Is it already too late?
Genuine question here, this is scary stuff here.
Printable View
Is it already too late?
Genuine question here, this is scary stuff here.
Any chance of an overview to save from having to watch all of it?
Or for those of us you cant view it at all ?
Its basically outlining the Europe is run at present and how its claimed it is a democracy but when you look at some of the practices and legislation you can see its anything but.
It looks at the 3000 working groups who make the legislation in Europe and highlights the fact that these groups are nameless and shrouded in secrecy and control everything while elected people from each country only live off scrapes and essentially have no power at all. They have limited power of suggestion on current legislation and they can only amend draft legislation that is handed down to them and these draft can be scraped at any time and replace with new documents which they are not allowed amend (if they see them)
Its basically saying when it’s this close to the bone its reckless and uninformed to call it a conspiracy theory. Its legislation that is currently in place and affects all EU citizens.
What, like, consultants?
If you were passing legislation on say, i dunno ... Health Issues .... who would you NOT have making that legislation, just off the top of your head like. Who would you think would be compromised when putting this new legislation into effect?Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
The Freemasons?Quote:
Originally Posted by A face
Every step of the legislative procedure has elected politicians in the seat of power, be they directly elected to a position as the Parliament is, or sent forth by the national governments to deal with a certain topic, as the Council is, or sent forth by national governments as a commision, as in the Commission.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_...assing_of_laws
If outsiders are involved it is the form of reporting consultants in an identical manner to the Irish government commissioning reports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
unfortunately elected politicians are not to be trusted.would you trust george bush ,tony blair,berti ahern to name but a few.Some things cannot be left to the politicians and fortunately our constitution recognises this.It is up to the politicians to convince us and in this case they failed miserably.The people have spoken but our arrogant politicians refuse to listenQuote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
I don't think George Bush has ever held a seat on the council, and since Mr Blair and Mr Ahern were elected, or in other words, trusted to take on these very powers, yes, I would. The sentence elected politicians are not to be trusted is so horrendously misguided I'd expect to see it on Storm Front or something. They are elected because they are trusted by a majority of people to use their powers better than the opposition would. If you don't trust them, tough. We live in a democratic republic where, thankfully, the majority rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanfhear
Er, apparantly not, since I'm talking about structures that are in place, right now. As we speak.Quote:
fortunately our constitution recognises this.
This thread isn't about the Lisbon treaty, its about the voting structure in the EU.Quote:
It is up to the politicians to convince us and in this case they failed miserably.The people have spoken but our arrogant politicians refuse to listen
Some of them, but certainly not all.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
Others are elected because they are a relative of an ex-politician, or because the voter had it drilled into them as a child that members of any other party than that supported by the father/mother were little more than sub-human.
In my opinion, it's a major problem with Irish politics (but I'm sure it's not limited to Ireland).
Its a (in my opinion, somewhat smaller) problem with democracy in general, but there aren't too many alternatives, are there?Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
The wife of someone who's involved in various interested private groups wanting to get into the market?Quote:
Originally Posted by A face
Elected by more voters than other parties isn't the same as elected by a majority of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
84/166 is a clear majority. Unless you've forgotten, Fianna Fail aren't the only party in power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
If you mean non-voters, people who can't be bothered deserve what they get.
Even of those who voted, the majority didn't vote for the current government partiesQuote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
Well, its a bit wild to be making statements like that given our 'first choice, second choice' and so on system, but going on first preference votes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Fianna Fail 41.6%
Green Part 4.7%
PDs 2.7%
Makes 49% of first preference votes, within the margin of error for the one-decimal-place figures. Given that the independents tallied 5.7% of first preference votes, most of whom that were elected are technically in government, I think its safe to say that, on first preference votes alone, you're wrong.
49% isn't a majority, and it's very flawed to include the total vote for independents considering the numbers that ran nationally compared to the 4 that were brought to support the Government (who aren't actually needed to give a Dail majority, rather to reduce the influence of the greens).
As I said, going on first preference votes is flawed in the first place. People tend to rank their votes from most ambitious to least. My first preference vote was for Mick Barry of the Socialist Party, but I'm sure you'd consider me a voter of the government, as would I. Many of the independant first preference votes would have had government parties in second or third or so on. The only way to make a proper judgment is by looking at seats, and lo! there is a majority held by government parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Source please?Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
well...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A1....28May_2007.29Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
As we can see from these figures, in virtually every case, smaller parties gained a larger proportion of first preference votes than actual seats in the house, while larger parties gained more seats than they did first preference votes. Thus, voters are ranking indepenants and micro-parties first, then placing larger parties below, so that their vote actually counts if the independants dont succeed. This is entirely expected as its pretty much what the STV was set up for, and it would be pretty pointless to select a sure-fire candidate in first, and an outsider in second; given the cast unlikeliness that your vote will be transferred. The Irish public have been voting like this since 1919 and it has even influenced other areas of Irish like, like the preference system for the CAO.
For more reading:
http://proinsias.net/publications/pr...inorities.html
http://www.isye.gatech.edu/~jjb/papers/stv.pdf
The independents are not technically part of the government, they support the government in return for concessions in particular areas mostly local issues. A lot of people who voted for them would have done so out of a protest vote so you can't count them. A lot of Green voters saw them as part of an alternative grouping along with FG and Lab. So its dubious to say that a majority voted for a return to FF/PD rule with the same agenda as the previous government.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
As Dodge would say, 'source'? What makes you say that? It would be interesting if there's stats about to see votes transferred etc. Purely from the figures above, it looks like the opposite. Lots of people doing the old 'vote for an independent, let them bribe government' trick, and putting a major party in second. The major party with the most votes was Fianna Fail.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
Regardless, I think its probably naive to say you can't count them as the government-proper has 49%+ of the first preference votes so we're talking about a fraction of a percent needed of people who decided to vote for an independent with a history of going into partnership with the FF government.
Would a committed Greens voter really put an independent down ahead of a Green candidate? The Green party was perceived as relatively close to micro-party status before the election. Voting Green would've been the ambitious bit, throwing an opposition party or their future government partners (again, it'd be interesting to see the figures; if the percentage of Green voters that were backing an FG-L-Gr gov is much higher than those purely voting green or voting FF-Gr, it could be case for saying there could be some dissatisfaction with the greens for jumping into bed with FF) would've been the sure-fire vote to ensure your vote counts.Quote:
A lot of Green voters saw them as part of an alternative grouping along with FG and Lab. So its dubious to say that a majority voted for a return to FF/PD rule with the same agenda as the previous government.