BBC poke fun at.... someone.

FionnMatthew

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7451710.stm

Anyone get the impression the Irish are being made a fool of here? Or is it a general Euroskepticism that's being expressed in the article? Or both?

OPENROAD

FionnMatthew wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7451710.stm

Anyone get the impression the Irish are being made a fool of here? Or is it a general Euroskepticism that's being expressed in the article? Or both?

Sorry but how are you reaching the conclusion that the bbc article is making fools out of us?,imo very accurate article.

cornbb

Its a pretty valid article IMO. A few million voters are essentially flipping a coin on behalf of the rest of Europe. Can't really blame onlookers for being cynical about it.

brianthebard

looks like paddy whacking to me,there's a sneering tone to the whole thing,but especially the description of the school and its paintings. very petty imo.
Posted via Mobile Device

leeroybrown

There's a longer Guardian article that also has some justifiably irreverent fun at out expense.

In my view we deserve it (both sides of the camp).

marco_polo

Just pointing out the average turnout given all the hype, with a few random quotes from voters. If anyone takes offense to that article they must have a serious chip on their shoulder.

I though this was the best and worst bit

"Oh, I voted No," Elizabeth O'Connor, 76, says doughtily.

"I didn't know anything about it and it is immoral to ask someone to vote on something they don't understand."

:eek:

Eh, Just don't vote then?

dresden8

Seems accurate enough to me. Pretty depressing the one who said they didn't know but decided to trust the politicians.

Eff me, where have these people been?

ShooterSF

Think it shows both sides guilty of the ignorance directed at the no side,

"I didn't know anything about it and it is immoral to ask someone to vote on something they don't understand."

"The truth of the matter is I don't know the guts of [the treaty], so I basically left it to the politicians."

"I voted Yes because I feel that it probably is the best thing for our country,"

Seems like atleast one thing was mistaken :rolleyes:

leeroybrown

marco_polo wrote: »

Eh, Just don't vote then?

That's what the government is probably hoping for but my feeling is that the referendum will essentially be decided based on the number of people who don't know enough who turn up and vote No.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Nail meet head; head, nail...

marco_polo

ShooterSF wrote: »

Think it shows both sides guilty of the ignorance directed at the no side,

"I didn't know anything about it and it is immoral to ask someone to vote on something they don't understand."

"The truth of the matter is I don't know the guts of [the treaty], so I basically left it to the politicians."

"I voted Yes because I feel that it probably is the best thing for our country,"

Seems like atleast one thing was mistaken :rolleyes:

That is a good point actually, I didn't actually notice the 'politicians know best' comment. Then again I may be a bit biased

ShooterSF

leeroybrown wrote: »

That's what the government is probably hoping for but my feeling is that the referendum will essentially be decided based on the number of people who don't know enough who turn up and vote No.

Did you read the article it's full of yes voters without a clue not the other way round :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

leeroybrown

ShooterSF wrote: »

Did you read the article it's full of yes voters without a clue not the other way round :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Of course I did. These voters saying Yes on the basis of either 'Europe is good' or 'the Government say to vote Yes'. Even though this lot are equally ill informed they are voting yes for a specific (albeit weak) reason. My point was that in my view the biggest variable are those who have no reason in mind and default to No.

Even if I dislike the style of 'we say it's good' campaign the main parties ran it's difficult to heavily criticise someone for taking the advice of the person they tried to vote into the Dáil at the last general election.

OPENROAD

brianthebard wrote: »

looks like paddy whacking to me,there's a sneering tone to the whole thing,but especially the description of the school and its paintings. very petty imo.
Posted via Mobile Device

Can't see that at all.

passive

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Nail meet head; head, nail...

I think you'll find one hits a nail on the head, rather than with their head . I may have just saved you countless injuries and medical expenses...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

passive wrote: »

I think you'll find one hits a nail on the head, rather than with their head . I may have just saved you countless injuries and medical expenses...

This is true, but the head in question is that of the nail, not that/those of the the striker(s).

Therefore, one nail, one head, the possessive would be 'it's' head. Also, for that reason, head remains singular.

Nails, not having living heads, will not incur medical expenses. I hope I've cleared that up for you now!!

ShooterSF

leeroybrown wrote: »

Of course I did. These voters saying Yes on the basis of either 'Europe is good' or 'the Government say to vote Yes'. Even though this lot are equally ill informed they are voting yes for a specific (albeit weak) reason. My point was that in my view the biggest variable are those who have no reason in mind and default to No.

Even if I dislike the style of 'we say it's good' campaign the main parties ran it's difficult to heavily criticise someone for taking the advice of the person they tried to vote into the Dáil at the last general election.

But what's the difference then if someone said I don't trust this government so ill say no. And as for europe been good for us, true enough, but if you decide on that ground alone it sets a very dangerous precedent in your life. Theres plenty of people out there that know if they do something nice for you you'll return the favour much more easily may I suggest reading Influence: Psychology of persuasion.
I just think that being mis-informed or going on a gut instinct is as bad either side. Unfortunately most people only see one side and excuse those voting for what they want as it's for the greater good....

Zzippy

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

This is true, but the head in question is that of the nail, not that/those of the the striker(s).

Therefore, one nail, one head, the possessive would be 'it's' head. Also, for that reason, head remains singular.

Nails, not having living heads, will not incur medical expenses. I hope I've cleared that up for you now!!

But the head is part of the nail, so how can you introduce them to each other, they're already part of the same object?!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Zzippy wrote: »

But the head is part of the nail, so how can you introduce them to each other, they're already part of the same object?!

Different nails

passive

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Different nails

Points for creativity, but I'm still retracting your licence... I'm not sure what the licence is for exactly. But you're not allowed do that for an indefinite period of time.

On a different note; Ugh... I can't believe No is going to win... What good do you people actually want to come from this!? All the objections of Libertas were false and therefore things that can't be "fixed" by renegotiation. So all you've done is inconvenience everybody... I really hate the person I'm quoting here, but "the majority have no right to do wrong" seems very relevant and, if it wasn't actually necessary to put it to referendum, our leaders are complete idiots for putting it to the "if you don't know, vote no" or "protest voting over local issues" gob****es who've made us all look like complete twats now...

easyontheeye

passive wrote: »

Points for creativity, but I'm still retracting your licence... I'm not sure what the licence is for exactly. But you're not allowed do that for an indefinite period of time.

On a different note; Ugh... I can't believe No is going to win... What good do you people actually want to come from this!? All the objections of Libertas were false and therefore things that can't be "fixed" by renegotiation. So all you've done is inconvenience everybody... I really hate the person I'm quoting here, but "the majority have no right to do wrong" seems very relevant and, if it wasn't actually necessary to put it to referendum, our leaders are complete idiots for putting it to the "if you don't know, vote no" or "protest voting over local issues" gob****es who've made us all look like complete twats now...

what i said! http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055313356

BMH

passive wrote: »

On a different note; Ugh... I can't believe No is going to win... What good do you people actually want to come from this!? All the objections of Libertas were false and therefore things that can't be "fixed" by renegotiation. So all you've done is inconvenience everybody... I really hate the person I'm quoting here, but "the majority have no right to do wrong" seems very relevant and, if it wasn't actually necessary to put it to referendum, our leaders are complete idiots for putting it to the "if you don't know, vote no" or "protest voting over local issues" gob****es who've made us all look like complete twats now...

While I wouldn't go as far to quote deV, this never should have been put to referendum. Of course, that judgment's not going to be overruled and we're not going to vote to remove our vote on constitutional amendments. Really gives a bleak picture of our political scene though, not that our civil war/parish pump politics wasn't bad enough.

ShooterSF

BMH wrote: »

While I wouldn't go as far to quote deV, this never should have been put to referendum. Of course, that judgment's not going to be overruled and we're not going to vote to remove our vote on constitutional amendments. Really gives a bleak picture of our political scene though, not that our civil war/parish pump politics wasn't bad enough.

I agree that lisbon wasnt the easiest thing to have a referendum on but if we remove our vote on constitutional ammendments we allow the government to change the rules that they can govern by which would lead to them having unquestionable power... a bad thing. Only fair if they want to change the rules they must ask us to accept those changes.

faceman

Hmm was a bit of a condescending tabloid article.

dodgyme

leeroybrown wrote: »

There's a longer Guardian article that also has some justifiably irreverent fun at out expense.

In my view we deserve it (both sides of the camp).

reading the 1st three lines of the guardian article is typical b*llsh*t. I read a few of the bbc.co.uk articles and the tone set in them was sneering, like the 'irish nearly wrecked the last treaty etc' by voting no. Whatever lads:rolleyes:, at least we are not putting our decisions in the hands of a few old decrepid wig wearing ignorant toffs to make the decision for us. The lords is there next place for it to be ratified btw.

OPENROAD

dodgyme wrote: »

reading the 1st three lines of the guardian article is typical b*llsh*t. I read a few of the bbc.co.uk articles and the tone set in them was sneering, like the 'irish nearly wrecked the last treaty etc' by voting no. Whatever lads:rolleyes:, at least we are not putting our decisions in the hands of a few old decrepid wig wearing ignorant toffs to make the decision for us. The lords is there next place for it to be ratified btw.

Do you actually watch and read uk media, they have been heaping praise on Ireland for allowing its people to actually vote on the issue unlike any other country.