EU elections 2009: three Q's - president, FM, money on a EU-wide referendum?

[CyberRose]

Well the problem with a Europe-wide referendum is the same problem with national ones. People only call for them when they think they can win. I'm surprised we haven't had more leaders calling for an EU-wide referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Overall, most people in Europe support the EU and will likely vote "yes". That would by-pass eurosceptic countries like the UK who might vote "no", but would be outvoted by EU-friendly countries. But, a referendum would be legitimising and, as someone who obviously supports the EU, I'd be happy with EU-wide referendums because I think they could be won!

 

[gorski]

Proper, informed public debate [with tabloids banned on reporting on it] yes!

 

[butchersapron]

Two democratic-authoritarians. What a lovely picture.

 

[CyberRose]

Proper, informed public debate [with tabloids banned on reporting on it] yes!

I'd have tabloids banned on reporting anything newsworthy and make it law they must be sold on the same shelf as Heat and Nuts!

 

[CyberRose]

Two democratic-authoritarians. What a lovely picture.

Butchers, if I am right in thinking you're an anarchist then there really isn't any point you joining in this debate if you political dogma forbids you from contributing anything helpful other than sniping from the sidelines...

 

[butchersapron]

Why on earth can't i join the debate? because i have a different opinion to you? Don't i liove in the EU? What an odd argument, and one that nmcely mirrors the technocrats approach to this - this isn't about politics, it's a technical issue, nothing to do with you. And it's why you're being rejected left right and centre. So, sorry. I'll make my comments, i'll criticise the EU, its apologists and try to expose the assumptions behind their thinking. And you can can lump it.

 

[butchersapron]

Butchers, if I am right in thinking you're an anarchist then there really isn't any point you joining in this debate if you political dogma forbids you from contributing anything helpful other than sniping from the sidelines...

Reform! Reform!

Be helpful to my program or piss off. No.

 

[CyberRose]

Don't get upset love! Of course you can join in the debate, in fact, I'm still waiting for you to join it!

Anyway, you haven't criticised the EU in this thread, you've criticised me...

 

[CyberRose]

Reform! Reform!

Be helpful to my program or piss off. No.

That's your contribution to the debate?

If you actually addressed anything I've said then we can have a debate. You're the one who refuses to engage with anyone who disagrees with your (unexplained) position, as your post above proves.

You wanna debate? The offer, as always, is open...

 

[butchersapron]

Don't get upset love! Of course you can join in the debate, in fact, I'm still waiting for you to join it!

Anyway, you haven't criticised the EU in this thread, you've criticised me...

You and your approach as the EU approach writ small sure. That's fair enough. And relevant i think.

 

[butchersapron]

That's your contribution to the debate?

If you actually addressed anything I've said then we can have a debate. You're the one who refuses to engage with anyone who disagrees with your (unexplained) position, as your post above proves.

You wanna debate? The offer, as always, is open...

That's my characterisation of your approach and it mirrors that of the heads of the EU (and those motiovations behind them). It's entirely relevant if you're talking about referenda and the posssible reasons and expected outcomes of them. The technical, it's not about politics approach that i can see you, the EU and gorski all coalescing around, depsite minor differences over content.

 

[CyberRose]

You and your approach as the EU approach writ small sure. That's fair enough. And relevant i think.

No. You criticise me for asking if you think the EU needs reforming, and if so, how. You can't answer that question because your political beliefs forbid you from having any opinion other than "the EU is pure capitalism and the only solution is its abolishment". But that does not stop you from occasionally popping into EU threads and telling people they're talking shit cos they don't agree with that dogma...

 

[CyberRose]

That's my characterisation of your approach and it mirrors that of the heads of the EU (and those motiovations behind them). It's entirely relevant if you're talking about referenda and the posssible reasons and expected outcomes of them. The technical, it's not about politics approach that i can see you, the EU and gorski all coalescing around, depsite minor differences over content.

Yet you never offer any of your own opinions, just deride those that do...

 

[butchersapron]

No. You criticise me for asking if you think the EU needs reforming, and if so, how. You can't answer that question because your political beliefs forbid you from having any opinion other than "the EU is pure capitalism and the only solution is its abolishment". But that does not stop you from occasionally popping into EU threads and telling people they're talking shit cos they don't agree with that dogma...

I've demonstrated before that 'reform' when mouthed by technocrats like yourself simply means another way to achieve your aims, depsite them being rejected. (See your approach to the irish referednum vote, to be 'asked again'). I love in the EU, i'm interested in its development, it affects me it affects the things i'm interested in. There are millions of people like me. The EU needs to deal with us instead of making us dissapear via technical means (again, writ samll on here - if you against the EU you're not part of the debate). Note also the 'you're talking dogma, i'm just talking technical stuff' approach. You're demonstrating my point.

I'm for europe, which is why i'm against the EU.

