The Government Could Not Have Continued In Office If There Had Been A "No" Vote

jank

K-9 wrote: »

Exactly why a No would not mean FF out of power!

We are going round in circles here.

You admit FF will cling on no matter what, yet seem to think a No would end them.

It makes no sense.

Yes it does. Its all about mandate. You had connor lenihan say so and also 3 political journos from the Sunday papers say so as well weeks ago. They said there "would be no question that cown could still lead FF if Lisbon was rejected again, its a given"

At the very least Cowen would have had to step down as leader of FF, that in itself would have set the wheels going. Don't worry, Lisbon is over so you can drop the campaign rhetoric.

meglome

jank wrote: »

Yes it does. Its all about mandate. You had connor lenihan say so and also 3 political journos from the Sunday papers say so as well weeks ago. They said there "would be no question that cown could still lead FF if Lisbon was rejected again, its a given"

At the very least Cowen would have had to step down as leader of FF, that in itself would have set the wheels going. Don't worry, Lisbon is over so you can drop the campaign rhetoric.

In the normal run of things if Cowan goes he'll be replaced by his second in command, Mary Coughlan. There really are worse things than Brian Cowan.

So what exactly would be improved by that? We'd still have Fianna Fail with a different tosser at the helm. Really I don't want to insult anyone but anyone who thinks that Fianna Fail with historically low poll numbers is going to fall on it's own sword by having a general election before it has to is mental.

K-9

jank wrote: »

Yes it does. Its all about mandate. You had connor lenihan say so and also 3 political journos from the Sunday papers say so as well weeks ago. They said there "would be no question that cown could still lead FF if Lisbon was rejected again, its a given"

At the very least Cowen would have had to step down as leader of FF, that in itself would have set the wheels going. Don't worry, Lisbon is over so you can drop the campaign rhetoric.

And you think this shower who cling to power would suddenly stop clinging to power? Because a few journo's say so or a Junior Minister?

At least you concede a change of leadership was likely.

P. Breathnach

K-9 wrote: »

... We are going round in circles here...

You said it, Bro! So why not get off the roundabout before you get dizzy?

Scofflaw

I'm sure it's been said, but if Fianna Fáil interpret the Lisbon vote as an endorsement of themselves, then they'll be in for all the funnier a surprise at some point - if the electorate interpret it as an endorsement of Fianna Fáil then it becomes an endorsement of Fianna Fáil. Not much anyone can do about the latter.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jank

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm sure it's been said, but if Fianna Fáil interpret the Lisbon vote as an endorsement of themselves, then they'll be in for all the funnier a surprise at some point -

This is FF we are talking about! They think a GE in 2007 is a mandate for them to load us all with 50 billion of extra debt to bail out the banks.

jank

K-9 wrote: »

And you think this shower who cling to power would suddenly stop clinging to power? Because a few journo's say so or a Junior Minister?

No, Because they have (or would have) lost their 3rd election in a row. I.E they have lost the authority to govern.

Scofflaw

jank wrote: »

No, Because they have (or would have) lost their 3rd election in a row. I.E they have lost the authority to govern.

Referendums don't provide the authority to govern. That's provided by general elections - and, as you point out, Fianna Fáil won the 2007 general election, which they quite correctly believe gives them the authority to do things like NAMA.

As usual, this comes down to constitutional mechanisms. The way in which the government actually loses the authority to govern are spelled out in Bunreacht. "Wishing" is not mentioned as a mechanism, as far as I recall.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jank

Scofflaw wrote: »

Referendums don't provide the authority to govern. That's provided by general elections - and, as you point out, Fianna Fáil won the 2007 general election, which they quite correctly believe gives them the authority to do things like NAMA.

As usual, this comes down to constitutional mechanisms. The way in which the government actually loses the authority to govern are spelled out in Bunreacht. "Wishing" is not mentioned as a mechanism, as far as I recall.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't ever recall NAMA being on the table in 2007 or in any manifesto published by FF in 2007....

Scofflaw

jank wrote: »

I don't ever recall NAMA being on the table in 2007 or in any manifesto published by FF in 2007....

And yet the government have the authority to do it nonetheless - truly, the world appears to rarely conform to your expectations.

amused,
Scofflaw

Flamed Diving

jank wrote: »

I don't ever recall NAMA being on the table in 2007 or in any manifesto published by FF in 2007....

Please... :rolleyes:

RedPlanet

A YES result can now be spun as an endorsement of the government (after all aren't FF the one's that negtiated the treaty on ireland's behalf and later secured the "guarantees"?)

A 2nd NO vote would have been interpreted (in the media, in government circles and in the EU) as a protest vote against an unpopular government.
In that event our EU betters would have probably have suggested an early exit for this government.

Now we are stuck with them til the next GE.
Opportunity lost.

Thanks guys.

marco_polo

RedPlanet wrote: »

A YES result can now be spun as an endorsement of the government (after all aren't FF the one's that negtiated the treaty on ireland's behalf and later secured the "guarantees"?)

A 2nd NO vote would have been interpreted (in the media, in government circles and in the EU) as a protest vote against an unpopular government.
In that event our EU betters would have probably have suggested an early exit for this government.

Now we are stuck with them til the next GE.
Opportunity lost.

Thanks guys.

Did we have a vote on FF recently? Damn, I must have been away.

I would definately have voted no had I been around for something like that.

The notion that this is in any way a vote of the confidence in the Governrment, is so detached from reality it is not even funny. I guess that Nama and the Budget will be going through without a whimper of opposition since they have been given such a clear and unconditional mandate from the people :rolleyes:.

Sam Vimes

RedPlanet wrote: »

A YES result can now be spun as an endorsement of the government (after all aren't FF the one's that negtiated the treaty on ireland's behalf and later secured the "guarantees"?)

A 2nd NO vote would have been interpreted (in the media, in government circles and in the EU) as a protest vote against an unpopular government.
In that event our EU betters would have probably have suggested an early exit for this government.

Now we are stuck with them til the next GE.
Opportunity lost.

Thanks guys.

The only people who seems to be interpreting a yes vote as an endorsement of the government are people on the no side. No one else is saying that because everyone else seems to realise that this was a referendum on a European treaty that was supported by every major party in the Dail and not, as some people on the no side seem to think, a general election.

And I find it incredibly hypocritical that a lot of the people on the no side (not necessarily yourself) who are trying to force an early general election by voting on an unrelated issue are the very same people who call a second referendum undemocratic and say the will of the people was ignored. The will of the people in 2007 was that Fianna Fail should be in power for the next 5 years. It seems the will of the people should only be respected when they agree with you.

And before anyone goes pointing out that circumstances have changed since the election, bear in mind that I will immediately point out that circumstances have changed since the first referendum through the change on the commissioner issue, the guarantees and a more informed populace. Even ignoring all that it's abundantly clear that circumstances have changed because if they hadn't the result would have been exactly the same

meglome

RedPlanet wrote: »

A YES result can now be spun as an endorsement of the government (after all aren't FF the one's that negtiated the treaty on ireland's behalf and later secured the "guarantees"?)

A 2nd NO vote would have been interpreted (in the media, in government circles and in the EU) as a protest vote against an unpopular government.
In that event our EU betters would have probably have suggested an early exit for this government.

Now we are stuck with them til the next GE.
Opportunity lost.

Thanks guys.

Did it make any difference after the first vote? No. Did it make any difference after the local and European elections? No. Does it make any sense to flip the finger to the EU over our government? No. Has any government ever left office over a referendum loss? No. Would it have helped if you read the actual thread? Yes.

drkpower

The reality is that a repeated No vote would have increased the pressure on Cowen and may have resulted in him resigning +/- a GE. But such eventualities would be far from certainties. There is an almost equally valid theory that a No vote would have crystallised in FF and Green backbenchers minds how truly unpopular they are and would result in them clinging on and swallowing anything to stay in power until 2012 (and hoping for an economic turnaround/miracle).

But all of the above is speculation and almost irrelevent. Referenda are the only occasion on which the public gets to expressly vote on one specific issue, the issue usually being of fundamental importance. That decision tends to remain binding for ever, or certainly generations and therefore shapes the nation for us all, and our children and grandchildren.

(Ab)using that fairly significant responsibility in an attempt to encourage a possible chain reaction that may result in the downfall of one government is incredibly short-sighted, irresponsible, naive and childish. Referneda are rare in modern democracies; use them or we could soon lose them.

Flamed Diving

RedPlanet wrote: »

A YES result can now be spun as an endorsement of the government (after all aren't FF the one's that negtiated the treaty on ireland's behalf and later secured the "guarantees"?)

A 2nd NO vote would have been interpreted (in the media, in government circles and in the EU) as a protest vote against an unpopular government.
In that event our EU betters would have probably have suggested an early exit for this government.

Now we are stuck with them til the next GE.
Opportunity lost.

Thanks guys.

Is your ignorance wilful, or just stemmed from laziness?

P. Breathnach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The only people who seems to be interpresting a yes vote as an endorsement of the government are people on the no side...

Indeed. Not even Fianna Fáil are trying to spin it that way (at least so far as I have seen).

Sir Oxman

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The only people who seems to be interpreting a yes vote as an endorsement of the government are people on the no side. No one else is saying that because everyone else seems to realise that this was a referendum on a European treaty that was supported by every major party in the Dail and not, as some people on the no side seem to think, a general election.

And I find it incredibly hypocritical that a lot of the people on the no side (not necessarily yourself) who are trying to force an early general election by voting on an unrelated issue are the very same people who call a second referendum undemocratic and say the will of the people was ignored. The will of the people in 2007 was that Fianna Fail should be in power for the next 5 years. It seems the will of the people should only be respected when they agree with you.

And before anyone goes pointing out that circumstances have changed since the election, bear in mind that I will immediately point out that circumstances have changed since the first referendum through the change on the commissioner issue, the guarantees and a more informed populace. Even ignoring all that it's abundantly clear that circumstances have changed because if they hadn't the result would have been exactly the same

:)Rehash = the will of the people in 2008 was a no to Lisbon.
But things do change, you are correct.

