Lisbon Treaty Referendum 2 - Return of the Gombeen Man

sink

Rsaeire wrote: »

I'm pleased you don't think it's a slogan in that situation. The purpose of the question was to demonstrate that "no" is an absolute. In other words, no means no. It does not mean maybe, it does not mean possibly. Thank you for the reply. I believe I've made my point. Please feel free to enjoy the remainder of the discussion on this thread.

Ok in your world of absolutes. If you are a Anglican and you reject Catholicism does that mean you reject everything Catholicism teaches including the parts which concur with Anglicanism?

Very few things in this world are absolute. The people who follow absolutes generally hold extreme views.

The no vote can not be construed as a rejection of every single individual aspect of the Lisbon treaty and the only people who would hold such views probably hold extreme political ideologies.

Rsaeire

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm glad you feel you've drawn a perfect analogy, although I doubt that many rape victims would agree with it. I presume it's fair to assume that if you've ever been asked whether you would like a cup of tea and said "no", that you'd be outraged at ever, ever again being offered one. After all, no means no - it doesn't mean maybe, it doesn't mean possibly. On the contrary, I think you've made mine. You've refused - yet again - to answer my direct question. It's an important question, because it's designed to demonstrate the obvious flaw in your reasoning, which - I suspect - is why you're refusing to answer it.

I'd respond directly, however for fear of being accused of soap-boxing, I can't. I want to participate within the charter afterall.

Plus, I don't drink tea... ever.

oscarBravo

Rsaeire wrote: »

I'd respond directly, however for fear of being accused of soap-boxing, I can't. I want to participate within the charter afterall.

Nice cop-out.

Plus, I don't drink tea... ever.

You could have substituted a refreshing beverage of your choice, but I guess that would mean accepting that someone you disagree with might have a point. We couldn't have that, could we?

K-9

Rsaeire wrote: »

I'm pleased you don't think it's a slogan in that situation. The purpose of the question was to demonstrate that "no" is an absolute. In other words, no means no. It does not mean maybe, it does not mean possibly. Thank you for the reply. I believe I've made my point. Please feel free to enjoy the remainder of the discussion on this thread.

But many No voters where told a re negotiation could be done!

What type of re negotiation is the question that needs to be answered which can only be definitively answered by another referendum!

Scofflaw

Rsaeire wrote: »

If so, the answer is no: I wouldn't tell a person that has been raped that. Are you seriously trying to draw an analogy between being raped and being asked to vote? Would you tell a person who has been raped that their experience is comparable to the trauma of being asked to vote in a referendum?

I'm pleased you don't think it's a slogan in that situation. The purpose of the question was to demonstrate that "no" is an absolute. In other words, no means no. It does not mean maybe, it does not mean possibly. Thank you for the reply. I believe I've made my point. Please feel free to enjoy the remainder of the discussion on this thread.

If "no means no", then following your use (and analogy) above, we find that a refusal to have sex on one occasion is a refusal to have sex on any occasion.

I think "tautology" might be the word you're looking for rather than "absolute". No means no on the occasion it's used - it's not usually unconditionally binding in perpetuity.

Also, as Seanies32 correctly points out, something like 75% of voters voted under the impression that the Treaty could be 'renegotiated'.


cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

Scofflaw wrote: »

If "no means no", then following your use (and analogy) above, we find that a refusal to have sex on one occasion is a refusal to have sex on any occasion.

Well sex is dependent on any changing variables, such as mood. Also sex with a nice girl is a yes, but with a smoker no no (controversial!). Sex is not a same thing every time thing.

The Lisbon Treaty is the same every time of the day, does not depend on you mood or the amount of alcohal you have consumed

Agent J

The issue comes down to how oftern is a referendum on the same issue acceptable?

All the numbers, surverys and polls are meaningless except for the actuall referendum.

It was rejected. The reasons arent that relevant unless they lead to a different referednum being asked which is unlikely.

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

Interesting question. If you mean in the sense of "our sacred sovereignty", then definitely not.

I did mean in the sense of "our sacred sovereignty" and I find it interesting to see that you have such little regard for our sovereignty that you say it definitely wouldn't bother you it is was found that 80% of our laws are made outside of our democratically elected national parliament. If you genuinely hold that view then I think you're in a very small minority of the Irish population.

Quite possibly so. I have no time for "national sovereignty", and less for the glorification of it - a nation-state is an administrative unit.

I suppose one could say that I'm interested in citizen sovereignty - that the people should be able to govern themselves effectively and wisely, and that they should be as free to act as possible within the obvious strictures. I certainly don't see the nation as a particularly special level for the exercise of the people's power - local issues are best sorted out at a local level, and larger issues at a higher level as appropriate. It's rare that issues simply cease at a line on the map.

What, apart from mystical concepts, do you offer as a justification for seeing the national level as the most important?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Well sex is dependent on any changing variables, such as mood. Also sex with a nice girl is a yes, but with a smoker no no (controversial!). Sex is not a same thing every time thing.

The Lisbon Treaty is the same every time of the day, does not depend on you mood or the amount of alcohal you have consumed

Fairly put - but still one can change one's mind about it. One's understanding of the Treaty can change, and how one feels about what one understands of the Treaty can change, the external circumstances can change, your personal circumstances can change, how one thinks the Treaty will pan out in practice can change, and how one feels about that can change (and some of those things probably do change with your mood and the amount of alcohol you have consumed...).

You're confusing the map with the territory, you see - nobody votes on the Treaty (the words and pages), they vote on what the Treaty means to them.

non-Aristotelianly,
Scofflaw

K-9

Agent J wrote: »

All the numbers, surverys and polls are meaningless except for the actuall referendum.

So asking people why they voted, their concerns that need addressing, getting information to see "hey, what can we do here" is wrong.

Agent J wrote:

It was rejected. The reasons arent that relevant unless they lead to a different referednum being asked which is unlikely.

How do they know what type of different referendum to vote on, unless they know the reasons for a No vote?

If we had an abortion referendum and the Government commissioned polls on the reasons people vote no, would you be as annoyed? Does No, mean No then?

krpc

Seanies32 wrote: »

So asking people why they voted, their concerns that need addressing, getting information to see "hey, what can we do here" is wrong.




How do they know what type of different referendum to vote on, unless they know the reasons for a No vote?

If we had an abortion referendum and the Government commissioned polls on the reasons people vote no, would you be as annoyed? Does No, mean No then?

Do you not think it would have been prudent to ask a lot of those questions and address those concerns (since they knew a lot of them before the result) before the referendum was put to the people in the first place? Instead, it seemed wise to spend time attacking the no campaigners rather than making the message clear The yes campaign was so arrogant to assume it would pass easily, and yet, I hear many yes campaigners calling no voters fools and uneducated idiots. Who's really the fool?

oscarBravo

i-bloodhound wrote: »

Do you not think it would have been prudent to ask a lot of those questions and address those concerns (since they knew a lot of them before the result) before the referendum was put to the people in the first place?

I guess it depends what questions and concerns you mean. I and others have repeatedly asked since the referendum what concerns no voters would like to see addressed, and the most consistent reply seems to be "no means no" lectures.

Instead, it seemed wise to spend time attacking the no campaigners rather than making the message clear

Sure, the message could have been made clearer, but it didn't help that some of the no campaigners were deliberately obfuscating the issues with blatant lies.

The yes campaign was so arrogant to assume it would pass easily, and yet, I hear many yes campaigners calling no voters fools and uneducated idiots. Who's really the fool?

I haven't seen any yes campaigners calling no voters fools and uneducated idiots. All I see is no voters claiming that yes campaigners have called them such things.

K-9

i-bloodhound wrote: »

Do you not think it would have been prudent to ask a lot of those questions and address those concerns (since they knew a lot of them before the result) before the referendum was put to the people in the first place?

Indeed.
What specific concerns and questions would you have wanted answered?

i-bloodhound wrote:

Instead, it seemed wise to spend time attacking the no campaigners rather than making the message clear

Indeed, terrible yes campaign.

i-bloodhound wrote:

The yes campaign was so arrogant to assume it would pass easily,

Which Yes campaigners?

i-bloodhound wrote:

and yet, I hear many yes campaigners calling no voters fools and uneducated idiots. Who's really the fool?

Indeed, as many No voters have called Yes voters, and?

sink

i-bloodhound wrote: »

Who's really the fool?

Nobody here has called no voters in general 'fools' and you sentence implies that all yes voters are 'fools'. Who is the arrogant one now?

