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
The people of Ireland have spoken.
Options
Comments
-
the woman in Galway City who told RTE radio that she entered the polling booth undecided but "I got a bit of information that, if I voted yes, my sons would be drafted into the army, so I voted no ... Our sons are too good-looking for the army"?
im embarrased to say im from Galway nowadays
with whole of world reading the above
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/14/ireland.eu0 -
im embarrased to say im from Galway nowadays
with whole of world reading the above
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/14/ireland.eu
Don't fret it, there's been plenty of coverage of peoples bizarre reasons for voting no; High fuel prices for example. Brilliant.
I'm embarassed to say I'm Irish nowadays.0 -
Don't fret it, there's been plenty of coverage of peoples bizarre reasons for voting no; High fuel prices for example. Brilliant.
I'm embarassed to say I'm Irish nowadays.
There were similar reasons around for the No vote in France too. Ranging from local issues unrelated to the Constitution to worries that French troops would sent to Iraq (i.e. wft?).
Complex treaties are not easy to get through referendums if there's popular discontent about a lot of unrelated issues. Even with a "perfect" treaty, the entire thing could be torpedoed if a strong enough protest vote can be stirred up.0 -
There were similar reasons around for the No vote in France too. Ranging from local issues unrelated to the Constitution to worries that French troops would sent to Iraq (i.e. wft?).
Complex treaties are not easy to get through referendums if there's popular discontent about a lot of unrelated issues. Even with a "perfect" treaty, the entire thing could be torpedoed if a strong enough protest vote can be stirred up.
I agree entirely. I just can't condone the actions of any group who would leverage the anxieties of certain social groupings through misinformation. Maybe we'll get something akin to the Seville Declaration next time round.0 -
With respect, if emotion plays any part in your voting discretion, it is an illegitimate one.I think you misunderstand why people voted no, or why people voted yes. And perhaps you also don't understand how much emotion plays a part in votes and referendums.
You should be trying to minimize your animosity, anger and irritation, since those things incline you towards partiality. Remember, you should not be voting for what suits you best as an individual, but what is best for the collective, in your best rational estimation.0 -
Advertisement
-
There is also a general feeling that the people of europe are being denied a voice on this issue, on what is a very important issue of handing over power to unelected bureaucrats and giving them the power to amend the treaty in future without needing to ask permission of a single one of the almost half a billion citizens.
This was one of the more successful falsehoods of the campaign. The Lisbon Treaty does not allow "self-amendment". It allows amendment, with ratification, but without a full treaty. That's exactly what we currently do - amend the existing treaties - but we currently require a full treaty to do it. What required a referendum in Ireland (and Denmark) would still do so.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I agree Scofflaw. But that was the essence of the campaign: the No side saying a mistruth, and the Yes side failing to firmly deal with it. True, there were some wooly answers on this issue from the Yes side. But wooly just doesn't cut it for EU refernda, you have to be firm.0
-
I agree Scofflaw. But that was the essence of the campaign: the No side saying a mistruth, and the Yes side failing to firmly deal with it. True, there were some wooly answers on this issue from the Yes side. But wooly just doesn't cut it for EU refernda, you have to be firm.
It wasn't dealt with because the Yes side dealt with it on Q&A and Prime Time rather than dealing with it on the doorstep. I think the main parties over-estimated how much attention voters were paying to the media on this one.0 -
-
hatrickpatrick wrote: »
The no side used (for the most part) arguments directly related to why the treaty was bad for Ireland.
Say again??? The 'no' side lied. Repeatedly. It was a classic straw-man argument; Mary Lou MacDonald had us all agreeing that inflated levels of corporation tax would be bad for our economy. But what she forgot to add was that the EU has absolutely no power to impose such taxes upon us.0 -
Advertisement
-
FionnMatthew wrote: »With respect, if emotion plays any part in your voting discretion, it is an illegitimate one.
With respect, cognitive neurobiology research as popularised by Damasio in Descartes Error seems to show that emotions are inseperable from decision-making.
Experiments using MRI scans on political choice and argumentation show that rather than a cool appraisal of both sides of an argument, in classic liberal conception, "t seems as if they're really identifying with their own candidate, whereas when they see the opponent, they're using their rational apparatus to argue against him"
http://pcl.stanford.edu/press/2004/nyt-brain.html
Conceiving yourself as rational, and your opponents as emotionally biased is an unlikely position to reach any kind of consensus; ironically, this commitment may well itself be heavily emotionally loaded.
Pardon if this seems off-topic to some; I find the recurrent 'they are emotional and therefore wrong' rhetoric to be distasteful and demeaning as a political position, and may well be incorrect on a factual basis.0 -
1. I'm not positioning myself on either side of the Lisbon Treaty debate. I don't have opponents in one or the other camp. I'm lamenting, rather, what I see as a deficit of proper sophistication of discourse. The point I'm making isn't political, it's more a philosophical perspective on a political phenomenon.With respect, cognitive neurobiology research as popularised by Damasio in Descartes Error seems to show that emotions are inseperable from decision-making.
Experiments using MRI scans on political choice and argumentation show that rather than a cool appraisal of both sides of an argument, in classic liberal conception, "t seems as if they're really identifying with their own candidate, whereas when they see the opponent, they're using their rational apparatus to argue against him"
http://pcl.stanford.edu/press/2004/nyt-brain.html
Conceiving yourself as rational, and your opponents as emotionally biased is an unlikely position to reach any kind of consensus; ironically, this commitment may well itself be heavily emotionally loaded.
Pardon if this seems off-topic to some; I find the recurrent 'they are emotional and therefore wrong' rhetoric to be distasteful and demeaning as a political position, and may well be incorrect on a factual basis.
2. Come on! If you want to graduate up the scale, I'm not actually advocating an Enlightenment style distinction between emotional decision-influence and rational decision-making. Nothing about cognition is nearly so clear-cut, even phenomenologically. But there is a clear distinction to be made between getting pissed off at a straw-man opposition candidate, and then voting on a relatively unrelated treaty, because you've been erroneously influenced by PR to associate the two, and familiarising yourself with the concrete particulars of a discourse, and thinking long and hard about it, and in the end, coming to a decision about it in the fullness of understanding and intuitional inclination.
We notice this all the time when we recognize the difference between digging in our heels and getting emotional in a domestic argument, or staying cool and trying to work out what the best thing to say is. Of course emotion comes into every aspect of our phenomenal and cognitive life.
Sometimes you need to couch the point you're making in terms that clarify your intention.
PS. I'm not the most ardent Spinozist, I must say.0 -
FionnMatthew wrote: »With respect, if emotion plays any part in your voting discretion, it is an illegitimate one.
You should be trying to minimize your animosity, anger and irritation, since those things incline you towards partiality. Remember, you should not be voting for what suits you best as an individual, but what is best for the collective, in your best rational estimation.
It seems I was right in my earlier post when I said that you appeared to not recognise that emotion plays a part in referenda. To tell others that that is "illegitimate" seems presumptious, but to go on to assume that these people who "illegitimately" have emotions have also "animosity, anger and irritation" is ironic, and seems illogical and not based in fact.
I guess the really interesting thing about the referendum is the aftermath. The attempts by the unelected EU Bureaucrats to insist the treaty will be kept alive, and trying to bully our Taoiseach into a corner.
Some of the elected politicians seem to have got the message, (Gordon Brown and President Klaus pronounced it dead) while others think it's not necessary to worry too much about democracy and are working tirelessly to keep it going (Jean-Claude Juncker, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, and Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German Foreign Minister, and Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, will "discuss" the crisis with Donald Tusk, the Prime Minister, of Poland, to pressure Poland into completing its approval of the EU Treaty.
It seems it is democratic when the citizens agree with what is required by the politicians, but when we disagree then then we are not being "democratic".
Right across Europe the citizens are crying out for democracy, and some of the elected politicians, and virtually all the non elected bureaucrats who hold positions of power in the EU, just continue to seem ignore that desire.
The EU is not a democratic institution, and until such times as we make those who have the power be directly responsible to the electorate, I predict the feeling of unease will continue to grow. If there is one lesson we should learn from history, it is that the people are sovereign and will not stand for a centralised remote government which is not directly accountable, and we ignore this at our peril.0 -
Actually it is attempts by the elected politicians of Europe to keep the treaty alive. All those quotes people are annoyed about are by elected politicians.I guess the really interesting thing about the referendum is the aftermath. The attempts by the unelected EU Bureaucrats to insist the treaty will be kept alive, and trying to bully our Taoiseach into a corner.
Read this to see what happened after the constitution failed to pass in France. Even Ireland was stating that we would proceed when the problems were resolved.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56261538&postcount=117
The power is held by the EU council of ministers, and the EU council of heads of state. All these people are elected in their own countries. It's hard to make the EU more democratic without people feeling that they are in a federal state. EU-wide referendums, would you respect that? EU-wide elected president, would that be good? I honestly believe that would definitely be too far for most people. We want our vetos, and we want our skewed voting weights, yet those things are fundamentally undemocratic when viewing the EU as a whole.The EU is not a democratic institution, and until such times as we make those who have the power be directly responsible to the electorate, I predict the feeling of unease will continue to grow.
