Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Why Does Ireland Like Being Told How to Live - Ireland & the EU
Options
Comments
-
KyussBishop wrote: »You were the one who tried to pin a view on the majority, "There is the small matter of their being no democratic majority in favour of such stimulus spending in the EU.", which inherently means you think there is a majority against - so go on then, since you're insistent on clear evidence, give us the evidence of that?
The clear evidence - which you are not willing to accept - is the absence of majority support for such policies (other than in the existing narrow basis recently approved).
There have been no majority votes in favour of it at: a) European Parliament level or the election to it, and b) European Council level or the general elections to the parliaments of the member states. The idea isn't even making it onto the political agenda.
None of the electorates are expressing political support (in any wide scale sense) for this idea at elections.
That means that either: a) there is no majority support for the idea (my position) or b) the electorate don't vote for an idea that a majority of them support (your position). That argument (i.e. yours) basically amounts to a claim that the electorate are stupid.KyussBishop wrote: »I haven't claimed there is any kind of majority (or not) in either direction. It would be equally incorrect for me to say there is, as it would be to say there is not.
If you are willing to believe that the electorate of Ireland or any other EU member state are potentially in favour of the re-introduction of slavery, don't let me stop you from holding onto your erroneous belief. Never let reality get in the way of a good theory, as they say.KyussBishop wrote: »You're just waffling now, to try and feign a substantive reply. It is simple, the actions of parliament/government, does not mean the majority of the population supports each and every action.
Actions are 'representative' as in representative-democracy, yes; actions are inherently agreed with by most of the population, no.
The only one waffling here is you since accepting that your ideas don't command majority support means they are dead in the water (unless there are some truly astonishing changes in public opinion).
The forthcoming elections will provide us with the opportunity to assess the level of political support for your ideas. I look forward to seeing the size of your majority...0 -
This is a really bizarre form of flawed logic. Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence; it means you do not know. Logic 101.The clear evidence - which you are not willing to accept - is the absence of majority support for such policies (other than in the existing narrow basis recently approved).
The rest of the post is just waffle and various straw-men. You made the claim (absent evidence) that a majority do not and would not support stimulus, I did not make any claim one way or the other.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »This is a really bizarre form of flawed logic. Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence; it means you do not know. Logic 101
There is no "absence of evidence". We have voting records which provide us with clear evidence.
Those voting records provide us with "evidence of absence" of support for the ideas you support - people are not voting for them (And any support for them doesn't even appear capable of organising a meaningful campaign in support of them).
Crucially, the voting records also provide us with "evidence of support". We can clearly see that the EPP and Socialist parties - both of whom are advocating the current policies or some variation thereof - obtain majority support (between them) from the electorates both at domestic level and at European Parllament level.
If those parties did not have this majority support - they would be consistently out-voted in the European Parliament and European Council and we would be in the process of implementing different policies to the current ones - perhaps even policies you favour. That though is not the case, is it?KyussBishop wrote: »The rest of the post is just waffle and various straw-men. You made the claim (absent evidence) that a majority do not and would not support stimulus, I did not make any claim one way or the other.
If you want to ignore voting records , fair enough. Most people are willing to accept the evidence of democratic votes.
We'll see what the electorate votes for and doesn't vote for in the upcoming elections, won't we? We can all look forward to the results I am sure...0 -
-
KyussBishop wrote: »Great, please show us these records then, where people got to vote specifically on stimulus?
KyussBishop I hope you understand how elections work and are prepared to accept the results of democratic elections. If there was big demand for a stimulus people would have voted for the politicians to offered to do this. In an Irish context the various parties of the far left in the last election campaigned along the lines of the policies you mentioned (stimulus). People didn't vote for this they voted for other economic policies and as View pointed out the same happened in other countries.
But if you think this doesn't mean people rejected stimulus policies you need to brush up on how elections work and why people voted in elections where the economy was the main issue. Alternatively its a case of you not being able to accept democracy and how people voted.
