It’s just that your first post in this thread didn’t really have a point except to insult people. Your last post, on the other hand, did have a point, it didn’t insult anyone (and explained your anger) and it was on-topic, so as long as you post more like then I promise not to make snarky comments about the New World Order.

Now, you say you don’t care what the media says either way, but then you say “the EU is going to have a President representing millions of people and not one of them will have voted for him.” If you mean the position of EU Council President opened up by Lisbon, then this is another classic example of the media getting entirely the wrong end of the stick! There is no such post as “EU President” and Lisbon wouldn’t make one. The Council President will likely be a very boring, chairman role – with very limited powers. Blair will almost certainly not be given the role (France and Germany have withdrawn support).

If you really have decided never to come back to the blog, then I’m sorry to have driven you away. But you must admit your first post was a tad provocative.

It always seems to be *then* that they bang on about Parliament being the right forum to decide *those* matters rather than consulting the people. Pure hypocrisy.

As for the case in point, I don’t care what the media says either way. It’s inaccurate in both directions, but without any democratic process, what difference does it make? Public opinion may be swayed one way or the other, but so what? The public doesn’t get a chance to express its opinion. The EU is going to have a President representing millions of people and not one of them will have voted for him.

I’m a libertarian and a nationalist, and I’m under no illusion of speaking for a majority of anyone. If I wanted a political party that endorsed my views, I’d have to start it myself. I am only one man, but in a democratic country at least I have a chance to argue the case one way or another, to call for the repeal a law I oppose, or the institution of a law I support, for more taxes or less taxes, for nationalisation or privatisation, to vote for the people I think will represent my views the best. Now, even this modicum of participation is being removed, replaced by something no more accountable than the Byzantine Empire.

Adios.

The point we’ve been discussing here is that media coverage of the EU was, in this case, pretty dreadful.

You hate the EU, that’s fine. But then you should also be angry at misrepresentation of the EU. If the media reported EU politics more accurately then that could only be a good thing. On this point we should be in agreement. The EU is not the Council of Europe.

“I think Trooper’s point is rather…”

You’re wrong, actually. My point is to remind you all that there are people who oppose your beloved EU, and even though you think you’ve got it all sewed up with your treaty, you’ve still got a fight on your hands. Your leaders are hated, and if and when you impose Tony Blair upon us, you will be hated even more. I admit that this has little connection to the subject at hand.

“the case of Trooper, between reality and some hysterical right-wing fantasy”

‘Hysterical’ I’ll accept, because it’s difficult for me to express the extent of my contempt for the political class, but I’m not right-wing. I want democracy. I want my vote.

At least he’s admitted his mistake publicly, which is more than some journalists.

To be fair, it would be nice if the Council of Europe would rename itself something without “Europe” in the title. Maybe “The Council of Western Eurasia”? That would also reflect their broader geographical scope, perhaps.

Or add to the confusion. Meh.

or, in the case of Trooper, between reality and some hysterical right-wing fantasy.