Direct democracy - a new party delivering democracy direct to you-time to vote?

newsunglasses

From the parties website,directdemocracyireland.ie ..

What is direct democracy?

Direct democracy is a form of democracy in which the people have the right to:

1. Select their own candidates to represent them.
2. Call a referendum on any topic if a sufficient number of people deem it necessary, by gathering a set number of signatures.
3. Create legislation and put it to a referendum if a sufficient number of people agree with it, by gathering a set number of signatures.
4. Recall, remove from office, any representative deemed to have acted in breach of their terms of employment.

Goal:

Implementing direct democracy in Ireland returns the power to the people to call referendums, instigate legislation, and recall representatives who fail to perform.

• STOP Bondholder Payments: There is no legal liability for Irish people and their children to pay for private banking debts.
• REDUCE Family Home Mortgages: A substantial write down of personal debt to keep people in their homes and stimulate our domestic economy.
• ABOLISH All Taxes on Family Homes: “It is morally wrong, unjust and unfair to tax a persons home” – Enda Kenny, 1994.
• PROTECT Services & Allowances: Review all cuts made to essential services and people’s vital allowances.
• CUT Business Rates: Reduce costs for business to help make them more affordable and competitive thus protecting Irish jobs.
• PREVENT State Asset Stripping: Keep water, oil, gas, forestry, fisheries and mineral assets working for the people.

I don't see one thing that i do not disagree with - Under our current coalition government we are being co -operatively being screwed by both parties.

Joan burton and her job bridge,paying millions to job bridge to rob what could be a paid job from the community,instead of attracting real paid work.

Councils getting paid via prsi off of peoples working tax,and getting paid through the property tax,which holds no merit at all - are they going to mow my ****ing lawn anytime soon for what i pay on my property?


Its a no purpose tax as far as im concerned,as they already get paid by prsi off of peoples tax.

Now they are getting paid off prsi and the property tax.Ive seen potholes down the end of my road that still need doing.

Were not getting a fair deal off our government. I think its time to vote direct democracy,for us all to have a real oppurtunity to affect change in the system,instead of leaving it up to greedy double jobbers,tax evaders,and expense scammers, like we have in the dail:mad:





For further reading look up their website - its growing in popularity.http://directdemocracyireland.ie/


Im thinking of becoming a member too..

joe swanson

Run by a lunatic who promotes 'freeman' lies and conspiracy theories which are manipulating vulnerable people. And u just need to look at their websites to see they are heavily involved and intertwined.

newsunglasses

He is no lunatic as far as i can see,and how exactly is he manipulating people.

If anything we are being wholly manipulated by the shower that is in there now,nothing but broken promises and lies.

Didnt enda kenny say the property tax was wrong?


I like the part where ben gilroy says he would like to see a re calling of any politician that has acted dishonestly or not in the best interests of the public.

Recall, remove from office, any representative deemed to have acted in breach of their terms of employment.

What about that ''independant'' pink shirt lunatic,(who raided public funds)along with the expenses scammers and tax evaders/greedy double jobbers,i for one would like to see a recalling of anybody who has acted dishonestly.

MagicMarker

lol, will facebook petitions be included when counting "signatures"?

The money we'd save by burning the bondholders could be used to fund the amount of referendums there would be on a yearly basis.

joe swanson

newsunglasses wrote: »

He is no lunatic as far as i can see,and how exactly is he manipulating people.

If anything we are being wholly manipulated by the shower that is in there now,nothing but broken promises and lies.

Didnt enda kenny say the property tax was wrong?


I like the part where ben gilroy says he would like to see a re calling of any politician that has acted dishonestly or not in the best interests of the public.





What about that ''independant'' pink shirt lunatic,(who raided public funds)along with the expenses scammers and tax evaders/greedy double jobbers,i for one would like to see a recalling of anybody who has acted dishonestly.

I agree re: pink shirt. You have conveniently skipped his 'freeman' beliefs and connections which are most definitely manipulating vulnerable people.

Scofflaw

newsunglasses wrote: »

He is no lunatic as far as i can see,and how exactly is he manipulating people.

If anything we are being wholly manipulated by the shower that is in there now,nothing but broken promises and lies.

Didnt enda kenny say the property tax was wrong?


I like the part where ben gilroy says he would like to see a re calling of any politician that has acted dishonestly or not in the best interests of the public.

What about that ''independant'' pink shirt lunatic,(who raided public funds)along with the expenses scammers and tax evaders/greedy double jobbers,i for one would like to see a recalling of anybody who has acted dishonestly.

There's a minor problem there, which is that there's no sign that the electorate generally care. The likely outcome of a recall mechanism can be judged from the re-election - often repeated re-election - of politicians whose honesty has been brought very much into question.

Another issue is - how, in a multi-seat constituency, do you set a recall threshold that prevents, say, people who object to having a Sinn Fein TD in their constituency, from putting a successful recall motion based on their dislike of that TD or their party? And who votes in a recall? Presumably everyone, which conjures up the following scenario:

1. a 4 seat constituency has 75% FF voters, 25% SF voters.
2. at a general election, the seats go 3 to FF. 1 to SF.
3. following the general election, the FF voters put a recall motion on the basis that the SF TD is a terrorist.
4. there's then a vote on that seat, which FF wins handily, producing 4 FF seats.

Come to that, voters in the two main parties, holding the majority in most constituencies, could always collude in disposing of minor party TDs.

You'd have to have a legal trigger for recall, not a popular one, and there we run into the problem that it's damned rare for a TD to be convicted of any of the offences people find specifically offensive in a politician.

cordially,
Scofflaw

OCorcrainn

Don't trust that party, their leader along with its members. That party has links and sympathize with the far right in Britain.

http://irishstudentleftonline.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/ben-gilroy-and-the-far-right/#more-298

jimmycrackcorm

Why do we need another party when we already have Sinn Fein for idiotic populist policies.

VinLieger

Ugh more freeman bullshit

Pride Fighter

Ben Gilroy and DDI support Sean Quinn, Nigel Farage and UKIP amongst other dubious things. I'd never vote for them, they strike me as a single issue party, with no real ideology and with sinister links to right wing groups.

OCorcrainn

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Why do we need another party when we already have Sinn Fein for idiotic populist policies.

You are confusing Sinn Féin with Fianna Fáil, you know...the party with all the populist bs that ran this country into the ground?

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's a minor problem there, which is that there's no sign that the electorate generally care. The likely outcome of a recall mechanism can be judged from the re-election - often repeated re-election - of politicians whose honesty has been brought very much into question.

Another issue is - how, in a multi-seat constituency, do you set a recall threshold that prevents, say, people who object to having a Sinn Fein TD in their constituency, from putting a successful recall motion based on their dislike of that TD or their party? And who votes in a recall? Presumably everyone, which conjures up the following scenario:

1. a 4 seat constituency has 75% FF voters, 25% SF voters.
2. at a general election, the seats go 3 to FF. 1 to SF.
3. following the general election, the FF voters put a recall motion on the basis that the SF TD is a terrorist.
4. there's then a vote on that seat, which FF wins handily, producing 4 FF seats.

Come to that, voters in the two main parties, holding the majority in most constituencies, could always collude in disposing of minor party TDs.

You'd have to have a legal trigger for recall, not a popular one, and there we run into the problem that it's damned rare for a TD to be convicted of any of the offences people find specifically offensive in a politician.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Create an entirely new offense, Scoffy. A statement to the media to be made under oath, and if it can be absolutely proven beyond reasonable doubt that a politician knew they weren't telling the truth when they made a statement, a bye-election is called.
In other words - unless you know for a fact that what you're saying is true, don't comment. This would cut out so, so much of the absolute bullsh!t we have to put up with from our politicians on a weekly basis.

hatrickpatrick

MagicMarker wrote: »

lol, will facebook petitions be included when counting "signatures"?

Why not? Social media campaigns have been hugely successful in recent times for political movements. It's the new "forum" as they had in ancient Rome. If 150,000 people sign a petition online - using some sort of verifiable identity, of course - why is that any less legitimate than paper signatures?

The money we'd save by burning the bondholders could be used to fund the amount of referendums there would be on a yearly basis.

Why exactly does a referendum have to be expensive? Any particular reason? They're expensive now, but why do they have to be? No reason we can't change the referendum system... Personally I wouldn't have a problem with televoting or internet voting provided again you had some way of proving your identity, and if that's possible with electronic credit card transactions I don't see why it can't be possible with remote voting...?

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Create an entirely new offense, Scoffy. A statement to the media to be made under oath, and if it can be absolutely proven beyond reasonable doubt that a politician knew they weren't telling the truth when they made a statement, a bye-election is called.
In other words - unless you know for a fact that what you're saying is true, don't comment. This would cut out so, so much of the absolute bullsh!t we have to put up with from our politicians on a weekly basis.

Unfortunately, I suspect that one would actually catch out only the enthusiastic and impulsive.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with televoting or internet voting provided again you had some way of proving your identity, and if that's possible with electronic credit card transactions I don't see why it can't be possible with remote voting...?

Oh, dear gods.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh, dear gods.

Why is this exactly?
Seriously though, think about it - if we came up with a way of securely casting a ballot over the internet or by phone or post, why is it such a ridiculous concept? You can already vote by post in a lot of countries particularly if you're a citizen abroad, is it really such a massive step to say phone voting?

When registering to vote, which would still require all the usual identification it does now, you could choose a "password" of some kind, and this along with your polling ID could be used to verify you. I'm only thinking off the top of my head here, I'm sure there are far more secure ways of doing this, point is, if it's possible to move thousands of euro around securely through the phone or the internet I don't see why the same could never be said for ballots...?

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why is this exactly?
Seriously though, think about it - if we came up with a way of securely casting a ballot over the internet or by phone or post, why is it such a ridiculous concept? You can already vote by post in a lot of countries particularly if you're a citizen abroad, is it really such a massive step to say phone voting?

When registering to vote, which would still require all the usual identification it does now, you could choose a "password" of some kind, and this along with your polling ID could be used to verify you. I'm only thinking off the top of my head here, I'm sure there are far more secure ways of doing this, point is, if it's possible to move thousands of euro around securely through the phone or the internet I don't see why the same could never be said for ballots...?

In short, because the whole point of a secret ballot is that your vote should not be individually identifiable - whereas for payment systems the point is that you are.

With the current much-derided "pencil and paper" system, you are visibly assured that nobody is looking over your shoulder, that your ballot paper isn't visible to the staff, and that it's dropped anonymously into a standard ballot box. The staff, on the other hand, are visibly assured that you are you, that you're not handing the ballot paper to somebody else, and that nobody is standing over you in the booth making you vote a particular way.

Identification mechanisms available online that can identify you as a voter can also identify your individual vote invisibly. Separating the digital ballot paper from the identification of the voter, on the other hand, means that there is no assurance that the voter has not passed on the ballot paper to someone else, had it hijacked in some way, or is subject to intimidation or other pressure while filling it out on their own computer.

Beyond that there are issues of exclusion of those without computers/internet access and various other forms of accessibility issue.

cordially,
Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick

^ Reasonable points, I'll see if I can come up with any potential solutions later on, but bravo, Scoffy (no pun intended) for offering a more reasonable rebuttal than "Oh dear gods"

Iwasfrozen

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Don't trust that party, their leader along with its members. That party has links and sympathize with the far right in Britain.

http://irishstudentleftonline.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/ben-gilroy-and-the-far-right/#more-298

Ah here. Nigel Farage is a bit of a twat but calling him racist scum? That's going too far.

LeinsterDub

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why not? Social media campaigns have been hugely successful in recent times for political movements. It's the new "forum" as they had in ancient Rome. If 150,000 people sign a petition online - using some sort of verifiable identity, of course - why is that any less legitimate than paper signatures?

We will end up having to build a Death Star .
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/secure-resources-and-funding-and-begin-construction-death-star-2016/wlfKzFkN

goose2005

Scofflaw wrote: »

You'd have to have a legal trigger for recall, not a popular one, and there we run into the problem that it's damned rare for a TD to be convicted of any of the offences people find specifically offensive in a politician.

Not to mention that a TD is automatically sacked already if sentenced to more than 6 months in jail

Iwasfrozen

LeinsterDub wrote: »

We will end up having to build a Death Star .
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/secure-resources-and-funding-and-begin-construction-death-star-2016/wlfKzFkN

Hell yeah!

hatrickpatrick

LeinsterDub wrote: »

We will end up having to build a Death Star .
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/secure-resources-and-funding-and-begin-construction-death-star-2016/wlfKzFkN

Might put some manners on Merkel if we had one of those to back up our negotiating position

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

^ Reasonable points, I'll see if I can come up with any potential solutions later on, but bravo, Scoffy (no pun intended) for offering a more reasonable rebuttal than "Oh dear gods"

Fair enough; my less-than-helpful response was more of a "here we go again" response to the umpteenth suggestion that internet voting is no more difficult a problem to solve than internet banking.

Internet voting is not so much a difficult problem to solve; it's impossible to do it securely and anonymously. It quite simply can't be done. This is a problem that has been studied in a great deal of detail by much cleverer people than me, and that is their conclusion.

jimmycrackcorm

OCorcrainn wrote: »

You are confusing Sinn Féin with Fianna Fáil, you know...the party with all the populist bs that ran this country into the ground?

They're both equally as dodgy. FF pushed for spending and no cuts during the boom whilst SF are doing the same when we have no money.

Iwasfrozen

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

They're both equally as dodgy. FF pushed for spending and no cuts during the boom whilst SF are doing the same when we have no money.

Both economically illiterate but only the latter knows how to manage a firearm.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Might put some manners on Merkel if we had one of those to back up our negotiating position

If we could even afford to build one, we wouldn't be worried about what Merkel thought in the first place...

oscarBravo wrote:

Internet voting is not so much a difficult problem to solve; it's impossible to do it securely and anonymously. It quite simply can't be done. This is a problem that has been studied in a great deal of detail by much cleverer people than me, and that is their conclusion.

And no loss, says I. The exercise of voting is not merely one of expressing a preference, but of engagement with the life of the demos. Internet voting would be more convenient, efficient, and cheaper, but in the same way that masturbation is more convenient, efficient and cheaper than sex.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hijpo

looking past the "freeman lunatic" who admires "racist scum" because he told the european parliament to respect the irish vote. This democratic model is better for the people, it gives us some kind of protection against being raided by arrogant snobs who have complete disregard for other peoples livelihoods but there own.

Whos to say Gilroy wont be demoted due to inconsistencies with his affiliations? Will people have a different opinion of Direct Democracy then?
Surely they will have to, seen as the name Gilroy seems to be the only basis people are using to discredit this model.

Phoebas

Hijpo wrote: »

looking past the "freeman lunatic" who admires "racist scum" because he told the european parliament to respect the irish vote. This democratic model is better for the people, it gives us some kind of protection against being raided by arrogant snobs who have complete disregard for other peoples livelihoods but there own.

Whos to say Gilroy wont be demoted due to inconsistencies with his affiliations? Will people have a different opinion of Direct Democracy then?
Surely they will have to, seen as the name Gilroy seems to be the only basis people are using to discredit this model.

Whatever the merits of Direct Democracy itself, DDI are deeply flawed.
Apart from looking for the introduction of Direct Democracy, they have a list of other 'policies' (most of them are vague aspirations really, but anyway)

For example they are going to launch a legal review of the bailout.

Launch a full independent, international legal review of the bailout, which we hold to be an odious debt and illegal under international law

Nothing wrong with that, but they are also going to do this:

Suspend all payments relating to the bailout, capital and interest, pending the results of the legal review.

This obviously triggers a default. So, not only are they going to make one of the major decisions in the history of the state without even waiting for the results of their own legal review, they don't even plan to put it to one of their referendums.

Hijpo

Phoebas wrote: »

Whatever the merits of Direct Democracy itself, DDI are deeply flawed.
Apart from looking for the introduction of Direct Democracy, they have a list of other 'policies' (most of them are vague aspirations really, but anyway)

For example they are going to launch a legal review of the bailout.

Nothing wrong with that, but they are also going to do this:

This obviously triggers a default. So, not only are they going to make one of the major decisions in the history of the state without even waiting for the results of their own legal review, they don't even plan to put it to one of their referendums.

Point taken, however if it is proven to be an illegal odious debt (in part at least) what happens?
The term used is suspended, my guess is if its found to be a completely above board debt then it will be paid as soon as its judged to be legal and not "we are not paying this debt legal or otherwise.
The beauty of the DD system is atleast you can call a referendum on there decisions.

Hijpo

Hijpo wrote: »

The beauty of the DD system is at least you can call a referendum on there decisions.

Would that make a bailout difficult if our creditors (the IMF, EU or whoever) thought we could repudiate any debt at the whim of the electorate?

Bits_n_Bobs

Scofflaw wrote: »

masturbation is more convenient, efficient and cheaper than sex.

Say it isn't so!?!!?!?!?!????

Phoebas

Hijpo wrote: »

Point taken, however if it is proven to be an illegal odious debt (in part at least) what happens?

Who knows! Maybe we would be forced to immediately repay all bailout borrowings. We've already spent lots of it, so we would be needing a bailout.

Hijpo wrote: »

The term used is suspended, my guess is if its found to be a completely above board debt then it will be paid as soon as its judged to be legal and not "we are not paying this debt legal or otherwise.

Yeah, but 'suspending' a repayment triggers a default. Triggering a default before the results of the legal review are in is completely preempting the outcome of it.

Hijpo wrote: »

The beauty of the DD system is atleast you can call a referendum on there decisions.

Except that DDI don't call for a referendum on suspending bailout repayments - they want to do it even if it might be illegal, which seems to me to be a major contradiction of their primary policy.

Hijpo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Would that make a bailout difficult if our creditors (the IMF, EU or whoever) thought we could repudiate any debt at the whim of the electorate?

Apparently there is no need for a second bailout and considering all the service and wage cuts, tax raises, austerity measures and sale of state assets not to mention all the positive spin on how our economy is on the mend etc

Hijpo

Phoebas wrote: »

Who knows! Maybe we would be forced to immediately repay all bailout borrowings. We've already spent lots of it, so we would be needing a bailout.


Yeah, but 'suspending' a repayment triggers a default. Triggering a default before the results of the legal review are in is completely preempting the outcome of it.


Except that DDI don't call for a referendum on suspending bailout repayments - they want to do it even if it might be illegal, which seems to me to be a major contradiction of their primary policy.

weve already shelled out billions, are we still borrowing to run the country due to sending billions to bondholders?

The point im making is that we are already paying out not knowing if we legally should. Seems a bit rediculous and the fact that we would not be allowed to would suggest to me that something is legaly wrong with these repayments.

Not really as DDI say you can call a referendum on the decisions, there is nothing stopping you from calling a referendum on the decision to suspend payments. I dont see how thats going against there primary policy.

Phoebas

Hijpo wrote: »

Apparently there is no need for a second bailout and considering all the service and wage cuts, tax raises, austerity measures and sale of state assets not to mention all the positive spin on how our economy is on the mend etc

There is an ongoing need to rollover the bailout debt and to continue to fund the deficit.

Hijpo

Phoebas wrote: »

There is an ongoing need to rollover the bailout debt and to continue to fund the deficit.

So the positive spin should be ignored, there is a need for more loans, bigger savings through harsher austerity measures and soon the only people with any decent standard of living will be those who make and agree on the austerity legislation.

All without any debate/input/consultation from the majority of citizens who it effects the most?

Phoebas

Hijpo wrote: »

weve already shelled out billions, are we still borrowing to run the country due to sending billions to bondholders?

Of course we are. The banking bailout was but one part of the overall bailout.

Hijpo wrote: »

The point im making is that we are already paying out not knowing if we legally should. Seems a bit rediculous and the fact that we would not be allowed to would suggest to me that something is legaly wrong with these repayments.

But the bondholder repayments have largely been made. What we are now paying back is the borrowings we took on to repay the bondholders. We can hardly refuse to pay these debts just because other repayments were illegal.

Hijpo wrote: »

Not really as DDI say you can call a referendum on the decisions, there is nothing stopping you from calling a referendum on the decision to suspend payments. I dont see how thats going against there primary policy.

This sounds like a recipe for complete inertia.

So lets imagine that DDI get an overall majority in the next Dail and they decide to 'suspend' bailout repayments.

Do they defer this decision to leave time for the people to gather the signatures to challenge it? How long would I have to gather the signatures. A few months maybe?

I presume that the wording of any referendum would need to be parsed and analysed to check if it conflicts with other law. Maybe another couple of months in committee etc.
And then there would need to be a time for a referendum campaign. Maybe another two months?
Finally there would be a need for any pursuant secondary legislation to be drafted. I guess this would happen at committee stage.
After that I presume the President could refer it to the SC ... and then we get the new law.

Does this potentially happen with every decision that government takes?

Phoebas

Hijpo wrote: »

So the positive spin should be ignored, there is a need for more loans, bigger savings through harsher austerity measures and soon the only people with any decent standard of living will be those who make and agree on the austerity legislation.

There is ongoing need to go back to the bond markets to rollover existing debt. We pay off Loan A with Loan B.
That's the way its always been.

Phoebas

Hijpo wrote: »

The point im making is that we are already paying out not knowing if we legally should.

How do you come to that conclusion?

democrates

Direct democracy is a very live issue in case anyone is just thinking the worst is over economically, there's much more to play for. For starters the alarming asset-stripping of Ireland seems to be about to step up a gear. Our expanded territorial waters are estimated by industry to contain trillions worth of oil and gas reserves, but the message from those in political power summarises that the people of Ireland should expect very little benefit as almost all of that value must be funnelled to the accounts of industry interests. The Irish give-away stands in treacherous contrast to the Norwegian approach of seeking optimal outcomes for the public good. Also, the formerly private debt now shouldered by us and future generations is still open to renegotiation if we so desire.

Meanwhile with direct democracy, the Swiss have become the richest country in the world despite having relatively few non-human natural resources. At any time they could vote to replace their direct democracy with a system like ours, they would do so if they thought it would be better, they didn't because they don't.

Ireland used to have direct democracy but sneaky politicians took it away. I think the Swiss were and are right to keep direct democracy, it has several advantages over representative democracy:

• In Ireland power is concentrated with the cabinet unless backbenchers rebel en masse against the whip
• In Switzerland power rests with the electorate

• Irish people typically vote in a general election every 5 years and hope TD's follow through on at least some election promises
• Swiss people vote in referenda 3/4 times per year and get to see the consensus view implemented, if a rep. fails to deliver they can be recalled

• Most Irish politicians don't read the bills they vote on, and just vote as instructed by the party whip
• Swiss people discuss the issues based on published information and make informed votes

• Irish people are disenchanted with politics, evidenced by low voter turnout
• Swiss people are actively engaged in political decisions because they can effect or reject change with their votes

I don't think the Irish are a lower species of human compared with the Swiss, and I'm 100% behind Ireland having direct democracy because the medium and long term advantages far outweigh the short term uncertainty arising from it's introduction.

As for DDI, they've distanced themselves from Freemen of the Land and UKIP to my satisfaction. I'm not bothered by the minority of fringe elements who post some crazy stuff on DDI fora, I only care that the party introduces direct democracy once elected, then the wingnuts will find they can't even get enough signatures on a petition to trigger any referendum. It looks like ordinary people across the nation are going to DDI meetings and starting to organise to win the next election. If current trends continue they'll have my vote.

Ireland has a bounty of natural resources, unless we get get out from under the current yoke it'll be given to private interests while private debt remains transferred to the people. Direct democracy is the only show in town if we want our country to be run by the people, for the people. So far DDI are the only party I've seen offering that, the leadership of other parties oppose direct democracy because they want the maximum power to impose their neoliberal, socialist, or fascist ideologies.

KyussBishop

While I'm hopeful DDI may eventually turn into a good focal point for left-leaning political issues, I'm not very optimistic considering some of the wingnuts you mention (like the freeman types of late), who risk discrediting the entire organization in the eyes of the public; particularly, DDI, Gilroy and what looks like use of freeman nonsense, are a good example of this.

The problem with these parties, and most left-leaning political groups, is that they have a lot of good policies and point out some very important issues, but they invariably seem to intermix that with garbage policies or meaningless nonsense and slogans, which cause them to discredit themselves.

What annoys me about it the most, is that it poisons the well, and fools other people into believing and spouting the nonsense too, causing them to waste their very genuine desire to be politically active and cause positive change.


