Probably. Too bad everyone knew before the vote what were the results though, since the treaty has never been seriously threatened by this second vote.
Not really sure what you're saying here. Could you rephrase?
Doesn't change the unfairness of the vote. Who care why they voted no? Fact is everything has been done to manipulate their vote at the extreme the second time (although this is pretty much everywhere). In one year, pretty much nothing changed to justify them voting yes.
Besides the legally binding assurances that the specific issues they were concerned with aren't being touched by the Treaty? You're half right, the No campaign was using anger, the Yes campaign was using fear. The recession hit Ireland pretty bad, and in this time, they don't really want to alienate the rest of Europe since they depend on the EU.
Actually in France, some very important treaty on the Europe were voted through referendum. That is until people said no, what pretty much changed nothing. One more wonderful example of how 'representative' democracy makes think to peoples they have powers when they don't.
Referendum or opinion poll? There's a difference.
Be that as it may, you're not really addressing my point. The entire country could disagree with a Supreme Court decision, so what? It's not up for opinion.
Also you are aware that, by law, such a minute change to the law didn't require a referendum, right? The only country where it did was Ireland.
This is an extremely biased view. Actually no one of those who asked to vote No take stupid argument like that. You should try to listen what they say and not push everything aside in block. I myself disagree with them, but the fears of peoples and the flaw of this text are reals. Peoples who are against it arent just a bunch of "Lolz, Europe sucKs cuz of the Euro!!!1! Everything's moar expansive since THEN!!".
Oh, that comment was not about Ireland. It's more directed at Britian's eurosceptism. My point is that the reason governments don't put it to a referendum is because there's a large group people that are against an unified Europe for reasons other than smart ones, and the governments don't want to run the risk.
Just because our system is flawed means that we're gotta agree and calls democratic everything those elected do. You seem to consider normal that after french people said massively no, government said Yes anyway, or normal that after the irish voted no, they're given a second vote where medias decided their vote in before. I don't. At least dictatorship makes it clear that what peoples want doesn't matter.
I'm not sure what Treaty you're referring to, just keep in mind it has to be a legally binding referendum and not just an opinion poll.
Again, you must really hate every government apart from Switzerland's, since things like streamlining an organization's enlargement are usually never put to vote. Should slavery have been put to vote? Women's rights? Balls no. Is it undemocratic for a government to illegalize slavery without consulting a referendum?
In regards to direct democracy, no thank you. Switzerland lacks a complete separation of church and state because the majority voted against it. I think I'll keep my representative democracy.