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
Ireland to leave EU should Britain exit ?
Options
Comments
-
Because of the E.U hundreds of thousands of eastern europeans are coming in doing jobs and therefore Irish youth can't get jobs making them lazy.All low paying jobs are becoming very hard for irish youth to get out youth is becoming very lazy and unwilling to do work. I blame our socialist government for this to for having the doll too high. listen if you want to see your country do as it is told then by all means keep on defending the eu but i want the best for ireland. and fair play to the brits if they do whats best for their country0
-
You should read a little further into your proposal.Look at it this way the two richest countries in europe are Norway and Switzerland both not in the E.U.
Not only does Norway contribute to the EU budget, it is forced to bear greater costs than EU member states regarding agricultural exports and sources of origin. It also has to comply with EU rules and legislation regarding its exports, whilst having no representation in the institutions and committes that create those rules and pass legislation.
We can say most of the same things about Switzerland, which also contributes to the EU budget, but its access to the EU market is even more limited than Norway's.
No, it is simply detrimental to public faith in the democratic process when a deep-pocketed state can immediately re-run plebiscites until it gets the right answer, because it is inevitable that the opponents will eventually run out of money, resources and volunteers, and will not be in a position to match the state's massive resources.oscarBravo wrote: »For me, the single biggest downside to having multiple referendums is having to listen to the Euroskeptics
Volunteers, donors and even voters are all able to anticipate the inevitable outcome when a State decides that it will keep asking until it gets the right answer. Donors and volunteers feel like all their contributions were for nought, and they are not willing to be burned again.
Calling immediate re-runs "more democratic" is wrong for that reason.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Perhaps, but repeating a vote in quick succession until you get the 'right' result is not terribly democratic. If it's a democratic deficit, it's properly an Irish one - it's our system that allows governments to do this, rather than anything to do with the EU, but it's still a democratic deficit.
I understand what you're saying. As, I think Churchill once said "the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter", which is essentially what you're getting at. And to a great degree it is a dreadful system - with illiterate morons deciding on issues that they cannot even intellectually grasp, let alone make an informed judgment on, manipulated by lobby groups more than happy to empty blatant lies and FUD for this purpose (we get this here all the time).
However he once also said "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others", which is also true because as much as we may wish we could reply upon Platonic philosopher kings who will always be guided with the greater good in mind, they're not always so.
That's why the people retain the option to say 'no', and frankly should retain that option, even if they are, by and large, idiots.
I think it's correct to say this is a problem with the Irish Electoral system but actually think it's an issue with Democratic surplus rather then deficit. Afterall the Irish electorate vote in a Government to negotiate complex treaties on our behalf. They then reject them. Obviously the Government will put it back to the people with a few tweaks given that was their mandate. I actually don't see why we need to have this duplication of having our side. Either let the Government Negotiate in good faith in our interests or, well actually I don't know how else you would do it.
This is aside from the fact that referendums are rarely an effective tool, especially in a country where minority interests can hijack campaigns leveraging the McKenna and Crotty judgements to get extreme views (and abject lies) part of the discourse.0 -
Fax DemocracyA Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »You should read a little further into your proposal.
Not only does Norway contribute to the EU budget, it is forced to bear greater costs than EU member states regarding agricultural exports and sources of origin. It also has to comply with EU rules and legislation regarding its exports, whilst having no representation in the institutions and committes that create those rules and pass legislation.
We can say most of the same things about Switzerland, which also contributes to the EU budget, but its access to the EU market is even more limited than Norway's.A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »No, it is simply detrimental to public faith in the democratic process when a deep-pocketed state can immediately re-run plebiscites until it gets the right answer, because it is inevitable that the opponents will eventually run out of money, resources and volunteers, and will not be in a position to match the state's massive resources.
Volunteers, donors and even voters are all able to anticipate the inevitable outcome when a State decides that it will keep asking until it gets the right answer. Donors and volunteers feel like all their contributions were for nought, and they are not willing to be burned again.
Calling immediate re-runs "more democratic" is wrong for that reason.
Well actually no. The McKenna and Crotty judgement hamstring the Government from making any serious contribution to the debate. You are confusing the Government with political parties who have to reach into their own pockets to fund Yes campaigns at great cost to themselves. The reality is the opposition to the various EU referendums have mostly been extremists who are far outside the body politic. If you decide to support an extreme position you can't be disappointed when the majority of the electorate or parties don't go along with you. TBH I think the anti EU groups have done extremely well for such a small group of people. That IS democracy.
If those that are against the EU and want to withdraw from the EU need to get a Government elected in who will raise that prospect.0 -
Look, there are no Chinese walls when it comes to a TD's campaign activities and his political office. He is perfectly assured of a campaign team, a campaign office, and a team for canvassing and organising which will inevitably include his paid staff. The State is the ultimate paymaster for all of the paraphernalia of ordinary constituency and administrative machinery available to those who hold public office, from councillors to TDs and Senators... and clearly they use that machinery in campaigns, from human capital, to buildings, to expenses.Well actually no. The McKenna and Crotty judgement hamstring the Government from making any serious contribution to the debate. You are confusing the Government with political parties who have to reach into their own pockets to fund Yes campaigns at great cost to themselves.
Nobody can seriously deny the immense advantage that such individuals have in their role as politicians, as opposed to a collective of private individuals who are PAYE workers and SME owners. It would be dotty to claim that McKenna places them on an even footing with a collection of well-resourced individuals who can immediately decide to re-run a referendum. They are not equal. Not even close.0 -
Advertisement
-
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »No, it is simply detrimental to public faith in the democratic process when a deep-pocketed state can immediately re-run plebiscites until it gets the right answer...
There's a fairly fundamental question that's always glossed over whenever people bitch about the re-run of the Lisbon referendum.
Let's assume that it's somehow undemocratic to ask the people to vote again. The treaty that the government negotiated in good faith can not now be ratified.
What happens next?0 -
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »Look, there are no Chinese walls when it comes to a TD's campaign activities and his political office. He is perfectly assured of a campaign team, a campaign office, and a team for canvassing and organising which will inevitably include his paid staff. The State is the ultimate paymaster for all of the paraphernalia of ordinary constituency and administrative machinery available to those who hold public office, from councillors to TDs and Senators... and clearly they use that machinery in campaigns, from human capital, to buildings, to expenses.
Nobody can seriously deny the immense advantage that such individuals have in their role as politicians, as opposed to a collective of private individuals who are PAYE workers and SME owners. It would be dotty to claim that McKenna places them on an even footing with a collection of well-resourced individuals who can immediately decide to re-run a referendum. They are not equal. Not even close.
I'm not sure what you mean? A TD has every right to campaign for whatever side he wants to. On the other hand there is an absolute wall from using Dail materials or any state spending on one side or another (unless you are Sinn Fein when off you go). No state employees are permitted to canvas as part of their official duties and the staff you speak of are all party staff who are paid by the party or volunteers. It is simply incorrect to say that funds or resources of the state go to one side or the other. You misunderstand democracy if you think political parties have to take an impartial role in a referendum. That simply does not make sense.
I don't think anyone would that a TD has an advantage in putting forward their views to the electorate. But not the reason you seem to think. They were democratically elected by their constituency ergo they are far more representative and influential in their constituency then some self appointed demagogue.0 -
Best out of five, I presume.oscarBravo wrote: »There's a fairly fundamental question that's always glossed over whenever people bitch about the re-run of the Lisbon referendum.
Let's assume that it's somehow undemocratic to ask the people to vote again. The treaty that the government negotiated in good faith can not now be ratified.
What happens next?
The question of how awful and upsetting it would be for the applecart is immaterial to whether or not it would be democratic. Perhaps we'd have some Irish opt-outs; or we really would have a third referendum. Perhaps it would all have been an even bigger disaster.
It doesn't refute the argument that a deep-pocketed state must not be allowed to wear-down the resources of private individuals by immediate re-runs when the Government lose. Fairly elementary request.
