Ireland losing faith in democracy?

aine-maire

Does anybody else feel that in view of our emphatic rejection of the Lisbon treaty, general outrage regarding the recent budget and the fact that support for Fianna Fáil and the Government is at an all-time low, that we as a nation are simply losing faith in democracy?

Anyone else becoming disillusioned by our Government and the EU's bullying bureaucracy?

tolosenc

EU's bullying beauraucracy?! What?!

Yes we need a new Government. The current one is a joke.

But the closest I came to losing faith is when people actually listened to people like Shinners and Libertas at the time of the Lisbon Treaty. That was a scary period in Irish politics, where people actually genuinely believed the EU was going to eat their children*.








*Source: Libertas. Probably in there somewhere.

Scofflaw

aine-maire wrote: »

Does anybody else feel that in view of our emphatic rejection of the Lisbon treaty, general outrage regarding the recent budget and the fact that support for Fianna Fáil and the Government is at an all-time low, that we as a nation are simply losing faith in democracy?

Anyone else becoming disillusioned by our Government and the EU's bullying bureaucracy?

By the government's lack of competence - well, sure, although it's not exactly been a big disillusionment, because I didn't have a very high opinion of them in the first place.

For the other - I think you're looking in the wrong place. The EU bureaucracy is what would get reformed by Lisbon. The people putting pressure on the Irish government are the elected governments of the other member states.

Sarkozy isn't an EU bureaucrat, nor are any of the other people regularly quoted as "bullying" us - they're other countries' heads of state, usually (as is Vaclav Klaus). We can hardly be surprised that the other governments in the EU, who are signatories to the Treaty, who negotiated the Treaty over the last 7 years, and who want the EU reforms that are in the Treaty, are somewhat impatient to get on with it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ChocolateSauce

I think if anything the Irish have too much faith in democracy; they don't want to realise its failings and its limits and, most importantly, when it should be limited.

R3al

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I think if anything the Irish have too much faith in democracy; they don't want to realise its failings and its limits and, most importantly, when it should be limited.

It is not a loss of faith in democracy it is a loss of faith in the current government, the only problem is that there appears to be no viable alternative

molloyjh

Can I answer this question with another question......when did we last actually have faith in democracy? Look at the numbers of people who don't bother voting in this country. Most don't vote because they see no point. Many people who do vote aren't particularly enamoured with the choices they have. I've never voted for a particular candidate or party, but more voted against, in a tactical way, the ones I felt would inevitably get in. I would argue that a sizable portion of the countries voters lost faith in democracy some time ago.

ChocolateSauce

molloyjh wrote: »

Can I answer this question with another question......when did we last actually have faith in democracy? Look at the numbers of people who don't bother voting in this country. Most don't vote because they see no point. Many people who do vote aren't particularly enamoured with the choices they have. I've never voted for a particular candidate or party, but more voted against, in a tactical way, the ones I felt would inevitably get in. I would argue that a sizable portion of the countries voters lost faith in democracy some time ago.

One aspect of democracy is choosing not to vote if there are no good choices. In the US, turnout is famously low, but no one can accuse the americans of not having faith in it.

molloyjh

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

One aspect of democracy is choosing not to vote if there are no good choices. In the US, turnout is famously low, but no one can accuse the americans of not having faith in it.

Why not? Just because the ones that do get involved make so much noise about it doesn't mean that the rest have the same faith. To me the "what's the point" argument signals at least a failure in the way in which democracy has been implemented or the direction it has gone, if not democracy itself. A new party could spring up tomorrow here but those who don't currently vote would be very, very difficult to get out. I know a good few people who vote because they believe it to be their duty but who don't think things would be any different regardless of who is there (i.e. FF or FG as there are no other parties big enough to go into Government alone or as the major partner). Surely that signals a major lack of faith in our system, whereby people feel that they can't change anything even if they want to.....