 

[butchersapron]

Yet you never offer any of your own opinions, just deride those that do...

I've offered you countless opinions on the EU over many threads. And you've at least twice now told me that if i'm not pro-EU i cannot talk on the issue.

I'm choosing to deride the Eu-in-perosn appoach that you and others are demonstrsating in this (and other) threads.

 

[CyberRose]

I've never said you cannot talk on the issue, don't be ridiculous. I said what's the point in you talking about nitty gritty stuff when you're whole argument is based on the fact you want the EU abolishing? You won't even enter into a debate with me about how you view the EU, so why would I expect you to enter into a debate on how the EU needs to change (reform)?

 

[gorski]

I've offered you countless opinions on the EU over many threads. And you've at least twice now told me that if i'm not pro-EU i cannot talk on the issue.

I'm choosing to deride the Eu-in-perosn appoach that you and others are demonstrsating in this (and other) threads.

I want my copyright money, this is outrageous!!!

 

[butchersapron]

I've never said you cannot talk on the issue, don't be ridiculous. I said what's the point in you talking about nitty gritty stuff when you're whole argument is based on the fact you want the EU abolishing? You won't even enter into a debate with me about how you view the EU, so why would I expect you to enter into a debate on how the EU needs to change (reform)?

Reform! Reform! That is Moses and the Prophets!

Again, you define debate as that which suports your program (and the conditions on which it's based) one way or another. Can't we criticise the griounds on which such 'debate' is based anymore?

You don't have to respond to me you know.

 

[CyberRose]

Reform! Reform! That is Moses and the Prophets!

Again, you define debate as that which suports your program (and the conditions on which it's based) one way or another. Can't we criticise the griounds on which such 'debate' is based anymore?

You don't have to respond to me you know.

Nor you me, but your post above just cements my criticism of you. I don't define any debate, I have an opinion and if you want to tell me yours you can. If you don't think the EU needs reforming, but abolishing instead, then what you say above is hypocritical as you'd be the one defining the debate around you're "programme". However, if that's the debate you want, then why not have it? I won't refuse to address your opinions like you refuse to address mine...

 

[butchersapron]

Nor you me, but your post above just cements my criticism of you. I don't define any debate, I have an opinion and if you want to tell me yours you can. If you don't think the EU needs reforming, but abolishing instead, then what you say above is hypocritical as you'd be the one defining the debate around you're "programme". However, if that's the debate you want, then why not have it? I won't refuse to address your opinions like you refuse to address mine...

You're attempting to define [and impose!] the limits of what's acceptable to debate about the EU even in that post. That you can't see it shows how immersed you are in this technocratic EU gangster-culture.

 

[CyberRose]

You're attempting to define [and impose!] the limits of what's acceptable to debate about the EU even in that post. That you can't see it shows how immersed you are in this technocratic EU gangster-culture.

What by asking you to tell me anything you want about the EU (or lack of EU)?!

Seriously, what's the problem???

 

[butchersapron]

No, by saying that posting on an EU thread whilst being in favour of its abolition is 'hypocritical'.

We now reach the point we always do on these threads

 

[gorski]

So, go live elsewhere...

Alternatively, join the fucking debate and do tell...

 

[butchersapron]

Go back to Russia Nazi!

Very good gorski.

 

[gorski]

You twat! This is really unintelligent... Not to mention that bloody chip on your shoulder...

 

[CyberRose]

No, by saying that posting on an EU thread whilst being in favour of its abolition is 'hypocritical'.

That's not hypocritical

Telling other posters that they "define" the debate, while refusing to enter into any debate unless it's on your terms, is hypocritical

You obviously have an interest in the EU, otherwise you wouldn't keep posting here, but I'm at a loss as to understanding what exactly you hope to gain by posting here if you offer no opinions and just deride other posters all the time...

 

[butchersapron]

"If you don't think the EU needs reforming, but abolishing instead, then what you say above is hypocritical..."

 

[CyberRose]

"If you don't think the EU needs reforming, but abolishing instead, then what you say above is hypocritical..."

Hmmm...sorry but are you being a twat here or is your brain not working today?

Often it helps to quote the whole sentence (or even better, helps to read the whole sentence)

 

[butchersapron]

"If you don't think the EU needs reforming, but abolishing instead, then what you say above is hypocritical as you'd be the one defining the debate around you're "programme".

Doesn't change anything.

I do think it needs abolishing therefore i'm being a hypocrite surely?

The difference between us though is that i've not attempted to say that you have no place in this debate whereas you have said that to me. See the difference?

 

[CyberRose]

The "hypocrisy" claim has nothing to do with your opinions, but everything to do with you accusing others about wanting to define the debate whilst simultaneously attempting to define the debate yourself. You can have whatever opinion you want, in fact, I've been asking you to tell me them for about 4 hours now!