Ix.0 -
The EU commission has considerable clout and is essentially an unelected body of extremists like Charlie McCreevy who were so unpalatable at home that they had to go there. I'd personally prefer a commission of ministers/commissioners drawn from the MEP's so that there is a level of direct accountability. In fact one of the main reasons for my no vote was the fact that although many of the institutions were being modified, there was no real change to streamline the organization at all.0
-
It seems I was right in my earlier post when I said that you appeared to not recognise that emotion plays a part in referenda. To tell others that that is "illegitimate" seems presumptious, but to go on to assume that these people who "illegitimately" have emotions have also "animosity, anger and irritation" is ironic, and seems illogical and not based in fact.
I guess the really interesting thing about the referendum is the aftermath. The attempts by the unelected EU Bureaucrats to insist the treaty will be kept alive, and trying to bully our Taoiseach into a corner.
Some of the elected politicians seem to have got the message, (Gordon Brown and President Klaus pronounced it dead) while others think it's not necessary to worry too much about democracy and are working tirelessly to keep it going (Jean-Claude Juncker, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, and Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German Foreign Minister, and Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, will "discuss" the crisis with Donald Tusk, the Prime Minister, of Poland, to pressure Poland into completing its approval of the EU Treaty.
It seems it is democratic when the citizens agree with what is required by the politicians, but when we disagree then then we are not being "democratic".
Right across Europe the citizens are crying out for democracy, and some of the elected politicians, and virtually all the non elected bureaucrats who hold positions of power in the EU, just continue to seem ignore that desire.
The EU is not a democratic institution, and until such times as we make those who have the power be directly responsible to the electorate, I predict the feeling of unease will continue to grow. If there is one lesson we should learn from history, it is that the people are sovereign and will not stand for a centralised remote government which is not directly accountable, and we ignore this at our peril.
Look. That stuff can be criticised with very good reason.
I started this thread for that very purpose.
But to expect that suspicion of foul play, and the negative, vengeful emotions that might arise with that, might replace and be considered to have made it unnecessary to actually read the treaty, that's a real problem for democracy.
Just because the politicians, who you really oughtn't to be listening when you're making up your mind, said this or that, and just because those things made you happy or sad, or angry or in love... none of these things are really relevant to the YES or NO votes. You weren't voting on how much you disapprove of the YES campaign, or how much you dislike the EU politician's arrogance, just as you weren't voting on whether Europe was good to us. You were voting on the Treaty of Lisbon.
And based on most of the people I've talked to, and most of the voxpops I've read in the papers, people mostly didn't read the treaty, and mostly did allow irrelevant issues like this to decide which way they voted. And irrespective of which way it went, or whether they voted yes or no, I'm arguing that that is a rash and wasteful way to conduct your voting duties.0 -
Firstly, Fionn, if I misrepresented your position on emotions, my bad; last thing I want is to dig my feet under the kitchen table. If I took your remark out of context, and reacted against it, mea culpa.
For me, there are certain problems with the tack of conceiving the votes of others as 'illegitimate'. They may not accord with an ideal conception (yours, mine, or anyone elses) the manner in which people 'should' vote: for example, not all people share a procedural-formalist conception that all that was voted on was the Treaty qua Treaty; nor may they share your (laudable) conception of collective self-interest. I'm not convinced that makes said votes less legitimate.
Emotional arguments possess powerful interpellative effects; in classical rhetoric, appeals are made to logos, ethos, and pathos. Having a logical argument may not carry the day if a political figure is considered a scoundrel, or if their arguments do not evince any human feeling. Confidence in public figures does count, as do emotional appeals to nation, will ye or nil ye.
Perhaps this is not ideal, in a democratic-theoretical sense. Yet 'all theory, dear friend, is grey, but the golden tree of life springs ever green'. (Goethe)
More practically speaking, throwing out emotions as irrelevant tends to lose one arguments. ^^
Depending on your ideological/philosophical commitments, and consequent view of society, one may perceive the political field as requiring the locus of power to be shifted away from an unqualified electorate (lacking legal expertise, suffering an informational deficit, prone to manipulation) through representative, or (disparagingly) technocratic structures, or, despite its demerits, view the electorate as more qualified to represent itself, through referendum or other more direct democratic forms.
(I would argue that that these commitments of perspective tend to be heavily conditioned by social position, which I guess is the Marxian in me.)
The expressed preference of European decision-makers for the ratification of Lisbon appeared to be the former, whether for innocent reasons of efficiency or not. Within this context, the apparent incoherence of the No position will no doubt be read as further evidence of the need (of which Lisbon is a symptom) to distance decision-making from electorates, while the apparent willingness of these elites to disregard expressed choice and the consensus format will be construed as further evidence of the disjunct between the perspectives of the majority of the political class from the majority of an electorate. Which is, I agree, an unwholesome and unhealthy position for any putative democracy. I differ in viewing this primarily as a systemic problem, rather than merely a deficiency on the part of voters.
