Democracy my B0lllox!!!

demakinz

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

It's 3.53 in the morning and I just ran out of whiskey. It's been funny.



___________________
911=inside job

i still got half a bottle of vodka...bring on the debates

its been fun lol even if we cant agree on anything.

Scofflaw

demakinz wrote: »

ok Scofflaw can you please tell me in laymans terms what advantages i have for voting YES as a normal person who nos nothing about all politics mumbo jumbo?

what difference will it make to me from the way we are now?

If you don't care much about politics, then it will make relatively little obvious difference, much as the EU generally makes little obvious difference.

However, if you care about things like having your rights protected when legislation is being made in Europe, then it will make quite a large difference, because the Charter can be used to strike down European legislation that breaches those rights. Currently that's not possible.

If you care about the Oireachtas (rather than just the government) having more say in European legislation, then the subsidiarity mechanisms (negotiated by the Dutch after their referendum) increase the say of the national parliaments.

If you'd like your MEP to have more control over the European Commission, and a greater ability to resist obnoxious legislation on your behalf, even where that legislation is supported by our own government, then the increase in co-decision does that.

If you care about making the process of legislating in Europe more transparent, then there are several provisions in the Treaty that do that.

If you like the idea of being able to put legislative requests on the European agenda, the Citizens' Initiative does that.

If you think the EU ought to be simpler, that's a large part of what Lisbon is about.

If you think it should be possible to make minor adjustments to the way the EU runs, as opposed to great big treaties full of good and bad, the simplified revision procedure does that.

If you think Ireland should retain a Commissioner at all times, that's possible only under Lisbon.

If you want to be sure that the EU will do only what it is allowed to do by the member states, and not encroach on national law-making, the explicit statement that Member States confer competences on the EU and that competences not conferred remain with the Member States is added to the EU treaties by Lisbon.

If you think the EU should stop fiddling about with itself, and get on with the business of tackling the recession, climate change, and the like, passing Lisbon allows the EU to do so. Otherwise, it's back to the drawing board for another x years of negotiating, which will produce something not very dissimilar, because there's only so much 27 countries can agree on.

On the other hand, if you're asking whether you'll notice much of a change walking down the street a year after Lisbon, then no, you probably won't. For all the complaints about an "EU super-state", most people would be hard-pressed to think of any tangible effect the EU has on their lives. Whether that's a good or a bad thing depends on your point of view.

cordially,
Scofflaw

demakinz

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I dont understand this. In the run up last year, a website was provided by the referendum commission that outlined what Lisbon was doing. What is so hard about this website? What do you not understand or need explaining?

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/

What Happens if you Vote NO?
If a majority of the voters vote “no” then the Constitution will not be changed and Ireland may not ratify the Treaty. The Treaty will come into effect only if it is ratified by all Member States. The EU would continue to operate under its present rules.


was this not changed?


Thanks this is the first time iv heard of this web site.where was this provided?

BlitzKrieg

everyone got a leaflet copy of the website's points and an address for it in the mail last year prior to the referendum.

Scofflaw

demakinz wrote: »

What Happens if you Vote NO?
If a majority of the voters vote “no” then the Constitution will not be changed and Ireland may not ratify the Treaty. The Treaty will come into effect only if it is ratified by all Member States. The EU would continue to operate under its present rules.


was this not changed?

No, but it's badly worded, because while it's true that if Ireland doesn't ratify, then the Treaty can't go ahead, there's no rule that says the government only gets one stab at ratifying, and that isn't made clear there - although it should be clear enough given Nice I & II is only a few years back.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

hmm never noticied the fake version of that website...Pretty low tactic actually. http://www.lisbonreferendum.org/

though I must admit the writing in red actually looks really familer...like I have read it word for word somewhere else...

demakinz

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you don't care much about politics, then it will make relatively little obvious difference, much as the EU generally makes little obvious difference.

However, if you care about things like having your rights protected when legislation is being made in Europe, then it will make quite a large difference, because the Charter can be used to strike down European legislation that breaches those rights. Currently that's not possible.

If you care about the Oireachtas (rather than just the government) having more say in European legislation, then the subsidiarity mechanisms (negotiated by the Dutch after their referendum) increase the say of the national parliaments.

If you'd like your MEP to have more control over the European Commission, and a greater ability to resist obnoxious legislation on your behalf, even where that legislation is supported by our own government, then the increase in co-decision does that.

If you care about making the process of legislating in Europe more transparent, then there are several provisions in the Treaty that do that.

If you like the idea of being able to put legislative requests on the European agenda, the Citizens' Initiative does that.

If you think the EU ought to be simpler, that's a large part of what Lisbon is about.

If you think it should be possible to make minor adjustments to the way the EU runs, as opposed to great big treaties full of good and bad, the simplified revision procedure does that.

If you think Ireland should retain a Commissioner at all times, that's possible only under Lisbon.

If you want to be sure that the EU will do only what it is allowed to do by the member states, and not encroach on national law-making, the explicit statement that Member States confer competences on the EU and that competences not conferred remain with the Member States is added to the EU treaties by Lisbon.

If you think the EU should stop fiddling about with itself, and get on with the business of tackling the recession, climate change, and the like, passing Lisbon allows the EU to do so. Otherwise, it's back to the drawing board for another x years of negotiating, which will produce something not very dissimilar, because there's only so much 27 countries can agree on.

On the other hand, if you're asking whether you'll notice much of a change walking down the street a year after Lisbon, then no, you probably won't. For all the complaints about an "EU super-state", most people would be hard-pressed to think of any tangible effect the EU has on their lives. Whether that's a good or a bad thing depends on your point of view.

cordially,
Scofflaw

you do know stuff mate.but im still going to vote no and im still going to try and convince anyone who will listen to me to do the same. i still think ireland have done ok over the last 10 years before the GLOBAL RECESSION and theres no need to change that through europe.
unite states of Europe no way.
tony blair as president of Europe.no way
totalitarianism no way

Scofflaw

demakinz wrote: »

you do know stuff mate.but im still going to vote no and im still going to try and convince anyone who will listen to me to do the same. i still think ireland have done ok over the last 10 years before the GLOBAL RECESSION and theres no need to change that through europe.
unite states of Europe no way.
tony blair as president of Europe.no way
totalitarianism no way

It's your privilege to do so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

demakinz

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's your privilege to do so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

it is.thanks

FutureTaoiseach

dinner wrote:

The results showed that 42% of people voted no because they didn't understand the treaty, 26% voted no for various reasons such as neutrality, the loss of a commissioner, conscription abortion etc. These were issues that had nothing to do with Lisbon.

Other polls, including the Eurobarometer poll funded by the EU Commission, have shown figures closer to 22% of no voters citing lack of information. I would contend that such polls often have leading answers intended to push a message that no voters are ignorant and have to be educated by an elite. The polls didn't ask yes voters how many of them were motivated by a lack of information, but when reasons given tend to include sentimental reasons related to the EU as a whole rather than Lisbon in particular e.g. 'EU has been good for Ireland', you know that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, as this also has nothing to do with Lisbon. And with respect to interpretation, Lisbon is not a completely black and white issue, and what has and has not anything to do with Lisbon will depend on many factors especially how the ECJ chooses to interpret it, which won't be known for sure unless and until Lisbon is ratified. And I fully understood what I was voting against, and resent attempts by the elites to lecture me and tell me what my motives were by coralling voters into multiple-choice questions that may not address the complexity and multifaceted reasons why individuals voted no.

One thing is for sure though. Had we voted yes, we sure wouldn't be having a second referendum, and so much noise wouldn't be made as to whether or not yes voters were motivated by 'lack of information' about the Treaty. It seems there is one rule if you vote yes, and another if you vote no, in terms of whether the political elite will accept your decision as legitimate. As a no voter, I do not feel my concerns have been addressed by the assurances, not only because those on workers-rights and the Commission are not legaly-binding, but also because issues like the Charter of Fundamental Rights remain a problem for me, and because the Government has cynically included wording in the proposed Constitutional amendment that are extraneous to the Treaty e.g. Schengen, potential abolition of the Justice optout Protocol, and which I do not agree with. It was also pointed out by Libertas that one of the largest reasons in the govt research on reasons for voting no was excessive regulation from Brussels. That concern has not even begun to have been addressed

Scofflaw wrote:

However, if you care about things like having your rights protected when legislation is being made in Europe, then it will make quite a large difference, because the Charter can be used to strike down European legislation that breaches those rights. Currently that's not possible.

We already have certain rights under the EU Treaties. The problem a lot of us have is that the ECJ will become too powerful when the Charter goes through. What Gerard Hogan SC warned about before Lisbon I in terms of the rights under the Charter being triggered by travel is a particular concern to me, potentially allowing the ECJ to use the Charter to meddle in the internal affairs of member states, on the basis of an interpretation of Article 51 in terms of its application to member states "implementing EU law" in such a way as to include the Charter itself as "EU law". Member states could be forced to change asylum policy for example by Articles 15 (right to work - currently denied to asylum seekers in this country), and Article 19(1) ('Collective expulsions are forbidden'). The Charter is my problem and especially the fact that under Article 6 TEU as amended by Lisbon, it has "the same legal value as the Treaties". As someone particularly concerned by recent rulings from the ECJ like Metock and Chen, I am not prepared to take the risk that the ECJ will not interpret the Charter in an expansive way.

dinner wrote:

Unlikely considering it is government policy to ratify Lisbon, so once that satisfied they won't want to change it. At the next general election, however, parties who were against Lisbon or the EU as a whole could be elected or at least strengthened who might make a move to repeal some of it.

Short of withdrawal, would be impossible, short of getting the other member states to renegotiate it.

An Capall Dubh wrote:

Surely these same people could not deny that if a yes vote was passed in a second vote then democracy wins regardless!!

Not for the French and Dutch peoples who voted no to the EU Constitution only to have 95% of its provisions forced on them under another name.

ButcherBoiz

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Other polls, including the Eurobarometer poll funded by the EU Commission, have shown figures closer to 22% of no voters citing lack of information. I would contend that such polls often have leading answers intended to push a message that no voters are ignorant and have to be educated by an elite. The polls didn't ask yes voters how many of them were motivated by a lack of information, but when reasons given tend to include sentimental reasons related to the EU as a whole rather than Lisbon in particular e.g. 'EU has been good for Ireland', you know that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, as this also has nothing to do with Lisbon. And with respect to interpretation, Lisbon is not a completely black and white issue, and what has and has not anything to do with Lisbon will depend on many factors especially how the ECJ chooses to interpret it, which won't be known for sure unless and until Lisbon is ratified. And I fully understood what I was voting against, and resent attempts by the elites to lecture me and tell me what my motives were by coralling voters into multiple-choice questions that may not address the complexity and multifaceted reasons why individuals voted no.

One thing is for sure though. Had we voted yes, we sure wouldn't be having a second referendum, and so much noise wouldn't be made as to whether or not yes voters were motivated by 'lack of information' about the Treaty. It seems there is one rule if you vote yes, and another if you vote no, in terms of whether the political elite will accept your decision as legitimate. As a no voter, I do not feel my concerns have been addressed by the assurances, not only because those on workers-rights and the Commission are not legaly-binding, but also because issues like the Charter of Fundamental Rights remain a problem for me, and because the Government has cynically included wording in the proposed Constitutional amendment that are extraneous to the Treaty e.g. Schengen, potential abolition of the Justice optout Protocol, and which I do not agree with. It was also pointed out by Libertas that one of the largest reasons in the govt research on reasons for voting no was excessive regulation from Brussels. That concern has not even begun to have been addressed We already have certain rights under the EU Treaties. The problem a lot of us have is that the ECJ will become too powerful when the Charter goes through. What Gerard Hogan SC warned about before Lisbon I in terms of the rights under the Charter being triggered by travel is a particular concern to me, potentially allowing the ECJ to use the Charter to meddle in the internal affairs of member states, on the basis of an interpretation of Article 51 in terms of its application to member states "implementing EU law" in such a way as to include the Charter itself as "EU law". Member states could be forced to change asylum policy for example by Articles 15 (right to work - currently denied to asylum seekers in this country), and Article 19(1) ('Collective expulsions are forbidden'). The Charter is my problem and especially the fact that under Article 6 TEU as amended by Lisbon, it has "the same legal value as the Treaties". As someone particularly concerned by recent rulings from the ECJ like Metock and Chen, I am not prepared to take the risk that the ECJ will not interpret the Charter in an expansive way.Short of withdrawal, would be impossible, short of getting the other member states to renegotiate it.Not for the French and Dutch peoples who voted no to the EU Constitution only to have 95% of its provisions forced on them under another name.

well said

K-9

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

so your point is the people who voted no last year voted on the basis of youtube videos that targeted 18yr olds?

Like you said, this is silly, both sides. I'm off to bed.

btw,
911=inside job

No, that wasn't my point, it is a silly interpretation of it, one just looking for offense.

demakinz wrote: »

What Happens if you Vote NO?
If a majority of the voters vote “no” then the Constitution will not be changed and Ireland may not ratify the Treaty. The Treaty will come into effect only if it is ratified by all Member States. The EU would continue to operate under its present rules.


was this not changed?


Thanks this is the first time iv heard of this web site.where was this provided?

It wasn't changed. Where did you hear it was?

The website would have been printed on the booklet sent out in the last referendum.

demakinz wrote: »

you do know stuff mate.but im still going to vote no and im still going to try and convince anyone who will listen to me to do the same. i still think ireland have done ok over the last 10 years before the GLOBAL RECESSION and theres no need to change that through europe.
unite states of Europe no way.
tony blair as president of Europe.no way
totalitarianism no way

We did not do ok before the recession, but I don't see how that is related to Lisbon. Tony Blair was EU President under the current rules. There is actually more chance of him not being President under this system than under the old one.

ButcherBoiz

K-9,

I really have to say this, for you sake more than mine. You and several people here who do ALOT of posting, rely on what I call "internet based research", which is limited and you need to acknowledge that in your own mind.

I have just posted list of about fifty books (mainstream, and I do mean mainstream, academic books) in a related thread. Please have a look and get started with those.

tlev

demakinz wrote: »

Why do we have to vote again to lisbon? we the people voted NO. i might be wrong but is that not how Democracy works?
will the powers that be in europe keep making us vote untill we get it right?

if Fianna Fáil lose the next general election and we were all made to vote again because we were misinformed on there polices there would be uproar.

surly this is not democracy.
if or when the treaty is ratified do we really want to be part of a Europe that treats the will of the people like this?

There is no such thing as a purely democratic society, I'm not saying its a bad thing but that's the way it is. It is an ideology simple as that, there will always be a bit of autocracy and socialism mixed in.

ei.sdraob

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

K-9,

I really have to say this, for you sake more than mine. You and several people here who do ALOT of posting, rely on what I call "internet based research", which is limited and you need to acknowledge that in your own mind.

I have just posted list of about fifty books (mainstream, and I do mean mainstream, academic books) in a related thread. Please have a look and get started with those.

and none of those books have anything to do with Lisbon or the thread in question or for that matter the post you replied to

well done :rolleyes:

ButcherBoiz

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and none of those books have anything to do with Lisbon or the thread in question or for that matter the post you replied to

well done :rolleyes:

I would ask people to actually look at the books, and then decide for themselves whether they are relevant to Lisbon, the various threads here, and to the post er.sdraob mentions etc.

If you (ei.sdraob) actually read the texts, then you will better appreciate the relevance of bonafide research. You also need to appreciate the need to go beyond internet sources that treat of issues in isolation or which fail to treat of wider political contexts and debates, all of which are extremely relevant to contemporary Ireland, contemporary Europe, and the proposed future direction of both (as expressed in the Lisbon treaty, for example). This is an example of "in depth" research, that works from the foundations up. Googling "lisbon treaty" and other net searches will only get you so far....

P. Breathnach

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

K-9,

I really have to say this, for you sake more than mine. You and several people here who do ALOT of posting, rely on what I call "internet based research", which is limited and you need to acknowledge that in your own mind.

I have just posted list of about fifty books (mainstream, and I do mean mainstream, academic books) in a related thread. Please have a look and get started with those.

Up to now, we have managed some polite and informed discourse without the burden of being given homework such as you feel yourself entitled to assign.

Do you propose to set written tests?

ei.sdraob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Up to now, we have managed some polite and informed discourse without the burden of being given homework such as you feel yourself entitled to assign.

Do you propose to set written tests?

@P

see page 31 in parallel thread

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61409757

for the second time in 1 thread i catch this guy committing intellectual sins

K-9

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

I would ask people to actually look at the books, and then decide for themselves whether they are relevant to Lisbon, the various threads here, and to the post er.sdraob mentions etc.

If you (ei.sdraob) actually read the texts, then you will better appreciate the relevance of bonafide research. You also need to appreciate the need to go beyond internet sources that treat of issues in isolation or which fail to treat of wider political contexts and debates, all of which are extremely relevant to contemporary Ireland, contemporary Europe, and the proposed future direction of both (as expressed in the Lisbon treaty, for example). This is an example of "in depth" research, that works from the foundations up. Googling "lisbon treaty" and other net searches will only get you so far....

I fear you are in the wrong forum. Try this:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

tlev

K-9 wrote: »

I fear you are in the wrong forum. Try this:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

LOL!

vibe666

demakinz wrote: »

ok so if we vote yes to lisbon our resession will be over? i doubt that. whats lisbon goint to change when it comes to our recession?

it'll be over a lot quicker and a lot more smoothly with the support of the EU.

demakinz wrote: »

whats wrong with with europe the way it is/was? why give them more powers?

you keep talking about europe like it's something we aren't a part of. we ARE europe. ireland is part of the whole thing and lisbon will stengthen not only europe as an entity but our overall position in it and allow it to run efficiently, instead of the way it is now. the europe of today was designed aroun d x amount of countries working together in unison on the world stage. the problem now is that europe is many times the size it was when that vision was first realised and needs some major adhustments so it can run effectively with all the extra countries that are now part of it.

demakinz wrote: »

did we(ireland) not do very well for our selves the last 10 years before the recession?

believe it or not, NO we didn't. woohoo, celtic tiger, etc. etc. but at the end of the day, we took an economic boom that should have set ireland up for the next millenium as a world leading information age country and our incompetent goverment did an insanely good job of pissing it all up the wall and totally squandering the good times and as a result, as the bad times are upon us, we're going to be totally fuct.

demakinz wrote: »

you have some very good points when it comes to democracy and voting but i still dont see how voting yes to lisbon will help ireland.

then i'm sorry to say you need to read up on it some more because I don't think you understand it. i honestly don't see how any rational human being who loves ireland and has read through what lisbon is, what it is for and what it will do could possibly even consider voting no. ireland is on the verge of falling to it's knees, imho voting no would be like kicking it in the nuts to finish the job.

demakinz wrote: »

were been bullied into voting yes.they cant chuck us out of europe just for voting NO

nobody is bullying anyone into voting yes. are oyu seriously saying that some affable inoffensive little asian guy is able to force you to change your vote? by asking you to vote yes?

european leaders are trying to encourage people to vote yes because they understand what it means for ireland and europe and they know it's the best thing.

they know it's the best thing because them and their predecessors have been working on it for 30 years and have spent more hours than any of us can comprehend constructing it from the ground up so that the people they represent can live in a better europe.

tlev

No they can't throw us out of Europe if we vote no but all the EU has to do is bring in some legislation similiar to the EMU stating that member states are required to do such and such to be part of the EU by a certain time or show they are making the best efforts to implement such and such or they are out or won't receive as much EU funding/backing. In this case such and such will just happen to be parts of the Lisbon treaty that the EU want enacted. Ireland doesn't get with the programme they could be left by the wayside. If there is even the slightest notion that Ireland will be worse off in the EU because they didn't vote yes then foreign investor confidence will be not be very high in Ireland (not that it is looking good now either).
The question is at a time when Ireland needs the EU more than the EU needs Ireland, why be divisive and self-righteous.

ButcherBoiz

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Up to now, we have managed some polite and informed discourse without the burden of being given homework such as you feel yourself entitled to assign.

Do you propose to set written tests?

Look back over your own posts... how many times have you gone about dismissing and supposedly "debunking" others because you think they don't do homework, or conform to your style or thinking? Talk about projection! Don't like it when it's done to you!

Go, ahead, have the last work, you do that a lot, to a lot of people!

There is way too much nit-picking in this forum, and very little substance. Very sad.

ButcherBoiz

ei.sdraob wrote: »

@P

see page 31 in parallel thread

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61409757

for the second time in 1 thread i catch this guy committing intellectual sins

Fair enough, but I merely presented a list of mainstream books, and frankly you are doing and saying anything to avoid entering into real debate. Looking back over your posts, you repeatedly accuse people of lying and dishonesty, thus setting yourself up (laughably) as a paragon of virtue! This is an internet forum with the logo "now ye're talkin', not a formal debate from a 1950's debating class.

ei.sdraob

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

Fair enough, but I merely presented a list of mainstream books, and frankly you are doing and saying anything to avoid entering into real debate. Looking back over your posts, you repeatedly accuse people of lying and dishonesty, thus setting yourself up (laughably) as a paragon of virtue! This is an internet forum with the logo "now ye're talkin', not a formal debate from a 1950's debating class.

why don't you start a separate thread on the subject of NATO, EU and Lisbon

and present your "thesis", it would be interesting to see how you tie these together

i am just pointing out that your reply with "research" had nothing to do with the thread or the question you replied to in that thread

and when i accuse anyone of lying i try to present evidence to the following

Hitman Actual

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

There is way too much nit-picking in this forum, and very little substance. Very sad.

Your idea of substance seems to be a political-theory discussion of the EU, but this forum has always been more concerned with the practical aspects of the EU- how it works, implications of the Lisbon Treaty etc. Yes, it's "nit-picking" at times, but with the amount of misinformation and misunderstanding about the EU and the treaty, this is to be expected.

You do know that there is a Political Theory forum on boards as well? That might suit your idea of "substance" a bit better. But I don't think this forum will give you the discussion you seem to want.

ButcherBoiz

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Your idea of substance seems to be a political-theory discussion of the EU, but this forum has always been more concerned with the practical aspects of the EU- how it works, implications of the Lisbon Treaty etc. Yes, it's "nit-picking" at times, but with the amount of misinformation and misunderstanding about the EU and the treaty, this is to be expected.

You do know that there is a Political Theory forum on boards as well? That might suit your idea of "substance" a bit better. But I don't think this forum will give you the discussion you seem to want.

Your points are vague. You use two broad labels, practical versus theory, and suggest that they are someone mutually exclusive. If i discuss, for example, military activities, genocide, exploitation etc. what you have is a list of practical and very real issues.

And again, if I or others say something, and others decide (for themselves) it does not bear on the discussion, then it should be ignored. The fact that the relatively small number of posts I have made have elicited so very many responses tells me that a)the most prolific posters here have rigid and narrow standards and b)that same are actually unable to let points rest or ignore that which does not conform, according to your view of things.
Golden rule:
Please do not repeadedly and protractedly respond to posts that you would claim are largely or completely irrelevant.

ei.sdraob

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

If i discuss, for example, military activities, genocide, exploitation etc. what you have is a list of practical and very real issues. .

Yes these are real issues that you brought up [1]

but in the case of your response to @tlev [2]

it has nothing to do with EU (or Lisbon for that matter)

to quote @tlev

You are comparing the EU to the likes of North Korea

to quote your reply

Question how many wars have the european power centers been involved in? How many are they involved in right now?

Now since we all know EU (A) != the european power centers (B)

im not sure how you arrived at B in replying to a post about A

QED


----

[1] http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61409276&postcount=446
[2] http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61409067&postcount=445

ButcherBoiz

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Yes these are real issues that you brought up [1]

but in the case of your response to @tlev [2]

it has nothing to do with EU (or Lisbon for that matter)

to quote @tlev


to quote your reply



Now since we all know EU (A) != the european power centers (B)

im not sure how you arrived at B in replying to a post about A

QED


----

[1] http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61409276&postcount=446
[2] http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61409067&postcount=445

I clearly did not equate "european power centers" with "European Union".Read the discussion again, if you want to. We are simply in dispute.

Hitman Actual

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

Your points are vague. You use two broad labels, practical versus theory, and suggest that they are someone mutually exclusive. If i discuss, for example, military activities, genocide, exploitation etc. what you have is a list of practical and very real issues.

Granted, I haven't phrased that well, but your suggestion that people should be reading Chomsky threw me off as to what you expect the discussion here to be about. [Especially as that particular post was a response to a very direct question, as outlined by ei.sdraob above]. Also, coming on here as a new poster and suggesting to others in your patronising tone about what to read and how this forum should work won't endear yourself to anyone.