Leo Varadkar doesn't think referendums are very democratic

Captain Darling wrote: »

News just in: Democracy is not democratic.

only if the majority agree

veryangryman wrote: »

Sure why ask the people anything with that logic. Why not get a Royal Family type situation? We have a democracy and to be frank, i dont trust the people running the country so I will naturally oppose most of their situations which (as per leading economists) are killing the economy.

As you said, it will be huge. Important things (ie constitutional change) are a matter for the people as a whole. Im not hanging around waiting until the damage is done (IMF deal anyone??) What you are proposing is dictatirial rule. Regardless of mine or anyone elses agenda, the rulebook is there for all to follow. Ergo, referendum

This makes absolutely no sense. Its not dictatorial rule for gods sake, we elected representatives to represent us, thats what theyre doing.

Referendums work fine on simple issues, the two last year for example, divorce, abortion, we get clear answers on those. The problem with EU treaties is that people dont answer the question asked, like you they use it to give out, which is a total waste of time as then they have to hold the thing again like nice and lisbon.

I've news for you, the damage has been done back in 2008. The rulebook you refer to does not give any automatic right to a referendum on any european treaty, just in cases where the constitution is changed

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And the whole "yes to jobs" malarkey - as touted by FG & Varadkar - was related to the question asked, I suppose ? :rolleyes:

TDs only object when it suits them; there's no consistency at all!

The fact remains that the referendum result that they are trying to barge through relates very much to the issues; and while having countries limit their deficit is a good idea, there needs to be decency in HOW it's done.....if neither FF nor FG can be trusted to do it fairly, is it still in the interests of the country ?

No it wasnt, and thats the point. neither was all the 1.84 nonsense. None of it is ever actually related to the question thats being asked but some people will still make up their mind based on 3 words on a poster, not the subject of the question.

siltirocker wrote: »

Sorry that was a joke. Moore Street is a street in Dublin not 2 mins from the GPO. The street hosts a market run by AJHs ("Ah Jaysus, Howiya!") who don't pronounce the letter 'H' after 'T' and have very strong opinions on things they are ignorant to.

thats a bit of a snoby generalisation

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Democracy is fine, so long as you vote how your told to. Is that your point?

No democracy is fine if people vote with the best interest at heart, even if that means no. However voting no just because the government raised VAT etc is just stupid.

Ceist_Beag wrote: »

Good God, if your postings here are representative of these people then I think I'd rather trust our elected representatives than such people! Your rants only serve to prove the point Varadkar was making.

This is the type of elitist politico bullsh1t i would expect to hear from a dyed in the wool blueshirt supporter. Fcuking ridiculous.

Dont give the poor idiots a voice because its all their fault the country went to fcuk over the last fifteen years. Nothing to do with a system of institutionalised wastefulness and incompetency that is inherent amongst all the high ranking civil servants and from all sides of the idiots who we call our elected public representatives???

Go back to reading the fcuking Sunday Independent.

faceman wrote: »

The out of context comments dont really make sense. Just because people will vote against for treaty for "the wrong reasons", doesn't make voting any less democratic than voting for "the right reasons".

Id argue that it does. just turning up to vote doesnt make a democracy, or at least a working democracy. We dont count a system of coerced voting democratic and i dont think we should count an ignorant or missiformed vote as a true democratic expression either.

veryangryman wrote: »

Democracy is that the majority rule. Regardless of their motives, opinion, education, whatever. Whether democracy works is another conversation. We can all say it doesnt to suit our arguments, but the situation is what it is.

The majority do not want this; that is why Leo doesnt want a referendum as the government are not listening to their people.

On a very basic level yes. But ignorant, coerced or biased voting makes a mockery of it. If RTE did not allow one side of the debate to make its case and that side lost would you call it democratic?

If you propose a motion in a referendum then it is up to you to see it carried, by explaining said motion and advocating it properly. If you fail, you fail, you cannot blame anybody but yourself and or, the motion. That is how it works, there is no other way.
Varadkar and his co-horts will graduate fascist school with flying colours.

mikom wrote: »

Noonan : Emigration is a lifestyle choice.

Kenny: You are not to blame Ye are to blame, ye all went mad.

Varadkar: Referendums are not very democratic.

Pricks.

These are the mouthpieces that are negotiating with Europe.
God fucking help us all.

Exactly. What planet are these people living on? It goes to show how far out of touch those in the political system are with everything. Its the general public that are at fault for what happened. Nothing to do with a total lack of regulation by the Civil Servants, a political system involving parties that are ideologically interchangeably and general parish pump rubbish that has held us back for so long.

Varadkar et al think the Irish general public are the laughing stock of Europe and are afraid that we will shame them further. In reality the government couldnt manage a piss up in a brewery and are an international joke.

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Nope he is spot on. He knows people will vote it down just to get one over on the Government even if its in the countries best interests to pass it.

If Ireland is given a refferendum on the fiscal treaty and then rejects it - then in that case it would be a massive assumption to claim that people rejected it because they wanted to 'get one over on the govt' and NOT that they simply rejected the fiscal treaty.

If there is a refferendum and people vote NO. Does Leo have a percentage for how many NO voters actually mean NO and how many are 'just trying to register annoyance at the govt' ?

I think it is the height of arrogance and contempt to presume to assign different reasons to a persons refferendum choice on the basis that you (in this case Varadkar) might disagree with the outcome. If he agreed with the outcome I doubt he would seek to assign different reasons to a refferendum result.

I think he needs to learn to respect peoples wishes. It is bad enough they are trying to deny people the opportunity to vote on this subject but to then say that if you do vote on this issue then you really mean something different than what you vote for - that is offensive. In relation to all things EU related politicians in this country have a major problem with refferendum descisions. I wonder if Varadkar believes that each time people vote no on an EU related issue that they each time - don't really mean no at all.

Maybe he should consider the possibility that they really do fcuking mean NO.