Why didn't we have a referendum about bailing out banks / burning bondholers? /

telecaster

Why isn't the referendum option used more often when big decisions are needed regarding the direction of the country?

It would seem (anecdotally rather than through any research I've seen) that the majority of Irish people would have preferred not to bail out the banks and to let the bondholders suffer their losses.

On a matter of such importance, should the public not have been asked?

later12

telecaster wrote: »

It would seem (anecdotally rather than through any research I've seen) that the majority of Irish people would have preferred not to bail out the banks and to let the bondholders suffer their losses.

Then why did they not vote for the parties who were most explicit in refusing to pay out?

I think part of the problem is that people feel there needs to be a strong excuse if the state is to consult the people over matters of administration that are already in line with the Constitution.

I don't particularly agree with that; I think it would be worth expanding public input. But I do think there has to be some credible system to dictate what the people get to choose, and what the administration gets to choose on their behalf.

hatrickpatrick

later12 wrote: »

Then why did they not vote for the parties who were most explicit in refusing to pay out?

Because as we all know, those parties had a bunch of other policies in other areas which most of us didn't agree with.
This is the fundamental problem with our democracy. We need a department based democracy instead, and that's something I'm seriously considering trying to put together at some point in my life, if I can find enough people who agree with it.

You'd vote for whose policies you want in the area of education, whose transport policy, whose environment policy, etc. That way there'd be no more of this "herp derp if you don't want to be EU yes men you should have voted for Sinn Fein" sh!te.

Scioch

Because a referendum is only used when it must be used. Governments dont want people deciding these things at all.

later12

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That way there'd be no more of this "herp derp if you don't want to be EU yes men you should have voted for Sinn Fein" sh!te.

I agree that's a problem - we don't vote on specific policies, we vote on aggregate perceptions of the parties' policies.

Having said that, the question of recapitalisations and the financial crisis was the major topic during the last election, so you would expect to have seen some noticeable swing to the anti bailout parties if there were genuinely a desire for that approach.

cichlid child

telecaster wrote: »

Why isn't the referendum option used more often when big decisions are needed regarding the direction of the country?

It would seem (anecdotally rather than through any research I've seen) that the majority of Irish people would have preferred not to bail out the banks and to let the bondholders suffer their losses.

On a matter of such importance, should the public not have been asked?

Because it would have cost a fortune to hold all the referendums untill the goverment got the answer they wanted.

KindOfIrish

telecaster wrote: »

Why isn't the referendum option used more often when big decisions are needed regarding the direction of the country?

It would seem (anecdotally rather than through any research I've seen) that the majority of Irish people would have preferred not to bail out the banks and to let the bondholders suffer their losses.

On a matter of such importance, should the public not have been asked?

Bank bailout was about real money. no opinion of taxpayers needed! Yesterdays referendum was about nothing and probably irrelevant altogether.

ixtlan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is the fundamental problem with our democracy. We need a department based democracy instead, and that's something I'm seriously considering trying to put together at some point in my life, if I can find enough people who agree with it.

You'd vote for whose policies you want in the area of education, whose transport policy, whose environment policy, etc. That way there'd be no more of this "herp derp if you don't want to be EU yes men you should have voted for Sinn Fein" sh!te.

In a perfect world this would work, but in this world? and this country?

For example... how did we get into this mess? Let's assume that the Euro was established for better or worse... and we could not raise interest rates (as an aside would you leave that decision under central bank control in your system? if we had a punt?). Anyhow, when the boom was starting in 2002, we should have voted to increase taxes, and cut (or at least not increased) spending. Now, would we as a people rationally decided to do that? In 2007 when the boom was at a height would we should have pre-empted (belatedly) the problem with cuts and taxes... Would we have done that?

I'll add that it's generally accepted that even politicians won't take correct decisions if they are unpopular and can be avoided. That's why central banks are never under government control. Politicians would never raise interest rates, and would cut too soon.

Ix.

Scioch

later12 wrote: »

Then why did they not vote for the parties who were most explicit in refusing to pay out?.

They did, Labour received a large share of the votes and went into government. Then turned their backs on the election promises.

SF's popularity sky rocketed as did that of the Socialist Party and others in the ULA. But they were never going to get the numbers as they lacked credibility. There wasnt much of an option for voters to be honest and the one option that was there (Labour) ended up shafting those who voted for them anyway.

Dinner

LordSmeg wrote: »

Because a referendum is only used when it must be used. Governments dont want people deciding these things at all.

As one of the 'people', I don't want the people deciding these things.

Monty Burnz

KindOfIrish wrote: »

telecaster wrote: »

Why isn't the referendum option used more often when big decisions are needed regarding the direction of the country?

It would seem (anecdotally rather than through any research I've seen) that the majority of Irish people would have preferred not to bail out the banks and to let the bondholders suffer their losses.

On a matter of such importance, should the public not have been asked?

Bank bailout was about real money. no opinion of taxpayers needed! Yesterdays referendum was about nothing and probably irrelevant altogether.

Is it too much to hope for that all posters here understand the difference between the legislating the government can do off its own back and the stuff that requires a constitutional referendum? Isn't this stuff taught in school?

StealthRolex

LordSmeg wrote: »

Because a referendum is only used when it must be used. Governments dont want people deciding these things at all.

Dinner wrote: »

As one of the 'people', I don't want the people deciding these things.

Is there a thread where the relative pros, cons, merits, demerits, successes and failures of democracy are being discussed?

Personally democracy appears to be overrated.

Look at the most successful companies - are they run as democracies?

Scioch

Dinner wrote: »

As one of the 'people', I don't want the people deciding these things.

You dont want the people having a say in the running of the country ?

Its clear from the last election that politicians cannot be trusted to adhere to their election promises. So is it a case of elect someone who lies through their teeth and then let them do whatever the hell they want for 4 years before having a little more input into which is the best of the liars to go in for the next 4 ?

Scioch

StealthRolex wrote: »

Is there a thread where the relative pros, cons, merits, demerits, successes and failures of democracy are being discussed?

Personally democracy appears to be overrated.

Look at the most successful companies - are they run as democracies?

The question was "Why are referendums not used more often". The simple answer to that is "they are only used when they have to be used" Its not the governments allowing people a say. Its the government being forced to give people a say. Which they wont do if not forced.

But yeah a discussion on democracy would be interesting. Perhpas start a thread in the political theory forum.

ixtlan

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Is it too much to hope for that all posters here understand the difference between the legislating the government can do off its own back and the stuff that requires a constitutional referendum? Isn't this stuff taught in school?

To be fair to all, the difference between these two isn't even clear to lawyers. In some cases it would take a court case to decide. Generally we seem to have erred on the side of a referendum when there is any doubt, generally because if a government tried to avoid a referendum and then had to have one it would be viewed badly, it seems. Not by me though. I think we have too many referendums. I'd be happy for every referendum possibility to immediately go to the supreme court for a summary judgement on whether it was needed.

Ix.

Dinner

LordSmeg wrote: »

You dont want the people having a say in the running of the country ?

Its clear from the last election that politicians cannot be trusted to adhere to their election promises. So is it a case of elect someone who lies through their teeth and then let them do whatever the hell they want for 4 years before having a little more input into which is the best of the liars to go in for the next 4 ?

We have our say in elections. And to those people who feel FG betrayed them by going back on promises will have the opportunity to punish them come the next general election.

But when it comes to referendums, I don't trust a large portion of the population. All you have to do is look in any EU treaty thread in after hours (and some here) and you'll see people gleefully declare that they're going to vote no because they don't like FG, FF, EU, Merkel or whoever else is the target that minute. You'll see people use Sinn Fein or Ganley as a reason to vote yes without finding out what the treaty is about. these examples go for 'real life' too.

And until people can seperate their feelings for individuals and the relevant issues, then I will dread the build up to any referendum which see's complex issues being boiled down to a 5 word slogan that can be put on a lamp post.

My idea of hell is direct democracy.

paddy0090

It's a representative democracy not a direct democracy. That means you elect someone to make the decisions and they make the decisions. They have something in california where voters can put decisions to the people by collecting 100000(I think) signatures. It's widely seen as a disaster and throws up all kinds of wingnut ideas.

That said there's a party in Germany called the Pirate party who are pushing the idea of more liquid democracy. They did really well in one of the recent elections(not sure about the last one). They're a bit strange. Ran 42 candiates in one election because "it's the answer to life the universe and everything" from the book the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy.

Having a referendum on the bailout would have been more destabilizing than not bailing out the banks. Imagine six weeks of media coverage of our banks and the cost. It was either done quickly(not at two in the morning) or not at all!

later12

ixtlan wrote: »

In a perfect world this would work, but in this world? and this country?

For example... how did we get into this mess? Let's assume that the Euro was established for better or worse... and we could not raise interest rates (as an aside would you leave that decision under central bank control in your system? if we had a punt?). Anyhow, when the boom was starting in 2002, we should have voted to increase taxes, and cut (or at least not increased) spending. Now, would we as a people rationally decided to do that? In 2007 when the boom was at a height would we should have pre-empted (belatedly) the problem with cuts and taxes... Would we have done that?

We just ratified something quite popularly called "the austerity Treaty".

Do I think it was the responsible thing to do? No, but the public did. And so they ratified it.

I think you should give the voting public more credit.

Unless one is of the opinion that the Irish voting public are an intellectually inferior species (and I have no doubt it assuages some people's delicate egos to believe so...), I don't see why we could not apply some of the Swiss model into our political system.

The Waltzing Consumer

LordSmeg wrote: »

The question was "Why are referendums not used more often". The simple answer to that is "they are only used when they have to be used" Its not the governments allowing people a say. Its the government being forced to give people a say. Which they wont do if not forced.

The people want it that way.

Hence, why we are a representative democracy.

JFlah

Dinner wrote: »

We have our say in elections. And to those people who feel FG betrayed them by going back on promises will have the opportunity to punish them come the next general election.

But when it comes to referendums, I don't trust a large portion of the population. All you have to do is look in any EU treaty thread in after hours (and some here) and you'll see people gleefully declare that they're going to vote no because they don't like FG, FF, EU, Merkel or whoever else is the target that minute. You'll see people use Sinn Fein or Ganley as a reason to vote yes without finding out what the treaty is about. these examples go for 'real life' too.

And until people can seperate their feelings for individuals and the relevant issues, then I will dread the build up to any referendum which see's complex issues being boiled down to a 5 word slogan that can be put on a lamp post.

My idea of hell is direct democracy.

bit of a catch 22 .... political parties promise ,promise, promise and don,t deliver, replace with pretty much the exact same , complain,repeat....... Surely for a decision with such far reaching consequences for future generations of Irish people as the bank bailout/bond-holder payments then it is a decision for the people ... all the people?

ixtlan

later12 wrote: »

We just ratified something quite popularly called "the austerity Treaty".

Do I think it was the responsible thing to do? No, but the public did. And so they ratified it.

I think you should give the voting public more credit.

When you have a moment of crisis the correct decision may be made. The problem is that normally things are more subtle... We should have been making serious corrections in 2004-5-6. The government clearly knew that finances were probably unsustainable... that we might have a serious crash... but if no one is telling you it's 100% certain then often politicians (and people) will take the easy option especially if the harder and probably correct option results in losing money for the people and votes for the politicians. This can clearly be seen in how we have elected governments in the past, especially 2007.

I'll add that inability to decide without a crisis is why all our referendums descend into something like Yes will lead to Permanent Austerity/ A stable economy or No will lead to Default and Euro exit/ A bright new dawn of socialism. Only the presentation of extremes seems to interest the public.