O'Morris

Sink wrote:

I would not be overly concerned with sovereignty either as I am a humanistic anti-nationalist and self identified world citizen.

http://www.worldcitizen.org/

Interesting. Then we're in the realm of competing values. I myself am a red-blooded, patriotic, Irish ethnic nationalist who feels a strong emotional attachment to the idea of an independent, united Ireland and who looks on other nations as competitors as well as allies and trading partners.

Sink wrote:

Nationalism is illogical

I don't think so. I don't think logic comes into it. Nationalism does not concern itself with matters of fact and so no process of reasoning is implied in the concept. It would be more correct to say that nationalism is allogical rather than illogical.

Scofflaw wrote:

Quite possibly so.

And would you agree as well that the yes side might have underestimated the extent to which fears over the loss of our "sacred sovereignty" played a role in the outcome of the Lisbon Treaty referendum? Would you not agree that old-fashioned, unenlightened patriotism is as great a barrier to further EU "integration" as ignorance is?

Scofflaw wrote:

I have no time for "national sovereignty",

I don't believe people such as yourself are as opposed to the idea of national sovereignty (I don't see any reason to put the term in quotes as though it's some kind of recently invented concept) as you claim. You may be opposed to the sovereignty of the nation states as they exist in Europe today but I don't think you're opposed to the idea of the EU being given the same sovereignty that those same nation states currently possess. It's less a question of principle and more a question of scale and redistribution.

Would it not be at least partly correct to say that your attachment to the EU is not altogether different from the attachment that most Europeans feel towards their own countries? Or do you see the EU purely as an administrative unit?

Scofflaw wrote:

and less for the glorification of it -

Including the glorification of the EU? Were you, like me, glad to see that the Lisbon Treaty at least excluded those aspects of the EU constitution that would have glorified the EU, such as the status of the EU flag, anthem and other symbols of nationhood?

Scofflaw wrote:

a nation-state is an administrative unit.

I think it's more than an administrative unit. And if it is an administrative unit, it's an administrative unit of a nation which is much more than a line on a map. I don't look on the Irish flag as the flag of an administrative unit. I don't think the people who serve in the army under the Irish flag see themselves as serving an administrative unit.

Scofflaw wrote:

I suppose one could say that I'm interested in citizen sovereignty - that the people should be able to govern themselves effectively and wisely

I believe in that as well. If by citizen sovereignty you mean maximising individual freedom and minimizing the power of the government (whether that government is local, national or supranational) to limit that fredom then I too consider myself a supporter of citizen sovereignty. I don't see how that's related or contradictory to the concept of national sovereignty though.

Scofflaw wrote:

What, apart from mystical concepts, do you offer as a justification for seeing the national level as the most important?

Biology and tradition. Biology in the sense that I believe humans are by their nature a tribal species who are generally happier when living among their own people and when governed by members of the same ethnic group as themselves. While lower level tribal political units might better reflect the ethnic identity of the people (the Scots in Britain, Basques in Spain, the Flemish in Belgium etc.) on balance, most of the current nation states of Europe have evolved over time to do a good job of satisfying the innate tribal instincts of the people they govern.

Tradition in the sense that it's a central principle in conservative political thought to favour those things which work, and which have evolved over time to work, over those things which have not been tried and which are based on idealistic premises that ignore the reality of human nature.

Whatever about nation states in general, the nation states of western Europe today work successfully and fulfill reasonably well the primary political goals of maintaining security, peace and stability. It would be both foolish and a waste of energy to try to fix something that isn't broken. Most Europeans value their national identity and don't want to see any further diminution of their national sovereignty.

krpc

oscarBravo wrote: »

I guess it depends what questions and concerns you mean. I and others have repeatedly asked since the referendum what concerns no voters would like to see addressed, and the most consistent reply seems to be "no means no" lectures. Sure, the message could have been made clearer, but it didn't help that some of the no campaigners were deliberately obfuscating the issues with blatant lies. I haven't seen any yes campaigners calling no voters fools and uneducated idiots. All I see is no voters claiming that yes campaigners have called them such things.

Yes, you have asked repeatedly SINCE the referendum. A lot of these concerns were known BEFORE the referendum. Where was in the interest in knowing about them at that point? As I said, arrogance led the yes campaign to believe that they did not need to invest much interest in those concerns because they thought they would get the treaty passed. It's only now the back-pedalling has begun and interest is shown.

oscarBravo

O'Morris wrote: »

...I believe humans are by their nature a tribal species who are generally happier when living among their own people and when governed by members of the same ethnic group as themselves.

That same tendency to tribalism has also led, throughout history, to inter-tribal conflict. Whether it's a question of competition for resources, the belief that members of another tribe are inherently inferior, or just good old xenophobic rejection of that which is unfamiliar, tribalism by its very nature involves (to a greater or lesser extent) a rejection of that which is perceived as different.

Those of us who are skeptical of the nation-state see tribalism as something to be left behind; to evolve away from. As people begin to focus on the things which they have in common, they discover that they have less to fight about. Some of us perceive peace and prosperity as an acceptable price to pay for moving away from tribalism.

While lower level tribal political units might better reflect the ethnic identity of the people (the Scots in Britain, Basques in Spain, the Flemish in Belgium etc.) on balance, most of the current nation states of Europe have evolved over time to do a good job of satisfying the innate tribal instincts of the people they govern.

Why is satisfying an innate instinct necessarily a good thing? Civilisation is largely predicated on the suppression of innate instincts, for the common good.

Tradition in the sense that it's a central principle in conservative political thought to favour those things which work, and which have evolved over time to work, over those things which have not been tried and which are based on idealistic premises that ignore the reality of human nature.

How many wars have there been between EU member states since they became members? How many beforehand?

There are those who hanker for the traditional old ways of solving inter-tribal issues through the tried and tested means of invading each other and killing as many of the other tribe as possible. I'm not one of them. I'll take idealistic premises, thanks.

Whatever about nation states in general, the nation states of western Europe today work successfully and fulfill reasonably well the primary political goals of maintaining security, peace and stability.

One of the key generators of that success has been the European Union. The same nation-states didn't acheive those same goals quite so well in the first part of the century.

It would be both foolish and a waste of energy to try to fix something that isn't broken. Most Europeans value their national identity and don't want to see any further diminution of their national sovereignty.

Most Europeans don't see mutual co-operation as a threat to their identity.

krpc

sink wrote: »

Nobody here has called no voters in general 'fools' and you sentence implies that all yes voters are 'fools'. Who is the arrogant one now?

I asked a question, simple. I wouldn't dare to make implications.

oscarBravo

i-bloodhound wrote: »

Yes, you have asked repeatedly SINCE the referendum. A lot of these concerns were known BEFORE the referendum. Where was in the interest in knowing about them at that point? As I said, arrogance led the yes campaign to believe that they did not need to invest much interest in those concerns because they thought they would get the treaty passed. It's only now the back-pedalling has begun and interest is shown.

Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but you have - yet again - failed to answer the question. You say that "a lot of these concerns" - what concerns?

When I get my time machine working I'll go back to before the referendum and ask you again then, but in the meantime the question remains unanswered.

It really shouldn't be a difficult question to answer.

oscarBravo

i-bloodhound wrote: »

I asked a question, simple. I wouldn't dare to make implications.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. The "question" had a clear implication.

If it wasn't a rhetorical question (with a clear implication), what was its purpose?

sink

O'Morris wrote: »

Interesting. Then we're in the realm of competing values. I myself am a red-blooded, patriotic, Irish ethnic nationalist who feels a strong emotional attachment to the idea of an independent, united Ireland and who looks on other nations as competitors as well as allies and trading partners.

I don't think so. I don't think logic comes into it. Nationalism does not concern itself with matters of fact and so no process of reasoning is implied in the concept. It would be more correct to say that nationalism is allogical rather than illogical.

What you espouse to on an international level is known as anarchy if you shrink it down to an individual level. Every country out for their own interest in a 'dog eat dog' fashion, walking over the freedoms of other nations. The implications of the nationalist model is one where our interests on a world stage take second place to every other countries interest in their own eyes. As a relatively small country we would not have the ability to defend our interests in such system. What you aspire to protect will in fact be damaged by the very way you go about protecting it and that is why it is illogical.

The 'world citizen' model does not get rid of national identity and culture. We will still be Irish with our own language and culture but a central global government would ensure Irish interests will be equal to interests of all other races and creeds. No other interests would supercede Irish interests and Irish interests would not supercede the interests of others.

