The Swedes Vote No...

keeaumoku_tofu

Today I just spoke to a friend in Sweden and the euro vote came up. She said one of the numerous problems with the campaign was how the politicians kept saying prices would not go up with the euro, instead of saying they would do all they could to control price increases during the changeover. Her feeling was that the government was treating everyone like they had no knowledge of what happened in other countries after the euro changeover, when clearly they did. I still can't get over how much prices went up on restaurants post-euro.

Typedef

Originally posted by Elmo
My point is that. The government and main opposition party (who really know how to appose this government!!!!) said there where three reasons for going back to the polls

1. Confussion on the Nice Treaty (Someone explain The Council Of Rome, do you even remember voting for it?)
2. Having 3 refs. on at the same time
3. A low turnout

All of these reasons could be made for the other refs. thus we should go back to the polls just in case we got it wrong. The Government and Opposition (All sides included) agree with the other two refs thus we didn't go back to the polls.

Prehaps their was no confussion over The Death Penalty but the other to reasons still apply.

Now is that a good enough point for you.

Elmo, it was nothing to do with any of that.

The real reason is that the supposed supreme protector of democracy (certainly in this country) 'the government', is in fact it's greatest abuse.

Democracy is a farce in this country, a stage show for exponenciation of the wishes of big business and the emergent (or attemptedly emergent) European Union.

If the government looses the next election, is it suddenly ok, to re-run the election since after all "Fianna Fial" governance is in the best interests of Ireland.... if only the Irish weren't so 'confused' as to have missed that in the first general election... perhaps some scaremongering and a second election would balance the scales.

Siezing power would be wrong ... after all, this is a democracy.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Typedef
If the government looses the next election, is it suddenly ok, to re-run the election since after all "Fianna Fial" governance is in the best interests of Ireland....

They might have difficulties convincing the government.

MDR

The fact is Sweden is being manuvered (currently against the wishes of demonstrated plebiscite) into further EU federal integration, because between pro-Federalist Swedish politicains and the large wealth of pro-Federalist politicains Europe wide, the wishes of the Swedish people are thought to be ancillary to the 'great European project' so Sweden must be convinced of it's supposed "error" on this topic and if necessary multiple votes will be held until Sweden gives forth the desired result.

Since when does the existence of an argument in favor of a adoption of a constitutional change in itself constitute under-handily maneuvering of the electorate toward a certain conculsion.

The government of day is entitled to support and convince the people of the benefits of the change it has proposed, to say in doing so it is forcing the people down a certain road is propostereous.

The electorate in turn is entitled to reject their governments proposal as the Swedish and given the huge turn out in Sweden I dare say the decision of the day will probabily be respected for a couple of years. The Swedes can further show there dismay be voting someone in at the next election who doesn't suport the European project, that democracy, however if they elect the same bunch again or a similar bunch of Pro-Euro's they do so under the acceptance that these people they are voting believe in the European project and will probabily try to hold another referendum, it is the right of Government's to propose referendum, thats what we elect them, if they want to hold another one on the same subject, so be it, if that pisses you off vote for someone else next election, but if they get returned, accept the fact the majority don't agree with you.

As for Nice, the public knew that FF and PD's where going to run the Nice referendum again before the last election, and they still voted for them, that in and of itself was permission for them to run the referendum again. It is quite clear the majority didn't feel it was undemocratic, they came out in numbers far in excess of the first referendum to support the treaty. Where is the abuse of democracy ?, the majority have spoken, statistically the second referendum reflected much more accurately the view's of the wider population than the first.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
I think it's quite convienent to dismiss arguments as being "No-to Nice" reactionary nationalism.
The fact is Sweden is being manuvered (currently against the wishes of demonstrated plebiscite) into further EU federal integration,

No, its not. Its not being manouevered anywhere.

When the question of teh Euro came up, the British insisted on an "opt-out" clause, giving them the ability to remain outside the Euro forever should they choose to.

The Swedes did not.

They therefore have already agreed in principle to join the Euro, and it is simply a question of when. To say they are being "manouevered" is ridiculous - they are (at best) being asked to live up to agreements that they have already made.

Now, if you want to say they screwed themselves when they made that agreement, I'll stand up right beside you and agree 100%. If you can show that they were unduly pressured into making that decision at the time it was made, I will agree that they were unfailrly treated back when they made the agreement.

so Sweden must be convinced of it's supposed "error" on this topic and if necessary multiple votes will be held until Sweden gives forth the desired result.

No. The Swedish government has no option but to periodically repose the question, because it has already agreed to do so in the manner in which it accpeted the Euro's inception in the first place.

There's no "error", or "wrongness" in question. The Swedes have signed an agreement that says they will join the Euro at some point.

Now whilst some may disagree with the notion of economic scaremongering being used as justification for lexical plebiscites to extract results from electorates

Hold on....there's two seperate issues here.

1) The referendum
2) The tactics used to get the populace to vote one way or the other within the referendum.

Item 1 is a non-issue, no matter how you may wish and insist otherwise. The Swedes have already comitted themselves - they have no choice but to continue seeking ways to implement the Euro, and that will require a referendum.

Item 2....I don't think economic or political scaremongering as tactics to gain votes are anything new. God knows both the Yes and No sides of both Nice referenda used such tactics.

as yet, nobody has provided a convincing reason why an election can't be run this way, with plebiscite after plebiscite until the government wins.

Because the law says that the government's term of office extends to a maximum period of time. Once that time elapses, said government has no authority.

With a referendum, however, rejecting the new proposal leaves the existant law in effect until somethign else changes it.

I'm actually 99% sure that this was explained (repeatedly) during the Nice discussions here, but I guess "convincing" is in the eye of the beholder. Ask yoruself this though....if you're arguing that re-running referenda is a common European mindset/occurrence, and that there is no fundamental difference between re-running referenda and elections.....explain why we don't see re-run elections!!!! The only possible explanation is that there's a clear difference that you're not seeing.

Quite simply one cannot escape the fundamental fact that governments are taking a lottery of voting that is sure to produce the 'desired' result on the government side,

You're saying that every single divorce and abortion referendum in Ireland was because the government wanted both things permitted by law?

Yes, the wording in each successive referendum was changed, but the underlying intent remained the same. Furthermore, as I pointed out for Nice, its trivial to change the wording of a referendum, so where will you draw the line - at what point does "rewording" become "different" ?????

In Switzerland, where "direct democracy" allows the public to call for referenda, we see the same topics introduced time and time and time again. As with divorce and abortion in Ireland, the exact wording may differ (not even sure it always does, or is required to), but the underlying intent remains largely the same.

Are you going to maintain also that it is an abrogation of democracy for the public to call for the same issue twice where they have the ability to do so? Will you tell me that a major failing of the Swiss system is that the public can force a referendum on the issues they want decided - regardless of when that issue was last considered?

If not, then how can it possibly be an abrogation of democracy for elected representatives to do likewise in a system where the public cannot call for referenda for them in the first place, but must have their elected representatives do it for them???

jc

ringzer

I think we're losing sight of the thread title - The Swedes vote no. To summarise all they did was vote against joining now, which may be wise considering their economy is out of sync with the rest of Europe. They'll have to join by 2010 at the latest, according to The Economist.

markisevil

Originally posted by ringzer
[Sweden will] have to join by 2010 at the latest, according to The Economist.

So, I have just over six years to build up some capital and ensure that I'm not left poorer when the euro is introduced, eh? Or how have you all experienced the transition from púnt to euro?