Comments on: “Another Europe is possible”: Jurgen Habermas and the EU constitution

By: Jarndyce

Jarndyce — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:11:13 +0000

Fuck off Felix.

By: felix johnson

felix johnson — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:04:02 +0000

hello
i am mr felix johson
a certified and approved loan lender who give out loans to individuals and companies facing one financial problem or the other. so if you are intrested you contact me via my mail box on how much loan you need and how urgent it is needed

By: Meaders

Meaders — Sun, 29 May 2005 12:26:07 +0000

dearieme – ‘Ã¢â‚¬Å“the continent responsible for slavery, colonialism and genocide the world overÃ¢â‚¬Â: responsibility resides in individuals, not continents nor their peoples. Yours is pretty near to a racist comment.’

First, generalisations about “Europe” do not work: while one side can see liberal democracy, welfare states, great cultural milestones, the other can just as easily claim “slavery, colonialism and genocide”. That is precisely why I raised the point: the “European ideal” is flawed; moreover, the balance lies towards condemning such an “ideal” since those crimes I highlighted were too often committed with precisely that vision of “civilised” Europe as their ideological point of reference.

Second, and perhaps more worryingly, you appear to be pretty near to Jean-Marie Le Pen’s position if you think there is anything like a European “race”.

By: Nosemonkey

Nosemonkey — Fri, 27 May 2005 09:50:55 +0000

Phil – there is a “thou shalt not alter this” clause, but no one takes it seriously, because they’re blatantly going to have to alter it at some point if they want further expansion or more integration.

Which, natually enough, leads one to wonder why the hell they included it anyway…

By: The Sharpener » “Europe is not ambitious enough”

The Sharpener » “Europe is not ambitious enough” — Fri, 27 May 2005 09:43:49 +0000

[…] “a 500-page pull-together of all previous EU Treaties”) is, as I’ve said elsewhere before that it’s looking to sort out the present and the clutter of the past, not t […]

By: Jarndyce

Jarndyce — Fri, 27 May 2005 06:29:29 +0000

My main objection to the proposal on the table right now and your 'alternative' Meaders would be this: I'm not sure a Constitution really ought to be doing any of this stuff. That's for politics. All I really want from a Constitution is a set of rules to answer the question "how are things going to work round here?", plus some fundamental rights and responsibilities laid down in plain language. So, even where I'm sympathetic to your line (Where genuine progress in Europe has occurred, it has not been because of our vainglorious ruling classes; it has been in spite of them. Democracy, fundamental rights, welfare states were all forcibly extracted, continent-wide.), I'm not sure it's relevant to the Constitution debate.

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 26 May 2005 23:07:58 +0000

Have you ever been to a Social Forum? I have, and I have been to conferences among evil capitalists organising the technocratic EU, and I know which is more effective and more sensible, and far less authoritarian.

By: detrimental postulation » damn and blast

detrimental postulation » damn and blast — Thu, 26 May 2005 18:48:45 +0000

[…] m with… everything — Rob @ 7.48 pm

I had a big post on Meaders’ big post on Habermas and the EU Constitution, but for some reason everything crashed when I went to post it ear […]

By: Phil

Phil — Thu, 26 May 2005 17:26:47 +0000

Once you stop seeing it as a permanent new constitution, and instead treat it as yet another EU treaty which can be revised and replaced ad infinitum, it is rather easier to support

Eh? Doesn’t it come with a Thou Shalt Not Revise This Constitution clause? (Which in itself would be an excellent reason for voting No. An irreversible movement towards European integration might be a good thing, but you can’t legislate it into existence.)

What they should have done, of course, is taken a bit more bloody time over working out alternatives and consulting the people of Europe at every possible opportunity.

No disagreement there.

By: dearieme

dearieme — Thu, 26 May 2005 17:21:34 +0000

“the continent responsible for slavery, colonialism and genocide the world over”: responsibility resides in individuals, not continents nor their peoples. Yours is pretty near to a racist comment.