Try not to make the same mistakes.

I do not accept that the majority of the population
opposes or opposed the war.

As a lawyer you are always lacking evidence.

I do not need "evidence" to tell me that a million people (if that's the number
that went on the big anti-war demonstration in February) is "the majority of
the population": it is self-evidently so.

I have seen no opinion polls that suggest "the mass of the British people"
oppose the war or are anti-Bush. The largest numbers I have seen in opinion
poll as opposing Bush is around 50%.

Yet you do not recognise anything other than the numbers on the march,
you do not believe opionion polls

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2747175.stm

Your link to polls conducted in February 2003 is relevant because?

So, how do you suggest people register their opposition?

I have already made suggestions.

Do political partys
wanting the UK to leave the EU get elected? I

That is such a fallacious argument that it doesn't even merit a reply. It is
just as fatuous as the Minister for Europe who wrote in "The Times" 2 weeks ago
that the Labour Party was elected BECAUSE of its policy on Europe. That is just
as stupid as saying that Labour was elected BECAUSE of its policy on Iraq (or
any other single issue). Governments are elected for a complex web of reasons.

Is their any evidence that
this is a view held by knee-jerk anti-EU torys that oppose anything that
prevents them making a profit (like having to give their employees basic
rights like the right not to be die at work).

Actually, my opposition to the E.U. has nothing to do with specific policies of
that organisation, but I do not want laws made in Brussels, by organisations
over which I have no control.

It's all very well if you happen to agree with the policies that are emanating
from Brussels. But suppose one day a cabal of extreme right-wingers takes over
there (the French National Front, Italian Fascists, German neo-nazis etc.) and
they start imposing thoroughly illiberal nasty right wing laws - would you be
so supportive of that form of government then?

My objections are not party political but on principle and for sound democratic
and philosophical reasons. And even just a practical and pragmatic one: sooner
or later the empire, like all of Earth's proud empires, will pass away.

" the right not to be die at work"

You have a touching faith if you are relying on Berlucsoni and his corrupt
cronies to give you this protection!

Marc.

(Mait001) wrote the following in:


Actually, my opposition to the E.U. has nothing to do with
specific policies of
that organisation, but I do not want laws made in Brussels, by
organisations
over which I have no control.

People demonstrate in the UK because the UK government makes laws and
they have no control over it. They can vote, but even if a significant
proportion of the population share their views they won't have these
views represented in parliament because of the nature of the political
system.

But, if we go by your definition of control (which seems to basically
be having a vote) then you actually do have control over the EU. You
can vote for a member of the European Parliament and you can also vote
in the UK. Your vote in the UK can help decide what our government
decides to do in Europe.

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing".

Then and than are different words!

People demonstrate in the UK because the UK government makes laws and
they have no control over it. They can vote, but even if a significant
proportion of the population share their views they won't have these
views represented in parliament because of the nature of the political
system.

But, if we go by your definition of control (which seems to basically
be having a vote) then you actually do have control over the EU. You
can vote for a member of the European Parliament and you can also vote
in the UK. Your vote in the UK can help decide what our government
decides to do in Europe.


If a majority in the U.K. vote in a certain way, they can change the Government
of the U.K.

If 100% of the British electorate voted in a certain way at the European
Parliamentary election, it would have only a minimal impact on the European
Parliament, because there are 14 other countries whose M.E.P.s make up the
majority in that Parliament. We have no control whatsoever over them, and there
is nothing we could do to change the overall majority in the European
Parliament - ever.

It is analagous to saying that, at the next Election in the U.K., only those in
the Home Counties can vote - but no-one else; those making up the majority of
the Country could keep their M.P.s as previously elected and those voting in
the Home Counties would have as much chance of changing the Government as a cat
in Hell.

And the Commission is made up of second-rate clapped out politicians, only some
of whom are not corrupt.

Your vote in the UK can help decide what our government
decides to do in Europe.

Now you really are living in fantasyland. Vast areas of our law-making has been
surrendered to Europe - agriculture, fishing, food and hygiene, competition
law, health and safety, to name but a few, where we have no control any
longer.

There's much much more to come.

The entire B.S.E. fiasco was handled from Brussels: the British Govrenment
played no part whatsoever - as it proudly proclaimed every time some further
indignity was imposed - "it's out of our hands".....

Marc.

(Mait001) wrote the following in:


People demonstrate in the UK because the UK government makes laws
and they have no control over it. They can vote, but even if a
significant proportion of the population share their views they
won't have these views represented in parliament because of the
nature of the political system.

But, if we go by your definition of control (which seems to
basically be having a vote) then you actually do have control over
the EU. You can vote for a member of the European Parliament and
you can also vote in the UK. Your vote in the UK can help decide
what our government decides to do in Europe.


If a majority in the U.K. vote in a certain way, they can change
the Government of the U.K.

Not true. A majority of the UK can vote in a certain way and still not
see their choice of government elected.

Small scale example.

