Why are YOU voting no ?

democrates wrote: »

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. Who decides what our interests are there?

This may come across as a crazy notion to you Scofflaw, but perhaps citizens should have the option of asserting what is in the best interests of citizens.
No? Just thought I'd throw it out there anyway.

Edit: Apologies, that comes across as cynical, I'm just assuming there you'll disagree no matter what the argument, but whether you do or not I'll assume an open mind and credit you with substantive considered contribution to the debate.

That's very sweet of you - I like to think I have a reasonably well established track record for being open to discussion.

Anyway, the point is not specific to Lisbon, but rather more a general one in relation to representative democracy. We have elections, in which we appoint, by popular mandate, people to represent our interests. We then judge them, at least in theory, on how well they have done so.

Why do we have that system? The answer seems to be that, for most people, politics is something they don't want to pay attention to most of the time. I'd be prepared to bet that this referendum has impinged on people thus far mostly as an annoying background noise, and that they're only really thinking about how they're going to vote now-ish.

That means that the idea that we will keep a careful eye on what our representatives are up to "in Brussels", understand where they are deviating from our interests, and be able to call them to account by popularly mandating a referendum, in which the electorate will carefully consider the issue, the whole issue, and nothing but the issue, is not merely idealistic, but contrary, almost certainly, to the wishes or expectations of the majority of citizens.

In turn, this means that the referendum mechanism you propose will actually become the mechanism of choice for special interest groups, who will arrogate to themselves the right to decide when and where the government is deviating from the "interests of the people" - in the an idealistic way, to be sure, but nevertheless. They will be the people who call for the referendum petition, and almost certainly set the tone of the debate - a different set of interests each time, against government parties who will have to fight every time. Going on this referendum (and most others I've voted on in the last quarter-century), the tone and content of the debates are likely to be hysterical and full of falsehoods.

So it seems to me that while your suggestion is eminently desirable in principle, it relies on people being something other than what they are, plays into the hands of minority interests with an axe to grind, and is therefore undesirable in practice. It is, to coin a phrase, merely populist lobbying.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

The biggest "problem" I have with the idea of a formal mechanism for forcing a referendum is very much open to abuse by special interests. The threat of a referendum could be used against policy that is actually good for a country but very hard to fight for in a referendum, i.e. any legalistic document that's very hard for normal people to read and fully understand. Good policy isn't necessarily policy that is intelligible to the man on the street. You can't run a country based on a bunch of simple bulletin points.

I'd prefer a "suggestion box" idea once that it was public knowledge that said suggestion had been made. At least then there is public evidence and room for much debate for heeding or not heeding a suggestion and it can't just be quietly ignored by politicians.

That's a fair point on legalistic complexity.

First of all we're already in that boat with constitutional referenda, and even the experts got it wrong a few times as we've seen by the inadvertant loopholes which have arisen from some changes and required repeat referenda or emergency legislation. This imperfection or risk hasn't led to calls to abandon the people's ownership of the constitution as the prime document of law in the state.

Secondly, even politicians we elect to represent us haven't read the Lisbon treaty, they're not legal experts either, what they do is get expert advice, they don't have to understand the detail. We can equally be presented with the expert advice our taxes paid for, and make our determination based on that as well as arguments from proponents and opponents.

In theory we'd face the risk that people will do something incredibly stupid like vote for 10% income tax and 50% corporation tax, but I've not met anyone that stupid in this country for a long time, if they are here they are in the minority. The majority voted FF etc back in despite having major issues over healthcare etc, and leaving aside the shrinking core of die-hards, the swing voters did not perceive the alternative as a better option for 'safe hands' with the economy. Hardly a reckless bunch us Paddies when it comes to our income prospects.

That still doesn't rule out the possibility of citizens making a mistake. But our political representatives also make mistakes, despite advice from senior civil servants and myriad consultants - which we should have at our disposal. Privatising eircom was supposed to be the best thing for Ireland, Shannon-Heathrow was not at risk in privatising Aer Lingus, decentralisation was the way forward, now on health we're back to centres of excellence, E-voting was brilliant, the list goes on. I'm being charitable calling these mistakes, every one benefitted private interests at the expense of the people.

Still it can be argued that a specialist is better than a generalist, and will make fewer mistakes. The assumption for that to be true in representative democracy is that the politician will actually represent the citizens best interests because it is their character to do so and/or because democratic accountability means they won't be re-elected following betrayal.

The first problem is that on an individuals final term, re-election is no longer a carrot/stick. Also at any stage private interests can offer them brown envelopes or a plumb job after they leave public life, and we're left to pure faith on whether favours were sought or granted and policies or legislation changed as a result. Recently the Vice President of the US made an incest remark about West Virginians, and added 'You can say those things when you're not running for re-election.' Anecdotal evidence, true, but common sense reveals the wider implications. In short, concentration of power is wide open to abuse.

There's no perfect solution, but on balance providing a formal citizen petition to trigger a referendum has a risk I can sleep easier with than the risk of a powerful few shafting all of us.

mattman

fishing industry is in chaos
health care is a disaster
pubs closing
rural business destroyed
increasing suicide in ireland
cost of living has hit an all time high
government are telling us what to do
taxis are a complete rip off
we voted on last referendum ..we rejected ..they re voted(and won)
Lose the right to make our own decision's
Its a joke...Time to reject current government and vote no..

Only problem is most people wont even read it(even our own politicians)

AND THEY ARE TELLING US TO VOTE YES?

WAKE UP...

M.

Scofflaw wrote: »

We have elections, in which we appoint, by popular mandate, people to represent our interests. We then judge them, at least in theory, on how well they have done so.

Why do we have that system? The answer seems to be that, for most people, politics is something they don't want to pay attention to most of the time. I'd be prepared to bet that this referendum has impinged on people thus far mostly as an annoying background noise, and that they're only really thinking about how they're going to vote now-ish.

That means that the idea that we will keep a careful eye on what our representatives are up to "in Brussels", understand where they are deviating from our interests, and be able to call them to account by popularly mandating a referendum, in which the electorate will carefully consider the issue, the whole issue, and nothing but the issue, is not merely idealistic, but contrary, almost certainly, to the wishes or expectations of the majority of citizens.

In turn, this means that the referendum mechanism you propose will actually become the mechanism of choice for special interest groups, who will arrogate to themselves the right to decide when and where the government is deviating from the "interests of the people" - in the an idealistic way, to be sure, but nevertheless. They will be the people who call for the referendum petition, and almost certainly set the tone of the debate - a different set of interests each time, against government parties who will have to fight every time. Going on this referendum (and most others I've voted on in the last quarter-century), the tone and content of the debates are likely to be hysterical and full of falsehoods.

So it seems to me that while your suggestion is eminently desirable in principle, it relies on people being something other than what they are, plays into the hands of minority interests with an axe to grind, and is therefore undesirable in practice. It is, to coin a phrase, merely populist lobbying.

Some of this dealt with in my reply to nesf.

The first protection is that a petition requires N signatures to trigger a referendum, a percentage of the electorate picked to balance between feasibility and nuisance-filtering.

At times yes, a minority will cause the majority to traipse down to vote no. In practice, and I mean in real practice here as opposed to your theoretical in practice, in Switzerland where they've been operating an even more direct version of citizen involvement than I propose, this rarely happens, and it makes sense because there's little point in all that effort if the proposal is likely to be defeated.

As to most people not being interested in politics, and I do perceive a 'whatever' resigned attitude in some of our younger generation (though it's also a perennial feature among youth), one of the reasons this holds some truth is that there's little to gain from thinking about politics - because we have so little say! Elect someone and hope for the best just doesn't cut it.

Also politics is a narrow field that would rarely come up for referendum, most people however are very concerned with jobs, health, education, etc. and would gladly vote to protect and advance these.

Give people a say, and they'll step up to the plate. Generally speaking the Irish people have an opinion on everything, and I think it's a cruel world for young people to come into feeling that they are virtually powerless pawns in a game run by the elite.

On the potential divisiveness of campaigns, I remember well the divorce and abortion referenda (seperate issues

), highly divisive indeed, but I don't recall one person saying they'd rather have no say and that we should leave it to politicians.

I think you may underestimate the Irish capacity to know when they are being sold a pig in a poke, we're not that easy to hoodwink hence zero scientologists here, and this would be more the case if we had access to the expert advice our politicians are getting, we don't need to understand the legal detail any more than when we're buying a house.

In summary, saying direct democracy won't work is given the erratum by the inconvenient truth that it's operating in practice in Switzerland, but as I've agreed with nesf we ought not go quite that far with it.

mattman wrote: »

fishing industry is in chaos

Caused by the global problems of declining fish stocks and increased fuel costs. A problem Ireland is incapable of handling. A stronger EU will better be able to manage these problems

mattman wrote: »

health care is a disaster

Caused by incompetent national politicians not by the EU and is a problem the EU is incapable of solving for us.

mattman wrote: »

pubs closing
rural business destroyed

Caused by the urbanisation of Irish society and is a by-product of our development. The only way to move people back to the countryside is to improve infrastructure which again falls under the responsibility of local and national government not the EU

mattman wrote: »

increasing suicide in ireland

hardly caused by the EU, again is a national/local issue

mattman wrote: »

cost of living has hit an all time high

You have obviously lived a very short time, there was a day when the majority of peoples income was spent on food, going out and enjoying life was a luxury most could not afford.

mattman wrote: »

government are telling us what to do

Do you not think they should express their opinion? I find Coir, Libertas, Sinn Fein and Eirigi far more pushy and preachy than the main parties.

mattman wrote: »

taxis are a complete rip off

Mainly caused by the taxi drivers themselves, a deregulated taxi market would drive down prices through competition. Again this has nothing to do with the EU.

mattman wrote: »

we voted on last referendum ..we rejected ..they re voted(and won)

Well if you didn't re-vote than that's your fault.

mattman wrote: »

Lose the right to make our own decision's

The government still makes most of our decisions, you don't seem so happy with them. Do you want to scrap the Irish constitution?

mattman wrote: »

Its a joke...Time to reject current government and vote no..

Then vote against them next general election. Get your friends and family to vote too. That's how representative democracy works.

mattman wrote: »

Only problem is most people wont even read it(even our own politicians)

I read it and didn't see a problem. If your read the referendum commission info on the treaty, you pretty much have everything you need to know and that is all anyone needs to know

mattman wrote: »

AND THEY ARE TELLING US TO VOTE YES?

WAKE UP...

M.

I am voting yes and I am awake, but I am tired and it is late so I shall got to sleep. Goodnight.

democrates wrote: »

On the potential divisiveness of campaigns, I remember well the divorce and abortion referenda (seperate issues ), highly divisive indeed, but I don't recall one person saying they'd rather have no say and that we should leave it to politicians.

These are two simple issues which although divisive are easily understood. Everyone who votes for these issues are generally informed and know why they are voting. On a complex issues like an international treaty which is hundreds of pages long and contains both benefits in return for some compromises is unfortunately beyond a lot of people. This is generally not due to a lack of intelligence but rather a lack of effort to inform themselves and to understand. A lot of people generally believe the first thing they hear regardless of the facts. So while I agree simple single issue referenda are good, referenda on complex treaties are not the way to go.

democrates wrote: »

I think you may underestimate the Irish capacity to know when they are being sold a pig in a poke,

I think you overestimate it. Catholic church anyone?

democrates wrote: »

In theory we'd face the risk that people will do something incredibly stupid like vote for 10% income tax and 50% corporation tax, but I've not met anyone that stupid in this country for a long time, if they are here they are in the minority.

I meet people like that all the time. Which part of the country are you from because I want to move there.

democrates wrote: »

Privatising eircom was supposed to be the best thing for Ireland, Shannon-Heathrow was not at risk in privatising Aer Lingus, decentralisation was the way forward, now on health we're back to centres of excellence, E-voting was brilliant, the list goes on.

I would say that privatising the telecoms industry was a success. Granted it didn't go will for eircom or their stockholders but we now have competition and as a result a cheaper and more efficient service. Although the infrastructure needs to be funded in part by the government as private industry can't afford to do this on their own. Also the privatisation has saved the tax-payer a lot of money. Aer Lingus was loosing money and was being bankrolled by the government, it is now making a profit and providing a cheaper service. If the demand is there at shannon there will be other airlines to pick up the slack and fly customers to other hubs in Europe, Heathrow isn't the only game in town. The decentralisation and e-voting were unmitigated disasters due to lack of foresight. I think that the HSE could have been a success if they let that Canadian bloke get on with it but the politicians kept on meddling and bowing to union pressure, in the end he had to quit as he couldn't do his job.

democrates wrote: »

Some of this dealt with in my reply to nesf.

The first protection is that a petition requires N signatures to trigger a referendum, a percentage of the electorate picked to balance between feasibility and nuisance-filtering.

Of course.

democrates wrote: »

At times yes, a minority will cause the majority to traipse down to vote no. In practice, and I mean in real practice here as opposed to your theoretical in practice, in Switzerland where they've been operating an even more direct version of citizen involvement than I propose, this rarely happens, and it makes sense because there's little point in all that effort if the proposal is likely to be defeated.

On the other hand, California, which also has a referendum system like the one you propose, runs 'nuisance referendums' pretty frequently.

democrates wrote: »

As to most people not being interested in politics, and I do perceive a 'whatever' resigned attitude in some of our younger generation (though it's also a perennial feature among youth), one of the reasons this holds some truth is that there's little to gain from thinking about politics - because we have so little say! Elect someone and hope for the best just doesn't cut it.

I don't know about that. The Irish don't discuss politics, full stop. There's a Eurobarometer survey that suggested we have amongst the lowest levels of political discussion in Europe (between friends, that is), and it didn't vary a jot during the general election.

I would say the reason that we don't discuss it, by and large, is because we're not particularly interested in ideological discussions or stances. Our parties are largely pragmatic and managerial, rather than ideological, our allegiance to them largely tribal - and there's no point in discussing tribal affiliations, really.

One can see that as evidence that the political interest of the people is being suppressed, or in some way disengaged - but an equally reasonable proposition is that it suits us.

democrates wrote: »

Also politics is a narrow field that would rarely come up for referendum, most people however are very concerned with jobs, health, education, etc. and would gladly vote to protect and advance these.

Give people a say, and they'll step up to the plate. Generally speaking the Irish people have an opinion on everything, and I think it's a cruel world for young people to come into feeling that they are virtually powerless pawns in a game run by the elite.

As per above.

democrates wrote: »

On the potential divisiveness of campaigns, I remember well the divorce and abortion referenda (seperate issues ), highly divisive indeed, but I don't recall one person saying they'd rather have no say and that we should leave it to politicians.

On the other hand, the turnout is not overwhelming...would it really increase if there were more referendums?

democrates wrote: »

I think you may underestimate the Irish capacity to know when they are being sold a pig in a poke, we're not that easy to hoodwink hence zero scientologists here, and this would be more the case if we had access to the expert advice our politicians are getting, we don't need to understand the legal detail any more than when we're buying a house.

I'm relying on that to deliver a Yes vote!

democrates wrote: »

In summary, saying direct democracy won't work is given the erratum by the inconvenient truth that it's operating in practice in Switzerland, but as I've agreed with nesf we ought not go quite that far with it.

Well, I haven't said it won't work. I always vote, and would vote, almost certainly, in minor referendums too. However, Switzerland is not the only possible outcome - California is also possible.

cordially,
Scofflaw

stink_fist

Because of the slyness and the whole "in your face" attitude towards it.

sink wrote: »

So while I agree simple single issue referenda are good, referenda on complex treaties are not the way to go.

I agree, instead of a mass of issues rolled into one great do or die virtual ultimatum, I'd much prefer dealing with one or two issues at a time.

sink wrote: »

I think you overestimate it. Catholic church anyone?

It's a long time since the moving statue, and particularly since the scandals the sway of the church is ancient history.

sink wrote: »

I meet people like that all the time. Which part of the country are you from because I want to move there.

It's on my mini-profile to your left. I know it's tempting when people don't agree with you to just write them off as fools, but aside from it being insulting, it doesn't credit the full story of why they have that view. A bit of digging can be revealing, everyone has a story to tell, and if you don't start out expecting to convince, you can have a perfectly civil and potentially productive exchange of views.

I used to be in mensa but left because they are elitist and refused to even publish my proposal on a non-exam membership level, their constitution states they are established to benefit all mankind, but 98% are excluded from joining. I could easily take an elitist position, but it flies in the face of my ethics, I refuse to make people feel stupid, and wouldn't have the arrogance to presume that I or any other clever clogs ought to be able to dictate to others what laws should govern their lives, which I see as monsterous. I'd prefer to be like Forrest Gump than like Hitler.

sink wrote: »

I would say that privatising the telecoms industry was a success. Granted it didn't go will for eircom or their stockholders but we now have competition and as a result a cheaper and more efficient service. Although the infrastructure needs to be funded in part by the government as private industry can't afford to do this on their own. Also the privatisation has saved the tax-payer a lot of money.

I'm ex-eircom, an eircom shareholder, and a customer. Even politicians now admit that we shouldn't sell off critical infrastructure but I haven't heard any of the architects admit it was a mistake (open to correction).

Competition was not enabled by privatising eircom, semi-state ownership was no impediment to changing market rules. In fact the privatised eircom being profit-driven got into an extreme trench war with comreg over local loop unbundling and competition in general, why cannibalise the call minutes gravy train after all. As to taxpayer benefit, as a semi-state Telecom Eireann paid 100's of millions in annual dividends to the exchequer, asset stripped eircom does not.

sink wrote: »

Aer Lingus was loosing money and was being bankrolled by the government, it is now making a profit and providing a cheaper service. If the demand is there at shannon there will be other airlines to pick up the slack and fly customers to other hubs in Europe, Heathrow isn't the only game in town.

My point there is that assurances from politicians were once again, dead wrong.

sink wrote: »

The decentralisation and e-voting were unmitigated disasters due to lack of foresight.

We're agreed that a few minds can be short-sighted and make mistakes.

sink wrote: »

I think that the HSE could have been a success if they let that Canadian bloke get on with it but the politicians kept on meddling and bowing to union pressure, in the end he had to quit as he couldn't do his job.

I'm not fully au fait with the union situation there, I know the conosultants contract was an epic struggle. The HSE was set up poorly by our politicians, too many administrators and to give them jobs means more red tape. Worse, where's the accountability? Like County Managers, they seem to be untouchables.

Scofflaw wrote: »

On the other hand, California, which also has a referendum system like the one you propose, runs 'nuisance referendums' pretty frequently.

Increase N, simple as.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't know about that. The Irish don't discuss politics, full stop. There's a Eurobarometer survey that suggested we have amongst the lowest levels of political discussion in Europe (between friends, that is), and it didn't vary a jot during the general election.

I would say the reason that we don't discuss it, by and large, is because we're not particularly interested in ideological discussions or stances. Our parties are largely pragmatic and managerial, rather than ideological, our allegiance to them largely tribal - and there's no point in discussing tribal affiliations, really.

One can see that as evidence that the political interest of the people is being suppressed, or in some way disengaged - but an equally reasonable proposition is that it suits us.

As per above.

But I think it's a language issue in how the question is framed, a link to the questionnaire if you have it would be revealing on this theory. People will of course say they aren't interested in politics, but if you ask them are they concerned if their child school is rat-infested or if they want more police on the beat or if they want A&E trolley bingo sorted you'll get solid engagement, no end of discussion.

Scofflaw wrote: »

On the other hand, the turnout is not overwhelming...would it really increase if there were more referendums?

I'm not sure about the Californian or Swiss stats on voter turnout, and I won't be so soothish as to speculate on a potential Irish result, but I've seen no reports of that being a problem where it is in operation.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm relying on that to deliver a Yes vote!

Touche, set that up didn't I

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, I haven't said it won't work. I always vote, and would vote, almost certainly, in minor referendums too. However, Switzerland is not the only possible outcome - California is also possible.

Yes over half the states in the union have some form of citizen petition, it's not there at the federal level so I didn't use them as an example. In short if this were in practice a plague on the people, I'm sure they'd quickly give it up. On the contrary it's strongly supported, by the people that is, so called Libertarian think tanks (in actuality anarcho-capitalists) hate it because citizens have a tendency not to support corporate hegemony.

democrates wrote: »

Increase N, simple as.

Not an infinitely expandable solution, of course!

democrates wrote: »

But I think it's a language issue in how the question is framed, a link to the questionnaire if you have it would be revealing on this theory. People will of course say they aren't interested in politics, but if you ask them are they concerned if their child school is rat-infested or if they want more police on the beat or if they want A&E trolley bingo sorted you'll get solid engagement, no end of discussion.

This was the Eurobarometer question:

When you get together with friends, would you say you discuss political matters frequently, occasionally, or never?

democrates wrote: »

I'm not sure about the Californian or Swiss stats on voter turnout, and I won't be so soothish as to speculate on a potential Irish result, but I've seen no reports of that being a problem where it is in operation.

Touche, set that up didn't I

Posed conveniently for the blow, as they say.

democrates wrote: »

Yes over half the states in the union have some form of citizen petition, it's not there at the federal level so I didn't use them as an example. In short if this were in practice a plague on the people, I'm sure they'd quickly give it up. On the contrary it's strongly supported, by the people that is, so called Libertarian think tanks (in actuality anarcho-capitalists) hate it because citizens have a tendency not to support corporate hegemony.

Hmm. However, again, taking the Swiss as an example - when the incinerator in Ringsend question loomed large, I remember coming across a poll conducted in Switzerland on the question of municipal dumps/incinerators. The question asked was "would you accept that such a dump be sited in your locality, if that were recommended" - to which the majority answer was "yes, it has to go somewhere, we can't avoid our civic duties". The Irish answer would appear to be quite different. Similarly, we have an oppositional political (and legal) culture, rather than a consensual one, but a consensual social culture rather than an oppositional one. That will all make a difference, it seems to me, in the practice of running regular referendums.

Personally I'm a big fan of referendums. I would prefer to see direct democracy wherever possible - ideally, push-button voting on nearly every issue - if we're going for the ideal. However, there simply isn't anything I can do about the electorate. They're not sheep, but they have other concerns, and most people don't have the spare time in their lives to make themselves sufficiently expert on each issue to deliver a meaningful vote on them. That's why people are comfortable delegating their sovereignty - not because they have been fooled, but because they want to get on with other things. It's an imperfect compromise, but it is, however imperfect, the will of the people.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Húrin

I intend to vote No because I want economic growth to cease.

Húrin wrote: »

I intend to vote No because I want economic growth to cease.

Wow, a bible basher who wants us to suffer for our sins perhaps?

oscarBravo

Careful now.

genericgoon

Down with that sort of thing. (And economic growth in ireland is going to be on hiatus(or just going to be virtually invisible) for the next few years anyways.)

It wasn't me!

Húrin wrote: »

I intend to vote No because I want economic growth to cease.

sink wrote: »

Wow, a bible basher who wants us to suffer for our sins perhaps?

I took that to be sarcasm, tbh.

nesf

democrates wrote: »

First of all we're already in that boat with constitutional referenda, and even the experts got it wrong a few times as we've seen by the inadvertant loopholes which have arisen from some changes and required repeat referenda or emergency legislation. This imperfection or risk hasn't led to calls to abandon the people's ownership of the constitution as the prime document of law in the state.

I don't view that as a problem though, or as a mark against a constitutional system. So long as we have a) A well functioning legal system to analyse and recommend solutions to these problems and b) The ability through legislation or referenda to alter the constitution to deal with the loopholes and issues, we can make things work. The only problem comes when the constitution is fixed and "timeless" in my opinion, the law should reflect the wishes of the people to some extent after all.

democrates wrote: »

Secondly, even politicians we elect to represent us haven't read the Lisbon treaty, they're not legal experts either, what they do is get expert advice, they don't have to understand the detail. We can equally be presented with the expert advice our taxes paid for, and make our determination based on that as well as arguments from proponents and opponents.

I'm sure some of the more legally minded politicians have probably read it but certainly some or most of them haven't but this isn't really a problem. We don't elect politicians based on their ability to analyse legal documents, we have legal professionals and an independent judiciary to do that for us. The argument that because a politician hasn't read the Treaty in full that they can't have an educated opinion on it is a straw man at best.

democrates wrote: »

In theory we'd face the risk that people will do something incredibly stupid like vote for 10% income tax and 50% corporation tax, but I've not met anyone that stupid in this country for a long time, if they are here they are in the minority. The majority voted FF etc back in despite having major issues over healthcare etc, and leaving aside the shrinking core of die-hards, the swing voters did not perceive the alternative as a better option for 'safe hands' with the economy. Hardly a reckless bunch us Paddies when it comes to our income prospects.