In 2007, FF failed to win an overall majority - the Greens got a good vote and then surprised many, many people by hitching their skirts up and giving the bigboys the wink.
I understand that is the way things go post-elections, but things change (as was pointed out repeatedly over the referendum campaign)
This govt may have the legal authority to continue in office but their moral authority is all but shot - something as huge and onerous on the ordinary punter as NAMA, is what I consider a massive change in circumstance and one that morally (at least) requires a new mandate.

Sam Vimes

gambiaman wrote: »

:)Rehash = the will of the people in 2008 was a no to Lisbon.
But things do change, you are correct.

In 2007, FF failed to win an overall majority - the Greens got a good vote and then surprised many, many people by hitching their skirts up and giving the bigboys the wink.
I understand that is the way things go post-elections, but things change (as was pointed out repeatedly over the referendum campaign)
This govt may have the legal authority to continue in office but their moral authority is all but shot - something as huge and onerous on the ordinary punter as NAMA, is what I consider a massive change in circumstance and one that morally (at least) requires a new mandate.

You are entitled to that opinion. They are under no legal obligation to call a general election but you're as entitled as anyone to give your reasons why you think a general election should be called early and I agree with you, I think an early election should be called because they have clearly lost the support of the people.

My point, however, is that the same people who shout "no means no" and "the people have spoken" and "respect our voice" about the referendum simultaneously give all these reasons why those same people who spoke in 2007 to say FF should be in power for the next 5 years should be ignored by calling an early general election. Either changing circumstances justify another vote or it's undemocratic. You can pick and choose based on which side you're on

free-man

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Indeed. Not even Fianna Fáil are trying to spin it that way (at least so far as I have seen).

Tell that to Conor Lenihan

jank

Scofflaw wrote: »

And yet the government have the authority to do it nonetheless - truly, the world appears to rarely conform to your expectations.

amused,
Scofflaw

Well in that case the government might as well disband all future elections and give themselves a 100 year term as we gave them a mandate in 2007, Why bother waste time in a repeat process. The constitution is only a piece of paper after all.

The government has the authority to do the whatever the hell it wants, doesn't it?

Scofflaw

jank wrote: »

Well in that case the government might as well disband all future elections and give themselves a 100 year term as we gave them a mandate in 2007, Why bother waste time in a repeat process. The constitution is only a piece of paper after all.

The government has the authority to do the whatever the hell it wants, doesn't it?

For five years, within constitutional and legal limits, and depending on how much they care about re-election - yup. Glad to have helped.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

For five years, within constitutional and legal limits, and depending on how much they care about re-election - yup. Glad to have helped.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Or we could go back to the Haughey out, Garret in, Haughey out days of the early 80's and the "FF hate the PD's" days of the late 80's/early 90's.

3 changes of Govt. in the space of 18 months in the early 80's and 4 different Govts. between 87 and 94.

That shows they can go earlier if they so wish, but unless they've a death wish, they'll avoid it as much as they can.

jank

Scofflaw wrote: »

For five years, within constitutional and legal limits, and depending on how much they care about re-election - yup. Glad to have helped.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So this goes back to my earlier statment, why bother?
The country is ****ed yet people just have to take it up the ass until 2012 or until the greens pull out.

Therefore we should all pipe down, shut up as we the government can go ahead and ruin the country for generations to come.
Meek,so meek and you are a prime example of it.

K-9

jank wrote: »

So this goes back to my earlier statment, why bother?
The country is ****ed yet people just have to take it up the ass until 2012 or until the greens pull out.

Therefore we should all pipe down, shut up as we the government can go ahead and ruin the country for generations to come.
Meek,so meek and you are a prime example of it.

Well, we do have a small say over it, unlike yourself.

Scofflaw

jank wrote: »

So this goes back to my earlier statment, why bother?
The country is ****ed yet people just have to take it up the ass until 2012 or until the greens pull out.

Therefore we should all pipe down, shut up as we the government can go ahead and ruin the country for generations to come.
Meek,so meek and you are a prime example of it.

Or perhaps I'm not expecting wishful thinking to do the job for me.

cordially,
Scofflaw

prinz

Scofflaw wrote: »

Or perhaps I'm not expecting wishful thinking to do the job for me.

I think what jank is proposing is marches and demonstrations against the government thereby forcing their resignations/ a hand over of power? Would I be right jank?

marco_polo

prinz wrote: »

I think what jank is proposing is marches and demonstrations against the government thereby forcing their resignations/ a hand over of power? Would I be right jank?

I got the impression that he was just moaning that we 'blew' our one chance on Saturday?

Scofflaw

prinz wrote: »

I think what jank is proposing is marches and demonstrations against the government thereby forcing their resignations/ a hand over of power? Would I be right jank?

I thought he was claiming that a No vote would have forced them out - something I regard as completely wishful.

cordially,
Scofflaw