [Connecticut and Rhode Island, for the time being, opting to continue to use their colonial Charters as de facto "State Constitutions"]- 2 of these were on their second such document by 1787; Vermont- having declared itself independent of New York- had also drafted two Constitutions by 1787); add to this the fact that the Articles of Confederation which ostensibly governed the nascent United States of America prior to the 1787 Constitution- if only by definition of the very word "confederation"- recognized the quasi-independent status of the States and the point made in this introductory segment should be most clear.

Ordered Numbering

The ordered numbering of State Constitutions in the Constitutions.phtml table follows the best educated conclusions of the staff of TheGreenPapers.com. However, in quite a few cases, our numbering does not necessarily conform to that used by a given State; just to take one such example, the case of New Hampshire (where that State considers its current Constitution as being that dating from 1784, though the table on our site indicates otherwise) is instructive: likewise, a situation where a State has recodified its Constitution (that is, worked any and all amendments adopted thereto into the body of the document itself and, in addition, often rearranged its sections within Articles even where these sections have not been amended by those doing the recodification) subsequent to the document's original adoption/ratification.

Another dicey historical area involves 8 of the 11 States which seceded from the Union to form the old Confederacy (all but Mississippi, Tennessee and Virginia) and, as a result, altered their State Constitutions in 1861, primarily to remove references in their fundamental documents to "the United States of America" and replace these with references to "the Confederate States of America"; some of these States count these altered Civil War-vintage documents as separate Constitutions, while others do not: upon reading each of these 1861 documents and comparing them to the Constitutions that would otherwise have been in force that year, the staff of TheGreenPapers.com has opted not to count any of these 8 as separate Constitutions.

Adoption date

The date of a Constitution's adoption is usually that on which the drafting body (much more often than not, a Constitutional Convention specifically called and elected for that purpose) gives final approval to the document; however, quite a few times, the date of adoption reflects the date the drafting body proclaimed the document to be the Constitution of the State after a separate ratification (often by a vote of the People of the State). A careful reading of any notes (besides any notation re: the date the drafting body convened) underneath the Adoption date should indicate where this latter scenario was, indeed, the case.

Ratification date

In the early days of State Constitution-making, it was quite uncommon to submit the document to the People for their ratification by majority vote at the polls; the theory in the late 18th Century going into the early 19th was that a Constitutional Convention was as much a body representative of the People as the State's legislature itself and that there was, thus, no need to have the People ratify the work once such a drafting body had formally adopted the document and then proclaimed it the Constitution of the State. However, ever since the democratic waves of the so-called "Jacksonian Revolution" began to break upon the republican foundations of the several States of the Union in the early mid-19th Century, the concept of a drafting body not submitting a Constitution to the People for their approval as tantamount to ratification of the document has become quite the rare thing. The notes underneath a given date in this column should clarify not just when the document was ratified but also how it was ratified (that is, answer the question: was it submitted to the People by the drafting body or not?)

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/slg/explanation-constitution.phtml
 
Last edited:
And the US Constitution is loosely based on the Magna Carta, which is also similarly short, yet no less critical to the development of Western Civilization :)

Steve

The US Constitution is mostly based on the Roman Republic. There are sections influenced by British law, but it is mostly Roman based.

On the other side, Ireland is acting like complete fuckers, because they were by far the poorest country to join the EU, got billions of money from the EU to get rich again, are now one of the richest EU countries and act like this. Fuckers. Bite the hand that fed them.

Yes because Ireland should just blindly vote for a treaty that few understand (that also had been rejected by most of Europe when known under a different name) because they received aid.
 
The fact that it is vague allows it to adapt and change. Citizens can debate meanings and issues.

This a good thing. The more specific a document is the less likely it is to change. There have been over 10,000 proposed amendments to the Constitution over the past few hundred years and some have passed. Many were debated and voted upon. If you begin with all of the rules in place you loose that debate.

So we have to agree to accept various "interpretations" of the Bible and the Quran depending on what people think it means?

If we were to write these things new today chances are they would also be longer and more specific...... times change. We know much more now than we did a thousand years ago so improving upon documentation is only a time saver for re-debating stuff already debated.
 
The US Constitution is mostly based on the Roman Republic. There are sections influenced by British law, but it is mostly Roman based.

You have that reversed.
 
You have that reversed.

How so?

President = Consul
Senate = Senate
House of Representatives = Plebeian Council
Electoral Collage = Comitia Centuriata
 
Last edited:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_systems_of_the_world

Here is a map for you:
LegalSystemsOfTheWorldMap.png


Those in blue owe more to the Roman tradition than those in red.

