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

Scofflaw

thebman wrote: »

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.

More than "a bit", I'd say - although it wasn't as egregiously insulting as at Nice I.

thebman wrote: »

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.

The question there, of course, is who determines who has lied? The only way I can really see something like that working is to hold, in effect, a Constitutional court case. Claims are submitted by interested parties and published, and the court deals with them and renders a judgement on each, also published. At the end of the case, the whole list of claims and judgements is published, and the referendum then held.

thebman wrote: »

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.

About the only thing I suppose one could say in 'defence' of Fianna Fáil was that at the time their party finances were already very poor - the McKenna judgement precluded them from using government finances. Of course, their first half-arsed attempt meant that they had to do it all over again.

thebman wrote: »

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.

Same here. The government propaganda I found particularly irritating since they were on the Yes side.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thebman

Scofflaw wrote: »

The question there, of course, is who determines who has lied? The only way I can really see something like that working is to hold, in effect, a Constitutional court case. Claims are submitted by interested parties and published, and the court deals with them and renders a judgement on each, also published. At the end of the case, the whole list of claims and judgements is published, and the referendum then held.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm not sure you need that though, by punish I more meant that in debates, I guess it could work though. We did have an independent body setup at the time though but it got very little air time on TV.

Probably because it didn't make for sexy TV though so maybe we need to address that.

cyberhog

Scofflaw wrote: »

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.

Absolute rubbish!

You need to pay closer attention to the tense.

cyberhog wrote: »

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

That's future negative tense.

going to - future

use - what you think what will happen

http://www.englisch-hilfen.de/en/grammar/english_tenses.htm

Scofflaw wrote: »

you could equally well say:

...

But that doesn't go down too well with Enda Kenny

No you could not equally well say "doesn't go" because that's present negative tense.


I did not say "that doesn't go down too well with the Germans."

Enda made a statement which I suggest isn't going to go down well with the Germans because of what Merkel has previously said. So your "stitching" accusation is complete, unfounded nonsense, and a sign of someone who has way too much time on their hands!

Is mise le key

thebman wrote: »

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.

.

Pretty much what i said in my last post, bureaucracy, not democracy.

Scofflaw

cyberhog wrote: »

Absolute rubbish!

You need to pay closer attention to the tense.



That's future negative tense.



http://www.englisch-hilfen.de/en/grammar/english_tenses.htm





No you could not equally well say "doesn't go" because that's present negative tense.


I did not say "that doesn't go down too well with the Germans."

Enda made a statement which I suggest isn't going to go down well with the Germans because of what Merkel has previously said. So your "stitching" accusation is complete, unfounded nonsense, and a sign of someone who has way too much time on their hands!

The opposite, rather - I was making a quick post. But you're quite right, and I was completely wrong!

apologies,
Scofflaw

cyberhog

So it only took Dr Merkel a month to get our gutless Taoiseach to back down on his opposition to treaty change.

30 September 2011

When asked if he supports Treaty Change in order to facilitate a deeper fiscal union, Mr Kenny said: "I don't...

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0930/euro-business.html


26 October 2011

The Taoiseach: We have had no problem with a limited treaty change.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/10/26/00003.asp

Once again we find ourselves with a pathetic excuse for a leader.

easychair

cyberhog wrote: »

Once again we find ourselves with a pathetic excuse for a leader.

That is an interesting observation, and I suppose the question that has to be asked is "why?"

Why does Ireland keep voting in politicians, and Prime Ministers, who seem to be unable, or unwilling, to lead and make the right decisions?

The best that might be said for Enda Kenny, so far, is that at least he has not appeared on an early morning radio show appearing to be less than wholly sober. Other than that, he seems weak and unable to inspire or lead.

This week Ireland ( the taxpayers) will pay a quarter of a billion more euros to bond holders in the bank formerly known as Anglo. It's unnecessary and wrong, and Fine Gael said so before being elected. What has happened Fine Gael, and Enda Kenny, since then that now it's ok?

