" So that’s it then. The Lisbon Treaty passes into law and brings an
end to the great two hundred year old experiment in modern western
democracy. And you never got to have your say on whether you were
prepared to give up on the idea of government of the people, by the
people and for the people. We are back to benign oligarchy at last –
the condition with which western European elites feel most
comfortable: protected from the vulgar impulses of the Mob,
unaccountable to anyone but their own peers.

Nobody ever got round to asking if you, like the pliant peoples of
European countries whose own democratic history has been – to put it
kindly – rather patchy, were happy to cash in your birthright. The
right to make that decision was promised by everybody and, in the end,
delivered by nobody. (Not that I blame David Cameron and William Hague
for making the decision that they have made in the immediate
circumstances: what would the post facto referendum question have
been: “How would you have voted if this vote had actually mattered?”)

Mr Cameron will make a plausible stab at defending all those precious
principles which have been forsaken. I have no doubt that the rhetoric
will be quite fine: it had better be. But it will be a funeral oration
not a practical policy outline. There will be time later to argue and
debate about the possible future. But for the moment, we must pause
and grieve."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/janetdaley/100015607/lisbon-ends-the-200-year-old-experiment-in-democracy/

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 04:16:37 -0800 (PST), Mel Rowing
 wrote:

>" So that’s it then. The Lisbon Treaty passes into law and brings an
>end to the great two hundred year old experiment in modern western
>democracy. And you never got to have your say on whether you were
>prepared to give up on the idea of government of the people, by the
>people and for the people. We are back to benign oligarchy at last –
>the condition with which western European elites feel most
>comfortable: protected from the vulgar impulses of the Mob,
>unaccountable to anyone but their own peers.

Totally correct. But wait, is this the same Rowing that we know and
loath? Can't be - he was always for the people and systems that
brought this Eurodictatorship into power.

On Nov 4, 12:16 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
> " So that’s it then. The Lisbon Treaty passes into law and brings an
> end to the great two hundred year old experiment in modern western
> democracy. And you never got to have your say on whether you were
> prepared to give up on the idea of government of the people, by the
> people and for the people. We are back to benign oligarchy at last –
> the condition with which western European elites feel most
> comfortable: protected from the vulgar impulses of the Mob,
> unaccountable to anyone but their own peers.
>
> Nobody ever got round to asking if you, like the pliant peoples of
> European countries whose own democratic history has been – to put it
> kindly – rather patchy, were happy to cash in your birthright. The
> right to make that decision was promised by everybody and, in the end,
> delivered by nobody. (Not that I blame David Cameron and William Hague
> for making the decision that they have made in the immediate
> circumstances: what would the post facto referendum question have
> been: “How would you have voted if this vote had actually mattered?”)
>
> Mr Cameron will make a plausible stab at defending all those precious
> principles which have been forsaken. I have no doubt that the rhetoric
> will be quite fine: it had better be. But it will be a funeral oration
> not a practical policy outline. There will be time later to argue and
> debate about the possible future. But for the moment, we must pause
> and grieve."
>
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/janetdaley/100015607/lisbon-ends-th...

Well, seeing as it is a treaty, it can be broken.  Problem is, we need
to find a government who are prepared to rip that worthless bit of
paper up!

"Mel Rowing"  wrote in message 
news:fb43cfed-6022-4b84-9d34-c6dfebaca77b@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

> " So that’s it then. The Lisbon Treaty passes into law and brings an
> end to the great two hundred year old experiment in modern western
> democracy. And you never got to have your say on whether you were
> prepared to give up on the idea of government of the people, by the
> people and for the people. We are back to benign oligarchy at last –
> the condition with which western European elites feel most
> comfortable: protected from the vulgar impulses of the Mob,
> unaccountable to anyone but their own peers.

Cue delirious claims about how the EU is democratic because it has a 
parliament and its heads of state are elected.

Mel Rowing wrote:
> " So that’s it then. The Lisbon Treaty passes into law and brings an
> end to the great two hundred year old experiment in modern western
> democracy. And you never got to have your say on whether you were
> prepared to give up on the idea of government of the people, by the
> people and for the people. We are back to benign oligarchy at last –
> the condition with which western European elites feel most
> comfortable: protected from the vulgar impulses of the Mob,
> unaccountable to anyone but their own peers.
> 
> Nobody ever got round to asking if you, like the pliant peoples of
> European countries whose own democratic history has been – to put it
> kindly – rather patchy, were happy to cash in your birthright. The
> right to make that decision was promised by everybody and, in the end,
> delivered by nobody. (Not that I blame David Cameron and William Hague
> for making the decision that they have made in the immediate
> circumstances: what would the post facto referendum question have
> been: “How would you have voted if this vote had actually mattered?”)
> 
> Mr Cameron will make a plausible stab at defending all those precious
> principles which have been forsaken. I have no doubt that the rhetoric
> will be quite fine: it had better be. But it will be a funeral oration
> not a practical policy outline. There will be time later to argue and
> debate about the possible future. But for the moment, we must pause
> and grieve."
> 
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/janetdaley/100015607/lisbon-ends-the-200-year-old-experiment-in-democracy/

Seems the sheep get what they deserve

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

DVH wrote:
> "Mel Rowing"  wrote in message 
> news:fb43cfed-6022-4b84-9d34-c6dfebaca77b@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> 
>> " So that’s it then. The Lisbon Treaty passes into law and brings an
>> end to the great two hundred year old experiment in modern western
>> democracy. And you never got to have your say on whether you were
>> prepared to give up on the idea of government of the people, by the
>> people and for the people. We are back to benign oligarchy at last –
>> the condition with which western European elites feel most
>> comfortable: protected from the vulgar impulses of the Mob,
>> unaccountable to anyone but their own peers.
> 
> Cue delirious claims about how the EU is democratic because it has a 
> parliament and its heads of state are elected. 

I'll certainly challenge the claim that it's "brought an end to 
democracy", because we never had a democracy to end. Britain is an 
oligarchy which occasionally holds elections.

On Nov 4, 3:36 pm, Ishvara  wrote:
> DVH wrote:
> > "Mel Rowing"  wrote in message
> >news:fb43cfed-6022-4b84-9d34-c6dfebaca77b@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> " So that s it then. The Lisbon Treaty passes into law and brings an
> >> end to the great two hundred year old experiment in modern western
> >> democracy. And you never got to have your say on whether you were
> >> prepared to give up on the idea of government of the people, by the
> >> people and for the people. We are back to benign oligarchy at last
> >> the condition with which western European elites feel most
> >> comfortable: protected from the vulgar impulses of the Mob,
> >> unaccountable to anyone but their own peers.
>
> > Cue delirious claims about how the EU is democratic because it has a
> > parliament and its heads of state are elected.
>
> I'll certainly challenge the claim that it's "brought an end to
> democracy", because we never had a democracy to end. Britain is an
> oligarchy which occasionally holds elections.

You are quite right.  Democracy is mealy mob rule in any case!

DVH wrote:

> Cue delirious claims about how the EU is democratic because it has a
> parliament and its heads of state are elected.

Well on the last point, 7 heads of state of EU countries (8 if you count 
Malta separately) are not elected but are monarchs/princes

"Lou Ravi"  wrote in message 
news:4af1b2b4$1$962$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> DVH wrote:
>
>> Cue delirious claims about how the EU is democratic because it has a
>> parliament and its heads of state are elected.
>
> Well on the last point, 7 heads of state of EU countries (8 if you count 
> Malta separately) are not elected but are monarchs/princes

Pedant. Heads of government.

I'm just rereading the German Constitutional Court's opinion of the European 
Parliament.

It's ugly stuff. Don't you feel at all ashamed that you're bequeathing the 
younger generation such a horrible undemocratic mess?

"The further development of the competences of the European Parliament can 
reduce, but not completely fill, the gap between the extent of the
decision-making power of the Union's institutions and the citizens' 
democratic power of action in the Member States.

Neither as regards its composition nor its position in the European 
competence structure is the European Parliament sufficiently prepared to 
take representative and assignable majority decisions as uniform decisions 
on political direction. Measured against requirements placed on democracy in 
states, its election does not take due account of equality, and it is not 
competent to take authoritative decisions on political direction in the 
context of the supranational balancing of interests between the states.

It therefore cannot support a parliamentary government and organise itself 
with regard to party politics in the system of government and opposition in 
such a way that a decision on political direction taken by  the European 
electorate could have a politically decisive effect."

DVH wrote:
> "Lou Ravi"  wrote in message
> news:4af1b2b4$1$962$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
>> DVH wrote:
>>
>>> Cue delirious claims about how the EU is democratic because it has a
>>> parliament and its heads of state are elected.
>>
>> Well on the last point, 7 heads of state of EU countries (8 if you
>> count Malta separately) are not elected but are monarchs/princes
>
> Pedant. Heads of government.

You have to be precise DVH. A head of state is not the head of 
government in these 7/8 countries

Mel Rowing wrote:

> " So that’s it then. The Lisbon Treaty passes into law and brings an
> end to the great two hundred year old experiment in modern western
> democracy. And you never got to have your say on whether you were
> prepared to give up on the idea of government of the people, by the
> people and for the people.

Never mind, Mel.  I mean, look on the bright side: The EU has opened two 
job centres in Africa in order to increase the flow of third world 
migrants, it wants Britain to accept a greater 'share' of asylum 
seekers, has Human Rights legislation that protects the rights of 
terrorists and it allows a flood of economic migrants that put British 
workers in the dole queue.

What more could you possibly want?

White Spirit wrote:

  has Human Rights legislation that protects the rights of
> terrorists 

I think you'll find it has laws that protect people who have not yet 
been convicted of any crime.

Convicts have human rights as well,  just not as many as the rest of us.


-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

William Black wrote:

> White Spirit wrote:

>  has Human Rights legislation that protects the rights of
>> terrorists 

> I think you'll find it has laws that protect people who have not yet 
> been convicted of any crime.

Convicted terrorists can't be deported if it is considered that their 
lives will be endangered.

On Nov 4, 12:16 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:

> " So that’s it then. The Lisbon Treaty passes into law and brings an
> end to the great two hundred year old experiment in modern western
> democracy.

Hold on, are you implying that the UK is a democracy?  Are you mad?!
I've had the vote for 40 years and the only time it actually counts is
in, oh sorry, Euro elections.  The rest of the time I'm effectively
disenfranchised by the ludicrous first-past-the-post system.

UD

White Spirit wrote:
> William Black wrote:
> 
>> White Spirit wrote:
> 
>>  has Human Rights legislation that protects the rights of
>>> terrorists 
> 
>> I think you'll find it has laws that protect people who have not yet 
>> been convicted of any crime.
> 
> Convicted terrorists can't be deported if it is considered that their 
> lives will be endangered.

I don't have a problem with that.

Why do you?


-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

William Black wrote:
> White Spirit wrote:
>> William Black wrote:
>>
>>> White Spirit wrote:
>>
>>>  has Human Rights legislation that protects the rights of
>>>> terrorists 
>>
>>> I think you'll find it has laws that protect people who have not yet 
>>> been convicted of any crime.
>>
>> Convicted terrorists can't be deported if it is considered that their 
>> lives will be endangered.
> 
> I don't have a problem with that.

Why do you not have a problem with that?  If these people go to Britain 
in order to kill people I, for one, have no problem whatever in 
deporting them to whichever country will make life hell for them, 
imprison them or kill them as quickly, expediently and with as little 
publicity as is possible.  I suspect that my view is shared by the 
majority of British.

R
> 
> Why do you?
> 
>

On Nov 4, 11:27 pm, Roger Dewhurst  wrote:

> >> Convicted terrorists can't be deported if it is considered that their
> >> lives will be endangered.
>
> > I don't have a problem with that.
>
> Why do you not have a problem with that?  If these people go to Britain
> in order to kill people I, for one, have no problem whatever in
> deporting them to whichever country will make life hell for them,
> imprison them or kill them as quickly, expediently and with as little
> publicity as is possible.  I suspect that my view is shared by the
> majority of British.

It's certainly shared by me.

There once was a time when it was the rule that refugees in this
country refrained completely from political activity let alone incited
trouble within the host country.

If the rules are made clear to them and they know what will happen if
they are deported then on their heads be it.

Of course these days we have the ECHR to contend with and, not
surprisingly, renegades take advantage and abuse it.

Roger Dewhurst wrote:
> William Black wrote:
>> White Spirit wrote:
>>> William Black wrote:
>>>
>>>> White Spirit wrote:
>>>
>>>>  has Human Rights legislation that protects the rights of
>>>>> terrorists 
>>>
>>>> I think you'll find it has laws that protect people who have not yet 
>>>> been convicted of any crime.
>>>
>>> Convicted terrorists can't be deported if it is considered that their 
>>> lives will be endangered.
>>
>> I don't have a problem with that.
> 
> Why do you not have a problem with that?  

Because you'll end up sending brave men home to certain death for doing 
nothing but organising political action against tyranny.

-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

Mel Rowing wrote:

> There once was a time when it was the rule that refugees in this
> country refrained completely from political activity let alone incited
> trouble within the host country.
> 
When?

-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

William Black wrote:

> White Spirit wrote:

>> William Black wrote:

>>> White Spirit wrote:

>>>  has Human Rights legislation that protects the rights of
>>>> terrorists 

>>> I think you'll find it has laws that protect people who have not yet 
>>> been convicted of any crime.

>> Convicted terrorists can't be deported if it is considered that their 
>> lives will be endangered.

> I don't have a problem with that.

> Why do you?

Quite often, I don't believe their lives will be endangered.  It's not 
just terrorists, of course, but drug smugglers who make that argument. 
In any event, they should have thought about it before they committed a 
serious crime.  It shouldn't be our problem.

I take it that by omission that you don't agree with the other points I 
raised about the EU.

William Black wrote:

> Roger Dewhurst wrote:

>> William Black wrote:

>>>> Convicted terrorists can't be deported if it is considered that 
>>>> their lives will be endangered.

>>> I don't have a problem with that.

>> Why do you not have a problem with that?  

> Because you'll end up sending brave men home to certain death for doing 
> nothing but organising political action against tyranny.

I don't call terrorists brave men.  It's interesting to see that you 
look up to them, however.  It certainly explains one or two things.

White Spirit wrote:
> William Black wrote:
> 
>> Roger Dewhurst wrote:
> 
>>> William Black wrote:
> 
>>>>> Convicted terrorists can't be deported if it is considered that 
>>>>> their lives will be endangered.
> 
>>>> I don't have a problem with that.
> 
>>> Why do you not have a problem with that?  
> 
>> Because you'll end up sending brave men home to certain death for 
>> doing nothing but organising political action against tyranny.
> 
> I don't call terrorists brave men.  It's interesting to see that you 
> look up to them, however.  It certainly explains one or two things.
> 

Depends on the cause.

I certainly look up to,  say the men and women who fought against 
Hitler's men in occupied Europe,  although they were often described as 
'terrorists' at the time,  indeed that was when the term was first used 
against such people.

It's a truism to say that 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom 
fighter'.

-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

William Black wrote:

> White Spirit wrote:

>>>>>> Convicted terrorists can't be deported if it is considered that 
>>>>>> their lives will be endangered.

>>>>> I don't have a problem with that.

>>>> Why do you not have a problem with that?  

