Direct democracy does not make sense

[sofia_b]

I tried to make this post under Lisbon, but it would not let me. In anycase my point is a general issue.

As a prologue I thought the Irish No vote was really terrible and done completely only with regard to Irish interests, just like the French and Dutch. That is what happens by allowing the common people to vote. The irish constitution seems me to be wrong to oblige the referendum.

Why do we have indirect democracy in all the civilized states? Easy answer: as otherwise not any unpopular decision (particular, if it's about sharing, i.e. taxes) would go through. The general idea is therefore that common folks vote for people who are sufficiently educated and informed in order to be ables to see the whole picture, and not only their own small interests.

After all, nobody can doubt that the new EU Treaty would be an important and urgently needed step for making the EU of 27 (which is already fact) manageable. The Irish guys who celebrate their victory (impressive 800.000, less than Cologne, 0.2% of the EU...) are as little informed as no-voters beforehand in France and the Netherlands, where many people thought that they vote on the accession of Turkey etc, or even just used it as a chance to make a welcome statement upon the national government.

I think to progress we have to leave behind this form of direct democracy. Otherwise the best thing is for the Irish to finally leave.

[garlandgreen]

I tried to make this post under Lisbon, but it would not let me. In anycase my point is a general issue.

As a prologue I thought the Irish No vote was really terrible and done completely only with regard to Irish interests, just like the French and Dutch. That is what happens by allowing the common people to vote. The irish constitution seems me to be wrong to oblige the referendum.

Why do we have indirect democracy in all the civilized states? Easy answer: as otherwise not any unpopular decision (particular, if it's about sharing, i.e. taxes) would go through. The general idea is therefore that common folks vote for people who are sufficiently educated and informed in order to be ables to see the whole picture, and not only their own small interests.

After all, nobody can doubt that the new EU Treaty would be an important and urgently needed step for making the EU of 27 (which is already fact) manageable. The Irish guys who celebrate their victory (impressive 800.000, less than Cologne, 0.2% of the EU...) are as little informed as no-voters beforehand in France and the Netherlands, where many people thought that they vote on the accession of Turkey etc, or even just used it as a chance to make a welcome statement upon the national government.

I think to progress we have to leave behind this form of direct democracy. Otherwise the best thing is for the Irish to finally leave.

Because it reminds the Government occasionally that there are consequences for the things they do

[sofia_b]

I tried to make this post under Lisbon, but it would not let me. In anycase my point is a general issue.

As a prologue I thought the Irish No vote was really terrible and done completely only with regard to Irish interests, just like the French and Dutch. That is what happens by allowing the common people to vote. The irish constitution seems me to be wrong to oblige the referendum.

Why do we have indirect democracy in all the civilized states? Easy answer: as otherwise not any unpopular decision (particular, if it's about sharing, i.e. taxes) would go through. The general idea is therefore that common folks vote for people who are sufficiently educated and informed in order to be ables to see the whole picture, and not only their own small interests.

After all, nobody can doubt that the new EU Treaty would be an important and urgently needed step for making the EU of 27 (which is already fact) manageable. The Irish guys who celebrate their victory (impressive 800.000, less than Cologne, 0.2% of the EU...) are as little informed as no-voters beforehand in France and the Netherlands, where many people thought that they vote on the accession of Turkey etc, or even just used it as a chance to make a welcome statement upon the national government.

I think to progress we have to leave behind this form of direct democracy. Otherwise the best thing is for the Irish to finally leave.

Because it reminds the Government occasionally that there are consequences for the things they do

They can be removed at the next election as in all other european countries. I dont see why you need this. The parliamentarians can do this job and better as they are better informed as to what the situation is.

Face it. Even britain does not rely on allowing very important international issues to be decided by people who will naturally vote just in their own interests. This view is completely incompatible with a functionaing european union. It can not work with Direct Democracy.

[Catalpa]

I tried to make this post under Lisbon, but it would not let me. In anycase my point is a general issue.

As a prologue I thought the Irish No vote was really terrible and done completely only with regard to Irish interests, just like the French and Dutch. That is what happens by allowing the common people to vote. The irish constitution seems me to be wrong to oblige the referendum.

Why do we have indirect democracy in all the civilized states? Easy answer: as otherwise not any unpopular decision (particular, if it's about sharing, i.e. taxes) would go through. The general idea is therefore that common folks vote for people who are sufficiently educated and informed in order to be ables to see the whole picture, and not only their own small interests.

After all, nobody can doubt that the new EU Treaty would be an important and urgently needed step for making the EU of 27 (which is already fact) manageable. The Irish guys who celebrate their victory (impressive 800.000, less than Cologne, 0.2% of the EU...) are as little informed as no-voters beforehand in France and the Netherlands, where many people thought that they vote on the accession of Turkey etc, or even just used it as a chance to make a welcome statement upon the national government.

I think to progress we have to leave behind this form of direct democracy. Otherwise the best thing is for the Irish to finally leave.

'Democracy' - sure who needs it anyway?

I think to progress we have to leave behind this form of direct democracy. Otherwise the best thing is for the Irish to finally leave

Thanks for making such an excellent argument why we should get out.

Europa Conventus delenda est

[garlandgreen]

[quote=sofia_b]

I tried to make this post under Lisbon, but it would not let me. In anycase my point is a general issue.

As a prologue I thought the Irish No vote was really terrible and done completely only with regard to Irish interests, just like the French and Dutch. That is what happens by allowing the common people to vote. The irish constitution seems me to be wrong to oblige the referendum.

Why do we have indirect democracy in all the civilized states? Easy answer: as otherwise not any unpopular decision (particular, if it's about sharing, i.e. taxes) would go through. The general idea is therefore that common folks vote for people who are sufficiently educated and informed in order to be ables to see the whole picture, and not only their own small interests.

After all, nobody can doubt that the new EU Treaty would be an important and urgently needed step for making the EU of 27 (which is already fact) manageable. The Irish guys who celebrate their victory (impressive 800.000, less than Cologne, 0.2% of the EU...) are as little informed as no-voters beforehand in France and the Netherlands, where many people thought that they vote on the accession of Turkey etc, or even just used it as a chance to make a welcome statement upon the national government.

I think to progress we have to leave behind this form of direct democracy. Otherwise the best thing is for the Irish to finally leave.

Because it reminds the Government occasionally that there are consequences for the things they do

They can be removed at the next election as in all other european countries. I dont see why you need this. The parliamentarians can do this job and better as they are better informed as to what the situation is.

Face it. Even britain does not rely on allowing very important international issues to be decided by people who will naturally vote just in their own interests. This view is completely incompatible with a functionaing european union. It can not work with Direct Democracy.[/quote:k1buu002]

I see. And why could this "functioning european union" not convince one of it's electorates this treaty was right. There is a problem with the way that Europe is doing business with it's citizens and it needs to be addressed

[sofia_b]

I tried to make this post under Lisbon, but it would not let me. In anycase my point is a general issue.

As a prologue I thought the Irish No vote was really terrible and done completely only with regard to Irish interests, just like the French and Dutch. That is what happens by allowing the common people to vote. The irish constitution seems me to be wrong to oblige the referendum.

Why do we have indirect democracy in all the civilized states? Easy answer: as otherwise not any unpopular decision (particular, if it's about sharing, i.e. taxes) would go through. The general idea is therefore that common folks vote for people who are sufficiently educated and informed in order to be ables to see the whole picture, and not only their own small interests.

After all, nobody can doubt that the new EU Treaty would be an important and urgently needed step for making the EU of 27 (which is already fact) manageable. The Irish guys who celebrate their victory (impressive 800.000, less than Cologne, 0.2% of the EU...) are as little informed as no-voters beforehand in France and the Netherlands, where many people thought that they vote on the accession of Turkey etc, or even just used it as a chance to make a welcome statement upon the national government.

I think to progress we have to leave behind this form of direct democracy. Otherwise the best thing is for the Irish to finally leave.

'Democracy' - sure who needs it anyway?

I think to progress we have to leave behind this form of direct democracy. Otherwise the best thing is for the Irish to finally leave

Thanks for making such an excellent argument why we should get out.

Europa Conventus delenda est

You are wrong. All the other european countries are fully democratic by electing parliaments. The EU itself is democratic through a parliament.

Ireland should be in the EU -I support Ireland inside- but its form of direct democracy and referendum is outdated and is incompatible with allowing europe to function. Democracy is through the parliament not by referendums.

[StripeyCat]

If the treaty had been simply about smoothing out the running of the EU, then fair enough. But it had all sorts of other stuff in it, for instance, my favourite, a clause which committed us to "improving our military capabilities" (for ever, a constant improvement). This, and many other deliberately obscured and occluded clauses which would change the EU for the worse (the military one would effectively end all movements towards disarmament) created a situation whereby of course we needed to vote on it.

However, it would be tedious to re-run the debates about the treaty and the referendum. What's interesting in first your post is the notion is that you think people aren't smart enough to make decisions on the way their countries should go, and should leave big decisions to a trusted class of politicians. Can I ask- are you well acquainted with the Irish political scene?

I am, and with a few exceptions, I wouldn't trust most politicians to go to the shops for me.

[ibis]

If the treaty had been simply about smoothing out the running of the EU, then fair enough. But it had all sorts of other stuff in it, for instance, my favourite, a clause which committed us to "improving our military capabilities" (for ever, a constant improvement). This, and many other deliberately obscured and occluded clauses which would change the EU for the worse (the military one would effectively end all movements towards disarmament) created a situation whereby of course we needed to vote on it.

However, it would be tedious to re-run the debates about the treaty and the referendum. What's interesting in first your post is the notion is that you think people aren't smart enough to make decisions on the way their countries should go, and should leave big decisions to a trusted class of politicians. Can I ask- are you well acquainted with the Irish political scene?

I am, and with a few exceptions, I wouldn't trust most politicians to go to the shops for me.

For all I disagree with sofia_b here, I have to ask, then, why they are running the country and not you?

[cyberianpan]

Democracy is through the parliament not by referendums.

And how long have you been studying political science ?

Germany decided to do away with referenda cos after the last few they had a few million Jews ended up in the oven.... oh yes it was the evil referenda that did it

In Ireland we've a Constitution that guarantees us certain absolute rights, we give the elected parliament broad trust but only up to the boundaries of the constitution. Suggesting we abolish our constitutional democracy because some of some sloppily propositioned , 120,000 word treaty failing isn't a runner.

Indeed whole issue of Lisbon is that at least 40% of "no" voters cited not understanding it as the reason for rejecting it. The Continent has a long history of illiberal Napoleonic style governments and they don't get our freedoms. Lisbon ought to have been negotiated in a fashion whereby 500 words summarized teh key changes and we could have read them, digested them & put them into Bunreacht.

Instead we'd a shoddy, vague 120,000 amending treaty , which the paternalistic governments of the continent saw fit to ratify over their citizens heads.

cYp

[sofia_b]

If the treaty had been simply about smoothing out the running of the EU, then fair enough. But it had all sorts of other stuff in it, for instance, my favourite, a clause which committed us to "improving our military capabilities" (for ever, a constant improvement). This, and many other deliberately obscured and occluded clauses which would change the EU for the worse (the military one would effectively end all movements towards disarmament) created a situation whereby of course we needed to vote on it.

However, it would be tedious to re-run the debates about the treaty and the referendum. What's interesting in first your post is the notion is that you think people aren't smart enough to make decisions on the way their countries should go, and should leave big decisions to a trusted class of politicians. Can I ask- are you well acquainted with the Irish political scene?

I am, and with a few exceptions, I wouldn't trust most politicians to go to the shops for me.

If you are not happy with teh irish politicians for being corrupt or whatever then, then like Ibis, I say please feel free to vote them out next time.

But you are right about my point. Referendums are not the way to deal with european issues or any other for that matter. These selfish interests allow racists and people with extremely narrow minds a say on very important issues. I want Ireland to stay in the EU but I fear that your system of consulting the ill-informed and uneducated will cause the rest of europe to turn against you. These people, for sure, have a say but it is to elect people who are competent. If they elect incompetents then that is just their fault. If Ireland leaves the EU it will be the peoples fault, but what about the future generations who will be left in poverty? Thats why you cannot have direct democracy.