Constituency 1 Labour
100% vote Labour

Constituency 2 Labour
100% vote Labour

Constituency 3 Conservative
51% vote Conservative
49% vote Labour

Constituency 4 Conservative
51% vote Conservative
49% vote Labour

Constituency 5 Conservative
51% vote Conservative
49% vote Labour

In total
Labour : 69.4% of the vote, 2 seats, 40% of seats
Conservative : 30.6% of the vote, 3 seats, 60% of seats

Not only can this happen, it actually has happened.

If 100% of the British electorate voted in a certain way at the
European Parliamentary election, it would have only a minimal
impact on the European Parliament, because there are 14 other
countries whose M.E.P.s make up the majority in that Parliament.

So? This is only what happens in the UK but on a larger scale. If 100%
of people in London voted a certain way in a UK General election, they
would still not necessarily have any control over who formed the
government.

We have no control whatsoever over them, and there is nothing we
could do to change the overall majority in the European Parliament
- ever.

Well, we're in a minority aren't we? So it's only right and fair that
we have no control over them. (This response is based on your own
reasoning with regard to people in the UK whose political beliefs are
not mainstream enough to have a significant influence at elections.)

Similarly, some voters here who don't agree with the main political
parties have no hope of ever electing the government they desire. And
yet somehow that's really good and fair and they certainly shouldn't
demonstrate to get their point across using one of the only means of
political expression available to them (or at least that's what you
say).

It is analagous to saying that, at the next Election in the U.K.,
only those in the Home Counties can vote - but no-one else; those
making up the majority of the Country could keep their M.P.s as
previously elected and those voting in the Home Counties would
have as much chance of changing the Government as a cat in Hell.

How on earth is it analogous to that? It'd be very closely analogous to
that if the rest of the UK voted too. See, this is why your point of
view doesn't make sense. Your very reason for opposing the EU is
something that happens in every election here or anywhere else: one
group of people on their own cannot control what happens in the
election.

And the Commission is made up of second-rate clapped out
politicians, only some of whom are not corrupt.

Much like the House of Commons really.

Your vote in the UK can help decide what our government
decides to do in Europe.

Now you really are living in fantasyland.

No, just seeing things from your bizarre point of view.

You say that a person's vote in a UK election is their means of
expressing their opinion, and yet the UK's share of the votes in a
European election is somehow to small to matter. What a bizarre and
nonsensical contradiction. It really shocks me that someone so
completely incapable of logical thought, and with such an internally
inconsistent point of view has managed to succeed in the world.

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing".

Then and than are different words!

If a majority in the U.K. vote in a certain way, they can change
the Government of the U.K.

Not true. A majority of the UK can vote in a certain way and still not
see their choice of government elected.

It is still theoretically possible.

The example you go on to quote is a valid "example" but not inevitably the
case.

We have no control whatsoever over them, and there is nothing we
could do to change the overall majority in the European Parliament
- ever.

Well, we're in a minority aren't we? So it's only right and fair that
we have no control over them.

No, my Government has no right to absolve its right and duty to govern: it has
no right to surrender rights and privileges that have been GIVEN to it over
many centuries by the electorate, in exchange for the right to be removed from
office if they are disliked.

(This response is based on your own
reasoning with regard to people in the UK whose political beliefs are
not mainstream enough to have a significant influence at elections.)

I, unlike you, it seems, argue that a nation is distinct from a group of
nations. The former has a legitimate coherence of common values and tolerance,
whilst the latter does not. History, whether you like it or not, proves me
right. England as a nation, and the U.K. to which it has belonged for
admittedly less long, has stood the test of time (as has the U.S.A., for
example: it is a nation, not a federation of unconnected neighbouring bits of
land which just happen to share same geographical location). None of the
ancient or more modern empires have stood the test of time.

And the Commission is made up of second-rate clapped out
politicians, only some of whom are not corrupt.

Much like the House of Commons really.

At least the House of Commons can be, and often is, replaced. I have little
evidence that the Commission has ever got rid of its undesirables, or those
that have gone still draw their lifetime pay.

No, just seeing things from your bizarre point of view.

You say that a person's vote in a UK election is their means of
expressing their opinion, and yet the UK's share of the votes in a
European election is somehow to small to matter. What a bizarre and
nonsensical contradiction. It really shocks me that someone so
completely incapable of logical thought, and with such an internally
inconsistent point of view has managed to succeed in the world.

Now if I were the ONLY person who held such views, then I would really be
doubting my sanity by now, but thankfully I am not.

Marc.

(Mait001) wrote the following in:


We have no control whatsoever over them, and there is nothing we
could do to change the overall majority in the European
Parliament - ever.

Well, we're in a minority aren't we? So it's only right and fair
that we have no control over them.

No, my Government has no right to absolve its right and duty to
govern: it has no right to surrender rights and privileges that
have been GIVEN to it over many centuries by the electorate, in
exchange for the right to be removed from office if they are
disliked.

The political system gives it that right. And if you think that the UK
system of government is so effective and fair to those that demonstrate
against Bush and the Iraq war, then you should also believe that it is
effective and fair in this case. Because you can remove the current
government from office if they are disliked and vote instead for a
party or candidate that will take us out of the EU.

(This response is based on your own
reasoning with regard to people in the UK whose political beliefs
are not mainstream enough to have a significant influence at
elections.)

I, unlike you, it seems, argue that a nation is distinct from a
group of nations. The former has a legitimate coherence of common
values and tolerance, whilst the latter does not.

What does 'coherence of common values and tolerance' actually mean
anyway? That sounds like a bit of meaningless made up language rather
than a real term. And while the people of the UK may have more in
common with each other than they do with the people of, for example,
South Africa, they probably have about as much in common with each
other as they have in common with people in other European countries.

History, whether
you like it or not, proves me right.

No, it doesn't.

England as a nation, and the
U.K. to which it has belonged for admittedly less long, has stood
the test of time (as has the U.S.A., for example: it is a nation,
not a federation of unconnected neighbouring bits of land which
just happen to share same geographical location). None of the
ancient or more modern empires have stood the test of time.

People in the different parts of the USA have no more in common with
each other than do people in different parts of Europe. People in the
south have very different values, beliefs, cultures and attitudes from
people in the north. Different states also have different laws,
different landscapes, different economic problems and so on. They
really are about as different as people in different parts of the EU
are.

As for comparing the EU to empires of the past, that's ridiculous.
Empires in the past consisted of colonies ruled over by a central
power, with no input in or influence over this rule. They were
dominated, enslaved and used for the benefit of the ruling power.
Countries in the EU elect their own local councils or governments,
regional governments and national governments and also elect their own
MEPs. They haven't been forced into submission, they've formed a
collective for their own mutual benefit.

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing".

Then and than are different words!

No, my Government has no right to absolve its right and duty to
govern: it has no right to surrender rights and privileges that
have been GIVEN to it over many centuries by the electorate, in
exchange for the right to be removed from office if they are
disliked.

The political system gives it that right. And if you think that the UK
system of government is so effective and fair to those that demonstrate
against Bush and the Iraq war, then you should also believe that it is
effective and fair in this case. Because you can remove the current
government from office if they are disliked and vote instead for a
party or candidate that will take us out of the EU.


It is not me who is arguing against our current form of government, nor am I
demonstrating against anything. I am (smugly, you might think) satisfied with
those political remedies I have, but once the British Government has
irrevocably surrendered rights to the E.U. it will never get them back.

What does 'coherence of common values and tolerance' actually mean
anyway? That sounds like a bit of meaningless made up language rather
than a real term.

Well, I understand perfectly what it means to be British, and I do not propose
to widen the debate here.

And while the people of the UK may have more in
common with each other than they do with the people of, for example,
South Africa, they probably have about as much in common with each
other as they have in common with people in other European countries.

Well, let me give you a few examples of how we England and Scotland share some
fundamental values that our European "partners" do not necessarily sha-

- the belief that the accused is innocent till proved guilty
- the right to a trial by one's peers
- politically independent judiciary
- "natural justice" (a concept too long to explain in detail here, but I wil if
pressed)
- habeas corpus
- the right to write a will that provides for anyone, without any preconceived
obligations
- political impartiality of the Head of State
- the right NOT to vote

to name but a few.

History, whether
you like it or not, proves me right.

No, it doesn't.

Name me one surviving empire then.


People in the different parts of the USA have no more in common with
each other than do people in different parts of Europe.

Of course they do: constitution, allegiance, language, currency, political
aspirations etc.

People in the
south have very different values, beliefs, cultures and attitudes from
people in the north. Different states also have different laws,
different landscapes, different economic problems and so on. They
really are about as different as people in different parts of the EU
are.

That really is just "spin". I think most people in the U.S.A. regard themselves
as "Americans" first and "Californians" or whatever second. How many in Europe
(let alone the U.K.) regard themselves as "European" first and "French" or
whatever second?



As for comparing the EU to empires of the past, that's ridiculous.
Empires in the past consisted of colonies ruled over by a central
power, with no input in or influence over this rule.

I have already stated my belief that my input into the European parliament is
about as effective as a Raj peasant's influence on the India Office in London
prior to 1947.

They were
dominated, enslaved and used for the benefit of the ruling power.

While "enslavement and domination" is putting it a bit strong, I firmly believe
that we are controlled from Brussels and will be increasingly controlled in the
minutiae of daily life, not for our benefit, but for the benefit of the
bureaucrats in Brussels for whom this is simply creating a richly rewarding
reason for existence.

Countries in the EU elect their own local councils or governments,
regional governments and national governments

Which have a daily diminishing role to play as, one by one, their powers are
surrendered to the E.U.

and also elect their own
MEPs.

A meaningless privilege.

They haven't been forced into submission, they've formed a
collective for their own mutual benefit.

How many people who voted in favour of the "Common Market" in 1974/5 (like my
parents) did so knowing that it would end up in the all-powerful corrupt mess
that it has now become? Very few, apart from Edward Heath, I suspect.

Marc.