If true can (Irish)mankind learn from the past?

ShooterSF · 10-06-2008 6:06pm #1

Ok this has to do with reading the thread about whether libertas is telling the truth or not. I posted a reply but realized it was off topic so im bringing it here. Seemingly there is a rumour going round that we have already lost our Commissioner in that facist move by the government of shoving the nice treaty down our throats when democracy had already said no (the vote till you get the right answer debacle) Even as I right this maybe it should go in general politics as it points to a HUGE f**k up by FF in actually giving the Irish people as say in whether to give up our commissioner or not.
It also leads to direct questioning of the integrity behind them pushing for a yes vote. Is it really because Lisbon is better for us or they don't want us to notice we have already lost and if we vote no and still loose our commissioner they are going to have to own up to one big f**k up on their part when they pulled dictatorship (aka veiled democracy) over nice!

oscarBravo · 10-06-2008 6:13pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

Seemingly there is a rumour going round that we have already lost our Commissioner in that facist move by the government of shoving the nice treaty down our throats when democracy had already said no (the vote till you get the right answer debacle) Even as I right this maybe it should go in general politics as it points to a HUGE f**k up by FF in actually giving the Irish people as say in whether to give up our commissioner or not.

I'm utterly confused about what your point is here.

We did have a say; we voted for Nice. Fascism blah blah whatever, more people voted the second time around and it was accepted by a bigger margin than it had been rejected.

It also leads to direct questioning of the integrity behind them pushing for a yes vote. Is it really because Lisbon is better for us or they don't want us to notice we have already lost and if we vote no and still loose our commissioner they are going to have to own up to one big f**k up on their part when they pulled dictatorship (aka veiled democracy) over nice!

I really don't understand what the fuss is about. We won't always have a commissioner - big deal. When was the last time Charlie McCreevey "delivered" something for Ireland from the Commission?

Call Me Jimmy · 10-06-2008 6:32pm

People seem to equate not having a commissioner for five years out fifteen (which every other country agreed to for some reason) with us not having a voice in europe and that they can make bring into law a "surveillance cameras in everyone's house" bill if we dont have a commissioner there.

ShooterSF · 10-06-2008 6:35pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm utterly confused about what your point is here.

I'll try and simplify so. There's a huge debate going on about whether or not we should accept a treaty that takes away our right to nominate a commissioner to EU. The no side say's we shouldn't they yes side says we should. Now it looks like the yes side already gave him away in said nice treaty, which sorry was not democratically passed, it was shoved down our throat (with most people voting yes the second time just so we wouldn't have to vote a third .....) and are now may be pushing the yes for the wrong reasons i.e to cover there ass in said f**k up. Ya get it now?

ShooterSF · 10-06-2008 6:38pm

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

People seem to equate not having a commissioner for five years out fifteen (which every other country agreed to for some reason) with us not having a voice in europe and that they can make bring into law a "surveillance cameras in everyone's house" bill if we dont have a commissioner there.

Irrelevant.

That's not the point I'm making. Try and stay on topic. The point is that we're led to believe that it's up for debate when FF have already gave it up!

Call Me Jimmy · 10-06-2008 6:45pm

Sorry but it's hard to understand all the stuff you come out with.

Yes you have already agreed to reduce the number of commissioners to less than 27. Your country voted for that. I think people should have to live in a fascist country for a week before they can throw that term around...

Lisbon has proposed a fair implementation of this prior agreement.

I have read your post a couple of times and I still don't know what your point is other than FF are fascists. Is that your gripe?

Call Me Jimmy · 10-06-2008 6:56pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

I'll try and simplify so. There's a huge debate going on about whether or not we should accept a treaty that takes away our right to nominate a commissioner to EU. The no side say's we shouldn't they yes side says we should. Now it looks like the yes side already gave him away in said nice treaty, which sorry was not democratically passed, it was shoved down our throat (with most people voting yes the second time just so we wouldn't have to vote a third .....) and are now may be pushing the yes for the wrong reasons i.e to cover there ass in said f**k up. Ya get it now?

I think I understand this slightly better. This country did agree to losing the right to a commissioner all the time. The government supported this decision. Now a fair implementation of this agreement has been proposed and the government agree with it. How does that have anything to do with a **** up etc?

oscarBravo · 10-06-2008 6:57pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

There's a huge debate going on about whether or not we should accept a treaty that takes away our right to nominate a commissioner to EU. The no side say's we shouldn't they yes side says we should.

If your point is that we shouldn't even be having the debate because it's a moot point, then we're in agreement. My objection is to it being offered as a "no" point by people who know full well that the situation will change either way.

Now it looks like the yes side already gave him away in said nice treaty...

Sorry, what? We, the electorate, agreed to allow the government to ratify the Nice treaty.

...which sorry was not democratically passed, it was shoved down our throat (with most people voting yes the second time just so we wouldn't have to vote a third .....) and are now may be pushing the yes for the wrong reasons i.e to cover there ass in said f**k up. Ya get it now?

I reject your premise, unless you can come up with a reliable source for your assertion as to why people voted in the second Nice referendum.

I'm pretty sick of repeating myself too, but: there were two referenda on the Nice treaty. The second had additional wording in it to address some of the chief concerns expressed the first time around. The second had a higher turnout, and a bigger margin. Roughly the same number voted no in both referenda, with a bigger "yes" turnout swinging the result.

I don't know what form of democracy you envisage where nobody's ever allowed to change their mind about anything ever, but I want no part of it.

ShooterSF · 10-06-2008 6:58pm

Oh god! No of course not, and thanks for the mental image of cowen waving his hands in the air screaming in german with his bingo wings flapping everywhere. My point MOST people are voting because they think the commissioner thing is up for debate and regardless of belief about the passing of nice, maybe FF's pushing for a yes is less about whether or not we benefit (which is supposed to be their interest) rather than having to deal with a backlash from people if a no vote passes and poof our commissioner nomination still goes. It's more questioning their statements integrity (Whilst also pointing out their past involvement in us loosing that right)

Again the biggest thing that put questions originally in my head and is part of another topic was one of the (now slowly with logic in mind) points they made as a REASON to PASS the treaty was we would keep our tax veto. But from my point of view thats not logical. We have it already we can't loose it by voting no so why is it a REASON to vote YES (Say it we me its not a gain its an irrelevance!) unless they're struggling for real reasons (Real Gains). And if so why are they pushing it unless theres an ulterior motive (see above). I really am trying to make this point as clear as possible but people keep missing it

ShooterSF · 10-06-2008 7:06pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

If your point is that we shouldn't even be having the debate because it's a moot point, then we're in agreement. My objection is to it being offered as a "no" point by people who know full well that the situation will change either way. Sorry, what? We, the electorate, agreed to allow the government to ratify the Nice treaty. I reject your premise, unless you can come up with a reliable source for your assertion as to why people voted in the second Nice referendum.

I'm pretty sick of repeating myself too, but: there were two referenda on the Nice treaty. The second had additional wording in it to address some of the chief concerns expressed the first time around. The second had a higher turnout, and a bigger margin. Roughly the same number voted no in both referenda, with a bigger "yes" turnout swinging the result.

I don't know what form of democracy you envisage where nobody's ever allowed to change their mind about anything ever, but I want no part of it.

Ok so you're saying had it passed maybe we would have had a second vote in case anyone changed their mind since last time. I think your taking the questionabily out of whether the fact that the government's opinion differed with majority's the first time was the reason why we had a second vote. And that as far as I can see is not democracy. The re-vote was because we didnt agree with the leaders of the country. Hate to make a comparison like this but did you know that saddam hussein all the time was elected democratically (though no one ran agaist him out of fear) (NOW I KNOW THATS AN EXTREME BUT I HATE THAT PEOPLE JUST REWRITE THE HISTORY OF A SITUATION TO IGNORE THE UGLY BITS) Sure why didn't we have a best 2 out of 3? 3 out of 5? etc....

