Ireland losing faith in democracy?

thehighground

molloyjh wrote: »

Who or what is Germany and who are "they"?

Just substitute Switzerland for Germany (I just used Germany as having a different attitude/tradition to us that we should respect)

Now I hope that is an innocent misunderstanding and not a willful misrepresentation of what me (and many others) have written here over the last number of months - either way it is a statement that utterly ignores what me and the likes of OB and Scofflaw etc have said in multiple posts. Noone, read that again NOONE, said anything about Irish intelligence levels. We only spoke about levels of ignorance regarding a particular topic, which is not the same as a lack of intelligence. Look them up if you don't believe me.

So I misunderstood what was meant when it was posted here that the Lisbon Treaty as presented was very easy to understand

You can protest all you like about what was actually written - but I'm pretty sure the meaning most people who voted 'no' in the Lisbon Treaty were regarded as not too bright by those who voted yes.

And who are you to say who "we" as a collective do or don't trust?

Its not everyone (just those who voted No in the Lisbon referendum)

So in summary you don't like it as it is and you don't want to do anything to change it and therefore you just want to sit there and apportion blame. The problem is that in a democracy like this one by using your very logic you're as much to blame as anyone for the current state of affairs. You have identified a problem, you have the opportunity and capacity to resolve it and yet you choose not to. Noone but yourself is stopping you from trying to make a difference. And if you feel like you can't make a difference and so can't be bothered for that reason well then that is the very definition of defeatism.

Hang on, OB said that you can make a difference by joinin ga political party or starting a new one, aswell as by attempting to influence other people who are involved, and you've somehow drawn a comparison to a system whereby to be involved at all you must join a particular political party. Now is that not one of the worst comparisons you could have made given that there are no resemblences between what OB said and this?

To be a good citizen, I feel I do not need to join a political party or become a politician. I'll will use my vote. I'll do my best to educate myself and vote with my conscience. I'll accept gracefully that the will of the majority should prevail. That is my understanding as to how democracy works best.

Biro

molloyjh wrote: »

The referendum asked us did we want to change our constitution. We said no. Our constitution has remained unchaned. We weren't ignored. You have just as much right to say No the next time as you did the last. So peddle the BS elsewhere.

The fact that you buy into this method of "democracy" where the answer isn't accepted to the point where they're finding another way around our answer, which all they've come up with is another referendum, says a lot about the state of the country. Take the wool out of your eyes.

molloyjh

thehighground wrote: »

So I misunderstood what was meant when it was posted here that the Lisbon Treaty as presented was very easy to understand

You can protest all you like about what was actually written - but I'm pretty sure the meaning most people who voted 'no' in the Lisbon Treaty were regarded as not too bright by those who voted yes.

You can be pretty sure all you want I KNOW its not what I said or meant and I'm pretty sure the same is true of most others. After all if you read the posts where it said the thing wasn't that hard to understand you would see people were addressing the fact that so many people didn't bother trying, not that they were unable to do so.

thehighground wrote: »

Its not everyone (just those who voted No in the Lisbon referendum)

So everyone that voted No distrusts all Irish politicians? That some generalisation. And you know this for a fact yes? :rolleyes:

thehighground wrote: »

To be a good citizen, I feel I do not need to join a political party or become a politician. I'll will use my vote. I'll do my best to educate myself and vote with my conscience. I'll accept gracefully that the will of the majority should prevail. That is my understanding as to how democracy works best.

We're not talking about being a good citizen, we are talking about you having a problem with our entire system, b!tching about it and yet refusing to do anything to improve it. After all if every single one of our polticians are not trustworthy then does it matter what way you vote at all?

meglome

aine-maire wrote: »

Does anybody else feel that in view of our emphatic rejection of the Lisbon treaty, general outrage regarding the recent budget and the fact that support for Fianna Fáil and the Government is at an all-time low, that we as a nation are simply losing faith in democracy?

