Quote from: RPGPunditThis is a clear case of Technocrats and politicians trying to stuff a process down the throats of European citizens who clearly do NOT want what is being attempted to be forced upon them. Its time to accept that the European people, in the majority, do not want to have their democratic governments trumped by the choices of unelected "elite" beaurocrats in Brussels.  Either offer Euro-democracy or fuck off.

RPGPundit

I didn't see the asswipe reporter on the BBC 24 coverage:raise:.Maybe the beeb wants to portray things differently away from the shores of Blighty?  What I got from watching it all was that the Irish people didn't understand the over the top legalese and so, quite rightly, refused to vote for it.
The 24 coverage wasn't pro euro, in fact it basically showed that Brussels was up shit creek without a paddle on the matter.

If the Irishmen are clever, they go the way of Switzerland and Norway and get the perks of the European Union by individual treaties, while at the same time disallowing the Brussels bureaucrats to tamper with their politics, laws and budgets by staying outside of the club.

I'm absolutely a fan of the European idea, I'm convinced that Europe must stand together to face the other global players politically and economically, and I feel as a European long before I feel as a German, but at the same time the current organization of the EU is seriously flawed, and the fact that EU parliaments and agencies usually serve to deport incompetent has-been national politicians to a well-paid resting place doesn't add much efficiency.

It only takes me wonder (without having seen the report in question from first hand) that the BBC is jumping on the "EU r0XX!"-bandwagon... The British are generally a more distanced towards the EU and continental bureaucrats tampering with their politics, so I'd have expected some sympathy for the Irish decision from this angle. Or (wild guess, I never watch BBC) is it a tendency to look warily at every move of the people from which anti-English terrorism has spawned for decades now?

The BBC has been accused of bias a few times recently - funnily enough, from the other angle. I didn't see it, so don't know if this has been blown out of proportion by Pundit (surely not!). If the report did have a slant, if might be a subconscious reaction to said recent accusations.

As for this being some kind of ant-Irish rant for the benifit of the English, i blow a big raspberry at Skyrock. More likely, people who saw it were thinking "Lucky fucking Irish - at least they got to vote." Since this treaty is such a big departure from the original constitution *cough, cough*, on which we were promised a referendum, obviously we don't need one for this document. The reason for that decision is obviously because we would have voted exactly the same way as Ireland did.

At least I've admitted that I'm working from second hand knowledge regarding the BBC report, but thanks for puffed fruit, and moreso for elaborating the background.

I can only add that when the German provinces voted for or against the treaty, Berlin got dog-piled just for abstaining, while every other single province waved it through.
If we've got a referendum you can bet that things would look pretty Irish too, and if you want to know my POV on this, I can only say that this is one of the recently numerous days were I wish that my sub-province had back in the day become a Swiss canton rather than clinged to the coattails of Habsburg and Prussia.

I'm pissed off that I don't get BBC America, because that "Robin Hood" show looks pretty cool and my wife wants to see some "Torchwood".

Quote from: David RThe "right" parties would be the ruling coalition - Barisan Nasional**.

How "right" are they?  Part of my point is that ruling coalitions (whether they are a collection of parties in a multi-party parliamentary system or a broad range of perspectives concentrated in two-parties in a two-party system) tend to be relatively moderate and I think that what people are complaining about with the Democrats in the US (that they aren't really left) is a complaint that can also be leveled at the Republicans (that they aren't really right) because both parties have been trading control back and forth by making grabs for the center.  

Yes, there are some scary real right-wing people in the Republican party that people like Bill Maher and left-wing pundits like to dwell on to scare the left but there are also some scary real left-wing people in the Democratic part (including, in their coalition Senator Bernie Sanders who runs as an Independent and calls himself a democratic socialist) and the right uses them to scare their people, too.  Neither the scary people on the far right or the scary people on the far left generally get many of their policies enacted because they lack the numbers to do it, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't if they could (many Democrats, for example, would probably enact a national healthcare program if they could get the votes).  This is why quite a few people comment that there isn't much difference between the two US political parties but that doesn't mean that there aren't significant differences between individuals in those parties, though it matters the most with the President.

It is true that pacifists don't too too well on the left in the United States just like isolationists don't do too well on the right.  That's because I think most Americans realize that the United States can't just kick back and make pacifist or isolationist noises and wait for some other country step in to play daddy for them if their pacifism or isolationism gets them in trouble.  That Europe could not deal with the Balkans without NATO (i.e., US help) and without UN approval is embarrassing if the goal is to not have the US always playing globo-cop.

Quote from: John MorrowThat's why they are fawning all over Obama, throwing the more moderate Hillary Clinton under the bus after covering for her and her husband for years and that's why they fawned over McCain for years but will now throw him under the bus, too, because they really want Obama.

Which "they" are you referring to?  I think you're referring to the various commercial media outlets, but if they're simply responding to prevailing demographic trends, then perhaps the "they" you're referring to is the American people.  Which should be telling.

Two quick stories that leap to my mind:

Recently, Rupert Murdoch, mastermind behind the notoriously "right-wing" pseudo-news outlet, Fox News, declares "Obama by a landslide!"  Expext a swing in the target demographic of Fox News over the next four years, unless it proves more profitable to capitalise on Republican/Right/Conservative rage.  Go back 7 years or so and look at how they shifted to "Republican mouthpiece" from a more moderate stance to capitalise on the Bush groundswell.

Less recently, my sister-in-law applied for a position with the BBC news division some years back.  During her interview, two very serious, pinstriped executives grilled her on her various and sundry qualifications, which was to be expected.  Then the more interpretive portion of the interview began.  As she related, the question that stumped her most was, "Please, define 'profit'."  She was baffled, because to her it seemed like a non sequitur, but to them it was pivotal.

!i!

Quote from: David REdit: In case you are interested :

http://malaysiavotes.com/wp/2008/03/22/farewell-to-the-homogenous-malay/

Interesting article and I'm glad that Malaysia is getting beyond tribal voting.  It, and some of the other replies here, leave me thinking about the differences in the way left and right manifest themselves in various countries from the same basic core philosophical divide.  

For example, I think that racial division gets played by both the right (from a cultural perspective) and the left (from a class perspective) but I don't think race is the real issue so much as it becomes a proxy for culture and class.  And the importance that religion plays on the right depends on the role that religion plays in defining culture.  The religious right in the United States is more of a cultural backlash against cultural changes during the 1960s and 1970s than any tradition of American Christians wanting to implement a theocracy.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaWhich "they" are you referring to?  I think you're referring to the various commercial media outlets, but if they're simply responding to prevailing demographic trends, then perhaps the "they" you're referring to is the American people.  Which should be telling.

I'm referring to the mainstream commercial media outlets and I don't think they are "responding to prevailing demographic trends" at all.  I think they are responding to the thrill running up their leg when they hear him speak.  And I think it's indicative of just how biased much of the media coverage is that you could even think that I'm talking about the American people.  Not only did Obama have trouble winning primaries against Hillary Clinton until the end and had trouble winning the big swing states that he needs to win to win the Presidency but he's polling below 50%  in nearly every state (even those where he's doing better than McCain).  He also seems to have a lot of trouble dealing with criticism, especially extemporaneously, as if he hasn't had to deal with much of it in the past.

So I think it's a bit early to think that the American people are ready to crown Obama king or messiah.  

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaRecently, Rupert Murdoch, mastermind behind the notoriously "right-wing" pseudo-news outlet, Fox News, declares "Obama by a landslide!"  Expext a swing in the target demographic of Fox News over the next four years, unless it proves more profitable to capitalise on Republican/Right/Conservative rage.  Go back 7 years or so and look at how they shifted to "Republican mouthpiece" from a more moderate stance to capitalise on the Bush groundswell.

Baloney.  Let me give you a counter example.  In 1992, the mainstream press was certain that Rush Limbaugh would lose his audience because Bill Clinton was elected president and the country was turning away from the right.  Didn't happen.  Then in 2000, the mainstream press was certain that Rush Limbaugh would lose his audience because George W. Bush was elected president and he wouldn't have an enemy to beat up on.  Didn't happen.  Give it up already.  The left can't stand not being able to control the narrative and are looking for any reason to believe that various outlets are going to fail any minute now, be it Rush Limbaugh or Fox News or Matt Drudge.  It's why they also love the "Fairness" Doctrine.

Do you actually watch Fox News?  Your characterization of it is laughably wrong.  Fox News is not simply Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity and as Rush Limbaugh has shown, right wing commentators can maintain their audience regardless of who is in power.  Nor has their message changed all that much since the late 1990s when Clinton was in power.  Do you know what will cause Fox News to lose audience or change it's approach?  Effective competition.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaLess recently, my sister-in-law applied for a position with the BBC news division some years back.  During her interview, two very serious, pinstriped executives grilled her on her various and sundry qualifications, which was to be expected.  Then the more interpretive portion of the interview began.  As she related, the question that stumped her most was, "Please, define 'profit'."  She was baffled, because to her it seemed like a non sequitur, but to them it was pivotal.

Probably because they were looking to avoid another André Schiffrin (and, yes, I was working at Random House at the time when they fired him so got to hear what people on the inside had to say about it).  Nobody needs programming that nobody is interested in watching, just because an employee things it's "important".  In fact, I'd argue that a big part of the reason why the left likes non-profit and public broadcasting radio like NPR or Pacifica is that they can silly things and it doesn't matter how many people are listening.  And, yeah, I spent a lot of time listening to WBIA years ago (Jim Freund's Hour of the Wolf is a great old school science fiction radio show but hardly something that would appeal to a mainstream audience).

Quote from: John MorrowHow "right" are they?

Well the MCA was created as an alternative to the Communist party of Malaya and to this day more or less retains it's ideological purity of capitalism, social conservatism and (like the other component parties) unquestioning fidelty to the constitution.  The MIC on the other hand were left leaning at least in it's early days. This party predates independence, btw. However over time it moved right of center to better fit in with the general social/economic conservatism of the country. UMNO has always been what many would consider "right" . So at least in Malaysia, a very clear distinction can be made between the "traditional" right and left.

QuotePart of my point is that ruling coalitions (whether they are a collection of parties in a multi-party parliamentary system or a broad range of perspectives concentrated in two-parties in a two-party system) tend to be relatively moderate and I think that what people are complaining about with the Democrats in the US (that they aren't really left) is a complaint that can also be leveled at the Republicans (that they aren't really right) because both parties have been trading control back and forth by making grabs for the center.  

Maybe in the American experience. I dont think this applies to the Asian region, certain European countries and perhaps even South America. At least in my country there has never been a need (until now*) to appeal to the moderate vote. The general conservative (economic and social) nature of the region, the so called "Asian" values makes the distinction between left and right politics so much easier to differentiate.

*It looks as though we are moving to a two party system. I don't think it will be as clear cut as the American or British experience, what with a very left DAP and very Islamic PAS together with the moderate PKR, forming part of the Alternative Pact.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: John MorrowThe religious right in the United States is more of a cultural backlash against cultural changes during the 1960s and 1970s than any tradition of American Christians wanting to implement a theocracy.

I wonder though, if this is any consolation to those wary of religious "interference". Depending on how much Christian influence translates to law, you may not be a theocracy in name but surely in substance.  

For instance, notwithstanding the disdain for some of the religious sources (Islam/Hindusim/Christianity/Buddhism) or more accurately cultural (the various ethnic groups) based laws in my country, I'm sure many fundamentalist Christians would find them appealing although these laws would prove anathema to secular conservatives and religious liberals.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RMaybe in the American experience. I dont think this applies to the Asian region, certain European countries and perhaps even South America.

I suppose I should have added, "when the competition is competitive".  When the competition is competitive, you are correct that there is no need to appeal to the moderate vote or be moderate, though I suspect from what I've read of Malaysian politics that the ruling coalition tended to follow the most moderate members of the coalition rather than the most radical, or is that incorrect?

Quote from: David R*It looks as though we are moving to a two party system. I don't think it will be as clear cut as the American or British experience, what with a very left DAP and very Islamic PAS together with the moderate PKR, forming part of the Alternative Pact.

For all of it's faults, the main benefit of a two party system is that it tends to make the opposition competitive in a way that they wouldn't be if fractured into smaller groups.

Quote from: John Morrow... though I suspect from what I've read of Malaysian politics that the ruling coalition tended to follow the most moderate members of the coalition rather than the most radical, or is that incorrect?

Correct however it's important to remember that it's more radical wing benefitted the most after the race riots of '69 and it's moderate wing effectively neutralized. The other ethnic parties (which were supposed to be a moderating influence) become meek collaborators and this persisted for 30 odd years until the last general election.

QuoteFor all of it's faults, the main benefit of a two party system is that it tends to make the opposition competitive in a way that they wouldn't be if fractured into smaller groups.

The main disadvantage is, that the diversity and plurality of ideas of smaller groups reaching consensus and working together is lost. I much prefer this method than a two party system. Of course after awhile the two parties become indistinguishable. Appealing to the moderate vote tends to do this I think.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RI wonder though, if this is any consolation to those wary of religious "interference". Depending on how much Christian influence translates to law, you may not be a theocracy in name but surely in substance.

I think (A) a lot of people worry to much and (B) the people who oppose their positions have a vested interest in framing it as a religious imposition issue.  Unlike Islam in Malaysia, Christians in America have a long standing tradition of secular government and a lot of the national maneuvering that you are seeing on issues like abortion, gay rights, religious activity in schools, and so on are a response to the left using the federal courts to overturn state and local laws and practices without a vote on the matter.  If you want to look at the genesis of the modern religious right and why conservative Catholics, Protestant, and even Jews are working together, look no further than Roe v. Wade in 1973 (which was radical enough that if it were imposed on Europe, it would overturn most existing European abortion restrictions).  

Quote from: David RFor instance, notwithstanding the disdain for some of the religious sources (Islam/Hindusim/Christianity/Buddhism) or more accurately cultural (the various ethnic groups) based laws in my country, I'm sure many fundamentalist Christians would find them appealing although these laws would prove anathema to secular conservatives and religious liberals.

The take-away point from that, I think, is that the laws are less about the imposition of a particular religion than the general conservative cultural views.

Quote from: David RCorrect however it's important to remember that it's more radical wing benefitted the most after the race riots of '69 and it's moderate wing effectively neutralized. The other ethnic parties (which were supposed to be a moderating influence) become meek collaborators and this persisted for 30 odd years until the last general election.

Well, if they don't really need the moderates or can keep them in the fold regardless of what they do, then the moderates don't act as a moderating influence.  

Quote from: David RThe main disadvantage is, that the diversity and plurality of ideas of smaller groups reaching consensus and working together is lost. I much prefer this method than a two party system. Of course after awhile the two parties become indistinguishable. Appealing to the moderate vote tends to do this I think.

Well, party of my point was that, yes, appealing to moderate votes brings the parties closer to each other but the other part of my point was that they don't necessarily lose the diversity of ideas.  They continue to exist within the two political parties but they don't have independent labels.  That's why voting in primaries at all levels is crucial in a two-party system because that's how you get to control the diversity of ideas within each political party.