Did Lisbon invalidate the democratic process?

Dinner

emmettogara wrote: »

That would be acceptable if they had agreed to revise some aspects of it to address the concerns of the nation. But they didn't.

The post Lisbon surveys indicated that the main concerns that people had were not in the treaty. The biggest factor being a lack of knowledge on the contents of the treaty and the others being issues on taxation and neutrality etc.

The simple fact is that the treaty didn't need to be amended to address the concerns of the nation. If their had been something majorly objectionable to the public then it would have manifested itself in the polls. But there wasn't. Should the treaty be changed just for the sake of it? Why bother introducing another layer of bureaucracy to the EU when they can just clarify the contents without needing a lengthy and costly redrafting procedure?

It's not a case of 'wrong answer, try again' as many people would say. It's a case of discovering the concerns of the nation and solving them. In this case, the treaty did not need to be amended.

View

emmettogara wrote: »

Forgive me, it's late and I didn't write that post as well as I should have. Of course we should be allowed to ammend the constitution by way of referendum. However in the case of Lisbon we knew pretty much immediately after the first result that we would be voting again.

That would be acceptable if they had agreed to revise some aspects of it to address the concerns of the nation. But they didn't.

Under the terms of the constitution, the Government - and the Government alone - is authorised to negotiate international treaties on behalf of the Irish people.

The Government - and the EU - conducted post-referendum opinion polls on why people voted No. These showed a very fractured picture with a lot of disparate reasons slowly adding up to a small No majority (i.e. conscription, abortion, corporate tax etc.). Most of these had no basis in the Treaty whatsoever, rather the only reason they were factors in the referendum result at all was a direct result of the No side engaging in blatant scaremongering.

The Government decided that once they had statements to the effect that Lisbon did not effect any of the above areas that they could secure a Yes majority. They negotiated these statements on our behalf and as the result of the referendum showed the people accepted these.

Sure, this may not have addressed your concerns, but it did indeed address the concerns of a majority of the electorate.

emmettogara wrote: »

And the fact that the economy went so pear shaped between the first and second vote only distorted the 2nd vote in my opinion.

Well, it is one opinion. My own opinion is that many people in Lisbon I started off in the Yes camp but got concerned by the No side's scaremongering and voted No as a result. Hence, once the Government had the statements in hand, Lisbon II was a shoe-in - remember all that was needed was a small swing of just over 3% from No to Yes between the two referenda.

emmettogara wrote: »

We never left the E.U., we just didn't like their treaty.

It wasn't "their treaty" - it was "our treaty". It was negotiated by our diplomats as much as any others. As for the claim, "we" just didn't like the treaty, it is true that some of the electorate didn't want Lisbon if it contained conscription, abortion etc - but once they had guarentees it didn't, the reasons for voting No just disappeared for these people and they defaulted to Yes.

emmettogara wrote: »

Therefore I still maintain that it was indeed undemocratic to hold the referendum again.

The Supreme Court already addressed this point in their ruling. In their opinion, it is not and cannot EVER be undemocratic to refer an issue in a referendum to the people (i.e. the demos of democracy).

Flamed Diving

emmettogara wrote: »

I'd like to see Europe allowing us to take another referndum on Lisbon if, in a few years time, it turns out we're not too happy with it.

Erm, we don't require Europe's permission to hold referenda and if you had been paying even the slightest bit of attention to what was being said about the treaty, you would have noticed that this treaty is the first to contain a mechanism for countries to exit the EU. If we have such a huge problem with Lisbon, we can simply leave.

Daftendirekt

emmettogara wrote: »

Revisiting something due to different global circumstances is unacceptable. If that were the case we should be allowed to re-open debates on every referendum that's ever been taken, re-evaluate our stance based on what has happened since the first referendum and vote again.

You're absolutely right. We should.

People change their minds from time to time and there's absolutely no reason to deny them the ability to change the constitution to reflect this.

rumour

aurelius79 wrote: »

This not a discussion about whether voting yes was the right decision or not. This is about whether having two referendums with two different results on the exact same treaty invalidates the right of the public to vote in a referendum or even an election.

A topical issue, which unfortunately, but unsurprisingly no one will engage with you. Instead what you get is moral justification for what was done, ignoring a referendum result. As I see it now if you don't like the democratic result you can commission an 'independent survey' and ignore the result. Is an independent survey more important than the result of the referendum? Can we apply this to elections?

aurelius79 wrote: »

If the public is so easily swayed by fear or misinformation, then what good is a democratic system?

I think the obvious answer is not much anyway do we truly live in a democracy. It is however a good recent example of the power that fear can bestow on people.

aurelius79 wrote: »

Why allow people with such little knowledge about a particular issue to speak for the entire nation? As I said, this isn't about yes or no as the problem affects both sides.

Who has the knowledge? Is it the government? Is it our political institutions? Is it the economists? For those that advocate this approach any talk of democracy is a ruse, as what they really advocate is an oligarchy. This is fine, until you find yourself on the outside. I think it can even work well for a time even without the support of the majority as you can always resort to fear but in time it is doomed to failure not by the mechanism of governance itself but more by the moral characteristics of those who hold power who continually adopt more and more distasteful techniques to bolster their lack of popularity. I cannot put my finger on why, but there is always a reluctance to cede power and always a desire to have it.

aurelius79 wrote: »

What did the Lisbon referendums say about the EU?

That it is a strong organisation in pursuit of power and no democratic result from a small nation would be allowed stand in the way of their progress. This does not make it defacto bad, but it does demonstrate that the pursuit of power is far more enticing than guarding democratic principles.

aurelius79 wrote: »

We, as a nation, voted no on the Lisbon Treaty. Whether that was right or wrong is debatable but for this discussion it is irrelevant. This vote was completely ignored by the EU and we were forced to vote again. What would have happened if we voted no the second time? Would they have made us vote again and again until we voted "correctly"? Would they have just passed the treaty with only the consent of the Irish government? It was clear that they were unwilling to alter the treaty, so what do you think would have happened?

They would have found a media friendly marketable political solution that advanced their aims. They are an institution that exists only to expand their power base. This does not make it bad per say. As a general example how could you sell the good of the EU if all that came out of it was, we're fine, don't need anything, expanding? Nope, no need for that. Instantly we would be calling it useless. Perhaps this is just human nature. I was watching Gladiator recently. In it there was a question 'what is Rome?', the answer was 'it is an idea'. Romans loved it as it expanded and triumphed, when that stopped in some respects so too did the greatness of Rome.

sceptre

rumour wrote: »

A topical issue, which unfortunately, but unsurprisingly no one will engage with you. Instead what you get is moral justification for what was done, ignoring a referendum result. As I see it now if you don't like the democratic result you can commission an 'independent survey' and ignore the result. Is an independent survey more important than the result of the referendum? Can we apply this to elections?

If a government in situ feels the need to step down and call a general election after a poll says they should then yes, of course you can apply it to elections. This has always been the case.

rumour wrote: »

I was watching Gladiator recently. In it there was a question 'what is Rome?', the answer was 'it is an idea'. Romans loved it as it expanded and triumphed, when that stopped in some respects so too did the greatness of Rome.[/FONT]

I'm sure Ridley Scott is as entitled to his views on what Rome was as anyone else who's directing a multi-million-dollar piece of entertainment, making a statement on bread and circuses while ironically sating me with both as I chomp popcorn. I'd say that Rome was more than an idea, as is the EU, but then I'm not directing a multi-million-dollar piece of entertainment.

rumour

sceptre wrote: »

If a government in situ feels the need to step down and call a general election after a poll says they should then yes, of course you can apply it to elections. This has always been the case..

Yes but is this a good way to govern. If I don't like the election result can I commission an opinion poll and force the government to have an election, pretty much straight after the election?

sceptre wrote: »

I'm sure Ridley Scott is as entitled to his views on what Rome was as anyone else who's directing a multi-million-dollar piece of entertainment, making a statement on bread and circuses while ironically sating me with both as I chomp popcorn. I'd say that Rome was more than an idea, as is the EU, but then I'm not directing a multi-million-dollar piece of entertainment.

Well I don't care to much for Ridley Scott, but I did find those statements worthy of contemplation, I haven't written a thesis but consider for example what motivated everyone to join Napeleons army or indeed for that matter Hitlers. At some point people believed it was all for good or betterment in terms that they could find morally excusable. Surely to achieve that kind of devoted following an idea of sorts must be at the core?
The most recent example is Mr Obama message of 'change' and 'yes we can', which is so simplistic its humourous but it is an idea that garnered support and ultimately got him power.

sceptre

rumour wrote: »

Yes but is this a good way to govern. If I don't like the election result can I commission an opinion poll and force the government to have an election, pretty much straight after the election?

Heavens no. But you can't do that with either an election or a referendum. The government can do it with both. I fail to see the inconsistency. Obviously I'm just not getting your projected destination, can you point me there?

Well I don't care to much for Ridley Scott, but I did find those statements worthy of contemplation, I haven't written a thesis but consider for example what motivated everyone to join Napeleons army or indeed for that matter Hitlers. At some point people believed it was all for good or betterment in terms that they could find morally excusable. Surely to achieve that kind of devoted following an idea of sorts must be at the core?
The most recent example is Mr Obama message of 'change' and 'yes we can', which is so simplistic its humourous but it is an idea that garnered support and ultimately got him power.

It's nice when the people like what their political leaders are doing. Or when the elected leaders listen to the people and vice versa. I'm not the greatest fan of sound bites and catch phrases though, as people will have noticed from my views on the Lisbon posters in general. They can work as a hook and some people don't require more than a hook. I'd say that the "what do you want Europe to become" is rather a larger question than "should Ireland have had a second referendum and if 'no', is democracy somehow destroyed by it" and probably worthy of a thread on its own. I know that rather then a mere catchphrase you're considering what Europe should actually be, starting at the apex of an abstract idea and working down. That's a massive question, massive discussion and certainly deserves its own thread.

Scofflaw

emmettogara wrote: »

Again, of course we should be allowed to ammend outdated laws in our own constitution and vote again on treatys that have been amended, but to vote again on an unamended treaty whilst being lead to believe that the first result had and was somehow going to continue to affect or economy is a different kettle of fish.

Strictly speaking, of course it's entirely democratic to get us to vote on the same treaty over and over and over again, it's in the constitution.

We should however have a good reason to revisit it. In this case I don't think we had a good enough reason to do that after such a short space of time. Things changed but not in a way that this treaty affected.

Which leaves us with the obvious conclusion that EU treaty referendums aren't decided on the issues contained solely in the treaty under consideration. Agreeing that to be the case, it should be obvious that the claim that some 'material' change is required in the treaty before it can be revisited is entirely false.

The only argument that avoids that conclusion is one that claims that the first referendum was decided only on the material issues in the Treaty, while the second one was decided on irrelevant issues - a claim which is frankly ridiculous, not least because the No campaigns made a point (indeed, their strongest point) of how little people knew about the Treaty in the first referendum. Still, if you'd like to defend that, lay on!

cordially,
Scofflaw