At 22:28 17-10-2002 -0400, John Giorgis wrote:
As a citizen of the European Union, I can say that this claim is an exaggeration. It is not the EU we distrust, it is only the *politicians* we distrust, especially since we learned that several of them were committing fraud (FREX, receiving money for attending meetings, but not actually appearing at those meetings).Meanwhile, the EU is completely mistrusted by the European citizenry,
Please provide facts to back your claim that the EU is "completely mistrusted" by the European citizenry.
This looks like a prime example of deliberately providing misinformation in an attempt to validate your point. First, it is for the *entire* EU, not the EMU (Economic and Monetary Union) to decide on whether or not to adopt federalism (the EU has 15 member states, the EMU has 12 -- Denmark and the UK exercised their right to not join the EMU yet, Sweden does not yet meet all the criteria for joining the EMU). Second, the move to *one* currency for the EU has nothing to do with whether or not to adopt federalism; it was introduced as part of the move to a common European internal market. Third, there are active Brinellers who are citizens of a non-EMU country but are citizens of the EU.and the only two active EMU Brin-L'ers seem shocked everytime "EU" and "federalism" are used in the same sentence.
And fourth, a search of the Great Brin-L Archive revealed only *one* message from a EU Brineller in which a comment was made on federalism and the EU, and he showed no sign of being shocked. That poster was me, responding to you:
At 21:18 17-12-2000 +0100, I wrote:
So, obviously your statement that "the only two active EMU Brin-L'ers seem shocked everytime "EU" and "federalism" are used in the same sentence" is a gross exaggeration. But feel free to quote messages from several shocked EU Brinellers that prove me wrong and prove you right on this.First, the EU is not "the rest of the world". Second, your current system was introduced long ago by the British -- and even they have by now abandonded that system because it was outdated and undemocratic.So yes, Jeroen, America *may* have antiquated system. But at least it is the antiquated system that the rest of the world is copying for their own experiments in federalism.
The UN has not been a "completely discredited body". I know that *you* have a dislike for the UN, but apparently most countries do not. If they did, why would they insist on UN support for actions against Iraq? It makes no sense for them to want approval from an organisation they consider "discredited".Yet, oddly, the fact that the price of UN support is basically an unethical bribery has not dampened anyone's enthusiasm to consult this completely discredited body.
The US has no right to complain if China, France, Russia or any other Security Council member uses its veto power to block actions against Iraq. The US itself has several times used its veto power to stop the UN from acting.And I haven't even mentioned yet that China holds a veto power in the UN
Nitpick: anti-aircraft missiles are designed to shoot down aircraft -- period. They only happen to be used specifically against US aircraft in this case.and has spent the past 10 years selling Iraq missiles designed to shoot down the US aircraft patrolling the no-fly-zone yet.
Jeroen "Get your facts straight" van Baardwijk
__________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
