Cabinet approves referendum on votes for Irish abroad



Baron von Biffo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,574
Well it is an easy position to explain, in simple maths. We had an estimated population of 9 million, give or take, in the late 1830s. One hundred years later we were down to about 3mil, 3.5mil.

For any nation which identifies in a particular way as a society to lose two thirds of its number in one hundred years is an interesting challenge and does beg a question about whether that nation or society should really be signing up to military treaties.

Give it a century or two and check back. Our history is full of terrible things such as Irish Regiments fighting against each other in other people's savage wars.

Probably one of the most far sighted and sensible arrangements in Irish politics and the emergence of the current state is is the warning from history of getting caught up in other people's wars.

Everywhere from the Low Countries, back to being hired mercenaries, the Flight of the Earls and the formation of opposing Irish regiments which then fought each other for some petty kaiser or king, everywhere from Salamanca to South Africa and certainly in the civil war of the New World there were Irishmen shooting at each other for some foreign overseer.

If anyone wants to propose we start signing military agreements, as one of the few nations in Europe with a sizeable population of 25 year olds, and that they should be offered as fodder I'd be happy to stand and debate against them.

I've a lot of ammo.
I wasn't making a case for or against neutrality. Rather I was pointing out that saying 'other countries do it' is a two edged sword.

Those who use it to support granting the vote to emigrants must, unless they are hypocrites, support abandoning neutrality.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,188
The Cabinet has decided to hold a referendum in October on extending voting rights in Presidential elections to Irish citizens living abroad. Is this a good or bad idea?

I will vote no because of the no representation without taxation (including indirect taxes) principle. I'm also concerned it could involve postal voting, which has been implicated in fraud for example in a UK GE in Scotland some years ago.

Living abroad,most Irish expats wouldn't know what is happening here. Some knowledge of happenings is needed for intelligent voting.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,188
The Cabinet has decided to hold a referendum in October on extending voting rights in Presidential elections to Irish citizens living abroad. Is this a good or bad idea?

I will vote no because of the no representation without taxation (including indirect taxes) principle. I'm also concerned it could involve postal voting, which has been implicated in fraud for example in a UK GE in Scotland some years ago.

TRIVIAL REFERENDUMS
How about an important referendum that would make it easier for politicians to support long term economic and social planning instead of obsessing over village pump politics and populist bull. An end to multiple member constituencies would be a start.
A reduction in the number of TDs would replace village pump politics with a broader political market, say town and country politics. To compensate for the loss of talent in such a reduction of numbers, the pay and pensions would need to be increased to attract politicians with higher abilities. Haughey joked that we need a big number of TDs to find any with brains for the cabinet.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
28,419
Twitter
No
Living abroad,most Irish expats wouldn't know what is happening here. Some knowledge of happenings is needed for intelligent voting.
You'd be surprised. As many were during the 'home to vote' campaign that went around the diaspora in fairly fine style.
 

Catahualpa

Well-known member
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
837
Website
irelandinhistory.blogspot.com
You'd be surprised. As many were during the 'home to vote' campaign that went around the diaspora in fairly fine style.
That was a media creation between the Abortionists and RTE to help swing the vote a certain way.

The whole Abortion Campaign is really a Case Study in how to manipulate the Masses to vote for something that was never an issue on the doorsteps and is against the National Interest anyway.
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
13,326
Living abroad,most Irish expats wouldn't know what is happening here. Some knowledge of happenings is needed for intelligent voting.

Au contraire. A vote from emigrants would help inject more intellingence to the voting. People who can take a big picture look and not revert to old tribal loyalties or vote for the party from which some one fixed a few potholes nearby.

Campaigns would be run differently and we have this thing called the world wide web for information.
 

Baron von Biffo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,574
Au contraire. A vote from emigrants would help inject more intellingence to the voting. People who can take a big picture look and not revert to old tribal loyalties or vote for the party from which some one fixed a few potholes nearby.

Campaigns would be run differently and we have this thing called the world wide web for information.
They can afford to be disdainful of potholed roads who don't have to use them.
 

Dearghoul

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
8,991
They can afford to be disdainful of potholed roads who don't have to use them.
Yes well if thats the absolute number 1 priority of the domestic voter then some reality should be brought into the election.

The clincher for me is that those overseas are often overseas as a result of economic policies that they then cannot cast their verdict on.

It's cyclical.
 

Dearghoul

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
8,991
I wasn't making a case for or against neutrality. Rather I was pointing out that saying 'other countries do it' is a two edged sword.

Those who use it to support granting the vote to emigrants must, unless they are hypocrites, support abandoning neutrality.
That doesn't stand up at all.

Other nations eat horsemeat, support segregation of races, imprison and kill journalists, have complete governmental control over the media, do not have clear rules about the separation of powers and so on and so forth.

Saying that because we are out of step on the issue of emigrant rights with reference to our European partners is tantamount to a call for abandoning neutrality is a non sequitur of epic proportions.

And really, I think you already know that.
 

Baron von Biffo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,574
Yes well if thats the absolute number 1 priority of the domestic voter then some reality should be brought into the election.

The clincher for me is that those overseas are often overseas as a result of economic policies that they then cannot cast their verdict on.

It's cyclical.
Democracy isn't about casting verdicts, it's about the governed choosing the government.

There's a far better case to be made for granting the vote to immigrants than granting it to emigrants.
 

Baron von Biffo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,574
That doesn't stand up at all.

Other nations eat horsemeat, support segregation of races, imprison and kill journalists, have complete governmental control over the media, do not have clear rules about the separation of powers and so on and so forth.

Saying that because we are out of step on the issue of emigrant rights with reference to our European partners is tantamount to a call for abandoning neutrality is a non sequitur of epic proportions.

And really, I think you already know that.
It stands absolutely solidly.

If 'they do it in other countries' is the reason we must grant the vote to emigrants then why doesn't it compel us to do all the other things?

Of course 'they do it in other countries' is just a fig-leaf meant to add a bit of decency to a poor argument for something one approves of. It only becomes a non sequitur when the thing under discussion is something we disapprove of.
 

Dearghoul

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
8,991
Democracy isn't about casting verdicts, it's about the governed choosing the government.

There's a far better case to be made for granting the vote to immigrants than granting it to emigrants.
The governed choose the government and at the end of the 4 year cycle they pass their verdict on that governments handling of the economy.

If that handling has been poor enough to instigate mass emigration it's really handy for them that they're not held accountable for that, because of the erm...mass emigration.
 

Dearghoul

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
8,991
It stands absolutely solidly.

If 'they do it in other countries' is the reason we must grant the vote to emigrants then why doesn't it compel us to do all the other things?

Of course 'they do it in other countries' is just a fig-leaf meant to add a bit of decency to a poor argument for something one approves of. It only becomes a non sequitur when the thing under discussion is something we disapprove of.
It's not the reason we should but you came out with the idea that it was some kind of constitutional perversity. When challenged on that with the observation that it is in fact the norm, you changed your ground to one where the objection was one of 'they do it in other countries, is not a valid argument for why we should do it also' which of course neatly sidesteps the objection to your original post, and muddies the waters a bit.
 

Baron von Biffo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,574
The governed choose the government and at the end of the 4 year cycle they pass their verdict on that governments handling of the economy.

If that handling has been poor enough to instigate mass emigration it's really handy for them that they're not held accountable for that, because of the erm...mass emigration.
This is why I'm an advocate for better civics teaching.

The proper purpose of voting in a GE is to choose from the available options the one that you believe will result in the best government for the next term.

Nothing more.
 

Baron von Biffo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,574
It's not the reason we should but you came out with the idea that it was some kind of constitutional perversity. When challenged on that with the observation that it is in fact the norm, you changed your ground to one where the objection was one of 'they do it in other countries, is not a valid argument for why we should do it also' which of course neatly sidesteps the objection to your original post, and muddies the waters a bit.
You seem confused. It wasn't me who introduced the 'they do it in other countries' argument. It was raised by someone else. I merely fought on the ground of his choosing.

It was a foolish argument and it remains so.
 

Dearghoul

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
8,991
I think it might repay you to reread the thread with particular reference to your post 41. If its a perversion of democracy, then why do the countries find it quite normal, does not equate to other countries do it, therefore so should we, which is what you're claiming the argument to be about.

I suspect you know this already and are only pretending on the imbecility front.
 

Baron von Biffo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,574
I think it might repay you to reread the thread with particular reference to your post 41. If its a perversion of democracy, then why do the countries find it quite normal, does not equate to other countries do it, therefore so should we, which is what you're claiming the argument to be about.

I suspect you know this already and are only pretending on the imbecility front.
You could have debated politely though you'd have to have a valid argument to do that. Not having a solid case, or a basic understanding of democracy, you're forced to resort to abuse.
 

Dearghoul

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
8,991
You could have debated politely though you'd have to have a valid argument to do that. Not having a solid case, or a basic understanding of democracy, you're forced to resort to abuse.
'This is why I'd advocate better civics teaching'.

If you are concerned about abuse you might try being less patronising in debate, or attempt an answer to what your adversary has posted rather than your representation of what your adversary has posted.

I believe yours is whats known as known as a straw man argument.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top