should there be a different type of referendum on europe

jem

It is clear that there are many reasons for Britain voting leave.
Likewise it is clear that many in Ireland and indeed in other countries have major problems with some parts of the "EU project" and don't want effectively a United States of Europe.

I wonder if a party in Ireland put as one of its main promises that they would hold a multi Choice referendum on what the EU should be involved in and what should it not.Obviously the wording would be difficult but..
For Example:
I don't believe that the EU should have any say whatever with regard to the water charges or the bogs in Ireland.
I don't believe the EU should have any say or indeed opinion on what Ireland CT or Vat rates are as long as you cant have different rates in a country depending on whether the company is Irish or from France for example.
I don't believe that the EU should have anything to do with what type of bulbs are used.
I don't believe there should be an EU army.

I do believe that we should go back to having an EEC as opposed to EU.
I do believe the EEC should concern itself with free movement of trade and people within the Europe.
I do believe that Europe should set minimum standards for goods.
I do believe that Europe should insure that companies have a level playing field for companies tendering for major contracts.
I do believe in the European court of Justice.

Nody

No. There is already an approved scope for EU; if you wish to see changes then lobby the relevant politicians on it instead.

That is a poll, not a referendum. And whilst it would certainly be interesting (and extremely useful) to gauge the public-at-large's opinions in such a way, it would be quite an extravagant and expensive way to go about it.

jem

Nody wrote: »

No. There is already an approved scope for EU; if you wish to see changes then lobby the relevant politicians on it instead.

The problem is that a substantial % of the people believe that the scope of THE EU is way too broad and that they have taken far too much on that they have no right to getting involved in.

jem

Deleted User wrote: »

That is a poll, not a referendum. And whilst it would certainly be interesting (and extremely useful) to gauge the public-at-large's opinions in such a way, it would be quite an extravagant and expensive way to go about it.

Probably/possibly would be more of a poll. It might be expensive but may save us far more in the medium/long term. ( how much could our fines be on water etc ? less than the cost of referendum)

wes

No, referendum should be for changes to our constitution only. We elect politicians to run the country, and they should do what they are elected to do.

Nody

jem wrote: »

Probably/possibly would be more of a poll. It might be expensive but may save us far more in the medium/long term. ( how much could our fines be on water etc ? less than the cost of referendum)

And the vote will not change anything in the relationship with EU; hence if you want change then lobby the politicians accordingly. If people can't be bothered to do that then why bother with a meaningless vote?

Zubeneschamali

jem wrote: »

The problem is that a substantial % of the people believe that the scope of THE EU is way too broad and that they have taken far too much on that they have no right to getting involved in.

This is a problem, but Brexit is about to demonstrate to these people that they are wrong about everything, and the experts were right.

jem

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is a problem, but Brexit is about to demonstrate to these people that they are wrong about everything, and the experts were right.

A lot of the reasons that the vote went against the eu were very wrong and were racist. However the butting in of the EU in areas that has nothing to do with it like some of what I posted earlier is IMHO very right.
For example tax rates, water charges , bin charges, types of bulbs,turf cutting etc etc have nothing to do with a common market and is more like a superstate that we didn't vote for or indeed want.
Remember the EU constitution was voted down.
j

oscarBravo

jem wrote: »

However the butting in of the EU in areas that has nothing to do with it like some of what I posted earlier is IMHO very right.

But they're not "nothing to do with it"; they are competences granted to the union by its member states.

For example tax rates, water charges , bin charges, types of bulbs,turf cutting etc etc have nothing to do with a common market and is more like a superstate that we didn't vote for or indeed want.

It's not just a common market. It has been more than a common market since its inception, despite the self-serving claims to the contrary by some member state politicians.

As for "we didn't vote for it": yes, we did. We voted in favour of the Lisbon Treaty.

molloyjh

jem wrote: »

A lot of the reasons that the vote went against the eu were very wrong and were racist. However the butting in of the EU in areas that has nothing to do with it like some of what I posted earlier is IMHO very right.
For example tax rates, water charges , bin charges, types of bulbs,turf cutting etc etc have nothing to do with a common market and is more like a superstate that we didn't vote for or indeed want.
Remember the EU constitution was voted down.
j

The EU have no power over our tax rates other than that they should apply to all EU citizens and companies equally. We still define the rates. That isn't likely to change, at least not in the foreseeable future.

The water charges were a condition of the bail out IIRC and not something driven by the EU per se.

Other bits of legislation on random things like light bulbs are about the standards that the EU require across the board. Defining regulations for the sale of goods and services across the EU is very much about the common market, i.e. having the same regulations across all countries.

There's a lot of hysteria and finger pointing regarding the EU and no shortage of misinformation. It's a flawed set-up but it isn't half as bad as some would have us believe. In fact it's a handy scapegoat for many.

Bit cynical

I don't know whether the OP's suggestions are practical but I do think that we will come to a stage in the EU where the problems won't be solved with "More Europe", however I don't think politicians and those in power in EU institutions will be able to see this.

We are getting to the stage where from the perspective of the EU, the electorates themselves are the problem. "France" doesn't have a problem with the EU but the French electorate does. The "UK" made the mistake of asking people what they thought and they gave the "wrong" answer.

"France" and the "Netherlands" were told to approve the EU Constitution and they failed to deliver the correct answer forcing the EU to redraft it in the form of an inter-governmental treaty. "Ireland" due to its peculiar constitutional requirements held a referendum and failed on the first instance to pass the referendum and were told to vote again. The original document that was supposed to have popular approval failed to get it but the content went through and became law anyway.

I use quotation marks here because membership of the EU requires a splitting of what would have been one country into two entities: a) the government and establishment of that country loyal to the EU and b) the people in it who's loyalty is questionable, understanding limited, and who need to be managed. Governments get captured by the EU project leaving the people behind.

We also see people within Ireland who, although they hold no position of power, hold these views as well. The problem for them is not the EU but the electorate who fail to understand. Therefore whenever a decision is made by the people that they don't agree with, they never question their own position but rather blame the electorate for being uneducated.

The EU is very different to the Soviet Union of old, but something similar occurred there. Outsiders as well as ordinary people within the system could see that the system did not work.

Those who held positions of power did not see any fundamental problems in the system itself. If there were problems, e.g. economic stagnation, it was not because the Soviet system was flawed but because the people failed to understand it properly, the people were not properly educated. Outsiders who could see that there were problems were not just those living in other countries but also ordinary people living within. Powerless to change the system many tried to escape and were punished (re-educated) for trying to do so.

oscarBravo

Bit cynical wrote: »

We also see people within Ireland who, although they hold no position of power, hold these views as well. The problem for them is not the EU but the electorate who fail to understand. Therefore whenever a decision is made by the people that they don't agree with, they never question their own position but rather blame the electorate for being uneducated.

Turn that on its head. You're basically operating on the assumption that if "the people" are unhappy with "the EU", then the people must be right and the EU must change.

That's a view that has widespread currency, but it has a major flaw: most of the problems people have with the EU are mythical, or at least overstated.

For example: much of the sentiment in the Brexit referendum centred around the idea of a Brussels-based dictatorship. In reality, the EU institutions are (a) a popularly-elected parliament, (b) a council of elected government representatives, and (c) a commission of appointees selected by the same elected governments. The "diktats" which so many people seem to believe magically appear in the heads of faceless Eurocrats are in fact agreed between the member states and approved by the directly-elected parliament.

It's more than a little unfair to demand that the EU change its ways, when the ways that people want changed don't really exist in the first place. It's a bit like demanding that Enda Kenny stop eating babies: is it fair to criticise him for not implementing that reform?

