Are multiple referendums undemocratic?

marco_polo

SkepticOne wrote: »

Yes, that sums up our positions. I think that campaigning for another referendum within days of losing the first shows lack of respect for the electorate or the electorate's right to make a decision. Obviously I don't deny your right to do this. I think it is not in the interests of the country to have another referendum at present but moreover not in the interests of the Yes campaign. I think another referendum now or soon would result in an even more resounding No.

I thought Public figures have been trying very hard not to mention the 'R' word personally.

Obviously that doesn't apply to this forum, but even at that I don't think anyone here is advocating another referendum for quite some time yet. There is alot of water that needs to pass under the bridge before that can be even contemplated.

SkepticOne

marco_polo wrote: »

Obviously that doesn't apply to this forum, but even at that I don't think anyone here is advocating another referendum for quite some time yet. There is alot of water that needs to pass under the bridge before that can be even contemplated.

I quote from another thread here.

[...]Then, and due to the nature of the No campaign, this area will be key - proactive rebuttals of No arguments are absolutely essential. Every time someone hears a claim such as 'this treaty undermines our neutrality' there should be 10 responses from members of the Yes campaign outlining why this is patently untrue. Some of those responding should actually have a copy of the treaty in their hands - take away the mystery.

Every Yes campaigner should become fluent in the treaty and they should also publish a summary of what the treaty is changing with commentary (e.g. this clause is an example of the EU recognising there will be no conscription of the Irish public).

And then the top-level document the Yes campaign uses should be something along the lines of a one pager with 2 columns - "Here is what the treaty gives Ireland" and "The treaty does NOT affect any of the following" - that latter column will need to be updated on a daily basis as newer No claims are aired.

And so on. People are still fighting the yes campaign.

marco_polo

SkepticOne wrote: »

I quote from another thread here.

And so on. People are still fighting the yes campaign.

Ah yes but we need time to organise La Resistance

Is there any harm in people informing themselves better in the meantime, ahead of whatever pans out foing forward.

imaleper

ionix5891 wrote: »

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?

Em a term of five years maybe: 04-09? During their vote on the European constitution in 2005! Their governments rejected the popular vote of the people by ratifying Lisbon, which astounds me. Nonetheless the Irish vote has to be respected in the way E.U. legislation... Thus the treaty should not go ahead!

If a referendum was put to the public of each and every state, I wouldn't hesitate betting high that the same resounding NO would be the result.

SkepticOne

marco_polo wrote: »

Ah yes but we need time to organise La Resistance

Is there any harm in people informing themselves better in the meantime, ahead of whatever pans out foing forward.

I note that Pope "free speech" Buckfast asked that only Yes supporters contribute to that thread.

PopeBuckfastXVI

marco_polo wrote: »

Ah yes but we need time to organise La Resistance

Is there any harm in people informing themselves better in the meantime, ahead of whatever pans out foing forward.

There is for one of the camps... clue: starts with N and ends with O and isn't Yes.

marco_polo

SkepticOne wrote: »

I note that Pope "free speech" Buckfast asked that only Yes supporters contribute to that thread.

Why did you want to hand out flyers? .

PopeBuckfastXVI

SkepticOne wrote: »

I note that Pope "free speech" Buckfast asked that only Yes supporters contribute to that thread.

Yep because it was a question for 'Yes' voters. I would respect the same request if made by the 'No' side. I didn't want it straying off topic and turning into one of the multiple other threads.

That thread is about campaign organisation, not about the merits or demerits of the Lisbon treaty.

In fact this thread was spawned from that one to continue an off topic discussion which was starting... and I've happily contributed here and discussed at length with your good self.

I think you'll agree there's serious thread drift going on in this forum at the moment, and I didn't want distraction from the topic of the thread.

Edit: And to their eternal credit the vast majority of 'No' boardsies respected my request and didn't push the thread off topic, so thanks to them.

PopeBuckfastXVI

SkepticOne wrote: »

And so on. People are still fighting the yes campaign.

Just on this point... the majority of contributers there are not 'still' fighting the yes campaign as they hadn't gotten involved in the first one... which was kind of the point of it all

nesf

SkepticOne wrote: »

People are still fighting the yes campaign.

Nah, some of us just enjoy arguing.

ionix5891

imaleper wrote: »

Em a term of five years maybe: 04-09? During their vote on the European constitution in 2005! Their governments rejected the popular vote of the people by ratifying Lisbon, which astounds me. Nonetheless the Irish vote has to be respected in the way E.U. legislation... Thus the treaty should not go ahead!

If a referendum was put to the public of each and every state, I wouldn't hesitate betting high that the same resounding NO would be the result.

if you are gonna drag France and Netherlands into this i will drag Spain and Luxembourg! this treaty was put to the people in Spain and Luxembourg and it did pass their referendum so there Ireland is not so special or unique

the french are very vocal when they dont like their government and like rioting and burning cars, hell they invented violent Revolutions


anyways this has been covered plenty of times, the treaty is more than likely very much dead in the water as is but theres nothing stopping the other countries rewriting bits of it putting a new name and going and ahead with or without Ireland

capiche?

i accept the result of the last weeks vote, the question i keep poping is what happens now, this thread asks a question that is very relevant to everyone on this island so please stay on topic

Biro

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

We have had two referendums for Nice, but that doesn't mean they were democratic. The second one certainly wasn't, it was wrong to shove the same thing at us again.
On other issues like divorce, death penalty (being the most recent), etc, people change over time, so that's OK. Maybe every generation, as in 15 years or so, when a different generation has moved forward.
However, regardless of the issue, it'd be wrong to have a 2nd referendum on the same issue just because the government were unhappy with the result within a short time of the first.

nacho libre

Biro wrote: »

We have had two referendums for Nice, but that doesn't mean they were democratic. The second one certainly wasn't, it was wrong to shove the same thing at us again.
On other issues like divorce, death penalty (being the most recent), etc, people change over time, so that's OK. Maybe every generation, as in 15 years or so, when a different generation has moved forward.
However, regardless of the issue, it'd be wrong to have a 2nd referendum on the same issue just because the government were unhappy with the result within a short time of the first.

yes, but his point is people have a right to change their mind - and they may well do so, if they get cast iron guarantees on things that were unpalatable to about the Lisbon Treaty. People are fickle, they often vote out of spite or based on their mood rather than on the details of an issue. so, if the economy is on the up and the tribunal is a distant memory in a year or two, you could well see a yes vote being returned on the "ballydehob treaty"

marco_polo

Biro wrote: »

We have had two referendums for Nice, but that doesn't mean they were democratic. The second one certainly wasn't, it was wrong to shove the same thing at us again.

Ah this old chesnut again. How was it un-democatic? Were no voters stopped at the booths from voting in some way.

On other issues like divorce, death penalty (being the most recent), etc, people change over time, so that's OK. Maybe every generation, as in 15 years or so, when a different generation has moved forward.
However, regardless of the issue, it'd be wrong to have a 2nd referendum on the same issue just because the government were unhappy with the result within a short time of the first.

We got assurances on neutrality for Nice II, which is exactly what we wanted. So while we were voting on the exact same treaty, do you accept that we were also voting on the basis of new added information as well. It seems that public opinion can change very quickly and does not always require waiting generations to act.

Dyr

Rerunning referanda is not undemocratic of itself. A govt that expects it can rerun a referendum until it gets the answer it wants is hugely undemocratic.

Biro

nacho libre wrote: »

yes, but his point is people have a right to change their mind - and they may well do so, if they get cast iron guarantees on things that were unpalatable to about the Lisbon Treaty. People are fickle, they often vote out of spite or based on their mood rather than on the details of an issue. so, if the economy is on the up and the tribunal is a distant memory in a year or two, you could well see a yes vote being returned on the "ballydehob treaty"

Would he be asking that if a Yes went through? Or would the Government consider a 2nd referendum if a Yes went through? Just to be sure we meant Yes? I doubt it.

marco_polo

Biro wrote: »

Would he be asking that if a Yes went through? Or would the Government consider a 2nd referendum if a Yes went through? Just to be sure we meant Yes? I doubt it.

That may be a fair point to some degree Biro, it is only the elected Government that gets to call a referendum. but then again we are the ones that elect them.

I am not sure what other mechanisms would be suitable, perhaps there could be a mechanism where citizens could initiate one by petition, but how would that even work. Set the numbers required too high and it could probably never be triggered, too low and it could be open to abuse. Should Coir be allowed to call a referendum because they want to overturn Divorce, or Sinn Fein to reinstate the territorial claim into our constitution.

Perhaps we could model it on the citizens petition mechanism we rejected in the Lisbon treaty.

Scofflaw

marco_polo wrote: »

That may be a fair point to some degree Biro, it is only the elected Government that gets to call a referendum. but then again we are the ones that elect them.

I am not sure what other mechanisms would be suitable, perhaps there could be a mechanism where citizens could initiate one by petition, but how would that even work. Set the numbers required too high and it could probably never be triggered, too low and it could be open to abuse. Should Coir be allowed to call a referendum because they want to overturn Divorce, or Sinn Fein to reinstate the territorial claim into our constitution.

Perhaps we could model it on the citizens petition mechanism we rejected in the Lisbon treaty.

Well, if we set the same threshold (1/500th of the population), you'd only require 8500 signatures...

cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

marco_polo wrote: »

We got assurances on neutrality for Nice II, which is exactly what we wanted. So while we were voting on the exact same treaty, do you accept that we were also voting on the basis of new added information as well. It seems that public opinion can change very quickly and does not always require waiting generations to act.

But didn't the leader of the yes vote, Cowen, before the referendum say that we couldn't renegotiate the treaty? So was he just scaremongering and we can renegotiate or will it be the same treaty just slightly reworded? Or are we going to vote on the exact same treaty with new threats of being left out if we reject it again?

marco_polo wrote: »

That may be a fair point to some degree Biro, it is only the elected Government that gets to call a referendum. but then again we are the ones that elect them.

I am not sure what other mechanisms would be suitable, perhaps there could be a mechanism where citizens could initiate one by petition, but how would that even work. Set the numbers required too high and it could probably never be triggered, too low and it could be open to abuse. Should Coir be allowed to call a referendum because they want to overturn Divorce, or Sinn Fein to reinstate the territorial claim into our constitution.

Perhaps we could model it on the citizens petition mechanism we rejected in the Lisbon treaty.

I like this idea but it wouldn't actually be the same model if we could force a referendum with a petition (that would be real people power) unlike the lisbon treaties' variant where they can just ignore it.

ionix5891

ShooterSF wrote: »

I like this idea but it wouldn't actually be the same model if we could force a referendum with a petition (that would be real people power) unlike the lisbon treaties' variant where they can just ignore it.

ironically, if you bothered to read the Lisbon treaty summary you would have seen this:



The Treaty also makes it possible for the first time for citizens to make direct input into EU policy formulation by means of a ‘citizen’s initiative’. This provides for the gathering of one million signatures supporting a request to the Commission to make a particular policy proposal.



sigh another uninformed NO voter

ShooterSF

ionix5891 wrote: »

ironically, if you bothered to read the Lisbon treaty summary you would have seen this:



The Treaty also makes it possible for the first time for citizens to make direct input into EU policy formulation by means of a ‘citizen’s initiative’. This provides for the gathering of one million signatures supporting a request to the Commission to make a particular policy proposal.



sigh another uninformed NO voter

Which then can be rejected without being put to said people. But thanks for leaving that part out.

marco_polo

ShooterSF wrote: »

But didn't the leader of the yes vote, Cowen, before the referendum say that we couldn't renegotiate the treaty? So was he just scaremongering and we can renegotiate or will it be the same treaty just slightly reworded? Or are we going to vote on the exact same treaty with new threats of being left out if we reject it again?

The treaty was the exact same but this article was added to the constitutional ammendments in addition to the ones proposed for the first amendment.

" Article 29.4.9: The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7 of this section where that common defence would include the State"

I like this idea but it wouldn't actually be the same model if we could force a referendum with a petition (that would be real people power) unlike the lisbon treaties' variant where they can just ignore it.

I had forgotten about it being advisory, but you could hardly make a law just on the back of a petition. But is it the commission that can reject it or do they have to forward it to the the parliament who can then reject it? Still I think it it is a positive step in the right direction though the threshold may be a bit too high.

thehighground

From experience in a couple of voluntary organisations which had Constitutions to work to, I do recall that once there was a Constitutional change, it couldn't be changed within 12 months again (effectively this actually worked out for 2 years because of AGMs). This was for the specific reason to stop those who were incapable of accepting the democratic process from destroying the organisation - interesting that this seems to be a common trait of those who don't get their own way.;)

Did something like this happen within the GAA when Rule 43 was being changed - knocked out on a technicality one year I think, wasn't it.

There's an idea - Cowen should get Frank Murphy (Cork GAA Secretary - he is very good on the GAA Rule Book and certainly could get the rest of the GAA in knots about it) to explain the Lisbon Treaty to Sarkozy, Merkel et al :D

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

From experience in a couple of voluntary organisations which had Constitutions to work to, I do recall that once there was a Constitutional change, it couldn't be changed within 12 months again (effectively this actually worked out for 2 years because of AGMs). This was for the specific reason to stop those who were incapable of accepting the democratic process from destroying the organisation - interesting that this seems to be a common trait of those who don't get their own way.;)

Did something like this happen within the GAA when Rule 43 was being changed - knocked out on a technicality one year I think, wasn't it.

There's an idea - Cowen should get Frank Murphy (Cork GAA Secretary - he is very good on the GAA Rule Book and certainly could get the rest of the GAA in knots about it) to explain the Lisbon Treaty to Sarkozy, Merkel et al :D

Pity there was no change then

PHB

Why is it un democratic to ask the people the same question? Surely it's more undemocratic to listen to the people of the past in deciding our future than what we want now.

Kev_ps3

PHB wrote: »

Why is it un democratic to ask the people the same question? Surely it's more undemocratic to listen to the people of the past in deciding our future than what we want now.

You got to love the arrogance of the Yes side. The people of the past as you put it are the majority in this country so get used to it.

kevteljeur

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

You got to love the arrogance of the Yes side. The people of the past as you put it are the majority in this country so get used to it.

It's a fair point, you can see why other EU countries are becoming reluctant to have Ireland on board going into the future. They're starting to see that they can rely on a voting majority here (still only 0.28 of the voting population, mind you) to hold the other 26 countries back.

force eleven

PHB wrote: »

Why is it un democratic to ask the people the same question? Surely it's more undemocratic to listen to the people of the past in deciding our future than what we want now.

I vote we rerun the last general election until we get the government I wanted in office. Come on, do the Yes side seriously believe a second referendum is democratic? Ignoring 800,000 No votes? It's not our fault the rest of Europe didn't get a say, we can only do as our constitution deems, and we did.

ionix5891

force eleven wrote: »

I vote we rerun the last general election until we get the government I wanted in office. Come on, do the Yes side seriously believe a second referendum is democratic? Ignoring 800,000 No votes? It's not our fault the rest of Europe didn't get a say, we can only do as our constitution deems, and we did.

Spain and Luxembourg had a refrendum with a YES outcome, but lest not mention that

force eleven

ionix5891 wrote: »

Spain and Luxembourg had a refrendum with a YES outcome, but lest not mention that

On the Lisbon Treaty? I think not.We were the only country that had a referendum on this one.