Irish democracy, in light of lisbon result

fergalr

I'm not a member of any political party, and wouldn't generally post on political matters; but I'm a bit concerned about how the Irish government is handling the whole Lisbon treaty rejection.
Our representatives are supposed to respect and honour the people's will. That doesn't seem to be what's happening.
Since the Lisbon result, the attitude amoung our elected representatives seems to be that the people of Ireland made the wrong decision, and that we need to find a way to go forward with Lisbon. It's like the Lisbon result is a problem to be worked around, as opposed to a legitimate decision by the people to reject the treaty.

There seems to be very little time given to the idea that perhaps we should just say "Sorry Europe, the people have rejected the Lisbon treaty, and so we just can't go forward with it", regardless of the policital consequences, because that is what the people of Ireland have decided.


We were told before the Lisbon treaty, by our elected representatives, that there would be no re-negotitation, and that a no vote might well spell the end of Lisbon. The Irish electorate, when going to vote, was asked to weigh that into consideration. And they still voted against the treaty. But instead of the treaty being dropped, the government is trying to find ways to solve the problem of getting it ratified.

This seems wrong to me. How come there has been so little discussion about simply refusing to go forward with the Treaty? As far as I am concerned, whether the treaty is in the interests of the people of Ireland, in the opinion of our elected representatives, is no longer relevant. Our elected representatives should carry out the will of the people, whether they like it or not, whether they agree with it or not.


As far as I can tell, and I'm no lawyer, our constitution says, in article 6, that the people get to decide, in final appeal, questions of national policy.
If I was in government, and I genuinely agreed with that part of the constitution, and I genuinely accepted the result of the referendum, I would be following a very different course of action than our current representatives seem to be doing.
I find this concerning, not from the point of view of whether or not the lisbon treaty eventually goes through, but from a democratic point of view.


My question is to those of you in favour of a second referndum: even if lies were told about the consequences of voting for the last one (I'm quite willing to believe some people voted on grounds I see as spurious, eg, commisioner), don't you still think the vote should be respected? Even if the people did get it wrong, is that not just part and parcel of democracy? Surely it's clear that their decision was to reject the lisbon treaty? And surely, on that basis, the course of action our elected representatives are following, while it might be ok legally, is wrong in some fundamental way? Why haven't they just told the other EU leaders that we are very sorry, but it has been rejected by Ireland, we cannot go forward with it - surely that would be the most democratically correct course of action?

Thanks for reading, be interested to see replies.

oscarBravo

fergalr wrote: »

Our representatives are supposed to respect and honour the people's will. That doesn't seem to be what's happening.

The will of the people as expressed in the referendum was that the constitution should not be amended. The constitution wasn't amended. That's the will of the people respected and honoured.

You seem to want to extrapolate that decision into a permanent and irrevocable rejection of the Lisbon treaty. As I posted in another thread, my ballot paper didn't have a "NEVER!!!" option on it.

Since the Lisbon result, the attitude amoung our elected representatives seems to be that the people of Ireland made the wrong decision, and that we need to find a way to go forward with Lisbon.

Of course they feel that. Lots of people feel that. You seem to feel that the people have spoken ex cathedra; as if they had made an infallible pronouncement, backed up by a volume of written arguments to support their case.

We didn't. We said "no". And immediately afterwards, a substantial proportion of us said that we'd said "no" because we didn't understand the question.

It's like the Lisbon result is a problem to be worked around, as opposed to a legitimate decision by the people to reject the treaty.

I don't feel it was a legitimate decision, and the poll results bear that out.

There seems to be very little time given to the idea that perhaps we should just say "Sorry Europe, the people have rejected the Lisbon treaty, and so we just can't go forward with it", regardless of the policital consequences, because that is what the people of Ireland have decided.

The people of Ireland seem to be labouring under the illusion that there are no political consequences, and that 26 other countries will patiently wait until the end of time for us to figure out exactly what it is we're looking for.

We were told before the Lisbon treaty, by our elected representatives, that there would be no re-negotitation, and that a no vote might well spell the end of Lisbon. The Irish electorate, when going to vote, was asked to weigh that into consideration. And they still voted against the treaty. But instead of the treaty being dropped, the government is trying to find ways to solve the problem of getting it ratified.

Again, the ballot paper didn't say "never, ever ask me this again", it just said "no". Our failure to ratify the treaty is a problem; our failure to have a coherent reason for failing to ratify simply compounds the problem.

This seems wrong to me. How come there has been so little discussion about simply refusing to go forward with the Treaty? As far as I am concerned, whether the treaty is in the interests of the people of Ireland, in the opinion of our elected representatives, is no longer relevant. Our elected representatives should carry out the will of the people, whether they like it or not, whether they agree with it or not.

Why should they do that? If the people demanded zero tax and fully socialised services, should the elected representatives deliver, whether they agree with it or not? Being in government isn't about bending to whatever ill-thought whim is currently in vogue, it's about doing what's best for the country.

As far as I can tell, and I'm no lawyer, our constitution says, in article 6, that the people get to decide, in final appeal, questions of national policy.

Yes - through general elections and referenda. In the last election we (for better or worse) elected the current government, and told them to run the country. They asked us whether they should amend the constitution, and we said "no". If they doubt the validity of that response, they have a moral obligation to ask us again.

If I was in government, and I genuinely agreed with that part of the constitution, and I genuinely accepted the result of the referendum, I would be following a very different course of action than our current representatives seem to be doing.

Then I'm glad I didn't vote for you.

I find this concerning, not from the point of view of whether or not the lisbon treaty eventually goes through, but from a democratic point of view.

Democracy means "rule by the people". It's a two-edged sword: yes, it gives us the right to make decisions. But it also gives us the responsibility to make intelligent and informed decisions. By no stretch of the imagination can the last referendum result be described thus.

My question is to those of you in favour of a second referndum: even if lies were told about the consequences of voting for the last one (I'm quite willing to believe some people voted on grounds I see as spurious, eg, commisioner), don't you still think the vote should be respected?

If you were offered a job on the basis of a seven-figure salary, and after you accepted the job you found that you'd been lied to - do you think you should still be forced to stay in that job?

If a decision is ill-informed, how on earth is it democratic to deny people the right to re-think it?

Why haven't they just told the other EU leaders that we are very sorry, but it has been rejected by Ireland, we cannot go forward with it - surely that would be the most democratically correct course of action?

Do you really believe that the will of the people must be slavishly obeyed, no matter what the consequences? Do you think a horse should run off the edge of a cliff, just because its rider tells it to?

Sabre0001

I just find it funny that people kick up a fuss about this but when asked to vote on Nice a second time, no one batted an eye lid - instead people went around getting actual information to people rather than saying the exact same as the other side...

fergalr

The will of the people as expressed in the referendum was that the constitution should not be amended. The constitution wasn't amended. That's the will of the people respected and honoured.

This is true on a pedantic, technical, level.
And if the same referendum was be held 100 times, and rejected each time, you could use the same logic to say that the will of the people was still respected and honoured.

Considering the context of the vote, where the government was quite clearly saying there would be no re-negotiation of the treaty if it was rejected, and considering that people went in to vote on the lisbon treaty, rather than a constitutional amendment (for that is how it was described pretty much everywhere) I think it's more reasonable to take the no vote as a rejection of the treaty, than as a rejection of the amendment.

I think this is evident to the point where to argue against it is to engage in sophistry, rather than in reasoned debate; simultaneously I accept your point on a technical level.

Of course they feel that. Lots of people feel that. You seem to feel that the people have spoken ex cathedra; as if they had made an infallible pronouncement, backed up by a volume of written arguments to support their case.

To a certain extent, in determining the question of national policy, I do sort of think that. It's this whole 'agreement to accept democracy, even when you don't like it' thing - when the people of Ireland make a definite statement about what they want Ireland to do, in a fair referendum; well, then, they don't need a volume of written arguments, or anything else, to support their case - their will just has to be followed. Because they get to decide, because they are the people of Ireland.

I don't feel it was a legitimate decision, and the poll results bear that out.

Are you saying that because the poll results later said that some portion of the electorate didn't understand the treaty, the decision of the electorate is illegitimate? Isn't this a very anti-democratic stance? You are basically saying that people aren't allowed legitimately vote on things they don't understand - while at one level that seems sensible, it is very undemocratic; if people choose not to vote due to a lack of understanding, then that is fine; but if they choose to vote anyway, their vote is no less legitimate as a result.
If we voted 'Yes' but a subsequent poll found a lack of understanding, I presume you would think the vote equally illegitimate?

Why should they do that? If the people demanded zero tax and fully socialised services, should the elected representatives deliver, whether they agree with it or not? Being in government isn't about bending to whatever ill-thought whim is currently in vogue, it's about doing what's best for the country.

I guess this is where we have a major difference of opinion. I think being in government is about doing what the people demand, and you think it's about doing whats best (best according to some criteria, which isn't "what the people think is best").
On most issues we, as the people, delegate to the government; citizens are not, in practice, able to vote on the many many issues with which the state deals, and that's fine.

But when we explicitly tell the government our will, on an issue like Lisbon, they absolutely must do what the people tell them, regardless of what they personally think is best.
Sometimes that might mean the best option isn't followed. The idea behind democracy is that this is a worthwhile price to pay for living in a democracy.

Democracy means "rule by the people". It's a two-edged sword: yes, it gives us the right to make decisions. But it also gives us the responsibility to make intelligent and informed decisions. By no stretch of the imagination can the last referendum result be described thus.

So it is thus illegitimate?
It is only a bad result in your opinion.
It somewhat worries me that you refer to the result of the last referendum just there. If you were talking about the state of mind of the electorate as being uninformed, it wouldn't be quite so bad - but that the result couldn't be described as intelligent or informed is a worrying thing to say - it clearly establishes your position as that regardless of the state of the electorate, as long as they chose the 'No' result, they were wrong.

You are no longer talking about democracy, if you let the fact the people chose the 'wrong' result mean you no longer think it's legitimate.
You seem to be saying that the people have the right to make decisions, as long as they make decisions that are considered intelligent and informed from your perspective - dictatorships have been built on less.

If a decision is ill-informed, how on earth is it democratic to deny people the right to re-think it?

If people realised they were tricked somehow, and were out protesting in the streets, crying out for a second chance to rethink their decision, then you would have a point. As it is, you are just framing that question in a leading way; you could again use the exact same rationale to justify one referendum a day until you got the answer you wanted - which you eventually would.
Not that I'm saying that is a realistic scenario - but what I am saying is that unless the will of the people is the ultimate decider of such matters - as it says in our constitution - then to have repeat referenda until such a time as the matter goes in the favour of the minority who believe they have the monopoly on the correct decision making process is fundamentally not democratic.

If you were offered a job on the basis of a seven-figure salary, and after you accepted the job you found that you'd been lied to - do you think you should still be forced to stay in that job?

Again, if there were angry no voters in the street, upset at how they had been lied to, and demanding a second chance to vote, or anything of the sort, then this might be a meaningful analogy. There are not, and it is not; it's comes across more as a misleading analogy employed to try and justify undemocratic behavior.

Do you think a horse should run off the edge of a cliff, just because its rider tells it to?

No, I wouldn't do that if I was the horse. But I think that's an unsuitable analogy.

Do you really believe that the will of the people must be slavishly obeyed, no matter what the consequences?

I do think our politicians should do what the people tell them to, just because the people tell them to. I do think the politicians of Ireland should slavishly obey the clearly expressed will of the people of Ireland. That's what it says in the constitution, that it is the people who get to decide where the nation goes.
Even if they don't agree with the decisions of the people, even if they think we are heading off a political or economic or whatever cliff, the elected representatives must obey the will of the people, in order for this country to continue to be a democracy. If the government are no longer obeying the will of the people, whatever their motivations, it is no longer a democratic country.

Do you really think ratifying the Lisbon treaty is like the horse running over the cliff?

Do you really think it's worth, as you imply, sacrificing our democratic principles for? Is that not an even bigger abyss?

fergalr

Sabre0001 wrote: »

I just find it funny that people kick up a fuss about this but when asked to vote on Nice a second time, no one batted an eye lid - instead people went around getting actual information to people rather than saying the exact same as the other side...

This is a somewhat bigger deal than Nice for several reasons. In Nice the argument that there was a small turnout was used to allow the second treaty; a similar argument would not hold here. In Nice the political parties did not really campaign before the 1st referendum as they did with Lisbon.
But for what it's worth, people did bat eyelids, some people thought it was a bit dodgey.

Furious-Dave

Is the government supposed to just obey the people, even when they clearly feel that the will of the people will lead the country down the wrong path, just for the sake of upholding the principles of democracy?

I for one believe that there is a point when democracy fails and at that point the government needs to tell the people 'listen, we are certain this is the right path and we are going to take it'. If it turns out that the government was wrong, well then democracy will be restored when they don't get elected again.

fergalr

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Is the government supposed to just obey the people, even when they clearly feel that the will of the people will lead the country down the wrong path, just for the sake of upholding the principles of democracy?

That is the general idea behind the whole democracy thing, as I understand it, yes.
It's in the constitution and stuff.

I for one believe that there is a point when democracy fails and at that point the government needs to tell the people 'listen, we are certain this is the right path and we are going to take it'. If it turns out that the government was wrong, well then democracy will be restored when they don't get elected again.

You seem to be arguing that democracy isn't in fact the best way of doing things; this is an interesting debate; But it's slightly outside the scope of my thread, which attempting to discuss how democratic the response to the result is.
I would say, that while democracy isn't always perfect, if you are willing to abandon it for expediency, you can end up with very nasty dictatorships very quickly - that's why it's such a big deal to so many people.


Edit: If an elected representative had an ethical or legal etc objection to not ratifying, they could always step down, go to court etc - I'm not really talking about that as I don't think that's relevant to Lisbon.

Furious-Dave

A lot of people keep using the word "undemocratic" in relation to a 2nd referendum and I'm just saying "so what?"

Let me rephrase my first point. Should a country, currently in a recession, dive head first into uncertainty in terms of it's future, just for the sake of upholding democracy?

For the record, and I'm sure I've said this before, I don't believe it's undemocratic to hold another referendum, especially when in the first one there were people who may or may not have been acting in the best interest of the country.

PeakOutput

if the will of the people is no to lisbon then it will still be no this time around.

if thats not the case then the no campaign have something to worry

i believe that people voted no because they didnt know what the whole thing was about. i dont mind if they vote no again as long as they are doing so with all the facts which i dont believe was readily available the last time and thats why i didnt vote

fergalr

A lot of people keep using the word "undemocratic" in relation to a 2nd referendum and I'm just saying "so what?"

Well, if it was undemocratic, it would be a big deal, because this state is supposed to be a democracy. People could talk about the constitution being violated and stuff like that - again, if it was undemocratic. If an elected representative said something like you just did, they could be in very big trouble.

Let me rephrase my first point. Should a country, currently in a recession, dive head first into uncertainty in terms of it's future, just for the sake of upholding democracy?

I personally would say yes. I think many other people would say that too - that democracy is much more important than short/medium or even long term economic factors.

For the record, and I'm sure I've said this before, I don't believe it's undemocratic to hold another referendum, especially when in the first one there were people who may or may not have been acting in the best interest of the country.

This question is more what I was getting at in my post. Sorry, I probably haven't seen your previous posts here.
Do you mean that some/many of the voters mightn't have been acting in the best interest of the country? Democratically, they get to decide what they think the best interest of the country is, and that's what we have to follow.
Or do you mean some of the campaigning groups? I would consider them largely irrelevant to my argument about how democratic disregarding the result is.

fergalr

PeakOutput wrote: »

if the will of the people is no to lisbon then it will still be no this time around.
if thats not the case then the no campaign have something to worry

What you say there is true.
Is it really a justification for another referendum though? We could have as many as we want with that line of logic. One every day.
I don't think that would be right.
While your argument would still hold, would it really be honouring the will of the people to do that?

i believe that people voted no because they didnt know what the whole thing was about. i dont mind if they vote no again as long as they are doing so with all the facts which i dont believe was readily available the last time and thats why i didnt vote

I have to say that I do think the facts were readily available; certainly the facts that would make you vote yes. The referendum commission produced a pretty good website, in my opinion. I found out a lot of information with only a couple of hours of research.

Regardless of whether everyone did their homework the last time, though, surely the most democratic thing to do was leave it at one referendum? Again, there are no angry crowds in the street protesting to have a second chance to have their say.

Furious-Dave

fergalr wrote: »

I personally would say yes. I think many other people would say that too - that democracy is much more important than short/medium or even long term economic factors.

I do believe in democracy for the most part, but I also believe that the prosperity of a country is important, even if it means taking some undemocratic actions to maintain it.

Be thankful that I'm not in a position to be elected, though I do think I might seize power one day

Furious-Dave

Furious-Dave wrote: »

I for one believe that there is a point when democracy fails and at that point the government needs to tell the people 'listen, we are certain this is the right path and we are going to take it'. If it turns out that the government was wrong, well then democracy will be restored when they don't get elected again.

Ireland is not a democracy, it is a republic. In a democracy the people make the decisions. In a republic (more accurately a democratic republic) people choose representatives from amongst them to make the decisions for them. Ostensibly this choice is based on their ability to make rational decisions in the best interests of the country as a whole.

While this position may sound somewhat optimistic it is the reason so many people on this thread have an issue with the Government's seemingly "undemocratic" actions. They are doing nothing wrong. Our Constitution says if we want to change it that a majority of us must agree upon those changes. It also empowers the Oireachtas to be the organ which recommends those changes to us as a people.

Surveys following the first referendum showed that the major reason people voted no was a feeling that they were uninformed as to the implications of the Treaty. One of the reasons that anti-Lisbon campaigners are making such a large amount of noise about the Government's undemocratic action in commending it to the people a second time is that they are aware that a more comprehensive campaign to explain the Treaty, which would inevitably accompany any future referendum, would almost certainly result in a yes vote.

fergalr

Ireland is not a democracy, it is a republic. In a democracy the people make the decisions. In a republic (more accurately a democratic republic) people choose representatives from amongst them to make the decisions for them.

Splitting hairs on the definition of what a democracy is. I use it in the sense that we are a democratic republic, which is a type of representative democracy. And a referendum, where the will of the people is expressed directly on a particular issue, is about as democratic as it gets. When the result is honoured.
But I'm not interested in getting into the nitty gritty of semantics; my point is that it is the people of Ireland who are supposed to be ultimately in charge, and decide questions of national policy, such as Lisbon is.

By having a second referendum when the people choose the answer the government does not want, this surely undermines that in principle?

Ostensibly this choice is based on their ability to make rational decisions in the best interests of the country as a whole.
While this position may sound somewhat optimistic it is the reason so many people on this thread have an issue with the Government's seemingly "undemocratic" actions. They are doing nothing wrong. Our Constitution says if we want to change it that a majority of us must agree upon those changes. It also empowers the Oireachtas to be the organ which recommends those changes to us as a people.

Yes; but when the people clearly express their will, the elected representatives surely have some sort of a duty to follow that will. I'm not claiming that they are technically in breach of the constitution or anything like that - I'm just raising the question of how democratic (and this is a democratic state) it is to attempt to work around what is clearly the will of the majority of the people.

As I said in my initial post:

We were told before the Lisbon treaty, by our elected representatives, that there would be no re-negotitation, and that a no vote might well spell the end of Lisbon. The Irish electorate, when going to vote, was asked to weigh that into consideration. And they still voted against the treaty. But instead of the treaty being dropped, the government is trying to find ways to solve the problem of getting it ratified.

This is what I have issue with - that the people clearly indicated they were against the treaty, and the government is looking for work-arounds rather than even contemplating dropping it.

Imagine you were against the treaty - what do you have to do to get them to drop it? How many "No" results is enough, if not one? Saying 'vote them out' is a bit much, when the main opposition parties are also pro-treaty; the reason we have referenda in the first place is to allow direct decisions on constitutional matters.

Surveys following the first referendum showed that the major reason people voted no was a feeling that they were uninformed as to the implications of the Treaty. One of the reasons that anti-Lisbon campaigners are making such a large amount of noise about the Government's undemocratic action in commending it to the people a second time is that they are aware that a more comprehensive campaign to explain the Treaty, which would inevitably accompany any future referendum, would almost certainly result in a yes vote.

The confusion over the treaty is partly due to the complexity of the treaty, and is, to some extent a criticism of the treaty itself.

Even aside from that, if I was a "No" campaigner, I would be somewhat wary of a "campaign to explain the Treaty"; the last time round the elected representatives seemed to be more interested in convincing people to vote for the treaty rather than explaining it, and their actions since, for example regarding RTE coverage time, seem to indicate they are less interested in fair debate and more interested in getting it through.

It's an open question whether it would get through on a second attempt.

Either way, we still have a situation whereby the elected representatives are effectively telling the electorate - for whatever reason the electorate voted "No" - that they chose the wrong answer.
This is not a democratic state of affairs.

I am not going to write too long of a reply but I'll address each issue as I see them.

1) I am not splitting hairs over the nature of our government. It is an important distinction.

2) The people did not "clearly express their will". The people clearly expressed mass confusion at a Treaty that was, by necessity, incredibly procedural. It was very hard to make a vote for the Treaty to be for anything but a bureaucratic change. The No Campaigners mixed misinterpretations with all out lies in their attempt to paint a vote against the Treaty as defending something.

3) Building on point 1, the nature of our system of government allows the Oireachtas to review the reasons for the no vote and, if they feel there is good reason, to commend the Treaty to the Irish people a second time while answering many of the concerns raised in their post-referendum surveys.

fergalr

1) I am not splitting hairs over the nature of our government. It is an important distinction.

I don't agree with you, in this context; but lets not pursue it.

2) The people did not "clearly express their will".

The people were asked to vote Yes or No to the Lisbon treaty.
They voted No. They did so clearly, by a sizable majority.
Further, they voted No in a context of government ministers telling them there could be no re-negotiation, and this was the only way forward etc.
Their reasons for voting No may or may not be clear, but their No vote was very much so.

The people clearly expressed mass confusion at a Treaty that was, by necessity, incredibly procedural.

I would disagree with the assertion that the treaty had to be as confusing as it was. I would also speculate that as many Yes voters misunderstood the treaty as No voters; however, this is pure speculation.

It was very hard to make a vote for the Treaty to be for anything but a bureaucratic change.

The No Campaigners mixed misinterpretations with all out lies in their attempt to paint a vote against the Treaty as defending something.

Both Yes and No campaigns were guilty of misinformation; but more blatantly so the No campaign, in my mind.

Even so, that does not provide a license to trivialise the No vote, as is so often done.

There is an attitude of disregard for the democratic process going around, and it is that that I object to.

The vote was presented to the people as a vote for or against the Lisbon Treaty, not as a vote to see whether or not you get it explained better and asked again. It was presented in the context of the most dire warnings of consequences, should we vote No.
And yet people voted No.

But the collective No vote has been written off in many circles as illegitimate, or misinformed to the point where it's not worth listening to, or just plain wrong. No thought has been given to the obvious course of action suggested by the rejection of the treaty - which is to tell the EU we cannot proceed with Lisbon.
This is not democratic.

fergalr

fergalr wrote: »

This is not democratic.

I appreciate your argument and it is a valid one. I think we can see that neither of us is likely to convince the other.

However, I disagree with you so strongly on the point above.

This is the ultimate expression of democracy. The Government are totally powerless to do anything unless we let them. They have a legitimate reason to ask us to vote again in my opinion, you may disagree, but the defining element is that they are forced to ask us. We are the ones who will determine our own destiny.

By asking us to vote again so as to make sure we can make an informed choice is not a snub to democracy, it is it's most vibrant manifestation. The Government made an enormous error in not trusting the electorate and thinking that we would simply vote for what they told us to. We exercised our democratic right, a right secured for us by what Lincoln once called the last full measure of devotion, and we showed that we will not simply swallow whatever the Government offers us.

What greater example of democracy in action can there be?

fergalr

Deleted User wrote: »

I appreciate your argument and it is a valid one.

Thanks

Deleted User wrote: »

I think we can see that neither of us is likely to convince the other.

Probably the case... but hey, talking this stuff out is part of democracy too...

Deleted User wrote: »

However, I disagree with you so strongly on the point above.

This is the ultimate expression of democracy. The Government are totally powerless to do anything unless we let them. They have a legitimate reason to ask us to vote again in my opinion, you may disagree, but the defining element is that they are forced to ask us. We are the ones who will determine our own destiny.

I think it was certainly good for democracy that the electorate did not unquestioningly do as the government told them - I definitely agree with you there.
And I also agree that it is great that they are forced to ask us again, if they want us to pass the treaty - it would be seriously bad if they just overrode the vote somehow, so I am glad to see that isn't been taken seriously as an option.

Deleted User wrote: »

By asking us to vote again so as to make sure we can make an informed choice is not a snub to democracy, it is it's most vibrant manifestation. The Government made an enormous error in not trusting the electorate and thinking that we would simply vote for what they told us to. We exercised our democratic right, a right secured for us by what Lincoln once called the last full measure of devotion, and we showed that we will not simply swallow whatever the Government offers us.

What greater example of democracy in action can there be?

This is where my views start to diverge from yours... if they can ask us twice, why not three times? Or five times? Even aside from that, I don't think the result has been handled well at all.

If the government responded by taking on board what the electorate had said, and going to the EU and saying that the Lisbon treaty was unacceptable to Ireland, that would make the most sense to me.


But even if they followed a course where they sought to engage with the Irish people who voted against the treaty - who are not all Libertas/coir etc - it would have been a step in the right direction.

However, they do not seem to be seeking a full and frank discussion of the merits of the treaty.

The change to RTE, for example, was worrying, and not indicative of an attitude of educating and consulting with the people, so much as persuading and convincing them.

The attacks against No organisations are worrying too - not that I am making any comment on the goodness or badness of those organisations - just saying that attacking them, rather than attacking their arguments, is not encouraging.

It seems like our elected representatives, in the aftermath of the No result, are more concerned with engaging with the other politicians of Europe, rather than their disenfranchised electorate. And I say disenfranchised, because when a sizable majority of citizens vote against the referendum that an overwhelming majority of elected representatives support, then there is some level of disenfranchisement occurring.

Fundamentally, despite talk of a second referendum in order to allow people to be better informed, what it boils down to is this:

* If the Irish people had voted for the treaty, but been confused or misinformed, we would not be discussing a second referendum at all.

* If there is a second referendum, it will be because the electorate disagreed with the decision of the elected representatives on the Lisbon treaty; the same representatives who have shown no more willingness to accept any rejection of the treaty by the Irish people in future, than in the past.

Hence my concerns about the democratic process.

Scofflaw

fergalr wrote: »

This is a somewhat bigger deal than Nice for several reasons. In Nice the argument that there was a small turnout was used to allow the second treaty; a similar argument would not hold here. In Nice the political parties did not really campaign before the 1st referendum as they did with Lisbon.
But for what it's worth, people did bat eyelids, some people thought it was a bit dodgey.

To be fair, and speaking as someone who voted No in Nice I, I think nearly all of us voted in the full knowledge that there would be a second referendum - that is to say, we all knew it in advance of the vote. That's largely why so little surprise was expressed. Mostly, we knew there would be a second referendum because the government had done such an appalling job of explaining the Nice Treaty...and I mean, much worse than for Lisbon.

The turnout had nothing to do with it, really. There was a second referendum because the government had failed to do their job - explaining the Treaty. Without that job being done properly, it was not possible for us as citizens to vote on it meaningfully, and so we correctly returned a No. That No was not a judgement on the Treaty, but on the failure of the government to explain it to us. They were asking for permission to ratify the Treaty, and they didn't bother to explain it, so we said No to deny them the permission to do something they hadn't explained. The vote was not intended to kill the Treaty.