Anyone else becoming disillusioned by our Government

Yes a competent government would be great. One that was capable of making some hard decisions. One that would insist on responsibility in the civil service. I could go on.

aine-maire wrote: »

and the EU's bullying bureaucracy?

Huh?

thehighground

molloyjh wrote: »

You can be pretty sure all you want I KNOW its not what I said or meant and I'm pretty sure the same is true of most others. After all if you read the posts where it said the thing wasn't that hard to understand you would see people were addressing the fact that so many people didn't bother trying, not that they were unable to do so.

Well according to OscarBravo in this thread: Post No. 131 - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055434922&page=9

Maybe. The attractiveness for me of a representative democracy is that a government can operate largely free of the daily whims of the mob, and do what it believes is in the country's best interests. I don't think they get this right all the time - not by a long shot - but that's what they're there for.

So everyone that voted No distrusts all Irish politicians? That some generalisation. And you know this for a fact yes? :rolleyes:

Well, since most Irish politicians supported a Yes vote, a No vote could be described as a lack of confidence/trust in our political leadership (i.e., despite reassurance from them according to surveys many people didn't believe them when they said that Ireland would not have conscription, abortion, etc. etc. )

We're not talking about being a good citizen, we are talking about you having a problem with our entire system, b!tching about it and yet refusing to do anything to improve it. After all if every single one of our polticians are not trustworthy then does it matter what way you vote at all?

I'm afraid it takes all sorts to make this little country of ours. I don't have a problem with our entire system. I like it the way it is and don't want it changed. You are the one with a problem with the system

And yes, imo, it does matter that you vote. But thats just my opinion

oscarBravo

thehighground wrote: »

Well according to OscarBravo in this thread: Post No. 131 - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055434922&page=9

Maybe. The attractiveness for me of a representative democracy is that a government can operate largely free of the daily whims of the mob, and do what it believes is in the country's best interests. I don't think they get this right all the time - not by a long shot - but that's what they're there for.

That's a wilful misinterpretation of what I said. It's a classic example of drawing an inference from what you assumed I was thinking when I posted, rather than actually responding to what I said. It's intellectually lazy at best, and dishonest at worst.

Well, since most Irish politicians supported a Yes vote, a No vote could be described as a lack of confidence/trust in our political leadership (i.e., despite reassurance from them according to surveys many people didn't believe them when they said that Ireland would not have conscription, abortion, etc. etc. )

If many people don't believe me when I tell them water is wet, it doesn't make it dry. Maybe you want politicians who'll go with the populist approach of pretending water is dry in order to curry favour with an underinformed electorate, but that's not how I want the country run.

thehighground

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a wilful misinterpretation of what I said. It's a classic example of drawing an inference from what you assumed I was thinking when I posted, rather than actually responding to what I said.

I'm a bit stumped about what my 'wilful' interpretation is about (and I did actually link to the post and referenced it for readers to make up their own mind). If I was trying to misinterpret what you said, why did I link it to the actual post so that people could see the thread and the context of the post?

You are the one who used the word 'mob' when referring to the electorate which indicates to me a huge contempt towards your fellow countrymen (and their intellect!).

It's intellectually lazy at best, and dishonest at worst.

Why is it intellectually lazy or dishonest? (I'll try not and interpret that you imply that I'm intellectually challenged and dishonest).

If many people don't believe me when I tell them water is wet, it doesn't make it dry. Maybe you want politicians who'll go with the populist approach of pretending water is dry in order to curry favour with an underinformed electorate, but that's not how I want the country run.

There you go again .... 'underinformed electorate' ....
How do you know they are underinformed?

oscarBravo

thehighground wrote: »

You are the one who used the word 'mob' when referring to the electorate which indicates to me a huge contempt towards your fellow countrymen (and their intellect!).

What it indicates to you, and what it actually means, are two different things.

Why is it intellectually lazy or dishonest? (I'll try not and interpret that you imply that I'm intellectually challenged and dishonest).

You're attaching the worst possible interpretation to my words, not bothering to check whether I mean what you have decided to assume I mean, and using your assumption as a feeble backup to your position rather than actually bother to defend it through reasoned argument.

There you go again .... 'underinformed electorate' ....
How do you know they are underinformed?

Because, in the case of the Lisbon referendum, they said so when asked. Because, in the case of the specific people you referenced, they entertained false notions about the contents of the Lisbon treaty and didn't bother to inform themselves to the contrary. And because the electorate, en masse, tends not to bother informing itself beyond the most superficial level, as a rule.

Now, do me a favour. If you have a problem with something I've written here, feel free to discuss it and to show me why you believe I'm wrong. If you've decided that what I've written here means that all Irish people are called Cedric and live in pink houses, please clarify it with me before using that assumption as a half-assed argument in another thread.

Scofflaw

Biro wrote: »

No, Scofflaw, it isn't. It's undemocratic to have your voice ignored.

Except that we're not talking about your voice being ignored - the treaty has not been ratified - but being asked again.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thehighground

oscarBravo wrote: »

What it indicates to you, and what it actually means, are two different things.

If you say so. Now, put away that shovel and stop digging a bigger hole for yourself.

You're attaching the worst possible interpretation to my words, not bothering to check whether I mean what you have decided to assume I mean, and using your assumption as a feeble backup to your position rather than actually bother to defend it through reasoned argument.

Sorry, I haven't a clue what you are going on about here.

The only reason why I referenced that post was by you describing the electorate as a 'mob', it displays to me a certain about of contempt for the Irish electorate.

Is it actually a term of endearment or something? Is that why you used that word?

Because, in the case of the Lisbon referendum, they said so when asked. Because, in the case of the specific people you referenced, they entertained false notions about the contents of the Lisbon treaty and didn't bother to inform themselves to the contrary. And because the electorate, en masse, tends not to bother informing itself beyond the most superficial level, as a rule.

Now, do me a favour. If you have a problem with something I've written here, feel free to discuss it and to show me why you believe I'm wrong. If you've decided that what I've written here means that all Irish people are called Cedric and live in pink houses, please clarify it with me before using that assumption as a half-assed argument in another thread.

Would you ever kop on to yourself. You are not the centre of the universe.

oscarBravo

In short: it doesn't matter what I say, you're going to continue to argue based on what you've decided I mean. Fair enough - now I know I can safely ignore you.

thehighground

oscarBravo wrote: »

In short: it doesn't matter what I say, you're going to continue to argue based on what you've decided I mean. Fair enough - now I know I can safely ignore you.

Life can be a bit rough Oscar (though you have obviously lived a charmed life up to now as everyone seems to actually understand you).

My sincere apologies for bursting your little bubble. Hope you get over it soon.

molloyjh

thehighground wrote: »

Well according to OscarBravo in this thread: Post No. 131 - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055434922&page=9

thehighground wrote: »

Life can be a bit rough Oscar (though you have obviously lived a charmed life up to now as everyone seems to actually understand you).

My sincere apologies for bursting your little bubble. Hope you get over it soon.

Listen highground if you're not going to get involved in meaningful debate then you're in the wrong place. Nowere in OBs post is there any inference as to intelligence. You made it up. And you are the only one doing any hole digging.

thehighground wrote: »

Well, since most Irish politicians supported a Yes vote, a No vote could be described as a lack of confidence/trust in our political leadership (i.e., despite reassurance from them according to surveys many people didn't believe them when they said that Ireland would not have conscription, abortion, etc. etc. )

So by contrast would that mean that all Yes voters gave their vote of confidence to the current Government and/or other main political parties? Or would it not be fair to say that all voters are individuals and you can't group all No voters one way and all Yes voters the other outside of how they voted in the June referendum? I know I have no faith in FF yet I voted Yes.

thehighground wrote: »

You are the one with a problem with the system

You see there you go again. Where did I say I had a problem with the system?

Acacia

Scofflaw wrote: »

Except that we're not talking about your voice being ignored - the treaty has not been ratified - but being asked again.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And the point of this is...what? They didn't like the answer so they're going to push until there's a 'yes' vote?

Doesn't seem twice as democratic to me at all. If they're not ignoring the 'no' vote, why are they having a second election? Genuine question.

thehighground

molloyjh wrote: »

Listen highground if you're not going to get involved in meaningful debate then you're in the wrong place. Nowere in OBs post is there any inference as to intelligence. You made it up. And you are the only one doing any hole digging.

I'll get in a meaningful debate when yourself, Scafflaw & Oscar stop behaving like 10 year olds - i.e., immature. (To clarify - as soon as one of you are challenged on what you mean or put your foot in it, you have a little hissy fit, disappear and then the next thing another one reappears and starts claiming something else. Then if it really gets a bit sticky for you, Oscar will organise a little ban).

While you are here, can you explain to me in plain English what he was inferring when he referred to the Irish electorate as a 'mob'.

To clarify further, I understand such a reference to be a derogatory comment on the Irish electorate.

And by the way, I'd appreciate it instead of just flinging out insults Oscar might like to apologise for inferring I was dishonest when I actually put a link into the post he made which would indicate an effort at least to let people make up their own mind about the context of the comments.

You see there you go again. Where did I say I had a problem with the system?

You didn't say - its just obvious that you would prefer that the Irish Gov. could ratify the Lisbon Treaty without having to hold a referendum.

Or, did I get that wrong and you like the present system of the Irish Gov. having to ask the electorate?

molloyjh

thehighground wrote: »

I'll get in a meaningful debate when yourself, Scafflaw & Oscar stop behaving like 10 year olds - i.e., immature. (To clarify - as soon as one of you are challenged on what you mean or put your foot in it, you have a little hissy fit, disappear and then the next thing another one reappears and starts claiming something else. Then if it really gets a bit sticky for you, Oscar will organise a little ban).

While you are here, can you explain to me in plain English what he was inferring when he referred to the Irish electorate as a 'mob'.

A mob is just a crowd of people, at worst an unruly crowd of people. Nowhere in the word mob is there any reference to levels of inteligence. I'm sorry if you feel we're tag teaming you, but thats just not the case. The simple facts are that OB said mob, you assumed that meant something regarding intelligence and both myself and OB pointed out that it meant nothing of the sort. Which it doesn't.

If we're having hissy fits then I'm afraid you're going through an extremely paranoid episde. At the end of the day different people are available to log on to boards at different times of day due to multiple factors like work, personal life, commuting etc. Yet you seem to be intimating that we're taking turns attacking you. We're not. We're just pointing out huge holes in your points And if you can't handle that then you most certainly shouldn't be here.

thehighground wrote: »

To clarify further, I understand such a reference to be a derogatory comment on the Irish electorate.

Thats fine, but it has nothing to do with intelligence. Fact.

thehighground wrote: »

And by the way, I'd appreciate it instead of just flinging out insults Oscar might like to apologise for inferring I was dishonest when I actually put a link into the post he made which would indicate an effort at least to let people make up their own mind about the context of the comments.

So it wasn't a willful misrepresentation of the word mob? And this from a guy who has called at least 3 people 10 year old children in one sentence????? Pot, kettle....

thehighground wrote: »

You didn't say - its just obvious that you would prefer that the Irish Gov. could ratify the Lisbon Treaty without having to hold a referendum.

Yet again you're making this up. I never said any such thing and you can't possibly pick that up from anything I said. I'm sorry but this really does smack of willful misrepresentation. Where do you get this stuff???

thehighground wrote: »

Or, did I get that wrong and you like the present system of the Irish Gov. having to ask the electorate?

Yes of course I like the current system. I have consistantly said over the last few months that I believe its a damn good system, but there are flaws in some of the ways in which it is used and implemented by both the people and the politicians at different times. Now could you please retract that statement above seeing as I have clarified it for you, not that it needed clarification in the first place given that, as you yourself said, I never said one way or another in this thread.

Scofflaw

Acacia wrote: »

And the point of this is...what? They didn't like the answer so they're going to push until there's a 'yes' vote?

Doesn't seem twice as democratic to me at all. If they're not ignoring the 'no' vote, why are they having a second election? Genuine question.

The rest of the EU doesn't want a No to Lisbon, but can't ignore the No we gave - in other words, can't ratify Lisbon, which is what they want to do. Hence - a second referendum in the hope of a Yes.

There's no practical way for anyone to "push until there's a Yes vote", except by dealing with the issues that some voters have with the Treaty. If sufficient issues are dealt with to the satisfaction of enough people who voted No, then there will be a Yes vote. If not, not.

What exactly is so unreasonable about this? Genuine question!

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

Biro wrote: »

The fact that you buy into this method of "democracy" where the answer isn't accepted to the point where they're finding another way around our answer, which all they've come up with is another referendum, says a lot about the state of the country. Take the wool out of your eyes.

Re-running a referedum alone cannot force people to change their vote so another referendum cannot, in and of itself, be a way around anything. To suggest so is mis-guided in the extreme. It would almost give the impression that you feel Irish people are swayed into changing their minds by a bit of a "Ah go on, are ya sure" type manevuer. As I said before it reminds me of Mustafa from the first Austin Powers movie, if asked a question he refuses to answer he will be unable to refuse on the third time of asking. Surely this is not what you think of our electorate?

thebman

The ballot was confusing :P

I don't have any faith in Democracy, I don't think it works because a significant percentage of people buy what their told because they don't want to find out anything for themselves and wish to be spoon fed.

Democracy may not work but neither do the alternatives. I guess it is probably the best of the systems that have actually been tried by societies in the past more than anything else. If someone comes up with something better, I'll be for it but I don't see how that is possible.

If anything does take over from our current form of democracy, it will most likely be a new form of it with the bits that aren't working now tweaked.

I think Democracy is close to being the best system if we tweak it but some of the tweaks that need to be made might not even be possible to implement.

I'd be all for a system in which people had to prove they were educated about the issues before voting but how would could you judge this fairly?

Furious-Dave

I believe in democracy, with a pinch of benign totalitarianism :pac:

On a more serious point, one of my friends believes that people should have to earn the right to vote. He didn't go into more detail than that, and he was drunk at the time.

molloyjh

brim4brim wrote: »

The ballot was confusing :P

I don't have any faith in Democracy, I don't think it works because a significant percentage of people buy what their told because they don't want to find out anything for themselves and wish to be spoon fed.

Democracy may not work but neither do the alternatives. I guess it is probably the best of the systems that have actually been tried by societies in the past more than anything else. If someone comes up with something better, I'll be for it but I don't see how that is possible.

If anything does take over from our current form of democracy, it will most likely be a new form of it with the bits that aren't working now tweaked.

I think Democracy is close to being the best system if we tweak it but some of the tweaks that need to be made might not even be possible to implement.

I'd be all for a system in which people had to prove they were educated about the issues before voting but how would could you judge this fairly?

You hit the nail on the head in the first paragraph. The problem isn't the system, but how it is being used.....IMO anyway.

Acacia

Scofflaw wrote: »

The rest of the EU doesn't want a No to Lisbon, but can't ignore the No we gave - in other words, can't ratify Lisbon, which is what they want to do. Hence - a second referendum in the hope of a Yes.

Perhaps the other E.U. countries should have had a referendum too, then?

I'm not so sure the rest of Europe wants a 'Yes' to Lisbon, to be honest. Do you have any proof of this?

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's no practical way for anyone to "push until there's a Yes vote", except by dealing with the issues that some voters have with the Treaty. If sufficient issues are dealt with to the satisfaction of enough people who voted No, then there will be a Yes vote. If not, not.

That seems fair enough.

Scofflaw wrote: »

What exactly is so unreasonable about this? Genuine question!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nothing, it seems fair enough,so long as the Taoiseach actually reads the Treaty this time before he urges us to vote for it, I suppose.

thehighground

molloyjh wrote: »

A mob is just a crowd of people, at worst an unruly crowd of people.
Nowhere in the word mob is there any reference to levels of inteligence.
I'm sorry if you feel we're tag teaming you, but thats just not the case. The simple facts are that OB said mob, you assumed that meant something regarding intelligence and both myself and OB pointed out that it meant nothing of the sort. Which it doesn't.

it is a contemptuous term. I suggest both you and Oscar read up a bit more on the use of the term before using it again.

Dictionary definition:
1. a large, disorderly, or riotous crowd of people.
2. the common people sometimes considered as having a low level of consciousness, taste, or the like; populace; masses.
3. (informal) a group or syndicate of criminals.


As I say its a contemptuous, disrespectful term to use.

If we're having hissy fits then I'm afraid you're going through an extremely paranoid episde. At the end of the day different people are available to log on to boards at different times of day due to multiple factors like work, personal life, commuting etc. Yet you seem to be intimating that we're taking turns attacking you. We're not. We're just pointing out huge holes in your points And if you can't handle that then you most certainly shouldn't be here.

In the last couple of posts I've been accused of being lazy (for not setting up a political party / joining one ) and 'wilful misinterpretation' (several times - question - how do you know it is 'wilful misinterpreation'.

I realise this is a messageboard and not the High Court and that you and Oscar may think you are judge & jury, but you are not.

Thats fine, but it has nothing to do with intelligence. Fact.

What do you think of this post then from Turgon? Don't see Oscar jumping in to censor this particular poster.

One of the problems of democracy: the electorate are retards. It is a system where, in this country, Bin Men are to make decisions on international treaties effecting the EU.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055437689
Post No. 9

So it wasn't a willful misrepresentation of the word mob? And this from a guy who has called at least 3 people 10 year old children in one sentence????? Pot, kettle....

I'm not the one claiming to be perfect and to know everything!

Yet again you're making this up. I never said any such thing and you can't possibly pick that up from anything I said. I'm sorry but this really does smack of willful misrepresentation. Where do you get this stuff???

Most people actually can pick up on stuff without it having to be said/written. Every hear the phrase 'reading between the lines'. I believe Irish people are very good at this (according to Freud anyway) - something to do with our colonial past I believe.

Yes of course I like the current system. I have consistantly said over the last few months that I believe its a damn good system, but there are flaws in some of the ways in which it is used and implemented by both the people and the politicians at different times. Now could you please retract that statement above seeing as I have clarified it for you, not that it needed clarification in the first place given that, as you yourself said, I never said one way or another in this thread.

No, you don't like the present system. You have about 600 posts, most of which convey your displeasure at how the majority voted in the Lisbon Treaty referendum. If you liked the present system, you would accept the will of the electorate, whether you approved of what they voted for or not.

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

What do you think of this post then from Turgon? Don't see Oscar jumping in to censor this particular poster.

Are you perhaps under the (mistaken) impression that turgon voted Yes?

thehighground wrote: »

Most people actually can pick up on stuff without it having to be said/written. Every hear the phrase 'reading between the lines'. I believe Irish people are very good at this (according to Freud anyway) - something to do with our colonial past I believe.

It only becomes an issue when one insists on one's interpretation of what is being said 'between the lines' over what the poster actually does say.

thehighground wrote: »

No, you don't like the present system. You have about 600 posts, most of which convey your displeasure at how the majority voted in the Lisbon Treaty referendum. If you liked the present system, you would accept the will of the electorate, whether you approved of what they voted for or not.

By the same logic, you have to accept that the present government is the best government - and not grumble about them, or wish for a different result, or hope for another election soon. However, you don't mean that, obviously - you mean the Yes people should lie down and shut up like good little losers (I'm reading between the lines, here, of course, but we Irish are good at that, so it's OK).

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Acacia wrote: »

The rest of the EU doesn't want a No to Lisbon, but can't ignore the No we gave - in other words, can't ratify Lisbon, which is what they want to do. Hence - a second referendum in the hope of a Yes.

Perhaps the other E.U. countries should have had a referendum too, then?

On what grounds, though? That you and I think that referendums are the highest form of democracy, and an adequate way of ratifying complex international treaties, is not something that would be greeted with universal accord across Europe. The Italian Constitution specifically prohibits the holding of referendums on international treaties - and that's a democratic constitution of much the same vintage as ours (1947). Why do you think that is so, if referendums are the be-all and end-all of democracy?

Acacia wrote: »

I'm not so sure the rest of Europe wants a 'Yes' to Lisbon, to be honest. Do you have any proof of this?

From a practical perspective, the rest of Europe wants a Yes to Lisbon, because the governments they elected want it. One might argue that their governments are not representing their people, but that doesn't change the diplomatic pressure our government is under.

Acacia wrote: »

There's no practical way for anyone to "push until there's a Yes vote", except by dealing with the issues that some voters have with the Treaty. If sufficient issues are dealt with to the satisfaction of enough people who voted No, then there will be a Yes vote. If not, not.

What exactly is so unreasonable about this? Genuine question!

Nothing, it seems fair enough,so long as the Taoiseach actually reads the Treaty this time before he urges us to vote for it, I suppose.

That would be nice. A little positivity this time wouldn't go amiss either. I don't hold out great hopes, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thehighground

Ah Scofflaw - you giving the other two a dig out

Scofflaw wrote: »

Are you perhaps under the (mistaken) impression that turgon voted Yes?

No. Irrelevant as to what way Turgon voted. Just a reflection of the standard of debate on this Message Board. Everyone is in on the (disrespectful) act now!

It only becomes an issue when one insists on one's interpretation of what is being said 'between the lines' over what the poster actually does say.

People do it all the time. That is something you can't control. And by the way, this is a message board so I'm hardly insisting on anything.

By the same logic, you have to accept that the present government is the best government - and not grumble about them, or wish for a different result, or hope for another election soon. However, you don't mean that, obviously - you mean the Yes people should lie down and shut up like good little losers (I'm reading between the lines, here, of course, but we Irish are good at that, so it's OK).

The electorate is different to the government. You can complain all you like about the Government - preferably to your public representative - that is what they are paid for. But bear in mind, you can't have an election ever five minutes, just because you don't like who has been elected.

Just like you can't have a refrendum ever five minutes just because you didn't like the result.

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

Ah Scofflaw - you giving the other two a dig out

Sure - I came as soon as I saw the bat symbol.

thehighground wrote: »

No. Irrelevant as to what way Turgon voted. Just a reflection of the standard of debate on this Message Board. Everyone is in on the (disrespectful) act now!

Oh dear. Disrespecting the voters. Tsk tsk. Are you in favour of a law against it, perhaps? Lesé-banalité, perhaps?

thehighground wrote: »

People do it all the time. That is something you can't control. And by the way, this is a message board so I'm hardly insisting on anything.

I'm not trying to control it. I'm pointing out that you're quite likely to annoy posters by insisting on your interpretation of what they say. If you're unaware of how you're insisting, I suggest you find out what 'dialogue' is, and how it would be carried on over the message board medium.

thehighground wrote: »

The electorate is different to the government. You can complain all you like about the Government - preferably to your public representative - that is what they are paid for. But bear in mind, you can't have an election ever five minutes, just because you don't like who has been elected.

Just like you can't have a refrendum ever five minutes just because you didn't like the result.

We really are heading off in the direction of being unable to criticise the electorate. As a member of the electorate, perhaps you can tell me by what right you - another member of the same electorate - get to tell me I cannot criticise the electorate? It seems to me that dissent from the majority opinion is a vital part of democracy, no?

As to how often we can have either elections or referendums, both are governed, you will find, by the same Constitution.

regards,
Scofflaw

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

Oh dear. Disrespecting the voters. Tsk tsk. Are you in favour of a law against it, perhaps? Lesé-banalité, perhaps?

naw, I don't think its good for society to be in anyone's control. We've enough laws, rules and regulations.

I'm not trying to control it. I'm pointing out that you're quite likely to annoy posters by insisting on your interpretation of what they say. If you're unaware of how you're insisting, I suggest you find out what 'dialogue' is, and how it would be carried on over the message board medium.

Well Scofflaw, I might display a bit more sympathy to Oscar & molloyjh if they didn't accuse me of being lazy, wilful misinterpretation and a few more things which to be honest, I can't take seriously because, imo, those accusations say more about them than they do about me.

We really are heading off in the direction of being unable to criticise the electorate. As a member of the electorate, perhaps you can tell me by what right you - another member of the same electorate - get to tell me I cannot criticise the electorate? It seems to me that dissent from the majority opinion is a vital part of democracy, no?

You don't criticise the electorate - you criticise their decisions. (Its a bit like the customer is always right).

As to how often we can have either elections or referendums, both are governed, you will find, by the same Constitution.

So. Its all being thought out and put on paper as to how the country operates. If you don't stick to that it destabilises the country. Remember Italy a few yeas ago - a new gov. every couple of months. I've been involved in a voluntary organisation where one of the rules was that you couldn't propose the same motion to an AGM within 2 years of it being voted on. This was to protect the organisation from getting tied up in knots from people who might have a specific agenda. Whatever it was, everyone knew it was off the agenda for 2 years which meant the organisation could get on with its real business and everyone would have a chance to cool off.

djpbarry

thehighground wrote: »

Most people actually I think I can pick up on stuff without it having to be said/written.

Fixed that for you.

thehighground wrote: »

You don't criticise the electorate - you criticise their decisions.

Splitting hairs.

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

naw, I don't think its good for society to be in anyone's control. We've enough laws, rules and regulations.

Grand - so I'm free to criticise the electorate, then.

thehighground wrote: »

Well Scofflaw, I might display a bit more sympathy to Oscar & molloyjh if they didn't accuse me of being lazy, wilful misinterpretation and a few more things which to be honest, I can't take seriously because, imo, those accusations say more about them than they do about me.

YMMV, as they say.

thehighground wrote: »

You don't criticise the electorate - you criticise their decisions. (Its a bit like the customer is always right).

If you've ever been in business for yourself, you'll realise the customer is often wrong. No, I don't see why I'm forbidden to criticise the electorate - for example, it's clear that some people vote on purely partisan lines, for no reason other than that they have a tribal relationship with a particular party - indeed, some people voted Yes to Lisbon because their party said so and for no other reason. I don't have any hesitation in criticising that, or the mentality behind it, since it constitutes a danger to democracy - and in a democracy, the people are usually the greatest threat to democracy.

The electorate is certainly not infallible, as people who wanted a No like to pretend since the electorate delivered a No. They are often uninterested in politics, for example, or put it well down their list of priorities. That's unarguable, so the pretence that the same uninterested and casual voters then deliver a sacred truth in voting is clearly a tactical ploy by those who prefer not to revisit questions settled to their personal satisfaction.

thehighground wrote: »

So. Its all being thought out and put on paper as to how the country operates. If you don't stick to that it destabilises the country. Remember Italy a few yeas ago - a new gov. every couple of months. I've been involved in a voluntary organisation where one of the rules was that you couldn't propose the same motion to an AGM within 2 years of it being voted on. This was to protect the organisation from getting tied up in knots from people who might have a specific agenda. Whatever it was, everyone knew it was off the agenda for 2 years which meant the organisation could get on with its real business and everyone would have a chance to cool off.

Yes, I can see the value in that, although I can also see circumstances where it would become a problem. However, you won't find it in Bunreacht either way.

cordially,
Scofflaw