Are multiple referendums undemocratic?

ionix5891

force eleven wrote: »

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

Doesnt the No side claim the constitution is the same as lisbon treaty? , remeber the one French and Dutch voted NO? the same French and Dutch that are brought up every time

so everytime they are brought up i will bring up Spain and Luxembourg who voted YES

you cant have it both ways



you are also missing the point that alot of europeans are quite happy with their elected govermnets who theY voted in to make a decision (see its called Representational Democracy, we have it here in Ireland as well as I never remember voting Bertie in directly) and finally its offensive for some countries to hold referendums like Germany where it reminds them of a certain fella called Hitler

Kev_ps3

Some people on the Yes side think that if the Irish people are asked again we will vote Yes. The fact is it will be rejected again and will do alot of damage to the Irish peoples view of the EU and give real ammo to those who wish to pull out for good.

djpbarry

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Some people on the Yes side think that if the Irish people are asked again we will vote Yes.

Who are these people?

humanji

Since you're one of the people who want us to pull out for good, why would you warn us?

marco_polo

Are cat pictures against the forum charter?

Kev_ps3

humanji wrote: »

Since you're one of the people who want us to pull out for good, why would you warn us?

Maby im a nice guy:pac:

towel401

i hope you are right but unfortunately there are plenty of muppets who are already accustomed to the practice of voting until something gets through and see a 2nd referendum as an acceptable practice. most of these people are from Dublin of course, big city urbanites who listen to Joe Duffy too much

sure some people will be pissed as hell having to vote on it a second time even if they do change a few very small details in the treaty. but will there be enough of these people?

limklad

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

Having 2 Referendums is not undemocratic as the Referendum gives the people a voice (say) of the matter of issue. People have the right to change their minds. It is their prerogative to do so.

It is better to Say NO until convinced with educated opinions from each side and with reasoned answers before you saying YES.

eoin2nc

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Some people on the Yes side think that if the Irish people are asked again we will vote Yes. The fact is it will be rejected again and will do alot of damage to the Irish peoples view of the EU and give real ammo to those who wish to pull out for good.

Its hard to listen to someone whop thinks pulling out of the EU would be a good idea and someone who thinks we should ivade Northern Ireland, even Sinn Fein doesnt want to leave the EU

susanna

towel401 wrote: »

i hope you are right but unfortunately there are plenty of muppets who are already accustomed to the practice of voting until something gets through and see a 2nd referendum as an acceptable practice. most of these people are from Dublin of course, big city urbanites who listen to Joe Duffy too much

I take offence at being called a muppet.

I'm from Dublin, I voted Yes, I will vote Yes again if there is a second referendum. Not due to scaremongering, bullying or otherwise, but because I've researched the treaty and I genuinely believe its good for the country (I also believe Sinn Fein and Libertas were full of hot air but unfortunately the major parties failed to challenge them).

Less of the generalisations please.

limklad

ionix5891 wrote: »

you are also missing the point that alot of europeans are quite happy with their elected govermnets who theY voted in to make a decision (see its called Representational Democracy, we have it here in Ireland as well as I never remember voting Bertie in directly) and finally its offensive for some countries to hold referendums like Germany where it reminds them of a certain fella called Hitler

You are missing the point, that in elections we have only a limited number of candidates to represent us. Not all candidates we vote in will vote our way in matters of interest to the people. So in Elections we vote the candidate, in which we think that will not screw up the most with bad laws and hopefully steer the country economy in the right direction. So it is a case we try to select the best of a bad bunch. Same goes for in every democratic country. If you did a survey of electorate after voting and scale their confidence in their candidate 0 to 100%, you will rarely get 100% with the exception of extremist or exceptional candidates. To extremist they are both (extremist or exceptional candidates) the same.

National Referendums in Germany may be outlawed but not Referendum in general. There are nearly 200 Referendums in local areas in Germany every year, so democracy is very much alive there.


My hat goes off for Merkel on her comments in the past day on not going forward on two-speed europe. She wants all of europe to move together in full agreement. Good on her for seeing & sticking by the princples in which the EU was born. Here here.

djpbarry

towel401 wrote: »

i hope you are right but unfortunately there are plenty of muppets who are already accustomed to the practice of voting until something gets through and see a 2nd referendum as an acceptable practice.

I didn't realise this was a "practice"? There was me thinking the proposed constitutional amendment put to the Irish people in a referendum in October 2002 (Nice II) was different to that which was rejected in June 2001 (Nice I). There was me also thinking that more people voted 'No' to Nice II than to Nice I.

I will never understand this attitude that we must never be asked to ratify another EU treaty once we have rejected one; "I said NO! Now don't ever ask me anything ever again!"

ionix5891

limklad wrote: »

You are missing the point,

whats the alternative to representational democracy? direct democracy?

you want people to vote on every new law every week? the budget?

seamus

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Some people on the Yes side think that if the Irish people are asked again we will vote Yes. The fact is it will be rejected again and will do alot of damage to the Irish peoples view of the EU and give real ammo to those who wish to pull out for good.

Recent polls suggest that nearly 3/4 of "no" voters assumed that the treaty would be negotiated, meaning that they do want to stay in the EU, just not with the treaty, and a second poll suggested that 80% of no-voters were pro-EU.

So if you work out the numbers of no voters who are anti-EU, you'll find that only around 5% of the total population actually has a problem with the EU. Roughly the same percentage who support certain political groups.

If we are asked to vote again, we know who'll be asking us - our own Government. The EU will have little to do with it.

Moriarty

"A second vote will backfire" thread merged back into this one.

R0C0

limklad wrote: »

People have the right to change their minds. It is their prerogative to do so.

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??

To answer the OP's question, then no, technically it's not undemocratic because its a democratic referendum. But it is a disrespectful manipulation of the democratic system.

It is better to Say NO until convinced with educated opinions from each side and with reasoned answers before you saying YES.

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

ionix5891

R0C0 wrote: »

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

A voter in County Clare, not content with putting an X beside the no option on the simple ballot paper in the Irish referendum on the Lisbon treaty, included a long letter of protest. Its message to the Irish government, which had campaigned desperately for a yes vote, was: "You forgot us in Shannon." The anonymous voter was using the opportunity of a vote on the structural reform of the European Union to protest against the withdrawal by the newly privatised state airline Aer Lingus of its regular service between Shannon airport and Heathrow. You would have to pity the poor Eurocrats contemplating the wreckage of the results of eight years of negotiation and compromise. What could they possibly say to a voter whose message, however urgent, was not about qualified majority voting or enhanced cooperation, but the operations of a local airline?
Or to the woman in Galway City who told RTE radio that she entered the polling booth undecided but "I got a bit of information that, if I voted yes, my sons would be drafted into the army, so I voted no ... Our sons are too good-looking for the army"? The irony is that the very absurdity of the woman's fears make them almost impossible to address. If the Lisbon treaty had contained any provisions that could, by any stretch of the imagination, enforce the conscription of the woman's handsome boys into a European army, those provisions could be removed or altered. Since it doesn't, the task of understanding and appeasing the negative sentiment of Irish voters may be a hopeless one

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/14/ireland.eu

nesf

R0C0 wrote: »

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

Some undoubtedly did, same for the Yes side, but the power of the "If you don't know, vote No" slogan was significant I think.


Edit: From the Eurobarometer survey:

1. EU-related issues:
• 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.
• There was relatively little difference in the opinions as to whether the EU institutions
would be blocked: 42% of “yes” voters vs. 33% of “no” voters agreed on that point
• There was even less difference concerning the views about the “no” vote blocking
moves to a more federal Europe: 52% of “no” voters vs. 48% in the “yes” camp
• When it came to whether Ireland’s position in the EU would be weakened, 64% of
the “yes” voters supported this view while only a quarter (24%) of “no” voters felt
that way
• The vast majority in either camp (88.5% of the “no” voters and 89% of the “yes”
voters) rejected that the vote could mean that Ireland was on its way out of the EU.
• As expected, more “no” voters than “yes” voters felt that the result would strengthen
Ireland’s position in the EU: 39% vs. 19%.
2. Irish domestic issues:
• Half of the “yes” voters agreed that the vote would harm the economy while only
one in six of “no” voters (17%) agreed on this
• Just a quarter of “no” voters and 9% of “yes” voters agreed that the vote should oblige
the government to stand down
3. The retention of Ireland’s identity:
• Even more “no” voters (83%) were in agreement that the result meant that Ireland
could keep its neutrality, an opinion supported by only half (51%) of “yes” voters
• There were similar results (79% of “no” voters and 50% of “yes” voters) on the
question as to whether the “no” vote would allow Ireland to keep its tax system
• The numbers in agreement were smaller on the issue of the “no” vote allowing Ireland
to keep its current legislation on abortion, gay marriages and euthanasia: 60% of
“no” voters and a third (36%) of the “yes” camp agreed on this matter.

Look at the abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia one at the bottom. None of these were particularly relevant to this referendum and/or treaty yet 60% of No voters and just over a third of Yes voters thought they were from the survey. That underlines serious problems in getting the facts about the treaty across to the voters on both sides.

djpbarry

R0C0 wrote: »

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

I don't think there is any doubt that a large number of people had absolutely no idea what they were voting on, as shown in opinion polls such as that which nesf has quoted. Ironically, I think this in some way vindicates the decision of other EU states not to ratify the treaty by popular referendum. For example, if a referendum were held in Portugal today, a 'No' vote would (probably) be the more likely outcome, given their national side's appalling defensive display last night.

ShooterSF

seamus wrote: »

Recent polls suggest that nearly 3/4 of "no" voters assumed that the treaty would be negotiated, meaning that they do want to stay in the EU, just not with the treaty, and a second poll suggested that 80% of no-voters were pro-EU.

So if you work out the numbers of no voters who are anti-EU, you'll find that only around 5% of the total population actually has a problem with the EU. Roughly the same percentage who support certain political groups.

If we are asked to vote again, we know who'll be asking us - our own Government. The EU will have little to do with it.

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.

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