Libertas are now friends of Immigrants?? but not Turkey

thebman

adr wrote: »

So you're basiclly saying that the Treaty is too difficult to understand for an average man. What's the point in asking people then? If as you say the governement is an expert they should make the decision, right?

Well it is too complicated for most people to understand. We are changing our constitution which is why we are having a referendum. If the government didn't have to have a referendum they wouldn't have one as the treaty is too complicated for most people to understand.

Get it?

kevteljeur

thebman wrote: »

The crazy thing is I'm subscribed to this thread so get emailed updates.

Almost all the google ads in gmail are from Libertas whenever I get a new email about the thread.

The amount of money they must be spending is crazy but they never seem to have given up in getting their message across.

Our parties seem to have put the whole thing on hold until closer to the referendum which may cost votes.

If you're going to enter something like this, and maul the status quo, then it's probably not too hard to study the previous campaigns and see the patterns (and weaknesses) of your opponent's behaviour. They very probably employ the same modus operandi for almost every contest. Squeezing a 'No' vote from the last referendum was, in hindsight, like shooting fish in a barrel for Libertas.

So if Libertas is starting now, before their opponents have started their warm-up, then you know that it's probably the right thing to do. The new kid in town has to be analytical and good on strategy, since the money needs a defined return on investment (unnecessary for the incumbents, armed with a large purse and no accountability to speak of) and getting it wrong makes the whole purpose of getting involved completely pointless. And on that note, I really hope some of the establishment learn from this (my flavour is the Greens, your own mileage may vary).


Disclaimer: My opinion. Happy to be proven wrong on any of it.


.

adr

thebman wrote: »

Well it is too complicated for most people to understand. We are changing our constitution which is why we are having a referendum. If the government didn't have to have a referendum they wouldn't have one as the treaty is too complicated for most people to understand.

Get it?

Well, that's the risk of running a referendum. You ask people a question which they may not understand and at the same time you have to respect the outcome.
How many people understand political parties' programs? i.e. taxes, foreign policy etc. Does anyone ask them after an election if they knew what they were voting for?

P.S. Sorry for going off topic.

Scofflaw

adr wrote: »

So you're basiclly saying that the Treaty is too difficult to understand for an average man. What's the point in asking people then? If as you say the governement is an expert they should make the decision, right?

That's a widely held view, certainly, although not one I'd be happy with. The No campaigns all claimed the Treaty was incomprehensible, while often simultaneously calling for more referendums - which is a rather contradictory opinion.

I don't think the average voter is sufficiently interested to make a good judgement call on a complex treaty, or sufficiently interested in the EU and its operation to even have the necessary background information, and is certainly not in a position to determine the probable ramifications of the treaty for the government of the country. Relatively few people are in such a position, and they're the government.

However, while all that does argue that the government is better placed to make an appropriate decision on such a treaty, I am entirely uninterested in having the decision taken out of my hands (and the hands of other voters). Giving up any power the people have over the government is something I find repugnant.

adr wrote: »

Ok. So in your opinion it's perfectly right to ask the people the same question again and again until the answer is matching the governments point of view?

I don't have any problem with it at all. If the people are genuinely opposed to something, such votes will return a steady majority against.

adr wrote: »

The government says people didn't understand the Treaty and that's why they voted against. So wouldn't it be reasonable to run a survey before the second referendum to make sure people understand the Treaty?

Yes, it would.

adr wrote: »

or
Let's assume the result of the second referendum is YES and after that it turns out people still don't understand what's this Lisbon all about. Should there be a third referendum?

It would be as reasonable as the second referendum, but there's no mechanism for it to happen.

adr wrote: »

Did government make any effort to educate people? To explain what Lisbon means to Ireland?

Ha! No, not really. They didn't do quite as badly and patronisingly as in the first Nice referendum, but they still did an absolutely dreadful job.

adr wrote: »

Well it depends how you look at this. They say Ireland will be isolated in Europe if they don't ratify Lisbon and at the same time EU doesn't make any effort to address the main concerns of Irealand. They just said Lisbon has to be ratified and it's Irish government's problem how they sort it out with their people. It's forcing in my opinion.

Inaccurate. They said that they would offer guarantees - to be turned into Protocols - addressing the main objections that were identifiable and addressable (it's not really possible to address the issues of those who simply wish the EU would go away). You might point out that the protocols on offer don't address your issues, but it's not possible to address everybody's.

That's the EU (or, rather, the other member states, since the EU isn't in charge of its treaties) doing their bit - how the Irish government sorted out a second attempt at ratification was indeed left up to the Irish government, which is quite correct, since it's not anybody else's business.

adr wrote: »

Besides WooPeeA remark about Ireland being less than 1% of the EU population rises serious concerns about the treatment of Ireland in the EU after Lisbon. Maybe it's just to small to respect their opinion?

The EU mostly consists of small nations. We're about the 11th smallest (from memory, don't quote me on that!). The reason the small nations of Europe are in the EU is not because anyone forced them to be, but because it's a hugely better deal than is available anywhere else. We're not as important as Germany or the UK, but we have to be listened to - without the EU there would be no reason at all for the larger countries to pay any attention at all to what we wanted.

cordially,
Scofflaw

kevteljeur

adr wrote: »

So you're basiclly saying that the Treaty is too difficult to understand for an average man. What's the point in asking people then? If as you say the governement is an expert they should make the decision, right?

Ok. So in your opinion it's perfectly right to ask the people the same question again and again until the answer is matching the governments point of view?

The government says people didn't understand the Treaty and that's why they voted against. So wouldn't it be reasonable to run a survey before the second referendum to make sure people understand the Treaty?
or
Let's assume the result of the second referendum is YES and after that it turns out people still don't understand what's this Lisbon all about. Should there be a third referendum?

Did government make any effort to educate people? To explain what Lisbon means to Ireland?

Well it depends how you look at this. They say Ireland will be isolated in Europe if they don't ratify Lisbon and at the same time EU doesn't make any effort to address the main concerns of Irealand. They just said Lisbon has to be ratified and it's Irish government's problem how they sort it out with their people. It's forcing in my opinion.
Besides WooPeeA remark about Ireland being less than 1% of the EU population rises serious concerns about the treatment of Ireland in the EU after Lisbon. Maybe it's just to small to respect their opinion?

Ireland was one of the states that lobbied hardest for their interests to be reflected in the Lisbon Treaty. That alone went a long way towards reflecting the irritation which came from states such as Germany and France, which felt that Ireland's interests had been over-represented in order to get Ireland to agree to Lisbon and sign on.

To have Ireland, as a state, throw it back and say 'No, still not good enough'... Well, that's where a larger country starts to look at how a state that represents 1% of the EU's population is holding everyone else up, largely because the politicians of that state ran a 'Yes' campaign comprised of posters of themselves, with no substantial message or explanation, while openly declaring that they hadn't actually understood the document in question, or even read it at all.

It's not a matter of respecting people's opinion, it's a complex state of affairs. If you negotiate with someone, beat their price right down, get them to hold off on all other deals and then come back and say 'Still not interested, didn't really want one anyway', can you expect that person not to feel very hard done by, if not outraged? If the largest EU states, after that, feel that Ireland is the only thing stopping the EU from moving forward, then it's only reasonable to expect a) some pressure and b) that there may be consequences for a state whose politicians helped shape the document, but who can't bring an agreement on it.

There's no forcing. If we want out, it can be arranged. But if we want to continue getting hand-outs and access to free trade, we would want to start giving too, and that giving is our 'Yes' vote.


.

Happy Monday

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's a widely held view, certainly, although not one I'd be happy with. The No campaigns all claimed the Treaty was incomprehensible, while often simultaneously calling for more referendums - which is a rather contradictory opinion.

I don't think the average voter is sufficiently interested to make a good judgement call on a complex treaty, or sufficiently interested in the EU and its operation to even have the necessary background information, and is certainly not in a position to determine the probable ramifications of the treaty for the government of the country. Relatively few people are in such a position, and they're the government.

However, while all that does argue that the government is better placed to make an appropriate decision on such a treaty, I am entirely uninterested in having the decision taken out of my hands (and the hands of other voters). Giving up any power the people have over the government is something I find repugnant.



I don't have any problem with it at all. If the people are genuinely opposed to something, such votes will return a steady majority against.



Yes, it would.



It would be as reasonable as the second referendum, but there's no mechanism for it to happen.



Ha! No, not really. They didn't do quite as badly and patronisingly as in the first Nice referendum, but they still did an absolutely dreadful job.



Inaccurate. They said that they would offer guarantees - to be turned into Protocols - addressing the main objections that were identifiable and addressable (it's not really possible to address the issues of those who simply wish the EU would go away). You might point out that the protocols on offer don't address your issues, but it's not possible to address everybody's.

That's the EU (or, rather, the other member states, since the EU isn't in charge of its treaties) doing their bit - how the Irish government sorted out a second attempt at ratification was indeed left up to the Irish government, which is quite correct, since it's not anybody else's business.



The EU mostly consists of small nations. We're about the 11th smallest (from memory, don't quote me on that!). The reason the small nations of Europe are in the EU is not because anyone forced them to be, but because it's a hugely better deal than is available anywhere else. We're not as important as Germany or the UK, but we have to be listened to - without the EU there would be no reason at all for the larger countries to pay any attention at all to what we wanted.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw - Word to the wise - Get a life!

Scofflaw

Happy Monday wrote: »

Scofflaw - Word to the wise - Get a life!

Is it really necessary to quote my whole post just to add that little admonition at the end? Plus, I'll just make the point that I'll let you away with that kind of thing just once, and only because you've aimed it at me. If you think that kind of post is a useful contribution to the discussion, or makes anyone but yourself look foolish, you have a learning curve ahead of you, which you are welcome to climb elsewhere.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Happy Monday

ionix5891 wrote: »

Hes busy posting elsewhere, oh wait whats that he has 1 post

Scofflaw - I didn't see any punishment follow on foot of this post.

Or on your comment which you hastily removed about a dictionary etc which still forms part of this comment on page 2 of this thread!

One law for one and another law for the other etc....etc...:eek:

P. Breathnach

Happy Monday wrote: »

Scofflaw - I didn't see any punishment follow on foot of this post.

Or on your comment which you hastily removed about a dictionary etc which still forms part of this comment on page 2 of this thread!

One law for one and another law for the other etc....etc...:eek:

It's difficult for Scofflaw to be both player and referee, so I'll offer a comment from the sidelines: telling somebody to get a life is coming unpleasantly close to getting personal.

Happy Monday

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's difficult for Scofflaw to be both player and referee, so I'll offer a comment from the sidelines: telling somebody to get a life is coming unpleasantly close to getting personal.

As is suggesting that someone is looking at the dictionary before posting - or are you too refusing to comment - please refer to page 2 before Scofflaw take that post down as well.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Happy Monday wrote: »

As is suggesting that someone is looking at the dictionary before posting - or are you too refusing to comment - please refer to page 2.

My 2c - that was referring to the fact that the op claimed that passing Lisbon would show people what fascism means - Scofflaw then replied *addressing that concept* that you could look up a dictionary now, to find out the meaning of fascism (thereby implying, cleverly, that Lisbon is unrelated to fascism).

What you did was quote somebody's post and say 'get a life' as an ad hominem attack, in order to shout down something with which you disagree, but seemingly lack the will or ability to argue.

You made no attempt to address the subject of the post, instead going straight for the poster in a sneaky and cowardly way, and I have to say, that Scofflaw is a better man than me is evidenced by the fact that you are still able to post on this forum.

Happy Monday

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

My 2c - that was referring to the fact that the op claimed that passing Lisbon would show people what fascism means - Scofflaw then replied *addressing that concept* that you could look up a dictionary now, to find out the meaning of fascism (thereby implying, cleverly, that Lisbon is unrelated to fascism).

What you did was quote somebody's post and say 'get a life' as an ad hominem attack, in order to shout down something with which you disagree, but seemingly lack the will or ability to argue.

You made no attempt to address the subject of the post, instead going straight for the poster in a sneaky and cowardly way, and I have to say, that Scofflaw is a better man than me is evidenced by the fact that you are still able to post on this forum.

I followed due process following that personal attack on me by both Scofflaw and Ionix and reported that post to the moderators at that time.
No response since.
I appreciate Scofflaw removed his post quickly after realising his error.
Only for Ionix to have quoted him on it in the meantime.
He who makes the rules is in a position to break them as he sees fit.
Now if Declan Ganley did that!:eek:

PopeBuckfastXVI

Happy Monday wrote: »

I followed due process following that personal attack on me by both Scofflaw and Ionix and reported that post to the moderators at that time.
No response since.
I appreciate Scofflaw removed his post quickly after realising his error.
Only for Ionix to have quoted him on it in the meantime.
He who makes the rules is in a position to break them as he sees fit.
Now if Declan Ganley did that!:eek:

I can't see the posts you're talking about??

I saw posts addressing adr - which you have complained about (the 'dictionary' one, and the '1 post' one)?

Are you using the adr account as a sock puppet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)

P. Breathnach

Happy Monday wrote: »

As is suggesting that someone is looking at the dictionary before posting - or are you too refusing to comment - please refer to page 2 before Scofflaw take that post down as well.

There is a significant difference between commenting on a single behaviour (like misusing a word) and commenting on a person more generally. Every good parent knows that -- "you are not a bad child, but that was a bad thing you did".

oscarBravo

I'll refer everyone to the charter, specifically the rule about discussing moderation on this forum. Don't do it. Back on topic.

Phil the Drill

I was very Pro EU until the lisbon treaty was defeated and the true colors were shown from European and Irish politicians. Now I'm very sceptical and look for the sales pitch in everything they say.

Fine Geal are actively recruiting africans into their party to win seats in places like drogheda and dundalk based purely on the colour of their skin!!

Labour and the greens are recruiting eastern europeans for the same reason!!

I know they are politicians but this is a major step over the line in my book, nothing against anyone (black, white, yellow, french, dutch or russian) running for a seat but the motives and tactics of the party are dispicable in this situation.

Its time the EU gave us real free trade that includes customs and excise tax harmonisation I say. Get rid of the artificial barriers that prevent me from getting my car insurance from Germany or my mobile phone rates from Italy (roaming).

The EU is not living up to what we were sold right now and Libertas are actually promising to deliver it...

The EU only works for countries and some larger semi state companies now. Its about time it started working for the actual citizens!!

I am voting Libertas.... Lets hope they are not politicians like the rest of them and actually do something crazy like keep their word!!

ionix5891

Phil the Drill wrote: »

I was very Pro EU until the lisbon treaty was defeated and the true colors were shown from European and Irish politicians. Now I'm very sceptical and look for the sales pitch in everything they say.

Fine Geal are actively recruiting africans into their party to win seats in places like drogheda and dundalk based purely on the colour of their skin!!

Labour and the greens are recruiting eastern europeans for the same reason!!

I know they are politicians but this is a major step over the line in my book, nothing against anyone (black, white, yellow, french, dutch or russian) running for a seat but the motives and tactics of the party are dispicable in this situation.

Its time the EU gave us real free trade that includes customs and excise tax harmonisation I say. Get rid of the artificial barriers that prevent me from getting my car insurance from Germany or my mobile phone rates from Italy (roaming).

The EU is not living up to what we were sold right now and Libertas are actually promising to deliver it...

The EU only works for countries and some larger semi state companies now. Its about time it started working for the actual citizens!!

I am voting Libertas.... Lets hope they are not politicians like the rest of them and actually do something crazy like keep their word!!

you do realise that Libertas (and SF's) ultimate aim is for Ireland to leave the EU?

you'll learn a new vocabularly then, "trade barriers" and "duties" and "tarrifs" which make it very hard for companies outside the EU to do business competitively with EU market

as for the rest of your racist rant (from yet another new user?), a percentage of our population is no longer cream white, do they not deserve representation?

.

oscarBravo

Phil the Drill wrote: »

Fine Geal are actively recruiting africans into their party to win seats in places like drogheda and dundalk based purely on the colour of their skin!!

Is this an assumption on your part, or do you have evidence that that is the only basis for their selection?

The EU is not living up to what we were sold right now and Libertas are actually promising to deliver it...

When they actually tell us how they plan to deliver anything, be sure to come back to us, won't you?

PopeBuckfastXVI

oscarBravo wrote: »

When they actually tell us how they plan to deliver anything, be sure to come back to us, won't you?

Are you kidding!? They're not even telling us what they plan to deliver, nevermind getting near the 'how'!

nesf

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is this an assumption on your part, or do you have evidence that that is the only basis for their selection?

Well obviously there'd be no other reason to choose a non-ethnic Irish person to run for you in a constituency.

Phil the Drill

ionix5891 wrote: »

you do realise that Libertas (and SF's) ultimate aim is for Ireland to leave the EU?

you'll learn a new vocabularly then, "trade barriers" and "duties" and "tarrifs" which make it very hard for companies outside the EU to do business competitively with EU market

as for the rest of your racist rant (from yet another new user?), a percentage of our population is no longer cream white, do they not deserve representation?

.

When did they say they wanted to leave the EU? They have said the opposite actually, they wouldnt be creating an EU wide party otherwise would they? (Such a nonsense remark from yet another non new user)

There are already "Trade barriers" "Duties" and "Tarrifs" on a lot of things INSIDE the EU. Try to set up an import export business or even import alcohol within the EU and see for yourself.

As for the rest of my racist rant... I did say I didnt care where they were from or what they looked like my point is that the political tactic is underhand... more so that what we usually expect from the idiots old people continually vote into power!

My evidence to back up this claim: My own brother in law was asked by Fine Geal to run for them in Kilcock/Maynooth because... and they said this to him.... because he was black and he would get all black votes!! The whites running for the same seat all had a divided vote and therefore would have to split the numbers, he would win easily... because he is black!!

PopeBuckfastXVI

Phil the Drill wrote: »

Fine Geal are actively recruiting africans into their party to win seats in places like drogheda and dundalk based purely on the colour of their skin!!

Labour and the greens are recruiting eastern europeans for the same reason!!

I know they are politicians but this is a major step over the line in my book, nothing against anyone (black, white, yellow, french, dutch or russian) running for a seat but the motives and tactics of the party are dispicable in this situation.

You do realise this is the European politics forum right? Not the Irish politics forum. You're talking about local elections, I think the general politics forum is probably a more appropriate place for that discussion.

It's nothing to do with Libertas, the EU or the EP elections.

Main politics forum is here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=99

molloyjh

Phil, for as much as I dislike and distrust the other parties Libertas are far worse. They prey on peoples ignorances and flip-flop on issues constantly. They either lie or misrepresent every issue they discuss. They will say literally anything to get into power. Add to that the fact that they seem to be all a little unhinged - see some of the comments re immigration and Caroline Simons recent tirade regarding an electrical fire in their offices (she was deeply concerned that one of the other parties set the blaze!).

While all other political parties suffer some or all of these issues, there tends to be more to them than just those issues. There isn't to Libertas. They ARE all of the things that we hate about our existing parties and nothing more.

ionix5891

Phil the Drill wrote: »

When did they say they wanted to leave the EU? They have said the opposite actually, they wouldnt be creating an EU wide party otherwise would they? (Such a nonsense remark from yet another non new user)

There are already "Trade barriers" "Duties" and "Tarrifs" on a lot of things INSIDE the EU. Try to set up an import export business or even import alcohol within the EU and see for yourself.

As for the rest of my racist rant... I did say I didnt care where they were from or what they looked like my point is that the political tactic is underhand... more so that what we usually expect from the idiots old people continually vote into power!

My evidence to back up this claim: My own brother in law was asked by Fine Geal to run for them in Kilcock/Maynooth because... and they said this to him.... because he was black and he would get all black votes!! The whites running for the same seat all had a divided vote and therefore would have to split the numbers, he would win easily... because he is black!!

they are clearly anti eu and you claim they are for it

yet another libertas contradiction

Phil the Drill

ionix5891 wrote: »

they are clearly anti eu and you claim they are for it

yet another libertas contradiction

You have something to back this up I presume?

-

I hear that Libertas are not clear on what they stand for ... what are FF or FG for exactly? Do they have any clear specific strategy? ... Growth is a strategy but that has to have goals, objectives and tactics aimed at achieving it. I dont hear anything like this from the so called "experts" that run our country, all I see are mistakes, corruption and f*$k ups on a constant basis. I see jobs dissapearing everywhere and nothing being done about it.

If its true that extreme parties only get voted in when things are going bad then we have to admit... things are pretty bad and there is an extreme party promising results at the expense of the so called elite.

If they have a plan and our dear leaders dont... im following the man with the plan... extreme or not

Propellerhead

Phil the Drill wrote: »

When did they say they wanted to leave the EU? They have said the opposite actually, they wouldnt be creating an EU wide party otherwise would they? (Such a nonsense remark from yet another non new user)

There are already "Trade barriers" "Duties" and "Tarrifs" on a lot of things INSIDE the EU. Try to set up an import export business or even import alcohol within the EU and see for yourself.

As for the rest of my racist rant... I did say I didnt care where they were from or what they looked like my point is that the political tactic is underhand... more so that what we usually expect from the idiots old people continually vote into power!

My evidence to back up this claim: My own brother in law was asked by Fine Geal to run for them in Kilcock/Maynooth because... and they said this to him.... because he was black and he would get all black votes!! The whites running for the same seat all had a divided vote and therefore would have to split the numbers, he would win easily... because he is black!!

That's fascinating, because I am involved in Fine Gael in Kildare North and have never heard even the slightest rumour of what you claim.

Firstly, there are two electoral areas and not one where you describe.

There is an electoral area called Clane which runs from Clane and Kilcock to the county boundary with Offaly, and the other is Celbridge which includes Leixlip, Celbridge and Maynooth.

There are two sitting councillors running for reelection in Maynooth and Celbridge respectively. Another councillor from Donadea is one of the two candidates in the Clane area.

There is no Kilcock/Maynooth area and any suggested candidates would have been known to the organisation.

Therefore, unsurprisingly, you are talking through your hole.

ionix5891

Phil the Drill wrote: »

You have something to back this up I presume?

(read this thread again) and then look at this thread that was started recently

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055582630

for yet another example...




as for rest of your rant (do remember that at least FG and FF however badly they cocked up in past have some experience, Libertas have none and no history but lies and deceit, wait they do have a history but its as murky as a bog)

who cares about FF and FG (potato vs potatoes)

Labour ftw! they have a clear policy and dont lie i had manys of interesting talks with their canvassers, still waiting for libertas to show up, it will be fun :cool:

but please do try to smear other parties, and point fingers like a kid in a kindergarten, how very "Libertas" of you

.

oscarBravo

Phil the Drill wrote: »

If they have a plan [...] im following the man with the plan... extreme or not

If you ever actually find out what the Libertas plan is, be sure to let the rest of us know, won't you?

Phil the Drill

So we just sit here while cowen, lenihan and the rest of the mafia family actively destroy the economy then?

Somebody needs to take the bull by the horns here, its no surprise Libertas get support if they are seen to be in some sort of control

ionix5891

Phil the Drill wrote: »

So we just sit here while cowen, lenihan and the rest of the mafia family actively destroy the economy then?

Somebody needs to take the bull by the horns here, its no surprise Libertas get support if they are seen to be in some sort of control

:eek: :rolleyes:

to be in control you need a plan and policies

i am still waiting to see the above from Libertas