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

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.

Scofflaw

democrates wrote: »

What an earth-shattering luncheon co-incidence!

It was odd, but genuine - and not too unusual given my background. I know a lot of people in the oil industry.

democrates wrote: »

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.

Sure - but oil that has not been found is not a 'discovery', or even oil, despite the efforts of the Irish media to portray it as such, whether through ignorance or other agenda. Even with a smiley, quoting Tom Prendeville's imaginary numbers as anything other than ludicrous is, I fear, ludicrous.

democrates wrote: »

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.

I...have my doubts, I'm sorry to say. A licence area that has turned up nothing is still an asset, but I can't see how a well can be anything but a cost, nor can I find anything to substantiate your friend's claim.

democrates wrote: »

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.

Because the uncertainty is very real. There have been a lot of announcements of 'discoveries', but the amount of such discoveries shown to be commercial by actual development is Corrib, while the amount of oil and gas that has been brought ashore from all these supposed prospects is precisely zero.

democrates wrote: »

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.

The problem is that while I see plenty of noise from O'Reilly, I don't know anyone in the industry who is impressed. I can't really take you up on your offer without a timescale, though.

democrates wrote: »

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.

Where we differ is in whether the current regime represents an adequate attempt to get a good deal for the Irish people in the long run by offering an incentive until there's some actual physical evidence behind all the speculation.

democrates wrote: »

Sorry, a paradox does not need resolution as by definition it means apparant contradiction.

Sure - indeed, it's necessary to see it as a resolvable paradox rather than a contradiction in order to hold both sides, as you do. If, like me, you see it as a contradiction, it has no resolution.

democrates wrote: »

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.

Hmm...fairness. Not sure how that resolves the paradox.

democrates wrote: »

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.

I can't see why anyone would object in principle, but what makes direct democracy rather less than the obvious slam-dunk step forward for every civilisation is the detail - hence my panacea comment. See, for example, the problems with the 'recall' proposal earlier in the thread.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

democrates wrote: »

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.

The problem there is that it might be the same for DDI as for the Green Party, where it turned out as much as a third of their support base consisted of "extremists hanging around the fringes" and others who perhaps were too idealistic to tolerate the necessary compromises of coalition. Still, we'll see - for me, I'd be extremely leery of DDI, because, as I said, I think their Freeman associations go rather deeper than Ben Gilroy - I think the fundamental tenet of DDI is an individual rejection of the concept and authority of the State. And while I lean towards anarchism myself, I don't lean to that particular right-wing brand of it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Conmaicne Mara

"Returning the power back to you"

No, I don't think so. Returning the power to the lowest common denominator perhaps.

Imagine if this party were in power at the time of the bailout?

There would have been a referendum every half hour, do you want to bail out the banks? NO.................

OK, do you want to live with the consequences of not bailing out the banks? NO...............

What do ye want? We want it every which way!

When do ye want it? Yesterday!

It'd be a farce.

democrates

scofflaw wrote:

Sure - but oil that has not been found is not a 'discovery', or even oil, despite the efforts of the Irish media to portray it as such, whether through ignorance or other agenda. Even with a smiley, quoting Tom Prendeville's imaginary numbers as anything other than ludicrous is, I fear, ludicrous.

The discovery information that's reported originates with the oil and gas industry. Both they and the privately owned media have a fiduciary duty to maximise gain for their shareholders, so yes, there are definite agendas underlying their actions. Just this morning http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/fastnet-3d-seismic-data-indicates-2bn-barrels-of-oil-29289622.html Maybe that 2Bn barrels is another ludicrous media manipulation. I should be able to link to government estimates of the value of oil and gas, but they seem to be mysteriously unavailable, whether through ignorance or other agenda.

scofflaw wrote:

I...have my doubts, I'm sorry to say. A licence area that has turned up nothing is still an asset, but I can't see how a well can be anything but a cost, nor can I find anything to substantiate your friend's claim.

Fair enough, my friend manages financial controllers spread over several countries and I trust his word. Besides, the best evidence is how the sector is performing and the answer is that our old friends are concentrating vast wealth, they could do much fairer deals but it's down to governments to negotiate a good deal for the people. To that end it's important to consider both the zero oil and gas scenario you focus on, and the jackpot scenario which you seem reluctant to consider. From what we've seen with the banking sector, I've no confidence that our government will suddenly negotiate a good deal for the people with the oil and gas sector.

scofflaw wrote:

Because the uncertainty is very real. There have been a lot of announcements of 'discoveries', but the amount of such discoveries shown to be commercial by actual development is Corrib, while the amount of oil and gas that has been brought ashore from all these supposed prospects is precisely zero.

Let's not airbrush Kinsale gas from history with a selective optic, we can be certain that zero is not an accurate figure for what's already been brought ashore.

A major uncertainty has recently been resolved, over the last few decades there's been a big fat question mark over what country could award resource rights in what North Atlantic waters. Since 2007 Ireland has an internationally accepted map http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/irl05/irl_exec_sum.pdf, note

petroleum affairs division wrote:

"This submission, together with all maps, figures, enclosures, appendices and databases were prepared by the Petroleum Affairs Division of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources of Ireland..."

my emphasis.

The carve-up is on but we're just at the start of a very long road. With the latest technology we're already seeing increasing reports of finds and though no-one can give precise figures for what final yields will be, the finds so far indicate it may indeed be very high by the time the entire area has been exploited. More uncertainty was removed by the marine surveys INSS and INFOMAR conducted by Ireland over the last ten years which yielded 11 Terabytes and considered the best maritime survey dataset in the world. Remarkable how our government can organise such excellent work when the prime beneficiaries are the oil and gas sector.

scofflaw wrote:

The problem is that while I see plenty of noise from O'Reilly, I don't know anyone in the industry who is impressed. I can't really take you up on your offer without a timescale, though.

Of course the industry are not amused by noisy O'Reilly nosing into their market, he hasn't as much practice with the delicate game of selling the upside to investors and the downside to governments and media.
As for a time-scale to evaluate oil and gas exploitation, I'd pick the period over which we are expected to repay formerly private bank-related debt. Chances are I'll be dead before then, but this record will remain so maybe future generations paying other people's debts can add it up and post an update.

scofflaw wrote:

Where we differ is in whether the current regime represents an adequate attempt to get a good deal for the Irish people in the long run by offering an incentive until there's some actual physical evidence behind all the speculation.

No-one is in a position to categorically state that it won't turn out to be several trillion euro worth, so the flexibility for the state to extract more benefit should be built into license terms. Of course the industry are dead set against that, naturally they want the potential for lucrative jackpots while sharing gains as little as possible.

scofflaw wrote:

Sure - indeed, it's necessary to see it as a resolvable paradox rather than a contradiction in order to hold both sides, as you do. If, like me, you see it as a contradiction, it has no resolution.
...
Hmm...fairness. Not sure how that resolves the paradox.

Again, a paradox is something that on the face of it seems like a contradiction but actually isn't, so every paradox is resolved upon definition, before which the situation was simply perceived as a contradiction. For clarity my original assertion is simply that the oil companies exaggerate the risk to government and feign disinterest so they can get better terms for themselves. Where's the contradiction?

scofflaw wrote:

I can't see why anyone would object in principle, but what makes direct democracy rather less than the obvious slam-dunk step forward for every civilisation is the detail - hence my panacea comment. See, for example, the problems with the 'recall' proposal earlier in the thread.

The recall system is most used in the USA while the Swiss haven't actually recalled anyone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_election

We could certainly iron out creases to maintain the value of our PR system, I think you over-complicate the example of a 75% FF supporting 4-seater, saying popular votes will result in recalls until it's 100% FF, and propose a legal trigger requirement for recall but then concede that such a mechanism would rarely work. The obvious answer to my mind is to take the PR outcome of the original election and simply continue the count to discover the next in line. Far less hassle. We could also limit the number of allowable replacements to avoid scraping the barrel. No insurmountable obstacle here.

Also remember that with direct democracy, political life no longer offers a gravy train with ample opportunity for additional personal gain, so we'd likely see a rejuvenated FF/FG/Lab with higher quality candidates, and with recall in addition to the national petition, there's less to worry about regarding the party make-up in any given constituency.

We've had the current political system for 74 years and are told it's so bad that there's a need for major reform, FG even want to abolish the Seanad. Still we see argument here that the outcomes from the broken system are the best we could imagine, if that were true, the system isn't broken. It is broken, we have a de-facto list system imposed by the party and whip with an all-powerful cabinet of 15. Instead of carefully selected experts however we've had our economy driven onto the rocks by Bertie 'no one came to me' Aherne asleep on the job and Charlie 'when I have it I spend it' McCreevy ratcheting up spending. Now we have FG clearly relishing the chance to strip security from the least well off, the name and shame and other conditions for bankrupt individuals really show the contempt some FG people have for poor people guilty of the great sin of failing to better themselves.

With a better system we'll get better outcomes, direct democracy offers great advantages as the Swiss have proven beyond any credible doubt.

KyussBishop

One other thing about DDI, is that I have heard (indirectly/unconfirmed) that they are aware of and discussing issues revolving around monetary reform, and that is a topic which involves bolstering (rather than diminishing) state power and sovereignty/independence (unless you're a gold-bug or such).

Ireland is severely limited in what it can do in that regard, but it gives hope/promise, to see any political party even internally discussing that issue, and it's a further thing which has me give benefit of the doubt, that they may turn out more progressive than the freeman element suggests.

Certainly, it's worth at least making them aware that this would be a desired direction to see them go in, and that a right-wing/freeman slant would be an end to their credibility (and will be, unless they purge/disown it, and explain how and to what extent it creeped in, in the first place).

democrates

Scofflaw wrote: »

The problem there is that it might be the same for DDI as for the Green Party, where it turned out as much as a third of their support base consisted of "extremists hanging around the fringes" and others who perhaps were too idealistic to tolerate the necessary compromises of coalition. Still, we'll see - for me, I'd be extremely leery of DDI, because, as I said, I think their Freeman associations go rather deeper than Ben Gilroy - I think the fundamental tenet of DDI is an individual rejection of the concept and authority of the State. And while I lean towards anarchism myself, I don't lean to that particular right-wing brand of it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ben Gilroy already said he thinks that freeman stuff is a load of nonsense, and my instinct is that his heart is in the right place as it were. Completely unrelated to DDI, his use of arguments that sound similar to freeman arguments in order to delay evictions has made it easy for detractors to smear DDI. Some people even think he started and leads DDI, but in fact it was established by a man who previously lived in Switzerland and saw direct democracy in action, that's where the impetus came from.

Most of the people I've discussed it with like the core idea of direct democracy, but every one was wary of the possible freeman connection which I believe is way overblown, but the question would certainly need to be dealt with more conclusively before the election.

Aside from that, they need to build a credible platform for government. It's under development at this early stage, so we'll see if I'm right that ordinary people going to meetings will bring balance and a sense of unity.

Chips Lovell

I got a chuckle out of the Irish Times report on Gilroy's claims that he isn't a freeman.

Mr Gilroy told The Irish Times he does help people in financial difficulty who are going to court, but does not use freemen arguments.

The People for Economic Justice website also includes a photograph of a sample notice to be placed outside the door of a property to prevent access by bailiffs, court officials, debt collectors and receivers. The notice is signed “under the great seal of the Giolla Rua” by “Ben of the ancient clan Giolla Rua authorised agent for Ben Gilroy™

KyussBishop

democrates wrote: »

Ben Gilroy already said he thinks that freeman stuff is a load of nonsense, and my instinct is that his heart is in the right place as it were. Completely unrelated to DDI, his use of arguments that sound similar to freeman arguments in order to delay evictions has made it easy for detractors to smear DDI. Some people even think he started and leads DDI, but in fact it was established by a man who previously lived in Switzerland and saw direct democracy in action, that's where the impetus came from.

Most of the people I've discussed it with like the core idea of direct democracy, but every one was wary of the possible freeman connection which I believe is way overblown, but the question would certainly need to be dealt with more conclusively before the election.

Aside from that, they need to build a credible platform for government. It's under development at this early stage, so we'll see if I'm right that ordinary people going to meetings will bring balance and a sense of unity.

If he said that regarding freemen, it doesn't mesh well at all with his actions; there was some very freeman-esque stuff that he has specifically advocated (the eviction things you mention), and another poster has alleged (in the infamous AH thread) encouraging use of freeman stuff in court, which has gotten people in big trouble! (I don't claim that myself mind, I haven't seen anything that solidly nails that, just saw it alleged)

If that is true, then him simply saying it is nonsense isn't good enough really, as direct harm will have been caused by encouraging it; I'd want to see a complete explanation of how far they went advocating the stuff, an admission of any harm caused, and probably disassociation/removal-from-the-party of anyone who did cause harm promoting that nonsense.

It needs to be publicly explained and purged, for them to assure the public and maintain credibility, as far as I'm concerned; I give them benefit of the doubt in many respects, but this needs to be handled right.

democrates

KyussBishop wrote: »

If he said that regarding freemen, it doesn't mesh well at all with his actions; there was some very freeman-esque stuff that he has specifically advocated (the eviction things you mention), and another poster has alleged (in the infamous AH thread) encouraging use of freeman stuff in court, which has gotten people in big trouble! (I don't claim that myself mind, I haven't seen anything that solidly nails that, just saw it alleged)

If that is true, then him simply saying it is nonsense isn't good enough really, as direct harm will have been caused by encouraging it; I'd want to see a complete explanation of how far they went advocating the stuff, an admission of any harm caused, and probably disassociation/removal-from-the-party of anyone who did cause harm promoting that nonsense.

It needs to be publicly explained and purged, for them to assure the public and maintain credibility, as far as I'm concerned; I give them benefit of the doubt in many respects, but this needs to be handled right.

I think there are shades of grey here, in that I can understand a person being evicted by a bank (that we had to bail out) would try whatever they could to delay proceedings. There's always a sliver of hope that the law may be changed in response to public protest, but if you co-operate immediately then you're definitely out on the street.

There's obviously going to be a lot of smearing from the grassroots supporters of other parties, maybe even here on boards.ie! The wikipedia page has already been edited for mischievous purposes. In the interests of fairness any definitive evidence ought to be produced, we should still live by the tenet "innocent until proven guilty". I imagine the mainstream media would be quick to publish anything firm on the topic, haven't seen it yet though.

If any wrong-doing can be proven it would obviously be Ben Gilroy's undoing. Even then it doesn't have to drag DDI down with it, providing DDI are not over-reliant on one public face. We may see more on TV3 this Monday night.

Scofflaw

democrates wrote: »

The discovery information that's reported originates with the oil and gas industry. Both they and the privately owned media have a fiduciary duty to maximise gain for their shareholders, so yes, there are definite agendas underlying their actions. Just this morning http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/fastnet-3d-seismic-data-indicates-2bn-barrels-of-oil-29289622.html Maybe that 2Bn barrels is another ludicrous media manipulation. I should be able to link to government estimates of the value of oil and gas, but they seem to be mysteriously unavailable, whether through ignorance or other agenda.

Well, because in this case it's a consultant's report, and, as said, an estimate of a possibility. The media are reporting it as if it's almost a confirmed discovery, but it's a desktop study - all it says is that they think the same geology as is oil-bearing elsewhere might be the geology under Kinsale, and that it might, therefore, God willing and with luck, be oil bearing, although whether all of that is true is entirely unknown.

democrates wrote: »

Fair enough, my friend manages financial controllers spread over several countries and I trust his word. Besides, the best evidence is how the sector is performing and the answer is that our old friends are concentrating vast wealth, they could do much fairer deals but it's down to governments to negotiate a good deal for the people. To that end it's important to consider both the zero oil and gas scenario you focus on, and the jackpot scenario which you seem reluctant to consider. From what we've seen with the banking sector, I've no confidence that our government will suddenly negotiate a good deal for the people with the oil and gas sector.

I'm not at all reluctant to consider a jackpot scenario - I'm pointing out, though, that believing we're already in a jackpot scenario is extremely premature. We've had a couple of Match 3's,that's all - it's not time to break out the bubbly and start fighting with our relatives.

democrates wrote: »

Let's not airbrush Kinsale gas from history with a selective optic, we can be certain that zero is not an accurate figure for what's already been brought ashore.

Kinsale was 40 years ago, the intervening time was almost devoid of discoveries or even prospects. One should avoid the straw man of equating the point that none of the recent 'discoveries' have actually produced anything with a claim that there's nothing at all in Irish waters.

democrates wrote: »

A major uncertainty has recently been resolved, over the last few decades there's been a big fat question mark over what country could award resource rights in what North Atlantic waters. Since 2007 Ireland has an internationally accepted map http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/irl05/irl_exec_sum.pdf, note my emphasis.

And here's the reason for my point about the recent discoveries - because you wish to treat them as having "settled" any uncertainty over the prospects for oil in Irish waters. My point is that they don't in fact do so, because none of them bar Corrib has actually been developed for production at all, and none of them including Corrib has actually landed anything.

democrates wrote: »

The carve-up is on but we're just at the start of a very long road. With the latest technology we're already seeing increasing reports of finds and though no-one can give precise figures for what final yields will be, the finds so far indicate it may indeed be very high by the time the entire area has been exploited. More uncertainty was removed by the marine surveys INSS and INFOMAR conducted by Ireland over the last ten years which yielded 11 Terabytes and considered the best maritime survey dataset in the world. Remarkable how our government can organise such excellent work when the prime beneficiaries are the oil and gas sector.

Because the beneficiaries of the activities of the oil and gas sector in Irish waters would be the Irish state, and without such activity we might as well not have those waters. Spending money on IMFOMAR and INSS is pump-priming along the same lines as the tax regime.

democrates wrote: »

Of course the industry are not amused by noisy O'Reilly nosing into their market, he hasn't as much practice with the delicate game of selling the upside to investors and the downside to governments and media.

...you're joking, right? O'Reilly is extremely good at exactly that, and is very much the kind of local partner oil companies like.

democrates wrote: »

As for a time-scale to evaluate oil and gas exploitation, I'd pick the period over which we are expected to repay formerly private bank-related debt. Chances are I'll be dead before then, but this record will remain so maybe future generations paying other people's debts can add it up and post an update.

No-one is in a position to categorically state that it won't turn out to be several trillion euro worth, so the flexibility for the state to extract more benefit should be built into license terms. Of course the industry are dead set against that, naturally they want the potential for lucrative jackpots while sharing gains as little as possible.

Individual licences are effectively contracts, with a set term - usually five years - and obligations and rights on both sides, but the flexibility for the state to extract more benefit is inherent in the state's capacity to legislate. The profit tax terms were changed under the previous government, and apply to all new licences. If we do start to enter genuinely serious prospect territory - rather than when the media think we have - those terms will tighten.

democrates wrote: »

Again, a paradox is something that on the face of it seems like a contradiction but actually isn't, so every paradox is resolved upon definition, before which the situation was simply perceived as a contradiction. For clarity my original assertion is simply that the oil companies exaggerate the risk to government and feign disinterest so they can get better terms for themselves. Where's the contradiction?

Between the claim that the oil companies feign disinterest in Irish waters to get a better deal out of the Irish government, and the claim that the Irish petroleum tax regime is a complete giveaway, there's an obvious contradiction. Equally, the first claim simply contradicts reality - everywhere there's really known to be oil, the petroleum majors fight tooth and claw to be first at the pot. The idea that they can afford to stand around pretending there's nothing in Irish waters when they "really" know there is, is completely ridiculous - any one of them could scoop the pot at what are already supposed to be the best terms in the world by simply breaking ranks.

democrates wrote: »

The recall system is most used in the USA while the Swiss haven't actually recalled anyone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_election

We could certainly iron out creases to maintain the value of our PR system, I think you over-complicate the example of a 75% FF supporting 4-seater, saying popular votes will result in recalls until it's 100% FF, and propose a legal trigger requirement for recall but then concede that such a mechanism would rarely work. The obvious answer to my mind is to take the PR outcome of the original election and simply continue the count to discover the next in line. Far less hassle. We could also limit the number of allowable replacements to avoid scraping the barrel. No insurmountable obstacle here.

I don't think that would work, constitutionally, without a hell of a lot of changes. A vacant seat means a by-election, and you'd have to distinguish constitutionally a seat made vacant by recall, and a seat made vacant by other mechanisms. I'm not sure, even, that such a system would be generally constitutional, since it limits the choice of representative to those who competed in a previous election.

democrates wrote: »

Also remember that with direct democracy, political life no longer offers a gravy train with ample opportunity for additional personal gain, so we'd likely see a rejuvenated FF/FG/Lab with higher quality candidates, and with recall in addition to the national petition, there's less to worry about regarding the party make-up in any given constituency.

That's panacea stuff, I think. You'd need to show how direct democracy would no longer offer a gravy train. Even Athenian democracy allowed gravy trains with ample opportunities for additional personal gain.

democrates wrote: »

We've had the current political system for 74 years and are told it's so bad that there's a need for major reform, FG even want to abolish the Seanad. Still we see argument here that the outcomes from the broken system are the best we could imagine, if that were true, the system isn't broken. It is broken, we have a de-facto list system imposed by the party and whip with an all-powerful cabinet of 15. Instead of carefully selected experts however we've had our economy driven onto the rocks by Bertie 'no one came to me' Aherne asleep on the job and Charlie 'when I have it I spend it' McCreevy ratcheting up spending. Now we have FG clearly relishing the chance to strip security from the least well off, the name and shame and other conditions for bankrupt individuals really show the contempt some FG people have for poor people guilty of the great sin of failing to better themselves.

With a better system we'll get better outcomes, direct democracy offers great advantages as the Swiss have proven beyond any credible doubt.

No, the Swiss have proven that direct democracy in the hands of the Swiss offers good outcomes, whereas the Californians have largely shown that it can be used to wreck the state's finances.

The current system is not good, partly because of the whip system and partly because of the parochial tendency to dynastic and parish-pump voting, but I don't see any value in being starry-eyed about direct democracy either, because that too has its perils and problems.

cordially,
Scofflaw