<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Constitutions of Continents</title>
	<atom:link href="http://davecole.org/blog/2005/05/27/constitutions-of-continents/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://davecole.org/blog/2005/05/27/constitutions-of-continents/</link>
	<description>Thoughts, notes and comments</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:46:15 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: El Dave.</title>
		<link>http://davecole.org/blog/2005/05/27/constitutions-of-continents/#comment-41</link>
		<dc:creator>El Dave.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 May 2005 14:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://davecole.org/blog/?p=59#comment-41</guid>
		<description>I will post a longer reply when I have the time to do so, but it is worth looking at 2-1-III-18... which starts with 'workers shall have the right to move freely within the Union'.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;xD.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I will post a longer reply when I have the time to do so, but it is worth looking at 2-1-III-18&#8230; which starts with &#8216;workers shall have the right to move freely within the Union&#8217;.</p>
<p>xD.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Meaders</title>
		<link>http://davecole.org/blog/2005/05/27/constitutions-of-continents/#comment-40</link>
		<dc:creator>Meaders</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 May 2005 20:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://davecole.org/blog/?p=59#comment-40</guid>
		<description>You want chapter and verse? Okey-dokey:&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;"1. Articles 111-69, 70, 77, 144 and 180 all identically repeat that the Union will act 'in conformity with the respect for the principles of an open economic market where competition is free.'&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;2. There are numerous clauses that specifically correspond to demands made by certain employer organisations.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;3. The ECT demands unanimous voting for any measures that might go against corporate interests. This is the certainly case for measures against tax fraud, or taxation of companies. Such legislative movement in this regard requires a unanimous vote as, above all, "[it is] necessary for the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition." (111-63). Thus, any future proposed duty imposed on corporations would be subject to unanimous voting - something the Ouistes regularly trot out as being reduced under the ECT.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;4. Shockingly, the ECT demands all states' subservience to NATO: '[M]ember states shall undertake progressively to improve their military capacities.' (1-40-3). Article 1-40-2 says that European defence policy shall be compatible with members' NATO obligations, a direct recognition of the superior judicial status of that military organisation. Furthermore, the article continues with even greater precision that "participating member states shall work in close collaboration with NATO". Even in situations of "internal serious disturbances affecting public order, in cases of war or of [...] the threat of war", member states are obliged to work together in order to avoid "affecting" the functioning of the "internal market"! (III-16)'&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;5. Perhaps most disturbing in the ECT is clause 17 of the third section, regarding the question of the break-up of public services: It is permitted that a member state can be in favour of maintaining a public service. But public services have: "the effect of distorting the conditions of competition in the internal market, [and] the Commission shall, together with the state concerned, examine how these steps can be adjusted to the rules laid dawn in the Constitution. By derogation of common law procedure, the Commission or any member state can apply directly to the Court of Justice which will sit in secret..." (III-17)' Thus the constitution from the start commits member states to the ultimate elimination of public services."&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;(from the &lt;a HREF="http://apostatewindbag.blogspot.com/2005/05/pour-leurope-votez-non-leur.html" REL="nofollow"&gt;Apostate Windbag&lt;/a&gt;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You want chapter and verse? Okey-dokey:</p>
<p>&#8220;1. Articles 111-69, 70, 77, 144 and 180 all identically repeat that the Union will act &#8216;in conformity with the respect for the principles of an open economic market where competition is free.&#8217;</p>
<p>2. There are numerous clauses that specifically correspond to demands made by certain employer organisations.</p>
<p>3. The ECT demands unanimous voting for any measures that might go against corporate interests. This is the certainly case for measures against tax fraud, or taxation of companies. Such legislative movement in this regard requires a unanimous vote as, above all, &#8220;[it is] necessary for the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition.&#8221; (111-63). Thus, any future proposed duty imposed on corporations would be subject to unanimous voting - something the Ouistes regularly trot out as being reduced under the ECT.</p>
<p>4. Shockingly, the ECT demands all states&#8217; subservience to NATO: &#8216;[M]ember states shall undertake progressively to improve their military capacities.&#8217; (1-40-3). Article 1-40-2 says that European defence policy shall be compatible with members&#8217; NATO obligations, a direct recognition of the superior judicial status of that military organisation. Furthermore, the article continues with even greater precision that &#8220;participating member states shall work in close collaboration with NATO&#8221;. Even in situations of &#8220;internal serious disturbances affecting public order, in cases of war or of [...] the threat of war&#8221;, member states are obliged to work together in order to avoid &#8220;affecting&#8221; the functioning of the &#8220;internal market&#8221;! (III-16)&#8217;</p>
<p>5. Perhaps most disturbing in the ECT is clause 17 of the third section, regarding the question of the break-up of public services: It is permitted that a member state can be in favour of maintaining a public service. But public services have: &#8220;the effect of distorting the conditions of competition in the internal market, [and] the Commission shall, together with the state concerned, examine how these steps can be adjusted to the rules laid dawn in the Constitution. By derogation of common law procedure, the Commission or any member state can apply directly to the Court of Justice which will sit in secret&#8230;&#8221; (III-17)&#8217; Thus the constitution from the start commits member states to the ultimate elimination of public services.&#8221;</p>
<p>(from the <a HREF="http://apostatewindbag.blogspot.com/2005/05/pour-leurope-votez-non-leur.html" REL="nofollow">Apostate Windbag</a>)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://davecole.org/blog/2005/05/27/constitutions-of-continents/#comment-39</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 May 2005 18:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://davecole.org/blog/?p=59#comment-39</guid>
		<description>What's wrong with some free-market reforms? 1% annual growth in Germany and France while Britain and the US grow at 3% should suggest that some reform is needed. After all we seem to be in the bizarre situation that France and Germany are less pro-market than they were in the 1950s. Since when did stopping Polish plumbers from making a living and cartels become 'progressive'?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What&#8217;s wrong with some free-market reforms? 1% annual growth in Germany and France while Britain and the US grow at 3% should suggest that some reform is needed. After all we seem to be in the bizarre situation that France and Germany are less pro-market than they were in the 1950s. Since when did stopping Polish plumbers from making a living and cartels become &#8216;progressive&#8217;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: El Dave.</title>
		<link>http://davecole.org/blog/2005/05/27/constitutions-of-continents/#comment-38</link>
		<dc:creator>El Dave.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 May 2005 22:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://davecole.org/blog/?p=59#comment-38</guid>
		<description>Come on, Meaders. Chapter and verse or, rather, give me the clause.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;xD.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Come on, Meaders. Chapter and verse or, rather, give me the clause.</p>
<p>xD.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Meaders</title>
		<link>http://davecole.org/blog/2005/05/27/constitutions-of-continents/#comment-37</link>
		<dc:creator>Meaders</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 May 2005 21:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://davecole.org/blog/?p=59#comment-37</guid>
		<description>(the cautious "- at a minimum -" is a giveaway, hm?)&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;If you're going to ask people to "read the constitution", you'd better be prepared to deal with questions about its explicitly pro free-market content.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The signs are looking good for Sunday, however.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(the cautious &#8220;- at a minimum -&#8221; is a giveaway, hm?)</p>
<p>If you&#8217;re going to ask people to &#8220;read the constitution&#8221;, you&#8217;d better be prepared to deal with questions about its explicitly pro free-market content.</p>
<p>The signs are looking good for Sunday, however.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Meaders</title>
		<link>http://davecole.org/blog/2005/05/27/constitutions-of-continents/#comment-36</link>
		<dc:creator>Meaders</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 May 2005 21:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://davecole.org/blog/?p=59#comment-36</guid>
		<description>"...to say that the 48% who didn't vote for Bush are somehow part of the radical left or even committed to another world is bollocks."&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Absolutely agree. Fortunately, it's not what I said.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;&#8230;to say that the 48% who didn&#8217;t vote for Bush are somehow part of the radical left or even committed to another world is bollocks.&#8221;</p>
<p>Absolutely agree. Fortunately, it&#8217;s not what I said.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
