Leo Varadkar (1 Viewer)

[Pedronimus]

The ballot paper should read:

Do you agree with this constitutional Amendment? Yes/No
Are the government a bunch of cunts? Yes/No

You get to vote on the issue and register your indignation.

 

[ratmonkey]

another point that Leo is missing is that the tax take is likely remaining steady purely because people are buying less fuel. Gone are the sunday drives, the saturday nights out for a meal, and the odd other social call or wherever else people may drive during the week. Now its fill the car to get me to work and back for the week and I'll walk everywhere else.

More likely it's people don't have work to be driving to anymore.

Im not saying we don't have a right to vote on it just that we wouldn't be voting on the issue rather we'd be voting on the governments performance.

Can't remember who said it, but a referendum is where the people are asked a question and answer a different one.

 

[rettucs]

More likely it's people don't have work to be driving to anymore.

yes, hadn't thought of that, but yes, thats definitely true.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

I always thought that first Lisbon 'no' was a bit of us getting ahead of ourselves. We were all rich then and didn't need Europe. Like we were sending back a pasta dish that wasn't al dente enough for us.

That, obviously, could be all in my head.

 

[maims bond]

Anyone see Oireachtas report last night? Some committee had a Prof in who did research after the referendum a few months back. I think he was talking about the referendum on Dáil committee powers. Anyway, their basic finding was that around 50% of the people who voted in the referendum could not remember a single argument for or against it, and could not recall which parties were in favour or against it. This survey was done 2 weeks after the vote. Says it all really.

 

[тхеодоре кацзынски]

Democracy doesn't work.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

Op-ed piece from the NY Times by a Chinese venture capitalist (?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/opinion/why-chinas-political-model-is-superior.html

February 16, 2012[h=1]Why China’s Political Model Is Superior[/h][h=6]By ERIC X. LI[/h]Shanghai
THIS week the Obama administration is playing host to Xi Jinping, China’s vice president and heir apparent. The world’s most powerful electoral democracy and its largest one-party state are meeting at a time of political transition for both.
Many have characterized the competition between these two giants as a clash between democracy and authoritarianism. But this is false. America and Chinaview their political systems in fundamentally different ways: whereas America sees democratic government as an end in itself, China sees its current form of government, or any political system for that matter, merely as a means to achieving larger national ends.
In the history of human governance, spanning thousands of years, there have been two major experiments in democracy. The first was Athens, which lasted a century and a half; the second is the modern West. If one defines democracy as one citizen one vote, American democracy is only 92 years old. In practice it is only 47 years old, if one begins counting after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — far more ephemeral than all but a handful of China’s dynasties.
Why, then, do so many boldly claim they have discovered the ideal political system for all mankind and that its success is forever assured?
The answer lies in the source of the current democratic experiment. It began with the European Enlightenment. Two fundamental ideas were at its core: the individual is rational, and the individual is endowed with inalienable rights. These two beliefs formed the basis of a secular faith in modernity, of which the ultimate political manifestation is democracy.
In its early days, democratic ideas in political governance facilitated the industrial revolution and ushered in a period of unprecedented economic prosperity and military power in the Western world. Yet at the very beginning, some of those who led this drive were aware of the fatal flaw embedded in this experiment and sought to contain it.
The American Federalists made it clear they were establishing a republic, not a democracy, and designed myriad means to constrain the popular will. But as in any religion, faith would prove stronger than rules.
The political franchise expanded, resulting in a greater number of people participating in more and more decisions. As they say in America, “California is the future.” And the future means endless referendums, paralysis and insolvency.
In Athens, ever-increasing popular participation in politics led to rule by demagogy. And in today’s America, money is now the great enabler of demagogy. As the Nobel-winning economist A. Michael Spence has put it, America has gone from “one propertied man, one vote; to one man, one vote; to one person, one vote; trending to one dollar, one vote.” By any measure, the United States is a constitutional republic in name only. Elected representatives have no minds of their own and respond only to the whims of public opinion as they seek re-election; special interests manipulate the people into voting for ever-lower taxes and higher government spending, sometimes even supporting self-destructive wars.
The West’s current competition with China is therefore not a face-off between democracy and authoritarianism, but rather the clash of two fundamentally different political outlooks. The modern West sees democracy and human rights as the pinnacle of human development. It is a belief premised on an absolute faith.
China is on a different path. Its leaders are prepared to allow greater popular participation in political decisions if and when it is conducive to economic development and favorable to the country’s national interests, as they have done in the past 10 years.
However, China’s leaders would not hesitate to curtail those freedoms if the conditions and the needs of the nation changed. The 1980s were a time of expanding popular participation in the country’s politics that helped loosen the ideological shackles of the destructive Cultural Revolution. But it went too far and led to a vast rebellion at Tiananmen Square.
That uprising was decisively put down on June 4, 1989. The Chinese nation paid a heavy price for that violent event, but the alternatives would have been far worse.
The resulting stability ushered in a generation of growth and prosperity that propelled China’s economy to its position as the second largest in the world.
The fundamental difference between Washington’s view and Beijing’s is whether political rights are considered God-given and therefore absolute or whether they should be seen as privileges to be negotiated based on the needs and conditions of the nation.
The West seems incapable of becoming less democratic even when its survival may depend on such a shift. In this sense, America today is similar to the old Soviet Union, which also viewed its political system as the ultimate end.
History does not bode well for the American way. Indeed, faith-based ideological hubris may soon drive democracy over the cliff.

Eric X. Li is a venture capitalist.

 

[magicbastarder]

i read that if you thought western economics was built on a house of cards, it's nothing compared to china's. that when china goes, it'll be full on.

 

[magicbastarder]

I think the Irish have become more politically savvy with regards to Europe, if we voted against it, it would be because we now know that Europe does not have the best interests of this small nation at heart.

sure, they're gonna be indifferent to ireland. but would indifference be any worse than the near-malicious incompetence of successive FF governments?

 

[тхеодоре кацзынски]

i read that if you thought western economics was built on a house of cards, it's nothing compared to china's. that when china goes, it'll be full on.

How long can China continue with the state capitalism though?I would imagine that as the Chinese people get richer there will be more and more agitation for the rights we take for granted over here.

 

[magicbastarder]

well, the book i read mentioned that if regulation was too blame in the west for being too lax, there is simply no regulation in china.
would be interesting to see how china would cope - maybe china simply would not concern itself with due process and nama-like institutions and wipe the slate clean and just declare it was 'all good' again.

 

[тхеодоре кацзынски]

maybe china simply would not concern itself with due process and nama-like institutions and wipe the slate clean and just declare it was 'all good' again.

I can imagine this would be the case,just look at Russia's version of state capitalism-don't challenge the government and you can do whatever else you want,challenge the government and end up in prison/exile/dead.

What was the book?

 

[magicbastarder]

http://www.amazon.com/dp/014104571X/?tag=thumpedcom-20

it's an excellent read.

 

[тхеодоре кацзынски]

Danke.

 

[Denny Oubidoux]

Putting your own local issues ahead of the greater good is pretty much the definition of selfishness. The electorate want local fixers rather than vote for structural or systematic change.

Yeah, but thats too simplistic a summary of the elections in my view. Local issues matter locally, they're not unimportant, so of course people will vote on them, particularly when the other options on the ballot paper represent more of the same rather than systematic change for the greater good.

Also, this business about the possible referendum being a vote on austerity - there might be some truth in it but we don't know yet exactly what's involved yet. I think the unease at the moment is more about a distrust of the EU and of politics in general (not unreasonable in my view). If you don't trust whats going on you're unlikely to vote for it so theres a negative vibe about it. Until we know what we're being asked to vote on a certain amount of scepticism is appropriate, doesn't mean people can't think sensibly.

cant believe i'm defending people, i suffer terribly from misanthropy.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

There is local government for local issues.

The tail wagging the dog of Healy-Rae and Lowry wringing pork belly out of minority governments in return for votes is, well it's obvious what it is. It's undemocratic!

Although, I was all for it when Tony Gregory did it.

 

[rettucs]

look what I found

http://www.politics.ie/forum/fine-gael/176745-leo-varadkar-off-his-head-just-idiot.html

 

[тхеодоре кацзынски]

The last page of that is tough reading.

 

[rettucs]

they make us seem intelligent!

 

[Pedronimus]

Yeah, but thats too simplistic a summary of the elections in my view.

OK, to selfishness I'll add in inherited political allegiance and knee jerk voting. With long term thinking coming in a distant 4th.