Barroso's visit to Ireland - "Lisbon rejection would hurt Ireland"

meglome

Some of you obviously feel a Yes to Lisbon was not a yes for jobs. But maybe you'll answer me some questions.

The Lisbon treaty was brought in effect on the 1st December 2009. Our property bubble burst in 2008. The global financial crises happened in 2008. How the hell could the Lisbon treaty cause something to happen before it came into force? How is that physically possible?

This isn't about being pro-EU (though I am), this is about simple logic. Unless you believe in time travel it's not possible.

Scofflaw

censuspro wrote: »

Show me the posts where you argued the specific set of problems that Lisbon prevented as a result of a Yes vote.

Ah no - I can only see that confusing you, given how confused you were by the very simple logic I laid out already. Nor is there any chance of persuading you in any case, and there are other brick walls which haven't seen quite so much of my skin.

regards,
Scofflaw

censuspro

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ah no - I can only see that confusing you, given how confused you were by the very simple logic I laid out already. Nor is there any chance of persuading you in any case, and there are other brick walls which haven't seen quite so much of my skin.

regards,
Scofflaw

Why is it so difficult to provide examples of the predicted set of problems that you say the Lisbon Treaty prevented? I'm actually quite surprised, normally you're quite adept at posting graphs, charts and external links to this forum. I thought you would only be too delighted to illustrate how Lisbon prevented these allusive set of predicted problems that only you seem to have been aware of but for some reason you cannot explain what exactly these problems were.

Scofflaw

censuspro wrote: »

Why is it so difficult to provide examples of the predicted set of problems that you say the Lisbon Treaty prevented? I'm actually quite surprised, normally you're quite adept at posting graphs, charts and external links to this forum. I thought you would only be too delighted to illustrate how Lisbon prevented these allusive set of predicted problems that only you seem to have been aware of but for some reason you cannot explain what exactly these problems were.

I'm always happy to debate where it seems likely to have some point - where it doesn't have any, then not so much. We went over and over this ground for two years, and neither your opinion nor your tactics have changed - I really can't see the point except for intellectual exercise, and I don't really need the exercise right now. If you want to relive the struggle, I suggest re-reading old threads on which we hashed out the potential consequences of Yes and No - that is, after all, what pretty much the entire two years of debate was on.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Lockstep

Is mise le key wrote: »

Not from where im standing.

Because the anti-EU posters reinforce your pre-formed opinions?

I used to be quite anti-EU (I canvassed against Lisbon I and was living abroad for Lisbon II) but the more I had to deal with the EU, the more I realised how absurd most criticisms of it is.

oscarBravo

Is mise le key wrote: »

...read over the many threads & it becomes quite apparent that the trend is leaning towards a pro EU user base.

That's not apparent to me. It's entirely possible that we're both suffering from a degree of confirmation bias, but I don't find that the forum has much of a slant either way. I tend to agree with Lockstep that the pro-EU arguments tend, by and large, to be more thoroughly grounded in fact and reason than those against it, but again I'm willing to accept the possibility of confirmation bias in both directions.

Which makes your assertion that:

The evidence is all saved in cyber space on your servers my good man

...completely useless for the purposes of backing up your argument.

It seems to me that I've made a fairly cogent case for the forum not having a pro-EU bias (note that I haven't argued that it has an anti-EU bias), whereas you've made a claim, and backed it up by, basically, reiterating the claim.

If you feel you've made a stronger case, feel free to give yourself a medal or something, because I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.

Is mise le key

meglome wrote: »

Some of you obviously feel a Yes to Lisbon was not a yes for jobs. But maybe you'll answer me some questions.

The Lisbon treaty was brought in effect on the 1st December 2009. Our property bubble burst in 2008. The global financial crises happened in 2008. How the hell could the Lisbon treaty cause something to happen before it came into force? How is that physically possible?

This isn't about being pro-EU (though I am), this is about simple logic. Unless you believe in time travel it's not possible.

Thank you for pointing this out Meglome, this is the very point of the recent discussion on here, after we had embarked on this path of downward cuts etc every politician in the country knew where we were headed, as did everyone who posts here that has some insight as to how systems work,

'Crash' begins in 2008, 2009 we have the Pro EU users here all singing loudly toghether with the politicians foreign & domestic for,



If you are telling me that, Lisbon was never designed to fix what has gone wrong or address it then it was dishonest from all the yes sayers to campaign in this way with the full knowledge that we were not going to 'recover' & create jobs for a long time coming.

The time line you outlined Meglome proves the scare tactics that were used by the Yes side, people were just after experincing a year of recession with everyone telling us it was about to get really really bad for a long time & then this campaign was launched.

Used the peoples fear to get the yes through on false premise.

meglome

Is mise le key wrote: »

Thank you for pointing this out Meglome, this is the very point of the recent discussion on here, after we had embarked on this path of downward cuts etc every politician in the country knew where we were headed, as did everyone who posts here that has some insight as to how systems work,

'Crash' begins in 2008, 2009 we have the Pro EU users here all singing loudly toghether with the politicians foreign & domestic for,

If you are telling me that, Lisbon was never designed to fix what has gone wrong or address it then it was dishonest from all the yes sayers to campaign in this way with the full knowledge that we were not going to 'recover' & create jobs for a long time coming.

The time line you outlined Meglome proves the scare tactics that were used by the Yes side, people were just after experincing a year of recession with everyone telling us it was about to get really really bad for a long time & then this campaign was launched.

Used the peoples fear to get the yes through on false premise.

Sigh...

I'm not sure what you want here. Did both sides of the debate used scare tactics?.. yes I believe they did. I am fascinated that people are fixated on the yes for jobs but seems to have no issue with vote no unless you want to be conscripted in the EU army, babies aborted, 1 something for minimum wage etc. etc.

Yes for jobs was a reasonable contention though, while the EU army, babies aborted, minimum wage stuff was simply not true whatsoever. The fact is that the treaty came in after the mess was created here... long after. So the mess stopped any chance we had that the Lisbon treaty would help create job more jobs than were lost. I fail to see what so difficult to understand about all this, nothing was going to easily fix the mess we got ourselves into. At the time of the Lisbon debates we didn't even realise just how bad the situation was going to get.

Really this is all simple logic, a treaty cannot be responsible for a mess that was created long before it existed. No amount of anti-EU bias can change that simple logic.

Is mise le key

meglome wrote: »

Really this is all simple logic, a treaty cannot be responsible for a mess that was created long before it existed. No amount of anti-EU bias can change that simple logic.

Agreed.

meglome wrote: »

Sigh...

I'm not sure what you want here. Did both sides of the debate used scare tactics?.. yes I believe they did. I am fascinated that people are fixated on the yes for jobs but seems to have no issue with vote no unless you want to be conscripted in the EU army, babies aborted, 1 something for minimum wage etc. etc.

Agreed,

I argued at the time, that i look through all that is being presented to me, sort out the obvious waffle from the slivers of fact & make my judgments from that, Critical thinking one might say, i was mocked by you & every other pro lisbon poster for that.

meglome wrote: »

So the mess stopped any chance we had that the Lisbon treaty would help create job more jobs than were lost.

And within that statement is the prooof that the Yes campaign was all based on absolute lies.

meglome wrote: »

At the time of the Lisbon debates we didn't even realise just how bad the situation was going to get.

Really, October 2008 our CEO had a meeting for all in our company, within the 2 hour meeting he expressed quite clearly that this wasnt going to end at all any time soon, when pushed for a date he envisaged some kind of turn around at all he said,

"I would be looking towards the end of 2011 into 2012 but i wont be putting any money on that"

We all knew this was a major recession, and even if people in general didnt know the politicians sure as hell knew when they embarked on their lies for lisbon campaign to get a yes the SECOND time using the peoples fear to get it through.

censuspro

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's not apparent to me. It's entirely possible that we're both suffering from a degree of confirmation bias, but I don't find that the forum has much of a slant either way. I tend to agree with Lockstep that the pro-EU arguments tend, by and large, to be more thoroughly grounded in fact and reason than those against it, but again I'm willing to accept the possibility of confirmation bias in both directions.

Is that not a bias statement in itself. In all the threads I've contributed to on this forum I haven't read any posts claiming that a Yes vote would lead to conscription, abortion or minimum wages of €1.80. The only time I have read those were by pro Lisbon posters to remind us of the false arguments made by the No campaign as if to make anti Lisbon posters somehow guilty by association that because a poster was not in favour of the Lisbon Treaty then they automatically agree with the claims made by some groups on the No side. However, I have yet to see any of the pro Lisbon regular contributors acknowledge that the claims made by the Yes side had equally nothing to do with Lisbon and continually bend over backwards to justify the claims such as "Yes to Job", voting No will lead to increase in our National Cost of Borrowing, our Corporation Tax debate which people were explicitly lead to believe would be forever off the table when most regular contributors to this forum, both Yes and No, knew that our CT rate had absolutely nothing to do with Lisbon.

sensibleken

If anything Lisbon proves we should not have referenda on these things.

I think the Yes parties were talking out their ass with the Yes to jobs. The No side with their EU army, 1.84 nonsense were too. The fact is it doesnt matter. In a referendum YOU are the legislator, not the politician. It is your duty to read up on and make your mind up on the source material.

If you do not do this and instead rely on campaign posters to understand the ins and outs of an international treaty between 27 different countries then you do not deserve the right to vote on it. This is more than evidenced by the fact that after 2 referenda, endless debate people still think it was a power grab that threatens our corporation tax.

Is mise le key

sensibleken wrote: »

This is more than evidenced by the fact that after 2 referenda, endless debate people still think it was a power grab that threatens our corporation tax.

Just one more time so, tell us what it is designed to do?

What are the benefits inherent from it seeing as it was passed into being?

sensibleken

Is mise le key wrote: »

Just one more time so, tell us what it is designed to do?

What are the benefits inherent from it seeing as it was passed into being?

a couple but none as dramatic as some like to think. subsidiarity, qmv, increased oversight from national parliamentand, the citizens initiative and the right to strike enshrined in european law were my main motivations

the_dark_side

Is mise le key wrote: »

'Crash' begins in 2008, 2009 we have the Pro EU users here all singing loudly toghether with the politicians foreign & domestic for,




Used the peoples fear to get the yes through on false premise.

completely agree here with all this. Im sure many of the posters here have already seen this short clip where Brian Lenihan, rip, declares that the Lisbon yes campaign was not designed to be a job creation initiative. He was interviewed here, after the Yes vote was passed in the re-run

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sED3iApAvE

sensibleken

the_dark_side wrote: »

completely agree here with all this. Im sure many of the posters here have already seen this short clip where Brian Lenihan, rip, declares that the Lisbon yes campaign was not designed to be a job creation initiative. He was interviewed here, after the Yes vote was passed in the re-run

this is a pointless circular arguement. for every Yes for jobs bull that IBEC came out you can point out another lie from the peoples movment. for every fine gael spin you can quote a half truth from coir. all the while not once talking about the actual treaty

Is mise le key

sensibleken wrote: »

this is a pointless circular arguement. for every Yes for jobs bull that IBEC came out you can point out another lie from the peoples movment. for every fine gael spin you can quote a half truth from coir. all the while not once talking about the actual treaty

OK, The treaty, it hasnt delivered anything for the people of europe.

Is mise le key

Heres a picture for you all that expresses the sentiments of ordinary Polish people here in Ireland in my workplace, taken in my workplace,

oscarBravo

censuspro wrote: »

Is that not a bias statement in itself.

Did you stop reading my post after the bit you bolded?

It's clear that you're just arguing for argument's sake. If it's that important to you to believe that the forum has a pro-EU bias (whatever that actually means, in practical terms), you're free to believe that. If it's not important to you to be able to back up that assertion, that's fine too.

sensibleken

Is mise le key wrote: »

OK, The treaty, it hasnt delivered anything for the people of europe.

Im not sure what you were expecting it to do to be honest. Very little normal business has been conducted because of the ongoing crisis in capital. Thats the thing with reform treaties, they generally only reform day to day functions.

Is mise le key wrote: »

Heres a picture for you all that expresses the sentiments of ordinary Polish people here in Ireland, taken in my workplace,

Not exactly sure what this is meant to mean

Is mise le key

sensibleken wrote: »

Not exactly sure what this is meant to mean

Im not either, i just came across it today, it would appear that the sentiment is,

1. Europe is dead, hence its name inscribed on the cross.
2. Europe is dead & it has buried poland, the polish flag being representative of a grave with a cross in it.

I am using critical thinking here to extrapolate the possible meaning of a cross with Europe inscribed on it inserted into a polish flag.

sensibleken

Is mise le key wrote: »

Im not either, i just came across it today, it would appear that the sentiment is,

1. Europe is dead, hence its name inscribed on the cross.
2. Europe is dead & it has buried poland, the polish flag being representative of a grave with a cross in it.

I am using critical thinking here to extrapolate the possible meaning of a cross with Europe inscribed on it inserted into a polish flag.

could also mean Holy Europe is greater than Poland.

Is mise le key

sensibleken wrote: »

could also mean Holy Europe is greater than Poland.

But that wouldnt be in keeping with your user name though now would it:)

oscarBravo

Is mise le key wrote: »

I am using critical thinking here to extrapolate the possible meaning of a cross with Europe inscribed on it inserted into a polish flag.

I don't really see the significance of what it means - it's expressing the views of one or more Polish people in an Irish workplace.

It seems clear that it's expressing a negative view of the EU with respect to Poland. Is it somehow significant that one or more Polish people have a negative view of the EU? Is it more significant than the fact that a number of Irish people (and others) have expressed negative views about the EU on this very forum?

Is there some significance in the very fact that negative sentiment towards the EU exists at all that I'm missing?

sensibleken

Is mise le key wrote: »

But that wouldnt be in keeping with your user name though now would it:)

Just pointing out that you need to be careful in pointing out something bring typical of Polish peoples sentiments in Ireland and then admit you dont know what it actually means.

Is mise le key

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is there some significance in the very fact that negative sentiment towards the EU exists at all that I'm missing?

Well yes, it tells you that all is not rosy with the current system & that some of your fellow humans feel there should be a better way than this.

believe it or not my anti EU stance is in the belief that things could be better another way for all of us, including you oscar;)

sensibleken wrote: »

Just pointing out that you need to be careful in pointing out something bring typical of Polish peoples sentiments in Ireland and then admit you dont know what it actually means.

Apologies, i edited the post to reflect this is polish people i work with, also i think without knowing 100% what it was made & erected for the consensus (i beileve) would be that this is a negative rather than a positive.

I am applying some 'critical thinking' again here, is that allowed or not?

sensibleken

Is mise le key wrote: »

Apologies, i edited the post to reflect this is polish people i work with, also i think without knowing 100% what it was made & erected for the consensus (i beileve) would be that this is a negative rather than a positive.

I am applying some 'critical thinking' again here, is that allowed or not?

well its not really critical thinking is it. you assumed to know what it was, that it was negetive, thats its an opinion held by more than one if not all polish people you work with. Without knowing what it is, what it means, who did or why. critical thinking <> assumption

Anyway, so what. If one person has a negetive view of europe does their nationality make it more valid. Its hardly an arguement of any kind and im really not sure why you brought it up

Is mise le key

sensibleken wrote: »

well its not really critical thinking is it. you assumed to know what it was, that it was negetive, thats its an opinion held by more than one if not all polish people you work with. Without knowing what it is, what it means, who did or why. critical thinking <> assumption

Anyway, so what. If one person has a negetive view of europe does their nationality make it more valid. Its hardly an arguement of any kind and im really not sure why you brought it up

Well speaking to one of the lads who works here who is also very politicised, he says there is a huge amount of people in poland who are disgusted with the way poland has gone since accession to the EU, many endorsing again a return to Socialism.

sensibleken

Is mise le key wrote: »

Well speaking to one of the lads who works here who is also very politicised, he says there is a huge amount of people in poland who are disgusted with the way poland has gone since accession to the EU, many endorsing again a return to Socialism.

and the point is?

Sorry was this a thread on lisbon or is it 'opinions people we know have' Because I know someone who thinks the royal family are lizards and the moon landings didnt happen. not saying theyre the same just thought id share

Is mise le key

sensibleken wrote: »

and the point is?

Sorry was this a thread on lisbon or is it 'opinions people we know have' Because I know someone who thinks the royal family are lizards and the moon landings didnt happen. not saying theyre the same just thought id share

Your postings really dont refelct your user name.

sensibleken

Is mise le key wrote: »

Your postings really dont refelct your user name.

i like the way you ignore questions and go for the dig instead. but your right, my name is actualy chris

Is mise le key

sensibleken wrote: »

i like the way you ignore questions and go for the dig instead. but your right, my name is actualy chris

Ahh Chris, i dont really go for the digs, its all in good jest.:)

oscarBravo

Is mise le key wrote: »

Well yes, it tells you that all is not rosy with the current system & that some of your fellow humans feel there should be a better way than this.

believe it or not my anti EU stance is in the belief that things could be better another way for all of us, including you oscar;)

I've never doubted that good intentions lay behind your opinions. I'm arguing with the validity of your views, not their sincerity.

Yes, some people believe that things should be different from the way they are. That's pretty much a truism, to the point of being irrelevant.

If enough people support a particular alternative approach, it will probably come to pass. If the proponents of that approach can't make a cogent case for it, they're unlikely to garner the necessary support.

View

Just to clarify - what argument exactly are people trying to make here?

Is it that referenda are a bad idea?

If so, then you are essentially making the case that Ireland should just use Parliamentary ratification like virtually everywhere else.

Is mise le key

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've never doubted that good intentions lay behind your opinions. I'm arguing with the validity of your views, not their sincerity.

Yes, some people believe that things should be different from the way they are. That's pretty much a truism, to the point of being irrelevant.

If enough people support a particular alternative approach, it will probably come to pass. If the proponents of that approach can't make a cogent case for it, they're unlikely to garner the necessary support.

And this is where a lot of the discussion on this has lead us, the misleading of the people via the use of propaganda (on both sides) into making their decisions, with that in mind then it brings us onto the control of the mass media & the disinformation that is put out with a bias slant, who controls the mainstream media? & in turn then, what propaganda the majority of the population are subjected to dictates the outcome of a referendum.

meglome

Is mise le key wrote: »

And within that statement is the prooof that the Yes campaign was all based on absolute lies.

I don't believe it does. You seem fixated on one particular slogan from the Yes campaign. Personally I didn't take too much notice of it, the same way I didn't take too much notice of the conscription, aborted babies and minimum wage nonsense from the No side. However we know that many people were effected by the No sides lies in the first vote as the opinion polls show it. That's why we needed guarantees for things that weren't in the treaty to begin with.

At the end of the day it's a treaty, anyone could read it.

Is mise le key wrote: »

Really, October 2008 our CEO had a meeting for all in our company, within the 2 hour meeting he expressed quite clearly that this wasnt going to end at all any time soon, when pushed for a date he envisaged some kind of turn around at all he said,

"I would be looking towards the end of 2011 into 2012 but i wont be putting any money on that"

We all knew this was a major recession, and even if people in general didnt know the politicians sure as hell knew when they embarked on their lies for lisbon campaign to get a yes the SECOND time using the peoples fear to get it through.

No one knew quite how bad it was, sure we suspected. It look a long time for the full amounts that needed to be put into the banks to come out, for example.

censuspro wrote: »

... I haven't read any posts claiming that a Yes vote would lead to conscription, abortion or minimum wages of €1.80. The only time I have read those were by pro Lisbon posters to remind us of the false arguments made by the No campaign as if to make anti Lisbon posters somehow guilty by association that because a poster was not in favour of the Lisbon Treaty then they automatically agree with the claims made by some groups on the No side. ...

There were plenty of discussions about the claims on the Lisbon treaty from the No side. And certainly there were No posters up all over the place. I'm sorry you don't see the difference between an aspirational claim (Yes for Jobs) and a downright lie (1.84 minimum wage).

http://www.coircampaign.org/index.php/materials-documents/posters

censuspro wrote: »

IHowever, I have yet to see any of the pro Lisbon regular contributors acknowledge that the claims made by the Yes side had equally nothing to do with Lisbon and continually bend over backwards to justify the claims such as "Yes to Job", voting No will lead to increase in our National Cost of Borrowing, our Corporation Tax debate which people were explicitly lead to believe would be forever off the table when most regular contributors to this forum, both Yes and No, knew that our CT rate had absolutely nothing to do with Lisbon.

I've seen many pro-Lisbon people say there were false claims on both sides. But let's be clear about this the No side started a dirty fight using things they knew to be untrue, as they simply weren't in the treaty. Then they cried fowl when similar tactics were used right back at them. Personally I disagree with many aspects of the campaign from both sides, but I see one is worse than the other.

All this discussion really is an advert for not having these referenda at all.

Is mise le key

meglome wrote: »

All this discussion really is an advert for not having these referenda at all.

I would say its an advert for controlling how information is delivered during a referendum campaign.

heres to a brighter future for us all;)

sensibleken

Is mise le key wrote: »

And this is where a lot of the discussion on this has lead us, the misleading of the people via the use of propaganda (on both sides) into making their decisions, with that in mind then it brings us onto the control of the mass media & the disinformation that is put out with a bias slant, who controls the mainstream media? & in turn then, what propaganda the majority of the population are subjected to dictates the outcome of a referendum.

Well we're in agreement on this. Unfortunetely taking the bullshít out of politics leaves very little less.

Lisbon was the worst, with nice a close second, for mass bull****. Unfortunetely it takes the a lot longer to refute a lie than to tell it. I pretty sure you cant make lieing about a political issue illegal, maybe ban political posters in complex referenda.

Its not ultimately the medias fault. As I have said before if you want to vote in complet international treaties then you have a duty to read up on it extensively. In referenda you are the legislator. But it seems the majority are too lazy or dumb to bother their hole to do the homework and instead allow themselves to be manipulated

meglome

Is mise le key wrote: »

meglome wrote: »

All this discussion really is an advert for not having these referenda at all.

I would say its an advert for controlling how information is delivered during a referendum campaign.
heres to a brighter future for us all;)

There is a referendum commission for that. It's very difficult to stop people like Coir from telling lies with money they usually don't explain where they got.

easychair

sensibleken wrote: »

if you want to vote in complet international treaties then you have a duty to read up on it extensively. In referenda you are the legislator.

Here's an novel idea. How about keeping treaties simple so that the majority can easily understand them?

Why not have a rule that if a treaty is too complex for the majority to understand, everyone should be assumed to vote "no", and nothing should change, until the treaty is easy to understand and non complex.

sensibleken

easychair wrote: »

Here's an novel idea. How about keeping treaties simple so that the majority can easily understand them?

Why not have a rule that if a treaty is too complex for the majority to understand, everyone should be assumed to vote "no", and nothing should change, until the treaty is easy to understand and non complex.

If you can simplify a legal agreement between 27 countries wnough for everyone to understand them, leaving no ambiguity, then a successful career in the law awaits you.

law is hard. if you arent clever enough to understand then dont get involved.

oscarBravo

easychair wrote: »

Here's an novel idea. How about keeping treaties simple so that the majority can easily understand them?

That's not a novel idea. That's pretty standard populist rhetoric that we repeatedly hear from people who don't actually have to negotiate treaties between multiple sovereign states with disparate cultural and legal backgrounds.

Why not have a rule that if a treaty is too complex for the majority to understand, everyone should be assumed to vote "no", and nothing should change, until the treaty is easy to understand and non complex.

By the same token, we could reduce all legal contracts between two businesses - which, let's face it, are inherently simpler than a treaty that has been negotiated between twenty-seven sovereign nations - to a single paragraph.

What could possibly go wrong?

easychair

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's not a novel idea. That's pretty standard populist rhetoric that we repeatedly hear from people who don't actually have to negotiate treaties between multiple sovereign states with disparate cultural and legal backgrounds.

You are, of course, right. Your post appears to imply you think to be populist (ie popular and what most people want) is not a good thing.

You're probably right there, and it's probably better if some elite somewhere or other adopts a paternalistic stance, takes over and rules the majority of the rest, who are, after all, too stupid to understand complicated things.

It's truly awful that you all (whoever that is ) have to hear this repeatedly from people.

My flaw is that I believe in democracy.

oscarBravo

easychair wrote: »

You are, of course, right. Your post appears to imply you think to be populist (ie popular and what most people want) is not a good thing.

More accurately, I believe that what is populist is not necessarily a good thing. If something is both populist and stupid - like the idea that an international treaty between twenty-seven sovereign nations is invalid if it's more than three pages long - then it's not a good thing.

My flaw is that I believe in democracy.

The idea that complex issues should be dumbed down until disinterested people can understand them without having to expend any effort in thinking about them isn't democracy, it's idiocracy.

Scofflaw

"Populism" has a quite specific set of connotations - it refers to something that is being done whether or not it's a good idea solely because it's popular, and also suggests an idea that's popular largely because it has not been properly explained. Further, it connotes a policy which is carried out for the electoral benefit of the politicians concerned and to the detriment of the state.

For example, potentially bankrupting the state during a boom by lowering taxes and ramping up services by hiring lots of civil servants is 'populist' - that is, the only explanation (apart from insanity or idiocy) is that people will vote for the party offering it as long as the consequences aren't well-explained.

Decentralisation, in the peculiar Irish version, is another good example - rural locations were thrown packets of civil servants at the expense of efficient coordination of the civil service. The explanation was that it pushed house prices up in rural areas, and provided local demand hotspots for the benefit of rural communities. Had it been carried out according to a genuine plan, as a way of stimulating growth in regional centres outside Dublin, it would have had some benefits, but since civil servants were actually relocated purely to the political benefit of Fianna Fáil TDs, it failed even that test.

National negotiation of fish quotas is another example - the populist approach is to disregard the scientific advice in favour of being seen to have "won" on behalf of one's national fishing industry, even though the long-term result will be a collapse of the fish stocks they rely on.

cordially,
Scofflaw

cyberhog

O'Morris wrote: »

I don't have a problem with him offering his opinions on the treaty, or even with him coming here to campaign for a yes vote, but I do have a problem with him using his authority to issue threats to the Irish people about what might happen to us if we don't vote yes to Lisbon. I really don't want to see us hand over more to power to an EU that has people like this in positions of power.

It seems like Enda Kenny doesn't want to hand over any more power either.

Asked whether he supported the concept of treaty change as part of long-term efforts to solve the euro zone debt crisis, Mr Kenny said "I don't."

"I've made this known to other leaders. It's very important that having put the Lisbon (Treaty) in place that the governments of the EU work that treaty in the way that it was intended," he said

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0930/breaking12.html

However, that's not going to go down well with the Germans.

On September 9 German Chancellor Angela Merkel told Germany's parliament that the current European constitution "offers no effective foundation" for the eurozone in the longer term.

"The common currency can only be preserved if there is further integration and more reliability," she said, adding: "We won't get around making further treaty changes."

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/110067

I fear we haven't seen the last of bullies from mainland europe coming here to intimidate us into surrendering more of our hard won sovereignty, though it will probably delight the pro EU posters in this forum if we get another visit from a bully!

easychair

oscarBravo wrote: »

More accurately, I believe that what is populist is not necessarily a good thing. If something is both populist and stupid - like the idea that an international treaty between twenty-seven sovereign nations is invalid if it's more than three pages long - then it's not a good thing. The idea that complex issues should be dumbed down until disinterested people can understand them without having to expend any effort in thinking about them isn't democracy, it's idiocracy.

I agree that being populist may not be a good thing, and am sure no one could disagree with that. It's how one carries the majority of the population with one (democracy) while doing the "right " thing which is difficult.

You call it dumbing down complex issues, which suggests that these complex issues are too difficult for many people, implying that we have to leave it to those intelligent politicians to negotiate for the rest of us. (Presumably thats the same politicians whose brilliant intelligence has lead Ireland to the brink of bankrupcy and beyond).

I can't pretend I have any answers, but if the solution is to leave it all to the politicians, as its just too complicated for most of the rest of the population, I have to raise an eyebrow when I examine where leaving it to the politicians has brought Ireland in the last 20 years.

Is mise le key

oscarBravo wrote: »

The idea that complex issues should be dumbed down until disinterested people can understand them without having to expend any effort in thinking about them isn't democracy, it's idiocracy.

But there is a point in that, democracy is by all of the people, if a large percentage of the population find it hard to get to grips with the text then there is an onus on the people who do understand to try & explain it in terms the people who dont understand will.

Otherwise the process is not truly democratic, i am not saying the actual treaty should be simplified but that it does need to be broken down into different levels of language for comprehension by the masses in order for it to hold any weight as being ratified by 'the people'.

If it is left to the elites who negotiated it & a certain level of society who understand the document telling you its good for you & to trust them, you are closer to bureaucracy than democracy.

easychair

Is mise le key wrote: »

If it is left to the elites who negotiated it & a certain level of society who understand the document telling you its good for you & to trust them, you are closer to bureaucracy than democracy.

It seems obvious that the system of representative democracy hasn't worked in the case of Ireland. It's brought the country to bankrupcy, and has left most citizens suspicious of whatever government is in power, distrusting of politicians as a body and individually, and has given the country probably the most disastrous piece of legislation, which was on no manifesto, and with which the vast majority of the citizens disagree, and which will enslave them to penury for many years, if not decades.

Representative democracy needs a system of checks and balances, and in Ireland there appears to be no checks or balances to stop whatever government is elected to do more or less as it pleases. (In the USA, for example, there are three houses of government, the Houses, the President and the Judiciary, and all act as a system of checks and balances on each other).

In Ireland there is the government, and the only way it can be held to account is every general election, with no real checks and balances between elections.

It's a real, and obvious problem, with no obvious solution in sight.

Scofflaw

cyberhog wrote: »

It seems like Enda Kenny doesn't want to hand over any more power either.



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0930/breaking12.html

However, that's not going to go down well with the Germans.


http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/110067

I fear we haven't seen the last of bullies from mainland europe coming here to intimidate us into surrendering more of our hard won sovereignty, though it will probably delight the pro EU posters in this forum if we get another visit from a bully!

Sadly, in this case the impression of bullying has had to be created by you citing two items out of order, so that the German statement which actually precedes Enda Kenny's is given by you as if it's a reaction.

If we use your stitching, but pay attention to the order in which things really happened, you could equally well say:

Germans want treaty change (September 9th):

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/110067

But that doesn't go down too well with Enda Kenny (September 29th):

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0930/breaking12.html

But that doesn't work for you, does it? Poor old Germany being slapped down by the Irish Taoiseach...

amused,
Scofflaw

thebman

oscarBravo wrote: »

More accurately, I believe that what is populist is not necessarily a good thing. If something is both populist and stupid - like the idea that an international treaty between twenty-seven sovereign nations is invalid if it's more than three pages long - then it's not a good thing. The idea that complex issues should be dumbed down until disinterested people can understand them without having to expend any effort in thinking about them isn't democracy, it's idiocracy.

This is true but most people are capable and willing to try to get to grips with it on a basic level.

The reality is that our politicians are a bit guilty of encouraging the popular opinion that you don't need to read up on the treaty because we are going to tell you which way to vote and it will all be fine as long as you do what we say.

I think that is both dangerous and stupid in itself. Yes for jobs was one of the most ridiculous things about Lisbon by the people supposed to be trying to encourage people to vote for it. What was needed was an honest debate on it with the people against it being punished if they lied and the treaty being discussed on its own merits most of the time.

In Lisbon 1, what we had was a government that seemed to think people would vote what way they told them ignoring the anti-treaty people assuming it would pass and that they didn't have to do much to discredit the anti-treaty position.

The reality is they needed to quickly get the message out there that the no campaigners statements were lies on many issues and then discuss the actual merits of the treaty even if they were boring.

As it was, I found both sides to be engaging in propaganda so just went and read it myself because I couldn't be bothered listening to them.