HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: [soc.culture.nordic] Why did Denmark say no to Maastricht?
From: Aengus Lawlor <RBYAML@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 08:55:21 EDT
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company

In article <1992Oct1.232425.17969@nntp.hut.fi>, jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
says:
>
>From: smudge@alfred.carleton.ca (Sandra Mudge)
>Subject: Why did Denmark say no to Maastricht?
>
>I am a university student in Ottawa, Canada, working towards my
>Master's degree in Political Science.  I am doing research on the
>Maastricht agreement and the future of European integration.
>
>One element of that I am interested in is why Denmark voted no.  Can
>anyone tell me the basic arguments, for and against, that were used
>during the referendum campaign?
>
>Thanks
>
>Sandra Mudge
>smudge@ccs.carleton.ca
The Irish press reported that many Danes voted no because they felt that
they were being taken for granted. The Maastricht treaty was presented to
the people of Europe fait a compli, in a take it or leave it fashion.
Even Danes who favoured stronger Eurpoean Union voted No to affirm their
own control over the process.

In Ireland the issue of abortion played a significant role in the vote,
because the Irish government had requested that a protocol protecting
Irelands constitutional position on abortion be added to the treaty, a
fact that only became common knowledge a few months after the treaty
was signed. When the Irish Supreme Court ruled that the constitution
permitted abortion in certain cases, one side argued that a vote for
Maastricht meant a vote for abortion, and the other side argued that
a vote for Maastricht would prevent liberalising Irelands laws on
abortion, because the protocol will over-ride any Irish legislation.

There was also a significant fear in Denmark that they would be so totally
overshadowed by Germany in a stronger Europe. What is interesting is that
in Ireland, which has a somewhat similiar relationship with Britain, it is
widely felt that European integration will help us _lessen_ the dominating
role of Britain.

Aengus
--
RBYAML@ROHMHAAS.COM                    Aengus Lawlor
RBYAML@ROHVM1.BITNET                   (who used to be ALAWLOR@DIT.IE)
"How about some of that famous Dublin wit, Barman?"
"Certainly, sir. Would that be Dry or Sparkling?"
From: malexand@girtab.usc.edu (Michael Alexander)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Plan 2
Date: 3 Oct 1992 11:52:14 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: girtab.usc.edu

It would be interesting to know if Plan2 (D-F jumping ahead with a single 
currency, ...) was well in place even before the close vote. Despite the 
massive central bank interventions and other German help to the French vote,
their leaders appeared to be confident in the continuation of the process,
no matter the outcome of the vote. 

Cheers,

**************************************************************************
*  Michael F. Alexander               University of Southern California  *
*  --------------------               Ma-Bel-Network:    (213) 955-0069  *
*  MVS:       malexan@mvsa.usc.edu    ---------------------------------  *
*  VM-Bitnet: malexand@uscvm.bitnet     "It's a window system named X,   *
*  UNIX:      malexand@chaph.usc.edu     not a system named X Window"    *
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: olevi@daimi.aau.dk (Ole Villumsen)
Subject: Re: [soc.culture.nordic] Re: Why did Denmark say no to Maastricht?
Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 13:35:20 GMT

jbuhl@daimi.aau.dk (Jesper Buhl) writes:

>olevi@daimi.aau.dk (Ole Villumsen) writes:

>>It would be nice if someone could find some of the original campaign material
>>from then.

I found some the old campaign material. Anyone interested can email me for
a resume or maybe a photocopy of selected pages. It's in Danish, but I'll
do the resume in English.

Ole
--

 Ole V. Villumsen              
 Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark
 ovillumsen@daimi.aau.dk
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [soc.culture.nordic] Why did Denmark say no to Maastricht?
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:24:25 GMT

A repost from soc.culture.nordic:

From: smudge@alfred.carleton.ca (Sandra Mudge)
Subject: Why did Denmark say no to Maastricht?
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:20:26 GMT
Organization: Carleton University

I am a university student in Ottawa, Canada, working towards my
Master's degree in Political Science.  I am doing research on the
Maastricht agreement and the future of European integration.

One element of that I am interested in is why Denmark voted no.  Can
anyone tell me the basic arguments, for and against, that were used
during the referendum campaign?

Thanks

Sandra Mudge
smudge@ccs.carleton.ca
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: mhf4421@usl.edu (Flynn Matthew H)
Subject: Re: "Democratic War"  (Was:  Why did Denmark...)
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 18:39:46 GMT


etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter Lund) writes:

>In article 5399@daimi.aau.dk, olevi@daimi.aau.dk (Ole Villumsen) writes:
>> - One goal of Maastricht is a military union. We don't want to be 
>>   part of that.

