EU : NO
Out of context: Reply #95
- Started
- Last post
- 122 Responses
- shaft0
Kuz says:
"shaft, Art II 87-94 has nothing to do with french-style socialism. And, furthermore, every single law within it, has a corresponding US law."I think not in their constitution? Sadly, today's USA is more Keynesist than ever.
"Even the United States does not outlaw trade unions, and the right for collective action. They have strikes in that country too."
I don't think strikes are anything else than blackmail. Workers can sabotage your business and cause loss, but you can't fire them for it. BTW isn't Great Britain the last EU country where lock-out is legal?
"Nor does this law, as it explicitly states, takes precedent over national laws regarding the nature of strikes."
I know that, it's just that once embedded in the constitution, it will be hard to move out, but easy to expand. They move by tiny steps. Same with other laws we discuss, IMO the constitution is not a place for this extent of specification.
"Again, every developed country has laws regarding working conditions. Including maternity leave etc. The United States even has minimum wage - which the EU Constitution does not eve propose. So how again is this a move away from US Capitalism and towards French socialism? Another non-sequater."
I believe that adult people should be allowed to take their own decisions. Ie. to be employed in conditions that come from their agreement with the employer, not from a nanny government. If I want to work below minimum wage, it's none of govt's business.
Personal freedom is a major value for me and I didn't notice that emphasized in the EU constitution."This is what happens when people simply regurgitate idiotic websites without actually reading for themselves."
Actually I read it first, before reading any specific comments, but I'm not sure if you're gonna buy this:]
My poor English thanks you for "regurgitate" - I'm glad I'm learning something from NT ;)I guess you differ in your opinion, but I believe that protective government slowly takes your freedom away, justifying its decisions with "social justice", which eventually brings the economy down.
IMO growth comes from competition and protection causes stagnation. Free market regulates itself better than any burreaucrats could do. I was happy to see Blair (who is way more Thatcherist than so-called"right-wing" Chirac) let Rover go down.
And as a disclaimer in case you say I'm patronizing: It's just my opinion.One thing I am afraid of is that the next edition of constitution will have much larger "solidarity" section, will be more protective, more socialist, to please French leftists, the ones who just have said NO. On the other hand, some countries might not like it at all, so chances are there'll be no constitution for a long time. Which is more than fine by me.
You don't have a constitution in the UK, do you? How have you guys managed to survive without it and to lead the EU economically?