ChocolateSauce

molloyjh wrote: »

Why not? Just because the ones that do get involved make so much noise about it doesn't mean that the rest have the same faith. To me the "what's the point" argument signals at least a failure in the way in which democracy has been implemented or the direction it has gone, if not democracy itself. A new party could spring up tomorrow here but those who don't currently vote would be very, very difficult to get out. I know a good few people who vote because they believe it to be their duty but who don't think things would be any different regardless of who is there (i.e. FF or FG as there are no other parties big enough to go into Government alone or as the major partner). Surely that signals a major lack of faith in our system, whereby people feel that they can't change anything even if they want to.....

I feel like I have a moral duty to vote, in the present circumstances. I'd vote labour No.1 and greens No.2 (despite the fact I'm somewhat sceptical of green issues). If these parties did not exists, I would not vote. Many Americans do not vote because they don't want to be involved. Over there there government is less powerful than it is here and many feel that what the government does is none of their business.

Losing faith in Democracy? Thats hardly a suprise when the country voted No to Lisbon only to find out there will more than likely be another vote. How democratic is that?

Scofflaw

rarnes1 wrote: »

Losing faith in Democracy? Thats hardly a suprise when the country voted No to Lisbon only to find out there will more than likely be another vote. How democratic is that?

Twice as democratic, surely - twice as many votes, after all. I'd like another go at the General Election, too, if it comes to it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

chops1990

Every decision got to do with Europe is made in Brussels more or less witout public consent. Thats why we dont trust europe anymore. Sure we have a commissioner and all, but t hats not enough. The public needs a voice.

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

Twice as democratic, surely - twice as many votes, after all. I'd like another go at the General Election, too, if it comes to it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sure why not run the US election again too;)

tolosenc

chops1990 wrote: »

Sure we have a commissioner and all

Who wants this one? Scofflaw? Sink? OK, OK...

NO WE DON'T.

rarnes1 wrote: »

Sure why not run the US election again too;)

Yes please. Lots more of my country's media focusing on the internal affairs of a nation on another continent, allowing stuff here to slip beneath the radar. Sounds fantastic...

Scofflaw

chops1990 wrote: »

Every decision got to do with Europe is made in Brussels more or less witout public consent. Thats why we dont trust europe anymore. Sure we have a commissioner and all, but t hats not enough. The public needs a voice.

The Commission makes day to day decisions about the running of the EU. It drafts legislation, but cannot pass it. It is nominated by the national governments, but is tasked with working for the good of Europe, not of each Commissioner's home country. That this actually does happen is the reason why the member states are prepared to rotate Commissioners - the original rule of one per country (2 for the big states) was a product of mutual suspicion.

Your voice - the public's voice - in the EU is, first, an elected Minister of your government on the Council, second, your elected MEPs in the Parliament. The Council and the Parliament pass or reject legislation, and also initiate it by request to the Commission. The Commission is answerable to the Parliament, and can be dismissed by them, as happened to the Santer Commission in 1998.

On both the Council and the Commission you, as an Irish citizen, have far more voice than you would if you were a German citizen.

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

It's probably also worth pointing out Scofflaw that the Irish government didn't get our "consent" to do many of the things they have done over the years beyond getting elected, much the same way as the MEPs didn't get our "consent" either. Its pretty much the same set-up.

Scofflaw

molloyjh wrote: »

It's probably also worth pointing out Scofflaw that the Irish government didn't get our "consent" to do many of the things they have done over the years beyond getting elected, much the same way as the MEPs didn't get our "consent" either. Its pretty much the same set-up.

That will be because they're elected to make decisions, rather than being some kind of channel through which the will of the people is made manifest - as several posters appear to believe.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

chops1990 wrote: »

Every decision got to do with Europe is made in Brussels more or less...

...by elected representatives.

ben bedlam

djpbarry wrote: »

...by elected representatives.

And what vast choice of elected representatives do we have in Ireland? Only the constant pathetic, grubby Fianna Fail and Fine Gael to ever lead our governments and attempt to tie us into the Euro machine

oscarBravo

ben bedlam wrote: »

And what vast choice of elected representatives do we have in Ireland? Only the constant pathetic, grubby Fianna Fail and Fine Gael to ever lead our governments and attempt to tie us into the Euro machine

That's why there are only Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael MEPs representing us in Europe.

molloyjh

ben bedlam wrote: »

And what vast choice of elected representatives do we have in Ireland? Only the constant pathetic, grubby Fianna Fail and Fine Gael to ever lead our governments and attempt to tie us into the Euro machine

So is it therefore fair to say your problem is with the Irish political landscape and not with anything relating to the EU? "The EU is grand, it's just that we don't have the politicians to help us make the most of it" is how I would read that statement. Should that then not mean that we should proceed with Lisbon and simultaneously work on sorting out our own in-house mess? I'm just following your reasoning to a logical conclusion...

thehighground

molloyjh wrote: »

So is it therefore fair to say your problem is with the Irish political landscape and not with anything relating to the EU? "The EU is grand, it's just that we don't have the politicians to help us make the most of it" is how I would read that statement. Should that then not mean that we should proceed with Lisbon and simultaneously work on sorting out our own in-house mess? I'm just following your reasoning to a logical conclusion...

Well, a lot of us just don't think of it as an 'in-house' mess - just our style of democracy. You may demand that we respect that for instance, Germany doesn't hold referenda because they don't trust their people to vote the correct way.

You are asking that the Irish electorate effectively declare we're not intelligent enough to vote the right way, and hand over control to those of who we don't trust to make the correct decisions for the good of Irish people

Unfortunately, we can only vote for those who put themselves forward for election. We're stuck with what we've got.

Now, it sounds like you want to talk us into cutting off our nose to spite our face.

oscarBravo

thehighground wrote: »

Unfortunately, we can only vote for those who put themselves forward for election.

...or run for election yourself, or encourage someone else to run, or join a political party and influence its choice of who runs...

We're stuck with what we've got.

Strikes me as a defeatist attitude.

thehighground

oscarBravo wrote: »

...or run for election yourself, or encourage someone else to run, or join a political party and influence its choice of who runs... Strikes me as a defeatist attitude.

Not everyone can be chiefs

Why is my attitude defeatist - because I don't want to join a political party? Sounds like the Chinese membership of the party system of Gov. would suit you.

oscarBravo

thehighground wrote: »

Why is my attitude defeatist - because I don't want to join a political party?

You said that we're stuck, implying that there's nothing we can do. Turns it it's not so much that you can't do anything, as can't be bothered to do anything. If not defeatist, it's certainly lazy.

Sounds like the Chinese membership of the party system of Gov. would suit you.

That's quite a stretch from what I said.

thehighground

oscarBravo wrote: »

You said that we're stuck, implying that there's nothing we can do. Turns it it's not so much that you can't do anything, as can't be bothered to do anything. If not defeatist, it's certainly lazy.

1. I don't want to be a politicians/get involved myself (which is what you suggested I do).

2. I'm not particularly inspired by any of the present politicians we have - my vote is more of a 'best of a bad bunch' vote (ie., I don't trust any of them that much).

3) In light of 1. & 2 above, it seems logical to me to not hand over complete control to people I just don't trust.

That's quite a stretch from what I said.

You were advocating that everyone who wants to have a say, should actually be involved in politics which is how the Communist Party system is in China. If you want to 'vote', get on in life etc. you need to become a member of the Communist Party.

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

Well, a lot of us just don't think of it as an 'in-house' mess - just our style of democracy. You may demand that we respect that for instance, Germany doesn't hold referenda because they don't trust their people to vote the correct way.

What is "Germany" in that context? Germany is a democratic country, governed according to the will of the German people - so essentially the German people don't trust the German people with referendums.

Maybe they know themselves better than us?

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

thehighground wrote: »

Well, a lot of us just don't think of it as an 'in-house' mess - just our style of democracy. You may demand that we respect that for instance, Germany doesn't hold referenda because they don't trust their people to vote the correct way.

Who or what is Germany and who are "they"?

thehighground wrote: »

You are asking that the Irish electorate effectively declare we're not intelligent enough to vote the right way, and hand over control to those of who we don't trust to make the correct decisions for the good of Irish people

Now I hope that is an innocent misunderstanding and not a willful misrepresentation of what me (and many others) have written here over the last number of months - either way it is a statement that utterly ignores what me and the likes of OB and Scofflaw etc have said in multiple posts. Noone, read that again NOONE, said anything about Irish intelligence levels. We only spoke about levels of ignorance regarding a particular topic, which is not the same as a lack of intelligence. Look them up if you don't believe me.

And who are you to say who "we" as a collective do or don't trust?

thehighground wrote: »

Unfortunately, we can only vote for those who put themselves forward for election. We're stuck with what we've got.

thehighground wrote: »

1. I don't want to be a politicians/get involved myself (which is what you suggested I do).

2. I'm not particularly inspired by any of the present politicians we have - my vote is more of a 'best of a bad bunch' vote (ie., I don't trust any of them that much).

3) In light of 1. & 2 above, it seems logical to me to not hand over complete control to people I just don't trust.

So in summary you don't like it as it is and you don't want to do anything to change it and therefore you just want to sit there and apportion blame. The problem is that in a democracy like this one by using your very logic you're as much to blame as anyone for the current state of affairs. You have identified a problem, you have the opportunity and capacity to resolve it and yet you choose not to. Noone but yourself is stopping you from trying to make a difference. And if you feel like you can't make a difference and so can't be bothered for that reason well then that is the very definition of defeatism.

thehighground wrote: »

You were advocating that everyone who wants to have a say, should actually be involved in politics which is how the Communist Party system is in China. If you want to 'vote', get on in life etc. you need to become a member of the Communist Party.

Hang on, OB said that you can make a difference by joinin ga political party or starting a new one, aswell as by attempting to influence other people who are involved, and you've somehow drawn a comparison to a system whereby to be involved at all you must join a particular political party. Now is that not one of the worst comparisons you could have made given that there are no resemblences between what OB said and this?

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

What is "Germany" in that context? Germany is a democratic country, governed according to the will of the German people - so essentially the German people don't trust the German people with referendums.

Maybe they know themselves better than us?

cordially,
Scofflaw

More likely the Allies (Marshall Aid) / US/World Bank waving cheque books didn't trust them.

Sounds familiar

Biro

Scofflaw wrote: »

Twice as democratic, surely - twice as many votes, after all. I'd like another go at the General Election, too, if it comes to it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

No, Scofflaw, it isn't. It's undemocratic to have your voice ignored.

molloyjh

Biro wrote: »

No, Scofflaw, it isn't. It's undemocratic to have your voice ignored.

The referendum asked us did we want to change our constitution. We said no. Our constitution has remained unchaned. We weren't ignored. You have just as much right to say No the next time as you did the last. So peddle the BS elsewhere.

thehighground

molloyjh wrote: »

Who or what is Germany and who are "they"?

Just substitute Switzerland for Germany (I just used Germany as having a different attitude/tradition to us that we should respect)

Now I hope that is an innocent misunderstanding and not a willful misrepresentation of what me (and many others) have written here over the last number of months - either way it is a statement that utterly ignores what me and the likes of OB and Scofflaw etc have said in multiple posts. Noone, read that again NOONE, said anything about Irish intelligence levels. We only spoke about levels of ignorance regarding a particular topic, which is not the same as a lack of intelligence. Look them up if you don't believe me.

So I misunderstood what was meant when it was posted here that the Lisbon Treaty as presented was very easy to understand

You can protest all you like about what was actually written - but I'm pretty sure the meaning most people who voted 'no' in the Lisbon Treaty were regarded as not too bright by those who voted yes.

And who are you to say who "we" as a collective do or don't trust?

Its not everyone (just those who voted No in the Lisbon referendum)

So in summary you don't like it as it is and you don't want to do anything to change it and therefore you just want to sit there and apportion blame. The problem is that in a democracy like this one by using your very logic you're as much to blame as anyone for the current state of affairs. You have identified a problem, you have the opportunity and capacity to resolve it and yet you choose not to. Noone but yourself is stopping you from trying to make a difference. And if you feel like you can't make a difference and so can't be bothered for that reason well then that is the very definition of defeatism.

Hang on, OB said that you can make a difference by joinin ga political party or starting a new one, aswell as by attempting to influence other people who are involved, and you've somehow drawn a comparison to a system whereby to be involved at all you must join a particular political party. Now is that not one of the worst comparisons you could have made given that there are no resemblences between what OB said and this?

To be a good citizen, I feel I do not need to join a political party or become a politician. I'll will use my vote. I'll do my best to educate myself and vote with my conscience. I'll accept gracefully that the will of the majority should prevail. That is my understanding as to how democracy works best.

Biro

molloyjh wrote: »

The referendum asked us did we want to change our constitution. We said no. Our constitution has remained unchaned. We weren't ignored. You have just as much right to say No the next time as you did the last. So peddle the BS elsewhere.

The fact that you buy into this method of "democracy" where the answer isn't accepted to the point where they're finding another way around our answer, which all they've come up with is another referendum, says a lot about the state of the country. Take the wool out of your eyes.

molloyjh

thehighground wrote: »

So I misunderstood what was meant when it was posted here that the Lisbon Treaty as presented was very easy to understand

You can protest all you like about what was actually written - but I'm pretty sure the meaning most people who voted 'no' in the Lisbon Treaty were regarded as not too bright by those who voted yes.

You can be pretty sure all you want I KNOW its not what I said or meant and I'm pretty sure the same is true of most others. After all if you read the posts where it said the thing wasn't that hard to understand you would see people were addressing the fact that so many people didn't bother trying, not that they were unable to do so.

thehighground wrote: »

Its not everyone (just those who voted No in the Lisbon referendum)

So everyone that voted No distrusts all Irish politicians? That some generalisation. And you know this for a fact yes? :rolleyes:

thehighground wrote: »

To be a good citizen, I feel I do not need to join a political party or become a politician. I'll will use my vote. I'll do my best to educate myself and vote with my conscience. I'll accept gracefully that the will of the majority should prevail. That is my understanding as to how democracy works best.

We're not talking about being a good citizen, we are talking about you having a problem with our entire system, b!tching about it and yet refusing to do anything to improve it. After all if every single one of our polticians are not trustworthy then does it matter what way you vote at all?

meglome

aine-maire wrote: »

Does anybody else feel that in view of our emphatic rejection of the Lisbon treaty, general outrage regarding the recent budget and the fact that support for Fianna Fáil and the Government is at an all-time low, that we as a nation are simply losing faith in democracy?

Anyone else becoming disillusioned by our Government

Yes a competent government would be great. One that was capable of making some hard decisions. One that would insist on responsibility in the civil service. I could go on.

aine-maire wrote: »

and the EU's bullying bureaucracy?

Huh?

thehighground

molloyjh wrote: »

You can be pretty sure all you want I KNOW its not what I said or meant and I'm pretty sure the same is true of most others. After all if you read the posts where it said the thing wasn't that hard to understand you would see people were addressing the fact that so many people didn't bother trying, not that they were unable to do so.

Well according to OscarBravo in this thread: Post No. 131 - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055434922&page=9

Maybe. The attractiveness for me of a representative democracy is that a government can operate largely free of the daily whims of the mob, and do what it believes is in the country's best interests. I don't think they get this right all the time - not by a long shot - but that's what they're there for.

So everyone that voted No distrusts all Irish politicians? That some generalisation. And you know this for a fact yes? :rolleyes:

Well, since most Irish politicians supported a Yes vote, a No vote could be described as a lack of confidence/trust in our political leadership (i.e., despite reassurance from them according to surveys many people didn't believe them when they said that Ireland would not have conscription, abortion, etc. etc. )

We're not talking about being a good citizen, we are talking about you having a problem with our entire system, b!tching about it and yet refusing to do anything to improve it. After all if every single one of our polticians are not trustworthy then does it matter what way you vote at all?

I'm afraid it takes all sorts to make this little country of ours. I don't have a problem with our entire system. I like it the way it is and don't want it changed. You are the one with a problem with the system

And yes, imo, it does matter that you vote. But thats just my opinion

oscarBravo

thehighground wrote: »

Well according to OscarBravo in this thread: Post No. 131 - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055434922&page=9

Maybe. The attractiveness for me of a representative democracy is that a government can operate largely free of the daily whims of the mob, and do what it believes is in the country's best interests. I don't think they get this right all the time - not by a long shot - but that's what they're there for.

That's a wilful misinterpretation of what I said. It's a classic example of drawing an inference from what you assumed I was thinking when I posted, rather than actually responding to what I said. It's intellectually lazy at best, and dishonest at worst.

Well, since most Irish politicians supported a Yes vote, a No vote could be described as a lack of confidence/trust in our political leadership (i.e., despite reassurance from them according to surveys many people didn't believe them when they said that Ireland would not have conscription, abortion, etc. etc. )

If many people don't believe me when I tell them water is wet, it doesn't make it dry. Maybe you want politicians who'll go with the populist approach of pretending water is dry in order to curry favour with an underinformed electorate, but that's not how I want the country run.

thehighground

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a wilful misinterpretation of what I said. It's a classic example of drawing an inference from what you assumed I was thinking when I posted, rather than actually responding to what I said.

I'm a bit stumped about what my 'wilful' interpretation is about (and I did actually link to the post and referenced it for readers to make up their own mind). If I was trying to misinterpret what you said, why did I link it to the actual post so that people could see the thread and the context of the post?

You are the one who used the word 'mob' when referring to the electorate which indicates to me a huge contempt towards your fellow countrymen (and their intellect!).

It's intellectually lazy at best, and dishonest at worst.

Why is it intellectually lazy or dishonest? (I'll try not and interpret that you imply that I'm intellectually challenged and dishonest).

If many people don't believe me when I tell them water is wet, it doesn't make it dry. Maybe you want politicians who'll go with the populist approach of pretending water is dry in order to curry favour with an underinformed electorate, but that's not how I want the country run.

There you go again .... 'underinformed electorate' ....
How do you know they are underinformed?

oscarBravo

thehighground wrote: »

You are the one who used the word 'mob' when referring to the electorate which indicates to me a huge contempt towards your fellow countrymen (and their intellect!).

What it indicates to you, and what it actually means, are two different things.

Why is it intellectually lazy or dishonest? (I'll try not and interpret that you imply that I'm intellectually challenged and dishonest).

You're attaching the worst possible interpretation to my words, not bothering to check whether I mean what you have decided to assume I mean, and using your assumption as a feeble backup to your position rather than actually bother to defend it through reasoned argument.

There you go again .... 'underinformed electorate' ....
How do you know they are underinformed?

Because, in the case of the Lisbon referendum, they said so when asked. Because, in the case of the specific people you referenced, they entertained false notions about the contents of the Lisbon treaty and didn't bother to inform themselves to the contrary. And because the electorate, en masse, tends not to bother informing itself beyond the most superficial level, as a rule.

Now, do me a favour. If you have a problem with something I've written here, feel free to discuss it and to show me why you believe I'm wrong. If you've decided that what I've written here means that all Irish people are called Cedric and live in pink houses, please clarify it with me before using that assumption as a half-assed argument in another thread.

Scofflaw

Biro wrote: »

No, Scofflaw, it isn't. It's undemocratic to have your voice ignored.

Except that we're not talking about your voice being ignored - the treaty has not been ratified - but being asked again.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thehighground

oscarBravo wrote: »

What it indicates to you, and what it actually means, are two different things.

If you say so. Now, put away that shovel and stop digging a bigger hole for yourself.

You're attaching the worst possible interpretation to my words, not bothering to check whether I mean what you have decided to assume I mean, and using your assumption as a feeble backup to your position rather than actually bother to defend it through reasoned argument.

Sorry, I haven't a clue what you are going on about here.

The only reason why I referenced that post was by you describing the electorate as a 'mob', it displays to me a certain about of contempt for the Irish electorate.

Is it actually a term of endearment or something? Is that why you used that word?

Because, in the case of the Lisbon referendum, they said so when asked. Because, in the case of the specific people you referenced, they entertained false notions about the contents of the Lisbon treaty and didn't bother to inform themselves to the contrary. And because the electorate, en masse, tends not to bother informing itself beyond the most superficial level, as a rule.

Now, do me a favour. If you have a problem with something I've written here, feel free to discuss it and to show me why you believe I'm wrong. If you've decided that what I've written here means that all Irish people are called Cedric and live in pink houses, please clarify it with me before using that assumption as a half-assed argument in another thread.

