Why didn't we have a referendum about bailing out banks / burning bondholers? /

Scioch

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's not a view I'm completely unsympathetic with, but shift perspective for a second: three million voters choose a hundred and sixty six people to represent them. Now, you have a choice: you can depend on 166 people to educate themselves and make an informed decision - not necessarily a decision you agree with, but at least an informed decision - or you can depend on three million people to educate themselves and make an informed decision.

But isnt their decisions made before they even read it depending on what party they are in ? I'd be all for 166 intelligent well educated and informed people making a decision on behalf of the people. But would we get that ? Or would we get what we got in the campaign ? TD's misrepresenting what its about and voting in line with their party. Granted you might get the odd O'Cuiv who steps out of line but in general your not and every decision would be very predictable, Dail debates just as pointless on the matter as they are in relation to everything else now. And the ruling parties governing without culpability. And the people saying "We didnt vote them in to do this" with you saying "tough, you should have thought about that last year before any of this happened". People need to be able to change their opinion in those 4 years too in relation to the larger picture, espcecially considering the huge drama that has unfolded in Europe in recent times. Theese matters need to be referred to the people to keep their initial election of their representatives valid.

Any given group of 166 people is probably going to have almost as diverse a set of motivations, hopes, fears and desires as the three million, but one thing I think you can say with confidence is that there's a much better chance that those 166 people actually did some homework on the treaty than that a representative sample of the three million did. The cynic in me says that it shows more clearly how reluctant the people are to be honestly informed about anything.

As above the diversity wouldnt be as dynamic as you'd find in a public referendum. I take the point that those people would be more informed but would you not be concerned about the fact that informed or not the party can dictate how they vote ?

I had several discussions on Facebook as well as on here with undecided voters. It's an exercise in extreme frustration: they keep dragging tangents and irrelevancies into the discussion. At least when a politician does it, you know that there's probably an ulterior motive at work rather than an inability or unwillingness to think logically about the issue. I've said it before, and I'll doubtless say it again: when the electorate demonstrate their ability to take democracy seriously by electing quality candidates on the basis of truthful campaign promises rather than the motley assortment of gob****es they elect because they tell them what they want to hear, I'll be more open to the idea of giving the electorate more responsibility. Until then, I'm content to keep the levers of power at a reasonably safe distance from the man in the street.

But there are very few credible candidates who run honest campaigns. Maybe a few independents but the bulk of candidates are party politicians with an agenda and a campaign designed to get them elected.

If those people were there to vote for I think people would vote for them but there are few of them about. I dont think we have the pedigree in terms of candidates running in elections to be blaming the results on the people.

hatrickpatrick

Dinner wrote: »

We have our say in elections. And to those people who feel FG betrayed them by going back on promises will have the opportunity to punish them come the next general election.

That's not good enough. That's where the problem lies.
We should be able to call a vote of no confidence in the government today if a vast majority of the people want to.

Dinner

LordSmeg wrote: »

I'm not saying have elections every year or arguing for a direct democracy I'm saying those in office should be answerable throughout their 4 year term and dependant on the support of the people throughout that term for referendums to tie them to their promises and obligations. Not just allow them free reign in the 4 years and restrict the people to be nothing more than bystanders. They still have a mandate from the people to carry out the policies they were elected to govern by but cannot deviate too much from that or their ability to enact change would be diminished if they lose the confidence of the people.

The problem there is that situations and circumstances change. Politicians will make promises that might not actually be possible when they see what the realities of the job actually are (and I'm sure, others lie). I want my politicans to be flexible, I want them to change their beliefs as time goes on and circumstances change. To not change their plans would be reckless.

Of course this is idealised, probably a lot, and not a reflections of Irish politics. But I think the alternative is worse.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's not good enough. That's where the problem lies.
We should be able to call a vote of no confidence in the government today if a vast majority of the people want to.

That would be a terrible idea. I was as frustrated as the next person during the end (and middle...) of the previous FF government and was looking forward to an election. But a 'kill switch' so to speak on a government would make them reluctant to make the tough unpopular choices that might sometimes have to be made. And judging by the speed at which Irish people turn against governments (myself included) we would have elections every 18 months.

Scioch

Dinner wrote: »

The problem there is that situations and circumstances change. Politicians will make promises that might not actually be possible when they see what the realities of the job actually are (and I'm sure, others lie). I want my politicans to be flexible, I want them to change their beliefs as time goes on and circumstances change. To not change their plans would be reckless.

Of course this is idealised, probably a lot, and not a reflections of Irish politics. But I think the alternative is worse.

I agree that they have to be flexible but they also have to keep in tune with the electorate or they risk losing their mandate. Referendums facilitate that by forcing them to defer to the populace on certain matters such as the fiscal compact. And act as a sort of check in with the electorate and reinforces the mandate from the initial election when people agree with the government in how to proceed on these issues I think.

I dont think its as simple as choosing a small group over a larger group to make the decision. The ability to have a say counts for a lot when it comes to public opinion in uncertain times and does a lot to calm growing unrest too. Can you imagine the opposition's position if this was ratified without a referendum considering the way they represented it in the campaign ?

Dinner

LordSmeg wrote: »

I agree that they have to be flexible but they also have to keep in tune with the electorate or they risk losing their mandate. Referendums facilitate that by forcing them to defer to the populace on certain matters such as the fiscal compact. And act as a sort of check in with the electorate and reinforces the mandate from the initial election when people agree with the government in how to proceed on these issues I think.

Keeping in check with the electorate is all well and good. But I don't think a referendum is the way to do that. Aside from any number of opinion polls carried out throughout the year, local elections can be a barometer of opinion. Though I don't think they're due again until 2014 or so.

LordSmeg wrote: »

Can you imagine the opposition's position if this was ratified without a referendum considering the way they represented it in the campaign ?

Ha, yeah thats a fair point. I think Joe Higgins would explode. :pac: