Comments on: ‘Those Politicians’

By: Frans G

Frans G — Sun, 05 Jun 2005 04:20:37 +0000

We really have opposite views. Well, let?s see if our exchange of views can result in something useful for us and/or the fistful-readers.
? You cannot replace discussion on a law with a referendum, yes. But why do you see a need to do so? In parliament finding a parliamentary majority is replaced (or extended) by the need to find a popular majority. What you do lose is the ability to trade horses. Eg. Vote for A and we?ll vote for B. But at least for the things significant to have a referendum on them, that is very good.
We agree on the last line: getting rid of horsetrading is a good thing. Horsetrading is not the same however as settling on a compromise. In horsetrading A and B are completely unrelated; when you talk about a compromise A and B are related. (I admit that this is not a perfect dichotomy but there is a real difference). To me the discussion is more important than the popular vote. In the discussion we try to get the best policy: in my POV that is the policy that is most thoroughly based on reality (as opposed to idology and sentiment). Not even MPs working 70 hours a week are sufficiently informed on all aspects of all subjects of parliamentary debate. So opposing referendums has nothing to do with the idea of voters being stupid.
Immediately following the Dutch NO the 8 o clock news (NOS-journaal) asked some *men in the street* what the goverment should do now. The strong sentiment (and I can understand that sentiment; to some degree I feel it too) being *the politicians do not listen* now national television asked some voters what should the goverment do. And all they came up with was the repetition: they should come over here and listen. *But what will you tell them when they visit?* *they should come over and listen*.
On my own weblog I have this oneliner: Unintelligent but wise people know they are not intelligent, unwise but intelligent people don’t know they are unwise.
One of the interviewed persons clearly belonged to the category unintelligent but wise. His comments was a very simple: *they should be honest*.
That is the gap indeed.
Column-writer Bas Heyne of my newspaper commented on the Urk-fishermen: some politicans should go there and tell them what the real problem is with the fish-quota instead of hiding behind the *Brussel*-abstraction.

?We would have a simple provisions: If a law is passed by referendum, for X years after the referendum it can be changed only by referendum. Maybe add a provision for emergencies.?
Well, I think you avoid the problem here. Yes, if a law is passed…. okay. But when a law is not passed. That is what we are talking about here!
Do we have an emergency now with the real threat of a crisis of the European Project?

? Why do you want to interpret anything? …….. Finding out which kind of treaty may survive a popular vote cannot really be a problem in our age of advanced market research.?
So you really do not want to interpret the popular vote but use market research instead?
Here we really, really disagree.

? can we find answer to the challenges we face in Europe supported by clear majorities in popular votes.
Why not? The earlier treaties were passed.?
Here it looks like you do not see any challenges. We simply go on the way we did before.
In my first post on the referendum this was the decisive reason to say yes (reluctantly): We do not need China-bashing; we need sensible European answers to the major changes in the world economy and state of the environment.
The rapid changes in the global economy to me is enough to completely disagree with the idea of European integration going to fast. Yes it is going fast but the changes in the economy and ecology are faster. We can not politically pause here.

Finally on the fish-quota: no of course the fish-quota is not a European issue. It is an international issue. Fish do not see borders at all. Not the ones between European countries nor any other border. Implicit in my original text was the absurdity of the idea that even on the fish-quota we had beter have national decisions.

Your BTW is really funny.
.. surprised to learn that the Netherlands don?t have referenda. Having a long republican tradition….?
We have a long anti-republican tradition. Yes the Netherlands, or maybe here I should say Holland, was the first very succesful republic. An example to many in the rest of Europe who were still fighting the king and emperor tyrannies. But the monarchist won. Not a single political party is actively proposing to get rid of the monarchy. I am ashamed for this aspect of my country.

(see this post at hollandaise as well: http://emmering.blogspot.com/2005/05/french-reject-eu-constitution-analogy.html)

By: Oliver

Oliver — Sat, 04 Jun 2005 13:58:19 +0000

You read an emphasis on *Who?* but I should have emphasized the combination of *simple* and *yes-no*.

I don’t see this as a problem. A legislative action always boils down to a yes/no distinction. Do you want the following law enacted, or don’t you?
You cannot replace discussion on a law with a referendum, yes. But why do you see a need to do so? In parliament finding a parliamentary majority is replaced (or extended) by the need to find a popular majority. What you do lose is the ability to trade horses. Eg. Vote for A and we’ll vote for B. But at least for the things significant to have a referendum on them, that is very good.

If this question is more of the same or something new would be subject of heated debate of course.

Why? We would have a simple provisions: If a law is passed by referendum, for X years after the referendum it can be changed only by referendum. Maybe add a provision for emergencies.

My focus is on how to interpret the substance. Now that the Dutch (and French) said *NO* does this mean that *the people* does not want a constitutional treaty where the national governments are blocked to support their national industries/corporations or does it mean that the European project should not have a say in social issues?

Why do you want to interpret anything? A concrete question was asked and has been answered. Suppose the government had suffered a parliamentary defeat. What would be different? (OK- you can’t dissolve the people – yes) The government would either resign, or talk to parliamentarians about how to negotiate a new treaty. Finding out which kind of treaty may survive a popular vote cannot really be a problem in our age of advanced market research.

the fact that god and christianity was not mentioned in the treaty and the the falling fish-quota… What is European about that?

The first issue: everything. I’d disagree, but if that isn’t european, what is? The quota is set by the EU, too. Where’s the problem?

The people living in the inner-city of course should have a stronger vote than me, not living there.

NO
Do not, ever think that. The next step would be to ask why somebody who pays more taxes shouldn’t have more votes in general elections. That would tear contemporary european societies apart.

can we find answer to the challenges we face in Europe supported by clear majorities in popular votes.

Why not? The earlier treaties were passed. We may not find a solution pleasing a unionist, but we’ll find a solution. It may mean curtailing the powers of the EU, but that was the point.

BTW: I was really surprised to learn that the Netherlands don’t have referenda. Having a long republican tradition I would have assumed they had without bothering to check.

By: Frans G

Frans G — Sat, 04 Jun 2005 07:35:51 +0000

@Guy: “(as you know I have technnical difficulties accessing your blog’s comments).”
You could try again; I made some changes.

@Edward: “…the referendum has entered European politics, and it may be difficult to get rid of.”
I fear Californian situations.

By: Frans G

Frans G — Sat, 04 Jun 2005 06:41:44 +0000

@Oliver “You deserve a detailed answer”
Who? Me? Well, thank you!
We clearly have different opinions on this subject but there are also some points the result of misunderstanding; my first hypothesis for the cause of those is of course a combination of my poor english and limited writing skills as such.
From the way you write “? and there should be no referenda at all” I can see that apparently I was not clear enough that this is exactly what I meant: except for some purely local issues in neighborhoods and villages and maybe with the exception of referenda that focus on withdrawal of a policy that is actively deployed , I think any referendum is a bad idea. They only enhance the credibility gap.
?1) Who is going to come up with the (simple) yes-no question There?s no need to alter the system. Secondly you can come up with alternatives and use a system of preference voting.
My wrong, definitely. You read an emphasis on *Who?* but I should have emphasized the combination of *simple* and *yes-no*. But now that you mentioned it: the *who* is part of the problem too. On dozens of places I read a comparison with the American founding fathers. At least in the perception of a lot of voters *who* was a bunch of burocrats and those are unpopular. Partly because national politicians in refusal to defend less popular policies blame *Brussel*.
I am not inspired by your suggestion to have more alternatives (than two) and organize a system of preference voting. I try to imagine what you propose and come up with a book of 400 pages, another one of 200 and 7 booklets of 40 pages. For example. Would this be helpful?
2) What will the outcome mean – especially in the light of turn-out, and for how long will the decision be *valid*. Good question, but a technical question, that has to be dealt with as such. Can you give me the reason why parliaments in most countries last 4 years and not 3 or 5? Or why the voting age is 18, not 17 or 19?
My personal preference would be 50% turnout for facultative referenda and no limit for obligatory referenda and I?d consider them binding for the duration a parliament is elected for.
I am afraid that you try to solve huge political challenges with technical means.
Of course it would be insultive to organize a new referendum on exactly the same question within 3 years. But in the real world a new referendum would be on another question. If this question is more of the same or something new would be subject of heated debate of course.
Your focus is on what turn-out there should be and that kind of figures: there I agree with you that this will remain arbitrary but not in a way that it is a real problem.
My focus is on how to interpret the substance. Now that the Dutch (and French) said *NO* does this mean that *the people* does not want a constitutional treaty where the national governments are blocked to support their national industries/corporations or does it mean that the European project should not have a say in social issues?
In the little Dutch town Urk, where over 90% percent of the voters choose NO, it seems that their NO was based on two issues: the fact that god and christianity was not mentioned in the treaty and the the falling fish-quota… What is European about that?
?3) Who has the right to vote?
This could use some elaboration too, I see. The point I was trying to make is that on a lot of referendums it is hard to say who should vote. For example the simultaneous referendum in my hometown on Sunday-shopping in the city-center: all inhabitants of the town could vote and all of these had the same weight. Insane. The people living in the inner-city of course should have a stronger vote than me, not living there. The people working in shops in my hometown (or owning them) but living just outside the town surely should have a vote too.
So while in almost every referendum this is a serious problem it was not necessary to have that problem on the treaty as well. Now we face the problem of a referendum in one group of countries and a normal parliamentary decision in the other group while the countries with a referendum organize it on different dates.

