We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
«  
  »

Never let it be said that money cannot buy votes

· European Union

Irish votes… the finest European money can buy.

It is entertaining to see how brave and resolute Dave is already setting up his wiggle room for refusing to give Britain the referendum it overwhelmingly demands.

October 3rd, 2009 |

9 comments to Never let it be said that money cannot buy votes

  • Paul Marks
    October 3, 2009 at 9:42 pm

    As I have just said on another thread…..

    The “Yes” side argued that voting their way was a vote for economic recovery – for free trade and opportunity. This was nonsense – but it is what they argued.

    And they were HELPED by the “no” side – who denounced the E.U. as not collectivist enough, as capitalist and pro business “they even want to deregulate the taxis” (no I am not making that one up – the taxi drivers even blocked Dublin streets in protest, seemingly unaware that this would make people more likely to vote “yes”).

    “And they will cut the minimume wage and undermine union power” – not true, but I wish it was (as Ireland is approaching 15% unemployment).

    Yet again the policy of “joining hands with the left” has been shown to lead to absurdity.

    Even the “unity” argument of “saving democracy” was pointless – as the E.U. has its own democratically elected Parliament, and the members of it are no more disgusting (and no more “unrepresentative”) than the people who make up the Irish Parliament (in all the political parties) or the British Parliament.

    The argument against the E.U. is that it is an extra layer of government. That far from “helping economic recovery” it is a dead weight of taxes and regulations. Something that we can not afford in these hard times.

    But that argument (the truth) can not be front and centre in any campaign in which we ally with the left.

    We must stand by the truth – only in that way is there a chance of victory.

    For truth can sometimes make up for an imbalance of money.

  • Alisa
    October 3, 2009 at 10:31 pm

    Depressing. Sorry for not having followed the news lately, but how much money and in what form?

  • Alice
    October 4, 2009 at 4:04 am

    From the BBC: “When asked why he would not say whether a Conservative government would hold a referendum on the treaty if it was in force, Mr Cameron said he didn’t want to risk prejudicing the outcomes on Lisbon in Poland and the Czech Republic.

    That reminds me of the kind of sentence found in the language section of those tests for graduate student applicants in the US, like GMAT and LSAT. Jump on to the next question, for goodness sakes! — you don’t have time to waste trying to extract sense from that mess of potage.

    The Conservative Party appears to have dedicated its humble self to ensuring Gordon Brown’s continued rule in perpetuity. But why?

  • Brian, follower of Deornoth
    October 4, 2009 at 9:44 am

    It isn’t ‘European’ money. It’s my money.

  • Chris H
    October 4, 2009 at 9:48 am

    I find this very depressing.

  • Irish Joe Sixpack
    October 4, 2009 at 12:47 pm

    Good morning,

    As the name suggests I’m just an average Irish Joe, who following the first ‘No’ vote, felt an altogether very rare and unusual feeling of pride for how we had held up our hand and said “No, we need to stop and take a look at this”. This morning I don’t feel shame, but disappointment and a little fear, for how we were scared and rolled over so easily into a ‘Yes’ vote.

    I’ve yet to approach the Sunday papers but I’m well aware of the level of triumphalism that awaits me. That our politicians can hail this as some kind of achievement is no surprise. Reminds me a little of how Chris Rock chides the ‘nigger’ for boasting about taking care of his kids. “You’re supposed to, you dumb motherfucker!”. They’d throw a press conference to celebrate the successful paring of a pencil.

    Following the first vote, Dick Roche, an amazingly smug, yet incompetent Minister of State for European Affairs, battered and bellowed that a sensible and grown-up debate on the EU was needed following the shameful non-truths pedalled by the NO Camp. No such debate took place, of course. No politician was willing to go toe-to-toe with Declan Gangley, one of the few people who had taken the time to read and fully understand what powers the treaty transferred from nation states to Brussels. It was left to Michael O’Leary, of Ryanair fame, to do the government’s dirty work. His line was “Vote Yes to create jobs and maintain our corporation tax advantage”, which he repeated over and over. Rather surreal really considering both men are much more alike than different in their views on Europe.

    Perhaps that’s the most distressing thing of all. That a man with such outspoken loathing and contempt for political institutions can be brought onside, speaks volumes for where we are going. You toe the line, or you suffer the consequences. This project cannot be stopped, nor even slowed down.

    I knew all this as I raced home to vote on Friday night, knowing also that my ballot would be little more than a protest that no one will ever hear. After a quick canvas of some friends afterwards the general feeling was “Sure, what difference does it make? Might as well play it safe”.

    It’s that very same apathy that allows our political masters to charge on.

  • Sam Duncan
    October 4, 2009 at 5:23 pm

    the E.U. has its own democratically elected Parliament

    It has its own elected parliament. Given the limited power it has, I’d say democracy is a pretty minor part of the process.

    Joe, the real scandal of Referendum II was the abolition of the rules on equal airtime and funding of the campaigns. I wonder if they’ll be reinstated for the next one (whatever it may be).

  • Paul Marks
    October 4, 2009 at 7:36 pm

    Well at least my grandfather (James Power – Catholic Irish) is vindicated. He always maintained that for most people the “desire for Irish independence” was a lie, just a cover for hatred of Britain (among those who did hate Britain – and those who they intimidated into pretending they hated Britain).

    And the submission to E.U. rule shows this – and, make no mistake, this is no longer membership of an organization that has some power, this is now RULE by a government outside of Ireland.

    “But Ireland has seats in the European Union Parliament” – and it had seats in the United Kingdom Parilament.

    As has been pointed out the biggest political parties supported handing over what is left of Irish independence to the E.U. – as did the newspapers and so on.

    So (apart from the headbangers in S.F.) Irish “desire for independence” has proved to be the phony cover for anti British feeling that my grandfather said it was.

    By the way Scottish and Welsh “independence” is the same (or worse) – the “pro independence” types do not want independence at all. They just want to express their hatred of the English – whilst accepting big handouts from the E.U. (and acting as its lapdogs).

    Of course the biggest handouts go to the politicians and other “community leaders”.

  • Sam Duncan
    October 5, 2009 at 1:26 am

    Absolutely, Paul. I’ve been saying that for years. The SNP’s talk of “independence” is absurd while it fawns over the EU. It wants to exchange a political union in which Scots represent 10% of the population (and rather more of the parliamentary seats) for one in which they’re less than 1%.

    All politicians usually want is power and money. The Nats don’t seem to be all that fussed about power.

«  
  »