Irexit party yay or nay?

wes

demfad wrote: »

The objective is to 'have a conversation'. If the conversation continues a 'nothing' like Ireland leaving the EU becomes a thing.

A conversation were they ignore most of the question asked of them...........

Seems to me, its more a case of people soap boxing and claiming that some how there free speech is being violated for people disagreeing and asking simple questions.

demfad

wes wrote: »

A conversation were they ignore most of the question asked of them...........

Seems to me, its more a case of people soap boxing and claiming that some how there free speech is being violated for people disagreeing and asking simple questions.

Yes. To influence a referee you whistle at him during a match. To influence the media to cover you more, you scream censorship etc.

Worth noting that the badge of the far-right movement, attacking the free press and media, has begun immediately with this crowd.

If your positions are based on lies and exageration then you need the counter argument to be discredited. They will lose no opportunity to attack the media, opponents as pedlars of lies.

Two rules with the far-right:

1. If you repeat anything often enough it becomes the truth (sh1t sticks).
2. Always accuse others of that which you are guilty of (or will be guilty of).

If they don't get a continued conversation they will scream 'discrimination against free speech!'. If they do they will stills cream it and scream that their opponents are liars.

They are a tiny number now: but when they are assisted by computational propaganda they will appear extremely numerous and will achieve normalisation by the media.

'Irexit' has nothing to do with a popular response to the idea. It is just another active measure by Russia to undermine established EU democracies.

It may seem remote now: but imagine if the hardest most destructive Brexit happens (Russian policy) and we are hit hard?
They are preparing for that scenario.

Several US and EU reports have documented Russian hybrid interference in EU countries and beyond (including Brexit). There is an EU anti-cyber group set up to share information and protect against this. Ireland is not a member and needs to be. If we join there are established methods for Governments and media to harden themselves to these attacks.

Greysquirel09

demfad wrote: »

Yes. To influence a referee you whistle at him during a match. To influence the media to cover you more, you scream censorship etc.

Worth noting that the badge of the far-right movement, attacking the free press and media, has begun immediately with this crowd.

If your positions are based on lies and exageration then you need the counter argument to be discredited. They will lose no opportunity to attack the media, opponents as pedlars of lies.

Two rules with the far-right:

1. If you repeat anything often enough it becomes the truth (sh1t sticks).
2. Always accuse others of that which you are guilty of (or will be guilty of).

If they don't get a continued conversation they will scream 'discrimination against free speech!'. If they do they will stills cream it and scream that their opponents are liars.

They are a tiny number now: but when they are assisted by computational propaganda they will appear extremely numerous and will achieve normalisation by the media.

'Irexit' has nothing to do with a popular response to the idea. It is just another active measure by Russia to undermine established EU democracies.

It may seem remote now: but imagine if the hardest most destructive Brexit happens (Russian policy) and we are hit hard?
They are preparing for that scenario.

Several US and EU reports have documented Russian hybrid interference in EU countries and beyond (including Brexit). There is an EU anti-cyber group set up to share information and protect against this. Ireland is not a member and needs to be. If we join there are established methods for Governments and media to harden themselves to these attacks.

How exactly does this russian interference work?

Zubeneschamali

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

How exactly does this russian interference work?

The Russians have teams of hackers who have Twitter and Facebook bots which bombard people who are on the fence/susceptible with propaganda.

They backed Trump, Brexit, Le Pen in France and next, Save the 8th and then IreExit.

The idea is to damage The US, Europe and the alliance between them.

Gravelly

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

How exactly does this russian interference work?

Apparently "Russian bots" on Twitter post something and it changes how everyone (even those not on Twitter) vote. It's as ingenious as it is improbable

Zubeneschamali

Gravelly wrote: »

Apparently "Russian bots" on Twitter post something and it changes how everyone (even those not on Twitter) vote.

No need for all those rules on media balance and accuracy in print or on TV, so, since it isn't possible to influence people this way.

Gravelly

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The Russians have teams of hackers who have Twitter and Facebook bots which bombard people who are on the fence/susceptible with propaganda.

They backed Trump, Brexit, Le Pen in France and next, Save the 8th and then IreExit.

The idea is to damage The US, Europe and the alliance between them.

What, exactly are these "hackers" hacking?

Zubeneschamali

Gravelly wrote: »

What, exactly are these "hackers" hacking?

Beats me. Demfad will be along with a wall of text in a few.

Gravelly

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No need for all those rules on media balance and accuracy in print or on TV, so, since it isn't possible to influence people this way.

Yeah, because media is so balanced as it is! By "balance" you mean only your side should be allowed to spread "propaganda"

Chips Lovell

Back on topic please. There's already another thread for Russian interference in elections.

