How many people.....

nhughes100

nhughes100 wrote: »

I did not ignore the strawman comment, in fact I challanged it. Again read what the topic of the thread is.

No you didn't answer it you repeated it.

My opinion on the EU is off topic but is on record in other threads.

You mean you don't want it pointed out that if you are Eurosceptic for Eurosceptic sake then why not just say that or better still be open about your scepticism at all times and if it's a debate you really want rather than a soapbox for your strawman then present clear arguments for your position.

I haven't made up anything, the fact remains that the Taoiseach of the day and our EU commissioner are on record as not having read the Lisbon treaty on which they are demanding a yes vote.

And there you go with your strawman again not knowing the difference between someone saying they haven't gone through reams of text in it's final book format and someone who was actually intricately involved in it's drafting so knows it's provisions inside out better than most.

If you think this is fine then be my guest, if I was in the Yes camp then I would be holding my head in my hands saying thats another fine mess they've got us into. This is not some book review,

Let me present you with a little challenge then.
Point me to any aspect of this treaty that Cowen has been caught out on as being wrong on.
If you can't do that...

this is a treaty that will change our country if passed.

How?
Like a few other people frequenting this place lately thinking it's a soapbox for any aul rant,you are awfull fond of making sweeping statements of your opinion dressed up with no facts.

MSporty

Vote no and things should stay the way they are, the EU is grand as is, why do they have to keep tinkering with it. Anyway can anyone tell me in a couple of sentences what the end game of the EU is?

turgon

In fairness, I cold not envisage the Eu becoming a federal state, which you are hinting at. Citizens wouldnt buy it.

MSporty

turgon wrote: »

In fairness, I cold not envisage the Eu becoming a federal state, which you are hinting at. Citizens wouldnt buy it.

Not hinting, just wondering what the final version of the EU is going to be?

sink

I believe the Lisbon treaty will be about as far as the EU will go. Maybe some more specific areas will become greater competences of the EU such as defence. But I don't see any need to reform the structure any further and neither do the majority of politicians who are ratifying it. The EU came into being with the Maastricht treaty the Lisbon treaty is the final building block to making the EU work the way it's supposed to. Perhaps the constitution could be try to be passed at some stage far in the future but that is unlikely to happen for decades.

MSporty

sink wrote: »

I believe the Lisbon treaty will be about as far as the EU will go. Maybe some more specific areas will become greater competences of the EU such as defence. But I don't see any need to reform the structure any further and neither do the majority of politicians who are ratifying it. The EU came into being with the Maastricht treaty the Lisbon treaty is the final building block to making the EU work the way it's supposed to.

Thats what they say about every new treaty!! Can we not just tell them to F off at this stage, were grand the way we are thanks :-)

turgon

sink wrote: »

I believe the Lisbon treaty will be about as far as the EU will go.

I would hope so.

sink

Well the EU has grown a huge amount since Maastricht and needed reform. Maastricht was largely negotiated before the collapse of the soviet union and no-one predicted the countries behind the iron curtain would be free enough to join any time soon.

The growth rate will seriously decline for the next while. Only the balkans are likely to be entering the EU within the next decade. The reform treaty should be enough to cope with any future enlargements. Maybe if Russia ever joins there will be a need for more reform but this is highly unlikely to happen.

johnnyq

djpbarry wrote: »

Then there's those on the 'No' side who automatically think that any proposal with the word 'Europe' in/on it must be BAD.

Well i'm not one of them. I've done research into it and unhappy with some of what I have read. It's a bit naive to think that any proposal is automatically good ('but it comes with sweeties' I heard a YFG person say today:mad:).

:rolleyes: The truth is out there johnnyq.

Yes but it's about as understandable as this

Can't understand why the issue of neutrality springs up anytime anyone mentions the EU.

Can't understand it? It's pretty logical
Step 1: Ireland is 'neutral'
Step 2: Ireland is part of the EU
Step 3: The EU makes a military decision (which Ireland is still part of even if there are no irish troops)
Step 4: Decision is not a neutral one e.g. 'preventing' terrorism in a country
(Irish government could veto this as it is against neutrality, but wait!!!)
Step 5: Ireland is no longer 'neutral'

johnnyq

johnnyq wrote: »

Can't understand it? It's pretty logical
Step 1: Ireland is 'neutral'
Step 2: Ireland is part of the EU
Step 3: The EU makes a military decision (which Ireland is still part of even if there are no irish troops)
Step 4: Decision is not a neutral one e.g. 'preventing' terrorism in a country
(Irish government could veto this as it is against neutrality, but wait!!!)
Step 5: Ireland is no longer 'neutral'

Utter Rubbish.
We may be all members of the EU,it may facilitate certain of it members to participate in a defence co operation aperatus but we have nothing to do with it as there is a triple lock on that sort of activity.