Scofflaw

easychair wrote: »

That is an interesting observation, and I suppose the question that has to be asked is "why?"

Why does Ireland keep voting in politicians, and Prime Ministers, who seem to be unable, or unwilling, to lead and make the right decisions?

The best that might be said for Enda Kenny, so far, is that at least he has not appeared on an early morning radio show appearing to be less than wholly sober. Other than that, he seems weak and unable to inspire or lead.

This week Ireland ( the taxpayers) will pay a quarter of a billion more euros to bond holders in the bank formerly known as Anglo. It's unnecessary and wrong, and Fine Gael said so before being elected. What has happened Fine Gael, and Enda Kenny, since then that now it's ok?

It was necessary then, but Fine Gael wasn't in government. It's necessary now, and Fine Gael is in government.

cordially,
Scofflaw

easychair

Scofflaw wrote: »

It was necessary then, but Fine Gael wasn't in government. It's necessary now, and Fine Gael is in government.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'd afraid there are many people, including the vast majority of irish taxpayers, who disagree with your view that it is "necessary".

Many of those have no faith in either domestic politicians or the clowns in Europe whose inaction to date has exacerbated the crises. Right across the world we see people protesting at politicians and the mess they have led us into, and the situation is becoming more volatile daily. I'm impressed at yoru confidence at the necessity talked about by politicians, as teh stick everyone else with their billions and billions of debt for years into the future.

Greece is, today, allowed to default on 50% of its loans, but the Irish taxpayer must get into even more debt to pay the unsecured debts of a rotten bank which will never again trade and has no retail banking strategic interest.

Scofflaw

easychair wrote: »

I'd afraid there are many people, including the vast majority of irish taxpayers, who disagree with your view that it is "necessary".

Many of those have no faith in either domestic politicians or the clowns in Europe whose inaction to date has exacerbated the crises. Right across the world we see people protesting at politicians and the mess they have led us into, and the situation is becoming more volatile daily. I'm impressed at yoru confidence at the necessity talked about by politicians, as teh stick everyone else with their billions and billions of debt for years into the future.

Greece is, today, allowed to default on 50% of its loans, but the Irish taxpayer must get into even more debt to pay the unsecured debts of a rotten bank which will never again trade and has no retail banking strategic interest.

I'm sure there's a majority of people who would also like their personal debts wiped out - I know I would. That doesn't make it a sensible thing to do.

Also, the Greek haircut, as far as I know, applies only to the private sector lenders, who make up only 40% of Greek loans, so the Greeks are getting a 20% reduction, not a 50% reduction - and that money will have to come from other European taxpayers as the banks are recapitalised to meet the shortfall resulting.

More or less wherever you press a lump down in this crisis, another similarly sized lump will rise up somewhere else. There's a very large debt overhang, and the Greeks, like ourselves and others, spent a lot of that money into useless 'assets', so there's now a large mismatch between money and value. Because we've opted for controlled inflation, the resulting mismatch isn't being eroded at any great speed, and because the system is highly connected and highly unstable, there aren't any quick fixes available - simply saying that it's all too complicated and we'll just cut the Gordian knot and burn this pile of debt here just results in a load of unpredictable but large consequences banging their way messily around the system. And that's not even guaranteed to be quicker, because we don;t know how long the consequences would take to work themselves out.

So the only solution that offers any degree of predictability is to slowly pull value into the system to fill the debt hole - and the only place value is really created is in the private sector, by taxpayers. Whether that's what's wanted is open for debate, but I think you'd find that most businesses, and most people, will opt for certainty over uncertainty, even if the former involves certain pain.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

cyberhog wrote: »

So it only took Dr Merkel a month to get our gutless Taoiseach to back down on his opposition to treaty change.

30 September 2011



http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0930/euro-business.html


26 October 2011




http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/10/26/00003.asp

Once again we find ourselves with a pathetic excuse for a leader.

There is no contradiction in the positions. A person could quite reasonably be open to limited treaty changes to make minor changes to the existing structures and/or operations of the EU (so that it can do what it is currently supposed to do properly) while being opposed to the (presumably) major changes that might be needed for an undefined "deeper fiscal union".

Triangla

View wrote: »

There is no contradiction in the positions. A person could quite reasonably be open to limited treaty changes to make minor changes to the existing structures and/or operations of the EU (so that it can do what it is currently supposed to do properly) while being opposed to the (presumably) major changes that might be needed for an undefined "deeper fiscal union".

Inch by inch soon adds up to a mile.

easychair

Scofflaw wrote: »

Also, the Greek haircut, as far as I know, applies only to the private sector lenders,

Thats my understanding also. Are you saying that the Bond holders which are being repaid to the tune of three quarters of a billion this week, in Anglo Irish Bank, are public sector lenders?

My point is that the poor old Irish pay back everything, with borrowed money which the Irish taxpayer wil be encumbered with, and which effectively beggars Ireland for years, and probably decades, while the Greeks are allowed to write off billions of their debts with no demands from their politicians or the EU that Greek taxpayers have to do what the Irish have to do.

It's unfair, wrong and a rotten policy.

oscarBravo

easychair wrote: »

...the Greeks are allowed to write off billions of their debts with no demands from their politicians or the EU that Greek taxpayers have to do what the Irish have to do.

Are you serious?

View

Triangla wrote: »

Inch by inch soon adds up to a mile.

Yeah sure, you mean like how all those amendments to Bunreacht na hEireann have turned us from the democratic state of yesteryear to today's totalitarian dictatorship? :rolleyes:

View

easychair wrote: »

Thats my understanding also. Are you saying that the Bond holders which are being repaid to the tune of three quarters of a billion this week, in Anglo Irish Bank, are public sector lenders?

My point is that the poor old Irish pay back everything, with borrowed money which the Irish taxpayer wil be encumbered with, and which effectively beggars Ireland for years, and probably decades, while the Greeks are allowed to write off billions of their debts with no demands from their politicians or the EU that Greek taxpayers have to do what the Irish have to do.

It's unfair, wrong and a rotten policy.

My understanding is that some Anglo Irish Bank bondholders have had to take "hair cuts" on the loans owed to them which means, of course, that we haven't paid back everything.

As for this nonsense of the Greek taxpayers have not had to do what we have had to do - have you actually paid any attention to what they are going through? Even with the debt write off, the average Greek faces much tougher measures than we do.

Is mise le key

One point that has been overlooked is that despite Slovakia voting No to an expansion of the 'bailout' fund, they have been ignored, the EU steamrolled ahead anyway, it seems that democratic decisions only matter if you are a big economic power in europe, wait, sounds an awful lot like what Ganley was saying doesnt it.

Never mind the slovaks*, there only a tiny country, they cant stand in the way of the EU plans................

*Add Ireland, Lithuania, estonia etc etc etc...........

K-9

Is mise le key wrote: »

One point that has been overlooked is that despite Slovakia voting No to an expansion of the 'bailout' fund, they have been ignored, the EU steamrolled ahead anyway, it seems that democratic decisions only matter if you are a big economic power in europe, wait, sounds an awful lot like what Ganley was saying doesnt it.

Never mind the slovaks*, there only a tiny country, they cant stand in the way of the EU plans................

*Add Ireland, Lithuania, estonia etc etc etc...........

Nearly sure they subsequently voted for it, yep, see link:

Slovakia approves European debt-crisis bailout fund - The Washington Post

Scofflaw

easychair wrote: »

Thats my understanding also. Are you saying that the Bond holders which are being repaid to the tune of three quarters of a billion this week, in Anglo Irish Bank, are public sector lenders?

My point is that the poor old Irish pay back everything, with borrowed money which the Irish taxpayer wil be encumbered with, and which effectively beggars Ireland for years, and probably decades, while the Greeks are allowed to write off billions of their debts with no demands from their politicians or the EU that Greek taxpayers have to do what the Irish have to do.

It's unfair, wrong and a rotten policy.

Or it would be, were it actually the case.

Triangla wrote:

Inch by inch soon adds up to a mile.

63,360 inches in a mile...so roughly 63,340 treaty amendments to go?

apologies,
Scofflaw

Is mise le key

K-9 wrote: »

Nearly sure they subsequently voted for it, yep, see link:

Slovakia approves European debt-crisis bailout fund - The Washington Post

Ah yes, just like we voted No to lisbon once, but thats not the correct answer, go away & vote again until you come back with a yes.

Scofflaw

Is mise le key wrote: »

Ah yes, just like we voted No to lisbon once, but thats not the correct answer, go away & vote again until you come back with a yes.

I suspect you voted No twice, so your complaint boils down to "other people changed their minds". Poor you.

amused,
Scofflaw

Is mise le key

Scofflaw wrote: »

I suspect you voted No twice, so your complaint boils down to "other people changed their minds". Poor you.

amused,
Scofflaw

Oh right, so i'll change the way i phrased it,

Goo away until you change your mind to the correct answer:rolleyes:

K-9

Is mise le key wrote: »

Ah yes, just like we voted No to lisbon once, but thats not the correct answer, go away & vote again until you come back with a yes.

Well not really, it was internal politicking and the return for a Yes vote was internal elections.

Scofflaw

Is mise le key wrote: »

Oh right, so i'll change the way i phrased it,

Goo away until you change your mind to the correct answer:rolleyes:

...and did you?

still amused,
Scofflaw

Is mise le key

Scofflaw wrote: »

...and did you?

still amused,
Scofflaw

No, but on the successful ratification of the treaty it would appear a majority did.

Scofflaw

Is mise le key wrote: »

No, but on the successful ratification of the treaty it would appear a majority did.

...and your objection to the majority changing their mind is?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Is mise le key

Scofflaw wrote: »

...and your objection to the majority changing their mind is?

cordially,
Scofflaw

They had made up their mind previously & conveyed it, they were asked to reconsider, if they had come back and said 'no yer alright, i think i already told you what i think' we would have been asked again.

But i think you already knew the answer that my problem is not with the people but the institutions of the EU.

Dissapointed,
Is mise:p

Scofflaw

Is mise le key wrote: »

They had made up their mind previously & conveyed it, they were asked to reconsider, if they had come back and said 'no yer alright, i think i already told you what i think' we would have been asked again.

But i think you already knew the answer that my problem is not with the people but the institutions of the EU.

Dissapointed,
Is mise:p

Yes, I did, but I think the idea that anyone was somehow 'forced' to change their mind gets far too much exercise, when it's clear that virtually nobody who actually makes that argument changed theirs - it suggests that you believe the rest of the electorate are soft-headed fools of some kind.

Tell me something - do you think a repeat referendum on the Oireachtas Inquiries amendment is likely?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Is mise le key

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, I did, but I think the idea that anyone was somehow 'forced' to change their mind gets far too much exercise, when it's clear that virtually nobody who actually makes that argument changed theirs - it suggests that you believe the rest of the electorate are soft-headed fools of some kind.

Tell me something - do you think a repeat referendum on the Oireachtas Inquiries amendment is likely?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Soft headed fools!!!

Im sorry my dear fellow, being coerced into changing your mind on a particular issue from being surrounded by the Pro EU media outlets at every turn does not make you soft headed, it demonstrates the power of the media to instill an opinion into the population & how mmuch the media is an instrument of the establishment.

Exceedingly dissapointed,
Is Mise:p:p

Scofflaw

Is mise le key wrote: »

Soft headed fools!!!

Im sorry my dear fellow, being coerced into changing your mind on a particular issue from being surrounded by the Pro EU media outlets at every turn does not make you soft headed, it demonstrates the power of the media to instill an opinion into the population & how mmuch the media is an instrument of the establishment.

Exceedingly dissapointed,
Is Mise:p:p

And now you need a different explanation for Lisbon 1, where somehow that didn't happen - and a different explanation for you and other double-No voters, who apparently can resist the power of the media.

How is it that you have these powers of mental resistance, but the general public lacks them?

amused again,
Scofflaw

Is mise le key

Scofflaw wrote: »

And now you need a different explanation for Lisbon 1, where somehow that didn't happen - and a different explanation for you and other double-No voters, who apparently can resist the power of the media.

How is it that you have these powers of mental resistance, but the general public lacks them?

amused again,
Scofflaw

Well simply put, once you are aware that the media in general is used to publish lies you tend not to be influenced by it, if the mmajority of people take on face value what they are told & see or hear which subsequently forms their opinion that does not make them soft headed.

The control of the media has always been recognised as one of the most powerful tools in controling public opinion.

I actually dont think you need me to tell you this, you already know it, so by fishing for answers you already know you are meerly game playing, enough, there are far more mature people to be engaging with here.

with respect,

Is mise.

Scofflaw

Is mise le key wrote: »

Well simply put, once you are aware that the media in general is used to publish lies you tend not to be influenced by it, if the mmajority of people take on face value what they are told & see or hear which subsequently forms their opinion that does not make them soft headed.

The control of the media has always been recognised as one of the most powerful tools in controling public opinion.

I actually dont think you need me to tell you this, you already know it, so by fishing for answers you already know you are meerly game playing, enough, there are far more mature people to be engaging with here.

with respect,

Is mise.

And again the explanation somehow fails to cover Lisbon 1, where despite presumably the same level of media control as at Lisbon 2, the referendum did not pass. Unless in late 2008 the government somehow seized control of a previously independent media - which we both know is laughable - you're having to make contradictory claims for the two referendums.

So I'm afraid that I would in fact say your problem is that you rather casually make claims which don't stand up to the kind of scrutiny I'm giving them, although I'm sure they're received with murmurs of "right on, brother" in the appropriate circles. I accept that you believe those claims to be true, but to me that just means you're willing to believe something logically false because you find it emotionally comforting.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

Is mise le key wrote: »

Well simply put, once you are aware that the media in general is used to publish lies you tend not to be influenced by it, if the mmajority of people take on face value what they are told & see or hear which subsequently forms their opinion that does not make them soft headed.

Honestly I'm very amused by this. For the most part we voted No to Lisbon the first time based on things that weren't in the treaty at all. We got guarantees on things that for the most part weren't in the treaty.

You only have to see this page to know why we voted No the first time. This page is full of crap and these posters were up all over the place.

oscarBravo

Is mise le key wrote: »

Im sorry my dear fellow, being coerced into changing your mind on a particular issue from being surrounded by the Pro EU media outlets at every turn does not make you soft headed, it demonstrates the power of the media to instill an opinion into the population & how mmuch the media is an instrument of the establishment.

That's a pretty compelling argument for scrapping referendums completely. If the electorate can have an opinion "instilled into it", then the people are no longer sovereign and can't be trusted with such important decision making.

easychair

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a pretty compelling argument for scrapping referendums completely. If the electorate can have an opinion "instilled into it", then the people are no longer sovereign and can't be trusted with such important decision making.

Of course, the sovereignty of the people is partly flawed because any decision is taken by people with varying degrees of intelligence and knowledge and interests.

However, it's not easy to find a better system. I'd rather live in a democracy which has the potential to make the wrong decisions, than under a system which does not represent the people subjected to the laws.

Scofflaw

easychair wrote: »

Of course, the sovereignty of the people is partly flawed because any decision is taken by people with varying degrees of intelligence and knowledge and interests.

However, it's not easy to find a better system. I'd rather live in a democracy which has the potential to make the wrong decisions, than under a system which does not represent the people subjected to the laws.

So do we all. Democracy, as they say, is the worst political system - apart from all the others.

cordially,
Scofflaw

rumour

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a pretty compelling argument for scrapping referendums completely. If the electorate can have an opinion "instilled into it", then the people are no longer sovereign and can't be trusted with such important decision making.

That is stating the obvious really, how many times have we been asked to vote again because we got the wrong answer?. Curiously I think it only applies to questions about Europe:rolleyes:

oscarBravo

rumour wrote: »

...how many times have we been asked to vote again because we got the wrong answer?

I've never been asked to vote again for that reason. I accept that it suits a certain narrative to simplify the issue down to that point, but if I had spent a few years negotiating something and it was rejected for irrelevant reasons, I'd probably ask people to reconsider their decision as well.

Mind you, I'd also like to think that I'd get better at selling the idea the first time around, but that might be a lot to ask.

Cavehill Red

Scofflaw wrote: »

So do we all. Democracy, as they say, is the worst political system - apart from all the others.

cordially,
Scofflaw

A curious yet welcome quotation to see you cite, given your fervent opposition to the concept of direct democracy the last time we discussed it.

Scofflaw

Cavehill Red wrote: »

A curious yet welcome quotation to see you cite, given your fervent opposition to the concept of direct democracy the last time we discussed it.

There are many shades of democracy. Simply turning everything over to plebiscite isn't one of the ones that actually works.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cavehill Red

Scofflaw wrote: »

There are many shades of democracy. Simply turning everything over to plebiscite isn't one of the ones that actually works.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Interesting assertion to make, given that never in human history has that model been tried. You of course no doubt recall that I proposed direct democracy on the Swiss model which demonstrably does work.

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

That is stating the obvious really, how many times have we been asked to vote again because we got the wrong answer?. Curiously I think it only applies to questions about Europe:rolleyes:

Really? Funnily enough, I think we'll be seeing the Oireachtas Inquiries amendment again, much as we saw the divorce and abortion referendums again.

Cavehill Red wrote:

Interesting assertion to make, given that never in human history has that model been tried.

Oh no! No true Scotsman...

You of course no doubt recall that I proposed direct democracy on the Swiss model which demonstrably does work.

I'm sure I wish my memory was so capacious.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cavehill Red

Scofflaw wrote: »

Oh no! No true Scotsman...

Not at all. It's a factual reality that the idea of putting every single decision to plebiscite (as you misrepresented direct democracy to be) has never been attempted in human history, for the simple fact that it is unworkable.
The Swiss model, on the other hand...

Scofflaw

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Not at all. It's a factual reality that the idea of putting every single decision to plebiscite (as you misrepresented direct democracy to be) has never been attempted in human history, for the simple fact that it is unworkable.

I agree that it's unworkable, but haven't claimed that "direct democracy" involves putting everything to plebiscite, except in its most naive formulation. On the other hand, I don't know that the most naive formulation isn't what's being proposed, or, if that's not what's being proposed, how far away from such a naive formulation what's being proposed is. You're not, after all, the only proposer of direct democracy in these parts.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The Swiss model, on the other hand...

...works in Switzerland? And is presumably different from the Californian model, which appears to produce such problems in California.

If you're proposing adoption of the Swiss model, are you also proposing adoption of the cantonal structure? And of the general attitude of the Swiss electorate to communal vs NIMBY decision-making - or do you believe that's something that will grow naturally in some functionally useful timeframe from adopting their political system?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cavehill Red

Scofflaw wrote: »

I agree that it's unworkable, but haven't claimed that "direct democracy" involves putting everything to plebiscite, except in its most naive formulation.

Except where you said a few posts above that direct democracy involved 'turning everything over to plebiscite.' :rolleyes:

Scofflaw wrote: »

...works in Switzerland? And is presumably different from the Californian model, which appears to produce such problems in California.

Well, er, yes, obviously it's different. We can go through the differences if you like, but holding the occasional referendum does not amount to direct democracy. One might as well suggest that Ireland enjoys direct democracy. After all, sure didn't we just have two referenda?

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you're proposing adoption of the Swiss model, are you also proposing adoption of the cantonal structure?

My personal preference is to introduce it nationally first, and then look to reorganise the state on a local democractic model, perhaps using the European parliamentary constituency borders as guidelines for a 'cantonisation.'

Scofflaw wrote: »

And of the general attitude of the Swiss electorate to communal vs NIMBY decision-making - or do you believe that's something that will grow naturally in some functionally useful timeframe from adopting their political system?

Which is why I suggest a national introduction first. Having said that, I do believe the people, who are sovereign in any form of democracy, are not unintelligent. We have a relatively complex voting system here in PR-STV, yet our schoolchildren comprehend it. I have little doubt that the electorate would not only adapt but thrive with the responsibility of removing power from the hands of a self-serving elite.

Scofflaw

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Except where you said a few posts above that direct democracy involved 'turning everything over to plebiscite.' :rolleyes:

Sure - until someone tells me where and how they propose drawing the boundaries on plebiscites, I might as well assume that.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Well, er, yes, obviously it's different. We can go through the differences if you like, but holding the occasional referendum does not amount to direct democracy. One might as well suggest that Ireland enjoys direct democracy. After all, sure didn't we just have two referenda?

Which means that we enjoy some direct democracy, I would have said, unless referendums aren't direct in some way I'm missing?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

My personal preference is to introduce it nationally first, and then look to reorganise the state on a local democractic model, perhaps using the European parliamentary constituency borders as guidelines for a 'cantonisation.'

Which is why I suggest a national introduction first. Having said that, I do believe the people, who are sovereign in any form of democracy, are not unintelligent. We have a relatively complex voting system here in PR-STV, yet our schoolchildren comprehend it. I have little doubt that the electorate would not only adapt but thrive with the responsibility of removing power from the hands of a self-serving elite.

Their response in the recent referendums suggests they're quite capable of handling themselves in a direct voting scenario, despite the sour grapes of the anti-Lisbon people.

However, you're still not drawing a picture for me here. You're sort of waving in the direction of Switzerland and saying you like what they're doing, but you don't really like what the Californians do, even though both of them would describe what they do as 'direct democracy'.

I appreciate I'm coming across as deliberately obtuse here, but if I said I liked, say, "the UK system", I don't think I would find it unreasonable if you asked me what on earth I meant.

What exactly are you proposing?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cavehill Red

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure - until someone tells me where and how they propose drawing the boundaries on plebiscites, I might as well assume that.

Presumably you understand what triggers a plebiscite (or indeed a referendum) here in Ireland? Well, guess what? Other places have similar 'boundaries' on what goes to public vote and what doesn't, including Switzerland and indeed California.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which means that we enjoy some direct democracy, I would have said, unless referendums aren't direct in some way I'm missing?

Only a very little bit. Specifically, we implement public votes in relation to constitutional changes, as directed by the executive. So in a real sense (ie the sense that the public themselves can generate law) we don't.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Their response in the recent referendums suggests they're quite capable of handling themselves in a direct voting scenario, despite the sour grapes of the anti-Lisbon people.
However, you're still not drawing a picture for me here. You're sort of waving in the direction of Switzerland and saying you like what they're doing, but you don't really like what the Californians do, even though both of them would describe what they do as 'direct democracy'.
I appreciate I'm coming across as deliberately obtuse here, but if I said I liked, say, "the UK system", I don't think I would find it unreasonable if you asked me what on earth I meant.
What exactly are you proposing?
cordially,
Scofflaw

If you said the UK system to me I'd have a very clear idea of what you meant. You'd mean a bi-cameral representative parliamentary system overseeing devolved regional assemblies and local government apparatus, under a nominal monarchy, operating without a written constitution.
So, when I say the Swiss system to you, what's unclear about that

Scofflaw

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Presumably you understand what triggers a plebiscite (or indeed a referendum) here in Ireland? Well, guess what? Other places have similar 'boundaries' on what goes to public vote and what doesn't, including Switzerland and indeed California.

Er, yes, that's right. And the minimum I would want from someone advocating 'direct democracy' is that they lay out those boundaries - otherwise I might as well assume that they're naively calling for plebiscites on everything. After all, we're both in favour of democracy, and both of us are in favour of public votes, so clearly what's distinctive in our preferences is where we draw those boundaries.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Only a very little bit. Specifically, we implement public votes in relation to constitutional changes, as directed by the executive. So in a real sense (ie the sense that the public themselves can generate law) we don't.

OK, fair point, and helpful.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

If you said the UK system to me I'd have a very clear idea of what you meant. You'd mean a bi-cameral representative parliamentary system overseeing devolved regional assemblies and local government apparatus, under a nominal monarchy, operating without a written constitution.

Would I? Might I not mean specifically the variable whip system as opposed to our whip/no-whip system? Might I not mean the culture of accountability compared to ours? Or the different local government structure? Or the existence of the Crown Estate and the National Trust? Or their separation of powers as opposed to ours? Why did you assume I meant what you thought of when you thought of "the UK system"?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

So, when I say the Swiss system to you, what's unclear about that

As per the above - what's unclear is what you like about it. I'm pretty sure you can summarise that for me, and I'm pretty sure it's a waste of both our effort me trying to do it instead of you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cavehill Red

Scofflaw wrote: »

Er, yes, that's right. And the minimum I would want from someone advocating 'direct democracy' is that they lay out those boundaries - otherwise I might as well assume that they're naively calling for plebiscites on everything. After all, we're both in favour of democracy, and both of us are in favour of public votes, so clearly what's distinctive in our preferences is where we draw those boundaries.

I suggested the Swiss model. A system which permits people to generate legislation, a system which posits government (both local and national) as caretakers and representatives of society rather than its leaders. A system which achieves this through regular votes on issues both at regional and national levels.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Would I? Might I not mean specifically the variable whip system as opposed to our whip/no-whip system? Might I not mean the culture of accountability compared to ours? Or the different local government structure? Or the existence of the Crown Estate and the National Trust? Or their separation of powers as opposed to ours? Why did you assume I meant what you thought of when you thought of "the UK system"?

Because we were discussing modes of governance rather than modes of state property ownership or parliamentary culture.

Scofflaw wrote: »

As per the above - what's unclear is what you like about it. I'm pretty sure you can summarise that for me, and I'm pretty sure it's a waste of both our effort me trying to do it instead of you.

I like the fact it works. I like the fact that a country with four national languages, a series of ethnicities, little arable land and few natural resources has, through the simple implementation of direct democracy in a fuller manner than anywhere else on Earth, obtained peace and prosperity for a half a millennium to levels the rest of the planet could only dream of. To me, the results are more than worthy of examination. The fact that this has occurred in a small European country in some ways not dissimilar to our own makes it even more worth examining.
I like the fact that it entrusts power to those from whom sovereignty actually stems - the people. I like the fact that it requires the citizenry to become engaged and informed in society and with topics of importance to their lives, and that it facilitates their championing of causes from the grass roots up. I like the fact that it functions as a fundamental check and balance on corruption at the professional political class, and acts as a prophylactic against political corruption taking root.
Fundamentally, I like the fact that it draws on the wisdom of the people of a nation to decide the direction that nation should take.

easychair

I've never seen anyone who argues in favour of everything which the EU proposes, and who argues for more and more powers from the individual countries to be transferred to the EU, also argue for more democracy, which is what the Swiss have with their referendums.

Consequently, they have to find arguments as to how the Swiss model wouldn't work, or how it is unsuitable for other countries and so and so on. Why the EU itself pays lip service to how wonderfully democratic it is (curiously in a similar way to how the old Soviet Union and Soviet satellites also claimed to be democratic), in reality those who are in charge of the EU fear democracy as it has the potential to weaken their own power base, and their actions have shown that they will oppose and neuter democracy, while at the same time pretending they are democratic.

Hence the only thing Swiss Style of which they will approve, and allow, is muesli, and they will never allow or even contemplate any steps towards real or better democracy across the EU.