I'm not worried about the people doing something as stupid as that. What would worry me would be special interests shaping the debate and the terms of the debate in such a way to achieve results that are in their interests and not the public's interests. Again back on the legalistic point, if a document is sufficiently complicated, it is very easy to mislead people as to its actual contents. I'm not convinced that the people should have the say on this kind of document, I'm even sure if it's in their interest to have direct democratic control in this instance. Surely delegating this power to others whose job it is to consider these documents in the best interests or their constituents or mandate is a more efficient and pragmatic solution? Is it open to abuse, sure but I'm not overly convinced that direct democracy is any less open to abuse.

democrates wrote: »

That still doesn't rule out the possibility of citizens making a mistake. But our political representatives also make mistakes, despite advice from senior civil servants and myriad consultants - which we should have at our disposal. Privatising eircom was supposed to be the best thing for Ireland, Shannon-Heathrow was not at risk in privatising Aer Lingus, decentralisation was the way forward, now on health we're back to centres of excellence, E-voting was brilliant, the list goes on. I'm being charitable calling these mistakes, every one benefitted private interests at the expense of the people.

Politicians, civil servants, etc both make mistakes and are open to influence by special interests out for their own gain. I think every rational person accepts this. The thing is, a) what to do about it? and b) is direct democracy any less open to the influence of special interests and pressure groups? (look at some of the groups on the Yes and No side if you want an answer to this)

democrates wrote: »

There's no perfect solution, but on balance providing a formal citizen petition to trigger a referendum has a risk I can sleep easier with than the risk of a powerful few shafting all of us.

I agree with you, there is no perfect solution and I'm certainly not a person who thinks the status quo arrangement of power is the best we could have, I'm just worried about the combination of the potential for abuse by special interests and voter fatigue/apathy with a triggered referendum system, that and the extra costs incurred by such a system. Referendums aren't exactly cheap. Would the cost bring a sufficient benefit to make it a sensible use of public funds?

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I took that to be sarcasm, tbh.

I thought so too, but his siggy makes me doubt.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not an infinitely expandable solution, of course!

Indeed, imperfection in all it's glory. The day someone proposes a perfect system composed of imperfect humans I'll eat my hat, which I'll make out of perfect fudge.

Scofflaw wrote: »

This was the Eurobarometer question:

When you get together with friends, would you say you discuss political matters frequently, occasionally, or never?

Nice one. That's what I suspected ok, the term "political matters" is a solid frame for most Irish people, that's like asking them if they discuss Dail debates when they're socialising, ie. are you a total bore, in addition there's a strong cultural element, we Irish have pub rules like "never discuss religion or politics", the latter a hangover from the civil war. If the question were about the things that effect peoples lives like A&E, VRT, etc, I bet we opiners would get a higher score.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. However, again, taking the Swiss as an example - when the incinerator in Ringsend question loomed large, I remember coming across a poll conducted in Switzerland on the question of municipal dumps/incinerators. The question asked was "would you accept that such a dump be sited in your locality, if that were recommended" - to which the majority answer was "yes, it has to go somewhere, we can't avoid our civic duties". The Irish answer would appear to be quite different. Similarly, we have an oppositional political (and legal) culture, rather than a consensual one, but a consensual social culture rather than an oppositional one. That will all make a difference, it seems to me, in the practice of running regular referendums.

That's an undeniable difference ok, some of the vitriol when Irish people take to the streets is disappointing. In addition, you can play "Resource Bingo" when any of the ills of the nation are discussed on questions and answers, prime time, etc, you're guaranteed at some point the word "resource" will come up, always more cash needed from 'them' or 'they'.

I think all the Celtic Tiger hyperbole and property boom raised expectations of public services and quality of life beyond national and personal budgetary reality respectively. The truth is some people made a fortune, we all saw this, we all heard how "d'economy" was great, but the truth is most people made modest gains and so did the exchequer - relative to what people seem to think it can deliver.

In all of this there's a clear disconnect between citizens and the body politic, between expectations and practical possibility. I see the lack of sufficient direct involvement in decision-making as a key contributor, it's how we're raised. In contrast the Swiss have a direct say, and the risk of adverse consequences in the event of unwise voting encourages them to take a responsible approach.

The Swiss are no master race, direct democracy was first introduced to bring peace to the savagely warring cantons, and developed ever since to include the common citizenry though I think they went too far. The Irish are no servant race, and I believe given responsibility will wear it well, the bonus: politicians would not be so easy to demonise since citizens share responsibility.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Personally I'm a big fan of referendums. I would prefer to see direct democracy wherever possible - ideally, push-button voting on nearly every issue - if we're going for the ideal. However, there simply isn't anything I can do about the electorate. They're not sheep, but they have other concerns, and most people don't have the spare time in their lives to make themselves sufficiently expert on each issue to deliver a meaningful vote on them. That's why people are comfortable delegating their sovereignty - not because they have been fooled, but because they want to get on with other things. It's an imperfect compromise, but it is, however imperfect, the will of the people.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The problem with the "will of the people" thesis is that we've never been asked if we'd like a direct say, our will on this point has never been given the chance to be expressed, not even a poll taken that I've ever heard of.

Instead we're given a choice framed as, a) vote yes for more distant representative democracy and the certainty of goodness, or vote no to keep the current representative democracy and suffer uncertainty and badness. Not much of a choice if you believe those are really the only options.

demokrates wrote:

The problem with the "will of the people" thesis is that we've never been asked if we'd like a direct say, our will on this point has never been given the chance to be expressed, not even a poll taken that I've ever heard of.

Instead we're given a choice framed as, a) vote yes for more distant representative democracy and the certainty of goodness, or vote no to keep the current representative democracy and suffer uncertainty and badness. Not much of a choice if you believe those are really the only options.

I accept what you're saying there to a fair extent - but where is the movement for such a system as you propose? Is there even a single, sad, solitary website advocating it?

That's not knocking - it's just that these sorts of proposals come up briefly when a referendum churns the otherwise largely unruffled waters of the electorate - only to sink without trace once it's over. What does that suggest to you?

cordially,
Scofflaw

gaf1983

The Libertas banner ad that just flashed across the top of boards.ie. Very effective: flashes about 5 reasons to vote no in quick succession, giving the reader hardly enough time to absorb them never mind come up with counterarguments to them.

I'm actually going to vote yes, but I still think that the Libertas ad was one of the more effective ones I've seen this campaign.

nesf wrote: »

I don't view that as a problem though, or as a mark against a constitutional system. So long as we have a) A well functioning legal system to analyse and recommend solutions to these problems and b) The ability through legislation or referenda to alter the constitution to deal with the loopholes and issues, we can make things work. The only problem comes when the constitution is fixed and "timeless" in my opinion, the law should reflect the wishes of the people to some extent after all.

We're totally in agreement on this, but let alone do I believe the people should have full and exclusive ownership of the constitution, but also that we should have the option of petitioning for a referendum on both the constitution and legislation.

nesf wrote: »

I'm sure some of the more legally minded politicians have probably read it but certainly some or most of them haven't but this isn't really a problem. We don't elect politicians based on their ability to analyse legal documents, we have legal professionals and an independent judiciary to do that for us. The argument that because a politician hasn't read the Treaty in full that they can't have an educated opinion on it is a straw man at best.

I obviously worded that poorly, I'm not rebuking politicians for not reading it and agree with the safeguard of expert advice you've outlined, my point is that instead of this being the jealously guarded preserve of politicians, it should be available to the public to aid in our deliberation in advance of a referendum.

nesf wrote: »

I'm not worried about the people doing something as stupid as that. What would worry me would be special interests shaping the debate and the terms of the debate in such a way to achieve results that are in their interests and not the public's interests. Again back on the legalistic point, if a document is sufficiently complicated, it is very easy to mislead people as to its actual contents. I'm not convinced that the people should have the say on this kind of document, I'm even sure if it's in their interest to have direct democratic control in this instance. Surely delegating this power to others whose job it is to consider these documents in the best interests or their constituents or mandate is a more efficient and pragmatic solution? Is it open to abuse, sure but I'm not overly convinced that direct democracy is any less open to abuse.

If professional advice gives guidance to politicians in complex cases, it can do so for a couple of million citizens brains, it's like open source code, more eyes to spot bugs = better code, or in this case law.

As to who you can trust, I'll wager the many who just want a decent life are a safer bet, than a few who clearly want to be in power and present a far more convenient influence opportunity to vested interests than the many with whom there is a much greater likelihood subterfuge will be spotted and highlighted.

On both trustworthiness and competence (given the same access to professional advice), I see the many as a far safer bet than the few.

nesf wrote: »

Politicians, civil servants, etc both make mistakes and are open to influence by special interests out for their own gain. I think every rational person accepts this. The thing is, a) what to do about it? and b) is direct democracy any less open to the influence of special interests and pressure groups? (look at some of the groups on the Yes and No side if you want an answer to this)

It always looks worse than it is, the extremists provide a media spectacle so get plenty of coverage, but the silent majority ultimately get to vote moderately.

As I've argued above, yes, I think a measure of direct democracy provides a difficult target for SIG's, the more extreme they are the more they're ignored. Dun Laoghaire people had to take to the streets en masse to prevent the privatisation of the foreshore. The scheme suited developers but not the people, how come our local 'representatives' were trying to do this?

You conclude the current system worked ok there, but it took a measure of such outrageousness that the people marched to save the day. Business as usual tends to be lots of little measures, of the bad ones rare is the case that sufficient public opposition arises to halt it, but if they were all rolled into one there would be outrage.

In a way that's what the EU has done over the years, I voted yes to previous treaties without fully considering the overall direction of the new arrangements and their implications, I came to regret doing so.

nesf wrote: »

I agree with you, there is no perfect solution and I'm certainly not a person who thinks the status quo arrangement of power is the best we could have, I'm just worried about the combination of the potential for abuse by special interests and voter fatigue/apathy with a triggered referendum system, that and the extra costs incurred by such a system. Referendums aren't exactly cheap. Would the cost bring a sufficient benefit to make it a sensible use of public funds?

If a snapshot of current attitudes to Lisbon were a fixed representation of all we could ever be, I'd agree.

But just look at how profoundly attitudes have changed over the last twenty five years, we can and do change, and radically so, we adapt to new circumstances, aside from the lessons of history, I've personally seen countless occasions where business as usual was interrupted by some unexpected challenge, and people instantly changed tack to deal with it.

I believe if the sun rises on a new day when people have the option of being directly included in decision-making, it would trigger an appropriate change in attitudes, no doubt the adaption pace would follow the usual bell curve

Scofflaw wrote: »

I accept what you're saying there to a fair extent - but where is the movement for such a system as you propose? Is there even a single, sad, solitary website advocating it?

That's not knocking - it's just that these sorts of proposals come up briefly when a referendum churns the otherwise largely unruffled waters of the electorate - only to sink without trace once it's over. What does that suggest to you?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Was just thinking around the edges of that point! Where were Libertas before the Lisbon treaty, and where will they be after, if it is true that their prime motivation is a better Europe, maybe the treaty forced people to take a position, time will tell if they're in it for the long haul.

My best guess on Lisbon is that like the last general election, many people are too afraid to rock the boat, more so in this worsening economic weather than then, and that it'll be a yes. I'm not dismissing all yes voters as merely fearful, clearly there are well considered positions among those in support, but I think fear will play a significant role among the currently undecided, uncertain as they are.

My history of posts on boards should distance me from fashionistas, this is part of a long term evolution of views for me, and why would I not engage in this major discussion. It's been well worthwhile with plenty of points to consider. I think it's important to present views for wider scrutiny, otherwise all one has is ivory tower material.

Thing is, with a yes to Lisbon the EU will settle administratively, and increasingly adverse global conditions will set the odds against direct democracy as it pales into a "nice to have" idea relative to biting crises of resources and security. History shows that adverse circumstances can bring out the best or worst in people, let's all hope for the best.

nesf

democrates wrote: »

As I've argued above, yes, I think a measure of direct democracy provides a difficult target for SIG's, the more extreme they are the more they're ignored.

If you make being more appealing during referendums a better strategy for SIG's won't they just adapt to suit the new system?

The more extreme ones aren't trying to win over the majority of people in the Lisbon debate, they're just trying to stir up a good turnout in the small minority of people who find them appealing.

Seriously, I don't think that introducing the direct mandate and more frequent elections would remove the influence of SIG's. It might even make things worse.

nesf wrote: »

If you make being more appealing during referendums a better strategy for SIG's won't they just adapt to suit the new system?

The more extreme ones aren't trying to win over the majority of people in the Lisbon debate, they're just trying to stir up a good turnout in the small minority of people who find them appealing.

Seriously, I don't think that introducing the direct mandate and more frequent elections would remove the influence of SIG's. It might even make things worse.

You're right, SIG's and private interests will adapt to whatever the situation, that's no guarantee they'll be successful. It's much easier to bribe give a dig-out to a few politicians than persuade a majority of citizens to vote a certain way.

nesf wrote: »

Seriously, I don't think that introducing the direct mandate and more frequent elections would remove the influence of SIG's. It might even make things worse.

Agreed! SIG's are generally made up of people who have alot to gain by pushing their agenda and are highly motivated and well organised. Joe public who only has a small amount to loose or is unaware of the dangers of a SIG's agenda, in not motivated and they are certainly not organised so they would be less likely to partake in a referenda giving the minority SIG a huge advantage.

democrates wrote: »

You're right, SIG's and private interests will adapt to whatever the situation, that's no guarantee they'll be successful. It's much easier to bribe give a dig-out to a few politicians than persuade a majority of citizens to vote a certain way.

It's not easy to bribe a politician these days and it's getting more difficult. The risks for a politician are simply too great. These are ambitious people who are generally more in it for the power and prestige than the money. If only we had stronger courts who could make serious examples out of corrupt politicians corruption could be almost be stamped out.

Hotblack Desiato

sink wrote: »

It's not easy to bribe a politician these days and it's getting more difficult.

Higher prices?

The risks for a politician are simply too great. These are ambitious people who are generally more in it for the power and prestige than the money. If only we had stronger courts who could make serious examples out of corrupt politicians corruption could be almost be stamped out.

I wouldn't say the risks are simply too great, at all at all.
Other countries with a history of actually rooting out this stuff and dealing with it in the criminal courts not meaningless meandering tribunals, still suffer the odd case of corruption. You can deter it but not eliminate it.

ninja900 wrote: »

I wouldn't say the risks are simply too great, at all at all.
Other countries with a history of actually rooting out this stuff and dealing with it in the criminal courts not meaningless meandering tribunals, still suffer the odd case of corruption. You can deter it but not eliminate it.

Of course it will never be stamped out, but you can decrease it to such a degree that it's almost a non issue. In today's digitalised 24hr media information culture it's getting harder and harder to hide anything from the public forever.