> > 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?

I think here we have a difference of oppinion on what counts as "fair".

> 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.

I certainly won't argue that the current implementations of democracy are ideal, or that democracy is neccessarily the ideal form of government, but I think thst, given that democracy is majority rule, you have to accept that the majority will win, even if it's only a slim majority.

> > > 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.

Hmmm... You talk about finding fairer democratic methods, but write off abuses of executive office as something you have to expect"?

OK, you're probably right, but you *shouldn't* have to accept it. The people in power are meant to be carrying out the will of the people, not forcing their will onto the people.

[...snip...]

> 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.

Perhaps. I am, first and foremost, a patriot. I have nothing against Europe as a whole, but I don't want to see it cripple Britain. As it is, Britain puts 3 times as much money into Europe than it gets out, whilst we watch European law destroy entire sectors of business. I cannot see how it is in Britain's interest to continue with European integration.

But, besides that, I think the total economic strength of Europe under the Euro would be less that it is at present. I have no evidence to back that up - just gut feeling and bad anlogy.

And anyway, is it so wrong of Northern Europe to be wealthy? It's not like we saked Rome to get this money (well, not recently, anyway).

> 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.

I just don't think it's a good idea. Certainly not for Britain, and probably not for Europe.

> > winter"and I just want to see Blair lose"mute
>
> jul"fair enough, he seems more sleazy by the day"ian

winter"sleazy isn't the word..."mute