Dutch A**--holes Vote No
The Dutch, some of the biggest hypocrites in Frank-land, racist yet multicultural, anti-Christian and Islamophobe, the only non-country with a rotting-dead homosexual as their "right-wing" leader, voted NO to the E-jew, ahem , EU.
I never had good experiences with these porn-addicted , self-righteous, arrogant A**-holes. I don't have to like them , but just letting you all know , they went against the EU constitution by popular referendum and from what I just saw on Greek television, the recent moves by two major countries of the European "master race" have begun to give the frappe-drunk unwashed masses courage, the Greek political establishment is slowly creeping behind their masters--polls recently televised show KKE parliamentarians to be very against and PASOK and New Democracy parliamentarians hovering 30-40% against (funny how they mirror each other even in polls)
One positive thing can be said of Holland, at least she has the gall to laugh at the West's hysterical War on Drugs, and to make more than a few extra EUROS and guilders and dollars from going against that as well, Greece is sure not to follow....
I never had good experiences with these porn-addicted , self-righteous, arrogant A**-holes. I don't have to like them , but just letting you all know , they went against the EU constitution by popular referendum and from what I just saw on Greek television, the recent moves by two major countries of the European "master race" have begun to give the frappe-drunk unwashed masses courage, the Greek political establishment is slowly creeping behind their masters--polls recently televised show KKE parliamentarians to be very against and PASOK and New Democracy parliamentarians hovering 30-40% against (funny how they mirror each other even in polls)
One positive thing can be said of Holland, at least she has the gall to laugh at the West's hysterical War on Drugs, and to make more than a few extra EUROS and guilders and dollars from going against that as well, Greece is sure not to follow....
3 Comments:
It's quite ironic that France -- the very country that set Liberalism in motion through the French Revolution -- and the Netherlands -- arguably the greatest representative of ultra-Liberalism in the world -- both rejected the extremely Liberal Euro-Constitution (and in the process dealt a blow to the European Union as an institution) whereas traditionally Conservative countries were only too eager to accepted it.
Concerning the Netherlands' drug policies, they really aren't that radical as one would think. Aside from the United States, most Western countries have gradually shifted towards a policy of harm reduction to one extent or another. Within the European Union, only Sweden, Finland, and Greece have strict policies against drugs that resemble the zero-tolerance positions of the United States.
It's also worth noting that even in the Netherlands where harm reduction has been in place for decades and cannabis and other so-called "soft drugs" are de-criminalized, the government is very intolerant in regards to so-called "hard drugs".
I can't understand why Holland and France rejected the EU Constitution--but I am sure it wasn't on sheer religious or cultural grounds. After all, both these countries were among the first in post-Second World War Europe to de-criminalise homosexuality, porn and abortion which I am sure the EU Constituion would have implemented Continent-wide under some sort of "human rights" clauses. They were also among the first European countries to institutionalize "multiculturalism", which itself is a paradox since practically every Dutch or French person I have ever met was outwardly racist, especially in regards to blacks and Arabs. Both these countries had or have mainstream political leaders who made openly racist statements towards Arabs , for instance, parroting the concensus in their constituency. By the same token, these countries are also pioneers in "Holocaust" education, for example, something I'm sure would be high on the agenda of a 'European Union'
My only answer as to why they rejected the EU Constitution and indirectly the EU itself is because they are well aware that they are amongst the founding members of the EU, are the most industrialised and thus wealthiest members and are due to be the ones likely to pay the most money and likely lose the most money in an EU that would have to pledge towards modernising second-world countries from the former Soviet Bloc as well as Greece (which will probably be a perennial welfare case) along with a possible Turkey.
As for drug policies,from my cursory reading on the issue it's my understanding that Holland is the only country in the Western world where one can purchase and use marijuana/hashish (in designated areas) for non-medicinal purposes without official police prosecution? Even in countries in Europe with relatively lax drug laws , such as France, the purchase or use of even the smallest amount of said substance will land you a fine or a night in jail by the police. As for the harm reduction policy, yeah that's now become the European norm generally speaking, but at least Holland had it when it was once radical.
I agree that the French and Dutch rejection had nothing to do with sheer religious or cultural grounds. You also probably have a point about both countries' economic security playing some role in influencing the rejection.
However, the little I've read on the subject from Left-wing French and Dutch sources seem to point to the fact that they view the Euro-Constitution as being "non-democratic", "neo-Liberal", and "militarist" and these were the main points they were trying to get across in order to reject it.
Concerning the first aspect, the constitutional convention that produced the document was not elected, but appointed. Former French President Giscard d'Estaing was named head of the constitutional convention and the 105 members of the convention were appointed from above.
Concerning the second aspect, the Euro-Constitution sets out a neo-Liberal economic program based on free-market policies: privatization of public services (such as free education), promoting competition over solidarity, and so on. Leftists feel that the Euro-Constitution is, thus, devoid of the predominant Socialist policies that characterize many Western European countries.
Furthermore, they argue that the unpopular economic policies outlined in the Euro-Constitution could not be changed because the text is virtually impossible to amend because of a process of triple unanimity. In other words, to amend the constitution, first there would need to be a convention which would have to reach a consensus. Then it would be handed to all the heads of government who, likewise, must be unanimous in supporting the proposed changes. Finally, it would go through a process of parliamentary approval or public referendum among the member countries which, also, would require unanimity or else the constitution would remain unchanged.
Finally, Leftists view the Euro-Constitution as militarizing the European Union because they say key articles are included in the document which state that member countries will improve their military capabilities every year. Some also fear that the establishment of a European armed force would be a potential catalyst for European imperialism.
However, what I found most odd about the Left's rejection of the Euro-Constitution was that some Leftists actually claimed that it did not adequately address the issues of divorce, contraception, and abortion in order to appease (!) Catholic countries like Portugal and Ireland. Considering the secular and ultra-Liberal social nature of the Euro-Constitution I found this argument surprising. I guess the far-Left won't be content until special provisions are explicitly worded to force the implementation of abortion on demand at state expense in every EU member country.
On the issue of the Netherlands' drug policy, I'm not so certain it was truly radical even when it was first instituted in 1976. This is because in 1970 the United States Congress repealed most of the mandatory criminal penalties for drug-related offenses. In 1972, Nixon (at the direction of Congress) appointed the bipartisan Shafer Commission to consider laws regarding cannabis and which concluded that personal use of marijuana should be decriminalized. Even though Nixon rejected the Commission's recommendation, eleven US states decriminalized marijuana over the course of the 1970s. Also, unlike the United States, the Dutch were generally lenient over prosecuting cannabis use before its decriminalization whereas the opposite was true for America.
Post a Comment
<< Home