Are multiple referendums undemocratic?

ixtlan

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).
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.

All surveys deal with numbers like this. It's not practical to query huge numbers of people and statistically it isn't necessary.

Anyhow, let's be realistic here, and I humbly suggest you are not being so. All I said was that some treaty would have to be presented at some point in the future, unless we believe that the current EU is perfect. The question is what treaty and when.

Most of the no side campaigned on "a better deal". What does that mean if not another referendum? You certainly are free to believe that Ireland should never hold any more treaty referendums, but I strongly believe you are wrong in thinking that the majority of the public agrees with that view.

Ix.

ShooterSF

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I lol'd


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.

True. I agree I don't like polls myself. I do accept there's more people who think the same but it should be worded 0.0875% of the No voters who were polled (of which a total 0.125% were polled) voted with renogiation(SP!?) in mind while the other 0.0375% of those polled didn't. That would be more realistic that the sensationalized 70% off all No voters comments by the paper.

marco_polo

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).
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.

In that case the sampling error is about 5%, this is a core principal of statistics. If we rephrase it to 65-75% percent of all no voters thought they could get a better deal would that make you happy?

2000 is a very adequate sample indeed. Your understanding of statistical analysis is deeply flawed.

Unless of course only 0.0875% actually voted no because of this reason and the samplers just happened to ask each and every single one. Which is more likely do you think?

ionix5891

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).
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.

stats was one of the more intriguing course in uni

once you have more that ~35 of anything in a sample you get a close enough to reflect the population (assuming other factors are in place such as random sampling) at large due to the bellcurve thingie,
YES bigger sample size is better as it reduces your error margins


BUT

2000 is quite a good sample size (assuming they were taken at random) and they did provide the margin of error

im usually skeptical of stats i see in newspapers unless sample size and error are specified and they are not a tabloid

more here btw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)

PopeBuckfastXVI

ShooterSF wrote: »

True. I agree I don't like polls myself. I do accept there's more people who think the same but it should be worded 0.0875% of the No voters who were polled (of which a total 0.125% were polled) voted with renogiation(SP!?) in mind while the other 0.0375% of those polled didn't. That would be more realistic that the sensationalized 70% off all No voters comments by the paper.

But that's *always* how statistics are reported:

37% have trouble paying bills - survey
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0616/consumer.html

Groceries cost 33% less in NI
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0618/consumer.html

60% of women drank while pregnant: survey
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0302/pregnancy.html

Third of men own a hair straightener - survey
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1030/gadgets.html

67% more conscious of personal finances
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0519/economy.html

PH01

I believe the Irish people need a second chance with this treaty. It was the wrong answer, please try again (and again, and again...)


That said, surely there shouldn't be a problem if the Irish people are firm in their beliefs. If this was the true understanding of the Irish people, we should be able to rerun this referendum for the nth time and the answer will still be 'NO'?

ShooterSF

Ok we're getting into stats arguments. It depends on your faith in such things I put little to none in them but for clarity for those of you that do the sample of 2000 was BOTH Yes and No voters. There doesn't seem to be a mention of how many are no (there may I just haven't seen it) so be careful how you read those statements.

marco_polo

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ok we're getting into stats arguments. It depends on your faith in such things I put little to none in them but for clarity for those of you that do the sample of 2000 was BOTH Yes and No voters. There doesn't seem to be a mention of how many are no (there may I just haven't seen it) so be careful how you read those statements.

There would have been slightly over 1000. See above post

ShooterSF

marco_polo wrote: »

There would have been slightly over 1000. See above post

Statistically yes, but were any definite numbers given out?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Just be careful of cognitive dissonance Shooter...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

"In simple terms, it can be the filtering of information that conflicts with what one already believes, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce one's beliefs."

nesf

ShooterSF wrote: »

It depends on your faith in such things I put little to none in them

Why? I'll be the first person to say interpreting statistics as facts is very risky, but that doesn't mean statistical surveys are useless and should be ignored. If a second survey, which will probably happen, shows a similar result would you have more faith in it?

ShooterSF

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Just be careful of cognitive dissonance Shooter...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

"In simple terms, it can be the filtering of information that conflicts with what one already believes, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce one's beliefs."

I'm well aware of it. As someone who likes to argue (when I think im right) and doesnt believe in God I've ran into it a lot. Not to say I dont suffer it myself we're all human.

As for other posts maybe no faith was wrong. I guess the problem is I don't see who could take the survey without suffering said Cognitive dissonance. Everyone has an opinion on this treaty. How random was the poll? Across all constituencies, demographics, party supporters etc. How exactly were these questions posed etc.? I'm not saying its invalid and if more polls with all these things explained were done and continiously showed the same figures then I could possibly accept it as fact. But one poll has a fair chance of missing.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Point aboslutely taken Shooter, and I tend not to quote polls to back up my arguments.

Generally polls do take a cross section of society and are actually adjusted to make them reflect the populace further.

However indicatively, even with a massive margin for error of say 19%, this one would still be showing a majority in favour of a revised treaty poll.

This would be hardly a surprising result, given that two of the biggest players in the 'No' camp SF (politically) & Libertas (financially) claimed they wanted a 'better deal'.

It should therefore be expected, that many many people who voted 'No' did so in anticipation of this 'better deal'*.



*better deal may actually be non existant, or worse deal, not a guaruntee, some terms and conditions apply.

marco_polo

ShooterSF wrote: »

I'm well aware of it. As someone who likes to argue (when I think im right) and doesnt believe in God I've ran into it a lot. Not to say I dont suffer it myself we're all human.

As for other posts maybe no faith was wrong. I guess the problem is I don't see who could take the survey without suffering said Cognitive dissonance. Everyone has an opinion on this treaty. How random was the poll? Across all constituencies, demographics, party supporters etc. How exactly were these questions posed etc.? I'm not saying its invalid and if more polls with all these things explained were done and continiously showed the same figures then I could possibly accept it as fact. But one poll has a fair chance of missing.

In the spirit of this post I also accept that the poll does not suggest that the poll does not suggest that the possibility of renegotation was the primary reason why people voted no. Having said that I still would say that the 70% figure is broadly accurate and was in the back of peoples minds when they may have been voting no on other issues. I don't see any reason to believe that the methodology / sampling was flawed though as surely it would be in the Commissions interest to get an accurate picture of why there was a no vote.

Thinking about it in a bit more depth I suppose it also raises the question of what the people that answered considered to be a renegoation of the treaty, was it a complete rework in some peoples mind, and an amendment or two to address specific concerns in others.

If we get more information from further polls in the coming days we may get a better view of the state of play. I am sure one of the Sunday papers will have a more comprehensive effort.

I'm not saying I was wrong though

TheIrishVoice

We did not vote weather or not to accept the Lisbon Treaty Why ?
The vote was on weather or not we would allow changes to our Constitution or not. please see article below...........

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055317074&highlight=lisbon+treaty


Your feedback please

PopeBuckfastXVI

TheIrishVoice wrote: »

We did not vote weather or not to accept the Lisbon Treaty Why ?
The vote was on weather or not we would allow changes to our Constitution or not. please see article below...........

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055317074&highlight=lisbon+treaty


Your feedback please

Err.. isn't there another thread for that? In fact isn't the other thread that exact thread to which you just linked? Why discuss it on this thread, when there exists another thread which you know about as you have literally just linked to it which is specifically about the subject you wish to discuss!?

marco_polo

TheIrishVoice wrote: »

We did not vote weather or not to accept the Lisbon Treaty Why ?
The vote was on weather or not we would allow changes to our Constitution or not. please see article below...........

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055317074&highlight=lisbon+treaty


Your feedback please

Technically true, as was the case for all other treaties. But for all intents and purposes as far as the people were concerned we were voting on the treaty, so it is pretty much irrelevant as the net result is the same.

ShooterSF

marco_polo wrote: »

In the spirit of this post I also accept that the poll does not suggest that the poll does not suggest that the possibility of renegotation was the primary reason why people voted no. Having said that I still would say that the 70% figure is broadly accurate and was in the back of peoples minds when they may have been voting no on other issues. I don't see any reason to believe that the methodology / sampling was flawed though as surely it would be in the Commissions interest to get an accurate picture of why there was a no vote.

Thinking about it in a bit more depth I suppose it also raises the question of what the people that answered considered to be a renegoation of the treaty, was it a complete rework in some peoples mind, and an amendment or two to address specific concerns in others.

If we get more information from further polls in the coming days we may get a better view of the state of play. I am sure one of the Sunday papers will have a more comprehensive effort.

I'm not saying I was wrong though

But of course not One point I would make is future polls need to print the phrasing of questions.
For example "If you voted No, Would you like to see the treaty renegotiated (yay on spelling!) to be more favourable for Ireland?" Of course I would who wouldn't? Would I would vote yes ... depends. Do I want re-vote? Not really I'm happy with as close to status quo as we have.

compared to "When you voted No was it with the expectation of getting a better deal?" No. Again happy as is.

One thing I have read recently though that I'm totally against is the idea of combining the lisbon treaty with one to allow Croatia in to the E.U, that would just be a way of trying to push through a Yes vote (Don't know if it holds water though)

PHB

Referendums are a snap shot of opinion. They reflect opinion at that time.

Holding another referendum at any point in the future is equally democratic, indeed saying we should not hold one is saying that the people of the past should hold power over the people of the present.

That said, the motives behind holding a referendum again can be undemocratic.

=====

If this does go ahead, I think the best situation is a mutlitipe referendum on various issues.
Say there is a core part of the treaty (like say the commission, the institutional reform)
then there are opt out parts such as energy policy

Do you want to stay in the EU under this core lisbon treaty? Do you want an opt out on the following issue?

Then you'd have a real indication of what the Irish people want. Personally I think if this happened, it would pass with flying colours.

PopeBuckfastXVI

ShooterSF wrote: »

One thing I have read recently though that I'm totally against is the idea of combining the lisbon treaty with one to allow Croatia in to the E.U, that would just be a way of trying to push through a Yes vote (Don't know if it holds water though)

This idea is as follows:

The rest of the EU-26 sign a new treaty which is essentially Lisbon with a new name and without us as signatories.

Ireland takes the 'slow track' in a twin track Europe where we can sit in on discussions on competencies up to and including Nice, but leave the room for discussions on competencies which are in NuLisbon (e.g. Energy, Foreign Policy).

In 2011 a new Accession Treaty is drafted for Croatia to join the EU under NuLisbon rules. Ireland is also invited to ratify that accession treaty under the same terms as Croatia... i.e. approving NuLisbon after 3 years of sitting outside the door.

We can still approve an accession treaty for Croatia to join without changing our relationship with the rest of the EU, but seeing as they are drafting one for them, it wouldn't cost them any extra to put our names on it if we wanted them to.

ShooterSF

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

This idea is as follows:

The rest of the EU-26 sign a new treaty which is essentially Lisbon with a new name and without us as signatories.

Ireland takes the 'slow track' in a twin track Europe where we can sit in on discussions on competencies up to and including Nice, but leave the room for discussions on competencies which are in NuLisbon (e.g. Energy, Foreign Policy).

In 2011 a new Accession Treaty is drafted for Croatia to join the EU under NuLisbon rules. Ireland is also invited to ratify that accession treaty under the same terms as Croatia... i.e. approving NuLisbon after 3 years of sitting outside the door.

We can still approve an accession treaty for Croatia to join without changing our relationship with the rest of the EU, but seeing as they are drafting one for them, it wouldn't cost them any extra to put our names on it if we wanted them to.

Under current rules that's impossible its a UNANIMOUS decision or NONE. It would be impossible to work as well. How would voting work with us still using one measure and the rest using a different etc....

Scofflaw

biko wrote: »

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?

What was the gap between Nice I and II? 16 months?

biko wrote: »

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

Personally, I don't object to being asked once a month, although I suspect familiarity would breed contempt after not terribly long.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

ShooterSF wrote: »

Under current rules that's impossible its a UNANIMOUS decision or NONE. It would be impossible to work as well. How would voting work with us still using one measure and the rest using a different etc....

Lisbon required a UNANIMOUS decision or NONE. NuLisbon would be drafted to not require that.

There is precedent... the UK are not in the Euro for instance. But the EU-10 where required to sign up for it when they joined.

It's not what you or I want, but basically as a nation, together, we told the EU we don't want Lisbon for Ireland. We cannot stop the others invoking enhanced cooperation to implement a common Energy & Foreign policy etc.

Unfortunately these concerns where dimissed as 'scaremongering' but this scenario is a very real possibility.

Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Lisbon required a UNANIMOUS decision or NONE. NuLisbon would be drafted to not require that.

There is precedent... the UK are not in the Euro for instance. But the EU-10 where required to sign up for it when they joined.

It's not what you or I want, but basically as a nation, together, we told the EU we don't want Lisbon for Ireland. We cannot stop the others invoking enhanced cooperation to implement a common Energy & Foreign policy etc.

Unfortunately these concerns where dimissed as 'scaremongering' but this scenario is a very real possibility.

We can't stop them making any agreement they like, actually. The Schengen Agreement was concluded outside the EU framework in 1990 (with neither Ireland nor the UK signing up), and only entered EU law at Amsterdam nearly a decade later (with Irish and British opt-outs).

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

ShooterSF wrote: »

Under current rules that's impossible its a UNANIMOUS decision or NONE. It would be impossible to work as well. How would voting work with us still using one measure and the rest using a different etc....

Sorry missed this... I imagine we wouldn't be forced to adopt any E.U. laws, but nothing could stop our Government from adopting the ones they wanted to.

ShooterSF

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Sorry missed this... I imagine we wouldn't be forced to adopt any E.U. laws, but nothing could stop our Government from adopting the ones they wanted to.

Now if we could just get a capable government I'd vote yes to that idea!

PopeBuckfastXVI

ShooterSF wrote: »

Now if we could just get a capable government I'd vote yes to that idea!

We wouldn't be able to influence the drafting of the laws though, or EU policy.

Essentially what you want to vote 'yes' to is Ireland leaving the EU and then copying some of the laws they make.

I should add... also rejecting others e.g.
Employment Legislation
Working Conditions Legislation
Health & Safety Legislation
Human Rights Legislation

etc. etc.

ionix5891

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Lisbon required a UNANIMOUS decision or NONE. NuLisbon would be drafted to not require that.

There is precedent... the UK are not in the Euro for instance. But the EU-10 where required to sign up for it when they joined.

It's not what you or I want, but basically as a nation, together, we told the EU we don't want Lisbon for Ireland. We cannot stop the others invoking enhanced cooperation to implement a common Energy & Foreign policy etc.

Unfortunately these concerns where dimissed as 'scaremongering' but this scenario is a very real possibility.

i have mentioned something similar in another thread under the 4 or so plausible/likely scenarios arising out of this No vote


there is nothing to stop the other 2* counties taking most of the content from this treaty giving it a new name and removing the unanimous decision clause, nothing

we might not like it ands its a bad outcome outcome for Ireland (which was dismissed as "scaremongering" before but its quite plausible now )

same way as majority of other countries in Europe has joined Nato and Ireland has no say in it, or as the Shengen thingie, i am sure there are other examples

very interesting times ahead

ShooterSF

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

We wouldn't be able to influence the drafting of the laws though, or EU policy.

Essentially what you want to vote 'yes' to is Ireland leaving the EU and then copying some of the laws they make.

I should add... also rejecting others e.g.
Employment Legislation
Working Conditions Legislation
Health & Safety Legislation
Human Rights Legislation

etc. etc.

No I misread there. Sorry. I thought we'd just have an opt out of the new areas which would be fair enough. I don't think they could stop us having a say in the pre-lisbon areas which is the problem as we would be using completely seperate voting systems. Unless this NuLisbon treaty was to exclude on all voting which in effect would be kicking us out of the E.U. Highly unlikely but if it happened because we made a decision we were entitled to make again, I'd say it would come across as bullying (I.E we wont bring it in unless we have unanimous vote, that is unless anyone actually tries to block it , in which case we'll remove you and carry on anyway).

ShooterSF

A quick return to said poll points you to the topic about it and that the wording was actually what they expected to happen not what they wanted... which if correct (again I haven't seen it) proves my point over wording. One can expect something to happen but not want it to...