l0l0lpur32

I disagree with the "Whenever a Muslim is arrested" thing, but yes the more fear which is spread via the media, the more totalitarian measures (42 days detention without charge, DNA database etc) people will accept.

I was comparing the secessionist rebel groups in Chechenya to the IRA.

You seriously think America should invade Russia? are you mad? Hypothetical situation. Say if George Bush all of a sudden decided he wanted to get rid of the state of California through force, killing, torturing, maiming and extorting people for no apparent reason. Wouldn't you want to be saved, wouldn't you call for help? But then of any possible country powerful enough to help wont help even though they claim to be making the world a fairer and peaceful place, wouldn't you find that a contradiction? I don't think they should invade Russia, I just don't think they should make claims that they're making the world a fairer and better place for everyone if they will only help certain areas and not others. That hypothetic situation isn't the same at all, a better comparison is - would it be justified for an outside country to invade Northern Ireland because of the IRA?

You do know Chechnya is part of Russia right? Yes I do, and I don't see how that changes the circumstances. Civilians have been maimed, killed and tortured in that region, worse than what was often going on in Iraq against the Sunni people, yet it seems America has done nothing to try and prevent it. You seriously think America should invade Russia? are you mad?

You do know Chechnya is part of Russia right?

Even in countries where some guns are legal, most gun crime is done with illegal guns.

The only reason the USSR was on the same side as the British commonwealth + the USA + France etc was because of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

So how do you propose people defend their property? Especially people in rural areas where it can take a long time for the police to get there. If your possessions mean so much to you that you're willing to kill another being over them, I'd say that they're the owner of you. No they aren't.

So how do you propose people defend their property? What about people in rural areas where it can take a long time for the police to get there? How is prostitution being legal a good thing?

Remember that more people died in the firebombings of German and Japanese cities than in the 2 atomic bombings of Japanese cities. Also I don't know why people are talking about ww2.

The reason banning guns doesn't reduce crime is because criminals just buy weapons illegally.

At least the commodity speculators are making money...

Yes, at this current moment in time the United States is the only hyperpower.

Authoritarian = the state having a more control over people's lives Libertarian = the state having less control over people's lives

Nothing to do with the treaty, but stuff like this is another reason I'm not a fan of the current EU: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... small.html Hopefully the rules are changed soon to stop perfectly good food being wasted - especially during a time when food prices are soaring. Also maybe save some money due to not having to hire as many quangos.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... nored.html More proof the EU is heading towards being a highly dangerous dictatorship which only pays lip service to democracy? Because that line in itself doesn't explain what for. Would you care to point out where this bit of the Treaty is so I can actually read up on the context it's placed in? was somewhere on page 36, in the section about a common security and defence policy.

Instead of thinking the EU as some sort of massive organisation, think of it as a series of inter-related alliances between multiple countries, which is essentially how it started life out as. A common defence force is a sensible part of any alliance, made so that in the event of a war, the countries within the alliance can react immediately to the foreign presence. It doesn't mean the armies are going to join up as one and attack with the same unanimous objectives though, as proven by the fact there is no mention of a common army in the part of the Treaty l0l0lpur32 specified. If we're opposing the EU because of this, then let's also withdraw from NATO and the UN. How is "3. Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union" not effectively making a common army?

I am under the impression that in many parliamentary systems (like in Germany or the United Kingdom), the people can't directly elect the head or the members of the executive branch (i.e. your Prime Minister and the other Ministers). Why should you be able to elect one for the whole of Europe, then? However, you still can directly choose the Members of the European Parliament, so I would say you still have your democracy. Also, could you please cite the Lisbon Treaty on building a common European Army or anything similar? Although the European parliament increases in power in each treaty, the comission still has more power than the parliament. From the end of page 36 (which is titled "common security and defence policy") There is more... also if a common EU army ends up being made, it will probably end up being used to police the world.

Surely, the lack of truth in either campaign shows how the public can be so easily influenced, thus showing how unable they were at understanding the Treaty for themselves in the first place! The lack of truth in the "yes" campaign was deliberate - the plan was that people would just vote with politicians they vote for in general elections, and it ended up failing - no clue what the "no" campaign was trying to do though. There is little, if not no evidence, of any shift in power moving to Brussels with this Treaty. Its main priority is to set in stone common values between all members of the EU, and to reduce the amount of 'red tape' in the EU's decision processes (far from your claim of it making the EU more bureaucratic). Want evidence there is a power shift? the fact that the veto goes away in 40+ areas - so therefore making national governments unable to legislate in them areas. Is it not the case that we still have the right to set our own laws, we still have the right to govern ourselves, we still have the right to elect our own representatives, and we still have full control of our own Armed Forces? We DON'T have the right to set our own laws in areas the EU controls them. Where is the evidence of the EU turning into the centralised, militarised bureaucratic machine that you are so adamant is coming without rejection of this Treaty? The fact that a few articles of the treaties are essentially a path towards a common EU army? (look at page 27 of the Lisbon treaty for a start) The fact that a lot of people with power in the EU are unelected? I don't remember ever voting for an EU comissioner. Not to mention the 100,000+ EU regulations, which a sizeable amount of would probably be better off repealed - not only to save the money spent enforcing them, but to reduce the economic damage caused by overregulation.

