Europe - Do the Public Know What they Are Voting For ?

Guest

Re: Libertas and Rivada Networks Ltd.
by chekov Today at 12:16 am

(Transferred from split thread: cf Mod)

cookiemonster wrote:

Quote :: Hit google, there are a number of speeches where Ganley has spoken passionately about promotion of democracy and more to the point spoken passionately about the need for greater democracy and accountability in the EU, infact we went so far as to set up an organisation to advocate for such.

Speeches that promote abstract stuff that everybody supports, like "democracy", "freedom", "accountability" and so on are completely and utterly worthless in evaluating somebody's beliefs. Mugabe does a particularly empassioned democracy and freedom act, but you can substitute your least favourite dictator of choice for him and you get pretty much the same result.

A much more useful metric is what those people actually do. In your case, the fact that all bar one of the 'members' of your political movement call Ganley 'boss' should give you pause for thought. If he believed in democracy, you would expect that he'd be able to manage at least a fig-leaf of it in his own movement.

cookiemonster wrote:

Quote :: What has the loss of a commissioner got to do with First responder communications networks in Louisiana? Nothing! What has Ireland's tax rates got to do with it in any of the other states Ganley's company offers it's services? Nothing. What does the charter of human right have to do with it? What does Ireland's voting weight on the council have to do with it? What does the transfer of competencies have to do with Ganley's business interests? Nothing.

They are all (allegedly) part of the a treaty which the US defence community oppose and are the sorts of things that might make people vote against it. They US defence community frequently do shockingly stupid things, but they're definitely not stupid enough to honestly argue their point.

cookiemonster wrote:

Quote :: He's not lobbying for a different treaty, he's not pushing a alternate agenda, he's not giving you another option. He's telling you why the current option is bad and you're more the welcome as many have to debate the points raised and decided if you agree or disagree. If Libertas is wrong then they're wrong and you vote the other way. The Lisbon treaty is the issue, the provisions within the treaty are the focus of the vote and should be the focus of the debate.

By opposing the treaty, he has, by definition, an alternate agenda. Whether that is a return to the status quo, or some alternative evolution, we can speculate on, but it's an inescapable logical conclusion that he does have an alternate agenda. The fact that he doesn't say what it is should not be a good thing to somebody who is interested in accountability and democracy.

cookiemonster wrote:

Quote :: I we were told this evening by Michael Mulcahy that a vote against Lisbon was a vote against Europe. That is, without doubt, abominate bullshit.

I completely agree that the pro-treaty parties are being unspeakably dishonest about this treaty, as usual. Virtually every single thing they say on Europe is either:

a) meaningless advocacy of universally popular abstractions (vote yes for the spirit of cooperation!)

or

b) a bare faced lie. (European treaties do not impact upon the sovereignty of national governments).

The whole idea that the vote is for or against 'Europe' is an absurdity. Sub-continents and shared socio-cultural heritage don't care if you support them or not. It's a vote to take the next step in a particular project of European political integration. A project, moreover, whose contours are almost completely unknown to the public and whose basic shape is such that it would be opposed by a large majority of Europe's population if they knew much about it.

The lie that probably irritates me the most is the one about sovereignty. I don't actually give a shit about national sovereignty, but it irks me that the government repeatedly denies the fact that EU treaties such as Lisbon result in a dimunition of national sovereignty. There is just no possible way, in the broad lands of logic, that abrogating 'competencies' (i.e. decision making power) to a paramount supra-national body does not amount to a dimunition of national sovereignty. To even argue against this requires one to engage in semantic absurdities and attempts to redefine the meaning of a well-understood phrase. It's undignified to have to listen to such crap, but I've yet to hear anything but denials of this obvious truth from our politicians. Luckily, my expectations of our politicians are suitably low.

cookiemonster wrote:

Quote :: Similarly to support Libertas's call for a no vote isn't a vote against Europe, libertas are pro Europe that much us undeniable and a no vote isn't a vote for some sort of US dominated pussyass Europe with Ganley and his "disaster-capitalist" pals making out like bandits. It's total rubbish and it shouldn't be part of the debate.

It's not "Libertas's call for a no vote" and to claim that no voters are supporting Libertas in any way brings you instantly down to the level of the Yes side in terms of honesty. The Libertas Institute has seven members, five of whom call one of the others 'boss'. There are organisations comprising tens of thousands, with broad and deep roots in Irish society also calling for a no vote, entirely independetly of Libertas.

Indeed, IMHO, by aligning yourself with this organisation, you are actively participating in the dragging of democratic principles further than they have already sunk into the gutter. I mean Fianna Fail may be little more than a club for opportunistic business types, but at least it contains some facility for members to change policy, replace leaders, ignore their instructions and so on. To all appearances, none of this exists in Libertas, an organisation structured according to the dictatorial model of decision making that is embedded in the corporate structure that they have adopted.

Why are you supporting an organisation that is so undemocratic and untransparent that it makes the EU look like Pericles' Athens?

If you think democracy is a good thing, then why are you helping to promote the one anti-EU organisation which amounts to little more than a man with lots money to spend and his employees, an organisation which already receives a ludicrously disproportionate amount of attention based, purely upon the size of its PR and advertising budgets?

Can't you see that uncritical acceptance of the leadership of an organisation which is singularly undemocratic and based almost entirely on a single man's access to money is not exactly the best plan for somebody who would like more democracy?

Seinfeld said

chekov wrote:: A project, moreover, whose contours are almost completely unknown to the public and whose basic shape is such that it would be opposed by a large majority of Europe's population if they knew much about it.

That's a pretty sweeping assumption given the number of EU Treaties that have been ratified by the peoples of Europe and their parliaments, and that numerous countries on the EU borders want to become members.

Clearly, only a minority know the ins and outs of the EU, but most people recognise the benefits of peace, unrestricted trade and movement of persons, a common currency and supra-national Government in policy areas where nationa boundaries are irrelevant (Environment, International Trade etc).

chekov wrote:: The lie that probably irritates me the most is the one about sovereignty. I don't actually give a shit about national sovereignty, but it irks me that the government repeatedly denies the fact that EU treaties such as Lisbon result in a dimunition of national sovereignty.

Where has this so-called 'lie' been told? The Government has said there is no dimunition of sovereignty in areas like corporation tax and on moral issues like abortion, which is true, but there has never been any denial about the extension of QMV.

chekov wrote:: There is just no possible way, in the broad lands of logic, that abrogating 'competencies' (i.e. decision making power) to a paramount supra-national body does not amount to a dimunition of national sovereignty. To even argue against this requires one to engage in semantic absurdities and attempts to redefine the meaning of a well-understood phrase. It's undignified to have to listen to such crap, but I've yet to hear anything but denials of this obvious truth from our politicians.

Clearly, you do give a shit about national sovereignty. God knows why, given

chekov wrote:: my expectations of our politicians are suitably low.

Guest

Quote :: A project, moreover, whose contours are almost completely unknown to
the public and whose basic shape is such that it would be opposed by a
large majority of Europe's population if they knew much about it.

Something which, in my perhaps cynical view, is true of almost anything progressive. Frankly, I'd be prepared to bet that the majority of Europe's population has yet to be persuaded that discrimination against minorities is really a bad thing.

By their fruits ye shall know them. What have the fruits of the EU been? And the fruits of unfettered national sovereignty? Which tree is full of corpses?

Guest

seinfeld wrote:: That's a pretty sweeping assumption given the number of EU Treaties that have been ratified by the peoples of Europe and their parliaments, and that numerous countries on the EU borders want to become members.

Countries aren't imbued with the ability to want stuff, governments do that. All opinion poll data from across Europe shows an enormous absence of knowledge about the most basic aspects of the EU. It's not a sweeping assumption, it's a simple statement of the conclusion that all the evidence points to.

seinfeld wrote:: Clearly, only a minority know the ins and outs of the EU, but most people recognise the benefits of peace, unrestricted trade and movement of persons, a common currency and supra-national Government in policy areas where nationa boundaries are irrelevant (Environment, International Trade etc).

Now that is a sweeping generalisation. Can you back it up with anything at all?

seinfeld wrote:: Where has this so-called 'lie' been told? The Government has said there is no dimunition of sovereignty in areas like corporation tax and on moral issues like abortion, which is true, but there has never been any denial about the extension of QMV.

