Green party - undemocratic?

Crash

taken from here: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mheyojkfojsn/rss2/

Green Party leader and Minister for the Environment John Gormley TD is to actively recommend a Yes vote in the upcoming Reform Treaty debate, despite his party’s rejection of it today.

Although a 63% majority voted in favour of the treaty today, the party’s constitution required a two-thirds (66.6%) majority to support the motion.

“The large majority of Green Party members have endorsed the view of the party's leadership,” said Gormley.

“It is always difficult for any organisation to win a two-thirds majority on contentious issues, but I interpret today's vote as a mandate for myself and my parliamentary colleagues to recommend a Yes vote in the upcoming treaty debate.”

“We appreciate and understand the sincerity of our members who argued and voted against the Lisbon Treaty today. We will not overlook their reservations. We will work actively with our Green colleagues in the European institutions to address their issues and fears.”

European affairs spokesperson Senator Deirdre de Burca added: “This is a resounding majority in favour, although it does not meet the party's constitutional requirement of two thirds.


“The result points to the fact that there is a real need to conduct a very vigorous national information campaign in order to familiarise the public with the Lisbon Treaty in advance of the referendum.

“Those of us in the Green Party who support the treaty will be taking an active role in encouraging the Irish people to vote Yes.”

Former Green Party MEP Patricia McKenna, who led dissent within the party, said she was delighted with the outcome of the secret ballot at a hotel in central Dublin.

"I'm just over the moon," she said.

"I was just really sure when we went in there today that they were going to get two-thirds to support a Yes vote. I can't believe it, the result is just great."

Ms McKenna conceded there was a majority in favour of a Yes vote.

The Greens have opposed every referendum on the EU since their foundation, but now its eight Oireachtas members have all come out in support of the treaty.

does anyone else find it disturbing that the leaders of a party are unwilling to settle by the rules of the party that are laid down? granted, it was only 3%, but it failed because the party setup requires 66% to pass. to turn around and decide that such a result is enough to decide to vote yes on is a disgrace, and a complete mockery of a party's democratic procedures.

Tommy T

The Green Party leadership have a wonderful talent in interpretting voting results to suit themselves at the given time in question.

The Greens have paid into the FF Agenda and are not willing to rock the boat after only just getting their feet under their ministerial seats which as an FF voter myself I'm delighted to see.

But on this issue I'll be going against FF advice and voting No...

is_that_so

Tommy T wrote: »

The Green Party leadership have a wonderful talent in interpretting voting results to suit themselves at the given time in question.

The Greens have paid into the FF Agenda and are not willing to rock the boat after only just getting their feet under their ministerial seats which as an FF voter myself I'm delighted to see.

But on this issue I'll be going against FF advice and voting No...

I suspect that the only thing that will send them on their way is if their agenda is "compromised".

I have to say I find the approach to Nice II democratic, admirable but potentially very confusing. In the context of Nice II , you may find some of the more eloquent and credible speakers could end up on the No side - e.g. Patricia McKenna. In that respect one could be forgiven for asking what do the Greens actually stand for?

IMO they have an agenda, they are going after it, ignoring everything around them in the hope that we'll praise them for saving the planet but not their souls.

As the PDs and even Labour have found, the electorate tends to give smaller parties with "promises" very short shrift and ultimately the two larger parties benefit.

PHB

Are they more or less democratic than FF and FG which don't have such votes? Or labour or the PD's?

bonkey

Tommy T wrote: »

The Green Party leadership have a wonderful talent in interpretting voting results to suit themselves at the given time in question.

You make this sound like a trait which is unique to the Greens.

Crash

PHB: I never said anything about the other parties - this was simply the case that popped up in the news and caught my eye.

oscarBravo

is_that_so wrote: »

In the context of Nice II , you may find some of the more eloquent and credible speakers could end up on the No side - e.g. Patricia McKenna.

"Credible" and "Patricia McKenna" in the same sentence?

is_that_so

oscarBravo wrote: »

"Credible" and "Patricia McKenna" in the same sentence?

Yeah that's pushing it a bit. Perhaps "untainted" might be better.

DadaKopf

Crash: I think it's a bit of a weird move, but certainly a democratic compromise. The GP established a two-thirds rule in its constitution, and it's right to stick to it. It's democratic *not* to impose a policy by default simply because the quota wasn't reached - there was a strong enough opinion within the party to support both views. So, interestingly, the GP have decided for its members to campaign for both.

In comparison to other political parties, especially FF and FG which rigorously impose the party line, this is a very democratic solution.

It adds a huge layer of complexity to the future debate, but one which will enrich democracy in Ireland.

duggie-89

wel persoanlly i think they are democratic as they held a vote, but maybe somewhat un ethical to not sticking to their rules and abiding by the peoples descion and since 66% wasn't reached they shouldn't endorse it. but it doesn't suprise me the greens dont want to rock the boat with FF.

oscarBravo

It could be argued that the 66% requirement is undemocratic in itself. What if the requirement was 99%? Would that be considered democratic?

DadaKopf

but maybe somewhat un ethical to not sticking to their rules

But they did stick to the rule.

It could be argued that the 66% requirement is undemocratic in itself. What if the requirement was 99%? Would that be considered democratic?

Fair question. But it's designed to force a consensus. You could argue that without such quotas, deliberative democracy would be impossible. Opinion would be split, no legitimate decisions would be made.

Different situation, but do you think it's fair that in the English-Welsh electoral system that a party winning 25% of the vote gets to represent all the people, even though 75% voted against that party?

kf1920

oscarBravo wrote: »

It could be argued that the 66% requirement is undemocratic in itself. What if the requirement was 99%? Would that be considered democratic?

it would if that what was set out in their constitution. Their rules say the must have a 66% majority, therefore its fair, Why should they bend the rules for this one thing, and Not for others.

Since they joined Government I've lost al ot of the respect i had for the green party, and am shocked how they are falling in with FF on most issues

oscarBravo

DadaKopf wrote: »

Different situation, but do you think it's fair that in the English-Welsh electoral system that a party winning 25% of the vote gets to represent all the people, even though 75% voted against that party?

Nope.

kf1920 wrote: »

it would if that what was set out in their constitution. Their rules say the must have a 66% majority, therefore its fair, Why should they bend the rules for this one thing, and Not for others.

Maybe you misunderstood my question, but are you saying that if it's in the rules, it's democratic? If the rules said a motion wouldn't get passed unless several kittens were killed, would that be democratic?

kf1920

oscarBravo wrote: »

Maybe you misunderstood my question, but are you saying that if it's in the rules, it's democratic? If the rules said a motion wouldn't get passed unless several kittens were killed, would that be democratic?

Ah i get what you meant, would 51% not be fairer etc, in one way it does make sense, But what i meant that its there rules, they should abided by them and not declare the party backs a motion when they didnt get the 66% required. And as regards the kittens........ technically it would be democratic but obviously odd