dear people,
i have read your comments with interest.
the key issue is that there can be no informed debate
by any one about the EU constitution=CON, or any other
constitution/charter/etc, that is 500 hundred pages
long. i doubt that many people have read the
constitution. thus, talk of "informed debate" is a
nonsense.
first, all terms must be defined and agreed to in some
practical sense.
second, an example of how things will improve in the
EU must be spelled out for each key principle on which
the constitution has been based.
third, people need to be informed what are the
implications of the CON means for them.
general comment
it is apparent that the CON has been written by a
bunch of legal 'fat-cats'. this will almost certainly
exclude the vast majority of people from informed
debate.
talk of capitalism/communism etc lacks meaning.
the key questions are:
how will governance improve as a result of the CON?
who will control interpretation & enforcement of the
rules?
how will the CON take into account 'errors'?
etc...
u lot seem buried under the usual well meaning social
dogma. what about conflict between the EU CON &
domestic policy?
i think it makes far more sense to adapt the existing
rules to get a COMMON basis of the core guiding basis
ideas that drive the evolution of the CON.
test in schools etc to make things as simple as
possible & focus on the most important things first.
at no stage has there been a simple coherent basis for
debate i.e., things are a dog's breakfast!
cheers,
dr victor kacala.
ps govern=manage="laws" to form a basis for policy
formulation that takes into account doubt & errors.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
SHE_Forum mailing list
SHE_Forum_at_mail.itk.ntnu.no
http://mail.itk.ntnu.no/mailman/listinfo/she_forum
Received on 06-06-05
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 06-06-05 MEST