>A military union, consisting of countries with a long and strong democ-
>ratic tradition, is something positive. In all wars in history, there 
>has always been at least one party in the conflict that has been a di-
>catorship. Wars between democratic nations are impossible! (Try to find
>a "democratic" war!)


In the American CIvil War the opposing armies were led by duly elected  
officials:  Jefferson Davis by the Confederacy, and Abraham Lincoln by the
United States of America.  This was largely an economic war, spurred on 
by differing understandings of the U.S. Constitution and how the Union was
held together.   I don't see this situation as impossible in the EC, either.

M.H. Flynn
University of Souithwestern Louisiana
From: bobs@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Staying in Bruxelles
Date: 3 Oct 92 01:36:37 GMT
Organization: The Claremont Graduate School

I'm going to be doing about 7 weeks of research in Brussels.  Anybody
have some suggestions on where a cheap place to stay is?  I'd 
appreciate your thoughts--especially because I'll be leaving 
mid-Oct.

Thanks.  Bob Switky (at the Claremont Graduate School, California)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: anti-maastricht != anti-Europe (was: [soc.culture.nordic] Why did Denmark)
Organization: sgi
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 21:28:01 GMT

In article <GUMBY.92Oct6095709@Cygnus.COM>, gumby@Cygnus.COM (David V. Henkel-Wallace) writes:
|> 
|> One can be anti-maastricht and still be pro-european.  In fact I hope
|> those who wish to live in a unified, democratic Europe _do_ oppose the
|> treaty.

Could you tell us what provisions of the Treaty you oppose?

|> 
|> The treaty is not particularly democratic,

There's really no such thing as a "democratic Treaty".   Treaties are
like contracts: until you adhere to them, they don't affect you, and
after you adhere, they do affect you.

|>                                             and certainly the way it
|> has been forced on many countries by their governments is digraceful.

Really?   Several European countries have had referendums on the 
subjects.   In other countries, the UK for example, they had recently
had an election in which the EC and Maastricht was a major election
issue.     If this is disgrraceful, how would you prefer to see
things run?

|> It was depressing to hear the rhetoric surrounding the French vote:
|> anger at the Danes for not following along where their politicians
|> wanted to force them, for instance.

I must not be understanding.  You found it "depressing" to hear the
rhetoric surrounding the French vote.   These are the French, you
know, and they're voting.   What would you expect?   Complete silence?

As for the Danes, they turned the Treaty down.   Those who lost the
argument are a tad miffed.   What would you expect?

|> 
|> The politicians were trying to focus on the treaty as the goal, rather
|> than the treaty as a path to the eventual goal.  In that latter light,
|> it's an unfortunate documents.

Could you support this with concrete quotations from the politicians?
Politicians in the UK seem to say that the Treaty is the path to 
eventual unification.    I don't know of any who claim that Maastricht
is the end in itself.

jon.



Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.europe.misc
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [eunet.politics] Re: Maastricht
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:45:54 GMT

A repost from eunet.politics:

From: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter Lund)
Subject: Re: Maastricht
Reply-To: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:37:18 GMT

In article 11325@umr.edu, scotth@mcs213g.cs.umr.edu (Scott Hayes) writes:
>Could someone provide a brief (if possible) description of Maastricht?
>
>Thanks,
>Scott Hayes
>scotth@cs.umr.edu

There are two main parts in the Maastricht agreement, as I see it:

1) The Economic Monetary Union (EMU), which set up the goal, that all 
European currencies would merge into the ECU (European Currency Unit), 
a single currency for all EC citizens. To get there, all currencies was 
firstly supposed to be firmly locked to each other and thereafter be 
merged. This seems much more difficult after the turmoil the last couple 
of weeks.

2) The European Union (EU), in where the foreign policies of all EC coun-
tries should converge into one European forign policy. Europe should speak 
with one voice in the world. After the collapse of the communist systems 
i east Europe, the EU was seen as a very important tool to stabilize Europe 
politically. Specially, now when USA looks more and more unwilling to remain 
in Europe with large military forces. EC needs to be able to play the police-
man's role in Europe.


Peter Lund, 	mail: Peter.Lund@eua.ericsson.se
Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden

Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec,talk.politics.misc
From: olevi@daimi.aau.dk (Ole Villumsen)
Subject: Re: [soc.culture.nordic] Re: Why did Denmark say no to Maastricht?
Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 15:01:42 GMT

jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

>Hi,
>A Dane can answer more about the contents of the campign.
>What the Danish authorities did they translated the Maastricht Treaty
>into the Danish language and it was sent to every home.
>(This was the biggest mistake:-)

They didn't.
  They sent out to every home a "newspaper" in which each of the parties in
the Danish parliament, Folketinget, presented their view on Maastricht.
The parliament includes about 6 parties that are in favour of Maastricht and
2 that are against it (one left-wing and one right-wing).
  I picked up a copy of the entire treaty at my local post office. Everyone
could do that if they wanted, but of course not many did. I always thought
that EC had done the translation, not the Danish authorities.
Wasn't the treaty drawn up in each of the EC languages in the
first place?

