Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (148813)	7/25/2002 11:27:28 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574639

Tim, you don't understand........treaties between countries is not what's going on between EU member nations. Treaties between countries is exactly what is going on between the EU member states. Ultimately, the hope is to have the US of Europe.....one nation with individual states like here. Thats the hope of some, but not all the countries, and only a minority of the people in the EU countries. Most of the people don't want Europe to be one nation. Many of them didn't even support the single currency. Also if it is ever to get there it would have to be by treaties between member states. So your analogy is bogus. When we sign treaties, our sovereignty is not in danger except where we were to allow it. And why would we do that? Because the treaty might be temporarily supported by some consituency in the US. Remember you posted something along the lines of "why be so concerned about such treaties", actually I think you used the word paranoid rather the concerned. The reason to be concerned is to prevent such infringement. If it wasn't for such concerns then we probably would have signed bad treaties like the Kyoto treaty and signed up for giving the new international court juristiction over Americans. Another reason why we might allow infrigements on soveringty beyond what we want is because the treaty may evolve beyond what we wont. This has happened a lot with the EU, not just new agreements added on, but reinterpitation by EU organizations and courts, and by national courts, that extended the agreement without the member states ever signing off on it and without any good democratic check on the new EU powers. The US could sign up for something like the international court because we figure it would be reasonably run and not infringe on US soverignty or target Americans much and then it might go further then we expected. I think most treaties that have a major domestic impact that we sign should either be for a fixed period of time (needing to be renewed with a new signature and ratification at the end), or should have a provision for withdrawl (like the ABM treaty where either party could withdraw with 6 months of notice) Tim