• It must be approved by the Government
• It must pass a vote of the Dáil
• It must have the approval of the UNSC

Knowing how difficult that last one is to get,nevermind the middle one,your assertions on non neutrality are opinionated rubbish in the extreme.

ixtlan

johnnyq wrote: »

Step 3: The EU makes a military decision (which Ireland is still part of even if there are no irish troops)
Step 4: Decision is not a neutral one e.g. 'preventing' terrorism in a country
(Irish government could veto this as it is against neutrality, but wait!!!)
Step 5: Ireland is no longer 'neutral'

Did I miss a step? What happens after the "wait!!"? Any military decision would as far as I know require unanimous agreement. You agree that we could veto it.... so why are we not neutral?

Ireland's neutrality really is some kind of sacred cow. Many neutral countries are very militaristic, ie Sweden and Switzerland, in the sense that while they are neutral they are ready to defend themselves.

Being neutral does not mean we have to disagree with anything related to the military. Remember the UN is on record as saying they want the EU battlegroups ready to deploy under the auspices of the UN, since the UN does not now and never will have a standing army.

Maybe we need a debate on what "neutrality" means. Many people seem to interpret it as having no army, buying no weapons, forcing other countries to do likewise, and presumeably having no countries sending any troops on UN missions.

I interpret neutrality as Ireland commiting to nothing in the military arena unless we specifically decide that we want to on a case-by-case basis. Again I despair at our crazy holier-than-thou neutrality that has surrendered our military policy to the control of the UN security council.

Ix.

johnnyq

Deleted User wrote: »

Blah.

You are obviously very selective in what it means to be a citizen of the EU. We huddle under it for the world trade talks (seemingly at our expense lol!) but if a military atrocity occured under the EU flag then no we in Ireland weren't involved at all, yet did nothing to stop it though we had a veto.

If i were the victim of that atrocity I certainly wouldn't be exempting Ireland from blame -which is what neutrality is supposed to be after all

ixtlan wrote:

Did I miss a step? What happens after the "wait!!"?

May I have a drumroll please.................

And the result is.........



More EU horsetrading and burocracy. (A bit of a let down wasn't it;))

ixtlan wrote:

Any military decision would as far as I know require unanimous agreement. You agree that we could veto it.... so why are we not neutral?Ireland's neutrality really is some kind of sacred cow.

I totally agree! It's very hard to maintain any plausable sense of neutrality when dealing with Fianna Fail. But when you're part of an organisation which is making military decisions then it's virtually impossible to be neutral since you will be implicated simply by being part of the organisation.

The best case scenario to maintain Ireland's neutrality in my view following the Lisbon Treaty (if passed) and the militarisation that comes with it would be to veto any mission without UN security council backing simply because worldwide consensus is the nearest we can get to proper neutrality.

Whether Ireland really is or should be neutral is an open question for me. I would just view our governments stance on the issue post lisbon as totally hypocritical since you just know they won't have the backbone to veto EU war missions.

Many neutral countries are very militaristic, ie Sweden and Switzerland, in the sense that while they are neutral they are ready to defend themselves.

Being neutral does not mean we have to disagree with anything related to the military. Remember the UN ....
Maybe we need a debate on what "neutrality" means.

I totally agree

ixtlan

johnnyq wrote: »

if a military atrocity occured under the EU flag then no we in Ireland weren't involved at all, yet did nothing to stop it though we had a veto.

If i were the victim of that atrocity I certainly wouldn't be exempting Ireland from blame -which is what neutrality is supposed to be after all

I think it's overly dramatic to talk of possible EU military atrocities. A far more likely scenario is a military atrocity taking place which the EU/UN will not get involved in. Witness the Macedonia peacekeeping operation running under NATO because even though everyone agrees it's a good idea China will not approve it because they recognised Taiwan! Would Ireland be exempt from blame if we vetoed an operation that could prevent a civil war? Also... I'm not sure I get the blame point. It sounds like you are saying neutrality is about making sure nobody ever blames you for anything. Never getting involved can involve a lot of blame... Rwanda springs to mind.

johnnyq wrote: »

The best case scenario to maintain Ireland's neutrality in my view following the Lisbon Treaty (if passed) and the militarisation that comes with it would be to veto any mission without UN security council backing simply because worldwide consensus is the nearest we can get to proper neutrality.

This is an interesting argument. I suppose it is something that could be turned into a formal policy. I would be 100% against it (see the Macedonia case), but it has the merit that it might convince the neutrality paranoids... but on second though perhaps not.

johnnyq wrote: »

Whether Ireland really is or should be neutral is an open question for me. I would just view our governments stance on the issue post lisbon as totally hypocritical since you just know they won't have the backbone to veto EU war missions.

This too is an interesting point. It is perhaps a valid concern that we could be pressured into agreeing to an operation maybe in return for support on some other agenda. However 2 points... Firstly that is still Ireland agreeing for itself to approve, not being forced. If horsetrading takes place on other issues that's still Ireland's choice, and the people can vote out the government if it upsets them enough. Secondly and more importantly, I'd like to inject a note of practical reality. If all 27 countries agree on an operation, it's going to be pretty much a no-brainer, like Macedonia. Ireland does not have a monopoly on ethics, justice and doing the right thing.

And I feel I must add for those people who may not read all the posts... At present (and after Lisbon) Ireland cannot send any troops on missions without UN approval. What we are discussing here is whether Ireland might approve EU military operations without UN approval, so that the other countries who actually have sovereign control of their armies (unlike ourselves) might send troops.

Ix.

johnnyq

johnnyq wrote: »

You are obviously very selective in what it means to be a citizen of the EU. We huddle under it for the world trade talks (seemingly at our expense lol!) but if a military atrocity occured under the EU flag then no we in Ireland weren't involved at all, yet did nothing to stop it though we had a veto.

If i were the victim of that atrocity I certainly wouldn't be exempting Ireland from blame -which is what neutrality is supposed to be after all

More Utter Rubbish.Some Countries within the EU do want to cooperate militarally and thats their business.
We can't stop them.

The best case scenario to maintain Ireland's neutrality in my view following the Lisbon Treaty (if passed) and the militarisation that comes with it would be to veto any mission without UN security council backing simply because worldwide consensus is the nearest we can get to proper neutrality.

your lack of understanding in this matter is breath taking.
Any number of countries in the EU as it stands can go to war if they want to and we have no say.
They can go together or alone.
Passing or not passing Lisbon has no material affect on this other than formalising it for those countries that want something formal on it.



I suppose next you'll be saying that we here in Ireland are complicit in allowing abortion in the UK because we don't veto it?
We can't just like we can't veto any nation state or group of nation states (on their own or co-operating) from going to war on any issue.
Ergo your points are a load of hot air and irrelevant to Ireland full stop.

ixtlan

You know that I am 100% for Lisbon, but I would humbly suggest that you are being too harsh to johnnyq.

He/she understands the situation. He's just concerned that if the EU rather than NATO authorises an operation, then Ireland is involved. I would argue that for 27 countries to agree it's going to be a very clear case for action. In fact let me propose a crazy idea... the perfect scenario would be the abolition of NATO and all military activity to be placed under EU control so that we could veto any action we considered unwise. Never going to happen but an interesting thought.

As for abortion, as you know it's not affected by Lisbon, but I suppose there is a parallel. If in the future the EU brought in laws governing abortion, with appropriate opt-outs for Ireland and other countries, would people be happy for an EU institution to be involved in this matter? Some people would argue that abortion in the UK is their problem but as soon as the EU regulates it it's on our heads, even if we are not covered.

I would disagree on both points. Isolationism is unworkable in the modern world. Let everything be disussed at EU level. If some countries want a military alliance let them, and then allow us to be involved in the discussions and maybe we can influence then. Likewise with abortion. Let countries discuss it and we can offer our opinion, while we maintain whatever policy we want.

ixtlan

ixtlan wrote: »

He/she understands the situation. He's just concerned that if the EU rather than NATO authorises an operation, then Ireland is involved.

How without Dáil approval and a UNSC mandate? How?
Without those,the assertion is groundless.With those,it's immaterial because we'd be acting for the UN.It's impossible not to be neutral and acting for the United Nations.

I would argue that for 27 countries to agree it's going to be a very clear case for action. In fact let me propose a crazy idea... the perfect scenario would be the abolition of NATO and all military activity to be placed under EU control so that we could veto any action we considered unwise. Never going to happen but an interesting thought.

27 countries are unlikely to agree unless there is something heinous happening that needs intervention and one of the 27 isn't responsible.
It's a moot point regardless as the way the EU or old EC is and always has been structured since we joined it in '73-decisions taken within it have involved members of Nato.
Decisions taken within it have had direct implications on their available spend for military.
We've never had a right to decide other countries choices on military though nor any association with them, and I don't expect we ever will.

Scofflaw

I think a large part of the argument here is that we will have a moral involvement with any EU military action, rather than a legal one per se. The idea seems to be that we can say "oh, well we're not involved with the military aspects of the EU" or "the EU has no military aspects, so we have no responsibility for anything done by the member states".

Personally, I see that as a pretty noxious piece of hand-washing. We have influence in the EU, we have influence with the member states. We cannot avoid moral culpability for the actions of our EU partners by erecting a "Chinese wall" of legality that absolves us from their actions.

The only way of avoiding our moral culpability in respect of the military actions of other EU member states, whether through the EU or not, is to leave the EU - and if we did so for such a reason we would simply be evading our responsibility.

I've said this before - we are militarily neutral, but we are not politically neutral. We are not morally neutral either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ixtlan

Deleted User wrote: »

How without Dáil approval and a UNSC mandate? How?
Without those,the assertion is groundless.With those,it's immaterial because we'd be acting for the UN.It's impossible not to be neutral and acting for the United Nations.

Just to defend my post, even though we are on the same side....

The concern for some people I would suggest, is that the EU would want military intervention somewhere... Without a UN mandate Ireland could not participate with troops. However it would still be voted on by the EU. We could veto any action, but we could also vote yes or abstain, thereby allowing other countries to send troops without UN approval. Under certain circumstances Ireland might approve of the action or perhaps not care enough so that we would be happy to vote yes in return for some concession.

I really am playing devil's advocate here. I think this issue, while based on valid concerns does not justify a no vote, and I agree with what Scofflaw added. Ultimately, we should be ready to discuss military matters with our European neighbours, even if we are always going to say no.

Ix.

johnnyq

Deleted User wrote: »

More Utter Rubbish.
I suppose next you'll be saying that we here in Ireland are complicit in allowing abortion in the UK because we don't veto it?
Ergo... a load of hot air

Look, we can all start our posts with 'utter rubbish' and end them with 'ergo' but it still doesn't justify your blinkered view that no troops = no responsibility.

Abortion?!? I mean come on! This style of yours to draw up obviously incorrect analogies really takes from anything of substance you may have to say.

/pictures Black Briar having dug a hole so deep that he ends up in China :D

But in the interests of furthering the discussion I will trudge on...

blackbriar wrote:

Some Countries within the EU do want to cooperate militarally and thats their business. We can't stop them.
Any number of countries in the EU as it stands can go to war if they want to and we have no say.

'Some' countries in the EU can do what they like and we can't stop them, true. But they can't call it a EU mission/cooperation which would implicate Ireland.

Where Ireland does have a say - and certainly a veto - it must be used to protect Irish neutrality (if that is our military policy.

ixtlan wrote:

You know that I am 100% for Lisbon, but I would humbly suggest that you are being too harsh to johnnyq.

Thank you ixtlan for being a voice of reason! And I am grateful for you holding the fort for the opposing side while I was away :)

ixtlan wrote:

The concern for some people I would suggest, is that the EU would want military intervention somewhere... Without a UN mandate Ireland could not participate with troops. However it would still be voted on by the EU. We could veto any action, but we could also vote yes or abstain, thereby allowing other countries to send troops without UN approval. Under certain circumstances Ireland might approve of the action or perhaps not care enough so that we would be happy to vote yes in return for some concession.

And still call ourselves neutral of course:rolleyes:

Vis-a-vis the lisbon treaty - leaving the mutual defence and 'terrorism' prevention aside for a moment - I am concerned that it allows the government to vote to change voting on these issues from uninimous to majority voting and hence then claim to vote No when they know it's meaningless.
I could envisage it being defended using exactly the same feeble arguments as BlackBriar is using now - 'it doesn't involve us', 'but we're not sending troops':rolleyes:). And yet if an atrocity does occur (and yes I view the widely backed 'terrorism' prevention Iraq war only 5 yrs ago as an example)
Biffo will still say 'but we're neutral':mad:

Regarding the likelihood of this happening - just wait until a former colony of Uk/France becomes involved in something.

A UN backing to any action is the best direction forward to try and prevent this happening since at least there must be international consensus.
Aligning the EU to Nato and its 'mission leftovers' only ensures that those political interests will be defended and likely at the expense of the local people being 'liberated'.

Excellent post Scofflaw highlighting political moral cowardice.

johnnyq

johnnyq wrote: »

Look, we can all start our posts with 'utter rubbish' and end them with 'ergo' but it still doesn't justify your blinkered view that no troops = no responsibility.

Abortion?!? I mean come on! This style of yours to draw up obviously incorrect analogies really takes from anything of substance you may have to say.

/pictures Black Briar having dug a hole so deep that he ends up in China :D.

If dealing with points I make is more difficult than giving an answer with "blah" or a in it then fine.
I am interested though to know how statements like no troops does mean responsibility squares up with every other thing in the EU that is done that we apparently disagree with.
you are very selective in your logic as I said earlier..only using it when it suits you.

ixtlan

johnnyq wrote: »

A UN backing to any action is the best direction forward to try and prevent this happening since at least there must be international consensus.
Aligning the EU to Nato and its 'mission leftovers' only ensures that those political interests will be defended and likely at the expense of the local people being 'liberated'.

UN backing only requires the consensus of Britain, France, China, the US, Russia and a few of the temporary members of the security council. Not all since only the permanent members have a veto. Are you happy for this group (each of whom blocks whatever they feel is not in their interest) to be the ethical/moral guardians of the whole planet?

What about the Macedonia situation as I described elsewhere? Was the correct position to allow a civil war to break out simply because Macedonia had recognised Taiwan and hence China had refused to agree to UN troops. (Ultimately NATO sent peace-keeping troops).

This was a specific example in recent times, very very close to home. What was the correct thing to do? If Ireland could have blocked NATO from sending troops then should we? It's contradictory to say that sending troops was the morally correct thing to do while at the same time saying that only UN missions should be allowed.

Sometimes refusal to act or approve action could leave blood on our hand too.

Even more recently China was very difficult as regards Sudan when the security council was trying to condemn atrocities in Darfur. I understand the desire to hold the UN as the model of when military interventions should occur, but really I think it's possible that the EU may be a better judge of what is right and what is wrong.

Ix.

johnnyq

ixtlan wrote: »

UN backing only requires the consensus of Britain, France, China, the US, Russia and a few of the temporary members of the security council. Not all since only the permanent members have a veto. Are you happy for this group (each of whom blocks whatever they feel is not in their interest) to be the ethical/moral guardians of the whole planet?

But surely isn't it a compromise (your favorite word afterall:D)
Is the global interest really served when we bypass other superpowers to do what we think is right. This is how world wars start after all.

ixtlan wrote:

really I think it's possible that the EU may be a better judge of what is right and what is wrong.

And herein lies the problem.

The drones of every superpower think that their leader is a better judge of right and wrong. Look at Hitler, Stalin, GWB etc.... We fall into very dangerous territory when we impose our moral views on to those of others. You'd think the world would have realised this by now, yet alas, it hasn't.

ixtlan wrote:

What about the Macedonia situation as I described elsewhere? Was the correct position to allow a civil war to break out simply because Macedonia had recognised Taiwan and hence China had refused to agree to UN troops. (Ultimately NATO sent peace-keeping troops).

My personal opinion is that NATO made the correct decision given that what you outlined are the sole consequences. That is not to say that I think that All NATO decisions have been good ones however.
Vis-a-Vis Ireland, It is not for a neutral state to use it's moral values to make that decision outside of a vote on the representative UN security council.

This was a specific example in recent times, very very close to home. What was the correct thing to do? If Ireland could have blocked NATO from sending troops then should we?

Ireland isn't part of NATO for that very reason - becuase we're supposed to be neutral.

It's contradictory to say that sending troops was the morally correct thing to do while at the same time saying that only UN missions should be allowed.

Well it certainly wasn't the neutral thing to do.
I bet george bush thought that invading iraq was the morally correct thing to do aswell.

Sometimes refusal to act or approve action could leave blood on our hand too.

Being neutral means that our decisions (subsequent to the decision to be neutral) do not arose blame in such scenarios.

Churchill was more than willing to make that argument that Ireland had blood on it's hands because we didn't fight against the Nazi regime. Maybe he was right? Hence the validity of your point on Rwanda etc.. that we share some responsibility since we did not get involved due to our neutrality.

However, once we decide to be neutral - it's our subsequent decisions that can have blood on our hands if we do not maintain a neutral stance. The EU militarisation gives rise to such decisions for Ireland, which I feel must be vetoed (and not circumvented as the majority voting allows) unless there is UN approval. (a global though cumbersome model) Otherwise we are not neutral.

Whether being neutral or not is the morally right thing to do is totally up for discussion. I don't think Ireland being a hypocrite on the issue will serve any useful moral purpose however.

johnnyq

Deleted User wrote: »

If dealing with points I make is more difficult than giving an answer with "blah" or a in it then fine.

Wow a reply that did not start in 'utter rubbish', we're making progress.
I must have missed the part of your reply when you dealt with the answers I did make. I guess i'll quote them in case in your rush to condemn me you forgot to read them;

johnnyq wrote:

'Some' countries in the EU can do what they like and we can't stop them, true. But they can't call it a EU mission/cooperation which would implicate Ireland

Where Ireland does have a say - and certainly a veto - it must be used to protect Irish neutrality (if that is our military policy..

blackbriar wrote:

I am interested though to know how statements like no troops does mean responsibility squares up with every other thing in the EU that is done that we apparently disagree with.

If we 'apparently disagree' with the outcome of the WTO and the government doesn't use it's veto we are bound by them regardless and suffer the consequences a bit like the military decisions our government mightn't use it's veto on.

black briar wrote:

you are very selective in your logic as I said earlier..only using it when it suits you.

Well no one can certainly accuse you of being selective with the posters you decide to follow :rolleyes:

sink

Just as a side note, the last Eurobarometer poll showed that 61% of those polled said that they would rather foreign policy and defence be handled by thte EU rather that the Irish government. Link here scroll down to page 7.

johnnyq

sink wrote: »

Just as a side note, the last Eurobarometer poll showed that 61% of those polled said that they would rather foreign policy and defence be handled by thte EU rather that the Irish government. Link here scroll down to page 7.

I've only spent a few seconds looking at that page and two things immeadiately stand out.
First, what sink said is TOTALLY MISLEADING.
The poll question said jointly handled NOT handled instead of which automatically refutes sink's conclusion.

Second, more people in the survey said that they would rather the irish gov fight inflation alone than jointly with europe, when interest rates, the indisputed instrument against fighting inflation is solely controlled by europe. So I would question the validity of any conclusions drawn from that survey.

sink

Well everything in the EU is joinlty handled by national governments apart from monetary and single-market policy. I didn't mean that the commission should have sole responsibility for foreign policy, I meant that foreign policy and defence should be co-ordinated and deseminated by the EU rather than the Irish government. And i'm not saying that the poll is a true reflection of the electorates view as I said it is a side note if anything.

johnnyq

johnnyq wrote: »

Wow a reply that did not start in 'utter rubbish', we're making progress.
I must have missed the part of your reply when you dealt with the answers I did make. I guess i'll quote them in case in your rush to condemn me you forgot to read them;If we 'apparently disagree' with the outcome of the WTO and the government doesn't use it's veto we are bound by them regardless and suffer the consequences a bit like the military decisions our government mightn't use it's veto on.

We can't disagree with the outcome of the WTO,we can Veto the emerging EU stance on it though ie before an outcome is reached.So theres no worries there other than the understandable ones from different lobbyists points of view.

Well no one can certainly accuse you of being selective with the posters you decide to follow :rolleyes:

This tactic you've used a lot in the last few days towards my posts... ie you go Wah wah waaaaah! at the shock that I might engage your posts.
Theres a charter on this board that basically entitles posters to debate issues in threads here ergo thats what I am doing.
If you don't like that or by proxy my posts then thats tough.I make no apology for expressing a view and in a public forum,your posts are not immune to that.
Debate was never meant to be a feather cushioned one way street.