Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Irish democracy, in light of lisbon result
Options
Comments
-
There is a reasonably large group of people who believe that the measles vaccine causes autism and a few other ailments, that's why I picked it as my example. You, I'm assuming, don't know enough on the topic to form your own judgment so you've picked which side you trust more.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?
When I bought my mobile phone I understood neither the workings of the phone itself nor the contract I signed with the phone company. When I eat a rasher, I don't know whether it contains dioxins or not, I have to trust the people who made it that it doesn't. I could go on all night with examples like that but the basic point is that living in any type of complex society requires us to be able to judge who we trust and who we don't. Rejecting the treaty because we don't understand the language of it runs against the reasoning we use every day as we go about our lives. It was rejected in the most part because we didn't trust it to do what it said on the tin.
It's perfectly reasonable but going further than that (which you haven't but others have) and saying that the other 26 countries aren't real democracies because they do things differently to us contains an arrogance that I don't subscribe to.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?
We're free to hold a minority opinion but if we start arguing that the will of the majority should be subverted, we're not arguing for democracy any more. It then becomes the autocratic argument that the majority don't know what's good for it.0 -
...... 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......
I agree with this comment. Having spoken to a few people post the Lisbon treaty and despite the government report, I believe most of the 'No' camp actually voted 'No' to give the finger to the government. Alot of the these people were out to embarass the government with no regard for the consequences. In light of this, I have come to conclude that the Irish might just be too immature to vote on something this important.0 -
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.
If you want to argue with an American that their constitution is inferior to ours, or try to tell a Dane that their country is less democratic than ours, go ahead.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?
I live with a Dane, and I can tell you that the latter conversation would be... entertaining. For a third party.0 -
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.
The reason I refer to this as judging others specifically by the yardstick of the Irish Constitution rather than by a standard of democracy is that there is no single standard or form of democracy.
If a country chooses, by the will of the people, a constitution that precludes the use of referendums, that is exactly as democratic as a constitution that chooses to use referendums - because, in both cases, that is the will of the people concerned.
To claim otherwise is in fact to set aside the will of those people in the matter of the choice to have referendums. We have chosen to have a constitution that means we hold referendums on EU treaties. Other peoples have chosen to have constitutions that mean they don't. Those are the wills of the respective peoples - you cannot arbitrarily set them aside because you do not feel they are democratic enough, because the only reason you can put forward for doing so is that their systems do not adequately reflect the will of the people, even though they reflect the will of the people.
That is one of the paradoxes at the heart of the claim. You wish to set aside the right of the people of Denmark to a constitution that reflects their will, in the name of greater reflection of their will - and there is indeed a clearly marked path from there to invading Baghdad.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Very good questions. First of all, voters shouldn't think about Lisbon Treaty in the way of what can they get or lose in next week, or even next month after the Treaty comes true (commissioner etc). They should rather think in the longer term, 10, maybe 20 years. It's a long time project which will give long time results and benefits.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.
1. Strategic decision
Ireland once rejected the Treaty of Nice. Government organized referendum and Irish rejected the document in June 2001. It was the only country who rejected the treaty.
People in Ireland have done that again with Treaty of Lisbon 7 years later. Lack of reason of their choice only made Ireland less creditable on international stage.
Nobody will say that loud, but thinking people should know that for today Ireland is not creditable enough anymore to create the Treaty number 3 (as some politicians and organizations claim) and let Ireland vote once again and in my opinion there is no chance at all that majority of politician in Brussels will accept that solution.
2. Not far future for Ireland
This referendum may have even bigger consequences for Ireland. For today 26 countries confirmed their support for this Treaty. If Ireland will be the only one blocking those laws, which in fact, were made in a big part by Irish, many people will ask a question "Is there any sense to keep Ireland in the EU or tell them to stay away and continue the process that 26 wants?". I'm not a fortune teller but it's not hard to imagine that's gonna be one of the main subjects for European and world medias for months after failed referendum.
As somebody said on this board before "Ireland needs Europe, but Europe doesn't need Ireland". I don't agree with that in 100%. Of course in economical or military field there's no doubt about it, but a mental reason, historical reason. We all are big family, supporting each other even though it's bit complicated with today's legislation, and co-operating. Those who fought for freedom of several countries wouldn't even imagine that their grandsons or children will live in Europe without borders, and only reason why we don't have them is because we don't need them anymore. In that case Europe needs Ireland as equal partner and civilized people who are part of some big project that world has never seen.
However, Irish rejection will be, for many people, a clear answer for the question I asked before - "We don't want to improve that project, we don't care that most of people of Europe want 'elected commission' or common protection, we want to keep it frozen and not perfect as it is today because we are happy with that." or which can be even worst "We don't want to be a part of this project".
The best thing that could happen to Ireland would be complete ignorance of Irish voice. The worst thing would be kicking out of EU and deep economical crisis that Ireland wouldn't be able to hold.
That's why in my opinion vote against Lisbon Treaty is a vote against Ireland and its reputation on international stage. But personally, I don't think that people care about it anymore.0 -
Advertisement
-
5 minutes on google and wikipedia leads me to the conclusion that I shouldn't worry too much about mmr vaccine. Yes, this is me trusting other people - I trust the info thats been on the wiki for a while to be correct, and I trust the sources cited on the article that discredit the original research showing a link with autism.
There is a reasonably large group of people who believe that the measles vaccine causes autism and a few other ailments, that's why I picked it as my example. You, I'm assuming, don't know enough on the topic to form your own judgment so you've picked which side you trust more.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?
But this is me putting my trust in several separate fairly disinterested parties, peer reviewed journals, against something some guy on a web forum just brought up.
That is a different process than blindly trusting a single source, who may be an interested party - the government - in the face of fairly substantial dissent. This wasn't helped by the fact that the government seemed to be pretty much telling me to vote Yes, rather than explaining why I should vote Yes.
In the lisbon treaty, I did decide to trust the referendum commission website to give a reasonable appraisal of the treaty - although whether it is an unbiased source of information in future is becoming less certain to me after some comments I believe politicians made after the result.
This issue of trust came up, because someone said that the problem was that we should have just trusted the government to do whats best for us.
I don't think that equates with, for example, the situation of the measles vaccine.
So, there's two separate issues here mixed together, as I see it.When I bought my mobile phone I understood neither the workings of the phone itself nor the contract I signed with the phone company. When I eat a rasher, I don't know whether it contains dioxins or not, I have to trust the people who made it that it doesn't. I could go on all night with examples like that but the basic point is that living in any type of complex society requires us to be able to judge who we trust and who we don't. Rejecting the treaty because we don't understand the language of it runs against the reasoning we use every day as we go about our lives. It was rejected in the most part because we didn't trust it to do what it said on the tin.
1) Does the treaty have to be written in such a way that it can be read and understood by a normal citizen, who then doesn't have to take it's contents on trust.
2) If you can't understand the treaty, should you just trust what the government say.
With respect to 1) I'd say it's highly desirable to have it readable and understandable by an average citizen, and that it's a criticism of the treaty that it isn't. Unlike a mobile phone, I don't think a treaty has to be as complex as this one was. But that's just an impression I've formed.
Regarding 2) I'd say no, you shouldn't just trust the government. It's not clear that they are disinterested. I wouldn't trust everything a car sales man tells me about a car, either. That's the main thing I've been trying to get at in my last few posts.
If we didn't live in a world where there was regulation governing what got put on tins, I'd be hesitant to believe that what it said any tin was what was actually on the tin. That's why we have food regulation to govern that.It was rejected in the most part because we didn't trust it to do what it said on the tin.
In this case, the treaty didn't come in a tin, so you are talking about what the government said it was going to do, so your 'what it says on the tin' analogy somewhat breaks down for me.0 -
strathspey wrote: »I agree with this comment. Having spoken to a few people post the Lisbon treaty and despite the government report, I believe most of the 'No' camp actually voted 'No' to give the finger to the government. Alot of the these people were out to embarass the government with no regard for the consequences. In light of this, I have come to conclude that the Irish might just be too immature to vote on something this important.
Voting against the will of the government, as a reprisal of sorts, does sound immature.
It's different than not doing what they say without question, because you have lost faith/trust in them though. I'm sure both happened with Lisbon.
Please bear in mind though, that the people you've spoken to (I presume) represent a very small portion of the electorate - it's very difficult to say why people voted No in the large, even polls and surveys are subject to being wrong - anecdotal evidence like this even more so - for example, I know very few people that voted No on the ground you mentioned, and rather a few that did so after considered informed thought.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »
If you want to argue with an American that their constitution is inferior to ours, or try to tell a Dane that their country is less democratic than ours, go ahead.Originally Posted by fergalr View Post
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?
I live with a Dane, and I can tell you that the latter conversation would be... entertaining. For a third party.
OscarBravo:
That is somewhat of a straw man argument.
You are clearly misrepresenting me there.
I never said I wanted to argue with an American that their constitution was inferior. I merely said that it is not unreasonable to say that specific areas or aspects, of one democracy can be considered less democratic, or less good from a democratic point of view, than another. I think this is quite clear just from what you quote, I say "in a specific area"
That's quite difficult from making a blanket judgment about whether one constitution is better than another, and it's also quite different to wanting to argue about it with citizens of another country.0 -
What do politicians' comments have to do with the Referendum Commission?In the lisbon treaty, I did decide to trust the referendum commission website to give a reasonable appraisal of the treaty - although whether it is an unbiased source of information in future is becoming less certain to me after some comments I believe politicians made after the result.
The consolidated versions of the treaties as amended by Lisbon are readable and understandable. They're long and detailed, but - unlike a mobile phone contract - they represent an multilateral agreement between twenty-seven sovereign nations. There's rather more at stake than there is between me and Vodafone.With respect to 1) I'd say it's highly desirable to have it readable and understandable by an average citizen, and that it's a criticism of the treaty that it isn't. Unlike a mobile phone, I don't think a treaty has to be as complex as this one was. But that's just an impression I've formed.0 -
OscarBravo:
That is somewhat of a straw man argument.
You are clearly misrepresenting me there.
I never said I wanted to argue with an American that their constitution was inferior. I merely said that it is not unreasonable to say that specific areas or aspects, of one democracy can be considered less democratic, or less good from a democratic point of view, than another. I think this is quite clear just from what you quote, I say "in a specific area"
That's quite difficult from making a blanket judgment about whether one constitution is better than another, and it's also quite different to wanting to argue about it with citizens of another country.
It isn't, as pointed out at some length above, because the Danish constitution itself reflects the will of the Danish people. If they choose to use referendums under different circumstances from us, that is their prerogative. As long as the Danish Constitution was not imposed on the Danish people by force, it is just as democratic as ours. The will of the Danish people is the will of the Danish people.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't feel I'm misrepresenting you at all. You've taken a specific aspect of the Irish constitution, held it up and said (in effect) "a constitution must have this aspect to ensure that a country remains a democracy". The US constitution does not have that aspect, therefore (by your argument) it's flawed and less protective of democracy than ours.OscarBravo:
That is somewhat of a straw man argument.
You are clearly misrepresenting me there.
I never said I wanted to argue with an American that their constitution was inferior. I merely said that it is not unreasonable to say that specific areas or aspects, of one democracy can be considered less democratic, or less good from a democratic point of view, than another. I think this is quite clear just from what you quote, I say "in a specific area"
That's quite difficult from making a blanket judgment about whether one constitution is better than another, and it's also quite different to wanting to argue about it with citizens of another country.
You've picked an aspect of our constitution that you have unilaterally decided is a requisite of adequacy in a democracy, and are prepared to argue that other countries should conform to that ideal. The people of a sovereign nation will make their own decisions about how their vision of democracy should be implemented.0 -
There might be a slight misunderstanding between us here. I'm not arguing that we should trust the government, rather that we don't and that this is the main reason why the treaty was rejected.2) If you can't understand the treaty, should you just trust what the government say.
To get by in this world we need to develop a sense of what's trustworthy. We've both given examples of this in everyday life, you trust the scientific process of peer review and wikipedia more than you trust the referendum commission and whatever other agencies the government sets up. You're not alone in that view and in this environment, where the government can do little to convince us that they're telling the truth, they were like the used care salesman who may or may not have had a good car to sell but either way we didn't buy it because we had no way of knowing.
Edit: The question of whether the treaty needs to be hard to read is separate to this. I'd be happy to discuss it in another thread but I like to keep separate lines of thought separate so I won't go into it here.0 -
The reason I refer to this as judging others specifically by the yardstick of the Irish Constitution rather than by a standard of democracy is that there is no single standard or form of democracy.
If a country chooses, by the will of the people, a constitution that precludes the use of referendums, that is exactly as democratic as a constitution that chooses to use referendums - because, in both cases, that is the will of the people concerned.
To claim otherwise is in fact to set aside the will of those people in the matter of the choice to have referendums. We have chosen to have a constitution that means we hold referendums on EU treaties. Other peoples have chosen to have constitutions that mean they don't. Those are the wills of the respective peoples - you cannot arbitrarily set them aside because you do not feel they are democratic enough, because the only reason you can put forward for doing so is that their systems do not adequately reflect the will of the people, even though they reflect the will of the people.
That is one of the paradoxes at the heart of the claim.
cordially,
Scofflaw
An interesting and well put argument; although I'm afraid I don't agree.
Was the democracy of Iraq as good as the democracy of Ireland, as a functioning democracy?
If it is the will of the people to be governed by decree, for periods of forty years between elections, is that a good democracy?
What if the people vote for complete censorship of the media, and suppression of opposing political parties? Is this a good democracy?
I mean, if the people did chose each of these states, by your logic we can't say they are more or less good as democracies, than any other states.
But clearly something is amiss here.
The will of the people changes. It is not fixed, and constant.
It must be allowed to change, and it's changes must be allowed to manifest themselves. A democracy where you only voted once every 50 years wouldn't be very good, as a democracy.
It wouldn't function well, and would not well manifest the will of the people.
Nor would a democracy where you voted in a new government every 3 days.
These would both be less good as democracies in certain ways.
If a country votes to become a dictatorship for 50 years, by your logic, we cannot say that country is less good as a democracy than ours, because to do otherwise is to set aside the will of the people in the matter of choice to have elections.
I disagree.You wish to set aside the right of the people of Denmark to a constitution that reflects their will, in the name of greater reflection of their will - and there is indeed a clearly marked path from there to invading Baghdad.
I do not wish to set aside the rights of any people anywhere to make a constitution that reflects their will.
But if, for example, the people of Denmark decided democratically to be governed by decree until 2085, when discussing the democratic process of states, I would be quite happy to say their democracy wasn't functioning as well as ours.
And it's a long and winding way from there to saying they don't have the right to do that, or that I would enforce my idea of democracy on them. And it's not on a path or anything.0 -
Can you give an example of Fergal saying something to that effect? I don't necessarily doubt either of you but it's very easy to pick up misunderstandings in the written word.oscarBravo wrote: »I don't feel I'm misrepresenting you at all. You've taken a specific aspect of the Irish constitution, held it up and said (in effect) "a constitution must have this aspect to ensure that a country remains a democracy".0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »What do politicians' comments have to do with the Referendum Commission?
Colm Burke, MEP Ireland South, in the wake of the lisbon treatyReform of the Irish Referendum Commission is also urgently required to strengthen the capacity of the commission to counteract lies and misinformation put forward by both Yes and No sides in the run-up to a vote.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2008/1023/1224625123830.html
There seemed to be dissatisfaction with the referendum commission not taking a stronger line during the run up the the referendum, in the wake of the referendum.0 -
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?
If they voted because of Tax, Neutrality, abortion, Commissioner etc then yes because they didn't even bother to look at the facts. If they voted no because they didn't agree with the treaty or that they don't want Ireland to be in the EU then that is fine but to vote on issues completely unrelated to the treaty is not responsible voting.0 -
Steviemak:
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.
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.
As I said power. Not elected
Are you saying European countries are undemocratic because they don't believe in referendums?0 -
I again say that you are misrepresenting me.
This is what I said: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.
There is a big difference between saying something isn't ideal, or not as good, and saying it is inadequate.
I said that certain aspects of the how the US does democracy are less good than certain aspects of how we do it - for example, the voting in the presidential election.
I did not take any specific aspect of the Irish constitution, hold that up, and say that.oscarBravo wrote: »I don't feel I'm misrepresenting you at all. You've taken a specific aspect of the Irish constitution, held it up and said (in effect) "a constitution must have this aspect to ensure that a country remains a democracy".
I did not say the US constitution has anything like that.oscarBravo wrote: »The US constitution does not have that aspect, therefore (by your argument) it's flawed and less protective of democracy than ours.
I did not at any stage say it is not a functioning or good democracy.
I only said one specific instance of how they handle presidential voting could be improved.
If you do not agree with this, please go and find a quote from my earlier posts.
It looks awfully like you didn't reread them when I said you were misrepresenting me; either that or your happy to misrepresent on purpose. I hope neither of these is the case, and that I am wrong about what I said, but I don't think so.oscarBravo wrote: »You've picked an aspect of our constitution that you have unilaterally decided is a requisite of adequacy in a democracy, and are prepared to argue that other countries should conform to that ideal. The people of a sovereign nation will make their own decisions about how their vision of democracy should be implemented.
Of course they will. They are welcome to.
If they make a decision I think is bad, such as that they decide to have rule by decree for 20 year periods, I'm quite entitled to say that in my opinion that specific aspect is less good from a democratic point of view than what we have.
Likewise, if a country doesn't have a requirement for a referendum to change it's constitution, I'm quite happy to say that that aspect of the country isn't as good from a democratic point of view as what we have.
It doesn't mean I think it's inadequate as a democracy, or that I think its rubbish, or that the people shouldn't choose how they are governed, like you seem to imply.0 -
There might be a slight misunderstanding between us here. I'm not arguing that we should trust the government, rather that we don't and that this is the main reason why the treaty was rejected.
To get by in this world we need to develop a sense of what's trustworthy. We've both given examples of this in everyday life, you trust the scientific process of peer review and wikipedia more than you trust the referendum commission and whatever other agencies the government sets up. You're not alone in that view and in this environment, where the government can do little to convince us that they're telling the truth, they were like the used care salesman who may or may not have had a good car to sell but either way we didn't buy it because we had no way of knowing.
Edit: The question of whether the treaty needs to be hard to read is separate to this. I'd be happy to discuss it in another thread but I like to keep separate lines of thought separate so I won't go into it here.
Fair enough - there was indeed a misunderstanding between us - sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick there! I see where you are coming from now, and for what it's worth I do agree with what you just said.0 -
Cool.Fair enough - there was indeed a misunderstanding between us - sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick there! I see where you are coming from now, and for what it's worth I do agree with what you just said.
On the other point, I think the argument about democracy is getting a bit hypothetical. Can a country vote itself out of democracy, can God make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it? I'm just going to cite the incompleteness theorem and remind us all that any problem that references itself will have a logical loop like that contained within it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Cool.
On the other point, I think the argument about democracy is getting a bit hypothetical. Can a country vote itself out of democracy, can God make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it? I'm just going to cite the incompleteness theorem and remind us all that any problem that references itself will have a logical loop like that contained within it.
There is an obvious discussion to be had over whether direct democracy in the form of referendums are a better or a worse choice than representative democracy for a polity of a given size. Unfortunately, fergalr is treating the issue as if there can be only one answer to the question - whereas the prevalence of representative democracy in modern states rather suggests the other answer.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I think he got power by legitimate means, as part of the democratic process though, from my reading of it? In other words, he was elected in a broadly similar way to our Taoiseach?
As I said power. Not electedAs 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.
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.Are you saying European countries are undemocratic because they don't believe in referendums?
No, I wouldn't go anywhere near that far. I apologise if I've miscommunicated and given that impression.
I am saying that I think it's better from a democratic point of view / more democratic to have a requirement that you have to have a referendum to change the constitution.
Without a requirement like that, conceivably a government could change the constitution to make themselves not require election or something more or less sinister; I think that would be an undesirable feature in a democratic system. That said, I'm not a constitutional lawyer or anything like that, just a lay person, but that's my best judgment on it.0 -
Cool.
On the other point, I think the argument about democracy is getting a bit hypothetical. Can a country vote itself out of democracy, can God make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it? I'm just going to cite the incompleteness theorem and remind us all that any problem that references itself will have a logical loop like that contained within it.
Well, we are not necessarily reasoning within the same formal system as that which we are making statements about, so I think your invocation of the incompleteness theorem is suspect.
But I take the spirit of it, it's getting too hypothetical.
I would point out, that I'm only saying that I can make comments about whether I personally think another democracy is better or worse, as a democracy, than others.
And I'm only doing this because people have essentially taken the line that I have no right to reason such, because who am I to say what I think about the democracy of other people.0 -
Well, we are not necessarily reasoning within the same formal system as that which we are making statements about, so I think your invocation of the incompleteness theorem is suspect.
But I take the spirit of it, it's getting too hypothetical.
I would point out, that I'm only saying that I can make comments about whether I personally think another democracy is better or worse, as a democracy, than others.
And I'm only doing this because people have essentially taken the line that I have no right to reason such, because who am I to say what I think about the democracy of other people.
That's fair enough but I'm with the other people on this one. Democracy is, by by definition, an exercise of the will of the people. If their will is to not have a referendum, then that's their will and, therefore, democracy.
Also, I stand over my invocation of the incompleteness theorem. That's a disagreement which can only be settled by a maths-off.0 -
There is an obvious discussion to be had over whether direct democracy in the form of referendums are a better or a worse choice than representative democracy for a polity of a given size. Unfortunately, fergalr is treating the issue as if there can be only one answer to the question - whereas the prevalence of representative democracy in modern states rather suggests the other answer.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Scofflaw, what about your response to my last? (post 104)
I'm disappointed by your post.
I would say that it is you who is treating the issue as if there can only be one answer - which is that we can not reason about the goodness of aspects of other democracies.
I'm merely saying that I think a requirement for a referendum to change the constitution is a good thing, as it prevents the constitution from change against the will of the people.
I think this is poor.Unfortunately, fergalr is treating the issue as if there can be only one answer to the question - whereas the prevalence of representative democracy in modern states rather suggests the other answer.
I'm clearly not arguing against representative democracy in general.
I'm just arguing against it in the specific case of constitutional changes, which should hopefully be rare occurrences.
Also, I think the logic of your post is flawed.
You ask a question in such a way that the question only has one of two possible answers, then you take me to task, on the basis I think there is only one answer, because lots of states think the opposite to me.
A more sensible phrasing might be:
"fergalr is treating the issue as if the only answer is to have direct democracy when constitutional changes are necessary - whereas the prevalence of representative democracy in modern states rather suggests it is not."
In which case I'd point out that I do think there are many different approaches, many are democratic, but some are better from a democratic point of view than others, and ask you what you meant when you said I thought there was only one answer.0 -
And in the case where they decide to be ruled by decree for 40 years with no elections?That's fair enough but I'm with the other people on this one. Democracy is, by by definition, an exercise of the will of the people. If their will is to not have a referendum, then that's their will and, therefore, democracy.
We can also make no comment about the relative merits of such a democracy, as a democracy?
*backs away slowly*Also, I stand over my invocation of the incompleteness theorem. That's a disagreement which can only be settled by a maths-off.
EDIT:
Actually, no, I don't, I can't resist...
You are invoking the incompleteness theorem to limit our ability to reason about democracy.
This requires you to assume or prove our reasoning is subject to the laws of formal systems; such as by proving the Church-Turing thesis or similar applies to our mental processes. Over to you.0 -
I already did. Here it is again:
I did not take any specific aspect of the Irish constitution, hold that up, and say that.oscarBravo wrote:I don't feel I'm misrepresenting you at all. You've taken a specific aspect of the Irish constitution, held it up and said (in effect) "a constitution must have this aspect to ensure that a country remains a democracy".
I did not say the US constitution has anything like that.oscarBravo wrote:The US constitution does not have that aspect, therefore (by your argument) it's flawed and less protective of democracy than ours.
I did not at any stage say it is not a functioning or good democracy.
I only said one specific instance of how they handle presidential voting could be improved.
If you do not agree with this, please go and find a quote from my earlier posts.
The US government can change the US constitution without the explicit consent of the people of the US. The Irish government can't change the Irish constitution without the explicit consent of the Irish people.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.
Did I miss something?
Fair enough: you're entitled to your opinion. But let's keep this in context of meglome's remark that sparked this whole discussion: that the fact that we're the only EU member state to have a referendum is a "sad reflection". It seems that it's a sad reflection on the fact that other EU member states have their own implementations of democracy, with which they seem to be happy, rather than ours.Likewise, if a country doesn't have a requirement for a referendum to change it's constitution, I'm quite happy to say that that aspect of the country isn't as good from a democratic point of view as what we have.
It doesn't mean I think it's inadequate as a democracy, or that I think its rubbish, or that the people shouldn't choose how they are governed, like you seem to imply.
You can argue to your heart's content that other member states' implementations of democracy are flawed, but it doesn't change the fact that they are sovereign states, and that how they implement democracy is none of our damn business. Zimbabwe and Iraq are the true red herrings in this debate: they're not EU members, nor could they possibly be. Acceptance of a member state is a tacit acknowledgement that their system of democracy is good enough for them to be included in the club, and beyond that - unless it deteriorates in the meantime - it is none of the EU's or of its other member states' business how that system of democracy is implemented.0 -
Well, we are not necessarily reasoning within the same formal system as that which we are making statements about, so I think your invocation of the incompleteness theorem is suspect.
But I take the spirit of it, it's getting too hypothetical.
I would point out, that I'm only saying that I can make comments about whether I personally think another democracy is better or worse, as a democracy, than others.
And I'm only doing this because people have essentially taken the line that I have no right to reason such, because who am I to say what I think about the democracy of other people.
Hmm. No, that's a little bit of a straw man, I'm afraid. I took issue first with the way you stated other countries lack of democracy as fact, rather than personal opinion. I'm perfectly happy for anyone to state that theirs is a personal opinion, and apparently not one shared by the majority of the people in the demos concerned.
I would then have an issue with the suggestion that the fact that other countries have not chosen to live up to your democratic standards is a valid reason for you voting a particular way in an Irish referendum. The connection seems emotional, rather than logical. They've chosen not to use referendums - you, by way of expressing outrage(?) at this choice are voting not on the issue at hand, but as a judgement on their choice. It seems bizarre to me.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
If they voted because of Tax, Neutrality, abortion, Commissioner etc then yes because they didn't even bother to look at the facts. If they voted no because they didn't agree with the treaty or that they don't want Ireland to be in the EU then that is fine but to vote on issues completely unrelated to the treaty is not responsible voting.
You're missing the point though. Lots of people voted for the treaty, yes and no, for the wrong reasons, maybe completely mistaking what's in it. But I keep hearing how NO voters were 'wrong'. Which is worse, to vote yes to an important treaty you don't fully understand or to vote no to an important treaty you don't fully understand. My take is it's much worse to vote yes to something you don't understand as it's going to be very difficult to roll that back if you realise you made a mistake afterwards.0 -
Advertisement
-
You're falling back onto the inherent contradiction; "What if the will of the people is to ignore the will of the people?". Can we agree that this isn't the case here, that all the countries in the EU are fully functioning democracies according to their own preferences and traditions?And in the case where they decide to be ruled by decree for 40 years with no elections?
We can also make no comment about the relative merits of such a democracy, as a democracy?0
Advertisement