Why no referendum on the "bailout"?

LostinBlanch

Why are none of the parties saying that they will put the "bailout" to a referendum?

The mortgaging of the future for at least one if not two generations of citizens of this country isn't deemed important enough to allow the people to vote on it?

No party that I can see is offering this, so why should we vote for any of them?

28064212

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Why are none of the parties saying that they will put the "bailout" to a referendum?

Why would they? It doesn't require a constitution change. They're either for it or against it, you can vote for them on that basis. Why would a party campaign on the platform "if we get into power, we'll do whatever a referendum says"?

Bottle_of_Smoke

28064212 wrote: »

Why would they? It doesn't require a constitution change. They're either for it or against it, you can vote for them on that basis. Why would a party campaign on the platform "if we get into power, we'll do whatever a referendum says"?

This is it basically. We don't have direct democracy. In the elections we vote for people who will draw up the legislation for running our country unless a change is required for the constitution

28064212

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

This is it basically. We don't have direct democracy. In the elections we vote for people who will draw up the legislation for running our country unless a change is required for the constitution

Technically, we can have an "ordinary referendum" where the president refers a bill to the electorate before it becomes law. This has never happened in the history of the state

LostinBlanch

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

This is it basically. We don't have direct democracy. In the elections we vote for people who will draw up the legislation for running our country unless a change is required for the constitution

That is exactly the problem. IMO we should have some form of direct democracy, when say 100,000 registered voters is enough to call a referendum on any particular topic. This ensures that the status quo where a vastly unpopular government with no mandate to act in the way it did re NAMA, Anglo, IMF/EU etc is required to put such momentous decisions before the electorate, to say yea or nay. If the electorate agree then the govt has a specific mandate to act in a specific way. If they don't then the people have spoken and their wishes must be respected.

That stops the establishment living in a self referential bubble that thinks the world ceases to exist beyond Kildare St.

LostinBlanch

28064212 wrote: »

Why would they? It doesn't require a constitution change. They're either for it or against it, you can vote for them on that basis.

So you're perfectly happy denying the electorate a say on the biggest decision that's going to affect them and their sons and daughters for up to the next 20 years?

When the major parties are offering the same choice then it's not a choice. A sh*t sandwich is still a sh*t sandwich no matter what bread you use to make it.

HivemindXX

You're talking about a Ballot Initiative.

California has this and a lot of people say it's a reason their economy is such a mess. It's pretty easy to get 100,000 people to sign a petition saying "Get rid of tax on fuel". Such a referendum might then pass and of course the voters don't have to say how the lost revenue will be made up or what services will be cut.

28064212

LostinBlanch wrote: »

So you're perfectly happy denying the electorate a say on the biggest decision that's going to affect them and their sons and daughters for up to the next 20 years?

There are big decisions made in the Dáil on a daily basis. They're made by the people who were elected to make those decisions. The electorate have their say. That's what an election in a representative democracy is

LostinBlanch wrote: »

When the major parties are offering the same choice then it's not a choice. A sh*t sandwich is still a sh*t sandwich no matter what bread you use to make it.

Yes, when no-one standing for election represents your views, you don't have a choice.

No-one standing for election represents my view that we should start a space program to get in on the ground floor of Mars colonisation. So what?

D1stant

So the referendum would be rejected (1st time anyway)

Where would that leave us?

Victor

28064212 wrote: »

Technically, we can have an "ordinary referendum" where the president refers a bill to the electorate before it becomes law. This has never happened in the history of the state

Of note, ordinary referendums aren't binding.

zig

HivemindXX wrote: »

You're talking about a Ballot Initiative.

California has this and a lot of people say it's a reason their economy is such a mess. It's pretty easy to get 100,000 people to sign a petition saying "Get rid of tax on fuel". Such a referendum might then pass and of course the voters don't have to say how the lost revenue will be made up or what services will be cut.

well maybe bring it up to a more substantial figure than 100,000, maybe something 1/3 of the population, or even more 2/5 or something. That way it would be exteremely difficult to pull off, proving how strongly people would feel about something if they did manage it.

LostinBlanch

28064212 wrote: »

No-one standing for election represents my view that we should start a space program to get in on the ground floor of Mars colonisation. So what?

Right so you equate a call for a referendum on the so called "bailout" with some facetious crap about mars colonisation?

BTW what party are you a member of?

LostinBlanch

zig wrote: »

well maybe bring it up to a more substantial figure than 100,000, maybe something 1/3 of the population, or even more 2/5 or something. That way it would be exteremely difficult to pull off, proving how strongly people would feel about something if they did manage it.

Exactly, make it 1/3rd of registered voters so that should cross party boundaries.

The current system is broken and needs to be fixed. The only ones that are arguing against it are party hacks.

28064212

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Right so you equate a call for a referendum on the so called "bailout" with some facetious crap about mars colonisation?

Why is your core issue more important than mine? The fact that you can't even see the point speaks volumes.

The major parties all support the bailout (AFAIK). Certainly, none of them have said they're going to overturn it when they get in to power. Yet they will still be the major parties come election time. Why? If there's such a public consensus disagreeing with that course of action, why are they voting for parties that will continue it?

LostinBlanch wrote: »

BTW what party are you a member of?

Not that it has any relevance whatsoever, but I have no party affiliations. Probably closest to Labour in terms of ideology

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Exactly, make it 1/3rd of registered voters so that should cross party boundaries.

The current system is broken and needs to be fixed. The only ones that are arguing against it are party hacks.

Don't particularly see a problem with that. Would have to have checks in place to guard against tyranny of the majority of course.

aftermn

This does raise an interesting point though. A party faces election with a manifesto of it's intentions if elected. It wins a certain amount of seats. If lucky, it will have enough to either govern itself or form a coalition. Of course a coalition will mean dilution of it's manifesto. What now, the value of it's mandate.
Even if large enough to govern alone, the mandate is for a maximum of 5 years. Is it entitled to tie us into 20 years of debt? If the answer to this is currently yes, should it be?
Remember, this bail-out is not like a budget change which can be easily reversed.

Chucky the tree

Just can't see this being a good idea. If people had to pass some kind of test to be able to vote then it might work but otherwise I think in general the Irish population are to thick to be put in charge of major decisions.

astrofool

It would only work if the referendum was for all the options:

e.g.

Bail out from EU/IMF
or
Public service and SW cut by 50%, taxes go up by 10% on everything

California fails because they say no to everything.

LostinBlanch

28064212 wrote: »

Why is your core issue more important than mine? The fact that you can't even see the point speaks volumes.

Well the little fact that citizens of this country are going to be forced to pay for the bailout for up to the next 20 years whether they want to or not. If it is put to the electorate with all options so they can agree or not then no-one can complain about it.

28064212 wrote: »

The major parties all support the bailout (AFAIK). Certainly, none of them have said they're going to overturn it when they get in to power. Yet they will still be the major parties come election time. Why? If there's such a public consensus disagreeing with that course of action, why are they voting for parties that will continue it?

A major part of public discourse is shaped by the media and political parties. With only a few notable exceptions has the possibility of a referendum on this matter been mooted. Otherwise it's the same old self referential cr*p from Morning Ireland/newstalk/talktojoe/frontline/vincent browne ad nauseam. My original question was why hasn't any of the major parties said we should hold a referendum on this matter, and why were they merely offering slightly different flavours of the same sh*t sandwich?

28064212 wrote: »

Don't particularly see a problem with that. Would have to have checks in place to guard against tyranny of the majority of course.

I have no problem with that either checks and safeguards. I see such a mechanism as another check and safeguard against legislators putting their own interests ahead of the countrys cf Cowen & Anglo/NAMA.

murpho999

Referandas are in my opinion a bad idea.

You vote for your government and TD's to govern and legislate for the country on our behalf. You've got to let them get on with their job.

Referendas are divisive, and vulnerable to populist propaganda and also people vote for or against for wrong reason rather than the real issue at hand. Perfect example being people voting against Lisbon Treaty because they were not happy with government's handling of economy.

Also, referendas have held this country back years. Divorce only here since 1997 and still no abortion.

Just because a decision such as IMF bailout is difficult or hard to swallow does not mean it's the correct action. Also 99% of general public are not qualified/educated enough to fully understand the deal and that's why we have Government (Yes, I know they can make mistakes) but I'm talking theory here.

Issue for me is that system of how we elect government is all wrong. TD's being local politicians looking after local issues is all wrong. Minister merry go round is wrong. One day you're Health minister next you can be Finance minister. That is for me the crux of our problem.

myrak

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Just can't see this being a good idea. If people had to pass some kind of test to be able to vote then it might work but otherwise I think in general the Irish population are to thick to be put in charge of major decisions.

But not too thick to earn the money to pay for the consequences of major decisions, deemed very bad decisions by many respected commentators in financial and political circles at home and abroad. I for one don't believe the 'only show in town' mantra and I don't think the Dail served voters well since this crisis began.
We are now being asked to vote on what exactly- a done deal?

Chucky the tree

myrak wrote: »

But not too thick to earn the money to pay for the consequences of major decisions, deemed very bad decisions by many respected commentators in financial and political circles at home and abroad. I for one don't believe the 'only show in town' mantra and I don't think the Dail served voters well since this crisis began.
We are now being asked to vote on what exactly- a done deal?

Who voted in the decision makers? English people? A lot of Irish people vote Fianna Fail back in, the same party who gave us Charlie Haughey and Bertie Ahern. In 2007 everyone knew how bent Bertie was, yet he and his party get a huge % of the the vote. The Dail hasn't served voters well but going by the voters track record they haven't exactly done a very good job in selecting decent people to serve us.

melekalikimaka

even if the referendum went gainst the bail out, nothing they can do about it, its done and dusted. all parties agree its whats needed, just the illinformed public who are not happy with it, maybe the interest rates are a inflated... but then again so is our populations egos, with any lucky once we start to recover, both should come down to manageable levels

nesf

LostinBlanch wrote: »

BTW what party are you a member of?

Do not ask someone this. If they want to share their party affiliation they are more than able to on their own, badgering someone about which party they are a member of will get you banned.

28064212

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Well the little fact that citizens of this country are going to be forced to pay for the bailout for up to the next 20 years whether they want to or not. If it is put to the electorate with all options so they can agree or not then no-one can complain about it.

Again, why is your issue more important than any others? Why do you get to decide what needs a referendum and what doesn't?

LostinBlanch wrote: »

A major part of public discourse is shaped by the media and political parties. With only a few notable exceptions has the possibility of a referendum on this matter been mooted.

Largely because to do that, we'd first need a referendum to change the constitution to allow for referendums that would change a bill retrospectively.

Secondly, as already pointed out, there's a general election coming up, where all the parties have or are announcing where they stand on the issue. The party that represents the will of the majority will get into government

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Otherwise it's the same old self referential cr*p from Morning Ireland/newstalk/talktojoe/frontline/vincent browne ad nauseam. My original question was why hasn't any of the major parties said we should hold a referendum on this matter, and why were they merely offering slightly different flavours of the same sh*t sandwich?

Because running on a platform of holding a referendum on this issue would be monumentally stupid

Incidentally, what are the options you intend to put on the referendum? Just to block any public funding going to the banks? What's your plan for when most of the banks in the country go under (along with everyone's savings)?

JustinDee

LostinBlanch wrote: »

So you're perfectly happy denying the electorate a say on the biggest decision that's going to affect them and their sons and daughters for up to the next 20 years?

If you want to make a difference, try for election to the Dail where these bills get passed.
Referenda are not the answer to what gets done, let alone getting the typical Irish person to actually get off their arse and vote.

myrak

JustinDee wrote: »

If you want to make a difference, try for election to the Dail where these bills get passed.
Referenda are not the answer to what gets done, let alone getting the typical Irish person to actually get off their arse and vote.

The pattern of past Irish style referenda may not be helpful... main parties of one voice and voters voting till they give the 'correct' answer is not particularly useful.
However the handling of this crisis must give politicians and people pause for thought. Decision making must include the payees...taxpayers/voters to ensure that:
Content and consequences of deals are fully outlined and understood. The IMF/ECB is clear as mud to all but a few.
The time required to involve 'the people' would give politicians the time to think and seek other opinions rather than being corralled into too fast decision making.
The 'only show in town' device would no longer work.
Politicians and people could look to the national interest and act accordingly, sidelining outside influences/agendas.

There is nothing on earth that cannot be explained to voters...the myth that finance is too complicated has been well and truly shattered...the so called experts created financial schemes that paid off at first but were never thought through to their logical end- implosion.
Banks before people is the mantra of financial insiders...it would be wouldn't it. Its time governments and the governed worked together.
We shouldn't dismiss referenda when all we've had to date have been yes=erenda.

djpbarry

myrak wrote: »

There is nothing on earth that cannot be explained to voters...the myth that finance is too complicated has been well and truly shattered...

By the large number of Irish residents who bought properties that they couldn’t possibly afford?