Central governments role would be limited to tackling global issues and setting up international law to limit how regions govern themselves so they don't negatively impact other regions. Almost all other issues would be handled at a regional level so our own local government would decide on issues which solely impact us.

Fostering local communities is very important to the model but the things which define different communities are not based on nationalistic principles which separate them from the rest of humanity but rather on a sense of pride in having good relations and treating other groups how they would like to be treated themselves.

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

Interesting. Then we're in the realm of competing values. I myself am a red-blooded, patriotic, Irish ethnic nationalist who feels a strong emotional attachment to the idea of an independent, united Ireland and who looks on other nations as competitors as well as allies and trading partners.

I have to say that last time I checked my blood was also red. I'm told it's quite normal.

O'Morris wrote: »

Nationalism is illogical

I don't think so. I don't think logic comes into it. Nationalism does not concern itself with matters of fact and so no process of reasoning is implied in the concept. It would be more correct to say that nationalism is allogical rather than illogical.

Both views are valid. One could summarise it as a non-logical position that can lead to illogical action - and so, of course, are all the other things that drive us. An attachment to freedom is illogical too.

O'Morris wrote: »

And would you agree as well that the yes side might have underestimated the extent to which fears over the loss of our "sacred sovereignty" played a role in the outcome of the Lisbon Treaty referendum? Would you not agree that old-fashioned, unenlightened patriotism is as great a barrier to further EU "integration" as ignorance is?

Rather a lot more, I would have said. I don't know whether the Yes side would have underestimated that particular aspect, though.

O'Morris wrote: »

I don't believe people such as yourself are as opposed to the idea of national sovereignty (I don't see any reason to put the term in quotes as though it's some kind of recently invented concept) as you claim. You may be opposed to the sovereignty of the nation states as they exist in Europe today but I don't think you're opposed to the idea of the EU being given the same sovereignty that those same nation states currently possess. It's less a question of principle and more a question of scale and redistribution.

That's possibly the case - whatever scale the system is best regulated at is the correct scale for regulation, and the citizen must be able to exercise sovereignty at that scale.

The EU is not by any means a perfect conduit for the exercise of the citizens' sovereignty, but it is much better than an alternative system of purely intergovernmental cooperation.

O'Morris wrote: »

Would it not be at least partly correct to say that your attachment to the EU is not altogether different from the attachment that most Europeans feel towards their own countries? Or do you see the EU purely as an administrative unit?

Purely as an administrative unit, I'm afraid.

O'Morris wrote: »

Including the glorification of the EU? Were you, like me, glad to see that the Lisbon Treaty at least excluded those aspects of the EU constitution that would have glorified the EU, such as the status of the EU flag, anthem and other symbols of nationhood?

I don't really have any feelings either way on it. I've never stood for national anthems, or saluted flags. Indeed, to come back to your question above, I would regard being "nationalistic" about the EU as pretty silly.

O'Morris wrote: »

I think it's more than an administrative unit. And if it is an administrative unit, it's an administrative unit of a nation which is much more than a line on a map. I don't look on the Irish flag as the flag of an administrative unit. I don't think the people who serve in the army under the Irish flag see themselves as serving an administrative unit.

I'm sure they don't either - but what makes you think that it's a particularly good thing that national flags can help make people fight?

O'Morris wrote: »

I believe in that as well. If by citizen sovereignty you mean maximising individual freedom and minimizing the power of the government (whether that government is local, national or supranational) to limit that fredom then I too consider myself a supporter of citizen sovereignty. I don't see how that's related or contradictory to the concept of national sovereignty though.

It isn't - unless we suddenly find ourselves placing illogical constraints on the free exercise of citizen sovereignty at appropriate scales through an emotional attachment to the nation-state.

To put it another way, this is a large part of my problem with nationalism in the EU context. Democratic oversight of the regulation of a common European market requires a common democratic base, which nationalism is opposed to.

O'Morris wrote: »

Biology and tradition. Biology in the sense that I believe humans are by their nature a tribal species who are generally happier when living among their own people and when governed by members of the same ethnic group as themselves.

And would you have any proof of that? And what exactly is ethnicity?

O'Morris wrote: »

While lower level tribal political units might better reflect the ethnic identity of the people (the Scots in Britain, Basques in Spain, the Flemish in Belgium etc.) on balance, most of the current nation states of Europe have evolved over time to do a good job of satisfying the innate tribal instincts of the people they govern.

There are a surprisingly large number of persistent ethnic conflicts in Europe, and that's at the tail end of several centuries of nation-state suppression and re-education of minorities.

The kind of brutality and cultural imperialism we see in the newer nation-states is exactly how the European nation-states "evolved over time" - except that for us it's tidily and bloodlessly confined to the pages of history books. Languages and cultural traditions were suppressed by central fiat, not always without resistance.

In Ireland, for example, we continue our suppression and eradication of the Traveller population, forcing them to fit within the confines of our 'national identity'. Similarly, the Protestant community largely either fled or were pushed out in the 1920's. Pre-immigration Ireland was created through acts of cultural repression on the Procrustean Bed of nationalism.

O'Morris wrote: »

Tradition in the sense that it's a central principle in conservative political thought to favour those things which work, and which have evolved over time to work, over those things which have not been tried and which are based on idealistic premises that ignore the reality of human nature.

To favour those things that work over ideology is sensible, but begs the question - works for whom?

O'Morris wrote: »

Whatever about nation states in general, the nation states of western Europe today work successfully and fulfill reasonably well the primary political goals of maintaining security, peace and stability. It would be both foolish and a waste of energy to try to fix something that isn't broken. Most Europeans value their national identity and don't want to see any further diminution of their national sovereignty.

The nation states of western Europe today are the result of centuries of cultural straitjacketing, with "national identities" created to serve the needs of the battlefield through 'patriotic' conscript armies. The end result has been hundreds of millions of deaths. There has to be a better way - whether the EU is that way remains to be seen, but so far, so good.

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.

cordially,
Scofflaw

auerillo

I tend to agree with scofflaw that nationalism is neither attractive nor something to be particularly desired. I also think in the particular case of Ireland that the parochial nature of our domestic political scene, and the way in which politicians have encouraged themselves to be viewed as local champions beating the drums for local aggrandisement, at the expense of the national good, has impoverished our political landscape.

Having said that, I am not sure to be ruled by the more distant and less accountabel EU is the answer, as much of the civil unrest in the history of the world has been caused by the perception of being ruled by non responsive rulers who are a long way away and who are not seen to be accountable.

I guess my perfect world is a fascist state run by me, as a belevolent but firm dictator!

K-9

i-bloodhound wrote: »

Yes, you have asked repeatedly SINCE the referendum. A lot of these concerns were known BEFORE the referendum. Where was in the interest in knowing about them at that point? As I said, arrogance led the yes campaign to believe that they did not need to invest much interest in those concerns because they thought they would get the treaty passed. It's only now the back-pedalling has begun and interest is shown.

As already asked, what arrogance, who assumed it was going to be passed?

Rock Climber

O'Morris wrote: »

Biology and tradition. Biology in the sense that I believe humans are by their nature a tribal species who are generally happier when living among their own people and when governed by members of the same ethnic group as themselves. While lower level tribal political units might better reflect the ethnic identity of the people (the Scots in Britain, Basques in Spain, the Flemish in Belgium etc.) on balance, most of the current nation states of Europe have evolved over time to do a good job of satisfying the innate tribal instincts of the people they govern.

So by extension,you'd tell Obama to fuck off to Kenya and let white america be ruled by white america.

The racism that you usually at least lightly veil here as opposed to when you post on stormfront rears it's ugly head in full now I see.

Scofflaw

Rock Climber wrote: »

O'Morris wrote:

Biology and tradition. Biology in the sense that I believe humans are by their nature a tribal species who are generally happier when living among their own people and when governed by members of the same ethnic group as themselves. While lower level tribal political units might better reflect the ethnic identity of the people (the Scots in Britain, Basques in Spain, the Flemish in Belgium etc.) on balance, most of the current nation states of Europe have evolved over time to do a good job of satisfying the innate tribal instincts of the people they govern.

So by extension,you'd tell Obama to fuck off to Kenya and let white america be ruled by white america.

The racism that you usually at least lightly veil here as opposed to when you post on stormfront rears it's ugly head in full now I see.

I have to say that I was quite deliberate in not attributing racism to O'Morris in this respect. Stating that the majority of people are more comfortable when "living among their own people" is no more than a factual observation. If nothing prevents them, people do segregate into separate communities.

However, that observed fact should be considered, if it is to be considered, in full - that within the "ethnic" nation, people segregate into dozens of communities, and the "national identity" remains, as it always has been, a PR tool for conscription and a convenience for the legislature.

cordially,
Scofflaw

O'Morris

Rock Climber wrote: »

So by extension,you'd tell Obama to fuck off to Kenya and let white america be ruled by white america.

The racism that you usually at least lightly veil here as opposed to when you post on stormfront rears it's ugly head in full now I see.

Calm down, old son. You have me confused with someone else. Old Mac is not into that kinda thing.

Scofflaw wrote:

Stating that the majority of people are more comfortable when "living among their own people" is no more than a factual observation. If nothing prevents them, people do segregate into separate communities.

And there's evidence that happiness is impacted as well
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/happiness_formula/5012478.stm

Scofflaw wrote:

However, that observed fact should be considered, if it is to be considered, in full - that within the "ethnic" nation, people segregate into dozens of communities

Which can include communities based on religion, social class, race, politics - communities which have far greater potential for causing conflict than communites based on national or ethnic identity.

What reason is there to believe that if we eliminate national identity that it will be replaced by someone more benign and enlightened? Because it would be very naive to expect that it won't be replaced by something else.

nacho libre

Begob wrote: »

You mean have at least 2 referenda on every proposal even if passed, just to be sure that everyone has made an informed vote?
Don't be ridiculous,that would stagnate decision making.
The proper way to give a verdict is at general elections.That way you don't stagnate decision making.

As for your dismissal of my posts as scaremongery,thats more rubbish.
Do you seriously think that if Ireland continues to say no that every other country is just going to stop? Tell me another one.They'll do whats right for themselves.

It's us in the cold then.

well, stagnating and taking stock seems like a logical position if we are unsure of what we are doing or where we are going. presumably you are of the view the former is the case with regard to the Lisbon Treaty, as many people who voted no did so due to not being well versed on what the treaty actually entails. Is this the prevailing view among people who voted yes? if so, does it not back up the argument to vote again if it's found people are not informed on issues regardless of how they first voted. Perhaps, being uninformed only really matter if the first vote cast is no??

Also, i'm not sure you can always give the proper verdict at an election if the full information isn't in the public domain for reasons of political expediency.

reagarding your point about being out in the cold,
what exactly are you suggesting could happen, if we say no again, we'll eventually be left with a choice either to accept a modified version of the Lisbon Treaty or leave the EU? aside from the legal question over this, is that really democractic? whilst it may not seem fair us holding up other member states neither is the gun to the head option - afterall, we were told that if a member state rejected the Lisbon Treaty it could not be ratified. surely, then it should be renegotiated to try and meet our concerns? isn't that democracy in action? rather than disregarding the word of the people and putting it through parliament.

oscarBravo

nacho libre wrote: »

what exactly are you suggesting could happen, if we say no again, we'll eventually be left with a choice either to accept a modified version of the Lisbon Treaty or leave the EU? aside from the legal question over this...

What legal question?

...is that really democractic?

The EU isn't, by any useful measure, a democracy, and I don't think very many people really want it to be one.

whilst it may not seem fair us holding up other member states neither is the gun to the head option - afterall, we were told that if a member state rejected the Lisbon Treaty it could not be ratified. surely, then it should be renegotiated to try and meet our concerns?

At the risk of getting repetitive, I'll ask the question yet again: what concerns are those?

isn't that democracy in action?

Is it? It seems to me you have a rather different definition of "democracy" than mine.

In fact, the word is becoming rather tattered from the overuse it's been getting lately.

rather than disregarding the word of the people and putting it through parliament.

Who's suggesting that? That would be unconstitutional, and can't happen.

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

Which can include communities based on religion, social class, race, politics - communities which have far greater potential for causing conflict than communites based on national or ethnic identity.

What reason is there to believe that if we eliminate national identity that it will be replaced by someone more benign and enlightened? Because it would be very naive to expect that it won't be replaced by something else.

Hmm. Thus far, number of people killed/oppressed/etc in defence of "integrity of national territory", for reasons of ethnic purity, for non-conformance with national identity >> people killed/oppressed for other reasons.

That's not to say that an EU identity could replace national identity in such a way as to produce the same old problems, although it would take a long time, I think. Personally, I think a balance is probably best, where national identity is only a part of a composite identity.

cordially,
Scofflaw