General Irish politics discussion thread

I also examples FF in 1958 and 68. So Ireland, and no Nazis. You choose to ignore that example.

Our constitution limits the power of the Government and of the Dail in relation to constitutional change. Other countries might do the same thing in different way. For example, The Basic Law in Germany has 'eternity' clauses which cannot be changed. I am sure other democratic constitutions provide similar protection.

Whether you like to accept it or not, Hitler gained absolute power from a legal constitutional starting point. It doesn't mean every politician tempted to mould the constitution is a new Hitler. But limits to the power of government is an important check in any modern democracy.

Just don't get the Hitler logic here. Are you just trying to be dramatic?

And some want us to develop a whole new constitution altogether.

But don't say that here, you'll be accused of being a Nazi.

I didn't make any suggestion about reducing TDs. I disputed the need for the additional 14. Please get your facts straight.

You've allowed and stood over Daily Mail attack lines comparing me with Nazi Germany and you're a mod.

One poster accused me of hating democracy. Is this not a bit dramatic even for boards?

Putin's parliament voted through constitutional changes that allowed him to remain in power. That is the type of thing that can happen if politicians have too much power.

Democracy depends on a separation of power and a balance of power between different parts of government. Just look at the US, where the Supreme Court has been politicised to a dangerous extent to see an example of how politicians with too much power (in this case appointment of judges) can warp society. Look at the North where an independent police force is in jeopardy because two political parties are fighting over control of it.

Without mentioning Germany, those are three examples of where politicians have too much power, unfettered by the people, you can have bad outcomes.

A simple example is how Trump and Johnson seemed to forego generally-accepted conventions and 'gentleman's agreements' on how to perform their job in traditional, upstanding Western democracies. This is a period in time where more than ever special care should be taken to preserve the strength of constitutions and limit the powers of governments.

As for Ireland not having extremes, this is one benefit of PR-STV. Rarely do we get absolute majorities and coalition partners tend to soften the impact of bigger parties and keep them in line, somewhat. Compromise is required for a stable government here. Just look at how the UK is unravelling after thirteen years of the Tories, especially with their unassailable majority that does not actually represent a majority of the population.

The Irish system is far from perfect but its a lot better than other systems. I can understand the need for streamlining certain ideas that seem overwhelmingly popular; however, the principle is an important one and changing could easily lead to it being abused.

I just have more faith in the Irish people than many here. I don't see us turning into Russia or Nazi Germany if we tinker with our constitution to prevent meaningless referendums.

This country hasn't even got a train line to our main airport. I think we're OK on turning into 1930s Germany.

Trump got voted out and Johnson got booted out due to pressure in his party and declining popularity.

The systems in the respective countries worked and the two you mentioned barely had many years in office.

Our system is not perfect no. The amount of referendums held here is a point of derision.

Where is it derided?

Yes, they got voted out but they are examples in Western democracies who stuck two fingers up to convention and tradition. Entrusting those types with power is a dangerous thing and I'm all in favour of limiting it.

It can't be, which is the whole point. We would have to rewrite substantial portions of the constitution to allow for "minor" amendments, and that rewrite would have to be passed by (you guessed it) a referendum.

You're approaching this from completely the wrong direction. You're saying what "should" be possible, but have no proposals on how to get there. What mechanism should be in place to allow non-referendum amendments? A simple majority in the Dáil? I certainly wouldn't be in favour of that, what would be the point of a constitution at all? That's the same requirement for just basic legislation.