You don't think the vast majority of politicians were organizing their campaigns from their offices, nor using the expertise & skills of their publicly-funded assistants, nor claiming expenses?On the other hand there is an absolute wall from using Dail materials or any state spending on one side or another (unless you are Sinn Fein when off you go).
You seriously believe that my former local TD, a Government minister, was paying himself rent for turning his constituency office into a very positive pageant of rainbows during the recent referendum? Of course he wasn't, nor should he have done so. That would be reamrkably daft. This claim of TDs creating Chinese walls between their campaigns and their public roles is also... well, I will say be nice and say 'naive'.0 -
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »Best out of five, I presume.
The question of how awful and upsetting it would be for the applecart is immaterial to whether or not it would be democratic. Perhaps we'd have some Irish opt-outs; or we really would have a third referendum. Perhaps it would all have been an even bigger disaster.
It doesn't refute the argument that a deep-pocketed state must not be allowed to wear-down the resources of private individuals by immediate re-runs when the Government lose. Fairly elementary request.
I'm not talking about what happens in the event of two "no" votes; I'm asking what happens if there's one "no" vote for self-evidently stupid reasons, but the government is somehow prevented from asking the question again.
Blithely dismissing actual practical considerations as being irrelevant to a dubious question of principle is precisely what I was talking about when I first asked the question: those who say we shouldn't have had a second referendum don't seem to have an answer as to what should have happened instead.
The logical answer is that the Lisbon treaty should have been abandoned. If it's your view that a treaty that is negotiated in good faith by twenty eight countries over a period of several years should be abandoned as a result of the Irish electorate rejecting it for reasons that had nothing to do with the treaty itself, rather than let the government exercise the right explicitly recognised by the Supreme Court of clarifying the question and asking it again, we'll agree to differ. I have some principles on which I tend to stand firmly, but the idea that 28% of one under-informed and apathetic electorate should have an unconditional veto over the entire future of the EU because asking a question twice is somehow undemocratic isn't one I subscribe to.0 -
Mabey things would be better now if the no vote had of stood? You just assume the majority of people are stupid, while you know the EU and everything about it is just perfect, there were literally hundreds of good reasons to vote no to Lisbon, the EU directly funded the yes campaign and the people were bombarded by a media campaign saying Ireland would suffer massively if it did not change its mind, as the scottish called "project fear" Democracy died in Ireland.oscarBravo wrote: »I'm not talking about what happens in the event of two "no" votes; I'm asking what happens if there's one "no" vote for self-evidently stupid reasons, but the government is somehow prevented from asking the question again.
Blithely dismissing actual practical considerations as being irrelevant to a dubious question of principle is precisely what I was talking about when I first asked the question: those who say we shouldn't have had a second referendum don't seem to have an answer as to what should have happened instead.
The logical answer is that the Lisbon treaty should have been abandoned. If it's your view that a treaty that is negotiated in good faith by twenty eight countries over a period of several years should be abandoned as a result of the Irish electorate rejecting it for reasons that had nothing to do with the treaty itself, rather than let the government exercise the right explicitly recognised by the Supreme Court of clarifying the question and asking it again, we'll agree to differ. I have some principles on which I tend to stand firmly, but the idea that 28% of one under-informed and apathetic electorate should have an unconditional veto over the entire future of the EU because asking a question twice is somehow undemocratic isn't one I subscribe to.0 -
Advertisement
-
Eventually, all referendum debates in Ireland resort to teacups. I don't have an answer because I am not Mystic Meg. If I were, I would be rich. I expect there would have been a third referendum, or dramatic Irish opt-outs, or the ruination of the whole programme. I don't know, it's irrelevant to the point I am making.oscarBravo wrote: »Blithely dismissing actual practical considerations as being irrelevant to a dubious question of principle is precisely what I was talking about when I first asked the question: those who say we shouldn't have had a second referendum don't seem to have an answer as to what should have happened instead.
In any referendum, both sides have months of campaigning in order to convince the most stupid private citizen of the merits of their argument. It's a free market of persuasion. If you lose, you lose. You don't immediately cause a rematch & reduce the whole affair into a contest of overdrafts, because the Government will inevitably win that contest.
Imagine if the marriage equality referendum were re-run on the basis that the No side failed to properly make arguments they should have made. How utterly daft, anti-democratic, and outrageous that would be. -0 -
Want to back that up or shall we presume you've just come back to make up more stuff and run away when people point out it's rubbish, like yesterday?Because of the E.U hundreds of thousands of eastern europeans are coming in doing jobs and therefore Irish youth can't get jobs making them lazy.
And maybe the World would be built of gingerbread houses...Mabey things would be better now if the no vote had of stood?
I think you'll find most arguments favoured a negative outcome to a no vote at the time. There's plenty of threads on it here if you'd like to review them, so let's not bother with the trip down fantasy lane.
Maybe you do. After all, he's not the one who keeps on coming out with false 'facts' to back up his arguments.You just assume the majority of people are stupid0 -
Because of the E.U hundreds of thousands of eastern europeans are coming in doing jobs and therefore Irish youth can't get jobs making them lazy.All low paying jobs are becoming very hard for irish youth to get out youth is becoming very lazy and unwilling to do work. I blame our socialist government for this to for having the doll too high. listen if you want to see your country do as it is told then by all means keep on defending the eu but i want the best for ireland. and fair play to the brits if they do whats best for their country
The usual refrain. The poor are poor because they are lazy so it's their own fault they are poor. As for having a socialist government, hardly. Fine Gael can be accused of many things but being socialist is not one of them and the Labour party are at best a left of center party and given the level of austerity imposed by the current government I would not have called this a socialist government.0 -
Your statement makes no sense. The two ritches countries in europe where their youth have the best chance in life are not in the E.U. The E.U must be stopped. The Swiss and Norwegians are laughing at us and they will never ever go into the eu after seeing what it is doing to their neighboring countries. as i have said before the irish public are quiet thick and just dont understand simple logic. The eu is creating laziness among-st the Irish youth. I want the best for my country thats why in anti eu
The reason Norway is richer is because it has oil resources not because it voluntarily entered into a free trade zone. Switzerland is different but a key aspect of that country's prosperity is laws crafted that allow foreigners to enter and deposit large sums of money into secret funds. The EU has been very successful to date provided the members invest in the future it will continue to grow. The transition to democracy for all EU Nations has created a vastly different environment on the ground. Polish and Spanish elections once seen as impossible are dull spectator events for the media these days.0 -
Well, it's a matter for debate. Banking secrecy really kicked in when it was criminalized to divulge account details to third parties, in response to Nazi Germany bribing bank officials to do so for the accounts of German Jews. Prior to this, and actually for quite a while after World War II, Switzerland was actually a pretty poor country and stories abound of how tough things were for them.KingBrian2 wrote: »Switzerland is different but a key aspect of that country's prosperity is laws crafted that allow foreigners to enter and deposit large sums of money into secret funds.
At the same time, Switzerland isn't a one-trick-pony. The farma industry is huge, to begin with, and it is also the home to some of the biggest non-banking/farma multinationals in the World, such as Nestlé, Glencore, Holcim and ABB.
Were I to cite why Switzerland does so well, I'd put it down to two things. First is that unlike many other nations, Industry and politics are diffused. This means that you can go to some village in the arsehole of nowhere and there will still be indigenous factories, industry and a vibrant independant economy. Ireland, on the other hand, concentrates everything in Dublin, and to a lesser extent cities like Cork or Limerick. There's no indigenous industry anywhere; just what can be wooed with tax breaks from abroad temporarily in a few places.
The second reason is that the Swiss have a work ethic. This is partly down to the Germanic influence, but principally because of the way Swiss communities work. A Swiss citizen is actually the citizen of their local community (maybe as small as a few hundred people), from that they get cantonal and in turn federal (national) citizenship. Laws, taxes and most other things work on this basis. So there's a strong feeling of being part of your community, being responsible for it and profiting from it doing well.
As a result, there is a strong social stigma against being unemployed - some Swiss won't even apply for their unemployment insurance because of this, when jobless. If you can't get a job you want, you get a crap one to pay the bills, if you can't get that, you create one for yourself. The idea that you can have generational unemployment, as we do in parts of Ireland, is completely alien to them. And they encourage people to get back to work with an amoral practicality that is breathtaking.
Being part of the EU or not would not change any of this, in reality. They actually already comply with 90% of EU legislation anyway. But this is snake-oil that the mouth-breathers who claim that we could follow their example if only we left the EU will regularly peddle.0 -
So, you want Ireland to leave the EU and leave everything in the hands of the “socialist” government that have made the youth lazy by having the dole too high?Because of the E.U hundreds of thousands of eastern europeans are coming in doing jobs and therefore Irish youth can't get jobs making them lazy.All low paying jobs are becoming very hard for irish youth to get out youth is becoming very lazy and unwilling to do work. I blame our socialist government for this to for having the doll too high. listen if you want to see your country do as it is told then by all means keep on defending the eu but i want the best for Ireland…0 -
No, it’s not irrelevant. You are arguing that asking a question a second time is undemocratic. I would argue (and I believe oscarBravo would too) that throwing out a treaty agreed by the democratically elected representatives of all EU states because a relatively small number of Irish people rejected it for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with the content of said treaty is profoundly undemocratic.A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »…it's irrelevant to the point I am making.
So, asking what should have happened, instead of running a second referendum, is entirely relevant to the point you are making.
But it probably would be re-run at some point in the future? Would that be “undemocratic”?A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »Imagine if the marriage equality referendum were re-run on the basis that the No side failed to properly make arguments they should have made. How utterly daft, anti-democratic, and outrageous that would be. -0 -
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »Imagine if the marriage equality referendum were re-run on the basis that the No side failed to properly make arguments they should have made.
The only reason this would be an issue would be that it would be a waste. The only reason to do it would be if there was reason to believe that the outcome would be different.
On divorce, Nice and Lisbon, there was such a reason.0 -
So, you want Ireland to leave the EU and leave everything in the hands of the “socialist” government that have made the youth lazy by having the dole too high?
scary stuff there! what about forcing people to take major pay cuts and stripping public services to within an inch of their lives. ireland really should have implemented such things as free healthcare and free education in order to try stimulate the economy. nothing has really changed in this country at all and im wondering does anybody really want anything to change. the dole isnt too high, the working people of this country, the ones that pay the most into the system, are getting the least from it. this has got to stop0 -
That is a criticism of the confederation of the EU, which you seem to be confusing with a federation. In a confederation, questions over the sovereignty of the collective body simply do not arise, since all members retain individual sovereignty.No, it’s not irrelevant. You are arguing that asking a question a second time is undemocratic. I would argue (and I believe oscarBravo would too) that throwing out a treaty agreed by the democratically elected representatives of all EU states because a relatively small number of Irish people rejected it for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with the content of said treaty is profoundly undemocratic.
Thus, for example, little old Luxembourg, which has had a bizarrely bitchy relationship with Turkey, can veto Turkey's accession to the EU. (In the late 1990s, Luxembourg indicated that it would do exactly that.)
So lets not jump up and down about one country blocking the way for everyone else. That's the EU. That's what the French did to the EU Constitution (no hand-wringing about that in France, a survey last week shows they'd do it again).
That's the confederal blueprint that has been (democratically) appointed, as some of us are constantly reminded when we grumble about the democratic deficit in the EU.
No, it is part of the wider discussion; it is not relevant to my point.So, asking what should have happened, instead of running a second referendum, is entirely relevant to the point you are making.
My point is: immediate, arbitrary re-runs of any plebiscite will diminish public confidence in the democratic process, and probably with good reason, because deep-pocketed government will inevitably win.
Your reply is to ignore that valid point and move onto a valid question, but a completely different valid question: "Can we afford to disgrace ourselves in front of the Europeans?" Interesting question, but not relevant to what I said.
No. As circumstances and generations move on, the problem diminishes.But it probably would be re-run at some point in the future? Would that be “undemocratic”?
So, for example, Ireland is possibly ready for another abortion referendum, but it certainly would be wrong to re-run the marriage equality referendum just because the losing side has just thought of something they should have said earlier.