PS:
Oh, and I hang with Feyerabend lately.
I like my philosophers to have a sense of humour.
0 -
FionnMatthew wrote: »
Just because the politicians, who you really oughtn't to be listening when you're making up your mind, said this or that, .... based on most of the people I've talked to, and most of the voxpops I've read in the papers, people mostly didn't read the treaty, and mostly did allow irrelevant issues like this to decide which way they voted. And irrespective of which way it went, or whether they voted yes or no, I'm arguing that that is a rash and wasteful way to conduct your voting duties.
Perhaps it is a mistake to decide for others what factors you think they should or should not allow to influence them when it comes to making up their minds which way to vote.
Quite apart from the fact that the treaty was judged to be utterly incomprehensible by the vast majority of people who did try to read it, I simply can't agree that we should all have read the treaty and then sat in a soundproofed room with no other outside stimuli making up our minds which way to vote.
Part of the joy of life is the discussion about such issues and the weighing up the issues, as we all see them individually, and the cut & thrust of debate. There is no point in engaging in hand wringing because some people make up their minds on criteria which we may not like. The world is as the world is and I fear you are fighting a losing battle trying to bring everyone else around to your way of viewing it.0 -
The Wall Street Journal: An Irish Education
A few excerpts:Irish voters struck a blow for democracy in Europe by stopping a power play by the Continent's political elites. Now the question is whether it is Brussels or the Irish that will be asked to reconsider their position.
...
The lesson from Ireland is that European politicians need to sell their grand plans in the open, not via stealth, especially when those plans dilute national sovereignty.
...
EU citizens were right to be concerned about recent attempts to boost the political authority of a largely unelected entity. They weren't comfortable with an EU president who speaks on their behalf but doesn't ask for their votes.
...
The Irish have previously shown Europe how to solve some of those economic problems. They accepted the euro as a currency, using its efficiencies to attract capital and achieve a prosperity unknown in the country's long history. Now they have sent another mature lesson to Europe – namely, that the advantages of union do not also require ceding political sovereignty to the Brussels bureaucracy.0 -
The truth is that the NO campaign comes out of this pretty well set up. If the EU abides by it's own rule that lisbon must be passed unanimously then lisbon is dead. If they continue push the treaty then it just proves what the No side claimed about the EU becoming a law unto itself.0
-
Advertisement
-
Ths Independent have a survey today on why people voted No, with renegotiation top of the list. What it shows very clearly is that the No side ran very good campaigns with clearly identifiable messages.Revealed: why we voted 'No' to Lisbon
By Fionnan Sheahan in Luxembourg
Tuesday June 17 2008
ALMOST three-quarters of people who voted 'No' in the Lisbon Treaty referendum mistakenly believed the pact could be easily renegotiated.
A major survey of voters conducted by the European Commission immediately after last Thursday's referendum reveals why a majority of Irish people rejected the treaty.
The publication of the first research into the reasons behind the 'No' vote comes as Taoiseach Brian Cowen and Foreign Affairs Minister Micheal Martin desperately attempt to garner support across the EU to help Ireland resolve the crisis caused by the result.
The poll of 2,000 voters found:
- Young people voted 'No' by a margin of two to one.
- The vast majority of women voted 'No'.
- A large number of people who do not vote in general elections voted.
- People who did not understand the treaty voted 'No'.
- The huge influx of immigrants into the country was a factor in the 'No' vote.
- More than 70pc of 'No' voters thought a second treaty would be negotiated.
This belief is being attributed to the Nice I and II scenarios, where the treaty was re-run in a referendum after assurances were given on Ireland's neutrality.
The findings show immigration was an unspoken factor in the vote, as people expressed concern about the numbers of immigrants coming to the country in such a short time. The rise in unemployment, allied to foreign workers coming to the country, was also cited.
...
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/revealed-why-we-voted-no-to-lisbon-1412027.html0 -
I've been away, sorry about the delay.
There's a difference, however, between conceiving of the votes of others as illegitimate and conceiving of the role emotional factors might play in your voting discretion as illegitimate. It's the latter I was after, not the former. I mean not to make any votes illegitimate. I mean only to criticize the procedure by which many people, according to documented evidence, claimed to have made up their mind.Kama wrote:For me, there are certain problems with the tack of conceiving the votes of others as 'illegitimate'. They may not accord with an ideal conception (yours, mine, or anyone elses) the manner in which people 'should' vote: for example, not all people share a procedural-formalist conception that all that was voted on was the Treaty qua Treaty; nor may they share your (laudable) conception of collective self-interest. I'm not convinced that makes said votes less legitimate.
As regards the charge of marginal idealism, I mean only to defend here a very broad conception of democracy. There is a certain idealism inherent in democracy - the idealism of a collective rational body of individuals, acting in the collective self interest. You call this "laudable." I can't see how, for a self-proclaimed democrat, it couldn't be de rigeur.
And to vote (a paradigm exercise of democratic power) under any other auspices is, democratically speaking, to misuse a vote, although under a democratic philosophy, that fact remains the business of the individual.
I understand that. That's a big "is." Don't you think there's an "ought" missing here? Interpellation is, unless you like the idea of mass ideology, a rather undesirable thing. And classical rationalism laments the misuse of rhetoric, in, for instance, Isocrates, as a tool for circumventing proper dialectic.Emotional arguments possess powerful interpellative effects; in classical rhetoric, appeals are made to logos, ethos, and pathos.
You may not have much faith in rationalism. I have my doubts about it. But the fact remains that rationalism is a foundational ideal of democracy. Democracy is a rationalistic political philosophy. We either subscribe to that ideal, or leave the whole thing alone.
The fact that emotional arguments are effective has no bearing on whether that effectiveness is a good thing, or a thing worthy of lamentation. The fact that people have a tendency to base their judgments on appeals to pathos has little bearing on what people ought to be basing their judgments on. And the rationalistic 'ought' is one of the standard oughts of democracy properly so called.
Right. But if he's right, he's right. And to hold up his being a scoundrel, or formalistic and boring, as reasons to disagree with a valid, and rational argument, which identifies substantive issues at least in need of consideration, is a red herring.Having a logical argument may not carry the day if a political figure is considered a scoundrel, or if their arguments do not evince any human feeling.
But ought these things to count, in a society which proclaims itself democratic, considering the fact that the word 'democracy' actually means something positive and undeniable?Confidence in public figures does count, as do emotional appeals to nation, will ye or nil ye.
A nice Goethe quote, but I'd subscribe to the opinion, if that's what it comes down to, that theory can be entirely less grey than that. It is so for me, at least. Consider the Churchland cum Sellars cum van Fraasen characterisation of 'theory,' in which a theory is not merely a set of lingua-formal sentences, but also an intricate social practice. In this case, the theory we espouse with our actions is in marked contrast with the, largely unknown, formal theory of democracy.Perhaps this is not ideal, in a democratic-theoretical sense. Yet 'all theory, dear friend, is grey, but the golden tree of life springs ever green'. (Goethe)
Or wish for, and promote, a better informed electorate, so that the first option is no longer entertainable, and the latter bettered.Depending on your ideological/philosophical commitments, and consequent view of society, one may perceive the political field as requiring the locus of power to be shifted away from an unqualified electorate (lacking legal expertise, suffering an informational deficit, prone to manipulation) through representative, or (disparagingly) technocratic structures, or, despite its demerits, view the electorate as more qualified to represent itself, through referendum or other more direct democratic forms.
Agreed. Lamentably.The expressed preference of European decision-makers for the ratification of Lisbon appeared to be the former, whether for innocent reasons of efficiency or not.
Again, agreed, although the need seems to me to be for raising the profile and standard of democratic discourse in society. The conclusion you mention here is the most likely, but again, lamentable, and thoroughly anti-democratic.Within this context, the apparent incoherence of the No position will no doubt be read as further evidence of the need (of which Lisbon is a symptom) to distance decision-making from electorates,
Please, make no mistake. I view it as a systemic problem too. Let's make room here for the role of the media, and the conduct and methods of journalists, and for the propensity for cynicism and anti-democratic thought among polticians themselves, who routinely satisfy expectations, and indulge in the most obvious, (and yet almost offensively unsophisticated) acts of rhetoric. Let's not ignore any of this. Let's, for one thing, identify the quality of communication possible in a democratic society as fundamental to it's proper working, and let's identify the dialectic as paramount to a democracy.while the apparent willingness of these elites to disregard expressed choice and the consensus format will be construed as further evidence of the disjunct between the perspectives of the majority of the political class from the majority of an electorate. Which is, I agree, an unwholesome and unhealthy position for any putative democracy. I differ in viewing this primarily as a systemic problem, rather than merely a deficiency on the part of voters.
However, let's also not ignore that the only contribution we might make to clearing this mess is to wise up, democratically, and to reject the broken, empty words we have been given to individuate the concepts of democracy. Let's discard the conceptual filing cabinet we work with as inadequate, and propose a more elevated conceptualization of political reality, so as to make our minds more critical, and our faculties more alert. Let's stop listening to the windbags, who think that saying things like "I agree with you" before they've heard what you were about to say is a good way of getting you onside. Let's stop reading the papers, or let's start reading them with a bit more shrewdness. Let's stop buying them if we find the discourse in them beneath us, and conducive more to interpellation than substantiveness.
I don't mean to blame only the electorate. But as a member of it, I address myself to it. Were I to address myself to politicians, or to the media, which I sometimes do, the message would be different.0 -
It is a mistake to decide anything for others, unless they be of diminished capacity.Perhaps it is a mistake to decide for others what factors you think they should or should not allow to influence them when it comes to making up their minds which way to vote.
I'm not deciding for others. In fact, if truth be told, that decision has already been made, and anyone who calls themselves a democrat can fairly be expected to already have assented to that decision, and/or made that decision themselves.
What I'm doing is trying to remind people of that, or make them aware of that. Are you telling me that is a mistake?
If so: No. It isn't a mistake to do that. Because democracy actually means something, and if we are to be proper democrats, we are not free to pick and choose the legitimating factors of our decisions. Equally, if we endorse the laws against murder, we are enjoined to respect them in our own conduct.
Democracy is a positive philosophy. It's not "anything goes." It really isn't. A state where everyone tosses a coin and then votes is not a democracy properly so called, for instance, never mind the structure of the decisional apparatus, because it is not the demos making the decisions.
Many people judge Shakespeare to be utterly incomprehensible. He's not. It takes a little bit of effort to find that out, but for any of us who have expended that, it seems such a small thing.Quite apart from the fact that the treaty was judged to be utterly incomprehensible by the vast majority of people who did try to read it, I simply can't agree that we should all have read the treaty and then sat in a soundproofed room with no other outside stimuli making up our minds which way to vote.
You needn't sit in a soundproofed room. In fact, you are encouraged to enter into rational discussion with your peers on the matter, in a mode of substantive communication which stands to have mutual benefits, and which is likely to raise the net level of collective understanding.
I'm not wringing hands. I'm deploying words. And there is every point in doing that, especially if one of the criteria I don't like is the people's partiality to being swayed by words.There is no point in engaging in hand wringing because some people make up their minds on criteria which we may not like.
Thank you for letting me know that. As an analytic statement, it seems to contain an awful lot of wisdom. It is the first recognition of an idealist, that the world is the way it is. How could we envision a different world if we didn't know how it is now?The world is as the world is
The question is: "Ought the world to be as it is?"
"It is as it is" isn't an answer to that. We seem to have already acknowledged that in the question, in assuming that if there is a way the "world is" then "it is" that way. Let's consider the "ought" side of the question, shall we?0 -
FionnMatthew wrote: »Many people judge Shakespeare to be utterly incomprehensible. He's not. It takes a little bit of effort to find that out, but for any of us who have expended that, it seems such a small thing.
And to inject a note of humour, there are always the cliff notes (summaries) and for those who don't like reading... the movies.
Neither is ideal, but certainly they convey the stories.
There's kind of an ironic contradiction in the "no" viewpoint that the Lisbon treaty is incomprehensible, while at the same time pointing out what they think is bad in it!
ix.0 -
And to inject a note of humour, there are always the cliff notes (summaries) and for those who don't like reading... the movies.
Neither is ideal, but certainly they convey the stories.
There's kind of an ironic contradiction in the "no" viewpoint that the Lisbon treaty is incomprehensible, while at the same time pointing out what they think is bad in it!
ix.
Little movie doing the rounds at the moment called 'Cowen in Meltdown' To be avoided by humourless, sensitive 'Yes to Lisbon' supporters -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADbTCSuNSms&eurl=http://www.mulley.net/200 -
Join Date:Posts: 9866
thehighground wrote: »Little movie doing the rounds at the moment called 'Cowen in Meltdown' To be avoided by humourless, sensitive 'Yes to Lisbon' supporters -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADbTCSuNSms&eurl=http://www.mulley.net/20
Do you post "controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion" much?
I'll let you look up the definition yourself.0 -
marco_polo, don't accuse people of trolling. thehighground, engage in the discussion or stay out of it.0
-
FionnMatthew wrote: »
Democracy is a positive philosophy. It's not "anything goes." It really isn't. A state where everyone tosses a coin and then votes is not a democracy properly so called, for instance, never mind the structure of the decisional apparatus, because it is not the demos making the decisions.
I think perhaps the interesting point that is highlighted by all this is that democracy is no longer sacrosanct. Some seem to argue that, because they don't like the result, or because they think they know why some or many or all of those who voted in a certain way, that they have the right to call the result illegitimate.
Democracy used to mean the rule of the majority, with a safeguard to protect the rights of the minority.
Nowadays, democracy seems to mean the rule of the political and bureaucratic classes, and best not to ask the majority for fear they might say "NO". If we are forced to ask some who do say "NO", we will change the rules (for example changing a constitution into a treaty) to get around their democratically expressed will. Aren't we clever!
Even after doing that, and someone else goes on to say "NO" to the treaty, we'll find a way of getting around that anyhow as democracy is all very well just so long as the people do as they are told.
The really strange thing about all of this is that there are those, here and elsewhere, who actually argue that this is all perfectly acceptable, and not only is is perfectly acceptable, but its also democratic!FionnMatthew wrote: »Many people judge Shakespeare to be utterly incomprehensible. He's not. It takes a little bit of effort to find that out, but for any of us who have expended that, it seems such a small thing.
You see, this is where your argument falls down, because like it or not Shakespeare is incomprehensible to many people, and will remain incomprehensible to many. The problem with a democracy is that is contains people of many different intelligences. Simply to assume that , with a little effort, everyone in our country will come to love and understand Shakespeare simply misunderstands the differences in all of us.
In our society there is no intelligence test for individuals who are going to cast their vote. And nor should there be. In a democracy we should be free to vote for or against anything on whatever criteria we want to use. it is up to us to decide for ourselves and not up to someone else to decide that we would have voted a different way if only... well, fill in the blanks for whatever "if only" you particularly favour.FionnMatthew wrote: »
The question is: "Ought the world to be as it is?"
"It is as it is" isn't an answer to that. We seem to have already acknowledged that in the question, in assuming that if there is a way the "world is" then "it is" that way. Let's consider the "ought" side of the question, shall we?
I have spent many pleasant hours in smokey pubs with copious pints of black beer contemplating "ought the world to be as it is" and postulating how I would change it come the revolution. One of the great pleasures of life is considering the "ought" side of the question.
But the world is as it is, and pondering the "ought" side of the question isn't going to change it.0 -
Democracy means (simplistically) "rule by the people". Ruling is a responsibility that should be taken seriously.In a democracy we should be free to vote for or against anything on whatever criteria we want to use.
If a monarch ruled capriciously, making decrees for or against anything on whatever criteria he wanted to use, he'd be castigated as a despot, and rightly so. If "the people" in a democracy are equally capricious in their decisions about how to rule, they deserve equal criticism.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm not sure peddling aphorisms about the "once true sacrosanctity" of democracy helps anyone. Certainly, not all forms of democracy are particularly desirable, or deserve to be sacrosanct. If anything, talk of the sacrosanctity of one or other political system only hampers critical efforts, which would otherwise improve it. It's an excuse for the overly dramatic to be offended on the part of ideals they'd like to hold, if they understood them.I think perhaps the interesting point that is highlighted by all this is that democracy is no longer sacrosanct.
And yet I haven't argued that.Some seem to argue that, because they don't like the result, or because they think they know why some or many or all of those who voted in a certain way, that they have the right to call the result illegitimate.
I'm talking about a broader problem in what is, in the present day, called "democracy."
It's nothing to do with that I don't like the "results" of current elections, although in most cases I don't (notwithstanding that just about any outcome from, say, the last general election would have been equally distasteful to me.)
It does have to do with how many people, in the media and on the internet, agreed to having voted, but that's not all. It also has to do with observations of the inexactitude with which language with political content is used in the organs of communication of our society, and with professed attitudes and ways of thinking about politics on a large, societal scale, which I deem, with good reason, to fall worryingly short of the low tide mark for a healthy democratic political discourse. The malaise is far worse in places like the US, but what we have here ain't too good either.
I'm not saying we should disregard what people have used their vote to say. I'm saying that we, as people, should make a conscious and concerted effort to raise the level of discourse, to educate ourselves better about our civic duties, and to take them far, far, far more seriously than we currently do. That way, we can have a good faith belief that the decisions we make in the future have a greater chance of being good ones. I make no specific assertions as to what sort of decisions they will be.
Democracy has never meant "rule of majority," except in the most erroneous of dictionaries.Democracy used to mean the rule of the majority, with a safeguard to protect the rights of the minority.
If you want a word for that, try 'Ochlocracy.'
Democracy is "rule of the demos," the demos being the collective body comprised of all of the people. The minority is also a part of the demos. Within the demos, decisions are made according to the will of the majority with consent from the minority.
Protection of the rights of the minority isn't a democratic legacy, per se, and has more to do with the civil rights movement, although you might consider it a requisite part of a good democracy.
No. There are proper names for that, and none of them are anything but perverse forms of democracy. But what I want to argue is that the above is a consequence of the flagrant and ignorant misuse of democratic rights by citizen bodies in the West, as a symptom of a systemic problem, which is no less caused by the desire of "bureaucratic classes" to have a populace which isn't really paying attention, isn't really interested in politics, and even when it is, isn't really intelligent or educated enough to make much of it.Nowadays, democracy seems to mean the rule of the political and bureaucratic classes, and best not to ask the majority for fear they might say "NO".
Once again, I haven't argued that. I've argued that the proper face of democracy is a situation where the people vote in full knowledge of what they are doing, and the executive body of the government carry out the will of the sovereign with resolve.The really strange thing about all of this is that there are those, here and elsewhere, who actually argue that this is all perfectly acceptable, and not only is is perfectly acceptable, but its also democratic!
Both need to be onside.
But an ignorant populace and a recalcitrant executive government - these things call for each other across the ballot. One provokes the other.
Once again, I have never argued that we ought to disrespect the Lisbon "No." I didn't vote in that referendum. I still don't know what would have been the appropriate verdict. My criticisms of the electorate have nothing to do with that.
Look:
1. The populace reserves the right to be as uninformed as it likes.
2. The populace reserves the right to vote.
3. The populace fully expects that its decision will have good consequences.
But there's no guarantee of (3) without getting rid of (1).
One of the requisite assumptions on the part of democratic philosophy is that the electorate will be intelligent enough to understand what it's doing.You see, this is where your argument falls down, because like it or not Shakespeare is incomprehensible to many people, and will remain incomprehensible to many. The problem with a democracy is that is contains people of many different intelligences. Simply to assume that , with a little effort, everyone in our country will come to love and understand Shakespeare simply misunderstands the differences in all of us.
Politics can be hard sometimes.
I proclaim that it isn't too much to expect that, since it's one of the most fundamental privileges of a democratic citizen, a lot of our effort might be directed into working on that understanding.
Now, if, as you claim, Shakespeare, and, by analogy, politics, is beyond the capability or comprehension of most of the electorate, you are faced with the stark conclusion that democracy isn't the best form of government for such a (markedly dull) society. In such a situation, the demos will simply not be able to make the best decisions, in the best interest of the group.
This conclusion gives you two options.
You might baulk at the idea of losing democracy anyway, and clamour for keeping democracy, even though it is moored to a willfully ignorant demos. In this case, why do you want democracy? Why is it still a good form of government, if it can't guarantee you a rational, apt decision in the face of a complex situation? You must also face the fact that keeping democracy in this way, while the populace reserve the right to be largely ignorant of the duties of care placed upon it by democratic privilege, will call into being an elite class in the executive government which learns to despise its own electorate. And why shouldn't it? You have an intellectually lazy demos, which can't get off its arse to think about politics, but yet still demands a veto on all the hard work that's being done in its name. That's not a nice situation, and yet, by implication, that's the one you are defending.
Here's the other situation: You change the political system, and disenfranchise the public. That's not a nice situation either.
What I'm arguing for is the third option :an actually healthy democracy. The public wises up, gets off its arse, and starts taking democracy seriously. To start with, that would entail learning what the word "democracy" means, instead of reeling off banal definitions (like the one you gave) that don't even get a toehold on what democratic philosophy is all about. Equally, and correspondingly, the government gets of its arse too, and starts dancing, because we won't vote for slugs anymore, and the press gets off its thumbs too, because we're simply not willing to read the ideological sludge that passes for commentary in the present day.
Right. Agreed. But I'm arguing that the only assessment should be self-administered. We should each have a democratic conscience, and awareness of our responsibility as citizens. And it's not intelligence we're testing for, but rational engagement in public life, and in the discourse of public life.In our society there is no intelligence test for individuals who are going to cast their vote. And nor should there be.
We test ourselves. Gauge ourselves. But we need to be honest about the results, and know what to do if we find ourselves sub-par.
Sure, we should be legally free do to that. But we should also have the prudence not to exercise that freedom, on pain of hurting democracy itself. And in terms of our conscience, we should not consider ourselves free to do that, if we are to be able to consistently regard ourselves as responsible citizens.In a democracy we should be free to vote for or against anything on whatever criteria we want to use.
Once again, I don't favour an "if only." I am diagnosing a problem in the deliberative processes of Western democracy, not attributing blame for one or other verdict in the Lisbon Treaty. I don't care what decision is made, as long as the decision making process is healthy enough that I can expect the decision to be the best possible one.it is up to us to decide for ourselves and not up to someone else to decide that we would have voted a different way if only... well, fill in the blanks for whatever "if only" you particularly favour.
Again, I said "reform" not "revolution." The best and worst of us would consider reform an entirely more plausible, and less destructive endeavor.I have spent many pleasant hours in smokey pubs with copious pints of black beer contemplating "ought the world to be as it is" and postulating how I would change it come the revolution.
History refutes you.One of the great pleasures of life is considering the "ought" side of the question.
But the world is as it is, and pondering the "ought" side of the question isn't going to change it.0
Advertisement