Comments on: Diana Wallis MEP writes… Time for the Liberal Democrats to let the people in! http://www.libdemvoice.org/diana-wallis-mep-writes-time-for-the-liberal-democrats-to-let-the-people-in-3615.html Our place to talk - an independent website for supporters of the Liberal Democrat party in the UK. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 08:55:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Geoffrey Payne http://www.libdemvoice.org/diana-wallis-mep-writes-time-for-the-liberal-democrats-to-let-the-people-in-3615.html#comment-61389 Geoffrey Payne Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:44:28 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=3615#comment-61389 I have a confession to make. Even I as a political animal would probably glaze over if I was to attempt to read the Lisbon Treaty. What people do find a lot more compelling is the narrative that says that the EU wants to take over our national government and wreck our economy, run our lives and make our lives a misery (well it stands to reason I guess). Which is why it makes sense to have a referendum on whether we should stay in the EU or not, because that is the issue that people are really thinking about. So lets have a referendum on what people are really thinking about, rather than a complex legal arrangement. Crikey, I am agreeing with Lib Dem policy here... I have a confession to make. Even I as a political animal would probably glaze over if I was to attempt to read the Lisbon Treaty.
What people do find a lot more compelling is the narrative that says that the EU wants to take over our national government and wreck our economy, run our lives and make our lives a misery (well it stands to reason I guess).
Which is why it makes sense to have a referendum on whether we should stay in the EU or not, because that is the issue that people are really thinking about.
So lets have a referendum on what people are really thinking about, rather than a complex legal arrangement.
Crikey, I am agreeing with Lib Dem policy here…

]]> By: James Graham http://www.libdemvoice.org/diana-wallis-mep-writes-time-for-the-liberal-democrats-to-let-the-people-in-3615.html#comment-61371 James Graham Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:53:11 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=3615#comment-61371 Geoffrey - you are absolutely right on one thing. Very few people felt strongly about the Lisbon Treaty either way. The fact that iwantareferendum.com struggled to find 40,000 signatories after nine months of massive investment, advertising at cinemas, etc. demonstrates that. But that is hardly a criticism of what we are proposing at conference on Saturday. Under our proposals, if anti-Lisbon campaigners failed to get a million signatures, there would be no referendum campaign. End of. I accept that you can't compare like with like here. If people were clear that petitioning for a referendum would result in one I'm sure significantly more people would have signed the IWAR petition (I'm still doubtful they would have got a million though - it must go down in history as one of the least successful campaigns in British history). But by the same token, there would have been more interest in the issue as well. I remember copies of the Maastricht Treaty being published in newspapers and available in Smiths back in 1992. If there was a referendum, there would be much more demand for information about Lisbon as well. Treat people like adults and - guess what? - they are likely to behave like adults. I'm not arguing that greater direct democracy is a panacea. But as a tool for engaging the public in debate on the really big issues of the day, it is too important to pass up. We need to remove all opportunities for people to be able to claim that politicians "don't listen". Fair votes are another important part of the solution, but isn't sufficient in and of itself either. Geoffrey – you are absolutely right on one thing. Very few people felt strongly about the Lisbon Treaty either way. The fact that iwantareferendum.com struggled to find 40,000 signatories after nine months of massive investment, advertising at cinemas, etc. demonstrates that.

But that is hardly a criticism of what we are proposing at conference on Saturday. Under our proposals, if anti-Lisbon campaigners failed to get a million signatures, there would be no referendum campaign. End of.

I accept that you can’t compare like with like here. If people were clear that petitioning for a referendum would result in one I’m sure significantly more people would have signed the IWAR petition (I’m still doubtful they would have got a million though – it must go down in history as one of the least successful campaigns in British history). But by the same token, there would have been more interest in the issue as well.

I remember copies of the Maastricht Treaty being published in newspapers and available in Smiths back in 1992. If there was a referendum, there would be much more demand for information about Lisbon as well. Treat people like adults and – guess what? – they are likely to behave like adults.

I’m not arguing that greater direct democracy is a panacea. But as a tool for engaging the public in debate on the really big issues of the day, it is too important to pass up. We need to remove all opportunities for people to be able to claim that politicians “don’t listen”. Fair votes are another important part of the solution, but isn’t sufficient in and of itself either.

]]> By: Geoffrey Payne http://www.libdemvoice.org/diana-wallis-mep-writes-time-for-the-liberal-democrats-to-let-the-people-in-3615.html#comment-61369 Geoffrey Payne Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:37:15 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=3615#comment-61369 I have to disagree James. Elected MPs attend far more debates than the average voter. After all that is their job. There may be times when they do what the whips say, but even then most of them are aware of the arguments. Under a fair voting system, if they were not doing their job properly they will get defeated at election time. For issues such as the Lisbon treaty, most people do not know what is in it because they do not want to know. If they did, you could buy it in WH Smiths. Now there is certainly a problem here that needs to be addressed. The electorate is losing interest, and has for many years in politics, in virtually all mature democracies. Direct democracy may be part of the answer, but it has it's weaknesses as well. I have to disagree James. Elected MPs attend far more debates than the average voter. After all that is their job. There may be times when they do what the whips say, but even then most of them are aware of the arguments. Under a fair voting system, if they were not doing their job properly they will get defeated at election time.
For issues such as the Lisbon treaty, most people do not know what is in it because they do not want to know. If they did, you could buy it in WH Smiths.
Now there is certainly a problem here that needs to be addressed. The electorate is losing interest, and has for many years in politics, in virtually all mature democracies.
Direct democracy may be part of the answer, but it has it’s weaknesses as well.

]]> By: Mouse http://www.libdemvoice.org/diana-wallis-mep-writes-time-for-the-liberal-democrats-to-let-the-people-in-3615.html#comment-61356 Mouse Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:23:12 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=3615#comment-61356 >Every time I tried to explain my view I was greeted with the refrain, almost in unison from my parliamentary colleagues, ‘We’re a parliamentary democracy!’ but sadly not a very good or responsive democracy, nor is the EU particularly democratic. It was a serious blunder by the party to offer a referedum on the Constitution but not the treaty. I'm gald at elats one lib dem MEP realised this. Our MEPs are a great bunch but they seem to have gone a bit native. The party should not be happy with the last euro election results and ought to be well prepared with a strategy to do netter next June. Being pro Eu doesn't mean being uncritical. In fact it ought to give the party greater confidence to make criticisms. >Every time I tried to explain my view I was greeted with the refrain, almost in unison from my parliamentary colleagues, ‘We’re a parliamentary democracy!’

but sadly not a very good or responsive democracy, nor is the EU particularly democratic.

It was a serious blunder by the party to offer a referedum on the Constitution but not the treaty. I’m gald at elats one lib dem MEP realised this. Our MEPs are a great bunch but they seem to have gone a bit native. The party should not be happy with the last euro election results and ought to be well prepared with a strategy to do netter next June. Being pro Eu doesn’t mean being uncritical. In fact it ought to give the party greater confidence to make criticisms.

]]> By: James Graham http://www.libdemvoice.org/diana-wallis-mep-writes-time-for-the-liberal-democrats-to-let-the-people-in-3615.html#comment-61340 James Graham Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:07:55 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=3615#comment-61340 I have to say that is an entirely fake distinction. MPs don't listen to every debate and vote accordingly - predominently they vote according to how the whips (and occasionally their consciences) tell them. No one who read the Lisbon treaty debates in the Commons would describe them as deliberative. By comparison, during the Maastricht referendum in Denmark, an opinion poll showed that the average voter knew more about the contents of the Treaty than the typical non-specialist MP. All referendums by their very nature are deliberative. Few Parliamentary votes are. This isn't meant as a criticism - Parliament would grind to a halt without the whipping system. But it is a good reason to, on occasion, subject a crucial issue to greater scrutiny. As for the possibility that in a referendum, the public will vote on the government's record rather than the issue at hand, I believe the possibility of that is minimised if you make the voters themselves in charge of deciding whether such a vote should go ahead or not - hence the need to collect a million signatures. I have to say that is an entirely fake distinction. MPs don’t listen to every debate and vote accordingly – predominently they vote according to how the whips (and occasionally their consciences) tell them. No one who read the Lisbon treaty debates in the Commons would describe them as deliberative.

By comparison, during the Maastricht referendum in Denmark, an opinion poll showed that the average voter knew more about the contents of the Treaty than the typical non-specialist MP.

All referendums by their very nature are deliberative. Few Parliamentary votes are. This isn’t meant as a criticism – Parliament would grind to a halt without the whipping system. But it is a good reason to, on occasion, subject a crucial issue to greater scrutiny.

As for the possibility that in a referendum, the public will vote on the government’s record rather than the issue at hand, I believe the possibility of that is minimised if you make the voters themselves in charge of deciding whether such a vote should go ahead or not – hence the need to collect a million signatures.

]]> By: Geoffrey Payne http://www.libdemvoice.org/diana-wallis-mep-writes-time-for-the-liberal-democrats-to-let-the-people-in-3615.html#comment-61331 Geoffrey Payne Tue, 09 Sep 2008 14:03:59 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=3615#comment-61331 I think the fundamental difference between a voter and an elected politician is the politicians are full time workers. Before the vote they listen to a debate and they have then heard all the arguments before deciding how to vote. The difficulty about the Lisbon treaty is that it is a complex agreement that very few people would be interested in reading or taking any notice of. I even heard an Irish voter say about the treaty; "I didn't understand it so I voted against it". It would have been better if she hadn't have voted. There is certainly a problem with the relationship between the politicians and the electorate. Direct Democracy may be part of the answer. I think there is a case to be made for referenda, but there are always questions about whether the question is worded fairly, whether voters are voting on the issue or the government, and how much significance we should give to a result with a low turnout. I think the fundamental difference between a voter and an elected politician is the politicians are full time workers. Before the vote they listen to a debate and they have then heard all the arguments before deciding how to vote. The difficulty about the Lisbon treaty is that it is a complex agreement that very few people would be interested in reading or taking any notice of.
I even heard an Irish voter say about the treaty; “I didn’t understand it so I voted against it”. It would have been better if she hadn’t have voted.
There is certainly a problem with the relationship between the politicians and the electorate. Direct Democracy may be part of the answer. I think there is a case to be made for referenda, but there are always questions about whether the question is worded fairly, whether voters are voting on the issue or the government, and how much significance we should give to a result with a low turnout.

]]>