"Don’t bother reading that long, boring, EU Constitution!" says the New York Times when discussing the “no” vote in France…http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/30/international/europe/30france.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5094&en=ac5a223e7e2d8b52&hp&ex=1117425600&partner=homepage...let us sum it up for you!
The constitution is essentially a vehicle to streamline decision-making in the expanded 25-member bloc and a blueprint for the next stage of its growth and unification.
OK, the Times makes it’s mission statement here; now it goes on to tell us essentially what “essentially” means here:
It eliminates the six-month rotating European Union presidency, creating a president with a maximum five-year term;
“Creating a President”; not “Electing” a President? Who votes on this President, the citizens of the EU or their intellectual elites in Brussels? Well, eliminating the messy process of voting does "streamline decision making…"
details a list of basic rights;
That’s huge, determining what your basic rights are or entail…are they being streamlined as well? What type of a blueprint for the future are they? Never mind, that’s not worth discussing, it’s just a “vehicle”, after all…
and determines what functions, such as issuing visas or making rules on immigration, will be governed by the European Union headquarters in Brussels;
Just curious here: Does the EU Constitution stipulate that the EU Headquarters will be limited simply to a center for passports and immigration visas? Or is it possible that they may take on, oh, other types of responsibilities?
and what others, like foreign policy and defense, will remain with member states.
Does the Times know this, or is it just trying to reassure us that nothing could ever be less than wholesome under a centralized Socialist government? Look at that part of the sentence again in its entirety:
and determines what functions, such as issuing visas or making rules on immigration, will be governed by the European Union headquarters in Brussels and what others, like foreign policy and defense, will remain with member states.
How is the Times so sure that Brussels will not eventually control a centralized EU foreign policy? Has not Chirac called for this time and time again, Europe (not France, Europe) as a counter-weight to America?
The Times blithely papers over the legitimate flaws of the EU Constitution; The EU must come together for the Times, you see, because its constitution, with its myriad of Rights, Rules, Regulations, Safety Nets, Housing and Work Guarentees, is the epitome of political correctness and liberal social theory combined. To the Times, the citizens of the EU, not unlike the citizens of “Red State America”, should not be allowed to get in the way of the realization of their progressive dogma. Can't they see their enslavement to government bureaucrats would be a benign one? Argh, democracy, what a pain!
Now you know why the Left are always swooning over the Stalins, Castros, and Saddams…now these guys knew what it takes to implement a liberal agenda!