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

More annoying Creationism or Lisbon Treaty rejection?

Options
13567…10

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    An Fear Aniar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,377 ✭✭✭An Fear Aniar


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Hundreds of millions of Europeans voted for the governments to negotiate a treaty for them,

    In the UK, voters in the last general election thought they were going to get a referendum.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/issues/html/grid.stm

    It's naive to think we elect our politicians to sign away our sovereignty and our freedoms because "it's too difficult for us".

    Every time the people of Europe get e chance to vote on further European domination they vote NO!



    .


  • Options
    #63
    An Fear Aniar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,377 ✭✭✭An Fear Aniar


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Referendums are dangerous because there are no safety guards to ensure people aren't protest voting.

    Politicians are supposed to be servants of the people.

    The will of the people is supposed to be paramount.

    Referendums are dangerous if you are anti-democratic in sentiment.

    .


  • Options
    #64
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    An Fear Aniar wrote: »
    Every time the people of Europe get e chance to vote on further European domination they vote NO!
    It seems when you give people the opportunity to vote on anything, chances are they will vote NO!

    No-voters are simply more likely to turn out and exercise that little bit of power.


  • Options
    #65
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,976 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    An Fear Aniar wrote: »
    It's naive to think we elect our politicians to sign away our sovereignty and our freedoms because "it's too difficult for us".
    This is why I compare creationist and no voters. What type of meaningless argument is that? Who says we are signing away sovereignity?
    Who says we are signing away freedom?
    Every time the people of Europe get e chance to vote on further European domination they vote NO!
    .
    "Domination", you are using scary rhetoric because you cannot work through this logically. How about checking the last referendum in Spain and Luxemburg.


  • Options
    #66
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,976 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    An Fear Aniar wrote: »
    Politicians are supposed to be servants of the people.

    The will of the people is supposed to be paramount.

    Referendums are dangerous if you are anti-democratic in sentiment.

    .

    If you can't see any problem with referendums why not have a referendum for absolutely everything? Every finance bill, every time we do anything with the UN? You are so caught up in your deluded idealism you cannot see the inconsistency of your own position.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    If you can't see any problem with referendums why not have a referendum for absolutely everything? Every finance bill, every time we do anything with the UN?
    Because they do not change our constitution.


  • Options
    #68
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,406 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    If you can't see any problem with referendums why not have a referendum for absolutely everything? Every finance bill, every time we do anything with the UN?
    A great idea -- a citizenry which is fully involved in creating its own laws! It'd create a sense of responsibility and involvement which is well missing from Ireland today.

    But there'd be a downside. Could people deal with not having politicians around to blame when things go pear-shaped? :)


  • Options
    #69
    An Fear Aniar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,377 ✭✭✭An Fear Aniar


    robindch wrote: »
    A great idea -- a citizenry which is fully involved in creating its own laws!

    That's the democratic ideal. With large populations, not really practical.

    About the ruling classes, see an example in the US:



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N64fDLplBfQ



    .


  • Options
    #70
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,976 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    Because they do not change our constitution.
    But's that not getting to the root of the issue. Why is something in our constituion and something else not? Don't forget when it was written in the 1930s when the UN or EU weren't even in existence.

    Suppose our constituition stuipulated we must have a referendum for anything we do with the UN? Would you have a problem with that?


  • Options
    #71
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,976 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    An Fear Aniar wrote: »
    That's the democratic ideal. With large populations, not really practical.
    Exactly because people protest vote and nothing will ever get done. The same has happened with Lisbon.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,406 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    An Fear Aniar wrote: »
    That's the democratic ideal. With large populations, not really practical.
    Quite doable. Look at wikipedia for example.


  • Options
    #73
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,976 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    robindch wrote: »
    Quite doable. Look at wikipedia for example.

    I can't sewerepedia working for running our sewers. We'll always need governence.

    Wikipedia articles reference tonnes of articles that come from non-wikipedia types.


  • Options
    #74
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,406 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    We'll always need governence.
    I'm not talking about replacing the civil service, but replacing the law-making and decision-making mechanisms with a process which is fully open and fully controlled by its stakeholders with a minimal amount of process guidance, a la wiki, paypal reputation management, open source software and so on.


  • Options
    #75
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Actually, a state with wikis for thier laws would be awesome.


  • Options
    #76
    Schuhart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭Schuhart


    Dades wrote: »
    It seems when you give people the opportunity to vote on anything, chances are they will vote NO!

    No-voters are simply more likely to turn out and exercise that little bit of power.
    This does not seem to reflect our experience. Most Irish referenda have secured a Yes vote. And of the nine occasions that there was a No vote, three relate to attempts by Fianna Fail to change the electoral system to give itself a permanent majority – which, in fairness, would utterly undermines the idea that elected Governments can be depended on to keep the public interest at heart.
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Suppose our constituition stuipulated we must have a referendum for anything we do with the UN? Would you have a problem with that?
    I just want to focus on this comparison to the UN for a moment, as I feel it needs to reflect on how the EU is quite different.

    The UN does not create legislation that has effect in our domestic law. In fact, international law in general has no enforcement mechanism, so its more in the nature of a moral influence than anything else. And, as I said, in the case of the International Criminal Court, where a UN sponsored body was given powers to rule in individual cases, we actually did need a referendum in order to join.

    The EU, on the other hand, is a body that has the power to make legislation that applies directly into Irish law. Now, as I think some have even said on this thread, the imposition of EU law in Ireland has probably been positive, on balance. It requires us to take on board generally accepted European standards in (say) the environmental area where otherwise local vested interests coupled with the general gobber culture of Irish politics would have frustrated any sensible policy making.

    That said, this means that the obligations of EU membership are far more invasive than UN membership. The EU can actually make us do things that we don’t want to in areas where majority voting is allowed.

    None of that is to say a No to Lisbon is sensible, or that EU membership on balance isn’t good for Ireland. Its simply to make the point that as we allow the EU to make laws that apply in our daily lives, we equally have to confirm each time there’s a change in the scope and organisation of EU lawmaking that we want that change to take precedence over our Constitution. We very likely could give a specific mandate to the Oireachtas to scrutinise EU treaties on our behalf. But (as far as I know) that mandate has never been asked for.

    Anyway, hopefully this is enough to explain that UN membership just isn’t a valid comparison in this context.


  • Options
    #77
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    robindch wrote: »
    Yes, that's right, but that can only happen honestly when people take their responsibility to inform themselves fully about the topic at hand, and then vote (or abstain) based upon an accurate appreciation. That's democracy in action.

    Tim's point, and I entirely agree with him, is that this did not happen in this election. Instead, a large portion of the electorate voted according to their thoughts on issues unrelated to the Treaty, and which in my experience frequently bordered on the delusional, at the behest of various organizations which, to say the very least, were less than honest.

    Consequently, what we saw on Thursday was not the practice of democracy which I understand to proceed from the informed consent of the electorate, but an outcome which (if the IT poll ten days ago is accurate) was delivered through a mixture of ignorance and Karl-Rove-style manipulation of the electorate.

    It's not nice and the comparison to creationism is apt.

    So generally speaking, every elction, every decision is a bad one because it is made by a poorly educated, mis-informed elctorate. So the fact that we were even having a referrendum on the very topic is ironic becasue the the process of such arises from officials who were poorly selected (by this logic) in the first place. The whole process of democracy therefore is pointless becasue the masses are in general quite ignorant? I'm not syaing I disagree with you but it seems to me that if you think this way what difference does a yes or no vote mean? Surely it is apparent to everyone (judging by the US model anyway) that the bureaucrats will push through their agenda either way, whatever that may be?


  • Options
    #78
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Let's just drop this democracy lark, it's far too much hassle. I bags role of supreme leader in our/ my new dictatorship.


  • Options
    #79
    Obni
    Registered Users Posts: 424 ✭✭Obni


    I bags role of supre....
    Dammit! Beaten to it again!


  • Options
    #80
    gramlab
    Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭gramlab


    They just don't have any intelligent reasons. Simple as that.

    We elect the EU parliament which has been getting increasing powers.
    We elect the ministers which sit at the council of ministers meetings. OUr government, which we elect appoint our commisioner.

    Are you calling all no voters unintelligent???

    We also had a vote to see who we would have in government. This same government gave us the choice to decide with respect to this treaty. Does this mean the people who voted them in are also unintelligent?


  • Options
    #81
    RealEstateKing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 432 ✭✭RealEstateKing


    There was a good reason that the other countries in Europe didnt submit this treaty to a referendum:

    Things as complicated as the Lisbon Treaty should not be submitted to referendum, as the average man in the street is not capable of understanding them: this then opens the way for cleverer people like Libertas et al, to come in and tell them lies based on very, very loose interpretations of the treaty.

    Are the people who voted no stupid? No, but they were mislead and lied to at every turn.

    Referendums should be kept for single-issue question: Abortions, Divorce, etc, not for complicated legal documents that most non-lawyers have difficulty understanding.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,406 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    RealEstateKing wrote: »
    Referendums should be kept for single-issue question: Abortions, Divorce, etc, not for complicated legal documents that most non-lawyers have difficulty understanding.
    Given that the result was most likely carried by people who didn't understand what they were voting on, it's hard to disagree with that.


  • Options
    #83
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Is it so hard to understand that many people saw the Lisbon Treaty as a step towards a federal Europe, something many people in Ireland (and other places in the EU, such as the UK) really don't want?

    The Yes side weren't more educated, they were just more pro-Europe. They had a differing world view. This is not like Creationism vs. Evolution, as neither side actually has volumes more credibility or evidence to support its position.


  • Options
    #84
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,406 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    The whole process of democracy therefore is pointless becasue the masses are in general quite ignorant? I'm not syaing I disagree with you but it seems to me that if you think this way what difference does a yes or no vote mean?
    As somebody else said, a 'yes' vote is fairly unambiguous, while a 'no' vote on a document which people interpret more or less at random doesn't convey much information one way or the other. I think it was Scofflaw who said in the EU forum that the voters delivered a message to the EU and that message was "Unngghhna gllkajud bjjajskjj".

    That said, we don't live in a real democracy anyway, but a rather wayward country cousin called a representative democracy -- democracy by proxy -- and it would perhaps help the debate if the electorate understood this, and how it compares against the full democracy that many people incorrectly believe they live in.


  • Options
    #85
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,406 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    They had a differing world view. This is not like Creationism vs. Evolution, as neither side actually has volumes more credibility or evidence to support its position.
    The treaty wasn't an issue of 'evidence' one way or the other but of the legal assertion of a specific legal reality.

    By and large, one side lied about the reality that was being asserted in order to scare people into rejecting it, while the other side failed to reduce the problem to populist soundbites and thereby lost support. Hence the comparison to creationism.


  • Options
    #86
    An Fear Aniar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,377 ✭✭✭An Fear Aniar


    We already had a President of Europe. His name was Adolf Hitler.



    .


  • Options
    #87
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    robindch wrote: »
    By and large, one side lied about the reality that was being asserted in order to scare people into rejecting it, while the other side failed to reduce the problem to populist soundbites and thereby lost support. Hence the comparison to creationism.
    Then perhaps the thread should be titled "More annoying - Creationism or certain elements of the No Campaign".


  • Options
    #88
    Calibos
    Registered Users Posts: 7,806 ✭✭✭Calibos


    Godwin it is then!

    I personally welcome our new germanic overlords with their nasty notions of work ethic and efficiency and well thought out infrastructure and...and...and..


  • Options
    #89
    RealEstateKing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 432 ✭✭RealEstateKing


    That said, we don't live in a real democracy anyway, but a rather wayward country cousin called a representative democracy -- democracy by proxy -- and it would perhaps help the debate if the electorate understood this, and how it compares against the full democracy that many people incorrectly believe they live in.

    You gotta better idea?

    Direct Democracy can never work, for the simple reason that ordinary people do not have the time (or interest) in all the arcane knowledge neccessary to make policy.

    We'd have to have 10 referendums a day if we didnt have a representative democracy. Today's Referendum: "What percentage of cocoa solids in a chocolate bar should legally allow it to use the name 'Chocolate?" Tomorrow's: "An amendment to paragraph 3 subsection 4.2 of the legal code concerning tarrifs in the steel industry?"

    The above is the kind of thing that politicians are concerned with most of the time. Rather them than me.


  • Options
    #90
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    robindch wrote: »
    the other side failed to reduce the problem to populist soundbites and thereby lost support.
    Soundbites such as this one I'd imagine...
    An Fear Aniar wrote: »
    We already had a President of Europe. His name was Adolf Hitler.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    An Fear Aniar wrote: »
    We already had a President of Europe. His name was Adolf Hitler.



    .
    +1 Others in the past included Ceasar and Nero.


Advertisement