Constitution needs updating around aftermath of elections

L1011

efanton wrote: »

With Alan Kelly wining the Labour party leadership election will there be additional pressure exerted on the Labour party to join a FF/FG coalition?

Does anyone think they will actually have a change of view and give FF/FG the number they need to form a government?

Not unless the SDs can be convinced to go in too for both numbers and a shared mudguard; which would require the biggest backtracking from most of their membership. And they've a co-leader who left Labour over the pressures of coalition Government as it stands, so not much desire there.

efanton

L1011 wrote: »

Not unless the SDs can be convinced to go in too for both numbers and a shared mudguard; which would require the biggest backtracking from most of their membership. And they've a co-leader who left Labour over the pressures of coalition Government as it stands, so not much desire there.

That's the way I read it too.

So with Leo stating that he does not want Independents to make the numbers up in a coalition but would prefer a 3rd party, but no party willing to be that third party, have we not come to the end of the line for a government formation.

What now?
It seems the constitution has made no provision for a totally hung Dail, nor set out when or in what circumstances a new election must be called in the event of a government not being able to be formed?

Larbre34

I think the lack of a thread to even discuss the Labour leadership tells you all you need to know.

I had a beer with a Communications /PR guy once, 8 odd years ago, we were on different aspects of a big public project. Kelly was the junior transport minister at the time and my drinking companion had done some work which Kelly was the figurehead for. Mr PR had such a low opinion of Kelly's skills, capabilities and talent for developing interpersonal relationships that he spoke of him in the same terms as Ivor Callelly, whom he also knew.

Tonight is the beginning of the end of Irish Labour.

ddarcy

efanton wrote: »

That's the way I read it too.

So with Leo stating that he does not want Independents to make the numbers up in a coalition but would prefer a 3rd party, but no party willing to be that third party, have we not come to the end of the line for a government formation.

What now?
It seems the constitution has made no provision for a totally hung Dail, nor set out when or in what circumstances a new election must be called in the event of a government not being able to be formed?

Probably more legal people than myself can correct me on this, but don't they have to present and pass a budget each year? So if nothing is formed then come October Paschal presents a FG budget and it gets rejected thus leading to a new election. If this is true then it would seem to me that a hung Dail is accounted for in the constitution.

Townton

If you knew all other parties had issues with you as did their supporters, it probably wasn't wise to start singing up the RA before the count was even finished. No one to blame but themselves if they feel bitter that others want nothing to do with them. I gave a vote to certain parties on the basis they would not go in with SF as did many others if FG or FF flipped on that they would have lost out to the other as a RESULT. Welcome to none FPP parliamentary democracy.

Markcheese

A caretaker government can't pass legislation ,beyond the Senate elections .. ie, the current government can no longer pass new legislation , (including a budget I assume )

Townton

Markcheese wrote: »

A caretaker government can't pass legislation ,beyond the Senate elections .. ie, the current government can no longer pass new legislation , (including a budget I assume )

But the out going teoseach can call the new senate to sit before the new teoiseach nominates his 11 senators. So that could well be the way out. The senate has never had to have full composition in order to function, on a number of occasions its had more then 11 senate seats vacant. Albeit from various panels rather then just the teoiseach nominations.

efanton

Townton wrote: »

But the out going teoseach can call the new senate to sit before the new teoiseach nominates his 11 senators. So that could well be the way out. The senate has never had to have full composition in order to function, on a number of occasions its had more then 11 senate seats vacant. Albeit from various panels rather then just the teoiseach nominations.

You still have the problem of actually getting new legislation and budgets through the Dail.

I'm firmly of the view that there should be an 8 week limit for the formation of government. Had that been in place we could be certain that what Leo and Michael we doing last week and this week would have been done a month ago.
Allowing no time limit to exist just leads to situations where parties procrastinate and refuse to make decisions in a timely manner. In the mean time the country is without government and if there is a need for urgent legislation the caretaker government is totally reliant on the goodwill of other parties. Had the election be held later in the year it would have meant no budget could have been brought before the Dail

Townton

efanton wrote: »

You still have the problem of actually getting new legislation and budgets through the Dail.

I'm firmly of the view that there should be an 8 week limit for the formation of government. Had that been in place we could be certain that what Leo and Michael we doing last week and this week would have been done a month ago.
Allowing no time limit to exist just leads to situations where parties procrastinate and refuse to make decisions in a timely manner. In the mean time the country is without government and if there is a need for urgent legislation the caretaker government is totally reliant on the goodwill of other parties. Had the election be held later in the year it would have meant no budget could have been brought before the Dail

I would say the government being restricted and legislators not legislating is not an inherently bad thing. Plenty of useless laws pumped out by
Legislators. Why I'm a big fan of the Swiss model where the legislator doesn't sit all year to prevent useless law making. That said the obvious qualification are states of emergency. But give the nature of this emergency another election is the very last thing you want. Provided they can make the system work I'm fine with the lack of a time limit. Less government the better under normal circumstances in my opinion.

LeinsterDub

efanton wrote: »

You still have the problem of actually getting new legislation and budgets through the Dail.

I'm firmly of the view that there should be an 8 week limit for the formation of government. Had that been in place we could be certain that what Leo and Michael we doing last week and this week would have been done a month ago.
Allowing no time limit to exist just leads to situations where parties procrastinate and refuse to make decisions in a timely manner. In the mean time the country is without government and if there is a need for urgent legislation the caretaker government is totally reliant on the goodwill of other parties. Had the election be held later in the year it would have meant no budget could have been brought before the Dail

So you'd be happy to have up to 6 general elections a year? If you impose such a limit party mightn't even bother talking sure we've only a month to talk (as you've to allow time for an election to be organised and campaigned) and we might do better next time .

efanton

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So you'd be happy to have up to 6 general elections a year? If you impose such a limit party mightn't even bother talking sure we've only a month to talk (as you've to allow time for an election to be organised and campaigned) and we might do better next time .

Why would there be 6 general elections a year, how would you ever envisage such a case?

This would only happen in the event of a hung Dail. I very much doubt that the electorate would vote in such a way that the Dail would be unable to form a government in subsequent election. As it stand in this election there were options for a government to be formed by either parties inviting SF to join them or the Greens and the SD's choosing to support a proposed coalition. Very much doubt that if there was an election tomorrow morning with the electorate understanding which parties would refuse to coalesce they would return an almost identical or similar vote.

No I said eight weeks for parties to talk and agree to form a government. I understand that for a coalition to be formed a program for government must be hammered out. That's plenty time to agree to form a government and hammer out a deal. If no government can be formed in those eight weeks then the president can call new elections an asking the existing government to put preparations in place. no part of the eight weeks need be used to prepare for a new election.

Had FF and FG actually had such an impetus they could have easily done what they did over the last two weeks a month ago.
As it stands it looking more likely that the framework document is going to be rejected anyhow, so the 6 weeks FG and FF have been doing their merry little dance will have been wasted anyhow. If there was an eight week limit we would have a government in place by now,(the smaller parties would have a more compelling argument for a government to be formed), or a decision that a new election take place.

LeinsterDub

efanton wrote: »

Why would there be 6 general elections a year, how would you ever envisage such a case?

You've to allow for the possibility. Before the virus the polls where virtually unchanged or where leaning more to SF but not enough to make a difference. You've also failed to allow time to organise the election so your proposal in recipe for a nightmare years of elections

efanton

LeinsterDub wrote: »

You've to allow for the possibility. Before the virus the polls where virtually unchanged or where leaning more to SF but not enough to make a difference. You've also failed to allow time to organise the election so your proposal in recipe for a nightmare years of elections

You dont need to include the time to organise an election in those eight weeks. when Eight weeks are up the caretaker government are still in place and will remain in place until a new government is formed.

Sam Russell

efanton wrote: »

You dont need to include the time to organise an election in those eight weeks. when Eight weeks are up the caretaker government are still in place and will remain in place until a new government is formed.

Why 8 weeks? Why not 90 days?

Surely, it should be up to the President to determine the time line (taking the advice of the Council of State) as to when the options for the formation of a Government have been exhausted. Currently, the President can refuse to call an election, so why can he not call an election in the circumstances that the Dail cannot elect an administration?

We are in a crisis at this time and calling an election is the last thing we want with over 70s cocooned, and everyone else social distancing themselves. There are plenty of other solutions without burdening us with another constitutional amendment that has many likely unexpected consequences.

efanton

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why 8 weeks? Why not 90 days?

Surely, it should be up to the President to determine the time line (taking the advice of the Council of State) as to when the options for the formation of a Government have been exhausted. Currently, the President can refuse to call an election, so why can he not call an election in the circumstances that the Dail cannot elect an administration?

We are in a crisis at this time and calling an election is the last thing we want with over 70s cocooned, and everyone else social distancing themselves. There are plenty of other solutions without burdening us with another constitutional amendment that has many likely unexpected consequences.

I agree that the president should be allowed to call an election but as you say at the moment he can only dissolve the Dail 'on the advice of the Taoiseach'.
As it stand at the moment nothing happens unless the existing Taoiseach says so, despite him/her already having formally handing in their resignation.

I suggested eight weeks because if there is no set 'trigger point' it possible that we end up with no elected government for months at at time. Personally I feel eight weeks is sufficient time for for any party to make up its mind and agree a program of government with other parties.

I would be open to the idea of a President having the power able to call another election once eight weeks have passed if they feel its unlikely that a government can be formed. Just because he/she has that power it does not mean they have to use it, but if such a provision was made in the constitution it certainly would speed up the government formation process in the future, or prevent the government formation process being dragged out in the event that it's unlikely a government could be formed.

feargale

efanton wrote: »

True. but its also ridiculous that FF/FG having refused to even consider SF as a partner. are dancing round in circles as if there can be another government possible now other than a FF/FG/other government.

Had FF not slammed the door in SF's face a FF/SF coalition might have been possible.

The point here is parties were well aware of the few options available to form a government withing the first week, yet they dance around and expect the electorate to belief that they are working as hard as they can to form a government. They are elected representatives its their job to accept the will of the people not the other way round. If FF and SF are the biggest parties with enough commonality to potentially form a government FF had no right to slam doors. It was the peoples right to decide if SF were suitable for government not FG or FF. The same goes for any other party..

SF's conversion to parliamentary democracy, like that of Paisley and his friends, has more to do with expediency than conviction. And their utterances have more to do with propaganda than fact. Nothing new in that. A party of change here is a "business-friendly" party in the USA when it wants to shake down armchair gunmen and other idiots in NYC, or real-life terrorists in Boston like Whitey Bolger.

Why castigate FF for slamming the door on SF, while SF are not castigated for slamming the door on FG? SF needs to divest itself of its sense of entitlement. "People voted for change." B******t. 24-5% voted for change a la Sinn Féin (who got 37 seats of 160.) 75% voted against that. Yet SF claim a divine right to be in government. In 1948 FF came back as by far the largest party with 41-9 % first preferences and 69 seats of 147. In 1973 they took 46-2% of the vote and 69 seats of 144. In neither case did FF get into government, and in neither case did FF behave like a spoilt child who didn't get the big apple.
SF have/had their chance to get smaller parties or independents on board for a coalition. To date they have failed to do so. In the general election my no. 1 went to neither FF nor FG, but I will give them credit for endeavouring to form a government. I can understand the reluctance of smaller parties to step up, the fear of being a mudguard as has previously happened, but someone has to take responsibility. I would be confident that one or two smaller parties, or a few independents will take the plunge.

Otherwise there will be nothing for it but a fresh election. Who wants that now? And if it does happen in the very near future, will it be possible to devise alternative means of voting? How flexible is the Constitution? And if such can happen, will we see a Wisconsin primary scenario, where Trumpeters dug in their heels and put political advantage before public safety? We have already had a hint of that in the Dàil.

CrabRevolution

feargale wrote: »

SF's conversion to parliamentary democracy, like that of Paisley and his friends, has more to do with expediency than conviction. And their utterances have more to do with propaganda than fact. Nothing new in that. A party of change here is a "business-friendly" party in the USA when it wants to shake down armchair gunmen and other idiots in NYC, or real-life terrorists in Boston like Whitey Bolger.

Why castigate FF for slamming the door on SF, while SF are not castigated for slamming the door on FG? SF needs to divest itself of its sense of entitlement. "People voted for change." B******t. 24-5% voted for change a la Sinn Féin (who got 37 seats of 160.) 75% voted against that. Yet SF claim a divine right to be in government. In 1948 FF came back as by far the largest party with 41-9 % first preferences and 69 seats of 147. In 1973 they took 46-2% of the vote and 69 seats of 144. In neither case did FF get into government, and in neither case did FF behave like a spoilt child who didn't get the big apple.
SF have/had their chance to get smaller parties or independents on board for a coalition. To date they have failed to do so. In the general election my no. 1 went to neither FF nor FG, but I will give them credit for endeavouring to form a government. I can understand the reluctance of smaller parties to step up, the fear of being a mudguard as has previously happened, but someone has to take responsibility. I would be confident that one or two smaller parties, or a few independents will take the plunge.

Otherwise there will be nothing for it but a fresh election. Who wants that now? And if it does happen in the very near future, will it be possible to devise alternative means of voting? How flexible is the Constitution? And if such can happen, will we see a Wisconsin primary scenario, where Trumpeters dug in their heels and put political advantage before public safety? We have already had a hint of that in the Dàil.

SF didn't exactly rule out getting into government with FG. Effectively what they said was "We're fully prepared to go into government with FG but only if it's 100% on our terms".

Sam Russell

CrabRevolution wrote: »

SF didn't exactly rule out getting into government with FG. Effectively what they said was "We're fully prepared to go into government with FG but only if it's 100% on our terms".

MLM was trying to form a Gov on the Sunday morning after the election before a single vote had been counted so sure was she of the result based on the exit poll.

This 'vote for change' is nonsense, since all elections are a vote for change. 75% did not vote SF, so they were lose change.

efanton

feargale wrote: »

Otherwise there will be nothing for it but a fresh election. Who wants that now? And if it does happen in the very near future, will it be possible to devise alternative means of voting? How flexible is the Constitution? And if such can happen, will we see a Wisconsin primary scenario, where Trumpeters dug in their heels and put political advantage before public safety? We have already had a hint of that in the Dàil.

That's been my point since the beginning of the thread.

We have a constitution where the president is virtually powerless, and there is no provision in the constitution for a hung Dail.

The presidents only powers are to accept a Taoiseach's resignation, and dissolve the Dail 'on the taoiseach's advice'. He/she has no power to call a election
In effect the President has no power whatsoever as everything he/she does must be on the advice of the Taoiseach. He/she has no power to act independently.

The relevant articles in the Constitution

ARTICLE 13

1 1° The President shall, on the nomination of Dáil Éireann, appoint the Taoiseach, that is, the head of the Government or Prime Minister.

2° The President shall, on the nomination of the Taoiseach with the previous approval of Dáil Éireann, appoint the other members of the Government.

3° The President shall, on the advice of the Taoiseach, accept the resignation or terminate the appointment of any member of the Government.

2 1° Dáil Éireann shall be summoned and dissolved by the President on the advice of the Taoiseach.

2° The President may in his absolute discretion refuse to dissolve Dáil Éireann on the advice of a Taoiseach who has ceased to retain the support of a majority in Dáil Éireann.

LeinsterDub

efanton wrote: »

You dont need to include the time to organise an election in those eight weeks. when Eight weeks are up the caretaker government are still in place and will remain in place until a new government is formed.

So after your 8 week limit noting happens? How is that any different to now?

efanton

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So after your 8 week limit noting happens? How is that any different to now?

No. What I am suggesting is after eight weeks the president calls a election unless in his/her view there is a very good possibility of a government being formed.

Alternatively an election is automatically called.

I can see advantages to the former, and disadvantages, but on balance I think it would be wise for there to be leeway if it is looking likely that a government will be formed.

The problem with the Constitution at the moment is that there is absolutely no provision whatsoever for the event of a hung Dail.
Theoretically under the existing constitution a Taoiseach can claim they are forming a government for months on end and as long as they do not advise the President to dissolve the Dail this situation could last for eternity.
The existing constituting puts all the power in the hands of the Taoiseach even if he/she has already formally handed in their resignation to the president. The President under our current constitution has no power whatsoever, they can only act on the advice of the Taoiseach. There's an obvious conflict of interest there.

I'm not suggesting that is what the current government is doing but its an obvious weakness in the Constitution as I suppose the originators of the constitution never conceived that there would be a situation of a totally hung Dail and no possibility to form a government.

Sam Russell

efanton wrote: »

That's been my point since the beginning of the thread.

We have a constitution where the president is virtually powerless, and there is no provision in the constitution for a hung Dail.

The presidents only powers are to accept a Taoiseach's resignation, and dissolve the Dail 'on the taoiseach's advice'. He/she has no power to call a election
In effect the President has no power whatsoever as everything he/she does must be on the advice of the Taoiseach. He/she has no power to act independently.

The relevant articles in the Constitution

ARTICLE 13

1 1° The President shall, on the nomination of Dáil Éireann, appoint the Taoiseach, that is, the head of the Government or Prime Minister.

2° The President shall, on the nomination of the Taoiseach with the previous approval of Dáil Éireann, appoint the other members of the Government.

3° The President shall, on the advice of the Taoiseach, accept the resignation or terminate the appointment of any member of the Government.

2 1° Dáil Éireann shall be summoned and dissolved by the President on the advice of the Taoiseach.

2° The President may in his absolute discretion refuse to dissolve Dáil Éireann on the advice of a Taoiseach who has ceased to retain the support of a majority in Dáil Éireann.

I changed your emphasis on the last line because it changes the meaning to give the correct meaning. The advice from the Taoiseach is to dissolve and the President disagrees, and looks to give someone else the option to get a majority.

Add:

2° 2. The President may in his absolute discretion (after consulting the Council of State) dissolve Dáil Éireann if it has failed, after a reasonable time following a General Election, to elect a Taoiseach who has the support of a majority in Dáil Éireann.[/B]

I think that might be OK.

LeinsterDub

efanton wrote: »

No. What I am suggesting is after eight weeks the president calls a election unless in his/her view there is a very good possibility of a government being formed.

.

I don't like the idea of the president coming under political pressure. The opposition can elect a new Taoiseach anytime they want with their only purpose being to call an election.

efanton

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I don't like the idea of the president coming under political pressure. The opposition can elect a new Taoiseach anytime they want with their only purpose being to call an election.

The president can only dissolve the Dail under the advice of the Taoiseach. Without the Taoiseach's say so he/she can do nothing.

The opposition can call for a new election all they like, but that is purely the prerogative of the Taoiseach.

We potentially have a hung Dail. If the opposition were capable of electing a Taoiseach why would they elect a Taoiseach just for the purpose of forcing a new election?
Besides article 13.2.1 2° "The President may in his absolute discretion refuse to dissolve Dáil Éireann" would probably mean that independents and parties that wish not to be part of that government no matter how briefly would never vote for a Taoiseach just to force an election for fear that the President refuse to allow one.

efanton

Sam Russell wrote: »

I changed your emphasis on the last line because it changes the meaning to give the correct meaning. The advice from the Taoiseach is to dissolve and the President disagrees, and looks to give someone else the option to get a majority.

Add:

2° 2. The President may in his absolute discretion (after consulting the Council of State) dissolve Dáil Éireann if it has failed, after a reasonable time following a General Election, to elect a Taoiseach who has the support of a majority in Dáil Éireann.[/B]

I think that might be OK.

I agree

That would work if 'a reasonable time' was defined.

Sam Russell

efanton wrote: »

I agree

That would work if 'a reasonable time' was defined.

A 'reasonable time' is defined by the President of the day.

Clearly, if it needed to be done, then it would be obvious to the President that it needed to be done, and it would be done. Why try and hog tie the President unnecessarily. That just gives rise to some unexpected consequences and they can last for generations.

efanton

Sam Russell wrote: »

A 'reasonable time' is defined by the President of the day.

Clearly, if it needed to be done, then it would be obvious to the President that it needed to be done, and it would be done. Why try and hog tie the President unnecessarily. That just gives rise to some unexpected consequences and they can last for generations.

Well if you changed the wording of your proposed change to

2° 2. The President may in his absolute discretion (after consulting the Council of State) dissolve Dáil Éireann if it has failed, after a reasonable time determined by the President following a General Election, to elect a Taoiseach who has the support of a majority in Dáil Éireann.

Yes I could live with that.

Its flexible enough so that a election is not triggered automatically even though the formation of a government is likely, but plugs a hole in the constitution so that government formation talks cannot go on for an unreasonable amount of time or be used to prevent a new election.

LeinsterDub

efanton wrote: »

The president can only dissolve the Dail under the advice of the Taoiseach. Without the Taoiseach's say so he/she can do nothing.

The opposition can call for a new election all they like, but that is purely the prerogative of the Taoiseach.

We potentially have a hung Dail. If the opposition were capable of electing a Taoiseach why would they elect a Taoiseach just for the purpose of forcing a new election?
Besides article 13.2.1 2° "The President may in his absolute discretion refuse to dissolve Dáil Éireann" would probably mean that independents and parties that wish not to be part of that government no matter how briefly would never vote for a Taoiseach just to force an election for fear that the President refuse to allow one.

They'd do so if they believed the acting Taoiseach wasn't attempting to form a government and was attempting to hold on to power. The president would have no choice to agree to an election as it would be clear the government had no functioning majority and failed budget could be used to force their hand if required

efanton

LeinsterDub wrote: »

They'd do so if they believed the acting Taoiseach wasn't attempting to form a government and was attempting to hold on to power. The president would have no choice to agree to an election as it would be clear the government had no functioning majority and failed budget could be used to force their hand if required

Read the Constitution. I have already quoted the relevant articles.

The president has absolutely no power whatsoever to do anything except on the advice of the Taoiseach.
That is the whole point I have been making since the opening of this thread.

The constitution needs amending so that the President can independently determine that a new election take place and that there is provision for a process if there is hung Dail where their currently is not one.

If you read the last 8 or 9 posts again you will clearly see the limitations of the existing constitution,

but with a minor amendment to article 13.2.2

Existing Article

The President may in his absolute discretion refuse to dissolve Dáil Éireann on the advice of a Taoiseach who has ceased to retain the support of a majority in Dáil Éireann.

In addition to existing article

The President may in his absolute discretion (after consulting the Council of State) dissolve Dáil Éireann if it has failed, after a reasonable time determined by the President following a General Election, to elect a Taoiseach who has the support of a majority in Dáil Éireann.

Any existing issue of a hung Dail or undue delay in forming a government are resolved.

LeinsterDub

efanton wrote: »

Read the Constitution. I have already quoted the relevant articles.

The president has absolutely no power whatsoever to do anything except on the advice of the Taoiseach.
That is the whole point I have been making since the opening of this thread.

The constitution needs amending so that the President can independently determine that a new election take place and that there is provision for a process if there is hung Dail where their currently is not one.

If you read the last 8 or 9 posts again you will clearly see the limitations of the existing constitution,

but with a minor amendment to article 13.2.2

Existing Article


In addition to existing article


Any existing issue of a hung Dail or undue delay in forming a government are resolved.

And as I said the Taoiseach would be the one requesting an election. I never suggested the president would do anything except on the advise of Taoiseach