Agenda/taking responsibility

oscarBravo

I was doing some thinking today as I listened to the ongoing Lisbon debate on the radio. Something occurred to me: the parties advocating a "no" vote quite simply have nothing whatsoever to lose from their position.

For example:

• Libertas, and their ultra-deceitful "keep our commissioner" posters - I've discussed these here. If the treaty is rejected, and we lose the right to a commissioner for more than five years in every fifteen - do you think Declan Ganley will make a public apology to all the people who have been misled?
• Sinn Féin, with their insistence that we can get a better deal. They weren't involved in the negotiation of this one, and won't be involved in negotiating any future deal. They're the classic "hurler on the ditch" here.
• All the assorted nutjobs who talk about abortion, corporation tax and so on. If the treaty is ratified, and - let's say five years from now - none of the dire predictions have come to pass: how many of them will stand up and say, gosh, looks like I was wrong about that?

By contrast, the parties who are either in government, or stand a chance of being in government in the near future, are uniformly putting their necks on the line by advocating a "yes" vote. If there are negative consequences - whether from a "yes" or a "no" vote - it's the government who will have to deal with it.

Dave!

Maybe SF are going out on a limb because if the treaty is passed and the EU subsequently comes knocking door to door for your first-born, the Shinners will be able to say 'I told you so' and might get into government! :eek:

johnnyq

oscar bravo wrote:

By contrast, the parties who are either in government, or stand a chance of being in government in the near future, are uniformly putting their necks on the line by advocating a "yes" vote. If there are negative consequences - whether from a "yes" or a "no" vote - it's the government who will have to deal with it.

That's sort of contradictory though. If all the credible politicians say to vote yes then they all face the flack for failing in their public duty (mop).

So when it comes to vote in an election again - OH WAIT!!! There is still no legitimate choice. All that is damaged is the politician *profession* no individual party. If Labour for example had said to vote no (which I am still vehemently disappointed they haven't done) they would be putting their necks on the line as being anti-europe etc... which of course would not be true.

Something occurred to me: the parties advocating a "no" vote quite simply have nothing whatsoever to lose from their position.

Those who hold life long beliefs on militarisation, workers rights, democratic accountability and fairness will be bitterly disappointed if this treaty does go through. Because they all know how difficult it will be to be undone. They essentially lose everything esp. militarisation since once that's rubber stamped their vision for a better europe is in tatters.

[*]Sinn Féin, with their insistence that we can get a better deal. They weren't involved in the negotiation of this one, and won't be involved in negotiating any future deal. They're the classic "hurler on the ditch" here.

True they can't negotiate a better deal themselves but they must push the government to do so.

I'm sick of this rubbish about a better deal is impossible. Of course it is!!!!

It's not the government can't get a better deal it's that they don't want to.

Scofflaw

Yes, it should be interesting, particularly if Libertas intend doing something in the Euro elections next year.

Mind you, I'd also like people who reckon climate change is a scam to sign up to a register that would be kept under wraps until it's really hitting the fan.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ixtlan

johnnyq wrote: »

I'm sick of this rubbish about a better deal is impossible. Of course it is!!!!

It's not the government can't get a better deal it's that they don't want to.

Of course it is impossible to get a better deal...;) But seriously, everyone has to remember this is a compromise. Surely it's disingenous to say that France and Germany would vote no if they had a referendum... then turn around and say that we are losing power and influence and can get a better deal. If you believe larger countries will already vote no, then how likely is it they would agree to give up the extra influence you claim they got?!

Then what's this about the government not wanting a better deal?! I think the core of this argument goes something like this... Politicians are a completely different species from normal people, with their own secret agenda which has nothing to do with the normal folk. They care nothing for us and are in fact determined to play God with foreign policy for their own amusement.

This is rather non-sensical. Politicans, whatever you think of them, were originally boys and girls in Ireland or elsewhere, who grew into men and women, with brothers and sisters in Ireland and elsewhere, and sons and daughters, and mothers and fathers. They are not all completely divorced from the reality of normal life in Ireland. I like to wistfully believe that most of them have the best wishes of the country at heart, and want things to work out OK for their children and grandchildren, who it must be added do not always turn out to be politicians themselves.

I think it unlikely that they have a secret agenda for the betterment of the political classes. I also think it unlikely that the bulk of the political establishment in Ireland and elsewhere are incompetent/stupid/lazy. Some yes, but close to all of them?! If you do actually believe this, then you urgently need to form a new political party to remove all these sociopaths from office.

I would also like to add that the biggest problem I see with politicans is an unwillingness to lead, with them preferring to follow public opinion. For example, I think during the boom we should have curtailed public spending and saved money for a rainy day (today), rather than try to buy public contentment by spending every penny that came in. Now ironically politicians are trying to promote something for the greater and longer term good which the public finds difficult to understand, and they are getting crucified for it.

Ix.

Scofflaw

ixtlan wrote:

I would also like to add that the biggest problem I see with politicans is an unwillingness to lead, with them preferring to follow public opinion. For example, I think during the boom we should have curtailed public spending and saved money for a rainy day (today), rather than try to buy public contentment by spending every penny that came in. Now ironically politicians are trying to promote something for the greater and longer term good which the public finds difficult to understand, and they are getting crucified for it.

Which is, of course, why they don't do it. Politicians like to be liked, and indeed, need to be liked.

In some ways, that's what makes the EU necessary. It's somewhere to make the hard decisions that have to be made, but which you'd lose your seat over. One can claim that's anti-democratic, but it isn't - it's anti-populist. We know it can't all be jam all the time, but most of us will vote for the promise of perpetual jam regardless.

cordially,
Scofflaw

utick

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, it should be interesting, particularly if Libertas intend doing something in the Euro elections next year.

Mind you, I'd also like people who reckon climate change is a scam to sign up to a register that would be kept under wraps until it's really hitting the fan.

cordially,
Scofflaw

i thought 'global warming' was a scam but this new one they have come up with, 'climate change' is definatly real