Does democracy work - an Irish and Lisbon Treaty based question

Medievalist

Back on topic, I don't think we can start setting up parameters to determine if people can vote or not. The country consists of 4 million people, from different backgrounds, with different opinions and concerns, and differing levels of education. All of their opinions count (once over 18 of course). Even if they piss off other voters;). Such is the nature of democracy.

walshb

Medievalist wrote: »

If you disagree with the treaty, then you should definitely vote No. I'm always delighted to hear that someone is voting No for a political reason.

However, making a choice that cuts off your nose to spite your face is neither an act of solidarity nor a preservation of democracy. Quite the opposite, I think it is corrupting democracy to use a treaty referendum to voice concerns about issues not relating to the terms of the treaty. There are other ways to vent frustration and show dissatisfaction with government choices. That is a core element of democracy.

When the rest of Europe continues on with a sleeker, more efficient system without us (using the concessions that were put in place mainly for our benefit), we will have no right to complain when we are left out of the loop in the EU.

Those who voted Yes in the first referendum and are now voting No, should only do so if they disagree with the changes and prefered the first draft of the Lisbon Treaty.

If people are unhappy at voting again, then there should be a campaign to change the constitution so that the result of a referendum is binding at that there can't be a second.

If people were really that upset about being asked to vote twice, they would be trying to do something more constructive than just voting No to piss off the government.

But, one could argue that the treaty is MORE than just a treaty considering what happened with it the first time around. It's gotten personal and when the govt blatantly decide to ignore the vote, then it's serious and a threat to democracy. One could argue this.

Remember, this shouldn't be a battle between fellow Irish people. We are all together here and I respect all sides, but the most important element here, above the treaty, is the respect for the vote and the respect for the decision. The treaty vote was not respected, and this is the main problem.

Your point concerning changing the constitution to make a treaty vote concrete is good.

ei.sdraob

walshb wrote: »

But, one could argue that the treaty is MORE than just a treaty considering what happened with it the first time around. It's gotten personal and when the govt blatantly decide to ignore the vote, then it's serious and a threat to democracy. One could argue this.

Remember, this shouldn't be a battle between fellow Irish people. We are all together here and I respect all sides, but the most important element here, above the treaty, is the respect for the vote and the respect for the decision. The treaty vote was not respected, and this is the main problem.

Your point concerning changing the constitution to make a treaty vote concrete is good.

once again how is listening and getting concessions/guarantees on behalf of the people

equals to "ignoring" the vote or "disrespecting" the people


im still waiting on answer since you logic is clearly flawed

nesf

walshb wrote: »

But, one could argue that the treaty is MORE than just a treaty considering what happened with it the first time around. It's gotten personal and when the govt blatantly decide to ignore the vote, then it's serious and a threat to democracy. One could argue this.

Remember, this shouldn't be a battle between fellow Irish people. We are all together here and I respect all sides, but the most important element here, above the treaty, is the respect for the vote and the respect for the decision. The treaty vote was not respected, and this is the main problem.

Your point concerning changing the constitution to make a treaty vote concrete is good.

But not allowing the rerun of referenda on the same question would disenfranchise the public! We have a right as a nation to change our minds on issues, be they the Lisbon Treaty or Abortion or whatever. If an anti-EU party was elected into Government it would be perfectly within their remit and right to run a referenda asking if we wanted to leave the EU, despite this referenda "not respecting" the positive outcomes of all the previous EU referenda.

Medievalist

Perhaps this mayhem surrounding Lisbon is connected to something the OP mentioned.

Perhaps, instead of giving a vote to people who don't understand what they are voting for (and I mean in all elections/ referendums, not just Lisbon), we implement something akin to the driver theory test. When someone turns 18, before they are given a voting card, they have to prove they have a basic understanding of government systems (both Irish and European). Nothing too indepth, very simple questions.

Perhaps it is our responsiblity to make sure people understand how our country works. Even if it highlighted to people how little they know about the workings of the Dail, they might develop and interest and try to learn more.

greendom

walshb wrote: »

See, voting on an issue is NOT undemocratic; my point is that NOT bloody respecting the decision is the undemocratic part. Now, you can dress this up anyway you like, we voted no and now just over a year later we are being asked to vote again, after tweaks? I don't buy it for a second. Like I said, if it was a case of simply logging in and voting with ease, this shower would simply insist on the referendum again and again and again until we voted the way it suited them. It happened with the Nice treaty too.

So, I fully understand democracy, maybe its you who doesn't understand respect!

Don't forget it's our democratically elected leaders who are giving us the opportunity to vote again. Doesn't that make it democratic?

kippy

Just an aside.
"Why do we allow people to have the vote without having earned it."
Is there a country out there that makes their voters "earn" their vote?
I doubt it.......

walshb

nesf wrote: »

But not allowing the rerun of referenda on the same question would disenfranchise the public! We have a right as a nation to change our minds on issues, be they the Lisbon Treaty or Abortion or whatever. If an anti-EU party was elected into Government it would be perfectly within their remit and right to run a referenda asking if we wanted to leave the EU, despite this referenda "not respecting" the positive outcomes of all the previous EU referenda.

I never said that we shouldn't be allowed to vote again on an issue, but with this and Nice, it's obvious to me that those in power did not respect the vote. Jeez, it's barely been a year and they are wanting the vote again. It's so obvious that they are forcing the vote because they refuse to accept the first answer. What do you reckon if we vote NO again?
I'd love it, even if just to see the reaction and so called "implications."

nesf

walshb wrote: »

I never said that we shouldn't be allowed to vote again on an issue, but with this and Nice, it's obvious to me that those in power did not respect the vote. Jeez, it's barely been a year and they are wanting the vote again. It's so obvious that they are forcing the vote because they refuse to accept the first answer. What do you reckon if we vote NO again?
I'd love it, even if just to see the reaction and so called "implications."

If we vote No again then we'll most likely see a more fundamental renegotiation of the Treaty since it'll be obvious that in its present form with only guarantees the Irish public will still not pass it. What shape this renegotiation will take and whether Ireland would benefit from such changes are open questions I'm afraid.

Almost exactly the same thing went on with the Divorce referenda. Each No result was seen by various Governments as not the result they wanted, so successive referenda were called on it. What distinguished it from the EU referenda is that we were under no time limit to change our legislation on divorce while EU treaties need to be ratified within 2 years or they get sent back to the Council of Ministers for re-evaluation.

ei.sdraob

Medievalist wrote: »

Perhaps this mayhem surrounding Lisbon is connected to something the OP mentioned.

Perhaps, instead of giving a vote to people who don't understand what they are voting for (and I mean in all elections/ referendums, not just Lisbon), we implement something akin to the driver theory test. When someone turns 18, before they are given a voting card, they have to prove they have a basic understanding of government systems (both Irish and European). Nothing too indepth, very simple questions.

Perhaps it is our responsiblity to make sure people understand how our country works. Even if it highlighted to people how little they know about the workings of the Dail, they might develop and interest and try to learn more.

more education is schools is needed


people dont know how Ireland or EU operates

they dont know difference between direct and representative democracy

and they cant name the main bodies in our and EU government



as i said before the main problem facing the YES side are not the lunatics who make up the NO campaign, its the lack of care, knowledge and unwillingness to learn from the average joe on the street

Scofflaw

kippy wrote: »

Just an aside.
"Why do we allow people to have the vote without having earned it."
Is there a country out there that makes their voters "earn" their vote?
I doubt it.......

There are countries that require you to have done your military service before you're fully a citizen.

You could require people to pass a 'civics' exam before being able to vote, and perhaps retest them at standard intervals. You'd first sit your exam at 17/18 along with your LC, and if you passed would then become eligible to vote. You could separate it into modules for local/Dáil/euro/referendums, with the results determining eligibility in each type of vote. You could resit at any point a failed exam at any local school - it would get more embarrassing with age, of course.

The advantage is that it decouples the right to vote from any specific issue, while ensuring that voters at least have the background understanding of issues like what's already in the Constitution.

cordially,
Scofflaw

kippy

Scofflaw wrote: »

There are countries that require you to have done your military service before you're fully a citizen.

You could require people to pass a 'civics' exam before being able to vote, and perhaps retest them at standard intervals. You'd first sit your exam at 17/18 along with your LC, and if you passed would then become eligible to vote. You could separate it into modules for local/Dáil/euro/referendums, with the results determining eligibility in each type of vote. You could resit at any point a failed exam at any local school - it would get more embarrassing with age, of course.

The advantage is that it decouples the right to vote from any specific issue, while ensuring that voters at least have the background understanding of issues like what's already in the Constitution.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hi Scofflaw,
What countries require you to do military service before you can vote?

I am just curious as to how this would be handled in a practical sense and what benefit it would bring to the country. We've seen highly educated people get things badly wrong in the recent past.
Kippy

Whiskey Jack

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Right, it's two in the morning and I've read a few too many Lisbon threads today, and something here is annoying me.

Why do we allow people to have the vote without having earned it.

I'm 22 years of age, and thus, have been allowed to vote for four years. All I needed to do to earn my vote was to turn 18 and register. In fact, I didn't even need to, because when I went to do so, it turned out my mum had already done it for me.

As it stands, Ireland is the only country having a referendum about Lisbon, because our consitution demands it.

What amazes me most about this is just how flawed a system this is - a large body of disparate people, only a tiny proportion of whom understand the treaty, let alone have read it, are to decide the future of Europe. (In terms of streamlining the EU.)

Why is it, that someone who does not understand the issues involved is allowed to vote? There's been massive complaints about the lies told by both sides, predominantly the No campaign. Obvious ones would be abortion, conscription and so on. Issues that the treaty never really had anything to do with. Despite that, a person can go and vote without actually knowing what they're voting for.

Would it not make more sense for anyone who wishes to vote on this treaty to prove that they understand enough about the issues involved before being allowed to vote? (Not really interested in the logistics of how that would be done, just being theoretical.)

Well who then decides who has and has not earned the right to vote? To put this amount of power into the hands of anyone is to invite corruption on a grand scale.

You may object quite strenuously to what I am about to suggest, but the fact is that this type of thinking is the seed from which fascism grows.

Would we choose to disenfranchise those born with low IQs? Would we decide that perhaps blind people may not be able to give the same opinions on certain issues as sighted people? What of the hard of hearing or the deaf? People with epilepsy?

I am genuinely shocked at the level of acceptance of your comments above, they smack of lazy thinking and attitudes - the fact is that fairness is the harder path to take, it would be easy to take the simple path, but that way leads to tyranny. Mind you, no one ever thinks that they are going to take this path, the righteousness of their belief innures them from the safety net of doubt.

anonymous_joe wrote: »

What amazes me most about this is just how flawed a system this is - a large body of disparate people, only a tiny proportion of whom understand the treaty, let alone have read it, are to decide the future of Europe. (In terms of streamlining the EU.)

No one is going to 'decide the Future of Europe' with the Lisbon treaty. Its a treaty, if it doesnt passed it is not a big deal. If it is, it display a dangerously inherent flaw with the concept of Europe, that being it is only ever geared for one result of its proposals. This, in and of itself might be reason enough to vote No. As for the lies being put around by such lunatic fringe groups as Libertas or Coir, their is an equal amount being put out by the Yes side. The blatant level of dishonesty on both sides is sickening and shameful in the extreme.

Finally, as to your comment about a 'large body of disparate people' making decisions - who exactly should make decisions? Small bodies of homogenous people? Clones?

I'll do my best to avoid confrontational or agressive language whilst posting on these boards but this thread is based on an incredibly stupid point put in an incredibly stupid way - perhaps it was the posting at 2am that is blame, I sincerely hope so?



For my part, I understand that their is no difference to the treaty so therefore we are voting on the same treaty a second time to affect a preordained decision. This is a worrying position to be in.

prinz

kippy wrote: »

I am just curious as to how this would be handled in a practical sense and what benefit it would bring to the country.

Persumably it would foster a real sense of social partnership and responsibility.

prinz

Whiskey Jack wrote: »

For my part, I understand that their is no difference to the treaty so therefore we are voting on the same treaty a second time to affect a preordained decision. This is a worrying position to be in.

A pre-ordained decision? Am I missing something, people are just as free to reject it again as they were the first time.

mickoneill30

walshb wrote: »

I never said that we shouldn't be allowed to vote again on an issue, but with this and Nice, it's obvious to me that those in power did not respect the vote.

You're saying they didn't respect the vote. You've said it a few times in this thread. So the government went ahead with Lisbon last year did they? Because if we voted NO and they didn't go ahead with it then that's respecting what the vote said isn't it.

If they went off and got guarantees and some changes (like keeping our comissioner if it's passed now) then we're voting on a different thing now. Is this complicated stuff, because a lot of people seem confused by it?

walshb

mickoneill30 wrote: »

You're saying they didn't respect the vote. You've said it a few times in this thread. So the government went ahead with Lisbon last year did they? Because if we voted NO and they didn't go ahead with it then that's respecting what the vote said isn't it.

If they went off and got guarantees and some changes (like keeping our comissioner if it's passed now) then we're voting on a different thing now. Is this complicated stuff?

They didn't go ahead. They are asking for a re-run of the treaty. They are saying that the treaty is new and different, bollox. Is this complicated?

They got an answer and just over a year later, it's being asked again and they will continue until we vote the way they want, not how the Irish people want

nesf

kippy wrote: »

I am just curious as to how this would be handled in a practical sense and what benefit it would bring to the country. We've seen highly educated people get things badly wrong in the recent past.
Kippy

Probably the same countries that require you to do military service unless you've a bloody good reason for not doing. Israel and Switzerland both require you to do this iirc.

I'm not convinced that training everyone in how to propery care for, use and aim firearms is a great idea though.

mickoneill30

walshb wrote: »

They didn't go ahead. They are asking for a re-run of the treaty. They are saying that the treaty is new and different, bollox. Is this complicated?

Last year one of the issues was that we'd lose our comissioner. This year if we vote yes we don't. How is that the same? I'm not being smart here. Explain how this is the same. Because if it's not the same it's different. (I know that sounds simplistic. It seems it has to be).

Edit: Anyway they're not saying it's new. Who said that? If you could provide links that would be handy.

Whiskey Jack

prinz wrote: »

A pre-ordained decision? Am I missing something, people are just as free to reject it again as they were the first time.

How many times are we then free to reject it prinz? Are we free to have a rerun of the vote if its a Yes? Is this what you are suggesting?

The reality is that there will be a rerun of the vote until their is acceptance of the vote, this not democracy, this is not freedom, its totalitarianism.

Euro_Kraut

walshb wrote: »

It is not at all similar to a general election which applies to all the parties equally, regardless of sides. This is a one off treaty with a YES and No.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Can you explain why the re running of a General Election is substantially different to the re running of referendum? The number of options on the ballot paper is not a strong enough argument to convince me.

Also at what point does it become acceptable to put an issue to the people again? You could argue that every amendment we have made to the constitution failed to respect the voters of 1937.

mickoneill30

Whiskey Jack wrote: »

How many times are we then free to reject it prinz? Are we free to have a rerun of the vote if its a Yes? Is this what you are suggesting?

Why not? If it's passed and the government wants it removed in the future they can have another referendum can't they? The constitution is changable. You know how this stuff works right?

walshb

To be completely fair and transparent and democratic, why not make this a rubber match if it's a yes this time.:) They do it in sport don't they?

Whiskey Jack

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Last year one of the issues was that we'd lose our comissioner. This year if we vote yes we don't. How is that the same? I'm not being smart here. Explain how this is the same. Because if it's not the same it's different. (I know that sounds simplistic. It seems it has to be).

Edit: Anyway they're not saying it's new. Who said that? If you could provide links that would be handy.

We will lose our commissioner under Lisbon - the legal guarantees are not binding - a 'legal guarantee' is worthless in the context of the treaty because the ratification of the Treaty was undertaken by many states before the Irish No vote - therefore, we are getting the exact same treaty as last time.

As there was no further ratification process by these member states, we cannot have a parallel treaty running tandem, i.e. Lisbon and Lisbon v1.01, we can ONLY have Lisbon as it was ratified by other states.

Whiskey Jack

walshb wrote: »

To be completely fair and transparent and democratic, why not make this a rubber match if it's a yes this time.:) They do it in sport don't they?

The easiest way to achieve this is to respect the democratic wishes of the Irish electorate in the last referendum and tell the EU that the Irish have rejected the Lisbon treaty and under the terms of the treaty and the EU, it is now null and void.

That, my friend would satisfy the bolded text above. Anything else is worrying in the extreme.

walshb

Whiskey Jack wrote: »

The easiest way to achieve this is to respect the democratic wishes of the Irish electorate in the last referendum and tell the EU that the Irish have rejected the Lisbon treaty and under the terms of the treaty and the EU, it is now null and void.

That, my friend would satisfy the bolded text above. Anything else is worrying in the extreme.

Agree completely, this is more than just a treaty, it's NOW a real democracy test and to date, the Irish politicians have failed miserably. That is worrying, though not surprising.

Euro_Kraut

walshb wrote: »

To be completely fair and transparent and democratic, why not make this a rubber match if it's a yes this time.:) They do it in sport don't they?

Nope. This is a European Competition so it would go down to the away goals vote rule.

The NO side were drawn at home for the first leg by the way

walshb

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Nope. This is a European Competition so it would go down to the away goals vote rule.

The NO side were drawn at home for the first leg by the way

Main thing is that we as Irish people don't fall out and argue about it, debate it, but remain friendly and respect each others decision and rights

nesf

walshb wrote: »

Agree completely, this is more than just a treaty, it's NOW a real democracy test and to date, the Irish politicians have failed miserably. That is worrying, though not surprising.

So it's a travesty of democracy just because you disagree with holding a second referendum? Seriously, can you not see the irony in this?

walshb

nesf wrote: »

So it's a travesty of democracy just because you disagree with holding a second referendum? Seriously, can you not see the irony in this?

Slow down, again, I never said the issue was a second running. It's the blatant disregard for the first vote, just over a year and we are voting again. This is the real issue and it's plain to see that the first vote was NOT accepted.

Maybe in five or ten years, I could see a point with a new view or look, but 15 months and the same treaty being pressed again is without doubt a sign of a complete lack of respect for the decision and the people