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
Farage weighs in...
Options
Comments
-
How is a referendum undemocratic?fianna saor wrote: »how democratic is casting another referendum when they dont get the result they want?0 -
But if you suspect that Fine Gael are going to hold another referendum, do you think the correct response is to vote No in this one? If you think its the correct response, can you enlighten me to your logic?fianna saor wrote: »how democratic is casting another referendum when they dont get the result they want?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »How is a referendum undemocratic?
a referendum isnt undemocratic, the point was if the government dont get the result they require then hold the referendum again specifically to try and change the result, that is the undemocratic partBut if you suspect that Fine Gael are going to hold another referendum, do you think the correct response is to vote No in this one? If you think its the correct response, can you enlighten me to your logic?
not solely for that reason no, my point was as above.0 -
Well, no. The people get to vote both times. It doesn't matter what the government want; the people decide.fianna saor wrote: »a referendum isnt undemocratic, the point was if the government dont get the result they require then hold the referendum again specifically to try and change the result, that is the undemocratic part
It seems to me that you find it democratic when the result of the first referendum is to your liking, but undemocratic when the result of the second isn't - which isn't very democratic of you, is it?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Well, no. The people get to vote both times. It doesn't matter what the government want; the people decide.
It seems to me that you find it democratic when the result of the first referendum is to your liking, but undemocratic when the result of the second isn't - which isn't very democratic of you, is it?
so it means nothing to you if the government holds a referendum as many times as it takes to try and change the result.
whatever my liking or disliking of a result doesnt affect me being un/democratic dont be ridiculous0 -
Advertisement
-
So in effect we both think the referendum is undemocratic.fianna saor wrote: »
not solely for that reason no, my point was as above.
You because you don't trust Fine Gael, and me because most of the people are voting based on issues not associated with the treaty.0 -
So in effect we both think the referendum is undemocratic.
You because you don't trust Fine Gael, and me because most of the people are voting based on issues not associated with the treaty.
no not really. firstly i dont think a referendum is undemocratic and secondly im voting no but not because they said they'd hold it again or anything like that0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Well, no. The people get to vote both times. It doesn't matter what the government want; the people decide.
It seems to me that you find it democratic when the result of the first referendum is to your liking, but undemocratic when the result of the second isn't - which isn't very democratic of you, is it?
Well the argument with Nice was that there was such a low turnout that it merited a re-vote.
That sounds reasonable enough, but it was just BS.
With Lisbon the rationale was that the people were not well informed (again, an argument with some strength behind it) but that was not the reason for the re-vote. This fact was, of course, quite clearly highlighted by the fact that the government did not attempt to inform the population to any greater extent during the next vote.
It is quite simply false to say that you can have multiple votes and for the status quo to be maintained. In fact, the Yes side in all European referenda have predicated most of their arguments upon the display of pro-EU sentiments that a Yes vote would have, as opposed to the detrimental effects to business, bonds, investment, and intra-national friendship that a No vote would have. It is quite clear that the negative effects of a No vote are supposed to be compounded by a second rejection.
We have not actually yet seen a third vote because we have not yet had a treaty been rejected more than once. The government during Lisbon II said there would be no Lisbon III, but one can discount this as a lie out of hand as such a statement had been previously made during Lisbon I.
Just because there is a vote, doesn't make it fair. Now, whilst Lisbon II doesn't have as many issues surrounding it as.. let's-say the Austrian vote on the Anschluss (which was democratically passed!) there is a significant problem where a government is in opposition to the electorate, and where it places its standing with the Consilium in higher regard than that with its own citizens. Of course, we all know that the government would give its eye teeth to avoid such referenda in the first place (I place SF in no higher regard in this matter btw, notwithstanding their opposite position)
When people said during Lisbon I "what's the point? If we vote no, sure they'll just make us vote again" I laughed. I was an idiot. :pac:
And you mightn't see anything wrong with that because the result was ultimately one which you agreed with, but I would say that that isn't terribly democratic of you.0 -
RandomName2 wrote: »Well the argument with Nice was that there was such a low turnout that it merited a re-vote.
That sounds reasonable enough, but it was just BS.
With Lisbon the rationale was that the people were not well informed (again, an argument with some strength behind it) but that was not the reason for the re-vote. This fact was, of course, quite clearly highlighted by the fact that the government did not attempt to inform the population to any greater extent during the next vote.
It is quite simply false to say that you can have multiple votes and for the status quo to be maintained. In fact, the Yes side in all European referenda have predicated most of their arguments upon the display of pro-EU sentiments that a Yes vote would have, as opposed to the detrimental effects to business, bonds, investment, and intra-national friendship that a No vote would have. It is quite clear that the negative effects of a No vote are supposed to be compounded by a second rejection.
We have not actually yet seen a third vote because we have not yet had a treaty been rejected more than once. The government during Lisbon II said there would be no Lisbon III, but one can discount this as a lie out of hand as such a statement had been previously made during Lisbon I.
Just because there is a vote, doesn't make it fair. Now, whilst Lisbon II doesn't have as many issues surrounding it as.. let's-say the Austrian vote on the Anschluss (which was democratically passed!) there is a significant problem where a government is in opposition to the electorate, and where it places its standing with the Consilium in higher regard than that with its own citizens. Of course, we all know that the government would give its eye teeth to avoid such referenda in the first place (I place SF in no higher regard in this matter btw, notwithstanding their opposite position)
When people said during Lisbon I "what's the point? If we vote no, sure they'll just make us vote again" I laughed. I was an idiot. :pac:
And you mightn't see anything wrong with that because the result was ultimately one which you agreed with, but I would say that that isn't terribly democratic of you.
Fair enough, but if a Government listens to the rejections and gets protocols on abortion, tax and neutrality and the second different vote gets passed, what's so undemocratic there?
People who have a problem with a second vote are people who didn't get their concerns addressed in the second referendum, an unfortunate part of democracy. Some people get their concerns addressed, others don't. That doesn't mean the second vote is undemocratic, just your particular concerns didn't get addressed.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
I don't belittle anyone
Methinks thou dost protest too much!
Your view is that it is completely objective to describe people opposed to the treaty as an "anti-austerity mob"? Well Im sure if you asked impartial observers, most would agree that is a belittling way to describe the no side.0 -
Advertisement
-
fianna saor wrote: »a referendum isnt undemocratic, the point was if the government dont get the result they require then hold the referendum again specifically to try and change the result, that is the undemocratic part
I really have no idea where this idea came from that it's only democracy if you vote once on it. Every democratic vote is always the will of the people at that time. If the will of the people has not changed the result will be exactly the same. Do you have a definition of democracy that states a vote can only be run once?RandomName2 wrote: »With Lisbon the rationale was that the people were not well informed (again, an argument with some strength behind it) but that was not the reason for the re-vote. This fact was, of course, quite clearly highlighted by the fact that the government did not attempt to inform the population to any greater extent during the next vote.
It is quite simply false to say that you can have multiple votes and for the status quo to be maintained. In fact, the Yes side in all European referenda have predicated most of their arguments upon the display of pro-EU sentiments that a Yes vote would have, as opposed to the detrimental effects to business, bonds, investment, and intra-national friendship that a No vote would have. It is quite clear that the negative effects of a No vote are supposed to be compounded by a second rejection.
I'd agree the government here tend to run a very poor campaign and usually boil it down to catchy slogans. Personally I don't like that. But in their defence they are faced often with boring changes and large legal documents which the public for the most part will not read or be too interested in. Worse than that anybody from anywhere can basically interfere with the whole process by saying whatever they like about it.
You'll remember Coir and all the no side lies generally.
As long as people can say whatever they like nothing will change. Though I'm most definitely pointing the finger at the no campaign for stooping to the lowest common denominator and pulling every dirty trick in the book.RandomName2 wrote: »And you mightn't see anything wrong with that because the result was ultimately one which you agreed with, but I would say that that isn't terribly democratic of you.
The system is broken but there's nothing inherently undemocratic with multiple votes. Everyone got their say in both Lisbon votes but the no campaign got caught out for the porkers it told the first time.0 -
Methinks thou dost protest too much!
Your view is that it is completely objective to describe people opposed to the treaty as an "anti-austerity mob"? Well Im sure if you asked impartial observers, most would agree that is a belittling way to describe the no side.
I would regard that as more than a little over-sensitive, myself, particularly for you to take it personally, as you apparently do.
It's quite hard to sum up the wide variety of individuals, political parties, protest movements, et al who are using 'anti-austerity' as a rallying cry for a No vote without using some such term - they're not a single campaign, they're not all of the No side, they're not a party or a movement...and I'm pretty certain you'd have taken 'crowd' or 'crew' as equally "belittling".
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
and I'm pretty certain you'd have taken 'crowd' or 'crew' as equally "belittling".
You know the more you protest your innocence, the less credible you become.
The word mob carries negative connotations such as, 1. a riotous or disorderly crowd of people or 2. An organized gang of criminals
Whereas there's nothing derogatory about the words crew or crowd. So to assert I would find their use equally belittling is simply not plausible.
The fact is, you chose to use the word mob instead of crowd or crew because you clearly wanted to denigrate those opposed to the treaty.0 -
You know the more you protest your innocence, the less credible you become.
The word mob carries negative connotations such as, 1. a riotous or disorderly crowd of people or 2. An organized gang of criminals
Whereas there's nothing derogatory about the words crew or crowd. So to assert I would find their use equally belittling is simply not plausible.
The fact is, you chose to use the word mob instead of crowd or crew because you clearly wanted to denigrate those opposed to the treaty.
I'll try to bear your sensitivities in mind in future, although I'd say it's very clear that you're actually indulging yourself in a fit of pique here over my ridiculing a post you made. And I'm afraid I don't really intend not to ridicule such posts in future.
For the moment, this has gone on quite long enough. If you have further issues, please take them to PM rather than dragging the thread off-topic.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
The government holds a referendum - which is a responsibility given to the government by the constitution - because it feels that the constitutional amendment it proposes is in the best interests of the country. If the referendum is rejected, but the government feel that the amendment is still in the country's best interests, then the government would be acting contrary to the interests of the country if it failed to hold a second referendum.fianna saor wrote: »so it means nothing to you if the government holds a referendum as many times as it takes to try and change the result.
Your argument is predicated on the idea that the government has some sort of control over how people vote in referendums. On what basis do you make that argument?
The bottom line, whatever the justifications that are variously given, is that the government re-ran the Nice and Lisbon referendums because it had negotiated the treaties in good faith and genuinely believed it was in Ireland's best interest to ratify the treaties.RandomName2 wrote: »Well the argument with Nice was that there was such a low turnout that it merited a re-vote...
The nature of democracy in Ireland is that the electorate need to be massaged and soothed and told what it wants to hear - hence the "justifications" for holding second referendums - but the fact remains that we tend to both accept and reject constitutional amendments (particularly where Europe is concerned) largely on the basis of noisy campaigns that tend to have little to do with the issues at hand.
We have allowed ourselves to believe that we live in some sort of super-democracy where the people have the sovereign right to dictate whether or not the government can ratify treaties, but that's not the case; it's an artifact of a fairly wooly Supreme Court case that we're having these votes at all.
I'm not a great fan of democracy, especially direct democracy Irish-style where people demand to have a say in something they refuse to put the effort into understanding.And you mightn't see anything wrong with that because the result was ultimately one which you agreed with, but I would say that that isn't terribly democratic of you.
My preference would not be to have two referendums on each of these treaties; it would be to have none. Let the Oireachtas ratify them - that's their job.0
Advertisement