Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Death of Democracy?

  • 04-09-2008 2:40am
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭


    Watching the Republican convention on the hypno-box, and I'm really starting to despair for Government in the West. There's an old saying that the people get the government they deserve, and I'm starting to realise that this is indeed true. The Republicans come out with the same tired old arguments they used successfully against Kerry last time around (9/11, terrorism, security of your children, flip-flop decisions of Obama etc.). I'm tired of watching the braying masses lap up this bull****, screaming and applauding these slimy politicians and their cheap shots. I would love to see what US politicians like Lincoln, Eisenhower or JFK would make of it all.

    At one point, the crowd started chanting "drill baby drill" in response to the Republican's announcement that their plan to end reliance on foreign oil was to conduct off shore drilling of US deposits. Sorry, but that isn't progress, it's a continuation of the energy status-quo.

    It's a media circus and a farce, and has been since the days of Reagan to be honest. In Europe, we're told that there will be a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty, just like with Nice. I mean, is it any wonder there are conspiracy theorists when this mass manipulation and ignoring of the will of the people is so apparent today?

    Maybe, just maybe Obama will be elected and do something, and maybe the EU assimilation Reich will respect our decision... maybe. What are your thoughts?


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Look up McCain on wikipedia and you'll see what he actually believes. Ya really have to remember how stupid Americans are, and if lying gets McCain into power then I don't mind.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Well Kernel shockingly I'm agreeing with you once again. :)

    You listen to politicians at these conventions and honestly I think most Irish people would laugh if they were told some of this absolute ****e. Not to say we don't swallow our fair share but the Americans do some epic swallowing. The American politicians are in a situation in that if they don't pander to almost every side they just can't get elected. The only way to do this is to tell an awful lot of people what they want to hear. Obama is the best of the candidates but I really don't know if that's saying a lot.

    You do get the government you deserve, you only have to look at Ireland right now to see that. Our own politicians want the Lisbon treaty so, in fairness, the EU don't need to force them.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    I really have to figure out why my lunchtime posts disapear/dont post.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,182 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    I watched snippets of the address Palin gave to the republican convention and was horrified. She is so full of sh1t, I hear she's a creationist and she wants it taught in schools. And didn't she want certain books banned from Alaskan libraries, oh thats great, censorship rears its ugly head again. I mean who put her in charge of deciding what people can and can't read. Its the same with Tipper Gore. They think they can rule America like royalty and its a disgusting fact that they do. A lot of Americans are so ignorant, its not their fault its the culture...I wonder if its to do with a general culture of extroversion, instead of thinking for oneself be like everyone else to be popular...which leads to a mob mentality or lack of thought. If the American public vote for the republicans again the whole world is up sh1t creek.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 85 ✭✭Speer


    I would vote Republican if I could.They stand for family values and freedom with responsibility.Not very PC or liberal media friendly but it is worth supporting.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Speer wrote: »
    I would vote Republican if I could.They stand for family values and freedom with responsibility.Not very PC or liberal media friendly but it is worth supporting.

    That's what they stand for, I always wondered. I knew they said they stood for these things but in practise I just didn't believe it... actually wait I still don't. My mind boggles that any Irish person (assuming you are) would support the Republican party and what they really stand for. Not that it assumes you would support the democrats either, I just find them a little more palatable.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    meglome wrote: »
    Well Kernel shockingly I'm agreeing with you once again. :)

    Either I'm getting more mainstream or you're getting more CT! :p Anyway, it's all about demographics peeps.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭toiletduck


    Kernel wrote: »
    Maybe, just maybe Obama will be elected and do something

    Surely he'd have to be a card carrying member of the NWO to have gotten this far :pac:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    toiletduck wrote: »
    Surely he'd have to be a card carrying member of the NWO to have gotten this far :pac:

    True, true. He has got some serious backing. Brzezinski and the Trilateral Commission apparently. The republicans have Kissinger and the CFR. All sides of the same coin, however there is a chance that Obama will bring in some sensible policy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 85 ✭✭Speer


    McCain will be a good President.An honourable man who has served his country with distinction.Obama is a vacuous candidate who should never have been given the nomination.The Democrats blew it and Senator Kennedy really backed the wrong pony by endorsing Obama.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    Speer wrote: »
    McCain will be a good President.An honourable man who has served his country with distinction.

    Which policies of his or his party do you support?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,591 ✭✭✭Tristram


    Politics revolving around hype is nothing new. Kennedy was a master.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    Democracy has nothing to do with the quality of government. It has to do with people electing their own politicians and the losers accepting defeat. Americans will go to the polls in November and elect who they damn well like. It's undemocratic to bemoan their decision, no matter how stupid it may be.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    Democracy has nothing to do with the quality of government. It has to do with people electing their own politicians and the losers accepting defeat. Americans will go to the polls in November and elect who they damn well like. It's undemocratic to bemoan their decision, no matter how stupid it may be.

    That's true, however the referendum that Biffo wants to stage again is undemocratic. As was the replay of the Nice Treaty referendum. I predict referenda will be knocked on the head soon.

    Another point worth considering in the US elections, is that all the media hype and the circus that takes to the road to brainwash the public costs a lot of money. No wonder lobbyists have so much sway in Washington. It also makes a two horse race, whereby it is virtually impossible for a non-partisan politician to be elected as president. It's a perverted form of democracy rather than democracy in it's true spirit.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Kernel wrote: »
    I predict referenda will be knocked on the head soon.
    Here's hoping. Maybe then the government can get on with their job and not have to try and get idiots' permission to pass pieces of legislation like the Lisbon Treaty.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    amacachi wrote: »
    Here's hoping. Maybe then the government can get on with their job and not have to try and get idiots' permission to pass pieces of legislation like the Lisbon Treaty.

    I love it when people surrender their rights.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    There should be referendums on everything then? Who decides what rights everyone should have?


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,822 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Kernel wrote: »
    That's true, however the referendum that Biffo wants to stage again is undemocratic.
    Why? Will some of the electorate be prevented from voting? Will we ratify the treaty even if we vote "no" again?

    How far do you have to warp the definition of democracy before a referendum becomes undemocratic?
    Kernel wrote: »
    I love it when people surrender their rights.
    What rights would be surrendered by ratifying Lisbon?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    oscarBravo, did you read the treaty at all? All able-bodied persons aged 16-35 were going to be conscripted into the new EU army.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,822 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Sorry, I only read the real-world version.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    pfft, you're missing out then. The other one's got wizards and ninjas and everything.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    amacachi wrote: »
    There should be referendums on everything then? Who decides what rights everyone should have?

    The constitution decides what rights we have as Irish citizens. The constitution ensures that all citizens have the right to vote in a referendum on any changes to said constitution. The only time we have a referendum is when the basic constitution is to be amended, not for any other decisions.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Why? Will some of the electorate be prevented from voting? Will we ratify the treaty even if we vote "no" again?

    Because the idea of having x number of referenda is undemocratic where x = number of times to get result government desires. The government are put in place by the people and should respect the decisions of the people. I find this point obvious OscarBravo.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What rights would be surrendered by ratifying Lisbon?

    I've mentioned nothing of the Lisbon treaty being undemocratic - that quagmire has already been done on boards.

    The rights enshrined in an Bunreacht na hEireann guarantee the people a voice in changing it. This is the right that amacachi so readily wants to take away from 'idiots'.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,822 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Kernel wrote: »
    Because the idea of having x number of referenda is undemocratic where x = number of times to get result government desires. The government are put in place by the people and should respect the decisions of the people. I find this point obvious OscarBravo.
    So democracy means not having to vote too often on the same thing? If, for argument's sake, the Greens and independents pulled out of government, would you be offended at the idea of a general election, given that we would be voting on basically the same thing we voted on a couple of years ago?
    I've mentioned nothing of the Lisbon treaty being undemocratic - that quagmire has already been done on boards.
    My bad, sorry - I misinterpreted your point.
    The rights enshrined in an Bunreacht na hEireann guarantee the people a voice in changing it. This is the right that amacachi so readily wants to take away from 'idiots'.
    It could be argued that you also want to take away the voice of the people in changing the Consititution, by restricting the frequency with which they're given the option of changing it.

    You've stated your opposition to the second Nice referendum - but it clearly expressed the wish of the people. If you had your way, the people would have been denied the opportunity to make this change.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So democracy means not having to vote too often on the same thing? If, for argument's sake, the Greens and independents pulled out of government, would you be offended at the idea of a general election, given that we would be voting on basically the same thing we voted on a couple of years ago?

    Once a decision has been made then they should respect it at least for a decent period of time, rather than instantaneously declaring that the people got it wrong and there would be another referendum. Otherwise they are just pushing through their own wishes.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You've stated your opposition to the second Nice referendum - but it clearly expressed the wish of the people. If you had your way, the people would have been denied the opportunity to make this change.

    The second Nice treaty referendum was a farce. Bertie got all thick and declared that we didn't know what we were voting for, they would have another referendum and we better vote the right way... bullying tactics, not to mention the huge campaign to ensure it went through subsequently. That's not in keeping with the spirit of democracy, it's a bastardised version.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Everything's a bastardised version of democracy in fairness.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,822 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Kernel wrote: »
    Once a decision has been made then they should respect it at least for a decent period of time, rather than instantaneously declaring that the people got it wrong and there would be another referendum. Otherwise they are just pushing through their own wishes.
    With respect, that's not an answer. What's a decent period of time? Who sets the criterion for decency?
    The second Nice treaty referendum was a farce. Bertie got all thick and declared that we didn't know what we were voting for, they would have another referendum and we better vote the right way... bullying tactics, not to mention the huge campaign to ensure it went through subsequently.
    As I recall, the second Nice referendum ballot paper also had the "no" option on it. As I also recall, it had a different question on it.
    That's not in keeping with the spirit of democracy, it's a bastardised version.
    What is the spirit of democracy? As far as I can see, "democracy" is one of those words that's bandied about without too deep an understanding of what it actually means.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    With respect, that's not an answer. What's a decent period of time? Who sets the criterion for decency?

    Well, certainly you must realise that calling for a second referendum immediately after the result of the first one is not a decent period of time. 5 years, give it 5 years, or change the deal.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What is the spirit of democracy? As far as I can see, "democracy" is one of those words that's bandied about without too deep an understanding of what it actually means.

    Democracy is the people having the right to elect those who govern them. Our democracy also has rights enshrined in our constitution, which I agree with. The right to allow the people to vote when changing this core document is essential in my opinion. Otherwise the government could just decide to remove the parts about the right to the inviolability of one's dwelling, or the right to life, which has a wide ranging effect on many laws and rights enjoyed in this country. Do you disagree with this oscarBravo?


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,822 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Kernel wrote: »
    Well, certainly you must realise that calling for a second referendum immediately after the result of the first one is not a decent period of time.
    As far as I'm aware, the government have not said there will be another referendum, let alone set a date for one.
    5 years, give it 5 years...
    So you would object to an early election?
    ...or change the deal.
    Like they did with the second Nice referendum? As I've already pointed out, we voted on different propositions each time.
    Democracy is the people having the right to elect those who govern them.
    Strictly speaking, that's representative democracy, but fair enough.
    Our democracy also has rights enshrined in our constitution, which I agree with. The right to allow the people to vote when changing this core document is essential in my opinion. Otherwise the government could just decide to remove the parts about the right to the inviolability of one's dwelling, or the right to life, which has a wide ranging effect on many laws and rights enjoyed in this country. Do you disagree with this oscarBravo?
    Not at all. Where we differ is that I don't see the value in taking away people's right to make democratic decisions, for example by preventing them from voting for similar propositions within an arbitrary timeframe.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    As far as I'm aware, the government have not said there will be another referendum, let alone set a date for one.

    I read in the indo a couple of weeks back that Biffo stated there would be?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So you would object to an early election?

    No, not an election under the circumstances you've described. I'd consider an election different to a constitutional change/referendum anyways.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Like they did with the second Nice referendum? As I've already pointed out, we voted on different propositions each time. Strictly speaking, that's representative democracy, but fair enough. Not at all. Where we differ is that I don't see the value in taking away people's right to make democratic decisions, for example by preventing them from voting for similar propositions within an arbitrary timeframe.

    They slightly changed the Nice Treaty in order to make a second referendum justifiable. Completely unchanged treaty going for a second vote would have been seen as taking the piss and the media would have reacted more strongly against it. Politics is a game really, and within a democratic system there are certain rules, but there are also ways to bend the rules and play the system, which leads us to the kind of media circus, roadshow politics, lobbyist scenario which is on display in the vulgar US elections. Not the spirit of democracy as envisaged originally.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,822 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Kernel wrote: »
    I read in the indo a couple of weeks back that Biffo stated there would be?
    I was under the impression that it hadn't been ruled out, but that it also hadn't been decided on for certain. I'm open to correction.
    No, not an election under the circumstances you've described. I'd consider an election different to a constitutional change/referendum anyways.
    This is what I have a problem with. The word "democracy" means, in simple terms, "rule by the people." By that definition, "undemocratic" can only mean "inhibiting the people from ruling themselves."

    In order to see a repeat referendum as "undemocratic", you have to introduce a definition of "democracy" that has no bearing on the root words "demos" and "kratos". Once you do so, the term has lost all useful meaning anyway.
    They slightly changed the Nice Treaty in order to make a second referendum justifiable. Completely unchanged treaty going for a second vote would have been seen as taking the piss and the media would have reacted more strongly against it.
    On a point of order, they didn't change the Nice treaty one bit; but that's only marginally relevant, because we were voting on a constitutional amendment rather than on the treaty itself. The constitutional amendment was substantially altered, specifically to take account of some of the concerns that had been expressed around the time of the first referendum. Undemocratic? Hardly.
    Politics is a game really, and within a democratic system there are certain rules, but there are also ways to bend the rules and play the system, which leads us to the kind of media circus, roadshow politics, lobbyist scenario which is on display in the vulgar US elections. Not the spirit of democracy as envisaged originally.
    You want undemocratic? How about the party whip system? That's much more undemocratic than (shock, horror) asking people to vote on things.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Kernel wrote: »
    Democracy is the people having the right to elect those who govern them.

    You might want to reconsider that. Strictly speaking, that would mean that having referenda is unconstitutional. We elect "governance"...they should then do their job and govern us.

    Our democracy also has rights enshrined in our constitution, which I agree with.
    So you also see democracy as the right for the people to make some decisions seperate to their elected governance...okay....thats the "slight reconsideration" I was mentioning.

    Lets leave aside the sticky question of where to draw the line for a moment....
    The right to allow the people to vote when changing this core document is essential in my opinion. Otherwise the government could just decide to remove the parts about the right to the inviolability of one's dwelling, or the right to life, which has a wide ranging effect on many laws and rights enjoyed in this country.
    Excellent point.

    Now...show me where in the constitution it says how often we are allowed to suggest changes to the constitution, or the same area thereof, and how different one suggestion has to be from another before that limit does not apply.

    'Cause if it ain't there, then its a question for governance...and for them to make such a decision is exactly what we elected them for...which would be democracy in action, really.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    The real issue here is that "democracy" is all too undefined. Is it democratic that despite Al Gore getting 500,000 more votes in the 2000 election, the presidency went to Bush? Perhaps not. The logic behind this is "one man, one vote, one motion" is more persuasive than "let's respect individual states' independence". Of course if you use this ideal, Ireland should not have anything approaching a veto of Lisbon. So if you want to complain that suggesting a second vote is undemocratic you should be quick to defend the legitimacy of the USA's college electoral points.

    Of course there's something wrong there. The reason is that democracy is ill-defined, and certainly not synonymous with "good".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I was under the impression that it hadn't been ruled out, but that it also hadn't been decided on for certain. I'm open to correction.

    Perhaps I interpreted the article incorrectly, as far as I remember I was half asleep while reading the paper that day anyway. :) Call me a cynic, but when Biffo says that he doesn't rule out a second referendum, I take that to mean that there will be one!
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    In order to see a repeat referendum as "undemocratic", you have to introduce a definition of "democracy" that has no bearing on the root words "demos" and "kratos". Once you do so, the term has lost all useful meaning anyway.

    I think we're getting bogged down in semantics here. As I mentioned, the 'spirit' of democracy is where the issue of the second referendum (within a short period) is in conflict with.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    On a point of order, they didn't change the Nice treaty one bit; but that's only marginally relevant, because we were voting on a constitutional amendment rather than on the treaty itself. The constitutional amendment was substantially altered, specifically to take account of some of the concerns that had been expressed around the time of the first referendum.

    You are correct there, I was wrong to say that they changed the Treaty itself, but the point was that at least they changed the constitutional amendments to such an extent that we were re-voting on something which was somewhat different to the original.
    bonkey wrote:
    You might want to reconsider that. Strictly speaking, that would mean that having referenda is unconstitutional. We elect "governance"...they should then do their job and govern us.

    I understand that we elect a government to represent us, but I also continued to say that we enjoyed an extra democratic process within the constitution whereby we can hold a referendum to decide on whether to alter that constitution.
    bonkey wrote:
    Now...show me where in the constitution it says how often we are allowed to suggest changes to the constitution, or the same area thereof, and how different one suggestion has to be from another before that limit does not apply.

    As you know, it doesn't specify this in the constitution. It's an issue that should be addressed and it's my whole point of the democratic system being bent and manipulated in ways which are against the spirit in which it was intended. Those who enshrined the right to have a referendum at the founding of the State surely did not expect that the government could have a revoting of referenda every week until they achieved their desired result. The spirit of the provision was that the people of Ireland would decide on the evolution of the constitution and corcordantly the State itself. Such things are now bypassed, bent and treated as a hindrance. We even have a poster in this thread who wants to do away with the silly referendum idea, and thus give the citizens of the State no control over future constitutional amendments. I understand your point on democracy in action Bonkey, do you understand my point on the spirit rather than the letter? That is why we have Supreme Court judges after all, to interpret the spirit.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    Is it democratic that despite Al Gore getting 500,000 more votes in the 2000 election, the presidency went to Bush? Perhaps not. The logic behind this is "one man, one vote, one motion" is more persuasive than "let's respect individual states' independence". Of course if you use this ideal, Ireland should not have anything approaching a veto of Lisbon. So if you want to complain that suggesting a second vote is undemocratic you should be quick to defend the legitimacy of the USA's college electoral points.

    I'm not sure I'm following you here, but it is late... Are you saying that the idea of proportional representation should not allow Ireland to veto the treaty? If so, once the treaty is passed, then such proportional representation will be cemented in the European Parliament anyways. Can you extrapolate a little for me - I'm just a silly tin foil hat brigade member after all! ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,822 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Kernel wrote: »
    I think we're getting bogged down in semantics here. As I mentioned, the 'spirit' of democracy is where the issue of the second referendum (within a short period) is in conflict with.
    I don't think it's semantics to ask why it's considered undemocratic to ask people to vote on something. If you're going to claim that something is counter to the spirit of democracy, then you're going to have to define the spirit of democracy, and explain why your definition of it is valid.
    You are correct there, I was wrong to say that they changed the Treaty itself, but the point was that at least they changed the constitutional amendments to such an extent that we were re-voting on something which was somewhat different to the original.
    So, why was it undemocratic to vote on a different proposition the second time around? - especially when the second proposition directly addressed concerns that were expressed in the aftermath of the first.
    As you know, it doesn't specify this in the constitution. It's an issue that should be addressed and it's my whole point of the democratic system being bent and manipulated in ways which are against the spirit in which it was intended. Those who enshrined the right to have a referendum at the founding of the State surely did not expect that the government could have a revoting of referenda every week until they achieved their desired result.
    What do you think the outcome would be of a government holding a referendum every week on the same proposition?
    The spirit of the provision was that the people of Ireland would decide on the evolution of the constitution and corcordantly the State itself. Such things are now bypassed, bent and treated as a hindrance. We even have a poster in this thread who wants to do away with the silly referendum idea, and thus give the citizens of the State no control over future constitutional amendments. I understand your point on democracy in action Bonkey, do you understand my point on the spirit rather than the letter? That is why we have Supreme Court judges after all, to interpret the spirit.
    The Supreme Court interprets constitutionality, not the "spirit of democracy".

    But let's say, hypothetically, that a second Lisbon referendum were called within a year of the first, and someone were to bring a Supreme Court challenge to the validity of such a referendum. What do you suppose the Court's ruling would be?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    Kernel wrote: »
    I'm not sure I'm following you here, but it is late... Are you saying that the idea of proportional representation should not allow Ireland to veto the treaty?
    I'm saying there are competing and somewhat exclusive definitions of democracy.

    Let's say you think Gore should have been President as half a million more Americans voted for him than Bush. They're you're following a "one man, one vote" theory, not a "one state, one vote" kind of theory. That's fine.

    However this is somewhat incompatible with thinking Ireland should have a veto over Lisbon.

    So let's take it from the other side. Say you're a big believer in the right of a constituent state having a veto, regardless of its population. This is more along the lines of thinking "one state, one vote". This is also a perfectly reasonable belief to hold.

    However if you hold this view, then the popular vote for US President in 2000 means nothing and Bush was rightly sworn in.

    Both the "popular vote" and the "right of the Irish people" theories are perfectly reasonable and they're democratic depending on how you define "democratic". But they're essentially polar opposites in their conclusions.

    So my point is any declaration of "undemocratic <this or that>" needs a firm definition of "democratic". The "right of any state to veto" can completely disagree with "one man, one vote." In my opinion a truly democratic outcome for Lisbon would be where Ireland does not hold a veto. Why should we? If us and the Brits and the Germans and the French want to sign an agreement, why should the Greeks have a veto? Sure the Greeks shouldn't be forced to join, but we should have the right to move on without them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Kernel wrote: »
    As you know, it doesn't specify this in the constitution.

    Yes indeed. I know it and you know it. The point I was driving at is that you defined democracy in a manner which completely failed to explain why your objection of "undemocratic" held up.
    it's my whole point of the democratic system being bent and manipulated in ways which are against the spirit in which it was intended. Those who enshrined the right to have a referendum at the founding of the State surely did not expect that the government could have a revoting of referenda every week until they achieved their desired result.

    Good thing that no government has tried having a recoting of referenda every week until they achieved their desired result, then, isn't it?

    Now...yes...I understand that was hyperbole, but I'd like you to take a second and consider that what you are now clarifying your objection to be is that your belief about the unstated intent of the founding fathers is at odds with what might happen...which is a long cry from it being undemocratic.

    I would point out, for example, that the very notion of a referendum is for the public to have the ability to decide that our chosen course is different to the explicitly stated intent of our nation's founders.

    So if its undemocratic for us to make decusions contrary to some notion that wasn't enshrined in our constitution, surely the whole idea of actually changing the constitution is equally undemocratic, as the overriding concern is the intent of the nation's founders.

    Of course, you don't believe that any more than I do. You accept that we should have the right to change our Constitution, so I would put it to you that it doesn't matter a fig what the opinions of those who drafted the Constitution were when it comes to things they didn't put in there - we are absolutely and totally not bound to them.
    The spirit of the provision was that the people of Ireland would decide on the evolution of the constitution and corcordantly the State itself.
    Thats what we get to do regardless of how often referenda are held. No-one forces you to vote at all, let alone to vote pro- or contra-.
    Such things are now bypassed, bent and treated as a hindrance.
    B****x they are. No referendum has ever been held in an unchanged form, and if it were the public still can refuse to pass it. No government has ever treated the refusal to pass a referendum as a "hindrance" and gone ahead with their plans anyway.
    I understand your point on democracy in action Bonkey, do you understand my point on the spirit rather than the letter?
    Quite frankly, no, I don't. I understand the concept of their being the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law, but I do not understand how you are construing that into "undemocratic" equating to your belief regarding an unstated intent regarding issues that aren't in law at all.

    To me, it just sounds like you don't support the motion, and scared that it might carry if it is re-addressed in any form, and therefore need to argue that any re-addressing of the issue is fundamentally wrong.
    That is why we have Supreme Court judges after all, to interpret the spirit.
    Indeed...but I haven't heard you once argue that the Supreme Court judges have ruled that the intent of the constitution was to have a minimum period and that these issues you complain about would be unconstitutional...so it would seem that they don't agree that there's a problem here either.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 891 ✭✭✭conceited


    I'm of the persuasion that palin and john mccain are mentally ill, "I really mean that"
    As for obama, well, he's just a smooth talker.
    Doesn't really matter who gets in. It's all the same !


Advertisement