Are multiple referendums undemocratic?

Scofflaw

We've had several divorce and abortion referendums, which nobody seems to have a quibble with. We had two referendums for Nice. It has been suggested that we might have a second Lisbon referendum, and this is being attacked as undemocratic.

If having a referendum is democratic, why is having two referendums undemocratic?

cordially,
Scofflaw

nhughes100

I would see two referendums on the same thing as not adhering to the wishes of the people(Nice treaty) The divorce and abortion ones are somewhat different as the question changed pretty much every time ie clarification on the right to travel as it hadn't previously arose. Also divorce and abortion are generational things in which over the passage of time people's opinion changes. Maybe in 10 years people's opinions on the EU will change but I doubt Brussels will wait that long.

biko

It would only be undemocratic if you were to vote on the same issue twice, in my opinion.
If people vote on an issue it seems to me that a new referendum on the principally same issue would mean that the first time voting is somehow not accepted/ cancelled. Hence undemocratic.

The way forward to me is then to either rework the entire issue, or to break the issue down to smaller components and vote for each separately.

Having the treaty rejected by the French and Dutch, then repackaged with some cherries on top and resubmitted, but this time not allowed referendums in France and Holland, seems to me undemocratic.

Reku

nhughes100 wrote: »

Also divorce and abortion are generational things in which over the passage of time people's opinion changes. Maybe in 10 years people's opinions on the EU will change but I doubt Brussels will wait that long.

Indeed, the problem with the repeat of the Nice Treaty, and with repeating the Lisbon treaty one is that it comes across as "you'll keep voting until you vote the way we want you to!", whereas with the others examples referred to the referendums on a topic tend to be separated by a decent bit of time at least, not just a few months, so people may have changed their minds.


**Just to clarify since some folks think that sour grapes regarding whether a second/repeat referendum is democratic I voted yes to Lisbon, but even so I feel a do-over would not be in the spirit of democracy.

Scofflaw

nhughes100 wrote: »

I would see two referendums on the same thing as not adhering to the wishes of the people(Nice treaty) The divorce and abortion ones are somewhat different as the question changed pretty much every time ie clarification on the right to travel as it hadn't previously arose. Also divorce and abortion are generational things in which over the passage of time people's opinion changes. Maybe in 10 years people's opinions on the EU will change but I doubt Brussels will wait that long.

Hmm. Presumably, though, the wishes of the people, if they remain the same, will be expressed identically at each referendum, thus continuing to be respected. If they have changed, surely it is important that we know that, and respect that in turn?

Is there some reason why you wouldn't be able to vote No in a second referendum?

cordially,
Scofflaw

ionix5891

@scofflaw can you please explain (your better at expressing yourself than me) in a clear paragraph the difference between Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy this would help this thread alot


I heard the excuse "oh look the other countries didnt have a referendum so they are not democratic" so many times now, if i hear it again i will flip out. to say something like that means the people saying it dont understand anything about democracy and its deeply unrespectfull of the other countries in EU making them out to be some sort of undemocratic gravy trains



now to get back to your question

If the concerns of the Irish people who voted No are addressed (thats assuming they actually figure the reasons first, the ones that had anything to do with this treaty) why shouldnt we have another referendum?

biko wrote: »

Having the treaty rejected by the French and Dutch, then repackaged with some cherries on top and resubmitted, but this time not allowed referendums in France and Holland, seems to me undemocratic.

see they have this thing called Representative democracy (like Ireland up to a point) where the officials they elect make decisions for the people, it is quite democratic, the treaty was rewritten to address the concerns off the people of these countries and their constitution does not require a referendum (a form of direct democracy) on every issue as often as the Irish

if the French and the Dutch didn't like what their elected officials have approved how long do you think these elected officials would have stayed in power for?

marco_polo

Judging from certain quarters it seems that referendums are only considered undemocratic when the result goes against you.

We were not "forced" to vote for Nice II. The people had real concerns on neutrality that were addressed by amendenments to the treaty and that was good enough for us to accept it second time around. Yet a small proportion of the No camp still after all there years seem to insinuate from time to time that Nice II was undemocratic in some way.

Contrast this to the Lisbon Treaty referendum being upheld as a perfect demonstration of the beauty of democracy in action.

biko

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. Presumably, though, the wishes of the people, if they remain the same, will be expressed identically at each referendum, thus continuing to be respected. If they have changed, surely it is important that we know that, and respect that in turn?

Do you have any reason to believe the wishes of the people will change enough to warranty a second vote? Why can you not accept the wishes of the first vote to be very long lasting?

Perhaps we should have another referendum on EU membership? Did that change? We don't know, let's vote again to check.

dresden8

Did Sarkozy campaing for the French presidency on Lisbon?

marco_polo

biko wrote: »

Do you have any reason to believe the wishes of the people will change enough to warranty a second vote? Why can you not accept the wishes of the first vote to be very long lasting?

Perhaps we should have another referendum on EU membership? Did that change? We don't know, let's vote again to check.

It would perhaps be pointless, but does that make it undemocratic?

O'Morris

I have no problem with a second referendum provided we're offered a third referendum if the result of the next one is the different from the last one.

We should aim for the best of three.

PopeBuckfastXVI

biko wrote: »

Perhaps we should have another referendum on EU membership? Did that change? We don't know, let's vote again to check.

I agree, we should and you should have two options:

1. Stay in the EU under Lisbon rules.
2. Leave the EU.

biko

marco_polo wrote: »

It would perhaps be pointless, but does that make it undemocratic?

Not according to Scofflaw. I stand to be corrected of course.

marco_polo

biko wrote: »

Not according to Scofflaw. I stand to be corrected of course.

I tend to agree with him TBH.

The thing about Nice was that there was a genuine public desire to have a second referendum, and given the large turnout the second time around this decision was entirely justified. Is the same will there now to rerun the Lisbon Treaty one? I would say not to anything like the same degree.

But if there was a second referendum, there would be people running around screaming "undemocratic", "undemocratic" which is patently untrue, as we would have just as much right to reject it the second time around if we so wished.

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. Presumably, though, the wishes of the people, if they remain the same, will be expressed identically at each referendum, thus continuing to be respected. If they have changed, surely it is important that we know that, and respect that in turn?

Is there some reason why you wouldn't be able to vote No in a second referendum?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well then's let's have another referendum on Nice so.

Something has to change, or else we can't have another referendum. Cowen will do something like propose we elect our commissioner as opposed to having him appointed. I predict they'll implement Lisbon as much as they can and Ireland will hang as much as it can.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well then's let's have another referendum on Nice so.

Start a political party with this as an objective, gain a majority of the seats in the Dáil, form a government, implement this as policy and it shall be so!

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Something has to change, or else we can't have another referendum. Cowen will do something like propose we elect our commissioner as opposed to having him appointed.

Woo Hoo.. Jackie Healy-Rae or Dana for Internal Markets Comissioner!!

biko

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I agree, we should and you should have two options:

1. Stay in the EU under Lisbon rules.
2. Leave the EU.

Don't agree with this at all. Just because we do not agree with Brussels on issues does not mean we want a divorce.

I am not pro-EU as you may have guessed but now that we are in it we are obliged to make it as good as possible. For you that meant voting Yes, for me No.

Lets' go back on topic. I submit: Two referendums on basically the same issue within XX years is undemocratic. Respect the first vote, particularly when the voting turnout was so high as this time.

ionix5891

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I agree, we should and you should have two options:

1. Stay in the EU under Lisbon rules.
2. Leave the EU.

thats one of the possible outcomes of this No vote

a referendum like this would be very simple and would enjoy a very high turnout


the other possible outcomes are
*nothing happens, eu falling appart
*treaty being changed to address the concerns of the irish and put to referendum again
*rest of countries going ahead making own union with or without ireland
*all of the points that reqiuire a referendum here are stripped and the vote is put to the dail or whatever here

biko wrote: »

I submit: Two referendums on basically the same issue within XX years is undemocratic. Respect the first vote, particularly when the voting turnout was so high as this time.

high turnout? 50% compared to the 75%+ in France and Netherlands

a new referendum with our concerns addressed is the best possible outcome out of the ones listed above

what do you propose we do? nothing? do you think the other countries want to do nothing as well? if the people in these countries want to go ahead and make own unions who are we to stop them?

Reku

biko wrote: »

I submit: Two referendums on basically the same issue within XX years is undemocratic. Respect the first vote, particularly when the voting turnout was so high as this time.

Well I'd accept even a 5 year spacing since that's the spacing for governmental elections, just there does need to be some significant time between them like this or it seems too much like a do-over as the first one didn't go the way the government wanted.

PopeBuckfastXVI

biko wrote: »

Lets' go back on topic. I submit: Two referendums on basically the same issue within XX years is undemocratic. Respect the first vote, particularly when the voting turnout was so high as this time.

I reject your thesis...

I respect the first vote, and don't want Lisbon to be forced on us, nor do I think it will be.

I submit that people can change their minds, and may do so in a short period of time, particularly if (please note I am not saying when) the following happened:

1. The 'scaremongering' of the Yes camp turns out to be an accurate prediction of the outcome.
2. The majority of the claims of the No camp are exposed as false.
3. Those who felt they were not informed enough to approve the treaty are sufficiently informed to approve the treaty.


It strikes me that a lot of the voices calling for no more referenda are terrified they would lose a second one, and to my mind rightly so, and are trying to shut down debate on it before it begins.

There is nothing undemocratic about having a referendum, no matter how long since you had another one. Referenda are the epitome of direct democracy, and if a vote is free it is entirely democratic. To claim otherwise is quite simply a lie.

Reku

So in essense, forcing people to repeatedly sacrifice chunks of their personal time, particulaly for those who must travel "home" to vote, because in effect you don't like the prior outcomes is "democratic"?

BS!

It's only democratic if they continue to hold regular referendums to reverse the successful (in that it went the way the government wanted) referendum once it does succeed, and I think no-one here is stupid and deluded enough to think the government would ever do such.

The bad news for the Pro-lisbon-ers is that myself and many others who did vote "yes" have already commited to either not voting or voting "no" should they try make us vote again on the same treaty in the near future.

PopeBuckfastXVI

I should also add that the constitution has not been altered. There was no amendment, so there's no basis, legal or otherwise for claiming that anything has changed, which would preclude a reversal for a set amount of time.

To put it another way, under our constitution no decision was made, that may leave a bad taste for the 'No' camp, but it is the truth. In a referendum you either make a decision to change the constitution or you make no such decision, you do not 'decide' to make no change.

So effectively as no decision was made, we would not be revisiting a decision in a second referendum. It's a technical point, but there it is.

biko

ionix5891 wrote: »

high turnout? 50% compared to the 75%+ in France and Netherlands

53% compared to the Irish Nice refs, aprox 34% and 49%.

marco_polo

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I reject your thesis...

I respect the first vote, and don't want Lisbon to be forced on us, nor do I think it will be.

I submit that people can change their minds, and may do so in a short period of time, particularly if (please note I am not saying when) the following happened:

1. The 'scaremongering' of the Yes camp turns out to be an accurate prediction of the outcome.
2. The majority of the claims of the No camp are exposed as false.
3. Those who felt they were not informed enough to approve the treaty are sufficiently informed to approve the treaty.


It strikes me that a lot of the voices calling for no more referenda are terrified they would lose a second one, and to my mind rightly so, and are trying to shut down debate on it before it begins.

There is nothing undemocratic about having a referendum, no matter how long since you had another one. Referenda are the epitome of direct democracy, and if a vote is free it is entirely democratic. To claim otherwise is quite simply a lie.

Plus if the people resented being asked to re-vote on the issue, and the mood of the people had not changed in the interim, the second result would be an even more resounding no.

Scofflaw

Consider some hypothetical situations:

1. Imagine for a moment that COIR had been entirely right about Lisbon, and that the vote had nevertheless been Yes - and this week it was announced that the ECJ was about to strike down our constitutional ban on abortion.

Under those circumstances, would a second referendum be appropriate?


2. Imagine for a moment that the EU really does play hardball, not just talk about it, and it turns out that our No vote means we will be forced out of the EU early next year.

Under those circumstances, would a second referendum be appropriate?


cordially,
Scofflaw

Reku

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

To put it another way, under our constitution no decision was made, that may leave a bad taste for the 'No' camp, but it is the truth. In a referendum you either make a decision to change the constitution or you make no such decision, you do not 'decide' to make no change.

So effectively as no decision was made, we would not be revisiting a decision in a second referendum. It's a technical point, but there it is.

Even as a yes-camper I feel you're just twisting things there. A decision was made, the decision was to not change the constitution as we, as a nation, were not happy that we, as a nation, wanted the change to the constitution.
What the exact wording of the constitution may say about this not being a decision should not be taken as gospel, if you've actually ever read half the thing there's plenty of atrociously worded paragraphs in there that the government doesn't dare enforce the letter of the law in as any fool can see the exact wording is not the correct intention. They've been cleaning up these bits but there's a heck of a lot of them.

nhughes100

Referenda, where there has previously been a yes vote rarely if any get offered again to the people just in case they made a mistake. I can't recall any of the top of my head but will gladly be corrected if anyone knows of one in Ireland.

To take your two hypothetical scenarios. I would have to say no to the first but it would be pursued through the courts, although I think there would probably have to be a referendum to leave the EU as this would ammend previous referenda entered into the constitution. I think any change in our legal standing membershipwise in the EU would have to be put to the people.

Scofflaw

farohar wrote: »

Even as a yes-camper I feel you're just twisting things there. A decision was made, the decision was to not change the constitution as we, as a nation, were not happy that we, as a nation, wanted the change to the constitution.
What the exact wording of the constitution may say about this not being a decision should not be taken as gospel, if you've actually ever read half the thing there's plenty of atrociously worded paragraphs in there that the government doesn't dare enforce the letter of the law in as any fool can see the exact wording is not the correct intention. They've been cleaning up these bits but there's a heck of a lot of them.

Nevertheless, that doesn't answer my original point. If people want to vote No in a second referendum, they can do so - therefore it cannot realistically be described as 'undemocratic'.

What we can describe as undemocratic is the issue that referendums are essentially in the gift of the government alone. However, what if there is public pressure for a referendum? What if people feel that they did not fully understand the consequences of their vote?

cordially,
Scofflaw

SkepticOne

Legally the government are free to hold another referendum next week if they wished. Personally I don't think it is anti-democratic per se though I think people would regard it as contempt for the electorate and would respond accordingly.

IRLConor

I do like tables, here's my opinion on the matter:

Where the second/subsequent referendum has...|Un-democratic|Stupid|Am I OK with it?
zero change from the original|No|Extremely|No, it's a waste of money
a small, non-cosmetic change from the original|No|Maybe|Yes, but only if I believe that the change made is actually something that would change the vote significantly one way or another.
a significant change from the original|No|No|Yes


In all cases, I'm assuming that the second/subsequent referendum is relatively soon after the original. If there's a reasonable amount of time between them, I'm OK with all scenarios since I think it's OK to check if people have changed their minds.

In general, I would think that it's only undemocratic if the people have a right to a referendum, want one and one is denied to them.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

Legally the government are free to hold another referendum next week if they wished. Personally I don't think it is anti-democratic per se though I think people would regard it as contempt for the electorate and would respond accordingly.

There I agree with you. I think it would be politically foolish, and were the government to hold a referendum on Lisbon next week, I would vote No. If it wishes to hold one after a decent interval, and after making a decent effort to sell the Treaty, I will have no problem voting Yes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Reku

Scofflaw wrote: »

Nevertheless, that doesn't answer my original point. If people want to vote No in a second referendum, they can do so - therefore it cannot realistically be described as 'undemocratic'.

What we can describe as undemocratic is the issue that referendums are essentially in the gift of the government alone. However, what if there is public pressure for a referendum? What if people feel that they did not fully understand the consequences of their vote?

cordially,
Scofflaw

However the simple fact that we all know that had it been a yes vote with the same turnout there would be no consideration even given to a reversal referendum means that having another referendum just because it was a no vote is undemocratic.
Currently the public still seems to be thrilled with the no vote, as such the hypothetical you pose is just that; a hypothetical, nothing more. If they lauch a 2nd referendum on the same treaty they are ignoring the spirit of democracy.

Scofflaw wrote: »

There I agree with you. I think it would be politically foolish, and were the government to hold a referendum on Lisbon next week, I would vote No. If it wishes to hold one after a decent interval, and after making a decent effort to sell the Treaty, I will have no problem voting Yes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

This I can definitely agree on, with the caveat that there is no interference with the no side's campaigning (some may be aware of one politician getting upset because most taxis were displaying the no campaign's fliers and so saying that as public vehicles they should not be allowed display campaign fliers, in spite of the fact that the luas and buses also display campaign fliers).

I am a bit concerned as to where the funding for the government's campaigning comes from though, is it from taxes? If so; is repeated use of public funding on something the public has rejected fair and democratic?

ShooterSF

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I agree, we should and you should have two options:

1. Stay in the EU under Lisbon rules.
2. Leave the EU.

Now that would be highly undemocratic! We are entitled to reject the treaty and stay in Europe. By twisting the subject to try and get the result you want would be sickening as they're two different issues.
It would be the same thing as giving the two options:
1. Approve Lisbon
2. Reject Lisbon and some guy'll call round to your house and punch you square in the face.

Isn't exactly a fair choice!

As for a re-vote it is very hard to argue either side without seeing the other as having at least some validity to their argument. But personally I agree that it only ever seems to be when the government doesn't get their way we have a re-vote so are we really asking whether people changed their mind or whether they're ready to follow the government's line yet?

OP reagarding your original argument over why multiple referendums are not undemocratic you have to takke into account:
The divorce referendums were separated by 9 years. Which probably seen a large change in the elecorate with anyone aged 9 in the first one then elligible to vote. The abortion one by 19 years, some people that voted in the second weren't even born for the first. They are fair enough time spans, not a few months.

Scofflaw

farohar wrote: »

However the simple fact that we all know that had it been a yes vote with the same turnout there would be no consideration even given to a reversal referendum means that having another referendum just because it was a no vote is undemocratic.
Currently the public still seems to be thrilled with the no vote, as such the hypothetical you pose is just that; a hypothetical, nothing more. If they lauch a 2nd referendum on the same treaty they are ignoring the spirit of democracy.

It would probably be more reasonable to say that the fact that only the government can call referendums is undemocratic, and that repeating them reminds us of that fact.

Having said that, it is the job of the government to put important questions before the people. If, in their judgment, there is an important question to be asked, it is their duty to determine whether it requires a referendum to answer it, and hold a referendum if that is the case.

If the EU, at the end of the year, offered the government the choice between ratifying the Treaty or leaving the EU, the government cannot not put that to referendum, whatever it may feel about it.

farohar wrote: »

This I can definitely agree on, with the caveat that there is no interference with the no side's campaigning (some may be aware of one politician getting upset because most taxis were displaying the no campaign's fliers and so saying that as public vehicles they should not be allowed display campaign fliers, in spite of the fact that the luas and buses also display campaign fliers).

I am a bit concerned as to where the funding for the government's campaigning comes from though, is it from taxes? If so; is repeated use of public funding on something the public has rejected fair and democratic?

No, because those rules apply to everyone. SF also receive public funding. The government do not campaign - the parties who form the government campaign (or not, as per the Greens). That was the result of the McKenna judgment.

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

Im going to give my opinion on the original question.

If the hypothetical Lisbon II is the same as Lisbon I, there is a chance there will be a YES vote. Now in the case of this YES vote, the most democratic thing would to be give the NO side another go (ie the YES side didn't like the first result they got another turn, so the NO side should too) Lisbon III. However this would not happen, as the government would not want to lose. That would be undemocratic.

BUT if Lisbon II is somewhat different to Lisbon I, and some of the fears of the NO camp are settled, then by all means have another referendum.

thecaptain

Of course they are.

Where is this democracy you speak of???

(and another thing, of course lisbon 2 will differ on small matters, if it did not it would be undemocraticcccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc to ask the plebs to vote again)

Dyr

Scofflaw wrote: »

We've had several divorce and abortion referendums, which nobody seems to have a quibble with. We had two referendums for Nice. It has been suggested that we might have a second Lisbon referendum, and this is being attacked as undemocratic.

If having a referendum is democratic, why is having two referendums undemocratic?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bottom line, if Nice had been voted for the first time around we wouldnt have a had a second referendum regardless of how few people turned out or how much they misunderstood it etc. This is just ignoring every spin of the wheel until your number comes up and then declaring the game over. It aint how a democracy should work.


Hell, if rerunning referenda is such a good thing then maybe we should run the referendum on Nice again and make it the best of three.

biko

How about this for direct democracy with a parliament touch?

Next national election:
FF and the other Yes-men make it part of their campaign "If you vote for us we will implement Libon"
SF and the other No-men says "If you vote for us we will not implement Libon"
However is wrong commit political suicide.

Ergo, if you vote a certain party into power you also vote Libon into effect?
After all that's what Sarkozy did.

ShooterSF

Scofflaw wrote: »

If the EU, at the end of the year, offered the government the choice between ratifying the Treaty or leaving the EU, the government cannot not put that to referendum, whatever it may feel about it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Extremely hypothetical I know, but that would be like saying its a unanimous vote but if you don't agree with us get out. We discussed bullying elsewhere I think

PopeBuckfastXVI

Constitutionally there has been no decision, you either make a decision to change the constitution or you make no such decision, thems the facts.

The referendum could have inserted a clause which says 'The Government has no right to implement the Lisbon Treaty' in which case a 'No' vote (i.e. approving lisbon) would mean that no decision was made.

You are perfectly entitled to not like that, but we don't allow for double positive referenda, i.e. Insert 'We approve the Lisbon treaty' or 'We reject the lisbon treaty' into the constitution. As it stands we made no decision to ratify Lisbon, that's all. That's a fact.



The other issue to consider is that the Government was elected to implement policies as it sees fit, in this case it can push for ratification of Lisbon as often as it likes within its term. Every day if it wanted. It is up to us as the electorate to remove them from power at the next election (and I suspect it would be sooner rather than later, with an almost certain motion of no confidence in the government if they did that). It is also up to us to return a majority for a party or parties who have a policy of burying Lisbon.

Right now the Government has a mandate to pursue it's policies, one of which being closer integration of the EU, including the ratification of Lisbon.

If you disagree with Government policy you remove the government using due process and replace them with someone who does implement your policies.

Until such time the Government are perfectly entitled to hold as many referenda as they like, assuming the Government don't particularly care if they are re-elected of course!

Oh and I should add... if a hypothetical Lisbon 2 was passed and at the next election a government was returned on the platform of revisiting that decision I'd have no problem going for a Lisbon 3 referendum.

ionix5891

thecaptain wrote: »

Of course they are.

Where is this democracy you speak of???

what do you call the excercise some people took some time from their busy lives to engage in last thursday?

thecaptain

ionix5891 wrote: »

what do you call the excercise some people took some time from their busy lives to engage in last thursday?

I also took the time.

The vote was just as you said "an exercise", something to make the people think they have a say in matters, they don't as we seen with nice and now lisbon.

ShooterSF

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

The other issue to consider is that the Government was elected to implement policies as it sees fit, in this case it can push for ratification of Lisbon as often as it likes within its term. Every day if it wanted. It is up to us as the electorate to remove them from power at the next election (and I suspect it would be sooner rather than later, with an almost certain motion of no confidence in the government if they did that). It is also up to us to return a majority for a party or parties who have a policy of burying Lisbon.

Right now the Government has a mandate to pursue it's policies, one of which being closer integration of the EU, including the ratification of Lisbon.

If you disagree with Government policy you remove the government using due process and replace them with someone who does implement your policies.

Until such time the Government are perfectly entitled to hold as many referenda as they like, assuming the Government don't particularly care if they are re-elected of course!

This has been brought up already and ignored, governments are elected on a ton of policies , europe probably one of the smallest. All major parties were in favour and the only other option would be to elect Sinn Fein solely on European policy regardless of domestic.
Most people realize the buck stops with us on Europe and so vote domestic issues during elections (Though don't ask me to explain how FF still get in ). As I said earlier in regard to the original comments give it 9 - 19 years like those referendums and ill happily re vote. Hell next general election if a party makes it their No. 1 priority and gets a majority in the dail then I'd accept having to vote again.

nesf

Undemocratic? No. If the Government want to win a second referendum though, they'll need to convince the public that they want one first and that won't be a trivial task I think. Rerunning the identical referendum in the next month or two will just return an even stronger No vote imho.

ixtlan

Surely, most observers would acknowledge that the majority of people want another referendum on EU reform? So it would be un-democratic not to have another? All surveys have shown this, including the recent one where 70% want renegotiation.

The questions are.

What does re-negotiation mean? Are added declarations enough? or do people want to wait maybe 5 years for a completely different treaty?
When exactly would this future referendum be?

I would add, in answer to having another referendum on a yes, in a way we do. Every 5 years or so we have had another treaty to vote on. Each one of those has provided an opportunity for the previous treaty to be rowed back, if the elected politicians made those reversals their red lines. The reality is the the public has been happy enough to accept all previous treaties. We are always worried about the future, and seldom about the treaties of the past.

Ix.

thecaptain

ixtlan wrote: »

Surely, most observers would acknowledge that the majority of people want another referendum on EU reform? So it would be un-democratic not to have another? All surveys have shown this, including the recent one where 70% want renegotiation.

The questions are.

What does re-negotiation mean? Are added declarations enough? or do people want to wait maybe 5 years for a completely different treaty?
When exactly would this future referendum be?

Ix.

I assume you refer to all the surveys carried out by the European Commission. Based on my surveys 95% of people doo not want another "go".

PopeBuckfastXVI

Let me give you a metaphor to ponder guys (remembering that I feel there was a great deal of misinformation from some sections of the No camp, but by no means all).

• You are convicted of a murder you didn't commit based on circumstantial evidence.
• You have been in Jail for 6 months of a 25 Year sentance.
• It turns out that there was somebody framing you, and those people are outed by the press, with solid evidence.

Should you:

A. Get an immediate retrial.
B. Wait 9 - 19 Years, or some 'significant period of time' before your retrial.

PopeBuckfastXVI

nesf wrote: »

Undemocratic? No. If the Government want to win a second referendum though, they'll need to convince the public that they want one first and that won't be a trivial task I think. Rerunning the identical referendum in the next month or two will just return an even stronger No vote imho.

I fully agree.

biko

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Constitutionally there has been no decision, you either make a decision to change the constitution or you make no such decision, thems the facts.

That sounds strange, that a decision to not change was not a decision? Perhaps you have a link to clarify your point?

Can I put it like this - we were offered to buy a car and the decision was made not to buy it. A decision was made.

Scofflaw, if you could clarify your view on my post 8?

ShooterSF

ixtlan wrote: »

Surely, most observers would acknowledge that the majority of people want another referendum on EU reform? So it would be un-democratic not to have another? All surveys have shown this, including the recent one where 70% want renegotiation.

Can someone provide a link to that survey and how many even voted in it?

ionix5891

thecaptain wrote: »

I assume you refer to all the surveys carried out by the European Commission. Based on my surveys 95% of people doo not want another "go".

can you please link to these surveys

edit: shooter bet me to it