Whats the point in voting No in referendum?

flatbackfour

When the decision is ignored, we are told we dont understand the issues and to vote again until we get it right.

Those pro Lisbon 2 can you see the pattern yet?

Manach

Perhaps the voters in Mr Howlin and Shatters districts did not understand the issues when these ministers were elected, so I think they need to vote again, in the interests of an informed democracy :rolleyes:

ArmaniJeanss

I genuinely don't see the problem.

If you are still opposed to the Referendum, whether it be LisbonII, DivorceII, NiceII, AbortionIV, or a further Oireachtas Enquiries referendum, then you continue to vote No. No-one is forcing you to vote a particular way.

Then if you, and people in general are fed up with a government trying to get such a piece of legislation through, we get the opportunity to fcuk them out in a General Election every 4 years.

flatbackfour

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I genuinely don't see the problem.

If you are still opposed to the Referendum, whether it be LisbonII, DivorceII, NiceII, AbortionIV, or a further Oireachtas Enquiries referendum, then you continue to vote No. No-one is forcing you to vote a particular way.

Then if you, and people in general are fed up with a government trying to get such a piece of legislation through, we get the opportunity to fcuk them out in a General Election every 4 years.

By that rational we just continue to hold referendums until the government gets the decision it wants on any constitutional issues.

It's not legislation it's constitutional change.

What's the point in asking voters opinion if literally the next day we are told to vote again.

And you don't see the problem with that?

nesf

The core issue is, we're entitled to change our minds. Be it due to a few years gap or be due to not fully understanding the issue during the first poll.

e.g. I would have voted against the amendment on Oireachtas Inquiries because I didn't like the wording and I wanted an individual's opportunity to appeal to a court to be iron clad in the wording.

Change the wording a bit, tweak it to get clearer rights to individuals brought up by Inquiries and I might just Vote Yes.


With Lisbon I and Nice I, both times there was a strong No vote from people who felt they didn't understand the issues well enough (along with a fair few that had been scared by lies by the No side), for the next vote things were much clearer and the vote passed.

daithimacgroin

if there was a yes vote, u could be sure they would not hold another referendum a year later would they?

flatbackfour is dead right

nesf

daithimacgroin wrote: »

if there was a yes vote, u could be sure they would not hold another referendum a year later would they?

If we wanted we could very easily elect in a Government that would rehold the referendum.

I guarantee you if we ever pass any very liberal laws on abortion that conservative groups will run for Government/lobby/whatever for the reholding of the referendum with a view to removing the amendment.

The fact that we overwhelmingly vote for pro-EU parties says an awful lot about how little worried the people are about EU treaties and the power of the EU. Contrast with Britain where the anti-EU Conservatives always do pretty well at Elections.

flatbackfour

nesf wrote: »

daithimacgroin wrote: »

if there was a yes vote, u could be sure they would not hold another referendum a year later would they?

If we wanted we could very easily elect in a Government that would rehold the referendum.

I guarantee you if we ever pass any very liberal laws on abortion that conservative groups will run for Government/lobby/whatever for the reholding of the referendum with a view to removing the amendment.

The fact that we overwhelmingly vote for pro-EU parties says an awful lot about how little worried the people are about EU treaties and the power of the EU. Contrast with Britain where the anti-EU Conservatives always do pretty well at Elections.

The idea that we vote for a party that promises to re hold a referendum is absurd.

Re point abOut conservative groups; like what happened with the divorce referendum?

anymore

flatbackfour wrote: »

When the decision is ignored, we are told we dont understand the issues and to vote again until we get it right.

Those pro Lisbon 2 can you see the pattern yet?

If we follow your logic, then what is the point of threads about voting no ?

flatbackfour

anymore wrote: »

flatbackfour wrote: »

When the decision is ignored, we are told we dont understand the issues and to vote again until we get it right.

Those pro Lisbon 2 can you see the pattern yet?

If we follow your logic, then what is the point of threads about voting no ?

It's a rhetorical question. As for following logic.........

nesf

flatbackfour wrote: »

The idea that we vote for a party that promises to re hold a referendum is absurd.

Re point abOut conservative groups; like what happened with the divorce referendum?

It's not absurd in the slightest. Quite a few people back Euro-sceptic parties, SF etc. Comes as standard in hard left parties and groups. Even our Euro-sceptic parties for the most part masquerade as being somewhat pro-EU. SF's rhetoric has changed from a straight No vote, to a "let's say No and negotiate a better one." It's not that the party would be single issue but that it would be a core position for the party.

If the public was more Eurosceptic then we'd have similar groups to the UKIP springing up and doing fairly well at local level at least, possibly even a few Dáil seats if the mood was sufficiently sceptical. It's a strong sign of the people's position that the three biggest parties are all pro-EU.

senordingdong

nesf wrote: »

It's a strong sign of the people's position that the three biggest parties are all pro-EU.

True, but doesn't it show how hollow the parties truely are if they can water down their beliefs to pull in the votes. meet the publics demand.

flatbackfour

nesf wrote: »

flatbackfour wrote: »

The idea that we vote for a party that promises to re hold a referendum is absurd.

Re point abOut conservative groups; like what happened with the divorce referendum?

It's not absurd in the slightest. Quite a few people back Euro-sceptic parties, SF etc. Comes as standard in hard left parties and groups. Even our Euro-sceptic parties for the most part masquerade as being somewhat pro-EU. SF's rhetoric has changed from a straight No vote, to a "let's say No and negotiate a better one." It's not that the party would be single issue but that it would be a core position for the party.

If the public was more Eurosceptic then we'd have similar groups to the UKIP springing up and doing fairly well at local level at least, possibly even a few Dáil seats if the mood was sufficiently sceptical. It's a strong sign of the people's position that the three biggest parties are all pro-EU.

You are missing The point I am making .You can be pro Europe and reject A proposed constitutional amendment on a particular nuanced aspect of European integration for example.

It does not make you euro sceptic.

The point still remains; why go through the charade of referendums to ask the people there opinion when what is really meant is; agree with the proposal or we will do again.

Characterising those who have reservations about the anti democratic nature of rerunning referendums as reactionary conservative or euroskeptic is convenient but again misses the point

28064212

flatbackfour wrote: »

Characterising those who have reservations about the anti democratic nature of rerunning referendums as reactionary conservative or euroskeptic is convenient but again misses the point

Ah yes, the good old classic anti-democratic tactic of asking the people what they want. The constitution changes when a majority of the electorate vote for it to be changed.

Are you advocating a return to pre-divorce days? After all, that was rejected before it was approved.

flatbackfour

28064212 wrote: »

flatbackfour wrote: »

Characterising those who have reservations about the anti democratic nature of rerunning referendums as reactionary conservative or euroskeptic is convenient but again misses the point

Ah yes, the good old classic anti-democratic tactic of asking the people what they want. The constitution changes when a majority of the electorate vote for it to be changed.

Are you advocating a return to pre-divorce days? After all, that was rejected before it was approved.

Not sure I get your point?

Yes ask people what they want but when they tell you, accept it, that's all.

Or are you suggesting that you KEEP asking?

It makes a complete mockery of the constitution and treats people like morons.

Victor

flatbackfour wrote: »

What's the point in asking voters opinion if literally the next day we are told to vote again.

Do you understand the word "literally"?

dabestman1

There won't be another referendum for a while as there needs to be something to accompany it, ie: local elections,etc. Otherwise there will be a very low turnout.

flatbackfour

Victor wrote: »

flatbackfour wrote: »

What's the point in asking voters opinion if literally the next day we are told to vote again.

Do you understand the word "literally"?[/Quote
Very good. That's very clever.

Yes I do. I heard Brendan howlan today. He said that if the proposed amendment was explained better it would have been passed. He also said that a rerun is on the cards.

To make that clear. Literally the next day Brendan told us to "vote again". Not that we have to vote the next day. Is that making it easy for you?

Really the substantive point is; is rerunning referendum when amendments are rejected anti democratic?

You must have used that literally gag a few times before in your 54000 posts. How many times literally?

celticcrash

Democrazy dont make me laugh. Where national media are bias in an presidental election. Where the voters are told that they got it wrong in a referendum. Where the goverment threaten the voters through fear to vote a certain way. Paint it what way you like, but our past and presant goverment treats its people with contempt. Yes a lack of respect of the peoples wishes.
Democrazy dont make me laugh.

Dinner

flatbackfour wrote: »

Yes I do. I heard Brendan howlan today. He said that if the proposed amendment was explained better it would have been passed. He also said that a rerun is on the cards.

It's entirely possible that if the issue was explained better then it would have passed. I fail to see how this is undemocratic.

If I ask you a question and you either misunderstand the question or misinterpret the question, should I never be allowed to ask you that question again?

Whats the extent of your logic, should Divorce be repealed because the first time round it was rejected? Or is that ok because a significant time had passed between votes. Should that matter? After all, NO means NO.

And if it is ok to rehold a referendum after a significant time period has passed, is it not reasonable to suggest that there could be other criteria for reholding a vote? Say for example, people not being sure on what they are voting for. It is very bad form for a government to not explain an issue correctly, but should that really lock us out from changing our minds?


You mentioned Lisbon 2 in your opening post lets look at that.
We rejected Lisbon the first time round.
The government decides to ask us why.
The data returned from the surveys carried out indicate that a significant number of people voted no due to issues that had nothing to do with the treaty and came about due to a misunderstanding of the contents or rumours spread by anti Lisbon campaigners.
So, with this in mind, the government decides to rehold the vote. This time they more clearly explain what is and is not in the treaty, with the help of some legally binding guarantees from the EU to help ease voters worries.


I have absolutley no idea how this can be construed as undemocratic and us just being told to 'vote again until we get the right answer'.

Perhaps you can highlight the exact point in my summation of the Lisbon 1 aftermath that makes it undemocratic because, to me, changing my mind is one very important aspect of democracy that I very much want to keep hold of.

Carlos Orange

Victor wrote: »

Do you understand the word "literally"?

I am reminded of the Canadian guy I used to work with who thought a rhetorical question was a question you were supposed to answer.

HivemindXX

flatbackfour wrote: »

You must have used that literally gag a few times before in your 54000 posts. How many times literally?

You seem upset at being found out. You tried to say something that wasn't true and when it was pointed out you moved the goalposts. Now you are getting petty.

Here's my perspective on Lisbon. The No To Lisbon faction lied their asses off in the run up to the first vote (figuratively of course, I'm not an idiot). The government organised a number of documents stating that a lot of the claims from the No side were untrue. We voted again and this time the referendum was passed.

For some reason we are supposed to believe that people that voted No the first time around were somehow forced to vote Yes the second time. There is no explanation from people like you how this was achieved.

There were plenty of completely farcical lies told by the No campaign, delineating what terrible things would happen if we voted Yes, but somehow these haven't come true. Ironically the things that have crippled the country might not have happened if the EU had the sort of total control over our economy the No campaign said they would. Somehow the No campaign still have the brass neck to keep lying. Presumably they feel that people have a short memory and if you say something often enough it sticks with some people.

This idea that voting twice is undemocratic is another such lie. If the government does decide to rerun these referenda, in the absence of any new information I'll vote exactly the same way I did before. If they ran it 100 times I would still vote the same way. That is democracy. If they changed the constitution anyway, despite a no vote then that would be undemocratic. You should probably examine the difference.

flatbackfour

Dinner wrote: »

It's entirely possible that if the issue was explained better then it would have passed. I fail to see how this is undemocratic.

Thats a fair point. Bu is it also not possible that it was explained, people understood that explanation and decided to reject it on those merits?

Dinner wrote: »

If I ask you a question and you either misunderstand the question or misinterpret the question, should I never be allowed to ask you that question again?.

Again your assuming people misunderstanding.

Dinner wrote: »

Whats the extent of your logic, should Divorce be repealed because the first time round it was rejected? Or is that ok because a significant time had passed between votes. Should that matter? After all, NO means NO..

There was ten years between those referendum, thats a fair enough length of time for change to occur.

Dinner wrote: »

And if it is ok to rehold a referendum after a significant time period has passed, is it not reasonable to suggest that there could be other criteria for regolding a vote??..

Yes thats reasonable

Dinner wrote: »

Say for example, people not being sure on what they are voting for. It is very bad form for a government to not explain an issue correctly, but should that really lock us out from changing our minds?..

Again you are assuming that people just did not get it the first time.

Dinner wrote: »

You mentioned Lisbon 2 in your opening post lets look at that.
We rejected Lisbon the first time round.
The government decides to ask us why.
The data returned from the surveys .

Government by surveys. Brillaint idea.

Dinner wrote: »

So, with this in mind, the government decides to rehold the vote. This time they more clearly explain what is and is not in the treaty, with the help of some legally binding guarantees from the EU to help ease voters worries..

What you call clearly explaining others would call scaremongering
about what would happen to us if we voted no again.

I have absolutley no idea how this can be construed as undemocratic and us just being told to 'vote again until we get the right answer'.

Thats what worries me.

Perhaps you can highlight the exact point in my summation of the Lisbon 1 aftermath that makes it undemocratic because, to me, changing my mind is one very important aspect of democracy that I very much want to keep hold of

see above

flatbackfour

HivemindXX wrote: »

You seem upset at being found out. You tried to say something that wasn't true and when it was pointed out you moved the goalposts. Now you are getting petty.

I am being petty? However the first contribution from that poster to this thread was to obviously ridicule.

Found out?

I said that Brendan Howlan, the day after the referendum, talked about rerunning the referendum. He "literally" said that.

Now even taking the logic that I used "literally" in the wrong context that has nothing to do with the substantive point I am trying to make. Highlighting it was an attempt to be petty and to undermine.

Lets get back to the point.

Manach

A referendum costs money to run. Re-running one on the same substantive issue without any change in mandate (say a new election of the Dail) would seem to an burden which the taxpayer unfairly pays.

flatbackfour

psinno wrote: »

I am reminded of the Canadian guy I used to work with who thought a rhetorical question was a question you were supposed to answer.

Is that guy from Springfield?

Dinner

flatbackfour wrote: »

Thats a fair point. Bu is it also not possible that it was explained, people understood that explanation and decided to reject it on those merits?

Yes that is possible. I voted no on the Oireachtas amendment and I feel that I understood it well enough and did not like what it attempted to do. If the government feel that it was not understood then let them try and explain it better. If I still disagree with it, then I will vote no again. I have no doubt that you would too. Many people of the same thinking as yourself have said that they voted no to Lisbon 1 and 2 because they are strong willed and won't be 'bullied' into changing their vote and then go on to say that Lisbon 2 passed because other people did buckle and change their vote because they were 'told to vote again'. Yet I have never found one of these people who buckle so easily under pressure but I have spoken to people who voted no to Lisbon 1 and yes to Lisbon 2 because they understood it better.

If it should turn out that we vote on the Oireachtas bill again, and it does not change, and the government does not explain it any differently, I will be just as outraged as you. But by dragging in Lisbon when there are clear differences will only make your arguements look weak.

If however, the government explain it differently and I think "Oh thats what they're trying to do. Yeah I'll still vote no". Then that is fine, because even though my decision has not changed other people may change their mind.

flatbackfour wrote: »

There was ten years between those referendum, thats a fair enough length of time for change to occur.

Excellent, so we can agree that under some circumstances a vote can be reheld, such as a lot of time passing or people misunderstanding what they are voting on.

So the sheer act of reholding a vote is not undemocratic. (I'm sure it's somewhat ironic to claim that holding a vote is undemocratic but anyway). The only debate is if there is reason enough to rehold a vote.

flatbackfour wrote: »

Government by surveys. Brillaint idea. Like a government would not bias those survays/ focus groups etc to elicit the kind of issues it felt were the reasons people voted no.

Is there a better way to find out what the public are thinking? Referendums are binary. I can put an X in the yes box, or the no box. There is no box for reasons why I chose that answer. Surveys, however, can tell us the resons why. Someone more versed in statistics can probably demonstrate how these surveys are an accurate representations of public thinking.

Are you actually hinting that the government tampered with the survey results? It's more than just them. One of the main surveys was carried out by Millward Brown who carry out a lot of those types of surveys. I'm fairly sure they stake their reputation on accurate results and for them to become involved in a government scam to tamper the results is frankly rediculous. And I have not yet seen any proof of this suggestion despite it being made several times over the past couple of years. So unless you have some shocking revelations that the Irish government forced Millward Brown to fix their survey results then I'm going to go ahead and say that it probably did not happen.

Regardless, these surveys did show that people did not fully understand what they were voting on. And who can blame them? It was awfully presented. And certain organisations on the no side took advantage of this to spread rumours about what Lisbon could do.

flatbackfour wrote: »

What you call clearly explaining others would call scaremongering
about what would happen to us if we voted no again.

See here's the thing, what people called government scaremongering was pretty much speculation. (Although someone may prove me wrong here). They said stuff like another no vote would unsettle the markets. thats something that cannot be definitively proven by looking at the text. However the no side scaremongering could almost always be disproven by looking at the text or the guarantees. So from that situation, 1 side can clearly be proven wrong, and the other side may be proven wrong. In a sense the no side messed it up for themselves by dragging non issues in to it.

flatbackfour wrote: »

Thats what worries me.

I don't see why. We have already agreed that it is ok to rehold a referendum if people have misunderstood what they are voting on. The data from surveys and from my own personal experience from speaking to people seems to indicate that this was the case. Where is the scandal?

HicksLennon

flatbackfour wrote: »

When the decision is ignored, we are told we dont understand the issues and to vote again until we get it right.

Those pro Lisbon 2 can you see the pattern yet?

Totally agree with you. We will all be asked to vote again on this issue even though we voted no. The population will be coerced into voting yes next time!

Manach

Dinner wrote: »

I don't see why. We have already agreed that it is ok to rehold a referendum if people have misunderstood what they are voting on. The data from surveys and from my own personal experience from speaking to people seems to indicate that this was the case. Where is the scandal?

In this case, the Ministers have already stated that part of the reason why this referendum failed was due to the "misunderstood" nature of the issue. This has not been backed up by any current survey (BTW I've never been ever asked for any survey, I've been snubbed ) , so by explaining in this way would they seem to skew future surveys by muddying the waters?

Dinner

Manach wrote: »

In this case, the Ministers have already stated that part of the reason why this referendum failed was due to the "misunderstood" nature of the issue. This has not been backed up by any current survey (BTW I've never been ever asked for any survey, I've been snubbed ) , so by explaining in this way would they seem to skew future surveys by muddying the waters?

I'm not too sure to be honest. I'd like to think that people wouldn't be influenced by that. after all, either you understood it or you didnt. So for me that answer would be the same regardless of whether its 1 day or 1 year after the vote. Anyone that I have spoken too about that referendum seemed to have a good idea what its about (unless we're all mistaken!). So another vote here could be a bit more dodgy unless they alter it.

And I know what you mean on the surveys. the only one I got called for was about exercise habits...

Victor

flatbackfour wrote: »

I am being petty? However the first contribution from that poster to this thread was to obviously ridicule.

My intention was to point out exaggeration, not to ridicule as such. Although there was a tiny bit of Schadenfreude, but that was mine, not for sharing.

I said that Brendan Howlan, the day after the referendum, talked about rerunning the referendum. He "literally" said that.

He talked about it, he individually doesn't have the power to call a referendum. Neither has there been another referendum in the several days since the last one. His statement of possible intention is just that, his intention, not something the government is actively persuing.

Now even taking the logic that I used "literally" in the wrong context that has nothing to do with the substantive point I am trying to make. Highlighting it was an attempt to be petty and to undermine.

Possibly, but you set yourself up as a target.

If you had said something along the lines of accusing the government of planning another referendum* straight away or 'practically' doing that the next day, then that would have been fair comment. If we take the literal (:)) meaning of what you said, you would be wrong.



* Other, separate referendums are planned for Spring 2012

cyberhog

flatbackfour wrote: »

When the decision is ignored, we are told we dont understand the issues and to vote again until we get it right.

That's not the impression I got from the Taoiseach and Tánaiste.

Enda Kenny: "the Constitution is something that belongs to the people and we acknowledge and accept the people's democratic decision."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1029/referendum.html

The Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore has today rejected the notion that the Government did not explain the issue sufficiently

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1030/referendum.html


Howlin, on the other hand, seems like an arrogant condescending know-it-all.

flatbackfour

Victor wrote: »

[If you had said something along the lines of accusing the government of planning another referendum* straight away or 'practically' doing that the next day, then that would have been fair comment. If we take the literal (:)) meaning of what you said, you would be wrong.2012

Howlan said what he said the day after the referendum "literally". Not practically.

I'm happy with my use of the word, why don't you admit that in your attempt to undermine you misread.

Back to the point. Im getting the feeling that only the sophisticated part of the electorate understand the idea/merits of suggesting the holding referendum again straight after a no vote.

They understand the real politik of it. The neuance involved. Anyone who questions it as maybe a bit anti democratic is labled a euro skeptic or right wing Christian coservative or just plain thick

Maybe on this one you might be over rationalising, see it for what it is. government not trusting the people, it knowing better.

See the nature of democracy is that you are informed as well as you can be, you make your choice and then accept the consequences.

I trust the people to get it right in the long term.

ixtlan

Well let me offer my perspective as a reluctant no-voter....

I thought the campaign was very poorly run... I informed myself as best I could and taking into account the concerns of many groups and the possible consequences of future manevolent governments abusing the provisions in the ammendment I voted no.

However I would like to see Dail investigations. I just want to make sure they have some restrictions. The government claimed the protections were sufficient. I was unconvinced. Therefore I voted no, even though I want there to be Dail investigations.

So, am I annoyed to hear a minister say a re-run is possible? No, absolutely not. I agreed with the goal of the referendum, just not the implementation. It might be possible that further clarifications would convince me, but probably not, since I think that if the legal guys who will interpret challenges say they read it a certain way then that's the interpretation that will count. However if some concerns are taken into account, and the wording is tweaked so that some (you never get all) of the opposing groups are satisfied, then it's likely I will vote yes next time.

In fact I want to vote yes. I want to get given an option I can vote yes for. I'd like to be able to do that sooner than 10 years. A year seems reasonable to me.

With due respect I suggest the OP is treating me with contempt, by saying that I would not change my mind in the right circumstances, of my own volition. I am not a puppet, either to vote yes for the government, or to vote no forever. I'll make up my own mind on the occasion of each vote.

So, I, the no-voter, want to government to try again.

Ix.

flatbackfour

ixtlan wrote: »

Well let me offer my perspective as a reluctant no-voter....

I thought the campaign was very poorly run... I informed myself as best I could and taking into account the concerns of many groups and the possible consequences of future manevolent governments abusing the provisions in the ammendment I voted no.

However I would like to see Dail investigations. I just want to make sure they have some restrictions. The government claimed the protections were sufficient. I was unconvinced. Therefore I voted no, even though I want there to be Dail investigations.

So, am I annoyed to hear a minister say a re-run is possible? No, absolutely not. I agreed with the goal of the referendum, just not the implementation. It might be possible that further clarifications would convince me, but probably not, since I think that if the legal guys who will interpret challenges say they read it a certain way then that's the interpretation that will count. However if some concerns are taken into account, and the wording is tweaked so that some (you never get all) of the opposing groups are satisfied, then it's likely I will vote yes next time.

In fact I want to vote yes. I want to get given an option I can vote yes for. I'd like to be able to do that sooner than 10 years. A year seems reasonable to me.

With due respect I suggest the OP is treating me with contempt, by saying that I would not change my mind in the right circumstances, of my own volition. I am not a puppet, either to vote yes for the government, or to vote no forever. I'll make up my own mind on the occasion of each vote.

So, I, the no-voter, want to government to try again.

Ix.

all very reasonable. Two things however. If the government comes up with a different wording which has the necessary checks and balances then this is a different referendum. That is not the same as saying " the public did not understand the issue if it was explained better the outcome would have been different" that smackes of eletist arrogance to me.

Taken on it's own merits your point makes a lot of sense. However there is a pattern in relation to referendums that is disturbing. When the outcome is not what is required we are told we don't understand the issue to vote again when we do.

Sometimes in our quest for sophistication we fail to see the obvious.

ixtlan

flatbackfour wrote: »

all very reasonable. Two things however. If the government comes up with a different wording which has the necessary checks and balances then this is a different referendum. That is not the same as saying " the public did not understand the issue if it was explained better the outcome would have been different" that smackes of eletist arrogance to me.

Also somewhat reasonable. I take your point. So your issue is not so much with the principal of another referendum on the same issue, but with a duplicate referendum with exactly the same wording. Therefore showing the contempt of the government for the previous vote of the electorate.

I do have sympathy for this viewpoint, but don't entirely agree with it. It is important to note that we have had many "repeat" (for want of a better word) referendums in Ireland. With the exception of the EU treaty referendums, these have always been different. The same wording (aside from EU treaties) has never been presented twice. So I would expect the same in this case. As I mentioned, it's possible I might be convinced with more time, but I too would not feel good having the same wording.

I suspect we would differ on the matter of EU referendums, but as a constant yes voter, I see that as somewhat different. Each one of those simply approved the treaty, so the issue there was the text of the treaty rather than the text of the ammendment. And I'm sure we would differ on the semantics of whether a protocol/declaration fundamentally changes the treaty in question, but nonetheless it is a change/clarification of some type which did in effect change the question, even if the wording in the constitution remained the same.

However, putting aside the EU, this is a separate issue. I would strongly expect the wording in this case to change.

Ix.

LostinBlanch

To me the principle of respecting the democratic will of the people as expressed in a referendum result should trump any hobby horse that the (political) establishment rides at any particular time. Failing to do so demeans democracy and increases the alienation that many feel towards politics and the democratic process. That is why I think there should be a moratorium of at least two years on any rerun of any referendum, either with similar or finessed wording.

When a vote doesn’t go the establishments way we tend to get the following:
Denial and disbelief followed by railing against the electorate and / or those who dared oppose the establishment. The fact that the electorate may have educated themselves, looked at the issues and decided to vote in what they perceive to be their own interests rather than those of the establishment is not even considered. Instead we get all the excuses: The weather was bad that day / the electorate has embarrassed us internationally by voting the wrong way / they were misled or “scared” into voting no by nefarious forces / they weren’t nuanced enough to see the big picture / there was a failure of communication on the establishments part / all of the above. Some establishment figures come out and apologise and say that yes of course we respect the will of the people. Just as Enda Kenny did yesterday, and Eamon Gilmore did after Lisbon I.

Then we get the surveys conducted by the government and / or think tanks with similar agendas which tell us that yes the electorate didn’t understand the substantive issues and if they did they would have voted the “correct” way. This is then used as an excuse for starting a campaign for a “new” referendum on the same substantive issue(s) but with a slightly finessed wording start. It may still look like a duck, may still walk like a duck, quack like a duck even but it’s not a duck. See? It’s a canard. Totally different entirely. The electorate is then “informed” of the consequences of voting the wrong way in this “new” referendum.

Rinse and repeat until you get the desired result, then of course the electorate is “mature and sophisticated”!

It’s not good for democracy when large sections of the people feel that their vote doesn’t matter and is going to be ignored until they vote the “right” way. It’ll only increase alienation from the political process and is going down a dangerous road, one that I think most right thinking people wouldn’t want to go down.

ixtlan

LostinBlanch wrote: »

This is then used as an excuse for starting a campaign for a “new” referendum on the same substantive issue(s) but with a slightly finessed wording start. It may still look like a duck, may still walk like a duck, quack like a duck even but it’s not a duck. See? It’s a canard. Totally different entirely. The electorate is then “informed” of the consequences of voting the wrong way in this “new” referendum.

Rinse and repeat until you get the desired result, then of course the electorate is “mature and sophisticated”!
.

You are treating the electorate in the same manner which you accuse the government of treating them. You are assuming that everyone who voted no did so because they were 100% against the proposal or anything like it, projecting your own feelings/beliefs/desires onto them.

I believe that on the contrary, many of the no voters were generally in favour of the idea of proper Dail investigations, but had legitimate concerns about the details of the ammendment wording. They knew it was a duck, they wanted a duck, but it was not walking quite right. The solution therefore is perhaps not to wait 10 years (2... maybe) and offer something completely different, but just to get the walk right.

ix.

ArmaniJeanss

FWIW I was also one of the No voters who didn't understand what was being asked.

If I was called in front of one these Inquiries, would I have right to my own counsel, pre-disclosure of evidence and what I would be questioned on, rights of cross examination and all the other things a 'defendant' gets in a judicial setting?

Because of either a) the absence of this information or possibly b) my failure to understand the information, I voted No, but could quite feasibly be a Yes voter if things were clarified.

flatbackfour

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

FWIW I was also one of the No voters who didn't understand what was being asked.

If I was called in front of one these Inquiries, would I have right to my own counsel, pre-disclosure of evidence and what I would be questioned on, rights of cross examination and all the other things a 'defendant' gets in a judicial setting?

Because of either a) the absence of this information or possibly b) my failure to understand the information, I voted No, but could quite feasibly be a Yes voter if things were clarified.

Taken this referendum in isolation you have a point. However a pattern, so brilliantly highlighted by lostinblanch exposes something very dangerous about how the political establishment view the electorate.

That's the main point here.

flatbackfour

ixtlan wrote: »

LostinBlanch wrote: »

This is then used as an excuse for starting a campaign for a “new” referendum on the same substantive issue(s) but with a slightly finessed wording start. It may still look like a duck, may still walk like a duck, quack like a duck even but it’s not a duck. See? It’s a canard. Totally different entirely. The electorate is then “informed” of the consequences of voting the wrong way in this “new” referendum.

Rinse and repeat until you get the desired result, then of course the electorate is “mature and sophisticated”!
.

You are treating the electorate in the same manner which you accuse the government of treating them. You are assuming that everyone who voted no did so because they were 100% against the proposal or anything like it, projecting your own feelings/beliefs/desires on

I believe that on the contrary, many of the no voters were generally in favour of the idea of proper Dail investigations, but had legitimate concerns about the details of the ammendment wording. They knew it was a duck, they wanted a duck, but it was not walking quite right. The solution therefore is perhaps not to wait 10 years (2... maybe) and offer something completely different, but just to get the walk right.

ix.

Whats not important is what you believe or what anyone else believes about why people voted yes or no.

It about the fact democratic decisions are undermined in the manner suggested by lost in blanch.

By the way absolutely brilliant post by lostinblanch.

ixtlan

flatbackfour wrote: »

Whats not important is what you believe or what anyone else believes about why people voted yes or no.

Indeed. Quite true. To quote "A few Good Men", it doesn't matter what I believe it only matters what I can prove. However it absolutely is important to find out in whatever ways possible why people voted yes or no, and to act on that information appropriately.

flatbackfour wrote: »

It about the fact democratic decisions are undermined in the manner suggested by lost in blanch.

Again I say that I understand the argument and I have some sympathy with it, but if the only way to satisfy those with this viewpoint was a 10-year moritorium on referendums on a similar issue then I believe that would cause even more issues (note there were only 7 years between Nice 2 and Lisbon 1). I would have perhaps been forced to vote yes in this case and hope that my fears would not come to pass.

Ix.

nesf

flatbackfour wrote: »

Characterising those who have reservations about the anti democratic nature of rerunning referendums as reactionary conservative or euroskeptic is convenient but again misses the point

There is absolutely nothing anti-democratic about rerunning a referendum. It's a normal part of the democratic process in that the public are entitled to change their minds (it's why we have limited terms for TDs not TDs being voted in for life). I guarantee you that we'll see another abortion referendum at some point over the medium term.

And, it is especially relevant to rerun a referendum where the first time around large amounts of the public said they didn't understand the issue (i.e. Nice I and Lisbon I).

blahfckingblah

nesf wrote: »

There is absolutely nothing anti-democratic about rerunning a referendum. It's a normal part of the democratic process in that the public are entitled to change their minds (it's why we have limited terms for TDs not TDs being voted in for life). I guarantee you that we'll see another abortion referendum at some point over the medium term.

And, it is especially relevant to rerun a referendum where the first time around large amounts of the public said they didn't understand the issue (i.e. Nice I and Lisbon I).

yea but i have yet to see the public getting the choice to vote again on a issue when it has been passed, I'm not saying that its a viable thing to do I'm just pointing out a flaw. TBH A lot of people still don't understand lisbon and nice :cool:

nesf

blahfckingblah wrote: »

yea but i have yet to see the public getting the choice to vote again on a issue when it has been passed, I'm not saying that its a viable thing to do I'm just pointing out a flaw. TBH A lot of people still don't understand lisbon and nice :cool:

Some things are almost impossible to reverse (EU treaties especially) but many things like abortion or divorce amendments can be easily overturned.

xoxyx

nesf wrote: »

If we wanted we could very easily elect in a Government that would rehold the referendum.

I guarantee you if we ever pass any very liberal laws on abortion that conservative groups will run for Government/lobby/whatever for the reholding of the referendum with a view to removing the amendment.

I would bet you any kind of money that, were a referendum passed with a "yes" vote regarding abortion, it would not be repelled, irrespective of what government groups may come into power in the future.

A no vote is powerful in its way in situations such as Lisbon / abortion / Oireachtas inquiries - in that, in voting no, the proposed legislation, wording, or whatever, is brought back to the table so as to make it more palatable to the voting public. This is where the voter holds some amount of cards on the table. However, once something is passed through a majority of "yes" votes, there is little that we can do with it.

flatbackfour wrote: »

Or are you suggesting that you KEEP asking?

It makes a complete mockery of the constitution and treats people like morons.

As times change, sometimes people need to be asked the same question. The answer may be different to what it was a few years ago.

Look at divorce. In 1986, a referendum to allow divorce was defeated. The question was asked again, and in 1994, it was passed. Sometimes you have to ask the same question again and again, because peoples' views change with time.

ArmaniJeanss

flatbackfour wrote: »

Taken this referendum in isolation you have a point. However a pattern, so brilliantly highlighted by lostinblanch exposes something very dangerous about how the political establishment view the electorate.

That's the main point here.

I voted No. If there was zero chance of a re-vote I would have voted Yes as I like the basic idea of the parliamentary inquiry (but would like issues clarified).

The governent will now spend some time ascertaining whether there is enough of the 54% No voters who feel the same as me and if so they can bring a modified/clarified referendum to the people.

I'm baffled as to how you see this as some major trampling over of democracy.

nesf

xoxyx wrote: »

I would bet you any kind of money that, were a referendum passed with a "yes" vote regarding abortion, it would not be repelled, irrespective of what government groups may come into power in the future.

I agree with you on the power of a No vote, or even the perceived power of a No vote in the inital shaping of any amendment or treaty.

I do honestly think though that you would be seeing a campaign for a rerun of a Yes vote on abortion. Maybe it might not happen but you'd definitely have lobby groups along with the more conservative wings of FF and FG backing such a rerun.

flatbackfour

xoxyx wrote: »

IAs times change, sometimes people need to be asked the same question. The answer may be different to what it was a few years ago.
Look at divorce. In 1986, a referendum to allow divorce was defeated. The question was asked again, and in 1994, it was passed. Sometimes you have to ask the same question again and again, because peoples' views change with time.

Thats fine in principal of course people views change. However a year after the first referendum? Peoples views change that much in a year? A day after the referendum we are told we did not understand the issues and if we did we would have voted yes?

If this referendum is held again in a year or so with the childrens referendum?

Its the pattern emerging rather than an individual case that is undemocratic.

Lostinblanch summed the issue up brilliantly.

flatbackfour

nesf wrote: »

I do honestly think though that you would be seeing a campaign for a rerun of a Yes vote on abortion. Maybe it might not happen but you'd definitely have lobby groups along with the more conservative wings of FF and FG backing such a rerun.

Not a chance, the conservative wing of those parties would be sidelined and marginalised in the same way as Dana was in the election, as backward catholic conservatives.

You have lobby groups for nearly every issue, would have no chance of getting a rerum of a abortion referednum if it was passed. And quite right too. The people would have spoken. They would have been trusted to undertstand the complexity of the issue and that would be that.

flatbackfour

nesf wrote: »

Some things are almost impossible to reverse (EU treaties especially).

Even if that was the direct wish of the people and their views had changed over a period of time?

Even if people did not understand the issue the first time when they voted yes?

And all the correct survays and focus groups had been done to find out about the change in the national mood?