> > > I still fail to see why it more unfair to ignore the 49% of people who want to join the Euro than it is to ignore the 51% who are strongly opposed to it.
> >
> > Oh, but that is exactly my point! I don't think it's "more unfair", I think it's (/exactly/) just as unfair, which is exactly the reason why I don't like to use the 'result' of such a vote.
>
> Hmm. My understanding of democracy is that is IS more unfair to go against the wishes of a slim majority than a slim minority. That's the point of majority rule.
>


Let's not forget that democracy - especially the representative form - is a means to an end. That it is an attempt at a concrete implementation of the fuzzy concept of fair government. If someone someday dreams up a form of government that seems more fair, should we not try to embrace it?

When it seems unfair to me that a 51% majority can rule out a 49% minority, I believe I've found a flaw in the form of voting or, to extrapolate wildly, (that particular implementation of) democracy.



> > > Of course this is true. The Danish government had no direct control of the weather, but I'm sure that they would have arranged the vote to take place at a time of year when the weather would be most likely to favour the "yes" campaign.
> >
> > That is one of the perks of being in power - i.e. having won the latest election :-)
>
> Accepted. But it's also an abuse of that power.
>


I think that type of abuse falls under the category "that's what one must expect". That's what my smiley was about.


>
> Basically, I don't have any problem with economic union between Britain and, say, France and Germany. But when you tie such strong economies into the likes of Italy, Spain and Greece, it can only cause massive economic problems for the (vastly) stronger economies.
>
> The test run (ERM) that was trialled in 1992 wiped over £3bn off the British economy in a matter of hours. This was not a freak occurrence, but had been predicted by many economists, both in Britain and around the world. Far larger losses are being predicted if we enter the Euro proper.
>
> In addition, I do not think that taxation for the whole of Europe can be managed centrally. Also, not the sanctions that have been placed by Europe on various member states over the years (Britain and Ireland immediatly come to mind), for having *stronger* economies than the Eurocrats had accounted for. Essentially, Joining the Euro seems designed to bring all of Europe down to the lowest common denominator. I don't want to be part of that.
>


Hrmmm. This point of view troubles my idealistic side, since it seems a bit like the aristocracy clinging on to its privileges. I'm certain that any loss on the part of northern EU countries would be weighed up by gains in southern EU. Also, it's not as if there aren't regional differences internally in any country I know of, with resultant subsidising from one region to another. Of course, the differences might be bigger, but I can't help but ask myself whether or not these could be overcome.

But my pragmatic side thinks that it probably isn't the right time. I doubt whether people could be convinced, and I doubt that governments could handle it (cf. your point on sanctions above). Kind of sad, if you ask me.


> winter"and I just want to see Blair lose"mute

jul"fair enough, he seems more sleazy by the day"ian