Thanks

ancapailldorcha

Please take the talk of Russian subterfuge or lack thereof to the appropriate thread. Thanks.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Please take the talk of Russian subterfuge or lack thereof to the appropriate thread. Thanks.

Posts deleted and sanctions handed out. As Baron de Charlus has pointed out, there is an active thread on this forum for discussing Russian subterfuge.

FreudianSlippers

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

Yeah you make a good point actually. We can just push for a referendum on the issue and just vote no. Remember that happened with the Lisbon Treaty.. Oh wait. Didn't we have to vote again on that? And other countries voted No.. yet they still managed to push it through. Were you not outraged at the Lisbon Treaty fiasco? It seems to me once your opinion is once we're pocketing the cash sure let's ride the wave and let them ride the wave. Not everyone is living the dream on the Emerald Isle.

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

Little bit different though voting for a government than a treaty but I take your point.

We didn't vote twice on the same treaty, just two treaties with the same name. I feel like you're purposely ignoring this point which has been made to you multiple times.

Zubeneschamali

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

We didn't vote twice on the same treaty, just two treaties with the same name.

And there was absolutely nothing to prevent voters digging in their heels and voting No again.

Snickers Man

weisses wrote: »

Quote:
People seeking tickets for the event online were required to confirm they agreed to terms and conditions that stated that the conference was "only open to supporters of an Irish Exit from the European Union".

The terms also said: "Unwelcome interjections from the audience may result in removal from the event."

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/farage-tells-irexit-conference-eu-humiliated-ireland-36564549.html

So you basically had a bunch of irexiteers engaging in a 2 hour circle jerk in the RDS

If they are serious in starting a party it would be nice if they could actually engage in a proper debate

Well then, that probably explains why when that nice Mr Farage showed his deep concern for Ireland by asking "How more humiliating could it be?" than having the troika dictate our spending policies and having the German government sign off on our budget plans before the Dail could debate them, that nobody could venture a reply.

So permit me to attempt a modest rejoinder now.

Just pop along to the site of the Central Statistics Office and see how the Irish population has changed over the decades.

Between 1841 and 1851 the population of the territory now comprising the Republic (The CSO edits out N Ireland statistics from before partition to allow a proper comparison) decreased by a whopping 22%. Nearly a quarter of the population disappeared! What happened to them?

Well, the second half of that decade coincided with the Great Famine which caused about a million deaths but the rest could be attributed to what we would today call a "migrant crisis". Millions of people took to often unseaworthy boats to get out of the country and go to wherever would accept them, however reluctantly.

Many went to America where they were largely despised, derided for being primitive and savage, for having a superstitious alien religion inimical to the values of the host country, for being a disloyal cancerous invasion whose proliferation would change the whole direction of the country and threaten its existing society. Political parties were formed (The so-called "Know Nothings") to argue against their continuing presence and in favour of blocking further immigration. Does any of this sound familiar?

Our population continued to decline, albeit at a slower rate, reaching rock bottom in 1961. Thereafter it grew, most rapidly in the 1970s (check this all out for yourselves. IT's easy with Excel) which was of course the decade we joined the EEC. After slowing down again in the 1980s it grew rapidly again in the 1990s and in this century., partly it must be said, due to immigration.

Just because our kinsmen (and women) were treated like dirt by some people in host countries to which they emigrated doesn't make it OK for us to do the same to Poles, Rumanians and Filipinos.

So there's your answer Nige. It was a damn sight MORE humiliating for Ireland back in the mid 19th century when your lot were in charge. We don't want that back again.

Many happy Brexits to you. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Greysquirel09

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

We didn't vote twice on the same treaty, just two treaties with the same name. I feel like you're purposely ignoring this point which has been made to you multiple times.

It was the same treaty.

Skylinehead

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

It was the same treaty.

That's objectively false. I thought we had standards in this forum?

sink

Skylinehead wrote: »

That's objectively false. I thought we had standards in this forum?

To be pedantic objectively it is correct to state that it was the same treaty. The 'declarations' Ireland secured were not included in the treaty as it had already been ratified by many states and they would have to re-ratify if there were any modifications. Instead the declarations were added to the next EU treaty which I believe was Croatia's accession in 2013. The declarations did not alter the treaty in anyway instead they clarified the Irish government competencies in areas such as military neutrality and abortion. The Lisbon treaty had no impact on these areas anyway, but the No campaign used them against the treaty regardless.

knipex

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

We didn't vote twice on the same treaty, just two treaties with the same name. I feel like you're purposely ignoring this point which has been made to you multiple times.

Yes we did.

We received some clarifications guarantees etc around the treaty but the treaty its self remained unchanged. it had to as most of the rest of Europe had already ratified the treaty. Any changes to the treaty would have led to them having to do so again.

If you can point to any changes to the treaty between the first and second votes then I will humbly apologies but to my knowledge the treaty remained unchanged.

FreudianSlippers

knipex wrote: »

Yes we did.

We received some clarifications guarantees etc around the treaty but the treaty its self remained unchanged. it had to as most of the rest of Europe had already ratified the treaty. Any changes to the treaty would have led to them having to do so again.

If you can point to any hangers to the treaty between the first and second votes then I will humbly apologies but to my knowledge the treaty remained unchanged.

I should have been more specific in my wording - I meant in terms of our 28th amendment on the treaty as a whole.

Is there anything to be said for another request for a single argument to be put forward to suggest WHY Ireland should consider leaving the EU?

Hotblack Desiato

knipex wrote: »

If you can point to any changes to the treaty between the first and second votes then I will humbly apologies but to my knowledge the treaty remained unchanged.

Retaining a commissioner for each country was a substantial change.

oscarBravo

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Retaining a commissioner for each country was a substantial change.

It was a pretty silly change based on the parochial idea of "our" commissioner on the part of people who don't understand how the Commission (or, indeed, anything at all about the EU) works, but yes: it was a change.

The whole argument over whether or not we voted on the same treaty is equally silly. The argument is predicated on the idea that it's the most egregious and unforgivable insult imaginable to ask the same question twice. The answer to "waa waa we had to vote twice on the same treaty" shouldn't be "it wasn't the same treaty" so much as "get over it".

demfad

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there anything to be said for another request for a single argument to be put forward to suggest WHY Ireland should consider leaving the EU?

I'll give another for staying: The problems and dangers of children accessing social media need to be addressed. An entity the size of the EU has the power to impose laws on these massive social media corporations. (they have already done so re. fake news).
How would tiny 'independent' Ireland manage to impose anything on the likes of Facebook?

In more general terms, we have the ideal situation now: we have something these corporations want namely access to the single market. At the same time, EU law also shields and protects us from the being coerced by these powerful corporations.
With many sharks in the water it's best to be on a bigger boat.

Greysquirel09

sink wrote: »

To be pedantic objectively it is correct to state that it was the same treaty. The 'declarations' Ireland secured were not included in the treaty as it had already been ratified by many states and they would have to re-ratify if there were any modifications. Instead the declarations were added to the next EU treaty which I believe was Croatia's accession in 2013. The declarations did not alter the treaty in anyway instead they clarified the Irish government competencies in areas such as military neutrality and abortion. The Lisbon treaty had no impact on these areas anyway, but the No campaign used them against the treaty regardless.

Thank You. Same treaty.

flutered

demfad wrote: »

I'll give another for staying: The problems and dangers of children accessing social media need to be addressed. An entity the size of the EU has the power to impose laws on these massive social media corporations. (they have already done so re. fake news).
How would tiny 'independent' Ireland manage to impose anything on the likes of Facebook?

In more general terms, we have the ideal situation now: we have something these corporations want namely access to the single market. At the same time, EU law also shields and protects us from the being coerced by these powerful corporations.
With many sharks in the water it's best to be on a bigger boat.

actually a safer tighter boat than its opposition boats, usa china russia for instance

micosoft

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

What exactly has Nigel Farage lied about? He's a politician who campaigned for Brexit for 20 years.

It would be far easier to ask what Farage has told the truth about. But given you apparently have not read the news for the past five years let me leave this for you.

ancapailldorcha

micosoft wrote: »

It would be far easier to ask what Farage has told the truth about. But given you apparently have not read the news for the past five years let me leave this for you.

I passionately dislike Farage but he was nothing to do with Vote Leave who were behind the NHS bus. He was with Arron Banks' Leave.EU and even tried to get them to use a lesser, more accurate figure.

micosoft

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I passionately dislike Farage but he was nothing to do with Vote Leave who were behind the NHS bus. He was with Arron Banks' Leave.EU and even tried to get them to use a lesser, more accurate figure.

But he certainly mislead the electorate on this exact topic... and walked back his earlier pronouncements to abolish the NHS in favour of a US style insurance system. I think it's been clear that Farage has been untruthful on the topic of the NHS and its funding to an electorate that was mislead by him into thinking this funding from the EU would be sent to the NHS.

ancapailldorcha

micosoft wrote: »

But he certainly mislead the electorate on this exact topic... and walked back his earlier pronouncements to abolish the NHS in favour of a US style insurance system. I think it's been clear that Farage has been untruthful on the topic of the NHS and its funding to an electorate that was mislead by him into thinking this funding from the EU would be sent to the NHS.

Fair enough. I'm not really defending him so much as only making sure that criticism of him of which God knows there's plenty is accurate.