The Hard Left and the "No" Campaign

robindch

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Credibility.

Ganley went shot from unknown to national fame -- if that's the right word -- within a few months last year on foot of his performance in Lisbon 1. He was seen, arguably correctly, as a man who could influence elections. If the no-side win Lisbon II, then they'll believe and they'll claim that they delivered the verdict, and will demand the respect that goes with such influence. For political sideliners like SF, Higgins and McKenna, anything which could provide them with the illusion of influence is worth a punt, regardless of the rights and the wrongs of the issue.

For anybody familiar with Adam Curtis's excellent The Power of Nightmares, the logic is similar to what appears to have legitimized the USA's neocons to themselves, and the Taleban to themselves following the defeat of Russia in Afghanistan -- an event which would probably have happened anyway is mistakenly assumed to mean that the people fighting to make it happen, actually did make it happen.

With UKIP, the motivation is easier to figure out -- they're just trying to stick an umbrella in between the spokes of the EU's bicycle because it's easy and it plays well with the blue-rinse brigade.

robindch

turgon wrote: »

The question is why did I subconsciously want to vote No? Its a question I have been mulling over for the last few weeks. Why do they want to vote No?

The default position of many voters is to keep the status quo because many people fear change.

You can see this in the no-side's advertizing efforts, most of which are intended, unashamedly, to scare the bejesus out people, regardless of whether the ludicrous situations and interpretations they propose are actually real.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Its an interesting question, for sure, but in my opinion the answer does not merely apply to hard-Left groups but also to every other group pushing for a No, such as Coir and Libertas. The only group who's position is perhaps remotely understandable is UKIP, and they're not even in Ireland.

I think too that the answer to the question is not limited to No campaign groups, but also individual No campaigners and No voters. What makes one go against the Lisbon Treaty? Well, certainly not the Treaty itself.

As I discussed on another thread before said thread was hijacked, I think there is some part of the human mentality - some component of the human psyche - that makes being on the No side attractive. I think its that simple. Because we all know that No-siders have the most subjective reading of the Treaty imaginable. They are notorious for conveniently leaving out the end of sentences - such as in line "with each members states constitutional requirements" and "shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States." The only thing we can draw from this selective reading is that they wanted to find reasons to vote No. Which means they wanted to vote No before they read the Treaty.

As a former No voter I can see this clearly. I was subconsciously attracted to being a No-sider, so I had my subjective reading of the Treaty. The question is why did I subconsciously want to vote No? Its a question I have been mulling over for the last few weeks. Why do they want to vote No? Any psychologists among us?

As far as I know, it's the general case - people decide, then seek reasons to back up their decision. Also, legal text seems to be read by most people not as any kind of narrative, but through a process of island-hopping from one comprehensible phrase to another.

cordially,
Scofflaw

electrogrimey

robindch wrote: »

Credibility.
For political sideliners like SF, Higgins and McKenna, anything which could provide them with the illusion of influence is worth a punt, regardless of the rights and the wrongs of the issue.

Do you really believe this? The smaller parties exist because of their views, which appeal to the smaller section of voters who share their views. If they were this indifferent to their own views they wouldn't exist.

In reply to the OP, I think the smaller parties all have reasons to be against the treaty, that they are not just looking for attention. One big one is simply to disagree with FG/FF, Joe Higgins and the Socialist Party are as far as I know against the treaty as they believe it will have adverse effects on workers, more immigration, less power over our own laws (minimum wage etc.), and to protect workers' rights across Europe (I have heard the claim that employers could, under the treaty, employ a foreign worker in, say Ireland, at the minimum wage of their home country, which could be below our minimum wage, can anyone clarify this?) Then there's the racist thing against Turkey etc, which explains the hard-right parties.

Just so you know, I am voting yes, I just like to understand both sides.

Scofflaw

electrogrimey wrote: »

Do you really believe this? The smaller parties exist because of their views, which appeal to the smaller section of voters who share their views. If they were this indifferent to their own views they wouldn't exist.

In reply to the OP, I think the smaller parties all have reasons to be against the treaty, that they are not just looking for attention. One big one is simply to disagree with FG/FF, Joe Higgins and the Socialist Party are as far as I know against the treaty as they believe it will have adverse effects on workers, more immigration, less power over our own laws (minimum wage etc.), and to protect workers' rights across Europe (I have heard the claim that employers could, under the treaty, employ a foreign worker in, say Ireland, at the minimum wage of their home country, which could be below our minimum wage, can anyone clarify this?) Then there's the racist thing against Turkey etc, which explains the hard-right parties.

Just so you know, I am voting yes, I just like to understand both sides.

The minimum wage question is easily clarified - the EU has no role in setting minimum wages in the member states. The Laval judgement, which is what is often referenced here, applied in Sweden only because Sweden had neither a legal minimum wage nor a general collective minimum wage agreement that covered all workers. No such judgement would be possible in Ireland, which has a legally binding minimum wage. You cannot employ anyone in Ireland at less than the legal minimum wage. People do break the law, of course, but funnily enough laws don't stop that sort of thing.

As to protecting workers' rights - perhaps it's rude to mention it, but the EU has provided rather a lot more in protective legislation for workers' rights than has been achieved by the whole Irish hard left.

Possibly, of course, they're jealous, now I think of it.

cordially,
scofflaw

meglome

Scofflaw wrote: »

As far as I know, it's the general case - people decide, then seek reasons to back up their decision. Also, legal text seems to be read by most people not as any kind of narrative, but through a process of island-hopping from one comprehensible phrase to another.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm pro-EU but really wasn't sure about the treaty. When I checked and read up on the treaty I quickly realised I didn't have too much of an issue with it. More than that I generally liked it. However if I read it and found things I had a big issue with, pro-EU or not, I would be voting No. Some people seem to be able to happily steam ahead even after they are shown to be wrong. Do some people have so little integrity that they can't hold their hand up and say they were misinformed? Is winning more important than the good of the country?

electrogrimey wrote: »

In reply to the OP, I think the smaller parties all have reasons to be against the treaty, that they are not just looking for attention. One big one is simply to disagree with FG/FF, Joe Higgins and the Socialist Party are as far as I know against the treaty as they believe it will have adverse effects on workers, more immigration, less power over our own laws (minimum wage etc.), and to protect workers' rights across Europe (I have heard the claim that employers could, under the treaty, employ a foreign worker in, say Ireland, at the minimum wage of their home country, which could be below our minimum wage, can anyone clarify this?) Then there's the racist thing against Turkey etc, which explains the hard-right parties.

Just so you know, I am voting yes, I just like to understand both sides.

I've never agreed with Joe Higgins but I had some respect for the man. But his party has stooped to downright lying to try to win this campaign so any respect I had for him is long gone. I have no great intellectual brilliance or any political experience and it was no trouble for me to figure out what they were saying was incorrect. If I can do that then I feel safe in my assumption that they are under no illusion they are lying.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Possibly, of course, they're jealous, now I think of it.

cordially,
scofflaw

I really have wondered about this. Do the EU make the socialists look bad by actually bringing in proper workers rights. While the socialists have no hope of getting in to government to do that.

Scofflaw

meglome wrote: »

I'm pro-EU but really wasn't sure about the treaty. When I checked and read up on the treaty I quickly realised I didn't have too much of an issue with it. More than that I generally liked it. However if I read it and found things I had a big issue with, pro-EU or not, I would be voting No. Some people seem to be able to happily steam ahead even after they are shown to be wrong. Do some people have so little integrity that they can't hold their hand up and say they were misinformed? Is winning more important than the good of the country?

Again, I think that's very human. Most people, having decided, and then sought justification, are not going to change their position unless they have an emotional 'conversion'. In turn, most people really have no idea what legal text means - it bores, flusters, and confuses them. When legal text is aimed "at them", in the sense of "you'll be signing this", many people are suspicious and fearful of it.

The problem, in one sense, is that legal language is like chess played with quantum-level chess pieces on a board made of symbolic linkages. In order to win at chess, you need to be able to look ahead to see the implications of a move. With quantum-level objects, you need to understand that they haven't got a position so much as a probability distribution of positions. In order to get ahead in quantum chess, you need to understand that your rook is probably on b3, but may possibly be on c2 - and you also need to know why b3 and c2 are symbolically linked, and thus next to each other.

Most people, quite reasonably, get as far as the idea that law has a chain of consequences, and that the interpretation of a word can vary, and stop about there. From there, it's an easy step to the idea that a legal text might mean anything, and that the real purpose of legal jargon is to baffle the uninitiated.

Of course, the more you get used to the law in a given field, the more obvious it becomes that the probability space of interpretation is quite restricted - partly by precedent, and strongly by the need for internal consistency. However, the former assumes knowledge of the legal precedent, and the latter assumes that you're personally capable of understanding and applying consistency. Since people are obviously capable of holding contradictory positions simultaneously, the latter is by no means a given - indeed, some people seem to suffer very little from cognitive dissonance, while others react to it by entrenching their positions as articles of faith. The former should be capable of simultaneously defending at length entirely contradictory claims, while the latter should either react abusively when their claims are challenged, or apparently withdraw them, only to reiterate them once the challenge is passed.

ramblingly,
Scofflaw

meglome

Scofflaw wrote: »

Since people are obviously capable of holding contradictory positions simultaneously, the latter is by no means a given - indeed, some people seem to suffer very little from cognitive dissonance, while others react to it by entrenching their positions as articles of faith. The former should be capable of simultaneously defending at length entirely contradictory claims, while the latter should either react abusively when their claims are challenged, or apparently withdraw them, only to reiterate them once the challenge is passed.

ramblingly,
Scofflaw

I think it was ei.sdraob who likened it to discussing God with creationists.

The thing I'm most 'impressed' with is the posters who are shown using verifiable information to be wrong who then wait a couple of days and say the exact same things, and just keep doing it. Imagine having a real life face-to-face discussion with these guys, it'd be horrible.

Scofflaw

meglome wrote: »

I think it was ei.sdraob who likened it to discussing God with creationists.

The thing I'm most 'impressed' with is the posters who are shown using verifiable information to be wrong who then wait a couple of days and say the exact same things, and just keep doing it. Imagine having a real life face-to-face discussion with these guys, it'd be horrible.

I'd rather play the quantum chess, I think.

cordially,
Scofflaw