too much time being wasted?

oscarBravo

mangaroosh wrote: »

...if we vote No, the politics will have to evolve somewhat.

No, they won't. By precisely the same logic you've espoused here, if we vote No we'll have endorsed blatant lies and utterly shameless mendacity as campaign tactics.

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

The thing is, it would not be voting on another issue, rather taking everything into account. Part of that is the fact that every single one of our political parties has effectively fobbed us off in this referendum. That also has to be taken into account. They speak of the embarassment that would come with another No vote, perhaps they might be embarassed enough to run a factual campaign next time, instead of adopting the same shoddy approach as the No campaign. These are our politicians. Is this good enough? I would hope not.

As for Sam's point, I beleive it would be more relevant to suggest that if we voted No, it would show the political parties that they have to change their approach, that they have to provide more open, honest and transparent debate on the issue. As it stands both the Yes and No vote is a vote for rhetoric and fallacy. The difference being the consequence of a No vote may be a change in approach from the politicians in this country, to a more open an honest approach - because they would have to change their approach, and there doesn't seem to be any other options.

mangaroosh, I think you're right. Our politicians need to be sent a message that this behaviour is not acceptable. They need to know that they must provide us with factual information or we will make them face the consequences. If only there was some mechanism for us to send them this message without dragging in a whole load of other issues and rejecting them even though every other country in Europe has accepted them, just because we want to send this message to our government. If only there was some democratic process that was specifically designed for telling our politicians whether we approve of them or not. Can you think of how we would implement such a process? I know its a mad concept. I'm going to pluck a name out of the air for what we can call this radical new idea. Let's call it a general election. Sound good?

Also, you still haven't answered my question. Will you be voting no in the children's rights referendum to send our politicians a message? And if not why not?

Scofflaw

mangaroosh wrote:

I am as of yet open to voting Yes, in fact I kind of want to vote yes - this is a fact. The problem is I am having trouble justifying it based on the information that has come, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, from the political parties of this country, not just the incumbent government, but the probably future one. If we accept this kind of politics now, what choice will we have in the future, when the choice will be similar to this one, rhetoric vs rhetoric. The difference is, as I see it, if we vote No, the politics will have to evolve somewhat. If we vote Yes, it won't, and personally I think it is needed.

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, they won't. By precisely the same logic you've espoused here, if we vote No we'll have endorsed blatant lies and utterly shameless mendacity as campaign tactics.

Unfortunately, both of these are true. If we vote Yes, the government will most probably go back to sleep on the whole European issue - but if we vote No, then we guarantee that the next referendum will be run at an even lower level of debate than this one, because people will draw the conclusion that you can win a referendum with completely false claims like the €1.84 one. We've already seen that the political-party Yes campaigns this time have evolved somewhat in the direction of last time's No campaigns, because that was the winning strategy.

The difference, however, is that the government can be prodded to keep it awake (it's mostly a case of keeping a public European debate going), whereas absolutely nothing will shift the perception that you can win a referendum with outright lies - and that lesson will be drawn by both camps.

I hate to say it, mangaroosh, but all you're really making here is a claim that the No campaigns are more honest than the government, because the tone of the next referendum will actually be set by whoever wins this one. I'm afraid I can't swallow that at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

has anyone tried comparing leaflets rather then posters?

personnally I think most of the blame lies with the central medium being posters and debates.

The debates are awful because there is nothing to confirm if someone is purposely misleading and it turns into a shouting and screaming match full of irrational emotion.

And the posters provide little space for information beyond shouting out crude slogans.

I was at a debate a couple of weeks back and I asked those debating who had a copy of the treaty...less then half of those debating (1 on the no side, Patricia Mckenna, and 2 on the yes side counselor Montague and the rep from Women for Europe) actually brought copies of the treaty with them.


though a number of leaflets I have seen, actually do fill in a bit of information I got one from Labour and Generation Yes earlier in the week and both actually had breakdowns on the benefits with actual treaty links.

I've said before the No side have the same, problem is most often or not these tend to be misquoted articles though (case being People's movement using articles from Nice).

dizzywizlw

I love how SF are targeting some sense of Nationalism with Votáil No, yet their message about the treaty is in English.

Has anybody seen this poster with zero punctuation:

Europe race to the bottom privatisation.

Sheer class

roosh

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, they won't. By precisely the same logic you've espoused here, if we vote No we'll have endorsed blatant lies and utterly shameless mendacity as campaign tactics.

The thing is, those in the Yes campaign will be forced to change their approach, becaue their same approach will have failed twice.

There seems to have been a marginal shift towards some discussion and debate on the issue this time round, it is reasonable to assume that this trend would continue.

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

mangaroosh, I think you're right. Our politicians need to be sent a message that this behaviour is not acceptable. They need to know that they must provide us with factual information or we will make them face the consequences. If only there was some mechanism for us to send them this message without dragging in a whole load of other issues and rejecting them even though every other country in Europe has accepted them, just because we want to send this message to our government. If only there was some democratic process that was specifically designed for telling our politicians whether we approve of them or not. Can you think of how we would implement such a process? I know its a mad concept. I'm going to pluck a name out of the air for what we can call this radical new idea. Let's call it a general election. Sound good?

You see the problem with this idea is the fact that we will be faced with the choice of choosing one form of rhetoric over another, in the general election. So either way we will be voting for rhetoric, and continuing on as normal. The dynamic of this vote is quite different to that of the general election, and indeed one of the few times we can vote against an actual form of politicking.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Also, you still haven't answered my question. Will you be voting no in the children's rights referendum to send our politicians a message? And if not why not?

This is the first time you have asked this question. The first time you asked it, you assumed my opposition to a particular political party. To answer this question, I will wait to get information on the issue first and see what the ramifications of my vote would be before deciding.

meglome

mangaroosh wrote: »

The thing is, those in the Yes campaign will be forced to change their approach, becaue their same approach will have failed twice.

There seems to have been a marginal shift towards some discussion and debate on the issue this time round, it is reasonable to assume that this trend would continue.

But how do you fight stuff being said about a treaty that isn't in it? When people are willing to tell whatever porkies that they like, should the Yes campaign do the same now?

roosh

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, both of these are true. If we vote Yes, the government will most probably go back to sleep on the whole European issue - but if we vote No, then we guarantee that the next referendum will be run at an even lower level of debate than this one, because people will draw the conclusion that you can win a referendum with completely false claims like the €1.84 one. We've already seen that the political-party Yes campaigns this time have evolved somewhat in the direction of last time's No campaigns, because that was the winning strategy.

I don't think you can say that the next referendum would be run at a lower level of debate. Was there any debate whatsoever the first time round? Also, if the Yes campaign has verged more towards the No campaign, and we vote Yes, then we merely re-inforce that decision. Surely our political leaders can see that the natural disposition to something like this is to err on the side of caution. What is needed is strong leadership, a clarification of the issues and openess. If this was provided then it would simply come down to a matter of, which do we want, as opposed to which side told the best lies. The reason that the No campaign is so powerful, is not because their scaremongering tactics are any way good, it is becaue people do not have the necessary information to refute the claims. We have had an inordinate amount of time to disseminate information on this treaty yet we find ourselves in the same shambolic situationas we were before. This is a failing of the Yes campaign, not an endorsement of the No campaign.

The difference, however, is that the government can be prodded to keep it awake (it's mostly a case of keeping a public European debate going), whereas absolutely nothing will shift the perception that you can win a referendum with outright lies - and that lesson will be drawn by both camps.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I hate to say it, mangaroosh, but all you're really making here is a claim that the No campaigns are more honest than the government, because the tone of the next referendum will actually be set by whoever wins this one. I'm afraid I can't swallow that at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That is not what I am saying at all, and apollgies if I haven't been clear enough. What I am saying is that the political leaders, both in government and in opposition, have an obligation to the people of this country, and by extension Europe, to provide us with the relevant information on which to base our votes. If they are endorsing a yes vote, then they should be able to convince us of a yes vote without resorting to the tactics of those who are [largely] not elected representatives, who won't be looking for us to vote them into government, and who have no real obligation to the people of Ireland.

I am not for one second saying that the No campaing is more honest - although I would be willing to explore the levels of honesty - what I am saying is that the politicians of this country have to be held to a higher standard that those who are not. I also say that the obligation is on the Yes campaigners to show that a Yes vote is the right option, because the natural disposition is, and rightly so, one of caution. They have failed in this respect.

People are right to feel aggrieved, and indeed those that have not had the benefit of discussing the issue here and having certain issues clarified, would be prefectly justified in voting No, out of a sense of moral decency and indeed based solely on logic.

roosh

meglome wrote: »

But how do you fight stuff being said about a treaty that isn't in it? When people are willing to tell whatever porkies that they like, should the Yes campaign do the same now?

You fight it by making it abundantly clear what is actually in the Treaty. This is the second time we are voting on it, there has been ample time to disseminate this information, so that people can judge the claims of various people for themselves.

Scofflaw

mangaroosh wrote: »

I don't think you can say that the next referendum would be run at a lower level of debate. Was there any debate whatsoever the first time round?

There was, in fact, plenty of debate.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Also, if the Yes campaign has verged more towards the No campaign, and we vote Yes, then we merely re-inforce that decision.

A reasonable point, but a No vote sends them further in that direction. On the other hand, if you believe that the Yes campaign has been better this time round, then you should vote Yes to copperfasten your approval of what they're doing.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Surely our political leaders can see that the natural disposition to something like this is to err on the side of caution. What is needed is strong leadership, a clarification of the issues and openess. If this was provided then it would simply come down to a matter of, which do we want, as opposed to which side told the best lies. The reason that the No campaign is so powerful, is not because their scaremongering tactics are any way good, it is becaue people do not have the necessary information to refute the claims. We have had an inordinate amount of time to disseminate information on this treaty yet we find ourselves in the same shambolic situationas we were before. This is a failing of the Yes campaign, not an endorsement of the No campaign.

An enormous amount of information has been disseminated, and even more is available for those who want it. However (a) you can't make people want that information or digest it, and (b) everyone in the country would need to become an expert on the EU to nearly dissertation level.

mangaroosh wrote: »

That is not what I am saying at all, and apollgies if I haven't been clear enough. What I am saying is that the political leaders, both in government and in opposition, have an obligation to the people of this country, and by extension Europe, to provide us with the relevant information on which to base our votes. If they are endorsing a yes vote, then they should be able to convince us of a yes vote without resorting to the tactics of those who are [largely] not elected representatives, who won't be looking for us to vote them into government, and who have no real obligation to the people of Ireland.

I am not for one second saying that the No campaing is more honest - although I would be willing to explore the levels of honesty - what I am saying is that the politicians of this country have to be held to a higher standard that those who are not. I also say that the obligation is on the Yes campaigners to show that a Yes vote is the right option, because the natural disposition is, and rightly so, one of caution. They have failed in this respect.

People are right to feel aggrieved, and indeed those that have not had the benefit of discussing the issue here and having certain issues clarified, would be prefectly justified in voting No, out of a sense of moral decency and indeed based solely on logic.

I don't really agree - there's no question that our politicians need to be held to a high standard when they are carrying out their duties, but in a referendum campaign, the field is open both to elected politicians and to civil society groups - and absolutely every single one of them has exactly the same duty of honesty as the rest. That's the point of a referendum - that we're all involved.

cordially,
Scofflaw