|
|
|
|
|
|
by raxxorraxor
970 days ago
|
|
|
> What ended up being passed wasn't the same treaty, so that's not entirely true. But then you only have indirect democratic legitimacy at best. > Complex situations like this can't just be reduced to a yes/no decision. Perhaps. Usually it should be retried. But you cannot just turn around and say you suddenly have legitimacy because the executive of a government once thought to ratify a constitution. You also cannot just say voters were misinformed. Perhaps you are misinformed? This just displays a concerning understanding of democracy. To me that was the propaganda of that specific time in which they needed to ratify something without popular support, against democracy in that case. |
|
|
If people are stating things that are factually incorrect then you can, I think. Like I said, I'm not hugely comfterable policing people's motivations for voting one way or the other, but at the same time I also think it's foolish to ignore, especially when you're considering how to better organize these kind of more direct democratic measures: you need to evaluate how well they went.
For example "the treaty will allow Turkey to join the EU" was factually just incorrect: it didn't say anything about Turkey, and changed nothing meaningful about the EU entry procedure (and entrance of Turkey was never close in the first place). This nonsense was repeated in the association treaty with Ukraine.