Referendum or Take it out of our hands?

Bri

In response to the other thread regarding the erosion of free speech via the new 'constitutional treaty'. I find myself wondering...would it be preferable to hold no referendum? Given the "Reader-Friendly Edition by Jens-Peter Bonde" is 220 pages, and the fact it's so widely misunderstood/ignored. For instance, I feel that government information campaigns are bound to be well below par - but I also feel that it would take an enormous amount of effort to fully enlighten even a reasonable portion of the population. To understand the proposed constitutional treaty you'd have to give people an understanding of the main institutions, the foundations of the EU and so on. No to mention that arduous task of trying to explain the CFSP/ESDP. I'm not implying that people need to understand the full history of security policies and the multiple relevant institutions, but the public seems very vunerable to scaremongering - generally because it's easier to present a red-top styled story than a coherent one. Not to mention the hypocritical way governments use Europe as a scapegoat when deemed necessary, and then come back to the public later looking for a positive response. Oh and of course there's the understandable tactic the public use of punishing their government for mostly internal matters via a referendum.

Myself, I'd still be drawn back to supporting a referendum...despite my reservations about the complexity. Yet Austria, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Malta, Slovenia, Sweden are all definatley not holding a referendum...and there may be more. I'd say this because of my negative experience regarding politics and leaving important matters in the hands of the government (e.g. Divorce Brussels II going by unnoticed). Yet the other option is flawed too!

Not really sure what the solution is - obviously an penetrating and informative campaign - but that seems flawed before it even begins. I guess it's just the imperfections of democracy.

Any thoughts? Of course this is based on the French yes vote

johnKarma

Bri wrote:

In response to the other thread regarding the erosion of free speech via the new 'constitutional treaty'. I find myself wondering...would it be preferable to hold no referendum? ... Austria, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Malta, Slovenia, Sweden are all definatley not holding a referendum...and there may be more. I'd say this because of my negative experience regarding politics and leaving important matters in the hands of the government (e.g. Divorce Brussels II going by unnoticed). Yet the other option is flawed too!

Not really sure what the solution is - obviously an penetrating and informative campaign - but that seems flawed before it even begins. I guess it's just the imperfections of democracy.

Any thoughts? Of course this is based on the French yes vote

The problem is that under our Constitution (unlike in Germany where referenda are banned), the government is almost certainly obliged to hold a referendum on every amendment to the European Treaties.

This goes back to a Supreme Court decision from 1987, where a citizen challenged the government's ratification of the Single European Act, and was successful on the grounds that portions of the SEA unconstitutionally fettered the state's ability to make foreign policy decisions. Since then, every amendment has been put to referendum, but there has been no test case to determine whether this is absolutely legally necessary.

I reckon that given the Constitution's new developments in the field of common foreign policy and the creation of a new Union external minister, as well as the creation of a few new (admittedly relatively minor) fields of competence for the EU, a referendum is legally required.

Of course this is all moot, because politically, the answer is clear-cut - any government that tried to ratify a treaty without a referendum would be accused of being anti-democratic, and frankly that's not a bad argument at all.

I'm always frustrated by media commentary on the Constitution and the EU in general. Because of the complex hybrid nature of the organisation, all of the subtleties are lost - something well illustrated by the confusion over the status of the Charter on fundamental rights. So I can see the argument for not allowing a referendum.

On the other hand, ratification by referendum would give the EU a stronger democratic legitimacy. The imperfect solution is to make sure that the referendum commission do their job properly and ensure that as many citizens as possible are informed. The national forum on europe is another important piece in the puzzle. Of course the political parties have an important role to play too. All of the mainstream parties are in favour of the constitution too and should mobilise to make sure it's passed - not play petty politics like the French Socialists.

Bri

johnKarma wrote:

On the other hand, ratification by referendum would give the EU a stronger democratic legitimacy. The imperfect solution is to make sure that the referendum commission do their job properly and ensure that as many citizens as possible are informed. The national forum on europe is another important piece in the puzzle. Of course the political parties have an important role to play too. All of the mainstream parties are in favour of the constitution too and should mobilise to make sure it's passed - not play petty politics like the French Socialists.

On the legitimacy front, I'd agree with your point...although I don't fully subscribe to the democratic deficit thesis - there's definatley some validity in arguing that the EU needs to narrow the gap between itself and the citizens...but as your said yourself it's a hybrid and therefore shouldn't be benchmarked simply as a state. All in all, I think that regardless of the legality, any progressive integration by our country would need to be put to the public vote, especially in this political climate! Just interested at the number who don't require it.

Here's hoping the above groups do actually mobilise and make the best of a flawed situation.

Bri

How appropriate...front of today's Irish Times:

The Government is proposing to amend the Constitution to allow for major future changes to EU rules, including the abolition of the national veto in almost all areas of policy over which the EU currently has power, to be made without a referendum.

Under the proposal, voters would be asked in the forthcoming referendum on the EU Constitution to give the Government freedom to sign up in the future to a wide range of such changes as long as they get the approval of the Oireachtas.

This would fireproof future changes made without referendum - including contentious moves such as the appointment of a European public prosecutor - from constitutional challenge.

The Taoiseach, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Attorney General and senior Government officials have briefed the Fine Gael and Labour party leaders on these proposals in recent weeks.

Their response is not yet known, although the Government is believed to be open to considering alterations to the plan.

The Government's draft, which has been seen by The Irish Times, if approved, would allow the State to agree in future to give up the national veto and extend the practice of majority voting in the areas of common foreign and security policy, EU financing, social policy, environment policy and family law.

It would also allow the extension of majority voting - replacing the existing requirement for unanimity - in the areas of criminal law, currently the subject of EU legislation.

It explicitly allows for the State to agree, for example, to the creation of a European public prosecutor, a development which has been strongly opposed by Minister for Justice Michael McDowell.

Mr McDowell has said this proposal is part of the agenda of a "small but well positioned group of integrationists" which would undermine the common law system in Ireland and the UK.

It also allows for a future decision for Ireland to participate in "permanent structured co-operation" in defence.

This would permit EU states to act together on military operations, but Ireland would retain the right to opt in or out of any such missions.

The most sweeping proposal is to seek approval to sign up to a clause in the EU treaty - known as a passerelle clause. This would allow the 25 EU leaders to agree that almost all matters currently governed by unanimity can be decided by qualified majority in the future.

These exclude taxation and the issue of a common defence, but include economic and monetary policy, criminal justice, immigration, education, industry, culture and a variety of other policy areas.

The EU treaty says such decisions to abolish the national veto must be ratified in accordance with national requirements.

The passage of the Government's proposal in the forthcoming referendum would mean that Ireland's "national requirement" would be for Oireachtas approval, not for a referendum decision.

This allows the European Council - the 25 heads of state or government including the Taoiseach meeting together - to abolish their national vetoes on the bulk of the internal policies of the EU.

The Amsterdam and Nice Treaties also listed "options and discretions" to which the Government could sign up in future without referendum, such as the Schengen agreement on passport-free travel within the EU.

However, the range of options and discretions which are all listed in the treaty - is wider in this treaty than in any previous one.

The sweeping passerelle clause for the first time allows the Government to sign up to the abolition of the national veto in a wide range of unspecified areas.

The proposal does not allow the EU to be given new powers or "competences" not listed in the Constitutional Treaty without approval by referendum. The policy areas in which it envisages the possible abolition of the national veto are already within the competence of the EU, but currently require unanimous decisions.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2005/0506/688781151HM1EULEAD.html

Not the same thing but sure thought I should mention it.

The Editorial notes:

[The above] mark a fundamental change in the way that we govern ourselves. The Government is proposing that the Oireachtas would replace the people as the supreme power. The amendments are designed deliberately to remove the courts from reviewing issues of constitutionality. The referendum process may be an inconvenience for governments - especially when people can say No.

Quantum

We need to get rid of the micro management democracy where we have referenda every other year on issues that are far better dealt with by our elected representatives. This is what they are elected to do and paid to do and it's about time we let them get on with it.

Almost every referenda ends up being about other issues and a huge percentage of people use it as a vote of confidence on the government - resulting in results that bare no relation to the actual opinions of ordinary Irish peope ON THE ISSUE.

As said above, many of these issue are far far too complex for most people to come to any kind of rational opinion on, and it is perfectly feasible to carry out national discussions and debates over a period following which the government that we elect makes a decision.

bonkey

I duno, Quantum. Maybe the Irish as a people won't get interested in issues, but the Swiss system works pretty well and that is far more referendum-oriented than the Irish.

While the need to have all treaties ratified by the people may seem onerous at times, it does gaurantee that we have a say in those that matter.

Of course...I will admit that a position like yours strikes me as a very worthy one. I can't think of a single argument to better convince people to vote against such a change, and possibly even encourage them to take future referenda more seriously

jc

capistrano

In a referendum it's impossible to get the people to answer the question you ask them - I'm paraphrasing someone here, I just can't rememebr whom, but it essentially sums up my opinon on the matter.

I prefer a pure parliamentary democracy where we elect parliament to make the laws - if we don't like what they do we can turf them out at the next general election!

Quantum

bonkey wrote:

I duno, Quantum. Maybe the Irish as a people won't get interested in issues, but the Swiss system works pretty well and that is far more referendum-oriented than the Irish.

While the need to have all treaties ratified by the people may seem onerous at times, it does gaurantee that we have a say in those that matter.

In theory. The problem is that so many people just vote on the government and not on the issue. And mix that with the complexity of many issues. The result is not a great democratic model in my opinion.

monument

Are you trying to say you think people are choosing to mix the issues, or are you trying to say you think people are so stupid they mix the issues?

capistrano

monument wrote:

Are you trying to say you think people are choosing to mix the issues, or are you trying to say you think people are so stupid they mix the issues?

I don't know if you were asking me or not, but I'll answer anyway.

I don't think that people are either choosing to mix the issues or a too stupid to understand the issues. Most people just couldn't be bothered to put in the time to understand the issues but nevertheless this will not stop them from voting.

This is completely understandable - do we really expect everyone to understand the structures of the EU and how this treaty changes them? That's unreasonable.

Of course, some people are just too stupid to understand the issues

Bri

Whoa! This thread suddenly got some life (took long enough!)

There's no way to know for sure but from what I've picked up from people over the years it seems to me that many mix issues deliberatley...Often they don't have a good grasp of the principal issue and are swayed by Government performance, etc. From people I'd know many would only vote on the issue at hand (i.e. without any consideration of who's currently in power) if they felt strongly about the issue - and that's rare! All of the above seems perfectly understandable.

bonkey: Can you tell me more about the Swiss and your thoughts why its effective there? Is it a mainly a cultural thing or to do with the structure of government? Thanks!

Have to say I find it ironic that a thread about the lack of interest in the real EU issues got so little response for so long

Quantum

monument wrote:

Are you trying to say you think people are choosing to mix the issues, or are you trying to say you think people are so stupid they mix the issues?

Many chose to ignore the issue completely and just cast their vote out of protest at something the Gov is doing that they don't approve of.
Many others are incapable of assessing the issue because it is far too complex for any individual person in the street.
Added to that the redicilous and undemocratic ban on the government using it's finances to support it's own recommended decision - the decision we vote them in and pay their salary to make - and the result is a mess.

Hence we get a screwed up vote the vast majority of the time and it may be fun for the media but it does nothing for us the people.

monument

Quantum wrote:

Many chose to ignore the issue completely and just cast their vote out of protest at something the Gov is doing that they don't approve of.
Many others are incapable of assessing the issue because it is far too complex for any individual person in the street.

Would you agree that even in the most complex referendums many, including those “incapable of assessing the issue” (sic), pick up on simple things like referendums including clauses that state the government does not need to hold referendums on issues?

Quantum

monument wrote:

Would you agree that even in the most complex referendums many, including those “incapable of assessing the issue” (sic), pick up on simple things like referendums including clauses that state the government does not need to hold referendums on issues?

I can - and I'll vote yes.

netwhizkid

Why would anyone in their right mind vote yes to the EU constitution ? Throwing away our soverignty to europe, we given too much already ie. Our beloved Punt and our fisheries not a mind those fantastic Miles. Weve lost more than weve gained imo. If we had full control over our fisheries it would be worth more than all the Eu grants and farmer assistance in the world.

Vote No To Europe Dictating our affairs.

Regards netwhizkid

Quantum

netwhizkid wrote:

Why would anyone in their right mind vote yes to the EU constitution ?

I may be reaching, but are you responding to my post above ? Because nowhere was there a mention of the European Constitution.

Throwing away our soverignty to europe, we given too much already ie. Our beloved Punt and our fisheries not a mind those fantastic Miles. Weve lost more than weve gained imo. If we had full control over our fisheries it would be worth more than all the Eu grants and farmer assistance in the world.

The Constitution makes no significant difference to our sovereignty. It is overwhelmingly a tidying up of previous treaties.

If you believe it does - then please post the relevant section of the Constitution. I would love to see it.

bonkey

Just as a counterpoint to the notion that the people are too uninformed, incapable of understanding and/or too prone to allowing other issues intrude on their decision making process....

What makes our elected politicians any different???

The same criticisms apply to them, and while there is some merit in the argument that we elected them to make the decisions for us, the whole point of a constitutional referendum is to make sure that we cannot delegate the responsibility (and thus often the blame) for really important decisions, but rather have to do it ourselves.

We can choose to make that decision from a position of miseducation, noneducation, bias, prejudice, or anything else. But we make the decision ourselves so that ultimately we cannot blame someone else when it really counts.

I'm not dodging the question about the Swiss system, by the way...I just haven't written it yet.

jc

Bri

bonkey wrote:

Just as a counterpoint to the notion that the people are too uninformed, incapable of understanding and/or too prone to allowing other issues intrude on their decision making process....
What makes our elected politicians any different???

I know what you said after this but, it is supposidly their day job to be informed and make the approriate choices on our behalf given the resources at their disposal? Most of the public capable of delving into a complex issue rely on their own initiative in their free time; media commentary, maybe other sources like boards discussion and so forth.

I'm not dodging the question about the Swiss system, by the way...I just haven't written it yet.

No hurry.

netwhizkid wrote:

If we had full control over our fisheries it would be worth more than all the Eu grants and farmer assistance in the world.

If you feel you want to discuss the constitutional treaty would you be polite enough to start a new thread, where I'll gladly join you and we can see how informed members of the public truly are. I'm not commenting on specifically btw.

bonkey

Bri wrote:

but, it is supposidly their day job to be informed and make the approriate choices on our behalf given the resources at their disposal?

In theory, yes.

In practice...do you really believe thats what the politicians do?

Do you believe they get well informed on an issue, and make a decision without allowing party ideology, political machinations, corporate pandering or any other such external factor effect things?

That the ministers put in charge of the various sections of our government are well-versed and competent experts in the particulars of their respective fields?

Rhat our government (let alone any other established democracy) has never once rushed an issue through parliament without properly considering it, analyzing it, becoming informed on it, etc. ???

Do you really believe that no politician is ever just toeing the party line, instead of making an informed, independant decision?

And if do believe all of these things, then consider this:

If we are incapable of making the right decisions as a people in a referendum, what makes us capable of electing the right decision-makers? Surely that voting process will be subject to the same flaws...which means that we can at best have only as much faith in our elected government as we can in our ability to vote for any other issue.

If we can trust our government to make the decisions, we can trust our own ability to do so as well. If we don't trust our ability to vote in a referendum, then we can also not trust in our ability to elect an appropriate government and thus cannot trust their decisions.

Neither of these two conclusions suggests any benefit in delegating the modification of constitutional issues. And if we lack trust in our government, then we really don't want to be handing them any more power then they already have.

jc

Quantum

bonkey wrote:

In theory, yes.

In practice...do you really believe thats what the politicians do?

Actually I do yes.

And this isn't intended to be a beligerant response .. just a point by point one...

Do you believe they get well informed on an issue, and make a decision without allowing party ideology, political machinations, corporate pandering or any other such external factor effect things?

Firsty that's not a relevant question.
Yes I do believe they get extremely well informed on issues.
Party ideology is what we vote them in for, at least partly.
Poitical machinations is the essence of democracy.
Corporate pandering ? I don't believe this happens in the way you imply.
External issues are always important when considering decisions.

My conclusion - all of these issues are relevant and good.

That the ministers put in charge of the various sections of our government are well-versed and competent experts in the particulars of their respective fields?

Yes I do.

That our government (let alone any other established democracy) has never once rushed an issue through parliament without properly considering it, analyzing it, becoming informed on it, etc. ???

I believe they are always informed and anayzed.
Have they rushed things ? Sure. That's also their job sometimes.
Do they make mistakes ? Maybe. So what ? We all make mistakes and it's hypocritical to blame others for doing the same now and again.

Do you really believe that no politician is ever just toeing the party line, instead of making an informed, independant decision?

I vote them in to toe the line - not to run around doing whatever they want.
Most people vote for the party, not the person. Toeing the line is mostly a good thing.
Individual politicians don't affect the passage of legislation and therefore don't affect the issue of this thread.

And if do believe all of these things, then consider this:

If we are incapable of making the right decisions as a people in a referendum, what makes us capable of electing the right decision-makers? Surely that voting process will be subject to the same flaws...which means that we can at best have only as much faith in our elected government as we can in our ability to vote for any other issue.

I don't accepot this at all.

Firstly the vast majority of voters are capable of absorbing a party manifesto and deciding on which party to vote for.
Secondly they have months before an election to consider it.
In the case of referenda - far too often they simply vote as a protest to the gov and often the issue is an order of magnitude more complex than a simple party menifesto.

If we can trust our government to make the decisions, we can trust our own ability to do so as well. If we don't trust our ability to vote in a referendum, then we can also not trust in our ability to elect an appropriate government and thus cannot trust their decisions.

A completely illogical set of comparisons. Our Gov has resources infinitely more extensive than ours. How can you compare them ?

So you suggest that an individual voter's ability to analyse and assess an issue such as the EU Constitution is the same as the Govs ? You suggest that individual voters can read the whole document, understand the language and far reaching implications of each clause and come to a conclusion on it's affect on Ireland's interests ? and then come to an overall conclusion about whether to accept or reject it ?

I reject this completely. There is no comparison between our Gov's capability and an individual voter who comes home from work at 6.30, has dinner, takes care of the kids, works on house jobs, watches a bit of tv and goes to bed - far too busy and tired to do any of the above.
This is why we vote the politicians in.

Neither of these two conclusions suggests any benefit in delegating the modification of constitutional issues. And if we lack trust in our government, then we really don't want to be handing them any more power then they already have.

I don't lack trust in our government. I am sick of referenda and I want them to start making the decisions I vote them in to do.
If I don't like it I'll vote them out.

bonkey

Quantum wrote:

I am sick of referenda and I want them to start making the decisions I vote them in to do.

This seems to be the crux of the argument. I could argue points that you have raised, but I'm guessing that this sums up your position.

Firstly, I would point out that these decisions are not what you vote them in to make. Thats exactly the point - you want it to be part of what you vote them in to make.

I know thats pedantry, but we should be clear that you vote them in to make decisions within their remit, and there are decisions which remain outside that - most notably those of the interpretation of the law (which falls to the courts), and those of the decision to alter the constitution (which ultimately falls to the people). What you want to do is see their remit changed, so that they make more decisions, and the public (including yourself) fewer.

If I don't like it I'll vote them out.

Once you give them control of the constitution, you may find that you can be denied that ability. Are you okay with that?

Or will you at least concede that there are portions of the constitution which should not be in the hands of the government? And if so - can you explain how we can determine which parts?

jc

Quantum

bonkey wrote:

This seems to be the crux of the argument. I could argue points that you have raised, but I'm guessing that this sums up your position.

Pretty well

Firstly, I would point out that these decisions are not what you vote them in to make. Thats exactly the point - you want it to be part of what you vote them in to make.

Yes.

I know thats pedantry, but we should be clear that you vote them in to make decisions within their remit, and there are decisions which remain outside that - most notably those of the interpretation of the law (which falls to the courts), and those of the decision to alter the constitution (which ultimately falls to the people). What you want to do is see their remit changed, so that they make more decisions, and the public (including yourself) fewer.

yes..... :rolleyes:

Once you give them control of the constitution, you may find that you can be denied that ability. Are you okay with that?

Or will you at least concede that there are portions of the constitution which should not be in the hands of the government? And if so - can you explain how we can determine which parts?

Your point is a fair one.

My posts were in the contact of the argument about the Eu and changes to our role there.

I do agree that our constitution should be subject to referenda....

HOWEVER... the problem is that our Constitution is in such a godawful mess that I am sick of these tinkering referenda even on that- both ones that we have already had and the many that are needed but the Gov is rightly reluctant to have. We should not have to be dragged out to vote to fix every broken piece of it at this stage such as issues surrounding parole, reoffending, and loads ofother issues like that. The recent issue surrounding a DNA database comes to mind.

It's about time we moved seriously on a complete rewriting of our Constitution from scratch. We should make it a modern constitution, a brief constitution and one that reflects our lives now in the 21st Century.
If it is done properly then there shoudl be little need for referenda except once in ten years.

bonkey

I was asked a day or two about the Swiss system, and why i think it works.
Firstly, may I sugges that anyone interested read some background. The most relevant section on that page is the section entitled People Power, but the rest is - quite frankly - mostly worth a read.
OK - if you've read that, you'll see that referenda can be initiated by the people to force new legislation, or to oppose newly-introduced legislation, as well as by the government and by the Cantons (Cantonal government - bit like State Government in the US).
Now...on top of whats in there (unless its mentioned and I missed it)...
When a referendum is held, the people are sent their ballot paper with all the relevat issues (national, cantonal, and possibly even communal) to be voted on, along with a document briefly outlining the key pro- and anti- arguments for each of the topics (not sure if this is done for community-level decisions), as well as an indication of which way the government (Cantonal / National as appropriate) recommends voting. This ballot can be returned by post.
This combination of people "empowerment" (the ability to call a referendum, rather than just be told there is one coming), along with a modernised system which makes voting easy, help the system work.
But there is also unquestionably a degree of psyche involved as well. Just as many Irish people have said to me that they couldn't live over here as they would find the rules-system too draconic (as my Dad puts it - the Swiss have rules for everything, and actually expect people to follow them), I can see how the Swiss voting system wouldn't suit everyone.
To say the Swiss people like their voting power would be like saying Pele had a passing interest in soccer. But they also generally seem to recognise - to quote Spiderman's foster parents - with great power comes great responsibility. Sure, the Swiss-Germans typically vote opposite to the Swiss-French. On military issues, the older generation typically vote opposite to the younger. But I don't think they generally do this to be contrary - they do it because they actually have differing perspectives on life. Whats more important, though, is that they all generally accept that differing perspectives are just a fact of life (neither right nor wrong), and the resultant decisions must be honoured.
And thats ultimately why the system works. Not because ppl are infallible (you should see some of the stuff they've said yes/no to: crazy), but because the people generally take their laws seriously, generally take their responsibility seriously, and generally accept the decisions made even when it may gall. After all - you can always call for another referendum on the issue (in my 4 years here, there's been 2 - maybe 3 - regarding downsizing the military / changing the terms of mandatory military service).
Do they take it seriously because they've got real influence? I honestly don't know. I guess its chcken-and-egg to a degree. However, what I do know is that confidence in the government ranks quite low...but it doesn't unduly upset the people. After all - they don't need to trust their government...just keep an eye on it
I know I'm going way off-topic, and this should probably go to a seperate thread if anyone follows it up, but just one last comment on why I think this system works. In the last elections, it was widely reported how Switzerland had moved to the Right, and how more radical/extreme/hardline elements (namely The Peoples Party) were becoming worryingly powerful. Look at it from the Swiss perspective. They were fed up with their mostly-centre parties, wanted a change and could do so safe in the knowledge that they could always kybosh any really extreme suggestions. Indeed, they went so far as to put Blocher in the job he wanted....because it tied his hands. He can't complain about someone doing a crap job in that position....and he can't make the radical changes his party would like because he knows the public will never let him. Indeed, there's an article on the same site (swissinfo) today mentioning just that - how he's now finding himself more and more alienated from his party as he's forced to accept the limitations that his high position puts on him.

bonkey

Quantum wrote:

If it is done properly then there shoudl be little need for referenda except once in ten years.

Heh - the Swiss redid their constitution in 2000. They still have referenda about 4 times a year. I think once in ten years is overly optimistic, but I do agree in principle to the notion of a full overhaul.

Incidentally, a lot of the need for referenda regarding the EU is (IIRC) the need to have the people ratify foreign treaties. While it might be inconvenient, I'm not convinced that there's any way to decide in advance what treaties need to be ratified and which not, short of effectively handing over control entirely (which I would oppose). So, in that regard, I couldn't see even a rewrite of the Constitution reducing the need for referenda of this nature.

If this vote wasn't happening alongside the vote for the EU Constitution, incidentally, I'd be highly concerned that it would be used as a backdoor to avoid a vote on said Constitution. Maybe its scope isn't that powerful....but I'm really not convinced that the purpose of this is entirely just to make things more efficient.

I think the possibility of the people deciding that further integration with the EU is - at some point - a step too far is very, very real. I also think its something that our current government (at least) is concerned about, as they are firmly comitted to the greater integration path.

I honestly believe that this amendment is not entirely altruistic in nature, but rather a means to ensure that there will be no repeat of the Nice fiasco, or - perish the thought - an outright rejection because the people actually don't want something.

jc

Quantum

bonkey wrote:

Heh - the Swiss redid their constitution in 2000. They still have referenda about 4 times a year. I think once in ten years is overly optimistic, but I do agree in principle to the notion of a full overhaul.

The Swiss are an odd bunch (in the nicest possible way...). Broadly speaking, a well written constitution should not need to be tinkered with. It is after all supposed to be a broad statement of the rights of the poeple and limitations of the government etc. These should not need to be changed.

Incidentally, a lot of the need for referenda regarding the EU is (IIRC) the need to have the people ratify foreign treaties. While it might be inconvenient, I'm not convinced that there's any way to decide in advance what treaties need to be ratified and which not, short of effectively handing over control entirely (which I would oppose). So, in that regard, I couldn't see even a rewrite of the Constitution reducing the need for referenda of this nature.

I believe it would. Most of the Eu treaties are beurocratic and the change in sovereigny issues are minimal. It could not be difficult to incorporate this into our Const. surely.

If this vote wasn't happening alongside the vote for the EU Constitution, incidentally, I'd be highly concerned that it would be used as a backdoor to avoid a vote on said Constitution. Maybe its scope isn't that powerful....but I'm really not convinced that the purpose of this is entirely just to make things more efficient.

Well considering that the Constitution is simply a tidying up exercise appart from a few small issues I personally wish we had passed this supposed referendum a long time ago.

I think the possibility of the people deciding that further integration with the EU is - at some point - a step too far is very, very real. I also think its something that our current government (at least) is concerned about, as they are firmly comitted to the greater integration path.

Perosnlaly I don't think they are committed to anything except their own reelection, which is good.
The chances of this vote happening as you suggest is real, I agree. But the reasons for it are imho because they pay so little attention to the detail of what goes on in the EU and the treaties that are negotiated. The reason for which is also much to do with the extraordinary dearth of eaily available information about the EU.
So they are quite likely to vote down future ones out of sheer ignorance and apathy.

I honestly believe that this amendment is not entirely altruistic in nature,

I have no idea what al 'altruistic' referendum is when I meet one.

. . but rather a means to ensure that there will be no repeat of the Nice fiasco, or - perish the thought - an outright rejection because the people actually don't want something.

Which is reason enough to pass it asap in my opinion. Anything to avoid the fiasco of the outrageous lying and scaremongering of the anti Nice idiots who took advantage of the laziness and indifference of so many people and who have been proved over and over again to have been completely wrong about the Treaty. That vote alone is a good reason for this new referendum being passed imho.