Its payback time - Lisbon pays for Nice

Kate P wrote:

No, it's not. But the point is that the opinion of tens of thousands of people is more than a whim.

Secondly, a government with a popular mandate doesn't always get it right, nor should it assume that it will always get it right.

People demonstrate because there are not many other ways of letting the democratically-elected-once-every-five-years-government know that they don't have carte blanche.

Why do I need to explain this?

You don't.

Demonstration is obviously a legitimate and essential part of a functioning parliamentary democracy. The point has simply been made that an elected Government should and must not submit to the demands of demonstration by default.

To move back on track, I suggested that the fact that demonstrations re. the Treaty had occured in other countries is not particularly significant, given people's propensity to demonstrate about all manner of issues.

The fact that no one (or very few) countries have seen constitutional challenges, or reversals of political fortune for governing parties who support the treaty, is significant in terms of the constitutional imperative we have attached to the treaty.

Quote :

You don't.

Demonstration is obviously a legitimate and essential part of a functioning parliamentary democracy. The point has simply been made that an elected Government should and must not submit to the demands of demonstration by default.

Clearly I do, becuase I( have to point out that at no stage did I suggest that anyone give in to anything 'by default.'

Quote :

To move back on track, I suggested that the fact that demonstrations re. the Treaty had occured in other countries is not particularly significant, given people's propensity to demonstrate about all manner of issues.

So the government shouldn't pay attention when people demonstrate about minor issues because they're not important, really and then when they demonstrate about something like the constitution, we shouldn't pay attention because they used to demonstrate about less important issues? Your point doesn't do either of us justice, seinfeld.

Quote :

The fact that no one (or very few) countries have seen constitutional challenges, or reversals of political fortune for governing parties who support the treaty, is significant in terms of the constitutional imperative we have attached to the treaty.

Do other countries find themselves in the same position as we do, I wonder? If we were to replace the government with an anti-treaty party, Sinn Féin would think all their Christmasses had come at once.

It is the EU Parliament that has been (with difficulty) trying to get more transparency from the Commission about who is on Expert Groups. Industry representatives sit on the groups and can hardly be objective about regulation of their own industries.

I feel a lot of internal housekeeping is needed in the EU, and more more democratic accountability. We can't compare our government with the EU as though the they were equally accountable and transparent.

cactus flower wrote:

It is the EU Parliament that has been (with difficulty) trying to get more transparency from the Commission about who is on Expert Groups. Industry representatives sit on the groups and can hardly be objective about regulation of their own industries.

I feel a lot of internal housekeeping is needed in the EU, and more more democratic accountability. We can't compare our government with the EU as though the they were equally accountable and transparent.

Indeed - I think the EU is a lot more transparent, as I think I demonstrated elsewhere. There are, for example, 36 EU agencies, all of which have clearly stated budgets/duties/personnel, and a budget total of maybe €6-7 billion - whereas there are more than 800 Irish agencies, with a combined spending of €13 billion, 6000 board members, more than half of whom are political appointees.

I'll say it again - if you want more accountability in the EU, a Yes to Lisbon is better than a No. There's no point in voting to keep the current levels if you think they're wrong.

Also - general thread on Referendums, Demonstrations, Democracy started here.

Kate P wrote:

So the government shouldn't pay attention when people demonstrate about minor issues because they're not important, really and then when they demonstrate about something like the constitution, we shouldn't pay attention because they used to demonstrate about less important issues? Your point doesn't do either of us justice, seinfeld.

With respect, you're being entirely disingenuous.

Ordinary citizens can have no direct input into the framing or adoption of legislation for the duration of a parliament. Hence, if a large number of people are unhappy with a piece of legislation, and demonstrate therein, the Government should obviously pay attention.

Constitutional matters are different, in that every citizen has the power to challenge the constitutionality of a Government decision at any time. The fact that people chose to demonstrate rather than exercise their constitutional power lends to the view that those people are discontent rather than unconvinced of the constitutionality of the decision.

Hence, the fact that people in other EU states are demonstrating rather than challenging the ratification of the treaty lends to the view that the treaty has no particular constitutional significance, which has been my point from the outset.

I think we've gone way off topic from Edo's original post, which is about what will actually decide on how people will vote on the Treaty. Maybe a split is needed somewhere back near Helium Three's post?

I'm not being disingenuous, seinfeld. I'm simply pointing out that the point you made above is deeply illogical.

But in terms of constitutionality, the fact that there is no constitutional challenge to the treaty doesn't lend to the view that it has no constitutional significance. What it signifies is that there has been no constitutional challenge, not that the reason why there hasn't been one is because there is no need for one.

Nor does the fact that people demonstrate rather than exercise their constitutional powers lend to the view that the people are discontent rather than unconvinced of the constitutionality of the decision. It could indicate that citizens don't have the courage of their convictions, the money, the expertise, the knowledge or the skill to mount such a campaign.

Many countries ratified the Treaty without their citizens even knowing when it was due for ratification. And the very absence of a discussion like the one being held in this country diminishes the pool of people who might actually read the document because they have to make a decision about it.

Kate P wrote:

But in terms of constitutionality, the fact that there is no constitutional challenge to the treaty doesn't lend to the view that it has no constitutional significance.

Of course it does. That's self-explanatory.

ie

The absence of a challenge isn't proof that the treaty is constitutional, but it does *lend to the view* that it is constitutional.

seinfeld wrote:

Kate P wrote:

But in terms of constitutionality, the fact that there is no constitutional challenge to the treaty doesn't lend to the view that it has no constitutional significance.

Of course it does. That's self-explanatory.

ie

The absence of a challenge isn't proof that the treaty is constitutional, but it does *lend to the view* that it is constitutional.

As long as there are sufficient people, and they are sufficiently opposed. In that case, if the treaty could be constitutionally challenged, the possibility of it being so becomes purely a function of how open it is to such challenge.

Any thoughts on the SBP poll?

WorldbyStorm wrote:

Any thoughts on the SBP poll?

Encouraging, but I wouldn't like to see the Yes vote increase to the point where Yes voters become complacent.

WorldbyStorm wrote:

Any thoughts on the SBP poll?

Is it saying anything different to the MN Poll?

cactus flower wrote:

WorldbyStorm wrote:

Any thoughts on the SBP poll?

Is it saying anything different to the MN Poll?

Good to have your priorities in the right order CF!

seinfeld wrote:

WorldbyStorm wrote:

Any thoughts on the SBP poll?

Encouraging, but I wouldn't like to see the Yes vote increase to the point where Yes voters become complacent.

I think so too. Still not too much chance of the latter

edo did you tell them well you know encourage immigration to feed the boom( till there a a bust) and to lower wages is our policy so like it or lump it.