Call Me Jimmy · 10-06-2008 7:09pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

Oh god! No of course not, and thanks for the mental image of cowen waving his hands in the air screaming in german with his bingo wings flapping everywhere. My point MOST people are voting because they think the commissioner thing is up for debate and regardless of belief about the passing of nice, maybe FF's pushing for a yes is less about whether or not we benefit (which is supposed to be their interest) rather than having to deal with a backlash from people if a no vote passes and poof our commissioner nomination still goes. It's more questioning their statements integrity (Whilst also pointing out their past involvement in us loosing that right)

Again the biggest thing that put questions originally in my head and is part of another topic was one of the (now slowly with logic in mind) points they made as a REASON to PASS the treaty was we would keep our tax veto. But from my point of view thats not logical. We have it already we can't loose it by voting no so why is it a REASON to vote YES (Say it we me its not a gain its an irrelevance!) unless they're struggling for real reasons (Real Gains). And if so why are they pushing it unless theres an ulterior motive (see above). I really am trying to make this point as clear as possible but people keep missing it

The keeping our tax veto point is a rebuttle of the No argument that it's in danger. They're basically discounting it as a No argument (the same has been done with a lot of the more outlandish No arguments). That doesn't mean that you should vote YES solely because we get to keep something we already have, but not to let it sway you towards no because its not an issue.

Call Me Jimmy · 10-06-2008 7:12pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ok so you're saying had it passed maybe we would have had a second vote in case anyone changed their mind since last time. I think your taking the questionabily out of whether the fact that the government's opinion differed with majority's the first time was the reason why we had a second vote. And that as far as I can see is not democracy. The re-vote was because we didnt agree with the leaders of the country. Hate to make a comparison like this but did you know that saddam hussein all the time was elected democratically (though no one ran agaist him out of fear) (NOW I KNOW THATS AN EXTREME BUT I HATE THAT PEOPLE JUST REWRITE THE HISTORY OF A SITUATION TO IGNORE THE UGLY BITS) Sure why didn't we have a best 2 out of 3? 3 out of 5? etc....

So as the No side say we should go back and get a better deal, and the treaty is changed and there is another referendum on it... Is that Saddam Husseinesque?

oscarBravo · 10-06-2008 7:13pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ok so you're saying had it passed maybe we would have had a second vote in case anyone changed their mind since last time.

No, I'm not saying that at all.

I think your taking the questionabily out of whether the fact that the government's opinion differed with majority's the first time was the reason why we had a second vote.

You're carefully avoiding the realpolitik of the situation. The government signed up to the Nice treaty (as they have with Lisbon). They were committed, along with the other member states, to getting it ratified.

Then, as now, there was a lot of scaremongering and FUD in the debate. Then, as now, the government failed to inform and engage the public. They screwed up the first referendum.

Faced with the choice of either (a) addressing some of the concerns raised by the public, and asking us again, or (b) going back to Europe and saying "sorry boys, we f*cked it up so that's the end of the whole European project" - do you really believe they did the wrong thing?

As someone who voted "yes" to both Nice referenda, I would have been pissed not to get a chance to vote again. The same is true this time: if we reject this treaty because of a combination of lies from the "no" camp and incompetence from the "yes" camp, you're darned tootin' I want another chance to vote on it.

And that as far as I can see is not democracy. The re-vote was because we didnt agree with the leaders of the country. Hate to make a comparison like this but did you know that saddam hussein all the time was elected democratically (though no one ran agaist him out of fear) (NOW I KNOW THATS AN EXTREME BUT I HATE THAT PEOPLE JUST REWRITE THE HISTORY OF A SITUATION TO IGNORE THE UGLY BITS)

Like the Mugabe comparison made earlier, if you think the two are comparable, you need to get your sense of perspective surgically adjusted.

Sure why didn't we have a best 2 out of 3? 3 out of 5? etc....

See above. If you want to continue to refuse to understand the realities of the situation, feel free.

ShooterSF · 10-06-2008 7:14pm

But again it was listed directly under "Reason's to vote yes". Maybe if nothing else so they should be more careful how they word things because that kinda illogical stuff really makes me suspiocious when I read it.

Call Me Jimmy · 10-06-2008 7:19pm

Do you see those banner ads in the top right hand corner of your screen? None of them are reasons to vote no on their own without explanation. The yes side also have to compact things into small digestable chunks. So when you see "Reasons to Vote Yes: We keep our tax veto" that doesn't mean that on it's own is a reason to vote yes, but it's an attempt to counter the outright lies being spread by the No campaign.

ShooterSF · 10-06-2008 7:22pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, I'm not saying that at all. You're carefully avoiding the realpolitik of the situation. The government signed up to the Nice treaty (as they have with Lisbon). They were committed, along with the other member states, to getting it ratified.

Then, as now, there was a lot of scaremongering and FUD in the debate. Then, as now, the government failed to inform and engage the public. They screwed up the first referendum.

Faced with the choice of either (a) addressing some of the concerns raised by the public, and asking us again, or (b) going back to Europe and saying "sorry boys, we f*cked it up so that's the end of the whole European project" - do you really believe they did the wrong thing?

As someone who voted "yes" to both Nice referenda, I would have been pissed not to get a chance to vote again. The same is true this time: if we reject this treaty because of a combination of lies from the "no" camp and incompetence from the "yes" camp, you're darned tootin' I want another chance to vote on it. Like the Mugabe comparison made earlier, if you think the two are comparable, you need to get your sense of perspective surgically adjusted. See above. If you want to continue to refuse to understand the realities of the situation, feel free.

True I completely realize the true reasons behind the re-vote but (last time I checked) as an equal voice in a fair democracy, and someone who voted no both times shouldn't I equally get another chance to vote if i think the yes side was telling lies and the no side was incompetent?
But where's my re-vote? Oh I see I don't agree with the "democratic" proccess required to give Europe what my government had already promised them. That in itself is my point it wasn't democratic the government had already agreed to back it BEFORE asking the people, then they just needed to manipulate the answer. Now sorry but which is that closer to democracy/facism?

And as i said I know my example was extreme. You gave me a much better way to explain my point

Call Me Jimmy · 10-06-2008 7:26pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

True I completely realize the true reasons behind the re-vote but (last time I checked) as an equal voice in a fair democracy, and someone who voted no both times shouldn't I equally get another chance to vote if i think the yes side was telling lies and the no side was incompetent?
But where's my re-vote? Oh I see I don't agree with the "democratic" proccess required to give Europe what my government had already promised them. That in itself is my point it wasn't democratic the government had already agreed to back it BEFORE asking the people, then they just needed to manipulate the answer. Now sorry but which is that closer to democracy/facism?

And as i said I know my example was extreme. You gave me a much better way to explain my point

Look you're distorting it. If we vote no and try and get a better deal (which is one of the big arguments of the no side) and they come back with an amended lisbon treaty should we not vote on it again?

oscarBravo · 10-06-2008 7:26pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

True I completely realize the true reasons behind the re-vote but (last time I checked) as an equal voice in a fair democracy, and someone who voted no both times shouldn't I equally get another chance to vote if i think the yes side was telling lies and the no side was incompetent?

Absolutely. All you have to do is elect a government that will hold such a referendum.

But where's my re-vote? Oh I see I don't agree with the "democratic" proccess required to give Europe what my government had already promised them. That in itself is my point it wasn't democratic the government had already agreed to back it BEFORE asking the people, then they just needed to manipulate the answer. Now sorry but which is that closer to democracy/facism?

Rather than keep going round in circles: which of the two Nice votes do you think was a more accurate representation of the views of the electorate? Give a reasoned answer, please.

ShooterSF · 10-06-2008 7:28pm

Jimmy you actually do make alot of sense. And im back to my original belief before reading everything. Dont believe anyone (they all have agenda's) and vote completely on my understanding ot it so. Unfortunately I ain't able to make head nor tale of the thing it's the size of the bible so as with a contract, cant understand it reject it.

There's only two other optiond (Dont vote). The worst. Irish people died for your right to decide. People who don't sicken me.

Or 2) believe a "neutral" commission that say's "we keep some of our vetoes" but leaves out the logical following "and loose others" which if truely neutral it would have stated.

I know this is all over the shop but people's issue change so quickly on this debate.

Thanks though you were at least logical in explanation.

Call Me Jimmy · 10-06-2008 7:32pm

I completely agree about trusting nobody and everybody has an agenda, but if you weigh up what different people's agendas might be then you make it easier to see who to trust (if anyone). For me personally, I don't see what the politicians have to gain from getting us into something that limits our influence any more than other countries.

Their interests are in this country (whatever they are) so if they thought this was going to cause us to I dunno, give up our corporation tax, what is in it for them? Then we lose investors, the irish economy could take a massive hit and people would be calling for their heads ye know?

I understand skeptisism towards politicians on a lot of issues but not on this because I can't see what Enda Kenny gets out of purposefully leading us down a dangerous path.

And that is just if I was going on what the politicians said and did not reading of my own. Having read the stuff ye realise how sensationalist the No side is and that even if the yes side wanted to they just don't have the headlines the No side have with their lies. I see lies from the No side and can't find much if anything the Yes side are saying that isnt true.

ShooterSF · 10-06-2008 7:33pm

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Look you're distorting it. If we vote no and try and get a better deal (which is one of the big arguments of the no side) and they come back with an amended lisbon treaty should we not vote on it again?

Im not im simply saying it wasnt above board democratic. Im not arguing the case there why i should or shouldnt reject it I was simply saying that the govenment manipulated said situation because as he said it was that or go back to the EU looking like clowns!

As for which was a better representation who knows? For all we know logically from the stats, Other than you and I (which have confirmed) no ther person may have voted in both as the turn out would still be shy of 100% or any other combination. Anything else would just be my or your or someone elses diluted opinion.

oscarBravo · 10-06-2008 7:35pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

As for which was a better representation who knows?

Who, indeed? All we can do is look at the numbers and make an educated guess.

A bigger turnout would logically suggest a more accurate reflection of the national sentiment, no?

ShooterSF · 10-06-2008 7:36pm

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I completely agree about trusting nobody and everybody has an agenda, but if you weigh up what different people's agendas might be then you make it easier to see who to trust (if anyone). For me personally, I don't see what the politicians have to gain from getting us into something that limits our influence any more than other countries.

Call me skeptic but isnt it possible years from now when their support for this gone out of our short term memories it'll be a great scape goat if something goes wrong e.g "It was out of our hand's its a brussell's thing" Just an idea why??

Call Me Jimmy · 10-06-2008 7:41pm

Imo if you thought as much about all the possible permutations of a No vote and the people who are asking us to vote No (us military contractors) then you would come up with some great stuff about that too.

Obviously it's your choice but I'm just trying to get some perspective and calm. The arguments against it seem to go off all over the place it seems like people are dreaming out loud. I don't say blindly vote for whatever the government tell you but there's skeptical and there's skeptical.

ShooterSF · 10-06-2008 7:42pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who, indeed? All we can do is look at the numbers and make an educated guess.

A bigger turnout would logically suggest a more accurate reflection of the national sentiment, no?

Not at all unless the winning side outnumbers the loosing side and the unvoted. Which the closer to a 100 it gets the better. Its a possible assumption maybe even probable but in no way definite.

ShooterSF · 10-06-2008 7:49pm

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Imo if you thought as much about all the possible permutations of a No vote and the people who are asking us to vote No (us military contractors) then you would come up with some great stuff about that too.

Obviously it's your choice but I'm just trying to get some perspective and calm. The arguments against it seem to go off all over the place it seems like people are dreaming out loud. I don't say blindly vote for whatever the government tell you but there's skeptical and there's skeptical.

I guess that comes down to personalities so

Oh and the US military thing never bothered me. Afraid of diluting our neutrality? Did you know in world war two planes flown by the british to protect its and the u.s's vessels in the atlantic couldn't along with the U.S cover the entire sea due to fuel levels so there was a black spot. Now our neutrality meant british planes had to divert around our airspace (including donegal) and make the blackspot larger however they didnt and it was given a blind eye. Now anyone who argues about our Neutrality better be disgusted by that fact or else they're using our neutrality to flame their personal war against the u.s (sorry again for off topic)

Call Me Jimmy · 10-06-2008 7:52pm

Man I don't what the F*CK you just said... but you're special to me. Just to be clear, I wasn't saying I necessarily thought anything of the US contractors issue, just that if you thought about all the possible evil aspirations of the No side as much as ye did for the Yes, ye'd come up with some pretty hot stuff worthy of the conspiracy theories forum!

ShooterSF · 10-06-2008 7:57pm

Yea I guess this is heading that way lol (Can never stay focused on one point cause something always sets me off on another issue)

And yea I think theyonly safe thing to take from it is everyone has their own agenda. We can probably debate all day but I have (more important

) Euro cup to watch hehe. Anyway all I'll say is I hope for a good turnout and if (IF) the No's win that there's no are ya sure re-vote. Later thanks for the convo guys.

ixtlan · 10-06-2008 8:05pm

On the matter of a higer turnout being more democratic...

ShooterSF wrote: »

Not at all unless the winning side outnumbers the loosing side and the unvoted. Which the closer to a 100 it gets the better. Its a possible assumption maybe even probable but in no way definite.

The closer the turnout is to 100%, surely the more democratic.

It is true that you can never say with certainty whether a majority of the public supports a measure unless as you say the yes vote exceeds 50% of the total electorate.

It's a very sad reflection on the public that we would find 65% a very impressive turnout. I say on the public. Politicians can only do so much. I'm sure you will vote and I will but I find it depressing the number of people who really cannot be bothered. I would favour a minimum turnout for acceptance of a referendum, but I suspect in order to achieve this we would need some monetary inducement which could be a real mess with it's own issues.

I do believe there is enough information available to form an opinion one way or the other. If a person cannot, because they are unable to favour one side over the other, I have respect for that too, as long as they vote, and spoil their vote. That way they show that they want to participate in the process, and the yes and no sides can see that they failed that person.

Ix

ShooterSF · 10-06-2008 8:15pm

ixtlan wrote: »

On the matter of a higer turnout being more democratic...

The closer the turnout is to 100%, surely the more democratic.

It is true that you can never say with certainty whether a majority of the public supports a measure unless as you say the yes vote exceeds 50% of the total electorate.

It's a very sad reflection on the public that we would find 65% a very impressive turnout. I say on the public. Politicians can only do so much. I'm sure you will vote and I will but I find it depressing the number of people who really cannot be bothered. I would favour a minimum turnout for acceptance of a referendum, but I suspect in order to achieve this we would need some monetary inducement which could be a real mess with it's own issues.

I do believe there is enough information available to form an opinion one way or the other. If a person cannot, because they are unable to favour one side over the other, I have respect for that too, as long as they vote, and spoil their vote. That way they show that they want to participate in the process, and the yes and no sides can see that they failed that person.

Ix

Before I go and completely (as usual) Off-topic I totally agree with this and have long supported the idea that (Australia i think) use of simply fining you if you don't vote. But again skepticism inside me says it would be more left wing that don't turn out so the government have no (self) reason to bring in any such act. Think ya'll be blue in the face if you're holding you're breath on the idea though

Call Me Jimmy · 10-06-2008 8:21pm

Ok forgive me for this as it really is veering off-topic, but the way you're thinking about lisbon, if our government brought in a fine for not voting on stuff they'de be accused of using it as a way to "take more of our money" and being a nanny state etc.

If true can (Irish)mankind learn from the past?

Comments