Can the public force a referendum in this country?

DeVore

Just something that came up over on Humanities that I thought someone here might know the answer to.

Can a person or sufficiently large group of people force the government to call a referendum on a topic?

If so, how do you go about it?

DeV.

imp

I seem to remember a friend telling me that if you get a certain amount of people to sign a motion you could force the government to call a referendum.

But this is really vague in my memory, so I could be totally wrong.

Sorry I'm not much help!!

iMP }:>

Lemming

Ummm .. I don't think the public can "force" a referendum in the manner in which you're thinking.

But what it can do is say "we want this issue addressed or else we'll remember come election time ...... ", so it's a bit more in-direct.

I dunno, but that's my understanding on it.

Meh

No, they can't. (And thank God for this, otherwise we'd be having abortion referendums twice a week)

DeVore

hmmm yes... good point I suppose.

DeV.

The public in a specific constituency may be able to force a referendum, if they have an independent T.D on whose support the government relies.
That happened with the last government with Mildred Fox and co, but it is the government who call them.
mm

Éomer of Rohan

No the public can't really force a referendum but I bloody wish they could. Abortion referendums would be a good thing, so would a referendum on a united Ireland in the south not to mention the issue of the war. It is time that people's voices were listened to, never mind heard.

Duffman

This comment is way too cynical, even for me... but a referendum? Remember Nice? I'd like to believe that Fianna Fáil would actually respect the collective will of the Irish people but then we would be living in a democracy... ah well... :ninja:

Sparks

They can't. That's a feature of direct democracy, not representative democracy. It can be done in switzerland if (I think it's 3% of the population) enough people sign the petition.

Mark

The original constitution in 1922 contained a provision stating that the Constitution could be changed only by the Oireachtas (the Senate and the Dáil) until 1930.

However if 75,000 people signed a petition demanding a referendum, one had to be held.

The trouble with this flared up in 1927, in which DeV began a petition to have the oath to the British monarch removed from the constitution.

To counter this, Cosgrave (the man in power at the time) passed several new bills after the murder of Kevin O'Higgins, one of these changing the constitution to remove the option of a public forced referendum.

In DeVs 1937 constitution, he failed to include this and here we stand today.

Victor

Originally posted by Mark
In DeVs 1937 constitution, he failed to include this and here we stand today.

Of course he didn't, he was in power. :rolleyes:

sceptre

Nice informative post mark - covered all the bases.

Always thought it was a little ironic, the long fella doing that (given that the evil Treaty was the bulk of the 1922 constitution). The 1922 constitution was pretty weak, given that the Dail could change the constitution any time they wanted (except the Treaty until the Statute of Westminster arrived)

ciderandhavoc

It takes an act of the oireachtas to hold a referendum.

So I suppose it takes 133 (134 if the government is against) people to hold a referendum, those 133 need to be TDs however!

Victor

Originally posted by ciderandhavoc
It takes an act of the oireachtas to hold a referendum.

So I suppose it takes 133 (134 if the government is against) people to hold a referendum, those 133 need to be TDs however!

Do you mean TDs & Senators?

ciderandhavoc

Originally posted by Victor
Do you mean TDs & Senators?

I said TDs!

Victor

But there are only 166 TDs (165 voting + CC) so you only need 83 TDs + 30 senators

PHB

I think if there was enough public support for a topic Bertie would consider holding an election. [cf. Abortion]
Just out of interest is it a particular topic you want on the table or is it just general interest?

Victor

Originally posted by PHB
I think if there was enough public support for a topic Bertie would consider holding an election.

referendum yes, election no.

Éomer of Rohan

Issues for a referendum:

1) Nice Treaty (this time minus the 'spin' and media clout the parties with vested interest brough to bear)
2) A United Ireland: Yes or No.
3) The Government's attitude to the war; the overruling of the majority of people of this country.
4) Irish relations with the USA.
5) Abortion / Influence of the Catholic Church issues
6) Corruption of the Gardai and making them accountable.

sceptre

Originally posted by PHB
I think if there was enough public support for a topic Bertie would consider holding an election. [cf. Abortion]
Just out of interest is it a particular topic you want on the table or is it just general interest?

It needs to be in relation to amending the constitution. There's no procedure for having a howdy-doody referendum whenever anyone (or even the government) feels like it.

