Irish democracy, in light of lisbon result

Dyr

Furious-Dave wrote: »

I think there should be one more attempt at having a properly informed referendum, and then if the result is still 'No', leave the matter rest for a while. I just can't help but feel that a lot of 'No' voters and campaigners aren't really concerned about democracy but will throw the word "undemocratic" around as long they can hang onto their "victory" in the referendum. Likewise, I'm sure there are plenty of people on the 'Yes' side who want another referendum simply because they didn't "win" the first one.

We had a referendum, the concerned parties had the same opprtunity to put forward their cases. Accepting outcomes when they go against you a pretty big part of living in a democracy. The no side had to accept Nice (only they "won" that one too, funny old game this) and Maastritcht.

Furious-Dave

Bambi wrote: »

We had a referendum, the concerned parties had the same opprtunity to put forward their cases. Accepting outcomes when they go against you a pretty big part of living in a democracy. The no side had to accept Nice (only they "won" that one too, funny old game this) and Maastritcht.

I will accept a 'No' vote but only as long as the referendum is properly represented. The recent referendum was so appallingly misrepresented, by both sides, that I refuse to accept the result. Would I accept it if the results had been different? Of course I would, I'm only human, but that is what a lot of people on the 'No' side are doing now. They don't care about the misrepresentation, they got the result and they want to hold onto it no matter what.

oscarBravo

Bambi wrote: »

Our constitution is there because some decisions are too important to be taken with the peoples explicit consent.

Our constitution is there because the country needs a framework within which to make laws.

We had a referendum because it's the only way the constitution can be amended.

It's proposed to amend the constitution because there's a possibility that a tiny handful of the provisions contained in the Lisbon treaty might be at odds with the constitution as it currently stands. Also, because we the people seem to have decided that we want a say in the ratification of treaties (but, for some reason, only EU treaties) and it's politically (rather than legally) impossible to ratify an EU treaty without a referendum even if it were compatible with the constitution.

Having demanded that we have a say in the ratification of treaties, we also reserve the right to refuse to ratify them for reasons that may or may not have anything to do with the content of the treaties themselves.

If you're going to make an argument involving the role of the constitution, make sure you understand it.

Dyr

Furious-Dave wrote: »

I will accept a 'No' vote but only as long as the referendum is properly represented. The recent referendum was so appallingly misrepresented, by both sides, that I refuse to accept the result. Would I accept it if the results had been different? Of course I would, I'm only human, but that is what a lot of people on the 'No' side are doing now. They don't care about the misrepresentation, they got the result and they want to hold onto it no matter what.

So would you refuse to accept Nice on the basis that the govts assurances that miss immigration would not occur turned out to be horsesh*t?


If you have a problem with the legality of the referendum you could take to the high court I'd imagine :pac:

Furious-Dave

I don't really remember much about what was going on during the Nice referendum, I wasn't paying attention then. If I had known before hand that they had misrepresented Nice then yes I would have objected, at least on here. In hindsight I'm thankful that so many foreign workers came over to Ireland. Without such a workforce we would not have been able sustain the booming economy that we enjoyed for so long. And all the Irish women would not have felt so threatened by the hot Polish women and started to make more of an effort :pac:

John_C

I would never buy a computer if I wasn't able to understand how all the wires and other things inside it work. What if it woke up in the middle of the night and abducted my three year old child?

Steviemak

Bambi wrote: »

Our constitution is there because some decisions are too important to be taken with the peoples explicit consent.

And when the electorate are voting on issues of such importance its not good enough to vote a certain way because they are uninformed or want to give the govt a bloody nose. With referendums comes responsibility and i'm not sure the entire electorate have taken this on board. People in the last referendum disgraced democracy by voting without any understanding of the what it was about - conscription, abortion, gay marriage, world government, keeping our commissioner, corporate tax rates were all mentioned as reasons against Lisbon - all lies stoked up by the Bristish Press, Declan Ganely and his Tory, UKIP friends. Lets not be bullied back into subservience to the UK.

Bambi wrote: »

So would you refuse to accept Nice on the basis that the govts assurances that miss immigration would not occur turned out to be horsesh*t?

Mass immigration occured for only one reason the country needed the workers and badly needed them. No mass immigration of dole scoungers (like we exported to Britain) has occurred. The benefits of the free movement of workers across europe is going to become very clear as the Irish start looking elsewhere for employment.

Dyr

oscarBravo wrote: »

Also, because we the people seem to have decided that we want a say in the ratification of treaties (but, for some reason, only EU treaties) and it's politically (rather than legally) impossible to ratify an EU treaty without a referendum even if it were compatible with the constitution.

emm.... Would the "some reason" be that the supreme court ruled that any major changes to the EEC/EC/EU/USE must be approved by referendum so they cant just bypass our constitution?

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you're going to make an argument involving the role of the constitution, make sure you understand it.

Sound advice, but you might want put the supreme court straight on the constitution first.

WooPeeA

John_C wrote: »

I would never buy a computer if I wasn't able to understand how all the wires and other things inside it work. What if it woke up in the middle of the night and abducted my three year old child?

In this case you block the possibility to buy that computer for others at the same time.

oscarBravo

Bambi wrote: »

emm.... Would the "some reason" be that the supreme court ruled that any major changes to the EEC/EC/EU/USE must be approved by referendum so they cant just bypass our constitution?

Nope. Try again. And what's a USE?

John_C

WooPeeA wrote: »

In this case you block the possibility to buy that computer for others at the same time.

So long as the children are kept safe.

Computers work fine at the moment, I don't see why the companies need to keep bringing out new ones.

WooPeeA

John_C wrote: »

So long as the children are kept safe.

Computers work fine at the moment, I don't see why the companies need to keep bringing out new ones.

Well, if the bureaucratic institutions, power that belongs to unelected Commission (instead of to democratically elected Parliament), no common secure policy (which effects in American domination in Europe -American military bases, NATO influence and finally anti-missile shield) and many more is fine to you.. that's fine. Everyone has a right to vote for the things they believe in. I can understand that even though I don't agree with that.

But I will never understand people who are against issues that has been mentioned be me (plus many many more changes that Treaty would provide) and voted no.

Scofflaw

Bambi wrote: »

So would you refuse to accept Nice on the basis that the govts assurances that miss immigration would not occur turned out to be horsesh*t?

No, because there was, just as the government said, nothing in Nice that lead automatically to mass immigration. Indeed, had we gone strictly by the provisions of Nice, there would not have been any - indeed, accession state citizens would not have been entitled to come to Ireland until next year.

However, the government waived the Nice provisions, and for good reason.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Furious-Dave wrote: »

That's why we have a parliament who's expertise it is to decide and consider such matters.

Jesus, have you never noticed how shallow the gene pool is there?

Do you really want your future decided by Eamonn O'Cuiv and Jackie Healy-Rae?

It's bad enough the amount of power they have already.

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not only did I not say it was likely, I said it was unlikely - and you responded, quoting me saying so. You're not even trying anymore.

At least some of us actually answer questions.

Eh, what question is that again Oscar?

oscarBravo

:rolleyes:

meglome

meglome wrote: »

Personally I didn't vote as I just didn't know enough about the treaty at the time. But I'd be very much in favour, as a rule, of the EU. I remember the good oul 80's when we didn't have a pot to piss in. However I think it's very undemocratic that Ireland is the only county in Europe that actually had a referendum. I'm also uncomfortable with the government just running it again until we get it 'right'. I'm finding it difficult not to be irritated with the concept that the NO voters got it wrong, as they didn't understand the treaty. When on the flip side I would say the majority of Yes voters didn't understand it either but it seems that's perfectly fine as they made the 'right' decision. The elite in this country (did I really just say that) are looking down their noses at the No voters like a silly child, which given the chance, will eventually cop themselves on.

Would I vote no the next time, maybe not, I support the EU but I'm not liking the tone of the debate so far. And I wonder are there many other people that won't like it either. It won't be fun if we reject it the second time but it'll leave a bitter taste in many peoples mouths if we're bullied into a yes.

I'm quoting myself here. We're still saying that the NO vote was the wrong decision. The democratic decision of the people is the decision. Don't get me wrong here I'm not even saying I agree with the No vote but it was the right of the people to vote that way. It amuses me given the scaremongering that the likes of Fianna Fail have pulled in elections to get elected that it's so wrong the NO campaign did the same.

Steviemak wrote: »

With referendums comes responsibility and i'm not sure the entire electorate have taken this on board. People in the last referendum disgraced democracy by voting without any understanding of the what it was about - conscription, abortion, gay marriage, world government, keeping our commissioner, corporate tax rates were all mentioned as reasons against Lisbon - all lies stoked up by the Bristish Press, Declan Ganely and his Tory, UKIP friends. Lets not be bullied back into subservience to the UK.

So if I understand this... The NO voters disgraced democracy as they voted no without understanding. But it's perfectly okay for the YES voters to vote yes without understanding. Is that right?

I'm not even against the treaty per se but the yes campaign need to get off their high horses.

fergalr

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Indeed it is a democracy and the government was democratically elected. I think it's a sad reflection when democratically elected governments have to check with the people on everything they do. Why have a government at all? Why not a committee that simply gathers the information and then holds referendum to decide on how to proceed? I only wish that it was not in our constitution to hold a referendum when any changes are to be made, because the treaty would have already been ratified, and most people wouldn't have batted an eyelid.

Dave, not that I like to disagree with a man who calls himself Furious, but I really have to take you up on this.

The constitution as it exists sets out some broad rules for the state. We need it because it, in some sense, protects us from the government going out of control.
It's like the same reason if you hire someone to do a job for you, you write down a contract - partly to have something to bring to court if the other guy screws you - but also partly so that everybody knows where they stand, and what behaviour is and isn't acceptable. This is a good thing.


What would happen if we did things the way you suggested, and the current government decided that, actually, elections don't need to be held, ever again, and the current government will just stay there, and rule by decree?

They'd still have been democratically elected...
...but of course that'd be an awful scenario.
Clearly we need some things that the government can't just go and change by themselves, things we really don't want their powers to extend to.

And we should write this list down somewhere, and not allow it be changed, except by the people. That's what the constitution is for, and I think it's good that the government have to ask us before changing it.

fergalr

Scofflaw wrote: »

A sad reflection on what, though? The way other countries have decided to run themselves? You know that some of them think having referendums on international treaties is dangerously stupid? Why are we right, and they wrong?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw,
As far as I'm concerned, we are right and they are wrong for the same reason I was just saying to Furious-Dave.
I think that to ensure the country stays a democracy, a constitution that the government can't change without the explicit consent of the people. This treaty apparently does require a change to the constitution - I think it should, due to it's scope and implications for how decisions that affect Irish citizens are taken - and so it is only right that we have a referendum on it.

fergalr

strathspey wrote: »

For example, when you make the biggest decision and the biggest investment on your future, in buying a house, do you read the fine print? No, you hire a solicitor. The same with the vote on the Lisbon Treaty. As a common citizen, it can't be expected that we should be able to understand the treaty. I voted, 'YES' without reading much into it and my reasoning was 2-fold. Firstly, if every single 'rational' party was urging me to vote yes then I assumed that within these same parties, their legal teams would have given the thumbs up.

Firstly, your analogy doesn't seem to hold clearly with me. If I hire a solicitor to read a house contract for me, then the solicitor is representing me as an individual solely. I won't go to the banks solicitor, and if there is any conflict of interest, or lack of trust, I won't go ahead with my solicitor.
Our individual solicitors did not read the lisbon treaty, our government did, and it is not clear that there are no conflicts of interest, or high levels of trust in our government.
Regarding the levels of trust, it's pretty clear that certain aspects of the treaty have not been properly understood or represented to the people, by the government - campaigners in both camps would criticise the government for not representing the treaty properly. Regarding blindly trusting the government, I also remember the Nice treaty, where we were told it was just about enlarging the EU - I'm a bit rusty, but there did seem to be more to it than that.


Secondly, I don't think it's unreasonable to produce legal documents that normal people are capable of reading. If you are going to agree to be bound by a contract, it's only reasonable that you can read and understand it. Any contract.
The Irish constitution, for example, is a very readable document - mightn't understand the nuances of the specifics, but it's straightforward enough to understand.

Secondly, every treaty since the Rome treaty of 1953 has been for the betterment of Europe, so why should this treaty be any different?

This doesn't strike me as a very good rationale for anything - could be wrong, but it sounds too close to 'Because all the numbers before 10 were single digit, 10 must be aswell.' ?

fergalr

Steviemak wrote: »

Hitler's power was given to him by referendum so I guess you can see why most europeans don't think referendums are all that. They elect governments to rule the country. If the people decide the government aren't repressing their views they don't get re-elected. Its called democracy.

Steviemak:
You should read one of the first posts after I started this thread, where they corrected me on what democracy meant.

Also, it's difficult to argue against referenda in general on the basis of them being undemocratic, as you seem to be doing. As far as I know, Hilter came to power as a result of a democratic election (and difficulty establishing majority governments etc) which would seem to go against your argument.
Since Godwin's law doesn't seem to apply on this forum, it's worth noting that it was when the parliament of germany passed the enabling act that allowed them do things that were normally outside the constitution that things got really hairy. From what I can see, they did later have referenda that cemented the nazi power, but they seized it by election followed by parliamentary acts that went against the constitution.
I'm not a historian, had to check the wikipedia page , so feel free to correct me.

fergalr

John_C wrote: »

I would never buy a computer if I wasn't able to understand how all the wires and other things inside it work. What if it woke up in the middle of the night and abducted my three year old child?

If I thought it was any way likely that the computer would do things like that, I sure wouldn't buy one unless someone could convinced me otherwise.

People who have reasons to suspect the Lisbon treaty might do some pretty bad things - and that's what the No side were saying - were also right to say they wouldn't vote for it unless they could understand what it would do.

If the government was handing out black boxes, and saying one should be put in every house, but there was a big bunch of people telling me not to take one, that they were terrible things, I wouldn't be taking one until I understood what it did - isn't that reasonable?

Scofflaw

fergalr wrote: »

Scofflaw,
As far as I'm concerned, we are right and they are wrong for the same reason I was just saying to Furious-Dave.
I think that to ensure the country stays a democracy, a constitution that the government can't change without the explicit consent of the people. This treaty apparently does require a change to the constitution - I think it should, due to it's scope and implications for how decisions that affect Irish citizens are taken - and so it is only right that we have a referendum on it.

I'm not arguing that latter point, personally. I prefer referendums and other forms of direct democracy where possible, but I detest - perhaps partly because of that - the lying and ignorance that regularly characterise them (on both sides).

What I am objecting to is the idea that other countries, whose constitutions are different from our own (and many of the member states have written constitutions) should be judged by the Irish Constitution, as if their way of doing things were manifestly inferior to ours. If the Danish Constitutional lawyers decide that Lisbon doesn't require a referendum, that is their decision, not ours - they are the guardians of the Danish Constitution, not us. Other constitutions, such as the Italian Constitution, specifically preclude the use of referendums for international treaties.

As a result, I am intolerant of claims that the other member states should have had referendums, or that referendums were "suppressed" in the other member states. It is not up to us to determine how other people should govern themselves, which is why the EU cannot interfere in the constitutional affairs of member states.

Coming, as the claim that other countries should have referendums often does, from campaigners whose main argument against the EU is the right of total self-determination of sovereign countries, the argument is not merely invalid, but entirely incompatible with the intellectual foundation of their opinions. As such, it is obviously opportunistic rather than principled - said because it sounds good, or feels good.

If people genuinely feel that other countries' constitutions should incorporate referendums, they are welcome to campaign for that. However, until they can persuade a majority in those countries that they are right, the lack of referendums over EU treaties in countries which do not require, or which preclude, referendums on EU treaties is utterly irrelevant to our referendums.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

fergalr wrote: »

If I thought it was any way likely that the computer would do things like that, I sure wouldn't buy one unless someone could convinced me otherwise.

People who have reasons to suspect the Lisbon treaty might do some pretty bad things - and that's what the No side were saying - were also right to say they wouldn't vote for it unless they could understand what it would do.

If the government was handing out black boxes, and saying one should be put in every house, but there was a big bunch of people telling me not to take one, that they were terrible things, I wouldn't be taking one until I understood what it did - isn't that reasonable?

That is a reasonable position, and comes back to the failure of the government to explain the Treaty. If they are unable to explain what it is they're asking permission to ratify, withholding that permission seems entirely sensible.

Unfortunately, some elements of the campaigns do choose to deliberately obscure the issues. If they then call on people to vote No because they don't have enough information, or are uncertain they do, when they themselves have deliberately chosen to confuse people, they are working against democracy. If the government then decides to hold a second referendum because they misjudged the level of deliberate confusion and misinformation that would be opposed to their attempt to explain the issues, that seems to me reasonable, and the confusers have only their own anti-democratic tactics to blame.

cordially,
Scofflaw

WooPeeA

Don't ask what Europe has to do for you, ask what you can do for Europe.

Is it not good time to ask that question? Europe is not only money maker and investor of Irish economy.

fergalr

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not arguing that latter point, personally. I prefer referendums and other forms of direct democracy where possible, but I detest - perhaps partly because of that - the lying and ignorance that regularly characterise them (on both sides).

What I am objecting to is the idea that other countries, whose constitutions are different from our own (and many of the member states have written constitutions) should be judged by the Irish Constitution, as if their way of doing things were manifestly inferior to ours. If the Danish Constitutional lawyers decide that Lisbon doesn't require a referendum, that is their decision, not ours - they are the guardians of the Danish Constitution, not us. Other constitutions, such as the Italian Constitution, specifically preclude the use of referendums for international treaties.

I'm afraid I have to accuse you a little of straw man there. I don't think they are being judged so much by the Irish Constitution, so much as by adherence to certain ideals of democracy, which maybe are embodied much in the Irish Constitution in this particular instance.
I think that it is reasonable to criticise the process of another country as being less democratic than our own, with regard to a specific area. For example, we've no problem saying Mugabe (Zimbabwe) isn't doing things right, in a specific area, and applying our standards to them - so why not Denmark? Or if you want a more moderate example, I'm quite happy to say I think the Irish Presidential Election voting system is much better than the USA one.
Is it not reasonable for me to say that? I'm not saying the populace of Denmark are bad or wrong, or that anything improper happened - but I do think things would have been more democratic if they had a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, and I don't think there's any problem with that.

If I was pushing for a certain large nation to invade Denmark to bring freedom/democracy/frenchfries to them, then I'd see where you were coming from. But no one is doing that - people (or at least, this is my take) are only observing that it wasn't as democratic as it could be, in Denmark.


Secondly, to take a different angle to things, as we move gradually into a more interwoven Europe, with successive treaties - and this is what is happening - the democratic process of our European neighbours should concern us increasingly. Having a referendum on the European Constitution, and then passing pretty much the same thing just through the parliament just does not look good. Yes, in one way, it isn't our business - I didn't mention it in my first post - but when a line of argument for the Lisbon treaty - and we've just heard this on this thread - is that we should just trust it, because other European treaties were fine - well, then, how democratically our European neighbours are being run, and how democratically (granted, by our subjective standards - but those are what matter to us) this whole EU project is being advanced, starts to become a reasonable thing to consider.

As a result, I am intolerant of claims that the other member states should have had referendums, or that referendums were "suppressed" in the other member states. It is not up to us to determine how other people should govern themselves, which is why the EU cannot interfere in the constitutional affairs of member states.

Again, not determining how to govern others, but that doesn't prevent us from taking a stance on how democratic their process has been.

Coming, as the claim that other countries should have referendums often does, from campaigners whose main argument against the EU is the right of total self-determination of sovereign countries, the argument is not merely invalid, but entirely incompatible with the intellectual foundation of their opinions.

Could you explain this to me in a little more depth? For example, I don't follow how what I've just said, which would be how I'd think about the other nations' ratification of Lisbon, is in any way incompatible with my opinions - but perhaps you are referring to a certain stance taken by certain No campaigners? Would be interested to hear.

As such, it is obviously opportunistic rather than principled - said because it sounds good, or feels good.

There seemed to be a lot of that in the campaigns of both sides, unfortunately.

If people genuinely feel that other countries' constitutions should incorporate referendums, they are welcome to campaign for that. However, until they can persuade a majority in those countries that they are right, the lack of referendums over EU treaties in countries which do not require, or which preclude, referendums on EU treaties is utterly irrelevant to our referendums.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I do agree that we should, ah, first put our own house in order - Ireland unfortunately isn't perhaps in the position it should be to comment on principled politics. But I do think its quite reasonable to talk about how this same treaty went through in other EU countries, as said above.

fergalr

Scofflaw wrote: »

That is a reasonable position, and comes back to the failure of the government to explain the Treaty. If they are unable to explain what it is they're asking permission to ratify, withholding that permission seems entirely sensible.

Unfortunately, some elements of the campaigns do choose to deliberately obscure the issues. If they then call on people to vote No because they don't have enough information, or are uncertain they do, when they themselves have deliberately chosen to confuse people, they are working against democracy.

Yes, hypocritical and undemocratic. And a lot of that did seem to go on.

If the government then decides to hold a second referendum because they misjudged the level of deliberate confusion and misinformation that would be opposed to their attempt to explain the issues, that seems to me reasonable, and the confusers have only their own anti-democratic tactics to blame.

Anyone out to deliberately confuse certainly aren't in a good position to complain about it on the grounds of democracy, I agree.
But whatever about the confusers, we as a people have more than them to blame. We can, and should, hold the government accountable for what happened - regardless of which viewpoint you subscribe to, the situation where we have two referenda on the same issue in short succession means people are not doing their jobs as they should.
If from no other way of looking at it, holding a referendum where a No is meaningless (as will be the case if a second referendum on the same issue happens) and a Yes isn't likely is a waste of time, money, effort etc.
Could surely be improved by:
making sure the country isn't so divided on an issue you aren't sure if it'll pass or not,
discussing things more rationally and openly (on both sides) rather than just telling people how to vote,
agreeing to abide by whatever result for N years, etc.

fergalr

WooPeeA wrote: »

Don't ask what Europe has to do for you, ask what you can do for Europe.
Is it not good time to ask that question? Europe is not only money maker and investor of Irish economy.

Whether Europe was good or bad is not really why I started this tread - more so to discuss whether the way the result of our referendum is being handled is properly democratic.
That said, your sentiment is a nice one - there's a lot of people in Europe, and thinking of them as more than how much money we can get from them is certainly a nice way to think about things.
At the same time, any decision to make a treaty between countries is a very complex issue, and I don't think we can simplify it the extent where we think of it as 'their politicians say its good for everyone and so do ours, and we want to do good for everyone, so lets do it!'

It depends on how much, and what exactly, we lose, as well as what we gain, and also whether the specifics of this agreement are in everyones interests etc - and they're all open questions.

John_C

fergalr wrote: »

If the government was handing out black boxes, and saying one should be put in every house, but there was a big bunch of people telling me not to take one, that they were terrible things, I wouldn't be taking one until I understood what it did - isn't that reasonable?

It is but if everyone followed your logic we'd still have thousands of children dying of measles each year for want of a vaccine. It comes down to a question of trust. Modern society is too complex for any one person to understand it all. The treaty wasn't rejected because of anything specific in it but because the majority of the country doesn't trust our politicians to anywhere near the same extent that we trust our doctors. The treaty rejection is a symptom of an underlying problem.

fergalr wrote: »

I'm quite happy to say I think the Irish Presidential Election voting system is much better than the USA one.

A little off topic but I don't agree with you at all here. The USA had big long campaign where anyone could have their say about who should run before the election itself even began. We didn't even get a vote, the politicians decided between themselves who should be president. And, when we do get a vote, it's only between a small number of people that the politicians put in front of us, rather than an open race like in America.
Disagreements like this are fine in themselves but at the end of it all, how America organises it's elections is not our business. So long as it's in line with how the majority of Americans want it and they have the chance to change it, which the people of Zimbabwe don't, then that's democratic. The word 'democratic' means rule by the people, there's exists no external measure of democracy which trumps a majority vote.

fergalr

John_C wrote: »

Originally Posted by fergalr View Post
If the government was handing out black boxes, and saying one should be put in every house, but there was a big bunch of people telling me not to take one, that they were terrible things, I wouldn't be taking one until I understood what it did - isn't that reasonable?

It is but if everyone followed your logic we'd still have thousands of children dying of measles each year for want of a vaccine.

No, I don't agree, I don't think that's what my logic would imply at all.
I'm merely saying that when the government tells you something, if there is substantial conflicting opinion, it's reasonable to look for other evidence before making a decision.
In the case of a legal document, the best source of other evidence is the readability of the document itself. (Further, a document of this nature which is not readable by each citizen is also lacking a desirable feature).
Information from an unbiased third party whom you trust would also be acceptable. But I wouldn't just take it on blind faith in the government, in the presence of conflicting opinion. That is what I was saying, and I stand by that.
If there was substantial dissenting opinion telling me about awful effects measles vaccine, and in the absence of information about the measles vaccine, or a credible threat of measle infection, I'd be very hesitant to give it to my child. I don't see anything wrong with that way of thinking about things?

John_C wrote: »

It comes down to a question of trust. Modern society is too complex for any one person to understand it all.
The treaty wasn't rejected because of anything specific in it but because the majority of the country doesn't trust our politicians to anywhere near the same extent that we trust our doctors. The treaty rejection is a symptom of an underlying problem.

Quite why the treaty was rejected is not a simple issue - some people certainly did reject it because of specific things in it, but it's hard to pin down what various factors influenced the overall decision.

But either way, you seem to be advancing an argument that the root cause of the problem is our country does not trust our politicians enough. I couldn't disagree more with you - I think it's excellent that the nation is skeptical of our politicians, but terrible that it has to be that way.

I would much prefer a situation where we could totally unquestioningly trust our politicians to act in a wise manner with our best interests at heart. But I don't think that's the situation we have now, and as such it's good that we don't trust them fully.
Until such time as that situation arises, I'm very glad to have skepticism. (And probably afterwards to, an implicitly trusting electorate, as you seem to advocate (?), is not good for democracy).

A little off topic but I don't agree with you at all here. The USA had big long campaign where anyone could have their say about who should run before the election itself even began. We didn't even get a vote, the politicians decided between themselves who should be president. And, when we do get a vote, it's only between a small number of people that the politicians put in front of us, rather than an open race like in America.

I was referring specifically to certain aspects of the voting in the Irish vs the American election, as opposed to the nomination of candidates. Specifically, the lack of transferable votes in USA, which pretty much guarantees a two candidate race, and the electoral college, which is no longer necessary.
It's not much point being able to nominate lots of candidates if theres only ever going to be two in the running in real terms, which is what they have there, as a result of their voting system.

That said, I didn't think of what you mentioned, which is a good point to consider when looking at the relative fairnesses, and had I thought of it, I wouldn't have used that example.

At the same time, I only introduced that as an example to show it's reasonable to comment on the systems of other democratic nations, which from your reply, you seem to agree with anyway.

Disagreements like this are fine in themselves but at the end of it all, how America organises it's elections is not our business. So long as it's in line with how the majority of Americans want it and they have the chance to change it, which the people of Zimbabwe don't, then that's democratic. The word 'democratic' means rule by the people, there's exists no external measure of democracy which trumps a majority vote.

Well, in your reply, you commented about the relative merits of Irish vs American elections, so you must agree its reasonable to make an assessment of those merits against some measure of ideal democracy. (Ie, if you were an american looking at Ireland you might make the same observation.)
So it is of course reasonable to comment about which of two democracies is better or worse, even though both may have a majority vote on issues etc, no?