The peoples voice shall not be heard...

by Alan Bunbury Wed Jun 18, 2008 21:29

In fairness there are advantages to allowing democratically elected representatives to pass laws for the people who elected them. It simply would not be practical to hold a referendum on every single law we passed, and it is up to the people to decide through their constitution which laws are too important to pass by parliament alone. Another advantage is that elected representatives will generally have, or quickly gain, a more in-depth understanding of the operation of the law and national and international institutions. This may sound elitist but the fact of the matter is that not everyone can be expected to understand complex legal documents and treaties, and most people understand this.

Minister Mansergh can say what he likes but he cannot overrule our right to a referendum on issues that affect our sovereignty.

by Ronoc Wed Jun 18, 2008 22:48

I agree, but the point of this piece is about the EU Constitution/Treaty. Fair enough the people cant choose every law(but atleast the can vote out the bad boys next time around) but they must be allowed choose who represents them. If the Constitution/Treaty is passed as far as i know its self ammending, meaning that those unelected officials sitting in the EU Commission will be able to do what they please. Treatys passed within the EU should be choosin by the people, its simple. The treaty is complex and can be bent depending which side you take, what does that give you? Sure Hitler came to power in many of the same ways. Id like to say more but im off to bed, hope you reply and ill be back to ya...

"WHEN THE POWER OF LOVE, OVERCOMES THE LOVE OF POWER, THE WORLD WILL KNOW PEACE"...

by ???? Wed Jun 18, 2008 23:19

"Another advantage is that elected representatives will generally have, or quickly gain, a more in-depth understanding of the operation of the law and national and international institutions."

Really? Most of them said they had not even read the treaty, and McCreevey said openly that anyone who read it would have to be mad.

by paul mc kenna Thu Jun 19, 2008 00:40

Finna fail have some cheek calling for a review of the 'Crotty' and mc kenna judement's because the election did not go the right way for them and there tweedle dom tweedle dee plutocracy, We the Irish should always have a right to vote on our people's future, shame shame and more shame finna fail .

No SO Cozy

by Suspicious Thu Jun 19, 2008 08:52

"Another advantage is that elected representatives will generally have, ... "

... is that they can benefit in any number of corrupt ways which the people who vote for them know nothing about, so that the "elected representatives" can (in effect) easily end up -- silently and invisibly (or almost so) -- supporting corruption, despotism, lawlessness and so on, all in the name of those who elected them: and sometimes the abuses in question are of the worst possible kinds that humanity is capable of producing and sustaining.

Politicians need to be VERY carefully watched by the electorate at ALL times, and vigorously challenged in public when ANYTHING appears to be amiss.

by Drumcondradave Sat Jun 21, 2008 10:32

Seems to me that the one side of the "No" faction are happy with representational democracy when it suits them.

For instance in the UK not one of the "Left" or any socialist Parites want a referendum on Hanging, they are happy to allow a free vote to MPs,but when it comes to the EU they seek to push the decisoin to "the people" one wonders why? Is it as I suspect because that way they get the result they are seeking? We all know why the right side of the EU No campaign want a referendum and call it democracy its because they are nationalists in the worst sense of the term.

Maybe they seek a retreat to the old europe of war and suffering?

by Yes to Europe, No to Lisbon! Tue Dec 16, 2008 20:38

Drumcondradave,
Maybe no one told you. We, the people of Ireland, make the choice to change our constitution. Your argument is backwards, I'm no crazy leftist but, why would I give power to a European president, not elected by the people of Europe that can amend the Lisbon treaty? If the Lisbon treaty is so great (1) why did our Government not want to tell us what exactly was in it? (2) Why don't the rest of Europe get a vote on such an important issue? (3) Why would our Government want to change it? and (4) Why is there such threatening language from the rest of the E.U's leaders, but such positive language from the people our Europe? Don't be so naive.