>>> Because you'll end up sending brave men home to certain death for 
>>> doing nothing but organising political action against tyranny.

>> I don't call terrorists brave men.  It's interesting to see that you 
>> look up to them, however.  It certainly explains one or two things.

> Depends on the cause.

> I certainly look up to,  say the men and women who fought against 
> Hitler's men in occupied Europe,  although they were often described as 
> 'terrorists' at the time,  indeed that was when the term was first used 
> against such people.

You made a blanket statement above stating that you don't have a problem 
with convicted terrorists not being deported if their lives are 
considered to be in danger.  We're not talking about what happened 
outside of Britain in another time; we're talking about what is 
happening inside Britain today.  You stated that you do not have a 
problem with terrorists' rights being protected in this country.

> It's a truism to say that 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom 
> fighter'.

And one man's infidel is another man's innocent victim.

I really am beginning to question your set of morals.  Your agreement 
with political violence 'depending on the circumstances' was the warning 
flag but this latest revelation is more sinister yet.

White Spirit wrote:

> I really am beginning to question your set of morals.  Your agreement 
> with political violence 'depending on the circumstances' was the warning 
> flag but this latest revelation is more sinister yet.

There in doubt that political violence is legitimate in some circumstances.

I do not believe that the circumstances in the UK are such that it is 
legitimate at this time.

-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

William Black wrote:

> White Spirit wrote:

>> I really am beginning to question your set of morals.  Your agreement 
>> with political violence 'depending on the circumstances' was the 
>> warning flag but this latest revelation is more sinister yet.

> There in doubt that political violence is legitimate in some circumstances.

> I do not believe that the circumstances in the UK are such that it is 
> legitimate at this time.

Yet you believe that terrorists in this country are brave, possess moral 
fibre to do what they do and are glad that their rights are protected in 
law.

White Spirit wrote:
> William Black wrote:
> 
>> White Spirit wrote:
> 
>>> I really am beginning to question your set of morals.  Your agreement 
>>> with political violence 'depending on the circumstances' was the 
>>> warning flag but this latest revelation is more sinister yet.
> 
>> There in doubt that political violence is legitimate in some 
>> circumstances.
> 
>> I do not believe that the circumstances in the UK are such that it is 
>> legitimate at this time.
> 
> Yet you believe that terrorists in this country are brave, possess moral 
> fibre to do what they do and are glad that their rights are protected in 
> law.
>

Yes.

That doesn't stop them being wrong.

It's a bit like the way some people say their enemies are cowards.

As a rule people who fight are not cowards.

Some of them are misguided...


-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

William Black wrote:

>> Yet you believe that terrorists in this country are brave, possess 
>> moral fibre to do what they do and are glad that their rights are 
>> protected in law.

> Yes.

> That doesn't stop them being wrong.

> It's a bit like the way some people say their enemies are cowards.

> As a rule people who fight are not cowards.

> Some of them are misguided...

Some of them are murderers...

White Spirit wrote:
> William Black wrote:
> 
>>> Yet you believe that terrorists in this country are brave, possess 
>>> moral fibre to do what they do and are glad that their rights are 
>>> protected in law.
> 
>> Yes.
> 
>> That doesn't stop them being wrong.
> 
>> It's a bit like the way some people say their enemies are cowards.
> 
>> As a rule people who fight are not cowards.
> 
>> Some of them are misguided...
> 
> Some of them are murderers...

That remains a matter for the courts.


-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

William Black wrote:

> White Spirit wrote:

>> William Black wrote:

>>>> Yet you believe that terrorists in this country are brave, possess 
>>>> moral fibre to do what they do and are glad that their rights are 
>>>> protected in law.

>>> Yes.

>>> That doesn't stop them being wrong.

>>> It's a bit like the way some people say their enemies are cowards.

>>> As a rule people who fight are not cowards.

>>> Some of them are misguided...

>> Some of them are murderers...

> That remains a matter for the courts.

And the courts have decided that some of them are murderers.