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
-
Saying a country has the potential to become something other than a democracy can hardly be equated with saying it isn't one now..?oscarBravo wrote: »I already did. Here it is again: 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.
Did I miss something?Originally Posted by fergalr
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.oscarBravo wrote: »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.
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.
Well, here you say that it's none of the business of the other EU states... but that the democracy being good enough is a pre-requisite for acceptance. Those are two conflicting statements.
I'm also happy to say that the situation where you present a referendum on a EU constitution, which fails, and then later pass almost the same set of rules without a referendum, is not optimally democratic.
That's the context in which the remarks about the democracy of our European neighbors are made, and it's not an unreasonable thing to say.
Not saying that they were wrong, or bad people, or bad countries, but just saying that it really isn't as good a situation as if they presented a referendum on the treaty, that passed the treaty.
I mean, you are somewhat open to question, from a democratic point of view, when you are passing legislation that would fail by referendum - it's not as good from a democratic view, as passing legislation that would succeed by referendum.
Surely this is a reasonable thing to state?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »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.
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.
Look I agree with you that it's not our right to tell other democracies how they should run their affairs. But I'd be very surprised if every country was given a vote that there wouldn't be a few more who voted no. I'd safely say a lot of politicians in Europe are very happy with the lack of voting so they can push it through, just doesn't seem all that democratic in the grand scheme of things.0 -
I didn't say it isn't one now. Will you please stop moving the goalposts?Saying a country has the potential to become something other than a democracy can hardly be equated with saying it isn't one now..?
No, they're not. Let me spell it out for you again:Well, here you say that it's none of the business of the other EU states... but that the democracy being good enough is a pre-requisite for acceptance. Those are two conflicting statements.
In order to become a member state of the EU, it is necessary to have a functioning democracy. This is a reasonable requirement, in order for the EU to consist solely of relatively stable, functional democratic member states.
Beyond that requirement, the actual details of the implementation of democracy in a member state is none of the EU's business; nor is it the business of any other member state.
I really don't think this is a particularly difficult concept to grasp.
That's because you're choosing a particularly selective and rather emotive definition of "democracy".I'm also happy to say that the situation where you present a referendum on a EU constitution, which fails, and then later pass almost the same set of rules without a referendum, is not optimally democratic.
If an EU member state feels that a treaty contains provisions that legally require a referendum to ratify, and the referendum fails to pass; and that member state re-negotiates a treaty that doesn't contain those provisions, then there is no longer a legal requirement for a referendum.
Your definition of democracy apparently includes a moral requirement for a referendum under those circumstances, but - I reiterate - there is no requirement for any EU member state to conform to your personal definition of democracy.
How many annual Finance Bills do you suppose would succeed if put to referendum?I mean, you are somewhat open to question, from a democratic point of view, when you are passing legislation that would fail by referendum - it's not as good from a democratic view, as passing legislation that would succeed by referendum.0 -
Fair enough, but - and I'm sure this will be a controversial thing to say - the EU isn't a democracy. It's an organisation with 27 sovereign, autonomous member states, and how 26 of them ratify treaties is none of our business.Look I agree with you that it's not our right to tell other democracies how they should run their affairs. But I'd be very surprised if every country was given a vote that there wouldn't be a few more who voted no. I'd safely say a lot of politicians in Europe are very happy with the lack of voting so they can push it through, just doesn't seem all that democratic in the grand scheme of things.
Arguing for a "democratic" EU is basically arguing for a fully integrated, federal European superstate - something I certainly don't want, and I don't think too many EU voters other than Declan Ganley do either.0 -
Anything I state here is personal opinion. Which doesn't mean you can't disagree with it, or that it can't be wrong. I'm not claiming objective righteousness on universal grounds or anything, obviously.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.
At the same time, I'm saying that personally I think it's better to have referenda on constitutional changes, and that in my view countries that don't have this requirement are less good from a democratic point of view than they would be if they had it. I'm prepared to defend that, or accept criticisms of it if it's wrong.
It's not at all obvious to me that the majority of the people in the demographics concerned think they would have been better off without a referendum. Have you got a source for that?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,
Scofflaw
I never said anything about the validity of expressing outrage in a No vote, or anything of the sort.
This came up because Furious Dave said he thought countries shouldn't have referendums on these things, meglome said he thought that it was a sad state that Ireland was the only country that had to, you asked why were we right and they wrong (introducing the idea that we can't judge the specifics of other democracies) and I took you up on that.
That's where this is coming from. I think it's completely reasonable to say that other countries would have been better, democratically, to have passed it by referendum - that it probably wouldn't have passed by referendum, but was ratified anyway, is, from a democratic point of view, not ideal.
Are you still disagreeing with that, and saying that we are in no position to comment?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?
To some extent, if your parliament ratifies what your electorate would reject - and I know that isn't proved, but it isn't unreasonable to say either - you are somewhat in a situation where "the will of the people is to ignore the will of the people".
But I only brought up the more extreme cases to show that, in fact, it was reasonable to criticise other democracies, from some perspective of democratic goodness. This is relevant, because frequently posters of the No side are told that they are in no position to comment on the democratic process of our neighbours, which I think is wrong - by all means, if you think the French way of getting Lisbon through wasn't as democratic as it could have been, I think you are entitled to make that observation.0 -
Look I agree with you that it's not our right to tell other democracies how they should run their affairs. But I'd be very surprised if every country was given a vote that there wouldn't be a few more who voted no. I'd safely say a lot of politicians in Europe are very happy with the lack of voting so they can push it through, just doesn't seem all that democratic in the grand scheme of things.
As a hypothetical, how should one vote on a treaty that was, say, bad for Germany and good for Ireland? And how do you feel the Germans would vote on that treaty?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
But at the same time I see a contradiction in saying 'How other citizens run their country is none of the EUs business...' and '...so long as it's democratic enough, otherwise we won't let them in.'oscarBravo wrote: »In order to become a member state of the EU, it is necessary to have a functioning democracy. This is a reasonable requirement, in order for the EU to consist solely of relatively stable, functional democratic member states.
Beyond that requirement, the actual details of the implementation of democracy in a member state is none of the EU's business; nor is it the business of any other member state.
I really don't think this is a particularly difficult concept to grasp.
But anyway, that's somewhat tangential to the main point here, which is that as individuals, we can also reason about the goodness or badness of other EU democracies on certain actions.oscarBravo wrote: »
That's because you're choosing a particularly selective and rather emotive definition of "democracy".I'm also happy to say that the situation where you present a referendum on a EU constitution, which fails, and then later pass almost the same set of rules without a referendum, is not optimally democratic.
Well, I'm using the way I personally think about what's democratic or not - it's neither an airtight nor legal definition. I think about how closely what's done conforms to the will of the people - and when stuff gets passed that the people would reject, then it's not as good, by that definition, as if stuff got passed that the people would pass. I don't think that's an unreasonable definition, tbh.
Yes, I accept that - as I said in previous posts, never said there was anything illegal going on (not that I really have much of an idea of the law on this stuff in other EU states, or even know much about the law here!)oscarBravo wrote: »If an EU member state feels that a treaty contains provisions that legally require a referendum to ratify, and the referendum fails to pass; and that member state re-negotiates a treaty that doesn't contain those provisions, then there is no longer a legal requirement for a referendum.oscarBravo wrote: »Your definition of democracy apparently includes a moral requirement for a referendum under those circumstances, but - I reiterate - there is no requirement for any EU member state to conform to your personal definition of democracy. How many annual Finance Bills do you suppose would succeed if put to referendum?
No, moral is the wrong word.
I don't have a hard and fast definition of democracy.
But where the government holds the referendum, the thing gets defeated, and something pretty much the same gets passed anyway, well, that doesn't sound good to me.
If the Irish government got an assurance or two on Lisbon, and a supreme court ruling saying that they didn't need another referendum, and passed it in parliament (not realistic scenario politically) would it not be reasonable of me to say that that would not be democratic?
It's a good point - but I'm probably not as cynical about this as you sound - I reckon it'd take a while to educate the electorate to the correct level, it'd probably be quite inefficient, but it'd get done in the end.How many annual Finance Bills do you suppose would succeed if put to referendum?
I mean, look at the social partnerships, they are negotiated.
It is possible to convince people to compromise some of their goals for the greater good, from time to time.0 -
Anything I state here is personal opinion. Which doesn't mean you can't disagree with it, or that it can't be wrong. I'm not claiming objective righteousness on universal grounds or anything, obviously.
At the same time, I'm saying that personally I think it's better to have referenda on constitutional changes, and that in my view countries that don't have this requirement are less good from a democratic point of view than they would be if they had it. I'm prepared to defend that, or accept criticisms of it if it's wrong.
It's not at all obvious to me that the majority of the people in the demographics concerned think they would have been better off without a referendum. Have you got a source for that?
I am assuming that the constitutions of the countries express the constitutional wishes of the people. Do you consider that an outrageous position?I never said anything about the validity of expressing outrage in a No vote, or anything of the sort.
Unfortunately, it became part of this argument when it became a No side slogan - vote No because other people aren't getting referendums.This came up because Furious Dave said he thought countries shouldn't have referendums on these things, meglome said he thought that it was a sad state that Ireland was the only country that had to, you asked why were we right and they wrong (introducing the idea that we can't judge the specifics of other democracies) and I took you up on that.
That's where this is coming from. I think it's completely reasonable to say that other countries would have been better, democratically, to have passed it by referendum - that it probably wouldn't have passed by referendum, but was ratified anyway, is, from a democratic point of view, not ideal.
Are you still disagreeing with that, and saying that we are in no position to comment?
I am. We may have the view that referendums are the best method of ratifying treaties (EU treaties, anyway), but that is a view that in some cases is parochial (not in your case), and in other cases the result of subscribing to a particular view of which democratic tools are the best for which job (which appears to be your case). The former is dismissable, the latter arguable.
Given that the majority of the demos in the other member states doesn't agree with your point of view, and that we are not citizens of those countries, I think one can fairly argue that we are in no position to comment.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
In France's case, there are several aspects to this: first, similar to here, there were many reasons for voting against the treaty which had nothing to do with the treaty itself. Second, many of the reasons which did have a bearing on the treaty were reflected in the differences between the proposed constitution and the Lisbon treaty. Third, France doesn't, as a rule, use referenda to ratify treaties, so the requirement to do so was the exception rather than the norm.But where the government holds the referendum, the thing gets defeated, and something pretty much the same gets passed anyway, well, that doesn't sound good to me.
Only by your definition of "democratic". If the treaty didn't require a referendum, then it's reasonable (but, as you say, politically impossible) to ratify it in parliament - that's how other (non-EU) treaties get ratified, and nobody seems to mind.If the Irish government got an assurance or two on Lisbon, and a supreme court ruling saying that they didn't need another referendum, and passed it in parliament (not realistic scenario politically) would it not be reasonable of me to say that that would not be democratic?
Maybe. The attractiveness for me of a representative democracy is that a government can operate largely free of the daily whims of the mob, and do what it believes is in the country's best interests. I don't think they get this right all the time - not by a long shot - but that's what they're there for.It's a good point - but I'm probably not as cynical about this as you sound - I reckon it'd take a while to educate the electorate to the correct level, it'd probably be quite inefficient, but it'd get done in the end.
I mean, look at the social partnerships, they are negotiated.
It is possible to convince people to compromise some of their goals for the greater good, from time to time.0 -
Advertisement
-
But you could use that logic to never have a referendum for anything thats in the constitution!I am assuming that the constitutions of the countries express the constitutional wishes of the people. Do you consider that an outrageous position?
I don't consider it an outrageous position to assume that constitutions in general express the wishes of their people in general.
It's not necessarily the case though in specific issues; there's probably parts in the Irish constitution that if the electorate voted on them individually mightn't get passed.
I wouldn't assume that because the French or Danish constitution doesn't say that there has to be a referendum on an issue, that the people don't want one; it'd be nice to have another source on that, even opinion polls etc.
Yes, I see where your coming from here, that's a fair point. Again, both sides of the campaign seemed to do some dodgey stuff.Unfortunately, it became part of this argument when it became a No side slogan - vote No because other people aren't getting referendums.
Fair enough - I think we are perfectly entitled to comment on how the treaty went through in other EU states. Guess we'll just have to hold differing opinions on it - I do understand where you are coming from.I am. We may have the view that referendums are the best method of ratifying treaties (EU treaties, anyway), but that is a view that in some cases is parochial (not in your case), and in other cases the result of subscribing to a particular view of which democratic tools are the best for which job (which appears to be your case). The former is dismissable, the latter arguable.
Given that the majority of the demos in the other member states doesn't agree with your point of view, and that we are not citizens of those countries, I think one can fairly argue that we are in no position to comment.0 -
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.
Even if it is the democratic will of the people for the Government / Supreme court to decide? Some countries value the expertise of their constitutional courts to decide very intricate and complex laws and would rather avoid the lies and deceipt that can be perpetrated on the masses by unscrupulous people ala Hitler
Hitler held his second referendum was held on Aug. 19, 1934, wherein the subject was the ratification of Hitler's (illegal) usurpation of power, as Führer/Chancellor, in the aftermath of President Hindenburg's death. Ninety-five percent of the registered voters went to the polls, and 90% of them (over 38 million people), voted "yes." This, of course, was a radically different result than Hitler had achieved 18 months earlier, when, running against other parties, his Nazis received only 17,077,180 votes, or 44% of the total votes cast. Hitler's vastly higher vote was attributable, at least in significant part, to the fact that he was not running against any opposition, as his Nazis had been on March 5, 1933: A referendum does not mandate, require, or even necessarily allow for an organized political opposition—it simply requires a "yes or no" answer to a single question. That is why Hitler was so enamored of them.0 -
I, and I think a lot of others too, would be quite upset if it yet just went through in parliament. Even if it was legal. Not as upset as if it was illegal, and they did it, but still upset. I'd feel there was a distinct lack of democracy going around, even if it was completely democratic by our constitution.oscarBravo wrote: »Only by your definition of "democratic". If the treaty didn't require a referendum, then it's reasonable (but, as you say, politically impossible) to ratify it in parliament - that's how other (non-EU) treaties get ratified, and nobody seems to mind.
Yes, I do see this side of things too - you can't have direct democracy on everything, you wouldn't get anything done; that makes a lot of sense.oscarBravo wrote: »Maybe. The attractiveness for me of a representative democracy is that a government can operate largely free of the daily whims of the mob, and do what it believes is in the country's best interests. I don't think they get this right all the time - not by a long shot - but that's what they're there for.0 -
It's not how he got into power though, which was the original issue.Hitler held his second referendum was held on Aug. 19, 1934, wherein the subject was the ratification of Hitler's (illegal) usurpation of power, as Führer/Chancellor, in the aftermath of President Hindenburg's death. Ninety-five percent of the registered voters went to the polls, and 90% of them (over 38 million people), voted "yes." This, of course, was a radically different result than Hitler had achieved 18 months earlier, when, running against other parties, his Nazis received only 17,077,180 votes, or 44% of the total votes cast. Hitler's vastly higher vote was attributable, at least in significant part, to the fact that he was not running against any opposition, as his Nazis had been on March 5, 1933: A referendum does not mandate, require, or even necessarily allow for an organized political opposition—it simply requires a "yes or no" answer to a single question. That is why Hitler was so enamored of them.
He got into power through democratic, non referendum means, and afterwards arranged referendums to keep and extend the power, at least thats what it says where I read it.
At the same time, this is neither really an argument for or against referendums in general, but it is interesting to note.0 -
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.
If you don't understand it then you are not being responsible. It is the duty of the electorate to fully understand what they are voting on otherwise referendums are useless as the will of the people is not known.
If you don't understand a legal document then it is prudent to you get some one who does to vet it for you such as a qualified solicitor. Thats what the referendum commission is there for. They outlined (badly) the issues at stake. Yet people still didn't believe them and voted the other way based on nothing more than the say so of interests groups.
That was the fundemental problem of the referendum.0 -
I, and I think a lot of others too, would be quite upset if it yet just went through in parliament. Even if it was legal. Not as upset as if it was illegal, and they did it, but still upset. I'd feel there was a distinct lack of democracy going around, even if it was completely democratic by our constitution.
I'd agree with your there. Had the treaty been ratified by the Oireachtas in the first place, that would have been one thing - but using the Oireachtas to reverse the result of a referendum I wouldn't regard as acceptable at all.Yes, I do see this side of things too - you can't have direct democracy on everything, you wouldn't get anything done; that makes a lot of sense.
What's interesting is that nobody has any real difficulty with the idea that judging whether the Treaty required a referendum is a matter for legal experts, and seem comfortable leaving the negotiation of it to diplomats and politicians, yet are confident that judging whether it is in the long-term interests of Ireland is something that can be done by the general public in the teeth of political campaigning...
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
As a hypothetical, how should one vote on a treaty that was, say, bad for Germany and good for Ireland? And how do you feel the Germans would vote on that treaty?
cordially,
Scofflaw
No treaty is going to be 100% good for everyone involved but in general the EU's treaties been good for everyone in the EU I'd say. Not what you asked but anyhoo.0 -
If you don't understand it then you are not being responsible. It is the duty of the electorate to fully understand what they are voting on otherwise referendums are useless as the will of the people is not known.
If you don't understand a legal document then it is prudent to you get some one who does to vet it for you such as a qualified solicitor. Thats what the referendum commission is there for. They outlined (badly) the issues at stake. Yet people still didn't believe them and voted the other way based on nothing more than the say so of interests groups.
That was the fundemental problem of the referendum.
I agree with you. I'm just wondering why it's the No people who are the one's being basically told they were stupid for not understanding and voting no. But no one seems to care that lots of people voted yes without the slightest clue.0 -
I agree with you. I'm just wondering why it's the No people who are the one's being basically told they were stupid for not understanding and voting no. But no one seems to care that lots of people voted yes without the slightest clue.
Noone is calling No voters stupid. Igorance and stupidity are very different things. Plenty of very smart people are completely ignorant about many things. Yes voters were also guilty of ignorance and the whole issue needs to be addressed without focusing on the way in which people voted.0 -
I agree with you. I'm just wondering why it's the No people who are the one's being basically told they were stupid for not understanding and voting no. But no one seems to care that lots of people voted yes without the slightest clue.
The No sides voting reasons are under more scrutiny because they were the ones that have pedalled more of the misinformation. Very few on the Yes side put their vision forward as most spent the whole campaign countering the misinformation on the No side.
People voted yes based on their positive experience of the EU and great things it has done and they wanted Ireland to continue to progress in this project.
Yes, the may not have understood everything but they put their trust in the independent Referendum commission and in their elected representatives (who had spent years negoiating the best possible deal for this country).
It is my impression that a percentage of No voters seemed to get bogged down in the misrepresentations of the campaign and if they were fully informed may have voted differently. Hence the emphasis.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement