General Irish politics discussion thread

Holding a referendum on the day of another election has much less impact on costs as you might imagine. There are still more staff required

And no, in any world (I don't think I'd agree with what you think is sane) we would not magically gain the ability to modify the constitution without a referendum

No offence, but this may tell us more about you than it does about the civil service.

People conflate, feelings, with the reality of facts. Only trust the latter.

@hotmail.com " We keep having to have these ridiculous referendums every now and then when the government is there to make changes."

Are you serious?

. Do you not realise you are living in a country where the people are sovereign and no government can change the constitution at a whim. This is not the UK or New Zealand, which some people feel we should emulate. You might as well have a dictatorship,

They would be better off spending the few million per year on something like training apprentices to build houses. House building fell again nationally, despite the housing shortage. Or better still, reduce the vat on new houses to 0%, like it is north of the border, instead of charging vat on new houses to pay these overpaid politicians and pensions.

Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves.

@blackwhite "As just one example, giving the Government power to change the Constitution without going to the public means we could see a Government unilaterally extend the maximum term of office to avoid having to go for re-election."

Or we might revert to FPTP voting system, which FF tried to do twice. The only thing stopping them was the need for a referendum where the people rules against them

The Constitution protects us in a lot of ways, and changing only by referendum is vitally important. Another area ripe for interference by an unfettered government is the separation of powers.

In Ireland, we have only had limited corruption in that area in recent years. Back in the 1960s, a politician could swing a judge or get a garda moved, but that type of corruption has been eliminated down here. However, before anyone says it couldn't happen here, look at the North, where shenanigans between a politician and the Chief Constable resulted in the High Court having to intervene to reverse the unfair disciplining of two police officers. Separation of powers worked there to stop corruption, if a government could change the constitution by dictat, they could significantly increase corruption in areas like that.

yup, absolutely, but the financialised approach simply wont work, as its main objectives are to keep prices hyper inflated, and to sweat these assets, this wont increase supply to the rate required, which is roughly double what our current output is, as its just designed to keep extracting wealth from the whole process....

So you think countries that don't hold regular referendums are dictatorships?

That's quite a leap.

Certain changes to the constitution are plain and simple and shouldn't require an elaborate and expensive referendum to change it. I don't see this as progress or clever.

The women in the home section should just be removed without any expensive referendum.

But governments can do that anyway if it doesn't affect the constitution. They can increase taxes tomorrow by 20% if they want.

A Dail vote, influenced by public opinion.

So Dail Eireann can amend the Constitution. They only hold a referendum about it if they decide to hold a referendum?

That's the exact mechanism by which the Nazi assumed dictatorial powers in Germany in 1933 — powers which they then used to appoint Hitler as Fuhrer with unlimited and unchallengeable authority.

I don't see why you imagine a Dail vote would be influenced by public opinion. With the mechanism you have devised, Dail Eireann need never pay attention to public opinion if it doesn't want to. Elections would be completed optional (as, again, the example of Nazi Germany shows).

I'm not sure why you have such a powerful distaste for democracy, hotmail. Did you have a traumatic experience with a ballot paper in early childhood?

In fairness to hotmail, most countries don't actually require a public vote on every constitutional change, parliamentary majority can do it. Or conversely their constitutions aren't as specific as ours so parliaments are freer to enact legislation which we would need a vote for.

And in general no-one considers these countries (which encompasses most of Europe) to have a worrying democratic deficit compared to us.

All pretty theoretical and moot though, as the situation in Ireland isn't going to change.

First of all we're not Nazi Germany or Russia. Ireland is not a country of extremes.

So why bring up these ludicrous comparisons?

Secondly, the point I'm making is only in relation to plain and simple constitutional changes like the women in the home section. Almost complete unanimity about removing it. But we have to have a pointless referendum for it.