Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

1235»

Comments

  • #202
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    easychair wrote: »
    ...the EU itself pays lip service to how wonderfully democratic it is...
    [citation needed]


  • #203
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    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.

    OK.
    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Because we were discussing modes of governance rather than modes of state property ownership or parliamentary culture.

    Political systems tend to be a little more integrated than separable in that way.
    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    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.

    OK - well, nothing to argue with there, really. How, in your view, do the Swiss avoid the Californian problem?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #204
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Political systems tend to be a little more integrated than separable in that way.

    For sure. And, at least on a nation-by-nation basis, they're all quite individual. All I was saying was, in the context of a governance discussion, I reckoned it was reasonable to infer certain things when you said a UK style of government, and that, while linked to other things like the National Trust and the form of parliamentary whips, those weren't the focal point of the comparison.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    OK - well, nothing to argue with there, really. How, in your view, do the Swiss avoid the Californian problem?

    Most people opt for the easy answer here and posit a (quasi-racist) argument that it's cultural. Rather than do that, can I ask you first to define what you understand the Californian problem to be? I see problems in California that may not be the same things you're identifying.


  • #205
    easychair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭easychair


    A perfect example of how the EU opposes democracy is the shrill calls to oppose a referendum in Greece. Once again, because they are afraid of the results of democracy, they oppose it.


  • #206
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    easychair wrote: »
    A perfect example of how the EU opposes democracy is the shrill calls to oppose a referendum in Greece. Once again, because they are afraid of the results of democracy, they oppose it.
    Assuming a "no" vote (which is a fairly safe assumption), what exactly will the "results of democracy" be? Can you outline in detail what you believe will happen to Greece as a result of rejecting the EU deal, and why you think it's a good thing?


  • #207
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    easychair wrote: »
    A perfect example of how the EU opposes democracy is the shrill calls to oppose a referendum in Greece. Once again, because they are afraid of the results of democracy, they oppose it.

    As far as I know, the only person who has called for the referendum not to happen so far is the Greek ex-Finance Minister. As for the EU:
    EU officials said they had yet to be officially notified of the vote.

    But I'm sure the EU that lives in your head has denounced it furiously.

    amused,
    Scofflaw


  • #208
    easychair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭easychair


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    As far as I know, the only person who has called for the referendum not to happen so far is the Greek ex-Finance Minister. As for the EU:



    But I'm sure the EU that lives in your head has denounced it furiously.

    amused,
    Scofflaw

    If you listened to the BBC World Service, you would know a little further as they have been interviewing EU politicians all morning and you'd have heard the objections.

    As you can see, Oscar Bravo above shows perfectly the attitude employed, that democracy must be set aside for the "greater good". Where we differ is that I don't think my views that democracy throwing up the "wrong" result means that democracy should be thwarted and ignored. I prefer to put my faith in the Greek people to decide what is right for them. Any ramifications for Greece that stem from them voting are entirely their own affair.

    I did point out that the EU pays lip service to democracy, which was responded to by Oscar Bravo by a strange and incomprehensible post. Little did I know that we would very soon have yhet another example of the EU trying to squash democracy and force their will on an electorate and ignore the democratic views.

    For me, this is dangerous and to deny people the safety valve of democracy is to pent up more pressure and when the safety valve is eventually let off, it will have a bigger backlash, as we have seen all too recently in, for example, Libya.


  • #209
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    easychair wrote: »
    As you can see, Oscar Bravo above shows perfectly the attitude employed, that democracy must be set aside for the "greater good". Where we differ is that I don't think my views that democracy throwing up the "wrong" result means that democracy should be thwarted and ignored. I prefer to put my faith in the Greek people to decide what is right for them. Any ramifications for Greece that stem from them voting are entirely their own affair.

    I did point out that the EU pays lip service to democracy, which was responded to by Oscar Bravo by a strange and incomprehensible post. Little did I know that we would very soon have yhet another example of the EU trying to squash democracy and force their will on an electorate and ignore the democratic views.

    For me, this is dangerous and to deny people the safety valve of democracy is to pent up more pressure and when the safety valve is eventually let off, it will have a bigger backlash, as we have seen all too recently in, for example, Libya.

    You appear to be taking the position that people will vote for what's best for them in the long run, while many of us think they'll vote for what they believe is less painful now. My guess is they'll vote for the catchy "burn the boldholders" type shouts and within months will be protesting in large numbers about the mess they created themselves (all the while forgetting they created the initial mess too).


  • #210
    easychair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭easychair


    meglome wrote: »
    You appear to be taking the position that people will vote for what's best for them in the long run, while many of us think they'll vote for what they believe is less painful now. My guess is they'll vote for the catchy "burn the boldholders" type shouts and within months will be protesting in large numbers about the mess they created themselves (all the while forgetting they created the initial mess too).

    I don't for one minute think that the electorate will necessarily vote for what is best for them, in the long, short or medium run. Electorates will vote as they will vote, and thats called democracy. Its better to have democracy and vote the wrong way, than denied the opportunity or ability to vote.

    I also don't think it wise to predict how an electorate may vote, and then decide the same electorate may not like the consequences, so that someone else should prevent them from voting on that basis.

    That is not democracy, but is more akin to dictatorship or fascism. I am a democrat and believe that electorates should be allowed to have the final say in how they are governed, and believe no one else should be able to thwart that.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    easychair wrote: »
    I don't for one minute think that the electorate will necessarily vote for what is best for them, in the long, short or medium run. Electorates will vote as they will vote, and thats called democracy. Its better to have democracy and vote the wrong way, than denied the opportunity or ability to vote.

    I also don't think it wise to predict how an electorate may vote, and then decide the same electorate may not like the consequences, so that someone else should prevent them from voting on that basis.

    That is not democracy, but is more akin to dictatorship or fascism. I am a democrat and believe that electorates should be allowed to have the final say in how they are governed, and believe no one else should be able to thwart that.

    Each referendum that we run here puts me off referenda more and more. Maybe it's just the way we run these things though. In a referendum everyone's vote is equal but in reality their opinion or knowledge of the topic is not equal at all.

    One thing is for sure this is going to be interesting.


  • #212
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    easychair wrote: »
    If you listened to the BBC World Service, you would know a little further as they have been interviewing EU politicians all morning and you'd have heard the objections.

    As you can see, Oscar Bravo above shows perfectly the attitude employed, that democracy must be set aside for the "greater good". Where we differ is that I don't think my views that democracy throwing up the "wrong" result means that democracy should be thwarted and ignored. I prefer to put my faith in the Greek people to decide what is right for them. Any ramifications for Greece that stem from them voting are entirely their own affair.

    I did point out that the EU pays lip service to democracy, which was responded to by Oscar Bravo by a strange and incomprehensible post. Little did I know that we would very soon have yhet another example of the EU trying to squash democracy and force their will on an electorate and ignore the democratic views.

    For me, this is dangerous and to deny people the safety valve of democracy is to pent up more pressure and when the safety valve is eventually let off, it will have a bigger backlash, as we have seen all too recently in, for example, Libya.

    I'm sure I would have heard various politicians from EU countries, certainly. What I wouldn't have heard is the EU's official position, which is pretty non-commital:
    Statement by President Barroso and President Van Rompuy on the intention of the Greek authorities to hold a referendum



    At the summit of 27 October, the Heads of State or Government of the Eurozone agreed on a comprehensive package that included strengthening the capital of European banks, significant optimisation of the resources of the EFSF and reinforcement of Eurozone governance as well as coordination and monitoring in economic and budgetary matters. We are working on the implementation of those decisions, which are more necessary than ever, without delay.

    During this summit, the Heads of State or Government of the Eurozone agreed on the establishment of a new program for Greece of € 100 billion funded by the EU and the IMF. An agreement was reached with the private sector to bring Greek debt on to a sustainable path, which provides for a discount of 50% of the debt held by private creditors, or a write-off  in the order of 100 billion €. The Member States of the Eurozone are willing to contribute to all the measures relating to the private sector to the tune of 30 billion €.  This PSI, together with an ambitious reform programme, would be instrumental to reach a debt level of 120% by 2020. This substantive reduction would alleviate the burden on the Greek budget and would therefore support growth and jobs' policies

    We take note of the intention of the Greek authorities to hold a referendum. We are convinced that this agreement is the best for Greece.  We fully trust that Greece will honour the commitments undertaken in relation to the euro area and the international community.

    The Presidents of the European Council and Commission have had a telephone conversation with Prime Minister Papandreou. The Presidents are in contact with members of the Eurozone and will continue to be in the margins of the G20 meeting in Cannes.

    Perhaps you could point to the bit of that that constitutes the "shrill denunciations" you were complaining of?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #213
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    easychair wrote: »
    As you can see, Oscar Bravo above shows perfectly the attitude employed, that democracy must be set aside for the "greater good".
    oscarBravo asked a question; easychair went to some considerable rhetorical lengths to avoid answering it.

    It's instructive (and depressingly predictable) that you didn't answer the question, and equally so that you managed to read a great deal into the fact that I asked it. Although how I went about "showing something perfectly" in a "strange and incomprehensible post" is a mystery to me.


  • #214
    easychair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭easychair


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    oscarBravo asked a question; easychair went to some considerable rhetorical lengths to avoid answering it.

    It's instructive (and depressingly predictable) that you didn't answer the question, and equally so that you managed to read a great deal into the fact that I asked it. Although how I went about "showing something perfectly" in a "strange and incomprehensible post" is a mystery to me.

    It’s not for me to answer the question, but for the Greeks to answer, and for the Greeks to suffer whatever consequences flow from that.

    The “strange and incomprehensible post” I had in mind was this one
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    [citation needed]


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I'm sure I would have heard various politicians from EU countries, certainly. What I wouldn't have heard is the EU's official position, which is pretty non-commital:



    Perhaps you could point to the bit of that that constitutes the "shrill denunciations" you were complaining of?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    You are quite right, that those on the BBC World service I hear during the morning, to the bits I listened to, were largely politicians from various countries. And as we keep being told, the EU is made up of all the member states, which make the decisions.

    You’ll no doubt understand the point, which is that I am a democrat, and I happen to think it’s more important to respect the democratic will, even where that might appear crazy.

    Democracy has flaws, and none more than the fact that politicians feel the need to pander to the short term interests of electorates made up of people from all walks of life. My view is that politicians should explain more, and particularly explain that they need to make decisions for the long term, and that short term popularity will lead to long term problems, and to long term problems which can be severe. Nothing better illustrates this than the way that, since the gold standard was abandoned, politicians have been able to pretend they can keep borrowing to finance unbalanced budgets in perpetuity.

    I’m not sure how that can be addressed, but the chickens of that particular deception have now come home to roost for many countries, and it would be a brave man who would make predictions about where that is going to lead.


  • #215
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    easychair wrote: »
    It’s not for me to answer the question, but for the Greeks to answer, and for the Greeks to suffer whatever consequences flow from that.
    That's pretty much still just you avoiding answering the question, but this time you've answered it with the standard religious belief that something bad that people have voted for is inherently better than a good thing that they didn't vote for.
    The “strange and incomprehensible post” I had in mind was this one
    [citation needed]
    Clearly you've never heard of Wikipedia. Allow me to spell it out for you: You said "...the EU itself pays lip service to how wonderfully democratic it is...", to which I responded with a tag you'll often see on Wikipedia indicating that someone has included a piece of information for which they have adduced no evidence, and provided no source.

    Basically, that was your cue to provide a link to a source for your claim of the EU claiming to be wonderfully democratic. It was, of course, a waste of time offering you that cue, because you were just spouting boilerplate euroskeptic rhetoric, similar to what Scofflaw called you on.


  • #216
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    easychair wrote: »
    You are quite right, that those on the BBC World service I hear during the morning, to the bits I listened to, were largely politicians from various countries. And as we keep being told, the EU is made up of all the member states, which make the decisions.

    Yes - all of them, acting together as the EU, not individual politicians from individual Member States and bits thereof...

    easychair wrote: »
    You’ll no doubt understand the point, which is that I am a democrat, and I happen to think it’s more important to respect the democratic will, even where that might appear crazy.

    Democracy has flaws, and none more than the fact that politicians feel the need to pander to the short term interests of electorates made up of people from all walks of life. My view is that politicians should explain more, and particularly explain that they need to make decisions for the long term, and that short term popularity will lead to long term problems, and to long term problems which can be severe.

    It's hard to disagree with anything there, but a respect for democracy shouldn't be taken to allow licence with facts.
    easychair wrote: »
    Nothing better illustrates this than the way that, since the gold standard was abandoned, politicians have been able to pretend they can keep borrowing to finance unbalanced budgets in perpetuity.

    I’m not sure how that can be addressed, but the chickens of that particular deception have now come home to roost for many countries, and it would be a brave man who would make predictions about where that is going to lead.

    What is it with the goldbug/eurosceptic nexus? It sometimes seems like nine times out of ten you have someone giving out about the EU online, the words 'fiat currency' and 'gold standard' rise inexorably into view?

    baffled,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    What is it with the goldbug/eurosceptic nexus? It sometimes seems like nine times out of ten you have someone giving out about the EU online, the words 'fiat currency' and 'gold standard' rise inexorably into view?

    baffled,
    Scofflaw

    Think it through from a Misesian point of view - the euro is fiat, hence not solid as a currency. This is further amplified by the fact it's not the global reserve currency (the dollar), and the fact that the fiscal union required by monetary union in order for it to function without crises such as we are currently seeing was never implemented (politically difficult in the past - likely impossible now).
    Those who advocate for a return to the gold standard - ie solid money - see the construction of the euro as little more than an economic lie because the fiscal requirements were never met before monetary union. This goes towards a rhetoric of perfidy on behalf of faceless federalist Eurocrats, often fuelled by right wing British broadsheets.
    So people come at it from two directions - those who consider ongoing Eurofederalism to be a bad thing interpret the euro as an economic scam and become interested in gold, while those interested in gold see the euro failing, seek to discern why and encounter a large eurosceptic rhetoric.
    For the record, I am in favour of diversifying out of the euro and hold some precious metals for that very reason, and as an Irish nationalist I would be an opponent of Eurofederalism.
    However, I tend to find the extremities of both positions - what you caricature as goldbugs and eurosceptics - to be intellectually as dishonest as the euro currency is economically dishonest.


  • #218
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Think it through from a Misesian point of view - the euro is fiat, hence not solid as a currency. This is further amplified by the fact it's not the global reserve currency (the dollar), and the fact that the fiscal union required by monetary union in order for it to function without crises such as we are currently seeing was never implemented (politically difficult in the past - likely impossible now).
    Those who advocate for a return to the gold standard - ie solid money - see the construction of the euro as little more than an economic lie because the fiscal requirements were never met before monetary union. This goes towards a rhetoric of perfidy on behalf of faceless federalist Eurocrats, often fuelled by right wing British broadsheets.
    So people come at it from two directions - those who consider ongoing Eurofederalism to be a bad thing interpret the euro as an economic scam and become interested in gold, while those interested in gold see the euro failing, seek to discern why and encounter a large eurosceptic rhetoric.
    For the record, I am in favour of diversifying out of the euro and hold some precious metals for that very reason, and as an Irish nationalist I would be an opponent of Eurofederalism.
    However, I tend to find the extremities of both positions - what you caricature as goldbugs and eurosceptics - to be intellectually as dishonest as the euro currency is economically dishonest.

    Thank you very much for that!

    very cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #219
    easychair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭easychair


    Scofflaw wrote: »

    What is it with the goldbug/eurosceptic nexus? It sometimes seems like nine times out of ten you have someone giving out about the EU online, the words 'fiat currency' and 'gold standard' rise inexorably into view?

    baffled,
    Scofflaw


    I have no idea what it is about the goldbug/eurosceptic nexus (whatver that might be), and psychology, alas, is not my province.


    I discussed what has happened since the gold standard was abandoned by way of explaining why so many governments now find themselves in the predicament they have created for themselves, insofar as they have become so used to not balancing their budgets without borrowing enormous sums of money every year, that they have now got to the point where many of them are simply incapable of balancing their budgets without borrowing eye wateringly large sums of money.


Advertisement