We really need more organized left-leaning political groups, that actually have focus and a consistent message, that isn't interspersed with discreditable crap, or discreditable people who are just attention seeking.
There are so many important issues that everyone can resonate with and be angry about, but no group which can take the lead on those issues without discrediting themselves; I don't know a lot about DDI, but I don't think they fit the bill right now, but maybe they will, given a bit more time and focus (and a purging of some of the idiots/wingnuts).

Scofflaw

democrates wrote:

Direct democracy is a very live issue in case anyone is just thinking the worst is over economically, there's much more to play for. For starters the alarming asset-stripping of Ireland seems to be about to step up a gear. Our expanded territorial waters are estimated by industry to contain trillions worth of oil and gas reserves, but the message from those in political power summarises that the people of Ireland should expect very little benefit as almost all of that value must be funnelled to the accounts of industry interests. The Irish give-away stands in treacherous contrast to the Norwegian approach of seeking optimal outcomes for the public good. Also, the formerly private debt now shouldered by us and future generations is still open to renegotiation if we so desire.

Unfortunately, this is a combination of money-tree wishful thinking and inappropriate comparisons. The estimate that there may be "trillions" in oil and gas out there is a pie in the sky estimate - so far we have found possibly viable fields worth in the low double billion figures, and brought absolutely none of it onshore after three decades of exploration. We have an almost unbelievably low strike rate in very hostile and challenging deep-water conditions.

That's why we don't have a petroleum tax regime that's similar to a country which within three years hit the largest fields in North Sea history, which has a strike rate so high they can afford to refund 80% of dry well costs, and whose shallow waters are virtually the standard for offshore conditions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

democrates

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, this is a combination of money-tree wishful thinking and inappropriate comparisons. The estimate that there may be "trillions" in oil and gas out there is a pie in the sky estimate - so far we have found possibly viable fields worth in the low double billion figures, and brought absolutely none of it onshore after three decades of exploration. We have an almost unbelievably low strike rate in very hostile and challenging deep-water conditions.

That's why we don't have a petroleum tax regime that's similar to a country which within three years hit the largest fields in North Sea history, which has a strike rate so high they can afford to refund 80% of dry well costs, and whose shallow waters are virtually the standard for offshore conditions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nice to chat again, hope you've been keeping well.

Citation: http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2009/01/31/ireland-sitting-on-a-fortune-exclusive-eur5trillion-oil-field-could-defeat-recession-but-gloom-grows/

The oil industries poor hit rate over 30 years is moot, they have now found an estimated EUR 5 Trillion worth. That's right, and it's all rightfully ours

Except our government gives a far too lucrative a deal to the oil companies. The show is pure pantomime.
Oilmen: "oh we're not interested in your oil now because it's so difficult to get and your angry idiots will protest against us"
Irish politicians "uh, how about just give us whatever you can afford, and we'll jackboot the angry idiots out of your way"
Oilmen "Hmm, oh, ok then we'll help, but just this one time"

I have no confidence that any Irish government will get a fair deal for the Irish people, the ideology of trickle-down capitalism remains let alone undiluted, it's being intensified. There's a long track record of special schemes for big business so they may concentrate wealth even faster, while for the ordinary people? Die on a trolley.

The only alternative to more mistreatment is direct democracy, it's a slam-dunk damn obvious forward step for civilisation.

Scofflaw

democrates wrote: »

Nice to chat again, hope you've been keeping well.

Citation: http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2009/01/31/ireland-sitting-on-a-fortune-exclusive-eur5trillion-oil-field-could-defeat-recession-but-gloom-grows/

The oil industries poor hit rate over 30 years is moot, they have now found an estimated EUR 5 Trillion worth. That's right, and it's all rightfully ours

Sorry, but Tom Prendeville essentially made that figure up. There is no such amount of oil known in Irish waters, although the massive absence of information allows one's imagination to multiply figures virtually without limits, as Tom has done here. An interesting point is that he's the same guy that invented the "hundreds of billions in fish".

Oddly enough, I've just eaten lunch with a friend who does seismological analysis for companies prospecting in Irish waters, who remarked on a recent "discovery" reported in the Celtic Sea - there is no discovery, but rather an estimate of possibility marked "yet to be drilled", which means that there's no actual data, let alone any actual oil.

democrates wrote: »

Except our government gives a far too lucrative a deal to the oil companies. The show is pure pantomime.
Oilmen: "oh we're not interested in your oil now because it's so difficult to get and your angry idiots will protest against us"
Irish politicians "uh, how about just give us whatever you can afford, and we'll jackboot the angry idiots out of your way"
Oilmen "Hmm, oh, ok then we'll help, but just this one time"

It's always nice to see that someone can hold simultaneously the belief that the oil companies would have to pay nothing on the oil they've supposedly found in Irish waters, and yet pretend it doesn't exist while they wait for...well, something....to happen that will make things even better. It's particularly interesting here to see your method of resolving that paradox.

democrates wrote: »

I have no confidence that any Irish government will get a fair deal for the Irish people, the ideology of trickle-down capitalism remains let alone undiluted, it's being intensified. There's a long track record of special schemes for big business so they may concentrate wealth even faster, while for the ordinary people? Die on a trolley.

The only alternative to more mistreatment is direct democracy, it's a slam-dunk damn obvious forward step for civilisation.

In other words, a panacea.

amused,
Scofflaw

Godge

democrates wrote: »

Nice to chat again, hope you've been keeping well.

Citation: http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2009/01/31/ireland-sitting-on-a-fortune-exclusive-eur5trillion-oil-field-could-defeat-recession-but-gloom-grows/

The oil industries poor hit rate over 30 years is moot, they have now found an estimated EUR 5 Trillion worth. That's right, and it's all rightfully ours

Except our government gives a far too lucrative a deal to the oil companies. The show is pure pantomime.
Oilmen: "oh we're not interested in your oil now because it's so difficult to get and your angry idiots will protest against us"
Irish politicians "uh, how about just give us whatever you can afford, and we'll jackboot the angry idiots out of your way"
Oilmen "Hmm, oh, ok then we'll help, but just this one time"

I have no confidence that any Irish government will get a fair deal for the Irish people, the ideology of trickle-down capitalism remains let alone undiluted, it's being intensified. There's a long track record of special schemes for big business so they may concentrate wealth even faster, while for the ordinary people? Die on a trolley.

The only alternative to more mistreatment is direct democracy, it's a slam-dunk damn obvious forward step for civilisation.

Ha, Ha, the source is a Daily Mirror story, thread about economic journalism over there for a prime example.

KyussBishop

That's another aspect of problematic left-wing groups: Inadequate fact checking.

If a political group is trying to be serious in getting across a message and support, getting the facts wrong over critical arguments is an instant death-knell for wider public support; left-wing parties can't get away with relying solely upon rhetoric and being loose with facts (right-wing parties/groups largely get away with this because the rhetoric is so well crafted, with an entire industry of think-tanks dedicated to backing it), they have to spend the time and money making sure they get things right (and own up when they get things wrong), or there will be zero trust from the wider population.

When you get poor fact checking and a lax attitude to that, this is how stuff like the freeman nonsense creeps in and totally destroys the credibility of an organization/group; lots of time/money has to be spent doing this professionally and getting things right.

Scofflaw

KyussBishop wrote: »

That's another aspect of problematic left-wing groups: Inadequate fact checking.

If a political group is trying to be serious in getting across a message and support, getting the facts wrong over critical arguments is an instant death-knell for wider public support; left-wing parties can't get away with relying solely upon rhetoric and being loose with facts (right-wing parties/groups largely get away with this because the rhetoric is so well crafted, with an entire industry of think-tanks dedicated to backing it), they have to spend the time and money making sure they get things right (and own up when they get things wrong), or there will be zero trust from the wider population.

When you get poor fact checking and a lax attitude to that, this is how stuff like the freeman nonsense creeps in and totally destroys the credibility of an organization/group; lots of time/money has to be spent doing this professionally and getting things right.

I don't think that either the Freeman movement or Direct Democracy (in this DDI form) can be described as left wing (direct democracy itself is neither left nor right wing, being a decision-making method). Both are actually appeals to the prime sovereignty of the individual, despite their frequent references to the corporatist preamble of the Constitution - quite possibly this is because the Freeman movement largely transposes the Posse Comitatus movement of the US, whose Constitution has rather more regard to the individual than does Bunreacht. However, the net effect in both cases is the assertion of the primacy of the individual over the body politic - which is a right-wing position.

And that, as far as I can see, is the connection between the two - which is rather more than just Gilroy. DDI carries within itself a taint of Freemanry, and its support for the mechanism of direct democracy seems to be fundamentally a Freeman-style rejection of the priority of the body politic and its servants over the individual. I suspect DDI is not truly interested in the constitutional mechanism of the referendum except as vehicle for rejection of the idea of a common good, a consensus outcome, or the idea of the State having any form of autonomy - which is de facto a rejection of state authority.

I would not be surprised if the outcome of a referendum which DDI loses were for its members to reject the binding power of the referendum on those who voted against the majority result, because, according to Freeman logic, they have not agreed to the "contract" agreed to by the majority. That, I think, is the Freeman worm in DDI's apple of direct democracy.

I could be wrong, of course, but that's what I would see as a likely and logical result of DDI's association with Freemanry. It's not just about Ben Gilroy, because DDI clearly espouses outcomes beyond simply making referendums a more powerful constitutional mechanism, and all the outcomes they espouse are of the form of rejections of 'corporate' responsibility in favour of individual rejectionism, while even the mechanism of having a referendum on Ireland's bank debt allows the escape clause of "I did vote on it, and I rejected it" as well as rejecting the authority of the State to make such decisions on one's behalf.

cordially,
Scofflaw

KyussBishop

That's a pretty interesting analysis of DDI; I don't know a great deal about the organization, so can't comment on that much.

I viewed them as potentially left-leaning (even if that is just left-of-present-government), as many of their policies seem a fair bit more progressive than other parties.

I didn't know the freeman stuff might be more deeply ingrained within the group; I don't view freeman stuff as left-leaning, but I do get the impression most new left-leaning groups (be they activists like ODS, or full political organizations), are very susceptible to being co-opted with nonsense like that, as well as getting basic facts wrong in arguments that seem to be constructed for rhetoric, and thus tend to push reasonable people away, and attract more of a naive and/or loony element.

All of that seems like it would be very easy to avoid, with a bit of vetting and fact-checking; I don't (yet) think DDI or other groups intentionally end up promoting nonsense like that, give them the benefit of the doubt that they are well-intentioned and that it's just lax standards letting the loonies in, and having them stumble over inadequately fact-checked policies.

democrates

Scofflaw wrote:

Sorry, but Tom Prendeville essentially made that figure up. There is no such amount of oil known in Irish waters, although the massive absence of information allows one's imagination to multiply figures virtually without limits, as Tom has done here. An interesting point is that he's the same guy that invented the "hundreds of billions in fish".

Oddly enough, I've just eaten lunch with a friend who does seismological analysis for companies prospecting in Irish waters, who remarked on a recent "discovery" reported in the Celtic Sea - there is no discovery, but rather an estimate of possibility marked "yet to be drilled", which means that there's no actual data, let alone any actual oil.

What an earth-shattering luncheon co-incidence!

My smiley above was jestful acknowledgement that it might just be an overestimate given the source, too subtle though. Obviously no-one can say precisely the future value accruing from oil and gas even after the volume and accessibility of finds are determined with high confidence since many factors affect future supply and demand in the global energy market, so the value will only become clear with time.

A friend once told me over a pint that a prospective drill site that turns up nothing is counted as an asset for the exploration company under IFSRA standards. It's free to search but that's a risk those companies willingly take, we don't have to bear that cost up-front or after via lucrative deals, we owe nothing, and shouldn't feel guilty as they're accruing vast wealth.

We've only recently had our territorial claim resolved, we who give it away cheaply, and suddenly now we are starting to hear about one discovery after another. Those companies are playing the uncertainty card like a magic ace, and our governments seem suspiciously willing to accept their arguments at face value, when they could get a far better deal for the Irish people.

I note the O'Reilly clan are getting geared up for an energy bonanza, but maybe they're just amusing fools, or maybe, as has often happened, they know something that's not in the public domain yet. If the final value of oil and gas in our territorial waters doesn't exceed EUR 1 trillion I'll come back here and admit defeat.

Anyway, if you agree that the Irish people should retain a fair portion of the benefit from our natural resources then we are in accord.

Scofflaw wrote:

It's always nice to see that someone can hold simultaneously the belief that the oil companies would have to pay nothing on the oil they've supposedly found in Irish waters, and yet pretend it doesn't exist while they wait for...well, something....to happen that will make things even better. It's particularly interesting here to see your method of resolving that paradox.

Sorry, a paradox does not need resolution as by definition it means apparant contradiction. Regardless, there's really no contradiction in the game I portrayed. I've heard the arguments defending every case of our assets being transferred to private interests, and defending the transfer of private debt to Irish citizens, but none of them stand the test of fairness, and we could actually do better deals.

Scofflaw wrote:

In other words, a panacea.

I didn't actually say panacea or any synonym, but you're welcome to be amused by your own extrapolations Direct democracy is not a panacea/silver bullet/universal elixer as the Swiss are quick to say, but it does mean the Swiss government aren't able to screw the people over as happens in Ireland. With direct democracy, we have our best chance of a fair deal. If the people don't like it, it only takes one referendum to put things back the way they were.

Getting less sidetracked, I must say I'm very happy to see that there is no credible opposition to the principle of direct democracy itself here.

democrates

KyussBishop wrote: »

That's a pretty interesting analysis of DDI; I don't know a great deal about the organization, so can't comment on that much.

I viewed them as potentially left-leaning (even if that is just left-of-present-government), as many of their policies seem a fair bit more progressive than other parties.

I didn't know the freeman stuff might be more deeply ingrained within the group; I don't view freeman stuff as left-leaning, but I do get the impression most new left-leaning groups (be they activists like ODS, or full political organizations), are very susceptible to being co-opted with nonsense like that, as well as getting basic facts wrong in arguments that seem to be constructed for rhetoric, and thus tend to push reasonable people away, and attract more of a naive and/or loony element.

All of that seems like it would be very easy to avoid, with a bit of vetting and fact-checking; I don't (yet) think DDI or other groups intentionally end up promoting nonsense like that, give them the benefit of the doubt that they are well-intentioned and that it's just lax standards letting the loonies in, and having them stumble over inadequately fact-checked policies.

From what I see they only started last November so I don't expect to see a well fleshed out platform at this stage.

They are having meetings country-wide so there'll be a lot of people with their own wish-lists going along, but a bigger crowd with a better cross-section tends to benefit more from the wisdom of masses. Of course if DDI get in, any extremists hanging around the fringes are in for a let-down. If I were home I'd join up, it's the only route I can see to getting Ireland back on the right track.