> 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.
>


There's this famous quote which states that democracy is just the "least bad" of the known alternatives, and I'm prepared to go along with that until something better emerges.

However, as you yourself said, it is within the scope of democracy to resolve this particular issue: Demand a 60% majority to deviate from status quo. The problem with defining what is a deviation and what is not could probably be resolved. I might fear that this task would fall on those in power, which would give possibilities for abuse of office (see below), but with a little foresight this could probably be prevented.


> > > > 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.


Oh-no! I was writing this particular abuse of as "minor". It is the responsibility of the voter to scream and shout as loud as possible against abuse of office, but I'd recommend a prioritised order!

>
> [...snip...]
>

> 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).
>


It's not wrong at all (I don't subscribe to any type of "extortion of third world"-theory). In fact, I'm very thankful for it. But I find myself dreaming that we'd use that wealth to help others, who happen to be worse of. Oh, rats! I'm beginning to sound like a hippie, ain't I?


> > 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.
>

jul"phew! Thanks to my pragmatic side"ian