Yeah, right.Zubeneschamali wrote: »The only reason this would be an issue would be that it would be a waste.
If the Government announced a re-run of the marriage equality referendum tomorrow, the world's media and every right-thinking person in Ireland would be condeming it as an attack on democracy and on gay rights. They'd be entirely correct.0 -
Advertisement
-
If the member states really want Turkey to be a member, they'll negotiate with Luxembourg until Luxembourg changes its mind. That's a confederation in action.A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »Thus, for example, little old Luxembourg, which has had a bizarrely bitchy relationship with Turkey, can veto Turkey's accession to the EU. (In the late 1990s, Luxembourg indicated that it would do exactly that.)
If 28% of the population of Luxembourg then turned around and told their government that they couldn't ratify Turkey's accession because of abortion! or conscription! or whatever, that would just be daft, and the government would be well within its rights to patiently explain to the population that they had misunderstood the question.
The important point to note is that the government wouldn't have re-run the marriage referendum even if it had lost.If the Government announced a re-run of the marriage equality referendum tomorrow, the world's media and every right-thinking person in Ireland would be condeming it as an attack on democracy and on gay rights. They'd be entirely correct.
Why re-run Lisbon, and not the presidential age referendum? Because the circumstances are utterly different, in a way that is pointedly ignored by everyone who's ever muttered into their pint glass about "keep asking until they get the right answer": having negotiated a treaty in good faith and then being denied permission to ratify it for reasons that were utterly irrelevant to the treaty itself put the government in an impossible position.
To say that they shouldn't have re-run the referendum, but to refuse to say what they should have done instead, is an exercise in intellectual pointlessness.0 -
I think you're missing the point. Nobody is questioning the legality or the 'right' of a government to "patiently" explain something. I am explaining why it is perfectly democratic, in a confederation, for one country to have a veto in certain matters.oscarBravo wrote: »If the member states really want Turkey to be a member, they'll negotiate with Luxembourg until Luxembourg changes its mind. That's a confederation in action.
If 28% of the population of Luxembourg then turned around and told their government that they couldn't ratify Turkey's accession because of abortion! or conscription! or whatever, that would just be daft, and the government would be well within its rights to patiently explain to the population that they had misunderstood the question.
If it were otherwise, Europe could be under the thumb of the curtain of accession states from Estonia down to Bulgaria. It would be a fate more menacing than the tyranny of text-voting in the Eurovision song contest.
Since mine is a purely hypothetical question, I don't see the importance of this at all. I am pointing to a bias that exists here: most of us would be very angry if a lechery of bishops & Fine Gael TDs got another shot at a referendum because of 'stuff they forgot to do or say'. I see no reason, apart from political bias, why it was less offensive to democracy to re-run a referendum on Lisbon. I don't think there are many European countries where you'd get away with that, let alone twice.The important point to note is that the government wouldn't have re-run the marriage referendum even if it had lost.
There's nothing any more impossible about it than the French refusal to agree to ratification of the Constitution which had already been agreed and signed with the preliminary signature by member states.having negotiated a treaty in good faith and then being denied permission to ratify it for reasons that were utterly irrelevant to the treaty itself put the government in an impossible position.
Read this.To say that they shouldn't have re-run the referendum, but to refuse to say what they should have done instead, is an exercise in intellectual pointlessness.
When deciding what should have happened, various questions arise. Can there be renegotiation? What are the consequences of not ratifying? What on Earth will foreigners think of Ireland? Is this democratic? I only engaged in the latter question, which is one of many questions to be asked.
Demanding that your question is the only one worth asking, since anyone else's question is irrelevant, makes me wonder why you're even typing on a discussion board.0 -
But as oscarBravo has just pointed out, that’s not the same thing at all. If the Irish government representatives had steadfastly refused to agree to the Lisbon Treaty, then you might have a point.A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »Thus, for example, little old Luxembourg, which has had a bizarrely bitchy relationship with Turkey, can veto Turkey's accession to the EU. (In the late 1990s, Luxembourg indicated that it would do exactly that.)