I think major changes which change the constitutional framework should be put to a referendum, everything else done by representatives. You've completely evaded my question by repeating yourself. Where is the difference between constitutional matters and any other matters involving the state? Maybe the fact that politicians are elected to work within the constitutional framework, not to alter it? Stupid example, I don't know why I'm even quoting this part of the post. Stupid because you can't argue against it? Strange logic. No because that's a stupid comparison and I shouldn't have to explain why. I was merely providing a historical example of where public opinion has been wrong in the light of elitism. I'm not suggesting elitism is the way to go forward in all walks of life, or even that it's 'nice', but it exists (however much you might deny it) and does so for a very good reason. Do you honestly believe that if a country had a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, the majority of people would even be able to understand it? If you do, you're delusional, quite frankly. The "people won't understand the treaty" stuff wouldn't be an issue if it was explained properly rather than done behind the curtain. The "yes" campaign in Ireland consisted of a combination of scaremongering, slogans and things which have nothing to do with the treaty, and the "no" campaign wasn't much better - neither campaign used hard facts like that the veto dissapears in 40+ areas, effectively meaning whoever is voted for in national elections, they can't legislate in that area if the EU disagrees. I also find it very strange you campaign to uphold your vetoes, which traditionally have always blocked the will of smaller countries against larger countries, and then wave the 'elitism' card at anyone who opposes the concept of referendum. Highly hypocritical. I campaign to keep the vetos because each one which goes away is a step towards a centralised European state, and makes national governments become obselete in that area of legislation. Which is why I support the existance of the EU, but don't support the direction in which it seems to be going (a militarised single European state) I said each country had a right to march into Zimbabwe, not an obligation. If Ireland is so proud of its neutral stance, then why didn't it follow the direction that Switzerland took, and withdraw from the EU altogether? Joining the EU itself isn't neutral, therefore, any argument against the EU involving sacrifice of neutrality becomes very weak. If you can't see that each EU treaty is a stepping stone towards a centralised, militarised, bureaucratic single European state run by unelected people (I don't remember ever voting for an EU comissioner), then you are deluded. As I said before, I support there being an EU - just not this one.

I think major changes which change the constitutional framework should be put to a referendum, everything else done by representatives. Stupid example, I don't know why I'm even quoting this part of the post. Oh the treaty says nothing about vetos? None of the treaties actually use the word "veto", but needing unanimity is effectively a veto. The new treaty creates 4 new competencies (all QMV) and replaces unanimity with QMV in 40 already-existing competencies (I'll go get the page and article numbers of each of these later) Here is a link to the treaty: http://bookshop.europa.eu/eubookshop/Fi ... NC_002.pdf Which is why I support the existance of the EU, but don't support the direction in which it seems to be going (a militarised single European state)

Just to clarify on this, all dictatorships where founded on the idea of that a few elites know better which is why the "people won't understand, so noone should have a say" stuff is very dangerous attitude. The reason I think there should be referendums is because of the major changes to the constitutional framework, and loss of sovereignity. Politicians are elected to operate within the constitutional framework - I'm sure people would agree that it'd be unjust for elections to be abolished via a parliamentary vote - although an extreme example, it's the same concept (major change in constitutional framework, and also moves power away from the electorate). Because of EU law having supremacy over national law, national elections are redundant in areas in which the EU can legislate where nation states no longer have the veto, removing the ability for the electorate to hold the legislative body to account, because no matter who they vote for in the national election, the EU law is supreme. (Of course there is always the option of voting in a party which will withdraw from the EU, but that shouldn't be the only option) I'd go as far as saying, with each loss of veto, the EU comes closer to being a single European state.

I support the existance of the EU, but the lisbon treaty (EU constitution under a new name) should've never even being made. When the constitution was rejected, the direction the EU is going in should've be re-thought rather than just re-wording it and changing the name. Trying to force it through without referendums will just stir up more anti-EU feelings, it's obvious by that out of the 5 times this proposal has being put to referendum it has being rejected 3 times (Ireland, France, the Netherlands) that people aren't happy with the direction the EU is going in. Oh and the "there shouldn't be a referendum because people won't understand it" stuff is elitist rubbish

strange... "5 people bombed, shot, tortured then killed" "meh, it's war." "puppy thrown off cliff" "animal abuse!" What they did was stupid though and I am glad they got kicked out.