Maybe we should get rid of the no option

BlitzKrieg

Ok the title is controversal for a reason, going to see how many people scream at me without actually reading the post.


Following on from other threads here discussing the possible options open to the EU and to Ireland (Like Sink's Commission thread) perhaps the issue that has been shown by the irish referendum and the prior Holland and Dutch referendum is that the answer *no* is too simple.


Much in the way that *yes* is also too simple.


Perhaps there should be serious thought put to changing the referendum system.

Now I am not saying we take away anyones vote.

In fact I am going to say.

Give them more.


Future Referendums involving international treaties should apply a variant on the porpotional representation system.

Instead of just saying no or yes, the treaty is broken down into 6-8 groupings that are *clearly* defined (yes that does mean expecting our government to do some bloody work) that are each individually voted on in the single ballot.

Much like how you would number your choices in a general election, you will give a yes or no to each individual grouping such as the common defence policy, social charter, structure reorganisation etc.

if any individual section fails to generate a specific percantage of approval from the voters.

say for argument 20% the government will not ratify the treaty and no changes will be made to our constitution.

If at least 20% approve each individual segment then it comes down to the overall percentage if it is over 50% or not.

in that case,

if the approval overall is over 50% but an area such as common defence policy gets less then 20% approval, the treaty is not ratified

But now the government and the EU know where the issue of content is.

If the approval overall is over 50% but an area such as common defence policy is under 50% but over 20% the treaty is still ratified.


20% is a number I picked out the sky so dont get hung up on it.

also with the matter of the EU some extra consistent votes should remain, that would be the question of ireland's continued participation within the EU, that way the EU and the government will always have an idea if the Irish people wish to remain part of the EU or not, if that option ever drops below 20% the government should seriously consider starting the process of leaving the EU.


I think a system like this is needed because it would hopefully remove the noise of votes of *no* against the national government over issues that are not part of the referendum, it also helps keep the concerned citizen and the anti-europe extremists in seperate groupings, which would benefit all sides.

It will also help point out which areas of the EU policy people are most in favour of and help shape the EU more in those directions.

Hopefully it will turn what is at the moment simple noise into a political conversation.

obviously referendum's on national interests wouldnt need to use this system, unless the government wants to try and make a list of changes to the constitution in one go.

PrivateEye

democracy is class.

I say

*27 nations vote on it.
*the Majority of those who vote decide.

As EU Citizens, not national ones.
In other words a rogue nation wouldn't disrupt the whole glorious plan, and it has the backing of the majority of EU Citizens, not just EU Leaders.

Individual national votes, results compiled and an ultimate decision reached. One citizen, one vote.

So even when the Brits, the French, the Dutch, us and god knows who else vote it down- we're not pissing on the 'future' of Europe. Every nation can carry out a referendum no problem surely? A treaty recquiring the support of a majority of EU Citizens seems fair.

Still, they dont seem to like it when the poxy citizens vote on things

BlitzKrieg

+1 for not reading the post

(seeing as you've skipped the actual topic and are just repeating ad nauseum)

So even when the Brits, the French, the Dutch, us and god knows who else vote it down- we're not pissing on the 'future' of Europe. Every nation can carry out a referendum no problem surely? A treaty recquiring the support of a majority of EU Citizens seems fair.

regardless of the debate if every nation can/will carry out a referndum, the question I am putting forward is that the referndum system itself should be changed to allow a more accurate representation with as little white noise as possible.

axer

PrivateEye wrote: »

Every nation can carry out a referendum no problem surely?

except germany of course.

turgon

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

say for argument 20% the government will not ratify the treaty and no changes will be made to our constitution.

If at least 20% approve each individual segment then it comes down to the overall percentage if it is over 50% or not.

I dont know if I'm getting this. Are you saying that only the whole thing could be accepted? Or for example 5 of the 8 parts?

The problem with this, If I understand correctly, is that if only 30& want for example a military Europe. That 30% would then be enough to force the other 70% into it (assuming a majority overall).

BlitzKrieg

turgon wrote: »

I dont know if I'm getting this. Are you saying that only the whole thing could be accepted? Or for example 5 of the 8 parts?

The problem with this, If I understand correctly, is that if only 30& want for example a military Europe. That 30% would then be enough to force the other 70% into it (assuming a majority overall).

first of all I plucked the numbers out of the air, I could have said 50% but I dropped it down to 20% for the following reasons.

In its current form the refernedum is no use when it comes to voting on EU issues.

A yes side says we completely agree with it, despite numerous people on the yes side stating that there were points that they disagreed with, but when they weighed it up against the benefits they concluded that this was the best deal we could get.

therefore we need two cut off points when voting on singuler issues, a point where we as a people approve of a policy, that would be 50% or higher and then a point where if it drops below it that we as a people are saying regardless of how the rest of the treaty is accepted we will cannot and will not accept it.

I put that at a lower digit because I am thinking along the same lines as our general elections, we choose our candidartes in a line of who we want first and who we want last. It is possible and has happened many times that a candidate can be elected by having a higher number of second and third positions then the person who has the most exclusive 1st positions. Same logic here.

In an example there are 8 sections, 5 of those sections get a stunning overall approval well over 50%, 2 are just above 50% and 1 is around 40%.

I would believe personnally that that single 40% shouldnt stop a treaty that for the most part has the democratic support, if left at a direct yes/no vote the above example would have gotten a straight yes victory, the overall approval for the traty if all 8 points were added up would still be over 50%. But in this case when our government ratifies the treaty both it and the EU know that while the Irish people approve the treaty, they is a sizeable concern over the following issue and it should be addressed.


Example 2: There are again 8 sections, 5 again get stunning approval over 50%, 2 are just above 50% and 1 is now aroun 18%

The treaty should be thrown out, it is clear that if this was a simple yes/no vote that 1 issue would have swung it to a no vote. All 8 points could add up and still be over 50% but its clear that there is one point the Irish people cannot accept, so the treaty is still rejected. Now though, we can see where the issue is and despite the treaty being shot down, we can actually have a point to work from.

Unlike our current situation where the reasoning behind the no vote is so diverse that the EU does not know where to start in responding to it.


Finally example 3:

there are 8 sections again, 4 are above 50% and 4 are below 50%

if the overall percentage adding up all 8 is over 50% I believe the treaty should be approved, but if its below 50% it should be rejected.


Obviously the maths on this is very basic right now, and before any such system should be implemented a better set of numbers for the cut off points and calculation should be agreed on. But I hope the basic idea is clear.

Its a much more democratic and honest approach.