Robbo

jem wrote: »

A lot of the reasons that the vote went against the eu were very wrong and were racist. However the butting in of the EU in areas that has nothing to do with it like some of what I posted earlier is IMHO very right.
For example tax rates, water charges , bin charges, types of bulbs,turf cutting etc etc have nothing to do with a common market and is more like a superstate that we didn't vote for or indeed want.
Remember the EU constitution was voted down.
j

All of the things (bar tax) you mention are environmental issues, which has been a shared EU Competence for decades, arguably prior to Ireland joining. This was formally implemented at Treaty level in the SEA, which was subject to a referendum. It appears we both wanted this and voted for it.

It can be argued that these things have quite a lot to do with the Common Market. How can one Member State compete on an equal footing with another where one decides that they'll just abandon environmental requirements in order to use the money elsewhere?

Bit cynical

oscarBravo wrote: »

Turn that on its head. You're basically operating on the assumption that if "the people" are unhappy with "the EU", then the people must be right and the EU must change.

That's a view that has widespread currency, but it has a major flaw: most of the problems people have with the EU are mythical, or at least overstated.

Let's apply this same principle to a national government. Imagine a government minister saying:

You're basically operating on the assumption that if "the people" are unhappy with "the ruling party", then the people must be right and the ruling party must change.

That's a view that has widespread currency, but it has a major flaw: most of the problems people have with the ruling party are mythical, or at least overstated.

No. Clearly the principle doesn't apply here. A government minister of a particular party doesn't get to decide whether the electorate's arguments are valid or not. It is sufficient merely for the electorate to be dissatisfied with the current ruling party to have them removed.

Why then does it not apply to the EU? What the Brexit vote indicates is a general dissatisfaction with the EU which has been building up gradually for decades. There's never going to be a carefully written policy document that those who are dissatisfied will agree upon. To expect that is unrealistic.

It is no different to the electorate here being generally unhappy with Fianna Fail (or Fine Geal). Everyone is going to have their own reasons for why they are unhappy. If you are an ardant Fianna Fail supporter, none of these reasons is going to be particularly compelling. The difference, however, is that in this particular case, you will probably respect the right of the electorate to vote out your party.

For example: much of the sentiment in the Brexit referendum centred around the idea of a Brussels-based dictatorship. In reality, the EU institutions are (a) a popularly-elected parliament, (b) a council of elected government representatives, and (c) a commission of appointees selected by the same elected governments. The "diktats" which so many people seem to believe magically appear in the heads of faceless Eurocrats are in fact agreed between the member states and approved by the directly-elected parliament.

The problem is that it is too many levels removed from the voter to be considered democratic.

Other systems of government have individuals voting at a low level, then the elected committee elects the next level up, and so on. But at the top, the decision makers have very little to do with those at the bottom. Decisions get made that have not been the subject to any sort of debate. It is virtually impossible to find out where the decision originate and who is responsible for them.

It's more than a little unfair to demand that the EU change its ways, when the ways that people want changed don't really exist in the first place. It's a bit like demanding that Enda Kenny stop eating babies: is it fair to criticise him for not implementing that reform?

Maybe it is not a question of fairness. Maybe it is a bit more like running a business. You have a great product. You set up a shop in a town but customers insist on going elsewhere and your business fails. Do you get to blame your customers? Do your customers have to justify themselves to you before going elsewhere?

I would argue that they do not. In this example, it is up to you to justify yourself to them and not the other way round.

What I think some people have is a general sense of uneasiness with the EU and the direction it is going and the fact that decisions are made, laws are created for which there is next to no debate in the national media.

oscarBravo

Bit cynical wrote: »

Let's apply this same principle to a national government. Imagine a government minister saying:

You're basically operating on the assumption that if "the people" are unhappy with "the ruling party", then the people must be right and the ruling party must change.

That's a view that has widespread currency, but it has a major flaw: most of the problems people have with the ruling party are mythical, or at least overstated.

No. Clearly the principle doesn't apply here. A government minister of a particular party doesn't get to decide whether the electorate's arguments are valid or not. It is sufficient merely for the electorate to be dissatisfied with the current ruling party to have them removed.

You've made a perfect case for ruling parties never, ever making tough-but-unpopular decisions. You've argued that the only thing a government party should ever do is whatever is popular, whether or not it's good for the country.

That's the slavish devotion to democracy that says that large groups of people are incapable of being wrong. It's not a view I've ever subscribed to.

What the Brexit vote indicates is a general dissatisfaction with the EU which has been building up gradually for decades. There's never going to be a carefully written policy document that those who are dissatisfied will agree upon. To expect that is unrealistic.

So if a number of people have a vague sense of unease with the EU, the EU must change in some vague and undefinable way in order to attempt to appease this unease that is barely articulated?

Yeah, seems fair.

The EU isn't a national government. The electorate of the EU don't get to "vote out" the EU, for the same reason the electorate of the UN don't get to vote it out.

There's a directly elected branch of the EU; if you're unhappy with your representatives in that branch, vote them out. There's a branch that consists of heads of government and government ministers of each member state; if you're unhappy with the head of government and the ministers who represents you on that body, vote them out. There's a branch that's appointed by the government of each member state; that branch isn't supposed to represent you, but the interests of the Union as a whole.

It would be nice if we could move beyond the whole "there are lots of people who dislike the EU for [reasons] therefore the EU needs to do [something] to appease these people" and have someone explain precisely what it is they want the EU to be. Then all they have to do is convince the member state governments that it's important to make those changes, such that those member states will agree the necessary treaty changes. Then they have to convince electorates such as Ireland's not to reflexively reject those treaty changes just to give the government a kicking for whatever reason.

twinytwo

wes wrote: »

No, referendum should be for changes to our constitution only. We elect politicians to run the country, and they should do what they are elected to do.

That is the problem right there.... we would need to live in a world where politicians put their people first.

Unfortunately we live in an oligarchy, democracy is a charade. Most countries do not have a right to a referendum (yes a lot of them voted this right away)so you have the choice of voting for the mainstream parties who all spout the same lies but ultimately all answer to the same masters or you vote for one of the wing parties which is just as bad.

You cannot really do anything about the above as you are vilified as anti eu, racist etc if you do not support the existing institutions.

As Brexit has shown you cannot really get away from the beast that is the EU without getting hammered.

Slowly but surely we are becoming a super state. The EU should only have been about trade like it was originally meant to be.

twinytwo

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've made a perfect case for ruling parties never, ever making tough-but-unpopular decisions. You've argued that the only thing a government party should ever do is whatever is popular, whether or not it's good for the country.

That's the slavish devotion to democracy that says that large groups of people are incapable of being wrong. It's not a view I've ever subscribed to. So if a number of people have a vague sense of unease with the EU, the EU must change in some vague and undefinable way in order to attempt to appease this unease that is barely articulated?

Yeah, seems fair.

The EU isn't a national government. The electorate of the EU don't get to "vote out" the EU, for the same reason the electorate of the UN don't get to vote it out.

There's a directly elected branch of the EU; if you're unhappy with your representatives in that branch, vote them out. There's a branch that consists of heads of government and government ministers of each member state; if you're unhappy with the head of government and the ministers who represents you on that body, vote them out. There's a branch that's appointed by the government of each member state; that branch isn't supposed to represent you, but the interests of the Union as a whole.

It would be nice if we could move beyond the whole "there are lots of people who dislike the EU for [reasons] therefore the EU needs to do [something] to appease these people" and have someone explain precisely what it is they want the EU to be. Then all they have to do is convince the member state governments that it's important to make those changes, such that those member states will agree the necessary treaty changes. Then they have to convince electorates such as Ireland's not to reflexively reject those treaty changes just to give the government a kicking for whatever reason.

So your happy with the EU as a whole?

oscarBravo

twinytwo wrote: »

So your happy with the EU as a whole?

Pretty much, yes.

Son Of A Vidic

oscarBravo wrote: »

As for "we didn't vote for it": yes, we did. We voted in favour of the Lisbon Treaty.

Ah the oul referendum that had to be run twice, because the outcome didn't suit the 'democrats' the first time around. I think it was The Yes to Jobs, Yes To Lisbon nonsense that sold it for them the second time around. A sad & very forgettable event in the history of Irish Democracy.

oscarBravo

Son Of A Vidic wrote: »

Ah the oul referendum that had to be run twice, because the outcome didn't suit the 'democrats' the first time around. I think it was The Yes to Jobs, Yes To Lisbon nonsense that sold it for them the second time around. A sad & very forgettable event in the history of Irish Democracy.

So, what? You accept the outcome of the first referendum, but reject the outcome of the second?

Referendums on international treaties are a stupid idea anyway. Ratifying treaties is a government's job. Most countries have the sense to realise this.

ancapailldorcha

Son Of A Vidic wrote: »

Ah the oul referendum that had to be run twice, because the outcome didn't suit the 'democrats' the first time around. I think it was The Yes to Jobs, Yes To Lisbon nonsense that sold it for them the second time around. A sad & very forgettable event in the history of Irish Democracy.

I voted no to the second running of that referendum. Why didn't anyone else who was so concerned about democracy?

K-9

oscarBravo wrote: »

So, what? You accept the outcome of the first referendum, but reject the outcome of the second?

Referendums on international treaties are a stupid idea anyway. Ratifying treaties is a government's job. Most countries have the sense to realise this.

But then you end up with Brexit and a fair bit of Euroskepticism in France, Germany etc. A balance should be found between state of the nation or EU referenda like that and our own situation, which often means nothing getting done as Government needs a referendum and they don't think it is worth it. The current problem with foetal abnormalities and abortion a good example, something needs to be done but politicians will run from a referendum on it.

KingBrian2

For all the people who rant on about the Lisbon referendum not being democratic as a second vote was required to get it passed with amendments I reckon half of them don't even know any paragraphs in the Irish Constitution.

molloyjh

Son Of A Vidic wrote: »

Ah the oul referendum that had to be run twice, because the outcome didn't suit the 'democrats' the first time around. I think it was The Yes to Jobs, Yes To Lisbon nonsense that sold it for them the second time around. A sad & very forgettable event in the history of Irish Democracy.

I wish it were forgettable!

The simple fact of the matter is that the people rejected the Treaty in the main because they didn't understand it. Be that simply voting No because they didn't understand it or voting No because of lies like our voting weight would be halved or our corporate tax rate would be controlled by the EU. If anything the first Lisbon referendum proved quite conclusively that the public should not be asked to vote on matters such as these. International treaties are complicated legal documents. Expecting the man on the street to make decisions over something like that is a bit much.

And the second referendum was every bit as democratic as the first, what with it being a referendum and all. Plus we weren't voting on the same thing. There were add-ons to the Treaty that appeared as a result of our rejection. That work was done on the package itself based on our feedback is surely the best kind of democracy there is no?

Zubeneschamali

It certainly looks as if the brexit referendum suffered from some of the same issues as some of our Europe referendums: opponents telling wholesale lies, people voting No/Leave as a protest, people voting No/leave because they don't understand the question.

Here we had some reflection, came up with clarifications and held another vote, and a) some people changed their minds and b) some people who didn't bother first time got off their holes.

It doesn't look as if the UK will do this: instead they will dive headlong into the unknown. Is this more or less democratic? I don't know, but it is certainly more interesting to watch, preferably from a distance.

hardCopy

Robbo wrote: »

All of the things (bar tax) you mention are environmental issues, which has been a shared EU Competence for decades, arguably prior to Ireland joining. This was formally implemented at Treaty level in the SEA, which was subject to a referendum. It appears we both wanted this and voted for it.

It can be argued that these things have quite a lot to do with the Common Market. How can one Member State compete on an equal footing with another where one decides that they'll just abandon environmental requirements in order to use the money elsewhere?

Exactly, no one country would want to be proactive about the environment if it makes them a more expensive place to do business than their neighbour. This way everyone is on an equal footing and we can hope to make some progress in protecting our environment. If I had to vote on it tomorrow I'd vote for the EU to keep regulating light-bulbs.

micdug

jem wrote: »

Nody wrote: »

No. There is already an approved scope for EU; if you wish to see changes then lobby the relevant politicians on it instead.

The problem is that a substantial % of the people believe that the scope of THE EU is way too broad and that they have taken far too much on that they have no right to getting involved in.

The Problem is that a substantial % of the people believe in different things. That's why we appoint Politicians to negotiate on our behalf. For example I am extremely uneasy about giving certain powers back to the Irish electorate (such as equal pay for men and woman).


The other problem is that you are forgetting about he people in the other 26 Countries who have their opinion too. It's a nonsensical and actually anti-democratic proposal to my mind.

Finally I do actually agree with the core point you seem to have missed. The biggest issue with the EU is the media who have woefully underreported OR fabricated news about the EU. There is plenty of debate, unfortunately media failure in both Ireland and the UK makes it marginally harder to get the message across. Then again, talking to the average Irish voter they have very little idea of what happens in the Dail either.

endacl

jem wrote: »

The problem is that a substantial % of the people believe that the scope of THE EU is way too broad and that they have taken far too much on that they have no right to getting involved in.

While at the same time a substantial % of the people haven't clue 1 about how the EU functions, what the roles of the various institutions are, who represents them and in what capacity....

Which is how brexit happened. Idiots armed with votes.

micdug

Son Of A Vidic wrote: »

oscarBravo wrote: »

As for "we didn't vote for it": yes, we did. We voted in favour of the Lisbon Treaty.

Ah the oul referendum that had to be run twice, because the outcome didn't suit the 'democrats' the first time around. I think it was The Yes to Jobs, Yes To Lisbon nonsense that sold it for them the second time around. A sad & very forgettable event in the history of Irish Democracy.

As opposed to the "EU Army" and "Forced Abortions" of the Anti EU Campaign. The evidence is post Lisbon that our unemployment went down due to continued multinational investment based on EU membership and absolutely none of the concerns of the No side transpired.

BlitzKrieg

K-9 wrote: »

But then you end up with Brexit and a fair bit of Euroskepticism in France, Germany etc. A balance should be found between state of the nation or EU referenda like that and our own situation, which often means nothing getting done as Government needs a referendum and they don't think it is worth it.

In terms of EU its almost as if things might have been better if instead of having to amend treaties wholesale every time things might have worked better if governments and if it calls for it people could vote on issues individually...

like amendments...


to a constitution...

oh right that went tits up already

molloyjh

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It certainly looks as if the brexit referendum suffered from some of the same issues as some of our Europe referendums: opponents telling wholesale lies, people voting No/Leave as a protest, people voting No/leave because they don't understand the question.

Here we had some reflection, came up with clarifications and held another vote, and a) some people changed their minds and b) some people who didn't bother first time got off their holes.

It doesn't look as if the UK will do this: instead they will dive headlong into the unknown. Is this more or less democratic? I don't know, but it is certainly more interesting to watch, preferably from a distance.

I don't think running another referendum makes either one more or less democratic. Both are every bit as democratic, just at different moments in time. The problem is with the assumption that direct democracy is always the best option, or always the right thing. And it's been proven a few times in the last few years (Brexit and Lisbon) that direct democracy is not the right thing.

At the end of the day we elect people to office to make decisions on our behalf. We do this because we do not have the knowledge/experience to make the complex and difficult calls on matters of importance to the State and society as a whole. We need people who know what they are doing making those decision. Experts. Exactly the kind of people that Gove reckons "the people" are fed up listening to.

Ultimately that shows either stupidity on the part of the people (not listening to experts) and/or a serious disconnect between the experts and the people. Likely a bit of both. If people don't trust the experts it really doesn't matter what they say.

KingBrian2

The problem with all this referendum business is we know all the issues that matter and we disagree on. Abortion. Use of Shannon Airport for US military, Rent supplements, Water charges, legalizing drugs & taxation etc. You can't just have a referendum on all these issues. The country would spend all its time arguing and not get anything decided or implemented.