Stop NAMA by voting No to Lisbon

T-Square

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

The only practical way to stop Grand Theft NAMA is to force a general election after which a new coalition will adopt some hybrid of the FG/Labour proposals. Whatever the hybrid, it can hardly be as bad as NAMA, the FF plan to rob the PAYE taxpayer while bailing out the bankers and developers.

To force a general election, FF must lose the Lisbon vote. I am calling on Don't Knows to put the future well-being of this country before the demands of Eurocrats. The EU can continue as it is without Lisbon. But NAMA would destroy this country for generations.

Stop NAMA - vote No to Lisbon.

Your post is idiotic.

Voting no to Lisbon will have no affect on Grand Theft Nama.

VOTE YES TO LISBON!! We have enough problems as it is.

nesf

SkepticOne wrote: »

There seems to be two objections to the proposal that voting one way or the other can bring about political change other than merely the ratification or non-ratification of the treaty.

The first is that you should vote on the treaty alone as that is what you are being asked to do. The second is objection is not that it is wrong morally but that it is unlikely to bring about those changes.

I think the first objection we can thow out since most of the arguments one way or another all along have involved matters outside the immediate text of the treaty. For example, very few Yes advocates would argue that a rejection of the treaty will simply mean that the treaty not ratified.

The second objection is the main one really. While most of us would like it to be just on the Treaty's merits we know that'll never work out that way and that the world of realpolitik is more complex and convoluted than that. So we accept arguments about the ramifications of a Yea or Nay because, well, they're going to be part of the campaign whether we like it or not.

This then becomes a case of whether it's likely that the these ramifications are real or imaginary. In the case of a No vote causing a collapse of the Government, I don't think there's ever been a case where a referendum result did that, I know for definite that no EU referendum result did that. I just cannot see how a No vote would cause FF to pack up and leave Government, there just wouldn't be that kind of pressure there.

There are two things likely to bring down the Government. The Greens pulling out, be it due to NAMA or the next Budget, or a backbench revolt if the next Budget is misjudged badly. Backbenchers aren't going to revolt over an EU treaty vote, it just isn't a big issue for TDs and the Greens as is are split over how to vote on these Treaties so any result will be both welcomed and disliked by one side of the party or the other.

SkepticOne

nesf wrote: »

There are two things likely to bring down the Government. The Greens pulling out, be it due to NAMA or the next Budget, or a backbench revolt if the next Budget is misjudged badly. Backbenchers aren't going to revolt over an EU treaty vote, it just isn't a big issue for TDs and the Greens as is are split over how to vote on these Treaties so any result will be both welcomed and disliked by one side of the party or the other.

I agree that these two things are more likely but I would not be so quick to dismiss the other though in the event of a Lisbon failure. How I think this would happen is that Cowen would resign, since it would be very hard to argue that he speaks for the country. Then there is the question of choosing a new leader. If that was likely to turn nasty the easiest thing might be to seek a new mandate. It might even suit the party to be in opposition for a time during the current unpleasantness than have Coughlan or Lenihan at the helm.

Or it could happen some other way. I'm not saying any of this is 100% or even 50% certain but I could not dismiss it as a possibility.

nesf

SkepticOne wrote: »

I agree that these two things are more likely but I would not be so quick to dismiss the other though in the event of a Lisbon failure. How I think this would happen is that Cowen would resign, since it would be very hard to argue that he speaks for the country. Then there is the question of choosing a new leader. If that was likely to turn nasty the easiest thing might be to seek a new mandate. It might even suit the party to be in opposition for a time during the current unpleasantness than have Coughlan or Lenihan at the helm.

Or it could happen some other way. I'm not saying any of this is 100% or even 50% certain but I could not dismiss it as a possibility.

Yeah, but there's no precedent of something like this happening. You're speculating that there'll be a leadership challenge over a subject which has never before brought one. It's possible in the same way that Labour splitting into a nouveau Democratic Left and Labour is possible. You can't absolutely rule it out but you'd be a fool to actually expect it to happen, never mind voting in a particular way on the hope of it happening.

SkepticOne

nesf wrote: »

Yeah, but there's no precedent of something like this happening. You're speculating that there'll be a leadership challenge over a subject which has never before brought one. It's possible in the same way that Labour splitting into a nouveau Democratic Left and Labour is possible. You can't absolutely rule it out but you'd be a fool to actually expect it to happen, never mind voting in a particular way on the hope of it happening.

For me it would almost certainly be a situation in which Cowen would have to go. His credibility as a leader of the Irish people would be gone. Whilst there is no precedent for this, there's also no precedent for a second referendum failing.

Whether this would subsequently down the government I would put at 50 50 or below but a definite possibility.

I think you could be influenced to vote along these lines if you were in two minds about the treaty itself.

nesf

SkepticOne wrote: »

For me it would almost certainly be a situation in which Cowen would have to go. His credibility as a leader of the Irish people would be gone. Whilst there is no precedent for this, there's also no precedent for a second referendum failing.

Whether this would subsequently down the government I would put at 50 50 or below but a definite possibility.

I think you could be influenced to vote along these lines if you were in two minds about the treaty itself.

Yeah, but it'd probably also be a certainty in your mind that Cowen should have had to stand down after seeing the economy implode which was caused, to some extent, by his policies as Minister of Finance. Seriously, you need to separate what you think should/want to happen and what you think is most likely to happen because usually in Politics they're not the same thing.

SkepticOne

nesf wrote: »

Yeah, but it'd probably also be a certainty in your mind that Cowen should have had to stand down after seeing the economy implode which was caused, to some extent, by his policies as Minister of Finance. Seriously, you need to separate what you think should/want to happen and what you think is most likely to happen because usually in Politics they're not the same thing.

No, I think the issue with the economy, although very serious, is that it is something that has been developing for some time. A second failure in Lisbon, should it happen, would be a definite single event. A bit like the frog in the hot water, if you gradually build up the heat the frog doesn't react but if you suddenly put the frog in the hot water it jumps out.

Cowen depends politically on a Yes in Lisbon for vindication of his decision not to respect (and I use that term advisedly) the people in their first vote.

nesf

SkepticOne wrote: »

Cowen depends politically on a Yes in Lisbon for vindication of his decision not to respect (and I use that term advisedly) the people in their first vote.

He doesn't since only the committed No side (of which few are traditional FF voters) are ranting about him not respecting the decision of the first vote. Christ, there's no mainstream political group making this point so it's not going to weigh heavily on his shoulders.

SkepticOne

nesf wrote: »

He doesn't since only the committed No side (of which few are traditional FF voters) are ranting about him not respecting the decision of the first vote. Christ, there's no mainstream political group making this point so it's not going to weigh heavily on his shoulders.

It would suit the main opposition parties to keep Cowen as taoiseach. Easier to win the next general election that way. Pressure to step down would come from within. Someone else would need to be put in place to represent Ireland in Europe.

Sam Vimes

SkepticOne wrote: »

For me it would almost certainly be a situation in which Cowen would have to go. His credibility as a leader of the Irish people would be gone.

You think he has credibility? They got 12% in the local elections, a recent poll showed 87% of people want a general election, Enda Kenny called for a vote of no confidence, they've led the country into the worst recession in its history and you think the loss of an EU referendum that's also supported by his two main opponents Kenny and Gilmore and thousands of other people and groups is going to be his undoing? Unless we want Gerry Adams as taoiseach it's a really bad reason to vote no and even if you do it's still a bad reason because it's not going to get the general election you want, unless the no vote so badly damages the country that it finally pushes people to march on the Dail and refuse to leave until an election is called, which is pretty much what would be necessary

ConsiderThis

SkepticOne wrote: »

For me it would almost certainly be a situation in which Cowen would have to go. His credibility as a leader of the Irish people would be gone. Whilst there is no precedent for this, there's also no precedent for a second referendum failing.

Whether this would subsequently down the government I would put at 50 50 or below but a definite possibility.

I think you could be influenced to vote along these lines if you were in two minds about the treaty itself.

Cowan's ( knows in some quarters, evidently, as Clowen) credibility can hardly get any lower than it is currently, as in the recent polls it was only his family and hangers on who seemed to think he was doing a good job, and the rest of the country overwhelmingly said he was not.

The thing about politicians is they all deploy whats known as the Haughey Defence, where they keep denying everything, even the opinion polls, and refuse to hear anything which they don;t want to hear, to enable them to keep clinging onto power for longer and longer. Cowan is no different and will never own up to his part in bringing this country to the situation it now faces on many fronts, including his lamentable failure to ensure Lisbon was sold to the country the first time around.

nesf

SkepticOne wrote: »

It would suit the main opposition parties to keep Cowen as taoiseach. Easier to win the next general election that way. Pressure to step down would come from within. Someone else would need to be put in place to represent Ireland in Europe.

God no, the best thing for them would be Cowen stepping down and Coughlan taking over...

SkepticOne

nesf wrote: »

God no, the best thing for them would be Cowen stepping down and Coughlan taking over...

Have to agree with that.

bonkey

Kama wrote: »

the good ends is seen to hallow any means.

I guess it depends on who you are.

Me...I'm sick to the back teeth of all sides in politics playing the "holier than thou" card whilst trying only to make sure that at best they are slightly less reprehensible in their tactics then the other side....or at worst that htey can try to spin it that way.

I would find it reprehensible for someone to hijack one issue to promote another....whether that be someone pro or contra Lisbon, pro or contra NAMA, or any other issue.

While we continue to have widespread acceptance of such tactics as long as they're done by 'the right team, then we will continue to have a corrupt political system. The more we accept and condone such activity, the more we encourage politicians to act in an underhanded manner.

free-man

me_right_one wrote: »

I have been thinking about this for a while. I am now solidly convinced that right to vote should be soely based on intelligence.

Anyone who openly advocates a no vote to Lisbon should be banned from voting in anything for the rest of their lives, starting from before the Lisbon date.

So you contend that 53.4% of the Irish electorate should never be allowed vote again?

Scofflaw

free-man wrote: »

So you contend that 53.4% of the Irish electorate should never be allowed vote again?

Are you not confusing "voting for" with "advocating"? Also, it's 53.2% of the 53.1% of the electorate that voted, not 53.4% of the electorate. As a percentage of the electorate, it's 28.2%.

amused,
Scofflaw

ConsiderThis

Scofflaw wrote: »

Are you not confusing "voting for" with "advocating"? Also, it's 53.2% of the 53.1% of the electorate that voted, not 53.4% of the electorate. As a percentage of the electorate, it's 28.2%.

amused,
Scofflaw

In our system, a vote is a vote. If we are to post-analyse every vote, then why not post-analyse what percentage of the population who are entitled to vote voted for a FF government at the last general election? If you do this, you will have to conclude that they have not a majority of those entitled to vote and, hence, they are not a legitimate government.

A vote is a vote, and to massage the figures to include those who chose not to vote in a particular election is irrelevant. Our system concludes that the vote on the day is what counts, and that should not be weighted by those who chose not to vote.

It's a rotten system, but it's the one we have. Alas.

Scofflaw

ConsiderThis wrote: »

In our system, a vote is a vote. If we are to post-analyse every vote, then why not post-analyse what percentage of the population who are entitled to vote voted for a FF government at the last general election? If you do this, you will have to conclude that they have not a majority of those entitled to vote and, hence, they are not a legitimate government.

A vote is a vote, and to massage the figures to include those who chose not to vote in a particular election is irrelevant. Our system concludes that the vote on the day is what counts, and that should not be weighted by those who chose not to vote.

It's a rotten system, but it's the one we have. Alas.

All of the above is certainly the case, but then I wasn't suggesting it wasn't, only that free-man had his facts wrong, which he does. It doesn't change the validity of the vote, since we don't have a 'quorate' threshold.

cordially,
Scofflaw