If we don't vote for FF at the next election, should they poll the country...

hatrickpatrick

...to find out why, and then hold another general election several months later to make sure people get the answer right?

prinz

If we don't vote FF, how will they be in a position to have another general election months later

/thread. Nonsense.

hatrickpatrick

prinz wrote: »

If we don't vote FF, how will they be in a position to have another general election months later

/thread. Nonsense.

Well maybe the next government should.
Should they have done it after their local election massacre?

Dinner

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well maybe the next government should.
Should they have done it after their local election massacre?

The next government can do it if they feel it is warrented.

Are you of the opinion that we should not have another general election until 2012?

The Volt

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...to find out why, and then hold another general election several months later to make sure people get the answer right?

FF aren't the only party pushing a yes vote.

meglome

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...to find out why, and then hold another general election several months later to make sure people get the answer right?

What's your point, apples and oranges are different I admit it.

hatrickpatrick

meglome wrote: »

What's your point, apples and oranges are different I admit it.

Just once again pointing out how utterly insane it is for a government to be allowed to keep running the exact same poll again and again indefinitely until the people "get it right"...

prinz

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well maybe the next government should.
Should they have done it after their local election massacre?

So after FF get voted out at a general election, the parties who do get into government then willingly hold another general election after a few months so we can vote FF back in? What's this, last chance saloon is it?

Dinner

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Just once again pointing out how utterly insane it is for a government to be allowed to keep running the exact same poll again and again indefinitely until the people "get it right"...

Remind me, how many times has Lisbon been run?

The Volt

Dinner wrote: »

Remind me, how many times has Lisbon been run?

If you include the last time and the first time it's been run roughly once.

namloc1980

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Just once again pointing out how utterly insane it is for a government to be allowed to keep running the exact same poll again and again indefinitely until the people "get it right"...

Yeah because I'm sick of running down to the polling station to vote again and again.......wait a minute!

LookingFor

I don't get the pissiness over re-running the referendum.

We've re-run referenda in the past. Circumstances change. Proposals change, context changes. So the people are asked again.

In this case the proposal has changed, and the circumstances. Enough such that a second referendum even within such a short period isn't necessarily redundant.

meglome

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Just once again pointing out how utterly insane it is for a government to be allowed to keep running the exact same poll again and again indefinitely until the people "get it right"...

So we've run the Lisbon referendum at least 50% less than all the recent referenda. I've changed my mind since the last referendum but it seems that doesn't count as I don't agree with you.

LookingFor wrote: »

I don't get the pissiness over re-running the referendum.

We've re-run referenda in the past. Circumstances change. Proposals change, context changes. So the people are asked again.

In this case the proposal has changed, and the circumstances. Enough such that a second referendum even within such a short period isn't necessarily redundant.

Well put, it's a pity people just don't want to see logic and sense.

turgon

I just fail to see the issue here. If the Lisbon is passed on Friday it will be because the people want it. Whats wrong with that?

LookingFor

turgon wrote: »

I just fail to see the issue here. If the Lisbon is passed on Friday it will be because the people want it. Whats wrong with that?

Because the people would have changed their minds! And they're not allowed to! Said no to divorce? Sorry! Can't change your mind.

Sounds like some people are afraid people have changed their minds and don't want them to be asked again in case they have. Seems a bit...undemocratic...to me. If people haven't changed their minds that's fine, but if people have, that should be fine too.

FunnyStuff

turgon wrote: »

I just fail to see the issue here. If the Lisbon is passed on Friday it will be because the people want it. Whats wrong with that?

And if the people dont want it?? Like last time...

namloc1980

FunnyStuff wrote: »

And if the people dont want it?? Like last time...

Then it isn't passed....like the last time. Simple really.

hatrickpatrick

That's all well and good in my view, if the people have changed their minds. But if it's not passed on Friday... Anyone want to bet on Lisbon III being run by February '11?

sceptre

Apparently the OP doesn't remember 1982 all that well. Or articles 13, 28 and 46 of Bunreacht na hEireann which cover the legalities of the question. 13 even pretty much answers the entire question.

We've already had some smart threads about whether there should be a second run at the Lisbon referendum. This isn't one of them and all joking aside, for the next few days, this forum is busy enough that front page space on the forum is at a premium for pro- or con- threads (or better still, rational discursive threads between both sides (I live in hope)) that actually contribute something to the debate.

If anyone can add some clever thought that makes this thread worth keeping open, please contribute because otherwise it's getting locked as a bad mess. If you can make the whole thing look a bit smarter, that'd be cool too.

Dinner

FunnyStuff wrote: »

And if the people dont want it?? Like last time...

Then they will vote no. There's no precedent for third referendum or rejection of a second but I think it would be extremely unlikely to have another.

It would still be perfectly democratic to keep running referendum after referendum. They would be taking the piss, but it would still be democratic.

A free and fair vote can by it's very nature not be undemocratic. The government can't force you to vote they way they want you to.

hick

I just think it's funny that a lot of folks think simply changing to FG/Lab/SF will get everything back on track, the same hard decisions will have to be made.

starbelgrade

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Just once again pointing out how utterly insane it is for a government to be allowed to keep running the exact same poll again and again indefinitely until the people "get it right"...

It's not the first time the Irish people voted twice on a european treaty - in 2001, we rejected the Nice Treaty only to ratify it a year later.

It's historically & politically the norm to do this is Ireland.. as with the abortion & divorce referendums. There is nothing "insane" about it & quoting Des Bishop's line about us voting again & again until we "get it right" is hardly an enlightened political insight.

And btw, if Ireland reject the treaty for the 2nd time, it will NOT be put to the people for the 3rd time.

MarkK

sceptre wrote: »

Apparently the OP doesn't remember 1982 all that well.

Indeed, for the OPs benefit:

There were three general elections in under 18 months
June 1981, Feb 1982 & Nov 1982

hatrickpatrick

starbelgrade wrote: »

It's not the first time the Irish people voted twice on a european treaty - in 2001, we rejected the Nice Treaty only to ratify it a year later.

...Why did they run the referendum twice?

[/quote]It's historically & politically the norm to do this is Ireland.. as with the abortion & divorce referendums. There is nothing "insane" about it & quoting Des Bishop's line about us voting again & again until we "get it right" is hardly an enlightened political insight.[/quote]

A lot of very, very wrong things used to be "the norm"... Does that always make it ok?

And btw, if Ireland reject the treaty for the 2nd time, it will NOT be put to the people for the 3rd time.

I think it was Enda Kenny who refused to rule this out?

PopeBuckfastXVI

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I think it was Enda Kenny who refused to rule this out?

Does Enda Kenny have the power to run or block a referendum?

MarkK

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...Why did they run the referendum twice?

It was kind of assumed by the powers that be that a Yes would be automatic so they did not campaign very hard.

The first referendum was held at the same time as two other referendums so it got a little lost.

When voters went to the polls giving the government three "yes" votes seemed a bit sycophantic so they gave Nice a "no".

schween

One thing I won't miss after the referendum is stupid threads like this.

Circumstances have changed. Whether you think the proposal has changed or not is up to you. But one thing some people seem to forget is that we can just vote no again if you want. If however the majority decide they wan't the treaty, tough, that's democracy. You'd swear it was being forced on us!

Dinner

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I think it was Enda Kenny who refused to rule this out?

He didn't necessarily refuse to rule it out. When asked would he consider a third referendum, he said that he wasn't contemplating defeat in this one so their is no point in even think about a third one.

Toiletroll (or another no poster) blew it entirely out of proportion and took this to mean that he would consider a third one and went on a rant about how undemocratic it is. The only problem is that he very clearly didn't give any sort of indication on what he would do if/when he gets into power.

starbelgrade

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

.
A lot of very, very wrong things used to be "the norm"... Does that always make it ok?

That's hardly a question that can be answered with a "yes". Daft.

However, on the question of repeat referendums - in some cases, yes, it IS right that we vote more than once, otherwise public opinion would be set in stone from the day the votes were cast until the end of time.

That would also be daft.

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I think it was Enda Kenny who refused to rule this out?

Yep.

That would respect the Vote No to stop NAMA or oust Cowen democratic mandate.

It wouldn't respect the No means No mandate.