There are more elections in the future so if you feel you have a better alternative than the present system you will have plenty of opportunities to try and persuade people.0 -
Advertisement
-
There is no vote for a stimulus, and there never was (not surprising seeing as it's impossible for an Irish politician to credibly promise this, since the EU are in control). Unless you can show people being explicitly given an option to vote for stimulus, then you cannot make claims about what the majority thinks on that issue, unless you are happy making completely baseless claims.KyussBishop I hope you understand how elections work and are prepared to accept the results of democratic elections. If there was big demand for a stimulus people would have voted for the politicians to offered to do this. In an Irish context the various parties of the far left in the last election campaigned along the lines of the policies you mentioned (stimulus). People didn't vote for this they voted for other economic policies and as View pointed out the same happened in other countries.
But if you think this doesn't mean people rejected stimulus policies you need to brush up on how elections work and why people voted in elections where the economy was the main issue. Alternatively its a case of you not being able to accept democracy and how people voted.
There are more elections in the future so if you feel you have a better alternative than the present system you will have plenty of opportunities to try and persuade people.
There is a complete absence of any such evidence - I don't think you or View quite understand the basic precepts of logic, that the policies voters do (or don't) support, aren't a perfect mirror-image of the policies politicians support, and that an absence of credible politicians advocating stimulus, does not provide evidence of what the majority of the population think.
Voting for politicians is also not the same as voting for or against an issue - you can perfectly agree with policy A that a politician supports, and vehemently disagree with a whole host of policies B-Z that he supports, which keeps you from voting for him (as would be the case for the majority of the radical left-wing groups). That tells you nothing about peoples opinions on policy 'A', only their views on the politician or the groups they associate with.
So unless you can fetch up a poll or actual vote specifically on the issue of stimulus, there is very little you can say about what people think about it; anything less requires pulling pure speculation from a logic-free black hole.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »There is no vote for a stimulus, and there never was (not surprising seeing as it's impossible for an Irish politician to credibly promise this, since the EU are in control). Unless you can show people being explicitly given an option to vote for stimulus, then you cannot make claims about what the majority thinks on that issue, unless you are happy making completely baseless claims.
There is a complete absence of any such evidence - I don't think you or View quite understand the basic precepts of logic, that the policies voters do (or don't) support, aren't a perfect mirror-image of the policies politicians support, and that an absence of credible politicians advocating stimulus, does not provide evidence of what the majority of the population think.
Voting for politicians is also not the same as voting for or against an issue - you can perfectly agree with policy A that a politician supports, and vehemently disagree with a whole host of policies B-Z that he supports, which keeps you from voting for him (as would be the case for the majority of the radical left-wing groups). That tells you nothing about peoples opinions on policy 'A', only their views on the politician or the groups they associate with.
So unless you can fetch up a poll or actual vote specifically on the issue of stimulus, there is very little you can say about what people think about it; anything less requires pulling pure speculation from a logic-free black hole.
I think this a case of don't being able to accept a democratic vote or anything that goes against your world view. If people desperately wanted a stimulus package they would have voted for parties that would deliver this. There are of course other issues in elections which are normally centred around what people want. The fact your economic world view didn't gain any support and alternatives that you oppose did says how much the public supported them. If other issues put people of parties with these policies it means the public still didn't support your views as other issues were clearly more important and worthy of support than your views. This is how elections work.
Saying there is no evidence from the elections is basically you rejecting any facts which you don't like. All your above was putting some elegant spin on this.0 -
Who can possibly provide a credible promise to deliver this, and thus create a political platform out of it? Nobody. It is in Europe's control, not Ireland's - we do not have a vote on this.I think this a case of don't being able to accept a democratic vote or anything that goes against your world view. If people desperately wanted a stimulus package they would have voted for parties that would deliver this.
I haven't made a claim one way or the other about what the public think on this issue, I've pointed out the (massive, glaring) logical faults/fallacies, you and View utilize, to draw conclusions about what the public may think, based on zero evidence.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »Who can possibly provide a credible promise to deliver this, and thus create a political platform out of it? Nobody. It is in Europe's control, not Ireland's - we do not have a vote on this.
We have a vote on this via the EU parliament and council. Also we can also vote ourselves out of the EU if we feel it no longer meets our needs. We are subject to the various laws of the EU because in various elections and referendums we gave the EU these powers.KyussBishop wrote: »I haven't made a claim one way or the other about what the public think on this issue, I've pointed out the (massive, glaring) logical faults/fallacies, you and View utilize, to draw conclusions about what the public may think, based on zero evidence.
The problem with your argument is that what you are saying is elections don't matter and only way to decide if something has support or not is to have a referendum. Which would have to on every single issue. Which would ignore that most issues are intertwined. An example would be the countries tax policies dictate how much a country can spend on this various priorities. Hence why we use elections instead of referendums when deciding how to run the country.
Elections only count for zeros evidence because you don't agree with the result. There are more in the future so you obviously will have the opportunity to try and persuade people otherwise. But that means who have to engage with people and allow for the fact they might accept or reject your views.0 -
This is going around the same circular point again: You are trying to make an assertion about the opinion of the majority of the Irish people, regarding their views on stimulus: Who, at a European level, can they vote for to promote that? (particularly, who doesn't discredit themselves with other policies they support)We have a vote on this via the EU parliament and council. Also we can also vote ourselves out of the EU if we feel it no longer meets our needs. We are subject to the various laws of the EU because in various elections and referendums we gave the EU these powers.
There is also fúck all any Irish politician can do, to realistically push for stimulus, even at a European level, seeing as politics there is dominated by more powerful countries.
You seem to not understand the very simple difference between gauging public opinion, as opposed to the opinion and actions of people elected to represent us; one is not synonymous with the other, they are not in sync at any given moment in time.
You seem to be also, bringing up random lengthy points and straw-men, to pin to me and pretend I have advocated or said certain things, to try and maintain your argument - something which is getting rather tedious and pointless.
You're trying to put words in my mouth now. I haven't said any of that at all (and keep bringing up random straw-men like referendums and such - another thing I've never mentioned at all).The problem with your argument is that what you are saying is elections don't matter and only way to decide if something has support or not is to have a referendum. Which would have to on every single issue. Which would ignore that most issues are intertwined. An example would be the countries tax policies dictate how much a country can spend on this various priorities. Hence why we use elections instead of referendums when deciding how to run the country.
Elections only count for zeros evidence because you don't agree with the result. There are more in the future so you obviously will have the opportunity to try and persuade people otherwise. But that means who have to engage with people and allow for the fact they might accept or reject your views.
If issues are so intertwined, then you can't just magically untangle them and definitively say "a majority of the population does/doesn't support policy X", because you don't know, you're just speculating and making it up.
When you don't know something, that doesn't justify jumping to conclusions, simply because there is no other way to try and find out - it simply means, you do not know.
The burden of proof is on you as well, because you are the one making a claim on the opinion of the majority, not me; you have to prove that (I haven't made any claim one way or the other, as to what the population think, because it would be quite stupid to make definitive claims over something there is no evidence of whatsoever).
Really, I've been repeating this point circularly for a good few posts now; this is extremely basic logic, so I'm going to leave it at that. If you can't dig up a poll or anything else specifically polling the population, then you have next to nothing to go on, unless you adopt the ridiculous position that a majority of the population, by-definition, support every opinion and act a politician does or does not make (which is what your entire argument amounts to - it's that absurd).0 -
Advertisement
-
KyussBishop wrote: »You're trying to put words in my mouth now. I haven't said any of that at all (and keep bringing up random straw-men like referendums and such - another thing I've never mentioned at all).
If issues are so intertwined, then you can't just magically untangle them and definitively say "a majority of the population does/doesn't support policy X", because you don't know, you're just speculating and making it up.
When you don't know something, that doesn't justify jumping to conclusions, simply because there is no other way to try and find out - it simply means, you do not know.
The burden of proof is on you as well, because you are the one making a claim on the opinion of the majority, not me; you have to prove that (I haven't made any claim one way or the other, as to what the population think, because it would be quite stupid to make definitive claims over something there is no evidence of whatsoever).
Really, I've been repeating this point circularly for a good few posts now; this is extremely basic logic, so I'm going to leave it at that. If you can't dig up a poll or anything else specifically polling the population, then you have next to nothing to go on, unless you adopt the ridiculous position that a majority of the population, by-definition, support every opinion and act a politician does or does not make (which is what your entire argument amounts to - it's that absurd).
I mentioned referendums because you said you wanted it shown that there was a yes or no vote on a stimulus for me thats means a referendum. If you want to label a yes or no vote differently be my guest. All I was doing was drawing down what I felt to be the implications for having a yes/no vote on every issue and variation of each issue.
Again you continue to ignore the election results and the manifestos of the parties that went for election. Fine Gael and Labour got voted on the back of these manifestos. Neither stated they were going to do a big u turn. Others who espoused your views didn't get elected hence people rejected them and supported the alternatives that were put forward. If you don't see election results as proof and therefore accept them as peoples views at a particular point in time there's no real point engaging in a democratic system as it means when it suits you can just ignore what people want.0 -
The member states of the EU choose to exercise their sovereignty through a common set of institutions and in pursuit of a common set of agreed policies. This is entirely voluntary on the part of each member state.
Diya mean like, if we had to vote in a referendum about something, and then the EU accepts our first answer without question?0 -
Recently, I've looked at fluoride being one of the reasons the Irish people have not rebelled against its government to the extent Greece, Spain and Portugal have.
Most people know by now that fluoride is not good for your teeth. Quebec passed a law a few years ago banning fluoridation because the children there actually had MORE cavities than children in Ontario, who didn't have fluoridated water supplies. Fluoride being good for your teeth is a myth. If it was actually good, why doesn't Ireland not have the best teeth in Europe? Ireland is the ONLY country in europe with widespread fluoridation of water supplies. Why does it say on the side of toothpaste tubes to go to the emergency room if you only ingest a pea-sized amount?
Many health professionals have said that fluoride is harmful to human health, especially to the nervous system. http://www.fluoridealert.org/researchers/professionals-statement/
I have read that the Nazis first used fluoride in water supplies as a method of mass mind control and to make the population more docile. I have no sources for this but I think there is too many coincidences with Ireland that suggest fluoride is harmful to our health. Also, there is plenty of evidence that proves that Ireland suffers from certain diseases more so than other countries, down-syndrome being one of them I think.
I know that's a bit off topic for politics, but still, if fluoride actually makes people more docile (not directly, but as a knock on effect from IQ degradation), then could it be the reason why Irish people have been so non-resistant to austerity and control?
I think that you are 100% correct on this.0 -
Recently, I've looked at fluoride being one of the reasons the Irish people have not rebelled against its government to the extent Greece, Spain and Portugal have.
Most people know by now that fluoride is not good for your teeth. Quebec passed a law a few years ago banning fluoridation because the children there actually had MORE cavities than children in Ontario, who didn't have fluoridated water supplies. Fluoride being good for your teeth is a myth. If it was actually good, why doesn't Ireland not have the best teeth in Europe? Ireland is the ONLY country in europe with widespread fluoridation of water supplies. Why does it say on the side of toothpaste tubes to go to the emergency room if you only ingest a pea-sized amount?
Many health professionals have said that fluoride is harmful to human health, especially to the nervous system. http://www.fluoridealert.org/researchers/professionals-statement/
I have read that the Nazis first used fluoride in water supplies as a method of mass mind control and to make the population more docile. I have no sources for this but I think there is too many coincidences with Ireland that suggest fluoride is harmful to our health. Also, there is plenty of evidence that proves that Ireland suffers from certain diseases more so than other countries, down-syndrome being one of them I think.
I know that's a bit off topic for politics, but still, if fluoride actually makes people more docile (not directly, but as a knock on effect from IQ degradation), then could it be the reason why Irish people have been so non-resistant to austerity and control?
I think that you are 100% correct.0 -
-
Diya mean like, if we had to vote in a referendum about something, and then the EU accepts our first answer without question?
They did. But it was up to us then to explain what the alternative was to a treaty negotiated between 27 states. We couldn't as those who voted against the treaty were incoherent in their demands. So the democratically elected Irish Government went back to the people to put it to referendum again - a perfectly democratic and legitimate thing to do.0 -
They did. But it was up to us then to explain what the alternative was to a treaty negotiated between 27 states. We couldn't as those who voted against the treaty were incoherent in their demands. So the democratically elected Irish Government went back to the people to put it to referendum again - a perfectly democratic and legitimate thing to do.
Yeah, like best outta 3, or something.0 -
Diya mean like, if we had to vote in a referendum about something, and then the EU accepts our first answer without question?
I mean the other member states of the EU accept how we choose to exercise our sovereignty.
No one said we had to vote in any referendum - we don't do compulsory voting. Nor that we had to hold the referenda we choose to hold - membership of the EU is a choice and the mechanism we have used to deal with any resulting potential constitutional issues is a complete blunderbuss method which we are free to replace at any time.
As for "without question", please don't be silly. Should any country in any international negotiations (whether EU or not) reject a treaty that has taken months or years to negotiate the other parties will always ask questions to see whether the difficulties are resolvable or more fundamental. If it is fundamental issues then obviously they will ask the country that rejects the treaty the obvious questions, namely, a) do they have an alternative or b) if not, why did the rejecting country waste everyones time persuing negotiations they disagreed with?
And whether you like it or not, in our case, as the other EU member states are not going to engage in guessing games as to what the Irish electorate do or do not want, that would ultimately result in a domestic political crisis.
Our government is our agent in international negotiations - they can't negotiate on our behalf - on any issue (EU or otherwise) - if the electorate are incapable of deciding what the electorate wants.0 -
I mean the other member states of the EU accept how we choose to exercise our sovereignty.
No one said we had to vote in any referendum - we don't do compulsory voting. Nor that we had to hold the referenda we choose to hold - membership of the EU is a choice and the mechanism we have used to deal with any resulting potential constitutional issues is a complete blunderbuss method which we are free to replace at any time.
As for "without question", please don't be silly. Should any country in any international negotiations (whether EU or not) reject a treaty that has taken months or years to negotiate the other parties will always ask questions to see whether the difficulties are resolvable or more fundamental. If it is fundamental issues then obviously they will ask the country that rejects the treaty the obvious questions, namely, a) do they have an alternative or b) if not, why did the rejecting country waste everyones time persuing negotiations they disagreed with?
And whether you like it or not, in our case, as the other EU member states are not going to engage in guessing games as to what the Irish electorate do or do not want, that would ultimately result in a domestic political crisis.
Our government is our agent in international negotiations - they can't negotiate on our behalf - on any issue (EU or otherwise) - if the electorate are incapable of deciding what the electorate wants.
Just as a matter of interest, how am I silly? I was asked to vote in the Lisbon Referendum, I voted No the same as 862,414 other people, but because the government didn't like the way that we voted, we were asked told that we had to vote again in another referendum on the same issue.
The funny thing is, a few posters on various threads on Boards have told us time and time again that this is a democracy, but you are actually telling us here in your last paragraph above that it is democratic only as long as the people vote the way they are told. Am I right or wrong?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »As opposed to, the EU forces us to ratify a treaty that's been rejected by the people in a referendum?
Oh wait, that's never happened.
Has it not?0 -
Advertisement
-
I wasn't told anything of the sort. Who told you you had to vote again? More importantly, who told you that, should you choose to vote again, you couldn't vote "no" again?...we were asked told that we had to vote again in another referendum on the same issue.
Perhaps you can name an EU treaty that has been ratified after having been rejected by the Irish electorate in a referendum.Has it not?0 -
Just as a matter of interest, how am I silly?
Re-read the third paragraph of my previous post. You are being silly if you expect the diplomats and politicians of other countries not to do their job - namely to find out what objections exist to ratfification.the government didn't like the way that we voted, we were asked told that we had to vote again in another referendum on the same issue.
Take it up with the government. That's a domestic political issue not an EU one.The funny thing is, a few posters on various threads on Boards have told us time and time again that this is a democracy, but you are actually telling us here in your last paragraph above that it is democratic only as long as the people vote the way they are told. Am I right or wrong?
You are wrong. It is up to the electorate to figure out what they want from an international negotiation in advance of the negotiation, not the government to guess it - i.e. we need more democratic oversight, not less, from the electorate.
