Lisbon & TDs - public representatives or vested interest?

[Helium Three]

One of the political oddities of this referendum campaign is the contrast between the almost unanimous support for the treaty from public representatives and the much weaker level of support for the treaty among the public. In this sense the public's representatives do not in fact represent the public's views. They are not the representatives of the public, or of a large section of the public, on this issue.

Why is that?

Are public representatives in fact a distinct vested interest group in this debate, whose interests are not the same as those of the public they are paid to serve?

[evercloserunion]

People don't know anything about the Treaty, and they are being misinformed by disingenuous No advocates.

[FutureTaoiseach]

Of course many of them are. They want jobs in the Eurocracy, including in the Commission, the ECJ, possibly becoming European Public Prosecutor, or High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, or on the EU General Court, or President of the European Central Bank, or a post in the European Defence Agency, or even perhaps President of the European Council.

Or jobs on a myriad of other EU bodies that I listed on another thread.

I also attribute some of it to a growing and undemocratic culture of consensus in Irish politics on issues like the EU and immigration. This deprives the voters of choice, and illustrates the need for a US-style Dail primary system (like US Congressional primaries) so that our TDs can be more representative of public opinion.

[Helium Three]

Irish Times' Mary FitzGerald reports Dick Roche as saying this yesterday

Speaking to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Scrutiny, Mr Roche outlined what he called a "revolution" for democracy within the EU.

He said the Lisbon Treaty represented "the single biggest transfer of power" to national parliaments, and, as a result, was a "revolutionary step forward" which would have been "unthinkable" 20 years ago.

Any suggestions as to who or where that massive power transfer is being transferred from?

[ibis]

Irish Times' Mary FitzGerald reports Dick Roche as saying this yesterday

Speaking to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Scrutiny, Mr Roche outlined what he called a "revolution" for democracy within the EU.

He said the Lisbon Treaty represented "the single biggest transfer of power" to national parliaments, and, as a result, was a "revolutionary step forward" which would have been "unthinkable" 20 years ago.

Any suggestions as to who or where that massive power transfer is being transferred from?

Well, yes - the Commission. The national parliaments will have the option to reject Commission-proposed legislation.

[corkman2007]

Irish Times' Mary FitzGerald reports Dick Roche as saying this yesterday

Speaking to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Scrutiny, Mr Roche outlined what he called a "revolution" for democracy within the EU.

He said the Lisbon Treaty represented "the single biggest transfer of power" to national parliaments, and, as a result, was a "revolutionary step forward" which would have been "unthinkable" 20 years ago.

Any suggestions as to who or where that massive power transfer is being transferred from?

Well, yes - the Commission. The national parliaments will have the option to reject Commission-proposed legislation.

Which is surely a good thing He3?

[Helium Three]

That the lot then? Just the Commission, and just like that?

[stringjack]

One of the political oddities of this referendum campaign is the contrast between the almost unanimous support for the treaty from public representatives and the much weaker level of support for the treaty among the public. In this sense the public's representatives do not in fact represent the public's views. They are not the representatives of the public, or of a large section of the public, on this issue.

Why is that?

Are public representatives in fact a distinct vested interest group in this debate, whose interests are not the same as those of the public they are paid to serve?

Actually, this would be a fairly predictable consequence of party discipline. Assume TDs represent the public perfectly; assume further that a majority of the population is in favour of the Treaty (or, possibly, would be in favour were it as well informed as the average TD. Assume that all parties form a representative sample of the Dáil, that they all make decisions by majority vote, and that the losing faction in such a vote is bound to follow the policy of the majority, at least in public. Given those assumptions, one could have a deeply divided population and also have it be the case that all public representatives support the Treaty, without the need for any conspiracy.

[ibis]

One of the political oddities of this referendum campaign is the contrast between the almost unanimous support for the treaty from public representatives and the much weaker level of support for the treaty among the public. In this sense the public's representatives do not in fact represent the public's views. They are not the representatives of the public, or of a large section of the public, on this issue.

Why is that?

Are public representatives in fact a distinct vested interest group in this debate, whose interests are not the same as those of the public they are paid to serve?

Actually, this would be a fairly predictable consequence of party discipline. Assume TDs represent the public perfectly; assume further that a majority of the population is in favour of the Treaty (or, possibly, would be in favour were it as well informed as the average TD. Assume that all parties form a representative sample of the Dáil, that they all make decisions by majority vote, and that the losing faction in such a vote is bound to follow the policy of the majority, at least in public. Given those assumptions, one could have a deeply divided population and also have it be the case that all public representatives support the Treaty, without the need for any conspiracy.

Even without party discipline, any TD who felt that his or her constituents supported the Treaty, by however slim a margin, is duty-bound to support the Treaty in turn. That could give a country-wide support level of 51%, which would then translate into 100% support at the representative level. Indeed, even if only 2% in every constituency supported the Treaty while 1.9% did not, and the rest didn't care, the result still should be 100% support at the representative level.

[Hobo Sapiens]

People don't know anything about the Treaty, and they are being misinformed by disingenuous No advocates.

You could just as easily say "People don't know anything about the Treaty, and they are being misinformed by disingenuous Yes advocates."