Common law and equity are systems of law whose sources are the decisions in cases by judges. Alongside, every system will have a legislature that passes new laws and statutes, however these do not amend a collected and codified body of law(ie Roman/Civil law). Common law developed in England, influenced by the Norman conquest of England which introduced legal concepts from Norman law and Islamic law. Common law was later inherited by the Commonwealth of Nations, and almost every former colony of the British Empire (Malta being an exception). The doctrine of stare decisis or precedent by courts is the major difference to codified civil law systems.

Common law is currently in practice in Ireland, most of the United Kingdom (England and Wales and Northern Ireland), Australia, India, South Africa, Canada (excluding Quebec), Hong Kong and the United States (excluding Louisiana) and many more places. In addition to these countries, several others have adapted the common law system into a mixed system. For example, Pakistan and Nigeria operate largely on a common law system, but incorporate religious law.
 
Last edited:
Yes the US does use common law, but the government structure is Roman.
 
So, our jurisprudence finds its root in England while our structure is Roman? Just wanted to make sure we're all straight on that.
 
On the other side, Ireland is acting like complete fuckers, because they were by far the poorest country to join the EU, got billions of money from the EU to get rich again, are now one of the richest EU countries and act like this. Fuckers. Bite the hand that fed them.

Exactly. Why can't we just say kthxbye to them and take all our money back?
If they didn't want to be in the EU they shouldn't have taken the money first
 
Exactly. Why can't we just say kthxbye to them and take all our money back?
If they didn't want to be in the EU they shouldn't have taken the money first
Take your money back? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union
Member State Total Contribution(?, 2006) Total Contribution (%,2006) Total Expenditure(?, 2006) Total Expenditure(%, 2006) Net(?, 2006)
Belgium 2,635,200,000 3.0% 5,625,100,000 5.8% 2,989,900,000
 
^^Then the EU should give us our money back since we have paid allot more then we have received from the EU!
 
Last edited:
And those poor people should stop sleeping in the cots I payed for at the homeless shelter and should instead get a job moving those cots back into my house, greedy homeless fools!
 
I can't blame them. Have you actually seen the E.U. Constitution(this new treaty)? It's a 160,000 word "book" full of legal terminology. Compare this to the 4,600 word United States Constitution and you can see my point. It seems to have been created for use by politicians and lawyers, that is about it.

Not only does it have 160 000 words, but having read small portions of it, I can tell you that it is FULL, and i mean CHOCK FULL of references to other treaties and legislation, which are also biblical in length.:mad: All in all, if you really wanted to understand every word of it, you would have to spend several years reading.. The EU is fucked up, I mean, it started off ok, what with the introduction of Euro and several legislations, but its SERIOUSLY going downhill. If(When) I become the prime minister of Finland, its bye, bye, baby, goodbye to EU and a big, warm, fuzzy welcome to individuality, and freedom, I mean, switzerland is managing just fine.

so, THANK YOU IRELAND!!

Btw, did I mention that the Lizbon treaty is BULLSHIT, there are so many things wrong with it that I cant be bothered to write them down here, but basically, it takes power further away from people, and give is to EU comissaires(spelling?), which are only VERY loosely selected by the general public.

Hell, if you want to know more (im sure my limited english skills might cause some problems with you understanding that text up there, not to mention the typo's), just ask, this is one of the few things I actually want to inform people on, its just so fucking unbelievable..

Oh, and btw, IF EU put the new constitution into action anyway, disregarding the Ireland vote, I will have lost ALL HOPE in EU, it's just damnright WRONG!!:mad::mad::mad:

-God thats a long post.
 
Last edited:
Take your money back? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union
Member State Total Contribution(?, 2006) Total Contribution (%,2006) Total Expenditure(?, 2006) Total Expenditure(%, 2006) Net(?, 2006)
Belgium 2,635,200,000 3.0% 5,625,100,000 5.8% 2,989,900,000

hey, it's not like us Belgiums took all the money and then said : "Well I like taking money from you but other than that we don't want nothing to do with you".

(we didn't even get a referendum here, btw, so we had no choice whether to say yes or no. I would have voted YES btw)
 
hey, it's not like us Belgiums took all the money and then said : "Well I like taking money from you but other than that we don't want nothing to do with you".

(we didn't even get a referendum here, btw, so we had no choice whether to say yes or no. I would have voted YES btw)

Yeah but since you're getting lots of money from the EU too, it's not a very good argument to use against other countries. Every country agreed to enter the EU under conditions that applied at the date of entry. It's not like they automatically agreed to agree with all changes that will ever be put forward. So far we only have one person on this thread, who has even read the treaty, so I don't know how can you tell that the Irish have done a bad thing. Either way, if the ratification process continues now, it will be a huge blow for democracy and a sign that the rules only apply to some countries.
 
Top