Am I not giving the electorate enough respect? Possibly... but considering 50% of them didn't bother to vote, I'm not sure.

Ix

Scofflaw

JFlah wrote: »

bit of a catch 22 .... political parties promise ,promise, promise and don,t deliver, replace with pretty much the exact same , complain,repeat....... Surely for a decision with such far reaching consequences for future generations of Irish people as the bank bailout/bond-holder payments then it is a decision for the people ... all the people?

The bank guarantee is a poor example, because one of the major points about it was that it was done in a hurry, and without prior notice - not things that a referendum can do.

The question of whether to let the banks continue paying out on bonds once the banks were nationalised is a better one - you could view that as a shareholding decision. The problem, though, is that you can't actually have a referendum on "paying the bank debt" in the way most people think of it, because it's not something we're actually doing - and the extent to which that's not appreciated indicates the extent to which the debate, and therefore the decision, will be complete nonsense.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gerryo777

telecaster wrote: »

Why isn't the referendum option used more often when big decisions are needed regarding the direction of the country?

It would seem (anecdotally rather than through any research I've seen) that the majority of Irish people would have preferred not to bail out the banks and to let the bondholders suffer their losses.

On a matter of such importance, should the public not have been asked?

We, hopefully, will find out why the bank guarantee was rushed into place ( if it was 'rushed' at all).
FF/Lenihan/Dept of Finance and the regulator's grubby little paw prints are all over that disaster.

Dinner

JFlah wrote: »

bit of a catch 22 .... political parties promise ,promise, promise and don,t deliver, replace with pretty much the exact same , complain,repeat....... Surely for a decision with such far reaching consequences for future generations of Irish people as the bank bailout/bond-holder payments then it is a decision for the people ... all the people?

There are problems with Irish politics, I don't think anyone would deny that. I'd love another reasonable party to appear to mix things up a bit. But I don't believe that referendums on every 'big' decision are a solution to that problem. As well as that, I think the issue of timing was mentioned previously in the thread. Some decisions might need to be made almost immediately and stopping to campaign for, and hold, a referendum would be impractical.

Also, Irish politics has enough mud slinging without putting it in the arena of a referendum campaign more often that is necessary.

K-9

gerryo777 wrote: »

We, hopefully, will find out why the bank guarantee was rushed into place ( if it was 'rushed' at all).
FF/Lenihan/Dept of Finance and the regulator's grubby little paw prints are all over that disaster.

The Department of Finance were reportedly against the blanket guarantee and were dubious about covering Anglo. Makes sense as that would have been a prudent approach.

Scioch

Dinner wrote: »

We have our say in elections. And to those people who feel FG betrayed them by going back on promises will have the opportunity to punish them come the next general election.

But when it comes to referendums, I don't trust a large portion of the population. All you have to do is look in any EU treaty thread in after hours (and some here) and you'll see people gleefully declare that they're going to vote no because they don't like FG, FF, EU, Merkel or whoever else is the target that minute. You'll see people use Sinn Fein or Ganley as a reason to vote yes without finding out what the treaty is about. these examples go for 'real life' too.

And until people can seperate their feelings for individuals and the relevant issues, then I will dread the build up to any referendum which see's complex issues being boiled down to a 5 word slogan that can be put on a lamp post.

My idea of hell is direct democracy.

A huge part of the reason for those uninformed votes though is the campaigns. Yes side and No side both confused people and tried to misrepresent what the treaty was about.

But allowing peoples only input to be voting in someone who sounds like they know what they are talking about or promise this that and the other is actually pointless in regards to people having an input if your going to discount that inoput in other areas. If you dont trust people to make a decision on these matters then how can you trust the people that were voted in on the back of vague promises ?

Elections are popularity contests, those people are by and large not qualified to have those positions. So I dont see any reason to value their decision making skills over a referendum put to the people. The fact that they are incapable of informing the people honestly shows how incompetent they themselves are on the issue on both sides.