My memory of what was said in the Danish debate back in April and
May, before the referendum, is not excellent. I remember arguments
against Maastricht like
 - One goal of Maastricht is a military union. We don't want to be
   part of that.
 - When EC takes over regulation of environmental issues, the rules
   are going to be weaker than they are in Denmark now.
 - Same goes for rules about workplace security
 - the bodies in control in the European Union are beyond
   democratic control. (The debate on this point has intensified
   _after_ the referendum I think. For most Danes it probably
   hasn't been important when they voted.)
 - Maastricht will allow more immigration into Denmark than we
   want.
It would be nice if someone could find some of the original campaign material
from then.

Ole
--

 Ole V. Villumsen              
 Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark
 ovillumsen@daimi.aau.dk
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Originator: cs911461@a02.ariel.yorku.ca
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:31:18 GMT


In article <1992Oct4.221135.29452@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, thorntn@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Duncan Peter G. Thornton) writes:
>> In <1992Oct2.000441.27536@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca> cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> >Toronto, Ont. Canada) about supporting the bid for the ISU (International
>> >Space University).  All the peaceniks have hijacked the process screaming
>> >such claims that we're about to become an arm of the US military-industrial
>> >alliance.  Of course this is bullshit; the US military would never fund
>> >anything at a university where the faculty/student bodies could include
>> >Cubans, Chinese, Iraqis or worse still, Canadians.
>> 
>> Jesus, does that leave any universities at all?

	You're not getting it.  The students at this ISU would not
	have to give up their nationalities, hence the use of the
	word "international".  These people would remain subjects
	of their respective countries, which would not be too
	attractive to the US military.
 
>> >It such a sad situation you wouldn't believe it.  People are actually
>> >listening to the bad rhetoric and brainless crap these hippies are
>> >saying.  Of course, science students are all in favour for it and it's
>> >usually humanities and fine arts who oppose it.  If someone were to make
>> >a perfectly legitimate statement like: "Science is science; there is no
>> >such thing as 'military' science", they'll tar and feather you.
>> 
>> So then, the US military would never fund anything anywhere anyway,
>> 'cause there's no such thing as military science?

	Oh?  Wasn't the jet engine a military invention (WW2, Germany)?
	Weren't the first roads built for military purposes?  Weren't
	microwaves, sonar and radar originally militarily funded?

>> >I notice that you're posting from Texas.  It would indeed be a shame if
>> >bicycle-riding marxists have now started invading that bastion of the
>> >right.  
>> 
>> Hey, C. Armour-Kidson, I'm sorry; it wasn't until this last 
>> paragraph that I realized you were satirizing the position
>> of paranoid right-wing losers. Try using more smilies.

	Guess again.  I'm one of those right-wing losers.  To us,
	you're a loser.


C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca
Organisation: European Space Operation Centre (E.S.O.C)
Date: Thursday, 1 Oct 1992 09:53:49 CET
From: <PWITH@ESOC.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject:    Bush & Clinton from village of fools?

I realise this has nothing to do with the politics discussed in this
group, but I thought it might amuse.
I found this on the front page of a leading UK national newspaper.

The title was "Bush and Clinton 'originate from village of fools'"
by David Pallister.

          "George Bush and his presidential rival, Bill Clinton,
           may be distant relatives, a British television company
           Misha, claims.
          "It has discovered that their families probably originated
           from the Nottinghamshire village of Gotham - which won
           a 13th century reputation for being the home of fools.
          "Mr Bush's ancestors, called St Andrews, were first men-
           tioned in 1180 as residents of Gotham. Mr Clinton's
           family - originally the Blythes - are first mentioned
           in Gotham in 13th century parish records.
          "Gotham's reputation possibly dates from when King John
           sent his agents to the village to collect taxes. Hearing
           of the visit, the Gothamites apparently decided to act
           mad. The taxmen found the villagers trying to drown an
           eel and build a wall around a cuckoo bush to prevent the
           bird from flying away and taking summer with it. They
           fled and the villagers avioded their taxes."

Not so crazy, eh? :)

-peteW-
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Organization: gte
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:46:43 GMT

In article <5601@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
> !sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> !>			   I have personally lost track of all the times
> !>my rights to free speech wee taken away. I've been denounced as a racist
> !>merely because I oppose the welfare system, I got in trouble in high school
> !>for promoting our space program, and one time I was called a racist bigot
> !>because I called the rioters in LA murderers and thieves.  That's hyprocrisy!
[...]
> !	I suspect that, when you describe the LA Riots, you catagorized
> !everybody involved as a simple criminal, and refused to acnowlege any
> !social pressures that might be involved. This simple argument was interpreted
> !in a simple way, (ie: racism) and that was the end of the communication.
[...]
> I can see what social complexities there may have been when the riots
> came around, but discounting the riots as criminal isn't an
> oversimplification; it is correct. There is no reason for any person or
> any group to go burn parts of their own neighborhood down and expect to
> get any sympathy for it. It's like trying to justify a murder: "Well,
> Jim shot Fred because Fred had an affair with Jim's wife." * Granted, now
> I'm condensing things quite a lot here, but the facts still remain: Jim
> murdered Fred, and the rioters are criminals for their actions during
> the riots.
> 	* Self-defense is not murder, by the way. 

Let's make it a bit more personal.  I was abused as a child: physically,
sexually, and emotionally.  So let's say you tell when your wife/daugher/
sister is going to be home alone for a while, and, when I'm done raping
her, we can sit down an talk about whether I'm "just a criminal" or 
just a poor guy responding to social pressures.

Socio-economic pressures are a part of every crime: it does not make
the action any less a crime even though some people only *want* to 
see the poor people driven by social pressures.  

And social pressures are upon everybody: it's those who resort
to abusing others as a result of such pressures that we call
criminals.  That's why the rioters were a bunch of criminals.

-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 05:08:47 GMT


I also mentioned getting in trouble in high school for actively promoting
the US Space program. I'm still trying to figure out that one.

It was sort of strange-some idiots were telling jokes about the death of
the Challenger crew, and teachers were DEFENDING it, but a couple of months
later Libya got bombed, I told a joke or two about it, and the shuttle jokers
were the first to say "That's not funny-people died when they bombed Tripoli".
I never could understand how wrong it was to say that the shuttle program
is a good thing. Some people can say or do anything without having to explain
it.         Simon
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 04:33:26 GMT


Well, there are some screwed-up things going on around here, but I haven't
seen any Marxists out in the open yet :-)

What I do hear is alot of talk about how anyone who is right-of-center is
a Nazi or something.

The whole anti-space attitude is an offshoot of the anti-technology/anti-
private property angle of the liberals, at least that's what I've figured.
Simon  (SPACE SHUTTLES NOT FOOD STAMPS!!!)   :-)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.democrats.d:115 alt.politics.bush:6866 talk.politics.misc:48130 alt.politics.clinton:7418
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: You're a racist! statements
Date: 28 Sep 92 03:03:01 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.democrats.d
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
!sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
!>			   I have personally lost track of all the times
!>my rights to free speech wee taken away. I've been denounced as a racist
!>merely because I oppose the welfare system, I got in trouble in high school
!>for promoting our space program, and one time I was called a racist bigot
!>because I called the rioters in LA murderers and thieves.  That's hyprocrisy!

Well, there is the UNC Black Cultural Center controversy here. Anyone
who opposes the construction of such a center is a racist. That's
simplistic for you. (I personally favor a "multicultural center" for
functions dealing with cultures from all over the world.)

!	I've read your posts, and I'm not surprised that you feel this way.
!Regardless of how you speak, your opinions tend to sound very narrow minded
!when you put them into print. You are also an idealist, and so your views
!don't tend to jive with what other people percieve as reality. To wit:
!
!	I suspect that, when you describe the LA Riots, you catagorized
!everybody involved as a simple criminal, and refused to acnowlege any
!social pressures that might be involved. This simple argument was interpreted
!in a simple way, (ie: racism) and that was the end of the communication.
!
!	The 'racist' label was incorrectly applied, but the slander is no
!worse than your own reasoning. You, like Rush Limbaugh, tend to express
!your views in extreamly simply terms, ignoring complexities like the social
!currents that drove the LA Riots. Discounting the riots as simple criminal
!behavior is a rediculous oversimplification, and while it's not racist, 
!it's not much better.

I can see what social complexities there may have been when the riots
came around, but discounting the riots as criminal isn't an
oversimplification; it is correct. There is no reason for any person or
any group to go burn parts of their own neighborhood down and expect to
get any sympathy for it. It's like trying to justify a murder: "Well,
Jim shot Fred because Fred had an affair with Jim's wife." * Granted, now
I'm condensing things quite a lot here, but the facts still remain: Jim
murdered Fred, and the rioters are criminals for their actions during
the riots.
	* Self-defense is not murder, by the way. 

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Taking life pretty seriously. NOT.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d