Would you ever kop on to yourself. You are not the centre of the universe.

oscarBravo

In short: it doesn't matter what I say, you're going to continue to argue based on what you've decided I mean. Fair enough - now I know I can safely ignore you.

thehighground

oscarBravo wrote: »

In short: it doesn't matter what I say, you're going to continue to argue based on what you've decided I mean. Fair enough - now I know I can safely ignore you.

Life can be a bit rough Oscar (though you have obviously lived a charmed life up to now as everyone seems to actually understand you).

My sincere apologies for bursting your little bubble. Hope you get over it soon.

molloyjh

thehighground wrote: »

Well according to OscarBravo in this thread: Post No. 131 - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055434922&page=9

thehighground wrote: »

Life can be a bit rough Oscar (though you have obviously lived a charmed life up to now as everyone seems to actually understand you).

My sincere apologies for bursting your little bubble. Hope you get over it soon.

Listen highground if you're not going to get involved in meaningful debate then you're in the wrong place. Nowere in OBs post is there any inference as to intelligence. You made it up. And you are the only one doing any hole digging.

thehighground wrote: »

Well, since most Irish politicians supported a Yes vote, a No vote could be described as a lack of confidence/trust in our political leadership (i.e., despite reassurance from them according to surveys many people didn't believe them when they said that Ireland would not have conscription, abortion, etc. etc. )

So by contrast would that mean that all Yes voters gave their vote of confidence to the current Government and/or other main political parties? Or would it not be fair to say that all voters are individuals and you can't group all No voters one way and all Yes voters the other outside of how they voted in the June referendum? I know I have no faith in FF yet I voted Yes.

thehighground wrote: »

You are the one with a problem with the system

You see there you go again. Where did I say I had a problem with the system?

Acacia

Scofflaw wrote: »

Except that we're not talking about your voice being ignored - the treaty has not been ratified - but being asked again.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And the point of this is...what? They didn't like the answer so they're going to push until there's a 'yes' vote?

Doesn't seem twice as democratic to me at all. If they're not ignoring the 'no' vote, why are they having a second election? Genuine question.

thehighground

molloyjh wrote: »

Listen highground if you're not going to get involved in meaningful debate then you're in the wrong place. Nowere in OBs post is there any inference as to intelligence. You made it up. And you are the only one doing any hole digging.

I'll get in a meaningful debate when yourself, Scafflaw & Oscar stop behaving like 10 year olds - i.e., immature. (To clarify - as soon as one of you are challenged on what you mean or put your foot in it, you have a little hissy fit, disappear and then the next thing another one reappears and starts claiming something else. Then if it really gets a bit sticky for you, Oscar will organise a little ban).

While you are here, can you explain to me in plain English what he was inferring when he referred to the Irish electorate as a 'mob'.

To clarify further, I understand such a reference to be a derogatory comment on the Irish electorate.

And by the way, I'd appreciate it instead of just flinging out insults Oscar might like to apologise for inferring I was dishonest when I actually put a link into the post he made which would indicate an effort at least to let people make up their own mind about the context of the comments.

You see there you go again. Where did I say I had a problem with the system?

You didn't say - its just obvious that you would prefer that the Irish Gov. could ratify the Lisbon Treaty without having to hold a referendum.

Or, did I get that wrong and you like the present system of the Irish Gov. having to ask the electorate?

molloyjh

thehighground wrote: »

I'll get in a meaningful debate when yourself, Scafflaw & Oscar stop behaving like 10 year olds - i.e., immature. (To clarify - as soon as one of you are challenged on what you mean or put your foot in it, you have a little hissy fit, disappear and then the next thing another one reappears and starts claiming something else. Then if it really gets a bit sticky for you, Oscar will organise a little ban).

While you are here, can you explain to me in plain English what he was inferring when he referred to the Irish electorate as a 'mob'.

A mob is just a crowd of people, at worst an unruly crowd of people. Nowhere in the word mob is there any reference to levels of inteligence. I'm sorry if you feel we're tag teaming you, but thats just not the case. The simple facts are that OB said mob, you assumed that meant something regarding intelligence and both myself and OB pointed out that it meant nothing of the sort. Which it doesn't.

If we're having hissy fits then I'm afraid you're going through an extremely paranoid episde. At the end of the day different people are available to log on to boards at different times of day due to multiple factors like work, personal life, commuting etc. Yet you seem to be intimating that we're taking turns attacking you. We're not. We're just pointing out huge holes in your points And if you can't handle that then you most certainly shouldn't be here.

thehighground wrote: »

To clarify further, I understand such a reference to be a derogatory comment on the Irish electorate.

Thats fine, but it has nothing to do with intelligence. Fact.

thehighground wrote: »

And by the way, I'd appreciate it instead of just flinging out insults Oscar might like to apologise for inferring I was dishonest when I actually put a link into the post he made which would indicate an effort at least to let people make up their own mind about the context of the comments.

So it wasn't a willful misrepresentation of the word mob? And this from a guy who has called at least 3 people 10 year old children in one sentence????? Pot, kettle....

thehighground wrote: »

You didn't say - its just obvious that you would prefer that the Irish Gov. could ratify the Lisbon Treaty without having to hold a referendum.

Yet again you're making this up. I never said any such thing and you can't possibly pick that up from anything I said. I'm sorry but this really does smack of willful misrepresentation. Where do you get this stuff???

thehighground wrote: »

Or, did I get that wrong and you like the present system of the Irish Gov. having to ask the electorate?

Yes of course I like the current system. I have consistantly said over the last few months that I believe its a damn good system, but there are flaws in some of the ways in which it is used and implemented by both the people and the politicians at different times. Now could you please retract that statement above seeing as I have clarified it for you, not that it needed clarification in the first place given that, as you yourself said, I never said one way or another in this thread.

Scofflaw

Acacia wrote: »

And the point of this is...what? They didn't like the answer so they're going to push until there's a 'yes' vote?

Doesn't seem twice as democratic to me at all. If they're not ignoring the 'no' vote, why are they having a second election? Genuine question.

The rest of the EU doesn't want a No to Lisbon, but can't ignore the No we gave - in other words, can't ratify Lisbon, which is what they want to do. Hence - a second referendum in the hope of a Yes.

There's no practical way for anyone to "push until there's a Yes vote", except by dealing with the issues that some voters have with the Treaty. If sufficient issues are dealt with to the satisfaction of enough people who voted No, then there will be a Yes vote. If not, not.

What exactly is so unreasonable about this? Genuine question!

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

Biro wrote: »

The fact that you buy into this method of "democracy" where the answer isn't accepted to the point where they're finding another way around our answer, which all they've come up with is another referendum, says a lot about the state of the country. Take the wool out of your eyes.

Re-running a referedum alone cannot force people to change their vote so another referendum cannot, in and of itself, be a way around anything. To suggest so is mis-guided in the extreme. It would almost give the impression that you feel Irish people are swayed into changing their minds by a bit of a "Ah go on, are ya sure" type manevuer. As I said before it reminds me of Mustafa from the first Austin Powers movie, if asked a question he refuses to answer he will be unable to refuse on the third time of asking. Surely this is not what you think of our electorate?

thebman

The ballot was confusing :P

I don't have any faith in Democracy, I don't think it works because a significant percentage of people buy what their told because they don't want to find out anything for themselves and wish to be spoon fed.

Democracy may not work but neither do the alternatives. I guess it is probably the best of the systems that have actually been tried by societies in the past more than anything else. If someone comes up with something better, I'll be for it but I don't see how that is possible.

If anything does take over from our current form of democracy, it will most likely be a new form of it with the bits that aren't working now tweaked.

I think Democracy is close to being the best system if we tweak it but some of the tweaks that need to be made might not even be possible to implement.

I'd be all for a system in which people had to prove they were educated about the issues before voting but how would could you judge this fairly?

Furious-Dave

I believe in democracy, with a pinch of benign totalitarianism :pac:

On a more serious point, one of my friends believes that people should have to earn the right to vote. He didn't go into more detail than that, and he was drunk at the time.