I dont know if the issue is the representation, the people or democracy itself. But I think it wrong to only allow people to vote once every four years in a popularity contest and then tell them "shut up, you've had your say" and allow those politicians to make every single decision regardless of their stance pre election, how their policies have changed and how public opinion has changed.

gerryo777

K-9 wrote: »

The Department of Finance were reportedly against the blanket guarantee and were dubious about covering Anglo. Makes sense as that would have been a prudent approach.

'reportedly' being the operative word......

It was known for months what was going on with the banks, I hope we don't have to wait for the thirty year rule to find out.

Dinner

LordSmeg wrote: »

Elections are popularity contests, those people are by and large not qualified to have those positions. So I dont see any reason to value their decision making skills over a referendum put to the people. The fact that they are incapable of informing the people honestly shows how incompetent they themselves are on the issue on both sides.

I wouldn't value the decision making capabilities of 3 million people over a couple of hundred. Just because there is more people doesnt mean that the correct decision is more likely to be made. I'm much more comfortable if the people we elect to do the job, do the job. This isn't a defence of our current lot of TDs I should add. Just that, in my opinion, a smaller number of people whose job it is is to read these documents and come to a reasonable conclusion is a better way to do it.

3 million people will not read a technical document and then vote on it, especially when they're being bombarded with campaigns more concerned with making the other side look bad than to actually present the facts. They do more harm than good so since referendums on EU treaties arent going anywhere, they should be severely curtailed.

LordSmeg wrote: »

I dont know if the issue is the representation, the people or democracy itself. But I think it wrong to only allow people to vote once every four years in a popularity contest and then tell them "shut up, you've had your say" and allow those politicians to make every single decision regardless of their stance pre election, how their policies have changed and how public opinion has changed.

Representative democracy is probably the best we can do. It's not perfect but we can't have elections every year because that would be stupid. Nothing would ever change and every politican would always be campaigning and afraid to do anything that could be perceived as negative. And direct democracy would be a farce. Aside from being ridiculously expensive, there would never be a tax increase or a spending cut.

K-9

gerryo777 wrote: »

'reportedly' being the operative word......

It was known for months what was going on with the banks, I hope we don't have to wait for the thirty year rule to find out.

Well we'll see, but civil servants coming out with drastic and a supposedly "innovative" idea backed by people like David McWilliams, I doubt it.

Scioch

Dinner wrote: »

I wouldn't value the decision making capabilities of 3 million people over a couple of hundred. Just because there is more people doesnt mean that the correct decision is more likely to be made. I'm much more comfortable if the people we elect to do the job, do the job. This isn't a defence of our current lot of TDs I should add. Just that, in my opinion, a smaller number of people whose job it is is to read these documents and come to a reasonable conclusion is a better way to do it.

That would be well and good of those TD's read and voted interdependently which they will not do. TD's will tow the party line and any debate on it will be utterly pointless. So in effect you are allowing a very small number of people to dictate any amount of changes. Thats fine for every day things but when it comes to something like an international treaty then I'd be very unnerved knowing a handful of people can do that regardless of what anyone else says on the matter.

3 million people will not read a technical document and then vote on it, especially when they're being bombarded with campaigns more concerned with making the other side look bad than to actually present the facts. They do more harm than good so since referendums on EU treaties arent going anywhere, they should be severely curtailed.

I understand what your getting at and I'd share your concern on how intelligent (for want of a better word) the decision would be but would be equally if not more so concerned about is the fact that a small group can act without culpability on the issue.

Representative democracy is probably the best we can do. It's not perfect but we can't have elections every year because that would be stupid. Nothing would ever change and every politican would always be campaigning and afraid to do anything that could be perceived as negative. And direct democracy would be a farce. Aside from being ridiculously expensive, there would never be a tax increase or a spending cut.

I'm not saying have elections every year or arguing for a direct democracy I'm saying those in office should be answerable throughout their 4 year term and dependant on the support of the people throughout that term for referendums to tie them to their promises and obligations. Not just allow them free reign in the 4 years and restrict the people to be nothing more than bystanders. They still have a mandate from the people to carry out the policies they were elected to govern by but cannot deviate too much from that or their ability to enact change would be diminished if they lose the confidence of the people.

oscarBravo

LordSmeg wrote: »

Elections are popularity contests, those people are by and large not qualified to have those positions. So I dont see any reason to value their decision making skills over a referendum put to the people.

It's not a view I'm completely unsympathetic with, but shift perspective for a second: three million voters choose a hundred and sixty six people to represent them. Now, you have a choice: you can depend on 166 people to educate themselves and make an informed decision - not necessarily a decision you agree with, but at least an informed decision - or you can depend on three million people to educate themselves and make an informed decision.

Any given group of 166 people is probably going to have almost as diverse a set of motivations, hopes, fears and desires as the three million, but one thing I think you can say with confidence is that there's a much better chance that those 166 people actually did some homework on the treaty than that a representative sample of the three million did.

The fact that they are incapable of informing the people honestly shows how incompetent they themselves are on the issue on both sides.

The cynic in me says that it shows more clearly how reluctant the people are to be honestly informed about anything.

I had several discussions on Facebook as well as on here with undecided voters. It's an exercise in extreme frustration: they keep dragging tangents and irrelevancies into the discussion. At least when a politician does it, you know that there's probably an ulterior motive at work rather than an inability or unwillingness to think logically about the issue.

I dont know if the issue is the representation, the people or democracy itself. But I think it wrong to only allow people to vote once every four years in a popularity contest and then tell them "shut up, you've had your say" and allow those politicians to make every single decision regardless of their stance pre election, how their policies have changed and how public opinion has changed.

I've said it before, and I'll doubtless say it again: when the electorate demonstrate their ability to take democracy seriously by electing quality candidates on the basis of truthful campaign promises rather than the motley assortment of gob****es they elect because they tell them what they want to hear, I'll be more open to the idea of giving the electorate more responsibility. Until then, I'm content to keep the levers of power at a reasonably safe distance from the man in the street.

Scioch

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's not a view I'm completely unsympathetic with, but shift perspective for a second: three million voters choose a hundred and sixty six people to represent them. Now, you have a choice: you can depend on 166 people to educate themselves and make an informed decision - not necessarily a decision you agree with, but at least an informed decision - or you can depend on three million people to educate themselves and make an informed decision.

But isnt their decisions made before they even read it depending on what party they are in ? I'd be all for 166 intelligent well educated and informed people making a decision on behalf of the people. But would we get that ? Or would we get what we got in the campaign ? TD's misrepresenting what its about and voting in line with their party. Granted you might get the odd O'Cuiv who steps out of line but in general your not and every decision would be very predictable, Dail debates just as pointless on the matter as they are in relation to everything else now. And the ruling parties governing without culpability. And the people saying "We didnt vote them in to do this" with you saying "tough, you should have thought about that last year before any of this happened". People need to be able to change their opinion in those 4 years too in relation to the larger picture, espcecially considering the huge drama that has unfolded in Europe in recent times. Theese matters need to be referred to the people to keep their initial election of their representatives valid.

Any given group of 166 people is probably going to have almost as diverse a set of motivations, hopes, fears and desires as the three million, but one thing I think you can say with confidence is that there's a much better chance that those 166 people actually did some homework on the treaty than that a representative sample of the three million did. The cynic in me says that it shows more clearly how reluctant the people are to be honestly informed about anything.

As above the diversity wouldnt be as dynamic as you'd find in a public referendum. I take the point that those people would be more informed but would you not be concerned about the fact that informed or not the party can dictate how they vote ?

I had several discussions on Facebook as well as on here with undecided voters. It's an exercise in extreme frustration: they keep dragging tangents and irrelevancies into the discussion. At least when a politician does it, you know that there's probably an ulterior motive at work rather than an inability or unwillingness to think logically about the issue. I've said it before, and I'll doubtless say it again: when the electorate demonstrate their ability to take democracy seriously by electing quality candidates on the basis of truthful campaign promises rather than the motley assortment of gob****es they elect because they tell them what they want to hear, I'll be more open to the idea of giving the electorate more responsibility. Until then, I'm content to keep the levers of power at a reasonably safe distance from the man in the street.

But there are very few credible candidates who run honest campaigns. Maybe a few independents but the bulk of candidates are party politicians with an agenda and a campaign designed to get them elected.

If those people were there to vote for I think people would vote for them but there are few of them about. I dont think we have the pedigree in terms of candidates running in elections to be blaming the results on the people.

hatrickpatrick

Dinner wrote: »

We have our say in elections. And to those people who feel FG betrayed them by going back on promises will have the opportunity to punish them come the next general election.

That's not good enough. That's where the problem lies.
We should be able to call a vote of no confidence in the government today if a vast majority of the people want to.

Dinner

LordSmeg wrote: »

I'm not saying have elections every year or arguing for a direct democracy I'm saying those in office should be answerable throughout their 4 year term and dependant on the support of the people throughout that term for referendums to tie them to their promises and obligations. Not just allow them free reign in the 4 years and restrict the people to be nothing more than bystanders. They still have a mandate from the people to carry out the policies they were elected to govern by but cannot deviate too much from that or their ability to enact change would be diminished if they lose the confidence of the people.

The problem there is that situations and circumstances change. Politicians will make promises that might not actually be possible when they see what the realities of the job actually are (and I'm sure, others lie). I want my politicans to be flexible, I want them to change their beliefs as time goes on and circumstances change. To not change their plans would be reckless.

Of course this is idealised, probably a lot, and not a reflections of Irish politics. But I think the alternative is worse.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's not good enough. That's where the problem lies.
We should be able to call a vote of no confidence in the government today if a vast majority of the people want to.

That would be a terrible idea. I was as frustrated as the next person during the end (and middle...) of the previous FF government and was looking forward to an election. But a 'kill switch' so to speak on a government would make them reluctant to make the tough unpopular choices that might sometimes have to be made. And judging by the speed at which Irish people turn against governments (myself included) we would have elections every 18 months.

Scioch

Dinner wrote: »

The problem there is that situations and circumstances change. Politicians will make promises that might not actually be possible when they see what the realities of the job actually are (and I'm sure, others lie). I want my politicans to be flexible, I want them to change their beliefs as time goes on and circumstances change. To not change their plans would be reckless.

Of course this is idealised, probably a lot, and not a reflections of Irish politics. But I think the alternative is worse.

I agree that they have to be flexible but they also have to keep in tune with the electorate or they risk losing their mandate. Referendums facilitate that by forcing them to defer to the populace on certain matters such as the fiscal compact. And act as a sort of check in with the electorate and reinforces the mandate from the initial election when people agree with the government in how to proceed on these issues I think.

I dont think its as simple as choosing a small group over a larger group to make the decision. The ability to have a say counts for a lot when it comes to public opinion in uncertain times and does a lot to calm growing unrest too. Can you imagine the opposition's position if this was ratified without a referendum considering the way they represented it in the campaign ?

Dinner

LordSmeg wrote: »

I agree that they have to be flexible but they also have to keep in tune with the electorate or they risk losing their mandate. Referendums facilitate that by forcing them to defer to the populace on certain matters such as the fiscal compact. And act as a sort of check in with the electorate and reinforces the mandate from the initial election when people agree with the government in how to proceed on these issues I think.

Keeping in check with the electorate is all well and good. But I don't think a referendum is the way to do that. Aside from any number of opinion polls carried out throughout the year, local elections can be a barometer of opinion. Though I don't think they're due again until 2014 or so.

LordSmeg wrote: »

Can you imagine the opposition's position if this was ratified without a referendum considering the way they represented it in the campaign ?

Ha, yeah thats a fair point. I think Joe Higgins would explode. :pac: