Should they even be allowed re-run the Lisbon referendum?

A lot of people feel it's undemocratic, even a lot of those who voted "Yes" the first time.
Of course some people, when a vote doesn't go their way, welcome the chance to just vote again, ignoring the fact that it's not democratic.

Some argue that the government has a mandate to re-run it, supposedly cos they support it as do most MEPs we elected. (discussed that in a previous post)
But that's irrelevant. As a result of the Crotty Case, the decision to ratify Treaties like this is not a decision for the government, but one for the people to decide by referendum.
So, it was our decision and we took it, looked at it, and said 'No'.

A lot of people on the pro-Lisbon side, have been arguing that the government has every right to keep pursuing a policy of asking us again, "because circumstances have changed" or in some cases, blatantly stating that they should ask until we say 'yes', because really, we're better off saying 'yes'. Cos obviously, the politicians know better, and the referendum is really just supposed to us giving a rubber stamp to the government's decision, and the expensive voting day is just down to that gurrier Crotty...

First off, apart from being insulting, that's also very dangerous for democracy, and it's bigger than the Lisbon Treaty problem itself.

If the govt can keep throwing back unpopular treaties at us, even after we've rejected them, they know that people can become cynical and apathetic as a result of feeling ignored.
Some people will vote 'Yes' or not vote at all, because they'll see no point in voting 'No' if it's just going to be ignored.


Well, if one looks at the Constitution, we see in Article 6.1 the following.

" All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good." (emphasis added).

So, it would seem to the lay reader, that when a question is put to the people, rather than Dail debate, then that's the final stage. We either say yes or no, and the government surely should accept the outcome.

Now, I think that if we took a court case on this, we'd probably lose, not because the law doesn't favour us, but because, of one political reason.
Nobody took a court case when the government announced it was re-running the NICE Treaty. (I spoke to a few people about this, and the reasons included the danger of losing a very expensive case, and also, fear of being called anti-democratic by not wanting to let the people vote... ironic, yes I know. )

If the Supreme Court were to hear a case on this, and rule that Art. 6.1 means that the government can't try to resurrect a dead Treaty, it would be saying that the Government had no right to re-run the NICE Treaty referendum, which would be quite a spot to put the government in.

In reality, this hasn't been tested legally, and it's not likely to happen either.
But, I think we need to raise the issue with lots of people, that we are being ignored, and the government is ignoring our own Constitution to do it.

In fact we probably need to amend the Consitution, to make it clear that once a Treaty or other question has been rejected in a referendum, the government can't raise it from the dead, unless the people have another vote to say, "okay, we're willing to take a look at it".
They can't claim to have any mandate to re-run the same question on the same Treaty, cos we didn't give them one, we didn't ask to vote again. And the likes of Sarkozy & Co, can jump up and down all they like, but they can't grant our government a mandate on this either. Only we the people can do that.
If we forget that, then we might as well just get on our knees and stay there, while they run the country however suits them best. (that worked out well for us before with the industrial schools, banking scandals, etc. )
We should talk to people, get out there, and give an even bigger 'NO' than last time.