Sparks

Nice to know that you're good enough to pay taxes but not good enough to decide on policy, isn't it? :rolleyes:

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sparks

daveirl,

It's already been ratified, you couldn't walk out of it now.

Never stopped the US. And I don't think that we can't - I think it's that if we do so, we will be subject to a fair few sanctions.
Thing is, this is a prime example of one reason why we need to have the ability for the public to call referenda - the first vote said no, so the government called for a second vote and when they won, we got locked into a treaty we can't get out of. This kind of thing is exceptionally dangerous to our everyday lives.

What's the referendum ammendment going to be - "On every issue the Government should consult opinion polls" If you don't like the Government's policy you don't elect them. That's not what referenda are for.

No, the amendment is that a set percentage of the population signing a petition is sufficent reason to hold a binding referendum. NOT an opinion poll. An opinion poll is not only a small sample set, it's not binding. I don't want to give some pollster my opinion on government policy - I want to have a vote in it, thanks very much.
Think about it - had we had this ability all along, we wouldn't have needed the anti-war marches, just get a petition. 120-150,000 people marched, that's 4-5% of the population. Marching is harder than signing a petition. So say we got 10% of the population to sign a petition to have a referendum on the issue. Bing, problem solved - the democratic way.

(BTW, I didn't elect the government. The only member of government I could even have voted on was Dick Roche (and I voted against him) - so why should I accept the policy that a group of men I've never met, never been asked to vote for, and whose qualifications are questionable at best, a fraud at worst? )

De Rebel

Originally posted by sceptre
It needs to be in relation to amending the constitution. There's no procedure for having a howdy-doody referendum whenever anyone (or even the government) feels like it.

Not correct.

In Articles 46 and 47 the constitution recognises two types of referendum: (1) proposals to amend the Constitution (2) other proposals.

The only established form of "other proposal" is what could be referred to as the "mad government" proposal outlined in Article 27. (50% of the Seanad + 33% of the Dail can petition the president to refer a bill to the people, if the president does so the Government must, within 18 months hold a referendum on the bill or go to the people itself or allow the bill to lapse)

However, the wording of Article 47 certainly allows for a referendum outside the above circumstances. And amazingly, all the rules governing such a referendum are as set out in law - so the government certainly does appear to be empowered to go to the people and ask their opinion - it would simply require an amendment to the Referendum Acts. The Government could also, if it had a mind to do so, put in place a mechanism to allow a predetermined number of people to petition for a referendum, or allow a predetermined number of County Councils to exercise the same right.

Éomer of Rohan

If you don't like the Government's policy you don't elect them. That's not what referenda are for.

You see this is something that bugs the life out of me in so called 'representative democracies' - all the parties operate the same policy in these respects - and they do not campaign on foreign policy issues which mean that media campaigns come election time, usually the greatest voice of the people, have no effect whatsoever since they are usually concerned with what the parties ARE basing their electoral strategy. It is almost identical in all two party systems - during the dismantling of the British Empire, the Conservatives and Labour had the same foreign policy; the conservatives were a little more eager to engage in armed conflict but Labour was open to this as well. In America, the foreign policies of the democrats and the republicans are virtual carbon copies of one another, though again the further right wing party is more willing to engage in conflict. And then we have Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. The point is, surely it should be the choice of the people whether or not a country supports a war effort - overtly or covertly and definitely the decision of the people to go to war (unless in self defence, ie a declaration of war by another sovereign nation).

sceptre

Originally posted by De Rebel
Not correct.

Bah, you're right of course (forgot about that). Last section of Art 27 allows the government to change the rules so we can do that as you've mentioned.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sparks

daveirl,

Look representative democracy isn't perfect but show me a better system that works and I'll consider it.

Well, since this is a represtative democracy, your consideration or even acceptance, and a euro or two, will get you a half-decent cup of coffee. However, I submit for your consideration Direct Democracy.

The suggestion that petitions would allow referenda is crazy. The same people are arguing in other threads that not enough money is being spent elsewhere on public services but they are willing to tie up millions of euros in running an infinite amount of referenda.

Nope, not crazy. Works perfectly well for Switzerland. The difference is that we don't have dedicated facilities for referenda, which means that everytime we have one, we have to set up the facilities country-wide as if they weren't there from the last time. It's the same as the difference between hiring a minibus to get to work every day and buying a monthly bus/rail ticket.