Other countries won't waste their time negotiating with us if they believe the government and the electorate are at logger-heads on international issues.
Why, after all, should other governments negotiate with our government if our electorate disagree with what our government is negotiating on our behalf?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »I wasn't told anything of the sort. Who told you you had to vote again? More importantly, who told you that, should you choose to vote again, you couldn't vote "no" again?
Perhaps you can name an EU treaty that has been ratified after having been rejected by the Irish electorate in a referendum.Re-read the third paragraph of my previous post. You are being silly if you expect the diplomats and politicians of other countries not to do their job - namely to find out what objections exist to ratfification.
Take it up with the government. That's a domestic political issue not an EU one.
You are wrong. It is up to the electorate to figure out what they want from an international negotiation in advance of the negotiation, not the government to guess it - i.e. we need more democratic oversight, not less, from the electorate.
Other countries won't waste their time negotiating with us if they believe the government and the electorate are at logger-heads on international issues.
Why, after all, should other governments negotiate with our government if our electorate disagree with what our government is negotiating on our behalf?
O.K. We all know what I am saying here, and it does not matter how it's mashes around one iota. Right, we voted on the Lisbon treaty and it was defeated. Did they or did they not hold a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty, effectively telling the Irish people that they were not happy with their answer, that was what I asked. Its a yes or no answer.0 -
O.K. We all know what I am saying here, and it does not matter how it's mashes around one iota.
Yes, we do all know what you are saying - namely, you regard it as deeply offensive that the Irish electorate exercise their sovereignty to make a democratic decision you personally disagree with.
Unfortunately though you don't get a personal veto on the electorate's decisions or on the constitutional procedures we have.
If you have an axe to grind with the democratic decisions of the electorate, there are elections coming up and you can bring your issues up with them in those elections.
The vast majority of the electorate have moved on since then though and I suspect a fair few of them would be hard pushed to tell you which EU treaty was the last one we voted on at this stage.0 -
Yes, we do all know what you are saying - namely, you regard it as deeply offensive that the Irish electorate exercise their sovereignty to make a democratic decision you personally disagree with.
Unfortunately though you don't get a personal veto on the electorate's decisions or on the constitutional procedures we have.
If you have an axe to grind with the democratic decisions of the electorate, there are elections coming up and you can bring your issues up with them in those elections.
The vast majority of the electorate have moved on since then though and I suspect a fair few of them would be hard pushed to tell you which EU treaty was the last one we voted on at this stage.
What are you talking about? Actually, forget about it.0 -
-
-
Wrong. Read posts before answering them.
I did and I am just getting to the nub of your complaint.
You have no problem with a democratic decision of the electorate when it agrees with your viewpoint but complain bitterly when the electorate make a subsequent democratic decision that doesn't.
Indeed not only that you believe the electorate should be denied the opportunity to make that subsequent democratic decision even though the people when adopting the constitution left the option to do so open for themselves.
Sadly for you the electorate are free to avail of the right to make subsequent decisions on an issue and duly did so. Since it was ultimately their democratic decision, not snyone elses, take the issue up with them at the next election.0 -
And the answer is no. They didn't hold a second referendum, we did. The Irish government, which negotiated the Lisbon treaty on our behalf and wanted to ratify it on our behalf, gave us some assurances to address some rather daft concerns that had been raised during the course of the first referendum campaign, and asked us again for permission to ratify it.Did they or did they not hold a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty, effectively telling the Irish people that they were not happy with their answer, that was what I asked. Its a yes or no answer.
It doesn't matter how attached you are to the narrative that the EU forced us to hold a second referendum on the treaty; like everyone else who believes in that narrative, you're wrong.0 -
Advertisement
-
O.K. We all know what I am saying here, and it does not matter how it's mashes around one iota. Right, we voted on the Lisbon treaty and it was defeated. Did they or did they not hold a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty, effectively telling the Irish people that they were not happy with their answer, that was what I asked. Its a yes or no answer.
Did Ireland or did Irelan not hold two Referundum on the question of divorce, is the second one any less vald because the first rejected it.0
Advertisement