One could argue that the treaty, being the result of extensive negotiations, was a reasonable compromise between the two extremes that are now combined in one vote: *NO*.
Yes, but so what? A compromise is not automatically a good thing. If a section of a bridge you are driving on crashes down into the river in front of you, you can hit the brakes or accelerate for the jump, but doing the compromise of continuing at your present speed will surely kill you.
That is a funny metaphor but I am not an entertainer so I will not react on it.
Of course you are right that a compromise is not automatically a good thing. But the question is: can we find answer to the challenges we face in Europe supported by clear majorities in popular votes.

By: Edward

Edward — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 20:43:14 +0000

I guess you aren’t around right now Frans, but your post is very timely. Look at the thing on Denmark, the referendum has entered European politics, and it may be difficult to get rid of.

By: Guy

Guy — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 16:13:58 +0000

“National politicians dominated the guest lists”

Good text, Frans. And I am glad I can finally respond to your writings (as you know I have technnical difficulties accessing your blog’s comments).

I for one would like to see more field experts in the political debates. Politicians always need to defend their interests, which is as understandable as it is regrettable sometimes.

By: Oliver

Oliver — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 15:30:47 +0000

You deserve a detailed answer

1) Who is going to come up with the (simple) yes-no question?

Who comes up with the question parliaments vote on in last consequence? There’s no need to alter the system. Secondly you can come up with alternatives and use a system of preference voting.

2)2 What will the outcome mean – especially in the light of turn-out, and for how long will the decision be “valid”.

Good question, but a technical question, that has to be dealt with as such. Can you give me the reason why parliaments in most countries last 4 years and not 3 or 5? Or why the voting age is 18, not 17 or 19?
My personal preference would be 50% turnout for facultative referenda and no limit for obligatory referenda and I’d consider them binding for the duration a parliament is elected for.

3) Who has the right to vote?

As we are seeing, the interpretation of the meaning of the vote on this specific referendum is a huge problem too.

It is at any election. I might vote liberal because I think they might be the only party making sure that economic reforms go far enough although they are insanely soft on crime – or I might vote conservative because the liberal economic programm is ideologically motivated, yet the conservative stance on drugs is a typical example of the nanny state at its worst.
I see the concern, but it is unavoidable and I am sure modern means of demoscopics will solve it.

You may of course state that elections are about choosing a group of wise leaders, giving them legitimacy and getting rid of those who screw up. Then you are sidestepping the whole will of the people issue and there should be no referenda at all.

One could argue that the treaty, being the result of extensive negotiations, was a reasonable compromise between the two extremes that are now combined in one vote: *NO*.

Yes, but so what? A compromise is not automatically a good thing. If a section of a bridge you are driving on crashes down into the river in front of you, you can hit the brakes or accelerate for the jump, but doing the compromise of continuing at your present speed will surely kill you.