Google +1 second gives me this:

Fianna Fail Website wrote:: "Dismissing claims about the erosion of Irish sovereignty Deputy Kelly..."

http://www.fiannafail.ie/article.phpx?id=9010&nav=RSS

I am confident that google can supply me with an endless list of further examples of exactly what I claimed. The denial of sovereignty dimunition is so commonplace as to be part of the script. The tactic of retorting with a lack of denials of "the extension of QMV" makes my point nicely, I think. It is only possible to support "the extension of QMV" and "expanded EU competencies" and oppose "erosion of sovereignty" if you're using a radically different definition of the concept of national sovereignty than that which is understood by the population at large.

seinfeld wrote:

Clearly, you do give a shit about national sovereignty. God knows why, given

chekov wrote:: my expectations of our politicians are suitably low.

I don't. I really don't. I just can't stand the mutilation of language in the interests of propaganda. Incidentally, it's one of the reasons why my expectations of politicians are both so low and so consistently met.

Guest

pity halligan didn't ask any question to sutherland and ganley about eu place in the world, the two men you'd want to ask that question, the program was failure.

Guest

ganley reply http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0521/1211310192985.html
he is a chairman no less, more think-tank con-pretentiousness

according to ganley there is no overlap between libertas and rivida

except a phone number and office.....

http://www.irishelection.com/05/libertas-rivada/

its not about war it about contracts and military ones plum contracts

the fact he doesn't own shares is strange.... where does one look up that info?

Guest

nice digging, this simple stuff is what blogs are good for
http://semper-idem.eu/?p=316

Guest

chekov wrote:

seinfeld wrote:: That's a pretty sweeping assumption given the number of EU Treaties that have been ratified by the peoples of Europe and their parliaments, and that numerous countries on the EU borders want to become members.

Countries aren't imbued with the ability to want stuff, governments do that.

Where do Governments come from? The tooth fairy?

chekov wrote:

seinfeld wrote:: Clearly, only a minority know the ins and outs of the EU, but most people recognise the benefits of peace, unrestricted trade and movement of persons, a common currency and supra-national Government in policy areas where nationa boundaries are irrelevant (Environment, International Trade etc).

Now that is a sweeping generalisation. Can you back it up with anything at all?

Yes. The democratic ratification of the Treaties on which the Union is based. Slightly more accurate than opinion polls, I would suggest.

chekov wrote:

seinfeld wrote:: Where has this so-called 'lie' been told? The Government has said there is no dimunition of sovereignty in areas like corporation tax and on moral issues like abortion, which is true, but there has never been any denial about the extension of QMV.

Google +1 second gives me this:

Fianna Fail Website wrote:: "Dismissing claims about the erosion of Irish sovereignty Deputy Kelly..."

http://www.fiannafail.ie/article.phpx?id=9010&nav=RSS

Context helps. He is saying that national sovereignty is replaced by shared sovereignty, not flatly denying that there is dimunition of national sovereignty.

"Dismissing
claims about the erosion of Irish sovereignty Deputy Kelly concluded
"Ireland has benefited enormously from our engagement with the EU. To
suggest that we have blindly followed an agenda set by our European
neighbours. **The truth is we have participated and shaped decisions on
the European stage. The strength of the EU is that it enables Ireland
to work together with other member states to tackle global challenges
affecting us all.** Indeed it is through our engagement with Europe that
Ireland has access to 500 consumers-the worlds largest market."

Guest

Is Libertas simply carrying out experiments in propaganda techniques? Is its whole campaign simply one big experiment with the Irish people as the Guinea pigs?

The main object, apart from standard objects, in the Memorandum & Articles of Association of Libertas Institute Limited is: "To carry on the provision of research and development services and to carry on all activities in relation to same."

The Finanacial Statement for 2007 which the company filed in the Companies Office states that: "The principal activity of the company during the year was research and experimental development on social sciences and humanities."

Guest

seinfeld wrote:: Where do Governments come from? The tooth fairy?

Wherever they come from, their attitudes towards any issue are totally useless for measuring the public's knowledge of the issue. That's the point that you disagreed with me on.

seinfeld wrote:: Yes. The democratic ratification of the Treaties on which the Union is based. Slightly more accurate than opinion polls, I would suggest.

You simply can't infer the complex set of opinions that you have done from a 'yes' vote.

You see, you just stated your own positive opinion on the EU and generalised it to the entire population on the basis of their voting patterns. In reality, there are many reasons, some of them stupid, some of them contradictory, why people have voted for European treaties. To measure them you need some sort of in depth survey of attitudes, without that you've just got a sweeping and unsubstantiated generalisation which is almost certainly wrong (given the actual results of such surveys). In particular, your assertion that the yes vote signifies support for "supra-national Government in policy areas where nationa boundaries are irrelevant" is ludicrously specific to be the type of thing that broad populations believe.

seinfeld wrote:: Context helps. He is saying that national sovereignty is replaced by shared sovereignty, not flatly denying that there is dimunition of national sovereignty.

"Dismissing
claims about the erosion of Irish sovereignty Deputy Kelly concluded
"Ireland has benefited enormously from our engagement with the EU. To
suggest that we have blindly followed an agenda set by our European
neighbours. **The truth is we have participated and shaped decisions on
the European stage. The strength of the EU is that it enables Ireland
to work together with other member states to tackle global challenges
affecting us all.** Indeed it is through our engagement with Europe that
Ireland has access to 500 consumers-the worlds largest market."

Dismiss, vt: to accept with reservations.

Another great example of rewriting the dictionary for propaganda purposes.

Nice.

Guest

chekov wrote:: In reality, there are many reasons, some of them stupid, some of them contradictory, why people have voted for European treaties. To measure them you need some sort of in depth survey of attitudes, without that you've just got a sweeping and unsubstantiated generalisation which is almost certainly wrong (given the actual results of such surveys).

It really is amazing how so many discussions about Lisbon end up with a Lisbon opponent claiming that democratically expressed support for the EU project and its various Treaties is in fact support for something else entirely.

And of course, everyone who has ever voted No in relation to a Treaty has done so out of deeply felt concerns about the dynamics of the EU, its institutions and its objectives.

Guest

seinfeld wrote:: It really is amazing how so many discussions about Lisbon end up with a Lisbon opponent claiming that democratically expressed support for the EU project and its various Treaties is in fact support for something else entirely.

That's just total dissembling rubbish, I'm afraid. I have nowhere made any such claim. I have pointed out the well established fact that there is a huge dearth of knowledge about the EU project, as established consistently by surveys. You have repeatedly attempted to make the point that a no vote disproves my claim (showing either utter ignorance of the basics of social science research or dishonesty) . You are now trying to claim that I am claiming that the various yes votes actually indicate support for something else. I actually pointed out the well known fact that such inferences are invalid.

seinfeld wrote:: And of course, everyone who has ever voted No in relation to a Treaty has done so out of deeply felt concerns about the dynamics of the EU, its institutions and its objectives.

That would be just as stupid a claim as the one you are making.

Guest

Lads, you are off topic and in danger of waking up the kids.

Guest

Okay, I'll put my happy head back on.

Here t'is:

flower

Guest

chekov wrote:: Okay, I'll put my happy head back on.

Here t'is:

Well, whatever, game, set and match to you Chekov.

Guest

chekov wrote:

seinfeld wrote:: It really is amazing how so many discussions about Lisbon end up with a Lisbon opponent claiming that democratically expressed support for the EU project and its various Treaties is in fact support for something else entirely.

That's just total dissembling rubbish, I'm afraid. I have nowhere made any such claim.

chekov wrote:: In reality, there are many reasons, some of them stupid, some of them
contradictory, why people have voted for European treaties.

Guest

seinfeld wrote:

chekov wrote:

seinfeld wrote:: It really is amazing how so many discussions about Lisbon end up with a Lisbon opponent claiming that democratically expressed support for the EU project and its various Treaties is in fact support for something else entirely.

That's just total dissembling rubbish, I'm afraid. I have nowhere made any such claim.

chekov wrote:: In reality, there are many reasons, some of them stupid, some of them
contradictory, why people have voted for European treaties.

You see it's like this. If I was claiming that I could infer such stuff from the 'no' vote, you would have a point. I would be making sweeping invalid generalisations just like you. I'm not. I'm basing my opinion on the surveys which actually ask people why they vote and what their opinions and knowledge of the EU are.

Incidentally, do you actually dispute my claim? Do you think that nobody who votes yes in a EU referendum does so for reasons that are either stupid or contradictory? If you are not disputing this claim, it looks ever more likely that you are trying to wander off into a pointless argument over semantics. I wonder why.

Guest

Aragon wrote:

chekov wrote:: Okay, I'll put my happy head back on.

Here t'is:

Well, whatever, game, set and match to you Chekov.

Thanks, Aragon - but I think everyone can judge that for themselves.

Guest

Chekov, if your claim as follows:

chekov wrote:: A project, moreover, whose contours are almost completely unknown to the public and whose basic shape is such that it would be opposed by a large majority of Europe's population if they knew much about it.

then I dispute your claim as unfounded and unprovable. Can you back it up?

I haver already said that I do not think people can understand the Treaty fully. Saying that if they did understand it they would vote against it is a bit of a leap in my book. I also think that there is no way of proving this except by a prejudiced interpretation of polls. No polling company can vouch that they have properly explained the treaty to 1000 people who understood its basic shape (whatever that is when it's at home).

Guest

ibis wrote:

Aragon wrote:

chekov wrote:: Okay, I'll put my happy head back on.

Here t'is:

Well, whatever, game, set and match to you Chekov.

Thanks, Aragon - but I think everyone can judge that for themselves.

Exactly - did anyone say otherwise?

Guest

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Chekov, if your claim as follows:

chekov wrote:: A
project, moreover, whose contours are almost completely unknown to the
public and whose basic shape is such that it would be opposed by a
large majority of Europe's population if they knew much about it.

then I dispute your claim as unfounded and unprovable. Can you back it up?

In support of the first part of the claim, which is the bit that seinfeld is disputing; it is backed up by the eurobarometer surveys, the most
recent of which shows, for example, that only 36% of Irish people claim to understand how the EU works and only 33% were able to answer 3 of the simplest questions about the EU possible:

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb67/eb67_ie_nat.pdf

If only a third of people know that the EU does not have 15 members, has popular elections and has a rotating presidency, then it is, I think safe to say that the details of how the EU operates, even the broad contours, are not at all well known. When you get to more complex questions about the workings of the EU institutions, popular knowledge drops to not much above zero. And I'm not talking about the weighting of QMV or anything like that; the relationship between the three major decision making bodies, the parliament, council and commission are almost totally unknown.

The second part of my claim is more difficult to substantiate, since there is no universally agreed definition of what the "basic shape" of the EU project is. However, if you accept my analysis, which I can substantiate in great detail, that the EU amounts to a super-state in the process of formation with aspirations to become a global power, then it is quite easy to demonstrate the basic truth of my claim since you can measure public attitudes towards that and they aren't very positive at all.

So, to sum up, like everything outside of mathematics, these claims cannot be proved. They are, however, based on an honest evaluation of the evidence and I am entirely open to new evidence which would change my mind.

Guest

Zhou_Enlai wrote:: I haver already said that I do not think people can understand the Treaty fully. Saying that if they did understand it they would vote against it is a bit of a leap in my book. I also think that there is no way of proving this except by a prejudiced interpretation of polls. No polling company can vouch that they have properly explained the treaty to 1000 people who understood its basic shape (whatever that is when it's at home).

My point was in reference to the overall shape of the European Integration project, not this particular treaty. When it comes to this particular treaty the lack of knowledge is, naturally, far more profound. The Irish Times survey from last weekend revealed that:

"just 6 per cent said they had a good understanding of what the treaty was about."

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0517/1210971889984.html

It is worth noting that self-assessments such as this typically overstate the level of understanding due to the well-known phenomenon of inflated self-assessments amongst the incompetent: http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

Incidentally, the idea that the pollsters would be required to properly explain the treaty before asking questions about it is strange. That would be a test of language comprehension.

Guest

I agree that people do not understand it. You went further than that though. You said that if they understood the basic shape of the project they would reject it, viz.

chekov wrote:: A project, moreover, whose contours are almost completely unknown to the public and whose basic shape is such that it would be opposed by a large majority of Europe's population if they knew much about it.

I dispute your claim that if they understood the project then they would reject/oppose it/Lisbon.

Guest

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

I agree that people do not understand it. You went further than that though. You said that if they understood the basic shape of the project they would reject it, viz.

chekov wrote:: A project, moreover, whose contours are almost completely unknown to the public and whose basic shape is such that it would be opposed by a large majority of Europe's population if they knew much about it.

I dispute your claim that if they understood the project then they would reject/oppose it/Lisbon.

I'd sort of second that. I think that there's a general rather fuzzy goodwill (shading often into indifference) to the EU project. Ireland was a particularly good example, but it is clear that large numbers in the former Eastern bloc countries feel much the same way. And it's no surprise because one thing that the EU has brought is a sense of stability (both economic and political), a clear sense of standardisation of certain areas (or a rationalisation if one prefers), modernity in a more nebulous sense, and so on. These may seem like vague things from our polity at this point in time after a decade and a half of relative wealth, but they sure weren't in the 1970s and 1980s, and similarly for the recent accession countries and those further east. They're not luxuries, they're necessities.

So that said I suspect that people are reasonably well disposed towards the EU in general and would be one way or another. And additionally it's not as if anti-EU political forces don't exist both here, and more distinctly in the UK and elsewhere. Yet these forces are nowhere near a commanding level of political power, which tells its own story.

Incidentally, I actually applaud the sharing/pooling of sovereignty that the EU engenders - we can argue whether it's diminuition. I think it would be the latter if it wasn't agreed or if it were imposed and there was no way to leave the EU. But Lisbon has an exit process codified for the first time. This pooling is a broadly a good thing, albeit with specific negative impacts and probably a precursor to a broader pooling globally - if we're really really lucky.

Guest

I missed that your first post of two; hence my repetition.

chekov wrote:: ...if you accept my analysis, which I can substantiate in great detail, that the EU amounts to a super-state in the process of formation with aspirations to become a global power, then it is quite easy to demonstrate the basic truth of my claim since you can measure public attitudes towards that and they aren't very positive at all...

I am afraid that I cannot accept your analysis. I cannot on the one hand argue and accept that the EU project is too difficult to understand and then turn around on the other hand accept a one line explanation of what it is, i.e., "a super-state in the process of formation with aspirations to become a global power". To be honest, I think that you are a victim of the difficulties of the treaty themselves.

There was recently a documentary which pretty convincingly showed that corporations have the characteristics of psychopaths. People may have jaundiced view of psychopaths but they understand the value of corporations. Perhaps it is possible to do an extensive analysis that justifies the statement that "the EU amounts to a super-state in the process of formation with aspirations to become a global power" but there is a lot more to the EU than that.

The EU is also an alliance amongst potential enemies to reduce the risk of war; it is an economic entity that seeks to give workers more rights than they enjoy elsewhere; it is a method of adopting a unified approach to environmental matters; it is a union that seeks to improve the wellbeing of the less well off in Europe; it is a Union with political structures but it is committed to economic and technological aims. It is many more things as well.

Like I said, I think that your analysis is a victim of the complexity of the project and your conclusion that people would oppose the project if they understood it fully does not convince me. I would agree though that people might oppose it if they viewed it in the same way you do Very Happy

Guest

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

I missed that your first post of two; hence my repetition.

chekov wrote:: ...if you accept my analysis, which I can substantiate in great detail, that the EU amounts to a super-state in the process of formation with aspirations to become a global power, then it is quite easy to demonstrate the basic truth of my claim since you can measure public attitudes towards that and they aren't very positive at all...

I am afraid that I cannot accept your analysis. I cannot on the one hand argue and accept that the EU project is too difficult to understand and then turn around on the other hand accept a one line explanation of what it is, i.e., "a super-state in the process of formation with aspirations to become a global power". To be honest, I think that you are a victim of the difficulties of the treaty themselves.

I don't think the EU project is too difficult to understand. I have, however, argued and demonstrated that it is not well understood. Since you've apparently missed my point entirely on such a simple matter of reading comprehension, I will leave it up to others to identify the victimhoods that I'm suffering from.

» Antiquity and the New Europe
» The Dutch ban electronic voting
» Irish fisheries and Europe
» Europe and energy
» Emergence of the Far right in Europe