Amazingly, the government failed to learn the lesson of Nice I, and again failed to do its job - this time of explaining the Lisbon Treaty so that we could meaningfully vote on it. The No side, on the other hand - those campaigners who have campaigned for a No in every EU referendum - had learned the lesson of Nice. They realised that if the government failed to do its job, a Nice I style rejection could be claimed as a mandate for rejection of the Treaty as opposed to a judgement on the government's failure to explain the Treaty.

That is why the extent of the "insufficient information" No vote is important - it is a measure of the extent to which the referendum vote was a Nice I style judgement on the government rather than on the Treaty. I would be satisfied that the extent of that portion of the vote is larger than the margin of rejection - indeed, it is a good deal larger.

I am sure that those who campaigned for a No vote will reject this reasoning - but that's hardly a surprise. I'm not sure that they can argue that it wasn't the case, though, given the extent to which they harped on the lack of information during the campaign. The Nice rerun wasn't acceptable because of low turnout, but because the first vote was held in an information vacuum resulting from the failure of the government to explain the Treaty. It is not quite so clear-cut that this was the case in Lisbon, but the post-referendum research indicates that it remained a large component - a larger component than the margin of the vote.

It should also be fairly obvious that one can hardly claim "insufficient information" as a reason for holding a third referendum, since if the information is still insufficient to make a judgement at that stage there's no likelihood of it ever becoming sufficient.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Furious-Dave

I think that now is a good time for the opposition to jump on the failure of the government in the referendum and gather a large amount of popularity by launching a proper 'Yes' campaign?

dresden8

Furious-Dave wrote: »

I think that now is a good time for the opposition to jump on the failure of the government in the referendum and gather a large amount of popularity by launching a proper 'Yes' campaign?

If they were to do that and it were passed, it would go down in history as Cowan getting it through. He'd get the European kudos and photo-ops.

If there's one thing FF is good at it's spin.

dresden8

Furious-Dave wrote: »

I for one believe that there is a point when democracy fails and at that point the government needs to tell the people 'listen, we are certain this is the right path and we are going to take it'. If it turns out that the government was wrong, well then democracy will be restored when they don't get elected again.

Well we could vote the government out but we couldn't go back to Europe and say "We've changed our minds, we want Europe to go back to pre-Lisbon status". Once it's in, it's in.

tolosenc

We could revoke the Treaty of Rome, and leave the Union.

Not a viable option in my opinion. But for thr No side - no Lisbon! Economic decay, but no Lisbon!

If it was the treaty of Cork/Dublin/Galway, I wonder how the popoulus would have voted.

dresden8

obl wrote: »

We could revoke the Treaty of Rome, and leave the Union.

Not a viable option in my opinion. But for thr No side - no Lisbon! Economic decay, but no Lisbon!

If it was the treaty of Cork/Dublin/Galway, I wonder how the popoulus would have voted.

Where did "We have to pass Lisbon or leave the EU" come from?

No we don't.

And they say Ganley is a scaremonger.

ShooterSF

obl wrote: »

We could revoke the Treaty of Rome, and leave the Union.

Not a viable option in my opinion. But for thr No side - no Lisbon! Economic decay, but no Lisbon!

If it was the treaty of Cork/Dublin/Galway, I wonder how the popoulus would have voted.

Huh? What exactly are you suggesting here?

I think that now is a good time for the opposition to jump on the failure of the government in the referendum and gather a large amount of popularity by launching a proper 'Yes' campaign?

I suggested similar in another thread only with them using a no vote to punish them and not give Cowen the chance to spin it.
Wasnt taken well....

John_C

dresden8 wrote: »

Where did "We have to pass Lisbon or leave the EU" come from?

He was responding to the point that if we vote yes, we can't change our mind and go back to Nice. Our only options at that, hypothetical, point would be in and out.

dresden8

That threat has been floated around this forum for months now.

It still hasn't been backed up.

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

That threat has been floated around this forum for months now.

It's not a threat, it's speculation. That straw man has been dealt with before. Your intellectually lazy refusal to actually engage in a meaningful discussion is getting extremely tiresome.

Tell me: do you truly, honestly believe that we as a country can continue indefinitely to tell our fellow member states to go f*ck themselves without any repercussions whatsoever?

ShooterSF

What ever happened to a two tier Europe? I was keen on the idea and was trying to discuss the ins and outs but could never get anywhere with people and now its completely forgotten and it's either in or out.

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's not a threat, it's speculation. That straw man has been dealt with before. Your intellectually lazy refusal to actually engage in a meaningful discussion is getting extremely tiresome.

Tell me: do you truly, honestly believe that we as a country can continue indefinitely to tell our fellow member states to go f*ck themselves without any repercussions whatsoever?

It's odd that the yes side who are pro-Europe apparently are presenting us with the alternative to go with Lisbon or get out of the EU.

Tiresome though that may be.

And we never told Europe to go f*ck themselves. As you say yourself, constantly, we didn't vote no to Lisbon, we voted not to change our constitution.

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

It's odd that the yes side who are pro-Europe apparently are presenting us with the alternative to go with Lisbon or get out of the EU.

No alternative has been presented. There has been speculation as to what the outcome of a rejection of Lisbon would be; speculation that some on the "no" side seem strangely reluctant to acknowledge.

And we never told Europe to go f*ck themselves. As you say yourself, constantly, we didn't vote no to Lisbon, we voted not to change our constitution.

The net effect of which has been our failure to ratify Lisbon. And if we continue indefinitely to refuse to allow the government to ratify the treaty, what then?

Not that I expect a straight answer.

ShooterSF

oscarBravo wrote: »

No alternative has been presented. There has been speculation as to what the outcome of a rejection of Lisbon would be; speculation that some on the "no" side seem strangely reluctant to acknowledge. The net effect of which has been our failure to ratify Lisbon. And if we continue indefinitely to refuse to allow the government to ratify the treaty, what then?

Not that I expect a straight answer.

Well as I said the yes side did suggest an alternative:

ShooterSF wrote: »

What ever happened to a two tier Europe? I was keen on the idea and was trying to discuss the ins and outs but could never get anywhere with people and now its completely forgotten and it's either in or out.

Id prefer this to leaving or going on with lisbon. The thing that bugs me is that the minute you accept a suggestion like this a lot of people on the yes side (that pitched the notion in the first place) then forget about it and go more extreme (The in or out situation) which smacks of scaremongering tbh.

Im not saying that was everyone's intentions but the cynical side of my mind plays it out like this:

Post Lisbon.
Yes supporter (note im not bulking all yes voters in here just a sample):

Hmm maybe if we warn people of a two tier Europe that'll scare them.

No supporter: I actually like that idea.

Yes supporter: Damn right lets go further extreme. No you're either in Europe or not.

---

I'd prefer not to look at it that way but it's how it's coming across.

Eurosceptic2008

dresden8 wrote:

It's odd that the yes side who are pro-Europe apparently are presenting us with the alternative to go with Lisbon or get out of the EU.

We can't be thrown out of the EU. There have been many no votes across the EU over the years on issues ranging from Lisbon to EMU (e.g. Sweden and Denmark), but it never lead to a country being forced out of the EU, and this is no different. From the horses mouth:

Charlie McCreevy wrote:

There is no provision to throw out anybody, unless unanimously all the existing members of the club agreed to throw you out. And I doubt now, or in the future, any Irish Government is going to unanimously agree to throw themselves out.

dresden8

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

We can't be thrown out of the EU. There have been many no votes across the EU over the years on issues ranging from Lisbon to EMU (e.g. Sweden and Denmark), but it never lead to a country being forced out of the EU, and this is no different. From the horses mouth:

That's what I've been saying for months.

There is no mechanism to throw us out of the EU, therefore I cannot show the no mechanism to throw us out.

How hard is that to understand?

As a counterpoint I've asked the Yes side supporters to show the mechanism under which we would be thrown out, and been accused of dodging the issue, somehow.

So there you go, show me the mechanism yes people, how are they going to throw us out?

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

So there you go, show me the mechanism yes people, how are they going to throw us out?

They individually withdraw from the treaties establishing the European Community and the European Union, and collectively enter into a new treaty establishing a replacement Union.

It's not exactly likely, but it's not impossible either.

Now, would you care to address my earlier question?

Eurosceptic2008

oscarBravo wrote: »

They individually withdraw from the treaties establishing the European Community and the European Union, and collectively enter into a new treaty establishing a replacement Union.

It's not exactly likely, but it's not impossible either.

Now, would you care to address my earlier question?

There is no consensus for setting up a new EU, and if we go down the road with every EU treaty of voting yes just so that might not happen, then we lose all leverage in terms of making sure our leaders get the best deal for Ireland. I happen to have researched the Treaty in great detail before the referendum, and I do not accept the interpretation given by the yes parties to the govt and EU research into the reasons for voting no. First of all, in he Eurobarometer study, the proportion citing lack of information among the no voters was only 25%, compared to around 40% in the govt-research. But public-trust in Fianna Fáil is at rock-bottom and few are going to believe what they are saying just because they are saying it. Citing "lack of information" is not the same as saying you don't understand the Treaty. It can mean that you feel there's something the political-class are keeping from you that in turn makes you feel suspicious enough to vote no.

I would also contend that not understanding the issues was an equal problem on the yes side, usually masked in the numbers of yes voters in the respective researches saying they only voted yes because "EU membership has been good for Ireland". For the majority of the Irish people who vote in these referendums, that sort of justification is no longer good enough. You don't vote for something that will change the constitution because of something that happened in the past that worked out well. Each EU treaty is different and has different implications. And I don't accept that Ireland is isolated in Europe. The French and Dutch no voters are glad we voted no, because in doing so we prevented their govt from forcing a blueprint on them they rejected democratically in 2005.

The test of a democracy is the willingness of the political-elite to take no for an answer. While favourably disposed to the EU as it stands, I am critical of its intolerance of dissent and bullying of electorates that vote no. It is no coincidence that after the French and Dutch no votes, a string of EU member state govts cancelled plans for referenda on the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty blueprint. It is an indictment of the democratic-legitimacy of the EU that it feels that public-consultation on policy is something to be got around and avoided. It's like they are afraid of giving the people a say - sort of like the "men of property" in the 19th century who opposed expanding the franchise to the working-classes whom Edmund Burke termed "the swinish multitude". Brussels seems to me to regard no voters and European citizens that disagree with them in the same light. In that context the general direction of the European project is away from democracy and towards an oligarchic form of govt, where more and more power goes to people national govts don't elect, be it Commissioners, the ECJ (through the Charter), etc. That is not a healthy development for democracy, and bearing in mind what happened in 1800 and what we've learned from the Tribunals, we have more reason than most nations to distrust what our politicians are telling us to do on Lisbon. I am unmoved by their pleas and intend voting no again. I believe that in the longterm, Irish democracy will be illserved by this Treaty. I want to elect the people who govern me, and to determine through constitutional referenda the parameters within which they are free to act. The current constitution is the rule book, and I don't want to give the seal of approval to this pandora's box of a treaty that will undermine its supremacy in this country insofar as it still exists.

tolosenc

ShooterSF wrote: »

Huh? What exactly are you suggesting here?

I'm suggesting that there are certain people that just should not be allowed to vote on certain issues due to not knowing a thing about them. This is just my opinion, but I think we could have seen a 3%-6% swing were the treaty named after a part of Ireland - due to ignorant people.

dresden8 wrote: »

So there you go, show me the mechanism yes people, how are they going to throw us out?

How about when writing new treaties, Ireland no longer is a compulsory signatory. That is, create an EU of 2 tiers - 26, and Ireland. Making the situation inviable for us, so we leave "of our own will".

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

They individually withdraw from the treaties establishing the European Community and the European Union, and collectively enter into a new treaty establishing a replacement Union.

It's not exactly likely, but it's not impossible either.

Not only is it unlikely, it's ridiculous.

dresden8

obl wrote: »

How about when writing new treaties, Ireland no longer is a compulsory signatory. That is, create an EU of 2 tiers - 26, and Ireland. Making the situation inviable for us, so we leave "of our own will".

There are several 2 tiers within Europe already.

Brits and the Euro?

dresden8

Those with open immigration from the EU, those with restricted?

You make it sound like the end of the world.

Scofflaw

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

We can't be thrown out of the EU. There have been many no votes across the EU over the years on issues ranging from Lisbon to EMU (e.g. Sweden and Denmark), but it never lead to a country being forced out of the EU, and this is no different. From the horses mouth:

There is no provision to throw out anybody, unless unanimously all the existing members of the club agreed to throw you out. And I doubt now, or in the future, any Irish Government is going to unanimously agree to throw themselves out.

Charlie McCreevy undoubtedly has a deep relationship with stables, but that does not actually make him a horse.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

Not only is it unlikely, it's ridiculous.

At least I answered the question. Which, of course, gave you an opening to make a smart-arse remark about my post, which seems to be what passes for discussion in your world.

One of these days you'll shock me to the core and contribute something interesting.

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

At least I answered the question. Which, of course, gave you an opening to make a smart-arse remark about my post, which seems to be what passes for discussion in your world.

One of these days you'll shock me to the core and contribute something interesting.

So it's likely ALL other members of the EU will walk away, leaving us the ECJ and the European Parliament, all other European Institutions and the fishing rights to the whole of European waters?

Stop smoking that sh1t Oscar, it's messing with your head.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

So it's likely ALL other members of the EU will walk away, leaving us the ECJ and the European Parliament, all other European Institutions and the fishing rights to the whole of European waters?

Rather more to the point, the issues involved in the continuation of EU Directives, grants, programmes, agencies, and so on, make it highly unlikely. Highly unlikely, though, isn't quite the same as impossible.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

Rather more to the point, the issues involved in the continuation of EU Directives, grants, programmes, agencies, and so on, make it highly unlikely. Highly unlikely, though, isn't quite the same as impossible.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I suppose highly unlikely is the best we'll ever get on the internet.

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

So it's likely ALL other members of the EU will walk away...

Not only did I not say it was likely, I said it was unlikely - and you responded, quoting me saying so. You're not even trying anymore.

dresden8 wrote: »

I suppose highly unlikely is the best we'll ever get on the internet.

At least some of us actually answer questions.

strathspey

At the end of the day, Ireland is too much of a small, piss-willy little country on the extreme fringes of Western Europe, to be able to stop the European Project. Ireland was pretty happy to take the money off the EU table for the past 35 years and it seems pretty dillusional to me that anybody should think that there wouldn't be a price to pay. That price just may be the Irish constitution. Ireland must realise that it needs Europe, however Europe does not need Ireland.

meglome

Personally I didn't vote as I just didn't know enough about the treaty at the time. But I'd be very much in favour, as a rule, of the EU. I remember the good oul 80's when we didn't have a pot to piss in. However I think it's very undemocratic that Ireland is the only county in Europe that actually had a referendum. I'm also uncomfortable with the government just running it again until we get it 'right'. I'm finding it difficult not to be irritated with the concept that the NO voters got it wrong, as they didn't understand the treaty. When on the flip side I would say the majority of Yes voters didn't understand it either but it seems that's perfectly fine as they made the 'right' decision. The elite in this country (did I really just say that) are looking down their noses at the No voters like a silly child, which given the chance, will eventually cop themselves on.

Would I vote no the next time, maybe not, I support the EU but I'm not liking the tone of the debate so far. And I wonder are there many other people that won't like it either. It won't be fun if we reject it the second time but it'll leave a bitter taste in many peoples mouths if we're bullied into a yes.

Furious-Dave

It's already been explained that the only reason why Ireland had a referendum was because it's in our constitution to do so when changes to that constitution are proposed. Other countries didn't have a vote because they didn't need to, it's not in their constitutions. IMO issues like treaties should not be put to the people as they are far too complicated. That's why we have a parliament who's expertise it is to decide and consider such matters.

meglome

Furious-Dave wrote: »

It's already been explained that the only reason why Ireland had a referendum was because it's in our constitution to do so when changes to that constitution are proposed. Other countries didn't have a vote because they didn't need to, it's not in their constitutions. IMO issues like treaties should not be put to the people as they are far too complicated. That's why we have a parliament who's expertise it is to decide and consider such matters.

I know why... but that we are the only country in the EU to need one is a sad reflection. I heard some of our own politicians admit they hadn't read it so I think I'll take my chances with a vote for the people, this being a democracy an' all.

CiaranC

Oh come on, if it had been put to the people anywhere else it would be rejected also. France and Holland rejected it in its previous form. The treaty is seen to be strengthening the apparatus of a federal Europe, which the people are just not interested in.