Dan wrote:A couple years back I read large amounts of the original treaty that was voted down, and it was an unworkable, bureaucratic nightmare of a document. I doubt this one was much better.
Am actually sick, of such puny levels of argumentation, and popular slants.
a) provide evidence to your claim(ie bureaucratic nightmare)
b) when you do provide evidence of this "nightmare", then juxtapose it with the elements amended and prove that even this nightmare is a nightmare indeed as juxtaposed to the good elements coming out of it.
Then, you have a case. Otherwise as Isocrates tells us, it is better to remain silent.
1) Me arguing against this Treaty as a European, has nothing to do with your argumentation against the Treaty, which means that you cannot use my arguments.
TIG wrote:If they have nothing to hide, then they're going to have to do some work in showing themselves to be transparent to the people of Europe and do their best to educate people who their representatives are, what parties they belong to, how they're chosen, and so on and so forth - even if that wastes a few years. The alternative, to just have some foggy conception of mutli-national bureaucrats forcing everyone to do whatever they say despite their repeated requests to stop isn't going to do anybody a hell of a lot of good.
First of all your argument is false, because it is based on the fact that, there have been requests against this alleged bureaucracy, the majority has sided with the bureaucracy so your argument is moot. Ofc, the European consensus law, forces the EU to amend the Treaty(on the end) but
it does not force her to abandon the ratification process.Again, i reject the Treaty too, but for dfiferent reasons, parroting marxist maxims, is not argumentation, it is merely parroting.
Nets wrote:Basically. I prefer a divided, squabbling weak Europe to the emerging one.
Ofc, you do. But then again anti-ism is not ethnic or culturally dependent.
Nets wrote:What!?
Europe has a truckload of skeletons in its closet, as does just about every race/state/region/etc.
Here is some "constructive argumentation", as above; trolling is neither ethnic nor culturally dependent.
------------------------------------
For the European perspective, this Treaty should not go through at this stage, BECAUSE, the major EU powers, like France, Britain and Germany, are not ready yet to assume command. This is obvious considering their latest political decisions through their involvement in international politics. This is the major reason why the European regime should not be formed at this particular stage.
This reason can be broken down with further elaboration, but since the ignorance is at such levels, that people simply do not get it. It would be a moot practice.
Finally, personally as an Ellinas, i should be FOR, this Treaty because my country's strategic interests have become perfectly aligned with the major EU powers, and their policy(either united or not), will produce benefits overall. Not out of love or compassion, but out of necessity. But as a European, i am unsure if the same can be said for everybody, and one could argue that the Lisbon Treaty could speedify the process for those who this cannot be said yet. Perhaps, but why not wait just a little bit more? One could argue because of the oil crisis and the resulting economic stagnation of the major economic EU motors. Perhaps, in all honesty, someone needs to be in the higher echelons to produce such argumentation.
EN EL ED EM ON
...take your common sense with you, and leave your prejudices behind...
- By Rancid
- By Rugoz
- By Doug64