Frankly, the idea that the public cannot have their government listen to what they want and have it binding, that's the crazy thing... it'd be called dictatorship if we didn't get to vote once every five years.

ps.

Well then form a new party, or run as an independent. It only takes 30 signatures to get on the ballot paper.

It also requires you to give up the career that you may have worked damn hard for a long period of time to get a shot at. No thanks. I don't want to run for public office right now, I just want to have a vote on what my country does in my name.

Éomer of Rohan

I am a fan of direct democracy as well and I completely agree with the pragmatism evident in the last point of Sparks - and I would add that you (daveirl) ignore the fact that even an independent cannot fight an election on a different battle ground than the already established parties; in fact it would be the previously established parties that would choose the battle ground given the wide support base and since many media organisations have political affiliations of SOME sort, this is doubly reinforced.

PHB

I dont like the idea of direct democracy because frankly, I don't think most people, myself included, have the time to understand all the issues at stake.
That is why the idea of representitive democracy is to elect a person whom you think will represent your views best, and I hate to say it but the country elected Bertie

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
Nope, not crazy. Works perfectly well for Switzerland. The difference is that we don't have dedicated facilities for referenda, which means that everytime we have one, we have to set up the facilities country-wide as if they weren't there from the last time.

The swiss system is quite simple actually - theres not a lot of "dedicated facilities"really in place. Instead, what they have done is removed the need for them.

When a federal referendum occurs, every eligible citizen is sent a little "referendum pack". This contains the official literature (whats being voted on, plus the core arguments from both sides, what the governments stance is, etc), your "registration" which you must sign, and your voting card.

For a local referendum (cantonal or major towns/cities), this would come from the local authorities rather than the federal government.

You fill this up. On the day of the referendum, voting stations are set up in school halls and the like - just like in Ireland.

They are manned by volunteers - just like in Ireland - supervised by some local civil authority type. These volunteers are also responsible for the local counting....which is completed typically by 6pm or 7pm of the same day.

Unlike Ireland, they do not have voting booths, as you already have your card and are suppsed to have filled it. If you didnt get your card, it is your responsibility to get it from the local civil facility before the day of the referendum.

Referenda are always held on a Sunday, and the "voting stations" are typically only open from 10:00 to 12:00 in the morning.

Between 10 and 15 years ago, another option was introduced in Switzerland, allowing you to post your vote back in to whoever issued it - again within a certain window. This was done to counter the massive falloff in voting, and has been massively successful. They'll even send it to you if you have emigrated but remain a swiss citizen and wish to exercise your right to vote.

There are some anachronisms - cantons being laws onto themselves and all in many respects. Some place about 5 years ago was forced to change its local voting practice from one which was effectively "turn up in the town square for a count of hands"!!! Funnily - it was the same place who was forced to allow women to vote in the early 80s.

So - as you can see, there's not that much "dedicated" stuff really in place - it just relies on intelligent use of the postal system and the general honesty of the populace (or at least the assumed honesty of the populace). I guess if someone decided that the system was corrupt, they could start an intiiative to have a referendum to have it changed

The reason it works is because voting fraud is relatively unheard of over here....probably aided by the fact that the postal system is so good in terms of tracking people (its illegal not to have your current fixed address registered with both state and post-office, and quite difficult to work around without losing all benefits and rights that the state offers you).

Having seen it in action, its blindingly simple, and definitely effective. Its used by as many people as care about any given issue, and the people themselves can bring the issues forward.

If anyone is interested, I'll post up details of what happens in the next vote. Its in the middle of May - there's a public initiative to get rid of all its nuclear stations. There's actually two votes...one to do it in 30 years, and one to do it in 40 years. The last one on this issue (in the 70s) was high turnout and very close. I expect this one to be the same.

Oooh - I've just been told that there's another vote on the same day to ban driving in Switzerland for 4 Sundays each year (trucks are already banned from motorwys on allSundays, and cant drive on the other roads). Bet the RTS peeps will love that one. Because its on the same ballot as the nuclear vote, its guaranteed high "turnout".

jc

Sparks

bonkey,
Sign me up as interested.

Nice to know it's so simple. Well. It might be nicer if we were ever going to have something similar for ourselves

PHB,
Ask a single mom about childcare or benefits or childrearing. I think you'll get an intelligent reply from the majority. Ask a driver about road tax or the NCT or penalty points. You'll get a reasonably informed opinion (maybe wildly silly, but reasonably informed). Ask most OAPs or expectant mothers about the health system.
See, we know about what affects us. To say that one person would be able to adaquately represent us on all those topics is just plain silly. And besides, with representative democracy, what you get is a choice of predetermined options. What if you don't like any of those options? Currently, the answer is "tough".
Not too fair to my mind.

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
They are manned by volunteers - just like in Ireland - supervised by some local civil authority type.

Election staff here tend to be local autority staff, local autorities being the controlling agencies for all voting.

Originally posted by bonkey
The reason it works is because voting fraud is relatively unheard of over here....probably aided by the fact that the postal system is so good in terms of tracking people (its illegal not to have your current fixed address registered with both state and post-office, and quite difficult to work around without losing all benefits and rights that the state offers you).

I'd love to see that work here, but I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

Originally posted by bonkey
(trucks are already banned from motorwys on allSundays, and cant drive on the other roads).

How do they get from motorway to factory?

ciderandhavoc

Originally posted by Victor
But there are only 166 TDs (165 voting + CC) so you only need 83 TDs + 30 senators

Sorry my mistake, I meant 83 rather than 133.

You only need 83 and 30 if you are the government, the speakers always cast their votes in favour of the government if there is no majority for yay or nay. The opposition would need one more vote in each house to pass an act.

ciderandhavoc

Originally posted by Victor
How do they get from motorway to factory?

I assume he means that they don't! Not on a Sunday!

Imposter

A system such as that might actually encourage people to turn out to vote! Recent turnouts for referendums and even the last general election were shameful especially seeing the amount of whinging Irish people do about certain issues.

The stumbling blocks that I see to ever seeing such a system in Ireland is the need to have everyone registered at a primary address. Imagine trying to do this especially considering the complaining that was heard about carrying driving licences while driving! People in Ireland don't want to be accountable for their actions and so would not like the idea of the authorities knowing where they actually live. I feel it would get reactions similar to that of the British when their government suggested the ID card system.

A second problem would be that the government would have to agree to it which is highly unlikely as they would lose some of the power they enjoy with the current system.

And finally such a system would have to be put online in this day and age. When (if ever) has an Irish government ever managed to get a computerised system that ,in most cases, makes life easier for people, working satisfactorily, within budget and time constraints and without those who have to use it complaining or striking because they don't want to change their work practices or just use it as an excuse to get more money?

Sparks

Imposter,
I wonder how much of the lack of desire to have the government know where you are is tied to the sense that the government isn't answerable to anyone at the moment?
And while the swiss system is neat, I think we could get the same effect with town halls as an available alternative to the postal system. The electronic voting would be nice - but given that the current electronic voting system is distinctly dodgy (an FOI request to see the design and code for the system turned up the fact that the government hasn't got either and has never seen either), I think it won't happen for a while. That's not to say it's impossible - but it's hard to put in an honest system in a corrupt country.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sparks
Imposter,
I wonder how much of the lack of desire to have the government know where you are is tied to the sense that the government isn't answerable to anyone at the moment?

Do you mean they can't be voted out at the next election?

PHB

PHB,
Ask a single mom about childcare or benefits or childrearing. I think you'll get an intelligent reply from the majority. Ask a driver about road tax or the NCT or penalty points. You'll get a reasonably informed opinion (maybe wildly silly, but reasonably informed). Ask most OAPs or expectant mothers about the health system.
See, we know about what affects us. To say that one person would be able to adaquately represent us on all those topics is just plain silly.

I agree you will, people care about things that affect them. They don't care too much about things that don't affect them.
Direct democracy would give people a say on things which don't affect them massivly.

Imagine the U.S. are considering signing the anti-proliferation of nucleor weapons treaty.
You can't honastly expect the citizens to take the time to fully comprehend the implications of this treaty, hence why it doesnt go to the public.

And besides, with representative democracy, what you get is a choice of predetermined options. What if you don't like any of those options? Currently, the answer is "tough".
Not too fair to my mind.

The anwser is not tough. The anwser if you can't find someone who agrees with your views, is that you yourself run for office and represent your views.

Sparks

SkepticOne,
Yes we can vote them out - in four years time. Meanwhile, they can amend the FOI act, back the US in a war the majority of us disagree with, castrate local government, increase gardai powers without putting checks in place, run the economy into the ground, or do any one of a hundred other things that we may not be able to rectify after we vote them out.

PHB,

I agree you will, people care about things that affect them. They don't care too much about things that don't affect them.
Direct democracy would give people a say on things which don't affect them massivly.

Yes, if they care enough to vote. Voter apathy in this country is a serious problem, remember. It's the cost of giving everyone a fair voice. And the same problem shows up with representative democracy as well. Why should a TD from kerry get to vote on things that affect only counties near dublin, for example?
Besides, do you think that bertie&co have any serious insight into childcare? the medical system from the point of OAPs? Road tax? Penalty points?
Remember, this election saw a lot of single-issue independents elected or come very, very close (John dennehy's seat in cork for example). This, to me, shows that people accept the idea of voting on a single issue rather than voting for a general representative with a range of policies.

Imagine the U.S. are considering signing the anti-proliferation of nucleor weapons treaty.
You can't honastly expect the citizens to take the time to fully comprehend the implications of this treaty, hence why it doesnt go to the public.

I can't expect them to honestly understand every nuance immediately. That's why referenda are announced in advance, that's why even direct democracy retains an administration and an executive and professional diplomats, and that's why we have education programs. To accept that people are just stupid and can't ever change is to ignore the reality that people today have a great deal more education on average than even fifty years ago.

The anwser is not tough. The anwser if you can't find someone who agrees with your views, is that you yourself run for office and represent your views.

Nope, that's not an answer for me. See, here's the thing. I enjoy my job. I worked hard for nearly twenty years to get to where I am. My family made a lot of sacrifices to give me the chance to get to where I am. And I'm not unique - most people under 30 can say similar things. And since there's another alternative option that gives me a vote without giving up my life (not just my job, but my personal privacy, my professional career, in short, my life) to politics. And even if I do run for political office, if elected I am bound to represent the views of other people even if they conflict with mine, that's why it's called representative democracy.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sparks
SkepticOne,
Yes we can vote them out - in four years time. Meanwhile, they can amend the FOI act, back the US in a war the majority of us disagree with, castrate local government, increase gardai powers without putting checks in place, run the economy into the ground, or do any one of a hundred other things that we may not be able to rectify after we vote them out.

Yet they got elected. People, knowing they would be ruled by whoever they elected for five years, put the current Government in power. And, guess what, they will probably be elected for another five years after that.

The reason we are moaning about current Government policy is because we didn't take the last election seriously. We listed to party propaganda and did not ask hard questions. In the end, we elected those who told us what we wanted to hear.

I'm very much in favour of more direct democracy, but the learning curve will be very steep.

Sparks

The reason we are moaning about current Government policy is because we didn't take the last election seriously. We listed to party propaganda and did not ask hard questions. In the end, we elected those who told us what we wanted to hear.

*sigh* I hate it when that arguement is made - mainly because it's right
Mind you, it's not so much the lack of hard questions as the serious amount of lying that bothers me the most.

Sparks

From RTE:

CSO's General Election figures released
(13:03) Only half of the electorate under the age of 25 voted in last year's General Election, according to the results of a survey just published by the Central Statistics Office.
The survey of 24,000 adults found that turnout among the elderly was much higher, with 90% going to the polls.
The study also showed that only a third of those who voted think politicians are honest.
Nearly 40% said they thought politicians did not care about the opinions of ordinary people.
Males and female voter participation rates were similar.
But when the figures were analysed according to the Principal Economic Status of the respondent, there were significant differences.
Just over 75% of those employed voted in the General Election, compared with 58.8% of those unemployed.

The report is here. Shows just how serious voter apathy is in this country. The participation rate didn't hit 80% until after the age 44 mark - and the bulk of the population are under 44 years of age according to the CSO.

Table 8 is interesting - 72.7% of people asked were "Not at all", "Not very" or just "Fairly" satisfied with the democratic system we have.

sceptre

The study also showed that only a third of those who voted think politicians are honest.

These are people I'd be interested in meeting. There are honest politicians. I've probably even met some. But "Are politicians honest?" Heck, no. We're talking people who would fail a lie detector test if they told the truth while being examined.

Sparks

sceptre, I suspect you should be kept away from such people - you'd wind up selling them a bridge