So lets not jump up and down about one country blocking the way for everyone else. That's the EU. That's what the French did to the EU Constitution (no hand-wringing about that in France, a survey last week shows they'd do it again).
I disagree – there’s no reason why the electorate could not have voted ‘No’ to Lisbon 2. I honestly don’t believe there would have been a Lisbon 3 had Lisbon 2 also returned a ‘No’. I think the treaty probably would have been redrafted to avoid the need for a referendum in Ireland.A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »My point is: immediate, arbitrary re-runs of any plebiscite will diminish public confidence in the democratic process, and probably with good reason, because deep-pocketed government will inevitably win.
But there’s a big difference there – people voted ‘Yes’ in the gay marriage referendum because they are in favour of legalising gay marriage in Ireland. There’s absolutely no ambiguity.A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »So, for example, Ireland is possibly ready for another abortion referendum, but it certainly would be wrong to re-run the marriage equality referendum just because the losing side has just thought of something they should have said earlier.
But suppose the gay marriage referendum returned a ‘No’ and the most common reason people gave for voting as they did was because they were tired of Brussels meddling in Irish affairs, would you not think there might be grounds to explain to people that they may have misunderstood the question?0 -
Nothing at all to do with what I said. Nobody wins any referendum in Ireland without a pretty slick campaign behind them, as the pretty uncontroversial Presidential age referendum has demonstrated.I disagree – there’s no reason why the electorate could not have voted ‘No’ to Lisbon 2.
It's not easy to have volunteers come out in the evening or hire a babysitter, just to stamp on pavements to knock on doors, and even dip into their own pocket to fund campaign posters and leaflets. When they win in the marketplace of ideas, they're elated. That's participatory democracy at its best. When you turn around and set their efforts at nought, you will not get those people out again, and they cannot keep putting their hands in their own pocket. None of this is a concern for the government with its permanent staff, TD expenses, and party payments from the the deep-pockets of the exchequer.
I would say the Yes side would have failed to take its opportunity, and that an immediate re-run would have been inappropriate.suppose the gay marriage referendum returned a ‘No’ and the most common reason people gave for voting as they did was because they were tired of Brussels meddling in Irish affairs, would you not think there might be grounds to explain to people that they may have misunderstood the question?0 -
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »Is this democratic?
If that's the only question to be answered, and if it is to be considered in splendid isolation, devoid of context or broader insight, then here's my answer:
Is it democratic to allow the people to decide a question in a referendum? By definition, yes, it is.0 -
I’m not sure I’d have called either the ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ campaigns prior to the two Lisbon referenda “slick”, although I guess it depends on your definition of the word.A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »Nobody wins any referendum in Ireland without a pretty slick campaign behind them…
I disagree. I think if a referendum can be won on the back of a “slick” campaign, there’s something fundamentally wrong with “democracy”.A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »It's not easy to have volunteers come out in the evening or hire a babysitter, just to stamp on pavements to knock on doors, and even dip into their own pocket to fund campaign posters and leaflets. When they win in the marketplace of ideas, they're elated. That's participatory democracy at its best.0 -
It isn't. Look again at the passage you quoted from:oscarBravo wrote: »If that's the only question to be answeredWhen deciding what should have happened, various questions arise. Can there be renegotiation? What are the consequences of not ratifying? What on Earth will foreigners think of Ireland? Is this democratic? I only engaged in the latter question, which is one of many questions to be asked.
In most circumstances, yes it isIs it democratic to allow the people to decide a question in a referendum? By definition, yes, it is.
But immediately re-running unsatisfactory plebiscites is a form of 'democracy' best-suited to a Latin American despot.
I don't believe this would be contentious on any other topic. There is certainly a case to be made in favour of a re-run when the government lose, but not from a democratic basis.
Efficient, well-run, effective, with plenty of articulate leaders like Catherine Simmons, Mary Lou McDonald and Declan Ganley. All they had to do was look into the eyes of whatever misfortunate spokesman had been shoved in front of a camera, and ask "have you read this treaty?" It was unanswerable. If you claimed you'd read it, everyone knew it was a lie. Nobody read the Lisbon Treaty.I’m not sure I’d have called either the ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ campaigns prior to the two Lisbon referenda “slick”, although I guess it depends on your definition of the word.
I wouldn't claim the No side were correct, of course. Between the Shinners, the church, the far-right and the far-left, their arguments were a smorgasbord of contradictions. But they won. That awkward truth deserved more respect than it was given.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Well, it's a matter for debate. Banking secrecy really kicked in when it was criminalized to divulge account details to third parties, in response to Nazi Germany bribing bank officials to do so for the accounts of German Jews. Prior to this, and actually for quite a while after World War II, Switzerland was actually a pretty poor country and stories abound of how tough things were for them.
At the same time, Switzerland isn't a one-trick-pony. The farma industry is huge, to begin with, and it is also the home to some of the biggest non-banking/farma multinationals in the World, such as Nestlé, Glencore, Holcim and ABB.
Were I to cite why Switzerland does so well, I'd put it down to two things. First is that unlike many other nations, Industry and politics are diffused. This means that you can go to some village in the arsehole of nowhere and there will still be indigenous factories, industry and a vibrant independant economy. Ireland, on the other hand, concentrates everything in Dublin, and to a lesser extent cities like Cork or Limerick. There's no indigenous industry anywhere; just what can be wooed with tax breaks from abroad temporarily in a few places.
The second reason is that the Swiss have a work ethic. This is partly down to the Germanic influence, but principally because of the way Swiss communities work. A Swiss citizen is actually the citizen of their local community (maybe as small as a few hundred people), from that they get cantonal and in turn federal (national) citizenship. Laws, taxes and most other things work on this basis. So there's a strong feeling of being part of your community, being responsible for it and profiting from it doing well.
As a result, there is a strong social stigma against being unemployed - some Swiss won't even apply for their unemployment insurance because of this, when jobless. If you can't get a job you want, you get a crap one to pay the bills, if you can't get that, you create one for yourself. The idea that you can have generational unemployment, as we do in parts of Ireland, is completely alien to them. And they encourage people to get back to work with an amoral practicality that is breathtaking.
Being part of the EU or not would not change any of this, in reality. They actually already comply with 90% of EU legislation anyway. But this is snake-oil that the mouth-breathers who claim that we could follow their example if only we left the EU will regularly peddle.
It can also be explained by the fact that they speak French and have access to the continental market. We are an Island nation and in case you had not noticed very nationalistic totally unsuitable in Switzerland.0 -
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »It isn't. Look again at the passage you quoted from:
In most circumstances, yes it is
But immediately re-running unsatisfactory plebiscites is a form of 'democracy' best-suited to a Latin American despot.
I don't believe this would be contentious on any other topic. There is certainly a case to be made in favour of a re-run when the government lose, but not from a democratic basis.
Efficient, well-run, effective, with plenty of articulate leaders like Catherine Simmons, Mary Lou McDonald and Declan Ganley. All they had to do was look into the eyes of whatever misfortunate spokesman had been shoved in front of a camera, and ask "have you read this treaty?" It was unanswerable. If you claimed you'd read it, everyone knew it was a lie. Nobody read the Lisbon Treaty.
I wouldn't claim the No side were correct, of course. Between the Shinners, the church, the far-right and the far-left, their arguments were a smorgasbord of contradictions. But they won. That awkward truth deserved more respect than it was given.
I might be the only moron on here but I actually read through portions of the Lisbon Treaty. Yeah stupid me, go think to actually read through a public document that came out and is freely available to the everyone. So that is not really an argument that people did not take the time or effort to read through a very important international and legal text.0 -
Advertisement
-
About 20% of the population speak French, the majority speak German and another minority speak Italian. Not sure why French would be so important, TBH.KingBrian2 wrote: »It can also be explained by the fact that they speak French and have access to the continental market.
Switzerland's central position, between the three largest EU states is a benefit (the country was founded on taking protection money from those passing through), but it's by a minor consideration TBH.
The Swiss are way more nationalistic than the Irish - every second or third home has a Swiss flag flying outside it.We are an Island nation and in case you had not noticed very nationalistic totally unsuitable in Switzerland.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement