If they don't vote in your favour, skip 'em

[Skybird]

Some days old by now, but...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7006986.stm

The Dutch cabinet has decided against holding a referendum on the EU's new Reform Treaty, amid fears the public would reject it at the polls.

Revealing.

A comparable debate is taking place in Britain, as far as i am aware. In Germany, we have been prohibited to oppose it from the very beginning.

Long live democracy - not.

[Letum]

Some days old by now, but...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7006986.stm

The Dutch cabinet has decided against holding a referendum on the EU's new Reform Treaty, amid fears the public would reject it at the polls.
Revealing.

A comparable debate is taking place in Britain, as far as i am aware. In Germany, we have been prohibited to oppose it from the very beginning.

Long live democracy - not.

Well, just to play devil's advocate, in most (all?) current democracies we elect
people to make decisions on our behalf. We don't vote on those decisions.
It's only a representational democracy.

From the politician's point of view he/she has been voted in because the voters trust
him/her to make the right decision even if it is unpopular; as in this case.

That may well be a floor in the system of representational democracy, but under the
current system the only people to blame are the voters for being a poor judge of
character if they thought the people they voted in would not do something like this.

note - I do not have a good Knowles of Dutch polo tics, so I am assuming they have a form of democracy that works somewhat like it does in the UK in regards to such matters.

[The Avon Lady]

Sweden, too (http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/09/coup-dtat-in-sweden.html).

Look up the money quotes:

"If it's a yes, we will say 'on we go!', and if it's a no, we will say 'we continue.'"
- Former EU President Jean-Claude Juncker

"It is not possible for anyone to understand the full text."
- Former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing

[Skybird]

Problem I have with that is that voters - if they even do this! - only make assumptions on politican's decision if they see such decsion-making times coming. But there can things happening that cannot be forseen, and are beyond previpous estimation. For such situations a previous voting holds no real legitimation, imo. Maybe formally, by the rules of law, but not by content.

Also, there are sometimes such groundbraking, important new things to decide that their scale is simply beyond any previously assumption on how somebody would decide if he would be elected. I rate this treaty as such an opportunity, because i understand it to have made cosmetical changes in the most, but still changing the legitimization of policy-making in europe, and very drastically so, putting a bureaucratic hierarchy over the elected sovereign parliamnets and govenrment sin the nations. From 2000 to 2005, over 80% of the new laws implemented and measurements being taken by the German government - where just waved through in parliament - and never were initiated by the German government, but were demanded by Brussel instead. the parliament failed compeltely to fulfill it's constitutional duty of counterchecking such proposals, and the government failed to do so, too. this is a violation of the constitution, and since I assume that many other european constitutions share this characteristic with the German one, it takes place all ove reurope, too - nhot as an exception from the rule, but as a thing done by routine now. Voters did not elect parlimantaries and governments that they just wave thorugh bureaucratuc demands and plans and legal rules created in an institution that has no democratic legitimation to dictate sovereign states what they have to do. the voters in the single nations - are betrayed, and their votes is being made mockery of.

However, I agree with ex-chancellor Helmut Schmidt that a politician is in the ultimate consequence not owing responsibility for his decisions to neither his party or the parliament, nor to the people who elected him - but his conscience only, and his conscience alone. This is even laid down black on white in the German constitution, where his conscience is ruled to rank over anything else ("Article 38 (Elections) - 1. The deputies to the German Bundestag are elected in universal, direct, free, equal and secret elections. They are representatives of the whole people, are not bound by orders and instructions and are subject only to their conscience. "). I go beyond Schmidt when suggesting that members of parliament should even be forbidden to be members of a party, and parties should be prohibited in parliament, and government. Since the article 38,1 rules that they shall not accept to be bound by orders and institutions, one must askl what parties have to do in parliament, if they are not allowed to act in their own agenda's or interest's name anyway.

What really angers me about the issue described in the BBC-article on Holland is the - since now wellknown - fact that originally the Netherlands where in favour of a referendum, and held it during the first decision on the EU treaty, constitution, or however one meaninglessly want to call it (becasue it's title will not change it's enormous influence). But now, since such a referendum showed that the demanded result will not be brought up by it - it opportunistically gets ruled out. That is arbitrarily switching on and off democracy. And that way, it is no democracy at all. Though shall only speak if thoug will speak like I do. Otherwise: shut up.

[Skybird]

Sweden, too (http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/09/coup-dtat-in-sweden.html).

"It is not possible for anyone to understand the full text."
- Former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing

With that comment he was referring to the original treaty draft that has been formed into a "harmless" treaty now. It is a much smaller document indeed, nevertheless I see the basic ideas still being included, and unchanged. the discussion and negotiations were about cosmetics and rethorics, imo, the substance remained almost unchanged. Since the thing was rejected while being called "constitution", and has not been changed substantially, I see no reason to accept this "treaty" now as a a formally legal thing, and do not see why what had been made object of a referedum before, now shall no longer be object of referendum.

For me it all is a major fraud, a farce, playacting.

[The Avon Lady]

nevertheless I see the basic ideas still being included, and unchanged.
Indeed, I was referring to the attitude, not to any particular piece of paper.

Let Letum eat cake. :D

[Letum]

Still, it is the result of a (deeply :shifty:) flawed system; not system that has been broken.

I see what your saying SB and agree with most of it to some extent, however to
achive that kind of idealistic democracy would require vast ammounts of reform to the
bedrock of government, if not revolution.

I hope one day improvements are made to the democratic system common to most of
Europe, but I would be very suprised if they are.

*edit*


Let Letum eat cake. :D

Sorry, the refrance is a little lost ion me.....? Could you explain?

[Skybird]

Still, it is the result of a (deeply :shifty:) flawed system; not system that has been broken.

I see what your saying SB and agree with most of it to some extent, however to
achive that kind of idealistic democracy would require vast ammounts of reform to the
bedrock of government, if not revolution.

I become less and lesser hesitant to welcome that, while my conviction is hitting the tops that reforms are impossible. And now, while I agree that the systemn is flawed, I disagree that nothing got broken. The flawed system additional gets broken, too, not only in this example, but everyday. The whole contemporary political culture (or anticulture) is living proof for that.

I understand wuite well, why in Rome they sometimes opted for most drastic actions to chnage the structure of the empire, republic, or whatever it was at the given point of time. and one must admire the courage, sometimes.

[Fish]

Some days old by now, but...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7006986.stm

The Dutch cabinet has decided against holding a referendum on the EU's new Reform Treaty, amid fears the public would reject it at the polls.

Revealing.

A comparable debate is taking place in Britain, as far as i am aware. In Germany, we have been prohibited to oppose it from the very beginning.

Long live democracy - not.

Well thats how it works isn't it? I give you this if you give me that and you swap the referendum for better social adjustments.
You can't have them all.
The socialist party still can vote for a referendum in parlement. Then you have both! :yep: