Are multiple referendums undemocratic?

nesf

ShooterSF wrote: »

Actually this as pointed out is a major mis-interpretation. The people in question said they expected it to be renegotiated afterwards. That's all, it wasn't their reason for voting NO and nowhere those it say how many actually want it to be renegotiated.

The Eurobarometer survey words it slightly differently:

An impressive 76% of “no” voters supported the view that the “no” vote would allow
the Irish government to renegotiate “exceptions” within the treaty, whereas only
38% of “yes” voters held this opinion.

"Would allow" is not "expect". You can interpret it in many ways but it would suggest that some No voters voted No because they thought we could get a better deal which was a message pushed very hard by Sinn Fein etc and if you believed that we could get a better deal and you were pro-EU it would make sense to vote No to some extent. Arguably, that so many thought that we could renegotiate indicates that they aren't necessarily opposed to a second referendum, so long as the next version of the treaty is more favourable to Irish interests in some way. Which is a fairly rational and consistent position to hold to be honest.

ShooterSF

nesf wrote: »

The Eurobarometer survey words it slightly differently:


"Would allow" is not "expect". You can interpret it in many ways but it would suggest that some No voters voted No because they thought we could get a better deal which was a message pushed very hard by Sinn Fein etc and if you believed that we could get a better deal and you were pro-EU it would make sense to vote No to some extent. Arguably, that so many thought that we could renegotiate indicates that they aren't necessarily opposed to a second referendum, so long as the next version of the treaty is more favourable to Irish interests in some way. Which is a fairly rational and consistent position to hold to be honest.

Now that's very loose wording. Why couldn't they ask if people supported it being renegotiated? They have to leave it ambigious! I would say "Would Allow" is neither supportive or dismissive of the idea and is too vague (how ironic that a european commissioned survey be vague ) and could be argued either way without certainty.

marco_polo

ShooterSF wrote: »

Now that's very loose wording. Why couldn't they ask if people supported it being renegotiated? They have to leave it ambigious! I would say "Would Allow" is neither supportive or dismissive of the idea and is too vague (how ironic that a european commissioned survey be vague ) and could be argued either way without certainty.

But it was a survey of the reasons for voting one way or another so that question does not really fit in.

Asking people if they support a renegotiation is a a topic for a different survey to be fair.

Your point about it being neither being supportive or dismissive is taken, but nonetheless it is pretty reasonable circumstantial evidence. And certainly we can conclude that this percieved safety net was in the back of peoples minds.

Thinking about it, it also says nothing of the extent of renegotiations that people had in mind either.

ShooterSF

As it was under the topic of "The impact of the referendum/likely consequences" I don't see how it can be seen as a reason for voting. Also what exactly are "exceptions" that would be allowed to be renegotiated.

nesf

ShooterSF wrote: »

As it was under the topic of "The impact of the referendum/likely consequences" I don't see how it can be seen as a reason for voting. Also what exactly are "exceptions" that would be allowed to be renegotiated.

Nonsense, obviously most people would consider the consequences of a No before voting for it and to an extent would vote depending on their view of these consequences. Combine it with the campaign that Ireland can get a better deal from Sinn Fein and you do have one reason why people might vote No. It is by no means the only reason, or even the primary reason, you can't conclude that from the survey, but you equally can't dismiss it a priori as a reason for voting. You can't dismiss such a widely held belief as irrelevant.

Equally the numbers for a No vote allowing Ireland to keep its stance on neutrality, tax rates and abortion etc were all significantly high in the No camp indicating that they believed that a Yes result somehow threatened these. Again, to conclude any of them as the primary reason would be incorrect but it does indicate that the facts of the treaty were not well explained.

ShooterSF

nesf wrote: »

Nonsense, obviously most people would consider the consequences of a No before voting for it and to an extent would vote depending on their view of these consequences. Combine it with the campaign that Ireland can get a better deal from Sinn Fein and you do have one reason why people might vote No. It is by no means the only reason, or even the primary reason, you can't conclude that from the survey, but you equally can't dismiss it a priori as a reason for voting. You can't dismiss such a widely held belief as irrelevant.

I don't dismiss it. I just don't accept that it means 70% of the survey voted for that reason. I thought it was likely to happen even if just for a few bells and whistles so it could be put to us again. It wasn't however the reason I voted No as I don't expect them to come back with a better deal, as I have little faith in our government but that's a different issue.
I guess I'm just saying that not all of those 70% definitely voted for that reason. Though I do accept some probably did. But we can't rephrase a question and attach it back to an answer and expect it to still hold the same truth.

nesf

ShooterSF wrote: »

I don't dismiss it. I just don't accept that it means 70% of the survey voted for that reason. I thought it was likely to happen even if just for a few bells and whistles so it could be put to us again. It wasn't however the reason I voted No as I don't expect them to come back with a better deal, as I have little faith in our government but that's a different issue.
I guess I'm just saying that not all of those 70% definitely voted for that reason. Though I do accept some probably did. But we can't rephrase a question and attach it back to an answer and expect it to still hold the same truth.

I don't think any unbiased person would say that 70% of the No camp voted No because they thought there was a better deal to be had. You can however infer a fair a lot from the perceived consequences of a No vote and more importantly the divergence in the camps in this regard. When you combine the renegotiation and the tax/neutrality/abortion issues there is to an extent an indication of why people voted no. You can't draw, in my opinion, a concrete reason for the No vote but you can see that much of it seemed to be motivated at least partially by domestic issues. Which is relatively consistent with the mood of the campaign and the main issues raised by the No side.

marco_polo

ShooterSF wrote: »

I don't dismiss it. I just don't accept that it means 70% of the survey voted for that reason. I thought it was likely to happen even if just for a few bells and whistles so it could be put to us again. It wasn't however the reason I voted No as I don't expect them to come back with a better deal, as I have little faith in our government but that's a different issue.
I guess I'm just saying that not all of those 70% definitely voted for that reason. Though I do accept some probably did. But we can't rephrase a question and attach it back to an answer and expect it to still hold the same truth.

The quote was misleading perhaps, "70% of no voters believed a re-negotiation was possible".

However it It was not in the list of reasons for voting no. I can't speak for others but I am not claiming that this was a primary reason for voting. In fact logically it cannot be a primary reason for voting No. That is not to say that it may not be a very signifigant factor all the same.

For example did a large proportion of the people believe that it would be easily renegotiated? Did they just want a few minor changes to address specific points? Did 70% believe it could be renegotiated but none of them actually want this? It will be very important to illicit answers to these questions in the next few months before we try to move forward..

Important questions, but not as important as Friday pints.

ShooterSF

marco_polo wrote: »

Important questions, but not as important as Friday pints.

Ahh something everyone can agree upon

Scofflaw

It's what you might call a 'permissive factor', and completely changes the basis on which one votes. Ask a three-year old "would you like an apple?", and you'll get a completely different answer depending on whether they think holding out for an ice-cream is an option or not.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

So, are we saying here that after each general election we should poll the electorate as to why they voted as they did, and if we feel their answers aren't good enough we send them back again to make the right decision?

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

So, are we saying here that after each general election we should poll the electorate as to why they voted as they did, and if we feel their answers aren't good enough we send them back again to make the right decision?

No - but we need to have referendums as long as there are questions being asked which our government is not entitled to answer by itself.

If the EU wants to ask us again whether we really want to turn down Lisbon, the government has no option but to put that question to the people at referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

limklad

R0C0 wrote: »

Thats not really acceptable because where do you draw the line with letting people change their minds?

If we'd voted Yes do you think we'd be asked have we changed our minds?
If we Vote No again will we have a Lisbon 3? A Lisbon 4?
Should we just keep checking every month? Or do we just stop when we get a Yes vote??

Let me paint a picture, From your point of view from your statement, you can correct me anytime.

We should put in the constitution to block any future change of minds on referendum matters as it is the only way to block future referendums on previous matter held by referendums.
You said No today to any matter that requires a Referendum and later (perhaps 5 years down the road) you change your mind because of some new information that either received that came to light or events that impacted you. Now You are not allow to change your mind to Yes on the matter you voted NO to because it is not acceptable according to you and you have yourself and those like you who voted NO are to blame for the situation.

If we did that we (Ireland) would be making smaller moves going forward than the one currently exists with the EU. We would be back in the dark ages again.

These are Referendums where we change our minds here in Ireland.

Nice Treaty would not be ratified (denying Eastern European Countries & Malta from Joining the EU.)
Divorce would not be allowed.

R0C0 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that people who voted No did so with uneducated opinions??

No I did not suggest that, they (The Politicians) never explain from questions that was put to them from media but kept on about previous benefits that have nothing to do with Lisbon Treaty. Politicians gave the impression that there is something to hide, by not answering the question put to them. Now we know they knew if there was any negative impacts of the Lisbon Treaty because they probably never checked it , They just did what they were told.

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

No - but we need to have referendums as long as there are questions being asked which our government is not entitled to answer by itself.

If the EU wants to ask us again whether we really want to turn down Lisbon, the government has no option but to put that question to the people at referendum.

No. Say the government decided they did not want to ratify the treaty, they have the option of not putting it to the people. They may apply political pressure but Ireland has no legal obligation.

The reason it went to the people this time is because the government wished to ratify the treaty but could not without a referendum.

ShooterSF

Scofflaw wrote: »

No - but we need to have referendums as long as there are questions being asked which our government is not entitled to answer by itself.

If the EU wants to ask us again whether we really want to turn down Lisbon, the government has no option but to put that question to the people at referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Given that we already voted on the subject, couldn't the government informed of our decision and supposedly the representative of the people not inform the E.U that we already rejected it? Fair enough if they actually managed to re-negotiate it, which I doubt they can, but putting the same treaty to us again I'd be deeply disappointed in our governments backbone.

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

No - but we need to have referendums as long as there are questions being asked which our government is not entitled to answer by itself.

If the EU wants to ask us again whether we really want to turn down Lisbon, the government has no option but to put that question to the people at referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

What's this really want to b*ll*cks? The statement stands, the people voted, the answer is no.

If it's a no again what's the next referendum "Are you really, really, not messin' this time, sure?"

The most disappointing thing about Lisbon is that there are so many people out there who think they really are too stupid to have a vote.

dresden8

Oh, and the Government does have another option. They can tell the EU to feck off, Lisbon is dead. As per the Lisbon Treaty. You know, the one all the Yes people support, ironically enough.

IRLConor

dresden8 wrote: »

Oh, and the Government does have another option. They can tell the EU to feck off, Lisbon is dead. As per the Lisbon Treaty. You know, the one all the Yes people support, ironically enough.

Yes, but then the question is "How do we reform the EU if Lisbon as it stands isn't an option?".

Possible answers are:

1. Rip up the treaty and start from scratch.
2. Modify the treaty until it passes in all countries.
3. Do nothing and pretend that the EU doesn't need changing.

Which would you prefer and why?

dresden8

That's for the EU bods to decide and get back to us.

Re-running referenda with the proviso that you will vote until you vote the correct way really is the death of democracy. If it's a yes next time will it be counted as a score draw and best of three? I think not.

IRLConor

dresden8 wrote: »

That's for the EU bods to decide and get back to us.

But 1/27 of the EU bods is one of us. We need to have suggestions for them too.

dresden8 wrote: »

Re-running referenda with the proviso that you will vote until you vote the correct way really is the death of democracy.

And that hasn't happened yet. Not with Nice, not with divorce, abortion or anything else that has been put to the Irish people.

dresden8

Nice?

The one they made us vote twice on? The one that is now apparently a pile of crap?

Here's one for a start though. Cut the military element.

Obviously as it stands it doesn't mean we're going to invade Iran tomorrow and no eight year olds are going to be conscripted and forced to have abortions. But it is a first step. So far this time. Next time it will be "You've come this far, what's another small step?" And then another, and then another etc. This is my line in the sand as it were. Stop it now. If anybody trusts Sarkozy they're a fool.

IRLConor

dresden8 wrote: »

Nice?

The one they made us vote twice on?

Yawn. This has been explained over and over and over again. The second version was different to the first. If you didn't notice then maybe you should have paid more attention at the time.

dresden8 wrote: »

Here's one for a start though. Cut the military element.

Strangely enough, that's kinda the modification that was made to the Nice amendment to our constitution.

dresden8 wrote: »

Obviously as it stands it doesn't mean we're going to invade Iran tomorrow and no eight year olds are going to be conscripted and forced to have abortions. But it is a first step. So far this time. Next time it will be "You've come this far, what's another small step?" And then another, and then another etc. This is my line in the sand as it were.

We can opt out of the defence parts*, we don't need to force all of the rest of the countries to abandon their common goals.

* We opted out of the common defence parts in the amendment that was recently defeated, the bits that we didn't opt out of there we had either a veto on or the opportunity to opt out later. The only thing I noticed that we were obliged to do is to improve our military capability and we do that anyway as a matter of national policy.

dresden8

IRLConor wrote: »

Yawn. This has been explained over and over and over again. The second version was different to the first. If you didn't notice then maybe you should have paid more attention at the time.



Strangely enough, that's kinda the modification that was made to the Nice amendment to our constitution.



We can opt out of the defence parts*, we don't need to force all of the rest of the countries to abandon their common goals.

* We opted out of the common defence parts in the amendment that was recently defeated, the bits that we didn't opt out of there we had either a veto on or the opportunity to opt out later. The only thing I noticed that we were obliged to do is to improve our military capability and we do that anyway as a matter of national policy.

The first small step.

IRLConor

dresden8 wrote: »

The first small step.

...towards a better EU. Pity we rejected it.

dresden8

IRLConor wrote: »

...towards a better EU. Pity we rejected it.

Maybe. But reject it WE did. You included. That's what democracy means.

IRLConor

dresden8 wrote: »

Maybe. But reject it WE did. You included. That's what democracy means.

Yep, and democracy means that everyone gets an equal vote every time a question gets put to the people.

Since I'm respecting the No vote (if not all the no voters) I'm sure you'll respect the Yes vote if it comes on a modified Lisbon Treaty? And you'll respect the result of both Nice referenda?

nesf

dresden8 wrote: »

Maybe. But reject it WE did. You included. That's what democracy means.

The dissenting minority are perfectly entitled to keep their voice. They must abide by the decision of the majority but they are not forced to change their views or their opinions to those of the majority.


In other news, according to the Economist, Cowen is resisting calling a second referendum and is getting some support in the Council: http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11605152&fsrc=nwl

dresden8

IRLConor wrote: »

Yep, and democracy means that everyone gets an equal vote every time a question gets put to the people.

Since I'm respecting the No vote (if not all the no voters) I'm sure you'll respect the Yes vote if it comes on a modified Lisbon Treaty? And you'll respect the result of both Nice referenda?

Ah "Respect". Every yes commentator, politico etc starts off with "Of course I respect the Irish No vote" and then they spend the rest of the interview/ article whatever saying it should be overturned in whatever manner as soon as possible. At least they seem to have given Cowen a year to "respect" the vote before he ****s the result out.

Ah well, c'est la vie!

dresden8

dresden8 wrote: »

At least they seem to have given Cowen a year to "respect" the vote before he ****s the result out.

Ah well, c'est la vie!

Sorry, I meant to say "Period of Reflection"

tolosenc

Respecting and agreeing with are two very different things.

dresden8

obl wrote: »

Respecting and agreeing with are two very different things.

So are respecting the vote and letting the result stand, and pushing to get the same thing run again asap until you get the answer you wanted.

tolosenc

dresden8 wrote: »

If anybody trusts Sarkozy they're a fool.

I don't quite get what people think he has to gain here...

tolosenc

dresden8 wrote: »

So are respecting and ignoring the result.

I don't think anyone is ignoring the result.

dresden8

obl wrote: »

I don't quite get what people think he has to gain here...

Sarkozy is already trying to grab the British Aircraft carriers.

dresden8

obl wrote: »

I don't quite get what people think he has to gain here...

....

dresden8

obl wrote: »

I don't think anyone is ignoring the result.

Not yet, but they will try.

tolosenc

dresden8 wrote: »

Sarkozy is already trying to get his hands on a British aircraft carrier.

Source?

dresden8

obl wrote: »

Source?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,559702,00.html

And apparently he's for nuclear proliferation.

is_that_so

dresden8 wrote: »

So are respecting the vote and letting the result stand, and pushing to get the same thing run again asap until you get the answer you wanted.

The result stands as do the problems the result caused. The EU will attempt to find a way to fix it politically and that includes attempting to understand what problem we have with it.

tolosenc

dresden8 wrote: »

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,559702,00.html

And apparently he's for nuclear proliferation.

That's source has nothing of his intentions for the naval unit.

And France already has nukes. Apparently he likes to eat babies too.

dresden8

obl wrote: »

Source?

Since you're not so well informed I suppose you'll be a no voter next time so.

dresden8

obl wrote: »

That's source has nothing of his intentions for the naval unit.

And France already has nukes. Apparently he likes to eat babies too.

Seriously? You couldn't see this bit? A definite no voter next time so.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has something of a track record of dropping bombshells at Franco-German summits. During a meeting near Berlin last September, Sarkozy caused German Chancellor Angela Merkel's jaw to drop by offering Germany nuclear weapons (more...).

Last week's meeting between the two leaders (more...) in the Bavarian town of Straubing was no exception, SPIEGEL has learned. This time, Sarkozy, who has had no shortage of big ideas since taking office in May 2007, told the Germans about his plans to propose the creation of a European naval unit during France's presidency of the Council of the European Union, which begins on July 1.

Under Sarkozy's plan, the German Navy is supposed to contribute frigates and logistics units to an aircraft carrier battle group which will sail under a European flag. The aircraft carrier itself will, according to the plan, be supplied by the United Kingdom, however, as France's prestige aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, is frequently out of service for repairs. Sarkozy will decide about the construction of a second aircraft carrier only in 2012 or so, as there is currently not enough money available for the French armed forces.

tolosenc

dresden8 wrote: »

Since you're not so well informed I suppose you'll be a no voter next time so.

I've been in Canada for the last while. Excuse me for my lack of exposure to European hearsay.

If anyone is actually informed about the treaty, they'd vote yes.

tolosenc

I saw that bit, but I really don't see where it says what he intends to do with a European navy.

Sarko is a hothead - I wouldn't take him to literally.

dresden8

obl wrote: »

Sarko is a hothead - I wouldn't take him to literally.

Sarko is the President of France. He has nuclear weapons at his disposal. He is taking over the EU presidency.

Your own statement should send shivers down your spine.

tolosenc

dresden8 wrote: »

Sarko is the President of France. He has nuclear weapons at his disposal. He is taking over the EU presidency.

Your own statement should send shivers down your spine.

He doesn't just click his fingers as president of either France or Europe. There are strict procedures in place.

Do you actually understand how either European or French political systems work?

dresden8

obl wrote: »

. There are strict procedures in place.

Do you actually understand how either European or French political systems work?

Strict procedures like Lisbon has to be ratified by all 27 countries or it falls?

The hypocrisy of the Yes side astounds

tolosenc

The lack of understanding of the basics, the conspiracy theories, and the blatant lies of the No campaign astound me too.

It does not say "27 countries" anywhere in the text. It says "all countries" - whether Ireland is one of them, it's up for us to decide.

IRLConor

dresden8 wrote: »

Strict procedures like Lisbon has to be ratified by all 27 countries or it falls?

Who said that isn't going to happen?

They're pressing ahead with ratification in the other countries so that they can then know what their options are. If Ireland turns out to be the only country that says no, then they negotiate with us to see what they can do to change our mind. If any of the other countries yet to ratify it fail to do so then they'll take a different course of action.

The other countries pressing ahead to ratify the treaty doesn't mean that they're ignoring our vote.

dresden8 wrote: »

The hypocrisy of the Yes side astounds

The lack of basic knowledge of how the EU works that the No side has astounds.

dresden8

obl wrote: »

The lack of understanding of the basics, the conspiracy theories, and the blatant lies of the No campaign astound me too.

It does not say "27 countries" anywhere in the text. It says "all countries" - whether Ireland is one of them, it's up for us to decide.

That's a stretch too far. Even for the most rabid yes voter. And by the way we didn't decide to leave the EU. We decided not to ratify Lisbon. You're so badly informed that you must be a no voter.