Direct democracy - a new party delivering democracy direct to you-time to vote?

Hijpo

Phoebas wrote: »

Of course we are. The banking bailout was but one part of the overall bailout.


But the bondholder repayments have largely been made. What we are now paying back is the borrowings we took on to repay the bondholders. We can hardly refuse to pay these debts just because other repayments were illegal.


This sounds like a recipe for complete inertia.

So lets imagine that DDI get an overall majority in the next Dail and they decide to 'suspend' bailout repayments.

Do they defer this decision to leave time for the people to gather the signatures to challenge it? How long would I have to gather the signatures. A few months maybe?

I presume that the wording of any referendum would need to be parsed and analysed to check if it conflicts with other law. Maybe another couple of months in committee etc.
And then there would need to be a time for a referendum campaign. Maybe another two months?
Finally there would be a need for any pursuant secondary legislation to be drafted. I guess this would happen at committee stage.
After that I presume the President could refer it to the SC ... and then we get the new law.

Does this potentially happen with every decision that government takes?

From talking to people the general opinion seems to be that paying back a debt incurred by borrowing because the country is running a deficit is understood by most. However lumping private banking debt into public debt does not sit well with anyone. I would imagine this is the issue DDI wish to address.

No, the people do no vote on every decision proposed in the Dáil. Brush up on the swiss model.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sorry, but Tom Prendeville essentially made that figure up. There is no such amount of oil known in Irish waters, although the massive absence of information allows one's imagination to multiply figures virtually without limits, as Tom has done here. An interesting point is that he's the same guy that invented the "hundreds of billions in fish".

Oddly enough, I've just eaten lunch with a friend who does seismological analysis for companies prospecting in Irish waters, who remarked on a recent "discovery" reported in the Celtic Sea - there is no discovery, but rather an estimate of possibility marked "yet to be drilled", which means that there's no actual data, let alone any actual oil.



It's always nice to see that someone can hold simultaneously the belief that the oil companies would have to pay nothing on the oil they've supposedly found in Irish waters, and yet pretend it doesn't exist while they wait for...well, something....to happen that will make things even better. It's particularly interesting here to see your method of resolving that paradox.



In other words, a panacea.

amused,
Scofflaw

While the argument can be made that ireland technically has no reachable natural resources, i would still like to see proper legislation/deal in place for such a time that they do manage to find and recover these resources and not be stuck with a dodgy deal, done in private, after highly paid advisors were told to leave the room, leaving a convicted criminal with a large corporation to sign off on a deal back in 1980 odd.

It doesnt sit well.

Scofflaw

Hijpo wrote: »

From talking to people the general opinion seems to be that paying back a debt incurred by borrowing because the country is running a deficit is understood by most. However lumping private banking debt into public debt does not sit well with anyone. I would imagine this is the issue DDI wish to address.

There's rather a gap between "doesn't sit well with anyone" and a decision to default without a vote, particularly for a direct democracy party.

Hijpo wrote: »

While the argument can be made that ireland technically has no reachable natural resources, i would still like to see proper legislation/deal in place for such a time that they do manage to find and recover these resources and not be stuck with a dodgy deal, done in private, after highly paid advisors were told to leave the room, leaving a convicted criminal with a large corporation to sign off on a deal back in 1980 odd.

It doesnt sit well.

It isn't accurate, either. The deal was updated by the last government, for one thing, and for a second, there's no point in putting into place a satisfactorily predatory tax regime at this point, because it will simply result in a cessation of offshore activity.

It's a case of "softly, softly, catchee money". The oil companies are currently mildly interested in Irish waters because they're seeing that there might be something out there worth exploring for, but they're not by and large sufficiently convinced to put their money into it in any big way - they're leaving the exploration to the small companies, who are gambling on finding prospects they can sell on to the majors.

The odds of finds are still very low, which means the payoff has to be good for anyone to play the game.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hijpo

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's rather a gap between "doesn't sit well with anyone" and a decision to default without a vote, particularly for a direct democracy party.



It isn't accurate, either. The deal was updated by the last government, for one thing, and for a second, there's no point in putting into place a satisfactorily predatory tax regime at this point, because it will simply result in a cessation of offshore activity.

It's a case of "softly, softly, catchee money". The oil companies are currently mildly interested in Irish waters because they're seeing that there might be something out there worth exploring for, but they're not by and large sufficiently convinced to put their money into it in any big way - they're leaving the exploration to the small companies, who are gambling on finding prospects they can sell on to the majors.

The odds of finds are still very low, which means the payoff has to be good for anyone to play the game.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And as i said, if a referendum is wanted a referendum can be called.

What has the tax regime been changed to?

Softly softly catchee money, like HHC and LPT?
Ahh I get it now. They are good at that game.

Phoebas

Hijpo wrote: »

And as i said, if a referendum is wanted a referendum can be called.

So if people don't want them to default on bailout repayments, they can stop the default by collecting enough signatures to trigger a referendum?

How long will they delay implementing each piece of legislation or instruction to allow for people to gather signatures?

hatrickpatrick

Phoebas wrote: »

So if people don't want them to default on bailout repayments, they can stop the default by collecting enough signatures to trigger a referendum?

How long will they delay implementing each piece of legislation or instruction to allow for people to gather signatures?

Given how quickly things go viral these days I think you'd find that massively popular ones wouldn't take anywhere near as long as you might think to garner enough support.

Look let me put this another way. There seem to be certain things which go on which the absolute vast majority of the people aren't ok with. If our democracy is functioning properly, they shouldn't be going on. The fact that they are, is proof that the system is broken.

Example: Sean Sherlock signing that bit of Irish SOPA legislation. Who wanted it? From what I saw at the time ordinary people who actually support that are an almost invisible minority, there's absolutely no excuse for such laws being allowed onto the statute books with such gigantic opposition to them.

Any system which would allow the masses to override such incidents by sheer popular demand is a step in the right direction in my view.

Phoebas

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Given how quickly things go viral these days I think you'd find that massively popular ones wouldn't take anywhere near as long as you might think to garner enough support.

But the government would still have to allow sufficient time regardless if all the time would be required or not.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Look let me put this another way. There seem to be certain things which go on which the absolute vast majority of the people aren't ok with. If our democracy is functioning properly, they shouldn't be going on. The fact that they are, is proof that the system is broken.

Example: Sean Sherlock signing that bit of Irish SOPA legislation. Who wanted it? From what I saw at the time ordinary people who actually support that are an almost invisible minority, there's absolutely no excuse for such laws being allowed onto the statute books with such gigantic opposition to them.

I didn't see gigantic popular opposition to the SOPA legislation. I doubt most people in the country even noticed it.

Anyway, what I'm struggling to understand is how direct democracy would operate here in practice. If the government wanted to implement some legislation, would it go through the various stages in the Dail, go through the final vote and then .... just wait for a period of time before it would become law to allow for signatures against it to be gathered? Would this not slow down the entire system?
What would happen with the budget every year. It involves lots of different legislative changes, but all are part of a package of measures. Would we have to delay implementation for months on end to allow for the inevitable set of referenda to be completed?

Bigdeadlydave

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO1l_MBC5HQ

Posted that in AH a while back, worth a watch... Gilroy, DDI and co are freeman fools... their association is ruining the concept of Direct Democracy which is not the worst idea in the world.

hatrickpatrick

Phoebas wrote: »

But the government would still have to allow sufficient time regardless if all the time would be required or not.

Explain?

I didn't see gigantic popular opposition to the SOPA legislation. I doubt most people in the country even noticed it.

In any comment I did see about it anywhere - the papers, Twitter, Boards, talking to people - opinions ranged from straight up opposition to mild indifference. I haven't heard a single instance of someone actually supporting it. That such legislation went through is a disgrace, with almost no support from the people the government is supposed to be representing.

Anyway, what I'm struggling to understand is how direct democracy would operate here in practice. If the government wanted to implement some legislation, would it go through the various stages in the Dail, go through the final vote and then .... just wait for a period of time before it would become law to allow for signatures against it to be gathered? Would this not slow down the entire system?
What would happen with the budget every year. It involves lots of different legislative changes, but all are part of a package of measures. Would we have to delay implementation for months on end to allow for the inevitable set of referenda to be completed?

You seem to be labouring under two delusions, firstly that it would be a case of direct democracy not kicking in unless and until there is enough opposition to a piece of legislation, and secondly that a referendum necessarily has to take a long time to carry out. Neither of these views is necessarily correct. First of all why does it have to be based on signatures against something? Secondly why not allow something to be passed as usual but then hold a referendum to repeal it with enough signatures? Just one idea of many. Thirdly who says a referendum has to take time? With changes to the system of holding referenda, a referendum could be organized within a week or two. You're thinking within the parameters of the current referendum system, there's no reason that system couldn't be redesigned. Would you have a problem with a referendum being proposed on Monday morning and held on Friday week? If so, why?

Fr Tod Umptious

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Explain?



In any comment I did see about it anywhere - the papers, Twitter, Boards, talking to people - opinions ranged from straight up opposition to mild indifference. I haven't heard a single instance of someone actually supporting it. That such legislation went through is a disgrace, with almost no support from the people the government is supposed to be representing.



You seem to be labouring under two delusions, firstly that it would be a case of direct democracy not kicking in unless and until there is enough opposition to a piece of legislation, and secondly that a referendum necessarily has to take a long time to carry out. Neither of these views is necessarily correct. First of all why does it have to be based on signatures against something? Secondly why not allow something to be passed as usual but then hold a referendum to repeal it with enough signatures? Just one idea of many. Thirdly who says a referendum has to take time? With changes to the system of holding referenda, a referendum could be organized within a week or two. You're thinking within the parameters of the current referendum system, there's no reason that system couldn't be redesigned. Would you have a problem with a referendum being proposed on Monday morning and held on Friday week? If so, why?

oh let me see
Printing and distribution of ballots
Printing and distribution of voting cards
Register updates
Hiring of staff
Facilities
Security
Printing and distribution of information.

Phoebas

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You seem to be labouring under two delusions, firstly that it would be a case of direct democracy not kicking in unless and until there is enough opposition to a piece of legislation, and secondly that a referendum necessarily has to take a long time to carry out.

Delusions? We haven't had any concrete proposals as to how Direct Democracy might operate here - there are only some vague ideas proposed by DDI, so I don't see any basis at all for you to describe me as delusional.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Neither of these views is necessarily correct. First of all why does it have to be based on signatures against something?

That's what I picked up from the DDI website - I think they mentioned 70,000 signatures (either against a proposal or for one). What alternative ways of triggering a referendum do you envisage?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Secondly why not allow something to be passed as usual but then hold a referendum to repeal it with enough signatures?

How would that work in the specific example I brought up earlier in the thread i.e. the proposal to default on our bailout debt? You cannot just rollback a default.
It also gives the political establishment the upper hand since they can establish the 'facts on the ground' which would seem to go against the spirot of DD.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Just one idea of many. Thirdly who says a referendum has to take time? With changes to the system of holding referenda, a referendum could be organized within a week or two. You're thinking within the parameters of the current referendum system, there's no reason that system couldn't be redesigned. Would you have a problem with a referendum being proposed on Monday morning and held on Friday week? If so, why?

10 days to allow for a proper national debate around the issue? It would seem to me to be far to short a period of time - even getting the logistics for a national referendum in place would take more time than that. A very short campaign timeframe would favour the political establishment - their political machines would have their side of the argument everywhere before anyone else got their campaigns off the starting block.
Can you think of anywhere where they manage to arrange and hold referenda in that timeframe?

View

It should be mentioned that the electorate do have a "Direct Democracy Initiative" available to them. That is the "European Citizens' Initiative" for EU level proposed laws.

It is worth taking a note of as:
a) this initiative was one of the items mentioned in the referenda material produced by the referendum commission so there should be a high degree of awareness about it here (if we presume that referenda are in any way effective that is),
b) despite this, since it has come into force, there has no been NO Irish led initiative,
c) nor, has there been an initiative in which an Irish organisation has been either a major player or a minor player for that matter,
d) of the twenty or so initiatives launched, two have produced statistics on their signature collection.

An initiative must gather a specified minimum number of signatures in at least 7 member states (with the minimum figure varying passed on population) and cross the the million signature mark to be successful. In the case of Ireland, that translates to a mere 9,000 signatures out of the total electorate.

Of these, the first, the "Right 2 Water" one, which is backed by European Trade Unions and which basically opposes water privatisation, has passed the criteria for a successfully completed initiative (but is still collecting signatures and is at 1.5 million and counting). When that initiative crossed the "One million signature" mark, it had barely over 2,000 signatures from Ireland and so fell completely short of the 9,000 signature threshold. Hence, the odds of Ireland crossing that minimum threshold are fairly slim. This despite possible water privatisation being on the agenda here.

Of the second, the fairly new-ish "30 Km/hr - Safe Streets" one, has gathered a mere 173 signatures from Ireland. This despite the topic being one that would seem of obvious interest to let's say, schools and parents of school children.

Neither, of these, point to there being any major pent up demand for a direct democracy initiative amongst the electorate. Either that or, despite the claims during our EU referenda, we are all so perfectly happy with all the EU laws that we don't see the need to change ANY of them!

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

It should be mentioned that the electorate do have a "Direct Democracy Initiative" available to them. That is the "European Citizens' Initiative" for EU level proposed laws.

It is worth taking a note of as:
a) this initiative was one of the items mentioned in the referenda material produced by the referendum commission so there should be a high degree of awareness about it here (if we presume that referenda are in any way effective that is),
b) despite this, since it has come into force, there has no been NO Irish led initiative,
c) nor, has there been an initiative in which an Irish organisation has been either a major player or a minor player for that matter,
d) of the twenty or so initiatives launched, two have produced statistics on their signature collection.

An initiative must gather a specified minimum number of signatures in at least 7 member states (with the minimum figure varying passed on population) and cross the the million signature mark to be successful. In the case of Ireland, that translates to a mere 9,000 signatures out of the total electorate.

Of these, the first, the "Right 2 Water" one, which is backed by European Trade Unions and which basically opposes water privatisation, has passed the criteria for a successfully completed initiative (but is still collecting signatures and is at 1.5 million and counting). When that initiative crossed the "One million signature" mark, it had barely over 2,000 signatures from Ireland and so fell completely short of the 9,000 signature threshold. Hence, the odds of Ireland crossing that minimum threshold are fairly slim. This despite possible water privatisation being on the agenda here.

Of the second, the fairly new-ish "30 Km/hr - Safe Streets" one, has gathered a mere 173 signatures from Ireland. This despite the topic being one that would seem of obvious interest to let's say, schools and parents of school children.

Neither, of these, point to there being any major pent up demand for a direct democracy initiative amongst the electorate. Either that or, despite the claims during our EU referenda, we are all so perfectly happy with all the EU laws that we don't see the need to change ANY of them!

That reminds me of the CFP consultation by the Commission, which gathered only 3-4 submissions from Ireland, despite the CFP and the fate of our fish apparently being an issue that generates mighty outrage at every referendum, and the consultation running shortly after the second Lisbon referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hijpo

View wrote: »

It should be mentioned that the electorate do have a "Direct Democracy Initiative" available to them. That is the "European Citizens' Initiative" for EU level proposed laws.

It is worth taking a note of as:
a) this initiative was one of the items mentioned in the referenda material produced by the referendum commission so there should be a high degree of awareness about it here (if we presume that referenda are in any way effective that is),
b) despite this, since it has come into force, there has no been NO Irish led initiative,
c) nor, has there been an initiative in which an Irish organisation has been either a major player or a minor player for that matter,
d) of the twenty or so initiatives launched, two have produced statistics on their signature collection.

An initiative must gather a specified minimum number of signatures in at least 7 member states (with the minimum figure varying passed on population) and cross the the million signature mark to be successful. In the case of Ireland, that translates to a mere 9,000 signatures out of the total electorate.

Of these, the first, the "Right 2 Water" one, which is backed by European Trade Unions and which basically opposes water privatisation, has passed the criteria for a successfully completed initiative (but is still collecting signatures and is at 1.5 million and counting). When that initiative crossed the "One million signature" mark, it had barely over 2,000 signatures from Ireland and so fell completely short of the 9,000 signature threshold. Hence, the odds of Ireland crossing that minimum threshold are fairly slim. This despite possible water privatisation being on the agenda here.

Of the second, the fairly new-ish "30 Km/hr - Safe Streets" one, has gathered a mere 173 signatures from Ireland. This despite the topic being one that would seem of obvious interest to let's say, schools and parents of school children.

Neither, of these, point to there being any major pent up demand for a direct democracy initiative amongst the electorate. Either that or, despite the claims during our EU referenda, we are all so perfectly happy with all the EU laws that we don't see the need to change ANY of them!

I have seen no coverage in any irish media of such issues. Im sure if it was brought to peoples attention it would infact get attention. Likewise with the CFP consultation, i hadnt heard a word of it at the time and im sure if you asked anyone else outside of fishing communities and ministers they wouldnt have a clue either. I think it boils down to responsibility to inform the electorate. Is it the electorates fault for not taking the initiative and finding out themselves or is it the fault of the government for not actively educating the electorate?

An initiative must gather a specified minimum number of signatures in at least 7 member states
So we could gather the specified number of signitures here and still be forced to rely on another six member states?

This is more to do with whats happening that effects the electorate in Ireland. If people saw they had a choice on issues that effect them in ireland they would execise there right to vote. Currently we have no opinion, there are no avenues for the electorate to challenge these decisions which is wrong. Its a case of people with excessive amounts of money and arrogance making decisions with complete freedom to force them on us.

perfectly happy with all the EU laws that we don't see the need to change ANY of them

remember what happend the last time we voted against an EU treaty, what hope do we have of actually changing any EU laws, perfectly happy or absolutely opposed??


I find it amazing that people would be oppossed to a political overhaul. Especially one that provides consequences to lies and corruption. Even if it wasnt used, the provision should still be there.

Phoebas

Hijpo wrote: »

Even if it wasnt used, the provision should still be there.

It seems that it is there - and it isn't used.

Hijpo

Phoebas wrote: »

It seems that it is there - and it isn't used.

The electorate can remove a TD if they are involved in nepotism or back scratching? They can vote to remove there multi-thousand euro pension or atleast halve it?

Are there any consequences facing a politician if they are found to be acting the bo11ox (for want of a better word)?

Cody Pomeray

View wrote: »

Of the second, the fairly new-ish "30 Km/hr - Safe Streets" one, has gathered a mere 173 signatures from Ireland. This despite the topic being one that would seem of obvious interest to let's say, schools and parents of school children.

Scofflaw wrote: »

That reminds me of the CFP consultation by the Commission, which gathered only 3-4 submissions from Ireland, despite the CFP and the fate of our fish apparently being an issue that generates mighty outrage at every referendum, and the consultation running shortly after the second Lisbon referendum.

Hmm, in fairness a lot of people are too busy with their day-to-day lives, being Mums and Dads and employees and employers to have an awareness about the CFP and any other calls for public submissions or signatures.

It's not something they can afford to have an awareness of in practice (which is why I'm opposed to much of direct democracy, as it happens) but I'd be careful about conflating a low submission rate with low interest.

I'm sure there are lots of public consultations people would love to dedicate some time to. I can think of a few I would have liked to have had the time to contribute to as well, but unfortunately real and the hierarchy of fridge-door notices has a habit of getting in the way.

laoch na mona

I don't get direct democracy it sounds a lot like anarchism but with a state structure

Phoebas

Hijpo wrote: »

The electorate can remove a TD if they are involved in nepotism or back scratching?

Yep. Elections every 4-5 years (or criminal sanctions if they are doing anything illegal, or SIPO legislation for other offences, or general political pressure).
The Irish electorate positively love back scratching - the system is built on it.

Hijpo wrote: »

They can vote to remove there multi-thousand euro pension or atleast halve it?

Politicians have had generous pensions since I can remember and yet I don't see that this has been any more than a low level gripe in any election.

Hijpo

Phoebas wrote: »

Yep. Elections every 4-5 years (or criminal sanctions if they are doing anything illegal, or SIPO legislation for other offences, or general political pressure).
The Irish electorate positively love back scratching - the system is built on it.


Politicians have had generous pensions since I can remember and yet I don't see that this has been any more than a low level gripe in any election.

An election every 4-5 years is a cop out considering the amount of money they make and invest in the years they can go untouched, then retire on a full pension alot earlier than they should.

Pensions is only one example of the obstruction free high life they live, on the expense of the people they extort more money from

Did anyone get pulled over or drink driving from the Dail? Or was the law upheld for being on a mobile phone?

I think your comment of the electorate loving back scratching is a bit of a loose generalistion.

Phoebas

Hijpo wrote: »

An election every 4-5 years is a cop out considering the amount of money they make and invest in the years they can go untouched, then retire on a full pension alot earlier than they should.

They've been making this money for decades and no one has chosen to do anything about it when the normal elections come around - why would some mid term opportunity make any difference?

Hijpo

Phoebas wrote: »

They've been making this money for decades and no one has chosen to do anything about it when the normal elections come around - why would some mid term opportunity make any difference?

Dont they set there own level of pay and days spent in the Dail without consulting the people who pay the tax that they use to pay themselves, there secretary sons and advisors and advisors assitants etc etc etc?

Phoebas

Hijpo wrote: »

Dont they set there own level of pay and days spent in the Dail without consulting the people who pay the tax that they use to pay themselves, there secretary sons and advisors and advisors assitants etc etc etc?

They consult the people every 4-5 years and the people haven't made it an election issue. How would direct democracy put a stop to it when our common or garden democracy hasn't?

bgrizzley

Phoebas wrote: »

They consult the people every 4-5 years and the people haven't made it an election issue. How would direct democracy put a stop to it when our common or garden democracy hasn't?

if dd is of no importance and wouldnt make a difference anyway, why are you so afraid of it?

Hijpo

Phoebas wrote: »

They consult the people every 4-5 years and the people haven't made it an election issue. How would direct democracy put a stop to it when our common or garden democracy hasn't?

Its up to the parties to make it an election issue not the electorate because we are locked out of these issues. Thats the problem. The point of direct democracy is that it gives the electorate a say on such issues.

Phoebas

bgrizzley wrote: »

if dd is of no importance and wouldnt make a difference anyway, why are you so afraid of it?

Afraid of it?

Phoebas

Hijpo wrote: »

Its up to the parties to make it an election issue not the electorate because we are locked out of these issues. Thats the problem. The point of direct democracy is that it gives the electorate a say on such issues.

If the electorate can't be bothered to decide what is and what isn't an election issue at election time, I can hardly see them setting the agenda mid term.

Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Hmm, in fairness a lot of people are too busy with their day-to-day lives, being Mums and Dads and employees and employers to have an awareness about the CFP and any other calls for public submissions or signatures.

It's not something they can afford to have an awareness of in practice (which is why I'm opposed to much of direct democracy, as it happens) but I'd be careful about conflating a low submission rate with low interest.

I'm sure there are lots of public consultations people would love to dedicate some time to. I can think of a few I would have liked to have had the time to contribute to as well, but unfortunately real and the hierarchy of fridge-door notices has a habit of getting in the way.

Undeniably the case, but also the point. View's post makes the rather stronger case, since there's not much involved for the average citizen other than signing up to the initiative.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bgrizzley

Phoebas wrote: »

Afraid of it?

yup, why?

Phoebas wrote: »

If the electorate can't be bothered to decide what is and what isn't an election issue at election time, I can hardly see them setting the agenda mid term.

sure, cancel elections altogether so...

Phoebas

bgrizzley wrote: »

yup, why?

I'm questioning it. I can't think where you might have got the idea that I'm 'afraid' of it. That just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Phoebas

bgrizzley wrote: »

sure, cancel elections altogether so...

Well now your just being silly.