Are multiple referendums undemocratic?

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

thecaptain

ShooterSF wrote: »

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

It was on the front cover of the independent yesterday.

It is an EU poll, what do you expect. Or possibly the EU boys would never rig a poll????????? No they are good guys.

ShooterSF

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

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.

I don't think thats comparable at all. One is a case of crime and evidence, another of international treaties and opinions. How have they anything in comparison?

ShooterSF

ionix5891 wrote: »

can you please link to these surveys

edit: shooter bet me to it

Nice to see both sides not accepting random percentages without stats.

73% of all statistics are made up on the spot sure everyone knows that (famous quote)

PopeBuckfastXVI

biko wrote: »

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.

Yes you decided not to buy a car. And yes the Electorate decided not to ratify Lisbon.

But the constitution is agnostic on rejected ammendments, the constitution is the same as if there had been no vote. So as far as the contitution is concerned no decision was made.

This would not be the case if we had double positive referenda, but we don't.

PopeBuckfastXVI

ShooterSF wrote: »

I don't think thats comparable at all. One is a case of crime and evidence, another of international treaties and opinions. How have they anything in comparison?

It's an aide to understanding that arbitary time limits shouldn't apply in the real world.

Why should we be locked into a course of action/inaction for a set period of time if it can be demonstrated before that time period has elapsed that our thinking was based on false information? Or, in fact, if a majority of people at a given time want a re run.

marco_polo

thecaptain wrote: »

It was on the front cover of the independent yesterday.

It is an EU poll, what do you expect. Or possibly the EU boys would never rig a poll????????? No they are good guys.

I am sure it is more accurate than your 95% against poll. Perhaps you should increase your sample size to more than just a few of your mates in the conspiracy society.

Sample size of 2000 = < 3% sampling error.

Clearly people voted with the intention of Ireland getting better deal. The problem is the difficulty of getting an improved deal was vastly underestimated.

ionix5891

ShooterSF wrote: »

Nice to see both sides not accepting random percentages without stats.

73% of all statistics are made up on the spot sure everyone knows that (famous quote)

heres another one

"theres lies, damned lies and then there statistics Lisbon Treaty"

Kovik

No, it's not undemocratic. Technically, you could have as many referenda on one issue as you like until it's passed. Nothing is undemocratic as the will of the electorate is going to be adhered to each time. Parliaments often hold multiple votes on a single issue over time.

ShooterSF

Ok I've read what I can without the indo infront of me on that poll so let me try and break it down (no please don't start a rap beat).
The poll was on 2000 people which is approx 0.125% of all voters or 1/8000 for those that don't like percentages. Of those approx (based on voting percentages) 1068 would be no voters. 758 approx would therefore have expressed having voted no and wanted to renogiate or 0.0875% or 1 in every 11428 (approx) of all no voters. Hardly enough for a petition. Hardly enough to consider an accurate sample.

PopeBuckfastXVI

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ok I've read what I can without the indo infront of me on that poll so let me try and break it down (no please don't start a rap beat).

I lol'd

ShooterSF wrote: »

The poll was on 2000 people which is approx 0.125% of all voters or 1/8000 for those that don't like percentages. Of those approx (based on voting percentages) 1068 would be no voters. 758 approx would therefore have expressed having voted no and wanted to renogiate or 0.0875% or 1 in every 11428 (approx) of all no voters. Hardly enough for a petition. Hardly enough to consider an accurate sample.

I've never liked polls, have always found them to be rediculously small sample sizes, even at 2000, but then the politicos recon they work.

those 1068 are supposed to be representative of all No voters. The idea being you cast a net you get a cross section.

So for every 1 of those 1068 it is assumed there are several who think the same as them.

Like I say I don't like 'em, but they tend to be taken as representative.

It's definitely incorrect to say that thos 758 are the only No voters in the country who want a renegociation and a chance to approve or reject it.