So you dont thik entering into international agreements should be taken seriously?Originally Posted by wombat
Actually it is. If the people elect a majority SF/PBP govt. at the next election, they will only have to revoke the law, if it is in the constitution, it will require a referendum with all the red herrings that will be introduced.
I would suggest that taht's an odd approach. Incidentally its actually the Germans pushing for the contstutional option
Its not their constitution
The constitution does indeed allow for advisory referenda but these provisions have never been used.
The reason why is presumably because if the advice of the people is NOT to do X and the Oireachtas after due consideration decides to do X after all, then even though the decision to do X would require a democratic majority in the Oireachtas, we'd never hear the end of it.
The Dutch and French referenda held on the European Constitution were both advisory referenda yet even though the two governments did not ratify the European Constitution as a result, we still have people going on about those advisory referenda here on a regular basis even though both the Dutch and French electorates have moved on from them long ago.
Sounds like the government could opt to hold a referendum on a particular proposal (and would seem from above that the result would be binding).
Plus there is actually a little-known provision for legislative referenda in the constitution (article 27). Remnants of some direct democracy provisions amended out of existence in the Free State constitution before they could be used. But article 27 is not really relevant here as ratifying a treaty doesn't actually involve legislation (perhaps a resolution at most). Plus, even then, money bills would also seem to be excluded (though it's not entirely clear from the wording). Anyway, the setup of the Seanad means it's practically unusable (and has indeed never ever been used). To call such a referendum on a bill that "contains a proposal of such national importance that the will of the people thereon ought to be ascertained" requires a petition of 1/3 TDs and a majority of Senators to the President. At the President's discretion the bill can then be put to a binding referendum. That's at least four hurdles to jump: sufficient TDs, majority of Senators, the President, and a possible supreme court case to determine if the bill is really "of such national importance". Plus a possible tussle between Seanad and Dáil over whether to classify it as a money bill or not. The Seanad is structured to have an almost guaranteed government majority, which means that article 27 is unlikely ever to be used.
Will be most interesting, though, to see how the government proposes to amend article 27 in any Seanad abolition bill. If just a 1/3 of TDs could petition the President in this way, then it could become a very useful provision indeed (though going by Varadkhar's attitude simple deletion is its likely fate). It would then become a weaker version of what currently exists in the Danish Constitution. Currently, 1/3 of Danish MPs can petition the speaker/president of the their parliament and force most bills (excluding, rather like our own article 27, money/finance bills and those on treaties) to be put to a referendum. And there isn't even any requirement in the Danish case that it contain some topic of vital national importance. The provision has only ever been used once in Denmark (in the 60s for a series of related bills). But it has been argued that its mere presence has had a significant bearing for the better on parliamentary dynamics. There's alway the underlying threat that it might be used if the opposition isn't sufficiently listened to.
(See section 42 of the Danish constitution for this provision).
Last edited by Finbar10; 29th January 2012 at 11:36 PM.
For all his hundreds (thousands?) of words on this thread, HBAP still hasn't answered my one simple question...
How many voters are required to vote 'off-topic' before he considers a referendum to be lacking as a democratic exercise?
Is it just the one voter, or does he need a few more?
I hope he lets us know. He must have a definite figure in mind.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Vote YES for knobs not jobs. Knobs who cant govern, knobs who wont govern, knobs who'll open the door to the bigger knobs in EU land, who want you to bend over some more so they can stick their knobs you know where.
Anyone dumb enough to think we'll get our referendum? They've started the spin already..................Leo says
"I don’t think referendums are very democratic," he said.
"By and large when we have a referendum on an issue, that referendum is never about what the referendum was supposed to be about.
"And I would be concerned it would turn into a referendum on extraneous issues like septic tanks, or the bondholders, or the banking crisis, or decisions being made by the Government like cutbacks, for example," he said.
Last edited by fuque; 30th January 2012 at 03:40 AM.
"political genocide is required"...
Lucinda says it will be another couple of weeks before they can confirm to the media that there will be no referendum.
Is this a coded message to Seanie & Ivor to have their overnight bags packed again?
94Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote