The UK march agaimst Bush
 

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 assume you are missing a 'not' somewhere in there.

Correct!


Did you miss the "Okay so I play your game" you editied it out.

I am glad you agree it is fallacious, it was meant to be.

Good.

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.

Which 'empire', the EU or the UK

The E.U. of course.

Why is the UK the correct size for
democratic priciples to work but the EU not (I am assuming you oppose a
EU state here). Perhaps it is UK that will pass away? Which way, larger
i.e EU, smaller ie England.

Because England, and the U.K., is a nation or a union of nations, united by far
more than they are divided by.

That cannot be said of the disparate nations of the E.U. That is why it is an
empire and will not last.

Protesting always has more
effect because people see and recognise "ordinary people", protests
without these "ordinary people" tend not to have the same impact.

I beg to differ: Parliament legislates for a number of different reasons,
hardly ever as a result of "demonstrations", although I am sure the anti-pll
tax rioters of Trafalgar Square would like to think that they were the primary
cause of its abolition, rather than the real reason.

The
fuel protesters gained concessions, the coutryside alliance are still
allowed to hunt, live animal shipments were banned.


Your point is what? Some demonstrations have an effect, some don't. So what.
Clearly, the anti-war demonstration in February did not have its desired
effect.

Marc.